Rules Only: Generic or Official Traveller Universe

[mike wightman]

That "Pretty much" was "way too much" for many, and "WTF is this?" for many more.

MGT looks very little like what was being asked for at the time.

MGT uses Bk2 ship design; most of the people wanted Bk5 ships.
MGT uses a unique character generation; people wanted CT or MT CGen.
MGT uses a unique trade system; there was a lot of push for the t20 trade system (which was a bk 2 derivative), and failing that, Bk2.

What you and I wanted was not what most people wanted unfortunately or that's what we would have got , not that it matters, and a couple of the early drafts of MgT had much better rules than made it to the CRB

MgT is what Mongoose and Marc decided it would be.

Much like T5 is what Marc wants and to hell with critics of the T4 task system

I hereby make a prediction for the future: there will be a pathfinder version of Traveller - it will be based on CT using the T20 and MgT SRDs, it will be a sandbox setting but with a distant empire in the background to showcase the rules, it will have an 8+ on 2d6 core mechanic (and if Marc has any sense he will do it or licence the company that does ).

 

[mike wightman]

I don't want to get too off topic on my own poll here, but I really liked the char-gen of classic Traveller. It was straight forward and quick. Why was it altered? Did the new setting of Rebellion, Virus and what not demand it?

My ideal vision of character generation would be the tables from CT + CotI modified with the special duty roll from MT and the four or more rule - although i would modify that to an extra skill or an extra mustering out benefit, player's choice.

The MgT special events are fun the first couple of times but after a while it's meh - just give me the benefit.

 

[aramis]

I don't want to get too off topic on my own poll here, but I really liked the char-gen of classic Traveller. It was straight forward and quick. Why was it altered? Did the new setting of Rebellion, Virus and what not demand it?

MT does these things different from CT as far as CGen goes:

1. it uses more cascades, to allow for better skill access per career.
2. it adds special duty & bonus skills, bringing basic characters in-line with advanced gen
3. it adds more explicit default skills
4. It includes rules for Anagathics
5. It makes "short term and out" the default for failed survival, rather than death

The setting didn't demand those changes... but many many players had.

 

[aramis]

What you and I wanted was not what most people wanted unfortunately or that's what we would have got , not that it matters, and a couple of the early drafts of MgT had much better rules than made it to the CRB

Considering the number of people banned by HUnter from here because they were vocal about not liking the differences...

And considering the rather slow uptake of the game by fans of ANY other edition except T4... (I'm wondering if there ARE any T4 fans...)

It's probably more fair to say that MGT is selling because it's Traveller and has an exclusivity clause, not because it's better than CT+ would have been.

And MGT doesn't appear to be so much "Marc and Mongoose"... it appears very much to be "Mongoose running wild"... certain things on Marc's "don't go there" list for T20 made their way into MGT. Including cheesey gratuitously buxom ladies in gratuitously skimpy clothes..

 

[Blue Ghost]

MT does these things different from CT as far as CGen goes:

1. it uses more cascades, to allow for better skill access per career.
2. it adds special duty & bonus skills, bringing basic characters in-line with advanced gen
3. it adds more explicit default skills
4. It includes rules for Anagathics
5. It makes "short term and out" the default for failed survival, rather than death

The setting didn't demand those changes... but many many players had.

Huh, okay. I remember the "Combat Rifleman" thing, and having to look up a weapon and what not when MT rolled around. The special duty reminded me of the extended char-gen from CT, and seemed similar, which is why I scratched me head over it. And yes, I do remember the alternative to CT's death in char-gen aspect.

Interesting, if disappointing that fans and players demanded it. I certainly wasn't one, and none of my friends nor any of the players at school demanded it. Again...interesting. Oh well.

Thanks.

 

[Blue Ghost]

60 votes, and the Thursday post explosion actually took place on Tuesday. Neat.

No more thoughts on Traveller's genericness or setting specific game?

 

[mike wightman]

I just wonder how many of the people who have voted OTU actually use it as is or modify it a bit and therefore make it OTU with other elements

And then of course there is the big question of which OTU they actually use - GT:ISW, T4 M0, T20, golden age (CT or MgT), Rebellion, GATU, Hard Times, TNE, TNE 1248...

I wonder if T5 will ever produce a setting guide for each era to produce a unified OTU or if we will be stuck with the jigsaw pieces of previous versions' incompatibilities.

 

[Vargas]

I don't want to get too off topic on my own poll here, but I really liked the char-gen of classic Traveller. It was straight forward and quick. Why was it altered? Did the new setting of Rebellion, Virus and what not demand it?

I think MT char gen was mostly a consolidation/standardization of the careers from CT; basically a clean up that was rolled into what today would be called CT 2e. DGP, as the authors of the revision working for GDW, added some tweaks of their own, hence the skill cascades and the like.

 

[aramis]

I think MT char gen was mostly a consolidation/standardization of the careers from CT; basically a clean up that was rolled into what today would be called CT 2e. DGP, as the authors of the revision working for GDW, added some tweaks of their own, hence the skill cascades and the like.

The changes, which appear cosmetic at a glance, are actually quite profound in play.

The large numbers of cascades in MT give far more control over the output character. The broad weapons skills reduce about 30 discrete weapons (21 in core, +6 in Sup4, 7 in Bk5, but 3 are group-skills) skills down to about 10.

 

[Blue Ghost]

It was a welcome change. One of the rules' loopholes was transfering skill of one fire arm to another that was radically different in design and function, but was still a "gun" skill in terms of the rules.

Mike Whightman; there used to be an individual on this board (Straybow?) who ran a pretty strict Traveller game, according to him at least. If what he stated was true, then I would imagine he would be one of those stick-in-the-mud-canon types

With all but my last gaming group I always treated the OTU as a suggested backdrop, and kept it there unless I needed to radically change something for the sake of the story ... like, oh hell, I don't know ... bring in those lizard people from "V" or something.

Otherwise the focus of my gaming group was the adventure, story, and the task of navigating it to have a good time.

 

[aramis]

What you and I wanted was not what most people wanted unfortunately or that's what we would have got ,

Not a safe bet.

MgT is what Mongoose and Marc decided it would be.

This is closer to the truth.
But it looks more one-sided... Gareth and Matthew, way more than Marc.

Mongoose has done well... but it also has fired off another CT revival because CT fanboys are the ones pushing the game at cons and in blogs.

 

[Ulsyus]

Mongoose has done well... but it also has fired off another CT revival because CT fanboys are the ones pushing the game at cons and in blogs.

Was this a consideration for publishing T5, or was MM always planning on doing that? Or was there something else that was the impetus for another version after T4?

 

[aramis]

Was this a consideration for publishing T5, or was MM always planning on doing that? Or was there something else that was the impetus for another version after T4?

As far as I know, Marc was planning T5 from about the time T4 became a dead system. Because that's about when I saw the first draft bits for it.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Wasn't T5 supposed to be all encompassing as far as periods go in the OTU?

 

[mike wightman]

If T5 is the final vision for how the OTU works then it has introduced yet more changes to the setting, both from a political viewpoint (changing the way nobility works) and technology changes.

Which is fine except you still have MgT producing OTU third Imperium setting material that doesn't use T5isms.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Er, could you point to an example?

To be honest I don't recall nobility being explained too much from any of the versions other than GURPS Trav.

 

[rancke]

Er, could you point to an example?

To be honest I don't recall nobility being explained too much from any of the versions other than GURPS Trav.

Prior to GT the available evidence about Imperial nobles was very scanty, allowing for a wide variety of interpretations. GT just nailed that vagueness down a lot (which is, after all, what a detailed setting writeup is supposed to do). But the old pre-GT canon about the Imperial nobility does make some details clear. Such as the fact that Imperial nobles don't rule "their" worlds; they're associated with a world, not given it in fief (for one thing, most Imperial worlds isn't the emperor's to give away).


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

Er, I don't recall that at all. Edition and page number?

 

[rancke]

Er, I don't recall that at all. Edition and page number?

[LDNZ:34-37] + world generation system.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

Prior to GT the available evidence about Imperial nobles was very scanty, allowing for a wide variety of interpretations. GT just nailed that vagueness down a lot (which is, after all, what a detailed setting writeup is supposed to do). But the old pre-GT canon about the Imperial nobility does make some details clear. Such as the fact that Imperial nobles don't rule "their" worlds; they're associated with a world, not given it in fief (for one thing, most Imperial worlds isn't the emperor's to give away).


Hans

It mentions a world granted as a preserve to archdukes, and mentions enfeeofment, but also clearly states that it provides social station for political leadership. But it doesn't mention anything about the political status of Fiefs, other than the noble is given the title over the parcel allowed to him. My guess is that if it is a fief, then it's his or her's to rule. That's always been the way me and my groups have looked at it.