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

[Ildefonse]

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.

Fair enough. When I ref I don't want the added dimensions of 7 or 8 task degrees of difficulty (TN), nor time increments, and especially when it's formally part of the task system. It is simpler, for me as ref, to ignore those formalized dimensions (and from latter versions of Traveller where degree of success is also formalized). Cheers!

 

[Ildefonse]

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.

I'll chalk this up to my instinctive LBB1-3 default: I don't use Striker (though I'm aware you have incorporated ideas from it into your house rules), nor LBB5. Cheers!

 

[aramis]

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.

Traveller's Digest, NOT JTAS. (I just checked all 24 issues).
It was in TD from 8 onward, possibly earlier (I've only seen 8+) and DGP'ssupps for CT (Grand Survey, Grand Census)
Then in Traveller: 2300, Then MegaTraveller.

 

[casquilho]

Traveller's Digest, NOT JTAS. (I just checked all 24 issues).
It was in TD from 8 onward, possibly earlier (I've only seen 8+) and DGP'ssupps for CT (Grand Survey, Grand Census)
Then in Traveller: 2300, Then MegaTraveller.

I thought it was in the first or second issue of Traveller Digest. Sadly, I sold mine many years ago to help finance my senior year in college. But I would swear it was introduced as part of that first couple of issues.

EDIT: Found the Index that lists this:

 

[Tobias]

I did look it up, it was later published in Challenge 29 (still under the "incorporating JTAS" label) for CT. Although of course, at this point, MegaTraveller was already on the horizon.

 

[aramis]

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.

Let's look at those.

• The craft design is more simulationist... Much more so, IMO.
• The Core Rules inclusions of Bk 4-5-6-7 Expanded Char Gen is a bit more simulationist, in that it's much more career defining, and the skills are narrowed a bit by adding new ones.
• The inclusion of Extended System Generation is a simulationist move.
• The use of Bk 7 Trade is actually a bit less simulationist
• The use of the travel flowchart is more simulationist in that it provides a detailed process...
• The animal rules are about unchanged in style, but just adapted to the new hits mechanic
• The combat mechanics are simpler to run than CT, but only just a hair, and only if one actually comprehends the interrupt system (It took me a couple months
• If it had been explained better, the Task system would be more simulationist than CT, in that it's labels are a fit for a "normal man"... but until/unless one makes that connection, and/or rejects it, many use it as a narrative choice rather than a simulationist one to select difficulties.
• Gear is better explained (in many cases, CT doesn't actually define the gear, tho' those are, for the most part, self-evident). Which is slightly more simulationist.

I'd say the balance is definitely on the "more simulationist than CT", but it's not a wide step.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Both are cargo types excellent plot generators, and easy to port to other editions.
View attachment 5714

They're also great for characters with a Type S to engage in a little trade - longer jump legs and 2G acceleration make Priority work, and put a weapon in that double turret for Security and Bob's your uncle.

One of my solitaire campaign characters is an ex-Scout who, in addition to belting with her husband, set herself up as a data broker and small cargo carrier as a sideline - on their six jump journey to the belt, they were able to defray some of their costs thereby.

 

[infojunky]

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

Sure ask a loaded question....

Or, haven't we been fixing CT for forty years already?

In that under CT there are a bunch of different Modular Bits we have been switching in and out of the core rules since day one.

MT was just another set of bits to switch in and out as well. Or to be Clear MT is just Advanced CT with a huge editing problem.

With that I generally think the special duty roll in MT should be added to Basic character generation. Though a viable point buy system wold be nice as well.

As an adjunct to the above, DMs for Atribbutes? And related Zero Level skills? I for one have given out/allowed many more Zero Level skills over the years.

Combat is another set of modules, I have used a flavor of Snapshot/AHL/Striker over the years. YMMV...

As for Ships and by extension vehicles, Here we get into the weeds. First off for ships there a two competeing combat paradigms, Book2 where Missile are the main battery, and Book5 which is much more shooty. Or, in another description Book2 ships are more like Aircraft and Book5 they are more like pre-aircraft Battleships. As such a design system for both is problematic.

For the record there are a number of threads on reconciling Books 2 and 5 already.

Also there is the question of whether you prefer a Big vs Small Ship universe.

As for vehicles right now I generally us the Creature Chart for them and Robots and assign attributes as needed.

 

[infojunky]

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.

I admit that I have liberally allowed alternate skills and effects as well. Consider how broadly written the Electronics and Mechanical skills are written. (By extenstion Gravitics) They cover repair and operation.....

 

[aramis]

Sure ask a loaded question....

Or, haven't we been fixing CT for forty years already?

In that under CT there are a bunch of different Modular Bits we have been switching in and out of the core rules since day one.

MT was just another set of bits to switch in and out as well. Or to be Clear MT is just Advanced CT with a huge editing problem.

I disagree...
TNE is a different engine with different assumptions about characters; the different task mechanic is portable... but it's really no a "fix" to CT; it's a port to T2k 2.2/DC1.1. The ships are not even ratings compatible, as they dropped HG compatibility in favor of a weapon construction system... except, of course Jn, nG Pn, and hull tonnage. And even the G rating isn't actually the same, as it places burn durations just long enough to be a pain in the tuchus.

It's also a different subgenre, intentionally so...

T4 also is that same subgenre and a few others... and didn't even cover TL 13+ in core. In a great irony, aside from Jn, Gn, Pn, and staterooms, it's not ratings compatible with anything else (except maybe T5 - I gave up trying to figure it out), even tho' designs are the same as TNE... It's a dozen games in search of a common setting representation...

 

[Tobias]

Let's look at those.

• The craft design is more simulationist... Much more so, IMO.

How so? It's a mish-mash of Striker and Book 8, with HG awkwardly crammed in. It actually removes much of the detail from Striker. Other than that, the only features which are substantially different from CT, are
- The task system and its inclusion in various other subsystems.
- The personal combat system.
- The space combat system.
And in all these I rather see the attempt at simplification and stratification rather than simulationism.

 

[kilemall]

Sure ask a loaded question....

Or, haven't we been fixing CT for forty years already?

In that under CT there are a bunch of different Modular Bits we have been switching in and out of the core rules since day one.

MT was just another set of bits to switch in and out as well. Or to be Clear MT is just Advanced CT with a huge editing problem.

With that I generally think the special duty roll in MT should be added to Basic character generation. Though a viable point buy system wold be nice as well.

As an adjunct to the above, DMs for Atribbutes? And related Zero Level skills? I for one have given out/allowed many more Zero Level skills over the years.

Combat is another set of modules, I have used a flavor of Snapshot/AHL/Striker over the years. YMMV...

As for Ships and by extension vehicles, Here we get into the weeds. First off for ships there a two competeing combat paradigms, Book2 where Missile are the main battery, and Book5 which is much more shooty. Or, in another description Book2 ships are more like Aircraft and Book5 they are more like pre-aircraft Battleships. As such a design system for both is problematic.

For the record there are a number of threads on reconciling Books 2 and 5 already.

Also there is the question of whether you prefer a Big vs Small Ship universe.

As for vehicles right now I generally us the Creature Chart for them and Robots and assign attributes as needed.

Hmm on that last one, could be a quick robot gen, with herbivores being mostly passive service/industrial and carnivores being security/warbot with upgrading weapons instead of claws/bite.

 

[kilemall]

I admit that I have liberally allowed alternate skills and effects as well. Consider how broadly written the Electronics and Mechanical skills are written. (By extenstion Gravitics) They cover repair and operation.....

I’ve kept that interpretation and doubled down rather then all those cascade/specialty skills.

Also pulled in a lot of Mongoose social skills- so Deception is a key spy skill but it’s also used for Forgery and acting. Persuade does Bribery as well as courtroom or political skill.

Rolled Interrogation into the skill Investigation which is both an LE detective and primary data gathering scientist skill.

 

[mike wightman]

I've recently been toying with yet another look at the CT saving throw system.
The basic 2d throw.
2 failure that has consequences
3 failure that causes complications
4 failure
5->9 success you achieve what you set out to do,
10 success and...
11 success and... , then...
12 success that has unexpected benefits

 

[Bartleby]

I've recently been toying with yet another look at the CT saving throw system.
The basic 2d throw.
2 failure that has consequences
3 failure that causes complications
4 failure
5->9 success you achieve what you set out to do,
10 success and...
11 success and... , then...
12 success that has unexpected benefits

I like it. Though in practice I am not that formal. If I set a task and they make it or fail it, I decide the outcome based on how much they make or fail it by. I don't predetermine what the extras provide you as I end up having to improv a lot.

 

[Tobias]

Hmm on that last one, could be a quick robot gen, with herbivores being mostly passive service/industrial and carnivores being security/warbot with upgrading weapons instead of claws/bite.

I've designed a system on those lines, based on Kevin Scrivner's highly inspirational article in Freelance Traveller:

https://www.travellerrpg.com/threads/ct-robot-encounter-and-generation-system.44323/

 

[Murph]

What I mean is if we could start right now from a clean start, and re-issue the LBBs as corrected.

 

[aramis]

How so? It's a mish-mash of Striker and Book 8, with HG awkwardly crammed in. It actually removes much of the detail from Striker. Other than that, the only features which are substantially different from CT, are
- The task system and its inclusion in various other subsystems.
- The personal combat system.
- The space combat system.
And in all these I rather see the attempt at simplification and stratification rather than simulationism.

Striker technically isn't the CT craft design system; the loss of details is trivial for striker designs - but the massive increase in the more used ships...
Plus, the ratings are much longer than in striker, as the combat system added a number of other factors.
It's overall a net increase.

 

[Tobias]

Striker technically isn't the CT craft design system; the loss of details is trivial for striker designs -

Well, it was the only vehicle design system published for CT.
Also, I think there is a bit of a definitional gap here. In complexity, MT and Striker were about the same. I'll grant the point MT could be considered more complex since more TLs were incorporated.
But in simulationism, MT took away at least as much as it added. It was no longer possible to design weapon systems (you had to pick from a list of predesigned Striker weapons), hulls were not freely configurable, facing and sloping armor were omitted etc.; OTOH MT added more sensors, a few more propulsion options and more detailed controls and accomodations sections.
(The gist of all these changes being of course a result of GDW's - and especially Striker's - focus on military aspects and DGPs very pronounced focus on civilian aspects.)

but the massive increase in the more used ships...
Plus, the ratings are much longer than in striker, as the combat system added a number of other factors.
It's overall a net increase.

The MT-style craft display for ships did increase in size, but it did not really contain much more information than CT-Style annotated USPs.
The combat system, especially for vehicles, was much less simulationist than Striker's.

 

[Tobias]

In any event: Striker would not feature in a comprehensive "fixed" CT were I to design it. Like many others, I assume, I used to love the hyper-detailed design system philosophy it spawned (which I first came to know through MT, indeed), but in retrospect, I think it went in the wrong direction in several ways.