*Another* System?

[aramis]

To the chap who asked about "Testing out new Stuff": Yes, I tried T5 CG. I don't need to try the task system (it's the T4.1.1 task system right down the line; I hated it then for the same reasons I hate it now), I'd be happy to try more.

Re Playtest modes:
having been in several playtests of significant products in the last 10 years:
Best: T20. Players and designer had continuing two-way dialogue with constant flow of information both ways. Intensive and time consuming.
Very Good: EABA. Drafts sent out about 1 per month, private feedback to the designer, some leakage to public due to use of mailing list not restricted to playtesters. (BTW, works GREAT for Traveller; use the MT difficulty target numbers straight!) Greg responded to all playtesters, but we didn't get to synergize off each other.
So So: Star Fleet Battles. Very impersonal, no contact between playtesters, very thorough. If enough playtest reports come in, it gets revised and replaytested or published. VERY SLOW, no feedback unless a revision needs playtest.
Very Bad: Babylon 5 Wars 1st ed. Playtest groups sent packets in rounds. Feedback sent by round. Only two rounds out-house playtest; major revision each round; Neither round matched up to released product. (Final product was excellent, though.)
Worst: Warhammer FRP 2d ed. Line oversight person posted on feedback board that the design team had no business being on the playtest boards. Some negative feedback posts deleted by moderators. Design team mailing out revisions every 4 weeks or so, and not fixing the big bugaboos (based upon post counts), and in some cases, ignoring mild but profligate criticism of approach taken. Oversight team hostile to mention of previous edition, whether for comparison or exemplar purposes, even if in favor of new system. Design team hostile to suggestions of radical change AND of reversion to old. Oversight team hostile to long-time players of 1st ed, and to RPG's. Oversight team appeared to believe a playtest was like a novel's pre-releases: Catch the typos and spelling errors, but leave the content alone.

 

[robject]

Aramis and Kaladorn,

I've started making enquiries [sp?]. Let's see what happens with getting playtest in gear.

 

[kaladorn]

One of the fellows in my group does some playtesting for Champions. One of the other fellows was somehow hooked into the commitee putting together the next (last? I don't know if it is out and done with) version of BloodBowl's rules. I know we played some pre-release Champs modules and a lot of Bloodbowl. And I'm on-and-off participating in testing the next generation of stuff for Ground Zero Games. Here's my notes on those experiences:

BloodBowl: Dean was hooked in and regularly fed back stuff to the commitee. We played a lot of BB and explored a lot of the new campaign rules. Some of our guys ran math analyses to add to the experiential ones. There was a lot of 'prior version' experience, including what worked and what didn't. That knowledge was shared and I think Dean passed back summarized feedback from the group. In the end, we got some nice BB figs for helping out! I think we probably did offer some useful and valid critiques.

Champions: I think we helped clean up some areas in an otherwise pretty good module. Our GM had his take on it and we added any pertinent comments. I think it was pretty good, so there wasn't a lot to take issue with, but we threw in the comments we thought would be of use. I believe the experience was also a good one, though more feedback on the final result would have been good.

Ground Zero stuff: I'm on a playtest list. I'm also on their more general mailing list, that occasionally gets 'key bits' drifted out to them for some beating about. Lots of communication, though sometimes it isn't obvious how much of it the designer himself gets (as Jon T wears most of the hats at GZG, so he has actual 'production/sales' stuff to worry about and conventions), but we have several people on the test-list who summarize, coallate, edit and collect the general wisdom and help re-write, edit, or clean up rules. We also have a fair institutional knowledge of what works, what doesn't, why, how and where it breaks, and what sorts of fixes haven't worked. Communication isn't perfect, but isn't bad. The coordinators (even though they do so in an impromptu manner) do make a *big* difference to coallating and editing and summarizing. We also maintain a CVS archive so new (or out of date) playtesters can come up to speed.
Some of our suggestions are accepted without complaint, some we have to beat Jon about the head with until he finally agrees or we relent, and sometimes he just does his own thing. But most of the time we get the feeling he is listening. But since his business is figure sales with rules as a vehicle for that (rather than an end unto themselves), that tends to control his time-spent somewhat.

I think playtesting needs a few key things:
1) Developer buy in. (In this case, Marc)
2) Coordinators (to help keep information flow manageable and to help consolidate feedback and distribute new updates to the testers)
3) A repository (a place to store the playtest files and feedback notes)
4) A forum that is private for designers and the playtesters. I do think playtesters should synergize and communicate. I think to the extent possible, so should the designer - he should ellucidate not only the *what* of the game rules he's working out, but why he thinks they're a good idea. This helps his testers understand the underlying design constraints and their comments are more likely to be useful. This forum should not be public simply because in the early stages of prototyping (see below), you need to have limited inputs (but more than one or two) to let the designer get some basic shape nailed down. Only after you get a decent way into things should the product go into limited public release.
4) Stages - a stage where it goes out in raw form to the playtesters, then a stage in which it goes back to the designer with feedback, repeat a few times, then a stage where a bit is leaked to the larger public (when it is fairly solid... in software, we'd call this a beta) on COTI or the like with the idea of getting new feedback (just in case the playtesters miss something or all have opinions one way - this just gets a little more input in play) and someone is coordinating that feedback (rather than the designer getting hit with it). Then final version editing and general release.

I've offered to help Colin out a bit on 2320AD where I can. I'll try to help out Marc if I have the chance. I'm a bit of a process guy. With the right process, you get more out of the inputs everybody contributes. With a bad process, there is a lot of waste, conflicted energy and things slip through the cracks.

The worst part is, I think I'm starting to sound like a project manager... <cringe...>

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by 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.

</font>

• Walter Jon Williams
  </font>
  • </font>
  • Hardwired</font>
  • Voice of the Whirlwind</font>
• Daniel Keys Moran
  </font>
  • The Long Run</font>
  </font>
• George Alec Effinger
  </font>
  • When Gravity Fails</font>
  </font>

That list could go on. And I'm sure plenty of stuff fails to roll off the tip of my toungue at the moment. But the above are among the best of the best.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
[...]
Hunter has already spoken to the expense of great artists in another thread.

I need to read that. Can you give me a link?

Originally posted by kaladorn:
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.

Well, I have an actual example to discuss.

Crimson Empire: 2nd Ed.

It came out within the last few months. It's a huge, beautiful hardback. Excellent cover art. The book feels great to pick up and hold, and has a nice, but not ideal, paper scent. The back cover blurb makes it sound like a great game, something I'd want to buy.

Then, you find out it's $49.99.

Naturally, this merits tough consideration on whether to buy or not. I open the book . . .

It's all medium and dark grey pages with black text. Ick. A terrible packaging decision.

The font-size is giant, and the leading is big, too. The margins are large, as well. This is, frankly, disastrous.

Net judgment? In less than 60 seconds I could readily see, due to the font-size, margins, and leading, that the book contained little content relative to other books of similar size and cost.

Net decision? I did not buy it.

Obviously, T5 cannot suffer from similar problems.


If the most successful general in a war is the one that makes the fewest errors, and if we can, by analogy, connect RPG publishing with warfare, then perhaps we should say that the sucessful release of T5 will be one where it contains an absolute minimum (preferably none) of the classic and well-known RPG publishing mistakes.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
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

Well, I didn't put my emphasis on these things because, honestly, I thought they were obvious.

T5 has been in the boiler for how long now? Isn't it 99% of the way to being what you state above already? (Yes, I've looked at the playtest materials available over on the T5 site. . . but honestly, that looked like early alpha-ware, it couldn't have been the latest material. Could it? <he says, hoping he is so very wrong />)

I guess I need to update my earlier "statement" to better clarify the need for good rules and a lack of errata (I really thought the "playtest" widely part covered that, that's what widespread playtesting is for).

Originally posted by kaladorn:
So, yes, if you can have all 4, that's fine. If you can't, I want to see #1 and #2 first.

Oh, yes, certainly. You can live well with #1 and #2, and a paper wrapper on the outside. The core Traveller fann group will most certainly buy it (well, most of them will, anyway).

But it will not be the meteor landing amongst the non-traveller gamers, there to be snapped up in quantity as a "great new game".

I'll agree with you about the price, though, it does tend to be a big factor.

Personally, I think a perfect-bound version would be widely accepted, and much cheaper to produce. But it would have to be a Palladium-style perfect-bound, not an Alien's reprint books style perfect bound.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
When I said my shelves and store shelves were full of pretty covered books, let me clarify my meaning:
[...]
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.

My confusion has abated.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
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,

Hopefully, we can find a happy medium in the final product. Word of mouth only does so much.

Because you base your RPG purchasing decisions on obviously rational processes about true content, you may overlook that others do not do so. I think you have underestimated the, "Well, I haven't bought an RPG in a while, which one am I going to get now," mentality, where packaging may be the driving feature of causing a purchase. Impulse shopping, in essence. I know, I've observed it in action at my FLGS.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
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.

Personally, I think a top-flight cover has greater value than you have assigned. Perhaps I should add a continuation that says, "Or, at least, avoids any bad artwork." (Though that's terribly hard to define usefully.)

Originally posted by kaladorn:
So, I'm not so much arguing [...]

Well, I would hope to say that we are seeking a path to superior understanding of what we were talking about to begin with.

Is this ponderous thing we are doing now really arguing? Man, I'm getting old.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I doubt Marc can manage all the things you suggest,

Originally posted by kaladorn:
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).

I guess I was thinking of displaying the huge breadth of Traveller by showing, in a snapshot, its enormous diversity of nations and races in an impressive and "colorful" setting. I wasn't thinking of "court-life".

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Aramis:

So So: Star Fleet Battles. Very impersonal, no contact between playtesters, very thorough. If enough playtest reports come in, it gets revised and replaytested or published. VERY SLOW, no feedback unless a revision needs playtest.

You playtested SFB? Woo hoo! I used to play SFB a lot (ending in 1992). Several games of Federation & Empire, too. I even managed to get my name on the list of Carrier War playtesters. In one F&E game, I forced a Kzinti Dreadnaught all the way over into Hydran space (don't ask). My fellow gamers submitted a "Hydran Conversion of Kzinti DN" to ADB! Apparently, it got quite a few laughs at the time.

Originally posted by Aramis:
Worst: Warhammer FRP 2d ed. [...] Oversight team appeared to believe a playtest was like a novel's pre-releases: Catch the typos and spelling errors, but leave the content alone.

Somewhere I have read similar comments.


ObTrav: The development of T5 needs to select from the best of the above, and avoid the worst, as well.

 

[kaladorn]

I think avoiding 'bad' (and in the context I mean 'doesn't fit with the game' art, rather than necessarily outright awful itself) art is a must too. I think T4's art was... bad. By that definition. If I saw it on the cover of some retro sci-fi periodical, I'd say 'hey, that's okay'. But it wasn't Traveller. YMMV, but I found it didn't suit my image (or other previous illustrations) of the Traveller genre.

I will agree with you - top flight art is (if we're going to do art) to be striven for. Certainly, the order is probably great art, good art, no art, or bad art, with bad art being avoided. I like spartan, but I'm willing to admit that something attractive won't drive me away, but I'd rather keep the colour to the cover and limited use inside - I found T4's use of interior colour (and large) art very distracting.

I guess I don't get the comments about Perfect bound books. My reprints are all fine, though I suppose I haven't done anything spine-cracking to them, so their may be an issue I'm unaware of.

For the discussion (brief) of the cost of some types of artist's work, I think you want to look...

Discussion of the very cool new 2300 AD cover

The new 2300AD cover is very nice. I think Ted's doing a good job. The challenge will be to see if the Interior Art and Layout are up to a good standard. I sure hope so!

One other thing: I agree that people may make an impulse purchase of a nice looking RPG. But that's what I was alluding to when I said I have shelves with nice looking books on them. If the system doesn't end up being pretty good, that one nice art book is all you'll buy. Nice art will get someone to pay the price of admission, but the rest better be there (I know we all agree on this) to keep interest and to drive product sales.

I'll pay $40-50 US for a good hardcover of a basic rulebook for T5 or for 2320 AD. I'll pay up to about $30-40 US for a good perfect bound version. If the rules are good, I'll shift over from using MT. If the supplements are good enough to use with MT or if I've shifted to T5, I'll buy them too. But if they're tied to T5 rules (they seem not to be aimed that way) and the T5 rules blow chunks, then I won't be rushing to buy them.

So, if compromises have to be made, I think we both agree we can live with *decent* art on the cover, a perfect bound format, and a very crisp, clean, interior design with good use of tables, indices, ToC, and some logical organization and clear presentation. That will probably be a good compromise result - it might be good enough to get some new folks to take notice, and it'll be okay for us grognards. If a few new folks take notice, and the grognards like it enough to get into the evangelical spirit, maybe we can push it up into a stable orbit (ie a profitable venture). That'd be my sort of 'less than fantastic' scenario, but I think it might be reasonable.

 

[robject]

OK, the Committee For Proper Front Covers has ruled in favor of ... a nice cover.

My current concern is with playtesters. How can the Grognard Quotient be kept to a low hum? And is Grodnardism as rampant as Malenfant says? I know that the TML in the late 90s seemed to frustrate me enough to drop out of it forever.

 

[flykiller]

My current concern is with playtesters. How can the Grognard Quotient be kept to a low hum?

(odd mix of metaphores. a low-humming quotient?)

easy. find some people who've never played traveller before (shouldn't be hard) who are willing to learn T5. then do what they say. issue the grognard stuff as separate upgrades - that way the quotient can hum as loud as it wants without frightening anyone.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I guess I don't get the comments about Perfect bound books. My reprints are all fine, though I suppose I haven't done anything spine-cracking to them, so their may be an issue I'm unaware of.

On your next expedition to your FLGS, hold a copy of the Rifts main rulebook up to a copy of one of the CT Alien reprints. You'll see immediately what I mean (and I don't mean the art). The construction is completely different. Different cover, and different paper (or so it seems to me about the paper, anyway).

Ok, yes, I am a paper quality freak.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
So, if compromises have to be made, [...] and the grognards like it enough to get into the evangelical spirit, maybe we can push it up into a stable orbit (ie a profitable venture). That'd be my sort of 'less than fantastic' scenario, but I think it might be reasonable.

Well, we do seem to be achieving some sort of thought convergence.

Despite the ramblings of some individuals, I think the "grognards" are less groggy than some people suspect.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by robject:
My current concern is with playtesters. How can the Grognard Quotient be kept to a low hum? And is Grodnardism as rampant as Malenfant says? I know that the TML in the late 90s seemed to frustrate me enough to drop out of it forever.

It depends on what kind of grognardism you are discussing.

If it's the, "Oh no! Your new Design Sequences mess up everything I've ever done. Oh no! I can't accept that," kind; then yes, we need to keep that to a minimum.

If it's the, "Oh no! You haven't kept every single UWP exactly like the original and supremely beyond imagination broken Sunbane/GEnie (or wherever they originally came from) non-canon but-widely-used files," kind; then yes, we need to keep that to an even smaller minimum.

If it's the, "Oh no! The Imperial Palace isn't a sphere hanging above . . ." then yes, we need to keep that to a minimum (although on this issue, it will be only with restraint on my part, because I think the TD#9 Imperial Palace is way cool).

If it's the, "Hey, wait a minute, you haven't explained why X is possible (or happened) in light of Y in a manner that is clearly justified and well-explained to all who look upon both X and Y," well then, we will need a lot of that sort of grognardism. It's called criticism, and those who aren't prepared to accept it and listen to it, whether or not they act upon it, need to avoid asking for playtesting help.

This would include covering criticism of issues such as I have already mentioned, like the infamous heat problems related to fusion power plants and fuel scoops), etc., ad infinitum. Yes, hearing such criticism, and chewing upon it mightily until the reason for the criticism has been abated, and therefore (I steal TML-Poster Richard Aiken's now famed response) my, and others, suspenders of disbelief will not be snapped into our faces when being confronted with the technological and historical underpinnings of the T5 OTU. And by "abated" I do not mean "brushed under the carpet", I mean "solved in a way that clears up the problem permanently." If that means that the previous canon need be paved over, then so be it. (But let's not forget the developers blog and summary monthly reports and collective open discussions that I earlier mentioned should happen in relation to T5 development, where the reasoning behind any changes will be completely argued out and available for all to consult if their curiosity over the changes requires them to do so; and they will see how things got to be the way they were; and yes, some will complain later that, "I wasn't a part of it because nobody told me and it's not fair," but you can't make everyone happy all the time, you can only try and do your best by including everyone you can while you are under development.)

 

[flykiller]

And by "abated" I do not mean "brushed under the carpet", I mean "solved in a way that clears up the problem permanently."

they'd never get the game out.

(by that I mean, of course, an RPG.)

 

[robject]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And by "abated" I do not mean "brushed under the carpet", I mean "solved in a way that clears up the problem permanently."

they'd never get the game out.

(by that I mean, of course, an RPG.) </font>[/QUOTE]Flykiller's right.

And as for finding non-Travellers to playtest Traveller: the problem remains the same -- finding people who are "good" playtesters.

This would include covering criticism of issues such as I have already mentioned, like the infamous heat problems related to fusion power plants and fuel scoops), etc., ad infinitum. Yes, hearing such criticism, and chewing upon it mightily until the reason for the criticism has been abated, and therefore (I steal TML-Poster Richard Aiken's now famed response) my, and others, suspenders of disbelief will not be snapped into our faces when being confronted with the technological and historical underpinnings of the T5 OTU.

I just don't know. The problem is, that this stuff is not central to Traveller; it's glitz, it's extra. It sure does fire a lot of people up in discussion boards, and some of us think there are serious problems where others see none at all.

I'm all for fixing inconsistencies, but tech is likely to be a quagmire, and the effort expended toward some details may be better spent elsewhere.

 

[rogermccarthy]

Many excellent points being made...

Rain - agree with you up to a point, but so much of this stuff is core to the TU that you can't remove it and still have Traveller.

What would move us forward would be a forum specifically devoted to identifying all of these problems in a positive and constructive way and suggesting more plausible explanations/solutions for them (and playable rules based upon them), that Marc can actually use in T5.

 

[robject]

What you're suggesting might be different from playtest, but I suspect that a playtest forum will be the most likely channel to open up, and so changes will have to feed back from there.

 

[rogermccarthy]

Back on the subject of playtesting.

Having some time on my hands, I am now running a series of solo adventures using the the T5 playtest rules.

(basically I've rolled up some T5 characters and am going to take them through the Traveller Adventure as this has very few stats and is easily convertible).

Of course using T4 for the missing bits presents a Tech level mismatch problem, but in the TA campaign, none of the planets visited are over TL-13 so I can work around this.

Am actually annotating my copies of the playtest docs and will probably have completed this in a couple of weeks - where will be the best place to post them?

 

[kaladorn]

I think Rain makes a good comment.

Keep in mind what makes a grognard - it isn't entirely being some sort of antideluvian curmudgeon! It is *a lot of experience* with a lot of different versions of the game. I suspect even some of the game designers, having alot to deal with, may not have spent as much time poking at certain things as some grognards have.

And the only change I'm against is *change for changes sake*. If the change offers *advantages*, then I'm all for it. If it is just *different*, then one has to wonder is that sufficient justification?

I for one, don't get worked up over fuel scoops because I always assumed that the same kind of tech that would allow stealth in space would obviously suggest an amazing command of thermodynamics and an ability to handle fuel skimming heat generation. But everyone has a pet peeve. I think the complaints about wonky UWPs (how many TL less than 9 worlds with hideous or unsurvivable atmospheres are there?!) is more generic and that one should get attention.

I think however the order that one needs to work on these things:

A) The things that build characters (chargen, skill system, stats, contacts, etc).
B) The things that build adventures (combat rules, equipment, etc)
C) The things that build a campaign universe (plaent and system generation, economic models, etc)

So the first thing any game probably needs to pin down solid are category A items.

You need a mix in your playtest groups of young and old, but at the outset you need buy in from all that *YES* there will be changes, and *NO* the new Traveller will not be CT, nor MT, nor (insert favourite iteration). It will be a new product with new advantages and trade offs. Now, you can steal good stuff from the other systems, but your playtesters need to know that differences will occur. The only judgement should be rendered *after* the final release. Along the way, you'll hit some dead ends. That's why we call it *testing*. Otherwise we'd call it *product release*.

 

[flykiller]

A) The things that build characters (chargen, skill system, stats, contacts, etc).
B) The things that build adventures (combat rules, equipment, etc)
C) The things that build a campaign universe (plaent and system generation, economic models, etc)

call it "Characters, Settings, Ships, Adventures" - CSSA. with a whole lot of each pregeneratated and provided so new players can step in and play without having to be gearheads first.

 

[rogermccarthy]

Of course the problem with dealing with the basic hard science credibility problems Rain and others identify is that they mostly are too fundamental to Traveller to be discussed in the playtest anyway.

Ultimately whatever we say now T5 WILL have Jumps that take one week between planets that are all exactly one, two, three, four etc parsecs apart, fusion power plants massing as as small as a few kilograms that don't meltdown in use, fuel scoops that can collect hydrogen from Gas Giants without overheating (or the crew all dying from radiation), spacecraft that achieve huge velocities without regularly being vaporised by impact with little bits of space debris etc, etc...

Given that these features will be in T5 anyway, what is needed is something like a draft library data chapter that at least provides semi-plausible handwaving explanations of how these things are possible in the 56th century.

Somehow I can't see this sort of material coming out early in the playtest process and would much rather Marc worked on getting the rules mechanics first.

There is also a question in my mind as to how many of the big technological credibility issues have truly never been addressed before in published material (whether the handwaves offered are good enough is another question).

I actually did like the way the GURPS Traveller book at least raised the 'why no AI and no Nanotech and no hordes of cyborgs' questions and T5 should do something similar for these and the other problems that exercise the technogrognards amongst us.

A proper forum which first identifies a list of problems, then summarises what has been published so far addressing them and then invites interested and knowledgable parties to offer better library data style capsule explanations of 'how phenomenon x thought to be impossible or seriously problematic in the early 21st century proved resolvable by the 56th century' - or conversely 'how phenomenon y (AI, nanotech, antimatter powerplants etc) widely believed in the early 21st century to be a possible feature of future technology had not in come into common use by the 56th century'

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by alte:
Many excellent points being made...

Rain - agree with you up to a point,

Why, thank you!

Originally posted by alte:
but so much of this stuff is core to the TU that you can't remove it and still have Traveller.

Please be specific.

Originally posted by alte:
What would move us forward would be a forum specifically devoted to identifying all of these problems in a positive and constructive way [...]

I was going to do that yesterday, but it was late at night and I was groggy (<cough, cough, cough . . . get that man a glass of water!>).

Originally posted by alte:
and suggesting more plausible explanations/solutions for them (and playable rules based upon them), that Marc can actually use in T5.

While I would certainly hope MMW and Co. would take notice of the commentary here on elsewhere, I do not believe it's currently being done.

That was part of what I meant by Fann Involvement. They don't have anything up on either the T5 site or on the FFE site supporting this.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by robject:
[...] but tech is likely to be a quagmire [...]

A quagmire may be made stable with a sufficient application of handwavium.