So, What Parts of T5 can be ported easily to MGT?

[DonM]

I still prefer TNE's implementation of Contacts to MGT's implementation of Allies and Enemies.

And in an early version of my house rules, I used Events and Mishaps, only to move away from that because I've found the MGT implementation of them to be wildly varied from product to product, and oddly distributed. As they appear in the MGT core rulebook, I found that they don't suit T5 even if you adjust for the skill system. I love the idea, just not how it's implemented. I'm fiddling with several ideas, and something like it will probably show up in a house rules post.

 

[robject]

... in my house rules considerations, I'm going the other way... I'm moving stuff I like from CT/MT/TNE/T4/MGT/GT/T20 to T5.

And I'm doing this on a completely unnecessary scale. I'm mapping characters, vehicles, starships, guns, armor, and equipment between CT (advanced) and T5 (and therefore between MgT and T5).

...

I do actually find it faster in play, but based on the discussions I have had with Marc, I think I'm playing fast and loose ...

I suspect I am, as well.

On the other hand, even with CT, I had to play fast and loose.

 

[pendragonman]

You guys say "fast and loose" like its a bad thing. Using the following principles:

1) The GM is in charge of the campaign universe. How the rule set interacts with the campaign universe is at the GM's discretion. In other words, if the book says one thing but the GM rules another, the GM is correct.

2) Within the confines of the game, the GM is always right.

3) When the GM is wrong, review rules one and two.

Fast and loose means you are just adjusting the rule set to your campaign setting.

After a virtually uncountable number of discussions with Hans and Aramis, it is very clear that even the absolute written rule of the game is open to interpretations thru the lens of the respective GM.

In fact, I have found thru these "frank and open exchange of ideals" that even things that established canon is supposed to remove interpretation from still have various interpretations based on whether the person reading them are strict constructionists (the written word is law above intent of rule) or not strict constructionists (the intent of the rule is the important precedent).

 

[mvdwege]

You guys say "fast and loose" like its a bad thing. Using the following principles:

<snip>

Fast and loose means you are just adjusting the rule set to your campaign setting.

In fact, I found that the T5 ruleset is very open to fast and loose play.

It just looks like it's trying to define everything up front, but once you're up and running it feels like a toolkit more than a hard and fast ruleset.

For someone like me, who likes sandboxing, having the tools to quickly build the world around my players' actions is a godsend.

As for things I'd like to see from MGT into T5, I loved the Connections rule in MGT, using that during a group character creation session suddenly turns a bunch of disparate characters into a cohesive group.

 

[DonM]

You guys say "fast and loose" like its a bad thing.

I think that there is an assumption that as close as Rob and I are to Marc, if anyone would be playing a strict, RAW T5 game it would be us.

And at least in my case, my suspicion is that the assumption is very incorrect.

 

[robject]

I'd say that Don is faster and looser than I, but that might be slanderous.