• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

proposal: discontinue canon in favor of legacy

As an old timer when it comes to Traveller this discussion about removing or ignoring canon is intersesting and disturbing at the same time.

I only ever played CT and never got into the newer editions. If it wasn't for the reprints I probably not be here on the forum. I am thinking of picking up the new T20 stuff but if it wasn't for the history and background of the Traveller setting there is no way I would be buying it or concider buying it. Also if it was not for the reprints I tend to doubt T20 would have gotten off the ground as well as it did.

Now I understand newer players might not understand this but if you remove the "canon" and only leave a d20 system in space, I have other games I would play instead.

Yes you can do whatever you want with your setting but much of the core base which has kept Traveller going over the years would leave. By alienating the fanbase that kept it going would cause some to really complain and one complainer crowds out many voices of praise.

You can call it legacy or canon in many ways and it makes no difference. You will still have those who will say how dare you change the legacy and other who want it changed.

The only problem is if you purge, you better gauge correctly how many players you can afford to lose, for it will happen. With the amount of d20 stuff being produced I think T20 would be hard pressed stay going under that type of bad press. This is not saying that the game is not well done but I have seen plenty of great games go away due to hurt feelings and such.

With that said I have no problem with correcting canon or making adjustments that maybe needed but one needs to be sensitive to what drive your market.
 
It looks to me that we have essentially two major areas of conflict. Technology and history, especially Imperial history. Or, to put it another way, rules and setting.

Technology, how it works and such, that is a function of the rules set. The particulars about individual star systems, who the Emperior is, what is the relationship between scouts and the Empire, or the border worlds, or the various independent states, that is set and setting.

On the tech side, despite my own efforts of redesigning the jump drive systems, I think they did a fairly decent job. Yes I can quibble about computer size for starships, and a few other minor details, but all in all, I think Mark did a great job. When you think this all started 25 years ago, a fantastic job.

Setting, well, I like a lot of the ideas that are used. Not too clear about the Virus, what it was supposed to accomplish in game terms, other than bust up the Empire. But the setting is just that, one possible, although "offical" setting. The rules set allows one to create one's own galaxy of stars, and a whole new setting.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
If you're totally out of the OTU, you're liberated from this. If you're totally in the OTU, flex freely with it, then you've got no issue either. Only half way between do you have an issue. Sadly, I think there are a lot of us whose TU fits that category.
[/QB]
Click to expand...
I think this might be the crux of the matter, now you mention it. But surely Traveller isn't unique in this. Thing is, if you're in the middle, you're just as much in your own Traveller Universe as those who don't use the OTU at all. The designers simply can't cater for you if that's the case. Given the highly dispersed, low-concentration nature of the general Traveller setting throughout all the books that have ever been written, I think most people do take what they can find and fill in the gaps themselves - but there's got to be a point where you think "well, I'm happy with what I've got" and use that as your base for your own games. You're not doing yourself or your game any favours if you keep chopping and changing things everytime you find a new bit of canon to incorporate. I'm happy with my Reavers Deep sector even though it's crawling with Ancient sites and incorporated pocket empires and different borders and there are no pirates in sight, and the OTU version is totally different.

I don't use the OTU setting much myself at all, but I'm still interested in reading and talking about it and will continue to get the books. As for rules, there's enough out there for me to pull my own set together (I use GURPS as the game engine, with TNE's FF&S and an extended GT:First in as the ship and world building engine respectively) I realise I may be in a minority there, though.

I just find it kinda ironic that there are games like WW's Vampire and Orpheus around that are built on metaplot, yet people generally don't seem to make anywhere near as much fuss about sticking to established WW canon as they do in Traveller, which is a game that DOESN'T really have a metaplot. Indeed, the WW books explicitly state that you don't have to follow what they say. Heck, I was a huge fan of Mage and Wraith, and then they ended the latter and changed the former for Revised. Did that mean I stopped playing? Did I throw a strop and curse the designers? No. I've run games set after the end of Wraith. I've carried on playing Mage using the pre-Revised setting. I've not bought any Mage supplements since then, but I don't begrudge its continued existence. Despite losing a few of the old fans, it still seems to be doing well for itself. Sure, some people made a fuss about it, but they seem to have quietened down now, after a few years.

Yet with Traveller, you still have people whining about how TNE destroyed their baby *ten years later*! I find this quite mystifying. There's a small but vocal portion of the Traveller fanbase that seems to have a 'spoilt brat' mentality and who like to throw megatantrums whenever something changes. Other games don't seem to have this problem with their fanbase - or if they do, they ignored them and moved on. I think Traveller could do the same and still survive by taking on new fans.
 
Perhaps this is the problem with canon:

People fear that Traveller rules/background/whatever will change such that they'll no longer be able to crib a significant amount of data to fill in the blanks.

Example: I've taken everything available in CT about the nobility and have built up a working understanding in my mind of how it works and I can related that to my peers (whether players or referees) and, what's more, they agree. Because I don't have the time/imagination/whatever to fully flesh out my own, uniquely conceived approach to the nobility, I rely on CT to fill in the gaps and complete the picture.

A new version of Traveller (I'll call it XT) comes along and invalidates portions of CT's approach to nobles. Now my model of the nobility begins to break down, the social drivers inherant in the model no longer work. What are my options?

A) Ignore tha changes and work out more details on my own. If XT continues to diverge from CT, I have to implement more changes, do more work to cover the gaps. New releases of XT material are potentially of less use to me and I still don't have the time or Poli Sci degree to adequately patch my model of the nobility. Disatisfaction with XT sets in? (Causing me to stick with CT).

B) Roll with the changes and progressively rework/patch/scrap my model. This way perhaps I've lost the time and energy I put into it in the past; my . My peers lose interest because the power politics campaign we were playing won't hang together any longer?

C) I adopt the changes wholesale and my gaming experience becomes more enjoyable. I begin replacing my existing CT books with XT books (this branches off into other options which spawn options). This requires a greater expenditure of money to upgrade (but since I'm having fun, I don't mind).

D) I adopt the changes wholesale and my gaming experience becomes less enjoyable (this branches off into other options which spawn options).

Anyway, I'm running out of steam. . .
 
I think a couple analogies that have been forming in my brain best explains my position on the whole canon keep it or lose it theme here. Let's see if I can translate it to written words.

I think canon is needed so that we can all have a common reference frame. It helps integrate new players in an established game and lets us all discuss events and elements (i.e. setting and rules) without needing to (in most cases) explain what we are talking about in detail. We can say Regina in the Spinward Marches for example and all immediately know the kind of world and general history we are talking about if we are familiar with the material. We don't have to figure out if we mean John's Regina, Jane's Regina, or someone else's. Imagine the water cooler discussion of last night's big game or top show if everyone saw a different version.

As for a purge (and yes I get that the good Evil Dr. was not too serious) there may be some who would think that would be good. They may have no or very limited access to past material and believe it would be easier if it was all swept away. No I don't agree obviously.

The analogy that's been forming runs kinda like this. No one would say just because we know so much more now than the Wright brothers did that we should forget those old powered flight designs and just acknowledge jet powered flight as the correct way of doing it. Nor should we strike all reference to Icarus despite knowing it is wrong. Without Icarus we might not have hang-gliders and ultra-lights today. Equally valid no one should be saying that all flight has to incorporate feathered wax wings.

So yes there may be some canon that needs to be de-emphasized, perhaps labled as myth, but never forgotten. I don't see a reason for canon wars though. Canon will always be more the province of the for money writers of the game and to a lesser extent the fan writers. At least those who hope to have their stuff well received and used will stick as close as possible, while they are more likely to embellish and add (with healthy sprinkling of IMTU stamps).

Published material should be able to integrate seamlessly (in a perfect world) at least within one rules set (no matter the version, eg. CT books 1-3 and the expansions, sadly not 100%) so individual games can use it, accepting that where they have diverged or changed things may necessitate some work if they have taken the game away or beyond known canon. I also think each rules set that purports to call itself Traveller owes it to the fans to stay as close as feasible to canon and think most have done at least a fair job of this though there are of course opinions that vary on this.

Not sure that makes my position any clearer or that it adds anything beyond more words to the discussion but there you go.
 
Far-Trader,

I agree with you in principle on all points, thus making the differences in wording and anology irrelevant.

However, I would add one more suggestion: Since all Traveller versions are equally relevant in a global sense, what becomes needed (and almost a necessity) is some form of converting stats between all Traveller systems.

This includes UPP's, UWP's, price lists, die-rolling conventions (2d6 to 1d20, f'rinstance), tech levels, racial characteristics, and so forth.

The need becomes apparent when one notes that material written for one form (eg; TGURPS) is found useful, but that the ref and players are thouroughly immersed in another form (eg; TNE).

On a personal note, I write my adventures from a Classic Traveller perspective. It's what I've used for nearly 25 years, thus it's the one I'm most familiar with. I see a lot of interesting and useful reference material written for d20 and GURPS, but it is not all that easy to convert it to CT - making a 'best guess' is not always effective or efficient.

I'm asking for a 'Traveller Inter-Canonical Conversion System'. Does it already exist? If so, where? If not, why not?

Thank you.
 
Originally posted by Keklas Rekobah:
I'm asking for a 'Traveller Inter-Canonical Conversion System'. Does it already exist? If so, where? If not, why not?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
GURPS Traveller has a system for converting characters from all four previous versions of Traveller to GT (it's Chapter 6 of the GT corebook). Presumably that can be reversed too.

I don't think this is the big problem though. The problem is that different versions of the game use different rules for the same thing, that have different effects in practise.

Also, the main problem with canon is the conflicting factual information in all the editions.
 
Two points:

As to WW Vampire:

It is a fantasy setting, so there isn't the same expectation of coherence and 'workability' to anything it produces - there are no gearhead WWers. There are no economist modellers. There are no sophontologists and socio-political-sci majors. So that is one reason it can get away with 200,000 variations.

As to inter-canon conversion system:

Fantastic idea for a good series of articles or special supplement. OTOH, hard to do because some rules versions differ notably enough (GURPS, T20, vs. CT MT TNE T4) that the conversion doesn't always have analogous options in the other system.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Two points:

As to WW Vampire:

It is a fantasy setting, so there isn't the same expectation of coherence and 'workability' to anything it produces - there are no gearhead WWers. There are no economist modellers. There are no sophontologists and socio-political-sci majors. So that is one reason it can get away with 200,000 variations.

Click to expand...
I wouldn't brush 'em off so easily. You don't need to be scientific to want to stick to a canon. Even fantasy settings have to have some degree of coherence (OK, you could armwave things via magic, but even that has to have some sense of consistency). If anything, in something like Vampire you have more focus on the story and less on the technical details because there are less of them - and in Traveller I think the problems people have are more with the actual canon contradictions (e.g. a book says planet X has this population, whereas another says it has a vastly higher or lower population, with no explanation for the change) than the rules differences.
 
*aherm* (clears throat, swills more mexican cough syrup, shuffles notes...)
The single most disappointing thing to me in terms of all of the Traveller "Revolutions" (i.e. MT, TNE, T4, GT, T20...ad friggin' NAUSEUM...), is that people stopped creating adventures, and instead started focusing on nitpicking tasks like re-creating the entire universe.
The elegant simplicity of an infinitely open backdrop became smaller, meaner and more crowded with people complaining about the (lack of a task system, or whatever...) when it was perfectly apparent to many fans of the game that supplements and articles in mags like White Dwarf were taking care of the little problems like that. Sure, the Adventures and Double Adventures were adding to a body of what became "canon" (a term I despise, BTW - owing to a series of bitter disputes with an individual over the "canon" of the Star Trek universe, of all things...), but look at what our beloved game was doing!
You had excellent tools being published by organizations like FASA and Judges Guild (okay, maybe not EXCELLENT...), and a growing number of people making their own contributions to the game system.
I'm pretty much on board with the Good Evil Dr. Ganymede on this one...it's a gaming system about flying around in spaceships with talking lions and dogs for godsakes (with the occasional manipulative starfish and psychopathically violent mutated horse...). Ya, I KNOW it's a bit more "complicated" than that - but when you boil it down to the hoofs and hairs it's science FICTION (note the emphasis, pl.). More importantly it's spoze to be FUN.
I remember caring about nothing more than designing the ultimate Striker grav APC with rapid-pulse plasma weapons that could wipe out entire regiments of psionic-scum Zho blood-pigs. Then I went into my introspective phase where the Zhos actually seemed to make more sense than the tragically boring (and inherently un-freakin'-pronouncable Vilani, or jack-booted Solomani).
I for one LOVED the Virus. (yah, that'll get me lots of love, here...). I'd always like Saberhagen's Berserker stories, and the Virus let me integrate that aspect of my fanboyishness into MTU.
*herm* (looks around, looking a bit lost, swills more cough syrup...)
Point is, if you haven't welded or soldered bits and pieces of junky sci-fi from the game's incarnations together (plus bits from just about any great sf movie or novel or short story ever written...) then you're not playing Traveller. You're playing a videogame that someone else is actually running for you.
I don't care if something violates Doodlehofer's Second Law of Thermo-Entropic Counterdynamics, dammit. I just care that it makes MTU a hella cool place to phart around in.
Thankyouthatisall.
(waits for sneers and catcalls, swills more cough syrup. Sniffles.)
 
*aherm* (clears throat, swills more mexican cough syrup, shuffles notes...)
The single most disappointing thing to me in terms of all of the Traveller "Revolutions" (i.e. MT, TNE, T4, GT, T20...ad friggin' NAUSEUM...), is that people stopped creating adventures, and instead started focusing on nitpicking tasks like re-creating the entire universe.
The elegant simplicity of an infinitely open backdrop became smaller, meaner and more crowded with people complaining about the (lack of a task system, or whatever...) when it was perfectly apparent to many fans of the game that supplements and articles in mags like White Dwarf were taking care of the little problems like that. Sure, the Adventures and Double Adventures were adding to a body of what became "canon" (a term I despise, BTW - owing to a series of bitter disputes with an individual over the "canon" of the Star Trek universe, of all things...), but look at what our beloved game was doing!
You had excellent tools being published by organizations like FASA and Judges Guild (okay, maybe not EXCELLENT...), and a growing number of people making their own contributions to the game system.
I'm pretty much on board with the Good Evil Dr. Ganymede on this one...it's a gaming system about flying around in spaceships with talking lions and dogs for godsakes (with the occasional manipulative starfish and psychopathically violent mutated horse...). Ya, I KNOW it's a bit more "complicated" than that - but when you boil it down to the hoofs and hairs it's science FICTION (note the emphasis, pl.). More importantly it's spoze to be FUN.
I remember caring about nothing more than designing the ultimate Striker grav APC with rapid-pulse plasma weapons that could wipe out entire regiments of psionic-scum Zho blood-pigs. Then I went into my introspective phase where the Zhos actually seemed to make more sense than the tragically boring (and inherently un-freakin'-pronouncable Vilani, or jack-booted Solomani).
I for one LOVED the Virus. (yah, that'll get me lots of love, here...). I'd always like Saberhagen's Berserker stories, and the Virus let me integrate that aspect of my fanboyishness into MTU.
*herm* (looks around, looking a bit lost, swills more cough syrup...)
Point is, if you haven't welded or soldered bits and pieces of junky sci-fi from the game's incarnations together (plus bits from just about any great sf movie or novel or short story ever written...) then you're not playing Traveller. You're playing a videogame that someone else is actually running for you.
I don't care if something violates Doodlehofer's Second Law of Thermo-Entropic Counterdynamics, dammit. I just care that it makes MTU a hella cool place to phart around in.
Thankyouthatisall.
(waits for sneers and catcalls, swills more cough syrup. Sniffles.)
 
Originally posted by signless:


<snip>

Thankyouthatisall.
(waits for sneers and catcalls, swills more cough syrup. Sniffles.)
Click to expand...
WHOO HOO <clap clap clap> ENCORE! BRAVO!

<ahem> Good read that was!

Just so it doesn't go too far over to that extreme though. My biggest (maybe) argument in defense of canon is exactly part of your argument above. Those articles that fill in details for us that are too busy or uninspired to do it have to mesh with each other and what has gone before in an internally consistant set of rules or they don't help much.

For a simple example suppose you are busy gearheading your latest uber GAPC and it's very very cool, finally ready for some kick butt gaming and an article comes out with a new way of doing it for more detail, as well as introducing a number of new features that will invalidate parts or the whole of your work. What do you do? Remember this is an official piece of work, and just one of many promised that will 'clean up' nagging issues that you never saw before in the system. All the redesigned off the shelf GAPC's beat your custom job hands down, and you know your GM will be using the new stuff because it has the seal of authority.
 
Originally posted by signless:
Point is, if you haven't welded or soldered bits and pieces of junky sci-fi from the game's incarnations together (plus bits from just about any great sf movie or novel or short story ever written...) then you're not playing Traveller. You're playing a videogame that someone else is actually running for you.
Click to expand...
I like that statement.



Originally posted by far-trader:
For a simple example suppose you are busy gearheading your latest uber GAPC and it's very very cool, finally ready for some kick butt gaming and an article comes out with a new way of doing it for more detail, as well as introducing a number of new features that will invalidate parts or the whole of your work. What do you do? Remember this is an official piece of work, and just one of many promised that will 'clean up' nagging issues that you never saw before in the system. All the redesigned off the shelf GAPC's beat your custom job hands down, and you know your GM will be using the new stuff because it has the seal of authority.
Click to expand...
I'd be wondering why you're making a vehicle as a player in a game, for a start. GMs are the ones that make vehicles and starships and worlds. Players don't do that unless they're either designers working for a vehicle company, naval architects, or Slartibartfast
.

But really, I'd shrug my shoulders and ignore the new rules if it was that big a change. Chances are that any new rules wouldn't change things so drastically anyway. There's usually a way to keep your vehicle, even if it means not using the new stuff in the system - if your GM really insists that he'll only use canonical rules, then after smacking him around a bit with a handy T20 book I'd get together with him GM and between us we'll probably find some way to make your design useful. Assuming the designers of the new material have done their job, it should be possible to update your own design to so it fits into the right place in the new paradigm (ie if it was faster than standard GAPCs before, then it should scale up so that it's still faster than the new standard GAPCs).

But really, if halfway through a game a GM said "right, remember all those GAPCs you faced last week? Well they've suddenly got an upgrade across the entire universe and can now outrun you" then I'd take him out back and give him a few more T20-shaped bruises
.
 
Well, everyone has a right to an opinion!

But I'm afraid that if someone says I'm not playing Traveller because I *do* care about the Xth law of thermodynamics, then I say who is he to offer such a pronunciation? (I realize the poster in question was speaking to his own opinion, I'm merely pointing out that we each decide for ourselves what Traveller is and therefore that particular view is no more or less valid than my own).

A GM may only care about things that make his TU "Cool" in his mind. He may not care about consistency or scientific sense or whatever. But for some people, for some player groups (and they have as much right to enjoy the game their way as anyone else), such details *do* matter. And verisimilitude, in support of suspension of disbelief, matters. Whereas jump drive may be plausible to them, lightsabers and magic phasers may not. So who is going to gainsay them and claim they are not playing Traveller? Who has such a monopoly on what Traveller is?

People have a right to play a space operatic version of Traveller, a version that is entirely absent the OTU, a version that is like ST in space or SW, a version that is based out of sci-fi novels, or whatever. Or a version that changes with every OTU or rules canon bend and twist.

Some of the changes between versions of the game and as canon has changed have *significant* impacts on *some* types of Traveller games.

I'm not asking you to agree that your game should be like that. I'm asking you to recognize that this is so and that such games and the gamers who play them have as much right to be considered as those who don't care as much about the little details.

Some things *have* changed over the years, others have been *clarified* and some have (in terms of the basic mechanics) had drastic changes in certain new releases (say GT or T20).

The mere fact that people discuss canon, argue over it, and some think that changing X or Y totally invalidates prior work or their past understanding should be all the evidence any observer requires to point out the impact and significance (WHETHER YOU AGREE IT SHOULD BE SO OR NOT, forgive the yelling, but I want to make the point) of canon and of changes or perceived changes in same.

That alone should be enough to suggest that new canon should be crafted with care and concern for the investment of time that people may have already committed.

Because the game, in essence, is about Fun. Fun is defined differently for different folks and we should respect that. And the game designers should (and I'm sure try to... to varying degrees....). If someone writes through (after having a prior version that was different) your work and you feel it has been buzzsawed, that won't engender happy warm thoughts. And if the game experience is negative, there goes the Fun. And without that, you've got what?
 
I have a deep and abiding respect for anyone willing and able to plot out the orbital mechanics of a fictional star system. I respect the effort that goes in to crafting an alien ecosphere that makes sense - I think such care and consideration is a sign of respect from GM to player.
But what frustrated me most about moving from CT to MT and beyond was the tiring job of hauling everyone together to review a more complicated ruleset, and adapting my universe to comply.
Whereas before the elegant simplicity of a game that could be played with as little as a couple sheets of paper and several six-sided dice, grew into a much more complicated system.
Therein lies my problem with changes to "canon". Any addition to the official ruleset puts further limits on any GM, in almost any setting. Mechanical "canon" changes irritate me. Alterations in the history and/or storyline of the OTU have never seemed to bother our little gaming group too much. We just got together, picked out a likely sector that didn't look like it was at risk of being developed...and that became our setting, against the larger backdrop of what was happening elsewhere.
I guess my point is, the more particular you make the mechanics of any game, the more limitations you apply to those who don't wish to run a campaign/scenario/adventure that way. Keeping things as simple as possible was, I beleieve IMHO, the key to the original success of CT and the LBB's. The more complicated and complex the ruleset for the basic game became, the fewer products for it were appearing on the shelves of my local gaming establishment, until one day all that was left of my dwindling supply of Traveller material was a dust-covered boxed Azhanti High Lightning set.
In a broad and general game environment, people are as free to develop complicated systems (and share them with others) as they want to be. When complexity begins to enter the picture, those of us without the massive Cray-model braincases, tend to stare blankly at rows and rows of tables and figures, and say "to hell with THAT".
I think my entire point was that the more complex you make an official ("canon") ruleset, the more you force the game into being for a certain type of gamer. This is where care needs to be applied in canon. Realizing that those who require a greater level of detail can oftentimes work that out for themselves (which is what I see taking place in forums like this all of the time...), while those of us who sit around on stump-posts with rather vacant stares can still run a decent game that doesn't take an advanced degree to administer.
I think that "canon" ought to apply more to the literary backstory of the OTU, and NOT apply to whatever versions of a ruleset are being knickered about.
But just like any other belief system mankind creates, there will always be differences. The Emperor is dead/The Emperor is not dead. Schisms, heresy, and blasphemy will all keep their happy appointments with the soul of our game...and I say let 'em come. Let the people who play the game be the ones who develop their own complex or simple mechanics. As soon as you develop some official version of them, you remove that element of the game from their control.
 
Originally posted by signless:

Therein lies my problem with changes to "canon". Any addition to the official ruleset puts further limits on any GM, in almost any setting. Mechanical "canon" changes irritate me.
Click to expand...
I've stayed out of this debate because I personally think canon is for those who write products for the game and for Talmudic scholarly types.


However the above confuses me. I've never heard the word canon applied to rules or Traveller having an "official" ruleset. The first rule of any rpg IMO is use what rules you like and discard the ones you don't want.

And with Traveller in print in several different rulesets and several "unofficical" adapations, there's no way there's an official Traveller ruleset even if someone said there was one. And if that ever happened I'd just laugh and continue on my merry way.

For me the key thing is playing a game and having a good time not nitpicky debates on mechanics or setting. If something I think's useful comes along I nab it and throw it in the mix.


Casey
 
there are two reasons for canon: productivity and communicability.

there is one reason for far future enterprises to exist, and it's the same reason any company exists: to sell products that people can't make or obtain for themselves. most traveller gamers are intelligent enough (or, at least, opinionated enough) to make quite a few gaming materials by themselves, and to enjoy doing so. what does far future enterprises produce that we cannot produce ourselves? this will be a de facto canon that is economically enforced.

we all stand around saying we play (or play with) traveller, but given the number of full rulesets and myriad houserules what does that mean? if I or my players wander from my game to your game, what rules and assumptions will be held in common? if you write an adventure, can I use it in my game? whatever is shared between refs and games is a de facto canon enforced by the game itself.

if a referee doesn't need far future enterprises, and does not communicate with other refs and players for whatever reason, then the idea of canon doesn't go very far.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:


'Feats' are a game mechanic from T20. They're system specific things that never even existed in Traveller before anyway. That sort of thing can't really be helped, short of changing rulesets.
Click to expand...
Nor did I say otherwise. I just said it is hard to translate. I can translate (using the BITS Task System) most CT/MT/TNE/T4 stuff into one another. But T20 is.... a harder mate up.
</font>[/QUOTE]FWIW most of the feats in T20 provide Traveller flavor to d20 skills (Carousing or Connections (Streetwise) to the Gather Information Skill for example which could map to say levels in CT Carousing or Streetwise) or could be dropped mechanics wise for character flavor in CT/MT/TNE/T4 and IIRC 5 ranks in a T20 skill equals 1 level in a CT skill.

Also this thread has some thoughts on mapping the T20 task system into the BITS task system (much kudos to BITS) which you may find useful. It's a start at least.

And GT has a pretty good conversion section. (at least for characters) Use the BITS task system for tasks. And when in doubt fudge it or roll a dice! ;)

Casey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top