Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > Traveller 5 > Traveller 5 > Pre-Release Discussion

Pre-Release Discussion Archive of the pre-release T5 Public

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 10th, 2001, 08:35 PM
crh crh is offline
Citizen: SOC-2
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 5
Gallery : 0
crh Citizen
Post

PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY OR MAUL THE T5 Version of FF&S. FF&S was the first design system that I felt comfortable with. One that I could design the ships and vehicles that I wanted to design. This has been the only thing keeping me interested in Traveller since TNE came out (primarily due to not having a gaming group to play with). I would be more than happy using a detailed system to design drop-in blocks for a simpler system that others could use.

Charles H
  #32  
Old March 10th, 2001, 10:29 PM
AndreaV's Avatar
AndreaV AndreaV is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 800
Gallery : 1
Visit AndreaV's Blog
AndreaV Citizen
Send a message via MSN to AndreaV Send a message via Yahoo to AndreaV
Post

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crh:
PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY OR MAUL THE T5 Version of FF. FF was the first design system that I felt comfortable with. One that I could design the ships and vehicles that I wanted to design. This has been the only thing keeping me interested in Traveller since TNE came out (primarily due to not having a gaming group to play with). I would be more than happy using a detailed system to design drop-in blocks for a simpler system that others could use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree. Its always easier to develop a simpler/less detailed system from a more detailed system. Develop the T5 version of FFS and then develop the quick design systems from that.

  #33  
Old March 11th, 2001, 01:32 PM
Ron's Avatar
Ron Ron is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 176
Gallery : 0
Ron Citizen
Post

Well, here comes the opposite opinion. I do scientific research as a living. One of the first lessons I give to my graduate students, and that is a hard one to learn, is: Not everything that can be measured/calculate, deserves to be measured/calculated. I often see young students fascinated by the idea of measuring anything they can about certain natural phenomena, just because they have access to equipment that allow that. Alternatively, they try to calculate every single statistic that they know, just because they know it. They miss the point that they are only wasting energy. What they should do is to study their theory and design the simplest experiment they can to take the problem. The same mistake I often see in some roleplayers.

What is the objective of ship design rules in a RPG? Is to provide ships, a powerful plot device to gaming sessions. In that case, what features are necessary to describe such ship? I would say that the number of passengers, cargo capability and speed of travel. Because conflict may be interresting, some combat stats should be provided, although it is of secondary importance. Why secondary importance? You can not assign things to do to all your players during ship combat (not all of them will have the necessary skills), and thus it is boring to those not participating. Furthermore, combat should be quick. Players will probably running a small ship that will be unable to sustain much damage. Therefore, the rules need only to address low intensity combat. Anyone have ever found a use for MT: Fighting ships of the Imperium in a roleplaying session? Give a quick look to HG, MT, FFS, or T4. What is the roleplaying use of knowning how much MW each subsystem will consume? Does this information come up during your gaming sessions? If yes, tell me, I am curious. Considering my views, I will point that the rules presented in Book 2 are the best starship design rules for a RPG I ever read.

There is another public to ship design rules. There are armchair designers who have fun designing ships and comparing their designs against their coleagues. I do believe that there is enough public to a complex ship design rules book. Being so, I would recommend FFE to publish one. However, I few points should be addressed. First, their needs are not of the roleplayers, and it appears that some of them don't perceive this clearly. Second, because of that, their design system does not need to be related to the roleplaying ship design. Book 2 and HG are not two approximations in different complexity levels of the same system. They are two independent systems. I have no problems with that. I would even say that this is desirable, as it would reduce the complexity of the basic design.

I think that T5 main rules should concern with typical roleplaying needs. If addditional sourcebooks want to detail those rules further, that is fine, as long as they concern theirselves with roleplaying issues. If not, as I believe is the case of a future FFS3, they don't have to be compatible with the main rules, as they will not be used in roleplaying anyway.

Best wishes,
Ron
  #34  
Old March 12th, 2001, 02:12 AM
crh crh is offline
Citizen: SOC-2
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 5
Gallery : 0
crh Citizen
Post

Ron wrote
"I think that T5 main rules should concern with typical roleplaying needs. If addditional sourcebooks want to detail those rules further, that is fine, as long as they concern theirselves with roleplaying issues. If not, as I believe is the case of a future FFS3, they don't have to be compatible with the main rules, as they will not be used in roleplaying anyway."

I like adding details to my vehicle designs that will always be overlooked by a simple design system. These setails may dramatically raise or lower the price of the vehicle, and need a consistant reason to due so. What is the difference between a Ford, GM, Volvo, Mercedes, Yugo, or a Honda. Based on High Guard or Book 2 style rules these vehicles would have the same stats, but they are vastly different vehicles. I agree that for most roleplaying the make of vehicle would make little difference. But, in the games that I have been in, The players were all interested in adding things to thier ship that were not covered in Book 2 or High Guard, and only partially covered in MT.
I am all in favor of a simple design system, I will even help build the modules for it! But if you make the detailed design system incompatible with the simple design system then you are in effect saying
"Charles, we do NOT want you or anyone like you assisting in design work for this game."
Those of us that cannot find a gaming group, for whatever reason, do spend time designing equipment and then making it available to everyone else to use in thier games.

Charles H
  #35  
Old March 12th, 2001, 04:02 AM
AndreaV's Avatar
AndreaV AndreaV is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 800
Gallery : 1
Visit AndreaV's Blog
AndreaV Citizen
Send a message via MSN to AndreaV Send a message via Yahoo to AndreaV
Post

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:
Well, here comes the opposite opinion. I do scientific research as a living. One of

[snip]

I think that T5 main rules should concern with typical roleplaying needs. If addditional sourcebooks want to detail those rules further, that is fine, as long as they concern theirselves with roleplaying issues. If not, as I believe is the case of a future FFS3, they don't have to be compatible with the main rules, as they will not be used in roleplaying anyway.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't disagree with you. The basic rules should concentrate on a simple (QSDS type) design system. This is perfectly adequate. However, what I was arguing is that the simple system should be developed from the complex system (even if the complex system is released later). Experiance with CT and T4 shows that its extremely difficult (almost impossible) to develop a complex system from a simple system, but that its easy to do it the other way round.

  #36  
Old March 12th, 2001, 10:56 AM
Unreal John Unreal John is offline
Citizen: SOC-2
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lawrence, KS U.S.A.
Posts: 6
Gallery : 0
Unreal John Citizen
Post

Since FF&S came out, I have had problems using even official designs. The rules have become so complicated that even people who are very familiar with them commit frequent errors. A few years after the release of TNE, I went back to High Guard because a number of the GDW house designs turned out to have errors, achieving high performance by leaving out some bit of required equipment. The only remedy I can see for this is a computerized ship-design system that will not permit vital systems to be forgotten.

-John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crh:
Those of us that cannot find a gaming group, for whatever reason, do spend time designing equipment and then making it available to everyone else to use in thier games.

Charles H
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

  #37  
Old March 14th, 2001, 02:51 AM
ACK!! ACK!! is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South Riding, Va
Posts: 324
Gallery : 0
ACK!! Citizen
Post

There are a good mix of comments in here with some being very interesting in terms of using computers during play and some that just seem to be rehashing of a zillion TML posts on which ship design, task system or game version CT, MT, TNE or T4.

However, I have the opportunity for the first a**hole response.

If I am a CT or a Gurps traveller player why should I shell out my hard earned cash for yet another traveller system?

What is going to be so different?

What is the killer thing about the system that will warrant me chunking back the reprints or moving away from the Gurps line of play?

How are you expanding the genre of science fiction RPGs with this release?

Obviously, this is for Avery.
  #38  
Old March 14th, 2001, 08:30 PM
crh crh is offline
Citizen: SOC-2
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 5
Gallery : 0
crh Citizen
Angry

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ACK!!:

If I am a CT or a Gurps traveller player why should I shell out my hard earned cash for yet another traveller system?

What is going to be so different?

What is the killer thing about the system that will warrant me chunking back the reprints or moving away from the Gurps line of play?

How are you expanding the genre of science fiction RPGs with this release?

Obviously, this is for Avery.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not Avery, but I will respond.
T5 is to be a more complete/modern system for those who want more in a game system than CT and do not feel right playing GURPS. It has been stated he that the CT reprints will be available well into the publication of T5, and Hunter has stated that there will be new and updated products released for CT. So for each his own. I would not write-off T5 completely, as the Milieu books should be useful for any version of Traveller (if for no other reason than to explain the history of the Imperium). Also, some of the other books should be useful with some conversion.

Just my .02Cr

Charles H
  #39  
Old March 15th, 2001, 12:09 AM
ACK!! ACK!! is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South Riding, Va
Posts: 324
Gallery : 0
ACK!! Citizen
Exclamation

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crh:
I'm not Avery, but I will respond.
T5 is to be a more complete/modern system for those who want more in a game system than CT and do not feel right playing GURPS. It has been stated he that the CT reprints will be available well into the publication of T5, and Hunter has stated that there will be new and updated products released for CT. So for each his own. I would not write-off T5 completely, as the Milieu books should be useful for any version of Traveller (if for no other reason than to explain the history of the Imperium). Also, some of the other books should be useful with some conversion.

Just my .02Cr

Charles H
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not writing off T5 at all. In fact, I am very interested in it or I would not have registered and posted. There is a great deal of possibility in a new release of Traveller from the source so to speak.
First, there is the opportunity to cement what is truly god's truth so to speak on canon issues.

There is the opportunity to bring together information that has been only available by going to a variety of sources (GDW and Digest and the 'net and GURPS). From information about different aliens to gearhead issues like stats on various ships/vehicles/weapons back to historical information on the Imperium.

There is also the opportunity to update various sections of game mechanics possibly for new trends coming up in science fiction literature as pointed out in another post.

There is the opportunity to also include many resources in a CD grab-bag for use with Hunter's Grip software. I am talking about character sheets griplets maybe even a trial version of the GM software as well as the chance to include forms and other printable information the way the CT books included stuff for photocopying. Character generation and random encounter software and NPC stat generation software would be cool as well.

This brings me to the final point there is the opportunity with every new system to take role-playing to new level or focus on an aspect that needs attention.

That was what I was talking about.
  #40  
Old March 15th, 2001, 08:33 AM
Gatsby's Avatar
Gatsby Gatsby is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: GOOD OLD USA !!!
Posts: 244
Gallery : 6
Gatsby Citizen
Post

Some notes:
$ for T5?: Because it's Traveller, damnit! Seriously, if T5 is good, I'll upgrade. I never went to GURPS/T:d20 systems because there was too much change in the fundamentals, making all my past data in need of a conversion. Now, you'll need GURPS players to convert their data....that's the bed that was made, folks, and T5 beter be good enough to warrant getting those GURPS players AND bringing back the 'Newer Systems' strays....

FFE vs High Guard vs Striker?: FFE was good because it A) gave added details for role-playing and B) allowed creation of all things. Striker did this, somewhat, but was never supported with published designs. However, it is a fact that the more work needed, the less people will do that work.

Complex vs Simple?: I never was comfortable with High Guards 30 minute turns, so one day I did out the combat probabilites of starships using pure Striker. I figured out the need for Firing sheaves (ala Artillery Ranging) is needing for such speeds/distances. I determined that you just keep firing all your guns, spreading the area of space with weapon fire, occasional getting hits. You know what? The numbers were roughly the same. Codes were the number of batteries firing, computers made up for the electronics, etc. Sometimes simple is simple because Avery and group have done the number-crunching already! All that was need was a sourcebook-like detailing of what went on in those numbers so a referee can describe it to his players in dynamic ways...instead of players thinking they sit on their butts for thirty minutes and press the fire button, then wait another thirty minutes....

IMHO,
Gats'
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010-2013 Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.