The Grognard Problem

[Malenfant]

That's the point really: grognards ARE the problem. Largely because they have a very narrow, blinkered view of what they think the game should be, because that's how it's always been.

Hence you get people who suggest that T5 doesn't need good art or fancy presentation because CT never had it and that people still bought it. They forget of course that at the time there wasn't anything better and that crappy art was the norm back then, and ignores the fact that pretty much every successful game around today has good art, full colour pages, hardback format etc. Ditto for the 'T5 binder idea' or the 'bring back the LBB' ideas - they just won't work today. Hell, game stores complained when SJG released small 32-64 page books because they were awkward on their shelves and hard to display or make obvious. Fact is, stores want books in standard formats, and they certainly won't go for binders or LBBs anymore.

And hence you get people who claim that GT or T20 aren't 'real Traveller' simply because they use another system. Frankly why GT or T20 should be held in this regard when EVERY system of Traveller is different anyway is beyond me. I couldn't give a toss myself whether Marc Miller or Steve Jackson or Hunter Gordon or anyone else wrote the system, I think it's somewhat small-minded to dismiss a perfectly valid version of the game just because one specific guy didn't write it. As it is, most of Traveller's development has been out of Marc's hands anyway, from what I understand he played little part in the game design at GDW (that was mostly Frank Chadwick and Loren Wiseman and others, IIRC) and all the best stuff for the game has certainly not been written by him anyway. The system he did have input on - T4 - is widely viewed as the weakest version of the game. So why the obsession about seeing what gonzo system he's going to come up with next anwyay?

It seems to be that some people want to irrationally cling to things because they don't want to see the game change. TNE went through hell because of that, never mind that it provided a much more interesting setting and was a reasonable extension of the timeline of the OTU given the civil war etc. Even though GT and T20 are basically the same background as in CT and GT certainly has explained more about the OTU than CT ever did, people still dismiss and revile them purely because Marc didn't write the systems. It's crazy.

 

[mike wightman]

Have you thought about what a Traveller ship's computer has to do?
e.g.:

monitor and control a nuclear fusion reactor

monitor and control the environment systems including grav plates and acceleration compensators

analyse the data from sensors for everything in a half light second sphere in real time

and all before loading any of the really interesting programs like the ones that plot a route through jump, monitor and control the jump drive or maneuver drive etc.

It's also reasonable IMHO for the sensor component of the computer system to require a lot of energy, especially for military grade active scans.

YMMV

 

[RickA]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Have you thought about what a Traveller ship's computer has to do?
e.g.:
monitor and control a nuclear fusion reactor
monitor and control the environment systems including grav plates and acceleration compensators
analyse the data from sensors for everything in a half light second sphere in real time
and all before loading any of the really interesting programs like the ones that plot a route through jump, monitor and control the jump drive or maneuver drive etc.
It's reasonable forthe sensor component of the computer system to require a lot of energy, especially for military grade active scans.

YMMV

Yes.

However, my having considered ways to rationalize these mammoth multi-ton computers and their multi-ton power supplies does nothing to keep the players from snickering at how utterly antiquated such ideas are.

"Loading programs"? These are folks who double click an icon and get a spreadsheet! Sending the astrogation plot to the pilot via handing him the programming tape? Blank looks all around, then snickers from the folks who understand just how old old old that sort of thinking is.

Jeez, one mini-computer has all the processing power that should be required and is smaller than a footlocker.

Look, I love the old school tech Traveller has, don't get me wrong. But then again, I love Niven and Asimov and Heinlein too. The people Traveller wants to pull in are people who like Peter Hamilton though. (BTW, I like Peter Hamilton too, just using his sci-fi as an example and contrast)

 

[mike wightman]

I'm looking forward to Judas Unchained this October, and I also like the works of authors such as Alastair Reynolds, Iain M.Banks, Richard Morgan, Ken Macleod, and I agree that Traveller tech does need an update.

But a lot of the tech in these author's novels is in the background of the OTU or has been tried and rejected/stigmatised. I like the way GT sidebars explain this.

TNE, and even T4, tried to advance the tech paradigms a bit more overtly. T5 should also strive to move forward IMHO.

But it shold not turn the OTU into a THS with FTL abberation.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by RickA:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Case in point: here's a thread over on the T20 forum in which the poster is asking for advice concerning disperate character levels in his T20 campaign. Some of the advice he is getting is a reminder that low level players will gather XPs more quickly than high level players and thus catch up. XPs? Levels? In Traveller? What's next, hire a Darrian ranger to help you steal iridium from a Geonee's underground warehouse?

Speaking of grognards! Oh, the horror, "levels" in our beloved Traveller! Actual character advancement! Oh noes!

/sigh/

Maybe there is a reason that games that allow level progression at a reasonable pace appeal to gamers and GM's? Maybe there are good reasons that the CT died 20 years ago?
</font>[/QUOTE]Uh, where, in any post Bill has ever made, has he complained about character advancement? He was complaining about the use of the ancient D&D artifice of "levels" to accomplish that.

BTW, if the best (or only) way for character advancement is with levels, then Bill is far from being the only grognard in this discussion. There are many useful and reasonable ways for character advancement that do not require levels.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by daryen:
Uh, where, in any post Bill has ever made, has he complained about character advancement? He was complaining about the use of the ancient D&D artifice of "levels" to accomplish that.

Based largely, IIRC, on the fact that that 'wasn't how Traveller did it'. It's one thing to dislike a system, but it's another to have a full hate-on for a game just because it has levels and other versions don't.

BTW, if the best (or only) way for character advancement is with levels, then Bill is far from being the only grognard in this discussion. There are many useful and reasonable ways for character advancement that do not require levels.

IIRC Bill (or someone else here anyway, I'm sure I've seen this complaint) has a similar complaint about GURPS' point-based system, because he feels that for a game to be 'real Traveller' should be based on random careers and prior history.

My opinion is that what defines Traveller is the background, not the system. Thus IMO the system is largely irrelevant, since it's not like people are going to be switching between systems in the middle of games anyway. It's all internally consistent within a given game engine, so who bloody cares in practice if GURPS or D20 handles something differently from TNE or MT or T4 or CT?

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by RickA:
Time to catch up to the current era in game design for goodness sakes. T20 is a good first step, but it needs to go further.

This is a truly bizarre statement. Why is it that a total pig, no, platypus of a system like D20 defines "the current era in game design"? Have IQs dropped sharply or something?

CT is and was an incredibly simple, very clean system: Roll 2d6 + good things - bad things. High is good.

Adding the MT task system to that makes it even cleaner.

Yes, we need art. Stuff has to look prettier than it did way back when. It doesn't make it more useful, but it's a marketing thing.

But CT+ is as clean and nice a system as anyone could want. It's certainly simpler and more streamlined than the illegitimate offspring of Gary Gygax's brain.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by alanb:
This is a truly bizarre statement. Why is it that a total pig, no, platypus of a system like D20 defines "the current era in game design"? Have IQs dropped sharply or something?

Go into your nearest game store and ask them what RPG they sell most of.

And then wonder, "why does that sell the most copies?". Well, because people want it. They like how it works. It's borrowed from a lot of systems that came before it, and though it's somewhat numbercrunchy it does actually work fairly well.

The fact that you don't like the system that the majority does like and use doesn't mean that they're wrong or stupid. It doesn't mean that you're smater or better than they are either. It does mean that you need to accept certain facts about the market though - whether you like them or not is irrelevant.

It's certainly simpler and more streamlined than the illegitimate offspring of Gary Gygax's brain.

Too simple, probably. And Gygax wasn't involved in d20.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Go into your nearest game store and ask them what RPG they sell most of.
...
And Gygax wasn't involved in d20.

I'm well aware that Gygax wasn't involved in D20. But it's still basically mechanically "the best new roleplaying game of 1974".

DnD was always the most popular RPG, and D20 theoretically presents an opportunity to move in on that market, but mechanically it's like 25 years of advances in game design have simply been thrown out the window.

Incidentally, in my local games store you would be lucky to find _any_ game that isn't D20 based, so there simply isn't any opportunity to buy another system.

The idea that CT is somehow mechanically old-fashioned is simply wrong, given that the present "state of the art" is a turn back to wonky lash-ups of inconsistent and arbitrary rules. CT was an _advance_ on DnD, and CT+ would be an _advance_ on D20, even if it is so unfashionable in the market as to be commercially unviable.

Which it might not necessarily be. Niche markets exist and can be created. The point is: how?

So far, the key answers seem to be: good quality and presentation, plus aggressive marketing to break out beyond the fragmented and declining Grognard market.

We're still brainstorming. Maybe something may come of it, maybe it won't, but it's still worth the effort.

And T5, incidentally, is a fine example of how NOT to go about things. But, on the other hand, I can see why Marc isn't in a hurry to start canonising other peoples' house rules.

 

[Berg]

Maybe those who want T% to be like CT should wander over to "CT+: what would you do" We could create a community project for all.

The only thing I would probably get out of T5 is more background material. Certain versions have provided good source books for aspects of Traveller(Gurps Fartrader, Starmercs) or historical stuff (T4 mileau 0) for example. A new system would have to be built from the ground up to function properly. Previous versions seemed to be patches (MT = CT1.9) or from other games (TNE = Twilight 2000/ T2300 plus trav background). This is opinion and not meant to be accurate depictions. I would use the source material but only the system if it was streamlined, clean and Not broken. I like systems that add complexity via additional source books, so it can be optional.

Tom

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by alanb:
But it's still basically mechanically "the best new roleplaying game of 1974".

Hardly. d20 has skills and feats, which D&D didn't have originally. Feats are a fairly recent innovation that apparently surfaced originally in AD&D, but have similar mechanics have also appeared in other games such as Earthdawn.

Mechanically, it's a rather different game to its original form. The mechanics are streamlines, with the same rolls for everything instead of one roll for hit rolls, another for saving throws etc.

mechanically it's like 25 years of advances in game design have simply been thrown out the window.

You've not looked closely enough at d20 in that case. It's borrowed and adapted a lot of ideas from other games in the past 25 years. More than can be said for T5, which still seems to think that it's 1977.

Incidentally, in my local games store you would be lucky to find _any_ game that isn't D20 based, so there simply isn't any opportunity to buy another system.

Again, it's popular because people want to buy it.

The idea that CT is somehow mechanically old-fashioned is simply wrong, given that the present "state of the art" is a turn back to wonky lash-ups of inconsistent and arbitrary rules.

D&D3.5 is a pretty straightforward, consistent system actually. Its complexity arises from the fact that it's got detailed rules for just about every situation you could encounter, but it's not 'inconsistent' or 'arbitrary' by a long shot.

CT's core engine may be OK, many aspects of it are old-fashioned. The random chargen for one (that's very out of touch with today's market). The tech assumptions are another anachronistic feature. The ship design system may be OK, but the way it's expressed is bloody ridiculous - who wants to trawl through a slew of 20-30 random numbers and letters trying to figure out what everything means?

CT was an _advance_ on DnD

In some senses, yes. It incorporated the concepts of skills and careers (I'm not entirely sure if it was the first game to do so however). But the point is that regardless of how 'advanced' you think CT is over D&D, it's a clunky old coot in today's RPG market - and that's what matters. Despite what you may think, D&D has evolved a lot over the years. Traveller was doing fine in its evolution til TNE, then took a step back in T4, and T5 seems to be regressing further to a lizard-like state. GT and T20 meanwhile have evolved it into systems that is modern, familiar, and relevant to people today.

and CT+ would be an _advance_ on D20, even if it is so unfashionable in the market as to be commercially unviable.

Frankly, it's pointless to compare it to d20 as if it's going to be better than it - that's entirely down to circumstance and opinion, there's no objective way to determine if a system is more 'advanced' or 'intellectually superior' to another. If you think that, then that's irrational fanboy BS speaking there. And if CT+ or T5 would be commercially non-viable then nobody is going to write them. In case you hadn't realised, game companies are in the business to make money - the ones that don't end up closing their doors.

Which it might not necessarily be. Niche markets exist and can be created. The point is: how?

It's already competing with two other published versions of itself, in a small niche as it is (scifi RPGing has never been as popular as fantasy). And again, if it's not going to make money, it's not going to get made unless its creator likes throwing money down the lav.

So far, the key answers seem to be: good quality and presentation, plus aggressive marketing to break out beyond the fragmented and declining Grognard market.

TNE did that. Remember the stink the grognards raised over the changes made in that? I agree, the grogs should be left in the dust where they belong if Traveller is really to 'evolve', but they need to get the hint that they're the ones getting in the way first.

But the problem is that the market today isn't the market that it was in 1977. A 'new generation' of Traveller - be it CT+ or T5 - has to compete with GURPS Space, Star HERO, d20 Future, Lightspeed, and other scifi games today. And at best, it would end up as a successful small press game. At worst, it'll tank.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Based largely, IIRC, on the fact that that 'wasn't how Traveller did it'. It's one thing to dislike a system, but it's another to have a full hate-on for a game just because it has levels and other versions don't.

I think a DnD-style level system is great for heroic fantasy where the hero is supposed to be able to hack down armies of level-0 humans or orcs without significant harm to himself.

Such a system is ridiculous for Traveller. Traveller is not heroic fantasy (though it can be space opera). There are no "superheroes" like that in Traveller. There are no Jedi in Traveller. The closest you come to that are teleporting Zhodani super-commandoes. And those are supposed to be the bad guys!

And, just to help drive the point home, T20 had to bend over backward to break the level system with lifeblood and such in order to try and stop that from happening. So, if d20 is such a great system for Traveller, why did they have to effectively break the system to try and get the desired effect?

Just for the record, I use T20 for the background (e.g. Gateway and eventually 1248); I don't use it for the system. I would play it, if that is what my group insisted on, but it wouldn't be my choice.

On the other hand, I really like GURPS Traveller (irrespective of the "alternate TU") even with its ticks (Imperial measurement system) and fleas (botched TL translation). It was only the introduction of GURPS 4e that soured me on it, though I would gladly play GT anytime using GURPS 3e.

[Edit: I forgot to mention T5. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think T5 as it currently sits is doomed. It appeals to neither the grognards, nor to the new player. That means it pretty much has no market.]

My opinion is that what defines Traveller is the background, not the system.

I mostly agree with that, but with one exception: I believe Traveller also has a certain "atmosphere" to it. Whether the OTU is used or not, there are still a lot of assumptions used in it that define "Traveller".

It is these type of things that allow Traveller players to look at Firefly and see Traveller, despite the different background and technology assumptions.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by daryen:
And, just to help drive the point home, T20 had to bend over backward to break the level system with lifeblood and such in order to try and stop that from happening. So, if d20 is such a great system for Traveller, why did they have to effectively break the system to try and get the desired effect?

T20's problem I think is that it's too closely married to D&D. IT should really be a purely OGL book. Heck, I think Mutants and Masterminds is an OGL game that totally does away with levels - it's not impossible to have a game that uses the d20 engine but that strips out what makes it D&D.

And Star Wars d20 - published by WotC - has a system very similar to lifeblood/stamina (the Vitality Point/Wound Point system). The point of releasing the d20 system under the OGL is that mechanics can be changed and added.

It is these type of things that allow Traveller players to look at Firefly and see Traveller, despite the different background and technology assumptions.

That's mostly an aspect of setting - the fact that they are 'ordinary joes in space'.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Feats are a fairly recent innovation that apparently surfaced originally in AD&D, [...]

Where in AD&D? Cite?

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Mechanically, it's a rather different game to its original form. The mechanics are streamlines, with the same rolls for everything instead of one roll for hit rolls, another for saving throws etc.

Thank goodness, too! AD&D was a nightmare of roll-reversal (yes, I meant roll, not role). d20 is much better off now.

Originally posted by Malenfant:
But the problem is that the market today isn't the market that it was in 1977. A 'new generation' of Traveller - be it CT+ or T5 - has to compete with GURPS Space, Star HERO, d20 Future, Lightspeed, and other scifi games today. And at best, it would end up as a successful small press game. At worst, it'll tank.

I hope the best in T5's success.

However, unless it turns out radically different that what the initial playtest portended, I too think it will tank.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by alanb:
But it's still basically mechanically "the best new roleplaying game of 1974".

Could you clarify what you mean? d20 did not arrive in 1974. d20 is not mechanically similar to games produced in 1974, in fact, it's mechanics are 20 years and further more advanced than anything produced in the days of Chainmail/Original DnD.

Originally posted by alanb:
DnD was always the most popular RPG, and D20 theoretically presents an opportunity to move in on that market, but mechanically it's like 25 years of advances in game design have simply been thrown out the window.

I'm going to request you prouduce a detailed list of Chainmail/Original DnD mechanics which are superior to d20 mechanics covering the same game systems.

Otherwise, I'm going to have to say that d20 kicks sand in the face of AD&D, DnD Basic to Immortals, Original DnD, and Chainmail (all versions of each, although AD&D and especially DnD Basic to Immortals have a grand nostalgic space in my heart) in all aspects. From stat handling, to pc gen, to skills and feats, and most especially, combat. Combat mechanics are far superior, and far more understandable (yes, they aren't perfect, but it raises the bar up from its ancestors).

Originally posted by alanb:
The idea that CT is somehow mechanically old-fashioned is simply wrong,

Seems old-fashioned to me. Creaky, in fact.

I like a lot about CT, but combat and skill resolution were at the bottom of the list.

Originally posted by alanb:
given that the present "state of the art" is a turn back to wonky lash-ups of inconsistent and arbitrary rules.

I'm going to need some cites, here.

CT has its own inconsistencies and oddities. Let us remember that CT pioneered the . . . less than ideal . . . mechanic of killing PCs before the game even began.

I know people who looked at that and never looked at Traveller again, regardless of later advances.

Originally posted by alanb:
CT was an _advance_ on DnD, and CT+ would be an _advance_ on D20, even if it is so unfashionable in the market as to be commercially unviable.

CT had one up on Original DnD? Maybe. They were different in many respects, but did share some concepts.

Frankly, all the systems from back then look creaky today.

Original DnD covered Fantasy, and CT covered SF, and that was enough. To glorify their mechanics . . . well, I can't think of a reason for doing so beyond that Traveller had its world-gen and vehicle/starship design sequences. Here, CT had something unique that outshone all other systems. It wasn't enough, though, in the end.

Originally posted by alanb:
Which it might not necessarily be. Niche markets exist and can be created. The point is: how?

So far, the key answers seem to be: good quality and presentation, plus aggressive marketing to break out beyond the fragmented and declining Grognard market.

<deja vu />

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Where in AD&D? Cite?

Can't cite exactly because I don't have the books and I'm just going by what I've heard from others, but from what I've gathered they first appeared in one of the later class books or something. I don't think they were called 'feats' there, but mechanically they were identical.

I hope the best in T5's success.

However, unless it turns out radically different that what the initial playtest portended, I too think it will tank. [/qb]

I think the questions that people really need to start with before going any further are:

1) What would another version of Traveller bring to the market that isn't there already.

2) Is there even a niche for yet another version of Traveller, given that all the previous ones are currently available either as PDF or in print in the case of T20 and GT and the CT reprints".

3) What could a new version of Traveller do better than other existing scifi games that it would have to compete with?

Marc's never answered those questions. The closest he got is in Ross Winn's supposed 'interview' with him on rpgnet, where he said basically that he's doing T5 so that he has a 'definitive', complete version of Traveller out there. Well, great, but from where I'm standing there is an already complete version of the game out there in GT, which covered all the ground that CT covered in greater detail, and added some much needed bits (eg Nobles) too.

What would Marc's version bring to the table that previous ones haven't, that necessitates yet another complete rewrite of the system? And what reason would there be - beyond "hey, I wrote this" - for anyone to buy it?

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by alanb:
This is a truly bizarre statement. Why is it that a total pig, no, platypus of a system like D20 defines "the current era in game design"?

In what respect? d20 is an enourmous advance over the past.

Do you honestly believe that AD&D's roll-low/roll-high, no real skill/task resolution system, negative modifiers are bad but negative stats are good, et. al. strangenesses are better than d20?

Originally posted by alanb:
CT is and was an incredibly simple, very clean system: Roll 2d6 + good things - bad things. High is good.

And d20 is d20 + good things - bad things. High is good.

Am I supposed to believe this fact means that d20 is from 1974?

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Malenfant:
Feats are a fairly recent innovation that apparently surfaced originally in AD&D, [...]

Where in AD&D? Cite?</font>[/QUOTE]Looks like late in AD&D2E's time (1995) in the Player's Option: Skills & Powers book. I never used that series back in the day but still have the rtf files from the excellent cd-roms for 2E.

This looks pretty familiar-

Chapter 1: Character Points

"Character Points Every character begins play with a number of character points determined by his race and class. Further, every time a character advances a level, he gains 3 to 5 character points."

Among other things:
"Player characters can spend points on acquiring class abilities"
"Priests and wizards can spend points to gain extra spells"
"Points can be spent to improve a character’s roll for additional hit points when advancing a level."

The more I look at the Players Options books the more it looks like they were cherry picked and revised for 3E.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
In what respect? d20 is an enourmous advance over the past.

Do you honestly believe that AD&D's roll-low/roll-high, no real skill/task resolution system, negative modifiers are bad but negative stats are good, et. al. strangenesses are better than d20?

Now I understand. You've never played anything other than DnD & D20, have you?

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by alanb:
Now I understand. You've never played anything other than DnD & D20, have you? [/QB]

Given your attitude, I'm guessing that you've never played anything other that Traveller, have you? Even if you have, honestly you're coming across as the blinkered one here. This is kinda what I meant earlier - people who have very limited experience of RPGs and of the industry come on here and make out that they know exactly what it takes to make a game sell on the market.

RoS is right in his assessment that you quoted. In fact, that is why Ryan Dancey et al decided to make the changes to D&D that they did for 3rd Ed - the old system was too mechanically inconsistent. And before you ask, I've played pretty much every major system that's come out over the past 20 years, and a few minor ones too.

Oh yeah, and Casey - thanks, that was the book I was referring to.