What's Coming in T5

[tbeard1999]

Ahah! You geneered cavemen are no match for the awesome power of the Droyne! You've fallen for the third greatest blunder in history: If it looks like chocolate on a Droyne, it's actually a personal black globe projector!
<insert maniacal insectoid-reptiloid hissing laughter here>

Or scale rot. Er, whichever comes first. You know how those mites get under your scales and just won't go away no matter how many you cast into the Pocket Universe of Mites and Other Unsavory Personages? Yeah. That.

And Vargr Surprise isn't bad. Enough tabasco and jalapenos'll make anything edible, even hivers...

I shall rebut your assertions after I complete my land war in Asia and after I defeat this Sicilian in a battle to the death...

 

[hunter]

Back on topic please.

 

[atpollard]

RTT/T5 - my opinion

I have limitless optimism for the RTT/T5 project – and it cost me nothing.

RTT will create a simple set of rules for people who want to have fun (LBB 1-3 type of fun, only with better editing). They will strip T5 of all of its clumsy complexity and restore pure joy to Classic Traveller. This will be a foundation upon which many gifted writers, and a few not-so-gifted writers, will build Atlases and Adventures and Supplements.

T5 will provide enough detailed complexity to allow even the most math-literate gearhead to look wistfully back at the simplicity of FF&S. Want to know how many bolts secure the reactionless thruster of a launch to the airframe? Here’s a rule for it. Do you want to calculate the effects of cross winds in a dense atmosphere on a 50 caliber bullet? Here’s a rule for it.

As an aside, the rules discipline required to allow large chunks of RTT and T5 to be combined or swapped, will also ensure that a fan supported “D20” or “HERO” rules module will be available to drop in and convert the game to YOUR favorite core system. It is my personal opinion that RTT and T5 will ultimately see the dollar signs to be gained by offering a Traveller core rules conversion book (with the sacred logo) for a variety of game systems that will allow all of the Setting and Resource books to be shared by all of the core rules systems. Once you accept TWO official core rule systems, how hard is it to accept more?

To the doubters and nay-sayers, I offer my deepest respect for your right to be wrong and offer this:

as a down payment on an “I told you so.”
to be made available to any deserving party in exactly 1 year
on August 8, 2008.

VIVA TRAVELLER!!!

That’s my 2 cents.
Arthur T. Polllard
Professional Optimist

 

[Rover]

I am glad you are so optimistic about what T5 has in store for us. But from reading the PDF that Hunter posted I fear that T5 will be ponderously unplayable. It kind of reminded me of Chivalry and Sorcery the old FGU system. It has been over 20 years since I played C&S but I recall the GM touting it as much more realistic that D&D, but I didn’t find it as fun to play.

I have never understood the mindset that holds realism up is such a high regard. If I want realism I can look at the pile of bills on my desk. Playing RPG’s for me has always been about adventure, action, and excitement. It is about playing a role, like in a movie, not running a simulation.

It is a shrewd move indeed to introduce RTT as a lighter rule set. Although I will buy both RTT and T5 I will probably stick with T20 as the one I play. I like the D20 game mechanics with the mods made by T20 and I think that chargen strikes a perfect note. I was never really satisfied with earlier Traveller rule sets and was very happy to find T20. RTT/T5 will have to be special indeed if I am to change.

R

 

[Flynn]

RTT will create a simple set of rules for people who want to have fun (LBB 1-3 type of fun, only with better editing). They will strip T5 of all of its clumsy complexity and restore pure joy to Classic Traveller. This will be a foundation upon which many gifted writers, and a few not-so-gifted writers, will build Atlases and Adventures and Supplements.

The Atlases assume that the world generation system will be part of the SRD. There are no garauntees. (Of course, you can create UWPs through T20 and post the end results as Open Game Content, so maybe this one can still be done without world generation in the Traveller SRD.)

Adventures may be limited if the starship construction rules, starship combat, animal encounters, trade & commerce, and similar sub-systems are not a part of the Traveller SRD.

Aspects of Supplements may be limited if particular sub-systems are not included in the Traveller SRD.

I'm hopeful for the overall project, but I don't know what's going to be in the SRD, so I wouldn't count on anything in particular just yet.

I look forward to more information about the SRD's contents,
Flynn

 

[atpollard]

I am glad you are so optimistic about what T5 has in store for us. But from reading the PDF that Hunter posted I fear that T5 will be ponderously unplayable. It kind of reminded me of Chivalry and Sorcery the old FGU system. It has been over 20 years since I played C&S but I recall the GM touting it as much more realistic that D&D, but I didn’t find it as fun to play.

That’s the beauty of the implications of the Mongoose announcement. With RTT as a “simple” version of the T5 rules, you get a LBB 1-3 like system where all of the rules are easy to learn and easy to understand. With T5 offering big complex rules full of options and details you get the detailed rules that some people like. With the proposed ability to mix and match between RTT and T5, you get the option of tailoring the rules to your taste.

Clearly both RTT and T5 will need to deal with rules for designing starships (or else why bother to call it Traveller). RTT could easily develop a Book-2 like set of Starship Design rules for players who just want a quick idea of what the ship is like. T5 could (and should) develop a set of Starship Design rules that begins with FF&S and expands the options and details from there. Traveller fans already have both types of rules and both Book-2 and FF&S have a devoted following that deeply enjoys their Starship Design rules. The beauty of RTT/T5 is that (if they can pull it off) both sets of rules will be compatible and the ships generated by both systems will be fully compatible with BOTH systems.

Same for World Creation.
Same for Character Creation.
Same for Personal Combat.
Same for Squad/Company level combat.
Same for Starship Combat.
Same for Fleet Combat.
Same for Trade and Commerce.

The players will get to pick and choose where they want complexity and where they want simplicity. Unless you play Traveller using only LBB 1-3, every Traveller player has already made a choice that they want SOME additional complexity, now YOU get to decide Where and How Much.

It sounds to me like a Win-Win formula for Traveller.

 

[atpollard]

The Atlases assume that the world generation system will be part of the SRD.

Adventures may be limited ...

Aspects of Supplements may be limited ...

I agree that “the devil is in the details”, but Avenger has already demonstrated that ‘system-less’ products are possible. In the end, “goodies” will be written and published – as Open License, a Limited License, or through Mongoose.

Since the RTT and T5 systems will be different but compatible (some aspects of the T5 system cannot be made ‘simple’ without being ‘different’), I would expect “goodies” to be more generic than T4 products (the last “One Official Traveller System”) to be useable by both RTT and T5. For Mongoose to keep an eye open towards T20 and Gurps sales as well would not be a terrible idea.

 

[tbeard1999]

That’s the beauty of the implications of the Mongoose announcement. With RTT as a “simple” version of the T5 rules, you get a LBB 1-3 like system where all of the rules are easy to learn and easy to understand. With T5 offering big complex rules full of options and details you get the detailed rules that some people like. With the proposed ability to mix and match between RTT and T5, you get the option of tailoring the rules to your taste. ...

It sounds to me like a Win-Win formula for Traveller.

Possibly. But it remains to be seen if it is possible to simplify T5 into something worth playing.

I can't say I'm overwhelmed by most of what I've seen so far. In fact, most of what I've seen so far are exactly the kinds of things I *don't* want in an RPG. The rest seems to me to consist of needless additions and changes.

The resolution mechanic (d6-d6?) seems overly fussy and pointless. It does nothing that simpler and more intutive mechanics do, but it is more obtuse. Scores of skills don't impress me at all -- I prefer a small number of broad skills. So a "roll more dice" mechanic seems dubious to me...1/2 dice are irritating, and there's too large a statistical jump between 2d6 and 3d6 (and 4d6). And a d6-d6 mechanic that also allowed varying numbers of dice seems extremely fussy to me. About 20 years ago I got tired of the Traveller task system fetish, so the Latest and Most Bestest Traveller Task System is a yawn. So much effort expended for such a minimal Real Game benefit... Gearhead service, in the form of FF&S and its descendants, has sucked most of the enjoyment out of starship design -- once a fast and enjoyable process. FFS, etc. made starship design about as enjoyable as an actuarial analysis. I am not confident that the gearheads can be accomodated by any system that I'd actually want to use. Additions to the UPP system...big deal. And why those particular additions? Etc. Etc.

Indeed, I haven't seen much that isn't already being done by GURPS or T20. And since I don't care for those systems, I am not optimistic that I'll like T5.

Nor am I sure that such a system can be "simplified" into anything worth playing, since I don't see a particularly well-conceived core. So color me dubious...

 

[hunter]

The resolution mechanic (d6-d6?) seems overly fussy and pointless.

That's not the resolution mechanic.

 

[tbeard1999]

That's not the resolution mechanic.

Then what is it?

Assuming six sided dice, there are a finite number of ways to generate a spread from -5 to +5. The most straightforward would be to roll 2d6 and subtract 7. Rolling 1d6 and subtracting 1d6 would also get it done. Given that the description seemed to indicate a bell curve, and that there are 11 possible outcomes, I assumed it would be some kind of 2d6 mechanic.

I guess you could get really "creative" and roll (say) 5d6, with 1-2 counting as -1; 3-4 as 0; and 5-6 as +1. Wow...that would be both cumbersome *and* fussy.

But let's not waste time with idle speculation. What is the mechanic?

ADDED LATER:

Oh, I just had a scary thought. I've been assuming that the flux mechanic would generate its result solely from the rolls of 2+ dice. But you could use a *table* to generate a range from -5 to +5. I can't imagine what possible benefit such a mechanic would produce, but it's a possibility. Please...not that.

 

[robject]

Possibly. But it remains to be seen if it is possible to simplify T5 into something worth playing.

[...]

Nor am I sure that such a system can be "simplified" into anything worth playing, since I don't see a particularly well-conceived core. ...

These two sentences sum up qualities of the output: playable and accessible.

And I think we do have a well-conceived core: The Traveller Book. Restrict the final product to the same page count, and trim an updated rules set to fit.

Back a couple years ago, we had a concept called "CT+" that was sort of like that. I imagine MonTrav could try for the same target.

 

[tbeard1999]

These two sentences sum up qualities of the output: playable and accessible.

And I think we do have a well-conceived core: The Traveller Book. Restrict the final product to the same page count, and trim an updated rules set to fit.

Agreed. The great thing about limiting a designer to a relatively small number of pages is that it forces him to do his job and determine the most important things to model in the game. Unfortunately, the reverse seems to be true as well -- the designer who has no such limitation leaves in all the crap that should have been eliminated. And that usually (always, in my experience) results in a crappy game. A game that is (a) clumsy to play due to rules bloat and (b) badly focused.

As a miniature wargame designer, I limit myself in another way -- an average turn must *not* exceed 10 minutes. Every new rule, every "more realistic" mechanic, every new system modeled is subject to this one rule. In such a zero-sum environment, new rules are subjected to rigorous analysis and only the MOST CRITICAL things are modeled. In other words, I am forced to do my job and take a stand on what's important and what's not.

The result is that my designs are tight and focused (and occasionally even fun to play).

An RPG designer could achieve the same kind of focus by doing as you suggest and limiting himself to a relatively modest number of pages.

 

[tbeard1999]

Why 2-3-4-5 Dice Systems Stink

I am most unenthusiastic about adding dice as task difficulty increases. The reason is simple -- adding one additional die to a task has a profound effect on the chance of success. A simple example -- assume that an average task needs to roll 7- to succeed. It will succeed 58% of the time. Add one die and the task becomes FAR harder --success 16% of the time. Add two dice and the task becomes virtually impossible -- 2.7% chance of success. With only two difficulty modifiers, a task has gone from probable success to effectively impossible. Ick.

This is why T4 had those silly d3's -- they ensured that an additional level of difficulty would shift the chance of failure far less than with a d6-only system.

A straight 2d6 system, with a -1 per level of difficulty would work far better (IMHO). In that case, assume 2d6, with 7- needed for success (58% chance of success). One shift in difficulty would reduce the success chance to 42%; 2 shifts in difficulty would reduce the success chance to 28%, etc. Of course, six difficulty shifts will make the task impossible. So the designer will have to be careful keep the number and size of modifiers relatively small.

Some might argue that using lots of dice always allows you *some* chance of success. I've personally found this excuse to be terribly overrated, because the success is still *effectively* impossible. And "automatic success" rules are a better way to reflect the "there's always a chance" notion.

And interestingly, the 7- task would also be impossible on 8d6, since the minimum roll is 8. But if you shifted the success number to (say) 8-, you'd succeed on 8d6 only one time in 1.6 million rolls.

I don't think I'd adopt a clumsy and defective system that would be better than a 2d6 system one time in 1.6 million.

 

[Rover]

I have always been puzzeled by great fondness players of CT have for rolling 2D6. Can someone explain it to me? Is it just nostalgia?

Maybe I am just mathematically challenged but I find straight percentages or even 5% point increments(D20), easier to work with when resolving tasks or combat. It es easy and intuative. You want to make that called shot subtract 40% from your roll. Override that electronic door lock 20% chance.

For that 1 in a 1,000 chance add a 3rd d10. for 1 in 10,000 add a 4th. For that 1 in a million chance buy a lotto scratcher at the Quicky Mart when you pick up your Mountain Dew on the way to the game.

If I were rebooting Traveller I would switch over to a percentage based system, then leave town just ahead of the lynch mob.

R

 

[tbeard1999]

I have always been puzzeled by great fondness players of CT have for rolling 2D6. Can someone explain it to me? Is it just nostalgia?

Maybe I am just mathematically challenged but I find straight percentages or even 5% point increments(D20), easier to work with when resolving tasks or combat. It es easy and intuative. You want to make that called shot subtract 40% from your roll. Override that electronic door lock 20% chance.

For that 1 in a 1,000 chance add a 3rd d10. for 1 in 10,000 add a 4th. For that 1 in a million chance buy a lotto scratcher at the Quicky Mart when you pick up your Mountain Dew on the way to the game.

If I were rebooting Traveller I would switch over to a percentage based system, then leave town just ahead of the lynch mob.

R

I suspect that the enchantment with 2d6 systems is an artifact of The Old Days when polyhedral dice were expensive and hard to find. In those days, d6's were easier to obtain because most "normal" games had them. So, the 2d6 mechanic was a more accessible solution in those days. Necessity quickly morphed into virtue as a whole generation of game designers extolled the purported "advantages" of the bell curve, and many gamers uncritically believed them. The legacy continues to this day, with GURPS, for instance.

My fundamental problem with a 2d6 or 3d6 system is that a modest modifier can have a huge impact on the success chance. This severely limits the number and size of modifiers. Or rather, it *should* limit the number and size of modifiers. In far too many systems, the designer excercises no discipline and creates inappropriate numbers and sizes modifiers, in a desperate attempt to model *every* conceivable factor. The result is that it becomes far too easy to break the system. In GURPS, for instance, a skill of 13 is easy to get and will result in success most of the time (83.7%). That's why GURPS had to have a separate parry roll (clumsy in its first incarnation; barely tolerable now) -- it was way to easy to build characters that hit all the time.

Anyhow, I agree with you. I proposed a 2d6 system above as an alternative to a 2-3-4-5-6 dice system. Like you, I see no inherent advantage in a bell curve system (I've posted in the Classic Traveller section on this). I don't care for d100 systems because they require 2 dice -- you can't batch process easily (roll multiple tasks at the same time).

If I were gonna design a Traveller RPG, I'd use a d10 or d20 + skill level + mods as my basic resolution mechanic. Since I like small numbers of broad skills, I'd probably start with a d10+skill system.

 

[Rover]

I think bell curves can have a place in gaming. For things like rolling up stats or determaning damage a curve makes sense. But certainly not for task or conflict resolution.

R

 

[tbeard1999]

I think bell curves can have a place in gaming. For things like rolling up stats or determaning damage a curve makes sense. But certainly not for task or conflict resolution.

R

I agree. If I were rolling stats, I wouldn't be comfortable with merely rolling a d20, as it would produce as many STR-1 characters as STR-10 and STR-20 characters. In that case 3d6 would make more sense.

And I'm not saying that bell curves are inherently bad. I'm saying that (a) their purported "advantages" seem overrated to me; and (b) their limitations are usually misunderstood by even veteran game designers. Bell curve mechanics are extremely sensitive to modifiers and few game designers are mindful of this, in my experience. The result is usually a crappy game. The system either remains broken (and therefore no fun to play) or it gets weighed down with additional clumsy mechanics designed to correct the problem. An example of the former would be Classic Traveller, with the system-ruining Book 4 weapons and character generation systems. An example of the latter is GURPS' clumsy parry/defense roll.

I also note that bell curve systems *seem* to have more room than they effectively have. Take the GURPS 3d6 system -- it has 16 "slots", from 3 to 18. Ignore automatic success/failure.

If the base success number (average person, average task) is set at the midpoint (10 or less in this example), then it takes a net modifier of 8+ to "crash the system" (i.e., make success or failure automatic). That appears to be a pretty large range, and a designer might well have lots of modifiers. As GURPS does.

But in reality, a much smaller net modifier will make success or failure *effectively* automatic. A detrimental modifier of 3 will result in failure 85% of the time and a positive modifier of 3 will result in success 85% of the time.

In other words, there is seldom much real world difference betwee (say) a +3 and a +6 in GURPS. Particularly when one considers that a 3-4 is an automatic success and a 17-18 is an automatic failure.

It's pretty easy in GURPS to get a net modifier of 3+.

Compare this with a d20 mechanic. Assume you replace the 3d6 roll in GURPS with a d20 roll (something I've long advocated). Now, it will take a net modifier of 7 to make success or failure effectively automatic (85% chance). The d20 allows more than twice the range of modifiers.

If you redefine effectively automatic to mean a 90%+ chance, nothing really changes. The 3d6 mechanic is broken with net modifiers of 4+; the d20 mechanic is broken with net modifiers of 8+.

 

[Anthony]

Necessity quickly morphed into virtue as a whole generation of game designers extolled the purported "advantages" of the bell curve, and many gamers uncritically believed them. The legacy continues to this day, with GURPS, for instance.

Um... d20s weren't that hard to get even back in the late 70s. The advantage of a bell curve system is that you have a relatively long tail where results are pretty reliable, but people have a small chance to get either lucky or unlucky.

 

[hunter]

Then what is it?

A modified version of the T4 rules. What you are referring to are the Flux rules, which are not the primary resolution mechanic.

 

[tbeard1999]

Um... d20s weren't that hard to get even back in the late 70s. The advantage of a bell curve system is that you have a relatively long tail where results are pretty reliable, but people have a small chance to get either lucky or unlucky.

Um, yes they were, at least as I recall. Indeed, Steve Jackson offered this exact justification when he designed Melee (1977) and Wizard (1978), which used only d6's. If polyhedrals were easily obtainable, I doubt he would have offered this justification.

Polyhedrals were also more expensive. The TSR polyhedral set (5 really horrible dice, including a d4 with sharp points that could impale unwary feet) was $1.50 in 1977, or about $5.46 in 2007 dollars. Better quality Gamescience dice (uninked, but comparable to today's dice) cost about $1 each, or $3.44 in 2007 dollars.

And I fail to see any meaningful "advantage" in the bell curve traits you list. Even if I did, a well-designed d20 system (for instance) can have a reasonable "automatic success" and "automatic failure" mechanic that woks as well as the GURPS mechanics (for instance). And it would not have the clumsiness and dubious statistics of the GURPS mechanic.