T 5 Has arrived!!!!

[infojunky]

I have a "dumb question" and this post seems like one to ask it. "Which version of Traveller is T5? I currently have T20 and Mongoose Traveller? Doing so brieff calculations: CT, Mega-Traveller, Marc Millers Traveller, GURPS: Traveller, T20, and now Mongoose Traveller- or is there another version out which I have yet to see?

It's another version you have yet to see.

The order is; Classic Traveller (CT, or LLB (Little Black Books)), MegaTraveller (MT), Traveller the New Era (TNE), Marc Miller's Traveller (T4), Gurps:Traveller (GT), T20 (T20), Hero:Traveller (HT, I think), Mongoose Traveller (MgT), Traveller5 (T5)

T5 has been released as a set of raw Playtest Documents available on CD from the FarFuture website.

Nine different editions, well you could say ten if you count the releases under the Gurps line, as Gurps did a edition change also.

It amuses me that we have enough here to do a Cladistic Diagram for evolution of Traveller.

In Game Mechanics terms CT, MT and MgT are all pretty interoperable, as they use 2d6 as their core mechanics.

As will in general T4 and T5, though you will need to decide which dice throwing mechanic to use, as when as which technical base.

TNE, stands alone mechanically, but you have the bulk of the other games produced by GDW in that period to draw on for addition material under that rule-set. It also comes the closest to Hard SF of all the things produced under the Traveller Clade of games.

The others all are pretty much stand alone, or can draw upon their respective game system for additional material. With Gurps being the king amongst these as there are something like 300+ source books in that line covering a amazing amount of ground thematically, or as Steve put it more than 4 linear feet of shelf space.

Sorry, if this ran on, once on fact cam out more screamed to be included.

 

[aramis]

And if you count GT vs GTIW, you should also count CT pre-81 vs CT post-81, since significant changes were made to starships, and subtle changes in a number of other spots in the rules.

Fundamentally, T5 builds from a baseline of CT and T4.

 

[infojunky]

And if you count GT vs GTIW, you should also count CT pre-81 vs CT post-81, since significant changes were made to starships, and subtle changes in a number of other spots in the rules.

True I thought of that after I posted.... So 11 then .

Fundamentally, T5 builds from a baseline of CT and T4.

Can't really say that, as most of the Tech is FF&S, I still have some of those Playtest files kicking around.

 

[aramis]

Can't really say that, as most of the Tech is FF&S, I still have some of those Playtest files kicking around.

FF&S made it into T4. FF&S2 is an expanded FF&S, but doesn't change it, ust expands it.

 

[Jamus]

Fundamentally, T5 builds from a baseline of T4.

fixed for ya, good buddy!

 

[DonM]

Fundamentally, T5 builds from a baseline of CT and T4.

I have to disagree with this. OTHER than the Xd6 skill mechanic.

And ACS is so NOT FF&S to me. It's NOT HG either, but...

Let's face it... T4's QSDS was not Book 2, and never would be. T5's ACS is very solidly a Book 2 descendant, and not related to QSDS.

And I have to ask how much of the real T5 (the CD) you've seen to make that comment (and because your name isn't on the pre-order list).

 

[lengland9702]

T5- thanks

Thanks for the replies about T5. I am guessing that I need to get it to add to my "Traveller" collection ! So, now where do I get it or which person do I have to threaten to drop off "on some little unknown rock at the edge of known space" to get a copy (ha ha just kidding- get used to my wierd sense of humor)? Of course, kidnap a few players in my area to play it (everyone seems like when they see me they want to hide! more humor here, except do need players in my area)

Larry

 

[ganymede]

Thanks for the replies about T5. I am guessing that I need to get it to add to my "Traveller" collection ! So, now where do I get it or which person do I have to threaten to drop off "on some little unknown rock at the edge of known space" to get a copy (ha ha just kidding- get used to my wierd sense of humor)? Of course, kidnap a few players in my area to play it (everyone seems like when they see me they want to hide! more humor here, except do need players in my area)

Larry

You can get the T5 CD at the FFE website... http://www.farfuture.net/cdroms.html

 

[robject]

T5's ACS is very solidly a Book 2 descendant, and not related to QSDS.

Hmmmm well I suppose. But the bits stolen from Book 2 are outweighed by the concepts from MT's ship/vehicle design rules. And there is still the occasional whiff of FF&S in there. Armor borrows concepts from there, I think. Sensors seem to be equidistant from MT and FF&S2. Then there's the barbette and bay weapon concepts taken from High Guard (yes and imported into MT, I know).

 

[rancke]

Let's face it... T4's QSDS was not Book 2, and never would be. T5's ACS is very solidly a Book 2 descendant, and not related to QSDS.

I'm sorry to hear that. IMO QSDS was the best ship design system so far. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything that came before and anything that came after (GT was close, but a smidgin too complicated and that pesky 20% rule ruined it). Also, QSDS was a descendant of HG, and HG was a big improvement on Book 2.

That's not to say that I'm going to pre-judge T5. Maybe I should say that I'm worried to hear that it's not related to QSDS rather than sorry.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Don: To answer your question... I've seen only the older playtest materials, and the comments here, on mongoose, and on a couple other boards, and a bunch of ACS designs and weapon designs by various people who've posted it. Everything looks like continued development of the T4-ish stuff that Marc already had put out, and CT ship design.

It's really quite amazing how MUCH is leaking by people posting products of the tables.... even without the tables being outted.

I'm cautiously curious about T5... despite hating the task system as last publicly released. (and you yourself have confirmed that it is essentially unchanged.)

Marc also posted via robject (several years ago) that T5 was based in T4, but drawing from CT as well.

 

[DonM]

I'm sorry to hear that. IMO QSDS was the best ship design system so far. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything that came before and anything that came after (GT was close, but a smidgin too complicated and that pesky 20% rule ruined it). Also, QSDS was a descendant of HG, and HG was a big improvement on Book 2.

That's not to say that I'm going to pre-judge T5. Maybe I should say that I'm worried to hear that it's not related to QSDS rather than sorry.

Hmm... perhaps someone with a more favorable view of T4 should jump in; as an MT person, I see FF&S as "the enemy", and you don't want to know what I thought of T4.

And as Rob noted, there are MT bits in there. But the real point should actually be that I would not want any T5 system to be this or that -- I'm really wanting Marc to set what he wants down.

And I can work with "cautiously optimistic"...

 

[DonM]

Don: To answer your question... I've seen only the older playtest materials, and the comments here, on mongoose, and on a couple other boards, and a bunch of ACS designs and weapon designs by various people who've posted it. Everything looks like continued development of the T4-ish stuff that Marc already had put out, and CT ship design.

Hmm... I've got that old T4-ish set of docs, and maybe the products look similar, but the rules don't. Let's just say that the T5 CD materials don't look anything like them. And I'd hope that one could set CT, MT, QSDS, MGT and T5 designs side by side and see many similiarites. Not so much from GT...

It's really quite amazing how MUCH is leaking by people posting products of the tables.... even without the tables being outted.

I actually don't have too many problems with that. And I'm hoping we can be quite a bit more open about the rules shortly.

I'm cautiously curious about T5... despite hating the task system as last publicly released. (and you yourself have confirmed that it is essentially unchanged.)

Hmm... It does grow on you. And the half die is gone.

Marc also posted via robject (several years ago) that T5 was based in T4, but drawing from CT as well.

And I'd say that the previous playtest materials that were posted certainly matched that assessment. We can work with "cautiously curious"...

 

[rancke]

Hmm... perhaps someone with a more favorable view of T4 should jump in; as an MT person, I see FF&S as "the enemy", and you don't want to know what I thought of T4.

Um, QSDS was a fan project that might as well have been called "T4 ship construction done right". It aimed at a level of complexity close to that of HG (It stands for Quick Ship Design System, which tells you what the authors thought about T4 ). So don't go getting QSDS mixed up with standard T4.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Hmm... It does grow on you. And the half die is gone.

The Half die was NEVER the issue... it is the "number of dice by difficulty."

And the inherent requirement to either reveal the number of dice (and hence difficulty) OR to have the GM roll some or all of the dice, OR to have players roll some color coded set of dice in a sequence.

It bugged me in my own game design (and is why that design is DEAD, despite more than 500 hours of play and nearly complete rules), it bugged me in TFtFV, it was a problem in TFT, it was majorly bad in Alternity. It was bad in T4, and only a hair better in T4.1, but also a whack more cumbersome for my players.

It is the one issue that guarantees I will NEVER play T5 "Rules as Written"... and why I'm not interested, per se, in participating in the playtest anymore. I won't playtest if I know I won't even try one of the core rules, and it's been made abundantly clear that dice by difficulty is a fixture of T5, as it was in T4.

 

[robject]

Um, QSDS was a fan project that might as well have been called "T4 ship construction done right". It aimed at a level of complexity close to that of HG (It stands for Quick Ship Design System, which tells you what the authors thought about T4 ). So don't go getting QSDS mixed up with standard T4.

Hans

I agree. And those who knew MegaTraveller or TNE would understand it.

The point of QSDS, I think, was accessibility without sacrificing playability. And it was more accessible than MT, while being more playable than HG.

I find T5 ships easier to design, yet with a similar level of detail as T4 and MT -- and I think the rules around it mesh better.

 

[DonM]

Um, QSDS was a fan project that might as well have been called "T4 ship construction done right". It aimed at a level of complexity close to that of HG (It stands for Quick Ship Design System, which tells you what the authors thought about T4 ). So don't go getting QSDS mixed up with standard T4.

I was given to understand that QSDS was the intended system for T4, but it wasn't ready to go when T4 was. However, that detail came from someone at IG, and I wasn't on the TML back then. Figures, given the source.

Ok, so sometime I'll try and take a look at QSDS without the standard attitude I have towards the rest of T4.

 

[DonM]

It is the one issue that guarantees I will NEVER play T5 "Rules as Written"... and why I'm not interested, per se, in participating in the playtest anymore. I won't playtest if I know I won't even try one of the core rules, and it's been made abundantly clear that dice by difficulty is a fixture of T5, as it was in T4.

Well then, that's your loss. Despite my bias towards the 2D6 DGP system, I've actually grown comfortable with T5 XD6, and want to see where Marc takes it.

 

[ganymede]

Well then, that's your loss. Despite my bias towards the 2D6 DGP system, I've actually grown comfortable with T5 XD6, and want to see where Marc takes it.

I agree DonM. There are a couple of really good systems out there that do the same thing, an xd6 system increasing dice for difficulty. T5 is the only one we're (my group) looking at that does a roll low, and the uncertain tasks just rule on that front! IT also allows for some flexibility for difficulties on the fly, like not just attempting a task of some sort, but making it harder on purpose to get a more profound result.

So those who are naysayers, stay in your hidey-holes rolling your archaic dice and your archaic systems, and the rest of us will move on. :smirk:

 

[robject]

I was given to understand that QSDS was the intended system for T4, but it wasn't ready to go when T4 was. However, that detail came from someone at IG, and I wasn't on the TML back then. Figures, given the source.

Ok, so sometime I'll try and take a look at QSDS without the standard attitude I have towards the rest of T4.

Guy "Wildstar" Garnett cooked up QSDS and pushed the PDF to the web for all to download... meanwhile, T4's system was the "SSDS", based on a simplified version of FFS2 (though still far too bulky for anyone who didn't use FFS2).

QSDS, on the other hand, was potentially usable. My impression of it was that it was like High Guard using FFS2 as its basis. It needed a lot of cleaning up, and had rough, obnoxious edges, but it was complete and simpler than SSDS.

By my wild, highly unofficial and highly suspect guesstimations, less than ten people used SSDS, ever. More than ten people used FFS2 (thanks to Andy Akins' spreadsheet) and that number has remained more or less constant. Initially, more than twenty people used QSDS, but that number dwindled by at least one person over the course of its lifetime.

On the other hand, several thousand people have used High Guard, and about a tenth of those still do. Similarly for Book 2. Of course we all know by now, and are tired of hearing, that High Guard ship designs rule the internet, and edge out Book 2 for published designs. Maybe that has changed with GURPS and Mongoose.

All that falderal means is that High Guard ships are a potentially useful resource, and QSDS ships are much less so.