megatraveller compared to CT ?
- Thread starter weasel fierce
- Start date
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
As you said, your experience of CT is just the first three LBB's. And, if that's all you've seen of CT, I can understand your position.
But, there's a lot to CT outside of the first three books.
For example, you mention the careers in MT. There's a lot more choice. You can be a Belter, or a Barbarian, or a Scientist, among others.
If you've only looked at CT as LBB 1-3, then, heck yeah, MT brought a lot of "new" stuff to the table.
But...
All those careers you see in MT Players Manual first appeared in Supplement 4: Citizens fo the Imperium, an add-on rule supplement for Classic Trav.
That's all I was saying. CT is so much more than the first three books. MT, basically, is just a compilation of material that originally saw print in some CT-oriented rule book/adventure/supplement/magazine.
I'm not jumpin' on ya, here. Don't read me that way. It's just that when I see someone mention that "MT is better than CT" because of X, I usually find it's because that person didn't know that "X" first came to Traveller via CT, and I try to correct it.
-S4
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
As you said, your experience of CT is just the first three LBB's. And, if that's all you've seen of CT, I can understand your position.
But, there's a lot to CT outside of the first three books.
For example, you mention the careers in MT. There's a lot more choice. You can be a Belter, or a Barbarian, or a Scientist, among others.
If you've only looked at CT as LBB 1-3, then, heck yeah, MT brought a lot of "new" stuff to the table.
But...
All those careers you see in MT Players Manual first appeared in Supplement 4: Citizens fo the Imperium, an add-on rule supplement for Classic Trav.
That's all I was saying. CT is so much more than the first three books. MT, basically, is just a compilation of material that originally saw print in some CT-oriented rule book/adventure/supplement/magazine.
I'm not jumpin' on ya, here. Don't read me that way. It's just that when I see someone mention that "MT is better than CT" because of X, I usually find it's because that person didn't know that "X" first came to Traveller via CT, and I try to correct it.
-S4
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
As you said, your experience of CT is just the first three LBB's. And, if that's all you've seen of CT, I can understand your position.
But, there's a lot to CT outside of the first three books.
For example, you mention the careers in MT. There's a lot more choice. You can be a Belter, or a Barbarian, or a Scientist, among others.
If you've only looked at CT as LBB 1-3, then, heck yeah, MT brought a lot of "new" stuff to the table.
But...
All those careers you see in MT Players Manual first appeared in Supplement 4: Citizens fo the Imperium, an add-on rule supplement for Classic Trav.
That's all I was saying. CT is so much more than the first three books. MT, basically, is just a compilation of material that originally saw print in some CT-oriented rule book/adventure/supplement/magazine.
I'm not jumpin' on ya, here. Don't read me that way. It's just that when I see someone mention that "MT is better than CT" because of X, I usually find it's because that person didn't know that "X" first came to Traveller via CT, and I try to correct it.
-S4
Sure. I'm not defending anything. I am just saying that was not my experience of it. To me, MT Was .. just a whole lot better, except for the ship combat and design rules, and some holes, things missing.
I liked that the Imperial Encyclopedia was one book.
I liked that it was all larger, more able to sit on a shelf, and not small booklets, which are harder to organize.
I really liked the 4 7 11 task system, which I had not seen.
Yeah, if those are considered to be CT, well and good, I have no problem here with your clarification.
I liked that the Imperial Encyclopedia was one book.
I liked that it was all larger, more able to sit on a shelf, and not small booklets, which are harder to organize.
I really liked the 4 7 11 task system, which I had not seen.
Yeah, if those are considered to be CT, well and good, I have no problem here with your clarification.
Sure. I'm not defending anything. I am just saying that was not my experience of it. To me, MT Was .. just a whole lot better, except for the ship combat and design rules, and some holes, things missing.
I liked that the Imperial Encyclopedia was one book.
I liked that it was all larger, more able to sit on a shelf, and not small booklets, which are harder to organize.
I really liked the 4 7 11 task system, which I had not seen.
Yeah, if those are considered to be CT, well and good, I have no problem here with your clarification.
I liked that the Imperial Encyclopedia was one book.
I liked that it was all larger, more able to sit on a shelf, and not small booklets, which are harder to organize.
I really liked the 4 7 11 task system, which I had not seen.
Yeah, if those are considered to be CT, well and good, I have no problem here with your clarification.
Sure. I'm not defending anything. I am just saying that was not my experience of it. To me, MT Was .. just a whole lot better, except for the ship combat and design rules, and some holes, things missing.
I liked that the Imperial Encyclopedia was one book.
I liked that it was all larger, more able to sit on a shelf, and not small booklets, which are harder to organize.
I really liked the 4 7 11 task system, which I had not seen.
Yeah, if those are considered to be CT, well and good, I have no problem here with your clarification.
I liked that the Imperial Encyclopedia was one book.
I liked that it was all larger, more able to sit on a shelf, and not small booklets, which are harder to organize.
I really liked the 4 7 11 task system, which I had not seen.
Yeah, if those are considered to be CT, well and good, I have no problem here with your clarification.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Gotcha. Just FYI, much of the information contained in the Imperial Encyclopedia first saw print in CT's two volumnes of Library Data.
-S4
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Gotcha. Just FYI, much of the information contained in the Imperial Encyclopedia first saw print in CT's two volumnes of Library Data.
-S4
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Gotcha. Just FYI, much of the information contained in the Imperial Encyclopedia first saw print in CT's two volumnes of Library Data.
-S4
S4,
As one of the MT is better folks, and as a completist, I know where most of the MT stuff came from. Setting aside setting shattering changes to background, the ruleset is really CT+ (CT skill rules rationalized and homogenized, with a few thoughts added). MT combat is only somewhat similar to CT (differs in quite a few respects, especially ranges, penetration and damage, and the way damage is or is not applied to characteristics). MT spaceships are fairly different to CT. World generation is a lot similar to Book 6 of CT.
The thing is, for MT you get all of these in 3 books. For CT, you don't just get these all even in the 'Deluxe Edition' (my first Traveller!). And lots of things in CT have some fairly big unfinished bits. Yes, many of these were patched in JTAS or elsewhere in other places, but that's just admiting their was a lacking. Many of these came inherently addressed in MT.
Now, I'm not without acknowledgement of MT's ruleset flaws. Errata beyond sanity was the single most bruising criticsim.
But as a ruleset to sit and run a game, I found MT better. With the knowledge of the UTP and how to apply it and of the various skills in the game (MT also had smarter ideas with skills, including the cascades/includes/serves as), I could run a game pretty much without much more than a ref's screen in support (just for combat).
In CT, I still needed the books because skill mods were so varied (IME) by skill and situation as were some of the stat mods for weapons. Consistency wasn't a strong point of CT and would have been in MT if DGP could edit to save their lives.
But anyway, since both are close to one another in many ways, MT really isn't a sea-change, at least as far as chargen, skills system, and even some of combat from CT as some people think.
That's why I think MT is the best set of rules because it is cleaned up CT.
As one of the MT is better folks, and as a completist, I know where most of the MT stuff came from. Setting aside setting shattering changes to background, the ruleset is really CT+ (CT skill rules rationalized and homogenized, with a few thoughts added). MT combat is only somewhat similar to CT (differs in quite a few respects, especially ranges, penetration and damage, and the way damage is or is not applied to characteristics). MT spaceships are fairly different to CT. World generation is a lot similar to Book 6 of CT.
The thing is, for MT you get all of these in 3 books. For CT, you don't just get these all even in the 'Deluxe Edition' (my first Traveller!). And lots of things in CT have some fairly big unfinished bits. Yes, many of these were patched in JTAS or elsewhere in other places, but that's just admiting their was a lacking. Many of these came inherently addressed in MT.
Now, I'm not without acknowledgement of MT's ruleset flaws. Errata beyond sanity was the single most bruising criticsim.
But as a ruleset to sit and run a game, I found MT better. With the knowledge of the UTP and how to apply it and of the various skills in the game (MT also had smarter ideas with skills, including the cascades/includes/serves as), I could run a game pretty much without much more than a ref's screen in support (just for combat).
In CT, I still needed the books because skill mods were so varied (IME) by skill and situation as were some of the stat mods for weapons. Consistency wasn't a strong point of CT and would have been in MT if DGP could edit to save their lives.
But anyway, since both are close to one another in many ways, MT really isn't a sea-change, at least as far as chargen, skills system, and even some of combat from CT as some people think.
That's why I think MT is the best set of rules because it is cleaned up CT.
S4,
As one of the MT is better folks, and as a completist, I know where most of the MT stuff came from. Setting aside setting shattering changes to background, the ruleset is really CT+ (CT skill rules rationalized and homogenized, with a few thoughts added). MT combat is only somewhat similar to CT (differs in quite a few respects, especially ranges, penetration and damage, and the way damage is or is not applied to characteristics). MT spaceships are fairly different to CT. World generation is a lot similar to Book 6 of CT.
The thing is, for MT you get all of these in 3 books. For CT, you don't just get these all even in the 'Deluxe Edition' (my first Traveller!). And lots of things in CT have some fairly big unfinished bits. Yes, many of these were patched in JTAS or elsewhere in other places, but that's just admiting their was a lacking. Many of these came inherently addressed in MT.
Now, I'm not without acknowledgement of MT's ruleset flaws. Errata beyond sanity was the single most bruising criticsim.
But as a ruleset to sit and run a game, I found MT better. With the knowledge of the UTP and how to apply it and of the various skills in the game (MT also had smarter ideas with skills, including the cascades/includes/serves as), I could run a game pretty much without much more than a ref's screen in support (just for combat).
In CT, I still needed the books because skill mods were so varied (IME) by skill and situation as were some of the stat mods for weapons. Consistency wasn't a strong point of CT and would have been in MT if DGP could edit to save their lives.
But anyway, since both are close to one another in many ways, MT really isn't a sea-change, at least as far as chargen, skills system, and even some of combat from CT as some people think.
That's why I think MT is the best set of rules because it is cleaned up CT.
As one of the MT is better folks, and as a completist, I know where most of the MT stuff came from. Setting aside setting shattering changes to background, the ruleset is really CT+ (CT skill rules rationalized and homogenized, with a few thoughts added). MT combat is only somewhat similar to CT (differs in quite a few respects, especially ranges, penetration and damage, and the way damage is or is not applied to characteristics). MT spaceships are fairly different to CT. World generation is a lot similar to Book 6 of CT.
The thing is, for MT you get all of these in 3 books. For CT, you don't just get these all even in the 'Deluxe Edition' (my first Traveller!). And lots of things in CT have some fairly big unfinished bits. Yes, many of these were patched in JTAS or elsewhere in other places, but that's just admiting their was a lacking. Many of these came inherently addressed in MT.
Now, I'm not without acknowledgement of MT's ruleset flaws. Errata beyond sanity was the single most bruising criticsim.
But as a ruleset to sit and run a game, I found MT better. With the knowledge of the UTP and how to apply it and of the various skills in the game (MT also had smarter ideas with skills, including the cascades/includes/serves as), I could run a game pretty much without much more than a ref's screen in support (just for combat).
In CT, I still needed the books because skill mods were so varied (IME) by skill and situation as were some of the stat mods for weapons. Consistency wasn't a strong point of CT and would have been in MT if DGP could edit to save their lives.
But anyway, since both are close to one another in many ways, MT really isn't a sea-change, at least as far as chargen, skills system, and even some of combat from CT as some people think.
That's why I think MT is the best set of rules because it is cleaned up CT.
S4,
As one of the MT is better folks, and as a completist, I know where most of the MT stuff came from. Setting aside setting shattering changes to background, the ruleset is really CT+ (CT skill rules rationalized and homogenized, with a few thoughts added). MT combat is only somewhat similar to CT (differs in quite a few respects, especially ranges, penetration and damage, and the way damage is or is not applied to characteristics). MT spaceships are fairly different to CT. World generation is a lot similar to Book 6 of CT.
The thing is, for MT you get all of these in 3 books. For CT, you don't just get these all even in the 'Deluxe Edition' (my first Traveller!). And lots of things in CT have some fairly big unfinished bits. Yes, many of these were patched in JTAS or elsewhere in other places, but that's just admiting their was a lacking. Many of these came inherently addressed in MT.
Now, I'm not without acknowledgement of MT's ruleset flaws. Errata beyond sanity was the single most bruising criticsim.
But as a ruleset to sit and run a game, I found MT better. With the knowledge of the UTP and how to apply it and of the various skills in the game (MT also had smarter ideas with skills, including the cascades/includes/serves as), I could run a game pretty much without much more than a ref's screen in support (just for combat).
In CT, I still needed the books because skill mods were so varied (IME) by skill and situation as were some of the stat mods for weapons. Consistency wasn't a strong point of CT and would have been in MT if DGP could edit to save their lives.
But anyway, since both are close to one another in many ways, MT really isn't a sea-change, at least as far as chargen, skills system, and even some of combat from CT as some people think.
That's why I think MT is the best set of rules because it is cleaned up CT.
As one of the MT is better folks, and as a completist, I know where most of the MT stuff came from. Setting aside setting shattering changes to background, the ruleset is really CT+ (CT skill rules rationalized and homogenized, with a few thoughts added). MT combat is only somewhat similar to CT (differs in quite a few respects, especially ranges, penetration and damage, and the way damage is or is not applied to characteristics). MT spaceships are fairly different to CT. World generation is a lot similar to Book 6 of CT.
The thing is, for MT you get all of these in 3 books. For CT, you don't just get these all even in the 'Deluxe Edition' (my first Traveller!). And lots of things in CT have some fairly big unfinished bits. Yes, many of these were patched in JTAS or elsewhere in other places, but that's just admiting their was a lacking. Many of these came inherently addressed in MT.
Now, I'm not without acknowledgement of MT's ruleset flaws. Errata beyond sanity was the single most bruising criticsim.
But as a ruleset to sit and run a game, I found MT better. With the knowledge of the UTP and how to apply it and of the various skills in the game (MT also had smarter ideas with skills, including the cascades/includes/serves as), I could run a game pretty much without much more than a ref's screen in support (just for combat).
In CT, I still needed the books because skill mods were so varied (IME) by skill and situation as were some of the stat mods for weapons. Consistency wasn't a strong point of CT and would have been in MT if DGP could edit to save their lives.
But anyway, since both are close to one another in many ways, MT really isn't a sea-change, at least as far as chargen, skills system, and even some of combat from CT as some people think.
That's why I think MT is the best set of rules because it is cleaned up CT.
Commander Drax
SOC-12
I agree, although I did like the technological assumptions of TNE, though disliked its the additional layer of complexity and its sudden dropping of Thrusters as a means of propulsion, now If we could only get a version of MegaTraveller utilising the TNE technical assumptions, whilst including thrusterplates, I think we would have a winner, the winner that T4 was supposed to be, but dreadfully failed. MT does have some flaws, the most prominent of which is the damage tables found in the space combat section, (a direct lift from CT's High Guard).
Commander Drax
SOC-12
I agree, although I did like the technological assumptions of TNE, though disliked its the additional layer of complexity and its sudden dropping of Thrusters as a means of propulsion, now If we could only get a version of MegaTraveller utilising the TNE technical assumptions, whilst including thrusterplates, I think we would have a winner, the winner that T4 was supposed to be, but dreadfully failed. MT does have some flaws, the most prominent of which is the damage tables found in the space combat section, (a direct lift from CT's High Guard).
Commander Drax
SOC-12
I agree, although I did like the technological assumptions of TNE, though disliked its the additional layer of complexity and its sudden dropping of Thrusters as a means of propulsion, now If we could only get a version of MegaTraveller utilising the TNE technical assumptions, whilst including thrusterplates, I think we would have a winner, the winner that T4 was supposed to be, but dreadfully failed. MT does have some flaws, the most prominent of which is the damage tables found in the space combat section, (a direct lift from CT's High Guard).
