Wish list?
- Thread starter Blue Ghost
- Start date
First things first.
1. In TNE starship selection was provided by a point system. The pc's could "accumulate" their points to purchase a better ship or more of the ship.
It didn't include assumptions for mothball refits and older vessels. Both of those I included in a home rule version of it for my campaign. I also showed how the chart could be modified to allow for various popular ship types. To me this is much better than 3 out of the 4 PCs having parts of their own ships. Here is a rough version for the Players to review.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/savage/1WorldOrder/T20-Home-Rules-ASSA.html
2. I am also fond of friends and contact purchasing from Shadowrun. Players purchase any companions they want. This provides the player with a fair ready made history.
3. Advantages and Disadvantages are far better than Feats. A character should be allowed a natural skill. Like the young skywalkers being pilots.
I like the ability of allowing PC to have strengths and weaknesses. Now all A&Ds are not necessarily implemented well...but thats another issue. In T20 character generation it appears that most of the feats at 12th lvl someone comes out of boot camp with the initial set. However, I do like the history building process
4. Zero Progression...yeah sure... a really successful product line CT. Players that wanted to improve their characters had to spend downtime improving the skillset. Hey they have to heal up, jump, etc... works for me. Never liked the 1st level D&D characters entering 10th level campaigns. Why anyone would consider gaining points as a method of improving their characters I'd never know. Rather unrealistic and silly.
5. I'd rather think that my method of adding to canon regarding spinal mounts is logical progression of weapons systems. A mass the size of a small moon wouldn't care about a spinal mount.
6. Improved combat is fine. I'd like to see fleet actions more realistic than Trillion Credit Squadron.
7. It must have an FFS.
- Include Tier'd jump space.
8. A quick PC system that can also be used for NPCs.
9. A vehicle, ship construction system that is quick, yet provides detail. It needs to include realistic progression across TL for vehicle/ship
elements. Software versions of course.
10. I liked MT World Builder. But I think being able to utilize existing software would be beneficial.
11. 50 starships with decent deckplans sounds good. And not just damn scout ships and
free traders.
12. LBB also available in pdf or CD.
That's not asking for much, is it?
Savage
1. In TNE starship selection was provided by a point system. The pc's could "accumulate" their points to purchase a better ship or more of the ship.
It didn't include assumptions for mothball refits and older vessels. Both of those I included in a home rule version of it for my campaign. I also showed how the chart could be modified to allow for various popular ship types. To me this is much better than 3 out of the 4 PCs having parts of their own ships. Here is a rough version for the Players to review.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/savage/1WorldOrder/T20-Home-Rules-ASSA.html
2. I am also fond of friends and contact purchasing from Shadowrun. Players purchase any companions they want. This provides the player with a fair ready made history.
3. Advantages and Disadvantages are far better than Feats. A character should be allowed a natural skill. Like the young skywalkers being pilots.
I like the ability of allowing PC to have strengths and weaknesses. Now all A&Ds are not necessarily implemented well...but thats another issue. In T20 character generation it appears that most of the feats at 12th lvl someone comes out of boot camp with the initial set. However, I do like the history building process
4. Zero Progression...yeah sure... a really successful product line CT. Players that wanted to improve their characters had to spend downtime improving the skillset. Hey they have to heal up, jump, etc... works for me. Never liked the 1st level D&D characters entering 10th level campaigns. Why anyone would consider gaining points as a method of improving their characters I'd never know. Rather unrealistic and silly.
5. I'd rather think that my method of adding to canon regarding spinal mounts is logical progression of weapons systems. A mass the size of a small moon wouldn't care about a spinal mount.
6. Improved combat is fine. I'd like to see fleet actions more realistic than Trillion Credit Squadron.
7. It must have an FFS.
- Include Tier'd jump space.
8. A quick PC system that can also be used for NPCs.
9. A vehicle, ship construction system that is quick, yet provides detail. It needs to include realistic progression across TL for vehicle/ship
elements. Software versions of course.
10. I liked MT World Builder. But I think being able to utilize existing software would be beneficial.
11. 50 starships with decent deckplans sounds good. And not just damn scout ships and
free traders.
12. LBB also available in pdf or CD.
That's not asking for much, is it?
Savage
You'd typically start a T20 character at about level 5-6 with about 8 selected feats plus whatever came free from prior history. Spending a startup feat to be a pilot from level 1 is no problem.
And how did you get level 12? You'd need about 20 terms for that, unless you cheat on all the bonus/promotion/decoration rolls.
Is CT really a successful product? I haven't seen it for sale in a shop for 20 years.
To put it another way, when did you last see an RPG launched with no character progression system? The last one I can remember was called something like "Luscious Cat Girls from Venus", and it was only meant to be played for one or two sessions for a lark.
That would be fine. Really I think a new "old style" traveller edition should offer several options for XP, letting the group/ref choose which they want to use:
(a) No progression
(b) Abstract metagame XP -- gain a little in ability every once in a while, by some non-roleplayed mechanic outside the game like Andy Slack's rules.
(c) Roleplayed learning -- increase skills when they're used under some sort of pressure, and include rules for learning from training/study.
(b) and (c) will have the much same results in practice, it's a question of aesthetics which one you prefer.
A good RPG should also have an option to forget skills and replace them with new ones, without increasing the overall skill total.
[I realise that people on web forums have terrible problems with the concept of choice in games, rather than Making Everybody Else Do The Same As Them. But I think it could catch on.
May I ask you guys something? Do you see T5 as an improved and tidied up system for existing CT/MT players to move to, or do you want it to bring in lots of new players?
That is fine I just do not like it when I buy books and then have to buy the Advanced books and then have to buy the supplements for background, equipment etc...
Put it all into one book? No, that is not what I am saying. The mileu information, campaign sourcebooks, equipment supplements, vehicles, huge lists of starships, Adventure books, Alien modules that give more depth to the Alien types or even add new Aliens maybe only include a few for PCs right off etc...
Rules should be all in one place either a subject is covered in the core books or a supplement, no two sets of conflicting rules and such. That is just my opinion on the subject.
I am not defending feats over A&D. I just have not seem it implemented very well and I have seen it used as a crutch for people to over role-play to the point they become screaming stereotypes of their disadvantage. Perhaps if it is implemented well it could be great, but I am wary.
Worded my response badly the first time. No, modern role-playing system that I know about has reached popularity without some sense of progression.
Using the skills improve the skill. The more time a Unix system administrator spends on a unix box the better he gets. It is why I am a firm believer (to take the example all the way) in system administrators working of a Unix workstation.
Points rewarded to the player reflects this progression in skills. This is the place where Traveller and AD&D diverged and it made it very realistic. I hate the randomness of the MT system but a progression model is needed in my opinion.
Experience and a progression of skills does not add hit points or anything like that. Just skills and that is the way it should be.
Sure, that would make sense. You want a supplement? What about wargaming supplements? Cut a deal with a mini manufacturer and there could be some bucks there.
FFS is a perfect supplement to add more depth to the creation process. Maybe even and I am reaching here divorce the creation process of Starships, Vehicles and Equipment from the core rules all together and have one huge bad-ass FFS real shortly thereafter within two months.
All of this makes perfect sense. The following are complex enough to warrant programs -- world, system, sector, and character generation. Even with the quick gen system that Mr. Miller has out today that would make sense. I also want tools online play like Grip included or an Irc client with a dice roller already there and some ideas on how to get online play going.
Yeah, I want lots of Starships. For newbs you have to include the Scout, Free Trader and Far Traders but you have to have more. I just do not want to six 18 variants on the damn Scout model and more big liner examples and the Fiery escort as well as the Gazelle and that is why I said 50 Starships. So, that makes perfect sense.
It is not asking too much I think. I just think we will probably have to agree to disagree on some individual points.
RobertFisher
SOC-12
Yeah, CT was a success! A failure doesn't generate the number of supplements CT did! Heck, I'd call TFT (a contemporary product) a success, and I don't think it did as well as CT by any measure.
Has any of its successors made more money (adjusted for inflation) as CT did? (And still is...)
During the past few years, I've seen CT for sale in at least three different shops in my town alone. Two of them still have it on the shelves. (The third went out of business...) It's also carried by many online stores. That's not even considering the secondary market for both "original" CT material as well as the reprints.
Yeah, CT was a success! A failure doesn't generate the number of supplements CT did! Heck, I'd call TFT (a contemporary product) a success, and I don't think it did as well as CT by any measure.
Has any of its successors made more money (adjusted for inflation) as CT did? (And still is...)
During the past few years, I've seen CT for sale in at least three different shops in my town alone. Two of them still have it on the shelves. (The third went out of business...) It's also carried by many online stores. That's not even considering the secondary market for both "original" CT material as well as the reprints. </font>[/QUOTE]The reprints are my local gaming shop too.
Of course, I have a great game shop here in Va.
Yes, it was a success.
jchurchill
SOC-12
To put it another way, when did you last see an RPG launched with no character progression system? The last one I can remember was called something like "Luscious Cat Girls from Venus", and it was only meant to be played for one or two sessions for a lark.
=================================================
Some bastard has infringed on my copyrighted and trademarked "adult" adventure....I'm suing.
=================================================
Some bastard has infringed on my copyrighted and trademarked "adult" adventure....I'm suing.
RobertFisher
SOC-12
(1) Just because no one has done it doesn't mean that it can't happen. Indeed, CT proves that an RPG with limited character progression written in the rules can be successful. It can even generate enough sales today to be reprinted and stocked on store shelves.
(2) Even CT included character progression except (as I understand it) in the first printing.
(3) It seems like I'm constantly reading reviews of new RPGs that are criticized for having limited character progression. (Savage Worlds being the first example that comes to mind--a game which seems to be garnering as much interest as anything non-d20 can.) Just today I saw a comment that BESM/Tri-Stat doesn't support the range of character progression someone wanted.
On the other hand, I'm going to agree that it would be sensible for T5 to have rules for character progression. Whether they're akin to CT or D&D3e I don't think matters so much.
I do think, however, that it is important to expose players to the idea of limited character progression in RPGs. I've seen lots of players who came to expect fairly rapid character progression--simply because it was an aspect of every game they played--learn to appreciate other aspects of the hobby they'd not fully appreciated before when convinced to try a limited progression game. Maybe they decide that they don't prefer limited progression, but their newfound appreciation of other aspects of the hobby remains.
There's another "wish list" of sorts on www.traveller5.com which is worth checking out. Basically it asks what ye'd want in T5 as a revision.
Perhaps I need to clarify for a few out there.
Zero Progression means that the players don't have an experience-based point system to improve their characters automatically. Hence, in CT it was encourage to have character downtime (during Jumps, for example) dedicated to some self-improvement. Actually, using a skill for a certain amount of time also allowed an opportunity for improvement. Especially if an instructor is participating.
I find that system more comfortable than "here is your 500 points for killing the pirate ship with the laser turret. Ok you gained a level, you can improve your battledress skill if you want."
Success in real life is not quantifiable by points. However, the meaning will vary greatly.
I'd suggest that an update to CT should follow the
original gameformat that it was designed in. Since, I want an FFS, I clearly believe in the flexibility of every ref to run the campaign they choose. Reviewing my game site would show several T20 home rules that I believe enhances game play. So, perhaps a collection of Optional or Advanced rules would be
a nice T5 product or T20. Just remember to give credit to whomever suggested the rule. Its fine by me if it includes XP character management as an option.
And yes CT was very successful. It spawned 5 (now 6) other versions. Incidentally, if you go to Yahoo Groups you'll find many people still playing CT who think we're crazy for doing T20. Me I like them all.
-Ack
Come on ACK we agree on so much. Certainly a screaming stereotype does not hurt the game. I use to playtest at GDW. I recalled doing some testing of SW before T2300 came out. I was a rogue pilot and my friend a wookie. Of course, I had to translate for him. Off the cuff he started moaning and growling about something I'd done. I responded with an "I know I know...I'm trying..." No one expected that much "stereotyping" from us and the room broke out in 5 minutes of laughter.
Ref flexibility is always the key to a great game.
Savage
-Ack
Come on ACK we agree on so much. Certainly a screaming stereotype does not hurt the game. I use to playtest at GDW. I recalled doing some testing of SW before T2300 came out. I was a rogue pilot and my friend a wookie. Of course, I had to translate for him. Off the cuff he started moaning and growling about something I'd done. I responded with an "I know I know...I'm trying..." No one expected that much "stereotyping" from us and the room broke out in 5 minutes of laughter.
Ref flexibility is always the key to a great game.
Savage </font>[/QUOTE]Stereotypes can be fun. When overdone though it can get unbearable. If I see one more gold-grubbing, grumpy elf-insulting, short fused ready to fight dwarf character I will walk over and personally smack the player.
Yes, ref flexibility is very essential.
Options for progression is important. Perhaps experience should be very abstract for the character and any system be one for the ref so he can "keep track". In other words, characters are never told about experience and must declare what they are "working on" during any downtime. Therefore, when the time has come the ref lets the character know that they have qualified one level on such-n-such skills through the automated testing system and can increase this skill by one.
I've been a Traveller player more or less since I read the review in White Dwarf a while back (issue 6 I think).
I loved it. Designed loads of starships up to 5,000 tons. Got High Guard; designed loads of starships up to 1,000,000 tons. Great stuff. I was always a Gearhead and wasn't overly impressed with the combat system but everything else seemed to work fine(ish). Striker came out; designed loads of vehicles, fiddled with the smallarms and armour, dumped CT combat and adopted Striker rules. Worked great. I think the biggest appeal of CT was the relative simplicity with which everything meshed and I don't recall the vast amounts of errata needed for every other version since, including T20. GURPS works fine, is consistant but isn't, well, Traveller if you know what I mean. I own a lot of GURPS stuff and THS is the coolest.
Anyhoo. T5.
The current stuff looks excellent. Character generation looks to be quite comprehensive and skills are not complicated as such; just *bulky*, but that's fine.
I tend to judge most games with how the tech works and if the design rules that the designers have come up with can be broken. Gurps Vehicles, while a fantastically complex system, is hard to break. There is no "something for nothing" technical gee-whizz (if anything it is painfully realistic even for stuff that isn't around yet!).
On the other hand scaling combat between characters, vehicles and spacecraft is tedious.
What you need is a system that can scale up and down for any level of combat with no obvious bumps (like T20 with its Battledress as powerful as Intrepid hassles).
Oh. The most important thing. Lots of playtesting, lots and lots of proof-reading.
I loved it. Designed loads of starships up to 5,000 tons. Got High Guard; designed loads of starships up to 1,000,000 tons. Great stuff. I was always a Gearhead and wasn't overly impressed with the combat system but everything else seemed to work fine(ish). Striker came out; designed loads of vehicles, fiddled with the smallarms and armour, dumped CT combat and adopted Striker rules. Worked great. I think the biggest appeal of CT was the relative simplicity with which everything meshed and I don't recall the vast amounts of errata needed for every other version since, including T20. GURPS works fine, is consistant but isn't, well, Traveller if you know what I mean. I own a lot of GURPS stuff and THS is the coolest.
Anyhoo. T5.
The current stuff looks excellent. Character generation looks to be quite comprehensive and skills are not complicated as such; just *bulky*, but that's fine.
I tend to judge most games with how the tech works and if the design rules that the designers have come up with can be broken. Gurps Vehicles, while a fantastically complex system, is hard to break. There is no "something for nothing" technical gee-whizz (if anything it is painfully realistic even for stuff that isn't around yet!).
On the other hand scaling combat between characters, vehicles and spacecraft is tedious.
What you need is a system that can scale up and down for any level of combat with no obvious bumps (like T20 with its Battledress as powerful as Intrepid hassles).
Oh. The most important thing. Lots of playtesting, lots and lots of proof-reading.
My main complaint is the roll-down task system that emphasizes physical attributes over skill level.
Also, upon even further review I find the skill progression tapped out at one skill a year to be constrictive even for a traveller campaign where there is a lot of downtime in terms of jump space time and inter-system travel that equates out to even more days of game downtime.
Other than that, everything I have seen so far just rocks the quickgen system can create incredibly compatible characters.
My single largest complaint about T5 draft materials so far is that roll Xd6, where X varies by difficulty level.
If the T4/T5 style Xd6 vs Skill + Att is the task system, I won't buy it, and will encourage my friends not to, either (And the vast majority won't, either , because of that flaw and their extant traveller collectiosn.)
I could handle seeing TNE's task system come back.
I would prefer a DGP-CT/MT task system come back.
I like the method MWM has come up with for skill gains in T5. (and it caps at 2 levels per year, BTW.)
If the T4/T5 style Xd6 vs Skill + Att is the task system, I won't buy it, and will encourage my friends not to, either (And the vast majority won't, either , because of that flaw and their extant traveller collectiosn.)
I could handle seeing TNE's task system come back.
I would prefer a DGP-CT/MT task system come back.
I like the method MWM has come up with for skill gains in T5. (and it caps at 2 levels per year, BTW.)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I would't go as far as saying I wouldn't buy it, after all I bought everything produced for TNE and T4 and I never used either game's task system I did, however, find other things in both games that I did like and adopted for my use. If MWM sticks to the bucket of dice model then I'll ignore it and hopefully find other parts of T5 usable (I already use the quick character gen and skill list).
I would prefer a DGP-CT/MT task system come back.
Me too. I wonder why Marc is so dead against it? Has anyone ever tried an "independent" poll of which task system the fan base would like to see (I don't think enough people have voted on the similar poll over on the T5 website for it to be representative of "public" opinion).
More importantly, would Marc listen?
I did, however, find other things in both games that I did like and adopted for my use. If MWM sticks to the bucket of dice model then I'll ignore it and hopefully find other parts of T5 usable (I already use the quick character gen and skill list).I would prefer a DGP-CT/MT task system come back.
Me too. I wonder why Marc is so dead against it? Has anyone ever tried an "independent" poll of which task system the fan base would like to see (I don't think enough people have voted on the similar poll over on the T5 website for it to be representative of "public" opinion).
More importantly, would Marc listen?
To my mind, the DGP/MT/BITS task system is the best.
Bucket-o-dice.... someone has been paying Full Thrust or Power Projection....
Seriously, I have players who find it hard to keep 2d6 in front of them. Asking them to find 7d6 could take several minutes.... (Yeah, it is sad...)
And roll-under won't be popular. I wish someone would do a poll regarding favorite task-system mechanics.... <HINT HINT>
Bucket-o-dice.... someone has been paying Full Thrust or Power Projection....
Seriously, I have players who find it hard to keep 2d6 in front of them. Asking them to find 7d6 could take several minutes.... (Yeah, it is sad...)
And roll-under won't be popular. I wish someone would do a poll regarding favorite task-system mechanics.... <HINT HINT>
My fav is still the MT/DGP Task System.Originally posted by kaladorn:
To my mind, the DGP/MT/BITS task system is the best.
Bucket-o-dice.... someone has been paying Full Thrust or Power Projection....
Seriously, I have players who find it hard to keep 2d6 in front of them. Asking them to find 7d6 could take several minutes.... (Yeah, it is sad...)
And roll-under won't be popular. I wish someone would do a poll regarding favorite task-system mechanics.... <HINT HINT>
The conversion from a roll-under to a roll-over system is not that hard for T5 though.
The system gives too much emphasis to the attributes as oppossed to skills and to make up for that you have to tweak the "This is Hard" rules pretty hard.
The two above issues are my biggest problems with the system.
I still do not mind the fist full of dice fury model because I do think it gives more flexibility in terms of difficulty.
Funny most players I know come into the game with whole annoying big bags full of dice.
After every other game I use to walk around the house finding odd dice in the most bizarre places.
Nothing fun about stomping on the top of a four sided die with a big cup of hot coffee in your hand. Ouch!
