CT vs. MGT Character Gen

[Supplement Four]

THe book you cite from (TTB) postdates the release of Supplement 4.

I do default to TTB, because it's the latest (and arguably "best"--but I don't know what side of the argument I'd be on ) version of the CT rules, but that doesn't debunk The Big Presumption.

The vast majority of TTB is cut-n-pasted from the earlier editions of Traveller--back when Traveller was only Books 1-3.

The Big Presumption remains valid because of that.

No, the presumption that the rules are explicitly PC oriented is bogus, especially since combat included specifics on unskilled penalties, even as it notes no PC's generated with the book will be subject to them.

The BP states that "most" rules are biased by PCs, not "all". There has to be some room for non-PC rulings.

As I suggested before, do you think TL 4 NPC Joe Citizen who's never been introduced to high technology was in mind when the low berth revival roll was written? Or the Vacc Suit throws?

Heck no!

It was the PCs: The people with Army, Navy, Marine, Merchant, Scout, and Other experience under their belts that those rules were written for.

I'm sure, for instance, if NPC Joe Citizen was in mind, the low berth revival throw would be a lot harder!

The Big Presumption stands.

On the air/raft issue, I quote page 110: "Individuals usually must have skill in a specific vehicle type i order to properly opertate that form of transportation."

Nice catch! It has been a while since I'd read that one!

But, I'll have to trump ya on the air/raft issue o:.

Check out the Air/Raft skill description, pg. 22.

Most people are aware of the basics of operation of such vehicles.

Thus, the task shown in the skill description does not come with a requirement that air/raft skill be held by the air/raft operator.

I mean, the task clearly does not require the skill, and that sentence backs it up.

As does this statement from your post:

"All characters are assumed able to operate wheeled vehicles (in slow speed, non dangerous situations) without any skill."

This is what I've been saying. YOU said air/raft skill was required to pilot an air/raft. YOU said ATV skill was needed to drive an ATV.

I'm the one that said the skills are not necessary--that many tasks in CT can be attempted without the character having the skill.

 

[atpollard]

Does the CT 'skill or no skill' debate need to rage on in two topics at the same time? Please save this topic for CT vs MGT and move the CT skill responses to the new topic. Thank you.

(no moderator authority, just a voice interested in both topics but wanting a better signal to noise ratio.)

 

[Supplement Four]

Does the CT 'skill or no skill' debate need to rage on in two topics at the same time? Please save this topic for CT vs MGT and move the CT skill responses to the new topic. Thank you.

(no moderator authority, just a voice interested in both topics but wanting a better signal to noise ratio.)

I did start a new thread, partly for that reason. I haven't brought up the skill thingy yet in the other thread, though.

Feel free to discuss it there.

 

[aramis]

I do default to TTB, because it's the latest (and arguably "best"--but I don't know what side of the argument I'd be on ) version of the CT rules, but that doesn't debunk The Big Presumption.

The BP states that "most" rules are biased by PCs, not "all". There has to be some room for non-PC rulings.

As I suggested before, do you think TL 4 NPC Joe Citizen who's never been introduced to high technology was in mind when the low berth revival roll was written? Or the Vacc Suit throws?

Heck no!

It was the PCs: The people with Army, Navy, Marine, Merchant, Scout, and Other experience under their belts that those rules were written for.

I'm sure, for instance, if NPC Joe Citizen was in mind, the low berth revival throw would be a lot harder!

The Big Presumption stands.






Nice catch! It has been a while since I'd read that one!

But, I'll have to trump ya on the air/raft issue o:.

Check out the Air/Raft skill description, pg. 22.

Most people are aware of the basics of operation of such vehicles.

Thus, the task shown in the skill description does not come with a requirement that air/raft skill be held by the air/raft operator.

I mean, the task clearly does not require the skill, and that sentence backs it up.

As does this statement from your post:



This is what I've been saying. YOU said air/raft skill was required to pilot an air/raft. YOU said ATV skill was needed to drive an ATV.

I'm the one that said the skills are not necessary--that many tasks in CT can be attempted without the character having the skill.

I pointed out the ONE exception, and it is an EXPLICIT exception, wheeled vehicles. GM's are permitted to grant skill 0 to avoid penalties, but only for weapons is that automatic. Therefore, NO vehicle may be operated unskilled except wheeled ones. GM's can grant skill 0 (which is a skill level, and in earlier printings, was level 1/2) when it serves the story. It's not a blanket everyman skill.

And that's one of the nice things about MGT: it grants a variety of everyman skills. Sure, they're level 0. The total skill levels are just as low as CT, but the number of skills total out much like MT... due to loads of level 0 skills explicitly granted.

Which makes the issues in CT over unskilled attempts rather obviously a flaw; by comparison, MGT is very sweet at handling unskilled attempts, since a clear and consistent method is applied, and many skills are available indicating semi-skilled status (level 0).

 

[Supplement Four]

Which makes the issues in CT over unskilled attempts rather obviously a flaw; by comparison, MGT is very sweet at handling unskilled attempts, since a clear and consistent method is applied, and many skills are available indicating semi-skilled status (level 0).

I see the appeal, but how realistic is that?

I think CT's version is much better.

For example, it's easy to accept that Everyman can drive a car in today's world, but it's not that easy to accept that Everyman can drive an M-1 tank.

CT would handle that like this: Everyman can drive a car without skill (maybe a penalty); Everyman needs Tank skill in order to drive the Tank, or driving the tank isn't possible.

I think that's much better (and much more realistic) than what MGT offers--a blanket penalty for being unskilled.

 

[Supplement Four]

Therefore, NO vehicle may be operated unskilled except wheeled ones.

BTW, that's incorrect. It says so right there in the rules! I quoted it to you earlier in the thread.

 

[aramis]

BTW, that's incorrect. It says so right there in the rules! I quoted it to you earlier in the thread.

I could say in all honesty that "most people are aware of the basics of flying airplanes" and not be deceitful, and still, 99% are likely to crash.

Being aware of is not an explicit permission for unskilled operation. I quoted actual rules as well, ones which are an explicit requirement, and the explicit exemption. You quoth only an implication.

This contradictory citations issue is yet another failing of CT, ESPECIALLY given 7+ years of sales, and 2 clear revisions (and dozens of adjustments)

It's time to take off the Rose Colored Glasses. It's also time to realize that most people do get annoyed when Raving Fanboys start spouting "I know better than you" and "You don't know anything."

MGT may have many flaws, but the CGen is not one of them, and the task system, like it or not, is consistent and makes the game easier to run and more intelligible to newbs.

 

[Supplement Four]

Being aware of is not an explicit permission for unskilled operation. I quoted actual rules as well, ones which are an explicit requirement, and the explicit exemption. You quoth only an implication.

Not an implication. The rule given in the text backs it up. Air/Raft skill not needed to operate an Air/Raft.

And, the BP applies, because they're not talking about granny-may down on TL 4 Pysadi. They're talking about PCs.

This contradictory citations issue is yet another failing of CT, ESPECIALLY given 7+ years of sales, and 2 clear revisions (and dozens of adjustments)

There are definitely some contradictions in CT, especially among the editions.

I expect many games get that way. MGT will, probably, too, once it's been revised as many times as CT.

It's time to take off the Rose Colored Glasses. It's also time to realize that most people do get annoyed when Raving Fanboys start spouting "I know better than you" and "You don't know anything."

I admit that I may have come across that way to some, but it was unintentional. I was just surprised at the number of people (like yourself) who did not know CT as well as they thought.

MGT may have many flaws, but the CGen is not one of them, and the task system, like it or not, is consistent and makes the game easier to run and more intelligible to newbs.

I can't argue that a task system is easier for newbs to run. I can see how the customized ability of a CT task can be fumbled and mangled in the hands of a GM who did not know what he was doing.

OTOH, creating a CT task isn't rocket science, either. I'm sure there are plenty of smart newbs out there who could pick it up perfectly if they were so inclined.

 

[mike wightman]

I have to say I'm beginning to side with S4 on this debate.

I was chatting with an old friend yesterday and we got talking about past Traveller games - guess what happens next. Out with the Book1-3 and straight to the scenario - you are a passenger on a tramp merchant...

by the book, no house rules, but with a few decades of gaming experience for me.

He ended up trying loads of things that he didn't have skills for - sometimes the skill description gave him the chance to do something, other times I had to reasonably improvise.

Then it struck me I was doing exactly what S4 has been suggesting all along.

I was looking for ways to allow him to do stuff - skill or no skill - but making sure it was a challenge.

I think S4 may be onto something with his big presumption after all.

 

[GypsyComet]

I admit that I may have come across that way to some, but it was unintentional. I was just surprised at the number of people (like yourself) who did not know CT as well as they thought.

(cautionary note: While S4 catalyzed this rant, it is not aimed solely at him. Not by a long shot. He is only the "target" because he catalyzed it, no other reason.)

A lot of Traveller fandom doesn't actually play the game, except in its "solo" mode (ships, planets, economic models, and NPCs). Those that do actually play are spread across all editions (yes, even T4, amazingly), and a surprising percentage of those who play Traveller (and discuss it in the fora we have available online) seem to have a preference toward military campaigns. The number of free-trader/everyman games is relatively small, from anecdotal evidence.

We love to talk about Traveller in all its forms, but, as you've noticed so recently, most prefer to talk about their particular interests within the whole. If there is one thing I've learned in 30 years of RPGs, it's that you don't know a game unless you are playing it, or have such an extensive history of playing it that you could do so in your sleep (for example, I know a couple people who can build Champions characters without a book a decade after their last game). From all available evidence, the body of people with those qualifications for pre-TTB (or TTB-specific) Classic Traveller is pretty small.

You are surprised. I am not.

As you suspect, some who may have had such qualifications 20 years ago have an overlay of one or more subsequent editions. If their play adjusted to follow MT, TNE, or something later, the nuances of early CT are forgotten under layers of house rules and subsequent rule sets.

And that's just the ones who stayed gamers the whole time. You may not have noticed, but MGT seems to have drawn a number of "used to be" gamers back into the hobby. They over-wrote the esoterica of their youthful RPG days completely years ago.

And face it S4, as a specialist in character generation and RPG task systems (one of very few in Traveller fandom), you are the very definition of an esotericist. You've made a point of remembering those specifics that few people know exist and even fewer bother to memorize. Esoterica.

Some of the rest of use here (and every other Traveller forum) are also esotericists, but with different specialties. Some of us are that basest of gamer types, the actual players. Traveller doesn't have enough of those, by the way, so perhaps we (in all our places) should tone down the (frequently repellent) flinging of esoterica at each other and go out and recruit more players.

Play the Game.

 

[Supplement Four]

I think S4 may be onto something with his big presumption after all.

The Big Presumption is that many CT rules (core rules) are written with player characters in mind--those characters that come from the original six careers and have fairly high tech backgrounds.

The other topic I've been saying is what you're supporting: That most Classic Traveller tasks do not require skill in order to attempt the task.

If one thinks about it, it makes a lot of sense.

Classic Traveller characters get few skills. These few skills cannot define an entire character. He can't be precluded from attempting every task set before him for which he doesn't have a skill! What if the character only has two skills?!

Instead, Skills on Classic Traveller character sheets should be thought of the areas of expertise where the character excels. Those are his "best" features--his highest training areas.

Sure, there are examples where expertise (Skill) is required in order to make a task throw (Gunnery-1 is needed to operate ship's weapons), but these instances are the minority--not the majority.

I think people have taken concepts from other games and other versions of Traveller and transposed those ideas to CT, thinking that's CT "law", when it isn't.

Many games have a long skill list associated with characters representing the sum-total of what the character knows. CT does not operate that way. Instead, what happens in CT, is that the best areas of expertise are noted on the character sheet, and all the general stuff is just assumed.

And, The Big Presumption is used to guide that assumption of what else the character knows.

 

[Supplement Four]

(cautionary note: While S4 catalyzed this rant, it is not aimed solely at him. Not by a long shot. He is only the "target" because he catalyzed it, no other reason.)

A lot of Traveller fandom doesn't actually play the game, except in its "solo" mode (ships, planets, economic models, and NPCs). Those that do actually play are spread across all editions (yes, even T4, amazingly), and a surprising percentage of those who play Traveller (and discuss it in the fora we have available online) seem to have a preference toward military campaigns. The number of free-trader/everyman games is relatively small, from anecdotal evidence.

We love to talk about Traveller in all its forms, but, as you've noticed so recently, most prefer to talk about their particular interests within the whole. If there is one thing I've learned in 30 years of RPGs, it's that you don't know a game unless you are playing it, or have such an extensive history of playing it that you could do so in your sleep (for example, I know a couple people who can build Champions characters without a book a decade after their last game). From all available evidence, the body of people with those qualifications for pre-TTB (or TTB-specific) Classic Traveller is pretty small.

You are surprised. I am not.

As you suspect, some who may have had such qualifications 20 years ago have an overlay of one or more subsequent editions. If their play adjusted to follow MT, TNE, or something later, the nuances of early CT are forgotten under layers of house rules and subsequent rule sets.

And that's just the ones who stayed gamers the whole time. You may not have noticed, but MGT seems to have drawn a number of "used to be" gamers back into the hobby. They over-wrote the esoterica of their youthful RPG days completely years ago.

And face it S4, as a specialist in character generation and RPG task systems (one of very few in Traveller fandom), you are the very definition of an esotericist. You've made a point of remembering those specifics that few people know exist and even fewer bother to memorize. Esoterica.

Some of the rest of use here (and every other Traveller forum) are also esotericists, but with different specialties. Some of us are that basest of gamer types, the actual players. Traveller doesn't have enough of those, by the way, so perhaps we (in all our places) should tone down the (frequently repellent) flinging of esoterica at each other and go out and recruit more players.

Play the Game.

Good post. Well said.

And, as to your last point, I did just that. I started a thread in the CT forum in the hopes that it would help those players, new or old, interested in Classic Traveller (may favorite version--I think that's obvious).

 

[Allensh]

I would like once again to point out that this thread is about MGT character creation as compared to CT character creation, not CT task systems or differences between CT rules sets. I would like to request that all such discussion be taken to the Classic Traveller section of the forum.

Allen

 

[mike wightman]

If you want MgT to be considered a serious version of Traveller - which it is IMHO - then these sort of thread drifts are not only to be expected they can probably do some good in the long run.

Character generation in MgT is one of the sections I find myself thinking "how do I incorporate some of this into my house system?"

That isn't going to happen unless discussions like this take place - and let's face it the reason why this thread is still alive is this discussion.

You often find threads where one or another version of Traveller gets mixed into things, I see it as a positive, since it allows for a greater sharing of ideas.

 

[Supplement Four]

I would like once again to point out that this thread is about MGT character creation as compared to CT character creation, not CT task systems or differences between CT rules sets. I would like to request that all such discussion be taken to the Classic Traveller section of the forum.

Allen

The other thread is there, if people want to start posting there.

 

[Jamus]

I use MGT RAW as my house system. Havent found a situation in game where I felt a need to alter or add anything to them.

Also I just want to throw out there that I despise the military/merc style of play and have always preferred the free trader and assorted hangers on style. My games are more firefly than startrek or starship troopers.

 

[Allensh]

If you want MgT to be considered a serious version of Traveller - which it is IMHO - then these sort of thread drifts are not only to be expected they can probably do some good in the long run.

Character generation in MgT is one of the sections I find myself thinking "how do I incorporate some of this into my house system?"

That isn't going to happen unless discussions like this take place - and let's face it the reason why this thread is still alive is this discussion.

You often find threads where one or another version of Traveller gets mixed into things, I see it as a positive, since it allows for a greater sharing of ideas.

I disagree. This thread is about a particular topic and it should not drift so far that it becomes something completely different. It is turning into a discussion about CT, not MGT compared to CT. There's nothing wrong with the idea of discussing the various versions of CT...but that's what the CT section is for.

As for MGT being considered a "serious" version of Traveller...it already is. Mainly because the copyright holder licensed Mongoose to make it. It also is a successful version, sales-wise, at least.

Allen

 

[Allensh]

The other thread is there, if people want to start posting there.

Thank you. I actually find the subject quite interesting...just would rather read about it there.

Allen

 

[Allensh]

I use MGT RAW as my house system. Havent found a situation in game where I felt a need to alter or add anything to them.

Also I just want to throw out there that I despise the military/merc style of play and have always preferred the free trader and assorted hangers on style. My games are more firefly than startrek or starship troopers.

I'm with you there. And I feel the character creation system supports that style very well...as did CT's when you got the Citizens supplement involved as well.

Allen

 

[mike wightman]

I disagree. This thread is about a particular topic and it should not drift so far that it becomes something completely different. It is turning into a discussion about CT, not MGT compared to CT. There's nothing wrong with the idea of discussing the various versions of CT...but that's what the CT section is for.

As for MGT being considered a "serious" version of Traveller...it already is. Mainly because the copyright holder licensed Mongoose to make it. It also is a successful version, sales-wise, at least.

Allen

It didn't stay on topic past the first page

What we have though is much better for MgT, instead of just slagging it off we are comparing CT to it.

Ok you have a valid point that there is more CT discussion than MgT, but as I said the thread would be long dead.

What I mean is serious by the CT fanboys - look back at how MT, TNE and T4 were recieved on the TML some time :shudder:

Discussing MgT alongside CT is a mark of respect in my book.