So - why would you chose CT over MgT?

[Poppyseed45]

With the exception of the (now defunct) Atlantean Edition Conan d20 RPG, everything put out by Mongoose has been offal. Thus, go with Classic Traveller. When you buy from FFE you are supporting Mr. Miller, the Creator. There! Simple!

On a side note, I just ordered the Twilight 2000 reprints yesterday, so, in two weeks, I've got me another great classic to inflict on my group. Whee! And yes, direct from FFE. Just hoping for a confirmation email...

 

[BytePro]

hdan - well stated!

Yeah, with MgT, had to very explicitly explain PCs don't need a skill to attempt a task. Especially ones that are 'in-character' for their PC. But with so many skills, that typically falls on deaf ears. Level-0 and cascade skills sound good, but having to constantly refer to a char sheet during play just to recall what skill your PC has discourages risk taking and is a bit of a kill joy.

Omnivore - don't see 'Referee fiat' as a bad thing, quite the contrary. 3D6 is a better fix than using magical natural 2/12 - it also fits the Traveller hex theme very well.

 

[Omnivore]

No longer a contributor to this board.

 

[BytePro]

Have stuck with book 1-3 chargen myself. No real thought out reasoning, just they always sufficed for me and my players.

Till MgT, hadn't thought to use anything other than 2D6. For structured systems, the 5 extra values and normal like curve of 3D6 are appealing. Even adapted for a more freeform system, 3D6 elegantly offers a true 50/50 split at 10 (3-10/11-18) and nearly 50% more options for random tables.

For CT style, it would be rare if 2 and 12, at least, weren't fail/succeed, so no magic there. However, natural 2/12 hacks cripple a (detailed) structured system as vastly different DMs become equivalent real quick. Systems like MgT with stat bonuses (esp. with augments), skill level, gear and difficulty DMs - easily saturate 2D6.

Additionally, as I'm using the task system for combat, i.e. with lots of DM potential, I'm loath to put such artifices in.

At the table, I've never had an issue with CT's unstructured system, nor have my players. Give them a target and roll, with DM's rarely figuring in separately and 2D6 being more than adequate. But, applying a structured system universally, including combat, has some appeal I am experimenting with - especially for PbP games.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Have stuck with book 1-3 chargen myself. No real thought out reasoning, just they always sufficed for me and my players.

Till MgT, hadn't thought to use anything other than 2D6. For structured systems, the 5 extra values and normal like curve of 3D6 are appealing. Even adapted for a more freeform system, 3D6 elegantly offers a true 50/50 split at 10 (3-10/11-18) and nearly 50% more options for random tables.

For CT style, it would be rare if 2 and 12, at least, weren't fail/succeed, so no magic there. However, natural 2/12 hacks cripple a (detailed) structured system as vastly different DMs become equivalent real quick. Systems like MgT with stat bonuses (esp. with augments), skill level, gear and difficulty DMs - easily saturate 2D6.

Additionally, as I'm using the task system for combat, i.e. with lots of DM potential, I'm loath to put such artifices in.

At the table, I've never had an issue with CT's unstructured system, nor have my players. Give them a target and roll, with DM's rarely figuring in separately and 2D6 being more than adequate. But, applying a structured system universally, including combat, has some appeal I am experimenting with - especially for PbP games.

Well, if I run it CT, I plan to use 1-3 plus Supp 4 for character generation, and then the other supplements for background and whatnot since I really do want to run in the 3I (or my version thereof). I don't think the unstructured system thing will be a big deal. I think.

I will say that for my particular group, anything with LOTS of mods becomes the game of modifier hunting, where they spend lots of time hunting for this and that bonus rather than gaming. Or rather, they're gaming TOO MUCH.

Of course, the game we're playing now isn't like that. But it IS heavy on the "narrativist" mechanics, which I'm starting to get sick of (to wit, many times I want to do a thing for story reasons that fit better in the flow of things, and instead there's got to be mechanical "heft" to it, and that's getting on my nerves).

 

[BytePro]

Unstructured worked fine for me for decades.

MgT task system worked, too. The main difference being the number of wordy rules and generous DMs and skill lists, especially as spread over numerous books. (Similar might could be said for CT cannon - but less so when only counting LBBs rules and supplements and not magazines...)

...
Of course, the game we're playing now isn't like that. But it IS heavy on the "narrativist" mechanics, which I'm starting to get sick of (to wit, many times I want to do a thing for story reasons that fit better in the flow of things, and instead there's got to be mechanical "heft" to it, and that's getting on my nerves).

The terms 'narrativist' and mechanics seem at odds to me... what does this mean?

 

[Icosahedron]

I'd go with CT because of its flexibility.

Personally, I borrow bits from here and there - the important thing is that you create a believable universe that your players enjoy gaming in. The rules are merely a prop to help you achieve that goal - it doesn't really matter where they come from.

However, CT was in it's own words 'necessarily a framework'. CT Referees were encouraged to make things up on the fly, and therefore if some of what you 'make up' is actually 'borrowed' from, say, MgT, so what? You could argue it's still CT.

 

[Icosahedron]

I love MgT for the detailed and flavorful character generation system. MgT *is* CT, but transmogrified into an RPG of this century, not last. Characters are textured and detailed, and fit in well with the way modern players view what a character sheet should be.

I agree, the MgT chargen system is definitely something they got right, but your view of 'modern players' of 'this century' may be a little blinkered. I've been playing some 'not-sci-fi' games lately, and I've met up with a surprising number of players who eschew rules altogether. Far from wanting detailed character sheets and rolls for everything, for a good many players free-form, rule-free play is the order of the day.

Personally, I go for something in the middle - that's why I like CT.

 

[hdan]

I agree, the MgT chargen system is definitely something they got right, but your view of 'modern players' of 'this century' may be a little blinkered.

Maybe so. My view is colored from too much recent exposure to D&D 4E (and its lighter cousin Gamma World) and 3E/Pathfinder. That's all my crew wants to play lately, and I don't dislike those games. I'll also agree my "this century" comment was overly hyperbolic.

I'm slowly starting to get some of them interested in Trav again. Before I joined the group, they had a bad experience with a Trav campaign that had some unfortunate party dynamics and a GM who wanted to run space dungeon crawls all the time. I think that the CT rule of "all player characters have the equivalent of Gun Cbt-0 in all weapons" would have fixed many of their problems. Many of the characters didn't have specific combat skills, so couldn't hit anything.

 

[Vargas]

I'd use CT because I know where all the bodies are buried and I already own all of it.

 

[BytePro]

...
I'm slowly starting to get some of them interested in Trav again. Before I joined the group, they had a bad experience with a Trav campaign that had some unfortunate party dynamics and a GM who wanted to run space dungeon crawls all the time. I think that the CT rule of "all player characters have the equivalent of Gun Cbt-0 in all weapons" would have fixed many of their problems. Many of the characters didn't have specific combat skills, so couldn't hit anything.

Sounds more like the Ref was the underlying problem...

IMO, regardless of mechanics, a Ref should acknowledge that anyone could fire a setting common weapon or throw a punch the equivalent of level-0. First time might require a check for finding/properly releasing safety mechanisms (and likewise on reloading/charging).

 

[mike wightman]

Absolute rubbish

Possibly true on a culture like the USA or Afghanistan where you are handed a firearm at your birth, but not true in many countries, such as the UK, where firearms and the general populace don't mix.

-4 for unskilled is fine, lvl 0 comes with basic firearm familiarity - watching action films may or may not count

 

[far-trader]

Sounds more like the Ref was the underlying problem...

IMO, regardless of mechanics, a Ref should acknowledge that anyone could fire a setting common weapon or throw a punch the equivalent of level-0. First time might require a check for finding/properly releasing safety mechanisms (and likewise on reloading/charging).

Yeah, not sure I'd want to be anywhere in range of some newbs with guns. Heck we've all heard the near and full on tragedy when supposedly firearms trained people get a little lax in handling guns. Some newb turning around with a loaded weapon and casually pointing it at you saying "Is this how I hold it? And I pull the trigger thingy like this <BLAMM>... " is how I see that coming off.

...watching action films may or may not count

Yeah, generally not. Unless in your game verse your 9 round magazine is capable of firing 20+ rounds before reloading, can be reloaded one handed when it does finally run out of bullets, amazingly either kills everyone you shoot and hurtles them backwards several feet or misses everything until you throw it at someone, and causes every non-animate object you shoot to explode. Oh, and it has zero recoil.

 

[hdan]

Sounds more like the Ref was the underlying problem...

IMO, regardless of mechanics, a Ref should acknowledge that anyone could fire a setting common weapon or throw a punch the equivalent of level-0. First time might require a check for finding/properly releasing safety mechanisms (and likewise on reloading/charging).

Definitely a Ref problem. The fellow was an excellent Dungeon Master though....

Considering that all player characters are Adventurers first and foremost, I think that they should all have a very basic familiarity with standard fire arms. (CT agrees with me, fwiw.) If nothing else, their comrades can give them a very brief overview of how a gun works and let them fire one a few times between sessions. I'd say that unless a player specifically wants to NOT have any gun combat skills, any player character would have found a way to at least get familiar with firearms.

If you really wanted to, you could stipulate that your homeworld did not allow even such simple toys as water pistols and rubber band guns, so your character hasn't even developed the basic muscle memory of how to point a weapon at a target. However, if you spent any time in any of the services (possibly except Other and Merchant), I would be hard pressed to believe that you didn't get even a little gun combat training.

But that's just my opinion, and I accept that as a Texan I may not have a clear grasp on how the majority of humans behaves around guns.

 

[Dragoner]

Considering the ubiquitous nature of firearms in Traveller and the frontier conditions on most worlds, some familiarity with firearms is probable, thus the lvl 0. It would most likely be a more exceptional case where there is no experience, at least for adventurer types.

 

[mike wightman]

As a Texan doesn't that mean your first gun was actually a baby shower gift?

In the real world, well the UK at least, the vast majority wouldn't have a clue how to reload an automatic pistol, no idea where safety catches are, and a total inability to control the recoil of the weapon.

Now I do agree that these things can be learned in a few hours, but if you are a gun virgin the -4 is about right. Even adventurer types here in the UK would struggle...

 

[mike wightman]

Considering the ubiquitous nature of firearms in Traveller and the frontier conditions on most worlds, some familiarity with firearms is probable, thus the lvl 0. It would most likely be a more exceptional case where there is no experience, at least for adventurer types.

That would depend on the law level of the world...

 

[ShapeShifter]

As Uncle Georgie says: "Guns aren't dangerous. Lightsabres are dangerous!" :rofl:

 

[BytePro]

Ha - as a displaced Texan myself, I can't disagree with the 'firearm training first, walking second' notion... though as a transplant Texan I personally didn't shoot my first gun till around my first taste of beer - say around 7 or so.

Having been exposed to foreign cultures (other states ), I allow for not thinking about a safety or fumbling reloading on initial attempts - both things I think most would figure out (?) and and have little issue with after first time. Where I live now - another state and on farmland mostly surrounded by residential - gun fire can be heard every week (hunting and just playing), but I suspect most of my neighbors have never used one.

...If you really wanted to, you could stipulate that your homeworld did not allow even such simple toys as water pistols and rubber band guns, so your character hasn't even developed the basic muscle memory of how to point a weapon at a target. ...

Ah, hadn't really considered having no feel at all for how to point and shoot (recoil being a separate issue) or never having handled or even seen a weapon fired before... even if just on video/holovid/etc.

LL and gov types might indeed suppress any knowledge of weapons.

I was thinking only of the Other and Merchant branches as having a possibility of not knowing how to release/reload/recharge common weapons - and the act of firing as, well, pretty natural (aim and hitting not withstanding).

 

[CosmicGamer]

I allow for not thinking about a safety or fumbling reloading on initial attempts - both things I think most would figure out (?) and and have little issue with after first time.

No guns when I was a kid. Basic qual when in the service. Went hunting once. Own a gun from 1943 which was bought mostly for historical value. Killed a raccoon that was terrorizing the cat with it. Target shot with it once a year for the first few years. Been 17 years since I last fired it. Every time I used it, I remember making sure to verify which way the safety needed to be for on and off because there is no indicator. I probably wouldn't know if the safety was on or off or even where it was if I had to snatch up a strange weapon and fire it without examining it first. I've seen experienced folk forget the safety is on when trying to fire a weapon or have a brain fart and forget that a round isn't chambered.