Traveller 5E

[Sigtrygg]

Oh !!!? Since when (I hadn't noticed.)

Does OTU stand for official Traveller universe or original Traveller universe... I have seen flame wars of epic proportion over this,

How about "a lineage of sci-fi games, originally conceived by MWM, and now including Mongoose, GURPS, T20, ..."

Does't cover running the OTU setting with a different game engine...

if I run the Charted Space setting with Genesys or the Y0E step die or dice pool variants, od 2d20 or... am I playing Traveller? If the setting doesn't make it Traveller then how about using the MgT rules to run Star Trek, am I running Traveller?

If it is the rules only then how do you account for the difference between the rules themselves - 2d6, nd6, d20 how can different game engines be the same game?

I can't answer the question by the way.

 

[Vormaerin]

Personally, I don't think the rules are actually broken. I think they are not explained. There's no "how to set target numbers" guidance. There's no discussion of when your expert broker system is offset by the locals' expert broker system. There's no clear discussion of how to frame task checks. They don't talk about when using extra time is reasonable (so we have people who think high difficulties are fine, because of course most people are using the take extra time option. Whereas I think if you take extra time to land your starship, traffic control is going to ream you. )

When I run Traveller, I like to emphasis Skill Ranks. And one of the ways I do that is by changing the question the dice are asking. The guy with Computer 1 is rolling to see IF they hack the system. The guy with Computer 4 is rolling to see how fast they hack the system. Not exactly a house rule, but certainly not a thing the rules say to do.

The game rules say in one place that you should only roll when it's dramatic and interesting and then they give example task checks that are like "park the starship without getting a ticket". IMHO, the situation should be seriously f'ed up before you have to roll to land your starship. So that 8+ to dock at the starport should not be read as a typical landing situation. But that's absolutely not clear from reading the rules.

 

[swordtart]

I think Average Difficulty is not really clear, Routine is more so. Routine fits the old, if you have the skill you succeed methodology.

Yep, it is like those model kits that have no instructions. You can piece it together, all the bits are there and once you get the hang of them you can get into a rhythm, but you will at some point put something arsey-versy.

 

[swordtart]

I confidently expect and entirely understand that you don't read the overly-wordy blogs from either of the very successful Traveller campaigns I run (I'm amazed that even the 30 or so regular blog visitors that I do get reading each site do so!) but if you did you'd be aware that we have great fun, despite it taking some sleight-of-hand from me.

Just out of interest where do you post this blog? I did try to find it but the only blog I get for Endie is for EVE Online.

 

[Endie]

Just out of interest where do you post this blog? I did try to find it but the only blog I get for Endie is for EVE Online.

There are two: one is for my latest Trojan Reach campaign at https://drinax.net/ and the other is for an Islands in the Rift campaign at https://traveller-rpg.com/ Looking at either you'll quickly run up against the brick wall of "this guy can't summarise": they're far too wordy.

The largely-Eve Online one was me, too, from back when I was an evil spymaster in wicked Goonswarm. Eve Online is a terrible game played by terrible people: it's basically just a great way to put your career, relationships and healthier interests on hold for a few years...

 

[Sigtrygg]

I think Average Difficulty is not really clear, Routine is more so. Routine fits the old, if you have the skill you succeed methodology.

I have started referring to the usual 8+ target number as the standard rather than the average for a while now. Check back and you will see me try to stick with this.

To my mind routine and average are the same thing, so I go with

Trivial 2+
Easy 4+
Routine 6+
then we have the standard check for a situation or to hit roll of 8+
Difficult 10+
Challenging 12+

The issue I have with difficulty target number is why use -DMs instead of changing the dificulty number, yes I know it is the same thing but why bother with a standard target number and then two different methods (three if you consider bane) to change this target number?

So I usually only use 4+, 8+ and 12+, or easy, standard, challenging.

 

[Vormaerin]

I usually just leave the roll 8+ and give an effect level needed to do the thing they want to do.. Which is, again, basically the same thing, but it frames the partial successes better in my mind. Just how my mind works.

 

[WHULorigan]

So I usually only use 4+, 8+ and 12+, or easy, standard, challenging.

What if it were:

5+/6+ Routine
8+/9+ Standard
11+/12+ Challenging/Difficult
14+/15+ Formidable

An aside: I personally don't like the term "Easy" either. Nobody should be rolling for easy.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I am seeing very few people agreeing that the current Traveller RAW are "broken".

There are maybe two or three taking that view (and some being pretty unpleasant about it). Maybe we could have a quick poll to see who thinks the rules are broken and see if a significant number agree and think either things (cyber wear, expert systems etc.) need to be removed from the rules (or labelled as potentially game breaking) because they are too powerful or that we need to throw out the 2d6 mechanic itself as it simply isn't capable of dealing with those things.

We could then move from a position of opinion to consensus.

You should start a new thread with an actual poll. Personally, I think a few elements of RAW are broken, but it is mostly good. Of course, I'm one of those people that pushes the setting to the edge and wants to have higher tech level equipment like robots and cybernetics be more common, so I am not an average GM/player.

 

[DeHammer]

I finally understand what this is. I'm genuinely surprised that someone not familiar with modern D&D has to dig around to understand this concept. I finally came across a Reddit post where someone simply stated... "5E is not Traveller 5th Edition. '5E' is common short hand for D&D 5th Edition, and they are converting Traveller into the D&D 5E game system".

Why does none of the '5E' advertising not start with this basic explanation and instead assumes everyone knows what '5E' means. That sort of simple oversight doesn't give me a lot of confidence. Even when they do describe it they say something like the Traveller meets the 'most popular RPG system'.... assuming everyone must know what that is. I haven't played D&D since the 80's, and I'm relatively new to Traveller.

My one question is.... will this new 5E Traveller be a skills based or level based progression system? For instance, will characters level up as in D&D, or is it still solely skills based progression like Mongoose Traveller? If it's level up based, I may pick it up just to have a truly different flavor of Traveller. If it's just skills based, I think it will be too much like Mongoose Traveller, and then I'll just stick with Mongoose Traveller.

 

[Vormaerin]

I finally understand what this is. I'm genuinely surprised that someone not familiar with modern D&D has to dig around to understand this concept. I finally came across a Reddit post where someone simply stated... "5E is not Traveller 5th Edition. '5E' is common short hand for D&D 5th Edition, and they are converting Traveller into the D&D 5E game system".

Why does none of the '5E' advertising not start with this basic explanation and instead assumes everyone knows what '5E' means. That sort of simple oversight doesn't give me a lot of confidence. Even when they do describe it they say something like the Traveller meets the 'most popular RPG system'.... assuming everyone must know what that is. I haven't played D&D since the 80's, and I'm relatively new to Traveller.

My one question is.... will this new 5E Traveller be a skills based or level based progression system? For instance, will characters level up as in D&D, or is it still soley skills based progression like Mongoose Traveller?

They probably don't have a license for any D&D trademarks. Like the term "D&D".

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

They probably don't have a license for any D&D trademarks. Like the term "D&D".

Use T20E5 as the abbreviation?

 

[Sigtrygg]

5th edition of T20? Even more confusion.

T⁵ for Traveller 5 and T _5e for Traveller using D&D5e

or just T5 and T5e.

In a couple of months the campaign will be over, we will get to see how popular it is, and the likelihood is T5 will be a forgotten tome before too long.

I wonder how many people for whom Mongoose Traveller is their first foray into Traveller even know of MWM's T5 since the electronic versions Mongoose has for sale stops at T4 and T20.

 

[WHULorigan]

. . . or just T5 and T5e.

This I find confusing.

In a couple of months the campaign will be over, we will get to see how popular it is, and the likelihood is T5 will be a forgotten tome before too long.

I wonder how many people for whom Mongoose Traveller is their first foray into Traveller even know of MWM's T5 since the electronic versions Mongoose has for sale stops at T4 and T20.

This truly bothers me to no end. I want T⁵ to get more exposure.

And I am also frankly a little bit tired of hearing about those who will not play (or make the effort to learn) an RPG unless it is D20 or "5E", and those endlessly pandering to them.

Sorry for the mini-rant.

 

[Vormaerin]

I don't find it particularly useful to tell people they are not liking the right things. If that's what people enjoy and someone wants to make money selling stuff to them, that's fine. I feel it's like complaining football fans don't support your local lacrosse team and it sucks that businesses make more football jerseys than lacrosse jerseys.

As far as T5 goes, I like a lot of things in it, but there's nothing in there that convinces me I should switch from CT/MgT2e. The things I like are mostly on the tech and builder side, not the actual character creation and gameplay side. *shrugs*

 

[WHULorigan]

I don't find it particularly useful to tell people they are not liking the right things. If that's what people enjoy and someone wants to make money selling stuff to them, that's fine. I feel it's like complaining football fans don't support your local lacrosse team and it sucks that businesses make more football jerseys than lacrosse jerseys.

I wouldn't tell people what they ought to like either. But there is a difference when people will not even make the effort to try something different, or see if they might like an alternative in addition to what they already like.

As far as T5 goes, I like a lot of things in it, but there's nothing in there that convinces me I should switch from CT/MgT2e. The things I like are mostly on the tech and builder side, not the actual character creation and gameplay side. *shrugs*

Same here. And I think the T5 ship combat and how the tech stage designs for ship equipment interacts with it is highly intriguing.

But I think there is a gem in the rough in the T4/T5 multi-D6 dice mechanic. It has it's issues RAW, but I think there is a path forward with a simple fix that takes care of the Stat-dominance of task resolution (putting the weight back on skills) and eliminating the TIH-mechanic kludge altogether.

I would someday like to experiment with a simplified T4/T5 Hybrid Game System.

 

[Vormaerin]

The stat dominance is definitely one of the things I don't like about the system, yeah.

 

[WHULorigan]

The stat dominance is definitely one of the things I don't like about the system, yeah.

I have yet to tweak it and run it through play test, but I believe AKAramis already has for a very similar version.

Basically, the tweak is that you leave the task roll largely as is, except skill-levels subtract a difficulty die instead of giving a +1 Mod to the task number. So skill is pitted directly again't difficulty.

I haven't looked at it in a while, so I forget whether I had determined that 2D6 or 3D6 worked best for the Standard difficulty throw (and whether that was for T4 or T5). So if I use T4 skill levels (which are comparable to CT & MgT) and choose the Standard-difficulty task throw as 3D6 for my illustration (and I always add in the "half-die" or D3, for good measure for all difficulty levels; it can be used or ignored for a number of different things) . . .

If you have Skill-1 in a relevant skill, it is now 2.5 D6. If you have Skill-2, it is now 1.5 D6, etc.

If it is Difficult or formidable (4.5 D6 or 5.5 D6 base roll), higher skill subtracts dice as above. You are still aiming to roll under the target number of [STAT + Mods]. Skill-0 (Familiarisation only) means you are rolling under 3.5 D6 for Standard tasks, so you probably only want to be doing Routine/Easy stuff (2.5 D6 Base roll).

The half-die (0.5 D6, or D3) result I can secretly or openly retain or discard, or otherwise use something from it to make a decision as GM. It also allows me to have a special success/failure roll (either all "1's" or 3 "6's") even on a 2D6 roll, as long as a full proper D6 is being used to calculate the D3 ("1" = 1-2, but you need a rolled "1" to count towards special success, and ditto for special failure with "6's": 3 rolled "6" on any number of dice is special failure; 5-6 = "3" but a rolled "6" will count as one of the "6's" for the determination.

 

[Takei]

or just T5 and T5e.

This is how I see it going on the various boards. Time will tell.

I wonder if here and/or CotI will have a separate 5e sub-forum?

 

[Sigtrygg]

This I find confusing.

I concur

This truly bothers me to no end. I want T⁵ to get more exposure.

It is a truuely awful game but a useful toolbox for Charted Space. There is a lot os stuff in it I mine for idea, but it is still in need of at least two more editorial passes, and a complete re-write of the rules to make them work. I know people say they have run it, but when you ask follow up questions they always have to house rule bits.
The T4 rules upon which it is based were awful too, with the exception of how damage was handled, and the psionics rules.

And I am also frankly a little bit tired of hearing about those who will not play (or make the effort to learn) an RPG unless it is D20 or "5E", and those endlessly pandering to them.

It is all that a lot of people know. I remember ridiculing RuneQuest back in the day until I got to play it and run it. As to Traveller i still have friends who refuse to play it if we use 2d6... yet they are happy with BRP, Aftermath, White Wolf or any other rules I use to run exactly the same scenario as I was going to run with 2d6.

Sorry for the mini-rant.

Quite a mild rant really

Adendum.

When I first heard the news "Mongoose to release T5" I allowed myself a moment to hope that Mongoose were going to re-write T5 with the MgT engine. What a great game that could be. Chris and Geir with free reign to fix stuff and bring balance to the force. Art layout and graphics up to today's excellent Mongoose standards.

I look forward to the 5e version, especially with a GDW alumni at the helm, but I would have thrown an awful lot of money at a MgT T5 kickstarter...