Traveller General--Vertical Advancement Edition

Traveller, especially in the old school improvisational style it was built for (something about emulating the episodic style of old pulp), is not easy to pull off with modern gaming - there's too many options for the players to use, and it requires having a lot of background prep that might not get used.

For Mongoose 1e, does a PGMP actually have a magazine size, or is the magazine size effectively infinite under any normal circumstances?

Specifically, I'm asking because the CRB version doesn't specify an Ammo rating, and then Plasma Rifle in CRB has:

TL 16 technology allows the bulky reactor and plasma
chamber of the PGMP to be made small enough to fit into a rifle
frame. The plasma rifle is a high-power sniper weapon designed to
crack Battle Dress. Because of its internal reactor it never runs out
of ammunition.

But then you've got the CSC book, which goes on to say:

Plasma Gun, Man Portable-12 (PGMP-12) (TL 12): Plasma Gun, Man Portable-12 (PGMP-12) (TL 12): The PGMP-12
consists of a power pack carried on the fi rer’s back, the weapon
itself and a fl exible power link. The powerpack powers a laser
ignition system in the weapon itself, which heats hydrogen fuel to
a plasma state. The plasma is contained in the ignition chamber
briefl y and then released through a magnetically focused fi eld along
the weapon’s barrel. The initial plasma ‘ball’ is 2cm in diameter
but begins to dissipate rapidly. The weapon fi res a short stream of
‘balls’ or ‘pulses’ in each attack and can conduct autofi re. Each pull
of the trigger discharges one plasma bolt. Because of the recoil and
intense heating of this weapon, it may only be fi red once every two
rounds.

BUT it lists an ammo rating, namely 10 through 15 for the various TLs the weapon is available at.

NO!

The wisdom of Marc Miller:
-Man portable lasers are STUPID! Just use Revolvers! Revolvers are BOSS!
-What are you talking about? Computers haven't changed since 1951!
-Football grid combat
-Look at all these stats for famous SF characters... that can't be legitibly be created using the rules.
-The very idea that someone who hasn't spent 20 years in the military could accomplish ANYTHING is just laughable!
-These are basic rules that allow the GM to create their own milue and campaign... within VERY narrow limits.
-Everyone loves MegaTraveller? Well, I'll put a stop to that! (TNE and T4)

Here's a couple of reviews from an old Ares magazine circa 1981

Here, have some content

...

>What're the advantages of Traveller character advancement vs. say, D&D's, as an example?

Traveller was meant to be different from the first and so there was different thinking behind it. Not better, not worse, but different.

Don't get me wrong. GDW LOVED D&D. When D&D came out they had to make a rule about not playing it at work because nothing was getting done! They loved the gaming ideas Gygax and Arneson had developed and wanted to create their own RPGs - their OWN roleplaying games and not just copies of D&D.

In various interviews, Miller talks about how they dropped the idea of levels and in-game advancement early on. They wanted their game's PCs to be competent when play began and they didn't want play to focus on "leveling up". When you look at Classic's skills that design goal becomes apparent.

Traveller wasn't the first RPG with skills, but it was the first RPG with a great skills system. After decades of skill level "inflation", people often forget just what those original skill levels meant. A level of "only" 1 meant your were good enough to be hired on that basis alone. A level of 2 meant you could teach that skill while levels of 3 or 4 meant you were widely renowned as an expert.

With skills that powerful at what now seems to be low levels, there was no real need for in-game advancement. You could still get better, but it was going to take time & effort just like in real life.

D&D's model is great, "growing" a PC from an easily killed nebbish to a demi-god is wonderful fun. Traveller's model is great too, starting with a fully competent PC and growing as a player with in-game knowledge.

Both models are great. Neither is better, neither is worse. They're just different.

...

...

Relatedly, since I've been unable to find it, for, say, Mongoose 1e, is there a cap on the ranks in an individual skill?

...

I don't know, sorry. GDW added an INT+EDU skill/level cap to Traveller in the later versions of Classic and carried that forward into MT.

Mongoose was "designed" to be more like what current players believe RPG should be so the rank, skill, & level "inflation" of the last few decades was embraced. I'd guess Mongoose didn't cap skill levels for that reason alone.

>The very idea that someone who hasn't spent 20 years in the military could accomplish ANYTHING is just laughable!

u r doin it rong.

I could have sworn MGT1 had the INT+EDU skill cap in there somewhere, but nope. There appears to be no explicit maximum for skills. It does mention that 4 points means you're a renowned expert, so it kinda sorta implies you shouldn't be going above that in one skill, but there's no actual limit to how many skills you can get.
Cepheus Engine has no limit either, but it's mostly just the MGT1 SRD anyway so that's not surprising.

Marc got A LOT of push back on this in the 70's, and that's why we got the Citizens Of The Imperium book.

>Marc got A LOT of push back on this in the 70's, and that's why we got the Citizens Of The Imperium book.

While CotI added other careers, it didn't add to the numbers of skills and/or levels a "playable" PC required.

All those other careers were a great addition. I used them frequently but had already homebrewed certain careers even before CotI came out. The reason those careers weren't in the first 3 books had to do with space more than anything else.

GDW had three books of 48 pages each to present chargen, combat, skills, ships, worlds, animals, trade, psionics, and all the rest. There just wasn't room for anything that wasn't vitally important.

Like I wrote, I used the example of the original six careers to create careers of my own. Stuff like that was an EXPECTED part of RPG play back in the 70s and early 80s.

How we played then was different than how we play now. Not better, not worse, just different. For a couple of years I had a great time playing a PC who was a one term scout with THREE skills. He mustered out on detached duty with a scout/courier and had Pilot-1, Navigation-1, and Medical-1. Thanks to the often forgotten "All PCs have a weapons skill of 0" rule he wasn't handicapped when it came to shooting, he just didn't get a bonus. I did use the experience system to get Autopistol-1.

These days that PC would be worthless, but back then he was a lot of fun.

It's all in the campaign. If you have a competent GM and decent players, even a TWERPS game can really shine. I've always viewed the rule set as an aid to the game, but not a hinderence. But then again, I'm playing with a pretty sharp group.

I very much agree with that.

We need more sexy hiver art. Any drawfriends in thread?

>aslan pinup calender
>all office girls doing spreadsheets

>fund it!

"Aliens of the Rim" in the TNE section of the Archive has some nice illos. The GT Hiver book has good art too.

Not in Mong-1

I missed the last thread's nonsense about Mongoose 2300 being vague about its Twilight:2000 origins.

I think it's much more likely that Mongoose choose to retcon the WWIII details because they didn't have the license for Twilight:2000 than out of an imagined fear of triggering people.

in mgt2 they added the skill cap again, i can see it in the character sheets(int+edu times 3)

>I think it's much more likely that Mongoose choose to retcon the WWIII details because they didn't have the license for Twilight:2000 than out of an imagined fear of triggering people.

Mongoose has a license for 2300AD which gives them license to use the background created for T2K. Why? Because both games used the same background, that's why.

As for triggering people, Mongoose isn't smart, aware, or even conscious enough to worry about that. They most likely flushed all the details about WW3 for two reasons:

1st - Mongoose changes stuff for no other reason than they like to change stuff.

2nd - By claiming all the records about WW3 were lost, Mongoose didn't have to do the WORK necessary to explain why and how WW3 happened.

When it comes to Mongoose and the "decisions" it makes, the fact that Mongoose is LAZY and STUPID explains over 99.99% of their actions.

I think Shawyer, the original EM drive guy, has completely lost it. But anyway, the guy's latest proposal includes a mockup of a fucking Traveller grav car.

This only requires about 7,000 times more "thrust" than what may or may not have been shown possible in tests so far

Amen. It's nice that the PCs come with a background too.
I capped skills at 4, with 1-2 being allowed to hit 5 (your capabilities have redefined everyone else's Ph.D's). It allows for a lot of lateral growth, but everyone still gets their niche. Eventually.
I also defined the skills as degree equivalents. 0 was two semesters of classes on that subject, 1 was an Associates, 2 a Bach, 3 a Masters, and 4 a Ph.D.
It seems to make a lot of difference in how people view and use the skills.

...

>I also defined the skills as degree equivalents.

Degree equivalents work nicely. Sometimes I found them too narrow of an explanation for some people. After all, you can hold a professional license without having a degree.

When explaining skill levels to new players, I always stressed the "Skill-1 = Can Be Hired To Perform That Skill", "Skill-2 = Can Teach That Skill", etc. which GDW used.

While I can't counter your read of Mongoose's usual 'decision making' methods. It's worth pointing out that a different company had licensed Twilight at around the same time.

It may be that they had no fucks to give AND weren't allowed to go into details is all.

>It's worth pointing out that a different company had licensed Twilight at around the same time.

I'll explain again that T2K and 2300AD share the same background history. While originally written for T2K and then changed from "future" to "alternate" history, that history is NOT EXCLUSIVE to T2K.

You get the license to 2300AD and the T2K/2300AD WW3 comes with it.

Ohgodwhy?

They're not cat-people user!

...

It's "disdain." Stop comically misspelling things, kitty.

>incoming content
So this is an exercise I've kept on forgetting to do ever since MgT 2e Vehicles Handbook came out:

Presenting an alternative to battle dress (for long-winded and not very interesting reasons): a bigger power armor. It's more 'ridden' than worn; by spaces it's about half the size of a modern sedan. So a bit more Alien's powerloader than Halo Mjolnir armor.

Relative to MgT 2e battle dress stats:
- same TL as basic battle dress
- nearly double the protection (40 armor vs. 22)
- nearly double rad protection (500 vs. 245)
- much faster (200-300 kph with 20m vertical jumps vs. 6m/round) [by RAW it can run at up to 180 miles per hour]
- longer life support (4 days vs. 6 hrs.)
- equivalent or better computer system
- much better sensors/comms
- integrated quad-linked autocannon, dealing 6d6+18 damage to up to 3 targets in a 1km range.
- all for the same price! (almost, 225k vs. 220k, and you can save 80k by removing the integrated weapons)

The downside, of course, is that this wouldn't fit down most hallways. But it's 'relatively' small and can give small, backwater PDFs a very solid boost to mechanized forces. Throw one at your players who start treating a local starport as if they own it. It'll be 'fun'.

This is the same exercise using MgT 1e Vehicle rules (though this one can fly). As you can see, it's a bit more involved. On the one hand, I suppose it's interesting to manage power-to-weight ratios in order to maintain sufficiently low ground pressure as to not bottleneck your take-off speeds. On the other hand, it's a not-insignificant amount of extra round-about calculations for not a hugely great difference in terms of pay-off as compared to 2e's methodology.

The numbers, of course, are not comparable (as damage, hull, structure and armor are quite different in the two editions).

And it should obviously be noted that neither this or the previous build is 'optimal'. You get much better power-to-weight ratios with lower TL turbine powerplants (and cheaper prices!) and so on, but this is a relative exercise based on the style suggested as per RAI in the books.

...

>that distinctive curve of CRT monitors
>1950s diner tables and lounge
You know, anons, as much as I have of a hard-on for nostalgia sometimes I do wish Traveller (and/or its players) would move its futurism a bit further forward. Like maybe into the 1980s? or even 90s?

...

THEM'S FIGHTIN' SHIPS, YA VARMINT!

We'll upgrade the monitors, but those table booths are gonna stay, dammit.

Thanks for these, user. Very kind of you.

I agree, I'm getting tired of dull steel colors on functionally curved furniture (or whatever modern furniture looks like these days).

...

Just noticed a math error in here, but too tired to fix it now. Not that anyone was going to use this, but it's a bit wrong.

Have a happy space yacht instead

I might. Repost it when you get around to fixing it.

that feel when someone saved your meme

feelsgoodman

cute yatch

Nice to see a space-yacht that actually looks like something a rich person would fly, as opposed to the dull boxy designs you usually see in Traveller art
The Mistral's Daughter design was never particularly sexy

The online library lacks the 2e Mercenary Book. Does anyone have that? I want to see if it has a good base-building system.

Very true. Most of the older yacht designs were pure kludge. More winnebago than custom tour bus.

>This game starts where Dungeons and Dragons left off, but, if there is any justice, will end up more popular than that venerable relic.
If only, Ares Magazine, if only.

It has a sort of functional beauty. I'd have fun with it.

It is there. Referee Briefing 4: Mercenary Forces. And aside from 4 weapons, it has nothing new in it from a rules perspective. Just a bit of fluff about mercenary forces in general, and a bit about a few specific groups.

Though it just hit me right after I hit post that you may be talking about the 2nd edition of the Mercenary book for MgT 1e.

Run at the speed of 289 km/h? Sounds more like exploding forwards.

Why is it that every supplement gives ludicrous speeds to everything? Don't the people who write these have brains at all?

...

pleb

Well, it's a velocity band, so mechanically, when playing the game, the actual max velocity doesn't actually matter. There's just a provided range, and you can use your judgment within that range; most similar walkers in the handbook are on the low end.

That being said, the 1e handbook had more stringent velocity calculations, dependent on not just power-to-weight ratios, but also ground pressure. It's sort of fine, but it's a fair bit of extra finagling around to get your vehicle just right.

So it turns out I was just tired and the math was fine. Have fun with it!

Have something else: a tank that's a bit between the Lynx and Predator in VH 2e. It's fairly cheap and is a fairly capable unit, all in a relatively small 15dton shipping package.

It takes advantage of a particularly wonky rules exploit: AP rules in 2e are similar to 1e, in that they're a multiplier based on number of damage dice. However, there's no ruling on what to do with DD weapons, which is not normally a problem because DD weapons don't qualify for variable ammunition rules in the CSC.

That is, except for the heavy gauss cannon in VH2e, which explicitly allows for variable ammunition. So the thinking is that because DD weapons are a 10x multiplier, the AP should probably be an equivalent 10x multiplier.

Thus we get a nice tank-killer in this vehicle. It might not stand up against TL15 grav tanks, but for it can punch way above its weight class, all for a fraction of the cost.

Where are the rules for this in 1e?

I do have a 1e version, but it's a bit different, requiring a bit higher TL to meet armor requirements without weighing down the tank too much. Interestingly because of the way the rules interact, the whole thing turns out closer to a modern MBT in terms of speed and range, which is probably not appropriate for something that requires TL14 armor.

Nah, I just mean the actual creation rules in 1e. I'm relatively new to the system, but this looks like a far more appropriate route to what I'd wanted than the actual Battle Dress itself for a few reasons.

Oh, for 1e you'll need Supplement 4: Central Supply Catalogue, and Supplements 5 and 6 for civilian and military vehicles. They're all up in the archive in the OP.

That is exactly what I was talking about. I'm seeing people talk about it on obscure sites, so I'm assuming it exists. If I had my hands on the pdf I might be able to edit a 'safe' version out of it that's harder to find automatically. I don't want to shell out money for the abortion that is Mg2e products, I just like to check if there's an element that's good enough to make use of here and there.

Specifically, I'm looking to find or design a base/HQ-building system from scratch. Maybe incorporating elements from Scoundrel's Intrusion system. In that all the security systems and variants you need to find out about and work around would be one set of upgrades with prices that you can buy.

Ooooo... nice illo! What do you figure? He-3 mining on the Moon in the 50s?

Interestingly enough it's a bit of Soviet futurism, cosmonaut Alexey Leonov was asked to draw some postcards
gizmodo.com/the-first-spacewalker-and-his-painter-friend-created-th-1729276737?IR=T

>Interestingly enough it's a bit of Soviet futurism, cosmonaut Alexey Leonov was asked to draw some postcards

Even better. Thanks for the link.

>You know, anons, as much as I have of a hard-on for nostalgia sometimes I do wish Traveller (and/or its players) would move its futurism a bit further forward. Like maybe into the 1980s? or even 90s?

How about the 2010s?

I've been aboard several of the Virginia-class SSNs. They make extensive use of flat screens, tablets, "operate/fly by wire" systems, and the like. Oddly enough the way the display and control panels are mounted looks quite a bit like those depicted in because they're "ruggedized" and while keeping shocks & maneuvering in mind.

That was more a reference to the idea of futurism in the 1970s, rather than what real world analogues actually turn out to be.

So, 1980s futurism would involve a lot of dystopian corporate authoritarianism, 1990s futurism features apocalyptic environmentalism (90s rpgs about the future are weird, aren't they), and the futurism as depicted in the last few years have ships that are essentially heavily armed-flying Apple stores.

>the futurism as depicted in the last few years have ships that are essentially heavily armed-flying Apple stores.

Worst future yet.

Yeah, but we're kind of stuck with it. Created in 1977, Traveller is an almanac of 70's thinking, especially with Miller's owe personal predilections. But I think you're all making too much of it. CT is heavily tied to worlds in the Spinward Marches, but the Imperium more than likely has a miriad of styles and design ethics in play. Not all starship or facilities with have the same stylings, not to mention things getting a periodical makeover.

>ib4 70's planet with leisure suits and feathered hair styles.

>>ib4 70's planet with leisure suits and feathered hair styles.

Solomani space pretty much

>So, 1980s futurism would involve a lot of dystopian corporate authoritarianism

Government codes 1 and 5 plus law levels.

>> 1990s futurism features apocalyptic environmentalism

Atmospheric codes 2, 4, 7, 9, A, B, and C.

>>the futurism as depicted in the last few years have ships that are essentially heavily armed-flying Apple stores.

You don't think all those computer dTons listed in Classic referred to a SINGLE computer or system, did you?

Every type of futurism you mention was present in the game in 1977. You simply have to know how to look for it.

Has anybode already done a scan of Solo? (not the old Star Trader one)

Jump-1

What?

Jump-2

>Every type of futurism
Which type of futurism has the purple skinned lesbian aliens in flight suits? I want that one.

Low-TL campaigns are best campaigns.

>I want that one.

You want that one, you make that one.

That's how Traveller works. That's the thinking behind it's design. The rules are the starting point, not handcuffs.

An earlier user whined about "Look at all these stats for famous SF characters... that can't be legitibly be created using the rules." without ever realizing you aren't limited by the chargen system and that NPCs were supposed to be built rather than rolled.

It's a mindset and a style of play many current players simply cannot grasp. It's not better, it's not worse, it's just differernt.

So how would we go about representing E-Cap or Minovsky tech? By design small-craft aren't much of a bother to large ships in Traveller, what with their high hull/structure and whatnot. But plenty of mecha fiction (not to mention other sci-fi settings) emphasize the ability of small craft to take down much larger prey, either via some accurate shooting, or by mounting battleship weaponry on your little fighter jet.

I've some ideas, but I'm wondering how you guys would approach this conundrum.

Not quite - a 289kph battlesuit (besides being ludicrous) is a difficult target given the movement modifiers in MGT2e when shooting at something.

>Low-TL campaigns are best campaigns.
Prove it

how low TL we talkin'?

Not him, but I like the idea of a campaign starting on a barbarian world and eventually moving to the stars.

Or maybe it's just this song.

youtube.com/watch?v=H4Y-cjqK1Bc

So, being a sword worlder?

Nah, Sword Worlders have spaceships and rifles and stuff. They just pretend to be Vikings on weekend retreats.

...