No, only of books 1-3, with bits of 0 and Sup's 3, 8, and 11...
CT Only: Experience
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
No, only of books 1-3, with bits of 0 and Sup's 3, 8, and 11...
S4; is experience an issue in your gaming sessions?
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Again, the rule is not introduced until 1982 in TTB, and then Books published starting with Book 7.
You won't find it in either edition of Books 1-3.
It is in Book 1 of the Classic Books 0-8 reprint and I don't think it was added just for that.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Could you tell me what page it is on in the reprint?
I just checked the book and the rule is not where it is placed in The Traveller Book (right after the Default Skills section). I am willing to believe it is in there somewhere, but I don't have time to scour the text for it. Can you reference it?
Also, the rule isn't in Book 1 (either 1997 or 1981). It simply isn't.
Nor is it in the Quicklink Book 1-3 reprint. (Or, at least, it is not after the Default Skill section. And, again, that is where it is found in TTB.)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I have two copies of the LBB:0-8 reprint - the big floppy book - and the rule isn't in the LBB:1 of either one of them.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
It can be read the way I am interpreting it, which is different from your reading of it.
Again, MT carried over the rule, and it agrees with my interpretation.
I love random generation, for the most part. I like discovering people, with all their quirks.
Point Buy is OK for some games, but random is always my preference. I find with Point Buy, that players end up with competent, boring, very usual heroic types. All the same.
Characters with random generation seem to have more depth, in my experience.
I understand why some players prefer point buy--it's a safety net. This is not a cut down, mind you. But, I prefer a player who will random roll and end up with a character with stats 283A96 and makes up a great story about how the character got that way rather than another standard statted point buy character with no real highs and no real lows--but strudy and reliable throughout.
To me, the crew of the Nostromo in Alien is much more interesting than the bulked up rescue team from Predator.
I get that you don't agree with this.
BG, I'm not sure what you mean, "issue". What are you asking me?
Looking through my LBBs 4-6, I don't see it. In LBB7, I see it under "Skill Limitations".
Starter Traveller has it, too, under "Maximum Skills".
ALWAYS GAMED WITH IT
For the most part, I've always gamed with the Cap rule. I started with Starter Traveller, which has it. Then, I moved to The Traveller Book, which has it. Then, for a time, a long time, I played MT, which also has the rule.
So, for me, it's not a foreign idea. It's been a part of Traveller for a long, long time.
Last edited:
It's not. I was thinking of my copy of the Starter Set.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
A significant point I think!
Something to keep in mind as a general point of all RPG discussions. What we think of as "normal" or "common sense" is often based on what we are used to!
Two different editions with enough changes to chargen to justify different interpretations.
So you want incompetent, exciting, unheroic characters? I know very few players who would want that, unless it was a comedy game.
No, they have more variability, which isn't the same thing. Random variability in fact can produce a character with 7 level one skills or one level 7 skill.
[Quite]I understand why some players prefer point buy--it's a safety net.[/quote]
No, it's getting the character you want to run.
And both teams died pretty quickly, the first from lack of competence and the second from a profusion of overconfidence.
Anyway, neither team is as interesting as the crews of the Serenity or Rocinante (especially by the end of book 5).
There are some people here who give me the impression that anyone who didn't play the '77 edition haven't really played Traveller and really don't understand the game.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
There are people like that for just about every version of every game - it's amazing how many consider MT the one true path, or GT, or even MgT. This is the CT forum and the threat is CT only. There are other experience systems within other versions of Traveller.
I don't play/ref 77 edition CT, I play/ref a cherry picked hybrid of 77/81 with some extra cherry picking from every other version of Traveller ever published.
The experience rules in CT are the same which ever edition you look at - 77/81/TTB/ST.
The skill cap rules didn't appear until 82 and TTB, they are rules of thumb and therefore easily ignored, they are poorly worded and so it is easier to just ignore them.
As to random characters vs point buy - I hate point buy with a passion since it produces carbon copy cookie cutter characters.
If a player has a definite character concept in mind or I need players to generate characters of a certain type then the random character gen can be easily adapted to grant the service and character defining skills, but the rest can be random. And if they die during generation - start again and I have gained an NPC.
I have always found Classic Traveller character generation an excellent voyage of discovery for the player - roll the dice and describe the events the dice generate.
Take initial enlistment - did you enlist in the service of your choice - did you make the roll easily or did you have to rely on your characteristic bonus if any and even then just make the roll? Did you end up drafted?
At every step you can ask questions like this and the answers bring the character to life.
I don't play/ref 77 edition CT, I play/ref a cherry picked hybrid of 77/81 with some extra cherry picking from every other version of Traveller ever published.
The experience rules in CT are the same which ever edition you look at - 77/81/TTB/ST.
The skill cap rules didn't appear until 82 and TTB, they are rules of thumb and therefore easily ignored, they are poorly worded and so it is easier to just ignore them.
As to random characters vs point buy - I hate point buy with a passion since it produces carbon copy cookie cutter characters.
If a player has a definite character concept in mind or I need players to generate characters of a certain type then the random character gen can be easily adapted to grant the service and character defining skills, but the rest can be random. And if they die during generation - start again and I have gained an NPC.
I have always found Classic Traveller character generation an excellent voyage of discovery for the player - roll the dice and describe the events the dice generate.
Take initial enlistment - did you enlist in the service of your choice - did you make the roll easily or did you have to rely on your characteristic bonus if any and even then just make the roll? Did you end up drafted?
At every step you can ask questions like this and the answers bring the character to life.
Last edited:
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Really? Who has said this? Can you point to any actual quotes besides personal preferences for the earlier editions of the game?
So if we interpret it this way, is does every level-1 skill count as a skill and a level? I see how you can read it that way, but then what do you do with the odd point?
Just for clarification, here is the actual text of the rule:
TTB said:
Note that is does say "or total levels of skills" so it's no more skills than X -or- total levels of skills. On the other hand, the example says 13 combined skills and levels of skills...
But a level-0 skill doesn't count...
As someone who never read any other version other than 1977 until I got the CD-ROM, I am sometimes amazed at how the rules have changed over time... The number of changes and the nature of them, makes it not surprising there are so many arguments about Traveller. At least if someone is quoting MegaTraveller to a Classic Traveller player or visa-versa, they will quickly come to an understanding that they are talking about different but related games...
And in case anyone doesn't know about my Traveller Section by Section comparison document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jsH-EgKvaR0mdbtJMj_Xj7X3TcYyZTqQGf-Gwu58PX0/edit?usp=sharing
Note that the rule is included in 1981 by errata (but not 1977 - dunno why anyone bothered with 1977 errata if all the changes from 1977 to 1981 aren't included, unless it was some actual errata from back in the day).
Frank
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
If there is one trend I can not abide it is the stealth retcon by 'oh it was meant to be errata'.
A lot of this retcon 'errata' is very recent and not originally intended at all, and yet it gets added because 'reasons'.
77 edition did not have a skill cap.
81 edition did not have a skill cap and there was no errata at the time to suggest it had.
82 TTB had it but they somehow forgot to include it in LBB:6 in 83, finally remembering to include it in LBB:7 in 85.
A lot of this retcon 'errata' is very recent and not originally intended at all, and yet it gets added because 'reasons'.
77 edition did not have a skill cap.
81 edition did not have a skill cap and there was no errata at the time to suggest it had.
82 TTB had it but they somehow forgot to include it in LBB:6 in 83, finally remembering to include it in LBB:7 in 85.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
There Are Different Versions of Classic Traveller - It's Okay
Looking at another thread I discovered that the TTB makes it clear that damage taken during combat should not change the effective value if a PC's characteristics. If you have a STR of 11 and your strength is knocked down to 9 you still behave mechanically as if STR 11.
Book 1 (both editions) has no rule of any kind like this. And the fact that there is a rule making it clear that if you use a swinging weapon you are limited to the number of swings of your wounded value makes it clear that wounds DO affect PC performance. (Strangely, the limit on swings rule is also in the TTB and can only be seen as an exception to the rule noted above in he TTB.)
Meanwhile, the Consolidated CT Errata makes it clear that for Book 1 Wounded values of characteristics are used as the effective value. (Not wounds taken during a fight, but the calculated wounded values for the next fight.
This bit of errata completely contradicts the rules in TTB.
The way I'm beginning to look at it these days, all these different editions simply contain different rules with different implications for play. People will have different preferences. People will mix and match from different editions as they see fit. But to assume there is some sort of singular "smoothed out" version of the CT rules -- even just the Basic CT rules -- is to miss the fact that, as Frank just pointed out, each edition is different as a rules set.
Taken on their own each is very similar -- but also, in some ways, a different game.
I think this is why the Consolidated CT Errata is so slim for the 1977 edition. It is the "early RPG" version without lots of modifiers spelled out and plenty of room for the Referee to interpret things as the Referee likes for his game.
From what in understand the light errata for '77 was exactly the way Marc wanted it. I think I can see why now... though it is conjecture on my part. The different errata allow each edition to create different rules sets for a different kind of game and experience.
Looking at another thread I discovered that the TTB makes it clear that damage taken during combat should not change the effective value if a PC's characteristics. If you have a STR of 11 and your strength is knocked down to 9 you still behave mechanically as if STR 11.
Book 1 (both editions) has no rule of any kind like this. And the fact that there is a rule making it clear that if you use a swinging weapon you are limited to the number of swings of your wounded value makes it clear that wounds DO affect PC performance. (Strangely, the limit on swings rule is also in the TTB and can only be seen as an exception to the rule noted above in he TTB.)
Meanwhile, the Consolidated CT Errata makes it clear that for Book 1 Wounded values of characteristics are used as the effective value. (Not wounds taken during a fight, but the calculated wounded values for the next fight.
This bit of errata completely contradicts the rules in TTB.
The way I'm beginning to look at it these days, all these different editions simply contain different rules with different implications for play. People will have different preferences. People will mix and match from different editions as they see fit. But to assume there is some sort of singular "smoothed out" version of the CT rules -- even just the Basic CT rules -- is to miss the fact that, as Frank just pointed out, each edition is different as a rules set.
Taken on their own each is very similar -- but also, in some ways, a different game.
I think this is why the Consolidated CT Errata is so slim for the 1977 edition. It is the "early RPG" version without lots of modifiers spelled out and plenty of room for the Referee to interpret things as the Referee likes for his game.
From what in understand the light errata for '77 was exactly the way Marc wanted it. I think I can see why now... though it is conjecture on my part. The different errata allow each edition to create different rules sets for a different kind of game and experience.
Last edited:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Just different strokes.
In my view, point buy players are more about "winning" the game, succeeding against ever obstacle.
Random rollers are more about the experience, win or fail. Roleplaying.
Two different ways of playing the game.
AD&D 2E REFERENCE
I was just perusing the AD&D PHB 2E as I am playing the old computer game, Baldur's Gate (and loving it!).
I just read something that pertains to this discussion. There's a nice little section of the book entitled, "What The Numbers Mean". It shows an example character, random rolled using the standard AD&D methods.
STR 8
DEX 14
CON 13
INT 13
WIS 7
CHR 6
The book says that one way of interpreting these numbers is:
I don't know about you, but that sounds extremely interesting! This is the opposite of your typical, brave, strong sword & boarder or spell slinger!
Lord or the Rings has, for its lead characters, Hobbits! Not Aragorn!
The movie Dragonslayer, from the 80's, follows a mage's apprentice. Then, there's Willow. Lots of interesting stories that aren't Conan or Lancelot or Achilles (those guys are cool, too, if you roll them).
Of course, the above is not the only way to interpret the stats. The PHB suggests a second way (among many that a player can devise) to explain the rolls and describe the character...
Here, again, we see something very interesting instead of just another "standard" 2-Dimensional type that is strong where he needs to be strong and not too weak in other areas.
The book goes on to say this...(which I totally agree with)....
Words to live by, in a roleplaying, me thinks.:coffeesip:
Never played it (and haven't even seen it). I've always been curious. Love to get my hands on a pdf of it. And the first edition of LBB 5, too.
In my old age, there's not a lot room in life for argument over these things.
Live and let live is my motto today.
Enjoy the game as you like to play it.
Consider it like the other rules that are particular to one addition or another.
Like Pulse Lasers in Starter Traveller or the Cover and Concealment rules in The Traveller Book.
Use them if you want to.
I won't tell the Zhodani that you're not using the cap rule, honest!
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Sadly the Zhodani already know - that bloody stupid skill cap passage is repeated verbatim in the Zhodani alien module
I ignored it there too :devil:
I ignored it there too :devil:
Holy smokes that's a lot of work … when did you find the time … or inspiration?
Ah, my bad. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I mean are your players griping about not getting experience, or are you running a campaign where you think experience is warranted … stuff like that?*much snippage*
BG, I'm not sure what you mean, "issue". What are you asking me?
*EDIT*
Just a quick note, I brought up the skill cap issue in the T5 area, and it didn't generate a fraction of the heated debate here
Similar threads
