So... Merchant Prince?

[aramis]

Matthew: When you cross-define a common-language term with a meaning that is way out of synch, you destroy your credibility.

Defending the author in question for his multiple factual errors (across multiple projects), obvious failure to do even basic research, and poor design choices doesn't do the company any favors.

The term has a long standing meaning which is uniform across English dialects, and you are selling to a 21st century audience, many of whom are familiar with the term, and some of whom are merchant mariners. Redefining it the way it was simply makes the author look ignorant, and/or incompetent.

As for Not being the GTFT equivalent... GTFT was additional detail on the merchant astromarine service and economy. To excessive detail for most, and charged amongst fans for some very arguable decisions (all of which are in the initial assumptions stage of its design - if you accept those assumptions, it's a viable simulation).

 

[Dragoner]

Ship's Troops sounds better and is already there. I agree Merchant Marine sounds misused.

 

[atpollard]

I think that Merchant Prince is being pummeled far beyond what any difference of opinion (or even outright error) concerning the naming of a class deserves. This discussion is rapidly approaching the "any change to the Spinward Marches UPPs will destroy the game as we know it" level of silliness.

Traveller starships routinely violate the laws of Conservation of Momentum and Thermodynamics, while straining Structural Statics and General Relativity ... and yet the game survives, is occasionally played and some people even manage to have fun. Are the Semantic issues really so insurmountable?

Please continue to discuss the points and merits and alternatives of the issue ... they are generally interesting ... but, could we ratchet down the rhetoric just a little?

 

[Shonner]

Aside from that, did we really need another military/paramilitary career in Traveller, in a trade-themed book? An actual merchant marine career would not only have extended Traveller nicely, but fit the theme of the book. The career doesn't need renaming, it needs to be redesigned to fit the name.

Ok. Now we're getting to the meaty part.

At first I would answer with "no" on the first point, and agree with your second. But there is the overall taken-in-context factor. I find there is more to the book than just this stat or that stat.

For years I've worked with CS2s and CS1s and MUs and they are nowhere ever near any food or musical instruments. Then there are the FCs. They are doing different jobs for sure. CSs used to be MSs not too long ago.

 

[saundby]

I think that Merchant Prince is being pummeled far beyond what any difference of opinion (or even outright error) concerning the naming of a class deserves.

Nah, it just looks like a pummeling when the discussion goes to where the points need to be repeated and refined several times over. It's one of the distorting elements of online forums and how they present conversations.

We've gone back and forth about one error over the past several posts. It doesn't ruin the whole book. I stand by my earlier comments on the book. Merchant Marine doesn't mess up the whole book by itself. I tried to keep my view of how big that is by referring to it as a "boner". It's a mistake, a glaring one but it doesn't sink the ship. I've tried to be as clear about the scope of this as I can. Each further explanation I make on this one point seems to make folks think I'm painting the whole book black.

Next they'll think I'm an MGT hater, I suppose. I like MGT, it's what I run for both a Doc Smith/Harry Harrison style campaign and a B5 campaign. I want the folks at Mongoose and their freelancers to be able to paper their walls in pound notes and dollars. Please let that color your perceptions of my criticism.

Getting back to the point, the present day terms for what the class describes are Ship Security, Shipboard Security, and Maritime Security. Each term is used in different places. Aramis' suggestion of Line Security works well, particularly for the Traveller environment.

When terminology is repurposed in SF novels, there's usually room for a bit of backstory. Often it's tied to a plot element (e.g. Firemen in Fahrenheit 451.) It fulfills a story purpose, whether it's atmosphere or strengthening the plot. It's harder to manage in a game book unless the term is tied to a similar usage in the milieu. *shrug*

I haven't intended my repeated posts on the subject as additional criticism of the book. Rather, they've been explanations of my earlier criticism in response to posts about points I raised.

This discussion is rapidly approaching the "any change to the Spinward Marches UPPs will destroy the game as we know it" level of silliness.

I'm invoking the Traveller Corollary to Godwin's Law on the Merchant Marine discussion.

I win. :devil:

 

[MongooseMatt]

I want the folks at Mongoose and their freelancers to be able to paper their walls in pound notes and dollars.

We are a little ways from that, I am afraid

When terminology is repurposed in SF novels, there's usually room for a bit of backstory. Often it's tied to a plot element (e.g. Firemen in Fahrenheit 451.) It fulfills a story purpose, whether it's atmosphere or strengthening the plot. It's harder to manage in a game book unless the term is tied to a similar usage in the milieu. *shrug*

That is a fair point.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Making an error in itself is not the problem. Making the same kind of easily prevented error twice, the second time after having been critizised (rightfully) for bad research is a problem. And making it in regions where it could be prevented with a quick trip to Wikipedia hints at bad work/uninterested author.

 

[rancke]

Making an error in itself is not the problem. Making the same kind of easily prevented error twice, the second time after having been critizised (rightfully) for bad research is a problem. And making it in regions where it could be prevented with a quick trip to Wikipedia hints at bad work/uninterested author.

What I gather from Matt's statement (correct me if I'm wrong, Matt), he and the author knew what the term 'Merchant Marine' meant, but thought it only applied to a very specific time and place (20th Century British and American shipping) and deliberately chose to use it in a different way.


Hans

 

[aramis]

What I gather from Matt's statement (correct me if I'm wrong, Matt), he and the author knew what the term 'Merchant Marine' meant, but thought it only applied to a very specific time and place (20th Century British and American shipping) and deliberately chose to use it in a different way.


Hans

An assumption in grievous error, which 5 minutes of research would have proven wrong.

Repurposing terms is a bad idea without LOTS of context.

 

[fiat_knox]

A return to the hard nosed grognards of old. How ... antiquated.

Might I suggest, rather than bash the author, the book and the publisher to little effect beyond alienating yourselves with Mongoose, newcomers and - well - everybody, that you submit an article to Signs & Portents magazine correcting the issue?

 

[far-trader]

A return to the hard nosed grognards of old. How ... antiquated.

An ad hominem attack. How... original.

And against the board rules.

 

[HG_B]

well - everybody, that you submit an article to Signs & Portents magazine correcting the issue?

You'd have to correct and reissue the book to have any real effect. MGT is doing just that with Vehicles as it was a disaster the 1st time 'round.

 

[rancke]

An ad hominem attack. How... original.

And against the board rules.

But note what happens when the subjects of this rather mild ad hominem refrain from rising to the bait and simply ignore such a footling faux pas.

That's right. Nothing happens. Peace and tranquility continues to reign.

I'm not saying that even such mild transgressions shouldn't be discouraged. But I am saying that the sin that really causes flamewars is escalating. Was this meant as a bit of friendly bandinage or as a malicious personal attack? I don't know for sure, but I choose to believe it was the first. And one really isn't entitled to take offense over friendly bandinage.

Just a thought that has been nagging me for a long time now.


Hans

 

[fiat_knox]

An ad hominem attack. How... original.

And against the board rules.

It's not ad hominem if it's not directed towards any named person or a specific group of people, but commenting on a perceived standard of behaviour (e.g. "This place is going to the dogs" rather than "You're the reason why this place is going to the dogs").

Note, I have not attached that behaviour in this instance to any individual, giving all parties concerned a chance to take a breather, agree to disagree and step back into their corners.

Bashing attacks are off-putting. I certainly feel intimidated by seeing page upon page of "You are doing this" and "No, you are like that" without the possibility of a resolution because it had become essentially two big stags going at each other just for the sake of it.

Nobody seems to want to consider compromise - which, with a discussion such as this, is the only viable solution remaining. That, or doing the decent thing and locking down this thread. Something I'd have done a good few pages back if it was taking place on one of the boards where I am a mod.

So, regards this particular thread topic, if the correction of the raised issue cannot be done by reissuing the book, perhaps because Mongoose's budget cannot cover that cost right now, the only effect anyone can settle for is the compromise of submitting an article to Signs & Portents or FreeTrav.

It might not have the appeal of a reissued Book 7, but it might be the only option available so it would have to be done that way.

Until then, the aggression here is putting off the newbs - and for all that I've been here a while, I still feel like a newb at times, standing and watching people far senior to me shelling over my head.

To no avail.

 

[far-trader]

I'm having a hard time parsing your replies just above Rancke2 and fiat_knox. Not your faults I suspect, I'm probably just too tired

What I'm getting from it sounds reasonable though. Escalation is bad, that was my intent in calling out the infraction publicly, stop any rejoinders before it went further. I probably could have done without the "roll-eyes" but these repeated grognard attacks are so annoying and pointless.

As for not being a defacto ad hominen attack, I'd debate that but am happy to let it die here.

As for locking the thread, I'm loathe to do that at any time without extreme cause. And I haven't even been following this thread to see it. If things were/are that bad, report them so it gets flagged for attention. I only happened to pop in this morning and saw your reply on the last page as the first indication of any issues.

With compromise goes reasonable discussion. Not blanket attacks. The first part of your post crossed the line, the second part was fine without it.

Anyway, not sure I'm making a lot of points clear here, maybe I'll return to it later when I'm more cognitively aware

 

[rancke]

So, regards this particular thread topic, if the correction of the raised issue cannot be done by reissuing the book, perhaps because Mongoose's budget cannot cover that cost right now, the only effect anyone can settle for is the compromise of submitting an article to Signs & Portents or FreeTrav.

It might not have the appeal of a reissued Book 7, but it might be the only option available so it would have to be done that way.

There's a perfectly simple and very cheap option for correcting any part of the text that TPTB at Mongoose want to correct. Errata. Not completely without cost, since someone will have to do some work, but much, much cheaper than reissuing the book.



Hans

 

[rancke]

I'm having a hard time parsing your replies just above Rancke2 and fiat_knox. Not your faults I suspect, I'm probably just too tired

I was just posting a general remark that was provoked by a specific situation. It has very little to do with the example and much more with a general principle.

In retrospect, I should have started a new thread, but I didn't think of that. Sorry.

Basically, I feel that posting something that could be an attack if one decides to take it that way but might just as well be a joke, irony, cluelessness, or a clumsy way of expressing oneself ought to be treated differently from posting something that is unmistakably an attack. And the important thing to do in the first case is don't take offense. Ignore it or at the most give the poster a friendly notice to the effect that his post could be misconstrued.


Hans

 

[mbrinkhues]

A return to the hard nosed grognards of old. How ... antiquated.

Might I suggest, rather than bash the author, the book and the publisher to little effect beyond alienating yourselves with Mongoose, newcomers and - well - everybody, that you submit an article to Signs & Portents magazine correcting the issue?

Actually a return of those that critizise Mongoose QA and/or production value. As some have stated - if you want to re-define a word than give it a backstory. Just turning "all merchant sailors" into "merchant security" isn't enough. At least a short blurp to show that the author DID give it some research and thought.

Same with other problems cited here. There is quite a bit valid critizism in this thread that has nothing to do with OTU vs. "MGTs changes to the OTU" but rather with "Is the book worth 25€" (Or to translate that: Can I get about four-six weekends of fun out of it like I could out of a Trumpeter Striker RV)

And Mongoose reads here (as shown) and sometimes reacts (CSC killing the Merc Weapons big errors).

As for S&P: It's the Publishers job to fix the Publishers mistakes. If they want ME to to it, they need to pay me.

 

[fiat_knox]

As for S&P: It's the Publishers job to fix the Publishers mistakes. If they want ME to to it, they need to pay me.

Write it up, write up a few other interesting articles, submit them as samples, sign the contract and if it ends up in S&P send them the invoice for the word count and then they'll pay you.

They can't pay for what they haven't got. But what they do get, if it gets published, they will pay for it.

 

[Jame]

Ship's Troops sounds better and is already there. I agree Merchant Marine sounds misused.

I would have been happier had the Author used Merchant Marine to be corporate merchants. But this is about the only career in MGT Merchant Prince that I didn't like.

And personally I'm glad the trading section wasn't like GT Far Trader; I love that book too but the trading section is FAR beyond me - so far beyond that I don't know what to do with it.