Dice ?? Game mechanic ??

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by ragnarokk:
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.

Hmmm...maybe. But, I agree with Roger.

I'll buy T5 if (and only "if") it's a good game. I'll only buy it if I like what is published.

If T5 is just another version of T4, using that same old task system and what-not, then, nope, I'm not buying.

Reason? There are really two main reaons: (1) Is that I like CT, and I've got a healthy, thriving CT campaign going; (2) I own so much CT stuff that I already know that I'll never even play some of it before I die.

So... If I've got a good group, interested in Traveller, enjoying CT...why re-invent the wheel?

Well, if it's a damn good wheel, then I'm going to want it. I'll want to switch my campaign over to it--so that my game can run on better wheels.

But, if its just another wheel--just like all the others--then I'll just stay happy with what I've already got. No use putting bucks towards something I'll never use (like GURPS...I own a couple of GURPS thingys, and I never use 'em. I never crack those books. I never crack my TNE stuff either, for that matter...thinking of selling it all off...).

It all comes down to quality.

If T5 is a quality product, I'll probably buy everything ever published for it.

If I don't like what I see in T5 (like T20...didn't do much for me, so I don't buy T20), then I'll skip it and play what I've got.

I'd much rather put my money into finding and purchasing those few CT items I don't have (something I'll use) rather than shelling out good money for books that will sit on my shelf.

It's all about quality.

Here's to hoping that T5 hits that high mark.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by RogerCalver:
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.

I agree with most of what you say, Roger...except this line.

One of the problems, I think, hurting Traveller as a whole is that it's market is fractionalised.

Take me, for instance. I'm a CT guy. I buy CT stuff and MT stuff (and some T4 stuff), because all those editions are compatible with my game of choice, CT.

TNE, GURPS, and T20 are all different animals, mechanically. I don't like the conversion, so I stay away from those Trav products. I own some GURPS Trav stuff, and a lot of TNE, and I never use those items. They represent wasted money, for me.

I'm sure there are GM's out there who's a GURPS player probably feels the same about CT or MT stuff.

And, I'm not too keen on these rules-lite-fits-all-Trav-editions publications either. Some may like them, but I feel like I'm only getting half a supplement--that I've got to figure the "rules" and "game mechanics" myself for my chosen edition of Traveller.

My point here is: Traveller has become too "fractionalized". There are too many disparate editions.

One of the things that is "great" about D&D is that, even though D&D 3.5 is much different from an original AD&D 1st edition module, they're not so different that they're unrecognizable from the other. A 3.5 DM could easily use any item from an earlier edition of D&D without too much trouble at all.

That's because the basics in game mechanics have been kept, for the most part, the same. There have been no fundamental changes.

No so for Traveller. The TNE mechanic is much different from that used in CT or MT...or T4...or GURPS...or T20.

The games are fundamentally different. Heck, even the Tech Level in GT means something different than what it does in other editions of Trav.

Back to the point above...

If Marc chooses to end all other licenses when T5 is produced, I'm not so sure that will be a bad thing.

Or, maybe only allowing licenses that are compatible with T5 mehanics would be a better way to go.

That way, you've got the entire Traveller-buying market buying stuff for T5 (the single game system).

And, you won't have Trav buyers like me picking and choosing what they'll buy based on the game system, "Oh, that's T20, so I don't need it. Oh, that's compatible with CT? Cool, I'll get it."

I firmly believe that Traveller needs one game system, and one system only.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

But, I'm just as sure that there are many others out there who like all the different Trav game systems.

I just believe it hurts Trav sales.

Maybe I'm wrong.

-S4

 

[Malenfant]

What Traveller needs isn't "T5 and nothing else"... what it needs is a Traveller 2.0. It needs to start right from scratch again, from a tabula rasa. Throw EVERYTHING out, start again, but keep it similar - just streamline the engine and iron out the flaws in the setting.

What we're getting though is a nightmarish, overcomplicated system straight from the 1970s, and from the sound of it yet another Traveller era that nobody's really interested in. Most of the fanbase don't want that and don't need it either.

There's a lot of talent involved with Traveller - Jon Zeigler, Loren Wiseman, Martin Dougherty, and a host of others at a more amateur level, not to mention the folks at GDW and DGP who worked on it in the past. All are or were willing to push the game into new directions. Unfortunately it looks like Marc wants to keep Traveller stuck in the 1970s and ignore all that talent and do things his way. It may be his right to do it, but that doesn't mean it's going to be right for the game.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
One of the things that is "great" about D&D is that, even though D&D 3.5 is much different from an original AD&D 1st edition module, they're not so different that they're unrecognizable from the other. A 3.5 DM could easily use any item from an earlier edition of D&D without too much trouble at all.

That's because the basics in game mechanics have been kept, for the most part, the same. There have been no fundamental changes.

I see your point, but have you played original D&D/AD&D and D&D 3.0 or 3.5? There have indeed been fundamental changes, huge ones, over the editions. The D20 versions bear about as much resemblence to the original as CT does to T20.

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
No so for Traveller. The TNE mechanic is much different from that used in CT or MT...or T4...or GURPS...or T20.

The games are fundamentally different. Heck, even the Tech Level in GT means something different than what it does in other editions of Trav.

...and add the T5 mechanic to that list from the looks of. In fact it is shaping up (last I looked, and it's been a long while so I may be wrong) to be more fundamentally different than any of the above, even GURPS.

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Back to the point above...

If Marc chooses to end all other licenses when T5 is produced, I'm not so sure that will be a bad thing.

I think it'd earn a lot of disappointment, at the very least.

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Or, maybe only allowing licenses that are compatible with T5 mehanics would be a better way to go.

And that would be exactly zero. Nothing looks like it'll be compatible in all but the most superficial way. The names are the same but the rest is very changed.

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
That way, you've got the entire Traveller-buying market buying stuff for T5 (the single game system).

Nope. You have those who like T5 buying it, and the rest, almost certainly the bulk of the Traveller fan base, getting disgusted and either playing what they have or selling it in disgust and moving on to other hobbies. People won't like having their investment in one of the other active rules systems suddenly killed for such a reason. And those still playing the rules systems that are no longer supported won't care or be interested in T5. As you said yourself, you have CT stuff you'll never get around to using.

Originally posted by Supplement Four:


I firmly believe that Traveller needs one game system, and one system only.

...and in the darkness bind them?

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
...I just believe it hurts Trav sales.

Maybe I'm wrong.

It hasn't seemed to have hurt sales that I can tell. Even the no longer supported systems still do sales through DriveThruRPG, E-Bay, and such. About the only rules set suffering sales wise at the moment seems to be T20 and that has nothing to do with too many systems out there, it's solely because product is not being produced, and there is still some clamoring for it.

 

[Malenfant]

Thing is, Marc doesn't seem to be interested in expanding the Traveller market. He doesn't even seem to be interested in appealing to the general Traveller market with T5 - instead he's just catering to a select few grognards who happen to like the weird, perpendicular T4-like direction he's heading in with T5.

There's millions of RPG players out there who aren't playing Traveller yet, but who could be. They're even not particularly attracted to Traveller right now, despite GT and T20, and they're certainly not going to be attracted by a system for T5 that seems to be designed from the outset to appeal to as few people as possible. That doesn't mean that nobody should bother trying to get their attention though.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
They're even not particularly attracted to Traveller right now, despite GT and T20, and they're certainly not going to be attracted by a system for T5 that seems to be designed from the outset to appeal to as few people as possible.

I haven't been keeping up with T5. Last I saw, it was basically T4 with a few kinks ironed out.

What is the current T5 system?

And, what is it that you don't like about it?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by far-trader:
I see your point, but have you played original D&D/AD&D and D&D 3.0 or 3.5?

I played a TON of AD&D and AD&D second edition back in the day. And, when 3.0 came out, I ran a couple of campaigns.

Since, I've sold most of my D&D stuff. Fantasy just doesn't do it for me anymore.

There have indeed been fundamental changes, huge ones, over the editions. The D20 versions bear about as much resemblence to the original as CT does to T20.

Changes, yes. Fundamental changes, no.

A fundamental change would be something like going from a d20 rolled to-hit to a throw using only 6 siders...or even an attack throw using percentile dice.

AD&D 1st edition, side-by-side with D&D 3.5, is still recognizeable as the same game.

CT, side-by-side with MT (or even T4), are still recognizeable as the same game.

But, if you go from CT to T20...or GURPS Trav...or TNE...you're talking FUNDAMENTAL changes.

It hasn't seemed to have hurt sales that I can tell. Even the no longer supported systems still do sales through DriveThruRPG, E-Bay, and such. About the only rules set suffering sales wise at the moment seems to be T20 and that has nothing to do with too many systems out there, it's solely because product is not being produced, and there is still some clamoring for it.

As a response, I would ask: How much more, do you think, would QLI, DriveThruRPG, FFE, SJG, et. al. make if they were all produciing product for the same game system?

Those that primarily buy GURPS would buy from all vendors equally (well...based on quality, of course).

There would be all these neat supplements, deck plans, grognard systems, adventures, source books from all these great sources...all at your finger tips...all looking to improve your game.

I know that I, for one, would have purchased a butt load more Trav items had those items been designed with CT in mind.

For example, if CT were the system used, I would have bought every GURPS items published. I would have purchased every T20 item.

If not "every" item, then I it'd be damn near close.

Why? Because I'd find them "useable" in my game.

So, I think, if T5 becomes THE Trav system (it doesn't have to be "CT" as long as it's a good Trav system)...and if you're a publisher of Trav stuff, you can only produce items for T5...

...I think this will be GOOD for Traveller as a whole.

Just an opinion, here.

-S4

 

[Malenfant]

Well last I saw of it was a while back, but from what I've heard nothing's really changed from the basic design, such as it was.

I don't like a damn thing about it. The chargen was obscenely complicated, with complex info, tables, cross-referencing etc that you didn't remotely need for your character. The whole thing looked like the worst of 1970s game design, Marc's clearly had his head planted firmly in the sand for the past 30 years. IIRC it even had you tracking genetics and your exact birthday for ageing rolls. The 'Flux' dice mechanic sucked balls, and most of the people on the playtest were telling Marc that they hated and he just wasn't listening. That was his general attitude in the playtest anyway - that this is what we were getting, so we shut up and test that and no suggestions to improve things beyond exactly what Marc had in mind were acceptable or listened to. Most of the game hadn't even been designed, yet it was being presented to us as a "playtest". Hell, the playtesters were actually designing the game for Marc, which is not the job of a playtester.

There wasn't a single redeeming feature in the whole thing. It seemed like a huge folly, a "design for design's sake" thing that had no regard for marketability or playability. As far as I've seen and heard since I left the playtest, nothing's really changed. In fact, it still sounds like Marc's taking advantage of other people to do all the grunt design work for him (so long as it conforms to his very very narrow vision, which doesn't line up well with anyone else's).

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
So, I think, if T5 becomes THE Trav system (it doesn't have to be "CT" as long as it's a good Trav system)...and if you're a publisher of Trav stuff, you can only produce items for T5...

...I think this will be GOOD for Traveller as a whole.[/QB]

If T5 is as bad as it looks, then it won't be good at all.

Personally I wanted to see Traveller ride with T20. It's the most popular system on the planet - it does need another edition to iron out its flaws but if that was done then T20 could have been really a good scifi system. But T20 looks like it's dead in the water until Hunter deigns to return properly, if he ever does.

Either that or Avenger's ACT or QLI's proposed CT+ would have definitely been what people were after... but Marc scuppered both of those, which shows exactly how short-sighted he is and how little he understands the Traveller market (because people actually wanted those things). Had he thrown his weight behind ACT and dropped T5, we might have ended up with a system that everyone wanted.

Instead, we're going to be lumbered with a dinosaur called T5, because Marc refuses to accept that what the fanbase wants has diverged significantly from his "vision".

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Personally I wanted to see Traveller ride with T20. It's the most popular system on the planet - it does need another edition to iron out its flaws but if that was done then T20 could have been really a good scifi system.

Can't agree with you there. I'm not a d20 fan at all. "Levels". "Hit Points." "Feats" as you "level-up".

That type of thing is fine for a fantasy game, but it blows "realism" out the airlock.

Take the d20 Star Wars game vs. WEG's D6 Star Wars rpg. Luke would have never blown up the Death Star because he was a 1st level character.

Luke, under the D6 skills-based system, could have even as a "young" character.

d20 is the most popular system on the planet, but I view this like the video format wars in the 80's. Sony's BETA provided better picture quality and sound than Panasonic's VHS, but VHS won.

Being the "most popular" doesn't always mean its the "best".

d20, in my view, is definitley the "VHS" of the rpg system wars.

Either that or Avenger's ACT or QLI's proposed CT+ would have definitely been what people were after...

The ACT task system had some MAJOR problems that I don't think would have been worked out before it made press (MJD's very similar response to what you've accused MWM of doing with the T5 play test).

 

[Malenfant]

T20 had flaws, definitely. But a redesign with a view to compatibility with OGL d20 instead of D&D would have fixed a lot of them. You don't even need to have levels to be OGL d20 compatible - I'm sure I've seen at least least one game that doesn't have them (can't recall the name, IIRC it was a superhero game).

ACT was killed before any flaws in its design had a chance to be worked out. Marc was scared because it would compete with T5... which it would have. People WANTED ACT. They WANTED a tweaked CT. They DON'T want an all-new ubercomplex T4 rip-off.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I see your point, but have you played original D&D/AD&D and D&D 3.0 or 3.5?

I played a TON of AD&D and AD&D second edition back in the day. And, when 3.0 came out, I ran a couple of campaigns.

There have indeed been fundamental changes, huge ones, over the editions. The D20 versions bear about as much resemblence to the original as CT does to T20.

Changes, yes. Fundamental changes, no.

A fundamental change would be something like going from a d20 rolled to-hit to a throw using only 6 siders...or even an attack throw using percentile dice.</font>[/QUOTE]Or like going from a roll over to roll under mechanic? Or like going from negative bonus AC to positive bonus AC? Or like going from a single random secondary skill to multiple chosen skills and feats that accumulate with levels? Shall I continue? There's much more. I'm sure you've just forgotten the changes that have come about. Or maybe you don't think those are fundamental changes. But yes, talk of that game bores me here, I mention it only as comparison and a lesson in change or die.

Originally posted by Supplement Four:

CT, side-by-side with MT (or even T4), are still recognizeable as the same game.

But, if you go from CT to T20...or GURPS Trav...or TNE...you're talking FUNDAMENTAL changes.

Naturally. CT and MT (and even T4 to a lesser extent) are the same game in a lot of ways. In fact MT bears more resemblence to CT expanded (i.e. after LBB1-3) than CT expanded does to basic CT. There's a reason, it's because MT was simply repackaged CT expanded to a large degree. Oh, with bonus eratta of course

And of course the others are different. They were meant to be. And each of them was hoping to gain new players, rather than siply cater to the same dwindling market.

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
It hasn't seemed to have hurt sales that I can tell. Even the no longer supported systems still do sales through DriveThruRPG, E-Bay, and such. About the only rules set suffering sales wise at the moment seems to be T20 and that has nothing to do with too many systems out there, it's solely because product is not being produced, and there is still some clamoring for it.

As a response, I would ask: How much more, do you think, would QLI, DriveThruRPG, FFE, SJG, et. al. make if they were all produciing product for the same game system?</font>[/QUOTE]More? None. Less if anything. It would be a single type of gamer and market. There are people who won't touch GURPS (like me) and people who won't touch T20 (like Bill) and others (like a lot of new Travellers) who are only playing because there is a D20 version. If the only system being supported were CT for example there'd be two whole groups of players not buying any Traveller. And I'm sure Traveller would have been dead long ago if TNE, GURPS, and T20 hadn't come along to keep it alive, albeit in a somewhat divided sense.

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Those that primarily buy GURPS would buy from all vendors equally (well...based on quality, of course).

There would be all these neat supplements, deck plans, grognard systems, adventures, source books from all these great sources...all at your finger tips...all looking to improve your game.

I know that I, for one, would have purchased a butt load more Trav items had those items been designed with CT in mind.

For example, if CT were the system used, I would have bought every GURPS items published. I would have purchased every T20 item.

If not "every" item, then I it'd be damn near close.

Why? Because I'd find them "useable" in my game.

So, I think, if T5 becomes THE Trav system (it doesn't have to be "CT" as long as it's a good Trav system)...and if you're a publisher of Trav stuff, you can only produce items for T5...

...I think this will be GOOD for Traveller as a whole.

Just an opinion, here.

I'm open to different viewpoints, but I just don't get the above. GURPS can't make CT materials. T20 can't make CT materials. TNE couldn't make CT materials. They are all very different in key ways. The only way you'd have been supporting QLI, LKW, or GDW in your quest for continuing CT materials would have been if they were making CT materials.

And sadly MWM won't be making CT materials through T5 from what I've seen of it.

I'm with Mal here, your best bet for fresh CT materials would have been CT+ or perhaps ACT.

That said, I don't wish anything but success for Marc. I went into the T5 playtest with the sole purpose being to help make that a reality by helping, to give back to the originator and game I've enjoyed. I wasn't able to and that hurt. CT+ grew out of that rejection and T5's new direction, So it hurt doubly when that was killed.

But I still hope T5 works out for Marc, really. I just don't have a lot of faith at this point and don't see myself being interested in it.

Beta v VHS? VHS won for a lot of reasons, and I'd take it any day of the week. So yeah, give me T20 not T5

 

[kaladorn]

As a purchaser, I've bought just about every Traveller product out there. I'm a bit sparse on T4 and on TNE (but have been gradually fixing that). I own pretty much every CT and DGP resource that can be had, even sometimes for usurious rates.

I've played and GMed Traveller now since 1981. And I will tell you that CT rules had virtue. MT rules had virtue. TNE rules had virtues. T4... I was hard pressed to find much virtue in. T20 was good because it halfway bridged the game to D20, although a closer bridge would have been nice.

The *vast* advantage of being closely tied into D20 implementation (having something closer to D20 modern or future for instance) would be the ability to absorb lots of work done for other systems. T20 as it is has a virtue in being able to absorb and interoperate in places with CT.

MT was great because it was the good aspects of CT streamlined but not destroying CT (except the ships' portability and I was never fond of that). One of TNE's issues was the lack of forward portability of stuff. They have the best spaceship game (Brilliant Lances kicks high gaurd through the goalposts, Mayday too) but they had an otherwise pretty different ruleset which is bad. TNE GMs have to work hard to adopt CT modules and vice versa.

T4... urk. In addition to being visually quite offensive (I really really hated the art and it distracted me very much from the rulebook), it didn't really seem to contribue much of value. It felt (in a bit the same as TNE) like 'a new ruleset because we can', there not being much wrong with MT or CT rules. You could have tweaked them (CT + a more uniform skill system is largely MT) a bit, but noooooo. TNE went its own way. They could have sold the TNE setting on top of an MT core engine and it would have been as good or bad as a setting. But they bolted it to the GDW system and it wasn't compatible.

At least T20 has the excuse of trying to mate the game to a new range of 3rd party supplements, sort of (D20). GURPS Traveller has the same merit - I buy GT stuff, I can pretty easily bolt on all the other cool GURPS work. Compatibility. Interoperability. Wow, what a concept.

Now enter T5. Another ruleset 'because we can'. This one doesn't have the justification of the thin veneer of homogenizing rulesets across a company like TNE did. And it *isn't* a very modern game design (at least from what I've seen of it so far).

Rules wise, other than tightening up some loopholes or whatever, you could have stopped at CT, MT or TNE - all of which are still published and don't suck as rulesets. If you'd stuck with the TNE rules, there'd eventually have been a lot of converted and new stuff, hence adding value to that ruleset. We don't *NEED* another Traveller version. CT+, MT or even TNE would have worked. A tweaked T20 could work.

The last thing we need is a new, incompatible in so many ways, and clunky ruleset. T5 has that written all over it and I think it will be a grand flop. I'll still buy stuff from any T5 line just because I can still use deckplans in any event, I can still file the numbers off a good adventure if I feel like the work, and I want to follow the history. But I don't NEED in any way shape or form a new ruleset. And if I don't need it, and it isn't fully backwards compatible with at least one of the prior sets, and its design isn't that modern, then just what would the point be?

'Because I felt like it' sadly isn't a very good business model.

If you control the license for Traveller and you try to get everyone to produce T5 stuff, I think that's foredoomed to failure. Not only will it hurt the market for those of us who like the other rulesets better but it'll drive some authors out into D20 or other games, I feel. We've got the multiheaded dragon right now and I don't think trying to autocratically get away from it is at all wise. And T5 as the vehicle is sort of like climbing in an already sinking boat and saying 'This will be our fleet!'.

Frankly, I think T5 as anything other than a setting or a tweaked up versions of one of the prior good rulesets (most of them are passable) is just a bad, sad, destined to fail as an ongoing business concern, plan.

 

[Malenfant]

'Because I felt like it' sadly isn't a very good business model.

I think that sums the whole problem with T5 right there...

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Or maybe you don't think those are fundamental changes.

Quite. I don't think those are fundamental. Changes, yes, but not fundamental.

Here's why: I can pick up an adventure module or supplement from any edition of D&D and use it fairly easily with any other D&D rules set.

But, if I pick up a GURPS Trav product, it's not so easy to use it if you're using CT rules. If I pick up a T20 publication, it's not so easy to use it if you're using TNE rules.

That's what I mean by "fundamental". Ease of use...using one item with a rules set the item wasn't designed for. If I'm playing with AD&D 1st edition rules, it's not that hard to pick up an adventure module today--one that is designed for a 3.5 game--and use it.

But, if you're running a MT game, its not so easy to use T20 products with it.

That's what I've been trying to point out.

That, and that I think that "hurts" Traveller sales.

But yes, talk of that game bores me here, I mention it only as comparison and a lesson in change or die.

I don't know about the "change or die" part, but I agree that the d20 system really isn't worth talking about.

More? None. Less if anything. It would be a single type of gamer and market. There are people who won't touch GURPS (like me) and people who won't touch T20 (like Bill) and others (like a lot of new Travellers) who are only playing because there is a D20 version. If the only system being supported were CT for example there'd be two whole groups of players not buying any Traveller. And I'm sure Traveller would have been dead long ago if TNE, GURPS, and T20 hadn't come along to keep it alive, albeit in a somewhat divided sense.

We'll have to disagree here. I think one of the things that keeps D&D so popular is its internal consistency. Even with all its editions, it's still very recognizable as the game it started out as back in 1974.

You sure can't say that about Traveller.

BTW, you can count me among you and Bill as not wanting to touch GURPS Trav, T20, or TNE.

GURPS can't make CT materials. T20 can't make CT materials. TNE couldn't make CT materials. They are all very different in key ways.

That's been my point. Traveller isn't internally consistent among its editions--and it's hurt the game by fracturing its market.

Cross out "CT" and put in "T5" or whatever system you choose. I believe any rpg is better off when its game mechanics remain in the same "family" among editions.

Make a better wheel. Don't reinvent the wheel each time out.

That's what d20 has done. I don't like d20 that much, but I do agree that 3.5 is the best edition yet, in many ways.

And sadly MWM won't be making CT materials through T5 from what I've seen of it.

I'm with Mal here, your best bet for fresh CT materials would have been CT+ or perhaps ACT.

T5 doesn't have to be CT. There have been so many different incarnations of Traveller that there is no internal consistency among editions to preserve.

What I'm saying is that, if I owned the rights to Traveller, there would only be one game system.

I'd work hard, very, very hard, to come up with a great, Traveller-esqe game system for T5. And then, when I sold licenses, I'd only allow products to be produced for that game system and no other.

In that way, sales from the licensing would bolster sales of the mother game.

This is not unlike how Traveller used to be when CT was the mother game but several licensee (can't spell that doggone word...should look it up...where's a spell check when you need it) produced thingies for the main game.

I just don't have a lot of faith at this point and don't see myself being interested in it.

Well, I'm keeping an open mind in spite of all this bad press I hear about the play test. I'll check it out. Give it a fair shake.

If I like it, I'll buy it.

If I don't, I'll just keep right along playing with CT stuff.

Beta v VHS? VHS won for a lot of reasons, and I'd take it any day of the week.

You must not know that much about Beta and VHS then. Picture quality and sound qualty on Beta blows VHS out of the water. There's a reason why the news agencies went with the professional version of Beta instead of the pro vesion of VHS. Panasonic put more bucks into marketing, though, and the typical conusmer didn't know and couldn't tell one from the other. So, VHS won in the layman's consumer market. Beta won in the professional arena where there were more consumers who could tell apples from apples.

There's a similar fight going on right now with HD DVD and Blu-Ray discs. Blu-Ray is the better choice, but HD DVD will probably win out in the long run because its less expensive and has better marketing.

I'm betting Blu-ray goes the way of laser discs in the future.

We'll see.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Beta v VHS? VHS won for a lot of reasons, and I'd take it any day of the week.

You must not know that much about Beta and VHS then. Picture quality and sound qualty on Beta blows VHS out of the water. There's a reason why the news agencies went with the professional version of Beta instead of the pro vesion of VHS. Panasonic put more bucks into marketing, though, and the typical conusmer didn't know and couldn't tell one from the other. So, VHS won in the layman's consumer market. Beta won in the professional arena where there were more consumers who could tell apples from apples.

There's a similar fight going on right now with HD DVD and Blu-Ray discs. Blu-Ray is the better choice, but HD DVD will probably win out in the long run because its less expensive and has better marketing.

I'm betting Blu-ray goes the way of laser discs in the future.

We'll see. </font>[/QUOTE]Well it's off topic, but yes, I knew a good deal about BETA v VHS in the day. Granted it had some technical superiority, and I was in love with the smaller form factor from the start. But Sony blew it from the get go. The news agencies and big studios were the only ones who could afford to go with BETA and justify the reason for quality issues.

The product was only going to succeed big if it appealed to consumers, and the first thing the consumer wanted to do was tape a movie or the big game. Oops, BETA could only do an hour and VHS could do 3 hours. No brainer there. Sure BETA looked a lot better, if it was recorded from a high definition signal and then played back on a high definition TV. But guess what, Joe Schmoe just had rabbit ears, ghosts, and an old TV with wonky color, and that was good enough to watch the game on. BETA looked no better on his set, it only cost more. And to look better he'd need to spend even more. And teach the kid to change the tape every hour while he was working so he could watch the game when he got home. I do rant on about nonsense at times

And yep, despite my early leanings (like BETA) it looks like Blu-Ray is killing itself with copy scheme decisions, higher costs, and (in a scary rerun of yet another reason BETA failed) by cutting itself out of a huge market by ignoring smaller content creators (chiefly adult entertainment, ie ⌧). It looks like Blu-Ray is faithfully following in the footsteps of BETA, all the way to that big electronics store in the sky.

No hard feelings on this side S4 on the whole. Again we do agree on and hope for the best for the game I think, even if we differ on what that is specifically

Oh well, that's the last I'll say on BETA, VHS, Blu-Ray, and probably T5 (just to at least close on topic ).

 

[Malenfant]

Old D&D stuff is arguably as incompatible with d20 D&D 3.5 as say CT stuff is with t20 - either way you still have to do some work to convert them. And frankly, modern D&D is totally different to the 1974 version. You have classes and levels and spells, but that's about all that's similar.

You're right though, T5 should be the system that everyone wants to use with Traveller. It should take everything learned from previous versions and fix all the errors and inconsistencies and bring it all into a system that makes sense and is fun to play.

Unfortunately, that's not what we're getting.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Oh well, that's the last I'll say on BETA, VHS, Blu-Ray, and probably T5 (just to at least close on topic ).

 

[Spiderfish]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It hasn't seemed to have hurt sales that I can tell. Even the no longer supported systems still do sales through DriveThruRPG, E-Bay, and such. About the only rules set suffering sales wise at the moment seems to be T20 and that has nothing to do with too many systems out there, it's solely because product is not being produced, and there is still some clamoring for it.

As a response, I would ask: How much more, do you think, would QLI, DriveThruRPG, FFE, SJG, et. al. make if they were all produciing product for the same game system?


-S4 </font>[/QUOTE]Not much more in fact I'd be willing to bet they would make less. Not only could the lose customers who prefer a specific system but if there is only one published system why have that many businesses providing content?

Those that primarily buy GURPS would buy from all vendors equally (well...based on quality, of course).

Only if the single system chosen in GURPS.

For example, if CT were the system used, I would have bought every GURPS items published. I would have purchased every T20 item.

Surely by definition if the system is CT it is not GURPS or T20?

That's been my point. Traveller isn't internally consistent among its editions--and it's hurt the game by fracturing its market.

Cross out "CT" and put in "T5" or whatever system you choose. I believe any rpg is better off when its game mechanics remain in the same "family" among editions.

Make a better wheel. Don't reinvent the wheel each time out.

That's what d20 has done. I don't like d20 that much, but I do agree that 3.5 is the best edition yet, in many ways.

The fact is as you say the market is already "fractured" and trying to put it back together again probably won't work, you'd have to win customers over to your "One True Traveller".

In addition perhaps there are some who play GURPS or T20 who never would have wanted to play a D6 based system like CT? If Traveller had maintained its internal consisency is it not likely they would never have bought it in the first place?

There's a similar fight going on right now with HD DVD and Blu-Ray discs. Blu-Ray is the better choice, but HD DVD will probably win out in the long run because its less expensive and has better marketing.

Which is why it will probably win. Consumers do not care about absolute quality, oh they might find it interesting to read about in a magazine but they what they care about is value for money, the quality relative to the cost.

 

[GypsyComet]

Unification of Traveller players is simply not going to happen as regards the core mechanics. There is enough division around the most consistent of the sub-mechanics (world building) that there is really little hope for the more diverse sub-mechanics (prior career generation, ship construction, and ship combat) and no hope for the core die rolling mechanics (2d6, two types of d20, 3d6 and xd6).

Traveller survives specifically because it is so diverse, but surviving and thriving are two different things.

The most useful thing Marc could do is work toward unification of the setting and sub-mechanics, because another set of core mechanics is really not necessary.