Back in early May, I posted about a crazy idea of mashing up the two Battlestar Galactica series into one setting, and running it using Classic Traveller.
Since then, I’ve fleshed out this concept into a subsector, some alterations to chargen, a submission to GameHoleCon which was accepted and now a series of playtest games of that same scenario.
The effort took flight on Monday (12 June) and it was a fantastic experience! It was definitely worth the 45 year wait. The players all said they had fun, we explored an option in that scenario with some moral/ethical decisions that players had to make, and in general, things went off without much of a hitch.
So what did I learn from my first session of referee’ing Classic Traveller?
Traveller was written to get out of the way
I remember, when I looked at the three little black books of Traveller in 1978, feeling confused and a bit overwhelmed. Compared to the (relatively) straightforward nature of the 1977 Basic D&D that I had been obsessing over at the time, this sci-fi game seemed way more complicated. Not like just delving a dungeon, casting magic and fighting monsters by rolling dice against a chart!
I think that the nature of the character generation, all the available expertises and the nature of the procedures in creating subsectors, worlds, characters, spaceships gave me the impression that playing Traveller was complicated.
Having a bit of experience over those 45 years with other systems, I now understand that while preparing things might require a few dice rolls and some procedural crunch, the actual game itself is exactly as Marc Miller describes it in the original Little Black Books:
“Above all, the referee and the players work together… The referee simply administers rules in situations where the players themselves have an incomplete understanding of the universe. The results should reflect a consistent reality.” (Book 3, pg 44)
That’s exactly what happened here. I don’t think I looked at the rulebooks once to see how things should be run. I understood the basics of the system, how to apply the mechanics when needed to determine results, and mostly had to just engage in the back-and-forth with the players as they worked through the scenario.
In some ways, it felt a little more free-form than OD&D and AD&D. Possibly because of point two…
Traveller gives the players a lot of role playing tools
I purposefully set out to limit the number of rolls that the players would make. They’d describe to me what they were doing. In some cases, I asked for clarifications or reasons why they thought they could do what they wanted. I referred to them as “experts” when they were talking about using their skills, which I called their “expertises”.
The first couple of obstacles they ran into, or things they wanted to do, they were asking “I’ll use my Computer skill and roll” or “I’ve got a good Streetwise skill, so I’ll roll against that”… but I didn’t prompt for throws. In fact, I don’t remember a single roll that the players had to engage in, at all, in 3 hours.
To be sure, they were using all those expertises, but they caught on that these were tools, starting points to engaging the problem. They didn’t use those skills as throw targets or bonuses, rather they used those expertises as the building blocks to explaining why they could go onto a freighter’s bridge and look at the logs and inventory lists to determine what the captain had been up to, or why they could look at a freighter’s drive and determine that yes, these parts would work on a Battlestar.
It was really cool to see [1] and I can say that this something that I think OD&D/AD&D perhaps don’t do quite as well.
What are the building blocks, the tools for role-playing for a D&D character? There’s the general idea of the class – which is a good starting point, but can still be somewhat abstract for a player to engage with. Some classes provide magic, which has specific mechanics. An enterprising DM might extend what magic does and how it works, but that’s a bit of lifting. Similar for thief skills – they’re specific to a task.
Compared to Traveller which has these concepts of expertises and they have good definitions even in just the name.
That’s not to say OD&D/AD&D can’t have this! The classes themselves give some starting points, and it’s something I think isn’t as emphasized in learning how to DM — the idea that a “fighter” is more than just a sword swinger who rolls against a combat table. Some food for thought!
Traveller definitely is the OD&D of sci-fi
I podcasted about this very topic in May and preparing/running Traveller reinforces it. It was pretty easy for me to take a sci-fi setting that is fairly opposite what the (now) default Traveller setting, and implement it using CT77. CT77’s implied setting is, for the most part, pretty vague and the bits that are there are fairly easy to replace.
Take, for instance, chargen. Some of the skills/expertises don’t exactly match, so it was easy enough to adapt them. I took out polearms and laser weapons, opting for a Battlestar Galactica 2003 approach with “real life” projectile weapons. I adapted the mustering out tables – the benefits one gets in their chargen when they leave “service” and become a civilian. Having “passages” (free travel tickets that allow players to move from star system to star system) or even actual starships given to the PCs didn’t make sense for a BSG setting, but having favors that could lead to the use of ships, or relationships that get the PCs somewhere, or specialized tools of their favorite skill – that fits. And easy enough to add.
All this to say that Classic Traveller is very much in the vein of OD&D in allowing you, if not outright expecting you to take it and make it your own. I think that’s less true as one progresses in the editions/versions of Traveller. By 1983, it reads like the Third Imperium implied setting is very firmly ensconced in the rules, but CT77 definitely is wide open, and it’s very good at being a framework.
One final bit
When I first set out to possibly run Classic Traveller, I quickly was pointed to a series of blog posts by Chris Kubasik on the blog “Tales To Astound”. They are, quite simply, some of the best blog posts on refereeing a game like CT77, or OD&D, or any game that relies on the referee to take an active role, similar to how Free Kriegspiel works. I never thought a scifi game would inform my OD&D game, but damned if it hasn’t.
The whole blog series is worth going through: https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/traveller-out-of-the-box/
But my top 3 recommended posts from Chris:
—
[1] In post session feedback, since this was a playtest, the players mentioned that I might want to point out to convention players that rolls by them may be few and far between. Good point!
I love this! I had similar experiences and insights running CT as well.
My experience of Classic Traveller has been similar. I’ve played a lot of versions (but not all). I think starting with the 1977 original Traveller set the pattern for me (and lots of others) in creating my own worlds rather than go with the Third Imperium as it developed. I did move on to the 1981/1982 revised rules, but that didn’t change my style. When my group decided they wanted to play ‘old style’ Traveller, one of the best sources to get me back into the swing of things was Chris Kubasik’s ‘Traveller Out of the Box’ posts, because I don’t think I’d run CT in over 10 years.
Glad to see you and your players had such fun.
Fantastic!
It's been interesting to read/listen to Marc talk about how he wanted to keep things generic, but everyone was pushing for a published/implied setting, so he gave the public what they wanted. I get the feeling, listening to him, that he likes the way 77 was written/runs.
I've adopted the 81 weapon damage and cover/conceal/darkness rules for combat for now. If we ever get to starship combat, I may go with the band approach from Starter, or even a more stripped down version. Not sure yet, still chewing on that.
And thank you for the kind comments!
I've been playing Traveller since '78, and worked through several different editions. It's quite possible to chuck the setting and use the newer rulesets with a custom setting.
Personally I find it easy to use the general backdrop of the 3rd Imperium, but play is usually on the fringes of civilized space, and it's easy to make it your own, without having to build everything from scratch. I've also run several games with completely different settings. A Forever War type setting was fun, as have variations based on several other SciFi novels.
I find early D&D and Traveller 77 as 'a good start'. Both had kind of clunky mechanics (not the die rolling, but tables, all the variations of modifiers for rolls that seemed arbitrary, and both lacked much flavour that you didn't create.
Also, I've never enjoyed the science-fantasy or space opera with grand heroes and over-the-top characters versus the little guy trying to get by in a big universe. I've always found when I played supers, I leaned towards the 'competent human' versus the 'superhuman' (Batman or the Punisher more than Thor) or in a space context, Han Solo, the crew of the Rosinante, or Malcolm Reynolds and his crew versus Jedi, Lensmen, or the like. I can relate to average folk struggling to survive and maybe do some decent things along the way in a way I can't with egotistical, always capable, always together character types.
There's a good reason every later editions (past 1977) provided some sort of setting, and anything after CT brought in more streamlined mechanics, and to a degree, more hooks and ideas to use or to at least inspire a choice.
For all everyone quotes Marc's views in 1977, look at T5. That's Marc's views now. It's three massive books and it has systems complex enough to make MegaTraveller ship building or original Striker's approach of building every mechanism to put in a vehicle in order to build a tank.
And look at what you get now: Massive books, fancy paper, massive hardcovers… and a lot of text walls to fill that in. How can you use even one of those frequently in a game? It's daft. But that's the problem with the new versions; They need to produce all these products to keep the companies working. D&D went that way too.
And it hasn't helped Traveller really otherwise, except in one way: People who are busy and don't have any time to prep and want to play immediately can sit down to some of the adventures (including the GM) and quickly start playing. That's the one justification I can recognize of having a lot more product out there.
What early Traveller did that I think highly of:
The built-from-the-start notion of home brewing settings. I have done that in both OD&D and Traveller almost consistently.
The risk in conflict and the lethality of combat.
The idea of a setting where communications and travel are at the same and where that gives the man or woman on the spot the latitude to make key decisions without being micromanaged by higher ups (a la helicopter parenting approach).
The notion that exploration and discovery can be a game mode.
Like OD&D, you were encouraged to talk, to negotiate, to haggle, to threaten, to intimidate, to cajole, flim-flam, distract, etc. so that you could avoid combat or if you had to fight them, you got to set some of the parameters of when and the situation when the bubble goes up.
The trust between players and GMs that they succeed together or fail together. Neither can 'beat' the other and nobody should try.
With the above point, rulings can be as faster and good enough in play that rules diving in books is less relevant and the game flows better.
I myself prefer a task system like MT had (smaller difficult increments in my use). I didn't like 8+ but each skill having a range of modifiers that seemed uneven or a bit bizarre at times. With MT's task system, I could create a task statement in 30 seconds and then immediately a roll could be made quickly as well with rich outcomes.
Beyond that, a table or two for combat situations, and with that I've run campaigns of several years without much other rules reference.
CT gave me the idea (necessity) to home brew. It gave me the career structure and skill based characters and decisions that matter with consequences and risks. That's what I bring from CT to any game I run of any sort.
What I take from later versions are cleaner 'resolution engines' and a bit or bolt here and there that looks like something one wants in a particular setting.
What I no longer value at all:
Build systems for ships.
Build systems for vehicles.
Build systems for running pocket empires or trillion credit squadrons.
What do I use in setting building:
Trade models (though more GT than CT)
System building (World Builder's Guide, etc)
But those last two are between sessions as prep, not something in play.
Traveller remains my favourite sci-fi game after 43 years of playing. And I don't buy all the products anymore – must one once in a while – because I have everything I need (and more).
I find the people who have moved to the current MgT version often came from 5E D&D. Both are heavier than the earlier games and they have rules for everything and then we see people's optimizing their builds. They want point systems or arrays instead of dice. They want to play a particular character complete with a planned character arc. That's not what 'find out what happens in play' would suggest. They also seem to be concerned about a written rule rather than a ruling, partly because of internet random groups that didn't work well together or paid GMing.
Of course, of the grognards who have been kicking around the Travellerverses for decades, some of them spend more time playing solo or just fiddling with with pocket empires, trillion credit squadrons, running trade as the entirety of a game rather thna adventure that happens to also do some trading, builds of ships, or the like rather than actually playing with a group. That can be of necessity, but I think it is the spectre of what Traveller is about.
I don't see the game as 'superheroes in space' but neither do I think a game of playing the mechanics and tables solely is really what Traveller is – to me anyway.
To me, it is a group of friends or a crew that were welded together by tough times and they are Travelling to eat, to live, and to maybe still be relevant (as they are effectively all retirees) in ways that matter to them and where their agency has a lot to do with what the campaign ends up looking like.
I think Marc may be very good at providing the content ala T5, but I think his heart likes the simplicity of CT77.
I think your list of likes from CT is spot on.
Well said.
I find, for me, Traveller gives me the ability to implement settings in the way that emphasizes the setting over the mechanics. I could see just about any setting, whether sci-fi, fantasy or modern, is possible with the mechanics and some homebrew. Just like OD&D gives me a lot of that as well.
To paraphrase Seth Sorkowsky "As a player who successfully survived this adventure," (despite my own misguided efforts to depressurize the hull with projectiles…) and a 40 year Traveller Ref/player, it was liberating to NOT roll dice. You had an unusual group of thinking players who were very creative role players and you are a gifted referee / story teller.