Mage said:
So, which version of Traveller will the new mongoose game most resembel? I ask because I want to pick up one of the older books on ebay so I can kind of pratice before the new book comes out. Failing that and the new game is completely different, what are the easier, quickest, but most pracitcal system/edition that has been released.
Don't have a clue which RTT/MoTrav will resemble, but if it's T5 lite, it's going to be T5, derogatorily known as T4.2...
CT was the "rules-lite" edition. Then it got expanded. If you want to be able to tweak it to your needs, this is the one.
MT was thorough. It's simple to play (running combat is straightforward, even if the rules are poorly worded), and has almost everything a Ref needs in 4 books: PM, RM, Ref's Companion, and Imperial Encyclopedia. Hard Times and COACC add to the design sequences and more. Loads of erratta, though. Also doubles as a miniatures game. Introduces task system.
TNE: simpler than MT over all, but lacks certain elements of the "Feel" of traveller: uses hit points by location, no damage to stats, 1d20 task system, stat raises bloody hard to get, combat not deadly enough for many. Almost the most complex ship design sequences in print... Different approach to task system but same levels as uses in MT (and 2300, and T2K 2E revised, and DC 2E, etc)
T4: For many, best described as "All the worst ideas from CT, MT, and TNE in one volume." Multi-die task system (openly lambasted by the vast majority of purchasers who used the system), Character incompatibility with CT/MT, characters tend to be stat-heavy ubermenshen renaissance men... Combat system is clunky, and as non-deadly as TNE (due to poor wordings, and the armor rules), same design sequences as FF&S. Poorly written, numerous editing errors, large chunks of text scanned from CT with errors intact.
T20: if you can handle D20, this is on par with B5 for deadliness. Ship design is essentially CT-Bk5 (and is compatible), a vehicle design system is done to the same level of complexity (not much complexity, but enough detail for play), an expanded CT Bk2 trade system. Characters completely incompatible with most D20 games and with rest of Traveller brand, no ties to standard task difficulties.
GURPS: Traveller. It's GURPS. It uses GURPS Vehicles (which is more detailed than FF&S for TNE or T4). It is character and ship incompatible with other Traveller brands. LOADS of supplements, high editing quality; GURPS playtest process is a joke, however (4-6 weeks is typical), and numerous differences in setting, all minor save for the lack of the rebellion, but they add up to a very different univers than a read of CT & MT would provide). Has the most convoluted, complex, and hard to use trade system I've seen for any game: GT: Far Trader. GTFT's supposed to be the most economically accurate trade system yet done; many swear by it, while many more swear at it.
T5 Draft: So far, it's been T4.2, with lots of random-roll systems that players will likely never need, nor use, and Ref's might find occasionally useful. SOme "nifty ideas" have turned up, but they also have been awkward to use, and poorly worded.
Traveller 2300/2300AD: Not 'really' Traveller. Mechanically, a prototype of MT in many ways, and TNE in others. Uses same task system (replaceing 2d6 with 1d10). Uses "Pick your skills" that later appears in T2K 2E and TNE. Has a Pen vs Armor system. No Stat Damages. No tech level system! Setting isn't the same as the other Traveller lines. No Jump Drive (stutterwarp instead).
So which would I reccomend?
Not A GURPS Fan: MT, T20
GURPS Fan: GT (but don't cry when you get told "It Ain't Real Traveller" or "GT is Canon for GT Only")
MT is the most flexible ruleset mechanically (Ignoring GURPS). T20 is really close. Both handle a variety of scales quite well.
TNE does have more flexible design systems, at a severe cost in complexity.
CT is the simplest.
Why ignore GURPS? Simple: every GURPS adaptation still feels mostly like GURPS....
