CT Only: CT 1977 and CT 1981

[creativehum]

It's another example GDW's deliberately vague wording, CH.

On the '77 encounter table, a result of 12 is a pirate. Period. No doubt about it.

The referee can "massage" the result in various ways and experienced referees will. There's nothing to say that an attack occurs, it's just an encounter after all. Overly literal referees will always equate "encounter" with 'attack" despite, as you note, they're being two different things.

On the '81 encounter table, the referee is explicitly told they have wiggle room. A roll which results in a TP, CP, or SP encounter "... can be construed as a pirate; such a ship will probably attack, or at least try to achieve a position where it can make the attempt."

Not must be a pirate. Not will definitely attack. Not will achieve an attack position. Can, possibly, and try.

The inexperienced or overly literal referee is reminded that the encounter table - or any table - is not a set of handcuffs but instead an aid for their imagination.

Got it. And good points.

Interestingly, I was approaching it from the other point-of-view -- that of the Players and their Player Characters.

in my Lamentations of the Flame Princes (B/X D&D) I simply present the Players with opportunities and obstacles. Some of these obstacles are monsters or NPCs that want to lob their heads off if they get a chance.

The Players could go for a stand-up fight against these aggressive threats. But they have learned not to go toe-to-toe if possible. The rules are set up that the moment one begins rolling dice involving combat things can go south fast.

They come up with clever solutions to undermine the threat before engaging, or simply dodge the threat, or use clever means that let them attack but limit their exposure to counter-attack.

In the same way, even if the PCs in a Free Trader "encounter" a pirate ship upon arrival in a system that doesn't mean the PCs have to engage in a battle. The range of options of how to respond is wide and varied -- and, again, informed by the circumstances of the crew at that moment.

If they are carrying a princess that has promised them a huge treasure if they get her to her home world, for example, allowing their ship to be boarded might not be as appealing an option as if they were just carrying some electronics parts.

Or the PCs might be in need of backup for an upcoming assault on a world an offer an alliance of necessity, offering the pirates a cut of the spoils if they join with them.

And so on...

I have been startled by the ways in which my Players come up to deal with the crisis points set before them. I would assume the same would be true in my upcoming Traveller game.

 

[Whipsnade]

Interestingly, I was approaching it from the other point-of-view -- that of the Players and their Player Characters.

You just made me realize something. I always approach these questions from the point-of-view of the referee. Perhaps it's because I became the "Forever DM" so early on, but I'm always thinking about what my players can/will do rather than what my character can/will do.

Thanks for the gently nudge towards insight!

The rules are set up that the moment one begins rolling dice involving combat things can go south fast.

Just like Traveller.

In the same way, even if the PCs in a Free Trader "encounter" a pirate ship upon arrival in a system that doesn't mean the PCs have to engage in a battle. The range of options of how to respond is wide and varied -- and, again, informed by the circumstances of the crew at that moment.

Yup, and there's a range of options for the pirate too. They, like the PCs, have their own circumstances to deal with.

They could be thrusting for the jump limit with alerts being broadcast across the system. They could be on an intercept course with another ship. They could be out of position with regards to the players. They could be damaged. Their hold could be filled. They could be "on a job" for somebody else.

The players have options and the referee - as the pirates - has options too. It needn't and shouldn't be as simple as "You rolled a 12? Start fighting..."

 

[creativehum]

Just like Traveller.

Exactly.

 

[rhialto]

In my view, if the PCs are from far away and one of them is a title noble, the question becomes "Why is this marquis wandering the space lanes of this distant land?"

This isn't to say that the PC can't be from the setting of play. Again, the game supports the Referee doing what he wants! If a political game is desired, then create a noble house and go for it. (My own inclination would be for the noble house to have been attacked, as per the notes above anyway... but that's me.)

And that was my point: the default assumption is that the PCs are "travellers to the setting of play, not from it" (i.e., from far away). If you assume they are from the setting of play then you need to determine why nobles, in particular, have so little in the way of assets that their NPC counterparts likely have (which could lead to an interesting story as you describe).

Still, tangential, since it has nothing to do with differences between 1977 & 1981. Just interesting.

 

[creativehum]

Frank and I have been having a conversation about this stuff over at my blog. But I've had some thoughts I've had since looking over Aramis' comparison of the 1977 and 1981 cargo averages:

Using the 1977 rules (which I’m suddenly, because of this conversation, tempted by) suggests the crew of the ships have really stuck it to themselves. They’ve taken a gamble to head off into parts unknown with ships that really will not be able to survive on trade alone.

In the 1977 model, cargo and passengers are there to supplement and support a goal that is entirely different than trade itself. Speculation can help. But ultimately the crew will be out to gain their wealth through extraordinary measures. Whether the are treasure hunters, a mercenary crew looking for a dream ticket, out to take over a world, or whatever, the cargo hold and stateroom are there to help them KEEP GOING until they reach a much larger pay day.

This takes the focus off of trade. The crew is hoping they get enough cargo and passengers they don’t have to bleed out too much on the haul they’ve accumulated thus far. And if they have really struck it rich (but are not satisfied yet) they might not even both trying to find cargo and passengers, since the profits might be a drop in the bucket compared to the ease of being responsible to no one but themselves.

This model means low Population worlds are even more off the beaten track since it is clear that most ships will never bother going to them for purely trade reasons. What could draw someone? Rumors of treasure. Ruins. A place to conquer and build a military foundation.

The Type R will never make it simply as a trader with 1997 cargo rules. Even the higher pop worlds will seldom fill the cargo hold. And it's going to be running 50% empty or even worse most of the time.

So the question becomes “Why journey a subsidized Type R or Type M beyond the fringes of civilization?”

One way of looking at it, the common way I suppose, is that the ships are “broken” and the trade rules don’t work.

Another way is to ask, “What do you get with a Type M? or a Type R” Plenty of state rooms and lower berths (especially with the Type M!). Plenty of room for gear and equipment. A crew could carry plenty of mercs and weapons, as well as the ammo and gear to keep an operation running for a while. The crew takes on the subsidy contract because they have heard rumors of wealth among the worlds the ships will service and are willing to run the ship to find their way to them.

That’s just one example. But an easy one.

I often think that a lot of people make a mistake about Traveller. They think things should work at peak efficiency — and if they don’t then something is wrong. (The same way many people are frustrated with the weird results of the Main World generation system.)

But another way of looking at it is this:

This wouldn’t normally make sense. But someone is doing it. So why? Why Type R or Type M if they can’t fill their holds? Well, that’s a question worth considering!

Because here’s one thing: If they go to a world rumored to have a wealth of [Insert McGuffins Here] they can fill their holds up and come back with a rich treasure to sell off.

And another thought: Subsidized ships split their income 50-50 to the government from cargo carried and passengers… they don’t split salaries and they don’t split speculation.

If a Type R or Type M is carrying a large compliment of adventurous men and women (the PCs and their hirelings) and hauling speculative trade and captured booty, none of that is split. Yes, they have to pay for fuel and life support, but if they fill their cargo hold with valuable, all that profit is theirs to keep.

I have to say I am drawn to this style of play, driven with a more pointed sense toward adventure than the weekly operations of running a starship. It isn't that the PCs need to take extra work to keep their ship going. It's that they are using their low-income business to get to the treasure they know awaits them if they can just keep going long enough. There is no assumption that you'll make it as traders. The ship is there to help you get to the bigger goal.

 

[kilemall]

Personally I'm good with the 81 chart. Just takes one fight a year to be all the money sink a team could take.

The 77 chart is off the wall '75% U-boat crews don't come back' crazy.

 

[creativehum]

Personally I'm good with the 81 chart. Just takes one fight a year to be all the money sink a team could take.

The 77 chart is off the wall '75% U-boat crews don't come back' crazy.

I get it.
I really do.
But I really like the idea that these ships were built for more civilized and more populated areas. They are pushing into areas with firm risk.

And three other things:
1) If a ship sticks to Pop 7+ worlds they'll probably be okay. That's a choice the characters (or other traders) can make. Certainly the rules in the 1977 edition drive traffic between high pop worlds and A and B class starport worlds. The rest of the subsector, for reasons economic and dangerous, are less well traveled.

2) Violent encounters, if they occur at all, will most often happen in A and B class systems per the the 1977 Ship Encounter table. If the PCs' Free Trader heads off the beaten paths they'll be less inclined to get into a shooting match with another ship. (Per the subsector creation rules, 58% of a subsection's worlds will be C, D, E, or X). And since not all encounters will lead to violence, even A and B starport worlds probably won't lead to damage to the ship. I know we're talking about one fight a year. But the fact is that might even happen depending on how the PCs respond to the situation and so on.

3) All of this focuses play not on cargo and passengers but on adventures and speculation. That is higher risk endeavors. For me, that's the name of the game. Trade and cargo are not forgotten. They simply are not the focus or the expectation of focus.

That's kind of exactly what I would want... the Free Trader heading off to some E class starport world of tens of thousands of aliens worshipping at a temple made of lanthanum that they've mined for generations or whatnot. Getting involved with a fight on a D class planet that's been hit by marauders while suffering a civil war and interposing themselves between all the conflicts for their own gain... and so on.

I'm not saying good or bad, right or wrong way to play. This is obviously a matter of taste. But I'm content to look at the 1977 rules, which I have literally not read for decades (like everyone else I "moved onto" The Traveller Book) and am happy to say, "Oh, heck. Look at that. The rules I originally read and excited me with the kind of situations and environment they would create are still the rules that provide the kinds of situations and environment that excite me."

 

[rhialto]

3) All of this focuses play not on cargo and passengers but on adventures and speculation. That is higher risk endeavors. For me, that's the name of the game. Trade and cargo are not forgotten. They simply are not the focus or the expectation of focus.

That's kind of exactly what I would want... the Free Trader heading off to some E class starport world of tens of thousands of aliens worshipping at a temple made of lanthanum that they've mined for generations or whatnot. Getting involved with a fight on a D class planet that's been hit by marauders while suffering a civil war and interposing themselves between all the conflicts for their own gain... and so on.

I'm not saying good or bad, right or wrong way to play. This is obviously a matter of taste. But I'm content to look at the 1977 rules, which I have literally not read for decades (like everyone else I "moved onto" The Traveller Book) and am happy to say, "Oh, heck. Look at that. The rules I originally read and excited me with the kind of situations and environment they would create are still the rules that provide the kinds of situations and environment that excite me."

Your forensics between the 1977 & 1981 versions highlight the differences between game and simulation, where 1977 leans more to the former and 1981 more to the latter. I know which one I want to play more, even with its rougher contours.

 

[mike wightman]

I find that the 81 revision begins the slippery slope of making the OTU the 'default' setting - that is very much IMHO.

What I really like about the proto-Imperium is I can do what I want with it, if that makes sense. I can stick the published adventures and double adventures where I want and only loosely reference the Imperium or ignore the Imperium completely and still fit them in.

There have been a couple of really good comments recently over on rpg.net in creativehum's thread:

This thread has reminded me of my love for Traveller. Not the published settings, but starting with a blank hex grid and making a universe - Gee4orce

Yup, that's an awesome thing. Before 1977, who knew that three little books, two dice, and a stack of 3x5 cards is all you really need to create a universe? - GM Joe

They sum up the appeal of CT to me.

 

[creativehum]

While on the elliptical at the gym these days I've been reading through the Traveller 1977 edition on my tablet.

The thing I find amazing (and this holds for the 1981 edition as well) is how much is packed in such a compact space compared to today's RPGs.

The text says what it want to say and gets on with it. Anyone reading the book could get on with the business of playing the game as soon as he was done reading. The variety of topics covered along with the right amount of detail before moving on is an amazing feat of economy.

(I consider RuneQuest 2nd Ed., which I am currently reading, in the same camp of "complete and compact." Sure a cult book would help. But you could get rolling and build out your setting with the examples and details provided.)

Books 1-3 are dense. Which can be a problem. But in that density is an entire RPG framework in about 145 digest sized pages. Again, compared to today's RPGs texts it is hard to imagine such a thing.