Once more into the fray, my dear friends...

[yamsi3467]

Good Morning, Afternoon, Evening (depending on what planet your on)...

I am making a fresh post to attempt to get away from the taint of some of the other posts that have degraded into a shouting matches..

I am not a YES man. I am not a fanboy. I was one of the Betas (and proud to be a part of it). Therefore, I looked at the drafts (concentrated on some chapters more than others). I have been away from the boards for a couple of months at least. Last week, I started lurking in the shadows. Now, however, I feel the need to speak.

1) Is Traveller 5 a game? YES. According to Merriam-Webster, a game is "a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure." Traveller 5 has rules (the quality of those rules doesn't have bearing on whether or not it is a game). We play for pleasure (why else would you spend time rolling dice and acting out scenarios?).

That above might get me banned!

2) Is it a tool box? Well, I'll say YES. My nephew is using the rules to run a campaign based on Fallout: New Vegas. The rules are attached to the Third Imperium but the rules are setting neutral.

I think T5's biggest problem is that it is MASSIVE! A tome this big is likely to have some errors in it. I think the omission of an index in the paper edition was a big problem.

I am all for tweaking the rules, but I hope that massive overhauls aren't being done just to satisfy a vocal group that doesn't like the rules because they are not what the should be.

Everytime this subject is addressed, it comes back to one thing: COMBAT. I said it about a year ago, and I'll say it again. I don't play Traveller for combat. That's my last resort, and I don't go looking to get into combat situations.

Another point I want to address is Trade and Commerce. I have seen many players say that a free trader/merchant can't survive on the trade rules. If you are talking about Speculative Trade, I agree. However, there are standard trade rules that are for regular cargo. Speculative trade is just for filling out the empty space in your cargo hold.

My point is this. Are the rules really broken or are they trying to be used for situations that they really don't apply to?

At any rate, that's my two credits worth. I'm Yamsi, and I approved this message. Peace out.

Yamsi

 

[Supplement Four]

I am not a YES man. I am not a fanboy. I was one of the Betas (and proud to be a part of it).

(Snip)

At any rate, that's my two credits worth. I'm Yamsi, and I approved this message. Peace out.

Yamsi

Like Popeye, you yam what you yam! :rofl:

 

[atpollard]

I am all for tweaking the rules, but I hope that massive overhauls aren't being done just to satisfy a vocal group that doesn't like the rules because they are not what the should be.

Since Marc wrote the original rules (T5 1st ed) by listening to what people said and then doing what Marc wanted, and Marc is writing the new rules (T5 revised), I suspect that whatever is changed will have been changed because Marc wanted to change it.
You can probably set this particular fear to rest.

Everytime this subject is addressed, it comes back to one thing: COMBAT. I said it about a year ago, and I'll say it again. I don't play Traveller for combat. That's my last resort, and I don't go looking to get into combat situations.

Frankly, I don't use the combat rules (in any edition) much, either ... but that isn't the issue, is it?
The issue is that if I NEED to use the Combat Rules, then I would reasonably expect them to be able to get the job done.
Playing out a bar room brawl (not an unreasonable event to expect to happen in a game) is reported to have some issues.
These issues are being examined.
Marc and some players are reportedly fine tuning the combat rules to work better.
I don't see how that can be other than a 'Good Thing' for anyone and everyone.

 

[yamsi3467]

Like Popeye, you yam what you yam! :rofl:

I agree! I am a sweet potato! LOL! (I am assuming that your comment was good natured)

Supplement Four,

I see that the combat revisions are going well. I am glad you are a part of them and I look forward to seeing the revisions.

I want Traveller 5 to be the best it can be!

 

[Supplement Four]

Since Marc wrote the original rules (T5 1st ed) by listening to what people said and then doing what Marc wanted, and Marc is writing the new rules (T5 revised), I suspect that whatever is changed will have been changed because Marc wanted to change it.
You can probably set this particular fear to rest.

I can confirm, at least from my point of view, T5 is still Marc's baby. Nobody is re-writing Marc.

Marc is Captain Kirk. He's got a plan. Now, he's got his department heads gathered around the briefing table, providing input and different points of view. But, it is the Captain, and only the Captain that is making the final decisions.

Marc is the Captain.

(I am assuming that your comment was good natured)

Of course it was!

I want Traveller 5 to be the best it can be!

It will be what Marc wants it to be.

 

[cuTTer]

1) Is Traveller 5 a game? YES. According to Merriam-Webster, a game is "a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure." Traveller 5 has rules (the quality of those rules doesn't have bearing on whether or not it is a game). We play for pleasure (why else would you spend time rolling dice and acting out scenarios?).

So If I don't derive pleasure from playing T5...

I'm not convinced you've thought through this definition business, yamsi.

 

[Supplement Four]

1) Is Traveller 5 a game? YES. According to Merriam-Webster, a game is "a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure." Traveller 5 has rules (the quality of those rules doesn't have bearing on whether or not it is a game). We play for pleasure (why else would you spend time rolling dice and acting out scenarios?).

That above might get me banned!

There is an inequity with the moderation on this board in that the above can be said but an answer stating the opposite of the above warrants an infraction.

The T5 "is a game" and "is not broken" people prevail on every opinion and argument, by default.

 

[yamsi3467]

So If I don't derive pleasure from playing T5...

I'm not convinced you've thought through this definition business, yamsi.

I just took an official definition of what a game is, and applied it to T5. I assume people play games because they find them entertaining. I'm not in the habit of playing something that don't enjoy. It's not my definition.

 

[yamsi3467]

There is an inequity with the moderation on this board in that the above can be said but an answer stating the opposite of the above warrants an infraction.

The T5 "is a game" and "is not broken" people prevail on every opinion and argument, by default.

Supplement Four,

I thought we were being civil. I just took an official definition of a game and applied it to T5. I was not trying to be on one side or the other. In the context of the definition, T5 could be considered a game by those who enjoy it.

If I get banned, so be it. But, I don't think I was bashing or being inflammitory in any way.

Yamsi

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, I have to admit, now that I've actually gone through the whole thing, I think massive cuts could be made.

There's lots of streamlining that's needed. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.

 

[Baltech Budapest]

I'm also glad to hear that supp 4 and other selected few are working with Marc on the revisions.
I know T5 is in good hands and I can't wait to see how the revised edition turns out.

 

[aramis]

Supplement Four,

I thought we were being civil. I just took an official definition of a game and applied it to T5. I was not trying to be on one side or the other. In the context of the definition, T5 could be considered a game by those who enjoy it.

If I get banned, so be it. But, I don't think I was bashing or being inflammitory in any way.

Yamsi

He's scaremongering. Go read the policy yourself and you'll see you did the opposite of what's disallowed.

[m;]Discussion of the merits of the policies belong in Citizen's Information Center.[/m;]

 

[Hemdian]

Your comments are a shining example of why it's not right for Aramis to enforce such a rule. You can go on all day about how T5 is a game and how it's not broken at all, yet anyone who disputes your opinion is subject to punishment by the mods.

At the risk of derailing this thread the ban wasn't on having a negative opinion nor on expressing it on this forum. It was on expressing a negative opinion with excess hyperbole and making personal attacks on Marc. The very fact that that there is a 'chosen five' working on fixing T5's issues is public acknowledgement by TPTB that there is something broken. The point has been won. It doesn't need to be driven home with a sledge hammer over and over and over again. It's very stifling to those who might have something positive to say.

 

[Hemdian]

Well, I have to admit, now that I've actually gone through the whole thing, I think massive cuts could be made.

There's lots of streamlining that's needed. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.

In other editions (and other games) you eventually seem to end up with a similar or even greater set of rules through numerous expansions and supplements. But frequently these additional parts contradict aspects of what has gone before. At least here we have a full set (except perhaps for BCS).

I remember the original Striker set had 3 booklets: Basic Rules, Advanced Rules, and Equipment (which also included design sequences). I get that the BBB as it currently stands can be a bit overwhelming. Perhaps the way to go would be to reorganise it as basic rules, advanced rules, and equipment (including the makers)? It might be more 'digestible' and easier to learn that way, plus no one would feel compelled to use it all.

 

[whulorigan]

Perhaps the way to go would be to reorganise it as basic rules, advanced rules, and equipment (including the makers)?

I still think the better way to go would be a Players Book and a Referees Book (and then perhaps an Equipment/Makers book).

Some other games I have with a "Basic" and "Advanced" Rules division frustrate me when I want to reference a particular rule, and I have to go hunting for it thru various "Combat Sections" (for example) in different books, because I don't remember which book it was in. For Core Rules, I like everything (if at all possible) to be in one section/chapter, neatly laid-out, that has to do with a particular topic.

 

[ThornPlutonius]

I still think the better way to go would be a Players Book and a Referees Book (and then perhaps an Equipment/Makers book)..

I'd rather see the one book reorganized into those three sections. I'd welcome three books if they came in a box or other bundle to be purchased at the same time. Given the state of RPG, a simple intro box set/book would also be a good idea.

Right now I'm dealing with Pathfinder book hell (it is the only game "in town", so far). I'll give Paizo credit for their brilliant business model, while also being OVER "needing" to buy piles of books to have all of the rules. Some of the older discontinued games (e.g., Alternity) are looking more appealing precisely because I can be sure of no further books/supplements.

Whatever mistakes were made with T5, we can all take some comfort in the fact that they weren't on the level of those made with the second and third attempts to publish Dr. Barker's Tekumel world/game. Swords & Glory had two volumes published and then the third (Game Master's) manuscript was lost before it could be sent to the printers. Gardasial came out in a nice box, but one had to buy an additional three volumes just to generate characters. The box just had some pregens and no rules for character creation. One had to run the new characters through those three books of solo adventuring to get them ready for regular play. THAT even makes the CT char gen look quick and simple.

So, the world of T5 is a bit rough right now, but it is being fixed and all will "soon" be right with the world.

 

[whulorigan]

I'd rather see the one book reorganized into those three sections. I'd welcome three books if they came in a box or other bundle to be purchased at the same time. Given the state of RPG, a simple intro box set/book would also be a good idea.

Actually, that is what I meant as well. I guess I should have been clearer.

I still think the better way to go would be a Players Book and a Referees Book (and then perhaps an Equipment/Makers book).

And to further amend what I said: Perhaps ACS Starship design could be included in the 3rd Book with the Equipment/Makers as well.

 

[Hemdian]

Some other games I have with a "Basic" and "Advanced" Rules division frustrate me when I want to reference a particular rule, and I have to go hunting for it thru various "Combat Sections" (for example) in different books, because I don't remember which book it was in.

Hmm ... fair point, I hadn't thought of that. Then perhaps the material can be physically integrated but with some sort of tag system to highlight basic and advanced rules. The Dummies Guides use symbols in the margins for that purpose, I wonder if something similar that would work here ... would it be helpful?

Of course once we have the errata-corrected master document it can be sliced and diced a number of ways for different audiences thanks to POD. For example you could have a full players book and a basic-only players book.

 

[whulorigan]

For example you could have a full players book and a basic-only players book.

I think that would be a much better division than Basic/Advanced. That way those who want an intro-book can get it, whereas those who want the full deal have everything in one place.

I would still divide the "full-version" up as a I suggested above, however (Player's/Referee's/Makers-Equipment). It makes it more manageable.

 

[robject]

(1)

whatever is changed will have been changed because Marc wanted to change it.

(2)

The issue is that if I NEED to use the Combat Rules, then I would reasonably expect them to be able to get the job done.

(3)

Marc and some players are fine tuning the combat rules to work better. I don't see how that can be other than a 'Good Thing' for anyone and everyone.

GOOD POINTS worth parroting.

There's lots of streamlining that's needed. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.

I still think the better way to go would be a Players Book and a Referees Book (and then perhaps an Equipment/Makers book).

The Core Book is the reference book for Traveller5.

The player's book was mandated by the Kickstarter. We want THAT to be a slim volume with material selected from the core book. For example, 6x9" and 150 pages. Or, for another example, The Traveller Book with T5 poured into its contents (I've actually done this with the chapter on starship design).