CT Only: Rewriting and updating the LBB, Book 2

[RossWinn]

In one of the other threads in this forum, there was a mention that “has anyone rewritten classic Traveller and should it be? I have often considered this idea myself, but a lot of people seem to have very strong opinions about what should or should not be included and how it should be handled. So chime in. If I was going to rewrite book 2, what do you think would be best?

 

[mike wightman]

I have more notes on this subject than practically anything else

1st - which version of LBB:2? 77 and 81 have some subtle but important differences way beyond the change to the drive potential table.
2nd - drive potential table or % based drives.
3rd - if you opt for the drive potential table which one to use, and should some of the "errors" be fixed?
4th - how to build military ships - options for military drives, armour, screens, bay weapons.

 

[RossWinn]

I have more notes on this subject than practically anything else

1st - which version of LBB:2? 77 and 81 have some subtle but important differences way beyond the change to the drive potential table.
2nd - drive potential table or % based drives.
3rd - if you opt for the drive potential table which one to use, and should some of the "errors" be fixed?
4th - how to build military ships - options for military drives, armour, screens, bay weapons.

I would think that the 77 and percentage based approach would be more accurate. What’s your opinion overall?

 

[Takei]

% based drives all the way as the drive table is far from consistent.

Ditch computers as computers. The description for bridge says that the tonnage includes all controls needed to operate the ship, which in my mind includes running the Jump drive. In my 44-ish years of experience with Traveller all players use computers for is fighting the ship, so call them that. IIRC didn't T4 and/or TNE do this?

 

[RossWinn]

I tend to agree. So you would call them avionics, fire control, and navigation system? I think that’s everything. Oh, environmental controls.

 

[mike wightman]

Computer - replace with sensor and fire control.

A civilian with model 1 sensors vs paramilitary with model 4 sensors vs top of the range model 7 sensors.

Then you get to write better sensor rules

 

[Dragoner]

In one of the other threads in this forum, there was a mention that “has anyone rewritten classic Traveller and should it be? I have often considered this idea myself, but a lot of people seem to have very strong opinions about what should or should not be included and how it should be handled. So chime in. If I was going to rewrite book 2, what do you think would be best?

I kind of did do some of it, though I find that Book 2 works pretty well, maybe at best just do hexes like I did, because it is easier for people to visualize. It has a fast and furious nature to combat which is refreshing vs say combat as a grind.

 

[casquilho]

Just curious, if you are changing and writing new rules, at what point is it no longer CAT but rather a new game sort of based on CT?

Not trying to be a "smart alec" but rather, just curious where that line is in people's minds.

 

[Dragoner]

Indeed it is a good question, and why I use CT rules mostly intact as they don't feel broken. Maybe they are not in line with modern rpg design, except "good enough".

 

[RossWinn]

Just curious, if you are changing and writing new rules, at what point is it no longer CAT but rather a new game sort of based on CT?

Not trying to be a "smart alec" but rather, just curious where that line is in people's minds.

I wouldn’t be interested in changing rules, necessarily, or adding different things to the basic system. However, I would like to correct all of the errors and make a few small changes while keeping the original flavor.

Indeed it is a good question, and why I use CT rules mostly intact as they don't feel broken. Maybe they are not in line with modern rpg design, except "good enough".

they’re always has been significant and that’s enough of a reason to consider the idea.

 

[Dragoner]

they’re always has been significant and that’s enough of a reason to consider the idea.

I support you 100% if that is what you want to do, though in my experience changing things often throws the changes back on the Ref to figure out, more work for them.

 

[Carlobrand]

Computer - replace with sensor and fire control.

A civilian with model 1 sensors vs paramilitary with model 4 sensors vs top of the range model 7 sensors.

Then you get to write better sensor rules

Might do that for Book 5, but probably best to keep Book 2 simple. Maybe introduce the sensors as parts for the design process but keep the combat sensor rules as they are, then expand the sensor rules in a Book 5 addendum dealing with the map or range band combat.

I would definitely, definitely change the Book 2 drive/plant design rules tonpercentage based - with the condition that it has to be both cheaper than the Book 5 low tech drives and have some disadvantage for being cheaper. I'm thinking of the power plant rules specifically, maybe a power plant that consumes fuel at 5 times the rate of Book 5 plants.

I'd use the same Book 5 rules for Book 2 jump and maneuver. Alternately, make the Book 2 jump drive cheaper but larger.

 

[kilemall]

On the computer front, I have never found another player besides me to be interested in playing LBB2 computer operator.

So it’s a nodal computer that has physically separated racks and is very hard to crack, but otherwise CT damage rules if original build and HG if add on, and HG compare computers DM for EW/Evade/Predict functions.

It’s also the sensor system, I have all sensor types available at the classic 1/8 locate doggo ship ranges, that comes with the bridge. So that explains Seekers being able to prospect for instance. Usually don’t come with full Survey/Prospect software so either had to be skilled or pay millions- it’s normally more for safety/avoidance of hazards work.

Then longer range number of sensors equals computer model. Range of detection is model number x 100000km. Tracking is TL x 100000km.

Small craft bridges don’t get the full short range sensor suite, just one sensor and a short range radio, plus however many systems come with the computer model.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If I was going to rewrite book 2, what do you think would be best?

It's been done, it's called LBB5.

 

[Marcatlas]

I would think that the 77 and percentage based approach would be more accurate. What’s your opinion overall?

I use % based drives. Have done it that way for a long time.

 

[RossWinn]

It's been done, it's called LBB5.

Other than the fact that there are arguably more errata in HighGuard than there are Starships and Spacecraft. Also, there are some assumptions and ideas that change significantly between the two.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Also, there are some assumptions and ideas that change significantly between the two.

Quite.

 

[mike wightman]

It's been done, it's called LBB5.

LBB:5 is not a re-write or re-imagining of LBB:2 ship design. It has superficial similarities but offers a completely different paradigm.
TL dependence of jump
M-drive and J-drive size reversal
EP and pp scaling.
Turret displacement vs fire control displacement

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Also, there are some assumptions and ideas that change significantly between the two.

LBB:5 is not a re-write or re-imagining of LBB:2 ship design. It has superficial similarities but offers a completely different paradigm.

What's the point of a re-write if you don't change anything?

 

[mike wightman]

To maintain compatibility with the extant setting to date and not require a universe in a shower moment.