T5: A Modest Proposal for the Designers

[Scott Martin]

I seem to be spending more of my time lately wiriting code for generation of 3-D stellar distribution, and trying to get a handle on how this mangles a SF universe if you aren't allowed FTL transit to "empty" space.

Anyone got a solid background on graph theory and directed random graphs?

On the plus side this is something I can do while my 2 year old daughter winds herself down in the evening, which is not something I can say for actually *playing* a game. This may perhaps explain why so many folks who used to play Traveller spend more time discussion it (and getting into flame wars) than actually playing...

Scott (too geeky by far) Martin

 

[davidm]

Another thing I think it would be time well spent on in T5 (well, just Traveller in general really) would be a conversion book filled with solid advice on porting ships and the like between all editions.

I know there are a few documents flitting around the net on these topics, but a centralized effort would be very much appreciated.

I'm about to attack the TNE/GT divide myself (which probably means throwing away the TNE univserse's changes to CT).

flykiller wrote:
>> I have to wonder just how many traveller fans spend their time exactly this way. I suspect, quite a few. <<

Well, Traveller's concept, scope and setting is so absorbing, I can spend many an evening ruminating over minituae and fiddling with aspects of it, rather than actually running games.

Ambition, I feel is the strength of Traveller, and also the hardest part to get across to fellow players.

They immediately 'get' Sci-Fantasy like Star Wars - the SW universe is quite small in comparison with a handful of well known planets, and is basically a classic good vs. evil fantasy romp.

Much of Traveller's appeal is only really evident to the GM, or the avid reader.

I started with MT, about the time GDW cancelled it. Saw an advertisment for the MT computer game in a computer mag (Imperial Battledress looked really cool!) and then ran into the boxed set in a games store.

At the time we were playing D&D - and I thought an SF RPG would be pretty cool. When I saw that Traveller was literally trying to construct a universe, I was hooked. The only kicker was, I had no idea what this Rebellion thing was and how to actually run it (Bad MT, bad).

With Traveller, I've found you tend to need players that love detail, have an interest in the military gaming, and/or have that sense of wonder and exploration.

The group I game in balk at the thought of spending hours over a spreadsheet. They have little patience for checking up on the correctness of a ruling or statistic, they just want to inhabit some characters for a few hours a week.

I think TNE did the right thing by focusing on the personal scale and pumping detail into a small number of subsectors, yet still presenting you with a map of former Imperial space, to provide the sense of 'what the hell is out there amongst all those stars?'.

So, I vote for giving T5 a presentation with a micro and a macro setting.

 

[Herodotus]

I think the comment about spending most of your free time having to be spent designing things for
your campaign brings up an interesting point. I had always enjoyed the old CT method. It was
quick, simple and to the point.

I know the gear-heads really want a system in which you can just about count the rivets in your
ship, know how many litters of fuel to put in their tank, be able to tell what the exact distance to
the horizon, know home many millimeters of steal their main gun can penetrate at three thousand
meters, and have rules to tell them how to do this -- and on top of it, make it so the rules for these
all inter conected some home.

I really enjoyed the days when I didn't need a spread sheet to figure out how to build a two
hundred ton freighter. In my campaigns, the space ships, armored vehicles and so on have all
ways been props and settings for my stories. My campaigns were about the characters, not the
ships.

People have mentioned making T5 more accessible to the general gaming community. They have
mentioned what I feel are many good ideas to do so. But I also feel if you want to get the
average modern gammer interested in it, the rules for building ships and vehicles should be as
simple as possible.

Combat with vehicles and ships should also be quick and simple. This is suppose to be a role
playing game. My real problem with TNE (which is what I still run) is that it turned ship combat
into a war game. Knowing what happened to your ship is fun, having to spend half an hour to
complete one turn is not. Also, as a general rule, the more exact you make the combat rules, the
less room there is for role playing ("You can't do that! It's not covered in the rules!").

That is not to say a lot of charts are bad. You can actually simplify play by have good
charts that flow well. The number of dice rolls can be reduced that way. If you have a chart that
says this weapon has this chance to injure a person wearing this armor, it is quicker than doing a
"To-hit/penetration" rule.

Part of the problem might be that everyone is looking for the "unified field theory" of gaming.
That is, the same theory of stabbing someone with a knife must apply to shooting a space ship
with my three million mega-joule laser. (while we are the subject, why do I really need to know
exactly how much energy my ship's laser has?)

I actually would like to see what I refer to as the "lego" school of ship building. That is what the
original rules were like. This size frame, this size power plant, you can put this many guns on it,
etc. Maybe as supplement you could throw in the rules for building from scratch with your trusty
spread sheet.

 

[Malenfant]

I think the point is that Traveller needs to be an RPG first and foremost, and a way to while away the time second. Otherwise, it's not an RPG.

While many people can and do spend hours and hours designing spacecraft or planetary systems or characters or aliens or wildlife or whatever, that's not what the game is really about - otherwise they might as well have left out all the task system and combat and all that other stuff and just presented it as a world/setting/tech-building system.

The so-called "minigames" shouldn't be what's of primary importance because when you're actually playing the game, with GMs and Players, most of that is going to get a glance at best since most of the work you put into building it will be 'under the hood'.

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

I have absolutely nothing against rivet-counting and world generating and all that. Just don't put it in the core rules... put it in the supplements.

Also, there's rivet counting, and then there's rivet counting.

DGP's Starship Operator's Manual is The Awesome--because it counts rivets in the name of playability. It tells you everything you could possibly want to know about who does what when how using which machinery on a ship. As such, it gives you tons of hooks for adventures.

 

[Berg]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I think the point is that Traveller needs to be an RPG first and foremost, and a way to while away the time second. Otherwise, it's not an RPG.

Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
I have absolutely nothing against rivet-counting and world generating and all that. Just don't put it in the core rules... put it in the supplements.

This is also a good marketing strategy... Solid core RPG, then add the typical total traveller tinkering tools (T.T.T.T.T.=T5)...

This would satisfy new and old if it was done right and would provide a company with a good revenue stream... But RPG first!

Preferably lighter fare as T20 and Gurps have the crunchier styles covered.

 

[flykiller]

So, I vote for giving T5 a presentation with a micro and a macro setting.

no reason you couldn't do that with the entire game. setting - cluster, subsector, sector. personal combat rules, ship combat rules, character generation, star system generation - lite, intermediate, advanced. let the game purchasers decide their own levels of realism and difficulty.

traveller has all that right now, it's just scattered everywhere. if it were consolidated and merged a huge amount of work would already be done.

 

[Stainless]

Originally posted by flykiller:
traveller has all that right now, it's just scattered everywhere. if it were consolidated and merged a huge amount of work would already be done.

Bring on ACT!

 

[kafka47]

Is it not possible, if T5 is going to be the final word on Traveller that it would contain a multiplicity of rule systems and design philosophies leaving it up to the Referee to pick and choose which one s/he wants to use for a particular game session? This would result in a mammoth book that would have think in terms of Long Tail marketing. That is, that it would make a loss in the intital release (because of production costs) but make money over the long term.

Marc, is certainly handicapped when it comes to writing, but I don't think that he would be foolish enough to make it a solo effort. There are alot of freelancers out there and I am sure he making use of their talents (sadly, Robin D. Laws was not commissioned for the Referee Book, or at least he is not telling me). However, having said that, the Team has to be very tight and knowledgable about the Traveller universe otherwise the whole project falls apart.

If it does use tables, it ought to do wisely, I rather like the presentation of tables in a separate document a la Starter Traveller.

Here, Mal., and I are in agreement, it has to be a RPG, therefore, whatever gets written and by whomever should get vetted by leading personages in the industry (who make games that people buy) and also in small part by fandom. A collaborative enterprise of this nature will create the room for future growth thereby returning the investment. Then let the licences fight it out for the particulars of how things actually work but always keeping close to the vision of the original.

 

[Reg Redblade]

I always envisioned my perfect traveller set as a series of chapters that could be scaled/swapped.

Think of a big beautiful ringbinder- with glorious black glossy cover with red line- divided into chapters - chargen, combat, world building etc - the basic set would cover all of these in much the same fashion as CT (obviously updated for the 21st century)

BUT if I wanted more advanced ship rules I could swap out the basic stuff and snap in the advanced module.

Now, it goes without saying that the advanced chapters would have to be compatible with the basic ones and vice versa but with Traveller this is actually more do-able than some other rpgs (AD&D 2nd ed comes to mind - integrating some of the Players Option stuff was a nightmare unless you adopted the system wholesale)

Imagine taking the four pages of basic chargen tables in Starter Traveller and instead snapping in the modern equivalent of Citizens of the Imperium or Mercenary or whatever.

It would also make the whole errata issue much easier to handle - ( " okay folks - we made a complete bollocks of the weapons chart - the typist was on drugs that day - take out equipment chapter page six and replace with this free download page " )- pages swapped, no mess, problem solved.

I think it would also be easier to market these modules/supplements since Far Future or whoever wouldn't have to get these physically out into the market place - Core booklet HELL YES, essential supplements that will have broad appeal yes - but for more risky stuff ( ie advanced world - building ) instead of putting out another Scouts and running risk it won't sell - just put together a PDF and sell through the normal e-channels ( I readily acknowledge that security will be an issue).

I know that some people HATE the very notion of binders* - I kind of love the Traveller Book format myself ( though Starter will always have a special place in my heart ) - but this would put everything that the GM would want in between one set of covers - it would also allow the scalability that traveller is capable of.

For myself, if such a thing were possible - I would probably swap out the basic chargen - much as I like it, every player I have ever introduced to it simply hates the utter randomness and I have over the years had to constantly improvise. I would like to snap in a point building system there.

Task System, Combat, and ship construction would probably stay the same - but I would put in the new version's equivalent of Scouts/First In/ whatever. Basic Psionics chapter would probably stay unless the advanced was really good or I was using a lot of Psi races/tech etc.

I am now donning the obligatory flame-retardant suit - Visor Down and assuming a crouching position

RR.

* As a caveat I have some experience with gaming binders - my AD&D 2nd Ed Monster Compendium is still going after 20 years in which it got a lot of use. I think - but am open to correction - that ASL used the whole binder/module approach as well.

 

[kafka47]

Originally posted by Reg Redblade:
I always envisioned my perfect traveller set as a series of chapters that could be scaled/swapped.

Think of a big beautiful ringbinder- with glorious black glossy cover with red line- divided into chapters - chargen, combat, world building etc - the basic set would cover all of these in much the same fashion as CT (obviously updated for the 21st century)

My only problem is durablity and the ability for store owners to keep all contents together. This would involve shrink wrapping. But, what if some of the pages were missing or printed upside down. Who would assume liability? The distributor? FFE? Just one mammoth book that would put GT: Space to shame or many of the others. But, I would retain the idea of binders for everything that comes after the main rulebook.

 

[Reg Redblade]

Kafka;
____________________

Quote:

Just one mammoth book that would put GT: Space to shame or many of the othersBut, I would retain the idea of binders for everything that comes after the main rulebook.

__________________

I would respectfully disagree - I think that the idea of the binder gives every GM a " customised corebook " - the additional supplements could then be added in at the back or in a second binder ( large scale ground combat, an equivalent of Trillion Credit Squadron or Battle Rider etc.)

BUT in an ideal world I suppose you could have the option of purchasing either the Corebook in TTB type format OR the binder type arrangement ( I am stumbling fully into fantasy land now

)

In terms of pages being printed upside down or whatever - yes this is an issue - but exactly the same issue as that which faces a book type publication - the only difference is it's much easier to fix with the binder because you follow the procedure in the previous post.

Durability - yes can be a problem for some people - but i have played with a lot of people over the years. There are those who look after their gear for literally decades - and those that can thrash a hardback rulebook in a couple of months. I think it was on these boards that a few people were complaining about the flimsiness of the GURPS 3rd Ed supplements - I have most of the GURPS books and would consider them amongst the sturdiest of my Traveller products. Even more impressively: Interstellar Wars and Biotech 4th Ed seem very solidly put together ( helps that they are hardbacks of course )

As an aside, I'm not a fan of the GURPS system - but they have put out some fine traveller product over the years ( a couple of stinkers as well IMHO )

RR

 

[flykiller]

I would retain the idea of binders for everything that comes after the main rulebook.

basic rules and core setting in the main book, add-ons and expansions in binder?

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

Originally posted by Reg Redblade:
BUT if I wanted more advanced ship rules I could swap out the basic stuff and snap in the advanced module.

Imagine taking the four pages of basic chargen tables in Starter Traveller and instead snapping in the modern equivalent of Citizens of the Imperium or Mercenary or whatever.

I would be SO up for that.

But as Hunter pointed out, the distributors hate the binder model, among other things because those extra "inserts" are going to bend, whether during shipping or in the store. And probably because handling it all is complicated. A core book is a core book. A core binder plus 20 supplements you have to reorder individually is a pain.

That said, this is how they've been doing it for Harnmaster all these years.

 

[robject]

Regarding ring binders and rule-swapping.

T5 core is very likely to release "simultaneously" in PDF format as well as deadtree. Or, possibly, PDF CD with the deadtree.

 

[kafka47]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I would retain the idea of binders for everything that comes after the main rulebook.

basic rules and core setting in the main book, add-ons and expansions in binder? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, flykiller that is exactly what I would like. I just would have a lavish core book that people would want to have on their shelves because they liked looking at it. Thickerx3 than the Fading Suns 2nd edition. And, yes, it would have to be sturdy, hence Hardcover would be my choice as well.

Marc has to start looking at this as investment rather than simply just another product. A radical rethink is needed, maybe, even as deep as Mal. has suggested but I prefer to sit on the fence on that one. I really like the OTU but I want to be able to explore the alternatives to the OTU so as to enrich MTU.

Yes, there can be printing cock-ups but the likelyhood of them is greater with single leaf printing than a book when you have proofs. Plus, you can then sue the printer for doing a bad job. Less creditable when it is only a few "pages" rather than a book.

 

[Pickles]

There's another reason why Binders are not popular with publishers. While books and other printed matter are often eligible for reduced or no VAT (sales tax), binders are not. This not only raises the price, but also introduces additional costs in terms of accounting.

 

[Valarian]

Another problem with ring binders are the different formats. Three ring in the US. Two or four ring in Europe. Three ring binders are not going to be popular over this side of the pond. As shown with the AD&D monster manual.

If you want a ring binder, buy the PDF and a decent laser printer.

 

[Roger Calver]

To be true here, as long as it good and well edited I dont care what format it is.

 

[Malenfant]

As someone else has pointed out already, retailers hate non-standard formats like ring binders. They take up too much room on the shelf, or the 'sheet packs' aren't identifiable when they're stacked sideways etc. That alone is reason enough for any sane publisher to veto the idea right there - if retailers won't stock the product, then it won't sell.