T5 is awesome

[robject]

Where are these GenCon T5 easy to use Chargen rules? I'd like to see a copy.

Here they are: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=586400#post586400

Marc needs to post them to his webpage.

I'd like to see the original T5 combat system tweaked and fixed because it's different and interesting.

The second version of combat is more generic. I'm not that enamored with it even though I was one of the several that helped write it.

I get that. When I re-formatted and modified T5CG to fit into LBB1, it wasn't what I thought it would be. It was then I realized how strong nostalgia is.

 

[Supplement Four]

Here they are: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=586400#post586400

Marc needs to post them to his webpage.

Thanks!

I get that. When I re-formatted and modified T5CG to fit into LBB1, it wasn't what I thought it would be. It was then I realized how strong nostalgia is.

I'm not sure I follow. Nostalgia? The original T5 combat system is something new. I've never seen anything quite like it. (Though, it does need some work--it's not ready for prime time.)

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I use some parts of T5.09, and some parts of MgT2, in my MgT1 games.

 

[robject]

I'm not sure I follow. Nostalgia? The original T5 combat system is something new. I've never seen anything quite like it.

My bad. You're right about the T5.00 combat rules being different.

I meant to be commenting on your comment:

I'm not that enamored with [T5.09 combat] even though I was one of the several that helped write it.

My response was clumsy. I intended to echo your "not enamored"-ment, from working on something and then being disillusioned by the results.

 

[Supplement Four]

My response was clumsy. I intended to echo your "not enamored"-ment, from working on something and then being disillusioned by the results.

Like you, I was but one cog in the machine. It was design by committee.

Had I re-written the combat system by myself, I would have gone a much different route.

LOL. In Traveller terms, we did it the Vilani way, not using the Solomani method.

 

[robject]

Design by committee is definitely the way to go wrong.

 

[David Johansen]

Which is why the new Rolemaster has 600 pages of attack tables.

Someone absolutely had to have hit points represent an absolute scale that didn't change with size adjustments.

But decimal multiplication to represent size differences was inacceptable to someone.

But that meant that every attack table had to include the adjustments for every type of weapon built into it.

I flamed out, embarrassed myself, and bailed on the committee before it had come to that but the reality is that game design requires some vision and somebody in charge.

 

[lordmalachdrim]

Revision 5.09 added about 100 pages to the book and that is not the finalized version with all errata. If you're adding that many pages in an attempt to make "minor corrections and system examples" then you really should just start over.

It's been over 5 years and the we have not yet seen the finalized errata or the Player's book that was promised by the kickstarter. At this point I doubt any of it will ever show up and that we may as well write off the money spent backing this doorstop.

 

[maggot-iiss]

Kakadan/Vland

Imperial Naval Intelligence
(as usual, last word in Home Defence, literally!)
They don`t get to hear about it.

Anyone fancy adding stuff?

 

[Adam Dray]

Did you post this in the wrong thread?

 

[Original_Carl]

Design by committee is definitely the way to go wrong.

Depends on the size of the committee. The magic number seems to be 7 people or less in software. I find game design to be a similar process. Some folks do their best work solo, of course.

Regarding combat. It's been a hotly discussed topic on this board. I'm a little reluctant to dive in (again), but I have rather charitable thoughts about T5.0 combat. I ran 7 combats (2 fistfights and 5 gun fights) in the two years I ran my campaign. I found STAMP to be good for gunfights -- even a rather complex one, but fist fights were better done with opposing task rolls.

This all comes with a big fat caveat. I much prefer guidelines to "rules" and I found the guidelines of T5.0 combat (and to a greater extent, the whole of T5.0) agreed with me and my group. I never tried T5.09 combat. At the point I was at in my game when T5.09 showed up, I wasn't ready to learn and teach a new combat system.

After two years of running T5 and going through a roster of about a dozen players in that time I found the system to be one that's very good for tinkerers -- both players and referees. With the aid of a computer, T5 is great for sandboxing since you can make very detailed locations very quickly. My players tended to max out designer along with trade skills (Biologics, Hydraulics, etc) and really put the makers to the test, along with robots, brains, AI and nanotech. We explored transhumanism when one of the characters secretly cloned another character and took a personality scan, made several copies and then released them to fight each other Thunderdome-style when the original was caught up in a grey-goo mishap. It got weird. Then it got weirder.

My point is that it was T5 that allowed us this two years of shared, undistilled sci-fi weirdness. We had zero-G gun fights, and powered armor warriors assaulting AI-controlled talking space ships, ancient tech, and clone duels to the death. It's the best game I've run to date. It was glorious. T5 is indeed, awesome.

 

[kilemall]

This is derived from The Traveller Adventure guide to using the dice, it incorporates the fixation with multipole dice for difficulty but allows you to keep CT range of skills rather than the T5 skill bloat and over emphasis on characteristic.

To determine the target number to aim to equal or exceed for a typical event that requires a dice throw to resolve but you are unsure what the target number should be roll 2D. (target number will usually end up being 5-9)

To determine the target for a more difficult event roll an extra dice for 3D total. (target number will usually be 8-13)

To determine the target number for a possible impossible event roll another for 4D total (target number will usually be 11-18)

Player still rolls 2D and we argue about how much of a DM you get for high relevant characteristic, skill, correct tools etc.

Try it, it works.

I somehow missed this one. It's so ridiculously simple its a must-do for most any 2d6 version.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Why would a referee not know the difficulty for a task roll?

 

[mike wightman]

Because sometimes it is difficult to decide.

I normally pick a target value 8, 12 or 16, but for those odd occasions when I can't make up my mind the random generation works. It also adds a bit more uncertainty if the players don't know the exact target number they are aiming for - I may tell them it is difficult, very hard or nearly impossible so they can guess at 8, 12, 16 - but they may find I have rolled low and events conspire to make the task easier.

You may be able to weigh up the exact odds for every situation that requires a throw in your games, I can't after all these years be too sure if it should be a 6 instead of an 8, or a 12 instead of 10 etc - so I let the gods of fate decide.

In practice it works very well.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Because sometimes it is difficult to decide.

I normally pick a target value 8, 12 or 16, but for those odd occasions when I can't make up my mind the random generation works. It also adds a bit more uncertainty if the players don't know the exact target number they are aiming for.

I don't tell players the difficulty of any task roll.

 

[rhialto]

I don't tell players the difficulty of any task roll.

Well, what do you tell yourself, then? That's where rolling ("Situation Throw") comes in: when you have no idea, and don't want to always default to 68A, or some other decision-making formula.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Well, what do you tell yourself, then? That's where rolling ("Situation Throw") comes in: when you have no idea, and don't want to always default to 68A, or some other decision-making formula.

Referees always know what's going on. They decide when skill rolls are needed. Situations don't need a random roll made for them. By then, it's too late for a roll anyway. Character-driven role-play already has a handle on things.

 

[rhialto]

Referees always know what's going on. They decide when skill rolls are needed. Situations don't need a random roll made for them. By then, it's too late for a roll anyway. Character-driven role-play already has a handle on things.

That's one way to play, for sure.

 

[mike wightman]

Referees always know what's going on. They decide when skill rolls are needed. Situations don't need a random roll made for them. By then, it's too late for a roll anyway. Character-driven role-play already has a handle on things.

Why bother with rolling dice at all if the referee is omnipotent?

There are times I can not decide on an exact target number for a throw, I must be a really bad referee.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Why bother with rolling dice at all if the referee is omnipotent?

There are times I can not decide on an exact target number for a throw, I must be a really bad referee.

Just replace the referee with an RNG then for a random-play instead of a role-play game.