Is CT still enjoyable today?

[robject]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:

[...]

I think the problem is that most modern games are loaded with rules upon rules upon rules. Modern GMs are afraid to use their brains and think outside of the box.

Modern GM: "Oh my gawd! My player wants to attempt to open the ship's airlock from the outside. How do I do that? Where's the task library? I need to be told how to do that!"

Classic Traveller GM: "Oh, my player wants to open the airlock from the outside. Hmm... (thinks for a second) OK, roll 15 or better on 2D. You can use Mechanical skill if you've got it as a bonus DM. And, if you've got a starship intrusion kit, you'll get a +4 on the roll."

Modern GM looks over at Classic Traveller GM: "What's a 'starship intrustion kit'? What supplement did you get that out of?"

[...]

I agree on both of S4's implicit points: some games can be too complex for me to want to bother with, and Traveller lends itself to a quick-thinking and adaptable referee.

Sadly, I was never much of a quick thinker, and also not all that adaptable At the same time, I never liked systems with rules, rules, rules for everything.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Once he finds enlightenment (hopefully at the hands of a good GM), it will be only then that he discovers he's enjoying rpgs on a level he never knew existed.

Not all players can be coached, though. Some are not ready. Another job the GM has is to pick and choose a good gaming group.

I'm going through that right now. I started my Traveller campaign a year and a half ago. We took off a couple months for the holidays. Time stretched further than I originally intended (as we are all in our 30's and 40's), and it's just now that I'm getting the game cranked back up again.

Two new players that started with me when I started the campaign really aren't adding anything to the game. They're a husband & wife. The husband is fine, but the wife just doesn't "fit" well with our gaming style.

There were a couple of game sessions that these two couldn't make the game last year. I have a rule that no one plays unless everyone plays their own character, but I was able to work around their "no-shows" so that their characters weren't involved.

Those two games sessions that they missed last year were the top two game sessions we had the entire year. They were remarkable games.

I can't quite put my finger on it. It's really not that either the husband or wife is a bad player. I'd say they're average.

But, there just seems to be a new dynamic when they play. A dynamic that's not good for the group.

In the past, when we were playing more often, I'd take the time to "grow" these players. I've been successful at that before (and I've had a few failures too).

But, playing once a month, I just don't have the time.

I've decided to "prune" these two players from the group. In their place, I'm adding 1 new player who's never role played before. But, he's excited about it, and I have a feeling he's going to take to it like duck to water.

Strange about these players I'm pruning. I've definitely let disruptive and bad players go in the past. I won't stand for a player who continually makes the game non-enjoyable for everyone else.

But, these players I'm not inviting back aren't like that at all. The best I can describe it is that they're like a wet blanket over the group, stifling dynamic play. I don't know why they have that effect. They're OK players, but it's a strange vibe they bring.

It seems like such a small thing, but I think it's big enough to threaten my game. Not in one game session...they bring the kind of vibe that slowly erodes a game until, nobody knows why, the game night is just not that fun anymore.

Maybe that's why we haven't played in a few months.

But, it's my job, as GM, to recognize this. And, I'm doing it. Those two won't be invited back. I'll do what I can not to hurt anyone's feelings--no sense in that--and I think we're just going to pick back up and not inform them.

But, they're out, none-the-less.

I'm a GM. And, part of my duties is to keep the game interesting and lively on all fronts.

Picking, pruning, encouraging players is definitley one of the responsibilites a GM has in running an enjoyable game.

And, I mean to keep my game damn interesting.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:

[...]

I think the problem is that most modern games are loaded with rules upon rules upon rules. Modern GMs are afraid to use their brains and think outside of the box.

Modern GM: "Oh my gawd! My player wants to attempt to open the ship's airlock from the outside. How do I do that? Where's the task library? I need to be told how to do that!"

Classic Traveller GM: "Oh, my player wants to open the airlock from the outside. Hmm... (thinks for a second) OK, roll 15 or better on 2D. You can use Mechanical skill if you've got it as a bonus DM. And, if you've got a starship intrusion kit, you'll get a +4 on the roll."

Modern GM looks over at Classic Traveller GM: "What's a 'starship intrustion kit'? What supplement did you get that out of?"

[...]

I agree on both of S4's implicit points: some games can be too complex for me to want to bother with, and Traveller lends itself to a quick-thinking and adaptable referee.

Sadly, I was never much of a quick thinker, and also not all that adaptable At the same time, I never liked systems with rules, rules, rules for everything.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Once he finds enlightenment (hopefully at the hands of a good GM), it will be only then that he discovers he's enjoying rpgs on a level he never knew existed.

Not all players can be coached, though. Some are not ready. Another job the GM has is to pick and choose a good gaming group.

I'm going through that right now. I started my Traveller campaign a year and a half ago. We took off a couple months for the holidays. Time stretched further than I originally intended (as we are all in our 30's and 40's), and it's just now that I'm getting the game cranked back up again.

Two new players that started with me when I started the campaign really aren't adding anything to the game. They're a husband & wife. The husband is fine, but the wife just doesn't "fit" well with our gaming style.

There were a couple of game sessions that these two couldn't make the game last year. I have a rule that no one plays unless everyone plays their own character, but I was able to work around their "no-shows" so that their characters weren't involved.

Those two games sessions that they missed last year were the top two game sessions we had the entire year. They were remarkable games.

I can't quite put my finger on it. It's really not that either the husband or wife is a bad player. I'd say they're average.

But, there just seems to be a new dynamic when they play. A dynamic that's not good for the group.

In the past, when we were playing more often, I'd take the time to "grow" these players. I've been successful at that before (and I've had a few failures too).

But, playing once a month, I just don't have the time.

I've decided to "prune" these two players from the group. In their place, I'm adding 1 new player who's never role played before. But, he's excited about it, and I have a feeling he's going to take to it like duck to water.

Strange about these players I'm pruning. I've definitely let disruptive and bad players go in the past. I won't stand for a player who continually makes the game non-enjoyable for everyone else.

But, these players I'm not inviting back aren't like that at all. The best I can describe it is that they're like a wet blanket over the group, stifling dynamic play. I don't know why they have that effect. They're OK players, but it's a strange vibe they bring.

It seems like such a small thing, but I think it's big enough to threaten my game. Not in one game session...they bring the kind of vibe that slowly erodes a game until, nobody knows why, the game night is just not that fun anymore.

Maybe that's why we haven't played in a few months.

But, it's my job, as GM, to recognize this. And, I'm doing it. Those two won't be invited back. I'll do what I can not to hurt anyone's feelings--no sense in that--and I think we're just going to pick back up and not inform them.

But, they're out, none-the-less.

I'm a GM. And, part of my duties is to keep the game interesting and lively on all fronts.

Picking, pruning, encouraging players is definitley one of the responsibilites a GM has in running an enjoyable game.

And, I mean to keep my game damn interesting.

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Originally posted by robject:
I never liked systems with rules, rules, rules for everything.

The great thing about Traveller is that the in-game rules are quite simple and free-form, but the game still has a lot of meta-game rule components (like character generation, world creation and starship design) to satisfy solitary players, gearheads etc.

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Originally posted by robject:
I never liked systems with rules, rules, rules for everything.

The great thing about Traveller is that the in-game rules are quite simple and free-form, but the game still has a lot of meta-game rule components (like character generation, world creation and starship design) to satisfy solitary players, gearheads etc.

 

[jrmapes]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
SNIP two or three Completely Brilliant Post

Excellent - Bingo - Spot On - Couldn't Agree More!

It's all about the simplicity that makes CT not only playable but one of if not the easiest games to run...

IF

You are a GM/Referee that is willing to THINK a little bit for yourself.

Sadly for the others, yes some players expect line number and ISBN reference - sometimes because they are Rules Lawyers other times because they have been burnt by poor GMs. Yes the group has to be on the same page. Getting a player to trust a GM these days is tough. All the big game companies seems to support the belief that the the GM is the advasary to the player. This is the biggest line of BS in gaming and it sadly has become the industry standard. Lets face it. The only time the GM should be an "adversary" is when he is running a combat vs the players - an then he should be more than fair. To be adversarial any other time or to CHEAT because he is the "GM" is unforgivable.

But just because you have been burnt in the past... don't label the rest of us GMs with that label. It's hard enough as it is to overcome the crud the game companies are trying to brainwash players and new GMs with.


Jerry

 

[jrmapes]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
SNIP two or three Completely Brilliant Post

Excellent - Bingo - Spot On - Couldn't Agree More!

It's all about the simplicity that makes CT not only playable but one of if not the easiest games to run...

IF

You are a GM/Referee that is willing to THINK a little bit for yourself.

Sadly for the others, yes some players expect line number and ISBN reference - sometimes because they are Rules Lawyers other times because they have been burnt by poor GMs. Yes the group has to be on the same page. Getting a player to trust a GM these days is tough. All the big game companies seems to support the belief that the the GM is the advasary to the player. This is the biggest line of BS in gaming and it sadly has become the industry standard. Lets face it. The only time the GM should be an "adversary" is when he is running a combat vs the players - an then he should be more than fair. To be adversarial any other time or to CHEAT because he is the "GM" is unforgivable.

But just because you have been burnt in the past... don't label the rest of us GMs with that label. It's hard enough as it is to overcome the crud the game companies are trying to brainwash players and new GMs with.


Jerry

 

[Psion]

Really, I haven't deigned to use the CT system since MT came out. AFAIAC, MT is simply better.

I preferred the well codified and easy to use and flexible task system.
I preferred the more believable and trimmer combat rules that lacked weapon/armor cross reference rules.
I preferred that basic character generation was approximately on par with advanced character generation.

I still keep my old CT books around. Books like the adventures, traders & gunboats, forms (!), and patrons still see use to this day. But I'd rather run them using MT or T20.

 

[Psion]

Really, I haven't deigned to use the CT system since MT came out. AFAIAC, MT is simply better.

I preferred the well codified and easy to use and flexible task system.
I preferred the more believable and trimmer combat rules that lacked weapon/armor cross reference rules.
I preferred that basic character generation was approximately on par with advanced character generation.

I still keep my old CT books around. Books like the adventures, traders & gunboats, forms (!), and patrons still see use to this day. But I'd rather run them using MT or T20.

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Psion:
Really, I haven't deigned to use the CT system since MT came out. AFAIAC, MT is simply better.

I preferred the well codified and easy to use and flexible task system.
I preferred the more believable and trimmer combat rules that lacked weapon/armor cross reference rules.
I preferred that basic character generation was approximately on par with advanced character generation.

I think MT was an improvement on CT with regard to characters, tasks in particular, and combat. I thought the design systems got a little too involved.

I've really considering adapting the MT task system to T20.

Hunter

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Psion:
Really, I haven't deigned to use the CT system since MT came out. AFAIAC, MT is simply better.

I preferred the well codified and easy to use and flexible task system.
I preferred the more believable and trimmer combat rules that lacked weapon/armor cross reference rules.
I preferred that basic character generation was approximately on par with advanced character generation.

I think MT was an improvement on CT with regard to characters, tasks in particular, and combat. I thought the design systems got a little too involved.

I've really considering adapting the MT task system to T20.

Hunter

 

[JustinThyme]

I have to disagree with the opinion that CT isn't suitable for actual solitaire play. It is very suitable, and members of this forum can / have helped make it so by sharing real life knowledge (medical profession, administration, military) to roleplay / generate characters of broad demography. But despite the amount of realism you incorporate, the secret to solitaire Traveller is the quality of the Encounter and Reaction Tables you produce.

 

[JustinThyme]

I have to disagree with the opinion that CT isn't suitable for actual solitaire play. It is very suitable, and members of this forum can / have helped make it so by sharing real life knowledge (medical profession, administration, military) to roleplay / generate characters of broad demography. But despite the amount of realism you incorporate, the secret to solitaire Traveller is the quality of the Encounter and Reaction Tables you produce.

 

[Klaus]

Actually the first 3 LBBs are quite workable, you are right S4.

However, there were several areas that it didn't cover, that later supplements did, and this is where it starts to become unworkable.

The main problem, coming at it now in 2007, is where to start. Once you've understood LBB 1-3, and are looking for more, all the consistency goes out of the window. It seems each additional supplement, JTAS article, career expansion, etc, had it's own take on where to go. It's a mess.

Compounded by non-existent graphic design. Understood that before DTP and on a budget there's not a huge amount of graphic design possible, but they should have at least tried. Physics textbooks have better layout. And this is crucially important; it's not just chrome. Bad design makes it hard to learn, on top of the woolly definitions and important rules tucked away in dark corners. None of CTs 'official' successors remedied this. MT tried the most but it is somewhat ugly.

The fact that even LBB1 chargen doesn't properly balance with COTI chargen says it all really.

Now, enough of the negative. Whilst all the above is true, the promise of the system is what keeps us coming back. It's almost there, almost perfect. Only problem is, in 3 further 'official' iterations they've still not fixed it, and neither is T5. Neither would have ACT, being closer to MT than CT in many ways.

MT was a good attempt, but it's prone to bloat, and the drastic setting change put so many off tha tMT could never replace CT in the hearts of the players. And while it does come up with several innovations, it gets some wrong (ie: the task system - the divisions between difficulty levels are ridiculous, being on average 40-70% increments)

I keep on returning to T20 because it ain't broken (though not without the occasional house rule)

 

[Klaus]

Actually the first 3 LBBs are quite workable, you are right S4.

However, there were several areas that it didn't cover, that later supplements did, and this is where it starts to become unworkable.

The main problem, coming at it now in 2007, is where to start. Once you've understood LBB 1-3, and are looking for more, all the consistency goes out of the window. It seems each additional supplement, JTAS article, career expansion, etc, had it's own take on where to go. It's a mess.

Compounded by non-existent graphic design. Understood that before DTP and on a budget there's not a huge amount of graphic design possible, but they should have at least tried. Physics textbooks have better layout. And this is crucially important; it's not just chrome. Bad design makes it hard to learn, on top of the woolly definitions and important rules tucked away in dark corners. None of CTs 'official' successors remedied this. MT tried the most but it is somewhat ugly.

The fact that even LBB1 chargen doesn't properly balance with COTI chargen says it all really.

Now, enough of the negative. Whilst all the above is true, the promise of the system is what keeps us coming back. It's almost there, almost perfect. Only problem is, in 3 further 'official' iterations they've still not fixed it, and neither is T5. Neither would have ACT, being closer to MT than CT in many ways.

MT was a good attempt, but it's prone to bloat, and the drastic setting change put so many off tha tMT could never replace CT in the hearts of the players. And while it does come up with several innovations, it gets some wrong (ie: the task system - the divisions between difficulty levels are ridiculous, being on average 40-70% increments)

I keep on returning to T20 because it ain't broken (though not without the occasional house rule)

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Psion:
Really, I haven't deigned to use the CT system since MT came out. AFAIAC, MT is simply better.

I preferred the well codified and easy to use and flexible task system.
I preferred the more believable and trimmer combat rules that lacked weapon/armor cross reference rules.
I preferred that basic character generation was approximately on par with advanced character generation.

I think MT was an improvement on CT with regard to characters, tasks in particular, and combat. I thought the design systems got a little too involved.

I've really considering adapting the MT task system to T20.

Hunter </font>[/QUOTE]Quite agreed. I like some of the Craft Design changes (reduced fuel rates, ability to build ships with anti-personnel weapons, etc), it was a bit fiddly.

But it didn't go so far as FF&S... which took fiddly to the point that I can never be certain I've done it right, even using a spreadsheet.

And you should have done the task system into T20 from the get-go!

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Psion:
Really, I haven't deigned to use the CT system since MT came out. AFAIAC, MT is simply better.

I preferred the well codified and easy to use and flexible task system.
I preferred the more believable and trimmer combat rules that lacked weapon/armor cross reference rules.
I preferred that basic character generation was approximately on par with advanced character generation.

I think MT was an improvement on CT with regard to characters, tasks in particular, and combat. I thought the design systems got a little too involved.

I've really considering adapting the MT task system to T20.

Hunter </font>[/QUOTE]Quite agreed. I like some of the Craft Design changes (reduced fuel rates, ability to build ships with anti-personnel weapons, etc), it was a bit fiddly.

But it didn't go so far as FF&S... which took fiddly to the point that I can never be certain I've done it right, even using a spreadsheet.

And you should have done the task system into T20 from the get-go!

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Aramis:Quite agreed. I like some of the Craft Design changes (reduced fuel rates, ability to build ships with anti-personnel weapons, etc), it was a bit fiddly.

But it didn't go so far as FF&S... which took fiddly to the point that I can never be certain I've done it right, even using a spreadsheet.[/qb]

Don't get me started on FF&S...

And you should have done the task system into T20 from the get-go!

I tend to agree, but water under the bridge and all that.

Hunter

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Aramis:Quite agreed. I like some of the Craft Design changes (reduced fuel rates, ability to build ships with anti-personnel weapons, etc), it was a bit fiddly.

But it didn't go so far as FF&S... which took fiddly to the point that I can never be certain I've done it right, even using a spreadsheet.[/qb]

Don't get me started on FF&S...

And you should have done the task system into T20 from the get-go!

I tend to agree, but water under the bridge and all that.

Hunter