First Impressions from MGT

[Supplement Four]

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.

I find it hard to believe that players will put a high score in SOC unless it makes that character a noble.

Let's say the roll is: A34758

Where do you think that 3 is going?

In STR, DEX, or END? I'd bet not.

In INT or EDU? Probably not.

In SOC? Most likely.



As a matter, I'd bet that a vast majority of players would assemble these stats like this: 7A8543.

 

[kafka47]

Actually, I found that MGT was more Books 1-3 than T20 ever was. That is its greatest strength and drawback having got into Traveller in 1985...much of the Imperial Campaign & fights over this & that had been settled in CT. MGT does offer some interesting solutions to CT problems.

So reading through MGT (as that explains my absence from the forums), it felt somehow incomplete...which is a good thing for a game company, as it prompts you to want to buy more just as it did back in 1985. I did pick up Starter Traveller then moved on to Mercenary, High Guard and the rest until TNE/T4/T20. To say that I am merely a collector, is not a fair assumption...as each one of the rulesets other than MT, I could never really wrap my head around & even that one - I never used the personal combat rules preferring CT. I think, I will try MGT as some of the rules like taking off End was a brilliant move.

The art as it has been said before ranges from the brilliant or chilling to the slapstick. This as most people know is my pet peeve. For the most part, I wish they stuck with a consistant style namely of the pencil shadings like they did with the Starships. For the characters, just made me almost shut the product.

The layout was good save that charts and references are separated far apart from one another. The little things on the bottom that were akin to sidebars or chapter headings were cute but all too often one's eye missed them...which a pity as they contained sometimes vital information for the newbie.

All in all. I certainly felt that I got my money's worth and this product rightly deserves the name of Traveller even though it is more Classic Traveller than I would like. Notwithstanding, one important cavet, this MGT not CT+. No amount of playtesting would make it so. So get over it. Respect this as another edition to the Traveller Universe. Is it the last word in Traveller? Well, that is up to us, the fans - if we show the Intellectual Property that drives the system is bankrupt and devoid of ideas - then MGT will be the last word, as nobody will carry flame forth. However, if we continue to offer constructive criticism and defend the gains in the past, then Traveller will rise again.

 

[far-trader]

I get your point and agree, but...

...I'd bet that a vast majority of players would assemble these stats like this: 7A8543.

I wouldn't bet against you and I'd be in the minority

I'd probably run those: 754A83 but then I'm usually a Free-Trader

Ultimately it would depend on the character I want to play. The A would probably go:

Soc for Navy

Str for Marines

Dex for Army

End for Scouts (unless I was bucking for a reroll and doing a suicide by IISS)

Int for Merchants

(and I don't do Other )

Given those numbers as rolled (the best way at times) I'd shoot for the Marines.

 

[Klaus]

As a matter, I'd bet that a vast majority of players would assemble these stats like this: 7A8543.

You have quite a low opinion of the average player, sir! In my experience players play whatever players play. Some want to play meatheads, some want to play brainboxes. That "vast majority" of yours doesn't exist, whether it's DnD or any other game, at least in all the groups I've ever played with.

And especially in Traveller. INT and EDU are far more important than STR and END for most common tasks. Fighting is not particularly common in the Trav games I've played, and reffed. And if a player wants a combat type, why not let him have high STR and END.

I will admit that I do tend to put my lower scores in SOC (tho not necessarily the lowest), but that's got more to do with my own personal prejudices against aristos than power gaming. If SOC meant Social Abilities (ie: Charisma) rather than Social Standing then it would be usually my highest stat.

This is the order I tend to put my characteristics in if I'm playing.

INT / DEX / EDU / END / STR / SOC (tho sometimes SOC will be higher than STR, depending on the kind of character)

I will also qualify this by saying in games I am reffing I let players reroll any 4 or less, on the rationale that anyone with scores this low is either very sick, brain damaged, or crippled (at 18; injuries and aging can then of course bring them lower), and that in a high tech society treatments for this are routine.

I did once roll up a character with the following stats. 224CC9 - basically that is Professor Stephen Hawking, and no mistake.

 

[Supplement Four]

You have quite a low opinion of the average player, sir!

No, not really. Even a great (or even good) role player still has his eye on mechanics. A good role player will also, when it's up to him, arrange stats to his statistical benefit unless he's got a good role playing reason to do something different.

For example, if the GM is throwing a game based around nobles and the upper crust, then, of course, you'll see a lot of high SOC scores. I'm talking about typical games. Not the exceptions.

I will admit that I do tend to put my lower scores in SOC (tho not necessarily the lowest), but that's got more to do with my own personal prejudices against aristos than power gaming.

Most Traveller gamers will follow your lead for different reasons. SOC doesn't provide a benefit to the character until it reaches B+ (sometimes A+). So, that will be the "trash" stat, where, typically, the lowest rolled score will go.

And, because MGT provides a penalty DM for low scores, SOC will get a lot of the low scores because there are fewer SOC related throws than there are throws based on the other stats.







Maybe a better example is this: The throws are ABC982.

Where does the "2" go?

I would bet money that the vast majority of gamers will stick that 2 in SOC unless, as I said at the beginning of this post, they have a good role playing reason for not doing so (so, I'm saying, that most will not have a good role playing reason for doing so).

 

[Supplement Four]

Maybe a better example is this: The throws are ABC982.

Where does the "2" go?

One other thing that strikes me as something that doesn't appeal about MGT's "arrange to taste" system...

Heretofore, nobles have been special. The position has been hard to obtain. A high score needed to be achieved in SOC on the single 2D throw, and/or a +1 SOC bump or two needed to be rolled during chargen.

It wasn't something that is easy to do. It certainly isn't something that easy to do in CT.

But, in MGT, you roll six times, and arrange to taste. That's going to make it much more likely that one of those throws is a 12. And, that's going to make it much more likely that characters are noble--roll it once and then make that your SOC score.

Some may agree with this. I'm not sure I do.

 

[Ishmael]

It seems to me that allowing players to choose where the dice go promotes roll playing as players shuffle numbers around to get the 'best' character possible, game-rules wise.

Just as people have no choice over their inherent abilities gained through genetics, pcs should not either. If a pc wants to play a certain kind of character, nothing is stopping him. The drive the pc has to overcome any so-called deficiencies would make for a more gripping background and even the personality neccessary for becoming the person they wish to be despite their weaknesses. The character developement needed to play such pc's is role-playing at its finest.

 

[tbeard1999]

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.

Of course, none is so blind as one who will not see...

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?

When evaluating a combat system, I look at two major elements -- how it handles hitting/damage/penetration/armor; and how the sequence of play works.

Regarding the latter, my initial impression is that CT works better than MGT. However, I want to give the MGT combat sequence of play time to grow on me before finalizing that opinion. But I'm pretty sure that Snapshot or AHL offer better combat sequencing for players who want fiddly tactical systems (I don't).

Regarding hitting/damage/penetration/armor, I think CT marginally wins. Which speaks more to the weakness of MGT than to the excellence of CT, which has rather dated and I think limited mechanisms. (Yes, I know, Supplement Four, we disagree on this one.) I wouldn't use either system, frankly. But being as charitable as possible to MGT, I cannot find any reason to hold that MGT is superior -- other than the fact that range bands better match the starship grids -- even if the deckplans don't

What do you feel CT does better than MGT?

I should note that I have generally avoided direct comparisons with CT, except in cases where I wanted to foreclose the "but CT did it that way" argument. I am not necessarily saying that MGT is inferior to CT; I'm evaluating MGT on its own merits. But since you ask...

I haven't worked MGT out thoroughly yet, my answers are tentative in some areas. But here's my breakdown:

Character Generation: I'm warming to MGT's random system, so MGT probably wins, at least on mechanics. MGT gives *way* too many skills for a 2d6 system IMHO, but that's an easy problem to fix. The issue is more complex because I had no problems with LBB1/Supp4 character generation. The MGT points based system isn't much use IMHO. I prefer my own system there.

Combat: CT is better, though neither system is satisfactory to me. Either AHL or Snapshot is a clear winner over MGT, as are any number of house ruled combat systems, including 2 of my own. This is MGT's biggest disappointment to me, although it could have been FAR worse had they kept the playtest systems.

Starship Design: MGT is a nice improvement over LBB2, though larger hull sizes should have been included. MGT is distinctly inferior to High Guard.

Starship Combat. Still assessing MGT, but it seems clear to me that High Guard is better. LBB2 is not better, but the range band system in Starter Traveller may be better.

Economics: Both broken, but I give CT the title just because it lacks the pointless and ill-conceived "ship shares" system.

World Generation/Animals/Psionics: No opinion yet.

If you want to house rule CT to the point that you are playing traveller in name only go for it.

A rather ironic statement, given how far the playtest version of MGT deviated from established Traveller canon.

But thank you, I will do exactly that.

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.

I have no problems with that; I just prefer to play a better game than MGT appears to be.

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.

I have no control over your subjective view of me. All I can say in my defense is that I have posted reams of detailed and *specific* critiques. Despite enduring a withering barrage of sneering pissiness from fanboys, I continued to make *specific* objections to the mechanics. And at the end of the day, Mongoose agreed with my strongest criticisms and ditched several major systems that the fanboys assured me were perfect. And they did it at the very end of the playtest, which was a risky move for them.

Ironically, some of the same fanboys who assured me that I was alone in protesting these mechanics later claimed that I was only one of many critical voices. Well, it's good to know that I was never really alone... Anyhow, I think it is fair to assert that my criticisms have been FAR more explicit and detailed than most (if not all) of the empty praise coming from folks like you.

And if I used your logic to analyse your motivations, I'd conclude that you are (for some inexplicable reason) unwilling to see MGT criticized for anything, yet are unable to tell us why you love it so much. This interpretation of your motives is at least as fair as your interpretation of my motives, seems to me.

Perhaps it's a lot simpler than you imagine. Perhaps I'm evaluating MGT on its merits and, on the merits, it has not really impressed me.

No need to prove anything to me. I dont design games and I am not overly concerned with crunch.

Well, since you brought the subject up, I felt it was relevant to point out that I have designed games and that at least one set of rules is pretty good. And yes, I do think that I could design a "better" combat system for MGT. Since I design the games that I want to play, how can it be otherwise? But I have carefully avoided comparing MGT with nonexistent systems.

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.

<shrug>

The tools are pretty much the same. And most of the best RPG designers of my generation were also very good wargame designers (including Marc Miller). But in any case, I have not offered comparisons to wargames. I've only noted that I find parts of MGT to be unsatisfactory and have tried to detail why. I think that this is far more intellectually honest that saying (in effect) "I love it, but I can't give specifics and anyone who doesn't love it is just mad that they didn't do it his way..."

I'm also losing patience with the absurd notion that *if* I offer an alternative mechanic, this is somehow evidence of sour grapes. Especially since I've been sneered at for *not* suggesting an alternative mechanic. For the record, I'm an inveterate tinkerer, so I'll probably suggest alternatives to a mechanic I dislike. But I feel no compulsion to do so until Mongoose sends me a retainer...

 

[mbrinkhues]

I am a casual gamer at best and I don't care about "overcoming obstacles" and "being challenged". I can have all the obstacles and challenges I want between 9:00 and 17:30, commonly known as "Job".

Roleplaying for me is poor escapism and there I want to play exactly what I envision, not what some dice tells me. Same for most players in my group(s). So any system that forces me to play a random-generated character is bad. Your milage may vary but your opinion like mine is just one among many.

 

[PFVA63]

I find it hard to believe that players will put a high score in SOC unless it makes that character a noble.

Hi,

In my previous post I noted that back when I did mess around with CT what we kind of did when rolling up a character was to start by rolling the one characterisitc we were most interested in, and then keep re-rolling that characteristic until we got a value that we were happy with. Once that was done we would then roll the rest of the characteristics normally. This way, if we were trying to roll a noble, we would start with Soc, and keep re-rolling it until we got at least an A.

As such, it wasn't a matter of deciding where to put the low score, but rather it was an issue of picking which characteristic was most important to us. Overall for me, I was typically more interested in getting some of the skills that were normally on the advanced education tables, and as such I would put more emphasis on education for my characters, than strength, dexterity or endurance.

For the most part though, I was typically not real interested in combat so much. There were typically others in my group who we would rely on for ground combat skills, just as there were others we might rely on for piloting, navigating, engineering, or vehicle skills, etc.

Regards

PF

 

[tbeard1999]

Hi,

In my previous post I noted that back when I did mess around with CT what we kind of did when rolling up a character was to start by rolling the one characterisitc we were most interested in, and then keep re-rolling that characteristic until we got a value that we were happy with. Once that was done we would then roll the rest of the characteristics normally. This way, if we were trying to roll a noble, we would start with Soc, and keep re-rolling it until we got at least an A.

As such, it wasn't a matter of deciding where to put the low score, but rather it was an issue of picking which characteristic was most important to us.

I like that idea myself. I agree with folks who say that they want more control over their character, but I also see Supplement Four's point that random chargen can add a lot to a game. As the song goes "you can't always get what you want...but you might find you get what you need..."

Your idea seems to enable both approaches.

 

[Jamus]

Of course, none is so blind as one who will not see...

True and it is possible a trait we both share in this.

When evaluating a combat system, I look at two major elements -- how it handles hitting/damage/penetration/armor; and how the sequence of play works.

As do we all to one degree or another. My contention is that any combat system used in a RPG must be abstract, simple and fast moving or combat bogs down and kills the story. I also tend to like combat systems that require me to consult the least number of charts and diagrams possible. in this respect I would say MGT takes the cake and is head and shoulders above CT or any other trav version for that matter though T20 is a close second.

Regarding the latter, my initial impression is that CT works better than MGT. However, I want to give the MGT combat sequence of play time to grow on me before finalizing that opinion. But I'm pretty sure that Snapshot or AHL offer better combat sequencing for players who want fiddly tactical systems (I don't).

I disagree that AHL or snapshot are better but thats opinion. I think when you have time to play around with MGT a few times you will find the system is more than functional and lends itself to a more narrative driven heroic space opera kind of feel. I have had enough gritty realism in fire fights in my life I don't need it in my RPGs. But as before saying AHL or MGT is better is purely a matter of taste. No right or wrong answer to that.

Regarding hitting/damage/penetration/armor, I think CT marginally wins. Which speaks more to the weakness of MGT than to the excellence of CT, which has rather dated and I think limited mechanisms. (Yes, I know, Supplement Four, we disagree on this one.)

The one part of CT I always felt was most weak was the combat system. I do not like hit and damage potential being tied into one roll and vastly support armor absorbing some part of damage instead of making one more difficult to hit, in Traveller anyways, I have no problem with it in Dungeons & Dragons.

I have read a lot of complaint over armor values in MGT and do not agree with any of them. Why would anyone feel a leather jacket should offer more than minimal protection from a knife let alone a high velocity rifle round. Thats not even taking lasers and plasma rifles into it. I find in play that armor factors are about right. A person in full combat armor is a pretty tough target and a person in TL14 battle dress can ignore most small arms but still have to be on the bounce or get slagged by a PGMP or a lucky lasrifle shot.

personally I find the armor values in MGT to be pretty fair and believable, Weapons damage holds a slight edge and in my opinion that is good. I think the MGT combat system is head and shoulders above CT and MT for all of these reasons.

CT was dated and too many charts and tables.
MT was overly complicated and power armor was to difficult to kill short of nukes.
MGT is faster, requires less consultation of tables and charts and uses a simple target number +- mods set up that is easy to run and understand. I like the simplicity

I wouldn't use either system, frankly. But being as charitable as possible to MGT, I cannot find any reason to hold that MGT is superior -- other than the fact that range bands better match the starship grids -- even if the deckplans don't

BAH and boulderdash to your complaint about deck plans.

I should note that I have generally avoided direct comparisons with CT, except in cases where I think that CT's design decision was clearly superior. I am not necessarily saying that MGT is inferior to CT; I'm evaluating MGT on its own merits. But since you ask...

I haven'y worked MGT out thoroughly yet, my answers are tentative in some areas. But here's my breakdown:

As I said above I think MGT will grow on you the more you monkey around with it. I know that has been the effect it had on me.

 

[Jamus]

Character Generation: I'm warming to MGT's random system, so MGT probably wins, at least on mechanics. MGT gives *way* too many skills for a 2d6 system IMHO, but that's an easy problem to fix. The issue is more complex because I had no problems with LBB1/Supp4 character generation. The MGT points based system isn't much use IMHO. I prefer my own system there.

As discussed in another thread.. or maybe it was this one MGT does not give away too many skills and it is misguided to claim so. MGT gives a well balanced amount of skills for playing the MGT version of the game. MGT is a much improved compared to CT/Merc/High Guard character generation and I for one am very pleased with how it was implemented.

No problems yet and I would say the group I play with has generated close to thirty characters. one minor gripe I would have is that allowing players to generate 6+ term characters leads to characters that would never adventure.. I mean why would the retired admiral with the SOC of 15 want to run about on a tramp freighter? Max of 5 terms in my games. second gripe is I do not allow the players to place their attribute rolls to taste, I prefer the CT rule where you get what you roll and in the order you rolled it. Last gripe would be lack of a SMG skill. SMGs rock.

Combat: CT is better, though neither system is satisfactory to me. Either AHL or Snapshot is a clear winner over MGT, as are any number of house ruled combat systems, including 2 of my own. This is MGT's biggest disappointment to me, although it could have been FAR worse had they kept the playtest systems.

I never read the play test version of MGT so have no opinion on its greatness or lack of, I disagree with your statement and do not believe CT or AHL/SS are better systems. Of course as this is a bit like arguing which flavor of ice cream is best since both are personal preference we may as well agree to disagree.

Starship Design: MGT is a nice improvement over LBB2, though larger hull sizes should have been included. MGT is distinctly inferior to High Guard.

MGT is better than BK2 i agree. high guard is unneeded in my opinion. why would a group of mercs or free traders need to know the combat potential of a ship of the line or a capital ship? should the players attack one in their far trader wouldn't it be more simple to just tell them to re-roll? Some people like building ships, I don't unless it be a ship my players could actually use without relying on a couple hundred red shirts. again this is a to each his own thing though so /shrugs

Starship Combat. Still assessing MGT, but it seems clear to me that High Guard is better. LBB2 is not better, but the range band system in Starter Traveller may be better.

So far it seems to work pretty well but then I have only used it when the players group in 60 year old far trader with on turret had a fleeing fire fight with unidentified pirates. I used a 1inch grid sheet, same as I use for my dungeons, and placed the to ships apart with one square being a range band. To be honest ship to ship combat felt very much the same as CT BK2 so no complaints.

Economics: Both broken, but I give CT the title just because it lacks the pointless and ill-conceived "ship shares" system.

Ship shares may be one of the best parts of MGT. Ship shares allow the party to pool resources and get the ship they want to have (within reason) and not be bound to the will of the fates. as I said above the group I run has a 60 year old far trader that is chock full of personality and possible radiation poisoning. It is absolutely brilliant when compared to arbitrary nature of CT and MT. also it avoids the hassle of having 3 different people in the group all mustering out with a ship. Ship shares help bind a party together and give them a common purpose.

World Generation/Animals/Psionics: No opinion yet.

I like these very much though they are not very much different than CT.

I have no control over your subjective view of me. All I can say in my defense is that I have posted reams of detailed and *specific* critiques. Despite enduring a withering barrage of sneering pissiness from fanboys, I continued to make *specific* objections to the mechanics. And at the end of the day, Mongoose agreed with my strongest criticisms and ditched several major systems that the fanboys assured me were perfect. And they did it at the very end of the playtest, which was a risky move for them.

Talking longest and loudest doesn't make a person right.

Ironically, some of the same fanboys who assured me that I was alone in protesting these mechanics later claimed that I was only one of many critical voices. Well, it's good to know that I was never really alone... Anyhow, I think it is fair to assert that my criticisms have been FAR more explicit and detailed than most (if not all) of the empty praise coming from folks like you.

It is much easier to tear a thing down than to build and also easier to offer criticism of a system than to defend one. I could easily write an essay for each part of MGT (and have now and before) and why I think it is a great system but why? at the end of it I would be labeled a fan boy and my words disregarded out of hand.

And if I used your logic to analyse your motivations, I'd conclude that you are (for some inexplicable reason) unwilling to see MGT criticized for anything, yet are unable to tell us why you love it so much. This interpretation of your motives is at least as fair as your interpretation of my motives, seems to me.

It is not that I am unwilling to see MGT critiqued it is more that i do not agree with your criticisms. big difference there.

Perhaps it's a lot simpler than you imagine. Perhaps I'm evaluating MGT on its merits and, on the merits, it has not really impressed me.

Which is your right to do but you seem to forget that those merits are defined only by you and have value only to you. The value you see or do not see in anything is wholly personal and what you consider abject failure others may see as complete success. ship shares show that to be true.

Well, since you brought the subject up, I felt it was relevant to point out that I have designed games and that at least one set of rules is pretty good. And yes, I do think that I could design a "better" combat system for MGT. Since I design the games that I want to play, how can it be otherwise? But I have carefully avoided comparing MGT with nonexistent systems.

I have actually been in combat with 3/7 infantry. Does that allow me to have more of an opinion on how a combat system should work in traveller than anyone else? Have you ever actually fired a TOW missile or do you just design games about doing so? I have fired them from a M2 Bradley. Do I get more say on how to simulate firing a TOW at a target using dice as randomizer? If you have fired one good for you. How do you simulate keeping the dot on target? what mods did you assign for moving targets vrs wire guided missiles? the new ones are supposedly fire and forget, how do you simulate that? my point is you designing a game does not make you an authority on all games no more than building a house makes you an authority on all houses. Being a infantry man in combat does not make me an authority on RPG combat simulation. I accept that.

Everything you have posted is nothing more than your personal opinion and is no more valid than anyone else's. same goes for me and my posts.

The tools are pretty much the same. And most of the best RPG designers of my generation were also very good wargame designers (including Marc Miller). But in any case, I have not offered comparisons to wargames. I've only noted that I find parts of MGT to be unsatisfactory and have tried to detail why. I think that this is far more intellectually honest that saying (in effect) "I love it, but I can't give specifics and anyone who doesn't love it is just mad that they didn't do it his way..."

I have given specifics and counter to each of the points you have made. To be honest I had no intention of playing MGT based on things I read on these boards. I had won a copy of the original traveller 2300 of EBay and instead been mailed the MGT core book. Couldn't get a reply from the seller so decided to read the MGT for the heck of it even though I was skeptical and at the time devoutly dedicated to CT. I figured since I had bought it meaning to or not I should check it out. Thing is the more I read it the more it felt like MGT was CT+ and that was what I was looking for. You have had a different opinion so far which is your right but it is too bad i think.

 

[tbeard1999]

My contention is that any combat system used in a RPG must be abstract, simple and fast moving or combat bogs down and kills the story. I also tend to like combat systems that require me to consult the least number of charts and diagrams possible. in this respect I would say MGT takes the cake and is head and shoulders above CT or any other trav version for that matter though T20 is a close second.

Well, I don't think that MGT can be any faster than CT when it comes to hitting and damage. Ct has a single 2d6 roll (plus mods) that's easy to determine (use the Snapshot chart or make your own or email me and I'll send you one I created) and that roll resolves both hitting and penetration. Then there's a damage roll.

MGT has a to hit roll -- 2d6 plus mods. Then a damage roll, to which is added the amount that the to hit roll was greater than 8. Then a modifier to the total in many cases (3d-3 for pistols, for instance). Then a reduction for armor.

MGT's combat sequence of play is more fiddly and time consuming than CT's. And not as realistic as Snapshot or AHL.

So, despite your bald assertion that MGT is "better", I can't really see why this is so. Nor have you helped us out by making specific comparisons.

And the irony here is that I personally don't care for the CT combat system. MGT didn't have a terribly high burden here. Yet they managed to produce an uninspiring system...

FYI, here's my idea of a good combat system (you'll need Striker's weapon and armor charts to actually use it, but you can see how it works even without those; if anyone is interested, email me and I'll forward my weapons charts): http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=10755 This is the latest version of a combat system I've used since the mid-1980s and have been happy with. Note that turn sequencing has a profound effect on enabling suppressive fire (a key feature of modern infantry combat, as I'm sure you know). Because suppressive fire happens first (before movement), it's possible to replicate standard infantry tactics like "bounding overwatch". My players figured it out pretty well -- the shotgun armed guys suppress the targets, the others close in for the kill.

If you don't care for the Striker damage model, you can use my T4-adaptation damage model, which works pretty well. Basically, use the combat sequence above, but replace penetration and armor with the damage and armor rules from this post:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Dis...ad.php?t=14974

I disagree that AHL or snapshot are better but thats opinion. I think when you have time to play around with MGT a few times you will find the system is more than functional and lends itself to a more narrative driven heroic space opera kind of feel. I have had enough gritty realism in fire fights in my life I don't need it in my RPGs.

Ironic claim, considering that MGT weapons are far more effective against armor than their CT counterparts. In any case, I doubt that I'm going to agree with you that the MGT combat system is better. At best, it's probably gonna come out as "no worse than..."

EDIT -- THe MGT combat system does have an advantage over the CT combat system in that it is easier to add weapons. This is not a minor advantage in my opinion.

The one part of CT I always felt was most weak was the combat system. I do not like hit and damage potential being tied into one roll and vastly support armor absorbing some part of damage instead of making one more difficult to hit, in Traveller anyways, I have no problem with it in Dungeons & Dragons.

I have no problem with it, as long as the statistical results are reasonable for the genre. I think that CT was reasonable, except for autofire weapons and Book 4+ weapons. And from my own somewhat limited research, it seems to me that body armor may well be effectively an "all or nothing" proposition. In other words, body armor that is only proof against fragmentation doesn't seem to help at all against (say) 7.62mm NATO slugs. In an "armor absorbs damage" system, though, it would reduce the damage from the 7.62mm slug.

In any case, it seems clear to me that a sensibly run CT campaign will have combats that are probably faster than MGT.

I have read a lot of complaint over armor values in MGT and do not agree with any of them. Why would anyone feel a leather jacket should offer more than minimal protection from a knife let alone a high velocity rifle round.

I don't think anyone is making that critique. I think that my problem is that (for instance) ballistic cloth armor -- which has always been *highly* effective against bullets in Traveller -- offers minimal protection from bullets in MGT.

I am also irritated that the mighty ACR is barely superior to the TL7 assault rifle in MGT -- another major, pointless deviation from established Traveller canon.

personally I find the armor values in MGT to be pretty fair and believable,

Except that they deviate significantly from established Traveller parameters. So I find your equanimity unconvincing.

BAH and boulderdash to your complaint about deck plans.

<shrug> I'm not the one who drew 'em wrong...

As I said above I think MGT will grow on you the more you monkey around with it. I know that has been the effect it had on me.

Anything is possible. But so far, the results are decidedly mixed. EDIT -- this is still a highly preliminary judgment and may well change.

 

[tbeard1999]

As discussed in another thread.. or maybe it was this one MGT does not give away too many skills and it is misguided to claim so. MGT gives a well balanced amount of skills for playing the MGT version of the game. MGT is a much improved compared to CT/Merc/High Guard character generation and I for one am very pleased with how it was implemented.

Not interested in debating the number of skills issue. I've detailed my objections earlier here, and they still stand. I only brought it up to note that it was not a deal-killer for me since it would be easy to fix.

high guard is unneeded in my opinion. why would a group of mercs or free traders need to know the combat potential of a ship of the line or a capital ship?

I think that, as Andrew Boulton argues, HG is better because you can design anything from a 10 ton fighter to a million ton dreadnought. And I enjoy detailing the big ships in my campaigns. Plus, HG gave you a very good wargame in its own right (see Trillion Credit Squadron).

EDIT -- I should add that MGT may well wind up with as HG style design system that would be better than original HG. I'd strongly encourage them to implement a HG style combat system (with fixes for certain HG issues). IMHO, ship design is the strongest part of MGT.

I used a 1inch grid sheet, same as I use for my dungeons, and placed the to ships apart with one square being a range band. To be honest ship to ship combat felt very much the same as CT BK2 so no complaints.

I haven't worked with it enough for a strong opinion. But I prefer HG over both CT and MGT because it does not require me to set up a wargame in the middle of the RPG.

Ship shares may be one of the best parts of MGT. Ship shares allow the party to pool resources and get the ship they want to have (within reason) and not be bound to the will of the fates.

Again, I've explained in detail elsewhere why I think ship shares are a needless gloss. Those criticisms still stand and I'm not interested in re-hashing them.

It is much easier to tear a thing down than to build and also easier to offer criticism of a system than to defend one. I could easily write an essay for each part of MGT (and have now and before) and why I think it is a great system but why? at the end of it I would be labeled a fan boy and my words disregarded out of hand.

Not by me. I am far more likely to label someone a fanboy when they do nothing but lavish praise on a game without telling us *why* it's so fantabulous.

It is not that I am unwilling to see MGT critiqued it is more that i do not agree with your criticisms. big difference there.

As I said, my interpretation of your motives is no less charitable than your interpretation of my motives.

I have actually been in combat with 3/7 infantry. Does that allow me to have more of an opinion on how a combat system should work in traveller than anyone else? Have you ever actually fired a TOW missile or do you just design games about doing so? I have fired them from a M2 Bradley. Do I get more say on how to simulate firing a TOW at a target using dice as randomizer? If you have fired one good for you. How do you simulate keeping the dot on target? what mods did you assign for moving targets vrs wire guided missiles? the new ones are supposedly fire and forget, how do you simulate that? my point is you designing a game does not make you an authority on all games no more than building a house makes you an authority on all houses.

Yes, but being a competent homebuilder would probably qualify me to assess the competence of an office builder. In any case, as I said, the tools are often the same.

Everything you have posted is nothing more than your personal opinion and is no more valid than anyone else's. same goes for me and my posts.

Well, there *are* factual statements that are valid (or invalid). But I agree that taste is subjective. I'll remind you that *you* were the one who asserted that my complaints were somehow unworthy.

 

[Jamus]

Even removing the motives that may or may exist in your critique of MGT I do not agree that the problems exist or that they exist to the degree you claim. Everyone of your complaints is opinion not fact.

 

[tbeard1999]

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.

You misconstrue my words. I am not interested in further debate on the old T/E and initiative systems, for two reasons. First, my complaints have been exhaustively laid out, and I see no reason to repeat myself, since nothing has changed. Second, well, I won. The offending systems were eliminated, so I can't see any benefit in arguing for the elimination of systems that have already been eliminated.

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.

(Emphasis mine)

An assertion that has little evidence offered to support it. I mean, how can you claim a system is "realistic" when you admit that you know little about the subject?

My posts, on the other hand, offered detailed examples of how the initiative system failed to enable basic skirmish infantry combat tactics. I especially like the way the system fell completely apart with larger groups. But again, I've already laid this out in exhaustive detail. If you want to discuss that further, dig those posts out and reply to them. I will not waste time repeating them in a new thread.

And infantry skirmish tactics are easily researched -- and I'd submit that any designer of a Traveller game has an obligation to familiarize himself with the subject. They haven't changed much since the German stosstrupen began to fluidize trench warfare towards the end of WWI. FWIW, I've found that accounts from the Korean War contain a lot of detail on infantry actions.

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.

It is certainly possible that a game may be fun to play, yet fail to model reality very well. Chinese checkers can be a fun and engaging game; but it would not be a very good base to build a modern RPG combat system on. No matter how much fun it was, it would yield absurd results.

In any case, I am confident that the playtest T/E and initiative systems were badly defective. And Mongoose apparently agreed with me. Indeed, they did so at considerable PR risk, as it required them to throw some vocal fans under the bus. <shrug> Perhaps there's a good lesson in there for those fans -- don't get too invested in systems that the designer can't be bothered to defend. Or perhaps -- don't defend weak mechanics.

EDIT -- I'd like to add that I won't hesitate to "throw fanboys under the bus" if the result is a better game. Of course, I engage critics of my game design decisions far more than the designers of MGT did in the public playtest. Thus, I can reduce the occurence of the "overly invested fanboy" phenomenon.

Now. Developing T/E and combat -its own thread perhaps ? Can you walk away from your problems with it ?

Well, I've already designed a combat system that I've been happy with for a couple of decades. It can be plugged into MGT or CT. And candidly, I think it is superior in virtually every way to MGT (and CT for that matter). I've refrained from trumpeting it because it isn't really fair to MGT to compare it to an unpublished set of house rules. And my objectivity is an issue when my design is the subject. However, I have demonstrated some game design competency and my combat rules were subjected to the same kind of effort.

Anyhow, you can find my idea of what a good combat system looks like by following the links in my previous post.

I have already assessed the MGT combat system enough to conclude that modifying it is hardly worth the effort. What remains would be the MGT system in name only, so what's the point? I think it would be far more efficient to build a better system from scratch.

 

[tbeard1999]

Even removing the motives that may or may exist in your critique of MGT I do not agree that the problems exist or that they exist to the degree you claim. Everyone of your complaints is opinion not fact.

If all of our assertions are mere opinion, then it seems to me that you have no basis to criticize any of my posts...

 

[knirirr]

In my previous post I noted that back when I did mess around with CT what we kind of did when rolling up a character was to start by rolling the one characterisitc we were most interested in, and then keep re-rolling that characteristic until we got a value that we were happy with. Once that was done we would then roll the rest of the characteristics normally. This way, if we were trying to roll a noble, we would start with Soc, and keep re-rolling it until we got at least an A.

I've used the system I described here to produce the same effect, and found that it works very well:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=257426&postcount=81

 

[aramis]

Since the thread is horribly off topic, and is turning towards ty-bashing, AND Ty is turning towards activities he's been instructed not to... to wit, mongoose bashing...


THREAD CLOSED