Saving T5 or How to make an old Traveller actually accept and like T5?

[aramis]

It seems like most of those who didn't like the T5 PCS didn't like T5 in general. So fixing the bugs in PCS are unlikely to make a difference to them. But if the PCS bugs are fixed ... we get more errata, an index, and plenty of examples explaining how to do stuff ... and source material starts to come out, then I think acceptance of T5 within the wider Traveller community will grow.

I doubt it will find much acceptance by the grogs. Those who like it do deserve the cleaned up version.

A large portion of us who don't like it reject the task mechanics. And with the way T5 is designed, a different task mechanic would require a near total rewrite.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm fine with nd6 but I think the number of dice by difficulty needs shifted up one or two dice because the stats and skills can come out so high.

Actually, that does happen with the task system as written. More often than not, the TiH rule (which people tend to forget about--I even caught an example in the new T5 draft that forgot to implement it) usually adds a die to the task, unless it's one of the few skills where the character has a very high skill level.

From what I understand from Marc and Don, the typical T5 character will have a few skills (the character's "specialty" skills) at a high level, like Skill-5 or so. Most of the skills a character has will be low, though, the level 1-3 range.

This means, most of the time, the TiH rule will kick in, and a die will be added to the task.

 

[David Johansen]

It depends a bit as you randomly roll your skills, but going to school and having a major and a minor help.

 

[rhialto]

But, I think the majority of the people who have turned away from T5 have already made their decision...but I know I will never play this game. I can't stand the task system. That, right there, is enough to keep me from playing.

I'm in this camp: couple the task system with the unfinished state of T5 and CT (and MgT) are a much more appealing draw, both from a ref's and my player's perspective. But as a latecomer to CT I'm happy to send Marc my credits for his earlier brilliance and procure FFE's reprints & CD's.

 

[Ulsyus]

I'm fine with nd6

I disliked the system when it came out in T4, but that may have been my resistance to change and the fact that there were D3 involved. That said, T4 felt much more like CT, and T5 may too if the B³ was smaller.

More often than not, the TiH rule (which people tend to forget about--I even caught an example in the new T5 draft that forgot to implement it) usually adds a die to the task, unless it's one of the few skills where the character has a very high skill level.

This is a great rule mechanic, I think it's been significantly underestimated in terms of the effect it can have on play, taking something that one of the PCs has dabbled in and making it far more uncertain, adding to the tension of play

 

[Supplement Four]

This is a great rule mechanic, I think it's been significantly underestimated in terms of the effect it can have on play, taking something that one of the PCs has dabbled in and making it far more uncertain, adding to the tension of play

The TiH rule was added to the game, back in the T4 days, as an after thought. It wasn't originally part of the game. As it will be, I did some math and showed people how the T4 (now T5) task system greatly over emphasizes natural ability over trained experience. A flame war broke out on the TML between those who just didn't understand, those who just didn't care, and those who understood.

The result was the TiH rule (originally called the "It's Harder Than I Thought!" rule). Someone on the TML--I've long forgotten who--proposed the rule to help balance trained and natural ability with the system, and Marc wisely adopted it. It was officially incorporated into the system when Marc threw out the Half Die and included the (called back then) the IHTIT rule.

And, the rule has survived until today, with T5.

...Just a little background for you.

 

[PhilB]

I don't have an issue with the task system or the skills. The game has some intrinsic appeal or flavour -- e.g., I liked generating the handful of characters I tried out. TiH is potentially a nice way to handle some tasks.
I'm holding out for a significant revision so I feel confident with the rules (I don't right now). Yes, I'll always tweak stuff for my games, but I don't like having to do major surgery on a game to make things comfortable.

 

[Echo]

Personally, I see no point in revising T5.

Start again, afresh. If you’re going revisit a new version of Traveller call it what it is: 6th Edition.

For me, count me in if:

1) They abandon trying to shoehorn a multiple dice system for difficulty classes, and return to a simpler method of resolution - mainly based on rolling high on 2D6 and putting greater emphasis on skill level (rather than characteristics) as modifier.

2) They ensure that core systems are clearly explained, with easy-to-understand examples, plain language and less emphasis on TLAs (Multiple Lettered Acronyms) for everything, so that they could pass a Granny test (aka “could my Grandmother understand this?”).

3) They keep the contents of the core book down to a manageable size - no more than 300 pages - and ensure it is professionally edited and indexed.

4) They stop exuding a snobbish attitude about other versions/editions of the game and openly encourage an inclusive approach, in the same manner that Wizards have tried to do with D&D5.

Otherwise, no thanks.

 

[GM Joe]

To me, Traveller is the OTU + a game system that is mostly comprised of games-within-a-game, and where every major system is implemented in multiple versions of varying complexities so I have a choice as to how detailed I want to get with something.

That's Traveller to me. How many dice of whatever type and things like that are much lower priority for me.

Beyond all that, what's important to me these days is that if I choose the most basic options, I'm only dealing with a couple hundred pages of rules and it plays quickly. My group just doesn't have time for 8-hour sessions. We're lucky to get 2-3 hours every other week, so we have to make it count.

 

[Supplement Four]

1) They abandon trying to shoehorn a multiple dice system for difficulty classes, and return to a simpler method of resolution - mainly based on rolling high on 2D6 and putting greater emphasis on skill level (rather than characteristics) as modifier.

Except that Marc is married to the task system and has been for years--maybe a two decades, now. People rebuked the task system when T4 came out, and he altered it but didn't abandon it. And, if you look at the T5 Beta discussions, tons of people voiced their disapproval of the task system. And yet, the game still has it.

 

[robject]

I think it would take a huge number of people saying, "T5 is Great!" to make T5 something more than just a niche of a niche, flash in the pan.

As for myself, I am trying hard to fix the combat system, but I know I will never play this game.

So, you're trying hard to fix the combat system of a game that:

(1) you don't like
(2) you will never play, and
(3) you think is a flash in the pan.

Then what motivates you to do this?

 

[rancke]

So, you're trying hard to fix the combat system of a game that:

(1) you don't like
(2) you will never play, and
(3) you think is a flash in the pan.

Then what motivates you to do this?

Affection for Traveller as a whole, engendered over 35 years?

I know that if I myself do keep working on Traveller in the future, then that would be what caused me to do so, except that my affection is for the OTU.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

And, if you look at the T5 Beta discussions, tons of people voiced their disapproval of the task system. And yet, the game still has it.

And the game, beyond the KS, is probably the worst selling version to date... :toast:

 

[robject]

Affection for Traveller as a whole, engendered over 35 years?

I know that if I myself do keep working on Traveller in the future, then that would be what caused me to do so, except that my affection is for the OTU.


Hans

You're right, that is a possibility. And rules mechanics do seem to scratch his itch, so to speak. It's just hard for me to see that sometimes.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

But that wouldn't be T5...

Personally, I see no point in revising T5.

Start again, afresh. If you’re going revisit a new version of Traveller call it what it is: 6th Edition.

For me, count me in if:

1) They abandon trying to shoehorn a multiple dice system for difficulty classes, and return to a simpler method of resolution - mainly based on rolling high on 2D6 and putting greater emphasis on skill level (rather than characteristics) as modifier.

2) They ensure that core systems are clearly explained, with easy-to-understand examples, plain language and less emphasis on TLAs (Multiple Lettered Acronyms) for everything, so that they could pass a Granny test (aka “could my Grandmother understand this?”).

3) They keep the contents of the core book down to a manageable size - no more than 300 pages - and ensure it is professionally edited and indexed.

4) They stop exuding a snobbish attitude about other versions/editions of the game and openly encourage an inclusive approach, in the same manner that Wizards have tried to do with D&D5.

Otherwise, no thanks.

Well, Echo if that is what you want, perhaps you could check put Mongoose Traveller which is pretty much (from the bits I have seen) exactly what you describe.

Now as to you nD Task Difficulty haters, be it known some of us (okay me) like the system, but then being a freak I loved T4 too (though not the artwork).

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

On Supp4 motivations.

So, you're trying hard to fix the combat system of a game that:

(1) you don't like
(2) you will never play, and
(3) you think is a flash in the pan.

Then what motivates you to do this?

Subversion? The Loyal Opposition? Or perhaps just like me, he is a bit of dick? Though in truth, I figure since Don asked for Haters to throw their 2CrImps into re-working the Personal Combat system, more folks than just me tossed his name into the hat and he is trying to do a good job. Or maybe make it more like his beloved CT.

Plus having looked at the latest draft, he may very well have helped. I mean we now have Pen explained which is a good thing. I am liking what I have seen so far. So, it is possible that he is soldiering on for a game (basic Traveller) he does love (just not this version).

 

[Ackehece]

Subversion? The Loyal Opposition? Or perhaps just like me, he is a bit of dick? Though in truth, I figure since Don asked for Haters to throw their 2CrImps into re-working the Personal Combat system, more folks than just me tossed his name into the hat and he is trying to do a good job. Or maybe make it more like his beloved CT.

Plus having looked at the latest draft, he may very well have helped. I mean we now have Pen explained which is a good thing. I am liking what I have seen so far. So, it is possible that he is soldiering on for a game (basic Traveller) he does love (just not this version).

believe me when I say Pen was not just a S4 issue, I had railed on this for months as well before it launched. I would say that most of the changes in the Combat Draft have be explanatory in nature not replacement of mechanic in nature.
S4 and I probably never have the same view of T5 but I value his input. I love T5 and I see a diamond in the rough... he sees generally a lump of coal that needs more pressure

As a personal opinion and not an attack - So far I find that most people that have issues the mechanics of T5 feel the idea is that T5 must be an evolution of CT and Mega and not a revolution which is basically what T5 is. I can understand that viewpoint as it is continuous but change is also good (and the mathematical explanation that Marc gave for the change convinced me... but I am a numbers geek...)

 

[Supplement Four]

So, you're trying hard to fix the combat system of a game that:

(1) you don't like
(2) you will never play, and
(3) you think is a flash in the pan.

This is true. My opinion of T5 does include all three points.

Then what motivates you to do this?

I ask myself that same question sometimes, as I've put a ton of work on the game (and continue to).

I guess I do it because Don asked me to. Time is a crunch, most of the time. Many times I've thought of telling Don that I really have no time work on this game. But, in a way, I feel like he's relying on me.

I am a vocal critic of the game. I think it was put out way too early, and because of that, it blew its chance of having a popular opinion with the majority of the Traveller gamers out there.

I like what T5 is trying to do.

And, I honestly believe that Marc cares about the game and wants to improve it.

I guess that's what keeps me going.

Subversion? The Loyal Opposition? Or perhaps just like me, he is a bit of dick?

You know, you just called me a "dick" right?

Though in truth, I figure since Don asked for Haters to throw their 2CrImps into re-working the Personal Combat system, more folks than just me tossed his name into the hat and he is trying to do a good job. Or maybe make it more like his beloved CT.

Don told me why he picked me. It wasn't because I was a "hater". It was because, along with my criticisms, I also offered methods of fixing the game. I didn't just gripe and moan about the game's problems, I suggested solutions.

I think that struck a cord with him.

Plus having looked at the latest draft, he may very well have helped. I mean we now have Pen explained which is a good thing. I am liking what I have seen so far. So, it is possible that he is soldiering on for a game (basic Traveller) he does love (just not this version).

I do, indeed, love Traveller. I want to love T5, but am still disappointed in it. And, yes, I'm glad to say several of my suggestions have made it into the game so far.

The idea that made it in that I like most is the one where we're no longer bothering with "left over" points with Penetration or Character damage. If 3D are thrown, getting 5, 4, 3, against Armor=10, that's no penetration at all. We only look at full dice, and no two dice of those three dice will penetrate. It takes all three to exceed 10, and we just ignore left over dice. A different 3D damage roll of, say, 6, 6, 1, would penetrate Armor=10 for exactly 1 point of damage.

I think that's going to increase game speed quite a bit, and it's something that I may adopt for any future CT games that I run.

 

[Supplement Four]

S4 and I probably never have the same view of T5 but I value his input. I love T5 and I see a diamond in the rough... he sees generally a lump of coal that needs more pressure

I do, indeed, think that the entire game needs to be stripped down to its bare basics and re-written from the bottom up. I think that's the only way this game will ever be a popular favorite among more than just niche players.

As a personal opinion and not an attack - So far I find that most people that have issues the mechanics of T5 feel the idea is that T5 must be an evolution of CT and Mega and not a revolution which is basically what T5 is.

Although not 100% on the mark, as far as I'm concerned, you did, indeed, hit on something there.

When 3rd edition D&D came out, there was much thought and discussion about how the game should be evolved. Rightly, the powers that be kept Armor Class (thought they changed it a bit, with a logical change), hit points, character classes and levels. It was decided that these things, for better or for worse were D&D, and the game continues to keep those tropes as it goes now into its 5th edition.

I think that there are a lot of us who feel the same about Traveller. Hell, I first felt the sting with the change to d10 in TNE, and that was one of the reasons I rejected the game. I felt (along with the base setting), that the creators took Traveller and made something else out of it with that edition.

I never have liked Traveller in other types of rule sets (GURPS Traveller, TNE, Traveller 20, etc).

Yes, I feel that Traveller should be something along the lines of CT or MT (and certainly MGT fits that bill) and not what T5 is.

I can understand that viewpoint as it is continuous but change is also good (and the mathematical explanation that Marc gave for the change convinced me... but I am a numbers geek...)

Would you PM that to me? I'd love to read it, and, who knows, maybe I'll change my mind, too.

 

[David Johansen]

If I'm not mistaken it was on an early version of the CD and it convinced me as well. It's got to do with the functional range of results generated by the various methods broken down into charts right?