Revised CT?

[aramis]

It could be argued that TNE or T4 is NOT the same usniverse as CT/MT, as the primary N-space drives don't work the same way...

And the rules differences make huges setting differences.

In CT/MT/T20, you can expect a ship to be able to routinely make 1.99 jumps per month.

In TNE, you can't assume that; in fact, due to far less delta-v available, you can often find 1.2 jumps per moth difficult.

T4 is yet again another paradigm; those clunky delta-v restricted HEPlaRs are still there, but TPlates come back.

In TNE, CT, MT, T4 and T20, the effects of a hit by a Gauss Rifle vary a good bit. TNE, MT, T4, and T20 all reduce damage for worn armor. CT makes it harder to be hit, rather than reducing damage, for worn armor. Likewise, a hit under CT does base damage. Under MT, damage varies by quality of hit, from negligible (x1/2 for hit roll quality) to lethal (x8). Under TNE, damage is not routinely affected by quality of hit; double damage on crits is there. T4, I don't recall modifications to damage by hit quality, only for armor, but I'm too #!&^## lazy to look it up. T20 has a critical for a damage multiplier by weapon, and has some effects of damage reduced by armor except on crits; in T20 a young kid goes out well before death; SgtMaj Grizzly, 30 year vet, however, will die before passing out if unarmored, and may die before passing out even if armored.

A ruleset is a set of definitions for how the universe operates; certain thigns are consistant for the setting across rulesets:
There is a big empire called the 3rd imperium, founded by a man named Cleon. It has nobles, a big navy, big ships in the navy, a marine corps, a scout service, psionic enemies called the Zhodani, paranoid enemies called the Solomani, Technophile Starfish-like aliens called Hivers as sometimes allies, sometimmes not, 2D Jumpspace, jumps take around 7 days, the year is 365 days even, 1G=10m/s^2, C=300Mm/s, firearms are still viable, and gravitic lift vehicles (even if that grav lift is actually only 99% of weight in TNE); all seem to have really extremely long range lasers.

Lots of details vary widely:
JFuel: CT, T4, T20, GT: 10% of hull per Jn per jump of Jn Pc.
MT and TNE: 5*(Jn+1)% of hull per Jump of Jn Pc
TPlates: Explicit in MT, T4
Explicitly NOT in Canon TNE
can be inferred from CT, but not explicitly there
GT: Don't recall
T20: implied but, IIRC, not explicit in T20.
Gravitically Focussed Lasers:
CT, MT, T20: can be inferred from the ranges to exist
TNE,T4:explicitly there to get the ranges listed in CT.
GT: Don't know
Cybernetics:
CT: not mentioned in core materials
MT: mentioned in passing, no rules in core
TNE: rules in core (specifically, FF&S) for numerous cyber items
T4: similar to TNE. Don't recall if any are in T4 core book
T20: in core book
GT: not in core book, but references to other GURPS products wich have them are.

 

[Lord Iron Wolf]

Good Idea Hunter;

I would love to see and buy a Classic Traveller revision that put all the scattered sources together. If my character carries a gauss rifle I want to see it in the same chart as a shotgun instead of looking it up in Mercenary. If I carry a concealed Gauss pistol, I don't want to have to look it up in JTAS #? just to know if it is effective against jack. Underwater gear??? oh yeah--that's in FASA's Undersea Environment book. ReEntry kit that's in JTAS...what. One of the other players has a beaked monkey or is that a cinnimon rat? Where the hell did that component disapppear to. I need to put this burnt out navigation module together again? "High Port this is a Serpent Class scoutship, not a standard S type and definitely not a Droyne scout--hold your fire!"

Classic Traveller was protean when it was put together over the course of 10+ years. Even in the reprints things are spread out and difficult to find during a game session. A book which put everything together in an easy to access format would be a godsend. (This scattered information is making Optical Character Recognition and a publishing program look more and more tempting to get a workable book for my personal use!)

A couple of other suggestions to a Classic Traveller revised.

*Good Cover Art: David Dietrick if possible in a style like his Alien Modules and others. It would have the right feel for Classic.

*Interior Art: good pen and ink-I don't care if you reuse some of the best art that Traveller had before as long as we had mucho illustrations to give a feel to the universe. (The stuff in T20 looks like in needs to be colored and stuck in a comic.)

*Full Charts for weapons and other things

*Ship Deckplans besides being eye candy it is a lot easier to visualize or play out combat. Be sure to include variants and alien deck plans: Zho, Vargr, Droyne, ect. Full size, FASA style deck plans in color if possible (a seperate pack or box)

*25mm or Heroic 28mm miniatures for characters and plotting out combat on mats or ship deck plans.

*Some ships too for space combat with missles, sand and vector combat.

*Referee: things like how to do a fleshed out world by extrapolating from the rolls of the UWP (I wish you could do something like Grand Census and Grand Survey.)

*Keep the format of the book simple & clear to allow older gamers a chance to read the book--I'm already wearing progressive lenses on my glasses!

Basically taking Traveller and its many sources and putting them together (Traveller, Early FASA, Dragon magazine articles, Space Gamer, JTAS and other sources and turning them into an easily usable source for Classic Traveller campaigns would be welcomed by the Traveller community--expecially us older gamers.

And Hunter--Thank You for considering the idea of integrating Classic Traveller to a usable format. Some of us have been waiting for it for over 20 years.

Lord Iron Wolf

 

[robject]

Well, as far as weapons go, that's currently a fan project. Peter Vernon's Consolidated Equipment List is here:

http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/peter/vehicles.html

 

[Gaming Glen]

Originally posted by Lord Iron Wolf:
Good Idea Hunter;

I would love to see and buy a Classic Traveller revision that put all the scattered sources together. If my character carries a gauss rifle I want to see it in the same chart as a shotgun instead of looking it up in Mercenary. If I ...

Now this gives a good reason to do it, IFall the CT stuff from over the years is put together in a more gamer-friendly package. And it must update its technology (i.e., no more over-sized computers).


Glen

P.S. I'll check with my partner about those distributors, we do order from them occassionaly but usually from Gameboard.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
I also never compared Darksun, (never heard of it) to any of the traditional D&D settings.

Dark Sun was AD&D's other "desert setting" (al-Qadim being the first). It was a very harsh world where magic sapped the life out of the land, there were no clerics, and pretty much everything was psionic. It was a pretty interesting take on things. Obviously, it is different universe to Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, which is your standard vanilla D&D fantasy. But it's still D&D.

I compared 4 traditional D&D settings. And made an analogy between them being different settings the same way the major settings in Traveller are different.

The D&D settings are not in the same universe. As they stand now (with Spelljammer long defunct), you couldn't hop between them.

But you could hop between Gateway, Spinward Marches, the Rim, or any other sector in Charted Space because they are the same universe.

Remember, I raised this point because people couldn't even agree what Traveller actually was. I think the most logical and useful way to define it is to separate the ruleset ("Traveller") from the universe ("Charted Space"). And very clearly, from looking at a map of Charted Space that's appeared in all the versions of Traveller, you can see that Gateway, the Rim, the Marches, etc are ALL PART OF THE SAME UNIVERSE. And the upcoming GT:Interstellar Wars setting, T4's Mileu 0, the CT "Golden Age", MT's "Rebellion/Hard times" and TNE's "Collapse/1248" eras are all different parts of the history of the same universe too.

You can't do that with D&D. While Spelljammer raised the possibility that they were all different planets in the same magical universe, that doesn't really mean much. You may as well say that all the GURPS settings are actually part of the same universe because you can hop between them in an alternate universe campaign. In practical terms, that isn't the case, it's merely provided as an option for the GM to tie things together. But for all practical purposes Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and all the other published worlds are completely separate universes.

They aren't the same.
*snip*
Vegans will be almost exclusive to the Solomani Rim. Swordworlders would be pretty exclusive to the Spinward Marches, Kafoe would be pretty much exclusive to Gateway.

The "feel" of it, or the practical crossover potential is irrelevant for this purpose. Texas, Maine, Idaho, and California are geographically and culturally distinct "settings" in the US, but they're still all part of the United States of America. The latter is true regardless of how likely you are to find a Texan in Maine, or a Californian in Idaho.

On the other hand if I walk out the city gates of Waterdeep, or Greyhawk or THe CItystate of the Invincible Overlord I would expect to find Orcs, Goblins, Gnolls, Orgres, Dragons, and all of them are the same no matter which city I leave.

That's largely because D&D games don't make a big deal out of the geographical distribution of their monsters. In the D&D homebrew game I'm playing in, you can't find Goblins outside of the mountains that surround my character's homeland. You only find giants in another mountain range to the south. Orcs were found only in the plains to the east of our homeland. And so on.

Yet you declare these different settings. But settings that are actually different are the same simply because the area between them is better defined?

The places don't have the same feel. Things that work one way in one are different in the other, even though the physics are the same the laws are not. Just like the difference between walking down the street in Downtown Indianapolis, IN vs. Bed Sty, Brooklyn, NY. [/QB]

The problem with your definition of "settings" is that it's not useful for defining what Traveller is. It's nothing to do with "feel" - that's an entirely subjective thing. You can however objectively and unambiguously say that all the different locales and eras that have been published for Traveller so far - Diaspora, Gateway, Reaver's Deep, the Marches and Rim, etc - are part of the same universe.

That's what makes all of it the "Charted Space" universe, which is distinct from the "2320AD" universe, the "Honor Harrington" universe, and the "Aldenata" universe. That distinction is going to become important now, because for the first time the Traveller ruleset (in T20) is going to be supporting several different "official" universes that use the same rules.


Now, between all the different editions of the game, there have been some rules and tech differences. And those would have to be filed off so that everything can be made consistent too (using one ruleset for everything (e.g. T20) would help). For example, HEPLaR should still be an option, but the vast majority of ships in TNE should have standard Thruster plates for consistency with the other eras/editions. Those are more major "reality shifts" though, but they'd be necessary to make things consistent across the different eras of the same universe.

 

[Pompe]

You can't do that with D&D. While Spelljammer raised the possibility that they were all different planets in the same magical universe, that doesn't really mean much. You may as well say that all the GURPS settings are actually part of the same universe because you can hop between them in an alternate universe campaign. In practical terms, that isn't the case, it's merely provided as an option for the GM to tie things together. But for all practical purposes Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and all the other published worlds are completely separate universes.

Not in the official Planescape setting...

 

[Lord Iron Wolf]

Gentlemen,

Why are we argueing the fine points of Dungeons & Dragons settings on a Traveller bulletin board?

Lord Iron Wolf

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Lord Iron Wolf:
Why are we argueing the fine points of Dungeons & Dragons settings on a Traveller bulletin board?

Because it's relevant. D&D has been published using a similar model to Traveller: you have the core rules, and then you have the different game universes to play in (with their different sub-settings).

The difference is that D&D hasn't got all confused over what it's actually supposed to be, whereas Traveller has.

 

[Malenfant]

Not in the official Planescape setting...

Again though - as with Spelljammer, that's a retrofit.

Rules differences aside, All the Charted Space settings for Traveller are in the same universe - that much I think everyone can agree on. (OK, except GT, but up til the point where Strephon is assassinated, it's the same universe as CT).

Things like 2320AD, Honor Harrington, and Aldenata are not in the same universe as the Charted Space universe.

If there was some way to link them (I dunno, an alternate reality hyperdrive, wibbly spatial anomaly or something) then you'd have a situation like Spelljammer or Planescape - a backdoor means to transfer characters from one universe to another. But that aside, they're still completely distinct, separate universes.

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Pompe:
Not in the official Planescape setting...

Except that going from place to place on Planescape's Great Wheel is more akin to hopping on the Heart of Gold or Jamie hitting the wrong button AGAIN on the Tardis and going from the OTU TNE to Cadallics & Dinosaurs and then to TW2K than from going from the Spinward Marches to Gateway via a Scout Ship. While I adore Planescape the whole multiverse material plane thing seemed more like a sales gimmick after all those settings were made than anything else. 'Sides Berk, all the action's in the planes!

In 3E (Planescape was 2E) Faerun and Ebberon don't connect to the Great Wheel and the whole plane concept turned into more of a toolkit than adhering to one set concept. Since the Planescape books were mostly fluff anyway it’s possible to run a 3E Planescape game but it’s also as easily possible for a GM to run their own plane setting or use the ones in other published settings. In 2E all you had was the Great Wheel and not everyone liked the concept or Planescape.

Casey

 

[aramis]

Not all traveller was in the 3ITU...

Traveller 2300 was not. And I bought it and used it for both the 3I and 2300 millieux.

CT and MT are clearly the same universe.

TNE is, fundamentally, a very different view of both the setting, and the nature of the universe, and fundamentally, of the nature of aliens and technology.

It was the thing that, at the time, fractured the nature of traveller discussion into CT/MT vs TNE; the views were not then, and are not now, compatible beyond some cursory elements. The fundamentla outlook of the universe, as expressed in the setting materials was different. (To me, it felt like the whole settting I'd been running was classed as an alternate unvierse... )

T4 was not even worth describing as a setting. It was CT at Tl12, noting more, setting wise. When it should have been more than just that.

GT is CLEARLY not the same universe, and the more GT develops, the further afield it drifts, by adding details which invalidate whole swatches of contradictory details.

T20 tries to adhere to a CT standard; for using a mechanically unrelated rules engine it does a good job.

But those mechanical differences for MT, TNE, T4, and GT are part of the "Universe" in which they operate; in fact those rules are NOT separated universe from rulebook.

So, post MT, until T20, there really wasn't a generic "traveller" ruleset. And even T20 is strongly tied to the OTU in the core book, just not quite as tightly as MT.

Which brings the point: Either CT-Rev'ed needs to be setting free, or to embrace the setting fully. No wishy washy half-embracing mode. (MT was worst on that for core rules... just enough to confuse newbies and not enough for old hands nor newbies).

Only CT was truly generic...

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Not all traveller was in the 3ITU...

It's pretty obvious to me that all the Charted Space settings were in the same universe.

Traveller 2300 was not. And I bought it and used it for both the 3I and 2300 millieux.

Traveller 2300 is not any form of "Traveller", despite the name. That's why its name was changed to 2300AD. It didn't use remotely the same rules (it could have used CT rules and then it would have justified using the name - but it didn't), the same assumptions, or the same universe.

Confusingly perhaps, 2320AD WILL be Traveller, because it uses the Traveller rules (just like Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun can still both be called D&D games), But it won't be the same universe as the Charted Space universe.

CT and MT are clearly the same universe.

TNE is, fundamentally, a very different view of both the setting, and the nature of the universe, and fundamentally, of the nature of aliens and technology.

OK, there are definitely some differences in the assumptions in TNE (HEPlaR, for example). And the AI Virus is considerably more modern than anything CT ever came up with (though that said, the Cymbeline chips first appeared in a CT adventure...). That can be "rectified" though, simply by changing things so that - apart from Virus - all the tech is otherwise the same as before.

But despite that, and despite the radically different feel of the setting, it IS still the same universe, whether you like it or not. TNE is what happens after the end of the Civil War in MT. It's a logical progression. It is still the Charted Space Universe. The same Major Aliens are all there. The same Sectors are still there. The same History is still there (and it IS still there. It may not be particularly relevant anymore, but it doesn't change the fact that what came before in MT and CT did come before).

T4 was not even worth describing as a setting. It was CT at Tl12, noting more, setting wise. When it should have been more than just that.

I can't really comment on T4, since I don't have the settings books. But still, it's the dawn of the 3I. Same universe as all of the above.

GT is CLEARLY not the same universe, and the more GT develops, the further afield it drifts, by adding details which invalidate whole swatches of contradictory details.

No, it's clearly the same universe to me - at least up till Strephon doesn't get assassinated. Some mechanical and tech interpretations may be different, but it's all the same history up til 1115, same aliens, etc etc. After the assassination doesn't happen though, then sure, you can say it's an alternate.

In a way, GT has been the most unfettered form of Traveller. It's been free to take what came before and hammer it into some kind of consistent, usable shape. You claim it's invalidating "whole swathes of detail"? If it does (and I've seen no evidence that this is the case in GT), then that's because that detail made little sense in the first place, and so I'd gladly say 'good riddance' to that kind of "detail".

T20 tries to adhere to a CT standard; for using a mechanically unrelated rules engine it does a good job.

And the Gateway era (and TNE:1248) are still the same universe as CT and all of the above.

But those mechanical differences for MT, TNE, T4, and GT are part of the "Universe" in which they operate; in fact those rules are NOT separated universe from rulebook.

I'll grant you that switching from thruster plates to HEPLar was a big change, and that did change things somewhat. But at no point between 1115 and 1200 did people suddenly decide to switch to HEPlar to drive their ships. I see it as attempt to do a 'reality shift' - to retrofit the universe: they use it as the standard tech in TNE, so they always did it. Unfortunatly, it didn't work out in practise though, because people didn't want to accept that change.

So instead say that TNE was wrong about the tech used in the Charted Space universe, and change things so that they used thruster plates like they always did. Problem solved. It doesn't really change anything else about the setting though.

I'm not disagreeing that there are some major tech differences in some of the editions. But still - those are matters of mechanics: the actual game universe is still basically the same throughout all the editions. If TNE was supposed to be a totally different universe (like 2300AD), then it would have been designed as one to start with - there would never have been any Imperiums or Ancients or Civil War, the alien races would have been utterly different, and absolutely nothing would be the same other than the fact that it was an interstellar scifi game. That wasn't the case though - it was specifically set in Charted Space, and that's where it belongs.
Wishing that it wasn't part of the same universe isn't going to change the fact that it is.

So, post MT, until T20, there really wasn't a generic "traveller" ruleset. And even T20 is strongly tied to the OTU in the core book, just not quite as tightly as MT.

It is, and that's going to be a problem for T20 if it's going to be used as the core rules for all these other universes.

Which brings the point: Either CT-Rev'ed needs to be setting free, or to embrace the setting fully. No wishy washy half-embracing mode. (MT was worst on that for core rules... just enough to confuse newbies and not enough for old hands nor newbies).

Well, if it does happen I think it should be completely setting-free.

Only CT was truly generic...

CT is no more generic than T20 is though. In fact, it may even be slighly less generic than T20, which at least tries to throw in some cyber and biotech.

 

[aramis]

Funny, but Traveller 2300 uses an almost identical task system to MT. (1d10 instead of 2d6.) It shares a number of concepts.

Argue til you are blue in the face, TNE doesn't reflect the realities the same way as CT nor MT, and with the setting tied to the rules, the rules clearly show a very different universe.

One which is supposedly the outcome of the CT-MT paradigm... but many of us could not buy into it. Not that it isnt one of several very close TU's.

as for GT: Gt is an affront to many, and a godsend to many. I am in the former category, as it pins down (in oft irrational to me ways) needless and excessive details.

System matters. Systems released to a setting describe that setting's universe. And the universe protrayed in TNE is cleary NOT the same universe as CT. And by extension, the fundamental mechanical differences make MT a different universe from CT and TNE, and T4 is yet again different, alogh a shade closer to what is in CT.

System is part of canon. Therefore there are now 6 different canon sets, which all are pale immitations of MWM's vision of the 7th, the original, TU. (If ever MWM actually had such a vision himself. )

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Aramis:
GT is CLEARLY not the same universe, and the more GT develops, the further afield it drifts, by adding details which invalidate whole swatches of contradictory details.

On the contrary, the contradictory details themselves invalidate each other, the problem being that if one detail is correct then the contradictory one is wrong and vice versa, but there's no way to tell which one is the correct one [*]. Thus every time GT nails something down, it validates a tiny part of the OTU.

(T20 could do the same, but sadly Hunter and Martin doesn't agree with my opinion in this matter .

[*] Well, sometimes a detail is so unlikely that I think it's obvious which one is correct, but unfortunately that's a matter of opinion, and sadly not everyone agrees with me.


Hans

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by rancke:
On the contrary, the contradictory details themselves invalidate each other, the problem being that if one detail is correct then the contradictory one is wrong and vice versa, but there's no way to tell which one is the correct one [*]. Thus every time GT nails something down, it validates a tiny part of the OTU.

(T20 could do the same, but sadly Hunter and Martin doesn't agree with my opinion in this matter .

Ok call me confused on what you are talking about...


Hunter

 

[jchurchill]

Things like 2320AD,.....are not in the same universe as the Charted Space universe.

================================================
Color me insane but Traveller 2300 and 2300AD could in fact exist in the same overall story/universe as CT/MT/TNE. 2300 could take place before the first meetings of the Vilani and Terrans.

CT as a generic system: The first release of CT was generic as there was no Imperium per se and only the adventures began to flesh out the details of the imperium. As someone who began with LLB1-3 and no adventures I remember much discussion about the settings and the nature of the government [Whose navy? Whose army? Whose scout service?]

Even by the end of CT there were still fairly large gaps in knowledge about "The Imperium" and what is really was. I never saw MT until very very recently but it appears to be much more interwoven with the rules. Probably so many people complaining that there was not a bip picture setting to campaign in.

And on the D&D front -- if you have the very first set -- whatever it is called now [D&D -1.0?]
note that there is no "setting" and the players and DM's are told to look to Conan, ERB's John Carter and Tolkien for inspiration and settings.
[No doubt before the flurry of copyright infringement actions lighted gently upon those desks in Wisconsin.]

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Aramis:
[QB] Funny, but Traveller 2300 uses an almost identical task system to MT. (1d10 instead of 2d6.) It shares a number of concepts.

So? It's still not the same world, anymore than Dark Sun is the same as Forgotten Realms.

Argue til you are blue in the face,

That's all I seem to do with you...

TNE doesn't reflect the realities the same way as CT nor MT, and with the setting tied to the rules, the rules clearly show a very different universe.

One which is supposedly the outcome of the CT-MT paradigm... but many of us could not buy into it. Not that it isnt one of several very close TU's.

This is entirely a problem with YOUR PERCEPTION of the situation, not the reality of it. If you want to clamp your hands around your ears and say "lalala I can't hear you" when people point out that TNE is the same universe as MT and CT - and it quite blindingly obvious that it is - then that's your decision.

Whether you "buy into it" is utterly irrelevant - that's the one that resulted in canon, and either you accept it for what it is (i.e. the continuation of canonical history in the Charted Space universe) or you ignore it and go wandering down your own "Charted Space Universe". But in the latter case, you don't get to go round saying "bah, it's not the same universe" when in fact it it is. It may not be what you wanted to see, but it doesn't change the fact that it's there.

Sure, some of the technical details are different. But you're looking too closely there - the intent is clearly that it's the same universe as before.

as for GT: Gt is an affront to many, and a godsend to many. I am in the former category, as it pins down (in oft irrational to me ways) needless and excessive details.

Yes, you've made this quite obvious in your somewhat biased assessments of GT . While it does go into much more detail than other versions of the game (and this is a good thing, IMO), you've yet to demonstrate how anything provided in GT is "irrational". GT's probably had more thought put into it by its authors than all of the official Charted Space settings that came before it put together.

System matters. Systems released to a setting describe that setting's universe. And the universe protrayed in TNE is cleary NOT the same universe as CT. And by extension, the fundamental mechanical differences make MT a different universe from CT and TNE, and T4 is yet again different, alogh a shade closer to what is in CT.

That's totally obfuscating the point. Currently, the only Traveller setting that has been published is the Charted Space Universe. And all of the various Traveller games that have been published share that universe. The system is merely the means of simulating a given fictional universe - it's our interface as players and GMs to that world. It's quite clear that all the versions of the Charted Space Traveller games are describing the same fictional universe (even if they do it slightly differently), and that's all that matters here.

System is part of canon. Therefore there are now 6 different canon sets, which all are pale immitations of MWM's vision of the 7th, the original, TU. (If ever MWM actually had such a vision himself.)

I disagree entirely - system is not and should not be a part of canon. The system is the way the universe is described to us - the way the universe actually works, descriptively, is what's more important. And that is in the descriptions of the technology and the history and the other background. THAT's what "Traveller canon" is, because if you try and define it according to system then you're going to get absolutely nowhere because the systems are mostly incompatible.

 

[aramis]

Ah, but the descriptions of how the tecch works differ form setting to setting... the physics differ. The relative value of a BB varies.

As for the illogical details: a lot of details have been added and a number have been replaced in GT. Specifically world descriptions on the spinward main. Lots of little bits of detail. The economics of GTFT: I find it unplayable; it may be a fairly realistic ruleset, but it is cumbersome. It influences most later supplements. There is nothing comparable in detail level, but it is a very clear difference from the closest things in prior canon: World Tamer's HB and the various T&C mechanics.

MT describes a system of physics for the MT-TU which uses considerably less fuel (at the same costs per unit fuel) for jump 2 and higher. That makes huge differences in the anture of ships and shipping. TNE uses the same JFuel as MT, but uses a vastly different set of assumptions about drives, and CLEARLY changes canon to "No T-Plates", which is later (T4 revised back). CT, T4, and T20 use a higher Jfuel rate than MT and TNE, and none require the extensive M-Fuel of TNE. So the universe describe is superficially similar, but in practice, very different on the details.

They are all different in the effects of firearms as well... The CT and MT TU's have laser rifles, laser carbines, and laser pistols, all of which require backpack power cells. TNE's TU instead uses chemical lasers, with no backpacks. T4 describes overall a hgiher level of technological prowes (aside from drives) than does CT or MT, and may be a bit higher than TNE puts forth, but not terrifically so.

These, to you, Mal, are trivialities... but in terms of runnign the game, these diffierences create very different universes from a character level.

Likewise, the ability to generate competent characters is a very different scenario. Under CT, level 1 was fairly competent (in most game groups). Under MT, Level 1-3 (attribute dependant) was competence (a +3 total DRM) in terms of skill completion. Under TNE or T4, skill levels of 1-8 might be needed, again attribute dependant, to be truly cmpetent. Under GT, one purchases competency (A 15, IIRC, is considered competent). Essentially, the nature of CG has a real impact on what players can be expected to know, and by extention, what people in the setting can be expected to know, and to what level. By competent, I mean able to complete routine tasks more than 90% of the time, except in GT, which defines the term in the GURPS job rules. In GT, for example, a character can be compentent in a whide range of fields. In TNE, likewise. T4, one can be competent in several fields. In MT, it is likely that characters will be competent with an average stat at level 2... and it can be hard to obtain multiple (more than 4) competencies with a short career (0-2 terms).

Likewise: Background skills: In CT, there really are none. In MT, they are merely enough to avoid unskilled penalties. In TNE, it's possible, but unlikely, to be employable as a skilled individual, at age 18. In T4, 18Yo's can be employable as skilled individuals. In GT, it's possible to be employable at 14 (but the character winds up being fairly one-dimensional). In T20, all 18 YO's have a moderately wide but shallow skill base... few are truly able to be competent at routine tasks... but good atts can make it so.

Things like this truly make the nature of the TU very different from a character scale view in each edition.

That the overarching super-historical view is not entirely consistent (Every edition has depracated bits of prior editions except for GT, which by definition is an alternate universe).

Now, one could run the TNE setting with CT, or CT with TNE, or any other such thing, but from a player-character standpoint, each ruleset descrbes a very different universe.

CT decribes a particular physical universe, but then has multiple variant approaches (Striker, AHL, Snapshot; Mayday, Bk2, HG, HG+Mayday) for a numebr of things.

All other editions have far fewer "alternate approaches" and tie setting materials into the tables and mechanics to varying degrees. (MT's HArd Times is a key point... it describes specific setting changes caused by backstory.)

TNE, likewise is not "Generic" in a rules sense; the encounter tables are tightly tied to the virus setting, and don't even replicate the textual descriptions accurately. Which goe sthe way of the dodo? It varies, but that drags the issue away from the simple matter that, you can't use the TNE encounter tables (Rules-canon) to describe a non-virus setting. You can modify them, as a house rule. You can ignore the virus entries entirely, btu that too is not the universe modelled by the "Stock" TNE rules.

What A CT-R needs is a clear break from being setting-tied. Heck, Traveller, to me, has been as much mechanics as setting materials.

That Hunter has implied a use of T4 skill acquisition rules, well that is a mechanical issue whith direct bearing on the setting perception.

In the OTU is it possible for an 18 YO character to be a competent individual in a career field? Many assume it is, becuase that's the way life is... a few can be, within narrow fields, and a broad-based minimal competentcy at a wide variety of things.

In T20, it's also possible, but due to the mechanics, that character has dropped his feats AND skills to max out and be employable at 1st level.

In GT, it is easy to do; 28 points of skills are sufficient to get the 15/12/12/12 typically required to be employed..

In T4, if one picks BG skills, one can easily get 3 in one skill; if one rolls, getting 2 is hard.

In CT, 18YO's are by definition incompetent, having NO skills. (Gun Combat 0 isn't acquired til prior service begins!)

In MT, 18 YO's are not employable for their skills (2-4 level 0 skills), but can sometimes get by with good atts.

So, system matters on how one treats the setting: if PC's can't be employably skilled by 18, then all 18YO's are apprentices or students of one form or another... which is very different from GURPS, where one can have a competent "Naval Architecht", say, who is 14 YO... or T4.

And the fact that the systems are incompatible is an issue. A CT B is differnet from an MT BB in terms of what it can do (mildly different, tho); A CT and T20 BB have the same stats, but VERY different expected results. (Hunter was sensitive to this effect in development.) A CT BB often can't be built to spec in TNE... either the armaments are very different, or the ship has no range to speak of, or is faster, or slower, due to very different tech paradigms; finding surface area to mount things is a problem, mostly due to considerations of radiator area for the PP. T4 has radiator area issues, as well. So, which system is the caanon model of how ships work? All? None? CT? T20?

I'm not sayig Hunter shouldn't do whatever he thinks will make money and draw players... I am saing that CT-R needs to be done with consideration for the rules' effects on setting perception, or needs to be entirely non-setting, and leave the rules tweaking to relfect the setting to the GM...

and remember that there comes a point where setting issues deferr to rules issues as the detail becomes more player-centric... and that this has an effect on canon directly.

 

[Malenfant]

Well, yeah, the rules are different between the games, I'm not disputing that. But that doesn't mean the universes are different. What you were saying is like suggesting that a historical game set in Victorian England is in a different universe to a historical WWII game - obviously they're not.

Like I said, the system is merely the way that the universe is presented to us. The underlying universe is the same throughout though.

Obviously T4, CT, MT, TNE, and 1248 are all set in the Charted Space universe. How we SEE that universe - as GMs and players - is generally what's changed (there have been inconsistencies, true). And frankly, the differences in system don't really matter between each version unless you're planning to hop between systems for some odd reason - it doesn't matter how employable 18 year olds are or how lasers work in each version unless you're planning to switch between them, right? So the differences are entirely academic for most games - they're noticeable by players, but the characters played using a given edition certainly won't notice. I mean, how many times does anyone convert characters between different eras nowadays anyway?

The only system that you need to worry about in whatever game of Traveller you're playing is the one that you're using. It doesn't matter in practise what the other editions say when you're in a game.

I mean, I play D&D3.5e at the moment. And I really don't care how different the rules are from 3.0, or AD&D2e or AD&D1e or D&D. It's utterly irrelevant to me, because I'm not converting anything between the games, either when I'm running it or playing it.

So why should it matter to you that something is different in one version of Traveller compared to another version? So long as each version is internally consistent, who cares?!


I agree though, Traveller should be a single set of rules, that are independent of setting. So far, the T20 rules are the best hope for that, but it still needs some tweaking to fully realise its potential as a totally versatile, adaptable core for all the games that will use it.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

From the viewpoint of player and ref:

I actually played different settings CT/MT/TNE with the MT ruleset (quite pure, basically just changed space combat movement and sensoring rules and trade rules by an tiny tweak regarding the base price of cargo).
Though there are many differences (as very pretty presented by Aramis) we never had any problems to shift from one setting to the other.

What I ever needed for a setting was:
- astrographic data, UWPs etc.
- a timeline and a "whats going on here" text
- a bunch of detailed background data
(polictics, factions, institutions)..
Well, thats it.
All the rest (characters, starships, equipment etc) was drawn from the rules dependent resources.

Switching from one ruleset to another may be a bit more complicate, but changing setting isnt IMHO.
Right now I even see no rules releated technology assumptions, which had a major impact on the setting.

Well, the rules debate is a very tough thing and we will not proceed here, as everybody actually keeps or tweaks the ruleset as he likes.

If we would try to define the setting, what whould You say about what belongs to that generic usable settings description of the TU ?