1st Preview up for Mongoose Traveller

[Echo]

Go to the pdf downloadable magazine Signs and Portents:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1533&qsSeries=13

Points of note:

a) The design of the books looks very similar to Classic Traveller.
b) The corebook will fulfil the same function as the original three LLBs.
c) Core mechanic looks to be 2D6 + skill (+ Char-7) vs Target number....but the effect of Characteristics hasn't been decided yet.
d) Chargen will have random and points-based options.
e) Lots of supplements and gameworlds in support, including Classic Imperium setting, Starship Troopers, and the 2000AD lines, Strontium Dog, Judge Dredd and Nemesis(?). There is reassurance that Babylon 5 will remain a d20 line, but there may be some Traveller supplement in the future too.

Looking good to me!

I'd still be considering the core mechanic of having Characteristic bonuses/penaties if they are above/below the target number though and/or the MT option of Characteristic/5 or somesuch. 'Characteristic-7' looks a slightly high variable range for my preferences (Basically, +/-0-5). I like the notion of skill level representing 'years of experience', rather than just being totally abstract myself, although how this pans out in practical terms, I'm not sure. Still, I'm pretty happy it's a roll high system again.

 

[Vargas]

Saved it to read later. Thanks!

 

[Tobias]

Looking good to me!

I hope that the term "Games Master" instead of "Referee" isn't final...

'Characteristic-7' looks a slightly high variable range for my preferences

As I said before: "Characteristic -7" is mechanically the same (exactly the same) as "Characteristic", without subtracting anything (and with the default difficulties being 7 points higher.) So what you are looking at is 2d6+Characteristic+Skill vs. TN.

 

[Echo]

'Characteristic -7' isn't completely identical to 'Characteristic', because it starts at a -5 base. Because skills are only represented in positive number, and don't have a negative equivalent, it means that they are still technically more influential than Characteristic scores.

That said, I would prefer a smaller influence from Characteristic scores - more like: +/- 1 or 2 (3 in the extreme), than +/- 1 to 5.


Oh, and yes, I'd prefer the more generic "Referee" term to stay, if possible.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I'm cautiously optimistic...

 

[far-trader]

I wasn't going to get back into this but as I can't get to the material I need to work on my pbp at the moment and, well, I am an opinionated sob so...

I'd still be considering the core mechanic of having Characteristic bonuses/penaties if they are above/below the target number though and/or the MT option of Characteristic/5 or somesuch. 'Characteristic-7' looks a slightly high variable range for my preferences (Basically, +/-0-5). I like the notion of skill level representing 'years of experience', rather than just being totally abstract myself, although how this pans out in practical terms, I'm not sure. Still, I'm pretty happy it's a roll high system again.

As I said before: "Characteristic -7" is mechanically the same (exactly the same) as "Characteristic", without subtracting anything (and with the default difficulties being 7 points higher.) So what you are looking at is 2d6+Characteristic+Skill vs. TN.

'Characteristic -7' isn't completely identical to 'Characteristic', because it starts at a -5 base. Because skills are only represented in positive number, and don't have a negative equivalent, it means that they are still technically more influential than Characteristic scores.

That said, I would prefer a smaller influence from Characteristic scores - more like: +/- 1 or 2 (3 in the extreme), than +/- 1 to 5.

See my comments re this below, after the quote from Matthew...

Traveller is a game that has always been close to my heart.

That's a comfort, especially considering the editor in charge (see the Chris quotes below).

A chance conversation with someone who has worked on various Traveller projects finally got things into gear...

Who? Inquiring minds want to know. Well, not really but I am a bit curious, if only because they are soooo mysterious about it.

...we will be making the new Traveller Open Content, allowing anyone to publish (books or PDFs) their own ships, equipment, complete settings and universes – pretty much anything that can be imagined!

That sounds promising. Still not sure how that is going to fit with the whole "unfracturing of the fans and one set of eyes on the prize" or "and one rule to bind them all", to paraphrase.

A lot of debate has taken place on the core mechanic that will be used behind the new game. At the time of writing, we are currently using what has been called the T5 Roll High mechanic, which is;

2D6 + Skill + (Characteristic –7), to match or beat a Difficulty target.

We are still tinkering with the effect Characteristics have on the mechanic,
and the –7 is by no means set to stay. We are aiming for a mechanic whereby a character’s skill is the most important factor but very good or truly awful Characteristics can have an effect.

Not enough debate then for many But it sounds like the goal is still being chased. At least it is a Roll High mechanic. Something will have to be done about that Characteristic influence though. As it is now it is unbalancing. A fellow COTI member had a pretty good system here a while back, until he went (imo) a little too far with the detailing and complication

As for character creation, that old chestnut of Traveller, yes, it will still be possible to die during the process!

Why? It is the single most ridiculed mechanic of the original rules and has been all but written out since the (second?) reprinting of the core rules. Still the "other" gamers laugh at Traveller and snigger about "your character died in character creation" :nonono:

That said it was critical to a proper appreciation of the survival rule of chargen and I'm actually a fan of the rule. The watered down "injured out" option changed char gen for the worse imo. Without a serious consequence everyone rolled until they failed survival to maximize their skills and benefits. There was no reason not to. Even the aging rolls were not enough of a deterrent. The only thing that stopped the players from rolling was failing survival or reenlistment.

What's needed is a new penalty that will re-instill that "game within the game" of balancing another term or service against the chance of failing to "survive" it. Something like losing not only the benefits of that term but the previous term as well (skills, wealth, promotions). Something to put the "gamble" back into the generation.

Q - Are you looking forward to working on Traveller?

A - Yes! Which is surprising considering that I’m not a fan of sci-fi in general. I see this as a great opportunity to extract all the best bits and Do It Right – update it for the 21st century, that sort of thing. I’ve got the omnitalented Gareth Hanrahan – so great that his secret identity is Batman – doing the core rules and I’m negotiating with a Traveller expert to do the first setting (the Spinward Marches, a region of space so turbulent it makes the inside of a spin cycle washing machine look static and so famous it got a speaking part in Terminator 3), so I’m optimistic.

Well, that starts off rather frighteningly. :file_19: "not a fan of sci-fi" in charge of Traveller. That's a bit discomforting to me.

The "Do It Right" sentiment may be ok, as long as he doesn't mean everything becomes all nanotech and cyborgs and microcomputers and AIs. Those things ARE NOT Traveller. Do we need an omni-talented superhero by day working on this by night?

I'm cautiously optimistic...

I wish I had your level of hope Andrew. But then I think I'm firmly in the camp of "not interested thanks" on this, which Mongoose at least recognizes as a valid position and respectfully is willing to let us continue while they go their way. Which I in turn respect, if grudgingly.

 

[Commander Drax]

It seems like a pile of shit to me! I can't see anything new other than yet another crap task system and an attempt to sell us the same old stuff (with extra's)...

 

[Echo]

Well, that starts off rather frighteningly. :file_19: "not a fan of sci-fi" in charge of Traveller. That's a bit discomforting to me.

I think the term is 'professional writer' - he writes for the company, not for personal interest.

The "Do It Right" sentiment may be ok, as long as he doesn't mean everything becomes all nanotech and cyborgs and microcomputers and AIs. Those things ARE NOT Traveller. Do we need an omni-talented superhero by day working on this by night?

Don't forget that this game is supposed to be able to hang multiple sci-fi settings on. Some settings may well include nanotech, cyborgs, microcomputers and AIs, and a sci-fi game system should be able to include these things well.

 

[far-trader]

I think the term is 'professional writer' - he writes for the company, not for personal interest.

Sure, but you wouldn't hire a carpenter who wasn't a fan of paint, preferring woodstain, to repaint your house, professional builder or not. Not if you want the painting done properly.

Don't forget that this game is supposed to be able to hang multiple sci-fi settings on. Some settings may well include nanotech, cyborgs, microcomputers and AIs, and a sci-fi game system should be able to include these things well.

Is it? Really? I was under the impression that this was Traveller and that the hanging of other settings on the Traveller core rules was the way it was working. So any setting specific differences from Traveller would have to be included in the specific setting book. It's Hunter and others that are working on generic sci-fi rules since Marc has decided that the only license for Traveller will soon be Mongoose (and GURPS).

RTT (or whatever) is not supposed to be any more generic than GT, and presumably much less even since RTT is supposed to be compatible with T5.

I do agree, a generic sci-fi rule set should include all that, but RTT is Traveller, not generic. Unless I missed a memo.

 

[RandyT0001]

I agree with you Far Trader. As far as the choice of writer goes I suggest the comparison would be more like a classical composer and a rock and roll musican. He's not a fan of sci-fi in general so he's not really interested in StarTrek, Star Wars, Firefly, Isaac Asimov, Frank Herbert, etc. and by extension Traveller. He's talking with a 'Traveller expert' to (re-)create the Spinward Marches. Why doesn't Mongoose just hire this 'expert' on a contract basis to write this material, they would probably be more interested in the material and it's faithfulness to being "Traveller".

As to the additions of nanotech, common AI's, trans-humanism to a "Traveller" core book that is supposed to be the basis of all of Traveller I agree with Far-Trader in saying that isn't Traveller. If other settings have that type of material it should be detailed in that setting book, not in the core rule book.

I'd be a shame to see nanotech, cyborgs, powerful AI's, trans-humanism to be incorporated into the Traveller core rulebook and then see omissions of basic starship construction (like in LBB2) or basic world generation (like LBB3) because those details will be presented in other supplemental 'core' rulebooks.

IMO

And in Chris Longhurst's interview in S&P it lists his dislikes as science. SCIENCE? Mongoose is going to have an author that dislikes science to write Traveller material? That's the best they can do? They can't contract with Loren or Hunter or Martin, etc. to write this material? This is beginning to appear more and more like looking into a black hole (Chris, you can look here to get a basic understanding of black holes and maybe the joke if you're interested (but I doubt you'd do that considering your dislikes).)

 

[hunter]

The mechanic I have a minor issue with. -5 to +5 as a modifier on a 2d6 roll is too extreme, -3 to +3 would be more along the lines of what I would go with. And why go with Characteristic - 7 in the mechanic? This is going to be precalc'd anyway and not done during each roll. Why not simply add a Characteristic Modifier table and say 2D6 + Skill + Characteristic Modifier vs TN?

Beyond that, it's CT. Though I hope skills don't range 0-15 as I have seen suggested.

My main issues with the preview:

Death in character generation again????? For the love of God, why? That's a 'chestnut' that was ignored by most almost from the day CT was released. I wouldn't even add it as an option.

And the covers? Look I love the old Traveller LBBs, but those aren't going to draw the attention of people who aren't familiar with Traveller and looking for a SciFi system to play. I'd have gone with something more along the lines of our Traveller's Aide covers.

And they could have at least used the right font...

 

[Gruffty]

Off to a good start, then, eh?

In the current edition of S&P "the Editor" (whoever that is) gets things off to a good start by saying that the mock-up cover images of the MongTrav books are on p. 8 of this issue of S&P.........
when, in fact, they're on p. 13 :nonono:.........

This does not bode well, IMO, given the poor quality of some of the Runequest stuff they've produced.......

Anyway, I wait to be im*/de*-pressed (*: delete as appropriate).

 

[Gruffty]

The mechanic I have a minor issue with. -5 to +5 as a modifier on a 2d6 roll is too extreme, -3 to +3 would be more along the lines of what I would go with.

Flux, it's called. And it can "flux" off, AFAIAC.

And why go with Characteristic - 7 in the mechanic? This is going to be precalc'd anyway and not done during each roll. Why not simply add a Characteristic Modifier table and say 2D6 + Skill + Characteristic Modifier vs TN?

I agree. Why over complicate things? In CT, characters get the Advantageous Characteristic DM for various weapons (you know what I mean, a DM +1 for DEX 9+ when using a WibbleRifle... ). These tables even include negative DMs for poor characteristics as well. Simple, straight forward.

Beyond that, it's CT.

But is it though? We can't really say that until we've seen some rough concepts, at least.

Though I hope skills don't range 0-15 as I have seen suggested.

By Jove, I hope not, too. A +15 DM on a throw is over the line into Munchkin-gaming.

Death in character generation again????? For the love of God, why?

Cos it's Traveller, that's why. And the starship computers will be flux-ing *HUGE* too

That's a 'chestnut' that was ignored by most almost from the day CT was released. I wouldn't even add it as an option.

I dunno why they'd keep it in, other than because "it's Traveller".

And the covers? Look I love the old Traveller LBBs, but those aren't going to draw the attention of people who aren't familiar with Traveller and looking for a SciFi system to play.

Ditto. LBBs were way-kewl in the day, but not now.

I'd have gone with something more along the lines of our Traveller's Aide covers.

I agree again.

And they could have at least used the right font...

Yeah, and what's with the little pointy-bee-sting-thingy on the end of the line? I know they're only draft mock-ups, but hey. Ominous, I tell ye, tis ominous.........

 

[Commander Drax]

who else has seen the cover for 760 patrons, mmmm quality, not!

 

[Tobias]

Flux, it's called. And it can "flux" off, AFAIAC

Well, the basic idea behind "Flux" systems, which generate a modifier with an average of 0, is usually to scale difficulties and skills in the same range. Feng Shui, with its 1d minus 1d system, did this to good effect.
But if you use 2d6, you can as well do a straight 2d6+stat+skill > TN. No sense in beating about the bush.
I would like to mention again (and again... and again...) mention my suggestion to scale characteristics at 1-5, same as skills.

Well, but in any case: There'll be an SRD of this, so I'll be able look at the core system and then decide whether to add RTT to my collection of Traveller rule systems or not. If not, maybe I can at least salvage some good supplements.

 

[Golan2072]

So far, it looks like a distilled version of CT with some of the most glaring flaws of CT (death at chargen) left inside and with a mediocre task system added for good measure. Until I see solid proof to the contrary of this, I'm sticking with the CT books I already have and the house-rules I've added to them.

The only good thing I see about MonT so far is that a Traveller system is going to become OGL - which is a great thing.

 

[Echo]

"Why not simply add a Characteristic Modifier table and say 2D6 + Skill + Characteristic Modifier vs TN?"

Beacuse it requires a secondary line of information on your character sheet, which in turn makes the actual Characteristic score redundant. Just because they do it in D20, doesn't make it right!

Like I say, my preference would be for the non-fixed Characteristic bonus:

2D6 + skill vs Difficulty Target Number (TN, from 1-15)
+1 if applicible Characteristic is over TN.
+2 if applicable Characteristic is double TN.

Try it. It really works!

 

[hunter]

"Why not simply add a Characteristic Modifier table and say 2D6 + Skill + Characteristic Modifier vs TN?"

Beacuse it requires a secondary line of information on your character sheet, which in turn makes the actual Characteristic score redundant. Just because they do it in D20, doesn't make it right!

Whereas always using Characteristic - 7 doesn't make the characteristic redundant???

This is going to be the first thing most people will do. Precalculate the value and write it next to the characteristic.

Like I say, my preference would be for the non-fixed Characteristic bonus:

2D6 + skill vs Difficulty Target Number (TN, from 1-15)
+1 if applicible Characteristic is over TN.
+2 if applicable Characteristic is double TN.

Try it. It really works!

You'll almost never get a +2 bonus this method. And target number will run higher than 15 I can almost guarantee you even is skill ranks only range 0-5 and 0-15 as has been suggested.

 

[Echo]

Characteristic -7 isn't what I'm arguing for.

On the system I'm proposing (see above), you get a +2 whenever your Characteristic score is double the difficulty TN.

Essentially, characters with high scores of 10, 11, 12 or more will tend to get +2 bonuses on low difficulty tasks, and +1 on most other tasks. Players with average or mediocre scores get less bonuses, as they should.

A +1/+2 range is the same type of deal that you got with MT's Char/5. It's just it scales more closely to the difficulty of the task itself.

Personally, I think that +1/+2 is the right type of Characteristic influence needed on a 2D6 based, skill-driven system. If a "professional" skill level influences a Task roll by 3, then the Characteristic influence should be less than 3.

 

[hunter]

Characteristic -7 isn't what I'm arguing for.

Umm yeah I quite realize that...

On the system I'm proposing (see above), you get a +2 whenever your Characteristic score is double the difficulty TN.

Essentially, characters with high scores of 10, 11, 12 or more will tend to get +2 bonuses on low difficulty tasks, and +1 on most other tasks. Players with average or mediocre scores get less bonuses, as they should.

A +2 is something that won't be seen very often at all by any character considering that any task with a TN of 7+ will preclude even characters with a 12 from getting a +2 bonus on an average task roll.

It also doesn't have any penalty for those with penalize those with a very low characteristic score.

A +1/+2 range is the same type of deal that you got with MT's Char/5. It's just it scales more closely to the difficulty of the task itself.

Had problems with that one to begin with.

Personally, I think that +1/+2 is the right type of Characteristic influence needed on a 2D6 based, skill-driven system. If a "professional" skill level influences a Task roll by 3, then the Characteristic influence should be less than 3.

I don't really disagree, but the system as you have doesn't work well (IMO). It makes +2 bonuses extremely rare and poses no penalty for well below average characteristic scores.

Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean I think the idea is no good. The +2 bonus issue I could resolve easily enough, but off the top of my head I'm not sure how you could account for very low scores with such a system.