• 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.

First Impressions from MGT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, I was wrong, it was sheet metal worker. Tony Iommi from Black Sabbath. They weren't an art school band like most of the rest of the 60's lot; proper working class types them.

There is probably a welder cum rockstar out there though....

Weeeeell actually...

not so much a rock star as he went his own way whilst partner Gerry Rafferty went on to Stealers Wheel and 70's rock stardom but Billy Connelly used to be a welder in the shipyards of Govan, Glasgow before hitting minor success with Gerry Rafferty and the Humblebums.

Now he is a comedic legend, award winning actor and bon vivant. Not bad for a welder and reservist paratrooper.

Anyway, I tend to agree that to maintain a skill level of 3 or 4 takes practice but how about nominating one skill to be a "natural talent" in which your level cannot deteriorate.

Anyway, for what it's worth I enjoy MGT even if it isn't my Traveller brand of choice (MT still has that honour). It plays quite nicely thank you despite some errors. :)
 
For reference, here are a few actual characters my players have rolled up. Note that they all got two skills per term, irrespective of promotion, and a most of them attended university (house rule), which gave them a few extra zero-level skills. All are six termers, except the one exception noted. Zero-levels have been counted as half ranks. Actual ranks in all specialties have been included, but zero-levels in associated specialties have not been.

Shorter term characters, or those rolled up by-the-book, will obviously tend towards lower, possibly much lower, skill totals.

Character 1
Int + Edu = 15
Total Skill Ranks: 20
Rank 3+ Skills: 1 Skill @ 3
Rank 2 Skills: 3

Character 2
Int + Edu: 20
Total Skill Ranks: 21.5
Rank 3+ skills: 1 Skill @ 3
Rank 2 Skills: 1

Character 3
Int + Edu: 18
Total Skill Ranks: 20.5
Rank 3+ Skills: 1 Skill @ 3
Rank 2 Skills: 2

Character 4
7 Terms
Int + Edu: 27
Total Skill Ranks: 27
Rank 3+ Skills: 0
Rank 2 Skills: 8, including all Engineering specialities.
Having looked at this summary, I double-checked this character to work out how he shot so far ahead. He earned a bonus skill almost every term thanks to random events, and benefited from my generous university system -- plus, of course, his extra term. He would have faired just about as well under the default rules, since he made every single promotion roll. For those who have a problem with excess skills, this is an example of a worst-case scenario, where every possible benefit that can be got, is got.

Character 5
Int + Edu: 18
Total Skill Ranks: 21.5
Rank 3+ Skills: 0
Rank 2 Skills: 4
 
For reference, here are a few actual characters my players have rolled up...All are six termers...

Just a small note about this (not directed at sablewyvern specifically, but towards the MGT chargen system). This is one of the things that happens when there is no threat of death during character generation. This happens in CT, too, when the Optional Survival Rule is used.

Since there is no risk, there is nothing stopping a character from going the max terms. I suspect that most characters created using MGT will be five and six termers.

You will hardly ever see a one or two termer.

That means that all of your characters are going to be either 40 or 44 years old. You won't see too many 22 or 26 year olds using this system.

Isn't it strange how all characters are about the same age?
 
S4: Having generated two 1st term characters... it is utterly dependant upon the players and their desires.

Not everyone goes for max terms and maximal skills. ESPECIALLY since it is not essential to have the skills neeed for the campaign prior to beginning play.

It is NOT an automatic. It is not a given, either, and you're continuing to harp on it as if it were factual; it's not. In your experience, fine. Mine says that the threat of killing characters off costs players, while the not killing them off doesn't increase the number of terms they seek, but actually reduces it, since the characters that would have been killed under the death rule to that are now played, instead.

Now, as it sits, 1st term characters are entirely due to injuries, but add back the "Natural 2 on advancement bumps you out" and you're back to full spectrum.
 
That means that all of your characters are going to be either 40 or 44 years old. You won't see too many 22 or 26 year olds using this system.
Isn't it strange how all characters are about the same age?

In our group we have never had that kind of problem. There are "rookies" as
well as "veterans" among the characters. Since my players are more interes-
ted in roleplaying than powergaming, they design their characters according
to the setting and the story, not according to any stats.
 
Personally, I don't see that it matters (beyond the desires of the group, of course, which are easily catered for). When I was younger, most people played 16-22 year olds. These days, as long as the system supports making characters competent enough for the results not to be farcical, most of my players will tend to have PCs in their late 20s to mid 30s.

In any case, my game setting contains billions of 20 and 26 year olds. But, to answer your question, no, the fact that the game doesn't focus on them, but on on a half-dozen friends who are older than that, and who got together after retirement from their formal careers to start a business venture doesn't seem at all strange to me. Why should it?

Edit: I note that I phrased my response as if S4's comment was directed at me, although he makes it clear it was not. So, to summarise my response to the general assertion -- MGT char gen is perfectly suitable for groups that want only rookies, only veterans, something in-between, or any mix thereof. I don't see how that can be considered a negative.
 
Last edited:
So, to summarise my response to the general assertion -- MGT char gen is perfectly suitable for groups that want only rookies, only veterans, something in-between, or any mix thereof. I don't see how that can be considered a negative.

The problem is that some of us strongly disagree with your assertion. Merely claiming that MGT is "perfectly suitable" does not make the case that it is, in fact, "perfectly suitable".
 
S4: Having generated two 1st term characters... it is utterly dependant upon the players and their desires.

Not everyone goes for max terms and maximal skills. ESPECIALLY since it is not essential to have the skills neeed for the campaign prior to beginning play.

It is NOT an automatic.

*If* a system strongly rewards certain choices, I don't find it very convincing to claim that those choices won't happen most of the time because those choices are voluntary and that "not everyone" will choose the more effective/powerful/competent character.

In my experience, most players will choose the options that result in the most effective characters. If the system rewards older characters with significantly more skills (and lacks a serious offsetting cost), I am unpersuaded by the bald assertion that most characters won't take advantage of this fact out of choice.

In other words, I think that gamers, like everyone else, tend to respond to incentives. If a game system makes old characters more powerful on average, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that most players will respond to this incentive by playing older characters. And merely noting that the players can choose not to play older characters does *not* make the case that most of them will make that choice.
 
Last edited:
For reference, here are a few actual characters my players have rolled up.

How did you count 0-level skills? EDIT: THe answer is "1/2 level", which you cleverly hid in plain sight at the beginning of your post.

How many level 0 skills did these characters have on average?
 
Last edited:
*If* a system strongly rewards certain choices, I don't find it very convincing to claim that those choices won't happen most of the time because those choices are voluntary and that "not everyone" will choose the more effective/powerful/competent character.

It depends on whether the group plays more the system or more the setting,
I think.

In our group, the setting is at the centre, and the system is just a tool. We
also play the same setting with other systems (BRP, Thousand Suns), Travel-
ler is just one of the options provided by our toolbox.
Perhaps therefore the players are more interested in the most interesting roles
their characters can have within the setting than in the numerical strength of
their characters. And quite often the setting provides an incentive to play a
less powerful, less experienced character.
Plus, our setting is a "sandbox", the challenges for the characters are more or
less fixed in their dimensions - I do not like the unrealistic approach to provide
stronger and stronger enemies and problems for the characters.
So, the "weaker" the characters, the bigger the challenges, and the more in-
teresting it is to try to be successful.

There are many ways to play roleplaying games, and not all of them reward
the "strongest" characters.
 
In other words, I think that gamers, like everyone else, tend to respond to incentives. If a game system makes old characters more powerful on average, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that most players will respond to this incentive by playing older characters. And merely noting that the players can choose not to play older characters does *not* make the case that most of them will make that choice.

Older PCs have aging rolls to deal with.

The Ref may refuse to allow older characters, or simply beef up the opposition to compensate.
 
Older PCs have aging rolls to deal with.

Yes, I know that. But I never stated that there were no disadvantages to older characters. I only stated that *if* a system results in older characters being more powerful, then it's reasonable to assume that players will tend to play older characters if they can. A system could easily make older characters suffer aging roll, yet still wind up more powerful on average than younger characters.
 
Yes, I know that. But I never stated that there were no disadvantages to older characters. I only stated that *if* a system results in older characters being more powerful, then it's reasonable to assume that players will tend to play older characters if they can. A system could easily make older characters suffer aging roll, yet still wind up more powerful on average than younger characters.

And, the aging rolls start at 34 like in CT?

I haven't found, in CT, that the aging roll deters a player from going an extra term as much as failing the Survival Throw and being "dead".

If the player really likes his character, he might risk a point or two drop in a stat, especially if he can afford it (and MGT characters arrange stats to taste, so I would bet money that most players have their highest stats in their physicals). But, if if failing Survival means bye-bye character, then Term Two might look like a damn good place to stop--it might not be worth another 2 skills to risk the life of the character.

Thus, in CT, when the Optional Surival throw is used, most characters are either 3 or 4 Term'ers. The 4 termers are the ones who risk age once. And, what you get is a lot of characters that are 30-34 years old.

In MGT, since there's not a lot stopping a character from going 6 terms, I bet that those characters will average 34-38 years old and be 4-5 term characters (thinking that they'll avoid some age throws).

In CT, with the Hard Survival Rule, characters are all over the place. Some stop at Term 1 while others risk higher.
 
I would bet money that most players have their highest stats in their physicals. ... I bet that those characters will average 34-38 years old and be 4-5 term characters ...

In my group you would lose both bets. On the one hand, the adventures we
play require INT and EDU more than STR and DEX, on the other hand - as
mentioned elsewhere - the age of the characters depends on the story we
intend to play.
It is somewhat like the casting for a movie: If you have a plot and a script
for a team of young scientists, you will not hire Robert Redford or Sean Con-
nery ...
By the way, from my experience the way my group plays Traveller is not that
much unusual, because Traveller is one of the games that offers far more
than combat adventures as roleplaying options.
 
Skill bloat question

Mike Tyson at 24 vrs George Foreman at 54. who wins?

You mean "stat" bloat question?

Poor old George has two problems. (1) His stats have degraded due to age. (2) His skill isn't what it used to be.

In CT, skills degrade. They just degrade at a slow pace. Check out MWM's comment in the experience section of LBB2 about snipers and how they are at their peak during training. Skill drops after 4 years of neglect.

Like riding a bicycle, we never really forget how, but our skills sure degrade. Have you been on roller skates since you were in Jr. High School?



BTW, does MGT have a process, like CT, where skills actually degrade if neglected?

CT has the Experience Limit, which is defined as INT+EDU. In order to pick which skills should be dropped if the Experience Limit is met, it is implied that it is the ones the character never uses that much.

Skill level never drops below Skill-0, though. So, like riding a bicycle or roller skating, we don't ever really forget how to do it--we're just not as good as we were before.
 
Last edited:
So, to summarise my response to the general assertion -- MGT char gen is perfectly suitable for groups that want only rookies, only veterans, something in-between, or any mix thereof. I don't see how that can be considered a negative.

The problem is that some of us strongly disagree with your assertion. Merely claiming that MGT is "perfectly suitable" does not make the case that it is, in fact, "perfectly suitable".

I was responding to a discussion regarding the age of characters. If the group wants 22 year olds (which, I think it's fair to state is a rookie by Traveller standards), then they make single term characters. Done. That seems wholly and objectively simple and obvious to me, and the rules place no obstacles in the way of doing so.

*If* a system strongly rewards certain choices, I don't find it very convincing to claim that those choices won't happen most of the time because those choices are voluntary and that "not everyone" will choose the more effective/powerful/competent character.

I, on the other hand, assume that a group will decide amongst themselves what style of game they want, and use the tools available to them to play that style of game. I agree that most PCs rolled up for MGT will probably be older. I do not believe this will be likely to occur in any situation where the members of the group want young characters. To assume that a group will somehow be forced to play the game in a fashion against their wishes seems truly bizarre to me.

How many level 0 skills did these characters have on average?

Character 1: 4 Skills @ 0
Character 2: 8 Skills @ 0 (University)
Character 3: 7 Skills @ 0 (University)
Character 4: 6 Skills @ 0 (University)
Character 5: 5 Skills @ 0

Characters who benefited from my advanced education house rule are noted, they gained six basic training skills from their Uni term in addition to six from their first regular term, with the uni skills centred on art, science and trades.
 
Character 1: 8B9874
Character 2: 3859B6
Character 3: 666A86
Character 4: 496FC7
Character 5: 8A9A8E

A fairly complete, step-by-step breakdown of the char gen process for each character, including complete skill lists, can be found on the Mongoose boards.

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34757

Might want to brace yourself, though, Sup, before you go check them out. They're clearly not the sort of PCs you'd allow anywehere near your gaming table. ;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top