Cohorts and Followers

[Mythmere]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
BluWolf wrote:

"Larsen I'm intersted in why you think feats as a mechanic are at their core a bad thing in a Traveller setting?"


Mr. Wolf,

IMEHO, a skill is a skill is a skill. Levels in an aircraft skill should be the same for all players. With feats, a PC with aircraft-2 and 'stunt flying' is better at a certain group of actions than a PC with aircraft-4. The players should 'role play' their actions and not rely on game mechanics to 'roll play' their actions. If you think you can stunt fly, do it so that you and the GM can decide and not some paragraph in the rule book. If you think you can inspire loyalty in a follower or followers, do it and don't rely on a 'feat' to give you automatic lackeys.

You've got skills already. You've got the stats already. Why do you need 'feats'? Other than to provide you with more automatic skills and resources under a conveniently different name that is.

"There are a lot of feats I agree with you about maninly from other settings that just have no place in a paricular meileiu but do you think the mechanic itself is flawed?"

The mechanic is not flawed. I believe it just suits certain mileaus or genres better than others. If I were running a high fantasy game, superheroes, pulp, Traveller as Lensmen, or a whole host of other mileaus, then feats would fit very nicely indeed. Seeing how psionics training works; each skill you try to learn after the first has a -DM attached, certain feats may be applicable to Traveller psionics; psions seem to have a knack for certain psionic activities. However, for me Traveller has always been relatively ordinary people in extra-ordinary setting; i.e. that Traveller PC could be me born in the 57th Century.

Finally, I'm a fan of simplicity and 'feats' is just another goofy mechanic the players and GM need keep track of. You can stunt fly or inspire followers with out feats, so why do you really need them? Unless you want things to be a matter of 'rolling' and not 'role-ing'.


Sincerely,
Larsen

Since this thread is moving to a discussion of feats vs skills, Larsen, here's something to consider:
Feats are either innate attributes or are on/off abilities with no gradations of success. These two concepts of feats are both present in d20 game design. Skills are learned, and always have the chance to fail.
I think feats have the following place in any d20 game design: (1) they allow a character class to progress in a radically different pattern than another class. Example: the D&D fighter relies on feat progression to become powerful; other character classes generally rely more on skills (or magic, in that system). T20 has not yet used this inherent potential in the game system, as all the classes have the same feat progression, but it's there. I think it's very important for the classes to be distinct - it helps in roleplaying to know who you are. One could argue that pure roleplaying would overcome homogenous character classes, but I don't think it can. Or at least, why create the obstacle? Varied character classes are a good thing, and feats help provide the variation. I repeat, T20 has not done this with the existing character classes - I thinks it's one of the signal flaws in the T20 design - Hunter and MJD missed an opportunity, there.
(2) IMHO adding a roll to certain role-played situations improves the situation. I can add a bonus for good ideas or presentation into a player's bluff check, and yet I'm neither letting the characters slide because of the story line nor being too tough on them because "who would believe that?" It makes GMing easier in resolving details, and the players don't think I'm being unfair when they fail at a stupid idea. Recently we had a great situation where a hijack went bad. The ship's troops burst into an area where the players (the hijackers) and an innocent bystander (an ugly alien) were gathered. The players pointed their fingers at the alien and yelled (basically) "there's the hijacker!" Now, normally, I would have ruled "no way." But I let the player roll, with a massive negative modifier. He rolled a 20. With this incredible stroke of luck, the players bought enough time to dash to an airlock and get out to a shuttle, the pursuit hot behind them. The feeling of a skin-of-their-teeth escape was exhilarating for them, and it would never have worked out that way if the role of chance hadn't been introduced into the roleplayed encounter. A lot of purist old-school GMs would disagree with me, and I won't dispute their view either - I just want to point out how the system can help the suspended disbelief and the excitement of the game without eliminating roleplaying at all.

As to followers, one more point. D&D traditionally began at first level. Followers usually came after a lot of play, when a character was rich and losing motivation to continue adventuring. They (and castles, etc) drove the plotline to a new level. In T20, where one could start with followers, that game dynamic is missing. Being the leader of a troop of doughty warriors in D&D lends depth. If the feat lends depth in T20, let 'er rip. Indeed, I think the feat would be a great thing in T20 for a plotline - but at 12th level, not 6th. It has to work as a part of the story, which means it has to be introduced at the right time.

That's a long post, sorry.

 

[bolie]

As a player in Mythmere's T20 game, one question we have come up against is whether we want a ship, requiring a bunch of skills and feats to crew, or not. There's a certain appeal to having a ship at one's disposal, but not at the cost of one's character concept.

The leadership feat might be a good solution for this. This would allow a character (or characters) to gain the loyalty of a ship's crew. They could run the ship and largely stay with the ship (acting as bodies when needed) and allow the characters to cavort around the galaxy without having to focus all their skills and feats on ship crew skills.

A mercenary character might accquire a small troop of soldiers who act as his squad with a loyal lieutenant. These guys could be somewhat one-dimensional and not necessarily highly creative. They would also need to be fed, supplied, etc... This would allow a party to be a mercenary crew without having to have everyone play a rifleman.

As far as feats in general go, I'd like to elaborate on what Mythmere said. Feats such as Lightning Reflexes, Weapon Focus, Point Blank Shot, Jury Rig, etc... give a character some individuality and let him specialize. Without weapon focus or point blank shot, every character is equally skilled with all weapons (they are proficient with).

I'm not crazy about the vehicle specialization feats, myself given the pilot/driver skill.

Science fiction stories are full of characters with odd-ball abilities and talents that are well represented by feats (as being on-off/unusual) and not skills (progressively more skilled) or who know tricks that let them use certain skills better than others (the hacker who can break security but is merely an okay programmer).

Bolie IV

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

... Or Don Quixote and Sancho Panza?

As a proud owner of the Leadership feat, I see it as having merit. The bemoaning of "munchkinism" in my view is a cop out for sloppy Refereeing...

"if a guy with 15 flunkies and bags of holding bothers thee, pluck them out..."

I endeavor to play for "realism" and practicality, and power gaming of the afformentioned sort is very discouraging and discouraged...

Leadership, is by no means an easy lot... one must consider thier care and feeding and upkeep, no matter how many jokes one can make about them being "Fusion Fodder", what?

 

[zephyrus]

asside from saying this, Ignoring the rather biligerent and in some cases very derogitory thoughts that 'leadership' or the idea of having cohorts and followers is a broken mechanic prone to abuse and what-all, Leadership would likly best be re-defined in Traveller and not taken wholesale converted.

One of the main conflicts and problems is that most if not many of the followers will be 1st or 2nd level characters. Serving just one term in prior history garentee's (almost, pends on if you goto collage) at least 3rd level and prolly 4th level. Just 1 Term. To this end most followers will be raw recruits who've not even served any time of prior history if done this way.

Secondly the shear numbers of followers possible make for a almost boggling number which lends itself perhaps to the exasperated complaints against it.

thirdly thier is the contact feats which undermines the use of many of these followers as stay at planet npc ... well. Contacts.

Simple put. Leadership in its present incarnation wont work well in Traveller. This is not to say that it cannot be amended properly.

No to answer your question more specifically I think the conversions could be a lil bit off. I personally would prolly convert Experts to Academics and Commoners into Professionals.

Possible solutions could be that 1st level followers (and only 1st level) can converted into higher level npc's on a level for level basis with the highest level that can be done being no higher than the one more than than the highest level follower you can get.

IE if you had a leadership score that allows you 6x 1st level followers but 0x 2nd level followers. you could instead have 3x 2nd level followers, 2x 2nd and 2x 1st, 1x 2nd and 4x 1st, or 6x 1st. Higher level followers come fewer in number to begin with and would be a limiting factor for the converted 1st levels.

This would in effect require a leadership score of 15 before you can get 4th level followers. Perhaps remove the restriction from 1st level followers only. Allow Marines, Navy etc. but at a 1 level reduction. thus a character with a leadership score of 11 (6 1st level followers) could have a pair of 2nd level marines (max level still 2 but it takes 3 levels worth of followers to get one second level marine).

The same could be done for other classes put a level modifier. Most would be no modifier but marines and mercenaries (heck maybe even make all the 'fighting' classes level-1. Since even Army is going to be supperior than a 3E/3.5 Warrior <on scale> since the Merc/Marine/Army were all built to be roughly equal (in their own ways). Prolly add Barbian and mayb Rogue into that mix as well. heck save for Academic's and Professionals and to a lesser degree Travellers almost all the classes could fall into the Level-1 catagory.

hopefully this might provide a good gauge. perhaps as a added benefit. Ship Crew's etc that are 'Followers' get a +1 loyalty bonus to their rolls.

Then I'd consider removing the 'cohort' all together. That or when you take the feat. you get either 'followers' or a 'cohort'. thus weakening the overall effect so its no so arguable in the traveller universe.

And a reminder. You cant just treat them like garbage. Bad leaders loose leadership score and thus are unable to get as many. in addition combined with the combining to make higher level followers when your leadership drop's you may loose more levels worth of followers than you expected quite possible all of them

IE if you ahd enough to get one or more base 2nd level followers normally. Then you combined all your Base 1st and 2nd level followers to take combined 3rd level's ... If your leadership score dropped to allowing only BASE 1st level (combined level+1 now equaling only 2 instead of 3). All those combined 3rd level followers would leave you. You'd have to recruit new followers.

Another note. It takes a 6th level character to take the feat. Adding in CHA and possible other modifiers you may get leadership of 10 to start off (6-7th level +3-4 CHA mod). which will mean you have a cohort that is 5th to 6th(PC Level-1 max 7th level) or 5x 1st level followers.

that basically is not an impressive 'force'. You got your buddy or bodyguard or significant other or you've got a bunch of people that like you alot but realy cant do alot or are just starting out.

I do not think this is unbalenced. it certainly would have an appeal to run a game around even.

Your a Merchant with leadership and you just hired on a bunch of 1st level ship interns (you pay em less!) and you've also got a cohort who's an Ace Pilot or Professional (technical stuff) and you got a couple of other paid ship hands to fill vital roles that the newbies are not upto doing yet.

Maybe your a Mercenary and you've got a Cohort who's a Merchant with his own free-trader or far-trader and/or you've got a bunch wanna-be merc's or young ex marines or army or rogues who idolize you or you take care of them cause they were the kid's of your now dead companions from prior history.

Even a mid-high level character with a decent Charisma and maybe a modifier or two issent talking abusive in the terms of followers. Followers are generally sapposed to be non-combatants (Thus the suggestion for a modifier for if you want them to be a combat type). Cohorts share in the party's experience.

Followers are not ment to be red-shirts and cohorts are not ment to be unrestricted powerful side-kicks. Ultimatly I would roll-cohorts up at least in part like any other character and followers are usually too weak or low level to overshadow a regular character.

thats my buck-fifty.

 

[Ben Harrison]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
BLH wrote:

"So you don't like feat. Big deal."


Mr. BLH,

Yup, I don't like it. I don't like the idea of 'feats' in a modern RPG or a nitty-gritty sci-fi RPG (unlike Star Wars forex). I think it is a left over bit from DnD, held onto across all the versions so that people wouldn't think the rules had changed too much.

"As the referee I have final say on what any player can recruit (and I plan to use the feat renamed, more accurately "Cohorts and Followers" for NPC's)."

Exactly. You are the GM, you can do what you want. You also are the fellow who asked for opinions at CotI regarding this feat and the idea of 'cohorts' and 'followers'. I gave you my opinion; it's a bit of left-over nonsense that runs the risk of adding a fantasy-munchkin style of play to your Traveller sessions. You are the GM, you can ignore that too.


I asked for help in creation of followers/cohorts not to be told not to do it. You while making it clear you don't like the concept did nothing in the area for which I requested help



"Methinks you are a wee bit prejudicial."

In the old, pre-civil rights meaning of the word yes. I am prejudiced against the idea of feats *in Traveller*. I'd use them in another genre; fantasy, or another style; Traveller as Lensmen, of game.


I did mean it in the old pre-civil rights way. Still you appear to have "pre-judged" the whole idea.




"Furthermore I just asked for some suggestions. Not an accusation of being a munchkin or supporting such things."

I did no such thing.


To my perceptions, your listing of someone with a binder full of followers, all with such things as bags of holding appeared indicative of such. If such was not your intention we can considered that part of the mater tabled if not closed.



"Methinks you have had a bad experience and feel everyone will have the same experience. Such is not necessarily true."

I had a funny experience watching a group of people whose competitive urges squeezed all the fun out of what is supposed to be a game. We laughed at them, that's all.

"As such I believe the above mentioned feat has a place."

And I do not. So what? You asked for opinions, you got mine, you can ignore it, and still have fun playing Traveller.


Sincerely,
Larsen

Actually I asked for opinions on how to do a particular thing. Not for arguments as to why not todo it.

 

[hunter]

There are no 'commoners' in T20. NPCs are just the same as PCs. That was a specific decision we made. In Traveller the PCs are no more 'special' than anyone else.

On the subject of the D&D Leadership feat, I personally wouldn't use it. As others have mentioned in this thread, it just doesn't fit with the standard 'feel' and play of Traveller.

But as my sig says, by all means run it how you would like.

As far as feats go, I (obviously) don't have a problem with them. To me the represent some of those 'special' natural quirks and abilities that some folks seem to possess that others do not.

On the point of missed opportunities on the classes in T20, I disagree. Rather than a ton of specific and specialized classes, the classes in T20 represent archetypes that can be used as the foundation to build a custom character. What you select as your feats and skills determines where your character fits within that archetype.

Hunter

 

[Mythmere]

On the point of missed opportunities on the classes in T20, I disagree. Rather than a ton of specific and specialized classes, the classes in T20 represent archetypes that can be used as the foundation to build a custom character. What you select as your feats and skills determines where your character fits within that archetype.

Hunter

With it being understood that I think T20 is the best sci-fi game done to date...
If it were just a matter of selecting feats and skill to build a custom character, you've got GURPS already. The D&D system is superior to GURPS (please, I know, folks, don't flame me, it's my opinion and I respect those of others) because of the character classes. Not because the character classes mandated a particular kind of personality or roleplaying or background, but they created highly distinct combat tactics and highly distinct specialties for problem solving. Locked chest? Go, thief!
Moreover, the current menu of classes in T20 aren't much different in terms of the skill sets to which they give access. Three military backgrounds aren't needed from a game standpoint, they're a nod to CT. They all give access to virtually the same skill set. Multiclass once and you have a generalist with access to almost everything. When the chargen system was random, as in CT, this made sense, because you didn't know what was coming next and you got what you got at each step. You and MJD worked to take the best from GURPS, d20 and CT - in my opinion you leaned too much toward the grognards and too little toward T20 as a generic SF platform - that's an issue to debate ad infinitum.
Anyway, the missed opportunity was to create more sharply defined archetypes than the ones inherited from CT. The examples on my website - a sort of mentat, a martial artist (which I know is also in the works for official T20) a bene gesserit type of analog, and a class with biochemical artificial intelligences implanted intheir brains as antennae for psi contact with other-dimensional super minds: now THESE are distinct from each other. They're also the kind of thing that grognards would scream about if they were mentioned in the same sentence as Traveler. But that's due to the OTU, not the Traveler rules (which predated the OTU)). My .02 Cr.

 

[zephyrus]

At the expense of continuing a conversation that prolly be best left for a seperate thread all-together. I think the classes are fairly well done in their own vains. It in my oppinion might have been done better. but I dont think what was done is exactly 'wrong'. I like the fact you can do more with your character and make a char with a vision rather than rolling a dozen or and picking one you like best of the eight or so that survived.

I personally like to feel like I created a character with a bit more of a goal. To have made a system that was optimized between class-levels, random-prior-history, random-specialty-benefits etc would have been a truely daunting undertaking. While I have some preliminary thoughts on the idea why shoot a dead horse.

Traveller20 could have been done with a class-less system <not saying level-less, just w/o base 'classes' similar to Call of Cathulu>. Then along with Prior History a character is developed by rolling on a even more elaborate prior history tree to develop partially invididualized 'quasi-class' for the character. Heck I might design such a thing just for the fun of it someday. I am a published D20 Technical/Content Editor (Shameless boast).

But the existing system works reasonably well as is. More prestige classes would have been nice along with a way to obtain prestige classes through prior history. the multi-classing rules are rather abiguous and relies on a person knowing how to handle multi-classing from the WotC Players Handbook. Fortunatly for most players who play human the implied (but not stated that I saw) Favored Class of humans being ANY allows those that were Marines, Army, Navy etc.. upon mustering out not to suffer mutli-classing XP penalties.

In a manner many of the 'base' classes are prestige class like in that many have requirements to play them (mostly fairly easy to do for most player characters) which is the basic premise behind the prestige classes.

The Main take-away from the more classic traveller I see between CT and T20 is that T20 is based off D20. D20 is generaly thought of as a heroic game. Players are by their nature usually 'better than average' <spoken ala Crocadile Dundee>. Where CT characters were insignificant specks just trying to live long enough to make a buck. These are fundamental differences in game philosophy. If you dont like players having that slight 'edge' that keeps them alive just a little bit longer and the 'cool' to hang in their when things go realy bad then a D20 based game is not for you.

As I said before Followers and Cohorts do not lend themselves well to T20 but I also pointed out ways to make it worthwhile to have the feat (and cohort/followers) that make for good story and game play. It could infact additionally lend itself well for when playing in games which lack a player or two and could provide a way to fill in holes in a group. Like everything else its a tool. Tools can be used to build or destroy. Its the GM's job to do their best to make sure things are used in proper context.

Some people I know have had bad experiences with metagaming and powergaming, I know I have had some bad experiences. I however do not resort to generalized insults of a broad group for the failings or immaturity of only a portion (and not nessisarily a majority) of that group. Such comments are unnessisary and it is reasonable to consider such statments hostile when repeated or spoken in particlar contexts.

Play Smarter not Harder.

 

[Whipsnade]

BLH wrote:

"I did mean it in the old pre-civil rights way. Still you appear to have "pre-judged" the whole idea."


Mr. BLH,

I didn't 'pre-judge' the idea, I judged it. I've played RPGs with 'feats' and in *my judgement* the leadership feat does not belong in the Traveller setting. Period.

Read Mr. Gordon's post if my posts don't suit you. He, a T20 designer, doesn't think that the leadership feat *as described* in d20 belongs in Traveller either.

"Actually I asked for opinions on how to do a particular thing. Not for arguments as to why not to do it."

And my opinion on how to do a particular thing was not to do it all. That is a valid option. The thing in question doesn't fit. It is suited for an entirely different type of role playing, a type of role playing that is just as good as Traveller's type while at the same time utterly different.

d20 is suited for Heroic roleplaying and not for roleplaying heroes. No matter how many tweaks, adjustments, and additions are made to it, d20 at its very core is suited for Heroic play. Heroic play is woven into d20's fiber, Heroic play is what makes d20 d20 and nothing can really change that.

It is a question of 'horses for courses'. d20, and its children, are at their hearts more suited for Heroic roleplaying. Traveller has never about Heroic roleplaying. The two simply do not fit. By the way, there is nothing wrong with Heroic roleplaying. It just isn't Traveller, that's all.

To try and explain this difference between Heroic roleplaying and roleplaying heroes, I'm forced to use a wobbly analogy; the classic film
'Casablanca'. In the film we have two men, Victor Lazlo and Rick Blaine. Lazlo is Heroic, Blaine is a hero.

Lazlo has dodged and fought the Nazis across Europe, working in occupied countries, escaping from concentration camps, made memorable speeches, organized resistence groups, inspired legions of followers with his voice and writings. Lazlo is a Marble Man, is perfect in every way, who is heroic because he simply cannot be anything else.

Blaine did run guns against Franco but now he owns a bar in Morocco and is sick of the anti-facist fight. He's still a hero and, even though he is a first ambivalent, he finally does the right thing. Blaine is an ordinary man, complete with flaws of ordinary men, who rises to heroism by choice not by immutable design.

You play Lazlo in D&D and d20 and T20.

You play Blaine in Traveller.

If the difference between the two styles of play seems trivial or too silly to worry about, play the way you wish, but remember - You asked how to play Traveller and I answered you.


Sincerely,
Larsen

P.S. Before all of you get your knickers in a knot about Heroic play in D&D allowing PCs with 'evil' alignments; Heroics has more to do with the style of play than whether the actions taken in during that play are 'good' or 'evil'.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Great Margaret's Girdle! Does this mean I'll have to do my OWN laundry? Oh, the Trials we nobles must endure...

Time to get a robot...

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

More on topic, Lords,

I have always held a view the the very nature of Traveller, regardless of form, is totally about heroism. Extended space operations tend to attract folks with sets of big brass ones. There are plenty of Jon Q. Nobodies on the many worlds, and if you go by the "76 Patrons" model, most of these people would rather stay on planet, and hire "go to" guys to handle their dirty deeds...

Characterizations are important to making a game work, and I believe strongly that this requires a certain degree of self-centeredness, which in many cases could be construed as heroism. The life and times of "those that dare", if you will.

Im not saying that every character should be Captain Kirk, Horatio Hornblower, and Jim Digriz Clones, but by their very actions and choice of life Player Characters should stand out some, even if they are covert types.

If all PCs had a "I'm a dust mote" self perception, wouldn't Traveller's byline be Science Fiction Accounting (sorry accountants)in the Far Future, instead of "Adventure"? Isn't some degree of Heroism central to the concept of RPGs?

I play in Mythmere's Excellent PBEM, Gothic Nebula, and my character is definitely not what one would consider a hero in a classical sense. He is representative of a Crypto-Fascist government sent on Inquisitions in the name of his Imperial Masters. Mentally focused yes, but hardly a paladin by any stretch. It one of the more unusual games I've been in, and is great fun. The fun for me is all in the Characterization.

 

[Whipsnade]

Baron Saarthuran wrote:

"I have always held a view the the very nature of Traveller, regardless of form, is totally about heroism."


Mr. Saarthuran,

Of course Traveller is about heroism; please note the use of a lower case h. However, Traveller has never been about Heroics; please note the use of an upper case H.

Re-read my post using 'Casablanca' as a wobbly analogy and keep track of the lower and upper case 'aitches'.

D&D, and it's offspring d20, are Heroic systems. Their chargens produce superlative PCs who shrug off damage that would reduce mere mortals to a thin paste and routinely succeed in 'feats' that mere mortals can never even dream about. Many basic RPG mechanisms, like levels and lifeblood, are present in D&D and d20 to assist in that Heroic style of play.

Traveller has never been about a Heroic style of play. One of the first complaints about T20 heard from those players more familiar with 'Heroic' systems was that Traveller's weapons can kill. Well, duh! Traveller deals in heroes, not in Heroics.

The creators of T20 had to extensively rework d20 basics like levels and lifeblood to bring them more in line with the Traveller style. That fact alone shold be a tip off that Traveller is different than d20; not better, just different.

"Characterizations are important to making a game work, and I believe strongly that this requires a certain degree of self-centeredness, which in many cases could be construed as heroism. The life and times of "those that dare", if you will."

Again, please re-read my post. Traveller contains heroes, Traveller does not contain Heroics. Rick Blaine is a hero, but Rick Blaine is also not Victor Lazlo.

"If all PCs had a "I'm a dust mote" self perception, wouldn't Traveller's byline be Science Fiction Accounting (sorry accountants)in the Far Future, instead of "Adventure"? Isn't some degree of Heroism central to the concept of RPGs?"

Yet again; small 'aitch' heroism. There is a difference. It has more to do with a style of play and the mechanics that support that style.

"I play in Mythmere's Excellent PBEM, Gothic Nebula, and my character is definitely not what one would consider a hero in a classical sense."

Broken record time here; re-read my post - reread my post - reread my post. Pay especial attention to the postscript in which I discuss this very topic. A Heroic style of play does not always include heroes in the classical sense.

If you're 'porting the Heroic play style of d20 directly into a Traveller setting, that's your choice as the GM. However, the Traveller setting was not designed with that play style in mind. Traveller as 'Lensmen' is fun, Traveller as Weber's increasingly silly 'Honor Harrington the Unstoppable Kill-bot' is fun. Traveller as Traveller is fun too.

Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Mythmere]

Larsen, I don't think your Casablanca analogy is wobbly, I think it hits the nail right on the head. In addition to the Lazlo to Blaine spectrum, there's another spectrum that distinguishes the (I use OTU rather than Traveller to distinguish the setting from the system) OTU from the "normal" d20 milieux: the spectrum from hard science to science fantasy. The OTU assumes no human abilities beyond those of twentieth century humans, no science beyond what we could extrapolate from principles of 1970's physics and engineering (other than jump drive and grav power). The Dune Mentat isn't there, nor are jedi. Additionally, there is no tampering with the metaphysics of the world (as in Vinge's Fire Upon the Deep). This isn't relevant to feats, but I wanted to mention it as another spectrum like the excellent analogy to Casablanca.

Baron, I think the distinction is between larger than life and not larger than life. Brother Iota is larger than life (Heroic capital H) and an antihero in the classic sense.

 

[Whipsnade]

Mythmere wrote:

"Larsen, I don't think your Casablanca analogy is wobbly, I think it hits the nail right on the head."


Mr. Mythmere,

Thanks for the kudos. It is nice to know that the analogy worked for some folks. If I had just been able to come up with one that worked for most folks... (sigh)

"In addition to the Lazlo to Blaine spectrum, there's another spectrum that distinguishes the (I use OTU rather than Traveller to distinguish the setting from the system)..."

A very important point and one I failed in not making. Traveller is both a system and a setting. Heroic play, ala d20, is not part of the setting, it can be used in the system.

"... OTU from the "normal" d20 milieux: the spectrum from hard science to science fantasy. The OTU assumes no human abilities beyond those of twentieth century humans, no science beyond what we could extrapolate from principles of 1970's physics and engineering (other than jump drive and grav power). The Dune Mentat isn't there, nor are jedi. Additionally, there is no tampering with the metaphysics of the world (as in Vinge's Fire Upon the Deep). This isn't relevant to feats, but I wanted to mention it as another spectrum like the excellent analogy to Casablanca."

A superb explanation. No additonal human abilities and not too many gizmos using 'handwavium', sums up the Traveller setting very nicely.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

Casey wrote:

"But yeah I think I get what you're going at. Though I don't think T20 is as "Heroic" as you implied in an earlier post."


Sir,

T20 may not be intended to be 'Heroic'. It's sire and dam most definitely are however.

Changes are made to Heroic d20 to produce semi-Heroic M20 and further changes were necessary to create the hopefully Traveller-ish, small 'aitch' heroic T20. The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree, nor does the turd from the bird, and there will be bits left over that still hark back to a Heroic style of play.

No matter what WotC ideas may be, d20 is not a generic RPG system, d20 was not designed as a generic RPG system, and d20 can only mimic certain aspects of a generic RPG system. We are not dealing with FUDGE or GURPS here, d20 was built with a specific purpose in mind.

Trying to change d20 into a generic system that can then be used for various genres, mileaus, settings, or whatnot will not always succeed. Sometimes the retrofit will succeed, sometimes the retrofit will succeed with left over clunky bits (Traveller perhaps, with complaints from d20 players like the 'deadliness' of combat, massive changes to basic d20 mechanisms like levels or lifeblood, the suitability of certain 'feats', and the 'vague' nature of XPs), and sometimes the retrofit will not work at all.

This doesn't mean that anything is wrong with d20, far from it - d20 is a great set of RPG rules that are used far more than many, many others. However, it does mean that d20 was designed with a specific set of purposes in mind and use as a generic/modular RPG system was not among those purposes. Using d20 as a template for other, non-Heroic, RPG styles will always require a bit of give and take. The GM and players will have to disabuse themselves of certain practices, play styles, even modes of thought if the 'd20-to-X' adaptation is going to work.

XP harvesting dungeon crawls have no place in T20, despite their primacy in d20 to move players up levels. Likewise, using 'feats' like leadership to provide PCs with access to 'skills outside their bodies' and/or cannon fodder in the form of NPC 'cohorts' and 'followers' may work in d20 but it has no place in T20.

Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

Casey wrote:

"Psionics? Not seen many human teleporters around.

"


Sir,

Ooops! I forgot to begin my last post with this bit!

Every use psionics in a adventure or campaign? At the level of skill a PC may own, they aren't quite a wonder weapon or attribute. For the most part, their effects are over quickly, do not provide too much in the way of results, and they require quite a period of regeneration prior to their next use. They most definitely not a wand of fireballs. Compared to magic, psionics is almost prosaic.

"Ancients going around blasting planets to bits, reshaping them, doing what they will with alien species."

Yup, the OTU has the Ancients. However, in Traveller, the PCs look upon the works of the Ancients with incomprehension, awe, or fear while in d20, the players are the Ancients. The Ancients are a nifty bit of background color and not a career path.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[clementk]

Woops accidently deleted my post
my original text follows:

Psionics? Not seen many human teleporters around. Ancients going around blasting planets to bits, reshaping them, doing what they will with alien species.

But yeah I think I get what you're going at. Though I don't think T20 is as "Heroic" as you implied in an earlier post.

Casey

 

[zephyrus]

At the expense of sounding rude, I think the original purpose/question has been answered to a degree and this thread is getting hijacked to what appears to seamingly argue the merits of base D20 system. I'm sorry if you got that much of a problem with the game why are you playing? (dont answer that it was retorhical). Its been agree'd that GM's can do whatever they want. if they want to allow a person to get a score of marines as budies who will goto hell (theirs gotta be a planet called that somewhere!) and back let em. the condasending attitude of some of the messages is getting irritating. I WOULD like to see other peoples oppinions or idea's on how to handle attracting followers in the traveller universe. Their is in fact a mechanisim in the CT rules for acquiring followers. So the idea of having a feat has merit as a means to an end.

 

[Whipsnade]

zephyrus wrote:

"At the expense of sounding rude, I think the original purpose/question has been answered to a degree and this thread is getting hijacked to what appears to seamingly argue the merits of base D20 system."


Zephyrus,

All threads morph, this one is no different. The use of the 'leadership' feat has been discussed. Now the opinion that 'leadership' should not be used in Traveller; an opinion held by Hunter Gordon - a T20 designer - is now being explained.

The fine d20 system was not originally developed to be a 'base' or 'generic' system. That is part of the problem.

"Its been agree'd that GM's can do whatever they want. if they want to allow a person to get a score of marines as budies who will goto hell (theirs gotta be a planet called that somewhere!) and back let em."

Yup, just what we've been saying. It's your game play it how you will.

"the condasending attitude of some of the messages is getting irritating. I WOULD like to see other peoples oppinions or idea's on how to handle attracting followers in the traveller universe."

Those ideas and opinions have been presented; Traveller has no rules mechanism for attracting followers it automatically. The act is thus up to the roleplay between GM and PC; i.e. the PC must actually recruit followers in play rather than roll them up from a table.

What we're doing now is trying to explain why a d20 style of play needs to be adapted to Traveller just as the d20 rules were adapted to Traveller.

"Their is in fact a mechanisim in the CT rules for acquiring followers. So the idea of having a feat has merit as a means to an end."

Really? Where is it? Book? Page? Paragraph? What does it say? How is it used?


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Mythmere]

At the expense of sounding rude, I think the original purpose/question has been answered to a degree and this thread is getting hijacked to what appears to seamingly argue the merits of base D20 system.

(1) It does make you sound rude, especially since you apparently know that.
(2) The thread is not hijacked - it is discussing the inherent features carried over from d20 that push the game dynamic one way or another. People are trying to define how d20 feats imported into T20 would change the "feel" of the OTU. This is a legitimate function of the thread even if it makes you have to page though a lot of words to get suggestions on how NPC's can be handled in your particular game.

I'm sorry if you got that much of a problem with the game why are you playing? (dont answer that it was retorhical).

This sort of question is so calculated to inflame. It's like asking someone why they bother to write when they lack rudimentary spelling and grammar. In your case I'll assume the two dropped commas, the missing "have," the lost apostrophe and the misspelling of "rhetorical" were all typos, but others might not be so generous, given that it all happened in one sentence (it would, at least have been one sentence if the punctuation had been after the parenthetical.

Larsen and Casey are old timers. So mind your manners.

Sorry, hunter. I might be a tad outside the boundary in terms of ad hominem commentary. Apologies, all.