Really????

[Randwulf]

I kickstartered this a year ago.... I was so looking forward to T5.

But really? This thing is a dog. My book keeps me up at night with the howling from my book shelf. According to the rules, an unarmored npc can't even be hurt by me and my pistol. And I have three stats to spread out damage to before I pass out so an npc can shoot me three times and I suffer no ill effects? But stab me with a sword and I will bleed out very quick.

The personal combat is garbage. Classic T is better than this... I do have to say the space combat looks better... But damn, you need a math degree to do anything.

I understand some people will love it. More power to them. I for one, am disappointed.

 

[Spinward Scout]

Traveller has been described as 'Bookkeeping in Space' - at least the Trader aspects of it. It's not for everyone. But yes, some people enjoy it very much.

Me personally, if I do buy T5, I'll probably look through it once and put it on the shelf with the rest of my Traveller material.

 

[Murdoc]

I know other people have pointed this out as well, about the NPC rule, but what you have to remember is that it is an optional rule, you don't have to use it. There are cases where it is useful (such as a dozen enemy soldiers advancing on your well-armed party), and times when it is more useful to do it the other way (like sneaking up behind the guard and trying to knock him out with the butt of your gun). And you don't spread all your damage out between your stats, you do it by groups of hits, each die goes to a characteristic, and the first wound a character takes all goes into one characteristic. Meanwhile that certainly does affect your rolls having your characteristics go down. And once one of them reaches 0, you're out. While it's true that I prefer other systems of combat to this, it is not as broken as you make it sound.

 

[Randwulf]

I myself will go back GURPS Traveller.... System is easy, and fully fleshed out... Hopefully T5 will get a better personal combat system plugged in like snapshot or something. I just hope it was not planned this way to milk more money out of us itch updates and add ons.

 

[thalassogen]

I myself will go back GURPS Traveller.... System is easy, and fully fleshed out... Hopefully T5 will get a better personal combat system plugged in.

+1

GURPS's my way, too. Plus a little Mongoose here an there.

 

[mechascorpio]

I know other people have pointed this out as well, about the NPC rule, but what you have to remember is that it is an optional rule, you don't have to use it.

Can you point out where in the rules that it says this is optional? That section on page 214 is very specific. Interestingly, it's also the only place in the entire book where the word NPC shows up. The table on page 222 is very specific. Neither the word "option" or "optional" shows up on those pages. No mention of such a rule in the errata.

Or do you mean "you can house rule it and ignore it"?

 

[Frankymole]

All of Traveller post-1980 is a kit, for me. The adventures are especially useful, and the rule additions are enjoyable options and ideas.

If I didn't enjoy them, I would've stopped playing in the early 80s. Traveller is the LBBs and the magazine articles up to 1983 or so. The rest is gravy. And it's all great fun - take what you want, reject the rest. Some of the GURPS books annoyed me by needing other GURPS books to even understand.

 

[Murdoc]

Can you point out where in the rules that it says this is optional? That section on page 214 is very specific. Interestingly, it's also the only place in the entire book where the word NPC shows up. The table on page 222 is very specific. Neither the word "option" or "optional" shows up on those pages. No mention of such a rule in the errata.

Or do you mean "you can house rule it and ignore it"?

No, it doesn't use the word 'optional', I suppose it's a matter of interpretation:

Attack effects against non-player characters rarely require detailed results...

I just take that to mean sometimes they do. How often is up to you. Not clear I'll grant you, but enough leeway it still appears legal to me.

 

[Spaceresearcher]

I'd have to pipe in here and emphasise the 'OPTIONAL' rule. Once again someone declaring it no good, just because of one or two rules they don't like. Now that to me is call for a "REALLY???".

Personally I think that optional rule is extremely handy if you have an NPC that's vital to the adventure or story your playing. Eg, if there killed off by a bunch of trigger happy players at the beginning, life get's annoying for the ref.

As others have mentioned, use what you like, not what you don't. There's things I don't like about T5 as well, but the good far outweighs the bad.
I'm seriously wondering if it's just some people looking for an excuse not to use it because it looks so large and daunting. [m;]Deleted for language[/m;]. Well as they say, don't judge a book by it's cover or it's size. Judge it by it's overall worth.

 

[GrayPennell]

The NPC rule is a classic way to handle mass attacks quickly andI have used my version well before it showed up in any T5. As a GM I got better things to do than record 10 non named NPCs and track hit after hit from PCs. I ll take them out as I need to keep the action high and or the game balanced. For a named NPC or "a boss" than the fight is to the death. This may offend many of you who want a war game.

 

[mechascorpio]

Personally I think that optional rule is extremely handy if you have an NPC that's vital to the adventure or story your playing. Eg, if there killed off by a bunch of trigger happy players at the beginning, life get's annoying for the ref.

Well between this so-called "optional" rule and player characters armed with pistols that do 1D damage, that'll never be a problem!

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world (and the size of Traveller5) frightens and confuses me. Sometimes when I get a text message on my smartphone, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.

But there is one thing I do know - it doesn't say "optional".

 

[rancke]

But there is one thing I do know - it doesn't say "optional".

Are there two different combat resolution procedures? If so, there's obviously a choice of which one to use unless there is a rigid spelled out way to determine which one to use when. That would qualify as optional in my book. Is there only one combat resolution procedure? Then it's not optional (or if it is, the rules are missing a chunk).


Hans

 

[Licheking]

Has everyone forgotten the golden rule of roleplaying, These are just guidelines use them or not as befits your own gaming style and above all have fun. Most people on here seem to be treating the rules like some holy document that has to be obeyed and followed to the letter. Its not! Its a set of guidelines for running a Traveller game which means you can take or leave whatever you want or change whatever you want. Most holy books have several interpretations, in fact i would think that everything written down has several interpretations because we cannot by the very nature of the written word get the inflections or emphasis's that the writer(s) has put into what they were trying to say.

 

[rancke]

Has everyone forgotten the golden rule of roleplaying, These are just guidelines use them or not as befits your own gaming style and above all have fun. Most people on here seem to be treating the rules like some holy document that has to be obeyed and followed to the letter. Its not! Its a set of guidelines for running a Traveller game which means you can take or leave whatever you want or change whatever you want. Most holy books have several interpretations, in fact i would think that everything written down has several interpretations because we cannot by the very nature of the written word get the inflections or emphasis's that the writer(s) has put into what they were trying to say.

That's not the point, though. Rules are suppose to assist the referee in ajudicating certain aspects of roleplaying sessions (the more roll-, less role-playing aspects). If they don't help, you can ignore them, sure, but what's the point of having them in the first place then? Rules are suppose to work. If they don't work, they're bad rules, and no amount of freedom to ignore them will alter that.


Hans

 

[robject]

Pistol vs Unarmored Targets

Assume a standard pistol, since they're semi-automatic. Use your tactics pool to guarantee a first-blood hit, and use AutoFire to boost damage by +2D, and you'll drop your target, right?

 

[taustin]

Can you point out where in the rules that it says this is optional? That section on page 214 is very specific. Interestingly, it's also the only place in the entire book where the word NPC shows up. The table on page 222 is very specific. Neither the word "option" or "optional" shows up on those pages. No mention of such a rule in the errata.

Or do you mean "you can house rule it and ignore it"?

Unless Marc Miller is going to stand behind the gamemaster with a pistol to his head, all rules are optional. Having rules is optional.

 

[HG_B]

Unless Marc Miller is going to stand behind the gamemaster with a pistol to his head, all rules are optional. Having rules is optional.

Really? Anyway, that is the standard excuse I see for brushing aside poorly designed rules.

 

[pennshome723]

I think this is where being a good GM comes into play and any GM that has been around will revert to their own well played style / house-rules as it relates to the parts they do not agree with. I relate this all to other things, like not bothering to keep track of the number of shots left in a magazine. It is a rule in T5 but not one that I will use, because I do not like it and do not agree with it. So I just change it and follow my own GM view on rules, I am the GM in my own campaign.

 

[rancke]

I think this is where being a good GM comes into play and any GM that has been around will revert to their own well played style / house-rules as it relates to the parts they do not agree with. I relate this all to other things, like not bothering to keep track of the number of shots left in a magazine. It is a rule in T5 but not one that I will use, because I do not like it and do not agree with it. So I just change it and follow my own GM view on rules, I am the GM in my own campaign.

There's still a crucial difference between a rule that works and one that doesn't. Let's say you have a rule about keeping track of ammunition: "Every time you shoot, make a mark next to the weapon. When the number of marks equal the capacity of the magazine, you need to change it." Someone would probably complain that this will allow you to fire 20 4-bullet bursts with an SMG with a 20 bullet magazine, firing 80 bullets before it is empty. The rule doesn't work for weapons that can fire bursts, and saying "Well, you can just ignore the rule" doesn't make the rule work for such weapons.

Being able to ignore a rule doesn't affect the quality of the rule in any way.


Hans

 

[KDLadage]

Yes, everything is optional. But the rules should exist to help the game master and the players in their efforts to enjoy the game. If they do not -- if you find yourself needing to constantly house rules this, ignore that, patch this system in because that one did not work in any way that makes any sense... you have to winder why you are using this set of rules in the first place.

Traveller5 has a lot of segments that appear untested, inelegant, and half-developed. Much of the system seems as though parts of a dozen different games were copy-pasted into the same document. The fact that I can ignore something, or house-rule my way out of the inconsistencies and make a better system is entirely irrelevant.

The questions always remains: why was Traveller5 released in the state it is currently in? Honestly, 'Really?' is a perfectly valid statement and question to being introduced to 650+ pages of text that creates confusion more than it provides gaming structure.