howardfanatic
SOC-11
Well I now have Traveller 4 and Mongoose Traveller. I'll be reading them and comparing them to Classic Traveller.
How badly would I get flamed...
- Thread starter howardfanatic
- Start date
Gray Lensman
SOC-13
Darn, and I thought everbody used a mix of CT/MT/TNE/GT. Gee guess I have MTD too :rofl:
howardfanatic
SOC-11
So could I use Megatraveller to "enhance" classic Traveller? I mean, are the stats for characters, vehicles, and starships more or less the same? As in, AD&D 1st and 2nd edition compatible?
I'll prbably get MegaT and TNewEra because they are inexpensive, but I have to admit that ClassicT is badass so far and I'm probably going to use it, though I'm already working on battledress and mecha houserules.
I'll prbably get MegaT and TNewEra because they are inexpensive, but I have to admit that ClassicT is badass so far and I'm probably going to use it, though I'm already working on battledress and mecha houserules.
MT characters have slightly more skills (just over one more level per term), and weapon skills are broadened (Large Blade, Small Blade, Handgun, Rifleman, SMG instead of individual weapons).
Combat gear is incompatible; the combat mechanics are so totally different as to make the equipment non-interoperable. CT is an "Armor makes you harder to hit" whilst MT is an "Armor makes hits do less damage" mode. CT weapon stats are a line of range band and Target Armor modifiers, plus a damage; MT is Penetration, Attenuation, to hit type, Damage, max range, signature, recoil, autofire targets, danger space; both have mass, length, ammo and price as well.
MT Vehicles can be used in CT, since the MT craft design system produces "real world" numbers; CT has no sub-starship vehicle rules system. CT has a couple of special cases presented in adventures for handling ATVs. MT vehicle combat, however, uses the exact same data as MT personal combat (on the same scale, even). Large Scale MT combat also uses the exact same damage, pen, AV system; again, CT has noting comparable.
non-combat gear in MT is better presented but pretty much mildly exanded from CT.
MT Starships are not compatible with CT ones, tho CT-Bk5 designs can be used in the MT-HighGuard rules (back of the Ref's Manual), the actual designs are not compatible, only the ratings of them. Or you can use the normal combat rules for MT with anything from a man up to a million-displacement-ton battleship. Note that the major differences in design rules result in vast differences in operations costs for ships, too.
The use of the new CGen tables and skill list is a major improvement for some, a major PITA for others. MT also, by more use of cascades (over a dozen - Academic, Science, Melee, Gun Combat, Space, Space Technical, Interpersonal, Special Combat, etc - instead of CT's 2 - Gun Combat and Blade Combat) makes for FAR more control over characters. It can be dropped in to a CT game with no major disruptions other than the increased levels of skill (but Advanced Characters from Bk4-7 have those rates of skill anyway, a major issue for many CT Refs).
MT combat mechanics can be dropped in in their entirety, but if doing that, you may as well use the MT craft design rules ... at least for non-space-craft. (you can rate CT ships with the MT rules to get MT stats, but you need to know that CT-HG unarmored = MT AV40. HG:MT armor ratings can be taken from Striker for the remainder:
SAr1=Av64 SAr2=Av67 SAr3=Av70 SAr4=Av72 SAr5=Av74 SAr6=Av76 SAr7=Av77 and one point more per level thereafter.
The level of compatibility is more akin to D&D Cyclopedia and AD&D 2; the characters themselves can be converted easily enough, but the equipment isn't rated the same ways.
Combat gear is incompatible; the combat mechanics are so totally different as to make the equipment non-interoperable. CT is an "Armor makes you harder to hit" whilst MT is an "Armor makes hits do less damage" mode. CT weapon stats are a line of range band and Target Armor modifiers, plus a damage; MT is Penetration, Attenuation, to hit type, Damage, max range, signature, recoil, autofire targets, danger space; both have mass, length, ammo and price as well.
MT Vehicles can be used in CT, since the MT craft design system produces "real world" numbers; CT has no sub-starship vehicle rules system. CT has a couple of special cases presented in adventures for handling ATVs. MT vehicle combat, however, uses the exact same data as MT personal combat (on the same scale, even). Large Scale MT combat also uses the exact same damage, pen, AV system; again, CT has noting comparable.
non-combat gear in MT is better presented but pretty much mildly exanded from CT.
MT Starships are not compatible with CT ones, tho CT-Bk5 designs can be used in the MT-HighGuard rules (back of the Ref's Manual), the actual designs are not compatible, only the ratings of them. Or you can use the normal combat rules for MT with anything from a man up to a million-displacement-ton battleship. Note that the major differences in design rules result in vast differences in operations costs for ships, too.
The use of the new CGen tables and skill list is a major improvement for some, a major PITA for others. MT also, by more use of cascades (over a dozen - Academic, Science, Melee, Gun Combat, Space, Space Technical, Interpersonal, Special Combat, etc - instead of CT's 2 - Gun Combat and Blade Combat) makes for FAR more control over characters. It can be dropped in to a CT game with no major disruptions other than the increased levels of skill (but Advanced Characters from Bk4-7 have those rates of skill anyway, a major issue for many CT Refs).
MT combat mechanics can be dropped in in their entirety, but if doing that, you may as well use the MT craft design rules ... at least for non-space-craft. (you can rate CT ships with the MT rules to get MT stats, but you need to know that CT-HG unarmored = MT AV40. HG:MT armor ratings can be taken from Striker for the remainder:
SAr1=Av64 SAr2=Av67 SAr3=Av70 SAr4=Av72 SAr5=Av74 SAr6=Av76 SAr7=Av77 and one point more per level thereafter.
The level of compatibility is more akin to D&D Cyclopedia and AD&D 2; the characters themselves can be converted easily enough, but the equipment isn't rated the same ways.
Starviking
SOC-13
I'll chip in and say that one of the best things about TNE is the character generation system - it provides a good deal of detail that can be used to flesh out a generated character - and there are lots of careers to pick and mix with.
It does, however, have a very different rate of skill gains, and presumes lower (and harder to raise) stats. the official conversion is 1.5 TNE levels to 1 MT level. (Survival Margin)
Stevie-the-Gamer
SOC-7
I think I may have been mis-reading CT all these years. I thought the combat system was designed to see if you had damaged your target. The range and armour mods combined the "to hit" and "Penetration" into one easy die roll.
Net effect, same. Players describe not doing damage as missing, and the rules don't make much distinction, either.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Nah, that's how I've always seen it too. Same in D&D. A "miss" never meant to me and our band always a total swish, nothing but air. It more often meant a blow or shot turned aside, deflected, absorbed or whatever. "Swing, miss, clang off the armor. Swing, miss, parried by shield. Swing, miss, that one dented your helmet." And so on. Sometimes it would be a total miss, like if the roll was waaay short.
As Wil notes, net effect the same, and pretty much a player choice issue, but the "play" is imo better if "misses" are not all swishes.
I just started running Traveller again, after a long hiatus. I always played TNE before. I discovered MT and am sold (SOLD!) on it being a better system for everything except ship design. (YMMV- its a better system for my style of play). But, I am not a fan of MT designed ships.
I really would like to use the TNE/Fire, Fusion, & Steel starship design sequence and MT for everything else. Does anyone forsee an immediate problem with just designing ships with TNE/FFS and running them with MT rules? I would use Brilliant Lances if/when space combat came up, but my game is light on ship-to-ship engagements involving the PCs. My main concern is something like trade, fuel costs, cargo sizes, breaking the game as a result of the different ship designs.
Any ideas or advice?
I really would like to use the TNE/Fire, Fusion, & Steel starship design sequence and MT for everything else. Does anyone forsee an immediate problem with just designing ships with TNE/FFS and running them with MT rules? I would use Brilliant Lances if/when space combat came up, but my game is light on ship-to-ship engagements involving the PCs. My main concern is something like trade, fuel costs, cargo sizes, breaking the game as a result of the different ship designs.
Any ideas or advice?
Caelarch,
I would recommend that if you use FF&S, use both the ship design & the ship combat. I have always just dropped systems from all systems in & out of my game.
Keep it consistent & you should be just fine.
And always remember,
It is YOUR traveller universe.
Run it as you will.
I would recommend that if you use FF&S, use both the ship design & the ship combat. I have always just dropped systems from all systems in & out of my game.
Keep it consistent & you should be just fine.
And always remember,
It is YOUR traveller universe.
Run it as you will.
There are two issues with the combination:
1) ship combat mechanics
2) personal/vehicle combat mechanics
TNE uses very different assumptions for both than does MT.
The FF&S design system is more convoluted, and unlike MT, uses individually built ship weapons. Using the MT ship combat system with them is not possible in a practical sense. Using the MT personal/vehicle combat system with them isn't, either.
So, if you intend to use the MT High Guard section, don't bother with FF&S weapons at all. Use ONLY the MT weapons. (You'll need to figure surface areas for the spinals. You'll also need 1T, 2T, 3T and 5T turret cans, as well as 50T and 100T bays, but one can serves all in each.)
if you intend to use the MT vehicle combat mechanics with spacecraft, again, use MT weapons, and then simply generate the AV by multiplying the toughness times the thickness in mm and looking it up on the MT AV table. Generate the hits normally.
You think *that's* bad...
Try running the canon universe with "The Window" gaming system (from mimgames.com- it's free, and great for storytelling and those not interested in the finer points of a system - or the finer points of existence, perhaps???
) Combine this mess with the canon TU setting, and d20 shipbuilding rules... bleah!It was a failed experiment, lasted one gaming session, and is being replaced by Gurps (not by my choice, mind you...)
I've always seen MT as a recopilation of CT with the supplements and rules appeared on other CT material, as long as game mechanics is concerned. Most CT material can be used in MT without any change (NA to ships' materials).
MT has always been my favorite, and I liked the analysis Aramis has done in this thread (both of them).
The most important departure I see from CT is ship design, and, to my view, MT has the advantage of having nearly any vehicle/ship on the same system. The most important change I see on it (as ship cappabilities isconcerned) is that MT ships use to need quite less jump fuel ( at jump 2+ and more so at grater jump numbers), which changes a little some published facts and flavour (as someone pinted on another thread, the Islands Cluster is not so isolated when you can build ships easly able to do more than one jump 4 (or even 5) without refueling). I don't put that detail on the plus side neither on the minus one, is just an important change in ship performace.
About man-to-man combat, I've always used an adaptation of Azhanti Hight Lighning system, to which I added seccondary damages from 'On Target', for I've always thought inteesting to contemplate things as broken bones, or other damage that can take your character uncapacited (or partialy so) for a while (I may be biased on this, as a nurse I am).
Another (very minor) point I liked quite a lot from MT (easy adaptable to any other system) was the use of Jack of all Trades skill, that allowed you a retry on tasks where unortodox solutions may be achived when ortodox ones were unavailable, without making a character with JOT 4 as nearly having any skill at 0. This makes it weaker on one side, but stronger on another, as you can benefit from it even on tasks you're not unskilled.
The task system, I thought, was quite sound and a good help to standarize referees whork. My only criticism on this topic is that perhaps numbr should be a little higher, to compensate the characteristhic's modifier at medium numbers. As it is, a routine (medium dificulty) by a character UPP 777777 with skill level 0 (or a 'unskilled ok' task) needs a 6+ to be succesful, quite easier than the 8+ usual in CT.
One of the main flaws I found in MT was that it seemed to assume most of its players knew CT, for in some cases the only way to clarify rules (or in the case or robots, to put an example, to make for the lack of rules) was resorting to CT published materials (in MT 101 vehicles and alien modules supplements, there were instances where robot brains were used, through MT had not rules about them, by resorting to CT rules). For what you say you know CT, so it whould not be a unsurmountable problem in your case.
Another major flaw was the trade system (see the thread about that on MT forum).
The last major flaw I think MT had was the lack of a sound combat system for small ships. It used HG system nearly unchanged, which is too abstract for my liking when you're using a small ship crewed by your players (unless, off course, they are crazy enought to challenge a destroyer or larger Navy ship). To say so, it's more strategical combat oriented that roleplaying oriented. You could resort to bk2 system or Mayday, if you can adapt to them some weapons appearing in HG (PA, plasma and fusion guns, armor, etc).
All this said, I'll reccomend anyone who likes CT to buy MT if he can.
Last edited:
