Book 1 Characters with Traveller5

[robject]

This question is for those of you who have run and played with both systems. Here are the underlying axioms:

(AXIOM 1) I have CT players who wish to keep their Book 1 characters as-is.

(AXIOM 2) These particular people are rare and valuable and worth accommodating.

(AXIOM 3) I am a Traveller5 referee.


So I will use Book 1 characters with Traveller5. Off the top of my head, here's how I am thinking of jiggering it:

(A) Crypto-T5. While personal combat is Book 1 (or The Traveller Book, really), the rest of the system is "house ruled" to Traveller5.

(B) Die Modifiers, typically pre-calculated or annotated in Book 1, is easily adapted to Traveller5's task system. This is easy since Classic Traveller's skill levels can be thought of a mapping to die modifiers, rather than die modifers themselves (example: Vacc Suit skill). It's a KERNAL, or a jump table, rather than direct subroutine calls. Now, instead of mapping to CT, they map to T5. Big schmeal.


I have at least one amendment I'm toying with, but of course I have to think about it and test it.

(C) Damage Soak. CT's combat system is tightly integrated with armor DMs. If this death-grip can be relaxed without killing the rules, I would like to enhance the range of armor values by exchanging the Armor DM with damage-soak. BUT, CT is a tuned system, so armor values would have to be engineered carefully, by me. In other words, I would need to assign reasonable, CT-friendly AV for stock armor:

Jack
Mesh
Cloth
Reflec
Ablat
Vacc Suit
Combat Armor
Battle Dress

This removes a detail from Book 1 combat that is interesting - each weapon type is classed with DMs based against every type of armor. These are pre-calculated DMs to write into a set of cells that goes along with the weapon. In a general way, the table shows:

(c1) The difference between Penetration and "blunt" force.
(c2) The value of reflec against lasers.
(c3) The benefit of sheer Power, regardless the source.

That accounts for 80% of the value of the table. Thus I think replacing it with T5 is a live option.

 

[Supplement Four]

How many of your total amount of players want to play CT?

 

[robject]

I think the plain answer is 2 out of a total of 7 players (not including me, the ref), but let's see if I can do justice to your question.

They are all of them gamers who haven't played Traveller since there was ONLY classic Traveller. So there's a retro current to these guys, but at the same time they're largely casual about Traveller.

And it follows that their attentiveness to rules doesn't extend beyond their character sheets. This is not a bad thing, but it means I don't go changing what they see.

Did I mention that these guys are worth it? Yes, Stan hand-picked people with which to run various game systems, and he picked them because they're easygoing and good players.

 

[aramis]

And it follows that their attentiveness to rules doesn't extend beyond their character sheets.

Yes, Stan hand-picked people with which to run various game systems, and he picked them because they're easygoing and good players.

These two are incompatible claims to me. If the top is true, the bottom is axiomatically false, and vice versa...

I am wondering why you're bothering with the conversion, even... after all, the assumptions for skills are vastly different between CT and T5.

 

[robject]

From a few passes over the skills in The Traveller Book, I've got two potential groups for skill mapping:

Group A: combat, trades, most starship skills, gambling. T5 DM = skill level x 2.

Group B: admin, all vehicles, engineering, forgery, fwd obs, streetwise, vacc suit. T5 DM = skill level x 2 + 1.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

From a few passes over the skills in The Traveller Book, I've got two potential groups for skill mapping:

Group A: combat, trades, most starship skills, gambling. T5 DM = skill level x 2.

Group B: admin, all vehicles, engineering, forgery, fwd obs, streetwise, vacc suit. T5 DM = skill level x 2 + 1.

That seems about right to me; many skills that attracted "level-0" status as default homeworld skills in MegaTraveller (roughly equivalent to CT) now get level-1; i.e. enough to attempt easy tasks no problem, but even routine tasks get dicey.

But overall, skill levels seem to be about double what they were to achieve the same thing.

I'm now wondering on the famous "Medical-3 is a doctor" rule; should this now be "Medical-6", or does the translation need to be other than a straight multiple?

 

[robject]

I'm now wondering on the famous "Medical-3 is a doctor" rule; should this now be "Medical-6", or does the translation need to be other than a straight multiple?

"Doctor" is considered cognate to Medic ("skill in the healing arts") in T5. So your Medic-1 could be considered a lousy Doctor.

 

[cyberknight]

These two are incompatible claims to me. If the top is true, the bottom is axiomatically false, and vice versa...

I am wondering why you're bothering with the conversion, even... after all, the assumptions for skills are vastly different between CT and T5.

I have to disagree only because focus on roleplaying by good, easygoing players means trust that the GM will run the game in a manner that is both fun and fair.

 

[aramis]

I have to disagree only because focus on roleplaying by good, easygoing players means trust that the GM will run the game in a manner that is both fun and fair.

Those are NOT good players; good players engage both rules and GM.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

"Doctor" is considered cognate to Medic ("skill in the healing arts") in T5. So your Medic-1 could be considered a lousy Doctor.

Belated thank you! Yes, I can see how it's a change of mindset rather than a one-to-one relationship.

 

[dalthor]

I'm now wondering on the famous "Medical-3 is a doctor" rule; should this now be "Medical-6", or does the translation need to be other than a straight multiple?

Looking at the T5 BBB, Medic is a starship skill, which I don't necessarily agree with, but it is used for doctors.

Based on Education in T5, from page 100, Med school requires an Honors BA, and FOUR MORE YEARS in medical school

Assuming the first four years fill your prerequisites, and only the med school applies to Medic, you need a minimum of Medic-4 to be named a Doctor. You could have up to Medic-9 if medicine was your major all 8 years of school, including honors, just based years of study.

As I read the education section, it equates Skill-4 for Bachelors, Skill-6 for Masters, and Skill-8 for PhD, excluding honors.

Need to check into it more, but that would SEEM like a reasonable baseline for skills/knowledge in general.

Personally, I'd rather see the Doctor (Medic 8+) than the Physicians Assistant (Medic 4 minimum) any day of the solar year.

When it comes down to it, there may not be a simple transition; some things may be a 2:1 ratio, others may be more or less.

I'd be walking those CT folks thru T5 generation, using their characters as a baseline, and selecting the rolls that made the most sense based on the existing CT sheet. Use comparative levels of education and subsequent careers.

Once that phase is completed, compare the two. I did this with Dalthor Et Magera when I "rerolled" him for conversion to T5. There were some differences, but overall it worked pretty daggone well. You could do the same with your players, and try to meet in the middle over any disparities.

My players understand that I am the final say, but we manage to find common ground FAR more often than not.

My 2 creds turned to more like 10, but what the heck.

 

[robject]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Damage Soak. CT's combat system is tightly integrated with armor DMs. If this death-grip can be relaxed without killing the rules, I would like to enhance the range of armor values by exchanging the Armor DM with damage-soak. BUT, CT is a tuned system, so armor values would have to be engineered carefully, by me. In other words, I would need to assign reasonable, CT-friendly AV for stock armor:

AV 1 Jack, Cr 50.
AV 5 Mesh, good EM protection, Cr 150.
AV 14 Cloth, better EM protection, some environmental protection. Cr 250.
(Reflec coating is AV 20 against lasers)
AV 1 Ablat, good EM protection, good environmental protection. Cr 375.

AV 10 Vacc Suit, good insulation. 10 kg. KCr 10.
AV 28 Combat Armor, good for all protections. 60 kg. KCr 80.
AV 45 Battle Dress, great for all protections. 100 kg. KCr 200. Powered.
[/FONT]

 

[Supplement Four]

Try using the Striker/MT Armor Values.

 

[robject]

Good idea, S4.

 

[whulorigan]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Damage Soak. CT's combat system is tightly integrated with armor DMs. If this death-grip can be relaxed without killing the rules, I would like to enhance the range of armor values by exchanging the Armor DM with damage-soak. BUT, CT is a tuned system, so armor values would have to be engineered carefully, by me. In other words, I would need to assign reasonable, CT-friendly AV for stock armor:
[/FONT]

What about the T4 damage dice reduction system (i.e. each hard-armor point eliminates 1 die of damage, and each flexible/soft armor point reduces 1 die of damage to a single damage point)?

 

[robject]

Try using the Striker/MT Armor Values.

That works out quite well. It gives me a very useful set of armor ratios to use. Thanks again.

 

[robject]

What about the T4 damage dice reduction system (i.e. each hard-armor point eliminates 1 die of damage, and each flexible/soft armor point redcudes 1 die of damage to a single damage point)?

Flex versus hard armor, yes I remember that. Traveller5 breaks down damage into several dimensions beyond blunt versus blade damage, but that's another very good suggestion.