Aslan Preview

[MongooseMatt]

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

Ha! That is what you think now! But you wait until you see what we have planned for Alien Module 12: Droyne - The Return. We take the psionics out and then, you'll like this, we give them frickin' laser beams on their heads!

Ah. Ahem. Maybe not.

 

[far-trader]

I dunno, I've been waiting for someone to do frickin' laser beam headed uplifted dolphins for Traveller for so long I could probably live with it if it was Droyne instead. At least I could steal the laser beam head tech and stick it on the dolphins.

 

[Wilbur]

This is Roger Calver posting but I cant use my normal account.

Wow, just Wow talk about a melt down thread this has turned into !!
One part of me wants to go postal in replys but I really cant be bothered with it, some people just dont have any real idea what goes on and make "informed" decisions that are "correct".

CotI at its best again................

Rog.

 

[DonM]

I've another serious question too, if you aren't too fed up with us yet. In this post Don McKinney admits that he, Robject, and Marc all missed the changes Mongoose made in the way bay weapons are handled. Will Mongoose stick with those changes despite the admission that they weren't actually approved? Or do you view this as an issue of errata? If so, will Mongoose change it when you publish another version of High Guard?

Actually, they should stick with those changes. Arguments like yours could make folks question every line of any Mongoose book. It's published, and unless the resulting game is unplayable, let it go. The book was approved as is, and that's it. There's no conditional "unless we catch something after the fact and we'll annoy you until you fix it clause".

MGT HG is done, and released. Marc approved it as is, for better or worse. As I said several pages back, GDW made similar mistakes. SJGames has as well. Imperium Games -- come on -- Mongoose is still doing way better than that.

 

[DonM]

Ha! That is what you think now! But you wait until you see what we have planned for Alien Module 12: Droyne - The Return. We take the psionics out and then, you'll like this, we give them frickin' laser beams on their heads!

Ah. Ahem. Maybe not.

:nonono:

And here I thought you were saving "Grandpa Comes Home" for a surprise.
[Just a thought: change Grandfather to Grandmother and see if anyone notices.]

 

[aramis]

Isn't that subjective though?

Quite.

Thing is, any significant change should have a damned good reason, and should be explained. "Because we thought it more fun" really isn't a reasonable reason to change 30 years of established canon that aslan can be psionic without GM fiat being needed.

And in case you're wondering, I remembered the Aslan psionics rules despite not having cracked AM1 in several years... it was a significant point in several adventures I've run... including the Traveller Adventure. I've even had a player play a psionic assassin.

It's one of those cases where Canon was more interesting because of the psionic aslan clan, and the Aslan losing PSR faster than humans... (4/3 as fast). The inherent irony of that was a fun tidbit. The stuff adventures are made of.

 

[DonM]

This questions goes to several different levels. None of them have overriding importance on the others (so don't latch on to just one answer!), but they are all valid.

1. They were approved. We have a piece of paper that says so. They may have been missed during the approval procedure but, to be frank, it was not big enough an issue for it to stand out.

I have to agree. And if we had pointed it out as a questionable change, it would very likely have stayed anyway. It's not a gamebreaker. Heck, similar changes have been proposed for years.

At the end of the day, Marc approved it. And I agree with Matt that it wasn't a big enough issue to stand out.

And back to my post: my intention was not and will not be to point out any "mistakes" for correction. My intention was to say that small stuff might get missed but it certainly isn't a sign of the impending apocalypse of Traveller... (besides, I thought that was TNE's FFS... :rofl

We endeavour to fix problems, when they occur (and they will, for every publisher, let alone every gaming company), as quickly as possible. However, it should also be noted that not everything raised by readers is an error. Bay weapons, for example. Not an error, thus not requiring errata. You may want something different and, if we were able to write an RPG specifically for you, that is what you would have.

At the end of the day, we produce the games we want to play, in the fashion we want to play them. And that, I think, is about as honest as I can be about our approach.

I'm still amazed you post here, especially as often as you do. You must have some serious investment in asbestos.

And I'm glad you are willing to put up with the Traveller "cranky old guard". They are a willful lot, but they mean well. And they are ours.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Thing is, any significant change should have a damned good reason, and should be explained. "Because we thought it more fun" really isn't a reasonable reason to change 30 years of established canon that aslan can be psionic without GM fiat being needed.

Making an explanation for everything is really not practical - however, that is why forums such as this exist. Anyone can ask a question, at any time.

As for fun not being a good enough reason, I have to strongly disagree. After all, isn't that the primary reason we play this game?

 

[MongooseMatt]

I'm still amazed you post here, especially as often as you do. You must have some serious investment in asbestos.

I'm a veteran of RGMW. This is mild

 

[aramis]

Making an explanation for everything is really not practical - however, that is why forums such as this exist. Anyone can ask a question, at any time.

As for fun not being a good enough reason, I have to strongly disagree. After all, isn't that the primary reason we play this game?

Part of the fun for games with strong canon libraries is the discussion and application of that canon.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Ha! That is what you think now! But you wait until you see what we have planned for Alien Module 12: Droyne - The Return. We take the psionics out and then, you'll like this, we give them frickin' laser beams on their heads!

*Snorts a laugh*

 

[Supplement Four]

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 do. Your actions reflect on Mongoose. You piss people off, you get them pissed off at Mongoose and you--not just you.

Adult conversation? Yes.

Flippant attitude that you've shown? No.

(Well, I really don't care what you do. I'm just suggesting you act like a member of the Mongoose team and not something other than that before you encourage even more people to dislike your company and your Traveller line.)

 

[RandyT0001]

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

Ah, so he can tell me where he found the references (online please) where an operationally fielded direct fire TL 8 AT gun has a effective range of 500 kilometers, a max range of 750 kilometers and a operationally fielded frag gun (otherwise known as a howitzer in modern terms based upon it's description) has an effective range of 600 kilometers and a max range of 900 kilometers. (And the TL 8 mortar and MRL if it's not inconvient. Iraqi superguns of the 1990's and anti-satellite guns mounted on Russian space stations in the 1970's-80's don't count since they are at best experimentally fielded weapons).

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.

Bryan. Oh, yeeeaaah. Maybe he can add a 'funky' large diameter spitball straw 'AT' shooter capable of disabling TL 15 tanks with a lucky hit to keep the game "fun".

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

I will do so after you apologize (on your board, in the thread in question) for insinuating that I am wrong about the changes in the weapon ranges in question in your post and that I should take a few minutes and do a little online research and find out how wrong I am.

 

[rancke]

Actually, they should stick with those changes. Arguments like yours could make folks question every line of any Mongoose book. It's published, and unless the resulting game is unplayable, let it go. The book was approved as is, and that's it. There's no conditional "unless we catch something after the fact and we'll annoy you until you fix it clause".

As long as the rule works, I don't really mind. What annoys me are discrepancies in the underlying setting. If Mongoose (for instance) reimagines the Chrysanthemum to carry 3 bays and 27 turrets, it will be a huge discrepancy. Unless, of course, Marc Miller decanonizes the 30 turret Chrysanthemum and announces that it has always had 3 bays and 27 turrets. I don't mind changes as such. I deplore changes that makes the setting less believable.

One solution would be for Marc to instruct Mongoose not to reimagine any of the old, well-known military ships but instead come up with their own 3000T destroyers, 75,000T heavy cruisers, etc. The problem with that solution is that many of the old style ships would be so ridiculously undergunned that it would beggar belief. Bay weapons are powerful. It may make sense not to build a 3000T destroyer with 3 bays if the tradeoff is having NO turrets, but when the tradeoff is having 27 turrets instead of 30... You see what I mean?

Oh, I'm sure one could come up with explanations for why someone would be stupid enough to build a few Chrysanthemums and Sloans... except that the impression we get is that those are very common vessels.


Hans

 

[rancke]

[Just a thought: change Grandfather to Grandmother and see if anyone notices.]

It's just a translation anyway. For all we know, Yaskoydray is a mule (neuter). He reproduced by cloning himself and so did his kids.


Hans

 

[rancke]

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

We're talking about the one single example of the removal of Aslan psi powers, right?

I don't think it damages the very essence of the OTU. I do think it invalidates a reference to two Aslan clans. That in itself isn't a catastrophe, but it is a Bad Thing. Pretty low on the scale of Bad Things, because as luck would have it, no one has ever written up any of those clans. It also negates a cool plot element (psionic assassins). Again, not very high on the scale. But still something that shouldn't be done unless there is a good reason for doing it.

The thing is, everything you told us in another post it was supposed to accomplish could have been accomplished without invalidating the previously published information.


Hans

 

[MongooseMatt]

I will do so after you apologize

Sorry, you lost me when you insulted one of our writers. I have made it clear on these boards that rudeness will not be tolerated.

Good bye.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Oh, I'm sure one could come up with explanations for why someone would be stupid enough to build

Well, this is always something to remember with construction systems (and why we avoid them at all costs in our miniatures games ). Just because something is possible, it does not mean that bureaucracy and cost cutting won't kick in. Just look at some real world examples.

How could someone possibly build a bridge across the Thames and not take into account that people walking across it will cause it to sway?

How can someone think about upgrading a Ford Mustang's engine massively, and not consider doing something to the brakes and suspension?

I seem to remember that HMS Sheffield got nailed because someone decided that the same antennae used for detecting Exocets should also be used for talking to London.

There are plenty of machines and structures in the world where people have, apparently, done some very stupid things.

Stilll, I suppose if they all had access to a unified construction system, they could post their designs before building, and roleplayers could tear shreds off them

 

[MongooseMatt]

We're talking about the one single example of the removal of Aslan psi powers, right?

Bay weapons, I thought?

The thing is, everything you told us in another post it was supposed to accomplish could have been accomplished without invalidating the previously published information.

Not removing Aslan psionics would have the same effect as removing them? Sorry, I apologise, I'm not following you (but it has been a long day ).

 

[rancke]

Well, this is always something to remember with construction systems (and why we avoid them at all costs in our miniatures games ). Just because something is possible, it does not mean that bureaucracy and cost cutting won't kick in. Just look at some real world examples.

It's not the system itself. It's the underlying implication of the system. That it is possible to build a ship with X bays in addition to Y turrets, where X+Y=30, instead of X*10+Y=30. If that is possible under one system, it ought be possible under any system. Historically navies have been prone to overgun their ships rather than undergunning them. Sure, it's a grey area. I trust I'm allowed to have opinions about grey areas too?



Hans