How Do We Improve T5?

[Blue Ghost]

Sorry, one more thing. At the risk of damaging canon, can the powers that be please rethink how much pressure a starship can withstand, and perhaps if that is reconsidered, tie it in tech level? And, perhaps there's a technology that can help starships resist higher pressures.

I bring this up because having starships dive to the bottom of deep oceans seems to easy an escape or deus ex machin-a for situations where players can simply dive into the local gas giant or deep ocean in order to get away, and similarly access "sunken treasures" or things and vessels lost to deep ocean tides.

Just more ravings of a madman. Don't mind me

 

[David Johansen]

Actually there's a strong precedent for precisely that in Megatraveller where SDBs lie in wait beneath the oceans.

Still, a crush depth or a damage by pressure table might not be the worst idea.

 

[fridge]

Still, a crush depth or a damage by pressure table might not be the worst idea.

P680 appears to be missing a column that links depth to pressure (depth in meters/10 = bars = Blast-Hits for water). See p682 third last line. If your Armor is not absorbing that many Hits, you are at crush depth.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I think there's a pressure table in "Secrets of the Ancients", and we discussed it at some length in the fleet section of the site. I personally have no problem with ships having some submersive ability, but the amount of pressure a ship is said to be able to take seems awfully high. Maybe this can be addressed in the vehicle maker or ship construction tables.

 

[kilemall]

I guess I should clarify; T5 seems to be more encompassing of other genres, but CT had a very open system in terms of potential "what ifs..." for other genres. But my personal observation of the game points to a game that, at its origins and through much of its evolution, wasn't well prepared for other tropes beyond what the adventures had established. T5's mechanics seem to address that, but it's still my sense that Traveller, in all its iterations, leans towards crime drama and geopolitics. And I've had emails and PMs expressing that opinion to me.

If that's the case, then T5 might want to shed the more extraordinary passages addressing other tropes that it hadn't touched on, stick with the tried and true, and therefore keep its primary emphasis since inception.

T5's thing maker, gun maker and other facets appear to put the game on proper footing for creating additional technologies. But on the more basic level, apart from vehicles and equipment, I think the interpersonals are either superfluous (that is this is actual role playing codified), or, to me, have the feel of another game altogether. I think an improvement would be to make the interpersonals an optional set of rules. To me they feel like they've taken the role playing out of role playing. But I've already talked about that.

Just my two bits. I don't have too much more to add, but I'll respond to anyone who has thoughts on what I've written.

I prefer the term Space Noir to describe that aspect of Traveller adventure ethos.

However, it can just as easily be Space War Movie, Space Western, or Space Horror.

Tying it down to one genre seems an unnecessary limitation of entertainment potential, both conceptually and worse by rules.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I think Noire is a very valid term to apply to Traveller, but I think Traveller embraces Indiana Jones and Hunt For Red October territory as well, only set in space.

I guess what I was trying to say with my previous posts is that I better comprehend that Traveller digs the crime scene as a game, but also tackles international intrigue as well. And with that understanding I now know why special anomalies and monsters that cannot be covered in the animal encounters area are eschewed. It just seems to me that Traveller would benefit from just stating up front that it's game about crime and politics.

I love sci-fi, and stuff that's beyond Traveller, but I've invested so much into the product line as a hobby that I refuse to give it up now, hence the reason I keep posting my nonsense here

 

[David Johansen]

Fair point, Traveller's not great for super-monsters. It's really not. Well, except that as written in T5 the moose is the ultimate anti-tank weapon with Pen = C1 and all that. Really, scary that.

I wonder if the alien animal maker or even the sophant maker is the right tool for monsters though. For instance, a planet killer is more like an autonomous organic ship and a xenomorph is really an explicitly engineered killer bioroid. That still leaves the sapient gas cloud or the god-like alien in referee fiat territory but they're fiat encounters by their very nature, though they might still be susceptible to the Personals rules.

I'll have to think it over, and make a few things up.

For instance a titan sized psionic android with some natural armor would be pretty scary. Maybe we're just applying the wrong parts of the rules to the problem. Psionics might even work for the god-like alien on the lower Charlie 27 end of the spectrum.

Is that it? Is it that Traveller isn't great for Star Trek?

 

[Blue Ghost]

No, on the Star Trek thing, because even though Star Trek tackles a lot of permutations of sci-fi, it isn't the end all in the genre.

Say you wanted to update something like "Jason and the Argonauts" or "The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad", and take it out of the Bronze Age on Earth, and set those stories in space; replace the wooden sailing ships with starships, and then add psionics and animal encounters with vastly oversized animals.

CT could handle it but it required a lot of finagling and judgement calling on the Ref's part. T5, on the other hand, I think with the newer rules set might be able to handle something like that, but it seems like Traveller's audience and fan base (me excepted, I guess) desire the noire in space themes. Going after the Maltese Falcon, or breaking up a drug smuggling ring and so forth. It just seems like the rules thrive more on that kind of adventure than the more fantastic stuff.

And I guess what I'm saying is that if that's the case, then maybe the game just needs to present itself better, and not really worry about being the GURPS of scifi RPGs.

I love classic Kirk and Spock 1960's Star Trek, but if I ran a session of STRPG, I wouldn't use Traveller rules to run it.

 

[kilemall]

I think Noire is a very valid term to apply to Traveller, but I think Traveller embraces Indiana Jones and Hunt For Red October territory as well, only set in space.

I guess what I was trying to say with my previous posts is that I better comprehend that Traveller digs the crime scene as a game, but also tackles international intrigue as well. And with that understanding I now know why special anomalies and monsters that cannot be covered in the animal encounters area are eschewed. It just seems to me that Traveller would benefit from just stating up front that it's game about crime and politics.

I love sci-fi, and stuff that's beyond Traveller, but I've invested so much into the product line as a hobby that I refuse to give it up now, hence the reason I keep posting my nonsense here

Eschewed? By who? Published material? OTU?

Sounds like you are talking marketing.

Guess I wouldn't want to tie down to one meme/market segment- core rules, then do Milieu books for interstellar intrigue/corporate warfare/noir/transhuman/established universes like Dune, Aliens or Firefly- settings for those who want shake and bake.

Why limit to one interest group when the thing can be set to support many?

 

[Kilgs]

P680 appears to be missing a column that links depth to pressure (depth in meters/10 = bars = Blast-Hits for water). See p682 third last line. If your Armor is not absorbing that many Hits, you are at crush depth.

While this may be relevant in certain situations, this is IMO a decent example of things that could easily get cut from T5. Can we create it? Sure. Should it be in the book? Probably not especially since it's supposed to be on page 680!

 

[Blue Ghost]

Eschewed? By who? Published material? OTU?

Sounds like you are talking marketing.

Guess I wouldn't want to tie down to one meme/market segment- core rules, then do Milieu books for interstellar intrigue/corporate warfare/noir/transhuman/established universes like Dune, Aliens or Firefly- settings for those who want shake and bake.

Why limit to one interest group when the thing can be set to support many?

Well, I guess you could argue that, but it does seem like Traveller thrived by sticking to law enforcement and geopolitics. And regardless of my rants in the past on opening up to other subgenres, maybe Traveller ought to stay with what it knows best.

 

[David Johansen]

I think a closer answer would be that roleplayers and wargamers hate fiat encounters because they're basically GM Blocking personified.

If "Encounter At Far Point" was a roleplaying scenario the players would have walked out about thirty seconds after Q showed up and they would refuse to play in the GM's campaigns ever again.

Roleplaying games are about being empowered to make decisions and fiat encounters completely undermine them.

 

[Ulsyus]

Actually there's a strong precedent for precisely that in Megatraveller where SDBs lie in wait beneath the oceans.

Still, a crush depth or a damage by pressure table might not be the worst idea.

This is even more true if your version uses ships that are subject to nuclear warheads. Though as I write that I remember the scene in BSG when the bridge broadcast the 'brace for impact' instruction when a Cylon nuke was inbound.

Roleplaying games are about being empowered to make decisions and fiat encounters completely undermine them.

This is a central point to RPGs. I recall one Traveller adventure, a whole book's worth, that started with the premise that the PCs were in a particular ship on a particular world outside the 3I, and jumped straight into the scenario with the threat entering the ship and driving the scene from that moment. There was so little player empowerment that it seemed to be driven by a veritable battalion of ducks with machine guns.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I think a closer answer would be that roleplayers and wargamers hate fiat encounters because they're basically GM Blocking personified.

If "Encounter At Far Point" was a roleplaying scenario the players would have walked out about thirty seconds after Q showed up and they would refuse to play in the GM's campaigns ever again.

Roleplaying games are about being empowered to make decisions and fiat encounters completely undermine them.

Well, I'm not a big fan of beings or entities that are seemingly all powerful, or can only be dealt with by the players and Ref talking it up.

That verse letting the players have access to their equipment and skills via dice to tackle some critter that's maybe eating the ship's hull or something.

 

[robject]

Sorry, one more thing. At the risk of damaging canon, can the powers that be please rethink how much pressure a starship can withstand, and perhaps if that is reconsidered, tie it in tech level? And, perhaps there's a technology that can help starships resist higher pressures.

Doesn't damage canon at all - on the contrary.

And yes, ship armor rating in T5 is directly related to both TL and pressure rating. Errata is on the exact relation to the latter.

 

[ThornEel]

Roleplaying games are about being empowered to make decisions and fiat encounters completely undermine them.

Not necessarily, though it is harder to do right. The problem is, the fiat encounter must still let players being with decisions to take about it.
Let's say the fiat encounter is some god-like space being wanting them to do some ridiculous stuff for them (or is it simply toying with them?).
Will they try to talk it up? Bluff their way out? Yield and do what it wants? Pretend to yield and screw it up at the first occasion? Take it head-on, knowing they won't even scratch it, to show they are not intimidated? Try everything they have, in the hope of finding a hidden weakness? Annoy it until it gets bored and leave? Psychoanalyse it until they find what makes it tick, and help it solve its deep emotional issues? Bait a second god-like space being and let them deal with each-other?
The difficulty for the Referee is not only to have ideas for several possibilities, but also to run with whatever the players come up with.

So fiat encounters shouldn't be ignored as a tool for the Referee, though whether there should be advice on the subject in T5 is something else.

 

[David Johansen]

Players who trust the GM enough to allow fiat encounters don't need rules in the first place.

 

[Murph]

I think I'll disagree with you a bit. I think traveller thrived by being a bit more open in setting rather than just the 3rd imperium.

Well, I guess you could argue that, but it does seem like Traveller thrived by sticking to law enforcement and geopolitics. And regardless of my rants in the past on opening up to other subgenres, maybe Traveller ought to stay with what it knows best.

 

[Murph]

More design examples maybe?

 

[robject]

More design examples maybe?

Agreed.

And I also agree that Traveller's core rules are better off with less attachment to the default setting. I do think The Traveller Book got it about right.