Another example could be the Russian Czar Alexander I. When he wanted to
avoid "pomp and circumstances", he became the "Count of the North" for a
while.
First Impressions from MGT
- Thread starter Golan2072
- Start date
- Status
Another example could be the Russian Czar Alexander I. When he wanted to
avoid "pomp and circumstances", he became the "Count of the North" for a
while.
sablewyvern
SOC-12
I liked it. The Age of Sail in a sci-fi setting is actually something that exists for a reason, and while there isn't as much combat as I would have liked, what is there is written very well. The third book takes a strange turn -- it seems like he had an entirely different story he wanted to tell, so he opens with that before returning the premise of the actual series -- but, overall I would recommend it.
Gallowglacht
SOC-12
But when it comes time to test that Stat, he can lift that heavy object. The fact that he was once weak no longer matters. When this guy pushes his Social influence he is now doing it as an officer in the navy. But he is still only Soc6 and loses to a born Noble. The stat is doing its job anyway, without need for exceptions. If he is a higher rank than the Noble and gives a legal order, the Noble has to follow it. Again the system works and no need for exceptions.
Again you are implying I'm putting roleplay restrictions. I'm not I'm simply talking about a game stat, and only doing it because we were discussing the change of that stat. For this discussion I'm not on about how they are roleplayed, just the game effect of their stats.
Now if Soc 2 guy makes it to the rank of Duke. Yes people will see him differently to the 15th generation Duke. They may look down on him, make jokes about him, but they won't challenge the guy. He is still a Duke, moreso he rose himself up to this great height. The guy is Hardcore, gains respect to his face and a +DM to persuasion. Maybe the other Dukes and Archdukes don't treat him aswell as a proper Duke but god help the Baron who tries to anything.
Agreed. But since these will be decided by Fiat on a case by case basis there is no real need to worry about having given this guy Soc 6.
We actually mostly agree here too. All I was saying was once you have decided to change the quantifiable number (ie the Stat) act like it has changed. The occasional change due to background can be done on an ad-hoc basis as you do with the other characters. If you don't believe that the new rank merits the "amorphous characteristic" increase, like you say above; them don't change the stat and let his rank act as the ad-hoc, case by case adjustment.
However I'm starting to think you are just doing pretty much the same thing from the other direction.
Umm confesion time. I'm a TNE/Reformation Coalition fan. I use Chr, not Soc.
D'oh, no wireless for me, I just can't spell.
Looks good to me. And cheers I found the discussion helpfull too.
Impressions from the Animals and Encounters Chapter
The beginning of this chapter has a list of the subject covered by this cahpter - a good practice.
The MGT animal rules are essentially an expanded version of the CT-LBB3 ones. You could generate an animal completely randomly, starting with it's "behavior" (i.e. ecological niche) - for example, carnivores are divided into Killers, Pouncers and Chasers. Using the creature's behavior and environment (e.g. jungle, plains, underwater etc), you generate its weight, which in turn determines its weapon damage and its characteristic ranges (yes, animals now have characteristics and even skills - more on that later). As in CT, the tables allow you to generate an animal's movement mode (swimming, flying or walking) and its natural weapons and armor as well. Behavior type could also
Animals now have characteristics similar to those of PCs. They have Strength, Endurance and Dexterity, functioning just like those of PCs (though they might have stats far lower or higher than those of an average PC). These characteristics are used for animal wounds just as for PCs - I actually prefer this over CT's somewhat cumbersome "hit point" mechanism. Animals also have Intelligence, but it's usually only 1 or 2, and most perception/decision-making tasks for animals use Instinct (which replaces EDU for them) instead anyway - Intelligence is a bit of a redundant characteristic for them. In addition to Instinct they have another new characteristic - Pack - instead of SOC. Pack determines how social the species is (and thus how many are typically encountered in a single encounter); and individual animals in that species with a position of power (e.g. an alpha male) would have higher than average Pack ratings.
Animals now have skills, at the very minimum Survival-0, Athletics-0 and Recon-0. Most have at least 1d6 skill points to distribute among these skills, melee and any additional skills determined by behavior (Pouncers, for example, get access to Stealth).
The referee is also encouraged to give each world one or two "planetary quirks" - that is, common features in the dominant animal types (for example, most animals are egg-layers, or most animals are group-organisms composed of swarms of smaller creatures). There are also animals reaction rules (i.e. determining whether an encountered animal would attack or flee).
There is a detailed animal generation example, as well as a few sample animals (strangely enough, the end result of the generation example doesn't show up among these samples).
This chapter also handles environmental dangers such as falling (causes damage based on the distance fallen), extreme temperatures (cause damage over time if you aren't adequately protected), disease (forces you to roll an Endurance check; if you fail, you receive damage and have to roll again after an interval; if you fail the second roll you receive damage and have to roll again and so on), poison (the same as disease, but without the intervals) and extreme weather (causes a negative DM to all actions).
The fatigue rules are, strangely enough, here and not in the combat chapter, even though you get fatigued by making more melee attacks in a single combat than your Endurance characteristic. The same goes to the rules for recovering consciousness after being knocked unconscious (by wounds and, possibly, by tranq gas as well) - they should probably belong to the combat chapter.
The MGT healing rules are simple but look quite good. Wounds are divided into normal wounds (at least one characteristic remaining at its maximum) and serious wounds (all three characteristics damaged, even if they're all above zero. Normal wounds usually heal naturally, while serious wounds typically cause your situation to deteriorate without further treatment. Normal wounds could be cured by normal medical care, while serious wounds require surgery (increasing one characteristic to its maximum) before allowing conventional care to be administered. First aid could heal some points even for seriously wounded characters, but must be administered within an hour of receiving the injury to work at all (or within 5 minutes for double effect!).
The healing rules suffer from the fact that the relevant tasks are listed on p.56 (under the Medic skill) rather than here, and that surgery lacks a task description at all!
A cool bit here - if you have augmentations and are treated in a medical facility of a lower TL than the TL of your implants, the doctor treating you suffers a negative DM equal to the difference in TLs.
The chapter continues with a general discussion of NPCs, including a d66 table with various NPC quirks (loyal, aggressive, involved in political intrigue and so on) for generating NPC personalities on the fly. This system is nice, but I prefer TNE's playing-card-based NPC motivation system. There is also a d66 table for generating allies/contacts/rivals/enemies, though, understandably it is limited in nature, and I'll probably prefer to pick my allies/contacts/rivals/enemies myself based on the event that has generated them.
There is, of course, a discussion of patrons (Traveller's equivalent of Shadowrun's "Mr. Johnsons", i.e. people who hire the PCs to performing missions for them), including detailed random patron generation tables and 7 fully-detailed sample patrons (including rewards and variations/catches). There is also a discussion of suitable rewards (PCs with ships should be offered rewards higher than the sum they could earn simply by hauling cargo).
This chapter also includes random encounter tables, which are basically random adventure-seed tables rather than critter encounter tables - I like it that way.
The chapter is concluded by a very, very useful thing - a list of 24 generic common NPCs - guards, thugs, ship crews and so on - with basic stats (characteristics, skills and important gear). This is a great feature - it helps in winging-it during a game.
The beginning of this chapter has a list of the subject covered by this cahpter - a good practice.
The MGT animal rules are essentially an expanded version of the CT-LBB3 ones. You could generate an animal completely randomly, starting with it's "behavior" (i.e. ecological niche) - for example, carnivores are divided into Killers, Pouncers and Chasers. Using the creature's behavior and environment (e.g. jungle, plains, underwater etc), you generate its weight, which in turn determines its weapon damage and its characteristic ranges (yes, animals now have characteristics and even skills - more on that later). As in CT, the tables allow you to generate an animal's movement mode (swimming, flying or walking) and its natural weapons and armor as well. Behavior type could also
Animals now have characteristics similar to those of PCs. They have Strength, Endurance and Dexterity, functioning just like those of PCs (though they might have stats far lower or higher than those of an average PC). These characteristics are used for animal wounds just as for PCs - I actually prefer this over CT's somewhat cumbersome "hit point" mechanism. Animals also have Intelligence, but it's usually only 1 or 2, and most perception/decision-making tasks for animals use Instinct (which replaces EDU for them) instead anyway - Intelligence is a bit of a redundant characteristic for them. In addition to Instinct they have another new characteristic - Pack - instead of SOC. Pack determines how social the species is (and thus how many are typically encountered in a single encounter); and individual animals in that species with a position of power (e.g. an alpha male) would have higher than average Pack ratings.
Animals now have skills, at the very minimum Survival-0, Athletics-0 and Recon-0. Most have at least 1d6 skill points to distribute among these skills, melee and any additional skills determined by behavior (Pouncers, for example, get access to Stealth).
The referee is also encouraged to give each world one or two "planetary quirks" - that is, common features in the dominant animal types (for example, most animals are egg-layers, or most animals are group-organisms composed of swarms of smaller creatures). There are also animals reaction rules (i.e. determining whether an encountered animal would attack or flee).
There is a detailed animal generation example, as well as a few sample animals (strangely enough, the end result of the generation example doesn't show up among these samples).
This chapter also handles environmental dangers such as falling (causes damage based on the distance fallen), extreme temperatures (cause damage over time if you aren't adequately protected), disease (forces you to roll an Endurance check; if you fail, you receive damage and have to roll again after an interval; if you fail the second roll you receive damage and have to roll again and so on), poison (the same as disease, but without the intervals) and extreme weather (causes a negative DM to all actions).
The fatigue rules are, strangely enough, here and not in the combat chapter, even though you get fatigued by making more melee attacks in a single combat than your Endurance characteristic. The same goes to the rules for recovering consciousness after being knocked unconscious (by wounds and, possibly, by tranq gas as well) - they should probably belong to the combat chapter.
The MGT healing rules are simple but look quite good. Wounds are divided into normal wounds (at least one characteristic remaining at its maximum) and serious wounds (all three characteristics damaged, even if they're all above zero. Normal wounds usually heal naturally, while serious wounds typically cause your situation to deteriorate without further treatment. Normal wounds could be cured by normal medical care, while serious wounds require surgery (increasing one characteristic to its maximum) before allowing conventional care to be administered. First aid could heal some points even for seriously wounded characters, but must be administered within an hour of receiving the injury to work at all (or within 5 minutes for double effect!).
The healing rules suffer from the fact that the relevant tasks are listed on p.56 (under the Medic skill) rather than here, and that surgery lacks a task description at all!
A cool bit here - if you have augmentations and are treated in a medical facility of a lower TL than the TL of your implants, the doctor treating you suffers a negative DM equal to the difference in TLs.
The chapter continues with a general discussion of NPCs, including a d66 table with various NPC quirks (loyal, aggressive, involved in political intrigue and so on) for generating NPC personalities on the fly. This system is nice, but I prefer TNE's playing-card-based NPC motivation system. There is also a d66 table for generating allies/contacts/rivals/enemies, though, understandably it is limited in nature, and I'll probably prefer to pick my allies/contacts/rivals/enemies myself based on the event that has generated them.
There is, of course, a discussion of patrons (Traveller's equivalent of Shadowrun's "Mr. Johnsons", i.e. people who hire the PCs to performing missions for them), including detailed random patron generation tables and 7 fully-detailed sample patrons (including rewards and variations/catches). There is also a discussion of suitable rewards (PCs with ships should be offered rewards higher than the sum they could earn simply by hauling cargo).
This chapter also includes random encounter tables, which are basically random adventure-seed tables rather than critter encounter tables - I like it that way.
The chapter is concluded by a very, very useful thing - a list of 24 generic common NPCs - guards, thugs, ship crews and so on - with basic stats (characteristics, skills and important gear). This is a great feature - it helps in winging-it during a game.
... I actually quite like Mongoose Traveller... <... Hivers away into the darkness again...>
So do I. I'm glad they're updating it. In time, I think, this ruleset will be awesome; after the rules are cleaned up a bit.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
The most glaring need IMHO is a better combat system.
claidheamh
SOC-6
I'm actually eagerly awaiting the Mercenary supplement. I know that there are optional rules and updates promised in that sourcebook, I'm hoping for a much more detailed combat ruleset. If not, I can see some major "houseruling" for my game.
Yeah, I think combat can be improved (and I'm tinkering with that (a maximum +6 aiming bonus? Wow!)), and I'm not fond of the Timing and Effect rules either (I won't use the former and I'm still debating the latter), and many other things can stand to be clarified.
All that said, though, the Core Rules sure has gotten me into the Traveller mood and that's never a bad thing.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
They ditched the playtest T/E systems and replaced them with better and less intrusive systems. Effect is still needlessly shoehorned into the combat system and contributes to the combat system being the weakest part of MGT.
In your opinion. Effect could be compared to critical hits in say D&D. roll really really good to hit and you get to do more damage. Personally that seems fair and some what realistic. simulates the difference between barely hitting and landing a shot center mass. well IMO it helps simulate that as I guess a person could roll box cars to hit and still roll a hand full of ones on the damage dice.
I understand that you feel you could have written a better Traveller than mongoose. I think that is great and believe me I am waiting for you to get that perfect version into print so I can run right out and buy a copy. Until then I will be happy playing MGT.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Of course. Is there a MGT system that you think is weaker than its combat system?
Effect could be compared to chocolate pudding, but that don't make it chocolate pudding.
I object to it on the grounds that it is clumsy. The MGT combat system is so unrealistic in how it portrays damage that bringing up "realism" is almost in poor taste. (Of course, MGT's combat system shares that characteristic with many RPG combat systems, so I don't single it out for that.)
Well, I wouldn't get too carried away. The average, uh, effect of the Effect damage modifier is 1.3 points of damage (with +0 modifiers) to 2.26 points of damage (with +4 modifiers). A lot of aggravation for a relatively modest effect.
You could achieve the same statistical spread by (a) adding 1 to all base weapon damages; and (b) allowing players to add +0.25 damage per level of weapon skill.
Of course, *that*'s of such little value, I wouldn't bother.
An alternative mechanic might be to simply provide that a natural "12" does double (or 1.5 or whatever) damage. Or ignores armor.
<yawn>
I wonder how any adult of at least average intelligence can insinuate that only those who can design and build a better product are qualified to point out obvious flaws in a product.
In any case, you can assess my design competencies by reviewing my modern miniature rules A Fistful of TOWs. I'm comfortable letting it speak for itself.
And my best wishes that you will continue to find it flawless.
Last edited:
captainjack
SOC-13
Well, I still like the T/E combat system; however, as we corresponded on the Board That Shall Not Be named But is Mongooses', I'm well aware of the statistical skew, and have no issue with the results it produces.
The like/dislike really seems to fall out based on ones expectation that success or failure, and its degree or description thereof should be modeled by a symmetric distribution. In this case, its an entirely (well, mostly) subjective decision proceeded by an empirical observation: "this is the distribution: it is wrong" .
Me, I'm used to seeing funny distributions as a rule, rather than an exception. YMMV.
It produced a combat flow that had my players acting more like people in a firefight than D&D fearless monster slayers...by which I mean they did do more firefighty things than D&Dlike things; it seemed to mix the goal orientation of a skirmish minis game quite nicely with the consequence-based design of a good RPG*
... you know, the difference between: "I send the skirmishers into the obvious ambush, and wait for the ambushers to exhaust themselves killing them before I attack" and "no way am I going first ! I'm down 22 hit points".
I specifically make the comparison to other gaming systems - I have NO idea how they would or should act in a fire fight -other than us all needing new trousers, I suspect.
Fact is, I think that if MGT has a weakness in combat systems, it is due to abandoning the T/E system for combat.
*good being defined as a game or campaign where actions are resolved in a manner I approve of....and players suffer for stupid and metagamed plans...in other words, good games are ones that I like...
The like/dislike really seems to fall out based on ones expectation that success or failure, and its degree or description thereof should be modeled by a symmetric distribution. In this case, its an entirely (well, mostly) subjective decision proceeded by an empirical observation: "this is the distribution: it is wrong" .
Me, I'm used to seeing funny distributions as a rule, rather than an exception. YMMV.
It produced a combat flow that had my players acting more like people in a firefight than D&D fearless monster slayers...by which I mean they did do more firefighty things than D&Dlike things; it seemed to mix the goal orientation of a skirmish minis game quite nicely with the consequence-based design of a good RPG*
... you know, the difference between: "I send the skirmishers into the obvious ambush, and wait for the ambushers to exhaust themselves killing them before I attack" and "no way am I going first ! I'm down 22 hit points".
I specifically make the comparison to other gaming systems - I have NO idea how they would or should act in a fire fight -other than us all needing new trousers, I suspect.
Fact is, I think that if MGT has a weakness in combat systems, it is due to abandoning the T/E system for combat.
*good being defined as a game or campaign where actions are resolved in a manner I approve of....and players suffer for stupid and metagamed plans...in other words, good games are ones that I like...
Last edited:
Hi,
Although its been awhile since I played Classic Traveller, I kind of agree with your comments that different people will put different emphasis on different characterisitics.
Specifically, back when I did play me and my friends would sometimes vary the rules a little like allowing ourselves to roll characteristics in any order we wanted. As such, when we needed a Noble character or NPC we would roll Soc 1st, and would keep rerolling until we got a high enough value for that and then we would then roll the rest of the characterisitcs normally from there.
Alternately, if we needed a Merchant/Navigator or something like that I might roll Intelligence 1st (and keep rerolling that characterisitc until we got a high enough value so that we could roll at least some of our our skills on the advanced training table). For other type characters, similarly I would typically roll whichever characterisitc would give the best DM for survival or promotion etc, first.
As such, I think the characters that we used to roll up would reflect different emphasis on different characteristics for different character types.
Regards
PF
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Since MGT ditched the playtest T/E system, a debate on it seems academic to me and I'm not really interested.
A fascinating assertion, given that the initiative system made it impossible to replicate normal infantry tactics (and also frustrated dramatic hollywood firefight tactics as well). Oh well, as noted above, it's academic since Mongoose (wisely) abandoned the system before publication.
<shrug>
This must be some new definition of "weakness" that I'm not aware of. The flaws in MGT's combat (IMHO) arise from its handling of damage and armor, *not* the fact that it abandoned a horrible sequencing system and a clumsy, ill-conceived task system.
I may not be of average intelligence but I manage to get by. I do not see the "obvious flaws" you persist in trying to point out. While there are some minor flaws here and there, such as the absence of the SMG skill, I still believe that MGT is the best of the litter when it comes to Traveller core rule books. I understand you play some version of CT. Do you contend that CT has a better combat system than MGT? What do you feel CT does better than MGT? Do you prefer the way skills are implemented in CT compared to MGT? If you want to house rule CT to the point that you are playing traveller in name only go for it. I however would rather run a more vanilla game where the players can just go buy a book and know the rules with no need for me to print up anything else for them. I like to keep it simple.
My perception having read these boards is not that you are critiquing the MGT system but more like you are bitter that mongoose didnt impliment your ideas and now must do what you can to get even. That is how you are coming off to me.
No need to prove anything to me. I dont design games and I am not overly concerned with crunch. What I do is run games weekly for a group of grogs and I have found, so far, that MGT has made our traveller games better since we switched over from CT. Regardless I do not see the comparison between a RPG and a tabletop wargame and dont believe doing one makes a person an authority on the other.
Best wishes to you that you find a version of Traveller that makes you and your game group happy.
captainjack
SOC-13
Well, It is academic, which is the point....my intent isn't to change MGT, which is a fait accompli, nor to change minds, especially yours, just discuss mechanics. So, and this this said in a companionly way if you feel you don't want to discuss, and must debate, feel free to drop out.
As to the infantry tactics, I'm sure I don't know. I have lots of written information on the subject, but no personal experience at being under fire. My point , and I stated this explicitly, was that the T/E initiative tick system in the playtest version produced a fun, more realistic effect than many RPG systems, CT included.
That it used your despised T/E system matters not one whit; that your players couldn't produce realistic results to your satisfaction is also unimportant, if a shame. Mine could and did. Possibly I'm an idiot, or ignorant of infantry tactics.
As to the existing system, I said "If it has a flaw" not, "it is flawed and broken should be hounded unto removal and banning".....My experience so far is that the existing system, while adequate, doesn't have that same zing that made players feel more involved with their actions and choices.
I understand that your dislike for the statistical distribution of the base T/E system made it impossible for you to accept its implementation in the combat system. As I've said, I don't accept your subjective assumptions about the distribution issues, and feel that replacing the T/E system in a half-assed way with a much more vanilla system was a mistake - one possibly caused by massed fan pressure, so possibly I'm the one in the wrong.
The system had lots of people playing it and enjoying it, and reporting that the characters did realistic things. That it seems that the main complaint was a talmudic assertion about the distribution shape being the cause of all its problems is....well, what happened.
Now. Developing T/E and combat -its own thread perhaps ? Can you walk away from your problems with it ?
captainjack
SOC-13
Jamus, trying to read intent into behavior is a task that has baffled my profession and others since time began. One can discuss or argue with Ty (and others) without going there, and do it more effectively. And if he is, so what ? If his points are clear, and they are, and and you feel refutable, stick to that. Stay away from motivation. After all......there are lots of unpleasant motivation that can be attributed simply to posting on the internet, let alone arguing, and none are provable or disprovable in the least. God knows I don't want a discussion of percieved reasons for writing this post .....
- Status
