New to Traveller

>>55029288
oh god...the general had this argument every thread, the best edition is the one you piece together yourself, anon

>>55029288

Personally I like the Mongoose version for pure simplicity with little bits of crunch.

>>55029288

Classic's my favorite. Mongoose is pretty good, but the non-core books are ass. You have to go third party to get decent stuff, and 2e has no third party support.

>>55029288
>Never played any edition of the game, nor has anyone else in my group.
Are they partial to or against GURPS, Hero, or D20? There are Traveller versions for all of those.

Do they have a preference for flat probabilities or bell curves?

High competence PCs who are combat survivors, or lethal enough to make you think about pulling a gun?

Skill progression or life progression?

Really crunchy, or Let It Ride pulpy?

>>55029505
I too enjoy the Mongoose version.
Don't know about their latest edition too much, but what I did see made it look pretty similar to their old one.

Looks like the Traveller General just fell off the board. Here's the link to it:

>>54889087

Anyway, your question is one which is asked repeatedly. So often, as a matter of fact, it's usually asked 2 or 3 times per general thread!

The answer, of course, is the best version is what YOU think is the best version. As >>55031172 points out, there are some play styles which different versions support better than others. If you tell us how you like to play, we can make better recommendations.

That being said, the Mongoose version is more like what current RPG players think a RPG should do and should have.

>>55029707
What are the merits of Classic?

>>55031172
I personally generally like rules light systems, though most of the people I play with really like pathfinder.

I personally would like a game with a bit more risk when it comes to combat.

>>55031905

Better proofreeading, a ton of material, first and third party, a lot of options for swapping in different rules modules to suit your campaign.
It takes a bit more work to set up, because a lot of stuff is scattered here and there, but if you're accustomed to OSR or DIY type stuff it's fun.
Classic has most of the best adventure modules, too.

Also I should probably note Mongoose and Classic are about 90-95% compatible, you can use things from one in the other without much trouble. Most of what you have to change is armor (Classic deflects, MGT absorbs, and MGT weapons have armor penetration numbers while Classic doesn't) and animal encounters are very different so you can't use animal statblocks from one in the other.

>>55032018
>I personally generally like rules light systems, though most of the people I play with really like pathfinder.

If they like Pathfinder, they aren't going to like ANY version of Traveller. The thinking behind the designs is just too different. For example, you mention combat...

>I personally would like a game with a bit more risk when it comes to combat.

Combat is Traveller is DEADLY. Several of it's designers were former infantrymen and they had little patience for the "just a scratch" mentality most fantasy RPGs brought to combat.

Guns kill and kill quickly. Unless you take precautions, you're often ambushed and killed in the first round. Just who is carrying the gun doesn't mean much either. There are no levels or other silliness which means a "newb" can kill a seasoned veteran just as easily as the other way around. Furthermore, what Traveller uses in place of "hit points" don't increase with "experience", in fact they actually diminish with age.

If you want risky combat instead of "I'm a 25 level XYZ" so I'll shrug off the fireball while killing the 2,067 orcs in one round", then Traveller is your game.

Not the hexadecimal based ones...

>>55033611
>If they like Pathfinder, they aren't going to like ANY version of Traveller.

That doesn't necessarily follow, people can like Pathfinder and other games.
At the very least, they might go in for T20, the d20 Traveller port. Though it's kind of shitty

>>55033755
A bit confused, but could have been much worse.

Personally, I'd go with the Mongoose version. I think it's easier to play.

Seriously, OP, the best version is the one you hack together to support your game (just look at Stars Without Number, which pulls from two separate games). You NEVER have to use the book as written. Just be aware of what the modifications will mean to the game world, and be consistent.
Firefly, Dark Matter, The Expanse, can all be a Traveller game, fairly easily.
So can Futurama and Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy.
It all depends on what you do with the rules.
(as an aside, go into the Traveller trove, open the Classic folder, and download Rule 68A - it's the best mechanic you can use with 2d6)

Speaking of Traveller, any fun house rules to give everyone something to do in space combat? I feel like the basic rules leave all the fun to the gunners and the pilot

Anyone have a pdf of the 2016 edition?

>>55041428
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4NrTuZd5LQrQURPZmJkYUZ4Z2c/view?usp=sharing

>>55040107
>Speaking of Traveller, any fun house rules to give everyone something to do in space combat? I feel like the basic rules leave all the fun to the gunners and the pilot

You can throw damage control rules into the mix. PCs with Eng, Mech, Elec, Comp, etc. roll to repair the damage from hits.

MT added steps like having to first detect an enemy on sensors then get a target lock and only then shoot. Nice idea, but MT's ship combat rules are the worst among all the versions. TNE followed suit with lots of tasks for everyone during combat. That resulted in a very tedious and overly detailed system, forex "Brilliant Lances" for TNE is almost unplayable as a result. And TNE uses a different RPG system than all the other GDW/Miller versions.

The trouble with ROLL playing instead of ROLE playing is that the dice always catch up with you. Look at Mongoose's handling of misjumps for example.

The misjump roll is basically impossible in Classic/MT, it's 13+ on 2D6. You have to deliberately ignore things like the 100D limit, fuel quality, maintenance, etc, in order to misjump. Mongoose, perhaps wanting to give more players more to do, added all sorts of high odds rolls to what had been a simple activity. Now the pilot, navigator, an engineer all had to make rolls but all that really did was increase the odds a misjump would occur. Misjumps which had been all but impossible were now occurring with a much greater frequency than before.

Take a 12 roll on 2D6. You only going to do it 1 in 36 times or ~97%. If you require that roll to be made three times, however, your chances drop to ~90%. That's a relatively big drop and it increases your chances to fail accordingly. That's what Mongoose did and that's what happens when you begin adding more rolling hoping to involve more players.

TL;DR - You can engage the players without putting dice in their hands.

>>55040107
Kinda wish I'd actually played any of the space combat. I'd be happy to gin up some houserules. First I'd think of adding some shields or deflectors to your setting, then giving the Engineer control over those. The Steward of the boat and others could be in charge of keeping Life Support operational during the fight, while anyone else could manage the autoloaders in the Missile Magazine to see if they can get an additional attack on a +4 Roll or something.

Only stuff that comes to mind right off the top of my head, though.

>>55043694
>First I'd think of adding some shields or deflectors to your setting,

Sand in Classic originally "stacked". That is, you could keep discharging sand into a hex and keeping adding the -DM to an enemy's hit rolls. Of course, that -DM worked in both directions.

One way we "buffed" sand was to allow ships to "drag" sand along with them. Normally, when the ship moved it left the "protection" of the deployed sand. We would let sand be dragged along as long as the ship dedicated the weapon mount which deployed the sand to that task.

So, you could either use that mount to maintain your "shield" OR shoot at the other guy. It mad for interesting choices.

>>55040107

One thing I like is to lay out a deckplan of the player's ship, and allow them to run around doing damage control, and repel boarders, and other stuff inbetween the combat rounds. Put out fires, patch holes, make jury-rigged repairs, whatever.

It makes things feel a bit less video game and a bit more submarine, since they don't have a representation of the enemy ship, rather somebody has to be on sensors to find out where the enemy is and what's going on over there.

File: O9Bdn8M.jpg (476KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1024x768px

>>55045006
So i had an idea for my Traveller game (we use MgT 1e) and i wanted to have a wiser GM than me to take a look at it.

So i wanted to run a more pulpy game of traveller an thougth "what would be fun on an interplanetar adventure ?"
Giant monsters of course.

The basic idea is, that the PC's travel around in a large, solar system and hel colonists/settlers/natives planetside with their trouble and try to keep their small ship running. The system actually has multiple planets which support a large amount of life and contain mega fauna & flora.

About the monsters crunch wise. My idea was to take a sufficiently large creature and, basically, split it up to represent the hugeness better.
Therefor something of "average" monstersize, like, a T-rex, would recive two body portions, upper and lower body.
Let's say our T-rex has 15Str 6Dex and 15End, so he has "36 HP" in total. We then split those 36 by the number of locations and end up with 18 HP per location. And since i want to creat a tactical purpose to those locations, let's say the upper body gives +1 to all attacks, since the major sensor organs are there and the lower body a +1m per movement, since legs.

Now the PC's can attack our T-rexs and attack a location with a normal attack action. if they hit the damage is rolled and applied to the abstract "locations HP" AND the attributes of the T-Rex. So, in case our T-rex gets shot in his lower body for 6 damage, the lower body location would have 12 HP remaining and we would substract 6 points off the endurance attribute.
If a location hits zero our T-Rex loses the bonus from that location.
If the attack misses on the other hand, the player can roll a 1D6 for the remaining locations (let's say the other location is on the 6) and if the number of assigned location comes up, the attack lands there, the monster is just that big (there would be an 1 in 6 chance to hit the other body part if you miss our T-rex).

File: 1501433841555.jpg (203KB, 691x546px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 691x546px

>>55045883
Last touch would be the preventation of "death by action economy", so our Dinosaur doesn't get to attack only once and then suffers 5 rocket blasts to the face.

Basically give the dinosaur a second initative pass for it's new location. There i would have to be carefull with movement, so i don't end up with a super sonic dinosaur. "Faster" monsters could recive 1-2 more passes while "slower" onse could lose 1-2

The whole thing is pretty freeform right now and i think it might be better if it stays like that and is handeled by a (hopefully) sensible GM with a grasp of basic math.

Could this work and be fun? Or am I just sleep deprived and raving ?
send help

>>55032031
>Better proofreeading
>proofreeading

Anern...

File: SensibleChuckle.gif (993KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 250x250px

>>55046217

Oops!

>>55045883
>Giant monsters of course.

I LOVE IT ALREADY.

>The system actually has multiple planets

No problem there what with the recently discovered Trappist system. If you give some of those worlds an atmospheric "taint" consisting of higher oxygen levels, your monsters will be "livelier" too. (Cue evil laughter)

>About the monsters crunch wise. My idea was to take a sufficiently large creature and, basically, split it up to represent the hugeness better.

That could work. You looked at Classic's system for animals? You may find some ideas worth borrowing. Classic's "Nomads of the World Ocean" features animals large enough to act as islands and combat against them.

Also, got to Freelancetraveller DOT com, go to the Raconteur's Rest section, and look for a very short piece called "The Old Scout: The Danger Club". It may give you some ideas for monsters and some ideas about why they exist.

Please let us know how it turns out.

>>55046296
>trappist system
what is this?

>>55046518

Google or Bing "Trappist-1", you lazy fuck. It even has it's own Wiki page now.

File: 1424543538835.jpg (156KB, 1125x680px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1125x680px

>>55046296
>Trappist-1
>12.1 +/- 0.4 parsecs away
>The planets should appear prominently in each other's skies, in some cases appearing several times larger than the Moon appears from Earth
GET TO THE SCOUT SHIPS!

>>55046935

Saddle up my ponii!

For those of you who played both Traveller and Stars Without Numbers, how do they stack up?

>>55047188

I use parts of SWN to enhance Traveller, stuff like the faction system, the quick world/culture descriptions, and other bits.

I dislike SWN's OD&D "roots". That is, I dislike SWN's RPG system.

>>55047188
SWN basically uses Traveller style stats, where they range from something like -2 to +3, and skills range from 0 upwards in the single digits, with a small d6 dicepool. Combat is more like D&D, complete with d20 rolls.
I didn't really get to do a lot of combat, but it kinda looks like it drops Traveller lethality for what kind of looks like HP bloat. At least it looks that way to me. I have no experience with it at mid to high levels.

>>55047188

I'm with the other guys, neat faction system and worldbuilding tools and stuff for me to steal, but the mechanics are Basic D&D remapped to science fiction, with fighter/mage/thief becoming like warrior/psion/specialist. The warrior is especially blah, being kind of lousy at stuff that's not combat.
Tack on saving throws and hit points and other D&Disms, and I'm just not interested anymore. Basic D&D is great, but I don't want it in my SF.

>>55032031
>Better proofreeading
I just opened Merchant Princes to a random page and the first thing I noticed was "Fat Trader." CT had shit proofreading. It's still mt fave edition, in spite of the lack of character variety in core (literally armed forces, scout, or merchant, pick one) but it epitomizes those halcyon days of early tabletop that didn't handhold in arbitrary rules for every action down to taking a shit. CT and AD&D give me real anemoia for tabletop gaming in the 70s and 80s.

>>55049048
The Fat Trader is the Type R, actually.

>>55049066
Well would you look at that. I never knew. I always thought it was Far Trader

>>55049087

They're two different vessels, actually.

>>55049048
>I just opened Merchant Princes to a random page and the first thing I noticed was "Fat Trader."

That's the Type-R, knucklehead. There's the Free Trader (Beowulf), the Far Trader (Marava), and the Fat Trader (Type-R).

The new Traveller General is up:

>>55048218

>>55049087
>>55049144
Free Trader = Type A (Beo)
Far Trader = Type A2 (Marava, etc)
Fat Trader = Type R

>>55046296
Giant monster anon here.
Thanks for the input, i will take a look at those books and tell what found.
I will report.