How deadly is T20?

[Klaus]

The reason T20 is less deadly than CT is that it's harder to hit, I think. IMHO there are too many certain hits in CT (eg: SMG at close range against unarmoured opponent - admittedly a very dangerous thing but I always like my players and npc's to at least have a small chance of reaching cover), whereas in T20 the bullets keep flying merrily.

Now I've never been in a firefight, but if the local gang shootings (RL) are anything to go by T20 seems a bit more realistic.

More fistfights, less gunfights, is a good strategy for player survival.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Chaos:
So you´re telling us that a +1 bonus to AC (which can be easily countered by the +1 bonus to attack granted by Weapon Focus) makes T20 "much less deadly" than CT?

Chaos,

Simply put, yes. As players levels increase they become harder to hit. Granted it is 'only' +1, but it does exist.

Oh, and of course the extra Lifeblood that "those without the level and feats will not have". Like an extra point of Lifeblood or two will make such a big difference...

It's an extra point or two that lower level characters don't have. Again, the bonus is there, it exists, and no other version of Traveller has anything like it.

Bill, I´m sick and tired of this. All we ever hear from you is "T20 sucks" and "I know it all so much better than you losers", in a thousand different variations.

Then you take from my posts only what you want to take. In this very thread I wrote:

This is not to say that T20 is 'bad', it is not. In fact it's pretty damn good. It is to say however that T20 is 'different'

And I've said the same ever since T20 came out. 'Pretty damn good' doesn't equate 'sucks' in my mind. It may in your's.

All I do is point out that T20 is different, the differences will effect play, and those differences is due to its lineage.

I say the same thing about GURPS:Traveller too. Both rule sets bring baggage from their parent system, although G:T has less because GURPS was designed to be a universal system from the beginning while d20 was not.

So you don´t like T20. Fine, then don´t play it - and let those of us who do enjoy it have our fun without your constant whining.

If you enjoy it, that's fine. After all, it's pretty damn good. It is different however.

BTW, I am still waiting for the "many glaring inconsistencies" in the Honor Harrington novels you said you´d show us. Delivering on promises, it seems, is not one of your strong points.

The incosistencies have to do with densities of the warships involved, weapon ranges and effects in the earlier books versus the later ones, problems with the FTL 'grav' comm systems, and others.

I'm not your research assistant. If you need to know the details, do what I suggested earlier; join the 'sfconsim-1' Yahoo group and ask there. Weber's setting was examined and found wanting in some areas. The regulars in that group will have all the facts at their fingertips and will happy to share them.

It was nice talking with you too.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chaos:
So you´re telling us that a +1 bonus to AC (which can be easily countered by the +1 bonus to attack granted by Weapon Focus) makes T20 "much less deadly" than CT?

Chaos,

Simply put, yes. As players levels increase they become harder to hit. Granted it is 'only' +1, but it does exist.</font>[/QUOTE]It is a +1 bonus they can take ONCE, beginning at 1st level, that is usable ONCE per round. +1 is quite a difference when you´re rolling 2d6 (as I understand most traveller rule sets do), but in T20 it is a 5% change only, and one that any first level character can effectively negate via Weapon Focus.

So, effectively, it is not "higher level characters are harder to hit", but "combat-oriented characters are harder to hit", which is not all that unrealistic, because people who´ve been in a few firefights before are less likely to behave like a doe caught in the headlights once the bullets are flying.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Oh, and of course the extra Lifeblood that "those without the level and feats will not have". Like an extra point of Lifeblood or two will make such a big difference...

It's an extra point or two that lower level characters don't have. Again, the bonus is there, it exists, and no other version of Traveller has anything like it.</font>[/QUOTE]I vaguely remember Megatraveller to have a mechanism for raising attribute scores. And IIRC all rulesets have the possibility of raising physical attribute scores during character creation, via the skill tables - something that T20 does not have. In the end, it´s all pretty much the same.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bill, I´m sick and tired of this. All we ever hear from you is "T20 sucks" and "I know it all so much better than you losers", in a thousand different variations.

Then you take from my posts only what you want to take. In this very thread I wrote:

This is not to say that T20 is 'bad', it is not. In fact it's pretty damn good. It is to say however that T20 is 'different'

And I've said the same ever since T20 came out. 'Pretty damn good' doesn't equate 'sucks' in my mind. It may in your's.

All I do is point out that T20 is different, the differences will effect play, and those differences is due to its lineage.

I say the same thing about GURPS:Traveller too. Both rule sets bring baggage from their parent system, although G:T has less because GURPS was designed to be a universal system from the beginning while d20 was not. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, in MY humble opinion T20 was a convenience marriage, while what I´ve seen of the GT rules is bordering on blasphemy. But you don´t see me pissing into every other GT rules and background discussion, or do you?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So you don´t like T20. Fine, then don´t play it - and let those of us who do enjoy it have our fun without your constant whining.

If you enjoy it, that's fine. After all, it's pretty damn good. It is different however.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, then please do those of us who enjoy it the favor of sulking in private.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />BTW, I am still waiting for the "many glaring inconsistencies" in the Honor Harrington novels you said you´d show us. Delivering on promises, it seems, is not one of your strong points.

The incosistencies have to do with densities of the warships involved, weapon ranges and effects in the earlier books versus the later ones, problems with the FTL 'grav' comm systems, and others.

I'm not your research assistant. If you need to know the details, do what I suggested earlier; join the 'sfconsim-1' Yahoo group and ask there. Weber's setting was examined and found wanting in some areas. The regulars in that group will have all the facts at their fingertips and will happy to share them.

It was nice talking with you too.


Have fun,
Bill </font>[/QUOTE]No, Bill. YOU promised to deliver. I´m not going to fulfill YOUR promises. Nice to see you repeat your claims, though. Good thing to know it only takes a couple of months AND a written complaint to make you do that.

 

[TheBrain]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Are the T20 rules perfect for the setting in question? No, but they're better than nothing and without them many players would never try Traveller.

Ok your improving +1 point for not using the term "real Traveller" this time around.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by TheBrain:
Ok your improving +1 point for not using the term "real Traveller" this time around.

Brain,

I used the term 'real' Traveller because it is fater than typing 'RPG system specifically designed from the beginning for' Traveller.

So, while T20 and GT are both not 'real' Traveller, that does not stop both from being pretty damn good.

You can read into my posts whatever you will, I cannot help that. However, I do not, have not, and will not describe d20 and T20 as bad or worthless or anything like that and I will not stand for being so accused. What they are is different and, sometimes, those differences count.

I am old wargamer; started in the early 70s, and I do not believe in 'universal rules'. I've seen 'em in wargames where they are at best serviceable. I've seen 'em RPGs too with pretty much the same effect. I'm a 'horses for courses' man, one size does not fit all.

Case in point: Phil Barker publishes an excellent set of pre-gunpowder land combat minis rules called De Bellus Antiquaris or DBA. He took that set of rules, added a group of 'fixes' a new setting required (sound familiar?), and then applied DBA to big gun naval warfare. Needless to say, Damn Battleships Again is not the most successful set of naval minis rule, but it's serviceable if you want to play a naval game and don't want to have to learn anything new.

As a wargamer, I expect to learn new rules for nearly ever game I play. Sure, wargame rules do have a lot in common so once you've played a few you can learn the others that much faster. Because of that, I expect to learn new RPG rules for nearly every RPG I play too. Just as with wargames, RPGs share a lot of concepts in common and, once you've learned a few, learning others is easy.

I can understand why the large majority of people don't want to learn new rules; they're simply too busy. Other reasons could be that they prefer a certain style of play that a system caters to or that they've 'cracked' the system and can thus 'play it'. I also think the reason that a few don't want to learn is that they're intellectually lazy. That's my opinion, take it as you will.

The original poster asked how deadly is T20 and I stand by my answer:

T20 is more deadly than d20 and not as deadly as Traveller.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[scout_harris]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

I used the term 'real' Traveller because it is fater than typing 'RPG system specifically designed from the beginning for' Traveller.

Such as Classic, MT, TNE, T4. OK, understand where you are coming from here. Any of these qualify as a "real traveller" system. Although TNE was a customised version of GDW house rules, the customisation was so good that the house rules were modified to fit with the traveller rules. (At least in my opinion that’s what happened.)

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

So, while T20 and GT are both not 'real' Traveller, that does not stop both from being pretty damn good.

As someone who has played all versions of traveller (except GT), I can pretty much state that T20 is a damn good version. It is simple, fun, and has a good mechanic. So I agree with you here as well, T20 is a pretty damn good set of traveller rules.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

The original poster asked how deadly is T20 and I stand by my answer:

T20 is more deadly than d20 and not as deadly as Traveller.

You probably should say that T20 is deadlier than some versions of traveller, but not as deadly as others. I think you are thinking of only one version here. Classic perhaps? I can’t be sure, as I think the deadliness of classic varied with the version of classic you were playing (i.e. out of the box, striker, etc).

You seem to neglect entirely the advantage the current T20 system presents in a defence of one or more defunct rules systems. In my opinion, your statement shows a degree of close-minded bias and intellectual laziness.

 

[TheBrain]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
I used the term 'real' Traveller because it is fater than typing 'RPG system specifically designed from the beginning for' Traveller.

The gernerally accepted term 'Classic Traveller' or 'CT' is just as quick to type and doesn't come off sounding nearlly as pretentious.

 

[archhealer]

Back to the original topic of this thread, personal feelings about D20/T20 aside....

I like the dodge feat. I think it's entirely approrpiate that a character who has bothered to train and/or be trained in the art of 'getting out of the direct line of fire' would be SLIGHTLY more difficult to hit, but not to damage if a hit is scored. Makes sens to me; I've never been in a gunfight, and I'm pretty sure if I was, I'd probably run like a complete idiot and get shot right in the back. Thus, I do not have the "Dodge" feat.

Also, I like lifeblood. It adds a certain fatal element to the D20 system that has been missing, as hit points do go up very fast in DND and I've always thought that was silly. As for Lifeblood increasing, well, again, the toughness feat and increasing your CON score are the only way to do that; and, keep in mind, you CON score suffers penalties as you age, so an elderly person will go down a lot easier if you shoot him, you cruel sadistic senior-citizen killing bastard.

And yes, I 'cut my teeth' on DND. Learning even D20 was a concession for me, and it took me years to get around to it. I didn't like it then, but I've gotten used to it. I've also seen the original Traveller rules, as well as Gurps Traveller. They look fun, but no, I probably won't ever try them. I've got my hands full with T20. It's good 'nuff for me.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by TheBrain:
The gernerally accepted term 'Classic Traveller' or 'CT' is just as quick to type and doesn't come off sounding nearlly as pretentious.

If I'd typed CT, people would have complained I didn't mention MT, TNE, or T4.

Did using the term 'real' cause problems? Yes, it did and in retrospect I should have typed out all the acronyms instead of trying to use a single descriptor.

However at the time I was more interested in speedily typing my post than in parsing my prose for imagined slights towards a pretty damn good set of RPG rules, T20.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by scout_harris:
You seem to neglect entirely the advantage the current T20 system presents in a defence of one or more defunct rules systems. In my opinion, your statement shows a degree of close-minded bias and intellectual laziness.

Scout Harris,

Intellectual laziness? Hardly.

The topic here is how deadly is T20. My posts dealt with that topic exclusively. I explained that T20 is not as deadly as most versions of Traveller; while using an unintentionally unfortunate descriptor, and explained why T20 is not as deadly; its system 'lineage'.

The many obvious benefits of T20's belonging to a living game system are not part of the topic.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Archhealer:
Back to the original topic of this thread, personal feelings about D20/T20 aside....

I like the dodge feat. I think it's entirely approrpiate that a character who has bothered to train and/or be trained in the art of 'getting out of the direct line of fire' would be SLIGHTLY more difficult to hit, but not to damage if a hit is scored. Makes sens to me; I've never been in a gunfight, and I'm pretty sure if I was, I'd probably run like a complete idiot and get shot right in the back. Thus, I do not have the "Dodge" feat.

Also, I like lifeblood. It adds a certain fatal element to the D20 system that has been missing, as hit points do go up very fast in DND and I've always thought that was silly. As for Lifeblood increasing, well, again, the toughness feat and increasing your CON score are the only way to do that; and, keep in mind, you CON score suffers penalties as you age, so an elderly person will go down a lot easier if you shoot him, you cruel sadistic senior-citizen killing bastard.

*snip*

Exactly.

After all, it´s not like a character "takes the dodge feat" (except in this great webcomic: The Order of the Stick) - he´s been in some firefights before, and he´s realized that the first step to survival is to start dodging when the gun is pointed in their direction, not just when it´s fired.
Likewise, they don´t just increase their ability scores every four levels. All the learning they´ve done, all the new experience and so on, have given them lots of knowledge (increased their Education score). All the fighting they´ve done, and all the training for firefights, have made them faster (increased their Dexterity score). All their achievements have earned them the respect of their peers, maybe even made them famous (increased their Social Standing score).


Bottom line: it´s not just what´s written in a rulebook, or how it compares to other rulebooks. It´s what you make of it. Can you make any sense of it? Can you find an in-game justification for it? THAT is what matters.

 

[thewh0]

Hey, it wasn't my intention to start a debate on which version of Traveller was better than another. The real intent was to just find out how an adventure flowed.

What actually got me thinking about this was a thread that ran last year where someone was asking for campaign ideas and ended up with the adventurers crash-landed on a low-tech planet, where they need to get a large supply of a very valuable and rare resource (water), plus need to track down some cables from the remains of a past civilization plus need to steal the holy artifact of some of the current locals.

I was picturing being one of those marooned adventurers and how I would go about repairing my ship then started thinking about how it would be hike over for one encounter, run back to the ship to recover for a long time, hike back for another encounter, run back to the ship... And I was just wondering if this is how it would be.

I guess I should have been more expansive in my original posting, but I did get my answer: yes, there is a good chance it would be like that, if I tried to slug it out in every encounter. The better option would be to use diplomacy and stealth over muscle and bullets. And to be glad that, if necessary, I could fallback on my higher-tech blast pistol and gauss pistol against the lower tech weaponry.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Rem Kodarr:
Hey, it wasn't my intention to start a debate on which version of Traveller was better than another.

Rem,

One final time and just so everyone understands my position:

No version of Traveller is superior or better than another. Each version of Traveller is different from the other and those differences mean that some versions are better suited to some gaming groups than other versions. However, the version a group plays is of no consequence. It is all Traveller and it is all good. Period.

Thanks for letting me hijack your thread one last time.

What actually got me thinking about this was a thread that ran last year where someone was asking for campaign ideas and ended up with the adventurers crash-landed on a low-tech planet...

That campaign idea soounds very interesting and would be a hoot to play. Did you come up with anything more than the general outline?


Have fun,
Bill

 

[thewh0]

That campaign idea soounds very interesting and would be a hoot to play. Did you come up with anything more than the general outline?

You'd have to check with RickA -- he was the one collecting suggestions.

The following link should get you to the thread:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000716;p=2

The last post there has a summary of what everyone came up with.

And I agree that it would be quite fun to play.

 

[Valarian]

Originally posted by Rem Kodarr:
The better option would be to use diplomacy and stealth over muscle and bullets. And to be glad that, if necessary, I could fallback on my higher-tech blast pistol and gauss pistol against the lower tech weaponry.

Ah ... the offworld mage is throwing fireballs around again. Now if I can just remember that spell ...

 

[archhealer]

As a note on the low-tech world campaign idea, I was wondering about some things. How much 'refined' and prefabricated materials are assumed to be available when using tech skills? I.e., if a character is building a computer, he obviously need computer parts, right? Now, if he has T/Computers and T/Electronics and T/whathaveyou, he should, in THEORY, be able to make anything he needs. However, how long would that take? What tools would he need? Could he make THEM? How long would THAT take?

I realize those questions basically mean "No, you can't do it", or "Fine, but it'll take fifteen years", but it's still an interesting point. Characters stuck on a lowtech world would want to find new uses for all their high-tech skills. What could a character with T/Mechanical and T/Engineering from a TL14 world do with a TL3 Blacksmith shop, after he learns a few points in Craft/Blacksmithing? Obviously he could do some stuff they never would have thought of at TL3 (Unless they have contact with higher TL worlds), but how much more stuff?

 

[veltyen]

The hardware is almost easy in comparrison to the software.

For the TL6/TL7 hardware you need at minimum
- a conductive metal (copper or gold are good, but almost any metal will do)
- a power source (simple lead-acid batteries or equivalent)
- semiconduting material or more metal (but better quality)
- Something to mount it in (wood, glass)

Tools needed is quite a small list. Someway to extrude metal for wires and cabling. An insulated board to mount it on, wood for example. Most of this can be done with sand/dirt and a heat source, but hammers, anvils and glassblowing tools would all make life a lot easier, as would solder.

To build an electronic computer you need capacitors and nand gates. Capacitors can be built out of metal foil, so that would be easy enough to do. Nand gates can be built from a semiconductor (triodes) or a mechanical relay (vacuum tubes). At a pinch you can even make fully mechanical computers, but in most ways an electronic version will be better.

Depending on what you needed (basic guidance, launch systems, telemetry) it would be possible. If you can do the programming and have friendly locals it would probably be easier to teach some of the math to them, and precalculate a specific solution to get to a better location.

Knowing how to do this (I did a degree in Computer Science Engineering, concentrating on low level computing. IE pretty much on how to do the above) I wouldn't like to ever be in a position to need to.

In short, depending on what was needed, it would probably take more then a lifetime. If I was stuck in this position I would attempt to procreate in the hope that my great grandchildren(+) may be able to attempt it. Certainly a possible seed for nearly uninhabitable worlds

It isn't the mechanical part. Given the raw materials (my geology and mining aren't that great, my chemistry is somewhat rusty as well) I could probably build a simple working computer equivalent to a WWII ballistics computer in 10-20 years (That would be a model-1 or so). Rebuilding several lifetimes worth of basic computing software is a bigger challenge, but depending on how basic the needed calculations were that might only be another 5-10 years. In that case the interface would be wire wrapped connectors, with maybe a lightbulb output. Functional depending on what you needed and how fast.

 

[Crashlogic]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Ron,

Check out the NPCs in various QLI products and tell me how they compare to a typical T20 player-character.

T20 is deadlier than d20 and not as deadly as real Traveller.


Have fun,
Bill

I have not found this to be true-both versions can be very dealdy and both have their flaws. and what version of traveller constitutes real traveller?

I mean the striker combat system was intened to replace the LBB system. and of course every version is different.

 

[Whipsnade]

Crashlogic,

Please read the rest of the thread.

It's eight days old and three pages long. There's much more than the early post you quoted.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Crashlogic]

I did read the thread. Doesn't change the baasic point of my post-that both versions are deadly.
As for the version argument, yeah it was old, but consider it my comment on the condescending tone you take, intended or not, about T20 rules. And the condescending tone you take towards me now, really. I read the thread and I chose to reply to an old post. We all love Traveller here, I think we all deserve a bit of respect.

I have played traveller in all its permutations for years, and I played snapshot before traveller. I don't think the mechanics of the game are what makes it traveller. Its the spirit of the game.

I also happen to think that within the limitations of the sysem, as set for the in the book, dba does an adequate job. I agree that it fail, at least to me, when you take it outside the medeival/ancient period. There are much better games for other periods.

I am an old school wargamer and have always approached my Roleplay as skirmish wargaming on steroids. I suggest that people open themselves to the D20 system-dnd or T20 and play it, see how it is a rather elegant tactical system. It may not alway sbe realistic, but then neither is chess. ASL is realistc, but brain damaged too.

Most of the arguments about feats being unbalancing seemed a bit unfounded, yes dodge is a feat, but a first level character has access to it. Feats represent strategic choices and allocation of personal resources. Because of the limited number, each feat represents a strategic choice, and every character in T20 is either a very limited specialist, or is in someways compromised. This is true in T20 perhaps even more than it was in CT. (In GT a character can be good at everything, of course, that is the nature of GURPS.) You can't be a very good free trader captain and ever be as deadly as an imperial marine. But a 8-9th level marine in T20 is very scary to 8-9 level merchant.

Of course one advantage of T20 is that it is easy to balance and run on the Fly, despite some of its quirks. For me the ability to keep focused on the story, and not get bogged down in mechanics is the over-arching concern. I was weaned on CT, but years of playing have put me in a position where I appreciate ease of play more than techical detail. And even CT has its limts in that regard.