got the book (0) today...here i go...

[CosmicGamer]

If you look at CT as just as Books 1-3, then, yes, it's bare bones. If you look at it like I do, CT is extremely deep with lots of things addressed beyond LBBs 1-3. But, you've got to look beyond those first three books.

Your right, if you have a complete set of CT then MGT seams incomplete. The Mongoose product line will become much more than its original book too. Items are in various stages of printing, creation, and planning. See THIS LINK. (the link is discussed in another thread maybe make comments about the link there or start a new thread - we are already a bit off topic)

I'm not here promoting MGT as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Yes, if you already have the suit of CT materials you may find it too similar to be worth buying or pick at the details and find reasons to not buy it - thats what many people want, to find a reason to save their money. For folks new to traveller or like me, long time removed and without more than the original lbbs, I think it is another tasty slice in the Traveller loaf of bread. Who knows, maybe you will find one of the future supplemental materials of use and incorporate it in your Universe.

I would like to get back on topic now - which is the Mongoose Book 0 review, not a MGT review. Is there anybody that has the Mongoose Book 0 and the Mongoose Traveller book? Id like a comparison, especially anything they decided to change from the original in the later released Book 0.

 

[sid6.7]

This is complete and utter hogwash. I have read Mongoose Traveller and The Traveller Book side by side. They cover almost EXACTLY the same topics..except that Mongoose Traveller actually has more detail in some places. There were no rules for building vehicles in The Traveller Book either. No rules for that AT ALL in the original box set...and how many people actually used that stuff anyway?

Allen

well book(0) seemed to be covering 3 books in one...it might be natural for someone
to expect they would sneak a good veh. generation thing in there while they were at it
but yes there is nothing but ship generators in LBB 1-3 and only a breif listing of some
veh.

i haven't read anything here yet that would appear to be a straight hachet job on book 0.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Maybe I should refrain from judgement until I've had a closer look at the published (not playtest) rules.

That would be a good idea.

 

[coliver988]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supplement Four
Maybe I should refrain from judgement until I've had a closer look at the published (not playtest) rules.

That would be a good idea.

Now if only other critics would actually read/view/watch stuff before commenting! (I read slashdot, and one of the memes there is that everyone posts on subjects without actually having read any of the stuff they are posting about).
[/FONT]

 

[Supplement Four]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Now if only other critics would actually read/view/watch stuff before commenting! (I read slashdot, and one of the memes there is that everyone posts on subjects without actually having read any of the stuff they are posting about).[/FONT]

Just to be clear, I've read a lot on MGT. I've seen the various playtests, and I've read most of the posts here from various members discussig their likes and dislikes. Though I haven't read the finished product, I've got a good idea of what it contains.

 

[coliver988]

Just to be clear, I've read a lot on MGT. I've seen the various playtests, and I've read most of the posts here from various members discussig their likes and dislikes. Though I haven't read the finished product, I've got a good idea of what it contains.

Sorry - I was not aiming that at anyone. You have read/done the playtests and all that actual RTFA stuff. I was just pointing out that often we get opinions on stuff by people that have not even read/watched/whatever the material at hand. This is particularly rampant on boards like this: people can get...opinionated. Sometimes to the point of arguing about something that is a beta or worse, an alpha, or even worse, just an idea floating out there not yet fully realized. Or a product that is still in the design stages. I've seen that happen several times on this board, and sometimes the results are just plain ugly.

And I've always enjoyed your comments and perspectives, as I have everyone else's. I may not agree but I enjoy different viewpoints.

 

[aramis]

And the published material for MGT is QUITE different than the playtest material. Different games kind of different. Knowledge of the playtest, in this case, is almost irrelevant for anything other than the skills list and CGen.

(note: T20 had some changes from final playtest to print edition... most trivial, a couple big ones, but MGT has MANY BIG changes: Task system, T&C, Ship Design, World design, inclusion of Animals, etc...)

 

[tbeard1999]

I am firmly convinced that you are merely looking for things to slam Mongoose Traveller for.

I assume that you'd equally dismiss statements by folks who constantly look for things to praise MGT for?

Or is a fanboy somehow superior to someone who "slams" a game?

In any case, I took Supp Four's statements -- which I don't generally share, by the way* -- to be an expression of his opinion of the game. Nothing more or less. And I find it hard to get too worked up about matters of taste.

In any case, assertions about his motives fail to rebut his arguments...

*I haven't yet decided whether I give MGT a thumbs up or thumbs down. I've detailed my thoughts about it elsewhere, so no need to repeat them here. At this point, all I can say is that it isn't so brilliant that I was immediately blown away, nor is it so awful that I immediately regretted purchasing it. If forced to make a decision, I'd probably give it a C (adequate), with the proviso that a few straightforward -- but significant -- changes could bump it to an A-.

 

[tbeard1999]

And the published material for MGT is QUITE different than the playtest material. Different games kind of different. Knowledge of the playtest, in this case, is almost irrelevant for anything other than the skills list and CGen.

Of course, skills and character generation are pretty major components of an RPG, especially to referees like Supp Four (based on my impression of his campaigns). And the starship design system is pretty much the same as in the playtest. Nor have there been especially significant changes to World Generation, animals, etc., from CT.

In fact, the major change from the playtest seems to be the combat systems.

So I think that he could reasonably base his impressions on the playtest document, especially if he's aware that the combat systems are different (he is, BTW).

 

[Allensh]

I assume that you'd equally dismiss statements by folks who constantly look for things to praise MGT for?

Or is a fanboy somehow superior to someone who "slams" a game?

In any case, I took Supp Four's statements -- which I don't generally share, by the way* -- to be an expression of his opinion of the game. Nothing more or less. And I find it hard to get too worked up about matters of taste.

In any case, assertions about his motives fail to rebut his arguments...

*I haven't yet decided whether I give MGT a thumbs up or thumbs down. I've detailed my thoughts about it elsewhere, so no need to repeat them here. At this point, all I can say is that it isn't so brilliant that I was immediately blown away, nor is it so awful that I immediately regretted purchasing it. If forced to make a decision, I'd probably give it a C (adequate), with the proviso that a few straightforward -- but significant -- changes could bump it to an A-.

Frankly, I don't give an Aslan's patootie about "rebutting his arguments". Anyone who criticizes a BASIC CORE BOOK for not having the depth of a complete line of books and supplements stretching over ten years is being so unreasonable that I don't feel the need to respond as it would be pointless anyway.

As for "raving fanboys"...whatever. No game is perfect and that includes Mongoose Traveller, but it is a far sight better than no Traveller at all and way better than the overcomplicated and badly handled messes that every other version of Traveller except CT has been.

Given what has been said about how well MGT is selling and the rapidity with which both its first printing and the Spinward Marches book sold out, it appears to me that people WANT a version of the game that hearkens back to the things that made Traveller fun and enjoyable, but with "upgrades" to incorporate at least some of what has been learned about RPG design in the last 30 years. I have every version of the playtest documents on my computer and I can tell you with certainty that if Supplement Four thinks that those documents qualify him to comment on the game as it was actually published he is mistaken.

I actually feel that some of the "grognards" WANT Traveller to fail because then it stays their little exclusive club.

Allen

 

[casquilho]

I actually feel that some of the "grognards" WANT Traveller to fail because then it stays their little exclusive club.

Thank you Allen for saying "some".

As a person who is old enough and crusty enough to call himself a grognard, I can say I want MGT to make it. I even went so far as to put cash deposits down for the next three books at my FLGS.

Daniel

 

[tbeard1999]

Frankly, I don't give an Aslan's patootie about "rebutting his arguments".

Yeah, I'm getting that. (And I'd always assumed that Aslans had a far cooler name for that piece of anatomy than "patootie". <sigh> Another disappointment in life.)

As for "raving fanboys"...whatever. No game is perfect and that includes Mongoose Traveller, but it is a far sight better than no Traveller at all and way better than the overcomplicated and badly handled messes that every other version of Traveller except CT has been.

I never used the word "raving". And your response doesn't actually answer my original question -- aren't fanboys just as bad as folks who unreasonably dislike a game? If not, please explain why unconditionally loving a game is somehow better than unconditionally hating it?

Given what has been said about how well MGT is selling and the rapidity with which both its first printing and the Spinward Marches book sold out, it appears to me that people WANT a version of the game that hearkens back to the things that made Traveller fun and enjoyable, but with "upgrades" to incorporate at least some of what has been learned about RPG design in the last 30 years.

You infer a lot from a single sales statistic. All I infer is that people are buying the game in sufficient quantities to exhaust the initial print runs. Since I lack mindreading skills and have not conducted extensive marketing research, I'm not sure my speculations on customer motivation would be very useful. Nor does the mere fact that a print run was exhausted tell us much. The print run could have been unusually small. Or unusually high.

And I don't agree that much in MGT that exemplifies "what has been learned about RPG design in the last 30 years". Its best mechanics are lineal descendants of CT mechanics...or outright duplicates. Little in MGT is particularly innovative (and it's significant that Mongoose ditched the more "innovative" playtest mechanics, presumably because they sucked). Of course, I've never been impressed with innovation for its own sake. Far too often, I find that "innovation" is used to rationalize design incompetence. So MGT's lack of innovation is fine with me.

I have every version of the playtest documents on my computer and I can tell you with certainty that if Supplement Four thinks that those documents qualify him to comment on the game as it was actually published he is mistaken.

Well, I have those documents as well, and I disagree with you. <shrug>

I actually feel that some of the "grognards" WANT Traveller to fail because then it stays their little exclusive club.

Yeah, that must be it. I mean, they couldn't possibly have legitimate complaints about the game, could they?

 

[aramis]

Ty:

Ship Building: adding lots of (not in the playtest) options IS a major change, as is deleting power points.
Combat: completely new, due to changes to the task system.
Tasks: 2/3 of the task system stripped out (rather than fixed)
World Building: again, optional subsystems added... ones that in this case arose out of the playtest.
Animal Encounters: not in the playtest
T&C: limits on base goods available added (MAJOR impact; under Draft 3.2, one could ALWAYS find enough to fill a ship...
Ship Shares: changed from flat value to percent of ship.
Ship Combat: entirely new as well due to task system change.

All of these are pretty hefty changes. Far more changes than the doubling of XP in prior service that occurred between T20 MS23 and T20 printing 1, and the rewording of a few feats for clarity.

And between skills and tasks, you have the core of the player interface in play... changing the task system is a major change.

And, as a general rule, playtest rules at any stage are often not reflective of the final rules. (B5W was a %ile system in playtest... the 1d20 system was sprung AFTER playtest round 3... of 4 rounds... and round four was in-house only. It is a far better fleet game for it, but not so nice a ship-duel game.)

 

[VT1099ace]

Just for clarity, I use CT "as-is" with no mods. (Not that I haven't modded the hell out of the old girl in the past.)

And, I consider CT much more than just Books 1-3. CT is everything ever written for CT, including magazine articles and various supplements by third party companies. Imo, there's no reason to hamper yourself to LBBs 1-3 when there's a whole universe of CT goodies out there to use.

I can understand the appeal of a Traveller game system for a T gamer who doesn't own all the neat and nifty CT stuff out there (since many of the CT items are long out of print and very hard to find). Also note, though, that most editions of Traveller after CT, starting with MT, attempted to combine CT info from various books and sources--all in one place.

If you look at CT as just as Books 1-3, then, yes, it's bare bones. If you look at it like I do, CT is extremely deep with lots of things addressed beyond LBBs 1-3. But, you've got to look beyond those first three books.

my-my aren't we being a bit snippy....MGT is a core rules not a complete rules...if it where, and included all the canon mods, tweaks and changes from every official source to include everthing from small vehicles to robots to megatonne ships to total star system design down to the samllest 'plutiod' (sorry sould resist that) :rofl: Hell, the bloody thing would be 2 (or more) inches thick and weigh 5 lbs (or more)!!

Sheez, where would you make the choice to stop and say 'that's enough to get started..'? They covered the basic books (LBB 1-3) and hit the points the majority of players would need (char gen, combat, basic ship design, ship combat, major world creation, critters for those worlds, trade, psi, patrons). even included some advance stuff (ship armor, weapons like PA's) that wasn't in LBB 1-3.

most of the arguements I've read give me the impression that most of you are having (or had) too high of hopes for the mongose version and are disapointed that it didn't live up to your ideal image. I think because you've been working with the old-guard rules so long they're like a broken in shoe or glove, every crease and fold is known, fitted and familiar.

NOTE: I use the word 'you' in a collective sense, GM's and players that cut they're teeth on the old LBB's, since that seems to be where most of the griping comes from..

ofcourse I know this will get me flamed like standing too close to a 6G m-drive, but there! I said I peace so let'r rip...

 

[tbeard1999]

Ty:

Ship Building: adding lots of (not in the playtest) options IS a major change, as is deleting power points.

Sorry William (or is it Bill or Wil?), I don't see it that way.

Combat: completely new, due to changes to the task system.

Which I noted. And not to quibble, but far more than the task resolution was changed in the combat system.

Tasks: 2/3 of the task system stripped out (rather than fixed)

<shrug> We'll have to agree to disagree on whether ditching certain mechanics "fixed" the system. Personally, I have to stifle a pretty serious <yawn> when folks start going on about task systems. Never in the field of gaming has so much agonizing been done for such little gain. IMHO of course.

And AFAIK, Supp Four did not mention the task systems...

World Building: again, optional subsystems added...

IMHO, extremely modest additions. I stand by my statement on this point.

<snip> All of these are pretty hefty changes.

Sorry, but I don't agree. I think one can get a pretty good idea of how MGT runs by reading the playtest rules (and noting which systems were redone). It's clear to me that Supp Four focuses strongly on roleplaying and character in his campaigns, so I'd imagine that his primary interest would be the character generation system.

In any case, I think that many of the criticisms leveled at Supp Four were overwrought and greatly overstated. He expressed an opinion, clearly labeled it as such, and did so in relatively polite terms. The reaction has been, IMHO, shrill and very disproportionate.

 

[tbeard1999]

my-my aren't we being a bit snippy...

Opinions may differ, but Supp Four's critics get my vote for the "who's being the snippiest" contest here.

MGT is a core rules not a complete rules...if it where, and included all the canon mods, tweaks and changes from every official source to include everthing from small vehicles to robots to megatonne ships to total star system design down to the samllest 'plutiod' (sorry sould resist that) :rofl: Hell, the bloody thing would be 2 (or more) inches thick and weigh 5 lbs (or more)!!

You make a reasonable point, but have you actually compared the size of MGT to CT? Each of the LBBs was about the equivalent of 24 MGT pages. So MGT's 192 pages is roughly equivalent in size to Books 1-8. I wonder...can we really conclude that MGT is comparable to LBBs 1-8 in coverage and detail? And personally, I'd ditch LBB8 and substitute Snapshot (or AHL) and the chargen segments of Supplement 4 if I wanted to maximize the coverage argument. Robots are cool, but I'm skeptical that they needed their own book.

For that matter, can we say that MGT has comparable depth and scope to, say, MegaTraveller's core books? Both are about 200 pages long...

Sheez, where would you make the choice to stop and say 'that's enough to get started..'? They covered the basic books (LBB 1-3) and hit the points the majority of players would need (char gen, combat, basic ship design, ship combat, major world creation, critters for those worlds, trade, psi, patrons). even included some advance stuff (ship armor, weapons like PA's) that wasn't in LBB 1-3.

Agreed that MGT compares well with LBB1-3. But that's pretty faint praise when you consider that MGT has 2.66 times as many pages.

most of the arguements I've read give me the impression that most of you are having (or had) too high of hopes for the mongose version and are disapointed that it didn't live up to your ideal image. I think because you've been working with the old-guard rules so long they're like a broken in shoe or glove, every crease and fold is known, fitted and familiar.

Yeah, that's probably it. I mean, they couldn't have legitimate complaints about the game, right?

ofcourse I know this will get me flamed like standing too close to a 6G m-drive, but there! I said I peace so let'r rip...

Seems to me that expressing support for MGT is about the least bold thing someone can do here. So far, I am not aware of anyone being seriously attacked for liking the game. So I wouldn't worry too much about being flamed if I were you.

 

[Supplement Four]

my-my aren't we being a bit snippy....

Not at all. I meant what I said. I was just clarifying.

I know that the printed word can be viewed differently by different people, but your post sure reads to me much more "snippy" than mine does.

most of the arguements I've read give me the impression that most of you are having (or had) too high of hopes for the mongose version and are disapointed that it didn't live up to your ideal image.

I would agree with this. From what I've seen--especially in the various reviews giving the book a "C" (see earlier in the thread)--MGT hasn't lived up to some of our collective expectations.

Personally, I was hoping for an "A+". I wanted a home run. I wanted that Traveller game update that so many of us have been dreaming about.

A milktoast "C" is just another version of Traveller, like so many others that have come before. My impression is that it's "OK", and "better than nothing", but "nothing to get excited about."

Yes. It's fair to say that I am disappointed.

I'm looking at MGT average when I was wishing for MGT GREAT.

 

[VT1099ace]

tbeard1999, sup 4...

your reply's where not as scathing as I was braced for...(ok, dropping defensive posture know )

I'd of given it a 'B' in my book, I had the feeling they wheren't going go too far afield from the feel of the old stuff, and was quite suprised actually at the mods they made to unify the mechanic, blend a bit of the advanced char gen with the basic to give a few more skills, etc... plus I like the simple, non-graghical assault on the senses (not like some game books, I could mention...) actually raised it's rating for me.

It was/is what I expected, a little more in some things, a little let down in others...

 

[Eisenmann]

I actually feel that some of the "grognards" WANT Traveller to fail because then it stays their little exclusive club.

Nailed it.

 

[casquilho]

I would agree with VT1099ace, I would give it a B.

For me, the fact is I was very happy once the book hit my hands. I had become so discouraged by all the flame wars and fighting durring the playtest that I had very low expectations for the product.

When I finished reading it the first time I was happy. It had the feel and tone I was looking for. I do nto agree with 100% of everything in the book, but when have I ever done that with any rule system? Never.

This product can give the players and GM a feel for what I have always called the Traveller Spirit. So it gets a B.

Daniel