New Appreciation for T5

[Bartleby]

I have owned the PDF of T5 since its first release and I have enjoyed pulling parts from it for my own proto-CT/MgT campaign.

The full game, however, was what I deemed "unplayable" like so many others have said.

After enjoying Wily Muffin's video on the topic (

) I decided to purchase the three physical books so I could sit down and really drink them in.

I have changed my opinion. It does not follow the fashionable trend of "easy to read, easy to play". You cannot just buy this and play it after perusing the rules, even with a Traveller background. BUT if the referee is willing to spend some time to understand it, it really is elegant. In fact I think it is a wonderfully put together complete system.

 

[whartung]

BUT if the referee is willing to spend some time to understand it, it really is elegant. In fact I think it is a wonderfully put together complete system.

Why?

 

[Bartleby]

I know you are a regular here so I assume I don't know anything you don't. So we likely have different opinions. But if you have not read it and are considering it then please correct me and I will expound.

 

[whartung]

no, I have not read it, so I'm curious what aspects make you feel it's an elegant and wonderfully put together system.

 

[Dragoner]

I have owned the PDF of T5 since its first release and I have enjoyed pulling parts from it for my own proto-CT/MgT campaign.

The full game, however, was what I deemed "unplayable" like so many others have said.

After enjoying Wily Muffin's video on the topic (

) I decided to purchase the three physical books so I could sit down and really drink them in.

I have changed my opinion. It does not follow the fashionable trend of "easy to read, easy to play". You cannot just buy this and play it after perusing the rules, even with a Traveller background. BUT if the referee is willing to spend some time to understand it, it really is elegant. In fact I think it is a wonderfully put together complete system.

I was part of the playtest and ran a campaign, indeed was villified, banned from forums for doing so. I don't know why it became so fashionable to hate it, other than it not being mongoose or classic.

 

[whartung]

I should clarify. I have seen it, I have scanned it, I have not read it.

On first approach I found it "too big" and quite inaccessible. All of the symbols and such, the vast scope of it all. Maybe if I had, indeed, read it in detail, perhaps more than once, its charms would come through. But on first impression and casual, secondary glances, they have not.

 

[Dragoner]

I had someone review Kosmic and say 'why?' It is on the cover 'these are the core rules for Solis' people should read a book before reviewing it.

 

[mike wightman]

I have been involved with T5 since the playtest. I backed both kickstarters to the highest level possible. I like T5 as a toolkit , but...

T5 remains a mess.

It needs an editor who understand the game to go through it at least another couple of times to get rid of needless duplication, simplify as much as possible, make sure charts and tables contain no errors and contradictions when compared with the text, and limited examples.

It needs to be playtested by people who will be listened to - the task system is broken, it was broken in T4 and remains broken. Combat requires house rules.
It needs to be playtested properly and feedback acted upon to fix the issues, then there need to be a lot more examples (space will be freed up by the editing process).

The last kickstarter promised the Galaxiad setting and a Player's book, I am still waiting.

I am not disappointed with T5, there is loads in it I can use.

At this point I would rather see Mongoose adopt as much as they can from T5 and for Marc to publish more novels.

 

[Dragoner]

Here is a character from a game I was in a while back:



The way that without any gun combat, he was pretty useless in a fight with guns, and with only astrogation 2, he couldn't do higher jumps easily.

 

[Bartleby]

I should clarify. I have seen it, I have scanned it, I have not read it.

On first approach I found it "too big" and quite inaccessible. All of the symbols and such, the vast scope of it all. Maybe if I had, indeed, read it in detail, perhaps more than once, its charms would come through. But on first impression and casual, secondary glances, they have not.

Oh man I get that. My first time flipping through it was like "why is 'distance' defined?". "Why are the notes in the Western musical scale required". So it felt completely overwhelming.

One day later I noticed the T5 World Stats were used in Travellermap. So I went and read that section. I really liked the world building section and included it in my program and MTU including the stats I give my players.

Then one day I came across QREBS and thought that added a simple wrinkle to the ship they had.

So little after little I started to appreciate parts. But I found myself still telling people the game was "unplayable".

You ask why I changed my mind and find it elegant. To keep it as short as possible the reason I changed my mind comes from this quote:

Broadly, there are three types of players:
- Casual Players (snip)
- Detailed Role-Players (snip)
- Systems Engineers (snip)

While T5 has something for all three types, it is the third type where it finally clicked.

All of those details are for those Engineers that want to dive into that one topic.

If you want to invent a new type of sophont, a new piece of equipment, a new weapon, decide on the genetics of the offspring of two NPCs,
the rules are there. They are not necessary, of course, but if you enjoy spending your time between sessions building things for your universe the system is all there. Everything can be built up from the ground if you want to engineer something from scratch.

That complexity does not have to bleed into any of your adventures. At its heart, T5 has a unified mechanic that incorporates skills, stats, and difficulty. And I realize I could have easily run my current campaign using that mechanic and a little of the chrome and it would have run fine.

Is the language clear? No. As a computer programmer it reads like code. Defining terms like Flux up front and then using it throughout the book is efficient but not clear to a reader looking up a rule. That code-like approach to the rules does make it a more difficult read.

But the game can be as simple as you want it to be, and everything seems to integrate so well.

So that is why I have a new appreciation for it. And why I won't call it unplayable anymore. I am not going to use the roll-low mechanic for my group, but a lot more of that book is going into my campaign over the next few months.

 

[Dragoner]

It is very crunchy, if one likes that sort of detail, it is great, similar to going from Squad Leader, to Advanced Squad Leader, T5 is Advanced Traveller. Before Don passed I had floated the idea of Streamlined T5 and he agreed, sounded good, and he had talked of using a mechanic of only dice, no modifiers. It was fascinating, though he passed, and thus those ideas went away.

 

[Bartleby]

I was going to say the manual reads like the ASL manual. So I agree.

 

[whulorigan]

I should clarify. I have seen it, I have scanned it, I have not read it.

On first approach I found it "too big" and quite inaccessible. All of the symbols and such, the vast scope of it all. Maybe if I had, indeed, read it in detail, perhaps more than once, its charms would come through. But on first impression and casual, secondary glances, they have not.

I would say that you definitely want to be looking at the 3 Volume T5.10 - It is much better organized than the original T5.00 Big Black Book and things are clearer. It still has some issues, but not nearly so many as the 1st release.

I also like it a lot, but there are indeed still places where things are somewhat unclear or where logic requires you to house-rule. But there is an elegance to the mechanic. And I do not have a problem with roll-low (or T4 "half-dice" for that matter). I also have a suggested minor house rule modification (that I think Aramis uses a version of as well) that streamlines the dice throw for the task mechanic and removes the need for the TIH! Rule and the dominance of stats over skills/knowledges.

(Caveat: I have not really had the opportunity to play it at length and really put it through its paces, or be sure that I have not missed things in the ruleset).

 

[Dragoner]

I was going to say the manual reads like the ASL manual. So I agree.

I think coming along at the time of lighter systems such as Apocalypse World, people were taken aback by it's complexity. It is though the magnum opus RPG by one of the top wargame designers of the age. Once the frame of reference gets set, it becomes easier to digest.

 

[mike wightman]

I love QREBS, I love the makers, I love flux as a mechanic (the task system should have been based of flux, as I mentioned many many times), I love the world and system design, and the technology chapter is a thing of beauty.

I like all the options for mustering out, I like the concept of how ship combat is presented, I like the concept of different damage and armour types.