What are the Unplayable Things in Classic Traveller for You?

[creativehum]

In another thread, Condottiere wrote:

Traveller for me has always been the Third Imperium, and the rules tend to evolve in trying to make the game playable.

I am aware that for many people each new edition is an attempt to finally get the rules "right."

I acknowledge I am naive in this matter: I look at the rules found in Books 1-3 and see rules that work, albeit with a mid-1970s RPG sensibility. One either buys into that sensibility of play, or one doesn't. (Referee dependent for rulings not rules; the game is a test of Player skill more than it is is of PC skills; and so on.)

Apart from the weirdly unexplained use of sandcasters and missiles in ship-to-ship combat, everything is there in the game and works.

Except, of course, for the people for whom the game doesn't work!

Reading Condottiere's statement made me curious: What am I missing?

People have been tweaking Traveller's rules for (literally) decades, either to fix Classic Traveller, or moving on to new editions of the rules.

So, question:

What, if anything, makes Classic Traveller not playable for you?

Ground Rules:

1. The question is, "Not Playable"... not "I don't like it." So, if there's something you like better than the rules found in LBBs 1-3, that's great. But that's not what we're talking about.
2. We're not talking at all about Third Imperium. So, if something is "broken" about the rules found in LBBs 1-3 because the rules don't support the logic of the Third Imperium, that's not a problem for the LBBs, and not a matter for this discussion. I know people wanted game systems that better reflected the setting of the Third Imperium -- and that's awesome. But LBBs 1-3 weren't designed to support the Third Imperium, so let's leave that disconnect off the table.
3. I suppose people will show up with "It's not realistic," or whatever. But I ask this really be held to a minimum. The fact that combat doesn't work they way you think it should is not the same thing as "unplayable." People can tinker with "realism" all day in RPGs. But I'm approaching Classic Traveller as an RPG game. It should be playable, but I'm not asking it to simulation reality. It's an RPG game. As long as my friends and I can have a great evening having tense adventures, using the rules to help shape and adjudicate choices and actions, then the rules are working. If we get stuck every time we try to use them, they're unplayable, and thus fodder for this thread. What, if anything, are those things for you?

So, looking at just LBBs 1-3, what makes the game unplayable for you? What are the things that needed to be fixed, and so drove you to a different edition of the game?

I ask honestly for my own edification. I'm plan on running CT soon, and if there's a boobytrap in the rules I'm missing, I'd love a chance to think about it ahead of time.

 

[BlackBat242]

To me, nothing.

I started with CT back in 1982, and never left it.

It works just fine for me, and always has.

 

[aramis]

So, looking at just LBBs 1-3, what makes the game unplayable for you? What are the things that needed to be fixed, and so drove you to a different edition of the game?

I ask honestly for my own edification. I'm plan on running CT soon, and if there's a boobytrap in the rules I'm missing, I'd love a chance to think about it ahead of time.

While it doesn't quite rise to "Not Playable", it comes close.
1. Lack of a consistent integrated skill mechanic.
2. Table-heavy combat which is frequently referee driven
3. default combat movement mechanics in 1D. Ugh.
4. Inconsistencies between ship design systems
5. Tables needed scattered across several books and an adventure...
6. Skills - updated core needed incorporating changes

1 is easily handled. Hack MT in. Or a close variant.
2 is fundamental to core CT. Solution: AHL/Striker. Or MT
3 is easily solved by using Snapshot or AHL movement rules, or converting speed to squares per turn
4 backporting what I like towards Bk2 from Bk5-HG2
5 This is the epic fail of CT for me. The solution is to copy all the tables out into a better layout, with all the weapons and all the armors noted... or to use a less table-driven-in-play alternate - Striker/AHL or MT.
6 is solved by going to MT tables.

So, given the backporting issues, it would be far easier for me to hack what I like of CT into MT (where they differ) - which would be essentially Bk2 ship-building paradigms, but rationalized.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[nobby-w]

In another thread, Condottiere wrote:

I am aware that for many people each new edition is an attempt to finally get the rules "right."

I acknowledge I am naive in this matter: I look at the rules found in Books 1-3 and see rules that work, albeit with a mid-1970s RPG sensibility. One either buys into that sensibility of play, or one doesn't. (Referee dependent for rulings not rules; the game is a test of Player skill more than it is is of PC skills; and so on.)
[ . . .]

There are a few issues in the CT rules, such as balance issues with small ships in High Guard, and later skills not being available to the core services. Most folks use hacked about versions of the CT rules that backfill this stuff with house rules and ad-hoc fixes.

Striker makes for a better combat system than that published in CT, although you have to buy it separately (either off Ebay or the CD from FFE). However, the way the system works means that weapons capable of penetrating heavy armour will pretty much insta-kill unarmoured characters. One tends to have to add house-rules to nerf some of the weapons - putting a cap on the DM on the personal wound table, removing 'exploding round' effects on weapons such as lasers and so forth.

If you do this then Striker becomes a usable combat system for Traveller, and has a number of benefits, such as rules for vehicles and use of cover. Azhanti High Lighting uses much the same combat system but adds a Snapshot like action point system. Some folks like this and some don't.

Megatraveller is essentially a tidy-up of CT. It re-balances character generation with a bias towards more skills, but makes skills such as Survival available to the base services. There are more skills to choose from, but the characters get more skills and there is less disparity between characters generated with the basic and advanced character generation systems. The excessive damage done by weapons in Striker is also nerfed down to more sensible levels in the combat system. MT's famous editorial issues make it a bit of work to make sense of, although I understand this was fixed up somewhat in later editions.

You can trivially adapt Megatraveller to a Third Imperium universe, so if you don't like the schism you can pretend it never happened. As for the virus ...

 

[RandyB]

So, question:

What, if anything, makes Classic Traveller not playable for you?

Ground Rules:

1. The question is, "Not Playable"... not "I don't like it." So, if there's something you like better than the rules found in LBBs 1-3, that's great. But that's not what we're talking about.
2. We're not talking at all about Third Imperium. So, if something is "broken" about the rules found in LBBs 1-3 because the rules don't support the logic of the Third Imperium, that's not a problem for the LBBs, and not a matter for this discussion. I know people wanted game systems that better reflected the setting of the Third Imperium -- and that's awesome. But LBBs 1-3 weren't designed to support the Third Imperium, so let's leave that disconnect off the table.
3. I suppose people will show up with "It's not realistic," or whatever. But I ask this really be held to a minimum. The fact that combat doesn't work they way you think it should is not the same thing as "unplayable." People can tinker with "realism" all day in RPGs. But I'm approaching Classic Traveller as an RPG game. It should be playable, but I'm not asking it to simulation reality. It's an RPG game. As long as my friends and I can have a great evening having tense adventures, using the rules to help shape and adjudicate choices and actions, then the rules are working. If we get stuck every time we try to use them, they're unplayable, and thus fodder for this thread. What, if anything, are those things for you?

So, looking at just LBBs 1-3, what makes the game unplayable for you? What are the things that needed to be fixed, and so drove you to a different edition of the game?

Emphasis mine. It's interesting that the question is about LBB 1-3, and replies are (in part or whole) citing High Guard, Striker, etc.

 

[mike wightman]

I find it playable as is.

There are some houserules I would always incorporate in my games though.

1- scouts and other careers get two skills per term
2- a simplification of the skill system to a basic roll of 8+ to be successful in the majority of play (saves looking up skills)
3- ditch the combat matrices in favour of 8+ or 12+ to hit with armour as damage reduction

 

[Timerover51]

So, looking at just LBBs 1-3, what makes the game unplayable for you? What are the things that needed to be fixed, and so drove you to a different edition of the game?

I ask honestly for my own edification. I'm plan on running CT soon, and if there's a boobytrap in the rules I'm missing, I'd love a chance to think about it ahead of time.

First, I am looking at just the 3 LBB books, actually going back to the 1977 rules, but also have the 1981 edition.

The one area I find, to me, to be "unplayable" is the combat rules, both for individual and space combat. For individual combat, I was using the rules from Don Featherstone's Skirmish Wargaming, which with one roll, I can resolved anything from fists to machine guns, well before I encountered Traveller in the 1977 LBB version. I looked at the Traveller rules, decided that they were nowhere near as good as what I was using, and continued to use the Skirmish rules. Note, that is for me because of prior gaming experience. I was playing Blue Book D&D well before Traveller as well, and never had problems with those rules for individual combat resolution, although they are not quite as smooth to use as the Skirmish rules.

With respect to space combat, I was using Lou Zocchi's Star Trek rules back with the ships were paper cutouts, and you were using string for firing. For space combat, if you have to have it, I am more the Warp War or GDW Imperium type. Do not get into the gritty details, just abstract it, and keep moving. For me, the missiles are unplayable per se, and I keep thinking of things like radar sweep time for a 360 degree sweep out to several thousand miles and at that point, space combat starts breaking down. Against that, space combat is not critical to the rules, and a referee can work the game to totally avoid it.

The Scout character needs a bit of tweaking, but that is not hard at all. If your characters decide on being merchants, be careful with the Broker rule, otherwise, they can make a lot of money really fast.

Aside from those caveats, the books are good to go as is.

 

[Otto Harkaman]

The space combat rules where unplayable to me, being for miniatures and I was a die hard hex & counter wargame player. So I felt I had to get Mayday which I never was able to get until the game was published digitally in pdf format on wargamer's vault.

 

[simonh]

The combat lookup tables are a nightmare. A separate entry for each individual weapon against each individual type of armour? Really?

Vector movement in space combat is nice in theory and might work for a tabletop space combat miniatures game, but horrible in practice for an RPG.

The lack of a consistent task or skills and modifiers system is an issue. Task systems such as Mega Traveler were a clear improvement IMHO, but not as much of a big deal as the above.

Sticking purely to Book 2 starship design would feel horribly restrictive compared to what I'm used to these days. Bear in mind almost all the designs out there in the world are HG or later. Sticking only to Book 2 valid designs would collapse down the available ship types quite a bit. It depends how purist you are. I use designs from every edition pretty much interchangeably.

Aside from that, later systems made many small, incremental but still significant improvements. I'd still play CT if that was on offer and I'd like it, but I don't really see the point of playing it pure since so many improved mechanics are very easy to plug in.

Simon Hibbs

 

[ffilz]

Reading all the responses, it seems to me that "unplayable" really just means "I don't like." Clearly one could come up with rules that would render a game such that everyone who tried to play the game would be frustrated (for an extreme example, add a rule to chess that the queen may jump to any square on the board, the game starts in checkmate and white automatically wins on its first move, clearly a game no one would play).

Frank

 

[kilemall]

With respect to Timerover's issue re: radar search, that issue is precisely why I have tied detection range directly to computer model, as I see it as a processing issue of ever vaster amounts of space and combinations of sensor inputs rather then a specific dedicated system issue.

Out of the box of course CT starships is a drama system not a milsim. The damage system alone is clearly designed for drama, although still pretty harsh for the smaller ships.

Otherwise, my issues are largely the ones Aramis lists, and I'm about in the same place- they don't render the system unplayable, just annoying, and I just break out the tinker box (although now I have to wonder if MT is really that superior in the skill handling department).

Reading up Brilliant Lances, which arguably so far seems to be the best hardcore individual space battle system GDW published, and I still would tinker with it, so that's not necessarily a knock.

Probably a good thing about CT is that it IS so simple to tinker with, in the same sense that it is easier to tinker with a TL6 car rather then a TL8 car that requires Electronics rolls in addition to Mechanical. A lot more dependencies and nuances with a more complex system.

I suspect the issue most people have with your proto-Traveller slant OP is precisely that lack of 3I backstory. I wouldn't invest much concern with that either way, as those of strong enough temperament and need to create will do so anyway, those who are not into the world building thing can have a rich setting that gives a better game reality then they can devise/have time to do, and it's an entertainment choice at the end of the day.

 

[Whipsnade]

Out of the box of course CT starships is a drama system not a milsim.

That cannot be repeated enough.

I've seen posts in the past complaining that Traveller's various vehicle construction rules cannot produce exact duplicates of certain fighter aircraft or "wet navy" warships. Such complaints have everything to do with a fundamental lack of comprehension by those complaining and nothing to do with the rules.

Traveller is a game and not a model. The trade system is supposed to create adventures, not economic data. Sysgen creates adventures, not astronomically correct data. Worldgen is not planetography. Chargen is not sociology. FF&S is not a degree in mechanical, electrical, electronic, naval, or any other kind of engineering.

Your observation that "unplayable" really means "annoying" is spot on too. If the various things begin griped about here truly made CT unplayable, why were they playing it?

 

[flykiller]

Reading all the responses, it seems to me that "unplayable" really just means "I don't like."

to an extent, sure. an objective test of unplayability is "will the referee run it and will players play it". smooth or clunky, simple or complex, realistic or fantasy, if they stay then it's playable.

 

[creativehum]

I suspect the issue most people have with your proto-Traveller slant OP is precisely that lack of 3I backstory. I wouldn't invest much concern with that either way...

Hi kilemall,

I have no concerns about that matter either way. I'm really enjoying reading the responses. Which is why I haven't jumped in with replies yet. I'm not interested in either attacking or defending anything. I'm simply and genuinely curious. I will have some questions for follow up soon. But, again, I'm happy just reading.

As for the lack of 3I backstory...

No one will get any argument from me that as the CT game line continued more and more faults began to appear as the materials didn't always fit together coherently. One of my main points about LBBs 1-3 is that they work really well as is... but that the later material can gum the whole thing up if one is actually expecting all the material to be integrated. Because it wasn't. Design agendas changed during the game's existence (example: the imaginative, non-scientific world designs for 50-70s SF worlds in Book 3, and the about-face in trying to make scientifically ground systems in Book 6. A person might want one or the other, but, really, they're designed with two different goals in mind.)

As for the Third Imperium: again, one can't draw a straight line from LBBs 1-3 to The Third Imperium. One needs to layer on at least Book 5, if not other changes in game rules and textural framing, to create what would eventually become the OTU. So, by default, the game breaks down in the context of the Third Imperium. To avoid making that a fault of the game (it isn't -- GDW simply wanted a setting that tweaked the original rules for their own purposes) I decided to keep the OUT out of the question.

Since, LBBs 1-3 were designed as a stand alone game (with no further expectations of Traveller products) I'm curious about the game as is, without all the additions and adjustments throughout the game's history.

In this regard, I am using and seeing LBBs 1-3 exactly as you describe: a toolkit for tinkering.

 

[Hyphen]

5. Tables needed scattered across several books and an adventure...
(snip)
5 This is the epic fail of CT for me. The solution is to copy all the tables out into a better layout, with all the weapons and all the armors noted... or to use a less table-driven-in-play alternate - Striker/AHL or MT.

The "Charts and Tables" book (I got mine in _Starter Traveller_, my first ruleset) helps a LOT, and using the JG Referee Screen which combines all the weapon/armour charts into one.

OTOH, I'm an MT grognard like Wil, so what do I know? ;-) ;-)

 

[kilemall]

The "Charts and Tables" book (I got mine in _Starter Traveller_, my first ruleset) helps a LOT, and using the JG Referee Screen which combines all the weapon/armour charts into one.

OTOH, I'm an MT grognard like Wil, so what do I know? ;-) ;-)

First thing I did when I got back into the game was buy a JG Ref Screen.

Second thing I did was get the screen, look at that weapons chart and make my own splitting out the armor from the to-hit (cause I wanted the hits to hit and then the armor to bounce or limit damage).

Third thing I did was go look for the Striker rules.

 

[kilemall]

No one will get any argument from me that as the CT game line continued more and more faults began to appear as the materials didn't always fit together coherently. One of my main points about LBBs 1-3 is that they work really well as is... but that the later material can gum the whole thing up if one is actually expecting all the material to be integrated. Because it wasn't. Design agendas changed during the game's existence (example: the imaginative, non-scientific world designs for 50-70s SF worlds in Book 3, and the about-face in trying to make scientifically ground systems in Book 6. A person might want one or the other, but, really, they're designed with two different goals in mind.)

Here's the ironic thing about the whole 3I as content simplifier- it's really NOT due to all the canon mismatches/changes this and that, and in the final analysis, one ends up making it their own universe anyway due to interpretation, not reading or owning every set of rules, etc.

 

[creativehum]

Here's the ironic thing about the whole 3I as content simplifier- it's really NOT due to all the canon mismatches/changes this and that, and in the final analysis, one ends up making it their own universe anyway due to interpretation, not reading or owning every set of rules, etc.

Hi kilemall,

While I heartily agree with the second half of your sentence (about "the final analysis") but I'm not sure I'm tracking the first half. If you're up for it, could you unpack that?


As for the Combat Throws in Classic Traveller:

For me, the first Throw in Classic Traveller combat is not "To Ht" but to see if your weapon dealt penetrating damage, based on armor and range, in a single roll.

Some people dig this method, some don't.

But no explanation yet has convinced me that Striker isn't pretty much the same thing, but with the steps for determining hit/damage moved around.

In one case (CT) you factor in range and armor to see if the shot penetrated on the first Throw. If you missed, it means you might have "hit" the target, or you might have missed. But either way you didn't do any effective damage. If you succeeded it meant your shot did effective damage gains the target. You make a second roll to determine damage.

In the second case (Striker) you first make a Throw to hit, based on weapon type and range. Then, if you hit, you make a second Throw factoring in armor and the range (based on weapon type) to see if the shot penetrated.

For me (and this is for me) I'm not seeing the advantage with moving the impact of armor on penetration to the second Throw. With Classic Traveller, if you're shot doesn't penetrate, you don't waste time making the second roll. In the Striker, if you hit you make a second Throw to see if you did any damage -- but it might turn out that the penetrating damage is zero.

I understand that referencing To Hit values is easier in Striker, but given that CT removes the second roll if there's not going to be a hit anyway, for me it all comes out in the wash.

(NOTE: There's no point in describing to me how much better Striker is at this time. I've read all the threads. I've read the Striker rules. If I want to dig back into this topic in the future, I'll start another thread.)

Additionally, I really like that Close range in Classic Traveller combat has distinctly different values than Short and Medium. This way, firing a Rifle at Close range is actually a liability when someone is coming at you with a dagger. They can get inside your attack, wielding their knife at better odds than you fumbling with a long gun. I think that's neat. With Striker, of course, Close, Short and Medium all get folded into one Effective range. I find that less appealing. And since lot of Classic Traveller combat is going to take place at Close, Short, and Medium ranges, I like having different "flavors" for the different ranges.)

Finally, I've posted these before, but inspired by a post from Supplement Four a while back, I made these Classic Traveller Weapons Cards. With them, I broke out the Judges Guild Ref Screen and set out the combine range/armor values per weapon, per card. You print them out and hand a card to any Player with a PC carrying that weapon.

I'm not saying they're for everyone. But for someone who wants a single roll to determine if a weapon penetrated based on range and armor in a single roll, they're pretty nifty. And they greatly cut down on the handling time for getting the Throw for combat.

 

[whartung]

But no explanation yet has convinced me that Striker isn't pretty much the same thing, but with the steps for determining hit/damage moved around.

By making To Hit and To Damage orthogonal, you offer a systemic way to better deal with edge cases.

Consider something contrived such as a molotov cocktail. It's fair to argue that To Hit with a molotov cocktail is the same as To Hit with a hand grenade, a water ballon, or a baseball (let's not get pedantic on the details here).

Obviously, the "too damage" component are quite different for these different objects.

Similarly consider shooting a bullet. The "To Hit" for a bullet going 700m/s is likely to be the same regardless of the mass of the bullet (yes, there are other factors). Since marksmanship is basic ballistics, the To Hit for such a bullet would be similar. But clearly the To Pen difference between a 30 grain bullet and a 200 grain bullet are quite different.

Separating these makes it easier to systematically deal with extraordinary circumstances.

Say someone dropped a 5 foot piece of 3/8" rebar on a player from 5 meters, and the player is wearing cloth armor. Does it penetrate?

Well, if you work out the math (3/8" rebar is said to be .38 lb/foot), that piece of rebar has about 95% of the energy of a 165 grain .30 caliber bullet at 2800 fps, i.e. a 30'06. So, it has a similar chance to penetrate the armor. Did you think that the rebar would have the same energy as a high powered rifle? I myself wasn't sure. I knew it was dangerous, but maybe not this dangerous.

To some, that may be intuitive. To others, it may not. For game purposes it likely doesn't matter. But the point is that by separating to hit and to damage, the mechanism is in place to formalize it should you want to.

So for many every day applications, the 1 roll may well be sufficient. But for areas not directly covered by a rule or a chart, a mechanism exists to extrapolate the effect and, ostensibly, be consistent with results.