2300AD - A suggestion

[MasterGwydion]

If the Traveller core rule book was generic, and then setting books are added that is one thing.

But as things are now the Traveller core rule book is written for the Third Imperium setting. The Imperium is mentioned 67 times. Many of the supposedly generic core books assume the Imperium setting.

I wonder if there is a market for a stripped down core rule book that needs a setting book, or make your own setting.

Agreed!

 

[rinku]

As soon as you change the fictional science you change the setting. It's the point of difference between science fiction and medieval/fantasy. So it's trickier to genericise the former than the latter. People want specifics as to how their FTL and ray guns work. Swords and arrows and armour work the same across the settings; magic varies, but that doesn't have to have any justifications.

I dunno. Didn't Mongoose already try this?

 

[boggo2300]

My complaint, and why I wont buy Mongoose 2300 as it stands, is that to play, you have to buy the Traveller rulebook and throw out large parts of it which aren't used in 2300, and replace them with things from the 2300 book, so you are stuck back and forward between two books, neither of which contains enough to play the game.

 

[ottarrus]

To be honest, and I know it has been argued about before ad nauseam, but the main barrier to people trying out 2300AD is that it isn’t a standalone product. You can’t get into 2300AD unless you have already invested in Traveller first and if you have it becomes therefore more likely that you would stick with what you know.

Well, the only real investment to get into 2300 is the Traveller Core Rules. Everything else in the Traveller line is superfluous. For a 'red delicious apple versus Granny Smith apple' comparison, one still needs the Players Handbook, the DM Guide, and the Monster Manual to play in DnD's Eberron setting, which is just as radically different from the Forgotten Realms [the DnD default setting] as 2300 is from the OTU.
I'm not saying you don't have a point, but I think that point only goes so far.

 

[ottarrus]

I would be playing 2300ad if there was a 2300 crb.

Except that those rule mechanics were a hot mess that often didn't make a lot of sense.

 

[boggo2300]

Except that those rule mechanics were a hot mess that often didn't make a lot of sense.

This surprises me, I never had any issues with the 2300AD rules, Traveller 2300 books were a bit of a mess but 2300AD cleared up the bits that were bad, it was certainly no worse than any other GDW published game.

 

[Bryn the 2300AD guy]

The rules were based on DPG's universal task profile switched to d10 from 2d6. The original rules had the oddity that the d10 ran 0-9 instead of 1-10, but this was changed in the 2nd edition. They work quite well, but I'd argue 2d6 worked better.

The combat rules were vastly improved over Traveller, and separated the probability of hitting and the chance of armour stopping the hit. I would note that when Hanrahan wrote the Mongoose Traveller rules the one thing that was done really badly was the armour rules. Mongoose Traveller could benefit from taking chunks of the 2k3 combat rules.

T:2k3 was lacking a bunch of stuff like XP and skill increases, but these were added in 2k3. I'd argue that not being able to "level up" is actually really realistic.

Ultimately, the 2k3 rules were the first step towards the GDW House System of the 1990's, for good or ill.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Well, the only real investment to get into 2300 is the Traveller Core Rules. Everything else in the Traveller line is superfluous. For a 'red delicious apple versus Granny Smith apple' comparison, one still needs the Players Handbook, the DM Guide, and the Monster Manual to play in DnD's Eberron setting, which is just as radically different from the Forgotten Realms [the DnD default setting] as 2300 is from the OTU.
I'm not saying you don't have a point, but I think that point only goes so far.

It's more of a matter of redundancy. An awful lot of the Traveller core book doesn't apply in 2300. Saying that the rules in Explorer's and Merchant's editions (Third Imperium mentioned 15 times in Explorers, 12 in Merchant's) ) likely give you everything you need along with the 2300 core book.

 

[boggo2300]

The rules were based on DPG's universal task profile switched to d10 from 2d6. The original rules had the oddity that the d10 ran 0-9 instead of 1-10, but this was changed in the 2nd edition. They work quite well, but I'd argue 2d6 worked better.

The combat rules were vastly improved over Traveller, and separated the probability of hitting and the chance of armour stopping the hit. I would note that when Hanrahan wrote the Mongoose Traveller rules the one thing that was done really badly was the armour rules. Mongoose Traveller could benefit from taking chunks of the 2k3 combat rules.

T:2k3 was lacking a bunch of stuff like XP and skill increases, but these were added in 2k3. I'd argue that not being able to "level up" is actually really realistic.

Ultimately, the 2k3 rules were the first step towards the GDW House System of the 1990's, for good or ill.

it remains pretty much my favourite GDW system (the 2300AD not T:2300)

 

[Sigtrygg]

The rules were based on DPG's universal task profile switched to d10 from 2d6. The original rules had the oddity that the d10 ran 0-9 instead of 1-10, but this was changed in the 2nd edition. They work quite well, but I'd argue 2d6 worked better.

The combat rules were vastly improved over Traveller, and separated the probability of hitting and the chance of armour stopping the hit. I would note that when Hanrahan wrote the Mongoose Traveller rules the one thing that was done really badly was the armour rules. Mongoose Traveller could benefit from taking chunks of the 2k3 combat rules.

T:2k3 was lacking a bunch of stuff like XP and skill increases, but these were added in 2k3. I'd argue that not being able to "level up" is actually really realistic.

Ultimately, the 2k3 rules were the first step towards the GDW House System of the 1990's, for good or ill.

They got the task system wrong in converting it.
In MT/DGP a task is typically stat DM + skill DM vs 7+ (58%)
In T2300 it is a stat or skill DM vs 7+ on a 0-9 die (30%)
In 2300AD it is stat or skill DM vs 6+ on a 1-10 die (50%), this is closer to the original intent.

Consider a character with a +1 from characteristic or an applicable +2 skill; in CT/DGP or MT you will succeed much more often than in 2300AD, while in T2300 you will notice you succeed much less often. 92% in MT, 50% in T2300, and 70% in 2300AD

The simple fix is to do what they should have done in the first place, for T2300 and 2300 the characteristic DEM + skill DM produces a similar outcome to the original MT/DGP system. For the above example T2300 is still way lower than MT at 60%, 2300AD is getting there at 80%

 

[boggo2300]

They got the task system wrong in converting it.
In MT/DGP a task is typically stat DM + skill DM vs 7+ (58%)
In T2300 it is a stat or skill DM vs 7+ on a 0-9 die (30%)
In 2300AD it is stat or skill DM vs 6+ on a 1-10 die (50%), this is closer to the original intent.

Consider a character with a +1 from characteristic or an applicable +2 skill; in CT/DGP or MT you will succeed much more often than in 2300AD, while in T2300 you will notice you succeed much less often. 92% in MT, 50% in T2300, and 70% in 2300AD

The simple fix is to do what they should have done in the first place, for T2300 and 2300 the characteristic DEM + skill DM produces a similar outcome to the original MT/DGP system. For the above example T2300 is still way lower than MT at 60%, 2300AD is getting there at 80%

the Dev notes for 2300 actually said 50% was their deliberate goal for task success so I'd say they met their intent there.

 

[Sigtrygg]

If their intent was to not produce the same play dynamic as MT.CT-DGP then they succeeded. A 50% chance of success with 10% increments is very different to a 58% base chance and then 2d6 distribution to take into account.

If you played both games you would notice after a while that in MT you are more successful with similar tasks than when attempted under 2300AD rules.

 

[boggo2300]

If their intent was to not produce the same play dynamic as MT.CT-DGP then they succeeded. A 50% chance of success with 10% increments is very different to a 58% base chance and then 2d6 distribution to take into account.

If you played both games you would notice after a while that in MT you are more successful with similar tasks than when attempted under 2300AD rules.

Megatraveller was a stinking pile of fail with game mechanics, and I'm pretty sure the last thing they wanted was for 2300 to be anything close to that. I still have emotional trauma from playing Megatraveller, one of my least favourite games ever.

And considering about that time there was talk of legal action between DGP and GDW...

And I did play both games, in the same timespan, and really the only thing I noticed in comparison was that MT sucked hard.

 

[Bryn the 2300AD guy]

It's important to note that failing a task simply isn't succeeding then. You get many bites of the cherry as long as you don't break anything.

 

[Sigtrygg]

It;s very noticeable in combat...

 

[boggo2300]

It;s very noticeable in combat...

and much better! Megatraveller combat just didn't work in my experience.

 

[boggo2300]

It's more of a matter of redundancy. An awful lot of the Traveller core book doesn't apply in 2300. Saying that the rules in Explorer's and Merchant's editions (Third Imperium mentioned 15 times in Explorers, 12 in Merchant's) ) likely give you everything you need along with the 2300 core book.

I hope that's true, but I still want a 2300 Rulebook that is enough to play the game

 

[Sigtrygg]

and much better! Megatraveller combat just didn't work in my experience.

We have very different experience.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I hope that's true, but I still want a 2300 Rulebook that is enough to play the game

I agree with you.

 

[boggo2300]

We have very different experience.

Three different groups I played with ended up hating MT so much 2 went back to CT and the third went to T:2300 then 2300AD