• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Worth a visit

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
Where can we find reliable statistics on TRPG vs. MMORPG sales? Is there a "Consumer Reports" type thing for gaming?
Click to expand...
There's a periodical that ranks top ten game companies IIRC. [edit: found the name] Comics & Games Retailer Magazine. I believe Palladium Books likes to quote from it or a similar newspaper found in comic/game stores. No idea on accuracy* as there aren't really public sales figures or even public reports for most companies in the RPG "industry". There are exceptions, SJG (link) being one ('05 report recently posted; see above for link), and Hasbro's stockholder's report is at least quoted from online, if not fully online. Don’t have a link for that but sites like Hasbro.com, enworld.org, or gamingreport.com should have info on it.

MMORPGs at least like to release press releases about high numbers and anything tied to publicly traded companies should be trackable. Offhand 1000 is a good number for a pen and paper RPG non-core book supplement these days. Not even close to MMORPGs' numbers.

As a comparison traditional war boardgames (what pen and paper RPGs largely supplanted) are mostly to the point where they require 250/500 preorders before a product goes into print. Me I prefer boardgames with more elegant rules and shorter playtimes these days anyway so boardgames in the Eurogames style are very welcome.

Ryan Dancy did a survey of RPGs prior to d20 that's on enworld.org (under articles) but you have to be a enworld member to access it now. AFAIK it's the only publicly available document of its kind.

* I tend to go by Kenneth Hite's Out of Box Column more anyway and can't find the above paper anymore. It's free and a good read.
(link to 2003 State of the Industry article)
 
Originally posted by Aramis:
Maynard:

canon, in any roleplaying game is unimportant to many groups; it does, however, have value for the following reasons:

1) New Members who already have played
2) multiple GM groups
3) vast settings where it is easier to let players read than to have them discover in play
4) verisimilitude, but only if the materials are good.
5) rules-canon describes the expected physics, meta-physics, and sociodynamics of the universe; it is arguably more important than setting canon in some ways.
6) Convention Play.

Take for example Shadowbear. he joined my group during the T20 playtest. Since I stick pretty close to canon, I merely had to tell him a couple of bits where I knowingly go astray, and several bits that were Rules-canon contradicting soft bits of setting canon (to wit: are all marines BD troopies? Not IMTU, since until the TML BD flame wars of 94-95, I'd never even heard of that article of LKW's, and found it contradictory to rules canon, and to the boardgames). It erupted into heated discussion during the playtest; the solution was a compromise: Make BD feat available to all marine 1st levels, but don't make it automatic; the GM can chose. So once he knew that IMTU, all landed nobles were enfeoffed with starports, he also knew that starport problems could be solved with Peter's Noble.

By having a knowledge of canon, neither he nor I had to spend lots of time discussing where and how I'd tweaked the setting, and also, I had loads of materials to provide answers to many common questions.
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying, and don't disagree at all.

Where I have issues is what is included as canon and what is not. To me, canon is what's in the rules books themselves, and not what gets published in, say, JTAS, Challenger, RolePlayer, or whatever, regardless of who the author was. I consider that to be 'variants', whether it's in a house organ or not is an irrelevancy, to be honest, unless it's also put in an official erratta type announcement, or including in following updated editions.

This simplifies it a whole lot for me as both a player and GM. I borrow from anything that's useful, but try to keep it basically stock, with the add on's being stuff that isn't covered or only vaguely referenced. For instance, I'm not going to tell everybody we're going to be playing a Spinward Marches campagin, and then turn around and have all new UWP's, historys, etc. That would make no sense; I wouldn't call it a SW campaign, it be named something else.

But, if I use the mining unit and prospecting tables from Space Opera, or the scrounging rules and tables from the Aftermath games, etc., some of the Far Trader granularity in freight rates and trade stuff, I have house rules that aren't going to upset game balance at all, really, just as an example.
 
Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
After looking over the files supplied from the site, There is going to need to be a LOT of Crisping and Cleaning! I hate to naysay to any Traveller project, but this looks so convoluted that your average modern gamer (IE, the young) would mistake it for a thesis on orbital mechanics, or perhaps a Korean-Translated-into Japanese-Translated-into-English DVD Player Owner's Manual. It may be easier to grow a real Traveller Character in a test tube than it would be for a novice gamer to generate one using this.

It is possible to think TOO much, what?
Click to expand...
There's probably a perfectly reasonable random chargen system in there struggling to get out, if you like random chargen. But the text of the document has been created by an evil genius intent on stopping players from finding out what that chargen system is. It needs rewriting by a professional. It would be best to get somebody who is unfamiliar with the game, so they won't assume the reader already knows things (like MWM apparently has).

The non-random option, meanwhile, is the single most abusable/unbalanced point buy system I have ever seen in an RPG. I can't imagine any clued-up GM allowing it.

So I don't hold much hope for T5 at review time.

It's gonna be another collector release. I can't help but think MWM would be better off doing signed and slipcased faux leather hardback editions of the CT reprints at $150 a pop. That's what the potential T5 buyers really want...
 
Originally posted by Malenfant:
I'm somewhat baffled at the FFE site - it's traditionally been hard to navigate, very basic, and usually ugly to look at IMO. Given the web is a pretty important way to get information out to people nowadays, it seems to me that FFE are shooting themselves in the foot somewhat by not making their website a bit more exciting and informative. (heck, the link to GURPS Traveller now points to the T5 announcement).
Click to expand...
My guess is that since FFE is just Marc in his semi-retirement (with regards to Traveller), the site is probably home grown and not the product of a professional interaction designer nor has a professional looking after it. Having a professional look at the site may not be something that Marc feels that he wants to spend money on.

Ron (who happens to be an interaction designer)
 
Funny thing is, Downport is more than willing to produce his website, if not host it.
 
Well, Maynard, there are different levels of canonicity:

I DO consider anything for CT that says Supplement _ or Book _ to be canonical. I also consider rules in the adventures canonical, as well as those in the alien modules. At least for CT. In case of conflict, Book supersedes Supplement, which supersedes Alien module which supersedes adventures which supersede JTAS articles I've got, which supersede articles I don't got... ;) Since I've 4 JTAS issues and 3 BoJTAS's I never saw Loren's article....

If it was DGP or GDW and had the MT fractured sun, I consider it canon FOR MT.

I run the OTU. The moment you start replacing extant rules, you're no longer in the OTU, because you're no longer getting the same expected results. The OTU differs from edition to edition. You pointed out that you have borrowed SO's mining rules... fine, but if you have a canonista in your game, he's likely to get in a huff, as thre are two perfectly good sets of belting and mining rules (BoJTAS1 and Beltstrike).

Borrowing doesn't break until it contradicts something official. In most long term groups, it's nary an issue, as they developed house rules galore... and stuck with them; notebooks thick enough to hold completely new games, and clearly don't play like traveller anymore. THis is no longer the norm, tho.

Robject:

I did that to justify both extrality and authority without tie-in to local governance.
 
Originally posted by Ron Vutpakdi:
My guess is that since FFE is just Marc in his semi-retirement (with regards to Traveller), the site is probably home grown and not the product of a professional interaction designer nor has a professional looking after it.
Click to expand...
From previous posts here it looks like Hunter helps with the FFE site. <shrugs>
 
Originally posted by Casey:
From previous posts here it looks like Hunter helps with the FFE site. <shrugs>
Click to expand...
Not for a long while. The site is hosted on my server but Marc handles it himself these days.

Hunter
 
Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Casey:
From previous posts here it looks like Hunter helps with the FFE site. <shrugs>
Click to expand...
Not for a long while. The site is hosted on my server but Marc handles it himself these days.

Hunter </font>[/QUOTE]Swordy, are you out there? (Scanning the horizon)
 
Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Casey:
From previous posts here it looks like Hunter helps with the FFE site. <shrugs>
Click to expand...
Not for a long while. The site is hosted on my server but Marc handles it himself these days.

Hunter </font>[/QUOTE]Swordy, are you out there? (Scanning the horizon) </font>[/QUOTE]I have offered in the past, I even created one version in the past few years, but Marc prefers to operate it himself. It has been over a year since I have communicated with him directly, so I'm just about out of the loop.

I did not create the Traveller5.com website as some power grab. I just wanted to be vocal about my interest in seeing a successor to T4 arise. The name really belongs to him and I told him when I started the site that I'll happily turn it over to him whenever he wants it. Looks like the time has finally come! Since Hunter is hosting the T5 playtest, I'll likely get the call to turn the domain name over to him sometime in the next six months or so. Maybe then it really will be "worth a visit"
 
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
When did the Traveller5 playtest forum appear, it wasn't April 1st was it?

If it is legit, how does one obtain access?
Click to expand...
It's open now to Moot members (or should be!) and there is a 'Vision for Traveller Characters' (3 pages) PDF posted.

As I get more down the road from Marc I will make it available there.

Hunter
 
Hell, yes, we need T5! There's no point trying to compete with D20 for the new gamers (who are those guys? everyone in my old club was over 30). I'd like to see a game for the older gamer once in a while. :cool:

I like and play both GURPS and D20, but both are originally fantasy systems. T5 would finally be a new(?) system designed for roleplaying adventure in the far future. It will be sad to put away those reams of CT/Basic Role Play rules and equipment tables, but if T5 measures up, I Will Do It.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
T5 Dice availability
Replies
2
Views
894
Tauther
T
R
General Apols if this is in the wrong place: Travellermap.com appears to be down?
Replies
5
Views
182
aramis
aramis
C
Agility - thoughts
11 12 13
Replies
253
Views
5K
Marcatlas
Marcatlas
C
Ships’ services IYTU
2
Replies
28
Views
714
Carlobrand
C
Spinward Scout
CT Only: A Classic Traveller Orientation Pack on sale on DTRPG
Replies
0
Views
653
Spinward Scout
Spinward Scout
Back
Top