First Impressions from MGT

[Golan2072]

Not unlike the Universal Game Mechanic.

That's why I like it

My biggest gripe in the playtest was the stat bloat due to DMs. Have they minimized those? If so, I'll put another point on the "plus" side of the MGT opinion.

Can you list the exact DMs they went with?

-3 for stat 0, -2 for 1-2, -1 for 3-5, 0 for 6-8, +1 for 9-11, +2 for 12-14, +3 for 15+.

That's a good thing, too. I saw somewhere that "professional" level skill is Skill-2, instead of Skill-3, as it is in CT. I think the exampe was for a doctor, being a Medical-2 instead of a Medical-3.

Can you confirm?

That was given as an example, yes. Medic-2 is apparently now a Doctor.

Timing and Effect have been totally revised from the initial playtest concepts. Timing uses an additional (separate) 1d6, which is then multiplied by the time interval of the task at hand.

I'd like to see an example played out so that I can understand the change better.

For example: a character with Engineering (Electronics)-1 and EDU 9 (DM+1) tries to repair a damaged computer (based on EDU, time 1-6 hours, an Average task [difficulty DM 0]). He rolls a 7 on 2D6, and with the DMs (1+1+0) he has a total 9 - a success! His Effect is 1 (9-8). For timing he rolls 1D6 for a result of 4; so the repairs take 4 hours.

Can you give me a specific example of how this mechanic [Task Chains] works in MGT?

Chad (Deception-1, INT 8 [no DM]) and Naya (Stealth-2, DEX 11 [DM +1]) are trying to sneak past a guard. Chad tries to chat with the guard in order to distract him so that Naya would have an easy time sneaking by him. The Referee decides that the guard is bored to hell and thus distracting him with a friendly chat would be Easy (difficulty DM +2). Chad rolls a 9, for a total result of 12 (9+1+0+2) - an Effect of 4! Now, according to the table on p.51, an Effect of 4 would give a DM of +1; so, when Naya sneaks by (Normal Difficulty, difficulty DM 0), her total DM would be +4 (2+1+1) instead of the usual +3. On the other hand, if Chad had rolled 2 for a total result of 5 (Effect -3), Naya would suffer from a -1 DM to sneak by.

BTW, what happens if you've got a high JOT skill and a low penalty on the task? If you're JOT-3 and -2 on the task, does that mean you're +1 on the task?

JoT only reduces the Unskilled penalty (DM -3) you suffer when using a skill you don't have. It never gives you a bonus, only reduces this penalty and this penalty alone; it doesn't effect skills you have ranks in, only skills you don't have. You can't have JoT of more than 3. So, at most, it means that you have Skill-0 in every skill, though getting JoT to this level is rare.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

"Understand, I don't care if you play with shares. My point is that they needlessly complicate something that isn't that complex. And worse, they complicate a number of things that shouldn't be complicated. Finally, they are patently implausible if we are to assume a modern economic system.

I am skeptical that this was the best -- or even a decent -- use of the designer's time. I'm also troubled by what appears to me to be a pattern of fawning over comparatively mediocre mechanics (without offering specifics as to why they are so fabulously, wonderfully fabulous). And I note that such fawning tends to ignore alternatives for the fabulously wonderfully fabulous mechanic. Maybe I'm just grumpy..."

Grumpy indeed!

I think it more appropriate to say "enthusiastic" or "supportive". Fawning? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I am not a "Fawner*" by any stretch, and certainly not fawning on game liscences that have been sold five times and "reimagined" every time, It would seem, by frustrated IRS employees that love tables.

From a mere student of game design's perspective, I would say that one of the large problems that Traveller has in general, is its tendency to overcomplicate in its later forms. You will get no argument from me there, and I have long said it.

The core basic Traveller action is simple enough, and the beauty of it is that I can do what I want with it. I am not sure why you would even say "I don't care if you play with shares".

In a nutshell, If Mongoose has made a playable version of traveller that you can work from one book, that isn't and over tablized mess of hyper-realistic star system generation and Character Hair Growth Charts, then well on them! Good Show! Bravo! You found the secret of playability vs. Tables You Like!

I hope that means a new influx of new players, because Traveller needs it. You'll notice I didn't say Marc Miller needs it, or DGP, or GURPS, or QLI, or Mongoose. Traveller needs it. I'd like to think that there will be people still playing it after the middle-aged/opinionated demographic dies out.

I find the tone of your response post weird, even weirder considering that you appear to be on the inside cover of the book under names, unless I miss my guess. If you are working PR, you have an odd way with it to be sure. Why you are not saying anything besides the game is awesome probably needs some explaining.

* Also, just so you know, in my neck of the woods, that is sort of like telling a man he should wear a tutu.

 

[tbeard1999]

"Understand, I don't care if you play with shares. My point is that they needlessly complicate something that isn't that complex. And worse, they complicate a number of things that shouldn't be complicated. Finally, they are patently implausible if we are to assume a modern economic system.

I am skeptical that this was the best -- or even a decent -- use of the designer's time. I'm also troubled by what appears to me to be a pattern of fawning over comparatively mediocre mechanics (without offering specifics as to why they are so fabulously, wonderfully fabulous). And I note that such fawning tends to ignore alternatives for the fabulously wonderfully fabulous mechanic. Maybe I'm just grumpy..."

Grumpy indeed!

I think it more appropriate to say "enthusiastic" or "supportive". Fawning? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I am not a "Fawner*" by any stretch, and certainly not fawning on game liscences that have been sold five times and "reimagined" every time, It would seem, by frustrated IRS employees that love tables.

Well, maybe "fawning" wasn't the optimum word choice. And I didn't intend to single you out on that...I should have been clearer.

I've just noticed more than a few, uh, enthusiastic endorsements of mechanics that to me seem unremarkable These endorsements typically lack specifics on why the mechanic is so fantabulous.

From a mere student of game design's perspective, I would say that one of the large problems that Traveller has in general, is its tendency to overcomplicate in its later forms. You will get no argument from me there, and I have long said it.

The core basic Traveller action is simple enough, and the beauty of it is that I can do what I want with it. I am not sure why you would even say "I don't care if you play with shares".

I said this to emphasize that I don't have a problem with the concept of ship shares, just the lousy implementation in MGT. And as noted, there are far more useful solutions (i.e., corporations) that are no more complex and that do not require us to create a separate mini-economic system to handle ship shares.

In a nutshell, If Mongoose has made a playable version of traveller that you can work from one book, that isn't and over tablized mess of hyper-realistic star system generation and Character Hair Growth Charts, then well on them! Good Show! Bravo! You found the secret of playability vs. Tables You Like!

I'd agree, but (for me at least) the jury's still out on whether MGT is "playable". Mongoose did ditch some of the worst mechanics I've seen in the last 10 years, and they did this despite the fact that a vocal contingent of fans publicly claimed to like them. So kudos to them for that. But that does not move me to presume that all is well and wonderful with MGT. And since I am *still* waiting for my preordered copy, I can't answer the question yet.

But my original point in replying to your post remains unchanged -- the ship shares rule needlessly complicates a pretty simple and intuitive process that happens spontaneously in virtually every RPG I've played over 28 years. Worse, it fails to address common issues that plague Real World venturers and that have long been solved simply with corporations. Finally, it requires a "shadow" economic system because it clumsily tries to conflate financing and equity ownership. (Again, I'm assuming that the system is the same as in the playtest rules).

I hope that means a new influx of new players, because Traveller needs it.

Me too. But in my opinion, a crappy game will ultimately fail to do much good for Traveller. That is why I am hard on these rules. They represent the best (and probably last) hope for Traveller to return to the mainstream. As you note, Traveller has plenty of crappy versions. We don't need another one.

I find the tone of your response post weird, even weirder considering that you appear to be on the inside cover of the book under names, unless I miss my guess. If you are working PR, you have an odd way with it to be sure. Why you are not saying anything besides the game is awesome probably needs some explaining.

If you search these archives, you'll find that no one has been more openly critical of the playtest version of MGT. My inclusion as a playtester was a surprise to me. And if it was a joke, it was well done

But I actually do want MGT to be good and to therefore succeed. I am *not* inclined to let this desire blind me to its problems, though.

 

[rust]

But in my opinion, a crappy game will ultimately fail to do much good for Traveller.

Classic Traveller itself has been (and is) a rather crappy game, yet it ob-
viously has quite a lot of people who like and play it.

 

[Supplement Four]

-3 for stat 0, -2 for 1-2, -1 for 3-5, 0 for 6-8, +1 for 9-11, +2 for 12-14, +3 for 15+.

I still have a problem with this, then. On the surface, the DMs are OK. But, when you realize a Medic-0 EDU-12 character is as effective as a professional doctor, the problem arises again.

Medic-0, EDU-12 is +2 on a Medical throw.

Medic-2, EDU-8 is +2 on a Medical throw.

See, there's a real problem there. The barely skilled dude is as effective as a doctor who has gone to medical school. The problem gets worse since they've lowered the "professional" definition to Skill-2.

It's too bad the designer didn't "fix" that. I posted several ways to handle this on the Mongoose forum.

He rolls a 7 on 2D6, and with the DMs (1+1+0) he has a total 9 - a success! His Effect is 1 (9-8). For timing he rolls 1D6 for a result of 4; so the repairs take 4 hours.

What does this mean in the quote above: His Effect is 1 (9-8)?

You rolled a 4 on your timing roll, so the repair takes 4 hours. I get that. I just don't understand where the 1 Effect came from and what the 9-8 means.

Your Effect is based on the total of the throw? So, the higher the throw, the higher the Effect? Capped at 6, I take it?

Now, according to the table on p.51, an Effect of 4 would give a DM of +1; so, when Naya sneaks by (Normal Difficulty, difficulty DM 0), her total DM would be +4 (2+1+1) instead of the usual +3.

I see. That works. I'm not crazy about having to use a table. And, it seems like there is an easier way to handle this. But, it works ok. At least the idea is in the game (which is good).

JoT only reduces the Unskilled penalty (DM -3) you suffer when using a skill you don't have.

Yeah, that's exactly the way DGP suggested JOT be used in CT (it's in an old Travellers Digest).

As I pointed out before, though, there are problems with doing it that way. Looks good at first glance, but, under the hood, it presents some problems.

The designer should have looked at that closer.

 

[Supplement Four]

JOT has been defined differently with each edition precisely because it is a sanctioned "break" of the core mechanics. Each time the core mechanics change, the "break" has to change to match.

Not really.

I see where you're coming from, but JOT could be used the same over several different core mechanics.

For example the DGP/MGT method of JOT (that is absorbs negative DMs) could be used in just about every edition of Traveller, no matter the core mechanic.

 

[Golan2072]

What does this mean in the quote above: His Effect is 1 (9-8)?

He rolled a 9, and the Effect is the roll minus 8, so 9-8=1.

Your Effect is based on the total of the throw? So, the higher the throw, the higher the Effect? Capped at 6, I take it?

Uncapped. Effect=Roll minus 8. The higher the roll - the higher the effect. Note that failures (i.e. rolls with a total lower than 8) have a negative Effect.

 

[Supplement Four]

...and certainly not fawning on game liscences that have been sold five times and "reimagined" every time, It would seem, by frustrated IRS employees that love tables.

Yeah, that's one of my real gripes with Traveller editions, too.

What we get is the SAME stuff, over and over, repackaged for the new rule system. We get another Spinward Marches supplement. We get another space combat system. We get another book focused on combat. We get another reprint of the same blah, blah info.

Oh, how I wish that CT was never changed, and all these publishers were publishing material for one friggin' game system--giving us new directions and ideas for Traveller, growing the universe instead of just replacing older supplements with adjustments for new mechanics.

Well, maybe "fawning" wasn't the optimum word choice. And I didn't intend to single you out on that...I should have been clearer.

It did come across a little "baiting", TBeard, but I understand where it came from. You're just showing frustration at some of these people who are in love with MGT no matter its flaws (of which there are several).

From the other end of the field, you and I look like we can't say anything good about the game (and I make an effort to point out the good points of MGT when I see them), and so the other side of the fence is frustrated with our perceived negativity.

Folks, let's try not to devolve into a flame war here. We've got various opinions on MGT, and as it goes with Traveller, those are strong opinions.

But, I do believe we can discuss, disagree, and still respect each other's position.

Classic Traveller itself has been (and is) a rather crappy game, yet it ob-
viously has quite a lot of people who like and play it.

Crappy game? Dude, you're flat out trolling... Not funny, even with your smiley.

 

[Supplement Four]

Uncapped. Effect=Roll minus 8. The higher the roll - the higher the effect. Note that failures (i.e. rolls with a total lower than 8) have a negative Effect.

Well, that is a much, much better way of handling Effect than before.

That's a check mark on the "plus" side of the MGT checklist.

 

[GypsyComet]

For example the DGP/MGT method of JOT (that is absorbs negative DMs) could be used in just about every edition of Traveller, no matter the core mechanic.

So can the re-roll pool and the DM pool.

My second point was that different designers prefer different approaches. These are not wrong, just different.

 

[rust]

Crappy game? Dude, you're flat out trolling...

No, I am not. For decades now the Traveller community has been busy dis-
cussing the flaws of Classic Traveller and designing better subsystems for
almost every single part of it, from character generation over economy to
shipbuilding and deckplans.

I have played Classic Traveller for almost thirty years now, but I never even
tried to play it "as is", because there are far too many problems and even
contradictions built into it to make it plausible. And, frankly, I have not met
a single Traveller player who did not consider his house rules much better
than the original ones.

So, if tbeard1999 thinks that Mongoose Traveller could become a "crappy"
game if it does not meet his expectations and high standards, he only has
to look back to Classic Traveller, which would be a most crappy game by
these same standards.

 

[Gallowglacht]

I also think CT is pretty crappy. Not said to troll, just to back up Rust.
People are just as free to like/dislike CT as they are TNE, T4, MT, MGT, T20, THero, or GURPS Traveller.


And stepping away from that; Golan, how's it looking now?

 

[Supplement Four]

No, I am not.

OK. I'll take your word for it, then.

For decades now the Traveller community has been busy dis-
cussing the flaws of Classic Traveller and designing better subsystems for
almost every single part of it, from character generation over economy to
shipbuilding and deckplans.

Don't forget that CT lends itself to creative GM manipulation. Unlike the other versions of Traveller, Classic encourages tinkering. There are several instances where this is apparent: The unstructured, GM interpretive task system; Interpolation encouraged in star system generation and other aspects of the rules; Discussion on mechanics tinkering in Book 0; Creating new skills and such in Book 1; LKW's comment on pg. 3 of the JTAS that shows a GM how to create from what is already presented in Traveller; MWM's comments on GMing in the Traveller Adventure; etc.

So, it's unfair to say almost every single part of CT is broken because people tinker with it. The game was designed to be tinkered with.

It harkens back to a day when GMs were expected to be more creative in designing their universes, their adventure scenarios, equipment and such. This is not to say that GMs today aren't creative--it's that GMs aren't expected to be as creative by the modern rpgs where a rule isn't a rule unless its written in a sourcebook somewhere (we can thank the invasive d20 system for that influence on the rpg culture, me thinks).

I have played Classic Traveller for almost thirty years now, but I never even
tried to play it "as is", because there are far too many problems and even
contradictions built into it to make it plausible. And, frankly, I have not met
a single Traveller player who did not consider his house rules much better
than the original ones.

Well, now you know me. I play CT straight out of the box. No house rules. That's not to say I haven't tweaked the hell out of it in the past. But, all that tweaking led me to a greater understanding of the CT systems--and an appreciation for the brilliance of CT as it is.

CT is a brilliant game. The majority of the people playing Traveller today (almost half) are still playing some form of CT influenced game, in spite of all the multiple later editions. People playing other editions of Traveller are dwarfed, in number, by those who've made the decision to stick with CT based games--even with all the other "Traveller choice" that is out there.

Maybe that will change in the future, but I doubt it.

 

[elstreak72]

Maybe so. What it means to me is anytime a player has control over the elements of an rpg and can allocate resources to his statistical advantage--not necessarily to the credit of his role playing ability. Many times, role playing and min/maxing are at odds with each other, usually to the deteriment of role playing ability.

But, not all min/maxing is "bad". As I said before, it depends on the game and the players. D&D begs for min/maxing. It's about Big Damn Heroes. Same thing with Star Wars. Or, the James Bond RPG.

Traveller, imo, is not a game where the default should be min/maxing. Traveller, to me, is about real people caught up in extraordinary events.

Traveller stats are generated on a straight bell curve (well, pointy-triangle curve, but you all know what I mean) with the average (and most common) result being a 7, which is perfectly average. Especially high or low scores will be unusual. The characters generated using this system won't generally be Big Damn Heroes no matter how those stats are arranged... allowing the player to choose the order just allows the player to choose in what way his average-Joe character is average. If I want to play a Scholar, why should I have to be saddled with a 5 Int and 3 Edu but a 9 Str and 11 End?

 

[Echo]

I think Classic Traveller was an absolutely stunning game....for it's time. It is, with the arguable exception of D&D, the most original, innovative, and downright classy rpg ever made - well worth it's place in the Hall of Fame.

The basic problem it has had in the thirty years since (and really only the last 20) was that it failed to modernise itself well enough to remind younger, potential fans just how good it was when it first hit the scene - partially due to not being attentive to new trends in gaming, partially due to getting too convoluted in rules and setting, and partially due to an element of being stuck up it's own arse in attitude.

What Mongoose has done is to 'go back to basics' in terms of rules, just enough to capture the raw flavour of the original, but at the same time make it accessible for new players to get into. It appears to be a winning formula so far.

 

[tbeard1999]

So...how does weapon damage and armor work?

 

[Supplement Four]

If I want to play a Scholar, why should I have to be saddled with a 5 Int and 3 Edu but a 9 Str and 11 End?

Nothing is wrong with that, if your GM is OK with it.

As I said before, this would be OK as an optional rule, like the point system, for those that want to play that way. MGT should have tipped its hat towards its roots, though, when it came to the default rule.

The basic problem it has had in the thirty years since (and really only the last 20) was that it failed to modernise itself well enough to remind younger, potential fans just how good it was when it first hit the scene - partially due to not being attentive to new trends in gaming, partially due to getting too convoluted in rules and setting, and partially due to an element of being stuck up it's own arse in attitude.

I don't know about all that. And, to be honest, many modern game designs aren't really better or innovative over their later day counterparts. There was some bad game design back then, and there's some around today. Just look at T4.

And, by the same token, Classic Traveller's mechanics aren't out dated. They've been around for a long time, sure. But, the game could be published today, as-is.

Gamers sometimes perceive "older and out of print" as inferior. You seem to be doing that. Sometimes, older is better. Sometimes, it's not. Depends on the game.

What you usually get with modern games that you don't usually get with older games is presentation. The newer games almost always "look" better, with better art and layout.

I think sometime we judge an rpg by its cover rather than its content.

This reminds me of when T4 came out. I was running a long term MT game, and I told my players that we'd be switching over to the T4 rules. One of my players at the time (he's since moved away) said, "Oh good. I'm glad we'll be playing a game that is in print. MT is old."

And, I thought to myself, "Hmm...I've got the entire MT game line--all of it at my finger tips for reference during our campaign. T4's only got its main rule book, and it will be a while before other works are published...now, why does he think T4 will be a better game?"

As it happened, this same player (a math major when he was in college) would always figure odds and such and bring it to the game with him. He's actually the person that I credit with discovering just how broken the T4 task system was.

After he mentioned it to me, I brought it to the TML. Marc was on the list back then, and this huge flame war broke out. One side were the T4 fan boys who didn't want to hear anything negative about the game. (Sounds familiar to me with regards to MGT.) The other side were the reasonable critical thinkers.

At the time, I was an outcast--the critic of the game.

Now, time has born me out, and T4 really is considered the worst of the Traveller editions by most people. There are tid-bits in T4 that are good, but as a whole, if Traveller lovers listed the editions from best to worst, T4 would be at the bottom of the list.

After we discovered T4's problems, I asked the same player if he wanted to move back to MT. He said, "Definitely."

But...what we ended up doing was moving to CT. :rofl:

I don't suspect that MGT will be at the bottom of the list. The game is playable enough. But, I don't think it will replace Classic Traveller in popularity, either.

What Mongoose has done is to 'go back to basics' in terms of rules, just enough to capture the raw flavour of the original, but at the same time make it accessible for new players to get into.

What does MGT offer that makes it "more accessible" that what CT offers? Because it's new?

 

[Supplement Four]

From a MGT review

I was reading an external MGT review, and I read these lines: "...and some possibly bad tables. While I haven’t done exhaustive tests, the ships I designed felt inconsistent. Fuel tonnage seemed too high, unarmored ships seemed too fragile, and computers and electronics still seemed too big."

So...what's the deal? Agree with that? Or, is the reviewer off his rocker?

He also said this: "The deck plans for the new scout courier seem to place the airlock right in a position that would make it impossible to use."

Is that true?

 

[elstreak72]

He also said this: "The deck plans for the new scout courier seem to place the airlock right in a position that would make it impossible to use."

Is that true?

It's worse, actually. I'm looking at the deck plan (p. 116 of the Core Rulebook) and there is no airlock. I guess the entire engineering section could be used as an airlock, as could the air/raft bay or cargo bay, but there's no purpose-built airlock... silly, since one could easily have been created by placing another iris valve inside the one at the end of the corridor that runs along the port side of the engineering section.

For those of you that don't have the book, the deck plan is available as a free PDF here http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/travpreview4.pdf

 

[elstreak72]

And, by the same token, Classic Traveller's mechanics aren't out dated. They've been around for a long time, sure. But, the game could be published today, as-is.

I have to disagree. There have been advances in the state of the art in the last 31 years, and some of them actually have merit. Traveller's chargen system was revolutionary at the time, and aspects of it still hold up, but the cold, unrelenting randomness of it is one aspect that hasn't aged well. Game mechanics that force you to create your character a certain way either sometimes saddle players with characters they just don't want to play, or else get ignored. In my experience, in CT most people would either house-rule chargen so the player had more control or else allow the player to make several characters and use the one that approximated what they wanted to play. If the system was good as-is, more people would have used it as-is.

And I really don't peoples' attachment to CT's survival rolls... it makes sense that your character would have been in danger during his prior career, but any mechanic that says "Sorry, your guy's dead. Guess you just wasted the last ten minutes, sucker" is a mechanic that needs a second look.