Some Basic Notes on the Development

[hunter]

Since there are a ton of questions on just what D20 Traveller is going to be, here are a few basic notes on where we are heading:

Who D20 Traveller is Marketed For
New Players. While we hope the current core group of Traveller fans will check it out, we aren't expecting or counting on converting you. There is nothing wrong with the versions you currently play.

D20 Traveller is shooting for the D20 players out there who haven't ever heard of or never played in the Traveller universe. Someone has to do it!

Classes
Yes there will be classes and/or prestige classes.

Hit Points
There will not be Hit Points as per the D&D and D20 system rules. It will be much closer to CT. There will be some, but very limited increase per level

Races
Currently Human, Vargr, Aslan. Looking to add possibly two (more?) other minor alien races

Homeworld
There is a system to determine your general homeworld characteristics which give you skill and feat adjustments

Prior Service
Yes there will be Prior Service, with the overall effect of raising character level. You will start playing with an 'experienced' character, unless of course you choose NOT to go through Prior Service. Prior Service also includes the University

Starship Design
Almost pure High Guard (CT Book 5)

Ship to Ship Combat
High Guard steps, replacing To Hit and Penetration tables with D20 tasks

World and System Building
Almost pure CT Book 3

Psionics
Very close to CT Psionic rules, but some modifications

Combat
Much easier to die than in D&D or D20 System, with changes to what were Hit Points.

Experience
NO, experience will not be equated to the type and number of creatures/people killed in a game. Guidelines for awarding experience for good role-playing, etc. will be established.

Campaign Setting
Imperial Domain of Gateway, years 950-1050 (Ley, Glimmerdrift, Gateway, Crucis Margin Sectors).

Ideas and suggestions are encouraged and welcomed! We want these new players to enjoy Traveller as much as the rest of us already do!

Hunter



[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 14 May 2001).]

 

[DaveShayne]

A few points even though I'm not your target audience.

Classes. My initial feeling is that this is a mistake. The CT careers don't really equate to classes per se. There are a lot of "classes" available in every CT career with a lot of overlap between them. Perhaps with forethought this problem can be surmounted perhaps the classes could be things like Engineer or Infantryman instead of Navy or Marine.

Hit Points: Are you sure there has to be advancement with these. It's so un-Traveller.

Levels: Try to get starting charecters in the area of level 10 on average. I should think this would probably be the best way to preserve the Traveller feel.

Those are my initial impressions (you did ask) Best of luck.

David Shayne

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Races
Currently Human, Vargr, Aslan. Looking to add possibly two (more?) other minor alien races
[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That far over, shouldn't there also be hiver and k'kree?

Personally, I'd love to see Virush, Newt, and Ael Yael (all from CT... JTAS articles, and best of's), and the ones from the JG domain of antares mateials... but hey, I guess I am a bit of a dreamer...

Seriously, though, how about adding some uplifts, too? (Chimps and Orangutans are obvious, dolphins have been done for CT...) The uplifts would be appropriate for the solomani rim war era...

------------------
-aramis
========================================
Smith & Wesson:
The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[hunter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveShayne:
A few points even though I'm not your target audience.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, as I said we hope current players will get involved too!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Classes. My initial feeling is that this is a mistake. The CT careers don't really equate to classes per se. There are a lot of "classes" available in every CT career with a lot of overlap between them. Perhaps with forethought this problem can be surmounted perhaps the classes could be things like Engineer or Infantryman instead of Navy or Marine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Classes are being used for ease of transition. While aren't building D&D Traveller, the easier it is for a player familiar with that game to learn and quickly begin playing in the Traveller universe.

That said, character classes are one of the areas we have really been tinkering with to make it work within the realms of what Traveller is. I agree that the CT services do not fit 'classes' for a couple of reasons, not the least of which it's kinda hard to adventure while you're on active duty...

We see classes more as a job type or line of work, similar (though not exact) to what you mentioned.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hit Points: Are you sure there has to be advancement with these. It's so un-Traveller.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, then again the players we are introducing the game to are not used to dying
quite so easily. Though they will have to get used to the idea eventually.

The advancements currently are QUITE low, and there are systems in place that ensure that a single well placed shot can drop you like a stone, no matter how many points you have...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Levels: Try to get starting charecters in the area of level 10 on average. I should think this would probably be the best way to preserve the Traveller feel.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the number of terms you serve, but 5 terms will tend to place a character between 5th and 7th level.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Those are my initial impressions (you did ask) Best of luck.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, keep em coming!

Hunter

 

[hunter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aramis:
That far over, shouldn't there also be hiver and k'kree?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are not included as PC races because of playability more than anything else. The K'kree and Hiver both have significant drawbacks to role-playing that take a bit of explanation without doing them injustice, not that a good role-player couldn't handle it... Both are also still not as common as other races in this region (well Aslan are probably as uncommon as K'kree and Hiver but easier to role-play). The K'kree aren't big fans of the meat-eaters of the Imperium, and the Hiver....well the Hiver are the Hiver

One of the reasons Gateway domain never really developed as it was expected to, was due to the underwhelming amount of trade generated from either of these two empires.

Much like the Zhodani from the Spinward Marches campaign the work well as an NPC race rather than as a PC race. They will be factors in our development.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally, I'd love to see Virush, Newt, and Ael Yael (all from CT... JTAS articles, and best of's), and the ones from the JG domain of antares mateials... but hey, I guess I am a bit of a dreamer...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any of the canon minor races already detailed in JTAS, etc... are fine for consideration, as are possible new minor races from this region.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seriously, though, how about adding some uplifts, too? (Chimps and Orangutans are obvious, dolphins have been done for CT...) The uplifts would be appropriate for the solomani rim war era...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually you are correct, and that is a line of though we hadn't gone down, but will have to consider. Gateway was heavily settled by the Solomani

Hunter

 

[kzin]

re: Classes

I'd make a few archetype classes that can be tailored (such as "soldier", with skills that can be tailored to various soldier types, like a marine, a mercenary, etc.). Then I'd give a term system similar to CT's that then gives as a suggestion something like "You were a marine for this term, suggest taking a level in soldier with 2 points of skill A and 1 point of skill B" and so on.

re: hit points

I'd have weapons do damage as temporary constitution damage. I would make hit points an option for space opera games, and they would simply take damage before constitution does (with critical hits not having multipliers, but instead doing damage straight to constitution).

I might also make an _optional_ feat available only to soldiers (and even then maybe only to 5th level and/or higher soldiers) that lets them make a save vs damage ("it just barely missed") as a Reflex save vs 10 + the amount of damage (or the amount by which the shooter beat their necessary to hit value), letting veterans narrowly avoid minor damage. I would, however, only allow this option if hit points were NOT in use, and it's again a means of having a space opera or space fantasy game.

The basic game would still presume that the only thing between a character and death is how many constitution points they have.


Going along these lines preserves basic compatibility with other d20 games, without requiring a heroic feel. I wouldn't want a game that had a vastly different damage or critical system (that would make it hard for me to mix and match elements of different d20 games, the thing that is most appealing to me about d20 (I'm currently running a game similar to the Fallout crpg setting using 3D&D and Star Wars rules mixed together)).

 

[The Shoveller]

Things I didn't see mentioned off the top of my head...

Cybertech, nanotech, and biotech rules: There have been A LOT of advancements in what we know will be possible in these fields since CT was published. Basically, anything that's based on information more than a couple of years old is practically out of date.

"Heavy Gear" style realistic mechs: As goofy as it seems at first glance, these will be used an awful lot. Almost any non-Terran planetary environment will have incredibly rough surface terrain. Rough terrain and wide-bodied armored fighting vehicles do not mix. Ambulatory fighting vehicles would work well in these environments.

Optional Rules for "Heroic" style campaigns: I've posted my reasoning about that already.

Morale/Fear/Insanity rules: These factors get overlooked a lot in game systems.


That's what I can think of immediately.

 

[hunter]

This book is a Core Book. It should contain the basic information needed to get started playing in the Traveller universe.

Some thing are obviously not going to fit in a single book, so we have to be selective as to what will be included.

There could be published supplements that cover things that are left out of the core book.

That said, I'll respond to the ideas:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
Things I didn't see mentioned off the top of my head...

Cybertech, nanotech, and biotech rules: There have been A LOT of advancements in what we know will be possible in these fields since CT was published. Basically, anything that's based on information more than a couple of years old is practically out of date.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true, but how much of this will interfere or outright violate existing canon? That is something we can't and won't do intentionally. EVERYTHING has to pass muster with Marc Miller before it goes into print. Final authority for the go or no-go of ideas and what is or isn't canon lies with him.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Heavy Gear" style realistic mechs: As goofy as it seems at first glance, these will be used an awful lot. Almost any non-Terran planetary environment will have incredibly rough surface terrain. Rough terrain and wide-bodied armored fighting vehicles do not mix. Ambulatory fighting vehicles would work well in these environments.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, 'mechs' are something we have been considering, as part of a vehicle design system and seem feasible given the technology. Our current tinkerings have a very rough system of a mixture of ideas based on Book 2 Starship design, Book 5 starship design, and Book 8 Robots

I would like to see a reasonable vehicle design system that fits with CT and thus the T20 design systems.

Hunter


[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 14 May 2001).]

 

[AndreaV]

I've already mentioned this on JTAS, but is there any chance of a Brubecks chat on T20? I'm sure that there are a fair number of people who'd be interested in asking questions and hearing your plans.

 

[The Shoveller]

Cybertech, Nanotech, Biotech

Hunter: "This is true, but how much of this will interfere or outright violate existing canon? That is something we can't and won't do intentionally. EVERYTHING has to pass muster with Marc Miller before it goes into print. Final authority for the go or no-go of ideas and what is or isn't canon lies with him."


There is much that can be done in with the information that is now available on these technologies that is simply description of concepts or equipment that went undescribed in the past. There would be no violations of canon there. Cybertech rules shouldn't be a problem. Cortical computer links aren't that much of a stretch. Netrunners wouldn't be either. Biotech is pretty straight forward. The medicinal side is just descriptive. Genetic engineering is almost here, but social/moral pressures will decide how much it advances, so it does fit in any storyline. There could be an opportunity to use advanced biotech as an alternate means of constructing buildings, ships, etc. I'll admit Nanotech could be a can of worms. Dumping a package of nanoprobes on an asteroid for sub-atomic conversion from rock to gold might mess up game economics just a tad. It would be a good tool to use to flesh out previously undescribed technology, though. Nanotech is now a very believeable explanation for advanced metallurgy and materials science, for example.


Hunter: "Actually, 'mechs' are something we have been considering, as part of a vehicle design system and seem feasible given the technology. Our current tinkerings have a very rough system of a mixture of ideas based on Book 2 Starship design, Book 5 starship design, and Book 8 Robots."

COOL! I vote that vehicle design be included in the core book. Having BOTH starship and vehicle design rules in the core book would be something that would be a serious draw for Warhammer 40K players. Considering the thousands of dollars they drop constructing their armies, they are certainly a prime marketing target.

 

[hunter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrewmv:
I've already mentioned this on JTAS, but is there any chance of a Brubecks chat on T20? I'm sure that there are a fair number of people who'd be interested in asking questions and hearing your plans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does Brubecks still require that MUD interface? If so I'd prefer IRC, but I am not opposed to a chat on T20.

Hunter

 

[kzin]

re: Mechs

One of my impressions of the Traveller setting, for right or wrong, has always been that a lot of forethought was put into various things. Different things were developed to fit niches in the actual game world, as opposed to addressing styles of particular subgenre's of sci-fi.

My main problem with Mech games is ... why?

Assuming that general sci-fi technologies are available to you (anti-grav for grav tanks, etc.) what reason do you have to go out of your way to develop artificial muscle technologies for giant robots if you don't have a pressing need for that exact technology? It's a very specialized technology with no inherint (sp?) attractive reason for aquiring it (if it's vastly more efficient, why isn't this a BattleTech like "all Mech" setting? etc.).

If you have things like anti-grav (and I seem to recall that in Traveller you do have pretty ubiquitous anti-grav tech), what good does a giant robot do you? Any place you can put a giant robot, I can put a Grav-tank. Any place you think you need an anthropomorphic cargo-loader, I can probably put a grav-loader. As those very few niches where a grav-tech item isn't a perfect match for the problem, I'm willing to bet they're so much a niche in the economy that they'd be brute-forced by some other technology rather than being cost effective to develop this whole other robot muscle technology.

I don't mean to rant ... I'm just curious why you'd have Mechs. Why would the technology be developed? Why wouldn't it be a technology that dramatically changes the landscape of the whole rest of the Traveller setting, and do so well into the already existant future settings?

A giant battlemech d20 game might be really cool (and I'm sure I'd buy it), but I think that if you really look at all of the implications of the technology and such, you'll find that such a game wont be Traveller (in the sense of the Traveller setting, not in that the original CT rules were setting independant). I would put such rules in a supplement, or in yet a different d20 game product (get the rights to a d20 Battle Tech RPG?).


Re: nanotech

Nanotech quickly becomes magic. I'm not saying "don't go there", but be careful what you postulate and what side effects it has upon the setting.

There's not much difference between "I put this balm of healing upon Lancelot's mortal wounds" and "I dump this jar of nanites on Lance's sucking chest wound". IMO, the fastest way to turn a hard-SF game into "D&D in space" is to introduce Nanotech.

In fact, probably the best way to introduce Nanotech into a d20 game is to use the spell casting classes from D&D3e, only require them to use magic items for all spell effects. Then you simply define that the magic items (from potions to wands to artifacts) are all powered by nanites, and the spells are merely recipies for different nanites and how to reprogram them. (much like Technomages from Babylon 5)

 

[AndreaV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
Cybertech, Nanotech, Biotech
Massive snip
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that Traveller really is a "classic era" SF setting (Niven, Asimov, Anderson et al) and they don't have all the cyberpunk and transhuman stuff that you get in "modern" SF.

You can get around a lot of this through social constraints. The Imperium has the technology to construct cybernetics and advanced biotechnology, but there is a considerable social pressures against its use. As long as its discrete there are no problems, an artifical hand to replace injury is acceptable, but replacing your arm with a cybernetic utility tool is not. Likewise modifying a population to have the biochemistry to deal with an atmospheric taint is fine, but breading a race of metahuman super warriors is not.

Also the Imperium inherits the traditional Vilani weakness and dislike of the biological sciences, you get a lot more biotech in the Solomani Confederation. And the Gateway Domain is noted in MT refs companion as having a particularly strong anti-cyber prejudice.

 

[J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Starship Design
Almost pure High Guard (CT Book 5)

Ship to Ship Combat
High Guard steps, replacing To Hit and Penetration tables with D20 tasks
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

When you say "Almost pure High Guard" what do you mean by almost? Do you mean HG reformatted, HG with some of the problems removed or a system based on HG but not really compatable?

Also will your ship to ship combat be written purely to support ship combat during a RPG game? or will it still support larger warships and still be playable as a game in it's own right?

There have been a wide range of house rules, optional rules, fixes and extensions since the original release of HG, will any of these be included in the new T20 system? For example using a task system instead of to hit tables and using D20's are topics which have been discussed before (on mailing lists). Would you be interested in the results of such discusions when writing the new ship system?

Regards

J.

 

[AndreaV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Does Brubecks still require that MUD interface? If so I'd prefer IRC, but I am not opposed to a chat on T20.

Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK they still use the MUD interface (last time I was there was for Loren's last chat, Feb I think).

 

[AllenS]

If Hivers won't be a PC race will there at least be a write-up so they can be used as NPC's? If this is done as the d20 system usually does it, it would not be difficult to use them as PC's for those of us who might want to.

Allen

 

[Uncle Bob]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kzin:
re: Classes

I'd make a few archetype classes that can be tailored (such as "soldier", with skills that can be tailored to various soldier types, like a marine, a mercenary, etc.). Then I'd give a term system similar to CT's that then gives as a suggestion something like "You were a marine for this term, suggest taking a level in soldier with 2 points of skill A and 1 point of skill B" and so on.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This suggests something positive I had heard about D20, that it is easier "customise" your character class. We always homebrewed our prior service rules so you could go into the Merchants after a term or two in the Navy, or Law Enforcement after the Army.

Mechs are very attractive, because the cartoons are engaging. Also, they can incorporate elements like flight, transformation, and appearing/disappearing weapons that we can pretend aren't magical. I can see them for heavy labor (like Aliens, or the Patlabor series) and a quaraped or hexapod vehicle would be good on a world with dangerous winds and rough terrain. But biped vehicles don't belong in combat, because they lack the mobility of grav vehicles or the low profile of crawling vehicles (either tracked or quadrapeds), and have a lot of surface area to be armored.

 

[Malakor]

What is the estimated release date of T20?

------------------
There is a fine line between Genius and Psychopath.
I'd like to know who took an eraser to it.

 

[Uncle Bob]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kzin:
re: hit points
I might also make an _optional_ feat available only to soldiers (and even then maybe only to 5th level and/or higher soldiers) that lets them make a save vs damage ("it just barely missed") as a Reflex save vs 10 + the amount of damage (or the amount by which the shooter beat their necessary to hit value)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would expect we could do something already, without special rules.
Ref "The trail opens up a little ahead. Some moonlight gets through the folliage, making it a little easier to see."
Soldier "I'll look and listen intensely as I glide closer"
Ref: "Roll Perception as a lvl 5 soldier. Um hm. There is no breeze, to many insects, a tree three feet ahead and to your left, the usual underbrush, and a faint click."
("click," 'faint click," "faint metallic click," or "click like a rifle safety" depending on how much he made his roll by, and how smart the player is)
Soldier: "I dive to the ground and roll to the tree roots."
Ref: "Brup-p-p. You are still in shadow, +2, and another +3 for evading and taking cover, ah, he misses. Poor Bill was behind you, though . . . Are you wearing your vest, Bill?"


[This message has been edited by Uncle Bob (edited 14 May 2001).]

 

[The Shoveller]

Bob: "But biped vehicles don't belong in combat, because they lack the mobility of grav vehicles or the low profile of crawling vehicles (either tracked or quadrapeds), and have a lot of surface area to be armored."

That's not true at all. Look at the surface of Mars. It's flat but it's completely boulder strewn. There is no way a wide-bodied AFV could get through that. And Mars is tame compared to many potential planetary surfaces out there. Canyons, mountains, cave complexes, and techtonically-active landscapes are where biped AFVs would flourish. Remember that biped AFVs would be capable of laying prone when under fire. That reduces it's profile dramatically.


[This message has been edited by The Shoveller (edited 14 May 2001).]