Quote from: TrippyHippy;939857So in other words, as pointed out before, you are simply posting with a grudge. Well done you.

Troll on, brother! Troll on!

Quote from: jeff37923;939887Troll on, brother! Troll on!

It's not trolling to call you out on your grudge.

Anyhow, time will out on the matter - I'm pleased to see more Traveller product is on it's way.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;939382Really? Please tell us more about the ways in which they're similar. Frex, how do the skill systems compare? How does combat compare?

It's pretty much the same system, just with some more options added.

Quote from: RPGPundit;940122It's pretty much the same system, just with some more options added.

Well, it's the same system with standardized modifiers for attributes [(Attribute/3)-2] and a standard success/failure formula of "2d6+ DM, if any (Attribute Modifier+Skill Modifier+Gear Modifier)=8+/-Difficulty".

There are some details, like levels of success (hitting the TN exactly, missing by 1, hitting it by 1-5, missing by 1-5, missing by more than 6, hitting by 6+).
Those allow for Chains of Rolls (like rolling Recon to find where the sensors are, and potentially getting anything from -2 to +2, depending on your success level, on the Stealth roll you intended to make). You can make chains of rolls anywhere, if it makes sense.

Still, even chain rolls are mostly optional. And that's about it as far as changes go, indeed;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;940122It's pretty much the same system, just with some more options added.

It is? How does the Vacc Suit skill in LBB Traveller compared to 'goose Trav' work again? The Admin skill? The Bribery skill?

Could you also tell me about how initiative and evasion in The Traveller Book and 'goose Traveller are resolved?

Anything at all to show you know jack and/or shit about 'classic' Traveller that you didn't read on a forum would be great.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;940201It is? How does the Vacc Suit skill in LBB Traveller compared to 'goose Trav' work again? The Admin skill? The Bribery skill?

Could you also tell me about how initiative and evasion in The Traveller Book and 'goose Traveller are resolved?

Anything at all to show you know jack and/or shit about 'classic' Traveller that you didn't read on a forum would be great.

What your point? They are different editions but there are far more common elements between Classic Traveller, MegaTraveller, T4, and both editions of Mongoose Traveller than there are with the other Traveller editions.

It feasible to use characters created by Mongoose Traveller and run them using Classic Traveller rules. Or vice versa. Granted mixing and matching characters created by two different editions will have issues because different editions generate more or less skills during character creations. But then it again this was problem from the get go with the difference between Core/Citizens of the Imperium characters vs. Mercenary/High Guard/Merchant/Scouts characters.

Quote from: estar;940204What your point? They are different editions but there are far more common elements between Classic Traveller, MegaTraveller, T4, and both editions of Mongoose Traveller than there are with the other Traveller editions.

It feasible to use characters created by Mongoose Traveller and run them using Classic Traveller rules. Or vice versa. Granted mixing and matching characters created by two different editions will have issues because different editions generate more or less skills during character creations. But then it again this was problem from the get go with the difference between Core/Citizens of the Imperium characters vs. Mercenary/High Guard/Merchant/Scouts characters.

I think the point is that how skills are handled in CT is completely different from how skills are handled in MgT.

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing! For some people the skills in CT are too loosey-goosey (being a product of OD&D mid-70s RPGs). For others the unified task resolution system found in MgT (which brings it into alignment with post 1980 RPG design) is a wonderful thing.

And, as Black Vulmea points out there are several other differences between the two games. Concrete differences that will affect gameplay, and will appeal to different people for different reasons that come down to anything from taste to expectations of danger, conflict, tactics, and so on.

My guess is if one really like CT's Throw system, then you won't be that fond of MgT. (I am in this camp.) But if you were never fond of CT, or were waiting for someone to finally "fix" the skill system then MgT is what you've been waiting for. (Since I don't think CT's skill system is broken, I don't need it to be fixed, and the work done on MgT is extraneous.)

And, as Black Valumea points out there are other differences as well. These differences will affect the kind of game play, as they influence danger, tactics, expectations and more. They are different games in many ways. I think that's the point.

Note: I'm not in any way to get into a pissing match on any of this. The original Traveller (Books 1-3) works great in my view, but it is a distinctly different beast in application and play than MgT. But because different people want different things it's awesome both games, offering different application and play, are available to different people.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;940212I think the point is that how skills are handled in CT is completely different from how skills are handled in MgT.

I am missing the distinction. You roll 2d6 add your skill try to bet a target number. In CT it was ad-hoc as to what that target number is. But in general it was a number between 6 and 10 with modifiers. Mg T has a consistent answer to what the numbers should be for all tasks. But the basic idea is the same.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;940212I'm not saying that this is a bad thing! For some people the skills in CT are too loosey-goosey (being a product of OD&D mid-70s RPGs). For others the unified task resolution system found in MgT (which brings it into alignment with post 1980 RPG design) is a wonderful thing.

It only loosey-goosey because each area of the rules handled it in their own way on how you apply your skill and attributes to a 2d6 roll. Like OD&D each section was it owns mini-game using the character sheet as a starting point. IN MT and subsequent edition the generic idea of a task was defined. Then each area of the rules categorized various things as being easy, average, difficult, etc. But in the end it amounted to rolling 2d6+skill+modifiers.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;940212And, as Black Vulmea points out there are several other differences between the two games. Concrete differences that will affect gameplay, and will appeal to different people for different reasons that come down to anything from taste to expectations of danger, conflict, tactics, and so on.

I agree there a different feel between the various editions that use 2d6. But we are talking about the difference between OD&D, Mentzer D&D, AD&D 1st and AD&D 2nd. Yeah there are differences but compared to try using D&D material with GURPS or Runequest, it is a non-issue. I picked OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry as the foundation for my MW rules because it results in more gritty feel than AD&D 1st does. But it not a big difference just a difference.

Quote from: estar;940204What your point?

That I don't think Pundejo knows his ass from a sticky knot-hole when it comes to black box or TTB-era Traveller.

Let's take bribery, frex. In 1e 'goose Traveller, ". . . to make a skill check, a character rolls 2d6 + his Skill Level + his Characteristic DM + any other DMs, and tries to get 8 or more ("Skills & Tasks," p. 48, emphasis in the original). 'goose Traveller doesn't include Bribery as a skill at all - it's folded into the Persuade skill, with no specific examples of offering a bribe as to attribute, difficulty or time ("Persuade," pp. 56-7). In The Traveller Book. Bribery is a skill with resolution based on the law level of the world on which the bribe is offered, skill or its absence, and the reaction roll of the non-player character who is the target of the bribe ("Bribery," p. 22) - as the skill description notes, this means that success varies with how authoritarian the state is, with corruption being most prevalent on worlds with the most stringent laws, which is an incredibly powerful statement on the nature of the implied setting.

Most of 'classic' Traveller's skills work similarly. There is no 'standard target number' until some ten years into its development, and it was introduced through JTAS by DGP, not a core book in the system. LBB skills often have their own discrete resolution systems, and attributes are rarely incorporated except on an ad hoc basis by the referee. The introduction of the DGP Universal Task Profile seriously devalued a number of LBB skills, such as Vacc Suit skill which offers a +4 modifier for each skill level in the LBBs but drops to +1 per level in DGP's system.

Can you FLAILSNAIL this shit together? Sure, but you could do the same thing with 1e AD&D and 2e Boot Hill - hell, it was right there in the DMG ("Sixguns & Sorcery." pp. 112-3). Calling these systems - and the many changes in the combat systems - "super-similar" is just fucking ignorant of the rules and the history behind them.

Quote from: estar;940204But then it again this was problem from the get go with the difference between Core/Citizens of the Imperium characters vs. Mercenary/High Guard/Merchant/Scouts characters.

You wanna know why I'm such an impatient fucker all the time? It's shit like this.

Original, 'classic' Traveller caps the number of skills and skill levels at INT + EDU - frex, if you have INT 5 and EDU 8, you cannot have more than 13 total skills and levels, say Pilot-4, Streetwise-2, Gunnery-2, and Computer-1. The main difference between basic and advanced character generation, then, is that advanced characters are more likely to hit that maximum sooner than basic characters. This means advanced characters tend to leave the service sooner and start the game younger and get fewer mustering out benefits because they serve fewer terms. If you choose to keep your character in the service after hitting your skill max, then you are risking multiple survival rolls per term for nothing more than a chance at attribute bonuses - INT and EDU bonuses are the ones most worth chasing, if they're available - and an extra mustering out roll.

So this isn't a "problem" to anyone who understands what the fuck is going on. It's a gambling strategy, such as going to college or technical school to increase INT and EDU to raise your skill max while giving up a term worth of benefits and getting older.

Quote from: estar;940215I am missing the distinction. You roll 2d6 add your skill try to bet a target number. In CT it was ad-hoc as to what that target number is. But in general it was a number between 6 and 10 with modifiers. Mg T has a consistent answer to what the numbers should be for all tasks.

I am in the awkward position of saying, "Yes" to everything you just typed, but "No" when you type this:

QuoteBut the basic idea is the same.

I would suggest that "ad-hoc" vs. "formalized" are, well, utterly different things, producing (and requiring) a completely different set of expectations and application of play.

The point for me is this difference between ad-hoc and formalized. And since the difference matters to me, a vital difference that has all sorts of implications, I can't see them as being the same basic idea at all.

I agree with you that the adventures can be moved from one rules set to the other. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the move in emphasis from early RPG design that puts most of the weight of play onto the shoulders of the Players to the post-1980 design that shifts, more and more, the weight of play onto the character sheet.

This is why the skill list for MgT is substantially longer than that found in CT, because we're going to keep checking that character sheet time and time again in MgT to get things done. In contrast, in original Traveller play, we're going to be doing lots of things without rolling dice at all, or the Referee making situationally based rolls up on the spot. These rolls will be built with input from the Players and Referee, adding together the elements that can be added as DMs and setting the Throw number.

I will say now that the distinction between these two types of play can often be subtle. But the different rules produce different kinds of play.

For what its worth, I think MgT is closer to all post-CT rules (starting with Digest Group Publication's Task System. Again, I see the value for lots of people for a unified task system. I simply prefer the older, less-refined rules of Classic Traveller. I like the need for talk between the Referee and the Players they provoke, the need to look at the situation, tools at hand, and any other details that can matter.

The details can matter with MgT, of course. But like most skill based games it is easy to fall into the trap of grabbing dice, making the roll, and glossing over the fictional details. I like the fact that without those fictional details coming to the front Classic Traveller falls apart.

This is a matter of my taste, of course, and not anything I'd push on anyone or say they'd be doing it wrong for playing a different game.

Edited to Add: Cross-posted with BV... but what he said as well. Without the sputtering anger, of course. But yeah.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;940220Cross-posted with BV... but what he said as well. Without the sputtering anger, of course..

The hate is swelling in you now. Take your keyboard. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;940219Can you FLAILSNAIL this shit together? Sure, but you could do the same thing with 1e AD&D and 2e Boot Hill - hell, it was right there in the DMG ("Sixguns & Sorcery." pp. 112-3). Calling these systems - and the many changes in the combat systems - "super-similar" is just fucking ignorant of the rules and the history behind them.

I am well aware of the rules and the history behind them. So what? I can use Pirates of Drinax with CT as readily as I can use Twilight Peak. That what most referee care about.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;940219You wanna know why I'm such an impatient fucker all the time? It's shit like this.
that advanced characters are more likely to hit that maximum sooner than basic characters. This means advanced characters tend to leave the service sooner and start the game younger and get fewer mustering out benefits because they serve fewer terms.

By your own words resulted more players with characters maxed out or near maxed out skills  than with Book 1 or CotI. This was a problem. Everybody my group knew that Book 4,5,6, & 7 character were better than their counterparts for precisely the reason you outlined. You were way more likely to wind up with a character with a full boat of skills than using Book 1 or CotI. Doesn't change my point.

You are making the same damn arguments that AD&D fans make about OD&D and vice versa. Yes there is a fucking difference. but in terms of running of a campaign it trivial to use material from one to the other. So what Mongoose doesn't have bribery. If you decide to use a Mongoose Traveller NPC character as is just know to use his Persuade skill in lieu of bribery. Or fuck just scratch out Persuade and write in Bribery.

With TNE, GURPS Traveller, Traveller20, and Hero Traveller. It not so simple. Pretty much they are their own game.

Quote from: estar;940230That what most referee care about.

Any referee with two warm neurons should be able to mashup games. Again, look at "Sixguns & Sorcery," back in the early days of the hobby - would you call 1e AD&D and 2Boot Hill "super-similar" with a straight face?

Quote from: estar;940230By your own words resulted more players with characters maxed out or near maxed out skills  than with Book 1 or CotI.

Bullshit. That's not even close to what I'm saying.

Try to pay attention this time: Basic characters take more terms to reach their max, but they face fewer survival rolls (one per term as opposed to up to four per term) and earn more mustering out benefits in the process than advanced characters. There's nothing in that which says basic characters are less likely to reach their max. A character with INT 7 and EDU 7 can hit the max in six terms, provided you choose a career which makes the most of your attribute strengths for survival and commission/promotion. Once you muster out, you can continue to add or improve skills through trade school and study, which an advanced character who maxed skills can't do unless they increase their EDU score first, meaning it takes longer for them to add skills than a basic character after mustering out.

Again, it's not a "problem" unless you can't be arsed to understand the fucking rules.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;940220I am in the awkward position of saying, "Yes" to everything you just typed, but "No" when you type this:

I would suggest that "ad-hoc" vs. "formalized" are, well, utterly different things, producing (and requiring) a completely different set of expectations and application of play.

It a style of refereeing, a referee can be just as detail obsessed and anal retentive about the rules with OD&D as he can with D&D 3.5e.

The reason you are making the distinction you are making is because for half of the hobby it been drilled into them the rules are everything.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;940220The point for me is this difference between ad-hoc and formalized. And since the difference matters to me, a vital difference that has all sorts of implications, I can't see them as being the same basic idea at all.

So you are telling me that you can't run a campaign use GURPS with ad-hoc rulings based on contest of skill or attributes because the system has a supplements that details how to do a arm-lock in a hard rain on a oily surface?

Or that referees didn't have OD&D campaigns where they had a page full of tables and modifiers to handle wanton women?

QuoteI will say now that the distinction between these two types of play can often be subtle. But the different rules produce different kinds of play.

Look, I ran the Majestic Wilderlands with a dozen RPGs, and I am telling you, if the play is that different it on the referee not the rules. What the rules are to me is a tool. A tool that can describe things in more or less detail. But how that tools work when I am running a campaign is one me. With GURPS it possible to have characters where one is a master with a mace and the other with a broad sword. That not possible with OD&D as OD&D doesn't make that distinction. But in both campaigns, the character go on adventures and fight for the same reasons.

In GURPS a character is better at bribery because he has the bribery skill, in OD&D all I have is the Charisma stat to use as a reference. In both the players have to roleplay in a way that makes fucking sense in order make a roll to see how well they do.

Playing RPGs is not about playing the rules, it about running a campaign. The rules are just a tool used to make the campaign happened. If something doesn't work you think it stupid like not having bribery as a distinct skill over persuade then you fix it. But if you think you can't fix it because some guy at Mongoose say so, then that on you.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;940220I'm talking about the move in emphasis from early RPG design that puts most of the weight of play onto the shoulders of the Players to the post-1980 design that shifts, more and more, the weight of play onto the character sheet.

And what I am saying is that the blame has always been on the player and referees. It a function of the way they choose to play. The reason that RPG design shifted in the 80s because that what people wanted. The only problem is that people forgot there were other ways of playing tabletop RPGs. A problem that been solved in the 2000s with the advent of the Internet making it easier to communicate about alternatives.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;940220This is why the skill list for MgT is substantially longer than that found in CT, because we're going to keep checking that character sheet time and time again in MgT to get things done.

It because DGP and GDW were a bunch of wargamers and that how they felt you made a better game i.e. RPG.

Ester,

In your summations about rules, players, and Referees there isn't anything I disagree with. For what that's worth.

I simply see a difference in the rules. (Which I think we agree on.)

I think those differences can matter. (If not, why different rules?)

But I'm also going to guess there's not much further to go here.