The problem with T5

[HtS]

Originally posted by WJP:
For example, and average character in CT and MT and T4 is a character that has Stat-7 Skill-2.

Under MT, that character will make an Average difficulty roll 92% of the time (2D for 4+).

Have you checked wht you're doing--do you know what effect you're making on the odds when the dice are thrown?

I'd look real hard at that, if I were you. [/QB]

no skill -3 is pro, equal to about 50/50 on an average challange, in my system his chances are alittle higher due to the dice pool,

And no I'm not going to log the percentage of every variant stat+skill check, I've got a life

but this system leans towards gritty realism and not so cinematic, and on average I believe it gives a greater reflection of skills in real life than most others

 

[aramis]

HTS:
Dune, like LUG-Trek, is roll many keep 1. Looks a lot like Shillouette.

Roll&Keep systems are fairly rare in print.
LUG-Trek, Dune, L5R, 7th Sea, EABA, Shillouette (HG, CC, JC, and Tribe8), Prime Directive.
Of the over 100 RPG's I have in my collection, only those are Roll & Keep. If one tosses out the Roll many keep 1, that leaves L5R, 7th Sea, and EABA; EABA is Keep 3.


By not spending the 20 minutes to write a program to check the maths, you deprive yourself and your players. Design solely by feel is bad design....

 

[HtS]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Design solely by feel is bad design....

Wrong,

but then I expect it depends on what type of feeling it is,

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, HtS, its a bad idea if it means you have looked at some results and like it, only to find other combinations in play that produce results you really don't like. It's why I am number-crunching for WJP's and Employee 2-4601's systems, as well as a bunch of number-crunching I did for MWM's racegen in the Playtest forum. It should give some data to see if all the rolls will fit your idea of what a task system (or whatever) should do.

 

[parmasson]

Thread hijack!! (PGMP powers up)
Put that task system down and nobody gets hurt.

I know this is off the topic of dice but I would LOVE an article (electronic or paper) that starts like this:

So you are a CT grognard who hasn’t really played any other Traveller system since 1984. Much has changed since the publication of Book 8 and this is a nice thick book (presumably) with lots of new stuff along withthe old. So here is what you need to keep in mind about the new system with a quick comparison between the two….

Finally here is how to translate you beloved Classic Traveller characters into T5...

 

[HtS]

Far to many assumptions in this thread,

 

[aramis]

Well, if all you were looking for was a blind pat on the back, this is DEFINITELY the wrong place.

Members of this forum have a tendency towards critical thinking.

Many of us are or have been involved in various aspects of game design. Ken (WJP) has a number of design contribution credits; I've been a senior playtester for SEVERAL published games. Robject is the acting playtest coordinator for T5.

We all have strong feelings about what we want; none of us is likely to hold back, either. RoS, Sigg, and others are constant sources of excellent criticism.

In my 25 years of playing RPG's, "design by feel" systems are readily apparent. Very few have been worth a damn, and the rest make second eds with tweaks to the chances. (D&D has moved steadily away from Gygax's design by feel approach.)

Game designs go to press with problems. It's a given; there isn't time enough to playtest all the bugs out. Especially since what one perceives as a strength another will consider a bug.

Most of the assumptions made by others (Besides yourself) have a basis in both games theory and many, many years of play. They are based upon valid principals well established.

 

[HtS]

Like I said assumption

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Kurega Gikur:
Thread hijack!! (PGMP powers up)
Put that task system down and nobody gets hurt.

I know this is off the topic of dice but I would LOVE an article (electronic or paper) that starts like this:

So you are a CT grognard who hasn’t really played any other Traveller system since 1984. Much has changed since the publication of Book 8 and this is a nice thick book (presumably) with lots of new stuff along withthe old. So here is what you need to keep in mind about the new system with a quick comparison between the two….

Finally here is how to translate you beloved Classic Traveller characters into T5...

Joining the hijacker.

and how do I translate my beloved HG2 ship designs into T5? Please tell me I can.

 

[robject]

Hmmmm, interesting question.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by robject:
Hmmmm, interesting question.

It is indeed, considering Marc's insistence on making the world generation system backwards-compatible. I think more games would be affected by the loss of classic ships than by the loss of the 'quirky' world generator. None of my players would notice if the UWPs in the Marches changed overnight, but they would definitely kick up a fuss if the type S was no longer to be found in the mustering-out tables.

And I mean the type S, not some new-fangled look-alike.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:

And I mean the type S, not some new-fangled look-alike.

Isn't T5 going to be set a century or so before the Type S we all know and love is in common use?

I mean, I know TL has a lot to do with this, but do standard design ships last over a century?

It seems like the Type S we all know and love--that particular design--hasn't been designed yet in the T5 setting of the Julian Wars.

 

[parmasson]

It is indeed, considering Marc's insistence on making the world generation system backwards-compatible. I think more games would be affected by the loss of classic ships than by the loss of the 'quirky' world generator.

I have to agree. I was thinking of player characters but the loss of their now fully custom 200 ton free trader with racing stripe, and all of the other modifications would be, well, for lack of a better term crushing.

Don’t get me wrong, I really like the idea of back compatibility but just how back compatible can it be and still be a new system?

 

[robject]

T5 rules are decoupled from the milieu; that means that its technical architecture has to support approximately the same range of tech as MegaTraveller did... TL6 to TL20, say.

Anyhow, regarding the sentiments, I'm feeling strongly the same way. In fact, my preference is for T5's system to generate The CT civilian ships with no change... except maybe with a bit extra space (after all, computers don't take up much space anymore, and anyway "should" be on the "bridge").

...and for the military ships, T5 should generate HG designs.

...and (here's the tricky part), the 100 ton Xboat shouldn't have enough room for a 1-ton, Type A power plant. Tricky.

I've knocked this around with Sigg and Scott on other forums here, and I think it's quite reasonable to tune a system to churn out CT-style components.

(And as an aside, Marc's already tweaked the basic worldgen system... more than once... for T5. I didn't expect it to happen. I was shocked.)

The Tricky Part for High Guard is that the USP might limit ships more than T5's system. Thus ported designs could potentially be less useful than native designs.

 

[aramis]

It also needs to be as easy to use a design sequence as T20/HG2.

I disagree about the computer being in bridge tonnage; I've always liked having multiples myself. But I would suggest, strongly, cutting the bridge tonnage minimum to 5, rather than 20, and otherwise incorporating the t20 variant of HG.

 

[robject]

It is possible that T5 ship design of all flavors will be simpler than HG.

We'll see. I have yet to see a T5 "large military vessel".

 

[Scott Martin]

I have yet to see a T5 "not small craft"...

Scott Martin

 

[robject]

Quite so!

Hmm. Guess it's nearly time to try one...

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by robject:
(And as an aside, Marc's already tweaked the basic worldgen system... more than once... for T5. I didn't expect it to happen. I was shocked.)

 

[robject]

OK, here's the changes to date. It's all beta, but for your viewing pleasure. Many of you from the TML may find these changes to be rather familiar.

Caveat These are rather higgledy-piggledy, too.


1. Generate Starport AFTER SAHPGL (but before T, because T depends on SAHPG). Add Mods like Increase Starport roll +1 if Pop 9+. Thus, less change of a low starport and a Hi Pop.

2. Increase the TL Mods to Pop 8 = +1, Pop 9 = +3, Pop A = +5.

That makes the minimum TL for a world with Pop 9 = 3 with a bad (D, E) starport, and more likely 5 or 6.
That makes the minimum TL for a world with Pop A = 5 with a bad (D, E) starport, and more likely 7 or 8.

I don't want to eliminate the strangeness of some of the outcomes, and I don't want a homogeneous empire.

3. I have added TL DM -4 if Pop=0. I have explicitly stated, if P=0, G=0, L=0.

Thus, when you roll up TL, you could get Starport A, Size 4, Atm 3, Pop 0, die roll 6 = TL 10.
or Starport B, Size 4, Atm 3, Pop 0, die roll 6 = TL 8.
etc so TL can range from from 0 to as high as 12.
But the -4 for Pop makes most worlds TL 0 or less.

TL 0 forces Ba Ci and PGL-T = 000-0.
TL1+ forces Ba Di and PGL-T = 000-T.


4. Hydrographics is back to the original, more plausible [ 2d6 - 7 + SIZE ] instead of [ 2d6 - 7 + ATM ].