What about the Traveller System Needs Modified.

[dmccoy1693]

In fact, you end up so disappointed in this new car that you tell everyone you know not to ever buy that kind of car since it's so crappy.

Is that the kind of analogy you were looking for?

I understand that the organizational distinguishment between the Traveller system from 3I material is a point of contention. But what about the system itself causes it to be so "bad" in your estimation. Be specific. Don't just say "it sucks". I want to hear genuine constructive criticism only. How could it be improved?

Myself. I think the system is great, but I prefer ship combat to be alot closer to personal combat (one system to resolve everything, no subsystems).

 

[Allensh]

I think they should have kept power points in the game for starships. The version in the playtest docs might have needed some tweaking but the idea was sound and without you do get certain nonsensical situations in ship design.

Allen

 

[mbrinkhues]

Character generation:

The Point-buy "as is" is a nice NPC generator but does not interact well with Lifepath etc. In my experience between 30-90 percent of players depending on prior RPG systems used reject the "dictate of the dice" as found in CT/Mgt since they want to play a character they developed and not a random construct

Game balance:

I think the ground combat system is favoring PC to much. I'd prefer a system where a tank can ignore rifles

Missing "crunch":

Energy consumption is lacking in spaceship design
Size/Weight is lacking from many equipment pieces and heavier weapons

 

[Allensh]

Character generation:

The Point-buy "as is" is a nice NPC generator but does not interact well with Lifepath etc. In my experience between 30-90 percent of players depending on prior RPG systems used reject the "dictate of the dice" as found in CT/Mgt since they want to play a character they developed and not a random construct

My crew must be weird because they adamantly refuse to use the point buy system..they like the random generation and seeing how the characters turns out

The point system does make different characters than the full system in terms of amounts of skills and such though. A tweak there wouldn't hurt.

Allen

 

[dmccoy1693]

Character generation:

The Point-buy "as is" is a nice NPC generator but does not interact well with Lifepath etc. In my experience between 30-90 percent of players depending on prior RPG systems used reject the "dictate of the dice" as found in CT/Mgt since they want to play a character they developed and not a random construct

I satisfied this with my players by telling them that they get to choose X amount of random rolls themselves (rewards not included).

Game balance:

I think the ground combat system is favoring PC to much. I'd prefer a system where a tank can ignore rifles

hmmmm ok.

Missing "crunch":

Energy consumption is lacking in spaceship design
Size/Weight is lacking from many equipment pieces and heavier weapons

I think they should have kept power points in the game for starships. The version in the playtest docs might have needed some tweaking but the idea was sound and without you do get certain nonsensical situations in ship design.

*scribbled down notes*

The point system does make different characters than the full system in terms of amounts of skills and such though. A tweak there wouldn't hurt.

Unfortunately, the license forbids detailing any method to create characteristics.

Any more?

 

[Allensh]

Unfortunately, the license forbids detailing any method to create characteristics.

Any more?

I was actually suggesting Mongoose should tweak it...but is this a product you are thinking of doing? some kind of optional upgrades to the system?

If so, a power system for ships would be really nice...

Allen

 

[mbrinkhues]

MT used "Brownie Points" that allowed changing some roles. That system should be back-portabel into Mgt.

Upgrading the "point based" system to "generate full characters" seems quite difficult. Generally Point Buy and Lifepath don't match too well (CP 2020 works so-so)

Allensh: Your group isn't wired, you just got the 70 percent. Really depends on where the players come from. GURPS/HERO fans gave a high rejection rate based on the "limited knowledge" that reviews of CT (or the german massacer made of it) has given the german RPG szene. DnD players worked better, even more so pre DnD 3.x

 

[dmccoy1693]

I was actually suggesting Mongoose should tweak it...but is this a product you are thinking of doing? some kind of optional upgrades to the system?

If so, a power system for ships would be really nice...

Allen

If there is one thing that this site has taught me is that a book of optional "replacement" rules is a good idea. So, yea, I'm heavily looking at it. If you're interested in writing a portion of it, send me a pm.

 

[atpollard]

Less of "a problem with the rules" and more of an "I would like to see more of", but MegaTraveller and FF&S both added lots of crunchy options.

While they were too complex as presented in those rules (IMO), the basic concepts were useful. MgT has included some (like reaction Drives) as options [yummy], but it could add even more options gleaned from past versions and simplified to the current MgT Core/High Guard level of detail.

Some included items (solar power comes to mind) are just a little too general. They could stand some extra detail (like how big is the darn thing?)

When the rules for creating STUFF comes out, I would like to see a detailed look at powered armor from the stealthiest light scout battledress to the heaviest Mecha-like ‘wearable tank’. Some guidelines on appropriate settings for various suits might be nice too. Don’t forget that ‘lifter’ suit from Aliens (?) since that is so ‘Third Imperium’-esque (IMO).

 

[mike wightman]

The books I have that get a regular battering from players - FCI consumers guide, Imperial Encyclopedia, Central Supply Catalogue and Emperor's Arsenal.

Notice a pattern?

Equipment books for players to spend their character's money on.

As a gearhead ref I like to have design rules - but the only ones I've ever used at the gaming table are the LBB2 ship construction rules (5 mins to knock up a ship ).

 

[aramis]

The three biggest problems are
1) dropped power points. creates some illogical inconsistencies, like a 100 Ton ship with PP C being able to mount an energy bay, but a 400 tonner with the same plant not being able to mount even plasma or fusion turrets... A flat rate power production and power usage would have been a far better choice than what was presented in release; the playtest draft rules were workable, but maneuver drive power costs were flawed (but easily fixed).

2) The pricing for passengers. At J1, with steward skills 1 or 2, passenger space makes less per ton than the much-less-hassle cargo space as freight.

3) the Law Level Effects Table; the tech restrictions and the travel restrictions columns are new to MGT, and invalidate much of the OTU.

some design decisions I disagree with, but not inherently broken:
a) not using drive letters for damage purposes.
b) not using a pen/damage system (since separating pen and damage makes batteries and units "average the pen, average the skill, total the damage")
c) the steward requirements being higher than other editions. This also exacerbates break #2, and pushes HP for J2 out of profit.
d) adjusting the die roll rather than the TN for difficulty. This makes it hard to do "Roll the dice and tell me what level you hit"...

 

[beowulf2044]

Thus far, I like the latest Traveller very much. For my, the proof is in the playability. My only quibble (and it's minor) is that I would have liked to have seen equipment and weapons scaled on a tech-level by tech level basis. This is only because I am at present using an early-steller ATU as the basis for my games.

On a personal note, I was very pleased with the personal combat system employed. Many years ago, I was dissatisfied with every Traveller personal combat system published. My house rule fix was to employ the weapon range tables and damage factors from the now-called Classic Traveller and match it agains the armour values presented in Azhanti High Lightning.

So when I first saw the combat tables presented in the Mongoose Traveller and saw that they was in essence the same system I came up with over 25 years ago, I could not help but be pleased.

 

[tbeard1999]

I understand that the organizational distinguishment between the Traveller system from 3I material is a point of contention. But what about the system itself causes it to be so "bad" in your estimation. Be specific. Don't just say "it sucks". I want to hear genuine constructive criticism only. How could it be improved?

Myself. I think the system is great, but I prefer ship combat to be alot closer to personal combat (one system to resolve everything, no subsystems).

My biggest complaint is with the combat system. In the past, I've detailed my objections, so a search should turn them up.

I'll beg out of making suggestions for change. I think I'll just write a new combat system for MGT and post it. If it really is an improvement, then it will prosper. If not, well, those are the fortunes of war.

(Anyone interested in my idea of what makes a decent combat system can review my "Combat System C" posted elsewhere.)

I also posted notes on how to adapt the T4 combat system to CT (a perfectly usable superior alternative IMHO).

My Striker-derived combat system.

And my thoughts on adding vehicle combat to CT combat. Starts at message #3.

 

[tbeard1999]

The three biggest problems are
1) dropped power points. creates some illogical inconsistencies, like a 100 Ton ship with PP C being able to mount an energy bay, but a 400 tonner with the same plant not being able to mount even plasma or fusion turrets... A flat rate power production and power usage would have been a far better choice than what was presented in release; the playtest draft rules were workable, but maneuver drive power costs were flawed (but easily fixed).

I don't mind power being handled (or not handled for that matter). However, I'd object to a Traveller version of Star Fleet Battles, which is what I recall the playtest rules looking like. LBB5 High Guard handled it acceptably well IMHO.

 

[aramis]

I don't mind power being handled (or not handled for that matter). However, I'd object to a Traveller version of Star Fleet Battles, which is what I recall the playtest rules looking like. LBB5 High Guard handled it acceptably well IMHO.

I don't want SFB, but didn't mind Battlestations!, and it felt more like Battlestations than SFB. I wouldn't have minded a HG style power point system. Lacking a power point system entirely is the issue.

 

[beowulf2044]

I run games at conventions throughout the year. I need a combat system that can be fast because of the limited amount of time alloted for a convention game, and to keep up the pace (combat should be fast and scary).

Also, I frequently have players arrive who have not played Traveller in any of its incarnations, so I don't like to scare them off with unnessassary amounts of technical grognardia.

So for me, any personal combat system that requires more than one roll to hit and one roll to damage would not be practical.

 

[captainjack]

My biggest complaint is with the combat system. In the past, I've detailed my objections, so a search should turn them up.

Forumtrooper TBeard1999 is hereby recommended to receive the Imperial Starburst for Extreme Understatement...

 

[mike wightman]

LOL

chalk yourself up for a keyboard kill

 

[tbeard1999]

I run games at conventions throughout the year. I need a combat system that can be fast because of the limited amount of time alloted for a convention game, and to keep up the pace (combat should be fast and scary).

Also, I frequently have players arrive who have not played Traveller in any of its incarnations, so I don't like to scare them off with unnessassary amounts of technical grognardia.

So for me, any personal combat system that requires more than one roll to hit and one roll to damage would not be practical.

Actually, a three roll system can work quickly (speed of play is an absolute requirement for any game I play or design). It just can't be fiddly.

My Combat System C uses a 1 to 3 roll system -- roll to hit; roll for penetration; roll damage. Each task is a relatively simple task with few applicable modifiers. To hit has the normal combat modifiers. Penetration is simple -- roll 1D, add penetration. The result must equal or exceed the target's armor. Of course, high penetration weapons (or very light armor) may obviate the need for any penetration roll. Penetrating hits roll damage per normal CT rules.

It plays *very* quickly. I wouldn't have it any other way. If you replace the 2d6 roll with 1d10 and scale the penetration roll accordingly, it plays even faster. But some Traveller fans would die before adding polyhedrals to Traveller, so I haven't forced the issue.

Note -- I find that I prefer a penetration roll over armor absorbing damage because (a) it produces more drama; and (b) seems to be a good way to model real world armor penetration.

 

[Spinward Scout]

I understand that the organizational distinguishment between the Traveller system from 3I material is a point of contention. But what about the system itself causes it to be so "bad" in your estimation. Be specific. Don't just say "it sucks". I want to hear genuine constructive criticism only. How could it be improved?

Myself. I think the system is great, but I prefer ship combat to be alot closer to personal combat (one system to resolve everything, no subsystems).

Honestly, I just bought Psion today. I don't really have a problem with Mongoose Traveller. I just thought that was the analogy people were looking for when they tried to compare it to cars. And I currently own a crappy car and used to own a good car made by the same company. Sounded familiar, that's all.