Does anyone know if there's a possibility that Traveller 20 could be updated under the Pathfinder license? Pathfinder (and now Starfinder) is compatible with D&D 3.5 which is the last iteration of the D20 licensing.
Any possibility of T20 being updated?
- Thread starter Spinward Scout
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
If T20 were to be updated I would go with 5eD&D rather than Pathfinder/Starfinder.
Would require Marc and Hunter's son to agree to let someone do it.
It's not "beyond possible"... but at present, it would be easier to simply submit to Marc a proposal for PathTraveller
Garnfellow
SOC-13
T20 was one of the first non-D&D d20 games that actually worked well. There were a lot of failures in the beginning of the OGL period and even some of WotC's early efforts, like the Wheel of Time RPG, didn't quite pan out.
So for its time T20 was pretty remarkable.
But that said, after T20 was released designers learned A LOT about the d20 system and made numerous mechanical improvements, as seen by 3.5e. Initial skill lists, for example, were soon considered far too narrow and as the system evolved were consolidated into fewer but broader skills. d20 Modern in particular was designed around a flatter power curve that would better fit a Traveller paradigm. 5e, with even more tightly bounded accuracy, might work even better still.
I dig Paizo's work, but if Starfinder is similar to Pathfinder, then the game models something much more heroic than Traveller.
I think another run at a d20-based Traveller would be very cool, but I think I'd build it from the ground up using a d20 Modern (or maybe 5e) engine, and look backwards to T20 and "sideways" to Pathfinder for discrete pieces. Some of the open mechanics from Mongoose Traveller -- most notably skills -- could also be used.
So that said, the tools are all out there to build a very tight d20 Traveller game.
So for its time T20 was pretty remarkable.
But that said, after T20 was released designers learned A LOT about the d20 system and made numerous mechanical improvements, as seen by 3.5e. Initial skill lists, for example, were soon considered far too narrow and as the system evolved were consolidated into fewer but broader skills. d20 Modern in particular was designed around a flatter power curve that would better fit a Traveller paradigm. 5e, with even more tightly bounded accuracy, might work even better still.
I dig Paizo's work, but if Starfinder is similar to Pathfinder, then the game models something much more heroic than Traveller.
I think another run at a d20-based Traveller would be very cool, but I think I'd build it from the ground up using a d20 Modern (or maybe 5e) engine, and look backwards to T20 and "sideways" to Pathfinder for discrete pieces. Some of the open mechanics from Mongoose Traveller -- most notably skills -- could also be used.
So that said, the tools are all out there to build a very tight d20 Traveller game.
Didn't pan out? There were a lot of products.
MgT put T20 out of business. Hunter was going to produce SciFi20 and passed away.
It has been said there were financial issues with the production as well.
There is competition.;
MgT is now mature
T5
Mindjammer: Traveller
Cepheus Traveller discussions
and all the earlier versions
MgT put T20 out of business. Hunter was going to produce SciFi20 and passed away.
It has been said there were financial issues with the production as well.
There is competition.;
MgT is now mature
T5
Mindjammer: Traveller
Cepheus Traveller discussions
and all the earlier versions
I agree for it's time T20 was a good product. Since then a few things were put in other games that could improve T20.
The one that comes to mind for me is Lifeblood and Hitpoints. Very Star Wars D20. Could have gone like Babylon 5 where you get a bunch of HP at 1st lvl and then only 1 or 2 or 3 Hitpoints per level after that. Puts a more deadly Traveller-esque spin on combat.
Reputation is a mechanic in d20 Modern which could have been useful.
As far as non-successes, yes WoTC also had d20 Cthulhu. T20 was not a failure, based on the variety of products made. I still have my copy of 2320AD which I bought from this website...
The one that comes to mind for me is Lifeblood and Hitpoints. Very Star Wars D20. Could have gone like Babylon 5 where you get a bunch of HP at 1st lvl and then only 1 or 2 or 3 Hitpoints per level after that. Puts a more deadly Traveller-esque spin on combat.
Reputation is a mechanic in d20 Modern which could have been useful.
As far as non-successes, yes WoTC also had d20 Cthulhu. T20 was not a failure, based on the variety of products made. I still have my copy of 2320AD which I bought from this website...
Garnfellow
SOC-13
Note that my comment about games not panning out was explicitly referring to d20 games NOT named Traveller 20. Big difference.
T20 was quite good for the state of d20 design at the time, but that state evolved rapidly after T20 was released, particularly with regards to emulating low-heroic and science fiction genres.
T20 was quite good for the state of d20 design at the time, but that state evolved rapidly after T20 was released, particularly with regards to emulating low-heroic and science fiction genres.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I've never played it, but I've heard nothing but good things about T20--that it does do a great job of meshing Traveller with the d20 system.
If that's true (and I tend to believe that it is), then why would you want to mess with that?
If that's true (and I tend to believe that it is), then why would you want to mess with that?
The biggest complaint is "It's too far from d20"...
steventirey1985
SOC-12
D20 Modern/Future is dead. If you can call something that never really took off well at all alive in the first place. Why bother "updating" a dead game to another dead system?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I would use some of the stuff from d20M/F to produce a sci-fi version of 5E.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Games are never dead. Is Classic Traveller dead?
If you want to play it, it's still there for you to use.
In fact, I prefer "dead" games over new games because you've typically got a wider selection of support published for the game. With a game that is no longer being published, you have access to the entire run. With a new game, you don't know what will be published in the future, when it will be published, and you have to wait for whatever it is to be published.
New doesn't always mean better.
From a commercial standpoint, D20 Modern is toast - not enough money left to be made to justify development cost, and a failure with the critics.
Thus, no good reason exists to remake T20 in that system's mold.
Now, adjusting it to Pathfinder... would likely just peave the Pathifinder fanboys by not giving them balanced treasure packages... but at least it's an audience.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
I note that even they had trouble coming up with a really large SF-appropriate feat list, and Starfinder is basically PF in space. T20's feat list is fairly short because the combination of Traveller not being Heroic Fantasy and also operating in the heyday of the OGL mean that it really just needed to have the stuff that was unique to the setting. Starfinder has neither excuse and the feat list is still really short.
Even taken as is, T20 can function as the anti-StarFinder in many ways. It provides a complete counterpoint to the tiered equipment approach of Starfinder, a play style alternate that pointedly ignores the zero-to-hero structure of heroic fantasy, and a setting that is actually huge, not just potentially huge.
Personally I would *love* this. I was hoping that's what Starfinder would be, but alas no.
My main reasons for loving it are because 1) I think PF is a better, move evolved version of that game than D&D 3.0e and 3.5e (I've played all three), and 2) most of my potential Traveller players are familiar with one or more of those games, and porting them over to a d20 version of Traveller would make starting up a Traveller campaign that much easier on everyone.
Cheers,
Baron Ovka
shadowcat20
SOC-12
Still have the core hardcover book and the CD so would find it interesting to see something else come out of it. Had promise and never panned out due to many issues including the loss of Hunter (RIP).
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
One of the issues I hit very early was solved by the T20 equivalent of 1001 Characters. A somewhat unnecessary effort for CT given its simplicity. The same cannot be said for T20, where any statblock you have to write yourself presents the risk of turning the Ref's job into a full time endeavor.. As such, 76 Gunmen was a life saver.
Similar threads
MT Only:
Advantage in Tasks
