*Another* System?

[mike wightman]

I'm thinking more along the lines of the free to download pdfs White Wolf put out in the run up to their launch of their new world of darkness stuff.

Just enough rules to get by, tied to an adventure, and then the main rulebook released as a hardback only.

 

[robject]

T5 will probably be perfect-bound, "normal" format. The closest media to compare with might be the alien module reprints. Makes sense; by now Marc has a lot of experience working with that format. I only hope the binding is better than that of the reprints -- mine sort of peeled away pretty easily.

There is no mention of binder, loose-leaf, or PDF.

The T5 site has a probable breakdown of the books and their titles. Not the same as, yet not unlike MegaTraveller's Referee's Manual, Player's Manual, and Encyclopedia.

The art will be neither excessive nor random. Traveller5.com says that David Deitrick is doing art for T5. I assume he's not going to be doing all of it.

I agree with the idea of an aggressive promotion schedule and sourcebook release schedule. I have no idea how the 'business' will actually be run.

A papyrus codex would be nifty for a low TL sourcebook

 

[kaladorn]

Rain,

I would like to point something out: There just might be a market for a product that is differentiated. As I said, the shelves (not just mine, but the ones at the store) are filled with games with nice art, very expensive hardcover books, and frankly I'm not sure that something with a spartan design ethic wouldn't be successful. I'm not saying no art, but IMO the T4 failed both at the 'game design' level and at the layout and design level. I find the book not terribly navigable and the interior art is colourful but out of sync with the universe (I find) and distracting.

I'll bet that a lot of companies have put a lot of money into hardcovers with fancy art which they will never recoup. Being a 'big success' is damn hard in today's market, with so many niche producers to compete with. They're all offering different things and people can pick what they like.

I think perhaps Marc's focus might be on 'showing a profit' (maybe not a big one) and 'keeping going, head above water' rather than risking it all on one turn of pitch and toss on 'the big score'.

I think a hardcover for the main rulebook like the T20 rulebook would be nice. But I find the art is a significant detractor. Now, don't get me wrong - Kieth Bros art, Bryan Gibson, Ted Lindsey, Rob Caswell - they all had the kind of art that would fit with the content and not distract or seem out of place. Line art especially seems to work inside such products.

About the only 'fancy' hardcover that has really impressed me was the Eberron sourcebook for AD&D. But it was a worldbook. A sector atlas can make *meaningful* use of colour for maps and world imagery to bring things to life. Scarecrow-quality renders of the insides of canon ships could do a good job of bringing them to life. But so can the planer line art of SOM.

For equipment, I prefer the Caswellian line-art (technical pen?) style drawings like the various equipment sheets from MT.

But for a cover, I think the Imperial Sunburst and an otherwise spartan look is probably as likely to offer you differentiation and an eye-catching (relative to all the glossy overdone cover art) product as anything.

I wouldn't mind seeing an aggressive release schedule for follow on product, but not to the point of getting MT levels of errata. That's just not a good idea to force things that hard.

 

[robject]

Kaladorn, good points all. The "make the sourcebooks colorful" concept has been raised before, and it feels right.

It seems that Marc has a lot of books planned, but I don't know how concerned he is with making a big profit. The best path is to have a regular release schedule for supplements. Notice that the sourcebooks are planned to be "rules independent"; does that imply that T5 can create a synergy with T20? I.E., can the companies trade-off, and share the burden of production?

"Me too" on line/tech art for equipment.

 

[kaladorn]

You know, the little table that BITS has that maps the BITS task system, to TNE, to CT, to T4 is pretty funky. I think GT is a bit of a challenge, but maybe it fits. T20 is the 'odd man out' unfortunately. But if T5 is close enough to fit into this paradigm, then one could easily write modules or supplmeents where someone says "Task level X" from the generic system, and the conversion chart explains how it fits into each other Traveller system. Thus an adventure can be nearly 'rules free'.

You could say

"To repair a stillsuit worn on Dune, the task is Difficult, the appropriate skills is Survival and the asset that applies is Intellgence".

Or

"The aliens are armed with Gauss Rifles".

Both of those can almost transcend the boundaries of Traveller versions. So in a way, you could almost write 'rules independent' adventures.

And thus, suddenly, lots of generic adventures that aren't too tied to a particular game history (a la 76 patrons, Lee's Guide, Startown Liberty, etc) can all slot into just about any universe with just about any ruleset. Hey, how much more market can you create?

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by robject:
T5 will probably be perfect-bound, "normal" format.

Pefect bound is perfectly acceptable, though it has less of a "ooh, ahh" factor than modern high-end gaming hardback format.

Originally posted by robject:
The closest media [...] alien module reprints [...] I only hope the binding is better than that of the reprints -- mine sort of peeled away pretty easily.

If they use the same perfect-bound system that Palladium does, it'll be pretty good.

Originally posted by robject:
There is no mention of binder, loose-leaf, or PDF.

There has long been a photo of binder system on the T5 site.

I believe I've seen mention among some people of a desire for it (horrors!), though no, it wasn't FFE that said it.

Originally posted by robject:
A papyrus codex would be nifty for a low TL sourcebook

Well, there is a "Bring back the LBBs" group, now we need a "Print a papyrus ruleset" group.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I would like to point something out: There just might be a market for a product that is differentiated. As I said, the shelves (not just mine, but the ones at the store) are filled with games with nice art,

I didn't say nice art. I said blow people out of their socks and back through any walls behind them fantastic beyond belief stunning art.

I didn't say that was what was going to happen, either. Just that it would be one component in an overall path to a major success.

Oh, and if your shelves are filled with such books . . . well then, it appears to work.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
[...] very expensive hardcover books, and frankly I'm not sure that something with a spartan design ethic wouldn't be successful.

I'd be happy to hear of any examples of major gaming successes in the last five years that fit that description.

Some hardbacks are far too expensive. Some aren't.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I'll bet that a lot of companies have put a lot of money into hardcover with fancy art which they will never recoup.

The cover art is but one component, and I never said anything about it standing alone. Of course great cover art will fail if the rest of the requirements aren't fulfilled to their best potential.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Being a 'big success' is damn hard in today's market [...]
I think perhaps Marc's focus might be on 'showing a profit' [...] and 'keeping going [...]' rather than risking it all on one turn of pitch and toss on 'the big score'.

Given previous activities to this point, I tentatively agree (however I am not sure because I don't really know).

I wasn't beating a dead horse of "what Marc is doing or going to do". I was beating a dead horse of "what can be done to succeed".

I'd agree that the marketplace is filled with failures, over saturation, and niche players. That is why an astounding entry is necessary, it must grab non-Traveller, alienated-Traveller, and frightened-off-Traveller gamers by the scruffs of their necks and shout "I'm here! Buy me!" Otherwise, it will simply be passed over as one of those new entry failures by most gamers (while the hardcore Traveller fanndom continues on with their standard low-volume of total purchases).

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I think a hardcover for the main rulebook like the T20 rulebook would be nice. But I find the art is a significant detractor.

You found T20's artwork distracting? Interesting. When I was first paging through my new copy of T20 a couple of years back, a gaming buddy of mine (Art Teacher in a Junior High School) zeroed in on the photo of the Jump Marines carrying gauss rifles through the air amongst the skyscrapers of a city. He nearly grabbed the book out of my hands to look at the rest of the artwork. He's even interested in playing.

Great artwork is a must. And yes, it does not stand alone.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
About the only 'fancy' hardcover that has really impressed me was the Eberron sourcebook for AD&D.

I quite like White Wolf's Exalted line of products for their spectacular cover art. In particular, Exalted: The Abyssals had fantastic cover artwork (and good to great interior artwork). The writing and game inside were great, too, but I'd have bought it just for the cover, anyway. It stands as one of my top three cover arts for a game book.

To be fair, I did not appreciate the oddly colored pages and text; that was quite bad in numerous places.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
For equipment, I prefer the Caswellian line-art (technical pen?) style drawings like the various equipment sheets from MT.

It depends on which equipment you're talking about. I found 101 Vehicles and especially 101 Robots to be filled with less than ideal line-drawings. In fact, I don't have anything good to say about 101 Robots as far as line-art goes.

Grand Survey and WBH had a picture of a Scout Speeder, Air/Raft, and G-Carrier. I found these to be most excellent, of great quality for their time (even by modern standards, they're not bad at all).

Originally posted by kaladorn:
But for a cover, I think the Imperial Sunburst and an otherwise spartan look is probably as likely to offer you differentiation and an eye-catching (relative to all the glossy overdone cover art) product as anything.

My cover artwork vision is of a re-done Iridium Throne Room. Hundreds of meters long, neo-gothic cathedral artwork style, filled with a sea of nobles and alien diplomatic contingents from all across Charted Space, each carrying a banner for their nation. The Emperor (whichever one), is receiving a diplomatic communique from the K'Kree Ambassador (the one who is willing to go in amongst the carnivores, not the real one sequestered back in the embassy).

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I wouldn't mind seeing an aggressive release schedule for follow on product, but not to the point of getting MT levels of errata. That's just not a good idea to force things that hard.

Oh, I most definitely agree. Errata is bad. But controlling errata is handled by a combination of editing, proofreading, and widespread playtesting.

 

[aramis]

Art: The T4 art WAS beyond belief. And that was the very problem with Foss: lack of Verisimilitude!

T5: as it is, it's NOT terribly modern, (Multi-die task systems are some of the OLDEST variable difficulty task systems around. 1981, to be specific, for the concept of variable difficulties other than as asset mods (Chaosium) or Die Mods (D&D), or fixed die vs flex target number (T&T, 1975).

Bob: Yeah, you got me beat. I'd spaced those mechanicals; My dad and I played with his 4-bit mechanical kit computer in 1976... I also played Wumpus by 300 baud cradle-modem terminal that same year. (Dad was and still is working for the military... now as a civil servant.)

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
You know, the little table that BITS has that maps the BITS task system, to TNE, to CT, to T4 is pretty funky. I think GT is a bit of a challenge, but maybe it fits. T20 is the 'odd man out' unfortunately. But if T5 is close enough to fit into this paradigm, then one could easily write modules or supplmeents where someone says "Task level X" from the generic system, and the conversion chart explains how it fits into each other Traveller system. Thus an adventure can be nearly 'rules free'.

You could say

"To repair a stillsuit worn on Dune, the task is Difficult, the appropriate skills is Survival and the asset that applies is Intellgence".

Or

"The aliens are armed with Gauss Rifles".

Both of those can almost transcend the boundaries of Traveller versions. So in a way, you could almost write 'rules independent' adventures.

And thus, suddenly, lots of generic adventures that aren't too tied to a particular game history (a la 76 patrons, Lee's Guide, Startown Liberty, etc) can all slot into just about any universe with just about any ruleset. Hey, how much more market can you create?

These are, I think, great ideas.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
There is no mention of binder, loose-leaf, or PDF.

There has long been a photo of binder system on the T5 site.

I believe I've seen mention among some people of a desire for it (horrors!), though no, it wasn't FFE that said it.
</font>[/QUOTE]Ah yes, Ted's concept art. It's even less authoritative than the playest material. *


* The playtest material is not authoritative.

 

[kaladorn]

Rain,

Your comment about my shelves isn't so. I happen to have a bunch of games on my shelves with lovely art. This is so because I buy a lot of interesting *games*, not works of art. I have been *deterred* from buying game products by overly colourful or distracting art and suspect as a result I have missed some good games.

And as to what has or has not been a major gaming success over the last 5 years - I suspect *many* of the gaming products released over the last five years *with* nice art (or even blow-you-away art) that reached dead-tree format have, at best, broke even. I suspect many have not even done that. The market is now very fragmentary and competitive.

I think a lot of companies have sunk money into expensive hardcovers and have probably not recouped their investment. Many have probably sunk bucks into fancy art when they should have been spending the bits of that budget on *the game* - perfecting it, testing it, developing it, etc. I've seen a lot of product of late which I will not buy because it is mostly 'nice art' and not worthwhile content. I'm not alone - most of the gamers I know are like that - we're jaded now and don't buy 'the pretty fancy thing!' - we buy for some useful content and a clean usable text with indices and ToC and well written and well thought out rules and good reference tables. Art doesn't factor in, beyond an initial 'that's nice' or 'that's distracting'.

My definition of too expensive for a hardback: If it passed $33 US, it is headed into my red zone. If it passes $40 US, I'll pass. Anything over $25 US requires me to be convinced it is a worthy purchase (word of mouth, etc). Most current WOTC products are into the 'too expensive' range. Part of this is because I remember my original hardcover DMG for about $11-12 US.

As for art, I have a friend who absolutely loved the 3.5 ed PH. I found the interior art utterly cluttery and distracting and really hated the style. So, I think like a swimming pool for a house, some people really love it, others hate it.

And as for your suggested vision of a cover, I'm not sure I'd even give such a cover a second look. I'm not after 'adventures at the fancy dress ball' or '101 days of the Imperial Court'. <shrug>

To me, if you want to show something from Traveller, show *TRAVELLING*. Show a starship going into Jump or coming out. Show a clash between a Free Trader and a Pirate Corsair. Show players, on an alien world, surrounded and fighting for their lives. Show Scouts digging through the ruins of a previously unknown alien civilization. Don't show the Vilani Office of Thruster Inspection and Certification or the Emperor's Valet... <wink>

Anyway, YMMV. I just know that I find far too much effort and money is poured into 'the art' of many games and 'interior design' rather than into 'the game'. You write a good clean game, put it on nice crisp, easily-read, well-organized pages, and a lack of art can be easily forgiven. Maybe you do need a cover. Maybe you need illustrations like the ones from SOM that show the insides of ships or some Scarecrow-quality renders. Maybe you need some cutaways of battle dress or pictures of every bit of equipment used in the game. Maybe some system layout pictures. But most of that can be B&W and focuses on a more 'realistic' style.

Style is another issue. Traveller is a hard-sci game. It isn't space opera, generally. It isn't about 'fashion over substance' a la cyberpunk. It should have art that uses a 'realist' style to depict practical technology (it can still be elegant, but it shouldn't fail the practicality test). It should show realistic looking humans and realistically-possible versions of the aliens doing likely things for PCs. If I'm going to have art, I want it to

1) Not distract me. Making me say 'WOW!' once at the cover is okay. If, after two reading, I'm saying 'yeek, that's distracting' with interior art, and if I'm saying 'I can't find this' or 'man, I wish this was easier on the eyes', then the interior design fails.

2) Not supplant investment in the game and its contents. Art alone will never make a classic game and if the trade off is game quality or art quality, give me game quality. Word of mouth can go a long way to compensate for bad art.

3) I want the art to reflect the nature of the games the players will play and the kinds of situations and equipment they'll encounter and the genre flavour of the game.

 

[robject]

Preach it, brother, preach it!

Kaladorn's "calm rant" for some reason made me think about the value of playtesting. And since this is the T5 area, I'm wondering how many folks are interested in trying out new playtest material, if any shows up.

For example, if Marc pushed out an updated chargen section, how many people do you think would try it out? What percentage of people who are, say, mildly interested in T5?

Marc intends T5 to happen. If you're concerned that the product won't have what you want it to have, tell him. The current playtest material is probably hopelessly out of date, but it's enough to set off alarm bells in some people. If you want to contribute, I see two ways:

1. Offer to Help The critical hunks of T5 are in Marc's head or on paper -- probabilities, characteristics, skills, and wounding. Everything else adds color.

Maybe you've got an idea that's an evolution of Traveller. Maybe you want a Future Milieu instead of the Civil Wars. Or perhaps you've found the Ultimate Starship Design system, one that pleases everybody (wow).

Maybe Malenfant has improved the stellar generation rules, and wants them in T5.

Maybe you've invested a decade in developing a world, or a Vargr language. Offer to help.

The worst that can happen is nothing. The best that can happen is that the entire Traveller line is improved through your efforts -- especially since rules-independent material can potentially be published by QLI, to the benefit of CT, MT, T20, T4, and T5. So if you're hot to help, why not try.

2. Constructive Criticism Most of us fit in this category. Some have emailed Marc about the skill list, the task system, chargen, and whatnot. The playtest material is very rough, and gave people good and bad feelings. If you haven't weighed in, then please tell him. The worst that can happen is that nothing changes. The best that can happen is that the rules are improved.

This isn't quite the same as contributing material. It's more like idea-brokering. You've figured out a different way to do things in Traveller that is truly a quantum leap forward, yet still feels Traveller.

Maybe you don't like handfuls of dice and haven't already said so. In fact, you know why Marc got stuck in the Nd6 paradigm, and have figured out how to give him what he's looking for with a 2d6 (or 3d6?) system. (Or maybe you can convince him that percentiles are the future. Who knows, anything's possible.)

Maybe you don't like the Quick-Chargen's point buy system, and have some useful and cool suggestions.

Maybe you think there are waaay too many tasks, and have an idea on how to tidy up the list.

Maybe you found a better way to play character generation, that captures the essence of Traveller in an intuitive way, leaps and bounds better than the CT/MT/T4-style chargen family, without being a totally new system -- everyone understands what your rules are doing.

The key to the criticism is the word Constructive. Confucius said "the gentleman works upon the trunk". Good suggestions capture the essence in an intuitive way. (How's that for a content-free sentence?)

It's worth telling him -- especially if it affects your decision to buy the product.

 

[kaladorn]

Agreed. Two points:

1. Offers to help are only useful if they can be leveraged. Same with playtesting. I'll gladly make an effort on either front, but the sooner the latest thinking gets into people's hands, the sooner feedback is available. Somebody needs to coallate, summarize, and analyze the feedback. Somebody needs to do analysis on the offered systems. Somebody needs to look at them from a playability and simplicity point of view. And if the feedback is ignored, then it'll just deter people from contributing feedback in future rounds.

2. Marc really needs to find someone to help him. He needs someone that he can depend on to help him get stuff to playtesters and the general public and to get feedback organized, cleaned up, and presented back to him in a useful format. If he is spending his time doing this, he's not thinking about the game or the business, both of which require his attention. He should only get coallated and cleaned up feedback (along with an indication of how many people think X, Y or Z). If he has to spend his time sifting, he's wasting time. If he doesn't bother at all, the playtesters and concerned fans are wasting their time.

I have a concern about the whole way this is organized. I think FFE and QLI could have learned a lot from how ICE and some other companies have structured their playtesting and feedback operations. ICE is out of business now, but they had a lot of playtesting and they actively listened to the suggestions of the playtesters. They didn't take every advising, but they took enough of them to show they were paying attention. And they had a bit of an organized approach that let the system work pretty well. Now, the other aspect is, this was *before* the world of private web forums, etc. where stuff can be easily distributed and returned!

 

[robject]

Agreed. I seem to recall a post (TML?? T5??) saying the same thing -- someone who's intelligent and rules-savvy needs to vet responses, to be a filter for Marc.

I don't know who could be that someone. It certainly couldn't be me -- I'm not details-oriented enough to wrap my brain around things. Details escape me, and the Devil is in the details. I also lack a brain sometimes.

It seems like it ought to be someone who knows most of the Traveller rules systems out there, and knows them well, and also has the social skills of a project manager.

I've thought Sigg might make an excellent Ruler (pun intended) for starship combat. He seems to have the requisite breadth and depth, and tends to prefer Book 2, of all things, while still understanding the checks and balances of other systems. If he also knows Fire, Fusion, and Steel, he might be a shoo-in for the Technical Architecture book. And perhaps Oz would be his second-in-command.

And this might be a problem. There's so much detail available for Traveller that it would be hard to find a Jack of All Trades for Traveller rules. Yet to maintain coherency one person has to coordinate, and if that person isn't Marc, well then, who?

Marc has been known to listen to suggestions, and even change the rules to fit them. It's a matter of, as you said, finding the Dude who Filters, Summarizes, and Presents it.

 

[robject]

So how was ICE organized to allow playtest to improve product?

 

[clementk]

Some points here.

If the currently available public T5 playtest material isn't authoritative then by all means it should be updated or at least a more detailed overview made available.

There's an unofficial T20 mod to the BITS task system over on Freelance Traveller (link). Personally I felt that the BITS task system or something like it should have been used in every Traveller product since its development or at least referenced. It helps make Traveller products useable with any version of the game yet I bet only a few know about it.

ICE? (link) They're back with a good print and pdf lineup and good intro deals. Silent Death is licensed from the current holder IIRC but is available again as well as Rolemaster (even Cyberspace on PDF) and now HARP. EXCELLENT customer service, support materials, and online presence. They even have a trade in discount if you send them old d20 books and also sell the core rules on PDF for $10.

Their latest rpg, HARP (High Adventure Role Playing) , is goodfun and I'm looking forward to the space version. Basic HARP solved the problems I have with D&D 3E and had with MERP. Rolemaster I never bothered with.

http://www.harphq.com/
http://www.harphq.com/free_downloads/3000L_HarpLite.pdf

Harp Lite (98 pp.) is more than enough to play with (esp. with the other freebies on the site), and the full book (2nd printing on, though they included the extras online for free too) is enough to run the game with. I personally think the bulk of CT books 1-3 if not the full text should have been released as a free pdf years ago and think the more good promotional materials available the better. T20 Lite / Linkworlds Cluster helped sell me on T20 and in general I look for games with such materials. Easier to pitch a game as well. If the players like the rules and setting enough they’ll buy it especially after a glimpse at the quality.

To sum up, the new ICE has earned my loyalty. T5? The faithful will likely buy it as a curio if nothing else but that’s almost a given. That’s not enough IMNSHO.

[edit] added linkage; clarification [/edit]

 

[kaladorn]

Well, I know folks in Ottawa here that did a bunch of playtesting for Silent Death. They submitted reports fairly regularly and ICE listened to their feedback. They gave little bones here and there to their playtesters as ways to say thanks. And they obviously processed the playtest info as the resultant rules reflected that.

I don't think there is any *secret* to organization. Marc should (IMO, YMMV, Marc's MMV) find some one or two reliable folks with some time they can reasonably donate, and those people should be his conduit for managing releases of new material to playtest and in coallating returned analysis/results/playtests, in formulating clean summary reports, and in giving him useful feedback that he can work with. For his part, he should try to get the playtesters stuff to work over (the more convolute the material, the longer it should be tested!) as early as possible and his playtest managers should help coordinate playtest groups and analysis projects as well as filtering (and distilling) the feedback. People should not expect to talk to Marc and should stop pestering him. His tasking should be rules thinking and integrating feedback and releasing the next iteration for test.

Playtesters, for their part, should try to actually game the systems released, but also some other math-heads ought to do the numerical analysis and some other optimizer sorts ought to see where the points of fracture lie (look for exploits, etc). And everyone should give detailed, civil and unemotional feedback to the playtest coordinators, who should in turn distill this for Marc.

Setup a website with forum sections on it that are secure, give the playtest coordinators some local admin powers to help manage these forums, and get some playtesters involved.

The end result of all of this coordinated effort could be a much better game than even Marc all by himself or with a small personal group of playtesters can manage. He'll get in many more playtest iterations if he has people distilling his feedback and filtering it to keep him from being badgered and if he commits to taking the input, making his decisions, and cycling out the next iteration as soon as possible.

Playtest groups should break down (to the extent possible) by particular areas of rules. Vehicle construction or system generation is a waaaay different beast that chargen and combat. Feedback should be coallated by these broken out areas. At the same time, some playtesters should be tasked with 'taking the high gaurd' - that is to say, looking cross-area rather than in depth at any one area, to ensure intra-system internal consistency of mechanics and of writing/presentation style.

This kind of organization is what I spoke of when I talked about 'getting organized'.

But then, I'm not sure this is what Marc has in mind or anything like it. I just think it would vastly magnify his efforts and results.

 

[robject]

That's excellent, Kaladorn. I think that post should be funneled to Marc, perhaps via Hunter.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by kaladorn, Post 000090:
Your comment about my shelves isn't so.

Originally posted by kaladorn, Post 000090:
As I said, the shelves (not just mine, but the ones at the store) are filled with games with nice art, very expensive hardcover books,

My apologies for my misinterpretation.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I happen to have a bunch of games on my shelves with lovely art. This is so because I buy a lot of interesting *games*, not works of art.

Now I'm confused.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I have been *deterred* from buying game products by overly colourful or distracting art [...]

As I said: "Artwork" does not stand alone.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
And as to what has or has not been a major gaming success over the last 5 years - I suspect *many* of the gaming products released over the last five years *with* nice art (or even blow-you-away art) that reached dead-tree format have, at best, broke even. I suspect many have not even done that. The market is now very fragmentary and competitive.

I already admitted that. But stating that some games, that did well on packaging and layout, failed because they failed to deliver in others, does not show how T5 will be a major success without the full and complete constellation of characteristics I mentioned.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
As for art, I have a friend who absolutely loved the 3.5 ed PH. I found the interior art utterly cluttery and distracting and really hated the style. So, I think like a swimming pool for a house, some people really love it, others hate it.

Well, I quite liked the 3.0 and 3.5 d20 DnD PHBs. There were, of course, some problems, but they stood far above any other PHBs save the 1st Edition AD&D PHB.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
To me, if you want to show something from Traveller, show *TRAVELLING*. Show a starship going into Jump or coming out. Show a clash between a Free Trader and a Pirate Corsair. Show players, on an alien world, surrounded and fighting for their lives. Show Scouts digging through the ruins of a previously unknown alien civilization.

I'm not as happy with such prosaic scenes as a cover, but they would be far better than black with sunburst.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
[...] I just know that I find far too much effort and money is poured into 'the art' [...] and 'interior design' rather than into 'the game'.

I seem to recall stating many characteristics would be necessary for a big success. You have focused exclusively on only a part of what I said.

What about my "evangelism" bullet? That's at least as important as all the rest of the bullet points combined.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Style is another issue. Traveller is a hard-sci game.

Hmm, and I always thought Traveller was actually pretty soft as far as Science Fiction goes. The canon and near-canon UWPs contain whole hosts of scientific impossibilities, including listing star types that don't exist. Psionics are silly-putty soft. Jump Drives. Weird fusion power plants with weird heat dissipation and weird fuel consumption rates. Lack of developed anti-matter power at TL-15. Fuel Scoops (are impossible because they would cause ships to melt from the heat generated by gas compression). Lack of appropriate genetics and cybernetics and medical technology from TL-10 to TL-15. Etc.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
It isn't space opera, generally.

I thought it was whatever the GM and players made it.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
It isn't about 'fashion over substance' a la cyberpunk.

Cyberpunk is exactly the reverse of the above. "Substance over fashsion."

 

[kaladorn]

I don't know what version of Cyberpunk you read, but I'm quite sure in both the original and the 2020 rehash, Style over Substance is pretty much the mantra.

I agree with you on evangelism.

I don't even disagree that something with *all* the components you identified would be a seller if a great game was the root. That's not in contention.

The real issue is that a publisher has a finite amount of money to play with. Hunter has already spoken to the expense of great artists in another thread. I have seen game after game worry too much about the art and spend too much (presumably) of their budget on art, layout and design, and not worry about the game itself enough.

So, when one is organizing ones priority tree in making a game, it must be:
#1) Solid game mechanics, well tested
#2) Clear, usable presentation of #1 with appropriate tables, indices and game aides
#3) Nice cover art
#4) Nice ancillary interior/atmosphere art

So, yes, if you can have all 4, that's fine. If you can't, I want to see #1 and #2 first. If a great game lurks inside a spartan cover, evangelism can sell it and people will still buy it. Sometimes people buy a game product to admire. Many buy it to get ideas from or to actually play. If this is so, the first two areas MUST be ranked as the priorities.

When I said my shelves and store shelves were full of pretty covered books, let me clarify my meaning: If store shelves are full, then generally they are not moving that well. From talking to my FLGS and some others, this seems to be the case.

A fancy cover gets someone to briefly skim through your product on the shelf. But if they don't know it, haven't heard about it, have heard bad things about the system, or can't easily make things out inside the book, it sits on the shelf.

The same is true of my shelves - I've bought lots of basic game systems. But I've only bought all the way into a few that have good underlying engines. If you have a fancy art wrapper on not much or on an incomprehensible or poorly done game, then I might buy the first bit of it, but that's it.

However, put a spartan cover on it, and it might not catch my eye. But when I hear people talking about what a great system it is online, in the FLGS from the people that did buy it, then I'll consider it.

In short, I can forgive a spartan cover or plain interior if the content is great and well organzied and explained. The reverse is not true. Art does not replace content.

So, I'm not so much arguing with you that 'for a perfect game, you'd have all of these things', but I am saying if you can't have all the parts of a huge commercial success (and even if you do, that's a crap shoot where you stake a lot of money on the outcome....), then what? The answer to that is that you focus on the first priorities I listed and if you can later worry about the latter ones. Make a great game, people will come to it and play it. Make great art, and it'll go on a shelf.

I doubt Marc can manage all the things you suggest, so I'm trying to encourage everyone to think carefully about the order of importance, what matters in the game. When I play the game, I won't be looking at the rulebook much. But I will be *using* the rules, so they'll be the things I have to deal with, and they better be fairly well done and presented or the gaming interest may quickly wane.

Anyway, this is more about putting the cart before the horse than anything else. I rank #1 and #2 as a must, #3 and #4 as nice to have.

As for hard sci-fi, why do we bother with FF&S, Striker, etc. if it isn't a hard sci-fi game? Why worry about economic models? Why worry about how broken sysgen and canon UWPs are? Yet lots of us do. I suggest that Traveller is primarily a hard-sci feel game that has some broken bits, openly acknowledged. That's also why people are campaigning to see them addressed.

And as to what I suggested for cover art: What are most traveller adventures or campaigns written around? It isn't court scenes (as a rule). Maybe the things I suggest are pedestrian, but they are the general meat of Traveller campaigns. Marc seems to have always envisioned Travelling as a strong part of Traveller. <shrug>