Cepheus Engine - does it help Traveller?

[LiNeNoiSe]

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?

In this instance, I am using "OSR" to indicate a rules set based on OD&D or B/X D&D.

There will probably be some overlap with Aramis's list.

Primarily OD&D:

Bandits & Battlecruisers
Colonial Troopers
Humanspace Empires (Tekumel/Empire of the Petal Throne clone)
Warriors of the Red Planet (Think John Carter of Mars)
White Star (Based on Swords & Wizardry)
X-Plorers

Primarily B/X D&D:

Hulks & Horrors
Machinations of the Space Princess (Based on Lamentations of the Flame Princess)
Mutant Future (Think Gamma World. Based on Labyrinth Lord)
Shards of Tomorrow
Space Madness
Star Wars Galactic Adventures
Starships & Spacemen (Based on Labyrinth Lord)
Tales of the Space Princess

Stars Without Number seems to use several systems and has a heavy Traveller influence.

There are probably a couple more that I've missed, not counting "Old School" games which are not based on D&D.

 

[creativehum]

In this instance, I am using "OSR" to indicate a rules set based on OD&D or B/X D&D...

Cool. Thanks.

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...

Can you talk about this? When you refer to "roleplaying" what kinds of moments are you talking about?

Can you talk about how the boon/bane dice elicit this? Thanks!

 

[Nathan Brazil]

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...

Universal Machine Publications has a publication on DriveThru RPG called Advantage and Disadvantage. It is an OGL redo of the of the mechanic for as they call it "2e 2d6 SF SRD".

They also have other bits and pieces, some that do not appear in Cepheus Engine.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Cepheus? Not Exactly The First

Cepheus Engine was not the first Mongoose Traveller clone. Or at least many of the systems were cloned. it also shows what you can do when you can rewrite a systems campaign and not just the rules.

Expeditious Retreat Press came out with Worlds Apart, a decidedly more fantasy version of Traveller based on MgT 1e. Silly? Yea maybe. But someone did it!

It is a bit more old D&D than old AD&D since two of the careers are Dwarf ( 2 different Brawler service branches or Bastard) and Elf (Brooding Warrior, Morose Wizard or Glum Rogue). There is a magic system with spells by career and even a bestiary with undead even.

The campaign is the Forever Sea with ships powered with elementals going to islands of varying Technological Levels from 0 (No Technology) to 16 (Early Industrial) and Magic Levels . Yes there is a UPP for islands and you design said ships.

Again I say. Silly? Yea maybe. But what the hey. I bought it...:coffeegulp:

 

[Quint]

Can you talk about this? When you refer to "roleplaying" what kinds of moments are you talking about?

Can you talk about how the boon/bane dice elicit this? Thanks!

Advantage and Disadvantage have some specific, RAW-specific situations where they are applied (aka attack from surprise get Advantage, try to attack someone invisible and you have Disadvantage), they are also situationally applied as chosen by the DM. My experience is that players get very creative, via role-playing, in trying to come up with ways to gain Advantage or impose Disadvantage. It evens spices up combat with players becoming much more narrative in what they are doing or trying to do as opposed to simply roll-playing the combat.

It's also worth nothing that the new 7e Call of Cthulhu rules have the same mechanic, with much the same effect during play. You get a extra 10's die to roll and take the best or worst result. In CoC however the dice can stack, unlike 5e DnD where you only have one extra die at any time.

One of the stated reasons that Dis/Advantage was "invented" was as a way of simplifying a system that had for many rules editions gradually increased the math involved in calculating things. There are some very basic, situational +/-1-2 modifiers in the rules, but that vast majority of things boil down to "get Dis/Advantage" which speeds up play at the table immensely and also cuts down on the min-maxing by players who are inclined to do so.

Hope that helps.

D.

 

[rhialto]

Cepheus Engine was not the first Mongoose Traveller clone. Or at least many of the systems were cloned. it also shows what you can do when you can rewrite a systems campaign and not just the rules.

Expeditious Retreat Press came out with Worlds Apart, a decidedly more fantasy version of Traveller based on MgT 1e. Silly? Yea maybe. But someone did it!

It is a bit more old D&D than old AD&D since two of the careers are Dwarf ( 2 different Brawler service branches or Bastard) and Elf (Brooding Warrior, Morose Wizard or Glum Rogue). There is a magic system with spells by career and even a bestiary with undead even.

The campaign is the Forever Sea with ships powered with elementals going to islands of varying Technological Levels from 0 (No Technology) to 16 (Early Industrial) and Magic Levels . Yes there is a UPP for islands and you design said ships.

Again I say. Silly? Yea maybe. But what the hey. I bought it...:coffeegulp:

Not silly at all: aside from using the MgT 1e SRD I quite like it as inspiration. Shows what you can do with the basic framework. I have the same quibbles with it as MgT in general, but think it is a tight set of rules.

 

[rhialto]

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.

Is 5th edition a product of the OSR movement? I always thought of it as a reaction to it, not part of it, but I guess there's always some overlap between the two.

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.

I think MgT is cleaned up in some areas, muddied in others, and not lean when compared to CT (or CE), but definitely so when compared to T5. While I think it did more to pull Traveller back to it's roots than T5, CE is closer still. But is there a market for that? Not as much as MgT 2e, I'd say, simply because one is a setting-less digital only set of rules and the other is in a slick new edition with a default setting.

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

I agree, and it's still early. I still hold out hope for someone to take some of the core inspirational ideas in Fading Suns and apply them to a leaner set of rules...like CE.

 

[simonh]

Is 5th edition a product of the OSR movement? I always thought of it as a reaction to it, not part of it, but I guess there's always some overlap between the two.

I just mean that if the OSR hadn't happened I very much doubt 5th Ed would be anything like the way it is.

Simon Hibbs

 

[aramis]

I just mean that if the OSR hadn't happened I very much doubt 5th Ed would be anything like the way it is.

Simon Hibbs

Mearls and Crawford haven't been exactly complimentary about the OSR.

5E would have happened with or without the OSR...

but the OSR pulled a lot of OSR-fan-types out of the 5E commentary and playtest pool. Still, the process for 5E was very much "Ask and then modify to fit."

Pathfinder, however, was far more important and influential. Again, it was by removing commenters from the D&D side - the detail gamist types got largely culled by switching to Pathfinder during 4E.

The earlier playtest editions look considerably more like 3.X...

 

[creativehum]

Mearls and Crawford haven't been exactly complimentary about the OSR...

I don't have time to do a deep dive on this. But I don't remember hearing anything about this.

A quick Google search produced results along the lines of this summary of an AMA on reddit, with this quote among many:

“The concept behind the OSR – lighter rules, more flexibility, leaning on the DM as referee – were important. We learned a lot playing each edition of D&D and understanding the strengths and weaknesses each brought to the table. Similar to the OSR, I think indie games bring lighter rules via focus and an emphasis on storytelling to the table that we learned a lot from. While a traditional RPG like D&D by necessity has a much broader focus than traditional indie games, there’s a lot to learn there in being clear and giving people a good, starting goal or framework to work within. For OSR stuff, we drew directly on older editions of D&D. In terms of indie games, or games cut from that cloth, Dungeon World, Fate, and the GUMSHOE engine leap to mind. For more traditional RPGs, Warhammer FRP (hello, backgrounds!) and Pendragon definitely had their say on the game. Runequest and Rolemaster had an influence via 3e. The fun part was taking those design ideas and looking at how they’d work within a D&D context.”

I don't know if Mearls has had uncomplimentary things to say about the OSR elsewhere. But I couldn't find them. And the above suggests he found inspiration in the OSR.

For the record, I don't think 5E is OSR at all. But that's a different issue than saying Mearls is uncomplimentary about OSR play.

 

[sfchbryan]

I see CE as the future of Traveller. The T5 content market is non-existent (and I don't see that changing in the near or far future), and I am not impressed with the quality of Mgt products. The other versions are zombies with no new content coming out - and I already own almost everything printed.

From my perspective, CE looks more like MT than CT. (CE has a task system, which CT lacks, although it is clunkier than the UTP in MT). The skill sets in the MgT SRD also line up more with MT than CT (They line up almost exactly, as a matter of fact, when you put the skill lists side-by-side). It also doesn't have the multitude of fubared charts that MT has.

The OGL content for CE has given me the niche tools I want for campaign creation; a lot of it has "scratched an itch" and filled gaps. Orbital 2100 gave me the tools that are lacking in other versions for Pre-Gravitic space ships and landers (Which are very important in my campaign). The Flynn guides give me the tools to make Cthulhu Mythos races and a way to model their "eldritch spells & powers". Universal Game Machine products have filled in other small niches for character development.

Does OGL cost FFE? Doubt it. There are still major holes to be filled: I don't see anybody cranking out an OGL equivalent of the Environment Series anytime soon - the easiest way to fill up holes as a new member of the community is to load up on FFE CDs - that is certainly what I tell new players. You get more content from them than MgT as far as per dollar spent.

Does OGL cost other Game companies?
The version of D&D that I play is 1Ad&d. I own physical copies of the core manuals (I've bought a number of them more than once) - I am certainly not going to pay another $60 or so dollars for electronic copies when I have a copy of ORSIC (which is a cleaned up retroclone of 1Ad&d).

Does that mean I'm not buying 1Ad&d content? Nope, I am getting neat modules I misplaced over the years (that I can easily edit electronically) and stuff I missed the 1st go around. But if I didn't have OSRIC, I wouldn't be buying ANY content from Wizards of the Coast, or Judges Guild, or Night Owl Workshop (If you play 1Ad&d - you need all of their stuff, trust me), or any of the other folks that are cranking out 1Ad&d goodies.

In economic terms OGL core rulebooks lower barriers to entry into the gaming universe.

 

[aramis]

I don't have time to do a deep dive on this. But I don't remember hearing anything about this.

A quick Google search produced results along the lines of this summary of an AMA on reddit, with this quote among many:



I don't know if Mearls has had uncomplimentary things to say about the OSR elsewhere. But I couldn't find them. And the above suggests he found inspiration in the OSR.

For the record, I don't think 5E is OSR at all. But that's a different issue than saying Mearls is uncomplimentary about OSR play.

During the dev period for 5E, Mearls made MANY comments in the forums that showed that
(1) while he played AD&D2E, he didn't run it in an OSR mode
(2) He frequently misunderstands and/or miscommunicates understanding of AD&D rules.
(3) He said at several points that the OSR crowd was never going to be a part of the target audience for 5E, the ones that come to mind were OSR fanboys whinging about how what was previewed was very new school (90's style) play

He doesn't hate them; but he's not one of them and the design isn't for nor accommodating of them.

At one point Crawford mentioned to someone that if he loves AD&D, he should go play AD&D instead of playtesting 5E and marking it down for not being AD&D 3...

Neither of them express hatred of the OSR, but they also have repeatedly been dismissive of it; I suspect that their view is more, It is not how we play, and it's not a large market segment, and it's not a segment we can capture while expanding the fanbase anyway.

Dragonsfoot shows that this is not just my read of them. Note that it's a thread from BEFORE the public playtest.
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/v...sid=75a3dba6179e7b978dabdc4986721542&start=60

Having seen video of Mearls DMing, he's definitely NOT part of the OSR... he's got a story in mind, and is working the characters into it, not letting the story arise from the PC's actions.

Crawford likewise doesn't run in the Old School manner.

 

[creativehum]

During the dev period for 5E, Mearls made MANY comments in the forums that showed that ...

I'm losing track of what "dismiss" means, or exactly what your point is.

If you're saying WOTC didn't chase down the OSR market with 5e, you are correct. In fact, I said 5e had nothing to do with the OSR two pages back.

So, we agree, right? (Are we arguing about anything? Are we disagreeing? I can't tell. As is often the case, you write a response to me that seems structured to be some sort of argument, but you aren't saying anything that contradicts the main point I made, or even the lesser points.)

As for Crawford, I couldn't find anything about what he thought of OSR as a playstyle.

As for Mearls, I found the following. For a while, while working on 4e, he ran an OD&D game at WOTC during lunch. He did a Q&A on the odd74 boards and someone asked:

By the way, I'm very interested in you sharing how you "felt" as a DM. Did OD&D help you to run a good session? Did you felt comfortable, satisfied with the system? Did you feel the game system was good to run, and enhanced your DMing skills? What did you liked as a DM? Having been the prime designer of the 4E monster manual, did you liked the way OD&D handles monsters? (this may be what I find best in OD&D, it's the best take on monsters ever. I really love the way they were designed)

Mearls replies:

I've thought about this question quite a bit, and here's my first thoughts on it.

A lot of the fun parts of the session (the talking skull; the undead and their bargain) were possible under any edition of D&D. However, I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"

The thing I like best about OD&D monsters is that they are simple to run and easy to improvise. It was nice to simply write down AC, damage, and hit dice. On the other hand, I missed the variety of weird effects and tactics that 4e monsters can use independent of any work I put into them as a DM. The two approaches are very different.

OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised. I can write rules without worrying about strict interpretations or covering every possible case. The players, since they've agreed to sit down at an OD&D table, are probably more likely to accept random craziness and a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding the lever then making a skill check).

To be honest, I think the games are different enough that I easily have space for both of them in my library. For me, they fill very different needs. OD&D is like jamming with a band. A lot of stuff gets made up on the fly, and when we find something interesting everyone just rides with it. D&D 4 is like playing a symphony. There's more structure and more pieces to work with, but everything comes together in this grand ensemble.

He certainly seemed to enjoy the experience. He can distinguish between seeing different play-styles as different without dismissing one one or the other. (Is that a thing around this site? If someone notes that two things are different someone else will feel that one of them is being "dismissed"?)

Finally, he points out some of the qualities in the OD&D game that he enjoys that don't occur as easily in D&D 4. The differences he notes in the OD&D play are the very differences I noted above about why I like playing with the Classic Traveller rules rather than later RPG designed rules. Mearls expresses the view very well, in my opinion.

 

[Thanos]

Having seen video of Mearls DMing, he's definitely NOT part of the OSR... he's got a story in mind, and is working the characters into it, not letting the story arise from the PC's actions.

What does everyone mean when they say story? I ask because based on replies here (not necessarily this thread) and on other boards people use it to mean different things.

When I hear story I think the GM has a literal story he is going to tell. Like a book or a movie only the characters are along for the ride and have no agency.

I've also seen people use it to mean plot. The GM has a basic outline and the action unfolds in response to the player actions.

I've seen people say Sand Box like there is no story and all they do is create the world and plunk the players down in it and everything is the result of player actions. But even here there's plot isn't there? NPC A has a grudge against NPC B. Faction Y is trying to undermine Faction Z. Am I wrong?

It just bothers me when someone says story and is immediately dismissive of
the game. What Mearls is doing is rail roading the players regardless of the story and that's bad GMing.

 

[Terquem]

To answer the question above. For me, Story means what happens because the players chose "a" and not "b"

As a Game Master (Dungeon Master) I have always run my games from the perspective of, "here is the setting, here are the things that occupy the setting, this is something that happened, now, what do you, as a Player Character decide to do next?"

I have never run a game with any intention to tell any story I have already thought about in my head.

The story, in my games, is made by the decisions of the players.

 

[Adam Dray]

Bingo, Terquem.

I have written Traveller scenarios that I run over and over at different game conventions. One I have run probably 6-8 times now. It turns out differently every time!

That's how you know if you're telling a story or letting the players tell a story.

 

[atpollard]

It is ironic that the OSR movement should be so stronly associated with 'players creating the story with their choices' since the actual OLD adventures were almost always SO classic railroad in character ... Oh, look. A series of 30 consecitive rooms linked by tunnels that need to be defeated in order to reach the Lair of the (insert). ... Brings back memories.

 

[Thanos]

To answer the question above. For me, Story means what happens because the players chose "a" and not "b"

As a Game Master (Dungeon Master) I have always run my games from the perspective of, "here is the setting, here are the things that occupy the setting, this is something that happened, now, what do you, as a Player Character decide to do next?"

I have never run a game with any intention to tell any story I have already thought about in my head.

The story, in my games, is made by the decisions of the players.

It's still a story. The players are just deciding how it unfolds and it's final outcome.

 

[aramis]

What does everyone mean when they say story? I ask because based on replies here (not necessarily this thread) and on other boards people use it to mean different things.

When I hear story I think the GM has a literal story he is going to tell. Like a book or a movie only the characters are along for the ride and have no agency.

Mearls is one of those. He has one plot line and you WILL play it. The question is how far will you make it. Player agency is limited to the methods, not the goals.

Part of the OSR, at least from the sites I'm seeing, is a return to "story happens as a result of play, story is not created before play."

Good story-from-play modules include Leviathan, Prison Planet, Annic Nova, and Kinunir. They are, "Here's a situation, turn the PC's loose upon it."
the Story-to-play mode is exemplified best by Shadows, Twilight's Peak and Secret of the Ancients - there's a plot, and until you jump on it, nothing much happens, and then you have to keep going to make any progress, in a specific series of clues that come in a specific order.

Most GMs are somewhere between most of the time, but a lot of bad GM's are plothammer-wielding, "My story or no story" types. There are a few who make that a pleasant style.

Think of it as a flow chart - if you can easily flow-chart the module into a line, with options to exit the module along the way, it's a plot-driven one. A plot railroad. Much like a linear dungeon.
If, instead, it branches into macramé, such as certain chapters of TTA, its more of the old school.

Now, I've seen (and done) stories where there were two parallel linear modules, and the players bounced back and forth between them...

 

[ffilz]

It is ironic that the OSR movement should be so stronly associated with 'players creating the story with their choices' since the actual OLD adventures were almost always SO classic railroad in character ... Oh, look. A series of 30 consecitive rooms linked by tunnels that need to be defeated in order to reach the Lair of the (insert). ... Brings back memories.

Many in the OSR reject those modules...

And B1 and B2 are very non-railroady.

Back in the day, I rejected the overly railroady modules (starting with A1).

Yea, some, like White Plume Mountain were single path (ok, that one is actually 3 separate single paths...), but they still played out fine, while single path, they didn't force outcomes, or at least I didn't force outcomes.