Something New - PDFs written to a specific version.

[Supplement Four]

Here's a thought I just had when reading the Solo Traveller poll. Some publications for Traveller are multi-system, yes? Some of the T20 supplements, like TA#1 Personal Weapons of Known Space, is written with both T20 and CT rules. Avenger does this (or used to do this) on some of its publications, too.

What if, when a supplement was written, it was published in two different versions (or more, if the licenses are held).

Let's look at the TA#1 Personal Weapons of Known Space supplement as an example. Instead of having one pdf, write two pdf's. One would be for the T20 audience and one would be for the CT audience.

It doesn't seem like it'd be that much more work--especially if you plan a multi-system product to begin with. I'd imagine this would only be done with electronic pdf publications too.

The publisher would write the supplement normally, and then take the same information tied to two different rule sets (just like a multi-system product). Those interested in purchasing the product could download either the Classic Traveller version or the T20 version (or whatever).

What do you guys think of that? I'm a little skeptical of multi-system versions when I see them offered, so I voted "yes" in the poll. It also seems like there'd be more room in the supplement (since it only contains rules for one system) to add additional pages of product (instead of the same rules provided for different systems).

Good idea or bad?

 

[Perseus]

Hmmm.. I may not be representative of the population, but there are times when I would like a comparison of the systems side by side. Also, I tend to chop and change a bit from time to time. I don't always play pure CT and sometimes I steal ideas from other versions or games. So while "pure" pdfs are Ok, I actually voted no on the poll, because I like to see the grass on the other side of the fence.

 

[jrmapes]

It doesn't seem like it'd be that much more work--especially if you plan a multi-system product to begin with. I'd imagine this would only be done with electronic pdf publications too.

The publisher would write the supplement normally, and then take the same information tied to two different rule sets (just like a multi-system product). Those interested in purchasing the product could download either the Classic

I like the idea a lot. It is similar to what Goodman Games did with their Dungeon Crawl Classics. They produced the DCCs using the D&D 3.0 rules then went back to various modules and did some outlines of sorts with all the monsters and encounters converted back to 1e AD&D or 2e AD&D or Basic/Expert D&D. Granted they didn't do exactly like you are saying but the thought process is along the same vein.

I agree with you about some things that say they are XY Compatible end up being only partially so - or worse as I've seen in some cases - the conversion is so convoluted that the conversion was a waste of time to mess with.

If you are doing it electronically then it should be a bit easier to do sepperate versions once the initial adventure is wrote up - however - as good as computers are one would still have to go into each version and make sure the proper rules sets got inserted into all the proper places. It would take a bit of extra time - more so if many versions were being done. But then you/someone would still have to go back and edit all the versions to make sure nothing was missed. I'm sure it goes without saying, but basic find-replace just won't work. So I think doing separate versions would tend to be more work than most would want do. Regardless, I still think it is a cool idea.

I guess it comes down to what you deem more difficult,

1) Making the different rules sets mesh into the product without having to write up an abundance of extra notes/text for places where more explanation would be needed based on rules set.

2) All the extra time adding in the various rules and any additional text needed based on the rules then the extra time spent editing since not one document would need editing now, but multiple documents will need editing.

I would think that a project such as this would require (beyond the initial product author/writers/editor) at least one rules editor/copier per one or two products and a supervising editor (could be original editor or author) to make any final edits after the individual rules versions came in.

In other words, I don't see this as a one man show unless there were no target release dates and no promises made. It's definitely a big undertaking.

BTW - I voted for the my favorite rules set option. HOWEVER-- I would like the non rules or multi version too as long as they were guaranteed 100% compatible as has been discussed.

So my vote should really reflect a rock solid "it depends".

Jerry

 

[Agemegos]

I'm a firm believer in the rigorous separation of setting material from rules. Ideally, I'd like background material, adventures &c. that I could run using ForeSight, a game that no-one else plays. No-one is ever going to publish a ForeSight version of Traveller, so for the forseeable future I am going to be buying material that has the maximum possible information about the Traveller Universe and the minimum possible material specific to any game rules.

 

[Ishmael]

I vote no

Writer's have no idea what rules I use and so anything written aimed at specific rulesets will be a waste to me. Background materials and listing real-world stats ( Kgs, meters, joules, etc. ) for any equipment are prefered.

like Agemegos, I feel setting and rules should be totally seperate.

 

[Vargas]

While I like version specific material as a concept, I'm not sure it's viable from a business perspective.

 

[Smiling DM]

I voted no, but only because of the wording on "Yes". I don't mind supplements written for a single game mechanic - I can always transport it to whatever game mechanic I am using. I just don't believe that it has to be written to my "Favorite" game system. That line of thought just fuels the age-old arguments of CT vs T20 vs MT vs MGT vs GT vs . . . . .

So if someone writes a supplement to multiple, one, or no game systems, I don't really care. I think the real point of interest is that people write supplements.

 

[tjoneslo]

Some publications for Traveller are multi-system, yes? Some of the T20 supplements, like TA#1 Personal Weapons of Known Space, is written with both T20 and CT rules. Avenger does this (or used to do this) on some of its publications, too.

What if, when a supplement was written, it was published in two different versions (or more, if the licenses are held).

Good idea or bad?

This is tough question for a binary answer. I voted No because I believe it is possible to write rules-agnostic supplements.

But in many cases it depends upon the nature of the supplement.

Grand Fleet quickly springs to mind. There's nothing in that book that requires a specific set of game rules to work correctly or be useful.

On the other hand, a book like High Guard which contains rules for generating Naval characters and ship building rules. Both of these are specific to a set of game rules, and are complex enough that a single book should be devoted to each game system.

Your example of TA1 is ambiguous. I'm of the opinion that the weapon stats for CT, T20, and many other games are short enough (or table well) that having multiple statistics in one book doesn't bother me.

 

[kafka47]

As I get older...I get more stodgy for my gaming dollar. Therefore, one of the things that I hate about D20 is the proliferation of rules, prestige classes that each D&D product seems to come out with. I am also an ideas man - therefore, I value setting and fluff much more than any rules for I can make up my own to meet the circumstance. So, please, more setting specific locales but not specific rules.

As this applies to Traveller ground everything in the OGL and we will all eventually learn it and love as much as CT. (ducks for cover)

 

[Supplement Four]

As this applies to Traveller ground everything in the OGL and we will all eventually learn it and love as much as CT. (ducks for cover)

(Throws rock. Hits Kafka. Ohhhh, that musta hurt...) :devil:



For me, I want my rpg stuff to be one stop shopping. I want as much work done for the GM as possible. I love old D&D modules because they do a lot of the work for the GM. The WEG Star Wars game was like this too. So is the Bond and Top Secret/SI rpgs. Rules supplements had background and appropriate rules. Adventures had all the NPC stats, detailed enouncters, encounter charts, maps...everything you need at your fingertips to run the adventure.

The less I have to do as a GM the better. If I feel like getting creative and changing the adventure (as I usually do), then I choose to spend the time altering the adventure.

But, I prefer to have the game module provide as much completed work to run the scenario as possible.

In the early days, that's one of the things that kept me playing more D&D than Traveller--the fact that D&D required less effort and prep time to run than was required for a Traveller game.

As I got older, I grew to love Traveller so much that I'd put the time into whatever was needed. And, prepping a Traveller adventure does have its rewards, but it's not for those who are short on time.

 

[chshrkt]

I voted no.

While it would be really nice to have adventures set to a specific rule-set, I like many others in the Traveller fan base own and use an amalgamation of source books, adventure ideas, hardware stats, NPC character outlines, plot hooks, deckplans, and overall crunchy/chromey/fluffy goodness from no less than 5 (CT, MT, TNE, GT, Hero-Trav) of the current (what, 8, 9?) Traveller rule-sets? In addition to stuff pulled in from the Star Wars and Serenity RPGs.

I long ago came to the conclusion that, unfortunately, Traveller would and will never be as big as D&D was when I was in my formative years of Middle and High School. It fractured into multiple (mostly) noncompatible rule-sets many years ago. And continues to do so.

If you want market penetration for your product, especially a long lived product like an RPG, you need to have consistency at a very basic core rules level.

This is very unlike a car or toaster, where the manufacturer (or publisher) can afford to release a new product every year because it has new bells and whistles that last years product did not have, and besides, the Joneses just got a new Family Truckster with genuine Corinthean Leather seating areas and a Hybrid Perpetual-Motion-Flywheel-Drivetrain! Suddenly, your family's minivan doesn't look so up to date anymore, even if it was the "Cadillac of Minivans" in it's heyday.

RPGs do not wear out in the sense that a particular model of car does (well, the books do, but not what's on the inside, which, in RPGs, is where all the stuff that matters is), and consistency of core rules is what allows authors to seamlessly create source books, adventures, Ironmongery catalogues, deckplans/ship-stats, and all the other stuff we love.

The more versions of the game we call Traveller that are created, the more the intellectual property is watered down, the fanbase fractured, and sales for any particular product (more and more are no longer dead tree books these days) is decreased. Smaller publishers like QLI, Comstar, Avenger, Bits, (and probably many others I cannot remember at the moment) can only afford to spend their energy on one rule-set, unless they create completely rules free products.

It's not something that can be fixed, the damage (if you choose to call it that) is already done. Try to get any group of fans to throw away all their previous books from their favorite version and start over with the latest itteration (is it Mong-Trav, Trav-5?) of rules.

Go on, I dare ya. Try it.

Right, aint gonna happen.

I know I'm not gonna do it. I loves me some CT, and I have half a bookshelf cabinet full of source books from 4 other Traveller systems that I cobbled together into my House Rules, which probably looks and feels very similar to what most of you have.

Thank you for your time.

</steps off soap box>