Mongoose Mercenary

[ganymede]

Reading Minds?

Some posters here on the board look at MGT Traveller using a very wrong idea. The idea that Mongoose has THEM as the target audience. Good news: They don't!

Mongoose is NOT trying to market MGT to the small group of "I play-tested CT back in 1975" players remaining and they DON'T care about Mr. "I play <Major Traveller Edition of Choise> with rules liftet from <Add n, n>>1 other revisions or systems>".

Their target audience are NEW players that are looking for a resonably tech-oriented SciFi game that is currently published in PRINT FORM, relatively easy to play and fun. Maybe, just maybe, they also target the "I played Traveller back in <Dinosauers walked the earth>, was fun" players that haven't looked at it in decades and/or some "GT is nice but some elements are wrong, could someone please update MT" players.

Sorry mbrinkhues, but in this case you are mistaken. I guarantee you that Mongoose is marketing to the older players as well as the younger players. drop a few bucks on the disc, or the compiled book or used in a consignment store, and you'll see that it greatly resembles the original. Like it says on the back cover, it's updated for the modern era. Some games feel dated, no matter how good they are. Reference the original combat system for cyberpunk, mentioned on another thread. That system was excellent, easily modified based on gaming style, freaking dangerous! even with a .22! (that was a shot at someone else on that thread) But it feels so... 1985!
MGT not only recreates the good stuff that CT fans likes, it updates the feel of the game for today. That is going to appeal to player that has been working with Traveller over the past several years. Which is why we play it.
But the other posters have a point, though they may be a little overcharged, imho, there is some crap that could have been fixed too. Like all the deck plans in the Core Rulebook.

 

[tbeard1999]

As someone whose paper experience of Traveller stems solely from Mongoose, I thought Mercenary was great.

After a few days to digest the material, I think it was a great investment.

Could you identify the specific elements that you found to be most valuable?

For the record, I don't necessarily believe that a supplement should be ditched because of bad editing. Gaming has deep roots in the amateur press and I have lots of useful supplements that were badly written. However, Mercenary is as bad as anything that comes to mind.

And this is Mongoose's fault IMHO. If Mercenary has material that's useful, then of course I could look past the bad editing. My problem is that I saw little of value -- as a casual reader of all things Traveller. And hypothetically, I don't think I'd find it useful if I did run MGT. So I am genuinely interested in the specific things you thought were valuable.

 

[tbeard1999]

As someone who has not purchased it yet (I havn't decided whether or not MGT is worth the investment for me), I would like to hear more positive comments. Not mindless gushing (which is as useless as mindless criticism), but real details about what they like, what works and why. I am still searching for the MGT 'killer application' (to borrow an old computer term) that will convince me 'I need that'.

With a couple of exceptions, I've found little in MGT that hasn't been done at least as well in prior versions. But my analysis is limited to the core rules and Mercenary.

Here are the three major things that I think are laudable in MGT:

1. Character generation is a nice evolution of the CT systems. I do think it has serious problems -- too many skills and a poor balance between risk and reward with "safe" careers and "dangerous" careers. However, these things can be easily fixed by altering just a few variables.

2. The starship design system in MGT is a nice evolution of the LBB2 starship design system. The starship combat system is crap, IMHO. But the design system is nice. If someone would write a neat software tool akin to the CT Utility, I'd transition to MGT for starship designs. The value increases if Mongoose High Guard is compatible.

3. The animal encounter design systems are nice updates of CT.

The remaining systems range from "about as good as (or derivatives of) CT (world generation, animal generation) to "not so good as CT (Combat)). None of the systems are awful; but only these three are (IMHO) significant improvements over the original.

And these 3 systems can be plugged into CT with minimal work. Do they justify buying the core rules? Guess that depends. I don't regret the purchase.

Mercenary, however, is a different story. I found the additional careers either unnecessary, uninspiring or stupid (the Warmongerer career). The equipment ranged from uninspiring to idiotic (shuriken catapults...er, MagRail guns). The digression on mercenary tickets was comprehensive (if badly written), but I wouldn't pay much $$ for such trivia. Ditto the military bases. There's little here IMHO for someone who doesn't actually play MGT and I'm skeptical that it's even much use for MGT players.

 

[whartung]

I think that's the key core complaint that the grognards have regard MGT. The fact that they use the Traveller name at all.

For some, "Traveller" is the game system itself, the mechanics of the LBBs.

For others, "Traveller" is the Imperium.

And others, it's the "feel" of the system.

For me, it's always been the "feel", beyond the mechanics. This "feel", with or without the Imperium, is what kept the everything "Traveller", from LBB 1 through TNE (I can't comment on T4, GT or T20).

TNE destroyed the Imperium, and rewrote the mechanics. But it still felt right. Gritty, but not dystopian.

This wasn't "Star Trek", with glamorous Starship bridges with smooth lines and colorful consoles, replying in light tones. This isn't W40K with it's darkness and glorification of death and pain. It's not Heavy Gear with its anime undertones.

If MGT was instead named something like "MG Galactic Horizons", we'd be having none of this discussion. Someone might come over and go "gee, MGGH has a char gen system kinda sorta maybe like CT". And that would be the end of it.

But by adopting the franchise, they're opening themselves up to comparison. And by reusing the names of the original books, even more so.

T4 reused FF&S, and that's what we got -- a new FF&S, it was the same book (effectively). GT never used original names, Ground Forces vs Mercenary. First In vs Scouts, etc. So, while, yea, GT:GF is about ground forces, much like LBB4 was, there's no expectation of any thing else really, no other axis to really compare them with. No presumption of similarity.

But MGT is using the original names. They're using them for a reason. And it's completely valid to compare directly LBB4 and MGT:M. The new consumer may not know the heritage, but the veteran sure does. And surely the name, Mercenary, is meaningless to the new consumer -- but most certainly not to the veteran.

As someone whose paper experience of Traveller stems solely from Mongoose, I thought Mercenary was great.

I hope it's valuable to you. If you had read the original, LBB4, you might better understand where a lot of this is coming from. It's not that the grognards are so entrenched in the world view of LBB4, but the fact that it really is a GREAT book. And from the sounds of this thread, MGT:M doesn't hold up to it.

If they named it "MGT: Ground Tickets" or whatever, again, this comparison would have shut up a long time ago.

 

[infojunky]

B**** Whine And Moan.....

Right off the bat MGT:Mercenary is a creditable effort, yes it has problems but they aren't deal killers. It is a great tool-kit book, and chunks of it are useful to a wide variety of games.

For those of you saying it's not Traveller, I have a friendly question. What is Traveller? I've run the grand old game for nearly 30 years, and I would bet my games wouldn't be classified by some as Traveller. Do I care, not one bit, I run and play the game for fun, not the religious experience that some people in the fandom seem to expect.

The biggest flaw I found in the entire book was a lack of understanding of artillery and the flavors there of.

As for the Shurkin Cat... I mean MagRail thingies, Mongoose is a British company need I say more? ( I can if you want but it gets esoteric real fast)

 

[mbrinkhues]

Right off the bat MGT:Mercenary is a creditable effort, yes it has problems but they aren't deal killers. It is a great tool-kit book, and chunks of it are useful to a wide variety of games.

For those of you saying it's not Traveller, I have a friendly question. What is Traveller? I've run the grand old game for nearly 30 years, and I would bet my games wouldn't be classified by some as Traveller. Do I care, not one bit, I run and play the game for fun, not the religious experience that some people in the fandom seem to expect.

The biggest flaw I found in the entire book was a lack of understanding of artillery and the flavors there of.

As for the Shurkin Cat... I mean MagRail thingies, Mongoose is a British company need I say more? ( I can if you want but it gets esoteric real fast)

That would explain the short range of the AT-gun. That springy-thing can't be build too strong or the shooter can't reload the gun if recoil fails. And the MLR are likely made by Congraves

 

[tbeard1999]

I think that's the key core complaint that the grognards have regard MGT. The fact that they use the Traveller name at all.

Yup, what you said.

...Gritty, but not dystopian.

This wasn't "Star Trek", with glamorous Starship bridges with smooth lines and colorful consoles, replying in light tones. This isn't W40K with it's darkness and glorification of death and pain. It's not Heavy Gear with its anime undertones.

If MGT was instead named something like "MG Galactic Horizons", we'd be having none of this discussion. Someone might come over and go "gee, MGGH has a char gen system kinda sorta maybe like CT". And that would be the end of it.

But by adopting the franchise, they're opening themselves up to comparison. And by reusing the names of the original books, even more so.

Agreed. And if Mongoose is gonna use the name, then they've "assumed the risk" of unflattering comparisons to the originals. Their defenders should consider this before whining that such comparisons are unfair. As lawyers would say, Mongoose put the matter in issue.

But MGT is using the original names. They're using them for a reason. And it's completely valid to compare directly LBB4 and MGT:M. The new consumer may not know the heritage, but the veteran sure does. And surely the name, Mercenary, is meaningless to the new consumer -- but most certainly not to the veteran.

It's also disengenuous--if not downright absurd--to argue that somehow MGT is not being aimed at veteran Traveller players. Indeed, it's hard for me to take people who say this seriously. Everything about MGT drips Classic Traveller, especially the most visible feature of the system--the covers of the books. And I suspect that a marketing analysis would indicate that the vast majority of MGt purchasers own prior editions of Traveller. If not, then Mongoose's marketing team are dropping the ball by appealing so strongly (and single mindedly) to Traveller veterans.

I hope it's valuable to you. If you had read the original, LBB4, you might better understand where a lot of this is coming from. It's not that the grognards are so entrenched in the world view of LBB4, but the fact that it really is a GREAT book. And from the sounds of this thread, MGT:M doesn't hold up to it.

Not even vaguely. Ironically, the more I read it, the less I like it. The incredibly bad writing is the intellectual equivalent of fingernails across a chalkboard. And even things that I initially thought were workmanlike are turning out to suck badly on closer examination. A single example--the Special Ops assignment for Commandos is both deadly (8+ survival) and has a horrible promotion roll (8+). A Commando "Technician" gets a 5+ survival roll and 8+ promotion. The MGT tradition of punishing dangerous and exciting careers descends to a new low.

I won't say it's the worst RPG supplement ever. But it's pretty awful. And it looks worse, the closer you get.

 

[Ran]

Could you identify the specific elements that you found to be most valuable?

Also for the record, I tend to agree with some of your assessment. There is a degree of polish that is sorely lacking that I think I've just become jaded to. Allot of RPG supplements are far worse than Mongoose's offerings (760 Patrons exempted)

I like the new careers. The art isn't bad. I like the expanded event tables and optional combat mechanics. The fluff and background information was enjoyable. I even liked the artillery battle dress, even if it is taking on a dangerously anime vibe.
Even then by itself its not, bad... If not somewhat gimmicky. But as whartung pointed out, it's carrying the Traveller name and Traveller causes a certain (non-animu) perception.

If I wanted mecha, I'd play Big Eyes Small Mouth. :rofl:

Edit: Tbeard, Regarding the covers of the books. Sure, it might appeal to veteran players. But to me, the simple lines and cover made it appear like a classic book or something a little more refined. It really stood out from all the others in the RPG section. And then the bold letters "Traveller" really sealed the deal because I recognized the brand.
The packaging didn't try to hard to get my attention. And I got it because of it.

 

[tbeard1999]

Right off the bat MGT:Mercenary is a creditable effort, yes it has problems but they aren't deal killers. It is a great tool-kit book, and chunks of it are useful to a wide variety of games.

I keep reading what a useful book it is, yet you guys never seem to tell us specifically what you find to be so useful. This, and other hints, make me suspect that many fans of this books have not actually read it.

In any case, I may have to start posting random examples of just how excruiciatingly bad the writing is. Here's a good one, chosen literally at random by opening the book and blindly pointing at a paragraph:

Although the actual credit value of a ticket's compensation is almost always the main wage an employee can earn, but many try to get additional compensations in the form of material gains.

This is simply appalling. I wonder if the original manuscript was written in a language other than English, then run through the Babelfish translation site?

And I'm sorry...I doubt that fans who fail to mention this horrid writing have actually read the book.

Oh, and here's my rewrite: A ticket specifies the cash payment amount, but mercenaries can also receive material benefits.

For those of you saying it's not Traveller, I have a friendly question. What is Traveller? I've run the grand old game for nearly 30 years, and I would bet my games wouldn't be classified by some as Traveller. Do I care, not one bit, I run and play the game for fun, not the religious experience that some people in the fandom seem to expect.

Really getting tired of being condescended to by MGT fans. Anyone who defends crap like Mercenary would be well-advised to take a more gracious tack.

The most damning criticisms of Mercenary stand on their own and do not require any reference to Classic Traveller:

1. It is a horribly written book. It could have been edited down to half its size (and the freed up space devoted to more useful things than 20 pages on military bases).

2. It contains trite, absurd or juvenile careers (Warmonger) and weapons (shuriken catapults).

3. It is mechanically defective (see my comments about the Commando career for an example).

4. It devotes way too much space to dull things (military bases, randomly generated tickets) that are of little use in an RPG and of little interest in any case.

5. Complete lack of anything coherent on artillery, armor, air support.

6. The mass combat system is about as exciting (and useful) as an actuarial analysis.

There's more, but I think you get the point. This product sucks--and that's before we make a single comparison to Classic Traveller. Needless to say, such a comparison does not run in Mercenary's favor.

As for what Traveller is? Well, that subject's been "done to death" at COI, so I won't rehash it. I'll just note that whatever Traveller is, MGT Mercenary ain't.

 

[atpollard]

A single example--the Special Ops assignment for Commandos is both deadly (8+ survival) and has a horrible promotion roll (8+). A Commando "Technician" gets a 5+ survival roll and 8+ promotion.

I always found it curious in Traveller how every merc seems to be former Recon or Special Forces. I mean, when was the last time you met someone with 4 terms in the Quartermaster Corps?

While this should fix that (or drive players to the point buy rules), it is probably not how I would have chosen to resolve the issue.

 

[Ran]

I'm curious Tbeard, what would do you think is a great supplement (Traveller or not)? I'd like to pick it up or read it over for comparison sake.

Because I actually agree with you. I'd just like a broader perspective from someone more experienced.
(And I apologize if I've come across as condescending)

 

[tbeard1999]

I'm curious Tbeard, what would do you think is a great supplement (Traveller or not)? I'd like to pick it up or read it over for comparison sake.

Because I actually agree with you. I'd just like a broader perspective from someone more experienced.
(And I apologize if I've come across as condescending)

No offense taken.

Haven't really thought of what makes a great supplement. In general, I tend to go pretty easy on supplements. I.e., it has to be pretty bad for me to have a negative opinion. The converse is that a supplement seldom strikes me as particularly fabulous.

For its time, I thought the original Mercenary (LBB4) was a great supplement. Although some of its assumptions are dated, the mini-essays on future warfare are a tour de force of the game designer's art. The same is true, in my opinion, of the original High Guard 2nd Ed.

Of course, both of these examples had problems. Their character generation systems were very different from CT's systems (and tended to produce characters with more skills). But they were good chargen systems. Mercenary's mass combat system was pretty pointless. But both supplements addded significant depth to the original RPG. And both were competently written and professionally edited. I'd also add that both supplements together would total about half the number of pages as MGT Mercenary. Yet the content of LBB4 alone was far greater than MGT Mercenary.

I thought Azhanti High Lightning was a great supplement. It gave us lavish deckplans (and even better, showed us how to do it). The combat system was very good as well (and became the basis of Striker), but of no use to Traveller players unless they adopted it.

I thought the first half of Supplement Four (Citizens of the Imperium) was good -- 12 new careers, mostly interesting. I liked Traders and Gunboats -- useful deckplans (though too large in some cases) for typical ships.

The Traveller's Aide #1 supplement was good IMHO. It added lots of weapons to CT (and other version), although the weapons are not entirely consistent with LBB1 weapons. That's not a huge problem, since the supplement can simply replace LBB1. If I used the LBB1 combat system, I'd use this supplement. It's also attractive and well-written.

 

[infojunky]

I keep reading what a useful book it is, yet you guys never seem to tell us specifically what you find to be so useful. This, and other hints, make me suspect that many fans of this books have not actually read it.

For some, probably that probably is true. I find the expanded character generation useful, the bases section while not directly relevant to the game I am running has sparked some ideas for future sessions.

As for the equipment section, well it is no worse than all three equipment guides for T4 and all tree of those where met with similar howling complaints. The funny thing is this didn't happen with TNE's supplements.

Sniped english rant....

Both your example and your rewrite where understandable, while the book wasn't as polished as it could be I found the writing to be serviceable. While not up to the level of a lot publications run by English majors, well within the limits that exists in technical writing.

Yes, they need a better editor, but this is a game company not a juried journal.

Really getting tired of being condescended to by MGT fans. Anyone who defends crap like Mercenary would be well-advised to take a more gracious tack.

Sure, as long as you agree to the same.

1. It is a horribly written book. It could have been edited down to half its size (and the freed up space devoted to more useful things than 20 pages on military bases).

While I agree that is size could have been cut down, Still a big fan of digest sized books...

2. It contains trite, absurd or juvenile careers (Warmonger) and weapons (shuriken catapults).

If you say so, they where a hit with my mates. The Warmonger career had one of my players on the floor giggling with glee, I see what his next addition to the game is going to be. As for the sure-cats, you do understand that Games Workshop did publish Traveller on their side of the ponder for a number of years. With that a number of things that we associate with 40k started out as additions to Traveller. With that in mind it is another perspective.

3. It is mechanically defective (see my comments about the Commando career for an example).

I didn't many problems with it, but that is from a former special operations member, if anything it is light on the ancillary skills of special warfare. But few game designers ever get that right.

5. Complete lack of anything coherent on artillery, armor, air support.

That is my only bone of contention with the book. But then again there is no coherent scale governing all of the weapons stats within this edition, so this complaint is is actually applcable to all of Mongoose Traveller.

6. The mass combat system is about as exciting (and useful) as an actuarial analysis.

Well, most mass combat for RPGs tend to look this way. I haven't played it out yet so I don't have a specific set pros or cons for it yet.

As for what Traveller is? Well, that subject's been "done to death" at COI, so I won't rehash it. I'll just note that whatever Traveller is, MGT Mercenary ain't.

Ok, you have strong opinions, as does everyone in this fan-base, what are you gonna do about it? You could write a book, fix what you think is wrong. It is an OGL product after all, so there is really nothing stopping you.

As a snide aside of course it's Traveller it's got a black cover and a red line..... 9-)

 

[tbeard1999]

Both your example and your rewrite where understandable, while the book wasn't as polished as it could be I found the writing to be serviceable. While not up to the level of a lot publications run by English majors, well within the limits that exists in technical writing.

I'm sorry, but the only kind of "technical writing" comparable to Mercenary is the 10-language operating manual found in really cheap consumer electronic devices.

The writing in Mercenary is quite possible the WORST I've ever seen in a professional gaming product (certainly, nothing else comes to mind that comes close).

I think you're reaching hard to avoid reprimanding Mongoose for foisting a badly written, unedited, poorly conceived "supplement" on the gaming public. One of the worst evuh.

Do I really need to post more completely random examples of just how appalling the writing is?

Oh heck, here's another:

The people with the bigger and better guns were getting ahead in the world, so a good mercenary headquarters look like an engineer's workshop half of the time.

Aaargh. That sentence actually causes physical pain. It most resembles the painfully constructed semi-literate sentences found in Nigerian scam emails.

Are you actually gonna continue defending this gibberish?

As for the sure-cats, you do understand that Games Workshop did publish Traveller on their side of the ponder for a number of years. With that a number of things that we associate with 40k started out as additions to Traveller. With that in mind it is another perspective.

No it isn't. Idiotic, illogical, implausible, cartoonish weapons are idiotic, illogical, implausible and cartoonish no matter who published what 25 years ago. You are really reaching now.

 

[Rawlins]

A realistic career for special operation characters would have to include a wide range of skills in addition to combat skills. I don't recall too many games that have gotten this right. For example, language training is very widespread among real commandos, because they are often used to train and advise local forces. They also routinely conduce "hearts and minds" operations, which involve providing medical care and other "relief" assistance. I remember a National Geographic special in which the reporters spent time with Army special operations in Afganistan. One of the team members was a very qualified medic (he held a medical clinic for villagers on one mission) and he was fully qualified with weapons, which gives you an idea of the depth of training these soldiers receive. The team was trained to gather intelligence, negotiate with locals, and fight, which is a far cry from the hollywood view of special operations.

If you allow skill selection and access to language and other agent-type skills, you can come pretty close to a realistic special operator.

 

[infojunky]

Are you actually gonna continue defending this gibberish?

No, I don't have the same level of compulsion and feelings about it that you do. As such it is not worth my time to debate it with y'all. It is a zero sum game. We will have to agree to disagree.

Though I might point out that you might just want to ignore the existence of MGT if it is causing to so much unwarranted upset. I do it all the time with Mega Traveller, which was broken in similar ways.

So, agree to disagree?

 

[infojunky]

A realistic career for special operation characters would have to include a wide range of skills in addition to combat skills. I don't recall too many games that have gotten this right.

Twilight:2000 did an ok job. As well as Gurps:Special Ops. The main problem is you need a breath of skills. Though, a possible fix would be higher than average chance at getting J-O-T.

 

[Imperial Planetologist]

What the hell is a "warmonger," anyway? The name sounds like something more at home in WH40K than Traveller.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Warmonger are guys like gunrunners or arms dealers

 

[infojunky]

What the hell is a "warmonger," anyway? The name sounds like something more at home in WH40K than Traveller.

In general it is the set of careers that support mercenary operations.

The sub specialties are; Gun Runner, Arms Dealer, Gun Slinger.