Which Edition? Differences between CT and Mongoose

[KyleLittle]

Which Edition? Differences between CT and Mongoose

Great post, not only informative but a huge nostalgia trip too.

Many thanks for sharing this!

 

[sabredog]

The biggest difference between the two sets I noticed was that MGT has lots of die rolling. Lots of charts for die rolling.

CT has always been more open-ended to me and the die rolls seem more intuitive. Maybe not so much as a D% skill-based system like RQ but still easy to do and tasking can just be as easy as setting goals of 6-8-10-12 for a 2D6 roll. I have, in my own campaigns, added attribute DM's to the tasking as well to provide more personal influence.

It also seems a lot easier to run CT on the fly with mods as you go than MGT; probably because of all the charts and tables. There is also a tremendous amount of 'archeological' material to mine that is ready made for CT. To me, the more charts and tables, detailed rules on tasking, and dice rolling required, the less immersive the game is. Your mileage may vary.

In the end the two are pretty close to the 'flavor' of Traveller over all, but I far, far prefer CT. In fact, the current campaign I'm running is (as they all have been since the first printing) CT and most of the players didn't even know how to play it, nor had they ever seen the rules. They only knew of the game's reputation and it only took a couple of sessions and they were having a great time understanding and using the rules. My campaign is heavier on the role-playing side this time around, too, so even with rules that seem kinda "dry" to people these worked fine without lots of tables and charts.

In the end it's a personal thing, though, and if I hadn't ever run the CT rules all my life I'd probably be more amenable to switching up once in a while. So if you want to use the latest and greatest MGT now's your chance I guess.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The biggest difference between the two sets I noticed was that MGT has lots of die rolling. Lots of charts for die rolling.

I been rolling dice less often since switching to Mongoose.

 

[mike wightman]

CT - we jump to the next system.
CT Ref - ok, you are using refined fuel and you are at the 100D limit so in a weeks time you pop out of jump space in Bootle IV.

MgT - we jump to the next system
MgT ref - ok roll for astrogation to plot the course, now roll for engineering(power plant) to have the energy. now roll for engineering (jump drive) to make sure the jump drive is working, now roll for piloting

ok - I may be stretching things a bit, but in CT you were likely to roll a saving throw once per situation, more during combat, and sometimes you didn't need to roll.

The move to MT, GT and then MgT task systems mean you are rolling for everything. Someone somewhere thought it kept the players involved to be rolling dice for every simple/routine task, but forgot one thing - every roll after the first increases the chance of failure regardless of the task difficulty etc.

 

[Whipsnade]

Someone somewhere thought it kept the players involved to be rolling dice for every routine task, but forgot one thing - every roll after the first increases the chance of failure regardless of the task difficulty etc.

Math is hard...

 

[Ulsyus]

The move to MT, GT and then MgT task systems mean you are rolling for everything. Someone somewhere thought it kept the players involved to be rolling dice for every simple/routine task, but forgot one thing - every roll after the first increases the chance of failure regardless of the task difficulty etc.

But task rolls can be used to reflect the risky nature of an event or the component parts of a complex task. You're right about the increased failure of negative results, but that can be mitigated with softened mishaps or the option to save against the mishap when it occurs.

Alternatively a group could make a single roll for a Jump and if that failed then they could then commence the collection of component rolls. That way you get the best (or worse) of both means

 

[rhialto]

The move to MT, GT and then MgT task systems mean you are rolling for everything. Someone somewhere thought it kept the players involved to be rolling dice for every simple/routine task, but forgot one thing - every roll after the first increases the chance of failure regardless of the task difficulty etc.

Not to mention that player agency is inversely proportional to the number of task die-rolls...:coffeesip:

Put another way, it's the difference between more of a causal vs. more of an effect-based task: in CT it's more effect-based, where the throw simply determines success/failure, and the cause can be filled in mostly after the throw. In subsequent editions it's more causal-based, where you build up the causes of why a throw has a certain success/failure chance. Tastes will vary on which is better for you as Ref and your group, but I've run MgT1e and CT in about even amounts, and much prefer CT's approach.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The move to MT, GT and then MgT task systems mean you are rolling for everything. Someone somewhere thought it kept the players involved to be rolling dice for every simple/routine task, but forgot one thing - every roll after the first increases the chance of failure regardless of the task difficulty etc.

Rule Zero.

Also, chained tasks.

 

[Daidoji Dave]

The move to MT, GT and then MgT task systems mean you are rolling for everything. Someone somewhere thought it kept the players involved to be rolling dice for every simple/routine task, but forgot one thing - every roll after the first increases the chance of failure regardless of the task difficulty etc.

First paragraph of MgT Skills chapter:

Most of the actions undertaken by characters do not require a skill check. [examples] ... Some actions will require the character to have a particular skill, but will still not require a roll. A character with Flyer 0 can fly air/raft under normal conditions without having to make a roll.

The Referee should only call for checks:

• when the characters are in danger.
• when the task is especially difficult or hazardous.
• when the characters are under the pressure of time.
• when success or failure is especially important or interesting.

If you're rolling for everything in Mongoose Traveller you can't blame the rulebook.

 

[Whipsnade]

If you're rolling for everything in Mongoose Traveller you can't blame the rulebook.

That can be said about any RPG.

I'll point out that MgT doesn't follow it's own advice, something else it has in common with nearly all RPGs. It explicitly states "Rule Zero" with "Some actions will require the character to have a particular skill, but will still not require a roll." only to turn around and provide specific task rolls for what should be activities being performed "under normal conditions".

 

[Daidoji Dave]

That can be said about any RPG.

It can be said about any rpg, but that would be a non-meaningful reply to my post. Not every rpg says "don't roll for everything", so there's a meaningful difference between rolling for everything against the advice of the ruleset and then complaining that you're rolling for everything (the critique of MgT I was replying to), and fixing a game by throwing out rolls (as a GM can indeed always do).

I'll point out that MgT doesn't follow it's own advice, something else it has in common with nearly all RPGs. It explicitly states "Rule Zero" with "Some actions will require the character to have a particular skill, but will still not require a roll."...

"Some actions will require the character to have a particular skill, but will still not require a roll." isn't Rule Zero, it's "Some actions will require the character to have a particular skill, but will still not require a roll." The plain meaning of the sentence suffices, without redefining it as Rule Zero.

... only to turn around and provide specific task rolls for what should be activities being performed "under normal conditions".

It provides example difficulty modifiers (or in the case of Jumps a dice chain, admittedly) for when you do roll, but nowhere in any of those cases does it say "and by the way, always roll, notwithstanding page 48."

I get you prefer Classic, and that would be defensible on it's own merits, but you're reading into the text of MgT something that's not there.

 

[Qstor2]

I think one of the biggest differences between CT and MgT for me is that character death is optional in MgT. That's a big draw for me and I think in any game as a gateway for new players. If you have newbies playing a game and the character dies in character generation I get the sense they'll be like WHAT?!

But in general I think that MgT 1e plays like CT and is very similar otherwise.

 

[Supplement Four]

CT has an optional rule for character death where the character serves two years instead of the full four for the term and musters out then.

I don't recommend the rule, for a number of reasons.

Character death in CT is actually a player tool. It's a feature--a benefit for the player.

The player rolls stats straight--just 2D for each characteristic. If a player doesn't like what he gets, his recourse is to kill the character off in character generation. There is a slight risk that the character cannot be killed, but, most times, the player can be successful in killing off the character.

This dead character isn't wasted. The Ref should take the character and add him to the NPC pool. The character, maybe altered a bit, will probably show up in the game somewhere as an adversary. Nothing is wasted. It's a nice Ref tool to have a short stack of killed off characters to just grab and use impromptu during a game.

Using Book 1 rules, stats are rolled iron man style, just 2D for each attribute, as I described above. Then, the player chooses one of the six careers and tries for enlistment. If enlistment is missed, the character must submit to the Draft. Plus, even though the player picks the table to roll upon for skills, the skills must still be rolled.

Thus, if a player is keen to play a particular character--let's say he wants to play a Scout--killing off the character that doesn't become a Scout is the game rule that allows the player to generally play what he wants.

Of course, there are limits. Maybe the character isn't killed off, which usually has a charm all its own--it's not unusual for a player to change his mind about a character who persists in living, discovering an affection for the stubborn character. But, for the most part, killing off the character is a tool the player can use to skew the randomly rolled character towards something the player wants to play.

 

[ffilz]

Killing off the character isn't quite so easy as suggested, but yes, it's still a good tool. The risk of death also puts back pressure against the desire to go more more terms and more skills.

Frank

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I think one of the biggest differences between CT and MgT for me is that character death is optional in MgT. That's a big draw for me and I think in any game as a gateway for new players. If you have newbies playing a game and the character dies in character generation I get the sense they'll be like WHAT?!

The older you let your MgT characters age, the weaker they get (all 1's for physical characteristics, and they end up being a drifter).

 

[ffilz]

The older you let your MgT characters age, the weaker they get (all 1's for physical characteristics, and they end up being a drifter).

Does MgT also eliminate the chance of death due to aging a physical characteristic down to 0?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Does MgT also eliminate the chance of death due to aging a physical characteristic down to 0?

Travellers die during chargen if players choose not to pay medical bills during aging crisis.

 

[Supplement Four]

Killing off the character isn't quite so easy as suggested, but yes, it's still a good tool. The risk of death also puts back pressure against the desire to go more more terms and more skills.

Yeah, with the soft rule, players will keep on re-enlisting in order to get skills. What stops them is the Age rolls.

Most players will go three terms, if they can.

And, you end up with almost ever PC to be 30 years old, with three terms under their belt, unless someone bricked a survival roll and was forced out early.

Using the hard survival rule is a much better way of using chargen, imo.

 

[robject]

Character death in CT is actually a player tool. It's a feature--a benefit for the player.

[...]it's not unusual for a player to change his mind about a character who persists in living, discovering an affection for the stubborn character. But, for the most part, killing off the character is a tool the player can use to skew the randomly rolled character towards something the player wants to play.

Good points.

Character death is an important hedge against the "Geezer Traveller" effect... since you're getting all your experience points during chargen, the temptation is to max out your character on skills and characteristics, typically ending up with a 78 year old who's ready for Adventure faster than you can say "Harrison Ford"

 

[aramis]

Good points.

Character death is an important hedge against the "Geezer Traveller" effect... since you're getting all your experience points during chargen, the temptation is to max out your character on skills and characteristics, typically ending up with a 78 year old who's ready for Adventure faster than you can say "Harrison Ford"

Except that I have found it to not be true.

With the soft rule, I see most characters at 5 terms, not 3. Mostly for the retirement pay, just so they can have that fallback. I've even seen 12 term characters... tho' 3 of the five were vilani, and thus no manditory retirement.