Granpafishy
SOC-12
It is and I am glad, but are there any new material being developed for it?
E
EvilDrGanymede
Guest
Specifically for CT? Well, they are still releasing the books (I think Aliens 5-8 is out)? If you don't have the old versions (which are bloody hard to find nowadays anyway), those could be considered 'new'.
There's also stuff being developed for GURPS Traveller and for T20 that you could adapt to CT. Never mind that you don't like the rules, the background material would still be useful and adds to the setting.
Then you have new articles in JTAS and on the CotI site.
Even if T5 happened, what exactly could it add to the setting? Alternate backgrounds (sector books, for example) could easily be done in other games. The only thing T5 would add is 'yet another set of rules for doing things', and while some people consider that as being what Traveller's all about, I sure don't.
Granpafishy
SOC-12
All that you just said is very resonable. And I do intend to glean information from the different systems and resources. I just happen to like the basis of T4 and look forward to a fixed version of them (ie. T5). Please don't construde my previous statements as an argument against you, just one of the reasons why T5 is being made. No hard feelings intended.
Actually, to me T5 is to T4 what HeroQuest appears to be to Hero Wars. A slicker revised version of the best edition yet. T4.x had its flaws but they were fixable.Originally posted by Cymew:
It reminds me of how we sometimes say about Glorantha, that Greg Stafford can't be trusted to tell us about it!. We know just about as much about it as he does.
Dom
Actually, to me T5 is to T4 what HeroQuest appears to be to Hero Wars. A slicker revised version of the best edition yet. T4.x had its flaws but they were fixable.Originally posted by Dom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cymew:
It reminds me of how we sometimes say about Glorantha, that Greg Stafford can't be trusted to tell us about it!. We know just about as much about it as he does.
Dom </font>[/QUOTE]To extend (belabor) this analogy even further, I'll just add that I still prefer RuneQuest (i.e. CT/MT).
Gaming Glen
SOC-12
Actually, to me T5 is to T4 what HeroQuest appears to be to Hero Wars. A slicker revised version of the best edition yet. T4.x had its flaws but they were fixable.Originally posted by T. Foster:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cymew:
It reminds me of how we sometimes say about Glorantha, that Greg Stafford can't be trusted to tell us about it!. We know just about as much about it as he does.
Dom </font>[/QUOTE]To extend (belabor) this analogy even further, I'll just add that I still prefer RuneQuest (i.e. CT/MT). </font>[/QUOTE]"Me too!"
You should have heard the howls when I said that I will use RQ instead of D&D D20 when I restart a fantasy game; I said this mostly to shut up a kid that keeps pestering me.
But, I am considering it.Then again, I might start a T20 game instead.
As to the main topic: There is a T5 in development?
Based on T4? Why oh why?I won't miss it if it never comes out. Too bad Ringworld (BRP system) didn't catch on and put out some non-RW related supplements (i.e., Known Space).
Glen
E
EvilDrGanymede
Guest
Y'know, I did wonder whether Runequest fans ever had the same 'rivalries' that fans of the various forms of Traveller have...
With my limited experience in RQ, it seems not. There weren't many revisions (3?), and each was the true successor to the previous, and all were published by the same company (Chaosium?), right? Seems like a lot less room to haggle, no?Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
Y'know, I did wonder whether Runequest fans ever had the same 'rivalries' that fans of the various forms of Traveller have...
outrider11
SOC-7
there was a version of Runequest that was produced by Avalon hill which inspired some debate
The AH version wasnt set in glorantha
The AH version wasnt set in glorantha
Sorry to continue this off-topic detour, but: the true division in RQ/Glorantha fandom isn't really between the different versions of RQ but between Glorantha and non-Glorantha. RQ is an rpg system originally designed by Steve Perrin that also forms the basis of Chaosium's BRP (Basic Role Playing) system (used for Call of Cthulhu, etc.). Glorantha is a fantasy-world created by Greg Stafford. Glorantha actually predates RQ by about a decade, and was first introduced via a pair of boardgames (White Bear & Red Moon and Nomad Gods).
RQ1 and RQ2 used the RQ system with Glorantha as default setting. RQ3 and SPQR* use the RQ system without Glorantha as the default setting. Hero Wars and HeroQuest use Glorantha as the setting without the RQ system. Glorantha-philes hated RQ3 for being too complicated and not sufficiently Gloranthan, probably don't even know about SPQR, and consider HW/HQ a great improvement over RQ1/2. RQ fans who like Glorantha tend to hate HW/HQ for being RQ-incompatible (mechanically and philosophically), but RQ fans who don't like Glorantha are glad that the Glorantha-philes have finally gone away and are no longer harranguing RQ-fans about how terrible and Gloranthially-inappropriate their system is.
*Steve Perrin's Quest Rules, a RQ-derived system from the original creator, available on pdf by subscription from Steve Perrin's website. There have also been rumors about Chasoium issuing some sort of BRP-Fantasy, which would presumably be a generic version of the RQ system. Neither of these can be called RuneQuest because that name/trademark is now owned by Issaries, Inc. (Greg Stafford's company, owners of the Glorantha IP and publishers of HW/HQ).
RQ1 and RQ2 used the RQ system with Glorantha as default setting. RQ3 and SPQR* use the RQ system without Glorantha as the default setting. Hero Wars and HeroQuest use Glorantha as the setting without the RQ system. Glorantha-philes hated RQ3 for being too complicated and not sufficiently Gloranthan, probably don't even know about SPQR, and consider HW/HQ a great improvement over RQ1/2. RQ fans who like Glorantha tend to hate HW/HQ for being RQ-incompatible (mechanically and philosophically), but RQ fans who don't like Glorantha are glad that the Glorantha-philes have finally gone away and are no longer harranguing RQ-fans about how terrible and Gloranthially-inappropriate their system is.
*Steve Perrin's Quest Rules, a RQ-derived system from the original creator, available on pdf by subscription from Steve Perrin's website. There have also been rumors about Chasoium issuing some sort of BRP-Fantasy, which would presumably be a generic version of the RQ system. Neither of these can be called RuneQuest because that name/trademark is now owned by Issaries, Inc. (Greg Stafford's company, owners of the Glorantha IP and publishers of HW/HQ).
Back to the thread...
The discussions so far come back to Marc Miller's Motivations and the Market's Movements.
Assuming Marc is motivated internally, then the best thing to do for Traveller as a whole is to try out his playtest draft, and then send him an email with constructive criticism about it.
The PDFs are at:
www.traveller5.com
The discussions so far come back to Marc Miller's Motivations and the Market's Movements.
Assuming Marc is motivated internally, then the best thing to do for Traveller as a whole is to try out his playtest draft, and then send him an email with constructive criticism about it.
The PDFs are at:
www.traveller5.com
Granpafishy
SOC-12
I agreed.
E
EvilDrGanymede
Guest
I disagree - the best thing to do for T5 is to try and comment on the draft there. It's rather debatable whether or not this would be the best thing to do for Traveller - personally I'd say the best thing to do for Traveller is to keep playing and discussing the game in any of its forms.
Evil Dr Ganymede wrote:
"I disagree - the best thing to do for T5 is to try and comment on the draft there. It's rather debatable whether or not this would be the best thing to do for Traveller - personally I'd say the best thing to do for Traveller is to keep playing and discussing the game in any of its forms."
Dr. Thomas,
Very well put, sir. Discussing Our Olde Game in all of it's forms is the best solution. That being said, I do have some concerns about T5, although not the usual ones.
I can understand the attraction of Traveller having its *own* active and supported game system again. As good as GURPS and d20 are, they are RPG systems that have been *modified* to play Traveller. (Sometimes heavily modified, as with d20 - a fantasy RPG system IMEHO.) I suspect that the idea of there being a purely Traveller RPG system again, and not merely having a RPG system that supports Traveller, is the primary reason behind T5.
That is a very good reason for T5; as if Mr. Miller actually needs any reason at all, but it also leads directly to my primary concern;
"What if T5 FAILS as a RPG system?"
T4 failed for a variety of reasons; mostly because Imperium Games never heard of editing or playtesting, but a superb RPG system may have been able to overcome those flaws and keep T4 afloat until a 'fixed' version was printed. The T4 system failed and as a consequence Traveller lost a setting; M:0. Yes, nothing stops a hobbyists from producing M:0 materials, but we lost our best chance of seeing any further 'official' M:0 materials when T4 tanked.
T5 is set in M:200. That setting includes the Julian War, the Pacification Campaigns, and the campaign against the Vargr in Corridor. In a stretch, T5 could also cover the Dark Nebula campaign against the Aslan, the recontact of Earth, and the first big colonizing push into the Spinward Marches. If T5 fails to sell as a RPG system, will the T5 setting still be supported? Or will we lose all the events I listed above just as we have already lost M:0?
Let's face it, the market for RPG systems is limited. For better or worse, GURPS and d20 rule it, with a handful of others for certain niche genres. Can T5 survive as a RPG system in the niche genre known as Traveller? That genre is already served by CT, MT, TNE, GURPS, T20, and - yes - even T4. Is there enough room for the T5 system? Enough room for a profit to be made once all the 'completists' by a copy to sit in their collections gathering dust?
On the other hand, the market for RPG settings is infinite. How many worldbooks does GURPS print each year? How much setting material does d20 license each year? Most of what we discuss here or at the various other Traveller fora have to do with settings and not with systems. Simply put, 'setting outsells system'.
So my questions regarding T5 come to this; Is the chance of having a purely Traveller RPG system worth the real risk of losing yet another Traveller setting? If history is any guide and if T5 fails, M:200 is lost. Is the system worth the risk to the setting?
Sincerely,
Larsen
"I disagree - the best thing to do for T5 is to try and comment on the draft there. It's rather debatable whether or not this would be the best thing to do for Traveller - personally I'd say the best thing to do for Traveller is to keep playing and discussing the game in any of its forms."
Dr. Thomas,
Very well put, sir. Discussing Our Olde Game in all of it's forms is the best solution. That being said, I do have some concerns about T5, although not the usual ones.
I can understand the attraction of Traveller having its *own* active and supported game system again. As good as GURPS and d20 are, they are RPG systems that have been *modified* to play Traveller. (Sometimes heavily modified, as with d20 - a fantasy RPG system IMEHO.) I suspect that the idea of there being a purely Traveller RPG system again, and not merely having a RPG system that supports Traveller, is the primary reason behind T5.
That is a very good reason for T5; as if Mr. Miller actually needs any reason at all, but it also leads directly to my primary concern;
"What if T5 FAILS as a RPG system?"
T4 failed for a variety of reasons; mostly because Imperium Games never heard of editing or playtesting, but a superb RPG system may have been able to overcome those flaws and keep T4 afloat until a 'fixed' version was printed. The T4 system failed and as a consequence Traveller lost a setting; M:0. Yes, nothing stops a hobbyists from producing M:0 materials, but we lost our best chance of seeing any further 'official' M:0 materials when T4 tanked.
T5 is set in M:200. That setting includes the Julian War, the Pacification Campaigns, and the campaign against the Vargr in Corridor. In a stretch, T5 could also cover the Dark Nebula campaign against the Aslan, the recontact of Earth, and the first big colonizing push into the Spinward Marches. If T5 fails to sell as a RPG system, will the T5 setting still be supported? Or will we lose all the events I listed above just as we have already lost M:0?
Let's face it, the market for RPG systems is limited. For better or worse, GURPS and d20 rule it, with a handful of others for certain niche genres. Can T5 survive as a RPG system in the niche genre known as Traveller? That genre is already served by CT, MT, TNE, GURPS, T20, and - yes - even T4. Is there enough room for the T5 system? Enough room for a profit to be made once all the 'completists' by a copy to sit in their collections gathering dust?
On the other hand, the market for RPG settings is infinite. How many worldbooks does GURPS print each year? How much setting material does d20 license each year? Most of what we discuss here or at the various other Traveller fora have to do with settings and not with systems. Simply put, 'setting outsells system'.
So my questions regarding T5 come to this; Is the chance of having a purely Traveller RPG system worth the real risk of losing yet another Traveller setting? If history is any guide and if T5 fails, M:200 is lost. Is the system worth the risk to the setting?
Sincerely,
Larsen
E
EvilDrGanymede
Guest
There's also the question of whether you need to tie a unique setting (well, yet another historical one, anyway) into T5 in the first place anyway. If people just want another rules system to use, then why not just give them that on its own?
Also, T5 has no hope whatsoever in competing against GURPS and especially d20 on the market. I think Hunter has the right idea about using the T20 rules as the core around which to build other settings - frankly, T20 (and GURPS alongside it) is probably going to be the final form of Traveller because they have the advantage of being widely used and popular systems.
Also, T5 has no hope whatsoever in competing against GURPS and especially d20 on the market. I think Hunter has the right idea about using the T20 rules as the core around which to build other settings - frankly, T20 (and GURPS alongside it) is probably going to be the final form of Traveller because they have the advantage of being widely used and popular systems.
I disagree - the best thing to do for T5 is to try and comment on the draft there. It's rather debatable whether or not this would be the best thing to do for Traveller - personally I'd say the best thing to do for Traveller is to keep playing and discussing the game in any of its forms. </font>[/QUOTE]In this forum, everything's debatable, what?
Due to the threat and promise of a new version of "official" Traveller, individuals might decide they have a vested interest in seeing that T5 at least does not sink itself and whatever milieux it drags down with it. That might be just the feedback necessary to prevent such a thing. In fact, just as cross-pollination can bring strong traits to a stock, I think the T5 material would benefit a lot with constructive criticism from people who don't prefer that style of Traveller.
Evil Doctor Ganymede opines:
CT;MT;TNE;T4;GT;T20;CT
Thus, CT reprints ARE T5. Embrace the circle of life!
Not quite. Ever notice when you hear folks who play GT or T20 how they say their system is 'just like CT'. How they try and make their system CT compatable. To quote Dennis Miller, 'its the whole circle of life thing, Simba.'
CT;MT;TNE;T4;GT;T20;CT
Thus, CT reprints ARE T5. Embrace the circle of life!
E
EvilDrGanymede
Guest
Actually, no I haven't
(note, I'm talking about the systems here, not the settings).