Where T5 is Going

[DonM]

My apologies to all for the seeming silence during the recent T5 discussions. I met face-to-face with Marc on a number of issues yesterday, and real life (job and family) have been claiming time recently...

Where is T5 going?

***OFFICIAL STATEMENT***
Yes, Marc is working on a revision of the T5 book. Yes, it will be available to owners of the existing T5 CD or book, they will be able to get either for a reduced price, and he'll provide a download code for the pdf through Drivethru if you already have the CD, and he'll send an updated CD free with an order (that is already FFE's current CD upgrade policy, by the way).
***OFFICIAL STATEMENT OFF***

No dates (those of you who have been here with me from the beginning know I never give dates), but Marc is working to catch up on the errata, and on a revision of the combat rules for review.

Combat? What happened with that?

The five were chosen. S4 had so many nominations, and I had actually already wanted him as well, that I can say, yes, he is one of the five. What are they doing? Marc had me send them is preliminary writeup of what he wants combat to be, and they sent him back their comments (through me or directly). He is working on a draft that if it survives Rob and I, and then the Five, will get posted here. Marc hopes to finish that by the end of this week, and I just broke my own rule about posting no dates.

We (Marc and I) envision this as the process we will follow going forward. I'll pick the five from previous contributions. Respectful naysayers are wanted in this process, and S4's combat comments were quite prominent in our discussions.

Bearing in mind the board rules, we want useful comments about what is broken in T5. Marc is fully aware that the systems as written are confusing and in some places just don't work. He knows that; we don't need it repeated over and over. Just as I wanted S4 to be involved in combat, I'm very likely to make sure Rancke is involved in the economic discussion (and to that end, I've personally forwarded him a start on that).

Look, we all know what the board rules are, and we're all adults. You can't call Marc, Rob or I anything we haven't been called before, but we can all agree this board isn't the place for that. I plan on continuing to moderate the T5 discussion as I have, but if the other board moderators (who were unanimous, by the way) think our forum goes to far, they will intervene. I respect that, and that it went this far says a lot for their patience, and all of yours.

So what happens next? That is actually up to you. We'll have the first of two threads. In the first thread, I'm going to post MY thoughts on priorities for fixing t5 by topic (not specific problem, but chapter topic). I encourage all of you to suggest other priorities. My assumption is that all of us will hash that out for a few days, and at the end of the week I'll put up a poll and folks can vote on upcoming priorities.

 

[thalassogen]

JOY! I am looking forward to the revised version (and the revision process). Thanks for the feedback.

 

[DonM]

Answer to a e-mail question:

Yes, the revisions will come through as errata first. I think I've won on the "print no book until it's time" issue. I don't want to edit galleys again.

Yes, the priority thread is coming. You guys e-mail faster than I post from work.

And for the moment, I've stickied this thread (and the priorities thread) for everyone to notice).

 

[Reban]

Thanks Don.

*Does a little dance*

I'm already making a list of priorities in my head and look forward to seeing the revised Combat chapter.

 

[DonM]

I'm already making a list of priorities in my head and look forward to seeing the revised Combat chapter.

I'm actually looking forward to the comments the five make. When they say "I understand and like this", then we're cooking with gas.

 

[Hemdian]

That’s great news. And hopefully Personal Combat hasn’t changed too much (overall I liked it). I’ve been itching to redo my T5 Personal Combat video but wanted to include any amendments.

 

[Supplement Four]

That’s great news. And hopefully Personal Combat hasn’t changed too much (overall I liked it). I’ve been itching to redo my T5 Personal Combat video but wanted to include any amendments.

I'll say this: I generally like the direction Marc is going with combat, as long as all the bugs are worked out (there's still a lot of work to do on the combat system).

 

[Vladika]

Don, I'd like to thank you for the hard work you've put into this. I know I've irritated you on at LEAST one occasion, but, it doesn't mean I don't appreciate you.

 

[DonM]

Thanks for the support, and as I've said:

Good, constructive criticism makes for a better product.

And contrary to some, T5 is and/or will be moving forward. Marc will NOT be leaving any buyer (beta, kickstarter, store or pdf) behind.

 

[ken at sunrise]

DonM,

That sounds great. You guys have been putting so much work into it.

We appreciate it.

 

[Echo]

Well, I’ve received my copy of T5 only just this last month. It was over a year since I ordered it, although this was partly my fault due to a communication error about my new address when I moved house. I had read a copy that somebody else had received, but it’s never fully possible to review a product unless you’re actually appraising something you have bought, I feel. If there is a delay, especially, it can make you irritable about it.

In any case, I appreciate that the design group are prepared to take criticism on the chin and move on. I hold no grudges.

I do like some of the peripheral chapters that explore some new territory for the game - like paradigms and genetics for example. They layout is fine too, as it does manage to capture a certain ‘je ne sais quoi’ that other editions didn’t quite manage, and the use of icons is stylish in a typical Traveller way. There is, however, still a sense that there is a lot of excessive padding out with some confusing tables and verbose information. It simply didn’t need to be 600+ pages long, in my view, and should have been more ruthlessly edited. Oh, and for the umpteenth time: index it!!

I just don’t know what people were thinking with the combat system. When has Traveller ever been anything other than a rigorous simulationistic system? So why go abstract all of a sudden? For me a classic Traveller round is 6 seconds - it fits the D6 aspect of the mechanics, and it provides a clear structural basis to build interesting tactical conflict. While fighting isn’t the be- all-and-end-all of the game, it’s an important feature that needs to work well to suit the genre. The brawling/close combat is another aspect that needs to be fully integrated, properly, and not just dealt with by a vague hand wave.

It would be preferable if the game had more integrated play with other editions of the game too. Not just Mongoose, which often seems to be represented as a poor cousin on this site, but older editions too. If I find a really good adventure from Classic Traveller, it would be nice to be able to play it without too much work.

You probably all know this. You’ve probably heard it a million times now. But the point is: people WANT to support you and the game. They just want it to be the best it can be. And that is all I am going to say on the matter.

 

[Hemdian]

I just don’t know what people were thinking with the combat system. When has Traveller ever been anything other than a rigorous simulationistic system? So why go abstract all of a sudden?

CT had some abstraction (range bands). So you could say that T5 returned to Traveller's roots and then developed in a new direction.

I like the abstract, I found it a refreshing change. Too many people treat combat as just a wargame where the units are 1 man each. And there's nothing wrong with that, if that's your thing, but an abstract system encourages you to role-play combat rather than just game it.

The brawling/close combat is another aspect that needs to be fully integrated, properly, and not just dealt with by a vague hand wave.

Agreed. Marc has been working on a section of errata for personal combat for some time (the release of which is apparently imminent) and hopefully the brawling issue will be dealt with in that.

 

[Supplement Four]

CT had some abstraction (range bands).

There's a difference in the Range Bands used by CT and those used by T5. In CT, a Personal Combat Range Band equals 25 meters. In T5, the Range Band is of a variable, abstract distance (though I know the Range Bands are measured elsewhere, they aren't used like that in personal combat).

This makes CT a much more tactical game and less of an abstraction as with T5.

 

[DonM]

It's a subtle difference.

And seeing S4's comment reminded me to drop Marc a note about getting the promised weekend writeup to the "Combat Committee".

 

[Supplement Four]

It's a subtle difference.

I don't know about that. In CT, I know that 4 Range Bands is 100 meters. I have no idea what 4 Range Bands is in T5, because the distance is variable, depending on where you measure from (the closer Range Bands are shorter than those that are farther away, in T5).

That makes Range Bands, in CT, basically tactical grid, where each square is 25 meters long.

In T5, no such tactical grid is created by the Range Bands because the distances are not uniform.

 

[aramis]

I don't know about that. In CT, I know that 4 Range Bands is 100 meters. I have no idea what 4 Range Bands is in T5, because the distance is variable, depending on where you measure from (the closer Range Bands are shorter than those that are farther away, in T5).

That makes Range Bands, in CT, basically tactical grid, where each square is 25 meters long.

In T5, no such tactical grid is created by the Range Bands because the distances are not uniform.

The same is true in several other very popular games - FFG's WFRP 3, Star Wars: Edge of the Empire and SW: Age of Rebellion are the biggest names, but it's also true of several FATE flavors (but not all).

Several other games have indeterminate range bands - the range is not a clear rules mechanic - Most of the Cortex Plus system games, and The One Ring.

Many people don't see it as a flaw - they center EVERYTHING upon the PCs and don't allow splitting the party. Works great for ship combat when everyone in the party is on one ship... but not so great other times for me.

Note: People on the SW boards at FFG kept telling me that it wasn't a big issue - it was for me, but they find it a non-issue. A minority (a significant minority) felt it an issue.

 

[Echo]

Games like Star Wars and WFRP have slightly different markets. People like me choose Traveller, because of it’s hard science feel.

When you are a player that enjoys putting together a meticulously designed starship that is nominally ‘realistic’, or someone who likes to emphasis real world military strategy (and there are plenty of Traveller players who do), having an abstracted combat system is jarring. Secondly, there is a disconnect because the rest of the game as a whole is so complex in detail.

 

[Supplement Four]

Many people don't see it as a flaw - they center EVERYTHING upon the PCs and don't allow splitting the party.

Aramis, I think you are mistaking my comments about the T5 Range Bands above to be negative. No where in that post do I comment one way or the other.

I was simply explaining the difference between the CT and T5 Range Band concepts--not making a judgement on which is better.

 

[Supplement Four]

The same is true in several other very popular games - FFG's WFRP 3, Star Wars: Edge of the Empire and SW: Age of Rebellion are the biggest names, but it's also true of several FATE flavors (but not all).

(snip)

Note: People on the SW boards at FFG kept telling me that it wasn't a big issue - it was for me, but they find it a non-issue. A minority (a significant minority) felt it an issue.

Although the Star Wars movement units were explained in the rules as abstract "Space Units", the were always considered the same distance. A star destroyer traveling 1 space unit is the same as an X-Wing traveling 1 space unit.

So, a Star Wars space unit does equate to a particular distance (and I think, at one time, I had it worked out just how far that was....it's been a long time since I've played SW).

 

[aramis]

Although the Star Wars movement units were explained in the rules as abstract "Space Units", the were always considered the same distance. A star destroyer traveling 1 space unit is the same as an X-Wing traveling 1 space unit.

So, a Star Wars space unit does equate to a particular distance (and I think, at one time, I had it worked out just how far that was....it's been a long time since I've played SW).

Wrong game - you're talking WEG's Star Wars, long OOP, and that's second ed only - I'm talking FFG's Star Wars. Which explicitly has non-linear range bands, and range band movement. No Movement units.

As an aside, it looks like you're skimming then replaying, rather than reading for content and replying, because I explicitly stated FFG Star Wars.