Classic Traveller: An Adult Game/Attitude

[Drakon]

Grin,

Passed it along. My son's only comment was combat. And I think this was my point all along with him. He is of the apparent opinion that the game is all about combat. Any game, any setting. If your character can't hold his own in a firefight (which if you are a kid teamed with a vet, you won't) then you have that play imbalance thing he hates.

I just recently found the Forge stuff. And really liked that set of definitions about style of play. Haven't looked through the rest of it yet.

 

[Drakon]

Grin,

Passed it along. My son's only comment was combat. And I think this was my point all along with him. He is of the apparent opinion that the game is all about combat. Any game, any setting. If your character can't hold his own in a firefight (which if you are a kid teamed with a vet, you won't) then you have that play imbalance thing he hates.

I just recently found the Forge stuff. And really liked that set of definitions about style of play. Haven't looked through the rest of it yet.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Drakon:
My son's only comment was combat. And I think this was my point all along with him. He is of the apparent opinion that the game is all about combat. Any game, any setting. If your character can't hold his own in a firefight (which if you are a kid teamed with a vet, you won't) then you have that play imbalance thing he hates.

Well, perhaps that's a fair point under his circumstances.

If he's very combat-centric, traveller (any ruleset) may not be the game for him. It's too deadly, too risky, there's no "raise dead" spell, and it has slow chargen for replacement characters.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Drakon:
My son's only comment was combat. And I think this was my point all along with him. He is of the apparent opinion that the game is all about combat. Any game, any setting. If your character can't hold his own in a firefight (which if you are a kid teamed with a vet, you won't) then you have that play imbalance thing he hates.

Well, perhaps that's a fair point under his circumstances.

If he's very combat-centric, traveller (any ruleset) may not be the game for him. It's too deadly, too risky, there's no "raise dead" spell, and it has slow chargen for replacement characters.

 

[jasper]

Originally posted by Drakon:
Grin,

... My son's only comment was combat. And I think this was my point all along with him. He is of the apparent opinion that the game is all about combat. Any game, any setting. ...
...

One my dm/players is like this but he only 14. However I think his father will warn him that combat in t20 is not as nice as D&D.

Also I been rolling up the npcs for my campaign.
I thinking about having speed characters. Choose a class take 5 terms = 5 level some weapons, and tas, 6 terms = 5 th level midway, no tas, 7 terms = 6th level weapon and 1 money roll.

Yes unless the ref is running a military campaign most pcs will be 5th or 6th level at least for marines. If you all in military you could get higher especially if the ref gav 1000 xp for each drop into a war zone.

 

[jasper]

Originally posted by Drakon:
Grin,

... My son's only comment was combat. And I think this was my point all along with him. He is of the apparent opinion that the game is all about combat. Any game, any setting. ...
...

One my dm/players is like this but he only 14. However I think his father will warn him that combat in t20 is not as nice as D&D.

Also I been rolling up the npcs for my campaign.
I thinking about having speed characters. Choose a class take 5 terms = 5 level some weapons, and tas, 6 terms = 5 th level midway, no tas, 7 terms = 6th level weapon and 1 money roll.

Yes unless the ref is running a military campaign most pcs will be 5th or 6th level at least for marines. If you all in military you could get higher especially if the ref gav 1000 xp for each drop into a war zone.

 

[PBI]

I have to disagree with the premise that Traveller is an adult-oriented game and D&D isn't. It is true that a lot, in fact, I'd say almost all, D&D players come to that game when young, and at that age, yes, the game is basically an action movie.

But that's due to the players and how they play, not the game system.

I'm in my mid 30's and still play D&D (or, rather, AD&D), and I don't think my campaigns could be considered imature. Now, back when I was 18, sure, the games I ran then were mostly superficial.

It really does all come down to the setting one creates for the game and how the game is run. I'm sure there are Traveler campaigns out there that aren't much more than a re-hash of Star Wars.

Now, whether one prefers Traveller's game mechanics over those of D&D (or any other game, for that matter), that's a different matter entirely

 

[PBI]

I have to disagree with the premise that Traveller is an adult-oriented game and D&D isn't. It is true that a lot, in fact, I'd say almost all, D&D players come to that game when young, and at that age, yes, the game is basically an action movie.

But that's due to the players and how they play, not the game system.

I'm in my mid 30's and still play D&D (or, rather, AD&D), and I don't think my campaigns could be considered imature. Now, back when I was 18, sure, the games I ran then were mostly superficial.

It really does all come down to the setting one creates for the game and how the game is run. I'm sure there are Traveler campaigns out there that aren't much more than a re-hash of Star Wars.

Now, whether one prefers Traveller's game mechanics over those of D&D (or any other game, for that matter), that's a different matter entirely

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Straybow:
AD&D systems have much greater compatability across 3+ versions than Traveller has across its 6+ versions. Neither Gygax et al. nor WotC tried to make milieu (Greyhawk) an integral part of any version of AD&D.

Hmmm. As someone who owns the old D&D books from way back, basic, expert, blah blah up to masters, AD&D the first, AD&D the second, AD&D the Skills and Powers and other black books, now bits of 3.0 and 3.5, I'm afraid I can't support that conclusion about compatibility.

And as for what is and is not compatible - 3.5 rules make fairly extensive mentions of Greyhawk gods IIRC. So I wouldn't say there isn't some tie in. And most of the *adventures* are strongly coupled to a millieu. Not all, some of the better older adventures are a lot like some of the better traveller adventures - easily transplantable.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Straybow:
AD&D systems have much greater compatability across 3+ versions than Traveller has across its 6+ versions. Neither Gygax et al. nor WotC tried to make milieu (Greyhawk) an integral part of any version of AD&D.

Hmmm. As someone who owns the old D&D books from way back, basic, expert, blah blah up to masters, AD&D the first, AD&D the second, AD&D the Skills and Powers and other black books, now bits of 3.0 and 3.5, I'm afraid I can't support that conclusion about compatibility.

And as for what is and is not compatible - 3.5 rules make fairly extensive mentions of Greyhawk gods IIRC. So I wouldn't say there isn't some tie in. And most of the *adventures* are strongly coupled to a millieu. Not all, some of the better older adventures are a lot like some of the better traveller adventures - easily transplantable.

 

[Straybow]

They include examples and references to Greyhawk gods, as optional material. On the other hand, I have never seen a Greyhawk map, refrences to Greyhawk landmarks, towns, governments, nobility, etc posed as canonical. In fact I've never seen a Greyhawk map.

Certain officially recognized campaigns and adventures are decidedly not Greyhawk and possibly incompatible with Greyhawk as a milieu.

Recent efforts have been made to de-Greyhawk D20, stripping trade mark names such as Mordencainen from spell titles or descriptions, etc.

 

[Straybow]

They include examples and references to Greyhawk gods, as optional material. On the other hand, I have never seen a Greyhawk map, refrences to Greyhawk landmarks, towns, governments, nobility, etc posed as canonical. In fact I've never seen a Greyhawk map.

Certain officially recognized campaigns and adventures are decidedly not Greyhawk and possibly incompatible with Greyhawk as a milieu.

Recent efforts have been made to de-Greyhawk D20, stripping trade mark names such as Mordencainen from spell titles or descriptions, etc.

 

[kaladorn]

You'd have to do a lot of stripping. Mordenkainen, Bigby, Otiluke, Tenser, Nystul, Otto. And Greyhawk wasn't the only heavily sold AD&D universe. Forgotten Realms has done a lot of business as has the DL universe.

But CT at least was 'open door' regarding the TU you played in. And most of the others, you could keep the rules and ignore the TU if you wanted to easily enough.

 

[kaladorn]

You'd have to do a lot of stripping. Mordenkainen, Bigby, Otiluke, Tenser, Nystul, Otto. And Greyhawk wasn't the only heavily sold AD&D universe. Forgotten Realms has done a lot of business as has the DL universe.

But CT at least was 'open door' regarding the TU you played in. And most of the others, you could keep the rules and ignore the TU if you wanted to easily enough.

 

[Morte]

Straybow:
They include examples and references to Greyhawk gods, as optional material. On the other hand, I have never seen a Greyhawk map, refrences to Greyhawk landmarks, towns, governments, nobility, etc posed as canonical. In fact I've never seen a Greyhawk map.

Enjoy: http://www.joel-benford.co.uk/nwn/blackmoor/greyhawk_intro.htm

kalrdorn:
3.5 rules make fairly extensive mentions of Greyhawk gods IIRC

Greyhawk is the "official default" setting. I don't think WOTC have ever defined "official", but it basically means "the setting we have to pay royalties to Gary Gygax for, so we use it for examples in products where we're selling rules rather than setting". Forgotten Realms is the de facto default setting for D&D these days.

kalardorn:
You'd have to do a lot of stripping. Mordenkainen, Bigby, Otiluke, Tenser, Nystul, Otto. And Greyhawk wasn't the only heavily sold AD&D universe.

They did. All gone from 3.5 edition.

 

[Morte]

Straybow:
They include examples and references to Greyhawk gods, as optional material. On the other hand, I have never seen a Greyhawk map, refrences to Greyhawk landmarks, towns, governments, nobility, etc posed as canonical. In fact I've never seen a Greyhawk map.

Enjoy: http://www.joel-benford.co.uk/nwn/blackmoor/greyhawk_intro.htm

kalrdorn:
3.5 rules make fairly extensive mentions of Greyhawk gods IIRC

Greyhawk is the "official default" setting. I don't think WOTC have ever defined "official", but it basically means "the setting we have to pay royalties to Gary Gygax for, so we use it for examples in products where we're selling rules rather than setting". Forgotten Realms is the de facto default setting for D&D these days.

kalardorn:
You'd have to do a lot of stripping. Mordenkainen, Bigby, Otiluke, Tenser, Nystul, Otto. And Greyhawk wasn't the only heavily sold AD&D universe.

They did. All gone from 3.5 edition.

 

[Drakon]

They kinda have to if they want to sell more D20 material.

For a GURPy type game mechanics system like D20, you can't have a default universe. The whole point of something like D20 or GURPS, is the same mechanics and rules for a variety of sets and settings. While a "default" setting might be good as an example, it defeats the whole point of having a generic gaming system.

And maybe this is something that Traveller needs, more universes, different empires and stuff. (Heck I just want different drive systems.)

 

[Drakon]

They kinda have to if they want to sell more D20 material.

For a GURPy type game mechanics system like D20, you can't have a default universe. The whole point of something like D20 or GURPS, is the same mechanics and rules for a variety of sets and settings. While a "default" setting might be good as an example, it defeats the whole point of having a generic gaming system.

And maybe this is something that Traveller needs, more universes, different empires and stuff. (Heck I just want different drive systems.)

 

[aramis]

D20 Era D&D is officially set on greyhawk. AD&D2E was FR based. AD&D1E was Greyhawk, kind of, in that the defaults of the setting were the CG rules for greyhawk, and the additional materials were primarily for FR and DL.
OD&D is Mystara...
CD&D was greyhawk and/or blackmoor.

Traveller has been the "OTU" through out its Post CT run, and late CT also was OTU. It is just that the OTU is more thoroughly defined now than it ws in the mid 80's... and now there is a competing TU in print... the GTU. Very close, but not quite the same on mny key points.

Not that Traveller has ever been "Official Way or the Highway" towards variant campaigns.

 

[aramis]

D20 Era D&D is officially set on greyhawk. AD&D2E was FR based. AD&D1E was Greyhawk, kind of, in that the defaults of the setting were the CG rules for greyhawk, and the additional materials were primarily for FR and DL.
OD&D is Mystara...
CD&D was greyhawk and/or blackmoor.

Traveller has been the "OTU" through out its Post CT run, and late CT also was OTU. It is just that the OTU is more thoroughly defined now than it ws in the mid 80's... and now there is a competing TU in print... the GTU. Very close, but not quite the same on mny key points.

Not that Traveller has ever been "Official Way or the Highway" towards variant campaigns.