October 2017: The State of T5 and Galaxiad

[robject]

What's the status of T5?
What's the status of Galaxiad?

Short Answer: No update.

Long Answer:

Errata is actually on the map. It hasn't really been on the map since Don died.

On the other hand, Galaxiad has had "big picture" development slowly but continuously. Enough is there to write actual adventures. Although the Spinward Marches could use another pass-over; there are a few worlds that are not right. Theoretically we can deal with them as we find them, but people like Don prefer to fix everything 100% before development begins.

 

[David Johansen]

Well, it's good to hear something, even if it's that errata hasn't been on the map

Is Marc's health going to be a big obstacle for the foreseeable future?

Oh well, thanks for the update but it's more and more looking like T5 will wind up being one of those great might have beens.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

I think your vision of a Sophont Information Book (aka 'Players Handbook') is the next key step. I also think what you've written so far makes the game come alive.

Errata on the 'whole brick' is too big. Let's get it straightened out so the Players Handbook has the corrected versions of core rules, and the rest can wait until further supplements are produced with more corrections.

I still think the core mechanics of T5 have potential, but they need some nurturing and the use of the OTU to show what kind of story can be told with them.

 

[robject]

I won't be putting any broken bits of T5 into the Handbook until they're fixed. I work around them. Heck, right now there are almost no actual rules in the book yet, just 15 pages of descriptive flavor text.

 

[Supplement Four]

I won't be putting any broken bits of T5 into the Handbook until they're fixed. I work around them. Heck, right now there are almost no actual rules in the book yet, just 15 pages of descriptive flavor text.

I mean this as a sincere question: How are you going to work around hand to hand combat in the Handbook if you are going to work around broken bits? Just not address Brawling combat?

 

[robject]

I mean this as a sincere question: How are you going to work around hand to hand combat in the Handbook if you are going to work around broken bits? Just not address Brawling combat?

Simultaneously a great example and the most useless example -- and for the same reasons. Whilst other sections may have some secondary data that is a bit off kilter ("The average Kian is 6.2 meters tall, not 6.1 meters. You suck, Miller!"), personal combat is in some ways the poster child of errata. I myself have logged suggestions with every section of personal combat (sometimes contradicting myself) and talked his hind leg off over the phone.

Of all the bits of Traveller5, this is perhaps the only section which must be in the Player's Handbook which I will happily defer until Marc sets the Core Rules based on how he adjudicates everyone's suggestions.

Let me put it another way: Personal Combat is the first item I want Marc to resolve from errata.


I can write color text. Heck, Marc likes reading it as much as you guys. The idea, then, is that if I write well enough, it can inspire how he edits the core rules. How's that for persuasion?

As an aside, I told him to write in personal combat and ship combat scenes in to Agent of the Imperium. As a result, we get that very short exchange with the Essaray-like people, and the short exchange between the battleships in that section I can't recall. My plan was for him to engage his RIGHT BRAIN on the task in order to clarify his vision, which would then inform his LEFT BRAIN to make the rules better.

But I see I have gotten onto a tangent. Did I at least answer your question?

 

[whartung]

As an aside, I told him to write in personal combat and ship combat scenes in to Agent of the Imperium. As a result, we get that very short exchange with the Essaray-like people, and the short exchange between the battleships in that section I can't recall. My plan was for him to engage his RIGHT BRAIN on the task in order to clarify his vision, which would then inform his LEFT BRAIN to make the rules better.

Oh, thank heavens.

I just remember when ADB deigned to require that "Star Fleet Battles" fictional encounters in the magazine had to be done "according to the rules". Oh man, was that some horrible stuff. Just awful as the Captain was giving orders for mid-turn speed changes...

Dreadful.

So, basically left brain writing of right brain material.

Just terrible.

 

[mike wightman]

Traveller has had half a dozen plus combat resolution systems in its various incarnations. I fail to see why T5 combat is in such a state when it could so easily be adapted from one of the systems that works well. T4 is the logical place to start...
scale/turn length - fixed or variable due to the nature of the engagement
initiative
possible actions - ranged and melee
task difficulty/resolution - range, target size, movement, environmental mods
damage resolution - different damage and armour types

 

[Supplement Four]

Did I at least answer your question?

Your answer is good enough for me.

I do wonder, though, why all this effort put into T5 when we could put the effort into CT, something that 's not broken, improving that game.

For example, I love the free-for-all, Ref-chosen task rolls in CT, but most people want more structure. I've often thought that a CT Ref book, in LBB format (of course), should be published. The book would give a lot of insight on being a CT Ref. One large section would look at task rolls--the various types used in the game--and explain the pros and cons of each type of roll. That way, Ref could pick a task type with better information about how that task works.

Should a Ref have the player roll 2D for DEX or less? Or, should he have the player roll 2D + DEX for 18+? Or, should the Ref have the player roll 2D for 10+ with +2 if DEX is 8+?

I think that would be extremely interesting.

 

[aramis]

Your answer is good enough for me.

I do wonder, though, why all this effort put into T5 when we could put the effort into CT, something that 's not broken, improving that game.
.

Many people feel CT was, is, and shall remain broken. Not just in brawling, either, tho' brawling in CT was always annoyingly slow. But in the lack of character generation control, in the swamping of the 2d6 combat roll with modifiers, especially with Mercenary in use, that Bk4-7 PC's are far superior to Bk1/S4 PCs in both skill level totals and range of skills available, that lasers were stupidly long range, that missiles had badly broken build rules, that Bk6 systems don't have many astrographic features we now know to exist, that Bk6 uses outdated stellar nomenclature, that the two ship design paradigms aren't directly comparable, that the skill use mechanics are inconsistent.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Several of those you've stated you see as a positive feature.

Further, there's the issue that Marc doesn't use CT. Marc DOES use T5.

 

[robject]

Your answer is good enough for me.

Thank you, S4.

 

[Timerover51]

Is this strictly an Errata clean up, or are other corrections possible?

 

[David Johansen]

So, T4's combat has been mentioned and there were good and bad things about it.

Good: the number and dice ranges worked okay together. I'm afraid the half dice are necessary to have enough steps to avoid using modifiers. I do feel converting 3 points of modifier to 1d works okay with T5.09 but it's one more step.

Good: damage lines up with CT damage levels.

Bad: whole die armour there is no random armour penetration.

Bad: Dice pools for fatigue, melee damage, and tactics, unnecessary and annoying.

I don't think we'll ever please everyone and I've written combat patches again and again and I don't think anyone wants one, still, I'll take a shot at another.

 

[Supplement Four]

So, T4's combat has been mentioned and there were good and bad things about it.

Personally, I think TNE combat system would fit well with T5, with a few tweaks.

 

[pendragonman]

Personally, I think TNE combat system would fit well with T5, with a few tweaks.

Echoed. Just need to convert the polyhedral rolls from TNE to the xd6 aesthetic of T5.

 

[Reban]

Personally, I think TNE combat system would fit well with T5, with a few tweaks.

Echoed. Just need to convert the polyhedral rolls from TNE to the xd6 aesthetic of T5.

Yes! A thousand times yes. Even if this doesn't form part of T5.1 it might make an interesting fan project.

 

[Maksim-Smelchak]

Errata is actually on the map. It hasn't really been on the map since Don died.

Someone still tracks it and keeps notes.

On the other hand, Galaxiad has had "big picture" development slowly but continuously. Enough is there to write actual adventures. Although the Spinward Marches could use another pass-over; there are a few worlds that are not right. Theoretically we can deal with them as we find them, but people like Don prefer to fix everything 100% before development begins.

There are products waiting to happen. Several of them are near completion. As in they exist as well developed drafts, some even have art.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[mike wightman]

Writing adventures based on T5 rules before they are fixed is a bit of a shot in the dark.

Writing adventures for the Galaxiad setting is impossible without knowing more about the setting.

 

[robject]

Writing adventures based on T5 rules before they are fixed is a bit of a shot in the dark.

I can't argue against that. But the adventures can be figured out and (more importantly) written down.

 

[kilemall]

Your answer is good enough for me.

I do wonder, though, why all this effort put into T5 when we could put the effort into CT, something that 's not broken, improving that game.

For example, I love the free-for-all, Ref-chosen task rolls in CT, but most people want more structure. I've often thought that a CT Ref book, in LBB format (of course), should be published. The book would give a lot of insight on being a CT Ref. One large section would look at task rolls--the various types used in the game--and explain the pros and cons of each type of roll. That way, Ref could pick a task type with better information about how that task works.

Should a Ref have the player roll 2D for DEX or less? Or, should he have the player roll 2D + DEX for 18+? Or, should the Ref have the player roll 2D for 10+ with +2 if DEX is 8+?

I think that would be extremely interesting.

Nowadays for CT I'm leaning towards the following-

8CG/Critical, either effective long or extreme (to match the Striker terms), if it's easier then an 8+ its' routine/near automatic if you have the skill and 8+ or higher if you don't.

Routine check against natural 2 for failure and 12 for outstanding success, that's the critical part of the rule name.

Mods are Stat-7= DM.