Recap of Issue With MGT

[Echo]

It is amusing that 'raving Mongoose fanboy' has seemingly replaced 'raving Grognard' as the catch-all insult amongst Traveller fans.

As was once coined by a better person than myself:

"Fans don't love, they hate".

 

[Ishmael]

with all the ranting and raving, I guess I'll take a somewhat serious look at it myself and make my own opinion. Whoi knows?..I might just switch over to it after all.

( something tells me that I won't change from how I already do things though )
( and I'll probably just keep my opinion to myself too )

 

[Border Reiver]

Nothing old and tired about it, if as it seems the T/E mechanic is fatally flawed then the game is faulty.

I was suspicious of T/E from the very outset but after a few run throughs and a couple of proper games the vote was split. Was it innovative? Yes. Was it workable in the game environment? Sort of, we continued to have issues but it was playable. Would we use it? Well it probably not. In fact we are houseruling the combat to reflect our dislike of the T/E dice and the initiative system but as I've stated before, my group will probably stick to houseruled MT. It isn't really that bad but it doesn't sit comfortably with my group (and we'll try anything).

There is no perfect game (other than RealLife™ and even that has flaws:smirk but there does seem to be a certain blindness as to the flaws of MongTrav whilst changing things from CT that weren't that badly broke to begin with. Still flawed or not there will be no getting away from the fact that it is the future of Traveller, better get used to the way it is going.

 

[tbeard1999]

...but there does seem to be a certain blindness as to the flaws of MongTrav whilst changing things from CT that weren't that badly broke to begin with.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. There were plenty of things that needed addressing in Traveller; a new "innovative" task system (with profound defects) didn't address any of those things.

Still flawed or not there will be no getting away from the fact that it is the future of Traveller, better get used to the way it is going.

<shrug>

Well, I've been disappointed in new versions of Traveller since MegaTraveller, so MGT won't be a major change. I do think that it's unfortunate, since Mongoose arguably has the best shot at making the definitive version of Traveller. But if it releases the current version, the result will be utter crap IMHO. And I expect that the sales (after an initial flash of orders) will reflect that.

 

[tbeard1999]

is it possible that some of these things are being addressed but because there isn't going to be a 4.0 manuscript and they clearly said that the only thing that had been changed in the 3.2 was the addition of new stuff and that this was because of a time issue, we just haven't seen it yet?

I guess anything is possible. And apparently, this kind of thing did happen with Runequest (another classic RPG that Mongoose made pointless and ill-conceived changes to).

I can't really see the point in not letting the playtesters have access to the most current version of the game.

I don't think they "owe" anyone anything. Buy it, don't buy it...your call.

Why thank you. But by the same token, I don't "owe" them anything either. I am free to critique, make suggestions, etc., or not.

THE only people I have seen seriously complaining about the T/E problem are a handful of people from here.

Ah, the appeal to authority.

Well, no one has offered any evidence that the denizens of the Mongoose forum are representative of Traveller fans, or even the game's target market. And since I have never stated that a majority of Mongoose forum denizens hate the T/E system, your statement is irrelevant.

Further, it is easy to explain why the glaring statistical defects in the T/E system have gone largely unremarked:

1. If relying on die rolls alone, it takes hundreds or thousands of rolls, carefully tracked and analyzed, to identify the kinds of statistical tendencies I've identified. Somehow, I doubt most playtest groups go to that much trouble. Of course, simple statistical analyses can quickly identify such trends. Mongoose's failure to make such minimal efforts does not inspire confidence.

2. Since a major criticism is that the T/E system skews towards the extremes, player reactions could be affected by (a) the normal tendency to enjoy excellent rolls; and (b) the degree to which the referee denies the NPCs the benefit of excellent rolls.

3. Lack of criticism does not necessarily mean that there are no critics. It is certainly possible that folks have tried this system out, hated it, and never bothered commenting.

4. In general, I notice that comments on game company forums tend to be dispropotionally supportive. In my own email group for my rules, A Fistful of TOWs, this is certainly the case (positive comments outweigh negative ones by probably 100 to 1). So I don't know how much stock we can really place in your observation that the Mongoose forum denizens seem happy with the mechanic. I also imagine that people tend to join forums for things they like, not things they dislike. If the RPG was not called "Traveller", I'd never have wasted time criticizing it.

5. I also wonder how many playtesters are actually using the rules as written. Someone brought this up in a private email, and I later recalled that we had this problem with some playtests of Fistful of TOWs. Certainly, the incredible willingness of supporters to suggest fixes (rather than defend the current mechanics as written) offers some support for this proposition.

6. The idiocy that many supporters have shown can have a chilling effect on further negative commentary. I particularly like the absurd argument advanced by some that because someone doesn't like the system (i.e. he's "biased"), his comments--including statistical and other factual comments--should be ignored. It's amazing that they cannot see that the same logic would require ignoring comments of people who love the system. Bias is bias, after all. Anyhow, someone could be forgiven for concluding that such people are just too foolish to reason with, and then leaving without further comment.

My group likes it, others I have talked to like it, so I dunno...since the modifiers that apply to the roll apply to the timing die as well I don't see how difficult tasks can be done "faster", but whatever..we've been over this before.

Modifiers do not apply to the timing die per v3.2 of the playtest rules. If you missed this point, then your results would disagree with my analysis.

Since I've posted the statistical distributions of the rolls, I don't think I can make it any clearer. Statistically, the worse you are at something, the faster you'll tend to do it (whether you succeed or fail).

I am turning my attention to the Doctor Who RPG playtest now...this debate is getting very old and tired.

Well, this "old and tired" debate has at least called to your attention the fact that you're not using the timing rolls correctly. So perhaps you've benefitted.

 

[Ishmael]

I looked it over and despite thinking I'll keep my opinion to myself, I can't resist adding my own 2 cents

Although it looks like there might be some good ideas here, they 'feel' wrong to me. I am not math inclined so my thoughts are not based on statistics ( which tbeard has already gone over anyways )

1. I feel that the 'effect' should be based on how much the roll beat the target....thats all...no extra random numbers added or whatever. I don't feel that someone who barely squeaks by on a task should have a chance to do as well as someone who rolls high enough to be able to do the task blindfolded with one hand tied behind his back.
I think the same should apply for failures...."almost made it" should be better than "catastophic" regardless of how long the timing is. Again, the amount the roll missed should be used for failures and the amount the roll is exceeded should be basis for degree of success...nothing else.
The v3.0 rules just rub me the wrong way concerning that. no other reason.

2. I dislike that players can choose effect/timing after the roll is made. Players should decide before the roll whether they are trying to be quick or just taking their sweet time to be careful. If nothing else, make the player state before the roll if high or low die will be the timing.
Personally, I'll choose the way MT handles hasty and cautious tasks instead.

3. Damage looks promising in its idea...one I'll work on for my own house rules where degreee of success affects amount of damage. More than likely, I'll use my [amount hit roll was made by]+pen-dam+1d6( for hit location?) as I mentioned in my MT thread and use that as the basis for a multiplier for damage. If nothing else, I can use AHL damage regardless, which is fine for quickness.
The way it appears to work in v3.0 doesn't thrill me even if I do think the 'effect as multiplier' should be good, but then I don't like how the 'effect' is handled in the present mgt rules.

wth....... I'll just make my own rules for combat...its not like I have to please anyone but myself with them.

Starship rules?...I use a bastard system of shipbuilding/vehicles anyways
same for other background stuff like worldbuilding etc.

I'll cherrypick things here and there, maybe...but I'll stick to modifeid MT for rules and pass this by unless something/someone causes me to change my mind. For background, I'm a heretic and only loosely use the Imperium as written, so canon stuff won't sway me either.

just a semi-informed opinion of mine ..nothing earth shattering
Folk that like it, have fun with it.

 

[Echo]

As I have said in the other thread, the complaint is based upon flawed statistics.

It is based upon the assumption of random rolls - but the aspect of choice involved, when players choose between time/effect, scews the probabilties entirely.

Essentially, players will normally be asked to make a decision between a low effect or a slow timing. Characters with higher abilties may end up getting less stark decisions, but character with low abilities get more of them, accordingly.

Feel free to criticise it, or suggest alternatives as you wish, but remember that no systems will be perfect. It's always a balancing act between simulation and ease of gameplay. However, if you do criticise please also remember that this system is fundamentally based upon player choices - not random rolls.

 

[tbeard1999]

1. I feel that the 'effect' should be based on how much the roll beat the target....thats all...no extra random numbers added or whatever. I don't feel that someone who barely squeaks by on a task should have a chance to do as well as someone who rolls high enough to be able to do the task blindfolded with one hand tied behind his back.

I think that your idea is the best so far when it comes to determing timing and effect. The advantages are clear -- the better you roll, the better you do. No fussiness and no hassle. Indeed, if you must have timing and effect results, why not allow the player to change the default timing (say, 3) and effect (say, 3, which is average) by the total amount you exceed the roll.

So if you roll a 10, you can reduce the timing from 3 to 1, the effect from 3 to 1 or each by 1.

Now why wouldn't that system work better and faster than the T/E system?

 

[Klaus]

I think that your idea is the best so far when it comes to determing timing and effect. The advantages are clear -- the better you roll, the better you do. No fussiness and no hassle. Indeed, if you must have timing and effect results, why not allow the player to change the default timing (say, 3) and effect (say, 3, which is average) by the total amount you exceed the roll.

So if you roll a 10, you can reduce the timing from 3 to 1, the effect from 3 to 1 or each by 1.

Now why wouldn't that system work better and faster than the T/E system?

Actually.... that's pretty good.

My only caveat would be that you're doing the maths in both directions on the roll, both adding the mod then subtracting the target, then more addition (or subtraction in case of failure) to the base T and E values. Fails will always be 3 or less, successes always 3 or more, on either dice. Works for me, but it is just a different kind of fussy.

 

[Ishmael]

I never thought of how to do the timing. I still think the player must decide BEFORE he rolls as to whether he's doing a task quick and dirty or taking his time to try and do it right. As far as I'm concerned, just have him say, then make up a dm for success based on his choice which can then be subtracted from or added to a timing roll ( or however people want to do it ). Timing should be de-coupled from success rolls, imho.

I worked out the possibilities of the current system....ugh....
I won't be using it....and any system based on it will be bad too ( in my opinion )
too bad...it looked like a neat idea, but now it just seems like something thrown in to make mgt seem like a new exciting game...a simple MT-like task system is better..no fuss-no muss and quick.

How about this idea ( seeing as ideas are being kicked around.
The amount you make the task roll IS the effect number....
if you roll exactly, then you neither succeed nor fail, but can succeed barely if you stay determined and take extra time....
==OR==
you can decide to try again for free ( risking failure again in order to try and get a better success result ) which also uses more time
<not quite happy with this,....I'll ponder on it more>

timing is 2d-2 ( 1-10 secs, 1-10 minutes, etc ) and chosen dms to succeed for hastiness(-dm's)/carefulness(+dm's) modify this roll.
perhaps player's skill level should be the cap for this, so players can't say.." I'm taking lots of time/days to fix the drives, so that's plus 45, right?"
0 is the half the time increment chosen ( more than instantaneous and less than 1 sec,min,whatever )
after all..its not like such exact timing is needed very often during normal play and can be skipped if need be.


not worked out in detail...but thats the gist of it.

 

[Ishmael]

As I have said in the other thread, the complaint is based upon flawed statistics.

It is based upon the assumption of random rolls - but the aspect of choice involved, when players choose between time/effect, scews the probabilties entirely.

Essentially, players will normally be asked to make a decision between a low effect or a slow timing. Characters with higher abilties may end up getting less stark decisions, but character with low abilities get more of them, accordingly.

Feel free to criticise it, or suggest alternatives as you wish, but remember that no systems will be perfect. It's always a balancing act between simulation and ease of gameplay. However, if you do criticise please also remember that this system is fundamentally based upon player choices - not random rolls.

based on my study of it ( unless I really pooched the understanding of the rules ), player choices aren't as important here as some might think.
with dm=0 there is a 19% chance of abject failure if the task is missed regardless of how a player allocates the t/e dice. As dm's go down ( -1, -2, etc.) it gets worse. much worse. For spectacular successes, assuming the player wishes to maximize his effect ( and he will unless he is under severe time pressure...aka..do this task before time runs out or die )..any success with a dm>0 guarantees that a player can choose maximum success...and any success with a dm<-1 guarantees that maximum success is not possible...even dm=-1 and success gives 70% chance of choosing maximum effect.
The timing/effect decision just is not that important in a game except when the ref forces time constraints on player tasks for sake of suspense which won't be on every task roll and even then, there is only 6 steps in timing. IMHO, if the numbers for the 'effect' choices are so screwy and narrow, can the choices for timing be that much better?

hmmmmmm...timing/effect choices would be much more interesting and suspenseful if the choice is made before rolling...player can be all hasty ( timing die is the high ) or careful ( effect die is high ) but you can't decide after the task is already done.

my opinion, take it or leave it

 

[sablewyvern]

hmmmmmm...timing/effect choices would be much more interesting and suspenseful if the choice is made before rolling...player can be all hasty ( timing die is the high ) or careful ( effect die is high ) but you can't decide after the task is already done.

Actually, I suspect that actual choice would become a non-issue most of the time under this system. Especially in combat, a player would be likely to make an initial decision as to whether low timing or low effect is the worst case scenario, and then always make their choice so as to avoid that worst case scenario. Only occasionally would the situation be unusual enough to warrant a re-think of that position.

Frex: a player finds initative results of 1 unacceptable, because he has to sit out so long accruing ticks. He will always nominate Timing as the high die, except in rare, critical situations where he absolutely has to take down a target in one shot.

Alternately, a group has a leader with Tactics-3. Since the lowest Timing results are always mitigated, might as well always nominate Effect as the high die.

Where the decision is made after the roll, you can cease looking only at avoiding the most undesirable outcomes, and have to start weighing up things like a moderate success vs a slighly better one, and the trade off you have to make on a point or two of Timing.

 

[Ishmael]

Where the decision is made after the roll, you can cease looking only at avoiding the most undesirable outcomes, and have to start weighing up things like a moderate success vs a slighly better one, and the trade off you have to make on a point or two of Timing.

I still feel that it is a gimmick.

Being able to choose =after= the roll is made, is like acting with the full knowledge of hindsight.
Being able to act while having hindsight fails a basic reality check in my way of thinking

But we do both agree that a really useful situation to apply this will probably be fairly rare.

 

[sablewyvern]

Yes, it could be described as a gimmick, although I don't believe that needs to come with a negative connotation.

I like it because it regularly places meaningful, and not always easy, choices into the players' hands. IMO, if you were to call Timing or Effect before the roll, the greatest strength of the system disapears, and I'd agree with tbeard that the system doesn't provide benefits commensurate with it's complexity.

Yes, it's a metagame concept more than it is a versimilitudinous (there's a word for you ) one, but I don't consider that an inherently bad thing. It's not so far-fetched as to damage my sense of versimilitude, as it seems it does yours.

I do have to ask, what is the merit of retaining the current dice mechanic at all if you go down this road? Wouldn't it be simpler to just provide everyone with a base Timing result of 3 (for example), and apply bonuses or penalties to the roll if you want to act hastily or carefully?

But we do both agree that a really useful situation to apply this will probably be fairly rare.

For clarity, I agree with this with respect to calling T/E before the roll, but not if you're making the decision after.

 

[Border Reiver]

It is a gimmick and it has been shown to be flawed. It was an interesting concept for initiative though despite my initial reservations.

Somehow the more criticisms I read of the T/E dice the more likely I am to stick to Megatraveller or UGM. A shame as in play it did show a little promise.

 

[Foxroe]

I wouldn’t necessarily call the T/E system a gimmick, so much as a feature… although opinions may vary as to the quality of the feature.

Someone had posted a link to a great article a while back, on RPG design and playing styles (link: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html ). It basically groups game-play into three categories: gamist (all about winning contests and min-maxing), simulationist (attempts to simulate a “real world”), and narrative (all about the story-telling and less about the rules). While I didn’t necessarily agree with a few things in the article, I found the threefold categorization of playing styles to be quite revealing, and I can’t help but think that it applies very well to the topic at hand.

Based on the article, I would classify the T/E mechanic as one that appeals to gamists. The player manipulates the results to best suit him/her, in an effort to win the current contest (task, combat round, etc.). The methodology seems too slow for the narrative gamer, and it is obviously too statistically slanted for the simulationist. Narrative players will end up using a house rule that drops the T/E mechanic altogether, rolling a D6 if such information is required, while the simulationist will adopt a more “realistic” way of interpreting the timing and effect results.

-Fox

( If anyone is interested, here’s another link to all sorts of RPG theory stuff: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/ )

 

[sablewyvern]

Please, oh please, let this thread not devolve into GNS arguments.

 

[Foxroe]

Please, oh please, let this thread not devolve into GNS arguments.

:rofl:

Doh! I didn't realize that GNS was such a sore subject!

-Fox

 

[sablewyvern]

It may well not be so around here. Hopefully, it isn't.

 

[Able Baker]

It IS a minefield to discuss GNS. Especially as the categories are not what the poster above thought they were.
Let´s just not go there...