Differing Views

[Andrew Boulton]

I think some of us need to take a deep breath, step back, and count to 10.

If you like MGT, great. If it works for you, that's all that matters, but you have to accept that it doesn't work for everyone, and some consider it a wasted opportunity.

If you don''t like MGT, fine. You have the right to say so, as long as you aren't rude or gratuitous, but again, you have to accept that some people like it.

There is no "wrong" or "right" here.

Whether you like MGT or not, it seems to be selling well, and I think we can all agree that anything that gets more people playing Traveller has to be a good thing.

 

[Vargas]

Amen to that.

 

[mike wightman]

Close the thread now =)

 

[atpollard]

[Warning ** Humor ** Warning ** Humor **Warning ** Humor **Warning ** Humor **Warning ** Humor]

I think some of us need to take a deep breath, step back, and count to 10.

WHERE DO YOU COME OFF TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO?

If you like MGT, great. If it works for you, that's all that matters, but you have to accept that it doesn't work for everyone, and some consider it a wasted opportunity.
If you don''t like MGT, fine. You have the right to say so, as long as you aren't rude or gratuitous, but again, you have to accept that some people like it.

WHAT KIND OF GARBAGE IS THIS? OF COURSE IT MATTERS WHETHER YOU LOVE OR HATE MGT!!

There is no "wrong" or "right" here.

THIS KIND OF TALK WILL GET YOU ARRESTED IN SOME PLACES!

Whether you like MGT or not, it seems to be selling well, and I think we can all agree that anything that gets more people playing Traveller has to be a good thing.

OH SURE, NOW YOU ARE THE VOICE OF REASON, WELL WHO TOLD YOU TO BUT-IN IN THE FIRST PLACE? JUST WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

<sees name: ‘Super Moderator’>

Oh, well, that’s different. Never mind. Forget that I said anything. I was never here.

(runs off to a new topic …)

Arthur

[/Warning ** Humor ** Warning ** Humor **Warning ** Humor **Warning ** Humor **Warning ** Humor]

EDIT: The above message was an attempt at humor. Do not try this yourself without proper supervision.

Is that better.

 

[aramis]

Just to point out:
In general, posts like what Arthur just posted normally get warnings...
But, knowing that it was a snide bit of humor....

 

[Andrew Boulton]

It's okay, I got the joke, but you had me going for a second!

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

Hmph!

He forgot the forward slash in the second code line...

[Warning...]

Insert body of humourous text here.

[/Warning...]

 

[Kyle Aaron]

I think some of us need to take a deep breath, step back, and count to 10.

No, I think some people need to just play.

If you like MGT, great. If it works for you, that's all that matters, but you have to accept that it doesn't work for everyone, and some consider it a wasted opportunity.

We also have to accept that many people judge games without even reading them, let alone playing them, but that the real test is playing them. On the other hand, there are over 1,000 first edition rpgs published in English, so even if your roleplaying were a full-time job, you'd never be able to play them all. So you have to pick and choose based on... well, whim and prejudice.

Still, the real test is playing the thing. And many of the loudest critics not only haven't played Mongoose's Traveller, they haven't played any roleplaying games for some years. So that their critiques are not necessarily useful ones.

There is no "wrong" or "right" here.

Yes, there is. Games are designed to be played. A person who has not played the games for years is extremely unlikely to be right in their critiques of them. Many judgments of new editions of rpgs are based on people's nostalgia for some older edition which they've not played for a decade or more. But few things can compete with nostalgia. Comparing a game made today with the first games you played is like when you think about the school you went to as a kid - if you go back, it seems a lot smaller, and you may be disappointed with it, but if you keep a discreet distance and rely on memories, it seems big.

Some people need to just play. Whichever of the zillion editions of Traveller they want to

 

[aramis]

Kyle:

The vast majority of commentors here have been playing, recently. Your comments, while earnest, border on insulting several posters.

I've run Traveller recently; Mongoose's playtest. The elements I liked best about it are gone. I don't need to run it to know that those elements which are simplified down from the playtest versions are neither well tested nor that I dislike them, as I've been GMing with no break longer than 60 days, and only 4 breaks longer than 2 weeks, for the last 26 years, having run dozens of different RPG's, and often 2 campaigns at a time until about AD 2000. My current game isn't Traveller, because my players, upon finding out what mongoose did post playtest, rejected it; with the exception of my wife, everyone in my group is an experienced GM.

S4 is well known to run games regularly. We've both been very open about our reasons for disliking it; you dismissiveness is not appreciated by me. Both of us have (somewhat different) reasons for disliking it. For S4, it's not up to the utility he finds in CT. For me, it's poorly written (as in editing and language), and while workman-grade, not nearly as flexible as MT is for me.

The "Mongoose can do no wrong" approach is as bogus as the "Mongoose can do no right" approach. It's selling, and it is being played with and/or played by the majority of respondents across several boards... why? because it works for them. It doesn't work for me, tho parts do (CGen, Ship Design), and others don't (Gear, etc.)

To be honest, except for trade, just about every suggestion I made during the playtest was rejected. I'm fine with that; I was probably in the minority... But it does tell you that the published game is not to my tastes.

Andrew is right: there is room for all informed opinions. And, for purposes here, informed means HAVING READ IT. For the decision to implement is usually based upon liking what you've read.

 

[Echo]

just about every suggestion I made during the playtest was rejected

Whilst, I've no doubt that you are OK about that, you do sometimes feel that some posters with similar grounds, have become quite bitter about this.

 

[aramis]

Whilst, I've no doubt that you are OK about that, you do sometimes feel that some posters with similar grounds, have become quite bitter about this.

Certainly, some are bitter about that.

I think they scrapped when they should have fixed, especially since a number of people were suggesting nigh-identical fixes.

I can't even say I'm surprised; quality control on the RuneQuest line has been piss poor. Judge Dredd and Bab5 were poorly enough written that I decided neither was worth investing in past on-sale core books, despite loving the settings for both.

Looking at what got dropped:
the T/E task system; simple reversal of success roll to a roll-under would have solved it.
Combat: T/E based rules were the best set of melee rules I've ever played, except for ones involving steel blades and armor. Not great for ranged, but very workable. Suffered from the T/E flaw, but the rest of it worked.
Misjumps: the core rules do not specify when misjumps occur; it says they can, but provides no mechanic. The playtest had a mechanic.

And what got kept:
Enlisted Rank Titles... these are VERY much setting specific. While, in the world, there are really only about 8 officer rank systems, and most of the world uses the same naval officer system, and most use one of 3 army officer rank systems, almost every nation has its own variations on enlisted ranks, and many nations have not just Naval and Army enlisted ranks, but many also have different enlisted rank systems for police... Having a system in the core is one thing; having the titles is another entirely. (And yes, I do feel the same about Bk4 Merc setting the stage of Yanks in Space; prior to obtaining it, I saw Traveller as Brits in Space....)
Bay Weapons. Without power restrictions to balance them, they present a rife potential for abuse.



And what is missing:
The SMG, the iconic Traveller Army Officer's Sidearm.
Forgery Skill (Not that *I* mind...)
Ships over 2KTd (lowest cap of any edition; TNE is the only one without design rules in the core book...)
Effects of ship's weaponry on People (MT had this in the core, as did TNE, t20 and GT).
Vehicle rules (Design). MT & t20 had this in core; TNE, T4, GT, CT have this in supplements (FF&S, FF&S2, GV, Striker).

 

[Kyle Aaron]

I've been GMing with no break longer than 60 days, and only 4 breaks longer than 2 weeks, for the last 26 years, having run dozens of different RPG's, and often 2 campaigns at a time until about AD 2000.

That's excellent!

So, tell us about those campaigns. It doesn't matter if they're not Traveller, because all campaigns have elements which can be used in other unrelated campaigns, and in any case sheer enthusiasm and enjoyment help inspire others.

"I'm running X, and it's fun, and here are the details," is interesting and inspiring. Your information and inspiration help us.

"I'm not running X, because it's crap, and here are the details," is not. We can be unenthusiastic and pissed off without your help.

That does not mean nothing negative can ever be said about any game. It does mean that an endless stream of complaints about some game you're not even playing is not very useful to anyone.

I'm sure that each of us has a particular edition of Traveller we dislike. Imagine that each of us made lots of posts in each relevant subforum saying how dreadful that particular edition was. Would that be productive and helpful? I can do nasty riffs on T4, I know a few people who can't stand GURPS, I could invite them to the forums, would that help? And hardly anyone like Hero, I could invite a few to join and complain about that. Good idea? If not, then why do you think your own complaints, repeated at length, are helpful and productive?

We come to rpg discussion forums to get information and inspiration. Endless complaints are quite frankly depressing, they sap our enthusiasm for gaming. Yes, we can go away from the forums if we don't like the tone - but it does not help the forums as a whole to have people leave them. It seems better to improve the tone.

 

[Icosahedron]

My view, FWIW.

I have not bought MGT. I am considering whether to buy and I have only read the playtest stuff so far. I don't even know how the playtest compares with the final version.

Therefore I don't feel qualified to comment on it, but I do welcome comments from others in order to inform my decision to buy.

I welcome both positive and negative comments and I feel there is just as much value in learning why someone has chosen not to buy the product as there is in learning why someone else chose it.

Often, my decision to buy a rulebook will be based on a quick flick through the pages - there is seldom opportunity to fully read, and certainly not to playtest. Yet I can form an opinion that I feel is valid, and if I don't like it I won't buy it.

If there is bias in reviewers' comments, I am old enough and wise enough to filter it out, and the more explanation and rationale that is given, the easier that filtering process becomes. As I see it, excluding people who have chosen not to buy/play the stuff and not hearing their reasons, automatically biases the comments toward the favourable. My only caveat is that personal attacks and anger help nobody. Anything else is potentially useful.

IMO.

 

[rust]

I welcome both positive and negative comments and I feel there is just as much value in learning why someone has chosen not to buy the product as there is in learning why someone else chose it.

I agree, but there is also the problem of redundancy. To read the same ar-
guments from the same person once is a useful information, to read it again
can be a useful reminder, but with the third post with the same content it
becomes (in my opinion) just noise, ruins the signal-to-noise ratio of the en-
tire board, and makes it more difficult to filter out the new and still useful
informations.

 

[Valarian]

If you don''t like MGT, fine. You have the right to say so, as long as you aren't rude or gratuitous, but again, you have to accept that some people like it.

I quite agree, I don't like Mongoose's offering. To risk being classed as a complete heretic ... I don't really like Classic Traveller either.
I did like that Mongoose posted their play-test documents publicly and gave people the opportunity to comment and try before they bought.

 

[Echo]

Well, I was quite pleased with the playtest, because a lot of my suggestions were taken on board. I guess it's how you ask them!

 

[Valarian]

Judge Dredd and Bab5 were poorly enough written that I decided neither was worth investing in past on-sale core books, despite loving the settings for both.

For Babylon 5, was it the first edition you got? Reason being, I've got the Babylon 5 Second Edition core book and really like the rules. I think it's the best d20 based system I've seen.

The only flaw is the starship combat rules (the armour is too strong for blasters ) and that's easily fixable with a house ruling ... halve published armour value (round up) and degrade armour per weapon hit: beam weapons use their die value, other weapons degrade armour by 1 point.

 

[aramis]

For Babylon 5, was it the first edition you got? Reason being, I've got the Babylon 5 Second Edition core book and really like the rules. I think it's the best d20 based system I've seen.

The only flaw is the starship combat rules (the armour is too strong for blasters ) and that's easily fixable with a house ruling ... halve published armour value (round up) and degrade armour per weapon hit: beam weapons use their die value, other weapons degrade armour by 1 point.

It wasn't the mechanics themselves; it was the piss-poor attention to detail, loads of typos, and not entirely consistent to the video setting materials. Tho if a house rule is needed for playability, the system IS broken.

MRQ was worse; their editor should be taken out and lined up along the wall, along with the page-layout person. Simply on technical aspects I'd give it a C- or D. Hard to read, lots of typos, obvious chunks of broken mechanics*.

* we're not talking "This produces bad results"... we're talking tables with results that the prose rules prohibit getting to.... for combat.

 

[Echo]

I just find all of that overstated at least. People do have differing opinions, no question, but what I find hard to relate to is the way in which the game continuously gets lambamsted in this way, on this site, yet I have been happily using it for the last 6 months or so. There are typos and whatnot in it, but hard to read?! Unplayable? Seriously?

 

[aramis]

Pehaps your standards are lower than mine. 80% grey text on 40% grey background is piss-poor layout. That's MRQ...