T20 Classes and Levels question
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
Depends how many previous terms you want them to have.
you can start play with no previous terms and play a 1st level character, but add one or 2 terms and your looking at 2nd or 3rd minimum.
The thing with T20 is not to think it's D&D in space.. as it isn't, at least not in every sense.
It's Traveller D20....more than it's D&D in space, so most of it functions like Traveller normally does but in the easier more roudned user friendly D20 system. As such it has the D20 elements D20 fans like and the Traveller parts, Traveller fans enjoy.
Character generation tends to leave you with characters of higher than 1st, but because of the way it works that is the norm...
Trust me you'll love it
you can start play with no previous terms and play a 1st level character, but add one or 2 terms and your looking at 2nd or 3rd minimum.
The thing with T20 is not to think it's D&D in space.. as it isn't, at least not in every sense.
It's Traveller D20....more than it's D&D in space, so most of it functions like Traveller normally does but in the easier more roudned user friendly D20 system. As such it has the D20 elements D20 fans like and the Traveller parts, Traveller fans enjoy.
Character generation tends to leave you with characters of higher than 1st, but because of the way it works that is the norm...
Trust me you'll love it
Gallowglass
SOC-12
Pardon?! As a long time sceptic of d20 now playing in and running D&D3e, I have high hopes for T20 and, whilst still sceptical about d20's more exuberant claims, think the basic system is solid. But I personally find the suggestion that the d20 system is "easier more rounded user friendly" gob-smackingly bizarre (unless you are comparing it to MT's rather constipated explanations...). Having read several d20 games, I have yet to come across one (except Spycraft Lite) that doesn't suffer from the fundemental d20 / D&D flaw of being excessively baroque and full of annoying chrome (every skill has it's special rule, every situation has a unique set of options you have to either memorise or look up). One of my hopes for T20 is that it will sort out the mess that is d20 combat into someting I can explain to players without their eyes glazing over and that I will be able to run melee combats with without pointless digressions to either a) establish exactly how AoO's work or b) decide exactly which combination of actions codifes what a character is doing and thus whether they can do it in a round!
Don't get me wrong, I think overall d20 is a good thing and, as about the only game in town for Traveller at this point and with the caliber of people working on it, I am really looking forward to T20. But in its current form d20 is neither IMO user friendly nor easier than CT, or even T4 or TNE (neither of which I liked as rules).
Gallowglass,
I don't care much for d20 outside D&D and, even so, I currently bored with D&D anyway. However, you should notice that Traveller d20 is not for people like you and me. It is clearly marketed to d20 players. You should see it as a lure to bring those players to the Traveller community. Traveller is much more than rule sets. I enjoy the traditional rules such as in CT, MT, and T4. However, there are a lot of fans of TNE and GT. The upcoming T20 will bring some new fans to the boat, just this.
Regarding the user friendliness, I guess Neo is trying to say that T20 is easier to d20 players, which are in fact most of rpg players anyway. Personally, I think it is easier to teach CT, MT, or T4 to a novice than d20.
I don't care much for d20 outside D&D and, even so, I currently bored with D&D anyway. However, you should notice that Traveller d20 is not for people like you and me. It is clearly marketed to d20 players. You should see it as a lure to bring those players to the Traveller community. Traveller is much more than rule sets. I enjoy the traditional rules such as in CT, MT, and T4. However, there are a lot of fans of TNE and GT. The upcoming T20 will bring some new fans to the boat, just this.
Regarding the user friendliness, I guess Neo is trying to say that T20 is easier to d20 players, which are in fact most of rpg players anyway. Personally, I think it is easier to teach CT, MT, or T4 to a novice than d20.
Smiling DM
SOC-12
But I personally find the suggestion that the d20 system is "easier more rounded user friendly" gob-smackingly bizarre [snip]
But in its current form d20 is neither IMO user friendly nor easier than CT, or even T4 or TNE (neither of which I liked as rules).</font>[/QUOTE]I think to understand your comments I'd like to here what game system you do consider user friendly. D20 is about as good as it gets, unless you want to use Storyteller (White Wolf) or Paranoia (about the simplest game mechanic I know).
Here's my take just so you can see where I am coming from - CT isn't simple - its just sparse (and largely out of print, with the exception of the FFE compilations). T4 and TNE are much more complex than D20 (at least IMHO). Then there's GURPS and Hero, both point based systems that require a calculator or a good piece of software to do them easily. Also at this point, I throw in IN Nomine (simple mechanic, but lots of variants and special cases). And then we venture into the realm of truly complex such as Rolemaster/Spacemaster or Chivalry and Sorcery.
The advantage of D20 lies in its widespread player base (everyone seems to be familiar with it) and its overall simplicity (roll a die, add and asset, add situation modifers from the GM, and try to be a target number).
From what little MJD and Hunter have released to tease us all, I am excited at the possibility of selling a Traveller game to my players, all of whom love to play, but hate overly complex rules (I'd never be able to sell MT to them, maybe TNE). With T20, I KNOW that I will be able to add at least 6 more Traveller fans to our ranks, and thats just in the first campaign. I can only hope that everyone has this level of success, because then MJD and Hunter will have lots of customers and will be able to keep printing more Traveller goodness.
Gallowglass
SOC-12
But I personally find the suggestion that the d20 system is "easier more rounded user friendly" gob-smackingly bizarre [snip]
But in its current form d20 is neither IMO user friendly nor easier than CT, or even T4 or TNE (neither of which I liked as rules).</font>[/QUOTE]I think to understand your comments I'd like to here what game system you do consider user friendly. D20 is about as good as it gets, unless you want to use Storyteller (White Wolf) or Paranoia (about the simplest game mechanic I know).
Here's my take just so you can see where I am coming from - CT isn't simple - its just sparse (and largely out of print, with the exception of the FFE compilations). T4 and TNE are much more complex than D20 (at least IMHO). Then there's GURPS and Hero, both point based systems that require a calculator or a good piece of software to do them easily. Also at this point, I throw in IN Nomine (simple mechanic, but lots of variants and special cases). And then we venture into the realm of truly complex such as Rolemaster/Spacemaster or Chivalry and Sorcery.
The advantage of D20 lies in its widespread player base (everyone seems to be familiar with it) and its overall simplicity (roll a die, add and asset, add situation modifers from the GM, and try to be a target number).
From what little MJD and Hunter have released to tease us all, I am excited at the possibility of selling a Traveller game to my players, all of whom love to play, but hate overly complex rules (I'd never be able to sell MT to them, maybe TNE). With T20, I KNOW that I will be able to add at least 6 more Traveller fans to our ranks, and thats just in the first campaign. I can only hope that everyone has this level of success, because then MJD and Hunter will have lots of customers and will be able to keep printing more Traveller goodness.</font>[/QUOTE]The wide spread familiarity of d20 I don't deny (it's still the d20 STL's only real advantage over GURPS or a propriatory system), and I have no wish to re-open the can of worms that is the d20 debate. But, in my experience, d20 / D&D 3e is not simple or user friendly, because I have seen too many players acquiese on a rules debate because they don't understand the rule book and or other players explanantions. CT is simple, and it's only sparse in the original 3 LBB's. T4 isn't bad, but bottom line, the d20 / D&D 3e FAQ is huge and continues to grow.
Just because lots of people know roughly how d20 works doesn't make it user friendly, just commonly played. My preferred systems are CT (with the bits of T4 and MT that I think work well) or Chasoium's Basic Role Playing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see new Traveller material coming out, and I think that T20 will do Traveller a lot of good. I just don't think d20 is currently a user friendly or simple system. YM quite obviously does V
I agree that d20 is far from being a simple system, despite many people think so, apparently confusing familiarity with simplicity. However, I don't agree that CT is a simple system. The lack of a unified task resolution system is enough to make it fail in this regard. MT is a bit too complicated, but T4, disregarding the design sequences, might fit to the role.
Im couldn;t disagree more with that assessment of D20 if i tried
The system is great and the T20 adapation of Traveller works wonderfully.
Noones saying D20 is the perfect system, like any system it has it's flaws, but for what it is, and in comparison to what it once was, it's a fantastic improvement.
And it really is simple, but like any system can i guess been quite imposing to those who are unfamiliar with it. But once you've spent some time playing it and picking it up it's second nature. The same is true of any game....for example Traveller TNE, just plain makes my head hurt <chuckle>
And it really is simple, but like any system can i guess been quite imposing to those who are unfamiliar with it. But once you've spent some time playing it and picking it up it's second nature. The same is true of any game....for example Traveller TNE, just plain makes my head hurt <chuckle>
Gallowglass never said it wasn't an improvement over AD&D (although I think the original, 3 book & Grayhawk D&D was good as anything with that trademark since.) His objection was that a simple basic system has a rich tapestry of exceptions and special rules that a new player has to learn in self defence. It may well bring new players to Traveller, but only because those players have so much effort invested in D20 they are unable to learn anything else. I have small hope that T20 players will have any interest in other versions of our game.
For a simpler medieval combat that is just as good look at Ars Magica. For systems that are no more complicated and more realistic, look at Bushido, Chivalry and Sorcery, and I have hopes for The Riddle of Steel.
CT Combat looks complicated with the tables of range and armor charts, but that easily reduces to a single matrix for each weapon: I did that for my players in 1978. It got simpler when we went to AHL/Striker combat in 1980.
As for a task system in CT we didn't call it a task system, but it worked the same way. The referee said, "The transmission is really broke. Roll a 10+ to fix it. You get to try every half hour." I fail to see why its better to say "it's moderately difficult" and forcing the players to look it up.
For a simpler medieval combat that is just as good look at Ars Magica. For systems that are no more complicated and more realistic, look at Bushido, Chivalry and Sorcery, and I have hopes for The Riddle of Steel.
CT Combat looks complicated with the tables of range and armor charts, but that easily reduces to a single matrix for each weapon: I did that for my players in 1978. It got simpler when we went to AHL/Striker combat in 1980.
As for a task system in CT we didn't call it a task system, but it worked the same way. The referee said, "The transmission is really broke. Roll a 10+ to fix it. You get to try every half hour." I fail to see why its better to say "it's moderately difficult" and forcing the players to look it up.
When you have so many rules version of Traveller it's hard to get them interested in the others that are unfamiliar to players who are used to one rules system.
If anything, you should be lucky you are raking in the dough for licensing the IP to make GURP Traveller and Traveller20.
But you are right on some points. Traveller20 is published solely for D&D/d20 consumer base. If you have that right business mentality, rather than thinking that this product is just an opening to get them interested in other non-d20 Traveller products, then you should know how to spend your investment while getting some return.
If anything, you should be lucky you are raking in the dough for licensing the IP to make GURP Traveller and Traveller20.
But you are right on some points. Traveller20 is published solely for D&D/d20 consumer base. If you have that right business mentality, rather than thinking that this product is just an opening to get them interested in other non-d20 Traveller products, then you should know how to spend your investment while getting some return.
Smiling DM
SOC-12
Resepctfully, I have some differences of opinion:
1) D20 players unable to learn something else - pretty elitist - in that same manner of thinking, one could hypothesize that it is old CT players who can't learn anything new.
2) As to your lack of hope on T20 players trying the other versions - why should they?? If Hunter and MJD have done as good a job as the playtesters on this Board keep saying they have, then there is no logical rational to learning what has come before, in terms of game mechanic. I plan on running a TNE game in T20 - obviously all of my source material will come from that earlier version, but I won't need my players to learn the TNE mechanic to understand the setting.
I am not a d20 die hard - I enjoy several different systems for various settings/genre's with lots o' years under the GM belt. However, I strongly disagree with the dismissive tone that is being associated with D20 and T20 - its simple evolution - adapt or perish.
I now eagerly await the warmth of the flames . . .
Originally posted by Smiling DM:
Resepctfully, I have some differences of opinion:
1) D20 players unable to learn something else - pretty elitist - in that same manner of thinking, one could hypothesize that it is old CT players who can't learn anything new.
I meant no disrespect. I have played and DMed D&D 1st edition, CT, Space Opera, Runequest, Chivalry and Sorcery, my own game, Twilight 2000, and Flashing Blades. I have played in AD&D 1st & 2nd Ed, Bushido, Gamma World, Land of the Rising Sun, Star Trek, Toon, Ars Magica, Call of Cthulu, Paranoia, Pendragon, Star Wars 1st Ed, Mage, Vampire, and a few I have forgotten. Most of these rules try to be consistent in how you use skills and charactereristics to make them easier to remember. Because of the inconsistancies I judge AD&D 2nd edition requires a new player to learn more idiosyncratic rules than any three of these games (maybe twice C&S and Space Opera) to be a competent player. I have not played D20 yet, but it appears to be simpler than AD&D, but much more complex than any other game. A competent player would be naturally reluctant to abandon that knowledge.
2) As to your lack of hope on T20 players trying the other versions - why should they?? If Hunter and MJD have done as good a job as the playtesters on this Board keep saying they have, then there is no logical rational to learning what has come before, in terms of game mechanic.
Except that we are aiding and abetting a mediocre game mechanic that is using marketing position to dominate better systems. At least Microsoft gives a product of near-equal quality.
I plan on running a TNE game in T20 - obviously all of my source material will come from that earlier version, but I won't need my players to learn the TNE mechanic to understand the setting.
Ah, using the mechanic that may consume table-top gaming to play the setting that ate Traveller. You begin to frighten me, Smiling Darth.
Resepctfully, I have some differences of opinion:
1) D20 players unable to learn something else - pretty elitist - in that same manner of thinking, one could hypothesize that it is old CT players who can't learn anything new.
I meant no disrespect. I have played and DMed D&D 1st edition, CT, Space Opera, Runequest, Chivalry and Sorcery, my own game, Twilight 2000, and Flashing Blades. I have played in AD&D 1st & 2nd Ed, Bushido, Gamma World, Land of the Rising Sun, Star Trek, Toon, Ars Magica, Call of Cthulu, Paranoia, Pendragon, Star Wars 1st Ed, Mage, Vampire, and a few I have forgotten. Most of these rules try to be consistent in how you use skills and charactereristics to make them easier to remember. Because of the inconsistancies I judge AD&D 2nd edition requires a new player to learn more idiosyncratic rules than any three of these games (maybe twice C&S and Space Opera) to be a competent player. I have not played D20 yet, but it appears to be simpler than AD&D, but much more complex than any other game. A competent player would be naturally reluctant to abandon that knowledge.
2) As to your lack of hope on T20 players trying the other versions - why should they?? If Hunter and MJD have done as good a job as the playtesters on this Board keep saying they have, then there is no logical rational to learning what has come before, in terms of game mechanic.
Except that we are aiding and abetting a mediocre game mechanic that is using marketing position to dominate better systems. At least Microsoft gives a product of near-equal quality.
I plan on running a TNE game in T20 - obviously all of my source material will come from that earlier version, but I won't need my players to learn the TNE mechanic to understand the setting.
Ah, using the mechanic that may consume table-top gaming to play the setting that ate Traveller. You begin to frighten me, Smiling Darth.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Where most of this complexity comes in is either character generation or the attempt to regularize tactical combat. Most systems that attempt high detail for one or the other are lauded (or cursed) as "complex".
The other (sadly common) reason systems get labeled as complex is simply bad writing and/or bad editing. Don't ask me for a list...
To address your specific opinion: D20 in its D&D3 incarnation *plays* very much like D&D always has, except that, with the exception of damage dice, just about every bizarre little mechanic for resolving an in-game issue is now done with a D20 and a fairly consistent set of modifiers. Special cases do exist, but they are mostly "what does the roll mean?" instead of "what do I roll and how many times?" Basic combat and basic skill use are the same mechanic, and both are similar to (looking at your game resume again) Ars Magica in that die roll plus skill level plus stat mod must beat a target number to succeed, whether that number is set by the task (ID a spell being cast) or by the opponent (AC, or his Hide skill check vs your Spot skill check).
As for the Microsoft comparison, I have to disagree at a practical level. MS is much more guilty of hiding mediocre product behind grand marketing than WotC will ever be...
Cptn. Collision Course
SOC-5
Ye gods, someone let an M$ marketing person in here!
Seriously tho, the argument comes down to using the system that suits you (and your group best). D20 strikes something of a balance between the more table-top style play and the less game-mechanic systems, and IMHO is a lot better than most i've seen in 20+ years of gaming.
If you really want an easy system, use the Chaosium one as someone posted a few ago. Just be prepared for the fact that the dice won't tell you which arm you've just lost.
Smiling DM
SOC-12
Well - quite the gaming resume - but since you haven't even played D20, I think you are letting your bias against 2nd Ed AD&D (which was rather complex and inconsistent) overshadow the new rules - consistency of mechanic is the one thing they got right with the revision. Go out and try a couple times, then lets talk. As to being more complicated than any other game, I just don't see it, especially against some of the games in your resume (especially Chiv & Sorc, which IMHO is the most complicated system I've seen, even beats Rolemaster) - probably best for us to agree to disagree.Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
I have not played D20 yet, but it appears to be simpler than AD&D, but much more complex than any other game.
[snip]
Except that we are aiding and abetting a mediocre game mechanic that is using marketing position to dominate better systems. At least Microsoft gives a product of near-equal quality.
[snip]
Ah, using the mechanic that may consume table-top gaming to play the setting that ate Traveller. You begin to frighten me, Smiling Darth.
I find your analogy to Microsoft interesting - I see the D20 design being the RPG rip off of Big Bill's strategy - one system to rule them all, one system to bind them, etc. The key difference is that D20 doesn't crash on me once every 48 hours for no explicit reason.
As to TNE having killed Traveller, well, obviously it hasn't (look at MJD's fiction and upcoming 1248 sourcebook). Your comments are consistent with a local Travller fan who believes the Third Imperium should never have fallen (BTW he also hates level based games like D20 and is just apoplectic about T20 - I hope to convert him once we get the product). I dunno - I just like the opportunity for growth and exploration in the TNE setting - something I found difficult to do in my GT campaign.
And lastly, the DM stands for Dungeon Master, not Darth Maul nor Death Match - gained the moniker 15 years ago as part of the "Never trust a smiling DM" quote from my players.
If I really want an easy system I'll go with AHL/Striker. I have 25 years of martial arts training, mostly classical fencing and SCA combat, and I would rather be told I had a -2 penalty on my die rolls than that I had lost the arm that I had behind me and couldn't lose. And character generation and basic combat is where a game should be cleanest: every new player will do both.
I did tech support for 1994-2001. One year for Microsoft, one year for Apple, one year for Hewlett Packard, and five years in corporate support where we played no favorites: Microsoft, Apple, Lotus, Novell, Corel, Netscape, Eudora ... I hate to defend Microsoft (after all the software is bloated and expensive and they did walk me for being a temp just over the one year limit
) but I will defend 14,000+ hours (60,000 issues) of impartial, non-Microsoft tech support experience.
