got the book (0) today...here i go...
- Thread starter sid6.7
- Start date
saundby
SOC-14 1K
Going back to the OP here...
I'm a CT fan as well, I've run a campaign based on LBB1-3 off and on since '77. An unfortunate experience with a group I played with in '80 put me off on the supplements, so I never had them until I got the CT CD this last year.
Same here. Compared to a lot of RPG books coming out these days, I've been really happy to see a book I could feel deserves an A.
That's one of the things I like about it. But I also like the additions. Personally, my comparison is more to books 1-3 rather than the whole set. Once we have a few more Mongoose books out, I think it will be fair to compare the CT canon against the quality of what we're getting from Mongoose.
In actual play with my players, it hasn't acted as pigeonholing. It's a starting point, a point of tension with respect to developing the character. A challenge, rather than a limitation, if you will.
I was wary of this as well. But what my players have done with it is magic, and nothing short of it. Now I consider it brilliance. How it will play out will probably vary significantly depending on the chemistry of the group--I don't know--but in my group it's spawned a lot of intercharacter interaction right from chargen. The first session I'm getting role playing of the sort that usually takes a few sessions, and I'd say the connections rules are responsible for about 2/3rds of that. The other story-building elements of chargen are the other third.
With us it's more a starting point than a putting words in your mouth sort of thing. We haven't felt forced by it.
*Shrug* It'll hit different people in different ways. I never liked the cut-and-dry "patrons" thing in CT myself. It seemed so artificial. On enemies and allies, we fill in details where it suits us, and leave things vague otherwise. It may come in useful later in the campaign, or, it may never be revisited. It's not a make-or-break kind of rule for us. We've done some good things with it. I was already doing something similar out of sight of the players, myself.
I usually ended up doing some gap-filling for the characters with CT, or influencing things a bit with prologue to the campaign. With the Mongoose rules there's still plenty of latitude for grit and improvisation by working around skill gaps. My main concern with the skill packages was skill inflation, which hasn't turned out to be a problem.
Pleasantly so, IMO.
I give the full rules book a B+, with the errata an A-, though I'm ticked about the fact that I bought a nice bound hardcover and now I've got a chapter of printouts sticking out of it that there's no way to have inserted cleanly into the nice hardcover. But...it's a niggle compared to how ticked I was about Mongoose's RuneQuest. Totally ripped off about covers the feelings there.
I'd really like to have the chance to get half off or so on a new edition, that would make me a lot less ticked about the errata (or, hey, how about I send back by RQ and they send me an updated Traveller?
One sheet inside the cover I can handle, and I expect. But even in duplex there are way too many sheets sitting in my book now.
At any rate, I was at about a C+ level of feeling before I actually took it to the table with my players. Those who were CT vets took to it very well, and the D20 kids who had enjoyed CT took to it faster and with greater relish than they did CT. To be fair, the "D20 kids" would probably not care to be thought of as that, rather as "D20 experienced and looking for better" hence ending up in my campaign.
-Mark
I'm a CT fan as well, I've run a campaign based on LBB1-3 off and on since '77. An unfortunate experience with a group I played with in '80 put me off on the supplements, so I never had them until I got the CT CD this last year.
mongoose book 0 is fine
its real simple in many ways and a little cluttered in others but its pretty breif and
to the point, i'd give it an ....A...
Same here. Compared to a lot of RPG books coming out these days, I've been really happy to see a book I could feel deserves an A.
That's one of the things I like about it. But I also like the additions. Personally, my comparison is more to books 1-3 rather than the whole set. Once we have a few more Mongoose books out, I think it will be fair to compare the CT canon against the quality of what we're getting from Mongoose.
In actual play with my players, it hasn't acted as pigeonholing. It's a starting point, a point of tension with respect to developing the character. A challenge, rather than a limitation, if you will.
I was wary of this as well. But what my players have done with it is magic, and nothing short of it. Now I consider it brilliance. How it will play out will probably vary significantly depending on the chemistry of the group--I don't know--but in my group it's spawned a lot of intercharacter interaction right from chargen. The first session I'm getting role playing of the sort that usually takes a few sessions, and I'd say the connections rules are responsible for about 2/3rds of that. The other story-building elements of chargen are the other third.
With us it's more a starting point than a putting words in your mouth sort of thing. We haven't felt forced by it.
*Shrug* It'll hit different people in different ways. I never liked the cut-and-dry "patrons" thing in CT myself. It seemed so artificial. On enemies and allies, we fill in details where it suits us, and leave things vague otherwise. It may come in useful later in the campaign, or, it may never be revisited. It's not a make-or-break kind of rule for us. We've done some good things with it. I was already doing something similar out of sight of the players, myself.
I usually ended up doing some gap-filling for the characters with CT, or influencing things a bit with prologue to the campaign. With the Mongoose rules there's still plenty of latitude for grit and improvisation by working around skill gaps. My main concern with the skill packages was skill inflation, which hasn't turned out to be a problem.
Pleasantly so, IMO.
maybe i'll warm up to it later if i read again in another week or two...
overall as a CT biased player i'd give it a HIGH ....C+...
I give the full rules book a B+, with the errata an A-, though I'm ticked about the fact that I bought a nice bound hardcover and now I've got a chapter of printouts sticking out of it that there's no way to have inserted cleanly into the nice hardcover. But...it's a niggle compared to how ticked I was about Mongoose's RuneQuest. Totally ripped off about covers the feelings there.
I'd really like to have the chance to get half off or so on a new edition, that would make me a lot less ticked about the errata (or, hey, how about I send back by RQ and they send me an updated Traveller?
One sheet inside the cover I can handle, and I expect. But even in duplex there are way too many sheets sitting in my book now.
At any rate, I was at about a C+ level of feeling before I actually took it to the table with my players. Those who were CT vets took to it very well, and the D20 kids who had enjoyed CT took to it faster and with greater relish than they did CT. To be fair, the "D20 kids" would probably not care to be thought of as that, rather as "D20 experienced and looking for better" hence ending up in my campaign.
-Mark
are you kidding?!?!
MGT barely mentions the imperium. I'm working on an isolated cluster campaign right now that is pretty much stand alone from the 3i.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Kidding? I don't think they were. "MGT barely mentions the imperium" - thats exactly what the poster says in the second sentence: "That is the blandest sf setting ever." At first glance the first sentence hit me the same way as it did VT1099ace but then when looking at the rest of the post it makes more sense.
After a second look the comment "high-tech stuff" popped out at me. I too thought one of the good things to come from a new version of traveller might be a better variety of higher tech stuff. I point out in another post somewhere that I think it is odd that the tools of the future, like laser cutters, could be adapted to make better melee weapons. After all those years for possible innovation there is only one melee weapon listed above TL 3!
I think the posters overall impression was that something was lacking. I think the phrase "change enough stuff" is a bit off; IMO MGT didn't ADD enough "stuff".
EDIT: They want us to keep coming back and buying those supplements!
Last edited:
It's the Traveller way. And Mongoose is using the Traveller rule set as a core book for other settings so I don't see anything wrong with how they're doing things. In fact, I like it.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
The reason that there are no serious high tech melee weapons is that since about 1650 or so, melee weapons have been completely eclipsed by missile weapons. While this may not be desirable from a dramatic standpoint, this is reality. So other than making swords out of better metal (or in a fraction of the time required by ancient swordmakers), there's little development in melee weapons (other than in the field of nonlethal weapons). Unless missile weapons are rendered obsolete by some technology (and somehow, melee weapons are unaffected), I don't see any *logical* reason to spend much effort on high tech melee weapons. Thus, it is quite logical and reasonable that higher tech melee weapons would be largely improvised from tools.
(I'd also note that a return to melee weapons would fundamentally alter the nature of government. Melee weapons require far more training than guns do, and the result would be the rise of very small armies. This would almost inevitably lead to a far less democratic society.)
So I suggest that fans of high tech melee weapons play Star Wars. (And even the Star Wars weapons would be laughably ineffective against low tech missile weapons -- I'd wipe a whole squad of Jedis out with an assault shotgun...)
Traveller has never been Star Wars.
casquilho
SOC-13
I have to agree with Eisenmann here. Just as the LBBs just hinted at the background so this core rule book leaves lots of room for me to build my vision of what Traveller should be. I love the return to a simple core rule book that does not shove its view of a setting too hard.
As for buying the supplements, well I must admit this means I will buy some more books. That is true. But by using the supplement model they allow me to buy what I want and ignore what I want.
Daniel
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Melee weapons are just an example of one area that could have had some added high tech. If you have issues with melee weapons use robotics, computers, sensors, ships, armor, any number of things as an example instead.
Since you brought it up though... I agree with your analysis with how things occurred in Earths distant past (from a Traveller perspective). I even point out elsewhere that the army and marines are mere police forces and imply that even the hand held missile weapons might become obsolete. SEE THIS POST
Part of the reason I used Melee weapons as an example though is because melee combat appears to be common in Traveller. I believe in the MGT army career there are just as many melee skills spread around the skill tables as there are gun combat skills. There is no Gun combat skill on the navy officer skills table but Melee (blade) is there. I do not believe many Navy officers back around the year 2000 on earth were trained to use blades. Now for the biggie: On the Agent - Law Enforcement specialists table there is melee skill but no gun combat skill! Cops don't use guns in the future?
Last edited:
BMR requirements for Navy Cadets includes the manual of sword for non-combat drill, and while that's not combat useful, I'd say it does count for level 0... since you have learned how to put that blade in some specific spots.
In general, Law Enforcement doesn't use firearms in the UK, either, if the press is to be believed. I don't know any of the UK Bobbies, tho...
Every police officer I've known in Alaska has used his baton more than his firearm in the line of duty, counting time spent on the range. Anchorage Police used to use PR-24 polycarbonate tonfas... now, they are back to 1m wooden clubs, called police batons, abut 25-35mm diameter. And they are using them far more. Sometimes for searches, sometimes to indicate directions, sometimes to restrain, sometimes to disarm. 9mm's just maim and/or kill.
I like the PR24, BTW... it's a GREAT close in melee weapon, good against both blade and blunt, and usable both up close and at ranges to 1.5m...
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
It isn't in my campaigns. Granted, CT and MGT characters often muster out with considerable melee weapon skill. Yet an analysis of the combat capabilties of melee weapons vs. guns (to say nothing of lasers and PG/FG) does not justify melee combat being very common in Traveller. Most melee weapons do the same or less damage than a rifle or shotgun. Given the latter's ability to do that damage at long range, I just can't see someone choosing to learn to use a sword in combat over learning to shoot a gun (not to mention the fact that it's far easier to obtain proficiency with guns than with swords).
Therefore, the explanation (IMHO) must be either (a) game design incompetence; or (b) a string cultural bias towards swordfighting.
Also, it may well be that higher tech melee weapons are simply not that much *better* than low tech weapons. In other words, a CNC milled TL 8 sword may not be better than a TL 3 Damascus or Toledo sword -- but it may be far cheaper and easier to get. It may also resist rust, never require sharpening, etc.
We see the same kinds of situations with guns. A TL8 7.62mm combat rifle doesn't necessarily do more damage than a TL5 7-8mm rifle. But it may be lighter, more reliable, cheaper (in real dollars), capable of autofire, etc. For that matter, it doesn't do as much raw damage as the TL4 Martini-Henry rifle. But it has a 20 round magazine, is lighter, has more reliable ammo, etc.
Gruffty
SOC-14 1K
Nope. Officers patrolling local areas on foot/in vehicles don't carry firearms, either on their persons or in the boot/trunk of a vehicle.
In the UK armed police are available if needed but weapons are carried discretely. Police at UK airports can often be seen carrying weapons overtly (especially if the security level is or has been raised recently).
(OT) I'd feel sorry for a police officer in a US city who wasn't allowed to carry a gun. His life expectancy would be pretty scary.
On topic, there are a ton of high tech gadgets that could have been added that weren't. The tech has been improved from CT, but much of it still isn't even at 2008 standards. At least the system will be OGL, so I am almost positive someone will publish more tech stuff.
On topic, there are a ton of high tech gadgets that could have been added that weren't. The tech has been improved from CT, but much of it still isn't even at 2008 standards. At least the system will be OGL, so I am almost positive someone will publish more tech stuff.
When I was in the UK (London) back in November of '04 I saw A LOT of police officers carrying submachine guns. MP-5s on speed rings. And it just wasn't at the airports or Downing Street.
Interestingly enough, I've never seen a police officer in the US carrying one while out on the beat.
Interestingly enough, I've never seen a police officer in the US carrying one while out on the beat.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Me neither. SMGs seem to be far more popular with European police. Our own police are typically armed with handguns, which has, on a few occasions led to police being outclassed by perps in body armor. SWAT teams have access to AR-15s (presumably capable of autofire) and probably more exotic hardware.
Personally, I can't see much use in an SMG *if* assault rifles/carbines are available.
I'm not sure, but wouldn't smg's be easier to handle inside closed areas, such as buildings and hallways when compared to a long rifle of any kind? Quicker to 'aim' from the hip? Lower powered rounds having less chance to go through walls and such than a full-powered rifle round?
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
You're correct, SMGs would have these advantages. However, I was speaking of short barrelled versions of assault rifles (what I call assault carbines). They would be reasonably handy and would be more likely to penetrate body armor (though also more likely to go through thin interior walls).
In any case, SMGs do not appear to be very popular with US police.
