Revised CT?

[Malenfant]

I don't think that's necessarily evidence that they're "past their peak" though... it may be that the companies that were successful with their d20/OGL products now have the resources to divert to other systems. I don't think what you perceive (if that is what's happening) is actually publishers deciding to drop d20 though - it's still a huge market and a good money source.

OGL d20 isn't going away after all - it's always going to be available for people to use and as such I think there's alwways going to be a market for it . It's kinda like a gravy train that's infinitely long that people can always hop onto .

 

[Gaming Glen]

I also don't like the idea of a "new" CT system. I'd rather you concentrate on T20. T20 products are slow in coming as is, and you want to diversify even more?

All a new CT will do is be sold to some of the oldtime Traveller fans. I won't be buying it; and as a store owner I may put one on the shelf and not reorder any if it sells (but will order more if any customers request it).

I'd rather have Hunter and company work on one product line and make it better.

I wonder if a 2nd edition T20 is a good idea at this point. I wouldn't be surprised that D&D4 is being developed and be something a little different yet again. T20.2 doesn't have to follow that lead, and may be better off not doing so. Or, maybe taking the lead with a "classless" levelling system?


Glen

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Gaming Glen:
I wonder if a 2nd edition T20 is a good idea at this point. I wouldn't be surprised that D&D4 is being developed and be something a little different yet again. T20.2 doesn't have to follow that lead, and may be better off not doing so. Or, maybe taking the lead with a "classless" levelling system?
[/QB]

Given the Guidebook, and some of the reformatting/clarifying of chargen that's being done for the HH and 2320AD playtest, I think a T20.2e would be a really good idea.

Maybe they could even do a clarified OGL Guidebook for the Players and a separate GM book with the tech and worldbuilding and advice on running campaigns that aren't the OTU. As it stands, the plans for the Guidebook seems to leave GMs in the lurch, since they still are lumbered with getting the whole T20 corebook with all the chargen in the front of it, while the players can get the Guidebook all for themselves.

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by hunter:
Gaining skills would be automatic rather than random, at a rate of 1 skill per year. Additional skills could also be picked up after a commission, promotion, etc.

Hunter

Kinda like T4?

Would character generation have the option for advanced as per books 4-7 (and MT)?

EDIT: corrected spellings

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by hunter:
I'm also looking for a set of lite rules that can be used to core out future setting books to let them be able to stand alone OR be used with T20.

Hunter

Almost sounds like an updated edition of "The Basic Books: 1-3", which would be a good thing IMO.

This approach could even lend itself to initial publication along the TA lines, which would allow seperate player, gm and genre books. Just another thought to throw into the pot.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

My suggestions:

1. Forget CT. There's nothing it does that later versions don't do as well or better.

2. Forget D20. Levels? XPs? C'mon, that was a joke 25 years ago.

3. Any new version should be based on the best bits of MT & T4, and be as backwardly-compatible as possible.

 

[daryen]

Andrew,

1. CT is the baseline from which T20 is drawn. As a result, if they want to do a non-d20 version of T20, then CT is the reasonable version for them to draw from. Besides, Hunter is not talking about "true" CT, but rather CT character generation updated to modern sensibilities and the world/ship/vehicle systems right out of T20. Remember, the only reason for QLI to do this is if they can leverage everything in QLI that is not OGL.

2. d20 is the reason T20 exists. It is the gaming system used by the majority of gamers out there. Its support is logical and useful for the viability of Traveller.

3. MT is irrelevant to this. (Anyway, once they are finished, the portions of CT that replace the d20 elements of T20 are done, those portions will probably look as much like MT as CT.) T4 will (theoretically) be reborn as T5.

 

[BetterThanLife]

For my Cr0.02. I like the T20 system. It has problems when it comes to Naval battles, (I am talking Capital ships and Naval Vessels not the Patrol Cruiser/CE range) but everything else works, works well and is consistent.

If I want to play CT I can get out my LBBs. If I want a more consistent set of rules for each skill and task, then I can get out my MT rules. (THough I really hate the ship/vehicle design rules. They are good, they are consistent, but a real pain in the butt to design ships.)

But for gaming purposes I definitely like T20. I personally would not buy a "Revised CT" there is no point. I mean if I am having a problem getting players for T20 why wouldn't I have more problems getting players for a Revised CT?

I think, with everything going on in T20, HH and Aldenta that it is enough. The T20 material is slow enough in coming out. THe HH stuff is probably, what, a year or more off still? 1248 is about to be released as is the Player's Guide. Worry about getting those out first. And I think the next projects for the OTU, should probably be Gateway in 1248. The Military Weapons of Chartered space TA that was promissed in TA1. A TA on Robots. More adventures. Nice big maps of the sectors of Gateway, like the Spinward Marches Maps. Perhaps a Solomani Rim Supplement similar to Gateway for the war years. Alien TAs would be another good idea. Then get the stuff on the shelves. I realize that the profit margin has to be higher for PDF material but to get it all on the shelves would be better for an overall selling to more people point.

I think doing that would be much more profitable than putting out another set of rules that would dilute the sales of the rules you already have.

 

[mike wightman]

Hunter, please take no notice of all these nay sayers.
If you think there is a market for CT:Modern/Future (and there is) then print it.

Soon please

 

[Gaming Glen]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Hunter, please take no notice of all these nay sayers.
If you think there is a market for CT:Modern/Future (and there is) then print it.

Soon please

Just because you would buy it?

Prove there is a market. QLI should do a market survey to see if it's worthwhile. Based on my area of the country, I don't think so; but then, my area, southeast Florida, has a very poor percentage of gamers in its population.


Glen

 

[mike wightman]

Yes, I would buy it, and so would others who gave already said so.
<Are you being snarky here Glenn by putting this in bold or am I just taking offence unnecessarily???>

Too many people then jumped on the "let's rubbish CT" bandwagon.

On rpg.com they would be called threadcrappers and trolls.
Put another way, this thread was started to ask questions about Hunter's revised edition idea, not just say "well I don't like CT so I wouldn't bother".

It then got hijacked in order to point out the failings of CT, of which there are many. But it's not as if there aren't other threads on the go where those opinions can be expressed. And are, over and over again.

It's almost as bad as mentioning jump masking...

 

[mike wightman]

p.s. the latter half of the above post is meant to be taken tongue in cheek, it was a way to pass the 2000 posts "milestone"

 

[Takei]

Originally posted by Gaming Glen:
Prove there is a market. QLI should do a market survey to see if it's worthwhile.

Glen

That's a business call for Hunter to make, but in his comments so far he has stated that he thinks there is a market.

In theory a market survey is a nice idea but I think in practice it would be very difficult to run. Running it here on the CotI boards wouldn't be too much use as the aim seems to be to increase the number of Traveller players. I'm guessing that most of us are here because we already play a version of Traveller.

 

[Malenfant]

Asking whether a revised CT is worth doing or not isn't threadcrapping or hijacking - I think it's a pretty valid concern. Particularly from the view of whether QLI should be spending time developing another system when they have a perfectly decent T20 system of their own that they should be supporting.

I suspect the market for it would be pretty much entirely made up of people who have Traveller already anyway. Which is all very well, but what about people outside that? Frankly, Traveller's been through so many versions I doubt if anyone outside would really care that the oldest one is getting a revamp. Sure, it'd be a nice thing to do, but what would a revised CT actually give to the RPG market now that isn't there already?

That's why I'd much rather see T20 revamped than another CT. I think T20 is what's got people's attention when it comes to Traveller at the moment in the market - not CT - and doing anything to distract from that is probably going to be counter-productive.

 

[mike wightman]

There are people out there who will not touch T20 with a bargepole because it is d20 (can't understand this attitude - but there you go),
a revised d6 based system, fully compatible with T20, and selling itself as the modern incarnation of CT stands a chance of getting people to buy the supplements and setting books, which is where the money is.
Most people are only going to buy one copy of the rulebook(s) to run the system, but then there are all the supplements to keep the cash coming in, unless you revise the rulebook(s) every couple of years and hope the same people buy them again
Plus the proposed CT system is much simpler than the d20 rules, and that could be attractive to some people.

 

[Malenfant]

OK, but in that case why not use d6 Space, or GURPS Space, or anything else that's already out there for that purpose?

And arguably, the people that wouldn't touch T20 or GURPS already HAVE a system to play with. Given how generally hostile or indifferent people seem to be to changing CT, is there any guarantee that this would go down well?

And by doing this, does this mean that T5 is actually not going to happen? Because there's little point in it if a Revised CT is basically going to do the same thing.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

1. CT is the baseline from which T20 is drawn.

A mistake IMHO, for the reason I gave.

2. d20 is the reason T20 exists. It is the gaming system used by the majority of gamers out there.

I (and, I suspect, you) have no way of knowing how many people use which system. In any case, I prefer to aim higher than the lowest common denominator.

3. MT is irrelevant to this. (Anyway, once they are finished, the portions of CT that replace the d20 elements of T20 are done, those portions will probably look as much like MT as CT.)

I think you're actually agreeing with me there.

T4 will (theoretically) be reborn as T5.

7 years and counting. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

For the record, I'll buy it anyway. I'd just rather it was something I'd actually want to play (I own GT and T20, but I'll never use them for anything other than background info).

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2. d20 is the reason T20 exists. It is the gaming system used by the majority of gamers out there.

I (and, I suspect, you) have no way of knowing how many people use which system. In any case, I prefer to aim higher than the lowest common denominator.
[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, it's well known that d20 is the system that most people buy. Even if only a fraction of people who buy d20 books play it, there's still probably more people playing a d20 game than there are non-d20 Traveller players. From a market point of view, it certainly makes sense to use the system that is most commonly bought by gamers.

 

[Gruffty]

There are people out there who will not touch T20 with a bargepole because it is d20 (can't understand this attitude - but there you go),

I wouldn't buy T20 because the game mechanics are too complex, I don't like the concept of "character levels", and I don't have any affinity for polyhedral dice . However, if people buy d20 products, like them and use them and prefer them over other systems, then that is their right and I will not condemn them for using the d20 system.

Personally, I'd like to see a system that sticks to one type of dice (D6 or D10/D20/D100).

Plus the proposed CT system is much simpler than the d20 rules, and that could be attractive to some people.

And so it is to me

And just so I'm not misunderstood on my first point (about not buying T20), a heck of a lot of hard work went into T20, it's a nice piece of work and very well put together. I'm sure it gives people a lot of gaming pleasure, and I hope it continues to do so. I wouldn't want anyone thinking I'm knocking T20 just because it's a d20 system. As I have said before, there are also things I am not at ease with in CT/MT, but there are many positive aspects to be found in all the Traveller gaming systems. It's just a shame (IMHO) they're not all in one well-defined rules system.......