So - why would you chose CT over MgT?

[BytePro]

Well put Marchand!

Yeah, CT has elegance.

Tersely codifying things, and rules focused on play, rather than creative prose, exhibit a minimalist form that is hard to match. Ironically, its conciseness and simplicity, probably owing, in no small way, to a limited budget resulting in small page count, digest sized design - and to the constraints and discipline imposed by the pre-digital age of publishing.

 

[hdan]

.... I like shorter skill lists. If skill-1 represents two to four years of experience, I should be able to do plenty with it - Electronics-1 means I can do sensor ops and comms on the ship's bridge, and then jimmy a retina-scan door lock once we hit planet.

This is probably my biggest "like" about CT as well. In the game I'm running (with a bunch of Trav newbies), I explained to them that skill-1 wasn't an entry level training, it was a few years of experience. Skill-2 means you are comfortable and know some fancy tricks with that skill, and higher means you are an expert.

I mostly use the presence of a skill to enable checks, with higher levels making those checks easier. I also use the skill as a version of D20's "Knowledge(Skill)", so that anyone with a Pilot rating knows certain things about spacecraft operations.

I also use your profession (what my players insist on calling their "class", in spite of my protestations) to enable certain actions. Any Scout or Navy guy knows how to cycle an airlock or operate (but not necessarily maintain) a ship's environmental control system. These things I just judge on the fly - would a <profession X> know how to do <Y>? In those cases, your number of terms act as skill levels if a roll is involved. Your final rank may come into play in some tests too, though usually only in social situations.

But then again, I prefer CT 1-3's low skill totals characters, where Service and Skills work together to define what the character would know and how well they'd know it.

 

[BytePro]

...Skill-1 wasn't an entry level training, it was a few years of experience. Skill-2 means you are comfortable and know some fancy tricks with that skill, and higher means you are an expert.

Ditto!

...I also use your profession (what my players insist on calling their "class", in spite of my protestations) to enable certain actions. Any Scout or Navy guy knows how to cycle an airlock or operate (but not necessarily maintain) a ship's environmental control system. These things I just judge on the fly - would a <profession X> know how to do <Y>? In those cases, your number of terms act as skill levels if a roll is involved. Your final rank may come into play in some tests too, though usually only in social situations.

Pretty much the same here. This highlights one of the weakness of the detailed 'unified' mechanics of other systems like MgT...

With CT, its not so much about using 'DMs' as setting targets that factored in background (service), skill qualifications (not just level), characteristics, situation, and difficulty. Trying to do so with a set target and discrete DMs not only requires accounting, time and mental effort - but its a bit flawed given 2d6 limitations.

For computer programs this 'works' to a greater extent, but lots of conditionals need to be established to accommodate unique situations while avoiding making individual DMs worthless or the offs of checks unbelievable. But for pen-and-paper gaming - not as enjoyably, IMO.

I liked the idea of 'effect' - and have incorporated a simple +/-2 indicating greater success/failure and natural 2/12 being exceptional when target is less than 12.

But then again, I prefer CT 1-3's low skill totals characters, where Service and Skills work together to define what the character would know and how well they'd know it.

CT characters can be described in 2 lines of text... elegance.

 

[rancke]

I always took my cue from the example of what Medic skill meant to assume that Skill-1 was amateur, Skill-2 was semi-pro, Skill-3 was professional, and for expert you needed Skill-4+.


Hans

 

[hdan]

I always took my cue from the example of what Medic skill meant to assume that Skill-1 was amateur, Skill-2 was semi-pro, Skill-3 was professional, and for expert you needed Skill-4+.

I'm about 1 level lower on my assumptions than you are. Skill-1 is semi-pro, etc. I'd put "Skill-0" as amateur level, but I would generally not enumerate such skills, just rely on "An <ex-relevant-service person> would know..." for these sorts of things. But I'm a "Book 1-3" kind of guy, not a "book 4+" kind of guy, so my characters don't get as many skill levels to play with. If I were running the more advanced character generation, I'd probably use your interpretation, and rely more on skill lists than previous service history.

Though it's probably off cannon, for medicine, I'd say medic-1 is a nurse, medic-2 a nurse practitioner, medic-3 a licensed doctor, etc. Though of course that's just a rough estimate of abilities. In the field, a medic-1 is going to be able to treat light wounds just as well as any other medic, but you'll need higher skill levels to handle diagnosis and treatment of diseases and disorders, or even higher to perform tricky surgeries.

Thus a medic-1 could serve as a ship's doctor, though they'd really only be rated to handle average passenger accidents and such, not discover a treatment for the Vanejen Pox.

 

[mike wightman]

The experience section in CT makes it pretty clear that level 2 in a skill is professional level training since that is what you get from 4 years at university/technical college.

To be an expert in a field requires a skill level of 3 or 4 (taking the skill rules from HG2 into account here; the -1 and halve it rule to be above the norm/veteran).

To be a leader in the field/elite requires a skill level of 5+ (once again using HG2 as the guide to elite level in a skill).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I'd say medic-1 is a nurse

I'm pretty certain Medical-1 is First Aid. Medical-2 would be some flavor of nurse.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I'm asking it here because of the great many CT fans here. Recently, I've got it in mind to run Traveller, and I'm planning on using the 3I as a setting (probably the Spinward Marches even).

Thing is, I'm really, really torn about which version to run. I've got several books for each (for MgT I've got the Core, Merc, HG, and 760 Patrons 1st edition; for CT I've got the first two big floppy books, 0-8 and Supplements 1-13). So, lots of material on either side, but...

But, I think, the issue is feel. I like CT's feel more. Not sure how to pin it down really. More of a play-me vibe going on throughout the text. On the other hand, MgT is definitely more streamlined, and character generation is a hoot. Skill list is more comprehensive, etc. And yet, CT is, to me, simpler, and I feel like I don't need the extra rolls in character creation (like events and mishaps). Kinda prefer to describe those on my own. But MgT is newer, and there are more new people playing it than CT.

So I'm torn. I'm leaning toward CT. But MgT has a good siren song too. So, fellow CT-ers, help me feel it. Why would you chose to run a game of Traveller with CT rather than MgT? Acknowledging that you have both?

I just like it better. It reminds of a sense of discovery when I first picked up a handful of sci-fi games back in the 70s and 80s, and how it opened up a whole new world for creativity.

CT hasn't lost that charm as you can still build on it without interfereing with established norms and canon. If you check the News Feed and some of the pieces I and others have posted, you can easily see just how rich you can make the OTU.

CT is supposed to be the D&D of space RPGs, and I think it succedes as a general game system, but it also has it's own official flavor of stuff to offer people looking for background material. And, you can add to that as you see fit.

My only beef right now is the lock Mongoose has on OTU stuff. But, once T5 rolls around we can start afresh (hopefully) and add more flavor.

The system was simple, easy, what little art there was was okay to passable. And there wasn't a huge issue with addendum, errata, new devices and other gizmos/weapons unblanacing play because you knew where those devices would fall in terms of tech level.

It was also stable. In the OTU you had an Emperor, you had some surrounding powers with psychological idiosynchrosies, and just tracks and tracks of unused, unexplored, untapped space for adventure potential.

It's not the end all in sci-fi games and media, but it's one of the staples that a lot of other companies have borrowed from. Looking Glass and their System Shock games, Bungie and their loose and free borrowing from the COTI with the Halo series, BF 2142 clearly has Traveller influence, and the list goes on.

It reminds me of happier times too.

 

[atpollard]

I'm pretty certain Medical-1 is First Aid. Medical-2 would be some flavor of nurse.

From Learning new skills, up to two skill levels are acquired in a four year term, so each skill 1 equals about two years of training and work.

Just a ballpark guideline, but that makes medic-1 more than a two week first aid course, but less than a 4 year Registered Nurse (Medic-2). Perhaps medic-1 is equal to a 1 year paramedic certificate and a year of work experience?

 

[rancke]

The experience section in CT makes it pretty clear that level 2 in a skill is professional level training since that is what you get from 4 years at university/technical college.

A freshly minted college graduate is fit to get an entry-level professional job. I don't see him as someone qualified to be in overall charge of anything.

But assuming you are right (and the results one often get from character generation certainly supports the notion), it simply illustrates one of the biggest problems I have with the CT rules: The lack of granularity. I like to be able to distinguish between amateurs, half-baked professionals, adequate professionals, and good professionals. To me, a doctor that barely meets the qualifications for getting his degree is not really the sort of doctor I want messing around with me, so someone with Medic-3 ought (IMO) to be struggling to fulfil his duties.

Back in the day I fairly quickly changed from using two dice for skill resolution to using three dice. When this proved inadequate to my needs, I switched to 20-sided dice.


Hans

 

[BytePro]

All the above individual opinions work just fine with CT.

Bk 2 implies Medic-1 can be a professional (qualifies for position of medic on a starship crew) and states Medic-3 can be 'called doctor' and is assumed to have licenses, etc. But other than restricting surgeon's to those with 8+ dex, its pretty open to interpretation.

As each Ref sets their own roll targets for any given task, any of several definitions can be made to work equally well 'mechanically'.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Just a ballpark guideline, but that makes medic-1 more than a two week first aid course, but less than a 4 year Registered Nurse (Medic-2). Perhaps medic-1 is equal to a 1 year paramedic certificate and a year of work experience?

Suppose I might be mixing across Traveller genres (with some 2300 stuff).

 

[BytePro]

... with the CT rules: The lack of granularity. I like to be able to distinguish between amateurs, half-baked professionals, adequate professionals, and good professionals.

Ironic, I found the CT system facilitated drilling down to any level desired - i.e. a character could be a renown bone surgeon, or an exceptional leader of doctors, but poor in other areas. Easily handled with variable roll targets and variable meanings of 'success'. No need to resort to reams of DMs nor different dice.

Without a one size fits all, '+skill level DM' it was even easier to tailor rolls. The MgT mechanic makes every skill level represent being universally better. From a believability standpoint it makes little sense to have every skilled task automatically done better just because one has more experience/training - some tasks should be virtually impossible at a given skill level, and others should see no odds increase despite higher skill level. MgT's difficulty DMs could be used to accommodate this, but they are not intended to vary based on skill level, but rather indicate difficulty to be adjusted by a skill DM.

When I tried to implement CT's flexibility in MgT, found myself increasing the number of dice. While it should really be a 'six of one, half dozen of the other' kind of thing - MgT's built in DMs for attributes, and skill levels and other standard DMs like timing, the 'Difficulty' determination became even more arbitrary to address this level of flexibility, totally aside from the fact that all the DMs needed to be tracked and could easily saturate 2d6 not to mention make 'effect' results seem absurd at times.

The MgT mechanic looks better on paper - codifying things for the ref and player just seems like such a good idea. However, in practice I found CT's less explicit approach worked better in actual play. With the caveat that I only used Bk 1-3 chargen - with its more limited skill set and levels. I think more skills and more levels, the more one naturally looks to 'simplify' other things, while also needing something to support those levels meaning something substantial.

Net effect was with MgT, I found myself and my players counting DMs and trying to force fit the universal mechanic into specific situations. It was intrusive and disruptive of RP in a way that I never really experienced with CT...

 

[rancke]

Ironic, I found the CT system facilitated drilling down to any level desired - i.e. a character could be a renown bone surgeon, or an exceptional leader of doctors, but poor in other areas. Easily handled with variable roll targets and variable meanings of 'success'. No need to resort to reams of DMs nor different dice.

I don't get that at all, unless by "facilitated" you mean "completely lack any rules to interfere with what the referee wants to make up for himself". But to my mind that's a bug not a feature in any game system. I don't believe that any rule has the power to interfere with what the referee wants to make up anyway, so the lack of rules for something is just that and nothing more: a lack.

CT utterly lacks any way to distinguish between medical doctors[*] and surgeons. It's true that surgeons has to have Dex 8+, but there's no way to distinguish between a pediatrist with Dex 8 and a surgeon with Dex 8. Much less is there any way to distinguish a podiatrist from a dentist or an oral surgeon from a colon surgeon. What makes your bone surgeon into a bone surgeon and not a vascular surgeon?

Sure, you can add a description that says "bone surgeon", but where are the rules for what difference that makes in game terms?

[*] By 'medical doctor' I mean doctors who treat patients by giving them medical treatment instead of cutting them up. Is that the correct term for not-surgeons?​

EDIT: Just to avoid misunderstanding: I don't actually feel the need for a rules system that can distinguish between a bone surgeon and a vascular surgeon. I'm contradiction the claim that CT enables one to distinguish a bone surgeon. I do think a somewhat smaller granularity is desirable. For example, distinguishing between a general practitioner and a specialist. For most campaigns I think the important distinction for surgeons is between trauma surgeons and all other sorts of surgeons.

Without a one size fits all, '+skill level DM' it was even easier to tailor rolls.

It's nice when a referee can compensate for rules omissions, but the operative word is 'ommissions'. Something the referee is forced to invent for himself because the rules are no help at all.


Hans

 

[Marchand]

I'm contradiction the claim that CT enables one to distinguish a bone surgeon. I do think a somewhat smaller granularity is desirable. For example, distinguishing between a general practitioner and a specialist. For most campaigns I think the important distinction for surgeons is between trauma surgeons and all other sorts of surgeons.

It's a matter of taste. I like precisely CT's lack of granularity because it makes for concise character sheets that do all I want them to do. Others like a much longer skill list and more differentiation like GURPS or BRP. I might as well, sometimes, when I fancy a change.

It's also a question of what you want characters to be able to do in a game. If you're playing Sector General / hospital ship in space, you might need to differentiate types of doctor. If so, you can make up Books 4-7 style advanced chargen for doctors. If it's ne'er-do-wells flying a rustbucket round the Spinward Marches, do you actually need rules support for things the PC's will likely never do?


Nice to come back to these forums after a while - lots of interesting threads to catch up on.

 

[dean]

I'm about 1 level lower on my assumptions than you are. Skill-1 is semi-pro, etc. I'd put "Skill-0" as amateur level, but I would generally not enumerate such skills, just rely on "An <ex-relevant-service person> would know..." for these sorts of things. But I'm a "Book 1-3" kind of guy, not a "book 4+" kind of guy, so my characters don't get as many skill levels to play with. If I were running the more advanced character generation, I'd probably use your interpretation, and rely more on skill lists than previous service history.

Though it's probably off cannon, for medicine, I'd say medic-1 is a nurse, medic-2 a nurse practitioner, medic-3 a licensed doctor, etc. Though of course that's just a rough estimate of abilities. In the field, a medic-1 is going to be able to treat light wounds just as well as any other medic, but you'll need higher skill levels to handle diagnosis and treatment of diseases and disorders, or even higher to perform tricky surgeries.

Thus a medic-1 could serve as a ship's doctor, though they'd really only be rated to handle average passenger accidents and such, not discover a treatment for the Vanejen Pox.

Most of We Nurses would disagree and say we are Medic -2; Paramedics would be Medic-1; average GP Doc or FNP -3, Specialist or surgeon -4.

 

[robject]

It's nice when a referee can compensate for rules omissions, but the operative word is 'ommissions'. Something the referee is forced to invent for himself because the rules are no help at all.

I agree with Hans. I always liked Classic Traveller, but had to import MegaTraveller elements into it, and deal with a wide scattering of rules augmentations from the supplements. And, even though I loved Book 2 ship design (for example), I always recognized that it just wasn't enough. I didn't have to like High Guard or MT Vehicle Design or anything else to recognize that.

I may disagree with others on level of detail, but I like the coverage of later publications.

 

[hdan]

Most of We Nurses would disagree and say we are Medic -2; Paramedics would be Medic-1; average GP Doc or FNP -3, Specialist or surgeon -4.

CT says that a Medic-1 can be hired on as the Ship's Doctor. Would you consider a Paramedic capable of filling that role?

Your breakdown does seem right to me though, and I *certainly* meant no disrespect to any medical professionals!

Like others have said, in reality, skill specialization is more granular than the CT skill system, especially if (like me) you don't use the "4x as many skills" advanced character generation rules from Books 4+.

I have a suspicion that some of the disconnect in this thread is between LBB1-3 people and LBB4+ people. LBB4+ CT is not quite the same game; ask any High Guard fan. But maybe not. <shrug>

 

[pendragonman]

CT says that a Medic-1 can be hired on as the Ship's Doctor. Would you consider a Paramedic capable of filling that role?

Depends on the size of the boat and how many passengers/crew need looked after.

On a Free or Far Trader? Sure. On a Liner? Not so much. The higher the number of people the greater the chance for a major mishap or illness.

 

[McPerth]

Most of We Nurses would disagree and say we are Medic -2; Paramedics would be Medic-1; average GP Doc or FNP -3, Specialist or surgeon -4.

I agree with you on it, but that's for formal training. The problem, as I've already told on other threads is if skill is raised somewhat during play, by experience (not possible in basic CT rules) or training (not a sabatical, but if you have a good instructor), as you can raise your skill, but not you academic graduation.

As an example I already gave on another thread, after more than 20 years as nurse, most of them in an ER, with experience in movile ICU, and as first aid instructor, I guess my skill on a medical emergency will be at least 3, at least to keep the patient alive until further help arrives or we arrive at a hospital (or we reach a low berth, should it be available), but that doesn't make me a doctor, I cannot legaly prescribe drugs (in Spain only doctors can) and I wouldn't be able to perform the simplest surgery. And I don't believe it would be for lack of dexterity, but lack of skill.

CT says that a Medic-1 can be hired on as the Ship's Doctor. Would you consider a Paramedic capable of filling that role?

First of all, in Spain paramedics don't exist, so I talk about what I've heard from once, several years ago, it was discussed to regulate them.

Paramedics are medical emergency specialists, so they could be ship's medic if his main work is to act on medical emergencies. It would not be enough if more is expected from them. I agree here with pendragonman that this would mean it depends mainly on the size of the ship.