What are the Unplayable Things in Classic Traveller for You?

[McPerth]

They are the same as if you are hit by a starship grade laser or missile or sand canister - roll a new character or activate clone insurance.

Agreed. MT says the same by using lots of tables and penetration/damage equivalents...

For things like g-carriers and ATVs that mount machine guns or laser rifle equivalents then you just use the normal combat rules.

For unarmoured vehicles you have to hit the equivalent of mesh armour with personal scale weapons, light armoured vehicles cloth armour, medium armour vehicles battle dress and heavy armored vehicle are immune to personal scale weapons - break out the tac missiles.

On a successful hit roll on the smallcraft damage table.

Alternatively if you really want to go the extra mile, and like rolling damage dice, for each component in the vehicle give it a hit number as if it were an animal and that becomes the damage to reduce its efficiency/destroy the component.

eg an open air raft can lift 4 tons and 4 people (let's say at 100kg each) so that's the equivalent of 44 grav belts. 10kg per grav belt give the grav lifters on the air/raft a mass of 440kg
Nearest animal is 400kg so I have 6d/3d for hits.
I decide that grav modules are delicate so give them 2 hit per die so the damage rating of the drive is 12/6 (more rugged components or components deliberately hardened I may grant more of the d6 vale to)
Controls/computer are 25kg (I made this up) for a hit rating of 6/4

So my air/raft card says:

air/raft(mesh) --- drive 12/6---controls 6/4--- crew 1/1/1/1

Bod shoots at the air/raft with his smg, rolls to hit vs mesh armour and gets a hit.
Smallcraft hit table is consulted and the result is drive.
3d are rolled for a total damage of 9, the drive is still ok
Bod shoots again and gets a cabin hit, one of the crew takes the 3d of damage this time.

Very nice rules, but house rules, and, as always IMHO, this only support my point: with standard rules, vehicles in combat ar unplayable (and that was the OP question).

 

[mike wightman]

Well, it takes (Looking in S7) 100 points of energy weapon or 1000 points of bullets to hole a partition wall... 28.5 dice of energy, or 285 dice of bullets. (CT S page 4). It takes 1000 points of energy weapon to hole a bulkhead (ibid, p.5)

The problem is that this is incompatible with later editions...

But, not so much striker, which puts starships at AV 60+, and weapons must have a penetration not more than 5 below the AV. (Yes, I'm aware errata lowers that to 40, a match to MT.) (Striker, Bk2, p 42)

But even that doesn't tell us how much is needed to inflict a hit on the ship - that's just a hole.

Those rules are not in LBB1-3, nor is it possible to infer them.

 

[ffilz]

Tthen why to include those armed vehicles in the game if there are no rules to use them.

And it's ok to think the referee will house rule it, but then this fully comes to the OP question, that is what I was answering.

And not incluiding those rules in LBB4 was even a greater flawl, IMHO...

Ok, we've established vehicle rules are missing from Books 1-3. Can we move on now?

For those that makes the game unplayable, you've made your point.

Now are there ANY OTHER things that make the game in Books 1-3 unplayable?

And in the spirit of the original post, I really would love to not see discussion of rules and implications from any further supplements. Was the game as published playable as is or not, and if not, why not? If GDW had collapsed and never heard from again, would that original boxed set be enough?

Personally, I think so. Clearly most of the folks who are active on this board don't think so. Honestly I think we just have to agree to disagree.

Frank

 

[flykiller]

Was the game as published playable as is or not, and if not, why not?

'pends on what you want to play.

 

[mike wightman]

Agreed. MT says the same by using lots of tables and penetration/damage equivalents...



Very nice rules, but house rules, and, as always IMHO, this only support my point: with standard rules, vehicles in combat ar unplayable (and that was the OP question).

I haven't used any house rules at all.

I have used the rules as written and applied them in an imaginative way.

 

[aramis]

I haven't used any house rules at all.

I have used the rules as written and applied them in an imaginative way.

No, you've essentially claimed house rules are core rules due to the "refs may add" clause... quite disingenuous.

 

[McPerth]

For those that makes the game unplayable, you've made your point.

Personally I've never said (nor intended) that the gae is unplayable, I just answered with a point that must be house ruled to be. I find it was as palayable as any other game, with its strengths and its flawls. Othewise I would have not played it.

Now are there ANY OTHER things that make the game in Books 1-3 unplayable?

Aside the vector space combat, that, at least when we played it with more than 2 ships, needed too large a table to be playable?

And also if you made too large combat ships with LBB2 (let's say in the 2000+ range), combat with them was also nearly unplayable, as too many sandcastes may made it imposible to hit anyone.

Also, in this ship range, and depending on how do you understand the computer programs (see this thread) combat is, if not outright unplayable, hard to play.

Of course, HG fixed it...

And in the spirit of the original post, I really would love to not see discussion of rules and implications from any further supplements. Was the game as published playable as is or not, and if not, why not? If GDW had collapsed and never heard from again, would that original boxed set be enough?

Personally, I think so. Clearly most of the folks who are active on this board don't think so. Honestly I think we just have to agree to disagree.

I guess mosst of the folks didn't find it unplayable, just would like things aother way, or clearer. After all, if we're here is because we not only played it, but liked it.

 

[aramis]

If GDW had collapsed and never heard from again, would that original boxed set be enough?

No, they wouldn't have been. In the gaming market of the late 70's and early 80's, continuing product was a sales necessity to drive continued presence of corebooks. The games most of us know about from that era are not the one-and-done products, but the ones that got well supported.

Example: FGU's Starships & Spacemen. Excellent game. 1 print run in 1978. 1 print run in 2014. Most have never heard of it. (It has many similar scale issues to CT: Ships on one scale, people on another, no actual rule nor mention of a conversion factor.

CT 77 as released was good enough to form a splash in the pan, and get things cooking, but it wasn't complete in some areas that were VERY stock in Sci-Fi of the era... keeping in mind this was the era of Pournelle, Stirling, Niven and Drake writing about armor vs infantry battles in the far future...

At the very least, Bk 4 Mercenary allowed playing most (but not all) of Pournelle/Stirling's Falkenberg's Legion stories... the others make use of infantry vs armor.

The CT ground vehicle combat (ignoring striker) appears only in one DA.

Small Arms Damage: Small arms are less likely to damage an ATV, but can get lucky. After throwing for hits and damage, note the total hit points inflicted. For each 24 points inflicted, consult the ATV damage table once. If the result is lights, visor, or gun, then inflict the damage normally; otherwise, there is no effect. As referee, do not reveal this process, but apply it mysteriously (possibly referring to the results as "lucky hits").

That was, however, a good enough starting point to allow many of us to work out some variation of damage system for more general use.

 

[flykiller]

Aside the vector space combat, that, at least when we played it with more than 2 ships, needed too large a table to be playable?

no problem, just use the gym or basketball court after school.

 

[Whipsnade]

No, they wouldn't have been. In the gaming market of the late 70's and early 80's, continuing product was a sales necessity to drive continued presence of corebooks. The games most of us know about from that era are not the one-and-done products, but the ones that got well supported.

Very true. Even the RPGs that had corebooks plus a half dozen follow-ups faded from memory.

Yes, the web, scanners, file uploads, and piracy have resurrected dozens of those RPGs over the last decade or so - sometimes even spurring updates, new releases, and whatnot - but during the period in question it was as if those one-and-dones and one-and-tens never existed at all.

Traveller is still around because of all the products, updates, and versions GDW produced for it. If it had only been the 1977's Little Black Box we wouldn't be here now.

The CT ground vehicle combat (ignoring striker) appears only in one DA.

The ATV DA was 1980, right?

That was, however, a good enough starting point to allow many of us to work out some variation of damage system for more general use.

I know I did it, but only after I had that DA and that was a couple years after 1980.

 

[creativehum]

If GDW had collapsed and never heard from again, would that original boxed set be enough?

I think by this question Frank is not asking if only having the boxed set on the shelf would have been enough to keep the game selling.

He's asking, "Would the boxed set of basic Traveller be enough to keep you and your friends playing."

The needs of players and the needs of publishers line up in many ways... and they diverge in many ways.

So, whether or not Traveller lasted 40 years, the question is: Could someone stumble across the boxed set and end up playing with it for months (if not years). Not, perhaps, a game that was all things to all people, but to be used as a toolkit for countless hours of entertainment within the focus of the material in the books. I believe that's what he's asking.

 

[aramis]

The ATV DA was 1980, right?



I know I did it, but only after I had that DA and that was a couple years after 1980.

Yep. I didn't get into Traveller until 1983... by which point, there was enough to make a working approach to many of the issues the CT rules themselves had.

MT was a much more complete game - a major part of why I switched.

 

[Whipsnade]

MT was a much more complete game...

Another reason why Traveller survived.

Instead of having to chase down several CT products to fashion a more complete rules set, MT gave the core to you in two sourcebooks. All you needed was the Players Manual and Referees Manual.

 

[creativehum]

I agree that the missing vehicle combat rules are a hole in original Traveller.

I also agree with Mike that one can easily extrapolate the rules contained in Books 1-3 to find solutions. While this isn't everyone's cup of tea, there's nothing weird about it, and it would have been expected in the 1970s.

Because extrapolating rules would have been expected per the design of 1970s RPGs, I don't consider it any sort of fatal flaw. Loren Wiseman's editorial in issue #2 of the JTAS goes on at length about how to build a laser pistol per the basic Traveller rules. Just because every weapon that could ever be isn't listed doesn't mean there's a huge hole in the game. If one looks at at the "playing pieces" of the rules in LBBs 1-3, Wiseman makes clear, you'll be able to make the weapons you want.

I have maintained for a while that using the playing pieces found in LBBs 1-3 a Referee can make any alien or robot he wants without recourse to any new subsystem. By "playing pieces" I mean:

• the UPP Characteristics
• the Combat rules (which cover speed, weapons, attack, and armor)
• the rules of Drugs
• the rules for Psionics
• the rules for creating Animals

Using these rules in different permutations, one can create super-fast aliens, aliens with innate weird powers (that might not be psionics at all), and so on.

Thinking about the string of posts today, I too thought, "Huh. How would I handle a grav tank if the PCs stumbled into conflict with one while trying to get cross-country?" And it did stump me.

But then I remember the Animal Size and Weaponry table from the Animal Creation rules on Book 3. It occurred to me that one could easily use how that table extrapolates from earlier rules to create a wide variety of strengths and effects greater than the scale of humans and weapons so far presented. In that table armor can be modified beyond Battle Armor, natural weapons are based on the weapons already provided but altered with innate Das to hit; and Wounds from animal attacks (based on size) can be increased with extra D6 damage dice, or even with multipliers (up to x6 the base Damage!)

It seems easy enough to create armored hulls that start at Battle Dress and go up with modifiers (based on the TL of the manufacturing world). Using the table as a model, seems easy enough to create explosive shells or laser cannons that have modifiers to hit against any armor (increasing the odds of penetrating damage), and it seems easy enough to increase the damage as seems appropriate. Moreover, the clever use of unconscious/dead/destroyed damage against animals can be modeled quickly to vehicles: component destroyed/vehicle incapacitated/vehicle explodes.

Personal arms will have a slim chance of doing any vital damage. Another vehicle (or weapon) will need to be brought into place. Damage against individuals will most likely result in death.

Of course, this way of building the rules out from what is already there does model combat. But that's not what original Traveller was trying to do. LBBs were designed at the scale of adventures in adventurous situations. The Referee needed rules to adjudicate results and to offer the Players information to make informed decisions about the risks and rewards for different actions in dangerous situations. Extrapolating as above does this. Using these rules one will not be able to to sort out the manufacturing cost per item coming out of a TL 11 factory. One will, however, be able to quickly cobble together some tanks and keep the evening's game going.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on this kind of thinking. I'm only pointing out that was there, as part and parcel of the thinking of the play in the 70s for the kind of game Traveller was supposed to be.

Yes, the game would have benefited, perhaps, from more rules. But what I find more interesting is the the basic Traveller rules offer more than enough "playing piece" to pretty much sort out whatever it is the gang wants to to that night at the table. The limitation on the page count means that the Referee will have to sort things out. But the game itself offers the support needed to do this.

 

[Timerover51]

Was the game as published playable as is or not, and if not, why not? If GDW had collapsed and never heard from again, would that original boxed set be enough?
Frank

I would agree with Frank. The original set of 3 books were sufficient to play and play well the game. Did they have everything? No, but then neither did the 3 original D&D books have everything. Could you play D&D with the original 3 books? Certainly. More was added later, but both games were fully playable with the first 3 books.

 

[Golan2072]

True, and yet in TTB pages 111-113, the G-Carrier and ATVs are told to be armed, and the AFV. Al laredescribed there, but no rules as how to use them in combat are given.

Inspired by this thread, I have cobbled together some quick and dirty vehicle combat rules for CT...

 

[aramis]

Inspired by this thread, I have cobbled together some quick and dirty vehicle combat rules for CT...

And those look nothing like the ones in DA2.

 

[Golan2072]

And those look nothing like the ones in DA2.

Inspired by DA2, Book 2 ship combat, and a little bit of Striker.

 

[aramis]

Inspired by DA2, Book 2 ship combat, and a little bit of Striker.

More like "a lot of striker"...

Then again, MT was essentially HG crossed with Striker...

 

[edmundhudson]

The posts on vehicle combat reminded me that I have issue of White Dwarf (that I picked up when I was visiting London in 1983) with an article by Andy Slack with the title "Vehicle Combat”. (!)

His rules are for scenarios run using Books 1-4.

Base a vehicle’s cost and mass by comparing to items in Book 3 and 4, with the additional requirement that the vehicle mass and cost must be at least 10x those of the primary weapon.

There are three armor classes:
1. Softskin (trucks, cars, etc.)
2. Light armor (Book 3 AFV and ATV, APCs and SP artillery)
3. Heavy armor (main battle tanks)

Personnel attacking vehicles use the standard rules to determine if there is a hit, with the following armor class conversions: Softskin counts as mesh, light armor as combat armor with a -1 DM per tech level over 5 and heavy armor as combat armor with a -3 DM per tech level over 5.

Heavy weapons, tac missiles, ship’s weapons, etc. hit on a roll 8+ (regardless of range). Firer’s expertise is a positive DM; target driver’s skill level is negative DM, if evading. The difference in tech level between firer and target is a DM in favor of the higher tech level side.

If a hit is scored, regardless of weapon, the firer rolls 2d6.
+2 DM if target has light armor
+4 DM if target is softskin
The difference in tech level between firer and target is a DM in favor of the higher tech level side

If modified roll is 8+, vehicle is disabled; if roll is 11+, vehicle is destroyed. If destroyed, occupants take 1-6d6 damage and escape wreck with armor, life support gear and one personal item of their choosing. For disabled vehicles, roll 8+, with DMs for appropriate skills. Repair in the field in 1-6 hours if roll is successful. Repair in a shop in 1-6 days if the roll fails.

Vehicles normally operate with the commanders exposed. Such commanders can be attacked using the standard rules, but count as evading. A commander who is hit, or fails morale, will button up the vehicle. Buttoned up vehicles must roll their tech level or less to spot personnel on foot.

Personnel inside vehicles can be attacked directly, with the target choosing either their personal armor or the vehicle armor against the attack. Personnel also count as evading, unless surprised.