I used how many house rules????

[-Daniel-]

Just a comment on me, not the Beta. :mrgreen:

The Beta test has made me realize how many rules we either house ruled, warped, or ported from other Traveller editions or even from other RPGs. As I have tried to play using just the rules as they are in the Beta I have had to challenge some of my assumptions. I have found it interesting to do so. Why do I like X or Y rule? What was it about Rule Z we didn't like?

So I just wanted to say thank you for the Beta not just for allowing me to be part of it, but also for this opportunity to rethink what I want in a game. 8)

 

[bbmike]

Nothing wrong with house rules. 8)

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Classic Traveller was all house rules, until Mongoose cleaned them up.

 

[phavoc]

Classic Traveller was all house rules, until Mongoose cleaned them up.

Not sure what version of CT you played, but I can't say that has ever been the case since I've played CT.

Mongoose hasn't added a lot to the basic rule set that has gone through multiple iterations, publishers and add-ons since it's inception.

Can you logically justify this statement?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Can you logically justify this statement?

Classic Traveller was written as if it was a school thesis paper. It has lots of variations of the same rules throughout its text. Almost like a manifesto. The rules are not written as people speak naturally about a subject. I'd argue that Gareth made a very polished game out of those CT house rules of D&D.

 

[anselyn]

Can you logically justify this statement?

Classic Traveller was written as if it was a school thesis paper. It has lots of variations of the same rules throughout its text. Almost like a manifesto. The rules are not written as people speak naturally about a subject. I'd argue that Gareth made a very polished game out of those CT house rules of D&D.

Are you sure your version of CT doesn't say Metamorphosis Alpha on the front?

I think that CT was a very well written set of rules, written by professional game designers (GDW - founded June 22 1973 by designers already with experience at designing games, including educational roleplaying games, for SIMRAD[1]). I prefer rules to be closer to a scientific paper - clear, concise and unambiguous - rather than chatty.

Ironically, if CT had had those innate D&Dism: the experience system and character progression, surely a hallmark of any D&D clone or house-ruled game, then Traveller might have fared better over the last 37 years. See that ongoing discussion elsewhere on this board.

[1]Designers & Dragons, The 70s. Shannon Appelcilne, Evil Hat (2013). Highly recommended if you want to make informed comments.

 

[-Daniel-]

Nothing wrong with house rules. 8)

Oh I am not saying they are bad, just it was sort of funny to realize how much we had tweaked and played with compared to the real rules book. 8)

As I have read and played with the beta, I have had to also look at 1st to remind myself what the rule book said about particular things. Compare and contrast the real rules. Kind of interesting in a fun way to see how the RAw1 and RAWBeta and Daniel1 interact. :mrgreen:

 

[-Daniel-]

Classic Traveller was all house rules, until Mongoose cleaned them up.

While that might be your memory, I do not think so. Mongoose did a great job with Traveller but CT was not just a collection of house rules mashed together.

I think that CT was a very well written set of rules...

I agree.

I prefer rules to be closer to a scientific paper - clear, concise and unambiguous - rather than chatty.

I agree 100%. I will always like the clean and clear rule set better. Even if a rule elects to remain vague to allow GM latitude, be clear about it.

 

[anselyn]

As I have read and played with the beta, I have had to also look at 1st to remind myself what the rule book said about particular things. Compare and contrast the real rules. Kind of interesting in a fun way to see how the RAW1 and RAWBeta and Daniel1 interact. :mrgreen:

I agree - very hard to playtest by playing and only playing the RAWBeta. Equally, any house rule that everyone has being doing for RAW1 should probably just be a rule in RAWBeta. So - do share!

 

[anselyn]

Even if a rule elects to remain vague to allow GM latitude, be clear about it.

I agree. Statements of design intent are useful. I think the sidebars in 13th Age along these lines are helpful and good. Also, the purist/pulp options in Trail of Cthulhu that allow you to tune the game to the genre that you want.

 

[phavoc]

Classic Traveller was written as if it was a school thesis paper. It has lots of variations of the same rules throughout its text. Almost like a manifesto. The rules are not written as people speak naturally about a subject. I'd argue that Gareth made a very polished game out of those CT house rules of D&D.

I would argue that MGT rules don't fall within that same category. Rules are meant to be read and referenced, not form the basis of a conversation. Thats, as you line point out, is what players and refs do.

To make a fair comparison you'd have to take the entire CT rule set and compare it to MGT'S first edition rules. I think CT would hold up very well there, especially considering MGT isn't brand new, rather it's based on CT and the many decades of gaming experiences and knowledge since then. CT was also a brand new gaming system whereas MGT Traveller isn't. That's a HUGE difference.

I still don't understand your position of CT being "house rules". To me that makes no sense. As it was fleshed out more rules were created. And MGT suffers the same disconnect in many of those rules in order to retain the Traveller moniker.