Just ran CT for the first time in 20 years...

[Poppyseed45]

...and holy crap THAT. WAS. AWESOME.

Really, really impressed. All around good fun and lots of interesting player activities/behaviors noticed. Some background and observations.

A month ago we finally finished our Burning Empires campaign. I flip-flopped for an incredible amount of time deciding on the next campaign to run, and settled on a GURPS fantasy campaign. To be honest, didn't really want to run it (I'm a GURPS guy but not a fantasy guy), but we voted and that's what the group wanted.

Month ago two guys say they can't come because of work. TOo bad, but we'll see them next time so no worries. Beginning of this week rolls around, and one guy bails on the group entirely (due to my recent flip-flopping on the campaign choice). So, we're down to me plus 3 players for this weekend. Still, no problem.

I complained about the work for the game (since I had to make all characters - everyone was new to GURPS after all), but, well, it was my idea, right? And I'd agreed, right?

So, last night late, one guy writes he can't come; he's emotionally destroyed, yadda yadda. So I email the other two guys that I wanna game, can't change the day, I'll pick something that requires no work for me at all.

You can guess what I picked. I had the Big Floppy Books 0-8 and Supplements 1-13. Plenty of material (especially Spinward Marches and 76 Patrons). Told them this morning this was the plan and away we went.

Some observations: one guy was new to Trav, the other had played Mongoose with me some years ago. Both found CT to be refreshing since you could try stuff even if you didn't have the skill for it. In fact, that was one of the major problems in our last game; no one wanted to try anything.

Also, I really pushed the "be proactive and do stuff personally!" spirit of the game. For example, in the game, they were so cautious, that they did basically nothing for the first 1/4. Then I threw "ninjas" at them, and then told them explicitly "This is a game where you do stuff, not call other people to ask them to do stuff for you" which is what they'd done all the time in our last campaign. So they started to get out and do their evil...er, tactical, actions themselves.

A really good session today. As a GM, it was a breeze to run, and very, very liberating. Gaming felt fun again, and no so serious as it had been before (noit to say there wasn't drama and such; just, it was all fun and we weren't worrying to much about making sure to do all the rule stuff just so).

They've decided, naturally, to stick with it, and for me to continue our story next session (for the record, I used Patron #16 and option 4 I think it was).

 

[far-trader]

Waiter! I'd like some of what he's having.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Waiter! I'd like some of what he's having.

Coming right up!

Really though, it was a ton of fun. Man, almost forgot gaming could be this fun! Last couple campaigns I spent so much time planning and thinking and just trying to get everything right, I forgot about just diving in and having fun. Like I said, very liberating.

 

[Dragoner]

Congrats.

Now you see why CT is still going after all these years, after having played so much other stuff, I still come back to it as it is so clean and easy to play.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Congrats.

Now you see why CT is still going after all these years, after having played so much other stuff, I still come back to it as it is so clean and easy to play.

Aye, that it is. Thing is, despite my threads here, I was quite afraid of running CT - after all, it's a very old system and mentality (one of the first RPGs, based on science fiction we don't see so much these days). For me, it was like coming home, back to my roots sort of. For my players, the ideas were new and different from newer games (even the Mongoose version we played a few years ago).

But yes, definitely, the strength of CT is there. It's so, as you say, clean. Everything you need is there, and the system is so loose anyway, you can bolt on whatever you need just by, for example, calling for a certain roll, skill or no skill - whatever you think is fair. Really liberating.

Before, my players were "slaves" to the character sheet - if it wasn't there, they even didn't try it. But yesterday's session was different. They said what they wanted to do, I asked how, then gave them a roll to make. And the game leapt on.

 

[pendragonman]

Mencelus, please tell me you are in Wichita, and you have an open seat! I agree with your general opinion of the grind of normal gming and the freedom that CT allows a gm.

And I neeeeeeeed to be a player again.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Mencelus, please tell me you are in Wichita, and you have an open seat! I agree with your general opinion of the grind of normal gming and the freedom that CT allows a gm.

And I neeeeeeeed to be a player again.

Ah, I see I didn't provide my location in my info. Alas, for I am near Budapest, Hungary. Though I'm American.

You're right about the grind - what a good word that is. It's a normal gaming grind, been in it for some years now, and debating heavily all sort of theory stuff and all that. Lot of it was useful, but a great deal of it was just dross. Like I said, forgot what it's like to just jump in and have some fun.

 

[pendragonman]

Well, at least you are in a place I would like to visit, although will probably never afford to.

 

[BlackBat242]

"Budapest" by Jethro Tull, live at Istanbul Amphiteatre, Turkey on July 13th, 1991

 

[jackleg]

D you houserule anything or just ran it as written?

 

[Poppyseed45]

D you houserule anything or just ran it as written?

Basic gamelay is with no houserules - I run combat, for example, with to-hit chart and all. That turned out very good; on paper, seems wonky, but in play, it was very "set-up and hit the bastard or not damage him at all!" which was a lot of fun for them.

So, haven't really changed anything yet.

However, for character generation, I did some fiddling to make it seem like there were more choices and the like, and to give a more mini-roleplaying theme to it.

For character generation, I did:

0. General failure rule for CG - if you failed a roll on a term, you rolled 1D3 to see how many years you wasted. If you did 3 years, I let you roll a skill. If not, you just wasted your time and/or didn't progress for whatever reason. This applied for what I'll write next on college/university and for regular career terms.

1. College/University/Academy. I used the rolls from High Guard, but made a rule where, if you passed, you could roll 2 skills from your future career hope (took that from Mongoose HG, sort of). If you made honors it was 3 skill rolls. If Academy, automatic commission of course. So, very valuable, but not Benefits roll, and doesn't count for mustering out benefits.

2. For careers, people rolled, using Book 1 and Supplement 4. If they didn't make it, I allowed one re-roll. If still no, then the Draft, OR Other career (I used it as the Space Bum option, like Drift in Mongoose). If you had a career with no Position/Commission/Promotion, then you got 2 skills per term (like Scouts). Otherwise, normal rolls for everything. Small thing - I made people roll for skills, but let them choose which column AFTER rolling. Gave the illusion of choice, and let people sort of specialize (but even our career diplomat gunning for it, only managed to get one skill at 3, another at 2, and the rest at 1).

That was it. Used weapons from Book 4 and rules for them (grenades!), and of course, the skills from Books 4 and 5. And the Spinward Marches and 76 Patrons supplements, with some 1001 Characters as well, naturally.

 

[nDervish]

For me, it was like coming home, back to my roots sort of. For my players, the ideas were new and different from newer games (even the Mongoose version we played a few years ago).

In your (and your players') opinion, what are the primary differences between CT and MgT?

I'm currently doing solo MgT (like you, I'm an American emigrant, to Sweden in my case, and I haven't yet found anyone to game with here). To my memory, MgT is very similar to CT, but the only CT-era book I still have is a well-worn copy of GDW's Charts & Tables book (which has seen use in just about every sci-fi RPG I've ever run), so I expect my memories of CT are somewhat less than accurate.

 

[Poppyseed45]

In your (and your players') opinion, what are the primary differences between CT and MgT?

I'm currently doing solo MgT (like you, I'm an American emigrant, to Sweden in my case, and I haven't yet found anyone to game with here). To my memory, MgT is very similar to CT, but the only CT-era book I still have is a well-worn copy of GDW's Charts & Tables book (which has seen use in just about every sci-fi RPG I've ever run), so I expect my memories of CT are somewhat less than accurate.

Difficult to put a finger on but I'll try.

Mostly, it's two things, but those two things are tied intricately with how I ran the game, as opposed to how I had been running games over the last two years.

First, there are simply less skills than in MgT. A lot of actions fall outside of the skill system, so, for them to do anything, it means I, the GM, need to make a call on it quickly, or quick look-up something, and then we go. This meant, in play, that they tried to do lots of different things without it being on the sheet. In past games, they wouldn't attempt anything if they didn't have an explicit skill for it. Interestingly, because the skill weren't always a straight 8+ roll, I could adjust the roll for what was going on in my head, or just because I thought that such-and-such guy ought to have a better chance at it, regardless of actual skill level.

For example, our former navy guy wanted to talk to ex-navy guys about a job something. Well, he's ex-navy, so I figure, even if he doesn't have Carousing or Liason, I'll let him roll 6+ to get some information from them. Where as, in MgT, I'd only really let a roll if they had X or Y skill; I rarely took background into consideration.

Secondly, because there aren't so many codified character creation aids, the players felt more free to come up with their backgrounds themselves, making it fit the roles they took on. For example, when a guy would roll a close miss on a Survival roll, I'd ask "So, what the heck happened? You rolled a Forgery skill last time - does that tie in?" And off they'd go and we'd roleplay a little. MgT spelled a lot of that background stuff out, and so, that sort of stuff didn't happen. I know WHY MgT is that way, but in some cases, I think it can be too much "hand holding," for lack of a better term. Mind, when we did MgT CG some years ago, they thought it was just fine and fun.

For me, as GM though, my mood was very different. I didn't spend a lot of time checking rules or seeing if X trait or Y trait affected anything. I concentrated much more on the story and just having fun. Really good stuff.

Does that make any sense? Probably, I could run MgT the same way; nothing stops me after all. But the way CT is written and works, out of the box, lends itself to this style more.

 

[BytePro]

Very well put!

Pretty much matches my experience.

MgT chargen has a number of attractive features. Events are one of its best concepts, though a bit too detailed. I've added a simplified version and the connections idea to my chargen.

MgT is are geared to having more skills and rolls typically involve several DMs - attribute, skill, difficulty in addition to any tool, timing, cooperation, multi-task, etc. Combat can easily involve 5 or more DMs per roll, some cumulative. DM math is easy, but it does involve an extra bit of distraction from the actual RP - you have to think about it in discrete terms. While I found the skill mechanic quite appealing, it is actually easier handled just picking a target. However, I did borrow the exceptional success/failure concept.

Overall, fewer skills and DMs do seem to get players focused more on character and roleplay, rather than stats and game mechanics.

 

[Poppyseed45]

MgT is are geared to having more skills and rolls typically involve several DMs - attribute, skill, difficulty in addition to any tool, timing, cooperation, multi-task, etc. Combat can easily involve 5 or more DMs per roll, some cumulative. DM math is easy, but it does involve an extra bit of distraction from the actual RP - you have to think about it in discrete terms. While I found the skill mechanic quite appealing, it is actually easier handled just picking a target. However, I did borrow the exceptional success/failure concept.

Actually, very well put yourself!

I think that's what I was trying to get at - there are a lot of DMs involved with MgT (and I could pass this to other games we played in the last year, where there are lots of fiddly bits to juggle, both for the GM and players). It got to be too much, and so, last month's game was my chance to really see if that's my style, or more "basic".

Obviously, thus far, we can note which one is winning. However, second session is in two weeks, adding two players, so we'll see. Both are keen on trying Traveller though (and one guy is REALLY keen). The other guy is a sci-fi nut so this shouldn't be a hard sell case.

 

[BytePro]

My exclusive RPG for over 20 years had been CT - well, what I interpreted from 6 LBBs - till I got hold of MgT.

Was real impressed with the 'universal task mechanic' - less so by chargen, till I tried it. Combat sounded better on paper than it played (compared to my old style) - however, I began to adapt the task mechanic to combat. Came up with a bunch more 'standard' DMs along the way just to handle things I had been doing for decades without batting an eyelash. With all the DMs, I even switched to 3d6!

Truly realized how unnecessarily 'complicated', even disruptive, things had gotten when I started to write an iOS app. The end result was the same - i.e. a roll target.

Example: PC chooses to arc across the hanger on a disconnected hydraulic line while firing at an otherwise concealed gunman who will be briefly exposed.​

In MgT this would (normally) be treated as two rolls, IMO. First with Athletics DM, Dexterity DM, Difficulty DM, and multi-task DM for swinging. (Increased Difficulty DM and Vacc Suit DM if Suited). Then firing check - changing full cover DM to partial, multi-task DM, along with the normal combat DMs related to both the PC and the target. If the swing check is exceptional or marginal, I might also add DMs for line breaking/sliding down fluid, opponent noticing, etc. But nothing is really defined for that in the combat rolls, so I'd have to make up my own DMs, and maybe roll separately for the opponent to have a chance to dodge (yielding a DM to the attack). All in all, 'easy', but rather complicated. Notably, after all that work, one may run out of range on 2d6, implying it is impossible - which is clearly not the case, however improbable - and no fun, besides. Meaning adhoc adjust the Difficulty or other DMs or just call for a natural 12...

At least the way I played it, CT doesn't come close to defining anything to cover this. So this type of 'hell mary', Hollywood style action would just get a defacto roll target of 12 in my games (no extra thought or DMs required). Maybe 10+ for max Dex and Gun and otherwise optimal conditions. Simple and quick call!​

As mentioned, 2d6 really doesn't have the range to support this type of action with DMs. In CT it was no big deal - a 12 target, with nature of failure varying. I.e. the higher Dex/Gun miss would be less likely to have adverse effects on this and next turn. (I've recently switched to 3d6 - where rounded % for 18 ~0.5%, 17+ ~2%, 16+ ~5%, 15+ ~10%, and 11+ 50% are so easy to remember. I found 3d6 conversion easier to do with CT than MgT.)

All that being said - I do highly recommend Mongoose Traveller - its a fine set of rules and I've incorporated several ideas into my CT-esque games. I am biased by my CT experience and I consider my games more roleplay than roll-play based. However, we roll a lot - so maybe I should just say less rules centric.

We don't roll for routine and easier tasks, though. Like landing - a skilled pilot (level 2 for me) only needs to roll if circumstances are unusual (like extreme winds or idiot traffic) - or jumping - jumps are routine IMTU, you have to be attempting something abnormal or without required skill level to call for a roll.

 

[Poppyseed45]

snippity snip snip

I think we largely agree. I spent quite some years in modifier hell, so, from now on, my plan is to run games that just are, um, looser in that regard. After CT, unless something crazy happens, I plan on running either CT again (focused on a Naval or Mercenary campaign) or Castles and Crusades. I think it'll have the same non-focus on rules that CT has, or at least the same easiness of bending and twisting things and making GM calls as I like now.

 

[nDervish]

Does that make any sense? Probably, I could run MgT the same way; nothing stops me after all. But the way CT is written and works, out of the box, lends itself to this style more.

Quite clear. Thanks!

And, yes, you could run MgT the way you describe running CT - I do, at least as regards skill use. Keeping the consistent "8+ to succeed" and applying arbitrary DMs based on the task and situation isn't really any different from setting an arbitrary target based on the task and situation. In CT you say "throw 5+", in MgT you say "roll with a +3 modifier", but there's really no difference between the two.

On the chargen side, I definitely prefer the additional random details that MgT provides, but that just comes down to preference. I like having the extra bits of inspiration (even when they become constraints) when coming up with character history, but I know a lot of people prefer it to be more open (with MgT's point-based alternative chargen being the extreme case of openness).

 

[BytePro]

Yeah, three of one, quarter dozen of another.

Most players end up calculating a target roll anyway, but DMs have an advantage over target values that I really like - DMs work better for the Effect concept!

Using GM fiat DM values instead of the universal task mechanic derived ones avoids a lot of play issues with both GM and Players calculating DMs and makes for more believable and situational DMs as needed as the rule rather than the exception.

Strip away the DM calculation based task mechanic and the combat mechanics and MgT and CT become fairly interchangeable from a play standpoint as well as from stats. I prefer CT style in other things practically and nostalgically - such as physical presentation, terser writing style, fewer details and fewer skills - but, really, there is little reason MgT can't be played pretty much the same.