• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

CT vs. MGT Character Gen

The lack of a task system, a coherent method for resolving not JUST skills, but also attribute and statistic derived actions, with a consistent mechanic, was not just a good thing, it was nearly revolutionary. It was the best thing about Metagaming's TFT, and GDW's 2300: consistent mechanics.

D&D, AD&D, and several other "early" games, including CT, suffered for lack of consistency.

The consistency in MGT is a good thing.

The lack of the skill cap doesn't have a huge impact, except upon point gen characters.
 
A Very Playable Character

I think I can clear up some misperceptions about CT (and a lot of discussion above) by taking a look at a character with only a single skill to see how playable he is under the CT rules.

I think you'll see that this character is very playable given the game rules (and understanding this is why I said many people do not understand CT as much as they think they do).



First, we need a character. I'll look to 1001 Characters in order to find him. I'll take the first character printed in that book with only one skill.

And...look at that. Opening the book, I see the very first character, pg. 2, has only one skill.

Starman 569AA9 Age 22 1 Term Cr10,000
Pilot-1

This is an ex-Naval character. We'll call him Joe Starman.



Now, let's put Joe to the test. Let's look at prescribed throws described in CT materials and see how well this character can be played!!



Pg. 22, TTB: Joe needs to obtain lift papers (exit visa) so that he and his comrades can lift from a world where their ship has undergone its annual maintenance. This is an Administration throw. Joe needs 7+, but he's got a -3 DM for not having the skill.

Joe's throw is 2D for 10+.



Pg. 22, TTB: Joe is piloting an air/raft over a local hurricane. The throw is 5+, -1 DM for the weather.

Joe's throw is 2D for 6+.



Pg. 23, TTB: Joe is called, late at night, by a clerk working in the lift office (from the first example above). The clerk wants to meet Joe and sell him a lift paper. Suspicious, Joe thinks the paper may be fakes. The throw to determine if the paper is genuine or not is 6+.

Joe throws 2D for 6+.



Pg. 103, TTB: Joe decides to take on a training program. He decides to focus on weapons. He makes his dedication die throw of 8+. He looks at his STR and DEX and decides to train Blade and Shotgun.

NOTE! Joe has just, immediately, increased his total number of skills! Because of the way the Experience Rules work, Joe has just picked up two permanent skills that will not decrease (unless Joe chooses to decrease them later because of the Experience Limit).

So, Joe is now:

Starman 569AA9 Age 22 1 Term Cr10,000
Pilot-1, Shotgun-1, Blade-1



Pg. 29, TTB: Under the Default Skill rule, the GM decides that awarding Joe a Vacc Suit skill due to his Naval basic training.

Joe is now:

Starman 569AA9 Age 22 1 Term Cr10,000
Pilot-1, Shotgun-1, Blade-1, Vacc Suit-0

Not too shabby for a character that started out with only one skill.



Pg. 28, TTB: Joe, wearing a Vacc Suit, attempts to jump across a vacuum plain, from one ship to another. The throw is 10+.

Joe throws 2D for 10+.

Joe misses that throw! The GM allows him a throw (per the rules listed under the Vacc Suit skill) to catch onto the other ship or be free falling away from the vessel. The saving throw is 7+, with -4 DM if no expertise. But, Joe now has expertise, thanks to the Default Skill rule, and, thus, will have a difficulty of 7+ to save himself.

Joe throws 2D for 7+ to save himself.

Note: That Joe cannot use combat armor or battle dress because those special versions of vacc suits require Vacc Suit-1 skill or better.



Pg. 43, TTB: Joe attempts to throw his blade at an enemy at short range. The throw is 18+, with DMs of +DEX and +blade skill.

Joe throws 2D for 11+.



Pg. 45, TTB: Joe, in his Vacc Suit, is holding onto a handhold near the airlock, firing his shotgun with one hand, pointing it at the pirates jump across the vac plain from the other ship. Regardless of whether he hits or not, Joe has to roll to see if he remains in control after he fires his weapon.

The throw is 10+, -4 if firing a weapon, +5 if using a handhold.

Joe throws 2D for 9+.



Pg. 46, TTB: Now, let's how how Joe's hit (from above) fared. He needs 8+ to hit. He's +1 for shotgun skill, -1 handhold DEX penalty (pg. 45), +3 medium range, -3 defender's armor.

Joe throws 2D for 8+ to hit.



Pg. 50, TTB: Joe attempts to bring someone out of cold berth. The throw is 5+ (-1 DM is low passenger END 6-).

Joe throws 2D for 5+ or 2D for 6+, depending on passenger's END.



Pg. 60, TTB: If the ship gets into a scrape with pirates, note that Joe cannot operate the ship's weapons. Gunnery is one of the few expertise areas that requires training. Gunner-1 or better is required to operate ship's weapons.





IN SUMMATION: Joe Starman, with only one skill to start (using the rules to gain three additional skills), is a very playable character. He can work his way through red-tape on a planet, fly an air/raft, spot suspicious papers, operate in zero-G, participate in both gun and blade combat (even throwing weapons!), and even bring passengers out of cold sleep.

You could keep going with this character, looking through rules and situational throws in various CT supplements and adventures.

But, the point is: There are a lot of things a character can do without skills.

CT is designed that way.

Otherwise, the character with only 3 skills would be very boring, indeed, to play (and he could, unrealistically, do very little to influence events that occur around him).
 
If this is supposed to follow an example of real life, it doesn't work well. If just for a game mechanic ok. As for real life, I went to the range earlier this year. First time since 1992 and was hitting at 300 meters juat as well as i did back in the army.

In game terms, you haven't reached your Experience Limit yet. :smirk:

Or, you have reached the cap, but you chose to degrade another skill in place of your Rifle skill.



This track seems like it's perfect for more physical skills like stunt riding on a bike, but unless something like eyesight failing happends, I don't see how it can affect something like sharpshooting honestly. IMO anyway.

It is a game mechanic, to be sure. Nothing is perfect, in no rpg I've ever seen. The "hit points" in CT are testament to that (more "game" that "realism" there, for sure).

But, eventually, as you age, your skill at sharpshooting will probably go down, even if its because you can't see anymore, your hands shake, and you're too weak to hold the weapon.:(

So, the rules do simulate real life in some respect.
 
The lack of a task system, a coherent method for resolving not JUST skills, but also attribute and statistic derived actions, with a consistent mechanic, was not just a good thing, it was nearly revolutionary. It was the best thing about Metagaming's TFT, and GDW's 2300: consistent mechanics.

D&D, AD&D, and several other "early" games, including CT, suffered for lack of consistency.

The consistency in MGT is a good thing.

There was a time I would agree with you.

And, I'm not "anti-task" inclined.

But, I've grown to see the beauty of the structureless system in CT.


I'll give you an example.

A character needs to open a door. It's a hatch, and it's stuck.

Using the UTP from MT, this is a Difficult task, using STR and....what? END?

See...the UTP doesn't lend itself well to that type of thing.

Under CT's structureless system, it's easy for the GM to think to himself, "Hm...what is needed to open that stuck hatch? STR? OK."

And, then he immediately says, "Roll 2D for STR or less to force open the hatch."

Done.

There's real beauty to that. Quick. Easy. The game keeps moving.

I believe that's a better way to go than using the UTP task system.



What if another character helps?

No problem. -2 for a second person helping to shove open the hatch, roll using the higher STR of either of the two characters.

See how quick-n-easy and customized the throw is?

It makes sense.

It's a great way to go--better than using a task system, imo.
 
TTB 36, Right Collumn, "The Effects of Characteristics", entry for Endurance.
Well, knock me down with a feather. And it's there on p. 35 of Book 1 (2ed) as well.

We always used the surprise/combat/weakened/special blows rules but I don't ever recall using Endurance = number of blows/swings in a melee.

However thanks for freshening up the ol' grey matter with that one :)
 
It's a great way to go--better than using a task system, imo.

S4, the diff is that in a game without universal task resolution a lot of responsibility rests with the GM. If the GM isn't fair, consistent, and able to think on his feet, the game breaks down.

Yes, a GM *always* needs to be fair. But a task system helps him be that.

As I said, I personally can roll (heh) with both methods. An online friend of mine (a 1970s D&D player) once suggested playing without the players making *any* roll. They just say what the PCs attempt to do, and the GM makes a roll and a call and tells them what happens.

In some ways that's a fascinating idea. OTOH, MT task resolution is a thing of beauty.
 
How exactly did a thread comparing MGT character creation to that of CT become a thread about task systems in CT?

Allen
 
Under CT's structureless system, it's easy for the GM to think to himself, "Hm...what is needed to open that stuck hatch? STR? OK."

And, then he immediately says, "Roll 2D for STR or less to force open the hatch."

Done.

There's real beauty to that. Quick. Easy. The game keeps moving.

I believe that's a better way to go than using the UTP task system.



What if another character helps?

No problem. -2 for a second person helping to shove open the hatch, roll using the higher STR of either of the two characters.

See how quick-n-easy and customized the throw is?

It makes sense.

It's a great way to go--better than using a task system, imo.

Which is no easier than saying "roll over an 8" with a bonus of athletics and your str modifier and a penalty determined by the ref and how sturdy and stuck the door is. The mongoose traveller system is a vast improvement over the jumbled mess that was CT.
 
How exactly did a thread comparing MGT character creation to that of CT become a thread about task systems in CT?

Allen

Threads drift, that's life :)

If you want "how exactly" go back through and read, I'm sure there are logical (some perhaps marginally) connections at each branch. Might make for an interesting study.
 
In part, because skills and how they are used is a major component of evaluating how CGen works.

MGT CGen works rather well with the approach of the MGT or DGP-CT/MT/2300 task systems. It doesn't work so well if you try to fit it direct to the CT skill list assortment of skill resolution semi-systems....
 
In part, because skills and how they are used is a major component of evaluating how CGen works.

MGT CGen works rather well with the approach of the MGT or DGP-CT/MT/2300 task systems. It doesn't work so well if you try to fit it direct to the CT skill list assortment of skill resolution semi-systems....

The task system...and character creation in general..is one thing I find vastly superior in MGT to CT.

Allen
 
S4, I like your example of what CT can do for a character with only a few - or even 1 - skills.

It is a pain to read through each skill to see if it may be used untrained though, or if it is on the relevant default lvl 0 list.

It's much easier to have all the lvl 0 skills on the character sheet and cross off the ones that don't fit with the characters service.

Your starman example could be expected to have vacc suit 0 and air/raft 0 because he has been in the navy and has pilot 1 so has experience of flying.

I probably wouldn't award steward 0 and ATV 0 unless the player includes a reason for them in their character's back story (easy enough to do).

All the technical skills though are still unavailable without either lvl1 in the skill or JoT.


On to your MT example - you would open the stuck lift using STR and STR ;) - yes you can use the same stat twice in the MT task system.
 
It is a pain to read through each skill to see if it may be used untrained though, or if it is on the relevant default lvl 0 list.

Like any game that you play for a while (even the over-complicated d20 games) one starts to memorize things like that. It's not a pain if the situation has come up a few times, and you know how to govern it.

It's much easier to have all the lvl 0 skills on the character sheet and cross off the ones that don't fit with the characters service.

Your starman example could be expected to have vacc suit 0 and air/raft 0 because he has been in the navy and has pilot 1 so has experience of flying.

Again, the GM in CT is expected to make calls like this...so what you say could be very valid for a game.

I was just using the printed word straight out of the book (so that there were no "opinion" arguments).

And, I do think the CT system works quite well.



As to what you've done above...

I've seen CT GMs be very successful with "associating" skills. "Ok, you're a pilot, your character has Pilot-1, so you automatically have Ship's Boat-0." "But...lets go ahead and give you air/raft-0, communications-0, and navigation-0 just because the skills are related."





Skills, for the most part, are just areas where the character excells.

For example, Joe Starman did not have air/raft skill, but he certainly can fly an air/raft by the rules. The character with air/raft-2 (or even grav vehicle-2) is much better at piloting the air/raft.



On to your MT example - you would open the stuck lift using STR and STR ;) - yes you can use the same stat twice in the MT task system.

OK, why does it make sense to have STR influence the roll twice as much when compared to normal UTP throws?
 
You had nothing to do with the task system in MGT.

Allen

Naw..nothing at all. I just created a system and published it (on these boards) for which the MGT system is a 90% clone.

Plus, I know Mongoose looked at the UGM when designing MGT because I sent it to them.
 
Naw..nothing at all. I just created a system and published it (on these boards) for which the MGT system is a 90% clone.

As are I expect uncounted other CT derived homerules developed before you ever posted word one of yours.*

Plus, I know Mongoose looked at the UGM when designing MGT because I sent it to them.

You KNOW you sent it. Unless Mongoose wrote back and said "We read it." you DON'T know they read it. SOP is not to read unsolicited submissions to avoid such issues.

I'm just saying, if you have proof go for it but if you don't give it up and move on.

* unless you have something truly unique in yours that Mongoose copied verbatim
 
As are I expect uncounted other CT derived homerules developed before you ever posted word one of yours.*




* unless you have something truly unique in yours that Mongoose copied verbatim
This is a fair point.

I know I posted my CT skill resolution system on these boards months if not years before you joined S4 ;)

Thing is I know lots of people who independantly came to the decision that 8+ and 12+ are natural target numbers for CT.

All I did was add the don't roll 2, roll 12 and we'll talk element.

What I really like about your UGM was/is how to derive bonuses from characteristics - but I've adapted even that.

And I still think your UGM is actually one of the best skill resolution systems I've seen for Traveller.
 
Last edited:
OK, why does it make sense to have STR influence the roll twice as much when compared to normal UTP throws?

fwiw my rationalization of it was normal skill tests are "skill+stat" while stat only tests use stat in place of skill so "stat+stat"

iirc I never really liked the MT system, cheapened skills and overinflated stats, that is iirc
 
Back
Top