General Traveller with other systems?

[Spinward Scout]

Who's running Traveller with a different system?

I remember someone mentioning running Traveller with Doctor Who. I'd like to kniw how that went.

I also heard about someone running Traveller with Savage Worlds. I wondered how that went.

Have you played Traveller with these systems or others?

 

[mike wightman]

What do you mean by played Traveller?
Used a Third Imperium or derivative setting?
Used Traveller tropes such as jump drive in a bespoke setting.

If I use BRP to play in my version of the Third Imperium am I playing Traveller? How about the T2k1e rules to run T:2300?

Is T:2300 playing Traveller? What if I use the modern MgT2e version.

What about if I use the CT rules to run a modern action-adventure game, Am I playing Traveller? How about late 19800s CoC using CT rules?

I regularly use the adventure Death Station to try out different rule systems. The dice step and dice pool variants of the YZE, PbtA derived games, BRP based games - all of them in the last couple of years.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[willtron3030]

I've tried Push SRD and Zozer's "Action Dice". I enjoyed Action Dice for quick games, and PUSH wasn't awful. In the next year or so, I hope to start a game of Microscope with a Travelleresque setting, and use AD for the personal scale roleplaying that occurs therein.

 

[casquilho]

I have never tried to port the 3i to another rule system. I never played GURPs or Hero versions of Traveller. I stuck to CT and then moved to MgT when I felt the need to play in the 3i. Now I have done the opposite, used the CT rules to play in other settings. I used CT rules to play Morrow Project, TW2k, and even a Cyberpunk like setting. Now with the Cepheus publishers I have tried out one's fantasy setting and another's SciFI setting and a Modern War and even a Western 1890 setting for fun. But again, never felt the need to post the 3i over to any other core rules.

 

[Starglim]

I've done conversion notes and occasionally solo-tested various Traveller adventures for Alternity.

 

[ManOfGrey]

One of the most fun times I have ever had running a Traveller game was using the Hero System. (At the time I didn't even know about Hero Traveller.) Since the Hero System uses a "point build" system to create characters, it was a snap to create "Traveller" characters, and introduce them to the Third Imperium setting. (Well... I say it's "easy." The "point build" system in Hero Games can be complex. But I handled all the math, so the players wouldn't have to.)

What I felt the Hero System lent to the game is the combat rules. It is extremely flexible, and pretty easy to show novice players, especially if the characters are just "normal" people, and not Super Heroes. Weapons are easy to convert, and can be just as deadly in the Hero System as they are in Traveller. Especially if you're using deck plans to stage combat on, instead of the more generic "range bands" Traveller makes so much use of.

Now, granted, I am a big fan of the Azanti High Lightning / Snapshot rules. But, for whatever reason, the Hero System combat rules seem easier and more intuitive than the Action Point system of Azanti High Lightning / Snapshot. The Hero System simply uses a system of moves, and half-moves. (e.g. Your character can move half their movement and still attack. If you move over half your move, then you can't.) And the scale of the movement was so close, I didn't bother changing anything. The Hero System uses 2 meter squares, instead of Traveller's 1.5 meter squares.

Now, for what it's worth, the supplement did not go to waste. Our game centered around the captain and command crew of the Azanti High Lightning, and its deck plans were used extensively. I just felt the Hero System moved miniatures around the maps better than Snapshot.

Still... each to their own.

 

[aramis]

I have run the OTU, 1090-1116 using the following systems:

• CT
• MT
• Traveller 2300
• TNE
• EABA v0.9 (playtest)
• WEG Star Wars d6 (meh)
• GURPS (before GT)
• VTM 1e (briefly) - but my conversion, done with the help of Peter Newman, was used by RCM for a couple campaigns.
• T20 playtest
• MGT 1 (this was, for me, the least satisfying)
• my smashup of MT, T20, and TNE

I am not likely to run the OTU in campaign again. I've not kept up with Mongoose's overwrites/changes, and I have taken to scratching the traveller itch mostly by the discussions on this board. And I like Alien's mechanics quite well for a more generic space opera approach.

Don't get me wrong on SW d6: it's my second-favorite Star Wars game engine. (FFG's is first.) It just wasn't the right feel - too competent outside specialty, not competent enough in field. It's one of the big feel differences between MT and WEG SW.

 

[Rupert]

I've run Traveller using CT, MT, TNE (my favourite system), and GURPS 4e. The last was set in the TNE period, and didn't use GT as a base - I just used GURPS' gear lists, etc., trimming out stuff that was clearly not 'Traveller' (and generally being fairly generous with what stayed in), and it worked fine. It's one of the most successful games I've run, ever.

 

[infojunky]

What I felt the Hero System lent to the game is the combat rules. It is extremely flexible, and pretty easy to show novice players, especially if the characters are just "normal" people, and not Super Heroes. Weapons are easy to convert, and can be just as deadly in the Hero System as they are in Traveller. Especially if you're using deck plans to stage combat on, instead of the more generic "range bands" Traveller makes so much use of.

In the day we used Danger International for Traveller and it worked wonderfully. Using that ethos Hero works well, the numbers happy Fifth Edition crowd missed the point mostly.

 

[RossWinn]

I think that Traveller using the Mekton Zeta+ rules are an incredibly good fit.

 

[vargr1]

Diaspora is a Fate-based love letter to Traveller. It also works great as a replacement for the Traveller engine.

 

[mike wightman]

Only if you like fate. Which many don't. At least it covers heat...

 

[atpollard]

I use RULE 68A (Lite):

RULE 68A:
The target number to accomplish an EASY task is 6+ on 2d6.
The target number to accomplish an AVERAGE task is 8+ on 2d6.
The target number to accomplish an HARD task is 10+ on 2d6. [hexadecimal notation for 10 is 'A']

To use any SKILL [Admin, Streetwise, etc.] roll 2d6+skill for the target number or higher to succeed

ABILITIES as Skills:
When attempting an action not covered by a skill, like "swimming", roll for Rule 68A using the related ability (like DEX) to determine the modifier. The modifiers for ABILITY rolls are as follows:
Ability 0-2 = -1
Ability 3-5 = 0
Ability 6-8 = +1
Ability 9-11 = +2
Ability 12+ = +3

Here are your chances of success for a 2d6 roll:
2d6, roll 2+ = 100%
2d6, roll 3+ = 97%
2d6, roll 4+ = 92%
2d6, roll 5+ = 83%
2d6, roll 6+ = 72%
2d6, roll 7+ = 58%
2d6, roll 8+ = 42%
2d6, roll 9+ = 28%
2d6, roll 10+ = 17%
2d6, roll 11+ = 8%
2d6, roll 12+ = 3%

That's it for my "official rules" (except for my 2 standing rules):

1. Do not break the 2d6 curve (that means we don't stack either bonuses or penalties to the point where 'success' or 'failure' is a virtual certainty ... +3 is a HUGE DEAL ... +6 is unacceptable).
2. It is a GAME, so we are here to have fun.

 

[aramis]

In the day we used Danger International for Traveller and it worked wonderfully. Using that ethos Hero works well, the numbers happy Fifth Edition crowd missed the point mostly.

The worst pointmongers I've ever encountered were fans of Champions 3 and DI. The Goodman Says sidebars made many champions players VERY point-mongerish. And most of the people I know who used DI (myself included) used Champions prior.

Champions always called out how to min-max so that the distance twixt rules-raping point-whores and more normal players had less difference. It also weeded out the "just print the price list for me" types

Many GURPS players go deep into the math, too... but until very late in 3rd, there was a huge break in the fanbase between "buy only the atts which are character appropriate" and "If the skills are more expensive than the attribute, up the attribute," min-max.

 

[aramis]

I think that Traveller using the Mekton Zeta+ rules are an incredibly good fit.

I find MZ+ a bit heavy on the vehicle designing... but interlock is a solid game engine.

 

[infojunky]

The worst pointmongers I've ever encountered were fans of Champions 3 and DI. The Goodman Says sidebars made many champions players VERY point-mongerish. And most of the people I know who used DI (myself included) used Champions prior.

Not going to argue that at all, there is a reason I don't play Hero any more.

Many GURPS players go deep into the math, too... but until very late in 3rd, there was a huge break in the fanbase between "buy only the atts which are character appropriate" and "If the skills are more expensive than the attribute, up the attribute," min-max.

To be clear my top three choices for basic game mechanics are a Flavor of CT/MT/MgT1ed, Gurps (Light)/TFT and Savage Worlds.

 

[RossWinn]

I find MZ+ a bit heavy on the vehicle designing... but interlock is a solid game engine.

Oh yeah, although you could design a lot of things in MZ+, even down to weapons, I think that the resolution system and character builds would be sufficient and you could just use the existing systems for vehicles and spacecraft.

 

[Spinward Scout]

I use RULE 68A (Lite):

In Mongoose, it's a little different:
Easy (4+)
Average (8+)
Very Difficult (12+)

But we're here for different gaming systems.

 

[aramis]

In Mongoose, it's a little different:
Easy (4+)
Average (8+)
Very Difficult (12+)

But we're here for different gaming systems.

You left out several levels...

Task Difficulty Target Number
Simple 2+
Easy 4+
Routine 6+
Average 8+
Difficult 10+
Very Difficult 12+
Formidable 14+

MgT mods for the attribute range are from -2 to +3... and skill levels are scaled close enough to CT/MT to be direct comparison.

MegaTraveller's (MT) is
Simple 3+
Routine 7+
Difficult 11+
Formidible 15+
Impossible 19+

Note that MT mods are narrower, 1/5 att, round down, for +0 to +3
Note that this makes The difficulties functionally matched to MT... for Joe Normal Att 7 Skill 1.
MgT has a point less unskilled penalty.

The difficulty labels in MT are essentially descriptors for Skill 1 att 7...
Simple is always a success unless rushing.
Routine is always a success if taking extra time
Difficult is mostly successful with extra time, but just under a third of the time raw.
Formidable cannot be done without extra time
Impossible cannot succeed for Joe Normal, even with extra time.

We can thus expand the MgT table by two levels...
Very Formidable 16+
Impossible 18+
Noting that skill 1, no matter the attribute within the playable human range, is going to get to 18 on a nat 12... +3 from att and +1 from skill is 16, so Very Formidable... but MgT has a much more generous time interval change rule... putting Impossible in reach of even Att 7 skill 1... but 3 steps longer on the time...

So the labels work similarly enough in MgT that thinking "how hard is it for Joe Normal" is a good way to set a difficulty.