Is this Really such a good idea?

[The Shoveller]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
"It sound likd the liscence will require me to buy or borrow D&D3 to learn the core rules. I'm afraid I will have to stick to CT or T5."

Not at all. From what I understand, the license only prohibits blatent plagerism of the stuff from the 3e books. They will be able to communicate the D20 system mechanics in the books.


"2D6 vs D20? Either can be made to work. I learned to play before the internet in a town with no game store. D6 you could get at Krogers."

D20 is more intuitive.

"Hit points. These an be made to work, but my 80yr old, 95 lb grandmother should have at least 1/3 what I (for real) have and I should have nearly least a third of what Conan has."

Grandmother - That's what aging rules are for.

Hit points aren't just a measurement of physical ability to withstand wounds. It is a measurement of life expectancy in physical combat. Big difference there. Combat veterans seem to have the ability to only get grazed by gunfire a rookie would take full in the chest.


"Most importantly, there are times when the critical hit overwhelms hit points. Besides getting lucky, if the injury bypasses armor (like falling out a window) or overwhelms armor (a knife vs. shirt or ACR vs flak jacket) a critical hit should be automatic. As long as critcal hits include less than lethal injuries (see C&S)."

There are lots of explanations in a Fantasy or SF setting why events that would seriously injure a person in the year 2001 wouldn't be a threatening in a game setting. There are lots of uses for nanotech


"But XPs don't work. Winning fights don't make you a better fighter, only a tired one. Sir Richard F. Burton used to pick up a foil and drill as soon as he returned to England, to get rid of those sloppy habits he had picked up fighting for real. You don't learn much nursing a deisel across half an ocean, but by sitting down with the manual, for a week, in port. The most adventures will give you is a desire to learn and improve, and that comes from failure, not success."

If your this concept were true, the best practicianers of a field would be those who never left the classroom/gym to have their technique stained by real world experience. We all know what a crok that is. You need lots of real world experience to know WHICH manual you should be reading.

I don't support "kill the monster" experience point systems. I do however promote experience points systems based on "overcoming challenges". I think a PC should be rewarded just as much for talking their way out of a fight in order to achieve their goal. You should get XP for achieving goals.

 

[DrSkull]

I've got to chime in about hit points. They really have to be controlled. Once of the charms of Traveller is that the player characters are not any different in statistics and abilities than "average thug #12" in the 1001 characters book.

Your average CT/MT/T4 chacter has 21 "hit points", i.e., the sum of STR/DEX/END. If you give t20 characters hit points equal to CON, and an average human has CON 11, you add in the -9 hit points that takes you from unconscious to death, then you have 20 hit points, sounds a pretty even match. You could even leave the wepaon damage the same when you converted.

My taste is to give each character 1 to 1.5 hit points (NOT DICE!) per level in addition. SO a maximum human would have 18 (18 CON) plus 30 (20 th level, 1.5 per level) or 48 hit points. If a d20 Traveller rifle still does 3d6 damage, and bullets are x3 critical factor (as seems to be the trend in d20 games) a bullet could do 54 points of damage. So even the toughest guy imaginable can still be killed by 1 bullet, and a FGMP-14 is still going to ruin anyone's day.

If you gave 1d6 hit points per level you would end up with plenty of guys who could shrug off bullets and reasonabley expect to keep fighting after shot by a plasma gun. I don't think we need that.

------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[Uncle Bob]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:

Hit points aren't just a measurement of physical ability to withstand wounds. It is a measurement of life expectancy in physical combat. Big difference there. Combat veterans seem to have the ability to only get grazed by gunfire a rookie would take full in the chest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, thats the rationalization. It does not seem to match the experiences of people who have been in combat. According to them, you are either somewhere else completely or dead when the gun goes off. Veterans are better at being somewhere else, but when they are wounded it is just as bad, just as lethal. Hit points does work fairly well for fisticuffs or medieval armored combat, where a single blow is rarely decisive.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
"Most importantly, there are times when the critical hit overwhelms hit points. Besides getting lucky, if the injury bypasses armor (like falling out a window) or overwhelms armor (a knife vs. shirt or ACR vs flak jacket) a critical hit should be automatic. As long as critcal hits include less than lethal injuries (see C&S)."

There are lots of explanations in a Fantasy or SF setting why events that would seriously injure a person in the year 2001 wouldn't be a threatening in a game setting. There are lots of uses for nanotech
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Feel free to complicate it, but the underlying critical hit system is important for simulating invasive wounds.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If your this concept were true, the best practicianers of a field would be those who never left the classroom/gym to have their technique stained by real world experience. We all know what a crok that is. You need lots of real world experience to know WHICH manual you should be reading.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I don't know its a crock. Good training will teach you which manual, poor training won't. I have known some MCSEs who couldn't find the "on" switch. On the other hand, I have met a lot of professionals who stopped learning one year into a twenty year career, and who are considered successful.

The most competent people I know recognize their failures and take time off or exploit their spare time to improve their skills. Those who just keep doing what makes them successful stagnate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You should get XP for achieving goals.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but what can you do with those XPs? I argue that a failed mission will motivate you to learn more than a successful one will, and it will allow you to clearly identify areas to improve.


[This message has been edited by Uncle Bob (edited 13 May 2001).]

 

[Uncle Bob]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrSkull:
I've got to chime in about hit points. They really have to be controlled. Once of the charms of Traveller is that the player characters are not any different in statistics and abilities than "average thug #12" in the 1001 characters book.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. Well, I didn't even like the LBB hit points (I used Azhanti High Lightning combat). IIRC, Hunter did say that he/they were looking at a critical hit system to mitigate the hit point system.

I have been suggesting an automatic critical hit (or more for PGMPs) if the weapon overmatches the armor. Of course, 30% of these crits will be leg wounds (half disabling)
20% arm wounds (half disabling)
20% torso (about half incapacitating or lethal)
10% head (at least half incapacitating or lethal)

Something like this would make hit points less important, without trashing the D20 system.

 

[The Shoveller]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrSkull:
I've got to chime in about hit points. They really have to be controlled. Once of the charms of Traveller is that the player characters are not any different in statistics and abilities than "average thug #12" in the 1001 characters book.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PCs are supposed to be special. They are the 1 in a million that stands out and makes a difference in the struggles of nations and worlds, and fate is supposed to smile on these characters. They ARE NOT supposed to be just another "average thug #12." The only time they should be able to be killed with a single shot is if it's done D&D3e "coup de grace" style. Only power-hungry GMs who revel in keeping players quivering through their entire game sessions like one-shot kills against PCs. Players should be given the chance to develop their characters free of the worry that one random bad die roll will wipe out months of time invested in a PC.

 

[The Shoveller]

Bob: "Veterans are better at being somewhere else, but when they are wounded it is just as bad, just as lethal."

Veterans would wear armor in an SF setting. The armor would withstand today's lethal shots. If we already have kevlar vest that stop bullets now, we will CERTAINLY have much better in the centuries to come. That's where armor class and hit points come in. Physical combat will again be a situation where the combatants are wearing each other's systems down.

By the way, if you get caught without armor on, there should be damage multipliers. People entering hostile fire should pay if they aren't smart enought to wear armor.

Bob: "Actually, I don't know its a crock. Good training will teach you which manual, poor training won't. I have known some MCSEs who couldn't find the "on" switch."

You are a fool if you think someone learns better in a simulation than they do in a real world situation. You make my point for me talking about MCSEs. All the diplomas, degrees and credentials in the world won't do you a bit of good. It's how you perform when the chips are down that matters. Constantly repeating simulations gets you good at simulations, not real world performance. Let's look at something real basic. Everyone gets an instruction manual with their VCR. How many people threw the manual across the room and let 12:00 blink until someone actually guided them how to program the time in? Manuals are poor substitutes for real life experience.

 

[The Shoveller]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brandon C:
One final comment: There have been some remarks about people wanting d20 Traveller because they (or their players) don't want to learn another system. I'm sorry, but unless you are working a full-time job or are working your way (with a lot of hours) through college, not wanting to learn another system is just being lazy. In 17+ years of gaming, I have learned over a dozen game systems and I *don't* consider myself exceptional for that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Between people that work full-time and people that work their way through school, you have 95% of the adult population. I think that listening to the statements of the preferences of 95% of the potential market is good business. If anyone is lazy, it's the gamers who refuse to let a silly thing like earning a living get in the way of their gametime.

Unemployed people have little money to buy games, anyway.

 

[Brandon C]

While I have no plans to buy the D20 version (I have CT, MT, GT and am working on Fudge Traveller), I am somewhat mixed about the news of d20 Traveller.

Negatives: 'D&D in space' images, hordes of new munchkin teenagers playing the game, character levels and other d20 concepts at odds with the Traveller tradition

Positives: new people in the hobby (especially the 'hard' SF genre), most of us oldtimers started on (A)D&D but went on to better systems that met our needs better (so d20 Traveller could function as a 'gateway' rpg for the next generation)

One final comment: There have been some remarks about people wanting d20 Traveller because they (or their players) don't want to learn another system. I'm sorry, but unless you are working a full-time job or are working your way (with a lot of hours) through college, not wanting to learn another system is just being lazy. In 17+ years of gaming, I have learned over a dozen game systems and I *don't* consider myself exceptional for that.

A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon C

 

[Takei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doctor Rob:
In my expereince, the quality of a game is relatively indepentdent of the rules themselves - even the best rules system can be worthless if the refereeing is poor or the players are duff or the background is badly realised. Conversely, some of my most memerable roleplaying experiences were with systems I did not necessarily like but the refereeing was superb and/or the background was good. The ambiance of a game is conveyed by the realisation of the campaign background and Traveller has an enviable strength in that department!

I for one can't wait for the D20 Traveller to come out and I will supporting it with my wallet. I also look forward to seeing the game being entheusiatically embraced by a new generation of players.

Rob[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I feel the same.....mostly. At the end of the day it's the people that are what makes a good game. I agree that some rules systems suit different backgrounds better than others, (personally, I have no problem with classes but levels just feels wrong in Trav!), but I'm happy to play anything.
Getting more people playing in the Traveller universe has got to be a good thing long term.
As has been said before, even if you don't particularly like the system, you can always use the background stuff. I've only played a couple of games using the GURPS rules, but almost all of the GT stuff usable and good quality.

Cheers
Paul Bendall

 

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
PCs are supposed to be special. They are the 1 in a million that stands out and makes a difference in the struggles of nations and worlds, and fate is supposed to smile on these characters. They ARE NOT supposed to be just another "average thug #12." The only time they should be able to be killed with a single shot is if it's done D&D3e "coup de grace" style. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me hazard a guess here -- you don't play Traveller? Because everything you say above about PCs being "the 1 in a million that stands out and makes a difference" is fundamentally at odds with the rules, setting, and underlying philosophy of Traveller. There are significant fundamental differences in assumed goals and priorities between D&D/d20 and Traveller, which is why back in the 70s Marc Miller and GDW went out of their way to create a unique, independent style and system rather than just making a sci-fi flavored D&D rip-off (which they easily could have: everybody else was doing it - it would've been a lot easier and probably would've sold just as well, at least at first. But would we remember it today? Does anybody still play Star Frontiers or Metamorphosis Alpha?).

The difference in approach between D&D and Traveller is much more than the shape of dice being rolled, specifics of the combat system, or names of the alien races -- the assumptions, philosophies, and design goals are fundamentally opposed: D&D seeks to model potential heroes becoming great heroes, Traveller seeks to model normal folks going about their business (with the proviso that said 'business' is usually something pretty extraordinary, at least from a late 20th-century urban westerner's perspective).

The idea of normal folks going about their business as the focus of a game might not interest you, which is fine - don't play Traveller. But it does interest me, which is why I do play Traveller and not Alternity, Gamma World, Rifts, or any of the other 'sci-fi-D&D' games which have come out in the 24 years since Marc Miller and GDW first proved that there IS another valid (and IMO vastly more interesting and satisfying) approach to rpgs than Gygax and D&D.

 

[DrSkull]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T. Foster:
Let me hazard a guess here -- you don't play Traveller? Because everything you say above about PCs being "the 1 in a million that stands out and makes a difference" is fundamentally at odds with the rules, setting, and underlying philosophy of Traveller. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Rightly said! In Traveller a hero is an ordinary person who does extraordinary things, not Superman doing Supermanish things. It's only drive, courage and "travelling" that makes a Traveller character different.


------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[Rupert Boleyn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T. Foster:
The more I think of it, the more the concept of 'levels' seems to be a spectacularly bad fit with Traveller-as-we-know-it. Unless the rules include some sort of system to allow characters to start out around 10th level, the structure of adventures/campaigns and in fact the entire tone of the game will have to be drastically altered. Traveller (at least up to now) has always been about trained mid-career professionals going about their business...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not so sure that levels are so incompatible with Traveller. A friend of mine once ran a Traveller game using an altered AD&D system, with one level equalling one CT term. It worked fine.

Thinking about it, I'm more concerned about the rate of advancement, as IMO the very slow rate of advancement (compared to most D&D games) is one of the key features of most Traveller games.



------------------
--
"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."

 

[Uncle Bob]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
Veterans would wear armor in an SF setting. The armor would withstand today's lethal shots. If we already have kevlar vest that stop bullets now, we will CERTAINLY have much better in the centuries to come. That's where armor class and hit points come in. Physical combat will again be a situation where the combatants are wearing each other's systems down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Armor yes, hit points, no. A veteran does not usually have better armor than rookies in a professional army. And physical combat will wear you down, unless your opponent has an invasive weapon, like a knife.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
By the way, if you get caught without armor on, there should be damage multipliers. People entering hostile fire should pay if they aren't smart enought to wear armor.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You stop damage if the are wearing armor and multiply damage if they aren't. How complicated do you want this to be? Shouldn't a high level character caught without armor deserve a higher multiplier?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Everyone gets an instruction manual with their VCR. How many people threw the manual across the room and let 12:00 blink until someone actually guided them how to program the time in? Manuals are poor substitutes for real life experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have known some excellent MCSEs, and some bad ones. T have met a lot and a lot of very experienced techs who I wouldn't let program my VCR, because they have real world experience and "don't have to read the damn manual."

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn no other.

[This message has been edited by Uncle Bob (edited 13 May 2001).]

 

[Brandon C]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
Between people that work full-time and people that work their way through school, you have 95% of the adult population. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So no one in high school or junior high is going to play the game? Most gamers started before college ...

I think that listening to the statements of the preferences of 95% of the potential market is good business. [/QUOTE]

Except that adults aren't 95% of the market. In addition, CT is currently being reprinted and CT mechanics are simpler (and better fit Travelelr) than d20 mechanics.

If anyone is lazy, it's the gamers who refuse to let a silly thing like earning a living get in the way of their gametime.[/QUOTE]

Heh. As a GM, my time is precious -- why should *I* learn a new system when I already am familiar with three of the Traveller rule sets? The amount of game mechanic information the players must learn is trivial compared to the GM? Why should the inmates be allowed to run the asylum?[/B][/QUOTE]

(BTW, I have read though the d20 'core' rules on the web and I am not at all impressed with them).

Unemployed people have little money to buy games, anyway.[/QUOTE]

True for adults, but not teenagers.

A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon C

 

[The Shoveller]

"Traveller® is the original generic Science-Fiction roleplaying game that can be used to recreate any science-fiction story or situation."

That is the first sentence of the description of Traveller by Far Future Enterprises. Traveller is SUPPOSED to accomodate simulating ALL forms of science fiction roleplaying. It is you who have added this requirement of "grittyness". Science Fiction literature is populated by far more "heroic" figures as main characters than regular folk or anti-heros. It is the simulation of science fiction literature that we are trying to accomplish. To do this successfully, one must either have a system that leans toward the heroic [the vast majority of SF], or you must have a standard rules system which addresses one type of simulation and additionally has optional rules which address the other forms of simulation.

I need good generic rules for campaigns I create. I don't purchase pre-generated campaign material. Since everone seems to be learning D20 now, I don't mind switching to a D20 system if I can do it without having a notebook full of house rules that's thicker than the published materials I purchase. The bottom line for me is will the rules set help attract players. More people want to roleplay heroes than want to roleplay regular folk. I prefer playing with a rule set that addresses my players needs.

As for the other games, Alternity was a somewhat reasonable attempt at a generic SF game system. Heavy Gear was decent, but pretty much limited to it's campaign world. However, Rifts, Gamma World, and Star Frontiers are messes I will not be held responsible for. Don't blame that trash on me.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T. Foster:
Let me hazard a guess here -- you don't play Traveller? Because everything you say above about PCs being "the 1 in a million that stands out and makes a difference" is fundamentally at odds with the rules, setting, and underlying philosophy of Traveller. There are significant fundamental differences in assumed goals and priorities between D&D/d20 and Traveller, which is why back in the 70s Marc Miller and GDW went out of their way to create a unique, independent style and system rather than just making a sci-fi flavored D&D rip-off (which they easily could have: everybody else was doing it - it would've been a lot easier and probably would've sold just as well, at least at first. But would we remember it today? Does anybody still play Star Frontiers or Metamorphosis Alpha?).

The difference in approach between D&D and Traveller is much more than the shape of dice being rolled, specifics of the combat system, or names of the alien races -- the assumptions, philosophies, and design goals are fundamentally opposed: D&D seeks to model potential heroes becoming great heroes, Traveller seeks to model normal folks going about their business (with the proviso that said 'business' is usually something pretty extraordinary, at least from a late 20th-century urban westerner's perspective).

The idea of normal folks going about their business as the focus of a game might not interest you, which is fine - don't play Traveller. But it does interest me, which is why I do play Traveller and not Alternity, Gamma World, Rifts, or any of the other 'sci-fi-D&D' games which have come out in the 24 years since Marc Miller and GDW first proved that there IS another valid (and IMO vastly more interesting and satisfying) approach to rpgs than Gygax and D&D.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[The Shoveller]

Brandon: "Except that adults aren't 95% of the market. In addition, CT is currently being reprinted and CT mechanics are simpler (and better fit Travelelr) than d20 mechanics."

The market for a Hard SF games is going to be almost all 18+. Very few people under 18 even look at RPGs anymore. Almost all that do are either sun-deprived goths playing WW stuff or intro D&D players.

As for CT reprints, which is selling more, D20 stuff or CT reprints? Even if CT were a perfect game system, it has few players. A D20 Traveller system actually has the chance of getting played by new gamers. Reprinted CT doesn't.

B: "As a GM, my time is precious -- why should *I* learn a new system when I already am familiar with three of the Traveller rule sets?"

Because the three sets of Traveller rules you know are played by very few people. D20 Traveller has to potential to be played by a bunch of people, including new gamers. That's more than enough reason [that is, unless you don't like having players at your games].

 

[Mar_Sane]

Why is it that I am getting the impression that many out there think that T20 will be D&D in space.

I like traveller and have played T1, T2 and T4. They all use different systems (no matter how slight) but are still set in the Traveller universe, why should T20 be any different, other than the fact that you use d20 instead of 2d6.

If it keeps to the traveller universe it will be good whichever system it uses. As long as it keeps the feel of the other versions. If it becomes D&D in space then, maybe then, we will all actually HAVE something to whinge about. It is the races, the history in the game that I find important, not what dice I use or if the game system was first devised for the D&D3 rules.

 

[kzin]

The obvious reply to that is "I already have a well established game group that knows the existing rules, and we don't care much about attracting new rules." The groups that have been playing CT for 20+ years, and have stayed loyal to it, probably aren't impressed by your argument.

Of course, that doesn't have much bearing on whether or not the rest of the market will embrace a d20 Traveller.

As for the argument about Heroic vs Normal ... I think it's not too hard to stretch the existing d20 system for that.

1) use the wound/vitality points system from Star Wars instead of hit points ... If you're really hard core about it, drop vitality points entirely. (if you're concerned about access to those rules, then rule damage is a temporary stat reduction to Constitution, which has the same mechanical value as wound points)

2) use the level system for character creation instead of character development. Essentially, this equates to traveller terms of service (this is essentially true already). Then you can decide whether or not characters continue to advance after adventuring starts or not. And if they do, you can do it with the level system, or the GM can award a progression of skill/attack bonuses on a periodic basis.

In comparison to CT, there isn't much difference between doing several levels of character development before adventuring and then arresting development (d20) vs. doing several terms of service and then not having any rules for character advancement after you start adventuring (CT).

 

[hunter]

Kzin, I deleted the two extra copies of your last post, if you were wondering where they went

Hunter

 

[Brandon C]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
The market for a Hard SF games is going to be almost all 18+. Very few people under 18 even look at RPGs anymore. Almost all that do are either sun-deprived goths playing WW stuff or intro D&D players.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you call it a hard SF game, and in a previous post you say Traveller is supposed to handle any kind of campaign. Make up your mind.

When I started playing CT I was 17. None of the other players in the group were older than me (and, btw, I had only started playing rpgs less than half a year earlier). It almost sounds like you don't *want* any new Traveller players younger than 18.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for CT reprints, which is selling more, D20 stuff or CT reprints? Even if CT were a perfect game system, it has few players. A D20 Traveller system actually has the chance of getting played by new gamers. Reprinted CT doesn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, right now, GURPS Traveller is probably the best selling Traveller line. And GURPS is a vastly better system than d20 (and yes, I played AD&D for nearly a decade before giving it up for GURPS).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>B: "As a GM, my time is precious -- why should *I* learn a new system when I already am familiar with three of the Traveller rule sets?"

Because the three sets of Traveller rules you know are played by very few people. D20 Traveller has to potential to be played by a bunch of people, including new gamers. That's more than enough reason [that is, unless you don't like having players at your games].<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can always find players -- there is no need for me to settle for a system I don't like.