traveller too complex
- Thread starter wa11eye
- Start date
Yes and yes. Just don't ask me when
Marc is actively working on it, but he honestly isn't in any hurry.
Hunter </font>[/QUOTE]Last time I got an email reply from Marc Miller he stated that he wanted to get more playtest material out this summer.
Also, he plans on handling all publishing of material himself through FarFuture Enterprises.
But, I have two questions for Hunter:
1. Have you ever considered "helping" out Mr. Miller with some of the gruntwork of the reprints for a cut in the money?
2. Do you plan on supporting T5 with stats and such in the upcoming adventures and TA products once that version appears?
Personally, I just wish he would add Aramis's Task System found here as an optional rule or something.
First, let me say that there isn't too much errata for chargen, except maybe for Merchants who were really bungled up (and COACC was AWFUL and I still don't have errata that explains how to fix it).
Ships and such, yeah. But who cares?
The game gave you lots of neat ships, add on products gave me deck plans, what more did I need?
People who worry about a transposed decimal in gearhead stuff make me wonder if they're playing an RPG or are studying for a mechanical engineering or analytic accounting correspondence diploma.
And how exactly different is that than CT?
In fact, from any game?
In any game, if you think a skill test is required, you'd better be able to describe the task being executed, what the negative effects might be, what the risk of negative effects is, how hard the task is, and what relevant characteristics apply.
That's not going to be any different under ANY system....
And only a goofy ref would do this.
Even in the case you've off-the-cuffed above, you have to have some idea of the relative range of consequences if Clem blows the roll. And you've inherently assigned a difficulty by setting it at Dex-2. You've decided what assets apply (Dex, no skills) and that the task is fateful.
In other words:
To swing across the chasm, Routine, Dex. (Fateful).
Was that hard? Not by half. You'd already done the same work.
When I'm reffing, I don't need to write out a UTP for everything, I make them up as I go, very similarly to what you're talking about.
MT is no more complicated than CT, just MORE CONSISTENT.
You really should have had a medic around at the awakening though
It accomplished a lot, and it brought a lot of unforseen and unfortunate side effects. I'm not going to say it didn't open a nasty box, but it did wake up a very staid game and open up a whole new realm of political and espionage adventuring largely ignored previously. Some groups enjoy that - mine sure did.
Most people I find talking about "CT" really just mean books 1-3. Yes, MT expanded chargen was really only Mercenary, High Guard, Scouts, and Merchant Prince all rolled in. With a few fixes/add ons (surviving blown survival rolls, penalties for pultroonery, brownie points, better pre-career education options). And some skills were better thought out - the MT skills list is *much* better than CTs. (IMO, YMMV)
FlightCommanderSolitude
SOC-13
NB: Book 1 states that characters can survive a failed survival roll (and instead end their career having served a half term), if the referee or the player so states before the survival roll is made. Just thought I'd throw that in here.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Then we agree to disagree...
the consistentcy angle is valid, but consider... how consistent are tasks really? especially "Adventure" type tasks... ? Plus, does't having "standardized" tasks cut into the spontentaity of the action? Changing a Tire is a Routine thing, but I really only see a need to roll if your doing it in combat, or with only a bottlecap... it just seems unecessarily convoluted to me...
The difference is not giving so much focus to rules mechanics, in favor of good roleplaying on the part of the Ref and the player... I was never one of those to religiously consult the "Rope Swinging" table in D&D (or anything) in the above (not so off the cuff ) example... the best mechanics (imo) are invisible...
personal taste, of course...
the consistentcy angle is valid, but consider... how consistent are tasks really? especially "Adventure" type tasks... ? Plus, does't having "standardized" tasks cut into the spontentaity of the action? Changing a Tire is a Routine thing, but I really only see a need to roll if your doing it in combat, or with only a bottlecap... it just seems unecessarily convoluted to me...
The difference is not giving so much focus to rules mechanics, in favor of good roleplaying on the part of the Ref and the player... I was never one of those to religiously consult the "Rope Swinging" table in D&D (or anything) in the above (not so off the cuff ) example... the best mechanics (imo) are invisible...
personal taste, of course...
I agree too - but the DGP/MT task system made mechanics almost invisible - everyone has an idea of what is simple, routine, difficult in life. If dice are needed (and they are only needed when a random chance is needed to add to the game) you can say 'I think thats a pretty difficult thing to do' and roll away. The players know what they have to get and what the DMs are. No arguing about rolling an 11 and failing because the ref has determined in his head that you cant win. If a thing is impossible in real life, you pretty damn well know it is impossible. Likewise the task system, in a roleplaying context, makes up for that perception.
As Kaladorn say, once you know the (quite basic) rules, you dont need much more than a screen of common tables.
But, I take what you say, its a game: enjoy.
As Kaladorn say, once you know the (quite basic) rules, you dont need much more than a screen of common tables.
But, I take what you say, its a game: enjoy.
Ok, I love CT but it has faults.
I prefer MT but I know it has faults as well.
No system is perfect and I think we are actually getting pretty far off the topic by getting into an argument over it.
Traveller is complex but you do not have to necessarily project that complexity back to the players.
It can actually be a very simple game for the player once you get past the lifepath based chargen or even simplier if you use Andy Slack's point system from his CT ultralite rules.
Ref says: "You see blah and blah and blah"
Players says: "I want to do blah (which is a task of some sort requiring a role against a skill). "
Ref says: "You need to roll over such and such. Your DM modifiers for skill A and Att B is blah. Go for it."
Player rolls and succeeds for example.
Ref goes into deep descriptive mode describing what happens since the player succeeding.
On and on and on.
Lots of times you might go a whole game only actually rolling the dice a few times.
For the ref I would assert that any GOOD sci-fi game has to be pretty complex. After all you have to have the flexibility to create a whole frickin' universe of material for your players or you are forever stuck in one pre-made setting.
_
I prefer MT but I know it has faults as well.
No system is perfect and I think we are actually getting pretty far off the topic by getting into an argument over it.
Traveller is complex but you do not have to necessarily project that complexity back to the players.
It can actually be a very simple game for the player once you get past the lifepath based chargen or even simplier if you use Andy Slack's point system from his CT ultralite rules.
Ref says: "You see blah and blah and blah"
Players says: "I want to do blah (which is a task of some sort requiring a role against a skill). "
Ref says: "You need to roll over such and such. Your DM modifiers for skill A and Att B is blah. Go for it."
Player rolls and succeeds for example.
Ref goes into deep descriptive mode describing what happens since the player succeeding.
On and on and on.
Lots of times you might go a whole game only actually rolling the dice a few times.
For the ref I would assert that any GOOD sci-fi game has to be pretty complex. After all you have to have the flexibility to create a whole frickin' universe of material for your players or you are forever stuck in one pre-made setting.
_
Why would you think having a task system implies you have to roll for trivial tasks?
I don't roll for normal tire changes. I could, but why would one?
This isn't anything to do with the system, but how you apply it.
And you probably do use standardized tasks (whether you admit it or not) for small arms combat and for ship combat already. They're about the only 'standard' tasks I don't just make up on the fly. Even then, sometimes I do.
This is nothing to do with the task system, it has to do with how you percieve it should be applied.
My players would agree. Most have no idea of Traveller mechanics beyond character creation. And I rarely consult a book while ref-ing.
OTOH, making up everything with no idea of how hard things are (standardized difficulty levels in the task system) means you might be giving your players a tougher or easier road than you mean to. Unless, subconciously, you do the same thing by getting to know that rolling 8+ modified by skill means this hard, rolling 6+ modified by skill is this hard, etc.
Frankly, my dear Baron, with all due respect, I think you've got some strange idea of how to aply the MT task system. I maintain you tacitly do the exact same set of specifications anytime you ask someone in your game to roll, whether you want to see it that way or not.....
Concur entirely. Hence why I like the BITS or DGP task system
My PCs find it easier to use the CT/MT style expanded chargen than they would (some of them at any rate) to use the 'point systems'. Some people are 'builders' and some people are 'evolvers'. I personaly am the latter. I build only when the system leaves me no other option. Other folks I know aren't decisive enough to make building anything pleasant. And still others just hate 'evolutionary' character gen systems. So the 'simplicity' depends on who you have.
Exactly.
I have players who maintain they should be able to play the game with common sense and a little bit of an idea of what they can do, and know no rules at all.
Been there, done that, but players do like to throw some cubes.
I don't do gearhead stuff, and economic modelling only so far, but I'm glad the game has that stuff for those that want it. But it isn't my priority, if I have to make those kinds of 'this is in' and 'this is out' choices.
Of course a common house rule used by CT/MT refs is to carry out normal chargen but allow players to choose their skills at the end of each term - this mixes the best of points and random systems. It also allows a player to build his/her character how he wants within the rules.
Gentlemen,
With regards to the differences between MT's UTP system and CT's 'Roll with DMs' system, I immediately switched to the UTP system when I first saw it. For me (and perhaps not for other GMs), the UTP system was cleaner, quicker, and more consistent.
Tallying the DMs that might effect each roll was more a test of forensic accounting than role-playing, IMHO. Collecting and accounting for all the applicable DMs a session may need required constant referrals to dozens of CT books. At the time there was no 'central registry' of applicable DMs for CT and DMs could be found in products ranging from the Three LBBs to published adventures to Alien Modules to various magazine articles. I can remember an early 80s article in the Space Gamer that listed all the applicable DMs for gun combat. The list was over two pages long in rather small type and included things like hanging upside down from an air/raft during a rain storm.
Conversely, the UTP system simply required me as the GM to select a difficulty level, a time interval, and decide which skills and/or personal stats may apply. No thumbing through lists to find every applicable DM, no tallying up dozens of plus and minus ones, no nothing. Merely choose a diffculty, apply skills/stats, roll the dice, and figure the time.
Because we were spending less time rolling, we could spend more time role-ing instead.
Naturally, YM chould and should MV.
Sincerely,
Larsen
With regards to the differences between MT's UTP system and CT's 'Roll with DMs' system, I immediately switched to the UTP system when I first saw it. For me (and perhaps not for other GMs), the UTP system was cleaner, quicker, and more consistent.
Tallying the DMs that might effect each roll was more a test of forensic accounting than role-playing, IMHO. Collecting and accounting for all the applicable DMs a session may need required constant referrals to dozens of CT books. At the time there was no 'central registry' of applicable DMs for CT and DMs could be found in products ranging from the Three LBBs to published adventures to Alien Modules to various magazine articles. I can remember an early 80s article in the Space Gamer that listed all the applicable DMs for gun combat. The list was over two pages long in rather small type and included things like hanging upside down from an air/raft during a rain storm.
Conversely, the UTP system simply required me as the GM to select a difficulty level, a time interval, and decide which skills and/or personal stats may apply. No thumbing through lists to find every applicable DM, no tallying up dozens of plus and minus ones, no nothing. Merely choose a diffculty, apply skills/stats, roll the dice, and figure the time.
Because we were spending less time rolling, we could spend more time role-ing instead.
Naturally, YM chould and should MV.
Sincerely,
Larsen
