The Slaugthering Of Sacred Cows

[StoryTeller]

ok someone has to say it....there a re a number of creaky/dodgy old bits of system scattered thru the various renditions of traveller.....now, they do add charm, and even character, to a much beloved system, but how far would people like to see the fifth edition go? A total rehash? what gets saved? just curious (and someone save me from this username,please)

 

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StoryTeller:
how far would people like to see the fifth edition go? A total rehash? what gets saved?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's surely the $64K question. My opinions on what should be retained:

1) Career-based character generation - cycling through terms to acquire skills, promotions, etc. No 'point-based' character generation for Traveller!

2) A simple and self-consistent task system based on 2D rolls which values skills and characteristics equivalently and interchangeably (Oops, we've already lost that one! Maybe we'll get it back...)

3) The UWP - a string of alphanumerics to define (main)worlds in shorthand. Which is NOT to say they must be determined in the same manner they always have (in fact, they almost certainly shouldn't), but the shorthand format should remain.

IMO everything else is up for grabs. Changes I most WOULD like to see:

1) 3-D star mapping, at least as an option

2) more scientific (or at least more common-sensical) world generation

3) more realistic rules for trade & commerce (similar to, but simplified from, those in GT: Far Trader, perhaps)

4) Craft/starship design - a workable 'simple alternative' craft design system for those who don't have the time or interest to use a complex FF&S-type system

 

[Doctor Rob]

Roger most of that. However, I recall really loving the smoothe task and combat system out of Traveller 2300. Maybe something closer to that.

BTW, what's the word on the background for the next version of Traveller? Will the background resemble previous versions of the game, or will it be a more "generic"?

 

[StoryTeller]

Hmmmm....
1)definitely in agreeance(does that exist?) on the maps.....one of my bugbears from the original set was the 2d mapping system. Like so many aspects of traveller, tho, its ease of use and simplicity far outweighed my (at the time) need for "reality". And i spose that is where the crux lies.....simplicity v realism.....not only for us "old timers", but the new players that T5 will (hopefully) introduce to the imperium.
2)World Gen brings another point up....What gets shot out of the "canon", and does most of it really matter? IMO, no matter what happens with this, there will always be a pointyhead or two clutching their printout of Daibei Sector and whining "you cant change it."to them i say, "if the essence is the same, the details are secondary". One might reply "god is in the details", but if the essence of any change (say to world/system/starfield gen) is self consistent, then you have the best of both worlds (or in this case, thousands)
3) Trade and commerce has taken a beating in traveller through all of its versions IMO, so any change would be welcome....my prob here was always the "engine"(method) used to derive results. Either too easy to manipolate, or too much effort for a bland result. It would be nice to see a self-consistent "engine" within the core of the rules, so that any table, task, or creation system can be "related" to another, not directly per se, but as parts of the same overall "process" of the game.
4) The second biggest seller for me with TNE (still my fave Version-no hitting!!) was that i could build things....and im no gearhead. But having a big fat book full of self consistent rules for how things related to each other made my day as a GM. Now this can be simplified and streamlined as you like, but ship design and other designs are crucial to Traveller....and one of its strongest selling points, a "trademark" of the game system.
Phew this got a bit longer than i thought!The sheer hady thrill of discussing this game with other ppl who think about how it works, i spose. I also see a theme or two emerging in my own thoughts thru this..... self consistency and the ability to relate parts of the game thru its "engine". the power of group thought.....
Bryan "save me from this username" Grivell

 

[Darium]

By jove I think he's got it ; simplicity, consistancy, expandability . Whoo ha ! Remember its game, have fun !

 

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StoryTeller:
2)World Gen brings another point up....What gets shot out of the "canon", and does most of it really matter? IMO, no matter what happens with this, there will always be a pointyhead or two clutching their printout of Daibei Sector and whining "you cant change it."to them i say, "if the essence is the same, the details are secondary". One might reply "god is in the details", but if the essence of any change (say to world/system/starfield gen) is self consistent, then you have the best of both worlds (or in this case, thousands)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check out the post by Chris Thrash in the Imperial Interstellar Scout Service forum about how to make a logical, self-consistent Second Survey. The truly Canonical material, i.e. GDW's Altas of the Imperium, isn't all that detailed and leaves plenty of wiggle room to massage something sensible out of it. True, we'd have to sacrifice most of the DGP Sector Data, but a lot of that's probably better off de-canonized regardless. The same goes for T4's First Survey <spit>.

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doctor Rob:
Roger most of that. However, I recall really loving the smoothe task and combat system out of Traveller 2300. Maybe something closer to that.

BTW, what's the word on the background for the next version of Traveller? Will the background resemble previous versions of the game, or will it be a more "generic"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I myself wouldn't mind seeing the 2300 combat system. But the 2300 Task system, for all major intents is the same as MT except you roll 1d10 instead of 2d6, and you can expect an extra point of attribute DM, due to the higher att scale.

One thing, though... 2300 is someone else's (currently), and not Marc's, isn't it?

------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[halofgazal]

Unfortunately, we have not seen much from Avery on the subject of what he is working on for T5 recently (or even any confirmation that he is in fact still at work on the system). For example, all we know about the task system is that he has dropped half-die. This could mean that he has totally revised the basic task system, or simply that he has gone to a 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D progression.

Certainly, from the T5 task system forum there is an indication that certain players simply wish to overhaul the DGP task system (not a bad idea, but Avery may be unable to use the DGP system because he does not hold the copyrite to DGP products). I personally like the idea of changing the target numbers to be rolled on 2D6 and increasing the importance of characteristics (dividing characteristics by 3 instead of 5) However, if Avery cannot use the DGP system because of copyrite (I believe the system was licensed to GDW by DGP), then it may be a moot point.

A few points that I would like to see in T5 (some of these have doubtless been made before):

1) Character generation should be based on terms of service and history (no levels!). It should include a least a once per term special assignment role (to allow for Commando or intelligence training, etc.). However, it should also allow players to choose their skills. Lets also get rid of anachronisms such as cutlass skill (it is "not so random or clumsy as a blaster," but useless against battle dress) and revolver (?) skill as standard skills for Marines. A college education should provide at least some skills, and OTC should be available for all services. Also, a military academy for the Imperial Army is a must.

2)Starship construction should be simple and based on a modular system in the basic rules. However, the results of the basic system must be compatible with the results from any more detailed FFS system that may come along later. Vehicle construction technology should be compatible with starship construction technology. This may mean that the design sequences (even if unpublished) have to be worked out before the game is published (to avoid the necessity of redesigning stuff once a sequence comes out).

3)I agree that some form of overhaul of trade and commerce rules is necessary.

4)Some of the technological concepts in CT/MT (and even TNE) are a bit dated. This needs to be changed. I would certainly not entertain widespread cybertech or nanotech (given the bias of Imperial society against such things), but the computer rules and electronic technology from T4 were a major step forward.

5)The basic rules need to be heavy on campaign background. The Traveller universe is very special and cannot be described in 4 pages of library data and a reprint of "The Stars" essay. This is an area in which GURPS Traveller really shines. As a side note, the designers should not be afraid when designing sector maps for any new time period to simply assign likely UWPs for important worlds rather than make the capital of the Chanestine Kindom an obvious backwater of the Chanestine Kingdom.

6)The rules must include a useable character sheet and forms.

 

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by halofgazal:
Certainly, from the T5 task system forum there is an indication that certain players simply wish to overhaul the DGP task system (not a bad idea, but Avery may be unable to use the DGP system because he does not hold the copyrite to DGP products). I personally like the idea of changing the target numbers to be rolled on 2D6 and increasing the importance of characteristics (dividing characteristics by 3 instead of 5) However, if Avery cannot use the DGP system because of copyrite (I believe the system was licensed to GDW by DGP), then it may be a moot point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This could be true, and would go a long way towards explaining Marc/Avery's seeming reluctance to even consider something like the DGP/MT task system, but there's no mention such an arrangement in the copyright section of the MT rules (or T:2300, which also used a DGP-derived task system). Also consider that Book 8: Robots was written by DGP and much of its content first appeared in early issues of The Travellers' Digest, but there was no apparent obstacle to including it in the reprints or, presumably, to using it in future editions (over on the T^20 forum Hunter mentioned that Book 8 systems might figure in a new set of craft design rules). While reluctance to use somebody else's design (either from envy/sour grapes or respect for that person's IP) may very well explain Marc's refusal to use a DGP/MT-like system, I suspect it's a personal/moral choice on his part, not a legal/copyright issue.

And besides, if it were a legal issue, he could've ended this debate back when it first started by simply stating flat-out "the copyright arrangement with DGP forbids using such a system" or even (as Loren Wiseman has done with many things TNE) "I'm legally forbidden to discuss this and am forbidden from even telling you why it's forbidden." That would surely have been easier than putting up with 5+ years of our harranguing.

 

[halofgazal]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T. Foster:

And besides, if it were a legal issue, he could've ended this debate back when it first started by simply stating flat-out "the copyright arrangement with DGP forbids using such a system" or even (as Loren Wiseman has done with many things TNE) "I'm legally forbidden to discuss this and am forbidden from even telling you why it's forbidden." That would surely have been easier than putting up with 5+ years of our harranguing. [/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point taken. In fact, I checked a few issues of the Traveller's Digest and can find no reference to exactly what the arrangement was. Unfortunately, I no longer have Challenge issue 33, in which it was announced that the DGP task system would be the central mechanic for MT. It may, of course, also be that because DGP was a Traveller licensee to begin with that Avery has free use of anything that they produced.

But anything had to be better than what the great minds came up with for a T4 task system. Even continuing to use a D20 roll less than Skill+Characteristic would have been better than half dice. However, your comment about Loren Wiseman may explain why this was not done.

Of course, we really don't know exactly what Avery has in mind for the task system, except that it no longer involves half dice.

 

[AndreaV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by halofgazal:
Unfortunately, we have not seen much from Avery on the subject of what he is working on for T5 recently (or even any confirmation that he is in fact still at work on the system). For example, all we know about the task system is that he has dropped half-die. This could mean that he has totally revised the basic task system, or simply that he has gone to a 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D progression.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually we don't know that the hlf die is gone. All Marc said was he was working on a version of the task system that didn't use it. This might mean that the half die has been condemed to the 9th level of hell, but I sort of got the impression it was only a variant system for those who don't like the half die.

Mind you I don't have any problems with the half die. Mind you again, I've added in lots more of them (my task progression goes 0.5D, 1D, 1.5D, 2D, 2.5D etc all the way up to infinity). And I've just describe tasks by the number of dice to be rolled, not their difficulty (eg Explaining to Strephon why you have the Iridium Crown in a sack: Int+Fast Talk, 9D, Fateful).

 

[Vargas]

I'll keep it simple as to what I would want:

Character Generation: MT style (which is really Advanced CT). I liked the attempt to create some equivalency between Book 4,5 and 6 generation and other, less detailed career fields (belters, enforcers, etc). However, DGP introduced a few new skills of dubious value (in my view; Robot Ops, Sensor Ops). I hesitate to suggest an advantage/disadvantage system becuase they often get managled, but I would like to see something along these lines as well as something which can incorporate hobbies and the like.


Starship Design: Basic= CT Book 2, Advanced=HG. Fix the ship/boat computer issue and add some sensors (but keep the implementation fairly high level)


Combat: CT Books 1 @ 4 for characters. Add some simple vehicle combat rules. Ship combat can be CT Book 2 but add a "cinematic version" intended to eliminate the vector movement system in favor of something more abstract.


World Generation: CT Books 3 & 6, with possible updates for building systems more in line with what scientists have been finding in the last few years.


Trade: (You guessed it) Stick with CT. I support the creation of a more "realistic" trade system (whatever you take that to mean) but it would be purely optional.


Animals: CT Book 3


NPC/Patron: Use CT


Dice mechanic: A set difficulty task system which takes into account both stats and skills. (I don't have a reference, but someone on SJG's JTAS site suggested a good means of incorporating stats).


Experience/Learning: Need a system which allows character growth, be it point based or task based.

That may not be everything but at least it's something to mull over.

[This message has been edited by Vargas (edited 17 May 2001).]

 

[William]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StoryTeller:
ok someone has to say it....there a re a number of creaky/dodgy old bits of system scattered thru the various renditions of traveller.....now, they do add charm, and even character, to a much beloved system, but how far would people like to see the fifth edition go? A total rehash? what gets saved? just curious (and someone save me from this username,please)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh. It's really easy. Take CT. Apply DGP task system. Apply errata. Reprint debugged MT as T5...

William

 

[PinkSplice]

William wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by William:
Heh. It's really easy. Take CT. Apply DGP task system. Apply errata. Reprint debugged MT as T5...

William<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo! But the Captain will never go for it.

Maybe we could get David Warner to play Marc?

Wally.

 

[Darium]

I think just doing that would sell short the creative input which can keep a game alive. By trying something new each time it makes the different versions distinct from one another.