CT Only: What One Thing Would You Change About Classic Traveller?

[mike wightman]

Dump the LBB2 vector space combat system (which requires an IRL Model1+ computer on hand if you want to "land on planet' or "use gas giant for sharp turn" or "skim gas giant for fuel") in favor of a grid or hex system.

Lol, no it doesn't. I played LBB2, Mayday and Triplanetary ( and a couple of others) long before I got my first computer.

Don't get me wrong, I use the abstract ship's boat combat system a lot more than digging out a hex map or clearing the table for a ship to ship combat - but upon occasion going full vector is the only way yo do it.

In 1977 - 1981, people thought in terms of Star Trek or Star Wars for space combat anyway, so write rules to let them do that. Re-enact the Millenium Falcon in that asteroid field FTW!

Do that and I would burn my entire Traveller collection...
some of us even back then knew about Newtonian movement in space and how Star Trek and Star Wars is pure cinematic cartoon physics.

 

[RandyB]

Change the example of chargen to a non-Merchant, to eliminate the false belief that "mortgaged Free Trader" is the default mode of play.

 

[Fovean]

Similar to previous comments:

*Lose the weapons matrices and have armor as damage reduction
*Institute Adv/Disadv DMs based on characteristics to model reduced capabilities from wounds, for all checks not just combat
*Institute a basic task mechanic ala Rule 68A. I take Mike’s point regarding the guidelines on the use of dice and checks in the Traveller Adventure, however it’s unsatisfying to me to swing from roll-over to roll-under to what can feel arbitrary at times
*Introduce a hex grid for vector movement ala Mayday but with a smaller scale and shorter turn length
*Introduce a few D66 tables similar to the Trade Goods table to expand Star systems. We make 8 throws to create a world, I can see 6 or 8 more telling us about the Star and it’s companions, other worlds in the system and so forth

Oh and +1 on having gravitics and Jump occur at a later TL. I’ve been doing that for years and I find it does open up the near-future in fun ways.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Star Wars is pure cinematic cartoon physics.

If you pay attention to X-wing and Y-wing flight patterns in Star Wars Episodes 4-6 (meaning, the "real" ones) then it's pretty obvious that what you're looking at is the Battle Of Britain simply set in space. I mean, the fighters bank to turn(!) and are basically limited to making aerodynamic maneuvers (like Spitfires vs Me109s).

Proper newtonian vector movement physics in space needed Babylon 5 and the Starfuries to show how a dedicated space fighter ought to be designed and maneuver in space.

 

[coliver988]

Honestly, I would change nothing - that's what all the subsequent versions are for (and note my sig - I tend to borrow bits and pieces from most versions).

But, if did have to change 1 thing, it would be the armor matrix as others have mentioned. I'd rather it be a damage reducer as opposed to "making it harder to hit" (which is really a conceit to a pretty high level of combat abstraction that, when I first picked up Traveller, I did not understand. And now, after several other RPGs and a few [well, 3 is more than a couple...] decades realize *why* it was set up that way)

The rest is just so flexible. Yeah, there are inconsistent skill rolls (vacc-suit 3 and you will never not be able to get into a vacc suit in time!) but for me, that is part of how I learned to play. While I would not burn my entire Traveller collection for changes, some changes would for me make it not Traveller.

And finally, just the fact that 3 relatively small books can build an entire universe, why mess with what works? (says the guy who has most every version, including the BBB and the 3 volume BBB set!)

 

[robject]

I have yet to see a situation in which LBB2 ship combat is a superior playtime experience than LBB5 ship combat.

Them's fightin' words, mister.


I will start a new thread for THAT.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I have yet to see a situation in which LBB2 ship combat is a superior playtime experience than LBB5 ship combat

Them's fightin' words, mister.

I will start a new thread for THAT.

Maybe ... but think of the difference in perspective the two systems take.

LBB2 is more of a "god's eye view" of everything where you're moving ship markers around on a map to take potshots at each other. The perspective of the engagement is explicitly EXTERNAL to what's going on. The "view of the battle" is for all intents and purposes from the outside "looking down" onto the playing field where all the vector movement tracking is going on.

Contrast this with LBB5, which is more of a "bridge command view" of everything where it's all about what your ship can do (and avoid) from what amounts to inside your own ship(s). The perspective of the engagement is explicitly INTERNAL inside the respective ships that are engaging. The "view of the battle" is for all intents and purposes what you would get from the bridge "looking OUT" towards the hostile ship(s) you're engaging. Movement, range and agility are all abstracted through the long/short range determined by initiative at the start of each combat round and different weapon systems work better (or not at all) at different ranges. Plus there's armor to mitigate incoming damage if you get hit (assuming you aren't taking internal damage that bypasses armor) and radiation damage to give *fib computers a purpose for existing.

It's that difference in perspective on the battle which is (in my experience) the most fundamental. WATCHING the fight unfold from the outside, as if you were playing a videogame (on a tabletop) is very different from PARTICIPATING in a fight that unfolds from the inside of your ship.

It's the difference between watching a battle unfold using animated arrows moving on a map (from the outside) versus watching the "drama" on the bridge as command decisions are made as the combatants fight each other (seeing the action from the inside) ... which are two VERY DIFFERENT perspectives on the action.

It's a difference between a wargame map view versus a cockpit view of the battle ... if that makes any sense to you. Of the two perspectives, I've found the cockpit view to much more consistently be the more compelling gameplay experience.
Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Matt123]

Update it.

By that I mean a Traveller 6, but... rather than going the way all remakes tend to go (must have more detail!), stick to the under-pinning theory behind CT. A simple to understand and use game system that the ref and players can use to create their Sci-Fi fantasys. Ohh... and by the way, there is a whole fully developed Traveller universe to use.

This would require an iron will to prevent scope creep and keep the rules to x A5 pages.

This would also be an opportunity to update the format to the modern world in order to attract new players.

Old CT - "you will need 6 sided dice, pen, paper and a calculator, preferably with a print roll."
New CT - "You will need a Twitter and Minecraft account plus this Traveller add-on for Minecraft".

(No I don't use either Twitter or Minecraft, but you get the gist)

 

[King Midas]

Get rid of the combat matrices and replace them with an armour as damage reduction system...

With one exception: I'd keep reflec as hit/miss rather than absorptive.

 

[whulorigan]

With one exception: I'd keep reflec as hit/miss rather than absorptive.

Even Reflec has its limits though - nothing is perfectly reflective. I can see a very high damage reduction value for Reflec vs. Laser, above which it will burn-thru/melt the Reflec.

 

[Spinward Flow]

With one exception: I'd keep reflec as hit/miss rather than absorptive.

Even Reflec has its limits though - nothing is perfectly reflective. I can see a very high damage reduction value for Reflec vs. Laser, above which it will burn-thru/melt the Reflec.

Ideally speaking, Reflec armor would be something of an exception where it provides a mix of -to hit and damage reduction/absorb to mitigate both hits and damage from laser weapons, while offering next to no protection against anything else. So Reflec armor "concentrates" its mitigation factors against lasers as a specialization at the expense of mitigation against everything else.

 

[whartung]

Update it.

By that I mean a Traveller 6, but... rather than going the way all remakes tend to go (must have more detail!), stick to the under-pinning theory behind CT. A simple to understand and use game system that the ref and players can use to create their Sci-Fi fantasys. Ohh... and by the way, there is a whole fully developed Traveller universe to use.

Isn't that what Mongoose is? Basically books 1-6 redone...again? With out a lot of the detailed crunchiness?

I've never really looked at MgT, but that was my understanding, in contrast to T5.

And, honestly, out the gate, I think GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars is a really good Traveller. Almost everything is in that one book (but you also need the GURPs basic set, but I bet you could go a long ways with just GURPS Lite).

 

[robject]

Update it.
[...] stick to the under-pinning theory behind CT. A simple to understand and use game system that the ref and players can use to create their Sci-Fi fantasys.

Isn't that what Mongoose is? Basically books 1-6 redone...again? With out a lot of the detailed crunchiness?

Mongoose is a re-imagined Traveller. It's modern, playable, has a slick look, and keeps enough of that CT feel to be just a little familiar to us old CT-ers (but that's also a trap, because read on).

It's not CT: it's a new creation and is its own thing. Many of your core rule assumptions you bring in from CT will be wrong. So a lot of my instincts are wrong when I play Mongoose. That's okay.

* * *

On the other hand, classic Traveller has errata, dropped useful text, and a 1970s format. It also has variant and supplemental rules for everything. No single path through the rules will satisfy everyone. But it's worth asking opinions.

 

[Fovean]

Isn't that what Mongoose is? Basically books 1-6 redone...again? With out a lot of the detailed crunchiness?

I've never really looked at MgT, but that was my understanding, in contrast to T5.

Yeah both versions of MgT hew very closely to CT while also incorporating many of the comments in this thread: armor as damage reduction, codified task system using difficulties rather than Ref fiat, etc. MgT 1e even uses letter drives for ships. I’ve always felt that MgT was the updated CT.

But I think the OP is asking about CT in the sense of the OSR (Old School Renaissance): how would a rebirth of CT look, if we stayed absolutely true to its original form but could improve upon it in some way? For instance, perhaps how Old School Essentials has revitalized B/X D&D…

https://necroticgnome.com/products/old-school-essentials-basic-rules

 

[Spinward Flow]

how would a rebirth of CT look, if we stayed absolutely true to its original form

If it's not Little Black Books with staples in the spine like the original run of books, you're printing/publishing it wrong. Those little black books are just so unbelievably HANDY to use!

Now, ideally speaking you would want to have a larger page count per book (so as to wind up with fewer books to sort through) ... but that's where editing, organization and consolidation of information comes into play for the core books.

 

[mike wightman]

Also maximize the page count - I forget at the moment which one has the largest page count but it is about 10 pages more than the original LBB1, 2 or 3.

A ten page addition to LBB1 could include all the S:4 careers, plus the revision to armour as damage reduction would free up a page or two.

A ten page addition to LBB2 could add some shipbuilding options - military drives, barbettes, armour, screens, PA weapons - plus include the ST range band movement system as an option and/or an expanded roleplaying ship combat system based on the ship's boat skill.

A ten page addition to LBB3 could add more equipment, more advice for the referee, and the use of dice throws from The Traveller Adventure.

 

[whulorigan]

A ten page addition to LBB3 could add more equipment . . .

Such as some small arms and equipment from LBB4 and LBB5.

 

[mike wightman]

I wouldn't mind finding a way to include robots/synthetics in the equipment section, and possibly some guidelines on augments for characters - cybernetics, bio-engineering that sort of thing. Ten pages should be enough to include this - maybe stick it in LBB2 after the experience section since it deals with character improvement (the esoteric means a referee can use to grant character improvement fleshed out )

 

[Spinward Flow]

I wouldn't mind finding a way to include robots/synthetics in the equipment section, and possibly some guidelines on augments for characters - cybernetics, bio-engineering that sort of thing. Ten pages should be enough to include this - maybe stick it in LBB2

Counter-offer.
Robots/cybernetics ought to be done as an extension of Striker styled weapons and vehicles construction system. Basically integrate them and simply set up cybernetics as needing a sophont/machine interface connection.

 

[infojunky]

Counter-offer.
Robots/cybernetics ought to be done as an extension of Striker styled weapons and vehicles construction system. Basically integrate them and simply set up cybernetics as needing a sophont/machine interface connection.

You mean like book8? Though the version that was in Traveller’s digest was marginally better.