Traveller Theme 1: Proto-Traveller

[rhialto]

I'm curious, why is this about reinventing the wheel without fixing the flat tire?...There is a longer list of LBB1-3 bugaboos, but I'm not interested in complaining. I'm only interested in fixing things that never really worked well.

I don't think it's so much about reinventing as rediscovering the simple, elegant, small-scale proto-Traveller, absent the elaboration of everything that came after.

But by all means fix what you think is broken: I think we all do, don't we?

 

[aramis]

I don't think it's so much about reinventing as rediscovering the simple, elegant, small-scale proto-Traveller, absent the elaboration of everything that came after.

But by all means fix what you think is broken: I think we all do, don't we?

Which leads to monstrosities like my own house rules, which rise to a whole new edition in terms of content change... where it's easier to rewrite what's carried forward than to list the differences.

 

[rhialto]

Which leads to monstrosities like my own house rules, which rise to a whole new edition in terms of content change... where it's easier to rewrite what's carried forward than to list the differences.

Yes, I have been there too: discarded too many monstrosities to count. For me it's easier to add bits to a simpler set than it is to chip away at a more refined, but complicated, set.

 

[Timerover51]

While I am not adverse to massively rewriting rules, I tend to treat Traveller with respect and caution. My approach, which I am putting together in the "My Traveller Universe" thread, is to use what is there, adapt where possible, and add where necessary. I greatly respect Marc's efforts and what he accomplished. I have enjoyed Traveller since first purchased in 1978, with my very first purchase being the Journal of the Traveller's Aid Society 2. Is the game perfect, no, is it a great accomplishment, without a doubt, YES.

I still have a preference for the Classic LBB/Starter Traveller/The Traveller Book series. Do I have the follow-ons? Yes, but I much prefer the simplicity of the earlier books.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I'm curious, why is this about reinventing the wheel without fixing the flat tire?

A whole bunch of things in LBB1-3 were broken or nonsensical because the game design wasn't well tested, especially compared to playtesting we can do in today's computerized distribution world. Most of those things were cast in concrete as "canon" by later revisions instead of being fixed.

For example, Robject has published a modified shipyard document. He added some stuff, but didn't fix things like integer math only for equipment sizes (with the occasional 0.5 ton thrown in), room-sized computers and control stations harkening back to the days of vacuum tubes, and no clarification of mass vs displacement.

Heck, Robject extended drive/power tables but left them coupled to fixed 100-ton increment hulls. We can replace all tables with a simple set of formulae that anybody with a 1977-era calculator could use competently (and a table that shows common and efficient solutions that would therefore be standardized in commerce).

There is a longer list of LBB1-3 bugaboos, but I'm not interested in complaining. I'm only interested in fixing things that never really worked well.

I think Mongoose was supposed to fix the shortcomings; i.e. create CT but address all of the loopholes and turn CT into a better functioning RPG. Ergo MgT.

 

[rhialto]

I think Mongoose was supposed to fix the shortcomings; i.e. create CT but address all of the loopholes and turn CT into a better functioning RPG. Ergo MgT.

As with so many things, mixed success: MgT seems to have inadvertently retraced CT's 1977/1981 steps (not in detail, simply in the "first attempt, second attempt" vein).

In any case, Proto-Trav's framework is in the 1st post, and could be used as the foundation upon which you could use your ruleset of choice.

 

[mike wightman]

I'm curious, why is this about reinventing the wheel without fixing the flat tire?

Probably because it isn't.
Proto-Traveller is a different interpretation of the early Imperium setting rather than an attempt to fix the rules.
It is worth noting that a few things in the '77 rules are not in the 3I setting as it later developed - jump torpedoes and trade lanes being the two most obvious but there are others if you look

A whole bunch of things in LBB1-3 were broken or nonsensical because the game design wasn't well tested, especially compared to playtesting we can do in today's computerized distribution world. Most of those things were cast in concrete as "canon" by later revisions instead of being fixed.

Broken? I haven't found many broken rules in 77 CT - and once again 'canon' is for setting rather than rules, and the setting didn't always use the rules as written.

For example, Robject has published a modified shipyard document. He added some stuff, but didn't fix things like integer math only for equipment sizes (with the occasional 0.5 ton thrown in), room-sized computers and control stations harkening back to the days of vacuum tubes, and no clarification of mass vs displacement.

Starship computers are if anything too small...

Heck, Robject extended drive/power tables but left them coupled to fixed 100-ton increment hulls. We can replace all tables with a simple set of formulae that anybody with a 1977-era calculator could use competently (and a table that shows common and efficient solutions that would therefore be standardized in commerce).

There is a certain elegance to the tables in LBB2 for quickly designing ships. If you want detail break out FF&S and have at it.

There is a longer list of LBB1-3 bugaboos, but I'm not interested in complaining. I'm only interested in fixing things that never really worked well.

Which things never worked well? In your opinion that is
I personally ditched looking up individual skill resolution in favour of the 'roll 8+' method, and then ditched the combat matrices for AHL/Striker as soon as I saw them.

 

[creativehum]

Probably because it isn't.
Proto-Traveller is a different interpretation of the early Imperium setting rather than an attempt to fix the rules.
It is worth noting that a few things in the '77 rules are not in the 3I setting as it later developed - jump torpedoes and trade lanes being the two most obvious but there are others if you look

Broken? I haven't found many broken rules in 77 CT - and once again 'canon' is for setting rather than rules, and the setting didn't always use the rules as written.

Starship computers are if anything too small...

There is a certain elegance to the tables in LBB2 for quickly designing ships. If you want detail break out FF&S and have at it.

This will surprise no one, but Mike neatly summed up my view on Straybow's post.

In particular this point:

• There is a certain elegance to the tables in LBB2 for quickly designing ships.

The fact is the ship design was built to get on with the business of getting PCs into play as adventurers, not modeling the engineering concerns of an interstellar shipyard. The rules do the job for the job intended.

As Mike points out, if one wants to pursue a more refined approach for designing ships the methods are there. But they are not required for a countless evening's worth of RPG play that Classic Traveller was designed to provide.

 

[Straybow]

Starship computers are if anything too small...

That's a hoot! ...but a discussion for another thread.

At a minimum, I'd point out that CT requires 20dT for a bridge, but then you don't install the several-dT-sized computer in the allotted bridge space. No, it is additional space taken out of the ship. And what, exactly, is in that 20dT bridge?

This will surprise no one, but Mike neatly summed up my view on Straybow's post.

The fact is the ship design was built to get on with the business of getting PCs into play as adventurers, not modeling the engineering concerns of an interstellar shipyard. The rules do the job for the job intended.

As Mike points out, if one wants to pursue a more refined approach for designing ships the methods are there. But they are not required for a countless evening's worth of RPG play that Classic Traveller was designed to provide.

Again, I'm not talking about reinventing Traveller. The ship design rules get in the way rather than speeding the process. A ways back in the thread there was a question about the difference between "standard hull" and "standard design."

Why, why in all the galaxy, is the hull of the standard design not a standard hull? Why would a standard hull be set so that any reasonable configuration of power and drives leaves wasted engineering space? Then the rules say you can't use engineering space for cargo, or even to store ship's equipment (A/R, for example). Nope, it can't be partitioned off in any way.

It's like the standard hull was produced according to one government bureau, and the standard design by another, divided by an insurmountable mountain of red tape. Nobody, in all the centuries of spacefaring, in all the naval architect firms, in all the shipyards, and even on the throne of the empire (or office of the president, or whatever) has ever said, "Fix that."

This is what I mean by "canon." The rules don't say, "There would be standard hull configurations and standard ship designs available for discount." That would leave details of those hulls and designs to the setting. No, the rules chisel the standard hulls and standard designs in stone, and you guys are busy repointing the mortar.

If you really want Setting Independent Proto-Traveller, then discard the setting wherever it appears. But the dividing line is fuzzy. Hulls exist in 100 ton increments (and 10 ton increments below 100, except for the shuttle that is 95 tons). Power plants and drives only come in 24 sizes. That is stated as if setting-independent, but implies a setting-dependent standardization.

In particular this point:

• There is a certain elegance to the tables in LBB2 for quickly designing ships.

Not really. In play it doesn't matter what your drive letter is, only your jump or maneuver performance. The letter is useless information once the design is complete.

At the bottom of the drive size table is a note. "MCr per ton: 1.0 [under Jump Drive] 2.0 [under Maneuver drive] 1.0 [under Power Plant]" Would it be more elegant to create columns with the cost already calculated, or is a simple formula what is actually elegant?

Maneuver Drive = Hull·(G+a)·b @ MCr1/dT
Jump Drive = Hull·(J+c)·d @ MCr2/dT
PP = Hull·e+(G+a)·f+(J+c)·g @ MCr1/dT

I need only 7 factors for the whole shebang (or 5 if e=f=g). If you want to say that standard engines are rounded up to whole numbers, or increments of 0.25, or 2.5, or whatever, that's implied setting.

 

[aramis]

Not really. In play it doesn't matter what your drive letter is, only your jump or maneuver performance. The letter is useless information once the design is complete.

Under Bks 1-3 only? Yes, that letter DOES matter. Damage is done to the letters, with performance hits coming secondarily from that.

Take, for example, a 400Td merchant. He needs B drives for J/M/P 1... C drives also give only 1's... but C drives can take a hit each and still produce performance 1 in a 400 Td hull, while the B drives drop to 0 and stop working. (Well, the PP probably can maintain LS and comms).

 

[flykiller]

It's like the standard hull was produced according to one government bureau, and the standard design by another, divided by an insurmountable mountain of red tape.

I'm sure the vilani have a term equivilant to "red duct tape". dispensed in measures of light seconds.

Nobody, in all the centuries of spacefaring, in all the naval architect firms, in all the shipyards, and even on the throne of the empire (or office of the president, or whatever) has ever said, "Fix that."

sure they did. and they were buried in red duct tape. "we'll need studies to determine the long term effects of reclassifying all those workers ...."

 

[Straybow]

Under Bks 1-3 only? Yes, that letter DOES matter. Damage is done to the letters, with performance hits coming secondarily from that.

Take, for example, a 400Td merchant. He needs B drives for J/M/P 1... C drives also give only 1's... but C drives can take a hit each and still produce performance 1 in a 400 Td hull, while the B drives drop to 0 and stop working. (Well, the PP probably can maintain LS and comms).

OK. Use the table to interpolate a drive letter based on the calculated size.

 

[Blue Ghost]

As with so many things, mixed success: MgT seems to have inadvertently retraced CT's 1977/1981 steps (not in detail, simply in the "first attempt, second attempt" vein).

In any case, Proto-Trav's framework is in the 1st post, and could be used as the foundation upon which you could use your ruleset of choice.

Admittedly I haven't read enough of Mongoose Traveller to give a real well thought out reply, but what I did read just seemed like the same old game I grew up with. I guess what you're saying is that they retraced some of the missteps the old rules did, but cleaned up others. Interesting.

 

[rhialto]

Admittedly I haven't read enough of Mongoose Traveller to give a real well thought out reply, but what I did read just seemed like the same old game I grew up with. I guess what you're saying is that they retraced some of the missteps the old rules did, but cleaned up others. Interesting.

Or in some cases made new missteps of their own or design choices I disliked (e.g., static ablative armor): suffice to say there was enough disappointment in the whole line that when they announced 2ed I just decided "goodbye all that, CT has enough I can build on". But I'm heavily biased in favor of MTU, proto-Traveller, using Books 1 - 3, S1, S2, S4 and then borrowing pieces from the FFE CD's.

 

[kilemall]

Honest to goodness Straybow, I don't understand your point.

Having gone through many starship design subgames processes, CT is just not that different, and simpler then many.

It's always a trade-off process, so there is always adding up wish lists and then cutting to the design essentials.

If one wants engineering to have X tonnage, well it's not tough to figure out. Power plant lines up with either Jump or Maneuver Drive as max, secondary priority drive drops to what fits, and since they lineup across each other with simple eye-catching drive letters, you can get engineering done in about 5 minutes.

Standard hulls vs. standard designs, never threw me either- the standard hulls for the most part are standard designs with their interior and drives stripped out. You stick to the limits, you get money and time off. You want to stray, it's custom. Pretty simple.

Never came up, but if someone did insist on a standard hull with unused engineering space, I'd probably allow it to be used for fuel or some machine shop add-on.

 

[Straybow]

kilemall, my point was two-fold:

First, that the claim is to make a simplified version. Why can't "simplified" mean "fixed things that almost everyone knows to be broken or less-than-workable" almost since the beginning? There are dozens of posts devoted to trying to figure out if this or that was 77 or 81, who said what and when... interesting in some ways but not necessarily on point of simplified.

Second, that the version constructed so far does include changes (some non-OTU) that

1. don't fix what's broken
2. make some things worse
3. include things from outside the 4-4-4 parameter that aren't "proto"

Yes, YTU can be anything you want. I don't see anyone saying that ship designs and trade economics that don't work are essential to Traveller, yet that seems to be what everyone is preserving in PT (intentionally or not).

I didn't want to get so specific, but here's a few things:

1. Not addressed in the general content:

• Mass vs volume: clearly less than workable and arguably broken entirely in CT
• LBB2 standard hulls with wasted Eng space in ship design examples
• 20dT bridge with no specified purpose: less than workable (huge space hog on small ships, included in all the corrected ship designs)
• Cr4000 life support per jump per stateroom, occupied or not (huge, and why can't we shut off unused rooms)
• Other completely arbitrary costs (primarily passenger/cargo rates)
• Per parsec vs per jump passenger and cargo rates

All kinds of posts correcting small errors in the printed standard ship designs, but nobody is proposing designs that might actually work better? Still defending "canon" as "if we can make it work, backwards if necessary, it must not be broken" doesn't seem like PT, more like regressive T.

2. Made worse (*specifically looking at Robject's Shipyard doc):

• Adds sensor dT to LBB2 ship design in examples
• *Enlarges stateroom from 4dT to 5dT, and specifies that 3dT should be "common space"
• *Adds life support requirements (1dT/10/mo or 2dT/10/quarter)
• *Changes bridge to stateroom-sized 2dT/workstation (1 station for each PNEGSM plus other roles, and for computer, sensors, life spt > 10dT) which easily gets larger than 20dT and doesn't greatly diminish for smallest ships

3. Added complications that don't seem to be "proto" (*Shipyard doc):

• *Barbettes, bays, black globe
• *Bulk handler
• *Grapples, Jump Net (way outside small ship, simple rules parameter?)
• *Lounge (already specified 3dT/stateroom common space)
• *Armor
• *MD and PP go to 9
• *Antimatter, power collector

I've focused mainly on the Shipyard doc because I don't feel like rereading umpteen pages of posts for other specific examples.


I'm just sayin' it seems like lots of paddling, yet the canoe hasn't gone anywhere.

 

[aramis]

Straybow, the standard hulls appear to be a nod to Larry Niven's GP hulls... which come in fixed shapes and sizes, and yes, you wind up with waste space in the engineering compartments much of the time. It's a Niven-ism.

And, if they are in fact "standard" as in, mandated standards, then yes they will both be cheaper and wind up having waste space.

Most people ignore that element; that element is not quite to the level of "Game Artifact", but comes close.

As for Robject's PT Shipyard... that document is for doing PT using T5. Not about "fixing CT" - get that out of your head or quit posting in thread, because you're going way the F off topic by going there, and it's really annoying.

It's about what needs to be replicated FROM CT INTO T5... But you keep harping on "Fix CT" [m;]That "Fix CT" tangent is OFF TOPIC in this thread and if it continues will be infracted[/m;] - start a different one if you want to go that route.

Also, Marc expressed a desire for a milieux book for T5 for the ProtoTraveller setting. Rob's dabbling on that, possibly for Marc.

 

[whulorigan]

Also, Marc expressed a desire for a milieux book for T5 for the ProtoTraveller setting. Rob's dabbling on that, possibly for Marc.

Now THAT is really cool to hear . .

 

[aramis]

Now THAT is really cool to hear . .

He's also stated the same for several other key milieux. Whether they see print or not is a wholly different matter.

 

[Straybow]

Straybow, the standard hulls appear to be a nod to Larry Niven's GP hulls... which come in fixed shapes and sizes, and yes, you wind up with waste space in the engineering compartments much of the time. It's a Niven-ism.

Hadn't thought of it that way; interesting.

As for Robject's PT Shipyard... that document is for doing PT using T5. Not about "fixing CT" - get that out of your head or quit posting in thread, because you're going way the F off topic by going there, and it's really annoying.

Sorry, I didn't realize the Shipyard was T5, thought it was a fix attempt. Not trying to pester, was just honestly wondering. That PT is more of a milieu/setting effort, then I'll withdraw from the matter.