Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;940444Black Vulmea is just upset because he royally sucks at the hobby.

You of all people, have no footing to judge from on this.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;940444Black Vulmea is just upset because he royally sucks at the hobby.

Shit, you are definitely the wrong person to make that judgment.

The mind can only marvel, devoid of comprehension, at the fact that someone does not have Shawn Driscoll on ignore. The man (?) is essentially a Brian Gleichman clone, only deprived of any redeeming qualities.

Quote from: The Butcher;940462The man (?) is essentially a Brian Gleichman clone, only deprived of any redeeming qualities.

Driscoll looks like a man in his YouTube videos. His videos are as drab and uninteresting, as his one-sentence garbage posts here.

Quote from: Baron Opal;940438In your opinion, is there a preferred choice if you are making your own milieu? I'm putting together my own, new, game as well and am not interested in the canon Third Empire.

Half of my Classic Traveller campaigns haven't been in the Imperium. I haven't found any problems with altering CT to achieve my own setting goals. The only bit is needing different configurations of Scout Ships and Far Traders. Those Trav ships have a known look for many players so when doing your own setting, either find a reason for those classic ships to exist, or troll the web for a cool variant that works for you.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;940371You play Traveller as a wargame. Lots of players do to this day.

What do you mean by "play Traveller as a wargame"?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;940304'goose Traveller is not 'updated' or 'expanded' or 'modernized' or 'cleaned up' LBB Traveller - it proceeds from a different set of assumptions about how the game is played from the original.

What "different set of assumptions" do you feel were used by the Goose?  

Quote from: CRKrueger;940308You two are getting dangerously close to saying "System Matters", which we all know is CrazyTalk.

Crazy as in should be self-evident to anyone who isn't an Embodied Avatar of the Rule Zero Fallacy.

How is Rule Zero a fallacy?

Just asking for an Embodied Avatar friend of mine.

Quote from: Spinachcat;940484Half of my Classic Traveller campaigns haven't been in the Imperium. I haven't found any problems with altering CT to achieve my own setting goals. The only bit is needing different configurations of Scout Ships and Far Traders. Those Trav ships have a known look for many players so when doing your own setting, either find a reason for those classic ships to exist, or troll the web for a cool variant that works for you.




What do you mean by "play Traveller as a wargame"?




What "different set of assumptions" do you feel were used by the Goose?  




How is Rule Zero a fallacy?

Just asking for an Embodied Avatar friend of mine.

Rule Zero isn't a fallacy.  The "Rule Zero Fallacy" is that any criticism of game rules is pointless because the rules can be changed.

An example would be saying your dismissal of 2d20 as "narrative nonsense" is stupid because you could make it non-narrative.  It's a bullshit way to shut down any discussion of rules and mechanics.

Quote from: K Peterson;940466Driscoll looks like a man in his YouTube videos. His videos are as drab and uninteresting, as his one-sentence garbage posts here.

You're just another grognard whose crap role-play still runs off of fumes of nostalgia.

Would you guys mind getting a room and working out your unfulfilled sexual tension so the rest of us can talk about Traveller maybe?

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;940557You're just another grognard whose crap role-play still runs off of fumes of nostalgia.

Hey, more one-sentence-garbage.

Eh, you don't know shit about my gaming, Driscoll. You're just another shitweasel gamer who thinks he knows what is the true way to play roleplaying games, and spews his moronic shit across threads.

Quote from: David Johansen;940564Would you guys mind getting a room and working out your unfulfilled sexual tension so the rest of us can talk about Traveller maybe?

Wouldn't that be nice? But I think everyone's having a catharsis moment.

Quote from: Spinachcat;940484What "different set of assumptions" do you feel were used by the Goose?

The pre-eminence of attributes over skill is the most significant for me. Bonuses to skill throws are mostly ad hoc in Traveller, whereas they can be disproportionately more influential than actual skill in 'goose Trav'.

Quote from: David Johansen;940564Would you guys mind getting a room and working out your unfulfilled sexual tension so the rest of us can talk about Traveller maybe?

Piss the fuck off, you supercilious ass.

Quote from: Spinachcat;940484What "different set of assumptions" do you feel were used by the Goose?

The pre-eminence of attributes over skill is the most significant for me. Bonuses to skill throws are mostly ad hoc in Traveller, whereas they can be disproportionately more influential than actual skill in 'goose Trav'.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;940594Piss the fuck off, you supercilious ass.

Got a new word a day calendar for Christmas I see.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;940594The pre-eminence of attributes over skill is the most significant for me. Bonuses to skill throws are mostly ad hoc in Traveller, whereas they can be disproportionately more influential than actual skill in 'goose Trav'.

They aren't pre-eminent - they are balanced and standardised, is all. A +1/-1 or occasional +2/-2, or even rarer +3/-3 modifier is not pre-eminent over a skill range that generally ranks from 0-5, with a -3 penalty for not having a skill. Statistically most PCs only have a few Characteristic DMs at the +1/-1 range (12+ is a +2DM) but focussed skills can frequently go to 3+.

They didn't standardise the Characteristic DMs in Classic Traveller (although they did in MegaTraveller) but nothing was standardised in Classic Traveller anyway. They didn't regulate a core task system in Classic Traveller - it was all pretty formative stuff, with advice given for individual skills (notably, no other game had a skill based system before Traveller, so it was quite an innovation).

However, in certain Classic Traveller systems, like combat, the Characteristic scores had a greater influence than they do in MgT through particular stipulations. The Strength score, for example, determined the weapons you could use without penalty and gave bonuses if your score was above a particular advantage threshold. A Strength of 8, for example would give you a +2 to hit with a club, for example, but had a -4 to hit if Strength was below 5. Dexterity would influence different firearms, and Endurance would limit the amount of blows you could make in combat (an Endurance of 6 meant you'd get 6 swings before you'd fatigue). The Characteristic scores, as such, had a much greater influence than the current Mongoose version of Traveller, in combat. In MgT, skills like Leadership and Tactics influence the outcome more than characteristic bonuses.  

There was an argument made in the original MgT playtest, which I supported, that the Characteristics should be used in direct comparison to the Difficulty rating of the task and provide bonuses based on this comparison (-1 if lower, +1 if higher, +2 if double etc), but it was deemed to be distracting in play. They chose to apply fixed DMs, a la D&D, and seeing as it's gone through two editions now, there doesn't seem to be many complaining. The boon/bane dice I'm a bit meh about, but it's pretty much an optional thing in play so it's pretty superfluous.

Feel free to call me a cunt for pointing this out, by the way, which seems to be the level of discourse you seem most comfortable with.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;940640They didn't standardise the Characteristic DMs in Classic Traveller (although they did in MegaTraveller) but nothing was standardised in Classic Traveller anyway. They didn't regulate a core task system in Classic Traveller - it was all pretty formative stuff, with advice given for individual skills (notably, no other game had a skill based system before Traveller, so it was quite an innovation).

I wouldn't call it formative, this was a group of experienced wargame designer. What Marc Miller did is treat each areas as separate mini-games and design it in the way that made sense to him. This is was consistent with how wargame were done with each major topic (combat resolution, morale, etc) having the mechanics that the designer thought worked the best for that.

It was Digest Group who came up with the idea of a Universal Task mechanic and applied to everything they presented in the Traveller's Digest.

There is case to be made for both and it basically boils down to personal preference. I personally like Mongoose Traveller approach as trend back in the 80s was more comphrensive mechanics. The game got more detailed and more complicated over time. In contrast for me the the core rules of MgT 1e feels like Traveller returned back to the basics. I adopted MgT 1e because Classic Traveller went through several phases that are sort of compatible with each other. MgT 1e covered all what Classic Traveller did but in a  way that it is consistent. It wasn't earth shatteringly better but enough to convince me to adopt it. But I would have no problems running a campaign with the Classic Traveller rules either.