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

[robject]

LBB1 characters are ... let's not mince words here ... skill starved.
You basically need to be 40+ years old before you have even a hope of having a moderately useful skillset for a Traveller campaign setting.

Traveller is more about elevator speeches than accounting, and Book 1 drives that home.

"I'm a programmer with more than 10 years' experience" is barely more than a skill and an age.



Yes the task systems allow skill levels to proliferate. I still prefer the clarity of fewer skills.

 

[robject]

FWIW -- I like LBB because I can put the character on one side of a 3x5 card and still have room for notes and doodles. Can't do that with T5.

You are sooooo right. I recently spoke with Marc about this as he was working on his "LWB" projects. He is revisiting his roots in a good way.

 

[robject]

As far as skill use and acquisition goes I feel the Mongoose rule set has hit a real sweet spot.

I respectfully and politely disagree, partly. I'm playing in a Mongoose game now. The task system is fine -- it works*.

On the other hand, I find that their skill improvement rules distract from the game. They have essentially introduced a form of "leveling up" fully into the game. We're all tallying up weeks in training, waiting to level up a skill.

This fills an empty place in many people's minds. But Traveller ignores leveling up on purpose. I feel that adding it back in appeals solely to gamer twitch -- it sure does me. In the long run is at best value-neutral, and at worst moves Traveller towards a pale variant of Star Wars / D&D / Pathfinder / Whatever.

MAYBE, MAYBE that leveling up mechanic introduces some sort of interest in "what to do during jump". But, I think it's the wrong approach. In other words, it seems to me that the solution does not fit the need.




* Although I worry that the precomputed task bonuses are not as great an idea as they first looked... due to the essential nature of re-computing that bonus as characters take damage. Introduce another table? Eh.

 

[McPerth]

If I had to change a single thing from CT it would be in Starship Combat. As I said in many other threads, I feel that the Ship Combat System (and in this point borh LBB2 and HG are affected) leaves too many "inoperative but ealsily repaired" ships and too few "destroyed or damaged beyond easy repair" ones.

This, of course, makes for the "keeper of the field" in a spaceship battle too easy to capture many repairable hulls, and so is inconsistent with the high ship losses pointed in many points of narrative.

IMHO, again as said in many other threads, with CT (again, be them LBB2 or HG) rules, the end of a space battle would make the winner quite stronger in a matter of weeks (as hulls are repaired, crews need being the main bottleneck here), instead of a battle weakening both sides.

 

[Grav_Moped]

If I had to change a single thing from CT it would be in Starship Combat. As I said in many other threads, I feel that the Ship COobat System (and in this point borh LBB2 and HG are affected) leaves too many "inoperative but ealsily repaired" ships and too few "destroyed or damaged beyond easy repair" ones.

This, of course, makes for the "keeper of the field" in a spaceship battle too easy to capture many repairable hulls, and so is inconsistent with the high ship losses pointed in many points of narrative.

IMHO, again as said in many other threads, with CT (again, be them LBB2 or HG) rules, the end of a space battle would make the winner quite stronger in a matter of weeks (as hulls are repaired, crews need being the main bottleneck here), instead of a battle weakening both sides.

It's a role-playing artifact. The PC's ship must not be too easily destroyed beyond repair, because at some point the PCs may end up needing to repair it to avoid a total party kill.

 

[Spinward Flow]

If I had to change a single thing from CT it would be in Starship Combat. As I said in many other threads, I feel that the Ship COobat System (and in this point borh LBB2 and HG are affected) leaves too many "inoperative but ealsily repaired" ships and too few "destroyed or damaged beyond easy repair" ones.

This, of course, makes for the "keeper of the field" in a spaceship battle too easy to capture many repairable hulls, and so is inconsistent with the high ship losses pointed in many points of narrative.

IMHO, again as said in many other threads, with CT (again, be them LBB2 or HG) rules, the end of a space battle would make the winner quite stronger in a matter of weeks (as hulls are repaired, crews need being the main bottleneck here), instead of a battle weakening both sides.

It's a role-playing artifact. The PC's ship must not be too easily destroyed beyond repair, because at some point the PCs may end up needing to repair it to avoid a total party kill.

One way to "solve" that particular problem would be to introduce a bias into the Critical Hits system via DM (in this case, a -DM).

So instead of using the current LBB5 system of (weapon code - hull size code) if yielding a positive number is the number of automatic critical hits dealt by a successful hit and penetration of defenses (so a code: 9 weapon vs a code: 1 hull yields 8 automatic critical hits) ... instead there's only 1 automatic critical hit and the (hull size code - weapon code) then becomes the -DM on a single automatic critical hit roll (code: 1 hull hit by a code: 9 weapon makes a single critical hit roll with a -8 DM, so any roll of 10- yields a Ship Destroyed result).

Such a rules change would necessarily bias critical hit results towards Ship Destroyed results when the weapon code exceeds the hull size code.

Which works just fine for sub-Spinal Mount weapons, I suppose.
Ideally speaking, Spinal Mounts ought to be dialed back a bit too, but that's a different discussion.

 

[Fovean]

I respectfully and politely disagree, partly. I'm playing in a Mongoose game now. The task system is fine -- it works*.

…snip…

* Although I worry that the precomputed task bonuses are not as great an idea as they first looked... due to the essential nature of re-computing that bonus as characters take damage. Introduce another table? Eh.

Sure, different strokes. I find tho that just like Adv/Disadv DMs in CT, you can make a little note on your card and that usually takes care of it.

But I’m confused… the basic rule in MgT is 2D+skill+stat bonus for 8+; other target numbers or DMs may apply. The basic rule in CT is 2D+skill for usually 8+, other target numbers and DMs may apply; sometimes you want to roll high, others low.

Why is MgT bad and CT good? They’re practically identical.

 

[Spinward Flow]

sometimes you want to roll high, others low.

Game mechanics that consistently call for rolling at the high end of the dice range by preference reward weighted dice.

Best to sometimes need high rolls and sometimes need low rolls, just to keep everyone "honest" ...

 

[whartung]

IMHO, again as said in many other threads, with CT (again, be them LBB2 or HG) rules, the end of a space battle would make the winner quite stronger in a matter of weeks (as hulls are repaired, crews need being the main bottleneck here), instead of a battle weakening both sides.

The could perhaps be overstated. I think many of the repairs require yard work. Small weapons, perhaps bay weapons, computer, bridge can all I think be field repaired.

Spinals, drives, armor, likely can not be readily repaired in the field. Getting the large hulls back to a yard could be quite challenging. "How do you tow a Tigress through jump space?".

Not saying its impossible, but it would certainly take longer, and I can see a large ship having to be repaired in situ being off line for a year. Far cry from 3+ years to make a new one, but at the same time, a lot of damage can be done in a year.

One thing we saw as evidenced during the rebellion was how fast the fleet exhausted themselves against each other, and part of that is what led to the stalemates. Ships that take years to build and repair are destroyed and disabled in minutes.

Some are quite light hits. Crew is the most vulnerable and readily repaired, to be sure, to a point. As a captured vessel, it needs a full crew, but at least you can get the ship back in orbit someplace friendly.

But also, by the same notion, perhaps not mentioned, is that if ships are about to fall in to enemy hands, for all the reasons discussed, they may well be scuttled in place (ideally after the crew is offloaded somehow) rather than be allowed to be captured. So that can also be an aspect why canon losses are so high and/or captures so low.

Retreating forces have a history of destroying left behind equipment.

 

[infojunky]

Yes the task systems allow skill levels to proliferate. I still prefer the clarity of fewer skills.

I concur, considering how broad some of the original skills where written. ATV and Air/raft where grand by themselves. Though if a player wanted Watercraft instead I would let them.

A bunch of skills got added that didn’t ever really add much to game play.

Character sheets are index cards inshore.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Game mechanics that consistently call for rolling at the high end of the dice range by preference reward weighted dice.

Best to sometimes need high rolls and sometimes need low rolls, just to keep everyone "honest" ...

Fair point, especially with virtual gaming with players rolling their own dice. Hard to check if the dice feel loaded when they're on the other side of a Zoom window.

 

[Fovean]

Fair point, especially with virtual gaming with players rolling their own dice. Hard to check if the dice feel loaded when they're on the other side of a Zoom window.

Seriously?!

I took S. Flow’s comment as tongue-in-cheek but… wow.

Defending a ruleset’s design because you think players might try to cheat is ridiculous. Get some new damn players.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Defending a ruleset’s design because you think players might try to cheat is ridiculous.

Cheating on dice rolls is a long tradition in tabletop RPGs with a dishonorable history. Best not to make it any easier to accomplish, I'm thinking.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Seriously?!

I took S. Flow’s comment as tongue-in-cheek but… wow.

Defending a ruleset’s design because you think players might try to cheat is ridiculous. Get some new damn players.

No, not seriously. Just a quirk, not a feature.

 

[kilemall]

Hi Spinward Flow -- I politely disagree with this point of view. (I know, "Oh boy!" )

I believe that LBB Traveller assumes that every adventuring character has the ability to do pretty much anything: shoot a pistol, drive a car, fly an air/raft, operate a computer, etc. You don't need Skill-1 in something to do it. This is my first point of disagreement with calling them skill-starved. You could even fly a starship without a Pilot- skill -- even if the computer didn't offer a Pilot-1 program. You'd simply have to roll for every task, and not just the hard ones.

The skills a character gets in LBB are the things that character is really good at. To me this means talent, shaped with training and honed with experience. If you're Pistol-1 (or however you do it, I do it like that, some do Revolver-1 or Self-Load-1 -- whatever) that, to me, means you've been to AIT or OCS or NRA-school or whatever and had more than a few hours of instruction and you've had some experience doing it under stress.

For my own games, that means if you have Skill-1, you won't be rolling for those things for "easy" checks. Skill-2 will get you out of "challenging" checks and Skill-3 out of "difficult" checks. I even extend this to combat in some cases. It depends on circumstances, of course, but I'm the kind of Referee who believes in rolling only when there is a reasonable doubt to the success of an action.

I think the later supplements of Traveller (looking at you, Book 4: Mercenary) crept into what I'd call skill-bloat. T5 (which I will always love) is kind of the end-game of this where you assume that apart from a small group of very general life-skills, the adventuring character has no capabilities outside what is explicitly defined on the sheet. Now, today, we see a character with 3 Skill-1 entries and understandably, we don't see a lot of potential in that character. Some might even say, "Skill-starved."

LBB Traveller is a very special game in this regard. It assumes that adventuring characters can do pretty much everything already, and that in some things, they are VERY skilled and those things are represented by Skill-# entries.

That's my take on it.

Ya cept for the fly in the ointment- the jack of all trades skill. Don't have that, CAN'T do everything.



So some people are MacGyver/Doc Savage/Lazurus Long, most aren't.

 

[kilemall]

If I had to change a single thing from CT it would be in Starship Combat. As I said in many other threads, I feel that the Ship COobat System (and in this point borh LBB2 and HG are affected) leaves too many "inoperative but ealsily repaired" ships and too few "destroyed or damaged beyond easy repair" ones.

This, of course, makes for the "keeper of the field" in a spaceship battle too easy to capture many repairable hulls, and so is inconsistent with the high ship losses pointed in many points of narrative.

IMHO, again as said in many other threads, with CT (again, be them LBB2 or HG) rules, the end of a space battle would make the winner quite stronger in a matter of weeks (as hulls are repaired, crews need being the main bottleneck here), instead of a battle weakening both sides.

Pretty simple difference for both LBB2 and HG- all PC ships have disabled critical hits, NPC ships get critical system/ship destroyed results.

 

[kilemall]

Every rules system does.
Even ordinary mathematics has its own idiosyncrasies, including things that don't often make much sense (enter the Incompleteness Theorem).
Nature of the beast, and all that jazz.



I have yet to see a situation in which LBB2 ship combat is a superior playtime experience than LBB5 ship combat ... even when pitting a pair of Scout/Couriers against each other in a "duel" situation. Vector combat is a tabletop wargaming pastime, which is great if you have multiple m² lying around to use as your map space. If you're dealing with a table full of "game stuff" in front of Players and nowhere clear to lay out a map of space (let alone ENOUGH SPACE to map ... space) then LBB5 is hands down superior for resolving space combat without needing to "map" anything on a tabletop (or in a model/1+ computer).

Not really. No.


Never did do LBB2 on tables. I use graph paper, always have even in the 80s. And the HG damage tables and infinite die rolling is redonkulous.



LBB5 weapons are shiny though, that's why I've been working up a merger of the two, with an entirely different damage paradigm.



AND makes for a lot less die rolls.



AND actually has maneuver tactics.


Kinetics and range damage increase/reduction gets er done.

 

[Fovean]

No, not seriously. Just a quirk, not a feature.

I stand corrected. And, indescribably relieved.

 

[kilemall]

There are some things that annoy me about CT that I have homeruled, but I guess the biggest miss is the inconsistent skill set of highly specialized every particular personal gun skill versus big skills like Engineering and Pilot, and some interpersonal skills from the MgT skills like Persuade (which I use to substitute for Bribery, Carousing AND Liaison) and Investigate, which I substitute Interrogation for but is MUCH more useful for many career templates.



Athletics and Science skills are no brainer missing ones too.

 

[Fovean]

Cheating on dice rolls is a long tradition in tabletop RPGs with a dishonorable history. Best not to make it any easier to accomplish, I'm thinking.

Sure. But that’s a player thing, not a rules thing.

I guess I’m lucky. The people I game with will argue til they’re blue in the face but they won’t cheat. Maybe because we cycle Ref duties throughout the group?…