CT Only: Experience

[ffilz]

Holy smokes that's a lot of work … when did you find the time … or inspiration?

The inspiration came from Christopher Kubasik (though I had considered a similar thing for RuneQuest 1 and 2 - that is now in progress...). I was just getting back into Classic Traveller, I had time. It's also an evolving document, the most recent update was May 17th. I have added things as discussion about how some rule or another is different has highlighted a difference I didn't catch in my first read through.

It sounds like I need to revisit the wounding sections, I think there's more subtle differences I didn't call out.

 

[ffilz]

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.

I'd love to understand the provenance of all the errata. My suspicion is that the Consolidated Errata has little for 1977 not so much from the perspective of it didn't need errata as that Don McKinney didn't care about it. And a lot of the errata for 1981 seems to be focused on bringing it into compliance with TTB.

 

[rhialto]

At every step you can ask questions like this and the answers bring the character to life.

This has been my experience Refing Traveller the last several years: initially with MgT1e and now CT. My players have grown to appreciate the semi-randomness of chargen (I use the variant where they roll the die for a skill, then pick the table). I consider it a compromise between point-buy and almost completely random ("almost" because the player still makes some decisions in even standard CT chargen: what career to try for, which table to roll on, whether to continue, etc.).

 

[Supplement Four]

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?

I like the skill cap, and I use the Experience rules when I play CT.

I haven't played CT in a while, but I don't remember any issues.

*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

Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel like it's heated at all here.

Is it?

 

[ffilz]

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.

Run, don't walk, get the CD-ROM (or Thumb Drive if you prefer)...

It's a shame 1977 is available on DriveThru/RPGNow, on the other hand, that gives incentive for people to go out and buy the CD-ROM and not keep lining OBS coffers one book at a time... All it takes is 3-4 Classic Traveller purchases from OBS to have you spending more money than the CD-ROM costs...

Frank

 

[creativehum]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel like it's heated at all here.

Is it?

No.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I don't mean heated in an angry sense, but just hot for debate. A poor choice of words on my part. Many apologies.

 

[creativehum]

I don't mean heated in an angry sense, but just hot for debate. A poor choice of words on my part. Many apologies.

The thing is T5 has not had several iterations with different rules that different people have played, enjoyed, and gotten used to. CT has.

 

[Blue Ghost]

This is true. Now that I've had some real exposure to T5 by working with it … I have mixed feelings. I'm glad things like what a TON is in starship terms is defined, the background is defined, and lots of other loose ends.

I bring this up here on this thread because I think there's an opportunity for T5 to learn from CT about the experience rules. Once again, if Traveller wants to keep it's post official law enforcement and security career to go Travelling zeitgeist, then I think the experience rules as is, however incomplete, are fine.

I've read more than two accounts here in the past of people trying to introduce the game to their kids. To me that means applying XP to a general pool, or skill holding area, would prove interesting. My deep down gut tells me that the game has a need to retain its low profile status for whatever reason. And therefore again the XP paragraph, as written, is sufficient.

I thought that Supp 4 was running a campaign or something, and maybe he had new players who were wondering why there was no D&D level mechanic. I've read that elsewhere on this forum in years past. Which, again to me, means that it might be something worth considering for T5.

I'll say this, and take it for what it's worth, after fighting my mother in Paris to get a gaming session going, and after running a successful one with newer players, there has been a curiosity among those players that verged on disappointment. Their unexpressed thoughts, I believe, were "well, how do I level up, get more skills so I can kill more stuff?"

And that's kind of where I'm at with Traveller. It's helped me stay creative, and again I actually don't like D&D's XP level system largely because it takes away from the story, and puts an emphasis on power gaming as opposed to experiencing the game's story, which to me is what RPing and even wargaming are all about. The moments of heroics, narrow escapes and so forth. But that seems to take a back seat to power gaming / power leveling when XP gets involved. Because then you're no longer trying to save the kingdom, princess, innocent villagers, raiding that lost city, what have you, but have this "I need this to get A-amount of XP so I can reach level-B" thinking, which should be in the background, but is more at the fore of some RPer's minds.

So, I'm not sure there's a solution for all the discussion on this thread. It's an interesting concept, and I think there are ways it could work, but it may be for another game for another time.

Just my two bits. Re cloaking.

 

[Axe]

Howdy!

I'm enjoying this thread.

However, off topic:

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.

Creativehum, can you point me to the thread you referenced? I'm totally missing your points on this one, probably due to my lack of not knowing the context contained in that thread.

My memory of how we played CT back in the day, the rules as written when I reread them today (in LBB1 '81 and TTB), and the errata all seem to jive (agree with each other). To me, the errata is simply clarifying the attribute/wound rule. I don't see where any of it contradicts TTB.

Thanks

 

[Supplement Four]

Creativehum, can you point me to the thread you referenced? I'm totally missing your points on this one, probably due to my lack of not knowing the context contained in that thread.

I think what Creativehum is saying is the reference on page 36 of TTB.

It basically says that, if a character with STR 9 is reduced to STR 7 during combat, the character still operates as if he as STR 9 for modifiers and other combat purposes.

Just like in D&D where a character with 9 Hit Points, reduced to 7 Hit Points from a blow of 2 points of damage, still operates as if he wasn't wounded.

I have no idea if that's the same in LBB1.

 

[Axe]

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!).

What a coincidence! I just started playing Baldur's Gate (Enhanced Edition), too.

 

[Supplement Four]

What a coincidence! I just started playing Baldur's Gate (Enhanced Edition), too.

I'm loving it! Just got to 4th level!

 

[Supplement Four]

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.

Whoops! I looked it up. It is in LBB1. Page 35 of the 1981 edition.

You didn't see it because it is buried in the text towards the end of the paragraph.

 

[BlackBat242]

And a lot of the errata for 1981 seems to be focused on bringing it into compliance with TTB.

That was my impression as well, which is why I didn't bother getting it - it was a true revision to a current understanding, not a "correction to what that sub-edition intended at the time".

One sub-edition to rule them all, one unified CT to blind them.
One CT version to bring them all, and in the blending bland them.

 

[creativehum]

Whoops! I looked it up. It is in LBB1. Page 35 of the 1981 edition.

You didn't see it because it is buried in the text towards the end of the paragraph.

You are confusing the rule in Book 1 with the rule you quoted from TTB in another thread several years ago. The rule on p. 35 isn't a surprise to me. It is a rule that applied to all combat in CT.

The passage I was referring to in TTB (that damage to characteristics does not change the effectiveness of a characteristic) muddied the water because of how it was written. It implied that even damage from previous combats did not alter the effectiveness of a characteristic. The rule had to be cleaned up in the errata.

 

[kilemall]

I can tell you I've NEVER run combat with the 'doesn't affect current performance rule'. Probably appropriate to heroic scifi, not the gritty I prefer.




You eat 5D of laser, you are likely near death and not swinging at anything with STR 9.

 

[creativehum]

My memory of how we played CT back in the day, the rules as written when I reread them today (in LBB1 '81 and TTB), and the errata all seem to jive (agree with each other). To me, the errata is simply clarifying the attribute/wound rule. I don't see where any of it contradicts TTB.

You are playing it correctly.

Here is a post from a thread in which S4 goes to bat repeatedly to prove that a passage from p. 36 of TTB makes it clear that wounds do not affect performance of characteristics -- even when starting a new combat.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=325735&postcount=173

(The thread is almost a decade old and really contentious. I'm not try to catch S4 out on this. I have no idea what he thinks now.)

The passage S4 quotes from TTB is not in Book 1, and was clarified in the errata to bring it into alignment with Book1. But it is unclear and would clearly lead some people to read it as S4 did. Which in turn would have them think TTB's text "fixed" or made clear the Book 1 rules, when in fact it was simply a different way of playing the game based off an awkwardly phrased passage.

I'm looping back to Mike's point with all this: the awkward notion that every new book in the CT line was some sort of slow accretion of errata. Like Mike, I don't buy it. Too many contradictions, too many jiggly rules that don't quite jibe together.

The fact that TTB has a rule for skill caps doesn't retroactively make it so if using a different version of the rules. In the same way that a badly phrased passage in TTB doesn't make wounding work as some people interpreted it.

 

[creativehum]

I'd love to understand the provenance of all the errata. My suspicion is that the Consolidated Errata has little for 1977 not so much from the perspective of it didn't need errata as that Don McKinney didn't care about it. And a lot of the errata for 1981 seems to be focused on bringing it into compliance with TTB.

A fair point. I'll roll back my statement. As I said, I wasn't sure about why '77 was left so untouched by errata.

 

[Brandon C]

I can tell you I've NEVER run combat with the 'doesn't affect current performance rule'. Probably appropriate to heroic scifi, not the gritty I prefer.

As soon as I found an official alternative (AHL or Snapshot, no idea which) I went with it.

It was the one where characters totaled their physical attributes, took damage out of this total, then spread the points back out after combat).