Traveller General: Party Edition

File: d86.jpg (43KB, 600x678px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x678px

>Realise that with traveller and flynns guide to magic i can run a fully functional fantasy game with it.

>Realise that with travellers flexible nature, things like levels or new medival careers can be easily added

>Realise that traveller, my first system i bought also hits my sweet spot the most.

>Realise i will never need to use another system, unless i want to.

Why does it feel so good fellow travelers ?

File: 1363333472455.jpg (39KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1024x768px

So I just joined a game any my stats are all over the place. 894CE5 I went to University and got into an intelligence agency, and expected to just coast on my high INT. I snake eysed an advance roll, so I had to leave and ended up in the Merchant Marines. The GM is introducing me by saying the shipping line was a shell company and I never really left the agency, and they need me again.

Long story short, I have no idea what skills I should pick up. I was looking at astrogation, comms, grav suit, and science. High skills are Computers 2, Medic 1, Pilot 1, Deception 1.

Pic related, party uses a modified scout ship. Our pilot got it from the scouts after he had a nervous breakdown. Not the call I would have made, since he went to prison afterword.

>tfw you love space opera and sci fi, but none of your friends feel the same way
>tfw the only game they want is D&D
>tfw the closest to sci fi they get is Gurren Lagann or Rick and Morty

>>55380555
>tfw the only game they want is D&D
>tfw the closest to sci fi they get is Gurren Lagann or Rick and Morty

Shit man, i feels sorry for you.
But a sci-fi game ispired by TTGL sounds kinda rad actually.

Also, rick and morty = sci-fi
What ? I mean, TTGL is still somewhat close to space opera in the second arc (completely balls to the walls tho).

>>55380830
They didn't like the second half of TTGL, aside from the final battle. They usually, when rewatching it, end at the Lordgenome fight. And they just watch Rick and Morty for the "humor", viewing the setting as auxiliary.

>>55380830
>>55380555
Actually, try to spoon feed them with space dandy
Animu as hell but also very pulpy sci-fi.
Or Code geas, flashy animu robots duking it out and just as flashy characters. Uses a lot of sci-fi elements, future nobles and psyonic bullshit powers.
Don't have any better suggestions tho.

>>55380880
One of them tried getting into Space Dandy because they saw some memes, but felt it was too bland of a setting. Code Geass might work - they all loved Death Note. One of them is currently watching through G Gundam, and I've convinced him to give other Gundams a try since he liked it so much.

>>55380911
Gundam 00 has Space elevators as main plot point.
>One of them tried getting into Space Dandy because they saw some memes, but felt it was too bland of a setting
>They didn't like the second half of TTGL, aside from the final battle. They usually, when rewatching it, end at the Lordgenome fight. And they just watch Rick and Morty for the "humor", viewing the setting as auxiliary.

Well the setting IS auxiliary.
But anon i have bad news the diagnosis came in and your friends are plebs
Good thing it won't affect their day to day life
But your only hope is that they will better themselve.

>>55380442
>Why does it feel so good fellow travelers ?

Because "house ruling" and "home brewing" are fun. You get to tailor a game to your specific needs and Classic was designed from the first to be "house ruled" and "home brewed".

There's a guy at COTI who mentions using Traveller back in the early 80s to run a 1930s, pulp, Indiana Jones style campaign. He says he used it because a the time it was the only RPG he had rules for which had guns, trucks, planes, etc. He just capped TL, used psionics as magic, and essentially ran everything RAW. It was that fucking easy.

>>55381071
I know that they're plebs, but that's how things go sometimes. The one I've started on Gundam has the most potential. I think he mentioned that he's going to start watching through the Macross series soon.

>>55380482
>The GM is introducing me by saying the shipping line was a shell company and I never really left the agency, and they need me again.

That's a really nice "fumble recovery" on both your parts. The intel career the PC was best suited for cratered thanks to the dice but you two simply shifted the PC into an "Air America" gig. You let the die roll stand and instead "thought' around it. Kudos.

>Long story short, I have no idea what skills I should pick up.

Go for some more ship skills, any ship skills. You can already pilot and computer is helpful, so I'd try or astrogation, vacc suit, engineering, etc. And get a weapon skill in there too. Something a "spook" would be trained on like a body pistol.

>>55380288
Updated pastebin
https://pastebin.com/vVRyWCFm
>>55380911
Yeah, they plebs. They think the setting is bland because they are flat-out ignoring it. Why? Because it is distinctly different enough from our own world that they can't connect to it. Now, TTGL has giant robots (and titties? I dunno, I didn't watch it. No cable and I was too busy watching Uchuu no Stellvia and Full Metal Panic), so they can ignore the disconnect they have from the setting because awesome.
In short, they don't like it, because they can't comprehend it quickly, and therefore will dismiss it as an issue, rather than admit the issue is them.
I bet they boast about the results of their IQ test all the time too.

>>55380555
>>tfw you love space opera and sci fi, but none of your friends feel the same way
>>tfw the only game they want is D&D

Follow the example of "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" and put them in a sci-fi adventure/campaign seen through a D&D fantasy lens. They may like it enough to switch.

So what would you say is the primary difference between Eclipse Phase and Traveler?

>>55381164
>and titties?
One of the main characters is well-known for her chest.
>I bet they boast about the results of their IQ test all the time too.
Only one does, and he's the one who tried watching Space Dandy. Ironically, he has the most pleb-tier tastes: He watches American Dad and One Piece

>>55381177
That's actually similar to what I'm setting up - a sci-fi setting literally disguised as a fantasy setting (interplanetary empire of sentient machines uses synthetic skin/hologram projectors to appear to be the noble kingdom and the angels, and have kept the planet the players start on as a medieval fantasy world so that they can observe the unstable spatial rifts forming under the veneer of "angels guarding hellgates"; there's a colony of aliens that the kingdom portrays as a Mordor-like hellscape to deter people from investigating)

your hiding something Traveller fags. Spill it!

>>55381220

Your setting sounds awesome. 10/10, would play.

>>55381220
pay me money to hang out with you.

>>55381217
One of them is bad and the other isn't.

>>55381155
Letting the dice stand in Traveller is part of the fun, there's a lot of cool quirks in the party form it. Our pilot was caught in a prison break, but was released the next term. That guy totally snitched. I really thought about Scholar or Navy but I have a soft spot for Merchant Marine.

I have Gun Combat and Melee 0 and 9 dex, but that will have to improve. I just realized i need Recon and Investigation. Yes, a government spook with no investigative skill. They gave me a free gun, and it's hard to resist the ACR. Looking at the sniper rifle and autopistol with silencer for guns, Cloth/Protec armor, and a stealth dagger.

>>55381217
Eclipse Phase is Call of Cthulhu IN SPACE, with a veneer of transhumanism, a specific setting, and a lot of the creator's politics mixed in (they have flat-out stated that they will not support certain character types on the basis of the politics that those character hold).
Traveller has no transhumanism - technology has added a lot of capabilities, but the primary factor is in the people using them, is actually rather generic (with in its genre, but the base rules can be used for just about everything), and places no limits on the type of characters you can play, since the PC's opinions and politics have no effect on the character sheet.

>>55380288
dammit man, everytime i think there is something here, it disappears. Why can't I make a connection with somebody?

>>55381352
>Yes, a government spook with no investigative skill.

He could be analyst, the guy who puts together the pieces other spooks uncover. There's more than one flavor of spook working in intel.

>>55381384
>Traveller has no transhumanism - technology has added a lot of capabilities, but the primary factor is in the people using them,

That's a good point. Transhumanism is there, it's just taken for granted. There are plenty of genetically altered humans adapted for various environments and plenty of uplifted species too. Where "we" would be amazed at a cybernetic hand or eye, "they" would just see it as an every day prosthesis. Where "we" would point at the transhuman "fishman" or uplifted bear, "they" would just see another minor race.

It's the same with robots. Robots are everywhere and thus go unremarked. "We" would be amazed at the OMG ROBOT taxis and cargo handlers while "they" would just think of both as ordinary cabs and forklifts.

>>55381381

Wow, I guess /tg/ are getting more popular if a POS spammer posts in one.

>>55381493
So to them, the fantastic is mundane and the mundane fantastic?

I never really enjoyed space opera. Star Wars never really 'clicked'. I always watched things like Logan's Run or the Black Hole.

So Traveler is like television in the future, dull, witless and lame. It doesn't remind them of the dangers or esotera of modern life, it provides them with consistancy and hope.

>>55381568

Traveller's more the latter anyway.

what people need is little positivism in their lives. They can't approach every entertainment medium as some sort of dramatic instrument of divine will. They need to establish themes of consistency and hope. Popular fiction needs to be dull by necessity.

>>55381550

That's a good way to put it. It's also a good way to "shock" your players. Traveller grognards call it a "We're not in Kansas" moment.

You present something which is utterly fantastic to their 2017 eyes and utterly blase in the eyes of the people in the setting.

Look at D&D an healing spells. A fighter has a nasty gash on his arm from an orc's sword, a cleric lays his hands on it, chants a few words, and - PRESTO! - the wound is healed and the arm is whole maybe leaving a scar. That's completely fucking fantastic and would shock ever living shit out of us if we saw it in real life.

Now take Traveller. The players land, get all the clearances they need, and arrange for stevedores to unload the hold. The "stevedores" show up and it's two guy with a half dozen grav fork trucks. The guys check the paper work then speak to the fork trucks telling what to do, which containers to pick up, and where to go. Again, that's completely fantastic to us and completely normal to them.

If some PC were to say "Those robot fork trucks are amazing" the NPC stevedore would reply "WTF are you talking about? I've been doing this every day for 20 fucking years."

so the characters need to be relatable. If you have fantastic circumstances, you need to contrast that with ordinary people.

>>55381665

That too is a good way to approach it.

>>55381654
I feel that stevedore - I'm a stagehand, and people go "that's so cool!" and all I say is "Yeah, it's a pretty awesome job" while all the shifts blur together and I forget what department I was in the last time that tour was here.
But if those guys, on that one show that I can't remember (but I was in video!) show up again and want us to just sit on our asses...
I'll just take an extra break, if they don't want us within 5 feet of their precious vid wall.

>>55381220
>That's actually similar to what I'm setting up

I should have known you'd figured it out already.

>>55381352
>Our pilot was caught in a prison break, but was released the next term. That guy totally snitched

Again, a great job by the referee and player. They took the results of that die roll and, instead of just mailing it in, actually enriched the PC with the results. The PC went nuts, went to prison because of that, snitched, got out of prison because of that, and now has both a lot of "baggage" plus some enemies looking for him.

>>55381723
>I feel that stevedore - I'm a stagehand, and people go "that's so cool!" and all I say is "Yeah, it's a pretty awesome job" while all the shifts blur together and I forget what department I was in the last time that tour was here.

Exactly. You "grok" the concept - what's mundane for you is amazing for others. Now weave that insight into your game to give your players those "We're Not In Kansas" moments.

>>55381775
The fastest way to make the fantastic mundane is to do it for money.

On a side note, pilots get paid a shit ton per month. Like, fly a ship for six months, then go home to a small mansion and a hooker every night for the next six.

>>55381775
Things we find mundane are often things we are not aware of.

>>55381841
>On a side note, pilots get paid a shit ton per month.

True. Pilots make at least 6K CrImps a month (and the Imperial calendar has 13 months in a year) plus 10% for every skill level over 1. An off-shore oil rig type of work schedule with that amount of money is completely plausible. Classic lists a few types of food/housing costs and 6K a month would cover the best with cash to spare.

However, what you've either failed to remember or haven't comprehended is that pilots make all that money IF someone has formerly hired them. The usual MO for player groups is to forego crew salaries in return for a share of the profits. Now, if a patron has chartered their ships or they're crewing a subsidized merchant or it's some other situation in which they're working full time for a 3rd party instead of themselves, salaries are going to be paid.

While PCs are usually hired for various one-time jobs, being hired "full time" is the exception rather than the rule.

jump-1

>>55381111
>Because "house ruling" and "home brewing" are fun.

Yes, yes they are, but only if the system is
comprehensible.
Look at the spergfest that's DnD and they treat deeper homebrewing like it's some form of cancer... cancer-cancer if you want so.

>>55381132
Gundam and Macross are actually kinda good, most of it anyway.
Both of them have always a deeper message they want to bring over to the viewer without spoonfeeding him and try at least some technobabble sci.fi.

File: Radish Irish Class.pdf (136KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1x1px

>went to check out archives to see if 2e Drinax stuff was up
>it is
>so is a few things I wrote, including the Irish-class.
That's flattering and all, but it's still (badly made) fan-work (though probably still better edited than Mongoose. Have you seen the typos in HG:Aslan 2e?). Will it confuse people if it's in the main 2e folder? Anyway, going to have a look at the Drinax stuff and see what's changed.

File: eb462d6eb5e5272d655da0d2b64d0be7.jpg (24KB, 564x298px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 564x298px

So first impressions on 2e Drinax, just because. Obviously, there's a lot of copypasta from 1e, though the new art's nice. Let's compare the new Harrier to its 1e version:

The Harrier's still TL15 (so no prototype hyperdrives for those itching to break the system before it even begins), but there's been some fairly significant changes to her:
- thrust is up to 6 from 5 (appropriate)
- new Harrier now has SUPERIOR STEALTH, an enormous advantage (despite cost savings elsewhere, this has made her 50% more expensive than her 1e counterpart)
- her jump drive, while only jump 2, has Stealth Jump, making her exceptionally good at this pirating business.
- she has a new jamming suite, though a weaker computer (20 less bandwidth)
- holographic hull, because, why not?
- the new improvements means her cargo space is down (to 29.7 dtons from 43.75), though the smaller fuel load (42 from 60) doesn't affect performance of her drives.

All-in-all the new Harrier's got quite a lot going for it, and would make a fantastic long-term ship. Its Superior Stealth alone now gives much more context as to why Oleb entrusts the ship to pirating operations. Now if only there was a way for the crew to keep the ship permanently and not have to return it to the King...

pic unrelated

Rolling Up A PC - Classic (CT81)

C(!) 7 8 3 6 8

UPP: 67C883

Scouts
Enlist - +7 (+1 DM for INT)
Roll - 7(+1) 8 Succeed

1st Term
Survival - +7 (+2 for END)
Roll - 12(+2) 14 Succeed
Skills (2 per term)
Pilot-1 automatic service skill
Personal Dev - 5, +1 EDU
Advanced Ed - 4, Computer-1
Reenlist - +3
Roll - 5 Succeed

2nd Term
Survival - +7 (+2 for END)
Roll - 5(+2) 7 Succeed
Skills (2 per term)
Service Skill - 4, Navigaton-1
Education - 1, Vehicle (grav)-1
Reenlist - +3
Roll - 6 Succeed

3rd Term
Survival - +7 (+2 for END)
Roll - 7(+2) 9 Succeed
Skills (2 per term)
Service Skill - 4, Navigation-2
Advanced Ed - 6, JoaT-1
Reenlist - +3
Roll - 9 Succeed

4th Term
Survival - +7 (+2 for END)
Roll - 9(+2) 11 Succeed
Skills (2 per term)
Personal Dev - 1, +1 STR
Education Ed - 1, Vehice(grav)-2
Aging - 9, 7, 11 - no aging
Muster Out, forced to reenlist on 12
Roll - 5 Succeed
Mustering Rolls 4
Benefits - 4, 5, & 3
Blade(dagger)-1, Gun(rifle)-1, +2 EDU
Cash - 4
30K CrImp

Ex-Scout 77C8B3 Age 34 30K CrImp

Navigation-2, Vehicle(grav)-2, Dagger-1, Computer-1, JoaT-1, Pilot-1. Rifle-1

Got lucky with those late weapon skills when mustering out. Rolled as much as allowed on the Benefits trying for just that.

>>55385844
>would make a fantastic long-term ship

Repair it.

The discord link is dead.

>>55386331
https://discord.gg/5FG3kt

>>55385844
>Now if only there was a way for the crew to keep the ship permanently and not have to return it to the King...

You're PIRATES, PIRATE that shit!

>>55385844
cool looking ship, even if it is unrelated

File: chainsawart_02.jpg (113KB, 810x548px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 810x548px

>>55388786
Well yeah, that's the implication. Plus, he essentially dies without player intervention in the second-to-last adventure anyway.

I have to say that the new Harrier's much better thought out (and possibly edited) than a lot of the material MgT2e has pushed out. Most of the mechanics in that e-book seems to be ported over from 1e fairly well, at least on first pass-through. Even the Aslan stuff seems okay-ish (even if it is upwards of 98% copypasta)

Who knows when i'll actually get to play/ref it, but the campaign should be pretty fun.

Hello traveller general,

I'm searching for a supplement for MgT 1e which had renaissance careers.

Some normie friends and I want to run a rpg game, but traveler is what I'm most comfortable with but they insisted "but muh fantasy adventure".
So we settled on a Castelvania style short campaign.
And all that it entails, giant castle, demons, undead, anachronistic stuff, nazi skeletons
And the book could help with creating fitting careers for the presumed time period (early renaissance).

Maybe they will even have enough fun so that I can sneak in Draculas magi-tech spaceship and keep running.

>>55390564
Oh trust me the whole game is pretty fun.

Had refd one myself but the group died the slew dead because of work and family.

Just remind the players that it's not a wise idea for starter pirates to go hunting on high tech worlds that lie on trade routes.
Have seen that idea more than once and never via infiltration party, always with the plan to use brute force.

>>55391107

I'm aware there was a third party splat for MGT1 with roughly renaissance-era equipment and careers, but I've never seen a scan, and I can't even remember the name.

File: Ni-1.jpg (79KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1200x800px

FUCK YOU RHYLANOR! IF YOU'RE DUMB ENOUGH TO BUY A SHIP THIS WEEKEND, YOU'RE A DUMB ENOUGH SHMUTZ TO COME TO BIG BILL HELL'S SHIPS! BAD DEALS, SHIPS THAT MISJUMP, CHIRPERS! IF YOU THINK YOUR GOING TO FIND A BARGAIN AT BIG BILL'S, YOU CAN KISS MY ASS! IT'S OUR BELIEF THAT YOU'RE SUCH A STUPID MOTHERFUCKER YOU'LL FALL FOR THIS BULLSHIT GUARANTEED! IF YOU FIND A BETTER DEAL, YOU CAN SHOVE IT UP YOUR UGLY ASS, YOU HEARD US RIGHT, SHOVE IT UP YOUR UGLY ASS! BRING YOUR TRADE, BRING YOUR TITLE, BRING YOUR WIFE, WE'LL FUCK HER! THAT'S RIGHT WE'LL FUCK YOUR WIFE! BECAUSE AT BIG BILL HELL'S, YOU'RE FUCKED SIX WAYS FROM SUNDAY! TAKE A HIKE TO BIG BILL HELL'S! HOME OF CHALLENGE PISSING, THAT'S RIGHT, CHALLENGE PISSING. HOW DOES IT WORK? IF YOU CAN PISS 6 FEET IN THE AIR STRAIGHT AND NOT GET WET, YOU GET 1D6 SHIP SHARES. DON'T WAIT, DON'T DELAY, DON'T FUCK WITH US OR WE'LL RIP YOUR NUTS OFF! ONLY AT BIG BILL HELL'S, THE ONLY DEALER THAT TELLS YOU TO FUCK OFF. HURRY UP, ASSHOLE! THIS EVENT ENDS THE MINUTE YOU WRITE US A CHECK AND IT BETTER NOT BOUNCE OR YOU'RE A DEAD MOTHERFUCKER. GO TO HELL. BIG BILL HELL'S SHIPS, RHYLANOR'S FILTHIEST AND EXCLUSIVE HOME OF THE MEANEST SONS OF BITCHES IN THE SPINWARD MARCHES, GUARANTEED!!

>>55391767
This is going in my campaign now, thanks anon

anyone ever play an Aslan? How was it different than a human?

>>55393954
Since the Aslan are intentionally one of the easier races to grasp and play, they run from mostly Western human with a quirk to full 1600 Samurai with more than the usual thirst for land.

If you aim for TNG Klingon with a real estate fetish you won't be far off.

>>55391107
Ah, the only one I can think of is Adventurer, which is in the trove - Mongoose 2008, Settings - Other
Also, grab Flynn's Guide to Magic.

>>55396270

There was a third party splatbook for MGT1 that had ~17th century tech and careers for backwater worlds or historical games, but I don't recall the name. I'm pretty sure that's what he's looking for. I remember seeing it mentioned on a Traveller blog somewhere.

>>55396392
Well, I'm looking. Adventurer started off as a blog, and I found a few others (that'll I need to buy). I'll just need someone to scrub the watermarks.

Was it Netherell?

>>55396649
Eh, buying can wait a while. I need to shepherd this paycheck for another two weeks, and hope the next one is bigger.
It won't be - fucking event based schedules

>>55385844
>All-in-all the new Harrier's got quite a lot going for it, and would make a fantastic long-term ship.

No it doesn't and no it won't. The major problems with both versions of the Drinax relic ships are maintenance and repairs.

The TL15 relics were originally built with Sindalian tech, not Imperial tech. Not Zho, Darrian, Sword World, Aslan, Florian, or any other tech either. Expecting Sindalian tech to seamlessly "fit" with any other is like expecting metric and SAE parts to be interchangeable. While the relics were partially retrofitted with Imperial parts and systems over the centuries, the "interface" between old and newer systems should cause problems.

This maintenance/repair blindspot is similar to the one seen in D&D with horses. Many groups treat horses like perpetual motion motorcycles. They "park" them outside the dungeon, murderhobo for a few days, and return to mount up with no concerns about fodder, water, exercise, etc.

There's more to maintaining and repairing a ship than paying the annual maintenance costs and waiting two weeks for the work to be done, let alone maintaining and repairing a ship which is centuries old and built with non-standard tech.

Keeping the ship and her many cutting edge systems in working order should be an important part of the PoD campaign. While Mongoose was too stupid and/or lazy to realize and/or develop that idea, that doesn't mean you need to be stupid and/or lazy too.

>>55397486
Yeah, you'll need to improvise parts. My suggestion: grab the Reverse-Engineering rules from the 1st edition of Central Supply Catalogue (rules Mongoose has failed to bring over... Hmm...).
Yes, those rules are usable.
Next, make sure you have access to a workshop, and a research lab... So you can run "Aid another" checks to get bonuses to the final reverse-engineering check.
Oh, and you say it's a fine ship... But your spare parts are KCr200 per ton...

>>55391107
Try Worlds Apart, which I think is similar
https://pastebin.com/Bw6qVWfu

>>55397714
>Yeah, you'll need to improvise parts

Yes, exactly. I'm not suggesting that, just because parts and repairs need to be improvised, the PoD campaign does not work or that groups shouldn't run it. Far from it actually.

I am suggesting that the need to improvise parts, manufacture one-off parts, jury rig repairs, and the like presents great adventure opportunities to the referee and great roleplaying opportunities to the players.

Look at some of the tech improvements the 2e Harrier sports. That great EM jamming suite? What happens if that system fails before a raid which depends on it? Stealth jump ability? (Whatever the FUCK that is.) Again, what if a planned mission needs that? Weapons, the holographic hull, stealth, drives, the power plant, even life support, the list of systems with potential issues is long and crammed full of adventure opportunities.

The players shouldn't be handed a pristine ship and then jump off to raise merry hell without a care in the world. Even PoD1e makes a nod to that with it's list of damaged systems aboard. Repairs shouldn't be always permanent ones however.

After getting parts for their initially non-functioning particle accelerator turret, the players shouldn't dismiss all concerns about that turret. The parts used aren't really the same as the parts needed and any repairs should afterward be treated with caution.

There's a lot of game play to be had in nursing along a centuries old "super' ship full of non-standard parts and jury rigged repairs. Hopefully groups will see the possibilities and not treat PoD's ships like horses in D&D.

>>55397948
Yeah 2e splits the entire thing into 3 books, and the second one tells you about the Harrier.
It actually talks about the damaged systems, but allows characters to trade ship shares for repairs to those systems.
Yeah, it's interesting. And also a hunk of junk, technically speaking.
But yes, non-permanent repairs as the characters try to fix the ship with parts that don't fit, parts they jury-rigged, parts that sort-of-fit but don't exactly do the right thing, and stuff they flat-out built - that's a great series of plot hooks.

>>55398048
>It actually talks about the damaged systems, but allows characters to trade ship shares for repairs to those systems.

So Mongoose raises the possibility only to follow the path of least resistance and issue a "get out of jail free" card? Typical Mongoose.

You'd think the lazy fucks would actually use their OWN reverse engineering rules from CSC to enhance the PoD campaign, but that was too much work apparently.

>But yes, non-permanent repairs as the characters try to fix the ship with parts that don't fit, parts they jury-rigged, parts that sort-of-fit but don't exactly do the right thing, and stuff they flat-out built - that's a great series of plot hooks.

Absolutely. It would make the sessions more intense and memorable too. The jamming suite goes down. Can we fix it in time? Should call off the raid? What about any allies or "sleepers" planning on us making the raid? Throw them under the bus or warn them somehow?

That's much better than "Super Relic jumps in, attacks with impunity, grabs loot, and jumps away. Wash, Rinse, Repeat". You might as well be following the "open door, cast fireball, close door, repeat as often as necessary" style of play.

>>55398151
>So Mongoose raises the possibility only to follow the path of least resistance and issue a "get out of jail free" card? Typical Mongoose.

Hey, i hate mongoose as much as the next poster, but i think it's a nice mechanic to use resources for the game you might not find a need for otherwise, because the harrier is prettty dope.

I'm just a bit angry that the only way to fix the ship is throwing money at it.
All in all Garteth did some fairly good work for it, considering it's for mongoose.

>>55399560
> i think it's a nice mechanic

It's not a mechanic, it's brain dead shortcut and an easy way to ignore what should be one of the focuses of the campaign. It's nothing but a slot labeled "To keep jumping, insert money here".

>because the harrier is prettty dope.

The Harrier is a good mcguffin. However, it could have been a great mcguffin with just a little effort on the part of Mongoose.

The Harrier is several centuries old. It was built for a pocket empire which no longer exists and at a TL which can no be longer supported. It's components were manufactured to blueprints which no longer exist in factories which disappeared centuries ago. The ship itself was assembled in a shipyard which also disappeared centuries ago and by workers whose very bones are dust.

Keeping the ancient Harrier flying well enough to act as a privateer SHOULD HAVE BEEN the focus of PoD. They players should have been faced with a constant dilemma between making repairs and making raids. They need the money to raids bring to keep the ship in repair but the need the repairs to keep the ship raiding.

Instead they're presented with a get of jail free card in the form of "Insert ship shares here to ignore the fact that the Harrier is several centuries old".

>I'm just a bit angry that the only way to fix the ship is throwing money at it.

Which is exactly my point. Half of what should have been in the campaign was simply hand waved away.

>All in all Garteth did some fairly good work for it, considering it's for mongoose.

I suspect he deliberately "dumbed down" the campaign knowing Mongoose would "edit" it that way anyways. He knew the people cutting the check and wrote accordingly.

File: chris_thompson_01.jpg (214KB, 1240x448px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1240x448px

>>55400458
>it's brain dead shortcut
As you clearly don't even bother to read the material you dismiss, both the MgT 1e and 2e PoD use this mechanic as a way of dealing with ship shares (as they are otherwise not used in the campaign). The ship will *still* have plenty of problems regardless.

And, as to your original complaint back in >>55397486, it's a bit silly to compare maintenance of a TL15 ship on a TL13 or 14 world to taking care of a horse.

Even today, none of us code in Assembly or other machine language any longer. Dumb machines do that better and optimize better than we possibly can. And that's at TL7. Now, I know, angry anon, that your comments are consistently stuck in the 1970s, but speculatively at even TL11 you would expect even rudimentary AI to take care of a huge number of integration problems, wouldn't you?

It's the same with horses. Your adventurers *could* spend the effort taking them out to graze, balancing their diets, and keeping them well exercised, or they could pay (or even not pay, considering) some squire or stablehand to do it for them while they concentrate on the adventuring bit.

Of course, if you want to focus your campaign on the need for human determination to make repairs, that's fine. But really, man, the 1970s is almost 50 years ago.

File: b464eb77f42c15d24d2fa4cf40c05094.jpg (23KB, 564x322px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 564x322px

>>55400582
And I might as well preempt your complaints about physical integration issues rather than one of just software: It's not an issue. Surely your crew has allowed the AI to take your vehicle down to the local replication factory that can, at the very least, parts-form a spare or suitable replacement for a part.

Here's the thing: a well designed system, especially after TL11 introduction of 'true' AI (however you want to describe that as), would obviously have failsafe operations in its systems. Instead of failing, it would simply not run.

You don't crash a client server for thousands of its customers just because one guy enters incorrect data. The non-intelligent TL7 code recognizes this and does some error-checking work, while keeping everything else running. At TL13 or 14? Of course that would be standard with everything.

>>55400582
>The ship will *still* have plenty of problems regardless.

Which are still all but ignored.

>it's a bit silly to compare maintenance of a TL15 ship on a TL13 or 14 world to taking care of a horse.

It's the mindset I was comparing, not the job.

>speculatively at even TL11 you would expect even rudimentary AI to take care of a huge number of integration problems, wouldn't you?

I would, especially seeing how integration problems are part of my day job. However, like >>55400653 wisely points out, I'd expect to see failsafe results where the system in question simply doesn't run or even power up because integration is either incomplete or cannot currently be done.


>they could pay (or even not pay, considering) some squire or stablehand to do it for them while they concentrate on the adventuring bit.

My point was that many D&D groups don't even bother to do that. Horses a perpetual motion machines parked for days and weeks at a time only to run perfectly when the PCs need them.

As for parts & repairs being part of adventures or the reason behind adventures, I'm not expecting the players to sort wrenches and count MOSFETs. I am expecting the players to have more interest in and put more effort towards keeping a centuries old ship flying than just saying "Didn't we give you money for that?"

File: e771a811d497edd0a1347e3093789818.jpg (19KB, 564x317px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 564x317px

>>55401098
>Which are still all but ignored.
Ignore is probably too strong a word. You would require a total of 16 ship shares to restore just the the lower TL damaged parts (such as a particle turret), and it explicitly states (p. 13 in 2e) that repair costs cannot be reduced by ship shares due to TL difference.

>"Didn't we give you money for that?"
That's certainly understandable, and not as glazed over in MgT's PoD as you suggest. It's still not central to the campaign, especially for intrepid crews that will manage to hulk the Treasure Ship a few adventures in.

File: ae5cdd85acaf205a49e494ed5a953d8a.jpg (40KB, 564x448px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 564x448px

So, speaking of the new Pirates of Drinax, how are people finding the updated Aslan rules. Personally, apart from the usual lack of editing (duelist spelled with two 'L's', Mongoose, really? All you had to do was copypaste what you wrote in 1e.), the mechanics seems to be ported over fairly competently.

- The assassin career's been merged with career military officers, which is fine
- Secret schools are still in, though I believe it's missing a small sidenote (I'll check when I get home)
- Aslan armor and battle dress is of a lower protection rating than would be expected of the 1e to 2e conversion rates.
- The Taoyuhrir heavy MG's a nice addition (not as ridiculously unbalanced as the stuff in the short Mercenaries e-book), just on the cusp of being fairly deadly to light, unarmored vehicles, but not too ridiculous.

>>55396270
Well this wan't what i was initially looking for but it's pretty good, thanks anon.

>>55391539
>>55396392
Yeah that was the one i was looking for.

>Also, grab Flynn's Guide to Magic.
I'm on it, that thing looks to good to miss out.

>>55401813
>It's still not central to the campaign

Considering that the Harrier is central to the campaign and considering the Harrier's age and other unique circumstances, the need to keep her flying until you make the Big Score which magically cures all ills, concern for repairs beyond "I'll give you a check" SHOULD be central to the campaign.

>>55400653
I think that's part of KCr200/ton for spare parts.

>>55401918
>Mercenaries E-book
Where

Rolling Up A PC with Classic (CT81)

UPP - 489C56 (Boxcars again!)

Chose Merchants as an INT of C gives me DMs on enlisting, survival, commission, and promotion.

Merchants - Enlist +7 (+2 for INT)
Roll - 5(+2) 7 - Just made it!

1st Term
Survival - +5 (+2 for INT)
Roll - 10(+2) 12 Survive
Commission - +4 (+1 for INT)
Roll - 7(+1) 8 Commissioned as 4th Officer
Promotion - +10 (+1 for INT)
Roll - 9(+1) 10 Promoted to 3rd Officer
Reenlist - +4
Roll - 6 Success
Skills - 4 skills: 2 for 1st term, one each for "comm & prom"
Can't roll on +8 EDU Adv Education table
Personal Dev - 3, +1 END
Service Skill - 1, Vehicle(grav)-1
Adv Education - 4, JoaT-1
Adv Education - 2, Mechanical-1

2nd Term
Survival - +5 (+2 for INT)
Roll - 4(+2) 6 Survive
Promotion - +10 (+1 for INT)
Roll - 3(+1) 4 No promotion
Reenlist - +4
Roll - 2 Fail
Skills - 1 skill for term
Service Skill - 4, Navigation-1

Muster out - 3 rolls, 2 for terms, 1 for Rank
Benefits - 5, Gun(shotgun)-1
Benefits - 1, Low Passage
Cash - 5, 50K CrImps

Ex-Merchant 3rd Officer 48AC56 Age 26 50K CrImp
JoaT-1, Mechanical-1, Navigation-1, Shotgun-1, Vehicle(grav)-1

Not too bad. Failing to reenlist after teh second term hurt. Navigation is always in demand as is being able to drive grav vehicles. JoaT and Mech add some versatility. Getting a weapon skill on the Benefits table definitely helped. The PC also has some money they can add to a group's speculative trading fund.

>>55403193
>Where

Archive

>>55402519
is the harrier still a bird of prey?

>>55403804

It's a type of hawk, so yes.

>>55404151
I meant the klingon bird of prey, they describe it as a klingon bird of prey in the first edition book

>>55404260
>they describe it as a klingon bird of prey in the first edition book

Jesus H. Titty Fucking Christ. I'd forgotten that, so thanks for reminding me.

For an encore why don't you give me a paper cut and pout lemon juice on it?

Fucking Mongoose.

>>55404330
Well, not exactly a bird of prey, but enough that anyone with even a passing knowledge of trek would know it was a bird of prey

>>55404330
Not a fan of mongoose I take it?

>>55406759
Hardly anybody is around here.

>>55406869
Pirates of Drinax any good?

What about Secrets of the Ancients?

>>55406959
No idea about SotA, but it was already an adventure for CT, so it might be pretty good.

PoD is fine, and works well. A bit cheesy when it comes to the style with your flying historical art piece but that might be just the style you want, or you could just change it.

>>55407089
SOTA Mongoose is different from SOTA Classic it adds a bit where you go and help Grandfather fight one of his children

File: danbilz.jpg (191KB, 612x597px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 612x597px

Traveller, one day will be the day where you have to fight your fellow man.
Not the robot
Not the alien
But a member of humaniti like you.

Once that day comes, what tools will you want and which will you need ?
How do you protect yourself from his attacks ?
And what is the knowledge you will give to the young travellers, with a soarkel in their eyes and a mostly new ship, unlike your weary old bones ?

>>55407143
grandfather is a liar and you know it

>>55407156
>And what is the knowledge you will give to the young travellers, with a soarkel in their eyes and a mostly new ship, unlike your weary old bones?

Beware the old man in the profession where men die young

File: myfesterwhen.jpg (43KB, 288x288px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 288x288px

>>55407156
>one day will be the day where you have to fight your fellow man.

SHOOT HIM IN THE BACK!

File: eye_idioms.jpg (14KB, 300x186px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x186px

>>55407325
But what if, you know, he has eyes on his back ?
Science is crazy man, i tell you.

>>55407226
"Show me on the doll where the chirper touched you."

>>55407358
That damn Kolak of Twylo, and his stinking walnuts.

>>55407601
huh?

>>55407156
Try a strong but LTL approach, like a stun-stick or small caliber tranquilizer coated rounds. In a case of misunderstanding the opposition Is still alive. If there wasn't a misunderstanding, sleeping people don't fight back.

>>55408256
LTL?

>>55408813
Less Than Lethal, aka "this usually won't kill you, but we know how to really fuck you up with it".
Its the category that most people consider "non-lethal", which puts beanbag rounds to the face in the same zone as a boffer to your football armor.
Same term, two completely different threat assessments.

>>55408947
thanks anon

>>55406959
Aside from both having zero-to-hero campaign structures and being a bit combat heavy for such a lethal game, they are both quite interesting. A veteran of MGT's SotA will not really be able to fit back into the normal parts of the setting. Seen some shit, and all that.

>>55409924
I've never played Drinax...but I don't see how it's really 'hero'

>>55380288
How can Traveller survive when Starfinder will steal most of their players?

>>55410214
...you're not serious?

>>55410214
Because Paizo, somehow, managed to be worse at editing than Mongoose. Hell, they were even worse at system design - have you seen the results of the DC scaling equations? At high levels, with high tier ships (and plenty of mid tier ships, with a few low tier ones), not even the dedicated skill monkey can make the rolls required for space combat.

>>55407694
>Kolak of Twilo
From an old Dick VanDyke episode.

Danny Thomas as an alien invader.

>>55410302
Ouch...

>>55410214
How many Traveller GMs will find useful campaign bits to steal for their games?

How many Traveller players will steal character art or alien concepts for their Traveller game?

If you turn the magic/psi down a bit, and crank up the pulp side... it could be a pretty funky setting.

>>55410302
But that's simply not true. That merely assumes that the PCs do not have items, skills, or feats which give them bonuses in space combat.

File: James T. Kirk.png (466KB, 704x522px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 704x522px

>Bringin' Starfinder in here

>>55410475
No, that was with bonuses. Yea, in Starfinder, your spacer, practitioner of the second most common activity in the game, must specialize in it to the detriment of their combat survivability - and combat is the primary activity in starfinder.
You know what, just play traveller instead. People have published addons that add magic, you can have your starfinder game -in a reasonable system.

>>55410764
It's not. Read the rulebook section about Starships.

>>55410764
>Gunnery Check = 1d20 + the gunner’s base attack bonus or the gunner’s ranks in the Piloting skill + the gunner’s Dexterity modifier + bonuses from computer systems + bonuses from the captain and science officers + range penalty

>>55410764
Holy shit that was so bad.
>Demand/Intimidate
>DC 10 + 2x Starship Tier
Shouldn't that be like DC 10 - 2x Tier since bigger ships should be scarier?

>>55410214
>>55410475
>>55410764
>>55410973
>>55411019
>>55411049
Get out of here with Starfinder. We started in '77, and survived at least two edition wars, plus multiple adaptations. We'll survive Starfinder pretty daily.

File: a-princess-of-mars-by-michael-whelan.jpg (70KB, 470x649px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 470x649px

>Starfinder

They will be Absorbed!

Has anyone run a post-literate SF campaign?

https://www.tor.com
/2015/01/05/star-wars-illiteracy/

>>55412717
That actually looks pretty interesting.
A good theory too.

For another viewpoint on the Traveller setting.

http://tvtropes.org
/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/Traveller

>>55411537
>We started in '77
While one of Starsfinder's ads "suggested" that they were the first to think SF might be worth making a game out of. Starfinder isn't quite Brown box OD&D incomprehensible, however, so they failed in their claim.

>>55406959
>Pirates of Drinax any good?

Yes, and I'm the guy who was grousing earlier about how repairs & maintenance should have been more emphasized. While it's cheesy and pulpy, cheesy and pulpy are fun too. If you and your group don't want cheese & pulp, you can easily make changes.

>What about Secrets of the Ancients?

I've been messing around with Traveller since '77 and think Mongoose is a perfect example of all that's wrong with current RPG publishing. Despite that, the Mongoose version of SOTA is better than Classic's version.

GDW made plenty of mistakes. Wrapping the game's rules and official setting together after Classic's Book 5 was a big one. How they handled the Ancients was another.

Instead of being a mystery, the Ancients became a convenient excuse and a lazy cop out. Moon orbiting backwards? Ancients. An odd device? Ancients. Transplanted species? Ancients. Anything weird? Ancients.

The Ancients were invoked so often and explained so much that they became a piece of metagame knowledge players found it very hard to forget while at the table. By the time GDW got around the "revealing" what hadn't been a "secret" for years, there wasn't really anything left to say.

Classic's SOTA starts well enough. After the PCs arrive in Yaskodray's pocket universe the adventure just fizzles out. GDW was basically telling referees "We got nothing left" and "Make it all up yourself from here on out. Good luck."

Mongoose, believe it or not, put some thought into their version of SOTA. They recognized the fact that everyone already knew everything about the Ancients and so decided to make what everyone already knew a LIE. That was an ingenious way to make the Ancients new and interesting again.

It's worth checking out Mongoose's SOTA.

>>55410214
>How can Traveller survive when Starfinder will steal most of their players?

Nigger please. Traveller has buried so many sci-fi RPGs that I can't even begin to count them.

Traveller will still be played long after all the unsold Starfinder splats have been pulped. Ten or fifteen years from now we'll be talking about the latest 3rd party release for CE and the MWM Memorial site while Starfinder will only be the answer to a trivia question.

>>55412535
I don't think that most of them could leave ther D20 behind... or 300+ pages rulebooks.

File: d1216fad5e4211a110a59d8048a2e2c2.jpg (364KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1920x1080px

>>55411537
>>55413781
This.

Also we had an good influx of people asking how to get into traveller in the last weeks and the thread is on it's way to hit the limit for his third time in a row.

File: ccd.jpg (42KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x450px

>>55413545
>Starsfinder's ads "suggested" that they were the first to think SF might be worth making a game out of.

Heavy gear
Eclipse Phase
Star Wars
Mekton
Stars without Number
And everybodys Sci-fi father, Classic traveller.

Holy shit those dudes are self absorbed. But it might be very well the first SF game their audience ever noticed.

>>55414270

In my experience, the longer and/or more often you play RPGs, the less enamored you are of d20.

Noobs and casuals stick with it. Others realize that other rules sets can handle certain genres better and thus choose their rules to fit their current game instead of insisting that one size fits all.

>>55414324

Great picture. Want to spin a back story for it?

In TNE's "Path of Tears", there's a world on which Virus initiated a nuclear exchange which then somehow triggered the ice caps melting. Eighty years on, the planet is something like 90% water and the remaining population tool around in diesel punk submarines. While I never bought the initial premise, the results sure looked like fun.

>>55414454

Eh, I'm still a big 4e fan. Few games handle tactical combat as well as it. But then, 4e knew what it wanted to be and worked to be such rather than trying to be everything.

>>55414510
>Eh, I'm still a big 4e fan.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying d20 is always a bad choice. I use AD&D and 3.5 for dungeon crawls, forex.

I am saying that, once you've played long enough, you start to realize that d20 isn't the only choice and that other rules can handle other genres better.

I use GURPS:Swashbucklers for a musketeer game because the players prefer that tactical system. I recently got a copy of GDW's En Garde though and I'm going to run it's fencing system past them to see how they might like it. I'm thinking it may be good for "formal" duels as opposed to "regular" combat.

>>55414577

Fair enough. I also play a lot of other games. LOTW is a bit one for me, not a realistic system but it never pretended to be anything but 'You want to do fancy kung fu combat where emotions matter nearly as much as talent'.

>>55415453
>LOTW is a bit one for me, not a realistic system but it never pretended to be anything but 'You want to do fancy kung fu combat where emotions matter nearly as much as talent'.

That's a great example. LOTW is perfect for a certain kind of play and/or game.

>>55415504

Yeah. I'd never try to run anything too grounded in realism with it but it works well if you want your game to be focused as much on the emotions and the philosophy behind a fight as the punches and kicks as well as not that lethal unless people really push for it.

I'd never use it for what I use 4e for (LOTW is way too much a dueling/small battle game to handle 4e numbers and is rather low on inter-PC interaction). Right tool for the right job.

My bad for getting a bit annoyed at the whole 'noobs and casuals stick with d20'. I 100% understand the stupidity of 'You can use 3.5 for everything!'. Heck, I've been guilty of it years ago.

>>55415525
>My bad for getting a bit annoyed at the whole 'noobs and casuals stick with d20'.

Mea culpa. That was a very poorly written attempt on my part to explain something I've noticed over the years.

People new to roleplaying and those who only roleplay infrequently tend to stick to whatever d20 version they were first introduced to. As they gain more experience, they realize that d20 isn't the only choice and that sometimes other choices are a better fit.

>>55415581

Oh yeah, now that I've gone over it I 100% agree.

Rolling Up A PC - Classic (CT81)

UPP: 76A752

With that END, the Army looks like a good career.

Enlistment - 5+ (+1 DEx, +2 END)
Roll - 6(+3) 9 - Success

1st Term
Survival - 5+ (no DM)
Roll - 11 - Survive
Commission - 5+ (+1 END)
Roll - 8(+1) 9 - Commission Lt. Rank 1
Promotion - 5+ (+1 END)
Roll - 9(+1) 10 - Promotion Capt. Rank 2
Reenlistment - 7+
Roll - 10
Skills
Automatic:
Army - Rifle-1
Lt. - SMG-1
Earned: 2 for initial term, 1 each "comm & prom"
(Cannot roll on 8+ EDU Advanced Edu Table)
Personal Dev - 1, +1 STR
Service Skill - 4, Fwd Obsvr-1
Service Skill - 1, Vehicle(grav)-1
Advanced Ed - 6, Gun cbt, SMG-2

2nd Term
Survival - 5+ (no DM)
Roll - 7 - Survive
Promotion - 5+ (+1 END)
Roll - 8(+1) 9 - Promotion Major Rank 3
Reenlistment - 7+
Roll - 12 (!)
Skills
Earned: 1 for term, 1 for promotion
Personal Dev - 4, Gambling-1
Advanced Ed - 3, Electronic-1

3rd Term
Survival - 5+ (no DM)
Roll - 7 - Survive
Promotion - 5+ (+1 END)
Roll - 4(+1) 5 - Promotion LtC Rank 4
Reenlistment - 7+
Roll - 8
Skills
Earned: 1 for term, 1 for promotion
Service skill - 4, Fwd Obsvr-2
Advanced Ed - 5, Blade cbt, Dagger-1

4th Term (last unless forced to reenlist)
Survival - 5+ (no DM)
Roll - 6 - Fail
Use optional rule on page 10
Add 2 years to PC's age
Muster out
No skills
Term doesn't count for muster rolls
No aging as PC is 32 not 34
Mustering rolls:
Earned: 3 for terms, 2 for rank, 5 total
Cash roll limited to 3
+1 on Cash table due to Gambling-1

Benefit - 4 +2 EDU
Benefit - 3 Gun, SMG
Cash - 3(+1) 4 10K CrImp
Cash - 3(+1) 4 10K CrImp
Cash - 3(+1) 4 10K CrImp

ex-Army Lt.Col. 86A772 Age 32 30K CrImp SMG

Foward Observer-2, SMG-2, Dagger-1, Electronics-1, Gambling-1, Rifle-1, Vehicle(grav)-1

Rather an odd PC, poor SOC, average INT and EDU. His MOS is only used in merc campaigns. While he can drive a grav vehicle and handle few weapons, he won't have any tactical insights. Maybe a security goon for your free trader?

jump-1

File: spacex-falcon-landing.gif (510KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 480x270px

Are there any mainstream ships which are not streamlined ?

They talk about how they are difficulty to land and you need quite some money and credits to get them back up to space, why is that ?

I get that they aren't aerodynamic and have quite some air resistance, but with your reactionless drife that shouldn't be too much of an issue, as long as you are landing and starting, as long as you can put more acceleration out than the planets gravitation.

File: Voyager-flight-path.jpg (381KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1000x667px

>>55417043
the other "option" is a plane-shape that can fly to the upper atmosphere, and then switch to space-friendly rockets

or a hot-air balloon to reach high up

>>55417043
>Are there any mainstream ships which are not streamlined ?

The Type-Y yacht, the Type-M subsidized liner (not to be confused with the Type-R subsidized trader), and the Type-C/Broadsword merc cruiser. Although the Broadsword lands in the Classic adventure of the same name!

>>55417429
Type-C can do that be cause it's a tail lander.
>>55414454
I barely want to use D20 for its intended purpose

>>55417844
All i mean is, that it should be possible to land a standart craft in a way that allows easy take off in good conditions.
Maybe with an -2 modifier to the pilot roll, instead of mongoose line of "oh you landed ? now you need some time, work and money to bring it back in position."

>>55417844
>Type-C can do that be cause it's a tail lander.

Read Classic's Adventure 8: Broadsword. Over half the booklet is deckplans along with various other details and descriptions of the ship. Right at the beginning it states while the ship can skim gas giants for fuel it can only land on vacuum worlds. Yet earlier in the part of the booklet detailing the scenarios, the ship is said to be grounded on the plant in question.

The late Loren Wiseman, the guy who wrote A:8, always chalked it up to an oversight on his part and that the Broadsword can only land on airless worlds.

>>55418042

Care to put that question in English because I have no idea what you're driving at.

>>55418042
>>55418055
I have standard craft being able to land and take off, provided that the M-Drive has enough thrust to overpower gravity. Its just slow, since you can't use aerobraking. Some ships can't truly land though - I believe the type Y can't, since it has no real place to put landing gear, and thus it requires a docking cradle instead of a landing pad.
I also have contragravity built into the engines that can counteract local gravity up to half the engines thrust, so a thrust one ship can take off from a 1.4g world (the remaining .1g is needed to leave atmo).

>>55418885
>provided that the M-Drive has enough thrust to overpower gravity. Its just slow

I just realized that streamlined ship can just fly an the atmosphere to the outer layers and go from there to space, instead of just fighting directly against gravity... i feel kinda stupid now.

So the bottom line in the OTU seems to be that some can and some can't, depending on the idea behind the design.

>>55418885
>Some ships can't truly land though - I believe the type Y can't

It's already been explained to you that certain standard ships cannot enter atmospheres.

>I also have contragravity

That's been part of the game since the beginning. Congratulations, you just reinvented a 40 year old wheel.

>>55419156
>I just realized that streamlined ship can just fly an the atmosphere

Congratulations, you just reinvented another 40 years old wheel.

>So the bottom line in the OTU seems to be that some can and some can't, depending on the idea behind the design.

Which is what you were told from the beginning.

>>55419465
>It's already been explained to you that certain standard ships cannot enter atmospheres.
All standart ships can enter atmospheres, they are just shit at doing so or just should not because they have no means of exiting it.

I think you are talking about dristributed, those almost always just break apart upon entry.

>That's been part of the game since the beginning. Congratulations, you just reinvented a 40 year old wheel.
>Congratulations, you just reinvented another 40 years old wheel.

What is up with all that salt man, Newfag trying to fit in? Just because somebody states the obvious doen't mean they try to claim that idea as theirs.

>>55419591
>All standart ships can enter atmospheres

No they cannot and that has been true since the release of Classic's Book 2 in 1977.

Page 15: "The hulls specified are rough deep space configurations incapable of entering atmospheres. They may be streamlined by indicating in the design plans, at a cost of MCr1 per 100 tons of ship."

>>What is up with all that salt man

Just point out that Captain Obvious is being obvious.

>>55419591

That's just our grumpy old dick anon. He can't help being a dick about stuff for no reason, he thinks he's "helping."

File: 888.jpg (51KB, 600x641px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x641px

>>55419852
Cepheus Engine and in meaning MgT 1e
> A standard-hull ship may still enter atmosphere but is very ungainly and ponderous, capable only of making a controlled glide to the surface. Getting it back into space requires an elaborate launch setup and considerable expense.

Get with the times.
We shoot wingless cylinders all the time up to space and SpaceX also managed "soft landings" where those wingless cylinders landed on launchpads.

>>55420032
> A standard-hull ship may still enter atmosphere but is very ungainly and ponderous, capable only of making a controlled glide to the surface. Getting it back into space requires an elaborate launch setup and considerable expense.

All of which means you pay for streamlining to avoid the ungainly and ponderous process landing and the elaborate and expensive launch set up.

>We shoot wingless cylinders all the time up to space and SpaceX also managed "soft landings" where those wingless cylinders landed on launchpads.

Streamlined wingless cylinders. Not stubby bricks, not bulky wedges, and not flat saucers attached to boxy rectangles by a thin neck. Streamlined wingless cylinders.

File: No_fun_allowed.jpg (58KB, 401x479px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 401x479px

>>55420105
I give up, that's just too much of old grognard autism than i'm willing to waste my time on.

>>55420252
>I give up

If that were only true...

>>55420105
>stubby bricks
Get enough power behind it, it will fly
>bulky wedges
Same as above
>flat saucers attached to boxy rectangles by a thin neck
You have a point on that one. But that one is a close or distributed hull.
>>55419852
Mega.
>Unstreamlined: No attempt has been made to streamline the hull Many protrusions and irregularities exist which significantly increase the vessel's drag, making it difficult or impossible to operate the craft in an atmosphere at a high rate of speed
Key point: high rate of speed. Spend enough time dumping speed before you atmo and you should be fine - just hope you don't hit any storms, and you have some penalties to your Pilot roll. And remember, if you get enough thrust to overpower local gravity (in the right direction), you get out of atmo.
Also, note that there are types that flat-out cannot enter atmo or even attempt a landing- irregular/distributed, and the planetoids.

>>55420425
>Also, note that there are types that flat-out cannot enter atmo or even attempt a landing- irregular/distributed, and the planetoids.

Agreed. Ground pressure concerns, hull strengths, and internal configurations are going to preclude some types from landing too.

An AHL is streamlined and can skim for fuel, but you're not going to be landing an 84 story skyscraper.

>>55420425
>Also, note that there are types that flat-out cannot enter atmo or even attempt a landing- irregular/distributed, and the planetoids.

What's almost exactly what I >>55419591
said. All can if they are slow enough, but for most of them it will be just an emergency landing, if they don't enter at a too high speed.

And if your ship is structurally sound enough to support 2-3 G, it can look like a fucking pretzel and land as long as it's engine is strong enough.

>stubby bricks
Damn. Now I want to design Brick starships, you fiend.

Vogon for the win.

>>55420569
If you want some stubby brick designs, here you go:

https://imgur.com/a/oHSgO

>>55420539
Yeah the idea and the specs of a desing play a big role too.

>>55420605
>If you want some stubby brick designs, here you go:

thanks

>>55413781
MWM?

>>55422794

Marc W. Miller, the guy who Travellered.

>>55422814
He's dead?

>>55422866

Maybe in ten or fifteen years from now, if that anon is psychic.

>>55422984
oh, duh, I was stupid, that was an example, as a conversational topic: why is traveller so recipient to homebrewing when something like, D&D or the 40k RPG's, or Starfinder which have the same 'big universe' excuse, doesn't?

>>55423002

The rules are simpler, and more modular and open. The big systems try to interlink everything and go with unified mechanics, which makes it difficult to alter a part without breaking something.

>>55423002
Also it uses small numbers, there is no headache over a +2 or a +4 bonus and that stuff.
There are no levels that need adjustment
And you have a clear goal you want to hit with 90% of your dice throws (8+)

Hey guys, new to the game (got the new MG 2e books) and had a few complete newcomer questions

+If I'm reading this right, in character creation you just keep going through terms until the player decides to stop or gets forced out due to a mishap. Is there any reason a player would exit early other than just aging effects? I'm used to more hard limit "You get X terms" kind of games including the Judge Dredd game based off this system.

+As a group, how rough is the bookkeeping in this game? I can see how managing fuel is part of the draw for some folks but does it work well or do groups ignore it most of the time (like how a lot of D&D groups don't care about food/inn stay expenses)

+What campaign style would best cater to a new GM? I'm good with scenario prep but it seems like Traveller, especially with trade and explorer types, require more 'on the fly' game writing. Any tips or advice for game prep?

+Do people do military campaigns? There's something interesting about large scale wars but I fear the crunch might spook other players. What is your guys experience with it?

>>55423551
Bookkeeping: Only really, bad, on the GM side

>>55422866

He's 70, so what do you think might happen in 10 or 15 years?

>>55423551
>Is there any reason a player would exit early other than just aging effects?

Once they hit the INT+EDU skill limit there's no real reason to stay in chargen.

>I can see how managing fuel is part of the draw for some folks but does it work well or do groups ignore it most of the time (like how a lot of D&D groups don't care about food/inn stay expenses)

Money is more important than it is in D&D, but your players should handle their own budgets. The game has monthly food&lodging costs at various levels like poor, good, rich, etc. I usually just deduct what is necessary from player accounts when they're not living aboard their ship. Trading campaigns will see a lot of bookkeeping.

>+What campaign style would best cater to a new GM?

Trading, definitely trading.

>+Do people do military campaigns?

All the time. Just how easy or complicated they are will depend on which combat system you use and the PCs' roles.

>>55423551
Welcome! (don't be afraid to modify the system. We all pick and choose what bits we want from the various versions)
Yes, character creation goes until the player decides to stop - if you get forced out due to a mishap, you can always pick a new career. For this reason, most groups put a limit on terms - 3 to 4 terms is the usual, 5+ gets some really capable groups.
Bookkeeping can be a bit rough, but works great - don't ignore costs though, because lack of money is a great motivator. If the players want to do trade on the side, just hand them the chapter on trade, along with the UWP of the planets in range.
Traveller does need more on the fly writing, so keep a short list of plot hooks on hand for planets, or prerolled patrons with missions. Mix up the tables too, if you want to make complicated plots -make opposition, and their plans, and watch the trainwreck!
I haven't run or been in a military campaign, so I can't speak to that.

>>55423551

>terms
I'm pretty sure Mongoose has a rule somewhere (unless they left it out of 2e, which wouldn't be surprising because Mongoose) that you can only do a certain number of terms unless your ref says otherwise.
Personally I prefer the old death rule, that really makes you think twice about risking another term when you've got a good character going.

>bookkeeping
The other guy's right, the GM has plenty to track, but the players can skate by with little other than "how much cash have we got? how much fuel's in the tank? And how long 'till our next ship payment?" Not even that if you do a shipless game.
You'll want some NPCs you can throw in front of them, a couple of nearby worlds, and maybe some corporate/political machinations to put in the background, at least to start with.

>campaign style
For a beginning ref? I'd suggest the shipless game. Let players buy tickets to other worlds, doing jobs on the cheap to pay their way. It means you don't have to worry about like half the rules modules, and you can easily do a planet of the week adventure as they try to scrape up money for tickets or whatever.

>military
Yep, military campaigns have been popular since Traveller started. The Mercenary books usually have a great deal of stuff for running a small military operation, though I'd suggest a non-Mongoose edition since those guys can't seem to get it together when it comes to splatbooks.

>>55423551
It's not unreasonable to put up a limit on careers, depending on the type of game you want to play 4-6 are generally okay.

Mostly based on the GM's side, most gross don't bother with standart ammunition, only magazine size, as long as it doesn't get ridiculous.
Fixing the fuel book keeping jam be solved by giving the ship a fuel processor and the magic sentences "there is a gas giant/pond of water"

It's not that traveler supports only an open play style, it's just a very open rule system with a lot of resources almost m literally every other edition even more so than MgT 2e . There is nothing wrong with having your first game taking place in a single system and a note "kill the BBEG".

People do pretty much anything they want with traveller, I'm gently prepping a short Castelvania campaign using traveler. Military campaign are a thing with traveler, hammer slammers cone to mind.

>>55423725
>Trading, definitely trading.
Short explanation: Fuck no

Slightly longer one: Treating is a pain in the arse as a new gm, the prep work you'll have to do, including the dice rolling can stall the game alot of you are not absolutely certain what to do and where to look.

>>55423002
Wasn't OD&D more friendly to houserules and homebrews?

>>55423962

Hard to tell, because no two people see the same thing when they open the OD&D rule book anyway.

>>55423962
yes, but I meant modern (post 3.0) D&D

>>55423997
More friendly than what ?

>>55423997
yep. but D&D seemed a lot more open to customizing before 3.0 came out

>>55424023
3.0 onward

>>55424086
I feel like 3.5 and PF especially are actually harder to hombrew than 5e.
There is just such a bloody pulse of rules that any major brewing will most likely result in some REEEEEing these days.

>>55423863
>Short explanation: Fuck no

Short counter explanation: Classic.

The FIRST campaign I ever ran was in '78 for 3 players aboard a detached duty scout/courier traveling between 6 or 7 worlds carrying small amounts of freight. There wasn't even a published adventure for the game yet. All I did was use the encounter tables in the books and wing it.

Trading in later versions is more complicated, but in early Classic? It's fucking simple.

>>55424184
That's a design philosophy difference, and a sad cumulative side effect of the OGL and the removal in 3.5 of "Rule Zero", at least as far as D&D went.

Traveller would have fallen into a similar trap 30 years ago, but the edition that gelled the rules enough to start that process (MT) was also contentious enough that it wasn't totally adopted, leading a lot of the playerbase to keep using CT, which is explicitly intended to be modded at the table. Until Mongoose came along and lured a lot of retired players back into the light, every subsequent edition attracted a small but loyal following who still, for the most part, lived the CT spirit of frequent house ruling.

As a result, while Traveller has its Edition disagreements, there is very little "rules as religion" going on in the Traveller base. We prefer to argue about setting instead.

New guy here, thanks for the responses guys!

I read in the book it also suggests giving the book over when they want to trade, it just seems weirdly counterintuitive. Is trade basically handled as a quick handwaved interaction more than an adventure in of itself and then you reserve more story based ones ("take the contraband to you contact on this plot planet") for the longer game?

>>55424279
Fair point,

But anon stayed that he is using MgT 2e,
Which is almost as much of a cluster duck than 1e when it comes to trading.
It's certainly doable, but the rules are all over the place.

>>55424184
Houserules are also seen as less necessary in 3.pf, since there is already a rule for pretty much everything.

I could and would "homebrew" (my own setting) in a heartbeat, however. That can be a lot of work, but it is easy work compared to tracking the cascade of a mechanical change though thousands of pages of classes, feats, and spells.

>>55424361
Trade is just a set of rules that plug in to the game, and can be used or glossed over as the table wills.

As an example, a recent game would typically not do more than one jump a session, and we would let the Ref know where we were headed at the end of each session as we left a world. The Ref would then do all the Broker stuff between sessions, so when we contacted the brokers on the destination world he would hand out the sell sheet for each *named* Broker he had set up. We would base our new purchases on that information, arrange our next cargo cycle, and then play out whatever else we were doing on that world. If the session got us to departure, we would make sure we knew our next destination and the cycle would repeat.

>>55424361
Nope. Trade is a series of rolls - finding a cargo, determining price, then figuring out the best world to sell it at, then finding a buyer, then seeing how much you got for it.
The thing is, Trade can be one hell of an adventure - This client has a cargo, but needs a favor. This client has a cargo, and if you do a favor, they'll pay more.
The Firefly episode Shindig? That's a trading campaign - doing everything you can to find the good cargoes, so you're not just hunting the scraps the big lines leave behind.
MgT2e handled it wrong, saying that trade was a sideshow, and the players should get enough to handle ship expenses - when in fact, you can always motivate the players with a mighty need to eat sometime this month.
Or not default on the mortgage.

>>55424342
>Traveller would have fallen into a similar trap 30 years ago, but the edition that gelled the rules enough to start that process (MT) was also contentious enough that it wasn't totally adopted, leading a lot of the playerbase to keep using CT, which is explicitly intended to be modded at the table.

That's an insightful point. For whatever reason(s) and unlike D&D, Traveller's initial rules set wasn't all but abandoned by Traveller groups for later versions only to be resurrected later by an OSR movement.

It may because there are a few different versions of the "original" version; CT77, CT81, Starter, and TTB. The fact that Classic was easily an therefore heavily modded is most likely another reason why.

While our homebrew probably has more TTB "DNA" than anything else, TTB doesn't make up half of it. I think the only version which doesn't have something in it is T20.

>>55424384
>But anon stayed that he is using MgT 2e,

My bad. I missed that.

Anon >>55423551? Please read & heed both Anon >>55423790 and Anon >>55423863.

>>55424477
Interesting, so you used trade mostly as a background income generator while you used session time to do more traditional story stuff I take it?

>>55424479
I think the intent of MG2e was to offload the burden of trade bookkeeping, which I can appreciate because SPACE ECONOMY can be an intimidating prospect (we had this issue in our SW EotE game to where I basically made trade a strict plot point and not so much an active player choice, thankfully the group totally gelled with it and no one complained about not being able to control their trade)

I guess my question regarding trade is how granular do people tend to be with it. Do you make a big plot out of a trade as a once in a while thing? An every session thing? Or relegate it to the background which I can see the merits of. I know every game is different but just feeling the waters.

>>55411537
That doesn't mean crap. That's like saying GURPS is good because it's been around this long, but it's actually shit.

>>55424526

Peronally, I'd see how the players seem to feel about it. If they're not too interested in trade, leave it mostly as a background thing to make some extra cash. If they're really into it, then you're gonna need to throw up some plot points because a dedicated player can break the trade system of most editions over his knee for scads of money.

>>55424552
To really keep it as a background, ask them, when they land, or are finishing up the adventure, if they know where they're going next. Then just quickly roll up some freight and passengers, take out a broker's fee (about 5% is good), and then hand them the money when they land.

>>55424526
>I guess my question regarding trade is how granular do people tend to be with it. Do you make a big plot out of a trade as a once in a while thing? An every session thing? Or relegate it to the background which I can see the merits of.

As you note, that's going to depend on the needs of you and your group. However, depending on the needs of the plot, a campaign can easily morph from one style to another and back again. Take Classic's "The Traveller Adventure" forex.

The players start off as the crew of a subsidized merchant. That means they fly a specific route without worrying about a mortgage in return for handing over half their profits each month to the ship's owner. Part of their deal allows them to earn "off route" time where they can jump & trade anywhere they like keeping any profit to themselves. The campaign begins just as the PCs have saved up a few months of "off route" time.

The PCs start by trading, land a job which will earn them extra fuel tanks, which gets them involved in a cascade of subsequent events over several months, all of which should end up with them owning the ship outright.

The PCs get tangled up with Vargr corsairs, a megacorp plot, a trade war, a worldwar on a planet, sneak onto a restricted world owned by a noble family, and even work as lumberjacks(!) all the while carrying freight, carrying passengers, and flying charters. The emphasis on that trade angle waxes and wanes as the campaign unfolds. Sometimes the PCs have worry about the bill and thus scurry around looking for credits and sometimes someone is picking up the tab for a given period of time.

>>55424526
>so you used trade mostly as a background income generator while you used session time to do more traditional story stuff I take it?
That was the default, but the Brokers drove the story forward more than once, similar to >>55424479
>his client has a cargo, but needs a favor. This client has a cargo, and if you do a favor, they'll pay more.
As a result, each world and session flowed differently. Naming the Brokers made then recurring NPC contacts instead of just numbers.

anyone know how to roleplay a Hiver?

>>55425045
Hand puppet?

>>55425013
Think Badger - Badger is a Broker, and drives adventure. Because he's trying to gain better contacts in the mercantile world, he will try and get a better rep by hooking potential clients up with people who can solve their problems.

>>55425073
Badger slides over into the Patron role more than once. Our campaign did do that a time or two.

>>55425045
>anyone know how to roleplay a Hiver?

You don't and, if you think you can, you're lying to yourself. Hivers can barely be handled as NPCs and, like all good aliens, are best handled as events.

"Aliens of the Rim" is in the TNE section of the Archive. Read it and seriously mull over the advice given by the people who invented the Hivers.

>>55425013
>Naming the Brokers made then recurring NPC contacts instead of just numbers.

THIS. Every time the players interact with a speaking NPC, I note the who, what, where, and when so that NPC can be used again when the players return to the same location.

If you keep track of the NPCs the encounter and other tables regularly produce, you'll have "peopled" your setting in no time. Such NPCs don't need a UPP or skills list either. Just a name, a description, and a note detailing how & why they met the players.

I use 3x5 cards, paperclips, and folders for this although I'm sure there's a better "virtual" way to do it.

>>55425513
And as I said, you can pre-roll them and keep a file of unassigned NPCs. Sometimes they need a skill or two (such as brokers), so quickly decide the primary skill they need, then decide on how experienced they are - just use the total modifier, so roll 1d.
Quick personality notes are good too - just one or two.
Try to fit 4-5 on a single index card.

>>55425588
>And as I said, you can pre-roll them and keep a file of unassigned NPCs.

Yeah, I use "slush piles" too. Take one off a pre-made list, enter them on a "who, what, where, when" card, and detail to the minimum amount necessary.

IIRC, Snapshot had a tables for quickly determining a NPC's weapon and skill levels.

>>55425454
If they can barely be handled as NPC's then...why're they a major race?

>>55426034
They're a major race in the fluff, which does not mean that the players get to try and play them. They were written by a sociologist, working from a different biological origin.
They can try to play them, but consensus based, eternally curious, aliens that communicate via hand signal, and have an entirely different set of values and little overlap of experience with humans, would be difficult.
Seriously, there's a title they all strive to achieve - Manipulator. There's a Hiver legend of the First Manipulator, who spent 30 years on a plan to create the first nation out of city states, finally revealing it to the public when he succeeded.
You are, in human terms, a very moral supervillain.

We can understand the K'Kree better than we can understand the Hivers. This does not effect the ability of either race to effect the universe around them.

>>55426165
I understand why the OTU seems deeper than most, as an example D&D settings now...

>>55426034
>why're they a major race?

That's your D&D/d20 bias showing; i.e Every race MUST be player ready. You can't even conceive of the idea that an alien species in Traveller may simply exist to add depth, color, and nuances to the setting.

Anyway, >>55426165 explains the issues in question very well.

>>55426205
>I understand why the OTU seems deeper than most,

Yes. Once you know what GDW's college degrees and "day jobs" were, you begin to understand why the OTU is as "deep" as it is. It's been deep from the beginning too, the last 40 years merely added more details to an already vast canvas.

>>55426034
>why're they a major race?
"Major Race" is an in-setting term. One of the oldest star-faring branches of Humaniti coined and defined the term to exclude anyone but themselves, and in their minds even nine thousand years later it still means "Invented Jump Drive on their own".

Only eight races have ever qualified, and three of them are branches of Humaniti. One of the others, has since been revealed to have reverse-engineered Jump Drive from a wreck, so by the definition of the Vilani the Aslan are not a Major Race after all.

Thing is, the Aslan control a huge swath of space. They turned one accidental gift into a seat at the top table for almost two thousand years.

Go ahead and tell the seven foot carnivore with claws and a touchy sense of personal, clan, and racial honor that his people are being demoted. I'll wait over there ----->

Of course, most of Charted Space collapsed and trillions died just a few years later, so the question is rather moot.

>>55426430
>"Major Race" is an in-setting term. One of the oldest star-faring branches of Humaniti coined and defined the term to exclude anyone but themselves,

Exactly, From the first, the term Major Race has been presented as nothing but a piece of cynical realpolitik bullshit used by powerful species to justify their domination of weaker species. The various library data entries for the term Major Race say as much and the Aslan - Pathfinder story should have got the point across to even the most dimwitted players.

Despite all that, people like >>55426034 seemingly still can't understand teh fact that the term is little more than a cynical lie agreed upon between powerful species.

>>55426430
>"Major Race" is an in-setting term. One of the oldest star-faring branches of Humaniti coined and defined the term to exclude anyone but themselves, and in their minds even nine thousand years later it still means "Invented Jump Drive on their own".

Sure, but it's a practical term, though. Any race that doesn't have the jump drive is pretty much stuck in their home system, or reliant on others for charity transport. And if you invented the jump drive, you're not going to just hand it over to some backwards aliens you met last week and give them access to hundreds of colonizable worlds when you could keep those worlds for your own people, so it's a self-enforcing status quo. Major races build fleets, minor races buy tickets.
The Aslan sort of cheated their way to major race status, but it's a fait accompli. They may not have "invented" the jump drive, but they have it and they're a major race now.

>>55426496
>And if you invented the jump drive, you're not going to just hand it over to some backwards aliens you met last week and give them access to hundreds of colonizable worlds when you could keep those worlds for your own people

Want to guess what the Vilani did at first? And do you want to guess what led them to begin the Consolidation Wars and eventually found the Ziru Sirka/1st Imperium?

>>Major races build fleets, minor races buy tickets.

While that's a good way to put it, there are exceptions. The Geonee, forex, had reversed engineered jump drive from Ancient relics and were using it before the Vilani contacted them. The Vilani were able to beat the Geonee so now the Geonee are a human MINOR race.

The Suerrat used STL generation ships to settle a disputed amount of territory. Some parts of canon say it was sector-sized, others say subsector-sized. Whatever the size was, the Suerrat had an interstellar "empire" when the Vilani contacted them.

The Suerrat are now a human MINOR race too.

File: yugeermap.png (94KB, 824x920px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 824x920px

Oh look, another map. This one is off the main trade routes, so it's a backwater.
THe circle route in the bottom right quadrant is a perfect setup for a starter game - they're one of two subsidized merchants that keep going on the route.

>>55426554
Correction, bottom left.

>>55426554

Ooooh... I LOVE THESE!

>>55426554
>they're one of two subsidized merchants that keep going on the route.

Nice. Sixteen weeks for one loop, figuring the usual one week in jump, one week in port routine. 0308 and 0608 are going to have slightly more trade volume than the others in the loop because they have trade links beyond the loop.

And once a year they have to make a trip to 0610 or 0808 for annual maintenance. Probably 0808 seeing as how they can get there without installing extra fuel tanks in the hold.

>>55426607
glad I'm not the only one

>>55426034
Like the others already said, Major race is a term for the Fluff.

But i got good news for you, there are so effing many transhuman races that you can basically talk with your GM about your Minor Humaniti race and look for a origin for it.

Aquatic humans ? Canon, multiple times.
Manipulated Neandertals ? Canon
And if you can think of it, there is a fair chance that that's running around somwhere too.

>>55428727
>But i got good news for you, there are so effing many transhuman races that you can basically talk with your GM about your Minor Humaniti race and look for a origin for it.

That's a very good point and one which is all too often overlooked. As an anon pointed out earlier in this thread, transhumanism is treated as being mundane in Traveller and, because it isn't labeled as such, people think it doesn't exist in the game.

GURPS:Humaniti is in the Archive. Even if you don't play GURPS, there are over a dozen Minor Human Races detailed in it. All of them were geneered at some point, most by the Ancients but others more recently.

File: Cassini's_Grand_Finale_(37230499535).jpg (635KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 2048x2048px

F

>>55430316

Far thee well Cassini.

I'd love to see some drone and/or probe rules for Traveller.

>>55431213
there's some in mongoose, IIRC and they're not bad

>>55431655

Got to check them out then. Do you remember which splat has them?

While I loathe Mongoose as much as the next Traveller player, you can always find something to borrow from even the worst train wreck.

>>55431740
Core rules or high guard?

or I might've confused the homebrewed drones people MAKE in mongoose rules with official rules

>>55431813

Thanks Anon. I'll check them out. ISTR that DGP wrote some for MT, perhaps in the IISS section of World Builder's Handbook? I also STR that I was never impressed with them.

Solo has a nice section on running scout adventures and campaigns with rules & tables to create research targets. It would be nice to add drones/probes to that and expand on the types of research targets.

jump-2

File: maxresdefault.jpg (174KB, 1920x697px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1920x697px

I saw the posts about railguns in the last thread and started to think.
In which ways could railguns make sense to use in space, even if it's just niche?
Make them able to get three on a triple turret ?
1d6 damage but add closed distance towards enemy to the damage, 1 effective thrust point=1 damage ?
Just make the ammo cheap as hell ?

>>55434294

They'd work at knife-fight distances, like a kilometer or two away. At the usual engagement distances, however, the target will yawn and sidle out of the way long before the bullets arrive.

>>55434294
>In which ways could railguns make sense to use in space, even if it's just niche?

Railguns make no sense in SPACE combat. No as in none. Lasers in Traveller have ranges measured in light-seconds, railgun rounds are simply too slow to matter.

Now, as already explained in the previous thread, railguns aboard spaceships can be used for other kinds of combat: ortillery, CAS, etc. Spacecraft in those cases will be using railguns to shoot at targets on a planet and not at other maneuvering space craft.

>>55434590
Well, i'd think that they would mostly be of interest in high speed hit and run fighter attacks and for people who don't want/can't have rockets and losers, but still some form of defense.

Also as means for point-blank defense and ortillery.

>>55434692
I mean, we could just do away with lasers.

>>55434800
Or use it on small nimble ships.

Also differemt types of ammunition, range is gonna suck anyway tho. But guided shots are a very possible thing.

>>55434800

That's not the point, man. The point is that you're engaging an enemy who's a hundred kilometers away, or more. a 3km/s railgun will take 30 seconds to reach him, by which time he'll be long gone. Meanwhile he's got weapons that fire at the speed of light, and if you removed those, he's got guided missiles which will chase and kill you before you get close enough for railguns to be effective.

>>55434699
>Well, i'd think that they would mostly be of interest in high speed hit and run fighter attacks

You've got a weapon with a range measured in light-seconds and whose "ammo" also moves at the speed of light and you think "high speed hit and run fighter attacks" are a viable tactic?

May I suggest Starfinder? You might find it more to your liking.

>>55434867
May i suggest that not everything needs to be super hard sci-fi in a game of make-belive ?

>>55434867

Considering the speeds at which spacecraft move, a tungsten carbide pellet can give a laser a run for it's money.

I'm not saying that it's as usefull as a laser, but can carry more energy and AP potential than one.

>>55434892

Nobody said it did, but railguns are just silly for ship-to-ship combat. Distances make them too slow to hit any target that's not dead in the water.

>>55434909

But in the minute or so before it hits, the target's computer will tell him you fired one and show him its course, and he can slide the ship off to the side and go get a sandwich while he waits for it to miss.

>>55434932
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX8Z2MDYX3g

That's why you fire more than one.

>>55434846
>Railguns
>Smaller ships
Alright, to make this clear here, lets look at this.

Pulse Lasers have an Optimum Range of Short, 2d6 Damage, -2 to hit, and cost 0.5 MCr per. That means that to get a Triple Turret of Pulse Lasers, which does 2d6+6, it'd be 2.5 MCr, takes up only the Turret's tonnage(1 ton), and only the turret's hardpoint. It's still perfectly effective at longer ranges, too, up until Very Long.

Railguns have an ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM range of Short, 3d6 damage, no to-hit modifier, cost 4 MCr for a single Barbette, take 5 tons of space, have ammunition(Which costs 1,000 Cr per ton and each ton is 20 shots, but a single barbette can hold 20 shots), CANNOT be put in triple turrets, and again has an absolute maximum range.

Railguns are heavier, more costly, and have ammunition concerns. Additionally, you can just... get three Pulse Lasers, slap them in a Triple Turret, and you're doing 2d6+6. Your MINIMUM is 8, your average is about 15. The Railgun? Average of ~10.5, which means that there is, literally, never a circumstance in which you would use a railgun.

And if we want to discuss using Railgun Bays instead? Even the smaller railgun bay is 7.5 times the cost of the normal one, TEN times the tonnage, and only does 3d6 with Auto 8. The Large bay is FIFTEEN times the cost, TWENTY times the tonnage, and only gets fucking Auto 12.

It's a fucking shame, because railguns, and just ballistics in general, feel a lot more interesting to use. But mechanically speaking, they're 100% worthless with zero niche at all. There is literally no situation in which they offer ANY advantage at all.

>>55434963

The other problem with railguns is that you can't fire them rapidly. Every shot heats up the rails and you have to cool it down again or they'll warp. Rapid fire is not a railgun's specialty. For that you should use regular guns.

>>55434932
>>55434918
>>55434909
>>55434867
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php

Dug this article out, you guys are welcome.

File: hqdefault (1).jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>55434977
Inital post.

>I saw the posts about railguns in the last thread and started to think.
In which ways could railguns make sense to use in space, even if it's just niche?
Make them able to get three on a triple turret ?
1d6 damage but add closed distance towards enemy to the damage, 1 effective thrust point=1 damage ?
Just make the ammo cheap as hell ?

But glad you try to partace in a civilized discussion, istead like the few hardcore CT grognards flying around.

>And if we want to discuss using Railgun Bays instead?

That's what i think too. One projectile isn't going to cut it, a few dozen on the other hand are a micrometeor storm on steroids.

>>55434892
>May i suggest that not everything needs to be super hard sci-fi in a game of make-belive ?

We're not talking about hard sci-fi. We're talking about the weapons and capabilties which already existed in the game before Mongoose stupidly added railguns.

The game's space battles take place at ranges which are too great for railguns. Those battles use weapons which are far faster at far greater ranges than railguns. The game's spacecraft which can easily dodge the painfully railgun munitions at the combat ranges involved.

Railguns do not work in the ranges Traveller in which ship combat occurs.

>>55434909
>Considering the speeds at which spacecraft move, a tungsten carbide pellet can give a laser a run for it's money.

That's only if you can get the pellet in front of the moving ship. Railgun munitions are too slow to accomplish that.

While railguns have their uses, the capabilities of existing weapons and spacecraft means railguns are silly for ship-to-ship combat.

>>55434990
Or alternating between barrels.

wshooting one round every 10 seconds between 3 rails wound still fire 30 rounds during a round.

Alternative, there floats the idea around that you just discard the rail as soon as you used a certain amount of ammo, like a used magazine.

>>55435053
Honestly, the simplest way is to just keep the range hardcap, make them ALL gain some measure of Auto(Like 4/8/12 for Barbette/Bay/Large Bay), and the chance to buy AP slugs for them.

Tada, custom-build a Thrust 6 ship with good thrusters and fire control, and some way to not get shredded by lasers from distance, and just fucking knife-fight everything to death.

Imagine you've got this little like 200 ton gunboat just zipping around evading enemy firing angles and just shredding their shit in with constant railgun barrages.

>>55435075
>>55435075
>Railguns do not work in the ranges Traveller in which ship combat occurs.

Neither do lasers.

>While railguns have their uses, the capabilities of existing weapons and spacecraft means railguns are silly for ship-to-ship combat.

I never said that railguns should or could replace lasers, all i said was that mongoose went pant's on head retarded at something that could have a niche use for certain situations.


>That's only if you can get the pellet in front of the moving ship. Railgun munitions are too slow to accomplish that.

Huh ? is the thrust 2 ship just going to turn around and fly away against some thrust 8 fighters ?

>>55435135
>Neither do lasers.

They work a hell of a lot better.

>>55435095
I like you anon.

Just slap on some sandcasters, chaff rockets and a decent pilot and you are good to go.

This is of course still sub-optimal but the neckbears will still take their time to point that out because everything needs to balanced and un-fun.

>>55435135
>Huh ? is the thrust 2 ship just going to turn around and fly away against some thrust 8 fighters ?

It'll kill them long before they can get close.

>>55435002

Project Rho uses actual science and only actual science. Traveller, being a game, does not.

What Traveller does have is a long standing set of spacecraft weapons with known capabilities across all versions. While some of the details of what those weapons can do may vary, the fact that they are accurate over huge ranges remains the same. Similarly, the maneuvering capabilities of Traveller spacecraft are also a long standing detail across all versions of the game.

Given the capabilities of Traveller spacecraft weapons and the performance of Traveller spacecraft, railguns DO NOT WORK within the assumptions which have guided Traveller space combat from the first.

If you're interested in a space combat system which adheres to most of Project Rho's science, let me suggest Assault Vector: Tactical. It's an excellent game. It's not Traveller however because it has very different technological assumptions.

>>55435185
The articel, read it.
>>55435002

Next misconception, wouldn’t lasers dominate the battle space? Lasers do not suffer from many of the inaccuracy problems that projectile weapons do, and move at the speed of light, so they are literally impossible to dodge. So lasers are the king of the battle space, right?

Wrong. Lasers suffer from diffraction. Badly. The power of lasers in space drops painfully fast with distance, and frequency doubling only ameliorates the issue slightly. Lasers are notoriously low efficiency compared to projectile weapons. But that’s not the main issue. When comparing hypervelocity projectile impact research with laser ablation research, one discovers a stark contrast in their efficacy. Laser ablation is simply less effective at causing damage than projectile impacts. Whereas hypervelocity projectiles cause spallations and cave in armor effectively, laser ablation is poor, with energy wasted to vaporization, radiation, and heat conduction to surrounding armor. On the other hand, at very close ranges, where diffraction is not an issue, lasers outperform projectiles easily. Unfortunately, nothing aside from missiles will likely ever get that close, and even then, they will likely be within close focus ranges for milliseconds at most.

Lasers still useful at long ranges, though. Lasers fill a very specific niche in space warfare, and that is of precision destruction of weakly armored systems at long distances. Lasers are very good at melting down exposed enemy weapons, knocking out their rocket exhaust nozzles, and most importantly, killing drones. While missiles have very few weak points, and can shrug off laser damage with thick plating, drones have exposed weapons and radiators, which makes them very vulnerable to lasers.

>>55435197
Now you aren't even arguing but just assuming.

Maybe you should go to starfinder.

>>55435237
Anon, while I understand that Traveller has some assumptions here, we're talking about a mechanic that people are fond of, want to see at least have SOME sort of niche, and which isn't really all that hard to try and work towards.

If you're just going to shout that it doesn't work, you aren't really helping anyone. We know that, as a baseline, it doesn't.

We're trying to find a way to MAKE it work, in a way that doesn't just screw the entire rest of everything.

>>55435237
>Some weapons do work in a game of make belive and break the tules of actual science because i want to.

>You want to use new weapons which weren't covered in my game of make belive? No in real science it makes no sense !

... huh ?

Now you are just having a double standart.
Even more so by the fact that traveller was always a game that encourages adding you own content.
All i did was asking how to cover railguns in the traveller measurement.
I only picket up the "real science" argument because it appeared in the discussion as an argument.

>>55435237
>Assault Vector: Tactical
The game looks nice tho, thanks for that.

OK. If I wanted to re-skin the Traveller space combat system to do a Saberhagen Berserker campaign, would Meson cannons be a good choice for modeling C+ weapons? And change the lasers/fusion guns over to blasters?

>>55435002

That article is based on a videogame with its own rules and setting assumptions, which do not necessarily apply to the real world, much less Traveller.

>>55435366
First of all
>Saberhagen Berserker
what's that and what is it in your eyes.
Bevause you have a tone you see when you look at it and you will most likely try to achive said tone.

>>55435278
So as baseline damage, would you say that 1d6+thrust towards enemy in this round sounds reasonable ?

Or maybe less damage and some penetration thrown in ?

>>55435278
>We're trying to find a way to MAKE it work, in a way that doesn't just screw the entire rest of everything.

There's no way to make it work while also keeping everything else the same. If you want railguns you'll need to do away with or nerf other existing capabilities. Let me use fighters as an example.

People often complain that fighters are useless in Traveller. They're both right and wrong about that. Fighters are useless at CERTAIN tech levels while also being ship killers at OTHER tech levels. The many changes to various systems and their capabilities mean at lower TLs fighters kick ass and at higher TLs fighters suck ass.

Cap the TL at 11 or 12 and fighters can still get the job done. Try to use fighters at TL 15 and you'll fail.

In order to make railguns viable, you need to make wholesale changes to many other systems. Lasers need to be nerfed or thrown out, ships need to be much slower, and other changes will be required. It can be done, but I don't think you've grasped how much work will be required. You'll be essentially rewriting the game's ship construction and combat systems because one or two tweaks isn't going to get it done.

File: fc6.png (53KB, 590x618px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 590x618px

>>55435460
Just go suck a fat dick, nobody cares.
There are just some people trying to have fun with a modifyable system here.

>>55435366
>for modeling C+ weapons
C+ as in: faster than light ?

>>55435312
>Now you are just having a double standart.

No I'm not. I'm saying Traveller space combat is based on a certain set fictional technological assumptions and that those assumptions have been pretty much the same across all versions. If you stick to those assumptions, railguns do not work.

>Even more so by the fact that traveller was always a game that encourages adding you own content.

This is what you seemingly are unable to comprehend. You can add railguns to your game. However, if you want railguns to WORK you need to make changes to Traveller's technological assumptions.

No one is saying you can't have railguns. What we're saying is you can't have railguns while keeping everything else the same.

>>55435342
>The game looks nice tho, thanks for that.

No problem Anon. It's a great game and you'll love it.

File: guaranteed replies.gif (6MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 480x270px

>>55435443
or just going down the auto-fire street with them ?

How sounds autofire rating+2 for each rail on the turret, so a turret with three rails would have auto 6.

>>55435366
>would Meson cannons be a good choice for modeling C+ weapons?

Meson guns are light speed weapons and Saberhagen's gun are FTL. You'll have to work out what the differences will be.

You'll also need to remember that the speed Saberhagen's FTL drive and range of his FTL weapons are effected by how "dirty' the space is in which they travel & shoot.

You'll need to do some work to do it justice or you can just file the serial numbers off and call it even.

>>55435618
Does that mean it can shoot into the past ?

>>55435637
>Does that mean it can shoot into the past ?

Read the books, wise ass.

>>55435549
Not sure. It's been quite a while since I've read the series. But I think they sent energy through hyperspace that 'popped out' into realspace INSIDE their targets, and that sounds a bit like Traveller Meson weapons.

I was also thinking of checking out the Flying Buffalo boardgame version for ideas and space units.

>>55435637
Retrocausality would certainly change your strategic planning.

>>55435553
Okay then let's try to be constructive instead
and also the railguns where never intendet for the traveller setting, since i prefer star-system based campaigns where the outside is mostly unknown and truly alien

I think that the short range limit is fine, since a mach 10 round would hit a target in 12500 km distance after five minutes, after that the new movement starts and the narrative/mechanic balance becomes unstable.

Also i don't think that they should have inherent Armor Penetration, since space ship hull is made to defend against small, fast & hard things. So after some thinking [and cooling of my head] i would prefer the automatic fire approach.

My approach would be by now:
1d3 damage, damage doesn't increase by adding more rails to the turret, but the automatic value does. So it's more of a space shotgun/stream of bullets.
Also i personally like the, add effective thrust used to close in to target as damage bonus, rule for narrative reasons.
on the flip side, if a ship manages to move away faster than the other aproachs, damage would be reduced, possible totally negated.

>>55435618
I think I would change the starship and FTL systems to better match the Berserker universe.

But keep the Traveller character generation close to the original (swapping a few skills) as feasible.

>>55435674
>Not sure. It's been quite a while since I've read the series. But I think they sent energy through hyperspace that 'popped out' into realspace INSIDE their targets, and that sounds a bit like Traveller Meson weapons.

The short story I remember is about a cruiser having to decide which of two small craft to kill before they reach a colony world. The cruiser can't physically intercept either craft to inspect them. One of the craft is a Berserker and the other is carrying a vital part the colony. That means the cruiser can't simply destroy both.

Neither small craft can send video so the cruiser is forced to interrogate them by audio only. Both small craft sound convincing and the cruiser is at a loss as to which one to destroy. The solution becomes clear when one of the small craft mentions using a mnemonic, something a machine like a Berserker would never need.

Anyway, I distinctly remember that the cruiser fires physical slugs from it's cannon which then move at C+ speeds.

>>55435655
Can't take a little joke.

But if a gun fires in the moment it hits (which i now just assume for my argument) it would change the way targeting is calculated, because the em waves still need to come to you while the ship is effectively somewhere else.

>>55435720
Sounds awesome and confusing.

>>55435674
Not sure if a meson weapon is the right way to do that perfectly, but it DOES sound like armor ignoring like meson.

>>55435793
>Sounds awesome and confusing.

I sure hope so. (can we use smileys here to show we're enjoying the paradox)

>>55435837
Well. It could be a FTL railgun.

But THAT would really violate the canon TL envelope.

>>55435885
To me, a slug/cannon that enters and leaves subspace/warp sounds like TL 16+ fuckery

>>55435764
>also the railguns where never intendet for the traveller setting

Good, you're finally understanding the problem.

>I think that the short range limit is fine

Think again.

>since a mach 10 round would hit a target in 12500 km distance after five minutes,

Your munition will reach it's target in 5 minutes which means that target has five minutes to get out of the way. Unguided munitions here on Earth work because either the target isn't moving or the flight time of the munition is so short that the target can be "led". Shells fired by battleships, for example, often took as long as 50 seconds or more to reach the point at which they were aimed.

You're dealing with 5 minutes instead of 50 seconds.

Now, because Traveller ships use vector movement, if you know a ship's vector and you know it's gee rating, you can predict a sphere of possible locations where that ship will be in a given time. The longer time you allow the ship to maneuver, the larger that sphere will be.

In order to get a hit after your munition's 5 minute flight, you're going to have to "saturate" a large volume of space with those munitions. Reducing the range and thus reducing flight times will help you get more hits as will limiting a ship's gee rating.

As you can see, you're going to need to change many more things than just doing away with lasers.

>>55435793
>But if a gun fires in the moment it hits

It's just C+ and not instantaneous. The weapons guns are also used over ranges measured in AU.

>>55435934
Thanks. That gives me a better idea on scaling the Berserker TLs.

>>55435885
>But THAT would really violate the canon TL envelope.

While it would require changing a lot of Traveller's tech assumptions, it may be worth the effort.

>>55435934
>To me, a slug/cannon that enters and leaves subspace/warp sounds like TL 16+ fuckery

It would make for an awesome Science!!! mcguffin to tease the players with, wouldn't it?

File: 2SEbJhAr.png (2MB, 1368x1706px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1368x1706px

>>55436007
Aaaand i lost all hope in a constructive discussion again, it's really amazing.

>>55385060
>only if the system is comprehensible
Right now my epiphany is having an epiphany.

>>55436070
>While it would require changing a lot of Traveller's tech assumptions, it may be worth the effort.

Or just don't use traveller as a setting, it looks like it triggers the grognards.

>It would make for an awesome Science!!! mcguffin to tease the players with, wouldn't it?

I think so too, where does it come from ?, how does it work ?, can i get more of them ?

>>55436051
De nada

>>55436110
English is not my mothertounge.
So, is that a good thing ?

>>55436073
>Aaaand i lost all hope in a constructive discussion again,

So a discussion of aiming difficulties over a five minute weapons range isn't constructive?

>>55436124
>Or just don't use traveller as a setting, it looks like it triggers the grognards.

Technically, I could already be a grognard (time served).

But I like using the Traveller chargen and resolution systems in different settings.

>>55436124
>Or just don't use traveller as a setting

It's not Traveller's setting which is the issue. It's Traveller technological assumptions.

Jump drive, m-drive, weapons, they all work the same whether it's the OTU or not.

You need to change the tech which means you need to change the rules and not the setting.

>>55436110
congratulation, now do what ever you want and have some fun.

>>55436152
I guess? I was already working on a system with consistent and intuitive mechanics, so your post reminded me why I'm doing it in the first place.

>>55436073

Calling him names isn't helping matters, it just makes it look like you've run out of defensible arguments and are giving up on the discussion to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Railguns don't work according to realism. They don't work according to game mechanics. They don't work within the tech assumptions of the setting/game.
If you want some kind of anime universe where ships get really close and have railgun knife fights, you can totally do that, but it's gonna take some massive changes to both setting and game rules, and it's gonna be very unrealistic when you're done.
If you wanna do so, go right ahead, but you can't just make a small patch to things and have them not suck bad. That's the point he's somewhat dickishly making.

>>55436379
>I was already working on a system with consistent and intuitive mechanics, so your post reminded me why I'm doing it in the first place.

So "consistent and intuitive" means ignoring that fact that stuff which further away is harder to hit?

>>55436421
>For some people, "constructive criticism" means "only praise"

Too true, sadly.

>>55436462
>So "consistent and intuitive" means ignoring that fact that stuff which further away is harder to hit?

He was talking about homebrewing in general, not about railguns.
Get that rageboner down, you are embarrassing yourself.

>>55436439
>That's the point he's somewhat dickishly making.

Dickishly? Perhaps. We don't have the character count to sugar coat things and multiple posts explaining one issue with one idea don't work very well.

Terse and succinct are often the best way in the end. If that ruffles feathers, too bad.

>>55436007
Or you just handwave things, because this is a game, and people want to have fun, not autism.

>>55436616
>Or you just handwave things, because this is a game, and people want to have fun, not autism.

There is a wide amount of ground between 'overly detailed' and "anything goes".

File: shrugs.jpg (104KB, 449x642px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 449x642px

>>55436616
>sucks mechanically
>dumb fictionally

>shut up, I'm having fun!

Okay.

>>55436439
Throwing shit at your enemy is mostly the only way that works according to realism, the only thing that does it better than the railgun family are rockets.

>They don't work according to game mechanics
They dind't even have them till mongoose started it and the measures used since CT are already grossly out of proportion, according to realism.

>They don't work within the tech assumptions of the setting/game.
Which is a moot point since it's not intendet for the setting.
Amd the assumptions are by this day and age already so blown out of proportion that you can just call it techno-magic.

>>55436552
And even when you are criticized you can use it to suck your own dick.

>>55436991

God I love that Hattie McDaniel meme. I saw her the other night in some old movie and laughed out because of it.

>>55436721
>Throwing shit at your enemy is mostly the only way that works according to realism, the only thing that does it better than the railgun family are rockets.

But railguns don't even work according to realism. They're so shit the Navy has cancelled their railgun projects, because they're unreliable and fail rapidly, and their performance stinks. Even with magic super-materials they'd be crap.

And if you're going to have magic supertech, then the Traveller lightspeed weapons beat the pants off of "throwing shit at the enemy" because lightspeed is so much faster than physical projectiles that you need a much smaller radius with fewer shots to hit, and it leaves zero time for the enemy to plot an evasive course because by the time they see you've fired your weapon, it's already on them.

>>55437105
I understand your argument, but it does not explain why i should see the need to compare a fictional super laser to a real railgun, while i could instead use a fictional super railgun.

This is the same form of argumentation that you have with the martial vs caster threads.

"Well of course my reality warping dude is way better than the sword swinging guy"
"If he can fuck reality willi-nilly i should be able to wrestle dragons without magic aid, after all it's fantasy"

Also i looked up your navy railgun argument, and the two main points i could find where about the fact that they suck up too much energy from the ships engine, and that their techno-magic guided GPS rounds are too expensive.

Travellers power plants are already leagues above anything we have so comparing it to a TL 7 fission engine doen't seem quite fair.
The latter one is basically super special ammo and less suited for saturating space with cheap rounds.

>>55437364

Well, a real railgun fails, sometimes catasrophically, after one or two shots, and gets about 2-3km/s speed.
So we ARE comparing fictional super railguns to fictional super lasers.

>>55437465
>Well, a real railgun fails, sometimes catasrophically, after one or two shots, and gets about 2-3km/s speed.

Source ?
Because i googled "railgun fails after two shots" and those where all i could find.
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/05/navy-railgun-ramps-up-in-test-shots/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056782/US-Navy-fires-electromagnetic-railgun-1-000th-time.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsZmK1r133w

And we are talking about rounds that are fired by first generation railguns within an atmosphere.
Not about fictional super railguns in space that prolly can hit mach 12-18 with ease.
But maybe you mistook 1000 shots for 1, basic math gets hard with age after all.

>>55437364
>I understand your argument, but it does not explain why i should see the need to compare a fictional super laser to a real railgun, while i could instead use a fictional super railgun.

What you're failing to understand, and perhaps deliberately, is that it doesn't matter how magical lasers are in Traveller - and they're pretty fucking magical - they still work like lasers. Ditto Traveller's missiles which are also pretty fucking magical. The basic mechanics of how they work still impose constraints on their capabilities.

Regardless of their capabilities, lasers are still 'A thing which projects coherent light". If a laser wasn't a thing which projects coherent light, it wouldn't be a laser anymore.

Similarly, no matter how magical a railgun's capabilities may be, it's still "A thing which accelerates an unpowered object to huge speeds." If it doesn't do that, it's not a railgun.

You can make your railgun as "super" as you want. It's performance, that is the thing it does which makes it a railgun, will still pale in comparison to other Traveller weapons. Mach 12 or 18 is peanuts compared to lightspeed beams or missiles thrusting at dozens of gees.

If you want railguns, you're going to need to rewrite the rules to make them work.

>>55437949
>You can make it as good as you want but it will never be as good as things you didn't change.

gotcha !

File: 2c9452b85b5a8a6a6ae99429e8898dab.jpg (32KB, 440x386px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 440x386px

And then I asked them if I could have Macross Missiles. They laughed at me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxnC6jkJyEM