Starship Economics Broken As Well...

[Echo]

Well, I have 'actually played' it, and have a campaign set up now on the strength of the playtests I have run. I've managed to involve first time roleplayers, as well as interesting older players who still remember the old box set from the 1970s.

The campaign I running now has involved a group of fairly mercenary characters who, by fortune of their character generation rolls, own two free-trader space vessels (one has been stolen by an unknown agent now though!), and a decent level of wealth between them. Although the character generation was totally random, the various add-on elements to the system that garner some specialised skills in particular vocations (including basic trained level 0 skills, specialist skill packages and the connections rule), the players each managed to develop specific archetypal characters of their choice - a soldier, a rogue/nobel, a scientist, and a spy/sniper.

With different groups, I have overviewed about 40-50 character generated under this system, and it has managed to generate fun, interesting characters each time. Yet, even though the system is randomised, players still are given autonomy over their choices, and still manage to be able to get characters to fit the particular type of character they want. The iron man option was pretty "pointless", however, whilst one player (out of 8 who have played it on/off) prefered the points buy (which works fine, if you like that sort of thing).

In short, I would argue that Mongoose Traveller has taken the Classic Traveller model, and has refined it into the best character generation system in any rpg I have ever played. I still have some issues over the names of various assignments, and so on, but these are pretty cosmetic really. My experience has it at an A** level.

The combat system does take some getting used to, and in the first couple of sessions there were some players not liking the way initiative was set up - or even the notion of placing dice on maps, etc. However, once we got used to the idea of initiative essentially being a tool to manipulate your attack roll (aim well, or rush it), the players did come on board happlly. I don't agree with the extent of the criticism laid down about the effect rolls, although we did find that we could speed up certain aspects of combat by cheating a bit. I never bother giving NPCs bonuses on dice rolls for example (unless they are important), and usually roll just one set of dice for all of them at once. In pretty much all the sessions we have played, we have run at least a couple of set piece combats, btw.

What is good about the system, however, is the players start thinking tactically about combat - planning ambushes by choosing terrain, etc, ahead of the actual conflict itself. That is surely a good thing - and regardless, the system is pretty fast. The idea of having initiative counters in a tick scale (like Feng shui), could be a good idea though. In terms of the dice rolling outcomes being dodgy, well, to be honest, if players assume that any shot will potentially maim them anyway, the actual stats regarding how high the effect roll levies at, is pretty much a secondary issue. If there hadn't been all the raving about the time/effect stats on this site, our group wouldn't have even noticed (and we've played, what 10 sessions!?).

The only real section that our group didn't like was the starship design, which both confused and bored the players, and some of my family members who tried it out over christmas with me. Starship combat has also been slightly more difficult to get your head around. Most of the problems, in these sections are more to do with paucity or lack of clarity in the explanations, however, and I am hoping that these things get resolved.

The latest aspects of playtest - the psionics, trade and planetary designs - have not been playtested much in our game, because they haven't really come up in the story much (it's modelled on a Le Carre-style spy thriller - but occasionally lapses into Paranoia-esque comedy, strangely). However, I do welcome some of the scientific-based revisions being mooted on the Mongoose forums for the planetary design currently, and the other two systems don't seem particularly controversial to me.

In all, though, I am really looking forward to the game, and think it's the best version of the game that we can currently hope for, notwithstading T5, which I haven't made my mind up on yet (considering I've got so much Classic reprint/CD-Rom stuff I still haven't got through completely, yet - do I really need that much more?). It's definitely better than T4.

 

[tbeard1999]

...

In short, I would argue that Mongoose Traveller has taken the Classic Traveller model, and has refined it into the best character generation system in any rpg I have ever played.

Really? I found the character generation system to be an adequate derivative of the CT character generation system, but hardly anything to write home about.

...

The combat system does take some getting used to, and in the first couple of sessions there were some players not liking the way initiative was set up - or even the notion of placing dice on maps, etc. However, once we got used to the idea of initiative essentially being a tool to manipulate your attack roll (aim well, or rush it), the players did come on board happlly. I don't agree with the extent of the criticism laid down about the effect rolls

<shrug>

The probabilities are what they are. And on a successful unmodified task roll, the chance of the effect die being a 5+ is seven times the chance of it being a 2-.

What is good about the system, however, is the players start thinking tactically about combat

An interesting assertion, given that the initiative system is remarkably poor at modeling skirmish combat tactics.

Of course, it is quite a "gamey" system, so players could be thinking "tactically" within the system itself. In the same way that a Chinese Checkers player thinks tactically.

But I wouldn't confuse Chinese Checker tactics (or the MGT combat system tactics) with real world tactics. Nor would I use Chinese Checkers as a basis for a combat system. Although it would probably work just as well as the MGT initiative system...

In all, though, I am really looking forward to the game, and think it's the best version of the game that we can currently hope for, ...

Well, I guess hope springs eternal. I of course, disagree. In my opinion, MGT contains a number of fiddly, ill-conceived systems that could (and should ) be replaced by far better systems.

 

[tbeard1999]

Far from me wanting to stir up controversy, but may I make the suggestion that the moniker of this forum should be changed from the 'Mongoose Traveller' forum, to the 'tbeard1999 and Supplement Four hate Mongoose Traveller' forum?

It would save a lot of confusion, and wasted time for people who might actually like and play the game.

Perhaps we could also save confusion by relabeling your posts "Echo loves Mongoose Traveller no matter what"?

Well, I guess if you can't defend the system on the merits, you have to attack the messenger, right?

I think that the statistical absurdities of the T/E system speak for themselves.

The fiddly, pretentious, and pointless initiative system manages to be overly fiddly for gamers who prefer more abstract combat systems and overly abstract for gamers who prefer more simulationist combat systems. It does nothing that other Traveller combat systems haven't done better--Snapshot, AHL, GURPS Traveller, and T20. Worse of all, it adds nothing (IMHO) to the game, but does manage to consume a significant amount of time and energy. In particular, it seems to encapsulate the worse aspects of the HERO system and the various action point systems (AHL, Snapshot), while managing to exclude any of the good points of such systems.

If this is your idea of a well designed game, then you must not get out much.

The most damning criticism of MGT IMHO is that it failed to fix the things that needed fixing in Traveller, while introducing a broken task system that should have never survived the first statistical analysis* and a pointlessly fiddly and time consuming combat system that is distinctly inferior to most other Traveller combat systems. And the less said about the witless damage system (in which players can predict with ~80% certainty exactly how much damage their weapon will do), the better. Oh, and the economic system (one of those little things that really needed to be fixed) is just as broken as before, despite the fact that the designer made a number of changes.

So, let's see...crappy task system, crappy combat system, adequate character generation system. Not terribly inspiring so far.

And while there might be a few good things that can be said about it, such compliments will be the equivalent of "for a fat girl she doesn't sweat much"...

As I said before, I hope MWM got his money up front for this one.

A particularly bitter irony is that MGT will confirm for modern RPGers who are unfamiliar with Traveller the perception that Traveller is an old school design with lots of pointless complexity and obtuse mechanics. This despite the fact that the most offensive parts of MGT were inserted by Mongoose...

*It being painfully obvious that the designers failed to bother with a statistical analysis of their system. In fact I'm not sure that they haven't yet figured out that the normal d6 distributions do not apply to the T/E system.

 

[Echo]

Your statistics are not "factual", tbeard1999, and I wish you stop proclaiming them as such. Your model is flawed, and has been more than adequately rebutted by other people's models - which were posted on the Mongoose forums, but you didn't respond to.

Your issue with the time/effect dice is one of taste, not of statistical anomolies, although personally, I think you overstate the case of the statistics in the game experience anyway.

Beyond that you are simply being negative about the game - and that is not the same thing as criticism. Moreover, you've built yourself a little ivory tower on this site, where you completely dominate these forums with relentless complaints about a game you, apparently, have no interest in. I do note that you were already posting about how 'underwhelmed' you were about the game before you managed to highlight any 'statistical anomolies'.

I'm not uncritically 'loving' Mongoose Traveller 'no matter what'. I'm merely supporting a game that I have played and liked. You would think that a forum about the Mongoose game, would allow such a thing.....

 

[tbeard1999]

Your statistics are not "factual", tbeard1999, and I wish you stop proclaiming them as such. Your model is flawed, and has been more than adequately rebutted by other people's models - which were posted on the Mongoose forums, but you didn't respond to.

If you have a specific issue with my statistics, bring it on. I am remarkably uninterested in hearsay.

All I recall you offering in rebuttal is that the player gets to choose which die is timing and which is effect. Somehow, you seem to believe that this magically wipes out the fact that the statistical distributions overwhelmingly skew high.

If that's all you have, then there's a simple reason I failed to respond -- it's such an absurd argument that I thought you were trying to be ironic.

Your issue with the time/effect dice is one of taste, not of statistical anomolies, although personally, I think you overstate the case of the statistics in the game experience anyway.

So you don't have a problem with the fact that a die has seven times the chance of being a 5+ (and therefore an exceptional success per the rules) as a 2- on an unmodified successful roll? You don't have a problem with the fact that this means that weapon damage will fall within a 2 pip range most of the time? That this effectively precludes light wounds from normal rifles and the like?

It does not bother you that if modifiers are not applied to the timing die (per the rules) that the worse you are at something, the less time it will tend to take (whether you succeed or fail)?

You really think that all these points are overcome by a workmanlike derivative of the Book 1 character generation system which makes it nearly impossible to complete 4 terms in most military careers? Is this really the best character generation you've ever seen?

Beyond that you are simply being negative about the game - and that is not the same thing as criticism.

I'm not certain that someone who is uncritically positive about a game has much room to criticize someone they claim is uncritically negative about the game...

Moreover, you've built yourself a little ivory tower on this site, where you completely dominate these forums with relentless complaints about a game you, apparently, have no interest in.

Au, contraire, mon fraire, I am very interested in Traveller. What I am trying to avert is a new version of Traveller that will set the standard for crappy versions of the game. And in a universe that includes TNE, that's saying something.

And I also want to deprive Mongoose of the defense that they didn't know of these problems before publication.

I do note that you were already posting about how 'underwhelmed' you were about the game before you managed to highlight any 'statistical anomolies'.

<shrug> If I drink a glass of soured milk, I can tell it's soured long before I know why it's soured.

So yes, I detested it when I tried it out. It took a few days for me to figure out why I disliked it. And please understand that I hate the T/E system for reasons other than its statistical "qualities". It's fiddly, pretentious and yields no information that a far simpler and more robust mechanic couldn't yield.

And MGT is truly a gift that keeps on giving. Whenever I think I've run our of bad things to say about it, I try out a new system (like Starship Economics, the topic of this thread) and discover that it sucks too. I can't wait to try out starship construction. Although I have wagered $1 with a buddy that I will find something truly excellent in MGT. He seems unworried...

I'll note that my first post contained more specifics than any of your "I LUV MGT" posts.

I'm not uncritically 'loving' Mongoose Traveller 'no matter what'. I'm merely supporting a game that I have played and liked.

You protest too much.

You would think that a forum about the Mongoose game, would allow such a thing.....

You seem to be most annoyed by the fact that criticisms of MGT are allowed. Or am I incorrectly inferring this from the fact that you have offered little to rebut the criticisms themselves, preferring to attack the critics as unreasonably biased?

 

[Supplement Four]

I´d love to see an actual play post that conveys the fun of Mongoose Traveller.
Until then, my own play experience and the reasoning of it´s other critics stand, no matter the bias.

I'm open minded about it as well. I just don't like what I see.

Able, I asked in the Mongoose forum for a detailed analysis of combat run with the Mongoose system, and Klaus responded to my request in spades. It's a very thorough examination of what its like to play through a MGT combat. Next time you're over there, check it out. It might prove informative.

 

[Able Baker]

I´ve read it and it highlights all of the criticisms: takes very long, gap of communication, ultra detailed resolution increments without added realism. Some of the structural statistic problems crop up too.

Most dedicated tabletop skirmish games are less fiddly and faster, it seems.

Don´t forget that it was a solitaire game, too.

 

[Echo]

You seem to be most annoyed by the fact that criticisms of MGT are allowed. Or am I incorrectly inferring this from the fact that you have offered little to rebut the criticisms themselves, preferring to attack the critics as unreasonably biased?

No. I welcome constructive criticism of the game, enthusiastically - but there is none of that on this site, to the degree that a fan of the game does not even feel welcome to express why he likes it.

However, I afraid I am going to have to discontinue this conversation due to a serious family bereavement, which of course takes precedent.

 

[tbeard1999]

No. I welcome constructive criticism of the game, enthusiastically - but there is none of that on this site, to the degree that a fan of the game does not even feel welcome to express why he likes it.

However, I afraid I am going to have to discontinue this conversation due to a serious family bereavement, which of course takes precedent.

Undestood. My condolences to you and yours.

 

[Supplement Four]

I´ve read it and it highlights all of the criticisms: takes very long, gap of communication, ultra detailed resolution increments without added realism. Some of the structural statistic problems crop up too.

Most dedicated tabletop skirmish games are less fiddly and faster, it seems.

Don´t forget that it was a solitaire game, too.

Agreed. I just thought I'd point it out to let you make up your own mind. Echo seems to think TBeard and I are brainwashing people to hate MGT.

The example, albeit well done, speaks for itself.

I think table top miniatures players might like the system. But, I don't play action point systems (Snapshot, AHL) precisely because they do inhibit the free-flow exciting action of a normal rpg session.

I find that players are focussed on the points they've got to spend (the game) rather than what their character is doing and thinking. TBeard is right. This type of game becomes more "gamey", like a strategy game, checkers, chess, and the like. I think role playing should be about "being in the moment" and living the life of your character.

MGT seems non-conducive to that.

 

[hunter]

No. I welcome constructive criticism of the game, enthusiastically - but there is none of that on this site, to the degree that a fan of the game does not even feel welcome to express why he likes it.

However, I afraid I am going to have to discontinue this conversation due to a serious family bereavement, which of course takes precedent.

Sounds to me like people are posting here because they feel the same way you do only with regard to posting on the Mongoose forums.

And I'll note that there has been plenty of posts both Pro and Con here.

 

[tbeard1999]

Agreed. I just thought I'd point it out to let you make up your own mind. Echo seems to think TBeard and I are brainwashing people to hate MGT.

The example, albeit well done, speaks for itself.

I think table top miniatures players might like the system.

As a dedicated tabletop miniatures wargamer, I do *not* like the system because it is gamey and doesn't replicate real skirmish battles with any degree of fidelity. It pretty much sucks across the board IMHO.

If you want detailed combat AHL or Snapshot are vastly superior to this MGT drivel.

 

[aramis]

I, too have run a playtest campaign, and while I find it has some major flaws, specifically the math in tasks (the infividual die reading needs to be the opposite direction from the task success reading directiohn, ie High is Good vs Low is Good), the power system is a good idea but poorly implemented with nasty implications for better than 1G drives, and the unified task mechanic is overly unified into combat, so it can't be swapped easily for a different one.

(I like modularity. T4, for the most part, I was readily able to switch to a 3d variant of the MT task system... other flaws left us deciding after that camplaign to stick to MT... until the T20 playtest).

I'm a light wargamer, and used to be big on cardboard pushing...

It is fun, as is, if a bit, uhm, overly cinematic. My players liked the concepts, just not the specific execution.

 

[Klaus]

Well, regarding the playtest log I did on the Mongoose Forums, it seems some folk here have reached different (possibly even opposite) conclusions to mine!

So once again it is a matter of taste and style. For me it was fun, even in solitaire.

And I disagree that's it's difficult to swap out the T/E mechanic addendum for something more traditional. Traveller is always modular, it seems. I can think of 3 simple alternatives off the top of my head right now.

I have suggested in the playtest that alternative variant rules be included in the finished document to accommodate those who prefer a different style, and that there are still a couple of issues that need clarifying.

I've not looked at starship combat so cannot comment on that - I very rarely run SS games as per the rules, as I find that does take ages and often doesn't end up being fun. Just my opinion. And yes, I do tend to prefer a more cinematic approach than simulationist, but that does not mean I expect players to be superhuman James Bond types.

 

[Able Baker]

I fully endorse the post above.

 

[tbeard1999]

And yes, I do tend to prefer a more cinematic approach than simulationist...

Why would someone who prefers a cinematic approach like the fiddly and overly detailed initiative system?

 

[aramis]

Why would someone who prefers a cinematic approach like the fiddly and overly detailed initiative system?

Because it works really well. It was smooth and flowing for my group. Not the fastest thing around, but smooth and flowing. It also kept everyone focussed.

YMMV. But actually try it before condemning it on theory alone.

 

[tbeard1999]

Because it works really well. It was smooth and flowing for my group. Not the fastest thing around, but smooth and flowing. It also kept everyone focussed.

YMMV. But actually try it before condemning it on theory alone.

Already done so. It still sucks, both as an RPG combat system and a wannabe skirmish wargame.

 

[robject]

Interesting that we have both sides of the spectrum represented (like it, hate it) from two Traveller old-timers.

 

[Supplement Four]

And I disagree that's it's difficult to swap out the T/E mechanic addendum for something more traditional. Traveller is always modular, it seems.

Isn't the T/E result required to calcuate weapon damage?