Originally posted by davidm:
Bit of a ramble, but here goes...
I'm still somewhat puzzled as to why [GURPS] isn't more accepted in the Traveller community. Perhaps it's just down to the seemingly standard hostility to change (ok, maybe I've been reading too many TML archives lately )?
The answer, at least in my case, is that GURPS is a lousy game, particularly for modern/sci-fi. Its greatest "strength" -- flexible character generation -- is also its greatest annoyance. It takes far too much time to create a character IMHO.
And the less said about the combat system, the better. Despite heroic attempts over the years to make it playable, it still stinks, especially for gun combat.
I've always suspected that GURPS' success (IMHO) is mainly due to the fact that its support materials have always been first rate. GURPS was also helped (I think) by the fact that the d20 system attempted to replicate GURPS' combat system and did a comparatively poor job of it.
And the 3d6 curve is just too small. It's remarkably easy in GURPS to get a skill to level 12+, which equates to a 74% chance of success. The reality is that there are only about 5 meaningful steps in a 3d6 curve -- 8 or less is lousy (26% chance or less of success)and 12+ is excellent (74% chance of success).
Given that the average is 10, this really means that there are only about 3 meaningful steps in the curve. The result is a game in which it is easy to get very high competencies in any particular skill. This then requires a great deal of special rules and modifiers to make the system work.
Using a d20 instead of 3d6 would help a lot by tripling the number of significant steps. But that would probably offend Steve Jackson's convictions against polyhedrals. A bias that made some sense in 1977, but makes little sense today IMHO.
While I deeply respect Steve Jackson's design abilities (Ogre/GEV is one of the best games ever IMHO), GURPS is a triumph of superior supplement design and brute force. It is not his finest hour as a game designer in my opinion.
Just my $.02.
In terms of T5, an obvious major factor in choosing a design is the target audience.
Is T5 meant to please long-term Travellers whose heart lies in CT? Frankly, I doubt it could. A lot of fans have many years of investment in their particular version, and unless T5 magically makes their gaming efforts easier and more enjoyable without fundamentally feeling any different from CT as well as being super-compatible with minimal errata, they're not going to bite.
That's a good point. Presumably, most of us have created our "house rules" for ourselves, so its unlikely that a new game will suit us. The Internet has made it a trivial task to share ideas and concepts with other players, so I doubt that a professional game design will come up with any significant new concepts.
That said, there's an advantage in having a published set of rules that are at least similar to the plethora of house rules -- it gives newbies (or overworked oldies) something to play. Also, it could work as a sort of "Rosetta Stone" for new supplements and adventures.
I think that we'll bite, but I'm skeptical that we'll actually play the game. Unless, of course, it matches closely to the game that we love (in my case, CT, with a Striker derived combat system and adjustments to make Book 4+ character less overwhelming).
Personally, I'd like to see T5:
--Use CT for character generation, world generation, encounters, etc. Include alternative system to build characters from points. Fix problem with Book 4+ chargen (they get FAR more skills than Book 1 and COTI characters).
--HG for starship design and combat
--Striker for the combat system (with a few fixes), but SIMPLE!!! I don't think it's necessary to integrate starship combat and ground combat, but have conversions available. Include simple vehicle combat rules.
--Put all the gearhead stuff in a FFS style supplement and don't waste any further resources on gearhead stuff. Let the Internet fill that gap.
I don't see a lot of love for T4, arguably the most accessible direct heir of CT. Errata and awful presentation killed it's appeal for me.
Me too, although the system was uninspiring as well. The 1/2 die concept was a major whip.
T5 -could- take the TNE route and try to lure in new players - but again, I doubt this is something easily achieved if one is to create a true successor to earlier editions. Traveller just ain't for the masses - it appeals to a pretty small niche of the niche of an industry that RPGs are to begin with.
You are probably correct.
Having said that, I have the dubious habit of grabbing just about any bit of Traveller I can get my hands on and I love them all (to varying degrees), but I sure as hell don't need any more rules.
As an amateur game designer, I'd like to see another attempt to update Traveller for the current generation. I think that the 3rd Imperium background could stand some serious sprucing up to enhance the coolness factor. Some suggestions:
1. Evocative artwork for weaponry and armor (see 2300AD for instance). Better names -- "Cloth" is boring compared with "TL8 Light Combat Armor" or somesuch. More detail in the TL9-11 weaponry and armor. Look to the first person shooter video games for examples.
2. More weapons! Heavy weapons! Armored vehicles!
3. Revise the aliens so that they are interesting. No sci-fi game has a less inspiring group of aliens IMHO. Make the Aslan into Kzinti. I'd ditch the Vargr...hard to imagine a fearsome warrior race of basset hounds. The Droyne, K'Kree, etc...<yawn> Of course, this would result in some serious retconning and long time Traveller fans might be offended.
4. Maybe a "Mirror, Mirror" version of the standard Traveller universe?
We expend all this energy each new edition trying to establish the perfect task system, the perfect chargen or the perfect design system (and the perfect errata ) and by the time Traveller publisher x gets around to actually advancing the universe, their edition ups and dies.
I think that goes for younger generations of roleplayers too - they want interesting settings more than interesting rules.
I agree.
