T5: A Modest Proposal for the Designers

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

Okay, here's a reality check for whoever is designing T5 right now.

There are two recent reviews up on rpg.net of the MT player and referee's manuals respectively. The reviewer is NOT hostile to rules-heavy games per se. On the contrary, he's the author of a Rolemaster Companion. He does have a clear idea of what an RPG has to be like in 2007 as opposed to 1985.

Here's what he has to say about the Referee's Manual:

The Manual begins with several pages explaining the responsibilities of a Megatraveller referee and how to administrate an adventure. Interestingly, this advice concentrates heavily on managing the scenario and resources, rather than players and player styles. This is a theme that continues throughout the manuals, giving the impression of game where highly detailed star systems, craft and characters are created more than played. It is a little disconcerting to imagine.

Taking up almost half the book are the chapters on starcraft design and combat. The actual text for design and design evaluation is less than a 1/3 of that which is dedicated to tables, tables, tables and more tables. Simple formulae could certainly have saved a lot of space. In any case, craft design begins with the hull, then power supply, locomotion, communicators, sensors and electronics, nine pages of weapon charts, screens, bridge, accommodation and fuel, all of which seems perfectly in order and the couple of spaceships I've designed don't seem to collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.

The general combat system is, surprisingly, very similar to personal combat with tactics, initiative, surprise and interrupts following the standard procedure. Damage tables requires cross-referencing attack factors versus defense types to determine the penetration number which, if successful, requires a further roll on the damage chart which may require a further roll on the critical chart. Easy really.*

Like the Players' Manual, the Megatraveller Referee's Manual is a product of significant substance and fairly good scope, but hampered with an inaccessible style, disorganisation, significant authoritarian, militaristic and antagonistic biases, and an overabundance of tables (even more so than its contemporary, Rolemaster). If a referee loves sitting at home doing pre-game preparation, rolling lots of dice and looking up lots of tables, this is an ideal product. However, I rather suspect this is not how most GMs like to spend their free time.

*Irony Alert!

So...

Here's my suggestion. Get hold of a recent edition of a rules-heavy game. HERO FREd would be good. Do not read it for the rules--read it for the presentation of the rules. Clarity, number of examples, number of tables, length of sentences, focus on actual play.

That last aspect is especially important. I know a lot of Traveller grognards like starship and world design. But starship and world design is not part of actual play. It's what you do before and after. And T5 needs to be all about what happens in-between before and after. It needs to be a game first, and a simulation second.

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12747.phtml

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12741.phtml

 

[robject]

Looks like his primary concern was organization problems with the books. MegaTraveller, being a consolidation and expansion of all classic Traveller, probably had its work cut out for it to present all that data.

Editing and review, in other words, can't be rushed. I think T4 also taught that lesson.

The secondary concern was the way MegaTraveller tended to go overboard with the "toolkit" elements of Traveller. Overboard in the sense of losing some perspective or balance between detail and general ease of play.


Good point -- the toolkit elements to Traveller shouldn't get in the way of, crowd out, or overburden the rules for playing the game.

Another good point -- Traveller never had, but now needs some referee advice on how to recognize and adapt to different styles of play.

Another good point -- things created from the toolkits need only generate a portion of playable detail. This links to the rules mechanics tightly, which shouldn't require a labyrinth of detail to play the game.

How many steps does it take to fire a gun? If the answer is "more than one", then there may be trouble.

Yet Another Good Point -- the goal of these toolkits is not to simulate reality. Of course, even with MegaTraveller it's obviously not a simulation, but the point probably rests on level of detail rather than just level of accuracy.

 

[Malenfant]

Yeah, one of Marc's many problems is that he is appalling at presentation - text is utterly soulless and dry, it's nothing more than a load of instructions really. And he's very bad at explaining things in a sensible way, or even in enough detail for the reader to understand what's going on. In fact, CT and what I've seen of T5 read like old 70s wargames, I think the instructions for my washing machine are actually more exciting to read than those.

Heck, just look at TNE or T20 if you want to know how to present a game. Personally I really loved the presentation of TNE - the rules were clear and well-explained, and there was lots of character and background in there too. T20 was a bit drier but the rules were still fairly clear.

The 'minigames' of world and vehicle and character design have always been a big part of Traveller, but you're right - they're really secondary to playing the game itself, and any new ruleset has to focus on that as a priority because without that, it's nothing.

 

[Malenfant]

Just reading the players manual review:

Whilst the setting of Megatraveller is hopelessly out-of-date for the science fiction genre, the character generation system consistently follows a simulationist agenda, even to the point of annoyance. The career and skill system is quite good with the exception of the unnecessary emphasis on randomness, military and associated professions and skills.

All valid criticism, I think. People aren't into random chargen nowadays* - if T5 has that, then it's doomed.

*: And no, D&D isn't random - generating attributes by rolling 3d6 is one thing, but certainly CT (and later versions to lesser extents) requires you to randomise everything.

 

[robject]

Speaking of TNE, I really enjoy reading FFS1. It's amazing. The content difference between FFS1 and FFS2 is insignifcant, relatively speaking, yet the formatting and presentation of the TNE version is 100% better.

 

[rogermccarthy]

Agreed - I feel no desire whatever to use FFS1 but greatly enjoyed reading it.

I think a lot of the superiority of the TNE material was due to Dave Nielsen who was one of the few people involved in GDW who actually could write decent prose.

The TNE material was also infinitely more professionally edited and proof-read.

If they'd only had the sense to stick with a simplified MT system for TNE and used these new found writing and production skills to finally give it the edition it deserved...

 

[robject]

I think you're right about Nielsen.

Quotables from the MegaTraveller reviews:

General

* improbable setting ... a bygone era when Star Wars really was the cutting edge of sf... Aslan (lion-people), the Vagr (dog-people) and, to be slightly exotic, the K'ree (centaur-people).

* when it's good it's very good and when it is bad, it's horrid.

* [Referee's Manual] If a referee loves sitting at home doing pre-game preparation, rolling lots of dice and looking up lots of tables, this is an ideal product. However, I rather suspect this is not how most GMs like to spend their free time.

Chargen

* the player rolls for Homeworld generation, which also has a profile, although the key for this is tucked away, inexplicably in the Referee's Manual.

* In the old edition of Traveller, a rather tiring experience was having characters die during chargen. Obviously this was a problem, but rather than reduce the effect (for example, the character was seriously wounded, rescued and is now in debt with a slight limp), they've applied a yes/no switch.

* With four year terms it is entirely like to end chargen with characters in their early middle-age, which is actually a pleasant change from FRPGs where most characters start in their late teens to early twenties at best.

Skill Improvement and Task System

* The skill improvement and task resolution systems are particularly advanced for their time, and are better than most contemporary games.

* [task system] The only fly in the ointment is that the die modifiers for characteristics are based on Char/5, dropping all fractions. This skews the game heavily in favour of skills over characteristics and with a significant graduated equilibrium (e.g. a characteristic of 9 is the same as 5); a local house rule is a +1/-1 modifier for every two points from 7. Apart from this, the UTP is a great system and heartily endorsed.

Combat

* The combat system is a convoluted mess.

Universal World Profile

* The example for the world Roup is C77A9A9-6 S Hi In Wa A323 Im, which indicates that attempts to summarise a world and the system it is part of in a single line might be more trouble than its worth.

* ...the higher the population of a world, the less probable it is to have a representative or democratic government; indeed in the highest band of population, it is impossible.

Interpersonals

* The interpersonal tasks chapter is very short (two pages), describing the UTP for characteristic estimations, interpersonal negotiation and bribery, interrogation and impersonation. There are not suggestions for reputation or respect and NPCs seem to be invariably treated as strategic opponents rather than orientations towards co-operation or mutual understanding.

Trade

* Surprisingly [the trade system] does all seem to sit together quite successfully.

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

Robject gets it!

The relief!!!

Just to clarify, I definitely think that part of Traveller's core identity is starship design and combat. BUT... that can't mean turning the GM's Manual (if there's going to be one) into a set of annotated tables. Such rules belong into supplements. The challenge would be to include a simplified but totally portable version of them in the core books.

I will alienate Malenfant here and say that IMHO if there's no random chargen, then it's not Traveller: it's GURPS. Make point-buy another option, maybe tone down the randomness, but do not dump the random career paths altogether.

I'm with alte re. tasks. To me, the MT UTP is manna from heaven. Why did they ever feel the need to ditch it rather than refine it?

 

[Malenfant]

Well, to me the method of chargen is irrelevant - it's the result that matters. I vastly prefer the GURPS-like way of doing things because it gives me control over the character I'm creating instead of helplessly watching dice create a one-eyed cripple for me who got tossed out of the Navy after 4 years. You can make any character you want with any history you like using point-buy, instead of being handed a character that you have to figure out the history for with random gen.

Either way you can get exactly the same character though, and that's the important thing. It doesn't really matter in game terms how it's made, and given that the setting is the one thing that's remained constant in all the incarnations of the game, I define Traveller using that rather than the rules.

 

[Anthony]

In my experience, quasi-random chargen can be fun; I sometimes use random chargen systems for inspiration in point-based systems. Totally random chargen, however, results in annoying and incoherent characters.

 

[robject]

Starship design may be a loud hallmark, but at best it's only one facet of whatever "core Traveller" is.

Traveller's version of lifepaths is unlikely to go away, although I also remember seeing quick-gen rules alongside of each career (for totally nonrandom chargen).

We never used totally random chargen. In other words, we never used Classic Traveller and MegaTraveller rules in the way they were intended to be used. A sure sign that something was awry.

 

[GypsyComet]

And yet the MT ship/vehicle construction chapter is the best integration of detail and accessibility Traveller has ever managed, from a layout POV. It's failings are nothing to do with the presentation except for the absence of "default expectations" (ie. what *should* go into a starship vs an ATV).

To remain "Traveller", some element of randomness in chargen will likely always be present. I'd like to see the CT/MT methods retained to some extent, but with the escape valves in place for those groups that want to tell a story with constructed characters. "Roll on this table, or, y'know, just pick an item instead" works for me. The TNE/T20 ability to switch pre-play careers is pretty much a necessity. The psyche of the real world work ethic has changed enough that "one job and out" just isn't going to make sense to new players.

 

[Scott Martin]

Except for the fact that the MT vehicle system made armour "volume free" and thus introduced a massive systematic error as far as compatibility with any other system... MT tried to "align" starships with vehicles (using Striker as the scale) but kept the HG starship combat section instead of replacing it with a new system that scaled well as a "global" system (Aramis may smack me for this one, I stopped looking at MT starships once I hit these issues)

I'd support this critique using "Fighting Ships" but that supplement is arguably the worst I have ever seen in any Traveller franchise (since it actually breaks many of the *stated* design rules like maximum armour values...)

Having just stated that IMO MT starships is one of the worst available systems, let's look at what I'd suggest as "best" systems:
Chargen: TNE / T20
Task System: MT with T20 "opposed tasks" also nice
Easy Starship Design: CT/HG

Major "Holes"
-Starship combat system (TNE / Brilliant Lances was close, but had a scale problem, Battle Rider was pretty horrid)
-Vehicle combat (MT is thus far closest to usable, both Striker systems were abysmal)
-World / System Generation (an updated "Scouts" might do it, but fast, simple and rational seem to be mutually exclusive... this one will be a hard problem)

All of these by definition IMO.

I'm leaning more and more towards "Traveller is the setting, not the rules" which would unfortunately mean that either GURPS or T20 (based on player participation) is currently the "true" Traveller.

Scott Martin

 

[rogermccarthy]

Random chargen and point-built are not mutually exclusive.

Even the first draft playtest chargen effectively had a point-build option (you say how many terms the character has and pick terms x 4 skills).

Modern games like the Dying Earth Roleplaying game even manage to combine them.

A while back I suggested precisely that for T5 - either give characters say 5 random skill rolls a term or let them pick three skills or stat increases (or roll three, pick one etc).

Similarly you could allow a character to pick his number of terms and service but restrict him to say 4 terms and rank 04 - or let him roll away without any limits.

All it takes is a few additional sentences under 'options for character generation' and there you go.

Exactly the same applies to the much maligned alien generation system - you really don't have to roll away randomly, you can just pick features or throw the tables away and make up your own - even if Marc doesn't tell you so.

 

[rogermccarthy]

On MT the real problem is that it needs 45 pages of errata (so far) to play and even the examples written specifically to clarify how the design system works had to have their own errata!

You can only have such a table-heavy system without serious errata if you have major professional resources (which GDW apparently only ever had in the TNE period) or are willing to run a very long and rigorous playtesting process involving a large number of people whose input is taken seriously.

I camn see no way that T5 going to benefit from either of those factors - and that's why my heart sinks whenever FFS3 is mentioned.

With the best will in the world FFE and the handful of enthusiasts involved will just not have the resources and time to get something on that scale 100% or even 99% right - and it will only take a few errors to make large parts of the system useless.

This and not just that game design has moved on is the main reason T5 has to be much closer in feel to CT (but with far fewer tables and more percentile based design elements) than to MT or TNE.

 

[davidm]

Bit of a ramble, but here goes...

Going by the original presentation of Traveller as a toolkit for building SF games, I feel that GURPS is the spiritual heir of Traveller.

GURPS Space is clearly inspired by the world detailing systems in Traveller (heh, it even has alien species generation now), and GURPS Vehicles actually credits FF&S for inspiration.

Ok, Vehicles needs some work (the new construction rules are due out soon) not using metric sucks - not as much as I thought, but it still sucks, especially for a Metric-raised Traveller.

It could also do with a life-path/career generation system, as they are just so much fun to surrender your character's fate to

But, my point is that GURPS just plain feels more flexible, comphrensive and generic. The latest edition has also gone quite some way in cleaning up crufty rules and streamlining systems, and it has simple and complex versions of the combat systems so one can't complain about too many rules to follow and dice to roll in game.

The GT materials are for the most part very useful and feel 'complete' (with the notable exception of a lack of information on the Imperial Navy), a feat only CT seems to have equalled.

I'm still somewhat puzzled as to why it isn't more accepted in the Traveller community. Perhaps it's just down to the seemingly standard hostility to change (ok, maybe I've been reading too many TML archives lately

)?

Back on topic...

In terms of T5, an obvious major factor in choosing a design is the target audience.

Is T5 meant to please long-term Travellers whose heart lies in CT? Frankly, I doubt it could. A lot of fans have many years of investment in their particular version, and unless T5 magically makes their gaming efforts easier and more enjoyable without fundamentally feeling any different from CT as well as being super-compatible with minimal errata, they're not going to bite.

I don't see a lot of love for T4, arguably the most accessible direct heir of CT. Errata and awful presentation killed it's appeal for me.

T5 -could- take the TNE route and try to lure in new players - but again, I doubt this is something easily achieved if one is to create a true successor to earlier editions. Traveller just ain't for the masses - it appeals to a pretty small niche of the niche of an industry that RPGs are to begin with.

Having said that, I have the dubious habit of grabbing just about any bit of Traveller I can get my hands on and I love them all (to varying degrees), but I sure as hell don't need any more rules.

What I really want is more detail on other periods of Traveller history (Gateway was cool, and I'm mostly loving what I see of 1248).

We expend all this energy each new edition trying to establish the perfect task system, the perfect chargen or the perfect design system (and the perfect errata

) and by the time Traveller publisher x gets around to actually advancing the universe, their edition ups and dies.

I think that goes for younger generations of roleplayers too - they want interesting settings more than interesting rules.

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
Except for the fact that the MT vehicle system made armour...

NOT my point. I am well aware of the failings of MT ship design from a mechanical point of view. What it succeeded at better than any other edition was the process flow itself. Having read the surrounding text ONCE, the tables and their arrangement contained the entire process flow and the information needed to navigate it. High Guard also managed this, but at a lower detail level (Book 2 has no real flow, but is simple enough not to need it). FF&S1 approaches this ideal level of process flow, but has to surrender the ideal due to sheer detail overload. FF&S2 utterly failed to provide good process flow, due to the tables being clustered in haphazard fashion in the back of the book; the poor typography in the text portion was secondary to needing to have the book open to two or three places at once.

If you don't grok smooth process flow, I'd rather you didn't design the book. RULES design is different from BOOK design, by the way, and several of the people here are qualified for the former, no doubt.

 

[Scott Martin]

Mmmm...

Sorry I missed your point on process flow. I think that HG did this a bit better than MT, but mostly because HG had less "stuff" to put into ships, and had less detail. Most of HG ship design could be done with (IIRC) 3 sheets of 8.5x11 (6 pages of LBB) On the other extreme, I don't think you will find anyone who thought that FF&S was anything other than atrocious.

Since we're now on the topic of workflow, IMO FF&S "flow" was disrupted simply because there was so much extra "stuff" cluttering up the flow. The Brilliant Lances Tech Architecture book (basically FF&S with all of the "non-starship" stuff stripped out) was fairly clean, and worth emulating. Perhaps a tech architecture book specific for starships, another for vehicles, another for small arms / personal equipment and a "compendium" package offered at a slight discount?

If I were to do another FF&S, I'd say that it's worth the extra "bulk" to have tables etc. in more than one place. While "Starships" and "Grav tanks" may use the same fusion plant, please don't clutter my starship design with tank gear, and don't clutter my surface vehicle design with massive installations like light second range sensors. The easy way around this is to publish seperate design sequences, and simply duplicate any "common" tables in each section, instead of trying for maximum "density". FF&S could have made room for this by simply eliminating the "fluff" text that explained how things work, but that is the self-same text that made FF&S so well adopted through other SFRPG genres.

And I have no idea if there is even a plan to do a book: I'd settle for a clear direction on the underlying technology! If you're looking in on the T5 development forums there's a lot of wierd stuff being discussed there (Overclocked fusion plants and jump drives oh my!)

Scott Martin

 

[Jeffr0]

Originally posted by davidm:
Bit of a ramble, but here goes...

Going by the original presentation of Traveller as a toolkit for building SF games, I feel that GURPS is the spiritual heir of Traveller.

...

It could also do with a life-path/career generation system, as they are just so much fun to surrender your character's fate to

But, my point is that GURPS just plain feels more flexible, comphrensive and generic. The latest edition has also gone quite some way in cleaning up crufty rules and streamlining systems, and it has simple and complex versions of the combat systems so one can't complain about too many rules to follow and dice to roll in game.

...

I think that goes for younger generations of roleplayers too - they want interesting settings more than interesting rules.

Wow... we're pretty much on the same page. A guy was asking about what system to use for a space rpg and I told him pretty much what you just said!

Hmm...

"If a referee loves sitting at home doing pre-game preparation, rolling lots of dice and looking up lots of tables, this is an ideal product. However, I rather suspect this is not how most GMs like to spend their free time."

Oh, that hurts... but someone needed to say it!

I completely agree with the emerging consensus that T5 should focus on playability, accessability, and layout. The mini-games will still be there, but they can't rage out of control. If you make them good enough, people can just use them with the system of their choice. Collectively you should have something that defines a clear setting with as little headache for the ref as possible. If you do that, people can just pick it up and use the mini-games with d20 Future or GURPS 4e.

You compete with GURPS by giving the sci-fi "Worldbook" that just doesn't exist for 4e... and by creating cool mini-games are too simple and ungeneric for Steve Jackson to waste his time on.

 

[flykiller]

If a referee loves sitting at home doing pre-game preparation, rolling lots of dice and looking up lots of tables, this is an ideal product. However, I rather suspect this is not how most GMs like to spend their free time.

I have to wonder just how many traveller fans spend their time exactly this way. I suspect, quite a few.