Buck Rogers Webcomic

[ShapeShifter]

My biggest problem thus far in using CT for retro-SF is the ship design system. No need for jump. No need for any distinction between unstreamlined and streamlined, hydrogen harvesting, and so on. I would say offhand that the engineering section wouldn't have to take up more than 25% of the overall structure, based on what I've seen of the old school rocket ships.

In Flash Gordon: Space Soldiers (the first serial) the motive power of Zarkov's rocket ship appeared to be a car's engine-block right next to the port-side hatch (it's obvious when it's giving off profuse amounts of sparks while the vehicle is in flight.) Where the fuel is stored is beyond me. o:

I once provided a deckplan of Zarkov's ship to a guy who was working on a SciFi fanzine, but nothing came of it, sadly. I'll see if I can dig it up sometime.

 

[Supplement Four]

Perhaps if there is enough interest I'll release the notes in my upcoming fanzine.

You could probably turn it into a pretty good article/example about using Classic Traveller for different science fiction universes.

 

[aramis]

I believe it does have small craft design...you have to eyeball it. See page 61 of the Traveller Book.

You're seeing systems where no system is presented. If it takes reverse engineering to "find it," then it doesn't exist in the as-released.

 

[Supplement Four]

You're seeing systems where no system is presented. If it takes reverse engineering to "find it," then it doesn't exist in the as-released.

No, you're not reading the book. The book gives you eight standard designs, then a list of fittings to customize each design. That's the system. The section on Fittings is all you need to design small craft.

Thus, if you want to build a particular small craft, you take the most appropriate small craft and pick your fittings. That's the system. Simple, but effective, quick, and easy.

You're not locked into having the vessels look like the ones drawn in the book.

Plus, if you do a little interpolation, as LKW suggests in JTAS #2 when he says that you already have everything you need in Traveller to build whatever you want (and he goes on to show you how to build a laser pistol), you can use the simple small craft rules to build whatever you want.

For example, if I wanted to build a Traveller-ish X-Wing fighter, I'd start with the 10 ton fighter, but make it 4 times bigger (40 tons), strap 4 lasers on it, and adjust my fittings accordingly. It'd do 6G acceleration. The quad laser set-up would be considered half-power lasers, and I'd apply some penalty to hit to satisfy other small craft design--staying within the parameters.

Boom. All done.

The system works.

 

[Leitz]

For example, if I wanted to build a Traveller-ish X-Wing fighter, I'd start with the 10 ton fighter, but make it 4 times bigger (40 tons), strap 4 lasers on it, and adjust my fittings accordingly. It'd do 6G acceleration. The quad laser set-up would be considered half-power lasers, and I'd apply some penalty to hit to satisfy other small craft design--staying within the parameters.

Boom. All done.

The system works.

Didn't Luke fly the X-Wing to Dagoba system? That'd suggest X-wings are capable of going from star to star.

But yeah, I'm tech-lite so the system does tend to work. I don't look too closely.

L

 

[Supplement Four]

Didn't Luke fly the X-Wing to Dagoba system? That'd suggest X-wings are capable of going from star to star.

Agreed. I was just using a familiar craft as an example. Star Wars tech and Traveller tech don't mix that well because of things like this.

But, Traveller was originally designed to be a generic, GURPS-like, system for science fiction role playing. If you didn't want to use the tech assumptions provided in Traveller, you could change that, too, and have your Hyperdrive system that didn't take a week which fit on small fighter craft.

But yeah, I'm tech-lite so the system does tend to work. I don't look too closely.

Sure it works. As LKW said in JTAS: Everything you need to create an entire universe is given to you in the Traveller system. You just gotta use your brain a little.

I think some people are a little too dogmatic when looking at the Traveller rule system and forget what it was originally intended to do.

 

[far-trader]

No, you're not reading the book.

Have to side with Wil on this, and I'm pretty sure he and I have both read the same book you did. That's not a design system.

You can't design a 6G 50ton modular cutter. You can't design a 20ton 4G gig. You can't design a 10ton 1G runabout.

I will grant that you can interpolate/fudge some non-standard designs (I've done it myself) but that's still not a design system and it's pretty restricted even then.

I had more useful work simply doing a decimal move with the Book 2 Ship Design Tables for making custom small craft back in the day. Just read the table up to 800tons as divide by 10 for custom 10ton to 80ton small craft, with like reductions (divide all by 10) in hull costs, drive size and costs, and powerplant fuel use. That at least was a system on par with the Book 2 ship design system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Have to side with Wil on this, and I'm pretty sure he and I have both read the same book you did. That's not a design system.

That's like saying CT doesn't have a task system. It does have a loose method of rolling tasks, with many examples, and it does have a loose small craft design system. Maybe you and Wil are arguing somantics, but you can create new small ships from what is given in the books, just as you can create a laser pistol from a laser carbine as LKW explains on pg. 3 of JTAS #2.

"The point of this discussion is that players of and referees of Traveller have an obligation to think." Loren writes. "The above example," said at the end of his article, "indicates how the Traveller rules can be used to create something not present in the rules."

There are several sections in Book 0 that are pertinent as well.

You don't have to have a chapter that says: SMALL VESSEL DESIGN SYSTEM. You just need your noggin.

It is a design system, too, in that you are using rules while you create your vessel. You're not just making something up out of thin air.

For example, I knew I had to cut my X-Wing quad lasers to half power because only two lasers are allowed on a small vessel of 40 tons. I didn't just make that up--I used what was in the book to guide my choice. That's the "system" at work.

It's not a very complicated system, I'll give you that. But, you've got some example ships, and you've got a list of fittings. And, you've got the intuitive, interpolative system described by the example vessels (If you wanted two lasers on a 10 ton fighter, you'd have to make them half power--because the system tells you that.)

 

[Leitz]

For example, I knew I had to cut my X-Wing quad lasers to half power because only two lasers are allowed on a small vessel of 40 tons. I didn't just make that up--I used what was in the book to guide my choice. That's the "system" at work.

Or just consider them two lasers in effect, built on a four barrel system. I can't recall any of the individual lasers shooting on their own.

I'd have to go with S4 on this one. If you look at the differences between CT and T5, there seems to be the supposition that the game author(s) are able to think about whatever game even you might encounter and have already balanced the rules just for that. While I'm pretty amazed with Marc's talent and all, that seems a bit of a stretch.

I like a line from the old AD&D DM Guide (page 9, 1979 edition) "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play." Each playing group has a responsibility to come together to build their world/universe, in whatever viable form they choose. As long as the game is vialbe and enjoyable for all, the rules are "more like a guideline". Everyone in the game has a life, hopefully, and only so much time to spend on memorizing rules and working out math problems about planetary approach. Use the rules where they provide what you need, or gloss over them if it makes the game unfun.

This is a game, it is for fun, and anything else needs to be rethought critically.

L

 

[far-trader]

You can call it semantics if you like but Black is not White if I would just look at it "right". What you describe is what it is, fudging and interpolation. Even made up entirely works fine, but none of that is a system. A system produces the same results time and again for different people when the desired goal is the same. The fudging and interpolation you describe doesn't do that because we all make up our own rules, in effect we each make our own "system" to cover the lack of a real system. Sometimes we even make a different system each time, much like the (not really a system) skill checks in CT where each skill is handled differently. Unlike the combat system (which is really a system) with it's systematic 8+ approach.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the systemless skill check in CT. Nor with fudging and interpolating to create new gear. In fact I built my own laser pistol before seeing LKW's article, in the same way he described, but with different results (and to repeat, if this was a system we should have arrived at the same result as our goal was the same, nearly identical in fact). Likewise I made cordless (no backpack) laser rifles and carbines long before the official ones in the same manner. Still not a system.

Next you'll tell us there's a vehicle design system in Book 3 because I can create a Star Wars Speeder Bike by marrying two grav belts (Cr200,000 and 20kg), slapping a frame around it and a two-person seat on it (Cr neg and 5kg) and adding a medium range communicator (Cr neg and neg kg) so they have to fly for several kms to get in communication range* with the base (so they can have a cool chase scene). And I'll give it double the speed when operated without a passenger (but I still wouldn't be flying it through a forest at any speed :smirk: ).

* because obviously a communicator with sufficient planetary range is beyond the tech of the Imperials in SW but they can fit an instantaneous intergalactic communicator in tiny little one person interstellar craft (...but that's a whole 'nother thread )

 

[beowulf2044]

So, if the Small Craft section is not meant to be a design type system, then why would you have options to choose from and excess space to fill with limitations to keep in mind?

 

[far-trader]

That's a reasonably simple customization option. That's all it is. Sort of like choosing options when buying a new car. You pick from a list of add-ons and/or small choices. You can't change the size of the car.

If there was a design system then you could design a 60ton small craft. Or a 30ton boat with 4G. Or... whatever. And it would be the same as my 60ton small craft, or 30ton boat with 4G, or whatever, if we had the same design goal in mind.

As it is Book 2 will not enable you to design a 60ton small craft. You can fudge a gross approximation by marrying two 30ton hulls. But then you're stuck with 3G or 6G. And your presumptions about how to interpolate the values may differ from mine. Again, there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's just NOT a design system.

 

[Supplement Four]

You can call it semantics if you like but Black is not White if I would just look at it "right".

Well..o:...if we go what what you and Wil are saying, that CT doesn't have a small craft design system (even a simple one), then Loren is lying to us when he wrote that everything we need to play Traveller is already in the game.

You and Wil are getting hung up on the word "system" as you think a system must be a formalized set of specific rules.

How about calling it a "method" then. Maybe that will help you. Throwing the semantics issue out.

Classic Traveller has a method of creating small craft under 100 tons.

 

[far-trader]

Now you've got the right terminology

Yes, the very definition of a system is one of consistent specified rules. The act of interpolating values to create new items is much more a method. And a fine one at that.

Well..o:...if we go what what you and Wil are saying, that CT doesn't have a small craft design system (even a simple one), then Loren is lying to us when he wrote that everything we need to play Traveller is already in the game.

Neither Wil or I was saying anything like Loren lied or that Traveller couldn't be fudged.

If Wil and I were hung up on YOUR use of the term system I think you now understand why. I'm happy we were able to help YOU in clearing that up

 

[aramis]

I'm saying there is no set of design rules. There's a big difference between modification rules (ala CT small craft in Bk2 and SW d6 ship rules) and a genuine design system.

And the genuine (but not quite compatible) design system is in HG.

Loren's claim of completeness doesn't hinge on everything being designable; there is no sense of a vehicle design ruleset in CT rules, without going to a subsidary line, Striker. There are vehicles in CT. There are Ships and Small Craft. There are guns.

It's playable out of the box assuming you have a setting.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm saying there is no set of design rules. There's a big difference between modification rules (ala CT small craft in Bk2 and SW d6 ship rules) and a genuine design system.

Semantics. If you can design an X-Wing fighter, as I did above, using the system, its a set of design rules.

Again, it say, in blinking lights, SMALL CRAFT DESIGN SYSTEM. But, there's enough there to design a small craft other than what they give you.

 

[ShapeShifter]

If I may interject for a moment...

I would not try to twist the RAW into a new shape, but completely rewrite the key areas as ship design and General Theory of Pulp Gagetry (lege: massive handwavium). In FG and BR there would be an engine, rockets (think huge fireworks with sparks and smoke), and some form of deceleration tech (FG's 'counter-magnet'; BR's 'retarding rockets'), requisite helical take-off and landing patterns, rocketships are predominantly -- if not exclusively -- bellylanders with deckplans reminiscent of aeroplanes, etc.

If various parties are re-imagining CT for the purpose of fantasy/S&S, why not rewrite it to fit pulpy SciFi goodness?

 

[beowulf2044]

The two most common things in the universe: Hydrogen and Traveller House Rules.

After all the IMTU stuff I've seen, not to mention the 150 ton 'streched Scout' back in Paranoia Press' Scouts and Assassins, which was 'Approved for use with Traveller' in large, friendly letters, I can't believe the flack flying over desiging Small Craft for the game.

Do the D&D guys have these problems?

 

[aramis]

The two most common things in the universe: Hydrogen and Traveller House Rules.

After all the IMTU stuff I've seen, not to mention the 150 ton 'streched Scout' back in Paranoia Press' Scouts and Assassins, which was 'Approved for use with Traveller' in large, friendly letters, I can't believe the flack flying over desiging Small Craft for the game.

Do the D&D guys have these problems?

Worse... the lack of design for monsters prior to 3E lead to some very serious issues with XPV vs damage vs HD...

And houseruled classes...
And the variant rules for level limits. What races and classes are allowed. Homebrew classes. 3rd party classes. Variant classes in Dragon. Kits and subclasses.

It all resulted in the same issues as with CT: you go to a new group, using the exact same rulebook edition as your old one, and you have to learn the game all over again, because the rules written by Gygax are vague, and the 2nd edition was built as a game construction toolkit...

"Are paladins a subclass of Fighter or of Cavalier?" (Depends)
"Are Cavaliers a fighter subclass?" (Only in 2E... due to a kit, not a proper subclass)
"Which 8 abilities does my thief get on THIS world?" (Not always the ones in the PHB, since Dark Sun added another 6)

It was frequently more vehement in the early days of the internet (90-95) than Traveller fandom.

And it had "edition wars" before it had "editions"...
Classic vs Basic
Blue Basic vs Moldvay/Mentzer/Allston
AD&D vs any of the above
AD&D 1E

• core 3 plus
• UA (Yes/no)
• WSG/DSG
• OA (Yes/no)
• Grayhawk Adventures (0-Level PC's) (Yes/no)

AD&D 2E

• Core 3 plus
• Complete ___ books (about 15 of them) (Yes/no)
• Dark Sun (10th level spells, extra thief skills, new classes and races) (Yes/no)
• PO S&P (Point Based system) (Yes/no)
• PO: S&M (lots of spells, another go at 10th level spells) (Yes/no)
• PO:C&T (detailed combat mechanics, more levels of weapon proficiencies) (Yes/no)
• CO: HLC (lots of epic level stuff) (Yes/no)
• CO: COW (Dragons and Half-dragons as PCs) (Yes/no)
• etc...

Thing is, with MT, almost any two campaigns, you will find the rules handled pretty much the same way. D&D, not so... each group was often a wholly different experience... just in rules.

 

[Leitz]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the systemless skill check in CT. Nor with fudging and interpolating to create new gear. In fact I built my own laser pistol before seeing LKW's article, in the same way he described, but with different results (and to repeat, if this was a system we should have arrived at the same result as our goal was the same, nearly identical in fact). Likewise I made cordless (no backpack) laser rifles and carbines long before the official ones in the same manner. Still not a system.

You'll get the same results from a system, or method, if the model you have in the system is complete. Since Traveller covers everything humans know now, plus things we don't know that we don't know, your system is still a system. Albeit an incomplete one. If you and LKW got different results it says there are gaps in the system.

How can we assume the Traveller system is complete? We still deal with the possibility of two vastly different interstellar travel modes; FTL or Jump/HyperSpace. Different understandings of things we can't yet measure like religious efficacy or the Force. Wide ranges of human sociologial tendencies.

In Fantasy, you tended to have a shared basis for communicating the world view. Arthur, Lord of the Rings, Mythological. In Sci-Fi there are so many splintered possibilities that it's hard to find a shared view of what the future might look like. The two biggies, Star Trek (*) and Star Wars, are vastly different. And then all the sci-fi books that don't match either.

So when your incomplete system has an issue, you can fall back on the world view with gives guidelines. However, as world views vary, so might the results of that system.

L

* If Star Trek is humanist, as some say, then no one explained why anyone died. Since transporters relocated you into energy and then reassembled you, and had th ememory to store and comminucat "you", then you could just feed it some matter and have it rebuild 'you" from the last transport time.