Announcing: The Open Playtest!

[jlcatch]

Just reading atm. Not much to add to what has already been said yet except for one point :-

Learning new skills - time required is a multiple of the target skill level. So, how long does it take to acquire a brand new skill at level 0 ?

Also, a suggestion re JOT - what if only the higher of the applicable characteristic bonus and JOT applied to unskilled tasks ? JOT-3 or characteristic 14+ (15+ ?) would still negate the penalty, but you'd never get into positive bonuses without some real skill level.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Chargen

Army, Navy and Marines should get 100% medical bills paid.

It's hard to say what the advantage of the new Wealth characteristic might be, without seeing the proposed system for it's use just yet. but surely there must be more modifiers than this?

Also, I think it would be a good idea to have a well illustrated group of pregens put together to exemplify the whole chargen process.

 

[JimG]

BattleDress - I'd prefer this to be reduced to a personal combat speciality. It's too specific for me.

Melee - I prefer 'Personal Combat', myself. Can't 'Battle Dress' be reduced to speciality of this?

Vacc Suit and Zero-Grav - can these things be combined?

Coming from an old-school Traveller background, I have a different view of these:

BattleDress is skill at operating powered armor and isn't really related to melee combat. It is closer to vehicle skills than melee combat, IMO, and I really don't think they should be combined.

Vacc Suit again deals with the operation of a certain class of equipment rather than maneuvering in zero-g envrionments. For my tastes, I don't think they need to be combined, but I guess I wouldn't cry if they were.

I personally dislike the term "Personal Combat." With "Melee" I instantly know what's being discussed. Personal Combat doesn't have that association, and it doesn't seem any more evocative or informative to me.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The issue with 'melee' vs 'personal' (or maybe 'close') 'combat' is fairly superflous really. I was just looking for a more generic, technical description that would compare with 'ranged combat'.

I'd be quite happy to see 'BattleDress' or 'Power Armour' as a speciality of 'Groundcraft' then, say.

'Vacc suit' could also be a speciality of 'Tech-use' (see above).

 

[MercyBlowz]

Some of the skill terminology needs to be brushed up.
Throughout the careers we are given Guns (any), then in the skills section it changes to Gun Combat.
Also, decide how you consider the skills, and stick to it.
Diplomat, Investigate, Astrogation...

Much better to have:

a) Diplomat, Investigator, Astrogator (i.e. roles the skills allow the PC to fill)
or
b) Diplomacy, Investigation, Astrogation (i.e. actions the skills allow the PC to complete)
or something else uniform.
Having a mix seems messy.

And, would it be possible to have a short discussion on the difference between skill levels?
As a newcomer to Traveller, there's little to tell me what having, say... Advocate 2 compares to in real terms, nor how much of a difference lies between an Advocate 2 character and another with Advocate 3.


And dear god! How the devil am I supposed to run combat. I've happily used some very complicated combat systems in my time, but I just don't 'get' this one at all.
Clearer wording and an example of play are both sorely needed.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Yeah, I won't really get a chance to playtest the combat till tomorrow, when I see my group. It is a bit wordy in parts as it stands. I suspect that there needs to be an establishment of 'basic combat' rules, before building into 'advanced' options. But I'll know more tomorrow.

 

[Valandil]

Mustering out:
"Scout Ship"

What do I get if I roll this benefit a second time? I'd assume Pilot(spacecraft).

p. 29:
Scout Ship: You receive a Scout ship. The first receipt provides use of the ship, but the ship is still the property of the
Scout service, and can be called back into active duty if needed. Alternative, you can take 1d6 ship shares instead.

I'd assume a second time means the scout ship is your property free and clear.

 

[JimG]

Much better to have:

a) Diplomat, Investigator, Astrogator (i.e. roles the skills allow the PC to fill)
or
b) Diplomacy, Investigation, Astrogation (i.e. actions the skills allow the PC to complete)
or something else uniform.
Having a mix seems messy.

I agree completely.

 

[Allensh]

Playtested tonight..five Pcs vs. 5 Vargr Corsairs aboard a scout/Courier...we basically used the combat rules to play Snapshot It was much fun. It took very little time to get the feel of the initiative system, especially with the squad rules. The heroes were victorious..and one of them even whapped a Vargr on the nose with a rolled-up magazine <g>

One guy did get slashed pretty bad by a cutlass but he made short work of the attacker.

The Uplifted ape Marine Colonel in the group really showed his effectiveness as a leader in combat, as well as his marksmanship abilities

Allen

 

[weasel_fierce]

we rolled up 2 characters tonight, and I must say, Im extremely pleased with the character creation system.

A few comments though:

I dont mind the highest stat bonus kicking in at 14, instead of 15 (the odds of seeing a 15 is pretty astronomical)

The homeworld options are a bit odd. Notably, we missed an "urbanized" option.. possibly giving Streetwise.

Is the intention that the "basic training" is a level 0 in every service skill (all 6?)
I really like that (gives a wide range of options for the player), but if thats the case, I think 0 level skills need to be ignored for purposes of skill advancement in-game.

If I fail to join a service, its draft or drift (or muster), correct ? (Draft or Drift would be a great heading for a rules section btw )
If I get drafted, I can later try to join another service, but could I try the same one I got rejected for, again ?



Cheers!

 

[TrippyHippy]

Science - I'd make very sure of your definitions, with a dictionary in hand, with some of these. Other sciences to possibly list - Anthropology, Astrophysics, Geology, Theology...

I would also make research, or investigative Science tasks based upon Intelligence, rather than Education.

Further on to this, I think you should differentiate between science and humanities for the skills list. Technically speaking, disciplines like History and Philosophy are not sciences because they aren't based upon induction or measurement. Unless a discipline can be measured or experimented on, it's not a science. There can be some confusion over what social sciences are sometimes though. As a rule of thumb, disciplines based upon maths are sciences, and those based upon language are humanities (or Academics). I suggest two skills:

Academics: Anthropology*, Literature, Philosophy, Linguistics, History, Cartology, Theology.

Science - Archeology, Astrophysics, Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Mathematics, Physics, Psionicology, Psychology, Robotics, Sociobiology*, Xenology.

*Scrap Sophontology please! Anthropology is a tricky definition, because it has historical links to science, but doesn't really use scientific method. The scientific wing would be called Sociobiology, these days, but its a debateable issue. Psychology is also a bit problematic, but I'm assuming that it is also going to be mostly biological in it's background in the future. I am a science and maths teacher, btw. (That's right! I'm very important! :wink: )

 

[TrippyHippy]

I dont mind the highest stat bonus kicking in at 14, instead of 15 (the odds of seeing a 15 is pretty astronomical)

Exactly!

Basically, most normal characters should not get a characteristic bonus of more than +2.

+3 is too high, considering that the non-skilled penalty is also -3. Only the most exceptional characters in the galaxy should be able to perform skilled tasks without a skill, and without a penalty. For me, the maths would be better at 15 too, because it would follow a set formula:

Penalty/Bonus = [Skill/3 (rounded down)] -2

• 0 = N/A
  1-2 = -2
  3-5 = -1
  6-8 = 0
  9-11 = +1
  12-14 = +2
  15+ = +3

The only other thing I would add, is that I think that the scale should start at 0 for Characteristics (with a penalty of not being able to perform tasks at all), because we are likely to see Characteritics reduced to 0 due to injuries.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Chargen:

Could you stick the Summary Chart at the start of the Chargen chapter, and then have a glossary of terms/concepts immediately following it - including Career type explanations, perhaps.

There is a slight learning curve where players are trying to decipher step by step what you do. I think the format and organisation of this section could be clearer.

 

[noobdelux]

iv almost given up making an mock up char

 

[Border Reiver]

Fairly happy with combat now. Using the squad rules makes things much easier to track.

My initial negativity obviously stems from prejudice and not thoroughly reading the rules.

Still have issues with Chargen. Would like larger events tables (36 instead of 12?) and would prefer a single skill level from basic training alongside the skill-0.

I'm happy with the +3 mod at 14+.

I'm going to write up some notes and forward them to the e-mail.

 

[Allensh]

My players are less than satisfied with the skill improvement rules. One guy said under those rules it would take him 20 years for his character to go from Computer 4 to Computer 5. He wants to see more actual improvement in his character. Now, I understand that with the skill system as is, you don't want characters leaping up at rapid rates since the difference between a 1 and a 5 is extreme...but there still seems to be an issue here. This is the only part of the game so far that they don't like. They love character creation (one guy dubbed it "the best character creation system I have ever used"), they love the combat system and the initiative rules, especially once they grasped the hasten action concept and how interrupting actions worked. They're just not keen on the extreme slowness in which characters improve.

Allen

 

[TrippyHippy]

Skills:

The Task difficulty explanations (Simple, Routine, etc) could be placed in order - starting from Simple to Very Difficult.

Also, call the middle +0 range Standard tasks, rather than 'Average', because 'Average' sounds too similar to 'Routine' to some players.

Definite reinforcement, from players, of having seperate Science and Academics skills, as well as a unified Tech-Use skill, with specialties.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Combat

Suggestion to insert a very simplified 'Standoff' system, for neutral 'fast draw' duels. In this case, characters can just roll their dice, split into Time and Effect, then shoot in order of initiative and assign damage.

We actually found the combat system worked well, once we worked out the damage values, as did the task system modifiers. I'd suggest, however, that the modifiers needs to be put in a very clear table alongside this type of chart:

Code:

DM Descriptor Target
+6__Simple_______2
+4__Easy_________4
+2__Routine______6
0___Standard_____8
-2___Difficult_____10
-4___Very Difficult_12
-6___Formidable___14
-8___Staggering___16
-10__Hopeless_____18
-12__Impossible____20

Damage: Don't bother with Endurance modifiers to damage (Yes for Armour!) because the damage is being applied to the Endurance characteristic already, and there isn't any counterbalancing Strength bonus to damage, as far as I can see. Maybe there should be, but personally, I think that the Characteristic bonuses should be for task tests only.

 

[weasel_fierce]

My players are less than satisfied with the skill improvement rules. One guy said under those rules it would take him 20 years for his character to go from Computer 4 to Computer 5. He wants to see more actual improvement in his character. Now, I understand that with the skill system as is, you don't want characters leaping up at rapid rates since the difference between a 1 and a 5 is extreme...but there still seems to be an issue here. This is the only part of the game so far that they don't like. They love character creation (one guy dubbed it "the best character creation system I have ever used"), they love the combat system and the initiative rules, especially once they grasped the hasten action concept and how interrupting actions worked. They're just not keen on the extreme slowness in which characters improve.

Allen

Well, getting computer 5 during character creation propably took some 20 years to begin with. At those high skill levels, you're better off diversifying, than adding another +1 to a skill thats almost guaranteed to succeed with each other.

 

[Allensh]

Well, getting computer 5 during character creation propably took some 20 years to begin with. At those high skill levels, you're better off diversifying, than adding another +1 to a skill thats almost guaranteed to succeed with each other.

That's a good point. The opinion seems to be that adventuring should allow someone to advance faster than during character creation. In Traveller's case I'm not sure I agree with that, but that was the view expressed by the other players.

Allen