Cepheus Engine - does it help Traveller?

[creativehum]

This is all interesting and sort of making my head spin (in a pleasant way?) as ideas are popping all over.

This caught my eye in particular:

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.

I have this rule: Don't roll dice for something when there's an outcome you don't like. So... If I was playing with the starship as a conveyance and it was only there to move the PCs around, I don't think I'd have a combat. Ever. I mean, I suppose I could fudge the dice. But I don't fudge dice.

More to the point at hand, this:

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

I see your point about the world building washing away. But to your question...

Well, maybe?

When I think of the Classic Traveller rules, I think of the combat section in Book 1, yes. And the ship combat in Book 2 (but per the points above we'll leave them aside for a moment).

But there are also the Encounter rules in Classic Traveller. NPC encounters, animal encounters, legal encounters, patron encounters, rumor encounters -- and the starship encounters, which, again, we're taking off the table for a moment.

All those random encounter rules imply a game play in which "the adventure" could be derailed at any time. It would almost suggest that Classic Traveller wasn't designed for "adventures" as we tend to use the term in RPG products today. In fact, if we look at Adventure 1: The Kinunir, we find that the table of contents lists four "Situations."

I would suggest that this kind of structure -- "situations" not "adventures" -- makes a heck of a lot more sense for the Classic Traveller rules than some sorted plotted adventure.

With situation based design the PCs have opportunities and obstacles before them and they are free to pursue any paths of progress they wish. And any sorts of obstacles might arrive -- many of them random. New pursuits or threats greater than or more interesting than what was on the table before them might grab the interests of the PCs and send them in directions that would have been completely unexpected in last week's session. Many of the early Classic Traveller adventures were written with this sensibility in mind.

Of course, for one shots or convention games or per an agreement of everyone involved it is easy enough to jettison the random encounter rules --- especially if one is using an "adventure" in the contemporary sense of the word. I'm currently prepping BITS Spacedogs for a local con and it would be foolish to bring all the Classic Traveller rules to bear on a four game slot when there's so much to cram in. But that's the point -- we're leaving rules out on purpose. Because to keep them produces a starkly different kind of play.

The fact that the Traveller line added and continues to experiment with all sorts of "suggests" or "scenes" or any other kind of delimited adventure structure only suggests the difference between what was expected in play between early CT play and later editions. And all those random encounter tables are part of that.

So, here is one way in which looking at the Classic Traveller rules as written would probably produce a very different kind of "adventure" structure for anyone to use when the material was written for a different edition of the game.

Beyond this, there is the issue of the animal encounter tables (which are elaborate and deep and depending different sorts of terrain presumed on given worlds).

Then there is the matter of armor and weapons, which is a simple selection in Books 1 and 3, is expanded in Book 4, and then rockets into lots and lots of options in further editions of the game. Anyone who was used to one version might be confused why the options of armaments were so limited, and vice versa.

Finally, I return to the point I made earlier about skills: In Classic Traveller the skill list is limited and will not be able to solve all problems. It is assumed that the PCs will not be able to do certain things or solve be able to make a roll to keep pushing forward. This is in contrast, say with Mongoose Traveller, which actually lists the skills the PCs will need to have in the Patron Encounters.

In Classic Traveller, however, a lack of skill (or a failure of a skill) is not a dead end. It is assumed the PCs will come up with some new path (often not involving a skill roll at all) to bring themselves closer to their goals. They will narrate details to the Referee, the Referee will respond with adjurations of results or make rolls on the spot based on odds he determines right then and there. This is a model of play that is markedly different from other sorts of play where the goal is to bring the challenges to the skills of the PCs (or bring the skills of the PCs to the challenges).

My point is that I believe there are plenty of ways, some subtle, some obvious, in which the rules of Classic Traveller will permeate a great deal of play, and especially the play style, and the design of "adventure" (or "situations") and environments and so forth will be affected by those differences.

 

[rhialto]

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.

Or you can go rules light.

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

Selectively snipping again: since I'm using the 1977/1981 versions of Books 1 - 3, S1, S2 and S4, there's not much of the 3I to toss away. But the mechanics (or lack thereof) do definitely matter, as you spell out above. Yes, I could use FUDGE, FATE, Amber diceless, etc. and have another "rules-light" mechanical system, but have chosen to use as much of the CT system as I care to (houseruled, which is usually easier to do with lighter mechanics).

I think I'm just missing your point, I'm sorry...

 

[rhialto]

I would suggest that this kind of structure -- "situations" not "adventures" -- makes a heck of a lot more sense for the Classic Traveller rules than some sorted plotted adventure.

With situation based design the PCs have opportunities and obstacles before them and they are free to pursue any paths of progress they wish. And any sorts of obstacles might arrive -- many of them random. New pursuits or threats greater than or more interesting than what was on the table before them might grab the interests of the PCs and send them in directions that would have been completely unexpected in last week's session. Many of the early Classic Traveller adventures were written with this sensibility in mind.

Then there is the matter of armor and weapons, which is a simple selection in Books 1 and 3, is expanded in Book 4, and then rockets into lots and lots of options in further editions of the game. Anyone who was used to one version might be confused why the options of armaments were so limited, and vice versa.

Finally, I return to the point I made earlier about skills: In Classic Traveller the skill list is limited and will not be able to solve all problems. It is assumed that the PCs will not be able to do certain things or solve be able to make a roll to keep pushing forward. This is in contrast, say with Mongoose Traveller, which actually lists the skills the PCs will need to have in the Patron Encounters.

In Classic Traveller, however, a lack of skill (or a failure of a skill) is not a dead end. It is assumed the PCs will come up with some new path (often not involving a skill roll at all) to bring themselves closer to their goals. They will narrate details to the Referee, the Referee will respond with adjurations of results or make rolls on the spot based on odds he determines right then and there. This is a model of play that is markedly different from other sorts of play where the goal is to bring the challenges to the skills of the PCs (or bring the skills of the PCs to the challenges).

My point is that I believe there are plenty of ways, some subtle, some obvious, in which the rules of Classic Traveller will permeate a great deal of play, and especially the play style, and the design of "adventure" (or "situations") and environments and so forth will be affected by those differences.

I think some call this "emergent play", where one situation leads to another, and another, etc. until a campaign is constructed out of what happened (as opposed to being dictated by an "adventure path").

And I know it may be trite at this point, but that's the main point behind "rulings, not rules": the former assumes there will be "situations" not covered by the rules, the latter attempts to ensure that those "situations" are rare.

 

[creativehum]

And I know it may be trite at this point, but that's the main point behind "rulings, not rules": the former assumes there will be "situations" not covered by the rules, the latter attempts to ensure that those "situations" are rare.

This is another point... and one I think impinges on design elements for Referee products.

I've been creating my own, re-worked text of the 1977 rules (with clarifications and additional pieces from later editions). I have come across something interesting. It is amazing to me how the rules in Basic Traveller are in many ways anything but proscriptive.

Consider this example. I am going through Books 1-3 and pulling all references to each of the skills so they are in one place. Apart from the first description, here is what I found:

• Admin might allow a +DM when looking for drugs or other goods where dealing with low or high level bureaucracies might come into play.
• If characters are skilled in Admin they may apply the expertise as a DM for the sale of speculative goods. In any given transaction, such DMs may be used by only one person.
• Admin may be used as a DM on the Reaction Table when determining the response of a person to business offers or deals.
• When searching for a Psionics Institute on a world a DM +1 per level of Admin can be added to the roll.
• Admin expertise may affect whether documents that have been forged are inspected.

Look at at that. "May," "Might," "Can be." By implication, at other times in similar circumstances, Admin "may not," "might not," and "cannot" be helpful.

On top of this, we know that in any situation characteristics like INT, EDU, and SOC might also come into play and provide a +DM. All of this is open to interpretation in the moment and based on a) the specific circumstances at hand and b) the way the PC goes about trying to get something done.

The Referee needs to make a ruling ("May"/"May not" and so on) because he can't possibly anticipate what the PCs will be doing in what circumstances and which qualities of the character will be brought to bear.

Compare this to the rules of say, Mongoose Traveller, in which there is a) a characteristic and b) a skill and c) you are done. There's nothing ambiguous about it. In fact, the best design module will make sure to build in checkpoints for the PCs to use their skills in a very systematic and obvious way so there is no ambiguity about a) which characteristics and b) which skills should come into play.

Each of these methods of play are fine. But they are, without doubt, different. And each depends on many different assumptions not only about play at the table about about the prep the Referee is going to do and the kind of interaction he is going to have with the players. And thus what sorts of adventure/setting material (each with their own assumptions about play style) might or might not be useful to him.

 

[ffilz]

I've been creating my own, re-worked text of the 1977 rules (with clarifications and additional pieces from later editions). I have come across something interesting. It is amazing to me how the rules in Basic Traveller are in many ways anything but proscriptive.

I really need to consider doing this for myself.

As you do this, if you could highlight some of these bits it would be cool (I'm also curious how many of the little tidbits you have found actually have subtle differences between editions).

 

[rhialto]

I've been creating my own, re-worked text of the 1977 rules (with clarifications and additional pieces from later editions). I have come across something interesting. It is amazing to me how the rules in Basic Traveller are in many ways anything but proscriptive.

Interesting: I'm curious to see the final version, as I'm trying to do something similar, but starting with CE. One of the biggest differences between CT and CE I've noticed is in wounding: in CT one characteristic at 0 = unconscious, in CE it's two at 0. I'm not sure when this change was made, though, as MT uses "Life Points".

Consider this example. I am going through Books 1-3 and pulling all references to each of the skills so they are in one place. Apart from the first description, here is what I found:

• Admin might allow a +DM when looking for drugs or other goods where dealing with low or high level bureaucracies might come into play.
• If characters are skilled in Admin they may apply the expertise as a DM for the sale of speculative goods. In any given transaction, such DMs may be used by only one person.
• Admin may be used as a DM on the Reaction Table when determining the response of a person to business offers or deals.
• When searching for a Psionics Institute on a world a DM +1 per level of Admin can be added to the roll.
• Admin expertise may affect whether documents that have been forged are inspected.

Look at at that. "May," "Might," "Can be." By implication, at other times in similar circumstances, Admin "may not," "might not," and "cannot" be helpful.

On top of this, we know that in any situation characteristics like INT, EDU, and SOC might also come into play and provide a +DM. All of this is open to interpretation in the moment and based on a) the specific circumstances at hand and b) the way the PC goes about trying to get something done.

The Referee needs to make a ruling ("May"/"May not" and so on) because he can't possibly anticipate what the PCs will be doing in what circumstances and which qualities of the character will be brought to bear.

And this is the crux of the point: with fewer skills they are necessarily broader, and delineating every situation in which one "might" apply is unnecessary. Guidance is fine, but it could consist of "apply as seems appropriate for the situation". Or one could publish elaborate refinements of what started as a simple system and begins to accrete into a not-so-simple system.

 

[simonh]

There are two big advantage of rules over rulings.

The first is putting power in the hands of the players. Determinism in the rules is empowering for players because it allows them to effectively reason about what options their characters have. It flips the situation from a player having to petition the GM to allow them to have a bonus from their skill, to the GM having to justify denying them that bonus.

The second advantage is as a crutch for GMs. Particularly when you're starting out as a GM it can be stressful and confusing what modifiers to allow and when. I've often seen GMs reluctant to allow modifiers in case it creates a precedent players can abuse in the future. That sort of uncertainty can be a source of contention. Rules authors can mitigate this by providing play tested, well thought out mechanisms for resolving common situations. Clear rules can reduce complexity by providing certainty.

I suspect one of the reasons why the CT rules had so many caveats and maybes was precisely because the authors didn't actually have much experience with the rules themselves. They were like the inexperienced GM, unwilling to be pinned down because they didn't want to set a precedent that could be abused. But now we have several decades of experience with these mechanics.


Simon Hibbs

 

[Leitz]

Or the quirky rules were written for all us newbie to the system DMs.

 

[kilemall]

I always read the CT skill by skill DM approach as both intended use/effect of the skill, and a primer in generating unique rolls for maximum flexibility.

The 68A type approach though works better for me as I can peg relative difficulty quickly and apply appropriate DMs (including yes player plans and shenanigans role playing as opposed to roll playing).

MgT tends more towards roll play and CE being a creature of MgT has that enshrined. So maybe it should differentiate and simply the task system to it's own thing.

 

[rhialto]

There are two big advantage of rules over rulings.

The first is putting power in the hands of the players. Determinism in the rules is empowering for players because it allows them to effectively reason about what options their characters have. It flips the situation from a player having to petition the GM to allow them to have a bonus from their skill, to the GM having to justify denying them that bonus.

The second advantage is as a crutch for GMs. Particularly when you're starting out as a GM it can be stressful and confusing what modifiers to allow and when. I've often seen GMs reluctant to allow modifiers in case it creates a precedent players can abuse in the future. That sort of uncertainty can be a source of contention. Rules authors can mitigate this by providing play tested, well thought out mechanisms for resolving common situations. Clear rules can reduce complexity by providing certainty.

I suspect one of the reasons why the CT rules had so many caveats and maybes was precisely because the authors didn't actually have much experience with the rules themselves. They were like the inexperienced GM, unwilling to be pinned down because they didn't want to set a precedent that could be abused. But now we have several decades of experience with these mechanics.


Simon Hibbs

I guess "advantage" depends on your perspective: I count the first as an advantage and disadvantage, as too often the rules trump role-playing (as Chris pointed out in the other thread). With a long-time group founded on trust I see no reason to codify everything, but do use a semi-systemic 8+, add appropriate attribute bonus and/or skill. But I always insist on a role playing description of what the character is attempting, which sometimes means there's no roll at all.

I wouldn't argue with the second, but after 40 years need no such crutch.

 

[aramis]

I always read the CT skill by skill DM approach as both intended use/effect of the skill, and a primer in generating unique rolls for maximum flexibility.

The 68A type approach though works better for me as I can peg relative difficulty quickly and apply appropriate DMs (including yes player plans and shenanigans role playing as opposed to roll playing).

MgT tends more towards roll play and CE being a creature of MgT has that enshrined. So maybe it should differentiate and simply the task system to it's own thing.

The task system in MT (and 2300 a year before, and before that DGP's supplements and magazines) was quite freeing, from both an improv play and a writing adventures mode.


Also, I find 58BEH to be a better sequence, and more consistent with the CT rules than either the MT/DGP or the 68A... The 11+ rolls in CT tend to be more common that the 10+'s, even tho' the 10's are slightly more visible in rules.

 

[creativehum]

There are two big advantage of rules over rulings.

The first is putting power in the hands of the players. Determinism in the rules is empowering for players because it allows them to effectively reason about what options their characters have. If flips the situation from a player having to petition the GM to allow them to have a bonus from their skill, to the GM having to justify denying them that bonus.

The second advantage is as a crutch for GMs. Particularly when you're starting out as a GM it can be stressful and confusing what modifiers to allow and when. I've often seen GMs reluctant to allow modifiers in case it creates a precedent players can abuse in the future. That sort of uncertainty can be a source of contention. Rules authors can mitigate this by providing play tested, well thought out mechanisms for resolving common situations. Clear rules can reduce complexity by providing certainty.

Simon,

These are excellent points. And perhaps the best written statement of these points I've ever read.

(To go further with this line, I think Vincent Baker’s work with In a Wicked Age… and Apocalypse World provide amazing safety valves. There are is no adjudication or refereeing required when it comes to die modifiers or dice rolls. The GM doesn't even have to set the difficulty. The entirety of the resolution of an action is resolved by the mechanics and dice alone.)

I suspect one of the reasons why the CT rules had so many caveats and maybes was precisely because the authors didn't actually have much experience with the rules themselves. They were like the inexperienced GM, unwilling to be pinned down because they didn't want to set a precedent that could be abused. But now we have several decades of experience with these mechanics.

This I disagree with.

First, I don’t see the phrasing as “caveats.” I see them as opportunities. The text is showing us many of the ways the rules as written can be applied. (It is my view that the entirety of the text of LBBs 1-3 is a teaching manual on how the various rules can be applied in many ways, sometimes through specific example, sometimes through inference. For example, there are no examples of the Social Status characteristic being used in play. But there are examples of other characteristics being used in play specifically (characteristic DMs for weapon use) or broadly (characteristic DMs when using a skill like mechanical, for example). Thus, the examples I listed above are examples of a specific skill in action, but serve as examples, not limits.

Second, as I discuss in this post on the play culture and culture of rules that both Original Dungeons & Dragons and original Traveller grew from, referee driven play was the norm for the time, people were used to it, and it wasn’t at all new to Gary Gygax and Marc Miller. The play culture of early RPGs grew from refereed war games in the style of Braunstein or Free Kreigspeil. (Please note that when I mention war games I am specifically not referring to hex and chit style wargames, which were designed to take the Referee out of the equation and make the rules handle everything — in much the same way later RPGs wanted to mitigate the need for referees to make ruling in RPGs.)

In this style of play the referee creates a situation or scenario, the players make decisions and take actions via their characters, and the referee adjudication impartial results either with a roll or without.

We can also see the same sort of play in THE GREAT GAME, a global conflict scenario run out of the GDW offices and discussed on this board. In this style of play the rules are light, the referee’s hand strong, and there is, without doubt a lot of trust. And that trust went two ways — between the referee and the players, and back again.

I cannot stress this last point enough. I know there are both referees and players who are dicks who might “abuse” the looseness of these games I would imagine other people would stop playing with them over time. The key point is, though, the gang at GDW was apparently not full of dicks. And so these games worked.

In other words, different people will want different kinds of games because they offer different kinds of experiences.

For me, after playing around with my OSR B/X D&D Lamentations of the Flame Princess campaign I really like Rulings Over Rules. But I have a solid group. They trust me. I trust them. We have a great time at the table.

More importantly this:

It is interesting to note that on page one of the 1977 edition of Traveller we find this phrase, “Traveller is basically a pencil and paper game.”

In the 1981 edition of the rules the sentence has been changed to this: “Traveller is basically a conversation game.” Notice this second phrasing is probably a more precise definition of RPGs in general. Certainly the early RPGs. (Notice too it is the definition Baker offers in Apocalypse World.)

What we have in this style of play is a conversation. We talk and talk and talk. The players to each other, the players to the referee, the referee to the players. The conversation turns on what the players have having their characters do. The referee sometimes asks for clarifications or specifics of the actions of the characters. Sometimes he adjudicates without the need for a throw. If he is uncertain what the results are he calls for a Throw.

The referee determines the throw number. DMs for skills, circumstances, tools, and high or low characteristics are created. These steps, too, are part of the conversation. The Players offer up why the circumstances or tools or skills or characteristics. If the conversation is going well then the details of the world become clearer, the way the world works becomes clearer. Even a “no” from the Referee establishes a stronger understanding of the world the characters are living in.

I can completely see how many people might not like this style of play for obvious reasons. But for me, it is luscious. It is a conversation that compels the Players to describe exactly how their characters are doing things. Without the details the referee can’t add in the DMs. How is the player using Admin to get a better deal on the drugs? The Admin DM is not assumed. And thus the player must conjure interesting details to the add to the fictional situation at hand. This in turn deepens the setting and the specifics of the character. This is the stuff I enjoy in RPGs. And any system that encourages this is one I like.

On the flip side, when I play RPGs with rules that are structured so that no interpretation or specification of details for the determination of determining odds or modifiers I often see the following:

REFEREE: He says no.

PLAYER: I make an Admin roll.

REFEREE: Okay, roll you Admin skill.

PLAYER: Success!
REFEREE: He says yes.​


Notice we just used the rules and never got around to knowing what the player character actually did to get the result.

In other words, it is possible to use the mechanics of many system to short circuit the act of coming up with specific details within the fictional circumstances and situations of play being shared by everyone at the table.

Does this have to happen? No. But I see it happen a lot with lots of games that remove the need of adjudication by the referee.

And note that it can’t happen with Classic Traveller Books 1-3 rules as written. The words “may,” “can,” and “might” mean that each circumstance must be examined on a case by case basis to see if the rules do apply.

Please note I’m not saying one style of play is better than another or that one style will guarantee certain behaviors or habits the part of the players.

What I am saying is that I have found certain kinds of rule provoke certain kinds of habits overall that I prefer when I sit down at the table. These styles of play go back decades (if not a century or more) and are the roots of early RPGs. The fact that RPGs changed in response to a player base wanting something more codified and less dependent on a referee as an impartial judge doesn’t mean the earlier style of play does not work or provide fun—only that it this earlier style of play works and provides fun for those people who want that style of play.

For these reasons, while I respect your observations and reasoning in the two paragraphs I quoted at the top of this post I'd rather be playing Classic Traveller Books 1-3, with the rules as written and exemplified in the text.

 

[aramis]

In re Simon's note about caveats...

Traveller was not a long development process based upon various sources... Maybe a year before it went to layout. (and 3 months from layout to shelves, based upon Marc having sent it for layout just as Star Wars premiered...)

And playtesting would be mostly physically in house... but GDW was cranking out a product every 20 days... so the playtest is pretty light by moder major company, hundreds of platesters, games.

 

[simonh]

I count the first as an advantage and disadvantage, as too often the rules trump role-playing

It depends what you mean by trumping role-playing. For example not everybody is comfortable playing out the old 'Friends, Romans, Countrymen' type stuff in person. If a less outgoing member of my group wants to just say 'I give a rousing speech to win over the crowd' and make a skill roll, I've got no problem with that. Being able to play a character that's good at things you haven't got a clue about yourself is one of the great liberating experiences in role playing.

Some players live for figuring out clever ways to short circuit challenges and think their way out of complications. That's great engagement and to be encouraged. But not everyone plays that way, or would ever want to. Both routes to power should be equally viable.

I my experience private groups tend to self-select for people with similar play styles. Not always, there are exceptions, but I think it's a tendency. People invite people into their group that they think they will get along with. But I've spent a lot of my time running and playing games in fairly diverse clubs where you encounter people with a huge diversity of personal backgrounds, personalities and play styles. One thing I've had to be very vigilant about in groups like that is to ensure that the extroverts don't elbow the quiet guy or girl at the back of the table out of the picture.


Simon Hibbs

 

[simonh]

...And playtesting would be mostly physically in house... but GDW was cranking out a product every 20 days... so the playtest is pretty light by moder major company, hundreds of platesters, games.

That's great historical perspective, thanks. I'm not at all trying to be pejorative, Traveller was actually ground-breaking stuff for it's time. Having a skills based system with characteristic modifiers was revolutionary.

Simon Hibbs

 

[creativehum]

And playtesting would be mostly physically in house... but GDW was cranking out a product every 20 days... so the playtest is pretty light by moder major company, hundreds of platesters, games.

And yet, again, it grew from the play style of referee/player interpretation the GDW team was familiar with from the beginning of the company, and the very playstyle the Gygax, Arneson, and people across the hobby would have been familiar with in the mid-70s.

For those desperate to believe that Classic Traveller was somehow lacking (such as yourself, dismissing the game several times now on this board) I suppose the notation of a relative lack of playtesting is some sort of comfort.

It flies in the face of the fact that the GDW staff played Traveller regularly once it was published, that four years later when the game was published as a second edition the core elements of resolving actions had not been changed at all, that the game had sold well, and that the next two editions of the game (The Traveller Book and Starter Traveller) still made no dramatic alterations to the system of resolving actions at all.

It also flies in the face of the fact that on this very board, despite all the attempts to "fix" the game over four decades, Classic Traveller appears to remain the go-to game for a bulk of the regular posters.

In the 1977 edition of Book 1 we find this text:

Skills and the Referee: It is impossible for any table of information to cover all aspects of every potential situation, and the above listing is by no means complete in its coverage of the effects of skills. This is where the referee becomes an important part of the game process. The above listing of skills and game effects must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates.

This isn't a laziness on the part of the designer, or a failure of any kind, or a lack of playtesting of the concepts. This is the concept.

I'm the guy who keeps insisting people should be playing the game they want and the way they want -- so I'd never push Classic Traveller on anyone who didn't want to play it. But since the entire point of original Traveller was for the referee to use the framework provided by the text and create the game he wanted (just like original D&D) the notion that it wasn't playtested enough is a weak sauce. Playtesting would not have removed the very quality that is at the heart of the game, the very quality a few people here are seeing as a bug.

Now, either a referee wants the responsibility of playing with his players this way, or he does't. But this is the kind of game at hand, designed with an elegant framework to handle exactly this kind of play.

More playtesting would not have "fixed" this.

It certainly isn't a kind of play that everyone will like. But as to the game itself, it certainly seems to still work very well for many people.

 

[Whipsnade]

... the GDW staff played Traveller regularly once it was published...

As you note, that GDW played Traveller is apparent. What isn't so apparent is that GDW in the 1970s/80s played differently than many people play now in 2017.

They didn't play better, they didn't play worse. They played differently and Traveller's original design reflects that.

Apart from being more spontaneous or more improvisational, I'm of the firm opinion that their play was less episodic and campaign-focused than most current play. I've written before about how there seems to have been no long term, "personal project", Traveller campaigns being run in Bloomington. Miller, Harshman, Wiseman, et. al. had nothing resembling Gygax's Greyhawke or Arneson's Blackmoor.

Traveller was certainly designed for what is now called "sandbox" play, however, apart from the vague, collaborative, catch as catch can OTU there were no personal, detailed, Traveller sandboxes active in the GDW offices and homes.

This isn't a laziness on the part of the designer, or a failure of any kind, or a lack of playtesting of the concepts. This is the concept.

That's a very important point: Traveller was deliberately designed to be the way it is.

It certainly isn't a kind of play that everyone will like. But as to the game itself, it certainly seems to still work very well for many people.

It isn't the type of play everyone likes. It is they type of play GDW engaged in at the time and it is a type of play which still works for many of us.

 

[Vargas]

It also flies in the face of the fact that on this very board, despite all the attempts to "fix" the game over four decades, Classic Traveller appears to remain the go-to game for a bulk of the regular posters.

I am one of those people who would go with CT were I to play Traveller today and I broadly agree with this statement. I do wonder if its a case of the regular posters here will often pick CT or whether its that regular posters here are already predisposed to picking CT.

 

[creativehum]

I am one of those people who would go with CT were I to play Traveller today and I broadly agree with this statement. I do wonder if its a case of the regular posters here will often pick CT or whether its that regular posters here are already predisposed to picking CT.

We don't know.

We do know there are plenty of people playing various editions of Dungeons & Dragons (and using rules all the way back to OD&D) who never both to show up online and are content with the game they have and have been playing for years.

For these people play is about the campaign, with rules tweaked and homebrewed. No need to interact with an internet community to see if you're getting it "right" is required since what is right is, by definition, determined by what is right at that particular table of play.

I'm sure there are folks playing various editions of Traveller in much the same manner.

 

[rhialto]

It depends what you mean by trumping role-playing. For example not everybody is comfortable playing out the old 'Friends, Romans, Countrymen' type stuff in person. If a less outgoing member of my group wants to just say 'I give a rousing speech to win over the crowd' and make a skill roll, I've got no problem with that. Being able to play a character that's good at things you haven't got a clue about yourself is one of the great liberating experiences in role playing.

Some players live for figuring out clever ways to short circuit challenges and think their way out of complications. That's great engagement and to be encouraged. But not everyone plays that way, or would ever want to. Both routes to power should be equally viable.

I my experience private groups tend to self-select for people with similar play styles. Not always, there are exceptions, but I think it's a tendency. People invite people into their group that they think they will get along with. But I've spent a lot of my time running and playing games in fairly diverse clubs where you encounter people with a huge diversity of personal backgrounds, personalities and play styles. One thing I've had to be very vigilant about in groups like that is to ensure that the extroverts don't elbow the quiet guy or girl at the back of the table out of the picture.


Simon Hibbs

These are good points: my play is almost exclusively with friends of 30+ years, and now their and my offspring. Our styles are all over the place, but we are friends first and foremost.

By "role-play" I simply mean some description of what your character is doing, not what you, the player are doing:

Good: "I'll see if I can fix the M-drive from the damage we just took: does it look serious?
Bad: "I roll Mechanic".

It doesn't take much, really: some attempt to be "in character", not playing a wargame.