Smoke and Mirrors?

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arjen:
I was thinking about T20, but the myriad of game systems has gotten me dazed and confused. So I am kinda interested in what is, in your opinion, better in T5 (and the other 'real' Travellers ) than Gurps, and especially T20?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In all honesty, at this point I'd suggest T20 as the way for you to go. T^5 won't be out for years (and that's optimistic!), CT/MT IMO require a great deal of tinkering that a newbie wouldn't be able to do, TNE is long out-of-print (and wasn't that great to begin with), T4 is terrible (and also oop), and you already know about GURPS.

I'm not on the T20 playtest and thus know nothing (or at least very very little) of the specifics of how T20 will work, so my objections to it (and d20 in general) are purely philosophical:

1. <LI>Class/Level, Experience Points, Armor Class: These (plus Alignment and Hit Points, for those keeping track) were the very things that drove me away from D&D -- and straight towards MegaTraveller -- back in the 80s, and they're all still there. While I can understand their appeal some games/gamers, I still prefer systems (specifically Traveller and Chaosium's BRP) that don't have them. YMMV, but after ~15 years this is something I'm pretty set regarding.
   <LI>Single Platform: the notion of a single rules platform which all (or, at any rate, most) games would employ is troubling enough to me. That the platform being employed is one I don't particularly like anyway makes it doubly so. The notion that the OGL allows setting-designers to publish their material without having to devise a whole new rules engine to go along with it is nice, but when that leads to games with established (and IMO better) rules engines of their own like Traveller and Call of Cthulhu feeling the need to 'go d20' in order to keep market share, that sits very uneasily with me.

But that's just me. As I said, at this point T20 looks like the best game in town. I have great confidence that Martin, Hunter, et al (under Marc Miller's watchful eye) will be crafting great setting material, and all of the playtesters (or at least all of the publicly vocal ones) insist that the T20 rules come very close to approximating the elusive 'Traveller feel,' which is what's most important (and, IMO again, has never really been there in GURPS Trav).

So buy it, and play it. And if, after awhile, you grow dissatisfied with d20's mechanics (and haven't been brainwashed by WotC into thinking the human mind can only possibly comprehend one set of rpg rules per lifetime), buy the CT reprints or track down a used copy of MT and see the other (IMO superior) philosophy of game design in action. And then you can join the rest of us in clamoring for another edition of 'real' Traveller

 

[William]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arjen:
T.Foster>I don't like GURPS or d20 and would gladly welcome a new edition of 'real' Traveller

I am a relative newcomer to Traveller- been a player for a while, a couple of years ago, but I have finally decided that I really want to start a Traveller campaign myself.
The system I was planning to use was Gurps but I am growing less and less enthousiastic about it- so the campaign will probably have to be in another version.

I was thinking about T20, but the myriad of game systems has gotten me dazed and confused. So I am kinda interested in what is, in your opinion, better in T5 (and the other 'real' Travellers ) than Gurps, and especially T20?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


There are an awe inspiring number of options aren't there?

While T20 is probably your best bet (it's going to be in print and supported) over the long term you'll discover that there isn't a single Traveller GM alive that only uses one set of rules. My current binder started as a copy of The Traveller Book (a CT product that put the first 4 books into a single trade sized book) but has had rules from _every_ other version of Traveller cut into it. My preference was for Megatraveller, so most of it comes from that version. But all the others are there to a greater or lesser extent. Try to check out as many of the versions as you can when you get a chance - there's good bits in all of them. Even TNE and T4... ;'>

William

 

[TJP]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arjen:
The system I was planning to use was Gurps but I am growing less and less enthousiastic about it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of curiosity, what's putting you off in GURPS? Please, don't get me wrong, I'm not advertising GURPS, but I do think it's miles ahead of d20. I agree with T. Foster about both of his objections to d20. Granted, GURPS has it's problems too, but no big, fundamental ones like character classes and levels. IMHO, YMMV, etc. of course.

I'd recommend MegaTraveller, but for a newbie it might not be the best option as it requires some tinkering (and of course it's OOP and hard to find, plus horribly edited). The task resolution system in it is *excellent* and very easy to learn; combat resolution not so.

OK, this is starting to become a rant, so I'll shut up.

 

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TJP:
Out of curiosity, what's putting you off in GURPS? Please, don't get me wrong, I'm not advertising GURPS, but I do think it's miles ahead of d20. I agree with T. Foster about both of his objections to d20. Granted, GURPS has it's problems too, but no big, fundamental ones like character classes and levels. IMHO, YMMV, etc. of course.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This question wasn't specifically addressed to me, but I'll answer it anyway: I hate hate hate the GURPS point-juggling char-gen system. I could rant for at least a couple of paragraphs about why, but it wouldn't be anything we haven't all read before so I'll skip it.

Also, in a more general sense, I don't like the way that, when the choice comes between bending the rules to fit the setting or bending the setting to fit the rules, GURPS (IMO) always seems to choose the latter. No matter what genre or setting or worldbook you're using, when it comes down to nuts and bolts GURPS is still GURPS is always GURPS. That's fine, even ideal, for some, but not for me.

I'm also not crazy about the SJG 'house writing style' or the illustrations (Jesse DeGraff's excellent renderings aside) and layout style of their products, and think their books are overpriced (though not nearly so much as T4 was, so that's a minor complaint).

 

[RobertFisher]

I like D20. If I do buy the T20 book, though, it'll be to rip ideas for other D20 games. I like the Imperium, but not so much that I want to use it in a D20 game.

I like GURPS, though I may never play it again. I definately don't like the fact that there are only four attributes which overshadow the skills.

(Truth be told, I'm not 100% exactly what I don't like about GURPS. I don't think the answer I gave when I stopped playing GURPS necessarily held water. I've reread the rules a lot recently trying to figure it out, but I'm not convinced my answer today is any better.)

In any case, to me, GURPS Traveller is really GURPS Imperium, and that holds no draw for me.

To me, Traveller is a great set of setting-agnostic RPG mechanics. There is much I like about CT & MT, and it is something I still want to play.

If T5 even comes close to being what MT should have been, I'll buy it, play it, and love it.

If T5, as I fear, looks more like T4 than CT/MT, then I don't know. I certainly don't begrudge Mark the previledge to do whatever he thinks is right, though. And I'll certainly consider it with an open mind because of my respect for his past work.

 

[TWILIGHT]

I think I'm the only person who bought ( and love) all the MT stuff. The civil war era and the collapse are by far the most interesting era traveller has had...that aside I will buy T20 (I also have loads of GT stuff for reference)and I will be buying T5 but Marc will have to change the atmosphere somewhat in order for it to be a winner...all the traveller players are older now. I think maybe a darker, more gothic view of the Imperium (kind of CT for day to day feel, 2300AD for military campaigns, the imperial family from Dune for moot based adventures, and transhuman space like artwork). Roll all these aspects into one product and we might have a winner (also change the format...the ringbinder idea worked wonders for Aeon/trinity)
Just my opinion.

 

[laning]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RobertFisher:
To me, Traveller is a great set of setting-agnostic RPG mechanics. There is much I like about CT & MT, and it is something I still want to play.

If T5 even comes close to being what MT should have been, I'll buy it, play it, and love it.

If T5, as I fear, looks more like T4 than CT/MT, then I don't know. I certainly don't begrudge Mark the previledge to do whatever he thinks is right, though. And I'll certainly consider it with an open mind because of my respect for his past work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree very strongly with most of what RobertFisher said about Traveller. The elegant rules design of CT is admirable. The chief advantage of all the later versions was more content. What I most want from T5 isn't a new rules design (just the opposite!) but a well-organized consolidation of all the previous content, under the umbrella of a CT/MT rule system.

I will buy T5 because of my respect for Marc Miller's past work. Heck, I bought a lot of T4 for that same reason, hoping against hope that Marc's hand and mind would reappear in each new volume. (Only to be screwed by IG's shoddy products.)

If T5 ends up reworking all the previous material under one umbrella, I will be very happy.

Example. Character generation that is consistent across all the professions, both a fast version a la the original three LBBs and a detailed version a la Books 4 and 5. Include even the professions published in JTAS and Challenge. With play balance between the professions so that you don't have everyone wanting to be a former spy because of the skills. Char gen in T4 was a not-bad attempt at this. If it was done with the same thoughtfulness and professionalism as the MT char gen, then we'd have a good T5 char gen.

I dislike many of the organization proposals I've seen for T5. Too many different parts, and a lot of the groupings won't make sense to the players sitting at a table trying to find what they need.

Having thought about this a fair bit, here's where I am on it now.

There should be one player volume that includes all the rules and tables players and referee need during normal play to determine their dice rolls. A Ready Reference/Player's Manual, that includes character combat, ship combat, trade rules, encounter rules for wilderness, populated areas, and space travel.

There should be another volume for char gen.

There should be a Campaign Design book for referees to put together their own Traveller Universes in a an a la carte fashion that picks and chooses as much or as little as they want of the official maps, the Imperium, etc.

There should be a Player's Guide To The Universe for each milieu, a binder, with separate binder pages. This will be mostly an Imperial Encyclopedia of public knowledge.

A Referee's Guide To The Universe will contain the same material, plus referee-only information. Both of these books should be binders to allow players to keep all additional material organized alphabetically as it is published. Coincidentally, that will save a little publishing money.

Much of the Player's Guide and Referee's Guide will be the same regardless of milieu, and separate packages can be published of milieu-specific pages to insert. You can also buy the Guides with all pages-to-date for a specific milieu.

Purchasing lists, equipment design, ship design, etc. should be sold as pages for the Guides. All with full detailed descriptions, many illustrations, availability information, and law level information. A series of heavy-stock quick reference lists can also be published. A standard purchase list that is one 8.5x11 front and back with hundreds of items. One such list per type of thing.

Organizing the published body in a way useful for players will be critical to its initial success in the marketplace. I think that had quite a bit to do with CT's original success. Letting players keep the published body organized usefully as it grows will be just as important. If you're afraid that loose-leaf pages make it too easy for gamers (particularly young ones) to photocopy the pages, then use a stock that is too heavy to photocopier autofeeders. And print a large copyright warning on each page. But people will mostly be honest.

For 25 years of roleplaying games, there has been a traditional tendency to intertwine milieu information with new adventures as they are published. Throughout the industry, not just Traveller products. I'd really like to see writers move away from that. It makes it too hard for players to get at the information they want during game play. Avid fans will buy the books to get all the information, and that may seem good for sales in the short run. But having all the information diffused through many places in many books is bad for the medium-term health of the game because it just makes it too awkward for referees to get their game going and keep it consistent with itself. (At least if their game relies on a published milieu.) In time, players lose interest in Traveller as it becomes too complex to know how to play it, so don't let that happen. Publish a milieu book. Publish star maps, accompanied by binders that contain pages specific to each system. Each description page will have very clearly separate sections for that system during each milieu, making it possible to read the history of the system by reading all the those sections but also showing the government, population, tech level, geography, etc. separately for each milieu. That makes for multiple pages for each system and it will take many years to write and publish all the systems that are mapped, but I call that job security. And fun for all involved. :->

Well, I sure got carried away with my example! That's me for you. I'll stop that, and close by repeating that I hope T5 is a return to the elegant, thoughtful, professionalism of most of CT and early MT, but incorporates all the additional data and content that has sprouted in the dozens and dozens of published books over the last quarter century.

--Laning

------------------

 

[Blue Djinn]

RE: Competing with other Traveller Products

I'm another system-agnostic type

If T5 turns out to be a well written system, I think it'll do well, regardless of any other Traveller products.

However, as a thought :
I'm of the theory its not just the rulebooks, its the number of add-ons you can sell after the initial purchase.

I know I'm not alone in that I often buy systems out of curiousity, but even if the game system is good, if the supplements are poor, I wouldnt buy them.

With the exception of any T5 rulebook, it seems to me, the best bet would be to produce (mostly) system free supplements with the stats for the various systems as an (small) appendix at the back.

That way, the supplements will appeal to all the traveller players, no matter what games system they use - and provided the appendixes are small, they wont feel like they're paying money for alot of stats they wont use.

As a fantasy example, I have very few TSR supplements, but have a horde of stuff from Harnworld

Seeing Traveller has the most consistantly good SF background of any RPG I've seen, I dont see why it wouldnt work..*especially* given the of companies that support the various systems.

That also means that all the various companies would be co-operating in promoting & growing Traveller as a market rather than competing for a share of a fixed size market

All of which sounds like a win/win scenario to me ; At least part of the success of D&D3e is because of the openGL, which means TSR have other people promoting their product and TSR dont have to pay a penny.

And to my mind, the more people playing traveller, the better for all concerned...regardless of game system.

What do the rest of you think ?

 

[hunter]

All I can say is watch the TravellerRPG.com website, and check out the PDF and print materials we (QuikLink) release. We are going to be doing our best to provide material that you can use no matter what set of rules you prefer.

Obviously when stats are required for things we will default to T20, but we are not opposed to providing stats for other versions (as we did in Traveller's Aide #1). Believe it or not the T20 stats are for the most part compatible with all versions of Traveller except GT when it comes to worlds and ships. Our vehicles can also easily be used with any rules system. We did this for a reason

Hunter

 

[Murph]

I must agree as well on T4 and T20 et al. I dislike immensely xp based systems such of the D&D ilk. CT and Cyberpunk suit me well. However, you must give the guys who are actually out there designing/writing games credit for attempting to make a good product. While T20 is not my cup of tea, I think that people coming in to Traveller should be encouraged to at least give it a good look to see if it fits thier style. And if something else does, then fine, but we all need to avoid system snobbery when we can.

 

[Takei]

I recently picked up a copy of Decipher's new Star Trek RPG. Having read the LotR Fast Play rules, they struck me as being kinda CT like (2-12 Attributes, skill use of 2d6+skill+Att mod, no levels), so I was interested in seeing how the CODA system handled SF. A nice system. And on the credits page under 'Special Thanks To'........ Marc Miller. Obviously well off track, but something to throw into the great T5 debate

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by mshensley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hunter:
Why are you assuming that Marc would release T5 in competition with GT, T20, and his own reprints?

How can it not be in competition with the other versions? With GT, T20, and T5 being sold at the same time, the market for Traveller will be very fragmented. Only the grognards will be buying T5. New gamers or those new to Traveller will buy GT or T20 because those games are built on proven rules systems.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't buy a copy of T5 (although I didn't buy T4) if it was really good. But then again, I am have played Traveller on and off again since the beginning. But more than likely I will stick to GT or T20 because I can get much more use out of their systems in other genres.

The only way that T5 wouldn't be competing against GT and T20 is if it isnt published until after those games are no longer available. Hmmm, maybe that's why its taking so long...

[This message has been edited by mshensley (edited 06 April 2002).]</font>[/QUOTE]I suspect highly (based upon no evidence other thn MWM's statements in open fora) that He'll discontinue the GT and T20 lines a few months before T5 comes out. And not loudly; just a quiet "No renewal, you may sell off current inventory" approach.

The reprints will probably stay around, as the form factor is not comfy for many, and they are aimed at a low-volume collector market, with some spill-over into the new gamer market, and for other of us, for "Use Copies" of things we won't use due to irreplaceability. That, and it's the oldest RPG ruleset still on the market (All other contemporaries have changed noticably; even T&T) is just a nifty feather. Also, losses to CT do NOT take money away from MWM.

T20 Might survive T5, if MWM feels it has enough appeal and "Feeder Factor" to T5.
Ditto GT.

Additionally, for many, it is not the ruleset that matters, but the setting/universe. While I'll play TNE Rules (not often nor long), I'll never play in the new era again; it is about as un-traveller as it can get IMHO. But T5 will find it's way to my shelf, and those of several gamers I know, simply for the universe, and continue with their favorite ruleset; others will pull their favorite milliux, and "T5" it. Including one who has a nearly fleshed out post hard times millieux which lacks virus.

And don't forget: T4 sold well; IG simply failed to be a viable buisiness for other reasons. And it's still moving well in used book stores, too.

 

[al duc]

I suspect highly (based upon no evidence other thn MWM's statements in open fora) that He'll discontinue the GT and T20 lines a few months before T5 comes out. And not loudly; just a quiet "No renewal, you may sell off current inventory" approach.

From a business standpoint, that would be suicide. Far from increasing the number of sales for T5, I suspect it would anger people (including a good portion of the Traveller fanbase) who follow the GT and T20 lines and make them stay clear of T5.

Furthermore, GT already creates royalties for MM. If it suceeds in establishing itself, T20 will do the same. Cutting off sources of income for a new RPG that could very well sell badly strikes me as a really bad move. Let's not forget: publishing a RPG is not a quick way to become a millionnaire. Far from it.

AD

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by al duc:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I suspect highly (based upon no evidence other thn MWM's statements in open fora) that He'll discontinue the GT and T20 lines a few months before T5 comes out. And not loudly; just a quiet "No renewal, you may sell off current inventory" approach.

From a business standpoint, that would be suicide. Far from increasing the number of sales for T5, I suspect it would anger people (including a good portion of the Traveller fanbase) who follow the GT and T20 lines and make them stay clear of T5.
[...]
AD</font>[/QUOTE]I agree that it would be a bad move to unplug the licenses. In fact, considering that the T20 license started right now with plans to publish several supplements, it appears that MWM strategy is to keep the licenses for a while.

Perhaps he might consider to require double stats (GURPS/d20 and T5) in upcoming products. At least, as a fan of the traditional Traveller system, I would like it. It would provide T5 with a lot of publish support even before its publication, although it may be argued that would restrict T5 line opportunities.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Murph:
I must agree as well on T4 and T20 et al. I dislike immensely xp based systems such of the D&D ilk. CT and Cyberpunk suit me well. However, you must give the guys who are actually out there designing/writing games credit for attempting to make a good product. While T20 is not my cup of tea, I think that people coming in to Traveller should be encouraged to at least give it a good look to see if it fits thier style. And if something else does, then fine, but we all need to avoid system snobbery when we can.

T20 will never be my "Primary Traveller", but it will have a place in my collection, both for the MT-compatable stuff I can use, and for use when all I can find are d20 gamers.

It is a good product, at least in terms of it's been well playtested, it is well edited, and it has a decent look (very similar o TNE as far as page layout design).

 

[danejohnson]

Originally posted by aramis:
That, and it's the oldest RPG ruleset still on the market (All other contemporaries have changed noticably; even T&T) is just a nifty feather.

This is a bit of a tangent to your main point, but I wanted to bring it up anyway.

I'm perfectly willing to be corrected, but the only substantive change to Call of Cthulhu I'm aware of is a change from "1d6" to "1d10" skill points for increasing a skill.

Granted, the graphic design has changed drastically and there are a lot more spells, skills, essays, and background documents included in modern versions of the rules, but at least to me it seems like those changes have mostly been additive as opposed to substantive.

The rules themselves are the same, but the background content has been expanded.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by al duc:
[QB]

From a business standpoint, that would be suicide. Far from increasing the number of sales for T5, I suspect it would anger people (including a good portion of the Traveller fanbase) who follow the GT and T20 lines and make them stay clear of T5.

Very astute al duc (IMO), my thoughts exactly, one of us must have some latent psi talent. I'm really looking forward to T20, and the increased fan base. The only players I know right now are all D&D d20, except one fossil like myself who goes way back to the LBB era, and I am convinced if I have any shot at playing/gming Traveller again T20 will be the hook, if not the sole means. I'd be looking to buy T5 for a return (I'm hoping) to the great Classic Traveller feel of the LBB era (my favorite in many ways), and pulling the converts along. But if MWM did this, count me as one who would chuck the whole game. It would be the last straw after MegaErrata and T4ibble (though I bought and liked aspects of both, it was too much work to actually play or run either, and that was with seasoned Travellers).

Let's hope we aren't just a couple voices crying in the wilderness.

 

[MJD]

I don't believe Marc would pull the plug on the licenses. I just don't believe he'd *do* that to someone. Even us (grin).

T5 will eventually appear, and it'll be good. Since it's Traveller, it'll be usable with the T20 and GT products, plus everything else. T5 will be A Good Thing. But it won't appear at the expense of other versions. Of that I am quite sure....

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by danejohnson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aramis:
That, and it's the oldest RPG ruleset still on the market (All other contemporaries have changed noticably; even T&T) is just a nifty feather.

This is a bit of a tangent to your main point, but I wanted to bring it up anyway.

I'm perfectly willing to be corrected, but the only substantive change to Call of Cthulhu I'm aware of is a change from "1d6" to "1d10" skill points for increasing a skill.

Granted, the graphic design has changed drastically and there are a lot more spells, skills, essays, and background documents included in modern versions of the rules, but at least to me it seems like those changes have mostly been additive as opposed to substantive.

The rules themselves are the same, but the background content has been expanded.</font>[/QUOTE]You claim no substantive change, but the primary "Substance" of a CoC ruleset IS that fill text which has changed. CT's reprints ARE THE IDENTICAL products of 20+ years ago, no incremental build of fill text, no subtle rules changes.

Hence, CoC is fundamentally much different due to the constant supplementation which has been rolled into the in-print materials.

the CT reprints are not; they are literally the same text.

 

[Takei]

In Dane's defence, we're now onto v5.5(?) of CoC (not counting the d20 version!) and in that time it's rules have not changed appreciably.
Whilst the CT reprints are exactly the same as the originals, the route to them (CT-MT-TNE-T4-GT-Reprints) has seen the basic rules system change dramatically.