So - why would you chose CT over MgT?

[Shonner]

Then there is "What is my DM based on? I'm docking a ship with a dead computer. Normally, docking is a no-brainer. But doing it manually... Do I get my DM from my INT, or a DM from my Pilot skill, or can I still get a DM from my computer skill even though the computer is dead, or is there a STR DM since my power steering is out, or maybe I can get some DEX DM to use because it's hard to tell what my speed is, or is that an EDU DM for guessing my speed?

A CT ref will think of a house rule value and say "roll". A MgT ref will listen to player ideas from the core rules and choose one or go with his/her own value and say "roll".

 

[rancke]

Then there is "What is my DM based on? I'm docking a ship with a dead computer. Normally, docking is a no-brainer. But doing it manually... Do I get my DM from my INT, or a DM from my Pilot skill, or can I still get a DM from my computer skill even though the computer is dead, or is there a STR DM since my power steering is out, or maybe I can get some DEX DM to use because it's hard to tell what my speed is, or is that an EDU DM for guessing my speed?

In Heltesagaerne, my house rules, the biggest DM applies fully, the second biggest applies at half value (rounded), the third biggest at a quarter valuie, etc., and you very seldom have to worry about more than two or three DMs.


Hans

 

[Shonner]

All that aside, this doesn't have to be an all or nothing type deal - the two can be mixed...

I keep both CT and MgT on hand when developing a campaign. CT has the nostalgia thing going for it. And if I can't find a rule in the 3 LBBs, I either get to make my own rule or crack open the MgT Core Rulebook to see how modern gamers handle a situation and I get inspiration from its many pages in the process.

I don't know if I'm allowed to talk about Traveller 5 Beta rules in comparison, so I won't.

 

[Shonner]

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.

Some of the old rules made it seem as though a player could never shoot a lazer rifle until they had some skill in it. -3 or -5 DM for trying in some instances. So players wouldn't attempt it. They wanted to do what they had the most skill in. I was probably the same way 30 years ago. A carbine? What is that? At 18, I didn't know without seeing a picture of one. Oh, it's a short rifle. Well, how short? Oh, it's in metric. Why? Why? Now I use metric all the time in my drawings, so no big deal.

 

[Dragoner]

Then there is "What is my DM based on? I'm docking a ship with a dead computer. Normally, docking is a no-brainer. But doing it manually... Do I get my DM from my INT, or a DM from my Pilot skill, or can I still get a DM from my computer skill even though the computer is dead, or is there a STR DM since my power steering is out, or maybe I can get some DEX DM to use because it's hard to tell what my speed is, or is that an EDU DM for guessing my speed?

A CT ref will think of a house rule value and say "roll". A MgT ref will listen to player ideas from the core rules and choose one or go with his/her own value and say "roll".

As a CT GM In would go 8+ using pilot skill as dm.

 

[BytePro]

With MgT this is already covered in Spacecraft Operations (p 137!)

8+ with +Pilot Skill +DEX +Difficulty DM (-2) +Timing DM. (I don't equate INT/EDU with fine motor control skills and distance/motion estimating...).
1-6 minutes normally, but don't forget, the Player can choose other time ranges... ​

In CT I'd use 9+ with +2 DM per pilot skill level above 1.

CT doesn't have an explicit rule covering this (well, at least to my knowledge in the 'core' LBBs 1-3), but MgT not only has one, but the rule covers 'routine' docking as well. In CT, routine stuff would just happen without a roll and individual stats don't factor in (in a way, one could consider them already factored into the skill level - esp. since they may have contributed in chargen).

Dragoner mentioned 8+ for his CT check, which sounds like a combat derived target. The skills listings actually more commonly use 7+ and 9+ (as well as several other values). My own comes automatically off the top of my head - but is probably inspired by the Ship's Boat landing in bad weather. Skill 1 is basically required and extra skill levels have significant impact on the odds... (2x skill level).

In CT, if time was important I might make it up - maybe influenced by how high/low the roll. MgT not only has a time roll, Players can adjust the time range. The roll will also yield a defined effect level, if desired. In CT, I might describe the degree of success/failure based on the roll - and other circumstances - but that is solely on a whim.

 

[Shonner]

8+ with +Pilot Skill +DEX +Difficulty DM (-2) +Timing DM.

You have "+DEX" in there. Or did you mean +DEX DM? The MgT book assumes an attribute DM when it lists an attribute. I guess they wanted to save typing DM all the time. Well, it confuses readers who skip ahead in the book and see "add DEX attribute" if you ask me.

If one's DEX is 12, it would be nice though to add that 12 to a skill roll. He he.

 

[BytePro]

Ha! No, that was an editing issue ... (in the style of the books! :devil

MgT format would be: Docking manually: Dexterity, 1-6 minutes, Difficult (-2).

Using attribute DMs seemed very natural, but kinda irked me when I first switched to MgT. I was used to a terse UPP listing whose stat values were used directly whenever used. (And I've no idea why I normally refer to them as stats vs. attributes ).

I also left out a Situational Modifier - the PC could have a +1 DM for using some piece of gear to assist the maneuvering. And skill DM could be augmented via a computer program. Oh, and there could be an assistance (task chain IIRC) DM and a multi-tasking DM...

Add these up (spreadsheet anyone) and 2D6 range saturation can easily become an issue.

Speaking of editing, MgT does state somewhere that checks should be for unusual circumstances and the like. But, the RAW lists numerous checks where the difficulty is routine or better and as standard rolls for operations (ala Docking). This, along with lots of discrete skills, and a universal mechanic, seems to encourage the idea of rolling a lot more than CT.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Speaking of editing, MgT does state somewhere that checks should be for unusual circumstances and the like. But, the RAW lists numerous checks where the difficulty is routine or better and as standard rolls for operations (ala Docking). This, along with lots of discrete skills, and a universal mechanic, seems to encourage the idea of rolling a lot more than CT.

Which is what I'd like to avoid. It happened exactly like this in my MgT game that I ran some years ago. And it's happening in the non-Traveller with a large skill list I'm running now.

As I said earlier, I'm not anti-MgT, just, I feel more...something, with CT. And so my thread to figure out why, and if I'm the only one.

 

[Icosahedron]

You can take a lot of the RSI (or PITA) out of dice rolling simply by asserting a house rule that "dice are only rolled in circumstances defined by the Referee as non-routine."

Assuming you can drive, you wouldn't feel that you were 'dicing with danger' on every trip to the newsagent - but if you were being chased by gunmen trying to run you off the road, or you were picking your way along a Bolivian 'death road' with a juggernaut coming the other way, then it might be time to break out the dice.

Similarly, the average pilot should no more need to roll for routine docking than a driver should need to roll to park a car - it's routine, no roll needed. If the computer is out or one of the manoeuvre jets has gone intermittent, then by all means roll.

That should reduce your stress no end and give you back a sense of control - you're the Referee, you decide when a roll is needed, not the players and not the rule-book author.

 

[Shonner]

In MgT, if a player or ref isn't sure about a skill check, or wants more unknowns to be known, that's when the Task Difficulty Die Modifiers chart gets some use. The chart with the Simple, Easy, Routine, Average, Difficult, Very Difficult, and Formidable DMs listed.

Because sometimes a player will ask, "What am I rolling for again?" Even though they know they have to roll an 8+, a player can see in their mind better what their character is doing when told about the DMs. It adds more suspense. More detail.

If players want more detail, tough, we'll go to GURPS Traveller. But that is rare for most core Traveller players.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Aye...but this is about why CT over MgT, not the other way around (though, naturally, you can start such a thread in the MgT forum, no?).

Or at least, that's the feeling I get now in this thread? I know threads drift but, well, I am asking about CT's merits as opposed to MgT's merits...

 

[BytePro]

As I said earlier, I'm not anti-MgT, just, I feel more...something, with CT. ...

Ditto - so you are not alone!

...you're the Referee, you decide when a roll is needed, not the players and not the rule-book author.

Way I play too - but I actually found myself inadvertently asking for a lot more rolls with MgT. The routine, easy, etc. difficulty levels and the specific tasks listed in the rules, along with the skill-creep, I think influenced me.

... sometimes a player will ask, "What am I rolling for again?"

I generally tell them what they are rolling for ... and, yeah, DMs are nice for making ingame things have a meaningful impact. Player enjoy the plethora of skills and level-0 cascade mechanic (at least in chargen). And DMs are like candy. The hand held comp with software X and special kit along with a character's high stats giving them an edge in a particular situation, for example. The time range DMs are also a nice touch that give players more control over their PCs actions...

But it all comes at a cost in terms of adding a structured artifice which sometimes must be force fit (or hacked), not to mention the tracking and minor math. Such is like watching a show and just when it gets good and you are well immersed in the imaginary world - bang, its commercial time...

Overall, I like the approach, but am aiming to tweak it (using handheld devices, 3D6, etc.) to get more to the CT feel when it comes to actual play.

 

[Shonner]

Aye...but this is about why CT over MgT, not the other way around

I thought it was answered already. CT has less rules and setting than MgT. The ref has less guidelines to follow. Less aliens, less character detail, less world detail. You can use as much from MgT as you want or not. CT isn't Traveller at all if you only use parts of it. CT is the bare minimum for generic sci-fi. Some would like Stars Without Number, which copies a lot from Traveller.

 

[Dragoner]

Dragoner mentioned 8+ for his CT check, which sounds like a combat derived target. The skills listings actually more commonly use 7+ and 9+ (as well as several other values). My own comes automatically off the top of my head - but is probably inspired by the Ship's Boat landing in bad weather. Skill 1 is basically required and extra skill levels have significant impact on the odds... (2x skill level).

I just like the statistical 5/12 vs 1/6 of 7, 9 works though, I was just looking at that for a roll to skip a ship off the atmosphere of a world. I can't see dex playing much into it though, a ship wouldn't have a manual stick.

 

[Shonner]

I just like the statistical 5/12 vs 1/6 of 7, 9 works though, I was just looking at that for a roll to skip a ship off the atmosphere of a world. I can't see dex playing much into it though, a ship wouldn't have a manual stick.

DEX for using a sexton with one hand.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Way I play too - but I actually found myself inadvertently asking for a lot more rolls with MgT. The routine, easy, etc. difficulty levels and the specific tasks listed in the rules, along with the skill-creep, I think influenced me.

As I said earlier, this is what happened to me (and, for almost all my games that have "lots of skills"). I find myself asking for rolls, or my players wanting to roll, stuff that's on the sheet. Even when the rules make it easy to roll anyway (it's not so bad in MgT; GURPS has its skill default rules; Burning Empires has explicit encouragement for rolling skills you don't have in order to gain them) the players tend NOT TO.

So, if I can convince them to do Classic Traveller in a few months (when our Burning Empire game ends), I am strongly hoping I can convince them to go with the "don't worry too deeply about it and have fun" vibe I get from CT. Or at least, I think it's there, and the minimum skill set makes it more likely.

Also, someone said earlier, we should think of CT skills as a resume of the character, that is, the things he/she does best, and not the absolute end and beginning of what they can do. I REALLY hope to get my players thinking that way!

 

[mike wightman]

I long ago house ruled that all characters have lvl 0 default in every skill on their service skills table and one skill at lvl 0 from the unrestricted advanced education table per term of service.

 

[far-trader]

I long ago house ruled that all characters have lvl 0 default in every skill on their service skills table...

I was thinking that might be a good way to go for a recent attempted run up to a game a couple months back

 

[Icosahedron]

DEX for using a sexton with one hand.

The church tends to downplay that sort of thing...