Classic Traveller vs Traveller T20?

[GypsyComet]

Aheh.

Apologies all around. That post was the result of a *surprise!* 12 hour day at work. I should know that when the brain shuts down at work, logging on to an opinionated forum is probably not the right follow-up...

I'll return when I'm less grumpy.

 

[Jamus]

my post was to illustrate that most people even with a military background probably dont know how to operate more than a few vehicles so why should traveller be different? also i would like to add that skills in traveller, at least IMTU do not show what a character is capable of but rather what said character is especially trained in. any bozo can grab a pistol and spray at an enemy <skill -0> trained people are just better at it.

i use that rule for most common sence things ie driving, swimming, climbing but not for skills that would require a ton of technical training such as pilot.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Jamus:
any bozo can grab a pistol and spray at an enemy <skill -0> trained people are just better at it.

i use that rule for most common sence things ie driving, swimming, climbing but not for skills that would require a ton of technical training such as pilot.

Actually, if you're untrained in a skill (ie don't know how to do it), you should be getting a -4 to the skill roll (which is made using the attribute the skill is based on). It's not unmodified at least, which is what "skill-0" implies.

 

[GypsyComet]

That +1 (or -4) is far more significant on 2d6, however. On a d20 (for TNE and T20) roll the skill numbers will tend to be higher for an "experienced" character. For this reason, a d20 based game should generally not begrudge the combat novice the odd +1 here and there. Particularly if that combat novice insists on hanging out with ethically-challenged freelancers conducting odd jobs out of a two-century-old Type A of uncertain lineage and licensing...

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by jasper:
... and what hobby does not have it armchair experts.

I thought everyone played Traveller in an armchair ...

 

[Jamus]

Actually, if you're untrained in a skill (ie don't know how to do it), you should be getting a -4 to the skill roll (which is made using the attribute the skill is based on). It's not unmodified at least, which is what "skill-0" implies.-Malenfant

I think the purpose of skills in CT is to show what a character is especially good at not to limit the characters actions.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Jamus:
I think the purpose of skills in CT is to show what a character is especially good at not to limit the characters actions. [/QB]

Oh, I thought you were talking about T20 there.

Still, I think it makes sense. If you haven't been trained in how to use or do something then you should get a penalty if you try to use it or do it.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Jamus:
I think the purpose of skills in CT is to show what a character is especially good at not to limit the characters actions.

Not exactly.

In CT, it is completely based on the skill involved. For example, with weapons, unskilled usage is at a -5 to hit. (PC are assumed to be minimally trained in all Book 1 weapons.) With Admin, no skill results in a -3. With Vacc suit, no skill results in a -4. However, with ATV and Air/Raft, there is no penalty for no skill. But for things like Pilot or Engineering, you just can't do it at all without the skill.

So CT was rather inconsistent in how it treated the lack of a particular skill.

 

[Jamus]

hopefully T5 will fix some of these issues.

 

[flykiller]

For example, with weapons, unskilled usage is at a -5 to hit. (PC are assumed to be minimally trained in all Book 1 weapons.) With Admin, no skill results in a -3. With Vacc suit, no skill results in a -4. However, with ATV and Air/Raft, there is no penalty for no skill. But for things like Pilot or Engineering, you just can't do it at all without the skill.

So CT was rather inconsistent in how it treated the lack of a particular skill.

this was of course inevitable. in CT and pretty much anything else a skill is a skill is a skill. but gun 1, computer 1, and pilot 1 really aren't in the same acquisition class. in CT medical 3 means doctor - what does pistol 3 mean? do engineering 1 and carousing 1 represent the same effort?

perhaps a system where a character is awarded, not skills, but points to be spent on skills of varying cost.

 

[GypsyComet]

Gotta be careful with such systems, because they often have little logic from one campaign to the next. You (for example) might have decided to allow a skill to do more, so its high improvement cost makes sense, while the next group looks at that same improvement cost and declares it broken because they *don't* use that skill for half of what you do.

I prefer the MT evolution of the CT skill system, personally. Revolutionary even now, the MT task system did not have fixed connections between skills and stats, and the task at hand (not the skill itself) determined whether being unskilled was acceptable. Advancement was possible, though slow, but then this IS on the same scale as CT, so even one rank of improvement is a big deal...

 

[flykiller]

Gotta be careful with such systems, because they often have little logic from one campaign to the next. You (for example) might have decided to allow a skill to do more, so its high improvement cost makes sense, while the next group looks at that same improvement cost and declares it broken because they *don't* use that skill for half of what you do.

someone might run it differently in their game, so I have to be careful in my game? let a little thing like disagreement slow you down, never get anything done.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by flykiller:
perhaps a system where a character is awarded, not skills, but points to be spent on skills of varying cost.

Classic Traveller vs. Traveller T20 vs. GURPS Traveller?

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by flykiller:
someone might run it differently in their game, so I have to be careful in my game? let a little thing like disagreement slow you down, never get anything done.

Ah, and here I thought you were planning on sharing...

 

[davidvanwie]

This thread has died down, but I thought I'd add another perspective. I've played both D&D and CT since the seventies. I have recently made the switch to 3.5 and T20.

The beauty of a d20 model with a CT feel, which is T20 modulo some mechanics that should be fixed by individual GMs or another edition someday, is that the system provides GMs with a natural mechanism for evolving the storyline. Of course you could do this in CT, but the game system fought you more than helped.

For example, take a Stoner Express scenario as a campaign starter: a tricky courier delivery into new space. Fun. A year later, the same group might be overthrowing the local Archduke and installing a noble from the party before copting an admiral into a plan to bring border worlds into the Imperium. d20 helps you build this kind of game quite naturally. It might not suit every group of gamers, but things like BAB facilitate this kind of heroic storytelling without losing the down to earth qualities that make CT so compelling (e.g. Lifeblood).

Food for thought, anyway.

 

[Whipsnade]

David Van Wie wrote: The beauty of a d20 model with a CT feel..."

David,

If there are levels there is no CT feel about it. Period.

Anything that artificially enhances the PCs' resistence to damage belongs in D&D and not in Traveller. Period.

Perhaps later editions of T20 will remove levels and the munchkin-exciting baggage they bring, perhaps monkeys will fly out of my bottom too, but T20 does not and never has had a CT 'feel' to it. They share a setting and nothing more.

... is that the system provides GMs with a natural mechanism for evolving the storyline. Of course you could do this in CT, but the game system fought you more than helped.

I never had any trouble evolving a storyline with CT. Indeed, CT was so flexible that I even used it to run a pulp genre campaign set during the 1930s Chaco War. CT left a lot up to the GM, true, but that meant the GM could do almost anything - if he didn't mind a bit of work.

For example, take a Stoner Express scenario as a campaign starter: a tricky courier delivery into new space. Fun. A year later, the same group might be overthrowing the local Archduke and installing a noble from the party before copting an admiral into a plan to bring border worlds into the Imperium.

Installing an archduke? I never ran a Traveller campaign at such a 'power level'. I never even saw a Traveller session run at such a 'power level'. I've read about them, just never see one in the flesh as it were.

d20 helps you build this kind of game quite naturally.

Kudos to d20, but Heroic-Cinematic gaming is it's baliwick. Traveller is (usually) Nitty-Gritty. There is a difference.

It might not suit every group of gamers...

You can say that again!

... but things like BAB facilitate this kind of heroic storytelling...

Heroic storytelling is not Traveller, in my humble experience.

... without losing the down to earth qualities that make CT so compelling (e.g. Lifeblood).

T20 lost those down-to-earth qualities you love about CT when it brought levels, and all the D&D baggage that accompanies levels, to Traveller.

In real Traveller a four term marine does not take a bullet any better than a one term marine. The same cannot be said about T20.

That's some real food for thought.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[parmasson]

The d20 system is a cogent and sensible system that has much to recommend it. That being said
I enjoy using CT because it takes the emphasis off of amassing experience and levels and puts it on whatever you want. One example from my experience is the case of the casual player. The casual player can come and go without feeling like a pea-shooter in a room full of titans. CT for all of its flaws is a broad framework that built up a rich history with many of us. Still, if you are most comfortable with d20 use d20. Rules should not intrude upon story they must facilitate it.
Respectfully submitted

<steps off soapbox>

 

[Colin]

In response to Larsen: Actually, in T20 a 4th (or 10th) level Marine is no more capable of taking a bullet than a 1st level Academic. What counts for firearm damage is Lifeblood, which which is equal to the character's Con. Now, a punch is a different story, as Stamina advances with level, so a high-level character can duke it out for a while.

Colin
2320 AD writer

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Colin: Actually, in T20 a 4th (or 10th) level Marine is no more capable of taking a bullet than a 1st level Academic. What counts for firearm damage is Lifeblood, which which is equal to the character's Con. Now, a punch is a different story, as Stamina advances with level, so a high-level character can duke it out for a while.

Colin,

Great. So you have two stats doing the work of one. Brilliant, more complexity is always good.

The first, Stamina, controls damage in hand-to-hand combat and higher level players get take more punishment then lower level players. This is not surprising seeing as D&D is focussed more on hand-to-hand fighting and not guns. It's also pure crunchy munchkin goodness, my 15th level can beat up your 4th level no matter how well you play because I've got more levels.

The second, the Con derived Lifeblood, is an obvious retcon that allows d20 to be used in more realistic genres. While a fist, dagger, or arrow will still effect a PC's Stamina, a firearm somehow magically effects Lifeblood instead. That's nothing more than a retcon, a shabbily grafted addendum, added in the hope of making a RPG system developed for nearly three decades to serve the Fantasy-Heroic-Cinematic genre suddenly 'good enough' for other, more realistic genres too.

A bullet is a bullet is a bullet and a punch is a punch is a punch. Combat damage is combat damage. Separating the two out so that bullets are now a bit more deadly is nothing more than a slapdash papering over of the central part of what makes d20 d20 - Levels.

Sorry. I'll buy T20 for the materials, but I ain't playing Traveller with it. Horses for courses, right tool for the right job, one size does not fit all, and all that. I'm still not too lazy to learn different systems for different genres.

So, d20 is popular. Whoopdeedoo. Windows is popular too. Popularity doesn't make Windows the right OS for every application and popularity doesn't make d20 and its various offspring the right RPG systems for every genre.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[veltyen]

To remove Larsens arguement (that I partially agree with) the levels need to be constrained around a small selection.

5-10 is OK. The system falls down somewhat after that, and PC's end up as gods. Below that and they tend to be extremely green.

The levels problem is balanced by the simple expedient that the general shopkeeper (tm) that you meet is likely to be 6th level or so, rather then the 1st level "organic fog" that is the mainstay of DnD.

A 10th level marine is much, much better at surviving being shot at then a 1st level academic as soon as armor is involved. Both however suffer from brain stem removal on a critical hit.

A four term veteran does take a bullet better then a single term vet, just because they are more likely to act coherently after the hit. Physical damage is the same, the response and mitigation of circumstances will be different. That is represented in T20 quite well.

Now if only BD wasn't as broken as it is under T20