Smoke and Mirrors?

[T. Foster]

Catching up on various controversies:
</font>

1. WotC demanding everyone drop $30 for ~5pp of 'double-secret' rules in order to play ANY 'd20-system' game is offensive and absurd, and I for one won't do it. I've already pre-ordered a copy of T20, but it's for reference only -- I'll never play it or any other d20-system game. If I had any interest whatsoever in D&D (or, for that matter, any of the other Wotc core games) and thus already owned or was intending to purchase the PHB I might feel differently, but I don't -- and never will. I've heard all the pro and con arguments many times and this is where I've come down. Don't bother trying to change my mind.</font>
2. GURPS-Lite (all the rules you really ever need) is FREE. You can download it off SJG's website, and most game stores have a stack of it right by the GURPS section. They may say you need a copy of the GURPS rulebook and Conpendium I, but you don't really. Therefore the GURPs-gouge isn't nearly comparable to the d20-gouge.</font>
3. If T^5 continues to be a rehash of T4 I'm not going to be interested in it (and, judging from the Popularity Contest on the main page, most other people won't be either). Marc Miller needs to set his personal grudges aside, stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and decide to use MegaTraveller as the baseline for further refinement/development of the Traveller game engine. Either that or give up on T^5 entirely, 'cause a rehashed T4.1 plain and simply isn't going to fly.</font>
4. With the number of milieux already available or in development (Classic Imperium, GT timeline, Interstellar Wars, Gateway 1000, The New Era (M:1248), and Third Imperium (MJD's proposed handbook that would cover campaigns anywhere between 0 and 1248)) T^5's appeal will not lie in its milieu setting (especially a milieu as comparatively bland as M:200), but in its rules-engine: the ultimate refined expression of the Real Traveller system. Where QLI's product line is planned to be almost exlusively setting material, T^5's should be almost exclusively rules.</font>
5. T^5 doesn't necessarily have to be self-sufficient. Its release can be subsidized by FFE's licensing revenues from SJG and QLI, and by charging a higher-than-market-standard price for the book. The fans will realize that by paying the extra amount they're helping subsidize a game that doesn't have wide enough appeal/recognition to be financially viable otherwise, and if the quality of production and content are there (as they emphatically are NOT with T4 or the T4.1 draft), they won't mind paying a premium price. (However, if by some chance/miracle Traveller then takes off again in popularity and there becomes a wide demand for the book, the price would be expected to come down accordingly).</font>

Nothing here that I haven't said many times before on these boards, but IMO it all still bears repeating. YMMV.

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

Actually you've said it all.

this may be an example of opening ones mouth and proving onself a fool but what was so bad about t4's Engine?

I found it smoother than CT, and simpler than MT. It got a bunch of players from A to B in what I considered to be traveller style.

I'm honestly curious? was it ship designs? Economics tables? (used pregenerated ships and my parties never really cottoned on to the merchant thing). What was it?

GARF.

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by Garf:
Actually you've said it all.

this may be an example of opening ones mouth and proving onself a fool but what was so bad about t4's Engine?

I found it smoother than CT, and simpler than MT. It got a bunch of players from A to B in what I considered to be traveller style.

I'm honestly curious? was it ship designs? Economics tables? (used pregenerated ships and my parties never really cottoned on to the merchant thing). What was it?

GARF.

For the full bloody story, look at the oldest archives from this forum for a many-pages-long topic called, IIRC, 'Task System.' The short(er) version starts that IMO the T4 task system (scaling numbers of dice, lower=better) feels bolted-on to and inconsistent with the rest of the Traveller system, where almost all other rolls are 2D, higher=better. Aside from that admittedly subjective 'feel' issue, I also have several mechanical complaints about the T4 task system: </font>

1. stats weigh much more heavily than skills (about 2:1) in task determination. This is both inconsistent with CT/MT convention (though it does match TNE) and IMO is also wrong from a metagaming (i.e. attempting to model RL through the game-engine) standpoint. The proposed 'fix' to this problem (the 'It's Harder Than I Thought' rule) strikes me as kludgy, awkward, and overcomplicated.</font>
2. the accursed half-die. Having to separate one die out from the rest and divide its result in half before adding it to the other dice is annoying and game-slowing. If there were specially marketed D3's (i.e. a D6 with 2 1's, 2 2's and 2 3's) I wouldn't mind as much, but then we'd lose what has always been IMO one of the more appealing aspects of Traveller: no funny dice required!</font>
3. I've yet to see an effective and simple system proposed for handling Exceptional Success and Failure in the T4 system -- not the one in the book (all 1's, all 6's), nor the "standard" (T4.1) alternative (3 1's, 3 6's).</font>
4. Because of the way difficulties are formulated, a T4 task MUST be governed by one stat and one skill, as compared to DGP/MT where a task can be defined by any combination of 2 stats and/or skills -- thus the T4 system is significantly less versatile.</font>

Taken in isolation none of these problems are game-breakers and any/all of them could be fixed with some effort/kludges, but IMO why bother when there's an alternative (the DGP/MT system) that already has all of those problems fixed right out of the box, and is mechanically consistent with the rest of the game-engine to boot (since, unlike the bolted-on T4 system, the DGP/MT system is just a natural outgrowth of CT -- a standardization of the ad hoc "roll 8+ to succeed" system of the original rules).

Yeah, I'm almost certainly THE most adamant detractor of the T4 task system on these boards and anyone who's been here for awhile is surely sick of hearing it from me, but I'm only so insistent 'cause I honestly believe I'm right and that the T4 system really and truly is demonstrably inferior to the DGP/MT one. If I could dismiss it as just a metter of taste, I'd have dropped it long ago.

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

I did notice how difficult it was to make high stat characters fail at anything. I had a couple of hi-int hi-ed comp - 5 wannabe hackers who thought they had a free ride on anything electronic.

Maybe I'll have to revisit the MT's Task engine. thought I admit... T4 worked okay for me. no worse than any other traveller product and better than some.

Garf.

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by Garf:
I did notice how difficult it was to make high stat characters fail at anything. I had a couple of hi-int hi-ed comp - 5 wannabe hackers who thought they had a free ride on anything electronic.

Maybe I'll have to revisit the MT's Task engine. thought I admit... T4 worked okay for me. no worse than any other traveller product and better than some.

The T4 system works alright if you don't look too closely at the numbers behind the system. With the fixed difficulty chart (as shown on the BITS Task System sheet) and the IHTIT rule it works better (though at a cost of smoothness/elegance). My objection isn't so much with the system in and of itself, as with the fact that it replaced a demonstrably better system. If I'd never known the DGP/MT system I'd probably be perfectly satisfied with T4. Alas, I'm not so lucky...

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

I have a number of MT books around here somewhere. It's not that I don't like them (though I do confess the shattered imperium and after interest me not. The T20 milleau sounds interesting though. I actaully Like the linkworlds. A good place for all the players to be from. So they have that much in common. a fine play ground for them to wander around in until they get a ship with jump 2 ....or maybe even just get a ship. A variety of law and tech levels safety and chaos. I reallly really like it. Which surpises me. I'm a conservative who keeps coming back to the spinward marches in 1100...heh.)

I think my problem with MT is the subconcious feelings of Loneliness, Frustration and failure even looking at the books evokes. I -never- got to run an MT game let alone campaign. And I was also busy flunking out of engineering...

 

[Gallowglass]

Re T Fosters list:

1) Your are quite entitled to your opinion, and I agree that WotC are being overly optimistic with some of their claims and strategy for d20. But don't mix up your personal choices and dislike with objective facts, please!

WotC demanding everyone drop $30 for ~5pp of 'double-secret' rules in order to play ANY 'd20-system' game is offensive and absurd(my emphasis added)

contains a factual claim that is plain WRONG. Anyone can use the d20 SYSTEM for free. If a publisher wishes to use the d20 Logo (with the implicit marketing advantage and access to WotC Trademarks) then they have to abide by certain rules, including referencing the Players Handbook for Chracter Creation and Experience rules. This does not constitute a demand that people buy the Players Handbook: the SRD is available from WotC own website and there is no clause compelling either other publishers or retailers to only sell d20 core books bundled with Players Handbooks. It may very well be lunacy, and it may be personally offensive to you, but it is not a demand and there are WotC sanctioned alternatives. Please note, this is an objection to what I believe to be an untruth, NOT an attempt to alter your postion that you don't like / intend to play T20 /d20. Neither do I (but not as vehemently as you ) : I'm just fed up up with rumuour, innuendo and dis-information about d20... (Deep breath)

2) Er, wasn't saying it was exactly, was more making the point that SJG protect their IP and Trademarks and try to boost their sales in similar (but not necessarily identical) ways. For example to do Rescue the Fnords(TM) as GURPS(TM) I have no option but to sell it to SJG and then hope it goes out as either Powered by GURPS(TM) or expect everyone to buy it and buy GURPS and buy Compendium 1. With d20 I can do it as an OGL game ("Compatible with the third edition of the worlds most popular paper and pencil RPG") and not pay WotC a penny (and I can include experience and character gen etc etc) or I can not pay WotC a penny, avoid the precluded bits of the SRD and slap the d20 logo on it, thus boosting market share (potentially) at no extra cost to me. Both d20 and GURPS have electronically available downloads of their rules. GURPS lite is technically complete but lacks a lot of the chrome. The d20 SRD is technically incomplete but has all the chrome from the core books. As far as I can see, either both are equally gouging people (in subtly different ways) or neither are, and given that d20 positively encourages people who respect others IP to do their own thing and freely distribute it, I think d20 is a darn good thing overall and doesn't deserve the continued attacks it gets, many of which seem to me to be based on (sometimes wilfull) misunderstanding of the d20 STL and OGL.

3) Lets be honest, I think we'd both like T5 to be a refinement of MT, wouldn't we? Polish up the task system, sort out the baroque labyrinth of personal Combat and smooth out the technical architecture (ideally slotting in a "lite" version compatible with it but more acceptable to the non-gear heads like me...) and I'd be happy. There are some bits of T4 that had merit, but for me the task system was never one of them.

4) Not sure of your point here, but to clarify mine; I'd love to have (a decent) T5. But I do not see it as a viable product (i.e. print published game ) in the current climate. I can see no market that isn't already catered for by other Traveller systems or by other games. If T5 is to find a space it needs to hitch itself to a rising star. The OTU is covered by too many other systems (it's own and two others with commercial backing at present) to "make" a new rules system. In hind sight, if MWM wanted T5 to be a feasible commercial project, then both the SJG and Quick Link licenses should have been different (or possibly even not granted). On the other hand, if MWM is happy with T5 as a niche SF RPG system for the die-hards etc, cool, lets get it on a formal footing as a collabrative effort at the FFE website or elsewhere. But lets stop deluding ourselves that it's a commercially viable system without a major investment from someone.

5) I just don't see it working, sorry but I think it will just get a "so what " reaction from many gamers and whilst core fans might buy it, are there enough who would be drawn away from their favoured existing rules to make it viable? In print I really doubt it. As a PDF, possibly. And as I said previously, I'd rather not see another Traveller rule set be trumpeted as the next big thing and then flounder in the market place when it's parent company slips up.

Traveller's Future as a rule system is probably as an electronically distributed "micro-Brewery /cottage industry game" for the die hard fans: low distribution but also low risk for MWM and will build with time. Traveller's Future as a developing game world has never looked better, with three, soon to be four, periods of teh OTU to be commercially supported to some degree, including pushing the timeline forward. Part of that comes from QLI's T20 project and teh d20 fuelled re-surgence in RPGing in general. So whether one likes or loathes (or is agnostic like me )d20, as a game, it has served and looks set to continue to serve Traveller well.

Now, back at T5 I have this idea for using d12's...

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

After my last D&D session I strongly suspect I will be eating some of my angrier words posted here earlier. My Referee in that game is the one who directed me to this site from his links to the Online D20 resources Here's some of the fallout.

1) Just as I didn't know that T20 wouldn't be coming out 'Complete' I also honestly (and not willfully, though maybe I wasn't listening hard enough to other people's posts

)didn't understand the difference between the Open Gaming License and the Standard Trademark License. Let's see if I have it right now.

OGL - is a open source code. You can accesss all of the code (EVERYTHING) online, it is identical to the PHB as far as my REF knows since he doesn't take his PHB to work but is able to find accurate PHB references on line at the OGL official site. You can even publish a game using this code (including EVERYTHING) but you CANNOT, if you publish such a game, Call it a D20 game or use the d20 Logo.

STL - is a deal between Games publishers. If you are Publishing a game and want to call it a D20 game using the D20 logo, THEN you have to leave out those critical approximately 5 pages. However, since the OGL above allows players access to the those missing pages no player is ever FORCED to buy an extra book even if they buy a Trademarked d20 supplement because THEY can then go to the OGL and get the info they need FREE.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of the above. If I'm not wrong then -gulp- I guess I owe WotC an apology. I may be suspicious of them. I may worry excessively about their being poised to become the only game in town. But at this time and over this issue it's hardly fair to call them Chiselers. I have to NOW agree with earlier posts about d20 being more like Unix code then it is like MacroSuck Windows. That's what one get's when one posts on raw emotion -- a nice taste of one's own size tens.

2) I may, --sigh-- end up reversing myself on planned purchases. My D&D group is stable, we are all 30 somethings in stable careers, playing just often enough to have fun without negatively influencing our professional or home lives. And Dammit! It's a BLAST. (never thought I'd admit THAT about D&D ...ever).

So.. I may end up getting a PHB after all.

Given the fuss I kicked up less than 2 days ago... Boy do I feel SCHTUUUUPIIIID.

So... About WotC, I herebye retract any insulting terms I used previously (Chiselers, Nickel and Dime, Extortion, MicroSoft) and apologise for using them in regards to this issue.

I'm Sorry.

and I guess I may be buying T20 afterall... @set me=FLAKE?:yes

Thank you for your time and concern.

 

[T. Foster]

(responding to Gallowglass):

I admit I haven't been following the matter all that closely and may well be wrong, but I was under the impression that in order to use the d20 logo (and thus be part of the 'd20 system') that, in addition to leaving out the double-secret rule segments, the publisher was required to put a blurb on the cover of each and every book that it 'requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 3rd Edition, available from Wizards of the Coast, Inc.' or some such. I understand that the less-restrictive OGL exists, but was under the impression that OGL games were expressly forbidden from mentioning their d20/D&D compatability -- i.e. it's up to word-of-mouth or curious FLGS-browsers to realize the game is compatible with d20 -- and that this marketing hurdle is considered significant enough by publishers that to date (as of last I knew -- a couple-three months ago) NO product had been published BY ANY COMPANY under the OGL alone (as opposed to the STL). And, furthermore, since, were they to exist, they'd be (at least as I understand it) expressly forbidden from calling themselves 'd20 system' (or even 'd20 system-compatible') games, I was deliberately not counting these theoretical 'OGL games' in prior statement. By 'd20 system' (in quotes like that) I meant/mean games which use the d20 logo and abide by the STL which (per my understanding) DOES 'require' the purchase of the PHB. Sure it's possible to skirt the requirement -- one PHB per group, unauthorized photocopying/downloading, make up your own XP chart, etc. -- but, per the letter of the disclaimer printed on every 'd20 system' product sold, a copy of the D&D3 PHB is required to play the game.

If I've misunderstood/misstated anything, please correct me. I concede that I very well may be wrong, but reject the accusation that I'm willfully wrong

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by Gallowglass:
5) I just don't see it working, sorry but I think it will just get a "so what " reaction from many gamers and whilst core fans might buy it, are there enough who would be drawn away from their favoured existing rules to make it viable? In print I really doubt it. As a PDF, possibly. And as I said previously, I'd rather not see another Traveller rule set be trumpeted as the next big thing and then flounder in the market place when it's parent company slips up.

But what I'm talking about isn't 'another Traveller rule set' (which I'm actually, by this point, pretty much dead-set against), but a revision/expansion/updating/compilation/polishing of the existing Traveller rule set. Per the Popularity Poll on the CotI front page nearly 50% of Traveller fans still prefer CT or MT to any version that has come since. But, were you to ask them, I suspect almost all of them would confess that the game as-published isn't perfect and could use a few small tweaks and revisions here and there. That is what I'd like to see in T^5 -- not a ground-up rebuilding, a reinvention of the wheel, or a brand-new backwards-incompatible game system calling itself Traveller, but a careful updating and revision of the existing system, the Ultimate Evolutionary Expression of the Traveller game engine introduced in 1977. And if we were to get such a thing (which very well may be impossible/PITS, but that's another post), I do think that the Traveller grognards, those folks who periodically yearn for "MegaTraveller without the Rebellion and the errata" or "what MegaTraveller should've been," would line up to buy it, and that there are enough of them (especially when bolstered by d20-ites who missed out the first time around but are now curious to see what 'real Traveller' is like) to justify at least a small 'vanity' print-run.

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by Garf:
OGL - is a open source code. You can accesss all of the code (EVERYTHING) online, it is identical to the PHB as far as my REF knows since he doesn't take his PHB to work but is able to find accurate PHB references on line at the OGL official site. You can even publish a game using this code (including EVERYTHING) but you CANNOT, if you publish such a game, Call it a D20 game or use the d20 Logo.

STL - is a deal between Games publishers. If you are Publishing a game and want to call it a D20 game using the D20 logo, THEN you have to leave out those critical approximately 5 pages. However, since the OGL above allows players access to the those missing pages no player is ever FORCED to buy an extra book even if they buy a Trademarked d20 supplement because THEY can then go to the OGL and get the info they need FREE.

Per my understanding (which, keep in mind, may very well be faulty/incomplete, but not willfully wrong) this still isn't quite right -- the SRD (source reference document?) available at the OGL site does not contain the double-secret rule sections. Although apparently they could be included in an non-STL OGL product, AFAIK no such product yet exists, and so the only current way to legally obtain those crucial double-secret pages is from one of WotC's Core rulebooks.

What's to stop some civic-minded publisher from producing a 5-page OGL pamphlet containing all the double-secret rules and then giving the thing out for free (a la GURPS Lite) I can't exactly say. Perhaps there's some legal reason. Perhaps just no one's thought it worth the trouble (since "everybody already owns the PHB"). But whatever the reason, AFAIK no one's done it yet.

Legal Question: Could a d20-licensed product get away with in the content of the book refering readers to such an aforementioned free pamphlet rather than (or in addition to) the PHB? Could they in the content of the book (as opposed to the mandatory license-dictated cover-blurb) say that "while the STL requires us to say you need the PHB, here's a free alternative for those of you who don't want to buy it"? For something like T20 which AFAIK only refers back to the PHB for those double-secret pages, this seems like a very good idea -- if it's allowed. I still wouldn't play T20 ('cause I don't like the d20 system rules), but philosophically I'd sure be a lot happier with it.

 

[doomhunk]

There was a big debate on this over at Slashdot a while back....
Slashdot: where daemons and dragons collide

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

Sortof like how lawyers aren't allowed to tell Jurors about Jury-nulification?

I actually like d20 and would buy it if I could get some emotional issues I've described here untangled. Probably will in fact. since Impulse Controll and Traveller tend to be mutually exclusive terms with me.

 

[far-trader]

Gosh, where did this thread start...

Originally posted by Vargas:
Simple question: Will there be a T5?

LOL, from such a simple question, 7 pages of (probably less than more to the point for myself) discussion

Therefore let me apologize for myself and on behalf of all those who have unwittingly hijacked a T5 question, in a T5 forum, and somehow twisted it into a rant about the T20 ogl of all things. You have been very patient with us and for that I thank you. I think we (T20 posters) should all quietly leave this forum before they take great offence.

 

[Gallowglass]

Originally posted by T. Foster:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gallowglass:
5) I just don't see it working, sorry but I think it will just get a "so what " reaction from many gamers and whilst core fans might buy it, are there enough who would be drawn away from their favoured existing rules to make it viable? In print I really doubt it. As a PDF, possibly. And as I said previously, I'd rather not see another Traveller rule set be trumpeted as the next big thing and then flounder in the market place when it's parent company slips up.

But what I'm talking about isn't 'another Traveller rule set' (which I'm actually, by this point, pretty much dead-set against), but a revision/expansion/updating/compilation/polishing of the existing Traveller rule set. Per the Popularity Poll on the CotI front page nearly 50% of Traveller fans still prefer CT or MT to any version that has come since. But, were you to ask them, I suspect almost all of them would confess that the game as-published isn't perfect and could use a few small tweaks and revisions here and there. That is what I'd like to see in T^5 -- not a ground-up rebuilding, a reinvention of the wheel, or a brand-new backwards-incompatible game system calling itself Traveller, but a careful updating and revision of the existing system, the Ultimate Evolutionary Expression of the Traveller game engine introduced in 1977. And if we were to get such a thing (which very well may be impossible/PITS, but that's another post), I do think that the Traveller grognards, those folks who periodically yearn for "MegaTraveller without the Rebellion and the errata" or "what MegaTraveller should've been," would line up to buy it, and that there are enough of them (especially when bolstered by d20-ites who missed out the first time around but are now curious to see what 'real Traveller' is like) to justify at least a small 'vanity' print-run.</font>[/QUOTE]And per my response to one of your earlier points (about T5, as this really isn't the place for debating the minutiae of d20), we quite obviously do both want T5 to be broadly the same thing: a refinement and development of CT/MT. And this STILL doesn't sound like a viable produt to me! Why should anyone buy "Son-of-MegaTraveller" when they have CT/MT/T4/GT/T4.1/T20 and (more) importantly fifteen years of homebrew fixes from dozens if not hundreds of campaigns available on the net?

Your assumption appears to be that because the majority of respondents prefer CT/MT from the listed options in the poll, it would be possible to come up with a refined set of MT/CT rules that would be a sufficient improvement over what they have (and other SF rules ot there, including GT and T20) to garner sufficient market share to make the project a viable proposition. My assumption is that, whatever rule set people vote for, the majority of the potential market will see ANY T5 as intersting but sufficiently at odds witth "their" ideal Traveller rules that they won't buy, or if they do it will be out of a brand loyalty quickly exasperated by all the minor differences from "theri" Traveller they will find in it: and this in a project which is very unlikely to contain anything new about the OTU, because there are so many other sources for that already. Vanity publications almost always loose money.

Which of us is right is probably an imponderable: I can't think of any objective facts that would shed a useful light (although I am deeply sceptical of just how useful the poll results are) and to be honest, it is up to MWM whether he is prepared to take the risks, or to approve a license to someone who is. I like the model of electronic / fan subscription supported edition precisely because it avoids some of the pit falls I believe are in the way. My cynicism also suggestes this is a more plausible route forward than a print version of a niche product...

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

Call me a dinosaur, but I would pay money to get my hands on a well made book. (both in terms of content and structural materials.)

Somehow, electronic text isn't real to me. Hardcopy is what I enjoy, with hardcopy out of my printer a poor second.

PS - I too apologise for hi-jacking the T5 thread. Taking any further rants on the subject (though It's getting redundant anyway) elsetopic.

 

[Gallowglass]

Originally posted by Garf:
Call me a dinosaur, but I would pay money to get my hands on a well made book. (both in terms of content and structural materials.)

Somehow, electronic text isn't real to me. Hardcopy is what I enjoy, with hardcopy out of my printer a poor second.

PS - I too apologise for hi-jacking the T5 thread. Taking any further rants on the subject (though It's getting redundant anyway) elsetopic.

Don't get me wrong, a decent bound book in my hand will win my vote (and cash) every time. I love what SJG have done with the Hellboy Limited Edition btw. But hard cold finances say someone has top pony up the money for development and printing T5, and I don't see anyone preparde to lay that sort of money down, especially in the current climate. Which is why a subscription model (basicaly pay before print) has some appeal and combined with some sort of electronic version (allows the technical wizzes to play and everyone gets to see the ssytem before shelling out significant hard currency for a limited edition hardbound hard copy) is I think a winner. Spreads the risk, ensures that the fans it is aimed at have a high degree of confidence in th econtent etc. Sure it won't be competing direct with D&D 3e, but to be honest that's partly my point.

 

[T. Foster]

I'd much rather have a single cohesive well-produced hardbound volume containing all the Traveller rules I like than what I'm currently using: 3 big floppy books (The Books, The Supplements, The Games), the MT boxed set, the MT Referee Companion (which at least fits inside the box), and an ever-growing stack of house-rule printouts (currently ~50pp). And I imagine most CT/MT players would agree.

The probably insurmountable problem is that every single Traveller fan has a slightly different definition of "all the Traveller rules I like" and no single edition would likely ever be able to please more than a small plurality of the fan-base. That's why I go endlessly back and forth on this issue (as a trip through this board's archives will indicate): one the one hand I'd love to see my Personal Ideal House Traveller professionally produced and released as Traveller^5. On the other, I realize that if Traveller^5 ever is released it's NOT going to be my Personal Ideal House Traveller and therefore it's pretty much a guarantee I'll be disappointed by at least a few (MT), and possibly many (TNE/T4/T4.1) aspects of it. And that every Traveller fan in existence feels exactly the same way.

So, is a "perfect" T^5 an impossible dream? Very probably. Does realizing that keep me from dreaming about it anyway? Not for a second.

 

[trader jim]

GARF -how can this be?? once again i agree with you. could it happen again sometime??

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by Gallowglass:
Which is why a subscription model (basicaly pay before print) has some appeal and combined with some sort of electronic version (allows the technical wizzes to play and everyone gets to see the ssytem before shelling out significant hard currency for a limited edition hardbound hard copy) is I think a winner. Spreads the risk, ensures that the fans it is aimed at have a high degree of confidence in th econtent etc. Sure it won't be competing direct with D&D 3e, but to be honest that's partly my point.

This is a very interesting idea which I think I could possibly get behind. The hard lesson of T4 (validated by seeing the T4.1 draft) is that I'll never shell out significant cash for a "new edition" of Traveller sight-unseen. But an electronic subscription setup, where you're able to sample what you'll be paying for up-front (and, at least theoretically, attempt to influence positively -- like a paid-access playtest) might just work.

It might be worth taking a look at how the Glorantha Trading Association (the fan-group whose donations are partially funding Issaries, Inc.'s HeroQuest line) works, and if something similar might be feasible for Traveller. The only problem is that through T4 and the T4.1 draft Marc Miller has lost a lot of my trust -- I'm no longer willing to give him money on faith alone; I'd expect at least a token amount of say/influence on the shape of the game -- as would everyone else -- and we'd all mutually contradict each other -- taking us back to the conundrum of my previous post. Oh well, at least we're off d20 and back to actually discussing T^5...