Traveller General--No Edition This Time Edition

So which system is the Cepheus system closest to rules-wise? I'm working on throwing together my own setting for a campaign, and the Cepheus system was suggested due to it not including all the 3rd imperium stuff, but t would be nice to know which system is closest to it rules wise so I have more pre-existing content to pull from.

File: hulc_arm_AB.jpg (164KB, 1131x1600px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1131x1600px

Has anyone made any rules for cybernetics/augmentation in CT?

>>53582437
>So which system is the Cepheus system closest to rules-wise?

Both MgT versions are closest to CE.

>>53584672
>Has anyone made any rules for cybernetics/augmentation in CT?

MegaTrav began as an updated/cleaned up version of CT and there is a lot of backward compatibility between the two. DGP's "Traveller Chronicle" magazine for MegaTrav had a multi-part series detailing cybernetics.

>>53573908
>>Graphic layout in the 1970s was non-trivial

I already understand that and regularly remind people of it when they complain that CT ships always seem to be darts, wedges, boxes, spheres, and circles.

The ships "designed" by JG, however, were shitty even by 70s' standards. They had an 800dTon merc design that resembled a 3 or 4 linked shoe boxes with a parabolic dish glued on the "front".

File: ghj.jpg (305KB, 1920x687px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1920x687px

Does the lack of a vehicle system in CT mean that i can just tack one from MegaTrav or MongTrav onto the ruleset? Or should I just stick with striker?

>>53585029
There was another simple one in Space Gamer #40-ish. If Striker scratches the itch, use it.

File: 1_JG_FreeTrader.05.coti_.png (554KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1920x1080px

>>53584946

>>53584782
>>53585483
Sounds cool. Are there any pdfs of it in the Archive?

>>53585912
I think anon was referring to the AFV construction system in Space Gamer 44, available at the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/space-gamer_201601/Space_Gamer_44#page/n17/mode/2up

>>53585483
Are the MegaTrav vehicle rules backwards compatible?

File: 1465186834525.jpg (82KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 750x600px

bump 1 for jump 1

Any good sources for alien races other than the default half-dozen or so?

>>53588951
I generally let players roll their own, with approval, and that works well enough.

>>53586962
To some extent. They are derived from Striker.

>>53585029
>Does the lack of a vehicle system in CT mean that i can just tack one from MegaTrav or MongTrav onto the ruleset? Or should I just stick with striker?

Depends on how much work you want to do as both vehicle design system are pretty much "embedded" in their particular rules sets.

The MegaTrav system was derived from CT's Striker. It's nice, but math heavy & detailed & very gearhead focused. You aren't going to build even a simple vehicle quickly.

MgT2e has a fast system, but its designed to work with 2e's combat system.

There's a Q&D system which I've found to be "good enough" called 'Joe's CT Vehicles". It's in the Archive.

>>53586962
>Are the MegaTrav vehicle rules backwards compatible?

As noted, they're derived from Striker and thus very detailed.>>53586962

>>53588951
>Any good sources for alien races other than the default half-dozen or so?

GT. Along with the Big Six, its alien books contain info on lesser known canonical alien Minor races while also adding new ones.

>>53586962
Nope. MegaTrav changed many things, including the powerplants and their costs because with MegaTrav they tried to go for a "fully integrated" craft design system from wagons to starships.
In CT there was actually a big disconnect between High Guard and Striker which they tried to resolve in MegaTrav. This, however, leaves MegaTrav vehicles incompatible with Striker vehicles.

Huh. I'm still not sold on actually using the CE/MgT rules, but Solo is really neat and I can definitely see running it with other games. Might even run it with a bastardised cross of CT77 LBB and D&D74 LBB.

Thinking the Naval or Survey campaigns, leaning towards Naval. Naval suggests a Corvette, Patrol Frigate or Destroyer, all probably without the marine squad - I'm thinking the Corvette, as it and the Patrol Frigate are the 300dT ships, and the Corvette doesn't have a pair of fighters to worry about... but then neither have other small craft, you have to go for the 800dT DD for a ship's boat. Guess it would make boarding and other tasks more interesting without one. Maybe the Raider - 600dT, ship's boat and a pair of fighters, with a similarly small crew, plus cargo space for... er. well, something. I'll spend a few hours thinking.

Do we have any more Gypsy Knight/Clement Sector material than what's in the trove?

>>53590344
>Huh. I'm still not sold on actually using the CE/MgT rules, but Solo is really neat

I'm using Solo and CT as we speak. What is it you don't quite like about CE?

>>but then neither have other small craft,

Then use the CT patrol frigate. Solo gives you rules to produce a CR for ANY existing design. There's no need for you stick with the designs in it or CE.

There's a HG2 combat example in the COTI files section that I used to "test" Solo ship combat system. I was able to translate all the designs and run the battle getting pretty much the same result as the one in the example. That test and a few others pretty much sold me on Solo's combat system.

>>53591594
>What is it you don't quite like about CE?
It's scary, and new. It's just a wee bit crunchy for me, and the rulebook isn't brilliantly written.

As for the ships, yeah, I could use any ship or just make something up, but I found the suggested ones growing on me while I was stuck on a plane yesterday. Would prefer something with an official deckplan, but I may sketch some things out.

Actually... given that they're going out without their marine complement, which is kind of a peacetime patrol measure, you could probably argue for the fighters bays to be empty as well. You don't need fighters for regular patrol work, that's for when there's a war on and you're suddenly hosting double the regular crew. Either that, or it's because the only thing worse than having ten marines stuck in a ship for months on end is giving them a pair of no-shit high-speed fighter pilots to get in trouble with. There would be no survivors.

>>53592088
>It's scary, and new. It's just a wee bit crunchy for me, and the rulebook isn't brilliantly written.

That's all righteous. Myself, I'm using CT over CE because I've been using CT for so long i don't need to even think about it.

>>Would prefer something with an official deckplan, but I may sketch some things out.

Unless you're running PC combat ala Snapshot or AHL, sketches are perfectly fine. While counting squares on graph paper as you try to deckplan out some design can be fun and I've graphed out dozens and dozens over the years, how often do we actually use something that detailed?

>>Actually... given that they're going out without their marine complement, which is kind of a peacetime patrol measure, you could probably argue for the fighters bays to be empty as well.

Both good reasons, but I think the author cut back on the crew for "ease of play" more than anything else.

File: FB_IMG_1448335900413.jpg (26KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x500px

>players find a bioship in the center of a large comet
>Break into the ship
>Que Alien soundtrack
>It was a ruse
>Find dead aliens and a virus
>Take the virus
>They sell it to a corporation
>Corporation was contracted by Imperial Intelligence
>II is in bed with separatists
>Mfw my the party indirectly assassinated the Emperor

File: battledress.jpg (135KB, 1064x600px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1064x600px

>>53593164
Consequences are a wonderful thing.

File: 1487865107123.jpg (444KB, 1800x1096px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1800x1096px

>>53590325
So could I just replace the Starship generation system of CT with that of MT?

>>53597256
>So could I just replace the Starship generation system of CT with that of MT?

MT shi[p building is much more complex. Whether that complexity is worth the effort is up to you.

File: 1_safari-ship-48.jpg (245KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1280x720px

Jump-1

Anybody got any good campaign stories, or blogs of actual plays? My favorite: http://usedstarships.com/

Opinion time, fellow grognards...

I have The Traveller Book as well as reprints of Books 1-8. Is there any reason not to use the later books?

What's your preference?

>>53603328
TTB contains only Books 1-3, so the rest are additions to either.
The advanced character generation systems in 4-7 are interesting for adding to a character's history, and the additions to the skill list can be useful, but the other parts of those books are generally more useful.
More weapons and a mercenary ticket system in Book 4.
A percentage based ship building system and fleet combat sim in Book 5.
Scout Service color and filling in a lot more details of star systems in Book 6.
A different trade engine in Book 7.

And of course a detailed robot construction system in Book 8.

You are playing Traveller whether you use some, none, or all of those subsystems, so it's all good.

>>53597256
Whatever you do, you don't want the MegaTrav starship combat system. It is a complete dog.

>>53599836
>not painting your air/raft to match

>>53603328
note that the supplements are kinda parallel to the books, and supplement 4 is generally one of the better early ones for use with books 1-3.

>>53606654
MegaTrav made a misguided attempt to unify starships and vehicles mechanically during the design step, then completely ignored that effort and instead butchered CT High Guard for ship combat.

>>53603328

Read >>53603607 because it explains it all. I used each of the later books when they came out, each for different reasons and each for different periods of time. With the exception of Book 5 (HG2), the sysgen tables in Book 6 (Scouts), and some bit of Book 8 (Robots), I stopped using them all. For me, most of what they added wasn't needed.

>>53607335

Agreed. What's called Proto-Traveller - sort of an OSR version which uses Classic's books - is also called "4-4-4" That is the first 4 Books, the first 4 Adventures, and the first 4 Supplements.

>>53606654
>>53608332

Read and heed Anons. MT ship combat is utter shit.

File: 1457489113656.jpg (51KB, 900x560px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 900x560px

>>53590344
>>53592088
While you're at it, might as well check out the MgT 2e ship and vehicle rules. They're much better cleaned up than in 1e (even if they are missing a few paragraphs here and there), offering greater flexibility (% based components means you aren't restricted to set hull sizes), significantly better streamlined personal/vehicle/ship rules (some of the crossover's a bit wonky, but it works much better than in MgT 1e), and offers more options for components and equipment for non 3I settings in their own chapter (there's quad-turrets, warp drives, superlasers, and a literal astromech droid in there)

How much detail do you guys prefer in your Trav combat?
Do you go full autismo and bust out a dedicated subsystem (like Striker, Snapshot or Mayday) for every situation, or is it enough to abstract things down to range bands and roll from there?

>>53613289
All three are not just subsystems but games in their own rights. They are compatible with and can inform Traveller construction and combat, but as games themselves assume full knowledge and control (except Striker; in which you are the LT or Captain and you HOPE the troops do what you want them to do). As miniatures games Striker and Mayday are convention-worthy, and I see Striker locally).

If you want to stick to a role-play approach, Mongoose V1's ship combat is closer to that, if a bit idiosyncratic as a result.

>>53613289

As >>53614064 explained, the titles you listed are actual games and not subsystems. I've used all 3 in conjunction with tabletop RPG play.

I can't even imagine most current RPG players understanding Striker let alone using it. Striker's focus on squads means single PCs aren't going to matter.

Mayday is a streamlined version of Book 2 ship combat. I routinely use the movement portions of it: 2D vector movement on hex map. Depending on the situation, I''l then use either Book 2 combat because of it's PC focus or HG2 combat because of it's wargame focus.

In a similar fashion, I use Snapshot's movement rules with Book 1 personal combat. For more of a wargame focus, but still at the individual level, I'll use the AHL rules. They can be best described as Snapshot's movement rules with Striker's combat rules.

So, sword worlder's or darrians?

>>53617830
Sword Worlders can't agree on who pays the bar tab even after a fight, so Darrians for me.

>>53617830

Darrians for me, mostly because they're (mostly) a Human Minor Race and therefore somewhat different from the norm.

The Sword Worlds are little more than the constantly squabbling loser descendants of the losing side in a forgotten civil war. Also, their whole Norse/Viking schtick is about as authentic as the "Plastic Paddies" who march around getting drunk every March 17th.

File: nik_yeliseyev_strider_by_nikyeliseyev-d6798zv.jpg (131KB, 1024x698px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1024x698px

What kinds of planetary governments have your PCs interacted with?

>>53618235
mostly human?

>>53622007

You know Cabal from Command and Conquer?
It was Cabal from Command and Conquer

>>53622007
Interacting with more than a few permit stampers or the occasional clan head means you've probably been a bad person where someone could see you.

>>53624771
Or you're actively being bad in a very large-scale way and they haven't spotted you yet.

>>53622007
Many different kinds, but admittedly the functional ones have been either boring (All your paperwork is handled swiftly and professionally!) or terrifying (Now that you have killed the undercover police operative trying to catch you for buying military equipment, a planetary manhunt commences!).

The dysfunctional ones have been more fun, such as a totalitarian cult of personality where they were first beaten and imprisoned for walking by a picture of the Great Leader without bowing, but then (once a terrified official realized they were offworlders) moved to a mansion as "guests". A few weeks of smiling and waving at mass rallies later somebody actually looked at their case and realized they were nobodies who could safely be thrown out, prompting a ride back to the space port in an APC.

>>53622193
>mostly human?

Read it again. The Darrian population is mostly made up of the Darrian HUMAN MINOR RACE.

Those with only Darrian genetic heritage make up ~75% of the population, those with any amount of Solomani genetic heritage are slightly over 10%, Aslan are slightly under 10%, while the remainder are humans & aliens from the Imperium and other places.

>>53622007

As with so much of Traveller; It Depends.

In a classic 3I/OTU "trade & travel" campaign planetary governments rarely matter because the PCs rarely cross the port's extrality line.

I do love flipping players' expectations regarding governments like having a democracy enforcing "tolerance" and "fairness" through constant surveillance or a religious dictatorship which allows non-believers to do almost anything they want.

>>53627465
Why was the party on Space Korea in the first place?

File: Very light carrier.png (19KB, 826x540px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 826x540px

So I had this idea for a very light carrier that is basically just a frame that the fighters are mounted on.
Pic related is how I picture the layout.
Would this be feasible in MgT2e? How would I go about that? Modular hull, or can i just build each part individually and kinda dock them together to make a whole craft?
The point of this ship is to jump a group of fighters (and/or bombers) into a system, have them conduct some mission and jump them back out before defense forces can react.

>>53631464
Yeah, probably should work... in a specialised role. Bear in mind you'll want some hangar space and recovery space for damaged craft and maintenance, and as part of a fleet you'll want a dedicated support craft for handling the small craft en masse.

I'd try building the whole thing as a unit.

Also that "2dT wide spine" is awfully narrow and is going to be a pain in the arse for your maneuvering, and even worse for shuffling crew around to launch.

This is not a carrier for any kind of sustained operations - hell, even rearming ordnance is going to be a shitfest.

Actually, thinking about it, it feels like someone used the frame for a modular freighter to rush out a carrier - the freight modules are supposed to link up and give it some structure, and it's getting fleet-range jump because it's got fighters instead of bloody great cargo modules.

>>53631915
Yeah, it's definitely not meant for fleet operations or extended missions. It's strictly "this neighboring system is building a new mining station, let's wreck it".

> it feels like someone used the frame for a modular freighter to rush out a carrier
Those were my exact thoughts.

Do I need hangar space if I have cockpits or can they link up to standard airlocks? I thought about making the spine just a hollow frame, without any atmosphere or gravity, so the pilots would have to put on suits and climb across the frame to their fighters, which would eliminate the whole airlock/docking space problem

>>53632090
They can link up just fine - the traveller standard for small craft is that they take up nothing more than their hull displacement in hangar space, plus or minus the 20% slop you're allowed for the deckplans to look pretty.

Just, y'know, maintenance and stuff. But for your use case, this is a decent way of getting a strike out as long as you have recovery options for those expensive crews and birds.

I've seen a vacuum framework used in some sf books, I'm pretty sure. Just get your pilots ready and in the cockpit an hour before launch to avoid trouble. What's that? It's ludicrously uncomfortable to stay in a cockpit for hours on end doing nothing? Be glad they didn't stick an automated cold berth in whatever free tonnage your fighter had or adjacent to the airlock, in the spine, mate, because that has to be a shittier experience even if you're asleep for most of it.

>>53632299
>traveller standard
Most editions have options, ranging from form-fitting slip to supposedly cavernous landing bay (depending on edition). CT is only the standard for those who refuse to open the toolbox.

>>53632513
yeah, yeah, but most of them at least allow the 100% option, which makes it standard even if there are other heretical editions with other options.

>I don't believe half the CT77 supremacy I shitpost about, but it is my favourite edition

>>53632299
I can't help but feel having acorridor linking two pressurised areas non-pressurised is going to run into logistics problems.
Either it is never pressurised in which case the time in jump is a right royal pain the arse, or if it is pressurised some of the time you end up needing twice as many airlocks.

I agree a 2dt walkway seems tiny, but at the same time it seems a bit of a waste of tonnage to me. I suppose if it's a retrofitted freighter used by pirates or other small organisations then it works.

>>53631464
>Would this be feasible in MgT2e?

There are two kinds of feasible. The first kind of feasible is "Can I build it using the rules?" and that answer is "Yes".

The second kind of feasible is "Would anyone in-game being fucking retarded enough to build this?" and that answer is "No".

There are so many fundamental problems with the "design" like a lack of repair hangars, the inability to rearm and refuel, or the circus routine pilots will need to perform to enter and leave their fighters that they cannot be listed in a post with 2000 character limit.

If you want/need a "quick & dirty" fighter transport. you're going to commandeer a couple large freighters - preferable one designed to carry containers and/or lighters.

What you're not going to do is waste good money and precious time building the worthless cluster fuck depicted in your sketch.

>>53632678
The walkway isn't costed in the dtonnage of the ship, though, it comes out of the 10%-20% extra you get for connecting spaces and shit on the plans.

You could consider having the fuel tank up front and the engines at the back with the bridge and living space, call it using the fuel (compartmentalised) as shielding or something. Slap on an access crawlway to some avionics and maybe an emergency backup piloting station/airlock/whatever, but keep the people at the back?

>>53631464
The only way I can see this thing being viable is coming from a world that barely has Jump tech at war with another world that barely has Jump tech.

Its too early in their FTL development for them to know what the fuck they're doing, so they come up with ideas that only work on paper.

Also, it should be vertically oriented so the corridor is a ladderway, rather than a hallway.

>>53632814
Except what if all they have access to is something small and cheep, and staff who can do a retrofit.

It's a one trick pony which gets the fighters into a fight and home again. Repairs and rearmament can happen back at base.

The pilots don't really have to worry about jumping into their ships in a hurry, they probably spend the last few hours of the jump in their cockpits ready to go as soon as they his realspace again.

The bigest problem I can see is there is nowhere for fuel tanks, which will need to be big enough to handle 2 jumps worth of fuel...

>>53632814
>>53632965
It's basically a technical. Nick or "requisition" a bunch of freighters from the civilian lines, set them up to carry fighters, jump in and blow relatively poorly-defended stuff up because fighters can be a massive force multiplier done right.

>>53632965
>Except what if all they have access to is something small and cheep, and staff who can do a retrofit.

What you're failing to understand is just WHY such a piss poor design would exist in the first place. If they're retrofitting a preexisting ship into a fighter transport, just what sort of job did such a worthless piece of shit do in the first place?

All the problems it has as a fighter transport apply to it's alleged earlier role as a modular freighter.

>>53633110
>It's basically a technical.

A technical started off life as a useful pickup truck. What sort of job could this "knitting needle" possibly do?

>>53633166
Nah, if the modules were big enough compared to the fighter loadout you could get a better jump range out of it, either by upping the computer or making multiple jumps and accepting that it won't be strategically fast - good for a sneak attack, basically.

the modules would presumably brace and form a stronger hull than the bare spine, like in the modular cutter, which in several editions flies like utter shit without a module.

It's not great, but I can see someone building it, especially if it's cheap. Hell, if it's modular enough with regard to the engineering section, they may be shipping in higher-tech jump drives than they can build natively and fabricating the rest themselves to build up their shipyards while they tech up to a more modern standard.

>>53633189
carry a bunch of cargo through space and jumpspace. drop modules and attach new ones. it's a scheduled freighter doing regular bulk runs.

>>53633227
>the modules would presumably brace and form a stronger hull than the bare spine, like in the modular cutter, which in several editions flies like utter shit without a module.

While the modules could in certain designs, the fighters most certainly won't. So, what's your next excuse?

I can't wait to read how you'll "explain" having the crew bunking & eating so far away from their work stations in engineering.

I repeat this again: The design is PISS POOR in a merchant role and thus will be even worse in a military one.

File: 1460409996076.jpg (121KB, 1280x574px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1280x574px

>>53631464
>>53632090
>>53632965
Do note that including fighters attached to the exterior of the hull (use docking clamps, Hg2e p. 43) will increase the total dtonnage of the ship, which will decrease the %space of the Jump drive, thereby reducing the Jump rating of that drive. [See also HG 2e p. 37 for external drop tanks rules]

Let's say you have a 400dton hull, with, say, a Jump 3 drive, taking up 7.5% or 30 dtons of space. If you attach 4 20 dton fighters, your total hull is now 480 dtons, and that 30dton jump drive now only occupies 6.25% of your ship, which drops your Jump Rating to 2. (HG 2e p.14)

This is not the case with small craft carried in the interior of the vessel (because magical future Jump maths are dependent on displacement and not mass, for whatever reason).

>>53633110
>because fighters can be a massive force multiplier
Interestingly, because of the way the fiction was developed in earlier Traveller (and certainly carried into Mongoose), small craft are, generally, not much more than a nuisance to larger ships, and are certainly not a threat like modern aircraft are to, say, a fat ocean freighter.

Your average small craft pulse laser deals 2-12 damage, which isn't much for even an unarmored 1,000 dton light freighter which boasts 400 Hull, much less a 80Kdton cruiser with 16 armor and 40,000 Hull.

File: 1491660896448.jpg (398KB, 900x1286px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 900x1286px

>>53633248
>>53633227
Traveller fiction typically has internal carriage for various reasons. External cargo is available in Mongoose (High Guard 2e p. 39) although landing a craft loaded with external cargo racks is quit difficult and un-streamlines the ship, which makes refueling from gas giants quite difficult.

>>53633297
It's certainly not my place to question the tone of others, but just FYI, its your fairly non-constructive tone in a lot of threads that are driving posters (including our forlorn former OP) away from these threads.

>>53633446
>It's certainly not my place

But you did so anyway.

Suck it up, faggot. I don't give a flying fuck about your fee-fees. I'm sure you can find a hug box somewhere in which to post.

>>53632299
>>53632814
>>53632950

Though there are some critics, I can see this design working. The Executive Board for Military Affairs will be delighted! It is everything they requested:
>Cheap
>Can be built using existing hardware
>Really uncomfortable
>Cheap
>Unpressurized frame structure keeps tonnage and running costs low
>Cheap

I'll call this the THIS-class, for Transport for High-velocity Intercepts and Strikes. Although the test crews somewhat jumbled the acronym to Strikes and High-Velocity Intercepts Transport, for some reason.

>>53633566
Gee man, i know it's shit. That's kinda the point. It's a retrofitted mess, and nobody in their right mind would use it to fight an actual war. It's used as a carrier for raids and will horribly fail at anything else. No need to get touchy

>>53633588
It just hit me reading >>53633248 that if the ship's original purpose was to carry cutter modules and one or two cutters, then it could make some sense, given that Adventure 7-Broadsword has fighter carrier cutter modules.

They just dumped the open frame modules and stocked up on habitat and fighter modules.

Come on guys, don't let this one anon kill a nice discussion. Tell me about the ship designs you have come up with

>>53634463
I made a design that is basically an inbetween subsidized trader and a Free Trader
Here's the specs
300 Tons
Cost: 54,425,000
120 Hull points Basic Systems 60 Power
Heat Shielding
Titanium Steel - 75 tons used 9 Armour
M-Drive 1 - 3 tons used 30 power
J-Drive 1 - 12.5 tons used 30 power
Fusion (TL8) - 14 tons use, 200 power can be used
Fuel - 30 tons for J-Drive, 2 tons for Power Plant (4 weeks) + 40 allocated
72 total
Bridge - 10 tons
Computer – Computer/15
Manoeuvre/0
Jump Control/1
Evade/2
Library
Sensors - Civilian Grade (-2 DM) 1 power 1 ton used
Weapons - 3 Fixed Mount Hardpoints with Pulse Lasers 12 Power used
Staterooms - 4 Double Occupancy 16 tons used
Common Areas - 5 tons
Airlocks - 2
Docking Space- 44
31 Cargo Space
Crew Req - Captain, Pilot, Astrogator, Engineer, Gunner*3, Medic

>>53634641

Mind you this was my first design and I had to go through it like 30 times because I fucking hate math

>>53634693
Eh, i had the same problem. The math isn't much of a problem after you've done it a few times. Looks good on a first glance, but I'd use a Computer/10 bis. What's the TL?

>>53634897
iirc this was for an middle - stellar stellar empire, I think the TL cap was 9 for my setting (though I would later go on to increase it as time and player influence dictated).

>>53634931
Also I think at the time I last altered this design I misunderstood how computers worked in this setting.

>>53634463
Here's another design, the biggest one I ever made

It's primary purpose is to blockade
Hull – 20,000 (Closed Structure, Partial Streamlined, Heat and Radiation Shielding)
Armor: 1,500
Drives: 1,400
Jump: 1,500
Power Plant: 1,100
Fuel: 4,150
Bridge: 100
Sensors: 2
Weapons: 5,000
Fuel Processor: 10
Crew: 644
Living Space: 40
Cost: 11,342,100,000
Hull Points – 8,800
Armor – 6
MD – 7
JD – 3
Fusion Power Plant – TL 12
Power – 16,500
Basic Power: 4,000
Jump: 6,000
Sensors: 2
Weapons: 4,400
Fuel Processor: 10
Computer – Core/50 (primary) Core/40 (backup)
Maneuver/0
Library/0
Jump Control/3
Fire Control/4
Evade/2
Weapons: 200 Hardpoints
50 Medium Fusion Gun Bays
100 Beam Lasers
200 Airlocks
Fuel Scoop
Fuel Processor (200/day)
Crew –
Captain
Pilot*2
Astrogator
Engineer*77
Mechanic*27
Gunner*200
Admin*14
161 Double Occupancy

>>53630960
There was a section of the map that received little interstellar traffic despite being close to the wealthy high-tech, high-pop world they operated out of. They wanted to find out why loads of traders went rim-ward, but very few went coreward.

At the Space-Best-Korea there was literally a sign at the X-T line saying "We can't help you if you cross this line. Please don't." They wanted to find a buyer for their speculative cargo, so the sign didn't deter them.

Another high-light of that trip was the time the party got their organs stolen, because they underestimated the locals. TL 0 doesn't equal helpless, at least if you can sell a cash crop to buy TL 13 stuff that you get shipped in two weeks.

Any suggestions for how many sectors/subsectors/systems is a good amount for a setting with ~6 "major" races in the TL 10-13 range and maybe ~12-18 "minor" races at tech levels below that (beyond what they can trade for)?

>>53641187
Six major players and about twice that number in minor players can be done in a sector at lower jump ranges, but each increase in jump ranges changes the strategic picture and tends to unify former rivals through conquest and alliance.
Look at Far Frontiers/Afachtiabr, The Beyond, and most of the Gateway region at the Traveller Map for examples.

What've you done with Foreven, or Foreven-esque sectors, anons?

File: Copy of 17218a24132485.5633075e220c9 (1).jpg (479KB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 1920x960px

>>53642799
I like to just let the RNG take its course every time my players jump into Forereven-it always means something different and interesting for them to come across.

>>53643482
The CT adventure "Leviathan" suggests that the commerce umbrella of the Imperium, and by implication other states, has a huge effect on prosperity when allowed to. Looking at Foreven we see two border states and a chunk of Zhodani space with a lot of in-between.

In other words, lots of backwater shit holes.

You want to be a ship driving douchebag with no consequences, Foreven's in-between in the place to do it.

Just don't for a minute think you're the first one to have tried it.

>>53633354
>much less a 80Kdton cruiser with 16 armor and 40,000 Hull.
But the hull size table only goes up to 5kdT. :)

Yeah, I should have put "in small ship universes" in there. Each CT fighter is a turret that only costs the carrier 12dT (32-34dT for a ship's boat) rather than the usual limit of one per 100dT.

How do I make my aliens not seem like complete rubber forehead aliens? I want the players to still be able to communicate with them.

>>53646744
>How do I make my aliens not seem like complete rubber forehead aliens? I want the players to still be able to communicate with them.

The better your players can communicate with aliens, the more those aliens are "rubber forehead" types. You've got accept that and make your players understand it.

You can use pidgin or trade languages, require computer translators, or other techniques but the more the PCs can talk with the Schmooz of Blooz, the less 'alien' they'll seem.

>>53650787
I don't usually recommend reading anything by Orson Scott Card, but in the later Ender books, he spent quite a lot of time exploring this.

Once you understand a species, they stop being 'alien'.

>>53651169
>Once you understand a species, they stop being 'alien'.
So one way to keep a commonly encountered alien race/culture "alien" is to feed the PCs a set of tropes they understand, then do something outside of what those tropes should allow *and not explain it*.

Something the PCs can't distinguish from another case fails to trigger the usual honor reaction, or *does* trigger an honor reaction that was heretofore unobserved.

Then don't do it for a while.

Then have another unexpected trigger event. Ideally a different one.

The idea is to keep the PCs from getting too comfortable around the aliens.

Classic example is from the otherwise cheesy and short-lived series Space Rangers (which lost out to B5). The honorable combat alien character, seen up to a certain point as all business, joins in the hunt for a particular poorly understood space parasite with relish. Right up to the end credits the audience and the other characters think it is the warrior tested in combat thing, but it turns out that he has a different reason entirely.

Alright, I currently know very little of this system aside from a few sessions several years back that I can't quite remember.

I have a group that's experienced in RPGs and doesn't mind complexity, but has zero experience in Traveller.

Which one should we probably use?

>>53581996

Taking into account that the core rulebook is for "free" how much are supplements really worth?

>>53653941
Everything is free if you're competent.

>>53653426
>Which one should we probably use?

Experienced and doesn't mind complexity?

MgT2e

It's the newest version and contains more of what current RPG players think a RPG should have. It's also from a "real" publisher and has the most supplements associated with it. 1e stuff can also be used to a certain extent with 2e.

>>53581996
What's the difference between the different editions of Traveller?

>>53654642
>What's the difference between the different editions of Traveller?

Answering that would take far more than the 2K characters allowed. There are even different versions of the game within Classic.

Limiting the answer to RPG play only:

Classic - 2D6 Roll 8+ with DMs for skills & stats
Mega - Update to CT, uses a 2D6 task system
TNE - Uses GDW House System, d10
T4 - Return to 2D6 task system with exceptions
T20 - d20
GT - GURPS
MgT1e/2e - 2D6 task system with stuff current players want