Traveller

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
My playing group tried T4. We didn't participate in the playtesting. We didn't participate in online discussions about the game. We walked into it blind. (And we wanted to like it; there were so many promises made after all!)

And we hated it.

We hated it so much, in fact, that we dropped any and all actual-branded Traveller games from that point. The GM spent a few weeks poring over Megatraveller books (after errata and errata and errata and some more errata sheets had been applied) and did a wholesale conversion of the portions of the setting relevant to our campaign to BTRC's CORPS (2nd edition) game. From that point onward CORPS was our Traveller game.

I never looked at T5 but if its editing was somehow worse than T4's, I'm glad I didn't.

So not all T4-hate stems from toxic fandom. Sometimes things just suck.
 
In practice, you have less skills, but due to how the 2d6 vs TN works, they matter a whole lot more, I've found (played MgT1 for quite a while). OTOH, with a dicepool, your skill improving from 1 to 3 might not be a big bump in your odds of making the check...
MegaTraveller used 2d6 + stat mod + skill normally (sometimes it was two stats or two skills), and the stat mod was stat/5, so generally +1. Skills had a huge impact, though not as much as task difficulty as that stepped in 4-point increments.

I'm comparing MgT to MT because both have a fairly large skill list (though MgT's is bigger once you allow for a ton of those listed in MT actually being part of another skill, like Rifle being part of Rifleman), and they have a similar task system. MgT hands out a lot more level-0 skills, and is a bit more generous with skill levels for rank, but it generally makes them fixed level-1 skills, so they're not as useful as they seem. MT hands out Gun Combat-0 to almost all backgrounds, which helps too.

MT's chargen includes a lot more choice than MgT's, because far more of the skills are 'cascade' skills, where the entry on the skill table is for a 'skill' that's actually a collection from which you choose one. Another effect of this is that MgT's skill tables have no double-ups, so if you want a particular skill you have a 1-in-6 chance when you roll a table that contains it, while MT often has two instances of a skill on a given table, giving a 1-in-3 chance of getting it.

On a more nit-picky note, it's almost impossible for Colonists to know how to use guns. You can't learn them as background skills (you can't even learn to brawl as a background skill, which seems questionable), they don't learn any combat skill in 'basic training' (because they are 'Citizens' and that's one of the careers that uses the assignment skills for basic training), and no skill table includes guns. The only way I can see if 'Event' number 6: "You are given advanced training in a specialist field. Roll EDU 10+ to gain any one skill of your choice at level 1." As Colonist's blurb is "You are building a new life on a recently settled world that still needs taming" this doesn't work for me at all. This would bother me a lot less if seeing this didn't then result in noticing similar issues in other careers. Cops start with Gun Combat-0, which is okay I guess, but no Melee skill, yet most policemen are going to spend a lot more time wrestling arrestees than shoot people (one hopes). The 'infantry' assignment's skill table has only one entry different from the main Army 'service skills' table (Stealth vs Drive/Vacc Suit), which makes Infantry an unattractive assignment because you can learn almost all the infantry skills whilst in one of the other branches and choose their tables instead if you want different skills.

And as I'm on an anti-MgT roll, I don't much like the mishap and events tables. They tend to give you a choice of doing the 'right thing' and getting nothing for it, or being unlawful or selfish and getting something from it. In some cases, even if you do the right thing if the referee brings it up in play it'll hurt you just as much as having taken advantage would. Also many of them require tasks rolls, usually vs. stats, making good stats incredibly beneficial before you even start play (because they'll get you more skill points, and those are in short supply).

As I said, I've tried to like MgT, but is just doesn't work for me and 'fixing' it to my satisfaction will take far more work than doing the same to MT or TNE (especially the latter, which also has FF&S, which I consider the superior equipment design rule set).
 
Last edited:
MegaTraveller used 2d6 + stat mod + skill normally (sometimes it was two stats or two skills), and the stat mod was stat/5, so generally +1. Skills had a huge impact, though not as much as task difficulty as that stepped in 4-point increments.
IIRC, it was in 3-points increments? Wasn't MT doing 7/10/13 difficulties?
But either way, that's actually something I really like about MT. Trying to make your task easier instead of just throwing your most skilled guy on it is commendable, in my book:thumbsup:!
 
IIRC, it was in 3-points increments? Wasn't MT doing 7/10/13 difficulties?
But either way, that's actually something I really like about MT. Trying to make your task easier instead of just throwing your most skilled guy on it is commendable, in my book:thumbsup:!
I thought MT was 6/8/10.
 
I thought MT was 6/8/10.
I think that's Classic and MgT1:thumbsup:.

But I just checked and found both that Sharrow Sharrow is right, and the source of my confusion: Apparently there is a suggested houserule for Mongoose Traveller, which is based on MegaTraveller, and uses a 3-point step. IMO, 3-point step makes most sense when using 2d6, while a 4-point step should be used in 3d6 or d20 games.
If I ever write my own Cepheus variant, I am going to base it on the 3-points step. And I might move the basic difficulty to 7, too...and possibly treat skills not as straight DMs, but as "a point of skill allows you to lower the TN by one, until you hit TN4, then add extra levels on a 1-to-1 basis":grin:!

Anyway, apologies to everyone for the confusion:shade:!
 
MT was 3/7/11/15.

I really liked the MT task system, but the most important part of it was largely non-mechanical:
WORKING WITH TASKS

As you work with the task system, here are a few pointers:
  • Don't overdo predefined tasks. Many of the published tasks are suggestions, not absolute requirements.
  • Task subdivision invites mishaps.
  • Don't Implement mishaps if they seem out of place.
  • Don't bother rolling for time unless it in important.
  • The goal is always to keep the game movlng, don't become a slave to the rules.
  • The task system is intended to provide instant "substance" to a situation without getting bogged down in game rules. Use only as much of a task as seems appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Personally I kinda liked traveller as a theme, basicly a solid sf setting that leaned towards not getting tech overwhelm players, and as setting, which emulated a lot of solid sf if the day like dune, niven (who wrote some good stuff while being a terrible person), Clarke, Heinlein, etc. Most gersions if trageker have stayed to solid sf roots evan as star wars pushed towards the sci fantasy realm.

I never loved most of it's systems, considering them very granular. I liked gurps traveller as you could customize characters much more. Alsobitbhqd more detailed rules for devices, vehicles, etc.


I'd love to see someone get MMs permission to do a hard reboot of traveller, maybe adding some transhumanist elements and even factions, possibly explaining the human dispora as partly due to conflicts between transhuman factions.

I think a version of the 150 system used in battlelords would be good for it. But to me traveller will always be dear to my heart for staying a generally solid SF setting.
 
MegaTraveller used 2d6 + stat mod + skill normally (sometimes it was two stats or two skills), and the stat mod was stat/5, so generally +1. Skills had a huge impact, though not as much as task difficulty as that stepped in 4-point increments.

I'm comparing MgT to MT because both have a fairly large skill list (though MgT's is bigger once you allow for a ton of those listed in MT actually being part of another skill, like Rifle being part of Rifleman), and they have a similar task system. MgT hands out a lot more level-0 skills, and is a bit more generous with skill levels for rank, but it generally makes them fixed level-1 skills, so they're not as useful as they seem. MT hands out Gun Combat-0 to almost all backgrounds, which helps too.
I've always believed all PCs having Skill-0 in at least two combat skills and Recon or Streetwise makes total sense.

MT's chargen includes a lot more choice than MgT's, because far more of the skills are 'cascade' skills, where the entry on the skill table is for a 'skill' that's actually a collection from which you choose one. Another effect of this is that MgT's skill tables have no double-ups, so if you want a particular skill you have a 1-in-6 chance when you roll a table that contains it, while MT often has two instances of a skill on a given table, giving a 1-in-3 chance of getting it.
Yup, I love that part of MT (and T4 IIRC).

On a more nit-picky note, it's almost impossible for Colonists to know how to use guns. You can't learn them as background skills (you can't even learn to brawl as a background skill, which seems questionable), they don't learn any combat skill in 'basic training' (because they are 'Citizens' and that's one of the careers that uses the assignment skills for basic training), and no skill table includes guns. The only way I can see if 'Event' number 6: "You are given advanced training in a specialist field. Roll EDU 10+ to gain any one skill of your choice at level 1." As Colonist's blurb is "You are building a new life on a recently settled world that still needs taming" this doesn't work for me at all. This would bother me a lot less if seeing this didn't then result in noticing similar issues in other careers. Cops start with Gun Combat-0, which is okay I guess, but no Melee skill, yet most policemen are going to spend a lot more time wrestling arrestees than shoot people (one hopes). The 'infantry' assignment's skill table has only one entry different from the main Army 'service skills' table (Stealth vs Drive/Vacc Suit), which makes Infantry an unattractive assignment because you can learn almost all the infantry skills whilst in one of the other branches and choose their tables instead if you want different skills.
Yeah, the colonist and agent thing are ill-considered IMO as well. If I'm running them, I'd make Melee replace* the Gun Combat in the police table, and add Gun Combat to a table for the Colonists (the Specialist one, which requires EDU8+ to roll on, if I'm feeling uncharitable...but more likely than not, I'd add it to Self-development instead, possibly as "this, OR Gun Combat").

*Actually, make it Melee, or Gun Combat, but include a note that you get Melee-0 on your first term, unless you already have Melee-1 or better, in which case you can get Gun Combat instead.
And as I'm on an anti-MgT roll, I don't much like the mishap and events tables. They tend to give you a choice of doing the 'right thing' and getting nothing for it, or being unlawful or selfish and getting something from it. In some cases, even if you do the right thing if the referee brings it up in play it'll hurt you just as much as having taken advantage would. Also many of them require tasks rolls, usually vs. stats, making good stats incredibly beneficial before you even start play (because they'll get you more skill points, and those are in short supply).
Yeah, I agree that doesn't sit well with me, either. But then there's a simple fix: make the skill acquisition unconditional, and any checks just determine how this impacts your standing in the profession and related social circles.
Also, for an additional two sentences of houserules, "you can replace any skill gained from an Event with one of these 9 skills" (that change with profession, but always include Gun Combat, Melee, Athletics and Recon, because PCs are PCs and tend not to be the most peaceful kinds even before going Travelling, IME:thumbsup:).

As I said, I've tried to like MgT, but is just doesn't work for me and 'fixing' it to my satisfaction will take far more work than doing the same to MT or TNE (especially the latter, which also has FF&S, which I consider the superior equipment design rule set).
Well, could you try making a character with my houserules and see if it flows better for you:grin:? I'm genuinely curious, since I've always found that it only needs simple fixes like those above.
Maybe it wouldn't work for you, but hey, Traveller chargen is fun regardless of edition, I've found...so maybe give it a try:angel:?


BTW, regarding the mention of "D&D initiative" above: I vastly prefer the simultaneous initiative found in some Cepheus variants, like Zaibatsu.

Oh, and I just found a nice post describing the evolution of Traveller rulesets.
 
Traveller is my favorite game system. I use it for darn near everything, including fantasy (I even left a sample fantasy character in our 2022 Character Creation Challenge to show how that works). I do, however, mostly stick to sci-fi, sci-fantasy or planetary romance for the most part since those are among my favorite genres.

It's hard to say which edition I run because I made the game mine years ago. I want to say Mongoose Traveller is the baseline, but that I run it like Classic Traveller in some ways. The biggest likely being that you don't automatically get characteristic bonuses (this doesn't break the game at all because, by giving characteristic + skill mods on every roll, Mongoose should have made the baseline difficulty 10+ but left it at 8+).

I've only recently (like the last few years) started using the OTU for my games. I tend to think the Third Imperium is entirely too large for most settings I want to run in, and so have always home brewed my Traveller settings to taste.
 
I am a relative newcomer to Traveller. It was never popular here in Brazil and I came to it in the 2010s amidst the OSR.

I picked up MongTrav1 and loved it. One of my favorite core rulebooks ever, to this day. Didn’t jump into MongTrav2 but dig Cepheus.

I got T5 in PDF and, while I was awed by how amazing comprehensive it was, the sheer size and complexity made me nope the hell out of it. And Bunch Bunch just recommended me Hostile, which I hope to check out soon.

I like Traveller so much and want so bad to run it again that I can’t justify to myself running Stars Without Number despite it being an easier system (for me) with an insanely good GM-facing toolset. (I still hope to convert Eclipse Phase to it some day.)

I only ran a short campaign (circa 2014, my gaming anno mirabilis) that half the group didn’t care too much about, then never again. I had fun though.

I still dream of running Pirates of Drinax some day. Or maybe Secrets of the Ancients. Or just a good old sandbox with Orbital 2100 or classic Spinward Marches.
 
Incidentally I love T5 for what it tries to be. It's very comprehensive, astonishingly so. Think how many GURPS books you'd need to do all of that. And it's got rules for mentats and face dancers in there too. The problem is more that it was put together by two very old men one of whom died during the process and the other had at least one major surgery (probably a heart bypass from what I've heard.

I got into T5 way back when they announced it and said it would be out in three months. Five years or so later I got a playtest CD in the mail but it just wasn't a workable system yet. Then a couple years later there was the kickstarter and they rushed out the book due to the afore mentioned heart surgery. Then there was the first kerfuffle as we discovered through hard experience that it was an unworkable mess. There was a huge debate as to whether damage points that got through the armour became full dice. Indeed a moose got penetrate damage equal to its 5d strength, quite conceivably 30d damage at half armour. There was a badly worded rule and the whole moose thing and Traveller combat could be exponentially deadlier. There were problems in the makers too. But people really hated combat. Mark was pretty obsessed with these mnemonics and Situation, Target, Attack, Move, Penetrate was the combat mnemonic. Combat also, inexplicitly used 2d and modifiers instead of numbers of dice. Eventually a combat comity was struck and a couple years later we got T5.09 with an even more incomprehensible combat system that didn't work in play and didn't fix brawling or grav tank killing moose. I tried hard to run it, alienated all my players, argued a lot on CoTI. I got a friend on the comity but 5.09 combat was really a bad mess. Then they kickstarted the new 5.1 as a three book set. I was pretty broke and shipping was $70 and I just gave up. My friend on the comity showed me his copy. The melee weapon table had indeed been altered but moose still got Pen = Strength.

So what was needed IMO? Being someone who was in it for the long haul? About two pages of explanatory text and an errata update. That's it. STAMP was a sequence of resolution not a sequence of actual action in the game world. It's like a hex and counter combat resolution system. You just want to know what happened to the counters. It's not a detailed narrative of how it happened. For me, Traveller 5 was pretty good, if flawed in some specific places. Pandering to the complainers just kept making it worse.
 
It's hard to say which edition I run because I made the game mine years ago. I want to say Mongoose Traveller is the baseline, but that I run it like Classic Traveller in some ways.

This brings me to one of the things that keeps Traveller in my wheelhouse after all these years (and sort of defines editions that failed to get traction from me): there's a good degree of portability between editions. Though there are (usually) subtle changes to things like world and ship generation, generally I have been able to use CT or MT (and even some T20) products in MgT (mainly settings/worlds and adventures). Though specifics of skills and advancement may require a little translation, generally the scale of character skills and attributes are about right.
 
MT was 3/7/11/15.

I really liked the MT task system, but the most important part of it was largely non-mechanical:
MT was the first “universal” task resolution system I remember encountering and it’s still my favorite. It was fundamentally pretty simple (2D+skill+skill (or +skill+[stat/5] or +[stat/5]+[stat/5]) vs difficulty) but it was also extremely robust and comprehensive, covering mishaps, task duration (with hasty and cautious attempts), retries, determination, fateful tasks, uncertain tasks, “unskilled OK” tasks, and more that I’m probably forgetting. It made for an initial learning curve that made things seems more complicated up-front but once it clicked conceptually it became second nature very quickly and the way all of that stuff had been defined as-hoc case by case in Classic looked hopelessly clunky and inefficient.
 
I always find it hard when fan hate destroys an otherwise good game. The fact that most reasons for said hate tend to be petty, doesn't help my feelings, either.
Except in T4's case a lot of the product line was actual crap. I know because I got burnt when I bought some of it. The potential was there but was very poorly executed.
 
Except in T4's case a lot of the product line was actual crap. I know because I got burnt when I bought some of it. The potential was there but was very poorly executed.
Exactly this. If anything the fans were way more generous with T4 than it actually deserved. I know that out of brand-loyalty I kept buying books right up until the line was canceled even though almost all of them were disappointing, and it was only looking back later with a couple years’ distance that I was like “wow, this stuff is almost all hot garbage and I can’t believe I kept buying it.”
 
Exactly this. If anything the fans were way more generous with T4 than it actually deserved. I know that out of brand-loyalty I kept buying books right up until the line was canceled even though almost all of them were disappointing, and it was only looking back later with a couple years’ distance that I was like “wow, this stuff is almost all hot garbage and I can’t believe I kept buying it.”
I have to confess that I found T4's view of the founding of the Third Imperium a compelling one. And really wanted Mileau Zero and its supporting material to be way better than it was.

But later I got GURPS Interstellar Wars which was actually good.
 
And now, because it's my actual favourite, I'll say why I like TNE so much.

Firstly, it had a setting in which the player character could really matter. By default Traveller, at least by the time of MegaTraveller, assumed a setting where the PCs were unlikely to ever matter. TNE changed that by having everything break down to the point where a few guys in an cranky old spaceship could be what made the difference.

Secondly, it had very good support for that setting - a setting book with a bunch of adventure hooks for each of dozens of worlds, and each world had several hooks each of a different type, so there was stuff for the combat teams, the talkers, those who wanted to help reconstruct, and those who just wanted to loot everyone blind. The equipment book had good illustrations and flavoursome writeups of the use and history of major pieces of gear, so we know why the Coalition uses several different types of advanced combat rifle, and why its assault helicopter has a ridiculous name ('Thunderchicken').

Thirdly, it had an vehicles and gun design system (Fire, Fusion, & Steel) that was just right (for me) in terms of complexity vs detail and which fixed a lot of the problems with MegaTraveller's. It wasn't without errors, it wasn't perfect (the rate of fire of large artillery pieces is whacked), and wasn't entirely complete when GDW went under (no rules for naval vessels, for example), but it was (and is) still pretty good, IMO.

Fourthly, chargen was great. I loved the reduced randomness and increased options compared to previous versions (more occupations than MgT). The rule for gaining contacts during chargen was elegant and gave useful results.

Fifthly, the task system was simple and straight-forward. Every step either halved or doubled your chance of success, so you didn't fiddle around with small modifiers. The rules for autofire were fun (roll lots of dice! roll them again when someone else moves into your zone of fire!)

Now, TNE wasn't/isn't without its issues. Initiative/Coolness is too important for the way its assigned in chargen, which is highly swingy. The change to using fuel for normal space manoeuvring was a good one (IMO - many others disagree), but it means most ships have enough fuel on board for several jumps between refuelling and that changes how ships must approach interstellar travel quite a bit. Arguably characters were too robust relative to weapon damage (though much of that was giving NPCs too high a Coolness and/or not applying the rules for panic, knockdown, and loss of Coolness when injured properly). Skills were purchased linearly in chargen, but with increasing costs per level in play (like in WoD games, though not as severe), so in chargen you should specialise and then generalise in play. All of this stuff is fixable, though for some it'll be more effort than it's worth of course.
 
Exactly this. If anything the fans were way more generous with T4 than it actually deserved. I know that out of brand-loyalty I kept buying books right up until the line was canceled even though almost all of them were disappointing, and it was only looking back later with a couple years’ distance that I was like “wow, this stuff is almost all hot garbage and I can’t believe I kept buying it.”
Some of it was pretty good - Pocket Empires was well received, for example. Most of it was just not.
 
I liked the symmetry of the way the MT task system used stat/5 as equivalent to skill values: when you look at 2D stat values you get a +0 DM 1/6 of the time (roll 2-4), +2 DM 1/6 of the time (roll 10-12), and +1 DM the other 2/3 of the time (roll 5-9). If stat increases take you beyond the realm of the normal to the maximum human possible stat value (15/F) you get a +3 DM, which is the same bonus a professional-level skill provides, which feels right to me.

I also liked how a professional skill + average stat gave a +4 DM, which is effectively the same as lowering the task difficulty by one. So to a skilled professional the difficult is routine, and the routine is simple. By making a cautious attempt the formidable becomes routine and even the near-impossible becomes merely difficult.

One thing I felt was missing that I house ruled in was an automatic success rule: if the only possible results are a fumble (rolled 2) or exceptional success (2 or more above the required roll) you can choose to take a regular success and not roll. This applies to simple tasks with a +2 or greater DM and to routine tasks with a +6 or greater DM. Even a 1/36 chance of a botch is too high for a lot of tasks.
 
Last edited:
Amusingly, I like the setting of TNE and the Coolness stat.
I like the setting of T4, though I think I only have the corebook. Either way, I'm using it as a kind of T5 light and for ideas.
I like MT for how exhaustive it is, and it's got IMO one of the best chargen systems ever.
I like T5 for being frigging comprehensive and after debating with people on CotI, it turned out I've houseruled some problems with it without even realizing those were houserules...OK, admittedly that has happened in other games as well, I just like to assume that the rules are actually designed to make sense:grin:!
I like MgT1&2 and Cepheus for how portable and malleable those are.
I like CT for the ideas it contains, and how it seems to be midway between an RPG and a Frei Kriegspiel/FKR game. It actually even contains good ideas for FKR games:thumbsup:.

Bottom line, I'm a Traveller fan, I guess:shade:.
 
MT was the first “universal” task resolution system I remember encountering and it’s still my favorite. It was fundamentally pretty simple (2D+skill+skill (or +skill+[stat/5] or +[stat/5]+[stat/5]) vs difficulty) but it was also extremely robust and comprehensive, covering mishaps, task duration (with hasty and cautious attempts), retries, determination, fateful tasks, uncertain tasks, “unskilled OK” tasks, and more that I’m probably forgetting. It made for an initial learning curve that made things seems more complicated up-front but once it clicked conceptually it became second nature very quickly and the way all of that stuff had been defined as-hoc case by case in Classic looked hopelessly clunky and inefficient.

I really loved uncertain tasks. Such an elegant way of rolling when you wouldn't know if you've succeeded or not.
 
Amusingly, I like the setting of TNE and the Coolness stat.
The stat works well and serves a very important function in combat. The problem with it, in my experience, is that player characters either have a huge variability in it and there's no way to mitigate that in chargen, or it's quite low (and not variable enough) if you use the non-random rule for it.

I ended up saying that all PCs started with Initiative/Cool 3, and got +1 for multiple terms in high-violence civilian careers or 2+ military terms (or combination thereof), and +2 for 2+ terms in Spec Ops - similar to the fixed option in TNE.
 
I’d forgotten TNE had a cool/initiative stat. After I bailed on T4 c. 1997 and decided to house rule MegaTraveller into my own ideal version I added such a stat (basically if you were knowingly under enemy fire you had to first succeed in a cool-based task to do anything that would expose you to potential fire - like leave cover or return fire). Maybe I was subconsciously influenced by vestigial memories of TNE? IIRC I was more consciously and directly influenced by Cyberpunk’s “Friday Night Firefight” system. Alas, I can no longer recall how Cool points were calculated, and suspect I no longer have those documents except perhaps on a floppy disk that I have no way of reading.
 
All this discussion of Traveller skills feeds in to why I get frustrated with gaming in modern or SF settings... For pseudo-medieval murder hobo role playing, we need weapon skills, maybe thief skills, searching, social skills, and a few other things. If we want, we can toss in some crafting or scholarly/knowledge (though I've come to not like knowledge skills). But we don't have to get crazy with sciences. We don't have to decide how to break down technology skills. Depending on the game setting, there may or may not be weapon limitations. So for example, the skill list in RuneQuest 1st edition (1978) works just fine, or you can add a few skills (plus there are some skills added by cults). But Traveller, man, you immediately notice missing skills. You notice skills that are over broad. You decide characters don't get enough skills, or maybe sometimes they get too many. You have to decide how many/few people should be necessary to properly operate a ship. Or like me, you decide to stick with Classic Traveller Book 1. And maybe like me you add a SMALL number of additional skills for the Supplement 4 careers. Or maybe you add all the skills in Supplement 4 and then decide how Book 1 characters can get some of those they logically should have access too. And if you're lucky (because you want me to run Traveller), I haven't talked myself out of running Traveller after contemplating skills...
 
All this discussion of Traveller skills feeds in to why I get frustrated with gaming in modern or SF settings... For pseudo-medieval murder hobo role playing, we need weapon skills, maybe thief skills, searching, social skills, and a few other things. If we want, we can toss in some crafting or scholarly/knowledge (though I've come to not like knowledge skills). But we don't have to get crazy with sciences. We don't have to decide how to break down technology skills. Depending on the game setting, there may or may not be weapon limitations. So for example, the skill list in RuneQuest 1st edition (1978) works just fine, or you can add a few skills (plus there are some skills added by cults). But Traveller, man, you immediately notice missing skills. You notice skills that are over broad. You decide characters don't get enough skills, or maybe sometimes they get too many. You have to decide how many/few people should be necessary to properly operate a ship. Or like me, you decide to stick with Classic Traveller Book 1. And maybe like me you add a SMALL number of additional skills for the Supplement 4 careers. Or maybe you add all the skills in Supplement 4 and then decide how Book 1 characters can get some of those they logically should have access too. And if you're lucky (because you want me to run Traveller), I haven't talked myself out of running Traveller after contemplating skills...
Technological and science skills and how to treat them in an SF game is a bit like magic systems in fantasy games - if they don't work for you, or don't cover what you think they need to they can break an otherwise perfectly decent system.
 
I have to say that although I have dabbled with several versions of Traveller, I am no expert in the system. I like the sector hex maps which are good for sandbox type games. I think the rest of the rule system seems serviceable, although it is not my cup of tea.

i’ve never really liked the Third Imperium setting. It seems to take elements of classic sci-if (Foundation, Dune, etc.) and weave them into quite a dull setting. I do like 2300AD, however, and have the recent Mongoose Traveller 2e version. I‘ll probably use my MGT stuff with M-Space which is largely Traveller converted to Mythras.
 
I have to say that although I have dabbled with several versions of Traveller, I am no expert in the system. I like the sector hex maps which are good for sandbox type games. I think the rest of the rule system seems serviceable, although it is not my cup of tea.

i’ve never really liked the Third Imperium setting. It seems to take elements of classic sci-if (Foundation, Dune, etc.) and weave them into quite a dull setting. I do like 2300AD, however, and have the recent Mongoose Traveller 2e version. I‘ll probably use my MGT stuff with M-Space which is largely Traveller converted to Mythras.

The OTU is like a harem protagonist. It's deliberately bland and generic and you're supposed to project yourself onto it.

However, you don't need the whole OTU, or even aa whole sector for a campaign. Most Traveller campaigns only need a handful of subsectors and you can start with just one or two - robertsconley robertsconley has written a good quick guide to spinning up a quick Traveller sandbox on his blog.


If you don't mind the Traveller-isms intrinsic in the rules (e.g. the Scout Service or some analog) then you can spin up a campaign in your own homebrew setting and it won't be materially different to a game set in the Third Imperium. Perhaps make up 5 or 10 starship designs and maybe diddle with the tech or make up some homebrew aliens if you want to shift the flavour a bit.
 
I've realized I'm more a fan of the idea of Traveller than the application. I mean I LOVE Classic, Mega, and Cepheus, but I nonetheless find myself running something else.

I still think death during character generation as a balancing mechanism of it's mini-game to be brilliant.
 
The OTU is like a harem protagonist. It's deliberately bland and generic and you're supposed to project yourself onto it.
The more I'm thinking about this statement, the more I like your observation (and the humor helped, too:grin:). And it goes well beyond Traveller, too:thumbsup:!

I've realized I'm more a fan of the idea of Traveller than the application. I mean I LOVE Classic, Mega, and Cepheus, but I nonetheless find myself running something else.

I still think death during character generation as a balancing mechanism of it's mini-game to be brilliant.
Admittedly, I'm the second (weirdo) on the Pub that agrees.
Why? Because it introduces risk vs. reward. If you roll all-12s or at least a character with mutiple As, Bs and Cs in his UPP, you could probably not risk this character at all and start him at 18 (and then engage in a training program immediately so you'd have at least 2 skills:tongue:). If you get someone with not a single letter in his UPP, the Scout Service might be a great idea...
And regardless of the results, losing the character doesn't mean the character is dead immediately. It only means the character cannot be played, because you took a bet and lost. But as mentioned in the rules, you still give the character to the GM for use as an NPC...so you might end up meeting your own character in a seedy bar - but the work isn't wasted, it's just helping the Referee as well:angel:!
 
Last edited:
The more I'm thinking about this statement, the more I like your observation (and the humor helped, too:grin:). And it goes well beyond Traveller, too:thumbsup:!

And it gets a lot of flexibility from this approach, although I'd argue the nature of the rules for generating subsectors means that this doesn't necessarily matter a lot as one can knock up a basic campaign setting pretty quickly.

Bear in mind that as a individual DM you're under no obligation to use it 100% as published, least of all to appease fanboys.
 
Last edited:
And it gets a lot of flexibility from this approach, although I'd argue the nature of the rules for generating subsectors means that this doesn't necessarily matter a lot as one can knock up a basic campaign setting pretty quickly.
Indeed:thumbsup:!

Bear in mind that as a individual DM you're under no obligation to use it 100% as published, least of all to appease fanboys.
Oh, I know, and have been telling the same to people for ages now. It's only for historical (and adjacent&inspired by history) settings that I would check what the setting lore says...but even then, the reason I'm following the lore is that I find that doing so enhances the game.
If I didn't, I'd disregard it blatantly.
And I suspect that this is exactly what most Referees do. Hence - maybe, but that's what I've been thinking - bland settings enjoying an unexpected demand: they don't create dilemmas about whether you should follow the lore, or make up your own:shade:.
 
And I suspect that this is exactly what most Referees do. Hence - maybe, but that's what I've been thinking - bland settings enjoying an unexpected demand: they don't create dilemmas about whether you should follow the lore, or make up your own:shade:.

If only that were the case with the OTU canon . . .
Everybody say relativistic kill vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind that as a individual DM you're under no obligation to use it 100% as published, least of all to appease fanboys.
I don't know a single person in meatspace who knows as much Traveller canon as me, and TNE and after was pretty much a license for me to ignore what was being published for the setting and do my own thing (not that I needed said license before, having created whole sectors that diverge from OTU sources). Grumbling of fanbois is pretty much a purely internet phenomenon to me.
 
Never a fan of the TNE rules, but the setting was engaging and fun, and the published material was generally high quality.

I thought at the time that Battle Rider had a more appropriate (i.e. low) level of detail for PC-scale ship combat than either the RPG or Brilliant Lances systems.

I do like CT and Mongoose 1st edition (not seen a copy of 2nd edition).
 
I think it depends on your view of what space combat, etc., should be to your game. If it's just something that happens, then you move on, and the GM justs tells the players what the bill is or what parts they need to hunt down to repair their jump drive, then Battle Rider is the thing. If, on the other hand, you want the system to tell you exactly what is trashed and how badly, Brilliant Lances or the core rules are more useful, as BR only really deals in criticals and assumes anything less serious can be fixed on the spot.

One thing I did in the day was use BR's movement system (which was Mayday's long before, IIRC) rather than BL's. BL's took a lot more paperwork for the same outcome, and was less easy to understand at a glance - with BR's everything was right there on the table, no bookkeeping.

One thing about Traveller, any edition - space combat is a really bad idea unless you're using someone else's ship, because ships are expensive and combat damage therefore mounts up in cost very quickly. Avoid it unless someone else is footing the bill.
 
[ . . . ]
One thing I did in the day was use BR's movement system (which was Mayday's long before, IIRC) rather than BL's. BL's took a lot more paperwork for the same outcome, and was less easy to understand at a glance - with BR's everything was right there on the table, no bookkeeping.

I liked Mayday's movement system (based on a hex grid for those not familiar). It let you add vectors in a straightforward way. Although I never used TNE-era sytems (I do have FFS and BL though) I did a book 2/book/5/mayday hybrid system for CT. Book 5 by itself wasn't terribly good for small (party sized) ships.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top