Geaheadism is not good for the future of the game system.
That is my fundamental point. It is evident in looking at the various geahead vs non-gearhead systems out there:
Gearheads are a scant minority, and in the few system which support gearheadism, they stifle the less gearheaded. They are also excessively vocal. They tend to be simulationists; very few games these days are simulationist. Simmulationism is relatively rare, and the few games that truly support it are not the major engines. (exception to GURPS, though there are some who argue it isn't a major system. Those persosns need to actually look at the numbers outside D20/D&D3E.)
I'm not suggesting that Shere nor his ilk give up simulationism; I am suggesting they switch to GURPS, as GV is a better simulation, and won't get in the way of the less simmulationist needs of the majority of Traveller players. (Yes, boys and girls, I just endorsed GURPS. Yes, I'm feeling ok. No, no funky meds nor beverages. Just, please, don't make ME play it.)
Looking on the nets, there are more HG designs than anything else from the Traveller rules. If one looks around here, it would seem that FF&S would be the most common; I've not seen suppport for that.
T20 is a good methodology: Simple and useable design sequences where every system-generated detail has some effect upon play in rules. Lots of detail can be added and be consistent... the detail need not be generated bottom up, and in fact, a top-down detail adding solution allows GM's to ignore and replace extraneous details.
That Shere is exemmplary of the problem type troubling for him. He wants a system with similar or more detail than FF&S. Generating such detailed systems is problem for the designer; 70-80% of FF&S is extrapolatory in nature, and 5-10% is pure invention.
The remaining 10-25% is real world adaptable. That core (In FF&S1, I'd put it about 15%) contains many badly broken bits; oen can't recreate a modern tank, nor a modern car, with the system and coem up with accurate stats. Nor can one do the same with TL5-6 WWII/Korea era designs.
Given that the core is badly broken, the extrapolations are worse; they are predictive of advancements from the core's entries.
Now, with T20's system, I have enough slop room to make it work like a tank, and yet, since it's not detailed enough to cross check against modern designs, it merely needs to look and act like a tank. This is good not only as an anti-whining-simulationist tool (I've encountered some who complain about the rolling speeds of M1A1's as listed in T2K... never play T2K with active duty tankers...), but also as an anti-muchkinism tool.
Traveller needs a consistent Technical Architechture. I just don't think FF&S is it, nor is any similar system.
The OTU needs to be replaced with something that works with whatever the T5 rules are.
I've said it before, and will say it again: T5 needs to reset canon to include ONLY T5, and needs to say so in clear wording in the rulebook. Said new setting needs to be redeveloped to match to the new TravTechArch, TravSystArch, and Combat Rules, not to match prior canon.
TNE ALMOST did this, then GDW waffled, Lied, and Waffled some more. I understand why Dave did what he did, and even why Frank, Loren and Marc did as well... but they chose to tie it to the OTU of before. It schismed the player base worse than separate settings would have.
T5 must reach new players. It's tech arch must be simple enough for novice gamers, or T5 is doomed from the start. RObject's Bk2 revisions, or T20's HG revisions, would be a good level of detail for expanding the franchise. A new FF&S-level system wouldn't. FF&S nearly requires electronic assistance to use: if one goes that route, one needs a good, multi-platform, robust toolset for using it, at which point its no longer useful on the fly.
I have found that if I let novice players actually see FF&S, they generally cease to be players rapidly. It's scary stuff, and produces unrealistic results due to bad core data; on top of that, it's hard to use.
That is my fundamental point. It is evident in looking at the various geahead vs non-gearhead systems out there:
Gearheads are a scant minority, and in the few system which support gearheadism, they stifle the less gearheaded. They are also excessively vocal. They tend to be simulationists; very few games these days are simulationist. Simmulationism is relatively rare, and the few games that truly support it are not the major engines. (exception to GURPS, though there are some who argue it isn't a major system. Those persosns need to actually look at the numbers outside D20/D&D3E.)
I'm not suggesting that Shere nor his ilk give up simulationism; I am suggesting they switch to GURPS, as GV is a better simulation, and won't get in the way of the less simmulationist needs of the majority of Traveller players. (Yes, boys and girls, I just endorsed GURPS. Yes, I'm feeling ok. No, no funky meds nor beverages. Just, please, don't make ME play it.)
Looking on the nets, there are more HG designs than anything else from the Traveller rules. If one looks around here, it would seem that FF&S would be the most common; I've not seen suppport for that.
T20 is a good methodology: Simple and useable design sequences where every system-generated detail has some effect upon play in rules. Lots of detail can be added and be consistent... the detail need not be generated bottom up, and in fact, a top-down detail adding solution allows GM's to ignore and replace extraneous details.
That Shere is exemmplary of the problem type troubling for him. He wants a system with similar or more detail than FF&S. Generating such detailed systems is problem for the designer; 70-80% of FF&S is extrapolatory in nature, and 5-10% is pure invention.
The remaining 10-25% is real world adaptable. That core (In FF&S1, I'd put it about 15%) contains many badly broken bits; oen can't recreate a modern tank, nor a modern car, with the system and coem up with accurate stats. Nor can one do the same with TL5-6 WWII/Korea era designs.
Given that the core is badly broken, the extrapolations are worse; they are predictive of advancements from the core's entries.
Now, with T20's system, I have enough slop room to make it work like a tank, and yet, since it's not detailed enough to cross check against modern designs, it merely needs to look and act like a tank. This is good not only as an anti-whining-simulationist tool (I've encountered some who complain about the rolling speeds of M1A1's as listed in T2K... never play T2K with active duty tankers...), but also as an anti-muchkinism tool.
Traveller needs a consistent Technical Architechture. I just don't think FF&S is it, nor is any similar system.
The OTU needs to be replaced with something that works with whatever the T5 rules are.
I've said it before, and will say it again: T5 needs to reset canon to include ONLY T5, and needs to say so in clear wording in the rulebook. Said new setting needs to be redeveloped to match to the new TravTechArch, TravSystArch, and Combat Rules, not to match prior canon.
TNE ALMOST did this, then GDW waffled, Lied, and Waffled some more. I understand why Dave did what he did, and even why Frank, Loren and Marc did as well... but they chose to tie it to the OTU of before. It schismed the player base worse than separate settings would have.
T5 must reach new players. It's tech arch must be simple enough for novice gamers, or T5 is doomed from the start. RObject's Bk2 revisions, or T20's HG revisions, would be a good level of detail for expanding the franchise. A new FF&S-level system wouldn't. FF&S nearly requires electronic assistance to use: if one goes that route, one needs a good, multi-platform, robust toolset for using it, at which point its no longer useful on the fly.
I have found that if I let novice players actually see FF&S, they generally cease to be players rapidly. It's scary stuff, and produces unrealistic results due to bad core data; on top of that, it's hard to use.
