MegaTraveller vs. TNE vs. T4 vs. T5 mechanics

[OjnoTheRed]

I hope I've put this in the right forum, and sorry if these kind of musings have been around before. Before I start, obviously this post is biased away from MGT and T20 but I honestly don't have anything against them - more choice for fans I say!

I've come back to Traveller after many years off, and I'm planning on running some of the CT adventures but using the MT rules - which are basically CT but pulled together into a system in my opinion. I'll be throwing in some of the material from old JTAS I've found, as well as fan magazines that have spawned across the internet while I was away from the game!

But what has fascinated me when I had a look at TNE and T4 rules recently (and boy, had I missed out on YEARS of development of the game!) was the gun design system. After experimenting with small arms slug throwers to see what the real options were, and comparing the results to MT, I realised that TNE and T4 (and I presume by extension, T5) substantially rebalanced combat rules.

But I like the idea of the design-your-own slugthrower. Not that I want to sit down and spend hours poring over numbers - but more like when I'm world-building, what if the local government forces that the players are likely to encounter have TL9 7.5mm x 30cmm light assault rifles, which are a step up from the standard auto rifle but aren't quite covered in the rules?

By extension, things like Solar Sails, water craft, and air ships as sub-systems in TNE give the referee the option to build game-playable worlds with loving detail. Of course common interstellar tech isn't going to be interested in a commercial aspect of a solar sail. But what about that mysterious ship of unusual design? What are its performance specs? What if there are more than one of them? etc. etc.

I've had a stab at conversions between TNE/T4 and MT. But combat mechanisms appear to have been so extensively rebalanced that I'm not sure it's possible - the way that penetration works in TNE/T4 and MT are very, very different, and energy weapons have been turned on their heads as far as I can see. As an aside - my current hypothesis is that armour in TNE/T4 should be multiplied by 2.5 to get armour value in MT, but then in the TNE standard ship designs, armour ranges from values of 10 through to more than 70, whereas in MT all of them got a rating of 40 (minimum required) - 16 in TNE/T4 by my theory. I suppose MT penetration / attenuation can be calculated by working out when damage gets halved in TNE/T4 against various armour values and coming up with a penetration value from there, with attenuation worked out by comparing TNE/T4 S/M/L/E ranges to the standard CT/MT range bands.

I've had a look at the T5 threads and based on that I think I will purchase T5 - but I would also like to think that I can bring forward detail from MT like the World Builders Handbook, and mods to Classic Traveller like the Gamelords terrain supplements. I'm pretty confident that it'll be an easy task given that central mechanics such as UPP and UWP will remain. From looking at the contents of T5 available on FFE, it looks like all the central mechanics will be there, you just need to add the stories you want from any era you want. Things like Hard Times mechanics for UWP degredation would fit right in.

But on the other hand, I've seen many posters - some quite high ranking here on CoTI - who like MT for its balance of gameplay vs. realism. And after all, given that role playing is primarily about the story telling (yes, with a wargaming bias I'm happy to have thrown in for Traveller - I play Warhammer 40k as well), and the mechanics need to be reasonable. I'm not in favour of the TNE 'body part hit' system - the old UPP 777777 = 3 hits till you're out of action, 5 till you die works fine for me, and I love the way that MT united all vehicles and personnel into the one set of numbers for combat.

I don't want to start a flame war over which systems are 'superior'. But given all of these considerations, I am interested in a system that can be taken down to the sub-atomic level by the referee to construct worlds in detail, while keeping the mechanics simple for running smooth sessions. That's just my style for having fun, and I'd be interested in what other players and referees consider fun as well.

 

[aramis]

To do what you want, you'll need to hybridize multiple rulesets... T5 is strongly shaped by T4 according to what's been leaked.

WBH is "real world" enough to not be overly problematic for any given system.

"high ranking" round here means one of two things: you either paid for your title (if you have a noble title, that is the case) or you are a prolific poster (high soc number); many are both. Only a couple of people actually matter as far as the overall game... Hunter, Avery (=MWM), Mongoose Matt, DonM (who is doing projects for MWM).

The mods are selected by Hunter for willingness to enforce the board rules, not for system preferences.

For me, I run either MT or MGT. Won't run TNE ever again. Tried 5 campaigns, 2 of them switched rulesets due to player demand. Ran T20 during playtest, would run it again if players were willing, but they are not. Ran T4 when it came out; players hated the rules, detail in all the wrong places. GT, since I dislike GURPS, is a no-go, let alone the alterations and contradictions of CT it encodes.

Currently I'm running an ATU traveller game grounded in MGT rules at TL9, and wrote my own system extension rules based upon MGT, MT, and T20. And the MGT rules don't work for doing the OTU with a feel anything like CT or MT... it's fun, but it's barely Traveller. And their LL details table sucks arse. (and has since playtest.) The task system is poorly written (and was a last minute revision), so I use a variant of the MT task system. We're having fun, but it's out there.

MT is the best integrated set of rules yet, IMO, of ANY RPG I've played/run. It describes a very different physical universe from CT (or TNE) because of the design systems, but it's, for me, the most fun ruleset.

 

[Supplement Four]

I've come back to Traveller after many years off, and I'm planning on running some of the CT adventures but using the MT rules - which are basically CT but pulled together into a system in my opinion.

You do know that the MT task system (official name is the UTP - Universal Task Profile) was developed by the guys at DGP (Digest Group) for Classic Traveller, right? When DGP was tasked by GDW to write MegaTraveller, they brought their Classic Traveller task system with them (and it has since become known and the "MT task system", even though it was developed for CT).

So, yeah, the MT task system works very well with CT.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Ojno; for that mysterious ship all you need is what results from player-A pressing button-B to get result-C.

Say your players came across some exotic starship from god-knows-where, that was capable of ... oh ... say ... jump-30 in some arbitrary but short time interval (an hour? a few days?). You don't really need the game mechanics to define its "working parts" as such. All you need is the fact that the ship does what it does. If the technology is exotic enough it'll either take care of itself or eventually breakdown beyond repair.

As for different calibers of weapons, this was a very mild and loose sticking point with our gaming group (or at least me). One weapon of the same type but a different make design specification is not like the next. There you probably need to come up with a house rule for your own personal penetration/attenuation scheme. A .50 Barret has a little more punch than a hunting rifle. Again, it's house-rule time.

Just my take.

 

[aramis]

You do know that the MT task system (official name is the UTP - Universal Task Profile) was developed by the guys at DGP (Digest Group) for Classic Traveller, right? When DGP was tasked by GDW to write MegaTraveller, they brought their Classic Traveller task system with them (and it has since become known and the "MT task system", even though it was developed for CT).

So, yeah, the MT task system works very well with CT.

Actually, S4, GDW borrowed the DGP CT task system for 2300, and then DGP got the go-ahead to do MT...

And the DGP CT and MT systems are not identical; some evolutions and elaborations were added by MT. (Ones which I know, and use...) Most of which were first added in 2300.

And the 2300 version works really well with CT/MT as well.

 

[Hemdian]

But I like the idea of the design-your-own slugthrower. Not that I want to sit down and spend hours poring over numbers - but more like when I'm world-building, what if the local government forces that the players are likely to encounter have TL9 7.5mm x 30cmm light assault rifles, which are a step up from the standard auto rifle but aren't quite covered in the rules?

Until you get T5 you might want to look at 3G3 ("Guns, Guns, Guns v3"): a gun design system with conversion notes for multiple game systems. IIRC there are 2 or 3 editions with slightly different conversions, so make sure MT is covered. A companion product ("More Guns, Guns, Guns") lists hundreds of already worked out examples and includes MT conversions.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Thanks for the responses. I really like the CoTI for its thoughtful community.

@Aramis, your response gives me the most confidence - to mod, mod, mod and use what I like. Most interesting - I think I agree with you (and I think I've seen you post this elsewhere too) that MT provides the most coherent and balanced system.

@Supplement Four, yes I am/was aware of that - but it was a valid question given my rambling post! I was a huge fan of Grand Survey / Grand Sensis prior to MT and liked the coherent task system. It followed on for me from playing (embarrasingly enough) the James Bond Role Playing Game by Victory Games which had an interesting d100 task system that was completely coherent and covered every situation. So I was impressed by a much simpler yet coherent system by DGP. But MT was not just CT with DGP's task system added. Combat is heavily based on Striker rules, but the design system was cleverly extended to make all craft coherently part of one whole. I sincerely wish I could lay my hands on the Challenge Magazine series on the 'wet navy' because I'd like to see what people have come up with for a water craft design system. As far as I can tell, so long as you have some limits around floatation and navigation on water from sail to nuclear power, the armour and weapons all fit right in from the existing design systems. But TNE has a lot to say about all of that stuff, and after considering some basic statistics around the physics of sailing, it can be fudged from there.

@Blue Ghost - you are, of course, absolutely right. It is imagination that will make Traveller fun, not necessarily obsessing over precisely how firing a 9mm x 54mm cartridge at a sailing ship armoured with 0.25 hard steel will affect it. I'm more than willing to fudge a few things. But I do like the idea of exploring a relatively internally-consistent universe. I'm not interested in the level of optimising complex designs for a "points match" 40k style (I play 40k when I want to do that!). But I am interested in providing a consistently working environment for the players to 'keep it fair' as it were. But having said all of that, Player A pressing button B to get outcome C will do on more than a few occasions!

@Hemdian - thanks heaps, I will look for that!

 

[Hemdian]

@Hemdian - thanks heaps, I will look for that!

Just be careful to get the right version of 3G3: one covers MT, but another one doesn't (covers TNE and T4 instead).

 

[Supplement Four]

Actually, S4, GDW borrowed the DGP CT task system for 2300, and then DGP got the go-ahead to do MT...

Yep. But, we were talking about Traveller, not 2300. I wasn't trying to cloud the issue.

And the DGP CT and MT systems are not identical; some evolutions and elaborations were added by MT. (Ones which I know, and use...) Most of which were first added in 2300.

I don't know about 2300, but I have all the DGP Traveller's Digests, and you can see the system evolve--a couple of iterations for CT, and then into MT.

 

[Supplement Four]

It followed on for me from playing (embarrasingly enough) the James Bond Role Playing Game by Victory Games which had an interesting d100 task system that was completely coherent and covered every situation.

Why embarrased? The JB RPG, and it's mechanics, are a work of art. Truly, one of the better rpgs ever produced.

You may or may not know that there is a Clone of the old Victory Games JB RPG game being fan produced right now and will be available soon, called Double Zero. Refer to this thread: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=22055

They've made a couple of very good improvements to the system, one of which is that you don't have to look at charts any more to find results!

It's a brilliant tweak, too--just a slight change from the original system.

So I was impressed by a much simpler yet coherent system by DGP. But MT was not just CT with DGP's task system added. Combat is heavily based on Striker rules, but the design system was cleverly extended to make all craft coherently part of one whole.

Aramis is your man for MT. He's the big MT fan around these parts.

I prefer old school, hard core, rules-as-written Classic Traveller. So, of course, I don't agree with what you're saying, but, hey! Welcome to the Board anyway!

I sincerely wish I could lay my hands on the Challenge Magazine series on the 'wet navy' because I'd like to see what people have come up with for a water craft design system.

Since I don't play MT, I don't recall all the books by heart, even though I have all of them. But...doesn't Hard Times cover the Wet Navy? Or, is that just chargen?

 

[aramis]

No, S4, no wet navy references in HT. Starmercs are in HT, along with Low-Tech Spacecraft (TL6-9)

Someone with the MT CD should check to see if the Challenge Wet Navy articles are on the CDRom... (I bought the MT PDFs individually when they first came out...)

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Thanks Hemdian, will look out carefully.

But I also wanted to say, Supplement Four, I've followed the links in your signature, and the UGM totally rocks! Good examples, too that give a feel for a real gaming session. Will definitely use it.

I like the way characteristics levels give a nuanced flavour instead of divide by 5 like in MT.

 

[Supplement Four]

But I also wanted to say, Supplement Four, I've followed the links in your signature, and the UGM totally rocks! Good examples, too that give a feel for a real gaming session. Will definitely use it.

I like the way characteristics levels give a nuanced flavour instead of divide by 5 like in MT.

I'm glad you like it. I developed here on the CotI. If you look around in the CT forum, you can see the various iterations that the UGM went through.

Also note that, although the UGM came first by almost two years, the Mongoose system is very close to the UGM. I don't like the way they handel stats, as I think they're too powerful (as I do in the MT/UTP task system, too...I don't think getting a new level in stat should allow you to go up on every doggone skill you have that covered by that stat...I mean manually docking a spacecraft with DEX/Pilot has very little to do with doing an alien formal greeting dance DEX/Dance, but if you go up in DEX, the net effect is that ever skill covered by DEX goes up...)

But, I mention MGT because, if you like the UGM, you may like an "official", similar task system that's in print.

Just giving you options.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Thanks S4, more to think about!

FWTW, I agree completely on the TNE/T4 characteristic imbalance. My view is that experience trumps natural ability every time - something I think that CT and MT reflect, and if I get a hold of MGT I'll have a look-see at that.

 

[Supplement Four]

FWTW, I agree completely on the TNE/T4 characteristic imbalance. My view is that experience trumps natural ability every time - something I think that CT and MT reflect, and if I get a hold of MGT I'll have a look-see at that.

The MT/UTP (and so does the MGT task system) has the same imbalance.

For example, if you have DEX 9 and go to DEX 10, then every skill that uses DEX as a governor gets a boost. All of your DEX based zero level skills become equivalent to Skill level 1.

On a 2d6 system, that's a hell of a boost!




To explain...

Let's say you've got a character that is EDU-9 and Medical-2, plus Navigation-0, plus History-1.

You boost his EDU to 10, and all of a sudden, his medical skill improves to that equivalent of a medical doctor (Medical-3) and his Navigation skill goes to 1 as well (skills don't change, but the chance at success and number to hit is equivalent).

Does that make sense to you? I mean, if the character studied medicine, then I could see the skill going up on his Medical skill, but not on is Navigation and History also.

But, that's the effect. Move a stat up one point, and everything governed by that stat gains a level.

I worked hard on the UGM so that type of thing wouldn't happen.

 

[aramis]

I think the UGM undervalues the stat... Bk1 combat mechanics have a range of -1 to +1 from stat, a 3 step range. MT has a 4 step range: 0 to +3, but with +3 being bloody rare. UGM has a 2 step range of 0 or +1.

CT thus makes a high stat 2 points more valuable than a low; this means natural competence is equivalent to 2 levels of skill, at least for combat tasks (the only ones with a consistent multi-skill system in CT). The modifiers generally are not requiring peak human perfomance

MT and DGP CT make the absolute peak human performance a +3, and thus MT says the absolute peak is equivalent to a professional (doctoral) level. And I can see that... for a 15.

But if one can accept the fraction of one level equivalence in UGM, it's a smooth system.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

I hadn't thought about it quite that way, Supplement Four. But I'd rank that as a threshold issue rather than as bad as the imbalance of +1 characteristic = +1 skill. In your example, if the difference in Education was from 8 to 9, nothing would change. What the MT mechanic is saying is that someone with Medic-2 and Education 10-14 gets the same +DM as someone with Medic-3 and Education 5-9. I'm not entirely sure what 10-14 Education 'looks like' as opposed to Education 5-9, but I suspect it's something in the order of graduate to post-graduate education versus secondary school to undergraduate.

So MT really is a terrace-step mod based on characteristic, UGM has a random shallow-ish slope, and T4/TNE has a steep slope.

Aramis, in defence of UGM - it does have a 3-tier system: for 13+ stats there's a possible additional +1 bonus and the first +1 bonus becomes automatic. And thrown into that is that you get the bonus for the stat when the dice roll is low - which is interesting. What the mechanic is saying is that a person's native characteristics kick in when the s**t hits the fan.

PS: Supplement Four - to continue my praise of UGM: I'm definitely going to use it instead of MT UTP central difficulty / mod mechanic. I like it that much and I think it adds very interesting balance to the game. I'd also like to add that the examples used really added to the article - the whole thing is a good piece of writing and I can certainly see the hard work. I saw someone promised to do a PDF downloadable version - did that happen? If not, I can't make grand promises but I'm happy to lay something out if you like.

PPS: I just got the joke from your user name, Supplement Four. LOL.

 

[Supplement Four]

I think the UGM undervalues the stat...

That's because you're used to all those years of playing with super powerful stats in MT! :devil:

UGM has a 2 step range of 0 or +1.

That's because, in CT, you usually get a +1 modifier if you have X stat (although, with CT anything goes, so you can find examples of everything. I went with what happens most often in the game, which is why your -1 to +1 three step comment is not something you'd want to base a good task system upon), or stat is not addressed at all.

The UGM works the way CT works. The task system just gives the CT non-structured mechanics some structure.

 

[Supplement Four]

PS: Supplement Four - to continue my praise of UGM: I'm definitely going to use it instead of MT UTP central difficulty / mod mechanic. I like it that much and I think it adds very interesting balance to the game. I'd also like to add that the examples used really added to the article - the whole thing is a good piece of writing and I can certainly see the hard work.

Thanks, brother.

I saw someone promised to do a PDF downloadable version - did that happen?

Omer Golan did a nice one of the UGM. I don't have a link though. It might come up on a good search. I know there's a Traveller web site or two with a UGM page.

If not, I can't make grand promises but I'm happy to lay something out if you like.

Knock yourself out. Maybe we can get it uploaded to the CotI Downloads section.

PPS: I just got the joke from your user name, Supplement Four. LOL.

That's right! I'm a Citizen of the Imperium!:rofl:

 

[Captain_Ahab]

The MT/UTP (and so does the MGT task system) has the same imbalance.

For example, if you have DEX 9 and go to DEX 10, then every skill that uses DEX as a governor gets a boost. All of your DEX based zero level skills become equivalent to Skill level 1.

On a 2d6 system, that's a hell of a boost!




To explain...

Let's say you've got a character that is EDU-9 and Medical-2, plus Navigation-0, plus History-1.

You boost his EDU to 10, and all of a sudden, his medical skill improves to that equivalent of a medical doctor (Medical-3) and his Navigation skill goes to 1 as well (skills don't change, but the chance at success and number to hit is equivalent).

Does that make sense to you? I mean, if the character studied medicine, then I could see the skill going up on his Medical skill, but not on is Navigation and History also.

But, that's the effect. Move a stat up one point, and everything governed by that stat gains a level.

I worked hard on the UGM so that type of thing wouldn't happen.

Actually, following the MT rules strictly, in your example, the medical would go to 2.2, the nav would go to 1.2 and the history would go to .2. this is because the stat dm = stat/5 round down.
I think this undervalues stats so I use (stat/3)-1 rounded down

But then again, I see stats and skills slightly differently that you. I see the 'skill' level as being a measure of experience whereas the stat gives a measure of natural ability. True Skill is a combination of both.
I also combine stats to form a more detailed measure of a characteristic.
Using Dex as an example;
Dex by itself would be used for balance, 'grace' or general purpose (dancing or non-aimed gunfire )
Avg(Dex+Str) would be used for quickness ( reflexes)
Avg(Dex+End) would be used for a steady-hand ( aimed shot with rifle )

But its just a matter of taste.