Should I Stay or Should I Go Now???

[Allensh]

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?

The book suggests a limit of six terms, and that's what I do unless a natural 12 is rolled on advancement.

Also, the cumulative -1 on getting into careers after the first, combined with aging effects, has led to a lot of my players choosing to stop after four or five tours.

Allen

 

[aramis]

Someone asked for "More Modern"....

In terms of Games Theory:

Inclusion of an optional point-buy mechanic that is not "everyone starts equal". (Points are by terms in MGT)

Inclusion of a bonus for taking the "hard road": a reroll per session per term in which you announced you were doing "Ironman"...

Inclusion of bonuses for linking your character's history to other player's character's histories.

Consistent task mechanic

Inclusion of cybernetics in the core rules.

inclusion of (optional) modifiers to the main world generation to represent a more realistic result set.

Less table referencing in play.

 

[Supplement Four]

Someone asked for "More Modern"....

In terms of Games Theory:

Inclusion of an optional point-buy mechanic that is not "everyone starts equal". (Points are by terms in MGT)

Inclusion of a bonus for taking the "hard road": a reroll per session per term in which you announced you were doing "Ironman"...

Inclusion of bonuses for linking your character's history to other player's character's histories.

Consistent task mechanic

Inclusion of cybernetics in the core rules.

inclusion of (optional) modifiers to the main world generation to represent a more realistic result set.

Less table referencing in play.

Not that I agree with all that you say here (especially the last line), but none of what you've listed makes MGT "more modern".

I'm sure I could find rpgs that do the same thing as your examples from back in the 80's. The same game design from the 80's doesn't make MGT modern. On the contrary, it shows MGT using the same game mechanics as games two decades old.

There is nothing "revolutionary" or even "modern" about MGT.

It's just another role playing game, using rules (and styles of rules) that have been in existence for the last 20+ years.

 

[Allensh]

what you say is actually true. There is no one thing in MGT that is "revolutionary". That's fine by me. Something doesn't have to be "new and totally different" to be "modern".

Ultimately, MGT is "modern" because its a new version of Traveller. But it also has some familiar elements. It does have a few touches that while not new to RPGs are somewhat new to Traveller (like the events/mishaps, although there was something like a mishap table in Scouts and Assassins).

Allen

 

[aramis]

Not that I agree with all that you say here (especially the last line), but none of what you've listed makes MGT "more modern".

I'm sure I could find rpgs that do the same thing as your examples from back in the 80's. The same game design from the 80's doesn't make MGT modern. On the contrary, it shows MGT using the same game mechanics as games two decades old.

There is nothing "revolutionary" or even "modern" about MGT.

It's just another role playing game, using rules (and styles of rules) that have been in existence for the last 20+ years.

It's definitely more modern than CT, which lacked all of them.

And yes, most of those were novelties in the 1980's... imbalanced point design was Space Opera, for example.

Bringing all of them together is a modernization, by comparison.

 

[Echo]

Not that I agree with all that you say here (especially the last line), but none of what you've listed makes MGT "more modern".

I'm sure I could find rpgs that do the same thing as your examples from back in the 80's. The same game design from the 80's doesn't make MGT modern. On the contrary, it shows MGT using the same game mechanics as games two decades old.

There is nothing "revolutionary" or even "modern" about MGT.

It's just another role playing game, using rules (and styles of rules) that have been in existence for the last 20+ years.

But which are not in existence in Classic Traveller.

 

[Echo]

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?

You generate interesting characters. A lot of players like to keep going, after the aging rolls kick in as the risk starts of relatively low anyway (you only get penalties on a roll of 2D6 minus No. Terms and the result is 0 or less). That risk accumulates obviously, but if you want to play a Scholar, say, it's probably worth rolling through several terms, because physical abilities aren't so importnant anyway. It also allows for more chance of promotion. The basic issue, however, is that the more you roll the more stuff happens to you....forcing you out of careers, with enemies etc, and forcing you to make decisions. On the other hand, the fact that you get a bunch of Level-0 skills with Basic Training, relevant to the type of character career you want, means that young inexperienced characters are quite playable too, and faster to advance in play.

The way our group has done it, is to roll three characters each - one inexperienced (1-2 terms), one moderately experienced (3-4 terms), and one highly experienced (7 terms +). These all populate the same starship, linked by ship shares and other connections, and can be alternately played by the players depending upon the adventure or task. The team skills are presented to three different groups within the whole community, meaning that three different parties have been formed within the same community, that deals with Mercenary, Trading and Political adventures accordingly.

Incidently, there has been a thread running on rpg.net, illustrating the chargen process:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=407433

 

[Droptrooper.]

Mongoose Traveller does tend towards the "Holywood" end of the character generation spectrum but then if we are aiming at new players and them thar youngsters that's not a bad thing, no?

There are faults to be found in every version of Traveller (published and unpublished) and most of MongTrav's are forgivable IMO. It is not the game that I prefer to play but do on occasion and will give serious consideration to using it full time (once it has been suitably tweaked )

 

[Andrew Boulton]

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

Good question. I haven't read it cover to cover yet, but I like the homeworld skills, stat modifiers and task system, which are all based on MT. The life events, friends/enemies etc are good, although Cyberpunk got there first. The Connections idea is great, but getting a skill is silly. Some of the UWP notes are good, but WBH did it better.

There is good stuff in there, but it's just not good *enough*.

 

[Echo]

Good enough for what?

Good enough for playing a game and having fun with it? Good enough for attracting new players or making strong sales? Good enough to stop you playing your prefered version of the game? Or what else?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

It does the job, but it could have been - *should* have been - *better*.

I mostly use a mix of MT and T4, and I wanted MGT to be good enough to replace them, but it isn't.

Plus, I feel insulted by the production values. It looks like it was thrown together by people who don't care (as did much of T4, of course).

 

[mbrinkhues]

It does the job, but it could have been - *should* have been - *better*.

I mostly use a mix of MT and T4, and I wanted MGT to be good enough to replace them, but it isn't.

Plus, I feel insulted by the production values. It looks like it was thrown together by people who don't care (as did much of T4, of course).

What is the problem with the "Production Value"? The book hold up a lot better than my old TNE book, is resonably priced and quite well organised. What's your problem with the quality?

 

[mike wightman]

Mongoose has a history of producing deluxe versions of their games, we''ll probably see higher production values there.

The game itself was always described as a return to the simplicity of CT - this is a strong selling point for it IMHO.

Could it have been better - yes - they could have just published my house rule version of CT+ (that is a joke by the way)

 

[Andrew Boulton]

What is the problem with the "Production Value"? The book hold up a lot better than my old TNE book, is resonably priced and quite well organised. What's your problem with the quality?

Lots of things. The overall look is bland. The boxes like the one on p4 use a tiny font and intrude into the footer white space. Most of the art is awful. The deckplans are printed at inconsistent sizes (some unreadably small), and don't always match the actual ships.

If this was a fan-produced book I could understand, but this is a major product from a big company. Compare it to MT, TNE, GT or T20 - it's not in the same *sport*, let alone the same league.

 

[Klaus]

IMO MGT is hands down superior to CT. When I first got CT thru the reprints and tried to run a game, I found it unplayable 'out of the box'. It requires copious tweaking and house rules before it becomes playable. More to the point, many characters, created either bk1 or bk4+, were incapable of doing their jobs properly (without the ref adding 0 level skills by fiat, which is a cop out).

I've looked at MT but to me it is clunky and overcomplicated, just like bk4+ chargen, and it still over-represents military careers. Add to that it's in built task roll is ridiculous - the divisions are massive (4 steps on 2d6?), meaning that it's either 50/50, more or less autofail, or autosuccess.

What MGT does for me is present a comprehensive set of careers (only 25% military rather than 66%) and skills (and S4, CT never had the required skills - how a sci-fi game can get away without any science skills is beyond me), and a simple and robust task system that is easy to learn, plus a beautifully simple way of integrating more modern tropes like cybernetic implants and genetic augmentation. It also improves on trading somewhat and improves worldgen drastically.

The most significant thing is life and career events. I know some folk dismiss them as just fluff but they make Traveller chargen twice as good. Characters emerge fully formed, with a past, with ex-spouses and friends and rivals. This is a massive improvement. It was something always implied within a prior history but here it is iterated and integrated. Life events can offer interesting surprises too; I've had a couple of characters become psionicists halfway through chargen, which wasn't my initial intention. And connections are a good thing too; makes it easy to tie the characters into the refs setting, makes the pcs less than perfect strangers, and I like that you get skills for it too, as it allows the player a little influence on what their character is good at.

It ain't perfect. Combat is a little simplistic, but I'm in two minds over any kind of penetration rules as compared to just adding damage (unless the penetration factor is larger than the armour, penetration is identical to extra damage). The lack of lots of uneccessary tables is a bonus too. Have to wait until I see Mercenary to see if any improvements come along. But then my games aren't military in style so I'm not bothered that it's not an uber-detailed combat system.

The best thing is that is playable straight away and in one book. CT is unplayable without house rules and is scattered about several books (I have all the reprints). What's more, CT is totally unusable (or at least balanced) without doing your own chargen tables. Earlier careers don't have skills that they would have that emerge later, and many skills are totally missing. COTI is useless, as not only are half the careers military or paramilitary but the ones that aren't are wrong (ie: Rogues and Scientists - the tables will produce neither, instead you get 2 different types of technician).

As for me chargen is the most important aspect of any rpg, and most especially Traveller, then I have to say I'm pretty much satisfied with MGT, and actually very impressed by chargen itself.

 

[rust]

As for me chargen is the most important aspect of any rpg, and most especially Traveller, then I have to say I'm pretty much satisfied with MGT, and actually very impressed by chargen itself.

Yes, exactly, this is how I see it, too.

The first Babylon 5 roleplaying game also had a (more free-form) system
to create characters with an interesting complete background, which I
liked very much, but I think that the more structured MGT system produ-
ces somewhat more plausible and playable characters.

As for the CT careers, I disliked both the Scientist (no science skills - real-
ly a serious "bug") and the Sailor (the majority of all sailors should be civi-
lians, and not guys in battle dress).

 

[atpollard]

CT is unplayable without house rules and is scattered about several books (I have all the reprints).

As someone who managed just fine with only The Traveller Book for years, I would disagree with this statement. The Traveller book had all the skills, careers and rules needed to 'adventure', although I will admit that the skill list skewed heavily towards weapons (perhaps too heavily).

With respect to the 'missing' science skills, even Mr. Spock never saved the day through his detailed knowledge of inorganic chemistry. A simple Edu Check would have dealt with 'science' tasks, with Computer or Electronics being the more appropriate 'shipboard manifestation' of a scientist's 'skills'.

 

[Supplement Four]

As someone who managed just fine with only The Traveller Book for years, I would disagree with this statement.

I was scratching my head at the "unplayable" comment, too. But decided not to drag it out into another debate.

 

[atpollard]

I was scratching my head at the "unplayable" comment, too. But decided not to drag it out into another debate.

Yeah, you've made enough friends in the MongTrav threads.

 

[atpollard]

Could it have been better - yes - they could have just published my house rule version of CT+ (that is a joke by the way)

And with the OGL/SRD, YOU still can!