Some Basic Notes on the Development
- Thread starter hunter
- Start date
lucasdigital
SOC-12
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrewmv:
So... I'm guessing I should my idea for the giant mutant space fungus to myself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL!
I will always remember with mirth a friend of mine who decided to adapt TSR Star Frontiers adventures to play using CT.
The other players and myself can disable the guy instantly by reminding him of our encounter with CYBER SLUGS!!!!
Ahh the misguided notions of youthful GM's
Mark
So... I'm guessing I should my idea for the giant mutant space fungus to myself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL!
I will always remember with mirth a friend of mine who decided to adapt TSR Star Frontiers adventures to play using CT.
The other players and myself can disable the guy instantly by reminding him of our encounter with CYBER SLUGS!!!!
Ahh the misguided notions of youthful GM's
Mark
Antares Administration
SOC-12
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lucasdigital:
The other players and myself can disable the guy instantly by reminding him of our encounter with CYBER SLUGS!!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That will never be as bad as the Monty Python flashback I had in a game where the GM had us face a hideous blancmonge (sp?). It took us a while to figure out what it was. I still can't play tennis with a straight face...
(Thanks for your post, Hunter)
AA
[This message has been edited by Antares Administration (edited 31 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Antares Administration (edited 31 May 2001).]
The other players and myself can disable the guy instantly by reminding him of our encounter with CYBER SLUGS!!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That will never be as bad as the Monty Python flashback I had in a game where the GM had us face a hideous blancmonge (sp?). It took us a while to figure out what it was. I still can't play tennis with a straight face...
(Thanks for your post, Hunter)
AA
[This message has been edited by Antares Administration (edited 31 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Antares Administration (edited 31 May 2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lucasdigital:
LOL!
I will always remember with mirth a friend of mine who decided to adapt TSR Star Frontiers adventures to play using CT.
The other players and myself can disable the guy instantly by reminding him of our encounter with CYBER SLUGS!!!!
Ahh the misguided notions of youthful GM's
Mark
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Two words "Annililik Run".
LOL!
I will always remember with mirth a friend of mine who decided to adapt TSR Star Frontiers adventures to play using CT.
The other players and myself can disable the guy instantly by reminding him of our encounter with CYBER SLUGS!!!!
Ahh the misguided notions of youthful GM's
Mark
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Two words "Annililik Run".
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Re: Mecha in Traveller
Legs as motive mechanism for robots and small vehicles has been part of Traveller for years and years (JTAS #2 for Robots, Striker for vehicles IIRC). As such I have no problems with their being part of any design systems that are present. Expecting the presence of legs on a tank to suddenly make it the king of battle is stupid, however. Battletech had to artificially make their robots much tougher than tanks to make them worth playing, and we all know what happens to walkers in Star Wars...
If you want to put legs on a tank go for it. I for one would rather see legs as landing gear that lets you move around a bit after turning off the main gravdrive, not the other way around. Think Star Wars, the stumpy walkers from Orguss (for the old anime fans around here), the new GearKrieg stuff, and the Monster from Macross. If you want Gundam, leave it in orbit or go play Mekton (another game that could use d20-ing, btw). The closest to humanoid mecha the traveller universe should get is about VOTOMs size, and that for primarily peaceful activities in environments not suited to grav.
Legs as motive mechanism for robots and small vehicles has been part of Traveller for years and years (JTAS #2 for Robots, Striker for vehicles IIRC). As such I have no problems with their being part of any design systems that are present. Expecting the presence of legs on a tank to suddenly make it the king of battle is stupid, however. Battletech had to artificially make their robots much tougher than tanks to make them worth playing, and we all know what happens to walkers in Star Wars...
If you want to put legs on a tank go for it. I for one would rather see legs as landing gear that lets you move around a bit after turning off the main gravdrive, not the other way around. Think Star Wars, the stumpy walkers from Orguss (for the old anime fans around here), the new GearKrieg stuff, and the Monster from Macross. If you want Gundam, leave it in orbit or go play Mekton (another game that could use d20-ing, btw). The closest to humanoid mecha the traveller universe should get is about VOTOMs size, and that for primarily peaceful activities in environments not suited to grav.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrewmv:
So... I'm guessing I should my idea for the giant mutant space fungus to myself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oooh, I was looking for some alien player character race ideas! They would fit in well with the Gelatinous Planet creatures...
Hunter
So... I'm guessing I should my idea for the giant mutant space fungus to myself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oooh, I was looking for some alien player character race ideas! They would fit in well with the Gelatinous Planet creatures...
Hunter
DaveShayne
SOC-12
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Oooh, I was looking for some alien player character race ideas! They would fit in well with the Gelatinous Planet creatures...
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't forget, Traveller Gelatinous Cubes are 1.5m on a side.
David Shayne
Oooh, I was looking for some alien player character race ideas! They would fit in well with the Gelatinous Planet creatures...
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't forget, Traveller Gelatinous Cubes are 1.5m on a side.
David Shayne
The Shoveller
SOC-9
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
We are creating a vehicle design system that will allow GMs and players to design vehicles fairly quickly and simply. IF a GM wants to allow mechs, it will be possible to build them using this system.
We don't plan on mentioning mechs in our printed material. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
These two statements contradict each other. You can't have a vehicles design system which allows for the design of mechs without mentioning mechs. You cannot have combat between mechs that have been created without mechs having combat rules.
We are creating a vehicle design system that will allow GMs and players to design vehicles fairly quickly and simply. IF a GM wants to allow mechs, it will be possible to build them using this system.
We don't plan on mentioning mechs in our printed material. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
These two statements contradict each other. You can't have a vehicles design system which allows for the design of mechs without mentioning mechs. You cannot have combat between mechs that have been created without mechs having combat rules.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
These two statements contradict each other. You can't have a vehicles design system which allows for the design of mechs without mentioning mechs. You cannot have combat between mechs that have been created without mechs having combat rules.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why? Mechs are a vehicle like any other. They just have arms and legs instead of tracks/wheels/etc... Combat for vehicles is combat for vehicles.
Hunter
These two statements contradict each other. You can't have a vehicles design system which allows for the design of mechs without mentioning mechs. You cannot have combat between mechs that have been created without mechs having combat rules.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why? Mechs are a vehicle like any other. They just have arms and legs instead of tracks/wheels/etc... Combat for vehicles is combat for vehicles.
Hunter
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
These two statements contradict each other. You can't have a vehicles design system which allows for the design of mechs without mentioning mechs. You cannot have combat between mechs that have been created without mechs having combat rules.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uhmmm, I hate to point this out, but striker and MT both allowed you to design Mechs (I think you can even find some in DGP's 101 vehicles!!!!).
These two statements contradict each other. You can't have a vehicles design system which allows for the design of mechs without mentioning mechs. You cannot have combat between mechs that have been created without mechs having combat rules.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uhmmm, I hate to point this out, but striker and MT both allowed you to design Mechs (I think you can even find some in DGP's 101 vehicles!!!!).
The Shoveller
SOC-9
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Why? Mechs are a vehicle like any other. They just have arms and legs instead of tracks/wheels/etc... Combat for vehicles is combat for vehicles.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you can't see that a vehicle with manipulatable limbs would have abilities and disadvantages that a regular AFV wouldn't have, I'm glad you aren't going to support mechs. There are enough sets of BAD mech rules already.
It's clear now that T20 is going to be another one of those sets of rules which is intended to show gamers the errors of their ways. Rather than looking at the products that are immensely sucessful in sales as a model, you see products that sell millions of units to millions of gamers as "purchase errors" that gamers will immediately cast aside immediately upon a glimpse of your "obviously superior" product.
D&D works because it works best as a generic setting. D&D is a solid rules system to plug into any created world.
There is a huge hole for a generic SF rules system. You guys are going to try to shove a Traveller SETTING into said opening. Guess what? You guys have been trying to do this for 20 years! Nobody cares about the Traveller setting. There are no books, no movies, and no series that bring the Traveller setting to life. The only reason the Traveller "setting" has hung around as long as it has is because of the hideously bad options SF gamers have had to choose from. Now, the Traveller "setting" has even been left behind by current science. But you are still going to follow that outdated "canon" of yours to the letter and attempt to jam your outdated setting down gamers throats rather than produce a product that would have a market and gamers would buy - a good set of generic SFRPG rules. In 2001, if you have unrealistic computer systems, no mechs, no cybertech, no biotech, and no nanotech, you do not have generic SF rules. I'm not exactly sure what genre category it will fall into, but it's gonna be a mess. The only thing that can be guaranteed is that it will not sell.
Why? Mechs are a vehicle like any other. They just have arms and legs instead of tracks/wheels/etc... Combat for vehicles is combat for vehicles.
Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you can't see that a vehicle with manipulatable limbs would have abilities and disadvantages that a regular AFV wouldn't have, I'm glad you aren't going to support mechs. There are enough sets of BAD mech rules already.
It's clear now that T20 is going to be another one of those sets of rules which is intended to show gamers the errors of their ways. Rather than looking at the products that are immensely sucessful in sales as a model, you see products that sell millions of units to millions of gamers as "purchase errors" that gamers will immediately cast aside immediately upon a glimpse of your "obviously superior" product.
D&D works because it works best as a generic setting. D&D is a solid rules system to plug into any created world.
There is a huge hole for a generic SF rules system. You guys are going to try to shove a Traveller SETTING into said opening. Guess what? You guys have been trying to do this for 20 years! Nobody cares about the Traveller setting. There are no books, no movies, and no series that bring the Traveller setting to life. The only reason the Traveller "setting" has hung around as long as it has is because of the hideously bad options SF gamers have had to choose from. Now, the Traveller "setting" has even been left behind by current science. But you are still going to follow that outdated "canon" of yours to the letter and attempt to jam your outdated setting down gamers throats rather than produce a product that would have a market and gamers would buy - a good set of generic SFRPG rules. In 2001, if you have unrealistic computer systems, no mechs, no cybertech, no biotech, and no nanotech, you do not have generic SF rules. I'm not exactly sure what genre category it will fall into, but it's gonna be a mess. The only thing that can be guaranteed is that it will not sell.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
If you can't see that a vehicle with manipulatable limbs would have abilities and disadvantages that a regular AFV wouldn't have, I'm glad you aren't going to support mechs. There are enough sets of BAD mech rules already.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Umm, perhaps you should re-read what you quoted...I believe I said that mechs have manipulatory limbs....
Perhaps what you object to is the fact that we won't have an entire section devoted to building mechs. Mechs are another form of vehicle. Thus they will be treated as a vehicle. There is no need for a specialized section on mechs.
Do you really need a section to tell you that if you put manipulatory appendages on the vehicle, that pretty much qualifies it as a mech?
Hunter
(who is going to see if there is any aspirin left...)
[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 31 May 2001).]
If you can't see that a vehicle with manipulatable limbs would have abilities and disadvantages that a regular AFV wouldn't have, I'm glad you aren't going to support mechs. There are enough sets of BAD mech rules already.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Umm, perhaps you should re-read what you quoted...I believe I said that mechs have manipulatory limbs....
Perhaps what you object to is the fact that we won't have an entire section devoted to building mechs. Mechs are another form of vehicle. Thus they will be treated as a vehicle. There is no need for a specialized section on mechs.
Do you really need a section to tell you that if you put manipulatory appendages on the vehicle, that pretty much qualifies it as a mech?
Hunter
(who is going to see if there is any aspirin left...)
[This message has been edited by hunter (edited 31 May 2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
If you can't see that a vehicle with manipulatable limbs would have abilities and disadvantages that a regular AFV wouldn't have, I'm glad you aren't going to support mechs. There are enough sets of BAD mech rules already.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I can't see that it would. If you have a vehicle with legs as its transmission and manipulative arms (ie a Mech) its still just a regular vehicle. It's manipulative arms can do no more than arms on a grav tank or a cargo handler or an exploration vehicle. And its legs are just another form of transmission (have some advantages and disadvantages).
I look at mechs as like star fighters. They're koowl, but they really don't make much sense when you do a detailed analysis. If you want koowl, great go for it more power too you, koowl games are fun too. I hope T20 is flexible enough to support those who want koowl.
Now onto biotech, nanotech, cybertech etc. Traveller does have these. Wait for GT Humaniti, plenty of examples of solid biotech there without breaking the "look and feel".
Nanotech, well ignoring the real practical problems of this science (nanotech is far more at home in SF than the real world). Again, it can be dropped into Traveller without too much difficulty. You can't have magic self replicating nanites (but there are good real world reasons to suspect we may never have these), but other than that, they're fine. High tech medical treatment, no probs; advanced manufacturing, fine; nanoweapons, sure (they function identically to bioweapons).
Cybertech. Traveller is not a cyberpunk setting, its space opera. Cybertech works fine in Traveller, just don' make it centre stage. You can have your evil cybervillian(s), made all the more evil by societies revulsion of people who make themselves into machines.
Look at it this way, Traveller is a setting where cyberalienation (loss of empathy due to cyber implants) has bitten; and as a result people see cybertech as man/machine monsters.
If you can't see that a vehicle with manipulatable limbs would have abilities and disadvantages that a regular AFV wouldn't have, I'm glad you aren't going to support mechs. There are enough sets of BAD mech rules already.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I can't see that it would. If you have a vehicle with legs as its transmission and manipulative arms (ie a Mech) its still just a regular vehicle. It's manipulative arms can do no more than arms on a grav tank or a cargo handler or an exploration vehicle. And its legs are just another form of transmission (have some advantages and disadvantages).
I look at mechs as like star fighters. They're koowl, but they really don't make much sense when you do a detailed analysis. If you want koowl, great go for it more power too you, koowl games are fun too. I hope T20 is flexible enough to support those who want koowl.
Now onto biotech, nanotech, cybertech etc. Traveller does have these. Wait for GT Humaniti, plenty of examples of solid biotech there without breaking the "look and feel".
Nanotech, well ignoring the real practical problems of this science (nanotech is far more at home in SF than the real world). Again, it can be dropped into Traveller without too much difficulty. You can't have magic self replicating nanites (but there are good real world reasons to suspect we may never have these), but other than that, they're fine. High tech medical treatment, no probs; advanced manufacturing, fine; nanoweapons, sure (they function identically to bioweapons).
Cybertech. Traveller is not a cyberpunk setting, its space opera. Cybertech works fine in Traveller, just don' make it centre stage. You can have your evil cybervillian(s), made all the more evil by societies revulsion of people who make themselves into machines.
Look at it this way, Traveller is a setting where cyberalienation (loss of empathy due to cyber implants) has bitten; and as a result people see cybertech as man/machine monsters.
PinkSplice
SOC-12
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveShayne:
Don't forget, Traveller Gelatinous Cubes are 1.5m on a side.
David Shayne
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mr. Shayne is correct. Do not forget to include them with the final edit.
Don't forget, Traveller Gelatinous Cubes are 1.5m on a side.
David Shayne
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mr. Shayne is correct. Do not forget to include them with the final edit.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 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:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm reading intently.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
[bWho 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!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Existing Traveller players, especially older
guys like me who weren't really satisfied
with some of the successors to CT but who
also recognize how dated the old system is,
should be willing to give T20 a shot. Why
not, other than an unreasoning prejudice?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Classes
Yes there will be classes and/or prestige classes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good. There have always been classes in
Traveller, although they weren't called
such, and were used only during character
generation, since there wasn't a clear
character upgrade path from that point.
Classes will be necessary to attract new
players. There is nothing wrong with
classes--they encourage a sane and central
character conception and provide a clear
upgrade path. They are also an aid to
the GM, who finds it easier to make useful
and balanced NPCs.
I strongly recommend that if you retain
any vestige of the old roll-and-take-your-
chances system, that you provide an alternate
point buy system and free character selection
system also.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
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
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm. Be careful here. One of the things
that I strongly believe limited Traveller's
appeal was the deadly nature of combat even
to experienced PCs. This crippled player
acceptance of the early versions of Call of
Cthulhu as well. Why bother with a complicated and detailed character generation process only to lose the character from one shot due to the vagaries of a single die roll?
The Star Wars RPG actually handles this
very well.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Races
Currently Human, Vargr, Aslan. Looking to add possibly two (more?) other minor alien races
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Human, Vargr, and Aslan will probably cover most people, although I really think that humans should be divided at least into Zhodani, Imperial and Solomani, with some minor differentiation. You might consider adding the other major races as least as NPC races--the K'Kree and Hivers. Vegans should be added for Solomani Rim campaigns. Droyne for anything in the Spinward Marches.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Homeworld
There is a system to determine your general homeworld characteristics which give you skill and feat adjustments
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Neat. This is something that I don't think existed before. If you could correlate this to actual worlds in the Marches, or Rim, or Galactic Survey, without such correlation being mandatory, that would be interesting.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
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
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is probably appropriate, particularly for those who have problems with the traditional YOU-MUST-START-AT-LEVEL-1 approach of level-based campaign systems.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Starship Design
Almost pure High Guard (CT Book 5)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
High Guard was and is a great system for
quickly generating starships and non-starships. So was the system from
Traveller: 2300, which later became 2300AD.
I'm interested in the 'almost' part. What
is the essence of the difference?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Ship to Ship Combat
High Guard steps, replacing To Hit and Penetration tables with D20 tasks
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Probably a good abstract system--but watch
out. This is a step that tripped the people
who created the SWRPG d20. You might
consider something more along the lines of
the silent death rules for people who would
like a more detailed system, using ship
minatures, etc. You would need a system
for converting Traveller ship stats to stats
under such a system of course, unless you
made it so that it used the stats directly.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
World and System Building
Almost pure CT Book 3
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Book 6 was better. And Book 7 added
trade information that probably needs
to be heavily updated--but still, there
is no need to go with the minimum here.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Psionics
Very close to CT Psionic rules, but some modifications
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's fine, but again, I'm seeing a pattern
here, one of trying to adapt stuff that is
twenty years old now. Don't feel so
constricted. Make changes as appropriate
for play balance and enjoyment.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Combat
Much easier to die than in D&D or D20 System, with changes to what were Hit Points.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Traveller fans don't like to hear it, but
it is true--this chases new people away.
Certainly it should be "easier" to die in
Traveller than in D&D 3e, with the latter's
emphasis on heroic fantasy combat and
spellcasting, but don't overdo it. Trust
me, you will regret it when people drop out
of buying the game with the complaint, "I
spent all this time making a great character,
and now he is dead because of one stupid
die roll." This isn't Paranoid--character
death should still be an exception in cases
of intelligent play, not the rule. And
leave room for space opera--make "higher points" an option at least.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well....
You might benefit by knowing what the discussion on the Star Wars boards has been about this. "Story" and "roleplay" experience is supposedly the rule in SWRPG as well, but a lot of people are starting to adapt at least some D&D 3e "kill" experience to SWRPG, because they are discovering that the story award approach is too subjective, and doesn't work well for long, complicated modules requiring play over several sessions.
The 3e approach isn't the same as the old TSR Monty Haul approach to experience. Properly designed adventures give awards for overcoming obstacles of all kinds, including "monsters", who don't have to be killed to be defeated anymore, just neutralized as a threat. (i.e. you get the same experience for convincing the ogre barbarian that you really have a good reason to see his chieftain so he lets you through the door, as you do for killing him.)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Campaign Setting
Imperial Domain of Gateway, years 950-1050 (Ley, Glimmerdrift, Gateway, Crucis Margin Sectors).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting choice. I'm curious as to why this particular choice, but it isn't necessarily a bad one. The ability to play in other eras or locations should be left open, I think. Didn't at least one of the previous games try to set matters in this era, or am I mistaken?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
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
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is what I've tried to provide you with the limited information I have, and I hope that it is taken as constructive criticism, because that is how I have intended it.
I have a regular gaming group that plays a lot of D&D 3e and some SWRPG d20 as well. Mostly RPGA members. I would like to have the opportunity to playtest T20, if this would be possible. I feel that as an old-time CT gamer, and a fan of the D20 system, I can provide both my own insights and those of what I suspect to be your target audience among my gaming friends. Please contact me at jmbrook2@hotmail.com regarding this, if this is something doable.
Mark Brooks
[This message has been edited by JMBrooks (edited 31 May 2001).]
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:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm reading intently.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
[bWho 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!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Existing Traveller players, especially older
guys like me who weren't really satisfied
with some of the successors to CT but who
also recognize how dated the old system is,
should be willing to give T20 a shot. Why
not, other than an unreasoning prejudice?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Classes
Yes there will be classes and/or prestige classes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good. There have always been classes in
Traveller, although they weren't called
such, and were used only during character
generation, since there wasn't a clear
character upgrade path from that point.
Classes will be necessary to attract new
players. There is nothing wrong with
classes--they encourage a sane and central
character conception and provide a clear
upgrade path. They are also an aid to
the GM, who finds it easier to make useful
and balanced NPCs.
I strongly recommend that if you retain
any vestige of the old roll-and-take-your-
chances system, that you provide an alternate
point buy system and free character selection
system also.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
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
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm. Be careful here. One of the things
that I strongly believe limited Traveller's
appeal was the deadly nature of combat even
to experienced PCs. This crippled player
acceptance of the early versions of Call of
Cthulhu as well. Why bother with a complicated and detailed character generation process only to lose the character from one shot due to the vagaries of a single die roll?
The Star Wars RPG actually handles this
very well.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Races
Currently Human, Vargr, Aslan. Looking to add possibly two (more?) other minor alien races
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Human, Vargr, and Aslan will probably cover most people, although I really think that humans should be divided at least into Zhodani, Imperial and Solomani, with some minor differentiation. You might consider adding the other major races as least as NPC races--the K'Kree and Hivers. Vegans should be added for Solomani Rim campaigns. Droyne for anything in the Spinward Marches.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Homeworld
There is a system to determine your general homeworld characteristics which give you skill and feat adjustments
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Neat. This is something that I don't think existed before. If you could correlate this to actual worlds in the Marches, or Rim, or Galactic Survey, without such correlation being mandatory, that would be interesting.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
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
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is probably appropriate, particularly for those who have problems with the traditional YOU-MUST-START-AT-LEVEL-1 approach of level-based campaign systems.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Starship Design
Almost pure High Guard (CT Book 5)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
High Guard was and is a great system for
quickly generating starships and non-starships. So was the system from
Traveller: 2300, which later became 2300AD.
I'm interested in the 'almost' part. What
is the essence of the difference?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Ship to Ship Combat
High Guard steps, replacing To Hit and Penetration tables with D20 tasks
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Probably a good abstract system--but watch
out. This is a step that tripped the people
who created the SWRPG d20. You might
consider something more along the lines of
the silent death rules for people who would
like a more detailed system, using ship
minatures, etc. You would need a system
for converting Traveller ship stats to stats
under such a system of course, unless you
made it so that it used the stats directly.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
World and System Building
Almost pure CT Book 3
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Book 6 was better. And Book 7 added
trade information that probably needs
to be heavily updated--but still, there
is no need to go with the minimum here.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Psionics
Very close to CT Psionic rules, but some modifications
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's fine, but again, I'm seeing a pattern
here, one of trying to adapt stuff that is
twenty years old now. Don't feel so
constricted. Make changes as appropriate
for play balance and enjoyment.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Combat
Much easier to die than in D&D or D20 System, with changes to what were Hit Points.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Traveller fans don't like to hear it, but
it is true--this chases new people away.
Certainly it should be "easier" to die in
Traveller than in D&D 3e, with the latter's
emphasis on heroic fantasy combat and
spellcasting, but don't overdo it. Trust
me, you will regret it when people drop out
of buying the game with the complaint, "I
spent all this time making a great character,
and now he is dead because of one stupid
die roll." This isn't Paranoid--character
death should still be an exception in cases
of intelligent play, not the rule. And
leave room for space opera--make "higher points" an option at least.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well....
You might benefit by knowing what the discussion on the Star Wars boards has been about this. "Story" and "roleplay" experience is supposedly the rule in SWRPG as well, but a lot of people are starting to adapt at least some D&D 3e "kill" experience to SWRPG, because they are discovering that the story award approach is too subjective, and doesn't work well for long, complicated modules requiring play over several sessions.
The 3e approach isn't the same as the old TSR Monty Haul approach to experience. Properly designed adventures give awards for overcoming obstacles of all kinds, including "monsters", who don't have to be killed to be defeated anymore, just neutralized as a threat. (i.e. you get the same experience for convincing the ogre barbarian that you really have a good reason to see his chieftain so he lets you through the door, as you do for killing him.)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Campaign Setting
Imperial Domain of Gateway, years 950-1050 (Ley, Glimmerdrift, Gateway, Crucis Margin Sectors).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting choice. I'm curious as to why this particular choice, but it isn't necessarily a bad one. The ability to play in other eras or locations should be left open, I think. Didn't at least one of the previous games try to set matters in this era, or am I mistaken?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
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
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is what I've tried to provide you with the limited information I have, and I hope that it is taken as constructive criticism, because that is how I have intended it.
I have a regular gaming group that plays a lot of D&D 3e and some SWRPG d20 as well. Mostly RPGA members. I would like to have the opportunity to playtest T20, if this would be possible. I feel that as an old-time CT gamer, and a fan of the D20 system, I can provide both my own insights and those of what I suspect to be your target audience among my gaming friends. Please contact me at jmbrook2@hotmail.com regarding this, if this is something doable.
Mark Brooks
[This message has been edited by JMBrooks (edited 31 May 2001).]
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Existing Traveller players, especially older guys like me who weren't really satisfied with some of the successors to CT but who also recognize how dated the old system is, should be willing to give T20 a shot. Why not, other than an unreasoning prejudice? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am one of those! There is no prejudice, just a statement to those who are concrete in their belief that no other version than (insert favorite Trav version here) is good enough. Bah on that. I have tried to be clear that we do hope existing Traveller players will check out T20, but our primary goal and market is to the large body of gamers who like and play D20. Part of the reason we are sticking closely to the original Traveller is to draw on the existing body of players and provide backward compatibility.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I strongly recommend that if you retain any vestige of the old roll-and-take-your-chances system, that you provide an alternate point buy system and free character selection system also. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a bit of both actually in prior service.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hit Points: Hmmm. Be careful here. One of the things that I strongly believe limited Traveller's appeal was the deadly nature of combat even to experienced PCs. This crippled player acceptance of the early versions of Call of Cthulhu as well. Why bother with a complicated and detailed character generation process only to lose the character from one shot due to the vagaries of a single die roll? The Star Wars RPG actually handles this very well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This has been one of the most difficult issues in all of the design. We have modified from our original concept that you quoted and have arrived at a system similar but a bit more deadly than Star Wars. Using Star Wars terminology guns, laser, and energy weapons do damage to both Vitality and Wound points.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Human, Vargr, and Aslan will probably cover most people, although I really think that humans should be divided at least into Zhodani, Imperial and Solomani, with some minor differentiation. You might consider adding the other major races as least as NPC races--the K'Kree and Hivers. Vegans should be added for Solomani Rim campaigns. Droyne for anything in the Spinward Marches. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is not too much difference between Vilani and Solomani humans other than ideological differences for the most part. The Zho's are on the other side of the Imperium. K'kree and Hiver are much to complex to deal with in the confines of the core rule book. They are not the easiest of PCs to play are require a bit of background and explanation. Vegans are again not in the region we are covering, and the Droyne fall into a similar class as the K'kree and Hiver. We do plan to add at least two other races to this list, probably a minor alien and minor human race.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Homeworld: Neat. This is something that I don't think existed before. If you could correlate this to actual worlds in the Marches, or Rim, or Galactic Survey, without such correlation being mandatory, that would be interesting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Homeworlds tells you what tech level and world types you come from. You pick the world based on that.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>High Guard: I'm interested in the 'almost' part. What is the essence of the difference? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tables vs formulas for design. Tasks vs hit/penetration charts for combat.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Book 6 was better. And Book 7 added trade information that probably needs to be heavily updated--but still, there is no need to go with the minimum here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Book 6 was much to formula heavy. We have since worked up a more streamlined version derived from Book 6 that so far meets with Marc's approval. Book 7 is a matter of taste I guess. I never did like or use those trade rules. Much preferred the basic trade system….
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Psionics: That's fine, but again, I'm seeing a pattern here, one of trying to adapt stuff that is twenty years old now. Don't feel so constricted. Make changes as appropriate for play balance and enjoyment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What was wrong with the old Psi rules?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Campaign Setting: Interesting choice. I'm curious as to why this particular choice, but it isn't necessarily a bad one. The ability to play in other eras or locations should be left open, I think. Didn't at least one of the previous games try to set matters in this era, or am I mistaken? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes you are mistaken. No other version of Traveller was set in 1000. CT and GT are 1100, MT was after that, TNE set after MT, and T4 was set in Milieu 0.
There is no reason why a GM couldn't set their campaigns in another era or another region. But there is no way we can try to cover the gamut of TL difference in all sorts of things, and the entire Imperial history in one core book.
A lot of what you ask seems to predicate on the idea that we will be releasing just the core book and that's it. There is plenty of room for supplements covering a lot of the areas you hit upon in much greater detail.
Whew. I think I touched on em all. If I missed anything let me know!
Hunter
I am one of those! There is no prejudice, just a statement to those who are concrete in their belief that no other version than (insert favorite Trav version here) is good enough. Bah on that. I have tried to be clear that we do hope existing Traveller players will check out T20, but our primary goal and market is to the large body of gamers who like and play D20. Part of the reason we are sticking closely to the original Traveller is to draw on the existing body of players and provide backward compatibility.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I strongly recommend that if you retain any vestige of the old roll-and-take-your-chances system, that you provide an alternate point buy system and free character selection system also. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a bit of both actually in prior service.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hit Points: Hmmm. Be careful here. One of the things that I strongly believe limited Traveller's appeal was the deadly nature of combat even to experienced PCs. This crippled player acceptance of the early versions of Call of Cthulhu as well. Why bother with a complicated and detailed character generation process only to lose the character from one shot due to the vagaries of a single die roll? The Star Wars RPG actually handles this very well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This has been one of the most difficult issues in all of the design. We have modified from our original concept that you quoted and have arrived at a system similar but a bit more deadly than Star Wars. Using Star Wars terminology guns, laser, and energy weapons do damage to both Vitality and Wound points.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Human, Vargr, and Aslan will probably cover most people, although I really think that humans should be divided at least into Zhodani, Imperial and Solomani, with some minor differentiation. You might consider adding the other major races as least as NPC races--the K'Kree and Hivers. Vegans should be added for Solomani Rim campaigns. Droyne for anything in the Spinward Marches. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is not too much difference between Vilani and Solomani humans other than ideological differences for the most part. The Zho's are on the other side of the Imperium. K'kree and Hiver are much to complex to deal with in the confines of the core rule book. They are not the easiest of PCs to play are require a bit of background and explanation. Vegans are again not in the region we are covering, and the Droyne fall into a similar class as the K'kree and Hiver. We do plan to add at least two other races to this list, probably a minor alien and minor human race.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Homeworld: Neat. This is something that I don't think existed before. If you could correlate this to actual worlds in the Marches, or Rim, or Galactic Survey, without such correlation being mandatory, that would be interesting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Homeworlds tells you what tech level and world types you come from. You pick the world based on that.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>High Guard: I'm interested in the 'almost' part. What is the essence of the difference? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tables vs formulas for design. Tasks vs hit/penetration charts for combat.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Book 6 was better. And Book 7 added trade information that probably needs to be heavily updated--but still, there is no need to go with the minimum here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Book 6 was much to formula heavy. We have since worked up a more streamlined version derived from Book 6 that so far meets with Marc's approval. Book 7 is a matter of taste I guess. I never did like or use those trade rules. Much preferred the basic trade system….
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Psionics: That's fine, but again, I'm seeing a pattern here, one of trying to adapt stuff that is twenty years old now. Don't feel so constricted. Make changes as appropriate for play balance and enjoyment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What was wrong with the old Psi rules?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Campaign Setting: Interesting choice. I'm curious as to why this particular choice, but it isn't necessarily a bad one. The ability to play in other eras or locations should be left open, I think. Didn't at least one of the previous games try to set matters in this era, or am I mistaken? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes you are mistaken. No other version of Traveller was set in 1000. CT and GT are 1100, MT was after that, TNE set after MT, and T4 was set in Milieu 0.
There is no reason why a GM couldn't set their campaigns in another era or another region. But there is no way we can try to cover the gamut of TL difference in all sorts of things, and the entire Imperial history in one core book.
A lot of what you ask seems to predicate on the idea that we will be releasing just the core book and that's it. There is plenty of room for supplements covering a lot of the areas you hit upon in much greater detail.
Whew. I think I touched on em all. If I missed anything let me know!
Hunter
I think you misconstrued my remark regarding prejudice. I was suggesting that to reject T20 out of hand because it is different from what has gone before is the result of unreasoning prejudice.
I've seen a number of very rude posts that serve no useful purpose, that are needlessly divisive and that simply represent an attitude of "if it changes anything, it can't be right". I would expect that T20 will change some things, hopefully for the better. The notion some people have that Traveller was played in opposition to playing D&D is simply ludicrous.
I understand that the Core Rules won't be the only book to be put out.
I've seen a number of very rude posts that serve no useful purpose, that are needlessly divisive and that simply represent an attitude of "if it changes anything, it can't be right". I would expect that T20 will change some things, hopefully for the better. The notion some people have that Traveller was played in opposition to playing D&D is simply ludicrous.
I understand that the Core Rules won't be the only book to be put out.
Glad to see that the Book 2 trade rules will be used. I always prefered the idea that a ton of gold bought under the speculative trade rules was worth a lot more than a ton of wheat! It also gave the players more to aim for. "Mmmmm. We could buy all these smaller cargoes and possible make good money. Or we could just get those few tons of cybernetic parts and maybe make great money."
Book 3 over Book 6 system generation is nice as well. Most of my games haven't needed the more detailed system info. If it's supplied, great, but my players just tend to want to get to the main world.
I'm not too sure what you mean with the ship rules when you say you're going for tables v's formulae. IIRC, High Guard only used formulae for Energy Points and Agility.
That said, I really liked the way T4 SSDS worked with it's tables.
Paul Bendall
Book 3 over Book 6 system generation is nice as well. Most of my games haven't needed the more detailed system info. If it's supplied, great, but my players just tend to want to get to the main world.
I'm not too sure what you mean with the ship rules when you say you're going for tables v's formulae. IIRC, High Guard only used formulae for Energy Points and Agility.
That said, I really liked the way T4 SSDS worked with it's tables.
Paul Bendall
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
Well, now I consider the gauntlet thrown down. Let's make it real simple. If there are no rules for mechas, I will not buy nor support T20 products. I will not run T20 games. That's sales lost from me, the people playing my game, and the word of mouth that would be generated by my group at local game stores.
[This message has been edited by The Shoveller (edited 30 May 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No offense, but good riddance. Mechs (ala anime, not walkers ala SW Ep5) are bogus on ground pressure issues alone. There are WALKERS in Traveller semi-canon (101 Robots, DGP, for MT). But they are for a special case (TL 8, no gravitics), and not very efficient. And the walkers serve near little to add to the 3i setting. They don't appear at all in the Generic rules (Bk1-7), and Book 8 includes walkers for robots, not for Massive Structures.
And Battledress, by the way, augments the user in CT, MT, and T4, but still requires you to apply effort (mostly due to limitations on human movement ranges, according to canon).
------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!
Well, now I consider the gauntlet thrown down. Let's make it real simple. If there are no rules for mechas, I will not buy nor support T20 products. I will not run T20 games. That's sales lost from me, the people playing my game, and the word of mouth that would be generated by my group at local game stores.
[This message has been edited by The Shoveller (edited 30 May 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No offense, but good riddance. Mechs (ala anime, not walkers ala SW Ep5) are bogus on ground pressure issues alone. There are WALKERS in Traveller semi-canon (101 Robots, DGP, for MT). But they are for a special case (TL 8, no gravitics), and not very efficient. And the walkers serve near little to add to the 3i setting. They don't appear at all in the Generic rules (Bk1-7), and Book 8 includes walkers for robots, not for Massive Structures.
And Battledress, by the way, augments the user in CT, MT, and T4, but still requires you to apply effort (mostly due to limitations on human movement ranges, according to canon).
------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Takei:
Glad to see that the Book 2 trade rules will be used. I always prefered the idea that a ton of gold bought under the speculative trade rules was worth a lot more than a ton of wheat! It also gave the players more to aim for. "Mmmmm. We could buy all these smaller cargoes and possible make good money. Or we could just get those few tons of cybernetic parts and maybe make great money."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I can make one plea, *please* *please* *please* drop the old freight cost scheme of Cr1000/ton per jump regardless of distance. If there is one single thing that is wrong with Traveller, this has to be it. It requires not suspension of disbelieve but physically throwing it from a very very high place
Glad to see that the Book 2 trade rules will be used. I always prefered the idea that a ton of gold bought under the speculative trade rules was worth a lot more than a ton of wheat! It also gave the players more to aim for. "Mmmmm. We could buy all these smaller cargoes and possible make good money. Or we could just get those few tons of cybernetic parts and maybe make great money."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I can make one plea, *please* *please* *please* drop the old freight cost scheme of Cr1000/ton per jump regardless of distance. If there is one single thing that is wrong with Traveller, this has to be it. It requires not suspension of disbelieve but physically throwing it from a very very high place
