Mongoose - traveller returns
- Thread starter Eamonn
- Start date
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
Is it a big issue? - I mean, you're creating an extra step in resolution when you are subtracting your stat score from 7, aren't you?
I'd imagine an exchange like this:
Player: I want to change the light bulb.
Referee: That's a 7 target against your Electronics skill and Intelligence.
Player: My Electronics is 3, and my Intelligence is 8, which is more than 7.
Referee: So you have +4 overall. Roll 'em dice!
Player: I roll a 6.....+4, that's a 10. Yippee! I succeed.
Referee: Yes you do, the lightbulb is replaced.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
I'd imagine an exchange like this:
Player: I want to change the light bulb.
Referee: That's a 7 target against your Electronics skill and Intelligence.
Player: My Electronics is 3, and my Intelligence is 15, which is more than 7.
Referee: So you have +4 overall. Roll 'em dice!
Player: So my 15 Intelligence is no better than if I had a 7??
or
Player: I want to change the light bulb.
Referee: That's a 15 target against your Electronics skill and Intelligence.
Player: My Electronics is 3, and my Intelligence is 14, which is less than 14.
Referee: So you have +3 overall. Roll 'em dice!
Player: So I'm only 1 point off the TN and I still get no bonus???
That's what I'm getting at when I say you can just as well use a stat range of 1-5.
As I wrote elsewhere: It's basically a sound idea, but has a problem when using standard TNs at fixed intervals such as 4,8,12 etc., in which case the stats will again only matter at these intervals as well.
If you don't use fixed intervals but the whole range of 1-15, it's a sound mechanic. I would stick with your original idea of just giving a +1 modifier, though. Makes things easier and doesn't devalue skills.
To make this work, though, the skillset needs to be expanded to include some stuff as "Athletics", "Perception" and such which would normally be handled just by stats.
Last edited:
My answer would be: "Yes. For figuring out how to change a lightbulb, even being Albert Einstein is not gonna be of any additional help."
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
My answer would be: "Yes. For figuring out how to change a lightbulb, even being Albert Einstein is not gonna be of any additional help."
Somehow I knew this was coming...
Well that's a new one to me. I think it depends on where you fall in the profession. Top litigators like to pride themselves on handling anything and it's not like there is a dearth of excellent copyright and trademark lawyers out there. The fact it is a copyright or trademark issue in a game context does not make it different. Likewise the OGL, it purports to be a license, it's not like those haven't been seen before. I think most companies are on a shoe string and can't afford $500 an hour for a good attorney, nor do their market revenues make it even worthwhile to care, you'd spend all your profits on legal advice.
Interesting about Kenzer, is he a copyright attorney? If so it would explain alot, Hackmaster always seemed to make every effort to be "parody" laden.
What was the topic? Oh Mongoose Traveller, yah I'll see what it is like. I'm impressed by the stable of licensed names they have. How they got part of Conan I'd like to find out, likewise Starship Troopers.
Because it is my experience that T4/T5 will have about twice as many skill ranks on the average as a CT/MT character, and 2d6 isn't enough to cover the range, in my opinion. Besides, by tying it to D20's suggested bell curve resolution (and playing on the dice used for both GURPS and HERO), Mongoose can possible attract new gamers.
Remember, in the end, RTT isn't about making you or I happy. We already have our Traveller games, and Mongoose knows that we won't be their target audience. We'll buy supplements and we might buy the core book if we want to support Traveller, but us old Traveller-philes are already hooked.
No, this version of the game is intended to bring in new gamers. Pleasing us is secondary to making a good product that will bring in new gamers. Of course, if we don't work towards supporting that, because it isn't going to be exactly the way we think it should be, all we're doing is shooting the future of Traveller in the foot. New gamers will see us bicker, and get turned off by it, because let's face it, would you game with people that spoke like some of the fans have spoken on the boards? I wouldn't, and I even like some of those guys.
Just kiddin', I'd still game with them, but I could understand if new gamers wouldn't want to.As soon as we realize as the "old guard" of Traveller that we can still enjoy the game we love even with this new edition coming out, and then wait to see what Mongoose produces before we decide how to comment on it, the better this process will go for Traveller as a whole.
Me, I think this whole thing will help Traveller. When the Traveller OGL comes out, we will all have an unprecedented opportunity to help shape Traveller in ways that were never available to us before. That's you and me and the guy that types the next post. We all win.
Sorry, this really wasn't directed at you (well, after the first paragraph, anyway), but rather a disturbing trend I've noticed. So many people appear to be letting their personal feelings about T5, the old playtest material or its creator get in the way of something I think they might really want deep down inside, and that is to bring new gamers into Traveller so that more product will be created to support our favorite game. Maybe I'm wrong, but sometimes, you just got to say something about it, you know.
Hope That Helps,
Flynn
I thought that might be the case but just wanted to check. The DCs would also need to increase (in a roll-over mechanic) to allow for the extra d6.
No offence taken. I've actually given up reading the two main threads on RPG Net :-(
I'm looking forward to seeing what Mongoose produce. I'm slightly concerned with the timing as I'm guessing at least a month will be needed for layout, proofing and printing, which doesn't leave much time for playtesting. Then again, Mongoose know their business better than I do and I've been very happy with their Judge Dredd line.
Jeff M. Hopper
SOC-14 1K
I agree that a lot of misplaced antagonism seems to be rearing its head, like Flynn suggests. So, and I hope I don't sound too pompous here, lets move in another direction away from that.
We've got a large group of Traveller fans with a wide range of experiance and background. So, as a group, lets each do some reflection and then post the few things that we believe most contributed to Traveller's success, so that Mytholder and the rest of the Riki-Tiki-Traveller crew can see these as suggestions to help make this last version of Traveller the best possible.
I've already mentioned the checklists and their advantages upthread.
Another thing from Classic Traveller was the way all the different design sequences meshed together (trade availability was based on world stats which defined the animal encounters), this rules synergy was a strength.
What can ya'll suggest?
We've got a large group of Traveller fans with a wide range of experiance and background. So, as a group, lets each do some reflection and then post the few things that we believe most contributed to Traveller's success, so that Mytholder and the rest of the Riki-Tiki-Traveller crew can see these as suggestions to help make this last version of Traveller the best possible.
I've already mentioned the checklists and their advantages upthread.
Another thing from Classic Traveller was the way all the different design sequences meshed together (trade availability was based on world stats which defined the animal encounters), this rules synergy was a strength.
What can ya'll suggest?
Well, actually, 15 is more than twice the target number of 7, so they'd get a +2 bonus.
I'd say that a 15 target for changing a lightbulb is a bit high! But if we were to imagine a complex task, worthy of such a high target number, imagine that the character only had an average (7) intelligence. That would be less than half the target number, so it would be a -2 modifier. In effect, it would mean that only a person with high Intelligence would have any chance at all for such a high difficulty. Which, I'd suggest is how it should be.
Again, my system is for a variable list of bonuses:
+1 if your characteristic is higher than the target number.
+2 if your characteristic is double the target number.
-1 if your characteristic is less than the target number.
-2 if your characteristic is only half the target number.
And +1 for each rank of skill.
(You could have bonuses for +3/-3 (based on 3 times target/1/3 target), but actually there isn't much point really - as it just tends to create automatic failures/successes and +2/-2 is about the limit of adjustment to task outcome that I'd like to see from characteristics).
The formula would be:
2D6 + Skill + (Characteristic bonuses/penalties) vs. Target level 1-15.
Last edited:
Well... as long as it's show-and-tell time, COTI's own CT+ task thingy was a 4/4 process --
2D + char/4 + skill > difficulty( 4+, 8+, 12+, 16+ )
Upgraded to deal with higher skill levels might be more like:
2D + char/4 + skill > difficulty( 8+, 12+, 16+, 20+ )
So the average Joe with the average task would be facing:
2D + 5 > 12+
He'll succeed 56% of the time, I think.
2D + char/4 + skill > difficulty( 4+, 8+, 12+, 16+ )
Upgraded to deal with higher skill levels might be more like:
2D + char/4 + skill > difficulty( 8+, 12+, 16+, 20+ )
So the average Joe with the average task would be facing:
2D + 5 > 12+
He'll succeed 56% of the time, I think.
So an average character's stat is 7.
Assuming four levels of skill per term, and an average experience of four terms, yields 16 levels of skill. Add another four or so for "free" skill levels, for a total of 20. Spread that out among ten skills. The best skills probably ought to be less than level 7, wouldn't you think? Maybe one at level 4 or 5, a few at level 3, and the remaining ones split between levels 2 and 1?
So, an average task with an "average" skill level of 3, and a stat of 7.
2D + 10 > X
For it to be an average task, X = 17 (maybe)
If the "average" skill level is 4, then bump X up to 18.
Assuming four levels of skill per term, and an average experience of four terms, yields 16 levels of skill. Add another four or so for "free" skill levels, for a total of 20. Spread that out among ten skills. The best skills probably ought to be less than level 7, wouldn't you think? Maybe one at level 4 or 5, a few at level 3, and the remaining ones split between levels 2 and 1?
So, an average task with an "average" skill level of 3, and a stat of 7.
2D + 10 > X
For it to be an average task, X = 17 (maybe)
If the "average" skill level is 4, then bump X up to 18.
Last edited:
I found, when running T4, that average skill level climbed from 1 to 2, average number of skills from 5 to 20, and average peak skill from 4 to 6... (numbers are estimates, compared to MT).
Most characters were skilled in half the list.
My solution was 3d6 + Stat/3 + Skill vs with a 5/10/15/20/25/30 DM limit of +12.
Most characters were skilled in half the list.
My solution was 3d6 + Stat/3 + Skill vs with a 5/10/15/20/25/30 DM limit of +12.
I'm close to doing so myself. I have no problem with people expressing themselves but holy mackerel some of the posters seem out for blood. (And please don't take that as a comment on RPGNet, it's a really great site).
Me too. Based on the fact I have CT, MT and TNE, (and a smattering of GT), I don't actually need another version of the game. However, if it's good enough and meets my personal needs, I have no problem giving Mongoose my business.
That'd be cool with me!
I will buy neither unless I actually like it. Not gonna repeat my T4 mistakes.
Seriously, this whole idea that fans have some sort of obligation to prop up a franchise even if they have no use for a particular product strikes me as bogus.
