After the MGT debacle, T5 may not look so bad...
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
T5's skill levels definitely act a bit different than in CT. You know, skill-6 is pretty much all you need to do just about any task short of impossible, or hopeless, etc. Which is fine, since CT sort of took the same approach. But in T5 your skill could range up to 15, potentially.
The tradeoff between characteristic and skill is accentuated: performance now degrades more noticeably when your character takes damage. So maxing out your characteristics are preferred, for when your player isn't trying something while wounded. Beefing up skill levels will buffer your character, should he have to do something critically important while wounded.
The tradeoff between characteristic and skill is accentuated: performance now degrades more noticeably when your character takes damage. So maxing out your characteristics are preferred, for when your player isn't trying something while wounded. Beefing up skill levels will buffer your character, should he have to do something critically important while wounded.
Renaissance Man
SOC-12
I received the exact e-mail also today.
It's like waiting for T-2000 to come in the mail when I was a teenager, but I'm glad its going to be of better quality and only a month away instead of two.
Well, I've already waited this long...
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Mongoose's new preview of MGT includes part of the MGT combat system and weapons data.
Good news...looks like they've ditched the worthless playtest initiative system.
They also ditched both playtest damage systems (which were abouts as crappy as I've ever seen in a game). Weapons damage is now xdice, with modifiers in some cases.
The awful timing/effect system now appears to be truly optional; it can be consigned to oblivion without disrupting MGT. Bravo.
I also note the example of custom weapon design, which sounds like the system MM will have in T5.
I wonder...did Mongoose ultimately abandon their own combat systems in favor of the T5 systems? I'd love to hear from anyone who's been involved in the T5 playtest.
In any case, MGT may not be a fiasco after all...
This is some of the best news I have heard in a long time!
If they really listened and the old axiom holds true that the squeaky wheels really do get the grease so that the really snfu'd parts did get dumped or made stand alone options, my opinion of the game will have to make a huge turn for the better and the chance that I may actually buy the rules will go way up.
Of course that still depends on the final review of the complete finished product.
As much as I hate to admit it, it is far easier to get new people to play games in print and supported vs OOP versions. If the final rules finally turn out to be very very close to LBB Traveller then I would be more inclined to help support it at the local game stores by running games for them.
Of course for those that like Traveller but find they don't like the new system, I will be more than happy to usher them to my classic game days. Heh.
Jerry
If they really listened and the old axiom holds true that the squeaky wheels really do get the grease so that the really snfu'd parts did get dumped or made stand alone options, my opinion of the game will have to make a huge turn for the better and the chance that I may actually buy the rules will go way up.
Of course that still depends on the final review of the complete finished product.
As much as I hate to admit it, it is far easier to get new people to play games in print and supported vs OOP versions. If the final rules finally turn out to be very very close to LBB Traveller then I would be more inclined to help support it at the local game stores by running games for them.
Of course for those that like Traveller but find they don't like the new system, I will be more than happy to usher them to my classic game days. Heh.
Jerry
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I gotta say that I was pleasantly surprised. I honestly thought that the mechanics I hated were sacred cows. EDIT--it's probably just an editing error, but I noticed that the explosives descriptions refer to "Effect". If this is not a mistake, then the timing/effect system is NOT optional. And that would be a Bad Thing IMHO.
Anyhow, it's hard to tell from a few sample pages, but I'm optimistic. *If* they also ditched the fetid Star Fleet Battles-style playtest starship combat system, then my major criticisms are addressed.
MGT character generation works okay, although it generates too many skills for a 2d6 task system IMHO. But this is an easy problem to address if true.
The preview is incomplete, but the combat sequence appears to be far less fiddly and more workable.
As you say, it's good news. Traveller is not helped by a crappy rules set (especially one that will probably see much greater distribution than T5).
Last edited:
So I hear there is still an effect widget although supposedly rewritten somehow. I was trying my best to get back onto the RTT wagon but after seeing and hearing more detail and being bluntly reminded of the former general unpleasantness via drive by's where i visit - the sour taste has came back and for the time RTT has been relegated to the last in line of my personal considerations list.
Of course that makes T5 and the new supplements that MJD is working on the two top items on my list. I suppose the timing isn't too bad, as long as Marc is forthcoming with he latest projected release date.
I told my local game store owner (who also happens to be a very good friend) that I would help promote RTT when (if) it made it to his shop. But I wont lie about it and like I told him, if (when) the system sucks rocks we will do what we can to put it in the hands of people that actually like it. But if most everyone doesn't then we can work on getting them to play Classic (easily available for purchase*), T5 (if it works and easily available*), or T20 (if it will be easier to get*), since the supplements for RTT as well as all the new projects and old at Comstar/Avenger are ready to drop into those rules sets - especially Classic.
*talking hardcopy here not pdf. there is a huge local aversion to pdf releases of "core rules" here - supplements not so much.
Of course that makes T5 and the new supplements that MJD is working on the two top items on my list. I suppose the timing isn't too bad, as long as Marc is forthcoming with he latest projected release date.
I told my local game store owner (who also happens to be a very good friend) that I would help promote RTT when (if) it made it to his shop. But I wont lie about it and like I told him, if (when) the system sucks rocks we will do what we can to put it in the hands of people that actually like it. But if most everyone doesn't then we can work on getting them to play Classic (easily available for purchase*), T5 (if it works and easily available*), or T20 (if it will be easier to get*), since the supplements for RTT as well as all the new projects and old at Comstar/Avenger are ready to drop into those rules sets - especially Classic.
*talking hardcopy here not pdf. there is a huge local aversion to pdf releases of "core rules" here - supplements not so much.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Well, I don't want to make too much from a preview, but the Effect mechanic is definitely "still there" in some combat rules. Timing seems to be pretty much eliminated from combat. (And its the inclusion in combat that shifted timing/effect from a "bad idea that can be ignored" to a "bad idea that cannot be avoided").
BUT...
The one clear instance of the Effect rule in the second preview looks like it will work okay.* It also looks like an easy thing to replace if you don't like it. (That was not possible with the playtest initiative system).
Now obviously, I'm making assumptions that the Effect rule works more or less the same way as it does in the playtest. Nor am I certain that other uses of Effect will be as benign.
But it really is a positive sign IMHO. And if forced to choose between eliminating Effect or eliminating the original initiative system, I'd choose the latter, no sweat.
*If a rocket misses, it may scatter 6-Effect die in meters. Since failed task rolls will tend to have low Effect numbers, this means that rockets will tend to scatter a fair amount, which I'm okay with. And the mechanic can be replaced by a simple d6 roll (or whatever) for scatter distance.
I've seen this concern a few times now, and I wonder: in CT there was essentially only one target # (8), right? And MGT now has +/-6 to task difficulties: do you consider this range of mods a wash?
And the same cap on skill levels (6) exists in MGT, so is the concern that characters will have a greater range of skills? If so, that doesn't seem to break the 2d6 mechanic either.
I can see compatibility issues between CT & MGT characters, but don't see how the 2d6 mechanic is affected (issues of attribute mods aside: I'm okay with them, since they're fairly modest).
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
There is no cap on skills in CT. It's just not likely one will achieve a skill at Level-6 or above using CT chargen (if the rules are used as printed in the book, including the Survival Rule).
It's not impossible, but its highly unlikely.
The point is somewhat hard to explain. There are 11 numbers on a 2D6 scale, 2-12. But, the scale is on a bell-like curve (I say "bell-like" because it's a pyramidal structure, not a true bell curve--you need 3D6 to make a bell curve), and the numbers at the ends--2, 3, 11, 12--do not represent a lot of spread on the curve.
So, in reality, you've got about 7 number slots to "play" with on your variable dice throw. This is why some games invoke a +/- 6 (or sometimes a +/- 7, or +/- 8 as seen in MT).
It's all about the number of random number slots that can be rolled. With 2D6, it's about 7 "slots".
This is also, why, in CT, a Level-3 skill is "professional" level. At a +3 DM, it's unlikely you'll fail.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Supplement Four covered it pretty well, but I'd like to add a practical observation. Assuming a base target roll of 8+, there isn't that much real world difference between (say) a +3 or a +6. One succeeds almost all the time (84%), the other succeeds all the time (100%). The same is true of -2 (fails 83% of the time) and -6 (fails 100% of the time). So MGT's cap on modifiers doesn't really matter much unless the players do a lot of impossible tasks.
And the problem really arises when the character generation system routinely generates skill levels of 2+ (it's pretty easy to find another +1 modifier). Looks to me like MGT characters get such a large number of skills that most are gonna have a lot of skills of level 2+.
This forces the referee to inflate the task difficulties across the board, which (a) pisses players off; and/or (b) requires more work to rationalize. Or, he can resign himself to the PCs succeeding almost all the time (which usually results in a dull game in my experience).
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I thought I said that!
Yep. This is why CT does a good job with the 2D system. Characters have few skills, and when they do, odds are they are Skill-1.
It's an intricate system. This is also why the original Survival Rule must be enforced (and the optional Survival Rule should be ignored). You'll want to keep characters to few, broad skills, where, if you see someone with a Skill-3, you are damned impressed with them. And, if you see Skill-4, you feel like you're in the presence of true greatness.
Many Traveller GMs and Players don't understand this (and why should they? It's not "on the sleeve" to see that easy, is it?), and player want characters with more skills.
With a 2D6 system, CT's method is best. If you don't have the skill, there is no penalty (as there is in MT and MGT). But, if you do have the skill, then you get the bonus.
Thanks tbeard & S4: I think my assumption of a hard skill level cap is what sent me most wrong.
As for the probabilities: I'm aware of the 2d6 curve %, and just thought that since CT didn't have task difficulties per se* and MGT does that higher difficulty tasks would be possible. Maybe more likely than lower, depending on the ref, too. But a 2d6 curve with +/-6 has more flexibility than a 2d6 curve without any mods, and I don't see that leading to 'unnecessarily' inflating difficulties: they're there to be used appropriately.
And if skill-3 represents 'professional' capability, then I have no problem with that resulting in passing an average task 83% of the time; a 'hard' task (+2 task difficulty) reduces success to 58%, again, not unreasonable. Higher skills mean being able to perform more difficult tasks with greater certainty, and it's only at the extremes of both difficulty and skill that practical distinctions in success % can be made.
Maybe all my years of playing FUDGE have skewed my perceptions: it has a very coarse-grained scale, and a 'truer' bell-curve (4d3).
Still, this is making my decision between CT & MGT more difficult: with the former I've got to house-rule a fair bit (no LBB4-7 characters, T4-based combat), with the latter it's still an unknown. I won't complain about having options.
(*I seem to recall recently rereading Annic Nova that some checks say 'if a character has <skill-3> a successful throw will...', implying that the check is 'harder' than your average (skill-1 or -2) character can even attempt.)
As for the probabilities: I'm aware of the 2d6 curve %, and just thought that since CT didn't have task difficulties per se* and MGT does that higher difficulty tasks would be possible. Maybe more likely than lower, depending on the ref, too.
But a 2d6 curve with +/-6 has more flexibility than a 2d6 curve without any mods, and I don't see that leading to 'unnecessarily' inflating difficulties: they're there to be used appropriately.And if skill-3 represents 'professional' capability, then I have no problem with that resulting in passing an average task 83% of the time; a 'hard' task (+2 task difficulty) reduces success to 58%, again, not unreasonable. Higher skills mean being able to perform more difficult tasks with greater certainty, and it's only at the extremes of both difficulty and skill that practical distinctions in success % can be made.
Maybe all my years of playing FUDGE have skewed my perceptions: it has a very coarse-grained scale, and a 'truer' bell-curve (4d3).
Still, this is making my decision between CT & MGT more difficult: with the former I've got to house-rule a fair bit (no LBB4-7 characters, T4-based combat), with the latter it's still an unknown. I won't complain about having options.
(*I seem to recall recently rereading Annic Nova that some checks say 'if a character has <skill-3> a successful throw will...', implying that the check is 'harder' than your average (skill-1 or -2) character can even attempt.)
sablewyvern
SOC-12
I've rolled up or assisted players rolling up a number of characters, using both the official playtest system and a slightly more generous version (I'm giving two skills per term, instead of one skill + one for promotion).
Typically, I've seen two to four skills at 2, and the bulk at skill-1 or skill-0. Several characters ended up with one skill in the 3-5 range.
All these characters had a 6-term cap (and most used the full six terms).
With a fairly large skill list, that makes for highly competent characters, but not (IMO) excessively so. Further, those values are easily adjusted up or down by varying the number of terms allowed.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Sable, you really should think that through a little bit more. A little tweak like that can really mess up a game later on (given the reason above for the 2D6 system).
For example, take one of your "competent but not excessively so" characters and look at his percentage chance of success at the different task levels (for MGT, use +2 and -2 to determine task levels).
I think, once you see those numbers, you'll be surprised and go back to the 1 skill per term.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Your experience does not match my (likely more limited) experience with the MGT chargen system, nor is it what I'd predict, based on the probabilities in the skill charts.
But even if your situation is representative, you have the problem of most characters having most skills. Nothing special about Admin (for instance) if 2/3 of the PCs have it.
I prefer that each PC (ideally) be a star at one or two important things. I don't mind some overlap, but MGT (and CT Books 4+) create WAY too much IMHO. (And, in my experience, they produce many characters that are excellent at too many different skills).
Now, if I were running a game with 2-3 PCs, then I might support skills bloat. But with my typical group of ~6, I don't care for it.
It can't be too bad. LBB1 gave Scouts and Others 2 skills per term with no promotion. I think that heaping on bonus skills for characters "knowing each other" and more skills "because the campaign requires this group of skills" will be more of a 'curve breaker'.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
If S4 doesn't beat me to it, yes Scouts got 2 skills per term, against a survival roll that meant they didn't last very long. Even if you used the kinder gentler rule and they only had to muster out they generally don't get more skills than the other services. Sometimes less if you consider the rank and service skills. If I recall correctly Army kicks butt for skill totals.
And no, Other do not get 2 skills per term. Only Scouts do. That may have been the case in the first printing but I don't recall.
Last edited:
Similar threads
