As far as I know, the updated version has different art in the character
generation section.
Mongoose Traveller Pocket Edition
- Thread starter Allensh
- Start date
generation section.
Doesn't have a character sheet at all? That seems a bit strange. However, let's try another method - turn to page 32. Would you regard the illustration of the courier as being a somewhat voluptuous young biker girl? That's the 4th edition updated print. P51 also has information about task chains in the new version too.
It should be pretty obvious in the character career section. The only pdf available from Drive-thru now is the updated version.
Last edited:
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Pity they didn't just use the standard printers key. So much simpler 
Pity they didn't just use the standard printers key. So much simpler
Thanks Dan, that's exactly what I'm looking for. It would make the whole exercise easier.
Page 32 is "Naval Engineer." Ah, you're talking about the TMB. No, as I said already, I have an older printing. Which printing is left as an exercise for the archaeologists.
Or they could have just taken the time and provided a revision number.
My copy of MoBu has no errata needed. 2nd printing incorporated all known eratta and addenda. And, for the most part, that's updating MoBu from BW to BWR; it is an edition update document with about 3 pages of actual errata collected over several YEARS. That there is only a screenfull for BWR is far more telling. BE also has very little: 600pp book out longer, and less than one page of errata.
Eratta is not of itself a bad thing; it shows commitment to improvement when done well, provided little is needed, and the errors are not poor design, but errors.
Also, a lot of companies and gamers confound addenda (We are adding this new bit) with errata (we are correcting this error) and FARQ/FAQ (Explanation and/clarification).
When, however, 4 pages are generated over 6 months, or heven help us, a dozen pages like 4E (which we know was rushed, because the Dev Team said it was on the now gone forums)... we can figure that in 4 years, it will probably double that.
MT was horrid for errata; I didn't have it, and it played well enough, since most of it was typos, and much was obvious.
I was much more tolerant of it back then.
You dismiss sorcerer for its polemic, Echo... I embrace it becuase it is a fun game, with well written rules, and excellent advice. What you want from an RPG may be very different... but Ron Edwards works hard to keep it clean.
John Wick tends, on his shorter games, to also be very clean on errata. But Orkworld... lovely setting, decent game, some really major flaws in the rules, especially for winter.
For example, I'm having a lovely chat about a rules issue in Dark Heresy on another BBS. The rule is that autofire adds 1 hit per 2 success levels, scatter (shotgun) fire adds 1 hit per 2 success levels. It says nothing about interface of the two, but one of the weapons can do both. In my game, I simply applied both rules; each grants 1 extra hit per 2 success levels, thus 2 extra hits per 2 success levels. Is that an errata issue? Yes. Is it a FARQ question? sure. Is it a major flaw? maybe. Should it be errata'ed? Yup... IMO, Scatter autofire should do one extra hit per SL.
Little stuff, not so big an issue.
But Mongoose has had major issues with most of their publications having 2-3 pages of corrections needed within days of release. Sounds like time to switch to a PDF pre-order errata mode, to me.... sell the PDF for 50% with anyone who sends in verified errata items in the first month getting a $5 off on the later paper edition.
No proofread is perfect; Mongoose, SJG and WOTC are using that as an excuse for shoddy work.
Eratta is not of itself a bad thing; it shows commitment to improvement when done well, provided little is needed, and the errors are not poor design, but errors.
Also, a lot of companies and gamers confound addenda (We are adding this new bit) with errata (we are correcting this error) and FARQ/FAQ (Explanation and/clarification).
When, however, 4 pages are generated over 6 months, or heven help us, a dozen pages like 4E (which we know was rushed, because the Dev Team said it was on the now gone forums)... we can figure that in 4 years, it will probably double that.
MT was horrid for errata; I didn't have it, and it played well enough, since most of it was typos, and much was obvious.
I was much more tolerant of it back then.
You dismiss sorcerer for its polemic, Echo... I embrace it becuase it is a fun game, with well written rules, and excellent advice. What you want from an RPG may be very different... but Ron Edwards works hard to keep it clean.
John Wick tends, on his shorter games, to also be very clean on errata. But Orkworld... lovely setting, decent game, some really major flaws in the rules, especially for winter.
For example, I'm having a lovely chat about a rules issue in Dark Heresy on another BBS. The rule is that autofire adds 1 hit per 2 success levels, scatter (shotgun) fire adds 1 hit per 2 success levels. It says nothing about interface of the two, but one of the weapons can do both. In my game, I simply applied both rules; each grants 1 extra hit per 2 success levels, thus 2 extra hits per 2 success levels. Is that an errata issue? Yes. Is it a FARQ question? sure. Is it a major flaw? maybe. Should it be errata'ed? Yup... IMO, Scatter autofire should do one extra hit per SL.
Little stuff, not so big an issue.
But Mongoose has had major issues with most of their publications having 2-3 pages of corrections needed within days of release. Sounds like time to switch to a PDF pre-order errata mode, to me.... sell the PDF for 50% with anyone who sends in verified errata items in the first month getting a $5 off on the later paper edition.
No proofread is perfect; Mongoose, SJG and WOTC are using that as an excuse for shoddy work.
Rhialto the Marvelous
SOC-13
OK, Orkworld is just hippy-dippy.
Do not get me started on Thirty.
I guess I'm brain-damaged.
Do not get me started on Thirty.
I guess I'm brain-damaged.
Sorcerer is rubbish - the game itself could have been written on a pamphlet, but is only padded out by essay after essay of opinion. Had the game been any more complex then then the authur would have struggled to communicate his ideas, because his writing style is somewhat occluded by the desire to appear intellectual. It's not even that original - one of the big myths of the gaming hobby of the last decade or so.
Here's the Sorcerer errata, btw:
http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/brochure.php/errata.html
Well you haven't actually demonstrated the case for this at all, yet, beyond repeat assertions. Mongoose publications are the same in terms of errata, and dealing with this errata, as every other company out there. You're being one-eyed to say otherwise.
Here's the Sorcerer errata, btw:
http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/brochure.php/errata.html
Well you haven't actually demonstrated the case for this at all, yet, beyond repeat assertions. Mongoose publications are the same in terms of errata, and dealing with this errata, as every other company out there. You're being one-eyed to say otherwise.
Last edited:
It hasn't been revised - it's been reprinted. If you can find any other rpg that uses printing keys then be my guest. Otherwise, I'm not really sure what your problem is here - the first three printings were identical. The 4th (and subsequent) printings have updates and new art included.
Reprinted with some changes is not simply a reprint. The CT reprints are actual reprints.
Classic Traveller (from the reprints): Yes.
Megatraveller: Yes.
TNE: Not a printing key, but everybody knows to look for 'Mk 1 Mod 1.'
T4: Yes.
GT: Yes.
Shall I continue with non-Traveller RPGs?
OK, Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition is handy and modern and states its printing number rather than using a printing key.
That's exactly my problem. If "It hasn't been revised" then all four printings are identical and should be able to use the same errata, but you say the fourth printing has some of that errata included.
The first three print runs of Mongoose Traveller, are literal reprints. Nothing was changed at all - just more books printed because the previous run had sold out. The 4th printing made some adjustments to layout and art for the most part, about a paragraph of rules to discuss task chains, and adjusted the errata that was already made available as a pdf. They did this in response to customer feedback, and now you are complaining that they've made the changes and you can't tell what they were? They don't constitute it being a 'revised edition' because for the most part these are pretty minor changes- you won't need to rush out and replace your old copy, unless you desperately want a bit better layout and art. The reason why Mongoose are making these changes now, is to get it right so that they don't have to do a major revision in the next 10 years. And before you suggest it, Mongoose didn't announce any changes in it's printings in a fanfare to try and encourage gamers to go out and buy them again either - these are just things that have been noted by fans as newer pdfs and books have been checked out. I mean, it's pretty obvious that changes were made in the pocket book anyway, for example.
The Classic Reprints do. T4 doesn't. I have them in front of me.
It's curious, because I have Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition in front of me, and made reference to it and a few other books before I posted. I'd be curious to know where you think this number is - as it blatently hasn't got any printing key or printing number listed in my copy. It doesn't actually have a character sheet or an index for that matter, should you wish to complain about it....
Oh and here's some errata from Savage Worlds:
http://www.peginc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14694
Look, if you can't work out from the art and layout in the chargen section that it's different, then you have an older printing. If it doesn't have this character sheet in the back:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/travcharsheet.pdf
....then it's an older printing.
Last edited:
Let's see...
Sorcerer: 1 page FOR THE LINE.
BWR: 1 page
MoBu1E: 13 pages to update to compatibiity with BWR (since it was for BW, not BWR)
BE: 1 page
T20: 2 pages last I checked; most of that integrated into the revised edition
Orkworld: 2 pages
BTVS: about 1 page for the entire line, mostly in sample characters.
Tunnels and Trolls 5th Edition: no errata since 1979... just addenda. 5.5 came out with addenda in 2005...
Army of Darkness RPG: none. (I found a couple typos.)
L5R 3E: 1 page for the line (currently 11 books)
L5R 2.5E (dual stat d20/d10): more than 6 pages, mostly on WotC releases
L5R 2E: 4 pages for the line (20+books)
L5R 1E: 6 pages for the line
LOTR (Decipher): 12 pages for the 6 book line (4 for the corebook) plus 2 pages of collected rulings
MRQ: 4 pages generated within 3 months of release for the core book alone; PDF edition never updated, instead directed to "purchase deluxe"
MGT: Corebook 4 pages of errata, plus 8 pages of corrected deck plans
MGHG: initial 2 print runs recalled from distributors.
As for polemic or not, it doesn't matter; Sorcerer is written with care. You don't have to like it. Heck, Echo, you don't have to like yourself even... but the essays are part of the rulebooks, much like the setting essays in a number of other games (L5R, BTVS, AoD, LOTR). And subject to many of the same issues in publication. (And in Sorcerer, they guide one to understanding the design.)
But there are companies doing far better jobs on getting books out.
Errata free would be nice. Not letting major F***-ups get to the printer is just due caution. Wrong scale deckplans, missing tables, and the wrong product's ToC: that's failure to check a proof copy.
I have done small press publications work (not games, but self-advocacy handbooks), and the KINDS of errors Mongoose is committing are mostly easily caught stuff.
The Deck plans, well, that's a major error that (based upon the discussions by Matthew and Gareth) was based upon trusting the guy who did them to know what he was doing, and he didn't, and they weren't put to people who did prior to publication for cross-checking. Again, failure of the editor. When I checked them (I spot check deckplans for traveller) I came up 50% off on one in 10 min of checking. The ship designs themselves were also not entirely sensical (10 weeks of fuel on the type S?).
Not including them as EPSFs instead of raster in the PDF's: either ignorance of how to do so or unwillingness to make the PDF editions useful.
Edition/printing numbering: lots of games.
BTVS doesn't use the line, but does list which printing clearly on the credits/copyright page.
Last edited:
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yeah, complaining is so pointless. It will never result in a better product. Just keep quiet and be glad for what you do have no matter how horrible it is. If you complain you may end up with nothing.
At least I consider it an unnecessary and time consuming detour. If I had a
serious problem with a Mongoose product, I would just send an E-mail to
Matthew Sprange at Mongoose, because he is the person able to solve it.
One could argue that the length of the errata merely indicates how many other people are reading, scrutinising and complaining about the books.....Moreover, I'd argue that Mongoose producing errata quickly is actually a good thing. And dragging up the printing issues of last year, which is well documented, has been dealt with with replaced books and closing down the printing facilities, etc, and which has not affected Traveller titles in the slightest is really scraping the barrel. The Mongoose RuneQuest Deluxe pdf is completely free, on the BRP site, and has been all year, btw.
The point is, and has been demonstrably proven through this discourse, is that Mongoose's levels of errata is entirely equitable with other major rpg publishers that publish on the scale they do. And to remind people yet again, the complaints in this instance amounts to a wonky deckplan for a ship that can already be printed from a free online pdf, and a missing table that presents a ratio of 1 ton of fuel per week per Power Plant rating. Worth complaining about? Sure. But not worth conflating other issues with and exaggerating to push an agenda.
I like myself fine, but Sorcerer is still rubbish. It's not so much the essays are designed to make you understand it better, but merely portentous essays where the game designer asserts how important and how clever he and his game is. It wouldn't be a game that any mainstream game company would publish in it's current written form - it's a semi-amateur piece of vanity publishing, which is hardly a model for a professional game company.
Last edited:
It's not a question of the legitimacy of complaining about a product, it's about whether the complaints themselves are entirely legitimate. Complaining about misprints, or whatever, is fine, but complaining because you think the number of print runs should be presented in a certain way because you can't figure out if the layout/art has changed by reading it, or making the game out to be totally unplayable, isn't.
Last edited:
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
The point I got and attempted to reinforce about the complaint of it being difficult to know if you have the latest (corrected) print was that unless you know such and such about the book there's no way to know. And you have to flip through the book. But if each had simply used a print code it would be obvious and easy. It's about knowing if the edition for sale in the flgs is the most current and worth buying or if maybe it's one that should be on sale due to errata.
And that may be your point but the vibe I got from the post I replied to was that complaints in general were wrong. And then someone said they'd just tell the manufacturer instead of going public. Two things wrong there imo. The manufacturer may not listen, care, or even be reachable in every case (not so in this case I presume). And if nobody says anything is wrong in public how many sales will be made based on the idea it's got nothing wrong with it. Public reviews work. The manufacturer will see sales stall or die if people are putting complaints out there and nothing is being done about them. That will encourage them to do better and fix problems much more quickly than dashing off a note to them.
Yeah, because all the complaints about the T4 mechanic sure worked at keeping T5 from being a steaming pile.
It helps a little if you take the easy route and tell the manufacturer directly
why the sales might stall or die in your opinion.
Complaining where the manufacturer is unlikely to notice the complaint is a
waste of time if the complaint is aimed at improving the product.
Similar threads
