Will you buy Mongoose Traveller when released?
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
TrippyHippy
Emperor Mongoose
It's been confirmed that the rules are changing to an open roll - possibly similar to the stats presented above. It is possible to get a '1' with modifiers, although obviously, a straight roll of 8+ will never have a 'natural 1'. Statistically, however, this is pretty meaningless when the full range of Effect (success and failure) is between -4 and +11 (or higher, depending on where you draw the limit).
Essentially, an open roll means that the range of DMs are more important in determining Effect than the dice roll itself.
Essentially, an open roll means that the range of DMs are more important in determining Effect than the dice roll itself.
TrippyHippy said:
Since all the mods that apply to success are applied also to the T/E dice, no, even with mods you can not get a successful 1 effect nor timing. This is because any roll where a 1 is possible for a success will result in the 1 being shifted up to a 2 or higher, as there is no combination of 2d6 which makes an unmodified 8+ without positive DM's.
TrippyHippy
Emperor Mongoose
Oh, I see. Yes, that's true. The range of success is between 2 and 11 (or more), while the range of failure is between 6 and -4.
It doesn't have a major impact on the general thrust of the stats presented here though. I mean, I've played the Ars Magica system, in which it's technically impossible to roll a '1' on a stress roll, because it has an exploding dice rule. The range is between 0 (which could be a 'botch' with a further roll), and the skips to 2 to an indefinitately high value (depending on repeated rolls of 1, which means you roll another dice and add 10).
I mean, it's technically impossible to roll a '1' on 2d6 too, but it's not that much of an issue is it? The question is how are the results interpreted, and whether it can follow a workable distrubution range. I think Klaus Kipling's stats, that support the success criteria as being:
4 or less - mediocre success (or a partial success)
5 to 8 - regular success
9 or more - Critical success
And Failures:
5 or more - narrow failure
1-4 - regular falure
0 or less - botch
...are particularly elegant, especially when you consider that these outcomes are mostly determined by the skill (and overall DM) of the character, as well as the tactical choice made by the player, rather than just the random roll itself.
If you think about it, it's actually pretty clever - with the interpretation of the success range [2-11+, weighted towards the average 5-8] actually being nearly the equivalent of the UPP range too.
It doesn't have a major impact on the general thrust of the stats presented here though. I mean, I've played the Ars Magica system, in which it's technically impossible to roll a '1' on a stress roll, because it has an exploding dice rule. The range is between 0 (which could be a 'botch' with a further roll), and the skips to 2 to an indefinitately high value (depending on repeated rolls of 1, which means you roll another dice and add 10).
I mean, it's technically impossible to roll a '1' on 2d6 too, but it's not that much of an issue is it? The question is how are the results interpreted, and whether it can follow a workable distrubution range. I think Klaus Kipling's stats, that support the success criteria as being:
4 or less - mediocre success (or a partial success)
5 to 8 - regular success
9 or more - Critical success
And Failures:
5 or more - narrow failure
1-4 - regular falure
0 or less - botch
...are particularly elegant, especially when you consider that these outcomes are mostly determined by the skill (and overall DM) of the character, as well as the tactical choice made by the player, rather than just the random roll itself.
If you think about it, it's actually pretty clever - with the interpretation of the success range [2-11+, weighted towards the average 5-8] actually being nearly the equivalent of the UPP range too.
TrippyHippy said:
THe uneven distribution does, tho. As pointed out, higher successes are more likely than lower. The skew has a very different shape than the equivalent skew's effects under MegaTraveller, or under AHL/Striker (CT).
Getting a 12-18 point rifle hit is quite likely once uncapped, and it's possible to get to (by 2 for aiming + skill of 3 + 2 for high dex) up to a +7 with a reasonable character, and +10 for unreasonable ones, and that can (and will) make sniping quite possible , but unlike CT and MT, a graze is nigh impossible.
TrippyHippy
Emperor Mongoose
So, in other words, a skilled and adept character, who takes time to aim, is likely to seriously injure, or even kill a target with a rifle.
Remind me why this is a simulationistic problem again?
Anyway, the stats presented on the scale clearly show that:
That's pretty close to a normal distribution curve to my mind for success, and an increasing chance of a bad failure with poor skills/aptitude. As stated, the outcome is mostly determined by the DM, of which skill and player choice (in choosing to aim or not, as well as dice choices) are the most prominent factors.
Remind me why this is a simulationistic problem again?
Anyway, the stats presented on the scale clearly show that:
That's pretty close to a normal distribution curve to my mind for success, and an increasing chance of a bad failure with poor skills/aptitude. As stated, the outcome is mostly determined by the DM, of which skill and player choice (in choosing to aim or not, as well as dice choices) are the most prominent factors.
No, I won't purchase MGT.
It's not a bad rules system, but it's certainly not a better rules system. I really dislike T/E and the combat systems, and there's nothing in chargen that I like that I haven't house-ruled into my game a decade or two ago.
I hope that some of the supplements are compatible with CT down the line; I'll certainly take a look at them if that's the case.
It's not a bad rules system, but it's certainly not a better rules system. I really dislike T/E and the combat systems, and there's nothing in chargen that I like that I haven't house-ruled into my game a decade or two ago.
I hope that some of the supplements are compatible with CT down the line; I'll certainly take a look at them if that's the case.
Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
I may not pick it up right away, but I probably will in the future. I like Traveller, and I like the T/E system. Statistics and distribution matter less to me than using the system as a framework for a good story, and there's plenty of portential in MGT.
dafrca said:
I feel much the same way. The character generation system seems a bit too complicated, though mind this is what I got from trying the Merchant career under the first draft playtest (although I admit bias because I couldn't find the segment about reenlistment).
Where I go different is that I might buy the core rules and ignore (well, most of) the supplements, but however I want to see it, hold hardcopy and read it first.
juggler69uk
Mongoose
Magistus said:
[JokeMode]
:lol: But sufficiently interested to read the Traveller thread and take the time to post in it :lol:
[/JokeMode]
lordmalachdrim
Mongoose
Ok I haven't read completely though this thread but I felt like to responding to the Stat Bloat comment. I can see what your talking about at the moment but it won't be an issue in my games (mind you I haven't read any play test info or anything, so I'm just going by his comment). The reason is I have a house rule I use in systems like the one you describe. I got the idea from Heavy Gear/SilCore (they had a good concept but I don't feel they executed it right).
It's called complexity and my house rule changed it in Heavy Gear and it sounds like it'll work in this too. Basically assign a complexity rating to a given task and if the skill doesn't equal or exceed it then the character cant do it.
(Example: Flying though empty space complexity 0, so anyone with any skill can do it. Docking with a erratically moving vessel or object complexity 3 or such. so Only those with skill 3 can try. High stat will help you but you still need to invest in the skill if you want to try the hard/cool stuff.)
It's called complexity and my house rule changed it in Heavy Gear and it sounds like it'll work in this too. Basically assign a complexity rating to a given task and if the skill doesn't equal or exceed it then the character cant do it.
(Example: Flying though empty space complexity 0, so anyone with any skill can do it. Docking with a erratically moving vessel or object complexity 3 or such. so Only those with skill 3 can try. High stat will help you but you still need to invest in the skill if you want to try the hard/cool stuff.)
Supplement Four
Mongoose
lordmalachdrim said:
Just FYI, I brought up an idea (several ideas, actually) to "fix" the stat bloat issue with MGT, but none of the ideas caught on with posters--the majority of which were too busy telling me that, "sure, MGT has stat bloat, but it's not a biggie".
One of my ideas was actualy to have a skill requirement on tasks (same idea you propose).
Mongoose, if you're listening, please consider at least an optional rule in the game for those of us that recognize the stat bloat.
Voodoo B Do
Mongoose
Since none of the game has been ironed out since Old Traveller what is the point in me buying yet another variation shot through with holes? I dont have time or budget to buy them all and pull out the best bits so i'll stick with my ancient books that still work.
Monteblanco
Mongoose
I was very excited with a new edition of Traveller heavily based in classic. However, after a good start, development went in a direction that left me cold.
I consider Traveller a great game as it is very simple and easy to modify. Despite being a very good introductory game, it allows as much depth as you want as it plays very loosely. Apparently, Mongoose has a different concept of the game.
Unfortunately, Mongoose version wants to fix what doesn't need any fixing. They improved character generation and reckon the need of a general task system and better combat rules. However, they took the wrong direction creating unnecessary complexity. I wouldn't complaint if they were relegated to optional rules, but there is no way to eliminate T/E from combat, not to speak of the excessively complicated initiative rules. If you add the fact I consider one of Traveller great achievements was to properly access the importance of stats over tasks, then you can understand I am not too happy with the current draft.
It is not for me. I can fix myself what I find lacking in CT. As a matter of fact, I hope Mongoose would do good with their version, even without me as a customer.
I consider Traveller a great game as it is very simple and easy to modify. Despite being a very good introductory game, it allows as much depth as you want as it plays very loosely. Apparently, Mongoose has a different concept of the game.
Unfortunately, Mongoose version wants to fix what doesn't need any fixing. They improved character generation and reckon the need of a general task system and better combat rules. However, they took the wrong direction creating unnecessary complexity. I wouldn't complaint if they were relegated to optional rules, but there is no way to eliminate T/E from combat, not to speak of the excessively complicated initiative rules. If you add the fact I consider one of Traveller great achievements was to properly access the importance of stats over tasks, then you can understand I am not too happy with the current draft.
It is not for me. I can fix myself what I find lacking in CT. As a matter of fact, I hope Mongoose would do good with their version, even without me as a customer.
TrippyHippy
Emperor Mongoose
Considering that Mongoose have already announced that they will be heavily revising the combat system from the playtest files, all this seems a bit moot at the moment.
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
I'm glad they are revising the combat system. I honestly think that if a task is horribly difficult to do at all then you shouldn't be able to get some kind of humongous success in doing it. Easier tasks, yes a huge success makes sense but not on something that is horribly difficult.TrippyHippy said:
Now I'm wondering if there will be another playtest document for us to dig our teeth into.
Monteblanco said:
I find this assertion both absurd and intriguing... in light of the CT preference mentioned beforehand.
CT had no consistent Task System. It had at least three...
Some adventures used Xd6 for Stat or less; some used 2d for Y+ with mods from stat only, some with skill only, and some with mods from both. Effectively, many skills could be construed as having their own unique task resolution. Still others are by fiat; you can do X if you have skill Y.
DGP adds the "Task" system in their (at that point non-canonical 3rd party) supplements, and the concept is immediately adopted by GDW for several other games: Traveller 2300 and Space 1889, amongst others. They used 2d6+(Stat/5)+Skill for Difficulty or higher.
There was no "Official" traveller Task system until 1986... with Traveller 2300.. which shares neither setting nor stats with CT. But the Task System was a more developed 1d10 version of their CT add-on task system.
Then, a variant is used in MT... back to the 2d6 of DGP.... but with the polish of the 2300 additions.
In the DGP-CT, 2300, and MT, it was Stat/5 or Skill, plus a second stat/5 or skill.
TNE, however, is (Stat+Skill)*Difficulty or less on 1d20...
T4 was (Difficulty)d6 for Stat+Skill or less.
With the exception of 2300 and MT, no two Traveller editions have used the same mechanics for tasks... and the ballance between stats and skills has been different in each.
