Aslan Preview

[tbeard1999]

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:

So...you work in customer service, right?

Anyhow, it seems to me that a smart business move might be to explain the deviations from canon -- what they are and why they were deemed to improve the product. Of course, my suggestion does assume that the author was aware that he was changing canon.

Just a thought...

 

[tbeard1999]

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. ...

Contrary to some insinuations, I don't think that Mongoose is being criticized for simple errors. Certainly not by me, especially since Mongoose has proven to be quick about correcting them.

What my associates are criticizing Mongoose for is rather different -- that Mongoose Traveller authors are making arbitrary and pointless changes to canon.

A related charge is that some of these changes are due to insufficient knowledge of the subject.

Granted, Traveller canon is extensive. But that kinda comes with the turf in my opinion.

My own opinion FWIW is that intentional deviations from canon should be identified and explained. An attitude I practice in my own rules, by the way. My rules are footnoted and explain contentious design decisions and even occasionally offer alternatives. Some examples from FFT:

"Oh sure, we have ballistic computers and such stuff, but allowing players to pre-measure slows the game to a crawl. If it makes you feel better, blame it on fog of war, or something similar...."

"The swamp rules are a lot of trouble. If you want, you can simply make swamp impassable to vehicles. In any case, the moral of the story is that tanks should avoid swamps."

"Larry Bond postulates [multi-spectral smoke] in his novel Cauldron. We can’t confirm its existence, but it is fun to play with, and it takes the edge off of thermal sights."

Each of these footnotes proactively addresses a potentially contentious rule. I've found that this goes a long way towards heading off trouble (and believe me, modern wargamers are AT LEAST as picky as Traveller players).

Mongoose might want to consider such an approach, where appropriate.

In my experience, critics are often mollified by a reasonable explanation, even if they still disagree with the rule.

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.

Indeed, for what reason?

 

[Klaus]

Just curious, has anyone ever met, or been, a player who absolutely must be a psionic aslan when play begins?

In fact, how many refs allow any psionic pc, without strong narrative caveats, start play in a game?

Doesn't an aslan searching for a psionic truth, based on myth and legend (a la G'Kar), make a nice plot hook?

As there is no 'ban' on hordes of npc aslan assassin cultists to make the players job that much harder.

 

[MongooseFordy]

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

Bill, you seem to be implying I've been dishonest in some way, which quite frankly ticks me off. I'll put it down to your assumptions regarding my previous post. My reference to contradictory canon was not in regard to the decision over psionics, but the other breaches as outlined elsewhere.

I don't make excuses, because I'm not beholden to your sense of entitlement, and I don't feel the need to pander to demands made on a public forum. However, when people want reasons for our decisions, or cast aspertions on the dedication and talent of our writers, I feel compelled to respond.

As to the other breaches in canon, I don't have an answer - I didnt write the text. You'll have to ask the author, but the chances of him posting here are pretty slim considering the prevalent attitude to our products.

 

[Whipsnade]

Bill, you seem to be implying I've been dishonest

MongooseFordy,

I am not suggestions you are dishonest. I am suggesting that you as a company have fallen into the habit of not explaining yourself or your decisions.

Let's be honest here. Do you seriously think these questions regarding Aslan psionics would have even been raised at the Mongoose fora? The preview has been out for 5 days now, has anyone there even mentioned the "No More Psionics" blurb? As a company you've been depending on a captive audience of gushing fanboys for feedback for far too long. No one has bothered to ask you real questions in far too long. You've simply fallen out of the habit of explaining the thinking behind your design decisions.

Honest feedback is vitally important for any company and especially important for a company such as yours. While mindless complaints are of no use, mindless compliments are of no use either.

My reference to contradictory canon was not in regard to the decision over psionics, but the other breaches as outlined elsewhere.

This thread is about contradictory canon and, as I wrote, while canon has contradictory elements it is not wholly contradictory and cannot be used as a routine explanation. Pointing to contradictory canon in this case is an excuse because contradictory canon does not exist in this case.

I don't make excuses, because I'm not beholden to your sense of entitlement...

I'm your customer, that is the limit of my alleged "entitlement".

... and I don't feel the need to pander to demands made on a public forum.

Pander to demands? Asking why a change was made is not necessarily a demand and answering a question is not necessarily pandering. Answering polite and thoughtful questions is customer service, not pandering.

Whether a question is a demand or not depends on how the question was asked. I recently asked three questions of your boss and he answered them. Do you think those questions were somehow demands? Was he pandering to me?

However, when people want reasons for our decisions...

If the answers Matt provided in Post #251 had been stated by any Mongoose spokesman at the beginning of this thread, the thread would not be thirty pages long and counting.

... or cast aspertions on the dedication and talent of our writers, I feel compelled to respond.

I'm not casting aspersions on your writers. I'm simply stating that I don't expect them, the playtest process, the editing process, or the approval process to be perfect. Perfection is impossible, mistakes will occur, and mistakes must be fixed. I'm stating that your writers are human.

There's an important point I need to make here. Mistakes must be fixed, but some of what we perceive to be mistakes are actually changes. Sadly, because Mongoose normally doesn't not explain changes until repeatedly prodded, we don't know what needs to be fixed, what needs to be reported, and what needs to be accepted.

As to the other breaches in canon, I don't have an answer - I didnt write the text. You'll have to ask the author, but the chances of him posting here are pretty slim considering the prevalent attitude to our products.

Yet that alleged attitude doesn't prevent you or your firm's owner from posting here. Go figure.

We have all the answers we need with regards to this issue. Matt has stated that the change in Aslan psionics is a deliberate change and not an unforeseen major mistake. That's good to know, especially when we remember how the many mistakes in Mercenary limited that book's utility.

I'll direct you to Ty's post above, #282, in which he describes how he preemptively diffuses questions by actually explaining what he is doing and why he is doing it. SJGames does the same thing in it's RPG products. They use a sidebar or a small portion of a sidebar to explain a design choice or the thinking behind it.

ONE SENTENCE in the preview's three sentence "No More Psionics" blurb flatly stating that for design purposes psionics are no longer an option for the Aslan would have obviated this entire thread. Instead, the preview contained a major departure from canon without any explanation whatsoever. Was that departure another mistake that would need to be corrected before the book came out or was it a deliberate change?

Happily, it was a deliberate design change, but there was no way for us to know that until we prodded you.


Regards,
Bill

 

[RandyT0001]

All our writers are well versed (?) in the subjects on which they write, but mistakes will creep through.

Well, obviously you haven't read mgT's Mercenary nor considered the errata that was provided to fix it, specifically the effective ranges for the artillery weapons that go from hundreds of meters to hundreds of kilometers for the same modern equivalent (TL 8) weapon (AT gun). And when I question this I'm told that maybe I should do some research on the state of artillery today. Yeah, they're well versed in the subject matter they write about. (And IMO it's so bad Mongoose had to get Martin Dougherty to 'assist' Steele in writing the Central Supply Catalogue because he lacks the knowledge.)

 

[rust]

Do you seriously think these questions regarding Aslan psionics would have even been raised at the Mongoose fora? The preview has been out for 5 days now, has anyone there even mentioned the "No More Psionics" blurb? As a company you've been depending on a captive audience of gushing fanboys for feedback for far too long. ...

Well, I see it as a matter of "spare time economy". It takes me only a few
seconds to decide whether Aslan will be a part of my setting, and whether
Aslan player characters will be allowed to be psionic or not, and just a few
seconds more to make the relevant notes for houseruling this - and then I
can go back to improving the setting or writing an adventure for the cam-
paign.

Therefore I just see no need to mention Aslan and Psionics on any forum, in
my view and for my roleplaying it would just be a waste of time and effort.
And I only write this post because I am a bit tired of reading that those who
- like me - do not care much for the OTU canon and prefer a quick houserule
to a drawn out debate are called "gushing fanboys".

And now I am back to my setting and campaign.

 

[atpollard]

Well, obviously you haven't read mgT's Mercenary ...

While your facts may be correct (not my area of expertise), your tone seems a bit too hostile. Let's disagre with a little more civility.

 

[Supplement Four]

While your facts may be correct (not my area of expertise), your tone seems a bit too hostile. Let's disagre with a little more civility.

I agree that the discussion should remain civil. But, Fordy has been asking for a response like this. Matt comes on and generally speaks with character. I'm on the far opposite side of the opinion from Matt's point of view on MGT, but I respect the man, answering questions here, and keeping his responses, for the most part civil.

MongooseFordy is doing Matt no favors. If I were Matt, I'd rein him in a bit. He's just inciting the flames of those who dislike Mongoose Traveller.

And, I'm not the first one to point this out. I know at least one other, Aramis, has pointed out the exact same thing in Fordy's responses.

 

[MongooseFordy]

He's just inciting the flames of those who dislike Mongoose Traveller.

That's a bit rich coming from the likes of you. I guess you feel I should show some humility while you trash talk Mongoose products and staff. Sorry, I don't work that way.

I suppose the adult thing to do would be simply not to engage in any kind of discussion on this forum, but as Bill mentioned, there is objective feedback here that we possibly don't get on our own fora. I for one find it valuable, if not displayed in a rather overly aggressive manner.

We all know what this forum's like, maybe it's time to start acting like adults.

 

[Britti_Lover]

:rofl:
Ah yes, I can recall when I'd get 10 players easy to a Gurps Traveller game at a convention - and then run 4 sections to boot.

But, Gurps Traveller had its day - no support from SJGs in over three years and everyone wants me to run Mongoose Traveller. Now come the conversion process of my game from Gurps to Mongoose......

All the Mongoose stuff I've read is quite good - not perfect mind you but good.

This IS an RPG and is played for fun. If you don't like it - change it. Aslans are Aslans by and large in all versions of Traveller.

Generally, they are played as Warrior types and always are fun to play.

If you REALLY want Psi Aslans - why not go ahead and DO IT.

All my Aslan books for various versions of Traveller say Psi is unheard of in Aslans. I've never had anyone play or mention Psi for their Aslan.

Now Droyne are a different matter, they always have Psionics.

Anyway, I recall talking to Dave Neilson at a convention and he told me about all the canon changes he was going to make to Traveller - to correct rules he felt were just plain stupid.

Oh, well...........

I do have two things from him:

1) Rough draft with origonal artwork of TNE

2) Rough draft with origonal artwork of 2300AD

 

[Whipsnade]

MongooseFordy,

S4 does come across too strong on occasion, just as I come across too strong on occasion. I will say this in his defense however.

After reading his fulsome praise for your company's Conan d20 supplement, I recently went out and bought it even though fantasy isn't my first genre of choice. Then, after reading your supplement, I've begun re-reading Howard's Conan stories for the first time since the early 70s.

That's how good the Mongoose Conan d20 supplement is and that's how good S4 wanted MgT to be. He feels he's been disappointed, which is a subjective conclusion but an entirely human one, so that it's that disappointment which shines throughout his posts.

This doesn't mean he shouldn't dial it back some, we all should to varying degrees, it just explains where he's coming from.


Regards,
Bill

 

[MongooseMatt]

change due to a mistake in the writer not reading up on prior canon for the OTU is inexcusable.

And not the reason it was done.

 

[MongooseMatt]

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

Not to state the obvious, but that has already been done. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

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

Isn't that subjective though?

 

[MongooseMatt]

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

To use a similar example, the Forgotten Realms has had entire nations and land masses changed over its history.

 

[MongooseMatt]

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.

Ah ha! But we have veterans here that say this damages the very essence of the OTU.

So, which of you is right? And how do we prove it?

Seriously though, there _will_ be changes and additions we make to Traveller that even the staunchest Mongoose fan will say 'eh, not using that in my games.' And that is okay, because someone else will find value in what they do not like.

We don't write games for one specific gamer. We can't. What we expect (and this has been true since the dawn of RPGs, though it has dwindled somewhat in recent years) is for gamers to use our books as toolkits - take what they like, adapt what they can, and create material themselves. That is, after all, what the hobby is, right?

So, let's take psionic Aslan as an example. If you want them in your game, I think that is great. Use them! You have all the rules you need, and if you want to create some Aslan specific talents, I think that is great too!

We really won't be busting down your door, demanding you use the rules and background as written. . .

You _really_ don't need our permission to do what you want in your games. We _hope_ that, regardless of what you think of Aslan psionics, you will find _something_ of value in the Aslan books. We hope you will take that information, add psionics if you want, and then go forth and carry on exploring the OTU.

 

[MongooseMatt]

We changed it for game design reasons and our license allows us to do so.

I thought I had. in answer to one of your posts. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

If the answers Matt provided in Post #251 had been stated by any Mongoose spokesman at the beginning of this thread, the thread would not be thirty pages long and counting.

To be fair, the thread still seems to have a load of energy after I made those comments

Yet that alleged attitude doesn't prevent you or your firm's owner from posting here. Go figure.

Umm. . . you would rather we didn't?

and not an unforeseen major mistake. That's good to know, especially when we remember how the many mistakes in Mercenary limited that book's utility.

I might have to call you on that one. . . I believe the core issues raised were artillery changes and the magrail rifle. The first we agreed with, and reprinted the book, the second was entirely intentional. I would maintain that Mercenary, as a whole, does exactly what it says on the cover.

I cannot recall, for example, _any_ criticisms of the mercenary missions system. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

Well, obviously you haven't read mgT's Mercenary nor considered the errata that was provided to fix it,

Actually, Fordy was the gentleman who 'fixed' Mercenary.

(And IMO it's so bad Mongoose had to get Martin Dougherty to 'assist' Steele in writing the Central Supply Catalogue because he lacks the knowledge.)

Okay, now I have to tell you that you _really_ don't know what you are talking about.

Martin had already collated a great deal of information for the CSC off his own back, and said to us 'hey, why don't you pay me to do the rest.' We said sure, go ahead. Bryan, who already had time scheduled for the book was then given the manuscript to add 'funky' stuff.

There was _no_ assistance on either side, and i would ask you to take that comment back.