Who PLAYED IT but doesn't like it. (Classic Traveller)

[CosmicGamer]

I'm curious. Who has PLAYED Classic Traveller, not people who have only read about it in forums, play tested it but never played the released version, not people who saw a friends copy, or got a copy someone was going to throw away and gave it a cursory glance, but who has PLAYED Classic Traveller with a group of people in person or on-line and what are the things you don't like?

Has the experience caused you to
A) stop playing Traveller all together
B) play a different version of Traveller you own
C) go out and buy a different version of Traveller
D) keep playing - possibly making house rules and not use things you don't like

 

[tbeard1999]

I'm curious. Who has PLAYED Classic Traveller, not people who have only read about it in forums, play tested it but never played the released version, not people who saw a friends copy, or got a copy someone was going to throw away and gave it a cursory glance, but who has PLAYED Classic Traveller with a group of people in person or on-line and what are the things you don't like?

Has the experience caused you to
A) stop playing Traveller all together
B) play a different version of Traveller you own
C) go out and buy a different version of Traveller
D) keep playing - possibly making house rules and not use things you don't like

I suspect that the most common answer is D, among CT grognards.

And one's attitude can change over time.

For instance, the CT combat system never satisfied me. I've written several combat systems and even (successfully) adapted the Striker and T4 systems to address the problem.

Yet, after Supp Four's conversion on this point, I see it in a far more generous light, especially when it's limited to CT weapons and characters. I still prefer my own Combat System C, but I could play the CT combat system without too much pain.

 

[aramis]

Since MT came out, I've tried twice to run CT. Can't stand the "Special rules for every skill"... Use the CT setting with MT.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Until TNE came out it was basically B. Well technically it was B1 (Bought a new set as soon as availabel)

 

[Supplement Four]

I've run Classic Traveller, on and off, house ruled and not, since 1982.

Today, it's my group's favorite Traveller rules set.

And, although I've done it differently in the past, today we play the game just about as written (just a couple of very minor tweaks, like adding in an initiave throw for combat instead of having it play out simultaneously).

It is, to date, the best Traveller rules set in existence.

 

[Colin]

Played it a few times, my group couldn't get into to it. I found the combat rules and table look-ups annoying, not to mention, as Aramis said, the different rule for every skill. Dumped it at first opportunity.

 

[dean]

In our game group, most folks generally "go with the flow" and let the GM choose the ruleset that he wants to use to run any given campaign. Mostly fantasy (D&D, RQ, GURPS in various flavors), but we have played Call of Cthulu, Paranoia, Gamma World, Aftermath, etc as well.

Not a lot of rules-lawyering goes on, as we all recognize the GM as final arbiter of the rules of his milieu.

With one exception: A friend who is an engineer by training simply will not play Traveller, any version (and I only use CT, to date), because it tries to be "too real", and he cannot suspend his disbelief. Handwaves have to be explained to suit him. Note that this person plays fantasy RPG, LARPs with other people, and even played d6 Star Wars when it was new with no problems.

I guess if I just attached the name of a popular media program to it and changed the presentation he might've given it a try, but since he knows the stats and skills, etc, it wouldn't work anyway.

His job transferred him out of state last year, so I guess it's not a concern.

 

[beowulf2044]

I guess there's a question on the definition of Traveller. To me, S-4 plays Traveller. So many others house-rule-home-brew the mechanics that it seems to me that any particular game should be called 'Traveller a la (insert name here).

 

[epicenter00]

A combination of A, B, and C. But mostly A.

I started playing CT, unfortunately, the GM at the time was a Traveller grognard with not a little powergamer (not that I knew it at the time - I only learned to identify grognards once I came to CotI and saw similar mentalities). He believed that his larger collection of Traveller books gave him a rightful advantage over everyone else. If you didn't own the Scouts book, you had to use normal CT generation while his NPCs used Scouts.

Of course, that meant we had our characters with maybe 3-4 skills following around his NPCs with like Anagathics to look like they were in their mid-30s with quadruple in that in skills including the idiotic "Jack of All Trades" skill at like 3 or 4 (which turns it into "Master of All Skills" - thus earning my vote for "worst skill in any RPG, ever").

Then of course, there was bad UPPs and UWPs that just struck me as entirely too nerdy in that unhelpful way ("oh, every digit means something" "but what?" "you just have the memorize the order of the values and the tables and read hex, it's not hard!"). I glanced at MT, found the background more compelling, but still had too much of the CT feel for me so never got into that.

Mostly I didn't play Traveller until TNE's emphasis on a more "heroic" drive gripped me. Then I went back and learned about the Traveller universe and so on.

So yeah, basically a poor-experience fuelled "A."

 

[BlackBat242]

Started playing Traveller in 1983. Played it extensively, until MT came out.

Looked closely at MT and didn't like what I saw, so stayed with CT.

Took one glance at TNE and >unprintable response<... continued with CT.

A few years ago looked at the T4 books and just shook my head... and introduced a new (to Traveller) set of players to CT.

I don't see any real reason to deal with RTT (ok, MGT) at this time. Maybe I'll take a good look later this year.

So make it "D". And I don't know anyone who followed "A". A couple people I know stopped playing Traveller... but because they stopped playing RPGs altogether or could no longer find others who played Traveller (moved away from where we were).

 

[sabredog]

Gotta be D for me.

No matter how many different versions came out I'd just look them over and figure that for darn near every rule change in the new set I already had a house rule to cover it so why bother with a new game system every few years? Came close with MT but still no deal.

Or it could just be that I'm a traditionalist and too old to change, so after having played and tinkered with the original game for over 30 years I don't think I could change if I wanted to.

 

[mike wightman]

D, most definitely D.

Although I have bought every other version and shamelessly rip off the good bits for my CT+ house rules.

 

[Bob Weaver]

I fall into the D category as well. Bought MT and used it for a time, but gravitated back towards CT. Never even tried (looked at) TNE, T4, G:T, but by the time they came along, I had my CT-based/themed universe up and going and did not want to change. My old game group played many of the published CT adventures and enjoyed ourselves. That was and is the important thing. When my kids get older, CT will be the game of choice.


Best Regards,

Weaver

 

[the angle]

When I was young and full of vinegar, it was a very emphatic D. Now that I've had decades more experience with RPGs and I'm no longer enamored of lengthy, intricate rules, the answer is a radically toned-down D. The more I play with CT, the more I accept its idiosyncracies. The best analogy I can give is that of Frank Lloyd Wright. When the world was filled with boxy Victorian houses covered in decorative but useless filigree, gew-gaws, and doo-dads, he was building elegant, simple, beautiful homes. Sure, they often leaked and lacked privacy, but they were decades ahead of their time in vision. You worked around the leaks and other aggravations because the house is so soul-satisfying in every other way. That's how I see CT these days. You work around the gaps and the gaffes because no other game has its je ne sais quoi.

Steve

 

[Gray Lensman]

My Take

Played CT since the beginning. Bought MT, Stole some ship design and rebellion stuff. Bought TNE, stole some background/campaign stuff (virus and the fall). Home ruled some stuff. Still 80% CT rules. Guess this makes me a D as well .

 

[lucasdigital]

I played Traveller and loved it. I then went out and bought each version of Traveller, up to T4. I then left gaming altogether. I'm back, I'm playing the Mongoose edition, at least until T5 is finished.

I doubt very much that many people play classic traveller today, without making some critical changes themselves - even it its just a matter of bolting on a task based system. I really couldn't go back to it, I've played too many systems that were better. It would be like driving around in a model-T Ford; a triumph of nostalgia over reason.

 

[BlackBat242]

Then you doubt that I exist.

I absolutely loath every task system I have ever seen... why would I pollute a game I like with one?

In actuality, I have very few house-rules... there just isn't much need for them. I don't require "perfection" from any game I play... and I find the vast majority of CT rules to be perfectly playable "as is".

Yes, I do have a decent scientific/mathematical background (earned college chemistry credits as a junior in HS, took calculus in HS, studied electronics engineering in college), and a military background (8 years USMC, as an avionics tech on late-1970s-designed FLIR/laser weapons-guidance systems).

I can easily look past the simplicity/inaccuracy of the rules to find the real value of them... they are easily administered during actual play, regardless of their lack of "hours of gearheaded design/development fiddliness" that the later systems required.

 

[aramis]

I played Traveller and loved it. I then went out and bought each version of Traveller, up to T4. I then left gaming altogether. I'm back, I'm playing the Mongoose edition, at least until T5 is finished.

I doubt very much that many people play classic traveller today, without making some critical changes themselves - even it its just a matter of bolting on a task based system. I really couldn't go back to it, I've played too many systems that were better. It would be like driving around in a model-T Ford; a triumph of nostalgia over reason.

Many of those who play CT these days don't realize they have "created" a task system by the way they play.

Many older games were nothing but collections of diverse mechanics; I was recently reading Bunnies and Burrows and noticed the same "non-unified mechanics" approach. I remember my first reaction to Palladium was "Hey! only two kinds of rolls! Combat and Skills"... AD&D had Combat/saves (d20, high), thief skills (d100 low), stat saves (d20, low).

CT has a unified approach of nothing but d6's, but the non-combat skills vary so widely, that when running, I absolutely needed the books at hand to keep things straight. The moment I found DGP's task system, I used it. Since I was also using Striker/AHL at the time, not Bk1, it altered my game preference forever; it was like it was designed to feel right with Striker. Then out came 2300, and that was the game of choice for a while. Then MT...

My CT time has convinced me: no unification of mechanic, pick a different ruleset.

A few people really do run CT RAW... and I've noted that either they have memorized the rules (like Rick Singleton did with the group I was playing with), or they run with open books.

 

[Supplement Four]

I doubt very much that many people play classic traveller today, without making some critical changes themselves - even it its just a matter of bolting on a task based system.

I've bolted on a few task systems to CT in the past (usually the UTP). It works fine. I've even created my own (see the UGM below...that that wasn't the only one).

All that experience with task systems (quite a lot over the years--even asked three times to create one professionally for the industry on specific new rpgs) has led me to realize the fact that CT's task system (and CT does have a task system--it's just loose and unstructured...but, there's still guidelines for doing things in the game, which is what a task system is) is acutally superior to the one-size-fits-all mechanic that most people today call a task system.

"How?" You say?

CT's task system allows the GM to customize the task perfectly to fit the situation. You lose this "customized definition" when you use a more structured task system.

I'll show you what I mean, using CT's task system and the UTP applied to the same situation.

Azi has stats: 978777
Bero has stats: 657777

The task is to force open a hatch that is slightly vacuum welded open, but not open enough to allow access. The hatch needs to be forced open farther so that boty Azi and Bero can enter the cabin.

Using the UTP, the GM would make a determination on Difficulty. I'll call it Routine (7+). And, since this task references characteristics, we've got to reference two of them for the modifier. STR, of course, is the natural choice, but the second modifier, END....does that really fit the throw? It can be debated. But, we'll go ahead and use it.

So, Azi tries to force open the door: He throws 2D for 7+ with mods (+1 for STR and +1 for END). He's throwing 2D for 5+, which is an 83% chance.

Now, Bero tries. Even though he is obvioulsy weaker than Azi physically (978 vs 657), he has the exact same chance as Azi does in forcing open the door. He also throws 2D for 5+.

This happens because the one-size-fit-all task system loses granulation. The more you standardize, the more definition you lose.





To compare, a CT GM (who can call for whatever throw he thinks is appropriate--customizing the throw to the situation) might look at the same situation and call for a simple, "Roll STR or less on 2D to force open the door."

Azi would roll 2D for 9-, getting an 83% chance of success (the same chance of success he had under the UTP above).

Bero, though, would roll 2D for 6-. He' the weaker character, and he has a much lower chance of success at 42%.

See...the CT task system allows the GM to customize throws for a specific situation and keeps the granulation that is lost in a one-size-fits-all task system.

It' brilliant, really.





Also....

Consider that, in the UTP, all skills are referenced as a DM of +1 per level of the skill. In CT, the value of the skill changes based on what is appropriate to the throw.

Example of skill having little impact on the throw: DM +1 if Medic-2 or better used to revive a low berth passenger.

Example of skill having the same impact on a throw as it does under the UTP: DM = Weapon skill on the attack throw.

Example of skill having more impact on the throw: DM +4 per level of Vacc Suit skill when avoiding dangerous situations in Zero-G.

Customization specific to the situation is the name-of-the-game with CT.



And, the same is done with Stats. Under the UTP, the character gets a uniform +1 DM if Stat 5-9; +2 DM is Stat A-E; +3 if Stat F.

Not so, under CT. Again, it depends on the situation.

Example of Stat having no impact on the throw: No Stat modifies the Gunnery skill when firing at hostile enemy vessels.

Example of Stat having the some impact on the throw akin to that used in the UTP: DM +2 if DEX 9+; DM +4 if DEX 11+ when throwig to remain in control after firing a weapon in zero G and experiencing recoil.





So, you see...CT's method delivers exactly what you need to govern the situation. A structured task system give you an approximation of what you need.

I really couldn't go back to it, I've played too many systems that were better. It would be like driving around in a model-T Ford; a triumph of nostalgia over reason.

I find that structured task systems are really just a crutch for a GM not confident enough and/or comfortable enough with the game sysem to call the shots as a GM does in CT.

There's nothing wrong with that. I like task systems.

I just realize that CT's method delivers better results than a one-size-fits-all mechanic.

Many of those who play CT these days don't realize they have "created" a task system by the way they play.

Yessir. CT allows you to customize the mechanic to the situation.

A structure task system is the other way around: you've got to fit the situation into the task system.

Take my first example above: Which mechanic feels more "right" for forcing open the door? The simple STR on 2D or elss, or the UTP method?

The answer: The method based on STR that shows the difference between stronger and weaker characters, of course.

 

[rancke]

I'll show you what I mean, using CT's task system and the UTP applied to the same situation.

Azi has stats: 978777
Bero has stats: 657777

The task is to force open a hatch that is slightly vacuum welded open, but not open enough to allow access. The hatch needs to be forced open farther so that boty Azi and Bero can enter the cabin.

Using the UTP, the GM would make a determination on Difficulty. I'll call it Routine (7+). And, since this task references characteristics, we've got to reference two of them for the modifier. STR, of course, is the natural choice, but the second modifier, END....does that really fit the throw? It can be debated. But, we'll go ahead and use it.

Why not just use STR as the second characteristic too? I don't know if the UTP allows that, but it certainly ought to. Every so often you run into a problem that only one attribute influences.

In my own house rules, I use both one attribute and ATT1+ATT2/2 and best of ATT1 and ATT2 and worst of ATT1 and ATT2 and ATT1+ATT2+ATT3/3, and even, in a few cases, 2*ATT1 plus ATT2 divided by 3, depending on how important I judge an attribute is to the task.



Hans