Recap of Issue With MGT

[Foxroe]

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...

If you were referring to me, then you “went there”…

From the link that I posted:

Gamist. This player is satisfied if the system includes a contest which he or she has a chance to win. Usually this means the character vs. NPC opponents, but Gamists also include the System Breaker and the dominator-type roleplayer. RPGs well suited to Gamists include Rifts and Shadowrun.

Narrativist. This player is satisfied if a roleplaying session results in a good story. RPGs for Narrativists include Over the Edge, Prince Valiant, The Whispering Vault, and Everway.

Simulationist. This player is satisfied if the system "creates" a little pocket universe without fudging. Simulationists include the well-known subtype of the Realist. Good games for Simulationists include GURPS and Pendragon.

Here I suggest that RPG system design cannot meet all three outlooks at once. For example, how long does it take to resolve a game action in real time? The simulationist accepts delay as long as it enhances accuracy; the narrativist hates delay; the gamist only accepts delay or complex methods if they can be exploited. Or, what constitutes success? The narrativist demands a resolution be dramatic, but the gamist wants to know who came out better off than the next guy. Or, how should player-character effectiveness be "balanced"? The narrativist doesn't care, the simulationist wants it to reflect the game-world's social system, and the gamist simply demands a fair playing field.

By these words, I postulated that the T/E mechanic would be predominantly appealing to the Gamist, only appealing to Simulationists if they consider it “accurate”, and not at all appealing to the Narrativists.

This is only my opinion, mind you. I’m sure that there are reasonable arguments against my assessment, and there is certainly nothing wrong with a civil, if not friendly, discussion about it (so long as it stays on topic).

-Fox

 

[Able Baker]

Two things:

1) What you WANT to say, I could live with.

2) What G/N/S says is different from that. Let´s keep that box closed. Let´s just talk plain english with actual examples.

Let´s better say that there´s D&D, and than there is Traveller. Surely mechanics in current D&D are put under a close scrutiny regarding balance and "fairness" and all things like this.
What we have in the T/E thing is nothing that would compare to anything in D&D. It´s shoddily designed, no matter what angle you take on it.

It doesn´t emulate fire combat (as we know it) well.
It is totally imbalanced, as tbeard proved.

Neither a D&D-like mindset, nor a 3G! Gearhead nor a CT person will be happy with it. It´s shoddily built for either purpose.

 

[Foxroe]

What G/N/S says is different from that.

In what way?

-Fox

 

[Supplement Four]

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).

I haven't read the article yet (plan to), but I like the categories.

If I had to categorize myself, I'd say I'm a hybrid, with one foot in the simulationist box and the other in the narrative box.

And, I despise gamists. I actually think they're rpg-ers of "lower quality". As a matter of fact, I've not allowed players that I've identified as "gamists" to play in my games before (although I didn't use that title).

I'm that way with PC games, too. You give me a game with a good story (currently playing Cold War, which has a good story) or is an excellent simulation (Operation Flashpoint is my all-time favorite PC game), and I'm good-to-go, happy as a cat with a ball of string.

Strict PC games that are "gamist" don't interest me at all, which is why Operation Flashpoint and Ghost Recon intrest me, but something like Battlefield 1942 or Star Wars Battlefront doesn't.

I don't consider strategy games to be "gamist"...or, rather, maybe I think it's OK for a strategy game to be "gamist" because of the nature of the game.

 

[Foxroe]

Yeah, I’m a Narrative/Simulationist mongrel myself, though I’m probably more of a Gamist with video games (I love Star Wars Battlefront! ).

That’s probably why the T/E method doesn’t agree with me. I’m a CT fan boy, so I would just end up ignoring the timing and effect stuff… then I would have to understand the repercussions of doing that. And it’s not just the T/E mechanic that bugs me, so I would end up adding so many house rules to streamline things to my tastes that it will just end up looking like CT. Since I already use CT, why bother with RTT?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think RTT will be awful, and I’m sure it will sell, and I’m sure people will enjoy it. Just not me. I will however probably pick up supplemental material or modules if any of them get good reviews.

-Fox

 

[Ishmael]

My 2 cents...

I feel that the game 'universe' should be simulationist so that events and actions will unfold as players would expect based on their experiences in the world.
I feel that the plot should be 'gamist' in that the good guys will strive to 'win' and beat the bad guys.
I feel that the player interactions should be 'narrativist' so that the game doesn't degenerate into a game of craps.
----------------------------------------------------------

back to the topic at hand...I like the =idea= of the way mgt is played..just not the way its implemented. If backed into a corner, I'd say that breaking the effect into only 3 results kind of skews things badly. That and I feel haste/carefulness should be decided before the action is taken, and not afterward. Unfortunately, because I think its broken here means that I feel the combat is broken by default.

I am a heretical houseruled MT fanboy.....and the task system in mgt hasn't changed that.

===============
*REAL* simulationists play SPI's Airwar! or AH's MBT or GDW's Assault series

 

[Klaus]

Thing is, you could take out T/E from MGT with little fuss, to suit your taste. It wouldn't effect any other part of the game (apart from weapon damage...), not chargen, not skills, nor any of the other nice stuff.

You could roll another die, for Timing, maybe adding the DEX bonus. Why not call it Initiative instead?

For Effect, take 8 from the modified roll: how much you succeeded by. Or roll more dice, like for weapon damage.

If you don't like T/E, it'd be simple to make it work more like CT or MT. Just a tiny fiddle, depending on what floats your boat. Doesn't invalidate anything else in MGT.

 

[Ishmael]

Yes, I could throw out the T/E stuff, but then it'd become very much like CT in usage which would beg the question; Why buy something again that I've already owned before?
Taking it out would be unreasonably difficult as the combat system is tied fairly tight to it. Shall I buy a game knowing I have to create my own rules/combat_system to fit the parts I DO like?

Its simply my opinion that I do not like the task system and by extension, the combat system. I also know it does not invalidate the other parts. again, if those other parts are not significantly different from what I already own, why should I buy it all again? I already skipped TNE except for FFS, and T4 except for pocket empires...I didn't even look at T20 and probably not T5 either unless something jumps out and grabs me. I just don't care to keep buying the same game over and over again unless there is something really good and new about it. My opinion is that while mgt is certainly new and clever, it isn't good for me....not so far anyways.
Why fiddle with it to make it more like a game I already own?
It'd make me happier to simply write my own rules and tinker with them.
From what I see T/E is a clever and cool idea, but the results as written don't significantly change the game in a likeable manner for me.

You like it..I don't...we won't change each other's opinions about it.

I can't wait to see world building and economics rules
If mgt hits off with really nice economic rules with worldbuilding, then they'll have fixed lots thats 'odd' about Traveller, imo....I mean world economies..not just cargo and passenger generation.
+Pocket Empires 2+ could be very nice indeed.
THAT I might buy.

 

[ditzie]

Well, that's perfectly understandable. If you like CT, and don't like MGT's handling of tasks, I can't see why you'd want to switch. Similarly the others.

Me, I like to put things together (things that go BOOM), so CT doesn't really do it for me. Oh sure, we can put ships together... and Striker is always there, lurking... but still, I want something cohesive. Again though, none of that points me to MGT. So I see your point.

 

[tbeard1999]

Thing is, you could take out T/E from MGT with little fuss, to suit your taste. It wouldn't effect any other part of the game (apart from weapon damage...), not chargen, not skills, nor any of the other nice stuff.

Why would anyone bother to buy a new version of Traveller if they knew that they were gonna have to ditch the combat system and task system? I mean, it's not like the MGT character generation system is the greatest thing since sliced bread (especially considering that the survival rolls are way too high. At best, it's adequate...it really adds little (good or bad) to the evaluation.

Now, I happen to think that there is a market for a new version of Traveller that compiles and harmonizes the best parts of CT (and by extension, MegaTraveller), and replaces/revises obsolete systems (such as the CT combat system and the CT starship creation system) with systems that have the same flavor as CT but work better. I'd also like a vehicle design system that works as smoothly as CT's starship design system. And if there's gonna be a High Guard volume, I'd like for the basic starship design system to be compatible with it. And heck, as long as I'm asking, a gun design system (again no more complex than Book 2 starships) would be nice.

MGT in its current for just ain't what I believe the market is looking for.

 

[Klaus]

Those are all valid points, but, given that Traveller grognards are inveterate house-rulers, what is the likelihood, even if you did like the task system, that you wouldn't house rule out of the box. In the Traveller fraternity, house-ruling is the norm. Traveller seems to be made for easy house ruling. MGT is no different.

To put it another way...

S4, shoot me down if I make an assumption too far, but wouldn't a new task system have to be pretty damn sexy indeed for you to use it over and above your UGM?

In fact, given that there's only so much you can do with a 2D6 mechanic, what would Mongoose have to have done to sway the skeptics? At least, a mechanic that was qualitively different from regular CT, MT, or the UGM or variants of it.

At least T/E was an attempt to innovate. It may not work properly off the blocks but it is fixable. And, does not disrupt the game as written if you do not use it. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but that is true of any system.

What is this mythical new mechanic that folk seem to be waiting for?

(And that's an honest question )

 

[hunter]

What is this mythical new mechanic that folk seem to be waiting for?

(And that's an honest question )

It's all revealed in SciFi20 of course!

Sorry had to go there :devil:

 

[Supplement Four]

S4, shoot me down if I make an assumption too far, but wouldn't a new task system have to be pretty damn sexy indeed for you to use it over and above your UGM?

Yessir, indeed.

But...I worked hard on the UGM (you can see the development of it right here on these boards), and I made sure that IT made statistical sense.

The UGM isn't broken.

In fact, the MGT system is basically the UGM. The differences that Mongoose added to the UGM are the broken parts (the T/E mechanic and the stat -inflation).

And...just FYI...I don't really use the UGM in my game. I'm playing CT straight-out-of-the-box, no house rules.

If you read it in the rule book, that's pretty much the way I'm running my game.

 

[Supplement Four]

What is this mythical new mechanic that folk seem to be waiting for?

It exists. Or, it could exist.

It wouldn't be THAT hard to create, either.

I'd say the Traveller mechanic should be:

1) Use only 2D.

2) Use a higher-is-better system.

3) Be statistically sound.

4) Treat stats and skills differently, because they represent different aspects and capabilities of the character.*



*We need to get away from the MT inspired you-get-X-DM-on-your-throw-if-stat-is-X and go with a system that addresses learned experience (skills) and natural ability (stats) in a better way.

The problem I'm seeing with MGT is that it's breaking Item #3 and Item #4 above.