You've read one alien module you've read them All?

[Blue Ghost]

I've Just finished reading the three alien module from Mongoose publishing. then I started reading the FFE reprints of the original CT alien modules . except for mongoose traveller's descriptions of the Gvurrdon and Trojan reach sectors the information seems pretty much the same. I've also read the first three G.U.R.P.S. traveller alien books my question is:
Are all versions of Traveller alien modules the same, but packaged differently, such that I could Use for example MGT Aslan and Vargr in a CT universe?

I haven't read all the responses (no time); the GURPS alien books are more flavored than the original LBBs. They deliver the same info in terms of basic background material, but the GURPS books offer more fleshed out material and case specifics. The text in the original alien books (like with a lot of LBB stuff) is pretty dry. The GURPS books have personality when delivering crucial info about whatever it is you need for your gaming session.

 

[kafka47]

They're describing the same things, so obviously there's some similarity.

IMHO the CT ones are okay, the MT ones are brilliant, and the GT ones are somewhere in between.

What makes the MT brilliant was that they were better thought out in terms of a RPG and had been refined through discussions at the House Rag (Traveller's Digest). Plus, they had the "hard" job (creating the original backstory) already done for them.

The CT ones were a mixed bag depending upon the effort that went into their creation. For instance, I found K'kree to a brilliant concept but poorly executed. But, Darrians & Solomani were brilliant, IMHO. The Droyne were almost lifted from CT adventures, namely Twilight's Peak.

The GT ones did break some new ground, ie the brilliant Sword Worlds and I actually found the Zhodani one interesting in that it changed some of my conceptions of the Zhodani. Other ones, I found less engaging.

Thus far, Darrians by Mongoose represents the best (but I am eagerly awaiting Zhodani) - Aslan & Vargr are more like MT, the hard work done they then overlay the rules on top. But, there are some interesting innovations even in Cats & Dogs. The addition of whole sectors to the Traveller Universe is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[McPerth]

What makes the MT brilliant was that they were better thought out in terms of a RPG and had been refined through discussions at the House Rag (Traveller's Digest). Plus, they had the "hard" job (creating the original backstory) already done for them.

IMO this happened to nearly all MT. As it was (or so it seemed) a reedition of CT, but adding all errata and quite a lot of ideas given by the players along the years CT had been on the market, it was probbly the most 'playtested' of all versions.

Aside must be put the combat system, which was totally new and 'untried', and one of the most diverging from CT.

 

[zonk]

But, there are some interesting innovations even in Cats & Dogs.

I'm not familiar with Cats & Dogs.
Unless you mean the two MT alien supplements?

Vilani & Vargr

Solomani & Aslan

which, alas, I haven't read. I did get a chance at buying them cheap once but money was tight

 

[aramis]

I'm not familiar with Cats & Dogs.
Unless you mean the two MT alien supplements?

Vilani & Vargr

Solomani & Aslan

which, alas, I haven't read. I did get a chance at buying them cheap once but money was tight

I sold my spares to a close friend for $50 EACH... and the discount was his going away present. if you find them at a 2-digit price, buy... and note that V&V (aka Cogs & Dogs) and S&A (aka Rats & Cats) are both exquisite works.

 

[kafka47]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]IMO this happened to nearly all MT. As it was (or so it seemed) a reedition of CT, but adding all errata and quite a lot of ideas given by the players along the years CT had been on the market, it was probbly the most 'playtested' of all versions.[/FONT]

Sort of...CT had very porous frontier allowing ideas to bleed in from all sorts of sources because it was a pioneering SF game. Whereas, MT cherrypicked the best ideas but did not give it any innovative edge because of the perceived constraints of the Rebellion.

I say perceived constraints because if you read the designer notes, it was evident that this was an excuse to launch dreadnoughts at one another. The Wounded Colossus was one resolution, TNE was another. I prefer Hard Times by not keeping as a transitional product but more a permanent state of affairs for much longer than canon or 1248 dictates. For instance, I ran a campaign in Hard Times that lasted 6 years Game Time and Real Life time which long outlived the product...and because I had rejected TNE (because I felt that GDW rejected the viability of the Hard Times era - which they did), I leaped over TNE to play in Milieu 0 for a while before trying my current hand of playing in what I call the cusps of history (eras just before the big Milieux).

So, yes, there was terrible errata but what really hurt MT was the lack of experimentation or excitement. Had they gone full throttle into being a Star Wars clone - maybe, CT would have done better, as the Expanded Universe shows. But, the point is moot until Mongoose releases their Rebellion/War supplement. So, yes, GDW created the unwinnable war which led to stagflation and because most of the licenses were either small potatoes (like Signal GK) or fled the scene for greener pastures (FASA) or simply writing but not controlling the line Challenge or DGP...the result appears to be just repetition when it fact it was refinement but then the errata killed it.

So, I do hope that the Rebellion does make a comeback, as for me, it was an exciting era of play but it requires the Referee to go back to CT and pick up even more of what was learnt and build the experiment further.

 

[McPerth]

As I said already on other threads, the same thing that I think made MT so 'play tested' (being a reedition of CT with some changes and standarizations) was one of its flaws. It seemed to assume every MT player knew CT, and there seemed to be many assumptions of things given for known from CT.

Robots is the most evident example, as there were no rules for robots and yet in both Alien modules (as well as in some other places) there were robots described.

How can you guess what do the UPP's or brains described in the sagacity court robot (S&A), or the Shadan survey robot or Rueghz (both in V&V), or others unless you have CT book 8?

EDIT: ojnodered is doing a good job in this regard (robots), but he started it quite latter

 

[sfchbryan]

As I said already on other threads, the same thing that I think made MT so 'play tested' (being a reedition of CT with some changes and standarizations) was one of its flaws. It seemed to assume every MT player knew CT, and there seemed to be many assumptions of things given for known from CT.

Robots is the most evident example, as there were no rules for robots and yet in both Alien modules (as well as in some other places) there were robots described.

How can you guess what do the UPP's or brains described in the sagacity court robot (S&A), or the Shadan survey robot or Rueghz (both in V&V), or others unless you have CT book 8?

EDIT: ojnodered is doing a good job in this regard (robots), but he started it quite latter

When you get right down to it, Book 8 was the first book in the MT series. It was written by the same folks (DGP) and had most of the concepts that went into MT (minus the Rebellion, which was a plus in my book).

 

[McPerth]

When you get right down to it, Book 8 was the first book in the MT series. It was written by the same folks (DGP) and had most of the concepts that went into MT (minus the Rebellion, which was a plus in my book).

Though it uses some concepts of MT, it was a CT book. While the design system was more akin of MT's, combat system (hits) and skill list, among other things, were clearly CT.