hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
I'd say he's probably aware of that :devil:
After the MGT debacle, T5 may not look so bad...
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
I'd say he's probably aware of that :devil:
Yeah those years designing wargames with GDW and then running Heartland as a consulting company for the industry was nothing...
And if you think Gary wouldn't still be writing AD&D stuff today if he still could have...
I knew about the wargames at GDW, but what was Heartland?
Gygax probably would have written AD&D stuff if he could of.
The system isn't what T4 takes the most heat for and isn't why it has such a bad reputation.
Note, I am not a fan of the T4 system
Then I must be missing something: what is it that T4 takes more heat for?
Renaissance Man
SOC-12
If I were to hazard a guess I'd say it was the production values, consistency issues and above all else, errata. There were just too many glaring, obvious mistakes when that game went to press.
Actually, there is a lot of cool stuff in T4 - some great ideas. The game system seems a little chunky and clunky to me, but luckily, I never played the game, just bought some books.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I spoke with MWM once, on the phone, about T4, several years ago. He seemed pretty disgusted with the core book.
I'd be interested as well in what T4 'took the heat' for, since it was the system that kept me from playing once I finally bought it (it was the Dhali-esque artwork that kept me from buying it for years). I'm not a roll-under fan in general, but when I saw the TIH rule, it seemed like such a kludge to me. There may have been other stuff but it's been a while since I've read it. But I'd be interested in others opinions.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
That pretty much covers what the main gripes are
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Little history on the TIH rule...
Back in the late 90's, I was running a MT Traveller game, when T4 hit the shops. We migrated over to the new rules.
It wasn't long before me and my group found a lot of problems with the T4 task system. I was active on the TML at the time, and I posted a couple of fixes (one of which is still fairly popular with T4 gamers--it's called KB2.0, and you can get it on Freelance Traveller).
Marc was popping in and out of the TML around that time, and we had a massive flame war going on about T4's task system. There are always those who will stick by a published work simply because its published and seems "official", regardless of the quality.
Then there are those (my side of the fence) who will call a spade a spade, bitch about how broke it is--when it ain't supposta be broke--and try to fix it (KBv2.0).
Somebody on the TML (not me), as a direct result to this T4 task system flame war came up with the TIH rule as a House Rule fix. One of these days, I'd like to back over the archive and see who that was, because I've forgotten.
Anyway, it was this TML poster, not Marc, who came up with the TIH rule (originally, it was call the IHTIT rule, for "It's Harder Than I Thought").
It was that House Rule that seem to quench the flames of the T4 task debate. Even I couldn't argue with it. Sure, you're right, it was a band aid slapped onto the T4 system, but as for pluggin' the dike, it worked quite well with little fuss.
Marc was also fussing with the T4 task system at the time as well. People bitched about the half die (the D3's of the original T4 task system), and he removed those when he published the T4.1 task system that is seen on Marc's T4 Gamemaster Screen.
Since that time, Marc has adopted the IHTIT rule, changing the name to the TIH rule (for "This Is Hard!").
And, that, ladies and gents, is how the TIH rule made it into the official T5 game...
o: You're kidding...Let me get this straight: Ford licences out their name to another manufacturer, who proceeds to build a engine with terrible mileage and spouts black smoke out the back. People complain so they slap some sort of cleaner to the tailpipe. Then Ford says they're going to make another car themselves, and this time do it right! But let's start with that nifty cleaner dohicky...
:nonono: TIH is a kludge. How can they include it in the T5?!? There's no need to add an extra step in there if you just do it right from the beginning. I really hope you're wrong about this, because that'll be a big black mark against the game if so. There's plenty of cleaner ways of doing a task system, many of which get discussed here endlessly. Surely someone in the playtesting could do better?
From where I sit, T4 suffered from the following:
1) Chris Foss art. Kept many grogs from looking further.
2) LOADS of typographical errors... like failing to keep the bold face for cascades and clusters
3) Character incompatibility with all prior editions (mild, but annoying) due to 1 skill per year +1 per commission, promotion, or special duty. Characters tended to have wide skill sets and several deep skills.
4) Roll Under with variable number of dice Task System. Precluded convinient "undeclared difficulty" task rolls, and also made stat gains FAR more valuable than skill levels
5) Design system in core rules was ugly (and miscalculated) subset of FF&S1 with alternate rating system
6) Poor layout overall
7) "Roll or Pick" skill table mechanic
8) Massive stat bloat due to skill gain rate, Task system and Roll or Pick mechanic.
9) No penalty for insufficient skill, only no skill at all, and that's only +1d
10) Armor mechanics only work well with medium damage mid-caliber rounds. For High-energy AP rounds, didn't work as well. Clunky by comparison to both MT and TNE.
And that's JUST the core rules.
The rest of the line added the following:
A1) LOADS more typo's and errata
A2) Several supplements overlapped in various ways, eg: Emperor's Vehicles overlapped with FF&S2; different vehicle design mechanics in two different places.
A3) Charts collected in back but often not replicated in body, resulting in flipping required to learn (and often, to use) new rules systems.
A4) Even worse editing & layout, tending to indicate a lack of proof copy...
Marc addressed the lack of skill penalty for insufficient skill in the revised printing (which was not clearly labeled), with the This is Harder than I thought rule. If you had fewer levels of skill than the dice throw for the difficulty, increase by 1 die. Yes, it's a kludge. It did drive peak skill levels up from 1 to 4.... and thus halved the number of skills held by most characters, as skills of level 1 were now almost useless.
In general, for MT and TNE players, most of them that I know locally in Anchorage complained that it felt like a major step backwards mechanically. Not to mention the absolute lack of quality control at IG, and the readily notable lack of payment to authors who complained vociferously on-line when IG refused to deal with them privately.
S4 put at least 4 alternate task systems for T4 up on the nets; Everyone I know in Anchorage who was familiar with them felt them too much work for limited gain; each received both kudos and flames on the TML.
I put forward a 3d version of the MT task system (Using Att/3 and Skill, with TN's 5/10/15/20/25/30, +12 DM limit); locally, people went for it (7 GM's locally asked me for copies on paper or via email, and I know from players at least 4 used it), but on-line, it received little comment.
Several others put forth task system alternatives, again, with limited commentary. (The TML was literally awash in heated arguments about not "Is it bad" but "How Bad is it: Horrid or merely annoying" type arguments. Fixes got lost in the noise.)
T4 was, in general, not up to modern standards in many ways. Including core rules; Dice by Difficulty systems, as a generality, have not been commercially successful since Metagaming's The Fantasy Trip, back in 81-84.
1) Chris Foss art. Kept many grogs from looking further.
2) LOADS of typographical errors... like failing to keep the bold face for cascades and clusters
3) Character incompatibility with all prior editions (mild, but annoying) due to 1 skill per year +1 per commission, promotion, or special duty. Characters tended to have wide skill sets and several deep skills.
4) Roll Under with variable number of dice Task System. Precluded convinient "undeclared difficulty" task rolls, and also made stat gains FAR more valuable than skill levels
5) Design system in core rules was ugly (and miscalculated) subset of FF&S1 with alternate rating system
6) Poor layout overall
7) "Roll or Pick" skill table mechanic
8) Massive stat bloat due to skill gain rate, Task system and Roll or Pick mechanic.
9) No penalty for insufficient skill, only no skill at all, and that's only +1d
10) Armor mechanics only work well with medium damage mid-caliber rounds. For High-energy AP rounds, didn't work as well. Clunky by comparison to both MT and TNE.
And that's JUST the core rules.
The rest of the line added the following:
A1) LOADS more typo's and errata
A2) Several supplements overlapped in various ways, eg: Emperor's Vehicles overlapped with FF&S2; different vehicle design mechanics in two different places.
A3) Charts collected in back but often not replicated in body, resulting in flipping required to learn (and often, to use) new rules systems.
A4) Even worse editing & layout, tending to indicate a lack of proof copy...
Marc addressed the lack of skill penalty for insufficient skill in the revised printing (which was not clearly labeled), with the This is Harder than I thought rule. If you had fewer levels of skill than the dice throw for the difficulty, increase by 1 die. Yes, it's a kludge. It did drive peak skill levels up from 1 to 4.... and thus halved the number of skills held by most characters, as skills of level 1 were now almost useless.
In general, for MT and TNE players, most of them that I know locally in Anchorage complained that it felt like a major step backwards mechanically. Not to mention the absolute lack of quality control at IG, and the readily notable lack of payment to authors who complained vociferously on-line when IG refused to deal with them privately.
S4 put at least 4 alternate task systems for T4 up on the nets; Everyone I know in Anchorage who was familiar with them felt them too much work for limited gain; each received both kudos and flames on the TML.
I put forward a 3d version of the MT task system (Using Att/3 and Skill, with TN's 5/10/15/20/25/30, +12 DM limit); locally, people went for it (7 GM's locally asked me for copies on paper or via email, and I know from players at least 4 used it), but on-line, it received little comment.
Several others put forth task system alternatives, again, with limited commentary. (The TML was literally awash in heated arguments about not "Is it bad" but "How Bad is it: Horrid or merely annoying" type arguments. Fixes got lost in the noise.)
T4 was, in general, not up to modern standards in many ways. Including core rules; Dice by Difficulty systems, as a generality, have not been commercially successful since Metagaming's The Fantasy Trip, back in 81-84.
Rhialto the Marvelous
SOC-13
I got T4 only last year. Aramis's 1), 4) and 8) were three strikes against it for me.
1)-wise, I still like the *idea* of the setting, and the decision to come up with a unique and coherent visual style for it.
1)-wise, I still like the *idea* of the setting, and the decision to come up with a unique and coherent visual style for it.
I liked the core concepts of T4, but went about correcting all the mistakes and making many house rules which made it only about half-T4. What do I mean? MT was too detailed, CT too simplified, in my personal opinion. T4 was more of a middle ground for me. As an example, I liked the simplicity of the starship constructon rules of the BBB, but would have liked more details. T4 starships construction, once fixed, had the right amount of complexity for me (I'm not a FF&S fan or MT construction rules fan, I used them, but the complexity took the fun away). CT's core combat rules (without Snapshot, house rules, etc), were too simplified for me. I like damage absorption for example. T4 combat, while it had problems that had to be fixed, had the right amount of realism for me without being too complicated.
I was a BBB fan before T4. T4 corrected some of the styles I didn't like about BBB. It failed for me due to all of the errata, house rules, and complete departure from the art of Traveller. I was in the process of slowly re-making a complete copy of the T4 rulebook with errata, houserules, and golden age Traveller graphics when MGT and T5 came upon the horizon. I will probably end up using one of them as a base, with things I like from the other mixed in and a few house rules.
A hodge podge that will lead me to make my own LBBs from what I come up with.
I was a BBB fan before T4. T4 corrected some of the styles I didn't like about BBB. It failed for me due to all of the errata, house rules, and complete departure from the art of Traveller. I was in the process of slowly re-making a complete copy of the T4 rulebook with errata, houserules, and golden age Traveller graphics when MGT and T5 came upon the horizon. I will probably end up using one of them as a base, with things I like from the other mixed in and a few house rules.
A hodge podge that will lead me to make my own LBBs from what I come up with.Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Strange how art on a game, like a cover on a book, can turn people "off". I'm guessing the Foss art is some of the most expensive ever purchased for a Traveller line...and, it .... just .... suuuucccckkkeeedddd!!
Yeah, I didn't like it, either.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
<blink>
MM has won virtually every significant honor that the adventure game industry can bestow. He's designed dozens of wargames--many of them excellent--and his "one trick" (Traveller) only one of two 1970s era RPGs that *still* has a large fanbase. And while it's hard to determine the exact contribution he made to the innumerable games produced by Game Designer's Workshop, it is a fact that GDW was widely regarded in the industry as a producer of quality games. Of course, not every game was a hit. But it's hard for me to think of a company that produced quality products as consistently as GDW.
So I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that he's a "one trick pony" just yet...
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I thought that the armor mechanics worked pretty well (though I did not like the fact that you had to tell the player what the target's armor value was). Can't buy the argument that MT and TNE were more elegant.
Generally agree with the other comments.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Yeah, Aramis mentions this above. I think it was when I was playing T4 (played a long multi-year campaign using those rules) that I came to realize the extreme value of having the player not know what his target number is.
CT has this at fault, too. Unless the GM keeps some modifiers hidden from the player, the player knows if he hit or not as soon as the dice stop moving.
With T4, same thing.
I've found that a game where the players don't know what the target number is becomes much more interesting. Players roll the bones and look to the GM to figure out what happened.
Good GMs won't say "you hit" or "you missed", but instead act out and describe what happened.
It sure draws the players into the world more.
I'm a huge CT fan, as we all know, but if you want to hear me criticise the game, this is one of its biggest faults....that people know they will hit if the roll equals 8+.
And, I'm not a fan of the d20 system at all. But, if you want to hear me praise the game, then one of the things d20 has going for it is that the GM only knows the AC--the target number--that needs to be rolled in order to do damage.
And, that's a very sexy tool for a GM to have in his arsenal.
I really liked the damage absorption rule ever since T4 came out, until recently. I even lobbied for Marc to include it in T5's personal combat section. But now, for some reason, I'm sort of averse to it, and it's not because of giving away armor levels.
Maybe it's how it slows down combat, and lately I've been thinking that the most common combat actions should also be as fast and simple as possible. I suppose that means that, in uncommon contexts, absorptive armor would be fine, but in general I'd rather it be some sort of -DM, where the player is rolling "to hit, and to penetrate armor" rather than just "to hit".
Last I'd heard, late last year, Marc was also thinking "fast simple personal combat", because some of his preliminary thoughts on personal combat only used 2D.
Last edited:
Because it didn't bother my players nor myself all that much.
Ty: MT's not quite "Elegant"... Nor is TNE, but they feel smoother in play than T4 did.
Elegant is (Success Margin+Pen-AV)* Damage Rating done to stats... Used this once. It was elegant, fast, and used Striker weapons tables and CT Damages (in dice) as the DR. Worked REALLY well. Haven't done so again simply due to last several campaigns being playtests.
Last edited:
Similar threads
