Mongoose's New IP: Traveller is BACK

[dpetroc]

In 30 years of rpg gaming, I have not played traveller (even though the original box version sits on my shelf). I am one that is not too pleased with this -- not for Traveller itself - If Mongoose can make the fans happy, then bully for them -- but rather for the fact that they have dropped support for the d20 Starship Troopers. They put out a number of books for this line, then dropped it like a sack of potatoes. The fans have been asking them forever and a day what's going to happen, and then we're told they didn't like the game in the first place as d20 and it was too much trouble to fix so we're just going to move systems. Well, thanks alot Mongoose!

Mongoose has almost always stood by their consumers, and maybe even listened to us once in a while. But this kinda screwed everyone who bought into Starship Troopers when it was released. The core rule book was a pathetically edited, poorly constructed book (my first copy fell apart after three days -- they were kind enough to replace it), yet I felt it was a great game with a lot of potential. So, I bought their modules, and their supplements. Now I have to stick with what I have, because ain't no more coming! a

Matt, if you are reading this -- at least give us what you had in d20 through signs and portents!!!!

 

[Plane Sailing]

Re Traveller stat resolution, I'd think the best Classic-derived 'modern' way to do it would be stat (typically 2-12) + skill (typically 0-4), + 2d6 roll, equal or exceed a variable Target Number to succeed.

Eg: to shoot target at close range, Agility stat + gun Skill + 2d6 roll, 15+ to hit.

Ugh!

I think that would be a horrible system S'mon... the gun skill would be such a tiny increment compared to the agility stat (which averages 7 all by itself!).

I prefer the systems which don't add agility stat at all, and just use the skill. Find other uses for the stat (e.g. initiative order, jumping - general untrained 'capabilities' that anyone should be able to do to some extent or another).

It would be worth bearing in mind the minimum and maximum rather than just typical ranges too - since abilities could range from 0 to 15 (or 0 to F - fancy seeing hexadecimal so far in advance of prevalent computing, eh?) and skills could range from 0 to 5 (I can't recall whether 5 was a hard limit, or a typical limit or a house-ruled limit to be honest. Maybe 4 makes a better limit because 2d6+4 will still fail the 7+ on a 2?)

Cheers

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

All I know is that it needs a classic black cover with the Beowulf distress call.

 

[Twowolves]

Up to +4 was the Classic range - skill awards were truly random, you had to be a bit lucky to get two skills per term on average, and so it was pretty unusual to see anything higher.

So, when I was going from memory of a book I haven't read in over 10 years, I was pretty much spot-on.

MegaTraveller allows a lot more freedom to select skills, since many of the awards are skill cascades (which basically means you choose one of a group of related skills), and characters gain more skills each term. So MT characters have more skills at higher ranks.

But it was still randomly rolled, and death was still possible during chargen, right? So you were more likely to get a +2 skill instead of a +1, my bad.

Looking at the stats for the last group I ran, among 5 characters only one of them has his highest skill at 1, and he was the guy who put most of his skill choices into stat increases so his lowest stat is 7.

Only one out of 5 had a max skill of +1? Ok, what was the average? How many +4 skills were in there? Even then, this highlights another problem I have with a system that uses 2d6 for it's task resolution: +1 is worth less as your skill level goes higher. Going from Skill level 1 to skill level 2 gives you a larger chance for success that going from skill level 2 to 3. But that is another matter entirely.

Incorrect. If the target number is 7+, that means you need 7 or higher.

Well, if you have your copy in front of you, I defer my memory to your reading comprehension. But I distinctly remember it that way, so it must have been some system I was reading back then, because it seemed very odd to me.

I'm looking at my copy of MegaTraveller now, and most of the skills have example task definitions given in the skill description. Those that don't are primarily combat and starship-operation skills, in which case the tasks are in the appropriate section of the rules.

So, all the skill descriptions, which are hard-wired for each specific use of each skill, are described in the skill section, except for the skills a space-travelling bunch of mercenaries/troubleshooters/adventurers are going to use most. These are found in other sections of the book. So when I want to look up a skill, I can't turn to the section in the index labeled "Skills", but I have to instead flip through the entire combat chapter, or the entire space combat chapter, or the entire merchant trading chapter. Or, my favorite, having tasks scattered about in the published adventures.

"What do I have to beat to survive on this icy planet?"

"Let me go dig out 'Trek Across Hoth' and see if I can find it."

I don't find this a particularly frustrating setup, YMMV.

Obviously, the mileage varies quite a bit.

Of course, the whole point of the task system is that the ref can quickly assign a task when it's needed rather than crack the books and look at a preprinted list,

See, this was what bothered me about it. How was a new Ref supposed to get a feel for what the target numbers should be, when the examples were scattered throughout the book, and they were so very specific? Repairing the radio had it's own 2 line task resolution summary, and so did repairing the hull, repairing the microwave oven, repairing the jump drive, etc etc etc, each with different time increments and difficulties. Whereas in other systems, the skill would have a set of examples like "Simple device- DC 15/10 minutes, Average device - DC 20/1 hour, Complex Device - DC 25/4 hours". Or something along those lines.

I only responded to your original post to clear up some of the errors you made in describing that system.

Um... gee thanks? Thanks for clearing up my memory of a system that's been out of print for over 10 years (CT/MT) that I read and made characters for but never played. Especially since, you know, I wasn't very wrong in the first place, and my misgivings about using a clunky, ancient ruleset are just as valid as your support for the system. I have T4 (Is that the one where they reset the timeline to the rise of the Imperium?), and I read it enough to see that it was about 90% the old system, only the new 10% was full of bugs and the system was essentially broken, so just put it in the box with the other CT/MT stuff. If the new OGL version is based off of CT/MT/T4 without some major revamping, I won't be going near it. Everyone else, of course, is free to do as they please, but I'd much rather use Savage Worlds, SWSE, or T20 as a ruleset for Traveller than going back 30 years and rolling 2d6 for task resolution.

 

[Treebore]

Even with these points about CT/MT cleared up, I still feel the 2d6+skill/stat>TN method is too choppy and rough, and would have hoped that in 30 years of game design, they would have found something they liked better. I was a fan of the GDW "House System", as clunky as it actually was, because it was pretty clear and it scaled well (or, so we thought at the time) from personnel weapon scale to vehicle scale to starship scale. But that was a looooong time ago as well....

"I still feel the 2d6+skill/stat>TN method is too choppy and rough, and would have hoped that in 30 years of game design, they would have found something they liked better. "




Yeah! Imagine a system that replaces the 2d6 with a d20! Then you would have a choppy and rough 1d20+skill+stat system! What kind of idiot would do that?

 

[Korgoth]

"I still feel the 2d6+skill/stat>TN method is too choppy and rough, and would have hoped that in 30 years of game design, they would have found something they liked better. "




Yeah! Imagine a system that replaces the 2d6 with a d20! Then you would have a choppy and rough 1d20+skill+stat system! What kind of idiot would do that?

Oh, come now. We all know that Ishtar was way better than Lawrence of Arabia. After all, it had an extra 25 years of progress in film design behind it!

 

[Twowolves]

"I still feel the 2d6+skill/stat>TN method is too choppy and rough, and would have hoped that in 30 years of game design, they would have found something they liked better. "


Yeah! Imagine a system that replaces the 2d6 with a d20! Then you would have a choppy and rough 1d20+skill+stat system! What kind of idiot would do that?

Well, actually, YES that is a huge difference. 1d20 is linear, and a +1 bonus is statistically worth 5% no matter what your current level of skill is or what your current circumstances are. 2d6 gives a bell curve, where a +1 can give anywhere from +10% to as little as +2% (or thereabouts, I don't have time just now to give exact numbers). Not only that, but the target number changes the value of a +1 modifier, so that +1 on a Formidible 11+ is worth less in real % chance of success than the same +1 modifier on a Routine 7+ target using the same exact skill.

Yes, it's granular, yes it's outdated, and no, I never said d20 was the perfect answer. It's just better. But then again, like I said above, that's my opinion. Go flip a coin for task resolution if you want, doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Well, actually, YES that is a huge difference. 1d20 is linear, and a +1 bonus is statistically worth 5% no matter what your current level of skill is or what your current circumstances are. 2d6 gives a bell curve, where a +1 can give anywhere from +10% to as little as +2%

Granted, the d20 system gives linear benefit for skills - but at the cost of a linear 1d20 where the probability of everything coming up is the same.

I like the bell curve which 2d6 produces - with a 1 in 6 chance of rolling the average (7) and a 1 in 36 chance of each of the ends (2 or 12). 1d20 doesn't have a real average value in the same way.

 

[SWBaxter]

So, when I was going from memory of a book I haven't read in over 10 years, I was pretty much spot-on.

AFAICT, you were quoting a number I'd given in the post to which you were responding but applying it to the wrong ruleset. That would be a less impressive feat of memory.

But it was still randomly rolled, and death was still possible during chargen, right?

Death during character generation was an optional rule. Skill acquisition was, as I noted in the message you responded to, a mix of choice and random bits, so no they were not randomly rolled.

Only one out of 5 had a max skill of +1? Ok, what was the average?

Just for you, I calculated it out: 39 skills at 1 or higher among the five characters, and the average score is 2.3.

How many +4 skills were in there?

Three, plus another level 5 skill. I'm not counting the three level 7 psionic skills one character has, since those are acquired differently.

Even then, this highlights another problem I have with a system that uses 2d6 for it's task resolution: +1 is worth less as your skill level goes higher. Going from Skill level 1 to skill level 2 gives you a larger chance for success that going from skill level 2 to 3.

Actually, that's not always true. In a bell curve distribution such as 2d6, how much a skill helps depends where you are on the curve. In the Traveller case, your scenario is correct for a target number of 7, incorrect for the other three target numbers of 3, 11, and 15. In general, higher skill levels help more with harder tasks, on easier tasks the extra skill doesn't matter as much.

So, all the skill descriptions, which are hard-wired for each specific use of each skill

No, they're not. They give example uses of the skill, but don't attempt to cover every possible use.

See, this was what bothered me about it. How was a new Ref supposed to get a feel for what the target numbers should be, when the examples were scattered throughout the book, and they were so very specific?

I think they were supposed to read the "Referee's Guide to Tasks", which takes up four whole pages of the Referee's Manual, and apply those guidelines as necessary. That's what I did, and it pretty much came together for me.

Um... gee thanks? Thanks for clearing up my memory of a system that's been out of print for over 10 years (CT/MT) that I read and made characters for but never played.

No trouble. And thanks for giving a stellar display of why it's a good idea not to make definitive statements about the rules or gameplay of systems one has never played.

 

[Twowolves]

Granted, the d20 system gives linear benefit for skills - but at the cost of a linear 1d20 where the probability of everything coming up is the same.

I like the bell curve which 2d6 produces - with a 1 in 6 chance of rolling the average (7) and a 1 in 36 chance of each of the ends (2 or 12). 1d20 doesn't have a real average value in the same way.

Bell curves give results where a +1 modifier to the roll is worth a variable % chance of success, whereas it is linear and static with a 1d roll, which is why I personally prefer the 1dX method myself. But there is an average value for 1dX after a fashion, only it's over many rolls/checks. The "average" result of a 1d20 is 10.5, over multiple checks. The average result of 2d6 is always 7, regardless of how many times you make the check.

But I guess it's a matter of personal prefference. I like 1d20 or d% myself.