What YOU like about Mongoose Traveller!

[Poppyseed45]

Title says it all. Despite some flaws, frankly put, I am rather enamored of MGT. I played CT ages ago, and bought TNE, and even liked that, but pretty much abandoned all things Traveller back in the 1990s.

Let me say that this is not your chance to bash MGT. I'm looking for positive results, play experiences, things you like about it. There are plenty of threads on several forums about what is not liked. Please go to them; they are for you if you wish to complain. Back on topic.

For me, to have a new incarnation of Traveller is nice. What's gotten me all fired up though are a few things:

1. Character generation is rather fun. Just enough choice to make me happy. Easy enough system to tweak, and the authors even give you ideas on how to tweak it. Events, enemies, contacts, all very nice. I much prefer having a mishap rather than instant death (though, get a bad enough mishap and you can STILL die). And dying in chargen can be an optional rule too.

2. I like the OTU-lessness of it. Frankly, I'm not enthusiastic about a huge universe that I have to learn, and Traveller is filled with copious amounts of fluff - good fluff, but I'm not interested. I'm much more interested in making my own worlds and polities and timelines. That said...

3. I like the assumptions about the Traveller universe. Communication is down to the speed of travel. Tech varies from planet to planet, so buying your super-rifle is fine; getting more ammo might be a problem (and so, instant side-plot!). Nobles are there doing stuff. Each planet is different, government and all. Generally human-centric (I know about aliens, and that you can create them, but I REALLY am starting to hate aliens as excuse for PCs to act stupid or jerky). These elements force certain choices and motivations on PCs that are, to me, interesting.

4. Easy task system. I've said it in another thread but I like this a lot about MGT. Dice are easy, setting tasks are easy, little bit of player control on modifiers (like setting time, etc). Clear ideas, for the benchmarks, of when to roll and when to not at the table (I think some ideas were, um, researched from Burning Wheel - my favorite parts, btw). Characters are competent enough to do "normal tv show sci fi stuff" and not uber masters of the universe (I'm playing 50 Fathoms for Savage Worlds now, and while I like it, I find it way too easy for the PCs to accomplish goals now thanks to the way the dice work in the PCs' favor).

So, that's me. And you?

 

[vertigo25]

Before I start, I should point out that I've only ever played CT. So I *do* make some comparisons. Given that MgT is very much based on CT, though, I think comparisons between the systems are unavoidable.

Despite *major* misgivings when I first saw the initial previews, I've really taken to the game, myself. I still *hate* the corruption of the logo and cover design (I'm a graphic designer, and the original LBBs have a tremendously strong cover design whereas the MgT covers look like they were designed by someone who doesn't have any education or formal training in design), but it's a very small price to pay. And I'm digressing…

I *love* char-gen. Events and mishaps are such a small addition, but add so much flavor and inspiration for creating backgrounds. I mean, you don't *have* to use it to make up your character's background or help give the character some personality, but it can really help if you're stuck for an idea. Love it.

The other thing that I truly love about this edition is that they have kept systems in the game to randomly or semi-randomly create patrons, subsectors, systems, trade, and encounters.

When I was a kid, I used to spend hours of almost every day generating Traveller stuff and basically using these systems to do kind of a solo sim game. Talking to a friend awhile back about that, he pointed out that a lot of the early RPGs had those kinds of elements in them because it was expected that with such a small community of players, a lot of people would want to play solo.

MgT does this all really well, IMO. You could (and I plan on doing so) run an entire adventure for yourself. And the systems give you just enough detail to get your imagination going and make up little stories as you go along. It honestly makes me feel like a kid again

Obviously, that's also awesome for GMs who might be short on ideas, too

For me, that's one of the defining features of CT, and I'm really glad MgT has carried that torch. You really don't see it much anymore at all.

 

[rust]

What I like most is the character generation system of MGT, which creates
a detailed character with the framework of an interesting background and
history.
And it is comparatively easy to modify the existing careers or to design new
careers in order to create exactly the types of characters that fit into a spe-
cific setting, whether Third Imperium or (like our setting) something comple-
tely different.

I also like the shipbuilding system. It has just the right level of detail for my
kind of setting and campaign, and it is flexible enough to allow both different
technologies (our ships use hyperdrives) and setting-specific modifications
and additions.

The trade system is also rather good, and again I like most that it can be tai-
lored to fit a specific setting and campaign.

Overall, what I like about Mongoose Traveller is that it has just the right mix
of detail and flexibility for my kind of game. It is "generic" enough for a wide
spectrum of settings, but it does not have the often cumbersome complexity
of other generic systems.

With other games I often had the problem that I could not create the setting
I wanted, because the system forced me to change at least parts of my set-
ting to fit the rules. With Mongoose Traveller, I can write exactly the setting
I want, and then tweak the system until it fits perfectly.

 

[atpollard]

Ironically, I find character generation just OK. The majority seems to be ‘what was good about CT Chargen’ and the ‘life events’ add some color (which is very good) but seem to contribute to some skill bloat (which makes certain tasks too easy-IMHO). I mention this not to knock MgT, but because so many people think that MgT is synonymous with ‘great character generation’ and fail to see what lies beyond chargen and really does work well.

What I see as really likeable may be somewhat surprising, I like the Mercenary weapons. I admit that my eyes glaze over when people start arguing about the difference between a Howitzer and a Gun, or the range of an artillery shell – (I confess that in 30 years of playing, I’ve never encountered an artillery shell in a game). However, while playing MgT recently I HAVE had my Heavy Weapon Specialist for the squad need to decide whether this mission requires a minigun (able to hose down an area with hundreds of 1D6 shots) or an AM Rifle (able to fire one shot through any armor). That is a choice that the earlier versions of Traveller never gave me – the ACR fired bursts of 3D6 shots and the LAG fired a single 4D6 shot (an easy choice there). This improvement in playability seems to have generally gone unnoticed in the din over artillery.

I was also impressed with the Trade Rules. All versions have lots of tables to roll on and are easy to get rich with (of course you can get rich – who wants to play ‘One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich’ for fun?), but MgT added a few simple rules to quantify all of the activities that were previously assumed to take place behind the scenes or left for the GM to decide. Instead of ‘the GM needs to wing it blind’, MgT provides a concise system of a few rolls that give everybody a common framework to hang roleplaying on – and it bristles with plot hooks for the GM to take advantage of or ignore as the group pleases. Bravo Mongoose, very well done!

 

[rust]

I mention this not to knock MgT, but because so many people think that MgT is synonymous with ‘great character generation’ and fail to see what lies beyond chargen and really does work well.

I see your point.

This is one of the main reasons why we use the MGT character generation sy-
stem, but then convert the characters to the BRP system for roleplaying our
current campaign.

It may well be that the MGT mechanics work perfectly well, but I want to ma-
ke sure that they really do, with a couple of one shot "playtest" adventures,
before I use them in our ongoing campaign.

 

[IronCzar]

I like MgT for a number of reasons.

1. Character creation is maybe not the best of any Traveller edition, but I think it's a good balance between the speed and simplicity of CT while working in many (but not all) of the additional avenues provided in post-LBB123 products. About the only thing I think it's missing are advanced education options, but I'm not sure those wouldn't throw off the balance of the skill/task system to some extent.

2. The task system is also a good balance, and incorporates most of the features of the MT system for such, possibly the best mechanic of its kind anywhere, while keeping it a bit simpler.

3. The skill list is both comprehensive yet tight. MT (and TNE) suffered somewhat from bloat in this area, IMO. T4 moved in the right direction in this regard, but had other more severe problems.

4. Near-total compatibility with published CT material, good compatibility with MT stuff, and even decent compatibility with those parts of T4 that I might want to use. As somebody who's been slowly accumulating Traveller materials since 1983, I have a huge volume of material, some of it outstanding, that I would like at least the otpion of using. If it's CT material, I can do that with negligible effort. This is one of the points that unsell me on otherwise viable options like GT or T20.

5. Overall system complexity is very managable. Not quite CT, but not MT either. It seems to hit the perfect note for me these days.

6. As Mr. Chase points out, its a new, exciting edition that's bringing new people to Traveller, and that's a great thing. Not only that, but it's got real Traveller rules, not some kludge designed to plaster the Traveller setting over somebody else's mechanics. Rules influence the tone of a game in many respects, and things like GT and T20, admirable as they are, have a difference in feel that's subtle but noticable. This bothers me.

There are, of course, things I miss about a couple of other editions - MT's vehicle creation system, or TNE's technical architecture... even T4's strategic-play addon from Pocket Empires. But overall I think that MgT strikes a great balance between the elegance of CT and the best features from other editions.

 

[Jame]

I really like how the chargen system came out, and also like how the ship construction system in the TMB came out (I have issues with MGTHG but that's for ... elsewhere).

 

[rust]

(I have issues with MGTHG but that's for ... elsewhere).

I would very much like to read more about this, in an other thread.

 

[aramis]

I like CGen, the basic ship design system, the extensions to that in MgHG, and the trade system. That's about it, too. Playtest was better.

 

[Allensh]

what I like about MGT:

1. ) I can order it via my local game store and buy it from them, thus supporting the store. In fact, they even stock it

2. ) I like the character creation rules. I do use a limit on terms (suggested in the book but not a rule per se) to keep down a bit on the number of skills, but then I don't fear my characters being a bit "heroic" in scale. I like the event tables (especially the expanded versions found in Spica Publishing's Career Book 1), and the Connections rule.

3.) The combat system runs smoothly and works well; the values for armor are a bit off but I've adjusted those via suggestions elsewhere and they work. And most of my crew doesn't wear anything above Cloth.

4.) I like the starship construction rules. I do like the system in High Guard, especially now that I have the corrected version. I don't build a lot of big ships anyway. Traders and Gunboats has some very good ship ideas in it.

5.) I guess I don't quite understand the comment about the cover graphics..it looks like Traveller to me. The font used is a bit different, which imo identifies it as being a different version, but it still has that red-on-black and looks different than anything else you see on the shelf.

6.) I like the Spinward Marches book for the info it gives on the Imperium and the Spinward Marches sector. I like the fact that they stuck to the basic info; avoids the whole "this star type can't support life so why is this planet there?" issue; I'm sure that sort of info will be in another book but in all the years I have run various versions of Traveller, no players have ever asked me what the spectral class of a star is...they're usually too busy dodging pirate missles <g>

Allen

 

[Original_Carl]

I like that I bought a complete game for about $20. I am so sold on the Pocket Edition that I could pop.

As nearly everyone else has mentioned, Character Generation is very good.

Also, I agree with the poster who mentioned the subsector generation rules as a positive. I'm champing at the bit to build a subsector based on Firefly.

I like that I finally have a system that has workable rules for trade. I've gone through three different Sci-Fi systems and a ton of D20 stuff looking for something that would allow me to run merchant/trader scenarios for my players without any success. MGT is the first system to offer a simple and workable way for me to do that. In my D&D game I've had to build the economy from the ground up (literally) to come up with half-assed trading scenarios. In MGT, it's already there and I don't need a 200MB spreadsheet to track it.

Now, let's get Pocket Editions of Mercenary, High Guard, Scouts and Merchant Prince.

 

[Allensh]

I like that I bought a complete game for about $20. I am so sold on the Pocket Edition that I could pop.

As nearly everyone else has mentioned, Character Generation is very good.

Also, I agree with the poster who mentioned the subsector generation rules as a positive. I'm champing at the bit to build a subsector based on Firefly.

I like that I finally have a system that has workable rules for trade. I've gone through three different Sci-Fi systems and a ton of D20 stuff looking for something that would allow me to run merchant/trader scenarios for my players without any success. MGT is the first system to offer a simple and workable way for me to do that. In my D&D game I've had to build the economy from the ground up (literally) to come up with half-assed trading scenarios. In MGT, it's already there and I don't need a 200MB spreadsheet to track it.

Now, let's get Pocket Editions of Mercenary, High Guard, Scouts and Merchant Prince.

Don't think it will happen...but I wouldn't mind if the whole line went pocket sized as long as they don't drop important tables like they did in the Pocket edition main rulebook

Allen

 

[Original_Carl]

What tables did they drop?

 

[beowulf2044]

This is the first system design (re-design?) that works straight out of the box (or in this case, book) since the original. And the Gods know, like so many of my fellow Travellers, I've bought them all. I've read the complaint that the personal armor values seem a bit underprotective, but I feel that since PC's are now harder to put out of action (damage needs to work through the Endurance characteristic first and then through STR and/or DEX) that the blend works out okay.

For me, for the first time in too many years, I'm enjoying Traveller again. I'm putting together an ATU and looking forward to running a game at a nearby convention in a couple of months. And it's been way too long since I've done that.

 

[King of Old School]

I like that it's a comprehensive, all-in-one rulebook without being bloated.

I like that it's a solid game but still allows for individual creativity, old-school-style.

I like that it connects to an existing, well-developed and comprehensive SF setting but doesn't shackle you to that setting or its canon.

I like that it's rejuvenated my jones for SF roleplaying!

KoOS

 

[vertigo25]

5.) I guess I don't quite understand the comment about the cover graphics..it looks like Traveller to me. The font used is a bit different, which imo identifies it as being a different version, but it still has that red-on-black and looks different than anything else you see on the shelf.

Yeah. This is one of those things that's a nitpick for me. Honestly, I know that *most* people will look at the cover and think it's just a change of "font" and be perfectly happy with it. A graphic designer, though, is going to look at it and think "Did they get some kid fresh out of HS to redesign this?"

The covers for the LBBs were remarkably designed not just because they had the single brilliant colors on black. The designer understood composition *very* well. The positioning of the elements and their proportion to each other are all based on very sound design principles (principally, excellent usage of the "Golden Ratio").

The original designs make use of many of the principles of the Swiss Style. Where they diverge, however, they are still following the principles of strong and effective design. For instance, it's doubtful that the use of Optima as the title typeface ("font" is actually a very popular misuse of the word, BTW) was an arbitrary decision. It's considered by many designers to be Zapf's most dynamic typeface.

I am *certain* that none of this was considered in the redesign.

Like I said, for 99% of the population it doesn't matter. To me, it rewards amateurism. Not a *huge* deal, and obviously doesn't effect game play. It's just one of those things that when you notice it, it just irritates you. I guess it would be the way a doctor would feel when a patient says "well, my massage therapist says my aura is misaligned."

 

[vertigo25]

Oh… and not to keep rattling on but, another big issue for me on the design is that whatever typeface they *did* use (to me, it looks like they used a poor clone of Mixage Bold Italic (probably a free clone from the web) with altered "R"s), they didn't even bother trying to properly kern it. The spacing between the "A" and the "V" is significant. Just a point or two more, and you'd have "Tra Veller." As far as logo design goes, it's an eyesore.

 

[Jame]

I would very much like to read more about this, in an other thread.

In that case, you should go here: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=297375#post297375.

 

[Allensh]

What tables did they drop?

They omitted the table that tells you how much fuel power plants use. The original was on the very bottom of a page and as they chopped all the footnotes, that one got cut inadvertantly. It will be in future printings of course.

meanwhile, it starts at 1 ton per two weeks for Power Plant A and doubles for every plant thereafter. and it is of course in the PDF of the main book if needed.

Allen

 

[Allensh]

Yeah. This is one of those things that's a nitpick for me. Honestly, I know that *most* people will look at the cover and think it's just a change of "font" and be perfectly happy with it. A graphic designer, though, is going to look at it and think "Did they get some kid fresh out of HS to redesign this?"

The covers for the LBBs were remarkably designed not just because they had the single brilliant colors on black. The designer understood composition *very* well. The positioning of the elements and their proportion to each other are all based on very sound design principles (principally, excellent usage of the "Golden Ratio").

The original designs make use of many of the principles of the Swiss Style. Where they diverge, however, they are still following the principles of strong and effective design. For instance, it's doubtful that the use of Optima as the title typeface ("font" is actually a very popular misuse of the word, BTW) was an arbitrary decision. It's considered by many designers to be Zapf's most dynamic typeface.

I am *certain* that none of this was considered in the redesign.

Like I said, for 99% of the population it doesn't matter. To me, it rewards amateurism. Not a *huge* deal, and obviously doesn't effect game play. It's just one of those things that when you notice it, it just irritates you. I guess it would be the way a doctor would feel when a patient says "well, my massage therapist says my aura is misaligned."

I'd have to defer to you on this point because I really have no clue about such things

Allen