What's the status on T5?
- Thread starter Blue Ghost
- Start date
I like Traveller. Well, some of the rules. Not so much the rules, actually, but the Third Imperium setting. Well, the TIS has its problems... a lot of them. So there are things about it I don't like. But tinkering with it, especially the history of the Spinward Marches, has been a hobby for decades, so I have a lot invested in it. Which, come to think of it, makes me dislike gratuitous changes to it. I don't like those. But changes that fix flaws in the setting I like. Which makes me dislike it when flaws go uncorrected for decades... :rant:
So maybe I don't really like Traveller, I'm just co-dependent on it. :devil:
Hans
Gee, I think if I replaced "Traveller" and "Third Imperium Setting" with "my wife" it would describe my life....
I love Traveller for the starting point, sandbox, and guidelines it provides me to create characters and tell a story that is different (aka, not fantasy) and unique to me and the group of players that participate in it with me.
*shrug*
To be honest, I didn't see too much of a need for it, but felt that if someone could smash together the task and hit/pen system from MT with the rest of what was in CT, then you'd have your perfect Trav system, and we could all post and write about adventures instead of what rules or editions we each think is needed.
I'm not holding my breath. Traveller's been a great hobby. I hope it'll continue to endure even though it is not thriving as perhaps a lot of people believe it should be.
Original_Carl
SOC-12
Indeed!
The perfect Traveller system is the one you play. Personally, my T5 game group just celebrated our first anniversary (28 sessions, campaign day 279). To date we have had 2 combats: 1 fist fight -- resolved with a single roll -- and 1 starship/spaceship combat, resolved in 2 rounds. It is my very personal opinion that combat is the system that needs the least work. I have other opinions, as well.
My little band of merry pirates is presently divided into two teams. One team has agreed to ally themselves with the Zhodani invasion force and has been joined to the Greater Zhodani Consciousness (AKA The MegaMind). The other group is busy laying the groundwork for the Butlerian Jihad by aggressively taking personality scans from anyone they can find and building an army of self-aware killer robots. They're presently setting up shop in a nickle-iron asteroid cluster 2 jumps away from main Zhodani invasion force. They are completely oblivious to the proximity of the Zhodani.
As you may have gathered, MTU is a bit off the reservation.
We spent the last session rolling up a second set of characters. These will be associates of the current set of player characters. And we also add a new player, bringing our total to 5.
Questions? PM me.
I need to voice one minor "ugh" about T5 that seemed to put it on the manufacturer's recall, and that was the interpersonal section, codifying the reactions of NPCs based on the PC's non-combat communicative skills.
When I read that section I had a real "huh?" moment. Like I mentioned in the thread I started dealing with this topic, to me this kind of ripped at the fabric of RPing, and took the RPing out of RPing by reducing PC-NPC interaction to a die roll.
That was kind of there from the beginning, but it was not so thoroughly outlined nor as thoroughly codified, and, more amazing to me, I seemed to be the only one who brought it up.
I don't want to bring that up as a divergent topic from the thread, but I use it as an example of what appeared to be a bit of quirkiness or uneasiness with T5, and if there was an update. whether Joes like me could ask about bugaboos like the Interpersonal's section, or the personal combat section or char-gen section.
I think that's what some of us are wondering about. But, I imagine the answer is that it'll come when it comes.
When I read that section I had a real "huh?" moment. Like I mentioned in the thread I started dealing with this topic, to me this kind of ripped at the fabric of RPing, and took the RPing out of RPing by reducing PC-NPC interaction to a die roll.
That was kind of there from the beginning, but it was not so thoroughly outlined nor as thoroughly codified, and, more amazing to me, I seemed to be the only one who brought it up.
I don't want to bring that up as a divergent topic from the thread, but I use it as an example of what appeared to be a bit of quirkiness or uneasiness with T5, and if there was an update. whether Joes like me could ask about bugaboos like the Interpersonal's section, or the personal combat section or char-gen section.
I think that's what some of us are wondering about. But, I imagine the answer is that it'll come when it comes.
T5 has NOT been recalled. You need to stop using that terminology.
Original_Carl
SOC-12
Personals are a way to resolve roleplay interactions without the social engineering effect a charismatic player has in convincing a referee that his/her character accomplishes something that a not-as-charismatic player wouldn't be able to.
It's an attempt to level the playing field for non-skill-specific roleplay interactions. For example, convincing the guard that you're allowed in the restricted area -- a charismatic and witty player may be able to socially engineer the referee into allowing this kind of thing where a more reserved player who isn't as flamboyant or as talented a voice actor may not. Personals aim to make that more fair.
I'm the opposite! I think the Personals chapter is one of the stronger sections: finally a system around how players might interact with the rest of the universe apart from shooting at it! The way I use it, the players still suggest strategies in the third person and/or talk in the first person, but we use the mechanics of the personal to govern how the NPC reacts. It's the Reaction Table on steroids.
I've already written up a bit of play session on my CoTI blog about it.
Agreed, Personals are one of my favourite parts of T5.
But isn't this what the referee is supposed to do; make up and play the NPCs, monsters / animals, strange beings, pirates, ... natural disasters and / or strange phenomena?
I did Marooned Alone, and the guy running it for me actually did roll several times on the reaction table as I interacted with the NPC he was playing. I thought he was overusing the reaction table based on the example in the rules; i.e. the rules suggest that you use the reaction table to get the flavor of the NPC's demeanor, and not roll for every sentence exchanged.
So, I got a little baffled. And that's why I'm curious if there's going to be a progress bar report on what's been addressed, and what's been left alone. But, like I say, it's probably a case of "it's done when it's done."
I didn't understand it at first peruse. I will take another look at it. But if my eyes glaze over again after reading part of a paragraph again...
It's one section my house rules might import... albeit simplified and converted to the MegaTraveller/DGP Task system, and MT skills...
It's really just the mechanics for "Let's use non-psionic skills to affect an NPC's mind."
And we are old.
I think some folks forget the modern gamer has a menu to interact with NPCs. :devil:
Also, some folks aren't frustrated actors and just want to figure out to get the damned clerk stamp our Exit Visa.
EDIT: Another thing forgot those old school skills we used for interpersonal stuff, like Carousing say.
I think some folks forget the modern gamer has a menu to interact with NPCs. :devil:
Also, some folks aren't frustrated actors and just want to figure out to get the damned clerk stamp our Exit Visa.
EDIT: Another thing forgot those old school skills we used for interpersonal stuff, like Carousing say.
I'm guessing there is T5 errata for the Personals chapter? The example given in the book doesn't seem to make sense according to the rules.
It has been flagged as errata; the example in the book quite obviously came from a previous schema where an NPC was given a random roll for various personal traits that set the difficulty for interactions. The end result was a system based on building a target number based on strategy, tactics, and applicable mods.
True. Game rule examples are rarely updated when their rules get an update.
Okay, I'm just going to say it; I hate the Personal's Section.
Every RPing session I've ever been in there's always been artistic license, and whether it's the Ref or the Players "getting into character" or "hamming it up", it's always been the case of where it's either the Ref/DM or the players who are determining the course of the adventure through their own interpersonal skills, and not some die roll.
Back to my Marooned Alone example; the Ref, playing the NPC who found my character out on the planes of the planet asked me "How did you get here?" I gave what I thought was a funny tongue in cheek response; "Would you believe I fell out of my ship?", at which point the Ref rolled for a reaction to that. It was negative. And suddenly my character's facing down the barrel of a shotgun.
You tell me. Is that over-usage? Or is that in the spirit of game mechanics?
If you know the adventure (by Loren Weisman) then you know that there's some intrigue with the PCs in the game who escape a vessel that's fallen under attack.
If the interaction had gone on, then the Ref would have continued to roll for every exchange my character had with the NPC; i.e.
NPC; "Are you hungry or thirsty?"
PC; "I could use a meal and something to drink."
Die Roll; negative;
NPC *cocks weapon* "What the hell did you say?"
PC; "I mean I'm good! I'm good! I don't need anything to eat or drink!"
Die Roll; negative;
NPC; "What?! My grub ain't good enough for ya?!"
PC; "Okay! I'll eat! I'll eat!"
Die Roll; positive
NPC *smiles, puts away weapon*; "Now, that's more like it."
And so it goes. Truly and honestly that's the potential for a fiasco like personals as I see them.
The rest of the rules, well, the personal combat section could use some clarification.
Every RPing session I've ever been in there's always been artistic license, and whether it's the Ref or the Players "getting into character" or "hamming it up", it's always been the case of where it's either the Ref/DM or the players who are determining the course of the adventure through their own interpersonal skills, and not some die roll.
Back to my Marooned Alone example; the Ref, playing the NPC who found my character out on the planes of the planet asked me "How did you get here?" I gave what I thought was a funny tongue in cheek response; "Would you believe I fell out of my ship?", at which point the Ref rolled for a reaction to that. It was negative. And suddenly my character's facing down the barrel of a shotgun.
You tell me. Is that over-usage? Or is that in the spirit of game mechanics?
If you know the adventure (by Loren Weisman) then you know that there's some intrigue with the PCs in the game who escape a vessel that's fallen under attack.
If the interaction had gone on, then the Ref would have continued to roll for every exchange my character had with the NPC; i.e.
NPC; "Are you hungry or thirsty?"
PC; "I could use a meal and something to drink."
Die Roll; negative;
NPC *cocks weapon* "What the hell did you say?"
PC; "I mean I'm good! I'm good! I don't need anything to eat or drink!"
Die Roll; negative;
NPC; "What?! My grub ain't good enough for ya?!"
PC; "Okay! I'll eat! I'll eat!"
Die Roll; positive
NPC *smiles, puts away weapon*; "Now, that's more like it."
And so it goes. Truly and honestly that's the potential for a fiasco like personals as I see them.
The rest of the rules, well, the personal combat section could use some clarification.
