Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Pre-Release Discussion (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=137)
-   -   Traveller 5th Edition (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=5716)

Avery February 20th, 2001 02:27 AM

This particular forum is going to talk about the next edition of Traveller and what it will and won’t have in it. I intend to post a Vision Statement, an outline of the Core rules book, and a structure for the T5 line.

AndreaV February 20th, 2001 07:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Avery:
This particular forum is going to talk about the next edition of Traveller and what it will and won?t have in it. I intend to post a Vision Statement, an outline of the Core rules book, and a structure for the T5 line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the first question would be: What is the current status of T5? Are we likely to see it in six months, a year, longer? From what I've seen and heard about it, it seems good. But I've not heard anything for almost a year (IIRC).

DonM February 20th, 2001 06:43 PM

I hope I don't get in trouble here, but I'd like to see T5 simplified. I own some T4 stuff (didn't like the setting vision), and I own all the CT stuff (and much of the MT material, although I hated the setting again).

I'd like to see something similar to what MT SHOULD have been - an improved CT, with the MT skill and task system, although please throw away and bury the MT starship system and go back to High Guard.

Now, I'll go one step further here, and suggest that given all the activity, you might consider making a d20 version of T5? Traveller's core 2d6 system shows its age, and the d20 system is easily usable. [And all the CT folks are going to lynch me now as a heretical traitor!]

I'd even be willing to help on the conversion!


DonM.

MJD February 20th, 2001 07:41 PM

I like the feel of T4,and think it should be retained (with certain fixes) in T5.

In particular, I liked the penetration/damage idea from Megatraveller. It makes for better combat resolution.

AndreaV February 20th, 2001 08:19 PM

I know I'm in the minority, but I like T4 mechanics. They do seem to recapture the simplicity of the CT system. With some additions (a slightly revised task system with the IHTIT rule) it makes for a really fast and intuitive system, much more than MT. I've played T4 for awhile and even with a complete novice (several in fact) its never taken anyone of them more than a minute to fully grasp the system. This is not something I can say for MT.


Ron February 20th, 2001 11:14 PM

I also like the T4 mechanics, however, perhaps because of the long use, I still prefer the 2d6 system. I have two complaints on the T4 system: 1) the character generation is boring, I would rather use the advanced mode presented in Books 4-7 and MT; and 2) the starship design was too complex. Book 2 has the best starship design in all Traveller editions. There are a lot of nice ideas in latter books such as High Guard and MT, however, almost anything necessary for roleplaying is covered by the B2 system. Kurt Brown published a nice piece about several Traveller design systems &lt;http://www.rpgaction.com/articles/columns.asp?id=62&gt; and I agree almost interely with him. An improved B2 system could be presented in the core book, addressing the roleplaying requirements, while a supplement book could be published to satisfy the gearheads.

~dude February 20th, 2001 11:24 PM

I am more of a CT/MT guy myself. I love the CT/MT style character generation, as well as the Bk2/HG style starships, but I can see how some people would be put off by this- they want more control over their characters, and more detail on their ships. I like the idea of additional sourcebooks for the starships, but what about the character generation? I guess I don't see an entire sourcebook devoted to other "official" methods of generating characters...

[This message has been edited by ~dude (edited 20 February 2001).]

T. Foster February 21st, 2001 05:21 AM

I think if past versions are to be used as a guideline for T5, MT should be used as a model above T4, but hopefully it won't slavishly follow either.

Although indifferently executed, MT at least made an honest attempt to integrate all of the rules into a single, cohesive system. T5 needs more, not less, of this philosophy. To me, T4 felt like a retreat into the past, with too much carried over directly from CT and too many patched-together 'fixes.' By contrast, T5 must be a bold move into the future.

I humbly suggest that MT, not T4 (or 'The Traveller Book') be used as the baseline from which revisions and improvements are made. Sure MT had problems, not all of them editorial, but I still feel it was a move in the proper direction. T4, by rejecting this development and returning to CT as a baseline, tried to re-invent the wheel, and ended up with a slipshod wheel-copy.

As Marc's T5 Vision states, CT will still exist as an option for those who prefer its simple, 'classic' style. Therefore, I see no need for T5 to hew as close to its CT roots as both MT and T4 tried to -- the goal behind T5 should be making the best possible game system, maintaining what 'works' from previous editions, but unafraid to make aggressive changes and improvements where warranted. CT was a product of the 1970s; T5 must be able to hold up into the 2010s.

T. Foster February 21st, 2001 01:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Responding to myself (how gauche!):
the goal behind T5 should be making the best possible game system, maintaining what 'works' from previous editions, but unafraid to make aggressive changes and improvements where warranted. CT was a product of the 1970s; T5 must be able to hold up into the 2010s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looking at this the next day, I realize my intention may be unclear. By no means am I calling for the kind of wholesale mechanical-system changes TNE made -- I'm actually very fond of the MT task system and would adopt it virtually unmodified. What I had in mind are areas like Trade and World Creation. In the wake of GT's 'First In' and 'Far Trader,' the CT/MT/T4 approaches in these areas are looking awfully creaky.

Obviously in the core rules we'd want simpler, less detailed systems than those books, but the need for playable simplicity shouldn't lead us to just dust off the same tired old Book 3 systems. If Traveller is to remain a legitimate sf vision and not simply 70s-retro a proactive attempt needs to be made to keep the game concepts as current and 'up-to-date' as possible.

ImperialOne February 21st, 2001 02:53 PM

I agree that playabilty is important, yet a well-written & conceived set of rules can get away with a certain amount of detail/complexity.
We could go on all day/night discussing foibles of the CT rules vs. the MT rules vs. the T4 setup...
I do not think T5 should feel obligated to reproduce any of these systems in particular, though inspiration & lessons may be taken from them.
By the way, what is the dice mechanic going to be (3D6, D20, D100). Though I like the 3D6 system, I think it may be a bit outdated and provide for strange probability models.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.