Classic Traveller: An Adult Game/Attitude

[Whipsnade]

hunter wrote:

"Posting deliberate misinformation only weakens your position by making it appear that you are unfamiliar with the subject you wish to discuss."


Mr. Gordon,

In a debate, the participants take opposite sides - note: 'opposite' not 'opposing' - of the same issue and then discuss said issue. The idea is not to 'prove' one viewpoint wrong or one viewpoint correct, but to use the debate to explore the issue at hand.

I was interested in sparking a friendly debate. I was wrong in not stating that I was interested in sparking a friendly debate.

Here is the 'given' for the debate I wish to kick off: Do the mechanical aspects of various RPG systems create a tendency towards certain styles of play?

I say yes. I believe in 'horses for courses'. I will use a different system to model a different setting, just as I use different wargame rules to model different types of battles. I believe that the idea of a 'generic' RPG system or a 'universal' RPG system is oxymoronic - each setting is a universe in and of itself. Just has each gaming group is an 'individual', so is each game setting.

RPG systems are where we begin. All must be tweaked, bent, or even dropped in favor of another RPG system entirely in order to create the setting and game that we wish to play at the moment. Believing that 'one size fits all' is nothing but a cop out, besides being intellectually lazy.

Please note my use of the word 'believe', that indicates that the preceding paragraphs were nothing more than my opinion.

"No classes and feats do not. [promote a certain style of play - LEW] I have seen as many cases of rampant munchkinism and blatant science-fantasy done using CT and GT as any other rule system (including d20/T20)."

So have I. I simply believe it is a shorter journey from d20/T20 to the rampant munchkinism and blantant science fantasy styles of play than it is from any other previous Traveller rules set. You can travel to that style of play from any RPG rules set. However, you are closer to that goal if you start at T20. Oh, before I forget... there is nothing 'wrong' with the rampant munchkinism and blatant science fantasy styles of play.

"It isn't the systems that do this, it is how those people prefer to play."

That is very true. Of course, some people don't know that you can play differently, some people do know that and don't care, and in all cases their choices are their choices.

"Are we supposed to become the Traveller Gestapo and stamp out any games that remotely begin to deviate from what you and I may perceive as being the only 'true' way to play the game?"

Of course not. You know me to be both a heretic and the furthest thing from a canonista. I also believe that there is no one 'true' RPG system.

"I have no objection to anyone trying to persuade another that Traveller should have a certain style and feel to it..."

And that is precisely what these threads have been all about; long time Traveller fans answering questions from people new to the setting about the 'feel' of it. If they like what they read, they use it. If they don't like what they read, they ignore it. And the play continues...

"If the person who wants to use some D&D feats in his T20 game, or wants to use some stuff from GURPS Fantasy in his GT game, well he or she is still buying Traveller stuff as well right?"

Now I understand. You believe I'm threatening your bottom line. Nothing could be further from my mind. I think T20 is an excellent idea and I hope you sell a lot of it.

"If CT (or insert your favorite version of the rules) is the ultimate personification of the game, why is it some many other people disagree?"

Because they run their own games which happen to suit their own needs? I never ran a pure CT, MT, or TNE campaign in my life as a GM. I never ran a pure D&D campaign or a pure En Garde campaign either. I never ran any RPG system 'as is' or 'straight out of the box'.

That being said, modifying certain RPG systems to meet my setting specific goals was easier if I began with a system that was closer to my goal. If I wanted nitty-gritty, I began with CT or MT. If I wanted heroic fantasy, I began with D&D.

"And BTW, if you think CT wasn't originally written to be able to run Star Wars style space opera and without the OTU in mind, you need to think again."

Score a laugh point and take a chill pill. My opinions on this matter are not a personal attack on you.

I've been involved with Traveller since the Carter Administration. The OTU isn't even mentioned in the Three LBBs and is barely mentioned in A:1 Kinunir. CT owes a great deal to the space opera style fiction of the 50s and 60s - Piper, Chandler, Heinlen, et. al. CT; or more accurately the materials GDW used to create CT, also predates 'Star Wars'. CT was meant to be a somewhat generic sci-fi RPG system. What it turned into was something entirely different however.

I've used CT to run a fantasy, Thirty Years' War, En Garde campaign. I've used CT to run an Asimov Foundation campaign. I've used CT to run a campaign set during the 1930's Chaco War. I use CT whenever I need nitty-gritty, whenever I need combat to be deadly, whenever I need PCs to be people and not superheroes. I used CT in those situations because it allowed me to start closer to my goal. I used D&D in other situations because it was closer to those other goals.

That is all I am saying; Horses For Courses. Nothing about 'better', nothing about 'worse', none of that. Just horses for courses. Use the best tool for the job and, when the job changes, change the tool.

YMMV.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

hunter wrote:

"Posting deliberate misinformation only weakens your position by making it appear that you are unfamiliar with the subject you wish to discuss."


Mr. Gordon,

In a debate, the participants take opposite sides - note: 'opposite' not 'opposing' - of the same issue and then discuss said issue. The idea is not to 'prove' one viewpoint wrong or one viewpoint correct, but to use the debate to explore the issue at hand.

I was interested in sparking a friendly debate. I was wrong in not stating that I was interested in sparking a friendly debate.

Here is the 'given' for the debate I wish to kick off: Do the mechanical aspects of various RPG systems create a tendency towards certain styles of play?

I say yes. I believe in 'horses for courses'. I will use a different system to model a different setting, just as I use different wargame rules to model different types of battles. I believe that the idea of a 'generic' RPG system or a 'universal' RPG system is oxymoronic - each setting is a universe in and of itself. Just has each gaming group is an 'individual', so is each game setting.

RPG systems are where we begin. All must be tweaked, bent, or even dropped in favor of another RPG system entirely in order to create the setting and game that we wish to play at the moment. Believing that 'one size fits all' is nothing but a cop out, besides being intellectually lazy.

Please note my use of the word 'believe', that indicates that the preceding paragraphs were nothing more than my opinion.

"No classes and feats do not. [promote a certain style of play - LEW] I have seen as many cases of rampant munchkinism and blatant science-fantasy done using CT and GT as any other rule system (including d20/T20)."

So have I. I simply believe it is a shorter journey from d20/T20 to the rampant munchkinism and blantant science fantasy styles of play than it is from any other previous Traveller rules set. You can travel to that style of play from any RPG rules set. However, you are closer to that goal if you start at T20. Oh, before I forget... there is nothing 'wrong' with the rampant munchkinism and blatant science fantasy styles of play.

"It isn't the systems that do this, it is how those people prefer to play."

That is very true. Of course, some people don't know that you can play differently, some people do know that and don't care, and in all cases their choices are their choices.

"Are we supposed to become the Traveller Gestapo and stamp out any games that remotely begin to deviate from what you and I may perceive as being the only 'true' way to play the game?"

Of course not. You know me to be both a heretic and the furthest thing from a canonista. I also believe that there is no one 'true' RPG system.

"I have no objection to anyone trying to persuade another that Traveller should have a certain style and feel to it..."

And that is precisely what these threads have been all about; long time Traveller fans answering questions from people new to the setting about the 'feel' of it. If they like what they read, they use it. If they don't like what they read, they ignore it. And the play continues...

"If the person who wants to use some D&D feats in his T20 game, or wants to use some stuff from GURPS Fantasy in his GT game, well he or she is still buying Traveller stuff as well right?"

Now I understand. You believe I'm threatening your bottom line. Nothing could be further from my mind. I think T20 is an excellent idea and I hope you sell a lot of it.

"If CT (or insert your favorite version of the rules) is the ultimate personification of the game, why is it some many other people disagree?"

Because they run their own games which happen to suit their own needs? I never ran a pure CT, MT, or TNE campaign in my life as a GM. I never ran a pure D&D campaign or a pure En Garde campaign either. I never ran any RPG system 'as is' or 'straight out of the box'.

That being said, modifying certain RPG systems to meet my setting specific goals was easier if I began with a system that was closer to my goal. If I wanted nitty-gritty, I began with CT or MT. If I wanted heroic fantasy, I began with D&D.

"And BTW, if you think CT wasn't originally written to be able to run Star Wars style space opera and without the OTU in mind, you need to think again."

Score a laugh point and take a chill pill. My opinions on this matter are not a personal attack on you.

I've been involved with Traveller since the Carter Administration. The OTU isn't even mentioned in the Three LBBs and is barely mentioned in A:1 Kinunir. CT owes a great deal to the space opera style fiction of the 50s and 60s - Piper, Chandler, Heinlen, et. al. CT; or more accurately the materials GDW used to create CT, also predates 'Star Wars'. CT was meant to be a somewhat generic sci-fi RPG system. What it turned into was something entirely different however.

I've used CT to run a fantasy, Thirty Years' War, En Garde campaign. I've used CT to run an Asimov Foundation campaign. I've used CT to run a campaign set during the 1930's Chaco War. I use CT whenever I need nitty-gritty, whenever I need combat to be deadly, whenever I need PCs to be people and not superheroes. I used CT in those situations because it allowed me to start closer to my goal. I used D&D in other situations because it was closer to those other goals.

That is all I am saying; Horses For Courses. Nothing about 'better', nothing about 'worse', none of that. Just horses for courses. Use the best tool for the job and, when the job changes, change the tool.

YMMV.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

Falkayn wrote:

"Larsen, you old reprobate, trust you to ask the holy grail of RPG design questions.

"


Mr. Falkayn,

And a tip of the battered boater to you, sir!

"My personal answer, based on a 20 year period of RPing in various rules systems and types of games, is that the mechanisms will certainly affect the style of play."

That is my opinion also.

"But, having answered your question, I think the more interesting question is this: "What player and PC behaviour should be the focus of a typical Traveller game, and what are the appropriate mechanisms to encourage this focus?""

That questions asks another; What is a typical Traveller game? I happen to think there isn't one! We can use all the published GDW/DGP/Keith Bros. adventures as guide of sorts and state that outsized heroics are not Traveller's official style. The style of the game is really what the GM and PCs want it to be. However, they'll have much more trouble using previously published adventures if they are playing in an outsized heroics manner.

"... most GMs can find published mechanisms they can add on to T20 to approximate what they want."

Exactly. Tweak and modify. Add what you need for your setting and style. Make it your own and don't play straight 'out of the box'.

"An example in point, is the politics/debating rules from Dynasties & Demagogues, which could make a great addition to some T20 campaigns."

That is a superb example and one aspect of RPG play that has been sadly overlooked. Those rules would be welcome in nearly any system or setting.

"The premise behind T20 is that there are enough people happy with it as a basis, that it was worth doing (which I think has been proved out by QuikLink's sales)."

Even if T20 was a flop, I still think it needed doing. It provides a whole bag of new tools for the GM to create his own setting.

"That doesn't mean Classic Traveller is worthless, but more reflects the recognition that a game system that is well known, expandable and supported by multiple companies is probably a good bandwagon to get on."

Sadly, this is true. However, we've slowly learned that monocultures are not good in either argiculture and operating systems. I also believe that they are not good for RPGs too. Coke or Pepsi, Republican or Democrat, GURPS or d20, all of that merely illustrates a dearth of choices. I'd much rather have many choices and with desktop publishing it may still occur. We're beginning to see it happen in wargaming, hopefully role-playing isn't too far behind.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

Falkayn wrote:

"Larsen, you old reprobate, trust you to ask the holy grail of RPG design questions.

"


Mr. Falkayn,

And a tip of the battered boater to you, sir!

"My personal answer, based on a 20 year period of RPing in various rules systems and types of games, is that the mechanisms will certainly affect the style of play."

That is my opinion also.

"But, having answered your question, I think the more interesting question is this: "What player and PC behaviour should be the focus of a typical Traveller game, and what are the appropriate mechanisms to encourage this focus?""

That questions asks another; What is a typical Traveller game? I happen to think there isn't one! We can use all the published GDW/DGP/Keith Bros. adventures as guide of sorts and state that outsized heroics are not Traveller's official style. The style of the game is really what the GM and PCs want it to be. However, they'll have much more trouble using previously published adventures if they are playing in an outsized heroics manner.

"... most GMs can find published mechanisms they can add on to T20 to approximate what they want."

Exactly. Tweak and modify. Add what you need for your setting and style. Make it your own and don't play straight 'out of the box'.

"An example in point, is the politics/debating rules from Dynasties & Demagogues, which could make a great addition to some T20 campaigns."

That is a superb example and one aspect of RPG play that has been sadly overlooked. Those rules would be welcome in nearly any system or setting.

"The premise behind T20 is that there are enough people happy with it as a basis, that it was worth doing (which I think has been proved out by QuikLink's sales)."

Even if T20 was a flop, I still think it needed doing. It provides a whole bag of new tools for the GM to create his own setting.

"That doesn't mean Classic Traveller is worthless, but more reflects the recognition that a game system that is well known, expandable and supported by multiple companies is probably a good bandwagon to get on."

Sadly, this is true. However, we've slowly learned that monocultures are not good in either argiculture and operating systems. I also believe that they are not good for RPGs too. Coke or Pepsi, Republican or Democrat, GURPS or d20, all of that merely illustrates a dearth of choices. I'd much rather have many choices and with desktop publishing it may still occur. We're beginning to see it happen in wargaming, hopefully role-playing isn't too far behind.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I think Larsen's point is that it shouldn't be necessary to do something as drastic as changing class to manage this.

There is nothing drastic about changing class. Changing career would be drastic, a big change in your character's life story. But class is a behind the scenes, mechanical thing -- it's essentially a set of menus for skills, feats and combat.

Say your guy who worked four years as a bodyguard and picked up the XP for two levels. Depending on what he did for a living, what skills and abilities he developed, you might spend those two levels on the rogue class or the mercenary class or the professional class or some combination. Mercenary gives excellent gunplay and low skills, professional gives excellent skills and no gunplay (he was the driver), and rogue is a somewhere in between with a slight emphasis on the shiftier skills.

You choose the class(es) to create the mechanical side of the character concept. Multiclassing does not mean that he quit his job half way through those four years. In antidelluvian D&D (pre-D20) it might have, but in T20 it does not. In T20 multiclassing just means that his skills were best modelled by choosing a bit of this class and a bit of that class.

Classes are just a pricing mechanism, like GURPS has a pricing mechanism. They're less flexible than point buy, but less open to abuse. Class-based systems are relatively munchkin-resistant, which is why they're still in wide use after three decades of RPGing.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I think Larsen's point is that it shouldn't be necessary to do something as drastic as changing class to manage this.

There is nothing drastic about changing class. Changing career would be drastic, a big change in your character's life story. But class is a behind the scenes, mechanical thing -- it's essentially a set of menus for skills, feats and combat.

Say your guy who worked four years as a bodyguard and picked up the XP for two levels. Depending on what he did for a living, what skills and abilities he developed, you might spend those two levels on the rogue class or the mercenary class or the professional class or some combination. Mercenary gives excellent gunplay and low skills, professional gives excellent skills and no gunplay (he was the driver), and rogue is a somewhere in between with a slight emphasis on the shiftier skills.

You choose the class(es) to create the mechanical side of the character concept. Multiclassing does not mean that he quit his job half way through those four years. In antidelluvian D&D (pre-D20) it might have, but in T20 it does not. In T20 multiclassing just means that his skills were best modelled by choosing a bit of this class and a bit of that class.

Classes are just a pricing mechanism, like GURPS has a pricing mechanism. They're less flexible than point buy, but less open to abuse. Class-based systems are relatively munchkin-resistant, which is why they're still in wide use after three decades of RPGing.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:

Here is the 'given' for the debate I wish to kick off: Do the mechanical aspects of various RPG systems create a tendency towards certain styles of play?

I say yes.

...

I do believe that the mechanical aspects of the system impact styles of play as well.

No, I am not going to into a tirade against T20 or GURPS. I am personally at this point in my life over many of the mechanical aspects of the D20 -- from classes to feats to XP. That is just me, period.

Never liked GURPS much back in the day and I like lifepath based chargen and well it is a pretty steep investment in books and time to go the GURPS route.

So what are my choices? I was stuck on the idea of doing CT with a steep set of house rules most of it modd'ed from Andy Slack. But that meant re-writing sections of the rules from personal combat to skill progression to the Task system. At least it did for me and other people run great CT games that work really well.

Then it hit me. Screw it I was going to use MT rules. Fewer mods for my style of ref'ing. Am I saying this is the way for others to go?

Nope not at all.

Stuff I liked about Traveller when I first started and yes I started with MT as I have stated in other posts:

1. Lifepath based chargen
2. Task System
3. Armor with pen/atten rules (just liked the idea that Armor was not a To-Hit modifier)
4. Lots of skills/careers
5. Rules to create everything from a starship to a sector of space.

For the player the toughest part is creating the character.

But the ref still has the complexity to create a universe for play.

Sure there are things I did not like:

1. Too much errata.
2. Combat is a plus and minus because it is complex and has retarded side based initiative.
3. Vehicle and Starship construction is merged which is good but is a mess even with errata in place. (never a gearhead so this mattered very little to me)
4. Skill progression is wonky with the determination rolls.
5. No core inclusion for the creation of alien race PCs. (mtcg and Travgen are life savers in this regard thank goodness)

I am seriously wary of people that say the system does not matter.

It matters to the players at core junctures in play when chracter generation happens, task resolution is needed, combat resolution (space/personal) is needed, and when the players want to try and learn or progress a skill/attribute.

And it matters a great deal to the ref when trying to put together a consistent adventure, environment and situations for the players to experience.

Now I did not quote your section on the style of gaming itself.

I agree that Traveller with its tendency toward realistic task resolution and deadly combat does not lean toward what anyone would consider overblown heroics.

Some people however I believe take this concept way tooo far.

I will assert that it is still swashbuckling to explore a planet on a search for an Ancients site to go through Indiana Jones in sci-fi style

I think it is heroic as in one game I played to save a domed city from a bomb plot on a vaccumm world

Yet, occasionally I hear people talk about whether or not you are playing a merchant focused campaign or a Striker campaign as if those are the only styles of play possible in Traveller.

That is silly and limiting.

The players in my campaign are about to try and save a twelve year old boy abducted by terroists.

Is that not heroic enough?

Am I not playing Traveller right as a ref by putting forth this type of adventure?

_

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:

Here is the 'given' for the debate I wish to kick off: Do the mechanical aspects of various RPG systems create a tendency towards certain styles of play?

I say yes.

...

I do believe that the mechanical aspects of the system impact styles of play as well.

No, I am not going to into a tirade against T20 or GURPS. I am personally at this point in my life over many of the mechanical aspects of the D20 -- from classes to feats to XP. That is just me, period.

Never liked GURPS much back in the day and I like lifepath based chargen and well it is a pretty steep investment in books and time to go the GURPS route.

So what are my choices? I was stuck on the idea of doing CT with a steep set of house rules most of it modd'ed from Andy Slack. But that meant re-writing sections of the rules from personal combat to skill progression to the Task system. At least it did for me and other people run great CT games that work really well.

Then it hit me. Screw it I was going to use MT rules. Fewer mods for my style of ref'ing. Am I saying this is the way for others to go?

Nope not at all.

Stuff I liked about Traveller when I first started and yes I started with MT as I have stated in other posts:

1. Lifepath based chargen
2. Task System
3. Armor with pen/atten rules (just liked the idea that Armor was not a To-Hit modifier)
4. Lots of skills/careers
5. Rules to create everything from a starship to a sector of space.

For the player the toughest part is creating the character.

But the ref still has the complexity to create a universe for play.

Sure there are things I did not like:

1. Too much errata.
2. Combat is a plus and minus because it is complex and has retarded side based initiative.
3. Vehicle and Starship construction is merged which is good but is a mess even with errata in place. (never a gearhead so this mattered very little to me)
4. Skill progression is wonky with the determination rolls.
5. No core inclusion for the creation of alien race PCs. (mtcg and Travgen are life savers in this regard thank goodness)

I am seriously wary of people that say the system does not matter.

It matters to the players at core junctures in play when chracter generation happens, task resolution is needed, combat resolution (space/personal) is needed, and when the players want to try and learn or progress a skill/attribute.

And it matters a great deal to the ref when trying to put together a consistent adventure, environment and situations for the players to experience.

Now I did not quote your section on the style of gaming itself.

I agree that Traveller with its tendency toward realistic task resolution and deadly combat does not lean toward what anyone would consider overblown heroics.

Some people however I believe take this concept way tooo far.

I will assert that it is still swashbuckling to explore a planet on a search for an Ancients site to go through Indiana Jones in sci-fi style

I think it is heroic as in one game I played to save a domed city from a bomb plot on a vaccumm world

Yet, occasionally I hear people talk about whether or not you are playing a merchant focused campaign or a Striker campaign as if those are the only styles of play possible in Traveller.

That is silly and limiting.

The players in my campaign are about to try and save a twelve year old boy abducted by terroists.

Is that not heroic enough?

Am I not playing Traveller right as a ref by putting forth this type of adventure?

_

 

[robject]

Originally posted by ACK:
...For the player [of MegaTraveller] the toughest part is creating the character.

And indeed, for some of us this is part of the fun in Traveller; the game begins even before the game begins, in a way. Get to know your character by walking in his shoes, rather than decanting him from one of Aldous Huxley's bottles.

For others, chargen must be directed to provide necessary focus and team tuning. And some GMs will have to provide ready-made character sheets to players for various reasons. More power to them all.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by ACK:
...For the player [of MegaTraveller] the toughest part is creating the character.

And indeed, for some of us this is part of the fun in Traveller; the game begins even before the game begins, in a way. Get to know your character by walking in his shoes, rather than decanting him from one of Aldous Huxley's bottles.

For others, chargen must be directed to provide necessary focus and team tuning. And some GMs will have to provide ready-made character sheets to players for various reasons. More power to them all.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ACK:
...For the player [of MegaTraveller] the toughest part is creating the character.

And indeed, for some of us this is part of the fun in Traveller; the game begins even before the game begins, in a way. Get to know your character by walking in his shoes, rather than decanting him from one of Aldous Huxley's bottles.

For others, chargen must be directed to provide necessary focus and team tuning. And some GMs will have to provide ready-made character sheets to players for various reasons. More power to them all. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, this has been discussed many times.

I will assert that any human being so devoid of imagination that they can not figure out at least short background paragraph out of the wealth of information gained during lifepath based chargen in the Traveller game has no business playing an rpg at all.

They should do what most unimaginative geeks do -- play Magic: the Gathering.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ACK:
...For the player [of MegaTraveller] the toughest part is creating the character.

And indeed, for some of us this is part of the fun in Traveller; the game begins even before the game begins, in a way. Get to know your character by walking in his shoes, rather than decanting him from one of Aldous Huxley's bottles.

For others, chargen must be directed to provide necessary focus and team tuning. And some GMs will have to provide ready-made character sheets to players for various reasons. More power to them all. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, this has been discussed many times.

I will assert that any human being so devoid of imagination that they can not figure out at least short background paragraph out of the wealth of information gained during lifepath based chargen in the Traveller game has no business playing an rpg at all.

They should do what most unimaginative geeks do -- play Magic: the Gathering.

 

[kaladorn]

Have to take Laren's view in this one. Systems don't constrain you to play a certain way, but they do evidence proclivities.

I've noticed that when people played MT, the chargen was a focal point as was the playing of the game.

There wasn't a lot of mechanical futtering around with characters to get the right combination of nifty abilities. Combat didn't have so many optional paste ins nor did it seem to require them.

Yes, the errata sucked. Yes, I never was a gearhead, so I didn't care that the ship constrution was a pain, because others took that pain for me and made lovely ship designs and deckplans (kudos to all who did!).

On the other hand, D20 seems to have so many add-ins that people get lost in prestige classes, 1001 new feats (and that's just in a single book!), and in the minutae of fitting their character out 'just so' and having 'this or that' neat ability. The focus seems to be very mechanical.

Now, T20 is a bit nicer than vanilla AD&D 3.5, no doubt about it. It does come a bit closer to a traveller feel. But it still shows its D20 roots.

And D20, for all its advantages and adaptability, still ends up tending to draw people into the mechanics of character tweaking in a way MT never seemed to.

This is only my observation from observing two or three separate gaming groups I've been playing with for years. When we play Traveller a la MT, other than for equipment, we virtually never see any books on the table and only a few dice. When we play AD&D or other D20 games (or other systems which have so many options and so many clip-ons), we end up with a pile of books in front of every player, and the players whose disposition are tinker-oriented spend a lot of time just oo-ing and ah-ing over what they could do and 'wouldn't it be neat if..'

Sure, T20 and D20 can be played without the books. But it just isn't quite as easy we find. And for simplicity with colourful resolution, no D20-related system seems to match the MT/BITS task system. And the characters seem to be a plethora of statistics. With the exception of your 6 digit UPP, most people could look at an MT character sheet even not knowing the game, and get a flavour for the character ("He was a Marine, he served 20 years, he got a bunch of deocrations, he's good with a machine gun and recon, he's okay with tactics and a rifle, he knows how to fix the rifle, etc"). The same untrained person staring at a T20 or D20 character will tend to have their eyes glaze over at parts because of the collection of numbers involved in describing the character.

T20 isn't bad, nor is D20. But I have to agree with Larsen on the Horses for Courses comment. And it takes a certain type of player to truly appreciate a D20 based system, rather than to feel a bit belaboured by it, IME.

 

[kaladorn]

Have to take Laren's view in this one. Systems don't constrain you to play a certain way, but they do evidence proclivities.

I've noticed that when people played MT, the chargen was a focal point as was the playing of the game.

There wasn't a lot of mechanical futtering around with characters to get the right combination of nifty abilities. Combat didn't have so many optional paste ins nor did it seem to require them.

Yes, the errata sucked. Yes, I never was a gearhead, so I didn't care that the ship constrution was a pain, because others took that pain for me and made lovely ship designs and deckplans (kudos to all who did!).

On the other hand, D20 seems to have so many add-ins that people get lost in prestige classes, 1001 new feats (and that's just in a single book!), and in the minutae of fitting their character out 'just so' and having 'this or that' neat ability. The focus seems to be very mechanical.

Now, T20 is a bit nicer than vanilla AD&D 3.5, no doubt about it. It does come a bit closer to a traveller feel. But it still shows its D20 roots.

And D20, for all its advantages and adaptability, still ends up tending to draw people into the mechanics of character tweaking in a way MT never seemed to.

This is only my observation from observing two or three separate gaming groups I've been playing with for years. When we play Traveller a la MT, other than for equipment, we virtually never see any books on the table and only a few dice. When we play AD&D or other D20 games (or other systems which have so many options and so many clip-ons), we end up with a pile of books in front of every player, and the players whose disposition are tinker-oriented spend a lot of time just oo-ing and ah-ing over what they could do and 'wouldn't it be neat if..'

Sure, T20 and D20 can be played without the books. But it just isn't quite as easy we find. And for simplicity with colourful resolution, no D20-related system seems to match the MT/BITS task system. And the characters seem to be a plethora of statistics. With the exception of your 6 digit UPP, most people could look at an MT character sheet even not knowing the game, and get a flavour for the character ("He was a Marine, he served 20 years, he got a bunch of deocrations, he's good with a machine gun and recon, he's okay with tactics and a rifle, he knows how to fix the rifle, etc"). The same untrained person staring at a T20 or D20 character will tend to have their eyes glaze over at parts because of the collection of numbers involved in describing the character.

T20 isn't bad, nor is D20. But I have to agree with Larsen on the Horses for Courses comment. And it takes a certain type of player to truly appreciate a D20 based system, rather than to feel a bit belaboured by it, IME.

 

[aramis]

If all Mr. Whipsnade wanted to do was spark honest debate, he could have asked a question, rather than have made trollish, inflamatory, and erroneous statements, painting with a broad brush and appearing to be maaking bold misstatements out of sheer ignorance.

 

[aramis]

If all Mr. Whipsnade wanted to do was spark honest debate, he could have asked a question, rather than have made trollish, inflamatory, and erroneous statements, painting with a broad brush and appearing to be maaking bold misstatements out of sheer ignorance.

 

[Straybow]

I disagree. Trollish or inflamatory depends on the anticipated response arriving. A simplified outsider's view of T20's weaknesses is fair play. If it takes the equivalent of an associates degree to understand the system, that is a point in debate.

To me it appears Larsen's remark is still accurate. The option to multiclass distributes experience between the classes. The ability for a noncombat class to choose combat feats and skills is diminished. Either path greatly slows progression compared to a real life professional gifted with a knack for martial arts who does not invest his time in other "combat class" pursuits.

In previous manifestations of Traveller you could "just do it." In T20 you need a work-around.

 

[Straybow]

I disagree. Trollish or inflamatory depends on the anticipated response arriving. A simplified outsider's view of T20's weaknesses is fair play. If it takes the equivalent of an associates degree to understand the system, that is a point in debate.

To me it appears Larsen's remark is still accurate. The option to multiclass distributes experience between the classes. The ability for a noncombat class to choose combat feats and skills is diminished. Either path greatly slows progression compared to a real life professional gifted with a knack for martial arts who does not invest his time in other "combat class" pursuits.

In previous manifestations of Traveller you could "just do it." In T20 you need a work-around.

 

[kaladorn]

Now, I haven't got T20 handy, but if I open out a second class in classic D20 (or at least AD&D which isn't quite the same), don't I open up a range of new skills which I can buy without any 'out of class' penalties? If all I want to do is simulate my skill with weapon X (which may not be matched by other combat skills), the adding a multiclassing really doesn't do a very good job.

Now, let me apply a degree of softening to the general tone of my comments by saying that I've yet to see a system of any type that models how real people learn (and unlearn) their skills and how easy or hard it is based on their affinities, disposition, and natural gifts. (as well as of course training, informal instruction and life experience).

Multiclassing just seems (and this is perhaps because of my many-years-formed idea that a class comes with certain training, skills, and knowledge base which is not just 'slapped on') like using a sledgehammer to crack an egg in this case. Of course, it may be that my 'sledgehammer' is actually a tacking hammer, but my idea of a class (formed admittedly by the games from which D20 was birthed) is that it would take some very significant time and effort (and perhaps training) to acquire the class skills. Perhaps in D20 and T20, this is generally not true and a class is more of a 'collection class' for a few related skills, without the same heavy overtones.

 

[kaladorn]

Now, I haven't got T20 handy, but if I open out a second class in classic D20 (or at least AD&D which isn't quite the same), don't I open up a range of new skills which I can buy without any 'out of class' penalties? If all I want to do is simulate my skill with weapon X (which may not be matched by other combat skills), the adding a multiclassing really doesn't do a very good job.

Now, let me apply a degree of softening to the general tone of my comments by saying that I've yet to see a system of any type that models how real people learn (and unlearn) their skills and how easy or hard it is based on their affinities, disposition, and natural gifts. (as well as of course training, informal instruction and life experience).

Multiclassing just seems (and this is perhaps because of my many-years-formed idea that a class comes with certain training, skills, and knowledge base which is not just 'slapped on') like using a sledgehammer to crack an egg in this case. Of course, it may be that my 'sledgehammer' is actually a tacking hammer, but my idea of a class (formed admittedly by the games from which D20 was birthed) is that it would take some very significant time and effort (and perhaps training) to acquire the class skills. Perhaps in D20 and T20, this is generally not true and a class is more of a 'collection class' for a few related skills, without the same heavy overtones.