[House Rule] armour adjustments by dton range

[Anonymous]

Does CT exist as a rule set still?

I mean I know there are plenty out there but how long since something was actually published for it?

I see it as a mutating virus now, it has fathered a million different versions as every GM house rules it into a new creature...

hahahaha, that's gonna upset someone! It was a joke!

 

[dragoner]

Avenger's 1248 starships were done with CT, so right up to Mong's release. But for user generated content, it's big, as well as if someone is looking to run or play a game. Mong is the other big dog, lots of 3pp stuff too, which is cool. A lot of it comes down to fiddly bits, as you could throw a CT deck plan down in front of a mong group without a peep.

Started to see more and more T5 stuff popping up.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Mongoose Traveller is all about refining existing Classic Traveller rules, while adding more content. It's not about added more rules for things. Not in the corebook. Other game settings have to work still with the Mongoose 2D6 mechanic. Advanced rules go in the green-titled books. Even then, the advanced rules are meant to not complex things, while keeping everything modular/optional for game use.

Referees worth a hill of beans can easily see how the Mongoose rules work and how to go about added their own rules here and there without making a cluster of it. I don't want to see detailed rules added to the corebook. I prefer to error on the side of role-play.

 

[Anonymous]

Mongoose Traveller is all about refining existing Classic Traveller rules, while adding more content. It's not about added more rules for things. Not in the corebook. Other game settings have to work still with the Mongoose 2D6 mechanic. Advanced rules go in the green-titled books. Even then, the advanced rules are meant to not complex things, while keeping everything modular/optional for game use.

Referees worth a hill of beans can easily see how the Mongoose rules work and how to go about added their own rules here and there without making a cluster of it. I don't want to see detailed rules added to the corebook. I prefer to error on the side of role-play.

agreed

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Mong's rules are all in the SRD afaik, which is cool. I post my designs here and there, people are free to use them, I know I use other's designs too.

The SRD is not a complete ruleset. The most important thing used in the game is missing from it. My players buy the game. I don't have them suffering with an impaired SRD. Players will think that is the normal game and move on.

Mongoose needs a quickstart PDF though, if it's going to go that SRD route. Yes, I know the SRD can be used to make new game rules from. But again, you are kind of stuck with lame SRD rules for your players. Cars need 4 wheels. Not just 3. A quickstart PDF would be a 2-wheel motorcycle. Enough to get players involved more.

If players decide not to buy Mongoose Traveller, they end up buying Stars Without Number or some FATE version of Traveller anyway, and they end up never playing the game. At least with Mongoose Traveller, the game will see quite a bit of playing time.

 

[dragoner]

Design rules. :roll:

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Design rules. :roll:

Design rules are not the most important thing left out of the SRD.

 

[dragoner]

The design rules aren't left out of the SRD.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The design rules aren't left out of the SRD.

Just the game mechanic is. Which is kind of a big deal. You're not a Referee though, who runs games for players. So this probably doesn't matter to you.

 

[dragoner]

Riiight. I don't sound like a valley girl either, but please try to follow along.

"The design rules are in the SRD", do you get that? Because that is what the convo was about.

 

[phavoc]

Some of that could be potentially sidestepped by taking into account different materials, but the rules really don't go into that level of detail (which isn't necessarily a bad thing)

The rules are right to simplify it, it is it's own sub-field of engineering: http://www.indeed.com/q-Armor-Engineer-jobs.html Real world it would start with structure, then shape, material density, material thickness, and on to stuff ad infinitum. Ultimately ending in a hand-wave anyways.

It need not get into FF&S space. As they stand they are already kind of convoluted. You already have to cut the formula in half because it's per two/four/six points of armor for 5% of volume. So if you had a 1,000 Dton TL14 ship and you wanted say 5 points of bonded superdense armor that would 42 tons. It would be 62.5 tons for crystal iron armor. I wouldn't say the existing formula's are "simple". There are better , more straightforward ways to create simple formulas and make them both easy to understand AND logically scalable.

Referees worth a hill of beans can easily see how the Mongoose rules work and how to go about added their own rules here and there without making a cluster of it. I don't want to see detailed rules added to the corebook. I prefer to error on the side of role-play.

I don't think people are asking for much when they pay for a ruleset and expect it to be well-designed and thought out. To me it is the ultimate or ironies that people call out for house rules for crap like this when house rules are free, so why would anyone pay money for the game system again?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I don't think people are asking for much when they pay for a ruleset and expect it to be well-designed and thought out. To me it is the ultimate or ironies that people call out for house rules for crap like this when house rules are free, so why would anyone pay money for the game system again?

D&D fans get kind of upset with how Mongoose rules are written. Traveller role-players will appreciate the rules far more (intended audience/demographic). Traveller power/war-gamers and rules lawyers will always want a rule for everything, no matter what is included.

The idea is that you buy the MgT core rulebook once. No other RPG has these rules, it turns out. Other players buy their copies of it. The other books are then bought for the add-on rules.

Anyway, I don't add any house rules to MgT. And I'm not trying to pretend that the game is a simulator of any kind either, like so many here do. The core rules provide a standard to role-play in, and allow themselves to be used in completely other settings. Nothing else.

If players want every skill to have its own separate rule, they go play Classic Traveller. Have at it. Knock themselves out, etc. That is old-style adventure gaming which hasn't died out yet for a lot of Traveller fans.

When a Traveller referee buys a book for their Mongoose game, and they read the entire book, if they get inspired to make a campaign of their own from some of the ideas they just read about in the book they paid for, is that hand-waving or house-ruling?

The minute a Mongoose Traveller game starts, rules begin to get ignored by players. Because a lot of players want to play like a boardgame. "Whose turn is it?" "Who hasn't moved yet?" And Mongoose Traveller is not a boardgame. "I paid for detailed rules for everything, and I don't see them in here!" "None of these animals have speed numbers for them!" Well, there's no speed mechanic in Mongoose Traveller, for one thing. The other... just role-play it out! You don't need a rule for everything. Use common sense.

 

[dragoner]

It need not get into FF&S space. As they stand they are already kind of convoluted. You already have to cut the formula in half because it's per two/four/six points of armor for 5% of volume. So if you had a 1,000 Dton TL14 ship and you wanted say 5 points of bonded superdense armor that would 42 tons. It would be 62.5 tons for crystal iron armor. I wouldn't say the existing formula's are "simple". There are better , more straightforward ways to create simple formulas and make them both easy to understand AND logically scalable.

I struggle with the language more, but I'm not a native speaker, and have had to get people to help me understand. The numbers don't bother me as much. It does seem you have it down, no? So "simple enough". If someone likes FF&S, they should use it, like hiro. It sounds like his players are only going to have minimal interaction with ships anyways, only as passengers. For me, I'm leery of house-rules, but I don't have anything intrinsically against them, but they can have cascade effects, and act as a barrier to entry to a game. The players in the game I'm ref of are in a ship I designed, where I adapted the datacaster from T5 in, so I guess that's a house rule. Had the system been different, I would have used it, but it's late in the day for a complete overhaul. Whatever makes people happy they should do.

 

[phavoc]

I struggle with the language more, but I'm not a native speaker, and have had to get people to help me understand. The numbers don't bother me as much. It does seem you have it down, no? So "simple enough". If someone likes FF&S, they should use it, like hiro. It sounds like his players are only going to have minimal interaction with ships anyways, only as passengers. For me, I'm leery of house-rules, but I don't have anything intrinsically against them, but they can have cascade effects, and act as a barrier to entry to a game. The players in the game I'm ref of are in a ship I designed, where I adapted the datacaster from T5 in, so I guess that's a house rule. Had the system been different, I would have used it, but it's late in the day for a complete overhaul. Whatever makes people happy they should do.

I can do the math, sure. But it's not as simple as it could be. Just because I can do a calculus problem doesn't mean I have it down or that it's "simple enough".

I've nothing against house rules either. They are great for gaming and can add a huge amount of fun to your local gaming. But I think you are missing my point. My argument is that when you pay for supposedly professionally designed and published gaming materials you should have a reasonable expectation associated with them. The CRB is nearly $50/pop in hardback. As the price of something goes up the expectation of quality goes up as well. I have purchased the supplements for about $3ea. They, too, have some issues, but for $3 it's much easier to justify and overlook them. Also, since we are talking a "core" rulebook here, which forms the basis upon which everything else is built upon, I do think it's very important to ensure the foundational rules are of the sort that players can use them to gain experience and understanding of the game. Additional rules or addons (like FF&S) can build upon and add depth and complexity, but aren't necessary if you don't want them.

As a purchaser it makes ME happy when the rule system has a relatively error-free and good foundation to start everything from.

 

[dragoner]

I struggle with the language more, but I'm not a native speaker, and have had to get people to help me understand. The numbers don't bother me as much. It does seem you have it down, no? So "simple enough". If someone likes FF&S, they should use it, like hiro. It sounds like his players are only going to have minimal interaction with ships anyways, only as passengers. For me, I'm leery of house-rules, but I don't have anything intrinsically against them, but they can have cascade effects, and act as a barrier to entry to a game. The players in the game I'm ref of are in a ship I designed, where I adapted the datacaster from T5 in, so I guess that's a house rule. Had the system been different, I would have used it, but it's late in the day for a complete overhaul. Whatever makes people happy they should do.

I can do the math, sure. But it's not as simple as it could be. Just because I can do a calculus problem doesn't mean I have it down or that it's "simple enough".

I've nothing against house rules either. They are great for gaming and can add a huge amount of fun to your local gaming. But I think you are missing my point. My argument is that when you pay for supposedly professionally designed and published gaming materials you should have a reasonable expectation associated with them. The CRB is nearly $50/pop in hardback. As the price of something goes up the expectation of quality goes up as well. I have purchased the supplements for about $3ea. They, too, have some issues, but for $3 it's much easier to justify and overlook them. Also, since we are talking a "core" rulebook here, which forms the basis upon which everything else is built upon, I do think it's very important to ensure the foundational rules are of the sort that players can use them to gain experience and understanding of the game. Additional rules or addons (like FF&S) can build upon and add depth and complexity, but aren't necessary if you don't want them.

As a purchaser it makes ME happy when the rule system has a relatively error-free and good foundation to start everything from.

I have only ever used simple functions on my calculator, to compare it to calculus is an exaggeration; in the most current design I have done for my game, an Endeavour, the calc's were a minor part of the time in comparison to the deck plans. My concerns are two-fold; one of having spent over $300 on mong products in the last two years, is to see them rendered irrelevant by a v2 of the rules. Second, is the shattered ships syndrome, watching CT move to MT was a disaster, it went from multiple Traveller groups in the area to none; I know people who bought the rules, but never played it. Which ties into my first concern as well, I am invested in mongoose.

I do think the core rules are too expensive, it creates a barrier to entry that a price reduction could be mitigated by higher volume of customers buying the other products. Maybe a cheaper Player's Handbook would work as well. Mind that I don't necessarily think the design rules are perfect, but I haven't had any complaints from players either. One thing I do want to avoid is the thought that anything that is not in the rules can not exist, that is anathema to Traveller's ethos, I have seen people argue that and I adamantly disagree, it puts a cap on creativity.

 

[phavoc]

I think we are on the same page with most things. The math example was an extreme. I didn't mention that while I CAN do them, i don't do them fast or well. It's like the formula's in the book - I prefer them to be clear, straightforward and logical for the game system. Some of the rules aren't that way and it's not that the can't be done, but they could be designed better.

I started collecting my Traveller stuff from day zero. I have many (though not all) of the MGT books. I, too, don't want to see constant changing of the rules and tossing out everything that came before. My (well one of) biggest gripe is that as the rules get republished it's very rare to see things added. Err, well, that's not totally true. CT --> MT made a LOT of changes. At first the added tech and options seemed great. Then when you started getting into designs I started to find the opposite was true, that there is/was TOO much of a good thing.

The CRB has to cram a lot into it to make the initial game system playable. I get that, and I'm ok with the price. But that doesn't give any publisher a free pass on getting things right as far as the rules go. That's what they are there for after all.

I guess we should probably get back to the thread at hand...

I think, overall, the design system would benefit from a revamp of the overall tech. There are lots of rules, changes, errata and new tech spread across a LOT of books. I have the Anderson & Felix Guide to Naval Architecture (and sadly haven't had the chance to read it cover to cover) but I think this is a great direction to head. Players generally tend to min/max their designs. But for most companies they aren't going to put armor on a freighter, or even defensive weaponry if they can get away with having none because all of that costs money. I think the space in the MGT books really doesn't allow say half a page of discussion on thoughts and philosphy on armor, when to armor, why to armor, how much, etc.

When you break that down into materials and such, and with things like a/g, there's no reason you your 10ton tank that can't be as tough or more toughly armored than your 200dton free trader. If you use the same materials there shouldn't be any difference - except in the actual damage resistance the intended vehicle is capable of. Which leads us back to the armor adjustment by displacement. It makes sense that a much larger ship's armor factor gets skewed with sizing, and therefore adjustments make sense to keep everything somewhat equivalent. And somehow keep them simple enough, too.

Though good luck to anyone who can accomplish all that!

 

[dragoner]

I like tanks and want them to be around, but a TL15 200ton SDB w/dual plasma guns and a missile rack makes them as irrelevant as horse cavalry today. Some use as platoon or company level support maybe. Maybe a petawatt ship's laser, is stronger than a tank's MA. Who knows? A 10t to 500kt design process doesn't sound very logical, but after a point, a lot of the arguments I hear are about the designs for capital ships, which appeal to the wargamer in me but I actually don't have any true use for.

 

[phavoc]

I like tanks and want them to be around, but a TL15 200ton SDB w/dual plasma guns and a missile rack makes them as irrelevant as horse cavalry today. Some use as platoon or company level support maybe. Maybe a petawatt ship's laser, is stronger than a tank's MA. Who knows? A 10t to 500kt design process doesn't sound very logical, but after a point, a lot of the arguments I hear are about the designs for capital ships, which appeal to the wargamer in me but I actually don't have any true use for.

That's a two-part question. The first being is (or can) a tank's primary armament be equivalent to a standard turret weapon carried by a starship? We don't know the equivalency of the two in energy output, but if you have a tank with 1dton set aside for a turret/fire control you should be able to mount starship class weaponry.

The second question becomes one of armor. Sure, an SDB might be pretty tough nut because it maxes out it's armor. But what if you had a 200 ton free trader with a zero armor rating? Once you go grav (you never go back, right??) your size limitations become less of an issue. If you can armor a 20ton fighter to say factor 8, why couldn't you apply the same to a 20ton tank? Yeah, it's a BIG tank, but it's a pretty damn powerful planet-based unit that would be the equivalent (and superior) of some starship. The advantage is that the tank is designed to kill and take hits and most starships aren't (SDB's being an obvious exception). Ships have to do all kinds of things. Tanks just have to kill. You don't even need to put much lifesupport or crew comforts in them because, well, they are tanks. So pretty much all mass is devoted to either offense or defense.

Larger sized warships should naturally scoff at such things - though potentially they do so at their own risk if the tanks are able to swarm them or catch them on the ground - probably not a common occurence however.

 

[dragoner]

Tank vs ship armament could be refined to power plant size? But fighters break the paradigm. Missile tanks as well, a missile is a missile. Yes, I'm not a fan of the 50:1 rule. Granted, in Traveller, starships are tough, they dive into gas giants. But a lot of it is a game-ism, as 90% of the time the Type-A is the player's ship. I agree that the 20ton tank should pose the same level of threat as a 20ton small ship.

 

[Condottiere]

I'll agree that a similarly powered weapon system fired from a grav tank should inflict similar damage as a ship based weapon.