First evening of playtesting

[GuernseyMan]

We had our first evening of actual playtesting on Thursday, have generated the characters previously.

A few random comments from the players, these are consensus of the whole group. My personal comments are elsewhere in the forums:

Boon and Bane
Couldn't get to grips with at all. It was mentioned that the rules didn't match the examples in the book and we struggled with bonuses/penalties/boons/banes and target numbers.

Some parts of the rules specify target numbers for tasks 8+/4+ etc but other parts give bonuses to the rolls (assuming 8+ as the target). In the end we used 8+ for everything with modifiers to the dice rolls. Only used one boon (piloting, taking time for docking) all evening. Didn't much like the fact that it didn't matter how many boons you got you still only got the single bonus whereas if the "situational modifier" was an actual +1 then they stacked. Players felt short-changed on this.

Sciences
All sciences should be put back to Life and Physical. Too overarching by far. You can argue that learning physics gives you a foundation in chemistry but not in economics or philosophy!

Skills General
Learning skills in play is far too easy and fast. When the players tell you that there is something wrong! A character with an EDU of +0 has about a 40% chance of learning a level 0 skill in a week. That's 20 skills per year if all he does is train.

Putting that into context that means that an average character can have every level 0 skill in the book within 2 years. An EDU+2 character can do it in a year with lucky rolls. What was he doing at University to only gain effectively three skill levels in 4 years?

A decent GM will put the brakes on by needing study materials, teachers etc but, as written, the rules allow you to pimp your character in the extreme. You should not be able to go from no knowledge of medicine to subsector-renowned surgeon in less than a year which is exactly what our test rolls show is possible.

The limitation in skills of 3x(EDU+INT) was not seen as a limitation. Even with average scores this would allow 42 skill ranks, far above what any of the characters were able to achieve in generation. Not including level 0 skills in this limited was seen as an oversight.

The skill training system will result in "adventuring" characters being far superior to anyone else in the Empire, exactly what I was trying to avoid when we stopped playing Traveller d20.

General Feeling
In general the feeling was "We enjoyed it because it was Traveller, but it doesn't give us anything new or exciting over Mongoose v1". Probably stick with v1 and use a couple of house rules we like from this beta.

Of course we didn't get the chance to try out the new vehicle/spaceship rules so there might be more enthusiasm next week when the take on the Zhodani fleet (part of it)!

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I was going to pick this all apart, but decided not to. So I'll just sub to the thread and see what others say.

 

[phavoc]

Interesting feedback. Everyone needs to approach the game rules from their own personal views. We are all equal when we pick the book up for the first time.

Rule changes can always be confusing at first. But it's important that people speak up and provide their viewpoints in a public beta. Everyone's voice should be heard without feat of being shouted down.

 

[bbmike]

I was going to pick this all apart, but decided not to. So I'll just sub to the thread and see what others say.

Be nice and let us know your thoughts. 8)

 

[Loconius]

I would like it if GuernseyMan to elaborate on what trouble his table had with boon and bane?

We're the explanations and examples in the book inadequate, or was it something else. did the legacy methods from the first edition make playing the new edition confusing?

 

[GuernseyMan]

Book quotes edited for brevity, I've not changed the meaning!

Boon or Bane:

Definition: "If a traveller is hindered in a check with negative circumstances he receives a Bane"

Example: Formidable difficulty - Trying to convince a city of superstitious natives that you are a peaceful trader and not a demon from the outer darkness when you do not speak a word of their language.

We all read it that the part "do not speak a word of their language" should be a bane rather than making the skill check harder yet it was included in the difficulty of the check.

Likewise the example: Performing surgery in Zero G in a ship that is under attack.

There are at least three ways to approach this, all within the rules:

1. As written - difficulty 12+ check

2. Regard "ship under attack as a bane and make a 10+ roll with a bane.

3. Regard "ship under attack" and "Zero-G" as banes and make an 8+ roll with a bane (can only have 1)

Yes, there is flexibility for an experienced GM but looking at the rules from the novice point of view there is not much guidance.

The Boon/Bane system looks like it gives more flexibility but, in fact doesn't. As an example:

Player: "I'm going to disarm the bomb (with my total skill of +4) whilst under fire, in a vacuum without a suit (holding my breath), with no tools. What do I need to roll.

My gut feeling: 8+ (average) for the bomb and you can take a -1 for under fire, -2 for holding breath and -3 for no tools (example mods). So you will be rolling 2d+4-6 looking for 8+ (old traveller) or 2d+4 looking for 14+.

Under the rules as written: 8+ (average) for the bomb then I can only apply a bane for all of the circumstances so roll 2d+4 with a bane.

My players would respond: "Ok, in that case I'll try to hurry it since I've already got a bane and the rules don't let you penalise me any further"

The Boon/Bane works in D&D 5th edition because of the nature of the game. Nobody cares too much in a fantasy game exactly how hard tasks are. Traveller, in my mind, is trying to be a harder sci-fi game and the boon/bane approach doesn't give the GM enough control.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

You can go nuts if you are trying to play Classic Traveller and/or D&D 5e in a Mongoose Traveller 2nd edition beta playtest rules game session. Such players should roll for SAN.

The referee in your example should simplify the "+/-"s when rolling. The difficulty should have simply been 14+ and nothing else for that example (assuming Traveller is human and enemies don't miss when firing). I'd like to know more about this Level 4 Bomb Disarm skill. I'd like to know if the players were role-playing. I'd like to know why a Level 4 Bomb Disarm skilled Traveller suffers from not having "tools" with them, and which "tools" exactly have such a sway in +/- DM values.

 

[GuernseyMan]

We're not. We're playing the beta exactly as written. The comparison with Classic Traveller and D&D is just in this forum.

Level 4 bomb disarm, sorry should be Explosives. Easily got with Explosives 2 and INT 2+ or DEX 2+ depending on your view.

Depending on the bomb; tools will have a greater or lesser impact. If you haven't even got a screwdriver to get the case off you're pretty much screwed.

None of that is really important. The point is that there is no way to model multiple external factors.

The rules are very clear on difficulties:

"Before any other factors are taken into account, the referee should set the difficulty of a task, based on how hard he believes the task should be without any exterior effects"

In this case disarming this particular bomb is 8+

Dice Modifiers: In general, these should be regarded as hard-wired into the rules and only applied if they are listed in a Traveller rulebook or supplement.

In this case there are no hard-wired rules therefore I can't apply any DM's

I'm not arguing that it should be a 14+ roll. That's exactly what I would do. I'm arguing that a new GM would never get to that following the rules. You can't have a set of rules with the caveat "An experienced GM will, of course, just ignore these rules and do his own thing."

edited for typos

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

New GMs to any RPG rules are going to have a learning curve to get past if they have not GM'd before.

Technically, there is no wrong way for how players (at a gaming table) agree on when DMs, Bane/Boon, CharMods, Skill levels, Target Numbers get used. Or even when dice are rolled or not. Dice are used only when there are interesting possibilities from certain situations Travellers find themselves in. It's the Effect that the Referee/Player is looking for, depending on who narrates successes and who narrates failures at the game table.

It would be nice to know exactly what +/- to use, and Boon/Bane to use, and exactly what the difficulty is for every possible thing. But Traveller is not a simulator. Each situation is handled on a case by case basis.

Some players will metagame every little +/- they can squeeze into their roll in an almost committee-like fashion with the other players in the group. Some players will just roll after being told by the Referee if it's a 2D, Bane, or Boon roll. They aren't told what the difficulty of any task is. They just know to add their Skill Level, CharMod, and maybe a hard-wired DM to the roll is all. There's almost no metagaming during play. And no out-of-character chatter.

For new Mongoose Traveller players, I have a short learning session first before a game is played so they get the hang of how Skill Checks are made. They soon want to referee their own games when they see how slick the rolls work.

 

[GuernseyMan]

I agree on every point that you have made.

If I was reviewing an existing game, or just playing for fun, we would not be having this discussion.

However, the whole point of a beta test is to run the game completely within the rules where possible. Anything which falls outside of those rules should be reported and discussed so that the rules or explanation can be improved. It is not fair to the developers to stay quiet on an problems. They should be expecting us to rip the rules apart as it is only with that that they can be honed for final publication.

If we say "well I can work around this" that isn't good enough. The game should be fun but should also hang together logically and be explained properly. The more help given to starting GMs the more likely they are to continue playing.

The difficulty should have simply been 14+ and nothing else for that example (assuming Traveller is human and enemies don't miss when firing).

This would not be allowed under the rules as currently written even though I agree with your reasining. I have no bother with occasionally ignoring the rules but if you do so on a normal basis they need revisiting.

Traveller does hold itself up as a simulation when compared with the likes of FATE for example. The rules have example difficulties, DM modifiers, boon/bane in order to change the chance of task based on character and external actions.

The rules are very specific about what base difficulty, DMs and when to use Boon/Bane which is fine. My comment is that following those rules exactly throws up unrealistic probabilities more often than I would like.

If the skills section ended with the statement "Of course the GM can also simply eyeball a difficulty for the task taking everything into account for speed of play" then I would be happy. You may take it as read but I think it would send out a better signal for some GMs for it to actually be stated.

At the moment the system has a lot of potential. If we don't shy away from shining a torch on things we don't like it can be a great game.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Two of the things that happen during playtest is:

1) Playtester states which rules are unclear and/or confusing to players.

2) Playtester asks what the rules mean.

I think you're right that we should just stick to finding confusing stuff so AndrewW and Matthew can correct them. Let AndrewW know which examples will need to be updated so that they make sense with any revised rules.

 

[TrippyHippy]

We had our first evening of actual playtesting on Thursday, have generated the characters previously.

A few random comments from the players, these are consensus of the whole group.

I too run a biweekly campaign where I am gradually testing out bits of the new edition. For each of the points you raise, here's my discussion:

Boon and Bane

I do think there needs to be some clarification of when and how these rolls are implemented. They are useful insofar that they can weight a dice roll positively/negatively without affecting the range. However, they do have a fixed value (only one dice, either way). The three pronged attack of Difficulty/Player DMs and Boon/Bane out to be simple to apply - but there is clearly some confusion here.

Sciences
All sciences should be put back to Life and Physical. Too overarching by far. You can argue that learning physics gives you a foundation in chemistry but not in economics or philosophy!

I actually called for separate Sciences in the playtest of the last edition - which was implemented for similar reasons to what you cite. There are, however, a few issues.

Firstly, the categorisation can be problematic - especially with Space Sciences we found - where some of the specialities seem to overlap into different categories. One has to remember that most fields are really applied sciences and are often grounded in Physical Sciences at their most basic understanding. Rutherford famously described Chemistry as merely a branch of Physics, while one can also describe Biology as applied Chemistry on one level. Indeed the whole approach to scientific induction and experimentation is really just an applied philosophy, which makes a lot of use of applied maths.

Secondly, when we are talking about basic training (level 0), it really depends on what you consider to be part of basic training. Speaking as an actual Science teacher, the truth is that the Science we teach at High school level really is a mix of all sorts, while the specialisation of Science beyond that level really doesn't go far unless students are well grounded in all aspects of science. Try teaching Physics to students who don't understand trigonometry (maths) or Biology to those who don't have basic understanding of photosynthesis or respiration (chemistry), for example. The point is, at a basic level, it's all interrelated stuff.

Thirdly, I agree that a number of Science skills aren't especially scientific (insofar that they don't make entirely reliable predictions) - like economics, history, psychology and philosophy for example. Technically, I'd argue that these are 'humanities' rather than 'sciences'. However, this is a sci-fi game, and one could argue that future projections of these studies could become more reliable with advanced techniques. It's the basis of sci-fi ideas like Pscho-History for example.

Finally, the truth of the matter is that having more Sciences listed ends up being more complicated in use. A scientist without a speciality in one field ought to still be able to make a roll on general science knowledge, I feel, without penalty. Less skills on the sheet makes gameplay easier to manage.

Skills General
Learning skills in play is far too easy and fast.

This, I believe, is going to change.

General FeelingIn general the feeling was "We enjoyed it because it was Traveller, but it doesn't give us anything new or exciting over Mongoose v1". Probably stick with v1 and use a couple of house rules we like from this beta.

For me, the general improvement in presentation is a key factor, but I didn't personally feel the need for a radical overhaul or new rules. Tidying up, yes, but not a massive change in how we play the game. My feelings are that I'd like backwards compatability where possible (considering how many Traveller books I have now), but I'd like more options into other mediums and games, and a set of books that actually look cool around the gametable and on the shelf. If we get that, I'm happy.

Of course we didn't get the chance to try out the new vehicle/spaceship rules so there might be more enthusiasm next week when the take on the Zhodani fleet (part of it)!

Do keep reporting, and I'm also yet to really try out the vehicle/spaceship rules.

 

[-Daniel-]

Sciences
All sciences should be put back to Life and Physical. Too overarching by far. You can argue that learning physics gives you a foundation in chemistry but not in economics or philosophy!

I actually called for separate Sciences in the playtest of the last edition - which was implemented for similar reasons to what you cite. There are, however, a few issues.

Not to side track the thread too much, but why would it be bad to have just four specializations that align to the old skills? Science (Physical Sciences), Science (Life Sciences), Science (Social Sciences), and Science (Space Sciences). Four specializations and split into the core groupings that seem comfortable in the last edition. This would also keep the specializations down to a reasonable number. Just curious.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Sciences
All sciences should be put back to Life and Physical. Too overarching by far. You can argue that learning physics gives you a foundation in chemistry but not in economics or philosophy!

I actually called for separate Sciences in the playtest of the last edition - which was implemented for similar reasons to what you cite. There are, however, a few issues.

Not to side track the thread too much, but why would it be bad to have just four specializations that align to the old skills? Science (Physical Sciences), Science (Life Sciences), Science (Social Sciences), and Science (Space Sciences). Four specializations and split into the core groupings that seem comfortable in the last edition. This would also keep the specializations down to a reasonable number. Just curious.

Well, simplicity of presentation and use, primarily, along with categorisation issues. It's what I outlined before, I thought.

The Space Sciences listed in the current (1st edition), for example, somehow miss out Astronomy but go on to list Robotics, Planetology and Sophontology. Isn't Robotics and Planetology really just branches of Physical Science? Isn't Sophontology really a Social Science? Moreover, would characters trained in such specialities really not have a basic understanding of Physical or Social Science respectively?

Like I say, at a basic level, ie Rank 0, there is a lot of interchange between all sciences. People only specialise as they go up in Rank. While I could see an argument to separate out things like History, Philosophy and Economics into their own category (Humanities?), the reality is that it's a whole simpler to just assume that basic Science (Rank 0) grounds you enough in every knowledge-based discipline and then to be able to specialise after that point - Rank 1+.

Moreover, in character generation and in general gameplay, it gets tiresome to have to roll against four different basic Science skills in order to have a broad ability to understand basic science ideas. If somebody understands Space Science (Robotics) at any rank, how would they not know Physical Science at Rank 0? If somebody has training in how to build a robot, how would they end up not having an inkling about the wiring of a plug?

The number of specialisations wouldn't be any different incidentally - just listed altogether under one core basic Skill.

 

[-Daniel-]

Maybe I am being dense here, so forgive me if I am, but if the push is to lower the number of specializations and skills, the present list of science specializations in the Beta is going the opposite way. If anything it is raising the number quite a bit.

Do we really need such granularity in an RPG? In the end, does it really matter if I have a Character roll on their "Science Skill" or "Science (Life)" or "Science (Sophontology)" to see if the Character in the RPG knows something? Are they really that different from an RPG point of view?

I get that to someone who is involved in a branch of science in real life, these subtle differences mean something, but in context to an RPG is it really needed? I also understand how a single "Science" skill might be too much of a generalization for people to accept. But must it be a list or 15 or more different specializations to be acceptable? We have 16 on the list right now and a few more have been pointed out as "missing".

I do not profess to know what the best answer is, but I have to believe needing 16 specializations is not the best answer for an RPG. There must be a level of generalization that would be acceptable.

 

[phavoc]

The book should list broad categories, and only a handful of them. And players and refs should handle the level of granularity they are looking for in the campaign.

So your scientist with planetary science 4 knows a lot about geology, for example, but he's nowhere near as knowledgeable with say soil analysis. There are going to be some people who have high skill levels in their primary and keep up to date on related fields that intersect with theirs. And there will be others who are hyper focused on their specific field and myopic about anything else, even related.

This is where you get to do the role playing portion. And it would simy bog down the game to list them all.

However a topic like this is a great place to get some verbiage added to the boom that briefly discusses the idea and how it might be handled. Finding a good balance between detail, page length and cumbersome rules is always a challenge.

 

[-Daniel-]

The book should list broad categories, and only a handful of them. And players and refs should handle the level of granularity they are looking for in the campaign.

I agree, but right now the Beta lists 16 different specialties. And this doesn't count the one or two folks have pointed out are missing.

 

[TrippyHippy]

There were 16 specialities before - it was just that they were broken into 4 different skills. There is no additional complexity.

 

[-Daniel-]

There were 16 specialities before - it was just that they were broken into 4 different skills. There is no additional complexity.

Yes and there were a few other skills as well that they have trimmed. If the goal is to lower the number of skills (zero-G gone for example) and/or lower the number of specialties (Gun Combat for example) then I see no reason to keep 16 or more specialties in science.

If a single skill like medic can cover the range from pulling a splinter out and putting on a band aid to open heart surgery or a skill like Gun Combat (Slug) can cover every fire arm from an early matchlock rifles to a state of the art Gauss Pistols. I find it hard to understand why it is impossible to trim down Science with some more generic categories. The logic escapes me. Science really does not need to be that granular for this RPG just as Medic and Gun combat do not in my opinion.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Oh, well I could see the core Sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology ...and Social Science if this is where it will be included) being the main ones, however the further qualified you get the more specialised your studies become.

I could see an argument of a chain of specialisation at each level, possibly, where you may start Level with Science (Biology) 1, or 2, and then change the specialisation when you step up - Science (Genetics) 3, say.

To be honest there isn't much point having a 'Biology' speciality in 'Life Science', or a 'Physics' Speciality in 'Physical Science' as they pretty much mean the same thing anyway. And, as I say, at a basic level (0), you tend to get taught a broad overview of all Sciences. The one point of doubt is that 'Social Sciences' like History, Economics and so on could be listed separately as they have a different basic set of methodologies.