Convert a CT Grognard--I Dare You!

[Supplement Four]

Understood. I'll check out the other threads in the MGT forum. I'm sorely tempted to by 0-8 from Marc's website just to read them and see the differences between CT and MGT myself. I haven't played CT in over 20 years, so MGT looks hauntingly familiar.

Again, I'd suggest the CT CD-ROM instead. You get all 8 books, plus everything else GDW put out, for just $35 bucks.

Read over it. Pick and choose. If you want hard copy of a particular book or series (like the 0-8 book), then just pick it up later.

Plus, if you decide to use Mongoose as your main rule set, having the CT stuff on CD-ROM will be beneficial because MGT and CT are somewhat compatible.

MGT has done a great job of delivering a game with a lot of potential in a relatively small package. I'm just wondering if I could get more of that from LBBs 0-8.

Some of the things I dislike about MGT and regard as poor design decisions is the ability to arrange stats to taste when creating a character. This loses some of the grit the CT brings to the table, and it feels to me as if the game gave in to he munchkins--the ones who don't take the game seriously.



Plus, MGT has a stat imbalance, imo.

I don't believe a raw stat should be capable of giving a PC a skill bonus of one level in every area of expertise governed by that stat. But, that's how it is in MGT.

Thus, one character could have Engineering-1, and another character could have an effective Engineering-2 just because a stat is higher.

This type of thing may work in other games, but it's especially a bad choice in MGT because of the 2d6 based system. A +1 modifier is a hell of a modifier when you're talking 2d6. A +1 DM is no small matter. Yet, MGT allows an automatic +1 DM just because of stat, regardless if that character has ever has explicit training in that area at all.

CT handles this so much better. Stats are applied on a case by case basis. Sometimes stat has a big influence on the throw. Many times, it's influence is marginal or non-existent. So, the throws are customized to the situation. MGT suffers from its one-size-fits-all task system (and especially the way stats are addressed).


I could go on, but if you look through the Mongoose forum, you'll see what I (and others) have said about the subject, and why I'm disappointed in what I was hoping would be the best version of Traveller I've ever seen.

Nothing, so far, has beaten the elegance of Classic Traveller.

It's THE Traveller game, imo.

I'm not saying CT doesn't have flaws. It does. But, it's still the best version of Traveller in existence.

 

[beowulf2044]

From what I've read of S-4's postings, he seems to have modifed Classic Traveller quite a bit. While I like MGT, the original Traveller has everything you could possible use. While MGT is coming out with numerous supplements, you could simply purchase the CT cd's and have it all in one lump (especially if you also purchase the JTAS cd).

You may have to fiddle with it a bit to get it where you want it, but some people enjoy doing just that.

 

[Supplement Four]

From what I've read of S-4's postings, he seems to have modifed Classic Traveller quite a bit.

You must be reading old postings. I play CT by the book today. (Of course, I've played modified CT, and MT, and even T4 in the past.)

For example, the UGM in my sig--the task system I developed for use with Classic Traveller (from which Mongoose made their task system strangely similar to mine)--is something I developed for people to use who want to play CT but have to have a formal task system.

In my Traveller gaming (and I do have an active gaming group), I use the straight CT non-structured task system presented in the rules.

 

[Poppyseed45]

From what I've read of S-4's postings, he seems to have modifed Classic Traveller quite a bit. While I like MGT, the original Traveller has everything you could possible use. While MGT is coming out with numerous supplements, you could simply purchase the CT cd's and have it all in one lump (especially if you also purchase the JTAS cd).

You may have to fiddle with it a bit to get it where you want it, but some people enjoy doing just that.

For me though, the problem is getting all of that stuff in print. See, I like books, and I hate .pdfs of things (doesn't mean I haven't bought a few - GURPS mostly, but it does mean that I barely read them). Frankly, MGT is in print, and does a good job of updating Traveller.

But that's been argued to death. Really, thing is, I like books. And getting the 0-8 Books (which I have) and Supplement 4 (probably only in print in the Classic Supplement reprint 1-13?) means I've got to shell out $80+ to get the breadth of character types (which was always my gripe with CT - I've mentioned this before) that I've got already in MGT.

Plus, task resolution. I think the task system is just swell - in fact, I'd say it's superior to CT's, if only because I can judge things as GM without having to open the rulebook to check it every time, and I've barely read MGT. Whereas with CT, EVERY SKILL has its own set of separate rules. Now, that's fine if one wants to dedicate themselves to such, but I just don't have time.

That said, CT is Traveller, the original. When I was young and time having, it was wonderful to do things with it - and I did. But now? Now I want to be able to play most of the character types I see in sci-fi WITHOUT buying extra books (which are collectors items now, no? According to Amazon's pricing).

I like MGT. It does everything I wanted books 1-3 of CT to do. In fact, it's what I've been waiting for from any sci-fi RPG. It has rules and references for making the sci-fi you want, if you don't want it to follow Traveller norms (like the one-week jump).

 

[beowulf2044]

These days I'm putting together an ATU from Core Book MGT. So far, it's lacked nothing I wanted to use (including Alien NPC generation). For me, the proof will be how well it works when I take the show on the road to the RPG conventions I attend. We'll see.

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

But the current version of Traveller is the one being actively supported and expanded,

No. The current version of Traveller is whatever people currently play.

It's gamers that define what's current, not publishers.

 

[Supplement Four]

For me though, the problem is getting all of that stuff in print. See, I like books, and I hate .pdfs of things (doesn't mean I haven't bought a few - GURPS mostly, but it does mean that I barely read them). Frankly, MGT is in print, and does a good job of updating Traveller.

I see a good point here. I'm not super fond of pdf books either, even though I do own a few.

And, printing a pdf can be quite costly unless you can sneak it through at work (in that case, your company is really paying the cost).

Plus, task resolution. I think the task system is just swell - in fact, I'd say it's superior to CT's, if only because I can judge things as GM without having to open the rulebook to check it every time, and I've barely read MGT.

Task systems are "my thing". I've studied them, written them, played them for years. I've been invited, twice, to create task systems for new rpgs.

I do like task systems, and they have their place.

Where you're wrong with your statement above (besides the fact that I think the MGT task system is stat-heavy on the 2d6 system) is that you don't have to go to the rulebook every time you want to roll a task. In fact, it's the opposite.

CT's task system is free form. It's "whatever the GM deems appropriate". So, just make the player roll what you think fits the situation and go.

The tasks in the CT book are given as examples of how to use the skills in specific situations.

Final arbitration of that is up to the GM.

Player character comes upon a stuck hatch in a derelict spaceship? Don't fret on it. Don't look it up in the book. Have the player roll 2D for STR or less to swing open the door and be done with it.

One player is tossing an ammo mag to another character? Have the player doing the tossing to roll 2D to represent the quality of the throw. If the throw is lower than the tosser's DEX, then lower it by two points.

This becomes the target number for the character that is trying to catch. If the target is lower than the catcher's DEX, then allow a +2 DM to the throw. Catcher throws 2D for target or higher to catch the mag.

See...easy.

Just go with your gut. You'll get the hang. There's no reason flip through the book.

And, the beauty of the CT system is that it allows you to customize the throw to the situation. It's not one-size-fits-all. Skill levels mean different things to differnent throws in CT. A skill level could mean a simple +1 DM, no matter the skill level. Or, it could mean a +1 per level of skill. Or, it could mean a +2 per level of skill. And, it can mean other things--specific to the situation.

 

[Poppyseed45]

major snippage

Well, see, that's the thing. I LIKE a unified system for deciding such, rather than "my gut." My gut isn't working.

Now, my issue with CT (which is why I find MGT superior in this) is the roll under/roll over thing. When is one or the other supposed to be used? Both are using in CT - and it seems arbitrarily to me. If there is a REASON Marc choose so other than his own whim, I'm listening.

What that means is that, as you say, a GM has to go with his gut. But with what? When I buy an RPG, I want tools to do the job - the play out common concepts for the genre, to muck around with settings and so on, and at this stage in my life, to make it easy to do so. MGT makes this very easy - an easy set of modifiers, one way to roll them and count them. Modifiers are important with a 2d6 curve, so a GM knows what he's handing out and how powerful they are, in MGT.

Now, some of this may be present in CT - but NONE of it is explained, and with each skill as a special situation, there's no unified way of dealing with it (or you, yourself, S4, wouldn't have come up with the UGM, no?). Or there wouldn't be the multiple GMs who just took the combat roll as the default roll for other skills to cut down on book looking-up (which is exactly, btw, what MGT has done).

Again, I'm not saying something silly like CT is unplayable or anything - I played it, a lot, when I was younger, as the OP did. But, MGT really takes that great game's concepts and polishes them. There are problems with MGT itself, of course, as a game in its own right, but compared to CT?

Sorry, but MGT does all that I need, right out of the box, without the HOURS of prep and so on that would be necessary to get CT to do the same things. For example, let's say I want to make a doctor character (like Simon Tam in Firefly). Unless I have Supplement 4 from the reprints or something, how to do it? I could make it up...but there are skills a doctor would need that don't exist in CT Books 1-3- like science skills. So, I've now got to make those up too, and each one with its own rules, modifiers, etc (since that's EVERY skill in CT). Or buy more books.

In MGT - it's already there. And for MOST other concepts, the range of careers is wide enough to fit things in with a little jiggling. In my Firefly thread, I wondered how to do Shepard Book from Firefly. I figured a scholar would work - don't even have to change much, since the skill lists could fit, just make it all social science and you're done. Also, the way MGT does switching careers means that you CAN have the concept of that character - Book obviously was some sort of Agent before he became a preacher, and in MGT, I can do that.

In CT? COULD you do more than one career? Under what circumstances? The books RAW seemed to say you could not (there were NEVER any example characters who had) - or if you could, there are no ideas about how it would work, at all.

So, yes, I think all of us grognards (because after 20 years of gaming I am too) should switch over to MGT. It's a solid game, a fine update to CT, and it does more than CT, by virtue of what's inside (which should be after all the various incarnations of Traveller).

If you really like CT and are heavily invested, that's fine, of course, but I think, as my examples show, that MGT is a great game in its own right, and for myself, THE definitive version of Traveller (sans the 3I, but I'm not a fan of it anyway, so for me, this was a fine move, as CT had done).

 

[beowulf2044]

Then again, I think I still have a copy of Space Opera in my closet somewhere.

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, see, that's the thing. I LIKE a unified system for deciding such, rather than "my gut." My gut isn't working.

I do understand likeing the security of a task system. That is why I developed the UGM (because I thought I could do better than the UTP from MT, that was also developed for use with CT originally).

But, with generalizations, details get lost.

For example, in MGT, skill level only gives a +1 DM. This is necessary to support the task system.

With CT, it's much more realistic, and the value of a skill level is dependent on the situation.

CT examples:



Raising a patient from low berth is highly automated. Most people can do it. Having expertise in Medical doesn't give a leg up as much as you might think it does.

Thus, in CT, Medical-2 or better skill provides a +1 DM on the throw.

MGT doesn't emulate this. All skill levels provide a +1 DM. So, it is every easy to lighten the effect that skill has on a task in CT, and it's very hard to do that in MGT as the task system is one-size-fits-all.



The target number to maintain control of oneself in zero G is achieved by rolling 2D for 10+. Use a +4 DM per level of Vacc Suit skill.

Thus, Vacc Suit-2 is a highly skilled professional, and Vacc Suit-1 is no slouch at all.

This is the opposite of the above example. Expertise is highly important to the task. Again, MGT doesn't emulate this. This is another detail that gets lost in the generic task system. "Customizing" is hard to do with MGT.



Dexterity is most important to the accuracy of a throw (as in throwing a spear). The target number is rolled by throwing 2D for 18+. But, the character may use his DEX as a DM on the throw in addition to any skill at +1 per level.

With MGT, there are set modifiers for stats, and those are applied to each and every throw. With CT, it is recognized that stats (as with skills) have varying influence, and modifiers for stats can be adjusted accordingly.

Ya just can't do that with MGT. (Well, ya can, but it becomes a house rule--not THE rule.)



These are examples of why the CT method is superior to the way MGT handles it.

If, for example, the GM thinks that Engineering expertise is the most important factor in fixing the busted jump coil, he makes the situation reflect that fleeing: Roll 2D for 11+. DMs: +3 per level of Engineering skill; +1 if EDU 8+.

Viola--the task is customized to fit the situation.



Or, maybe the GM thinks innate ability is more important than any skill, he could rule, "Roll 2D for 15+ to lift that debris off the unconscious man's legs. Add your full STR as DM. No other modifiers apply."

Again, this is something that is hard to replicate in MGT--exploiting STR that way.



Or, to be simple, one could say, "Roll 2D for STR or less to drag the body where you want it; roll 3D for STR or less to carry the body without dragging it."

Easy-cheesy, and lost among the standardization in MGT.

Now, my issue with CT (which is why I find MGT superior in this) is the roll under/roll over thing. When is one or the other supposed to be used? Both are using in CT - and it seems arbitrarily to me.

Use whichever best fits the situation. CT's task system is about customizing the throw to the situation.

MGT's task system is about generalizing every throw to follow the same rules, losing detail in the process.

But with what? When I buy an RPG, I want tools to do the job - the play out common concepts for the genre, to muck around with settings and so on, and at this stage in my life, to make it easy to do so.

That what the examples are for in CT. They show you how to use the dice. There's a fabulous section in The Traveller Adventure, written by Marc Miller, that explains how a GM should go about customizing throw to fit the situation.

There are problems with MGT itself, of course, as a game in its own right, but compared to CT?

MGT is milktoast in a lot of areas when compared to CT, as I've illustrated above with its task system.

I haven't even started to focus on the stat bloat that is inherent in the MGT system.

For example, let's say I want to make a doctor character (like Simon Tam in Firefly). Unless I have Supplement 4 from the reprints or something, how to do it? I could make it up...but there are skills a doctor would need that don't exist in CT Books 1-3- like science skills.

You are faulting CT because information is in different places? That's like saying your can't roll up Simon Tam in MGT by just looking at the Combat chapter.

No...you've got to look at the place where the information is presented.

CT was developed for a long time. There's a lot of information outside of the starting point with Books 1-3. But as with MGT, you've got to go to the right "chapter" to find it.

If you buy the CT CD-ROM for $35, you have the entire "CT book". All chapters (except the 3rd party stuff--and there's a lot of good stuff in that, too) are there for you to look at.

That gives you the whole enchilada for the price of one book. That's a deal you won't find with MGT.

So, I've now got to make those up too, and each one with its own rules, modifiers, etc (since that's EVERY skill in CT).

It sounds like you don't know, but there are several skills presented outside of the ones seen in Books 1-3.

In MGT - it's already there. And for MOST other concepts, the range of careers is wide enough to fit things in with a little jiggling.

But, there is much more than what you get with MGT if you get the CT CD-ROM. A heck of a lot more. And...it's $35 bucks.

In CT? COULD you do more than one career? Under what circumstances?

Um, in CT, all characters are assumed to have two careers. There's the career they used in chargen, before they started their second career as an adventuerer.

Your question asked if the preacher from Firefly could be easily created using CT rules. Answer: Absolutely!

Pick a force that he was in (Army, Navy, Marines...maybe IRIS?), and now play him as the preacher. Done.

There are several careers in CT outside of those you see in Book 1 and Supplement 4 (like IRIS). And, there are rules for making up entire careers.

The sky is the limit with CT.

 

[Poppyseed45]

major snippage again

IF you have all those books and so on. And what's IRIS? If I don't have the mega-library (in print, which is the thing) then so what? I can't use CT out of the box to do those things I mentioned without the jury-rigging you described. MGT does it all - and little to no extra work to get it.

Your very convoluted answer to my simple point is what I mean - without a lot of jiggering, you're stuck with CT's arbitrary set of systems for judging skill usage. Your example is my point...each and every skill has to be referenced in order to use it correctly in the game. If I just fudge it and move on (what most GMs do if they don't want to waste time reading it in the game) then why not make it easy for that?

A +1 per skill is easy to know. Takes no brain power, can be judged quickly for its effect on the die roll. Why shouldn't players themselves be able to figure out the odds of what they're doing? That's hard to do or impossible with CT - EVERYTHING depends on the GM, thanks to the system. A +1 doesn't mean anything in CT unless the GM decides it does, which will depend on the roll the GM decides should be the target number...and THEN modifies this arbitrary number.

To me, that's just silly. I think MGT has very solid mechanics, especially since it's now based on the reliable 2d6 curve for its results. It takes "the professional" as the baseline for its rolls (so the main book says) with its 8+ base roll, and then lets the abilities of the character modify them positively or negatively based on their aptitudes and abilities. And in a way that players can actually judge for themselves the risks they want to take or not.

CT's method just seems like GM fiat all around. Or Marc's fiat. Whichever. Back in 1977 that was just peachy. In 2009? We've had 20 years of RPG developments since then; MGT has, in my opinion, picked some of the best ones and made them the basis for the rules. They even had my favorite about chain tasks and such not - nifty ideas, well-implemented. If CT had done that...well, this would be a different conversation. But it didn't.

Though, I would say you ought to point this all out on the CT boards maybe, in more detail if you wish, though I do think the discussion is relevant to the OP's question.

 

[Supplement Four]

IF you have all those books and so on.

Spend $35 bucks on the CT CD-ROM, and you can have all those books, too.

And what's IRIS?

It's been a while, but I believe the acronym is for the career Imperial Regency of Internal Security. It's like the Secret Service for the Imperium.

Your very convoluted answer to my simple point is what I mean - without a lot of jiggering, you're stuck with CT's arbitrary set of systems for judging skill usage.

My "very convoluted answer" as you call it was necessary to show you the detail that is bleached out of the game when a universal task system is used.

MGT = one-size-fits-all, and doesn't fit all situations perfectly.

CT = customized throws reflecting the specific situation.

Your example is my point...each and every skill has to be referenced in order to use it correctly in the game.

That's not true. Not all skills even have examples. And, the GM is free do ignore the example and make a roll specific to the situation.

You seem to want to be tied to the way the book says you must do it (MGT task system; the examples in CT). CT puts more faith in the GM. Its his game. He decides which throws are specific to the situation.

Sometimes I see that people's brains need to be reprogrammed. They get locked into strict rules. CT isn't like that. It's the GM's playground. The GM is the final arbiter.

If you need a little more structure with the CT task system, then I suggest you read and follow Rule 68A (click my sig). It will help you until you get the hang of it.

If I just fudge it and move on (what most GMs do if they don't want to waste time reading it in the game) then why not make it easy for that?

First off, it's not a fudge. You'll find yourself applying the same types of throws to similar situations after you get familiar with the system.

Second, it's easy as pie. I can make up a throw at the drop of a hat, and it will be a good throw, customized to the situation. It hardly takes a second. In fact, it takes more time for me to type it than it does to creat it.

A +1 per skill is easy to know. Takes no brain power, can be judged quickly for its effect on the die roll.

Sure, but again, you lose detail.

CT recognizes that a lot more effort goes into gaining a skill rank in Medical than does into something like marksmanship.

A person will have to go to school for a year or so to be a competent paramedic at Medic-1...a couple of years to four years to be a certified nurse at Medic-2....and a lot of years to gain an MD at Medic-3.

OTOH, a character doesn't have to put as much time into becoming a crack shot (although he certainly does put in a lot of time at the range) with skill Rifle-1, Rifle-2, Rifle-3.

CT justifies the reality of this by weighting skill levels differently, depending on the task at hand.

Medic-3 is an MD. Vacc Suit-2 is an expert. And, so on.

Reality demands that those things be different.

You can say that CT is specialized.

And, you can also say that MGT is generalized. And, just like any generalization, you lose the details.

Why shouldn't players themselves be able to figure out the odds of what they're doing?

If the player should have an indication of how hard a task is, I have no problem with that.

Do they need to know to the actual percentage. I don't think that's necessary.

Common sense tells me that rolling STR or less on 3D is a lot harder than rolling it on 2D.

I think that's sufficient (and probably more realistic because we really don't know, to the exact percentage, how hard things are when we attempt them in real life--we have a feeling what what is "harder", which is what CT gives the player).

To me, that's just silly. I think MGT has very solid mechanics, especially since it's now based on the reliable 2d6 curve for its results.

I'm sure you don't think too hard about the Stat bloat in the MGT system, either.

 

[spinwardpirate]

I'm sure you don't think too hard about the Stat bloat in the MGT system, either.

That's my main beef with it thus far.

 

[Poppyseed45]

I'll only hit a bit here but...

First off, CT is hardly specialized. CT skills cover a very wide range of activities, all tied into one skill, which effectively makes each skill like three skills..sometimes. Sometimes not. It is arbitrary. Except weapon skills, which are highly specialized to the point of silliness - except that all military PCs have skill with all weapons. Because we know how dangerous being in the Other career can be?

And of course the referee is free to ignore things - we know that already. What I mean is, out of the box, how easy is it for the referee to change things while keeping them consistent within the game world and the rules that the players actually know? MGT makes that very easy. CT...does not.

You've talked (a lot) about stat bloat. Can you explain what that is, and more precisely since you don't have MGT, why you think it? If you mean lots of levels of skill, I haven't seen that from my own character generating - I've generated only 20 or so characters so far, so maybe not enough for a statistical average, but I'm guessing more than you have. I have not seen this bloat. Nor have most people who post on these boards and have argued against you.

But I think I see why you don't like MGT. Is it because the players can see things for themselves? That a GM is not strictly needed for every step of the process in character generation or the game itself? This is a game, S4, and for some people, they like to play knowing their chances - even if it's slim. Some players LIKE weighing this in the minds before they take actions. You can put down that player, but he/she exists. CT was good for its time. Some groups still like it, naturally. Not the groups I've played with in the last 10 years - in fact, they've usually made fun of one aspect or another of CT.

Just an observation - the things you rail against are the things that give players a touch more power over their character; specifically, you've railed the most against: no-auto character death in chargen, no movement of stat rolls during char gen, and I'll take a stab and say the stat bloat is actually a rail against attributes being an add-on for skill throws, thereby (IF the PC has the relevant stat at a higher level) giving them a slightly easier time of making certain skill throws?

I would ask - why is it bad if a PC has a better than 41% chance to succeed? CT itself allows for this when it gives some rolls at 4+ (or 6-?) and so on. Why should it...hurt anything? To hit 50% success in MGT, a character still needs a total modifier of +2 to get that, and unless he was lucky with his stat rolls, it'll come from the skills.

Also, CT was in its time - ALL books put "faith" in the GM, because that's the way all game books were written at the time. That is to say, it's not a matter of faith - everything was written like that. Game design was still in its early stages at that point. Discussion boards for theory and such didn't exist - there was a smaller stock of games to play with as well, and a smaller community of game writers too. Marc's work was amazing when it came out - a skill driven game that dealt with science fiction. But it wasn't perfect or the best there was. If so, then CT would have been the only version; why were Megatraveller, TNE, T4, MGT, and now even T5 necessary? Because the game grew - new ideas were applied, tried. New narrative devices.

CT's a fine game, for sure. But I think MGT is the right step in Traveller evolution. The other steps were needed. This is the next one. In ten years, with the Mongoose license of it, we'll see what comes of it.

To the OP - I apologize for the digression but I wanted you to see that MGT is quite a good game, and that I think, as an old player of several versions, that it is the best incarnation of it. I think you ought to buy it and give it a try. It's easy to use, got some new stuff to make the GM's life (and the player's understanding of the game) easier than ever before. More important, you can do what you want with most sci-fi without much work at all - perhaps none. The only problem I see would be trying to do super-powered stuff (say, Dune, for example).

 

[Supplement Four]

I'll only hit a bit here but...

First off, CT is hardly specialized. CT skills cover a very wide range of activities, all tied into one skill, which effectively makes each skill like three skills..sometimes.

You are correct in saying CT uses broad ranging skills. That is true. What you're missing is that CT is specialized in the way those skills are applied to tasks. The same skill may be used in different ways, customizing the way it is used to fit perfectly a specific task.

That's what I've been saying. It's one of the benefits CT has over MGT.

MGT makes that very easy. CT...does not.

I don't know where you're getting that. CT is extremely easy. Heck, it's whatever the GM wants and deems appropriate.

How much easier can you get than that? There's no looking anything up. The GM applies skills and stats as he thinks appropriate. Boom, move on.

I don't understand why you think that's hard.

You've talked (a lot) about stat bloat. Can you explain what that is, and more precisely since you don't have MGT, why you think it?

I do own a copy of MGT. I had a player pick it up. He hated it, and so he gave the book to me.

I don't have time right now (I'm about to leave) but if you do a search in the Mongoose forum for the words "stat bloat" I'm sure you'll see one of my previous posts on it.

If you still can't find it, I'll enlighten you about it later--if you still want to know.

If you mean lots of levels of skill...

NO..it's STAT bloat, not Skill bloat. It has to do with the stats in MGT being overpowered when compared to skills and used on a 2D6 system.

But I think I see why you don't like MGT. Is it because the players can see things for themselves?

No. The main reason I don't like MGT is for some of the designer's decisions in developing the game. That, and I think Mongoose Traveller is an opportunity lost to create the ultimate version of Traveller. That disappoints me. We could have gotten greatness. Instead, we got just another version--just another rules set.

I would ask - why is it bad if a PC has a better than 41% chance to succeed?

It doesn't bother me a whole lot. But, realism is one area where I don't think a player should know the exact percentage. If we were using a percentile system where it was obvious what the chance was, I wouldn't rail on it. But, if I had my rathers, I'd prefer players knowing about how hard a task is without knowing specficially how hard it is.

As I said, it's about realism...that leads to the suspension of disbelief in a game. All great tools for the GM.

CT's a fine game, for sure. But I think MGT is the right step in Traveller evolution. The other steps were needed. This is the next one. In ten years, with the Mongoose license of it, we'll see what comes of it.

I get this a lot, and I think its funny.

What about MGT do you think is "ground breaking" and "new" and "modern"?

Show me one thing about MGT that fits that description, and I'll show you how it isn't so...how other games from the 70's and 80's used the same mechanic.

There's absolutely nothing new and groundbreaking or modern about MGT. Nothing.

To the OP - I apologize for the digression but I wanted you to see that MGT is quite a good game, and that I think, as an old player of several versions, that it is the best incarnation of it.

And, I would argue with that assesment.

In the end, it's YOUR GAME, so have fun with it as you will.

Take a look at my criticisims of MGT and see if I make sense. If I don't, then, by all means, go the MGT way.

Or...spend $35 bucks and get the entire CT game system for one low price with the CT CD-ROM and leave MGT to those who are convinced it is the ultimate Traveller version.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion about the other stuff. And as for getting all of CT with $35 that's fine - if you don't mind that it's not actually in print (I don't know about the States - in Hungary, it isn't the land of cheapness for printing out books from .pdf). Actually, this bothers me a whole lot.

As to the modern bit. The pieces that I see (which I'm sure you'll argue are already in CT) are:

1. The "Chain/helping" mechanic. This was expressed in Burning Wheel as I first saw, in the way that MGT does. That is, I do something. My roll helps the next step in the chain, and so on, as a way to do a set of actions with just a few die rolls and some narrative.

2. Explanation of "when to roll." The particular "take" on this issue is something I saw first in Nobilis 2nd Edition and Dogs in the Vineyard.c

3. Inclusion of rp traits outside skills, specifically contacts, allies, and enemies. This is not so new as GURPS or HERO probably started it back in the 1980s, but it's new compared to CT (and I think TNE had something for this - that book is long gone so I have no idea).

4. Unified Task system. Again, not terribly modern, as games from Chaosium, GURPS, and others have done it. But in the 1980s, compared to CT. However, the margin of failure/success is not something often used in games, and not used at all in CT as I recall (or if so, as always, on a skill by skill basis, rather than as one unified whole).

5. Inclusion of non-1970s science fiction elements, specifically augments which could be biological OR mechanical, others types of FTL, etc.

6. Armor as lowering of damage rather than decreasing chance to hit. The way it was done by D+D, and so it was done here too. Still don't know how that makes sense. Fixed by Palladium and GURPS? Hero? New compared to CT (and logical!).

7. Combat, specifically the types of "actions" that can be done, Minor Actions as opposed to Significant Actions, with rules for Reactions, Free Actions and Extended Actions - CT didn't touch these, and for many gamers, this information, and the way its adjudicated, create tension and facilitate decision-making during a game.

8. The way NPCs are handled. Specifically, MGT recognizes their importance, and how much a referee needs to know about them. CT tells you to use either one of the supplements, or recommends using previously generated characters for NPCs. That is a very old way of doing it, and one that caused much griping in other old games (CT characters were fun to make, so I expect less griping over this?).

P.S. - And I note that I now bow out as I realize this is just getting silly. You will not be convinced, S4, which is why a large number of people argue with you on these boards. I just made the mistake of doing so as well.

@ the OP: I hope, OP, that you gained some insight into MGT from these posts of mine and the posts of others about MGT, rather than CT or any of the other versions. Whatever you choose, I'm sure you'll have fun with it.

 

[Supplement Four]

P.S. - And I note that I now bow out as I realize this is just getting silly. You will not be convinced, S4, which is why a large number of people argue with you on these boards. I just made the mistake of doing so as well.

If you're "bowing out", then there's no reason for me to take the time to refute how "modern" MGT is.

Suffice it to say that MGT isn't really modern at all. It's just another set of mechanics for Traveller. That's all. Nothing special. Nothing that hasn't been seen before.

As for your "large number", you might want to go back and check the names. It's actually just a few people who are totally sold on MGT (not a large number at all).

4. Unified Task system.

This might shock you, so I had to include it in my reply. One of the first task systems devised for role playing games was developed for Classic Traveller.

Yep, you read that right.

DGP developed the Universal Task Profile, or UTP, for Classic Traveller, waaayyy back in the day, when there was only one version of Traveller.

You know the task system. It's the one used in MegaTraveller. The system was originally developed for Classic Traveller and then its use was continued when MegaTraveller was published.

So, yeah, MGT's unified task system isn't so "modern" after all, is it?

Plus, one could easily use the UTP with a Classic Traveller game if a structured task system were desired. (And, my own UGM stands as another alternative to the UTP for Classic Traveller use.)

 

[Poppyseed45]

S4 -

I cannot in good conscious continue this silly debate. Frankly, I find that this is non-productive, and in fact, for me, your presence in any discussion of MGT is non-productive. While it will not mean anything to you, I'm sure, I am putting you on my ignore list. You are the first person I have ever done so to on any board, ever.

And let me add, you tone of conduct, while not ban-able (since no one has banned you) does make me think less of the things you supposedly support. Frankly, you have managed to turn someone who was on the whole okay with something like CT now against it - I seek to find holes in it (which I have mentioned above) when in fact I like the thing as it is, and that's just wrong. Your positions are SO untenable that it is impossible to have an actual discussion with you in a coherent manner.

 

[Supplement Four]

S4 -

I cannot in good conscious continue this silly debate. Frankly, I find that this is non-productive, and in fact, for me, your presence in any discussion of MGT is non-productive. While it will not mean anything to you, I'm sure, I am putting you on my ignore list. You are the first person I have ever done so to on any board, ever.

And let me add, you tone of conduct, while not ban-able (since no one has banned you) does make me think less of the things you supposedly support. Frankly, you have managed to turn someone who was on the whole okay with something like CT now against it - I seek to find holes in it (which I have mentioned above) when in fact I like the thing as it is, and that's just wrong. Your positions are SO untenable that it is impossible to have an actual discussion with you in a coherent manner.

Mencelus won't be reading this since he's banned me, but I'm puzzled by his remarks. I look at the debate above and I see someone who is dead-set on MGT debating issues with someone who is dead set on CT.

I don't feel heated under the collar. I'm not sure why he does.

Is it because I had a reply for everything he thinks is good about MGT?

Of course I do. I think CT is better than MGT.

And, I thought my replies were quite specific and to the point (and not untenable to the point that it is impossible to have coherent discussion with me). I thought the discussion was quite coherent.

So, really, I'm kind of puzzled at why he's so hot.

Oh well.

On with the show.

 

[far-trader]

So once again another thread in the Mongoose Traveller section turns into a chapter in Supplement Four's little crusade against MGT. And, even though hunter indicated this should not be allowed, the moderators do nothing.

I suggest shutting down the Mongoose Traveller section. It is obvious to me that this board does not really want to support this currently published version of Traveller (and by "this board", I mean its establishment, not a lot of the posters) by the blatant way that the moderators let things go on here that would not be tolerated elsewhere.

You guys can have your little club. This board has become useless.

Allen

It's only as useless and the users make it Allen. When S4 ticks you off like this report the post. If he persists in it I expect he will be told to self moderate or face a ban. It's really that simple.

As for "other" boards moderation policies, I've seen some of it and don't want that kind of moderation here thank you very much. It's one reason I left "another" board.

I don't like your suggestion that just because you don't like it here for whatever reason that the MGT section should be closed. Instead may I suggest you exercise your own free will and simply show your disgust with your electronic feet and walk away.