I hope to apply this to my Character's claws!
The Most Serious T5 Problems
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
I hope to apply this to my Character's claws!
Note - I updated my list, and swapped out the Machine pistol for the Autopistol.
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
1. That's it! The xd6, roll low task resolution system really does remind me of The Fantasy Trip.
5. This seems to be the main issue. The game is rather unique in that it uses complexity for things that most people feel don't need to be complex (PC genetics, routine equipment reliability, etc.) but over-simplifies things that matter to adventuring (brawling, reloading weapons in a fire fight, etc.).
To this extent, it is somewhat interesting as a source book (some people may want these extra rules) but rather frustrating if one feels the game is actually meant to be an improvement on any earlier versions of Traveler in mechanical terms.
Perhaps the focus of the game is just to play with the various maker systems and system or PC generation and so on - actually adventuring is something to be avoided or gotten out of the way very quickly. This reflects Marc's emphasis on solo activity as a primary element of Traveller. Has anyone played in any demos or campaigns Marc has run, and is that the preferred style?
I don't know where I got it from, but I was taking Continuous to mean beam weapon fire. However, given that on p256 lasers can't do continuous fire, I guess not.
So why can't lasers do continuous fire?
o: Are we talking about Star Wars blasters here? I prefer Firefly for laser depiction. Actually ideally I'd like a range, from short, 0.2 sec bursts from a charging capacitor, to full continuous fire like in Firefly, with the possibility of perhaps overheating; good opportunities for some QREBS action here! But I know T5 is not quite that sophisticated. 
(At least CT/MT had Pulse vs. Beam lasers for ships, but it seems we've lost even that now.)You know, thinking about it, T5 vs. say CT/MT, is a lot like the difference between SMAC and Civilization in how they handle units. Sure, it's cool to have everything modular and therefore customizable, but you lose a lot of range of possibilities. If only there was some way to have the best of both worlds...
These rules are not "routine", only to be used when the players/GM needs them, or thinks they will enhance the game. It even says twice at the end of the QREBS chapter "But every day? No. QREBS can be safely ignored most of the time. In fact, the average QREBS value is 0 = no effect." And Genetics says you can ignore noting the genetic die until you need it later because you can always re-roll it. It's just there in case you want to use clones and chimeras, like Life Insurance. Or figure out your children's stats, which is pretty cool, but yes, rare.Almuric said:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
SS Gets Easier The Harder The Task
Spectacular Success is not possible on the easiest (the 1D and 2D difficulty) of tasks, yet SS gets easier to achieve the harder the task becomes.
Spectacular Success is not possible on the easiest (the 1D and 2D difficulty) of tasks, yet SS gets easier to achieve the harder the task becomes.
An easy fix for this would be SS and SF requiring all 1's or all 6's, Spectacular What? requires half and half
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
It requires 3 1's or 3 6's.
Not as easy a fix as you might think. Do you want a 16.7% chance of either on the easiest of tasks? Sure, an argument for SS happening that often could be made, but an almost 17% chance of SF on an extremely easy task? That's hard to swallow.
And, the higher the difficulty, the chance for either becomes, for all practical purposes, 0%. You could play an entire campaign and never see a SS or SF on a 5D task.
Thought that's what you wanted, harder chances at higher levels of dice.
3 1's/6's on 3D
4 1's/6's on 4D
5 1's/6's on 5D
etc etc
Granted the wierdness factor would go up
3 1's/6's on 3D
4 1's/6's on 4D
5 1's/6's on 5D
etc etc
Granted the wierdness factor would go up
Players don't need to know the rules to generate a character. Most of the system is random, all the player needs to know and the ref can walk them through it, is the options for further education and mustering out at the other end, and even then i didn't bother telling my players what they could get from the mustering out tables other than Money or Benefits.
Every player got a character they liked, even though they weren't what they had wanted at the start, and 2 sessions in the players already know how the general system is supposed to work and like it.
I'm not sure I agree here. I mean, yes, the referee can walk them thru the process, but I like being able to sit down and create a character with only two pages of charts. In T5, there is some page flipping to do, and some working out of the rules to do, too.
The player character is the most personal part of the RPG. It is the player's - he owns it, to a greater or lesser degree. To be a possession, Traveller players typically like to know the rules, and want to create it on their own. The T5 core rules doesn't make this as easy as previous versions.
Our approaches to character generation and game rules in general are quite different. I have always preferred my players to not know the rules at all, to not even own a copy of the rules, that way there is no discussions over who is right or how each rule can be interpreted, my way is the only way. On saying that after 30 years of GMing and playing i have relaxed somewhat and don't forbid my players from buying rule books anymore but i still think that all a player should be focused on is who they wish to play and how they can fit into the universe/setting. For that all they need to know is the background stuff for the setting which i either do a cheat sheet for, with recent history and some facts or talk them through it. To my mind this makes the players more focused on the character as a person , than the numbers and how best to min/max or beat the system.
The best thing about Traveller and random generation systems in general is that they are hard to beat, since you don't control a lot of the creation process. Traveller creates very interesting characters usually not quite what the player wanted, but certainly someone they have come to identify with through the creation process.
Now i actually like Point build systems as well since sometimes you can get a very disparate group with some uber monsters and some very poor characters in Traveller and other random systems, whereas in a point buy system everyone is treated equally, but each system has its place.
The best thing about Traveller and random generation systems in general is that they are hard to beat, since you don't control a lot of the creation process. Traveller creates very interesting characters usually not quite what the player wanted, but certainly someone they have come to identify with through the creation process.
Now i actually like Point build systems as well since sometimes you can get a very disparate group with some uber monsters and some very poor characters in Traveller and other random systems, whereas in a point buy system everyone is treated equally, but each system has its place.
OK, yes, I can agree with that. When we're at the table and the clock is ticking, there's no time for consulting the rules -- for that matter, that includes *me* as referee, as well.
I agree with that as well; however, chargen is not simply a random system. Decision points are honed down a bit, but the player still trades off one decision for another, and that's key. Those decisions represent the player making the best he can of a situation that's only partly under his control. Isn't that the essence of role-playing?
I really like CT basic chargen - its a neat little sub-game. Found out completely by accident, though, that my Players often prefer just picking a character from a listing. They name their PC, provide a brief physical and personality description, pick a birth system (or unknown), and perhaps a little background.
I'm not sure this system saves time, overall, but it does put more emphasis on storytelling than rolling dice or learning rules that generally only apply at the start of a game. It also provides random nature, but with choices - Players pick a PC they would want to play, instead of trying to figure out and randomly generate what they want. The former may not be a 'perfect' fit, but the random generation can lead to a PC the Player doesn't really want to play. The list picking also allows me to present PCs that are a good fit for the intended adventure.
I should note my Players don't generally have the books and are often new to RPGs - so the solo play nature of Traveller chargen isn't there. I also play pickup style games mostly spanning one to three sessions. For newbies, I often have Players play multiple PCs (assigning part of them sometimes to get Players to roleplay outside their comfort zones).
I'm not sure this system saves time, overall, but it does put more emphasis on storytelling than rolling dice or learning rules that generally only apply at the start of a game. It also provides random nature, but with choices - Players pick a PC they would want to play, instead of trying to figure out and randomly generate what they want. The former may not be a 'perfect' fit, but the random generation can lead to a PC the Player doesn't really want to play. The list picking also allows me to present PCs that are a good fit for the intended adventure.
I should note my Players don't generally have the books and are often new to RPGs - so the solo play nature of Traveller chargen isn't there. I also play pickup style games mostly spanning one to three sessions. For newbies, I often have Players play multiple PCs (assigning part of them sometimes to get Players to roleplay outside their comfort zones).
I too like the chargen subgame from CT. I've tried T5's a few times, and some bits add too much complexity for too little gain. The worked examples on the forums definitely help, but it feels like it needs some polish.
Maybe when I have an afternoon spare, I might generate as many characters as I can.
Maybe when I have an afternoon spare, I might generate as many characters as I can.
I've finally finished a more careful read of the whole book.
There are some things I like. The trade stuff, at a first few looks, seems nice. Conversely, I find the computer stuff really jarring. It doesn't seem consistent/plausible enough.
Overall, the thing that I think is most problematic is the uneven level of detail. Much is very detailed, e.g., star system and world generation, but other bits like combat are very glossed. A consistent level of detail would help.
The lack of examples troubles me more now.
There are some things I like. The trade stuff, at a first few looks, seems nice. Conversely, I find the computer stuff really jarring. It doesn't seem consistent/plausible enough.
Overall, the thing that I think is most problematic is the uneven level of detail. Much is very detailed, e.g., star system and world generation, but other bits like combat are very glossed. A consistent level of detail would help.
The lack of examples troubles me more now.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I don't have the T5 rules yet, but I've come to detest the 3d6 mechanic. As a VERY long time TFT player, I'm intimately familiar with the weaknesses of the 3d6 mechanic, particularly when it's combined with the "add dice for difficult situations" mechanic.
My primary objection to the 3d6 mechanic is the bell curve distribution, which causes several unwelcome consequences:
1. The range of useful target numbers is actually rather small. The chance of rolling a 7 or less is about 16%. The chance of rolling a 13- is about 84%. That's a range of 7 steps. You really might as well use 1d6 instead.
2. The bell curve makes modifiers wonky. Assume a target number of 15. A -3 (for instance) will reduce that from an 95% chance to a 83% chance. Yet if the target number is 8, the probabilities drop from 25% to 5%. Depending on the base target number, a very modest -1 modifier may shift the probability of success by as much as 12.5% (base target number of 10) or as little as 1.2% (base target number of 4).
3. Adding a die is worse. Assume a target number of 10. Adding a single die of difficulty will reduce the success chance from 50% to 15%. If the target number is 9, the odds go from 33% to 10%. If you add two dice, you make a task effectively impossible for most characters. A target number of 10- would have a 3% chance on 5 dice.
I think that this is way too granular. (It also plays havoc with any critical hit mechanics like TFT's "automatic hit on a 5-" rule; the equivalent number would be an unintuitive 8- on 4d6 and 11- on 5d6).
There is, however, a very nice fix. Replace the 3d6 roll with 1d20. This makes modifiers less wonky and makes very high and very low target numbers more relevant. This worked wonders in my TFT games.
All IMHO, of course.
My primary objection to the 3d6 mechanic is the bell curve distribution, which causes several unwelcome consequences:
1. The range of useful target numbers is actually rather small. The chance of rolling a 7 or less is about 16%. The chance of rolling a 13- is about 84%. That's a range of 7 steps. You really might as well use 1d6 instead.
2. The bell curve makes modifiers wonky. Assume a target number of 15. A -3 (for instance) will reduce that from an 95% chance to a 83% chance. Yet if the target number is 8, the probabilities drop from 25% to 5%. Depending on the base target number, a very modest -1 modifier may shift the probability of success by as much as 12.5% (base target number of 10) or as little as 1.2% (base target number of 4).
3. Adding a die is worse. Assume a target number of 10. Adding a single die of difficulty will reduce the success chance from 50% to 15%. If the target number is 9, the odds go from 33% to 10%. If you add two dice, you make a task effectively impossible for most characters. A target number of 10- would have a 3% chance on 5 dice.
I think that this is way too granular. (It also plays havoc with any critical hit mechanics like TFT's "automatic hit on a 5-" rule; the equivalent number would be an unintuitive 8- on 4d6 and 11- on 5d6).
There is, however, a very nice fix. Replace the 3d6 roll with 1d20. This makes modifiers less wonky and makes very high and very low target numbers more relevant. This worked wonders in my TFT games.
All IMHO, of course.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
How does the armor and damage system work when it comes to allocating damage among attributes. For instance, assume I hit a target with a pistol that does 3 dice damage and I roll a 3, 4 and 5. Assume the target's armor stops 6 points of damage. How do I divide the remaining 6 points of damage among the target's attributes? (Assume that this is NOT the first hit). How do you do this in single die increments?
Also, did I read correctly that armor is useless for the rest of the combat if it is penetrated by even 1 point of damage?
Also, did I read correctly that armor is useless for the rest of the combat if it is penetrated by even 1 point of damage?
I'm doing this for my MgT house rules game. For the GM, using 5% increments makes life easier. With the advent of different dice, using solely D6s for RPG's is "clunky".
Actually, this has been dealt with in another thread:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=440428#post440428
Yes, that appears to be be the official rule (although a number of people on the board have posted various alternatives - in fact, some on the thread above, I believe). T5 combat seems to be designed to be abstract, the point of which is to speed combat along, and not get bogged down with the nitty-gritty of the fight.
Similar threads
