Differing Views

[Border Reiver]

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.

:rofl:

There were some absolute howlers in MRQ and even Deluxe MRQ still carries a few typos but it isn't that bad (and the text/layout is fine in my book, are you sure you've seen the same book or is it one of the many "rogue" versions out there with shoddy binding, "broken" covers etc?). But at the end of the day MRQ is still playable, if a somewhat simplistic iteration of an excellent game.

 

[Echo]

Well, I'm not focussing on MRQ much, which had some terrible issues of quality when Mongoose tried unsuccessfully to move thier printing in-house. In any case, it is completely free online from basicroleplaying.com, so even if you don't like it - you can at least try it at no cost (and the pdf. format is very good actually).

'Standards' is a subjective thing, certainly. But then, I certainly didn't see T20 as having entirely unquestionable standards in art and layout as some people seem to claim, and the same is true for every other edition - particularly with some of those appalling bad covers, and cluttered interiors. All the Classic Reprints were...well.. simply reprints, so I wouldn't have expected many design awards for them either!

I'm not sure what standards apply in your assessments, to be honest, beyond the point that I don't share them. I would prefer a pocket edition, as it would possibly address some of the criticisms of 'style' and cost (some of which are quite legitimate, I might add). But this notion that these games are undiluted disasters in style and substance, which keeps on being alluded too, is simply on a different planet to me. And I've actually been playing one of them!

 

[Allensh]

I respect your view, Aramis. It would be dishonest not to admit that Mongoose Traveller has flaws and problems. In some cases, the effect of those flaws is really down to what the person wants/needs out of the game (i.e. I am not the least bit bothered by the exclusion of the "submachine gun" since I have a sneaking suspicion that the auto-carbine IS the SMG...and the autopistol they present is a machine pistol). Every edition of Traveller I have seen changes something..every edition has flaws. Megatraveller had many pages of errata devoted to them. Doesn't keep people from playing and enjoying that version.

The problem, as has been alluded to be before, is constant repetition of criticism in discussions where such criticism is not asked for (example: the extremely sarcastic posts S4 made in the 760 Patrons thread which essentially boiled down to "How you can you people be so stupid as to like this book?" when he had not even read it.)

I would disagree with Kyle; I think its ok to form an opinion after reading an RPG; playing it isn't always neccesary. It's at least somewhat more of an informed opinion that way. I respect informed opinions even if I disagree.

Allen

 

[Klaus]

It's good to debate stuff, and it is especially good to debate stuff with those you disagree with. Strong opinions are not the problem. In this case (MGT) I have found myself on a "side", which was not my initial intention. For me, it fixes the thing I found most problematic in Travdom, which was chargen and skills. The rest is workmanlike and workable, if somewhat blunt in areas. I understand why some people might not find it to their taste, and that's all good. It's not a perfect game, but I like it for what it is, and that's good enough for me.

I will get 'stuck in' when I see stuff I patently disagree with, such as "It's not Traveller" (which, to be honest, I find to be a daft statement), and have recently pushed for some balance in some criticism (mainly because the narrow focus of it was totally misleading some people about the product in question), and I will do so emphatically if that's how I feel. However, it is possible to do this and remain polite, and it's generally managed on the Mongoose boards, no matter how forceful the posts have got (I know some have got out of hand, but it's rare). It's only here where the persistent childishness of certain posts winds folk up. I admit to letting it get to me on occasions, but I am reluctant to respond to it because that's fruitless. I was reluctant to cast my opinion here to try and avoid any rancour but the point of this thread seems to be to deconstruct the issue so we can get on with talking about the game we all like (in general), so I guess it is worth submitting my thoughts.

I'd just like to thank everyone for sticking to talking about the game, whether I agree with you or not, or you agree with me. That's the fun bit.

 

[Jame]

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*.

So ... taken out and lined up along the wall, and then made to revise the rules and layout entirely, right? right? Right?!?

 

[aramis]

I was actually thinking "shot", as it's pretty obvious they are incompetent....

As to version: PDF versions of
MonG-8100RuneQuest.pdf
MonG-8109-PG_Glorantha.pdf
MonG-8103RuneQuestMonsters.pdf
MonG-8104RuneQuestCompanion.pdf
MonG-8108RQ_Arms&Equipment.pdf

Some excellent ideas, but crappy editing, worse layout... and quite obviously little playtest. If I want to play something that's not been playtested, I'll sign up for it, not pay for the privilege... Several were gifts, as in I'd mentioned them, and the check said "for ___"...

Bab5: Both 1st and 2nd ed cores. Neither really seems to grasp the setting, from my read. Chameleon Eclectic did a far better job of capturing the feel, even if the mechanics were a bit overly dangerous.

Judge Dredd: 1st run Core Book; have read three supplements. The core book sucked. The supplements, well, not so much. If I find them used and/or cheap, I'll get them... and use them with either EABA or GW-JD.

 

[Echo]

You've gone to the wrong RuneQuest PDFs. The one you want to go to is free, and exclusively on www.basicroleplaying.com, in the downloads section.

Beyond this, I think we've addressed the issue of subjectivity already.

 

[aramis]

BRP ≠ RQ.

RQ is Glorantha.

 

[rust]

BRP ≠ RQ.

RQ is Glorantha.

Yep, but the complete RQ Luxury SRD is in BRP Central's download section,
and that probably was what Echo did mean:
http://basicroleplaying.com/forum/downloads.php?do=cat&id=7

By the way, RQ is not necessarily Glorantha, there have been other settings
as well, and at least one RQ edition was completely generic.

 

[Supplement Four]

example: the extremely sarcastic posts S4 made in the 760 Patrons thread which essentially boiled down to "How you can you people be so stupid as to like this book?"

...and still wating for an answer. :devil:


(It's a JOKE people! Just a JOKE! Lighten up, already!!:smirk:)

 

[Echo]

BRP ≠ RQ.

RQ is Glorantha.

Yep, the complete Mongoose RQ deluxe game is available for free download on the BRP site.

 

[Kyle Aaron]

...and still wating for an answer. :devil:


(It's a JOKE people! Just a JOKE! Lighten up, already!!:smirk:)

It's also threadcrapping. It's coming along to another discussion and abusing people for having the discussion. I mean, me for example, I have no interest in Aussie Rules football. And this gets discussed at work, at great length and in obscure detail. But do I poke my head into the little group of footy fans and say, "how can you like this game? This game sucks!"

No, I don't. First up, that's just being an arsehole, why crap on someone else's fun? Second, they'd tell me to ⌧ off.

The rules of this forum don't allow us to tell people to ⌧ off, so all we're left with is people's sense of self-restraint. Which is a pity, since obviously they don't have it. "You just have to accept my differing opinion about Aussie Rules football." No, no they don't. I just have to mind my own business.

So either show some restraint, express your opinion sure, but not at great length and in every single damn discussion about the topic, or else change the forum's rules so we can tell people to ⌧ off. "Oh, that's a borderline insult -" And having people threadcrap and try to ruin other people's enthusiasm and fun, that's insulting, too.

Just try it at work or around the game table, telling other people what they like is crap, see what happens.

 

[aramis]

Well said, Kyle Aaron.

 

[Allensh]

Thank you, Kyle.

Allen

 

[Imperial Planetologist]

It's also threadcrapping. It's coming along to another discussion and abusing people for having the discussion. I mean, me for example, I have no interest in Aussie Rules football. And this gets discussed at work, at great length and in obscure detail. But do I poke my head into the little group of footy fans and say, "how can you like this game? This game sucks!"

It's not the same thing.

The thread was not a discussion of the merits of 760 Patrons, so offering an opinion that says, "Hey, I think it sucks the sweat off a leaping snowcat's cloaca," is as valid as, "It's the one Traveller book I've been waiting for all my life! Leetwootgeekgasm!"

760 Patrons is one of maybe two or three of the announced MgT books that I was looking forward to, and it sounds like the Mongeese totally bollocksed it up. I have no idea how people can be excited about such a piece of dreck, either, and that thread (which I started, btw) is as good a place as any to say so. It was not, and was never intended to be, a discussion by fans for fans - it was meant to be a place to discuss the book, highlights, lowlights, and no-lights, all opinions welcome.

 

[Allensh]

It's not the same thing.

The thread was not a discussion of the merits of 760 Patrons, so offering an opinion that says, "Hey, I think it sucks the sweat off a leaping snowcat's cloaca," is as valid as, "It's the one Traveller book I've been waiting for all my life! Leetwootgeekgasm!"

760 Patrons is one of maybe two or three of the announced MgT books that I was looking forward to, and it sounds like the Mongeese totally bollocksed it up. I have no idea how people can be excited about such a piece of dreck, either, and that thread (which I started, btw) is as good a place as any to say so. It was not, and was never intended to be, a discussion by fans for fans - it was meant to be a place to discuss the book, highlights, lowlights, and no-lights, all opinions welcome.

even opinions by someone who has not actually seen or read the book?

Allen

 

[Kyle Aaron]

It's not the same thing.

Yes, it is.

Again, there's expressing your opinion, and then there's going on about it at great length, again and again and again. As I said, that's okay if people can tell you to ⌧ off, but here they can't, so they just have to put up with you raining on their little parade. Me, I'm in favour of changing the forum rules, it makes the discussion much more like sitting around a game table - but if we're not doing that, then the naysayers have got to have some self-restraint.

Let's face it, nine-tenths of this complaining about MGT is just "it's not like the old days, man." It's nostalgia bumping up against brutal new reality. It's people comparing their idealised past with their empty (of Traveller) present. No reality can compare to the idealised past. If CT were published today for the first time the same people now praising it as the good old days would be complaining about it.

No, it is not like the old days. If you want it to be like the old days, begin by turning off your computer.

 

[tbeard1999]

Yes, it is.

Again, there's expressing your opinion, and then there's going on about it at great length, again and again and again.

Do you hold fans of MGT to the same standard? Do you complain about them going on and on about how much they like the game? Or do you only find it deplorable when people you disagree with go on and on?

As I said, that's okay if people can tell you to ⌧ off, but here they can't, so they just have to put up with you raining on their little parade. Me, I'm in favour of changing the forum rules, it makes the discussion much more like sitting around a game table - but if we're not doing that, then the naysayers have got to have some self-restraint.

It seems self-evident to me that if you really don't want any criticism of your precious game, then you should label your threads accordingly. (I.e., "MGT Unconditional Adoration Thread"). Since most folks don't label their threads that way, then I think that all criticisms--pro and con--are permissible. (Assuming they follow normal posting rules and assuming that criticism is not prohibited by the forum owner).

And what I find really interesting is the venom that spews from some MGT fans. They seem to be mostly interested in censoring posts they disagree with, rather than rebutting such posts. In my experience, a strong desire to prohibit disagreable speech tends to correlate with an inability to rebut it with facts and logic. Personally, I find such tactics execrable, but that's just me.

I also note that I've never seen a MGT critic call for censorship of pro-MGT posts. But some MGT fanboys seem very willing to call for censorship of anti-MGT posts. Rather telling.

And as I've noted before, many MGT fans have a curious double-standard. They have no problem with posts that mindlessly praise MGT, but they whine piteously about posts that they feel mindlessly attack MGT. In my opinion fanboys are just as stupid and unreasonable as folks who mindlessly hate a game. At the very least, no one has made an intellectually reasonable distinction between the two classes.

So bottom line--if you're gonna be a fanboy, be honest about it. Title your posts accurately and warn everyone that you'll brook no criticism of MGT. Make it clear that your thread is solely for praise of MGT. Of course, no one would be interested in such a thread, would they?

But I don't think anyone should take seriously your complaints about MGT criticisms, in a forum dedicated to open inquiry about MGT...

 

[tbeard1999]

Let's face it, nine-tenths of this complaining about MGT is just "it's not like the old days, man." It's nostalgia bumping up against brutal new reality.

Well, you lost whatever moral high ground you might have imagined you had. Calling your opponent stupid, irrational, etc., pretty much robs you of any right to complain about what he says about you.

And if you'll actually read the criticisms of MGT, you'll find that most critics of MGT dislike it on its merits (or lack thereof).

It's also patently absurd--or grossly uninformed--to imply that MGT is something truly new. In point of fact, it is a rather plain and derivative product with very little innovation. (This, by the way, is fine with me, since "innovation" is usually used to excuse incompetent game design).

There's very little in MGT that hasn't existed in some form in CT (or in dozens of other RPGs). Anyone who is familiar with the topic would know this. So, let's dispense with the "MGT is New an Wunnerfull" meme. It just ain't so.

"Brutal New Reality"...you gotta be kidding.

 

[rust]

Ladies and Gentlemen, we proudly present:

Another round of meta-debate about what may be debated where and by whom !

In the one corner we have those who feel an urgent need to repeat the same
critical statements over and over again, ad nauseam.

In the opposite corner we have those who think that the debate should move
on and should cover at least some other points, too, but who are accused of
attempted censorship whenever they say so.

Around the ring we have ... well, a steadily decreasing number of spectators,
because those seriously interested in the game, not in the endless repetition
of the same arguments, have already left or are currently leaving.

So am I. For good. Bye. :nonono: