Wish list?

[Blue Ghost]

I've been hitting the T5 site recently, and have been wondering if there's a T5 wish list somewhere on this forum. If not, can we start one here?

Is there a wish list? If not, then what would you like to see in T5?

 

[Blue Ghost]

Hmm, no replies, eh? Well, 'guess I'll just have to start making my own

1) An explicit and easy to read flow chart or format for all forms of combat.

Reason; The 8+ basic throw in CT was easy enough, and the various DMs weren't too hard to keep track of, but occasionally our group forgot to factor in DMs for Tech Levels and terrain. A diagram showing step by step combat resolution would be of great help.

Ditto with starship combat. I believe the 1d6 damage rule for missiles is tucked in the first couple of paragraphs of the basic rules. That's fine, but there's a lor of wording to get through if you forget that particular rule. It'd be nice to have all damage listed on a chart.


2) Easy to read and find Task System

Pretty much the same reasons for the combat diagram. This was one of the things I liked about MT; were the explicit "here it is" dialogue boxes in the ruleset. I miss this, and would like to see it again.


3) Hits verse armor penetration on personal combat.

This was another plus I really liked in MT. I've explained it elsewhere, but will reiterate. Some kid (call him David) slinging a rock at some FFFFFF stat hulk dressed head to toe in TL-F battledress (call him Goliath) will not be harmed if that stone hits any piece of armor; which covers the whole body. In CT, going by the strict ruleset with range and terrain modifiers, David could indeed relive his befabled exploit from "The King James." No offense, but it shouldn't happen. Ditto with a lot of other weapons that can "hit" a target, but should not be able to do damage to the person wearing the armor (TL 15 rocks depending).


4) The rules ought to be easy to pick up.

Reason; I went through the PDF file on character generation and got somewhat confused on what I was supposed to do when and where in terms of putting my character through the service. I understood the classic system, but the newer system, though similar, didn't seem to be as well organized. I understand those rules are preliminary, but for myself they harken back to some of the starship design and combat rules from High Guard that I always thought were a touch more complex than needed. An outline of the character generation process, one that delineated step by step of what to do, would be much welcome.


5) Good art

The CGI on some of the GURPS covers are kind of neat, but some of the shapes and images are almost too generic. I like Deitrick's art from CT. That man is a genius

William H. Keith had a handful of sketches (three?) that I liked, but always felt his pencil skills were poor and lacking. However, his CGI stuff seems to look pretty good.


That's it for now. I could think of a few other things, but those are the bare bones of what I really desire in a new incarnation of Traveller. I suppose the last thing I would like is for it to be compatible with all eras/milieus of the games' settings.

Anyone else?

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
3) Hits verse armor penetration on personal combat.

This was another plus I really liked in MT. I've explained it elsewhere, but will reiterate. Some kid (call him David) slinging a rock at some FFFFFF stat hulk dressed head to toe in TL-F battledress (call him Goliath) will not be harmed if that stone hits any piece of armor; which covers the whole body. In CT, going by the strict ruleset with range and terrain modifiers, David could indeed relive his befabled exploit from "The King James." No offense, but it shouldn't happen. Ditto with a lot of other weapons that can "hit" a target, but should not be able to do damage to the person wearing the armor (TL 15 rocks depending).

Not quite. In MT, exceptional success gauranteed you a certain minimum amount of damage. Additionally, there was a "pinpoint fire" task which halved target armour.

5) Good art

Our friend ScareCrow and some of the other CotI digital art luminaries should be polled for contributions. Some of their personal rendering work is amazing. Far better than cheesy line art.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Yeah, but realistically it shouldn't happen. I mean even if you walked up to an Imperial Marine and shoved that stone in his faceplate the most you'd be able to do is to annoy him. If you had a high powered weapon you might be able to crack the view port on the helmet, but would that constitute damage to the marine inside?

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
Yeah, but realistically it shouldn't happen. I mean even if you walked up to an Imperial Marine and shoved that stone in his faceplate the most you'd be able to do is to annoy him. If you had a high powered weapon you might be able to crack the view port on the helmet, but would that constitute damage to the marine inside?

The whole body armour (and powered armour is an extension) debate covers a lot of territory. It started out as defence against shrapnel and fragments. It has evolved into defence against pistols and then into something that will stop a rifle bullet (with some weighty inserts). Later it develops into the nea-plate-mail of Combat Armour, then into a sort of half-vehicle servo-augmented thing called Battle Dress. But each time, it has got heavier (there is a trend that makes any given protection level lighter, but since you need greater protection, the overall gets heavier).

So, what do you end up with? A small vehicle wrapped around you. But it has joints. It is probably vulnerable under the arms, at the inside-of-elbow and back-of-knee positions, as well as possibly around the neck, ankle, wrist, etc. You can't overlap too much hard armour here as you need to retain flexibility. So, you have spots where, perhaps, a sharp knife or a slug could be inserted, if *just* the right angle was located.

Should this be easy? Hell no. Should it be possible? With the vision of battle dress as I have seen it, with the man with his limbs in the limbs, then yes. If the vehicle was more like a Mech with the man in the torso and the limbs being strictly mechanical, then I'd say no - it becomes more like a vehicle and you *can* armour the entire fighting compartment. But when you have to have flexible, mobile joints, you'll run a risk.

Why is there a faceplate in battle dress? If I have good TL-15 tech, I should have as much armour in front of my face as I do anywhere else... (and I trust my VR... I've had 6 or so TL to perfect it and make it utterly dependable).

Anyway, David and his stone should have some trouble. But Bob and his vibroknife or Lex and his 7mm AR should have *some* chance to penetrate. I didn't say a *good* chance, just some chance.

 

[TheDS]

You don't want too much of a faceplate anyway. Most of the time, you want as much protection on your face as you can get. You get hit by a dazzler, it doesn't matter. You get hit by a laser, it just burns out your VR sensor. You get a flash bomb, the display is delayed by a microsecond, which is enough time to limit the brightness for the wearer.

The only time you want to be able to see out with your own eyes is if ALL your sensors and backups have been destroyed, and even then, I might just be willing to crawl back to base, blinded, if it meant saving my vision... then again, I suppose they could clone me new eyes, but why lose them when I'm still on the front lines? Get back to the back before your mini-radars in your legs are gone, and THEN you can risk un-blacking your visor.

I base this analysis from the notes in TNE where they were talking about NOT having dazzlers as weapons. No need to fight, just blind that hoard of angry barbarians. The galaxy becomes full of perfectly healthy, strong people, who are all blind. We in the real world might have to deal with that, though.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by TheDS:
You get hit by a dazzler, it doesn't matter. You get hit by a laser, it just burns out your VR sensor.

If you're using a nano-sensor impregnated outer shell, that'd take some work. You could burn out a small cluster with a laser shot, but to burn out the lot, you'd have to flay off the outer layer of my hardshell. So vision might degrade, but would still work.

The only time you want to be able to see out with your own eyes is if ALL your sensors and backups have been destroyed,

If this is the case, most of your servos and other bits may also have been fused or destroyed. You may have to execute an 'emergency explosive breakway extraction' procedure and leave the large paperweight behind. Cause if it ain't working, it ain't something you'll drag home easily.

I base this analysis from the notes in TNE where they were talking about NOT having dazzlers as weapons. No need to fight, just blind that hoard of angry barbarians.

Even worse, with the current generation of weapons they have created, you hit a certain daze inducing frequency in humans. They vomit, they are dazed, they can't see straight. Blammo. And they have versions tuned for humans for crowd control and for takedowns and they have a version tuned for dogs (idea was they'd be for mail carriers) and another version for both. If you see it, you'll be on the ground all jelly-spined. It's pretty nifty/horrid. Defenses include closing your eyes, wearing dark or filtering sunglasses lenses, and turning your head at the right moment. However, as a surprise weapon, it is almost unparalleled in its ability to take out a target in a non-lethal fashion.

And this is available at TL-8/9. (By available, I mean I'm aware of working prototypes... I don't know if it has hit general distribution to specialized user communities yet).

The galaxy becomes full of perfectly healthy, strong people, who are all blind. We in the real world might have to deal with that, though.

Yes, but it will be as a result of spending too long reading CotI or surfing for por... err.... 'educational materials'.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by TheDS:
You get hit by a dazzler, it doesn't matter. You get hit by a laser, it just burns out your VR sensor.

If you're using a nano-sensor impregnated outer shell, that'd take some work. You could burn out a small cluster with a laser shot, but to burn out the lot, you'd have to flay off the outer layer of my hardshell. So vision might degrade, but would still work.

The only time you want to be able to see out with your own eyes is if ALL your sensors and backups have been destroyed,

If this is the case, most of your servos and other bits may also have been fused or destroyed. You may have to execute an 'emergency explosive breakway extraction' procedure and leave the large paperweight behind. Cause if it ain't working, it ain't something you'll drag home easily.

I base this analysis from the notes in TNE where they were talking about NOT having dazzlers as weapons. No need to fight, just blind that hoard of angry barbarians.

Even worse, with the current generation of weapons they have created, you hit a certain daze inducing frequency in humans. They vomit, they are dazed, they can't see straight. Blammo. And they have versions tuned for humans for crowd control and for takedowns and they have a version tuned for dogs (idea was they'd be for mail carriers) and another version for both. If you see it, you'll be on the ground all jelly-spined. It's pretty nifty/horrid. Defenses include closing your eyes, wearing dark or filtering sunglasses lenses, and turning your head at the right moment. However, as a surprise weapon, it is almost unparalleled in its ability to take out a target in a non-lethal fashion.

And this is available at TL-8/9. (By available, I mean I'm aware of working prototypes... I don't know if it has hit general distribution to specialized user communities yet).

The galaxy becomes full of perfectly healthy, strong people, who are all blind. We in the real world might have to deal with that, though.

Yes, but it will be as a result of spending too long reading CotI or surfing for por... err.... 'educational materials'.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
If not, then what would you like to see in T5?

1. Sod backwards compatability, design the best system possible. T20 works OK for me, and I could doubtless house-rule the older systems to work OK too. A new system must be more than another retread, it would take something special to make me change. Conversion guides welcome.

2. Chargen options. Anything from "die during character creation" to "design exactly the character you want to play". All explicitly stated in the rulebook as a minimum common ground.

3. Moore's Law.

4. Professional writing and book design. E.g. no instruction to "roll perseverance" in chargen without explaining what "roll perseverance" means.

5. Bundled multi-platform software for chargen, stargen and shipgen. I suggest java, so it can be hosted on webpages too.

 

[Spinward Scout]

My wish list,

Scout

Major & Minor Races CharGen (and not cheesy ones, either - men with 4 arms and talking bears just don't cut it for me, sorry)

Weights & Measures & Keeping Time

Starship Operations & In-System Operations (Starport, encounters, background fluff)

Tips, Tricks, & Adventures

Ancient Artifacts & Wonderous Places

Book of Lists (MegaCorps and stuff like that)

ATLAS: SPINWARD MARCHES, QUADRANT 2 (with good tidbits on the different important worlds - i.e. adventure seeds) Regina Subsector, Aramis Subsector, Lanth Subsector, Rhylanor Subsector

Better artwork - digital Jesse Graf works and Mike Vilardi art...

 

[Gaming Glen]

A revised tech chart.

Hey! Who threw that stone?

Seriously, name each chart: (picking names at random):
old: Wiseman Technological Progression Chart,
new: Miller Historical/Future-Trend Technology Advances


Glen

 

[Typhonis]

Astarship combat game that uses maps and counters and is fully compatible with the RPG and scaleable so you can have massed fleet battles or small one on one encounters.

I likd Star Frontiers Knight Hawks butttt stilll designing a new ship or using chars in it was a bit trying even adding new tech was hard

 

[robject]

That would be pretty cool, indeed. Any reason something like Mayday (for a few ships) and High Guard (for fleet battles) wouldn't work?

(The reason I ask is because I don't see T5 fundamentally changing the way battles are fought. But I could be wrong.)

 

[Hecateus]

Starships and Econonmics that make sense.
Heat rules.
Optional 3d Galaxy.
Out of the box/book support for software aids.

...MMORPG Traveller...?

 

[Typhonis]

arent thos two out of print?? I`ve had experience with Knight hawks and seen Star Fleet battles and Fed and Empire....oooo a srategic level game for Traveller...Imperium where you can design your own units

 

[Spinward Scout]

Oh and to add to my wish list - all hard cover books.

Scout

 

[Yojimbo]

1) Simple, unified combat/task system. Like d20 and other games the basic system should be the same whatever you're trying to do. Roll 2d6, add DMs for stats, skills, etc vs target number would seem to be the easiest way to go.

2) Extended chargen for all character types to extend the focus of the game from military & merchants.

3) I agree with an earlier poster that there should be options for other character design processes other than the standard random method. Having a totally non-random method would satisfy those who like a balanced party (although that depends on the utility of the skills in the party. Admin-3 is not worth the same as CRM-3 in a merc game. I think BESM does this well by having different skill point costs for skills based on their utility in the game genre).

4) Clear, easy to read layout with pertinent information in easily accessible places.

5) Tech illustrations to help visualisation of guns etc.

Jim.

 

[Spinward Scout]

Oh, and a fold out map of charted/known space. You know - I think I could just keep coming up with ideas...

Scout

 

[greimann]

One of my biggest wishes would be to use all available interior art for any new release.

For example the japanese new edition of CT (http://traveller.tablegame.jp/) uses the sleek and IMHO perfect LBB design on the outside, but features new interior art that is very compatible to the Traveller style (examples at http://traveller.tablegame.jp/gallery.html).

So I would suggest using these new artworks which have never been in any western editions.

(BTW: Should T5 go with exterior art as well, they could do worse than using the old German and Japanese covers for the older editions of Traveller, which also featured their own Illustrations).

And along with these new illustrations, instead of commissioning new art, I`d suggest licensing and recycling the interior artworks from old DGP product as well.

 

[kafka47]

As it has been said before, it takes a Japanese to take something great and just simply make it better.