Algesan

On 6/6/2021 at 6:29 PM, svensson said:

OK, taking my experience as a heavy fighter in the SCA, yes you can do both with some great weapons, but not all of them.

Most great weapons [greatswords, halberds, pikes, etc.] are not fought from the shoulder and arm muscles, but from the thighs, hips, and stomach muscles. If the fighter doesn't over-commit and unbalance himself, then parrying and dodging are no big deal. Most strikes are short [!] chopping motions or thrusts that are easily recovered back into a guard position if the fighter keeps his footing and balance.

The two-handed weapons with the most 'parry potential' in my experience are swords and spears, as they are fought with quick short strikes. Axes and mauls, not so much. They require some 'oomph' behind them, longer arcs with more muscular commitment to the strike.

To put it another way, fighting a man and chopping a tree are two VERY different things.

So, in a rules sense, I personally feel it's entirely reasonable for an attack and parry /dodge to occur in the same round.

Note that I don't hold my experiences in the SCA to be the final word on medieval combat. There are a lot of very smart people out there who've done some very stellar work in recreating many treatises on personal combat and some organizations who have other ideas just as valid as my experiences. And let's be honest here... the only 'experts' in medieval combat are people who faced an opponent over a bare blade and lived. But the SCA is the experience I have, and I think it taught me a couple things of value to the discussion.

Not to dis you or the OP's experience, since I share it, but the problem with SCA experience stems directly from its admirable record of low injuries, it limits what you can do with weapons.

HEMA is not immune to it, although a bit more open, depending on the rules in use.

Any two handed weapon has the ability to both parry/block and riposte/attack.  Sure, it isn't going to work if you try to play Mighty Casey with a baseball bat.  There are some advantages to using a weapon with two hands in terms of leverage.   This doesn't even cover "alternate" attack methods that fit right into using the weapon, including kicks, trips, throws, grappling, elbow smashes, punching, pommel strikes, butt spikes, etc.  That is actually one of the greatest things about the original D&D combat system, since it simulated a minute of combat to get one "damaging" blow in which included feints, parries, ripostes, "alternate attacks", etc.  IMO, a minute was too long, but it got out of all of this technical stuff.  There are other systems if you want to simulate that.

On 3/4/2020 at 1:58 PM, steamcraft said:

There is BRP, OpenQuest, Legend, etc.  All of these seem to have almost the exact same rules (but maybe I am missing something.)  In any case, when it comes to these games, what do you like the most about them?  What do you dislike about them?  Given that you could use BRP for non-fantasy games, I am pretty much just interested in the fantasy genre at the moment.  I am thinking more in terms of the rules and play rather than the settings that may go along with these rules. 

Um, no, they are merely similar.  Yes, some have pretty much the same mechanisms as each other, but often enough they various versions streamline different mechanisms.  For example, I like the Mythras Classic Fantasy method of using Ranks as "levels", although I'm reworking that section because trying to shoehorn classes into a d100 type system can be klunky.  Doable, but it takes more flexibility, which means more skills, which means more different "rank up" (level up) numbers.  I mean, seriously, what melee character isn't going to spend every possible experience roll on their Combat Style?  Are they stupid?  Why isn't a player going to push his character and spend virtually all of his experience rolls outside of the ones needed to rank up?  NOTE: Yes, yes, yes, some people will do some things for RP purposes.  Without sufficient flexibility in the rank up skills, your dwarf fighter & master smith will end up either limited in his actual smithing related skills or sucking wind in the fighter department compared to some blockhead who sticks with the rank up skills.

Its getting to be a bit amusing.  Keep the Mythras CF character creation, totally redo the rank up methodology (so something like a true "light fighter" type becomes viable instead of everybody going with the old tanky type), toss the Mythras combat in favor of the simplified version of BRP combat.  Go with Mythras skills, toss the entire BRP "base chance" + stat bonus for StatA + StatB = base chance, because it forces some choices for starting characters ("do I use the 5% base chance or the 25% base chance weapon?").  Also, more combined skills, so more concise with Mythras, but the complications of flexibility from BRP can be used if needed.

Actually, if I have a number one complaint about any of the d100 fantasy systems, it is the total lack of a creature summary list.  Don't think Monster Manual (yes, some fans have done great work there, but without a table of contents or a simpler search, having to go page by page through huge pdf files is not fun), think back of the 1e Dungeon Masters' Guide where a functional stat block line per creature is.

On 11/8/2019 at 8:33 AM, Raleel said:

You are free to do as you like in your game of course, but it has been asked (by me) and I was told nope  

Mythras takes the model to not break out shield use too much. It already is very strong in Mythras compared to most other RPGs, there is hardly a need to incentivize it more. 

truth, the design mechanism boards are probably a better place for this discussion. Several folks on there are far more knowledgeable about shields and how they are used in combat than I, and the author of classic fantasy is on there much more

Heh, part of the post that got eaten was that I didn't want to do the "do what you want in your game" excuse.  I find it funny and annoying because I learned to play and GM using the OD&D ruleset, which required it because it was broken in so many ways.

It is a good position because the purpose is mainly defensive and, totally IMO, if we actually could go and watch well trained fighters who grew up trained in these martial arts, I bet there are counters to offensive shield use that make it far less useful than we find it today. 

I may go look there then, although the logic you gave me is one that makes sense, because despite how potentially damaging a shield strike can be, you don't find it as a primary attack option in any of the historical treatises we have. 

Thanks.
 

On 11/4/2019 at 8:52 PM, Raleel said:

1) no

2) no

Thanks.  First answer as expected (had a generated higher rank character who happened to qualify for the next rank based on the +5 CS bonus and another skill).

Second one, not so much.  The system ate a longer post where I gave my qualifications to speak on this subject and why shields are far, far deadlier IRL than the standard RPG rule constructs allow.  IMO, the official rule should either be the +20 (they really are two different skills and shield use mostly doesn't change regardless of the weapon) OR that the shield spec +10 should be either Parry only or Parry + Offensive shield strikes.  The latter better shows the true combat effects of shields.  Maybe only allow learning one size category of base shield.  There is a large difference between using a buckler and using a kite (I've done both). 

The tiniest shield, the buckler, if used offensively hits harder than the best brass knuckles you can buy...

Think about why cops only use riot shields defensively: admitted lack of training & they don't want to start raising the casualty rate for rioters.

Biggest pushback I can see... for fighters, it would make buying one level of Shield Spec a virtual lock for every build.  We cannot see any reason not to end up with Shield spec by Rank 2.  Especially since if you want the "light fighter" build, disallow the Shield Spec and allow the Dual Weapon spec from rangers.

After doing some playtest fights, a few questions popped up:

1) Does the +5% Combat bonus for the melee types count towards their Rank?
2) For Fighters, do the Shield Specialization (+10% Combat Style when using shield) and Melee Weapon X Specialization (+10% Combat Style when using Melee Weapon X) stack, giving an additional +20% to Combat Style when fighting with Melee Weapon X & Shield?
 

On 9/21/2019 at 10:55 AM, Raleel said:

 

This part (the /intensity) part increases the range. so a 2 intensity fireball (4 point cost, 3+1) will go 20m

and

the spell damage table is found on p 124 of Mythras Classic Fantasy. the aforementioned intensity 2 fireball does 1d4 points of damage. If you upped it to intensity 3, it would have a base cost of 5, a range of 30m, and damage (as per the spell damage table) of 1d6

Yes, I am blind.

Thanks.

On 9/18/2019 at 5:21 PM, threedeesix said:

It really depends on what the spell did in AD&D as to what gets boosted in Classic Fantasy. For the most part, anything that had effects that increased per level, are instead increased per Intensity in Classic Fantasy. So, some spells might only see their damage get an increase, while others, like Illusionary terrain for example, see their Area of Effect, Range, and Duration all increase.

What I did different from the first edition of Classic Fantasy however is that where in the first each effect had to be increased separately, in the new version increasing Intensity increases all variables that are dependent on it. So it is no longer necessary to increase each individually.

Rod

Thanks, useful design note.  While I can and do house rule my own stuff, I prefer to know the designer's intent.
 

On 9/18/2019 at 4:23 PM, Raleel said:

It very much depends on the spell, especially in classic fantasy. The spells in classic fantasy are normally cast at an intensity you decide and pay for (in the cost of the spell) and have effects in the spell. So fireball increases its range (in the spell header) and it’s damage (in the spell text, according to the spell damage table). Haste it increases duration, etc. 

Where are you seeing this in Fireball?

Quote

Fireball
(Evocation)
Cost: 3, +1/additional Intensity
Area: 6 m (20 ft) Radius
Casting Time: 2 Actions
Duration: Instant
Range: 10 m (30 ft)/Intensity
Resist: Evade
On the first Turn of casting, as the magic-user begins the verbal incantation and gestures, a small cinder or spark-sized flame begins to form in the hand, slowly enlarging to a small ball of fire. On the second Turn, the incantation complete, the magic-user gestures, tossing the ball, which detonates with a low roar into a massive ball of fire. It delivers damage based on the Spell Damage Table to all victims in the area of effect. This damage is applied to each hit location with Armour Points counting as half normal. Magic armour may apply its entire Magic Bonus as well. A successful Resistance roll allows the victim to suffer only half the rolled damage. A Fireball has a chance of igniting flammable materials. See ‘Fires’ in Chapter 6 for additional information.

Yes, this is trivially house ruled and I think I actually found the source of my issue.  Fire(ball) in BRP 4th allows for alterations in number of hexes covered by the AoE and increasing the damage.

This works, if it isn't clearly stated (like with Haste), then intensity is only relevant on odd numbers (when the damage goes up).

Thanks for the assist.

Spell Intensity, does it do anything besides adjust the amount of damage a spell does?
I've gone from the little BRP Classic Fantasy supplement to the RQ6/Mythras Classic Fantasy version.  I remember somewhere that increasing spell intensity/level allowed for changing several different effects: larger AoE, longer range, more damage, etc.

I would have blown the entire question off and left it as just a way to pump damage only since I cannot find any cross reference or source skimming through both books, except I find this under Magic Missile:

Quote

For example, at Rank 1, a magic-user that cast Magic Missile at 3 Intensity would achieve the longer range, however no additional missiles will be generated.

An apparently clear reference to extending range through use of increased Intensity... ???

On 12/30/2018 at 10:30 AM, Darius West said:

A good rule of thumb is that a penny will buy a cooked meal for an adult or 2 kids.  If you cook your own meal, then you make savings for as long as the food lasts.  If you lack money you have to forage in the wilds, rummage after scraps, beg, or steal.  Rent will vary, but will be sensitive to market forces.  Cooking, heating and lighting will rely on a supply of firewood, dung chips, reeds, pitch, or oil and will be more expensive in cities than if obtained in rural areas.  It is a good idea to think of your lowest denomination coin as a tradeable meal voucher.  Unskilled labor will live a semi-nomadic existence unless they cop a break.  Once you know this rule, you get a better sense of what to charge for things, as you add up the effort to find the raw materials (items/day), transport them to market (quantity/time), then you need to calculate the time it takes to make the item against the daily wage of the craftsperson, add the raw material cost, and double it (profit).  Halving the value will give you the minimum value the craftsperson might be prepared to reluctantly sell an item for if it is just sitting on a shelf for months.  Note that Guilds offer their membership a lot of protection, but they also act to set prices for items citywide.  In fact the whole idea of a RPG price list is pretty close to how medieval cities used to operate thanks to guilds.

Minor addition to this.

The rule of thumb depends on what your social class is.  The peasants may get away with that penny, but their cabbage soup will be the one with the bit of gristle still in it.  As you go higher up the strata (of whatever culture you are using), the costs of buying a meal (really, anything) will go up, sometimes quite a bit, as will the quality.  The craftsman might get a bit of meat.  The merchant will get a bit of fat with the meat.  The big merchant/city official will get some meat on the side.  The nobility will get meat garnished with cabbage.

All of this at increasing rates, so the penny for the peasants, then nickel, dime, quarter, dollar.  Yes, I skipped half since the nobles always have money and are expected to spend it, maybe even giving some extra to feed some peasants by the back door who are hurt/sick, widowed or orphaned and cannot work a job that pays a few pennies a day.

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Certianly. A Gm can alter any aspect of a RPG, but the default D&D prices and settings throw around lots of gold.

LOL! Although the 50 per pound is about right, for quarter ounce gold coins. THe problem is that in D&D you need a pounds and pounds of the stuff to buy magic.

Agreed and Agreed.

I was fortunate to grow up with some really old school GMs, as in D&D was released when I was 14, but I didn't find the Sunday afternoon gaming club until months later when I was almost 15.  Hmmm, I actually can confirm one of my suspicions if I move fast enough as my first DM (not GM back then) was 30ish and I know he is back in town and working at the old hobby store.  I think he had contact with the Gygax crowd prior to D&D's official publication.  He always had the newest books before the official release. 

On 12/31/2018 at 12:18 PM, Atgxtg said:

We all do. But I think we realize that the "economics:" of such games don't hold up. Players would somehow have to carry around tons of gold to buy the magical items available, and then the merchants would somehow need to find a place to store it, or a way to get it to someplace safe.

It can be quite relevant, depending on the game and just how rich the players are. For example, in D&D, where gold is common, but people can get buy on silver and copper, subsidence level economics isn't relevant. Gold in D&D is really used mostly to buy better magical gear, and living conditions aren't an issue.

But, in a game like Pendragon or Harn, with a more medieval economy,  where the coins don't flow as freely, then subsistence level economics might be quite relevant. In Pendragon, magic is so rare and precious to be unavailable for purchase, and  one gold coin (£1) is about how much it takers to feed a peasant family for a year, or a few guards. It's also about the amount of discretionary funds a landed knight has each year. So yeah, subsistence level economies can be quite relevant, if the game is using a historical economy where subsistence wasn't e automatic.

It's why the price of a common sword becomes a non-issue in D&D after a certain point, but is still a tidy sum in some other RPGS.

Heh, different D&D games, perhaps run by differing GMs with a different take on economics.  I've never been able to buy durable magic items in a game.  Potions and scrolls, yes, you could buy them if you had enough coin, but rarely get exactly what you were looking for.

I take your point on Pendragon economic games, but outside of D&D (where gold is almost a given) most of my games use coppers and silvers mainly.  Influence from other sources.

As for carrying it around, I had a bit of fun once.  I indulged in some Kickstarters where they made coins for playing games with.  I pulled them together after a couple of KS, put 150-200 of them in separate little bags inside a large leather pouch, set it on the table at the FLGS and invited people to pick it up and feel the weight of a couple hundred gold coins.  Opened a few eyes...

On 12/30/2018 at 10:14 AM, Atgxtg said:

Yeah probably closer to "provide for a family". 

KInda. In most cases it's not really payment in cash money, but instead the value of goods and food. So someone who gets ahead probably has an extra chicken or two. 

True, but that's probably more due to the limited focus of most RPG campaigns. Most GMs tend to run games of murder hobos wandering from place to place, killing monsters, and spending treasure looted from their enemies to upgrade their equipment. 

 

But, if a GM is running a setting where the PCs have to interact with society in any way, then the ramifications of wealth become important, since the PCs sending money can have a great impact on a local merchant or even a local economy. 

Well, I do admit the appeal of Hack'n'Slash since I'm about to order two copies of Diablo 3 for my son (our mutual birthdays ) and I to have fun blasting stuff apart.....

OTOH, even with players making economic decisions, other than some basic rules for a "living wage" as the basis for the economy, subsidence level living isn't really relevant to player level economic decisions (unless the murder hoboes are actually hoboes....).

On 12/5/2018 at 6:52 PM, Atgxtg said:

Well, what you need to figure out is how many lead coins does a take to feed and hose a person for a day. That should be about the 1d amount. Then you can multiply the other grades by some number (RQ3 used 4) to get the next grade.

Yes, nothing like making sure you are fed and cleaned every day.  Sorry, couldn't resist 

Actually, it should feed more than one a day in that kind of economy or there should be some kind of "found" available to support daily laborers with wife and a kid or three.  Barely support, yes, making any interruption of work into an almost immediate debt problem.  Of course, remember if anyone gets ahead in this kind of culture, immediately their family and neighbors will pressure them for a "loan" since it would be "sinful" to hold on to such wealth.  And this is actually more detail than 99.9% of the campaigns out there need. 😕

On 12/22/2018 at 10:34 PM, threedeesix said:

Unfortunately, Chaosium's management at the time (not the wonderful crew running things now) were very difficult to deal with and all of my emails went unanswered. The odd thing is that during its run, Classic Fantasy was their best selling non-Cthulhu monograph, so it mystified me that they just didn't seem to care. Eventually, I gave up and moved on. For what it's worth, Mythras Classic Fantasy is the spiritual successor to the BRP version, and a much more complete and well supported product. 

 

I agree, the Mythras version of CF is much, much cleaner.  In fact, to run an OSR (A)D&D or (O)D&D campaign in d100, I'd go for the Mythras version for character creation and development.  It might need some work with the Mythras elements imbedded in it, but I'm not sure Mythras itself is that bad, but even so, it is doable to ignore most of it.  I think you just set the skills you want as "level up" skills and let the players go.  Although I will admit I'm leaning more towards purely development roll after each adventure (1-5, maybe a couple of extras and a freebie for crit rolls during the run) where the player picks what skills they want to work on.

On 11/29/2018 at 10:18 AM, Raleel said:

mostly it's just used as a framework in CF for leveling. In Mythras, they are more culturally focused, but certainly don't have to be. Just think of them as levels in CF. If you don't want to use levels, I'd like to hear about the choices in your campaign to better assist.

In the Weird War 2 campaign, it worked out fairly well as the characters started out as "low powered" elites and just got more powerful bit by bit, mainly by getting some skill raises as well as expanding their skill set.  Just a touch of Cthulhu in it because Dust is at least trending that way as a setting.  The fantasy campaign is actually a bit similar and oddball.  Our occasional 4th player just runs a basic dwarf fighter, the other three are a Drow (without all the AD&D negatives for sunlight) physical adept (uses superpowers to buff his body & skills at a POW cost) & swordsman, a duelist oriented human with some focused dueling skills & a bit of rogue, a mage who is dabbling a bit in alchemy and slowly becoming a staff swinger as well as being the main occult lore guy.  Skills are all over the place, with a few outliers, but mainly in the 75ish range for the top skills.

My biggest worry is still working with the "Martial Arts" skill, it is potentially too deadly, but then looking at the supposed levels via CF, cutting through low powered stuff is fairly trivial and correct, so I'm not too upset.  Note that since these guys started as "classless" from a CF perspective, they don't have the bonus class skills.  Instead they got a "class" that gave them 8 core skills (+2 optional) that started at Base + EDUx2 + Cat bonus.  The mage got four random spells at oh, I forget how I figured the base skill of them, but it was like 31 and has now risen to 40-50ish. 

Okay, what must be bothering me was the Mythras brotherhood/cult thing.  I'm not familiar with that (and is there something similar in RQ itself?) and it doesn't appeal to me as a GM or much as a gamer in general.  My players do love a puzzle and strategy and we actually had a lot of fun (one of the other guys as GM, me as a player) going through the old school D&D mission of leveling up, clearing an area, bringing in settlers and when hitting name level, being accepted as "Lord of X" by the nearest kingdom, but really, most nights better have a couple of desperate fights with blood flying and treasure awaits.

The ranks themselves looked fairly straightforward, but unfortunately, I've made some choices on my campaign and.... 

On 11/21/2018 at 4:58 PM, Sigtrygg said:

There was no Imperium in early CT - the setting didn't start to be developed until 1979 and would only reach its recognisable form by the early to mid-80s. One change however is the Imperials became the good guys in Traveller - despite the early adventures portraying the Imperium is a much darker/negative view (much more like Star Wars).

IIRC, the earliest "Imperium" was the alien one that humans had to fight to get into the stars (loosely connected at least).  Heh, Imperium was one of my favorite games by GDW and maybe ever.  The balance of having to lose wars, while somehow gaining ground as the Imperium and the Terran's need to not allow it to grow out of control as they actually did gain ground was a lot of fun.  They also had the little fighter counter with the one black fighter in front of the two white ones (as opposed to the three white ones on the rest).  What I missed about that was there was supposed to be a series of independent "linked" games that chronicled the several "barbarian races" arising and fighting their way into the original Imperium and then a final game or two using the same system for the "barbs" to fight it out over the Imperium.  Hopefully tied together by a grand campaign of sorts (so that you could have some barb races win, some lose, some draw and have that play out in the endgame part).

On 11/21/2018 at 9:05 AM, Atgxtg said:

Well originally Kirk was supposed to be a Horatio Hornblower in space, and you see some of that with Pike. But Shatner pulled things into a different direction.

I think Kirk still managed that "feel" for Hornblower in Space (as in being isolated and making off the cuff policy decisions without oversight).  I'm referring to some of the "canon" background from the 70s (IIRC) in the sense of "approved by Gene Rodenberry" but never actually declared such.  It covered several interesting tidbits, like why Kirk & Scotty after the latest Romulan cloaking device?  They had the hands on technical skills because Lt. (or Lt. Cmdr.) Kirk and his about to become pet engineer were the Captain & Chief Eng on the Fed's cloaking device test ship (IIRC, the Feds discarded it because of the energy penalty and their wasn't some need for a made up treaty to explain why the Feds didn't have a cloaking device....besides, who the feth would have EVER agreed to that kind of treaty?!).

On 11/21/2018 at 8:55 AM, Atgxtg said:

Oh yeah. It's a tough balancing act. If you use the standard (preassigned) method for traits you end up with cookie cutter knights with similar personalties, because they will want to have good scores in the chivalrous and religious traits. But if you roll random, you could end up with paragons of knightly virtues who rack up a fantastic amount of glory each year. In my last campaign, several players rolled great traits vales (with dice, it happens) and were quickly racking up over 300 glory a year in traits and bonuses. And it escalated from there. Of course, changing the Chivalry bonus to 96 would have made a difference.

I've been thinking of going with 2D6+3 instead of 3D6 for trait scores. That would still allow for some variance, but reduce the chance of getting a string of traits at 16+. With the cultural modifiers and discretionary points the bonuses should still be obtainable to some. 

 

 

I'm using 4d6 drop lowest for stats (except Size, I always do that one straight 3d6) and 3d6 pick your side for traits (pick which trait in a pair you want it to apply to).  If you wanted to even those up some, then your 2d6+3 or even 2d6+6 would work for stats & traits.  Biggest problem with the "standard" character creation system for me comes from the fact that virtually everyone is that..... bugger..... +3 CON "race".  Yes, it is kind of "period" for the (early) Great Pendragon Campaign, but the different continental "races" with their varied skill sets provide a nice variety.  Sure, everyone is going to have 15 minimum in several combat skills, but that just means they are all well trained.  I see that happening in generic BRP games where everyone slams their combat skills to the max reasonable level at a minimum and lets the rest catch up as they can.

On 10/20/2018 at 9:34 AM, Raleel said:

I don’t know if you are open for other options, but if this were my group I would use Mythras (a BRP family game) and it’s supplement Classic Fantasy. The latter is built to emulate OSR (and thus a little lower magic, a little grittier) D&D but using a d100 chassis. 

Not that BGB can’t do it, I’m sure. I just have less experience in that area. As a whole the deadlier combat in most of the d100 lines are going to give it quite a bit different flavor. 

If you are coming from older D&D, then I agree on this one, although you may not want to deal with some of the baggage from Mythras.  I haven't delved enough into it to figure out what to do about the "rank" system except to use it as a basis for figuring "levels".  Heck, the baggage from Mythras might end up being a lot of fun!

I did a group of them, although they may not be appropriate (not for Middle Earth probably), but I don't know your other setting.  These are more random with some rather odd combinations of characters & races.  The Orc con man, the Halfing sage, etc.

Very nice

On 10/25/2018 at 6:44 PM, Atgxtg said:

I think the change was to help speed of chargen, and to ensure that PKs weren't dysfunctional. Back in KAP1 I'd often see People  roll up PKs that, by the luck of the dice, were practically unplayable. Or, a bad Loyalty (Liege) roll might force a player to age his character for years, or stay a squire longer so as to reach the required 15. 

 

It also helps to prevent super characters. Oddly enough its not high Characteristics that are a problem, so much as high traits, and the related glory awards. I've seen lucky players end up netting both the Chivalry and Religious bonuses, plus a couple of notable passions to net over 300 glory per year at the start. With only moderate adventuring they will earn 1000 Glory every three years-to start! Down the road a bit, it tends to be every other year, and all those extra glory points really amp up the characters. 

Point, but it also gives a more clone-ish feel to the characters (IMO)...OTOH, using the "squire time" system I did, everyone ended up with Chivalry and Religion bonuses, although it did depend on the rolls for how much they had to commit that way and how much to raising skills.  As a note, I never improved any of the skills over 15 for the characters I created.  So, speaking of being clones...

Which means I'll have to watch the Glory meter.  I'll have to look over my characters I've made up again and see if there is an obvious issue.

On 11/18/2018 at 7:53 PM, Atgxtg said:

Very small capital ship, compared to Star Wars.

Lasers and Pstions were staples of SciFi long before Star Wars. Psionics were probably viewed as illegal to prevent every PC from being tested. In fact Traveller was somewhat unusual for SCiFi for having slugthrowers and blades as the primary weapons.

Yup, but that doesn't mean anything. I beleive they did a Captain Kirk writeup someplace, too. . 

Considering that Star Wars and Traveller were released in the same year, Miller would have had to work fast to see the film in May, create an original RPG, and get in on the shelves in a few months.

 

Do you have anything to support your claim, or it it just your opinion?

 

Heh, look up Hammers' Slammers original book and check out David Drake's discussion about his version of a "blaster".  He gets into the advantages of both projectile and energy weapons for combat.  OTOH, like *any* kind of FTL (and much other common SF trope tech), it departs from "hard" science and works on theorycrafting based on the theory that is currently popular and/or fits the author's story.  Of course, add in the law of unintended consequences...Star Trek wasn't supposed to have a transporter, it was too "magical", but it wasted time for them to do the shuttle sequence every time during the first season, so they added it in for a faster way to move the characters....

Which version of Kirk?  Of course, the TNG and after mostly blew the original layout of Kirk away, except for the fact that he was supposed to be the first Fed captain to complete a five year mission without losing his ship or over half his crew.  One thing I appreciated about Enterprise, it was all fun and games, but when it got serious, yep, Archer lost mass quantities of crew.  However, the fun write up for the obvious Star Wars connection was there in one of the Traveler supplements.