Mongoose Mercenary

[Allensh]

In my opinion, "they" won't listen for the simple reason that MGT fans have not been able to make the case that the game is a particularly well-designed product.

I have made numerous specific critiques of the game and for the most part, the response of MGT fans is to whine that I am somehow irrationally biased against the game. Perhaps you guys would do better to actually respond to the arguments made, rather than complain about bias. Because at the end of the day, a factual assertion stands on its own.

And you might also consider *not* reacting emotionally to *every* criticism of MGT. At the very least, it opens you to the same criticism you so easily level at those you disagree with.

Just a thought.

oh..and what "factual assertion" do you mean? The one where S4 says that people are rejecting MGT when there is no way he can actually know that outside of maybe a few dozen people here or around him, and when the game is selling well? The one where S4 essentially implies that people who actually like 760 Patrons (and I will agree the book is badly misnamed. It has still been very useful to me) are stupid? The rather laughable assertion that Mongoose is "destroying the Traveller universe" when in fact the ONLY product they have written so far that is solely based in that universe is the best of the line so far, and they are trying to expand the game SYSTEM beyond the universe but not actually changing the OTU itself?

Here's what I see as "facts" about Mongoose Traveller, although they are actually opinions.

1.) The core rulebook is generally pretty solid despite editing issues which quite frankly affect a lot more game companies than just Mongoose.

2.) The Spinward Marches book was very good and at least as good as the original book it was based on.

3.) 760 Patrons is not a book of patrons in the "classic" sense. It is still extremely useful to me as a Traveller GM. So, I'll give them a bye on the name thing, although I wouldn't mind it at all if they changed the name.

4.) Mercenary has some good things in it that will be very useful to me and some things I am indifferent toward, as well as some things that will never see use in my game. However, the fact that, like all the "black cover" books, it is not an OTU book means there is stuff in there that does not match up with that setting. I'm ok with that, as are my players.

5.) Some people didn't get their cherished house rules or the Task System of Their Dreams included in the game and therefore have not had their genius formally acknowledged by The Powers That Be and so they are bitter. This means they cannot possibly allow anyone to enjoy this game and just go on about their business.

Allen

 

[Supplement Four]

Some people didn't get their cherished house rules or the Task System of Their Dreams included in the game and therefore have not had their genius formally acknowledged by The Powers That Be and so they are bitter. This means they cannot possibly allow anyone to enjoy this game and just go on about their business.

Allen

Actually, MGT does incorporate my task system. A version of it, anyway. Whether this was by design or just minds thinking alike, I don't know. The fact is, though, that the UGM came out (developed on these boards!) a year and a half before MGT came to be.

And, I know they knew about the UGM, because I sent it to them, saying, "If you're going to create a new Traveller based on Classic, you should consider a task system like this..."

I never got a response from them, but I sent it to them early enough (at the first rumors of MGT) that they could consider it for their new game.

Either way, it's a clone of the UGM, not unlike d20 Traveller being a clone of the standard D&D d20 system--mostly alike with some things different.

If they cloned it or used it without communicating with me, I am not angry about it. One cannot copyright a dice mechanic. A nod of the head or a mention in the credits would have been nice (especially for those who dismissed the UGM and are now using a version of it when they play MGT). But, hey, no skin off my nose either way.

Point being: I've got no anger or really any feeling one way or the other about it.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Actually, My son's group prefers "68A" over the UGM, as they thought it best fit with CT and Mongoose. It was faster. They even tried "69C" but it upped the curve a little too much.

But what do I know? Avalon Hill's Lords of Creation is the Best Game Ever, so this discussion is Moot.

 

[Echo]

Actually, MGT does incorporate my task system. A version of it, anyway. Whether this was by design or just minds thinking alike, I don't know. The fact is, though, that the UGM came out (developed on these boards!) a year and a half before MGT came to be.

And, I know they knew about the UGM, because I sent it to them, saying, "If you're going to create a new Traveller based on Classic, you should consider a task system like this..."

I never got a response from them, but I sent it to them early enough (at the first rumors of MGT) that they could consider it for their new game.

Either way, it's a clone of the UGM, not unlike d20 Traveller being a clone of the standard D&D d20 system--mostly alike with some things different.

If they cloned it or used it without communicating with me, I am not angry about it. One cannot copyright a dice mechanic. A nod of the head or a mention in the credits would have been nice (especially for those who dismissed the UGM and are now using a version of it when they play MGT). But, hey, no skin off my nose either way.

Point being: I've got no anger or really any feeling one way or the other about it.

This is revisionism. MGT did not incorporate your system. MGT's core system was brought about from debate with all sorts of posters, including myself, yourself and others on this forum and other forums. The eventual outcome largely satisfied most contributers to the debate, to the degree that a compromise was needed to accomodate different design goals highlighted by different people. However, you continued to argue that you felt the fixed bonuses on the stats were too big and unrealistic in comparison to skills, and eventually had a strop when other posters said that it wasn't such a major issue in their games. After that point, you've always been hostile about the MGT game.

 

[Allensh]

This is revisionism. MGT did not incorporate your system. MGT's core system was brought about from debate with all sorts of posters, including myself, yourself and others on this forum and other forums. The eventual outcome largely satisfied most contributers to the debate, to the degree that a compromise was needed to accomodate different design goals highlighted by different people. However, you continued to argue that you felt the fixed bonuses on the stats were too big and unrealistic in comparison to skills, and eventually had a strop when other posters said that it wasn't such a major issue in their games. After that point, you've always been hostile about the MGT game.

That's exactly how I remember it and confirms my major suspicion...

Allen

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I see. So its hurt feelings then. This makes a lot of sense now.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

This is going nowhere. Thread locked.