Other Editions and Rules I Like

[Sigtrygg]

Hmm

TL	type	tons	power	cost	CP
4	mechanical	4		5	2
5	enhanced mechanical	4	1	30	4
6	electro-mechanical	2	1	70	6
7	electro-mech linked	1	1	200	8
7	computer linked	1	1	350	10
8	dynamic linked	2	2	500	30
9	holographic linked	3	4	1000	60

TL	type	tons	power	cost	CP
7	HUD	1	1	20,000	50
8	AR	5	8	500,000	1500
9	holographic	2	4	100,000	200

 

[MasterGwydion]

Hmm

TL	type	tons	power	cost	CP
4	mechanical	4		5	2
5	enhanced mechanical	4	1	30	4
6	electro-mechanical	2	1	70	6
7	electro-mech linked	1	1	200	8
7	computer linked	1	1	350	10
8	dynamic linked	2	2	500	30
9	holographic linked	3	4	1000	60

TL	type	tons	power	cost	CP
7	HUD	1	1	20,000	50
8	AR	5	8	500,000	1500
9	holographic	2	4	100,000	200

Don't We have Augmented Reality now at TL-7?

 

[Sigtrygg]

I needed a placeholder for what goes there.

HUD, helmet mounted AR, headset AR all are out now.

TL8 AR will be built in to contact lenses, provided by neuralink (the electrodes in your brain use the sensory input nerves leading to your brain to overlay the AR) that sort of thing.

TL9 holographic is a bit of a placeholder too since it is likely to be a bit more like an immersive VR that takes over your senses entirely, you actually feel like you are in the virtual world...

 

[Condottiere]

I doubt that contact lens augmented reality is going to have a high resolution at technological level eight.

Wiring your brain, on the other hand ...

 

[Sigtrygg]

Ok, an artificial cornea...
and contact lens.

 

[Yatima]

Personally, one of my favourite previous mechanics that hasn't as yet found its way into Mongoose 2nd is Uncertain Tasks, which I believe were originally introduced in MegaTraveller (I'm sure Sigtrygg will be able to precise its origin).

There's an inherent tension between players and referees over the idea of hidden rolls; Referees might want to leverage the narrative suspense of having a result being unknown to the players, whereas players have the justifiable concern* the referee might be making up results. The idea to leverage Traveller's 2d6 task resolution system and having the players roll one of the two dice and the Referee roll the second one hidden from the players is a brilliant compromise. It allows the Referee to have the suspense whilst also giving the players enough information to actually have agency over their choices. I truly do love it.

*In an ideal world the relationship between players and Referee should be one of inherent trust, but alas, sometimes real life doesn't line up with said ideal world.

This is my favourite rule too, and something I've not seen in other games in quite this form.

Uncertain Tasks, like all of the Task system, first appeared in the Traveller's Digest by DGP, starting with an article on how to set task difficulty in a consistent way across skills and eventually being a 1-page task system cheat sheet in each issue, published alongside the Grand Tour scenario.

 

[Ol'Weedy]

Not really Traveller, but the tag system Kevin Crawford uses in his games (Stars without Number etc.), is a great idea, and really helps get the brain working from a referee's perspective.

 

[Lurking Grue]

7) Heplar: Really want to love reaction drives instead of space magic woo-woo drives, but even super efficient reaction engines are still tyrrany of the rocket equation in actual play. I just have never had players interested in messing around with fuel usage and thrust & drift mechanics. Still like HePlar, though

Ah, a fellow Heplar (or HEPlaR) connoisseur! I absolutely loved the idea of a super efficient reaction drive on ships instead of rectionless thrusters. Be it HEPLaR or the Epstein drive, I just love 'em. However, every time I start to implement HEPLaR drives in my Traveller game, I run into the problem of book-keeping and "gameplay logistics" with it. Also, I can just imagine my players' eyes glazing over at the mention of this. So I just go with the easy and simple thrusters instead. (Sad panda.)

Sure, I could just hand-wave the remass/fuel stuff, like they mostly do in the Expanse, but, I dunno, it just wouldn't feel... right. And the whole project doesn't just stop at reaction rockets on ships, I would need to redo the ships in "skyscrapers orientation" as well, as I would like to remove inertial compensation too and so on and so forth - the rabbit hole starts to get way too deep. So, for the moment, I just dream of "rocketry" in my Traveller game and wait for the day when I finally implement it. It will be glorious, I say. Glorious!!

 

[Lurking Grue]

Why would each workstation be different? Why are they all not just a screen that you "reconfigure" for whatever task you are doing? Each individual person would have their own different configuration based on what is the most efficient for them. Obviously there would be "basic configurations" as well, but I always figured that the future would have a workstation that automatically identified the user and loaded all of that person's presets. "Computer! Give Me an engineering workstation at Station 2 and a sensor workstation at Station 5."

Incidentally this was exactly how starship controls were described in DGP's Starship Operator's Manual back in 1988! Not with my books right now (can't check), but I believe they were called dynamic controls and could be reconfigured as the user wished as they weren't old fashioned dials and switches but touch panels. The inspiration for these might have been the (then) sleek control panels of Star Trek: The Next Generation (at least that's how I saw them).

 

[CordwainerFish]

I absolutely loved the idea of a super efficient reaction drive on ships instead of rectionless thrusters.

Respectable. Just don't forget the Kzinti Lesson.

So, for the moment, I just dream of "rocketry" in my Traveller game and wait for the day when I finally implement it. It will be glorious, I say. Glorious!!

Provider One wagers a hundred quatloos that Pioneer will oblige you.

 

[CordwainerFish]

Incidentally this was exactly how starship controls were described in DGP's Starship Operator's Manual back in 1988! Not with my books right now (can't check), but I believe they were called dynamic controls and could be reconfigured as the user wished as they weren't old fashioned dials and switches but touch panels. The inspiration for these might have been the (then) sleek control panels of Star Trek: The Next Generation (at least that's how I saw them).

You're not wrong (and in fact the Old Timer had things to say on the subject). At the time I found it plausible (and certainly science fictioney) but in recent years the automotive industry has been reminding us of the value of tactile feedback by the clever means of taking it away from us...

 

[Lurking Grue]

You're not wrong (and in fact the Old Timer had things to say on the subject). At the time I found it plausible (and certainly science fictioney) but in recent years the automotive industry has been reminding us of the value of tactile feedback by the clever means of taking it away from us...

Yes, I can't remember which Arthur C. Clarke novel it was in, but there was a line (when the controls were mostly touch panels etc.) that the emergency controls were tactile switches and buttons. Namely, in an emergency, nothing beats a big red press this button.

 

[Geir]

Incidentally this was exactly how starship controls were described in DGP's Starship Operator's Manual back in 1988! Not with my books right now (can't check), but I believe they were called dynamic controls and could be reconfigured as the user wished as they weren't old fashioned dials and switches but touch panels. The inspiration for these might have been the (then) sleek control panels of Star Trek: The Next Generation (at least that's how I saw them).

I remember this too. The book is... somewhere. Which was why I thought holographic controls should mean you didn't need to waste a space combat turn changing stations (that wasn't adopted in the update... and I hate to ask how it would work in a six second 'dogfight' round... Is it now 6 seconds to change stations, or do you spend the entire dogfight meandering around the bridge looking for the gunnery station 'on' switch?)

 

[CordwainerFish]

I remember this too. The book is... somewhere. Which was why I thought holographic controls should mean you didn't need to waste a space combat turn changing stations (that wasn't adopted in the update... and I hate to ask how it would work in a six second 'dogfight' round... Is it now 6 seconds to change stations, or do you spend the entire dogfight meandering around the bridge looking for the gunnery station 'on' switch?)

Shades of why one of my characters (who's a damn good medic but has no ship combat skills at all) is studying Electronics right now, so at least he'll be able to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow or something from the terminal in Sickbay.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Personally, one of my favourite previous mechanics that hasn't as yet found its way into Mongoose 2nd is Uncertain Tasks, which I believe were originally introduced in MegaTraveller (I'm sure Sigtrygg will be able to precise its origin).

DGP's Digest magazine issue 1. <edit> this is the origin of the DGP task system.

There's an inherent tension between players and referees over the idea of hidden rolls; Referees might want to leverage the narrative suspense of having a result being unknown to the players, whereas players have the justifiable concern* the referee might be making up results. The idea to leverage Traveller's 2d6 task resolution system and having the players roll one of the two dice and the Referee roll the second one hidden from the players is a brilliant compromise. It allows the Referee to have the suspense whilst also giving the players enough information to actually have agency over their choices. I truly do love it.

*In an ideal world the relationship between players and Referee should be one of inherent trust, but alas, sometimes real life doesn't line up with said ideal world.

At the risk of coming across as pedantic - bit late I know - the uncertain task is not the ref rolls one die and the player rolls the other (pretty sure I have seen that suggested as a house rule)

"Uncertain: If the result of a task attempt is largely “opinion” or if, because of the nature of the task, immediate feedback on how successful the task has been is not possible, then declare the task to be uncertain With an uncertain task, those associated with the task have some idea of how successful the task attempt was, but they are not certain of the outcome.
Sensor readings, interchanges between characters (including tasks that may require a reaction roll), psionics, computer programming, repairs, and research may be uncertain tasks.
Both the player and referee roll for the attempt The referee’s roll is hidden from the player and modifies the player’s roll.

• If both fail, the result is no truth. The player is misled about the success of the task attempt. Erroneous information is given.
• If one succeeds and one fails, the result is some truth. Some valid information is given. The player may fail the attempt and still get information, although he cannot know for sure.
• If both succeed, the result is total truth Totally valid information is given, although the player may still not believe it.

A character may know whether he has succeeded. If the player achieves exceptional success, the referee may elect to
tell the player the result of the hidden roll The referee must decide if this is warranted, however, sometimes it is not."

It really is a good way of doing it.

 

[Enaknomolos]

T4 has a rule where the referee rolls up to half the dice on uncertain tasks. For an average difficulty task that comes out as 2d6, roll one each. I don't know if it's where that later version of the rule first appeared, though.

 

[GabrielGABFonseca]

At the risk of coming across as pedantic - bit late I know - the uncertain task is not the ref rolls one die and the player rolls the other (pretty sure I have seen that suggested as a house rule)

True enough! My first point-of-contact with the Uncertain roll was T5, which uses a variation of the 'The referee rolls some dice, the player the rest' paradigm and I think I've somehow conflated its specifics with the original DGP-introduced version.

As strange as I find T5's core task resolution system, I must admit that it allows for some very nifty things in the hands of a Referee that fully understands how to use it. The granularity it offers over just 2d6 is very enticing, though the sheer simplicity and elegance of the 2d6 is what tips the scales for me in the end.

 

[NOLATrav]

It’s the roll under aspect that gets me. Even in D10 percentile systems, cheering for low numbers on a dice roll just feels wrong.

But there is a certain elegance to +/-1 die per difficulty level adjustment.

 

[J. L. Brown]

It’s the roll under aspect that gets me. Even in D10 percentile systems, cheering for low numbers on a dice roll just feels wrong.

But there is a certain elegance to +/-1 die per difficulty level adjustment.

I really enjoyed West End Games Star Wars roleplaying game's dice pool mechanic; you had a number of dice available to roll based on attribute or skill level; add them up and try to score higher than the target number (generally a multiple of 5). My only change for that game would be to give a -1 per die, so that even amazingly skilled 15d6 checks might still score a zero.

It was a fun approach; and rolling a bunch of dice basically guaranteed success at simple tasks. I'm not sure how well it would carry over into Traveller, though. Maybe a pool of 4 + (Modifier from appropriate Characteristic) + skill level; -1 per die for results of 0 to 5 per die; -3 per die for unskilled, Jack-of-Trades reduces that penalty by one for each level of JoT. If you want extra space-opera, allow rolls of six to 'explode'. Various modifiers are only applied to the total rolled, or to the target number.

 

[Lurking Grue]

Both the player and referee roll for the attempt The referee’s roll is hidden from the player and modifies the player’s roll.

• If both fail, the result is no truth. The player is misled about the success of the task attempt. Erroneous information is given.
• If one succeeds and one fails, the result is some truth. Some valid information is given. The player may fail the attempt and still get information, although he cannot know for sure.
• If both succeed, the result is total truth Totally valid information is given, although the player may still not believe it.

I am no wizard of probability, but with that system isn't a success (Total Truth result) harder to achieve than if the task weren't Uncertain? I mean you need two successes to get the Total Truth result instead of one. The Some Truth result isn't a full success, in how I interpret that, but only a partial/marginal one which might cause all sorts of complications that a full success wouldn't.

Say you have a 50% chance of success, but need to roll it twice to get full success (Total Truth), then isn't your effective chance of success only 25% now?

The way I interpret those rules, it makes Uncertain tasks harder to succeed in than not Uncertain ones. I don't particularly like that, even if I like DGP's Task Resolution System a lot (as used in MegaTraveller). For this reason I've been using the house rule (that GAB mentioned above) of the player rolling 1D6 and the Ref rolling the other 1D6 to form the 2D6 task roll. That way, the probability of success is unchanged but the result is still uncertain to the player while he/she still gets to roll something and has an inkling of the result (e.g. by rolling a 6 on your die you know your chances of getting 8+ are pretty high). It works really well. (If using the Boon/Bane mechanics of MgT 2e, then the player rolls 2D6 and takes the higher/lower die as needed to form his/her part of the uncertain roll, while the Ref rolls the other 1D6 as normal.)

Then again, I might have the success probabilities all wrong and this is all just misguided rambling. Be that as it may, the house rule of the player rolling 1D6 and the Ref rolling 1D6 to form the 2D6 roll is a great house rule nonetheless.