Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > Other Versions of Traveller > Mongoose Traveller

Mongoose Traveller Discussion forums for the Traveller rules from Mongoose Publishing.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 28th, 2008, 07:24 PM
Echo Echo is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 277
Gallery : 0
Echo Citizen
Default

It is amusing that 'raving Mongoose fanboy' has seemingly replaced 'raving Grognard' as the catch-all insult amongst Traveller fans.

As was once coined by a better person than myself:

"Fans don't love, they hate".
__________________
\"Man can believe the impossible, but man can never believe the improbable.\" Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Living.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old January 28th, 2008, 08:22 PM
Ishmael Ishmael is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Moggill
Posts: 909
Gallery : 0
Ishmael Citizen
Default

with all the ranting and raving, I guess I'll take a somewhat serious look at it myself and make my own opinion. Whoi knows?..I might just switch over to it after all.

( something tells me that I won't change from how I already do things though )
( and I'll probably just keep my opinion to myself too )
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old January 28th, 2008, 08:28 PM
Border Reiver's Avatar
Border Reiver Border Reiver is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
Posts: 2,111
Gallery : 7
Visit Border Reiver's Blog
Border Reiver Citizen
Default

Nothing old and tired about it, if as it seems the T/E mechanic is fatally flawed then the game is faulty.

I was suspicious of T/E from the very outset but after a few run throughs and a couple of proper games the vote was split. Was it innovative? Yes. Was it workable in the game environment? Sort of, we continued to have issues but it was playable. Would we use it? Well it probably not. In fact we are houseruling the combat to reflect our dislike of the T/E dice and the initiative system but as I've stated before, my group will probably stick to houseruled MT. It isn't really that bad but it doesn't sit comfortably with my group (and we'll try anything).

There is no perfect game (other than RealLifeā„¢ and even that has flaws) but there does seem to be a certain blindness as to the flaws of MongTrav whilst changing things from CT that weren't that badly broke to begin with. Still flawed or not there will be no getting away from the fact that it is the future of Traveller, better get used to the way it is going.
__________________
safe oot & safe in
dae richt & feare nocht

"I have come to believe there is nothing in the lives of human beings more terrifying than war and nothing more important than for those of us who have experienced it to share its awful truth."- Ron Kovic
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old January 29th, 2008, 07:15 AM
tbeard1999's Avatar
tbeard1999 tbeard1999 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tyler
Posts: 2,705
Gallery : 0
tbeard1999 Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
...but there does seem to be a certain blindness as to the flaws of MongTrav whilst changing things from CT that weren't that badly broke to begin with.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. There were plenty of things that needed addressing in Traveller; a new "innovative" task system (with profound defects) didn't address any of those things.

Quote:
Still flawed or not there will be no getting away from the fact that it is the future of Traveller, better get used to the way it is going.
<shrug>

Well, I've been disappointed in new versions of Traveller since MegaTraveller, so MGT won't be a major change. I do think that it's unfortunate, since Mongoose arguably has the best shot at making the definitive version of Traveller. But if it releases the current version, the result will be utter crap IMHO. And I expect that the sales (after an initial flash of orders) will reflect that.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old January 29th, 2008, 07:35 AM
tbeard1999's Avatar
tbeard1999 tbeard1999 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tyler
Posts: 2,705
Gallery : 0
tbeard1999 Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allensh View Post
is it possible that some of these things are being addressed but because there isn't going to be a 4.0 manuscript and they clearly said that the only thing that had been changed in the 3.2 was the addition of new stuff and that this was because of a time issue, we just haven't seen it yet?
I guess anything is possible. And apparently, this kind of thing did happen with Runequest (another classic RPG that Mongoose made pointless and ill-conceived changes to).

I can't really see the point in not letting the playtesters have access to the most current version of the game.

Quote:
I don't think they "owe" anyone anything. Buy it, don't buy it...your call.
Why thank you. But by the same token, I don't "owe" them anything either. I am free to critique, make suggestions, etc., or not.

Quote:
THE only people I have seen seriously complaining about the T/E problem are a handful of people from here.
Ah, the appeal to authority.

Well, no one has offered any evidence that the denizens of the Mongoose forum are representative of Traveller fans, or even the game's target market. And since I have never stated that a majority of Mongoose forum denizens hate the T/E system, your statement is irrelevant.

Further, it is easy to explain why the glaring statistical defects in the T/E system have gone largely unremarked:

1. If relying on die rolls alone, it takes hundreds or thousands of rolls, carefully tracked and analyzed, to identify the kinds of statistical tendencies I've identified. Somehow, I doubt most playtest groups go to that much trouble. Of course, simple statistical analyses can quickly identify such trends. Mongoose's failure to make such minimal efforts does not inspire confidence.

2. Since a major criticism is that the T/E system skews towards the extremes, player reactions could be affected by (a) the normal tendency to enjoy excellent rolls; and (b) the degree to which the referee denies the NPCs the benefit of excellent rolls.

3. Lack of criticism does not necessarily mean that there are no critics. It is certainly possible that folks have tried this system out, hated it, and never bothered commenting.

4. In general, I notice that comments on game company forums tend to be dispropotionally supportive. In my own email group for my rules, A Fistful of TOWs, this is certainly the case (positive comments outweigh negative ones by probably 100 to 1). So I don't know how much stock we can really place in your observation that the Mongoose forum denizens seem happy with the mechanic. I also imagine that people tend to join forums for things they like, not things they dislike. If the RPG was not called "Traveller", I'd never have wasted time criticizing it.

5. I also wonder how many playtesters are actually using the rules as written. Someone brought this up in a private email, and I later recalled that we had this problem with some playtests of Fistful of TOWs. Certainly, the incredible willingness of supporters to suggest fixes (rather than defend the current mechanics as written) offers some support for this proposition.

6. The idiocy that many supporters have shown can have a chilling effect on further negative commentary. I particularly like the absurd argument advanced by some that because someone doesn't like the system (i.e. he's "biased"), his comments--including statistical and other factual comments--should be ignored. It's amazing that they cannot see that the same logic would require ignoring comments of people who love the system. Bias is bias, after all. Anyhow, someone could be forgiven for concluding that such people are just too foolish to reason with, and then leaving without further comment.

Quote:
My group likes it, others I have talked to like it, so I dunno...since the modifiers that apply to the roll apply to the timing die as well I don't see how difficult tasks can be done "faster", but whatever..we've been over this before.
Modifiers do not apply to the timing die per v3.2 of the playtest rules. If you missed this point, then your results would disagree with my analysis.

Since I've posted the statistical distributions of the rolls, I don't think I can make it any clearer. Statistically, the worse you are at something, the faster you'll tend to do it (whether you succeed or fail).

Quote:
I am turning my attention to the Doctor Who RPG playtest now...this debate is getting very old and tired.
Well, this "old and tired" debate has at least called to your attention the fact that you're not using the timing rolls correctly. So perhaps you've benefitted.

Last edited by tbeard1999; January 29th, 2008 at 08:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old January 29th, 2008, 10:31 PM
Ishmael Ishmael is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Moggill
Posts: 909
Gallery : 0
Ishmael Citizen
Default

I looked it over and despite thinking I'll keep my opinion to myself, I can't resist adding my own 2 cents

Although it looks like there might be some good ideas here, they 'feel' wrong to me. I am not math inclined so my thoughts are not based on statistics ( which tbeard has already gone over anyways )

1. I feel that the 'effect' should be based on how much the roll beat the target....thats all...no extra random numbers added or whatever. I don't feel that someone who barely squeaks by on a task should have a chance to do as well as someone who rolls high enough to be able to do the task blindfolded with one hand tied behind his back.
I think the same should apply for failures...."almost made it" should be better than "catastophic" regardless of how long the timing is. Again, the amount the roll missed should be used for failures and the amount the roll is exceeded should be basis for degree of success...nothing else.
The v3.0 rules just rub me the wrong way concerning that. no other reason.

2. I dislike that players can choose effect/timing after the roll is made. Players should decide before the roll whether they are trying to be quick or just taking their sweet time to be careful. If nothing else, make the player state before the roll if high or low die will be the timing.
Personally, I'll choose the way MT handles hasty and cautious tasks instead.

3. Damage looks promising in its idea...one I'll work on for my own house rules where degreee of success affects amount of damage. More than likely, I'll use my [amount hit roll was made by]+pen-dam+1d6( for hit location?) as I mentioned in my MT thread and use that as the basis for a multiplier for damage. If nothing else, I can use AHL damage regardless, which is fine for quickness.
The way it appears to work in v3.0 doesn't thrill me even if I do think the 'effect as multiplier' should be good, but then I don't like how the 'effect' is handled in the present mgt rules.

wth....... I'll just make my own rules for combat...its not like I have to please anyone but myself with them.

Starship rules?...I use a bastard system of shipbuilding/vehicles anyways
same for other background stuff like worldbuilding etc.

I'll cherrypick things here and there, maybe...but I'll stick to modifeid MT for rules and pass this by unless something/someone causes me to change my mind. For background, I'm a heretic and only loosely use the Imperium as written, so canon stuff won't sway me either.

just a semi-informed opinion of mine ..nothing earth shattering
Folk that like it, have fun with it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old January 30th, 2008, 07:47 AM
Echo Echo is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 277
Gallery : 0
Echo Citizen
Default

As I have said in the other thread, the complaint is based upon flawed statistics.

It is based upon the assumption of random rolls - but the aspect of choice involved, when players choose between time/effect, scews the probabilties entirely.

Essentially, players will normally be asked to make a decision between a low effect or a slow timing. Characters with higher abilties may end up getting less stark decisions, but character with low abilities get more of them, accordingly.

Feel free to criticise it, or suggest alternatives as you wish, but remember that no systems will be perfect. It's always a balancing act between simulation and ease of gameplay. However, if you do criticise please also remember that this system is fundamentally based upon player choices - not random rolls.
__________________
\"Man can believe the impossible, but man can never believe the improbable.\" Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Living.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old January 30th, 2008, 05:10 PM
tbeard1999's Avatar
tbeard1999 tbeard1999 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tyler
Posts: 2,705
Gallery : 0
tbeard1999 Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
1. I feel that the 'effect' should be based on how much the roll beat the target....thats all...no extra random numbers added or whatever. I don't feel that someone who barely squeaks by on a task should have a chance to do as well as someone who rolls high enough to be able to do the task blindfolded with one hand tied behind his back.
I think that your idea is the best so far when it comes to determing timing and effect. The advantages are clear -- the better you roll, the better you do. No fussiness and no hassle. Indeed, if you must have timing and effect results, why not allow the player to change the default timing (say, 3) and effect (say, 3, which is average) by the total amount you exceed the roll.

So if you roll a 10, you can reduce the timing from 3 to 1, the effect from 3 to 1 or each by 1.

Now why wouldn't that system work better and faster than the T/E system?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old January 30th, 2008, 05:53 PM
Klaus's Avatar
Klaus Klaus is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,593
Gallery : 0
Klaus Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
I think that your idea is the best so far when it comes to determing timing and effect. The advantages are clear -- the better you roll, the better you do. No fussiness and no hassle. Indeed, if you must have timing and effect results, why not allow the player to change the default timing (say, 3) and effect (say, 3, which is average) by the total amount you exceed the roll.

So if you roll a 10, you can reduce the timing from 3 to 1, the effect from 3 to 1 or each by 1.

Now why wouldn't that system work better and faster than the T/E system?
Actually.... that's pretty good.

My only caveat would be that you're doing the maths in both directions on the roll, both adding the mod then subtracting the target, then more addition (or subtraction in case of failure) to the base T and E values. Fails will always be 3 or less, successes always 3 or more, on either dice. Works for me, but it is just a different kind of fussy.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old January 30th, 2008, 07:45 PM
Ishmael Ishmael is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Moggill
Posts: 909
Gallery : 0
Ishmael Citizen
Default

I never thought of how to do the timing. I still think the player must decide BEFORE he rolls as to whether he's doing a task quick and dirty or taking his time to try and do it right. As far as I'm concerned, just have him say, then make up a dm for success based on his choice which can then be subtracted from or added to a timing roll ( or however people want to do it ). Timing should be de-coupled from success rolls, imho.

I worked out the possibilities of the current system....ugh....
I won't be using it....and any system based on it will be bad too ( in my opinion )
too bad...it looked like a neat idea, but now it just seems like something thrown in to make mgt seem like a new exciting game...a simple MT-like task system is better..no fuss-no muss and quick.

How about this idea ( seeing as ideas are being kicked around.
The amount you make the task roll IS the effect number....
if you roll exactly, then you neither succeed nor fail, but can succeed barely if you stay determined and take extra time....
==OR==
you can decide to try again for free ( risking failure again in order to try and get a better success result ) which also uses more time
<not quite happy with this,....I'll ponder on it more>

timing is 2d-2 ( 1-10 secs, 1-10 minutes, etc ) and chosen dms to succeed for hastiness(-dm's)/carefulness(+dm's) modify this roll.
perhaps player's skill level should be the cap for this, so players can't say.." I'm taking lots of time/days to fix the drives, so that's plus 45, right?"
0 is the half the time increment chosen ( more than instantaneous and less than 1 sec,min,whatever )
after all..its not like such exact timing is needed very often during normal play and can be skipped if need be.


not worked out in detail...but thats the gist of it.

Last edited by Ishmael; January 30th, 2008 at 07:53 PM.. Reason: wanted to add a couple of words...again
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Having an Issue... Spinward Scout Citizens' Information Centre 2 July 4th, 2007 12:30 AM
Hacking Issue laughpol2 Citizens' Information Centre 9 January 19th, 2007 07:27 PM
Far and Away magazine, issue 1 Swordy Duty Free Shop 15 March 18th, 2003 09:48 AM
TA Issue #3 - On the Ground? cgriffen T20 - Traveller for the D20 System 2 September 25th, 2002 04:49 PM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010-2013 Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.