Which Traveller for me?

[whulorigan]

As I read through, I'm curious what bits might be of interest from the later editions of Traveller. By and large, I'm inclined to stick with Classic Traveller, but if there's interesting bits from later editions, I'd love to hear more. Consider also that I have little to no interest in the OTU.
.
.
.
Anything of interest in T4?

I definitely like the armor penetration rules for personal combat in T4. Each point of armor "eliminates" 1D of damage rolled (independent of the points on the die). If it is "rigid" armor, the armor point completely eliminates the damage die. If it is "flexible" armor, it reduces the die to a single point of damage. This simulates the "bruising" factor of armor like ballistic-cloth.

The variability in the amount of damage the armor eliminates (because it is reducing dice instead of points) also abstractly takes into account thicker and thinner parts of a suit of armor (such as joints vs. breastplate).

Under normal circumstances (there are specific exceptions), a weapon will not deliver more than 3D of damage to a person (after armor reduction) due to overpenetration. This, taken along with the above, also means that there is an implicit distinction between a weapon's penetration versus its damage delivered.

It is a simple, easy, and elegant little mechanic that abstractly packs in a fair amount of complexity.

And it is easy to import the mechanic into CT.

 

[robject]

As I read through, I'm curious what bits might be of interest from the later editions of Traveller. By and large, I'm inclined to stick with Classic Traveller, but if there's interesting bits from later editions, I'd love to hear more. Consider also that I have little to no interest in the OTU.

I am strongly inclined to pick up the MT CD-ROM

The MT CD is worth it. The Imperial Encyclopedia is a wealth of OTU information, and the Referee's Companion has awesome charts and helps. The Player's Guide has better CT chargen than CT itself.

Now to t5.

T5's toolsets are rejiggered, and expand CT's. Starship design is more CT than Book 2 ship design, in my opinion, with the relative simplicity of Book 2 but the choices of MT. Animal encounter rules have additional useful tidbits. The robot building and sophont building rules are new and designed to create player characters which can be run through T5 chargen, without needing special chargen rules.

Weapon design not only generates weapons usable in CT, but they're even capable of mimicking the advantageous/disadvantageous DMs from Book 1 (hint: use Burden to offset the endpoionts).

Vehicle design makes it possible to design vehicles for CT without needing calculus.

The world mapping chapter has world maps for all sizes, plus regional and local maps (not unlike MT, which takes a different but useful approach).

 

[rhialto]

As I read through, I'm curious what bits might be of interest from the later editions of Traveller. By and large, I'm inclined to stick with Classic Traveller, but if there's interesting bits from later editions, I'd love to hear more. Consider also that I have little to no interest in the OTU.

Anything of interest in MGT?

Frank

This is the edition I know best, so:

1. Multiple careers permitted (with a -1 DM per previous career to qualify for a new one.
2. Three specialities per career, for a total of 36 careers (not counting Psions).
3. Random events per career.
4. Connections rule allows players to intertwine their backgrounds and gain up to 2 extra skill ranks.
5. Skill packages allow a group to gain rank 1 in skills appropriate to the style of game they want to play.

That's what I would import to CT.

 

[ffilz]

This is the edition I know best, so:

1. Multiple careers permitted (with a -1 DM per previous career to qualify for a new one.
2. Three specialities per career, for a total of 36 careers (not counting Psions).
3. Random events per career.
4. Connections rule allows players to intertwine their backgrounds and gain up to 2 extra skill ranks.
5. Skill packages allow a group to gain rank 1 in skills appropriate to the style of game they want to play.

That's what I would import to CT.

Yea, I've been tempted by some of those ideas from MGT. I do wonder what the impact on CT of allowing career changes would be, but it would be more palatable to people these days.

Frank

 

[robject]

Yea, I've been tempted by some of those ideas from MGT. I do wonder what the impact on CT of allowing career changes would be, but it would be more palatable to people these days.

I thought CT allowed that. I could be wrong tho. Come to think of it, it could be an abuse of the rules, since the first term often has freebie skills.

 

[aramis]

Yea, I've been tempted by some of those ideas from MGT. I do wonder what the impact on CT of allowing career changes would be, but it would be more palatable to people these days.

Frank

Not much, really. I've allowed it in MT with a DM-2 on enlisting in the new service, and a requirement that one have passed reenlistment and opted out, for years.

 

[ffilz]

I thought CT allowed that. I could be wrong tho. Come to think of it, it could be an abuse of the rules, since the first term often has freebie skills.

Only one enlistment attempt is permitted per character. If rejected for enlist-ment, he may submit to the draft. Enlistment or draft is not allowed after age 18.

MGT only allows the extra "basic training" skill roll once for a character, simple enough to port that rule back to CT along with the career changing.

If using the advanced character generation, Basic and Advanced Training already take a year of time, maybe all you have to rule is that if you already have the skill(s) then you don't get them, though two skills isn't any more than some of the special assignments can give.

I might also be inclined to put some setting appropriate limits on what careers you can transfer to.

Frank

 

[kilemall]

I definitely like the armor penetration rules for personal combat in T4. Each point of armor "eliminates" 1D of damage rolled (independent of the points on the die). If it is "rigid" armor, the armor point completely eliminates the damage die. If it is "flexible" armor, it reduces the die to a single point of damage. This simulates the "bruising" factor of armor like ballistic-cloth.

The variability in the amount of damage the armor eliminates (because it is reducing dice instead of points) also abstractly takes into account thicker and thinner parts of a suit of armor (such as joints vs. breastplate).

Under normal circumstances (there are specific exceptions), a weapon will not deliver more than 3D of damage to a person (after armor reduction) due to overpenetration. This, taken along with the above, also means that there is an implicit distinction between a weapon's penetration versus its damage delivered.

It is a simple, easy, and elegant little mechanic that abstractly packs in a fair amount of complexity.

And it is easy to import the mechanic into CT.

Oh don't tell me that, I have that built into my IMTU combat!

 

[nobby-w]

I definitely like the armor penetration rules for personal combat in T4. Each point of armor "eliminates" 1D of damage rolled (independent of the points on the die). If it is "rigid" armor, the armor point completely eliminates the damage die. If it is "flexible" armor, it reduces the die to a single point of damage. This simulates the "bruising" factor of armor like ballistic-cloth.

The variability in the amount of damage the armor eliminates (because it is reducing dice instead of points) also abstractly takes into account thicker and thinner parts of a suit of armor (such as joints vs. breastplate).

Under normal circumstances (there are specific exceptions), a weapon will not deliver more than 3D of damage to a person (after armor reduction) due to overpenetration. This, taken along with the above, also means that there is an implicit distinction between a weapon's penetration versus its damage delivered.

It is a simple, easy, and elegant little mechanic that abstractly packs in a fair amount of complexity.

And it is easy to import the mechanic into CT.

Interesting - I did a very similar damage system in a homebrew sci-fi setting I wrote sometime around 1990. Weapons in this system had a penetration and a damage die (e.g. 1D6, 1D8+1) allowing some weapons to have higher penetration or others to have lower penetration but doing more damage.

Armour absorbed penetration points, and a human (for example) could never take more than 3 dice of whatever type the weapon did. Larger creatues could take more dice.

 

[san*klass]

Many thanks to all for your helpful replies.

I too have been doing some research, and decided that revisiting the Traveller Book is the way forward for me. With Supplement 06 Scouts for the more detailed system generation and (if I do continue to head down the Collapse/New Era path) 08 Robots.

Having considered all the options, I guess that the whole "feel" of the classic rules and it's relative simplicity (in play, anyway) won me over. I am not too naive to discount nostalgia either.

And I was tempted by the TTB originally, but had problems trying to track it (at a reasonable price) on EBay etc. But having just discovered that is available on PoD, helped my decision.

But I guess that the best thing to come from my journey is that I am now going to get and read TTB first, then decide (even design?) my setting from that.

Which is how it was back in the early 80's when I first refereed Traveller!

Anyway - thanks again to all.

 

[warwizard]

One thing I really like about T5 is the Quality Reliability Ease of use Burden and Safety rating system with specific in game benefits and drawbacks, as well as the concept of experimental, early std, advanced and of course bleeding edge technologies.

These rules are easily ported into other editions and can add much more flavor to that lovingly maintained Free trader that has been flying for 500 years during the long night. Not every manufacturer is alike, Ling Standard Products vs. General Products you would have better chances of getting a high quality reliable and safe ship from Ling standard, and GP, well you get what you pay for, sometimes less, far less in extreme cases.

Imagine a power plant that costs twice as much, is half the size for the same output and has 70% as much fuel consumption, goes 5 years between overhauls and has extensive safety systems built in. Compare to one that costs half as much, is 130 % bigger than standard uses 130% as much fuel, is fix or repair daily, and the only safety system is the manually activated fusion core ejection system. Guess which one the players want, and guess again which one they get!:devil:

 

[savage]

I used and prefer a hybrid of T20. It was nice for converting players to Traveller. A nice selection of vehicles, and ships. I like ship building in T20. But there are things i like about every rule set.

In 2015, I'd also consider T5 or MgT. Perhaps a hybrid best of all systems.

 

[kilemall]

Many thanks to all for your helpful replies.

I too have been doing some research, and decided that revisiting the Traveller Book is the way forward for me. With Supplement 06 Scouts for the more detailed system generation and (if I do continue to head down the Collapse/New Era path) 08 Robots.

Having considered all the options, I guess that the whole "feel" of the classic rules and it's relative simplicity (in play, anyway) won me over. I am not too naive to discount nostalgia either.

And I was tempted by the TTB originally, but had problems trying to track it (at a reasonable price) on EBay etc. But having just discovered that is available on PoD, helped my decision.

But I guess that the best thing to come from my journey is that I am now going to get and read TTB first, then decide (even design?) my setting from that.

Which is how it was back in the early 80's when I first refereed Traveller!

Anyway - thanks again to all.

Consider RTT worldgen, a lot easier to deal with then LBB6 worldgen.

http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/RTT_Worldgen