What would you like to see changed about MGT?

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

and has nothing to do with this discussion.

Do you mean trying to list individual situational DMs? I agree that is an exercise in a lot of writing, on a nostradamus level.

I posit that Task Systems "sour the palate" of a Referee, and train them not to look at a given game scene with the on-the-spot quickness that keeps things moving.

A Referee should be able to see? Envision? An action and be able to assign an overall DM based on all factors. (The character, the action itself, the situation/environment, skills, special modifiers, etc.) and then do it. Roll them bones.

Obviously, if you have a steward trying to fix a Jump Drive with a butterknife, the rest of the crew should hope he is one bada$$ steward!

The above "system" may seem arbitrary to some, but it really isn't. It requires the Ref and players to really think about what is going on, as opposed to each task becoming a potential game stopper. You should not have to look thru pages to determine how to climb a rope, etc.

Part of the charm for the casual CT player in my groups was the "craps like" fast-paced action of things like combat or furious activity. 2d took us a long way.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

About the Generators (and not really a change, so last part of it):

What I suggest is a use of bandwidth /programming that many entertainment companies now use for all sorts of freebie stuff, from flash games to web music, and use it to do utilities for the game. Many fan based efforts have already shown the principle to be valid and incredibly useful.

The biggest two that I use are Ferris' Heaven and Earth, and Vallance's High Guard Shipyard. But there are others I use all the time. From Vilani name and word generators to TAS news story generators.

Then there is other "real world" simulate stuff that could be set up as well. Even a bogus "News" or "stock" or "trade" ticker might be nice for flavor.

 

[tbeard1999]

I don't object to task systems per se...probably because I feel free to ignore them if the mood strikes. I do think that task systems have become something of a fetish with many Traveller players and I think that the effort could have been more profitably expended on other things. I am skeptical of the so-called univeral task systems. In my opinion, task systems are tools and in my experience no tool can do everything well.

 

[whartung]

I posit that Task Systems "sour the palate" of a Referee, and train them not to look at a given game scene with the on-the-spot quickness that keeps things moving.

Can someone please explain the differences between pulling a target number out of thin air and rattling off a list of off the cuff attributes and skills that could be DMs and tell the player to roll is any different from coming up with a Task out of thin air and rattling off a list of off the cuff attributes and skills that could be DMs?

I guess I just don't see the difference between how the target number is decided upon.

 

[Allensh]

Can someone please explain the differences between pulling a target number out of thin air and rattling off a list of off the cuff attributes and skills that could be DMs and tell the player to roll is any different from coming up with a Task out of thin air and rattling off a list of off the cuff attributes and skills that could be DMs?

I guess I just don't see the difference between how the target number is decided upon.

Having a set task system makes things a little more "rigid" in some ways, whereas a free-form system like CT's feels more "improvisational"...except that in my own experience, over the years I tended to default to "roll 8+ with DMs to the roll" because that's what the combat system used and it seemed easier to me...and from what I have seen, a lot of Traveller referees did the same thing.

Also, as Referee, I always reserve the right to change the target number anyway if I feel it appropriate.

Task systems (as in the defined versions) have been part of the game since Megatraveller, and I suspect they are here to stay.

Allen

 

[atpollard]

Can someone please explain the differences between pulling a target number out of thin air and rattling off a list of off the cuff attributes and skills that could be DMs and tell the player to roll is any different from coming up with a Task out of thin air and rattling off a list of off the cuff attributes and skills that could be DMs?

I guess I just don't see the difference between how the target number is decided upon.

Your character is shooting at the driver of a moving vehicle at 150 meters.
Your weapon has a scope.
The enemy has a flack jacket.
You are aiming for the head.
There is a strong wind and it is raining.
It is at night.
You have IR goggles.
Wind blown leaves intermittently block your view.
You take your time and wait for the clear shot.

Option 1 is to use a detailed task system and attempt to calculate all the modifiers (with a possible discussion on +/-1 or 2 for each of them).

Option 2 is the Ref looks at everything and decides that it is a harder than average shot and picks 10+ as the required roll to hit (with a possible discussion on whether it should be a 9 or 11).

Option 1 is more 'fair' (same rules applied to all similar circumstances) but may require more time to deal with unusual situations.

Option 2 is more 'subjective' (better talkers get easier rolls) but is potentially faster in unusual situations ("because I said so, roll the dice and move on" can cover a lot of grey areas).

 

[Echo]

Well, I think Option 1 is useful for people who aren't used to the system, and like to have some clear guidelines about what to set target numbers at.

I think Option 2 is what tends to happen in practice regardless.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Ah yes, but its not winging it. Its both Ref and players being aware of the flow of events, and character capabilities. Issues like fairness or discussions about appropriate DM assignment per factor do not come up because if everyone knows that they are on a rocking boat, firing arrows at targets on another rocking boat, they'e in for a tough go, even if they're Robin Hood.

 

[Jame]

I would reduce the TL and prices of most of the equipment, for example the biosniffer ought to be TL-12 At Highest and be half the price. A TL-15 version ought to be the size of a drinking straw, and that only so that the user can grasp it.

 

[mike wightman]

We have now tried playing MgT from the book.

By the second hour we were back to the time honoured "don't roll a 2, roll 8+, roll 12+, roll12+ and we'll talk" method I have used for the last 25 years or so.

The skill list is nice but I prefer CT definintions (and skills).

Armour needs a major rethink.

 

[BadgerLord]

Something I'd like to see changed/revisited is the suppressive fire rules from Mercenary. I'd like to see a general review and erratta of the new weapons in Mercenary also. The LMG uses the range bands for assault rifles.... really? Rifles would be far more appropriate.

 

[Supplement Four]

It has been my observation that when you go 2d+/- DMs there are just too many DMs to remember. Without a task system, DMs grow like kudzu.

I certainly understand your affinity for task systems. I love them too, and they definitely have their place in the rpg world.

But, just to say, when I play CT, I use the CT non-structured task system (that is: I dictate what roll is appropriate giving a situation).

I never write down DMs. And, sure, I may not (though I try to) call for the same roll each time.

For example, if you come across a stuck hatch, I may say, "Roll 2D for STR or less to press your shoulder into it and shove it open."

Next time, I might say, "Roll 10+, but get +2 if STR 7, +4 if STR 11".

It just depends on the situation. And, rarely are two situations identical. (Even those two stuck hatches may have one that is easier to force open than the other, on average).

I tend to use the same "types" of rolls over and over (2D or 3D for a stat or less. Or, I use Rule 68A. And, I'll usually give a +1 per skill, but I'll also give a +2 or even a +4 per skill level, depending on the situation).

I never write down DMs, though. I just go with my gut and my best estimation of the situation.





Now...why do I like this structureless system? Because it is structureless.

For example, a typical float down a starship corridor is very easy for someone who knows their way around a Vacc Suit, but that same task is quite hard for someone not trained in Zero G.

So, in order to move down a corridor without incident, I'll say, "Roll 10+ to do is without incident, but give yourself +4 per Vacc Suit skill."

This way, no skill means you've got a hard job in front of you (10+ roll). Vacc Suit-1 is competent (6+ roll). Vacc Suit-2 is automatic (2+ roll).

It's hard to come up with throws like these when you are hemmed into a task system. Try to do something like that with the MT task system (or even the UGM), and it's not as elegant. It doesn't get the job done as well. (Because, with task systems, typically, it's +1 per skill level standard....with a non-structured task system, the throw can be whatever you want it to be--and you'll make the throw fit the circumstance).

Another example: The PCs, for whatever reason, want to identify the manufacturer of a particular Vacc Suit they find on an abandoned vessel. Well, this is Education based. But, I want Vacc Suit skill to have some influence on the throw, too. So, I say, "Throw 2D for EDU or less and use a -1 DM per Vacc Suit skill level".

Easy-cheesy. And, it fits the situation better than a one-size-fits-all generic task system.



What I think is that the non-structured task system should be brought back, but there should be a chapter or a section that teaches the GM how to use a non-structred task system. Give him some guidelines on making good and fair throws. I think that's the major reason non-structured task systems aren't more popular--the GM's just aren't sure how to use them properly.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I agree totally. A good, objective "Referee tips" book/section or something not so much a "Here's how you do it" but practical tips with examples as have been outlined above to show suggestions on how to handle tasks.

I think the 2d system ecourages more REf description of scene, and more Player description of action, which is never a bad thing.

Probably wouldn't hurt to compile other tips that help a Ref run a fast, organized game, in clear format.

 

[Echo]

Well, aside from the desire to educate others, there is really nothing stopping any of you using a free-form style of system (for that's what it is) in your own games at all. The character stats don't change at all, in choosing to use them that way.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Of course. Its all to what suits.

 

[Amra]

I like the MGT system, it's pretty user friendly.

I would like to see an optional combat system for MGT. I don't like the "dynamic initiative" system - too much fiddly bookkeeping for npc's. My preferred optional system would work well with the RAW stats, just dropping the dynamic initiative and adding a few tactical options. The system should be simple, to maintain the spirit of the rest of the game. I downloaded/copied tbeards link, but at first glance it looks to be much more of an overhaul/conversion than I'm looking for. I want an optional combat system for MGT - not CT.

I think that the posts that "so and so was already done for CT" is a mute point and should not dissuade you (or other 3rd party publishers) from adding to the MGT rules. 1st: I've looked at CT (I bought the CT CD) and I like the system less than MGT. 2nd: I'm not interested in hunting down some long OOP rules for CT, I am interested in "new" rules for MGT - which besides being currently published (yes, I know about the reprints - that doesn't include all the other stuff posters are referring to), has further value as the base system for other "non-Traveller" sci-fi settings. MGT has the potential to grow much farther than CT ever did (especially out of the OTU, as a generic sci-fi game).

If MGT was nothing more than a reprint of CT my post would pretty much say the same thing (without the added complication of Mercenary knocking the core rules character creation on it's ass - ala CT's later books). Lets change the personal combat system, grow the options and move beyond the OTU.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

One change I could see, and mind you this is so round the bend nit-picky, Is the use of MCr in ship design, as opposed to just plain Credits. All those zeroes!

I found that during ship design, it speeds the flow along a bit to hit the MCr decimal system. I understand fully if this also is a "But Spock's ears are a milimeter too long" moment, But...

(moving on)

ATUs? And by ATUs do you mean existing sci fi backgrounds that could be adapted?

What is up with Rogue Trooper as an ATU?
Robo-Hunter? Too finite? Already being done?

Dune. (if you can pull this off, mad respect.)

Terran Trade Authority

Foundation (I second the motion presented above)

The Blade Runner world?

The William Gibson World?

hmm...

 

[Andrew Boulton]

A task system is really essential for any RPG. Now, an experienced Ref may be able to manage without it, but you need to know what the rules are before you ignore them.

 

[Jame]

I would also like the armor system to be upgraded. An average person of no brawling skill shouldn't be able to knock out a strong man in plate armor.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I don't think either example above suggested ignoring anything. And you don't need to be an experienced Ref to not use a task system. It shouldn't make you a bad ref, either, if you don't. It's personal preferences I guess. to the outward observer, it takes a long time to roll two dice.

In the cases that it mentions in the book, I can see it being totally useful, for esoteric things like making repairs, team efforts and all of that.

So what are you saying? You wont be at the Task Systems Anonymous meetings?