Known Issues/Playtesting Wanted

[Mongoose Gar]

STUFF I KNOW IS BROKEN AND YOU DON'T NEED TO TELL ME ABOUT:
Background skills from homeworld
The Ship Shares table

STUFF THAT STILL DEFINITELY NEEDS WORK
Point Buy
Abstract Wealth

STUFF I REALLY WANT FEEDBACK AND PLAYTESTING ON
The usefulness of the tech from a 'Traveller as a generic ruleset' perspective
The Traveller-ness of the tech from a 'Traveller as the OTU' perspective
Combat in general
Weapon/Armour Balance

 

[Allensh]

I will say this about the Combat rules: I like them a lot. However, on some other boards, there has been issues with the Effect/Timing rules being "optional" and yet so heavily integrated into the combat rules. You might want to specify how those rules would work for those who do not wish to use that mechanic...or do what I would do, and just make them non-optional since I think they are REALLY good.

Allen

 

[hdrider67]

OK, Thanks a LOT for the examples. They've helped clarify combat quite a bit.

That said, the combat system seems like it may be a bit cumbersome. Could you maybe include a simplified system that has a straight initiative roll? I know this means the effect loss would lower the damage of weapons but this could easily be fixed by making rolls 1D+DMs, so that effect isn't lost. Heck, you might even consider sneaking in an excellent combat flow if you wanted to use strike ranks.

Better Using 2*END HP and used Minor/Serious/Major wound levels, might also improve flow but that might cause a riot.

The reason I bring this up is My players are my kids. Having a simpler flow makes it faster paced, easier to track, and more fun for them. In a video ame world, faster pace and simple flow might bring in a new generation of players and they beg me to play MRQ every weekend.

------------------------------------
Armor on the lower end seems just about right.

TL14 combat armor and Battle Dress almost automatically defeat a Gauss Rifle or pretty much any small arm lesser than a Plasma rifle. I know these armor types are tough but maybe the Gauss rifle is a little underpowered?

-----------------------------------
Energy weapons: What is the vl of a power pack? Is the pack bulky as in older versions?

The heavy energy weapons have no magazine rating. Is it a single shot per power pack? If so, I'm not sure how viable they would really be in combat, esp as a standard Marine firearm.

-----------------------------------
I know you stated in the doc to expect typos and the like but there's an antry in one of the Navy tables that would be easy to miss, even by an excellent editor. Flight specialist lost Comms as a spec skill and gained another pilot entry. I wasn't sure if that was intentional or not but I thought it'd be worth mention.

------------------------------------
Tech in a generic ruleset:

It's my personal opinion that you guys have struck a decent balance in the tech perspective. I especially liked the equipment mods. These could be ignored by folks wanting the older flavors while others could embrace and use them. The armor medikit immediately reminded me of something right out of Hammers Slammers.

That's a good thing IMO.

------------------------------
Shotguns could use some shell options. Maybe the slug would be the standard round while shot could be fired at multiple targets in a fashion similar to the auto settings? (maybe an auto 3 damage 10)

-------------------------------


Sorry for the length. I'm positively salivating over the product and you guys actually seem interested in listening to testers. That's no small thing.

Thanks!!

 

[Ashikaider]

This is something that came up using the 1.0 Playtest rules;

I rolled up a character that ended up with a Social Standing of 21, since the brief section on this stat says that the 'Emperor' has a Social Standing of 15, would previously stated stat be considered 'broken' or is it something left in Player/GM hands?

If it is broken, is worth it for you to change the rank chart to accommodate for such things? just asking.

 

[Mongoose Gar]

OK, Thanks a LOT for the examples. They've helped clarify combat quite a bit.

That said, the combat system seems like it may be a bit cumbersome. Could you maybe include a simplified system that has a straight initiative roll? I know this means the effect loss would lower the damage of weapons but this could easily be fixed by making rolls 1D+DMs, so that effect isn't lost. Heck, you might even consider sneaking in an excellent combat flow if you wanted to use strike ranks.

I could, and I may well do so. That said, everyone who's played the combat system for a bit has found it easy enough. It's just a bit odd at the start.

I've got a combat cheat sheet lying around somewhere which I'll dig up and post and see if that helps. If it's still alarming people, then we can go for a simple/advanced combat in the same way there's a simple/advanced skill resolution system.

 

[Libris]

I'm seriously interested in the Armour and Weapon tech side.

Armour is a given. It gets better as TL advances. The numbers themselves should probably be reserved until the guns side is nailed down.

It's very much a case that a TL advance in weaponry should give a noticable tactical advantage. There would be no reason to introduce them if they weren't?

We want to avoid the Cr2,000 RAM grenade launcher having an advantage over the FGMP-15.

 

[SableWyvern]

Having had a read through the equipment section, I like what you've done with the tech.

A lot of what seems, at first glance, to be the introduction of new concepts, is really just a breakdown of what has come before. Autodocs and robotic mining settlements always existed in Traveller, now we simply know how to construct them from the ground up. Similarly, I always understood Battle Dress to come with a range of combat enhancing tech that was never fully explained (IIRC, there were specific battle dress suits here and there with options included, but now we can design our own).

The tech level constraints on augments vs medical care make good sense and are an effective limiter on cyber or bio enhancments, if the GM brings them into play. They are also less likely to have an impact in non-Traveller settings, where you can expect a more homogenous TL.

Finally, the illegality of cyber- and bio-tech on many worlds can easily explain the lack of such tech in the OTU. Locals would only be cybered up on worlds where it is legal (with the exception of the odd, dangrous black-market chop-shop), while interstellar travellers would likely avoid these kinds of enhancements unless they want to be continually sneaking through customs.

In short, if a group wants a traditional Traveller Universe, then the tech as presented doesn't interfere with that.

 

[Mongoose Gar]

Finally, the illegality of cyber- and bio-tech on many worlds can easily explain the lack of such tech in the OTU. Locals would only be cybered up on worlds where it is legal (with the exception of the odd, dangrous black-market chop-shop), while interstellar travellers would likely avoid these kinds of enhancements unless they want to be continually sneaking through customs.

One thing I'm fiddling with is expanding the Law Level of worlds so they can ban things other than weapons. My current lists are: Weapons, Drugs, Information, Technology, Travel and Psionics. So, a Law-9 world that bans Drugs might forbid entry to anyone using anagathics, and smuggling advanced medicines onto that planet would be very profitable.

 

[SableWyvern]

We want to avoid the Cr2,000 RAM grenade launcher having an advantage over the FGMP-15.

If you're making a literal comparison using the weapons presented, I think you're actually comparing the 2,000cr rocket launcher to the fusion weapons.

Note that, plasma and fusion weapons allow auto fire, and apparently have an unlimited ammo supply (for tactical purposes, at least). While the rocket launcher reliably does comparable damage to the FGMP16, if gets only two (single) shots and then has a long reload time (with, I should add, reloads likely being as bulky as the weapon itself, and thus very limited). It also has a (arguably) less effective Optimum range than plasma weapons, and an objectively inferior Optimum range compared to fusion weapons. So, I think that, on the whole, your objectives are being realised in the weapons as presented.

Edit: I do think that the Plasma Rifle is too advanced. At two TLs past the PGMP14, it gains 3 TLs worth of damage increases (extrapolating from the PGMP/FGMP table) plus miniaturisation. I'd like to see it dropped to 22 or 20 damage.

 

[Libris]

TL14 combat armor and Battle Dress almost automatically defeat a Gauss Rifle or pretty much any small arm lesser than a Plasma rifle. I know these armor types are tough but maybe the Gauss rifle is a little underpowered?

Not really as far as I can see. TL13 battle dress is developed as an answer to firearm development; it should have a higher armour value than TL12 combat armour. At TL14 the primary weapon is the PGMP13/14. Slug throwers are obsolete at this TL for military use. At its TL of introduction the gauss rifle is quite lethal.

At TL10 combat armour isn't even that great protection against a conventional ACR.

However, the gauss rifle stats look to be transposed from the ACR.

 

[Libris]

We want to avoid the Cr2,000 RAM grenade launcher having an advantage over the FGMP-15.

If you're making a literal comparison using the weapons presented, I think you're actually comparing the 2,000cr rocket launcher to the fusion weapons.

The weapons as presented are relatively okay and just require some tinkering.

As was refering to previous editions where it made more tactical sense to carry a RAM grenade launcher than a fusion gun.

I did notice that the rocket launcher is capable of cracking battledress but, while cheap, weighs quite a bit.

 

[SableWyvern]

The weapons as presented are relatively okay and just require some tinkering.

As was refering to previous editions where it made more tactical sense to carry a RAM grenade launcher than a fusion gun.

I did notice that the rocket launcher is capable of cracking battledress but, while cheap, weighs quite a bit.

Ok, we're on much the same page then.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I haven't got a lot of time spare this weekend, which is a pity. But I will try to get a few bits in when I can.

I must say, however, that the skill list as it stands is still a mess, and needs a good clean-up.

I'd say that particularly about the Science* skill - which lists a number of disciplines that aren't sciences, and manages to define Chemistry as "the study of chemistry" (!). Also the Medic skill still lists seperate entrees for 'Emergency care' and 'First Aid', despite both being exactly the same thing. Considering the game is supposed to appeal to science-y types, I think it's important to get these things right.

I am assuming, however, that the skill list is "STUFF THAT STILL DEFINITELY NEEDS WORK", except it hasn't been listed as such yet.....which is a bit concerning.

*EDIT: Further to this: Maybe it would just be easier to call the 'Science' skill, the 'Knowledge' skill instead, as in reality, that's what it currently is as it stands.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

One thing I'm fiddling with is expanding the Law Level of worlds so they can ban things other than weapons. My current lists are: Weapons, Drugs, Information, Technology, Travel and Psionics. So, a Law-9 world that bans Drugs might forbid entry to anyone using anagathics, and smuggling advanced medicines onto that planet would be very profitable.

I *think* there was a prototype of something like that in T4 which might prove a useful reference/resource/baseline/idea-generation springboard. ?Universal Law Profile - I think it was called? Dunno, just a suggestion as a starting point... :shock: :?

 

[TrippyHippy]

One thing I'm fiddling with is expanding the Law Level of worlds so they can ban things other than weapons. My current lists are: Weapons, Drugs, Information, Technology, Travel and Psionics. So, a Law-9 world that bans Drugs might forbid entry to anyone using anagathics, and smuggling advanced medicines onto that planet would be very profitable.

Freedom of journalism/free expression/free speech, would be pretty important I think. It's sort of handled by Information to a degree, but I think the emotional side of 'freedom' (including things like sex/marriage, etc) are not really represented by the list so far. Yet, in the more restrictive cultures of our own world, these are very key things, and can lead to story developments/plots in Traveller games.

EDIT: I think the key thing is to include Law levels pertaining to social freedoms as well as economic freedoms.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I like the new technology pertaining to computers and cybernetics. It would be effective at opening up the game for cyberpunk adventures, as a future option, but I also think it could be used in a classic Traveller Universe game too - without any real damage to the classic feel.

I'd be interested to see how other people feel about it, but I think these are legitimate technological areas that should be included in the game, and they are quite well done I feel. They aren't too 'techno-babble' to not understand clearly, which a few other game systems have been.

 

[Golan2072]

One thing I'm fiddling with is expanding the Law Level of worlds so they can ban things other than weapons. My current lists are: Weapons, Drugs, Information, Technology, Travel and Psionics. So, a Law-9 world that bans Drugs might forbid entry to anyone using anagathics, and smuggling advanced medicines onto that planet would be very profitable.

Do you mean that you intend to have several Law Levels per world, one per category, or that you intend to have a table showing the effects of each Law Level on each of these categories? The former seems a bit cumbersome to me, at least for the basic worldgen system, and the latter doesn't take into account the fact that most worlds have different levels of enforcement in different fields (every world has its "touchy issues").

A compromise I've seen posted on CotI (IIRC) a while ago had you roll Law or less for various controversial items (marijuana was given as an example ) on a specific world; you probably won't have to generate these in advance, but rather roll when needed (e.g. when the PCs check if there is a profitable smuggling opportunity or when they try to buy a certain kind of goods on a world).

 

[nezeray]

I usually give the players a list of what they know is legal/illegal and let them find out the rest. Computer databases are sometimes wrong.

Nezeray

 

[Allensh]

I like the new technology pertaining to computers and cybernetics. It would be effective at opening up the game for cyberpunk adventures, as a future option, but I also think it could be used in a classic Traveller Universe game too - without any real damage to the classic feel.

I'd be interested to see how other people feel about it, but I think these are legitimate technological areas that should be included in the game, and they are quite well done I feel. They aren't too 'techno-babble' to not understand clearly, which a few other game systems have been.

I completely agree with you about the technology. I see no conflict at all about this tech existing; if Traveller had been designed in 1997 instead of 1977, I am sure this kind of thing would have been included. The presence of things like Wafer Jacks and such does not have to imply a dark, dystopic setting, they are just tools. And of course there may be issues involving the tech's legality on some worlds which could be interesting

Allen

 

[Libris]

There is nothing wrong with expanded Law Levels or Tech Levels. It should be optional though; the Law Level and TL do afterall only represent an overall average. I'd suggest that expanded UWP should be limited to say five or six areas that are defined within the rules so that everybody uses the same broad categories and terminology if they use the expanded rules.