Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
And to neatly counter... There are the equally popular Cobra, Hammer's Slammers, Sten, Starfist and Gaunt's Ghosts series too, amongst others, which do concentrate more on the enlisted ranks.anselyn said:
Mongoose Traveller Stats Are Too Powerful
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
Pete Nash said:And to neatly counter... There are the equally popular Cobra, Hammer's Slammers, Sten, Starfist and Gaunt's Ghosts series too, amongst others, which do concentrate more on the enlisted ranks.anselyn said:
OK. It's a fair cop. :shock: I haven't read those. Please pardon my ignorance; I wasn't trying to deceive.
However, I suggest that MongTrav does have to decide the sort of thing that it wants to be - as a game. And stick to it.
Erm .. or have clear sidebars for optional rules and the flavour that goes with them.
PAS
docrailgun said:
This illustrates perfectly the problem I have with this "skill is way more important than stat" thing. How do we really know? Could Einstein even have HAD that "high Physics skill" without the very high Intelligence? This is the whole "nature vs. nurture" debate again. The above quoted poster makes some very good points.
More to the point; this project was announced as being based on Classic Traveller. While that game does need some updating, which is what Mongoose is trying to do, it only makes sense to me that if you want to return Traveller to prominence in the gaming market you base this version on the most successful version of Traveller ever. And that is CT. Adding complex task rules, tons of extra ranks and fiddly rules designed to model "reality" (or more accurately, a particular version of reality, since there will be disagreement on this) detracts from the GAME. Yes, I am gamist; I do not look for reality, I look for "versimilitude".
Allen
Pete Nash said:And to neatly counter... There are the equally popular Cobra, Hammer's Slammers, Sten, Starfist and Gaunt's Ghosts series too, amongst others, which do concentrate more on the enlisted ranks.anselyn said:
Sten is enlisted only for the first book or two. Alex Kilgore is commissioned in book 4.
Hammer's Slammers most memorable characters are the officers.
No, it was announced as being based on T5, but aiming for a CT feel.Allensh said:
The DGP Task system wqas written for CT, and takes a similar approach to stats, unskilled tasks, and skills. It was popular enough that GDW let DGP write MegaTraveller with it in there, and borrowed the task system for 2300.
Klaus Kipling
Mongoose
Actually there are two important points to consider over the stat v skill debate.
1. Stats are not just a measure of innate ability, inborn aptitude, natural talent, genetic heritage, or whatever you may want to call it. They also represent training and experience; otherwise, there would be no increases in a skill table, or mods by benefit rolls, etc. This represents wider experience and maturity gained by characters through their working lives. Along with any inborn talents. So the nature/nurture part of this discussion is pretty redundant.
Supp4, bringing in 'evidence' from a grab bag of websites (especially when you didn't look for counter evidence) is about as useful to us as the current government guidelines on nutrition - it's liable to change at drop of the hat. These are theories, not facts, and hardly anyone here is really qualified to properly explain them.
2. The advancement rules give refs a nice simple solution to any perceived issue. If a player is constantly negotiating his high stat to use over skills, then any 'experience' award will go to whatever skill he was using with his stat. If he keeps using his high stat with a particular skill, the ref can rule that he is actually training that skill, not the one he wanted to improve. So by continually doing this the character will eventually be forced to gain that skill, and won't be able to increase any others until he has.
Arbitrary example (aren't they all?
):
An ex-Scout with a 12 Edu and J-oT 1 is stuck on a world that's suffered a natural disaster. The medic's been killed and someone needs healing. He doesn't have medic skill, but his Edu and J-o-T counteract the -3 penalty. So he rolls 8+ and heals the patient. The player thinks, hey, this is cool, I'm as good at medicine as I am at Athletics (skill 0, no high stat relevant), so volunteers as a medic in the desperate refugee camps, working there over the next 3 months.
Now the player is trying to improve his J-o-T, and thinks that's what's going to happen. But the ref states that yes, he did gain a bonus 'month' for the episode with the healing, but that 'month' goes toward training for Medic, not J-o-T. Similarly, his 3 months of training go to Medic also.
Even then, tho he was acting as a medic, he was only competent at diagnosing common illnesses (something he'd picked up by watching medics work on countless planets) and prescribing basic medicines. At surgery, with his Dex of 6, he has a -2 modifier, and unusual or uncommon complaints, which require Intelligence (9), he's at -1.
Yes, this requires referee interpretation, but so does the whole damn game. If a bit of advice and commentary on how to apply stats to skills should be enough to help a ref, and then it's up to their own judgement. Like the rest of the game....
1. Stats are not just a measure of innate ability, inborn aptitude, natural talent, genetic heritage, or whatever you may want to call it. They also represent training and experience; otherwise, there would be no increases in a skill table, or mods by benefit rolls, etc. This represents wider experience and maturity gained by characters through their working lives. Along with any inborn talents. So the nature/nurture part of this discussion is pretty redundant.
Supp4, bringing in 'evidence' from a grab bag of websites (especially when you didn't look for counter evidence) is about as useful to us as the current government guidelines on nutrition - it's liable to change at drop of the hat. These are theories, not facts, and hardly anyone here is really qualified to properly explain them.
2. The advancement rules give refs a nice simple solution to any perceived issue. If a player is constantly negotiating his high stat to use over skills, then any 'experience' award will go to whatever skill he was using with his stat. If he keeps using his high stat with a particular skill, the ref can rule that he is actually training that skill, not the one he wanted to improve. So by continually doing this the character will eventually be forced to gain that skill, and won't be able to increase any others until he has.
Arbitrary example (aren't they all?
):An ex-Scout with a 12 Edu and J-oT 1 is stuck on a world that's suffered a natural disaster. The medic's been killed and someone needs healing. He doesn't have medic skill, but his Edu and J-o-T counteract the -3 penalty. So he rolls 8+ and heals the patient. The player thinks, hey, this is cool, I'm as good at medicine as I am at Athletics (skill 0, no high stat relevant), so volunteers as a medic in the desperate refugee camps, working there over the next 3 months.
Now the player is trying to improve his J-o-T, and thinks that's what's going to happen. But the ref states that yes, he did gain a bonus 'month' for the episode with the healing, but that 'month' goes toward training for Medic, not J-o-T. Similarly, his 3 months of training go to Medic also.
Even then, tho he was acting as a medic, he was only competent at diagnosing common illnesses (something he'd picked up by watching medics work on countless planets) and prescribing basic medicines. At surgery, with his Dex of 6, he has a -2 modifier, and unusual or uncommon complaints, which require Intelligence (9), he's at -1.
Yes, this requires referee interpretation, but so does the whole damn game. If a bit of advice and commentary on how to apply stats to skills should be enough to help a ref, and then it's up to their own judgement. Like the rest of the game....
Allensh said:
1) You can't "Own" a mechanic that isn't patented; the task system isn't. (You can own the specific wording, but not the process described by that wording)
2) DGP lost rights to it when they included it in a work for hire: MegaTraveller. Marc Miller owns it.
3) The differences between the DGP Task System and the Mongoose Task system are easily summed:
DPG: 2D+(Stat/5) + Skill, vs variable target number (By difficulty), level of success by margin roll made by, 2 autofails. Time by separate roll - same modifiers.
MoTrav: 2D+((Stat-7)/3) + Skill + Difficulty mod vs fixed 8+, level of success by one of dice plus skill + difficult mod; time by other die + skill + other mod on an inverse scale.
UGM: 2D+ Skill + (if Roll < Stat then 1 else 0) + Difficulty Mod vs 8+, Level of Success by margin. No time component.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Supplement Four said:
Suppliment4,
I snipped the above, not to do a cut'n paste hack job, but just to trim the size. and make context obvious.
I'm basically bowing out of our chat at this point. I don't fancy using "anything written down in the common literature" as the criterea for solving an age-old problem just so we can roll dice and feel happy about it . If we do, we will have to include 150 years of socialist writing on "made not born"; hundreds of years of writing on racial and gender tendencies and capabilities, and every "how I made it big" autobiography ever, as well as all biographies of great men and why they weren't great ad nauseum. To name a few.
Much of which is on the internet, and thus equally valid by that criterea. And who the heck wants that ?
Basically, this discussion has little if anything to do with the topic discussion, which is "how should actions be modeled in traveller", which is finally gar's decision, who I more and more feel will get it right. Me saying more is simply self indulgence, and I'd like to avoid that.
Thanks for the comments and ideas, though !
-Cap
Supplement Four
Mongoose
Klaus Kipling said:
I suspect that Gar will not completely disregard the influence of stats on the task roll. All he said he would do is tone it down a bit.
Maybe the max will be a +2 DM instead of a +3. We'll have to wait and see when Version 3 of the playtest rules appear.
I suspect it will be a "compromise" of sorts. It'll probably be a rules set where stats still have more influence than I'd like and less influence than some of this thread would like.
Let's wait and hold judgement until we see Version 3.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
anselyn said:
Your comments seem to demand that Traveller be one or the other. Is there any reason why it can't be both? Realistic and fun?
How about the words of Marc Miller himself? He said, "But all of us here at GDW have tried to make Traveller realistic rather than fantastic."
You can read the interview with him in White Dwarf Magazine, Issue #23. Marc goes on to speak more about how the goal with Traveller is "realism", and I could fill up this post with some of that interview. But, just check it out for yourself.
Marc's ideals of Realism seem to be pretty weak...
and very much not in line with your own (nor mine, for that matter).
20 Ton minimum bridges, WJP?
4 Tons of Hydrogen per month per terrawatt of Fusion?
Marc's concessions in CT were in comparison to the other games out at the time... by which standard, it was the most realistic available in the late 1970's. (Compare to Starfaring, Tunnels and Trolls, Classic D&D little-brown-or-white-books, Empire of the Petal Throne, Thieve's World, Runquest...)
By 1987, it was pretty clear that Traveller was Space Opera... Gritty space opera, with a healthy respect for reality, but not tied to it.
and very much not in line with your own (nor mine, for that matter).
20 Ton minimum bridges, WJP?
4 Tons of Hydrogen per month per terrawatt of Fusion?
Marc's concessions in CT were in comparison to the other games out at the time... by which standard, it was the most realistic available in the late 1970's. (Compare to Starfaring, Tunnels and Trolls, Classic D&D little-brown-or-white-books, Empire of the Petal Throne, Thieve's World, Runquest...)
By 1987, it was pretty clear that Traveller was Space Opera... Gritty space opera, with a healthy respect for reality, but not tied to it.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
AKAramis said:
Of course, let's not mention that, when generating a star system, steps are take to determine the star's stellar rating and luminosity, the planet's position, orbital eccentricity and axial tilt, and even the planet's albedo--all based on real science.
It's certainly a lot more realistic (even today) than most other SciFi games out there. You won't see that kind of detail in world creation in the Star Wars game, that's for sure.
Point: Traveller does walk the line between fun & playable, realistic & detailed.
Supplement Four said:
The items you cite are not core rules in CT.
All that TTB shows is generating a mainworld.
Mercenary shows Frank Chadwick as designer, with many contributors.
Scouts shows Marc as Designer, with LKW, Frank Chadwick, and John Harshman. And wasn't released until 1983. (mine's 1st printing and in poor shape...)
And as you well know, MT was done by DGP, not by Marc.
And TNE was Frank Chadwick and Dave Nilsen, not Marc Miller. Marc wasn't even in on "additional design and development", but LKW and Lester Smith were. (you can check in the preview on DTRPG: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=1480)
Almost all the "Reality Rules" are apparently not Marc, but Loren and Frank.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
AKAramis said:
This is divergent from the point. In the article above, Marc speaks specifically to the experience system in Traveller (core rules), and how it specifically shunned unrealistic experience points in favor of the system CT has.
But, either way, the point being made is that Traveller strives to be "realistic" (not necessarilly "realistic as possible", but liberties are taken in the name of ease of play, as with any rpg or game).
Gruffty the Hiver
Banded Mongoose
LBB 6 used data that was broken, even back then.Supplement Four said:
Using fixed fixed orbital distances is not realistic at all.
They're debatable as to their scientific accuracy at the time of publication.
Questionable at best
But still broken.
I have to disagree there. GURPS Traveller: First In is an infinitely more realistic and scientifically accurate star system generation process and is no more or less involved (i.e. time consuming) than LBB 6 or MT's system generation process.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
Gruffty the Hiver said:
Broken or not, that's not the point.
The point being made (before being side tracked into what is broken/not broken about CT, or who tried to make CT realistic) is that CT is a game that lends itself to realism.
Klaus disagreed with my statement that Traveller is more about realism than fantasy, more about the common man in extraordinary events rather than about super-human characters.
Traveller is "space opera", but its space opera with one foot in realism and hard science (the other foot in fun game play).
Supplement Four said:
Using data that was well known to be wrong at the time is not realism.
You're claiming it was, we're refuting that claim.
Marc made no viable efforts to realism. Only half-hearted ones. True realism has never been a hallmark of CT.
I always found that CT lead not to realism, but swashbuckling. MT also.
Supplement Four said:
Based on misapplied and/or misunderstood "real science", actually. As Gruffty said, most of those things are actually wrong in book 6. I'll acknowledge that they *tried* to be realistic, but they did ultimately fail (even when you consider "realistic for the time").
Plus, the stargen tables are just broken. As stated, you'd expect most habitable worlds to orbit type F subdwarfs and white dwarfs because of an errant +4 modifier to the size/type columns and no extension of those tables beyond 12, so you don't know what results you should get when you add +4 to results of 8 or higher. And of course, it's utter nonsense to be able to get habitable planets around such stars. (and I haven't even mentioned the old chestnut of "habitable planets around red giants and supergiants", which when raised in the laughably bad T5 playtest on CotI got a response from Marc of "I don't really care, I like habitable worlds around supergiants").
Aramis said:
What is that claim based on, exactly? Has Marc actually explictly stated that books 4+ are not "core rules" for Classic Traveller (this despite the fact that they've been incorporated as core rules into pretty much every later version of the game)? Because funnily enough, they say "Book" on them, not "Supplement".
Books 4+ were clearly intended to expand on (and if necessary replace) books 1-3. If anything that means that they're more relevant than books 1-3, IMO.
