Cohorts and Followers

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

There is also a "Noble Indignance" feat which allows you to browbeat opponents. Apparently, I am not the only one who has it...

I am also an "old timer" (not that this would grant me undue respect...) and am a firm advocate that the best Traveller was Classic Traveller, But...

In defense of QLI's effort, I find that T20 is by far the best reinterpretation of Traveller that I have seen to date, despite its flaws... at least it makes an effort to give the concept a "shot in the arm" so to speak... and by that I mean modernize it for a modern RPG market, which is of course good for Traveller...

This has been tried before, yes, even by the creator, but I "feel" (sorry) that it definitely captures the same notions that CT had. I found the later bastardizations of Traveller so lame that I jumped in my low berth and shut the lid.

I also believe that Charisma/Influence/whathaveyou type situations should be roleplayed always, as random "reaction rolls" and the like are for encounters with animals or something...

More often than not, the Feats in d20 are mere window dressing, and could easily be optional, certinaly nothing to man the trenches over...

Mr. Whipsnade. ahhh... Mr. Whipsnade... I cited Brother Iota from Mythmere's Game as an example of the joint effort a good Referee and a good characterization can accomplish, not to say "Gee, My Hero is sort of a Bad guy", I assumed we established that "hero" doesn't always mean "Captain Kirk." Perhaps by Heroism or heroism (whatever case sensitivities dictate) we mean "Cut Above the Rest" (See? I do read your posts!)

Your statement of PCs in t20 ARE the Ancients, is understandable, but slightly off. In plain fact badly run t20 characters get no more powerful than Characters in a badly run CT Characters. The origin of that power is merely different. It would seem you speak from many power-gaming wounds, and my heart goes out to you. I wouldn't go so far as call it "munchkinism" because I despise such faddish terminology. I think people react badly to the overall tone of condescension from "old timers" that bemoan the loss of the old days... which are alas, gone.

What is this "Casablanca" and is there a d20 version of it?

 

[zephyrus]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
[QB] zephyrus wrote:

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.

I disagree as it appears that over half of this thread appears to be arguing the merits and flaws of the D20 and T20 systems.

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

this is just one example of as to why I feel the thread has been hijacked.

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.

---

"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?

Specifically I am not certain where to site it. However I was informed that such was listed under the benefits and abilities of the leadership skill in CT at the various skill levels. While what he described was not comprehensive it does make it reasonable for the feat to exist.

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.

Such could be done in another derived thread, which was the purpose of my statment to that effect.

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.

The statment was to make a point. It was not ment to inflame but rather draw attention to what appears to be a contratiction.

in regards to the spelling and punctuation errors. I'm not an english major. I dont claim to be and while it might weaken my case that should be secondary to the purpsoe and intent of the statments themselves

Larsen and Casey are old timers. So mind your manners

being old timer's should not allow a person to belitte or slander wholesale others. While I am new I making a effort to be respectfull of others and would have hoped that a similar repsect could be given to everyone and several statments that have been made through the course of this thread have been directly or indirectly insulting.


Does anyone have any thoughts on how implimenting a leadership-like feat where by a character attracted followers or similar could work in Traveller. Something asside from the suggestions I made earlier or perhaps construct your own leadership table to be appropriate to the Traveller setting and T20 system?

 

[Mythmere]

being old timer's should not allow a person to belitte or slander wholesale others. While I am new I making a effort to be respectfull of others and would have hoped that a similar repsect could be given to everyone and several statments that have been made through the course of this thread have been directly or indirectly insulting.

True. But the only belittling or slandering that went on was when I made fun of your grammar, which is a cheap shot, and for which I apologize since you came back without flaming. I honestly don't think anyone in the thread has meant to be insulting (again, except me) though Larsen expressed a strong opinion against a particular style of play. But strong opinions aren't slander. Anyway, welcome to the boards. Your style's a little "chip on the shoulder," but you've got balls, and you're willing to suggest crunchy game solutions to your own questions, so I like you now.

I still disagree the thread's been hijacked.

 

[Whipsnade]

Baron Saarthuran wrote:

"Your statement of PCs in t20 ARE the Ancients, is understandable, but slightly off. In plain fact badly run t20 characters get no more powerful than Characters in a badly run CT Characters."


Baron,

I wrote that PCs in d20 are the Ancients, PCs in T20 are another kettle of fish entirely!

"It would seem you speak from many power-gaming wounds, and my heart goes out to you. I wouldn't go so far as call it "munchkinism" because I despise such faddish terminology."

Not wounds exactly, because I've played and enjoyed D&D too - including running and developing a warrior/monk PC who could go through the bad guys like green corn through a goose. It's more like an understanding that different RPGs require different styles of play.

Last night at Lonestar, Casey made a nice observation regarding need to adapt both play style and system rules when shifting between RPG settings. He wisely brought up Cthulu as a d20 Cthulu could be in the works. Would you play d20 D&D and d20 Cthulu in the same manner? Of course not, the very idea is ludicrous, the two settings and how the PCs interact with them are wildly different.

I believe the same holds true when shifting twixt d20 and Traveller. You need to change more than your weapons, background information, and library data. You also need to change your frame of mind, your style of play.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

zephyrus wrote:

"I disagree as it appears that over half of this thread appears to be arguing the merits and flaws of the D20 and T20 systems."


Mr. Zephyrus,

Let us agree to diagree then. I believe that the d20 system possesses many, many merits and that the few 'flaws' it may project into Traveller have more to do with our failures to properly interpret what is essentially a set of fantasy-Heroic RPG rules into a nitty-gritty, sci-fi RPG system.

"this is just one example (my suggestions that some of our problems exist because d20 was originally designed as a 'base' RPG system - LEW) of as to why I feel the thread has been hijacked."

I view that to be the core part of the question originally asked. IMHO, you may as well be asking how to use a love potion or bag of holding in Traveller. Those are two very useful items in their respective setting. They do not belong in Traveller however.

"Specifically I am not certain where to site it. However I was informed that such was listed under the benefits and abilities of the leadership skill in CT at the various skill levels. While what he described was not comprehensive it does make it reasonable for the feat to exist."

IMEHO, no. But we are agreeing to disagree.

"Does anyone have any thoughts on how implimenting a leadership-like feat where by a character attracted followers or similar could work in Traveller. Something asside from the suggestions I made earlier or perhaps construct your own leadership table to be appropriate to the Traveller setting and T20 system?"

Yes, I do. Two thoughts actually.

The first you know; ignore the feat as used in d20 proper. It should not be 'ported over, much like magic in GURPS Basic does not appear in GURPS WW2. BTW, Hunter Gordon (whose name you may find on the title page of your T20 copy) holds the same opinion.

The second is a distillation of the various repsonses here. Use the usual tables and roll up your cohorts. NPCs are treated normally. When using the tables, ignore the result of commoners. As per Mr. Gordon, there are no commoners in Traveller.

I still believe you're asking the wrong question. You think constructing a Traveller-specific leadership table will solve the problem and I think the idea of automatic followers doesn't belong in the Traveller setting. To my mind, it would be like playing Cthulu without worrying about your PC's sanity. It does not fit. YMMV.


Sincerely,
Larsen

P.S. Welcome to CotI.

Our converstations here are imperfect sadly. Text only chats exclude all the nuances and shadings available in face-to-face conversation. Because tone, body language, facial expressions, and all the rest can't come into play, the intent inherent in mere text can be misconstrued despite all the emoticons or graemlins one may use.

Because our chats are text-only, Mr. Mythmere's observations regarding spelling and punctuation are harsh, but correct. None of us here are 'English majors'; the usual defense invoked, but most of us here try. Why? Because your text is the only thing people see and, people being people, they will judge you on what they see. Post sloppy messages and people will think of you as a sloppy thinker. It is sad, it is unfair, and it is how things work.

Just a little advice you can freely ignore.

 

[bolie]

One thing to consider when using feats like Leadership... the fact that the followers are automatic by the rules doesn't mean that they are somehow automatic in the game. If a character wants to attract a following, they should take the Leadership feat *and* come up with some plausible in-game reason why they would have such a following. Even in D&D, I wouldn't let someone just magically have followers show up at his door when he took a feat. I'd work with him to come up with an explanation that fit the setting.

Oh, and GURPS encourages cross-genre play, hences WWII Weird War, a book on using the supernatural in WWII.

Bolie IV

 

[jchurchill]

LEW wrote:

"Now, with the webbed toes of DnD's soi disant leadership 'feat',"

You're stepping on my toes again...

 

[jchurchill]

my intial response to this was why does T-20 need feats that duplicate skills? The whole concept of feats may add a bit of "flavor" but that flavor os going to be comic book hero stuff.

Characters with the skills Leader & Recruiting will be able to attract troops and crews. Characters without those skills will have to use what everyone else in the real world uses....money.

Having a horde of loyal followers who will sacrifice their lives for the player is all good and well if one wants a dull style of play that involves no risk and compensates the player's wounded ego because the player may be working at Arby's or the UN of fast food -- IHOP.

To follow up on Mr. Whipsnade's Casblanca analogy --

The D&D/D20 style of play generally sems to follow the Superman school ....able to do almost anything and literally invulnerable to all but one exceedingly rare piece of geology.

A somewhat opposing model is the Batman school of adventure. Batman has no in inherent super powers or amazing abilities. He is remarkably strong and agile. He is certainly very smart. But much of what he can do is also driven by technology. He is only as fast as the Batmobile[tm] or the Bat-RTA or the BatYellowCab can take him from one place to another. In the movie versions his suit makes him bulletproof and has IR and sonic enhancements. it's basically a kitschy version of combat armor.

IMNSHO, Traveller is a Batman school of heroics and play. Daring humans aided by technology. D&D players are the Superman school -- virutally invincible to all manner of havoc, mayhem and destruction.

Personally, I was much more of a Batman fan than a Superman fan. Superman always seemed a dull hero because there was so little that could possibly happen to him. Batman could easily get killed [although we all knew that would not happen to him].

So, if you are a Superman player then by all means use "feats." But to me you aren't really playing Traveller anymore. You're playing Space D&D.

 

[jchurchill]

I need to add the caveat that I have not played T20 and the remarks are based on review of [but not playing] D20 and GURPS. I have, of course played D&D [the little brown books] years ago.

 

[aravain]

My question is this?:

Do you throw out a rule or game fundamental because it is flawed such that a person striving for power gaming (to give it a name) can (not always does) abuse it, or do you allow a little "wiggle room" for a GM and player (call him a role-player) to reach a mutually agreeable position?

I agree that Leadership can (and has) been abused by uncountable players.Both LEW and Mythmere have posted (along with others) logical and linear arguements to remove it from play. Heck, even one of the big guys (Hunter) weighed in against it. I guess I have been fortunate that I have never run in a campaign where a player tried to use a rule to gain too much advantage AND the Gm allowed him/her to do it AGAINST the GM's will.

Without being sarcastic, since things may have changed in rpgs in the decades I've been playing them, but have people in campaigns started to be so,.....er..., analytical, that they have forgotten why most of us get together? I mean, sure, we always get the one person who tries to treat any system's rules as if they were filling out their income tax form...every break, every advantage, but most us (I hope) get together with our friends to be sociable and have fun.

Finally, I agree that Traveller has always been the game where heroics (lower case) was the rule. You died easier, got permanent scars faster, and never seemed to get quite ahead in the world. It didn't mean you gave up or turned evil, it just meant you had to work harder (and suffer more) to reach a goal in the game.

Of course, my goal in real life is to enjoy the people I game with no matter the system. The time I begin to consider a RPG a win/lose matter or a form to be filled out like taxes, take me out and shoot me!

 

[bolie]

I'll have to tell my DM in my D&D3 games that our characters are like Superman, practically invulnerable. Admittedly, we don't end up dying all that often, but given appropriate challenges, we end up brutally beaten and only survive because of healing magic. In T20, so far, we've had no real player deaths (okay, the party spectacularly commited suicide/fratricide one time, but that was an anomoly).

Feats are not inherently cinematic. If you don't like them and prefer a skill based system, play GURPS. GURPS has advantages and disadvantages, though, which are similar... hmm. I guess you can play CT, which is entirely skill based. The old books are all available.

Personally, I like what T20 did by converting all class abilities into feats and then giving Bonus Feats selected from a class-specific list. I'd love to see this taken back to D&D, for that matter.

You can abuse any rule if you want to.

But I guess we'll have to talk our DM into giving us a crewed ship without the Leadership feat, eh Mythmere?

Bolie IV

 

[jchurchill]

I'll have to tell my DM in my D&D3 games that our characters are like Superman, practically invulnerable. Admittedly, we don't end up dying all that often, but given appropriate challenges, we end up brutally beaten and only survive because of healing magic. In T20, so far, we've had no real player deaths
=================================================
There are always exceptions of course to game style. Some referees kill PCs off at alarming rates in any game but these people are more sadist than anyhting else.

It has been years since I have played D&D and correct me if I am wildly off base but the old rules provided that as players rose in levels so did their hit piints and they became more difficult to kill. A sword still did 8 points or whatever of damage but when a character went from a level 1 character of 10 hit point to eventually a 10th level character with 60 or more hit points but the same sowrd still only did 8 points of damage then that 10th level character could wade into a fight with a horde of opponents all hacking away and kill those opponents an walk away --a bit bruised and bloody perhaps but still walking.

In Traveller -- well CT --at any rate...a single rifle shot could kill a general or an admiral as easily as it could kill a 2 skill NPC or an inexperienced character. The PC still has to respect a knife wound or a sword wound as serious. Gunshot wounds are not something to be shrugged off either. It may be more a situation of relative "invinvibility" and some of it stems from the difference in the two games of course...D&D is premised on a situation where a single warrior could slay a dragon when he has grown powerful enough. CT/MT accepts a world where getting shot twice can kill you and taking on a 32000kg beast with a sword may very well get you crushed or torn apart.

 

[jwdh71]

I for one don't see the problem with either the leadership feat, feats in general, or the translation of Traveller into the d20 system that is T20. I understand that Hunter doesn't use the Leadership feat himself, which opinion he's entitled to, I also understand Larsen's opinion of the (admitted) potential for cheese the feat, and for that matter any feat system brings to Traveller. However I tend to think that the d20 system, and it's Traveller incarnation, are fine systems. The translation of Traveller itself is (to me) just about the perfect middle ground between the badly granular CT, and the obsessive bookkeeping of GURPS. Don't get me wrong, I like both systems, but they have their flaws as well.

Larsen, I don't know what kind of power-gamers you have played D&D with, or what kind of Monty-Haul DM's they had, but I will tell you that characters in d20 are VERY mortal. In the d20 group I normally play with we start characters at 3-5 level, with the amount of starting cash the average character would have for that level, and we regularly have PC death. When I was running d20 for them I would have to pull punches almost every game session, to keep PC's from dying every game.

As far as feats, especially the Leadership feat, they are a useful way to individualize the characters, both PC and NPCs. In fact certain PCs would have to explain to me why they WOULDN'T have the Leadership feat. Example? A PC playing a Noble class, would almost certainly have it, to represent the group of followers who would almost ALWAYS be there, from bodyguards to simple hangers-on. If he didn't have the feat I would want to know why he was let out on his own. Likewise for a fairly high Charisma Vargr, there should almost never be a time when a character like that wouldn't have that feat. Fiction, including SF, is full of "best friends", groups of people who are definitely not hirelings, but less than PC's. Not all campaigns need this, but there are reasons to have NPCs which have a higher loyalty to one or more of the PCs than simple "he pays my salary". If the player can justify this, with a good background story, I have no problem with it. Remember there is an advantage in GURPS that does this as well, would you outlaw that advantage in a G:T game because it wasn't Traveller enough?

I disagree with the poster who compared the differences between D&D and Traveller to the Superman/Batman differences. Almost all the power of a high-level character in D&D is from either equipment or information, i.e. magic items or spells. Likewise the power of characters in Traveller is equipment or information, i.e. Battledress, FGMPs or Ancients artifacts, Library Data or computer codes. Neither set come from inherent superiority, but outside sources such as magic (in D&D) or technology (in Traveller).

The other thing is, unless your name is Marc Miller, there is very little that anyone can say is "NOT TRAVELLER". You may have an opinion about what you prefer in a game you're either playing or running, but he originally designed the game, and the universe, to be as open to as many types of campaigns as anyone could imagine. Therefore some games WILL have a place for that particular feat, and others will not.

As always, YMMV
John Hamill
jwdh71@yahoo.com

 

[hunter]

A note on my comments about the Leadership feat. I, as a licensee and bound to follow canon, do not feel that the Leadership feat as it is in the base d20 book fits into the nature of the OTU.

Now if YOU want to use it in your own stuff, go right ahead. That's what 'In My Traveller Universe' is all about. There is no right or wrong when it comes to that. All that matters is that you and the other players with you have a good time.

If you find a good way to fit it into your TU, I am sure there are plenty of folks here who would want to hear about how you did it. Of course understand that there will also be those who will still disagree with using it and will certainly let you know

Hunter

 

[plop101]

A police detective arrives at the Lone Star Lounge on Regina. The scene is utter chaos as police cordon off the area and emergency workers search for survivors. The front of the building appears to have been demolished, windows broken, glass all over the sidewalk pavement. The front doors seems to have been blasted apart, and smoke is poring out of a large hole in the roof. In the parking area, wrecked vehicles mix in with pools of mud, blood, and beer.

The detective walks through the debris to a group of medics assisting a survivor. He kneels down and asks, "Tell me what happened here."

"It was terrible. I was just in to have a Saurian Brandy. Some first term merchantman sits down at the bar, starts asking about how to lead people, or something.." the survivor stops to take in oxygen. He then continues, "So this one group tells the merchant how they do it, when this grizzled old man walks in carrying a large side of bar-b-que Groat ribs," he coughs, then continues, "The old guy said that ain't the way you do it at all, and starts flinging the side of Groat ribs around. Then other people pulled swords out, and others pulled pistols out, and they just kept on shooting and hacking and pummeling each other. I passed out after the bi-plane crashed through the roof."

"Bi-plane?" the detective pondered.

"Yeah, one of em got upset enough that he left the lounge and got a bi-plane and flew it thru the roof. I think he was screeming "Is this a feat or a skill" over the din of the engines just before he hit the roof. Then there was some droyne jumping around chirping something that I couldn't understand, and about then I passed out."

The detective wrote the survivors tale down in his notebook. As he finishes his notes, a patrolman walks up.

"What are your orders, Sir"

The detective smiles, and says,
"A crime has been commited here. ROUND UP THE USUAL SUSPECTS."

"Yes Sir!"

 

[Mythmere]

Originally posted by Bolie Williams IV:
I guess we'll have to talk our DM into giving us a crewed ship without the Leadership feat, eh Mythmere?

Bolie IV

Rejoice! You won't have to waste a feat to get loyal followers. You'll just have to find some NPCs, gauge their trustworthiness, persuade them to follow you, and watch your back just like in the real world...

I'm back from vacation, by the way.

 

[Spinward Scout]

You could always use the Commoner from the Star Wars d20.

"Common people make up the majority of the population. They run shops, farm fields, build homes, and produce goods throughout the galaxy...

Commoners don't have any levels and use the basic statistics given for their species."

Hope that helps,

Scout

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by secretagent:
D&D is premised on a situation where a single warrior could slay a dragon when he has grown powerful enough. CT/MT accepts a world where getting shot twice can kill you and taking on a 32000kg beast with a sword may very well get you crushed or torn apart.

T20 doesn't use D&D3E's Hit Points. It uses Stamina (basically hit points) *and* Lifeblood (based on the character's Constitution which does not increase with level). T20 characters are quite vulnerable to even knife wounds.

Since you've not played D&D3E and it doesn't sound like you've seen T20 I suggest you download one of the d20 SRDs * and T20 Lite . It's not the same D&D as previous versions nor is T20 D&D.

* I personally find the d20 Modern SRD easier to read and use with T20 than the previous 3.0 version of the d20 SRD but I have not completely read the new Revised (3.5) d20 SRD now available.

Casey