What were the problems with MT?

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Mind you, My Lords, I care mostly for the quality of roleplaying rather than rules minutae on the whole, but...

I for one thouroughly enjoyed the zen-like simplicity given by CT. MT, from the minute I bought the book (I am a completist, after all...) It was a very big disappointment to me. The whole Rebellion plotline seemed like a warmed-over
L. Ron Hubbard scenario, which is not meant as a complement, by any stretch...

Mechanically, I found the entire task system as, uneccessary, unimaginative, and clumsy, and the vehicle design rules just plain awkward and overcomplicated, as if the defense department and the guy who wrote my VCR Manual had written them...

My group at the time went right back to CT, saving some MT stuff for background data...

It sort of seemed as if MT was designed and executed to buy into the "fad" game mechanics at the time, and came off as a Johnny Come Lately...

Strange, My own "Long Night" from gaming came shortly after its release... a particulary edifying period of time... I viewed most other games of the period as crap, and was "bummed" that Traveller had sunk to meet the occasion...

 

[Blue Ghost]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
Mind you, My Lords, I care mostly for the quality of roleplaying rather than rules minutae on the whole, but...

I for one thouroughly enjoyed the zen-like simplicity given by CT. MT, from the minute I bought the book (I am a completist, after all...) It was a very big disappointment to me. The whole Rebellion plotline seemed like a warmed-over
L. Ron Hubbard scenario, which is not meant as a complement, by any stretch...

Mechanically, I found the entire task system as, uneccessary, unimaginative, and clumsy, and the vehicle design rules just plain awkward and overcomplicated, as if the defense department and the guy who wrote my VCR Manual had written them...

My group at the time went right back to CT, saving some MT stuff for background data...

It sort of seemed as if MT was designed and executed to buy into the "fad" game mechanics at the time, and came off as a Johnny Come Lately...

Strange, My own "Long Night" from gaming came shortly after its release... a particulary edifying period of time... I viewed most other games of the period as crap, and was "bummed" that Traveller had sunk to meet the occasion...

That's interesting, Baron. I'm curious why you and your group didn't like the task system. By that I mean what actual part of it turned you guys off?

Our group, and specifically me as I ran most of the adventures, sometimes found it difficult to create somekind of scale for how effective skill levels were. For us the task system was much welcomed to resolve things like lockpick, fogery, medical related actions and the like.

I guess for some folks it may have taken some of the authority and power out of both players and referee's hands by quantifying what had been a subjective judgement.

One of the skills I was extremely pleased with was the "Combat Rifleman" skill. Anybody who's fired weapons of any sorts'll tell you that there's a certain degree of similarity among various rifles. It's not always the case (firing a Daisy 22 isn't the same as rattleing off a magazine for an AK-47), but the skill classification sure did ease a lot of questions. Like if my character knows how to fire weapon-X, then how come I can't handle weapon-Y, and so forth.

But now I'm rambleing.

Thoughts?

 

[Blue Ghost]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
Mind you, My Lords, I care mostly for the quality of roleplaying rather than rules minutae on the whole, but...

I for one thouroughly enjoyed the zen-like simplicity given by CT. MT, from the minute I bought the book (I am a completist, after all...) It was a very big disappointment to me. The whole Rebellion plotline seemed like a warmed-over
L. Ron Hubbard scenario, which is not meant as a complement, by any stretch...

Mechanically, I found the entire task system as, uneccessary, unimaginative, and clumsy, and the vehicle design rules just plain awkward and overcomplicated, as if the defense department and the guy who wrote my VCR Manual had written them...

My group at the time went right back to CT, saving some MT stuff for background data...

It sort of seemed as if MT was designed and executed to buy into the "fad" game mechanics at the time, and came off as a Johnny Come Lately...

Strange, My own "Long Night" from gaming came shortly after its release... a particulary edifying period of time... I viewed most other games of the period as crap, and was "bummed" that Traveller had sunk to meet the occasion...

That's interesting, Baron. I'm curious why you and your group didn't like the task system. By that I mean what actual part of it turned you guys off?

Our group, and specifically me as I ran most of the adventures, sometimes found it difficult to create somekind of scale for how effective skill levels were. For us the task system was much welcomed to resolve things like lockpick, fogery, medical related actions and the like.

I guess for some folks it may have taken some of the authority and power out of both players and referee's hands by quantifying what had been a subjective judgement.

One of the skills I was extremely pleased with was the "Combat Rifleman" skill. Anybody who's fired weapons of any sorts'll tell you that there's a certain degree of similarity among various rifles. It's not always the case (firing a Daisy 22 isn't the same as rattleing off a magazine for an AK-47), but the skill classification sure did ease a lot of questions. Like if my character knows how to fire weapon-X, then how come I can't handle weapon-Y, and so forth.

But now I'm rambleing.

Thoughts?

 

[Blue Ghost]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
Mind you, My Lords, I care mostly for the quality of roleplaying rather than rules minutae on the whole, but...

I for one thouroughly enjoyed the zen-like simplicity given by CT. MT, from the minute I bought the book (I am a completist, after all...) It was a very big disappointment to me. The whole Rebellion plotline seemed like a warmed-over
L. Ron Hubbard scenario, which is not meant as a complement, by any stretch...

Mechanically, I found the entire task system as, uneccessary, unimaginative, and clumsy, and the vehicle design rules just plain awkward and overcomplicated, as if the defense department and the guy who wrote my VCR Manual had written them...

My group at the time went right back to CT, saving some MT stuff for background data...

It sort of seemed as if MT was designed and executed to buy into the "fad" game mechanics at the time, and came off as a Johnny Come Lately...

Strange, My own "Long Night" from gaming came shortly after its release... a particulary edifying period of time... I viewed most other games of the period as crap, and was "bummed" that Traveller had sunk to meet the occasion...

That's interesting, Baron. I'm curious why you and your group didn't like the task system. By that I mean what actual part of it turned you guys off?

Our group, and specifically me as I ran most of the adventures, sometimes found it difficult to create somekind of scale for how effective skill levels were. For us the task system was much welcomed to resolve things like lockpick, fogery, medical related actions and the like.

I guess for some folks it may have taken some of the authority and power out of both players and referee's hands by quantifying what had been a subjective judgement.

One of the skills I was extremely pleased with was the "Combat Rifleman" skill. Anybody who's fired weapons of any sorts'll tell you that there's a certain degree of similarity among various rifles. It's not always the case (firing a Daisy 22 isn't the same as rattleing off a magazine for an AK-47), but the skill classification sure did ease a lot of questions. Like if my character knows how to fire weapon-X, then how come I can't handle weapon-Y, and so forth.

But now I'm rambleing.

Thoughts?

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

If I remember correctly, the task system seemed to try to expound on the CT skill system, but the overall point of that was lost on us all... It stands to reason that someone with Medical-4 was better at it than someone with Medical-2. I think they liked the freedom of discussion about how difficult a task was or not, and how they would go about it... the UTP system seemed to bypass that... and take the fun out of it.

"Combat Rifleman" made perfect sense, but it made sense back in Book 4. I can see how a military character would have more experience on different types of weapons, however similar, and it stood to reason they could use them all. It also sttod to reason that "civilian" characters, with limited exposure to weaponry, would only know how to effectively use (IE no negative DMs) a specific type of weapon that they owned and had practiced with. This gave the notion that weapons had different handling characteristics, etc... a gauss rifle IS a kind of rifle, but one without any recoil that you need to take into acount for your next shot, a very different set of circumstances for someone used to the old bolt action...

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

If I remember correctly, the task system seemed to try to expound on the CT skill system, but the overall point of that was lost on us all... It stands to reason that someone with Medical-4 was better at it than someone with Medical-2. I think they liked the freedom of discussion about how difficult a task was or not, and how they would go about it... the UTP system seemed to bypass that... and take the fun out of it.

"Combat Rifleman" made perfect sense, but it made sense back in Book 4. I can see how a military character would have more experience on different types of weapons, however similar, and it stood to reason they could use them all. It also sttod to reason that "civilian" characters, with limited exposure to weaponry, would only know how to effectively use (IE no negative DMs) a specific type of weapon that they owned and had practiced with. This gave the notion that weapons had different handling characteristics, etc... a gauss rifle IS a kind of rifle, but one without any recoil that you need to take into acount for your next shot, a very different set of circumstances for someone used to the old bolt action...

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

If I remember correctly, the task system seemed to try to expound on the CT skill system, but the overall point of that was lost on us all... It stands to reason that someone with Medical-4 was better at it than someone with Medical-2. I think they liked the freedom of discussion about how difficult a task was or not, and how they would go about it... the UTP system seemed to bypass that... and take the fun out of it.

"Combat Rifleman" made perfect sense, but it made sense back in Book 4. I can see how a military character would have more experience on different types of weapons, however similar, and it stood to reason they could use them all. It also sttod to reason that "civilian" characters, with limited exposure to weaponry, would only know how to effectively use (IE no negative DMs) a specific type of weapon that they owned and had practiced with. This gave the notion that weapons had different handling characteristics, etc... a gauss rifle IS a kind of rifle, but one without any recoil that you need to take into acount for your next shot, a very different set of circumstances for someone used to the old bolt action...

 

[jchurchill]

(including that cheesy Jim Holloway cartoon on the cover of the Players Manual) ================================================
You are referring to the cover where Pat Benetar and a member of Flock of Seagulls are trapped in a spaceship while in a firefight with some Star Wars almost copyright infringing stormtroopers advancing on them?

Ugh.

 

[jchurchill]

(including that cheesy Jim Holloway cartoon on the cover of the Players Manual) ================================================
You are referring to the cover where Pat Benetar and a member of Flock of Seagulls are trapped in a spaceship while in a firefight with some Star Wars almost copyright infringing stormtroopers advancing on them?

Ugh.

 

[jchurchill]

(including that cheesy Jim Holloway cartoon on the cover of the Players Manual) ================================================
You are referring to the cover where Pat Benetar and a member of Flock of Seagulls are trapped in a spaceship while in a firefight with some Star Wars almost copyright infringing stormtroopers advancing on them?

Ugh.

 

[Whipsnade]

Blue Ghost wrote:

"I've heard a lot hinted about MT's shortcomings, but I've never really understood what the issues were that some people had with the system."


Mr. Ghost,

It wasn't the system per se. Most of the gripes had to do with other things.

"Myself, I've always seen Mega Traveller as the best version of the system. Largely because it had a much needed defined task system,..."

My group adopted MT's task system as soon as we saw it. No more need to remember and thumb through list after list of DMs. Other improvements MT attempted were not as successful; the ship construction and combat systems for example.

"So, to recap, I'm wondering what people felt were MT's shortcomings?"

Okay, here's my take and some of it has already been stated by others).

Mega-Errata - Until T4 set the new gold standard, MT was the king of poor production practices. Large portions of the game could not be played or even understood without errata. The neccesary bits were published in the Challenge, but if you didn't have that issue; this was pre-Internet remember, you had to slog through on your own and make whatever corrections you could.

Setting Trumps System - As we all continually point out, Traveller originally had no setting at all. The Third Imperium didn't even begin to show until LBB4: Mercenary and Adventure 1: Kinunir. As more products can out and more materials were published, the OTU-3I setting slowly accreted and began to crowd the system. Compare LBB4: Mercenary and LBB7: Merchant Prince; the first barely mentions the Imperium or the OTU while the second is very 'OTU-centric'.

As much as CT drifted towards a setting focus, MT finished the journey. With the release of MT, Traveller was no longer 'Sci-Fi Adventure in the Far Future'. It was now 'Sci-Fi Adventure during the Third Imperium's Rebellion.' It its attempt to provide more space for adventures, MT actually drastically narrowed the playing field.

Too Many Cooks, Not Enough Chefs - A great deal of MT can be laid at DGP's feet. Not GDW's; the owners and creators of Traveller, but DGP; a fan group who, as Loren Wiseman points out, never quit their day jobs. I won't even try to speak about the business decisions that made this possible, I know nothing of them and I'm more than willing to give GDW the benefit of the doubt. If you look at GDW's +20 year history, the amount of games, materials, RPGs, supplements, periodicals, and whatnot it produced is staggering when you also consider the size of the company.

DGP's role as a 'subcontractor' of sorts did have its effects though. DGP produced Traveller products directly for GDW, produced materials that were used in Traveller products by GDW, and produced Traveller products on their own. The trouble was that they rarely kept all of this separate. A in-house variant created for a DGP-only product would also be used in a product or materials submitted to GDW. Why the various Traveller line editors did not catch or prevent these slips, I do not know. GDW, always working with a tiny staff, was producing their usual flood of materials. Perhaps the focus on Traveller had been lessened.

DGP's Traveller efforts were much like 'the little girl with the little curl'; When they were good, they were very, very good and when they were bad, they were horrid.

Summing it all up;
- While some of MT's changes were successful and welcome, enough of those changes were not successful or well thought out.
- Although CT had been moving away from its setting-less system, MT was essentially a one setting system.
- A loss of focus or control over many details presented in setting materials was percieved to occur by the hobby.

Finally, the endless, sickening Rebellion with its many internally implausible factors; i.e. the Alien Incursions, precisely balanced factions, etc., turned many people off of the game. My group disbanded during MT's run, partially due to the demands of life and partially due to a lack of desire to imagine ourselves in the Imperium anymore. The CT Resurgance didn't begin the 90's with the death of TNE and GDW, I saw it begin only a few years after MT's release as the Rebellion dragged on and on.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

Blue Ghost wrote:

"I've heard a lot hinted about MT's shortcomings, but I've never really understood what the issues were that some people had with the system."


Mr. Ghost,

It wasn't the system per se. Most of the gripes had to do with other things.

"Myself, I've always seen Mega Traveller as the best version of the system. Largely because it had a much needed defined task system,..."

My group adopted MT's task system as soon as we saw it. No more need to remember and thumb through list after list of DMs. Other improvements MT attempted were not as successful; the ship construction and combat systems for example.

"So, to recap, I'm wondering what people felt were MT's shortcomings?"

Okay, here's my take and some of it has already been stated by others).

Mega-Errata - Until T4 set the new gold standard, MT was the king of poor production practices. Large portions of the game could not be played or even understood without errata. The neccesary bits were published in the Challenge, but if you didn't have that issue; this was pre-Internet remember, you had to slog through on your own and make whatever corrections you could.

Setting Trumps System - As we all continually point out, Traveller originally had no setting at all. The Third Imperium didn't even begin to show until LBB4: Mercenary and Adventure 1: Kinunir. As more products can out and more materials were published, the OTU-3I setting slowly accreted and began to crowd the system. Compare LBB4: Mercenary and LBB7: Merchant Prince; the first barely mentions the Imperium or the OTU while the second is very 'OTU-centric'.

As much as CT drifted towards a setting focus, MT finished the journey. With the release of MT, Traveller was no longer 'Sci-Fi Adventure in the Far Future'. It was now 'Sci-Fi Adventure during the Third Imperium's Rebellion.' It its attempt to provide more space for adventures, MT actually drastically narrowed the playing field.

Too Many Cooks, Not Enough Chefs - A great deal of MT can be laid at DGP's feet. Not GDW's; the owners and creators of Traveller, but DGP; a fan group who, as Loren Wiseman points out, never quit their day jobs. I won't even try to speak about the business decisions that made this possible, I know nothing of them and I'm more than willing to give GDW the benefit of the doubt. If you look at GDW's +20 year history, the amount of games, materials, RPGs, supplements, periodicals, and whatnot it produced is staggering when you also consider the size of the company.

DGP's role as a 'subcontractor' of sorts did have its effects though. DGP produced Traveller products directly for GDW, produced materials that were used in Traveller products by GDW, and produced Traveller products on their own. The trouble was that they rarely kept all of this separate. A in-house variant created for a DGP-only product would also be used in a product or materials submitted to GDW. Why the various Traveller line editors did not catch or prevent these slips, I do not know. GDW, always working with a tiny staff, was producing their usual flood of materials. Perhaps the focus on Traveller had been lessened.

DGP's Traveller efforts were much like 'the little girl with the little curl'; When they were good, they were very, very good and when they were bad, they were horrid.

Summing it all up;
- While some of MT's changes were successful and welcome, enough of those changes were not successful or well thought out.
- Although CT had been moving away from its setting-less system, MT was essentially a one setting system.
- A loss of focus or control over many details presented in setting materials was percieved to occur by the hobby.

Finally, the endless, sickening Rebellion with its many internally implausible factors; i.e. the Alien Incursions, precisely balanced factions, etc., turned many people off of the game. My group disbanded during MT's run, partially due to the demands of life and partially due to a lack of desire to imagine ourselves in the Imperium anymore. The CT Resurgance didn't begin the 90's with the death of TNE and GDW, I saw it begin only a few years after MT's release as the Rebellion dragged on and on.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Whipsnade]

Blue Ghost wrote:

"I've heard a lot hinted about MT's shortcomings, but I've never really understood what the issues were that some people had with the system."


Mr. Ghost,

It wasn't the system per se. Most of the gripes had to do with other things.

"Myself, I've always seen Mega Traveller as the best version of the system. Largely because it had a much needed defined task system,..."

My group adopted MT's task system as soon as we saw it. No more need to remember and thumb through list after list of DMs. Other improvements MT attempted were not as successful; the ship construction and combat systems for example.

"So, to recap, I'm wondering what people felt were MT's shortcomings?"

Okay, here's my take and some of it has already been stated by others).

Mega-Errata - Until T4 set the new gold standard, MT was the king of poor production practices. Large portions of the game could not be played or even understood without errata. The neccesary bits were published in the Challenge, but if you didn't have that issue; this was pre-Internet remember, you had to slog through on your own and make whatever corrections you could.

Setting Trumps System - As we all continually point out, Traveller originally had no setting at all. The Third Imperium didn't even begin to show until LBB4: Mercenary and Adventure 1: Kinunir. As more products can out and more materials were published, the OTU-3I setting slowly accreted and began to crowd the system. Compare LBB4: Mercenary and LBB7: Merchant Prince; the first barely mentions the Imperium or the OTU while the second is very 'OTU-centric'.

As much as CT drifted towards a setting focus, MT finished the journey. With the release of MT, Traveller was no longer 'Sci-Fi Adventure in the Far Future'. It was now 'Sci-Fi Adventure during the Third Imperium's Rebellion.' It its attempt to provide more space for adventures, MT actually drastically narrowed the playing field.

Too Many Cooks, Not Enough Chefs - A great deal of MT can be laid at DGP's feet. Not GDW's; the owners and creators of Traveller, but DGP; a fan group who, as Loren Wiseman points out, never quit their day jobs. I won't even try to speak about the business decisions that made this possible, I know nothing of them and I'm more than willing to give GDW the benefit of the doubt. If you look at GDW's +20 year history, the amount of games, materials, RPGs, supplements, periodicals, and whatnot it produced is staggering when you also consider the size of the company.

DGP's role as a 'subcontractor' of sorts did have its effects though. DGP produced Traveller products directly for GDW, produced materials that were used in Traveller products by GDW, and produced Traveller products on their own. The trouble was that they rarely kept all of this separate. A in-house variant created for a DGP-only product would also be used in a product or materials submitted to GDW. Why the various Traveller line editors did not catch or prevent these slips, I do not know. GDW, always working with a tiny staff, was producing their usual flood of materials. Perhaps the focus on Traveller had been lessened.

DGP's Traveller efforts were much like 'the little girl with the little curl'; When they were good, they were very, very good and when they were bad, they were horrid.

Summing it all up;
- While some of MT's changes were successful and welcome, enough of those changes were not successful or well thought out.
- Although CT had been moving away from its setting-less system, MT was essentially a one setting system.
- A loss of focus or control over many details presented in setting materials was percieved to occur by the hobby.

Finally, the endless, sickening Rebellion with its many internally implausible factors; i.e. the Alien Incursions, precisely balanced factions, etc., turned many people off of the game. My group disbanded during MT's run, partially due to the demands of life and partially due to a lack of desire to imagine ourselves in the Imperium anymore. The CT Resurgance didn't begin the 90's with the death of TNE and GDW, I saw it begin only a few years after MT's release as the Rebellion dragged on and on.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Blue Ghost]

Kaladorn; I guess I'm confusing the stats with D&D or something. My fault.

T. Foster; I recall vehicle combat and construction being overly complex. I think our group stuck with CT starship and vehicle combat. The story didn't bother us so much as the lack of support. Now, that honestly did anger us a great deal. Our group loved the classic LBB adventures, particularly the double adventures (we could sometimes finish those in a night). And then MT hits the shelves and it's like you had to really be patient and dig around for the few adventure supplements that came out. Our group was all up for creating our own stuff, but having a printed manual sure does help a lot.

Larsen E. Whipsnade; yeah, the setting thing still surprises me some. I have to admit that the assasination story didn't do much for me. I didn't mind the Imperium being defined so much as the actual events (political events) being thrust into the game (the assasination). For our group it was just another setting. Our players didn't do anything Wagnerian like turn the tide and course of the war for one faction against another, nor were their character influential in any other significant way on our Traveller universe (as opposed to other player groups whose characters routinely alter or set historical events in motion), so even though I can sympathize with the setting thing I still have a hard time completely understanding the dissapointment. But like you said the setting trumped the system.

Very interesting. Thanks all.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Kaladorn; I guess I'm confusing the stats with D&D or something. My fault.

T. Foster; I recall vehicle combat and construction being overly complex. I think our group stuck with CT starship and vehicle combat. The story didn't bother us so much as the lack of support. Now, that honestly did anger us a great deal. Our group loved the classic LBB adventures, particularly the double adventures (we could sometimes finish those in a night). And then MT hits the shelves and it's like you had to really be patient and dig around for the few adventure supplements that came out. Our group was all up for creating our own stuff, but having a printed manual sure does help a lot.

Larsen E. Whipsnade; yeah, the setting thing still surprises me some. I have to admit that the assasination story didn't do much for me. I didn't mind the Imperium being defined so much as the actual events (political events) being thrust into the game (the assasination). For our group it was just another setting. Our players didn't do anything Wagnerian like turn the tide and course of the war for one faction against another, nor were their character influential in any other significant way on our Traveller universe (as opposed to other player groups whose characters routinely alter or set historical events in motion), so even though I can sympathize with the setting thing I still have a hard time completely understanding the dissapointment. But like you said the setting trumped the system.

Very interesting. Thanks all.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Kaladorn; I guess I'm confusing the stats with D&D or something. My fault.

T. Foster; I recall vehicle combat and construction being overly complex. I think our group stuck with CT starship and vehicle combat. The story didn't bother us so much as the lack of support. Now, that honestly did anger us a great deal. Our group loved the classic LBB adventures, particularly the double adventures (we could sometimes finish those in a night). And then MT hits the shelves and it's like you had to really be patient and dig around for the few adventure supplements that came out. Our group was all up for creating our own stuff, but having a printed manual sure does help a lot.

Larsen E. Whipsnade; yeah, the setting thing still surprises me some. I have to admit that the assasination story didn't do much for me. I didn't mind the Imperium being defined so much as the actual events (political events) being thrust into the game (the assasination). For our group it was just another setting. Our players didn't do anything Wagnerian like turn the tide and course of the war for one faction against another, nor were their character influential in any other significant way on our Traveller universe (as opposed to other player groups whose characters routinely alter or set historical events in motion), so even though I can sympathize with the setting thing I still have a hard time completely understanding the dissapointment. But like you said the setting trumped the system.

Very interesting. Thanks all.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
different handling characteristics, etc... a gauss rifle IS a kind of rifle, but one without any recoil that you need to take into acount for your next shot

Two points good Baron:

1. What gives you the impression a gauss rifle has no recoil? That might offend Mr. Newton severely. It may even have a sharper recoil (as the round leaves with more energy and in a shorter time, thus meaning more impulse imparted) than a conventional arm. Now, it was 'gyrostabilized', but IIRC that mostly had impact at long ranges.

2. I ran several years of MT with just the skill system in hand and a concept of a skill or two, an asset, and some descriptions of things like the task being uncertain, fateful, etc. I found, compared to CT, I refered to the books far less (since every skill didn't have its own 'magic numbers') and that the combat system particularly took far fewer lookups (no concept I think of "advantageous strength" with some "dm" attached to it or the opposite on the low side...). But if you enjoyed the freedom of CT, it seems to me you'd pretty much have been happy playing *anything* since you can probably get by with very little in the way of rules (the sign of true role players and role playing GMs, methinks). So I'd keep in mind that MT offered something to those who *couldn't* comfortably do that - it offered a fast, easy way to run a game in a very similar fashion. My games of MT sound like they more closely imitated your CT games. And isn't that better? If you never used MT, it sounds like you were pretty happy in CT to begin with so no great need to move on. For me, CT had grown long in the tooth, had (task-wise) a certain inconsistency, and had a lot of administrivia relative to MT.

But that's the nice thing about the relative oddity of having 4 or 5 rules versions... some of us like CT, some MT, some GT, some T20, and some even (gasp) T4. And some play Traveller with *something else*. Some seem to think Traveller is a bare bones rule system with setting grafted on, others think it is a setting with rules grafted on... and that is the great thing about the variety we have - we have three or four interpretations of things (stable 3I, rebellion, TNE, and GT) and we have about as many viable rules systems. Lets everyone walk off with what they like.

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. And they're 'what is currently in production' (along with the CT reprints, thankfully... if they'd get MT sorted and reprinted, that'd sell too). I don't play them, and I'm not sure how much of their material I'll loot, but they gave me something to think about (like it or not) and something to steal the good parts from.

Sorry for waxing philosophical.... can't help being enthused, Wot!

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
different handling characteristics, etc... a gauss rifle IS a kind of rifle, but one without any recoil that you need to take into acount for your next shot

Two points good Baron:

1. What gives you the impression a gauss rifle has no recoil? That might offend Mr. Newton severely. It may even have a sharper recoil (as the round leaves with more energy and in a shorter time, thus meaning more impulse imparted) than a conventional arm. Now, it was 'gyrostabilized', but IIRC that mostly had impact at long ranges.

2. I ran several years of MT with just the skill system in hand and a concept of a skill or two, an asset, and some descriptions of things like the task being uncertain, fateful, etc. I found, compared to CT, I refered to the books far less (since every skill didn't have its own 'magic numbers') and that the combat system particularly took far fewer lookups (no concept I think of "advantageous strength" with some "dm" attached to it or the opposite on the low side...). But if you enjoyed the freedom of CT, it seems to me you'd pretty much have been happy playing *anything* since you can probably get by with very little in the way of rules (the sign of true role players and role playing GMs, methinks). So I'd keep in mind that MT offered something to those who *couldn't* comfortably do that - it offered a fast, easy way to run a game in a very similar fashion. My games of MT sound like they more closely imitated your CT games. And isn't that better? If you never used MT, it sounds like you were pretty happy in CT to begin with so no great need to move on. For me, CT had grown long in the tooth, had (task-wise) a certain inconsistency, and had a lot of administrivia relative to MT.

But that's the nice thing about the relative oddity of having 4 or 5 rules versions... some of us like CT, some MT, some GT, some T20, and some even (gasp) T4. And some play Traveller with *something else*. Some seem to think Traveller is a bare bones rule system with setting grafted on, others think it is a setting with rules grafted on... and that is the great thing about the variety we have - we have three or four interpretations of things (stable 3I, rebellion, TNE, and GT) and we have about as many viable rules systems. Lets everyone walk off with what they like.

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. And they're 'what is currently in production' (along with the CT reprints, thankfully... if they'd get MT sorted and reprinted, that'd sell too). I don't play them, and I'm not sure how much of their material I'll loot, but they gave me something to think about (like it or not) and something to steal the good parts from.

Sorry for waxing philosophical.... can't help being enthused, Wot!

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
different handling characteristics, etc... a gauss rifle IS a kind of rifle, but one without any recoil that you need to take into acount for your next shot

Two points good Baron:

1. What gives you the impression a gauss rifle has no recoil? That might offend Mr. Newton severely. It may even have a sharper recoil (as the round leaves with more energy and in a shorter time, thus meaning more impulse imparted) than a conventional arm. Now, it was 'gyrostabilized', but IIRC that mostly had impact at long ranges.

2. I ran several years of MT with just the skill system in hand and a concept of a skill or two, an asset, and some descriptions of things like the task being uncertain, fateful, etc. I found, compared to CT, I refered to the books far less (since every skill didn't have its own 'magic numbers') and that the combat system particularly took far fewer lookups (no concept I think of "advantageous strength" with some "dm" attached to it or the opposite on the low side...). But if you enjoyed the freedom of CT, it seems to me you'd pretty much have been happy playing *anything* since you can probably get by with very little in the way of rules (the sign of true role players and role playing GMs, methinks). So I'd keep in mind that MT offered something to those who *couldn't* comfortably do that - it offered a fast, easy way to run a game in a very similar fashion. My games of MT sound like they more closely imitated your CT games. And isn't that better? If you never used MT, it sounds like you were pretty happy in CT to begin with so no great need to move on. For me, CT had grown long in the tooth, had (task-wise) a certain inconsistency, and had a lot of administrivia relative to MT.

But that's the nice thing about the relative oddity of having 4 or 5 rules versions... some of us like CT, some MT, some GT, some T20, and some even (gasp) T4. And some play Traveller with *something else*. Some seem to think Traveller is a bare bones rule system with setting grafted on, others think it is a setting with rules grafted on... and that is the great thing about the variety we have - we have three or four interpretations of things (stable 3I, rebellion, TNE, and GT) and we have about as many viable rules systems. Lets everyone walk off with what they like.

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. And they're 'what is currently in production' (along with the CT reprints, thankfully... if they'd get MT sorted and reprinted, that'd sell too). I don't play them, and I'm not sure how much of their material I'll loot, but they gave me something to think about (like it or not) and something to steal the good parts from.

Sorry for waxing philosophical.... can't help being enthused, Wot!

 

[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