Aslan Preview

[RandyT0001]

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.

Would you take the time and directly quote the insult you allege.

Was it the part of my post in connection to what I said about Fordy, Bryan or you?

 

[mike wightman]

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

Hence the word 'again' in my original post - meaning for the third time.

 

[mike wightman]

And not the reason it was done.

Which, as others have said, is good news.

Just the little matter of changing the High Guard bay rules back then since it is an admitted mistake...

kidding, I prefer the MgT version of the bay weapons rules.

 

[mike wightman]

Isn't that subjective though?

Very

Some of the people all of the time etc.

 

[mike wightman]

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

Yes, but those changes have usually been explained either in game or in designers notes.

 

[mike wightman]

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?

They all probably have their own house rules for up-gunning HG anyway

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.

Like no Rebellion? No Virus? A total re-write post TNE canon? No FFW?

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?

Yep, completely agree.

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.

Don't worry I will be buying it just like everything else MgT

 

[dmccoy1693]

Would you take the time and directly quote the insult you allege.

I believe Mongoose Matt was referring to this post of yours.

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.)

I try to stay out of these hatchet fights because they do not involve me, but I really cannot keep silent on this anymore. This is the exact kind of post that gives this place the rep it has. And just so there is no mistake, this place as a rep of being completely and totally hostile to Mongoose Traveller, both the company that publishes it and those that like it.

If you had made the above post on my forums, I would have kicked you off permanently and made it clear you are not welcome there again. I've noticed other publishers try to post stuff here and never return. They read what those that post here do to Mongoose and they're scared off. Hell, I keep coming back but I have publickly said that I am nervous about publishing stuff. These kinds of post not only not help but these kinds of posts are the reasons why Traveller has languished in relative obscurity for the past two decades. If you really want Traveller to thrive there really is only one suggestion I can make: live and let live. There are things here that are different than your home game. If you don't like something published within but can live with either ignoring it or houseruling it, good. We'd love to hear your comments about how you handled it. I'd love to here how you integrate CT, TNE and MGT. But do so in a civil manner.

But if you cannot find something good to say about the game ever, you are doing nothing but hurting this website and annoying those that want to talk about MGT here. You're not hurting the MGT game nor the company that publishes it. You go enjoy your version of Traveller and leave us to enjoy our version of Traveller.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Yes, but those changes have usually been explained either in game or in designers notes.

Ah ha! You have, as it were, hit the nail there, my friend!

In the past, dedicating a page to 'designer's notes' was a standard thing in Mongoose books, even scenarios, from time to time. I have been thinking about returning to that - can I presume that would have the Seal of Approval from you chaps?

 

[mike wightman]

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.

Unfortunately this is one of the ships that TNE did just that sort of thing with.
To build a MgT HG version of the TNE ships the MgT bay weapon rule works quite well.

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?

A lot of the canon ship designs in S:9 are broken anyway. HG 2 can't build them.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Like no Rebellion? No Virus? A total re-write post TNE canon? No FFW?

Well, we have kinda sketched in the Rebellion and Virus for the future, but have made absolutely no decision yet on how we will approach them. It does seem that if we changed quite a lot with those two, there might not be much of an outcry However, no decision yet.

FFW, on the other hand, oh, some very solid plans there

 

[MongooseMatt]

I believe Mongoose Matt was referring to this post of yours.

Actually, it was another insult, but it is best left forgotten, I think

I've noticed other publishers try to post stuff here and never return. They read what you do to Mongoose and they're scared off.

This is certainly true - we have been contacted by these publishers who have said as much.

 

[rancke]

Aliens in Traveller are, well, alien. They are far more than humans dressed up in bodysuits, which brings an additional layer of complexity to playing them. So, for our first Alien Module, it makes a certain sense sense to skip over a part of the rules that many people consider optional anyway.

Goal: Don't want to provide rules for Aslan psionics. Solution that would not involve contradicting previously published material (StwnicPPM): Write: "Psionic skills are rare among Aslans so we won't provide rules for Aslan psionics here."

...by far the greater part is the idea that if all major alien races have psionics to one degree or another, then that is an immensely boring situation. What makes them so special? However, if you have one psionic heavy race and one with little to none (with other in-between), then that creates some interesting dynamics.

Goal: Distinguishing Aslan psionics from that of other races (Like, for instance, the Hivers who don't have any at all). StwnicPPM: Let Aslan psionic powers remain as previously described, worse than those of Humans but better than those of Hivers.

Remember our other take on the Traveller universe - it is a very, very, very big galaxy. Anything can happen.

It's a big Galaxy, but the Aslans are a single species well-known to the scientists of Charted Space, who have had almost three millenia to study them. Not everything can happen. Suddenly discovering that the Aslans breathe chlorine can't happen.

For now (and the foreseeable future), we are simply addressing what is 'standard' and well understood.

The accumulated knowledge of 2,500 years, as it were.

Now, if I was the one writing the new Traveller OTU material (and you may judge it is better that I am not!), I would not be laying out everything as fact - you would be reading, say, xenobiologist reports on the various alien races, documents from scouting parties, etc, each giving their _opinion_ on what it is they are seeing. So, the xenobiologist may confidentely claim there are no Aslan psionics at all. But is he right?

Player: "After reading this report, we do a library data search for what his peers have to say. We also do a search for mentions of psionic assassins, sorted by reliability. Have there been any authenticated instances in the last 2,500 years? We also do a search of reports, memoirs, and travellogues by visitors to the Foahikteah and Yeoil Kew clans."

Referee: "<Answer which removes any doubt about whether the xenologist is right or wrong in the referee's TU>."

Of course, with that method, you won't be able to trust anything you read, especially when two different people are telling you two different things, and both are clearly biased!

So if all the credible experts agree with one person and only a few crackpots agree with the other, their obvious biases will leave you in doubt about which one you can trust?

(Note: I'm not saying that there aren't subjects where experts can disagree. There are. Lots. But there are also a lot of subjects where sorting the wheat from the chaff isn't trivially easy).

That is a very interesting way of approaching a setting, and we will adopt it somewhere along the line. Writing as 'God' is not always the best way of doing things. . .

This is a old concept. Authorial voice and viewpoint writing. DGP did it with their alien modules. It can be very effective, as long as it is made clear what is what. I don't think a setting book should do viewpoint writing without making it absolutely clear that that's what it is. It's not fair to referees, who are entitle to know what is true and what isn't.

Besides, it remains a mystery only until someone writes an official adventure where the disputed fact is resolved. If the xenologist's report is wrong, the first time you meet a psionic Aslan will prove it.

3. The fact that it is different from what has gone before is, again, not a major issue. What is _vitally_ important is that our books have their own internal consistency. This goes further than bay weapons, and on to the various points raised about Aslan and, say, the exploration of the Trojan Reaches. Our main concern is being consistent, rather than maintaining consistency (if you see where I am going).

I do. I wonder if you see where I'm going. Is maintaining consistency of ANY importance to you? If it is, I would think that you'd want to be made aware when you're about to invalidate something established by PPM. To take another example I brought up, as far as I can see, having the RoM spend official efforts on colonizing parts of the Trojan Reach doesn't accomplish anything for the present day setting that could not be accomplished by leaving it to refugees from the RoM, and it makes your TU less plausible. Let me stipulate that it isn't very much less plausible, but I submit that it is a bit less plausible. So why do it?


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Well, we have kinda sketched in the Rebellion and Virus for the future, but have made absolutely no decision yet on how we will approach them. It does seem that if we changed quite a lot with those two, there might not be much of an outcry However, no decision yet.

FFW, on the other hand, oh, some very solid plans there

Yey, the Zhodani win

 

[tbeard1999]

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.

I can't speak for Matt, but in my experience, critics of a game are FAR more useful in improving the game than fans are -- although fans are much more fun to talk to. So I'd expect a thoughtful game designer/publisher to engage the critics. Of course, there are limits. But in general I haven't found the criticisms of MGT to be terribly unreasonable. They have perhaps been expressed more colorfully or vigorously than is ideal.

But I think that the MGT fans bear AT LEAST an equal share of the blame for this by pouncing on critics, deriding them as irrational Mongoose haters, hidebound grognards, etc.

At the end of the day, I've taken the following lessons from MGT:

1. If you are going to publish a new version of a 30 year old classic, understand that there's a lot of hardwired material already in place. While your license may let you change it willy-nilly, you will piss off a lot of old fans by doing so.

2. Your authors should educate themselves thoroughly on the subject. If they don't, they will make a lot of unforced errors that will antagonize previous fans.

3. While it might be emotionally satisfying to let your fans or employees vigorously defend your product, understand that this can escalate confrontations to a far higher level. It also does you no favors, since your critics are the ones most likely to uncover real flaws. Somehow, you should find a way to engage critics.

4. If you intend to change canon, it's probably a good idea to "draw the stinger" by disclosing the elements you changed and explaining why you felt the change was desirable. An autocratic "because we say so" will enrage the old fans.

5. Most grownups can understand and forgive mistakes. Coverups are a different matter entirely, so react to errors accordingly.

I'd note that most of the recent complaints about MGT boil down to a single reasonable assertion (if it's accurate)--canon has been unnecessarily changed or ignored. If Mongoose really cares about the older fan base, then it should consider addressing these changes before they become the subject of a dispute. And know that a canon change will become an issue here.

 

[rancke]

Unfortunately this is one of the ships that TNE did just that sort of thing with.

And TNE was wrong to do that. IMO, of course. I wouldn't accept any TNE design as evidence for how things "really" are in the OTU.

Where did TNE detail the Chrysanthemum, btw?

A lot of the canon ship designs in S:9 are broken anyway. HG 2 can't build them.

I know. It's not really germane to the point I'm trying to make, is it?


Hans

 

[tbeard1999]

Ah ha! You have, as it were, hit the nail there, my friend!

In the past, dedicating a page to 'designer's notes' was a standard thing in Mongoose books, even scenarios, from time to time. I have been thinking about returning to that - can I presume that would have the Seal of Approval from you chaps?

In my opinion, this would be the single best thing you can do to mitigate criticism of MGT. I'd suggest that you consider putting the designer's notes up as free downloads on the Mongoose site.

 

[rancke]

I'd note that most of the recent complaints about MGT boil down to a single reasonable assertion (if it's accurate)--canon has been unnecessarily changed or ignored. If Mongoose really cares about the older fan base, then it should consider addressing these changes before they become the subject of a dispute. And know that a canon change will become an issue here.

And do, please, please, do understand that "unnecessarily" is a key word in that sentence, and that any unintentioned change (i.e. accidental) by definition falls in that category.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

And TNE was wrong to do that. IMO, of course. I wouldn't accept any TNE design as evidence for how thing "really" are in the OTU.

Bit difficult not to have some version of the RCES Clipper though

Where did TNE detail the Chrysanthemum, btw?

In the Brilliant Lances Technical book.

I know. It's not really germane to the point I'm trying to make, is it?


Hans

Sort of.

No previous version of any Traveller ship design system or ship detailing supplement gives a true picture of the OTU (incompatible technology paradigms, broken designs, canon changes), therefore the MgT version is just as valid a stab in the dark.

 

[Colin]

Crap, I'm agreeing with Bill. Again.

Give people reason, explanations. Not excuses. Excuses infuriate people. Just ask my wife.

An explanation, plainly given, will at least tell people where you are coming from, whether or not they agree with you. They may not like it the reason, but at least it is honest.

And just to be clear where I'm coming from here. I like Mongoose Traveller. It isn't perfect (No Power Points for starships, grr). And I have little or no use for the OTU, aside from data-mining it.

 

[atpollard]

In the past, dedicating a page to 'designer's notes' was a standard thing in Mongoose books, even scenarios, from time to time. I have been thinking about returning to that - can I presume that would have the Seal of Approval from you chaps?

Sounds good to me.

... and you have those three blank pages commented on earlier to work with. (or even the 140 pages you said would 'cost' no more than the standard 128 page book.)