Addicted to Classic Traveller

[robject]

There must be some psychological hook which has addicted me to Traveller -- in particular, "classic" Traveller (so, for example, the more T5 "embraces and expands on" the LBBs, the happier I am with it).

But I can't figure out why. A good friend once asked me what it was about Traveller that I would be so enamored with it. I didn't know.

Now I think I know.


Introspective: Executive Summary

I am entranced by the parts of CT which are fast and cover a lot of ground for little effort.

But, conversely, I skip past the rules where CT has a significant process depth.


Introspective: Boring Text

Book 1 chargen is fast but covers a lot of ground. It gives you a fun, easy character creation system, essentially in two pages.

Book 2 starships is fast but covers a lot of ground. It gives you a fun, easy but rather complete and consistent build system, essentially in two pages.

Book 3 worlds is fast but covers a lot of ground. It gives you a fun, abstract but playable and consistent build system, essentially in two pages.

Book 3 trade is fast but covers a lot of ground. It gives you a fun roulette-style game system, modified by worlds, balanced by starship expenses, essentially in two pages.

Ditto animals and psionics.

And there it is. Where CT is fast and covers a lot of ground, I am entranced.

But, I skip past the pages where Book 1 details the vagaries of combat. I tend to ignore vector movement with starship combat, so much so that I forget it's there. And I have never felt any enjoyment in detailed star system generation from Book 6, or ship design and fleet combat in Book 5 and Trillion Credit Squadron, or trade in Merchant Prince.

Where CT is detailed, I ignore it.

Therefore, it's not that I love Classic Traveller, but rather that so much of the basic system is enjoyable to me, in a way that most other game systems are not.

 

[Timerover51]

There must be some psychological hook which has addicted me to Traveller -- in particular, "classic" Traveller (so, for example, the more T5 "embraces and expands on" the LBBs, the happier I am with it).

But I can't figure out why. A good friend once asked me what it was about Traveller that I would be so enamored with it. I didn't know.

Now I think I know.


Introspective: Executive Summary

I am entranced by the parts of CT which are fast and cover a lot of ground for little effort.

But, conversely, I skip past the rules where CT has a significant process depth.


Introspective: Boring Text

Book 1 chargen is fast but covers a lot of ground. It gives you a fun, easy character creation system, essentially in two pages.

Book 2 starships is fast but covers a lot of ground. It gives you a fun, easy but rather complete and consistent build system, essentially in two pages.

Book 3 worlds is fast but covers a lot of ground. It gives you a fun, abstract but playable and consistent build system, essentially in two pages.

Book 3 trade is fast but covers a lot of ground. It gives you a fun roulette-style game system, modified by worlds, balanced by starship expenses, essentially in two pages.

Ditto animals and psionics.

And there it is. Where CT is fast and covers a lot of ground, I am entranced.

But, I skip past the pages where Book 1 details the vagaries of combat. I tend to ignore vector movement with starship combat, so much so that I forget it's there. And I have never felt any enjoyment in detailed star system generation from Book 6, or ship design and fleet combat in Book 5 and Trillion Credit Squadron, or trade in Merchant Prince.

Where CT is detailed, I ignore it.

Therefore, it's not that I love Classic Traveller, but rather that so much of the basic system is enjoyable to me, in a way that most other game systems are not.

So, in a nutshell, simple is better than highly detailed.

 

[McPerth]

So, in a nutshell, simple is better than highly detailed.

As always, that depends on what do you intend to play.

As roboject says, you can play (and even referee) CT after reading only a few pages (though if there's to be some combat you should read those rules more in depth or use some others), if you intend a simple camapign or one expanding through much territory.

But, if you intend to center you camplaign in a single system or a hanfull of them (may also be quite fun), then you'd better use the detailed system generation rules in LBB6.

If you intend to center you campaign on a mercenary tema, you'd better read LBB4.

And so on...

About TCS, as said in other threads, I don't see it as much as a RPG as I see it as a wargame, so, if you want to purely play RPG, you can ignore all it, as you can also ignore details about larger Navy ships (if you players intend to confront an Imperial Fleet Destroyer, needless to say a Battleship, just tell them to begin CharGen again and leave the details to their imagination).

 

[robject]

So, in a nutshell, simple is better than highly detailed.

Something like that. Maybe: a lot of bang for your buck. Simple but powerful, and moderated detail.

For others, that turns out not always to be the case. I know people who really get a thrill out of drilling down into a deep silo of data. I do not share their joy, but I know they enjoy it.

And as McPerth mentioned, I have to add more detail than many of these simple systems give. But, true to the Burrito Principle, they get me a big chunk of what I need for very little effort.

By the way, McPerth's response explains why I've abandoned CT for T5. Sometimes I want that detail available as part of a consistent system, and sometimes I don't care. When I do care, T5 takes me a step further. When I don't, I ignore it. You can do the same thing with the extended set of CT stuff, of course, but I like the way T5 hangs together.

 

[Timerover51]

As always, that depends on what do you intend to play.

As roboject says, you can play (and even referee) CT after reading only a few pages (though if there's to be some combat you should read those rules more in depth or use some others), if you intend a simple camapign or one expanding through much territory.

If I need a combat system, I do not use the one in CT.

But, if you intend to cener you camplaign in a single system or a hanfull of them (may also be quite fun), then you'd better use the detailed system generation rules in LBB6.

I have Scouts. I prefer determining what I need in a system or subsector and design it accordingly.

If you intend to center you campaign on a mercenary tema, you'd better read LBB4.

Not into Mercenary at all.

And so on...

About TCS, as said in other threads, I don't see it as much as a RPG as I see it as a wargame, so, if you want to purely play RPG, you can ignore all it, as you can also ignore details about larger Navy ships (if you players intend to confront an Imperial Fleet Destroyer, needless to say a Battleship, just tell them to begin CharGen again and leave the details to their imagination).

Currently, if I do wargaming, it is likely to be either on the individual level for World War 2 and earlier, or something like my modified versions of Axis & Allies, not science fiction wargaming.

 

[McPerth]

And as McPerth mentioned, I have to add more detail than many of these simple systems give. But, true to the Burrito Principle, they get me a big chunk of what I need for very little effort.

By the way, McPerth's response explains why I've abandoned CT for T5. Sometimes I want that detail available as part of a consistent system, and sometimes I don't care. When I do care, T5 takes me a step further. When I don't, I ignore it. You can do the same thing with the extended set of CT stuff, of course, but I like the way T5 hangs together.

I see you understood me, probably more than I was able to explain myself, as, now reading again my own post, it seems more critical that I inteded.

That variability it allows about detail (from very simple to very detailed) is one of its strong points.

About T5, I've not read it, but I've read in this same forums that its game mechanics are similar to T4, and I'm afraid they didn't appeal me, so I'm afraid it will disappoint me, as T4 did (a personal opinion, of course, not saying othre people cannot like them).

 

[robject]

About T5, I've not read it, but I've read in this same forums that its game mechanics are similar to T4, and I'm afraid they didn't appeal me, so I'm afraid it will disappoint me, as T4 did (a personal opinion, of course, not saying othre people cannot like them).

It's possible; it depends. There is a relationship between T4 and T5, though it's about as far away from T4 as it is from CT and MT. The one thing it inherits is a multi-dice, roll low system, but that was easier to get used to than I had originally thought -- I never liked T4's task system, even though it had that element in common. For what it's worth, I came to greatly dislike nearly everything about T4, despite badly wanting to like it, and returned to CT afterwards. For me, T4 was almost the polar opposite of CT.

 

[aramis]

It's possible; it depends. There is a relationship between T4 and T5, though it's about as far away from T4 as it is from CT and MT. The one thing it inherits is a multi-dice, roll low system, but that was easier to get used to than I had originally thought -- I never liked T4's task system, even though it had that element in common. For what it's worth, I came to greatly dislike nearly everything about T4, despite badly wanting to like it, and returned to CT afterwards. For me, T4 was almost the polar opposite of CT.

See, that multi-die task system was the part easiest to explain, and least enjoyable, about T4 for us. We didn't mind any of the rest of it, but that was so much a deal breaker, none of my players from my T4 group really want to even look at T5. Except maybe Peter.

And for many of the same reasons you like CT, I prefer MT.

Actions are codified with the UTP, making it easier to remember what's what. Combat uses the UTP, rather than the special case modifiers of CT. World design is the same as CT, characters are only a tiny bit more complex to generate, but have both more player control and a better spread of skills by career, without needing to go to Advanced CGen.
The only points for which CT wins out over MT for me are ship design and trade and commerce...

Less to overlook, and more to use.

 

[Dragoner]

There must be some psychological hook which has addicted me to Traveller -- in particular, "classic" Traveller (so, for example, the more T5 "embraces and expands on" the LBBs, the happier I am with it).

But I can't figure out why. A good friend once asked me what it was about Traveller that I would be so enamored with it. I didn't know.

I didn't know in the beginning either. After thinking about it, and playing other sci-fi RPG's at the time: Space Opera, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Spacemaster...; Traveller just feels right, part of it is a For Us Buy Us deal, made in the midwest (West Lafayette is about two hours due east of Bloomington), while I was watching the saturday afternoon sci-fi movie, they were as well, writing Traveller. It made by the guys who taught me gaming, I'm from a chess club/wargaming background; it is such as that I really don't have to ask what is meant by what Marc and others are trying to say the culture is the same, so the context is known. Other than that, I loved the clean and simple design, like a blank sheet of paper to write your universe on, most games when they try to get detailed, they just get it wrong, Traveller seemed smart to leave well enough alone.

 

[Baron]

Clean and simple wins for me. Also the whole atmosphere is loaded with the science fiction I loved, Dumarest, Andre Norton, et al.

I haven't seen T5, but the product description makes it sound like an extension of sorts from the game I've loved for thirty years. I really want to like it, and look forward to checking it out.

 

[tinker123]

For me the greatest feature of Traveller has to be the way character generation creates rounded, believable people with a history of previous experience (and sometimes a grudge), which is so much more use for role-play than a points-purchase system or starting at 1st level.

In a similar way, the sector generation creates anomalous results that have to be explained by the Ref, creating interest and believability.

 

[robject]

See, that multi-die task system was the part easiest to explain, and least enjoyable, about T4 for us. We didn't mind any of the rest of it, but that was so much a deal breaker, none of my players from my T4 group really want to even look at T5. Except maybe Peter.

And for many of the same reasons you like CT, I prefer MT.

Actions are codified with the UTP, making it easier to remember what's what. Combat uses the UTP, rather than the special case modifiers of CT. World design is the same as CT, characters are only a tiny bit more complex to generate, but have both more player control and a better spread of skills by career, without needing to go to Advanced CGen.
The only points for which CT wins out over MT for me are ship design and trade and commerce...

Less to overlook, and more to use.

Actually, I agree. T4's multi die mechanic felt strange, and I resisted, but I gave it a try -- at least it wasn't using a d10 system -- I tried to understand that half die, which I never liked -- but the deal breaker was how poorly the mechanic worked, and so painfully favored characteristic over skill. I may have been using it wrong, but I don't think so.

More importantly, I also used MegaTraveller character generation and the MT task system with CT. So even then I was slowly replacing bits that lacked a certain level of detail.

I knew, in my bones, that Book 2 would never suffice in a general sense. HG was my only option. Yet I never managed to grok it, which is strange, because I understood the MT vehicle design philosophy, yet always had nagging problems with its level of detail. Good detail, wrong place for it. Something like that.

Corollary: people who like a particular system understand its weaknesses, and find a fix.

 

[robject]

@Will: I was highly skeptical of T5 with a multi die mechanic, probably due to T4, so I understand y'all's problem. The only reason I fought thru it was Marc's enthusiasm. It took a long time to convince me. If I hadn't been removed from the process, I might still be in CT-plus. Or Mostly Mongoose. Not even ACT convinced me to change.

 

[McPerth]

See, that multi-die task system was the part easiest to explain, and least enjoyable, about T4 for us. We didn't mind any of the rest of it, but that was so much a deal breaker, none of my players from my T4 group really want to even look at T5. Except maybe Peter.

This is the main part I didn't like about T4, not as much for the multiple dice as the (IMHO) change in the character view that the inclreased importance of stats over skills adquired with it.

I developed more my POV here: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=363619&postcount=35

And for many of the same reasons you like CT, I prefer MT.

Actions are codified with the UTP, making it easier to remember what's what. Combat uses the UTP, rather than the special case modifiers of CT. World design is the same as CT, characters are only a tiny bit more complex to generate, but have both more player control and a better spread of skills by career, without needing to go to Advanced CGen.

Less to overlook, and more to use.

I've made clear in many posts that MT is also my favorite version, but that doesn't avoid me viewing the strong points of CT. I also said other times I see MT more or less as an "advanced Traveller", sometimes foresaking the basic simplicity of CT.

The only points for which CT wins out over MT for me are ship design and trade and commerce...

I'm afraid I disagree with you about ship's design, as I liked MT over CT (while in fact I liked both of them). A personal preference, I gess.

About trading... well, it was not an inadvertence for my part that I didn't suggest about Merchant Prince in my first post this forum, as I did about Scouts or Mercenary (in fact, I was thinking about posting something as you intend to center your campign in trade, you'd better forget about Merchant Price) :devil:

 

[Vargas]

And I have never felt any enjoyment in detailed star system generation from Book 6 . . .

I recently tried to read and understand the system generation rules from GURPS Space and my mind boggled. To me it makes Book 6 look like a walk in the park. All in the eye of the beholder I guess . . .

(And I'm not out to slag GURPS, simply offering an example for comparison).

 

[McPerth]

I recently tried to read and understand the system generation rules from GURPS Space and my mind boggled. To me it makes Book 6 look like a walk in the park. All in the eye of the beholder I guess . . .

(And I'm not out to slag GURPS, simply offering an example for comparison).

Then I advise you not to try the 2300AD system generation rules...

 

[Amber Chancer]

Other than that, I loved the clean and simple design, like a blank sheet of paper to write your universe on, most games when they try to get detailed, they just get it wrong, Traveller seemed smart to leave well enough alone.

Indeed. I'm with you all the way there.

For me, Traveller gives you a highly flexible set of parameters within which to design a universe to suit your gamers' wishes for the shape and style fo their adventures.

This is why I am highly dubious of having too much "canon" - I don't WANT to get into the situation where people will object to the solutions I design to keep the adventure flowing, by telling me that it conflicts with canon. Does it? So what? Cannon are TL4 and we're adventuring in a TL12 - 15 universe!!

 

[Dragoner]

Indeed. I'm with you all the way there.

For me, Traveller gives you a highly flexible set of parameters within which to design a universe to suit your gamers' wishes for the shape and style fo their adventures.

This is why I am highly dubious of having too much "canon" - I don't WANT to get into the situation where people will object to the solutions I design to keep the adventure flowing, by telling me that it conflicts with canon. Does it? So what? Cannon are TL4 and we're adventuring in a TL12 - 15 universe!!

It could be a laser cannon.

My TU is set in 1323 (called thus as well) so all canon is fine by me, it's 218 years after the golden age and 75 years after 1248. I have fun playing with Virus, the ad orientis nature of Zhodani refugees moving into the empty Imperial systems, doing away with ethnic polities, there is even an elite Vargrian Guard for the Emperor. I'm just finishing the Mavuzog sector, a real frontier type place, now up to six sectors in all, plenty of room for adventure. It was CT for a long time, but I have moved over to mong trav because it is easier to find players, plus mong has some nice tidbits.

 

[rancke]

Indeed. I'm with you all the way there.

For me, Traveller gives you a highly flexible set of parameters within which to design a universe to suit your gamers' wishes for the shape and style for their adventures.

Which is fine for those who have the time and the inventiveness to make up en entire setting out of whole cloth. For those of us who welcome every bit of help we can get, sticking to canon has the very pragmatic goal of being able to use as much material created by other people as possible.

This, incidentally, does require one thing: that the stuff other people create is something you can use. I have no qualms whatsoever in discarding anything in canon that appears self-contradictory or otherwise unsuitable, but I'm not blind to that fact that doing so means that I won't be able to use any future material created by people who choose to build on the bits I discard.

This is why I am highly dubious of having too much "canon" - I don't WANT to get into the situation where people will object to the solutions I design to keep the adventure flowing, by telling me that it conflicts with canon. Does it? So what?

Most of the players I have don't buy Traveller themselves, and the two who does are well aware that nothing is canon for MY Traveller universe unless I say it is. They do like it when I stick to whatever truths I have already told them about my universe, and if your players are the same, you will in the course of your campaign establish your own canon that may interfere with your freedom to design solutions even if you don't use any scrap of official material.

Canonical material is simply another tool to fletch our a referee's personal game universe. If a player asks about what he can read about Regina in the library database, the referee can either hand him a photocopy of all existing material or he can sit down and write his own version. In either case the player is entitled to place some reliance on what it says (subject to bias, of course).


Hans

 

[Shonner]

There must be some psychological hook which has addicted me to Traveller -- in particular, "classic" Traveller

The "To-Hit" roll kept me from getting addicted to Classic Traveller.