New Traveller Preview

[tbeard1999]

As a long time CT zealot and fanatic I will be the first to say that MGT is in fact CT+ and improved CT in every possible way. Of all the versions of traveller available I would say MGT is the best.

In "every possible way"? Really?

That seems kinda broad to me. Could you identify the specific improvements you're most impressed with?

 

[tbeard1999]

Yep, despite some minor problems (not more than with any previous version
of Traveller), Mongoose Traveller is most probably the best that could hap-
pen to the Traveller game.

Only if it turns out to be a good game IMHO. If its yet another in a long line of crappy Traveller versions, I don't think it'll do much good for Traveller.

 

[tbeard1999]

Just to be clear, the statement posted was:

Originally Posted by Mongoose Acolyte
I have received revised deck plans and I will be looking at them over the next few days to make sure they are okay.

Once all this is done I will be putting together a pdf with the corrected deck plans - so have no fear - it is being sorted.

Then a golf clap to Mongoose. As a buyer of the initial rulebook, I'm fine with the correction. I'm far more impressed by a company being willing to fix mistakes quickly than by one that pretends that there are no problems.

 

[tbeard1999]

I always wondered why people hang out in an area that they seem to loathe. ;D

Well, as far as I know, this is not the "I Unreservedly Love and Adore MGT and I Want to Have Its Babies" forum

So your bemusement is itself bemusing.

FWIW, and AFAIK, this forum is billed as a discussion forum for MGT. And criticism is discussion (particularly if it's supported with facts and logic). Also, criticism seems to me to be indispensible for improvement. Criticism apparently motivated some very serious last minute changes to MGT (and IMHO improved the game significantly).

 

[Echo]

Nope.

It's the "Tbeard1999-Get's-To-Sneer-At-All-And-Sundry" forum, for the entertainment of y'all!

 

[Ishmael]

I see no reason for me to purchase Mgt.
From what I'm reading, the character generation is basicly the same as it ever was.

The task system uses the difference of the dice rolled and the target number to show how great you did or how bad you screwed up; that seems to be the way it SHOULD be in pretty much any game, and I already use that in my own house rules. The 'time' looks to be no improvement over MT.
I like what I have better.

While 'effect' should have an influence on damage, its been said to be clunky in Mgt and that armor isn't balanced. I'm not convinced that its better than the pen/dam model in MT. Again, no improvement over what I already have (imo).

I already use my own replacement for UWP's ( the weakest part of any Trav version ). Ditto for starships....

I can't justify spending money on lesser rules/sets than I already have.

I am glad its selling well ( and will be well supported )
and double kudos for using the OGL to encourage people to contribute.
and triple kudos for not locking it into a long-in-the-tooth game setting, complete with gaffs the prevent changes for the better.

 

[Supplement Four]

FWIW, and AFAIK, this forum is billed as a discussion forum for MGT. And criticism is discussion (particularly if it's supported with facts and logic). Also, criticism seems to me to be indispensible for improvement. Criticism apparently motivated some very serious last minute changes to MGT (and IMHO improved the game significantly).

This is true. Had TBeard not singled-handedly made such an issue of the old T/E mechanic, it would not have been improved.

Like TBeard, I like the new method as well (I want to see how it games, but I like it much better than what we saw in the play test.)

Point being: Many of the MGT fans seem to wish that TBeard would just go away and stop posting negative stuff about their favorite version of Traveller, yet it is TBeard they have to thank, really, for their game being better than it was.

Irony.

 

[rust]

Had TBeard not singled-handedly made such an issue of the old T/E mechanic, it would not have been improved.

Not necessarily so. On the one hand, Mongoose had a closed playtest run-
ning parallel to the open playtest, and I do not know the recommendations
of the members of the closed playtest group. On the other hand, I know of
a non-T/E mechanic combat system developed over here in Germany, and
I am almost convinced that the German publisher of Mongoose Traveller in-
formed Mongoose that the T/E mechanic was seriously disliked over here
(in fact, one German Traveller fan claims that he was the one who put an
end to it ...). And there may well have been other attempts to prevent the
T/E mechanic from becoming the default rule.

So, this success, like most successes, has a lot of parents. I have no doubt
that TBeard played a role in it, but definitely not single-handedly.

 

[robject]

I see no reason for me to purchase Mgt.
From what I'm reading, the character generation is basicly the same as it ever was.

[...]

I already use my own replacement for UWP's ( the weakest part of any Trav version ). Ditto for starships....

While I disagree about chargen (the updates are interesting, original, and 'organic') and think the starship rules are promising, it seems as though you've already diverged from typical Traveller rules. So I think you're right about it not benefitting you.

 

[Jamus]

In "every possible way"? Really?

That seems kinda broad to me. Could you identify the specific improvements you're most impressed with?

Character generation.
Keeps the classic Traveller feel I like while adding more depth. I like the events and life events table and think these are great improvements over previous editions. maybe additions is a better word.

I feel that the sub careers are a improvement over book 1 and are much easier to use than mercenary. Number of skills seems just about right from a CT point of view and I like the mishap table. I like that one bad roll doesnt mean the end of a character during creation. This is something I had house ruled in my CT game. failed survival role just meant injured and forced out. Now this is in the rules and explained with a nifty chart.

Mustering out is pretty much CT with the addition of a few extra bits. I like the idea of ship shares. I think ship shares greatly improve the Traveller experience as they allow a group to have the ship they want to have while removing the requirement that some one roll a merchant or scout.

Skill Packages
This is one of the best improvements in the book. I like that players can now be assured of having a functional group. As i earlier stated you could have a party of six all roll marine or army careers and still be able to operate a star ship. Not very well mind but enough to get from one system to the next. It conjures images of the crew of serenity or cowboy bebop.

To summarize character creation I would say MGT is a much more flexible system and allows for a wider range in player groups. The best part of it is that MGT keeps the CT feel and sensibilities. IMO

Task system
Whats to say. all skills have been better explained and everything works on a universal system. much improved over CT.

The system for character improvement makes a lot of sense. I am not going to say it is a vast improvement over CT but It is simple and direct and keeps with the CT feel I know and like.

Combat
Much improved. As much as I like CT I never liked the attack matrix. I like the MGT system much better. Again same but different. the system is more flexible but keeps the CT feel. I like that armor absorbs damage. It is improved over CT. IMO

Equipment
Pretty standard CT fare. I like that remote drones and cybertech implants have been added. Basically MGT brings the tech level up to a more current level of expectation. I am not pleased that SMGs were not added to the book. I like SMGs.

Ship design
Honestly not very different that CT so I like it. Improvements would be the rules for quirks possessed by aged ships. combat is IMO better. easier to run and more flexible when compare to CT. Variant drives for ships. while I would only allow the standard J-drive for Imperial ships I think adding additional forms of FTL are an improvement and I may use some of them as alien tech.

Pretty much MGT is CT+ as I have stated. Though I truly am a fan of CT and remained one of the CT faithful for two decades. I also accept that CT is now showing its age and that age is a barrier to getting new players interested.

Some of us have clamored for a CT+ that used a universal task system and included updated tech and more stream lined rules. We finally have it and it is MGT.

 

[aramis]

That's a troubling assertion IMHO, so I'd like some clarification if you please.

Are you stating as a moderator that the Mongoose section is only for positive comments about the game? Or must positive comments merely outweigh negative ones?

Or is this just your personal opinion?

As a moderator:
If it appears you are posting with the intent to devalue Mongoose's IP...
If you are trying to dissuade others from playing MoTrav by negative comments...
If you are offending others by repeating the same complaints a dozen times...

these all violate Hunter's prohibition on blatant negativism.

as a personal note:
I suspect this is due to liability issues as much as his having become fed up with the inappropriate and excessive negativism that certain individuals exhibited during the playtest.

 

[tbeard1999]

As a moderator:
If it appears you are posting with the intent to devalue Mongoose's IP...
If you are trying to dissuade others from playing MoTrav by negative comments...
If you are offending others by repeating the same complaints a dozen times...

these all violate Hunter's prohibition on blatant negativism.

Is the prohibition on "blatant negativism" actually documented somewhere?

Because it seems to me that *any* criticism of MGT could have the effect of "devaluing Mongoose's IP", "offending others" and "dissuading others from playing MGT".

And I note that the prohibition is stated in terms of intent, rather than effect. This could avoid the problem above, but only to the extent that the moderator is effective at discerning subjective intent from written posts.

I can certainly understand disallowing saying the same thing a dozen times -- but there should be some kind of sanction against folks who keep asking the same question over and over as well. I have personally had to repeat myself a half dozen times to people who simply refuse to read what I said. I think that forcing me to repeat myself should be prohibited. (Of course, things get missed in the give and take of discussion...but not six times).

But the other prohibitions appear to me to be subjective and highly susceptible to arbitrary and selective enforcement. And while I have no problem with requiring a certain degree of courtesy, these prohibitions seem to reach the substantive content of someone's post, rather than the degree of courtesy shown in expressing them.

FWIW, I think that such censorship is detrimental to the intellectual health of a forum. (Of course, I acknowledge that the owner of a private forum has an absolute right to arbitrarily censor speech; I just don't think it's a good idea.) As a free speech near-absolutist, I firmly believe that the most effective remedy to "bad speech" is to rebut it with "good speech", rather than banning it.

It's especially dubious IMHO to curtail substantive criticism in a forum where no one is forced to read anyone else's post. My $0.02 FWIW.

as a personal note:
I suspect this is due to liability issues as much as his having become fed up with the inappropriate and excessive negativism that certain individuals exhibited during the playtest.

As a parent, I often remind my children that I am interested in peace and quiet, not justice. I suspect that Hunter feels the same.

Unfortunately, such a policy often rewards those who whine the loudest rather than those who are substantively in the right.

And a comment about libel -- the truth is generally an absolute defense to such charges. So factual statements cannot generally be libelous if they are accurate.

So...your post would seem to prohibit all statements critical of MGT. Since such statements have been allowed in the past, can you please clarify whether this is a new policy, an underenforced old policy that will now be enforced, or if I am reading too much into it. And if critical comments are allowed I'd also appreciate an example of an allowable comment versus a disallowed one. I just want to know about where the line is.

 

[tbeard1999]

Nope.

It's the "Tbeard1999-Get's-To-Sneer-At-All-And-Sundry" forum, for the entertainment of y'all!

I'm just wondering when the day will be when tbeard1999 can actually respond to people with differing views to himself, without slapping a derogatory label on them.

You really need to let this go. It isn't reasonable to blame me because Mongoose threw you under the bus on the timing/effect and initiative issues.

 

[rust]

Now, please do not repeat the "Battle of Mongoose Forum" on this forum. :nonono:

 

[GypsyComet]

Its a matter of degree and presentation.

A statement of negative opinion is one thing.

Repeated commentary-as-fact on the skills of the writers is another entirely.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Is the prohibition on "blatant negativism" actually documented somewhere?.

6) Do not undertake any action to the detriment of the community (this is vague to there can be no loopholes). The list of forbidden actions includes, but is not limited to:

• Trashing other forums, games, companies, or their products.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/faq.php?faq=cotirules#faq_therules

I just want to know about where the line is.

The line is wherever we decide to draw it. By all means, discuss problems and suggest solutions, but you're going beyond that. Give it a break for a bit.

 

[Chronus]

Ship design
Honestly not very different that CT so I like it. Improvements would be the rules for quirks possessed by aged ships. combat is IMO better. easier to run and more flexible when compare to CT.

Then please come over to the MGT forums and help me with my space combat example (I do realize that their forums are down right now).

As I go through space combat, I suspect that it is something I will like but I'm not sure if I'm doing it correctly.

I can certainly understand disallowing saying the same thing a dozen times -- but there should be some kind of sanction against folks who keep asking the same question over and over as well. I have personally had to repeat myself a half dozen times to people who simply refuse to read what I said. I think that forcing me to repeat myself should be prohibited. (Of course, things get missed in the give and take of discussion...but not six times).

I really hope you don't mean this in the literal sense.

If I'm reading his posts correctly, the context of aramis' point is in regard to blatant negativism, not mere repetition itself.

To be more specific, preventing someone who truly enjoys MGT from repeating a question a dozen times because he/she is having trouble understanding a specific rule is a really bad idea IMOHO. I don't think you mean this but your frustration in repeating yourself may be blinding you to what you just said.

I also can't buy the idea that you are being forced to repeat yourself. Didn't you mention earlier that no one is being forced to read your comments? Same concept, no? I can appreciate you wanting others to understand you. What I don't get is why you would want to repeat yourself to someone who simply refuses to read what you said. A rather futile exercise, don't you think? Yeah, I suppose that person may eventually read your posts, but they could always go back and read what you already posted.

I appreciate your attention to detail, tbeard, and I think it contributes to these forums, but your statement I quoted above comes across as blaming others for your inability to simply let something go.

And criticism is discussion (particularly if it's supported with facts and logic). Also, criticism seems to me to be indispensible for improvement. Criticism apparently motivated some very serious last minute changes to MGT (and IMHO improved the game significantly).

Now this I can agree with.

 

[tbeard1999]

[/LIST]http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/faq.php?faq=cotirules#faq_therules

If anything, this is even more vague than Aramis' post (perhaps intentionally so?) The only thing I can find on-point is:

Trashing other forums, games, companies, or their products.

"Trashing" is obviously a subjective term, but I think that most would agree that it means "vicious attacks, with little evidence/logic to back them up" or somesuch. It seems to me to mean something more than even pointed criticism, especially if such criticism is backed up with facts and logic.

Do you agree?

And I note that what disturbs me about Aramis' list of allowable conduct is that they appear to reach far beyond mere grousing/bitching/complaining. I have no disagreement with disallowing empty grousing -- though I would also disallow empty praising as well But I'm very troubled when I'm told "you can't say anything bad about a product, no matter how well you support your argument". Of course, I think that Aramis' statements were not intended to reach that far. But I'd like to be sure.

The line is wherever we decide to draw it.

Fair enough. But where feasible, shouldn't a moderator who participates in a thread recuse himself from disciplining another in that thread (particularly if he disagrees with that person)? In other words, are there any safeguards to prevent moderators from "pulling rank"?

Or does that just "come with the turf", so to speak?

By all means, discuss problems and suggest solutions, but you're going beyond that. Give it a break for a bit.

Can you please give an example of my conduct that you object to? I mean, are you aware that I was not reprimanded by Aramis? He made the comments about allowable conduct to someone else and I asked for clarification.

 

[tbeard1999]

I really hope you don't mean this in the literal sense.

If I'm reading his posts correctly, the context of aramis' point is in regard to blatant negativism, not mere repetition itself.

Maybe so, but he specified repetitive posts and I felt it was relevant to note that sometimes the responders are responsible for repeated posts. And yes, I'm pretty sure I had to explain myself at least six times in the CT starship combat system thread (for instance).

To be more specific, preventing someone who truly enjoys MGT from repeating a question a dozen times because he/she is having trouble understanding a specific rule is a really bad idea IMOHO. I don't think you mean this but your frustration in repeating yourself may be blinding you to what you just said.

Since my example was of folks who willfully fail to read an explanation multiple times, I don't think that my statement can be fairly read as a request to prohibit honest inquiries.

I appreciate your attention to detail, tbeard, and I think it contributes to these forums, but your statement I quoted above comes across as blaming others for your inability to simply let something go.

???

I was not reprimanded here. Aramis made the comments to someone else and I asked for clarification because he seemed to be saying that any criticism of MGT would violate the rules of the forum.

My comment about repeating posts was merely to point out that this can be caused by bad faith on the part of folks other than the poster.

 

[aramis]

I really hope you don't mean this in the literal sense.

If I'm reading his posts correctly, the context of aramis' point is in regard to blatant negativism, not mere repetition itself.

it is

To be more specific, preventing someone who truly enjoys MGT from repeating a question a dozen times because he/she is having trouble understanding a specific rule is a really bad idea IMOHO. I don't think you mean this but your frustration in repeating yourself may be blinding you to what you just said.

I also can't buy the idea that you are being forced to repeat yourself.

neither can I.

Didn't you mention earlier that no one is being forced to read your comments? Same concept, no? I can appreciate you wanting others to understand you. What I don't get is why you would want to repeat yourself to someone who simply refuses to read what you said. A rather futile exercise, don't you think? Yeah, I suppose that person may eventually read your posts, but they could always go back and read what you already posted.

I appreciate your attention to detail, tbeard, and I think it contributes to these forums, but your statement I quoted above comes across as blaming others for your inability to simply let something go.

from here, it sure does. And Ty isn't the reason I made the comment.