I've heard rumors of a re-release of 2300 AD at some point, so I thought it'd make for a good analysis subject. And I own a copy, so that helps.

I'm going to have to do this in stages, as I'm logged on from home (maybe I didn't catch this cold from Mr. Nixon. Maybe) and can't stay on for long. If anyone wants to pick up where I left off, that'd be double plus cool. I was hoping to get a discussion out of it.

The one I'm looking at is the second release of the game that was first published as Traveller: 2300. Anyone who wants to build on this thread can fill in where I'm mistaken, but I believe the name was changed due to some confusion with GDW's Traveller line and subsequent complaints.

released: 1988
company: Game Designers Workshop
Developers: Marc Miller, Timothy B. Brown, Lester W. Smith, and Frank Chadwick.

What you got for your $:

Carboard box, as in basic D&D, containing both a player's and GM's (Director's in this case) Guide, a folded, full color star map, and some booklets of charts and tables. The booklets are all staple-bound, black and white, with no covers on them. Oh, and you get some dice.

I think for the time, the box set was a brilliant way to go. It looks like the buyer gets lots of neat stuff, and all you have to dress up is the box. It's interesting to note that games like Donjon kick ass over 2300 in production quality. Layout and design for this game looks like a server installation guide. - How much of that, I wonder, is production costs, and how much is in the nature of the designer? Was GDW run by guys who didn't value flashy appearance as much?

Premise: Hard SF Roleplaying in the year 2300 AD, 300 years after WWIII ravaged the planet. There are marauding aliens, smugglers, pirates and anarchists for the PCs to deal with. I'd call it setting-based exploration.

I think that the settings of older games like this hold up really well. There's a ton of info to use, and GDW did what they set out to do, which was to make a very believable future that would provide some great heroic adventuring.

What the game brags about: "The most accurate star chart ever made," with real data from the Gliese near star catalog, a system that is "both playable and realistic at once," and what they call an "event resolution system," which covers everything from creating new equipment to mass combat.

The above is backed up in the game, but what's missing from a 2002 perspective is how to play. The rules seem a bit austere in the sense that dice control your fate in this setting, making the color of the game a little darker than I think the author intended, almost like Cyberpunk in space.

gotta stop there. thoughts? What would be different in 2002? Did anyone else play this game?

itsmrwilson wrote: What the game brags about: "The most accurate star chart ever made," with real data from the Gliese near star catalog,...

itsmrwilson wrote: ...a system that is "both playable and realistic at once," and what they call an "event resolution system," which covers everything from creating new equipment to mass combat.

itsmrwilson wrote: Did anyone else play this game?

Interesting setting, but you're right, little in the way of "what to do?" Sure, some of the character types and setting ideas gave you vague hints, but for the most part it was always a challenge to figure out what to have the characters do (harder often to figure out why they were together, given the politics). With Traveller, at least you always had the "merchant tramp crew" concept to fall back on. This is very much a problem with a lot of games at the time.

Take Twilight:2000. Please. Here's a setting with lots of equipment notes, and the like, and an obvious intimation that you'd be doing some fighting. But otherwise, no indication of wha sort of things players whould be doing. Always devolved into "warlords of devastated europe" survival style game. Who do we shoot up today to get more petrol? Not good.

Mike

Andrew:

Good stuff, although, yeah, I didn't want the analyses to get too negative, in case there are some fans of the game out there. But I'm going to break my own rule and say that I never understood a 30-second combat turn where you could take 2 actions, one of which was to ready a weapon.

I find that as a game consumer, I'm more affected by game presentation than some. An acquaintance of mine bought 2300 and came up with dozens of ideas, where I stared at the pages in confusion.

Also, I found it odd that a supplement I picked up - I think it's the one where the exploration ship visits the Pleiaded - came across as a bit mystical, where the main rules seemed so austere and mundane.

Contrast this with something like Deadlands, or better yet, Sorcerer, which basically says, "here's how to start up a game." With 2300, there was the problem of not generating a likeable character, combined with an somewhat hazy premise of where to put that character, even if it turned out okay.

Hmm, what would 2300 need if it were re-released? A modernized rules mechanic, a chergen system with no random rolls, and kickers. Anything else?

itsmrwilson wrote: Good stuff, although, yeah, I didn't want the analyses to get too negative, in case there are some fans of the game out there. But I'm going to break my own rule and say that I never understood a 30-second combat turn where you could take 2 actions, one of which was to ready a weapon.

Mike Holmes wrote:

itsmrwilson wrote: Good stuff, although, yeah, I didn't want the analyses to get too negative, in case there are some fans of the game out there. But I'm going to break my own rule and say that I never understood a 30-second combat turn where you could take 2 actions, one of which was to ready a weapon.

Well, Mr. History and context, this would be due to the fact that this was seen as an improvement over D&D's one minute combat round, but still worked with the miniatures rules (Striker, q.v.) associated with Traveller.

Mike Holmes wrote:

itsmrwilson wrote: Good stuff, although, yeah, I didn't want the analyses to get too negative, in case there are some fans of the game out there. But I'm going to break my own rule and say that I never understood a 30-second combat turn where you could take 2 actions, one of which was to ready a weapon.

Well, Mr. History and context, this would be due to the fact that this was seen as an improvement over D&D's one minute combat round, but still worked with the miniatures rules (Striker, q.v.) associated with Traveller.

To make a good re-release of 2300, would, I think, require a completely new system. While "good for it's time", all Traveller systems are now very much showing their ages. There's just too much that needs changing to considser keeping any of it. And unlike D&D3E (which could have done thins too, but decided not to for reasons of fan loyalty), there's proof that people would not be adverse to such changes in the Traveller system which has already undergone seven editions.

itsmrwilson wrote: With regard to Striker, there's a whole new line of discussion. Has any company ever released a RPG + Tactical Wargame combo that worked really well in play? I've seen systems that seem all right, but it never went over well with the group.

itsmrwilson wrote: With regard to Striker, there's a whole new line of discussion. Has any company ever released a RPG + Tactical Wargame combo that worked really well in play? I've seen systems that seem all right, but it never went over well with the group.