Rules Only: Why Classic Traveller is My Favorite SF RPG...

[creativehum]

On an gaming forum I visit someone asked, “What is you favorite SF Roleplaying Game?” Unsurprisingly I replied…

The choice for me is Classic Traveller. And by Classic Traveller I mean Traveller Books 1-3.

Why I like Classic Traveller the most is built on several reasons I’ve been thinking about lately:

STATE BLOCKS FOR NPCS AND ALIENS
Do you know how easy it is to stat an NPC in Classic Traveller? This easy:
5468A7. Rifle-0. Mechanical-1 Cloth Armor Rifle

Boom. That’s crazy easy.

As someone who really wants to spend more time just making shit up with my friends in response to the ideas, plans, actions, and choices they throw at me.
I cannot overstate the brilliance of Marc Miller’s design in this regard.

STAT BLOCKS FOR BEASTS
Sure, it’s a bit more complicated, but watch this:
Gatherer 50kg Hits: 11/2 Armor: jack-1 Wounds: 7 teeth+1 Responses: A9 F8 S2

Again, as time is tighter for me these days, having an RPG where where I can whip up the numbers I need in a few seconds is a great boon.

TERRIFIC PROCEDURAL GENERATION MATERIAL FOR THE REFREE
The dense layer of procedural generation of Worlds, Encounters (NPCs, Animals, Legal, Patron), Encounter Range, and NPC Reaction lets me generate content on the fly and help me come up with new ideas, locals, and situations I would never come up with on my own.

THE SITUATION THROW SYSTEM
A preposterously straightforward but crazily flexible resolution system to handle any situation that the PCs get into that the Referee wants to hand off to the dice for adjudication.

• The scale is simple: a 2D6 bell curve. A Referee armed with a table showing the odds from 2-12 on 2D6 is good to go.
• The Die Modifiers are intuitive: +DMs for skills, high characteristics, tools, character history, or situational modifiers the Players come up with. The -DMs are just as simple.
• The trick is to take the system for what it is: A Referee driven simulation rather than a failed Skill System of later RPG design. But once you do that the game is excellent.

STRAIGHTFORWARD PLAYER CHARACTER DESIGN FOR MAKING ADVENTURERS
The game doesn’t try to present you with every type of person from every walk of life that could exist in an interstellar setting. It’s built to create characters who have the chops and the wherewithal and the focus to go on adventures in an adventure driven interstellar adventures.

The PCs can’t do everything, of course. The character generation tables offer a limited set of skills, and PCs will only have a few of those per PC. But this means that if the PCs don’t have the skill set available they will have to come up with adventure-driven schemes and shenanigans to keep going: steal the part they need to fix their ship because they don’t know how to fabricate it; get to the professor of ancient languages held against his will on the estate of the noble to translate the alien tablet they found; sneak into the government building using a clever ruse because this group doesn’t have someone with Computer skills; and so on.

IMPLIED ADVENTURE-DRIVEN SETTING DETAILS
While the rules have implied setting details they do not provide a setting. This allows me to build the cool setting that I want. And as for the implied setting details, what are they? That the distances between the stars matters, communication is slow, tech levels will vary greatly, space travel between the stars is expensive, dangerous, and a big deal. What does this give us: Implied setting details that support exotic, novel, adventuring environments with lots of space and room for adventures to go get into trouble, take risks. The procedural driven setting generation material, along with the random encounter material, all define a setting ripe for adventure.

INCREDIBLY FLEXIBLE
Ultimately Classic Traveller at its core isn’t limited to being a SF game. It is, instead, an awesome RPG engine with tools to build the setting you want and allows the Referee adjudicate clearly and the Players have an infinite latitude as to how handle problems and situations.

Want to use the rules to play a game set in WWII? You can do that. Want to use them to play cavemen? You can do that. Want to use them to play modern day Cthulhu? Why not? All one needs to do is come up with rebuilt character creation tables and you are good to go. (For the CoC you’ll want some sort of mechanic for insanity or insights or whatnot… but you’re a grownup. You can figure it out.)

Remember that the Psionics rules are a template for anything from Psionics, to magic spells, to magic weapons, to alien or monsters effects. Combined with the rules for Drugs (as well as the flexible weapons and armor rules) one can mix and match the rules to reproduce the effects of everything from cyberware to trans-human bioengineering. This flexibility allows a Referee to create truly alien SF worlds and technology in the standard “Science-Fiction Adventure in the Far Future” play mode… or use the game (as mentioned above) for completely different settings shorn of all SF trappings.

Classic Traveller is one of the most pure iterations of RPG play and design that I have ever seen.

 

[mike wightman]

It will probably come as little surprise that I agree with everything you have written above.

 

[infojunky]

Y'all really didn't leave much to argue against there....

I circle back around to CT because of the level of complexity that it's simplicity allows. And the breadth of types of games available to play using the same simple ground work.

 

[Timerover51]

I still have a soft spot for Metamorphosis Alpha, which came out before Traveller. While in theory, you are restricted to the generation ship Warden, the game can be adapted to alien planets and environment quite easily.

Traveller, specifically the Little Black Books, with a couple of supplements, makes for a quite straightforward way of creating your own universe. The ship design system is simple and is similar to a first approximation in designing a nautical ship. I do not use the combat system at all, but the way the game is structured, that does not pose a problem. The World Creation system could use more work, but can also be modified as needed, again without wreaking havoc to the rules. The ship and world creation systems do give it the edge over Metamorphosis Alpha.

 

[aramis]

It's worth noting that Marc has claimed, and some adventures show, Marc's always used not just 2d6, but 1d6, 2d6, up to 5d6 for various throws.

CT was not intended to be a 2d6-only system. Anyone who claims it is is reading more into it than was actually written, and hasn't read all of Marc's corpus of material for CT.

There's a reason the table in Bk 0 goes to 5d6...

 

[creativehum]

It's worth noting that Marc has claimed, and some adventures show, Marc's always used not just 2d6, but 1d6, 2d6, up to 5d6 for various throws.

CT was not intended to be a 2d6-only system. Anyone who claims it is is reading more into it than was actually written, and hasn't read all of Marc's corpus of material for CT.

There's a reason the table in Bk 0 goes to 5d6...

Of course a Throw does not have to be for 2D6.

But as Traveller: Book 1 states in the "Dice Roll Conventions" section:

Generally, a dice throw involves two dice; exceptions requiring one die or three or more dice are clearly stated.

Two dice is the norm, and exceptions will be listed. So says the text. I'm comfortable with stating that 2D6 will be the norm for situation Throws, knowing that other cases can arrive. (And let's be clear: The reference to 2D6 in my original post was in terms of situation Throws -- not Throws in general.)

And how many exceptions to situation Throws of 2D6 are listed in Traveller: Books 1-3?

None. There are many throws using different numbers of dice -- for example for Damage Dice, for the number of NPCs and Creatures encountered, for Cargo Lots. But for situation Throws? 2D6 is always assumed.

As for Classic Traveller adventures: This morning, per your point, I searched the PDFs of The Traveller Adventure, Adventures 1-13, and Double Adventures 1-6 for sitaution Throws of 3D, 4D, and 5D. (I was genuinely curious! Maybe I had missed something!) Among these seven books I found one noted exception: "The beam is heavy, and the angle awkward; any three characters can average their strength together; this number or less must be rolled on 3D to free Bannerji." That is from The Traveller Book. Of the seven books I searched it is the only stated exception I found. [A few days have passed and I finished searching Adventures 7-12. No further exceptions to the 2D6 Throws were found.]

Meanwhile, in The Traveller Adventure we find this on page 28 on "The Use of Die Rolls":

Situation Throws: In the absence of any other guidance, the referee may always resort to the situation throw. When an incident first occurs, throw two dice to determine its relative severity. A low roll means that it is easy, a high roll means comparitjve difficulty. The number achieved is now the situation number. The player characters involved, when they attempt to deal with the situation, must roll the situation number or higher on two dice.

As for the odds offered in Traveller: Book 0 they of course suggest one might use situation Throws with more or less than 2D6. And while anyone should use any variation of dice rolled for situations Throws if they wish, the tables themselves are of value for the range of odds for many standard Classic Traveller Throws that are not situation Throws: Damage Dice, determining the random number of NPCs or Animals Encountered, Mustering Out Benefits, Cargo Lots, Passengers, Speculation Trade Type, and so on. There are plenty of Throws to be made in Classic Traveller that are not situation Throws -- and many of those Throws will be better served by rolls that vary from 2D6. And the game uses them.

I am more than willing to believe that there might be situation Throws that vary from 2D6 Throws that I did not find in my search this morning. I am more than willing to believe that there might be situation Throws that vary from 2D6 in books that I did have time to search. And I definitely believe Miller has used situation Throws of varying number of dice at some point or another in his games.

However, even with that in mind, given the information in the preceding paragraphs of this post, I am content to believe that the 2D6 bell curve is that standard situation Throw used in the the Classic Traveller .

As Marc himself said in the White Dwarf interview in 1981:

Moreover, the relationship of two dice to each other is a widely known one. One die, when rolled, gives an even probability on a result of 1 to 6; two dice gives a range of from 1 to 12 with a weighted probability toward 7. It was this familiar relationship that I wanted to exploit.

This is probably why the rules state "Generally, a dice throw involves two dice."

So this is all sort of obvious: The rules state generally Throws are made on two dice; all the situation Throws in the rules of Traveller: Books 1-3 use two dice; a quick scan I just made of seven adventure books reveals only a single exception to this general rule; and a passage in The Traveller Adventure explicitly states that lacking any other guidance the Player is to make the situation throw using 2D6.

I don't think I'm "reading more into" anything. The text from both Traveller: Book 1 and The Traveller Adventure state this element plainly. That's the text saying what it says, and I'm repeating what it says.

I make no claims about what sorts of Throws Miller made. I also make no claim as to knowing Miller's entire Classic Traveller corpus. In fact, I am clearly focusing on Traveller: Books 1-3 and make it plain that the game contained in those three volumes is (as it was designed) a stand alone game that needs no other books to function properly. The notion that Classic Traveller only works in the context of a decade's worth of publications and research into the game's author in order to understand a 140 page rules set is ridiculous on its face. It may be a concern of other people -- and apparently it is for you. But it certainly isn't for me -- and I don't think I'm alone in this point of view.

That said: I have read everything I can that Miller has written or said about the game. I have read the rules of Traveller: Books 1-3 with care. And I have (this morning) taken the time to search every Classic Traveller adventure book (The Traveller Adventure, Adventures 1-13, Double Adventures 1-6) for exceptions to the 2D6 situation Throw rule -- and found only one exception among the lot of them.

While my stating that the situation Throw in Classic Traveller is made with 2D6 might seem like some sort of bizarre overreach to some (apparently to you), given all I've typed above I have to say I'm very comfortable with it as assumed procedure -- as the texts of both Book 1 and The Traveller Adventure make plain.

 

[creativehum]

Focusing on what I consider a fantastic and flexible rules set, I have come across something that utterly confounds me and runs counter to the sensibilities of Classic Traveller I list in the original post above.

Following a link from another thread I found myself reading PDFs of Andy Slack's Expanded Universe articles from the early 1980s in White Dwarf Magazine.

In one passage Slack writes:

This section was brought in because at one stage in our campaign we had a player of Engineering-4 who couldn't change the wheel on his car - no Mechanical skill.

Now, to be clear, I can see how one could read the rules in such a narrow manner that a man of at least 22 years, with at least four years of military service, might not be able to change the tire on a car....

That's such a narrow, blinkered reading of the rules. I mean, you'd have to ignore the fact the character is at least 22-years-old and accept the fact that he can't do a thing almost anyone on this board can do without any focused Mechanical training at all.

Did people really play this way? Do people really play this way? Is this what some people thing the rules say?

If so I think I've got a handle on the fracture between some of my conversations certain people about the rules.

 

[Adam Dray]

Yeah, you don't have someone make an Admin skill check to operate the copier.

On the other hand, I--a veteran software engineer of several decades--am occasionally stymied by the user interface of some new electronic device. Maybe Admin 0 or Computers 0 or whatever is required to do this.

Also, I know adults who could not change a tire on their car. So maybe Mechanic 0 or whatever is what is required to do this.

But you don't ask for a skill check for a trivial, everyday task.

 

[creativehum]

There is also the matter of how Slack set up the issue. The PC at hand has Electronics-4 and the group is incredulous that he wouldn't be able to handle a simple mechanical task because he lacked Mechanical. So Slack comes up with a new rule bestowing Mechanical for having a high enough Electronics.

My point -- the guy has Electronics-4. I don't care if he's never changed a tire... Odds are he has a mind that will puzzle it out. And if not -- if the player says -- "No really electronics are his friend -- he doesn't get this wrench thing at all" then we need that about him.

But to on the face assume the rules as written mean he CAN'T change a tire?

Weird.

 

[Adam Dray]

But to on the face assume the rules as written mean he CAN'T change a tire?

Weird.

Yeah, I agree on every point.

It's important to look at the character's experiences and skills as a package and determine what that character's basic capabilities must be.

The rules expect the Referee to apply common sense first. I feel like it's a terrible interpretation of the rules to say that every skill is a gateway for doing the most trivial tasks.

Player: "I pick up the pistol and fire it at the water tank, so it will leak."
Referee: "What's your gun skill?"
Player: "What? I don't have a gun skill. I need one to hit a 3-meter target at close range? I mean, I can't imagine missing."
Referee: "You don't even know how to operate a pistol."
Player: "Seriously?"

Now we can bicker about what constitutes a trivial task, I suppose.

 

[aramis]

There is also the matter of how Slack set up the issue. The PC at hand has Electronics-4 and the group is incredulous that he wouldn't be able to handle a simple mechanical task because he lacked Mechanical. So Slack comes up with a new rule bestowing Mechanical for having a high enough Electronics.

My point -- the guy has Electronics-4. I don't care if he's never changed a tire... Odds are he has a mind that will puzzle it out. And if not -- if the player says -- "No really electronics are his friend -- he doesn't get this wrench thing at all" then we need that about him.

But to on the face assume the rules as written mean he CAN'T change a tire?

Weird.

I know a PhD Chem Engineer who cannot change a tire, and has blown three engines because he can't remember to (nor how to) check the oil and ATF. He's never felt a need to learn... "There are people for that..."

And I know a PE with a MS in Mechanical engineering who managed to electric burn himself setting up a Mac. (Yes, he missed the socket, his hand rode forward o the plug, and managed to run 120v AC across his index finger..)

There are really people who have huge gaps in their basics... that's how I've used Edu prior to T4's benchmarks. High Edu, he's likely to be able to work outside field. Low, forget it. He's really a one-trick-ponii...

 

[creativehum]

Aramis, I think that's an awesome use of EDU.

 

[Adam Dray]

There are really people who have huge gaps in their basics...

Sure.

1) Are these people typical or are they outliers?

2) Do we want to model a universe where people always fail routine tasks outside their training? Is that more fun or less?

I admit that the second question in #2 is up in the air, and probably goes to personal preference.

 

[aramis]

Sure.

1) Are these people typical or are they outliers?

2) Do we want to model a universe where people always fail routine tasks outside their training? Is that more fun or less?

I admit that the second question in #2 is up in the air, and probably goes to personal preference.

Define a "Routine Task"....

For me, it's a task that is automatically successful if you take extra time, have skill 1, and attribute 6+

 

[creativehum]

Define a "Routine Task"....
For me, it's a task that is automatically successful if you take extra time, have skill 1, and attribute 6+

And that's how you choose to play the game.

There's nothing in the Classic Traveller rules to suggest such a method.

Of course, the game states clearly that the Referee will determine when a Throw is required. The "specific throws for specific situations must be generated" is used again again in the text.

Here's an example from the explanation of Mechanical:

Referee: specific throws for specific situations must be generated. Obviously, the throw to fabricate a new main drive bearing as a starship plunges into a flaming sun would be harder than the throw to repair a broken air lock hatch while in port. Success would also be influenced by DMs based on the availability of tools and materials.

You, Aramis, choose to have Throws made more frequently than other Referees (as far as I can tell). And that's exactly how the game is suppose to work. Each Referee decides which situations require a Throw. But you literally cannot argue a Referee would be wrong for saying a 16-year veteran of the Army doesn't need to make a roll to change a tire if he doesn't have the expertise of a Mechanic to change a tire.

In other words, no one needs to define "routine" task if they don't play by your definitions. Whether something is "routine" or not can easily be define in the moment of play as defined by the circumstances of the fiction at that moment.

Your method of playing works within the framework of the text of the Classic Traveller rules, as does Adam's and mine (and Mike's and others). The game demands that the Referee make these calls. You make them different than me. And that's fine.

 

[atpollard]

If I have an electric tooth brush, should I use Mechanical-0 or Elecronics-0 to successfully remove all of the plaque? :devil:

 

[jcrocker]

I knew someone who, while ironing, was waiting for a phone call. The phone was at one end of the ironing board, this was late 80s so no cells.

They had set down the iron, were doing something with the clothes, and the phone rang.

Guess which was picked up and held to their face.

Now, I'm not advocating that your character have Ironing-4, but things do happen. As long as eveyone is on the same page of what is required, it should work.

 

[creativehum]

Sure.

1) Are these people typical or are they outliers?

2) Do we want to model a universe where people always fail routine tasks outside their training? Is that more fun or less?

I admit that the second question in #2 is up in the air, and probably goes to personal preference.

Here's my thinking on this:

EXPERIENCED CHARACTERS
Book One of the Classic Traveller rules assumes that the PCs are experienced before going out on adventures. "A newly generated character is singularly unequipped to deal with the adven-turing world, having neither the expertise nor the experience necessary for the ac-tive life. In order to acquire some experience, it is possible to enlist in a service."

Now, of some people that "experience" consists of their list of skills and nothing else. I have no idea how to interpret a person that way. And it may only be me -- but whatever, I don't by it. If a guy has spent 8 years in the Army across several star systems he may be rated professionally as an Electrician and capable with a rifle in combat situations... but that can't be the sum of who he is and what he can bring to the table. (Again, there are people who disagree with this and assume PCs are only their skills. I have no response.)

GENERALLY CAPABLE CHARACTERS
Book 1 prior services (which this is thread is about when it comes to characters, per the Rules Only Tag and the introduction of the first post) were based on kinds of fiction with strong, capable characters who know how to get things done. Flandry. Kirth Gersen. Dumarest. Lucas Trask. Colonel Nathan "Iron" MacKinnie. And so on. These men all have their specialties, but they all are able to keep moving forward with a brand, basic set of skills that men of experience and adventure normally have in this sort fiction. They don't know everything, and when they don't they have allies to help them out. But they don't fumble the obvious or easy stuff.

From my point of view, given the six prior service paths and the books Miller drew from, I assume that the PCs work at a baseline competence that the Player's choose. Again, the rules never state anything about this specifically, and it must it a bar that must be set by the Referee and the Players. But there's nothing in the text that suggests it shouldn't be handled this way... and lots of clues and assumptions (baked in the rules and the fiction it based on) that it exactly this way.

CHARACTERIZATION
Let us assume there is a player who has a guy who has expertise rated at Mechanical-4. The player decides the this guy is REALLY good with machinery... but not much good with anything else. He is awkward in social interactions. He really knows very little about the Engineering of a ship. He is easily distracted by mechanical problems -- even when they are not his problem to solve and even when he really, really should be paying attention to something else.

Will I stop him, if I'm the Referee, from doing this? Is he breaking the game in some way? No, and no. His characterization will be fun and entertaining and add a lot to the game.

He is also, in my view, using the game as intended. Part of the beauty of the Classic Traveller character generation system is that it provokes and provides questions and ideas. (See the example of Captain Jameson in Book 1). Why is this guy an expert in these things? Why did he last only one term? Or why did he last 5 terms but never break Private? Or why is an Admiral now living at the edge of the Imperial Marches wandering with a rag-tag crew?

If the Players want to limit what their experience is and how they interact with the world that's up to them. I want them to come up with interesting characters... and the prior experience tables and process help them do that.

 

[Hyphen]

Player: "I pick up the pistol and fire it at the water tank, so it will leak."
Referee: "What's your gun skill?"
Player: "What? I don't have a gun skill. I need one to hit a 3-meter target at close range? I mean, I can't imagine missing."
Referee: "You don't even know how to operate a pistol."
Player: "Seriously?"

I can believe that. I've never fired or even handled a handgun. Well, that wasn't a toy.

I know which is the dangerous end. I know not to put my finger on the trigger. I know there is a safety switch somewhere on the weapon, although I would have to hunt around for it. I *think* I have to pull the slide on top back to cock it, although I know some automatics do not need this done - and I have no idea how to tell which is which. I know that ammo goes in a magazine which slides out, but I don't know how to make it do that. I do not know how to inspect it, clear it, and make it safe.

So, your example is probably not a good example of an objection to, "you have no skill, therefore can't do this".

Now, if I was an American, well...

;-)

 

[creativehum]

I can believe that. I've never fired or even handled a handgun. Well, that wasn't a toy.

I know which is the dangerous end. I know not to put my finger on the trigger. I know there is a safety switch somewhere on the weapon, although I would have to hunt around for it. I *think* I have to pull the slide on top back to cock it, although I know some automatics do not need this done - and I have no idea how to tell which is which. I know that ammo goes in a magazine which slides out, but I don't know how to make it do that. I do not know how to inspect it, clear it, and make it safe.

So, your example is probably not a good example of an objection to, "you have no skill, therefore can't do this".

Now, if I was an American, well...

;-)

Again, it completely depends on the context. (At least in how I view the genius of the rules.)

For example, each of the six prior services of Traveller: Book 1 will make a character who has been around firearms. Even if the character is not an expert with a Pistol in combat situations (which is what an expertise in a combat skill means in original Traveller), they will be familiar enough with weapons to know how to pick up a pistol and fire it.

That's the context of making and using a character in original Traveller.

I'll add, of course, this is reflected in every PC having an expertise of 0 in all weapons, per the rules.