you gotta fix architecture(fire,fusion and steel)for t5

[robject]

Sigg, just last night I realized that by reverse engineering Book 2 small craft, I was once again contributing to CT+ and/or proto-Traveller, at least indirectly.

And Dan/far-trader, I tried it two ways: first, by scaling and fitting the starship M-drive and power plants down for small craft, and by actually deriving formulae for the small craft combo drives themselves.

The first way is not compatible with the results of Book 2. I might as well use HG if I'm going that way.

The second way is compatible with Book 2, both for small craft and large, and I like it. I'm trying to find where the breakpoints are, to see if I really like it.

 

[aramis]

Quite honestly, I think that the gearhead oriented side is NOT needed, nor even desireable. It discourages those who don't have the time/motivations to do full up designs by providing non-replicable designs (from a lite version user's perspective), and further makes all lite version designs seriously suboptimal.

 

[mike wightman]

I agree, sort of

Choose a hull, add up all the components you want to put in the hull and make sure they fit. Add together costs and you're done.

Nice, simple. elegant.

But if I want to design new components I'd rather have a framework to build them from rather than just "make up the numbers" - it helps to balance things at the game level above.
Now this could be done by having convoluted formulas, points buy, or some combo method.

 

[aramis]

If you provide such a framework, however, the gearheads Can, will, and will delight doing, detailed-only designs tweaked all too hell, and impossible to achieve. Such an architechture shoould NEVER be released to the public; it should be an in-house kind of thing; alternatively, it should be the ONLY layer released in the rules, and the abstraction layer be the add-on.

Think back to T4: the results were compatible, but not comparable, between abstraction layers.

Ibid GT vs G:V+GT.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I'd still rather see HG formulas changed to match the CT paradigm - big jump engines, small maneuver drives

Why, are Battle Riders too wimpy for your tastes under the current parameters?

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Aramis:
If you provide such a framework, however, the gearheads Can, will, and will delight doing, detailed-only designs tweaked all too hell, and impossible to achieve.

So what? Has Traveller become some sort of design contest between refs overnight?
I detest nothing more than parts of the rules or background of the game being kept out of the hand of the buyer "for their own good" or something pathetic like that. If the writers think they are the only ones wise enough to handle those dark secrets, I wish them a lot of fun with their game. It won't become my game for sure.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[rhoneycutt]

If the underlying architecture is just glossed over or over-simplified, as opposed to being layed out in a manner to guarantee that certain rules related aspects remain compatible, then 'house-rules' done by various gearheads won't be compatiple and will clash with each other causing the confusion Aramis seems to fear.

make the lite rules and ships, then allow for FFS style design rules that keep the various parts used by the lite rules, consistant. People can then build like LBB2, or dive deeper if they wish and make the parts found on LBB2 style tables.

More details can make the 'universe' seem more complex, but noone says you *must* use the details. And some of us actually like the details, so allow for them instead of discarding them simply because it is not to everyone's taste.

 

[aramis]

Tobias:
In OTU materials, yes. Specifically T4 did. Some designs were modular; others were fulll up FF&S.

The results were presented in such a way that it was cross-playable, but for OTU ships, the non-full-FF&S were dangerously inferior.

Heck,, under FF&S,, many poorly done designs saw print, that a little attention to detail allowed far better performance. When one creates a system, that system should be exploited to the fullest for the official designs; having different abstraction layers FOR DESIGN is bad.

One of the lessons Weisman et al of FASA learned with Battletech: Abstraction is for play, not design. They set ONE layer of abstraction for design, and all the various games used the Battletech design layer. Sure, some stuff doesn't transfer to Battleforce, but it all has meaning in some layer or another. (Certain systems really have no purpose in Battletech, but do in Battleforce, or in Mechwarrior...)

Just for reference, FASA got their start doing traveller supplements.

I don't want, need, nor care to have dictated by rules, niggling details. I outgrew that phase; it matters not a whit when roleplaying, and actually is more meaningful when provided by the GM for plot needs rather than dictated by design.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Aramis:
In OTU materials, yes. Specifically T4 did. Some designs were modular; others were fulll up FF&S.

Okay, but what is the problem here? As long as they are compatible in gameplay, so what?

Heck,, under FF&S,, many poorly done designs saw print, that a little attention to detail allowed far better performance. When one creates a system, that system should be exploited to the fullest for the official designs; having different abstraction layers FOR DESIGN is bad.

One of the lessons Weisman et al of FASA learned with Battletech: Abstraction is for play, not design. They set ONE layer of abstraction for design, and all the various games used the Battletech design layer.

Wait. Do I read the context right here? You are seriously suggesting that BattleTech is an example of a design system which is exploited to the fullest by official designs?
If so, allow me to fall off the chair laughing, then challenge you to a MegaMek game. You get a lance of CGR-1A1's, I get a lance of CGR-SB's.

I don't want, need, nor care to have dictated by rules, niggling details. I outgrew that phase; it matters not a whit when roleplaying, and actually is more meaningful when provided by the GM for plot needs rather than dictated by design.

Who's stopping you? But, just because you don't need it, denying an optional nitty-gritty design sequence to others who like it makes you look like a sore spoilsport. Just don't buy the FF&S book and you have what you want and can congratulate yourself on saving $25.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[aramis]

Tobias, you are missing the point.

The point is that the designs done with SSDS and QSDS, while having the same output format, were NOT comparable to FF&S2 designs. Yes, the same rules could be used to play them, but the FF&S2 designs were almost always superior to the QSDS and SSDS designs, as the difference in detail levels was often significant for an FF&S2 design.

I never said Battletech was a good "design system." I implied it was successful, which is quite true. It put details where needed. It is still playable. And it's never been simmulationist. The differences betgween the CGR series has to do with added tech by timeline.

If an FF&S3 is released, then any non FF&S3 designs suddenlly become undesireable to many. Just like SSDS did.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Aramis:
The differences betgween the CGR series has to do with added tech by timeline.

Au contraire. They are both L1 designs.

Even a simple system - especially a simple system - can produce designs which vastly differ in capability. That has absolutely nothing to do with the complexity of the system as such.

Furthermore, your attitude that because you don't need or want a complex design system, nobody does, is still unacceptable.

Regards,

Tobias