Vent-Rant MegaTraveller what I hate about it.

[aramis]

Tobias: factual error: MT does not use hexgrids for ship combat. It uses square grid.
Which is worse, especially given the non-newtonian movement rules.

 

[Tobias]

Actually, it's either-or: "Combat is conducted on graph paper or hex-grid paper. The distance scale is 25,000 kilometers per square (or hex.)" MT Referee's Manual, p. 90.

 

[Tobias]

Anyways: I guess the gist of what I'm saying is that MegaTraveller's basic concepts were sound, but that the actual execution and the design of several subsystems was lacking.

Basically, what I've been hoping for with every new edition of Traveller from TNE to MgT was to get MegaTraveller done right. So far, I've been disappointed every time. (I'm not counting T20 and GT here. Ironically, these Traveller incarnations of systems I don't really like did come much closer to my ideal vision of Traveller than any version of the game proper.)

I am reluctant to give T5 a try because I just know I'm going to be disappointed again. So the options I'm left with are:
- Redesign the faulty subsystems myself.
- Settle for "good enough" and cobble something together out of various bits, mostly CT and MT.

 

[Dragoner]

For me it was not ever "hate", more just towards disinterest as I had an ongoing CT game that MT really didn't offer anything new. We had long house-ruled the 8+ task system, so a new more complex one, wasn't a plus; combat was too much like Striker, which I never cared for much. It just didn't grab me and after Marc left the helm at GDW, the story lost continuity, the Rebellion worked as an idea, it just didn't make sense as executed.

 

[mike wightman]

About the only book from MT that is still used by my group is the Imperial Encyclopaedia.

The special duty roll during character generation has been copied across to my CT character generation charts.

And that's it.

 

[Dragoner]

I bought the MT disk, while worth it, I would say it should be rescanned, that's my rant.

 

[sfchbryan]

I bought the MT disk, while worth it, I would say it should be rescanned, that's my rant.

What it needs is a retypeset version with all of the errata worked in.

Oh, if only there was someone working on such a marvelous thing.

 

[aramis]

What it needs is a retypeset version with all of the errata worked in.

Oh, if only there was someone working on such a marvelous thing.

There is, but the question is, "Will MWM put it on the revised disks if he offers it to MWM?"

Me, I have been really tempted to do such a thing, myself... even have a chunk of the PH done. But it's a lot of work correcting all those OCR errors. Let alone all the errata.

 

[sfchbryan]

There is, but the question is, "Will MWM put it on the revised disks if he offers it to MWM?"

Me, I have been really tempted to do such a thing, myself... even have a chunk of the PH done. But it's a lot of work correcting all those OCR errors. Let alone all the errata.

I gave into the temptation.

It is a lot of work. I have completed the Player's Manual, Referee's Manual, Imperial Encyclopedia, and the Referee's Companion. All I have left on them is to fix typos & spacing from my ctrl-C, ctrl-V skills. Which I am actually doing right now, along with folding in every extended character class I have ever used or seen. (For my personal use, obviously.)

I have also lashed together most of what would make up Nautical Force Command (The Wet Navy Series + Terry McInnes' unpublished expanded Sailor CharGen). I am starting on COACC next week, & I'll parallel NFC while I am fixing it up. As a side note, I found an 2 page article that Terry wrote on adding CBN to COACC, I am going to fold that back in.

I am going to get all of them done. My question right now is to I replace the artwork. One can make incredible things in PoserPro 2012.

 

[Hyphen]

The rules got in the way of play.

Actually Joe pointed out that the task system was supposed to be the antithesis of CT's look-up-the-rule-in-an-obscure book; instead make up something that sounds about right, and keep moving...

 

[mike wightman]

The only problem is the task system lead to people thinking there had to be a certain task for a certain situation so they would look it up in the examples given in the book, and/or build up a standard task library from published sources.

This is just as bad as the original CT system of look up each skill so you know how to apply it.

The concept is great - make stuff up on the spot to keep the game moving - but in practice it was a cumbersome, book flicking nightmare unless you had a ref willing to just make it up.

 

[aramis]

The only problem is the task system lead to people thinking there had to be a certain task for a certain situation so they would look it up in the examples given in the book, and/or build up a standard task library from published sources.

This is just as bad as the original CT system of look up each skill so you know how to apply it.

The concept is great - make stuff up on the spot to keep the game moving - but in practice it was a cumbersome, book flicking nightmare unless you had a ref willing to just make it up.

Actually, I found the tasks in the rulebooks easy to find for the few things I really needed them for: Ship operations, combat, and repair (of people and things). As did the other people I knew running it. It was slick.

And it was the most flexible task system in any published edition.
It can do unannounced difficulty. It can do uncertain success. It can do two stats or two skills, rather than just 1 each.

 

[mike wightman]

"Oh - I saw a task like that in issue %^& of Traveller's Digest"

"Is that the task from the Referee's Manual or Referee's Guide?"

"Wow, this screen has loads of standard tasks to use"

Like I said, if you stated to assemble a task library or look up each task in each source it was a book flicking nightmare.

If you were willing to wing it and make your own up it was/is a slick system. One open to:
"Hey, last session you said the task for doing that was..."

If you were able to use it as a fee form system great, it becomes similar to a lot of systems where the GM just makes up difficulties etc on the spot.

 

[Tobias]

The concept is great - make stuff up on the spot to keep the game moving - but in practice it was a cumbersome, book flicking nightmare unless you had a ref willing to just make it up.

I never saw that as a problem myself. Like Aramis, I didn't have any problems accessing the fixed tasks for the various dedicated subsystems (combat, healing, trade etc.)
I never bothered looking up the tasks provided in the skill list or in various other sources besides those fixed subsystems and never saw a need to. In my opinion, these are just guidelines you can keep in the back of your head as a referee, but you shouldn't feel bound to.

The task system was a very nice, simple and systematic way of organizing everything outside of the detailed subystems.

My problem with MT's use of the task system mainly has to do with combat: It didn't really work with that IMHO. 2300AD suffered from the same problem. The task system has a rather low granularity - which is fine for general adventure activities ad-libbed by the referee, as it makes the system simple to implement and easy to grasp.

In a traditional, highly structured combat system with ranges and initiative and so on, this system breaks down. When a single square of distance can make a difference of +/-4 on a 2d6 roll, players will want to exploit the system.
This could have been solved in one of two ways:
a) Ditch a detailed combat system in favor of a free-form one.
b) Use the task system only as a base, and provide low-granularity DMs for various situations (like they kinda did with space combat.)
But they didn't do so.

 

[aramis]

The Combat system isn't bad. It works remarkably well, in fact. So long as you don't let players argue over a single square. If playing out o a map, use a ruler, don't count squares. And ranges get checked only once - at shooting time.

It's convoluted, but the interrupt system is in fact brilliant.

It was very poorly explained, but it is brilliant

 

[Tobias]

The Combat system isn't bad. It works remarkably well, in fact. So long as you don't let players argue over a single square. If playing out o a map, use a ruler, don't count squares.

That doesn't help. At all. Players do the same when range is in meters, as I've witnessed in my short-lived 2300AD campaign.
The problem is not with squares or hexes or whatever measurement you use for range: It is with the extremely steep difficulty ladder. Steps of 4 points each are inviting some very forced and unrealistic behaviour.
In 2300AD this was comparably easy to fix. The range increments were in meters, which one could simply divide by 4 to get DM-1 steps.
MT is more complex, because the difficulty levels are assigned to the range bands and because penetration is also affected.
An example:
A gyrostabilized Fusion Gun is fired by a character (777777, Energy Weapons-1) at a Battle Dress wearer with the same characteristics.
At 40 meters range, the chance to hit is 83%, and one hit is guaranteed to incapacitate, if not kill, the target.
At 60 meters range, the chance to hit is 27%, and it's impossible to incapacitate, let alone kill, the target.
Does that seem right to you? It really, really doesn't to me.

And ranges get checked only once - at shooting time.

There is one little problem: My players know the ranges of the various weapons. And they know how to take advantage of situations.

It's convoluted, but the interrupt system is in fact brilliant.

I have no particular problem with the interrupt system.

 

[aramis]

That doesn't help. At all. Players do the same when range is in meters, as I've witnessed in my short-lived 2300AD campaign.
The problem is not with squares or hexes or whatever measurement you use for range: It is with the extremely steep difficulty ladder. Steps of 4 points each are inviting some very forced and unrealistic behaviour.
In 2300AD this was comparably easy to fix. The range increments were in meters, which one could simply divide by 4 to get DM-1 steps.
MT is more complex, because the difficulty levels are assigned to the range bands and because penetration is also affected.
An example:
A gyrostabilized Fusion Gun is fired by a character (777777, Energy Weapons-1) at a Battle Dress wearer with the same characteristics.
At 40 meters range, the chance to hit is 83%, and one hit is guaranteed to incapacitate, if not kill, the target.
At 60 meters range, the chance to hit is 27%, and it's impossible to incapacitate, let alone kill, the target.
Does that seem right to you? It really, really doesn't to me.


There is one little problem: My players know the ranges of the various weapons. And they know how to take advantage of situations.

The problem is twofold - players who are munchkin about it, and a GM letting them get away with it.

That said, I've run MT combat as both tactical wargame and for RPG combats, and never had the kind of issue you have had. The one player I've met who tried that crap also was prone to other similarly disruptive behaviors and my group expelled him. ANd he's also the type to argue over a +1 mod in COC (on d%)... (We had the issue in a non-traveller system. FASA-Trek, to be honest.)

 

[Tobias]

The problem is twofold - players who are munchkin about it, and a GM letting them get away with it.

As a referee, I don't punish my players for using the rules to their advantage. And I certainly don't force them to behave idiotically just because the rules fail to simulate what they are supposed to simulate.
As I said, you can also go the way of rules-light combat relying on referee fiat. But if you have a detailed, tactical combat system instead and it still requires lots of referee fiat for even the most basic elements to work as envisioned, it's bad design. Seriously, the "don't let them get away with it" spiel is just proof of that. If the system was any good, it wouldn't let them "get away with it" in the first place.

 

[Hyphen]

Like I said, if you stated to assemble a task library or look up each task in each source it was a book flicking nightmare.

This is not confined to Traveller; we had the same thing with situations in AD&D. Our solution: a book of house rules. And we would get the smart-arse^k^k^k^k _interested_ player to look up the rule they remembered. Takes the "book flicking" problem away from the DM!

(Yes, something of a task library. But make sure you mix it up: if a situation has something that makes it different from last time, make sure you change the Diff or another factor - keeps the players on their toes, reminds them the "rules" are only guidelines, and let's them know _you_ are thinking and not just operating by rote. And let the "interested" players write the "rules" into the book - again freeing the ref from housekeeping!!)

There is one little problem: My players know the ranges of the various weapons. And they know how to take advantage of situations.

And so they should, especially if they are trained military types. Thats what military tactics are all about: giving you an unfair (preferably overwhelming) advantage over the enemy. Warfare is not at all about being fair.

Punish them severly for rushing in unprepared, but if they take the time to think and plan and _work together as a team (miracle!!), I believe they should be rewarded, not punished.

I also agree with Will: only measure ranges when they fire; then they can see how well they guessed. (Unless they have a range-finder, and declare they are _using_ it! It's all part of Tactics, y'know!) I've known more than one MU caught in his own Fireball...

[As for the fusion gun example, I also was not completely happy with the MT weapons: they didn't quite match _Striker_, and I had a grognard player, so I created my own tables. The Pen still drops (at 45m) and the Diff is FORMIDABLE, but it has an Aiming DM of +5 - thus more than negating the difficulty.
http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/...wpn/enrgywpn.htm#Personal High Energy Weapons]

Anyway, IYTU YMMV.

 

[Tobias]

(Yes, something of a task library. But make sure you mix it up: if a situation has something that makes it different from last time, make sure you change the Diff or another factor - keeps the players on their toes, reminds them the "rules" are only guidelines, and let's them know _you_ are thinking and not just operating by rote. And let the "interested" players write the "rules" into the book - again freeing the ref from housekeeping!!)

Apparently it didn't become quite clear what the problem is: It's not that players do what they can to gain a tactical advantage. It's that doing so creates highly unrealistic behaviour for the characters. That breaks immersion for me and my players, and that is bad.

Even for players that do not 'play the rules' this is apparent. "What? Last turn I could comfortably hit him and now, just because he moved 3 meters, I have a snowball's chance in hell to even scratch him? That's BS!"
I have run into this kind of problem more than once, with more than one game system, and I'd like to avoid it. Breaking down the difficulty steps solves this problem in a satisfactory fashion.