Should I Stay or Should I Go Now???

[saundby]

Given that we've also got T5 coming, I also think a great Traveller Unification is unlikely. I would also consider it undesirable--I think it's good to have the various systems around.

For myself, I played CT from LBBs1-3 only. I was hard-nosed about not introducing later material into my game. I'd had a bad introduction to books 4-6 with another group, so I kept my game "pure."

Recently I bought the CT and JTAS CDs. They became a gold mine for a ref who doesn't have as much time to build scenarios as once upon a time. I also saw that my mule-headedness cut me off from a bunch of excellent material back in the day.

Then MGT came along. A few of my players and I participated in playtest. We really enjoyed chargen, the skill system worked pretty good. We tried out other things from playtest docs, too late to participate in playtest. But we pretty well liked what we tried.

I picked up a copy of the core book. It had the same excitement for me as pulling out my old LBBs. I've shifted my campaign to the OTU. The CT CD has been invaluable for this. The MGT Spinward Marches is nice, but by itself it's not enough for me. It does have more material, especially background on 3I/1105, than the CT version. I've also got 760 Patrons and IMO it's even more valuable than MGT-SM, at least until more MGT add-ons come out (like Spinward Marches Campaign, perhaps.)

The MGT writing lacks the terse directness of the original books. There's more page-flipping to find part A and part B of what you want to look up in MGT. They could have used another round of editing. Some of the art sucks muddy gravel. But the system is like CT++ IMO. You can use CT material practically unchanged. There are many nice additions. The campaign material hews closely to CT's canon so far as I know it. Each of the books has been a sort of incremental upgrade of its CT equivalent, without breaking things (IMO.)

Now, I think that if _all_ I used was MGT stuff it wouldn't be there for me yet. If I was still running my own eccentric universe it wouldn't offer _anything_ over CT. But putting MGT rules together with CT material is a win for me. I expect to continue buying MGT products as they appear and using more and more of that, then again I doubt I'll ever stop referring to the CT stuff. I'm not buying many minis right now, so for me the budget is there to get the new books.

I'm also planning on picking up other Traveller CDs and T5--when it's further along. But at present I'm expecting to run MGT for the next couple of years at least.

 

[matrix cypher]

Heck I like all of the versions of traveller, I use what I like the most out of all of them. Ive run all but T4. It just happened at a time in life were other things were happening and traveler wasn't one of them. Though when i got back into traveller I incorporated some of what T4 had to offer.

I prefer to focus on the positive aspects and discard the negatives, it helps traveller much more then the always pointing out the negatives.

As soon as a person comes off as a rabid hater of one particular system I tend not to give them much credence. It taints anything good and or constructive that they have too.

 

[scout_harris]

Here is what I have to say about the new MGT.

MGT Trade rules - Better than CT. Better than book 3, better than book 7.

Character generation - Better than CT (hands down, improves on the simplicity of CT book 1 and CT supp 4 without doing the game breaking books 4-7) Has many more options that the original, and is FUN.

Die roll mechanics, pretty much CT (8+ to succeed, add random mods, CT in a nutshell, and it plays ok with my group)

Integrated vehicle combat rules - Better than CT (Please don't pull out the "Striker had vehicle combat" Striker was a miniatures game that shared the same universe as traveller, and thats pretty much as far as it goes, you can't use striker with CT unless you dump the CT combat rules, pretty much a fail if you have to do that).

Easy starship creation sequence (Although I worry about the triple particle turrets... hmm.. did I miss something?) An improvement over CT

Computer rules - interesting, maybe one day I'll use them

Equipment - Weapon options, armour options... winner! ... Wait!.. where is the SMG?

World creation rules - no improvement there really, in fact, could be described to be a little worse.

Starship deckplans - well, they had them, even if they did have to produce errata for them, the fact is the plans came in useful in my last game. So a big winner for me.

To the people who are saying that MGT is not better than CT. Sorry, but you are incorrect. MGT is an improved CT. I've GM'ed several games with it so far and have no complaints.

I used to use Megatravaller or T20 for my traveller sessions (and I was considering doing a port to Savage worlds). However, playing MGT is FUN.

Hear are my worries about it.
I'm worried that High Guard, like the CT High Guard, will introduce a new starship combat system, and new rules for building starships. I hated the way that the book 2 "FUN" combat system was replaces by the book 5 "purely statistical system where players skills don't matter"


Anyway, to summarise. I was wary about buying MGT. I decided to get it anyway. What I read I liked. My players like it as well. Looks like after a few sessions MGT will get a few more sales from my parties.

Anyone who is saying that CT is better than MGT. Sorry, but your dreaming.

 

[Echo]

Moreover, if you give Classic Traveller to most gamers these days, they 'don't get it' or find it 'boring'. And I'm a fan of Classic Traveller, too, I have to say. It is an incredibly hard sell to young players, in my experience, because the tropes of it's system are so old. It needed an update to appeal to a new generation of players. This point was apparently understood when T20 came out, but not by some now?

I would say that Mongoose's Traveller is the best, most accessible version of the Traveller game to have been released in 20 years, which didn't seek to compromise it's rules concepts to other system mechanics. It's got some historical authenticity that relates to the original game, but it's a lot easier and appealing to use by casual gamers.

 

[Allensh]

I'm worried that High Guard, like the CT High Guard, will introduce a new starship combat system, and new rules for building starships. I hated the way that the book 2 "FUN" combat system was replaces by the book 5 "purely statistical system where players skills don't matter"

Mongoose has repeatedly said that their version of High Guard will not invalidate the current shipbuilding rules but will instead extend them to the larger ships, add more options and the like. They have 30 years of hindsight on the effects of the original HG to look back on, so hopefully that mistake won't be repeated. There may have to be some adjustments to the larger end, and hopefully some issues like the particle beam turrets you mentioned, and the situation with bays in smaller ships will be addressed.

Allen

 

[Allensh]

Moreover, if you give Classic Traveller to most gamers these days, they 'don't get it' or find it 'boring'. And I'm a fan of Classic Traveller, too, I have to say. It is an incredibly hard sell to young players, in my experience, because the tropes of it's system are so old. It needed an update to appeal to a new generation of players. This point was apparently understood when T20 came out, but not by some now?

I would say that Mongoose's Traveller is the best, most accessible version of the Traveller game to have been released in 20 years, which didn't seek to compromise it's rules concepts to other system mechanics. It's got some historical authenticity that relates to the original game, but it's a lot easier and appealing to use by casual gamers.

The current form of CT (not counting the books1-3 reprint by QLI that came with GrIP and seems to be hard o find now)is the "big floppy books" and I find those intensely annoying to use during play. That's another point in MGT's favor; its in a regular book (and soon in a pocket edition).

Allen

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Comparing MGT to CT is a straw man - of course it's better; if Mongoose couldn't improve on a 30-year old game there really would be something wrong.

The point is, CT has been replaced three times since then (five including GT and T20), all of which are still available. MGT is competing with all of these. And it falls short.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Mongoose has repeatedly said that their version of High Guard will not invalidate the current shipbuilding rules but will instead extend them to the larger ships, add more options and the like.

HG started again from scratch because it wasn't practical to extend BK2, so I'm looking forward to seeing how they do it.

 

[atpollard]

Comparing MGT to CT is a straw man - of course it's better; if Mongoose couldn't improve on a 30-year old game there really would be something wrong.

The point is, CT has been replaced three times since then (five including GT and T20), all of which are still available. MGT is competing with all of these. And it falls short.

Just out of curiosity, what parts of Mongoose Traveller 'shine' in your opinion.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Comparing MGT to CT is a straw man - of course it's better; if Mongoose couldn't improve on a 30-year old game there really would be something wrong.

The point is, CT has been replaced three times since then (five including GT and T20), all of which are still available. MGT is competing with all of these. And it falls short.

I still can't see where it falls short.

MT is just a bugfixed, integrated version of CT with a slightly expanded/integrated ship construction system. Late/Complete CT and MT play the same, generate characters the same etc. => If it bests CT, it bests MT

T20 has all the problems associated with it's parent system. While it manages to kill a few, the complete setup is clumsy both in character generation compared to MT and in play (It's still a level-based system). I like it's background (Gateway) and adventures but it's game system is clunkier than MT => MGT bests T20

TNE is a completely different system. Let's face it all it left from Traveller where the names. Even the techbase was different. So the only thing comparabel is Character Generation. And there MGT is at least equal to TNE if you use the default system and better if you include the optional "dice free" systems. And since MGT can far easier use data and equipment done for CT/MT than TNE can => MGT bests or equals TNE

GT is in many ways totally different from the rest. Chargen clearly is superior IF! you have a good chargen program. If not, it's a PITA, even more so for those who DON'T generate GURPS characters every other week. MGT offers less detail but even as a novice in MGT (and an old GURPS hand) I can produce decend characters a lot faster with MGT. The GT techbase is way of and often difficult to match with the Traveller scale (12 TL vs. 15), rendering a number of "classic plots" difficult to replay. GT offers good source materials if taken with a grain of salt (The authors follow the "perfect Empire" concept) and some of the books (Starports, Far Traders, Scouts) will likely remain valuabel long into the MGT era. OTOH some game mechanics are to much "MBA level stuff" and not enough "Fun Stuff" (i.e. the trade system)

Can't compare MGT to T4, never owned T4.

 

[Echo]

Comparing MGT to CT is a straw man - of course it's better; if Mongoose couldn't improve on a 30-year old game there really would be something wrong.

The point is, CT has been replaced three times since then (five including GT and T20), all of which are still available. MGT is competing with all of these. And it falls short.

...in your opinion.

In my opinion, MegaTraveller, Traveller: TNE, T4, GT and T20 all fell well short of what I wanted from the Traveller game. Mongoose Traveller doesn't. It achieves pretty much exactly what I wanted out of game developed from the Classic original.

 

[Allensh]

No one's mind is going to be changed because to be changed the mind has to first be open and at least somewhat clear of misconception and preconceived notions, and that is clearly not the case here.

Allen

 

[aramis]

Just out of curiosity, what parts of Mongoose Traveller 'shine' in your opinion.

Shining bits: Character Generation. I'm likely to use their CG mechanics in my home games.

Lamer Bits: damage mechanic.
This one EVERY OTHER loses out to MT, IMO. Mostly because, despite the poor choice of breakpoints, MT allows everything to be on the same damage scale. Pen vs AV adjusting damage dice is the best way to go. MT, poor an implementation as it is, is still a better bet.

I dislike the change to End first damage taking as well. It makes for more predictable damage taking, and in terms of modern and future combat, that is a bad thing.

OK bits: just about everything else.

I like the new trade goods rules, but they are not quite where I want things to be. They are, however, a far sight better than MP/B7/MT/TNE/T4, and slightly smoother than T20 or Bk2. They also are not quite the money maker that Bk2 or T20 can be, but still a lot of money can be made.

It is a solid, workhorse engine.

 

[Jame]

HG started again from scratch because it wasn't practical to extend BK2, so I'm looking forward to seeing how they do it.

How is impractical to extend Bk2?

 

[Supplement Four]

Moreover, if you give Classic Traveller to most gamers these days, they 'don't get it' or find it 'boring'. And I'm a fan of Classic Traveller, too, I have to say. It is an incredibly hard sell to young players, in my experience, because the tropes of it's system are so old. It needed an update to appeal to a new generation of players.

What, exactly, do you see as an improvement over Classic Traveller?

Name the apects of MGT that you think are "modern" when compared to old and boring CT.

(Oh, I'm going to get a kick out of this..)

 

[Echo]

The fact that you don't frequently die in character generation, but have events/mishaps happen to you, and you can then pick a new career, for a start. The fact that there is a fully integrated 'core system' for skills. The development of a variety of non-military careers in the core-rules themselves, rather than in supplements. The use of Level-0 skills, to provide basic competences for all characters. A combat system that remains tactical, that doesn't require repeated reference to a bunch of different tables for modifiers. A more technologically advanced variety of equipment to choose from. A selection of pregenerated, customisable starships top choose from, rather than designing everything from scratch. Better development, and examples given, for campaign development. More accessible explanations of a variety of concepts.

Classic Traveller was hugely innovative and brilliant, but very limited if taken on the corebooks itself and played as is presented.

 

[atpollard]

The fact that you don't frequently die in character generation, but have events/mishaps happen to you, and you can then pick a new career, for a start.

I have never seen the final MoTrav product (simply not carried in MY local store) and have a genuine question about how the above plays out with real characters.

Q. Without any natural limit on character generation (like the fear of death or failing re-enlistment) do all of the characters tend to be the same age (right before aging checks) and chock full of skills? That was the natural result of most 'house rules' that allowed multiple careers and removed the threat of death.

I once rolled a MegaTrav character that I wanted to be an old man (I was aiming for 70). After 13 terms averaging 3 skills per term, my Physical attributes were trashed (as expected) but I was shocked at the skill list that created and shaved a couple terms off just to avoid SO MANY skill-4(+)'s.

What has your experience been as a MongTraveller player?

 

[atpollard]

The fact that you don't frequently die in character generation, but have events/mishaps happen to you, and you can then pick a new career, for a start. The fact that there is a fully integrated 'core system' for skills. The development of a variety of non-military careers in the core-rules themselves, rather than in supplements. The use of Level-0 skills, to provide basic competences for all characters. A combat system that remains tactical, that doesn't require repeated reference to a bunch of different tables for modifiers. A more technologically advanced variety of equipment to choose from. A selection of pregenerated, customisable starships top choose from, rather than designing everything from scratch. Better development, and examples given, for campaign development. More accessible explanations of a variety of concepts.

Not a criticism, just an observation ... this sure sounds like MegaTraveller.

On a personal note:
Thank You, Echo, for answering in specifics.
Supported opinions are so much better than a
"Yes it is", "No it isn't", "Yes it is", "No it isn't" ... debate.

 

[Supplement Four]

The fact that you don't frequently die in character generation, but have events/mishaps happen to you, and you can then pick a new career, for a start.

One of the things I like about MGT is the additions of events and mishaps in chargen.

But, I'd hardly say that because you don't "frequently" die in chargen and can pick more than one career makes MGT more modern.

It's not "modern". It's variant CT.

The fact that there is a fully integrated 'core system' for skills.

CT has a "fully integrated core system of skills". And, there are more in supplements.

So, if MGT and CT are alike in this regard, how is MGT "more modern"?

The development of a variety of non-military careers in the core-rules themselves, rather than in supplements.

So...because CT's non-military careers are in a supplemental book, and MGT's are in the core book...that makes MGT more "modern"?

Riiiight.

The use of Level-0 skills, to provide basic competences for all characters.

CT has Level-0 skills. In fact, all characters created under Book 1 are considered to have all weapons listed in that book at Level-0.

Plus, most skills in CT can be given to a character if needed (or rolled upon if needed).

So, CT and MGT are quite alike in this respect.

And...that makes MGT "more modern" how?

A combat system that remains tactical, that doesn't require repeated reference to a bunch of different tables for modifiers.

What about CT combat isn't tactical?

When you play MGT, you don't refer to the Weapon Range Table?

You know, when I play CT, I don't refer to any tables. I write the DMs down next to the weapon on an equipment sheet.

Isn't that what you do with MGT? You look up the weapon and then record range and damage (possibly weight another stuff like that) down on your character or equipment sheet?

Isn't pulling the DM to hit off a consolidated chart, like what is in CT, the same as pulling it off a weapon chart in the equipment section of the MGT rule book?

Of course it is.

And, this is different, how?

MGT is "more modern" in this respect, how?

A more technologically advanced variety of equipment to choose from.

Looking at the weapons in MGT, I see exactly two weapons not included in CT. And, that's the stun stick and the stunner.

But, wait! If you have QLI's Personal Weapons of Charted Space, you get those two weapons for CT PLUS a butt load more!

So...

Are you actually saying that MGT is "more modern" because it includes the stun stick and stunner in the core rules.

C'mon. Don't be silly.

A selection of pregenerated, customisable starships top choose from, rather than designing everything from scratch.

Book 2 includes 7 completely designed starships. Ready to go, for your gaming pleasure. And, Book 2 includes an additional 8 space ships, completely designed, ready to use in a campaign.

You must not know your CT too well. I've designed few spacecraft in my 20+ years of CT gaming.

Again, nothing more "modern" in MGT that what was already in CT.

Better development, and examples given, for campaign development. More accessible explanations of a variety of concepts.

Where are you getting that at?

I'm looking at MGT right now, and I don't see anything that isn't already covered in CT.

Classic Traveller was hugely innovative and brilliant, but very limited if taken on the corebooks itself and played as is presented.

And, finally, why would you limit your comparison of MGT to just Books 1-3? Or, do you consider the core books of CT as Books 1-8, without the other supplements?

Either way, CT seems to be delivering all that MGT is in, and CT does it in fewer pages!



You haven't cited a single aspect of MGT that makes it "more modern" than the old, boring, clunky CT (as you described it).

So, I'm still waiting...what makes MGT "more modern" than CT?

 

[Allensh]

And, finally, why would you limit your comparison of MGT to just Books 1-3? Or, do you consider the core books of CT as Books 1-8, without the other supplements?

Because the equivilent to those other books and supplements are not out yet. Right now, aside from the Spinward Marches book and 760 Patrons, the only thing available for the game is the core rules...which in CT are books 1-3. Its is hardly fair to compare one book and two supplements to 8 books, 13 adventures and 12 supplements and various other materials. (Yes, Mercenary is coming out...I don't have it yet).

You haven't cited a single aspect of MGT that makes it "more modern" than the old, boring, clunky CT (as you described it).

So, I'm still waiting...what makes MGT "more modern" than CT?

I will say that I don't think CT is boring or clunky...it is somewhat archaic in terms of the state of RPG design, but I can and have run it, recently in fact.

One thing that makes MGT more "modern" than CT is armor that absorbs damage rather than making you harder to hit. (of course, that makes MT, TNE and T4 more modern than CT too, which makes sense.)

Another thing is the idea that you roll dice, add modifiers for stat and skill, then compare to a target number. Now, CT did do this (sort of)...but it is a misconception to believe that in CT everything was an 8+ to succeed. That was not in the original rules; it developed later. (I have a set of the LBB's right here in front of me to confirm this). The way MGT does this now is similar to commonly used task systems in many games that are made today.

I -and my players, who have played both versions within the past few months- think that MGT produces better characters who have more skills but not too many.

You do have sort of a point though...MGT does in fact take lessons from other versions of Traveller. It does incorporate things you saw in MT, for example. One reason that I like it.

I also agree to some extent with Aramis...although I can see why they skipped the whole armor penetration thing in the basic version. It does add some slight complexity. I also agree about the "End takes damage first" thing although I think it actually saves characters lives in a way, as it shortens combat because characters tend to go unconscious faster. Maybe we'll see a system with a more detailed way of handling armor penetration down the line...or maybe someone like Aramis will use the OGL to make one there's also Signs & Portents.

Allen