T5 Errata Discussion Thread

[exedore6]

Gas Giant Presence and Number

Just a thing I've noticed about the gas giants in system and worldgen.

In system generation, a gas giant is absent on a roll higher than a 9, or 1 in 6.

Later on, when determining the number of gas giants, you roll (2d6/2)-2 (drop fractions) yields 0 giants on a roll less than a 6 which is 5 in 18. Is there a type of gas giant that doesn't count as a G in the PBG rating, or is the formula off? (Switching it to 2d6/2-2 round up makes the chance of zero giants match, but if there's a giant that doesn't count in PBG, there's the place for them.)

Any thoughts?

 

[Major B]

A couple of questions - maybe errata

I searched the thread for references to these page numbers with no matches, but I apologize if this has already been discussed.

I have two questions regarding ship design:

Page 332, Step 04 (Hull Configuration), Table A (Hull Configuration Characteristics): The Agility column shows nothing on the lifting Body row. Should I use the same value as an airframe (+1) or should I continue the logical progression (+2) or is it zero?

Page 334, Step 06 (Hull Fittings), Table D (Hull Structure): This table has similar blanks. Is a unstreamlined shell allowed or should there be a dash here? More to what made me notice the omission, can a charged hull be used on an airframe or lifting body hull? I am pretty certain that a planetoid cannot but that spot on the table is blank too.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Page 459 - in mapping World Hexes, there is no process for determining Black Numbered Hexes if the result is "Other". I have experimented with a house rule detailed in my blog here, and I wonder what others might think.

 

[Draconian]

Still no errata

We are getting on almost 2 years since any official errata to T5, yet the game is far from being perfected.

Errata .pdf 0.71 was published July 26, 2013. Now, it's up to the "committee", whatever it is, whether they want to treat it as a straight errata, or completely revise the combat system. Whatever approach they want will be appreciated. But I see no perceptible "community of interest" around the game any more; maybe the disappointment everywhere is just too palpable. To build buzz with a new RPG these days, you do everything that Traveller 5 has not. And there WILL be many, many new RPGs, outpacing the development and inevitable errata and perfection of this game and producing many, many supplements, so a publisher had better be on their toes a lot more than this one has been.

 

[DonM]

We are getting on almost 2 years since any official errata to T5, yet the game is far from being perfected.

Errata .pdf 0.71 was published July 26, 2013. Now, it's up to the "committee", whatever it is, whether they want to treat it as a straight errata, or completely revise the combat system. Whatever approach they want will be appreciated. But I see no perceptible "community of interest" around the game any more; maybe the disappointment everywhere is just too palpable. To build buzz with a new RPG these days, you do everything that Traveller 5 has not. And there WILL be many, many new RPGs, outpacing the development and inevitable errata and perfection of this game and producing many, many supplements, so a publisher had better be on their toes a lot more than this one has been.

There is no "committee". There's Marc. And he does read this, and he's aware of the comments and criticism.

 

[Ted-Ebay]

Errata and perfection....

I have a hard time, listening to people who complain about a game and also those who insist on perfection in a game.

There is absolutely no way a game can ever be perfect. Someone will always find something they do not like about it. And why complain about a game that can never be perfect. Either constructively add commentary to possibly improve the game, or use another system.

Heck, there are so many systems out there, anyone could run Traveller using any system in existence, and do just fine.

For me, the one thing I have a problem with is organization; not a complaint mind you, I run Traveller 5th at 3 conventions each year in addition to whenever else I get to run it. However, it did take a good long while for me to organize my own index of most often needed page locations.

I do like the initial indexes that have been provided here, and I even took those indexes which were separated out by subject (Back when I first found them, they may have changed since then), and made one index out of the whole set. I also created a few of my own crib sheets for players to use for combat, character creation, etc.....that have steps and page numbers for referencing more information.

So updating the book with a great index would be great, but this is nothing new to this discussion.

Also, a more comprehensive list of skills would be good, and more examples of items, vehicles, weapons, etc.....

I am looking to see where I can post my stuff for ya'll to use if you like.

 

[David Johansen]

The problem is that it's hard to produce supporting material when you have no idea what changes will be made.

 

[Ted-Ebay]

The problem is that it's hard to produce supporting material when you have no idea what changes will be made.

Oh I agree, it is hard. Kinda just go with it and hope Marc likes it enough to allow it, or alter it as he sees fit, or laughs it right off the stage.

But it never hurts to put it out there and see, versus assuming it is not worth it and maybe missing out on contributing something we all end up using.

If it is something you like and use, then it is likely, that it will be liked and used by others.

I am working on gathering some of the stuff I use on a regular basis and posting it here for others to use. If they do, great, if they don't, no worries.

The only thing I am hesitant to do is post stuff that I use that I have gathered from unknown sources over the decades and not being able to attribute it to the original authors of the work. Hoping I can, but if not, should I leave it out, or just state that it is unknown and thank the mysterious benefactor for its existence.

I am also hoping to look more in-depth into the makers and see if I can contribute to those as well.

As for errata, I think we have covered all of the major problems, now maybe we can contribute ideas as solutions and see if Marc likes any of them, worst case he doesn't and tells us to stop, while best case is he likes it and incorporates it into the work.

 

[David Johansen]

The problem is that checking and correcting everything to match the updates is a bigger job than just creating new material.

 

[Ted-Ebay]

The problem is that checking and correcting everything to match the updates is a bigger job than just creating new material.

I agree, but I have to wonder.....if someone started it here, how hard or time consuming would it be if everyone pitched in to help make it right?

Isn't a group effort better than expecting the few to produce under constraint?

I personally, would love to help, if even only for the fact that it gets done, and we can move on to more stuff.

 

[robject]

The problem is that it's hard to produce supporting material when you have no idea what changes will be made.

The problem is that checking and correcting everything to match the updates is a bigger job than just creating new material.

That's where playtesting is useful. IF you've got an area of Traveller that you like to "geek out" with, then using it is play-testing. Your feedback to Marc is useful.

YOU might be the person triggering the updates, in that case.

That said, you could also benefit from knowing what's not changing much or at all.


Also, one type of supporting material that will never go out of date is the patron encounter.

 

[robject]

I personally, would love to help, if even only for the fact that it gets done, and we can move on to more stuff.

This to both you and David: what are each of you interested in helping with?

 

[Ted-Ebay]

Anything!

I even have a gaming group that is interested in playing Traveller 5th, so play-testing can be done as well.

Now, like most folks, I do have a day job; M-Th 6-5, but I will dedicate as much free time as I can to this.

Just let me know what you need most.

 

[Original_Carl]

I've been running a T5 game for over a year. We meet every other Saturday. What would you like to know?

 

[robject]

Anything!

I even have a gaming group that is interested in playing Traveller 5th, so play-testing can be done as well.

Now, like most folks, I do have a day job; M-Th 6-5, but I will dedicate as much free time as I can to this.

Just let me know what you need most.

Drop me an email: robert dot eaglestone at gmail dot com.

 

[Ted-Ebay]

<Cracking knuckles and dusting off all 5 generations of Traveller>

SO other than an Index and a comprehensive Appendix, what else do ya'll think might be broken in T5?

I ask only because some folks seem to have a differing of opinion on what is and is not broken.

Now keep in mind that in my opinion, not having a ton of: items, weapons, ships, etc.... is not broken, just inconvenient.

I also think that the addition of "Example Bubbles" to show how things work, would go a long way towards helping others get a clearer view of T5 mechanics, and maybe change folks' opinions on what is "broken".

Personally, I see a lot of inconvenient things in the T5 book, but nothing that is outright broken.

I am wondering if it is me not seeing it, or if it is simply a case of not fully understanding the thought process behind the mechanic?

Ya'lls thoughts?

 

[tjoneslo]

<Cracking knuckles and dusting off all 5 generations of Traveller>

SO other than an Index and a comprehensive Appendix, what else do ya'll think might be broken in T5?

I went through the BeastMaker a few months ago. While not badly broken, there are a number of inconsistencies that could be fixed.

The VehicleMaker rules are very limited. I found them unusable, but for a very limited definition they may work. I mostly found too many odd shifts in abstraction levels.

I've read through the stellar design system, and found a errata worthy items. I think a closer read would produce more.

 

[robject]

The VehicleMaker rules are very limited. I found them unusable, but for a very limited definition they may work. I mostly found too many odd shifts in abstraction levels.

I'd like to hear more. I find them quite usable.

The VM rules appear to me to produce the right range of Traveller-themed vehicles, and have lots of wiggle-room for trying to get what you want. I think there are tweaks that could be made, and there is certainly errata, but all in all it seems to work for me.

What bits in particular do you find limited, and in what way were the rules unusable?

Ah, it occurs to me that you might think VM is for creating historical vehicles. But surely there is no need for that: just map real-world performance and characteristics to Traveller's benchmarks, and you're done. In other words, a vehicle is a thing that behaves according to the same rules, just with different parameters tuned to benchmarks. Finally, you can use ThingMaker if you need to model the physical nature of things further.

 

[Daddicus]

New threads?

I suggest that we might want to start two new threads for errata, specifically pointing towards 5.09.

Ideally, the bug thread desires individual posts have certain information in them. If so, then we can automate some of the categorization. Off the top of my head, I think we should ask people for a page number and short (3-5 word) summary.

 

[Reban]

I'd second the call for a new T5.09 Errata thread.

For one thing separating it will avoid confusion on which version the errata is in.

New copy, new thread please