Initiative System Gripes Pt. 1

[tbeard1999]

Well, I tried the initiative system ("IS") out again, in the vain hope that I might actually start to like it. Unfortunately for me, it's like an off key piano solo; repeating it just puts my teeth on edge. Anyhow, here are some specific comments:

Dodging

Because of the fact that the IS heavily sequences everything, Dodging seems to be a mostly useless action, unless you are being shot at by only one person. The reason is that dodges do not "carry over" from attack to attack. So...Fred shoots Tom and Tom reasonably enough dodges as much as he can. An instant later, Gordo (whose DEX is 1 less than Fred's) shoots Tom and none of Tom's dodging just a microsecond earlier helps him. Since Tom's previous dodging dropped him to initiative 1 he has to stand there lsack jawed and take Gordo's shot. Of course, Tom's player could have chosen not to dodge as much, thereby saving some initiative, but is seems absurd to imagine Tom saying to himself "mustn't try to dodge Tom's shoot too hard...might need some of that dodging later..."

Aiming

Works okay, I guess, although the rules should probably state that the character loses his aiming bonus if he fires at any target other than the one he's aiming at. The rules also do not state whether aiming over several turns is cumulative. The example implies this by stating that the maximum aiming bonus is +6, which is only attainable over 2 turns (spending 5 ticks in turn 1 and 1 more tick in turn 2). Of course, this could just be a typo.

Moving/Firing

Because of the fact that initiative increments in the middle of the round, some odd consequences can arise when moving and firing. If a figure starts the round with initiative 5+, then he can move >1.5m and fire during that round. Say he starts with initiative 6. He moves 3m, reducing initiative to 4. It increments up to 6 before combat. He fires in combat and gets a 2 on effect. Next turn, he cannot continue his steady advancing fire. He starts with initiative 4. If he moves, he'll drop initiative to 2, which will increment to 4. So he can either continue his advance or stop and shoot. Yet nothing has really changed in the two rounds.

Overwatch

There ain't none. The most basic of all infantry tactics, and there ain't none. Sorry, I just can't take a combat system seriously if there's no ability to conduct overwatch fire. An easy example should suffice to point out the absurdity of this omission:

Tom is behind a large boulder at the start of a round. Frank, wants to shoot Tom, but cannot see him. During the movement phase, Tom moves behind another boulder, but in between the boulders, he's in plain sight of Tom. When the combat phase rolls around, Frank cannot fire at Tom.

Now, Frank could "interrupt" Tom. However, the rules state that combat actions occur during the combat phase. No exception is noted for interrupts. And even if the rules are changed so that Frank can use an interrupt to shoot at Tom during his movement, Frank would still have to have an initiative of 6 and a higher DEX than Tom (otherwise Tom would just interrupt Frank's interrupt).

It's also a bad idea to allow shooting interrupts in the movement phase. A figure would often be better off declining to fire in his combat phase and just interrupting enemy movement in the following movement phase. This has the deleterious effect of further slowing the game to a crawl. That could be mitigated by imposing a to hit penalty for interrupt fire, I suppose.

 

[Valarian]

Up to now I've kept quiet, but this is just one too many.

I think everyone gets by now that you don't like Mongoose's flavour of Traveller. You're not alone, I don't like it either. The difference here is that I'm not complaining and bitching about it. I've just stated that it's not for me, I'm not going to buy it, and I'll leave it to those who want to buy it.

Personally, I'll continue to use T20 for Traveller. You're free to use the system you want, I'm guessing Classic or MegaTraveller. Keep playing with your rules and leave the Mongoose rules to those who like them. This is what consumerism is all about.

I suppose what I'm really saying is ... enough already, time to shut up now.

 

[Supplement Four]

I suppose what I'm really saying is ... enough already, time to shut up now.

I actually like reading TBeard's posts. I don't always agree with everything he writes, but the detailed analysis is quite interesting.

He does temper his posts with his dislike of the system, but I can read past that just as easily as I can a "pro" post. I'm interested in how the game plays and "feels", and I think TBeard has done a good job relating how the mechanics work.

I say, post as much as you want to, TBeard. I'll read it.

 

[tbeard1999]

Up to now I've kept quiet, but this is just one too many.

I think everyone gets by now that you don't like Mongoose's flavour of Traveller. You're not alone, I don't like it either.

Invariably, when someone begins a complaint with "I don't like it either", I find that in actual fact they do like it quite a bit.

The difference here is that I'm not complaining and bitching about it.

No, you appear to "complaining and bitching" about me criticising it. That's completely not different, isn't it?

<sigh> In any case, my post makes a very specific and detailed critique of the game, one that I have not made before. Therefore, your demand that I "just shut up" is denied.

If you have a specific disagreement with my critique--other than that it dares to dissect a flawed system--please post it.

I suppose what I'm really saying is ... enough already, time to shut up now.

Funny, the forum is still called the Mongoose Traveller forum. Are you advocating closing it down? Or merely no longer posting critical comments about it?

 

[Valarian]

Invariably, when someone begins a complaint with "I don't like it either", I find that in actual fact they do like it quite a bit.

How the blazes did you work that out?
I really don't like it, I don't like Classic Traveller or MegaTraveller either. Personally, I think the new rules are terrible ... so I won't buy them. I'll keep using the rules I do like.

 

[tbeard1999]

I actually like reading TBeard's posts. I don't always agree with everything he writes, but the detailed analysis is quite interesting.

He does temper his posts with his dislike of the system

Well, it's a blessing...and a curse.

but I can read past that just as easily as I can a "pro" post.

You raise an interesting point about gamer psychology. Somehow, the critiques of someone who dislikes a system--and I have never claimed otherwise about MGT--are deemed by some to be less useful than critiques by folks who unconditionally love the game.

This seems patently absurd to me; a factual statement is valid regardless of the biases of the person making it. And a subjective judgment may (or may not) be affected by the biases of a person making the judgment. However, it seems to me that unreliability falls equally on each side of the Love It/Hate It axis. At least I am honest that I despise the system-- and since I give extensive examples why, I think it's reasonable to conclude that I've given it a fair trial. I like to think that this is much better than being a fanboy and being unwilling to admit it.

I'm interested in how the game plays and "feels", and I think TBeard has done a good job relating how the mechanics work.

I say, post as much as you want to, TBeard. I'll read it.

Request granted...hopefully.

 

[tbeard1999]

I really don't like it, I don't like Classic Traveller or MegaTraveller either. Personally, I think the new rules are terrible ... so I won't buy them. I'll keep using the rules I do like.

<shrug>

Well, I'll take your word for it. But I don't think that you have accurately characterized my post as mere "bitching and whining". As noted, I define the flaws specifically and give very specific examples of how the rules are flawed. Nor am I repeating myself on this.

 

[merlin]

Mongoose Traveller Section of the Forum

No. of threads = 20
No. of threads started by tbeard1999 = 15
No. of threads started by tbeard1999 which attack MGT as being "inadequate", "broken" "insert favourite negative adjective here" = 15

He does temper his posts with his dislike of the system, but I can read past that just as easily as I can a "pro" post.

I'm interested in how the game plays and "feels", and I think TBeard has done a good job relating how the mechanics work.

oh if i could stop laughing for a moment...

tbeard1999, you've made your point, you don't like MGT, we "get" it...

Starting yet another thread attacking another (in your view) "substandard" element of MGT smacks of little more than a vitriol fueled hate campaign - if your posts concerning MGT where evenhanded then perhaps I would think otherwise but past history (and posts made on the subject) suggest otherwise.

Like Valarian said... enough already

 

[Able Baker]

Regarding Overwatch:

I read the rules and played it to mean if you START the turn with a six (before incrementing), you are allowed to act at ANY time.

Interestingly, that makes rolling a six on timing (or having a Tactics-6 person) absolutely overpowered. In the sense of being not only overpowered (a FGMP-15 is powerful, too), but ridiculously unrealistic.

Especially as the grappling rules allow you to roll in defense without spending ticks. Thusly, if you carry some trained monkeys or programmed robots or even henchmen around who grapple you at your order, you will always be able to get a six! :rofl:

 

[tbeard1999]

Mongoose Traveller Section of the Forum

oh if i could stop laughing for a moment...

tbeard1999, you've made your point, you don't like MGT, we "get" it...

I don't think that you do "get" it.

Since this will likely be the final version of Traveller (whether its a good game or crap), it's important that flaws be identified. Otherwise, the last chance for a good version of Traveller will be wasted.

So I intend to continue to analyse the system and post my conclusions and observations. While Vegas money would say that the opinion will be negative, surprises have happened (note that I liked the starship design system).

And while I don't do a good job hiding my amazement at the flaws, my opinion of the design team's competence, etc., I think that you have to admit that my posts do tend to be rather detailed and specific.

Indeed, most of my non-detailed posts are replies to people who (a) cannot rebut my criticisms; but (b) want me to stop making them.

Ironic, really. If the game is as I think you believe it is, then it should be easy to rebut my criticisms.

So here's the deal. If I make a statement that is factually inaccurate or logically flawed, point it out. I'm usually very quick to correct errors. If you think that certain critiques are subjective and you disagree with them, go ahead and say so. I may continue to disagree with you, but I am quick to note that subjective assessments are, well, subjective.

Indeed, why not tell us why you think it's a good game and why my criticisms are unreasonable.

But if you're just gonna complain about me saying mean and nasty things about MGT, please don't waste my time.

Now, as it happens, I'd not posted a detailed critique of the initiative system as yet. I pretty well wrote it off after a few early attempts to play it. Since the combat system is one of the most important parts of any RPG, I wanted to be certain that I was giving it a fair shake. So I'm playing with it (right now as a matter of fact) and I will continue to comment until (a) I complete the exercise or (b) hunter makes me stop.

Starting yet another thread attacking another (in your view) "substandard" element of MGT smacks of little more than a vitriol fueled hate campaign - if your posts concerning MGT where evenhanded

Again, most of the complaints I've had with this game are factual in nature. For instance, the vast majority of critical content in my posts have dealt with the statistical qualities of the timing/effect system and how effectively various proposed fixes addressed the problems.

So even assuming arguendo that I am indeed engaged in "little more than a vitriol fueld hate campaign", uh, what does that have to do with statistics?

Like Valarian said... enough already

I think I'll continue to dissect MGT if it's all the same to you. I will, as always, attempt to minimize duplication. However, I can't always avoid this because it's often necessary to restate an argument when discussing the issue with others. But in any case, as I discover new problems (or even things they got right), I'll probably post comments.

 

[Tragin]

Do you have any good points to MGT? For the most part I think Traveller is just a doomed RPG, being too complex for most RPG gamers. When ever I tried to get people to play Traveller they just roll there eye’s. I think there is a belief that Traveller is a game where you need and advanced degree in the Sciences to be able to understand it or it is an RPG for the GROGNARD goon’s.

The only thing I was hoping for in a new version of Traveller was a simpler version of the game, easier to play etc… Maybe this is what Mongoose was tiring to accomplish (don’t know have not read any of the rules). I was hoping for a version the Traveller that would appeal to more gamers, so at least in part it would be easier for me to find a traveler game to play in. It’s kind of sad that I can find more people to play Wizards of the Cost Star War (which I will never play) than Traveller.

 

[tbeard1999]

I just discovered that I've been playing the system incorrectly, at least regarding combat. Unfortunately, playing it correctly does not improve the system.

I thought that when you conducted a combat action, you subtracted the timing die result from your initiative die. However, your timing die becomes your new initiative.

Criticisms:

1. Most combat actions will have little effect on your initiative, as long as you succeed at them. As long as your timing die is at least a 4, you'll be able to shoot each round (you get a +2 to initiative before the combat phase of each round).

2. Since the the T/E system skews high, you are highly likely to get a 4+ on the timing die on a successful. On a successful unmodified roll, there's an 80% chance of each die being a 4+.

3. The net effect of this will be to encourage standing still (or moving only 1.5 meters) and blazing away. Figures who choose to use movement will cripple themselves for several turns, while figures that take easy shots will be able to shoot every turn. As someone who prefers lots of movement in his games, this is not a Good Thing.

4. This also makes automatic fire very foolish. Since you are very likely to get a 2- for timing on an autofire attack (98% chance on auto-4 roll), using an automatic weapon once can paralyze you for two additional rounds (you roll a 2 or less for timing; thus you can't fire for 2 turns). Ironically, this means that over a 3 turn span, most autoweapons will make the same number of attacks as a single shot weapon. Somehow, this seems less than optimum to me. (Making the best die the autofire timing die will make autofire overwhelming). Again, I can't believe that this rule was playtested...

5. The system requires two completely different mechanics to handle the effect of combat and noncombat actions on initiative. This increases the fiddly component.

6. The idea of being frozen for 2 rounds while everyone else runs around doing stuff is deeply annoying, for a couple of reasons:

a. It poorly models real combat (or hollywood combat for that matter);

b. I don't like games where unluckly players (or ones stupid enough to use automatic weapons) can spend 2/3 of their time unable to shoot.

7. I am also skeptical of the distinction between a combat action and a noncombat action. It seems illogical that I can run anytime I please, but I can't throw a rock except when I have initiative 6. Apparently, I can type on the computer at any initiative point, but I can't push a button to fire a missile except when I have initiative 6.

 

[hunter]

If you don't like his posts, don't read them. Ignore them.

If you think there are too many negative MGT posts, start positive ones of your own.

If you think a post is out of line report it.

What you don't do is come into the thread and tell the OP to shut up.

 

[tbeard1999]

Do you have any good points to MGT?

I liked the starship design system. But robject pointed out that most of the things I liked were rules written by MWM. After seeing a draft of MWM's rules, I do think that MGT did a good job of streamlining them.

The character generation system is okay, although the survival rolls are way too high for military careers.

I've not tackled the world generation and animal/encounter stuff yet. EDG's stuff looks interesting, but it doesn't look like it's gonna get implemented in MGT.

For the most part I think Traveller is just a doomed RPG, being too complex for most RPG gamers.

And that is the cryin' shame of it all. There's nothing inherently complex about Traveller. Classic Traveller is especially easy to play and run, though it needs a better "to hit" and armor/damage mechanics. As well as a tech update and more weapons. Ironically, most of those pieces are already out there, just waiting to be picked up.

The MGT character generation system, the MGT starship design system, a variant of High Guard combat system that doesn't require moving counters on a board (or miniatures on a table), and the T4 armor/damage system could easily replace comparable CT subsystems and the result would be a simple, elegant and fun game.

I don't care at all for the d20 system, so I don't play T20. But I did appreciate the obvious affection for Traveller shown by its designers. Mongoose should have looked at T20 as an example of how to do a Traveller remake right.

When ever I tried to get people to play Traveller they just roll there eye’s.

IMHO, MGT will confirm the stereotype of Traveller as an unplayable, absurdly fussy mess, suitable only for long time Traveller fans. Of course the bitter irony is that some of the most vocal critics of MGT are "long time Traveller fans".

I think there is a belief that Traveller is a game where you need and advanced degree in the Sciences to be able to understand it or it is an RPG for the GROGNARD goon’s.

Yep. And MGT will do nothing to change that belief.

The only thing I was hoping for in a new version of Traveller was a simpler version of the game, easier to play etc… Maybe this is what Mongoose was tiring to accomplish (don’t know have not read any of the rules).

Given that their core task and combat systems are far more fiddly and involved than most previous Traveller systems, I can't believe that this was actually a design goal (no matter what they claim). I can't see how any reasonable person could look at the combat system (and the defective starship combat system) and see a simplified version of Traveller.

[/quote]I was hoping for a version the Traveller that would appeal to more gamers, so at least in part it would be easier for me to find a traveler game to play in. It’s kind of sad that I can find more people to play Wizards of the Cost Star War (which I will never play) than Traveller.[/QUOTE]

Well, you might try T20. If it's too complex, strip it down to look more like Star Wars.

Unless of course, you don't want to run a d20 game.

Fear not though. When the new version of Chaosium's "Basic Roleplaying" comes out, I'll probably do an unofficial Traveller variant. That system is very simple and elegant (and I'd respect that in any variant I did).

In the meantime, try running Classic Traveller with the damage and armor rules from T4 and Book 2 and Supplement 4 characters only. If you want a more modern character generation system, I produced one that would let you design your character. It's working well in my current Traveller campaign.

My thoughts on converting T4 combat system to CT: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=14974

My alternate CT character generation system:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=14819

YMMV of course.

Oh, to make CT weapons sexier, give them twice as much ammunition at TL 9+ and tell the players they fire caseless rounds. Also, sex up the weapon names. It's not a Rifle, it's a Heavy Pulse Rifle. It's not a Carbine, it's a Light Pulse Rifle or an Assault Carbine. Almost any weapon can be sexed up by adding "Assault", "Combat", "Battle", "Heavy", "Tactical", "Medium", "Light", etc. to its name. It isn't a revolver, its a Heavy Assault Revolver.

 

[Valarian]

Why not just publish your rules as say: "Imperial Tales". To me, all the arguments you've put up seem to just be saying: you ought to be using my rules instead, and you're idiots for not seeing that my rules are better.

If you think they're better, publish them. You won't have the Traveller brand to go with them, but you could publish them as a generic hard Sci-Fi RPG.

Of course, I wouldn't buy those either ... I happen to not like Classic Traveller. Call me a heretic if you like, but that's the way it is. All the CT and MT books I've bought have purely been for background, not rules. Who knows, maybe I'll buy MGT books for the same reason, but I'll be skipping the main rulebook.

 

[Supplement Four]

The only thing I was hoping for in a new version of Traveller was a simpler version of the game, easier to play etc…

Ever tried Classic Traveller?

 

[Supplement Four]

To me, all the arguments you've put up seem to just be saying: you ought to be using my rules instead, and you're idiots for not seeing that my rules are better.

Hmm. Are you reading the same TBeard posts I am?

He hasn't been saying, "Play my system" at all. He's only been saying, "MGT is pretty much crap, right behind T4."

I think you're reacting to the negativity (due to his dislike of MGT) in his posts.

 

[Valarian]

I think you're reacting to the negativity (due to his dislike of MGT) in his posts.

Possibly, but it's been a lot of negativity. Both here and on the Mongoose boards. I've really just had enough of the griping. Yes, he doesn't like the rules. Fine. Leave it at that.

Personally, I looked at the play test documents, read the rules and decided that they weren't for me. Personally, I think Mongoose should've gone their own way with the rules and not tried so hard to fit with what had gone before. But, they're not my rules, it's not my design. I'll play Traveller another way.

 

[Valarian]

I suppose what I'm really saying is ... enough already, time to shut up now.

Okay, I've received a warning for the above quote so I'll leave this now. Poor choice of words maybe: "time to leave it" may have been more polite. I've said my peace, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[tbeard1999]

Why not just publish your rules as say: "Imperial Tales".

Well, I'd do that if I had any rules that were developed enough that I'd be comfortable selling them. Unlike some game companies, rules that I publish have to be pretty thoroughly tested and the kinks and defects resolved.

To me, all the arguments you've put up seem to just be saying: you ought to be using my rules instead, and you're idiots for not seeing that my rules are better.

Well, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I'm pretty certain that I could do a better job revising and updating Traveller than Mongoose is doing. But that's pretty faint praise, really. See, most of the work is already done; it's really just a matter of assembling it, and smoothing out defects and resolving contradictions. So I imagine that there's a pretty good sized population of folks out there who could do it.

In addition, my real job usually keeps me from spending much time on game design (I've had a lull lately as you can tell).

But I don't think that you can find any examples of me comparing MGT to my own rules or systems. Though I have unfavorably compared their design philosophy and playtesting to how I did it.

Ironically, I've carefully avoided such comparisons, because I wanted to avoid accusations like the one you just made.

And while I'm almost tempted to take a crack at a full blown Traveller-esque system, it would be an obviously derivative work. I don't think that I'd come up with a noticeably better starship design system, so I'd probably copy Traveller's system. I'm happy with CT's world generation and animal generation systems, so I'd duplicate them. At the end of the day, it would be Traveller, with my character generation system and combat system, no matter what I called it. So I just don't see the benefit.

If you think they're better, publish them. You won't have the Traveller brand to go with them, but you could publish them as a generic hard Sci-Fi RPG.

Maybe one day.

Right now, I am trying to get A Fistful of TOWs 3 out.

Of course, I wouldn't buy those either ... I happen to not like Classic Traveller. Call me a heretic if you like, but that's the way it is. All the CT and MT books I've bought have purely been for background, not rules. Who knows, maybe I'll buy MGT books for the same reason, but I'll be skipping the main rulebook.

So what rules do you use?

FWIW, I don't see anything wrong with not using CT or MT rules. For a long time, I played Traveller using The Fantasy Trip (see my TFT website for rules). And as GURPS Traveller, TNE and T20 showed, Traveller can be played with a broad range of RPG systems.

I currently play a modified CT ruleset out of nostalgia (I started playing CT in 1980 at the age of 14).

And I *have* designed a number of RPGs; just none of them were good enough for me to want to sell them. My players liked most of them just fine, but at the end of the day, I didn't feel that they were markedly superior to the best games out there. (Most *were* as good as many commercial games; just not better than the best in their genre).

If I'm gonna produce a game and try to sell it, it will be better than the competition, at least in my opinion. (Why else do it? You darn sure ain't gonna get rich designing games). See my rules set A Fistful of TOWs 2 for an example of what I consider to be a game worth publishing.

Now, in a bizarre example of parallel evolution, I designed a sci-fi RPG about 5 years ago that contained mechanics nearly identical to the Serenity RPG. My game predated Serenity by years, but since I never made it available outside my circle of friends, there's no way Serenity could be a ripoff. We played it for about a year and it played well.

And I've designed dozens (?) of wargames. Some were awful and will *never* see the light of day. Most of the remainder were distributed free in PDF format, if I felt that they were free of serious system defects. I once had a website where they could be downloaded. I changed ISPs and never got around to redoing the site. I don't know how much stock you can put in random comments, but my wargame club has always enjoyed my games and most comments from players who downloaded them have been extremely positive. But as noted, there are more than a few designs that will never see the light of day...

One day, when I'm rich, I'll probably start or buy a game company <sigh>.