June 2007

[mike wightman]

That's a shame, I'd have liked to have seen this one.

Is there any chance of doing a re-edit of the QLI Books 1-3 reprint, if it is ever reprinted, to include the task system (it condenses down to only a couple of sides) and the armour as damage reduction system (in the space saved from the weapon vs armour matrix).
Add special duty to the character generation tables and put in some of the missing stuff (pulse lasers, sandcasters) - hey presto CT+

How about as a pdf only?

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by daryen:
One more question on this line, if you don't mind: Does a relatively near future release date for T5 mean that CT-Revised will never see the light of day? (sniff)

Unfortunately I'd have to say yes CT+ is probably shelved with T5 releasing in 2007. I can't see doing it with T5 out in 2007. But circumstances may change and other possibilities may arise.</font>[/QUOTE]That's too bad. I really think it would have been a great companion to T20 and allowed you to completely cover your bases.

Plus, T5 just scares the crap outta me.

 

[mike wightman]

Could we write it ourselves and post it here?

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Could we write it ourselves and post it here?

Even though this is off-topic, I just want to be clear on what I am mourning. CT+ (aka CT-Revised) is not an "updated Book 1-3". It is T20, with the D20 elements removed. Those elements (primarily character generation/definition and combat) would then be replaced with updated CT elements (plus a task system). It would be very T20 centric.

Sorry for the side-track.

And thank you, Hunter, for the answer. Even though it is not what I wanted to hear, I do appreciate that you answered.

 

[kaladorn]

Help me out here. If I take T20, pull out chargen and combat, then slap in CT stuff.... what do I have that is T20? <puzzled> And how is that T20-centric?

 

[mike wightman]

Here's the original discussion, I don't know what daryen means either, especially considering Hunter's second sentence

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Help me out here. If I take T20, pull out chargen and combat, then slap in CT stuff.... what do I have that is T20? <puzzled> And how is that T20-centric?

Because you are leveraging all of the non-D20 rules that QLI wrote for the THB. I don't want a warmed-over Books 1-3. I want all of the nifty, cool things QLI did for THB (e.g. starship construction) in CT+.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I don't know what daryen means either, especially considering Hunter's second sentence

Hunter's second sentence precludes any action happening on the idea anytime in the near future. Sure, he reserves the right to bring the idea back at any point, but as long as T5 is in the picture, CT+ is dead as a doornail.

 

[kaladorn]

I have to say that's a bizarre approach to the issue, Daryen. <shrug> To each his own.

I think if someone wanted to make CT with a task system, errata corrections, and a bit of revamped armour mechanics, that I'd be interested in. The oddball T20 minus chargen and combat version Daryen is talking about just seems too much of a bastardy (mixture of two parentages in a most unusual way) to be really cohesive or worthwhile. But YMMV

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I have to say that's a bizarre approach to the issue, Daryen. <shrug> To each his own.

I think if someone wanted to make CT with a task system, errata corrections, and a bit of revamped armour mechanics, that I'd be interested in. The oddball T20 minus chargen and combat version Daryen is talking about just seems too much of a bastardy (mixture of two parentages in a most unusual way) to be really cohesive or worthwhile. But YMMV

That's OK. I think asking for a nebulous "corrected" CT is pointless. Mainly because you will never get two people to actually agree with what in CT needs "correcting". At least if you use T20 as a base, you eliminate a vast number of those issues by incumbency.

Getting back to the actual topic, that is the base of what worries me about T5 most. There are so many preconceived ideas about what T5 "should" be, it is impossible to actually fulfill any of them. That applies to overall concepts, not just rules.

Oh well, what do I know?

 

[aramis]

Kal: the following things in T20 are revised/expanded from CT books 1-7:
Ship Design (Bk5 with MT and TNE addins)
Trade and Commerce (Revised bk2 with some Bk7)
System Generation (slightly revised Bks 2 & 6)
Computer Rules for Ships (Bk2 and 5)

The following stuff is whole-cloth new with T20:
Vehicle Design system (Inspired by Striker, FF&S, MT, and the Ship Design in T20)
Non ship's computers (Don't know Hunter's source of inspiration)
The Squadron rules and Ship's Combat (It grew out of Bk5 and Mayday, with lots of add-ins); big chunks could be easily adapted.

So there is plenty there to work with; it's probably worth grafting to CT... or MT.

 

[kaladorn]

Anything is worth doing if you can sell it.

Did the CT reprints sell well?
Would some corrected reprints (I mostly mean errata and corrigenda moreso than content endits) sell well?
Would a T20/CT half-breed sell well?

I suspect
1) T20 is here to stay. D20-ish compatibility just makes sense. I expect 2320 AD will look very similar.
2) T5 is Marc's next project. It will go ahead at some rate, do some new things, do some old things slightly differently, and it will be what Marc thinks it should be, taking into account some feedback where it doesn't burn his ears off.
3) Given the presence of these two, I'm not imagining much of a niche for any CT update as a seller. Ergo, I'm not imagining that these things will see the light of day *anytime soon* at any rate.

Really, I've never felt MT needed anything grafted into it, with one exception - I wanted a good space combat game like BL, but the BL/MT graft is painful (I've tried it). Other than that, I was pretty happy with MT's core ruleset. Setting aside, the core ruleset was pretty slick.

T5 is going to be a different beast. It is still early in the process, but there are a lot of different sounding ideas being trotted out. What the final form looks like? No one at this juncture can say. Some are trying, I think, but are getting all heated up over nothing, since we're not at a stage where anything is fixed in stone. <shrug>

 

[mike wightman]

Have you tried looking at space combat in MT from Aramis's perspective?

Using the ship weapon damage rules in the PH (I simplified the numbers, but it is the same system), use vector movement, use the existing MT sensor tasks with bits borrowed from BL/BR, draw up a damage track for each ship based on component damage points, and away you go

 

[robject]

Yah, Aramis' idea of using the vehicle combat system for starships is inspired.

 

[kaladorn]

I wanted to use BL basically as written. I find it is an excellent game. My intention was merely to map over the MT ships. Unfortunately, there are a few really critical differences in ship design that don't map over well. One main issue was doing out the damage maps for a ship, the other was figuring out something sane for MFDs for MT ships. Linking it MFDs to computer ratings isn't itself sufficient.

I liked the per-aspect damage in BL. And a lot of the rest of the game was quite good too. It's just a pity ship construction differed enough from MT to TNE to make the conversion rather painful.