Cepheus Engine - does it help Traveller?

[aramis]

@CreativeHum - the rather high number of changes between CT 77 and CT 81 underlies 4 years of at least occasional play, and changes in the understanding of how the game works.

Loren implied a few times that there were unintended consequences in the rules...

But also, note that Bill's quite correct in noting the different style of gaming, as well. Nothing was well playtested in the 70's. Probably the best playtested game of the era was RuneQuest - because the primary guy running it for the in-house playtests (Greg Stafford) was not the guy writing the rules (Steve Perrin and Ray Turney)... they had a feedback loop, and an astonishing for the era 37 playtesters credited... and it was set in Greg's world.

The whole approach of the Gaming "Industry" at the time was different.

The contradictions and inclarities in the rules writing show a lack of outside playtest in CT'77. (Best playtest mode I can find - used by John Wick occasionally, and by Thor Olvasrud & Luke Crane a lot: Author plays in a game run by someone else from a read of the rules...)

 

[creativehum]

@CreativeHum - the rather high number of changes between CT 77 and CT 81 underlies 4 years of at least occasional play, and changes in the understanding of how the game works.

Loren implied a few times that there were unintended consequences in the rules...

But also, note that Bill's quite correct in noting the different style of gaming, as well. Nothing was well playtested in the 70's. Probably the best playtested game of the era was RuneQuest - because the primary guy running it for the in-house playtests (Greg Stafford) was not the guy writing the rules (Steve Perrin and Ray Turney)... they had a feedback loop, and an astonishing for the era 37 playtesters credited... and it was set in Greg's world.

The whole approach of the Gaming "Industry" at the time was different.

The contradictions and inclarities in the rules writing show a lack of outside playtest in CT'77. (Best playtest mode I can find - used by John Wick occasionally, and by Thor Olvasrud & Luke Crane a lot: Author plays in a game run by someone else from a read of the rules...)

I don't think I could counter anything you've said here. (Certainly the 1981 edition is clearer on many points, and thought has gone into some mechanical design. And certainly I am familiar with the differences between the 70s, 80s, 90s, and contemporary game design and game creation procedures. So... yes. Agreed.)

On the other hand, you're not contradicting anything I've said either.

The point under discussion -- from my post about Maybe/Might/Can in adjudicating ruling, to Simon's response, to your comment about playtesting somehow having to do with those phrasings, to my reply to your post -- still has, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with the matter of playtesting.

This particular issue still comes down to a style of play -- unfamiliar and/or undesired by most people today -- which was made explicit in the passage from 1977 I quoted earlier:

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.

The fact that the sentence was pulled in later editions doesn't change anything about how the mechanics as written required this sort of instruction to make the game work. (All those Maybe/Might/Can qualifiers are still in each of the four editions of Basic Traveller. It seems to me that's an edit that shouldn't have been made, since it leave the actual application of the game's "playing pieces" -- characteristics, skills, DMs, Throws, and the roll of the Referee all dangling without a clear explanation of what do with them. The three sentences quoted above are a vital guide to how the game is supposed to be played.)

Again, one either wants to play this way, great. And if one doesn't. Great. But on this particular point I have no idea how playtesting could have "caught" something that was part and parcel of the play culture and design culture of the time and put into the game on purpose.

If I'm missing something obvious on this front, however, I'm all ears and would love to hear more.

 

[kilemall]

The matter of group game culture is inevitably part of all our ATUs, IMO.

For instance, some might question my effort towards Striker armor of all sorts. The thing is, I play with hardcore wargamers with a particular interest in Roman and Napoleonics and a few combat veterans, they darn well know when something is 'off', and so a vital part of suspension of disbelief is that everything 'feels' right.

Others might not want the price of a bit more complex mechanics and want fast battles, so off they go to the simplest mechanic possible, or maybe their tastes go to cinematic.

Game designers are just as affected by this phenomena as us, but with the additional caveat that they have to appeal to a market to get paid. As such, I think we can chalk up much of the Traveller version differences not only to advances in the 'state of the art', but also different appeals to different markets and to the tastes of the version makers.

 

[creativehum]

The matter of group game culture is inevitably part of all our ATUs, IMO.

For instance, some might question my effort towards Striker armor of all sorts. The thing is, I play with hardcore wargamers with a particular interest in Roman and Napoleonics and a few combat veterans, they darn well know when something is 'off', and so a vital part of suspension of disbelief is that everything 'feels' right.

Others might not want the price of a bit more complex mechanics and want fast battles, so off they go to the simplest mechanic possible, or maybe their tastes go to cinematic.

Game designers are just as affected by this phenomena as us, but with the additional caveat that they have to appeal to a market to get paid. As such, I think we can chalk up much of the Traveller version differences not only to advances in the 'state of the art', but also different appeals to different markets and to the tastes of the version makers.

Without doubt.

Also, I love you explaining the bit about your players. Because I for one look at your Striker armor efforts and think, "Really?" But given the context it makes perfect sense.

And this touches on Simon's points from upthread: If you are playing a lot of convention games, the style of play and execution of mechanics are going to be very different if you're playing with the same stable group you've been gaming with for five years.

 

[aramis]

I don't think I could counter anything you've said here. (Certainly the 1981 edition is clearer on many points, and thought has gone into some mechanical design. And certainly I am familiar with the differences between the 70s, 80s, 90s, and contemporary game design and game creation procedures. So... yes. Agreed.)

On the other hand, you're not contradicting anything I've said either.

The point under discussion -- from my post about Maybe/Might/Can in adjudicating ruling, to Simon's response, to your comment about playtesting somehow having to do with those phrasings, to my reply to your post -- still has, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with the matter of playtesting.

This particular issues still comes down to a style of play -- unfamiliar and/or undesired by most people today -- which was made explicit in the passage from 1977 I quoted earlier:


The fact that the sentence was pulled in later editions doesn't change anything about how the mechanics as written required this sort of instruction to make the game work. (All those Maybe/Might/Can qualifiers are still in each of the four editions of Basic Traveller.)

Again, one either wants to play this way, great. And if one doesn't. Great. But on this particular point I have no idea how playtesting could have "caught" something that was part and parcel of the play culture and design culture of the time and put into the game on purpose.

If I'm missing something obvious on this front, however, I'm all ears and would love to hear more.

Good outside playtesting catches contradictions and inclarities far better than in-house. It also tends to find, at least when not in an established milieux, the cases where the rules don't produce the desired effects.

the 81 changes look less contradictory - and are definitely a bit more streamlined in wounds and combat; the changes to cargo carriage are clearly a result of actually testing the changes to ship rules.

I'm not saying the rules were ill-thought-out - if anything, CT-77 shows that the math was done first... it's just enough to routinely fill Types A and R, and operate them at profits...

The wordings, however, are probably not intentionally vague; GDW always sought to write clearly, and the revision histories and errata of the various products shows this. Simply put, the evidence implies that they thought them clear enough, but the work-rush let things get by that wouldn't now.

If one already knows, for example, that Marc's intent was per Jump pricing, one can parse Bk2 to understand it that way. But about 2/3 of players (in my experience) who read that example cold come away thinking per parsec, not per jump. And that's one of the inclarities that survived in CT through 4 revisions... It was explicitly not intentional (per Loren)... but it was unclear as written because in house use was corrupted by confirmation bias. Everyone in house had played with Marc, Loren, or the Brothers Kieth... and they didn't see the other side because it matched their preconceptions.

 

[creativehum]

Aramis,

Everything you typed is correct.
I am not sure I know what the subject of this conversation is anymore, but yes to everything you said.


As for the thread: The business I've been harping on for several posts, that quote from Book 1... that to me is near the heart of Classic Traveller play. And CE doesn't have that particular heart. Which I why I prefer CT.

I'm glad Mongoose is doing well. It means there is a market for the game, and so people are getting the game they want. But what I love about Classic Traveller is what makes it specifically Classic Traveller. I don't need a replacement for that.

 

[LeperColony]

But also, note that Bill's quite correct in noting the different style of gaming, as well. Nothing was well playtested in the 70's. Probably the best playtested game of the era was RuneQuest - because the primary guy running it for the in-house playtests (Greg Stafford) was not the guy writing the rules (Steve Perrin and Ray Turney)... they had a feedback loop, and an astonishing for the era 37 playtesters credited... and it was set in Greg's world.

My dad actually played in Warren James' RQ campaign in the late 70's. Not that that has anything to do with anything.

 

[Jame]

My dad actually played in Warren James' RQ campaign in the late 70's. Not that that has anything to do with anything.

No, coolness factor. I'm not an RQ fan but I think this is cool.

 

[atpollard]

No, coolness factor. I'm not an RQ fan but I think this is cool.

That, and it makes LeperColony a Second Generation RPGer (instead of just an old fart, like me).

 

[Silverhawk]

Not to say that this discussion isn't interesting (cause it is) but I think we are drifting away from the original question in some respects.

Here are my thoughts.

Cepheus Engine - does it help traveller? I think it could.

But only if there is adventures released for it. Word gets out and people will look. I can't think of how many adventures for systems I don't own that I bought for the idea. I don't care that the stats and other rule specific parts aren't usable I just need the plot and the background for the characters. I build the rest myself.

Which I think is a problem today. Too many systems too few adventures. I've look at some that have been free on drivethrurpg and it seems like there are systems so that someone could publish one adventure then nothing.

But back in the days CT and D&D/AD&D there were plenty of adventures being released. Now it seems to be a lot of expand the rules and setting with only nuggets of possible adventures. Probably because the world is large and the PC's are always trying to get beyond the edge of the map. Plus the product will be bigger and therefore cost more and make more if it sells well.

 

[LiNeNoiSe]

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...

I jokingly suggested that on the SFRPG discussion net. There doesn't seem to be much interest in it.

Omer claims that Cepheus Engine is an OSR retroclone

 

[aramis]

CE is at best an OSR Pseudoclone.

 

[kilemall]

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.

I'm thinking of going to 8CG-critical, but that's due to my character stat weirdness more then anything else.

I skipped out on MT and most of the rest by going big into 2300 (2000 never appealed), so I suppose I was exposed to all that about the same time.

I think I made my preferences clear for the tasking system, just pointing out what I suspect the mindset was for all those oddball single case examples in CT.

 

[simonh]

I don't know if CE can help Traveller, but I'd like to enrich the basis of the discussion a little bit by looking at how I think the OSR retro-clone community has helped D&D.

I think the retro-clone community benefited D&D by highlighting the things about D&D that it’s most ardent fans loved. The vast majority of D&D clones were mid-way in complexity between the old Basic D&D and either AD&D or 3rd Edition. They updated a simple D&D core system with a general purpose task resolution system based on various different mechanics, often based on a saving throw type model. Castles & Crusades is perhaps the definitive example, but OSRIC, White Box and many others took similar approaches. What happened? D&D went from turning itself from a miniatures wargame/board game in 3.5ed and 4th ed, into a stripped down core D&D system enhanced with a modern general purpose task resolution system in 5th Edition.

D&D 5tyh edition is in no way a development of 3rd or 4th ed. Rather it’s the ultimate product of the OSR movement’s efforts at refining what it’s core fans love about D&D.

So that’s one example of what a clone ecosystem can do for a product. I don’t think CE is on track to doing that though. In fact a modern updated, lean edition of Traveller already exists in Mongoose Traveller. Arguably Traveller already went through it’s wilderness years, where the official editions went off in ultimately unproductive directions and was eventually pulled back to it’s roots back in the 90s. It’s actually Mongoose that’s pulled it back towards an updated and expanded development from it’s classic roots.

So basically I think there’s not a huge amount we can learn about what CE can do from Traveller to be learned from looking at the D&D experience. If CE is going to make it’s mark, I think it’s going to have to chart it’s own path.

Simon Hibbs

 

[LiNeNoiSe]

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

You wouldn't need the 5E SRD. Much of T20 is OGL. One could take T20, strip out the 3I, drop in MGT1 High Guard and Vehicle rules and you'd have a SWN retroclone. It'd be even easier with SciFi20.

 

[mike wightman]

The reason I suggest the 5E update is that you could then use the advantage/disadvantage stuff.

MgT2e has a similar mechanic with its boon/bane die, and it has done more to improve the actual role playing vs roll playing of my group.

It's also a lot easier to do level less 5E...

 

[LiNeNoiSe]

Not sure if there would be a market for it. Must be at least a dozen OSR SciFi games out there already.

 

[creativehum]

Not sure if there would be a market for it. Must be at least a dozen OSR SciFi games out there already.

With the understanding that ask a dozen people what "OSR" means and you'll get a dozen answers. Can you name me some of these OSR games?

 

[aramis]

With the understanding that ask a dozen people what "OSR" means and you'll get a dozen answers. Can you name me some of these OSR games?

more important is your definition of "Sci-Fi"...
White Star
The Black Hack
Mutant Future
Starships & Spacemen 2E
X-Plorers
Warriors of the Red Planet

 

[creativehum]

more important is your definition of "Sci-Fi"...

To you, I guess. Sci-Fi is lots of things. If LiNeNoiSe's list doesn't have the kind of Sci-Fi that we're talking about there, then his comment won't hunt.

I look forward to LiNeNoiSe's reply.