Why do you like your version of traveller?

[The Thing]

Ok, after you've gone to the scout survey and answered which version of traveller you play, come back here and explain why you like that version.

As for me, I had to say Gurps traveller.

I like GT because the gurps system does have one of the largest and most comprehensive character creation systems available, making detailed, unique characters possible.

It also has hit locations and detailed damage rules, making combat feel more believable.

Also it had detailed ship design and combat rules in the third edition, making ship customization and combat more interesting.

I've looked over the LBB editions, and at the risk of being spaced for heresy I found the systems too abstract in terms of character creation and combat.

I like point based character creation with a lot of options. Sure, the dreaded cry of "minmaxing" will be heard whenever someone admits liking points based character creation, but I prefer it to random systems or very limited systems. I want a character I can roleplay to do the things I want, and for that I need to make him to be able to do what I want.

So that's why, despite some serious misgivings with some aspects of gurps, I play GT and it's really the only gurps game I'm into.

 

[Droyne668]

I've looked over the LBB editions, and at the risk of being spaced for heresy I found the systems too abstract in terms of character creation and combat.

That's exactly why I like the CT rules. Very straight forward in terms of "get an 8 or higher". Very abstract, which for me is license to improvise and run a fast paced game where dice are seldom used unless the story in enhanced by a random turn of events on the part of a player character. I use game rules as a framework within which to create a story. The lite/abstract/vague/simple nature of CT allows me to do that easily.

Best,
Will

 

[Gadrin]

GURPS Traveller, since the setting more or less runs on details.

Also, because for a long time, the old LBBs just weren't readily available, but reprints have changed all that.

But I've got nothing against any of the other versions.

 

[Saxondog]

I played the original LBB in late 79. The later versions just didn't have the same charm to me. Haven't played in years but if I do, it'll be the original.

 

[The Thing]

Did the reprints of the LBBs correct the typos and other problems from using late 70's/early 80's tech?

 

[Golan2072]

That's exactly why I like the CT rules. Very straight forward in terms of "get an 8 or higher". Very abstract, which for me is license to improvise and run a fast paced game where dice are seldom used unless the story in enhanced by a random turn of events on the part of a player character. I use game rules as a framework within which to create a story. The lite/abstract/vague/simple nature of CT allows me to do that easily.

I second that. CT (at least before HG/striker) is a very simple system, sometimes even brutally so (see the damage system). It is also very focused on play: every skill is useful in a multitude of adventuring situations, every piece of gear has many uses, every design system focuses on game-relevant data. It is also built with the note-taking referee in mind; a character's or ship's game-rule data fits a paragraph and a world's game-rule data fits a short line

The main issue with CT is that it sometimes goes too far in this direction - it has several "holes" in it, namely vehicles and task resolution. But these holes could be filled with some house-rule work.

 

[hunter]

Did the reprints of the LBBs correct the typos and other problems from using late 70's/early 80's tech?

No they are direct scans of the originals.

 

[aramis]

Did the reprints of the LBBs correct the typos and other problems from using late 70's/early 80's tech?

No. Just scans. Some have errata penciled in.

Me, I use MT for several reasons:
1) Most flexible combat system. I can run (with reasonable effect) mixed scales, and determine the effects of a personal weapon on a tank, starship, or even dreadnought. I can also (using the Ref's Companion) run it as a miniatures or counters based wargame. I can even scale from individual characters to regiments...

2) Basic CG is CT++. CT with a few more skills, to make it compatible with Advanced CG produced characters.

3) Task system. Best one I've ever used. (D-Trek is second, 2300 is third...)

4) 8x11" books

5) Ship Design to TL20.

6) much nicer (and more economically feasible) ship designs.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Gurps Traveller for anything long-term. TNE for a pickup-game.

Choosen because I have long since restricted myself to mastering three systems: GURPS, Cyberpunk 3.0 and T2K V2.2. I like all three for having the right mix of rules, character generation options and gaming speed(1)(2)

+ I tried CT (German Version) in 1987 and ran away screaming

+ I tried MT in 1989 and immediatly disliked the Chargen that stiffled me, liked the setting

+ I liked TNE (Rules, Background is So-So) and used it a LOT in the 1990s

+ I got GT as a birthday present, read it, shot Strephon and it's my style.


The very detailed (yet software supported, thanks Mr. Bont) starship designed and the (at that time) ability to buy the Universe descriptions as InPrint material helped a lot. I can live with the changes in pre-1116 canon they made. Only problem I sometimes have is the more compressed TL-chart.

The detailed characters made "to order" by the Players instead of dice-generated, the lack of stiffling "4 year terms" and the vast background material makes GT my prime system.

Currently using the T20 background for most convention games and the "run up to MT" for a campaign.


(1) No, GURPS the gaming system is NOT complex. About 20 pages game-rules in all, including vehicles and heavy weapons. Base system is even shorter. The only BIG thing in GURPS is Chargen. And that's what Computers are for.
(2) We use a totally different (Point Buy) system for TNE/T2K character generation

 

[Vargas]

Classic Traveller

It's a good, straightforward system where virtually any element in the game, be it a character, world, starship or the like, can be generated in minutes and the rules, for the most part, are intuitive.

 

[Gadrin]

It's sometimes hard to equate a CT character with the massive amount of detail (take a typical resume for instance) that's involved. I always felt that those who didn't "get" Traveller had a hard time reading between the lines and realizing there's still much detail to be had (that was way back when I first got into Trav and AD&D was it's main competition).

GURPS offers the attention to detail, but it can also be a black hole that sucks you in and devours time spent in building scenarios as well as characters.

I think CT allows a bit more free-form and the ability of the GM to "wing-it" more than GURPS, but it still can be accomplished.

I never really got into the other versions of Traveller despite having T4. I always liked the background of the setting, more than the actual mechanics (one of the reasons I liked T4).

I think one of the reasons I liked GURPS was that it could cross-pollinate to other types of RPGs, something that I've seen recently with CT experts on this BBS, and their "run XYZ setting using CT" (fantasy traveller setting for instance).

 

[Golan2072]

It's sometimes hard to equate a CT character with the massive amount of detail (take a typical resume for instance) that's involved. I always felt that those who didn't "get" Traveller had a hard time reading between the lines and realizing there's still much detail to be had (that was way back when I first got into Trav and AD&D was it's main competition).

GURPS offers the attention to detail, but it can also be a black hole that sucks you in and devours time spent in building scenarios as well as characters.

I think CT allows a bit more free-form and the ability of the GM to "wing-it" more than GURPS, but it still can be accomplished.

I never really got into the other versions of Traveller despite having T4. I always liked the background of the setting, more than the actual mechanics (one of the reasons I liked T4).

I think one of the reasons I liked GURPS was that it could cross-pollinate to other types of RPGs, something that I've seen recently with CT experts on this BBS, and their "run XYZ setting using CT" (fantasy traveller setting for instance).

This is probably a matter of referee and player preferences; CT gives you simple but bare-bone rules and provides you with a lot of room to improvise, while GURPS (I know little about it, as I've never read through it, but I know the general idea) gives you much more detailed (and complex) rules and allows to quantify everything about the setting. Currently I'm drawn closer to the first rather than the second, first and foremost because of having a 50-hour workweek and not as much prep time as I used to have.

 

[Maladominus]

This is probably a matter of referee and player preferences; CT gives you simple but bare-bone rules and provides you with a lot of room to improvise, while .....

I think Golan just said the most relevant word to describe CT here. Improvise.

In essence, CT is a game system that requires, demands, and thrives best on a plentiful amount of improvisation. It is not a game system that hands everything to you on a silver platter. No. It's a game system that gives you a bare-bones skeletal structure to work with, and then expects you (the GM, the World Builder) to use your imagination and creative talents to fill in the blanks and wing it from there.

This kind of game system is not for everyone. However, it is very suitable and welcoming for those GMs and world-builders who love to improvise, who love to make tons of their own home-brewed "House Rules" without actually breaking/usurping the framework of the existing skeletal game mechanics. The kind of GM who insists on tweaking the game based on his own "flavor" and style of play.

 

[Ishmael]

MT

It combines all the best from LBB's with a simple task system that can cover just about anything with simple terms like "oh..that's EASY.....that other thing is FORMIDABLE to do"....and it can be covered in only a page or two. The combat system is nice and as Aramis says, very easily scaleable to any size units.

sure, the design rules weren't the best, but they at least attempted to allow a design of any vehicle well enough to give a decent idea of how they rate against each other. Before that, refs were stuck and forced to 'wing it' when asked if a tank could blow a hole in a ship's hull.

I liked the setting because it was new. It wasn't the same old spinward marches stuff, although you could keep playing like that if you didn't head to the core. Much background material appeared that wasn't there before, even if not related to the rebellion. Like any setting, you use only what you enjoy anyways.

never played TNE or T4 or T20

Gurps is very good basic RPG rules scaled to generic fantasy settings, but with a ton of 'chrome' tacked on...company sanctioned houserules is what they feel like to me. Too many dice, IMHO

The only other game that ever came close was The fantasy trip....and yes, I tried to play trav using them too ( lots of house rules... buying MT was easier )

 

[ChalkLine]

Essentially, Trav is the most fantasy I get in SciFi RPGs. For this reason, I use MegaTraveller because I can create any setting using it. While CT is wonderful, it is strangely clunky in often 'travelled' areas and this is addressed in erratta'd MT.

As I mentioned in another thread, I use a Dune-esqe setting so MT suits it perfectly without too much trouble. The starships are gothic-industrial when described that way but the essential Trav underneath. The clear and efficient system works under the leather n' lasers setting.

These days for a more hardcore scifi system I use a mesh of 2300 and cyberpunk2020, using the 2020 rules.

 

[jwdh71]

I used to use CT, back in the day, switched to MT when our primary GM converted, went to his sort of offshoot of MT when TNE came out, and am now using T20, since that's what all the cool kids are doing...;-) Since the D20 games are (usually) cross-compatable, I can ste...borrow liberally, thus saving me tons of GM prep.

 

[mbrinkhues]

This is probably a matter of referee and player preferences; CT gives you simple but bare-bone rules and provides you with a lot of room to improvise, while GURPS (I know little about it, as I've never read through it, but I know the general idea) gives you much more detailed (and complex) rules and allows to quantify everything about the setting. Currently I'm drawn closer to the first rather than the second, first and foremost because of having a 50-hour workweek and not as much prep time as I used to have.

Sorry but wrong. GURPS isn't very complex. Download GURPS/Light, it's only 50 pages and that includes Character Generation and Equipment.

The game system boils down to

Take 3D6 and roll under your (modified) skill/attribute

with the Modifiers being few and well defined. No difference between combat and regular tasks. Combat system can work with or without damage locations and with or without the three different damaga types (cut, piercing, blunt). I can teach GURPS Game system to any RPG newbe in 15-30 minutes.

The complex things in GURPS are the character Generation (Something even a 10+ year GURPS-Fan like me does with a program) and the special add-ons that you normally never need (Mass-Combat rules for playing out Company sized or large battles or Fleet actions in late DS9 / Honor Harrington size) These systems are NOT part of the 3rd Edition rulesbook but gathered in a seperat (and 100 percent optional) Compendium. Due to a "Both for the price of one) I own both Compendiums (CI is advanced Chargen) and have in 6 years never used CII (Combat Systems)

With a CharGen Program doing a GURPS Char takes about 20-40 Minutes depending on how much concept the Gamer already has and how much he knows GURPS. SJG has Programs out for both 3rd and 4th edition and they work like a charm.

Since around 2000 GURPS also added Templates. A template defines a base profile that occupies around 80 percent of the skill points and has all the necessary skills (I.e a Roman Legionair Template would have Shortsword, Thrown Weapon/Pilum, Large Shield, Hiking...) but leaves some for customisation (Hobbies etc). It also gives "Take x Points out of ..." choices for common advantages/disadvantages and skills rather than fixed sets. All GURPS/Traveller books use this system. Using Templates one can do a character in 5-10 Minutes using Pen and Paper or I can even simply take the Template and use it as an Instant NPC.


One of these days I have to do a Play by Forum for Traveller using GURPS. Maybe my "Scums of the Universe" (Nobles, 150Points/40 Disadvantages, no title above Baron)

 

[Gadrin]

Sorry but wrong. GURPS isn't very complex. Download GURPS/Light, it's only 50 pages and that includes Character Generation and Equipment.

The game system boils down to

Take 3D6 and roll under your (modified) skill/attribute


snip...

One of these days I have to do a Play by Forum for Traveller using GURPS. Maybe my "Scums of the Universe" (Nobles, 150Points/40 Disadvantages, no title above Baron)

well if you do, I'd be interested (maybe not that exact campaign but something Traveller related).

I posted a few ideas over at http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=29366

And am putting together ideas for a Milieu-Zero game, prolly using GT.

 

[mhensley]

I'm thinking of using T20 for the next game I run. Why?

I do love CT and it's the only version of Traveller I've ever run, but that was a very long time ago. I'm now aware of all of the holes and pitfalls of the original rules. It would take a lot of patching to make it playable for me today. And I'm pretty sure that such a rules-light game wouldn't fly with my current group.

I never got into MT. It always felt clunky compared to CT and the MT era got far too militaristic for me.

I pretty much hated everything about TNE, except maybe for the core rules. The decision to kill off the Imperium, the nerfing of lasers, the complete redo of core technologies, etc., etc. - I hated it all. I couldn't build something with FF&S if you gave me a supercomputer to help. Ugh.

I never tried T4 just because I no longer trusted a game company with Traveller and didn't want to be burned again like I was with TNE.

I did own a lot of GT stuff, but have since gotten rid of it all. Gurps is just too detailed for me. The number of choices available in character creation just overwhelms me and I missed randomly rolling up characters. I find the one second combat rounds to be finely grained. And the level of detail in the sourcebooks is just too much for my tastes.

So now I'm giving T20 a try. I've liked what I've seen in the T20 lite download so far. It seems like a nice mix of CT and D20 rules. Character creation is more flexible than CT while maintaining some of the randomness of the career paths. Combat looks to be very dangerous while being simple to run. But the big plus is that I'm already very familiar with D20 and so is my group as most of them have only played D&D 3.5.

 

[Golan2072]

The complex things in GURPS are the character Generation (Something even a 10+ year GURPS-Fan like me does with a program) and the special add-ons that you normally never need (Mass-Combat rules for playing out Company sized or large battles or Fleet actions in late DS9 / Honor Harrington size) These systems are NOT part of the 3rd Edition rulesbook but gathered in a seperat (and 100 percent optional) Compendium. Due to a "Both for the price of one) I own both Compendiums (CI is advanced Chargen) and have in 6 years never used CII (Combat Systems)

With a CharGen Program doing a GURPS Char takes about 20-40 Minutes depending on how much concept the Gamer already has and how much he knows GURPS. SJG has Programs out for both 3rd and 4th edition and they work like a charm.

This is exactly what has ticked me off with GURPS - the sheer amount of chargen options and the complexion of character generation. I've also thumbed once through GURPS: Vehicles and it looks complex, probably even more complex than Striker, and I've heard that WorldGen is also very detail-oriented. I have nothing against this in general, but it doesn't fit my current style too well (though a part of me loves gearheading, unfortunately I have very little time to gearhead ).

But how many books do you need to play GT well? GURPS mainbook, GT book, Ultratech, Vehicles and First In, or could you play the whole range of Traveller in it with just the mainbook and the GT book?