Yes, another "Impressions and Questions" thread

[Vladika]

I know it may not seem like it, but $250,000 is PEANUTS in the game design scheme. Know how much WotC has behind its lines, or GW? A Gazillion dollars. I've seen 250,000 go on a parchesi level boardgame, easy.

OK... but:

Marc claimed he needed "x" to produce T5. (With 35 years of game publishing experience he should have known how much he needed.)

Marc got 11 times "x". (Even allowing for...whatever...he couldn't be THAT wrong in his estimates and planing!)

T5 failed to live up to it's promise, and, it wasn't due to lack of funding.

 

[David Johansen]

Except in getting 11 x what he was asking for he needed to produce 11 x as many books. There are some economies of scale advantages but they don't apply to shipping and from what I've read, that's where most Kickstarters get in trouble.

 

[Vladika]

Except in getting 11 x what he was asking for he needed to produce 11 x as many books. There are some economies of scale advantages but they don't apply to shipping and from what I've read, that's where most Kickstarters get in trouble.

Please. With 11 times the money asked for, he could have done it.

Also:

Were the alleged "11 times as many books" free or did they go for $75 each? And IF he couldn't print and ship those mythical "11 times as many books", why did he take the mythical orders in the first place?

 

[David Johansen]

At the time of the Kick Starter I was quite critical of it. I'd just pledged on Mantic's Kings of War and was getting a rulebook and dozens of miniatures out of it.

Marc was offerring dice and coins and plastic ID cards. Oh and your name on an imaginary wall on an imaginary planet.

But my point is that the ratio of books to dollars was pretty much fixed so if he got 11 x as much money it's because people ordered 11 x as many books. Yes you save some on the mass printing but you don't save anything on the shipping and you have to ship the books for that matter.

Marc's an industry professional and I'm sure he can speak to the numbers better than I can, but the reality is that he probably made 11 x as much profit as he would have at the initial buy-in level. I"m not sure where that sits. For the usual retail - distribution - manufacturer model it's around 1/8 of the shelf price. The Kick Starter might have been priced that way, in which case he's making around $13 on each book + cd set. I'm betting he made more like $26, since the books were priced around the same level as similar books sell for retail. So on $100k it might have been a $26000 profit. You can make that working for Macdonalds or Walmart. And from where I sit, the customers will treat you better as well.

So, I honestly don't think Marc ripped anyone off. Gaming is not a lucrative business and I'm grateful he thought we were worth his time.

 

[rancke]

So, I honestly don't think Marc ripped anyone off.

I agree. One shouldn't attribute to malice that which can be explained by mistakes or bad luck or unforseen circumstances.

But be that as it may, at the end of the day the T5 book nevertheless appears (from second-hand accounts) to be a by no means flawless major pay wall and time-investment wall to recruiting new players.


Hans

 

[David Johansen]

My distributor says it sold surprisingly well, the controversy probably enticed more people than glowing reviews would. The gaming industry is funny that way.

But yes, I'll strongly agree that it's a book that would send a beginner screaming into the night never to be seen again.

So's the GURPS Basic Set or Rolemaster Standard System. And they're two of my all time favorite games. I think I'll put a disclaimer in my sig.

It's an awesome book for me, I'm sorry it doesn't work for you, but I can't really help that. I edited the Sophonts chapter so I'll take the blame for that one and I'd have edited the entire book if Marc asked but it wouldn't have come out any better than the Sophonts chapter, I'm not a professional editor nor am I a professional mind reader.

 

[Supplement Four]

I edited the Sophonts chapter so I'll take the blame for that one and I'd have edited the entire book if Marc asked but it wouldn't have come out any better than the Sophonts chapter, I'm not a professional editor nor am I a professional mind reader.

So...Marc did hand out the chapters and have people look at them.

I wonder who was in charge of the Combat Chapter....

 

[Supplement Four]

As to the Spectactulars (Success and Failure) I do not think they are at all broken. They simulate a cinematic/heroic action. For example tying my shoes is at worst a 2D standard difficulty, mostly a 1D easy task. Disarming a nuclear or any bomb for that matter or say not getting hit by a car at close range those are a 7-9D bloody near impossible task (and I will use the Army method and lower my difficulty ) for the first and I'd say 3-5D difficult task for the latter.

This line of reasoning makes no sense to me.

You need to disarm a bomb. You don't know how to disarm a bomb. So, in order to make it more likely that some stroke of luck will come your way, you attempt to disarm the bomb while wearing a blindfold (thus, increasing the difficulty of the task and making it more likely SS will occur).

 

[SpaceBadger]

You need to disarm a bomb. You don't know how to disarm a bomb. So, in order to make it more likely that some stroke of luck will come your way, you attempt to disarm the bomb while wearing a blindfold (thus, increasing the difficulty of the task and making it more likely SS will occur).

Sounds like a Zen thing...

 

[David Johansen]

So...Marc did hand out the chapters and have people look at them.

I wonder who was in charge of the Combat Chapter....

Absolutely, I've said so many times. I don't know who got Combat. I'm not sure the problem is spelling or typos there. I think it probably works just how it's written. Even though that seems, odd. What's lacking is sufficient explanation and clarification of intent.

It's my belief that you really aren't allowed to move between range bands and fire an automatic pistol. No I can't imagine why but that's what the book says. The five phases occur similtaneously and are only separated for the sake of figuring out what happened. Making it possible for everyone to work out their results at the same time rather than sequentially. That damage types are cumulative against NPCs defenses but not against PCs. So 10+ makes an NPC easier to kill than a PC. The difficulty of shooting a human at range one really is 1d6 with a +4 bonus. But if you both take maximum advantage of cover you're both at -9. The damage types have no other effects than those listed and are mainly window dressing. But give you an extra shot at penetrating the armor and can cause a lot of damage if the armor is destroyed. I think Marc reads it through and doesn't get what people don't get because it works just like it says it does.

I hope I'm wrong because I'd like an ACR to be able to penetrate Battle Dress with a good roll. Indeed I'd like a PGMP-11 to penetrate Battle Dress fairly regularly and it won't as written.

What's missing is the rationale and more comprehensive examples. The armor penetration example given completely ignores the question people have about armor penetration. It's like the spelling bee where the judge asks how you spell "weather" and when asked to use it in a sentance says "Susie couldn't decide whether the weather would be nice today."

 

[Vladika]

So, I honestly don't think Marc ripped anyone off. Gaming is not a lucrative business and I'm grateful he thought we were worth his time.

I'm not suggesting Marc ripped anyone off. Just that the funds were there to turn out a much better product than was shipped.

Traveller has, since the beginning, suffered from poor editing. After 37 years you would think that could have improved. As of T5, it hasn't.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm not sure the problem is spelling or typos there. I think it probably works just how it's written.

Or, there are definitely typos. One table in particular confuses movement allowed with an attack type.

 

[David Johansen]

It's certainly disappointing. Especially with all the years of experience in the industry Marc has.

And it was entirely avoidable too. It doesn't bother me as much as it bothers you because I love T5 and that means I'm more forgiving.

It's not the game I would have designed. I design lots of games (seriously) and they're all pretty much what I want for one job or another. I can get the game I would have designed any time I want it.

What I like so much about T5 and Rolemaster for that matter is that I would never have done it that way. It's original and unique and it broadens my thinking on the topic of game design. It's certainly more inspiring than Fudge or Fate or Dogs In The Vineyard or the Riddle of Steel or any of the other narrativist / forgist stuff that's out there. If I want to write a novel I'll write a novel already.

I suspect that for many other people that's a downside. They want something else. Something more like they played thirty years ago. That's fine, but I already have that game and it's plenty messy, broken and non-functional in its own ways.

 

[David Johansen]

Or, there are definitely typos. One table in particular confuses movement allowed with an attack type.

It would be a unique chapter if there weren't. But my fear is that what we got is what we were supposed to get. I seriously hope I'm wrong because I don't like combat as it is but I do like combat as I hope it is. It's a place where I'm actually hoping there's some big mistake and the wrong chapter got into the book somehow.

Because, while it's not what I would have done, it could still be workable and even fun but as it is? Not a chance.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I look forward to experimenting with it, and in a "Meta" setting. It has a Stephen Hawking level of detail that appeals to a dork like me.

I also see it as a placeholder until I start doin it for reals, and go to Mars. I also enjoy the influx of new blood from MGT, new products, concepts.

 

[SpaceBadger]

One of the reasons Mongoose Traveller is utterly irrelevant is that Classic Traveller already exists and does absolutely everything 100% better than it.

Yes, that is one thing I can say for T5, is that I see lots of bits that I want to borrow or modify to incorporate into my CT game. I never felt that way in reading through MgT.

 

[David Johansen]

Sigh...I edited that out of the post but not soon enough. It's too flame baity. I do feel that way about it. But I decided it's not a fight I wanted to pick.

The cool thing about Mongoose Traveller is that it brings so many settings and properties under one roof. The sad thing is that Mongoose doesn't care enough about internal consistancy, let alone external consistancy to make it worth while.

 

[sfchbryan]

Didn't we hear that same sad excuse about T4? Which he WAS going to take personal control over?

And now T5... 10-11 years in development (depending on just who you believe...) BUT, rushed to print prematurely. Why? $$$...over a quarter of a million USD in the kickstarter pot?

And, before all you apologists try to ream me out, Marc claimed he could do everything for around $25,000 LESS THAN ONE TENTH of what he finally took in. So, economics surely isn't the reason T5 turned out so poorly done.

Could it be that:

And he dropped the ball. Again?

And please, before a knee jerk, ad hominem, attack, let's hear YOUR logic for why T5 came out so poorly.

It's pretty easy.....

1. Marc has a vision for where he wants Traveller to go. We are all welcome to come along for the ride, but he isn't really interested in anyone else's input. That isn't unique to him. From what I have seen, it is endemic to game designers from his era. The proof of this is all of the "yeah, we told Marc about this, but...." posts. This product was designed for gear heads and for those folks that view Traveller as a lifestyle, as opposed to a game. (Why else would you have 35+ years of civilian ship plans that only have twin beds?)

2. The Sewing Circle - Having "true believers" working play testing and "proof reading" is problematic because they understand how systems are "supposed to work".

The proper way to test is to hand a section over to someone who doesn't know the particulars about the product. They will follow the instructions precisely as written, which is when you will find which unstated assumptions need to be written and what doesn't actually work. Once you figure out something isn't working, you run into problem 1.

As far as the "proof reading" of the content, because they know the material, they see what they think is there as opposed to what is actually on the page. The brain takes shortcuts - there has been a lot of documentation on this over the past 20 years or so.

3. This doesn't actually address the fact that proofing a document is really hard. You have to read it line by line, and the amateurs working T5 simply didn't do that. I was having the same issue with re-typesetting MT with the current errata. My solution was to remove them from the process - they simply could not provide actionable feedback.

At the end of the day, T5 is a half-baked product. As a whole, it is a horribly over designed, much like Starfleet Battles. And in all seriousness, who has time to learn it?

Every group will find 100 pages that they simply can't live without, but it will be a different 100 pages for every group.

 

[Licheking]

I love T5. I think it could have been done in a smaller font which would have either saved pages, or allowed better and more explanations and examples.

I don't see the need for all the probability tables to me they are a waste of space which would have been better used on examples again.

I really like the Makers, and my interpretation of the combat system. I have recreated all the ships from MT and CT that i have had access too (well ACS size ones) and they have been pretty accurate. I re-created most of the weapons and equipment from CT and MT and again they are very faithful recreations.

Layout isn't an issue to me either, i have run and worked with some very disorganized games over the years and actually i think that T5 is logically organized.

The 2 beginners i have shown T5 too thought it looked a little simplistic but they liked what they saw and if they could have afforded the game they would have purchased it. One of them though did say he uses Spacemaster for his Sci-Fi settings and the other one uses the new Battletech: Time of War.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Speaking as a Timmii...

This line of reasoning makes no sense to me.

You need to disarm a bomb. You don't know how to disarm a bomb. So, in order to make it more likely that some stroke of luck will come your way, you attempt to disarm the bomb while wearing a blindfold (thus, increasing the difficulty of the task and making it more likely SS will occur).

So what? Why does the unreality of a game send you into such fits? Honestly, Supp4 I have never seen any player attack the probabilities as you do. Dude, do you play systems or just analyse their math? Seriously, no one is tying on any blindfolds since that would be obvious meta gaming and sure to bring a nasty fiat to your neck of the woods (plus you can't see the blue wire, wait, red). Taking a fair shot to try and do the Spectacular is fine, looking through the probabilities and adding ridiculous modifiers is cheating and will be punished. So, in the end, I think you are incorrect, seem to dislike players having cinematic luck/adventures, and spend more analyzing your odds and less time playing.

So, other than the fact you don't like that it bends probability in ways that offend you, really what is so wrong with the Mechanic, I mean besides it not being real and cruel enough?

It seems, and again that word "seems" since I really don't know, yet it seems that you would prefer math and probabilities that are mathematicly correct, but would be truly hopeless in real life over a players having a chance to completely pervert math and succeed. You do know we play games because they are not real life and let us do the crazy thing like try and disarm bombs to save folks. Unlike real life, unless you are a Bomb Disposal unit member, where it is run for the hills, get under cover and hope not to really be dead or maimed. I genuinely do not understand why the math should be ruler of unreality, fun tempered with imaginary danger is the ruler of my unreal.