Traveller Rules As Written

[mike wightman]

Like I said - little. LBB2 ship combat is the exception.

I stopped using LBB2 combat or Mayday at the rpg table years ago. There is a much simpler ship combat system hidden in the ship's boat skill description which I used a lot, and the Starter Edition range band system is good enough for relative velocity and range.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Like I said - little. LBB2 ship combat is the exception.

I stopped using LBB2 combat or Mayday at the rpg table years ago. There is a much simpler ship combat system hidden in the ship's boat skill description which I used a lot, and the Starter Edition range band system is good enough for relative velocity and range.

This.

Starter Edition solves to many "evils". And I was never a fan of High Guard.

 

[whartung]

TNE uses the range band system. High Guard uses the range band system, it just uses 2 bands.

 

[Dragoner]

I found about the only thing people might have balked at is the pythagorean theorem for turning in LBB2 combat, though usually it was not used, we just plotted intercepts, and combat usually didn't last more than a few turns.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Lazy people used the turn/angle rulers from Car Wars games

 

[Dragoner]

Kong rules ok! Car Wars was my CT vehicle combat when we wanted more out of vehicle combat. Similar to Starfire as fleet combat, and Ogre/GEV for mass ground combat.

Edit: I forgot to add that when we wanted to get fancy with LBB2, we used a few sheets of notebook paper and pennies.

 

[aramis]

I'm a rules as contract type.
"Rules are optional" is, for me, "Bye!" time.
It's a red flag for "I'm not going to have enough information to make informed decisions" as a player, and a red flag as a GM for players expecting me to ignore limits.

I'm not averse to codified house rules - mine, for MT, essentially comprise a new Player's Manual and large portions of the Ref's manual.

My current project in re Traveller has been reinventing MT from second principles and CT & 2300 sources.

When it comes to the boards, I take an "each edition's OTU is a separate universe" approach...

But I sometimes share Hans Ranke's assertion: Each edition is a different historian's view of the OTU.
This approach explains the differences in mechanics as biases of the putative historian.

 

[robject]

"Rules as contract" is an excellent way to set expectations for the group before a game.

 

[Dragoner]

"Rules as contract" is an excellent way to set expectations for the group before a game.

I agree, and it's a valid concern in order to not have to read an exegesis of house rules that could very well be a new game. I try to limit my house ruling to three house rules, and usually two, keeping the third open as a floating, "fix something that is broken" rule. For example, the current house rules for my Cepheus Engine game are 1. Grav tech has been moved up the tech tree, so that air/rafts are TL 13, G-Carriers and Grav Tanks TL 15; 2. Particle Accelerators are 1 to a turret. I would like some more, but I'm not doing it, because I don't have the room. Some things if player facing, I do not really consider a house rule, though some might, like I have a tendency to collapse combat into two disciplines, melee, and ranged; then if they call out their favorite weapon, I'll give them a +1 on that.

 

[willtron3030]

I do believe that the Nineties was the birth of Collectable Card Games, where the precise wording of rules was essential.

Well, the SFRB (Start Fleet Rules Battles) crowd was running out of fresh blood, and there was this Pokemon thing...

 

[willtron3030]

"Rules as contract" is an excellent way to set expectations for the group before a game.

Yes, and that contract should be as minimal as can be. A few hard boundaries, some soft boundaries, and plenty of wiggle room for narrative.

I really can't imagine myself saying that twenty years ago.

I am looking intently at Zozer's Action Dice for my next foray into PbP.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Aye,
Rules As Contract.

That's a quote-r.

 

[Vargr Breath]

Running a game based on Traveller LLB (or whatever edition your using) rules. This gives you a little wiggle room.

 

[Enoki]

There is quite a list of RPGs that are also tactical skirmish wargames. The entire existence of RPGs started as an extension of wargames.

The difference is that Traveller, in Classic and TNE at least, *admits to the connection*.

But that remains a problem.

 

[Blue Ghost]

But why would it be a problem?

 

[Grav_Moped]

But why would it be a problem?

That depends on how you prefer your games to be run. Want crunchy second-by-second detail? Snapshot gives you that, in spades. Want rules-light narrative-form combat? Then it's a problem, if you see Snapshot (and/or AHL) as having superceded LBB1's combat rules.

 

[Straybow]

I'm not "rules as contract." However, I do want rules to be clear so people have a common reference. Hence the recent debate.
Second, I want rules to make sense.

I've said before that Traveller seems like a game that was written up on napkins collected off the gaming table (only a few were used and stained with potato chip grease), and when compiled in book form nobody went back over it all to iron out glaring conflicts.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I'm not "rules as contract." However, I do want rules to be clear so people have a common reference. Hence the recent debate.
Second, I want rules to make sense.

Sometimes it matters.
If I'm playing the crew of a Type S, and being chased offworld by some goons in a Corsair, what do I do?
1. In LBB2, probably try a jump-1 as soon as I clear the 10D limit, because the odds of surviving a misjump with full tanks are better than trying to stand and fight -- a single hit to the drives would cripple the ship.
2. In LBB5, depending on the world size, maybe make a run for it because the drives can take one hit and still be capable of Jump.
3. In rules after CT, surrender because trying to jump inside the 100D limit is instant doom.

 

[Blue Ghost]

That depends on how you prefer your games to be run. Want crunchy second-by-second detail? Snapshot gives you that, in spades. Want rules-light narrative-form combat? Then it's a problem, if you see Snapshot (and/or AHL) as having superceded LBB1's combat rules.

It's funny, or rather it's funny not in a "ha ha" kind of way but in an "interesting" and "curious" kind of way. That is the group I did SFB with sometimes crossed over to Traveller, but they preferred the old standard basic personal combat rules over Snapshot, whereas the first two or three groups I did Traveller with always did Snapshot. Always. And those games were not adventure oriented as such, but were loads of fun.

Broken record time; as I've stated elsewhere on the forum in the 70s scifi was very much an open ended genre. Before the TTA books became a reality you had scads of scifi novels with really cool art by Peter Elson, Chris Foss, Roger Dean and a few others. That, good people, was the primordial ooze out of which Traveller spawned. And to me Traveller is a more grounded "off shoot" of that time. Traveller may actually take some of its cues from pulp 1960s and 1950s scifi books and comics, but when my friends and I started playing and tinkering with the game it was that kind of an atmosphere. And it was also in the wake of Star Wars, and to a lesser extent within the shadow of Star Trek.

So, I've whined a bit about proto-Traveller on this forum, but to me that is the game. When I read the alien modules throughout the years I've tinkered and played with the system on and off, again to me, they were optional background material. Ergo any rules that came with Robots, or that then new Mega Traveller game, or Knightfall or Flaming Eye, or even T4 when Imperiumgames was still around, is all fluff. Even Virus and The New Era are optional background material to utilize. So, the "rules as written", again from my perspective, are guidelines to help you game.

To me Snapshot, Leviathan, even Annic Nova, were frameworks for Your Traveller Universe. The only thing that's really set in stone to me is the basic 8+ on 2d6 to hit roll for personal combat. There're no crazy rules for spells or special spells or even whiz-bang gadgets like the Plasmatic Pulsar Device nor, my personal favorite, Active Terminal Guidance for drones. Upon reflection I kind of would have liked the combat system to have been a touch more robust, but it works. It really does.

It's too bad jump torps, the Gazelle, purification plants on scout ships and the like look like monkey wrenches or "spanners in the works", but to me those are examples of variations that you can use or disregard. Magical times from pre-teen to post grad years with this game. I'm glad you all are still keeping the system thriving

 

[Blue Ghost]

Sometimes it matters.
If I'm playing the crew of a Type S, and being chased offworld by some goons in a Corsair, what do I do?
1. In LBB2, probably try a jump-1 as soon as I clear the 10D limit, because the odds of surviving a misjump with full tanks are better than trying to stand and fight -- a single hit to the drives would cripple the ship.
2. In LBB5, depending on the world size, maybe make a run for it because the drives can take one hit and still be capable of Jump.
3. In rules after CT, surrender because trying to jump inside the 100D limit is instant doom.

Or, you could try jumping from the landing pad on the planet surface

I do believe the success rule specifically state some crazy number like 18+ on 2d6, which means you need to have incredible skill, intelligence and related skills as DMs for your roll