Newbie question about characteristic rolling.

[MongooseMatt]

Matt, your lack of actual Traveller experience is showing.

Yes, you are quite right, because I have only been playing this game for a little over 25 years...

I don't know why you are bringing the attitude, I just suggested a faster way of doing things.

And that makes truly fast and random NPC's on the drop of a hat without having to think about it.

Well, there's your problem right there - they won't be comparable to a player's own characters, because characters players create are not random. Players make choices during creation.

I wrote a basic program for a MT marine in-service game... generated the whole damned regiment as characters. Every one had full stats, and full skills.

And what did you use an entire regiment of fully created characters for?

 

[rancke]

And what did you use an entire regiment of fully created characters for?

I don't know what Wil did with his, but in the game I was in where we did the same thing, we put the guy with Tactics-6 in charge and set the guy with Instruction-4 to train six guys with various Skill-3s to learn Instruction-3[*] so they could start training people up to Skill-2.

[*] Which I fairly recently realized was against the rules (I think), but at the time both we and the ref thought it was legal.​

Hans

 

[aramis]

And what did you use an entire regiment of fully created characters for?

Generating the unit data sheets for using MegaTraveller to resolve the unit conflicts which the PC's were unit cadre for; the campaign in question was an in-service marine game set during the 5FW. "Take, then Hold Until Relieved."


As for players making choices in CT generation: they may as well be random rolled; the only relevant choices in CT Generation are which table, do I continue, which gun, which blade, and how many cash table rolls?.

Mega adds a host more due to extensive use of cascades, but even that can be simulated with weighted randomization.

Mongoose actually has far fewer choices than Mega.

You Just don't get the simulationist agenda. It shows in the game designs you print. (Not just Traveller; MRQ is equally as stripped of simulationist elements as MGT was.)

 

[Psion]

I always wondered about this - and I wonder if you and your players are strong D&Ders, or have been in the past.

In many D6-based character creation systems, getting a 2 or 3 on a stat is a bad, bad thing. If it is on Intelligence, you may as well be a gibbon, if it is on Strength, you are a gnat.

However, in Traveller, it just means a -1 or -2 modifier - not great, but easily compensated for by smart play, external modifiers and skills.

The flip side of this is that in a 2d6+mods system, a -2 is a big penalty.

You could have Dexterity 3 but if you have Gun Combat 1, you are still not a _bad_ shot by any means.

Sure, but it's not the only thing you'll be suffering. The reason characteristics are big drivers is because they affect many checks, whereas skill affect only one sort of check each.


That being said, personally, I am less concerned about a PC getting a bad score as I would a PC getting no good score or a big spread between the overall scores of PC. That produces a big difference in the ability to contribute, which is a buzzkill AFAIAC.

Now so long as each PC has a good ability to contribute, my experience is that things proceed well. You can bank on creative play, but the PC sort of needs something to work with. A strength or shtick, if you will.

 

[McPerth]

Personally, I prefer Mongoose's chargen system. I liked the extra detail in the CT Advanced system, but it was a PITA to crawl through. Mongoose offers much of the detail, but with a simpler structure, IMO.
However, for me most of that is moot, since I've become idle in my old age and I tend to prefer point-buy systems now - they give a more integrated personality, anyway - eg the scout who can't get gunnery skill, or the thief who doesn't manage to roll Stealth...
With point-buy you get a proper scout and a proper burglar whose skills depend solely on their experience (age) and characteristics.
For point-buy, the MgT system on p40 is the best I've seen.

Personally (argeable, it's just my opinion), I don't like the point-buy sytems due to the large number of clones that may lead to if one player finds a character he/she likes and who is killed. More so in CT or MgT where experience will change little your character (MT and T4 had far better character developement rules, IMHO, and I didn't play TNE, so, I don't even know if it has those rules). And about MgT point-buy system, I find it contradictory with the CGen traveller usually has the fact that as your character grow older he has to spend more on stats, reversing the usual efect of aging in CGen.

About advanced CGen rules, I found they were quite good. They give good characters, a background for them and was quite fun even to generate them.

As Aramis says, MT rules had cascade skills enought to have a good chance to pick those skills you say your character whould need for his/her background.

PS: for those whose language is not english, please, what does PITA mean?

 

[Psion]

Quite a few Traveller GM's have strong simulationist tendencies.

And I'm one of them. But I'm not seeing your argument here...

Yes, having character match with CGen is VITAL to them. And having CGen make sense is also vital.

I think it would be pretty easy to make characters that look like generated characters quickly without rolling. To me, this crosses the line from desiring simulation to not using the tools to the best effect. If I know the roll a character is making I can just look at the table and picking. The universe is big, the tables are small, that character is out there somewhere. If events say such a character crosses the PC path in that particular capacity, then it's reasonable to say that they do, AFAIAC.

Now I would agree that the tables can be used as muses.

(Only one glaring issue in the MGT core: scouts can only get gunnery via events.)

Interesting point. If you were making a PC, you could also get it by connections and package skills, but would agree it does make for a weakness in the representation of the class in serving the role as a "muse" table. A quick look reveals the tugging the Scout book of the shelf doesn't cure this particular problem.

That being said, I think that when it comes to rolling NPCs as inspiration, the advantage may go to MgT, because events add more color than just a few skill randomizations, and advancement and survival rolls.

 

[jawillroy]

PS: for those whose language is not english, please, what does PITA mean?

Pain In The... (tries to remember how persnickety this forum is about naughty words)

Butt.

I never liked the idea of point-buy: for me part of the game - an important part - was always finding the way to play characters that aren't exactly the way you ordered.

 

[shadowlord]

Thanks Aramis, I thought that might be the case but wanted to be sure. As for the 3D6 drop lowest vs 2D6 I think it more of an issue of what types of characters the players want to play than anything else. ( Powergamers comes to mind). The disturbertion patern was interesting though.

 

[Icosahedron]

PC clones may be a problem with certain types of player - fortunately, I haven't gamed with many of them. If I found it to be a problem, I'd tell the player in question.

Yes, playing less-than-ideal characters can be fun, but missing out vital skills is just unrealistic, and sometimes it can create problems for the story if the characters don't have the right skill mix. MgT solves this to some extent with the connection skills and the package skills, but as I said, my main motive for using point-buy is I've grown lazy in my old age. It's just quicker and easier (for us non-programmers) - especially for generating NPCs on the fly.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, the 'AFAIAC' that has been used a couple of times is 'As Far As I Am Concerned'.

 

[nats]

As for the 3D6 drop lowest vs 2D6 I think it more of an issue of what types of characters the players want to play than anything else.

I prefer the standard CT system of characteristics rolling - you have to stick with what you get from the off, I find you tend to pick a career that suits the character then and as such have to work with what youve got which is more fun.

I also tend to preroll some NPCs for use but I would definitely find the MGT system of chargen too laborious for NPCs. And I am against point system etc as that just isnt Traveller is it?

I think this is the problem I had with MGT in a nutshell. Yes you can do many things differently to the way Classic Traveller did them - sure points systems create more convenient characters for example. But the fact is that CT did it a certain way and it is fun working with the system. It forces some difficult decisions during chargen that you just dont get made to do in MGT.

At the end of the day I like these aspects of Traveller which is why I play it and with MGT I found myself thinking who are Mongoose chaps to come along and change major aspects of Traveller like adding a points based chargen system that affects the whole shooting match? Sure for some people it makes sense but it just isnt Traveller if you do that for me. I would have been far happier if they had just expanded the CT info base or compiled the rules into a modern document. But unfortunately we seem to live in an age where everyone who comes along seems to have to change things just to make their individual mark, even where things didnt actually need changing that much to begin with as they were actually very good already.

 

[Icosahedron]

I found myself thinking who are Mongoose chaps to come along and change major aspects of Traveller... ...it just isnt Traveller if you do that for me.

Well, I still consider myself to be a CTer at heart, but I'm perfectly happy for Mongoose to make new suggestions and come up with new ideas. I'll just take what I want and leave the rest - just as I've done with every previous edition.

Caveat - provided what is supplied is accurate and realistic. Often, I don't have the time or inclination to check rules, and I don't like knowledgeable players stopping me mid-game and asking why my TL0 longbows have a range of 15km... I expect the rule-writers to have done my reality-to-game conversion homework for me - that's what I'm paying for.

For me, I can make convenient use of MgT chargen, it's a great system, produces realistic characters and it doesn't interfere with MTU canon. MgT ship design, OTOH I have no interest in, since adopting it would require radical alterations to the designs of my existing fleet. Which is why I similarly ignored MT, TNE, T4,GURPS, etc.

In MTU, Traveller is what I decide it's going to be.

 

[nats]

Well, I still consider myself to be a CTer at heart, but I'm perfectly happy for Mongoose to make new suggestions and come up with new ideas. I'll just take what I want and leave the rest - just as I've done with every previous edition.

Caveat - provided what is supplied is accurate and realistic. Often, I don't have the time or inclination to check rules, and I don't like knowledgeable players stopping me mid-game and asking why my TL0 longbows have a range of 15km... I expect the rule-writers to have done my reality-to-game conversion homework for me - that's what I'm paying for.

For me, I can make convenient use of MgT chargen, it's a great system, produces realistic characters and it doesn't interfere with MTU canon. MgT ship design, OTOH I have no interest in, since adopting it would require radical alterations to the designs of my existing fleet. Which is why I similarly ignored MT, TNE, T4,GURPS, etc.

In MTU, Traveller is what I decide it's going to be.

Well thats fine - but if you use the MGT chargen then you need to use their combat rules and skills, which expands into their Psionics rules and eventually touches pretty much all of the game. Surely its more work trying to resolve the inconsistencies between the two sets of rules than just deciding to use one or the other fully?

And I dont know why you would want to, CT chargen is fine the way it is - its quick, simple and provides room for creativity. MGT chargen gets flat quickly due to lack of choices - once you have experienced the various events a few times each. Better off just using your own imagination to flesh out the character whilst you are rolling them or after.

And of course theres nothing stopping you from creating a long set of events for which to roll on during CT character gen once per term and a list of mishaps for a non-survival roll. I am sure you could come up with better stuff than Mongoose yourself if thats the only thing about MGT chargen you like. Its not rocket science. I have altered and added careers such as a bounty hunter and colonist to the CT chargen myself, its easy to do and a very enjoyable task actually. Why pay others to have all the fun when you can do it yourself?

 

[Icosahedron]

Well thats fine - but if you use the MGT chargen then you need to use their combat rules and skills,

Why do I? The chargen sequence (including point-buy) produces characters who have a range of characteristics, a range of skills, some cash, and some form of background.
Look at the output for Jamison on p40. Apart from the characteristic DMs (which you can simply omit) the character can just as easily be played in CT. The same cannot be said for the ship designs, these are fundamentally different from CT ships.

Surely its more work trying to resolve the inconsistencies between the two sets of rules than just deciding to use one or the other fully?

So no, I haven't found it to be more work, as I fail to see any inconsistency in the chargen sequences. Your argument is valid for shipgen, which is why I haven't adopted that section.

And I dont know why you would want to, CT chargen is fine the way it is - its quick, simple and provides room for creativity. MGT chargen gets flat quickly due to lack of choices - once you have experienced the various events a few times each. Better off just using your own imagination to flesh out the character whilst you are rolling them or after.

Basic CT is quick, but its characters are even flatter. Advanced CT is more complex. IMO, MgT has the Goldilocks formula. MgT can benefit from imaginitive input just as easily as CT, just because they provide tables doesn't mean you have to switch you brain off - it just gives you the option to, and after 30 years of playing Traveller, maybe my aging brain needs a little support, a bit of a prompt.

And of course theres nothing stopping you from creating a long set of events for which to roll on during CT character gen once per term and a list of mishaps for a non-survival roll. I am sure you could come up with better stuff than Mongoose yourself if thats the only thing about MGT chargen you like. Its not rocket science. I have altered and added careers such as a bounty hunter and colonist to the CT chargen myself, its easy to do and a very enjoyable task actually. Why pay others to have all the fun when you can do it yourself?

Precisely. You can create additional tables or impose your own ideas whenever you want - and you can do it just as easily with MgT as you can with CT. You just don't need to.
You don't pay others to do stuff you enjoy doing, you pay them to do something you'd rather not do. Maybe I'm getting lazy, but I'd rather spend my time playing a character than generating it.

 

[aramis]

The problem with MGT CGen is that, if one adopts it, one needs to adopt also their skill list. I readily adopted the MT task system into MGT (which does have some significant differences, but is more flexible), and hybridized CT Bk2 combat and MGT designs.

MGT ship combat suffers from a number of items which are flaws IMO. Readily solved ones, tho'.

• range bands mishandled - use mayday hex grid or StarterTraveller Rane Bands instead
• 3 hits per drive only - instead, use CT letter damage
• missile rules funky - use CT missile movement.

 

[Psion]

MGT ship combat suffers from a number of items which are flaws IMO. Readily solved ones, tho'.

• range bands mishandled - use mayday hex grid or StarterTraveller Rane Bands instead
• 3 hits per drive only - instead, use CT letter damage
• missile rules funky - use CT missile movement.

I have bigger problems with MGT High Guard, but it seems to me that a lot of the ship design/combat problems could have been solved by hewing closer to CT.

 

[aramis]

I have bigger problems with MGT High Guard, but it seems to me that a lot of the ship design/combat problems could have been solved by hewing closer to CT.

:toast:What MGT-HG??

 

[Icosahedron]

The problem with MGT CGen is that, if one adopts it, one needs to adopt also their skill list.

Well, my house skill list has outgrown from CT anyway, so I'd have to poke about with whichever system I used. That's another advantage of MgT's wonderfully compact point-buy system - I can buy skills from my own hybrid list.