Timing/Effect and Initiative Finalized

[tbeard1999]

This is the problem with most 'playtests' I have seen. They aren't looking for the material to be tested, they just want help editing it

And that is really annoying. Myself, I don't like being misled.

Unfortunately, this seems to be happening with MGT. I can't think of much that has actually been changed between versions 1.0 and 3.2 of the playtest document.

So either it was a nearly perfect system in version 1.0 or they aren't actually listening.

I know what I'd wager on...

 

[Supplement Four]

And I am *so* losing patience with the retort "well, if you can't fix the broken mechanic, then you're not being helpful" or somesuch.

Oh yeah? What about: "Well, OK, it's broken, but it's not thaaattt broken! Heck, I can live with that. I'll just house rule it!"

You'd think we expected the best a game designer can do or some other such nonsense. (sarcasm).

 

[tbeard1999]

Oh yeah? What about: "Well, OK, it's broken, but it's not thaaattt broken! Heck, I can live with that. I'll just house rule it!"

You'd think we expected the best a game designer can do or some other such nonsense. (sarcasm).

Agreed. But to be fair, it isn't the designer making that defense. Rather, it was by folks who (for some inexplicable reason ) actually liked the T/E system yet recognized that Mongoose's implementation was deeply flawed.

But I notice that Mongoose hasn't been willing to take any significant suggestions from its fans either. And that's a shame. If you must have that wretched T/E system, then the alternatives proposed by sablewyvern, aramis and/or Klaus are vastly superior to the Mongoose system.

I think this pretty well confirms that they are in love with their particular implementation of the T/E system.

I am confident that the marketplace will treat MGT as it deserves to be treated.

 

[Sturn]

I started playing Traveller a few years after the release of CT. I own every version of Traveller, so will be adding Mongoose to my shelf whether it is poor or not. I actually hope Mongoose will do well, since I hope they will then spit out a long line of sourcebooks, which are my true desire - I have a ton of Traveller systems to pick from, the more source books the better in my opinion.

So far, no single version of Traveller has been perfect for me. But, I guess house rules don't only come from broken systems, but from personal preference (I always thought the CT -DM armor system was dumb for example, damage absorption was more appealing to me).

I'm planning on a new campaign for players whom have never played Traveller (only various versions of d20 - gasp!). I will be using Mongoose Traveller, but I already have a Word document with a few house rules: expanded weapons tables with damage adjustments, reverse T/E dice, open-ended rolls, no DMs to Effect die, my own expanded character generation.

I guess it isn't all bad though, I had house rules even when playing my favorite RPG system of all time! I think I will still have a great time, and imagine my players will too.

 

[Supplement Four]

(I always thought the CT -DM armor system was dumb for example, damage absorption was more appealing to me).

Think about it like this: If you're shooting at a target that is partially behind cover, you take a penalty on your shot. It's harder to hit the smaller target and avoid the barrier.

CT Armor DMs are similar. The Armor DM is the DM used to penetrate or avoid armor (shooting the arm when the target is wearing a ballist cloth vest) and damage the target.

It's a bit of an abstract number, but it's quick, and it works.

If you have no problem with taking a negative DM when firing at a moving target or one that is behind cover, then think of the Armor Matix in CT as the same sort of thing.

This also explains why the "No Armor" column in the matrix will provide a bonus DM to-hit. The shooter isn't trying to avoid armor or penetrate armor, so the shot is easier.

Different DMs are used for different penetration capabilities of different weapons and ammunition.

Does that help at all?

 

[Sturn]

Think about it like this: If you're shooting at a target that......<snip>.....Does that help at all?

I completely understand the abstraction of it and played Traveller for years with CT before MT came about. I just meant I never liked it, personal preference to have armor absorption. I didn't like armor being abstracted so much. I have always liked things that made a person completely miss being -DMs, while things that prevented actual damage on target (when hit) to use damage absorption.

I wasn't trying to slam CT, was just pointing out how people can have personal preferences. There is something "broken" in someone's opinion in any version of Traveller thus released. I agree that a new system shouldn't be released with known errors, but I also understand that there will never be a perfect version of any RPG, since everyone's opinions on what that will be varies so much.

 

[Able Baker]

Supp 4, there´s always Azhanti High Lightning.

Also works for Vehicle fights, as a ultra-slim Striker.

Frank Chadwick dropped some stats for this in one of the pre-Striker JTAS.

 

[robject]

I completely understand the abstraction of it and played Traveller for years with CT before MT came about. I just meant I never liked it, personal preference to have armor absorption. I didn't like armor being abstracted so much. I have always liked things that made a person completely miss being -DMs, while things that prevented actual damage on target (when hit) to use damage absorption.

I'm in the same boat. Using armor as a -DM speeds things up I think, but for some reason I thought damage absorption (maybe that's "partial damage") was "better" (for some value of "better").

 

[Ishmael]

I dislike armor as a dm 'to hit'
What if a HE or HEAP round is shot at a guy in armor...
1. with armor as to hit dm, the shot will miss and nothing happens...
2. the round hits...doesn't penetrate but the collateral damage danger space is centered on the target.

I understand the abstraction, and that was the way AD&D did things iirc, but I don't like it. but that's just my taste.

 

[Supplement Four]

I completely understand the abstraction of it and played Traveller for years with CT before MT came about.

Naw, that's cool. I was just trying to help.

Like you, I prefer armor to reduce damage rather than make the target harder to hit. But, what I described above, allows me to rationalize it a bit more--to where it makes sense to me.

I thought the rationalization might help.

Before I started playing CT straight-out-of-the-box sans changes, I used to make an adjustment to the CT combat tables that worked well.

What I did was: Play CT normally, except that the Armor DMs from the Armor Matrix would modify the Damage roll instead of the Attack roll. And, each armor type would have a base Armor Value used for protection in the from of a DM as well (AV is taken directly from Striker for each armor type).

In effect, the AV provides the armor's "base" value, and the CT Armor Matrix adjusts that value based on the ammunition type (penetration). Sometimes that adjustment made the armor less effective, but most of the time it makes it more effective. Depends on the round.

All other DMs were played the same. Just these two things were changed.

This is a simple little fix for the problem (if you perceive it as a problem). In effect, what would happen is that there were more successful hits, because the negative DM for Armor wasn't used on the to-hit roll. But, once the hit was made, Damage was always a lot less (and sometimes became zero damage).


For example, if an AutoPistol is used to attack a target in Cloth armor, use all the normal CT DMs except Armor.

If a hit is scored, then normal AutoPistol damage was rolled: Damage = 3D -AV - DM.

The AV of Cloth is AV5.

AutoPistol vs. Cloth is -3 DM.

Thus, an AutoPistol, firing slug ammo, at a target wearing Cloth Armor, would do damage equal to: 3D -8.

In other words, an AutoPistol vs. Cloth Armor has a 26% chance of doing no damage at all (no pentration at 0 damage), and a 74% chance of doing 1-10 points of damage (with the skew towards the lower amount of damage).

I found this system works very well.

You may consider it next time you take CT out for a spin.

 

[far-trader]

The thing to realize in an "armor as negative to hit" abstraction is that a "miss" is not always a "miss", it is only an ineffective attack. The corollary to that is that a "hit" is not always a "hit", it is only an effective attack. So damage is not always injury, it is only a detrimental adjustment of the target's ability to stay in the fight.

In your example Ishmael of a HE or HEAP round "missing" due to armor, the round may very well have impacted said armor but failed (for any number of reasons) to be effective. It's not that nothing happens, it's that what you (as the attacker) wanted to happen (a nice clean killing shot) didn't happen. Maybe the round struck obliquely and the extra effectiveness of the armor for being angled saved the wearer any real harm and the collateral damage danger space was focussed away from anything else of concern.

 

[Supplement Four]

The thing to realize in an "armor as negative to hit" abstraction is that a "miss" is not always a "miss", it is only an ineffective attack.

I meant to say this and forgot to in my original post.

Thanks for reminding me, FT.

 

[Supplement Four]

I am confident that the marketplace will treat MGT as it deserves to be treated.

I started a poll over at the Mongoose forum asking who will buy MGT when it comes out. I totally expected there to be an overwhelming number of, "Yes! I'll buy it! Are you crazy! Who wouldn't?!" fangooses over there.

I'm actually surprised to see that the "No, I won't buy it" responders are as numerous as they are. Right now, they total a third of the total number of people taking the poll.

Not good for MGT, I'd say.

 

[Sturn]

The poll only had "I love it" or "I hate it" options (not exact wording). Don't know for sure, but that could have affected the polling vastly.

For example, I have always planned on buying Mongoose Trav, but did not love it. I almost picked the "hate it not buying it" option, even though I am buying it. From the thread responses to the poll, it actually seems the typical answer is "I don't love it, but I'm going to buy it". To say you are buying it you are forced to pick the "I love it" option, to say you aren't buying it, you have to pick the "I hate it" option.

 

[Supplement Four]

The poll only had "I love it" or "I hate it" options (not exact wording). Don't know for sure, but that could have affected the polling vastly.

It's a simple "yes" or "no" poll. Will you buy the game, yes or no. That's it.

The exact poll reads:

Will you buy Mongoose Traveller when released?

Yes. It looks great. I can't wait.

No. I am no longer interested in buying this game.

 

[aramis]

THat's not a simple "Yes or No".

That's a highly polarized poll, specifically because you eggregiously added qualifications to the intended yes or no answers.

So some of us (myself, at least) won't vote but will comment because you can't keep yourself from forcing the answers to be bombastically polar.

 

[Foxroe]

This is pretty close to the results of the poll I posted here. So far, ~58% will buy it and ~42% will not. Of that 58% who will buy it, it looks like about 70% feel that the game is imperfect.

-Fox

 

[Supplement Four]

Post deleted. Aramis is trying to get under my skin again.

I just reported Aramis' post above, with this message:

"A moderator, besides Aramis, needs to cool Aramis down. He's baiting again. Look at his post. He wants me to reply to him in a negative fashion, then report me, as he's done in the past, so I can have my hand slapped.

I'm reporting his post."

I post it here, because if Aramis, being a moderator, gets the report above...well, there won't be much done about it, will there?

 

[Supplement Four]

This is pretty close to the results of the poll I posted here. So far, ~58% will buy it and ~42% will not. Of that 58% who will buy it, it looks like about 70% feel that the game is imperfect.

-Fox

Agreed.

I don't think the fangooses' like it, though.

 

[aramis]

Post deleted. Aramis is trying to get under my skin again.

I just reported Aramis' post above, with this message:

"A moderator, besides Aramis, needs to cool Aramis down. He's baiting again. Look at his post. He wants me to reply to him in a negative fashion, then report me, as he's done in the past, so I can have my hand slapped.

I'm reporting his post."

I post it here, because if Aramis, being a moderator, gets the report above...well, there won't be much done about it, will there?

I could, just as easily delete this post, too. I'm not. You claim it to be a simple yes or no poll, but then add qualifiers that make it "I'm a fanboy" or "I'm a foe"... that's just plain crappy design for a poll. I want you to yealize your design was bad statistics. You tend to put "cutsie labels" on so many polls, and it does skew results.