What were the problems with MT?

[Whipsnade]

kaladorn wrote:

"Me, I could say I was 'disappointed' with GT because I find the GURPS unplayable and with T20 because I loathe FEATS with a passion. But I'm not saying that - because they both have contributed something to my game."


Tom,

G:Vehicles has me shaking my head and as for 'feats' (shudder) I can't even imagine them as a RPG mechanic... BUT

Both GURPS and T20 have brought so much to Our Olde Game! AFAIC, 'Far Trader' is THE economic system now. Ditto for 'First In' and system generation. And don't forget those T20 materials either. The TAs are nearly system free, easily portable into CT, and the FREE settings available are just marvelous. I may not use the rules, but I'll definitely use the materials. And that's a promise.

As for MT's task system... I loved CT's simplicity but adopted the task system as soon as I saw it. Why? No multi-page list of DMs to thumb through anymore. Have you ever seen a list of DMs for just air/rafts? Or a list dealing with combat? Ye Ghods, they're frightening!

I had an old copy of the Space Gamer(?) with a combat article that must have three dozen combat DMs listed; hanging upside, heavy rain, light rain, no light, too much light, etc. We used to hold fingers up to help us keep track of the adds and minuses the DMs gave us. After accounting for the dozen or so involved in each action, more often or not you were still rolling for 8+ or 7+ or 9+. Lots of work for no real change.

The Task System was much better; choose a difficulty, fold in which stats and skills apply, roll, and you've got your time interval to boot. Neat, simple, quick - you can get on with role-ing and not waste time on rolling.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

kaladorn wrote:

"Me, I could say I was 'disappointed' with GT because I find the GURPS unplayable and with T20 because I loathe FEATS with a passion. But I'm not saying that - because they both have contributed something to my game."


Tom,

G:Vehicles has me shaking my head and as for 'feats' (shudder) I can't even imagine them as a RPG mechanic... BUT

Both GURPS and T20 have brought so much to Our Olde Game! AFAIC, 'Far Trader' is THE economic system now. Ditto for 'First In' and system generation. And don't forget those T20 materials either. The TAs are nearly system free, easily portable into CT, and the FREE settings available are just marvelous. I may not use the rules, but I'll definitely use the materials. And that's a promise.

As for MT's task system... I loved CT's simplicity but adopted the task system as soon as I saw it. Why? No multi-page list of DMs to thumb through anymore. Have you ever seen a list of DMs for just air/rafts? Or a list dealing with combat? Ye Ghods, they're frightening!

I had an old copy of the Space Gamer(?) with a combat article that must have three dozen combat DMs listed; hanging upside, heavy rain, light rain, no light, too much light, etc. We used to hold fingers up to help us keep track of the adds and minuses the DMs gave us. After accounting for the dozen or so involved in each action, more often or not you were still rolling for 8+ or 7+ or 9+. Lots of work for no real change.

The Task System was much better; choose a difficulty, fold in which stats and skills apply, roll, and you've got your time interval to boot. Neat, simple, quick - you can get on with role-ing and not waste time on rolling.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I see nothing of real harm in feats... if anything they add a level of depth to characters, and sort of personalize them... most of the time they're just bits of fluff with little real mechanical value... (a +1 here, a +1 there...) Sure you could roleplay all that, but hey...


I had more of a problem with the economics of the Gurps Feats/Disadvantages system... I would see characters continually being made with cop out disads like "No sense of Smell" or whatnot...

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I see nothing of real harm in feats... if anything they add a level of depth to characters, and sort of personalize them... most of the time they're just bits of fluff with little real mechanical value... (a +1 here, a +1 there...) Sure you could roleplay all that, but hey...


I had more of a problem with the economics of the Gurps Feats/Disadvantages system... I would see characters continually being made with cop out disads like "No sense of Smell" or whatnot...

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I see nothing of real harm in feats... if anything they add a level of depth to characters, and sort of personalize them... most of the time they're just bits of fluff with little real mechanical value... (a +1 here, a +1 there...) Sure you could roleplay all that, but hey...


I had more of a problem with the economics of the Gurps Feats/Disadvantages system... I would see characters continually being made with cop out disads like "No sense of Smell" or whatnot...

 

[jchurchill]

I had more of a problem with the economics of the Gurps Feats/Disadvantages system... I would see characters continually being made with cop out disads like "No sense of Smell" or whatnot...
============================================
put them in a room with a leaking gas oven and a burned out light bulb. that will teach them to discard a sense of smell.

 

[jchurchill]

I had more of a problem with the economics of the Gurps Feats/Disadvantages system... I would see characters continually being made with cop out disads like "No sense of Smell" or whatnot...
============================================
put them in a room with a leaking gas oven and a burned out light bulb. that will teach them to discard a sense of smell.

 

[jchurchill]

I had more of a problem with the economics of the Gurps Feats/Disadvantages system... I would see characters continually being made with cop out disads like "No sense of Smell" or whatnot...
============================================
put them in a room with a leaking gas oven and a burned out light bulb. that will teach them to discard a sense of smell.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
I see nothing of real harm in feats... if anything they add a level of depth to characters, and sort of personalize them... most of the time they're just bits of fluff with little real mechanical value... (a +1 here, a +1 there...) Sure you could roleplay all that, but hey...

ASsuming you're talking about T20 feats here, I think QLI kinda missed the point with those. I was always under the impression that feats were like 'special maneouvres'that one could do. Yet IIRC T20 has things like 'Pilot Grav Vehicle' listed as a feat and a skill, and a PC can't take one without the other (or something. I found it all horrendously confusing). If they stuck to the original definition, then I think they should have had 'Pilot Grav Vehicle' as a skill, and the associated feat would be something like 'Stunt Driving' that allowed the pilot to do flashy stunts while piloting it. But that was just one of many many things I failed to comprehend about T20.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
I see nothing of real harm in feats... if anything they add a level of depth to characters, and sort of personalize them... most of the time they're just bits of fluff with little real mechanical value... (a +1 here, a +1 there...) Sure you could roleplay all that, but hey...

ASsuming you're talking about T20 feats here, I think QLI kinda missed the point with those. I was always under the impression that feats were like 'special maneouvres'that one could do. Yet IIRC T20 has things like 'Pilot Grav Vehicle' listed as a feat and a skill, and a PC can't take one without the other (or something. I found it all horrendously confusing). If they stuck to the original definition, then I think they should have had 'Pilot Grav Vehicle' as a skill, and the associated feat would be something like 'Stunt Driving' that allowed the pilot to do flashy stunts while piloting it. But that was just one of many many things I failed to comprehend about T20.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
I see nothing of real harm in feats... if anything they add a level of depth to characters, and sort of personalize them... most of the time they're just bits of fluff with little real mechanical value... (a +1 here, a +1 there...) Sure you could roleplay all that, but hey...

ASsuming you're talking about T20 feats here, I think QLI kinda missed the point with those. I was always under the impression that feats were like 'special maneouvres'that one could do. Yet IIRC T20 has things like 'Pilot Grav Vehicle' listed as a feat and a skill, and a PC can't take one without the other (or something. I found it all horrendously confusing). If they stuck to the original definition, then I think they should have had 'Pilot Grav Vehicle' as a skill, and the associated feat would be something like 'Stunt Driving' that allowed the pilot to do flashy stunts while piloting it. But that was just one of many many things I failed to comprehend about T20.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Yeah, Im with you on that, it seems redundant... but eh, when in rome...

I was under the impression that having a vehicle feat gives you at least a 0 rank in all types of that class of vehicle, with the skill adding to the success chance or something... Or maybe the feat allows you to "get all crazy"

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Yeah, Im with you on that, it seems redundant... but eh, when in rome...

I was under the impression that having a vehicle feat gives you at least a 0 rank in all types of that class of vehicle, with the skill adding to the success chance or something... Or maybe the feat allows you to "get all crazy"

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Yeah, Im with you on that, it seems redundant... but eh, when in rome...

I was under the impression that having a vehicle feat gives you at least a 0 rank in all types of that class of vehicle, with the skill adding to the success chance or something... Or maybe the feat allows you to "get all crazy"

 

[Vargas]

First on my list is always the starship design system; way over complicated and contained enough errata to choke an army.

Second is skill creep. While some may have welcomed additional skills as a way of better fleshing out the game, I though some, like Sensors (which used to be under Navigation), really weren't the addition.

Third was the lack of system flexability. While I've always used the TI setting, CT always encouraged folks to think outside the box. MT was the Rebellion.

Fourth is the Rebellion itself. It's a pity that Babylon 5 didn't come out around 1986 because MT begged for a well defined arc.

Fifth is DGP. Much of their material left me saying 'OK, why do I want to play this?'. Later on, some of the DGP staff began to exhibit some talent but it was too late.

I guess I was lot a like of people, I used MT with the CT ship design rules to play in the pre-Rebellion Marches.

 

[Vargas]

First on my list is always the starship design system; way over complicated and contained enough errata to choke an army.

Second is skill creep. While some may have welcomed additional skills as a way of better fleshing out the game, I though some, like Sensors (which used to be under Navigation), really weren't the addition.

Third was the lack of system flexability. While I've always used the TI setting, CT always encouraged folks to think outside the box. MT was the Rebellion.

Fourth is the Rebellion itself. It's a pity that Babylon 5 didn't come out around 1986 because MT begged for a well defined arc.

Fifth is DGP. Much of their material left me saying 'OK, why do I want to play this?'. Later on, some of the DGP staff began to exhibit some talent but it was too late.

I guess I was lot a like of people, I used MT with the CT ship design rules to play in the pre-Rebellion Marches.

 

[Vargas]

First on my list is always the starship design system; way over complicated and contained enough errata to choke an army.

Second is skill creep. While some may have welcomed additional skills as a way of better fleshing out the game, I though some, like Sensors (which used to be under Navigation), really weren't the addition.

Third was the lack of system flexability. While I've always used the TI setting, CT always encouraged folks to think outside the box. MT was the Rebellion.

Fourth is the Rebellion itself. It's a pity that Babylon 5 didn't come out around 1986 because MT begged for a well defined arc.

Fifth is DGP. Much of their material left me saying 'OK, why do I want to play this?'. Later on, some of the DGP staff began to exhibit some talent but it was too late.

I guess I was lot a like of people, I used MT with the CT ship design rules to play in the pre-Rebellion Marches.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
I was under the impression that having a vehicle feat gives you at least a 0 rank in all types of that class of vehicle, with the skill adding to the success chance or something... Or maybe the feat allows you to "get all crazy"

Hence why I think QLI either missed the point or deliberately reinterpreted what feats were for. Surely taking a skill is what gives you the relevant experience in a task to be able to even attempt it (the 'level 0' part of it). IIRC many of the feats in T20 were actually used more like weapon proficiencies.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
I was under the impression that having a vehicle feat gives you at least a 0 rank in all types of that class of vehicle, with the skill adding to the success chance or something... Or maybe the feat allows you to "get all crazy"

Hence why I think QLI either missed the point or deliberately reinterpreted what feats were for. Surely taking a skill is what gives you the relevant experience in a task to be able to even attempt it (the 'level 0' part of it). IIRC many of the feats in T20 were actually used more like weapon proficiencies.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
I was under the impression that having a vehicle feat gives you at least a 0 rank in all types of that class of vehicle, with the skill adding to the success chance or something... Or maybe the feat allows you to "get all crazy"

Hence why I think QLI either missed the point or deliberately reinterpreted what feats were for. Surely taking a skill is what gives you the relevant experience in a task to be able to even attempt it (the 'level 0' part of it). IIRC many of the feats in T20 were actually used more like weapon proficiencies.