T5 vs Mongoose Traveler
- Thread starter Mac V
- Start date
That's kinda what I was saying. Really, there's no point in rehashing that particular debate all over again. Nothing ever gets resolved anyway since there are so many viewpoints.
Some folks will like T5, some will like MongTrav and some will stick with whatever they've been doing.
Some folks will like T5, some will like MongTrav and some will stick with whatever they've been doing.
Catching up... - Sorry for the resurrection but
Compare the standard map of the London underground with the geographical location of the stations. It's a distorted relationship and if you _only_ use that map to understand London then sometimes you'll waste time in your journeys.
But wouldn't London be a different place if you option was to be able to travel either by snail overground or by the underground network.
(Yeah - OK - that sounds weird but hoefully you get what I mean.
)
No. It assumes a one dimensional accessible jumpspace. That j-space doesn't have to have any obvious mapping to our dimensions.ParanoidGamer said:
Compare the standard map of the London underground with the geographical location of the stations. It's a distorted relationship and if you _only_ use that map to understand London then sometimes you'll waste time in your journeys.
But wouldn't London be a different place if you option was to be able to travel either by snail overground or by the underground network.
(Yeah - OK - that sounds weird but hoefully you get what I mean.
)Just a note from a another long time CT Ref/Player.
I am chiming in from about page 5 of this since my head is hurting from trying to keep up with all the back and forth so excuse me if this has been put to bed by the page this post finally winds up on.
I think many of us like healthy doses of reality in our games but for the most part it never comes up in a normal group of people if a earth like world can actually be in orbit around a certain type of star.
However there are times when we don't have normal groups. I currently am in that situation-- I have two physicists in my group along with an astronomer and a mathematician. Never before have I ran a group like this one. At the first game session they cornered me about the science of the game. Luckily I was a decent college student and took many higher level math and physics classes. I was able to give them the choice to either play by the given game science or by as real a presentation as I could muster (with their help).
They decided as real science as possible.
But as I said this is really out of the ordinary. I have never had a group like this in 28+ years of play. I seriously doubt more than a handful of groups would ever be like this. So if people don't "fix" the science errors in thier normal groups - no one s going to be worse for it - unless the Ref is a moron and tries to pass it off as factual science.
Bottom line is people - play it like you want to or how your group wants to. Nothing else really matters.
As an aside - EDG's work on Stellar Generation (links in previous posts) for Traveller is what I used to rebuild the setting around. We are still using the Spinward Marches - now though when we the group hits a world it has better star data - which makes my brainiac players happy which makes me happy and that makes the game more enjoyable for all involved...
... and that is the whole point to everything.
I am chiming in from about page 5 of this since my head is hurting from trying to keep up with all the back and forth so excuse me if this has been put to bed by the page this post finally winds up on.
I think many of us like healthy doses of reality in our games but for the most part it never comes up in a normal group of people if a earth like world can actually be in orbit around a certain type of star.
However there are times when we don't have normal groups. I currently am in that situation-- I have two physicists in my group along with an astronomer and a mathematician. Never before have I ran a group like this one. At the first game session they cornered me about the science of the game. Luckily I was a decent college student and took many higher level math and physics classes. I was able to give them the choice to either play by the given game science or by as real a presentation as I could muster (with their help).
They decided as real science as possible.
But as I said this is really out of the ordinary. I have never had a group like this in 28+ years of play. I seriously doubt more than a handful of groups would ever be like this. So if people don't "fix" the science errors in thier normal groups - no one s going to be worse for it - unless the Ref is a moron and tries to pass it off as factual science.
Bottom line is people - play it like you want to or how your group wants to. Nothing else really matters.
As an aside - EDG's work on Stellar Generation (links in previous posts) for Traveller is what I used to rebuild the setting around. We are still using the Spinward Marches - now though when we the group hits a world it has better star data - which makes my brainiac players happy which makes me happy and that makes the game more enjoyable for all involved...
... and that is the whole point to everything.
Mac V said:
Taking this original post, I'll try to set down how T5 relates to MGT.
Mongoose Traveller is not a subset of T5, it's its own thing, a complete ruleset. It uses T5 in some places, and uses CT in others, and does its own thing in yet others.
In general, it looks like T5 characters will be importable into MGT, and vice versa, with the major issue being skill level conversion. Skill levels might map reasonably well, which was a pleasant surprise to me. Given that characters may not move to and fro much in the first place, maybe it's not such a big deal.
It looks like weapons and equipment created in T5 will be usable in MGT, with the notable exception that MGT's damage rating is its own thing, and there will have to be a mapping established. Roughly, T5 damage ratings mirrors CT damage ratings.
Starships created in T5 will be usable in MGT, with little or no changes, since MGT uses the drives tables from T5, and, generally speaking, a turret is a turret is a turret. There are probably edge cases, and owners of a T5 ship may want some of the MGT software.
I consider equipment, weapon, and ship portability to be (in some ways at least) more important than character portability, because these are resources which can be shared in lists. But I think that portability in general will benefit both games.
EDG said:MJD said:
Ah, but does he mean 2008, and not say 2010?
Though it's already been made clear that whatever comes out sooner for T5 is a draft/playtest version. Maybe the "final version" won't be out for another few decades...
That thought has crossed my mind once or twice, as well.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
MJD said:
Hey,
Was this for the PDF/CD release ?
MJD said:
It seems to be fashionable lately to expect people to pay for half-finished products with the promise of the final version "coming later". Some of the indie press publishers do that with so-called "ashcan" versions, QLI have done that with 2320AD and Marc is doing it with T5.
Personally I don't see the point in paying twice (and often more in total) for a product that could and should have been released in its finished form at the start. But I guess some folks are so enthusiastic for something that they don't see that they're being milked for all they're worth - I guess the publishers aren't complaining though.
