No release date yet?

[flyteach]

Martin,

That's exactly what I said a few posts up. However, I see this as a good thing as we move into the 21st century.

As someone who has been playing with a core group for over 15 years and not having the same home for more than 2 or 3 at a time (my wife just retired from the USAF this month), I'd look forward to letting the computer be my ref and let me play for a while.

It seems like T5 will be for refs and Mongoose Traveller is for players. I guess I don't have a problem with that (other Mongoose issues aside).

I certainly can't blame MWM for capitalizing on the success of all the fantasy CRPGs and I'm looking forward to a Traveller CRPG.

Jim

 

[flykiller]

The Problem, Robject, is that the level of detail needed is somewhere between CT and MT for the majority of GM's.

a problem easily solved by providing pre-designed ships. why burden the referee with ship design rules when he'd rather be playing? something like this. put the rules in the back of the book for anyone that wants them, but don't make it so the referee has to design the most basic game settings before anyone can even play the game.

 

[cmaddox]

You'd be surprised how little good it would do. Most people who claim they want to playtest the material just end up reading it over and not doing anything with it, including commenting on it much less bothering to play it.

Currently though, it's in the hands of a small core group that is actively working with Marc on the project and actively providing feedback.

While I'm really looking forward to it's release, I'd rather they take a little extra time and perhaps squash any bugs.

-- C

 

[robject]

While I'm really looking forward to it's release, I'd rather they take a little extra time and perhaps squash any bugs.

-- C

I've heard this many times. And, I think that's the majority opinion.

 

[atpollard]

While I'm really looking forward to it's release, I'd rather they take a little extra time and perhaps squash any bugs.

Would any rules set still truely be Traveller without a few bugs? It seems one of the defining characteristics of the game, like death by chargen, house rules and the great computer debate. :rofl:

 

[redwalker]

The 'problem' is this obsession with super-uber-detailing everything like the game designers were programming a computer (the Referee).

On the other hand, D&D 3.x was designed by people who didn't understand the concepts of software verification, and thus continues to be broken by people who do.

The great advantage of Miller is not that he is hyper-detailed. Miller's genius is that he understands his own limitations. Such wisdom is rare indeed among game designers.

 

[Merxiless]

Agreed, and I am looking forward to T5.

And I also think if people don't like it, vote with their wallet, and hush, OR design something better since there's all sorts of opinions about what's gonna sell and what's gonna do well in the market, and how Marc is so out of touch for the last 20 years, and how everything since CT has been a cock-up.

All these experts, let them band together and create the best, most playable yet hard sci fi realistic game out there...just do it. Seriously.

I'll wait for Marc's vision. And that of those who would out do him. But I'm not holding my breath on the latter because it TENDs to just be background noise, in general, Published authors here being the exception.

 

[Vargas]

why burden the referee with ship design rules when he'd rather be playing?

I don't know how many refs consider ship design rules a burden since so many people seem to want them. And I'm not just talking Traveller, Galaxy Guide 6: Tramp Freighters for D6 Star Wars is much sought after for example. I'd be very disappointed if T5 or MongTrav lacked a basic set of ship design rules. And note that this doesn't preclude dropping pre-designed ships into the rules, that's a time honored tradition going back to CT Book 2.

 

[Berg]

And note that this doesn't preclude dropping pre-designed ships into the rules, that's a time honored tradition going back to CT Book 2.

Just make sure the designs can be made by the rules included...

 

[Vargas]

Just make sure the designs can be made by the rules included...

Yup.

Although I don't think that was so much of a problem with the Book 2 descriptions as it was with later CT deckplans and then starting with MT, where it was often difficult to recreate even the descriptions.

 

[daryen]

I realize this if off-topic, but ...

Just make sure the designs can be made by the rules included...

The Book 2 designs (almost) universally worked. And if they didn't, a simple run of the numbers would show why. (The biggest exception was the A2 Far Trader which was sometimes show with its first edition numbers and sometimes shown with its second edition numbers.)

With Book 5 designs, the only one I ever found that almost added up (i.e. was close enough to consider a match) was (and I still can't believe it was this one) the Leviathan from Adventure 4. Other than that, they were either "not even close", "way off", or "drugs must have been involved".

The problem with MT (and TNE) is that the classic ships were even redesigned with the new systems. All they did was take the Book 2 designs and write them down in the new format.

To bring it back on topic, ...

So, here's to hoping that, assuming a design system is included in T5, that the author(s) bother to take the time to:
1) Recreate the classic ships in the new design system.
2) Check their math to make sure the example designs actually match the design system.

 

[aramis]

Daryen:

I came up with similar numbers for the Types R & S in MT as were in the MT IE. they are fairly accurate. Easily within rounding errors.

It makes me wonder if your Bk5 is 1st edition....

But, yes, the ships do need to be done up in the new design system, and it would be nice if each was done with a spreadsheet showing the maths.

 

[Plankowner]

Amen brother

 

[Vargas]

The problem with MT (and TNE) is that the classic ships were even redesigned with the new systems. All they did was take the Book 2 designs and write them down in the new format.

Actually the problem with MT went beyond that; new designs in, I believe, the Rebellion Sourcebook and, definitely, in Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium were often nonrepeatable.

I'll cut TNE some slack, (doesn't happen often), because the design system was so radically different that there was no way the designs would remain close.

 

[robject]

So, here's to hoping that, assuming a design system is included in T5, that the author(s) bother to take the time to:
1) Recreate the classic ships in the new design system.
2) Check their math to make sure the example designs actually match the design system.

As bits of starship design trickle in, I check the designs of many of the classic starships (to see how they compare with CT). ACS design is relatively simple. For example, here's one version of the Free Trader (so far):

Volume  Component
(200)   Hull (floatation) SL
   0    Armor-4
  10*   J-Drive-A (J1)
  20*   J-fuel
   1*   M-Drive-A (1G)
   4*   P-Plant-A (100Mj)
   2*   P-fuel
  20*   Bridge
   1    DS Visor-F
   1    DS Comm-F
   1    LR Particle Detector-F
   1    SR Densitometer-F
   1    Std field Detector-F
   1    Quad Beam Laser
   1    1x Deployable Densitometer
  20    Crew Staterooms (5)
  24    Passenger Staterooms (6)
  10    Low Berths (20)
   0    Model/3 Computer
  82    Cargo Hold
  
* Unlikely to change

 

[atpollard]

I like what I see.

Are all bridges 20 dTons?
Any thoughts about a scout ship with a 1 man crew kicking about the same empty 20 dTon bridge that a 10 man bridge crew packs to standing-room-only capacity. I do not oppose a 20 dTon minimum, it just always seemed to require some explanation given the variable crew rules. I was curious if The-Powers-That-Be had an explanation.

I guess we will not be seeing any Jump-capable X-wing fighters in the base rules. ;o)