http://www.travellerrpg.com/Starport/
is a start
most of the other big Traveller sites have similar.
Casey
Evolution and Convolution of Traveller & Other Games
- Thread starter Lord Iron Wolf
- Start date
is a start
most of the other big Traveller sites have similar.
Casey
Similarly to blackirish56, one of my most favorite features of CT (that is, the books 0-8 in one volume reprint version that I've bought) was that you could get a copmplete, detailed RPG system in about 35$ (bought it in local currency) and you'll need nothning more to run a wide variety of games with it. In AD&D/D&D3E, you had to buy three expensive books just to get the basics of the game, and many more to add variety. CT was efficient; nearly no illustrations, a condensed format, little or no flavor text and one compact book to run a game from. Also, it was designed to allow the GM to build and run his or her own TU - and even openly encouraged it (in book 0, especially). Sure, there were a few "ground assumptions" such as jump times and the lack of FTL - but the OTU came in later supplements.
Another good point about CT - the rule system is, for the most part, simple, effective and easily modifyable. dice mechanics are easy. You need 2 matrixes and one modifier table to run combat - and that's it; no complex system as in later RPGs such as RoleMaster and GURPS, but combat was pretty much realistic and gritty, and could, ofcourse, be expanded. Chargen was a bit complex to learn, but very rewarding - and entertaining - a game unto itself, especially if you "roleplay" it (i.e. make the decisions from an in-character POV and make up explanations for the rolls results. No extensive multi-page flipping required - several tables, same page, and you have a character.
My biggest problem with CT was, in the beginning, understanding it; the rules were occasionally obscure, and nearly no examples were given; I found out how good Traveller was afterwards, but the learning curve was quite steep.
Another problem came from the various holes in the system - especially the combat system. No rule existed for character-ship or character-vehicle combat (or vehicle combat at all, except for ships); but these could be amended without causing too much damage.
If there will be public demand for a new Striker, publish that; but I think that the basic rules shouldn't be overly complex.
Another good point about CT - the rule system is, for the most part, simple, effective and easily modifyable. dice mechanics are easy. You need 2 matrixes and one modifier table to run combat - and that's it; no complex system as in later RPGs such as RoleMaster and GURPS, but combat was pretty much realistic and gritty, and could, ofcourse, be expanded. Chargen was a bit complex to learn, but very rewarding - and entertaining - a game unto itself, especially if you "roleplay" it (i.e. make the decisions from an in-character POV and make up explanations for the rolls results. No extensive multi-page flipping required - several tables, same page, and you have a character.
My biggest problem with CT was, in the beginning, understanding it; the rules were occasionally obscure, and nearly no examples were given; I found out how good Traveller was afterwards, but the learning curve was quite steep.
Another problem came from the various holes in the system - especially the combat system. No rule existed for character-ship or character-vehicle combat (or vehicle combat at all, except for ships); but these could be amended without causing too much damage.
If there will be public demand for a new Striker, publish that; but I think that the basic rules shouldn't be overly complex.
I want a system which has good character generation, both fast enough for newbies to crank a character out over lunch, and fun enough to be a game unto itself for solo play. (CT, MT have this)
I want a combat system that easy to use, and not table driven, but also provides a realistic range of outcomes. (CT Does NOT have this. IMO, TNE fails this for realistic range of outcomes.)
I want a task resolution procedure that is consistent throughout the game, uses a fixed type of roll that does not vary by difficulty, and is explainable on a one page sheet. (MT,T20 and TNE all fit.)
I want a technology system that can cover from float chairs to star destroyers, and yet doesn't involve having to do calc and trig. Preferably one which ties in to PC scale as well, so I know if a FGMP can tke out that MBT or shut off the PP of the Destroyer. It also needs to be simple enough to play fast, and complex enough to make maneuver and PC skills matter. MT, TNE both have this; T20 pegged it pretty well on the tech and damage side, but due to issues of system, blew ship combat..
Sadly enough, I think T5 should be EABA-Traveller...
I want a combat system that easy to use, and not table driven, but also provides a realistic range of outcomes. (CT Does NOT have this. IMO, TNE fails this for realistic range of outcomes.)
I want a task resolution procedure that is consistent throughout the game, uses a fixed type of roll that does not vary by difficulty, and is explainable on a one page sheet. (MT,T20 and TNE all fit.)
I want a technology system that can cover from float chairs to star destroyers, and yet doesn't involve having to do calc and trig. Preferably one which ties in to PC scale as well, so I know if a FGMP can tke out that MBT or shut off the PP of the Destroyer. It also needs to be simple enough to play fast, and complex enough to make maneuver and PC skills matter. MT, TNE both have this; T20 pegged it pretty well on the tech and damage side, but due to issues of system, blew ship combat..
Sadly enough, I think T5 should be EABA-Traveller...
I've been thinking about CT's ship design systems, and keep coming back to the obvious: modular / drop-in / compatible rules variants make everybody happy. It has been done for ship design (B2 versus HG). T5 has a modular solution for chargen (quick-gen versus the traditional way). It would be nice if combat could be done that way; or perhaps scaled, with add-on rules for increased complexity.
Wouldn't it be nice if it were possible to provide a "modular" task system, so that 2d6 fans could drop in a 2d6 task system...
Wouldn't it be nice if it were possible to provide a "modular" task system, so that 2d6 fans could drop in a 2d6 task system...
Yes, I remember this being one of the good things about T4 -- it kept them separate. MT did this, too, didn't it?
How does it work out? Conglomerate units have the same pen but more damage, and larger units (generally) can withstand a greater pen?
Your point is actually very germane to some homebrew stuff I'm working on.
How does it work out? Conglomerate units have the same pen but more damage, and larger units (generally) can withstand a greater pen?
Your point is actually very germane to some homebrew stuff I'm working on.
No, rob. T4 did not really keep them separate; not in any useful way at least.
Comgloms use AVERAGE PEN and AV
Total Damage and HP
Larger units can take more points of damage, but not more pen.
MTishEG: 5000 guys with pellet rifles (Pen 1, D1 each, for argument) fire at a tank of AV 80. If they could penetrate, they'd do 5000 damage as the base, but due to way to low an AV, they do nothing.
Same tank fired on by 10 FGMP's (Pen 64, D14 eac) will pen 1/10 damage, doing 64DP. Toasted.
Same 5000 guys fire at 100DP AV0 monster: fine red mist results.
Armors which remove dice of damage from a roll do not work in a way consistent with conclomerate unit mechanics that don't require either all units be same size or all units having a damage multiplier.
For exampel, to model in T4 the process with the above 5000 guys: oll one to hit. Apply damage reduction to roll of 1 weapon., multiply by number of firers. target takes this amount. cumbersome.
Comgloms use AVERAGE PEN and AV
Total Damage and HP
Larger units can take more points of damage, but not more pen.
MTishEG: 5000 guys with pellet rifles (Pen 1, D1 each, for argument) fire at a tank of AV 80. If they could penetrate, they'd do 5000 damage as the base, but due to way to low an AV, they do nothing.
Same tank fired on by 10 FGMP's (Pen 64, D14 eac) will pen 1/10 damage, doing 64DP. Toasted.
Same 5000 guys fire at 100DP AV0 monster: fine red mist results.
Armors which remove dice of damage from a roll do not work in a way consistent with conclomerate unit mechanics that don't require either all units be same size or all units having a damage multiplier.
For exampel, to model in T4 the process with the above 5000 guys: oll one to hit. Apply damage reduction to roll of 1 weapon., multiply by number of firers. target takes this amount. cumbersome.
Thanks Aramis. Can you tell I've not studied up on combat in Traveller a whole lot?
In your second example: a pen of 64 can damage something with an AV of 80? How does this work? I guess I'll have to get my MT rules out and read them.
Will this work fine for starship combat, too? Starships have an "Armor Value", and batteries have pen... after all, they're sorta like huge guns.
In your second example: a pen of 64 can damage something with an AV of 80? How does this work? I guess I'll have to get my MT rules out and read them.
Will this work fine for starship combat, too? Starships have an "Armor Value", and batteries have pen... after all, they're sorta like huge guns.
Yes, the separate pen/damage works even for starships.
Under MT, pen >0.1xAV can do damage... but determining if the 1/10 rule applies can be tricky. (Me, I just apply it across the board, for simplicity).
Average starships are AV 40; average armored warships are AV 60-80.
And the pen is by weapon, not by battery. As is the damage. A battery is a comglomeration of separate weapons.
Under MT, pen >0.1xAV can do damage... but determining if the 1/10 rule applies can be tricky. (Me, I just apply it across the board, for simplicity).
Average starships are AV 40; average armored warships are AV 60-80.
And the pen is by weapon, not by battery. As is the damage. A battery is a comglomeration of separate weapons.
Thanks Aramis. I went back to the Referee's Guide and read up. Amazingly, starship combat seems to be one of the shortest sections of MT. With its awkward craft design system, and sprawling personal combat rules, I'd'a thought everything would be awkward and sprawling, but instead it looks more like HG's tables than anything else. Which is a Good Thing.
I saw the AV 40->80 thing. For an abstract system, I can't think of a better way to represent armoring. I didn't like the rules about damage reduction "for every 3 points of armor above 40" (or whatever that baseline was): it's not that I think it's broken, but rather that its a random fact that has to be remembered. And things like that are often necessary; I just don't like to see them.
What do you think about MT armor? I think I'd prefer a tiny bit less detail there. The granularity of armor values, even in HG, seemed just a bit over the edge for me. It might be just right for others, and I reckon it's not enough for some.
What do you think about defenses in general? If a ship is going to be armored, does it make sense that it ought to have defense against as many weapon types as possible? In other words, if a ship is going to have armor to protect it N points from attacking weapons, isn't it (generally!) the case that it will also look for N points of protection via screens (if possible), dampers (if possible), sand etc?
I'm thinking it might be useful to have a "defensive package" for large ships.
I saw the AV 40->80 thing. For an abstract system, I can't think of a better way to represent armoring. I didn't like the rules about damage reduction "for every 3 points of armor above 40" (or whatever that baseline was): it's not that I think it's broken, but rather that its a random fact that has to be remembered. And things like that are often necessary; I just don't like to see them.
What do you think about MT armor? I think I'd prefer a tiny bit less detail there. The granularity of armor values, even in HG, seemed just a bit over the edge for me. It might be just right for others, and I reckon it's not enough for some.
What do you think about defenses in general? If a ship is going to be armored, does it make sense that it ought to have defense against as many weapon types as possible? In other words, if a ship is going to have armor to protect it N points from attacking weapons, isn't it (generally!) the case that it will also look for N points of protection via screens (if possible), dampers (if possible), sand etc?
I'm thinking it might be useful to have a "defensive package" for large ships.
solomoncane
SOC-10
I'm beginning to think the same way.
See this link for EABA conversion:
http://spectralrealms.com/eabazine/index.html
(It's in issue #2).
T5 is targeted for 2007, but I have EABA now.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
That's a useful link, thanks solomoncane.
And welcome aboard
And welcome aboard
Soloman: You'll note my name is in the credits of EABA, too... Playtested it.
Robject:
I, personally, chuck the starship combat rules entirely.
I use real vectors, and the vehicular combat system.
I like the pen vs armor as a damage multiplier. I do change it, tho, to something easier to fit.
To Wit:
Pen less than 0.1 AV = x0
pen 0.1x to 0.4999x AV = x0.1
Pen 0.5x to 0.999 x AV = x0.5
Pen 1x AV or more = x1
I have found that the HG derived MT SSC system is, to me, just as bad as HG, and twice the anime.
I think the level of detail in MT armors is Excellent. Granular enough for meaningful differences, and broad enough that the scale goes from 0 to hectometers of armor.
Robject:
I, personally, chuck the starship combat rules entirely.
I use real vectors, and the vehicular combat system.
I like the pen vs armor as a damage multiplier. I do change it, tho, to something easier to fit.
To Wit:
Pen less than 0.1 AV = x0
pen 0.1x to 0.4999x AV = x0.1
Pen 0.5x to 0.999 x AV = x0.5
Pen 1x AV or more = x1
I have found that the HG derived MT SSC system is, to me, just as bad as HG, and twice the anime.
I think the level of detail in MT armors is Excellent. Granular enough for meaningful differences, and broad enough that the scale goes from 0 to hectometers of armor.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I've probably asked this question of you before Aramis, but how do you handle meson guns and meson screens in your vehicle combat derived system?
MT doesn't give meson guns a penetration or damage rating in the vehicle scale of things.
MT doesn't give meson guns a penetration or damage rating in the vehicle scale of things.
Meson gun damage is the inoperative level of a hull the size of the sphere encompassed by the striker derived damage radius (5*USP, IIRC). On a max hit, this is 8x that, or roughly 2x the volume of the sphere being destroyed. That extra damage is radiation, power surges, and pressure waves.
Difficulties are +1 level over that TL's Fire Control, for the added precision needed to place the burst IN target. Meson Screen applies as negative DM to hit.
Pen is ignored; the weapon needs only penetrate the meson screen, which effects are subsumed in the to-hit task being opposed by the meson screen. (In short, the screens leak, and even if ALL the energy dumps on the screen, it converts to loads of radiation. Also, to hit margins
Note: medium to high factor guns can vaporize some sub-kiloton vessels.
Difficulties are +1 level over that TL's Fire Control, for the added precision needed to place the burst IN target. Meson Screen applies as negative DM to hit.
Pen is ignored; the weapon needs only penetrate the meson screen, which effects are subsumed in the to-hit task being opposed by the meson screen. (In short, the screens leak, and even if ALL the energy dumps on the screen, it converts to loads of radiation. Also, to hit margins
Note: medium to high factor guns can vaporize some sub-kiloton vessels.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Thanks for that Aramis.
Do you then just use the normal ship damage chart to determine which bits of the ship are vaporized, have you designed your own table, or do you use some other method.
Do you then just use the normal ship damage chart to determine which bits of the ship are vaporized, have you designed your own table, or do you use some other method.
Sometimes (usually) I use the vehicular charts, specifically for no-turret.
occasionally I'll do "Detailed", and use a TNE-style customized table; each battery is rated separately, as is each drive (If the decplan shows two separate MD chunks, I spit it out, etc), and I put the comtrol panels and computers into a chunk, divide out cargo, fuel, etc...
occasionally I'll do "Detailed", and use a TNE-style customized table; each battery is rated separately, as is each drive (If the decplan shows two separate MD chunks, I spit it out, etc), and I put the comtrol panels and computers into a chunk, divide out cargo, fuel, etc...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Thanks again
You're most welcome. Anytime I can make the likelyhood of MTv2 as T5 higher is a reward unto itself. 
Seriously, though, the best part of MT was the methodology used for damage and armor penetration (as I said, I disagree with some of the specific breakpoints, but agree with the overall approach); the underlying mechanics for ship design are meaningless, so long as we can convert to KL and the weapns are statted.
Seriously, though, the best part of MT was the methodology used for damage and armor penetration (as I said, I disagree with some of the specific breakpoints, but agree with the overall approach); the underlying mechanics for ship design are meaningless, so long as we can convert to KL and the weapns are statted.
Similar threads
