Hint: it's a CAR WARS vehicle design philosophy applied to rpg characters.
You just get more than 3 hit points.
Classic vs Mongoose vs 5th ed
- Thread starter howardfanatic
- Start date
Hint: it's a CAR WARS vehicle design philosophy applied to rpg characters.
You just get more than 3 hit points.Sure, but contrary to what you evidently experienced, many (most? some?) people don't automatically use their imaginations without some external stimulation. That stimulation can be a referee, another player, an article in a magazine, a rules set. CT is not one of the rules sets that provided such stimulation. GURPS is. That you can get such stimulation form sources other than CT doesn't make the absence thereof in CT a feature. That some people fail to find such stimualtion from GURPS doesn't mean that it isn't there to be found.
They existed, but not in D&D. They existed in some referees, in some players, in articles, in you, evidently, but they did not exist in D&D nor in CT. No rules were required to get the inspiration from elsewhere, but being able to get it from rules is still a Good Thing.
Is that most GURPS players you know personally or most GURPS players you've heard stories about or most GURPS players that a scientifically sound study have examined?
A 105 point character is more able than a 100 point character. No big surprise there. Nor does it appear to me to be much of a bug. I would even call it a feature.
Cheers,
Hans
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
What was the topic again...
I don't suppose play by post or email would cut it (you could still use the minis and post pics )
There was a pbp or email CT (iirc, or was it another rules set?) Trek proposed here on CotI a while back that looked like it might have been fun but it fizzled.
I had a paper mini (courtesy Crow's work) for the character, all fleshed out (think cross between Mudd and Scotty, iirc, the Mudd part is still clear to me, the Scotty part less so). I'd even nearly completed a conversion to Traveller stats and deckplans of the old Class-J Cargo Ship with the idea that he'd inherit/gain it shortly at some point and we'd park it in the shuttle bay for special missions, or something like that. Maybe even just get washed outta Star Fleet, or earn a dishonorable discharge and be off on our own with it :smirk:
I don't suppose play by post or email would cut it
(you could still use the minis and post pics )There was a pbp or email CT (iirc, or was it another rules set?) Trek proposed here on CotI a while back that looked like it might have been fun but it fizzled.
I had a paper mini (courtesy Crow's work) for the character, all fleshed out (think cross between Mudd and Scotty, iirc, the Mudd part is still clear to me, the Scotty part less so). I'd even nearly completed a conversion to Traveller stats and deckplans of the old Class-J Cargo Ship
with the idea that he'd inherit/gain it shortly at some point and we'd park it in the shuttle bay for special missions, or something like that. Maybe even just get washed outta Star Fleet, or earn a dishonorable discharge and be off on our own with it :smirk:
ThunderChilde
SOC-13
I almost never post in CT, but here goes.
A. Gurps.....I have played this through 4 major rules evolutions. To say it has had no playtesting is to say that gravity is a trivial thing. Maybe you play with a bunch of Min-Maxers, an awful lot of characters I've seen, both mine, and in the games I've ran never hit the disad cap, or even taken quirks. It is a framework to build a personality on, in other systems, you jot down a bunch of notes and try to get the GM to play along.
B. I am a Villans and Vigilantes man, Champions and DC are Min Max heaven/hell.
C. Not having the means to recollect the CT I lost in a flood, I am quite content with MGT. It is currently supported, has a lot of material on the way. I like teh chargen, I love the smooth integration of MB and HG ship rules. I've been running it for 5 months, and I have house ruled some things, it is Traveller after all.
Dunno about the turret rule thing. I would rather support my FLGS of 31 years than get a cd of older materials. But that's just me.
A. Gurps.....I have played this through 4 major rules evolutions. To say it has had no playtesting is to say that gravity is a trivial thing. Maybe you play with a bunch of Min-Maxers, an awful lot of characters I've seen, both mine, and in the games I've ran never hit the disad cap, or even taken quirks. It is a framework to build a personality on, in other systems, you jot down a bunch of notes and try to get the GM to play along.
B. I am a Villans and Vigilantes man, Champions and DC are Min Max heaven/hell.
C. Not having the means to recollect the CT I lost in a flood, I am quite content with MGT. It is currently supported, has a lot of material on the way. I like teh chargen, I love the smooth integration of MB and HG ship rules. I've been running it for 5 months, and I have house ruled some things, it is Traveller after all.
Dunno about the turret rule thing. I would rather support my FLGS of 31 years than get a cd of older materials. But that's just me.
howardfanatic
SOC-11
DC isn't any more min/max than any other supers RPG. I think the very nature of supers IS min/max'ing. The whole genre is crazily min/maxed. And DC is nothing like Champions... yikes.
And, um, not to nitpick, but you do realize that as far as cosmic forces go, gravity actually IS trivial, right? Weakest one... (joking)
Sounds like I might pick up MegaT just to see it. You can get it for about $10, so why not?
Trek with hard science would rock. I mean, I'd keep some Trek conventions that are absurd (transporter, I'm looking at you), but there are many things I'd love to update, like computers, aliens, warp speed, and (most excitingly to me) exploring alien civillizations. I just have this image of seeing Scotty and Spock in action with real tech and science at their disposal, and of seeing Kirk as more of the intelligent man's action hero than the movie stud.
Oh, and no time travel. I hate time travel. It is not possible! Why does every sci fi made these days rely on copious amounts of blithering time travel!!! Grrrr!
No Transformers, either, come to think of it. Those were some awfully stealthy 20' tall robots...
And, um, not to nitpick, but you do realize that as far as cosmic forces go, gravity actually IS trivial, right? Weakest one... (joking)
Sounds like I might pick up MegaT just to see it. You can get it for about $10, so why not?
Trek with hard science would rock. I mean, I'd keep some Trek conventions that are absurd (transporter, I'm looking at you), but there are many things I'd love to update, like computers, aliens, warp speed, and (most excitingly to me) exploring alien civillizations. I just have this image of seeing Scotty and Spock in action with real tech and science at their disposal, and of seeing Kirk as more of the intelligent man's action hero than the movie stud.
Oh, and no time travel. I hate time travel. It is not possible! Why does every sci fi made these days rely on copious amounts of blithering time travel!!! Grrrr!
No Transformers, either, come to think of it. Those were some awfully stealthy 20' tall robots...
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I've seen this a lot. I lot of people who don't have all of CT (or most of it)--and I'm talking all the GDW stuff as a minimum, but adding a signifcant portion of non-GDW material--have gravitated to MGT. I can understand that.
It seems to me that there are few (and I am sure that there are a couple) of people who have a bunch of CT, GDW + lots of other stuff, that jump ship over to MGT. Most of these people seem to stick with CT.
I guess if all I had were a few GDW books, or maybe just the GDW CD-ROM, not willing to track down and spend bucks on out of print missing CT stuff, I'd be looking harder at MGT too.
Just an observation.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
HF, FYI, Striker is a wargame system designed for fighting tabletop battles at platoon level. Personally, I've rarely used the books for that purpose, I just use the the Equipment book for designing - well, everything!
I got Striker long before I knew MT and FFS existed, so most of the 'stuff' in MTU is derived from Striker. It is aimed at military hardware, obviously, but a few tweaks enable the system to be used to make almost anything (and it's a lot simpler than MT and FFS IMO).
Just some of the design goodies in there:
Vehicles, Guns, Autocannons, Energy Weapons, Drones, Aircraft, Nuclear Warheads, Nuclear Dampers, Communicators, Sensors, Field Engineer Equipment (from wirecutters to explosives).
Some of the non-CT systems I use:
T4 Fire Fusion & Steel (FFS) for designing the few things that Striker is vague about.
MT World Tamers Handbook for developing worlds in much greater detail than Book 6
Gurps Far Trader as an ideas book to create my own (simpler) economics system.
Gurps Starships/Starports both as ideas books (not rules) to flesh out my CT scenery.
T4 Central Supply Catalog as a shopping list for a few cool gadgets.
TNE Core Book for repair and maintenance rules and equipment shopping list.
MT Refs Companion for research rules and maps.
MT Rebellion Sourcebook for fleet strengths etc.
T4 Pocket Empires for a strategic overview of the Imperium, wars and economy, etc.
BITS 101 Series for ideas and on-the-fly examples.
Power Projection for starship battles.
Shadowrun for patrons, adventures and gritty on-world details.
Car Wars for basis of car chase houserules
Gurps Robots to bring LBB8 into the 21st Century.
Gurps Ultra Tech for ideas and artifacts.
Stargrunt 2 for army battles
Gurps Illuminati just to spread confusion. :devil:
And anything else I can find that looks halfway useful or stimulates an idea.
Don't worry, guys here will start a war over which is the prettiest peace emblem...
I got Striker long before I knew MT and FFS existed, so most of the 'stuff' in MTU is derived from Striker. It is aimed at military hardware, obviously, but a few tweaks enable the system to be used to make almost anything (and it's a lot simpler than MT and FFS IMO).
Just some of the design goodies in there:
Vehicles, Guns, Autocannons, Energy Weapons, Drones, Aircraft, Nuclear Warheads, Nuclear Dampers, Communicators, Sensors, Field Engineer Equipment (from wirecutters to explosives).
Some of the non-CT systems I use:
T4 Fire Fusion & Steel (FFS) for designing the few things that Striker is vague about.
MT World Tamers Handbook for developing worlds in much greater detail than Book 6
Gurps Far Trader as an ideas book to create my own (simpler) economics system.
Gurps Starships/Starports both as ideas books (not rules) to flesh out my CT scenery.
T4 Central Supply Catalog as a shopping list for a few cool gadgets.
TNE Core Book for repair and maintenance rules and equipment shopping list.
MT Refs Companion for research rules and maps.
MT Rebellion Sourcebook for fleet strengths etc.
T4 Pocket Empires for a strategic overview of the Imperium, wars and economy, etc.
BITS 101 Series for ideas and on-the-fly examples.
Power Projection for starship battles.
Shadowrun for patrons, adventures and gritty on-world details.
Car Wars for basis of car chase houserules
Gurps Robots to bring LBB8 into the 21st Century.
Gurps Ultra Tech for ideas and artifacts.
Stargrunt 2 for army battles
Gurps Illuminati just to spread confusion. :devil:
And anything else I can find that looks halfway useful or stimulates an idea.
Don't worry, guys here will start a war over which is the prettiest peace emblem...
howardfanatic
SOC-11
I ordered TNE, MegaT, T4, and MongT Pocket edition, so I will be able to make the comparison myself. I figure what I don't like... Hello, ebay.
The game I will very likely draw all too much from will be D6 Star Wars and Decipher Star Trek. This will make my players happy. To make me happy, I'll draw from Call of Cthulhu. lol
Actually, I like to come up with my own stuff based on my "Triumph" 'verse, so I will most likely do a lot of hosue ruling (I am sure some of my tech is not in any sci fi rpg).
The game I will very likely draw all too much from will be D6 Star Wars and Decipher Star Trek. This will make my players happy. To make me happy, I'll draw from Call of Cthulhu. lol
Actually, I like to come up with my own stuff based on my "Triumph" 'verse, so I will most likely do a lot of hosue ruling (I am sure some of my tech is not in any sci fi rpg).
spinwardpirate
SOC-13
Traveller Trek
:rofl:
In all seriousness, I have given thought to running a "Traveller, Come as You Are Party" in which I'd allow players to bring a character from whichever system they wanted to use.
It might, but we'd have to decide on a rules set first.I don't suppose play by post or email would cut it
:rofl:
In all seriousness, I have given thought to running a "Traveller, Come as You Are Party" in which I'd allow players to bring a character from whichever system they wanted to use.
spinwardpirate
SOC-13
Brilliant! I've always considered space to be a dark and scary place, and believed Trek needed to add just a smidge of that to make it interesting.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I think this type of thinking came in with the rules heavy D&D systems. At some point, D&D became AD&D, and brought with it this notion that rules weren't "real rules" unless they were found in some official book or supplement somewhere.
AD&D became the epitome of rules bloat. They had books and rules for everything. Remember the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide? The Wilderness Survival Guide? Stuff like that started with Unearthed Arcanum, and a good argument can be made the it started with the thickness of the DM's guide.
But...there was a time before that when role playing games were bare bones, leaving the GM to spool up his imagination and fill in the details, customizing the universe to his players' tastes.
D&D used to be like that. Then, it changed.
Traveller didn't change (at least, Classic Traveller didn't).
That's why, if you pick up a CT GDW adventure, what you really get is an idea for an adventure. You get the outline, some important details, and, if you're lucky, a map or two.
This is old school creative thinking. Old school creative gaming.
These GDW adventures were a far cry from what you'd get with an AD&D adventure, where the entire linear story was mapped out for you, plus all stats and NPCs and maps were made.
My point here is: I disagree with what you say above. CT is an example of how bare bones is used to create engrossing creative adventures. Tons of books and detailed rules is not needed to spark that creativity, unless the GM has been brainwashed into thinking he needs AD&D-esque materials.
I see. GDW deliberately decided to publish bare-bones adventures instead of big, elaborate adventures with detailed NPCs and rich background descriptions because they didn't want to stifle the creativity of referees and players. They gave descriptions of NPCs like "A midlle-aged gentleman (9759B9)" because they knew that referees would automatically add a physical description, personality, history, and motivation as long as one didn't stifle their creativity by giving too many details. And the character creation system is designed to prod players into molding their characters into complex, well-rounded characters with real feelings, not just a string of numbers. The system only give them a string of numbers, true, but that is guaranteed to make all players hunger after more detail. The system deliberately does not deliver those details in order to encourage the player to make them up out of thin air. If the system had delivered such details, the player might not... um... that is, if the system created complex characters, the player wouldn't have to make those extra details up himself, and that would obviously be a bad thing...
Hans
Actually, many early D&D adventures were little better than a map, and a list of monsters. Some of them TSR's work.
And S4 is wrong about GDW... CT provided map with encounters programmed in the same "montessori method"1 approach as many D&D modules... it is less noticeable, however, since there are no walls to hold the PC's to the plot. See also Shadows, Werewolf, Prison Planet, Research Station Gamma.... Wait, those are the ones with walls.
I ran PP as a D&D module once. Worked just fine. Had to translate the stats (x1.5), but otherwise...
Both were, at the time, state of the art, in the early 1980's. Neither realy provided much detail on NPC's unless they were bigbads...
1: Montessori's method is a teaching method where learning encounters are set up, at stations, and kids turned loose with instructions to complete X many stations during the day. When you get to x, y is encountered, you complete it, and then move on to the x', and encounter y'.
And S4 is wrong about GDW... CT provided map with encounters programmed in the same "montessori method"1 approach as many D&D modules... it is less noticeable, however, since there are no walls to hold the PC's to the plot. See also Shadows, Werewolf, Prison Planet, Research Station Gamma.... Wait, those are the ones with walls.
I ran PP as a D&D module once. Worked just fine. Had to translate the stats (x1.5), but otherwise...
Both were, at the time, state of the art, in the early 1980's. Neither realy provided much detail on NPC's unless they were bigbads...
Encounter: 1 drider and 2 drow. [stat block]. They will attack on sight.
was all too common in AD&D modules1: Montessori's method is a teaching method where learning encounters are set up, at stations, and kids turned loose with instructions to complete X many stations during the day. When you get to x, y is encountered, you complete it, and then move on to the x', and encounter y'.
howardfanatic
SOC-11
Star Trek had a little dark and scarey in it: Wolf in the Fold, Catspaw, but I like more. I really liked the TNG Conspiracy storyline. I always lamented that the DS9 Founders turned out to be those ridiculous f'n shapechangers instead of the creepy maggoty-looking parasites of that episode.
AD&D was not as rules heavy as you're saying Sup4. I mean, it was certainly more rules than CoC or WH (and CT too, maybe- I dunno), but the actual rules of play were fairly light. A few tables and that was really it. The DM screen really could contain more than all you needed to play. However, it did have a lot of detail- spells, magic items, monsters, etc. It really wasn't until 2ed released the Handbooks that the rules got bloated. It wasn't until 3rd/D20 that they simply got the f outta control. You'd need a 10 panel DM screen to run that mess.
As for advantages and drawbacks being a limiter/expander of imaginiations. Well, that would really depend on whose imagination is in question. Or even, which genre you're dealing with.
I've run games for 20 years and I have seen those who like to have a more bare-bones approach that is generated randomly. This, of course, does not lend itself to adv/drw. They don't want limits or presets on who their character is going to be.
On the other hand, I have seen guys literally build their entire character around a drawback or advantage that fired their thinking. I have seen many, many players that prefer very detailed, point-buy chargen (I used to) because they had an exacting idea of the sort of character they wished to play.
For my own part, I like random with just a few choices in fantasy, horror, and sci fi. I like to create a few chaarcters and pick the one whose rolls captured my imagination the most (that's why I love WH 1st ed). I like to create characters very fast. Those genres are more broad-style games in my opinion, and more open to a variety. Also, horror and sci fi should involve growth and intelligence and I have found that initial adv/drw can inhibit that because you get all of your psychology off-screen, as it were.
On the other hand, I cannot even tolerate random superheroes for a moment. It's points buy or get out, for me. And I want the adv/drw in those games because so many great heroes are forged by their past, not their present. Heroes are kinda a lot of "before I got irradiated"/"after I put on the tights" characters. In other words, I like them to have a life before heroing, and now they have the heroing life. Thus, adv/drw.
As for min/maxing... well, at the end of the day it is just a game and whatever you enjoy should be paramount. Whether you like over-amped combat/magic gods, or you like gritty survivors. As I always tell my min/maxers: If you do it, so will I.
And I am a scarey GM.
AD&D was not as rules heavy as you're saying Sup4. I mean, it was certainly more rules than CoC or WH (and CT too, maybe- I dunno), but the actual rules of play were fairly light. A few tables and that was really it. The DM screen really could contain more than all you needed to play. However, it did have a lot of detail- spells, magic items, monsters, etc. It really wasn't until 2ed released the Handbooks that the rules got bloated. It wasn't until 3rd/D20 that they simply got the f outta control. You'd need a 10 panel DM screen to run that mess.
As for advantages and drawbacks being a limiter/expander of imaginiations. Well, that would really depend on whose imagination is in question. Or even, which genre you're dealing with.
I've run games for 20 years and I have seen those who like to have a more bare-bones approach that is generated randomly. This, of course, does not lend itself to adv/drw. They don't want limits or presets on who their character is going to be.
On the other hand, I have seen guys literally build their entire character around a drawback or advantage that fired their thinking. I have seen many, many players that prefer very detailed, point-buy chargen (I used to) because they had an exacting idea of the sort of character they wished to play.
For my own part, I like random with just a few choices in fantasy, horror, and sci fi. I like to create a few chaarcters and pick the one whose rolls captured my imagination the most (that's why I love WH 1st ed). I like to create characters very fast. Those genres are more broad-style games in my opinion, and more open to a variety. Also, horror and sci fi should involve growth and intelligence and I have found that initial adv/drw can inhibit that because you get all of your psychology off-screen, as it were.
On the other hand, I cannot even tolerate random superheroes for a moment. It's points buy or get out, for me. And I want the adv/drw in those games because so many great heroes are forged by their past, not their present. Heroes are kinda a lot of "before I got irradiated"/"after I put on the tights" characters. In other words, I like them to have a life before heroing, and now they have the heroing life. Thus, adv/drw.
As for min/maxing... well, at the end of the day it is just a game and whatever you enjoy should be paramount. Whether you like over-amped combat/magic gods, or you like gritty survivors. As I always tell my min/maxers: If you do it, so will I.
And I am a scarey GM.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
There were two schools of thought on gaming. The original idea was that the GM was the king of his universe. He made up everything, and the players played in his world.
AD&D started moving towards providing rules every conceivable circumstance and programmed, linear adventures (which I like), complete with all stats.
Traveller was about giving the GM the tools to create his universe. The GM could rely on world building systems, vehicle building systems, starship building systems. All of this still requiring a lot of work on the GM's part.
AD&D was about giving the GM everything he needs to play the game, on the spot. If the GM needed something, he could look it up.
I can't think of one that didn't have a keyed dungeon to it.
I can think of several GDW adventures (obviously not all) that would off-handedly mention a location and not have a map, much less a keyed map.
Not really.
And, you're examples really don't fly, either. For example, Shadows has a keyed map, but there's not a lot of "adventure" in that map.
GDW gives you the map to build upon--to add your own bad guys. To turn Shadows into whatever type of adventure you wish.
If you want some pirates using the place as a base, then you've got what you need.
If you want some aliens to come out of cold sleep, then you've got what you need.
If you run the adventure as-is, you're in for a pretty boring time.
Same thing goes for Research Station Gamma. It gives the GM a place--a base--to further develop. If the GM does little with RSG, then it's a pretty boring adventure with a couple of encounters and a couple of robot fights.
Take a look at the Kiniur. You get the map of the ship...and little else. It's up to the GM to make the place interesting.
Now, look at the AD&D modules. Those keyed maps where full adventures. They had things to fight--some of them even had a pretty good story.
You don't get near that level of detail with the GDW stuff (on average, of course...there are always exceptions).
Even that proves my point. Look at GDW adventures. You almost never get NPCs or bad guys to fight. You sometimes get an important NPC with stats, but all too often, you get his name only. As for stats, usually all you got was a sample PC crew. The GM is charged with creating all the bad guys.
Heck, most GDW adventures don't even tell you who the bad guys are--many of the GDW adventures just give you a location and some encounter ideas, leaving it up to the GM to flesh out the place with story and NPC to fight/encounter.
So... the classic adventures were as much, or more, resource than adventure. They sketched out a place on a planet, and often a starship, and sometimes a subsector map.
I do like the world writeups. They followed a useful pattern, moving from basic system details (star type, mainworld orbit) quickly to geomorphologic description (i.e. continents, seas, mean temperature, day and year length...), then rushed headlong into a social and/or political description of the peoples there, and a small but sufficient bit of colonial history. By the time you're done with the world writeup, you have the gist of what the world's like and what to expect on a typical day.
The best thing about it is that it is a re-usable pattern. If I wanted to write up a place for an adventure, I'd use them as suggested formats.
I do like the world writeups. They followed a useful pattern, moving from basic system details (star type, mainworld orbit) quickly to geomorphologic description (i.e. continents, seas, mean temperature, day and year length...), then rushed headlong into a social and/or political description of the peoples there, and a small but sufficient bit of colonial history. By the time you're done with the world writeup, you have the gist of what the world's like and what to expect on a typical day.
The best thing about it is that it is a re-usable pattern. If I wanted to write up a place for an adventure, I'd use them as suggested formats.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Yessir, quite right.
The GDW "adventures" aren't really adventures at all--at least not by the D&D definition. They are adventure supplements. They give you enough stuff/material then expect the GM to take the ball and run with it.
They are "customizable" to a campaign (just like the CT task system).
One person may get Shadows and run it one way. Another would get Shadows and run it completely differently.
Much unlike the AD&D adventures that gave you so much that most people ran them pretty much the same (within one standard deviation, I'd say).
Neither style is better than the other--they're just different approaches to role playing.
The Kinuir (sp?) is a prime example. It gives, what, at least four different ideas on how to use that ship in an adventure? And GMs are invited to come up with other scenarios for using the deck plans.
That's true. With an AD&D module, it's usually never used again once the PCs have completed it.
Every time a GM runs a GDW adventure, though, it's typically a totally different animal with common elements.
Heck, a GM could even run something like the Kininur (again, SP?) more than once in the same campaign! First, you could find the abandoned ship out in the asteroid field, being used as a corsair base...or invested with some nasty that broke out of the hold, Alien style...or as the destination and grand finale of a quest. The next time the adventure is used, the ship is the same of its class, a custom's cruiser, that stops and imprisons the PCs (and they have to escape the ship).
Even a third idea is to use it as a role playing center for a High Guard battle between the corsair fleet and a couple of Imperial ships.
One adventure supplement...all in the same campaign.
A GM really doesn't get that kind of use out of the linear GDW adventures.
The con, though, is that the GM is required to put a lot of work into the GDW adventure pre-game. With the AD&D style adventures, the GM need only read it and roll with it, viola, microwaved adventure.
Considering aramis' list, I think it's fair to say there's a mix.
But I gotta say, my favorites are the "resource" style adventures like Kinunir and Murder on Arcturus Station.
Better still, books like 76 Patrons had more to do with the "sketchy details with the GM fills in the gaps" style of play than any book with "adventure" on the cover.
Similar threads
