What Version?

[Low-G Vagabond]

Alright, I know this has topic has been discussed in various forums over the years...but I need help.

I have'nt played Traveller since the early 80s and Ive never played the D20 system.

I have everything needed to play CT, I also have a large TNE collection, I have Megatraveller and of course Traveller D20.

My problem is I cant decide which version to GM. I keep switching back and forth. My familiarity with CT and MT makes me want to go that route, but I would'nt mind trying the expanded skills and feats rules of T20.

I would love to hear your comments on why you GM the version of Traveller that you do...and again sorry if this is a repetitive topic...but I need to decide and thought you could help.

Thanks in advance.

Raelian

 

[Malenfant]

Personally I'd say TNE, because I like the background.

Really I think the best system to GM is the one you're most familiar with and have most fun running though (unless you like learning and trying new systems).

Learning D20 would be useful because it could open the door to a lot of other games out there (though there are a few key differences between T20 and other d20 games).

 

[Low-G Vagabond]

With that said Malenfant, how do you feel about the new 1248 playtest files?

Raelian

 

[Malenfant]

They're awesome

Though some people complain that the focus has shifted a bit (the RC and Regency change somewhat dramatically, as do the Star Vikings) But I think it's all a fairly logical extrapolation of TNE:1200.

Lots of big sweeping epic history in there, and plenty still to do. It keeps the 1200 feel, while making things rather interesting.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Mssr Raelian!

I set aside my TNE shtuff for T20. The gear headed me liked the detail of things/ machines of TNE.
The roleplayer aspects of the T20 feats/ skills system won me over. WHY?

Several reasons:

. Things don't make a story. Characters do. Things/ mchines are window dressing. Story telling / being a GM is still about people & or aliens beings. You get win, lose, or break things.
Dealing with it is the story.

. The market for the realists out there, is moving to D20 games, which TNE touched upon with the skill die rolls. It broke the ice into it, but didn't take the plunge. With Adn D 3e D20 system, and the host of the other D20 games available, you have ready made mechanic to draw in new players to Science Fiction.

. The TNE 1248 is designed system-free for GM's maximum flexibility to use whatever he/ she feels comfy with.

In the end, it is YOUR decision.

The above is of course, just MHO, sir, loosely formed around certain facts.

Ya'll have a great day!

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
[QB] The roleplayer aspects of the T20 feats/ skills system won me over.

Feats are interesting concepts. Unfortunately IMO the T20 feats are not used in the best way to highlight the effectiveness of the mechanic (which I've gone on about at length in the Guidebook playtest). And despite having it explained to me a thousand times, I still don't see why you need a skill and a feat to drive vehicles or pilot a ship in T20.

Things don't make a story. Characters do. Things/ mchines are window dressing. Story telling / being a GM is still about people & or aliens beings. You get win, lose, or break things.
Dealing with it is the story.

To be fair though, T20 doesn't encourage this more or less than TNE. Story is defined by the GM, not the rules.

The market for the realists out there, is moving to D20 games, which TNE touched upon with the skill die rolls. It broke the ice into it, but didn't take the plunge. With Adn D 3e D20 system, and the host of the other D20 games available, you have ready made mechanic to draw in new players to Science Fiction.

This is true. But that said, I don't think it should be the main reason to select T20. It may be popular, but at the end of the day if you end up not liking how d20 works then it's not really going to be helpful

.

The TNE 1248 is designed system-free for GM's maximum flexibility to use whatever he/ she feels comfy with.

I'd be interested to see how they're going to handle this. IIRC wasn't there some plan to have CT/T20 stats for the ships at least? If you've got ships and so on in the game then you need SOME way of representing them in whatever system you use...

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
If you've got ships and so on in the game then you need SOME way of representing them in whatever system you use...

That's certainly what I think, but I've yet to convince my players. The only rules they're ever interested in is whether they can run away from the other ship, or should they just surrender now?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I loathe D20 (for several reasons, levels being a major one), so while I own T20 I'll never run it.

I'm not a big GURPS fan, and GT is just too different to 'real' Traveller, so again I own it but won't run it.

TNE is interesting, and I've run it a couple of times, but I prefer the Classic Era.

My games usually take place some time around 1112, using a mixture of CT, MT, and T4.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Feats are interesting concepts. Unfortunately IMO the T20 feats are not used in the best way to highlight the effectiveness of the mechanic (which I've gone on about at length in the Guidebook playtest). And despite having it explained to me a thousand times, I still don't see why you need a skill and a feat to drive vehicles or pilot a ship in T20.
__________________________________________________
Perhaps looking at the MT/TNE cascade skill for 'Pilot' [ing] best illustrates this. Under TNE, the specific vehicle you piloted was listed in a cascade: Fixedwing, rotary wing, airship, Grav, etc etc..hence to scale down, Vessel/Starship, Vessel/ Ship's boat, Vessel/Grav. qualifies which vehicle. How well you fly the beast falls under pilot SKILL. That's my way of taking it Mal. YMMV.
_________________________________________________
To be fair though, T20 doesn't encourage this more or less than TNE. Story is defined by the GM, not the rules.
__________________________________________________

True, mayhap. Doth we speak of TNE 1248, or TNE 1200? And anything in dead tree presented poorly by one in the GM/ Referee/ drive's seat is still poor, no matter the System.
__________________________________________________
This is true. But that said, I don't think it should be the main reason to select T20. It may be popular, but at the end of the day if you end up not liking how d20 works then it's not really going to be helpful .
__________________________________________________
Opinion milord, and yours. I bow . I disagree, with all due respect, but I also will caveat that that I am partisan, having GM'd both systems now several years each, and find it easier to wade through the T20 THB, than the TNE HB.

On your side of the fence for TNE--I grant you, detail wise, and initially there are more "career"/ classes of charcter choices for the player and Ref, even NPC 'templates', all within 1 book. T20 has its '76' Gunmen NPC booklet supplement.
__________________________________________________
I'd be interested to see how they're going to handle this. IIRC wasn't there some plan to have CT/T20 stats for the ships at least? If you've got ships and so on in the game then you need SOME way of representing them in whatever system you use...

__________________________________________________
IIRC, you are correct. Lord knows either system is esier than handling the arcane MT ship stats, as far as I'm concerned--[Again gentle readers, my opinion only].

Which leads one to believe that the GM is still in control of WHICH he uses. An that, still makes it "flexible'.

Mal,
the stage is thine.

 

[Flynn]

In my experience, I've found it easier to find and keep gamers using T20 than any other version of the Traveller rules set. Other systems may or may not be easier (or better, if your opinion swings that way), but T20 has done for me what no other version of Traveller has done for me: get me a group that will stay and play in a campaign for more than two or three sessions.

With T20, I've had a group running for two years, five months, and counting. We've played out one campaign and are in the middle of the current campaign set in 1248.

It is my experience that T20 feels a lot like CT in actual play, no matter what others may say about the system. Therefore, it'd be my recommendation to you.

If T20 were not an option for some reason, I'd choose MT, followed by CT (with either the DGP or BITS task system). I like T4's chargen, but dislike its task resolution system. This is, of course, my opinion only, as others here will attest to how much they enjoy it. I am only now growing to appreciate TNE, but there are a good number of people whom I respect that enjoy it, so I would say it's an option as well.

All told, though, it doesn't matter what system you run Traveller in, so long as you and your group have fun. So choose the one that will give you the most fun, not whichever system gets the most votes or whatever.

Best of luck to you,
Flynn

 

[Pickles]

One thing I have noticed. With those nice, shiny D20 books (I haven't actually used T20, but used D20 Modern for a while), I find myself much more reluctant to use house rules. Whereas the version of CT we play has almost no original game mechanics left in it.

Another great reason for bringing back the LBBs - they encourage referee creativity!

 

[Flynn]

I use House Rules quite frequently, now more than ever, with both D&D and T20. The trend over the last two years in d20 products has, in my opinion, encouraged it.

My two creds, anyway,
Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:
One thing I have noticed. With those nice, shiny D20 books (I haven't actually used T20, but used D20 Modern for a while), I find myself much more reluctant to use house rules. Whereas the version of CT we play has almost no original game mechanics left in it.

Another great reason for bringing back the LBBs - they encourage referee creativity!

Either that, or the CT system is so broken out-of-the-box than you just HAVE to replace it with house rules to get it to work at all

.

The d20 thing might possible be because there are so many nitty-gritty rules and modifiers and balance issues in d20. Adding your own rules might tip something else out of balance without you realising it.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Flynn:
[QB] In my experience, I've found it easier to find and keep gamers using T20 than any other version of the Traveller rules set.

Flynn,

Yup, d20 is now the industry standard for RPGs, like QWERTY keyboards or Windows. Sure there are other RPG systems just as there are Dvorak and Macintosh but, just the vast majoirty of typists use QWERTY and the vast majority of computer owners use Windows, the vast majority of RPG players use d20 whether it is the best system for the particular genre or not. They are familiar with it and familiarity counts for a lot. People like familiar things, whether they're any good or not is usually far down the list.

For me, the d20 baggage T20 carries makes it totally unsuitable for Traveller. The fact that levels - and the extra damage resistence they represent - even exist in a Traveller game is unthinkable. I played D&D in the late 70s and, even with only 3 levels available, the munchkin-like nature of D&D was readily apparent. As a wargamer first and a roleplayer second, 'bulletproof' PCs don't appeal to me. It feels like cheating somehow. You're supposed to win with your wits and skill and not through some game mechanic.

When Traveller appeared the fact that there were no levels to artificially inflate a PC's abilities appealed to my gaming group immediately. Now a bullet was a bullet was a bullet. And bullets hurt, just like they're supposed to do.

Crusty old scout, ancient belter, and lifer marine or newbie merchant, bootcamp spacer, or recent army draftee a bullet did the same thing to them all. There was no cheating, no munchkin level tricks, no 'Well my lifeblood is on the low side but I'm a 29th level Whatever so dragonbreath doesn't hurt me', none of that crap. As mush as a RPG can be real, Traveller was real because of this one thing - Combat Can Kill You Easily.

My advice to Raelian is; Use whatever system gives you the best chance of holding a gaming group together. Odds are that will be T20.


Bill

 

[Jeffr0]

Books 1-3 may be a bit buggy...

But it is at least accessible and has most all of what you need to run a space game.

Sure, later systems do everything bigger and better... but Books 1-3 applied with a little common sense accomplish essentially the same stuff with a whole lot lower learning curve.

What is it...? 6 die rolls to get attributes? About 4 dice rolls to do a term? A couple more to muster out? 10 die roles to get a world? 5 dice rolls to get an alien creature? A ship design system that doesn't need a calculator? A whole subsector can be rolled up in one sitting? A trade system that can be played just by reading the world data off of the subsector map? Yes! THIS is what I've been looking for!

Books 1-3 have everything you need to start Travelling fast. IMHO, A few bugs is tolerable when compared to the "monster game carcinoma" that afflicts so much later stuff.

As a special bonus, the reprint is so small you can take it anywhere. Love it! Keep a copy at all locations you frequent. Keep another copy in your glove compartment!

 

[Low-G Vagabond]

Thanks for the insightful replies so far. I appreciate the input and your opinions.

Im an old school gamer and my potential pcs are all old school...no has played d20 rules. I love the openess of CT but have worried about losing character interest due to lack of character developement exp wise...I tend to feel its the GMs job to keep the carrot on the stick....and what made CT different was the way the GM achieved that goal.

Anyway, I am leaning towards MT at the moment but have read posts about its starship rules being inadequate...could someone start a discussion and why its not as good as CT or elaborate on what version they have swapped in place of MT starship rules?

Once again thanks for all the input.

Raelian

 

[Whipsnade]

Raelian,

There's an experience system in CT. People forget about it cause it's tucked away in LBB:2 Starships and not in LBB:1 Charecter and Combat!

The major difference between CT's system and the d20 system is that a player must roleplay in the CT version. The player must adhere to a schedule of training and/or exercise to improve their skills or stats. You don't simply get to tally up how many XPs you earned by shooting things and then spend them on whatever you wish.

As the GM you can expand on CT's system too. Your players are on a ship yet Major Manchuck doesn't have vacc suit skill? Let him practice enough to get vacc suit-0. You can do the same with other skills. Let your player's stand training watches with each other and give that eager young space cadet a bump in commo, comp, elec, mech, or something else after a period. Again, let them roleplay for it and not XP harvest for it.

One more thing; I love CT, yet I immediately adopted MT's task system when it first came out. No more endless lists of DMs...

Now for MT's ship rules... What can I say?

Well, I never successfully finished a MT ship design(1). The system had promise; it included things CT left out like sensors, but I never quite got the hang of it. There was a LOT of errata too, which was published in a fanzine; DGP's Traveller Digest, of all places. They even had to publish an article on how to design a ship using the system.

Next, MT's ship combat system was very clunky. Lots of rolls for sensor locks, detailed damage resolution, and lots of other things I should have enjoyed but somehow I never liked the system as a package. The graph paper maneuvering was odd too, almost like something out of 'Lensmen'.

I adopted a lot of things from MT; the expanded skills list, homeworld benefits, the task system, etc., but I left MT's ship design and ship combat parts alone. We still played the HG2/Mayday fusion we always had.

We were wargamers first you see. Pushing chits across hexsides was normal for us. We used HG2's combat and design system, Mayday's movement rules (0-5 hexes equals HG2's short range, 6-15 is long.), and a few homebrews involving ECM/ECCM, missile movement, area defense, etc.

Anyway, I'm sure the others have stories like mine.


Have fun,
Bill

1 - I've done dozens of FF&S1 designs so it can't be the complexity that threw me. There's just something about MT's design process that doesn't quite click.

 

[Flynn]

Larsen,

I posted to another thread previously before I read this one. My apologies if my response there appears "out of turn", so to speak.

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
For me, the d20 baggage T20 carries makes it totally unsuitable for Traveller. The fact that levels - and the extra damage resistence they represent - even exist in a Traveller game is unthinkable. I played D&D in the late 70s and, even with only 3 levels available, the munchkin-like nature of D&D was readily apparent. As a wargamer first and a roleplayer second, 'bulletproof' PCs don't appeal to me. It feels like cheating somehow. You're supposed to win with your wits and skill and not through some game mechanic.

Old friend, I must say it can't be that unthinkable if QLI has been making money on "Traveller with Levels" for over two years now.

I see your point, and I've heard it repeated on many a board. Levels, etc., are often touted as the devil's work, created to destroy all good games, etc. I've heard it so much that now I have come to associate it with people who make judgements without any true experience in the matter (not that such might be the case here, but it does seem that way.)

Let me put it in perspective from my view on this: Saying that you can't play Traveller with levels is like saying...

... you can't play a game where your character dies in character creation.

... you can't play a game where you can't make any choices for your character in terms of skills, training, etc.

... you can't play a game where highly advanced computers take up a small office building.

... you can't play a game where a single starship for conducting interstellar trade costs more than most governments can afford, and yet you can make your payments with only 87 dtons of cargo and eight passengers.

and so on. People gripe about d20; people gripe about CT; people just gripe. I don't know if it's because they feel that their favorite system is threatened by the mere hint of interest in another one, or what. There's things that are wrong with all of them, and we're all adult enough to spot them and point them out. Sometimes, we even get frustrated and upset about it, especially if someone has a differing opinion. Just read Malenfant's words on almost every topic for an example of this. (Just kiddin', Mal.)

But do you want to know what's the same with all of the different games and gaming systems, and even approaches to Traveller? There are people out there that have fun.

They have fun taking their far trader to distant worlds and scalping the natives.

They have fun getting trapped in a noble's machiavellian machinations and then getting out again.

They have fun exploring new star systems and exploiting the Ancient base found therein.

They have fun slaughtering chamax, rescuing combat drug-crazed scientists and solving murders on space stations.

They have fun in the Spinward Marches, the Solomani Rim and a wide range of places both within and beyond Charted Space.

They have fun with those shared experiences, and it doesn't matter whether they rolled 2d6 or 1d20 to get there or not. They have fun.

And that's why I like Traveller. Period. CT, MT, TNE, T4, GT, T20, HERO, Storyteller or whatever system you care to run it in. It's not the system to me; it's the fun I have playing the game and sharing the experiences.

So let's have some fun and keep on Travellin', shall we?

Imagine, all this for just two credits,
Flynn

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Blech. You just had to go get all mushy and stuff, didn't ya Flynn. Here we are starting up another version war, and you come along all reasonable, and everything. You're no fun!

 

[flykiller]

...people just gripe.

(angry laugh) got that right.

'gree with larsen. nevertheless, three cheers for t20. may we learn from each other and make each other's games better.