T5 support and other questions.

[Blue Ghost]

Are there any companies publishing material for T5? I am only seeing material for Mongoose's version of Classic Traveller, and products to support that.

Character generation seems to be a problem, which was one of the easy and fun things to do with old classic Traveller.

T5 is not top dog on the BBS.

And the task system, from what I'm reading, seems to be a work in progress.

Have all that correct, or am I missing something?

Thanks for any replies.

 

[Hemdian]

Regarding support ...

To start with, there is further material planned from Marc Miller as part of the original T5 kickstarter (a players manual, some deck plans, and an adventure). That this is taking longer than some people expected is not a big surprise and may have an advantage: much of the relevant portions of the errata should be incorporatable in the players manual. Once that’s done, there is talk about other projects (like BCS) but nothing specific at this stage.

Then there is “Cirque”, a multi-adventure campaign specifically for T5 by Greg Lee. This was funded by a separate kickstarter and from what I’ve seen of the preview materials put out recently, looks to be pretty juicy.

I’d like to see 3rd parties pick up on T5 (as currently seen for MgT on DriveThru RPG) but I think the MgT licensing rules may be making it unclear what can and cannot be done. However, once I’ve got on top of my existing projects I may be tempted to throw my hat into the ring.

Meanwhile there is a growing number of web-based utilities for T5 being produced by different people. And TravellerMap.com is, I believe, T5 compatable (at least as far as the Spinward Marches).


Regarding the other point you touched on ... IMHO ...

The ‘problem’ with character generation lies primarily in the explanation of it. There are a number of smaller issues that are being fixed via the errata (some already done, some pending).

The problem with the task system is, depending on who you talk to, “it’s not the same as CT”, or “my mind can’t cope with roll low systems”, or “my hands can’t hold more than two dice at the same time (unless it’s D&D)”, or whatever. Okay, to be fair there are some issues around the ‘spectacular success’ probabilities and around secret rolls but I don’t see these as insurmountable.

Bottom line, some people appear to have taken offense that T5 isn’t a beer-n-pretzels game that they could instantly understand and have since made it their mission to tell as many people in as many forums as possible. (This also probably hasn’t helped T5 gain 3rd party support.) Take what they say with a pinch of salt.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, I hope I don't offend the author, Avery, as I'm sure he reads these boards every now and then, but T5 as is, strikes me more as a very Beta heavy game.

That's the "vibe" I get. I don't know how true that is, but what I do know is that I really wanted to write for Traveller as a hobby while pursuing a media career. And both seem to be perpetually put on hold.

I almost get a sense that ... well ... it's like we, me and everyone else, are being prevented from writing for Traveller unless we go through Mongoose.

When I combine this with the fact that I've been pursing a film career to no end, and have wound up working min-wage jobs for the last several years, all the while waiting for some version of Traveller I can sink my teeth into without being ignored by the Mongoose people, to be blunt, it's pissing me off.

I hope you all can straighten out this latest iteration. I'd love to share more of what I had planned eight to six years ago with Hunter's blessing, but I've got other things to do. What I wrote for Gypsy Knight was a small sample of what I can share with fellow adventurers, and Traveller, unlike Star Frontiers, the SW RPGs, Gamma World, or any of the other sci-fi RPGs, is a staple like D&D.

But, I'm sensing I need to come back when things are finalized.

Thanks for the PMs and replies to this post.

 

[Supplement Four]

Bottom line, some people appear to have taken offense that T5 isn’t a beer-n-pretzels game that they could instantly understand and have since made it their mission to tell as many people in as many forums as possible. (This also probably hasn’t helped T5 gain 3rd party support.) Take what they say with a pinch of salt.

You didn't mention that the T5 combat system is rather poorly written, filled with bugs, typos, an plain ugly rules.

Here's an example of what I'm saying (that has nothing to do with the task system):

Page 211 says, "In a Round, every partipant has the opportunity to move and to use a weapon (or to do some other activity like use a communicator or operate an important device." Then, Page 214 describes the three attack types: Aimed Fire, AutoFire, and SnapFire.

If a PC uses a single fire weapon (which covers almost all pistols and many rifles and shotguns), then the only attack type open to him is Aimed Fire (because the PC's weapon is not capable of burst, automatic, or continuous fire).

The way the rules are written, if a PC uses a pistol, then he cannot both attack and move in the same combat round. Why? The Aimed Fire attack type specifically states on page 214 that a person cannot be moving while attempting Aimed Fire.

Normal semi-automatic pistols, revolvers, many rifles and shotguns cannot be used for SnapFire because those weapons are not capable of burst, automatic, or continuous fire.

Thus, if you use a pistol in this game, your choice is to either move or attack, but not both, during a combat round that averages one minute in length (and you can only fire at one target if you choose to fire!).

 

[cym0k]

With an IMHO, Character generation is fine. There are no issues with it if you want to generate a standard human. I cannot speak about stretching beyond that with sophonts and chimera.

Once I laid it out and went through the sections, there was less to it than MgT when I looked at the MgT core book I have and compared.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Other gripes;

The CD is disorganized. The art is poor. I went through some of my old PDFs, the ones from RPG Realms mimicking the old LBB format, and they are crisp and cleanly formatted, with very legible and readable prose, as well as being very well organized. Ditto with my T20 book.

I'm at a real loss as to how T5 came out the way it did. Just looking at my old big Black book (I lost the dust jacket years ago), and the rules are clear, the formatting, the layout, ... the only thing I don't like are Bill Keith's sketches (I've never liked his art, sorry, that's just who I am). Everything else reads and works fine.

I really wanted to write for T5. I still do. I could have invested my time and energy into ADB's Trek knockoff "Prime Directive", which, "quite frankly", I know a great deal more about because of my Trek background and enthusiasm, or even a third party addon for something like Jovian Chronicles or Blue Planet, or even GURPS or just plain GT. But when I was in my sci-fi hey day geekdom, when I was exposed to ST2 the Wrath of Kahn, or 2010 the Odysseyu continues, or the Terminator films, or Aliens, it was Traveller that was the mainstay, sort of like "the anchor" holding everything together with their various flavors, and borrowing from them for my various player groups to have fun.

I would like to write for Traveller, but I am not a game designer. I am a content provider. I am not a rules gearhead, nor will I ever be. So, I am hoping that you all can sort out exactly what has happened, and then, hopefully I can come back next year, and maybe there'll be something to write for.

Until that's done, I'm not going to invest anymore of my time into writing projects for this thing.

I hope you all can sort it out.

Thanks.

 

[mvdwege]

Thus, if you use a pistol in this game, your choice is to either move or attack, but not both, during a combat round that averages one minute in length (and you can only fire at one target if you choose to fire!).

I fail to see the problem here. The combat system is, as are many other possible systems, an abstraction, and the design choice is obviously that a pistol is not an effective weapon to use on the move.

I can understand that. In my mind, a pistol-armed character on the move is firing off shots, they're just so ineffective that they disappear in the abstraction of the rules.

Mart

 

[Licheking]

I have had no problems with the combat system, although i have taken out some of the abstraction for my style of play. I think combat has some great bits in it, the different effects for different weapon which although not well explained, and with some tweaking from me have made combats quite tactical and interesting.

 

[Supplement Four]

I fail to see the problem here. The combat system is, as are many other possible systems, an abstraction, and the design choice is obviously that a pistol is not an effective weapon to use on the move.

A 6-shot body pistol weighs 300 grams and is easily carried in one hand.

An Auto-Rifle with a 20 round clip weighs 5500 (18 times as much as the body pistol) and requires both hands to operate.

You support a character to be unable to move in a one-minute-average combat round if using the body pistol while the same character would be able to move and fire the Auto-Rifle?



Is it easier to run around, duck from bullets, carrying a can of coke in your hand or a whole 12 pack?





Or, here's something better. Take two weapons that are very alike.

Rifle, single shot, weighs 4500 grams: T5 character cannot move and shoot in the same round.

AutoRifle, full automatic, weighs 5500 grams: T5 character can move and shoot in the same round.

You're defending that?

You think that's a good rule in the RPG?

 

[Supplement Four]

I have had no problems with the combat system, although i have taken out some of the abstraction for my style of play. I think combat has some great bits in it, the different effects for different weapon which although not well explained, and with some tweaking from me have made combats quite tactical and interesting.

There are a couple of very cool ideas in the combat system. And, it sounds like you've House Ruled your game so that combat makes sense.

As written, though, T5 Combat has a lot of problems. The problem I list above is just one of several. I could list many more aspects of the T5 Combat system that would make you scratch your head, but the example above is enough to illustrate that the system needs some serious work.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Rifle, single shot, weighs 4500 grams: T5 character cannot move and shoot in the same round.

Do the rules say that? Or do the rules just not have mechanics for this type of combat?

Certain weapons are more effective "move and spray" and pray that something hits than pistols.

 

[Supplement Four]

Do the rules say that? Or do the rules just not have mechanics for this type of combat?

I quote the rules and page number, if you want to look it up, in post #4, above.

There is a contradiction in the rules. In the introduction of combat, it says that every character can move and act, such as move and fire the weapon. But, when you read the rules, it seems it isn't possible to move and fire a single shot weapon, regardless of the weapon's weight or bulk.

The key factor in being able to move and fire, under the T5 rules, is that a weapon must be capable of burst, full auto, or continuous fire. Weapons, regardless of size, are limited to a choice of moving or shooting, but not both, when only single shot capable.

I suspect that this will be changed when/if any T5 official errata is printed. I've forwarded this, along with many other T5 combat problems, along to Marc.

 

[whulorigan]

I have had no problems with the combat system, although i have taken out some of the abstraction for my style of play. I think combat has some great bits in it, the different effects for different weapon which although not well explained, and with some tweaking from me have made combats quite tactical and interesting.

Licheking, do you think you could post a document (a PDF perhaps) that clearly lays-out and explains the House Rules you use for T⁵? You seem to be having good success with the system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Licheking, do you think you could post a document (a PDF perhaps) that clearly lays-out and explains the House Rules you use for T⁵? You seem to be having good success with the system.

I'd like to see them, too, Licheking. I like alternatives, if they're well thought out.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Underlining is mine.

There is a contradiction in the rules. In the introduction of combat, it says that every character can move and act, such as move and fire the weapon.

Move and fire a weapon is one possible combination.

If the character has no weapon or if it's out of ammo they don't move and fire. I don't see how not being able to move and fire certain weapons contradicts the rules.

I know little about firing weapons while moving, having always been stationary myself. So, firing a sniper rifle while on the run? I am ok with game mechanics that imply this is ineffective.

As an example, weapons have ranges but just because the rules may indicate I can't hit someone over a certain distance and I, the player, can calculate for game mechanics that the target is out of range doesn't mean I can't roll play my under skilled character taking the shot.

 

[Supplement Four]

While I can see where you are coming from regarding being able to move and shoot, I don't see a contradiction.

Page 211, quote: In a Round, every participant has the opportunity to move and to use a weapon (or to do some other activity like use a communicator or operate an important device).

Yet, if a character has a single fire weapon, his only option of attack mode is Aimed Fire, and the rules clearly state that an attacker using Aimed Fire may not personally move (but can be in a moving vehicle). That's on page 214.

Clearly, there's a contradiction here.

As large as the book is, there are lots of things not in the rules. That doesn't mean they can't happen. This is what GMs are for.

What I quote is in the rules. Page numbers above.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Page 211, quote: In a Round, every participant has the opportunity to move and to use a weapon (or to do some other activity like use a communicator or operate an important device).

Yet, if a character has a single fire weapon, his only option of attack mode is Aimed Fire, and the rules clearly state that an attacker using Aimed Fire may not personally move (but can be in a moving vehicle). That's on page 214.

Clearly, there's a contradiction here.

What I quote is in the rules. Page numbers above.

It's not clear to me. Maybe I'm mistaken. My interpretation of English isn't the best.

In the following sentence

My cat had black and white kittens.

Could it not be interpreted both as
Some kittens are black. Some kittens are white.
or
All the kittens have both black and white coloration.
???

My interpretation is that moving and using a weapon are two of the possibilities and don't both have to be possible at all times.

Sometimes you just use a weapon without moving.
Aimed fire from single shot and automatic weapons.

Sometimes you just move.
Maybe you have no weapon or your out of ammo or you decide not to use it because you are out of range.

Sometimes you move and shoot.

And even if you don't like my interpretation, doesn't the rules give other ways to "use" a weapon while moving? I don't have the rules to look thing up - look at the GMs when we game (we discuss things in the rules but aren't using T5).

 

[Supplement Four]

It's not clear to me. Maybe I'm mistaken. My interpretation of English isn't the best.

Whatever way you read it, the contradiction really isn't the issue. The problem is that a dude with a single shot rifle can either move or shoot during a round, but not both.

But, the same dude, if he just picks up a weapon--same size and weight--that is capable of burst fire or better, he can now move and shoot in the same combat round.

There lies the problem.

 

[rancke]

Whatever way you read it, the contradiction really isn't the issue. The problem is that a dude with a single shot rifle can either move or shoot during a round, but not both.

But, the same dude, if he just picks up a weapon--same size and weight--that is capable of burst fire or better, he can now move and shoot in the same combat round.

There lies the problem.

So what you're saying is that both are canon and either may be true, but they can't both be true at the same time? If you can do the one you should equally well be able to do the other and if you can't do the one you should not be able to do the other either?

That sounds like a good reason to ignore one or the other, no matter how canonical. :devil:

(Even better to convince TPTB to change one or the other, of course.)


Hans

 

[Hemdian]

The rule book as a whole has many things that are not clear. This isn’t one of them.

p211 is an overview. The line in question there is talking in generalities. For example, it doesn’t mention that a character can’t move if unconscious, you are expected to apply some common sense. In other words, normally a character can move and use a weapon, disregarding any limitations of the specific situation. p214 talks about one specific condition where this general rule doesn’t always apply.

Now the issue about not being able to move while making snapshot fire with a handgun is a genuine issue. Potentially quite a serious one. Arguing about p211 and p214 contradicting each other is taking pedantry to a whole new level I didn’t even know existed outside of legal documents. The rule book is not a legal document and should not be read as such. It is clear what is meant.

So, does anyone have any ideas on how to fix the handgun issue?