Classic or Mongoose?

[gloriousbattle]

I am just getting back into Traveller after a hiatus of many years. I am sure this has been asked before, but please bear with me. How close is the new version to Little Black Books Traveller? I have heard that the systems arevirtually identical... or not.

I still have my copy of the original system, so I am curious. Also, I was an avid collector of the Non-GDW Traveller articles that were published in Dragon, White Wolf, Space Gamer, White Dwarf, etc. Would those be compatible with the present system?

 

[aramis]

I am just getting back into Traveller after a hiatus of many years. I am sure this has been asked before, but please bear with me. How close is the new version to Little Black Books Traveller? I have heard that the systems arevirtually identical... or not.

I still have my copy of the original system, so I am curious. Also, I was an avid collector of the Non-GDW Traveller articles that were published in Dragon, White Wolf, Space Gamer, White Dwarf, etc. Would those be compatible with the present system?

There is practically nothing the same except the basic stats and the damage to stats. Skill levels are similar, but the skill list very different; world gen is similar, but done in different order and with more stuff.

Ship design is also similar; you can readily convert CT Bk2 designs to MGT (but not the other way), usually gaining a few tons of spare space; PP fuel is often less for smaller ships than under Bk2, drive and fuel tonnages are almost identical (except MD A). Far more weapon options, 100 and 200 ton ships can use a smaller bridge in MGT, and computers take no space under MGT.

 

[Colin]

Conceptually, it is fairly similar, though. Bit and pieces are different, but if you've played CT, you should be able to pick up the basics of MgT with a quick read. Even the task system is merely a codified version of CT "roll 8+ to succeed" rule. In MGT, it simply gives you more modifiers to make the GM's life easier.

 

[Vargr]

Both systems are similar enough that you can run CT adventures using MGT (I know I did). The only challenge was adapting CT animal stats, as they differ considerably between both versions.

 

[Supplement Four]

I have heard that the systems arevirtually identical... or not.

You heard wrong, then. There are a lot of differences between MGT and CT. Many of the old guard are sticking with CT, while MGT seems to be pulling in players new to the game.

I suggest using CT rules and adapting MGT supplements if one catches your eye. Be aware though that MGT character generation produces a character with too many skills for a CT game. You'll want to stick with CT chargen if you're running a CT game (and the other way around if you go with Mongoose).

 

[gloriousbattle]

You heard wrong, then.

Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Supplement Four]

Wouldn't be the first time.

I'm sure you'll enjoy either game. Pick which one most suits your taste and have fun!

 

[Dagrill]

Hi,

I tried T20 a couple of years ago and gave up as too complex and started to reacquire the old little traveller books via ebay and came across mongoose.

I find it a nice smooth system which maintains the flavour of CT but gives a little extra. For instance there is a points buy method of character generation, which I use to create heroic military types rather than the usual average career.

Regards

David

 

[saundby]

Many of the old guard are sticking with CT, while MGT seems to be pulling in players new to the game.

OTOH, some of us old timers are running MGT, too.

I use a lot of the CT material in my game, the conversion from CT to MGT is easy. Don't run yourself broke buying books for the MGT if you decide to try it out--the core book stands very well on its own, and many of the supplements add less to the game than you might wish.

I could run either game and be happy with it. As it is, I use my CT stuff a lot for campaign-level design for my MGT game. I started my MGT campaign with CT adventures, as well. Presently I'm running a B5 campaign, so there's less CT in it, but when time allows I'll be adapting my old Doc Smith/Harry Harrison style campaign from CT to MGT so that I can run that again. (I've only ever run a 3I game for about a year after MGT came out. I never got any of the 3I stuff when it came out back when, I just used LBBs 1-3 from 1977 until 2007 or so when I bought the CT CD.)

 

[aramis]

I find the feel of MGT when played as written to be closer to that of mega than of classic. It feels more like classic than any other edition does, IMO, but Mega is my preferred, so it's a step down for me, but I love the CGen.

I am running it now with a hybrid MT/MGT task system.

I find that it's the best CGen of any edition; more control than any but TNE, and plenty of hooks; more than any other edition.

It will not give you a perfect classic feel, but it will give a solid Traveller feel just by using the core rules as written.

 

[Gray Lensman]

Doc Smith/Harry Harrison style campaign

Which Smith series are you using??

I have been adding bits of MongTrav to my game without much of a problem, but then I also use MT/TNE/T4/GT/T20 bits and pieces
added to My CT.

 

[Supplement Four]

I find the feel of MGT when played as written to be closer to that of mega than of classic.

I have to agree. MGT definitely has its fans, but for me, it's missing a certain something that CT provides.

Everybody has their favorite version, though. You just have to go with what appeals to you.

 

[Icosahedron]

OTOH, some of us old timers are running MGT, too.

I use a lot of the CT material in my game, the conversion from CT to MGT is easy. Don't run yourself broke buying books for the MGT if you decide to try it out--the core book stands very well on its own, and many of the supplements add less to the game than you might wish.

I could run either game and be happy with it. As it is, I use my CT stuff a lot for campaign-level design for my MGT game.

Me too. I'm finding that half of the PbP games I'm involved with are MgT now, and the other half are long-running ones. Finding new recruits for CT ain't easy.
Of course, what goes on behind the Referee's screen (especially with PbP) is another matter.

I'm convinced by the MgT chargen, I think it's a substantial improvement over CT and I'm pretty well converted. The combat, OTOH is pants. I'm still using an unsatisfactory modification of AHL. IMO, combat has been the Achilles heel of Traveller since day one. Each version has made it too simple, too complex, or plain dysfunctional. One day, perhaps...

I love the point-buy chargen system, it's simple and effective, and I like the task system to some extent, but I still use HG for ship design and Striker for vehicle and weapon design.

I still see myself as a CT player, but my CT is so houseruled that I doubt if anyone else would recognise it as CT - it just definitely isn't MT, TNE, etc.

It's all Traveller, and if you can housebash it into a coherent, functional reality that your players enjoy, that's all that matters IMO.

 

[saundby]

Which Smith series are you using??

Mostly early Lensman books, with a lot of Skylark. I level out the differences between the different technologies a fair bit, a lot of performance of, say, shields or inertialess drive, depends on skill levels of characters rather than the base technology (e.g. allotropic iron power vs. X catalyzed copper.)

I started this campaign back in the 70s, it went on hiatus about 6-7 years ago with only a few one-off games using it since. I want to get things reorganized and start it up again in a year or so.

 

[gloriousbattle]

Mostly early Lensman books, with a lot of Skylark. I level out the differences between the different technologies a fair bit, a lot of performance of, say, shields or inertialess drive, depends on skill levels of characters rather than the base technology (e.g. allotropic iron power vs. X catalyzed copper.)

I started this campaign back in the 70s, it went on hiatus about 6-7 years ago with only a few one-off games using it since. I want to get things reorganized and start it up again in a year or so.

Nothing as cool as Smith! Can I be a Plooran in your game?

 

[mbrinkhues]

As some said MGT is in many ways closer to MegaTraveller with the integrated task profile and all. If your choice is (Systems NOT Backgrounds, only availabel systems listed, NO houserules!)

CT or MGT

Choose MGT. Don't look back.

• CharGen is a LOT better with more careers, more details (Events etc). It even has a point based "NPC generating" system. And the stuff integrates better with no power creep or breaks between base book careers and supplement careers
• Universal Task profile
• Better skill list without too much skills

The only negative point in this comparison is that starship construction lacks power points/megawatt

Mega or MGT

Depends. My prefered would be MGT chargen and MegaTraveller techgen (Ships, Vehicles). Chargen is still better in MGT but rules sets are about equal and the detail level in the construction system is better. And some Mega supplements from DGP are still not matched by anything MGT has to offer (World Builder, Starship Operator...)

TNE or MGT

I'd go with TNE. The chargen system is to MGT what MGT is to Mega - one class better. It gives a player a nice amount of control WHAT he will end up with while keeping away from the "optimized" characters of a full blown point buy. Coupled with Fire/Fusion/Steam for Tech the TNE system is still the "gold standard" for Traveller

GurpsTraveller or MGT

Depends on your group and campaign style. For a more interaction-oriented group that glosses over many fine details of the universe like Techlevels (GT uses a compresses GURPS Techlevel scale of 1..12 instead of 1..15) and wants finely detailed characters from the rules GT is the stuff.


So my rating in descending order is

TNE
MegaTraveller
MGT
CT and GT

 

[gloriousbattle]

As some said MGT is in many ways closer to MegaTraveller with the integrated task profile and all. If your choice is (Systems NOT Backgrounds, only availabel systems listed, NO houserules!)

CT or MGT

Choose MGT. Don't look back.

Curious how tastes can differ in this hobby. I loved CT for its simplicity, and hated MT for what I saw as needless complexity

Always struck me as weird about GDW, that they would come up with the most complicated mathematical formulas to accomplish the simplest things, like High Guard, that involved abominable esoteric ship contruction rules, just so you could play a zero-maneuver game that really amounted to "line 'em up and start rolling the attack dice."

 

[aramis]

Curious how tastes can differ in this hobby. I loved CT for its simplicity, and hated MT for what I saw as needless complexity

Always struck me as weird about GDW, that they would come up with the most complicated mathematical formulas to accomplish the simplest things, like High Guard, that involved abominable esoteric ship contruction rules, just so you could play a zero-maneuver game that really amounted to "line 'em up and start rolling the attack dice."

Thing is, some people used HG as an adjunct to Mayday; for those people, it wasn't «a zero-maneuver game that really amounted to "line 'em up and start rolling the attack dice."».

For me, HG was a generation system, not a resolution system; I simply used the weapon factor as damage points. Not overly satisfying, but it did what I needed, and 99% of what I needed was simply ships as settings... for which HG was better than Bk2.

I am, in fact, not happy with any of the ship combat systems that saw print; Bk2 comes closest, and MGT really close. The MGT lack of drive letter damage (ignoring the playtest rules, for the moment) means that I can shut down a 1000 ton BC's factor Z drives with a single turret particle beam hit, if it does a double or better.

Most grog's Traveller games ceased being "____ Traveller" and went to "Hybrid Traveller" long ago... Pick, choose 2, modify to fit your concept.

For example, I dislike MGT's negative DM's for low stats; i instead raised all difficulties by 2, and use att/3. Same overall scaling... but now it's all adding.

 

[Seriayne]

Similar to Aramis

I love using the MGT for Chargen, but borrow skills learned during the course of the campaign (so far) from anything that makes sense - T4, MGT, CT, MT, favoring more generalized skill knowledge over super specialization in some respects.

Engineering, CBT Rifleman, Handgun, etc. instead of a lot of cascade specialization, for instance, though I do split off Astrogation (jump plotting + insystem newtonian nav.) from Navigation (Planetbound, stars, compass, landmarks etc.)

MT for skill rolls (Task system) - I don't like the penalties for skillrolls in MGT. Just my stat bonus is /5 - so you have to have fairly high to get a big bonus. Skill level (Training) > Stats.

For ship/veh design I like MT, just because of the nurnie details etc. If I want something from another version of Traveller, generally I just have to interpolate weight and/or volume, depending on which version of Traveller it is. For storytelling purposes, I'll use -any- version that has a datablock without worrying about whether it matches or not.

For spaceship combat one off's (1 ship vs 1 ship), I use a combination of roleplay and MT. For grand battles I write a battle system pretty much the week before that makes sense for the speed of narrative, drama etc. (Vectored thrust, abstract time and spacial scale x10, create hitpoints and damage systems based on factors and barrages, and only use the Critical Hit tables in certain circumstances - Boxcars + a third 6 rolled afterward or something.)

I've borrowed elements from each Full Thrust, Interceptor and Silent Death at various times in my life though all three of these rules systems are either lost or in storage at present.

 

[gloriousbattle]

Thing is, some people used HG as an adjunct to Mayday; for those people, it wasn't «a zero-maneuver game that really amounted to "line 'em up and start rolling the attack dice."».

Granted, and, since this hobby is full of people who are nothing if not imaginative, people use a lot of variant rules, whether for Space Dracula or adding maneuver into High Guard. I am just pointing out that this was how it was presented, even if it wasn't played that way.