SciFi20

[Garnfellow]

A few questions about the SciFi20 books:

• Does it incorporate errata and clarifications from the Traveller Guidebook?
• Does it include anything from 3.5 or the d20 Modern SRDs?
• Are all of the contents open gaming content?

I thought T20 was a pretty excellent application of the d20 system, particularly considering how early it appeared on the scene. But subsequent iterations like 3.5 and d20 Modern made some tweaks that would have improved T20 -- things like skill consolidation and additional feats.

 

[savage]

Didn't buy it. Most of us with T20 probably didn't. Hunter may have incorporated fixes. It would've been easy enough but he was rushed to production to replace T20 and stay in business.

D20M. Hunter controlled his ship design process.

 

[aramis]

A few questions about the SciFi20 books:

• Does it incorporate errata and clarifications from the Traveller Guidebook?
• Does it include anything from 3.5 or the d20 Modern SRDs?
• Are all of the contents open gaming content?

I thought T20 was a pretty excellent application of the d20 system, particularly considering how early it appeared on the scene. But subsequent iterations like 3.5 and d20 Modern made some tweaks that would have improved T20 -- things like skill consolidation and additional feats.

No, No, and No. It's just T20 minus the distinctive traveller elements.

 

[robject]

Well asked, and well answered. I myself was browsing DriveThruRPG looking for the "Traveller's Handbook" with the T20 starship design rules... and the "handbook" there appears to be truncated.

I may have to get it on Amazon. Ah, or FFE's CD.

 

[Garnfellow]

I think there could be a real opportunity for someone here to develop a SciFi20 2.0 -- take the many lessons learned from d20 Modern and other late-era d20 games and apply them to the T20 engine.

 

[savage]

There is no Hunter left to negotiate with he needed to mature the product. The income probably goes to relatives. Is it even on the FFE CD? I doubt it.

He even mentioned moving it to D20 Future...so is it worth it?

Get the OGL, right your own rules, avoid all lawsuits and run arounds.

 

[aramis]

There is no Hunter left to negotiate with he needed to mature the product. The income probably goes to relatives. Is it even on the FFE CD? I doubt it.

He even mentioned moving it to D20 Future...so is it worth it?

Get the OGL, right your own rules, avoid all lawsuits and run arounds.

Hunter is survived by his son.

I should expand my earlier terse comments.

SF20 didn't include all the T20 errata; it differs in several places intentionally, and not all the errata was deemed worth carrying forward, since some of it was for OTU compatibility.

SF20 has a few bits of product identity, and the design sequences weren't all hunter's to release. (He did have permission to use.)

Hunter was not happy with the status quo at release and was working with a couple focus groups to look at migrating it further away from T20. Those actually started from the day the T20 sunset was announced to Hunter. I was involved in one group... but what I saw was clearly not the SF20 ruleset he released. It was... only vaguely compatible with either d20, d20M, d20F, or T20... classless...

But Hunter got sick, then was diagnosed with cancer.

 

[savage]

Hunter is survived by his son.

I should expand my earlier terse comments.

SF20 didn't include all the T20 errata; it differs in several places intentionally, and not all the errata was deemed worth carrying forward, since some of it was for OTU compatibility.

SF20 has a few bits of product identity, and the design sequences weren't all hunter's to release. (He did have permission to use.)

Hunter was not happy with the status quo at release and was working with a couple focus groups to look at migrating it further away from T20. Those actually started from the day the T20 sunset was announced to Hunter. I was involved in one group... but what I saw was clearly not the SF20 ruleset he released. It was... only vaguely compatible with either d20, d20M, d20F, or T20... classless...

But Hunter got sick, then was diagnosed with cancer.

Good to know. I recall his displeasure and I thought he'd mentioned focus groups but didn't know it was progressing, thanks. I was pretty busy back then and not on the inside of development. Any records of what was incorporated and what was not?

 

[aramis]

Good to know. I recall his displeasure and I thought he'd mentioned focus groups but didn't know it was progressing, thanks. I was pretty busy back then and not on the inside of development. Any records of what was incorporated and what was not?

Not that I have anymore; he did most of the SF20 dev via email list, not this BBS.

 

[savage]

Not that I have anymore; he did most of the SF20 dev via email list, not this BBS.

Sad to hear. I've always been curious but why bother with the expense to find out.

 

[estar]

I think there could be a real opportunity for someone here to develop a SciFi20 2.0 -- take the many lessons learned from d20 Modern and other late-era d20 games and apply them to the T20 engine.

I been working on my own RPG because an old friend really likes Dragon/Fantasy Age so I created a very raw adaptation for science fiction campaigns. A bunch of it is adapting d20 stuff and Traveller SRD stuff. For example cybernetics. I don't have much of anything in the way of ship stuff as the first campaign was station based.

So I am curious as to issues that arose from d20 Modern and Scifid20.

Because of it roots in AGE, I am using 3d6 roll high, attributes (like strength) are direct bonus not a number you look up a bonus for. For example a character could have Strength +2, Dex -1. Skills are likewise a bonus. Then there are talents and profession that confer benefits and abilities. Kind of like feats but more organized around a theme.

I found that despite the bell curve of 3d6 the range of bonuses work well with d20 stuff so I been doing a lot of reading up on Traveller20 and D20 Modern. Plus if I ever publish it I can't use AGE so I will need to use something else as the foundation. If I am a hop and a skip away from d20 it is that much easier.

 

[estar]

I was looking through my PDFs of SciFi20 and see what was restricted.

Player's Guide all chapters are open content

Combat Guide all chapters are open content

Design Sequences
The result of the design sequence are open content not the rules themselves.
It covers computer, starships, and vehicles

Planetology
The results of world generation are open content but not the rules themselves
Animal creation is open content.

So we need Computers, Starships, worlds, vehicles.
Which are open content in the Mongoose Traveller SRD.

I don't see much in the MongTrav SRD that would make it overly difficult to use a d20 instead of 2d6 for any task resolution.

So if somebody wants to make a Scifi 2.0 the pieces are all there.

 

[rich4421972]

So if somebody wants to make a Scifi 2.0 the pieces are all there.

Perhaps it would need a slightly different name to differentiate it from previous projects.

 

[aramis]

I was looking through my PDFs of SciFi20 and see what was restricted.

Player's Guide all chapters are open content

Combat Guide all chapters are open content

Design Sequences
The result of the design sequence are open content not the rules themselves.
It covers computer, starships, and vehicles

Planetology
The results of world generation are open content but not the rules themselves
Animal creation is open content.

So we need Computers, Starships, worlds, vehicles.
Which are open content in the Mongoose Traveller SRD.

I don't see much in the MongTrav SRD that would make it overly difficult to use a d20 instead of 2d6 for any task resolution.

So if somebody wants to make a Scifi 2.0 the pieces are all there.

Note that the only things in the MGT SRD that carry a USP rating are Armor, Hull Size, and Drives. None of the weapons do. And the damage system, if it carried forward, is USP reliant.

 

[estar]

Note that the only things in the MGT SRD that carry a USP rating are Armor, Hull Size, and Drives. None of the weapons do. And the damage system, if it carried forward, is USP reliant.

I don't see the issue here. We can't use the original T20 starship combat rules anyway as they are not open content. So we have to sub in the MgT SRD and the High Guard SRD rules in and modify them to work with d20 mechanics.

The patched result of this and the other substitution is going to result in a different rules system that is compatible with T20 as far as characters goes but starship/vehicle wise it will be Mongoose Traveller 1st edition.

If a potential publisher cared about the remaining compatible with T20 stats the RESULTS of the T20 design sequence can be published as open content. So you could go dual stats.

It a compromise but one that works with the fact that the target of this are hobby publishers/fans making new T20 material.

And who knows? If the fans of T20 like the new rules enough it could be the new standard like Pathfinder is now the standard for the D20 system instead of 3.5. My goal here is to paint the path to how an interested author can make a Traveller 20 based RPG using nothing but open content.

 

[estar]

Perhaps it would need a slightly different name to differentiate it from previous projects.

I agree with you that the name should be different. I would call my take on the rules the Majestic Stars and go from there.

Intellectually I would like to do this as I always been a Traveller and Science Fiction fan. But right now is not a good time. Mainly because as a rule I don't publish what I don't playtest. For various reasons my regular gaming group recently fell apart and I haven't reestablished a new campaign. Until then I don't know what I will be running. It may change in a few week after the current circumstances has changed enough.

For group dynamic reasons I put a lot of work into coming up with a science fiction set of rules and centered the campaign around that. One player who is a good friend is very picky about the RPG rulesets we use for a campaign. The group was tired of fantasy so I came up with a set of rules based round Green Ronin's AGE system.

Luckily I borrowed a lot from d20 Modern because the ranges of bonuses that Fantasy AGE was using is compatible with the bonuses and damage range that d20 Modern uses. So I could rewrite the system to work with T20 and would not be starting from ground zero.

You can take a look at what I did in a very rough form here.

http://roninarmy.com/threads/5177-Majestic-Stars-for-Age

The background of the campaign can be found here.
http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/search/label/Majestic Stars

 

[mike wightman]

If I were going to do an update of T20 I would use the 5eD&D SRD, the OGL stuff from T20, d20 Modern OGL stuff and the MgT 1e OGL stuff (or the Cepheus Engine word document version).

 

[estar]

If I were going to do an update of T20 I would use the 5eD&D SRD, the OGL stuff from T20, d20 Modern OGL stuff and the MgT 1e OGL stuff (or the Cepheus Engine word document version).

I am curious. Why the update to 5e over trying to maintain better compatibility with T20?

My own personal preference is toward the lite end of the scale myself I wrote the Majestic Wilderlands for Swords & Wizardry not Pathfinder so I can understand the appeal of 5e.

 

[rich4421972]

I am curious. Why the update to 5e over trying to maintain better compatibility with T20?

From my perspective, 5th edition d20 has a more logical progression of leveling up according to experience. In addition, 5th edition has a more realistic point-buy option. It would still be

 

[aramis]

I am curious. Why the update to 5e over trying to maintain better compatibility with T20?

My own personal preference is toward the lite end of the scale myself I wrote the Majestic Wilderlands for Swords & Wizardry not Pathfinder so I can understand the appeal of 5e.

T20 is a solid game on its own. It was compatible with the then current D&D (but only just)...

But T20 isn't compatible with D&D 5E. D&D 5E has a few new concepts which are in many ways superior to the D20 system (D&D 3.0 & 3.5, Pathfinder), and a far more approachable ruleset.

T20 diverged from d20 SRD3.0 quite heavily in combat, especially ships.

Having seen 5E, I will simply refuse to play a d20 system game past about level 5.

The biggest factor is the "bounded accuracy" concept. Gushing example in spoiler.

Spoiler:

I've seen 9th level characters actually concerned by sufficient numbers of gargoyles. An attack by 1HD monsters still threatens 9th level PC's.

Gargoyles, while not a real threat, still post a minor threat. 38 HP, do 2 attacks at +4 to hit, doing 1d6+2... vs the 60-80-some HP PC's...

Compatibility with 5E opens up a HUGE player base that has moved on from (or never played) d20. Mearls has implied strongly that 5E sales in the first year outsold 3.5's entire run for the same titled books.

And then, there's the issue that MGT2 has moved in towards 5E-isms, too.

But there's also the Pathfinder Crowd. T20 and SF20 are both 3.0 SRD based. A number of the issues were solved one way by Wizards and Paizo, and a different way by MJD, Hunter, et al. Picking one or the other as the baseline fix-set is the best way to tap into those two huge markets.

So it boils down to, if a new edition were to come out, it should either "Pathfinderize" or "D&D-5E-ize"... because those open it up to more players