Huh? Already stuck... character generation

[Kilgs]

This game looks so packed full of awesome... if only it was coherent.

Making a Scout character. Went to University, then got accepted into Scouts.

FIRST TERM:
-I pick a controlling characteristic for the entire term (INT)
-Fail Risk but no loss due to Flux
-Gain Reward (+1 Fame, Discovery)
-Skill Eligibility... fail so no skill this term?

Huh? No skills?
It says to check Skill Eligibility for # of skills available... it didn't say anything so I assume 1.

No basic training?


I purchased the pdf yesterday so should be most up-to-date.

 

[JFGarber]

I've helped my daughter roll up a couple of Scouts, and here are the assumptions we made.

Skill receipt is automatic regardless of Risk/Reward roll. Page 56 notes that Risk Failure is triggered at term's end.

I use B Skill Eligibility on page 56 to indicate the number of received skills per term. Eight skills is ridiculous, but just right for a kid with no patience.

Both scouts that she generated were "Explorer", and I let her select any table except Courier, and required at least one roll on Exploration each term.

Had she chosen "Courier" for a term, I likely would've allowed any table except Exploration, with at least one roll on Courier.

Hope this helps.

 

[Daddicus]

The book that was published had quite a few issues. Inconsistent organization, errors, things that weren't completely thought through, etc.

But, there's a repaired version coming. It's currently referred to here as version 5.09, and I think it's very good. Nearly all of the major stopping blocks have been resolved. Yes, there is errata, but it's almost all typos this time, not playability problems like with version 5.0.

I encourage you to wait until 5.1 comes out. I fell in love with the game again when I saw the early drafts of it. It's very good.

 

[Kilgs]

I think it has a lot of potential but it's one of the densest and incomprehensible documents I've read in a long time. And I'm a fricking lawyer.

While definite rule clarifications and explanations are needed, I would highly recommend dumping a lot of the extraneous stuff that clogs the flow. For example, the whole C1, C2, C# because Agility is also Grace stuff is just pointless in the main book. That's something to add in during the race section IMO.

I guess I'll wait to see the update but... it's broken out of the gate? Ugh.

 

[Daddicus]

No, the update is better (IMO) than any previous version of Traveller. There are always errata, but 90% of the errata are simple typos. A lot of change occurred, and nearly all of it has been positively accepted by most who have seen it.

Unfortunately, what I don't know is how it's going to be marketed.

 

[robject]

Has anyone logged an Erratum that the Scouts' 8 skill levels per term is far too many, and suggested an alternative (such as 6 skill receipts, or perhaps just the usual 4 skills but an extra roll on the benefits table or a Ship Share or a Connection (to borrow an idea from Mongoose) or a Patron or...)? Heck, suggest that Marc removes one skill column, and makes it a special table to roll on when a term is not an utter failure, and stock it with interesting stuff like the suggestions above. Anything really.

 

[ThornEel]

Got the PDF a month ago and just finished it, I have the same problem than Kilgs. The first to get me stuck was whether the waivers prevented you to get the skills or not.
After reading through the errata, it feels like the 5.1 should be pretty good. (The waiver problem is pointed out, of course.)

However, there are thins not covered by the errata thread, for example on game mechanics.
To illustrate, having bigger and further stuff (with the same apparent size) harder to see can make sense, but it's not obvious and would deserve an explanation. Does something like that goes in the errata?
Similarly, the spectacular success rule is bizarre, making beyond impossible tasks way easier than formidable ones, with the SS probability increasing. Would something like that be changed?
Or having miles as the main unit just for planetary diameters, while kilometres are used everywhere else.

What's bothering me the most, personally, is that for a hard-science RPG as it describes itself (or rather, as reasonably hardish SF), there are surprisingly many incoherences.
I'm not talking about the use of handwavium like antigrav and such; those are fine as long as used carefully. The problem is when said handwavium either:
-Spits in the face of known physics like the laws of thermodynamics (at non-singularity levels)
-Contradicts how we know a technology works at near-contemporary tech levels (e.g. lasers not producing heat)
-Leaves big loopholes open or has massive unforeseen implications (e.g. RKVs)
-Causes incoherences in how it works (e.g. kinetic weapons, NAFALs)

And, well, the Dean drive.
Seriously.
The Dean Drive.
And just to make it worse, adding the EM-drive.
What.
The.
Hell.

Is there a "hard-SF" version of the errata list somewhere? I've started to build one for my own. (Should I post a draft here for others interested?)
The problem is, those problems pointed by Kilgs are making it harder. Is there an ETA on the 5.1? Maybe it would be better to wait before starting?

 

[Aramais]

Skills Devalued

Skills and Knowledges are in a sense devalued in T5. A Skill level of 1 doesn't have quite the same effect as it did in CT. This allows more skills total, more generalization.

 

[kilemall]

Skills and Knowledges are in a sense devalued in T5. A Skill level of 1 doesn't have quite the same effect as it did in CT. This allows more skills total, more generalization.

Depends on how you do it. Tasks should be harder if you do not have the skills to do them. Education should be a factor, 'database' or 'storage' as opposed to Intelligence's 'CPU'.

 

[aramis]

Skills and Knowledges are in a sense devalued in T5. A Skill level of 1 doesn't have quite the same effect as it did in CT. This allows more skills total, more generalization.

Depends on how you do it. Tasks should be harder if you do not have the skills to do them. Education should be a factor, 'database' or 'storage' as opposed to Intelligence's 'CPU'.

The fundamental issue is that the skill list is about the same length as fully expanded CT, but skill gains are about 2.5x as much.

Further, Skill 1, as a baseline, only makes the simple tasks readily doable.

Joe Normal 777777..
Skill 1: TN≤8. simple tasks 1d = auto. routine is 3d (2d base, +1d for TIH) and thus about 26% chance, rising to 60% with extra time.
Difficult tasks are 26% with extra time.

Skill 2, he needs ≤9... still auto for 1d, routine is 2d and thus about 75% (and auto for extra time), and difficult is 4d (3d+1d TIH) for ≤9, which is about 10%, rising to 37% with extra time.

I don't know about you, but if Joe can't do the routine routinely by taking extra time, Joe's not skilled.

For comparison:
In MT, Joe at skill 0 is able to do routine n a 2+ (routine 7+, knocked down to 4+ by extra time, +1 from attribute.). Skill 1 makes no difference on the routine.
In TNE, Joe is 666666-6, routine is asset x2, for skill 1 that's ≤14; again, extra time makes it easier; x4 isntead of x2, and thus ≤28 is the TN... on 1d20.

So, based upon comparative task difficulties, Skill 2 in T5 is comparable to Skill 1 in TNE, and skill 0 in CT.

 

[kilemall]

Sounds like a lot of inflation/flash to make up for the percentage discrepancy direct stats introduces vs. skills.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

It is a toolbox.

I think it has a lot of potential but it's one of the densest and incomprehensible documents I've read in a long time. And I'm a fricking lawyer.

While definite rule clarifications and explanations are needed, I would highly recommend dumping a lot of the extraneous stuff that clogs the flow. For example, the whole C1, C2, C# because Agility is also Grace stuff is just pointless in the main book. That's something to add in during the race section IMO.

I guess I'll wait to see the update but... it's broken out of the gate? Ugh.

Well, as someone who also reads law books (though I do it for fun, not profit) I don't think it is that bad.

As to the Cx stats, well, I understand that the OTU purists and human only players don't care about such things as non-human stats, but as a Referee creating my own ATU such things are necessary and I for one am glad to have such things in the Core Rules as opposed to having to wait for them to create the Sophont Races of my TU, which has a lot of them since humans aren't the only ones to have conquered space. Hell, I have way more Jump capable species than the Big 6 of the OTU. So while you OTU/Humans only folks see the Cx stats as wasted space I see them as an awesome part of a great toolbox.

Got the PDF a month ago and just finished it, I have the same problem than Kilgs. The first to get me stuck was whether the waivers prevented you to get the skills or not.
After reading through the errata, it feels like the 5.1 should be pretty good. (The waiver problem is pointed out, of course.)

However, there are thins not covered by the errata thread, for example on game mechanics.
To illustrate, having bigger and further stuff (with the same apparent size) harder to see can make sense, but it's not obvious and would deserve an explanation. Does something like that goes in the errata?
Similarly, the spectacular success rule is bizarre, making beyond impossible tasks way easier than formidable ones, with the SS probability increasing. Would something like that be changed?
Or having miles as the main unit just for planetary diameters, while kilometres are used everywhere else.

What's bothering me the most, personally, is that for a hard-science RPG as it describes itself (or rather, as reasonably hardish SF), there are surprisingly many incoherences.
I'm not talking about the use of handwavium like antigrav and such; those are fine as long as used carefully. The problem is when said handwavium either:
-Spits in the face of known physics like the laws of thermodynamics (at non-singularity levels)
-Contradicts how we know a technology works at near-contemporary tech levels (e.g. lasers not producing heat)
-Leaves big loopholes open or has massive unforeseen implications (e.g. RKVs)
-Causes incoherences in how it works (e.g. kinetic weapons, NAFALs)

And, well, the Dean drive.
Seriously.
The Dean Drive.
And just to make it worse, adding the EM-drive.
What.
The.
Hell.

Is there a "hard-SF" version of the errata list somewhere? I've started to build one for my own. (Should I post a draft here for others interested?)
The problem is, those problems pointed by Kilgs are making it harder. Is there an ETA on the 5.1? Maybe it would be better to wait before starting?

And speaking of toolboxes, while I can see that the other tech has you ruffled, please do consider that some of us, don't see T5 as simply New & Improved OTU rules, but as a toolbox to create our own TUs anyway we want ans some of us are more Space Opera than Hard Science people. Not that I plan on using the Dean or EM drive I think, but I am including things like Jump+ drives and Stutterwarp.

So before you blaze the errata thread with hate for those things you don't think belong, remember this is more CT sandbox/toolbox than it is MT with the OTU baked in goodness.

 

[ovka]

please do consider that some of us, don't see T5 as simply New & Improved OTU rules, but as a toolbox to create our own TUs anyway we want ans some of us are more Space Opera than Hard Science people.

So before you blaze the errata thread with hate for those things you don't think belong, remember this is more CT sandbox/toolbox than it is MT with the OTU baked in goodness.

While I love the idea of a toolbox allowing the GM to build their own TU in whatever way they want, including the entire toolbox in the basic rules makes the rules more difficult to understand. Perhaps there should be a Rules + Rules Light format, or Rules + Rules Advanced format. I don't even have a problem with the two being in the same document.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

 

[ThornEel]

And speaking of toolboxes, while I can see that the other tech has you ruffled, please do consider that some of us, don't see T5 as simply New & Improved OTU rules, but as a toolbox to create our own TUs anyway we want ans some of us are more Space Opera than Hard Science people. Not that I plan on using the Dean or EM drive I think, but I am including things like Jump+ drives and Stutterwarp.

So before you blaze the errata thread with hate for those things you don't think belong, remember this is more CT sandbox/toolbox than it is MT with the OTU baked in goodness.

It wasn't my intention to put that in the current Errata list, more like creating another list based on the same principle, but specifically for trying to make the "hard-SF" part more solid. (However I personally think the blatant scam that was the Dean Drive would have its place in the Errata list).
That would be for people wanting a hard version to use for their own play.

As I see it, it wouldn't be excising things like Jump or Manoeuvre drive. It would be more to change how things work and/or are explained to make it more coherent.
So as minimal changes in the actual mechanics and technologies as possible to retain coherence.

For example, instead of forbidding NAFAL, something would be added/tweaked so you can't use it as unstoppable planet-cracker ISRM.
Another example, the Orion drive would see its fuel consumption changed, and dependent on level. And maybe be renamed, because I doubt the name will stick for centuries, let alone millennia - but I'm not certain.
Effects of nuclear weapons would be tweaked: the EMP requires a few conditions (no EMP in the middle of the atmosphere, for example); antimatter warheads still emit hideously strong (hard) radiation, it's fallout you won't have (vaporised fissile that poison the place for a long time)...

Optionally, I would have loved rules for waste heat. Heat management is actually one of the biggest parts in running any spacecraft, regardless of tech level (below nearly magic-like pre-singularity levels, and even then), with potential for great management gameplay during combat, and is pretty much completely absent, with a small exception for black globes.
But adding such huge element would be a new endeavour, not simply a correction - unless we are talking about a very, very simplified version.

While I love the idea of a toolbox allowing the GM to build their own TU in whatever way they want, including the entire toolbox in the basic rules makes the rules more difficult to understand. Perhaps there should be a Rules + Rules Light format, or Rules + Rules Advanced format. I don't even have a problem with the two being in the same document.

That would be helpful indeed.

 

[Kilgs]

Slow down, simon! I didn't blaze any errata thread. This is the discussion thread. And my recommendation to excise the Cx stuff was just to cut down on density. I have nothing against a generic ruleset. I don't remember once complaining that it wasn't OTU enough or whatever I'm being accused of.

I had a single concrete complaint...

A year after the game was released, I can't build a Scout in Traveller ;-)

(One could also cut-out the helpful icons for terrain to save space...)

Separating it or versions of it into different books is a wise, wise maneuver. They're not being released at different times so just split up the content with the same price.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

*applies a brake and signals*

Sorry. My bad, I didn't mean to get so defensive or at least come off like a butt-monkey (I am speaking of self Aramis, please don't cite me :devil, I apologize for my tone.

I am gonna go and actual read the posts now, since skimming made me want to get this out right away.

But being the occasional hypocrite I can be I will probably blow my San roll and look like a meanie again.

Just kidding, I promise to behave this time.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Answers!

While I love the idea of a toolbox allowing the GM to build their own TU in whatever way they want, including the entire toolbox in the basic rules makes the rules more difficult to understand. Perhaps there should be a Rules + Rules Light format, or Rules + Rules Advanced format. I don't even have a problem with the two being in the same document.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

Actually this is a groovy idea. And I suspect the Players' Guide might end up as the Rules Light version.

It wasn't my intention to put that in the current Errata list, more like creating another list based on the same principle, but specifically for trying to make the "hard-SF" part more solid. (However I personally think the blatant scam that was the Dean Drive would have its place in the Errata list).
That would be for people wanting a hard version to use for their own play.

Yeah, the Wikipedia entry seemed to be explain an ultra-gyroscope from what I could tell. But then I just design ships, I let other people do the engineering. :smirk:

As I see it, it wouldn't be excising things like Jump or Manoeuvre drive. It would be more to change how things work and/or are explained to make it more coherent.
So as minimal changes in the actual mechanics and technologies as possible to retain coherence.

*shrugs* I don't have problems with the way T5 handles those things. Screens though, that new How Screens Work bit caught me, I never thought of Nuclear Dampers being a solid volume but more of a shell, but according to T5.09 they are a solid volume and affect the ship using them, if they don't add the options.

For example, instead of forbidding NAFAL, something would be added/tweaked so you can't use it as unstoppable planet-cracker ISRM.

Actually I think it makes an awesome planet cracker, since it uses grav drives as it gets closer to the target world the faster it can accelerate in the terminal phase. Nasty stuff, but all too possible.

Another example, the Orion drive would see its fuel consumption changed, and dependent on level. And maybe be renamed, because I doubt the name will stick for centuries, let alone millennia - but I'm not certain.

Nipped Drive, from the original technical term for it, Nuclear Pulse Detonation. Most people in the later ages thought it was the name of the inventor. Just a thought.

Effects of nuclear weapons would be tweaked: the EMP requires a few conditions (no EMP in the middle of the atmosphere, for example); antimatter warheads still emit hideously strong (hard) radiation, it's fallout you won't have (vaporised fissile that poison the place for a long time)...

I can see that.

Optionally, I would have loved rules for waste heat. Heat management is actually one of the biggest parts in running any spacecraft, regardless of tech level (below nearly magic-like pre-singularity levels, and even then), with potential for great management gameplay during combat, and is pretty much completely absent, with a small exception for black globes.
But adding such huge element would be a new endeavour, not simply a correction - unless we are talking about a very, very simplified version.

It is also in the section on in atmosphere flight, reentry and boosting to orbit. But while I can see your point, not many players I know want to fiddle with it that much. But then I don't play or hang with hard core, hard sci-fi Travellers either, mine are more D&Ders who let me test stuff on them.

Slow down, simon! I didn't blaze any errata thread. This is the discussion thread. And my recommendation to excise the Cx stuff was just to cut down on density. I have nothing against a generic ruleset. I don't remember once complaining that it wasn't OTU enough or whatever I'm being accused of.

I had a single concrete complaint...

A year after the game was released, I can't build a Scout in Traveller ;-)

(One could also cut-out the helpful icons for terrain to save space...)

Separating it or versions of it into different books is a wise, wise maneuver. They're not being released at different times so just split up the content with the same price.

Okay. I can see killing the semiotics even of they are super cool. I still say keep Cx in the main for those folks that like non-human characters.

So, what is your Scout problem?

 

[Kilgs]

But being the occasional hypocrite I can be I will probably blow my San roll and look like a meanie again.

SAN? Is that one of the alternate Cx's? Are you trolling me, sir ;-)

 

[ovka]

I still say keep Cx in the main for those folks that like non-human characters.

Yes, but provide example sophonts to help clarify their use (in the same section). Supplement that by adding a few task examples with sophonts that have different Cx values in the task section. That helps to drive the point home.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

 

[Kilgs]

Yes, but provide example sophonts to help clarify their use (in the same section). Supplement that by adding a few task examples with sophonts that have different Cx values in the task section. That helps to drive the point home.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

My suggestion... put it in the appendix with a couple race descriptions. The beginning is way too cluttered. Lots of information in a very small space.