Traveller 5th Edition

[lucasdigital]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:
<SNIP>
What is the objective of ship design rules in a RPG? Is to provide ships, a powerful plot device to gaming sessions. In that case, what features are necessary to describe such ship? Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bravo RON,

I loved TNE, I really loved the level of sophistication and complexity. It made the game feel worthy of my adult mind...

Almost ten years on and with so many more responsibilites, I know I could never go back to TNE because I simply don't have the time required. All those calculations, all that design, it really was fun, but its not what traveller or role playing is about
Mark

 

[Takei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lucasdigital:
Bravo RON,

I loved TNE, I really loved the level of sophistication and complexity. It made the game feel worthy of my adult mind...

Almost ten years on and with so many more responsibilites, I know I could never go back to TNE because I simply don't have the time required. All those calculations, all that design, it really was fun, but its not what traveller or role playing is about
Mark<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm the same and I must admit that I've had more fun during the last 6 or 9 months designing Book 2 ships than I've ever had previously. All this time and it was sat right under my nose!!

 

[Uncle Bob]

This is a hell of a way to introduce yourself to a group, but anyway . . .

I guess I'm a "gearhead:" I attended an Engineering school, and although my degree is in Physics I have held jobs that had "Engineer" in the title. Complexity does not bother me, and I like designing things. Especially, I like fiddling with game hardware.

Still, I did not like FFS (I admit I haven't seen the latest version). Detail is not necessarily realism, and the complexity of the design mechanics was out of proportion to the results (the closest analogy I can think of is the magic system from 1st edition C&S.) In every case, there are layers of abstraction separating the player from the real design choices, which makes the designs arbitrary. If they are going to be arbitrary anyway, why not make it easier to use?

For example, I know a little about small arms design, and figured out very quickly that FFS was not able to design contemporary firearms more than approximately, never mind inovative weapons like the AN94 or OICW. I like separating "penetration" and "damage," but the numbers I got with FFS did not match the known behavior of the real cartridges I was modeling (mostly because of variations in projectile design I could not tae into account.) It quickly became obvious that this was true in other areas of design also. It is not that the rules are wrong, but they are simplified and conceals extra layers of design factors beyond what the player/referee is allowed to consider. This introduces a layer of abstraction the player is unaware of, indeed that the rules discourage him from imagining.

This only gets worse as the tech level climbs. For example, does a fusion engine burn deuterium, proton-proton, Lithium-proton proton-Boron, or what? It makes a whopping difference in the power, the shielding, the weight, and the tech level. The system seems to assume proton-proton at all tech levels, and ignores the other, less potent, options but we don't know. And we can't choose if we want to use a different option. (A hint: D+D relatively easy to burn, but lots of nasty neutrons demand heavy shielding and the fuel is hard to get. P+Li is harder to start, but releases no neutrons or X-rays and the fuel is a common element in planetary crusts. p+B is a lot harder to start but half again the energy, and still no radiation. p+p is much, much harder to start or sustain, but no radiation, ten times the power per kilo of fuel . . . and cheap, plentiful fuel) The maneuver drive, antigravity modules, and the jump drive we have no real understanding of, so any level of construction is purely artificial.

At any rate, using a set of rules as complex as FFS gives consistent, but not necessarily realistic results. It should be possible to build a much simpler system which is no less realistic.



[This message has been edited by Uncle Bob (edited 29 April 2001).]

 

[ImperialOne]

Originally posted by Gatsby:
Some notes:
$ for T5?: Because it's Traveller, damnit! Seriously, if T5 is good, I'll upgrade. I never went to GURPS/T:d20 systems because there was too much change in the fundamentals, making all my past data in need of a conversion. Now, you'll need GURPS players to convert their data....that's the bed that was made, folks, and T5 beter be good enough to warrant getting those GURPS players AND bringing back the 'Newer Systems' strays....


I guess, as a player of Traveller in all its forms since 1980, I could be considered a grognard. On the other hand, I have evolved to sleeker systems over the years as the flaws of the various Traveller rules systems showed through. GURPS is by no means perfect, but it is as close as it comes in roleplaying today. And as the most prolific producer of Travller products today, SJ Games should be praised for keeping the universe alive.
I have high hopes for T5, but I urge it to be more of a revolutionary, not evolutionary system. The diehards that respond in this space are not going to supply the sufficient numbers or flexibility to attract new gamers to the Traveller universe, a necessity to keep Trabeleer alive and well.
Consider me, a Traveller fanatic since 1980, as one of those aforementioned strays.

Charles

 

[Murph]

Darn tootin' High Guard WORKED, and worked well. FFS/FFE/Megatraveller/etc. bogged you down and was not FUN. We had a great time with High Guard designed ships both from GDW and FASA. Complexity does not equal fun, and simple does not equal stupid.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
This is a hell of a way to introduce yourself to a group, but anyway . . .

I guess I'm a "gearhead:" I attended an Engineering school, and although my degree is in Physics I have held jobs that had "Engineer" in the title. Complexity does not bother me, and I like designing things. Especially, I like fiddling with game hardware.

Still, I did not like FFS (I admit I haven't seen the latest version). Detail is not necessarily realism, and the complexity of the design mechanics was out of proportion to the results (the closest analogy I can think of is the magic system from 1st edition C&S.) In every case, there are layers of abstraction separating the player from the real design choices, which makes the designs arbitrary. If they are going to be arbitrary anyway, why not make it easier to use?

For example, I know a little about small arms design, and figured out very quickly that FFS was not able to design contemporary firearms more than approximately, never mind inovative weapons like the AN94 or OICW. I like separating "penetration" and "damage," but the numbers I got with FFS did not match the known behavior of the real cartridges I was modeling (mostly because of variations in projectile design I could not tae into account.) It quickly became obvious that this was true in other areas of design also. It is not that the rules are wrong, but they are simplified and conceals extra layers of design factors beyond what the player/referee is allowed to consider. This introduces a layer of abstraction the player is unaware of, indeed that the rules discourage him from imagining.

This only gets worse as the tech level climbs. For example, does a fusion engine burn deuterium, proton-proton, Lithium-proton proton-Boron, or what? It makes a whopping difference in the power, the shielding, the weight, and the tech level. The system seems to assume proton-proton at all tech levels, and ignores the other, less potent, options but we don't know. And we can't choose if we want to use a different option. (A hint: D+D relatively easy to burn, but lots of nasty neutrons demand heavy shielding and the fuel is hard to get. P+Li is harder to start, but releases no neutrons or X-rays and the fuel is a common element in planetary crusts. p+B is a lot harder to start but half again the energy, and still no radiation. p+p is much, much harder to start or sustain, but no radiation, ten times the power per kilo of fuel . . . and cheap, plentiful fuel) The maneuver drive, antigravity modules, and the jump drive we have no real understanding of, so any level of construction is purely artificial.

At any rate, using a set of rules as complex as FFS gives consistent, but not necessarily realistic results. It should be possible to build a much simpler system which is no less realistic.

[This message has been edited by Uncle Bob (edited 29 April 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:
I really don't like the idea of using a computer during my gaming session. It will take table space and will take my attention off my players. I don't need exact results to any particular task. What I need is a system flexible enough to give me good guidelines on performing tasks. However, a computer may be useful in aiding a referee in design an adventure. While gaming, I prefer to concentrate my attention to the players.

Best wishes,
Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have, for the last 6 years, nearly always had a computer of some sort in my lap when i GM. First, a PB 520, using MT CRAFT, and the wonderful stuff by R. Prior. Later, my newton, with nought but a dicer program. More recently, a handspring visor. When t20 comes out, I'll tailor some aids for that, and use it in play. But, unlike a desktop, a Palm or Newton doesn't require a whole lot of space.



------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:
What is the objective of ship design rules in a RPG? Is to provide ships, a powerful plot device to gaming sessions. In that case, what features are necessary to describe such ship? I would say that the number of passengers, cargo capability and speed of travel. Because conflict may be interresting, some combat stats should be provided, although it is of secondary importance. Why secondary importance? You can not assign things to do to all your players during ship combat (not all of them will have the necessary skills), and thus it is boring to those not participating. Furthermore, combat should be quick. Players will probably running a small ship that will be unable to sustain much damage. Therefore, the rules need only to address low intensity combat. Anyone have ever found a use for MT: Fighting ships of the Imperium in a roleplaying session? Give a quick look to HG, MT, FFS, or T4. What is the roleplaying use of knowning how much MW each subsystem will consume? Does this information come up during your gaming sessions? If yes, tell me, I am curious. Considering my views, I will point that the rules presented in Book 2 are the best starship design rules for a RPG I ever read.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MT:Fighting Ships: yes, I've found use for it in Roleplaying. Knowing the capabilities of the fleet came in really valuable in a full blown imperial intervention (mesons from orbit, missile barrages, drop troops, fighter sorties).

As for Book 2: the moment HG came into my posession dropped Bk 2 from my games; I prohibited it in my games in total!

When MT came out, all the PC's ships were MT designs. Big threat adversaries were modified HG designs (Using MT fuel tonnages).

I run games heavy on space travel, and use piracy IMTU. Not to mention local navies, and customs in orbit; people often try to run these... and combat ensues. I've only has a few parties that lacked any critical skills for space combat, and they hired help for those. I've also had to adjudicate Ship Lasers vs Characters, and snall arms vs Starships.

So far, MT has been the only edition with a simple system (HG) I could easily use with the advanced system.

MW: yes, it does come up. My players love to use Neutrino sensors. They tend to design over-systemed ships, with power deficits. Things like labs and survey gear, and occasionally life support, go off-line during combat to power the lasers. Maybe I've just had too many tech-heads in my games...
------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

[This message has been edited by aramis (edited 06 June 2001).]

 

[lucasdigital]

I must admit to being a spaceship junkie. I like to know as much as possible about a ship.

Though I think that the mechanics should remain lightweight as what I like is reference information, not chains with which to restrict the pace of my gaming.

The TNE starship combat (ALA Brilliant Lances board game) was an excellent extension in complexity but wasn't really suited to role playing unless the none active players could slip into lowberths for a few hours.

Mk



------------------
Mark Lucas
Lucas-digital.com

 

[Tanuki]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lucasdigital:
I must admit to being a spaceship junkie. I like to know as much as possible about a ship.

Though I think that the mechanics should remain lightweight as what I like is reference information, not chains with which to restrict the pace of my gaming.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I'd like to see a nice simple system like High Guard, with all the MT/TNE gearhead detail as an optional expansion to the system. High Guard provides the basic design, the rest of the optional stuff adds detail within that design.

So designing a ship would be nice and simple, yet the gearheads could add as much detail as they liked.

 

[TimAllan]

The MT craft design system was, in my opinion extriemly good. The complexity of it is easily offset by the use of a spread sheet package, but even without, it was not too difficult if one followed the example in Challenge 42, I think. If the computer system rules were updated, perhaps allowing computers of different maximum cp inputs for a particular multyplyer and the silly limitation on which size of craft can carry thruster plates and the number of turrets being based on displacement rather than available serface area etc then it would be the truly excelent craft design system. On that note, the adventurous soule among you might care to make use of BTRC's CORPS VDS.

For those that only require a CT like craft design system, a modular version of a MT like system would bs simplisity itself to produce, though if could take a couple of months.

------------------
It is much easier to learn from your own mistakes than from those of other people.

 

[GypsyComet]

The MT design system had VERY high potential, had we ever managed to see an error-free version in print...

What the MT system has over all other systems before or since was organization. Another paragraph or two added to the front (or simple flowcharts for vehicle types), and there would not have been any doubt about *exactly* how to move through the tables to design something. TNE's FF&S came close, but evolved into too much page-flipping.
High Guard only works because the system is *small* so you don't flip through more than a dozen pages. As shown by a couple tournaments way back when, HG is also too simple in the combat side, allowing a mainframe-aided fleet design to win consistently due to there being pretty much NO tactical side to combat...

 

[greypilgrim]

Classic Purist?

I have hae absilutely no experience with the later Trav versions. I cut my teeth with the Classic LBBs and was 'happy' with it. For me, Trav5 basically going back to "the way things were" with all sorts of great extra expansion material (as I am understanding it - and I was a Kickstarter supporter) suites me just fine.

 

[aramis]

I have hae absilutely no experience with the later Trav versions. I cut my teeth with the Classic LBBs and was 'happy' with it. For me, Trav5 basically going back to "the way things were" with all sorts of great extra expansion material (as I am understanding it - and I was a Kickstarter supporter) suites me just fine.

You're in for a world of surprise...

 

[Uriel]

I'm actually glad that T5 isn't going to be just a regurgitation of Classic Traveller. I already own Classic.

Looking forward to Marc's current system vision.

 

[Shonner]

Traveller 5 was talked about back in 2001? I thought T4 hadn't come out yet for some reason. Time flies.

 

[Spaceresearcher]

Fellow Travellers thoughts on T5 NOW

Well, now that there's a T5 CD-ROM available from FFE and a thankfully an actual book in the pipeline(I'm sure most of us jumped on the band wagon with the Kickstarter project and I'm really excited that it's due out shortly), what are fellow Traveller fans initial thoughts now?

Essentially we've been given a sneak peak into what the new version will be like, we've seen a host of mentioned features, there's even a terrific set of dice coming out just to celebrate and a host of other great bonuses that are all gratefully received.

I'm looking forward to the new edition as it looks as if there will finally be a definitive version of Traveller that incorporates the great things while striving to achieve an order and structure that's ultimately been somewhat absent in a printed form until now. As I look through the past editions, what seems to be lacking is those interconnecting threads. For example a prime example is the T4 survey book. Planet sizes for example do not even match correctly with CT, MT and TNE??? I'm ever so glad there's an official www.travellermap.com, as that's what I'm going to be using from now on. That is an amazing resource where you can simply print out the maps you require for your adventure and star systems are set.

Curious about these clone rules, correct me if I am mistaken but I have not seen rules for clones EVER(maybe there could be amidst Star Wars games or something like that but I've never played those). As always Traveller seems to be first in delivering great SciFi concepts for RPGers before any other system.

After all these years, I'm certain it will be one rock solid system, finally nailed down and set to be the definite set of Traveller rules for the future.

It's often concerned me that some Travellers have the notion that 'it's not Traveller without errors'. In all honestly, I don't believe Mark would have wanted it that way, it's simply expanded beyond all expectations and getting the correct rules out with all the publishing pressures was simply not humanely possible before(dare I say it, probably not even hiver possible). So I'm glad it's taken this long because that means that all the creators have had time to think it over, change where needed, test and finally deliver a rock solid product.

Over the last couple of months I've been gaming with fellow Travellers here in Brisbane and where all rather detailed about it. I've been amazed at the mind blowing depth and resource plentiful universe that is Traveller. Just when you think you have it nailed down, there's 3 to 5 other publishers all putting out great products to support there versions which can also expand your own versions.

What's grabbing me most about Traveller is it's defined travel rules. These put constraints on letting someone have any old mindless romp and require thought and preparation for the journey, not just random exploring. This creates an interesting puzzle element at times.

If there's 2 things I do hope for in the new edition, it's that there might be Wormhole and perhaps a new tech that allows for faster jump drives than have been previously possible. I believe that will make for at the very least a race with a huge edge over other races in the galaxy.

In any case I'm looking forward and I'm sure I'll enjoy it, just as I did all these years ago when I first chanced upon those little black books of joy.

 

[nDervish]

Curious about these clone rules, correct me if I am mistaken but I have not seen rules for clones EVER(maybe there could be amidst Star Wars games or something like that but I've never played those). As always Traveller seems to be first in delivering great SciFi concepts for RPGers before any other system.

Erm... You haven't? First game I encountered clones in was the original Car Wars pocket box (published 1982) and its Gold Cross insurance policy. Pay your premium and they'll keep a clone on ice, ready to have your mind copied into it if you die.

If you really want to see the possibilities, go download a copy of Eclipse Phase (it's Creative Commons licensed and the pdf version is free). Want to have three active clones, one running a lobotomized version of your personality, one running the full version, and the third with a cyber-brain hosting four independent copies of your personality? Sure - no problem!

 

[pendragonman]

Send in the clones...

Don't forget Paranoia. I am reasonably sure this is the first widespread use of clones.

Remember, computer is your FRIEND.

 

[Spaceresearcher]

Sticking to a system

I havn't read anything on Eclipse phase, but to be honest I think I'd prefer to stick to one system and make that work than jump over multiple RPG's, there's about 20 or so that I've seen which look interesting but why not just incorporate the bits that are liked into Traveller?

 

[saundby]

Computer is my friend. Don't wipe the rest of my six-pack. We wish only to serve the Computer for the good of Alpha Complex.

Also, Metamorphosis Alpha, 1976.