Aslan Preview

[Strangelove]

Fair point. It's also the reason why the Mercenary thread on this site was of significantly less use during the revision.

We do, however, have a Rulesmasters section on the forum. Perhaps a facility on the site might be viable to post errata confidentially and to bypass the problems you've outlined.

I'll speak to the powers that be.

Well having a specific forum for each game that let people title posts [Book Title, pg #, error type] would quickly let us see if what we notice is already noted and the discussion in the thread would tell us if it has been accepted for change or deemed not an error.

Some things would be simple like [Book 3:Scout, pg 1, pluralization error] and I would describe in the thread how in my PDF the title is Book:3 Scout and on page 1 the title is shown as Traveller Scouts . Is that an extra 's' that is missing from the cover, not needed on the title page or actually an intended addition?

In the same forum I would start another thread for [Book3: Scout, pg 1, page number error] and describe how in my PDF page 1 is actually printed as page 11. This obviously an error as there already is a page 11 in its correct chronological order and this is simply fat fingering the '1' key.

Something like this would be *great*

 

[robject]

Well having a specific forum for each game that let people title posts [Book Title, pg #, error type] would quickly let us see if what we notice is already noted and the discussion in the thread would tell us if it has been accepted for change or deemed not an error.
[...]

Something like this would be *great*

Not to toot the horn, but that's exactly how Don's organized the T5 playtest forum. He's started one "sticky" thread per section of the draft (each section comprises of a number of chapters... for examples, characters and combat, and starships). And it works very well ... so well that Marc's buried in errata even as I type.

Without wanting to sound too poncey about it, as artists, that is the way we have to work. If we start prodoucing games we _think_ other people want to see, rather than those _we_ really want to play, well, I think that is the start of a slippery slope.

And I've seen the flak Marc gets for doing things the way he likes. So I try to be constructive, and I know how much free advice is worth.

 

[mike wightman]

I want to say sorry up front - I've responded to a lot of previous posts in one block.

Then you just wouldn't be able to play one (unless your GM let you). Sorry, but if you insist on sticking to the letter of the book then in this case you just can't have your cake and eat it too. You'll have to decide which you like more - playing an Aslan or playing a Psionic. if you like playing an Aslan more then you won't be playing a Psionic one. If you wanted to play a psionic character then you'd have to pick another race. If anything I think it adds to their alienness to say that they can't be psionic or that psionics are very rare for them. But answer me this, why would you expect psionic capability to be a universal constant among all sentient races in the first place?

So we remove player choice? Way to go... not.

In D&D if you wanted to play someone with low-light vision would you pick a human and then complain that he didn't have it and that it was unfair because it limited your options? No. You'd pick a race that did have low-light vision instead, wouldn't you?

So I roll an elf in D&D 5th edition to discover they no longer have low light vision despite all the years they did?

If you knew that Aslan were psionic in previous editions then maybe it's an issue. But if you didn't know that Aslan were psionic previously then you wouldn't care, you'd just accept that they're not psionic. It's like saying that a particular race isn't force-sensitive in Star Wars. Well, them's the breaks for that race, no Force for them. That's just how they are. If you wanted to play someone who was Force-sensitive then you'd play something else, right?

The issue here is that Aslan can be psionic in all OTUs that have gone before - change due to a mistake in the writer not reading up on prior canon for the OTU is inexcusable. The only OTU race that is non-psionic are the hivers.

And I wonder, how many people here who are so offended by the thought of not having psionic aslan PCs have ever actually played one, or more to the point are still actually playing one in a game that they are definitely going to convert to MGT? Nobody, I'd guess.

I have had players members of the Aslan assassin clan.

I've also had Aslan characters who tested for psionics during the Traveller Adventure (look it up).

 

[mike wightman]

Like I said, it only matters if you know previous canon and if (for some bizarre reason) you were absolutely married to the concept of psionic aslan to the point of arguing about it endlessly on a forum. Nobody else cares though.

To anyone new to the game, it's just not an option, and they'd accept it just as easily as someone would accept that humans in D&D don't have low-light vision.

I think what this really boils down to is that some people just don't like being told they can't do something in an RPG.

I think you are missing a really big point here.

If MgT wants to reset the OTU fine. If MgT wants to go with the OTU and expand on it then not fine.

A lot of the problems seem to stem from several of the MgT writers not actually knowing much about the OTU.

Kind of like writing an OST novel without watching the original TV show.

What's been done with the new ST film is an alternative timeline reset. If MgT want to have a MTU fine - just don't try to sell it as the OTU.

Tell you what, you guys can wring your hands in anguish and navel-gaze over that for the next few months. The rest of us will just carry on playing and enjoying the game. Sorry, but I really can't take people seriously if all they're going to do is sit there crying "Why, dear god, WHY?!!!!".

Reality check - my version of the OTU is very much a MTU. I would love to add to it from MgT material but as yet have found little to include.

And again, is this a personal loss to you? Were you dead set on playing a psionic aslan in Mongoose Traveller?

The option should exist since it exists in the OTU. If it doesn't exist in the MTU fine.

Funny, some people seem to be making a really big deal out of it. If they're not actually offended by it then I'd say they're investing an unhealthy amount of emotional energy into complaining about it.

Methinks you are the one making a big deal of it.

 

[mike wightman]

There's less than 10 people here complaining about it. Do you seriously expect Mongoose to change what they're writing just because 10 people who probably wouldn't even have bought the book in the first place don't like it? I really hope they don't change it, for the sake of everyone else who doesn't really give a damn.

I will buy it - like everything else MgT has produced.

But I would prefer that the OTU isn't wrecked due to ignorance.

 

[mike wightman]

I don't care either way. I don't think anyone outside this board cares much about it either. I'm just puzzled as to why you people care so much about it. I'm certainly not investing any emotional energy into it though.

Really?

Then why post so much in this thread.

And often in very emotive language.

 

[mike wightman]

But again, it's not anything that anyone would miss if they were coming into the game for the first time with MGT. It's not an issue for any newcomers to Traveller at all.

And really, canon's changed all over the place previously on various subjects, for no good reason. This isn't any different, so I'm not sure why you're treating it like it's never happened before.

The same could be said of any game and setting.

But the whole point of having a setting book is to have a common reference point to jump off from to create your own TU.

Notice that the new ST film still maintains the major elements of ST.

I wonder how the next film will be received if it re-images Klingons again...

 

[mike wightman]

The MGT corebook says this on page 152 (first page of the Psionics chapter):



That doesn't imply to me that every race in the OTU has psionics. And it certainly doesn't imply to me that Aslan necessarily have psionics either (maybe they're among those "other sophonts", maybe not).

Try again.

But again you miss the point.

In the OTU you have a certain paradigm for psionics that could easily be maintained using the MgT rules.

Setting and rules - remember that the two are different.

An OTU MgT supplement should remain faithful to the OTU canon that has gone before unless a change makes things better.

 

[drh]

Matt and Fordy have covered everything already. At the end of the day, if a handful of people can't get over the changes they make then I guess it's hard luck for those people.

 

[mike wightman]

I already covered that. Would you make the same sort of ruckus if told that an aquatic race can't walk on land? It's just something that they can't do. It's not about "removing options" or other such nonsense at all.

Daft argument ;_

It's more like being told an aquatic race can't swim anymore

Unless he doesn't do that at all. Seriously, how many people actually use books from previous editions (possibly many generations back) in their current games using the current generation of rules? Especially when they have been superseded with a new version of that book? Would you use the old CT High Guard with the MGT rules given that MGT already has its own High Guard that is actually designed to be fully compatible with it?

I use a lot of the old rules. My house rules have evolved over time and have borrowed from every version of Traveller plus some stuff posted by a lot of the people on these boards.

And Mg HG is not compatible with CT HG 2nd edition.

You nailed the problem on the head. The problem is people are trying to use older material with new material and expecting it to be compatible when it isn't and has no obligation to be either. Stop doing that, and the problem goes away.

agin - rules or setting.

MgT has some nice rules - I just want them to get the OTU setting right.

I sure don't. I don't expect to be able to use every black book that Mongoose releases in the OTU setting at all. But maybe that's because I understand how they're releasing the books and what purpose they're for better than you do.

I would however expect every OTU book released by MgT to be usable with MTU.

Again, you're assuming that they would look at previous versions. I don't think that's a given at all.

Then why not just have their own MgT setting?

I think they'll just shrug and not care myself.

Then stop posting

Thank you.

You're welcome

 

[mike wightman]

And more to the point, how many people do you think would use MgT's Aslan book and a previous edition's Aslan book at the same time too? I don't think anyone would - why would they? If all the info they need for their current edition is in the current supplement for it, why would they bother to look at what an older book said? Would you use a D&D 2e book about Elves with D&D 4e? Would you even expect it to be compatible? I really doubt that you would.

I would expect a 4th edition of Dragonlance to be compatible with what has gone before though.

 

[mike wightman]

And if they do that, what do they give precedence to if they find a contradiction? The original material, or the later material that they're actually playing now?

Personally I'd discard the older material and use the newer material if there was a contradiction. That's how it usually works - new editions replace the old.

In which case MgT should be based on T4

 

[mike wightman]

The psionics rule for Aslan stays, no matter how ravenous your sense of entitlement over our products. If anything, the criticism on this thread has given us all the more reason not to change it, and possibly to veer even further from established canon. :smirk:

Now, back to those Vagr... mmm, bigger antlers I think. :devil:

What?

So mongoose refuses to listen to reasoned argument?

And will continue to use writers ignorant of OTU canon to write new OTU material?

And will change OTU at a whim?

I, sir, will henceforth never purchase another mongoose product and I am going to immediately return every MgT product and demand a refund.

Ok - more seriously.

MgT is doing something that has long been needed - bring new people into Traveller.
This is very commendable.

I also like the return to Traveller being generic for many settings (can't wait for SD).

But, in all seriousness, MgT OTU material should be faithful to the canon that has gone before unless the change is for the better. IMHO of course.

 

[MongooseFordy]

Let's put this into perspective: the OTU consists of 25 years worth of already self-contradictory 'canon'. All our writers are well versed in the subjects on which they write, but mistakes will creep through. Each of our writers produces just shy of a million words a year. As well as Traveller's OTU, our tie in games for the Traveller rules consist of Babylon 5, Judge Dredd, Strontium Dog and Hammer's Slammers. Our writers will also produce games for RuneQuest and its various backgrounds (including Elric, Glorantha, Slaine, Hawkmoon and Lankhmar), Conan, and Paranoia and D20 lines such as Wraith Recon. To describe them as 'ignorant ' is a little unfair. However, I see the point if your term was used in its purest sense, in that they inevitably won't have an encyclopeadic knowledge of the OTU (and I know what you're thinking - why don't we use freelancers? But for a number of reasons, this does not work).

That's why we have all text sent for approval by people who do know the background inside out, as was the case with Aslan. And even then, certain information seems to have been missed. Other information, which some people seem to find so contentious, has been deliberately changed, for whatever reason.

Mike, I have you on the 'list'. Let's see if your opinions stay the same once you've done a round of testing.

 

[mike wightman]

On a side note, I actually like how MGT handles bay weapons (Well, mostly, enough that I'll go with it). After all, now I can install a bay on a 400 ton SDB... :devil:

Me too.

But it is also one of the things that makes MGT HG incompatible with HG2.

It is also closer to the way I do it IMTU so I like it.

 

[mike wightman]

Let's put this into perspective: the OTU consists of 25 years worth of already self-contradictory 'canon'.

Very true unfortunately.

All our writers are well versed in the subjects on which they write, but mistakes will creep through. Each of our writers produces just shy of a million words a year. As well as Traveller's OTU, our tie in games for the Traveller rules consist of Babylon 5, Judge Dredd, Strontium Dog and Hammer's Slammers. Our writers will also produce games for RuneQuest and its various backgrounds (including Elric, Glorantha, Slaine, Hawkmoon and Lankhmar), Conan, and Paranoia and D20 lines such as Wraith Recon. To describe them as 'ignorant ' is a little unfair.

I didn't mean it in an offensive way. I understand fully how anal some of us grogs can come across.

However, I see the point if your term was used in its purest sense, in that they inevitably won't have an encyclopeadic knowledge of the OTU (and I know what you're thinking - why don't we use freelancers? But for a number of reasons, this does not work).

That's why we have all text sent for approval by people who do know the background inside out, as was the case with Aslan. And even then, certain information seems to have been missed. Other information, which some people seem to find so contentious, has been deliberately changed, for whatever reason.

It took us nearly a week on these boards to spot the proof of Aslan birth ratios being 1:3 so I understand where you are coming from on this.

Mike, I have you on the 'list'. Let's see if your opinions stay the same once you've done a round of testing.

My opinion has always been that mongoose is doing a great job in resurrecting Traveller for a new audience.

 

[RKFM]

It just doesn't mention it, of course. Just as it doesn't mention official RoM colonization efforts anywhere else 50 parsecs beyond their borders. My objection was that such efforts are 1) Highly implausible and 2) unnecessary, since there are other, canonical, sources of settlers (namely, unofficial 1st and 2nd Imperium settlers fleeing from the 1st and 2nd Imperium).

Here's the question I posed earlier in this thread:

"Did you have to mention official 2nd Imperium colonization efforts in an areas 50 parsecs beyond the border in Corridor? Especially since we have canonical statements about refugee expeditions settling in the Trojan Reach to provide all the settlers anyone could ever need? You did not. Was it a good idea? Not in my opinion."​

Colonization efforts cost money. For all of its 400 year history, the RoM was struggling to keep things together. Is it possible that someone decided to dedicate the funds to set up settlements 50 parsecs away? Of course. Is it plausible? Not in my opinion. Does it improve the setting in ways that couldn't have been accomplished by other, less implausible, means? Not in my opinion.

Can I come up with a scenario that has Emperor Arglebargle III order the establishment of an official RoM colony in the Trojan Reach? Sure. Do I think it's a good idea? No. But maybe the author had something specific in mind, something that justifies such a screaming implausibility. Or maybe he just didn't consider the logistical and political procedures involved in such an undertaking. If it's the first, well that's one thing. If it's the second, just maybe Mongoose would like to reconsider this tidbit of information. I won't know unless I ask, will I?


Hans

When I first read the stuff on the Trojan Reach I was a bit taken back as well. It just didn't fit with my imaging of the area and of history. However, there has been a lot of iffy canon stuff in regards to the scale and timeline of growth of the 3I.

Now, I'm don't have a Masters Degree in the history of Known Space but I always wondered how the 3I managed to start moving into the Spinward Marches 60 years after the founding of the 3I. Even assuming the incorporation of the 2I territory rather quickly, they would still have to occupy the rest of Corridor and Deneb sectors. What, was Deneb already getting too crowded in that brief 60 years?

I've always had some trouble with how the Solomani traders can contact the Darrians and the Aslan cross the Great Rift over 1000 years before the 3I is founded, yet almost no one is in the Spinward Marches when the Imperials arrive. At the same time, the Spinward Marches has been growing for almost 1100 years and it is still a backwater?

I think these so called "unrealistic" population growth patterns and colonization histories are not too big an issue. Most of this history is developed for game reasons, not to envision a consistant future history.

 

[drh]

I would expect a 4th edition of Dragonlance to be compatible with what has gone before though.

I wouldn't. And therein lies the difference between us I guess. I'd expect it to be broadly compatible with what came before, but no more than that. If it wasn't as compatible as I'd like it to be if I was playing a previous edition, then I'd just continue to play the previous edition and not use the new one. I certainly wouldn't complain about all the changes and demand reasons why they were made.

 

[far-trader]

Just a little nit-pick...

...the history of Known Space...

...would be the history of Larry Niven's universe(s)

Traveller space is "Charted Space". Like I said a minor nit-pick, and one of common confusion.

FWIW, you're not alone in your pondering on the timeline issues.

 

[Whipsnade]

Let's put this into perspective: the OTU consists of 25 years worth of already self-contradictory 'canon'.

MongooseFordy,

That's very true. However, in this case, that's also nothing more than an excuse.

Canon has self-contradictory aspects, but canon is not wholly self-contradictory. In the case of powerplant fuel requirements, canon is self-contradictory. In the case of Aslan psionics, canon is not self-contradictory. You cannot "explain" away Mongoose's change to Aslan psionics by pointing to contradictory canon. The example doesn't fit in this case and using that example makes you appear to be more interested in after the fact rationalizations than actually explaining yourselves.

When explaining Aslan psionics all you need to say is; We changed it for game design reasons and our license allows us to do so. You needn't dredge up some excuse when you already have a perfectly accurate explanation.

All our writers are well versed in the subjects on which they write...

In the case of some MgT products it is self evident that they all are not. I'll point to artillery ranges in Mercenary as just one example.

... but mistakes will creep through.

That is correct and expecting mistakes not to be made is ludicrous. Admitting mistakes, such as Scouts referring the Aslan as "uplifted", is something else entirely. Finding excuses for mistake and deliberate changes instead of simply admitting that they are mistakes or deliberate changes is something else entirely too.

While I may not like a change, I despise receiving an excuse rather than an explanation for it.

Each of our writers produces just shy of a million words a year. (snip) To describe them as 'ignorant ' is a little unfair.

True. The word "ignorant" carries emotional baggage well beyond it's actual meaning.

That's why we have all text sent for approval by people who do know the background inside out, as was the case with Aslan.

And in this very thread it's been admitted that, in at least one case, that approval process failed when a major change went unnoticed. Approval may have been given for the new method of handling bay weaponry, but we'll never know now because that change was completely missed by three separate people. Any approval now comes well after the fact and well after a lot of product has been printed.

This means the approval process is not 100% accurate and it also means that you shouldn't keep routinely using it as an excuse.

And even then, certain information seems to have been missed.

All the more reason not to fall back on the approval process as an excuse rather than offering an honest explanation.

Other information, which some people seem to find so contentious, has been deliberately changed, for whatever reason.

Then admit those changes as such. Don't point to the approval process or harried writers or contradictory canon. Say you've made deliberate changes, point to your license, and tell those who are bleating to get over it. Or admit that a mistake has occurred and suggest that errata be submitted for it.

As I've already written in this post, I may not like what you've done to the Aslan, but it's your license and you can do what you wish. What really gets under my skin, and what I strongly suspect gets under the skin of many of the others in this thread, is when we receive excuses instead of explanations about these changes.

Pointing to self-contradictory canon with regards to Aslan psionics is an excuse. Stating, as Matt already has, that Mongoose made changes for game design reasons is an explanation. The former can be perceived as an insult to the questioner's intelligence while latter is the truth and it's always best to stick to the truth.


Regards,
Bill