T5: A Modest Proposal for the Designers
- Thread starter Rhialto the Marvelous
- Start date
Rhialto the Marvelous
SOC-13
Dude.
They didn't put those career paths in there because they didn't know how to code.
They did it because rolling up a character one term at a time is that special kind of fun which philosophers, lacking proper words to define what to us mortals must always remain the ineffable, have called sublime.
M
Malenfant
Guest
I'm kinda unsure why anyone would want to make characters on a computer. Complex stuff like star systems and big vehicles, sure... But I can't see how anyone can really get attached to a character if all you do is click a couple of buttons and you have it. Surely the whole point is to make them by hand so you've put a little time and emotionally investment into it?
It's not like there's anything in chargen that actually requires a computer either. You're not going complicated calculations after all.
It's not like there's anything in chargen that actually requires a computer either. You're not going complicated calculations after all.
So maybe what we need is a Traveller computer RPG construction kit (ala Neverwinter Nights).
</font>[/QUOTE]But, a modern computer game has the budget of a major movie. An RPG has the budget of us collectively going to a movie. One of these numbers is much larger than the other ...
A good name generator, yes, very much. Everyone needs a long list of potential names.
An NPC maker? I don't know. How many UPPs do you need, and how many archetypes do you need? Perhaps one page's worth? Burrito Principle is in effect. Some thugs, some geeks, some aliens. Enough?
Unless you're talking about those special NPCs that are important to the campaign... in which case the referee feels compelled to handcraft in the first place. I can't trust computers enough to provide tailored NPCs. The tweak time would equal the creation time (I never run the arch villains through chargen).
In other words, given a very nice and flexible chargen program, I'd probably be impressed with the interface and code-fu, but then not use it.
But the only way to know for sure is for someone to code up a prototype.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
A good name generator, yes, very much. Everyone needs a long list of potential names.</font>[/QUOTE]The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!
And with the 'net I can get the phone book of far flung foreign lands for even more and exotic names.
This man (or woman) is a genius! An MCUF for him.The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!
And with the 'net I can get the phone book of far flung foreign lands for even more and exotic names.
This is a total hi-jack of the thread, but any forign phone-book URLs would be greatly appreciated
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
And in a bizzare twist of fate (cue ominous phonebook killer music) The new phone book IS here!The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!
(flips to Bs, nope, not listed, safe again )... Do I get to pick?
Oh well, if you're gonna call me a genius and slap a medal on me then gender assignment is trivialOriginally posted by Stainless:
...is a genius! An MCUF for him.
It is Male for the record though.
Now if you've got a MCG handy here's another name resource I used once. I needed a crew for a ship, military ship, Sword Worlds, so I picked a similarily crew sized real world ship roster (from the German Navy circa WW1 iirc) I found with a quick google. It was great, full list of names and ranks to work with, it really personalized the ship.
The internet is full of lists of names. All kinds, in many and varied organizational reasons. Explore and exploit!
Scott Martin
SOC-13
I'd reccomend this one for a lot of research reasons:
http://www.usmm.org/men_ships.html#anchor1271535
WW2 liberty ships... good sized ships and crews for SFRPG adventures...
Scott Martin
http://www.usmm.org/men_ships.html#anchor1271535
WW2 liberty ships... good sized ships and crews for SFRPG adventures...
Scott Martin
Even at it's worst, I don't feel that Traveller ever really needed a character generation
program. Fun to have and use, maybe. But I would not put it in the needed category.
The worst was when the ship construction rules require you to either need a program to use them,
or no life outside the game so you have enough time to build a small ship.
Ideally, the rules for ship construction would be simple, easy to understand, and still be able to
build anything from a fifty ton fighter to a million ton super dreadnought. Okay, I know that's
kinda like saying, "All we need to do to get a tunnel across the English Channel is keep digging
until we hit France." But it is possible. But it really is possible. The old RPG Mekton II is a
good example. In the basic rules you had everything you need to build a "mekton" from the
smallest ten ton mekton to bruisers of over a hundred tons. One supplement later and you had
ever thing you need to make powered armor of every kind. A second supplement later and you
had everything you need to "tweak" the numbers and not have to use "off the shelf" components.
If T5 is to go the rout of "total design control", then maybe that would be it best handled that way. The
basic rules are clean, quick, and simple. For those that want the total design control, there could
be additional supplements. Nothing would really change in the later, more involved, versions, but
you would have more control over what numbers you are using and to customizes designs.
While we are at it, I vote (like I really have a vote) to get rid of the ship UPP. It is an idea whose
time has passed. The idea of reducing a ship's statistics to a line of numbers as the information it
contains grows more and more involved is untenable. Any string of digits beyond ten is
practically unusable. The whole idea behind them was to make it so you could keep track of a
ship (or group of ships) on a single note card. I feel we have reached a point where a single
control sheet is need to keep track of a ship. Nicely laid out it would not only make it easier to
keep track of the ships status, but is more appealing to the eye.
The thing I feel T5 ship rules should avoid is becoming another Star Fleet Battles. I have that
game if I feel like doing something along those lines. It has been my impression that most people
interested in an RPG do not what that level of play in the ship rules either.
When one gaming session has to be almost completely dedicated to doing an engagement between
a few ships, it really can put a drag on the role playing aspect of the game.
In the end, this is what we are talking about. A role playing game. As such, perhaps we don't
really need a hard and fast rule that covers every aspect of ship to ship combat. Leaving it open a
little does leave room for more role playing and a good game master can make rulings on the fly
(rather than being limited by what the rules say must happen).
program. Fun to have and use, maybe. But I would not put it in the needed category.
The worst was when the ship construction rules require you to either need a program to use them,
or no life outside the game so you have enough time to build a small ship.
Ideally, the rules for ship construction would be simple, easy to understand, and still be able to
build anything from a fifty ton fighter to a million ton super dreadnought. Okay, I know that's
kinda like saying, "All we need to do to get a tunnel across the English Channel is keep digging
until we hit France." But it is possible. But it really is possible. The old RPG Mekton II is a
good example. In the basic rules you had everything you need to build a "mekton" from the
smallest ten ton mekton to bruisers of over a hundred tons. One supplement later and you had
ever thing you need to make powered armor of every kind. A second supplement later and you
had everything you need to "tweak" the numbers and not have to use "off the shelf" components.
If T5 is to go the rout of "total design control", then maybe that would be it best handled that way. The
basic rules are clean, quick, and simple. For those that want the total design control, there could
be additional supplements. Nothing would really change in the later, more involved, versions, but
you would have more control over what numbers you are using and to customizes designs.
While we are at it, I vote (like I really have a vote) to get rid of the ship UPP. It is an idea whose
time has passed. The idea of reducing a ship's statistics to a line of numbers as the information it
contains grows more and more involved is untenable. Any string of digits beyond ten is
practically unusable. The whole idea behind them was to make it so you could keep track of a
ship (or group of ships) on a single note card. I feel we have reached a point where a single
control sheet is need to keep track of a ship. Nicely laid out it would not only make it easier to
keep track of the ships status, but is more appealing to the eye.
The thing I feel T5 ship rules should avoid is becoming another Star Fleet Battles. I have that
game if I feel like doing something along those lines. It has been my impression that most people
interested in an RPG do not what that level of play in the ship rules either.
When one gaming session has to be almost completely dedicated to doing an engagement between
a few ships, it really can put a drag on the role playing aspect of the game.
In the end, this is what we are talking about. A role playing game. As such, perhaps we don't
really need a hard and fast rule that covers every aspect of ship to ship combat. Leaving it open a
little does leave room for more role playing and a good game master can make rulings on the fly
(rather than being limited by what the rules say must happen).
Scott Martin
SOC-13
So to elaborate on your last comment, having a few "tiers" of ship combat from "cinematic" (GM waves arms and say what happens: IMO the most common starship combat in SFRPGs) to detailed engagements.
I also agree that "detailed engagements" should have a simpler mechanic than SFB or Brilliant Lances, so that it is possible to model squadron actions (say up to a dozen ships total) in less than 2 hours of playing time.
We're on the same page for starship construction ("Modular" FF&S is possible, but still far more involved than HG or LBB2, which is my personal target for usability, but I guess I should post some of my modules...) I also agree with Gypsy, that costs need to be included for the "small" pieces included in modules: it's pretty important to a PC that repairing the radio will be Cr 10,000, even though a "new" radio (listing at Cr 100,000) is a very small fraction of the price of a starship and disappears in the trailing decimal points.
As for Chargen, I much prefer TNE to CT generation. since that is "directed path" instead of random it sort of kills any reason to do a program. That said, the rules base for TNE encouraged "superheroes" and I much preferred the CT / MT skills balance that skewed ranged combat in favor of the skilled crotchety old fart over the marine recruit.
MT's task system was nice because it could let you adjust the balance between skills and stats, so a wrestling match could be (2D+unarmed combat + strength) while long range sniper fire could be the usual (2D+skill level)
Scott Martin
I also agree that "detailed engagements" should have a simpler mechanic than SFB or Brilliant Lances, so that it is possible to model squadron actions (say up to a dozen ships total) in less than 2 hours of playing time.
We're on the same page for starship construction ("Modular" FF&S is possible, but still far more involved than HG or LBB2, which is my personal target for usability, but I guess I should post some of my modules...) I also agree with Gypsy, that costs need to be included for the "small" pieces included in modules: it's pretty important to a PC that repairing the radio will be Cr 10,000, even though a "new" radio (listing at Cr 100,000) is a very small fraction of the price of a starship and disappears in the trailing decimal points.
As for Chargen, I much prefer TNE to CT generation. since that is "directed path" instead of random it sort of kills any reason to do a program. That said, the rules base for TNE encouraged "superheroes" and I much preferred the CT / MT skills balance that skewed ranged combat in favor of the skilled crotchety old fart over the marine recruit.
MT's task system was nice because it could let you adjust the balance between skills and stats, so a wrestling match could be (2D+unarmed combat + strength) while long range sniper fire could be the usual (2D+skill level)
Scott Martin
Rhialto the Marvelous
SOC-13
One of the many brilliant points made by Supplement Four on these here boards is that starship combat should feel like a submarine combat:
I don't know how to implement that rules-wise (S4 says he uses range band rules), but that's what I'd be shooting for at least in the core rules.
I haven't looked at it in ages, but IIRC DGP's Starship Operator's Manual could be inspirational here--not in terms of combat rules strictly but of making the shipboard environment a roleplaying environment, where everyone gets something useful to do.
That hits the nail on the head. It avoids this interruption of play where the map and counters come out, everyone as it were zooms out of the ship and looks at it from the outside, the GM plays against one player, and everyone else is just sitting there, or worse, kibbitzing.
I don't know how to implement that rules-wise (S4 says he uses range band rules), but that's what I'd be shooting for at least in the core rules.
I haven't looked at it in ages, but IIRC DGP's Starship Operator's Manual could be inspirational here--not in terms of combat rules strictly but of making the shipboard environment a roleplaying environment, where everyone gets something useful to do.
I think Scott Martin has hit upon the main idea I am looking at. There is nothing wrong with a little complexity, but it is nice not to have to go to that level if that is not what you are looking for in a game. To keep costs in line, the basic rules might be the more simple (maybe with just one or two levels of play) with supplements coming out with more advanced rules for ship combat. Much like the original rules in Traveller were very basic and later supplements and games added higher levels of complexity.
I am also impressed with comments about making ship to ship combat "zoom in" on the characters in their ship. This would be exactly what I am looking for in ship to ship combat! Ideally, the more advanced the combat system became, the more it would focus in on what the characters are doing in their ship.
Rules that would let you do fleet engagements are nice, but for the most part fall out of the realm of role playing. In the basic game I am interested in things that focus on the characters. Games that simulate space combat are just that, war games. There is nothing wrong with that! And if they came out with a war game for "Space combat in the far future" I would definitely buy it. But I would consider it totally unnecessary for the basic role playing game.
I am also impressed with comments about making ship to ship combat "zoom in" on the characters in their ship. This would be exactly what I am looking for in ship to ship combat! Ideally, the more advanced the combat system became, the more it would focus in on what the characters are doing in their ship.
Rules that would let you do fleet engagements are nice, but for the most part fall out of the realm of role playing. In the basic game I am interested in things that focus on the characters. Games that simulate space combat are just that, war games. There is nothing wrong with that! And if they came out with a war game for "Space combat in the far future" I would definitely buy it. But I would consider it totally unnecessary for the basic role playing game.
I hope for it too. My guess is that characters would be easier. As for technology FF&S. HG and Bk2 all seem to deal with it a little differently. The modular approach would be my choice. I don't know how to deal with the technology between systems. GURPS uses a different TL scale and that my have to be a case-by-case deal if you were to make the change. Hey it's fiction so we get a little elbow room to make it fit.
sorry to risk a backlash here but I've always played CT,MT and 2300AD with the Cthulhu/RQ BRP system. It's the right level of 'technical' to storytelling. Every company since and including GDW forgot one precept IMHO... to make games playable. There should've been more scenarios, more plot hooks etc. Players don't really want to know much energy a plasma gun uses...some GM's do, they just want to know that it goes BANG and kills the bad guys. WAY TOO much emphasis on precise rules for things you'll never need and not enough PLAY. As the bard said "the plays the thing".
Agreed, Twilight. But, one has to understand the legacy of wargaming on Traveller has led to almost over explaination of certain things. Plus, Traveller endeavoured to be realistic. For me it has always about getting the mood right. 2300AD came close for a mood piece (exploration, hard SF, interesting aliens) but more energies agreed have to spent on narration. I like the idea of using the BRP, but, even that is too confining. I have resorted to using coloured cards and narration to simulate task rolls and characters are encouraged to think of what skills they might need to accomplish different feats and if it works, I get them to roll and narrate the results.
Similar threads
