What were the problems with MT?

[kafka47]

Elliot:

I think that you have struck the nail on the head. Most individuals on this forum remain wedded to CT. Which is a good thing, as it provided the basic skeleton which to build any successful game.

Some the weird directions that Marc seems to be taking the game, in terms of career paths and complex tasks seem to be responding to what industry dictates.

Keeping It Simple Stupid or KISS seems to be a prefered option. The problem is how to integrate complexity when individuals want to build beyond those simple premises. Also, there are many people who want simply to know how the universe works on this list. That is why they want a rules escalator that will handle all those situations.

For me, and I think you, we want to see the story develop with minimal interference from the rules. So a task system like what DGP envisioned grafted on seamless play would be the objective.

Now can T5 live up to the task? I am beginning to have doubts, as I see a very workable system in T20 but just wish to simplify it to a task based system and I think we are set.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Myself, I'm not a big fan of the D20 system. Largely because of the much discussed "feats" gizmo they've worked into the ruleset. When I played D&D as a young lad D20 meant a simplified combat system (AC) and way to cast spells. Now that I've had some recent D20 experience under my hat (placed in a sci-fi setting) I can truly say that I don't care for it much. It could be the GM running the thing, but I just don't like it a whole bunch.

I think when Gygax came up with the D20 prototype years back he had an objective of what he wanted to do; translate a medieval/fantasy setting to a game that could act as the extension of one's immagintion. And it worked. But now it seems like the owners of the D20 license have turned the D20 thing into a GURPS-like game engine; templating various universes and worlds into one game format. And from what I've experienced it just doesn't work all that well.

CT was simple in terms actual play, but there were times I felt like was hung out to dry when converting skill numbers to real-game assets. Even so there was a kind of understanding of what the skill levels for a character represented. MT's task system help quantify that, and made it that much more easier to translate. D20, for me, seems like I have to learn yet ANOTHER system to play a game that one would think I already knew how to play.

I'm not really opposed to D20. I hope it exposes more players to the Traveller universe(s), spark interest, and help support the game so it can continue to thrive. Yet, at the same time, I really think that the CT approach with some mechanical refinement is the way to go with a new incarnation of the system. One that's compatible with all versions of the game. And I think that's doable.

Going through the playtest PDFs all I can say is Chargen is a touch confusing, but workable for the veteran. The task system threw me for a loop because I didn't think it'd be that easy to generate tasks; but I like it because it's simple and elegant.

Myself, MT's failings weren't just mechanical, but lack of support. Now that the designers have a solid hold on the mechanics I think for the future support aught to be the focus; first and thir party addons for our favorite game

Sorry for the rambleing.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Myself, I'm not a big fan of the D20 system. Largely because of the much discussed "feats" gizmo they've worked into the ruleset. When I played D&D as a young lad D20 meant a simplified combat system (AC) and way to cast spells. Now that I've had some recent D20 experience under my hat (placed in a sci-fi setting) I can truly say that I don't care for it much. It could be the GM running the thing, but I just don't like it a whole bunch.

I think when Gygax came up with the D20 prototype years back he had an objective of what he wanted to do; translate a medieval/fantasy setting to a game that could act as the extension of one's immagintion. And it worked. But now it seems like the owners of the D20 license have turned the D20 thing into a GURPS-like game engine; templating various universes and worlds into one game format. And from what I've experienced it just doesn't work all that well.

CT was simple in terms actual play, but there were times I felt like was hung out to dry when converting skill numbers to real-game assets. Even so there was a kind of understanding of what the skill levels for a character represented. MT's task system help quantify that, and made it that much more easier to translate. D20, for me, seems like I have to learn yet ANOTHER system to play a game that one would think I already knew how to play.

I'm not really opposed to D20. I hope it exposes more players to the Traveller universe(s), spark interest, and help support the game so it can continue to thrive. Yet, at the same time, I really think that the CT approach with some mechanical refinement is the way to go with a new incarnation of the system. One that's compatible with all versions of the game. And I think that's doable.

Going through the playtest PDFs all I can say is Chargen is a touch confusing, but workable for the veteran. The task system threw me for a loop because I didn't think it'd be that easy to generate tasks; but I like it because it's simple and elegant.

Myself, MT's failings weren't just mechanical, but lack of support. Now that the designers have a solid hold on the mechanics I think for the future support aught to be the focus; first and thir party addons for our favorite game

Sorry for the rambleing.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Myself, I'm not a big fan of the D20 system. Largely because of the much discussed "feats" gizmo they've worked into the ruleset. When I played D&D as a young lad D20 meant a simplified combat system (AC) and way to cast spells. Now that I've had some recent D20 experience under my hat (placed in a sci-fi setting) I can truly say that I don't care for it much. It could be the GM running the thing, but I just don't like it a whole bunch.

I think when Gygax came up with the D20 prototype years back he had an objective of what he wanted to do; translate a medieval/fantasy setting to a game that could act as the extension of one's immagintion. And it worked. But now it seems like the owners of the D20 license have turned the D20 thing into a GURPS-like game engine; templating various universes and worlds into one game format. And from what I've experienced it just doesn't work all that well.

CT was simple in terms actual play, but there were times I felt like was hung out to dry when converting skill numbers to real-game assets. Even so there was a kind of understanding of what the skill levels for a character represented. MT's task system help quantify that, and made it that much more easier to translate. D20, for me, seems like I have to learn yet ANOTHER system to play a game that one would think I already knew how to play.

I'm not really opposed to D20. I hope it exposes more players to the Traveller universe(s), spark interest, and help support the game so it can continue to thrive. Yet, at the same time, I really think that the CT approach with some mechanical refinement is the way to go with a new incarnation of the system. One that's compatible with all versions of the game. And I think that's doable.

Going through the playtest PDFs all I can say is Chargen is a touch confusing, but workable for the veteran. The task system threw me for a loop because I didn't think it'd be that easy to generate tasks; but I like it because it's simple and elegant.

Myself, MT's failings weren't just mechanical, but lack of support. Now that the designers have a solid hold on the mechanics I think for the future support aught to be the focus; first and thir party addons for our favorite game

Sorry for the rambleing.

 

[kaladorn]

I think the last 2 or 3 posts said a mouthful.

For myself, I'd like to see T5 as a bit of a generic game like CT (with less forced tie in to the OTU like MT seemed to suggest). Have the OTU, but have it clearly separated from the rules. And have an MT, DGP or BITS like task system. And an AHL/Snapshot/ACQ like combat system. And advanced chargen for *all* presented professions, along with a simplified version. And simplified and more complex ship construction wedded to a space combat system that can be played abstractly or, without changing a whole lot, played as a vector based miniatures game.

That sounds like a lot, but we've got all the parts already. It's just a matter of mating them intelligently.

 

[kaladorn]

I think the last 2 or 3 posts said a mouthful.

For myself, I'd like to see T5 as a bit of a generic game like CT (with less forced tie in to the OTU like MT seemed to suggest). Have the OTU, but have it clearly separated from the rules. And have an MT, DGP or BITS like task system. And an AHL/Snapshot/ACQ like combat system. And advanced chargen for *all* presented professions, along with a simplified version. And simplified and more complex ship construction wedded to a space combat system that can be played abstractly or, without changing a whole lot, played as a vector based miniatures game.

That sounds like a lot, but we've got all the parts already. It's just a matter of mating them intelligently.

 

[kaladorn]

I think the last 2 or 3 posts said a mouthful.

For myself, I'd like to see T5 as a bit of a generic game like CT (with less forced tie in to the OTU like MT seemed to suggest). Have the OTU, but have it clearly separated from the rules. And have an MT, DGP or BITS like task system. And an AHL/Snapshot/ACQ like combat system. And advanced chargen for *all* presented professions, along with a simplified version. And simplified and more complex ship construction wedded to a space combat system that can be played abstractly or, without changing a whole lot, played as a vector based miniatures game.

That sounds like a lot, but we've got all the parts already. It's just a matter of mating them intelligently.

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
That sounds like a lot, but we've got all the parts already. It's just a matter of mating them intelligently.

Halfway between CT and MT with a handful of other minor tweaks (most of them based on things that were already in TNE, T4, GT, or T20) = the ideal T5. I was on the "bring back the LBBS" bandwagon for awhile but am now set on a pair of harbacks -- 1 presenting the complete rules, the other presenting the OTU setting -- is the best and most practical way to go. I've been saying this for years (literally, ever since T4 folded) and so have a lot of other people, but Marc Miller isn't listening. He still wants T5 to be an entirely new game, built around the framework of the T4 system, and for better or worse he's the one who gets to make the decisions.

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
That sounds like a lot, but we've got all the parts already. It's just a matter of mating them intelligently.

Halfway between CT and MT with a handful of other minor tweaks (most of them based on things that were already in TNE, T4, GT, or T20) = the ideal T5. I was on the "bring back the LBBS" bandwagon for awhile but am now set on a pair of harbacks -- 1 presenting the complete rules, the other presenting the OTU setting -- is the best and most practical way to go. I've been saying this for years (literally, ever since T4 folded) and so have a lot of other people, but Marc Miller isn't listening. He still wants T5 to be an entirely new game, built around the framework of the T4 system, and for better or worse he's the one who gets to make the decisions.

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
That sounds like a lot, but we've got all the parts already. It's just a matter of mating them intelligently.

Halfway between CT and MT with a handful of other minor tweaks (most of them based on things that were already in TNE, T4, GT, or T20) = the ideal T5. I was on the "bring back the LBBS" bandwagon for awhile but am now set on a pair of harbacks -- 1 presenting the complete rules, the other presenting the OTU setting -- is the best and most practical way to go. I've been saying this for years (literally, ever since T4 folded) and so have a lot of other people, but Marc Miller isn't listening. He still wants T5 to be an entirely new game, built around the framework of the T4 system, and for better or worse he's the one who gets to make the decisions.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Fear not, from what I've read in the PDF test play material the game mechanics are essentially what you describe. That is to say Chargen and task systems are essentialy a marriage of CT and MT. So as far as game mechanics go I think we've got what we want (though personal and starship combat are yet to be seen).

For myself the Chargen is a bit confusing; that is can I go to college before joining the service? Once in a service how do I determine which skill chart I throw on? Being a veteran I can puzzle out the system, but to a newcomer, the way it's currently written up and formatted, I would think it very confusing. Otherwise it's all basically the same as CT.

The task system is essentially this; Character Attribute + Character Skill = The Task Number Throw. Where Throw = The Number which the player must roll less than for succes. That's akin to what I remember from MT, but I think MT had defined numbers ... though I may not be recalling that correctly.

Breaking up rules and raw source material sounds like a plan. I'd certainly buy an encyclopedia of the Imperium, as I think would most veterans, but the game needs to reach out to new people, and offer them something they can use in their games. I think that was one of the reasons the LBB format was chosen all those years ago. Who knows? Maybe he'll change his mind. Maybe not.

Myself I'd just like some clearly defined rules with an outline for how to do things; i.e. "For Starship Combat Do This" followed by a diagram with notes of where to find specific and needed rules.

Oh well. Gotta go

 

[Blue Ghost]

Fear not, from what I've read in the PDF test play material the game mechanics are essentially what you describe. That is to say Chargen and task systems are essentialy a marriage of CT and MT. So as far as game mechanics go I think we've got what we want (though personal and starship combat are yet to be seen).

For myself the Chargen is a bit confusing; that is can I go to college before joining the service? Once in a service how do I determine which skill chart I throw on? Being a veteran I can puzzle out the system, but to a newcomer, the way it's currently written up and formatted, I would think it very confusing. Otherwise it's all basically the same as CT.

The task system is essentially this; Character Attribute + Character Skill = The Task Number Throw. Where Throw = The Number which the player must roll less than for succes. That's akin to what I remember from MT, but I think MT had defined numbers ... though I may not be recalling that correctly.

Breaking up rules and raw source material sounds like a plan. I'd certainly buy an encyclopedia of the Imperium, as I think would most veterans, but the game needs to reach out to new people, and offer them something they can use in their games. I think that was one of the reasons the LBB format was chosen all those years ago. Who knows? Maybe he'll change his mind. Maybe not.

Myself I'd just like some clearly defined rules with an outline for how to do things; i.e. "For Starship Combat Do This" followed by a diagram with notes of where to find specific and needed rules.

Oh well. Gotta go

 

[Blue Ghost]

Fear not, from what I've read in the PDF test play material the game mechanics are essentially what you describe. That is to say Chargen and task systems are essentialy a marriage of CT and MT. So as far as game mechanics go I think we've got what we want (though personal and starship combat are yet to be seen).

For myself the Chargen is a bit confusing; that is can I go to college before joining the service? Once in a service how do I determine which skill chart I throw on? Being a veteran I can puzzle out the system, but to a newcomer, the way it's currently written up and formatted, I would think it very confusing. Otherwise it's all basically the same as CT.

The task system is essentially this; Character Attribute + Character Skill = The Task Number Throw. Where Throw = The Number which the player must roll less than for succes. That's akin to what I remember from MT, but I think MT had defined numbers ... though I may not be recalling that correctly.

Breaking up rules and raw source material sounds like a plan. I'd certainly buy an encyclopedia of the Imperium, as I think would most veterans, but the game needs to reach out to new people, and offer them something they can use in their games. I think that was one of the reasons the LBB format was chosen all those years ago. Who knows? Maybe he'll change his mind. Maybe not.

Myself I'd just like some clearly defined rules with an outline for how to do things; i.e. "For Starship Combat Do This" followed by a diagram with notes of where to find specific and needed rules.

Oh well. Gotta go

 

[Cymew]

Originally posted by Blue Ghost:



The task system is essentially this; Character Attribute + Character Skill = The Task Number Throw. Where Throw = The Number which the player must roll less than for succes. That's akin to what I remember from MT, but I think MT had defined numbers ... though I may not be recalling that correctly.

Nope. In MT you roll *over* the pre-set target numbers. Stat modifier + skill lvl + 2D6 > Target# was the mechanic.

I like that better. High is always good, both in skills, stats and dice rolling.

 

[Cymew]

Originally posted by Blue Ghost:



The task system is essentially this; Character Attribute + Character Skill = The Task Number Throw. Where Throw = The Number which the player must roll less than for succes. That's akin to what I remember from MT, but I think MT had defined numbers ... though I may not be recalling that correctly.

Nope. In MT you roll *over* the pre-set target numbers. Stat modifier + skill lvl + 2D6 > Target# was the mechanic.

I like that better. High is always good, both in skills, stats and dice rolling.

 

[Cymew]

Originally posted by Blue Ghost:



The task system is essentially this; Character Attribute + Character Skill = The Task Number Throw. Where Throw = The Number which the player must roll less than for succes. That's akin to what I remember from MT, but I think MT had defined numbers ... though I may not be recalling that correctly.

Nope. In MT you roll *over* the pre-set target numbers. Stat modifier + skill lvl + 2D6 > Target# was the mechanic.

I like that better. High is always good, both in skills, stats and dice rolling.

 

[Ranger]

Originally posted by Cymew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blue Ghost:



The task system is essentially this; Character Attribute + Character Skill = The Task Number Throw. Where Throw = The Number which the player must roll less than for succes. That's akin to what I remember from MT, but I think MT had defined numbers ... though I may not be recalling that correctly.

Nope. In MT you roll *over* the pre-set target numbers. Stat modifier + skill lvl + 2D6 > Target# was the mechanic.

I like that better. High is always good, both in skills, stats and dice rolling. </font>[/QUOTE]A game system should be consistant. High good, or low good, but it should be all one way, or all the other. The 'roll under' concept in Traveller started in the morale rules for Striker (at least that is the first place I saw it used), where higher morale was good, but then you had to roll under the morale number to pass.

 

[Ranger]

Originally posted by Cymew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blue Ghost:



The task system is essentially this; Character Attribute + Character Skill = The Task Number Throw. Where Throw = The Number which the player must roll less than for succes. That's akin to what I remember from MT, but I think MT had defined numbers ... though I may not be recalling that correctly.

Nope. In MT you roll *over* the pre-set target numbers. Stat modifier + skill lvl + 2D6 > Target# was the mechanic.

I like that better. High is always good, both in skills, stats and dice rolling. </font>[/QUOTE]A game system should be consistant. High good, or low good, but it should be all one way, or all the other. The 'roll under' concept in Traveller started in the morale rules for Striker (at least that is the first place I saw it used), where higher morale was good, but then you had to roll under the morale number to pass.

 

[Ranger]

Originally posted by Cymew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blue Ghost:



The task system is essentially this; Character Attribute + Character Skill = The Task Number Throw. Where Throw = The Number which the player must roll less than for succes. That's akin to what I remember from MT, but I think MT had defined numbers ... though I may not be recalling that correctly.

Nope. In MT you roll *over* the pre-set target numbers. Stat modifier + skill lvl + 2D6 > Target# was the mechanic.

I like that better. High is always good, both in skills, stats and dice rolling. </font>[/QUOTE]A game system should be consistant. High good, or low good, but it should be all one way, or all the other. The 'roll under' concept in Traveller started in the morale rules for Striker (at least that is the first place I saw it used), where higher morale was good, but then you had to roll under the morale number to pass.

 

[kaladorn]

The problem with the new T5 is that characteristics matter too much, IMO. MT diluted their effect by dividing them by 5. So, typically a character might have 1-3 skill levels and 1-2 points of characteristics, but oft times this would mean 2 skill levels and 1 characteristic contribution. Thus skills counted for more.

Plus I also agree that high should be good. I don't like roll-unders and I don't like systems where rolling low to hit or for skills is good but high for damage....