The Great Traveller Clean-Up!

[GamerDude]

Every book that has had deckplans in it never gave us the mapping conventions (dTon size in squares, overhead space taken up by various systems and conduits, various other crunchy bits...) IIRC.
You can get the main idea of my gripes: I really like crunchy bits in my deckplans and I want more spacecraft options, preferably in one single place.

I had the same problem with GURPS 3ed Traveller.. i finally just said the ceilings were "8 ft tall, 1 ft crawlspace between that an floor of next deck/hull" - this made it about 3m tall (which is 9.75 ft) and allowed very tall people/races to enter the space with relative comfort.

 

[legozhodani]

Errata: you have some very 'stretchy' meters in the US. :lol:

 

[GamerDude]

Errata: you have some very 'stretchy' meters in the US. :lol:

I know you're teasing in a friendly way - but I don't get the joke (since 1 m = 3.25 feet or 1 yd 3 in)

 

[Chernobyl]

because 2m is closer to 6.5 feet not 9.5 feet.

 

[GamerDude]

because 2m is closer to 6.5 feet not 9.5 feet.

I don't know what you mean... :shock:

 

[Darzoni]

Most of what I notice falls under errata, but I would like to make one request for cleaning up the line in general. Please put borders around the tables! Sometimes it gets unclear where the text is and where the table is, especially if the table isn't formatted to have alternating grey/white rows.

Other than that minor nitpick, I'm not noticing anything particularly systemic.

 

[danbuter]

If you do a Deluxe book with errata and maybe some of the cooler stuff from supplements folded into the core book, and maybe some new art, I will happily buy a copy.

 

[BFalcon]

If you do a Deluxe book with errata and maybe some of the cooler stuff from supplements folded into the core book, and maybe some new art, I will happily buy a copy.

Well, to be honest, if they did a "Deluxe Player's Rulebook" with all the background, career information, equipment and rules from the career books to date, I think it would do very well... it wouldn't need to have all the information, indeed that would be unwise, since people wouldn't buy the books, but just the careers alone would make it worthwhile - the rules and most of the specific background could be referred to the career books, with just the basics being brought into the main book.

A "Big Bumper Book of Referee Fun" could be good too - but I kinda like having separate books when doing different GM tasks, although books that actually stay open would be a move I'd appreciate (which is why I'm slowly moving towards PDFs - I can keep those just one alt-tab away instead of trying to keep a softback book open.

My favourite would be to rewrite High Guard, redoing the ship design rules, perhaps bringing them more in line with the new vehicle rules if people like them and with notes explaining in more detail the accepted tolerances and practices when designing deckplans, as well as various sizes of staterooms and common areas. For example, a warship would probably be happy with 4-square staterooms that are double-occupied - indeed, you may even get 4 people to a 6-square area, if you have double bunks on either side of a central "corridor", most likely with a shared fresher at the end of the block - most likely used for enlisted crewmen where space is at a premium (that's similar to the bunkspace on a WWII sub). Compare that to a larger, luxury stateroom on a private yacht and you can see how the tonnage may vary, let alone the allowance needed on the deckplans.

Splitting the design rules off into their own rulebook would also be a valid (in my opinion) option, also... allowing them to be looked at in more depth. Perhaps, then, High Guard could discuss various things like probable fleet strengths and the chain of command - things that are only really covered in Sector Fleet, but would apply to non-3I settings also.

 

[Jame Rowe]

My favourite would be to rewrite High Guard, redoing the ship design rules, perhaps bringing them more in line with the new vehicle rules if people like them and with notes explaining in more detail the accepted tolerances and practices when designing deckplans, as well as various sizes of staterooms and common areas. For example, a warship would probably be happy with 4-square staterooms that are double-occupied - indeed, you may even get 4 people to a 6-square area, if you have double bunks on either side of a central "corridor", most likely with a shared fresher at the end of the block - most likely used for enlisted crewmen where space is at a premium (that's similar to the bunkspace on a WWII sub). Compare that to a larger, luxury stateroom on a private yacht and you can see how the tonnage may vary, let alone the allowance needed on the deckplans.

As a side note, one thing.

1.) Get rid of the "Core Computer" option from HG or modify it so it's an add-on. Then put the complete range of model/1 to model/9 in the core starship design sequence and extend that sequence so that a player can build ships up to 10,000 tons.

 

[Chernobyl]

Group tasks related to skills in the SKILLs chapter. There's a lot of information floating around in other places that should be grouped under skills. It was recently pointed out that locks and security are in page 144 of the core book, in spacecraft operations. In reality, something as generic as that should be under skills (locks aren't found only on spacecraft after all!).
A chapter like spacecraft operations should cover routine and unusual things done in ships and small craft. Space combat, transit time, navigation, jumping, maintenance, comms, refits, repairs, procedures, useful blank forms for shipboard bookkeeping - logs, fuel consumption, port fees, paperwork, etc.

 

[JRoss]

The Campaign Guide, on page 36, has an entry entitled Giant Space Battle, which references another entitled Space Battle. The reference states that Space Battle is found on page 36 when it is in fact on page 57.

 

[AndrewW]

How you I level up my character in Great Traveler Games?

Traveller doesn't have a level system.

The Traveller Core Rulebook on page 59 covers Learning New Skills though.

 

[Imeanunoharm]

As much as I would love to buy Book 9 Robot, I mean, who doesn't love robots, I hear it is so flawed it's not worth the effort.

When that is cleaned up I will purchase it.

 

[nats]

As much as I would love to buy Book 9 Robot, I mean, who doesn't love robots, I hear it is so flawed it's not worth the effort.

When that is cleaned up I will purchase it.

Ditto. And also Mercenary (less bases info and more combat orientated stuff), Animal Encounters (no animal speeds), Campaign Guide (everything by the sound of it).

Regarding errata I have already mentioned a lot of errata for the Core Rule Book and other books both on here and on the Citizens of the Imperium website, I'm not doing it all again. If anyone wants to find the load of errata postings on these two Traveller sites its easy enough to do yourself without me having to spend any more of my valuable time on it.

 

[Imeanunoharm]

In other news, after posting that I read a lot of positive stuff about the new vehicles book and purchased it in pdf form. I quite like it.

Word of mouth affects sales obviously.

 

[jolt]

I'd like to see more information in the main rulebook. The system isn't very complex and information is already spread out over so many books, and not done particularly well, that the game is feeling quite fiddly.

 

[saundby]

Core Rule Book, page 143 "Sensors" lists Visual and Thermal among the sensor types. It references a table on page 108, under Spacecraft Design, Electronics, that does not include Visual or Thermal sensors among the types listed.

This isn't dealt with in the current player's guide, either.

 

[kaptain]

The Mercenary Career Summary Table on page 15 still doesn't cross-reference correctly with some of the Survival and Promotion requirements on the subsequent detailed career pages, despite some having had some errata applied previously, and Soldier of Fortune on page 15 is still replaced with Gunslinger on page 31.
The same goes for High Guard too.

I have the very first printed versions of both of these, and I am aware that later prints [which I do not have] do take into account some errata, but I do hope the clean-up takes into account the [even more] errors that are in those earlier editions and not just from the later prints!

Hope it doesn't take too long, and Good Luck with it!

 

[PoppySeed45]

Mercenary (most based on "real-world" ideas for how militaries work):

1. Please fix the battle system for units. Specifically, the bit where units are different sizes for different unit strengths. This is militarily silly. For example, I can understand how unit sizes change for, say, a tank platoon or an infantry platoon, but why between similar types of unit? Why would a heavy infantry platoon be a different size than a regular platoon? Or Close Quarters platoon? (what the hell does that mean, anyway?).

2. Please describe, in the recruiting section or somewhere, how many admin or whatever are needed for a unit. We have to sort and recruit them, according to the rules, but how many do we need? One paper-pusher per 100? 1000? How many maintenance guys and gals for our tanks and planes? Or what?

3. Please give some sort of multiplier to tell us what pay should be for what size unit on the pay tables on page 53. As written, they don't make a lick of sense, since they have nothing to do with unit size. For a particular mission, if I have 20 cadre for a 3 month training mission, paying me 20000cr would be stupid; and yet, that's exactly the compensation package I can roll. What if I'm being paid to train a world's military and I've got 100 cadre trainers? Still could be 20000cr. That just doesn't make sense. Of course, that means the ticket creation rules would need to say how many troops are needed for a particular mission, unless the assumption is small squad sized military forces only (in which case, why the mass battle system)?

P.S. #4 - No need for base info. This section is useless, since there are no rules for making mercenary bases anyway. Also, some of it was just wrong (for example, the bit about TL 4 Merc bases being more about firepower than manpower - really? I'm assuming the writer meant WWII? Where would a merc unit get the industrial backing to run, say, their own tank pool in the equivalent of 1945? It was hard for small national governments to do it; how could a merc unit?).

In fact, I can't think of any era when manpower isn't what a merc unit is for. It isn't for firepower - that's beyond what a merc unit in our modern world can afford (or can get hold of, but that's a Law Level argument, I suppose).

So, yes, this whole section could be dropped out of the book, and not even missed I bet. There are no rules for keeping in supply, or having enough medics, or any of that stuff, so why bother with it? If numbers can be provided for how much is needed, then fine. But there aren't any at all anywhere, so why is it there?

 

[hellbat]

In Mercenary, another thing to fix is the unit sizes on p. 74. I realize that sizes have meant different things in history and that this is somewhat abstract but:

"Fire Team" at 10 men

A fire team always means half or a third of a squad, almost always 4 men
at full strength in contemporary usage as well as prior Traveller usage
(CT Mercenary, Striker). Saying it's 10 men is just odd.

In modern usage, historically and in Traveller about 10 men could be a "squad"

"Squad" at 20 men

A squad in modern military - and all prior Traveller usage varies a lot
but it is always 6 to 13 men. I don't think any army, real or fictional,
ever used a 20-man squad. A squad is usually a third or a quarter of a platoon

In modern usage, historically and in Traveller half of a platoon is a "section."

The other numbers are reasonable, but the above are just wrong in terms of both real-world
and all prior Traveller usage. You could fix them EASILY by just changing "Fire Team" to "Squad" and "Squad" to "Section" (historically two squads) however, though it would probably be best to add another line below for 4 man fire team!!!