Vent-Rant MegaTraveller what I hate about it.

[aramis]

the only fixes of note I'd suggest are not in Don's errata...

change the multipliers for penetration to make them more memorable and better match striker outcomes:

P < 0.1 * AV: x0
P ≥ 0.1 * AV: x0.1 vs soft or partial; x0 vs hard armor
P ≥ 0.5 * AV: x0.5
P ≥ 1.0 * AV: x1
P ≥ 2.0 * AV: x2

Small arms damage should be the dice from CT sources.

Make the attributes' modifiers Att/3 or Att/4 instead of Att/5, but upp the difficulties 1 point.

use vehicle damage and conglomerate unit rules for ships and batteries...

build using t20 ship design, vehicle design, and system generation.

 

[Hyphen]

I guess the first question is: is this just an edition with the errata fixed, or are modifications allowed?

(BTW, I agree with most of Wil's proposals - although I may argue about the design sequences!!) ;-)

 

[estar]

I would prefer it to be an edition with errata fixed and with the text available for people with strong opinions about what needs to be changed in Mega Traveller to make is usable for their home campaigns.

 

[robject]

I would prefer it to be an edition with errata fixed and with the text available for people with strong opinions about what needs to be changed in Mega Traveller to make is usable for their home campaigns.

As much as I would like to dabble, and as reasonable and useful as Wil's suggestions are, I still have to agree with estar.

That said, I would like to see a single PDF source, which includes Don's and Wil's alternate rules.

 

[robject]

See that is the problem I have too most days. Everytime I touch CT and now by extension CE it starts looking like a flavor of MT.

I'm not surprised; they're closely related, aren't they?

 

[robject]

About those Cons....
6. [...] OTOH, a completely errata corrected version of MT is coming.

Your points are good ones. And, #6 is good news.

10. [...] We are stuck with the Primordials [...]

We took lemons and made lemonade.

 

[mike wightman]

I would love to be able to convince Marc to keep the primordials - I won't bother posting yet again what I have done with them but I definitely think they fit the setting without breaking anything providing you stick with:
they never invented jump technology (ensure their psionic drive is a dead end as far as advanced FTL goes - hop skip etc.)
they went away but are now returning (there are Abyssals, Essaray/Esseray plus a couple of others on the Traveller map/T5 map)
they could tie in with the Empress Wave or they may be completely separate from it
there were starfaring civilizations that predate the Ancients by a long way

 

[robject]

[the Primordials are OK if you assume...]

Joe's entire vision is non-canon, and some published material is non-canon. Deyis II is dead, after all. But I think Marc is okay with these assumptions:

1. They predate the Ancients - a candidate species for the Kursae.
2. They reached TL31.
3. They built cities in small pocket universes, now abandoned.
4. Present whereabouts unknown, presumed extinct.


NOT to scale:

---------------------------------------
|                                     |
|   Joe Fugate's Sparklers            |
|                                     |
|  --------------------------------   |
|  |                              |   |
|  |   DGP's Primordials          |   |
|  |                              |   |
|  |  --------------------------  |   |
|  |  |                        |  |   |
|  |  |   Knightfall           |  |   |
|  |  |                        |  |   |
|  |  |  -------------------   |  |   |
|  |  |  |                 |   |  |   |
|  |  |  |   Canon         |   |  |   |
|  |  |  |                 |   |  |   |
---------------------------------------

 

[sfchbryan]

Re: Errata issues

If you have errata that needs addressing, please put it in the errata thread, not here. I will also post this in the Errata thread.

Don's last post before posting Version 2.21 (02/23/13) is numbered 725. Last post in the errata thread is 934. I am currently digging through 209 errata posts.

From Pg 3 of the Consolidated MegaTraveller Errata
EXPANSIONS

 Wet Navy (Challenge #53, #54 and #60). I have a [very tentative] plan for this, since I found the unpublished Part 4 (Expanded Sailor Character Generation) on the HIWG disc.
 Wind & Wood, Steel & Steam, early tech design (Challenge #61). I didn't think to ask about this. I integrated it into my copy years ago, along with the One Small Step rules from Hard Times. If Don could sneak Challenge article content into the errata (mostly ironmongery), there is no reason I can't. I'll send Marc 2 versions of the RM, 1 with, 1 without.
 Terry McInnes posted an outtake of COAAC on the TML (Special Weapons, AKA CBN). I added it.
 There were a few minor nicknacks that didn't make the transition from CT to MT.
 Different editions of the Core rulebooks had different maps in them. I consolidated them, along with the missing pages.
 IE had a wall of text listing all of the UWP info for the Spinward Marches along with a color map (done in B&W, which made it unreadable). That is now broken out by subsector.
 Marc agreed that the ships in FSOSI aren't salvageable - I think Clayton Bush not only converted the Supplement 9 ships to MT, he also assigned copyright to GDW, so I can just drop those in, once I find all of them.

Things that still need addressing. From Pg 4 of the Consolidated MegaTraveller Errata:

PROBLEMS
There are certain issues with the MegaTraveller rules as presented for which no obvious errata exists.

At some point, it is hoped that the MT community might agree on “addenda” to cover these issues. For now, they are listed here as known problems…

 Should aircraft damage points NOT be multiplied by 10 like other vehicles?
 How long do the effects of Trader skill apply? (RM 54) (I'd say a week, myself)
 Prospecting buggy design missing (carried by Seeker) (IE 81)
 High Velocity Guns need to expand to allow naval guns (RM 77) (Done.)
 Pirate characters receiving a “letter of marque” in mustering out are supposed to receive a positive DM for receiving a corsair? (PM 19)
 Tac missiles in MT? MTJ #3’s tac missiles are not the answer… (Mainly due to the fact it is DGP IP. OTOH, there isn't a reason we can't derive Tac Missles from the Multiple Rocket Launcher Tables in RM.)
 Existing disintegrator errata makes weapon weaker than particle accelerators

I am on a short suspense. I need all of this buttoned up by 31 Dec. Speak now on these issues.

To answer your questions....

Estar & Hypen: This project is a "4th Edition" of the MT canon. It will include all errata from 2.21 & everything posted since then. And it will have chapter bookmarks. I'd like to do a keyword index, but I need learn how to do that (not the mechanics, Word & InDesign can do that, but what makes a good keyword, etc.).

Aramis: The T20 content is outside of the scope of this project, although I suspect I lot of folks would find it easier. The greatest strength of Traveller, IMO, is the ability to swap subsystems to meet your requirements - almost everything can be moved from 1 rules set to another pretty seemlessly. AFA attribute adjustments - Att/3 = 0 to +4 Positive DM; upping the difficulty level by one is -4 DM. It would be easier just to give everyone a -2 DM for every roll.

Whartung: Everything on the MegaTraveller CD. My original question to Marc at Travellercon was "Can we get an updated version of the MegaTraveller CD? Would you like a corrected copy of everything?"

Mike Wightman: I think the Primordals are still there. I also asked about the Empress Wave (Not trying to stir anything up, I just didn't have a good grasp of what it was & how it would affect the OTU.) At the Friday night Seminar, Marc said that anything in canon would stay. Since the Empress Wave was in canon, he was taking the bull by the horns and addressing how it would affect the OTU.

GM Joe: AFA PoD - Marc & I talked about it, I have InDesign 5, but am not up to speed on it.

 

[estar]

Estar & Hypen: This project is a "4th Edition" of the MT canon. It will include all errata from 2.21 & everything posted since then. And it will have chapter bookmarks.

Sounds great to me. Along with a lot of the specific items you are planning to include like subsectors for the Spinward March data.

What would be the icing on the cake is some editable file that one could use to make their own house rule document. Your make a great point with your replay to Aramis about things being swappable. Having a editable text file would enable that. Come to think of it having the same for Classic Traveller would be nice as well.

I'd like to do a keyword index, but I need learn how to do that (not the mechanics, Word & InDesign can do that, but what makes a good keyword, etc.).

Go to your sub headers and look at what each section address, think of what keywords people would want to use to find that piece of text. Usually there is are a handful. I will look over MT and come up with some suggestions.

For god sake refrain from using see XXX for page number. D&D 5e does that incessantly and it is annoying.

 

[infojunky]

I'm not surprised; they're closely related, aren't they?

YES!

IMHO, all the 2d6 Traveller games are pretty much the same in that one can take a chunk out of one and add it to another with very little work.

I have the habit of treating everything written for these games as grist for the mill no matter who the specific publisher was.

(sidenote, nearly half of the problems I have with MT are to do with how CT was recycled into MT)

 

[McPerth]

the only fixes of note I'd suggest are not in Don's errata...

IMHO there are several more points that should be fixed too, most of them having been discussed in the errata thread, but (AFAIK) not formally added to it:

• The skills role in space combat (see post #526 in the errata thread and this thread).
• Very high TL weaponry (disintegrators and Anti-matter missiles) in space combat (see posts 525 and some folloing and 563 and following ones in the Errata thread).
• Cascade skills clarifications (see posts 594, 599 (also pointing some mustering out details) in the errata thread)

There are aslo some other minor points (I can dig for you post numbers in the Errata thread for them, if you wish).

Is any of those been fixed in this new errata?

 

[mike wightman]

Ship combat needs a complete redraft - it is the weakest element of MT and highlights the DGP folks lack of knowledge concerning Traveller ships.

I would scrap their version of HG entirely and go with range band movement with vector movement as an advanced option. Damage should be tied to personal combat pen/damage (the data is almost all there)

 

[McPerth]

Ship combat needs a complete redraft - it is the weakest element of MT and highlights the DGP folks lack of knowledge concerning Traveller ships.

Agreed, and aslo some tules for more RPG (and less strategical, a LBB2 rules adaptation, so to say) ship combat should be there too, as is (IMHO) one of the flaws of MT.

I would scrap their version of HG entirely and go with range band movement with vector movement as an advanced option.

This could (again IMHO) be good for strategical ship combat, but not for RPG combat...

Damage should be tied to personal combat pen/damage (the data is almost all there)

Aside fro mthe problems that lots of weaponry might bring (a cruiser may have many weapons), see that in most cases this will be quite deadly...

Let's see DV and Pen for dome of those weapons (aqccording PM page 80):

Weapon	Damage	Penetration
Beam Lasers TL 13+	600	75/5
Pulse Lasers TL 13+	800	80/5
Fusion TL 12	900	99/5
PA	2000	250*rating

Even with the x10 hits given in the errata, those are quite deadly values if they hit any other component than the hull.

OTOH, for the PAs the damage is not modified by its rating, while the penetration is enough to have hihg penetration even against the heaviest armored ships, so making the Spinals not better than a PA turret...

And, needless to say, some things should need to be clarified how to apply:

• screens
• defensive use of sandcasters
• nukes (no damage stastics are given)
• Mesons (same as nukes)
• sure some more things

 

[jec10]

I think MT clearly cries out for an adventure class ship space combat system. In my mind any variant of HG is not that.

I think you need vector movement - as in Mayday or Battle Rider (position markers, with the future position marker shifted by applying thrust).

I think you need hexes.

I think you need meaningful detection rules. Sensors must play a role, and the choice between going active and staying passive must be a true "command decision" for a vessel captain.

I think you need combat resolution rules that aren't dominated by any one class of weapon (every weapon system given strengths and weaknesses, ideal and non-ideal ranges or target types).

I think those ship driving and ship combat skills characters earn in generation need to play an important (but not dominant) role.

 

[whartung]

Even with the x10 hits given in the errata, those are quite deadly values if they hit any other component than the hull.

OTOH, for the PAs the damage is not modified by its rating, while the penetration is enough to have hihg penetration even against the heaviest armored ships, so making the Spinals not better than a PA turret...

And, needless to say, some things should need to be clarified how to apply:

• screens
• defensive use of sandcasters
• nukes (no damage stastics are given)
• Mesons (same as nukes)
• sure some more things

Mind, all of this is addressed in TNE, which is exactly this kind of combat (range band or vector with penetration vs armor).

 

[sfchbryan]

IMHO there are several more points that should be fixed too, most of them having been discussed in the errata thread, but (AFAIK) not formally added to it:

• The skills role in space combat (see post #526 in the errata thread and this thread).
• Very high TL weaponry (disintegrators and Anti-matter missiles) in space combat (see posts 525 and some folloing and 563 and following ones in the Errata thread).
• Cascade skills clarifications (see posts 594, 599 (also pointing some mustering out details) in the errata thread)

There are also some other minor points (I can dig for you post numbers in the Errata thread for them, if you wish).

Is any of those been fixed in this new errata?

The 2.21 errata document covers through Post 725. Anything after that hasn't been addressed. I am sifting through it this weekend. We can certainly relook the ones you mentioned but please remember, I am on a short suspense.

Please post your issues in the errata thread - it is easier for me to dig through 1 thread rather than many.

BTW, I am not adding/replacing new subsystems to MT. That was outside the scope of work.

The only exception to this is the Early Tech rules. I integrated them nearly a decade ago, and completely forgot about it until I got back home.

If you want new subsystems, Cntrl-C, Cntrl-V them into YTU. They aren't hard to move about.

In the file section, I posted Word Templates for MT layout. - I use them for additional character classes, as well as adding other Traveller sub-systems to MTU (GURPS trade rules, T4 Psionic rules, T5 Alien generation rules, Mayday ship-to-ship combat rules, etc.)


Jec10 & McPerth: A separate starship combat game was on DGP's MT "to-do" list, but it never came about. Joe mentioned it in passing in one of the Traveller Digest issues.

Break time is over, back to work......

 

[aramis]

Ship combat needs a complete redraft - it is the weakest element of MT and highlights the DGP folks lack of knowledge concerning Traveller ships.

I would scrap their version of HG entirely and go with range band movement with vector movement as an advanced option. Damage should be tied to personal combat pen/damage (the data is almost all there)

Agreed

 

[nobby-w]

[ . . . ]
I would scrap their version of HG entirely and go with range band movement with vector movement as an advanced option. Damage should be tied to personal combat pen/damage (the data is almost all there)

I have a soft spot for the hex grid movement system from Mayday. The downside is the need to have a large sheet of hex paper.

I was about to make some comment about it not growing on trees ...

 

[infojunky]

I have a soft spot for the hex grid movement system from Mayday. The downside is the need to have a large sheet of hex paper.

Note the vector movement system and the range band movement are 95% identical...