A Question on Different Traveller Systems

[aramis]

BAB= Base Attack Bonus

As for T20: for me, it's quite playable, and has a feel like a cross between D&D 3 and Mega Traveller. I much prefer mega.

As to "gaps" in MT's craft system: not many, and only two major ones I've found: 98%+ efficiency of Grav Modules power to Thrust, and Armor taking no volume..... But then I've also got Hard Times, COACC, and the Challenge article Wood Wind Fire and Steel, which completes the process for a wider variety of craft... wider even than FF&S. I can make a canoe with MegaTraveller.... What it is missing is Battle Dress...

 

[zonk]

As to "gaps" in MT's craft system: not many, and only two major ones I've found: 98%+ efficiency of Grav Modules power to Thrust, and Armor taking no volume..... But then I've also got Hard Times, COACC, and the Challenge article Wood Wind Fire and Steel, which completes the process for a wider variety of craft... wider even than FF&S. I can make a canoe with MegaTraveller.... What it is missing is Battle Dress...

You obviously find the MT construction system to your liking. I understand that TNE's FF&S is, a little , fussy.

Care to contrast the two for me?

 

[BlackBat242]

"As for T20: for me, it's quite playable, and has a feel like a cross between D&D 3 and Mega Traveller. I much prefer mega."


Hunter, you should talk to this guy.

Not liking MT, and viewing D&D 3 as being a severe warping of the game for the benefit of no-imagination video-gamers with no sense of (or desire for) limitations or restraint/self-control of any sort, I guess this seals the deal on not buying T20.

 

[aramis]

Black Bat:
You've grabbed the wrong parts of the 3E experience, BB.

T20 was set up specifically for people who liked D20 (not of need loved, but liked)...

Zonk:
MT: 4 axis design system (Power, Volume, Mass, Price). Core rules include most of design system (except pregravitic spacecraft, aircraft and watercraft, and pre-TL6 vehicles), about 20 pages of design system therein, mostly tables. Many technologies taken to TL20-22. All weapons taken from tables; all non-space-combat-weapons extended from striker. Armor values, damages, and penetrations on same scale as PC wearable armors. Fusion fuel use in tons per hour; no maneuver fuel. (except using One Small Step/HT)
WWF&S Article adds another 10 pages, and adds animal, wind, and early tech land vehicles; adds armor volume
Wet Navy Article adds another 7 pages or so for watercraft; adds armor volume.
Hard Times (or One Small Step Article) adds pregravitic spacecraft and rules in about 5 pages.
101 Vehicles adds 2 pages, mostly weapons; includes interface for Bk 8 Robots to be used for building control computers.

TNE FF&S:
No design in core rules.
5 axis design system: Power, Volume, Mass, Price, Surface Area
Aircraft, Spacecraft, Battledress, and ground vehicles in one book, 100+ pages. Also includes cybernetics. Also includes weapon design. Vehicle damage resolved differently from personal damage. Armor on same scale; damage/penetration not.
Robotic Rules in Vampire Fleets.
fusion fuel in tons per year; maneuver fuel in tons per hour.
NO gravitic thrust agency available in OTNEU

Both: Power requirements for non-weapon non-motive systems often high.

 

[Icosahedron]

My Cr2 for what it's worth: I'm generally pro-CT, pro-spreadsheet, pro-simplicity. I prefer the Striker design sequences over MT or FF&S. Its advantage over FF&S is simplicity, its advantage over MT is it's formula based rather than table based so you can spreadsheet it and vastly speed up designs (Yes, you COULD spreadsheet all the MT tables if you have a spare set of fingers, but give me a formula any day - it's easier to tinker with.

 

[GypsyComet]

GypsyComet said:
...bolts on prior career (and thus exp) procedures that are, thanks to the strictures of the D20 Trademark License, more than a little confusing in the original book (but there are experts about, so explanations are available).

Could you give me a little more explanation about this? I don't want tables or such but what kind of confusion results and why? Perhaps an example?

The main T20 book was written and published to conform to the "D20" trademark license, which means that there were certain things it could NOT explain, as the reader was supposed to acquire the D&D Players Handbook to get those explanations. They are relatively few, by the way, but the restrictions could and did really interfere with the whole concept of prior careers. Why? Because one of the things a "D20" book can't talk about is "how to apply experience".

T20's Prior Career system is similar in concept to most of those that came before it. Roll a few dice and make a few choices, and see what those four years did to or for your character. In the case of T20, they generally provide two things: character backstory, and raw Experience Points (EXP). These EXP are supposed to be applied to the character at the end of each four year term, turning into levels of whichever classes the character qualifies for during that term and decides to take. The results of "leveling up" were then taken back to the career charts and another term was rolled through. Repeat as needed.

The problem is that the chart for translating EXP to levels, and the basic explanations for how the numbers add up (or don't), was on the proscribed list. The T20 book couldn't address these processes, which sit *RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE* of the character generation process. Any exposure to playing 3rd edition D&D AT ALL gave you all the knowledge you needed, but...

T20, as with all Traveller products, ended up more successful among the previously existing Traveller crowd than it did in its intended niche, which was drawing D&D players into *good* SF RPG settings. So a lot of the readers, having not set eye or dice to 3rd Edition D&D, were missing a rather important chunk of character generation.

 

[Merxiless]

Exactly why I didn't play T20, when it came out.