(hypothetical) What would you ask Dave Nilsen?

[Malenfant]

I guess I didn't notice the bugs so much, since I rewrote the architecture to fit my sf background. (added odd things like grav drive (kinda like a warp drive, basically made the distances shorter between places without actually causing a jump). This later evolved into an actual instantaneous jump drive, which had the side-effect of increasing the mass of the ship when it arrived in realspace by a factor dependent on the distance, which meant the ship could implode if it jumped far enough. And instantaneous comms too. But I digress).

Anyway, I could get working ships out of the version I used, but I suspect it was different enough to the default FF&S that I can't really say I designed bona fide TNE ships with it. But I basically rewrote the whole book up to the weapons design section to fit my technologies.

 

[Cymew]

Originally posted by David Freakin' Nilsen:
Cymew--

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Interesting reading about the CCG crazy, BTW.

Some big names in the hobby have called it a needed culling of a bloated business with to many producers and to few customers.

I think it did a lot of good for the professionalism and the business sense of the survivors. The companies done as a "hobby venture" was killed.

Well, I hope that "professionalism and business sense" concerns don't apply to GDW.

A healthy GDW should have been able to get through the CCG. But I think after DJ we might have been back to pretty close to before the Desert Shield Factbook. And when MTG sucked all of the oxygen out of the room for 12-18 months, we just weren't strong enough to survive it.

Dave </font>[/QUOTE]I think you have provided enough evidence that GDW had had enough hits at the same time that anything might have been responsible.

GDW wasn't done as a "hobby project" in any way, after all.

Now, I do think that many companies worked under conditions that no wasn't viable, and because they don't work companies were weeded out.

But, sometimes you fall even when you do everything right. I felt GDW was one of those.

 

[Cymew]

Larsen,

I don't know about you, but I was even more confused about the speed of the EW after reading Dave's reply!

One reason I'm still on the fence about 1248 is that I felt the Empress Wave to be to much "magic" and a lot of wanton destruction to an already strained Imperium. I had hoped for MJD to maybe banish it, or explain it away.

But, it's still fun to hear some snippets from both 1248 and Dave about it all. Maybe I'll be interested enought to buy "Keepers" after all...

 

[Malenfant]

But, sometimes you fall even when you do everything right. I felt GDW was one of those.

From what Dave and others (eg Loren) have said, it sounds very much like a combination of bad decisions on some items like the Desert Shield book, a suddenly unfavourable market, and the legal problems with Dangerous Journeys was what brought it down.

Some of that they had some control over, and some of that they didn't. It's easy to see in hindsight what could have been done better, but from what's been said I don't think it's fair to say that GDW "fell when they were doing everything right". After all, if they had been doing everything right, they wouldn't have fallen. For example, they would have foreseen the effects of the CCG market, or of the Desert Shield sales, etc if they did everything right - but they didn't.

But I certainly don't think one can blame a specific person or people for their demise. It's seems more to me that the wrong combination of decisions and circumstances came along at the same time to force them to close down.

 

[Cymew]

Originally posted by MJD:
In the 1248 setting, if I may be permitted to mention it, Strephon's Worlds held out.

Hey! Mention away! I'm not in on the Moot (yet) so I'll greedily wolf down any bits you share.

THus a small pocket around Usdiki survived more or less intact and became the basis for the Usdiki Trade Federation. Which one day decided to repeat history and change from trade federation to Imperium....

History have a habit...

Now, do "Keepers" have any release date yet? I mean, like what quarter of 2005 it's expected? Is it even close to being finished?

 

[Cymew]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But, sometimes you fall even when you do everything right. I felt GDW was one of those.

From what Dave and others (eg Loren) have said, it sounds very much like a combination of bad decisions on some items like the Desert Shield book, a suddenly unfavourable market, and the legal problems with Dangerous Journeys was what brought it down.

Some of that they had some control over, and some of that they didn't. It's easy to see in hindsight what could have been done better, but from what's been said I don't think it's fair to say that GDW "fell when they were doing everything right". After all, if they had been doing everything right, they wouldn't have fallen. For example, they would have foreseen the effects of the CCG market, or of the Desert Shield sales, etc if they did everything right - but they didn't.

But I certainly don't think one can blame a specific person or people for their demise. It's seems more to me that the wrong combination of decisions and circumstances came along at the same time to force them to close down. </font>[/QUOTE]Right. That was roughly what I was trying to say. I edited that message thrice and it still didn't felt right.

Thanks.

Andreas /Cymew/ Davour

 

[Dreadnought]

Hey--

Cymew said:

But, sometimes you fall even when you do everything right. I felt GDW was one of those.

I took that to mean roughly, "sometimes you fail even when you are doing good work and putting out good products" when other issues from the real world come in and bite you on the a$$.

I am willing to cut us some slack on not being able to foresee the effect of the CCG revolution. That's what revolutions are about: they change all of the rules and bases on which you make decisions. You can't see the future when the rules are changing.

Made sense to me.

Dave

 

[Rupert Boleyn]

Originally posted by Hyphen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rupert:
Bah. Reactionless thrusters only date from High Guard 2nd edition.

As in "Gee, they only date back to 1980??"

</font>[/QUOTE]My point is that they are not the original canon, and that people tend to forget that and carry on as if Traveller has always had reactionless thrusters. The same goes for the jump drive limits by TL, too - the original Book 1-3 limits were on drive size, not rating - IIRC you could do J6 at TL12, when the Mk6 computers were first available.

 

[aramis]

Yeah, Bk2 was a different beastie from Bk5 and later.

But Bk2 doesn't state they aren't reactionless, nor that they are reaction based. It simply says they provide the thrust.

 

[Rupert Boleyn]

Originally posted by Aramis:

But Bk2 doesn't state they aren't reactionless, nor that they are reaction based. It simply says they provide the thrust.

It does say that the standard fuel allocation provides for routine operations and manoeuvre for a month, though. That implies a fuel-consuming manoeuvre drive, which could be taken to mean a reaction drive. I think it's up to the Referee who they work in their campaign.

Then there's HG 1e, with its fusion rockets.

 

[Hyphen]

Dear Folks -

OK, I have finally put a few more miniatures pics up. These are primarily different views of three Martian Metals vehicles: their G-Carrier, grav tank, and air/raft.

Go to Beowulf Down ==> Repair Bays ==> Images ==> Miniatures.

 

[TheDS]

Yay! Fusion rockets! :thumbup:

Anyway, yeah, Uxi, I have seen them. MT was my very first RPG, in fact. Though I hear people say the FSSI ships are broke, I never checked for myself. Still, they aren't so bad that they can't be used. I realize I'm exaggerating, but not by as much as most people will think I am.

FFS's problem is that it doesn't give you the ability to recreate modern day vehicles or weapons. However, I think even something as all-encompassing as GURPS Vehicles also fails in this respect, and I have seen first hand how gargantuan the task is, so I don't hate the writer or anything.

But you simply cannot beat Page 75!!!! Not even with a stick! (For those who don't know, half of Page 75 was blank, and somewhere they included a spare P75 (Challenge? Errata sheet with FFS itself?) and you had to glue it in yourself. You wouldn't believe how many people tried peeling it back off, not realizing why it was there.)

Anyway, I made a rather huge document or two detailing what I thought was wrong about the book and how to correct it. This meager beginning showed even then that the task was not going to be a quick and simple one. I will refrain from boring you with details, as I'm sure most of you already know enough of them, and there are so many better things to bore you with.

 

[Malenfant]

I got the errata for page 75 with my copy of FF&S (I bought it not long after it came out, IIRC). I also got a little errata booklet for the TNE corebook with it too, I think.

 

[Badbru]

Dave,
In Path of Tears there were numerous ships other than the first twelve that were listed as MFU (missing fate unknown). Were there any plans afoot to detail in a later product what happened to any of these ships? (especially the most famous one Ashtabula?)

 

[Michael Schulz]

Oooh, ooooh, I've got a question for Dave, assuming he hasn't had more of this forum than any sane person can take. What do you think the odds are in Vegas of a Fifth edition of Traveller coming out? Please speculate rampantly or give a sentence or two describing your gut hunch.

 

[Malenfant]

What do you think the odds are in Vegas of a Fifth edition of Traveller coming out?

You mean Seventh edition - which is what a "T5" would be . Though GT:Interstellar Wars might possibly count as its own edition too when it comes out next year.

 

[Uxi]

Ah, yeah I thought of a couple questions.

Dave, keeping in mind the caveat you mentioned about how things change (and the fragmentary nature of these old memories):

1) Was the full Lancer/Fusilier design completed? Was it to be based on the shorter Group III (Thunderchild) or "stretch" Group IV (Maggart) Clipper spines? This affects the overall tonnage of the finished design, as well as the effectiveness of the spinal mount (particularly for the Lancer's meson).

2) Which of the internal politics of the RC meant to be developed as part of the setting arc and which were just left as color? The Ship Bill and New Worlds were core to the Centrist/Federalist conflict and I imagine these would have had to have been detailed... Eventually the Coalition is facing a Civil War over some of the ad hoc compromises that are not able to compromised over. The New Worlds just smacks of Slave/Free states prior to the US Civil War. Initially they'll be able to play them off each other one for one (Lancer vs Nex, for example) and do dual admissions but eventually, neither side will accept the admission for the other side... And I'm curious on what your ideas and thoughts were regarding this situation.

But things like the Humanist Right, the Reapportionment, and Antisubinfuedationalists seem doomed. I could see adventures or even mini-arc's dealing with these issues but nothing seriously changing.

The Schalli I'm not quite sure what to think of. What was the intent and were there any plans for their Traditionalist / Modernist conflict? My initial thoughts are that it's a flavor thing to bring good rpg'ing as well as an adventure or mini-campaign dealing with the Schalli but that the Modernists would "win" in the end... the comments of the Spiri (who seem the most "right" from the perspectives blurb, not that I agree with them ) make me think something else might have been up...

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks,

--Gary

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What do you think the odds are in Vegas of a Fifth edition of Traveller coming out?

You mean Seventh edition - which is what a "T5" would be . Though GT:Interstellar Wars might possibly count as its own edition too when it comes out next year. </font>[/QUOTE]Eighth, there were two editions of CT that had different rules

And a further question or two for Dave.

Were there any scenario/adventure plans for the Regency "land rush", and would there have been more TL16 ships in the Regency ships book?

 

[jalexandratos]

In FF&S, the minimum requirements for jump drives changed. As a result, jump-capable ships of under 100 dtons were now capable of being created.

I for one liked this idea. I used my house rule of only allowing TL16+ societies of being able to create such beasties (economies of scale based on better understanding of prior technology--sorta how you can get an FM tuner in a spec of dust nowadays). This gave credence to why the Regency were the first ones to crank out this design w/the J-Boat and magically hand-waved Leviathian's J-Torpedo as a Naval Skunkworks project.

Other people weren't so gracious w/this "fundamental" change. But, I'm curious, from a designer's point-of-view, why was this change made?

 

[TheDS]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I got the errata for page 75 with my copy of FF&S (I bought it not long after it came out, IIRC). I also got a little errata booklet for the TNE corebook with it too, I think.

So that's where that came from! Man have I slept since then!

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What do you think the odds are in Vegas of a Fifth edition of Traveller coming out?

You mean Seventh edition - which is what a "T5" would be . Though GT:Interstellar Wars might possibly count as its own edition too when it comes out next year. </font>[/QUOTE]Or is it the 47 millionth, considering everyone makes their own universe and custom rules....