*Another* System?

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by alte:
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.

I believe FFE would be making a disastrous error if they avoided dealing with this, one way or another. Whether they explain it realistically or just pave it over with liberal quantities of handwavium, I don't care, but dealt with it must be, or endless arguments there will be.

Originally posted by alte:
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.

Can I point out that T5 has been under development for quite a while now? As in years. If they aren't close to being stable on the major rules components, then something odd has been going on.

I guess a big problem is a lack of info on what's going on with T5 from FFE. Annoucing the game's publication date, and then following on with nothing, is not encouraging.

This goes against both the Evangelism, and the Fann Involvement bullet points.

Originally posted by alte:
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).

Very little, although there have been many extensive debates by highly educated individuals on CotI and the TML.

You would not have believed the debate about just "landing gear" for starships (in relation to wilderness landing sites and capabilities). Some of the posts got toasty.

Originally posted by alte:
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.

I have friends who refuse to play Traveller because it is a high-tech SF game, but that the high-tech elements don't look very high-tech to them. This includes a lack of genetics and medical tech, cybernetics, AI, and nanotech. If these elements are not carefully considered and dealt with so that they are successfully retconned into the OTU, a largish demographic of SF RPGers will be shut-out of T5 at the get-go.

While Traveller cannot be all things to all people, in its current state, it appeals to very few. That will have to be changed. The demographic Traveller appeals to must be expanded.

Some of use are going to get hurt by this, some of our sacred cows might get slaughtered. Or, at least, I hope they will, even if those cows are mine (I've already mentioned the TD#9 Imperial Palace). As long as the it advances the whole of Traveller and T5 in the end.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by alte:
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.

I now wish to make some potentially controversial remarks.

Many might believe that the essence of Traveller is its Jump Drives, its 2D mapping system, its giant computers, its oddly distributed technologies, crazy UWP data, gas giant refueling, etc., ad infinitum.

I believe that Traveller, at its essence, is Travelling.

The authors or the gamers can shape, hammer, and reforge the elements of the current variant OTUs into whatever new TUs they want, but as long as there are Travellers in the game, the game will be Traveller.


-----------------------

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, right after I'm done with the following.

A while back, when we were going through the "Why don't new people play Traveller?" (or whatever the topic was called), I got up on a soapbox and argued for rules-independence from milieu-setting.

I still believe this is vital for the success of T5. T5 needs to be a SF game to support Travelling. The OTU needs to be a place to do that Travelling in, but the rules structure of T5 must not be such that it will only work with the OTU.

I mentioned the need for variant technical elements in Starship Design, especially the jump drives (though the manuever drivesand power plants are important, too), so that people wishing to run SF games where those major atmosphere-setting elements are different can do so without batting an eye.

Or, really, what I wanted was a sort of Super Tecnical Architecture that would be used to create Design Sequences. This way, you could have the OTU Design Sequence, and the "whatever" Design Sequence from a favorite setting or idea. Ships in the Honorverse and Ships in the Starfire universe have many significant similarities, but there are also many differences. Why not have one source from which fair and balanced Design Sequences for multiple potential starship systems can be generated?

 

[robject]

Well Rain, probably about 50% of your wishes are already granted: the core T5 book is setting independent, and the Technical Architecture specifically has an entry for Alternate Tech (whatever that means -- if we're lucky, there will be stargates and stutterwarp).

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by GrognardRobject:
Well Rain, probably about 50% of your wishes are already granted: the core T5 book is setting independent, and the Technical Architecture specifically has an entry for Alternate Tech (whatever that means -- if we're lucky, there will be stargates and stutterwarp).

Huzzah! That would ROCK!

 

[rogermccarthy]

the core T5 book is setting independent, and the Technical Architecture specifically has an entry for Alternate Tech (whatever that means -- if we're lucky, there will be stargates and stutterwarp).

Good.

IMO T5 should also have an entire section with suggestions on how the rules can be used for alternative settings like Star Wars/Trek, Babylon 5, Firefly, Farscape etc (obviously this will have to be written with some care to respect the IP rights of other games publishers).

However remember FFS had alternate tech rules too - as does GT if you just slot in the relevant rules from other GURPS publications - none of which has prevented endless Grognard nitpicking (OK some of them are pretty big nits...).

My suggestion is just to pre-empt and usefully channel the grognardery by setting up separate forums to discuss these issues separate from the playtesting (which indeed should focus on playability issues).

However I must admit the very term 'technical architecture' sets off alarm bells - the one thing T5 does not need is an equipment design system that can only be used with a spreadsheet and which pretends that you can apply the same rules to designing a pistol as to designing a superdreadnought.

To my mind the lack of backwards compatibility with earlier versions and the need to redesign everything probably had more to do the reduced appeal of MT, TNE and T4 compared to CT than the alleged deficiencies of these settings.

The high gearhead factor of GT is probably also a limiting factor in its appeal as well.

As far as design complexity goes High Guard and the T20 system based upon it (although normally I wouldn't touch any D20-based game with a bargepole, Martin and Hunter did a good job here) must be the level to aim for - otherwise the game will only appeal to gearheads and there just aren't enough of these.

In fact IMO every common starship, vehicle, weapon and item of equipment player characters are likely to encounter should be listed in the core rulebook with all the information needed to use them and the design system should be firmly placed at the back in an appendix.

 

[robject]

Alternate Tech:

In my more liberal moments, I feel like merging 2300 history with Traveller. Perhaps the Solomani can be fighting the Kafers to Rimward and the Vilani to Coreward.

I would suppose that advice for converting T5 to specific settings XYZ would be better served in a periodical than a core rulebook, but I could be wrong. However, the TA could provide typical hunks of hardware -- or limiting factors? -- that other game universes use.


Technical Reference:

The ship design system will be "closer to High Guard than Book 2".

I don't know if TR is a merging of the Fire, Fusion, and Steels, or if it's a collection of HG-style design systems, or both, or neither. I suspect that equipment design is not intended to be spreadsheet-oriented, but rather gameplay-oriented.

According to the T5 draft contents, there are four core books --

Core Rules for the ref
Player's Manual
Technical Reference
Encyclopedia

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by alte:
However remember FFS had alternate tech rules too

T20 is based largely on HG2, however, it did draw a number of elements, particularly accomodation components, from MT.

It took zero from FFS, so far as I can tell. And FFS material was there for the taking.

This means that there is no guarantee that T5 will organize its design sequence in the most ideal way.

Originally posted by alte:
However I must admit the very term 'technical architecture' sets off alarm bells - the one thing T5 does not need is an equipment design system that can only be used with a spreadsheet and which pretends that you can apply the same rules to designing a pistol as to designing a superdreadnought.

T20's Vechicle, Computer, and Starship Design Sequences all require a spreadsheet in order to be remotely manageable.

I used to be able to crank out an HG2 starship in 20-25 minutes, by hand, on a single sheet of paper.

MT was far more complicated than that.

T20 is a little more complicated that than HG2, even if it is based on it. The T20 spreadsheets are a huge help, and honestly, I wouldn't want to make starships today without the spreadsheet.

I never designed anything using FFS1 or FFS2, but I wouldn't have wanted to do it without computer support.

Originally posted by alte:

To my mind the lack of backwards compatibility with earlier versions and the need to redesign everything probably had more to do the reduced appeal of MT, TNE and T4 compared to CT than the alleged deficiencies of these settings.

Oh Boy! Here we go again! <Duck . . . and Cover! />

Oh, wait, it's April 1st. <wipes forehead in relief />

However, more seriously, the vast majority of this is covered in: Why don't new people play Traveller?.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by GrognardRobject:
In my more liberal moments, I feel like merging 2300 history with Traveller. Perhaps the Solomani can be fighting the Kafers to Rimward and the Vilani to Coreward.

In MTU there is is a shameless mixing of the two games.

The 2300 aliens were just too good not to be part of the TU IMHO - so in mine they are.

The ship design system will be "closer to High Guard than Book 2".

If that means mixing tonnage based and percentage based components - fine by me

I don't know if TR is a merging of the Fire, Fusion, and Steels, or if it's a collection of HG-style design systems, or both, or neither. I suspect that equipment design is not intended to be spreadsheet-oriented, but rather gameplay-oriented.

Good, I've never liked spreadsheets. Give me a pencil and paper anyday.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Good, I've never liked spreadsheets. Give me a pencil and paper anyday.

I think I'll stick with the spreadsheets, it's so much faster.

 

[Jeffr0]

Any game system that requires a spreadsheet is a ripoff.

A good game designer will not solve problems with "models" when playable abstraction will suffice.

 

[robject]

Actually, for Traveller, the answer lies (as it so often does) in both camps, and I think the main reason for this is solo play: model building as a hobby is older than Traveller.

Traveller is at its best when its layers allow people to do what they want; I think Fire, Fusion, and Steel is the great strength of TNE, just as I think Book 2 and High Guard are great strengths of Classic Traveller.

Basic random (and, new for T5, point-based) chargen versus Advanced chargen. Mainworld generation versus whole-hog solar system generation. Layers mean you can budget your time and effort like you want.

I like Book 2 for starship design, but I don't mind if people use QSDS or Andy Akins' FFS2 spreadsheet to do it instead. Just don't force me to use them.

And when you've got free time but no people to game with, you get to choose what you like best. I get to break out Book 2, or toy with a HG variant. Chris gets to boot up Excel and design dreadnoughts for T4. Nothing wrong with that!

My resistance comes in when Traveller shorts one side in favor of the other; we all lose then.

Basic rules should avoid more than two significant digits (one is best) and deal in displacement tons, hardpoints, G's, and even EPs, if it must. Advanced rules can get into kiloliters, megawatts, mass, newtons, and surface area. A consistent mapping keeps them more or less in line.

 

[Jeffr0]

"Solo play" should always be a footnote to a workable game system.

Canonicity and "Realism" should not take precedence over Utility, Accessibility, Balance, Completeness, and Playability. But the greatest of these things is Playability.

Layering is key to achieving to a good solution. Sometimes a simple model is the most useful. In game design, too much information is often worse than not enough.

 

[robject]

That many of these factors are intertwined is apparent to me. I will not try to quantify playability. I will try to spin your words above:

Solo play should always be a side-effect of a playable game system.

In game design, needless complexity kills the fun.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Jeffr0:
Any game system that requires a spreadsheet is a ripoff.

I couldn't disagree more.

Good starship designs require huge amounts of detail, and a great many of their systems are interlocking, where a change in one area affects a change in another. Even for systems that are not interlocking, altering the ship still requires recalculations. Spreadsheets make this easier than a snap of the fingers.

If a "playable abstraction" involves fumbling around with pencil, eraser, and calculator for a few hours, I'll leave the abstraction alone.

If a "playable abstraction" means not having a good starship design system, then that game, whatever it would be, would most certainly be a "ripoff".

I can't remember how many SF games I've dismissed because they didn't have a decent starship design (or world/star generation) system.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by robject the Confused:
Chris gets to boot up Excel and design dreadnoughts for T4. Nothing wrong with that!

Note, for me, that would be HG2 or T20 (and it's T20, lately).

My copy of T4 vanished many years ago, and I've never even seen a copy of FFS2.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject the Confused:
Chris gets to boot up Excel and design dreadnoughts for T4. Nothing wrong with that!

Note, for me, that would be HG2 or T20 (and it's T20, lately).

My copy of T4 vanished many years ago, and I've never even seen a copy of FFS2. </font>[/QUOTE]Pardon my confusion. I stand corrected.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by robject the Confused:
Pardon my confusion.

You have it, fine sir! The pardon, that is.

But I wouldn't look at it that way, yours was a legitimate speculation, and I'm quite sure no slight was intended (or even generalized teasing, either

).

 

[aramis]

ROS: the MT Steals were (at least by myself and Dr Skull) crosschecked against the numbers in FF&S.

The Airframe percentage is from the Airframe definition in FF&S 1. Literally. (That one was my suggestion during playtest...); the FF&S definition of Airframe was intended; it just didn't make the final product.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject the Confused:
Pardon my confusion.

You have it, fine sir! The pardon, that is.

But I wouldn't look at it that way, yours was a legitimate speculation, and I'm quite sure no slight was intended (or even generalized teasing, either

). </font>[/QUOTE]Well... maybe a little teasing...

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Aramis:
ROS: the MT Steals were (at least by myself and Dr Skull) crosschecked against the numbers in FF&S.

The Airframe percentage is from the Airframe definition in FF&S 1. Literally. (That one was my suggestion during playtest...); the FF&S definition of Airframe was intended; it just didn't make the final product.

Ok, so there was something I couldn't tell.