So - why would you chose CT over MgT?

[McPerth]

Aside from merchants and others, I guess many other carreers should also not get the 0 in gun combat (unless they get the skill, at least) if you're using the Citizens of the Imperium (suplement, I mean, not this forum ). I don't see gun practice as included in the training of a Doctor, or a Scientist, or a Boureaucrat.

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.

Unless really in a firefight, better that than playing with it thinking the safe is on while it is not (IMHO).

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

Well, guns aren't dangerous, bullets may be, in any case (and even so, see my signature )

 

[far-trader]

Aside from merchants and others, I guess many other carreers should also not get the 0 in gun combat (unless they get the skill, at least) if you're using the Citizens of the Imperium (suplement, I mean, not this forum ). I don't see gun practice as included in the training of a Doctor, or a Scientist, or a Boureaucrat.

I'd have to check the exact wording but my vague recollection is that NONE of the careers in Supplement 4 get free zero level gun (and blade) in every basic weapon. Note the basic weapon limitation to the free zero level skill for every career in LBB1. That limits it to those weapons listed in that book. No others. Again though, this is from foggy memory and too rushed to check at the moment So I'm probably only 90+ percent correct and the rest is house rules shading my memory.

 

[Omnivore]

No longer a contributor to this board.

 

[BytePro]

MgT has homeworld skills (no level-1) pre-career. These are largely based on INT and trade codes.

It also has 6 career 'basic' level-0 skills given for first term in first career.

Hadn't actually realized that CT had 'level-0' skills till a while after playing MgT - where I thought the level-0 concept a good one. However, I'm not so sure now - seems to limit players more than not (and make for a longer list of PC skills to recall...).

 

[Omnivore]

No longer a contributor to this board.

 

[far-trader]

FWIW, per my post above, my recall was indeed messed up by house rules and/or poor memory.

For CT:

Book 1: Characters and Combat

"All player-characters automatically have an expertise of zero (0) in all weapons shown in this book."

Note: Player-Characters, not NPC's. That would hedge combat to the PC's side as many generated NPC's won't have weapon skills and be facing a -5 attack and +3 defend difference for untrained.

Note: Book 4 Mercenary makes no mention of adding the weapons in that book to the list, they are subject to the untrained penalties unless specifically skilled. As a side note, Book 4, 5, 6 and 7 don't seem to make any specific mention of granting automatic expertise of zero in even the basics. That would go a ways to reconciling the skill bloat if applied.

Supplement 4: Citizens of the Imperium

"Most characters have a natural weapon expertise (in all gun and blade weapons listed below) of one-half; exceptions are noted."

Note: I presume "characters" in this case means "player-characters" again to jive with Book 1, but that could be incorrect. It may include NPC's as well but I like the slight PC advantage.

Note: In this use a "one-half" skill is treated the same as a zero level skill.

"However, barbarians, bureaucrats, and doctors do not have a natural expertise in guns; they are treated as totally unskilled in guns... "

Note: Curiously imo diplomats and scientists are apparently familiar with guns.

Note: Curiously imo bureacrats and doctors are apparently familiar with bladed weapons, including the esoteric polearms such as the Halberd and Pike

"Bow Combat: Only barbarians have any skill whatsoever in bow weapons; all other characters are treated as being totally unskilled... "

Note: So, Bo and Luke Duke are barbarians YEE-HAW!!!

"Gunnery: Untrained individuals do not have any skill in this field."

Note: I smell a munchkin Somebody felt this loophole had to be closed for some reason.

...anyway, that's the CT canon in a nutshell.

 

[Poppyseed45]

MgT has homeworld skills (no level-1) pre-career. These are largely based on INT and trade codes.

It also has 6 career 'basic' level-0 skills given for first term in first career.

Hadn't actually realized that CT had 'level-0' skills till a while after playing MgT - where I thought the level-0 concept a good one. However, I'm not so sure now - seems to limit players more than not (and make for a longer list of PC skills to recall...).

That is exactly what happened when my old group did characters for MgT long ago, and we played maybe 6 sessions. Basically (though, as mentioned elsewhere, this may simply be a sign of the times) they NEVER did anything that wasn't explicitly on their sheet. Understandable, but odd, since it meant only certain activities ever happened (the "every problem looks like a nail" issue).

After the current game ends (which is also a game that they've taken to mean "I can only do what's on my sheet!") I'm planning to run CT. And, I hope, go back to my old GMing style - frankly, the current game I'm playing in particular I think is sort of lowering my GM skills. I now try to have everything rolled (since there's a roll for everything) and it's a bad, bad habit. I think CT would break me of it too.

 

[Omnivore]

No longer a contributor to this board.

 

[Icosahedron]

I'm with hdan.

First and last the PCs are adventurers - they've handled weapons before - legal or not - they grew up with slingshots in their pockets and they should have Level 0 in common weapons.

I don't like separate cascades as they make for some ridiculous assumptions. IMHO gun skill should be one big cascade - anyone with any form of gun skill should be able to fire any other gun, even of widely differing types and TL (perhaps even including energy weapons) at Level 0. The idea that you can be a crack shot with a pistol, but can't hit a barn door at point blank range with a rifle is just preposterous.

NPCs, proles, rubes, joe public, whatever, sure, they'll shoot their own toe off as soon as they pick up a gun, but not adventurers. Even doctor-adventurers are probably made of sterner stuff. The doctor-adventurer may choose not to use a gun, or may choose not to kill with it, but you can be darned sure his mates have shown him how to take the safety off and point it in the right direction...

And I'm a Brit...

 

[Poppyseed45]

Yeah, in thinking about it, I was just going to houserule that all "Travellers" had Level 0 in all weapons, and be done with it (sort of like, yeah, adventurers in DnD). There are a few other houserules I'm consdiering, but that's number one for sure.

 

[robject]

My turn to preach to the choir.

I'm a Traveller 5 guy all the way, now. But, my basis, my foundation for running Traveller of any kind, the way I think about running Traveller, including T5, is Classic Traveller. So when I see a rule in T5, I see it in terms of how CT did it.



CT's core is simple. It boiled the system down to the core (LBB1-3 or The Traveller Book) and you could just start there, and if you liked, never leave there, and you'd be fine.

The basic rules are simple. People like me, who have trouble absorbing every nuance of combat (even Book 1 combat) could sort of ignore those rules without feeling like a huge chunk of the book is missing.



CT itself is not simple. It has modules and supplements hanging off of it at crazy angles. Finding a rule refinement or setting detail may be equivalent to a minor quest.

The power is in the stripped-down rules core, ready to run.

 

[E.D.Quibell]

The power is in the stripped-down rules core, ready to run.

I have to say I complety agree.

If you want to play a game you can be up and running in no time at all. In fact the 2nd edition LLBs are pretty much there. You have some pre-generated characters, a pre-generated ship card, a pre-generated animal encounter table for Regina with Regina's UWP and Earth's UWP, all the equipment you ever need, and a bunch of suggestions for Paton Encounters.

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[aramis]

CT's core is simple.

No, it really isn't.

It boiled the system down to the core (LBB1-3 or The Traveller Book) and you could just start there, and if you liked, never leave there, and you'd be fine.

This part is true

The basic rules are simple.

No, they aren't. Lots of people get this wrong, in part because they haven't actually comprehended the complexities in the CT core.

People like me, who have trouble absorbing every nuance of combat (even Book 1 combat) could sort of ignore those rules without feeling like a huge chunk of the book is missing.

You've probably missed large chunks of hidden detail in the CT Core Rules. Most people (myself included) do. Lots of niggling special cases.

CT itself is not simple. It has modules and supplements hanging off of it at crazy angles. Finding a rule refinement or setting detail may be equivalent to a minor quest.

The power is in the stripped-down rules core, ready to run.

The core isn't stripped down - but most people trying to run it do strip it down.

In fact, the combat and damage rules have all kinds of subtleties.

And then there's the myriad of special cases called skills... with most having special rules all their own.

Still, if one DOES strip down the core (start by gutting the rules in the Skill List), and the combat chapter, CT can be very easily streamlined into a rules-light game.

 

[BytePro]

Six LBBs sufficed for over 20 years for my groups.

Only ever used maybe half the content - mostly for generating specs for ships and star systems as the basis for designing my setting elements - my players never had any of the books. I automated chargen/system gen/encounters/etc. real early on.

While playing, dice rolls just seemed to occur naturally. We didn't think much about them - they were unobtrusive.

My MgT experience was mixed, but conceptually I really like the universal task mechanic idea. However, in practice I'm not so sure as it does cause one to go through a sort of check list for each situation (for DM calcs), vs. just picking a number that seems good and rolling. The 'judgement' about what seems good may use the same basic logic (difficulty, PC abilities and skills, timing) but it is not as conscious an effort...

[I know all this, but am experimenting using iDevices to automate the DM handling - for common tasks, I can pick from a list, pick a PC/NPC (system accounts for stat DM, skill DM, tool DM - with options to override) and a difficulty. System or player rolls the calculated target number and spits out 'effect' (and timing). I'll find out this summer how this 'feels'...]

 

[aramis]

Six LBBs sufficed for over 20 years for my groups.

Only ever used maybe half the content - mostly for generating specs for ships and star systems as the basis for designing my setting elements - my players never had any of the books. I automated chargen/system gen/encounters/etc. real early on.

While playing, dice rolls just seemed to occur naturally. We didn't think much about them - they were unobtrusive.

My MgT experience was mixed, but conceptually I really like the universal task mechanic idea. However, in practice I'm not so sure as it does cause one to go through a sort of check list for each situation (for DM calcs), vs. just picking a number that seems good and rolling. The 'judgement' about what seems good may use the same basic logic (difficulty, PC abilities and skills, timing) but it is not as conscious an effort...

MGT's task system kind of missed the point...

the DGP-CT/2300/MT task system fundamentally altered the way I played and ran CT. It made picking the number much easier, and telling players how to roll against that number much easier - things that MGT didn't get right.

It's pick one of 7 discrete levels:
Automake/Simple/Routine/Difficult/Formidable/[Nearly]Impossible/Autofail
Note that automake and autofail aren't listed difficulties, but are conceptually part of the system. The labels are based upon Stat 7 and Skill 1...

MGT, with 11 discrete levels + automake/autofail, slows down the process by having too many discrete named steps. (I found the same issue with FFG's Rogue Trader and Deathwatch games - "solution" was to print out the difficulty mods table and prominently post it during game.)

Given the choice between CT and MGT as a player, I'd pick CT, and encourage the GM to import the DGP-CT task system (From TD, from 2300, or from MGT), because it makes it easier to be consistent and because it makes certain elements (extra time, hasty, fumbles) more consistent.

As a GM, I use MGT, and port a lot - to the point that I'm basically rewriting the SRD text into a houseruled new game. My "MGT" doesn't look all that much like MGT anymore. DGP-CT tasks, variant combat mechanics...

 

[Dragoner]

As both a player and GM, I actually like the non-standard tasks of CT in that they mirror the randomness of real life. What is the worst that can happen? What is the best that can happen? Then there is everything in between.

 

[BytePro]

...
As a GM, I use MGT, and port a lot - to the point that I'm basically rewriting the SRD text into a houseruled new game. My "MGT" doesn't look all that much like MGT anymore. ...

Similar story here...

However, for this summer, decided to try the other way around -> CT (well a 3d6 modded version) with MgT inspired task system and chargen enhancements.

Rather than name difficulties, simply plan on stating the DM. More flexible and less memory intensive and rather my players think of 'overall' probability for success for their specific PC rather than some baseline difficulty.

Want to encourage players trying things even when the odds aren't so good. Thinking a prior failure often providing a positive DM on the next attempt (generally not the same task).

 

[77topaz]

Yeah, in thinking about it, I was just going to houserule that all "Travellers" had Level 0 in all weapons, and be done with it (sort of like, yeah, adventurers in DnD). There are a few other houserules I'm consdiering, but that's number one for sure.

Isn't that already so?
(Or is that MgT, not CT?)

 

[far-trader]

Isn't that already so?
(Or is that MgT, not CT?)

See:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=395947#post395947

 

[robject]

No, it really isn't.

Lots of people get this wrong, in part because they haven't actually comprehended the complexities in the CT core.

You've probably missed large chunks of hidden detail in the CT Core Rules. Most people (myself included) do. Lots of niggling special cases.

I logged in to amend my previous statement, and found that Wil already got to it.

I do have something else to add, however: for all its brevity, CT was still rather complete. I know of many RPGs today which don't have a way to design animals, starships, star systems and subsectors, for example. Maybe that's nerdy, but... well...