Traveller and gamism/ narrativism/ simulationism

[flykiller]

It is not, however, a market for selling a new RPG.

(used to be)

then I wonder if there is a market for a new rpg. any game that could be called "traveller" will require a massive investment by the referee. the rules may be accessible, the setting may be abbreviated, the dice charts may be quick and hot ... but there's still that little matter of the game itself. no-one can give the ref the game, he has to come up with that on his own. and in traveller it's a big open-ended playground.

besides, between GURPS, T20, and TNE, who needs a new rpg anyway? people who use T20 seem very happy about it and report excellent recruitment results, and while I'd never play it (levels? in my beloved "realistic" rpg? please, shoot me) seems to me that's where the business action is.

and there's no need for any backwards compatibility. there won't be any no matter what you do. we CTers have been left behind and told that we're not relevant and informed that if we don't like it we can just do it ourselves, so many times, that we have. eh, probably would have done it anyway. I have a great space combat system, a superior character generation system, a personal combat/wounding system that works for me, my own version of a task system, an excellent basis for the nobles and the imperial governmental and naval structure that lets me smoothly determine who/what/where/when/why, and a whole boatload of PC-sized deckplans, adventures, and adventure settings set up according to my rules. it works great so far. why would I want to give up all of that? speaking for myself I won't buy another game system, I've been making my own for too long. if you want new markets then go for new markets, and it looks like T20 is already where you want to be.

anyway, I'll shut up now.

 

[RickA]

Originally posted by flykiller:
"ok, the players can jump to these seven worlds, I'll spend six hours preparing for all seven. hah, I'm ready for my group tonight." "hey, we changed our mind, we're going to jump in the opposite direction to whatsitsname." (toss notebook behind me, get out dice) "ok, when you get there you find ... " (roll roll roll).

My players love staring at the top of my balding head while I roll roll roll in the book to find out what the next star system is or whatnot. No, wait... they hate that.

Depends on the group of players as much as anything else. Mine are not easily satisfied, alas. /sigh/

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"ok, the players can jump to these seven worlds, I'll spend six hours preparing for all seven. hah, I'm ready for my group tonight." "hey, we changed our mind, we're going to jump in the opposite direction to whatsitsname." (toss notebook behind me, get out dice) "ok, when you get there you find ... " (roll roll roll).

I have no idea how you prepare for this, but could you not come up with a generalised scenario and just place it wherever the PCs end up going? They're not going to all seven (or eight ) places at once after all. </font>[/QUOTE]That's just what I was thinking. Those seven worlds' worth of information can surely be cannibalized and transplanted to the world they finally choose to visit... the scenery may change, but the plot remains.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is not, however, a market for selling a new RPG.

(used to be)

then I wonder if there is a market for a new rpg. any game that could be called "traveller" will require a massive investment by the referee. [...]

and there's no need for any backwards compatibility. there won't be any no matter what you do. [...list of homebrew/variant system components...] why would I want to give up all of that?

anyway, I'll shut up now. </font>[/QUOTE]You're not really ranting -- I don't think you need to "shut up".

Malenfant's asked the same question over and over, and I never really had an answer for it. I hope that "the next version" will bring together the bits of Traveller I liked in a happy harmony, or create cool, sharable core add-ons that help me when detailing a world or campaign, or provide new spins on the old solo mini-games within the Traveller core.

I have no idea what today's young players like in a game. It sounds like it's not the same as what I like. I'm the wrong person when it comes to marketing a game.

 

[Malenfant]

Malenfant's asked the same question over and over, and I never really had an answer for it.

To be honest, your answer isn't what I was after - it was Marc's. And he singularly failed to offer one.

 

[robject]

That makes sense. Still, when I ask myself that question, I find it hard to think of a possible answer. I end up thinking of ways in which I would like a consolidated, reformed, and expanded Traveller -- in other words, more at a legacy product. Etc.

 

[kurtis]

That's the rub. However, Marc doesn't owe us any answers (yet). T5 is still mostly vaporware, by which I mean that despite the draft material available so far, there is still no guarantee of an actual release.

Theses are the kinds of questions Marc needs to ask himself (and he may be well ahead of on this score, or not), but we won't really know the final answers until an actual UPC gets scanned.

In the meantime, its fun to chew the fat.

Regarding those of us with complete customized Traveller campaigns (or those working on one... /raise), I completely understand. Whatever flavor of rules derivation you are using, if you have a complete self-sufficient game, then any new game design is purely academic. In which case, the rest of the hobby can go hang.

Concepts like product and market do matter if you are (or aspire to be) a professional game designer or publisher. For the rest of us, it's just backseat driving, hehehe...

Concepts like GNS or Core Story, however, can also be applied by refs in their own houserules, and at the very least, IMO are food for thought.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Silent Cartographer:
That's the rub. However, Marc doesn't owe us any answers (yet).

Of course he does. He expect us (i.e. Traveller fans) to be interested in it and to buy it. He needs to tell us why we should, and why we need to play T5 and what it offers as opposed to any other version of the game.

 

[Michael Schulz]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Silent Cartographer:
That's the rub. However, Marc doesn't owe us any answers (yet).

Of course he does. He expect us (i.e. Traveller fans) to be interested in it and to buy it. He needs to tell us why we should, and why we need to play T5 and what it offers as opposed to any other version of the game. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, Mal, with a tentative 2007 release date, I think Marc has at least a year before he really has to start drumming up interest. That said, I figure he probably should've have a few pat, nebulous, slogan-y answers to these questions long before he announced that T5 was going to happen in order to placate/intrigue fans. On the other hand, maybe his dealings with loyal, slightly crazy, fans over the years has led him to enjoy messin' with us by being a big wall of silence. Or maybe he just didn't realize how badly we were going to want information/blood.

At anyrate, I give him a year before I'm going to want some substantial arguments from FFE as to why I should give them my hard earned dollars.

 

[RickA]

The odds of myself buying a T5 system are quite low, considering how often in the past we've all been burned by the "latest and greatest" version of Traveller. At least imho.

I'll stick with T20 for the convinience of my group more than likely. Always fun to see what new stuff comes out though and fun to watch (from a safe distance) the pain and agony caused by seemingly-out-of-touch game developers.

Somewhat of a side note: in the early '90s when I owned a hobby shop I was astounded by the RPG "industry". I had been a gamer for years and years and had assumed that these companies were big time operations, with full time art departments, game developers, editors, etc. Then they all started going out of business (FASA managed to go under? How??) and we all realized that in spite of the airs that these companies put on they were really .02 operations that were in general mismanaged and poorly run. Few had that many employees, and even the successful ones ended up smelling of "run out of my basement" companies.

Wonder if Marc even has an office outside the home? 15 years ago I'd have thought "Of course! Probably a big office for the whole company!" Now I figure he works on this stuff in his home office when he's not busy playing golf or working his part time job.

 

[robject]

You're right, Rick. It looks like Marc runs a small printing company as his main job.

 

[RickA]

Originally posted by robject:
You're right, Rick. It looks like Marc runs a small printing company as his main job.

Does it strike anyone else as humorous that we all hang on the words and deeds of fellas who work at some print shop or a car dealership or whatever?

Well, I find it funny.

 

[kafka47]

The really odd thing is that we are constantly waiting for new product but we are left wondering why doesn't he just use his own company to produce the wretched things. Or is that illegal in the States somehow?

 

[aramis]

Well, one of the problems is that GDW was not only one of the bigger ones, but one of the more professional ones.

GDW's officers were in a modest building in Bloomington.
I've seen photos.

Another "Big Gun" is Amarillo Design Bureau. They have a "Virtual Tour" of their facility; they've been there for some time.

Mark is now, like so many from the heyday, having to come to grips with trying to make a living and design games vs trying to make a living BY designing games...

And since the fall of GDW, Marc has shown little ability to get traveller out the door on schedule. I suspect publishing the date is to give himself a target date to work towards.

 

[rhoneycutt]

my 2 cents worth........

story=characters+setting+task

characters for narrative ( the players can decide how they 'feel' and act )
setting by simulation ( to make universe self consistant at least and not pure random )
the task is gamist ( gives the players some goal to work toward )

game rules should only deal with the simulationist parts to make things/actions consistant from place to place. The other parts come from the minds of the ref and players.
----------------------------

the rules should define how the setting/background works and should only quantify the characters as to how they can interact with that setting... not how the characters act.
----------------------------

I think the arguments about the 'focus' of the game is a waste of time as the focus will mold itself to what the players ( ppl who enjoy the story ) make of it. Traveller's beauty to me has always been that the story can be 'told' in any style imaginable from strict wargame to emotional stageplay.

just my thoughts, for better or worse.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

You know, the mood of the player group for the evening has a lot to do with G/N/S. Sometimes you just want to have a bughunt, no real thinking needed. Sometimes you want to be in a detailed game of political intrigue at the Imperial court. As long as you do not impose an artificial limitation upon yourself, Traveller can cover this entire spectrum of gaming possibilities and even include some finer shading to them. Want "rules lite"? - Then use CT. Want something to tempt the DnD3.5 or d20 Modern players? - Then use T20. Want to get the GURPS enthusiasts off your back? - Then use GT. Want gearheading at its finest? - Then use TNE or T4 FF&S1 or FF&S2. It all depends on what the individual referee wants to run and the player group wants to play.

 

[robject]

Excellent point! The player group dictates the playing style.

 

[aramis]

Shere, you should head over to the forge, and read the article. (It's also in Sorcerer, as an appendix.)