My T5 Review

[Shonner]

I knew Marc Miller was compiling a collection of his own notes into a book on how he would have designed his own personal version of Traveller to play with his closest friends.

That's why I pitched in for the CD-ROM version of the Traveller 5 beta. To read some of his notes (chapter updates would get posted), and to see how the game was being designed. But I was never interested in Traveller 5 beyond that, because to me it was just a collection of notes, drafts of ideas, and some filler.

 

[Hemdian]

While I initially shared many of the concerns expressed, the more I read and understand, the more I like what I see. I think T5 will become my 'go to' rule system.

 

[Supplement Four]

While I initially shared many of the concerns expressed, the more I read and understand, the more I like what I see. I think T5 will become my 'go to' rule system.

I sure hope I'll be saying the same thing once my book arrives.

 

[pendragonman]

For example, somebody using the TNE task system with CT would be what I think of as a HOUSE RULE.

Absolutely. CT doesn't need a standard DnD dice task system to work.

By pure definition, sure, I changed the printed word, and my two tweaks are, indeed, house rules.

I think others changes rpgs far more than I do, though, and I think your comment more appropriate for them--rather than a blanket comment for all.

that's not hard to imagine, since I know guys that take little more than the to hit charts from 2ndE DnD and supply their own magic system and monster stats.

I don't refer to the charts every hit, though. Each piece of equipment has its own sheet, and on that sheet, like an RPG stats, the armor (and range, for that matter) adjustments are listed.

When a player fires his weapon, he can see what his enemy is wearing and adjusts his to hit roll appropriately.

It's pretty simple, really. Instead of adding or subtracting X for Range, you also add or subtract for armor.

No need to look at charts.

So you didn't notice that if you do all of that you no longer are rolling to hit, but rolling to damage (penetrate)?

There have been games where I heavily house ruled, in the past.

Therefore you have done what you now complain about having to do. Like the newly converted zealot, you then decry what other do that you used to. Thou decieveth thyself.

I ran a James Bond (Victory Games) campaign, strictly by the book. No house rules at all.

I ran a Top Secret/SI game, strictly by the book. No changes.

I miss these games. And the FINAL HINDRANCE.

And, my last CT game was...strictly by the book. No changes.

None at all?

I ran an AD&D 2E game, exactly by the book--but I think that ruleset needs some changes. If I run it again, I'll probably house rule that one.

2E was an attempt to re-balance the game after Unearthed Arcana and various Dragon Mag classes drove 1E out of whack. 1E was just fine with just DMG/PH/MM to work with but that terminates cash flow once everyone has a book. So they added books and ...

My point is that there are people out there, like me, that either do not house rule at all (not even taste tweaks) or use the game 99.99% RAW with a few simple taste tweaks.

and yet you just said that you will house rule 2ndE DnD before you run it again, and that you have done so to other games in the past.

You are very incorrect in thinking that everybody house rules.

See my above points where I point out where you yourself do so. You are not without this "sin". Do not cast stones at those guilty of the same "sin".

 

[pendragonman]

I have the Central Supply Catalogue, but only because I collected the Mongoose books. Been playing Mongoose Traveller without ever looking through that book though.

SRD much? Where did the SRD get the info, the aether?

I see groups of Pathfinder players at tables and the GM has his core book with him and that's it. The players don't even have books. Again, it's a book collectors thing to have the advanced Pathfinder books. But rarely used for playing a game. And certainly not mandatory.

Then he either has the stats for the monsters memorized or written in his notes. He had to have the book to begin with. You don't need to be a collector to want to know how to do chargen on your own, but you do have to have a book. Most SRDs leave out some annoying and/or critical detail that forces at least access to the book.


When I GM 1st/2ndE DnD. Castles and Crusades (same game, different cover art) I don't need to drag all of the books around all the time either. I have been playing those games so long that most relevant details I have memorized. For chargen, however, we need the books unless they are all Fighters.

Doesn't mean that the other books are not referenced during campaign/adventure set up.

As to the more "modern" rpgs you mentioned, I have never seen them in my local game shops and no one around here have heard of them. Of course, I am currently in the Great Gaming Wasteland of Kansas.

 

[Muad'dib Pendragon]

While I initially shared many of the concerns expressed, the more I read and understand, the more I like what I see. I think T5 will become my 'go to' rule system.

A steep learning curve for someone with your background says a lot. I hope it works for you, although I would prefer you spend less time on T5 and more on Universe 2...

 

[Supplement Four]

So you didn't notice that if you do all of that you no longer are rolling to hit, but rolling to damage (penetrate)?

Of course. That's CT. The attack roll is a to-hit-and-penetrate roll.

I don't understand. You asked if I used the armor modifiers from CT. I said that I did. Now, you're acting as if doing that is not how the game is written.

None at all?

Correct. No changes at all. That's actually more par for the course in my games than to have House Rules.

Sure, I use them from time to time, but not all the time, and not unless absolutely necessary.

More often than not, I run a game, whatever I'm playing , strictly by the book.

and yet you just said that you will house rule 2ndE DnD before you run it again, and that you have done so to other games in the past.

Yes. I pointed out that my preferance is to never house rule, but that doesn't always happen.

But, it does happen, more often than what you're thinking.

See my above points where I point out where you yourself do so. You are not without this "sin". Do not cast stones at those guilty of the same "sin".

What?

You're the one who said, above, that EVERYBODY HOUSE RULES. ALWAYS.

I'm telling you that what you say is not correct because I am living proof that I don't always house rule. In fact, I prefer to run games straight out of the book.

I don't always do it, but that's the go. And, I do do it with some games.

 

[Shonner]

SRD much? Where did the SRD get the info, the aether?

What do you mean? I don't use SRDs.

 

[pendragonman]

snip
What?

You're the one who said, above, that EVERYBODY HOUSE RULES. ALWAYS.

I'm telling you that what you say is not correct because I am living proof that I don't always house rule. In fact, I prefer to run games straight out of the book.

I don't always do it, but that's the go. And, I do do it with some games.

No, I said I (meaning me) always house rules, and that everyone house rules something sometime or other. Read my post again.

 

[rancke]

While I can understand the points made in the review, am I the only one who has noticed that, as stated in his review "having seen it in beta testing for the last several years", I can't seem to recall any of his contributions to making the final result better.

I never knew that having contributed to a book was a prerequisite for being allowed to critizise it.

You don't refute an argument by pointing out flaws in the person who made it. You do it by showing it to be false or erroneous. If you can.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Many of us didn't contribute much. I attempted to contribute back before the Beta CD... but since Marc (very politely) made it quite clear that he was strongly attached to the multi-die task system, I didn't have much to contribute on that score. I chipped in a few bits about the ramifications of the changes in the Jumpspace chapter; I and a half-dozen others. Subtle wording changes ensued, reducing the impact.

T5 is VERY much "Marc's View"... in the 7+ years, it's not swerved much at all.

Until I became admin, I had grave concerns that Marc might only be getting filtered versions of the discussion. As admin, I could see what Marc was reading online... and he was, in fact, reading the new posts in the t5 forums. Methodically, no less.

So he did get our input... And there were subtle changes here and there. But I didn't pay much mind because it became obvious that the items I liked least were the items Marc liked most: the Xd6 task system, the QREBS mechanics, and the overly convoluted weapon rules. T5 simple isn't the right game for me, and it was obvious early in the playtest, so I stopped commenting except on certain setting portable items.

Marc's views on Jumpspace are clearer in T5 than ever before. I dislike them, I find that they have no precedent in rules from older editions; The JTAS article was less clear, and not presented as rules - everything in it fits with T5's early drafts of the Jumpspace chapter. It now is terse, but clear (at least to me) and does things I don't much like, but it is interesting to work out the implications. And it justifies the arms race of big battleships... with their ability to prevent successful jump-out.

 

[rancke]

My point is this, if he WAS a beta, then he shares responsibility for the final result. He is entitled to critique the results any way he likes. And I am more than willing to call him to account if, because of his contributions (or lack thereof), the final product is unsatisfactory. It would be another matter entirely if he'd participated and his suggestions had been ignored or missed. I merely point out the 'fact' that his suggestions (nay, his participation) doesn't exist.

I got that the first time. And my point is that it's entirely irrelevant. Either his criticism is right or it's wrong (or a matter of opinion). How T5 got to be the way it was and to what extent he was responsible for any of it doesn't change that one whit.

As for not refuting an argument by pointing out flaws in the person who made it, you obviously haven't been paying attention to American politics (which is a whole other topic for a whole other forum).

Heh. I actually deleted the phrase "Politicians to the contrary notwithstanding" from the front of my post as being unlikely to contribute in any positive way to the argument. And also as a part of my attempts to reduce the snideness quotient of my posts.

And something which I have not done in this instance.

I beg to differ.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Many of us didn't contribute much. I attempted to contribute back before the Beta CD... but since Marc (very politely) made it quite clear that he was strongly attached to the multi-die task system, I didn't have much to contribute on that score. I chipped in a few bits about the ramifications of the changes in the Jumpspace chapter; I and a half-dozen others. Subtle wording changes ensued, reducing the impact.

I would have been happy to help any way I could, but I was not prepared to pay for being allowed to help.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

While I can understand the points made in the review, am I the only one who has noticed that, as stated in his review "having seen it in beta testing for the last several years", I can't seem to recall any of his contributions to making the final result better.

Absolutely irrelevant to whether the review is accurate or not. If a car company had been developing an automobile for 10 years and it hits the market and gets a negative review, do you fault the reviewer for not being on the design staff? Well, do you? Also, even if a person was part of the Beta, 100% of the authority to make actual changes was held by Marc. No one else had that power.

 

[Vladika]

While I can understand the points made in the review, am I the only one who has noticed that, as stated in his review "having seen it in beta testing for the last several years", I can't seem to recall any of his contributions to making the final result better.

I'm an admitted lurker. I was an early adopter of the beta, but I basically read what was offered, and followed the posts of the those with more time and understanding of the mechanics. I asked occasional questions, or offered the rare comment, but I was just a passenger on the journey. I never offered anything that drove the development.

Seeing as you were in the same boat, do your criticisms of the author apply to yourself as well?

And here we have someone else who is, apparently, in the same boat. But after seeing it through the beta for years, slams the result to which he himself does not appear to have contributed anything?

As aramis has pointed out, Marc went his own way no matter who said what.

Back to lurk mode.

Good idea if all you are going to do is attack people, as Hans has pointed out, rather than the end product.

The end product, T5, leaves a LOT to be desired. The people who participated in the beta don't. They did what was asked of them, paid for the privilege, worked hard and were to varying degrees ignored.

I have my copy, have read and will still be reading it (probably for some time.)

The editing is crap. The lack of index sucks. It is disjointed and lacks continuity. It isn't really playable to anyone not already familiar with Traveller.
.
On the good side: It's a mine, Gold, Dross or Pyrite, is up to you.

I see traces of color worth digging for the Gold that DOES lay inside. Like any mine though it needs to be worked to be productive.

It should have been "go to the jewelry store and see the pretty things". What it is, is a mine. Dig your ore, refine it, process it, and create your own glitter.

Marc did a piss poor job in driving this to market so quickly that it never received a proper edit or input from those beta testers you rant about. They could have, and should have, reviewed the final format before T5 went to the printers. Marc's choice, not theirs.

Marc could have, and in my opinion should have, shipped a lot more timely and a lot less haphazardly. This would have allowed the review process (after the fact) to have been smoother and more informative to all. As it is we get a succession of mixed reviews, one after another.

Marc has, very off and occasionally on, been the controlling factor in literally everything printed from 1977 until today. (He controls the rights and licensing).

He has had some truly great ideas and a lot of good help over the years but Marc is no business man.

Did I buy T5? Yes. Do I like T5? Some yes, some no. Am I glad I bought T5? Mostly. (That has NO bearing on my criticism!)

Criticize the work, but not those who beta tested (of which you were one ) Many of them may have been ignored, but you, by your own admission, didn't really try, though could have, as you had the opportunity.

 

[Muad'dib Pendragon]

While I can understand the points made in the review, am I the only one who has noticed that, as stated in his review "having seen it in beta testing for the last several years", I can't seem to recall any of his contributions to making the final result better.

I'm an admitted lurker. I was an early adopter of the beta, but I basically read what was offered, and followed the posts of the those with more time and understanding of the mechanics. I asked occasional questions, or offered the rare comment, but I was just a passenger on the journey. I never offered anything that drove the development.

And here we have someone else who is, apparently, in the same boat. But after seeing it through the beta for years, slams the result to which he himself does not appear to have contributed anything?

Back to lurk mode.

I am indeed a lurker like yourself, don't consider myself a grognard (although I have played various Traveller iterations for well over 20 years off and on), and had, in fact, offered nothing during the beta. I simply followed it from the outside, as I follow so many other games of different genres on various boards. If that somehow lessens my review of the final product in others' eyes, so be it.

That said, I appreciate your focusing on a single line of the introduction to the review, apparently in an attempt to discredit what I believe is an objective review in my role as a purchaser of said product.

In addition, I didn't realize one had to be an active part of a product's development in order to conduct a review of the finished product. If that's the case, we should probably discount the vast majority of reviews of just about everything produced, ever, and rely solely on the perspective of those that actually produced the product. Somehow, I don't think that would work out so well for consumers in general.

 

[Muad'dib Pendragon]

I made no such requirement and I think you are approaching my point ass backwards.

My point is this, if he WAS a beta, then he shares responsibility for the final result. He is entitled to critique the results any way he likes. And I am more than willing to call him to account if, because of his contributions (or lack thereof), the final product is unsatisfactory. It would be another matter entirely if he'd participated and his suggestions had been ignored or missed. I merely point out the 'fact' that his suggestions (nay, his participation) doesn't exist. As a beta participant, there should have been no surprises as to what T5 was or was not going to be. We've seen it, in the form that it was essentially released in, for years.

As for not refuting an argument by pointing out flaws in the person who made it, you obviously haven't been paying attention to American politics (which is a whole other topic for a whole other forum). And something which I have not done in this instance.

To be clear, I did NOT participate in the beta, nor did I ever indicate I had. If the phrase "having seen it in beta testing the last several years" appears somehow misleading to you, that's unfortunate. I never indicated I participated in the beta, and I certainly would have explicitly stated it if I had, in fact, participated.

That said, I think you give beta testers far too much credit for the final product, whatever that product might be. In the end, the producer determines whether or not to accept any input from those involved, including beta testers. And as many smarter, more involved, people than I have pointed out here, serving as a T5 beta tester ultimately didn't amount to much, if any, impact on the final product sold.

 

[robject]

To underscore all of this. Don and I both agreed long ago (and had to remind each other occasionally) that Traveller5 is Marc's Traveller, not Don's Traveller or Rob's Traveller, or anyone else's. We would reason, rant, and rave, and occasionally opine that our way of doing things would be "better" (for some value of "better"). But the whole shebang is Marc's. There's no one to blame, for the good and the bad and the ugly, but Marc.

 

[aramis]

To underscore all of this. Don and I both agreed long ago (and had to remind each other occasionally) that Traveller5 is Marc's Traveller, not Don's Traveller or Rob's Traveller, or anyone else's. We would reason, rant, and rave, and occasionally opine that our way of doing things would be "better" (for some value of "better"). But the whole shebang is Marc's. There's no one to blame, for the good and the bad and the ugly, but Marc.

That is both blessing and curse for T5. We know it's Marc's view. But it also means it lacks fan-service. And, given Marc's inherent terseness, without a Loquatious Loren or Frank to expand and contract Marc's tons-of-tables, it's deucedly unfriendly, and suitable mostly for extant fans. Many of whom are off-put by the disconnects (and most of whom don't realize the impacts of Loren, Frank, Tim, Bill, Andrew, John, Dave, Joe, and Gary in prior editions).

 

[atpollard]

Gentlemen:

[m;]A brief word of caution that some comments and responses appear to be getting dangerously close to violating rule 1

and entering into personal attack territory. Please argue ideas and not personalities or motives. [/m;]

Your continued civility is greatly appreciated.