Dice ?? Game mechanic ??

[clementk]

Originally posted by Qstor2:
What about the D6 system by West End Games? A lot of Star Wars fans were happy with that system for sci-fi.

Under new owners it's been rereleased in three themed core books, d6 Adventure, d6 Fantasy, d6 Space. (see westendgames.com for more info)

A nice thing about d6 aside from using regular dice and being easy to pick up, is you can remove the wild die etc. to make it more gritty or go to a fixed TN = success version (Legends?) for more cinematic/streamlined play.

I'm interested in how Prime Directive d6 (Star Fleet Battles RPG) and the d6 Worlds of Honor (Honor Harrington RPG based Legends IIRC) turn out.

 

[aramis]

D6 legends is the boolean dice, right?

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

Boolean dice? You mean a two-sided die, right? Boolean logic applies best to binary math, which uses only the digits 0 and 1. Thus, there are only two possible unit states, in contrast to the ten possible unit states in decimal math.

Pythagorean dice, on the other hand, have 4, 6, 8, 12, or 20 sides only.

Or have I missed something here?

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Aramis:
D6 legends is the boolean dice, right?

If I'm following you, yes; looks like d6 Legend baseline is:
on a 6 sided die normally 1-2 = failure, 3-6 = success

I've not played it but it is IMO easier/faster to count successes than add up pips and it doesn't too difficult to use d6 Classic in its place.

Originally posted by Heretic Keklas Rekobah:
Boolean dice? You mean a two-sided die, right?

As in succeed or not succeed on a die roll. The d6 System (and its derivatives) uses only 6 sided dice, hence d6 System.

Online d6 Legend trial game
http://www.westendgames.com/html/d6spar.html

d6 Classic <-> d6 Legend comparison / conversion guides
http://www.westendgames.com/html/plyd6-l.html
http://www.westendgames.com/html/d6c2l.html

 

[Qstor2]

Originally posted by Aramis:
It is a good system; aside from lots of dice, it's just about dead opposite of the T4/T5 "vision" [/QB]

This might be a stupid question, but I haven't been following these boards. I saw that T5 was going to be out at GenCon and that peaked my interest, since T5 has been talked about for years.

What was the original 'vision' for T5? I looked at the playtest .pdf files on traveller5.com and the character generation looked a LOT like CT to me. But the task mechanic looked a tad like the West End Games system.

Mike

 

[Stainless]

Originally posted by Qstor2:
This might be a stupid question, but I haven't been following these boards. I saw that T5 was going to be out at GenCon and that peaked my interest, since T5 has been talked about for years.

You "saw"??! Where?

This must be a rumour. Surely T5 is not ready, otherwise we would have heard a lot more about it recently.

 

[Malenfant]

I can't see any possible way that T5 will be ready for Gencon 2007 - at least not in a playable form. From what I've heard it's not even out of an alpha stage, they're still writing the system (this despite it being officially "in playtest" since April 2005, and even at that time we were handed a bare framework of a system that hadn't even been designed yet despite the time it was rumoured to be in development before that).

I'll be amazed if a playable, fully playtested, professional-looking system will be available before the end of 2007. Or even 2008 for that matter.

 

[kafka47]

I may have accidently created the rumour when someone misread my post. I had said GenCon is a likely release point, even, if Marc has promised June 2007. However, Malenfant, I agree that it is way too soon for a playable, fully playtested to be released but I would not say the same thing for professional looking, for all we know Marc could just simply take the T4.1 files and just give them a new spin and let the chads fall where they may. It could be since T4's demise that he has been working solo on this project and just wants to release without all criticism of the fandom seeing how it has killed projects in the past.

We simply don't know things. That is the most fustrating part. Seconded, by the fact, that there seems to be blockage on almost every issue.

But, broadcasting your fustration might be good for your mental state, it does nothing for this community. Rather, try to find ways to make this community a better place. Mal, I know that you done a small part with Brown Dwarfs, don't let it stop. The only way we going to get the rennaisance we want is by doing things.

 

[kafka47]

BTW, further food for thought from Ryan Dancey on the Web...might help put a bit of perspective into this discussion...http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/iWeb/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/C44E7E19-26A7-4C05-89B8-15803410A740.html

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by kafka47:
But, broadcasting your fustration might be good for your mental state, it does nothing for this community. Rather, try to find ways to make this community a better place. Mal, I know that you done a small part with Brown Dwarfs, don't let it stop. The only way we going to get the rennaisance we want is by doing things. [/QB]

There isn't a way to make it better though, at least in terms of official traveller releases. Marc isn't listening to what people are saying when it comes to T5, or to what they want. If he's not listening, then nothing we say is going to make it in.

The fundamental problem is that Marc's vision is incompatible not only with what people expect in today's RPG market, but also with the vision of the majority of Traveller fans. If he refuses to bring his vision in line with that of his own game's fanbase, then there's little hope for T5.

We can have a "renaissance" all we like but it doesn't really mean much if it's unofficial. If all the bugs in Traveller got fixed (and people can't even agree much on what those are - some see them as 'features' rather than problems - but Marc has to be aware that they are there), then the game would be unrecognisable anyway - so you might as well start again from scratch.

 

[GypsyComet]

Ryan Dancey is all gloom and doom in that post. He also has some significant blind spots, the inherent evils of the monster he helped create (D20 and the OGL) being one of those, as the blog from several days later demonstrates. (I could get started on the demonstrable fact that 3.5 is the very thing that 3.0 was designed to counter in the industry, but this isn't the place.)

Mr. Dancey gets a number of his predictions out of the blue sky, largely due to his blind spots. Taking him seriously is probably not a good idea.

The fundamental problem is that Marc's vision is incompatible not only with what people expect in today's RPG market, but also with the vision of the majority of Traveller fans.

Some of the material I've seen leads me to agree with this statement. Too much high art, not enough hard play. Traveller as a setting uses a lot of it's sub-systems on a fairly regular basis, so having those be clean and clear is important.

 

[Malenfant]

T5 seems to be some kind of wacky highly-theoretical design exercise than any actual attempt to make a working game. I don't think Marc's really gone beyond his wargaming roots at all in the past 30 years.

 

[DonM]

I'm not sure whether to cheer Malenfant's audacity at that statement, or be the first to dawn a robe, shout Jehovah and lob C-Rocks at him.

Look -- does it matter at all what T5 is, mechanic wise?

If there is a T20II, and it's more d20 modernish, d20 futureish, and more Travellerish, it's likely to take all the air out of the room.

Let Marc release T5 as he wants it. In fact, support him doing it. Once it's done and out and the market has made its decision, THEN AND ONLY THEN push a T20II out.

Great. Not only do I not throw rocks at Malenfant, I now get to join him in the target center.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by DonM:
Look -- does it matter at all what T5 is, mechanic wise?

Well, yes, because if it's unplayable then nobody will want to use it. Arguably we don't even *need* a system anymore, why on earth does Marc expect everyone to drop whatever system they're using and adopt T5?

If there is a T20II, and it's more d20 modernish, d20 futureish, and more Travellerish, it's likely to take all the air out of the room.

Is that a good thing?

Let Marc release T5 as he wants it. In fact, support him doing it. Once it's done and out and the market has made its decision, THEN AND ONLY THEN push a T20II out.

By then I fear it'd be too late. Marc most likely won't allow anything to compete with T5. And given how far behind QLI is (through no fault of its own), I'd be surprised if he allowed Hunter to renewed the license again.

 

[Valarian]

How about a percentile system (d100)?

All skills have a percentage of success with abilities, flaws and stats giving bonuses and penalties to the %age chance. As characters develop the percentage goes up.

 

[Stainless]

Well, yes, because if it's unplayable then nobody will want to use it. Arguably we don't even *need* a system anymore, why on earth does Marc expect everyone to drop whatever system they're using and adopt T5?

Indeed. When I first heard about T5 I thought, "Why?! Who needs yet ANOTHER rule set?" Since Marc has the rights to a number of them, he could have just done a conflation and tweeking. Select the best elements, bolt them together, test for consistency and compatibility, tweek as needed. PROOF READ and publish. He would then have a robust system, mostly already tested and familiar with the 'fan base' and the full intellectual rights to it. Less effort than creating a new system in toto . This is why Avenger Classic Traveller (ACT) was so attractive.

 

[Qstor2]

If there is a T20II, and it's more d20 modernish, d20 futureish, and more Travellerish, it's likely to take all the air out of the room.
[/QB]

I agree, but I don't see a T20II EVER coming out with the problems that Hunter has.

Of course we still have GT and now Traveller Hero.

I also, agree that we should support Marc with T5 but to stimulate sales for a new generation of RPG'ers. T5 needs some bells and whistles

I did misread the post about T5 and GenCon Indy. My bad.

Mike

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Qstor2:
I also, agree that we should support Marc with T5 but to stimulate sales for a new generation of RPG'ers. T5 needs some bells and whistles

[/QB]

I think many people in this community need to be realistic here - if T5 does turn out to be as bad as it looks like it'll be, then going out and buying it in your droves just to "support Marc" will send entirely the wrong message. If the game turns out to be crap and unplayable, then don't buy it. If you look at your huge pile of Traveller stuff and thing "you know, I really don't need another version of Traveller", then don't buy it. If you're idly curious about it and just want a look at it then read some previews first and then decide if you want to actually buy it. But for the love of all that's sensible, don't just buy something purely for the sake of "supporting the author" - buy it because you want to buy it for yourself and will actually use it! (and I'm not singleing (sp?) out T5 here, this applies for any RPG really).

If the game is bad, then the only way Marc will realise it's bad is if people don't buy it. Who knows, maybe it will actually be playable and relevant to the market and well-produced (that of course requires Marc to do a total 180 on his 'vision' for the game), but it doesn't look like that will be the case IMO. But if it's good, then by all means go and buy it if you want it and can find a use for it.

I think Marc is hoping that (if not relying on) a lot of people will just rush out and buying T5 for its own sake when they don't even need or want it, and that simply isn't realistic.

And for all the talk of supporting Marc, I think that people owe Marc Miller a lot less than they think they do - he may have created the game initially but most of the creative gruntwork hasn't been done by him at all - it's been done by the GMs and the players who have toiled over the past 30 years making their own TUs and rulesets (and I dare say that most TUs and rules are actually quite different after all is said and done from the OTU, having diverged in their own ways). Not to mention that the licencees of Traveller - Hunter, MJD, Loren, and all the other folks at GDW and DGP who drove MT and TNE - have done a lot of work to make the game what it is today.

 

[gdbackus]

However "good/bad/broken/fixed/etc" T5 ends-up being, I think it's safe to say that a fair number of people will buy it to keep up with the desire to have a complete collection - it will be another Canon product. That fact by itself will certainly generate some (small) quantity of sales.
I'd rather not argue the merit of that criteria - people have their own reasons. Seems to me that many people are interested in RPG books (in general, and Traveller in particular) to add to bookshelves more than to break the spines analyzing the charts and tables.
Obviously, though - just because it's published doesn't mean it has to be liked or used. If I remember from other posts of yours, you do make up
a lot of your own systems in game play. Is anyone telling you that your systems are somehow wrong/broken? I doubt that they are. And, yeah, if they were, then troubleshooting them would be a good thing...anyway...
I'll look forward to t5 not as a patch/fix to a plethora of previous systems and reserve my judgement of it until I've read it.

 

[Roger Calver]

I dont get games to add to my colection, I dont buy games just to help the writer, I buy games to play and if T5 fills that role then yes I will get it if it doesnt then no I will not get it.
In the end its Marc game and up to him how he plays it, if he wants to release it as is then so be it nothings going to change that.
If when it hits the shelves people see it to be flawed just like T4 then he will have to deal with it then or face the same problem again.
And if he stops all of the licenses when it comes out thats his choice it would be one hell of a bad one if you ask me but there you go.