If you could "Fix" Classic Traveller how and what would you do?

[Badenov]

I can see using simple linear growth if you use only formulas for ship building, But if you're going to have tables as a alternate go ahead and make the formulas more complex.

As someone noted in another thread, linear formulas for things is why 15 armor for a 10-ton fighter is paper thin, but 15 armor for a dreadnaught is meters thick. But to rework the armor point masses based on thickness of plate, every configuration would have a different formula for armor mass.

 

[kilemall]

As someone noted in another thread, linear formulas for things is why 15 armor for a 10-ton fighter is paper thin, but 15 armor for a dreadnaught is meters thick. But to rework the armor point masses based on thickness of plate, every configuration would have a different formula for armor mass.

For LBB5 I use the size to hit modifiers-the -1 ACS ships cost 2x the space for armor value and -2 small craft cost 3x the space. Not perfect, but it makes heavy fighters very costly even at TL15 and much more likely to utilize extra power and agility.

 

[mike wightman]

This is another peeve of mine... Simple linear algebra. Come on! Mix it up some with some exponentials and other non-linear stuff! Throw a little calculus in there for all us ultra-nerds!

Start with the square cube law and make surface area a variable for hardpoints and other hull adornments.

Also add imaginary numbers and renormalisation.

 

[mike wightman]

As someone noted in another thread, linear formulas for things is why 15 armor for a 10-ton fighter is paper thin, but 15 armor for a dreadnaught is meters thick. But to rework the armor point masses based on thickness of plate, every configuration would have a different formula for armor mass.

You can stick with the formula for a sphere or box and then use a coefficient for the configuration chosen.

 

[aramis]

If you could fix it somehow, what would you do to "fix" or "update" Classic Traveller to keep it more relevant or playable.

Me, I would consolidate all the Mercenary, High Guard, Scouts, Merchant Prince character Gen into Book 1, and add the Task System from Mega Traveller which was excellent. I would then add the High Guard ship design to Book 2 and provide a couple of sample ships. For worlds, I would add the world building parts from Scouts.

It would look like a cross of Mega and T20...
So, not very CT.

 

[whartung]

I mean, if it weren't for the errata, and some of the other fundamental changes (mostly to equipment design), MT IS the CT "do over".

Its an accumulation of all of the CT stuff (LBB1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and whatever supplement it was with all the other careers), LBB 7 trade rules. Book 6 planet and system rules, etc.

It's a "striker-ish" design system.

And I dunno, is the task system fundamentally different from "8+"? Or is it just a but more formalized?

I honestly don't know what the character combat system is like, the ship combat system, well, we don't talk about that. It's neither HG or LBB2.

From a background POV, yea, MT is "all Imperium, all the time" at least until they blew it up.

But at its core, MT is CT Redux. A whole lot was accumulated out of the the LBB and supplements and drag and dropped into MT.

Seems to me, at least.

 

[Ildefonse]

I think that's pretty close, yes: MT was obviously a response to CT growing organically over the first few years. But it broke more than it fixed for our group: so much so that we tried MT once or twice, and then never again. Returning to CT, with our own "fixes" (i.e., house rules) was much more satisfying, and still is.

 

[Tobias]

But it broke more than it fixed for our group:

It took me many years to come to that conclusion myself.

 

[mike wightman]

Maybe instead of fixing CT there should be a how would you fix MT?

1 decide on basic character generation and get rid of the extended or get rid of basic and have advanced for every career likely to become a Traveller (one extended career called Other with a menu of what Other could be...)
2 fix combat resolution. pen and aten are good ideas, but they are not very well put into practice.
The pen thresholds are far too fiddly
go back to damage to characteristics for PCs, keep hits for NPCs.
3 the design system should use lessons learned in making FF&S
4 PC scale ship combat should be integrated with the combat system in the PG

 

[aramis]

I mean, if it weren't for the errata, and some of the other fundamental changes (mostly to equipment design), MT IS the CT "do over".

Its an accumulation of all of the CT stuff (LBB1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and whatever supplement it was with all the other careers), LBB 7 trade rules. Book 6 planet and system rules, etc.

It's a "striker-ish" design system.

Supplement 4.
But MT is more than just consolidating them; it's use of many more cascades makes a huge difference in number and magnitude of choices in Character Gen.
IMO, there's WAY to «BLEEP»ing much striker outside the guns.

And I dunno, is the task system fundamentally different from "8+"? Or is it just a but more formalized?

Yes, it is different.
CT has a single mechanic for combat, but has unique rolls for various things for much of the its non-combat skills. Many GM's defaulted to 8+ on 2d6+skill... but that's not actually in CT anywhere except combat.

MT has a task system: It has a unified method for resolving most needed in-play rolls made by players...
The difficulty labels are a key element, as is the time component.
It defines a task roll as 2d6 + AssetA + AssetB; each asset may be a skill level or 1/5 an attribute (round down). It defines the number of time increments taken as 3d6 - (AssetA + AssetB)
Note: the maximum asset sum is 8; if it would be greater (EG 7F7777 skill 7 gives +10), use 8 instead.
Extra time is shift down one level, but double the time roll; hasty is up one level, but double the assets for subtraction from time.
The Difficulties

Label	TN	Explicit?	Joe Normal 777777 Skill-1
Automatic	-1	No	no chance of failure, even hasty
Simple	3	Yes	Can only fail if hasty
Routine	7	Yes	can't fail if taking extra time
Difficult	11	Yes	Extra time can still fail
Formidable	15	Yes	Extra time required to succeed (as 2d6+2 is max 14)
Impossible	19	Yes	Joe Cannot succeed even with extra time; Extra
Absurd	23	no	max on 2d6+8 = 20; with extra time, needs 19, so the truly elite (asset sum ≥ 7)
	27	no	max_roll+∑assets = 20 vs extra time needing 23, no one can do it.

Note that the labels are very reasonable for Joe Normal.

Note that the mishap rolls use the same progression of TN...

An exceptional result is 2 points past success or fail...
So Exc. Success = ≥TN+2
simple Success = TN or TN+1
simple Failure = TN-1 or TN-2
Exc Failure (and mishap check) ≤ TN-3

Yes, it's more complicated than the typical GM done unification to 2d6 ≥ 8+... but it also does more. It's also quite different from CT RAW by making 1 level of skill always equals 1 point of modifier in a given asset; it is, however, doable to use the same asset twice instead of two different assets. It creates a language of play that, in many cases, speeds up play by reducing the granularity

It covers time, it handles unskilled attempts in a uniform manner, and it's got a good shorthand....

To hit at striker long range: Difficult, Dex, Weapon, action (absolute).

An aim is just extra time... 2 actions, instead of one.

Further, players always know what to roll: 2d6 of color a, 3d6 of color b. If the GM isn't using time on a given task, the 3d6 are simply ignored.

The benefits are many... but the drawbacks include the tendency to generate lists of tasks, loss of granularity, several more things for players to memorize, sometimes also rigidity of thought, lowered impact of skill levels vs CT in several cases, and potentially slowing play

 

[aramis]

It took me many years to come to that conclusion myself.

For me, it was T20 that caused me to realize what MT broke for me... which, simply put, is ships.
That said, both MT and T20 are ratings compatible with CT HG for ships, so swapping out the design of ships and small craft is dead simple. It just requires generating the hits, converting the armor, and generating the sensor info.
Other vehicles can be done in T20 easily, too...
Since I don't mind polyhedrals other than cubes in my gaming, T20's ship combat is also importable.

 

[whulorigan]

Use armour as damage reduction system rather than the combat matricies.

I would say import T4's Damage dice reduction system for Armor (including max 3D damage and overpenetration, as well as hard vs. soft/flexible armor), and scale the weapon damage dice accordingly with appropriate special exceptions.

 

[spank]

I rather liked T20, There were a lot of good ideas in there. The system itself was perfectly fine too. It could have used a bit of work on the layout/presentation, TBF this is most Traveller systems and most RPGs if I'm honest.
The older I get the more I tend to prefer functional game accessories. Sitting at the table, I don't need a giant tome with all the rules for every situation. I need a small booklet that has most of the things I will routinely use. Put Char Gen in a booklet by itself. I can pull it out when I need it, and put it away afterwards. Do the same for world gen, skills & combat, trade & equipment, shipbuilding & space combat and so on.
Old School essentials does something sort of like this for D&D, they split the rules into 5 different books instead of 1 giant tome.


T20 would have benefited from this treatment. The LBBs are nice but, again, there are portions of them that you will not use as much as the rest.
In Book 1 for example, you will not use Char Gen nearly as much as combat and equiptment, But Char Gen takes up about 2/3rds of the book. Putting Combat and equiptment in it's own booklet of about 16-20 pages would be great.

A great example of something from T20 that is a fantastic idea is it's take on cargo. It offers 3 new types of cargo, Priority, Hazardous and Security.
All three are small lots available only on higher pop worlds, so they won't ever be your bread and butter.
Priority Cargo is paid based on distance, but the catch is it must be delivered in a expedited manor. It won't be a major money maker, but it shows that speed sometimes is a factor. Maybe it's some kind of X-boat overflow.
Hazardous Cargo pays 10,000 per ton, and carries the risk of an risk of a "mishap" {Come quick! The drop bears have escape their cages!}
Security Cargo is similar to Hazardous, it pays 5,000 per ton and requires the ship to be armed. It has a check each leg to see if the ship has attracted the attention of "undesirable types"
Both are cargo types excellent plot generators, and easy to port to other editions.

 

[Ildefonse]

Supplement 4.
But MT is more than just consolidating them; it's use of many more cascades makes a huge difference in number and magnitude of choices in Character Gen.
IMO, there's WAY to «BLEEP»ing much striker outside the guns.

Yes, it is different.
CT has a single mechanic for combat, but has unique rolls for various things for much of the its non-combat skills. Many GM's defaulted to 8+ on 2d6+skill... but that's not actually in CT anywhere except combat.

MT has a task system: It has a unified method for resolving most needed in-play rolls made by players...
The difficulty labels are a key element, as is the time component.
It defines a task roll as 2d6 + AssetA + AssetB; each asset may be a skill level or 1/5 an attribute (round down). It defines the number of time increments taken as 3d6 - (AssetA + AssetB)
Note: the maximum asset sum is 8; if it would be greater (EG 7F7777 skill 7 gives +10), use 8 instead.
Extra time is shift down one level, but double the time roll; hasty is up one level, but double the assets for subtraction from time.
The Difficulties

Label	TN	Explicit?	Joe Normal 777777 Skill-1
Automatic	-1	No	no chance of failure, even hasty
Simple	3	Yes	Can only fail if hasty
Routine	7	Yes	can't fail if taking extra time
Difficult	11	Yes	Extra time can still fail
Formidable	15	Yes	Extra time required to succeed (as 2d6+2 is max 14)
Impossible	19	Yes	Joe Cannot succeed even with extra time; Extra
Absurd	23	no	max on 2d6+8 = 20; with extra time, needs 19, so the truly elite (asset sum ≥ 7)
	27	no	max_roll+∑assets = 20 vs extra time needing 23, no one can do it.

Note that the labels are very reasonable for Joe Normal.

Note that the mishap rolls use the same progression of TN...

An exceptional result is 2 points past success or fail...
So Exc. Success = ≥TN+2
simple Success = TN or TN+1
simple Failure = TN-1 or TN-2
Exc Failure (and mishap check) ≤ TN-3

Yes, it's more complicated than the typical GM done unification to 2d6 ≥ 8+... but it also does more. It's also quite different from CT RAW by making 1 level of skill always equals 1 point of modifier in a given asset; it is, however, doable to use the same asset twice instead of two different assets. It creates a language of play that, in many cases, speeds up play by reducing the granularity

It covers time, it handles unskilled attempts in a uniform manner, and it's got a good shorthand....

To hit at striker long range: Difficult, Dex, Weapon, action (absolute).

An aim is just extra time... 2 actions, instead of one.

Further, players always know what to roll: 2d6 of color a, 3d6 of color b. If the GM isn't using time on a given task, the 3d6 are simply ignored.

The benefits are many... but the drawbacks include the tendency to generate lists of tasks, loss of granularity, several more things for players to memorize, sometimes also rigidity of thought, lowered impact of skill levels vs CT in several cases, and potentially slowing play

And I think this is a good illustration of MT diverging from CT's "science fiction adventure game" to "science fiction simulation game". CT is "When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer", and MT is ASL in space.

 

[Tobias]

And I think this is a good illustration of MT diverging from CT's "science fiction adventure game" to "science fiction simulation game". CT is "When I Heard the Learn'd Astronomer", and MT is ASL in space.

I don't know about that. The core MT rules were no more complex or simulationist than their CT origins - it just looks that way when using LBB1-3 only as a base of comparison.
Not even the craft design system - which was actually downgraded in complexity from Striker. Although I'm very open to the argument that Striker already was too complex.

 

[Ildefonse]

Hmmm, you know I was instinctively restricting myself to LBB1-3: is there a different CT task system in one of the supplements that I missed? I typically only use S1, S2 and S4. And while the MT unified system may be no more complex, it is more defined (compared to CT's ad hoc "systems"), describing a procedure which is more involved. As a Ref I know which I consider simpler.

 

[mike wightman]

LBB:1 '77, parts of this, the most important parts, were inexplicably missing from later versions:
"Skills and the Referee: It is impossible for any table of information to cover all aspects of every potential situation, and the above listing is by no means complete in its coverage of the effects of skills. This is where the referee becomes an important part of the game process. The above listing of skills and game effects must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates.
In some game situations, actual die roll results must be concealed from the players, at times allowing them to misconstrue the reasons for their success or failure. In other situations, the referee may feel it necessary to create his own throws and DMs to govern action, and may or may not make such information generally available to the players.
In order to be consistent (and a consistent universe makes the game both fun and interesting), the referee has a responsibility to record the throws and DMs he creates, and to note (perhaps by penciling in) any throws he alters from those given in these books."

Taking those bolded statements:

The skills list gives you two statements - a general description and an example of how the skill may be applied.
The example in the above listing is by no means complete in its coverage of the effects of skills, the above listing of skills and game effects must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates. The referee may feel it necessary to create his own throws and DMs to govern action, and may or may not make such information generally available to the players.
Further details can be gained from the Uses of dice throws in The Traveller Adventure, which you can find on this thread:

CT Only: - The uses of dice rolls

What follows are the sections from The Traveller Adventure on the uses of dice rolls. But first the most important section of 77 CT that was absent from future revisions of CT: "Skills and the Referee: It is impossible for any table of information to cover all aspects of every potential...

www.travellerrpg.com

 

[kilemall]

Hmmm, you know I was instinctively restricting myself to LBB1-3: is there a different CT task system in one of the supplements that I missed? I typically only use S1, S2 and S4. And while the MT unified system may be no more complex, it is more defined (compared to CT's ad hoc "systems"), describing a procedure which is more involved. As a Ref I know which I consider simpler.

Mostly the combat systems in Striker and LBB5, particularly the morale/leadership component for the grunts. Skill can be used in LBB5 but it’s not straight Skill-1/+1 DM. Bow combat in S4 but that’s an add-on like the LBB4 weapons.

 

[whartung]

Pretty sure if you applied the 68A rule to MT, the world would not come to an end.

 

[Tobias]

Hmmm, you know I was instinctively restricting myself to LBB1-3: is there a different CT task system in one of the supplements that I missed? I typically only use S1, S2 and S4. And while the MT unified system may be no more complex, it is more defined (compared to CT's ad hoc "systems"), describing a procedure which is more involved. As a Ref I know which I consider simpler.

The task system - which I do not consider more complex - was originally published for CT in JTAS (or probably in TTD first, I don't remember). In our localized version of Traveller, it was included early on.