Which Edition? Differences between CT and Mongoose

[Supplement Four]

Except that I have found it to not be true.

With the soft rule, I see most characters at 5 terms, not 3. Mostly for the retirement pay, just so they can have that fallback. I've even seen 12 term characters... tho' 3 of the five were vilani, and thus no manditory retirement.

That's pretty much what Robject said--old geezers--and, your point supports mine about the soft rule.

With the soft rule, there's not a lot of incentive to stop character generation. A player keeps rolling until he can't roll any more.

With the hard rule, a player could get a character that he really likes with the skills he wants and will voluntarily stop character generation for fear of losing the character by repeated attempts at Survival.

With the hard rule, as mentioned above by ffilz, you get a more spread out group of characters in the PC group rather than have them all old and about the same age.

 

[aramis]

That's pretty much what Robject said--old geezers--and, your point supports mine about the soft rule.

With the soft rule, there's not a lot of incentive to stop character generation. A player keeps rolling until he can't roll any more.

With the hard rule, a player could get a character that he really likes with the skills he wants and will voluntarily stop character generation for fear of losing the character by repeated attempts at Survival.

With the hard rule, as mentioned above by ffilz, you get a more spread out group of characters in the PC group rather than have them all old and about the same age.

you're vastly oversimplifying, and probably projecting YOUR reasons for the reasons to others as a blanket without actually understanding the range of reasons.

Pretty much every player I've had pushes for retirement with at least one character, usually most of their characters. The longer ones are strings of forced reenlistments, or are vilani characters. The longest non-vilani character was a sucky PC in SolSec, with lethal failed survival... and 13 terms due to forced reenlistment. I've only had a few who wanted to push to 7 terms, but they (and I) have done that, even in the face of failed survival = death.

Character death doesn't stop the retirement seeker player - only failed reenlistment or hitting term 5. Most of the 6 and 7 term characters I've seen over the years have been either vilani or involuntary. ALL of the 1 or 2 term PCs have been involuntary (forced out by failed reenlistment or failed survival).

Some select 3 terms, not because of failed survival rolls, but because of aging. Most, however, are forced. And it was the same with FailSurvival=death.

4 terms is a mixed bag - some chicken out due to a bad stat and aging, some are forced out before retirement, and some are simply satisfied with the skillset. (Or in a few, they were at the experience limit, and further terms would be balanced raising stats vs aging losses).

The only times I've seen intentional 0.5-2 term characters is when we've been rolling up NPCs.

 

[robject]

I do note that the "not-death" variant has been around quite a while. So, there's obviously room and rationale for it.

 

[Supplement Four]

I do note that the "not-death" variant has been around quite a while. So, there's obviously room and rationale for it.

Yeah, IIRC, the soft version is in Starter Traveller.

 

[Supplement Four]

you're vastly oversimplifying, and probably projecting YOUR reasons for the reasons to others as a blanket without actually understanding the range of reasons.

On the one hand, everyone speaks from their own perception, even the mighty YOU.

On the other hand, you're probably right. I've played this game for decades, usually as Ref, and studied it, especially the task system. I'm just an idiot that doesn't know what he's looking at.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Yeah, IIRC, the soft version is in Starter Traveller.

Earlier than that.

 

[Supplement Four]

Earlier than that.

I figured it was. ST was my first version of Traveller and the first time I saw it.

I started off using the optional soft rule, but I switched to the hard rule once I realized the implications.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I figured it was. ST was my first version of Traveller and the first time I saw it.

I started off using the optional soft rule, but I switched to the hard rule once I realized the implications.

I kind of remember seeing ST in stores. Did it come in a box with dice like the 1977 and 1981 versions did? I bought one of the last printings of '77 through mail order, not knowing that an '81 edition was in the stores with more art and different rules in it.

 

[ffilz]

Earlier than that.

At least as early as 1981, but I'm pretty sure it was somewhere else also because I knew of the rule despite not knowingly seeing a 1981 book until several years ago when I got the CDROM. Could it have appeared in JTAS? Maybe I just heard about the rule from someone who had 1981 books.

 

[mike wightman]

The change to a failed survival roll being invalided out of the service rather than death first appeared in the 1981 revised edition of LBB:1 as an optional rule:

Optional Rule: If the referee or player so indicates prior to character generation,
then a failure of the survival roll can be converted to injury. The character is
not dead, but instead is injured, and leaves the service (after recovery) having served
only two years of the four year term.

There was a deluxe version of 81 in a bigger box.

Next came the Traveller Book in both hardback and softback

Finally we got the Starter Edition with its box art

The deluxe edition continued but became something of a lootbox - it may contain either LBB0-3, the softback TTB or even the Starter Edition booklets with additional pages copied from TTB to complete the rules.

But once again - the soft option was 1981 LBB:1

 

[GypsyComet]

Earlier than that.

My own memory puts the first version of the "soft" rule in Scouts & Assassins, in 1981, under the heading "Unfit for Service", but I started with the 1977 edition and didn't pick up the 1981 LBB set, so I'n not sure whether S&A or LBB81 appeared first.

 

[Leitz]

Unless there's a DM requested age range, I tend to ask about the game and then pick a character's target life stage based on how I want to interact in that particular setting. In atpollard's PbP game here the age was explicit; starting the second term of service. If my character of choice is physically centered I tend to go for the 26-30 age range. Younger for the naive wanderer feel, slightly older for the experienced adventurer.

I do understand that others like to play whatever the dice provide. For me it's enjoying the mindset of the character and playing out some things I cannot do in real life. I like to play characters that have decent skills in some area but aren't perfect in every situation. MgT using stats to modify rolls works well for me; it fits my understanding of reality and playability. MgT added some ideas that helped standardize in places. However, there's just too much variety in a fully developed setting to have rules for everything. CT is great for basic structure if you're happy to come up with a lot of your own house rules.

For me they are the same, a shared story tool.

 

[Supplement Four]

I kind of remember seeing ST in stores. Did it come in a box with dice like the 1977 and 1981 versions did?

Yep.

Here's a picture from Wayne's Books: Clicky, Clicky.

And, here's a pic of the box cover: https://cf.geekdo-images.com/opengr...2qvGy1Er4hl5I8=/fit-in/1200x630/pic523941.jpg



I always thought it was weird that it was called the Starter Edition. "Starter" makes me think "easier," and "less detailed," or "missing stuff included in the full, non-starter set." But ST is a full blown rule set that rivals Books 1-3. I'd say the TB has more in it, but not a whole lot more (an extra adventure, some rules, etc).

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Yep.

Here's a picture from Wayne's Books:

Ok. I remember that artwork. But thought that was the cover art for ST's books. I think ST toned down some of the drug rules.

 

[mike wightman]

They didn't tone them down, they just missed out that section. You would need either TTB or LBB1-3 if you wanted the drugs rules.

It did finally reveal the extra damage roll a pulse laser gets in ship combat.

 

[Supplement Four]

They didn't tone them down, they just missed out that section. You would need either TTB or LBB1-3 if you wanted the drugs rules.

It did finally reveal the extra damage roll a pulse laser gets in ship combat.

Yeah, ST missed some rules, and added others.

Also in ST is the only presentation of the Range Band version of the Book 2 Starship Combat rules.

Those made it easy to convert to a hex board, making each hex the size of one range band.

Or, of course, use them as presented using Range Bands.

Again, it is strange that the rule set is named "Starter Traveller" when it is such a complete rule set with some things seen no where else in CT.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Again, it is strange that the rule set is named "Starter Traveller" when it is such a complete rule set with some things seen no where else in CT.

Maybe Starter Traveller sounded good at the time while GDW was figuring out what a MegaTraveller would be?

 

[aramis]

Maybe Starter Traveller sounded good at the time while GDW was figuring out what a MegaTraveller would be?

From what's been said by Marc, Loren, Gary, and Joe... Essentially the decision was, "We need Marc to quite writing RPGs and get back to boardgames"...

Plus, ST was only a year after TTB.

But it also was the heydey of the TSR boxed RPGs, too. Mentzer Basic/Expert/Companion were out. Star Frontiers was also out at that time (ISTR it being the second version of SFAD, and about the time SFKH came out, too.) I know that TTB was available in some big-box book stores and mall book stores at the time, but there was clamor for more boxed RPGs - Car Wars was also in a deluxe box around that time, which also was in the "RPG" section of Waldenbooks.

Hardcovers and boxed sets were the mass market successes.

 

[Supplement Four]

Interesting that I never saw the TTB until much later. Two or three years later.

I wonder if the print run for the ST boxed set was a lot higher and got greater distribution that TTB.

I bought my ST boxed set in 1982 at the toy store in the mall (Kay Toys?) in Dallas, Texas. The local RPG shop had only the LBB's (but they did have all of them). I used to drool over them (it was hard to get people to play Traveller among my group back then--it was all D&D! D&D! D&D!)

I didn't see TTB, and it was the soft cover version, until I spied it at a RPG shop in Houston about three years later. That's when I saw the Alien Modules, too. I had more money then than I did in High School, so I scooped 'em all up. And, I finally started playing a lot.

I never knew TTB was even in hardback until I was given it as a gift by a player who had given up playing RPGs and was moving off with his job. This was about....1992 or 1993! He had purchased it about a decade earlier in California. I flipped upon seeing the hard cover (remember, this was pre-internet), and he gave it to me. He was going to throw it away, not wanting to move it.

 

[aramis]

Interesting that I never saw the TTB until much later. Two or three years later.

While I have never seen a paperback of TTB. Never in my life. I've had two hardcovers.

I bought my ST boxed set in 1982 at the toy store in the mall (Kay Toys?) in Dallas, Texas.

Unless the store owner had a time machine, not possible. ST was released in 1983. (check the copyright).
TTB was 1982.

You might be conflating it with the deluxe box.