Should I Stay or Should I Go Now???

[rust]

A simple Edu Check would have dealt with 'sci-ence' tasks ...

Not really, unless you consider Science as one single skill. There is quite a
difference between a marine biologist, a mathematician and an archaeolo-
gist, and therefore you would at least have to make notes which scientist
has which scientific knowledge and can apply it to what kind of scientific
problem.

Besides, unless you use science skills, the scientists are the only charac-
ters who get their professional skills for free. The doctor has to take me-
dical, the engineer has to take engineering, the bureaucrat has to take ad-
min, but the scientist just takes computer or electronics and gets a free
science doctorate (of his choice, probably) with it.

This is probably not a problem in a military campaign, but it is a serious one
in a campaign where science is a major element of the setting, and without
a house rule to introduce science skills (preferably without breaking the sy-
stem) this can make scientist characters unplayable.

 

[Klaus]

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

Because I tried playing it. Before I discovered this place and was introduced to and ended up assimilating the (then) 25 years of Traveller lore and wisdom, and all the house rules and fixes thereof.

As a newcomer starting to play Traveller in 2002 I found CT to be inconsistent and missing crucial bits (like science skills) that even back in 1977 should have been relevant, and the insanely clunky combat tables were a massive pain in the arse (I like to be able to memorise the necessary modifiers). Maybe after years of playing and coming up with work arounds it is playable, but not to a newbie in the now. (Not that a 25 year old game should necessarily conform to modern expectations

That I've stuck with Traveller despite this reveals just how bloody great the core concepts actually are. IMO no version* has really done it justice. MT retained the bloat CT had built up, T4 was a bit of a mess (not been really bothered to look at TNE). I don't like GURPS, but T20 was perhaps the best version so far, despite the fact that D20 is inherently incompatible with a prior history system, as it was essentially CT reformed and done properly but within a D20 framework.

* up 'til MGT, though of course there is room for improvement. That's what the OGL's good for.

I was in the process of making my own version of CT, more or less from scratch. I'd got as far as 18 balanced career tables and a task system when MGT appeared. It's not what I would have designed, but it covers all the areas I think important well, and does many of the reforms I felt the game needed, and it does it far more simply than I was doing it.

This is the reason I'm enthusiastic about MGT. I liked the style of CT and this new version expresses that in a balanced, workable, and simple way. More exciting, though, will be the supplements and most importantly, the adventures. Mongoose have a very good track record in this regard. It may well be this time next year there'll be enough product that most of us, whatever system we use, will own and use some of it.

 

[Tragin]

Well for me I like MGT, I bought it and read it. But then again I will play any version of Traveller good or bad just to play. My only really big issue with Traveller is that I cannot find anyone to play the game with.

 

[mbrinkhues]

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.

Guess that's a matter of personal preference:

+ The boxes don't "Intrude", it is clearly a deliberate design decision. And while font size is definitly a "personal feeling" thing, I (40years, wearing classes) can read them just fine even under less than perfect light

+ Graphics are a mixed lot. A LOT better than Shadowrun 3, no worse than the TNE stuff

+ Bland look is again a matter of preference. I prefer a straight-forward layout to crap like CP2030 or the "Artful" layout of some modern books like SR4 or Buffy with the stupid "background art" and "special fonts". Give me Times New Roman and plain background anytime

+ Haven't counted out the deckplans nor do I (or the people I play with) about that. We get all the engeneering we need in our jobs

And the book isn't loosing it's pages (TNE) nor is it missing whole pages

=======================

Well, for me the decision is actually made anyway. I will go!

 

[Echo]

Actually, yes, that has to be said. Those Buffy/Angel/Army of Darkness full colour interior designs were as flash as anything you could hope to see, but by golly they looked awful! Way too 'busy' and in your face.

 

[aramis]

Hey, I like the BTVS layouts. Clear, pretty, and useful. At least, in the printed version. Not so hot on screen, but still useable.

But I prefer clean and simple. MGT is clear and simple. Unlike their RQ stuff. (90% gray on 30% gray... ick!)

 

[Supplement Four]

Because I tried playing it. Before I discovered this place and was introduced to and ended up assimilating the (then) 25 years of Traveller lore and wisdom, and all the house rules and fixes thereof.

Come, sit on daddy's knee, sonny, and tell me what you think is unplayable about CT, out of the box. :devil:

I've played it for years, both modified/houseruled and RAW. I currently run it as written, straight out of the box. I fail to see anything "unplayable" about it. In fact, it's my Traveller system of choice (as I'm sure you know).

So...what do you find "unplayable" about CT?

As a newcomer starting to play Traveller in 2002 I found CT to be inconsistent and missing crucial bits (like science skills) that even back in 1977 should have been relevant...

CT includes science skills. And, you can make your own skills, if needed. What did you find unplayable about this?

...and the insanely clunky combat tables were a massive pain in the arse (I like to be able to memorise the necessary modifiers).

On the CT character sheet, you'd see this:

Shotgun
Dex: +0
Range: -8/+1/+3/-6/no
Armor: +5/+5/-1/-3/+5/+2/-5
Damage: 4D

On the MGT character sheet, you'd see this:

Shotgun
Dex: +0
Range: -2/+0/+1/-2/-3/no/no
Recoil: 2
Damage: 4d6


I'm not seeing a lot of difference there. Clunky combat tables? MGT uses a "clunky combat table" too.

Maybe after years of playing and coming up with work arounds it is playable, but not to a newbie in the now. (Not that a 25 year old game should necessarily conform to modern expectations

Again with the word "modern". I challenge you to find me something--anything--about MGT that hasn't been used for the last 20 years.

Tell me something that is "modern" about MGT.

 

[Klaus]

CT includes science skills. And, you can make your own skills, if needed. What did you find unplayable about this?

There are science skills in a JTAS articles, but not in the 'main' game. The main problem was assessing what difficulty any particular task would be, as in what's easy, what's moderate, what's hard. I wasn't as aux fait with the 2d6 probability pyramid back then. Coming up with difficulties for my players felt like making it up. I can do that now with my eyes closed and both hands tied behind my back, but it's a lot to expect from a newb (and I was certainly not a newb when it came to rpgs in general).

My main beef was with the combat tables. Range mods wedded to armour mods meant a lot of the time hits would be more or less automatic.

I'm not seeing a lot of difference there. Clunky combat tables? MGT uses a "clunky combat table" too.

No it doesn't. There's a table, yes, but isn't clunky. I've already memorised half of it.

In CT you needed to use 3 separate tables, repeated across two books, on different pages, for the common weapons. Admittedly less of a pain in separate LBBs than in the single tome reprint collection.

Again with the word "modern". I challenge you to find me something--anything--about MGT that hasn't been used for the last 20 years.

Tell me something that is "modern" about MGT.

I mean I can play a 'modern' inflected game, rather than one stuck in 70's tropes. MGT's integration of implants and augments is neat, and the giant computer issue has been side stepped. Not major aspects of the game, but important to me. The variants on worldgen also 'update' the game somewhat to a more contemporary understanding of planetology. It doesn't have to be innovative or revolutionary to be modernised.

My basic opinion is that MGT has condensed the best of what CT offered into a single book. It's not just equivalent to LBB1-3, it's got COTI in there too, plus the real treat, for me, which is events. I know that has been done before, but never so well, and so well integrated into the rest of chargen.

 

[Echo]

Hey, I like the BTVS layouts. Clear, pretty, and useful. At least, in the printed version. Not so hot on screen, but still useable.

But I prefer clean and simple. MGT is clear and simple. Unlike their RQ stuff. (90% gray on 30% gray... ick!)

Yeah, the problem with the MRQ stuff, generally, is that they are now largely associated with those appalling print runs from last year - as well as having an unfortunate grayscale interior.

Sometimes I like flashy designs - even though they are barely readable, Kult's Conjurer's Guides still look awfully cool - but then, I never use them in play. A lot of the time though, I find full colour books are illustrated with cartoonish 'action' scenes too much. It makes me feel old!

For the most part, clear and legible - understated even - is usually stylish enough for me. Basically, books like Ars Magica and Call of Cthulhu (in it's 5.5 layout, rather than the ) are good enough, and Traveller is just about up to that standard too. I am looking forward to the Pocket edition though.

 

[savage]

Mongoose Traveller

I thought about buying this... I bought most of T4 and GT just to support Marc's drive back into the game. I really haven't read anything great about this revision that makes me want to jump all over it. Seems like a rehash.

If they had come out with a stronger approach (say a $10-12) book containing the revision of the black books and they're twist I would've been a bit more supportive. $28 is a lot for a PDF. Just seems all the games are the same old thing as 20yrs ago with nicer graphics.

So really the market is specializing around rule sets. Marc has the old rules and his modern T5 coming, GT has the Gurps fans, T20 has the D20/ D&D rules fans, Mongoose their fans and possibly new players. This is actually good marketing. Multiple versions of Traveller indifferent rule sets competes with itself.

I'm just disappointed by the lack of innovation. People are busy. These games should come with software to simplify game play if they want to charge $20+ for rules (aka ship builder spreadsheets, character generators...etc). Although my game is on hold, I'll stick with T20 because the players have built tools to reduce ref workload.

 

[mbrinkhues]

What "Innovation" does an RPG need? Stuff like the "White Poodles" Storyteller "innovation" aka "We can't write a useful system so we market the stuff as something new"? (1)

Innovations like the "Deadlands" system where a single task "roll" can easily occupy those involved for 5-10 Minutes (Worse for those who don't play Poker) (2)

Chargen systems that are useless without a program to assist you like GURPS or HERO?



Thanks but NO THANKS!

So what "innovations" does a system need?


(1) Actually I could "storytell" a lot better with Twilight 2.2 than with the White Poodle system
(2) The only DL version I might consider is the adaption to GURPS

 

[rust]

So what "innovations" does a system need?

I think a part of this debate is somewhat like comparing the car I had
twenty years ago to the car I have now.

My new car has: Four wheels, a chassis, a motor, brakes, a windscreen,
a radio ... - but the car I had twenty years ago had all this, too.

However, my new car has better wheels, brakes, motor, and so on,
and this is why I consider it more modern - not because it has anything
the old one did not have, but because it has better versions of (almost)
all of this.

Does MGT have a better character generation system than CT ?
In my opinion, yes. The lifepaths, more career options, more skills - I like
it.

Does this make MGT more modern than CT ?
In my opinion, yes. Not because CT would have lacked a character ge-
neration system, but because MGT has what I consider the improved ver-
sion of it.

 

[scout_harris]

So...what do you find "unplayable" about CT?

Lack of integrated vehicle combat rules (missing in books 1-8, from what I remeber). You can get them in the Striker miniatures game but you have to dump the CT rules.

That issue has pretty much been a dealbreaker for me.

I did not have access to Striker when I was playing with he CT rules, and didn't get a copy of the game until recently, so maybe not having striker biased my opinion away from CT.
Anyway, the lack of vehicle rules had always been an annoyance for me to get around. MT fixed it, (and sold me on the new ruleset).

Tell me something that is "modern" about MGT.

I agree that it can't be argued that MGT is a more modern ruleset, until it is defined what is modern in RPG design in general.

I'll admit, I have tended to always give new rules a go to see if they work with my groups. Poor old T4 only lasted 3 sessions. TNE had a mixed following among my players.
I have a copy of GT, but never tried it (OK, I've not tried all versions). T20 went down well (I believe it felt a lot more like traveller than TNE did).

To be honest, I almost didn't buy MGT, because I was getting sick of trying new versions. I was developing my homebrew MT based rules when I decided to get a copy of MGT to at least have a look (and see if there was anything I could use).

I must say, I was pleasantly surprised.

I'm trying it out on my players, seems to work so far. I'll give it a year before I'll declare it better than my two favourite versions (MT and T20), or not.

Finally, I like a healthy debate. As long as we don't get personal, and as long as we are able to recognise we will have differing opinions, and may never be able to agree.
Personally, I find that I am able to be swayed by a well formed argument, but it does take a while for it to get through my ingrained stubbornness

 

[scout_harris]

Oh, and to answer the question posed in the OP.

Question for the old CT hounds here... would you say buying the book is worth it?

Yes. It's worth the money.

 

[aramis]

Oh, and to answer the question posed in the OP.



Yes. It's worth the money.

Agreed, tho' with caveat: "if you're open to actually trying it."

 

[Echo]

Agreed, tho' with caveat: "if you're open to actually trying it."

A bit like sex then?

 

[Imperial Planetologist]

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.)

"Modern?"

Melee (1977) and Wizard (1978), the foundation of The Fantasy Trip (and GURPS), used armor as damage reduction and point-buy character generation.

Modern?

 

[Allensh]

"Modern?"

Melee (1977) and Wizard (1978), the foundation of The Fantasy Trip (and GURPS), used armor as damage reduction and point-buy character generation.

Modern?

Modern as in " a lot more games use this type of system today than the armor-makes-you-harder-to-hit paradigm"

Modern in this context does not mean INNOVATIVE..it simply means "more like they do it today than they did in 1977"

Allen

 

[tbeard1999]

"Modern?"

Melee (1977) and Wizard (1978), the foundation of The Fantasy Trip (and GURPS), used armor as damage reduction and point-buy character generation.

Modern?

Tunnels and Trolls, the second RPG created, used the damage reduction mechanic for armor. As did Runequest, and most other RPGs created in the late 1970s and later. And point based systems arrived with (IIRC) Superhero 2044 (1977). (Since Melee was a wargame, I give the nod to Superhero 2044). Champions came out in 1980 IIRC.

 

[Imperial Planetologist]

Modern as in " a lot more games use this type of system today than the armor-makes-you-harder-to-hit paradigm"

Modern in this context does not mean INNOVATIVE..it simply means "more like they do it today than they did in 1977"

The word you're searching for is "contemporary."

And I don't know how true that is. Some games do it, but then again some games have done it since the Seventies. Is "armor as damage reduction" really more prevalent than "armor makes you harder to hit" systems? Do you have anything other than the games on your shelf (reflecting your own tastes) to back that up?