Traveller:Old/New
Bob Lyle
cumbersome. In collegWe we used to play Traveller (the small books) with
the combat from the Azhanti High Lightning board game (that was eventually
used in Striker) and ship combat from Trillion Credit Squadron. This was
simple, clean, logic, and realistic. Did anyone else use these rules?
Muskrat500
Played MegaTraveller. Thought it was okay.
Played Traveller: TNE. Absolutely adore it. It's a big ol' book, but its
absorbing stuff. And easy to use, once you read through it. It's really
reignited my interest in Traveller. And the supplements have been great,
too.
\
John K.
Eric Tolle
Something like the first game I played after AD&D/Arduin was the Original
Traveller, and I still feel nostalgic about the game.
High Guard and Trillion Credit Squadren is still IMO an excellent ship
design sourcebook, though it still suffers from the Traveller 'One
tech system' flaw...that _all_ races and culures will do things the
same way.
The megatraveller and TNE systems I wouldent want to attempt without a
spreadsheet...like the one they obviously used to design the system
with. ;)
Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
This is your brain, if you want it back it'll cost you. Any questions?
Carl D. Perkins
}Something like the first game I played after AD&D/Arduin was the Original
}Traveller, and I still feel nostalgic about the game.
}
} High Guard and Trillion Credit Squadren is still IMO an excellent ship
} design sourcebook, though it still suffers from the Traveller 'One
} tech system' flaw...that _all_ races and culures will do things the
} same way.
}
}The megatraveller and TNE systems I wouldent want to attempt without a
}spreadsheet...like the one they obviously used to design the system
}with. ;)
}
}Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
}This is your brain, if you want it back it'll cost you. Any questions?
Yep. They've taken all the fun out of designing a starship (and practically
anything else, for that matter). It used to be, back in the High Guard days,
that you could spend 15 to 30 minutes and design a ship of pretty much any
size. Using Fire, Fusion, & Steel (the T:TNE tech book) I have worked on
designing a 7,000 ton ship (TL 14, if I recall correctly, slab configuration).
That's a rather smallish ship, as capital ships go - basically it is a light
destroyer or frigate type ship in purpose - it packs a good whallop but it
is not large enough to stand up to a real capital ship for very long. I spent
something like 10 hours on it, including the half hour it took to design the
particle accelerator (a "parallel" mount style weapon) and 15 minutes it took
to rework the particle accelerator twice (reducing it's diameter twice down to
less than half the original value - and it still has an effective short range
for damage purposes of well over 1,000 hexes in spite of the best targetting
system's not having an *extreme* range anywhere near that (as in, an order
of magniture less) (so it does constant damage regardless of range, even if
it is shooting a target on the surface of a planet through a standard
atmosphere - and it's a pure N-PAW - so if it hits you it puts a rather large
hole in your ship)). And I still have not assigned the components to hit
locations... I estimate that that would take at least another hour. And I
have not bothered to design weapons to go into it's bays, two 50 ton bays and
a 100 ton bay which I had intended to load with lasers - I estimate that I
could design the weapons for that in about 15 minutes.
What it works out to is that before you design ships you need to design all
the appropriate weaponry at the selected tech level(s). The only weaponry
that you can pick'n'choose off a chart, like you used to, are the turret and
barbette mounted lasers.
I might also add that the "tank" given in the main rule book is pitiful beyond
belief. I desgned anotherone at TL 13 that is much more tank-like (it could
pretty much ignore the one in the book if it was to the front facing of it) -
took me about 1.5 hours to design the tank and the weaponry, following both
the appropriate sections of the design sections and the example in the
appendix.
You also learn that it is possible to build a high powered, man portable,
plasma or fusion gun that can punch holes in any personal armor, and even the
"tank" from the book from some facings. It is also possible to design a
high-TL gauss rifle that can punch through anything but the higher TL
battledress type armors, unlike any projectile weapon in the main book (I
designed a TL 20 sniper rifle, which I also had to tone down considerably to
give it some more reasonably characteristics for a portable weapon - like
power cells light enough to carry that gave reasonably numbers of shots, if
you don't mind only getting 3 or 4 shots, tons of recoil, and an excessive
mass, you can make a TL 20 sniper rifle that can put holes in any of the
given types of armor).
I have no idea why the weaponry and vehicles in the main rule book are so
wimpy.
Additionally, as you design stuff you find that a various bits of data are
not available. Two examples: 1) using personal weaponry as coaxial mounts
to the main gun on a tank (or in their own turret on any vehicle) - several
vehicles, including the example, do this but (other than the specific example
in the appendix) the data you need to do it for the various weapons you might
want to use for this is not given; 2) The volume and mass of modules for the
modular cutter are not given, making it rather difficule to tell how much
hanger space, or even storage space, they take up in your starship deigns.
As you can see, I have used FF&S to design several things (I've designed
a laser rifle, an MP plasma gun, a "cradle mount" plasma gun, a sniper-type
high tech gauss rifle, a grav tank, a N-PAW (neutral particle accelerator
weapon) and the starship to go with it). Having done this, two things
stand out to me: it takes *way* too long, especially the starship, and it
is not all that much fun.
Now, just to *play* the game, not including designing stuff, you probably
don't need a spreadsheet. (Well, I didn't use one to design the stuff either.
Just a calculator with a bunch of variables I could assign things to.)
--- Carl
gibs...@mala.bc.ca
I haven't used the the old rules but have run a couple short campaigns with
the NEW ERA edition. The new rules ARE a little on the complicated side but to
a certain extent that adds to the Realism of a highly complex Universe,( and it
makes players try to find other ways to solve problems than just opening up
with a fusion rifle :) But the actual Game rules are Simple compared to the
Fire,Fusion,Steel Equipment Rules. These rules alow you to design new equipment
and stuff like force shield generators BUT you have to calculate everything
using Actual (and extrapolated) scientific equations. If you don't have a good
calculator this book is NOT for you.
DAVE GIBSON
Tony Zbaraschuk
At the Traveller seminar at Origins, several people commented that they'd
really like to see a computerized version of FF&S, and the GDW people
there seemed quite open to the idea. Maybe it'll be on the product line
next year.
Tony Z
--
"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its
swiftness. I love that which they defend, the city of the Men of Numenor."
--- Faramir, _The Two Towers_
Mark Urbin
>I agree that FF&S is much more complicated than the older design systems.
More complicated than Mega Traveller, No.
Too make Mega:T worse, the first few printings were terribly error ridden.
FF&S is fairly bug free and GDW is publishing uptodate errata. I found that
after the first try, I could knock off small arms designs in under 20 minutes.
I've designed trucks, planes, zepplins and space craft since then. Pretty
straight foward and nicely modular.
>At the Traveller seminar at Origins, several people commented that they'd
>really like to see a computerized version of FF&S, and the GDW people
>there seemed quite open to the idea. Maybe it'll be on the product line
>next year.
This would be a "Good Thing" (tm). Let's start arguing now. Flat DOS,
DOS/Windows, MAC OS, or UNIX?
--
Mark Urbin -- ecl...@world.std.com -- These opinions are mine.
"As women and as lawyers, we must never again shy from raising our
voices against sexual harassment." - Hillary Rodham Clinton, at a
1992 American Bar Association luncheon praising Anita Hill.
alvin plummer
:
: >At the Traveller seminar at Origins, several people commented that they'd
: >really like to see a computerized version of FF&S, and the GDW people
: >there seemed quite open to the idea. Maybe it'll be on the product line
: >next year.
: This would be a "Good Thing" (tm). Let's start arguing now. Flat DOS,
: DOS/Windows, MAC OS, or UNIX?
It should come in both DOS (for the poor among us) and Window
applications.
Alvin Plummer
Philip Athans
The New Era.
First of all, I'm a MAJOR Traveller/MegaTraveller fan and have even
published some Traveller material in places like Challenge and Traveller's
Digest. I started playing Traveller YEARS ago and I can tell you it
definitely peaked in the 2-3 years following the release of the
MegaTraveller revision. This was the height of the Digest Group era. If
you want to see some of the best RPG material ever published for any
game system, take a look at the last 3-4 MegaTraveller titles released by
DGP - just extraordinary! When they got out of Traveller and it became
Twilight:5700, I got out too. I miss it!
-Philip Athans
Damian Dougan
: I own a copy of but have not yet (and most likely won't) play Traveller:
Hello Philip,
I can appreciate that the TNE universe is not half a great as the Rebellion
universe (I've never played the Classic era), but the new rule system is a
major improvement on the MegaTraveller rules, and is every bit as good as the
2300AD rule system.
Certainly, DGP put some out brilliant material - their 101 Vehicles and their
GMs Screen were superb, but the MegaTraveller system which they where to be used
with was flawed and bugged to the core.
Why don't you play the MegaTraveller era universe with the New Era rules?
Surely its a better idea than wasting the money you've spent on the TNE rule
book?
Here are the results of a poll from issue 13, volume 74 of the TML regarding
which rule system and which campaign area GMs were using:
>RULES:
>
> Rank Title Percent
>
> #1 Traveller: The New Era 50%
> #2 MegaTraveller 21%
> #3 "Classic" Traveller 19%
> #4 2300AD 6%
> #5 GURPS 4%
>
>CAMPAIGNS:
>
> Rank Era or Background Percent (*)
>
> #1 "Classic" Third Imperium 48%
> #2 "New Era" Campaigns 27%
> #3 Rebellion 12%
> #4 Other 10%
> #5 2300AD 4%
>
>(*) Does not sum to 100% due to rounding.
I'd like to have seen a more generic version of the Traveller game system -
the rule book shouldn't have mentioned any of the three universes. Instead, it
should have just presented the rules, and players could decide which source book
(which would be of a similar size to the rule book) to buy to play their
campaigns in.
Personally, what I've always hated about Traveller is that is isn't a _modern_
science fiction RPG. Instead of living in a futuristic universe, characters
live in a a universe where high tech items are sort of like magic - they don't
effect all aspects of life (I can appreciate the difficulty of defining a
universe set 3000 years from now, but surely they can visualize ahead in more
aspects than space travel and communication).
e.g. starships land in a docking platform, while a few hundred metres away,
farmers are still driving harvesters, and in the city slums, bandits are
still running around with 1970-era weapons.
Oh, that and GDWs inability to release a product without requiring
major errata releases.
And the crappy artwork that's in the Traveller TNE and MegaTraveller
books. Look at the quality of the stuff in Twilight.
Damien Dougan.
Darragh J. Delany
>I'd like to have seen a more generic version of the Traveller game system -
>the rule book shouldn't have mentioned any of the three universes. Instead, it
>should have just presented the rules, and players could decide which source book
>(which would be of a similar size to the rule book) to buy to play their
>campaigns in.
In other words you would have liked the original 3 book boxed set which is
exactly where traveller began.....
> e.g. starships land in a docking platform, while a few hundred metres away,
> farmers are still driving harvesters, and in the city slums, bandits are
> still running around with 1970-era weapons.
You mean like a modern high tech jet aircraft landing at a lovely african
airport while only a few hundered metres away farmers are still driving
ox-drawn ploughs, and in the city slums, bandits are still running around
with machettes and knives that wouldn't have been too out of place in 200BC ???
very unrealistic that. Technology like wealth is rarely uniformly distributed.
Darragh J. Delany
Grumpy Old Timer
Bob Lyle
said, he was a Classic Traveller/Megatraveller player who castigated the
TNE rules as "Twilight 5700", not the campaign (although he might not
like that either.)
Most of us old timers had rules patches from Classic Traveller to fill in
the gaps of Mega Traveller. That ain't a problem: the TNE rules are.
Complexity and realism are NOT the same thing. I usually look aat the
combat rules, since referee judgement calls can cover most everything
else - with a good referree. The initial Traveller rules were a cut
above DND, reasonably fast, playable and beleivable. Then the came out
with the Azhanti High Lightning/Striker rules, which I still say are
about the best ever written, but nobody else seems to use them as
Traveller supplements.
The GDW universal engine used in 2nd edition Twilight 2000 and TNE ismuch
more complex than any of its predecessors, plays more slowly, and adds
nothing to realism and beleivability (ot still doesn't have hit location?!)
Why should Phillip A. follow his wasted money with wasted time
mastering a clumsy Frankenstein of a system when he already has one that
works?
As to why TNG has it's proponents, I can't say. Some talk of realism
that I can't see (okay, I like FFS, but as a supplement. I haven't
written the necessary Lotus programs yet to use it.) I see only complexity
and
obscurity. I am reminded of a quote from Heinlein: "Obscurity is not
profundity, but 90% of the time its an acceptible substitute."
Still, I regret GDW bashing. I have bought a lot of their stuff an keep
hoping they'll find a new system or a better way of explaining the one
they have.
As for their campaign world, I think some haqve unrealistic expectations
for the future. Today, in the third world, oxen pull plows on the verges
of jet airports. This doesn't seem a lot wierder than combines and
starships. And as for the use of chemical slug throwers: they are cheap
and lethal in the far future, and will be used for the same reason people
bleed from knife wounds or have skull fractures from wooden clubs.
Mankind does not abandon tools that work.
Susan Marie Shock
Traveller: TNE to be complex or difficult to understand. For one thing, it
isn't exactly the same system as Twilight 2000: 2nd Edition unless you are
talking about version 2.2. Many of the problems with T:2000 v2.0 were fixed by
the adapting and refinement of what was then called the "d20 system". What TNE
DOES have are far superior character creation rules than either of the older
versions of Traveller, giving characters more skills, more career choices, and
giving players more control over the creation process. and they DON'T DIE while
being created!
The combat rules are, in my opinion, relatively easy to understand (provided
you have the updated version or all the errata :) ) and pretty fast moving once
you get the rules down. I readily admit to hating the autofire rules, but there
are even one or two things about GURPS that annoy me! :)
And NO version of Traveller has EVER had a starship combat game as fun to
play as Brilliant Lances! (Mayday was great, but BL is more detailed while
still remaining playable.) And BATTLE RIDER is pretty good, too!
TNE has followers because there are people like me who are open-minded enough
to try something new. And because it's a good game.
Scott Olson
> Complexity and realism are NOT the same thing. I usually look aat the
> combat rules, since referee judgement calls can cover most everything
> else - with a good referree. The initial Traveller rules were a cut
> above DND, reasonably fast, playable and beleivable. Then the came out
> with the Azhanti High Lightning/Striker rules, which I still say are
> about the best ever written, but nobody else seems to use them as
> Traveller supplements.
Hey, don't say "nobody else", I always used (after they came out,
that is) modified Striker rules for combat, even under MegaTraveller,
because MT went back to the range-band system that should have died
after Striker. Quick, clean (especially combined with the MT damage
system), and effective.
I haven't gone to TNE because it's a completely different game, and
I was happy with a patched-as-necessary version of MT/Striker. Still
need to work on that Striker-to-MT conversion system, though. :)
Scott
Damian Dougan
: If you actually read Phillip A.s posting, instead of what you THINK he
: TNE rules as "Twilight 5700", not the campaign (although he might not
: like that either.)
And I said I prefered the new system.
: Most of us old timers had rules patches from Classic Traveller to fill in
: the gaps of Mega Traveller. That ain't a problem: the TNE rules are.
Oh, and what about all those players who bought MegaTraveller without ever
having played Classic Traveller? Should they have to spend more cash to buy the
Classic Rules just so MT will now be playable? Thanfully, I had 2300AD before
getting MegaTraveller, and was able to patch it up too, but it doesn't change
the fact that the system was flawed and full of bugs and misprints.
: Complexity and realism are NOT the same thing. I usually look aat the
: combat rules, since referee judgement calls can cover most everything
: else - with a good referree. The initial Traveller rules were a cut
: above DND, reasonably fast, playable and beleivable. Then the came out
: with the Azhanti High Lightning/Striker rules, which I still say are
: about the best ever written, but nobody else seems to use them as
: Traveller supplements.
I'm not saying complexity and realism are the same thing. In fact, everytime I
speak of the new house system, I use the phrase "fast fun and flexible". I
think Frank Chadwick, Loren Wiseman and David Neilsen have put alot of work into
developing the combat system. It is fast, and it is beleivable - and my group
thinks that is enough to make it playable.
: The GDW universal engine used in 2nd edition Twilight 2000 and TNE ismuch
: more complex than any of its predecessors, plays more slowly, and adds
: nothing to realism and beleivability (ot still doesn't have hit location?!)
Have you played the system? I don't think so. Is isn't any more complex than
MegaTraveller or 2300AD, and the Task system is actually somewhat simplified.
Further, it _does_ have hit locations )ok - I supppose you could have missed
the hit location charts, and all references to it throughout the combat chapter
and the character generation chapter). As for it being slow - I've ran
firefights with 4 PCs and between 15 and 20 NPCs on each side, as well as
vehicles. Everyone enjoyed the fight - there was no feeling of being left out
as everyone else rolled lots of dice.
: Why should Phillip A. follow his wasted money with wasted time
: mastering a clumsy Frankenstein of a system when he already has one that
: works?
Well, that bring us back to your original statement that he didn't like the
rules rather than not liking the campaign setting. If it was the rules he didn't
like, fair enough. But if it was just the campaign setting, I don't see why he
should throw away a book when, like most other TNE groups in the survery, he
could use the Classic Campaign setting.
: As to why TNG has it's proponents, I can't say. Some talk of realism
: that I can't see (okay, I like FFS, but as a supplement. I haven't
: written the necessary Lotus programs yet to use it.) I see only complexity
: and
: obscurity. I am reminded of a quote from Heinlein: "Obscurity is not
: profundity, but 90% of the time its an acceptible substitute."
Yes, FF&S is very complex, and it does help to have a spreadsheet. But I don't
see that as a plus. I'd prefer if it was a little simplified, to the cost of
realism.
I like TNE because
o The house system is good. It fast, fun and flexible. It is easy for me to
see how the different tasks and modifiers can be attributed to events in
the real world.
o Combat is fun. Firefights move along at a quick pace. The initiave system
is a big improvement over MT, and allows more tactical combat.
o Trading is fun (yes I know you could trade in MT).
o My players enjoy the system.
: Still, I regret GDW bashing. I have bought a lot of their stuff an keep
: hoping they'll find a new system or a better way of explaining the one
: they have.
I just hope they will print the stuff they are releasing without so many errors.
: As for their campaign world, I think some haqve unrealistic expectations
: for the future. Today, in the third world, oxen pull plows on the verges
: of jet airports. This doesn't seem a lot wierder than combines and
: starships. And as for the use of chemical slug throwers: they are cheap
: and lethal in the far future, and will be used for the same reason people
: bleed from knife wounds or have skull fractures from wooden clubs.
: Mankind does not abandon tools that work.
There was alot of dicussion on TML about the variations in tech levels. I can
appreciate a difference of several tech levels between adjacent planets or even
on the same planet, but the point I was trying to make was the Traveller has
always been a universe in which science was like magic - it presented our modern
world, but with a few technological wonders. I just don't believe that common
place startravel would be unaccompanied by advances in other fields of science
unrelated to starship travel (like farming - though having said that - wasn't
Dulinor killed by a Virus infected robot harvester???).
In short, I honestly don't think you have looked at TNE close enough. I'm not
saying that you should now rush out and buy it, but you should at least read
a book, and maybe play a session or two, before you start making criticisms
which may affect potential customers who would actually enjoy playing it.
Damien Dougan.
Bob Lyle
apology to GDW is posted elsewhere.
As to the setting . . .
Traveller does well with the physics-based aspects of future technology.
The cybernetics was always hopelessly conservative, and the best part of
the Plague is getting rid of it.
Bio sciences do not show as much improvement. This didn't bother me
much, because Ag has declined from 90% of the economy to 10% from TL 3 to
TL7, by TL A it will be negligible, no matter how it works. We always
fudged to medical rules: a PC makes it to a hospital, he gets healed and
rehabilitated inside a week.
As for the social sciences . . . I can't blame Traveller for ignoring
them, since I don't beleive there are any yet.
With that said, I can't agree with the characterization of Traveller
technology as Magic. Magic has always struck me as something that
accomplishes Wonders without obvious cause-and-effect. Traveller
technology goes to great length to build beleivable chains of
explanations behind their technology
The difference between Science Fiction (SF) and Fantasy in a Future World
("Sci-Fi", or Space Opera) is that in SF you don't do anything you know
you can't do. You maybe don't know how to do it, of even if it can be
done, but it might be possible. Sci-Fi has no such limits, which is why
it is so much easier to write and so popular. Traveller is to be
applauded for staying inside the limits of SF.
Michael R. Marsh
: saying that you should now rush out and buy it, but you should at least read
: a book, and maybe play a session or two, before you start making criticisms
: which may affect potential customers who would actually enjoy playing it.
I started with black box Traveller, then went to Mega Travller with all
its known vices. I have even bought the 2300 rules as an exercise
inseeing if there was anything I could use. I have been on and off Game
Mastering Traveller for 13+ years. When TNE arrived, I bought a copy...
the new character generation system, very nice..well donw and worthy of
kudos. The rest of the system. I find fair..at best, the new background,
loathsome. I was asked by some of my players if it was worht buying and
basically said it was interesting reading but I would not be buying
anymore material for it..nor including it in my games. IN short, I don't
like the direction GDW decided to take the game.
Robert H. Walsh
Organization: Illinois State University
Michael R. Marsh (mrm...@crl.com) wrote:
: : In short, I honestly don't think you have looked at TNE close enough. I'm no
t
: : saying that you should now rush out and buy it, but you should at least read
: : a book, and maybe play a session or two, before you start making criticisms
: : which may affect potential customers who would actually enjoy playing it.
in response to Michael R. Marsh:
Yes I probably was abrupt in my putting down TNE, but I have been palying
traveller since The review in dragon #18, And I will play the Black Box Edition
any time, I run Traveller tournaments With the Old Edition Still. I Have
talked to Dave Nielsen and the Folks At GDW, and I think Turning Traveller into
a high Tech Twilight 2000 Spinoff Sucks Big Time, Or Have you heard that
Striker 2 is Going to Use the Command Decision System?, I hope to God that it's
not a variant on the Combined Arms Command Decision Set Which Sucked big time
And I helped playtest that Disaster!
I also was the Team leader for the First Official GDW Traveller Tournament,
Which would Eventually be Known as SHADOWS. I also live about 2 miles from GDW
itself, so I Get there Quite often, I Would be happy to send any Questions
their direction if people want.
Kevin Walsh[AKA Shadowcat]
rhw...@rs6000.comp.ilstu.edu
Susan Marie Shock
as does T2000. But when TNE came out, they reworked T2000 to conform to
TRAVELLER THE NEW ERA not the other way around. The game system is not what
makes TNE-or t2000-what they are, it's the background. and these are very
different. As for Striker II. it makes sense for GDW to base it off of a
pre-existing set of minatures rules which are overall well done and popular.
There have been, since the days of Book 4: Mercenary and the original Striker,
people who enjoy the military aspects of the Traveller universe. But i can
testify that you CAN run "old style" Traveller adventures with the TNE rules;
in fact, I've run SHADOWS with the new rules! I don't think SMASH AND GRAB is
indicative of the only kind of thing we'll be seeing in the way of TNE
scenarios; I sure hope not! It certainly ain't what I'M writing!
(Although, I confess, I did write an adventure called "Twilight 1201"
which my players loved, involving a world much like Earth in t2000. With all
the "T2000 in space" carping going on on the TML at that time, it seemed like
the thing to do...)