Cepheus Engine - does it help Traveller?

[aramis]

So MgT 1e ate any T5 profits and Mgt 2e drove away those who might want to contribute. I'm seeing space for a win here...

I'm seeing space for disaster from a Brand standpoint. If someone were to release the "Killer app" version off CE, and had a good and compelling setting to go with it... Oh, and given that two strong selling SF authors are Traveller rules wonks... (Charles "Chuck" Gannon, Martin Daugherty), and then there's also another one, Jefferson Swycaffer, whose profile is lower... and several "up and coming" authors, who are potentially able to deliver similar quality by following in their footsteps - game stuff first, then novels to follow.

Overall market, perhaps a broadening, but for a brand, not good.

Several smaller brands in the market have had open supplement licenses, rather than full-on OGL. Or, in one case, supplements were free but closed licenses, while new cores were paid closed licenses, and the orignal core had the license application and fees in the corebook... and they have their staunch but small fanbases. Fuzion, EABA, Epiphany, Fate 1 & 2 eds...

 

[mike wightman]

It's only a matter of time until someone uses CE to produce a true CT OSR retclone.

You could even hack together CE and the 5E D&D SRD to produce a SWON like game...

 

[kilemall]

If the brand goes down, it will be due to content missteps, either of the sort mentioned with D&D 4E or the current MgT license choking off fresh material, and a lack of marketing to the new generation.

Game conventions, the super comic cons at San Diego and Atlanta, and getting in the major bookstores for as many eyeballs as possible.

If I owned the OTU content, a big promotion element for me would be cosplay especially for crossover appeal at comic cons.

 

[whartung]

I'm in a similar "frame" of mind: I'm not interested in the 3I setting, but am interested in a rules framework for my own creations.

If you're not interested in the 3I, why does the ruleset matter?

For 8+ combat? For balanced trade rules? Are the players going to design a ship for the scenario?

Traveller, setting free, is a toolbox. When folks say setting free, are they just getting rid of the government and vast expanse of the Imperium, or are they dumping Aslan, Vargr, K'Kree etc.

As a toolbox, you have combat, guns, ships and worlds.

You don't need "rules" to make a world. It's nice from a "hard" SF PoV to kinda sorta "keep it real", but, outside of that, no, not really.

You don't need rules to build a starship. You can make one up. You don't need rules to FIGHT a starship, not from a scenario PoV. Any fight the players get in to, especially with something as expensive, and dangerous, as a starship -- the referee better know how that fight is going to end before they even show up. "Oh, oops...crit...you all died. Who wants more snacks?"

So, really, outside of chargen and combat, what does CT Traveller offer to the scenario runner? See, it has all these tools available to a referee, and to an author, to create adventures and backdrop and whatever, but once the scenario is created -- most of those tools wash away. But running the game, outside of combat?

And, in the end, as an author/referee, there's no evidence that the tools were actually used to create the scenario. Do the players care what the UPP is, much less how it was arrived at? Outside of a merchant campaign where they're on the hook for meeting a mortgage each month (and that's higher level than a scenario anyway), do the starship rules really come in to play?

I read a bunch of Amber Zones, and outside of "happening" in the 3I, or the Marches, or whatever, the bulk of them aren't ruleset specific at all. A patron encounter so vaguely detailed you can apply them anywhere, to any ruleset.

 

[rhialto]

If you're not interested in the 3I, why does the ruleset matter?

For 8+ combat? For balanced trade rules? Are the players going to design a ship for the scenario?

Traveller, setting free, is a toolbox. When folks say setting free, are they just getting rid of the government and vast expanse of the Imperium, or are they dumping Aslan, Vargr, K'Kree etc.

As a toolbox, you have combat, guns, ships and worlds.

You don't need "rules" to make a world. It's nice from a "hard" SF PoV to kinda sorta "keep it real", but, outside of that, no, not really.

You don't need rules to build a starship. You can make one up. You don't need rules to FIGHT a starship, not from a scenario PoV. Any fight the players get in to, especially with something as expensive, and dangerous, as a starship -- the referee better know how that fight is going to end before they even show up. "Oh, oops...crit...you all died. Who wants more snacks?"

So, really, outside of chargen and combat, what does CT Traveller offer to the scenario runner? See, it has all these tools available to a referee, and to an author, to create adventures and backdrop and whatever, but once the scenario is created -- most of those tools wash away. But running the game, outside of combat?

And, in the end, as an author/referee, there's no evidence that the tools were actually used to create the scenario. Do the players care what the UPP is, much less how it was arrived at? Outside of a merchant campaign where they're on the hook for meeting a mortgage each month (and that's higher level than a scenario anyway), do the starship rules really come in to play?

I read a bunch of Amber Zones, and outside of "happening" in the 3I, or the Marches, or whatever, the bulk of them aren't ruleset specific at all. A patron encounter so vaguely detailed you can apply them anywhere, to any ruleset.

It matters because:

1. I want some framework for the stories/adventures/setting; having something other than handwaving as the only Ref tool, and some quantitative measure of things (characters, items, ships, etc.) in the game.
2. I find the lighter rulesets more inspiring and malleable than the heavier/crunchier rulesets
3. I've pared down the games I run to those I own, which have easily explained rules and are easy to run, and which I have some personal preference for; since I'm usually the only one in my group who has read the rules (aside from various iterations of D&D) this is a pretty significant point
4. I won't use rules my group rejects: so if they dislike d100, FATE, SpaceTime, etc. then that matters

I don't use the 3I setting because I find it too big (both in terms of within the setting and as a setting to learn about), too staid and too resistant to impacts from the PCs (the latter is easily handled through Ref fiat, but then why not just fiat the whole thing away?).

 

[creativehum]

Rhialto, I believe whartung's point is this:

If one publishes an adventure or setting material, one can write it in such a way that the rules system itself is invisible, even across several editions of the game.

If one writes: "The workers have Cloth Amor and carry Shotguns..." one does not have to stat out the values. Any of the rules sets will have Cloth Armor and Shotguns present.

If the setting is described in such-and-such a way, the UWP generation process doesn't matter. What matters is values of the world affecting gravity, breathing apparatus, and law level. Each game might apply those values differently, but that's fine, since each Referee is using the system of his own choice.

If an adventure or setting book notes: "A Patrol Cruiser is in orbit around the world..." each edition of the rules will have its own version of the Type T. This one is trickier since what weapons and combat capabilities a ship possesses will vary greatly. But as whartung notes, the variance on starship combat pretty much demands Referee should set the strength of the ship according to the party's ship. [I disagree with whartung on knowing the results of the ship combat ahead of time. But that's me. Also, I would use the 1977 Crit-less damage tables, so I won't have ships blow up under the players. But that's another matter.]

So I think that's what he's talking about. (whartung, if I'm wrong, I apologize.)

This all makes sense to me, and it's something I've been thinking about. If one uses CE one can create system-agnostic material for 2D6 SF-Adventure material that can be used across several editions of the game.

It might be bumpy for the Referee if one is not careful. For example, I'm currently getting the BITS adventure Spacedogs ready to use with CT Books 1-3. The game is duel-stattted for both GURPS Traveller and Traveller 4 -- which on occasion includes both gear and rule values that leave me scratching my head. But for the most part it works smoothly.

Still, there will be bumps. Mostly regarding skills. In the example above with the "workers" with the shotguns, the workers themselves can be described with a UPP and a couple of skills. But which skill lists? Those found in Book 1? The entire CT line? MgT? CE?

One could stick to the simpler list of CT and have Referee expand lists as desired. Or one could use one of the broader lists and have the Referee pare it down. Either way, a choice would have to be made.

More importantly, the skill lists of CT reveal a different kind of view on how skills work and will be used than in say Mongoose Traveller. For example, the Patron Encounters in MgT list the required skills for the encounter. Such a list would be ridiculous in a game based off of Books 1-3. The shorter list in Book 1 assumes that the players will not be leaning on their skill rolls to solve problems but will figure something out as needed.

If they need a hot shot programmer to hack into a Noble House' main-frame then they'll go arrange to hire an NPC with the appropriate skill. This is why hiring NPCs is covered in the basic rules. It is a given situation that is part of the game. This will lead to more adventures they have to find the guy, not tip anyone off while looking for their new partner, decide if they can trust him, maybe get betrayed, maybe find a new friend, or whatever. Maybe after the job is carried out successfully he gets picked up and the PCs need to decide if they're going to try to break him out before he talks. Or maybe he's already talked and they need to jump out of system ASAP. The decision before them is based off other decisions they made before ("Let's hire someone to hack into the system...") None of this is dictated or expected, it's just how the game rolls. There are no expected paths of success. The referee presents obstacles and opportunities and watches and discovers how the players decide to deal with them. Sometime the PCs' skills will be involved, sometimes not.

All of this is very much the style of play of original Traveller. And it is very different from a style of game where the group is stocked up on skills and progress through the evening's game is based on the PCs having those skills to move forward.

This produces a different style of adventure design and adventure play. In one case there are are "chokepoints" (at leas as I consider them) where a skill is required or used to move forward. In the other (original Traveller) the adventure present the PCs with obstacles and opportunities and its all a blank slate when it comes to how the PCs will move forward.

That, to me, would be the complication at hand in writing system-agnostic 2D6 SF Adventure material for systems ranging from CT to MgT.

But if one wanted to create material for CT using only the CE to back up the rare mechanical elements (amor, weapons, and so on) one would only have to name the items and let the Referee fill in the details (damage stats for the weapons and so on) as needed.

 

[kilemall]

Creativehum's point about version-agnostic material is why I won't bother with creating anything for sale.

There is a crying need for supplements that build out facilities- Research Station Gamma would be the prototype for that sort of thing. But I write it and it's no good or has to be licenses for each version every time, rewritten each time, and possibly closed off from print/distribution because the license is up or I am forced to release only T5 or only MgT?

Or I am stopped from releasing a T5 friendly version because the MgT license can allow Mongoose to demand I don't, because they 'own' the material?

My preference would be to release material with rules for EVERY Traveller version- a super gun book, a super facility supplement, etc. That way it retains value AND I get the widest possible customer base, and players get more choice and presumably content value increase due to competition.

Instead it's a nightmare of licensing and likely not doable at any price point worth doing.

And then, there is the 'grabbiness' of these licenses, and horrific margins in the case of MgT. Actually quite reasonable in a publishing books sense, but game books are definitely niche and a few thousand dollars makes a difference between worth it and not.

I'd also like to do versions of popular sci-fi novels, which will involve authors/estates and lawyers. That's a serious cut of margin there, both the IP licensing and the lawyering, and 50% off the top cuts off that avenue of content.

There are a lot of fans of such novels that would be pulled into RPGing, expanding the playerbase and growing the market, but alas it is unlikely to happen unless MgT themselves do it.

Have to be careful with big media items, SPI destroyed themselves by trying to go mass market with the Dallas game and over-committing resources they could not afford to lose. But it can be managed.

The worst for me though is loss of control of unique IP. I have no interest in writing for the OTU, but would for my own settings.

But loss of control so I potentially can't publish to other game systems, get locked in version hell where the previous versions are expired and I can't or won't get locked into an even worse version license, possibly have to pay to unlock the content for movie/TV/novel deals, that's a big hell no.

I don't know that not having my material in the game shop is any loss, but I have to think there are several other real creators that would shy away.

Protect the OTU against forking or content overwrite, maintain consistency to the extent of not hurting sales or future 'story lines', regain value from the work associated with publishing/maintaining the OTU, all very legit and needed functions of licensing, all very basic things that even a CE creator for profit would want for their material.

But version and unique content NOT OTU hurts 3PP and therefore extra material, niches served and 'buzz', IMO.

 

[Spenser TR]

There are a lot of fans of such novels that would be pulled into RPGing, expanding the playerbase and growing the market

I agree wholeheartedly with this; move Traveller novels would be awesome, and I agree quality work could draw many new fans to the game.

On the topic of writing for multiple versions: I've seen that snag as well. But when I think of writing supplements myself - because I'm inherently not-so-crunchy - I think more in terms of version-agnostic Traveller work. MJD's "A Guide to Star Systems" and "Among the Trojans" are to my mind perfect examples of this. With gear that could maybe work, but not with statting anything out.

 

[Leitz]

My thinking was to write novels and the supplements to allow others to play in that "universe". Certainly not OTU, but set 300 years post Imperium. Not sure how the license would work for using things like the Traveller Map but not using 3I stuff.

 

[Spenser TR]

Not sure how the license would work for using things like the Traveller Map but not using 3I stuff.

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure the names, locations, extended UWPs, etc of Third Imperium-setting polities are also part of the the 3I IP.

 

[Leitz]

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure the names, locations, extended UWPs, etc of Third Imperium-setting polities are also part of the the 3I IP.

That's my base assumption, even though many of the names came from elsewhere can can't be claimed. Still, IANAL and would steer wide and clear of any possible issues.

 

[rhialto]

Rhialto, I believe whartung's point is this:

If one publishes an adventure or setting material, one can write it in such a way that the rules system itself is invisible, even across several editions of the game.

So I think that's what he's talking about. (whartung, if I'm wrong, I apologize.)

More importantly, the skill lists of CT reveal a different kind of view on how skills work and will be used than in say Mongoose Traveller. For example, the Patron Encounters in MgT list the required skills for the encounter. Such a list would be ridiculous in a game based off of Books 1-3. The shorter list in Book 1 assumes that the players will not be leaning on their skill rolls to solve problems but will figure something out as needed.

All of this is very original Traveller. And it is very different from a style of game where the group is stocked up on skills and progress through the evening's game is based on the PCs having those skills to move forward.

This produces a different style of adventure play and adventure play. In one case there are are "chokepoints" (at leas as I consider them) where a skill is required or used to move forward. In the other (original Traveller) the adventure present the PCs with obstacles and opportunities and its all a blank slate when it comes to how the PCs will move forward.

That, to me, would be the complication at hand in writing system-agnostic 2D6 SF Adventure material for systems ranging from CT to MgT.

But if one wanted to create material for CT using only the CE to back up the rare mechanical elements (amor, weapons, and so on) one would only have to name the items and let the Referee fill in the details (damage stats for the weapons and so on) as needed.

Thanks, I interpreted the "If you're not interested in the 3I, why does the ruleset matter?" (emphasis mine) as a personal preference question, not the broader sense you spell out. In that case my personal preference "matters" only to me.

But I've selectively snipped your post to show how it does matter for a certain style of play: more of a DIY, rules-light approach less dependent on publishers giving rulebooks and expansions for *everything* and more about giving the tools to enable the Ref to do everything themselves. Within a handy framework.

I guess I see CE staking a claim to the above position, while T5 and MgT2e stake claims to other positions in the landscape of "Traveller". And in that sense it is good for "Traveller", and folks who prefer that style of play.

 

[kilemall]

Personally if I were doing a CE CT version I'd boil down a lot of these skills (for instance mash together Forward Observer and FA Gunner, Demolitions and Combat Engineering, Advocate and Legal, Vacc Suit and Battle Dress, Investigation and Interrogation, and dear heavens not cascade Engineering skills).

The really cool skills IMO that would be of value to add are soft human multiuse things like Persuade, Advocate, Investigation and Deception, and the Trade and Science skills.

 

[infojunky]

Personally if I were doing a CE CT version I'd boil down a lot of these skills (for instance mash together Forward Observer and FA Gunner, Demolitions and Combat Engineering, Advocate and Legal, Vacc Suit and Battle Dress, Investigation and Interrogation, and dear heavens not cascade Engineering skills).

The really cool skills IMO that would be of value to add are soft human multiuse things like Persuade, Advocate, Investigation and Deception, and the Trade and Science skills.

It looks like you haven't read CE's Skill list. It's different from the Mongoose's in the SRD. Shorter, a lot more concise.

 

[Mithras]

I don't think it would be at all accurate to suggest that CE might harm or water-down the Traveller brand, pulling dollars away from 'the Traveller game'. Traveller hasn't been 'a game' for many years, instead it is a collection or family of similar SF games set in related universes: GURPS, D20, Mongoose ... competing with one another as well as the FFE reprints and T5. You could say it is all competition...

I dont think that third party developers, who are very fond of CE, could be classed as the People's Front of Judea or the Judean Prople's Front - there is no desperate clawing to create a new and better version of Traveller. It seems to me that CE is a license free version of Traveller that 'most' modern Traveller players will recognise and therefore find supplements written for it suitable for their own games.

Obviating the license does of course cut of a stream of revenue for the license holders, this is another issue.

 

[aramis]

Obviating the license does of course cut of a stream of revenue for the license holders, this is another issue.

For this board, however, it is THE issue - this is the official BBS of FFE...

 

[kilemall]

It looks like you haven't read CE's Skill list. It's different from the Mongoose's in the SRD. Shorter, a lot more concise.

I have, a full printout too, but the question asked was making it CT, I would want to mash together 'best of' rather then strictly hew to the 'rule of 4' or what I consider to be some unnecessary expansions on CE's part.

 

[Spenser TR]

It seems to me that CE is a license free version of Traveller that 'most' modern Traveller players will recognise and therefore find supplements written for it suitable for their own games.

I haven't seen any examples of this, with CE and Traveller, or with the other analogous game situations previously discussed.

And I'm not sure what all the "People's Front" stuff is about?

 

[mike wightman]

Monty Python's Life of Brian. I won't post links for obvious reasons...

 

[whartung]

If one publishes an adventure or setting material, one can write it in such a way that the rules system itself is invisible, even across several editions of the game.

Essentially, yes.

But I've selectively snipped your post to show how it does matter for a certain style of play: more of a DIY, rules-light approach less dependent on publishers giving rulebooks and expansions for *everything* and more about giving the tools to enable the Ref to do everything themselves. Within a handy framework.

This is also germane.

My initial point is that the Traveller ruleset is a very nice, compact, "world building" toolkit (for assorted definitions of "world"). A referee can use it to set up the background upon which the adventures play out.

However, once that is done, much of that toolkit washes away. Whether you built the cabinet with power tools or a hand saw, in the end you have a cabinet.

With Traveller, once play starts, most of what makes its "Traveller", mechanically, is Book 1. Because that's Traveller player mechanics, vs, say, physics. (trip time, atmosphere effects, etc.)

And this goes to Rialtos point. How much does the referee let the mechanics of the game actually affect the game. Consider starship combat. Starships are big, very expensive, and tend to inhabit a rather lethal environment. While we may treat NPCs and rifle cartridges as mostly disposable, starships don't work like that. In some scenarios, they're the most important NPC in the party. This is why I don't think a ref can (should) treat starship combat casually.

A quick firefight with surprise guard patrol is one thing. "Ben got wounded, but, hey, through and through...he'll be ok. Stitches, patch him up.". Vs Millions of Cr of damage and stores expended, even in a "win". If the ship combat goes bad, that could very well be the end of the adventure, among other things. So, now, someone who relies heavily on the mechanics of the game may well let starship combat happen, and let the chips fall where they may. But for others, the starship itself is really a conveyance. A mechanic to get them to the other world, and the ref may well scare the players, but won't let the ship fail and jeopardize the adventure.

A random encounter with a pirate, who randomly decides to open up on the ship. Bad dice destroys the cargo, tosses the party in to millions of Cr in debt, and strands them in space. "Yea, wow, bad luck." "Yea, gee that was fun. We're getting, what? 10KCr for this transport job? Whee."

Or you can go rules light. Where the encounters are narratives to highlight story arcs as the PCs progress through it. Combat is mostly abstract, since, most of the time, its an obstacle to be routed around, or handled with care. Played out, but with the Refs thumb on the dice. The story is important, the PCs aren't just pages of stats and dice rolls. Odds are high, unless you have pig headed, really stupid PCs that can't take a solid hint, the players will navigate the adventure successfully -- dice aren't going to stop them, behavior stops them. Decisions drive success or failure, as moderated by the referee. Dice add spice to the game, but are not the arbiter.

Rules heavy scenarios need to be heavily play tested for balance, to ensure the dice don't destroy the adventure. Rules heavy rely upon the base rule set, since its a balance issue. The Scenario vs the Players. "Better bring the right gear".

But, rule light, "atmospheric", "environmental" supplements can be rule free. Things like the original Thieve's World way back in the day, though they did add stats for many games.

If you're going to toss away the 3I, are the actual Traveller mechanics that important to your adventure?