T5 Has Arrived!

[EDG]

From what I've seen and heard of the current version (from what people have said here and elsewhere), it sounds like there is some potentially useful material in there, but it's buried in a ton of useless tables, obtuse text, bad writing, and unnecessary cruft. In fact, it doesn't really sound very different from the early drafts that I saw during the ill-fated CotI "playtest" - over-detailed, over-tabulated, over-acronymed, completely characterless, and severely lacking in explanation.

It seems to me that there is a huge disconnect between Marc and the people who have literally bought into his "vision" of T5 (which includes many of the people who are currently involved in T5's development) on the one hand, and the rest of the Traveller and RPG community on the other hand - and I suspect that this separation will only grow with time. This is the main reason that I have little faith in the ability of many of the people who are currently involved in the project to actually playtest it properly - I suspect that those who have fully bought into Marc's vision are much less likely to be able to test and criticise the game objectively, while the ones who haven't (which probably includes a minority of more skeptical people on the T5 private forum) most likely won't be allowed to do so at all or will be ignored.

That said, it seems that at least some of the idealistic vision is starting to be battered by reality, given that some of the people who have received the CD have already started to comment on the inaccessibility of the material. I guess we'll have to see how much of the idealistic positivity prior to the CD release will give way to reality as people start to wade through the texts. My guess is that the people who have been the most actively involved in the process so far won't complain as much since they've been immersed in it a lot more, while those who pre-ordered but haven't been participating in the private forum will be somewhat disappointed in what they've received. But we'll see.

 

[kristof65]

I gotta say I'm surprised Marc is still forging ahead with T5. The fact that it was announced well before Mongoose Traveller, and yet Mongoose Traveller still beat it to release says a lot to me. If I were him, I'd have set aside the rules portion, and focused completely on creating OTU canon material for ALL editions of Traveller.

Something like a large hardbound, game system neutral Library Data volume similar to CT Supps 8 & 11 would have been well received by a lot of Traveller fans without the current controversy.

 

[GamerDude]

GamerDude - you keep talking about "playtest documents" and "playtesting", but how much of that has really been done already with the T5 docs?

That's what I'm not clear on - has T5 actually been playtested yet? Because the impression I have from what others involved in its development have said is that it really hasn't, and that only now has it got to the stage where it could be - it's just been written is all. Which makes me wonder what influence or involvement (if any) the people who have pre-paid for it have had so far.

Well, your response makes sense since, and I'm guessing here, that you didn't have access to the private T5 playtest forum on CotI. Documents were added, updated, etc. there for everyone who preordered to use, comment on, and discuss. I guess that may not be playtesting for you but evidently Marc considers it since he thanks all the playtesters in the opening of the T5 PDF.

While to you it may not literally say "yes T5 was playtested", but to me (and I think any normal person) it says T5 has been playtested quite a bit up to this point.

If this doesn't satisfy you then please email Marc and ask him. Maybe his answer will satisfy you.

Enjoy.

 

[EDG]

While to you it may not literally say "yes T5 was playtested", but to me (and I think any normal person) it says T5 has been playtested quite a bit up to this point.

It's not really a case of what playtesting means to me, it's more what is commonly defined in the industry as "playtesting" (and the definition I'm using is pretty much same as theirs, so I don't know what you consider to be a "normal person" - presumably someone completely unaware of how things are done in the RPG industry?).

Proper playtesting means that people have objectively assessed and tried out all the systems, found where rolls and tables are open-ended or closed where they shouldn't be, discovered and corrected any statistical anomalies, located and corrected things that don't make sense, found the things that are over-complicated and simplified them down to the most straight-forward way to present them, found where things just don't work as intended in actual play and use, and suggested better ways to do or explain things that need them.

From what I've seen and heard of T5, I don't see any evidence that this has actually occurred yet, which leads me to believe it is just a "first draft". If it has actually happened though, then it desperately needs a different crowd of people looking at it who actually know how to playtest a product properly.

 

[Sturn]

The fact that the text of T5 is not "user-friendly" is completely sensible at this point in my opinion.....read on for an explanation.

It is not a draft meant for publishing at all, but a "preliminary version" as has been stated over and over. I believe the fluffy text, including explanations have been left out on purpose. Since everyone involved knows there will be many updates to the systems in place before the final version, I don't think anyone wants to waste time adding large blocks of text that will only have to be re-written over and over.

This is why it seems unwieldy as is. When a final version, meant for print, comes available someday then I assume the fluff, explanations, art, etc will be added. Until then, it would just slow the process down as the fluff itself gets re-written with each new draft.

Wait until a final version, then add fluff. Make sure the cake is done before adding the icing. Until then, T5 will appear half-baked, which is entirely sensible.

 

[rust]

From what has been discussed, T5 sounds very much like a late alpha, not a beta.

True, and compared with the Pathfinder alpha versions, which inclu-
ded even fluff texts and art, it seems to be more like an early alpha.
This also fits in well with the author's wish to keep it "under wraps",
which is quite common for such very early versions, while betas are
more commonly published in a way to get feedback from the widest
possible audience.

 

[captainjack23]

Its hard to know what to say in a situation where the most critical questions and comments are coming from those with no access to anything but literally years old versions.

Here are some answers: People have sat down and played it offline. People have gone thru the rules and etc for all the objective issues raised. More people are doing it now.

Is that a direct enough answer to direct questions ?


As to what version it is, it is what it is. That, I cant answer, and I don't think anybody could to anybody else's satisfaction on such a subjective issue. Worrying about what draft it is is really only relevant to those of us who have it, and those of us seriously considering getting involved in an ongoing development. And in the end, everyone makes their own decision based on what little info is out there. Or goes to the source, I guess.

The old versions may well look like rubbish (as some feel); that they don't now is enough proof that considerable work and development has gone on in the online forum, and in the offline work (which exists, no doubt about it).

If it is now or previously being developed by uncritical robotic fanboys, then, as Gamerdude says," oh well". One person's uncritical blinded playtester could well be another person's objective, enthusiastic players, a difference of opiinion only to be validated (or not ) by the final version. It'll die, or float based on how well it sells, when it sells , and if it sells.

Characterising the development of unseen rules by unknown playtesters by people not involved in the proccess by their own choice, seems a bit of a waste of time and resources.


If one wants in, and wants input, it's easy enough. If it isn't worth a 35$ bet , then it isn't worth it at all, and why worry ? Perhaps it'll be cheaper if and when it is released. Or one can spend the money on beer, and spend he time saved playtesting on drinking it.


Oh, and by the way,
Merry Christmas, all !

 

[Sturn]

Characterising the development of unseen rules by unknown playtesters by people not involved in the proccess by their own choice, seems a bit of a waste of time and resources.

I could be wrong but some of the posts above are from people who do have the lastest draft and have been within the private T5 loop, even if only observing.

But yes, I completely agree that those who do not have any direct knowledge of what is being done shouldn't be making posts based only on what they think is going on. That is completely misleading to others.

 

[GamerDude]

It's not really a case of what playtesting means to me, it's more what is commonly defined in the industry as "playtesting" (and the definition I'm using is pretty much same as theirs, so I don't know what you consider to be a "normal person" - presumably someone completely unaware of how things are done in the RPG industry?).

In all honesty (and as has been the case in a huge majority of the conversations you've participated in) NO explanation is going to make you happy unless Marc Miller comes on here and answers you.

Sometimes your responses and attitude make me think you actually have written your own dictionary so you can debate terms endlessly.

I'm Done

You Win.

 

[captainjack23]

Characterising the development of unseen rules by unknown playtesters by people not involved in the proccess by their own choice, seems a bit of a waste of time and resources.

I could be wrong but some of the posts above are from people who do have the latest draft and have been within the private T5 loop, even if only observing.

But yes, I completely agree that those who do not have any direct knowledge of what is being done shouldn't be making posts based only on what they think is going on. That is completely misleading to others.

Yes, that is true. And some are trying to sort out if they want to buy it or get involved, which is fair enough. Its the "critical questions + judgemental conclusions on an unseen process" I meant to address.

I mean, I'm not advocating shutting out discussion; anyone can have an opinion. And frankly, I can't shut people out, even if I wanted to.

However, I also think that there is an objective value to some observations that would be increased by actual evidence; and, if people want to partially critique a process based on objectivity, I'm just saying that it makes a better impression, that's all.

Felicitous Coneshining Period to all !
(the seasonal holiday on Remulak)

 

[EDG]

But yes, I completely agree that those who do not have any direct knowledge of what is being done shouldn't be making posts based only on what they think is going on. That is completely misleading to others.

It would be helpful if people involved in the actual process would answer the questions then. Not by using whatever cockamamie, bogus definitions of "playtesting" that they pluck out of the air, but by using the proper definition of it that everyone else in the gaming industry uses.

It's a really simple question - has it or has it not actually been playtested (as per the proper definition of the word)? Has that process that I described in my previous post actually happened? Yes or no?

From Sturn's post though, if this is indeed a "preliminary version" then it doesn't even qualify as a proper "first draft" - first drafts have all the fluff and explanation in them, they're not just a bare framework.

 

[captainjack23]

But yes, I completely agree that those who do not have any direct knowledge of what is being done shouldn't be making posts based only on what they think is going on. That is completely misleading to others.

It would be helpful if people involved in the actual process would answer the questions then. Not by using whatever cockamamie, bogus definitions of "playtesting" that they pluck out of the air, but by using the proper definition of it that everyone else in the gaming industry uses.

It's a really simple question - has it or has it not actually been playtested (as per the proper definition of the word)? Has that process that I described in my previous post actually happened?

AGAIN. Yes.

Any more questions ?

And, regardless of what you described, you have repeatedly insisted -here in this forum among other places - that assessing a game does not require playing it . Just objectively reading it. So, by your own definition, it absolutely meets a reasonable criteria for assessment; except that you distrust the assessors. Fair enough.

Now that said, I have a deal for you. I know you think I'm a major Jerk, and indeed I have been shabby towards you at times; but try to read this as a sincere offer.

I know and understand that you are unwilling to risk money on T5 -that's a given, and quite reasonable. And I know that you feel it needs, at the least, a proper critical read through; and that you doubt that the current developers and playtesters can do an adequate job.

So, in the "across the isle" spirit of the season, I'll happily send you the 35$ + postage for you to order T5. No strings attached, no nagging or reminding, no bullshit.

It's your chance to step up to the plate and have something authoritative to say to those who accuse you of judging without objective evidence. You can say: I have it, I read it, and it sucks....and here is why." At no financial risk to yourself.

Just send me a pm with a way to paypal you the money, or an alternate way to get you the money and it will be done.

And, regardless, Merry Christmas.

 

[kristof65]

I think I know what EDG is trying to say - in it's simplest form, it's "Is T5 a finished product or not?"

The fact that it's a product you have to pay for indicates that it is. The apparent fact that those who have it apparently aren't supposed to talk about it with those who haven't indicates it isn't. Obviously it's somewhere in between, in a haze that defies traditional expectations and definitions.

As I see it, there are a number of issues surrounding T5 that make me hesitant to buy into it, despite my love of all things Traveller. Depending on how many people like me there are, that does not bode well for T5.

Among the issues that have me hesitant to buy in:

- the lengthy development time and missed dates
- the controversy surrounding the pre-orders and play testing
- Marc's track record with T4.

Right now, the thing that really stops me from buying into T5 is this statement from Marc via COTI:

..., and so I am requesting that you continue to keep T5 "under wraps" in public. Please make what copies you need to run campaigns and test. I am simply asking that for public issues on the internet, let's keep working the way we have for the last eight months. We've come a long way, but we still have a long way to go!

Regardless of the actual state of the rules, asking that of people who paid money for a product sends all sorts of negative messages. Note that this isn't a trashing of the T5 rules themselves. They may be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I don't know. Even if they are, there is a dark cloud hanging over them thanks to the method of release and development issues.

Perhaps if T5 were the only available Traveller version available, my view point might be different. However, considering that at least three different versions of Traveller currently have rulebooks available, why should someone buy into something with such a cloud hanging over it?

 

[Chronus]

It would be helpful if people involved in the actual process would answer the questions then. Not by using whatever cockamamie, bogus definitions of "playtesting" that they pluck out of the air, but by using the proper definition of it that everyone else in the gaming industry uses.

I appreciate wanting to know the details before buying the product but I cannot help but wonder if your "gaming industry" definition of play-testing (which I bolded above) is as solid as you seem to imply. Is there truly an industry standard . . . especially now that more gamers are demanding to have their input in the process?

It seems to have gone the way of the software industry (gaming, at least). It is now somewhat common for computer games to go through many iterations with the buying public before it is truly deemed "complete" or "final" by those who purchased it. Is this becoming the case w/ publishing . . . now that the internet has made this possible? And if purchasers are willing to pay early to be in the creation process, is this really such a bad thing?

I'll definitely agree with you on one thing . . . the "final" product should be play-tested by a whole new group of people before going public.

 

[rust]

Is there truly an industry standard . . . especially now that more gamers are demanding to have their input in the process?

At least such a standard is developing, I think.

The current state of the art of playtesting probably is Paizo's playtest of
the upcoming Pathfinder game:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game

 

[rpg]

I could be wrong but some of the posts above are from people who do have the lastest draft and have been within the private T5 loop, even if only observing.

The comments I made earlier were written in the light of receiving the CD version. From some of the other comments it is clear that others are knocking it although they have not seen any of the files available on the forum for months.

The current Drafts do have a fair number of illustrations & fluff. Many of the files just released have only been reviewed by the inner circle - A handful of people who have been involved in the system design for years. In such a situation it is expected for places to be unclear, this is one of the reasons for having a larger group who have pre-ordered post comments & typos on these files. The broader members of the forum are now in a position that they can use the rules to play the game, rather than just create characters, trial the combat system etc. Comments being made on the private forum will effect the final release.

Those (like myself) who have brought into the preliminary edition of T5 are now able to further playtest the system beyond the initial testing by the inner circle.

states I gotta say I'm surprised Marc is still forging ahead with T5. The fact that it was announced well before Mongoose Traveller, and yet Mongoose Traveller still beat it to release says a lot to me. If I were him, I'd have set aside the rules portion, and focused completely on creating OTU canon material for ALL editions of Traveller.

Marc has been working on T5 for over 10 years, and now has a product nearing completion. I can easily see why he doesn't want to just ditch that work!

Having both Mongoose Traveller & the T5 CD I can see why the larger team at Mongoose have been able to beat T5 to publication. Marc could no doubt have published before Mongoose, but that would have reduced quality of the T5 system. The system as it stands in many ways beats the T4 system, which was rather a disappointment. I'm sure in the light of the experiences Marc had with Imperium Games over T4 that he wants to make sure T5 is RIGHT! Unfortunately that takes time.

I think I know what EDG is trying to say - in it's simplest form, it's "Is T5 a finished product or not?"

The fact that it's a product you have to pay for indicates that it is. The apparent fact that those who have it apparently aren't supposed to talk about it with those who haven't indicates it isn't.

Actually kristof65 the fact that the orders being taken, are specifically buying a 'preliminary edition' CLEARLY shows it is not a finish product.

If you don't want to risk $35 fine.

Personally I payed last February, & I don't regret it. So far I've actually got more use out of the T5 rules than from Mongoose Traveller. I not sure yet which rules I'm going to use for the campaign I'm about to start with my son (His first taste of role playing), but even if I do plump for the Mongoose rules I'll be using parts of T5 to fill in gaps.

Back in '87 when MT came out the system was similar to the extended CT I was playing at the time & deciding which rules to use was easy. Since then I've collected just about every edition of Traveller (as far as I know I'm only missing Traveller Hero). I've heard disappointing reviews on Mongoose Mercenary & haven't payed out for that - my CT version sounds better - but I've not seen it for myself so I'm not qualified to knock it...

 

[Ishmael]

gee

Those that have it and CAN make authoritative comments about it have agreed not to.
Those that want more can only speculate, in the absence of real information, as to whether it is worth the time and money despite a long gestation period and past data ( no longer valid? ) that indicates that it is based on a ruleset that most people don't like.

Given all the rules and versions of Trav that has come before, what could possibly be new and exciting in T5 that hasn't been done to death before and maybe already posted as a houserule on the 'net?
What is there that might convince me to use T5 instead of my own preferred methods?
What 'extras' are included for background generation that is better than what is already available? Keep in mind that "better" is very subjective.

Anyone who hasn't pre-ordered doesn't know and those that have can't say....

It kind of makes this whole thread kinda stupid, if you ask me.
-----------------------------

I'll just wait until its properly reviewed on-line and follow the usual fanboy vs skeptic rants before I decide.

 

[captainjack23]

gee

Those that have it and CAN make authoritative comments about it have agreed not to.
Those that want more can only speculate, in the absence of real information, as to whether it is worth the time and money despite a long gestation period and past data ( no longer valid? ) that indicates that it is based on a ruleset that most people don't like.


Anyone who hasn't pre-ordered doesn't know and those that have can't say....

It kind of makes this whole thread kinda stupid, if you ask me.
-----------------------------

I'll just wait until its properly reviewed on-line and follow the usual fanboy vs skeptic rants before I decide.

Good plan.

I'd note here that in fact the only request to not take discussion out of the playtest boards is for those who participate on the playtest boards. And even that is a request, not an agreement. You can buy it and rant or rave about it anywhere to your hearts content in all truth; you shouldn;t pass on the development issues from the forum to the general internet is all, I think that is asked. hell, you couldstart your own "T5 and whats wrong" website with forums and everything discussing your copy.

So relax. It's an inhouse playtest, with a semi-closed playtest group. Exactly like mongoose is doing, and has done, with every product they've put out for traveller since the core rules.

 

[Ishmael]

So relax. It's an inhouse playtest, with a semi-closed playtest group. Exactly like mongoose is doing, and has done, with every product they've put out for traveller since the core rules.

I do see EDG's point about playtesting though.
Is it being playtested? or just played.
That is to say... Is the designer actively following up on player's comments and suggestions? or is he so focused on his own ideas that he gives them short shrift because he doesn't want to mess with his baby.
Is play being done to 'test' extreme conditions and odd situations? What about attention to balance? Is this version being purposefully 'tested' to see if some of the absurdities of past versions crept in quietly?

Even if the base design is great, is it being weighed down with 'chrome' like Advanced Squad Leader was.

--------------

I know the code of silence was a request; its been said to be a request before. I can also see that its being honored.

Once its released to game stores, maybe I will buy it and make a website disecting it...who knows?

 

[GamerDude]

I think I know what EDG is trying to say - in it's simplest form, it's "Is T5 a finished product or not?"

Well, the CD-ROM that had been sold (and has been delivered) is a PRE-RELEASE version, and early look To quote the back of the CDROM Case:

This CD-ROM contains the initial material for Traveller 5, and is subject to change before publication in print form.

So I don't think it's the final version.

Also, a company doesn't have to listen to the feedback from playtesters... yes for the most part that would be a bad decision on the part of the publisher, but it's there prerogative.
Yes, the game has been getting played.
Yes, feed back from them has been provided
I have NO idea if any of it brought forth changes in the T5 rules.

But that's just my opinion. Your opinion, viewpoint and milage/kilometage may vary.