FFS3 for T5

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by Jamus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
Traveller is a game. The more it feels like homework, the less fun it is.

QFT

The more simple and easy to grasp the design rules the broader the appeal. why some people feel like a RPG should involve advanced math is beyond me. The game should be designed so that a 14 year old can pick it up, understand it, and run/play it with no problem. </font>[/QUOTE]

For me, a BIG part of the appeal of the LBBs in Classic Traveller was the simple elegance of the system, whether in character or world generation, or in ship design and operation. I think GDW (and some others) missed the boat when they began cluttering up the rulebooks with all manner of extraneous detail. Put the fine details in a supplement, keeping it consistent with the basic rules set. Digest Group (for one) did a great job of that.

Supplement material should be designed to satisfy those players who want the additional layers of detail/realism/complexity. Not everyone does. (I believe in the KISS principle.) Keep the game playable, keep it fun!

 

[rhoneycutt]

Aramis: I think you miss my point. I applaud a simple system and simple rules to 'run' it, but it must be based on something approaching a simulation or else why bother having rules at all?. Just make up what you want on the spot for the sake of the story.
As far as playability issues, I see none...not unless a game session involves sitting down and saying " okay, tonight, let's all build a spaceship/tank/plane/ship/train/zeppelin/etc. " and not roleplay an adventure. The tech architecture exists to make sets and props, period.

The tech architecture is the tool to build the setting and props for the play. By making it overly simplified on the foundation, people will make their own house rules anyways which will lead to fragmentation and inconsistancies. Having a complete foundation will prevent that. Having a single well tested version would prevent the problems you've had with 'bad' designs ( problems which wouldn't matter in a pure story-telling environment ). The consistancy should help to suspend disbelief.

Each subsection can spit out info about each sub-unit with its cost/mass/volume etc., which can be used in published rules' easy ship building system. BUT allow people to have access to the underlying system as a supplement. Detail would be available to use or ignore as the ref wishes.

Also, having a comprehensive tech architecture with many alternate options, as in FFS1, would disconnect the rules from the OTU, which in my opinion, is a plus.

Should it be part of the basic game?...no. It should be made as a supplement.But the basic game equipment should be able to be built using it.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Traveller is a pencil-and-paper game. I feel about starship design the same way I feel about chargen and mainworld gen. One can automate them, and in some circumstances it's preferable to do that, but the simple rules keep the game playable. So the simple rules ought to be reasonably simple.

Starship design is a peripheral part of the game. It's not something that appeals to everyone - no matter how simple you make it - and many campaigns are played using stock ships.

OTOH, a lot of the people it does appeal to *really* like it, and the more detail the better.

And then there are those in the middle, who want a different ship but don't have the time or inclination to use the detailed system.

We should be appealing to all three groups; they're all equally important.

Start with the detailed system - FF&S3. Build lots of standard modules to make it easier to use.

Simplify FF&S3 (less detail, more modules, but still compatible) to make the Simple Design System.

Build lots of stock ships.

Write software for both systems.

Does anybody disagree with any of this?

 

[rhoneycutt]

I agree completely. To me, that is ideal, and the position I have been trying to say.

The trick then is to make sure that weapon/armor and manuevering is the same across all levels so that a simple combat system can do all.

Myself, I use Bruce MacIntosh's "fusion guard" system. Armor and weapon ratings seem simple as do armor ratings, etc. The hit tables are lot, but could be simplified if need be.

IMTU:
For manuevering, I agree with allocating thrust, evasion and aiming. I use attitude thrusters as seperate from main thrusters < and have to be designed into ship...aka bought and volume used;same cost/fuel-use as other thruster forms >, so attitude thrusters handle spinal aiming; main thrusters handle manuevering for closing and opening range; the average of the two, allocated to evasion, is analogous to 'agility'. Fuel usage is in g-turns and it matters to save it for when its really needed. Because of limited fuel for thrusting, no ship can dodge missles forever.

...or just use the manuevering rules as written.

I still say mass based designs and not volume based, but that should be left as a choice for players/refs ...an optional way of doing things. But then again, low tech stuff thats pre-grav should be mass based no matter what, right?

one other point...I think grav tech ruins play balance too much in that it is used as a crutch for laser focusing, and making planetfall/acheiving orbit as easy as a bus trip.
At least make it cost something energy-wise like W = eff%*mass*G*9.81

ground cars/airplanes/trains/ships/helicopters/jetpacks/hovercraft don't really exist in game because of grav-tech as written.

maybe that's just me.

 

[rhoneycutt]

oops...bad typo

watts = mass*G*9.81/eff%

too heavy?...toss somone over the side to be able to clear the windfarm's turbine blades....

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Aramis:

Further, another strike against detailed design systems is the massive increases in potential errors with added details and complexities. Of the 200 or so ships I wrote up for MT (20 or so being Type S variants alone), 50 required corrections upon review by others due to mistakes, and 50 due to errata issues. Of the 50 or so FF&S1 designs, all required corrections by others reviews.

This working from the books, using a spreadsheet for calcs, and double checking for errors.

Using HG, only about 5% of my designs had elements overlooked, and most of those were not invalidating errors, merely "Shouldn't there also be a ____"

This is a huge problem that I've seen for the past ten years. People will design starships using FFS2, whether automated or not, and forget something important. Or discover a piece of errata that invalidates a bit of work, and a whole chain of numbers has to be updated. Churn.

Of course, the other 85% of Traveller fans will surf to a guy's site, see detailed designs for starships, not comprehend the detail, and not use the designs because they're not sure what's going on.

I want design which reckons the impact to the game, and that's just about it. If starship design is peripheral -- and I agree that it is -- then starships don't need to be all that detailed.


On the other hand, run your high-detail designs though back-end simplifier rules (call it the "Design Evaluation" step), and out pops something that the rest of us might be able to use.

 

[aramis]

Yes, Andrew, one part I disagree with:
"they're all equally important."

The target demographic ideal specifically makes equality of the separate audiences implausible.

The question is, which of the three groups are being targeted.

Aim for the level (and only the level) that maximizes sales. I doubt that will be an FF&S level. Quite honestly, GURPS does a smash-up job, as does CORPS, for those seeking those levels of detail... Traveller is seen by many as a has-been, and it's not going to compete effectively with GURPS.

It needs to seek a different audience, especially if GURPS remains licensed, since actually being GURPS Vehicles 4 compatible is not even in the picture. (G:T and G:T-ISW design systems are fundamentally G:V 3, and G:T was only nominally similar to CT-HG.)

Those who won't use even a simple system generally won't be put off by a simple system being in the core; we've seen this effect with EABA, CT, and even T4, and from what I can tell, Serenity. Those on the borders, however did get put off by the modules system not producing designs comparable to full-up FF&S designs. When new players found out that "QSDS" wasn't the "main" design sequence, many chose not to try it.

 

[rhoneycutt]

"Aim for the level that maximises sales"

So is this discussion about what I and others would like to see in FFS3? ( even if we all disagree )...or a discussion about marketing?
Has the question really become, "Do we really need FFS3 at all?"

To maximise sales, maybe a pokemon/yu-gi-oh card game version of high guard would be best, eh?

Because FFS3 is the do-all base foundation for tech architecture, it doesn't have to be anything except an auxillary part of the entire game anymore than a CNC milling machine has to be part of a home workshop; a tool to build other tools perhaps. What the question then becomes is "Do we really need FFS3 at all?"

I've said yes, its needed.
If its never officially printed, I'll just do my own. I might even post ideas for peer review even.

ps The UWP sequence needs a similar treatment, too. I'll probably end up doing it myself, too.
And yet, oddly enough, it will still be Traveller, despite what luddites say.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

A few comments:

- FF&S3 is basically FF&S1/2; it already exists, very little work needs to be done, so it would be daft not to use it

- FF&S3 and SDS *MUST* generate equivalent designs

- FF&S3 should include a system for listing the designs in SDS format

- SDS should be the default system, and included in the main rules. As with TNE and T4, FF&S3 will be sold seperately

 

[robject]

Andrew's right, FFS3 already exists, although I'd be tempted to simply call it FFS2... which means the technical architecture for T5 is already in print, via DriveThruRPG.

I've heard rumors about the legendary level of gearheadish detail in GURPS Vehicles. Perhaps we're better off using it as our technical reference; it even has an officially supported software package to go along with it.

Heck, the more I think about it, the more it seems to make sense.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by robject:
I've heard rumors about the legendary level of gearheadish detail in GURPS Vehicles. Perhaps we're better off using it as our technical reference.

GURPS Vehicles is very good, but there are two problems:

it is owned by Steve Jackson Games

it uses imperial units instead of metric

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
I've heard rumors about the legendary level of gearheadish detail in GURPS Vehicles. Perhaps we're better off using it as our technical reference.

GURPS Vehicles is very good, but there are two problems:

it is owned by Steve Jackson Games

it uses imperial units instead of metric </font>[/QUOTE]Licensing issues would be the show-stopper. Technical design being nice and insulated from the game, units just don't matter to the rest of the game: we just provide the end conversion layer and we're done.

 

[robject]

I also realized that FFS2 doesn't need weapons design: 3G3 does that all for us, and in fact provides conversions to TNE and T4.

 

[Anthony]

3G3 is owned by BTRC, creating the same licensing issues that are seen with GURPS Vehicles.

If FF&S3 is supposed to be back-compatible with FF&S2, that means FF&S3 will be mostly a cleaned up version of FF&S2. If it's possible to discard full compatibility, FF&S3 can be made more usable.

 

[robject]

Of course it's possible to discard compatability. In fact, technical architecture is so unrelated to the rest of Traveller we can simply refer to a replacement and provide an adaptation layer. I asked Marc about it, partly in jest, and got this response:

T5 is concerned (as all RPGs are) with what a weapon will DO to a target. Your suggestion is indeed worthwhile for many of the items we need.

It frankly would cost very little to make these systems compatible with / translatable to T5.

I can see an instruction page:

How to build vehicles.
How to build Guns.
etc

all directing you to a specific GURPS or GGG or whatever system.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

FF&S2 is a mess, and needs tidying up. It would be nice to include some of the notes from FF&S1, and some people have asked for the high-tech stuff from MT.

GURPS uses a different TL scale (as does 3G3).

 

[robject]

I don't have the GURPS TL conversion scale handy (I've seen them for years and years now, though), and I suspect the TML FAQ might have both TL conversion scales -- or ought to.

I note that 3G3's TL scale is rather exponential at the top, and a bit muddled (for Traveller purposes) in the middle, which might be a bit disconcerting, except we're probably looking at the effects to determine TL... and we're probably designing weapons from a known Traveller TL to begin with.

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by robject:
I've heard rumors about the legendary level of gearheadish detail in GURPS Vehicles. Perhaps we're better off using it as our technical reference; it even has an officially supported software package to go along with it.

For people who are real gearheads, GURPS Vehicles isn't any more complex than FF&S1/2 and in many cases has more detail with less complexity. (says the man who wrote GURPS Vehicle Builder).

I've struggled through FF&S (both versions) with all their errata. They're both a complete mess compared to the wonderful organization of Vehicles. And, despite the rumored complexity of Vehicles, you can do complete designs with a (one) peice of paper and a four function calculator.

If you decide to create an FF&S3 and I'm allowed to participate in the process, I know I'll be using GUPRS Vehicles as a design guideline in terms of organization and design formula complexity.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I agree that there's tidying up needed (although FF&S1 isn't too bad).

 

[Anthony]

Having used both FF&S2 and GURPS Vehicles 2e, both systems had their quirks, but VE2 was both easier to use and produced more sensible results than FF&S2.