Quote:
Originally Posted by Ante
I think it was an interesting review.
While Traveller was influential and in some places brilliantly concieved, it appears dated to some today. A must confess liking it with all it's wrinkles.  |
Sure, I feel the same way about it.
Quote:
|
Anyway, I do think the reviewer might have missed the fact that the setting is written in the late seventies and early eighties. If you compare it to the science fiction those guys then were reading it doesn't look that dated and odd. Sure it might be a bit far fetched that "nothing have changed" for 3000 years. It's part of the genre, though.
|
I thought I made that pretty clear in my comments.
Quote:
|
A quibble about facts. I don't think you have to keep track of two kinds of hit points. Assessing damage to characteristics is done after the fight, when you roll your Medical skill or something. Often this means you won't be in another fight until healed, and there's no need to keep track of two hit points. Clunky? Well, a bit.
|
By two sets, what I meant was after calculating your life force (STR+DEX+END) you derive a set of hit points (usually about 3). For each point of damage you receive
during the battle you also reduce your STR, DEX or END by 1d6, with the possibility of diagnosis or treatment after battle.
Now why the damage wasn't simply applied as as direct d6s against STR, DEX or END is beyond me.
Quote:
Two sets of damage then. I don't understand what the reviewer means, but I think the fact that a description of the system (which looks, correct, as far as I know) comes out so confusing is kind of telling.  It works better in play and could have been better explained, or designed. Clunky? Indeed!
|
Ah, poor phrasing on my part. I'm referring to that bizarre system where you roll to hit compare the weapon's penetration value to the armour type (damage type I) and use this as a multiplier to 'wounds to the flesh" (damage type II).
Quote:
|
Otherwise I found the review interesting and informative. It wasn't clinical and cool, but I think it expressed why the game was good and when it wasn't. Thanks.
|
Cheers!