First Impressions from MGT

[Kyle Aaron]

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.

With random character generation systems in general, usually as they roll the player will complain.

I say, "Well, you can roll a new character - but for each one, you must complete character generation. Maybe once you've rolled up all the skills to go with those stats, and the equipment, it won't look so bad." I find about 75% of the time they're happy to go with the character as-is.

If they're still unhappy, I say, "Hang on, before you reroll - tell me a bit about this character, how would they get such stats?" And the player tells a little story or two, and starts to get interested in the character, and that saves 20% of the total.

This leaves about 5% of randomly-rolled characters that are just too crap to play, and the player rerolls them

 

[Supplement Four]

Ah, but Effect is so damn useful, mechanically and from a storytelling standpoint.

I don't dislike the Effect idea. I just didn't like its mechanics in the playtest. I thought it was a good idea with bad implementation.

Now that its been changed, I'm evaluating the mechanics of it. I don't know enough about the mechanics of it, yet, to make an evaluation. But, I will admit, this particular idea looks promising. I hope the mechanics work.

But I would suggest we leave the playtest experience aside and look at MGT as published.

Agreed.

I'll try and evaluate some of your critques as per the core rules as best I can.

Seriously...I appreciate that.

I don't have a passionate hate for MGT, as it may seem to some from reading my posts. But, I don't have a predisposition to like it either. The reason I'm following this thread is to learn more about the game.

I have admited and posted on some good features of MGT. Not everything I say about the game is negative. I'm really looking at the game with an unbiased eye, but I fear I am being pidgeon holed as a biased/bitter MGT hater because my opinion of MGT is more negative than positive.

That's not the case. Maybe some of you can take my word on that.

I'm just reviewing, evaluating, and commenting. I've written both positive and negative things about MGT.

In my heart of hearts, I'd really like to like MGT.

S4, your concerns over chargen are really more a matter of style rather than rules.

I see your point on that. And, this issue is rather small compared to some of the other issues I have with MGT.

It's in the extra stuff MGT provides that the cool stuff happened. On the career event tables, in the first term she (I rolled gender randomly too) went on an interplanetary tour, but then in the second, a 2!, meaning roll on the mishap table but not be ejected: she ends up with controversy, or scandal. On her final term, she had the opportunity to undermine the world leader in some political shenanigans, which she did, earning a skill.

This sounds...MAJORLY COOL.

I mean that. It sounds nifty. It sounds like they took the neat stuff from CT Advanced CharGen and meshed it with CT Basic CharGen.

I would need to roll up a character, but I like what I'm hearing about this.

I don't think any version of Traveler has a better chargen system.

Well, you've sparked my interest with this.

And, I want to point out, because I think I have to...I really do call them as I see them. When something sounds "good", I admit it. All my posts about MGT aren't negative--just the ones where I comment on the things I don't like about the game.

As for attributes equaling skills, well we do have our differences over this but I will say that in your example, Medic 0 + Edu 12+ would be as useful as Medic 2 /no bonus in a particular task, but if the former had to care for a severely injured patient they'd probably die (the healing rules are fierce!). Higher skilled folk are less likely to be called upon to make a skill check by wise refs, and the lower skilled would therefore have more opportunities to fail.

OK, here, though, you sound like you're taking up for a deficiency in the game's rules. What you're saying is, "Oh, yeah, someone who barely knows medicine would be as statistically successful in caring for a gunshot victim as a full fledged doctor would...but, the GM wouldn't make that guy roll!"

C'mon. That's a little weak in the defense of the system department, isn't it?

S4, TBeard, I would invite you to look at the rules for themselves with an open mind rather than rely on secondhand feedback on this board, as you might be pleasantly surprised.

I accept your invitation. Thanks. But, I don't plan on buying the book as my opinion of it is still more negative than it is positive--so, I have to rely on things like Golan's excellent section reveiws.

I'll make you this promise, though. I will continue to look at MGT with an open mind. Maybe upong closer inspection of the game (I don't know anybody who plans on getting the game as most of the people I know personally think MGT is inferior to CT), my "thumbs down" opinion of MGT will flip to "thumbs up".

 

[Supplement Four]

Actually, 45 tons of internal volume plus 40 tons of fuel tanks is 85 tons. IIRC, the guideline from CT was that if it's within 20% it's acceptable.

Ah, sorry. I was looking at the Seeker. It's only got 24 tons of fuel, leaving 30% of the ship not accounted for.

Yes, allowing the player to assign stat rolls rather than having them strictly in order would be one of those advances...

Golan's review of combat suggests that looking up stuff on tables is necessary for combat. Would consider that an "advancement" of the game system?

 

[Klaus]

OK, here, though, you sound like you're taking up for a deficiency in the game's rules. What you're saying is, "Oh, yeah, someone who barely knows medicine would be as statistically successful in caring for a gunshot victim as a full fledged doctor would...but, the GM wouldn't make that guy roll!"

C'mon. That's a little weak in the defense of the system department, isn't it?

Not necessarily. The clever novice would not be as good as the doctor at caring for him. He would have as good a chance at initially stabilising the patient, but the gunshot victim (if it was serious enough) would likely die with the former, and touch and go with the latter unless he had a sickbay or expert computer to help. Though that's because of the healing rules, which are worth a topic in themselves. Not a typical example, perhaps.

There should be some mechanical acknowledgement for skills over wider ability/knowledge/experience, but for me the bonus structure is alright as it is. I would just call for less tasks from the highly skilled.

I'd also allow a skill level mod for when timing is used, but now we're in the territory of the house rule.

 

[rust]

Just different strokes, I guess. I've played games both ways. As I said before, it depends on the game.

Yep, from my point of view it depends a lot on the setting - the more focus-
sed and detailed it is, the less sense a random character generation makes.

To give an example: My setting is a human colony on a water world, where
most of the exploration and all of the seafloor mining is done with drones.
So, all characters should be good swimmers, able to pilot boats as well as
grav vehicles, and most scientists and all miners need the skill to control the
drones.

And these are just a few examples, the more detail I add, the less random
the character generation can become, because the background enforces
certain skills of the characters.

Characters without the "cultural skills" of the colony are not plausible, they
could hardly live there - and they could of course not take part in any ad-
venturous activities.

 

[Supplement Four]

The clever novice would not be as good as the doctor at caring for him.

?

You seem to be making my point for me. What you say above is exactly what I've been saying about the stat bloat in MGT. Mechanically, in MGT, the clever novice IS as good as the doctor at caring for an injured patient.

And, imo, that's not "right". It does not feel like good game design to me--especially when it could be easily fixed in a number of ways.

 

[Supplement Four]

To give an example: My setting is a human colony on a water world, where
most of the exploration and all of the seafloor mining is done with drones.
So, all characters should be good swimmers, able to pilot boats as well as
grav vehicles, and most scientists and all miners need the skill to control the
drones.

You seem to be saying that you don't think Classic Trav, or its "straight" method of chargen can handle your setting.

There *are* CT mentions where the GM is instructed to "customize" characters. For example, if a character from an asteroid colony doesn't have Vacc Suit, the suggestion is for the GM to give him Vacc Suit-0.

Basically, if the player can make a good case, then he is awarded Vacc Suit-0.

As for your setting, you could easily roll up characters using the CT method (without stat arrangement). The suggestion (and the Keith Bros. did this a lot) is to customize the career. You need characters to have Swimming as a skill? Well, let them all start with Swimming-0, and then add the skill to a cascade list on the chargen tables (would probably go well as a choice on the Vehicle tables), or just flat out replace one of the skill choices (look for a duplicate).

You need characters to have higher DEX than normal because of their homeworld? No problem. You could add a bonus to the throw for that stat. (Say DEX is 2D +2, while EDU is 2D -2, to customize the race.) And/or, you could change the chargen tables, maybe replacing the +1 END with a second chance at a +1 DEX.

Another idea would be to develop a specific table for just that homeworld and allow it as another table choice for the player during chargen. The GM can be sure to get everything he needs for his homebrew homeworld on that table.

CT recommends doing these types of things in the rules, btw.

And, if you wanted, there's nothing stopping you from arranging stats to taste in CT...that could easily be an optional rule if CT were updated.



BTW, your campaign sounds utterly amazing. I bet its fun as hell.

 

[rust]

You seem to be saying that you don't think Classic Trav, or its "straight" method of chargen can handle your setting.

Not exactly. What I wanted to say is that the more detail I add to the set-
ting, the more I have to develop the means you mentioned (character ge-
neration tables, etc.) to tailor character generation to the setting, and the
less random the process becomes.

With a fixed number of possible skills and skill levels (I still use INT + EDU),
I can come to a point where the skills required for a certain career (in my
setting for example the dolphineers) fill all available slots of a beginning
character - there is no room left for randomness.

BTW, your campaign sounds utterly amazing. I bet its fun as hell.

Yep, it is. We have now played about 80 years of the colony's history, and
the game is still getting better.

 

[Jamus]

?

You seem to be making my point for me. What you say above is exactly what I've been saying about the stat bloat in MGT. Mechanically, in MGT, the clever novice IS as good as the doctor at caring for an injured patient.

And, imo, that's not "right". It does not feel like good game design to me--especially when it could be easily fixed in a number of ways.

Kinda
A guy with a 12 EDU and medic-0 is equal to a guy with 7 EDU and medic-3 but the assumption is that a Doctor is going to have a high INT and EDU.

In the above example a guy with 9 EDU and medic-3 is better than the talented novice. Also there is a place in the game for pure talent.

 

[aramis]

I think it's reasonable that a basic tenet of RPGs should be that your character actually survived his background up until the start of play. Why waste time on the ones that didn't? As mentioned above, failed survival rolls can still have consequences without killing the character. That's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And since I'm pretty sure the single most common house rule in CT was to modify the effect of a failed survival roll to something less fatal, it would seem that most players agree.

Not to mention that the short term and out was one of the few explicit optional rules in CT. And was the default in later editions, too.

 

[elstreak72]

Golan's review of combat suggests that looking up stuff on tables is necessary for combat. Would consider that an "advancement" of the game system?

First off, I never said MGT was perfect, in fact I said it was a mixed bag. Second, smart players will have looked up everything they need on the tables before combat and written it on their character sheet... not the character sheet that comes with MGT, of course, but I'm expecting somebody to make a vastly superior homebrew version available any second.

 

[elstreak72]

?

You seem to be making my point for me. What you say above is exactly what I've been saying about the stat bloat in MGT. Mechanically, in MGT, the clever novice IS as good as the doctor at caring for an injured patient.

And, imo, that's not "right". It does not feel like good game design to me--especially when it could be easily fixed in a number of ways.

What would those ways be? I'm not being confrontational, I really want to know. The more I think about it, the more I think a 2d6 mechanism is too "grainy" for there to be any direct contribution from stats without devaluing skills too much.

 

[Supplement Four]

What would those ways be? I'm not being confrontational, I really want to know.

Gotcha. No worries.

The more I think about it, the more I think a 2d6 mechanism is too "grainy" for there to be any direct contribution from stats without devaluing skills too much.

Check the Mongoose forum when its back up. Back during the playtest, I started a thread about this and listed 3-5 "fixes" for the stat bloat.

Most of my ideas were original, but I did tip a hat to CT in some of them. So, to give you a taste, one example of how to fix the MGT stat bloat is to attach more value to skills.

How do you do that?

In CT, skill levels are variable. Typically, a Skill-1 means a +1 DM. That's the default. But, skills are also used in other ways.

A skill could be used for a requirement: In CT, two stats at zero mandates a serious wound. Serious wounds require a care giver with at least Medical-3 skill, or recovery is not possible. (This basically means, if you get shot, you need a doctor to take care of you. Some Medical-0 character can not do the job of a full fledged doctor.)

A skill could provide a DM, but not +1 per level: When putting a character into low berth in CT, an expertise of Medical-2 or better give you a +1 DM on the roll to put the character under. If you have Medical-0 or even no Medical skill at all, there is no penalty--you just don't get the bonus. If you have Medical-3, you still only get the +1 DM, nothing more.

A skill could be used at a bonus greater than or less than +1 per level: In CT, the Vacc Suit skill grants a +2 DM per level on some throws, +1 DM per level on other throws, and even a +4 DM per level on some throws. The throw to perform a non-ordinary maneuver in Zero-G (running across a vaccuum plain in Zero-G or jumping untethered from one ship to another) is 10+. Vacc Suit skill provides a +4 DM per level. Thus, no skill or Vacc Suit-0 means you've got to throw 10+. Vacc Suit-1 means you've got to throw a 6+. And Vacc Suit-2 or better means success is automatic.

I think that last bit is damn elegant. It's a great way to say, "Beginners in vacc suits know how to put it on, and that's about it. Novices have an almost 50-50 chance of pulling off non-ordinary maneuvers. And, characters with Vacc Suit-2 are comfortable enough with their second skin that they can easily pull off non-ordinary feats."



If MGT would implement this type of thinking, the stat bloat issue would disappear. As in the Medical-0 EDU-12 character vs. the Medical-2 EDU-8 character problem would become moot if the medical rules simply said something like, "Medical Skill-2 is required to operate on serious wounds or a -3 DM is applied to the task."

Or, the description in the MGT medical rules could indicate that Medical expertise provides a +2 DM per skill level when operating on serious wounds.

Or, whatever. That's off the top of my head. You get the idea, though.







My Best Idea for Fixing MGT stat bloat...

One of the original ideas I had was to list a minimum skill requirement on tasks. The default would be Skill-0, and if no requirement were indicated, this would be assumed.

If the character doesn't have the required level of skill for the task, then the standard MGT -3 DM penalty is invoked.

I thought this was a particularly good idea for Mongoose. It requires zero changes to the current MGT task system, and it kills the stat bloat, all in one swipe.

So, on most tasks, it is assumed that, if you don't have at least Skill-0, then a -3 DM penalty is applied to the roll. This is the standard MGT task system from the playtest (and, I assume, the standard method in the printed book).

But, on some tasks, a simple skill requirement will be noted. Something like: Average/EDU/Engineering-2.

If you see that, you know it's an Average task, using the EDU stat, and if the character does not have the minimum Engineering-2, then the standard -3 DM is applied.

And, whammy! All stat bloat issues are gone! Simple, very easy fix that does not require a single change to the current MGT task system. All you have to do is figure which tasks will not have the standard Skill-0 requirement.



If I ever play MGT, this last idea will be my first House Rule.

But, that should give you an idea of some of the "fixes" that can fix the stat bloat issue. Instead of ignoring it or accepting it, the issue can be erased. I had some other ideas, as well, but I think the one directly above was the best because it required no change to the existing MGT mechanics.

 

[Berg]

But, on some tasks, a simple skill requirement will be noted. Something like: Average/EDU/Engineering-2.

If you see that, you know it's an Average task, using the EDU stat, and if the character does not have the minimum Engineering-2, then the standard -3 DM is applied.

Would the character then get a +2 DM for the engineering -2, having met the minimum?

 

[Supplement Four]

Would the character then get a +2 DM for the engineering -2, having met the minimum?

Yes, for a net of -1 DM to the throw.



To re-visit my example from earlier in the thread...

Noobi is EDU-12, Medical-0

Avii is EDU-8, Medical-2

Under the MGT skill descriptions, Noobi is a novice and Avii is a licensed MD. Both characters are crewing on a Tukera liner. Noobi is Avii's apprentice.



A passenger comes into sickbay. He stuck his arm into some automatic doors. The sensor was faulty, and the passenger's arm has been badly bruised. Minor wound!

The task to provide care for this patient is: Average/EDU/Medical-0.

So, we see that it is an average task, using the EDU stat, and if the character doesn't have Medical-0, the -3 DM is applied.

Either character can do the same job fixing up this passenger's arm. The nurse can do it as well as the doctor (and, note, this is the default method of doing tasks in MGT right now as I write this).

So, no problem. Noobi would roll 2D +2 to take care of the passenger's arm, and Avii would roll 2D +2 to take care of the passenger's arm.



Now, the two med-heads get a call from security. There's been a disagreement in the passenger lounge, and one of the passengers has suffered a deep knife wound to the chest. He's bleeding bad, and the security guards have reported a sick sucking sound coming from the man's chest. Serious Wound!

Our two Meddies run to the lounge, Medkits in hand, and see the victim.

The task to provide care for this guy is: Average/EDU/Medical-2.

Again, we see that this is an average task, referencing the EDU stat, but this time, Medical-2 is required or the -3 DM is applied.

Now, this is a job for the doctor.

If Noobi tries to provide care, he rolls 2D -1. He still gets the +2 DM for his EDU-12, but he also suffers the -3 DM due to his inexperience.

The doc, Avii, on the other hand, will roll 2D +2, giving him a much better shot at providing care for the patient than the Medical-0 character.



And, just like that, boom, boom, the stat bloat issue is gone. Simple fix. No change to the existing MGT task system. Everybody's happy.:rofl:

And, yes, this was ignored on the Mongoose forum.

I don't mean to be tootin' my own horn, but, c'mon, this is a damn elegant way to fix a problem I see (in my opinion) with the MGT task system.

To be honest, I'm still scratching my head as to why this wasn't adopted.

 

[Berg]

Yes, for a net of -1 DM to the throw.

Why he met the minimum?

Or are you viewing the required skill level as a subtraction from the -3 already...?

Eg:
Req skill 1 = -2 DM
Req skill 2 = -1 DM
Req skill 3 = 0 DM

 

[Supplement Four]

Why he met the minimum?

Or are you viewing the required skill level as a subtraction from the -3 already...?

Eg:
Req skill 1 = -2 DM
Req skill 2 = -1 DM
Req skill 3 = 0 DM

No, you're not understanding.

To be more clear, first consider the MGT system as it is right now before any tweak. If you don't have at least Skill-0 for a task, then you suffer a -3 DM, right? That goes for all tasks.

So, we can say that the minimum skill level for any task is Skill-0. Right?

You've got any level of skill = no penalty. You've got no skill = -3 DM penalty.

With me?



OK. All I've done is suggest that the minimum skill level for a task be raised for certain tasks.

For most tasks, the minimum is Skill-0. That's the default. And, that the way the MGT task system is currently.

For some tasks, the minimum skill might be Skill-1, Skill-2, or higher. If a character doesn't have the required skill level to attempt the task, then the standard -3 DM penalty is applied.



Re-read my examples above.

The first deals with a minor wound. The minimum skill on that task is Skill-0. So, neither character suffered the -3 DM penalty. They both had Skill-0 or greater (Noobi has Skill-0, and Avii has Skill-2).

The second task addresses a serious wound. Here, the minimum skill required to attempt the task was raised from the default Skill-0. In order to attempt that second task, a Skill-2 is required. If a character attempts the task without at least the Skill-2 requirement, the -3 DM is applied.

Noobie rolled 2D -1

That's +2 for EDU-12 and -3 for not meeting the Skill-2 requirement.

Avii rolled 2D +2

Avii's got the required skill level of Skill-2, so he doesn't suffer the -3 DM. He gets +0 for EDU-8 and +2 for his skill.



Simple "fix" to the stat bloat, huh?

Whaddya think?

 

[Berg]

I agree it is good

The quote I used in post #114 wasn't using any example, just asking if reaching the minimum erases the -3 DM, thus your answer confused... but I understand now...

Remember, MGT is going to have an OGL/SRD, so your little fixes can become semi-official...

 

[aramis]

I agree it is good

The quote I used in post #114 wasn't using any example, just asking if reaching the minimum erases the -3 DM, thus your answer confused... but I understand now...

Remember, MGT is going to have an OGL/SRD, so your little fixes can become semi-official...

wrong. They only become official for "S4's space adventure Game" which uses the TSRD

 

[Klaus]

A skill could be used for a requirement: In CT, two stats at zero mandates a serious wound. Serious wounds require a care giver with at least Medical-3 skill, or recovery is not possible. (This basically means, if you get shot, you need a doctor to take care of you. Some Medical-0 character can not do the job of a full fledged doctor.)

This is already how it works in MGT. Here, a character is seriously wounded if he has taken damage to all 3 physical stats. To get to this point, most likely his End has been reduced to 0.

Now the example characters, the clever nurse and the average doctor, have the same chance of doing first aid on the character, stabilising them. However, they're still seriously wounded. Long term care is required for them to heal.

Left to his own devices, the patient would die. Cared for just by the nurse, they would die. Cared for by the doctor, and they'd slowly recover.

This is because:

A seriously wounded character heals points equal to his End bonus per day, on his own. With End 0, this is -3.

Under medical care in a sickbay, the patient gains 2+End bonus + Medical skill of doctor per day.

Left on his own, he loses 1 per day (2-3+0=-1).
Cared for by the clever nurse, he loses 1 per day (2-3+0=-1).
Cared for by the average doctor, he gains 1 per day (2-3+2=1).

This means that in order to not die, the patient must be cared for by someone with at least 1 level in medical. To recover, they need at least 2 levels.

So, at least as far as medical is concerned, skill is not equivalent to high stat. Long term use of the skill requires actual levels in it.

I would like to see this principal applied to other areas too. The number of repairs that can be attempted in one turn by damage control teams is limited to the mechanic skill of the dam-con officer, or the number of features a computer program can contain can be no higher than the character's skill level.

Emphasising skills this way means that long term, every day uses, that might often not require a task roll, require skill levels to be done efficiently or well.

It doesn't then start to devalue stats, which reducing the bonuses would do. Remember, stats are also a measure of training and experience, just not specific training. It would mean that to be reliably successful over a long term period requires actual skills levels. Talented novices could wing it for a bit, but they'd come a cropper in the everyday job.