the target market

[Malenfant]

Perhaps the statement that troubles me most of all. Is it a no-win situation? Or can he add enough, improve enough, fix enough, and integrate (or be compatible with) enough of the "good material", that people are more satisfied than not?

Plenty of Traveller GMs have pulled together things from existing games and got something that works to their satisfaction, and are happy with that.

Why should people drop that in favour of whatever it is that Marc is doing, which apparently has nothing to do with that anyway? He's reinventing the wheel again, is all.

This is part of the "what the hell is the point of T5" issue, really.

 

[Jame]

Originally posted by lackey:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jame:
My suggestion for making T5 more accessible: re-do the computers. Do something along the lines of what T4 did, but do it better.

Perhaps leave them out of the core book completely, assuming computers are ubiquitous and more or less invisible.

Leave things like hacking and neural augmentation for a later book. </font>[/QUOTE]I'd say mention computers, but maybe not give rules for them in the core book. That or give them as part of a tech tree and equipment list, but not much else there. For where-ever it's put in, introduce a variation of the T4 thing with hand-comps being introduced at TL 7-8. Possibly do a GURPS-style (style only, mind you) complexity rating.

And Mal, it's Marc's wheel, so it makes sense that he can reinvent it as often as he wants (not that he necessarily should).

 

[aramis]

I think, more than likely, what MWM needs to do is what he did with T20 and GT:
shut up, sit back, and let the Fans do the writing.

Many of the MT fans want a second ed of MT. Mark would be better served by letting a rabid MT nut coordinate the writing and playtest, and create a "MT2" ruleset, checked for erratta, and probably not dead tree... but make certain that a POD is available.

Likewise, Many of the CT fans want CT Plus... using the DGP task system, and the T20 expansions to craft design.

But MWM is dead set into the "I'm the Designer so I'm Right" and has been for years. I hope it will change, but doubt it. I've seen what's at T5.com... and have been openly critical.

I DO see a market for A T5, just not the T5 MWM is pushing.

 

[Malenfant]

Well, I don't even see a market for any new version of Traveller at all.

New settings to use with existing Traveller games? Sure, I can see that. That's what we need more of, I think.

But new rules? No. Not at all. It's utterly pointless. At most, I can see a market for an updated ruleset that consolidates an existing set, like CT+. But Hunter seems to have given up on the idea (or maybe been told by Marc to give up on the idea), and I think that is a big mistake.

 

[aramis]

Well, Mal, there are two fairly popular rulesets that could use a consolidation (and in one case, Errata application): CT and MT.

TNE didn't really do much "adding" of rules to the core in supplements. CT and MT both did. An E-version pulling the player's choice award sections (some from T20 and GT), and consolidating. The front money is negligible; the two dozen sales guaranteed on either are likely to make it worth putting up on DTRPG...

T4 has some tweaks to core rules in odd places, but is generally self contained, and generally not well liked as a whole. But MWM made the same choice to ignore the players in 1996 as he's apparently doing now.

 

[Malenfant]

An updated version of an existing game would be infinitely preferable to everyone I think.

But I have to wonder what the hell Marc thinks he's doing really. What does he possibly think he can gain by just ignoring everyone (especially on the playtest)?

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Aramis:

Many of the MT fans want a second ed of MT. Marc would be better served by letting a rabid MT nut coordinate the writing and playtest, and create a "MT2" ruleset, checked for errata, and probably not dead tree... but make certain that a POD is available.

Likewise, Many of the CT fans want CT Plus... using the DGP task system, and the T20 expansions to craft design.

These two might not be incompatible, although there are some conflicts that would have to be reconciled (e.g. replacing HG combat with MT vehicle combat, like Aramis has done).

 

[Michael Taylor]

As this discussion continues, and T5 is planned for 07, the amount of material dualstatted for T20 and CT just keeps getting larger and larger...

and larger...

By the time T5 comes out T20 will probably have all its soucebooks out, enabling people to choose from 990, 1248, Twilight, LoA HH, 2320...
And the support materials (adventures, supplements will continue to grow.

 

[Pickles]

All the more reason for T5 to be a setting-independent rules system which is more attractive than T20, GT, CT, MT, or T4. Which is a pretty tall order.

 

[RobertFisher]

Originally posted by lackey:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:

Many of the MT fans want a second ed of MT. Marc would be better served by letting a rabid MT nut coordinate the writing and playtest, and create a "MT2" ruleset, checked for errata, and probably not dead tree... but make certain that a POD is available.

Likewise, Many of the CT fans want CT Plus... using the DGP task system, and the T20 expansions to craft design.

These two might not be incompatible, although there are some conflicts that would have to be reconciled (e.g. replacing HG combat with MT vehicle combat, like Aramis has done). </font>[/QUOTE]Hmm. If there was an MT2, I can almost see a CT+ being based on it. By developing simpler subsystems in the spirit of Bk1-3 but which are compatible with the more complex MT2 subsystems. Then people could mix & match the two.

 

[aramis]

I agree, the two might not be incompatible.

Aside from the issue of Armor, the rest of the MT vehicle system can be readily replaced with just about any other editions' vehicular subsystem.

The combat system can only be simplified so far.
Hits Done = Amount roll made by (0=0.5) x Pen/AV (simplify to 4 steps x1, x1/2, x1/10, x0) x Base Damage.

It always did need an initiative system.

But a simplified MT is similar to a CT plus. and such a CTT+/MTL would be an excellent t5.

 

[robject]

Bingo, Robert! Swap in the module with the complexity you prefer. Something Travellers have sort-of had and sort-of wanted.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Aramis:
I agree, the two might not be incompatible.

Aside from the issue of Armor, the rest of the MT vehicle system can be readily replaced with just about any other editions' vehicular subsystem.

The combat system can only be simplified so far.
Hits Done = Amount roll made by (0=0.5) x Pen/AV (simplify to 4 steps x1, x1/2, x1/10, x0) x Base Damage.

It always did need an initiative system.

But a simplified MT is similar to a CT plus. and such a CTT+/MTL would be an excellent t5.

Agreed. And MT needn't be 'MT Lite' either; it could well be streamlined without losing granularity (I ignorantly and optimistically assume).

The nice thing about MT is its modularity: the modules are well-defined, yet there's an interoperability between the various modules that didn't exist in CT, and doesn't exist in T4 as far as I could tell.

This modularity means that if a single module could be improved, all it needs to do is make sure the interface points line up with the original, and the improvement is practically guaranteed to mesh seamlessly with the game.

My preferences for an improved MT are all superficial. I'd like starship design to be expressed in tons and EPs; I'm okay with the numbers (well, maybe not the jump fuel usage, but so what?), I just want to see fewer decimal places. That would essentially make it High Guard version 3. Reconciling Book 2 tables forward to MT numbers (if possible) would yield two levels of detail to play with. Update them both to FFS and CT+/MT2 would yield three levels of detail (perfect, in my opinion).

All speaking theoretically, of course.

Question Does T20 starship design's numbers follow FFS1/2?

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:
All the more reason for T5 to be a setting-independent rules system which is more attractive than T20, GT, CT, MT, or T4. Which is a pretty tall order.

Quite. Plus it's a totally unnecesary one too. (plus, it has to be more attractive than GURPS Space, Lightspeed, STAR Hero, d20 Future...)

There's definitely a demand for rules-independent settings. But not for setting-independent rules.

 

[robject]

There's definitely a demand for rules-independent settings. But not for setting-independent rules.

Mal is right. The concept of T5 can be neither Travellerless nor Imperiumless.

 

[RainOfSteel]

I've been playing catch up, reading up on previous posts, etc.

I'm largely out of touch with the whole feel of the current discussion, primarily because we seem to be going over things we've all gone over before several times (yes, I'm full-on guilty of doing that myself, and am about to join in and do so myself, and so I'm not criticizing here, but rather simply stating the obvious, a terrible flaw of mine).


I'll just make a few statements, then.
</font>

• T5 will be what Mark has already decided it will be.</font>
• I think there is a market for a T5, and even for the T5 that is actually coming. Due to recent events, I believe the target market is going to wind up being, unfortunately small.</font>
• I will not be buying pdf anything. For me, it's dead-tree, or it's unpurchased.</font>
• Of the 15 or so gaming friends and associates I can think of off-hand, four use pdfs (not me), and none of them has ever purchased one (it's all copies of stuff downloaded over the old Napster). To me, this micro-sample indicates that pdf users/buyers represent a substantial minority. I think it may be higher on CotI because those on CotI are already heavy internet users, which I believe is a demographic that is inclined to use pdfs more than most people would (although I'm obviously an exception to that, as I won't use or read them).</font>
• My biggest problem with GT system mechanics is the difficulty in converting said mechanics to either CT/T20. It's just too much work for me to bother undertaking. I can lift out some mechanics, but there is much that is directly tied to TL or Credits, and those can't really be converted so easily.</font>

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
[*]T5 will be what Mark has already decided it will be.

Then it will fail.

[*]I think there is a market for a T5, and even for the T5 that is actually coming. Due to recent events, I believe the target market is going to wind up being, unfortunately small.

Smaller than it was before, certainly.

To me, this micro-sample indicates that pdf users/buyers represent a substantial minority.

Give it time. The number of people who buy PDFs is increasing all the time.

(I know I've bought lots, especially now that something like DTRPG is around)

[*]My biggest problem with GT system mechanics is the difficulty in converting said mechanics to either CT/T20. It's just too much work for me to bother undertaking. I can lift out some mechanics, but there is much that is directly tied to TL or Credits, and those can't really be converted so easily.

I don't think anyone seriously expects GT mechanics to be converted to T5 or anything else. Though it would be good if the approaches of GT could be adopted though (like the realistic trade systems, worldbuilding, etc).

Really, we'd probably need to identify the concepts that need to be translated over from each game (and any new ones that needed creating to fill any gaps) to a workable T5 before we started to talk about how we'd convert them. But I'm sure that's been done plenty of times before.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by lackey:
Question Does T20 starship design's numbers follow FFS1/2?

Nope.

T20 is based on HG, which has different power plant ratings, jump fuel formula, armour rating, weapons paradigm, etc...

 

[Raphael Talbot]

Does anyone have a way to contact Marc Miller?

I ask here because I'm new to this and I'm not sure where best to start.

 

[Pickles]

He seems to be somewhat elusive ...