Does Classic Traveller need an update?

[robject]

Ah, so we're coming back around to the "CT+" concept yet again.

The devil's in the details.

I like CT for its simplicity. Because it grew organically, it is scattered all over the place! When I try to look something up is it in Books 1-8, the suppliments, adventures, JTAS--and that's only the official stuff. It's like having a toolbox scattered all over the house. (Traveller game prep takes enough time as is)

Please assemble Traveller (and throw in a simple Task System too.)

Lord Iron Wolf

MegaTraveller did this. The "problem" is that you have to choose what to "assemble" and what to leave behind. MT sort-of used Striker as the basis for craft design. This resulted in a consistent design rule for all vehicles, smallcraft, and starships -- the Grail for sure. But as a result all ship designs are a bit complex and incompatible with CT. That's enough to turn me off, but the rest of MT is golden.

 

[Vargas]

MegaTraveller did this. The "problem" is that you have to choose what to "assemble" and what to leave behind. MT sort-of used Striker as the basis for craft design. This resulted in a consistent design rule for all vehicles, smallcraft, and starships -- the Grail for sure. But as a result all ship designs are a bit complex and incompatible with CT. That's enough to turn me off, but the rest of MT is golden.

I think MT was a marvelous attempt at Traveller 2e as it consolidated so much of CT into just a few places. I agree with robject, it fell down in craft design but was otherwise pretty good. (I have a few small personal nits with it but they're my nits). And I'm only talking about the underlying game here, not the Rebellion setting. (Which I think was fundamentally all right but poorly thought out and implemented).

 

[Jeffr0]

But MT needed to be revised and rereleased with its own "second edition." Instead we got TNE and T4.

 

[Supplement Four]

The rant is really about the "Edition Blindspot". It pops up way too often among long-time players who should know better, and is strongest in CT, MT, and GT players. Too much of the time, it centers around the hatred of the advancing official timeline into either the Rebellion or (via Virus) the New Era, and renders them blind to the useful parts of those editions.

My dislike of other Traveller systems centers around the rules. It's really not the setting. I like the MT Rebellion setting. It's kinda like CT during the Fifth Frontier War, but its Imperium Wide.

I've hated The Virus setting in the past, but now, as an alternative, it's not so bad. It's the pesky, over-detailed, not-fun TNE rules that I hate.

GT? It's the rules. I only buy GT stuff in the bargain bins...because of the rules.

T20? Same thing. I hate the d20 system.

ACT, MGT: Why go there when they're no better than CT? They're alternatives to CT, but they're not better than CT (imo).

T5/T5....etc





Your point here is that edition preference lies in milieu. That's probably true for many. But, I'm a rules grognard. I love the simplicity of CT. I love how it plays. I love how it flows. I know it's not a perfect system (never really saw a perfect system before, but D6 Star Wars comes close), but CT does do a lot of things really, really well.

I don't buy Traveller supplements new unless they contain CT stats. I'll only buy Traveller supplements without CT stats if they're in the bargain bin and I'm in the mood.


And...get this...I get more excited when I find an old, long forgotten, CT article from some old out-of-date fan magazine than I do when I see some new offering for Traveller Hero or T5.

It's not just about the setting. Sure, that has some importance. It's also about the mechanics--how it fits with my system of choice; how much work is it going to cost me in converting that stuff over to my CT game?

In this day and age, I try to put as little GM work into a game as necessary, and Traveller is known for massive amounts of GM prep time (at least the prep is fun and not just work).



But, in the end, how useful to me is a book of weapons like the Emperor's arsenal from T4? It's not worth a lot because each weapon will take a lot of thought in guessing conversion to CT rules. So, that book ain't worth squat, in my opinion.

Something like MT's 101 vehicles? Yep. Useable. It's got all the stats needed for a CT vehicle (which ain't much: price, speed...that's about it, ain't it?).



I just wanted to add my own comments to your rant. It's not only about background. I don't like TNE for the non-play-friendly mechancis as much as the background.

I'm turned off from MGT from what I see in the task system.

Rules mean a lot to me.

 

[GypsyComet]

I just wanted to add my own comments to your rant. It's not only about background. I don't like TNE for the non-play-friendly mechancis as much as the background.

Rules mean a lot to me.

While background is a common cause for a blindspot, my first post makes it clear that this isn't the cause in every case.

It comes down to the same psychological quirk that keeps history buffs away from the movies. Even one "mistake" visible in a movie trailer is enough to keep them from enjoying or even watching the rest of the movie, and by "mistake" I mean the odd helmets visible amongst the Felix Legion at the start of Gladiator.

By your own example, you hate D20, and as such won't ever play T20. That's fine, but did you bother looking at the subsystems? Did starship construction or worldbuilding have an innovation you could use? Was the commerce system better than before? The art or deckplans? If you didn't look *at all* because of the D20 logo on the cover, or never got past the first twenty pages, that's a blindspot.

If you did look and evaluate, and *consciously* incorporated or discarded new elements, you're already doing better than most.

 

[BigBadRon]

I still prefer CT to all the others because of its simplicity... I don't add stuff from other editions, because that would, IMO, dilute the simplicity. So far I've seen little in the other editions that I consider worth converting.

This is definitely not a blind spot for me. I own (and have played) CT, MT, TNE, T4, T20, GT, and I have T5 on order...

So, yes, I have considered the alternatives, and still I come back to CT every time.

Also, I find it easier to recruit players for CT than for any other version.

 

[Supplement Four]

By your own example, you hate D20, and as such won't ever play T20. That's fine, but did you bother looking at the subsystems? Did starship construction or worldbuilding have an innovation you could use? Was the commerce system better than before? The art or deckplans? If you didn't look *at all* because of the D20 logo on the cover, or never got past the first twenty pages, that's a blindspot.

No, not really. I didn't look hard at the subsystems at all.

But, is that a blindspot? Or, is that knowing it's not worth my effort because the subsystems are designed to use the d20 mechanics, which I am not inclined to use?

Why would I investigate a game where I know the mechanics are incompatible with my edition of choice?

Is this blindspot? Or preference in game mechanics?

 

[robject]

Frankly, there are things about the CT rules that aren't so simple. Requiring a table of DMs for every weapon is a bother. Adventures before the task system tended to be a bit scattered when it came to doing tasks. Otherwise, ok, but I'm thinking Mongoose, in producing a living product, may well top CT for me.

And there are things about T4 that are superbly elegant - personal combat and psionics, for instance, are both superior to CT, and you don't need the task system to use them.

 

[aramis]

Yes, WJP, it IS a blind spot.

There are a number of elements in T20 that are readily adapted back to use with CT or MT. Some need no "adaptation" like the revision of Bk2 T&C trade goods, others need minor adjustments like the 3d AVT (the adjustments there are to using Trader to predict, not to the table itself).

The T&C Subsystems for T20: An Analysis:​

(Bold is New, but easily used with CT, Italic is Conversion Required; plain is shared):
Freight Aquisition (1): Priority, Hazardous, Security, Major, Minor, Incidental
Freight Lot Size (1)
Finding Cargo Lots to Buy
Cargo Table (2)
Passenger Table
Docking, lading, and wharfage fees (3)
3d Actual Value Table (4)
Broker availability
Using your own broker/bribery as an AVT mod(5)
Predicting sale dice (1st and 2nd)(4)
Addition of double occupancy passengers

(1) Instead of 1d x 10 for Major, it's roll a cargo at x10; minor is x5, incidental is roll a cargo. Makes megafreighters far more fillable. Priority, security, and hazardous cargo pay better, bt have requirements.
(2) The table itself is a d100 rather than a d66, but is compatible with CT Bk2 in all other ways
(3) CT has very minimalist ones, and these add to the list, including warehousing costs if saving up cargos for a ship not yet in!
(4) The AVT table itself needs no mods at all but triggers a need for mods to trader skill description if one allows predicting the second die.
(5)PC Brokers are restricted in T20 from automatic use of their full level; they must make a roll to apply their level. Other than that, it is the same as CT.

The High Guard Component:​

Differences: Computers, addition of airframes, several areas got new items
advantages: better layout than Bk5, more options for PP, weapons, and such.
Disadvantage: takes a lot more space due to layout, computers not compatible with CT Bk2 computing rules. Does not provide UCP layout, but provides all needed codes.

The Vehicle Design Component​

this is completely new, and derived from HighGuard. In short, it is no more complex than bk5, and otherwise works the same, but is rescaled for ground vehicles. It can easily be used system-independently.

 

[sfchbryan]

On iterations:

What is MegaTraveller's current errata situation? Does anyone even know where it all is... much less, do we have a fully debugged core rulebook for it?

<snip>

CT is great because it was at least refined a couple of times. MegaTraveller and T4 could have been honed into an "nth generation" Traveller game, but the trouble was not taken.

(SJG, on the other hand, did follow good design practice: GTIW takes into account nearly every criticism I'd had for GT....)

No one at GDW played MT. They never gave a rat's ass about the MT system. That's why it was never fixed, they were too busy with twilight 2000.

Well, I do kinda, sorta have a fully debugged referee's manual. I have merged Don McKinney's errata & integrated anything I found useful into one document.

I added the following to my copy:
Custom Ship Add-ons (MegaTraveller Journal #4), One Small Step, rules for pre-gravitic spaceflight (Challenge #45 and #47/Hard Times), When it’s Lances, Not Lasers, pre-gunpowder combat (Challenge #49), Wet Navy (Challenge #53, #54 and #60), Wind & Wood, Steel & Steam, early tech design (Challenge #61), Missing Links/Personal Weapons, slugthrowers (Challenge #64 and #66), Advanced Lasers (Challenge #66).

I have also started digging back through my CT collection to see what was missed. So far I have added a bit to the World Generation Charts (additional government tables, Base codes, Supplemental remarks, and Allegiances) that were in the CT alien books but never made it over to MT. There is also quite a bit on starship construction in TCS that never made it into MT because the DGP folks were never interested in the "big ship" universe that Traveller moved to.

I also moved all of the passive voice writing to active voice. Makes it a much easier read.

 

[Supplement Four]

Frankly, there are things about the CT rules that aren't so simple. Requiring a table of DMs for every weapon is a bother.

I see it as a feature.

In MT, all the weapons are the same. All the handguns require the same number to-hit because of the one-size-fits-all task system.

In CT, there are all these little working parts of a weapon--all the DMs. Tweak one, and you've got a new weapon.

It's easy to add new types of ammo. Or, if you want a rifle made by a company that is known for sniper rifles, simply adjust the DM for Long Range by a favorable point.

Or, maybe there are two shotguns before the players. One is a standard weapon with stats from the book. The other is high tech, built with recoil absorbing materials in the stock. For this shotgun, the GM simply adjusts the DEX modifier, making it lower and easier to handle.

The different DMs for CT weapons makes each weapon unique from the other.

What's the difference in an AutoPistol in MT and a Revolver?

Not much.

But, in CT, there's much that's different--DEX stats, penetration vs. different types of armor, range.

I like the CT DMs Matrix. It's definitely an asset of the game.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yes, WJP, it IS a blind spot.

It isn't a blind spot if those subsystems are created using the d20 mechanics system.

 

[jrmapes]

It seems to me if you are a d20 apologist it is a "blind spot" if you are not a d20 fan it isn't. If something is intrinsically tied into the d20 system then I normally won't use it - if the d20 garb... uh.. :smirk: system can be peeled back and brought back into line with the CT form then you bet your sweet bippy I will be a peelin'.

Unless T5 just blows my socks off I can say with much certainty that Classic Traveller will always be my game and system of choice. Are their kinks in it? Sure but nothing that can't be worked out with a little thought. Plus as Supp4 has said many many times ( and I agree 100%) - when it comes to CT its all about the system and how sweet it flows. What so many people rail about being bent or broke is really in many case what makes CT so unique to the Traveller line-up and keeps it un-boring and fresh. i.e. the Weapons Matrix

I have to also agree that it isn't the milieu that turns me off - like I guess it does many others - it really is the rule sets. However in the case of T4 and T20 and also MT, it is the mechanic of the subsystems that allow me to yank out the good bits and back convert them to CT. Now don't get me wrong I thought and still do think that in the big picture every edition in the Traveller line-up after CT - blew it. I know many don't and thats fine. I don't think anyone is saying that if you play Traveller X and not CT you suck. I and a few others here simply think that the the Traveller X versions suck overall. So I hope no one feels a need to get their feathers all ruffled.

Now as much as I think all the post CT versions suck I won't as I said, hesitate to steal from them to help make my game better. Mind you this isn't even the remotest admission or slightest hint that there is a serious problem with Classic Traveller. IMO Compared to the all the late comers, CT is head a shoulders above them straight out of the box. But being the GM that I am and the rules tinker that I am, if i see something in the other versions that I like or may not necessary really like but I think it will fit well in my game - if i can make it work I will give it a try.

But if someone came to my house and said "ok, you have all the different versions of Traveller on your shelf there... you can only keep one to play with - the rest are going bye bye you have 1 minute to decide."

It wouldn't take me near as long as it took to write this sentence to answer - which obviously would be Classic.

So to plainly state the response to the query -

Sure, CT could use a bit of updating but as has been mentioned previously - if you kept up with the other versions and some of the board/box games, it kinda was already. But lets face it not everyone has kept up with all the other editions. So it would be nice to see an update - if nothing more than to consolidate all the rules into a logical format instead of strung out over 8 (21) books which would include the fixes for the "real world" technical issues such as with World Building, Electronic advances, and Weaponry advances.

But ya know, if it never happens - who cares? I know that sounds kinda uppity but follow me on this. Traveller in my little bit of the world is SO DIFFERENT than any other RPG out there. If you are a Traveller GM regardless of the edition (but more really if you are a GM of the Pre-t20/Gurps editions) you are most likely looked at differently than your run of the mill GM of other games. You are expected to be (right or wrong) a bit brighter - smarter - technical minded than the rest of the GM world (well either that or a masochist). For the most part - at least of those I have met - Traveller GMs are "smarter than the average bear." Used to be it was a status symbol to known as a Traveller GM. My point being that even though we may not really be smarter or sharper we tend to put a lot of work into our games - more than is necessary for the "other's" average games. Most of us have tweaked our rules over the years with all the aforementioned updates either by our own imagination or by ripping it from other editions/games.

What would happen if there was a new update? Would any of us agree with all of it - even a little of it? We all have OUR way of doing things either by the book or by our rule - no update -unless we individually write our own - will ever satisfy us. That is my point.

Most of my games are 75% CT, 10% Other Traveller versions ripped material 5% Jerry's CT material, 5% Supp4 material, and 5% Golan material. There are people here that don't like what Supp4 or Golan has done (in the sense that they actually use it in there games). I know people would likely not like my stuff one iota. Lets face it no update from anyone will ever satisfy. The old adage is in effect, "You cant go home again." Even a new update from Marc himself would likely not be broadly accepted. That is why this new release is T5 not CTII or MTII or whatever.

So ya want an update? Make one. You have your notes and house rules. Most likely you already have one setting there on your shelf in that folder and don't even realize it.

Jerry

 

[Supplement Four]

CT Update

I think a CT update would have very little in the way of actual rule changes. I think the term "clean up" is better than "update".

What I'd like to see (and what I'd be excited about buying) is the same exact game, but a game that is consolidated and expounded.

Consolidated in that, as others have said, all the rules are located in one place. (For example, if I want to run some zero-G combat, I'm not looking in four or five different sources for rule tid-bits I've seen on this over the years). Now that we have the advantage of hindsight, I'd like to see the CT clean up have references to magazine articles and the like (for example, the medical rules in JTAS could be referred to as an option with a reference...or the JTAS article on battledress could be referenced, with page number, in the armor section of the main rules...things like this making it easy for GMs to find information and alternate rules that aren't necessarily considered "officially" part of the game).

Expounded in that there are discussions made, guiding the GM and players, about different rules. Not all people realize the CT experience system does a decent job of mirroring chargen in the way of skill acquisition. A better explanation would be nice. Or...I think many GMs prefer a structured MT-like task system because they don't feel comfortable with the free-form CT system. A discussion with rules of thumb about creating and governing throws would be a nice addition to the CT clean up (something along the lines of the Rule 68A guideline--but expanded for different types of throws). A discussion on what a "minor" wound is--what really happens when an AutoPistol hits a target but does minor damage. Stuff like this that help a GM understand and implement the rules better.

 

[Icosahedron]

I'm with Gypsy Comet, JRMapes and S4 - sometimes.

S4, you sound as if you're currently going through a self-analysis phase - no worries, I do it myself periodically - "Oh look, my house rules are into their 5th volume, there must be a simpler way, I'll go back to basics" Then of course, I start to figure "Well, that house rule wasn't so bad, and neither was this one, that one fixed such a problem..." That's the perennial tweaker for you. Recognise him?

IMHO CT was designed as a framework - a skeleton for the Referee to flesh out, and I think that's still CT's best feature. I've used extracts from every new version I've got hold of - no blindspots for me, I even take bits from other games - Shadowrun in particular. I go through every piece of SF RPG material I get hold of with a fine-tooth comb, looking for things that might improve my game. I agree that a structured rewrite or index would help greatly, and is perhaps all the CT framework needs.

The CT CD has gone a long way toward this goal, but everything is still disjointed and hard to find - and it's not complete. My ears pricked up at the mention above of some later Challenge articles I'd not heard of (how do the early TL spaceflight rules there compare with my scratchbuilt ones, for example?)
But these later CT Challenge articles are not included on the CD - IIRC it stopped at #34 or thereabouts. There is still CT material out there that I've not found after 30 years!

This is because I run a 30 year old ATU, and after Books 1-8 and a few early supplements, virtually all my Traveller material has come from the 'bargain bins', because each book has only a few useable extracts, and it's simply not worth paying new prices to rip out a few paragraphs - it will be the same with Mongoose and T5; I seriously doubt that they will be so much better than CT (and be compatible with all my house rules) that I will use them as a new base for my games. In a decade or so, I'll find a copy in a bargain bin and have a look to see what all the fuss was about.

So...
Consolidated? Yes - CT definitely needs that, even after the CD.
Expounded? No - I can do that myself. It's a fun part of the Ref's job!
Rewritten/updated? No - we've been there, done that, all it achieves is a further fragmentation of the Traveller 'community'. You can't please everyone - that's what house rules are for.

 

[Vargas]

No one at GDW played MT. They never gave a rat's ass about the MT system. That's why it was never fixed, they were too busy with twilight 2000.

They did care, just too late to do anything about it. Initial MT always felt farmed out to DGP to me. Chuck Gannon was an attempt to impose some control but I don't think he really grasped what the game was about. Dave Nilsen, for all the vitriol regarding him, cared for Traveller quite a lot. And by the end, rightly or wrongly, it was MT's "brokeness" that led to the advent of TNE.

 

[robject]

I see it as a feature.

[...]
In CT, there are all these little working parts of a weapon--all the DMs. Tweak one, and you've got a new weapon.

It's easy to add new types of ammo. Or, if you want a rifle made by a company that is known for sniper rifles, simply adjust the DM for Long Range by a favorable point.

Or, maybe there are two shotguns before the players. [...]

The different DMs for CT weapons makes each weapon unique from the other.

[...]

...in CT, there's much that's different--DEX stats, penetration vs. different types of armor, range.

I like the CT DMs Matrix. It's definitely an asset of the game.

That's a good point. As long as the player character writes down his bonus for using each of his weapons, combat should be unhindered.

 

[Border Reiver]

Chuck Gannon did care for Traveller, the problem for him was a lack of freedom to do anything really radical. IMO CG put together some of the best articles and adventures of the oeuvre, both Megatraveller and 2300.

 

[Vargas]

Chuck Gannon did care for Traveller, the problem for him was a lack of freedom to do anything really radical.

What about Hard Times?

 

[atpollard]

I see it as a feature.

In CT, there are all these little working parts of a weapon--all the DMs. Tweak one, and you've got a new weapon. The different DMs for CT weapons makes each weapon unique from the other.

I like the CT DMs Matrix. It's definitely an asset of the game.
[Multiple snips for brevity]

It is a mixed bag of blessing and curse. It makes it very easy to lightly tweak a weapon (like your examples) but requires a great deal of work to fully write up the new weapon (you need to list the weapon's physical stats, its armor mods, it'd dex mods, its range mods and its description). It has also stifled any organized 'weapon design system' for CT - there is no B5 system for creating weapons.

It makes weapon creation 99% subjective.