Classic Traveller and MegaTraveller

CT vs. MT - same or different?

badger2305@gmail.com — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:00:50 -0500

Anybody else out there who sees a significant difference between CT and MT? I like both, but they feel very different to me as games, for a variety of reasons. To me, the biggest difference in game mechanics is the task system; CT's 8+ roll with DMs feels very different from MT's task system. Beyond that, MT's vehicle design system is very different from CT, such that MT designs cannot always be ported back to CT.

Besides game mechanics, CT also feels not unlike Original D&D, in that the background is not an absolutely inherent part of the game system. You can take the LBBs and set up your own universe - we did that a lot between 1977 and 1979. But with MT, the setting is woven into the game (oh, sure you can take the rules and use them in other settings, but it's more difficult).

Lastly, people came to Traveller at different times think about it differently based on what rules set they encountered initially. CT players think somewhat differently from MT players, and both think differently from TNE players. Not to say you can't play 'em all, but there are sub-cultural differences worth noting. All of which suggests to me that CT and MT deserve their own forums, if traffic picks up.

What do you think?

Re: CT vs. MT - same or different?

jrmapes@ckt.net — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:57:39 -0500

Of course there is a big difference between the games - what you have shown is a chunk of it. Plus there is the whole CT (although it has a few problems with things like World Gen and Stellar Gen) is not riddled with errors unlike MT which requires an errata document that has almost as many pages as the two main books combined. There are other differences as well.

IIRC, The task system for MT did originally start out as an optional task system for CT, in some of the early DGP Products and yes it is different from the CT system. Which brings up one of my pet peeves - I hate it when people carry on about CT not having a task system. They say it only has a combat system. Well phooey on them - to that I say, then you really have never read the rules. It is all right there in the first 3 books and expanded as needed in the other LBBs. Most people just overlook it because it is tucked into the skill descriptions.

Anyway...

There are many similarities in the games, enough that if you create something for either game or have a new idea to implement in either game - almost always it can be used in the other system without much fiddling - with the noted exception of vehicle design.

I agree with your breakdown of the mindset of refs/players between the games. I too have noticed that most people that started in MT or any of the later versions do feel more tied/loyal to the OTU. I like you used MTUs almost exclusively in the early years - however I eventually switched to the OTU and then added MTU material as the game required (on those occasions where the group(s) wanted to explore beyond the frontiers of the OTU.

I guess the question of should the CT and MT games have their separate forum flora really depends on just how active the section becomes over time. Based on observations from various other Traveller forums that cover the gambit of versions, it appears that CT posts vs MT Posts usually fall in the 3:1 ratio in favor of CT. The other editions fare even less well when compared to CT. Obviously on the forums where one system is promoted over another those that are the preferred system on the forum tend to have more posts vs all other systems. Oddly enough, the main T20 forum doesn't hold to this, even there CT has a 3:2 advantage.

So, eventually, if posting explodes in the CT/MT area, I would say that then there may be cause to consider splitting them up. Until then, not so much.

In the mean time, if we want to make sure posts are recognized as specifically for CT or MT then we can simply add a [CT] or [MT] in front of the topic in the subject line.

Jerry

____________________
IMTU:JR Mapes
0309 C38A975-D S tc++(**) ru+ tm+ !tn t4 tg- t20 !rtt ?t5 ge+ 3i++ c+ jt- au ls+ pi+ ta- he+ kk+ hi++ as++ va dr so+ zh da++ vi+ 633

Re: CT vs. MT - same or different?

badger2305@gmail.com — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:43:54 -0500

Using [CT] or [MT] as subject headers will clear this up for now, I agree. It will be interesting to see over time how traffic develops.

Thanks for your reply - glad to see others see this similarly to me!

The Spinward Main (New Website)

jrmapes@ckt.net — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:19:32 -0400

(please move this if it should go elsewhere)

I have recently opened The Spinward Main website.

This is the quick rundown,

We are first and foremost a fan driven website. Membership and participation in adding content to the site is encouraged. One of the goals to this site is to become a file and data repository, including Traveller Programs and Utilities. If you have some obscure spreadsheets, programs, and sundry utilities, please keep us in mind and I hope you will be willing to share. This of course applies to any and all NON-Commercial software. We will not pirate. Abandonware is ok.

We are still in the construction and growing process so the walls and furnishings are still a bit sparse but I try to add new things as often as I can. I hope you will join us and help us grow.

IMTU:JR Mapes
0309 C38A975-D S tc++(**) ru+ tm+ !tn t4 tg- t20 !rtt ?t5 ge+ 3i++ c+ jt- au ls+ pi+ ta- he+ kk+ hi++ as++ va dr so+ zh da++ vi+ 633

Re: The Spinward Main (New Website)

newsadmin@freelancetraveller.com — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:10:13 -0400

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:19:32 -0400, "JRMapes" <jrmapes@ckt.net> wrote:

>(please move this if it should go elsewhere)

Moving messages isn't so easy with this software; so let it stand.  It
would have been better in The Souk/freetrav.marketplace.  Also, some
newsreaders aren't going to pick up links in HTML, so website URIs
should also be placed in clear text in the message.

I'll list this site in Freelance Traveller's Infocenter as well.

Re: The Spinward Main (New Website)

jrmapes@ckt.net — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:55:27 -0400

I keep forgetting that this goes out to news readers. You'd think after all this time I could remember that considering until this was redone, that is how I usually accessed it. jeesh.

The Spinward Main (www.spinwardmain.net)

IMTU:JR Mapes
0309 C38A975-D S tc (**) ru tm !tn t4 tg- t20 !rtt ?t5 ge 3i c jt- au ls pi ta- he kk hi as va dr so zh da vi 633

Death or discharge

copeab@ — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:15:48 -0400

Very early in CT, IIRC a failed Survival roll during character creation meant the character died, with an optional rule that the character served a short term and mustered out. Later, this was reversed and early discharge was the standard rule and death was the option.

So, which did you prefer to use?

Brandon

Re: Death or discharge

newsadmin@freelancetraveller.com — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:13:33 -0400

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:15:48 -0400, copeab wrote:

>Very early in CT, IIRC a failed Survival roll during character creation meant
> the character died, with an optional rule that the character served a short
> term and mustered out. Later, this was reversed and early discharge was the
> standard rule and death was the option.
>
>So, which did you prefer to use?

I would use either rule, depending on how well the character had been
developing up to that point.  A six-term character with rank and good
skill rolls would probably be invalided out and played; a one- or
two-termer with no rank and who missed skill rolls would probably be
killed.

Under the extended procedures (one year at a time instead of one term at
a time), I'd probably be more likely to try to keep the character, as
the extended procedure tended to develop characters that were more
robust.

Re: Death or discharge

copeab@ — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:43:03 -0400

A house rule that I commonly used was that no reenlistment roll was made until the third term and no survival roll was made until the fourth term, guaranteeing each PC got in at least three full terms.

Brandon

Re: CT vs. MT - same or different?

copeab@ — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:49:00 -0400

I remember when I started playing/GMing Traveller in 1983 that I upset several players by essentially ignoring the OTU ;)

Early CT certainly had a different feel from later CT (and all later versions of the game). In early CT, the Imperium was this distant ... thing that rarely got in the player's way, outside of perhaps the occasional patrol cruiser. The PCs could have a significant impact on the setting. But, with a less-shadowy Imperium and million ton ships, PCs became drastically less important.

Brandon