• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not wanting to start flame war three but I am not what you would call a veteran Traveller player or GM (I'd rather GM to be honest). Now with credentials secure I cannot understand a lot if the issues, I do think there is a need for possibly a rewrite to enhance the immersion into the rules. I however don't see a major need to change them, I like the 10 point goons, yes it may take two shots to bring one down, but all I say to that is get a better gun and tactics. A lot of the detractors have read the rules in the opinion of they were wrong and constantly look for a way to break them, not in the way of how dies this affect my game. All in all it's easy to criticise. I'll buy the rewrite (though I do hope all that have spent money on the tome get at least a PDF), I am hoping for zero changes to the rules, an index and some better wording.
 
How many people were involved in beta-testing or proofreading the book? Having had a look at the errata, and working through creating spreadsheets to design weapons and armour and ships and such, a lot of the issues seem to come down to basic gross-error checking. That stuff's not hard to fix.

As for the mechanics, I think this is a great improvement over CT, which was improved on by MT's task-based system. Guys, you've got to throw your minds back to the early 80's. Games back then had classed characters with THACOs and squillions of separate rules for specific situations or actions. OR there was the BRP-style percentage system, which struggles with changes to difficulty for situations. Sci-fi games like Space Master and Space Opera (which had some cute concepts) were in no way as elegant as MT. So maybe you could relax a little and appreciate how much better games can be with task mechanics, which T5 has done so nicely now. Really, look at how efficient the mechanics are for personal combat (which I've yet to really test, but in a session or two we'll be there).
 
I however don't see a major need to change them, I like the 10 point goons, yes it may take two shots to bring one down, but all I say to that is get a better gun and tactics.

I like the 10 HP NPCs too, on the surface. The problem is that no amount of shots will ever take them down if the weapon does 1D of damage.

You sound like you're thinking that the rule is that damage below 10 points is recorded somehow. It's not. It's dropped. So, if you do 7 points of damage on an NPC on round 3, then hit the NPC again on round 4, you still have to do 10 points of damage in order to take the NPC out, regardless of the damage you did in previous rounds.

A character's fists do 1D damage. This means that, in a fist fight, PCs will always lose, and NPCs will always win because the PC cannot roll 10 points on a swing.

Still think that rule doesn't need to be changed?
 
As for the mechanics, I think this is a great improvement over CT, which was improved on by MT's task-based system.

Hmm. Characters are exploring an old ruin they found on a forest moon of a gas giant where they skimmed fuel. There is a spider-like creature hidden in its web over the archway of the entry to the ruin. As the PCs pass under, the Ref would like to do a quick check to see if any of the PCs notice the spider-analog before it drops down on upon one of them.

At the same time, the Ref wants to keep the mystery alive and not alert the players that there may be danger ahead (other than what they already expect). And, the Ref doesn't want the players knowing how well their perception checks went.

In CT and MT, this is quite easy. The Ref throws 2D, adds in a point or three for the DM, and he's done. He rolls behind the screen. The players don't know anything about the throw--only what the Ref tells them. And, the DMs are easy to remember. There will be only a couple--maybe a skill, but most likely a modifier for INT or WIS. I found these easy to memorize as a campaign wore on, but in the beginning, I'd write down a few common checks for the PCs so that I could do this type of thing behind the screen. There are lots of instances where the Ref wants to know if a character notices something but doesn't want the players to know squat about the roll.



This really isn't near as easy with the T5 task system. It's a lot more fussy. Even if the Ref writes down Stat + Skill target numbers for things like a perception check, the players still can get an idea of the difficulty because they can hear if the dice is a few or many.

This is do-able, but just a lot more fussy. Adding a +2 modifier to the result of 2D is a lot faster and easier than having to add up the result of 4D and compare them to a target.



Then, there are times where the Ref wants the player to roll but not know the result of his throw. This happens a lot when the character is sneaking around. The player should roll the sneak attempt for his character, but he shouldn't have too much of an idea of how hard it is to sneak around.

With CT or MT, the Ref can simply keep the target number secret. When a character wants to sneak from point A to point B, and the Ref knows that there are concealed cameras in the area that will probably pick up the sneaking character, he'll make the target hard. The player rolls normally: 2D + skill and mods, but he has no idea what the difficulty is.

Again, with this T5, this process becomes a lot harder to pull off. It becomes more fussy. The Ref can roll have the character's dice secretly behind the screen. Or, the player can roll all the dice, where the Ref has a secret modifier to the throw that he 's not telling the player. Or, the Flux can be used (Uncertainty Dice). All of which are a lot more fussy than the CT or MT methods.

And, the player still gets a good idea of the difficulty of the sneak throw, because he knows how many dice were thrown.

In the case of the example above, the player sees the sneak task is a lot more difficult and reasons to himself, "Hmm...this shouldn't be this hard. There must be hidden surveillance devices...."

Giving the player information that he shouldn't have.



So....no, I can't agree with your statement that the T5 mechanics are an improvement over those used in CT or MT.

In fact, many think the T5 task system is inferior to what has come before.







Really, look at how efficient the mechanics are for personal combat (which I've yet to really test, but in a session or two we'll be there).

They read good on the surface. When you dig into them, you'll see the problems.
 
How many people were involved in beta-testing or proofreading the book?

Over a hundred - but only a handful were looking for broad spectrum. Lots of (including me) wailing and gnashing of teeth about certain (now dropped) changes to travel and ship design.

Since the CD, I've not been able to make heads nor tails of the T5 CGen mechanics. So I made that comment, and left it alone.

I said my bit about tasks again (I hate the dice-by-difficulty task system with a passion), and didn't go back to it.

I will use exactly TWO sections of T5 - system generation, and the explanation for travel. Even then, I didn't comment because of the other issues I disliked or was unable to make sense of.

Much of that lack of grasp is that, disliking the task mechanics, I put little effort into trying to make sense of the other mechanics.
 
I haven't even bothered to look at it. I think its just got so complex that what is the purpose? Is it a war game, a role playing game or attempting to be a universal mechanic for everything? Most role playing seems to be theater and whenever I GMed things usually became an improvisation anyways. Either I am going to let the players get away with what they are attempting or not.

I quote the great Game Master himself "A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make." To me the story is what is important and the players losing themselves in the adventure.

225px-Gary_Gygax.jpg


Don't get me wrong I like game mechanics and I probably prefer war games over role playing games. But when things get so complex you can't enjoy having fun with a couple people for a couple hours because you can't figure out the game then what are you doing?
 
I will use exactly TWO sections of T5 - system generation, and the explanation for travel. Even then, I didn't comment because of the other issues I disliked or was unable to make sense of.

Much of that lack of grasp is that, disliking the task mechanics, I put little effort into trying to make sense of the other mechanics.

I hear you, but I think Personals are worth the (minimal) effort.

Personals is an undersung part of the game to me. I think it's genuinely innovative and might make play considerably more fun. It makes the player think about the strategy to use in a social situation. The way it's set up mimics the to-and-fro of a discussion. Much more interesting than "OK, roll a Difficult Persuade task...". It's also very easily portable over to other versions.

Not worth seventy quid, admittedly, but the cost is sunk!
 
Most role playing seems to be theater and whenever I GMed things usually became an improvisation anyways. Either I am going to let the players get away with what they are attempting or not.

There are Refs that run their game that way, but that's definitely not me. I allow the dice to decide a lot of things in the game. And, that real chance, not just my fiat decision, can sometimes make a session memorable.

Case in point: I was running a CT game where the PCs stumbled into a bar fight. This was all impromptu that came from roleplaying. The PCs wandered into a starport bar, and me, just ad-libbing, decided a the crew of a rival ship (one that had stolen some cargo from them at a previous port) would arrive. I thought I'd shake things up and see what happened.

We roleplayed, and that turned into a fist fight, which exploded a full-fledged bar fight.

Which was all well and good until I decided to heat up things even more where these mercs were hired to chase the PC crew because of the very stolen cargo I mentioned.

These mercs, in longcoats, pulled shotguns and started shooting the place up. One of the PCs jumped behind the bar, and the player looked at me and said, "This is a bar, right? What bar doesn't have a shotgun under the bar?"

What the hell. I allowed a higher D6 throw to resolve it. 50% chance on the player's idea. The player won. Yes! There was a shotgun under the bar.

But, I had previously drawn the bar, and it was quite large. I had the player tell me exactly where his character was on the graph paper. Then, I divided the bar into six sections. The PC was in spot #3. I'd roll 1D6, and the result would indicate the specific section where the PC could see the shotgun. He may have to crawl out of his cover to get to it.

I rolled the die, and the result was.....3.

The entire table blew up! All the players, "YEAH!"

It was quite cool.

The PC unhooked the shotgun, stood up, and started blasting away at the bad guys--the only PC at that point with a gun.

He saved their butts.

Quite a memorable game, and what made it so memorable was not particularly the situation but the result of the die throws. The dice, against odds, resulted in what they needed.

So, dice throws can be pretty exciting in a game.
 
Well that sounds fun and well gamed but you still improvised on the spot and didn't consult umpteen different tables to come up with that task possibility. Thats all I was trying to point out that most gaming sessions end up being improvisations.
 
I completely agree with S4 on this, dice can make a difference (although why he didn't just get his player to roll 2d for an 11+ chance of success is a mystery ;))....

I use the NPC reaction outcome table in CT LBB3 for a load of situations, not just personal interaction - it has become almost a luck table. Sometimes the players have skills or have role-played well and deserve a bonus on the outcome, sometimes they are at a penalty and most often it is just an unmodified roll.
 
Well that sounds fun and well gamed but you still improvised on the spot and didn't consult umpteen different tables to come up with that task possibility. Thats all I was trying to point out that most gaming sessions end up being improvisations.

Yes, the type of dice rolling can be a drag. Looking at tables is no fun. I remember AD&D before THACO got popular, and every attack throw needed to be cross referenced on a table. Tedious.

Since then, I've discovered original Top Secret (not the excellent Top Secret/SI, which is the widely different reincarnation of that original game) is nothing but tables. It's got some neat ideas, like hand to hand combat, but you've got to look up the result of every throw on a table. I don't see that as being fun at all.





I completely agree with S4 on this, dice can make a difference (although why he didn't just get his player to roll 2d for an 11+ chance of success is a mystery ;))....

Heck, man, I use all kinds of throws in my CT game. I use the higher-dice thing a lot to quickly decide things. Player will come up with an idea. It sounds plausible. If I've got no reason to say one way or the other about it, I just let the dice decide. Higher dice.

I use 2D and 3D for STAT or lower a lot, too, especially for physical tasks, like forcing open a stuck hatch (2D for STR or less...3D for STR or less if it is really stuck).

I try to use different throws rather than 2D for a target number all the time. (Although, another one I use a lot is the one suggested by Marc in the TA: I roll a quick 2D for difficulty, and the player must roll 2D for that number or higher to succeed. Sometimes I'll throw in modifier.)





I use the NPC reaction outcome table in CT LBB3 for a load of situations, not just personal interaction - it has become almost a luck table.

I use it but probably not as much as you do. I use it things that have to do with the NPC. By the same token, I'll use a world's TL or LL for different throws, too.
 
Hello fellow Travellers,
T5 has been on my mind of late.

A friend(who is a long time Traveller fan and therefore worthy of such statements)recently declared: "T5 is dead in the water."

Essentially he tried to get a character generated and without updating the tables(as per the continually updated Errata) it's essentially not 100% possible. Agreed?

There is a wealth of great new material in T5 but so far, dedicated Travellers and I'll have to admit, even myself at times are finding the task of going through this tomb and correcting errors we honestly shouldn't have to a real turn off.

I've tried to promote T5 and will continue to try as it's the future of Traveller. However without even an update(that I'm aware of, please do correct me if I'm mistaken), with a complete correction and ready to go out of the box format, is it in fact 'dead in the water'?

I'll be honest and declare that upon looking through Mongoose Traveller, it is much better in terms of layout and in providing a complete ready to go, no nonsense game(having said that I also find Mongoose Traveller to simply be CT with polishing and a varied combat system upon initial examinations).

In short, I must agree with my fellow Travellers that T5 should have been better than Mongoose Traveller and been the least bug free of all Traveller rules to date. Instead what we actually received is in fact 'the un-tested, un-corrected' draft. That's the only way I can justify T5 and accept it myself.

Myself, what I'd love to see for the Traveller universe is a set of rules that the majority of Travellers go 'OH YEAH' on and not want to dive back into previous editions due to alienation or unfamiliarity of which they no longer have time to familiarise themselves, being that these days everyone is MEGA BUSY in there day to day lives. Perhaps 600 pages in one hit was just a touch too ambitious.

Perhaps it should have come in smaller installments that were well tested, well edited and superbly laid out. It makes me think of something like Asimovs Foundation trilogy versus L.Ron Hubbards Battlefield Earth.

The Foundation Trilogy was much shorter but featured a terrific quality story. Battlefield Earth on the other hand was pulp Sci-Fi with lot's of material but lacking in quality.

Any how any suggestions fellow Travellers? I'd like to see this become the ultimate edition but it's going to need something special to convince even many hard core fans it's worth a 2nd chance.

To answer the original post; just reading the first few dozen of pages on CD, my sense is that this was meant to be the final "tome" or "codex" for Traveller for all time, beginning with what role playing is, the history of the known Traveller Galaxy, and then graduating into rules.

I think it's a book designed and written for long time players who wanted a final yet fresh "bible" on the game. If you look at it like that, and understand that it has had 30 years of evolution, then I think it becomes clear on what T5 is supposed to be for the Classic 8+ on 2d6 Traveller fan from days of yore.

That's my gut impression.

I think that, combined with some fresh and definitive and clearly defined "this is what this means" kind of rules layout was meant to be a book that old guards could reference for new games.

My personal opinion, which doesn't mean a whole lot, is that I think T5 could benefit from the old fashioned setup of a Player's Handbook and a Referee's reference apart from (or in addition to) T5's current iteration. I think that would go far to give new players an inexpensive and introductory version of what they need to play, and to understand basic things like personal combat, starship combat, performing tasks like operating sensors or driving vehicles.

The Referee's book would contain all the background material and other miscellany (what's the difference between a ... pre-gen animal and one you make up on the fly ... what defines "a ton" in starship parlance ... that kind of thing) that Referee's need to look at when situations arise that fall outside of the usual combat rules. How do sub-zero temps effect tasks, vehicles and armor? What happens when players get their ship too close to an event horizon? What if they try to land on a Venus like world where lead is in molten form? What about a Uranus like world where ice-crystal blizzards move at multiple mach speeds, and at as shards for damage and combat purposes?

I played CT and MT a great deal. I did not play TNE. I bought T4 and tried to get some people to play it. I dabbled in GURPS Traveller. I've gone over the Mongoose rules (which strike me as being updated CT, which is welcome). I think my opinion holds some weight from a fan point of view when I say that there's a lot of loose ends cleaned up with T5; i.e. what a starship TON actually is in terms of volume and mass (that was much needed). How to make an animal, robot, or some "thing" for players to use. Before the only other game I knew of that allowed players and Refs/GMs/DMs to do that was the Champions (HERO) system. This is a plus for Traveller.

But, again, I think breaking up this massive bible to make it more accessible and digestible would be something to help spark new energy and life into the game.

If you can look at it from that standpoint, then I think you should be excited about T5.

I have no complaints about it. I think there are some loose ends as with all complex war-sims and RPGs with simulation elements, but I wouldn't let that stand in my way of purchasing a copy.

Me? I happen to be working low wage jobs over the last several years because of my "loving family", ergo I bought the CD. But, if I had the cash? .... If I had an active group, in addition to being a prospective author, for whom I was running or attempting to run a game with the latest version of Traveller, then most definitely yes, I would buy the book. But I think I might stipulate that a players book would be most welcome for newer players ... one with lots of cool art in it :)

I hope this helps.
 
Why I will never "love" T5 (there are bits of it I like and use)

1 - displacement ton defined as 13.5m^3
2 - the task system
 
Well, I think that was always the intent for a starship ton as far back as CT, but it got overlooked in terms of an explicit designation.

Ditto with the task system, but again it was left out, or rather the "8+" rule was never explicitly pointed at as not being just the "to hit" roll for firing, but also the universal task roll number. Ergo the "task system" was already there, but some people, like, me, didn't know it.
 
Why I will never "love" T5 (there are bits of it I like and use)

1 - displacement ton defined as 13.5m^3

It does include a definition for the Regency Ton as 14m^3 so you could just ignore the deck squares and minor items that map to the T5 ton and use just liters and Regency Tons. I don't think it would break anything major if you want a TU that way.
 
The thing I find difficult about this book and version of Traveller, is that it doesn't loop you in. There's no hook to suck you into the Traveller scheme of things. What it's meant to be, how you can use it, and how to get started right out of the box kind of thing.

To the original poster; if you want to RUN a T5 game, and your players already have characters rolled up or waiting for them, AND you're an old hand at Traveller, then this book should serve well.

If you want to get new players hooked, I would recommend waiting for a "Starter Version", or just keeping all of the tasks to yourself and whoever else is qualified to run a travvler adventure.

My two bits.
 
My personal opinion, which doesn't mean a whole lot, is that I think T5 could benefit from the old fashioned setup of a Player's Handbook and a Referee's reference apart from (or in addition to) T5's current iteration.

The beauty of this is that it would fulfill one of the Kickstarter promises:

The Player's Book

By popular demand, we have committed to producing the Traveller5 Player's Book: a handy digest-size rules reference tailored for use by Players but without the (primarily) Referee’s rules. We expect to produce a printed version in Spring 2013, but every Backer who orders a Book will receive a link to an Ebook version when it is complete.

I think the last public update about that was published on the KS site in September of last year.
 
I think the last public update about that was published on the KS site in September of last year.

I believe this was put on hold until after the errata is done. That way the Players' Book would incorporate all the corrections and updates.

Meanwhile, the errata itself is on hold until after the Personal Combat chapter has been re-beta'd.
 
I believe this was put on hold until after the errata is done. That way the Players' Book would incorporate all the corrections and updates.

Meanwhile, the errata itself is on hold until after the Personal Combat chapter has been re-beta'd.

I was almost expecting another line that read "Meanwhile, the Personal Combat chapter is on hold until "Liftoff" is released." ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top