T5 Only: Do you like T5?

[Blue Ghost]

aramis; thanks for the mechanical breakdown. What I'm not understanding though is that there seems to be a disdain for even the concept of a task system. Back when my groups played we only understood one task; firing a weapon 8+ with 2d6, but that any other task or feat had to be contrived on the spot.

And now there is a system that comes along to really tie up those loose ends, and there's opposition to not just the heavy reliance on dice (which doesn't bother me, since my groups occasionally used high energy weapons), but the concept of a task system itself. And that's what I don't get; the opposition to the concept itself.

Am I missing something?

 

[whulorigan]

Math problems:

• Spectacular success chance
• Spectacular failure chance

I believe Spectacular Failure is not overly problematic; it is the Spectacular Success chance that is the big problem, mathematically.

 

[darue]

good point about the undervaluing of skills. Skill-1 is totally swamped by the attribute. That doesn't seem right. (unless maybe char gen leads to higher skill levels than we've seen as normal. and I doubt it does)

here's a possible alteration that enables keeping skill levels low and justifies the huge time and effort it can take to raise a skill from say 2 to 3...

what if the skill level acted as a multiplier to the ability level? OR what if the skill level subtracted dice from the difficulty?

At any rate, I don't yet see where the LARGE mods come from to raise higher-difficulty tasks into the do-able range.

From a story telling perspective, I'm not sure what the point is of giving a character a make-or-break task that has a negligible chance of success. I guess in such cases you can say, they should then know to 'find another way' rather than risk a low probability of success task.

 

[Hemdian]

Can someone tell me what the issues are with the Task system? I don't get what the big deal is about it.

Note, I've not played T5, I'm just one of the guys who lobbied for a task system because of the lack of one in CT days.

Although a number of reasoned arguments have been put forward against the T5 task system (some of which are pretty weak), the biggest complaint seems to be that it's a roll low system as opposed to a roll high system. Personally I don't get that, but for some it seems to be a deal breaker!

Every system has it's idiosyncrasies, even the 'beloved' CT, and T5 is no different in that regard. But there are no major problems that I can see. And the minor problems ... well some of them aren't really problems at all.

 

[aramis]

I believe Spectacular Failure is not overly problematic; it is the Spectacular Success chance that is the big problem, mathematically.

both are problems, mathematically, that have been identified. How much of one varies widely.

For me, roll low is a problem, but only a minor one; my favorite roll mechanic is actually "High but under" opposed rolls.

 

[savage]

T5 errata and Beta

How big was the Beta team and how was the project managed? Some of these problems may come from not having a a corporate team working on quality control versus a couple people.

I like the fact that T5 tries to change some of the old Traveller rule standards but loosing big ships should be optional not a new standard. This is clearly influenced by original intent and a small crowd in the community.

Perhaps it tried to change too much. Still after a re-published PDF I would be willing to work with it. I still like CT.

 

[Kpeterson]

I was sorely disappointed by T5. When I received my Kickstarter copy, I couldn't believe what the final product ended up being. I browsed through it, and kept wondering to myself, where is the roleplaying game in this? It seemed like such a poorly organized, bloated, technical document devoid of fun. I tried on several occasions to get a grasp on T5, but decided it was just a waste of time. It's not an Rpg for me.

 

[Supplement Four]

aramis; thanks for the mechanical breakdown. What I'm not understanding though is that there seems to be a disdain for even the concept of a task system.

What I keep finding is that the task system complicates the game needlessly. What should and can be a simple throw becomes a fairly complicated process.

I've been particpating in the T5 Sensors thread, and I think that chapter is the perfect example of what I am talking about.

What happened with Sensors in MT? Players wanted to make a sensor task, so they just looked at the difficulty associated with the type of sensor that they wanted to use. Roll 2D, add in Skill and Stat mods, check vs. target. Boom. Done.

With T5 Sensors task, here's what the players will have to go through.

1. Look up TL of Sensor to find base target number.
2. Add Skill and Stat to the base, plus any other mods.
3. Figure the Size minus Range mod, and add that to the target.

4. Then look up how many dice are needed for the difficulty. Attack Range for spacecraft is Space Range 6, 7, and 8.
5. Check to see if the This Is Hard rule applies. Probably does unless Sensor operator has an extremely high skill. This is +1D to difficulty.
6. Then, roll a number of D6 based on Range (plus 1D if TiH). So, at Attack Range, you're rolling 6D, 7D, or 8D (+1D for TiH)...up to 9D for standard combat sensor tasks. Add all of those suckers up and look for Spectacular Success or Spectacular Failure. Plus, another die is rolled for Uncertainty. So, now, we're talking about up to 10D being thrown for a standard combat sensor task.

7. The Ref rolls 1D secretly. The Player's Uncertainty die is subtracted from the Ref's Uncertainty die, to give the entire Sensor scan a bit of uncertainty (it could lower or raise the total of the throw by 0-5 points).
8. Once you've added up all those dice and added in the effects of the Uncrtainty die, you've got a total throw to compare to your target number to see if the task was passed.



The only reason that the sensor task contain all those parts is because of the convoluted task system. It's not game-speed friendly at all (imo). A better, more user-friendly task system would cut out a lot of steps.

I believe Spectacular Failure is not overly problematic; it is the Spectacular Success chance that is the big problem, mathematically.

Mechanically, it's an OK mechanic, but I think in practice, it will not come up in a game very often (except in circumstances, like with Sensor tasks, where a ton of dice are thrown, and then chance of SF can get quite high).

good point about the undervaluing of skills. Skill-1 is totally swamped by the attribute. That doesn't seem right.

The This Is Hard Rule does a pretty good job of making skills important to a task throw, putting skill on equal footing with stat.

As a CT guy (and a more realistic thinker, when it comes to this), I think skill should overweight stat.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Okay, thanks.

 

[aramis]

How big was the Beta team and how was the project managed? Some of these problems may come from not having a a corporate team working on quality control versus a couple people.

I like the fact that T5 tries to change some of the old Traveller rule standards but loosing big ships should be optional not a new standard. This is clearly influenced by original intent and a small crowd in the community.

Perhaps it tried to change too much. Still after a re-published PDF I would be willing to work with it. I still like CT.

There were about 50 active participants in the beta forum, and a lot more lurkers. For the most part, I said my piece well before the beta, and saw it echoed repeatedly through the beta, and saw it ignored.

Only one dice-by-difficulty roll-under system had significant commercial success - The Fantasy Trip. (TFT 3E became GURPS Man-To-Man when Howard wouldn't sell.) Only two have really had any critical success (TFT and Alternity), and most of my complaints about Alternity have to do with the task mechanic being cumbersome. The other notable one was explicitly noted for being a really BAD game with a really great premise: Tales from the floating vagabond. The other dice-by-difficulty Roll-under systems I've seen were totally lame, little known, and pretty much went nowhere.

And the complaints I've been seeing revolve around three big issues: the task system, the absolute lack of examples, and the organization not making sense to people.

 

[Supplement Four]

Only one dice-by-difficulty roll-under system had significant commercial success - The Fantasy Trip.

It's been so long since I've looked at it, but isn't FASA Star Trek game a simple percentile roll under mechanic? I believe that game was quite successful until FASA lost the license. (Didn't they lose it but then move on to Battletech and TORG or something like that?)

 

[Blue Ghost]

Yes, it was a percentile roll on two 2d10. The game seemed to do well, although I only ever played it a couple of times.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yes, it was a percentile roll on two 2d10. The game seemed to do well, although I only ever played it a couple of times.

I never played it as much as I wanted, either. I LOVE the game (still do), but it's hard to find (at least it was for me) several Trek-loving players. Everybody I knew at the time only wanted to play D&D. Heck, it was hard to get them to play Traveller, then.

 

[aramis]

It's been so long since I've looked at it, but isn't FASA Star Trek game a simple percentile roll under mechanic? I believe that game was quite successful until FASA lost the license. (Didn't they lose it but then move on to Battletech and TORG or something like that?)

None of those are dice-by-difficulty.

 

[Supplement Four]

None of those are dice-by-difficulty.

Yes, you're right. Good distinction.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I never played it as much as I wanted, either. I LOVE the game (still do), but it's hard to find (at least it was for me) several Trek-loving players. Everybody I knew at the time only wanted to play D&D. Heck, it was hard to get them to play Traveller, then.

Well, not to get too side tracked here, and to hopefully stay on topic with T5, I never noted the ST RPG to be very popular, but it was highly polished with a lot of art from the TV shows and films. That verse Traveller, which I also love, which had artwork of various levels coupled with a basic rule system.

At the time the ST RPG was released I was surprised that no one had come up with one sooner, and that the game didn't seem to last very long compared to other titles. I now understand that a lot of that had to do with licenses expiring, but, if the product and sales were strong enough, I would think it would have stayed on the market, or that there would have been an effort to keep it going. I don't know.

I wish I had access to the local gaming groups again, so I could test the waters with T5.

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, not to get too side tracked here, and to hopefully stay on topic with T5, I never noted the ST RPG to be very popular, but it was highly polished with a lot of art from the TV shows and films.

A good rule of thumb when gauging RPG success is to look at how many supplments were produced and how many years the company published the game.

FASA's Trek game has a ton (not D&D sized, but a good sized game in comparison to most) of supplements, and FASA produced the game for close to a decade (7 years, I think).

Yes, it was popular, and yes, it was successful.

 

[Ref00000]

voted OK, BUT inaccurate answer.

I have a strong feeling it needs work.
the core book is a huge, wonderful chunk of gaming genius.
it's also unwieldily, not that user friendly, and has a TON of materiel I feel a lot of refs are never going to understand, let alone use.
as much as I hate to say that, I feel, given my history with Traveller, and the industry, it's true.
massive labor of love. that much is obvious.
steep learning curve.
very, very much in keeping with a game that had albedo formulae right out of a textbook and the phrase "the referee must generate encounter charts for every planet in the Universe. this need not be done all at once."
I use that phrase from CT to teach new gamers about scope and design. and scare the weak.
in any case, I have my copy, I paid cash, and I'm between jobs. it was important enough for me to own that I skipped meals. s'truth.
I'll run it, eventually. for now? MT is still my OS.
ZERO, out.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

I voted for overall disappointing, needs work

Disappointment of value in relation to pricetag. More or less objectively:
It lists itself as a "Core Rules". Hmm... Though I have been playing RPG's for 35+ years, my expectation for all "core rules" to have examples all throughout: example of play, character generation, combat, examples for all design sequences, etc. There is not enough of that in the book to be considered "core rules". Not enough to encourage new players or a warning to "unexperienced players" not to buy. Not enough examples in the design sequences for me to see if I am doing the math correctly. Regardless of the fact that I have enjoyed Traveller as my second RPG ever and I have experience from previous iterations, this does not excuse the expectations of what I expect in an "Core Rules" for an RPG.

Completely subjectively:
That said, I bought it anyways because I see it as a "supplement" to other versions of Traveller. Alien generation, the new FTL drive types, the various "Makers". All good stuff. Even here though, I would like to see more organized, explicitly stated design flow sequences. And a one full design example each. Though I am a long term fan of Traveller, I am disappointed by those two elements not being there for each "Maker".

Finally, I have seen posted elsewhere that some of this was in the CD or in Beta or some such. If so, how do we who have purchased only the book, find such errata?

 

[rosswinn]

T5

As I wrote in my review, it isn't a game so much as a toolkit with which to build a game.