Yes, another "Impressions and Questions" thread

[SpaceBadger]

I know I saw several other "First Impressions and Questions" thread about T5 back when the KS backers and early-orders were first getting theirs, but I skimmed three pages back and couldn't find a good thread to tack this onto, so here we go, new thread:

I just got T5 on CD-ROM, and decided to make some notes on my first impressions, and questions that occur to me as I read. I have NOT YET read any of the Errata - those threads are so huge and scary they almost prevented me buying T5 at all, until Marc Miller assured me that buyers of either the Book or the CD now would receive free updates later as errata is corrected.

My first impression is that those who have painted this as a poorly-edited first draft full of typos and spelling/grammatical errors were exaggerating to a high extreme. When I started reading T5, it was like reading any other Traveller book written by Marc Miller: high quality material, easy to read, with good explanation. Now keep in mind, I haven't gotten into any of the complicated stuff yet, but I still think the detractors were overstating their case on this issue.

The previous editions list on p.8 does not include T-20, nor does the Absent Friends section on p.10 include Hunter Gordon?

NAFAL? Not-As-Fast-As-Light? Whatever happened to good old STL?

Kursae??? o: Another Forerunner race and source of ancient (not Ancient!) ruins on many planets - but why? And apparently they are still around on some 5,000 worlds in their laid-back, non-travelling, new form. Again I ask, "Why?" What does this new race add that the Droyne do not? They certainly upset the Six Races meme, not that I ever considered that terribly important.

Pages 22-24 are sufficient for explaining die-rolling conventions. Pages 25-33 could be scary to newcomers and should be moved to an appendix.

Ranges: VShort= 5m, Short= 50m. Should have had something in between to represent effective pistol range. Big difference between 5m and 50m with pistol, especially for non-professionals! (Yeah, these are the same as Short and Medium range from CT Bk 1, but still, this was a chance to fix it.)

Pages 36-56: Holy Crap! Numbers, Numbers, and more Numbers, with explanatory text not coming until AFTER the huge tables of numbers. This should be a later chapter or an appendix; this is more stuff to scare away newbies. GMs need to understand all of this; players, not so much.

Arg!!! Getting into character generation, and it is a mixture of explanatory text nowhere near the applicable tables, redundant explanations, obscure stuff that I cannot ever see using in game... I think I am going to stop the general commentary here, as there is just too much garbled stuff, mixed in with bits of coolness that I want to adopt.

And now I can see why there are so many complaints about the organization of the material. For example, a word or phrase or acronym is first used on page x, and not explained until page x+5. Not fun.

Homeworld Skills? Everyone on an Ag world has Animals skill? Umm, Worlds Are Big, y'know?

Eh, back to reading. Probably not going to use this char-gen system, but I am eager to have a look at ship design and star-system generation.

 

[Supplement Four]

My first impression is that those who have painted this as a poorly-edited first draft full of typos and spelling/grammatical errors were exaggerating to a high extreme.

With respect, SpaceBadger, I doubt you've read enough of it to make that claim. Try working through some of the systems first, like CharGen, Combat, etc., then get back to us on that.

I know that the Combat Chapter, which has been my focus, is full of discrepancies. For example, can a character move and use a single fire weapon in the same combat round? That depends on what part of the chapter you read. Just how is damage from different sources applied to armor? Added together, or taken separately? We don't know. What about PEN damage? How should that be treated?

That's a few of the questions that need to be answered, and different charts and text to no jive on the answers on what is presented in the book.

 

[SpaceBadger]

With respect, SpaceBadger, I doubt you've read enough of it to make that claim. Try working through some of the systems first, like CharGen, Combat, etc., then get back to us on that.

It is possible that you stopped reading too soon, S4, and missed this part:

Pages 36-56: Holy Crap! Numbers, Numbers, and more Numbers, with explanatory text not coming until AFTER the huge tables of numbers. This should be a later chapter or an appendix; this is more stuff to scare away newbies. GMs need to understand all of this; players, not so much.

Arg!!! Getting into character generation, and it is a mixture of explanatory text nowhere near the applicable tables, redundant explanations, obscure stuff that I cannot ever see using in game... I think I am going to stop the general commentary here, as there is just too much garbled stuff, mixed in with bits of coolness that I want to adopt.

And now I can see why there are so many complaints about the organization of the material. For example, a word or phrase or acronym is first used on page x, and not explained until page x+5. Not fun.

Homeworld Skills? Everyone on an Ag world has Animals skill? Umm, Worlds Are Big, y'know?

 

[Supplement Four]

It is possible that you stopped reading too soon, S4, and missed this part:

I read all of your post but noticed that you left the early comment in after writing the later. I was responding to that comment.

Some of the problems aren't immediately visible to the initial scan through, too. A good example of this is the problem with Spectacular Success rule. It gets easier to roll SS the harder a task becomes, therefore, there is a point at which a character benefits and actually has a better chance of success if he does things to make his task harder (add more dice, and it's easier to roll 3 ones).

Many problems with T5 will not become apparent until the actual rule in question is used in a game or examined fully.

 

[SpaceBadger]

I read all of your post but noticed that you left the early comment in after writing the later. I was responding to that comment.

Some of the problems aren't immediately visible to the initial scan through, too.

*hangs head in embarassment*

You are correct, sir. It appears that the introductory material received the most editorial scrutiny and careful rewriting, up to Marc's usual standards. I was overly optimistic in hoping this level of quality would persist through the whole book. As I struggled through the remainder of the book, I found numerous errors that a good editor should have caught. Some of it definitely had a first-draft feel to it, as others have complained.

I was forced to skim-read a great deal of the book as the NUMBERS and TABLES and ACRONYMS-with-no-explanation-nearby threatened to overwhelm my sanity. :CoW: Oh, the details, the DETAILS! This book could certainly be Marc Miller's magnum opus, but it needs a good editing and reorganization to be of the quality of something like The Traveller Book (my own preferred Traveller reference). I hope that Marc will be able to reach that standard of excellence with Don's work on errata and some careful reorganization.

A LOT of the tables should be moved to appendices, so that the main chapters of the book are easy to read and use, and provide standard examples of weapons/tools/vehicles/etc along the lines of what was seen in The Traveller Book, with reference to the appendices for those who want to get fancy or make custom designs. As it was, every chapter of new material started to make sense, then WHAM there was a roadblock of detail I suspect should get used very rarely, but organized in such a way that you needed those references just to make sense of the routine stuff.

I agree 100% that the Makers have no business in the main text; they are just more roadblocks and complications.

Then, as others have noted, there was a frequent problem of references that made no sense until definitions could be located, often several pages away.

I just can't see myself ever devoting the effort to really learn all the details and nuances of this book. I don't want to work that hard, steadily, all the time, to play a game. :nonono: Nor is it very friendly for the introduction of new players.

It also reminded me of the old Chivalry and Sorcery in the matter of having tables for determination of every tiny detail of matters that most of us just make up on the fly or allow the player to decide. Maybe I would refer to these sections if I was stuck for a detail, or wanted to kick my brain into thinking outside my usual habits, but otherwise... No. :nonono:

So, as many have apparently decided before me, I am going to stick with my CT and patch on such parts of T5 as seem to be useful. First challenge is to re-read and really try to grok the ship-design system, as I have been so impressed with the examples of T5 ships that Rob has posted. After that, maybe the star-system design, if it actually gives more detail than Book 6 - and I will be looking at Thalassogen's apps for help with that. Other than those two things, probably just bits and pieces here and there.

Sigh. I was really hoping for something as good as the cheerleaders like Spaceresearcher and Magnus have portrayed o:, but am leaning more to the view of Supp Four and many others, that this book was released in draft form, not ready for prime time.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Put on the windbreakers it a harsh wind a coming.

Look, I have been a cheerleader, no doubt. I got my name it and I have always admitted that bias. I also, believe it or not I do have a few issues.

For example, long, long ago when I first started doing Greg's T5 Cirque characters I found and noted with Marc in an email and I think maybe even here in Errata thread what fanarking annoying page order for CharGen, massively disordered. (Yep, Supp4 screenshot this, you got me to admit, yes, I have my big problems with a few T5 things.)

Now, combat, well personal anyway, in space just keep lobbing missiles, that I can not even begin to speak to. The Makers are fun and unlike some Refs here I think they can be a gateway mechanic for player agency and investment. Also, Making stuff is fun. I can not speak to them entirely because I haven't had a chance to run a personal combat.

As to the Spectactulars (Success and Failure) I do not think they are at all broken. They simulate a cinematic/heroic action. For example tying my shoes is at worst a 2D standard difficulty, mostly a 1D easy task. Disarming a nuclear or any bomb for that matter or say not getting hit by a car at close range those are a 7-9D bloody near impossible task (and I will use the Army method and lower my difficulty ) for the first and I'd say 3-5D difficult task for the latter. Now I haven't disarmed any bombs, but a month ago, let me tell you Mister it sure felt Spectacular when I managed to avoid being mangled by one of death machines so many of you drive. It should be more amazing when you disarm the nuke or didn't get run over. I know, but it more likey the way things stand and again, feature, not bug. In case you missed it, we players can get real bleeding attached to our characters and if given the choice between mathematicly correct or cinematically correct, I chose cinema, not reality. I don't look good in vapor and glow.

And now the harsh part. *deep breath* The harsh is we are losing our Ancients in the Tribe of Gamer of the Old School. Has it occurred to you people that Marc is no spring chicken asks the dude turning 48 right now as I type this? That is almost a half century and when I crapping in diapers and eating nothing but glandular secretions and puréed anything else, Marc Miller was (I read) an Infantry Captain in the US Army fighting in Vietnam (no politics, pure history, please no ticket me) and then when I was a kid and watching the last of the Moon rockets, Marc was going to college and creating his first games. Maybe, just maybe there might not be a Traveller6+ with him involved. It could be he is working against a time table we don't know about and is trying to get the last Traveller arcs out that he can before Old Grim comes. It could be that best is the enemy of good enough because there are still several projects that need to be completed because, sadly he is getting up there in the years.

Seriously as someone who has a practice death under their belt and is fighting death still, yeah, you are a bit less concerned about it being super-tight and more about making sure you leave all the notes and as much produced stuff as you possibly can.

Just saying, something to think about when you are miffed off about something in T5 being messed up.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

First chance? Im setting up an Old Gamer's Home, with top notch facilities, mebbe out in the desert or the berkshires? Makes sense to me, and they'll need to put me somewhere to keep me off the streets when my belts slip.

 

[DonM]

Hah. I married a gamer, then bred and raised a gamer. My son keeps trying to recreate Mass Effect in T5.

 

[David Johansen]

Having the makers in the core helps to ensure cross compatability and consistancy in future supplements. I think it's one of the most important and ground breaking things Marc has done.

The layout, organization, and erratta issues are inevitable because the volume is so huge and Marc's really the only person who knows what he intended or meant. I can make a few guesses based on the material and my history with Traveller over all. But that's about it.

For instance I'm pretty sure all the probability stuff is intended as a defence of the nd6 task mechanic. And I'm pretty sure combat is intended to be very fast and results oriented rather than a narrative or simulation. The stuff on the Third Imperium is there in an attempt to please everyone at the expense of stuff that should have been in there to make the book more complete.

When it comes to the layout and format, in my mind I picture Marc as a guy trying to cram everything into a container and then jumping up and down on top of the lid trying to get it to close.

But those are just guesses.

 

[Supplement Four]

Having the makers in the core helps to ensure cross compatability and consistancy in future supplements. I think it's one of the most important and ground breaking things Marc has done.

I think it's good that they're in the book. I would have liked to have seen a good equipment chapter (other than the samples that are in the book) that highlights the basic equipment--something about the size of what was in Book 1 would do. But, the makers are definitely a plus.

The layout, organization, and erratta issues are inevitable because the volume is so huge and Marc's really the only person who knows what he intended or meant.

So...before publication, why not give a chapter to a couple of people and say, "Don't just read it, but actually use the chapter. Make a character, run a combat scene, create a weapon...whatever the chapter is about. Then, get back with me on your comments and concerns."

Then...the stuff is fixed.

Why not do that, THEN publish?

For instance I'm pretty sure all the probability stuff is intended as a defence of the nd6 task mechanic.

Maybe, but it's also a damn good Referee tool, as well. It's helpful in writing T5 adventures. I'm extremely glad Marc put that part into the book--it's an important section.

And I'm pretty sure combat is intended to be very fast and results oriented rather than a narrative or simulation.

Fast, results oriented, AND narrative. It's an abstract system, which lends itself to narration.

But, you're right. Simulation, it is not. Though the line between simulation and the abstract has me scratching my head. The game distinguishes between attack type (Single, AutoFire, and SnapFire), but the game does not count ammo or allow multiple attacks within the same round.

 

[Vladika]

...Marc's really the only person who knows what he intended or meant...

Didn't we hear that same sad excuse about T4? Which he WAS going to take personal control over?

And now T5... 10-11 years in development (depending on just who you believe...) BUT, rushed to print prematurely. Why? $$$...over a quarter of a million USD in the kickstarter pot?

And, before all you apologists try to ream me out, Marc claimed he could do everything for around $25,000 LESS THAN ONE TENTH of what he finally took in. So, economics surely isn't the reason T5 turned out so poorly done.

Could it be that:

...Marc's really the only person who knows what he intended or meant...

And he dropped the ball. Again?

And please, before a knee jerk, ad hominem, attack, let's hear YOUR logic for why T5 came out so poorly.

 

[David Johansen]

Dropped balls bounce. Currently T5 is just laying on the ground.

I certainly have my questions about various parts of T5 and I strongly believe that there's been insufficient communication between Marc and the community since it came out.

My guess is that he's been very sick.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Supplement Four
Fast, results oriented, AND narrative. It's an abstract system, which lends itself to narration.

But, you're right. Simulation, it is not. Though the line between simulation and the abstract has me scratching my head. The game distinguishes between attack type (Single, AutoFire, and SnapFire), but the game does not count ammo or allow multiple attacks within the same round.


Like AD&D your one shot represents all the shots you take in a whole minute. This is where it becomes pretty impossible to track ammo. In one round that might be one bullet in another it might be three magazines. It's also representative of why I find it very hard to narrate. Really, you're just rolling to see who died this round. The rules give you nothing else.

Personally I find a more detailed simulation like GURPS combat far easier to run narratively than any abstract system.

 

[David Johansen]

And please, before a knee jerk, ad hominem, attack, let's hear YOUR logic for why T5 came out so poorly.

edit* Actually, from the start, I think I should note I think T5 came out very well. That's not to say there haven't been problems. I'm more bothered by the absence of the two or three paragraphs it would take to clarify combat after a year than the errors in the book. It would have been nice if they'd held off on printing the book until the errors were fixed. I don't think anyone's arguing with that.*end edit

To reiterate:

I believe Marc has been very sick. My guess (and it's purely a guess) is that he's had major surgery and been in recovery. This would explain why the book was rushed out. Major surgery isn't a sure thing and if you know it's coming you might rush to tie up loose ends.

As to where the money went, it's hard to say but Kickstarters are tricky because as the number of buyers increases so do the accumulated expenses. Often a very successful Kickstarter by a small company pretty much kills their other production for over a year as they try to catch up. Steve Jackson says he didn't make money on the Ogre one because they handed out too many goodies. That he hasn't proceeded with further Kickstarters goes to show that a pretty solid gaming businessman doesn't find them to be a gold paved path to fame and fortune.

However, I think a large contributing factor was "Marc's Inner Circle" essentially he listened to an echo chamber and addressed those issues without due consideration of the wider and louder and more conflicted fanbase.

Another contributing factor is that the project is simply too big for just one man. But wanting to ensure unity of vision / creative control, Marc did it all himself.

There's also the influence of Mongoose, who've long held that editing is for second printings.

 

[Supplement Four]

Like AD&D your one shot represents all the shots you take in a whole minute. This is where it becomes pretty impossible to track ammo. In one round that might be one bullet in another it might be three magazines.

And, I'm totally fine with that. You're missing my point, though. Yes, you can have multiple pulls of the trigger, firing many different shots. So, why differentiate between Single Shots and Full Auto? Or even SnapFire?

That's like saying, in D&D, you only made thrusts with your sword using the tip--you didn't swing and use the edge of the blade to chop at your enemy.

If it's abstract, then leave it abstract. Don't mix and match. Instead, have the rule more like this: The one attack throw in T5 represents abstract firing, whether it is single shot or full auto. The one attack throw represents all types of attacks during the combat round.

I'll add to this: It gets harder to use an abstract combat round with projectile weapons. Because, it's too easy, in real life, to attack different targets. That's why, in AD&D, the bow gets two attacks per round, at any target. That's a bit slow, but at least different targets are accounted for.

T5 should have some sort of system that allows for multiple targeting (at a penalty, of course). With the T5 task throw, an extra die of difficulty for each extra target works extremely well.

And, if we're not going to track ammo, then we shouldn't care if the weapon fires single shots, bursts, or is fully automatic.

It's also representative of why I find it very hard to narrate. Really, you're just rolling to see who died this round. The rules give you nothing else.

That's why I think it's easy to narrate. What do you see in your mind's eye? In AD&D, if a foe rolled a natural 20 against a PC, but then rolled poor damage, I'd say something like, "You over-extended on your last swing, opening your right side flank. Your enemy sees the opening and hammers at your side with all his strength! But, you deflected! You blocked the blow, re-positioned, and stand ready for the next."

Personally I find a more detailed simulation like GURPS combat far easier to run narratively than any abstract system.

Hmm. I would think that you can be really creative and vivid with your descriptions with an abstract system, where as, with a simulation, you're locked into describing what is exactly indicated by the dice.

Just different ways of looking at it, I guess.

 

[Supplement Four]

My guess is that he's been very sick.

I certainly hope not. I would think that we would of heard about this, if it were true.

edit* Actually, from the start, I think I should note I think T5 came out very well.

Wow.

Have you just read some of the book? If so, I see someone getting that impression.

Honestly, how far have you delved into using the book--not just reading it? Have you created a character? Have you run a combat scenario? Have you built some starships? Have you conducted space combat? Have you made some weapons and gear?

I'm more bothered by the absence of the two or three paragraphs it would take to clarify combat after a year than the errors in the book.

This bothers me, too. I think more people would be hopeful about the game if they could see an active campaign to improve it.

However, I think a large contributing factor was "Marc's Inner Circle" essentially he listened to an echo chamber and addressed those issues without due consideration of the wider and louder and more conflicted fanbase.

You think Don and Rob, et al., are sycophants?

I sincerely doubt that. Almost every Traveller fan I've come to know is extremely opinionated.

Plus, I can't count the times I've brought up an issue, or read about someone else's issue with T5, only to see someone pipe in saying, "Yeah, we mentioned that in the playtest beta, but Marc didn't change it."

Another contributing factor is that the project is simply too big for just one man. But wanting to ensure unity of vision / creative control, Marc did it all himself.

The creative control, I understand. So...he gets it into the state that it is in now...THEN, he takes the book, one chapter at a time, handing the chapter to his posse. When he hands out the intro chapter, he asks people to look for typos and inconsistencies. When he hands out the CharGen chapter, he asks people to create different types of characters and give him feedback. When he hands out the combat chapter, he asks his team to run a couple of combat encounters, then asks for feedback.

Why wasn't THAT done?

If it had been, he'd know about the problems in the game.

There's also the influence of Mongoose, who've long held that editing is for second printings.

Every game company seems cursed with this issue, and I don't know why it's such an issue with so many of them. It seems like such an easy thing to fix.

I don't know much about the industry, but my guess is that there's something broken in the process of publishing games.

 

[David Johansen]

The snap fire and autofire rules are intended to represent the advantages of automatic weapons over semiautomatic weapons. The cover rule clearly assumes a fair bit of minor movement within the range band. Personally it's easier to drop a rule when it's not needed than to come up with one on the fly and be consistant in applying it down the line.

I think Don has mentioned Marc's health issues as an obstacle a couple times. But as things draw out that starts to look ominous you know? Ignorance breeds speculation.

I've read the book, made several characters, played as a player, run the game as a GM, run combat designed guns and armor, haven't gotten to a starship, world, or alien yet.

Do I think Don and Rob, et al., are sycophants? No, I think the internet is full of Yahoos and that leads a guy like Marc to pay more attention to what his close friends are saying that what the masses are screaming. The problem is that when you've been on the beta at the start like I've been and there are issues with the print edition that we were asking about when they first set up the forums. So I do feel like there's been a lack of communication there.

 

[agorski]

When I decided to write a Mac app for T5 I had to decide which set of rules I would tackle. There were too many unanswered questions in chargen, and the makers were too easy. After looking at the rules and the existing errata, I determined that sector-subsector-star system generation was solid and I had no problem understanding the process and coding it.

 

[SpaceBadger]

My apologies to all for re-starting the :CoW:-festival.

I read back over my last post and it is all complaint, nothing constructive. The Book is out, and while it will be improved when the Errata are incorporated, I doubt we are going to see any major change of organization or content.

I could blame pain or medications on top of frustration and confusion, but really I shouldn't post if I can't acknowledge responsibility. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

My apologies especially to Marc Miller for re-starting all of the speculation about why T5 came out in this form.

If I could delete or lock this thread, I would.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I fault no one for any open view on the game. Laying out a background this rich is a monumental undertaking, and falls victim to the changing tides of the feebrile RPG market (ALL books are on rocky ground in the data age.).

I ghosted a project once, and you know what scuttled it? History. Making up centuries and centuries of HISTORY takes some time and chops, and you could do it FOREVER. People do that with interpreting REAL history.

When in doubt? I skip all the weird ( I find it weird) task levels and all of that and roll them bones. 2d6. I can read stuff about aliens and laser weapons until my eyeballs fall out. 25 kinds of traveller, all with good bits of background in them? Mmm. As you were, sirs.


Yup, Im thinking a big ol house with two beds and a 4x8 table in every room. Digital projectors for maps.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I know it may not seem like it, but $250,000 is PEANUTS in the game design scheme. Know how much WotC has behind its lines, or GW? A Gazillion dollars. I've seen 250,000 go on a parchesi level boardgame, easy.