I will second that. I thought your analyses and proposals for tentative fixes were very helpful.
T5 Only: Do you like T5?
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
I will second that. I thought your analyses and proposals for tentative fixes were very helpful.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Now that I have been wading through this 641 page, not counting the color ships in the back, set of rules, I would like to switch my vote from "have no knowledge of it" to "needs a lot of work", and maybe some editing down to 96 pages max.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
When I originally set up the poll, I did not include the last option, "I have no direct knowledge of it."
I was a little irked when Aramis added that without consulting me. It was my poll, after all. And, I didn't put that in there for a very good reason: People who knew nothing about it would probably post that they knew little but would not effect the poll. And, like Timeover51 in this quote--
--would be able to click on his opinion once he did become more familiar with the game. Now, because Aramis put in something I don't think he should have, Timeover51's vote does not really count.
As for the "It's OK" response, I take that to mean that a person has scanned the rules and doesn't have enough invested in the game to go either way, like or dislike, on the game.
I see the "No Strong Feeling" response as neutral.
But, even if you lump in the No Strong Feeling folks with the Love it folks, you're still looking at 50% of the opinions (on a board dedicated to Traveller) indicate that they have major problems with the game.
I wouldn't call that "good".
Yes, I thought that was odd too.
I see your point. I wonder how others read it.
You were also missing the “Shows potential/pretty good--but still needs work” option, which might have split the original “I’m disappointed--It needs a lot of work” vote.
I think if you want a more meaningful result you need to cross reference whether people like it or not (and by how much) with how much time have they spent getting to know the rules. And also what were their expectations/preconceptions before they read it. I’d also be interested in seeing those figures broken down further by the following: “do you differentiate between design issues and presentation issues”.
If people don’t like T5 it’s important to know why. Is it just an overall badly designed game or are their specific non-design issues.
For example, the first wave of negativity came at the kickstarter pledge levels (before anyone had even seen the final text). Some people baulked at the price point; they’d much prefer buying three or four books at US$25-30 each rather than one at US$75.
Then there was a camp who wanted the ultimate edition of CT. An errata-free light-weight beer-n-pretzels game. For starters, as of today, a new version of the consolidated errata for CT has just been put out by DonM ... so even after 35 years CT itself still not perfect. Second, it was always clear to me that the intention was that MgT was to be the ‘basic’ version and T5 was to be the ‘advanced’. And third, it was always known from the start that T5 was to be evolved from T4 (with its multiple dice, roll low task mechanic) rather than CT (with its 2D roll high sort-of-mechanic). People in this camp were predestined to be disappointed before the text had even been written.
One thing I’ve learned during this time is that while some people (like myself) differentiate between design issues and presentation issues, others do not. If I find a particular rule is unclear or ambiguously written then that means I don’t know what that rule is, not that that rule is bad. Others interpret garbled communication as it’s a bad rule, they want the book to be written to legal document standards. Does RAW mean 'rules as intended' or 'rules as communicated'?
There ARE some flaws in the T5 design, but not many. On the other hand, there are a lot of presentational issues ... typos, ambiguous phrasing, a lack of clear examples, no index. I believe that many of those who were open minded about T5 at the start and who are now voting negatively, will change their minds once these presentational issues have been cleared up, without any substantial redesign work. The RAI are good, but the RAC need work.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
This is where we differ. I've spotted and discussed SEVERAL rules that just don't make sense or are broken. Combat in T5 is confusing and unplayable as written.
True, but there are only a couple of RAI issues, the rest are RAC issues. Whether this makes combat in T5 unplayable depends on how literal minded a person is.
Errata errata errata. We can't move forward until the errors are fixed.
Agreed completely. I really don't want to finish reading it until i can compare it with the results of early adopters/ reviewers.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I disagree on that, too. It seems that every time I look at the game, I find something else wrong with it.
In addition, it doesn't really matter, does it, whether the rule is messed up because it wasn't communicated properly or if it's intent is wrong. Either way, you've got a bad rule that needs to be fixed.
The chance to hit at short range is wonky, as I explained here...
It's either a 100% chance, about half that, or nothing. That's a really strange distribution.
Then, there's the issue of the This-Is-Hard rule, which is mean to make a task harder if a character isn't skilled, actually making the task easier because of the broken Spectacular Success Rule.
There are tons of these little problems with T5. They're hard to see, at first. But, once you dig in and understand the system (the parts that are understandable), a GM starts to see the cracks leading to major problems with the drive.
Nothing is unplayable if a person is willing to create new rules to replace broken or missing ones. My point is that, at a minimum, the game should work, rules as written, no house rules necessary.
From that point, if a GM wants to House Rule something to suit his taste, then so be it. But, the game should be playable just following what is written on the page. Sadly, T5 is not that game.
Yes, Rob. Absolutely.
Fix this game enough, and I even may become a fan. But, there's LOTS of fixin' to do. T5 is broken on some major levels.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
After spending a bit of time working with Beast Maker, I would recommend totally scrapping that and going back to something considerably simpler, and with a lot more emphasis on herbivores and the stuff at the lower end of the food chain.
And that comment concerning a certain Tolkien creation on page 577 under Collector, considering how savagely the Forum enforces copyright violations, is really questionable.
And that comment concerning a certain Tolkien creation on page 577 under Collector, considering how savagely the Forum enforces copyright violations, is really questionable.
This isn't the right thread to hash out specifics ... except to say that some (but not all) of the points you raise I DO agree with. But ...
Which is why I thought a poll should also try to elicit if a respondent differentiates between DESIGN flaws and TYPOS. Obviously you don't. But to me, if there is a typo, and the correction is obvious to a normal person without having to refer back to the designer, then such a correction is NOT A BLOODY HOUSE RULE. And it is misleading to people who haven't read the text yet (and who do differentiate) to suggest otherwise.
I also take issue with the idea that a lack of granularity is evidence of a broken or unplayable game. For example, I am right-handed but left eye dominant. I can't hit the broadside of a barn with a rifle but I am pretty good with a handgun. But wait a moment, T5 does not track a character's handiness or eye dominance ... OMG, T5 IS BROKEN AND UNPLAYABLE!!!
However, for your .38 example, you might find either a 'VLight Revolver-5' (R=0) or 'Body Revolver-6' (R=1) fits better rules-wise. (If it's not a revolver there are others.) The standard T5 ranges won't map exactly to those you mentioned but it should still be a closer approximation.
The same could be said about every version of Traveller.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
No. Every other version of Traveller (the ones I've played, anyway), are playable straight out of the box.
CT is playing, right out of the box containing the first three LBBs. MegaTraveller is playable right out of the box. TNE is playable right out of the box. T4 is playable right out of the box.
Are there problems with those editions? Sure. But, if you read the rules that are written and follow them, you can play those games just by following what is described.
This is not true of T5. There are too many issues--to many unanswered questions. A GM has to make up new rules or take his best guess at what he thinks T5 says (but is not sure).
Combat, especially, in T5, is not playable out of the box.
I cannot play LBB1 out of the box. The combat rules make my head spin. No, really.
I cannot play MT out of the box. Now, MT might be better than CT, but I never had the patience to find out!
T4? We absolutely ran into a brick wall head-on playing T4. I recall one memorable time when my player shot at a target. Roll Dexterity or less on 2D. His Dex was 12. He never missed.
Note that we may have been playing T4 wrong. But if so, I never knew the right way to play it. In other words, the above vignette was just an example as to how poorly I/we understood the rules. "Play as written" assumes a certain reciprocity. In a way, it's all me, due to my learning style, patience, and interest level. But that doesn't make the rules more playable for people like me.
Anyway, I don't know why I'm posting this. I've added no new information in an already low signal-to-noise thread.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I've read the text, over and over. Those many have to be inserting their own interpretations and house rules. There is no way to know for sure how T5 is meant to be played as written. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.
If one person will speak up about running T5 combat, I guarantee you that I will ask questions about combat that exposes some house rule or interpretation of the T5 text that is absolutely not clear and can be read many, many ways.
CT, MT, and T4 are all playable straight out of the box, using the rules as written. I've played all three version.
Having issues with the rules and then changing them is a lot different than not being able to run them at all. Sure, plenty of people change CT, MT, and T4, but T5 is not decipherable at this point. It needs a lot of clarification.
You can read the rules, yes, right out of the box and do what it says? You may not agree or like what it says, but the procedure is clear and easy.
Same goes for MT and T4.
I'm not saying those games are perfect. Far from it. But, the rules are clear, and the game can be run just by reading them and following what it says.
This is not true of T5 combat.
I remember that I once told a friend that I was going to start a Buffy the Vampire Slayer campaign, and he told me that he'd been running one for his kids and that the combat system was excellent. After my first session I talked to him again and told him I though the combat system was rather iffy. "Oh, yes, that's right," he replied, "I'd forgotten that we changed the rules a lot to make it work!" 
Hans
Hans
[m;]Gentlemen:
You are invited to debate the playability of T5 and the clarity of the rules until the energy death of the universe,
but please do it elsewhere. This is a simple poll calling for opinions on a specific issue.
Please feel free to state your opinion and move on, rather than engaging in open debate within the poll.
Thank you.[/m;]
You are invited to debate the playability of T5 and the clarity of the rules until the energy death of the universe,
but please do it elsewhere. This is a simple poll calling for opinions on a specific issue.
Please feel free to state your opinion and move on, rather than engaging in open debate within the poll.
Thank you.[/m;]
