- Status
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Well, an outright admission you weren’t even reading what I was saying. That does go right along with all the blithe dismissals and the obvious complete misunderstanding of everything I was saying, and the numerous mischaracterizations of my positions, as well as completely undermining your own statements by trumpeting that you couldn’t take the trouble to pay attention.
Which is no argument at all.
Wow.
Malenfant states the equivalent of: "My position is baseless and unsupported, I can't say anything that refutes anything, so just shut up; and then I call myself mature and decent by insinuating the other party is not (without any basis for saying so other than that the other party holds a different opinion) by implied corollary, even though I wasn’t paying attention to what was being said in the first place."
More meaningless statements that have nothing whatsoever to do with my opinions, thoughts, or the Topic at hand.
Please note that we are discussing the past. Please.
That’s because there isn’t anything unreasonable about my position. You haven’t refuted anything I’ve said, but merely resorted to blithe dismissal. Oh, and you admitted you weren’t reading what I was saying, either, so you can’t possibly state any part of it is unreasonable. Stating, “nyah, nyah, I’m right,” does not make an argument.
An attitude you personally dislike is not necessarily unreasonable, it is a position of condescension to consider it otherwise.
I will further point out that I’ve spent plenty of time outlining every point of why it is your position that is unreasonable, none of which has been refuted.
If any reasonable persuasion presents itself, I’ll let you know.
And I see no reason you should waste your time not paying attention, either.
And I guess I’m sick of all the attempts to censor opinions about Traveller’s history that aren’t popular, warm, and fuzzy from people who aren’t fans of it. But, you do have the right to do so, and I will not challenge it.
As I already pointed out, criticism is useful and constructive. Just because it’s criticism you don’t appreciate does not invalidate it.
I thought so.
And neither would I. Making criticisms of past events (which cannot be changed; and which will not influence anything in the modern day), even if those criticisms are made forcefully, or with less than polite terms, is not an indication that the people making those criticisms are going “mental” over those events. The connection implied is not supportable in any way.
</font>[/QUOTE]Your own words reflect back upon yourself (again).
I’m happy for you. There’s nothing wrong with liking this setting.
And there is nothing wrong with liking any other setting, in any game, either.
And there is nothing wrong with criticizing any of them, either.
For many reasons, I also hope so, because QLI has invested a lot in it.
And that is no small contribution. They are major features of Traveller.
How unfortunate.
Me too. I did. But I found I’d been mistaken and returned. This has nothing to do discussions of what happened in the past.
Ahem! I’d like everyone reading this to realize that I have never threatened any member of any publisher of Traveller with death, injury, violence, or any kind of threat of any type. Do not take the above to indicate I have. I repeat, the above statement has nothing to do with me!
I’d move on, I’ve done it before. However, I wouldn’t just shrug. I’m a Traveller Fan. I like Traveller, and would sorrow at its passing.
“Grudge,” is a mischaracterization of my position. Criticizing something, even fiercely, does not mean not mean a grudge is held. The connection is not supportable.
The “thing” you apparently refer to, this “grudge”, does not exist, except, perhaps, in a few deranged minds, which I certainly have not found around here on CotI.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Whoops! Here's this already refuted statement, once again.
You haven't seen it only becasue you weren't looking.
In my first short browsings of RPG.net (vastly larger than the blithely dismissed Dragonsfoot), I found multiple massive anti-Palladium and anti-WW threads. There were hundreds of posts and thousands of views of each.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Didn't you hear? That's "unreasonable"!!
</font>[/QUOTE]It isn't unreasonable. But whether sticking with the previous, unsupported, editions was reasonable or not is not the position.
The position is that some players felt no active support is the same as not having a game because they didn't have the spare personal time to combine their monetary and temporal investment in new product with the personal ivestment in additional creative development to generate the game sessions of a campaign. Not everyone is an unending fount of creativity, they depend on active game support to keep themselves going.
Yes, they can move on to new pastures if they feel it's unsupported. Guess what? Many did. Did they want to? No. Can they complain about it? Yes. As much and as long as they want? Yes. Is freedom of speach a mature a healthy activity? Yes. Is censorship bad? Yes. Is telling people to shut and and go away a mature and decent thing to say? No.
M
Malenfant
Guest
You'll forgive me for losing interest when you're writing a retort to Every. Single. Word. I'm saying.
For one thing, if I had read through everything in one go I would probably have ended up getting really pissed off at you. What "blithe dismissal"? You go on about investments and other such twaddle about work being "invalidated" by new versions. I state that work remains valid and usable even if new versions come out. This is neither baseless nor unsupported - it's straight fact. Prove to me that work done by people for past versions of Traveller has become "invalidated". Does it fit in with the new versions of the game? No, it doesn't. Does it become unusable as a result though? No, it doesn't. Therefore it doesn't become "invalidated".
All that matters is the game you play in. A publisher has no control over what books you use to do that. Therefore your work remains just as valid as it did before the publisher changed things. That's why we have "IMTU", is it not?
If you want to slavishly adhere to every word that the OTU says, then you take the smooth with the rough. If they change things in a way you don't like, you change your game too, or you depart from the OTU. If you're so obsessed with sticking to the OTU that you refuse to do that, then that's entirely your problem.
Now, which part of this is "baseless" or "unreasonable" or "unsupported"?
You haven't at all. All you've done is say "you're unreasonable", brush off my statements as being unsupported when they're not, and not listening to a word I'm saying.
Well there's your problem. If you don't recognise reasonable persuasion when you see it (see my first post on this page) then I give up.
I'm not censoring opinions at all. You can say what you like about TNE - I don't care if you like or don't like it. What is annoying me is your attitude and the attitude of people who continue to complain about irrelevant things about TNE's presentation or authors or how their world was ended by its release or whatever. It's that attitude I can't stand, not the fact that you don't like TNE.
No, it's not. SOME criticism is useful and constructive. That's called "constructive criticism" funnily enough. It's when people voice a negative opinion about something, but try to provide a means to make it better. That's a good thing. Saying "I don't like how Virus works in TNE, instead I've come up with this alternative mechanism that I think is better" is fine. Saying "I don't like the Collapse in TNE. I think the Rebellion should have just ended and another Long Night start and then things would recover" is fine.
A lot of criticism, however, is not useful or constructive. This includes ranting, whining, throwing tantrums, insults, and generally unhelpful comments. "I hate anyone who writes for TNE, they destroyed my Traveller Universe, I wish they were all dead" is an example of this. "Dave Nilsen is scum who should be shot for what he did to Traveller" is another example. "All my work has been invalidated by TNE, why did they have to tear everything down" is yet another. None of this sort of criticism helps anybody - it just wastes everyone's time, frustrates and incites people, and doesn't do a damn thing to improve anything.
Look at what Aramis wrote that started this whole flame war off - 100% ranting, frothing, raving, personally directed vitriol. That's UNCONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
Look at what he posted on the restarted "Questions for Dave Nilsen" thread. Three simple questions, phrased in a non-inciteful manner. That's CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
The former should be unacceptable in any civilised community. The latter is not, and should be welcomed. That's all I'm on about here.
So what is it then? What exactly do you think can be achieved by criticising and complaining about those past events?
I'm glad you agree.
There is nothing wrong with constructively criticising any of them. There is everything wrong with criticising them unconstructively though. It wastes everyone's time, and it does nothing but split the so-called "community" here further.
In both cases, I never implied that you specifically did think that, either. I was speaking generally.
M
Malenfant
Guest
It's not refuted at all. I never said that it NEVER happens. I just don't see it elsewhere at anywhere near the frequency that it happens here.
I've been on RPGnet for years now. Yes, anti-game threads come up every now and then. But they don't devolve into "I wish the author of the game was dead", or "my life was ruined by the new edition" or other such garbage. When they devolve into flamewars it's usually because some idiot - referred to as a 'troll' - barges in with something unconstructive comment and everyone starts arguing over it. Then said idiot tries defending his undefendable statements, people start flinging thinly veiled personal attacks all over the place, making sarky comments to further annoy people, and so on, until it either dies down or someone goes too far and it is shut down. Flamewars always start because someone either (a) doesn't have a clue what they're talking about and states it as fact (which pisses people off), (b) says it in such a way that they piss people off, or (c) just passes through deliberately being provocative and pissing people off.
I'll freely admit that I've seen and been in many, many flame wars both here and elsewhere. And while when I first came on the net I blundered around and started a few, I don't start them any more - eventually I learned the netiquette. Sometimes I lapse when someone pisses me off enough for me to post a flamey response (mea culpa, I'm human. And I'm not the only one who does it either) - but I don't hop in and make an inciteful, unproductive comment just for the hell of it. Which is exactly what Aramis and Secretagent did at the start of the thread.
M
Malenfant
Guest
Which is fair enough, if you leave it at that. I can see why it would annoy people.
But what is unreasonable is when those players decide that it's OK to complain about it at the company and to all and sundry for years on end. It's done and dusted. Kaput. Finito. Over with. Get. Over. It.
Plus, you've got the CT reprints now. You've got MT and TNE and T4 on Drivethru RPG. You've got Traveller products still being actively produced for GT and T20 (compatible with CT too). So where is this "lack of support" you're going on about? There's more support for Traveller now than there's ever been in its history! That being the case, why don't people move on?
And do you really think they're alone in this?! Take a look around - how many games are long dead? Take Skyrealms of Jorune. Take Blue Planet. Take the old World of Darkness. Take Basic D&D. What you see is what you get. Do people still play them? You bet. Those people are the ones who had the time/inclination to keep going. I'm sure everyone else grumbled about it for a bit, but you don't see hordes of fans of those old games rising up saying "we hate you all for playing new games! We hate our companies for moving on to other things!" do you? If they really want to keep the game alive, they get off their arses and write webpages or start mailing lists and do something USEFUL, instead of complaining about the lack of support for their favourite game. And if they don't have time to do that, well, them's the breaks.
It's really not hard to understand how this works, you know. And frankly, CT is in a better situation than most other games are.
That's where you're wrong. If all they're going to do is whine unconstructively, then no they can't. Others in the community who are interested in creating a more positive, constructive attitude on the boards have every right to tell them to shut up and take a hike and leave them alone. It's simple sociology - people in a community have no obligation whatsoever to tolerate those who want to divide it.
Ah. The old "If in doubt, raise "freedom is good!" Stop oppressing me!" argument.
Get some perspective - your "freedom of speach" (sic) is not at stake here. Nobody is under any obligation to tolerate EVERY kind of behaviour here. In fact, some behaviour here is downright NOT tolerated at all, since this is a private board and Hunter can do whatever he likes. He can and does warn people and he can ban people too for what they say. If you have a problem with that, then you know where the door is.
Actually, it is. I want to see a community where people create things for Traveller and improve the game and all the settings. I'm fed up with people who just want to bicker all the time and go on never-ending rants about how crap X version of the game is and who go on about things that happened years ago that aren't even relevant to ANYTHING anymore, that doesn't do a damn thing to improve the game or attract people to it.
I've done loads to improve Traveller. I've written two JTAS articles, a revised stellar generation system, designed the worlds in the Sword Worlds book, used my expertised to help people out with their worldbuilding and astronomy questions, and am working on a definitive (for the next 25 years at least) realistic world design system, and gone out of my way to look stuff up for random people. And there are plenty of others here, thankfully, who have contributed just as much (if not more) in other fields. THAT'S what people in this community should be doing. It builds things, it's positive, it encourages people to come in and take a look and play and buy the game.
The alternative is things like this thread, which also happens quite a lot here. People focussing on negative things, not helping others, nitpicking, bickering, slinging accusations. We need less of this here. But ignoring people who do that doesn't seem to make a difference - anything they say to drag things down is still there for everyone to see. Retorts start flying around and arguments and flame wars start. This is not a good thing, but what are we to do? The people who start these things aren't interested in helping the community, so why should they be tolerated when they start them?
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
I don't like the CT system, sure - and personally, I wish it was long gone. But that said, I don't stop people playing it though. Hell, I've got the Books and Supplements reprints, and most of the LBB adventures at home. I don't think people are stupid for not liking my favourite version of the game. You can criticise TNE itself all you like in a reasonable way - but when you start harping on about how it "ruined your life" or "destroyed Traveller" and holding grudges about it for years, then I think I'm quite justified in ripping you to pieces, because i think that's an entirely ridiculous position to take over a game. And I sure don't do that about CT.
</font>[/QUOTE]Mal, I notice that you didn’t answer the question.
That's very specifically your opinion, not fact. Stop touting it as the latter.
</font>[/QUOTE]And your beliefs about the benefits and drawbacks of other people carrying on about something you’d rather not hear about are your opinions, stop touting them as otherwise.
yadda yadda yadda. Yes, we've heard this a thousand times already. And? What do you want people to do about it now?
</font>[/QUOTE]Nothing. No one is asking for anything to be done. But like birds of a feather, when flocked together, we talk and BS about the past. It’s a totally human activity. It will never, ever, in a billion years be wiped out from the human psyche.
I was thinking along the lines of not going around telling people to shut up, calling them mental, telling them their passions are worthless and infantile, that their efforts aren’t an investment, or worse, are illusory, yadda, yadda, yadda. You know, basically avoiding kicking dirt in people’s eyes.
That would be: No, No, No, and No. As I mentioned, I seek no action. I can’t be seeking an action. The discussion, as I pointed out before, is about something in the past that can’t be changed. As I’ve pointed out before, we’re free to discuss it whenever we wish.
I echo your own words in response (again):
Those who do not like what is discussed are free to close their ears and move on.
And yes, a few lines above I said we shouldn’t make statements like these. But I view these as your own words tossed back, not mine.
Does a train collector who finds that his favourite train set is being discontinued and a new set is released rant and rave about it for years on end? Does a stamp collector curse the post office when his favourite stamps are discontinued? Does a cyclist send death threats to a bike company when his favourite bicycle is discontinued and a new line is begun? No.
</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong! You obviously have never met a dedicated model train builder.
Comparing collecting and gaming as hobbies is a very bad analogy. While they are both equally serious and valid hobbies, they involve very different sets of activities. Very different. They are, in essence, not comparable. The connection is not supportable.
Calling people’s investment’s (“stock” was a useful analogy I came up with for an investment) “BS” without stating how they are “BS” is not refutation.
No it’s not. A great deal of mine has vanished. I am hardly alone.
It’s taken a an effort going on two weeks to locate a single person who might have the archives of the TML going back to the original. Of all the people who must have once had that investment, now there is but one (plus some others who believe that with considerable effort they could come up with it).
How difficult is it for intelligent people to comprehend that not everyone has the spare time to do this, and at the same time be upset because something they were enjoying was cut off?
No one has given you any.
Try finding a group of people readily willing to play Mage 2e now (who aren’t already locked into games of it), when all most people already know about it have in their heads is the most recent rule set? How many trans-editions arguments occur?
So you blame the company for the fact that your GM didn't have the time or inclination to make his own material?! That's... extremely misguided.
</font>[/QUOTE]And Mal misses the point and introduces obfuscation. There is no specific assignment of blame in jwdh71’s statements, and yet, “blame” is suddenly getting discussed.
More meaningless off-topic statements.
But books get old, they disappear, and for those who came late (or, like me, back) to the scene, are ever more difficult to acquire. Why do they have to be acquired, because the history and background of Traveller is scattered amongst them.
But books and their existence, notes and their existence, continuing to play and/or moving on, these are all completely and totally beside the point of this Topic.
I explain it by noting an entire dead Traveller webring, and the dead websites with “last update” dates in 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, all in gradually dwindling numbers. There has been a surge of new websites. There seems to (I note, empirically) have been a resurgence of Traveller popularity of late. I doubt any discussions, pro/anti, here or on the TML has anything affect on that popularity resurgence.
It looks rather the reverse to me. You are the one who is throwing around terms like “crap, tantrum, mental, brat, spoilt, etc.” Who is acting the role here?
Just like this thread hijacking has nothing to do with the Topic.
Wah! Wah!
Man, just listen to that whining.
Parts of it were hideously inappropriate in your Topic. Not so in this Topic. Check the Topic Title.
I do not know, Mal. But step back and look carefully. I was not the one who violated your original Topic. My B***hing and Moaning™ has been restricted to this Topic, where it belongs.
For the same reason you are posting to this thread when you have nothing useful to contribute to it.
Why, yes, your own words reflect back upon yourself one more time.
M
Malenfant
Guest
I give up.
I cite - quite clearly - perfectly valid, supported reasons for my statements. You ignore them all and just say "that's unsupported".
You may go on at me for ignoring what you say and claiming to know better than you, but what are YOU doing? Bickering for its own sake it seems.
I really don't have time for you anymore. I've wasted enough on you as it is here. Doubtless you'll be wittering on writing 20 page long replies and retorting every other word I say while not listening for ages here. Good luck with that. I'm sure you can't have anything more important or interesting to do for a couple of hours on a Tuesday night.
I cite - quite clearly - perfectly valid, supported reasons for my statements. You ignore them all and just say "that's unsupported".
You may go on at me for ignoring what you say and claiming to know better than you, but what are YOU doing? Bickering for its own sake it seems.
I really don't have time for you anymore. I've wasted enough on you as it is here. Doubtless you'll be wittering on writing 20 page long replies and retorting every other word I say while not listening for ages here. Good luck with that. I'm sure you can't have anything more important or interesting to do for a couple of hours on a Tuesday night.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
No, I didn't just say they were unsupportable, I noted why they weren't.
As for making "perfectly" valid and supportable statements? Okayyyyy. You toss sentences loaded with "shut up, crap, tantrums, mental, etc.," and except us to view them as valid, supportable, or "perfect?" Not.
Example. You made the statement that the investment Traveller fans place in their games isn't an investment, without stating how it wasn't an investment, other than to toss an "illusory" label on it (and later calling the investment "crap"). Then, later, you chime in that people's investments in their games don't disappear because the publisher alters the game to the point of not supporting earlier material, that people can continue to use their investment if they wish (and if they're not "lazy"). In two breaths investment turns from "illusory" to something that sticks around forever and is usable. Hmmm . . . perhaps that is why I assert your statements in this matter are unsupportable (and in other matters, related to this hijacked thread, for other reasons, also noted each time).
No, this time I'm simply not letting you get away with making continually more outrageous statements regarding gamers and fans of Traveller. I won't sit by, not this time.
You said that before, too, but here the conversation continues.
As long as you state the outrageous, I'll "witter" on.
Well, wrong again on that, too. I would rather be reading over your new UWP generation system that listening to this . . . but I will listen to it, nonetheless.
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi folks !
See the results of fiercly discussing a taste thing ?
Thats just always unproductive.
Mal, I really dont think, that Chris ignores Your arguments. He just does not share Your view.
But a question to Chris:
Was the publipication of MT/TNE really a reason to stop anybody from playing on in the OTU ?
See the results of fiercly discussing a taste thing ?
Thats just always unproductive.
Mal, I really dont think, that Chris ignores Your arguments. He just does not share Your view.
But a question to Chris:
Was the publipication of MT/TNE really a reason to stop anybody from playing on in the OTU ?
M
Malenfant
Guest
One more post, just to clarify your misrepresentations of what I say.
It's illusory because you're putting all these values on it that confuse the issue. You expect a publisher to protect or even care about your "investment"? It doesn't work like that. YOU invest your time and effort into what you write, and it's entirely your decision what you do with it. If you choose to not develop it further because the game is no longer supported, that's YOUR decision entirely - blaming the company is straight-out denial of the fact that you made a choice not to do anything more with your work. And if that choice is somehow taken out of your hands... well, life sucks. But don't blame the company for moving on to something new.
If you're THAT keen on protecting your "investment" then you'll do something to maintain it. You could try to rearrange your priorities so you have time to develop it further. And if that isn't possible, well, them's the breaks - we can't always get what we want. But still, it's not going anywhere and you may be able to get back to it later.
That said, you complained about losing your TML archives - was their loss completely out of your control? If you really cared about them that much then you should have backed them up properly or stored them somewhere. I have several backups on CD and DVD of all the RPG documents I've ever written. I know exactly where they are. It's going to be very difficult for them to just "disappear" on me like yours apparently have done.
It seems to me that you're more likely to blame for losing or not maintaining your "investments" . And frankly, you don't get any sympathy from me if you've lost them. But certainly, the publisher is not to blame for this, unless of course someone from GDW came to your house to wrest all your work from you.
Oh, and I didn't say the investment was crap. I said your concept of the investment was crap. You're not investing time and effort into the company, you're investing it into your own material. If the company dies tomorrow, your material is still there, and the books that they published that you bought are still there, and they're still usable. Your "investment" doesn't disappear because of this and it doesn't become unusable. If the line changes then your work may not follow the official line any more, but that doesn't render it unusable in the context of your own games. So therefore your entire argument that it is somehow "invalidated" is baseless.
So the fact that you wilfully misunderstand what I say means that my assertions are "unsupported"? Riiight.
jchurchill
SOC-12
+++++I'm glad I bought TNE as a PDF and not a book. [Far too many TLA's in this post already] Actually now that I think about it I received TNE as a free download. And I was still underwhelmed by it.+++++
You still haven't read Path of Tears have you.
Honestly, kids today just aren't prepared to put in the necesscary hours.
=================================================
Nope. Still have not read it. I may shell out the $7...but I have the nagging feeling that it would be another $7 down the tubes.
Kid? At 42 I don't feel much like a kid.
You still haven't read Path of Tears have you.
Honestly, kids today just aren't prepared to put in the necesscary hours.
=================================================
Nope. Still have not read it. I may shell out the $7...but I have the nagging feeling that it would be another $7 down the tubes.
Kid? At 42 I don't feel much like a kid.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
Well, I guess the story bears telling again.
Back in 1987, I wasn't a part of any computer board, fan maling list, etc. I was some two and three quarters (or so) years out of the hunt playing Traveller. After my on-again/off-again campaign I ran died out around early 1985, somewhere in there, I continued on with a new campaign design into 1986. With no players available, I sort of set it aside for a while.
In late 1987, I picked up a copy of the MegaTraveller boxed set from the local gaming club library (for the short time both the club and the library existed). I sat down and opened the rules. I skimmed over character generation and the new skill task system (seeing that it was a development of DGP's task system which I'd already read about in various Traveller's Digests.
I then went to the meat of the matter as concerned my then seventeen year old self. Starship construction.
I tried to use the rules to duplicate a 200 Far Trader. I ran into so many rules ambiguities and instructional dead-ends (where the text just stopped talking about what to do), that after two to three hours of struggling along mightily (I found Book 5 to be an absolute breeze of simplicity, by comparison), I sat down and read the contstructions rules front to back. For whatever reason, I could make neither hide nor hair of them.
I reassembled the books into the box, returned it to the library, and didn't touch Traveller again until 2002. Just like that. So, it wasn't ranting fans, Rebellion (which I, admittedly, didn't like once I later learned what it was all about), or anything of the kind. It was, quite plain and simple, errata that killed off my interest (and with my very limited spending power at the time, it wasn't that tough a decision; buy errata-heavy material, don't buy errata-heavy material).
Of course, now I wish I'd done otherwise. Saved more, eaten fast food less, whatever, and gotten those books. I still don't have the MT book with the construction rules, never saw it again, so I haven't been able to reassess my original judgement of the problems I'd originally discovered with the starship construction rules, although it's obvious from the many designs that exist all over the place, that not all found the problems I did. The question I always ask myself, is, though, why did I find problems in MT when I found none such in Book 5 (or at least nothing significant by comparison)?
Eventually TNE came out, which I observed very distantly. I had no idea about any of the problems related to it, it's publication, fan-offense, etc. I found out about all that much later (and found great sympathy with all the fan difficult, too). I was shocked by the disappearance of GDW, and naturally thought at the time that TNE & the lawsuit killed them off, only hearing much later that the Desert Storm over-print hurt, the ccg game intro hurt, and that the lawsuit hurt them for productive time but for very little in the way of money (almost nothing, I've been led to believe).
TNE was gone. A couple of years later, I heard about IG's T4. I bought it, skimmed the background, and set it aside (no one to play with). Then, GT:Traveller came out, and having some basic GURPs stuff as freebies from cons, picked up the main GT book. I read the non-Rebellion background with great interest, but disliked the GURPS character stats, point system, combat system, and with no players, set it aside. (Now both my T4 and GT main book are no where to be found, along with most of my early Traveller Campaign Notes and Maps save for some ship designs).
Somewhere in the middle of the 90s, parallel to the above, I actually went back to my original campaign, for short two or three month periods, once or twice, and did more design work (which has now vanished).
Since 2002, I've picked up some used MT and TNE material. Since I bought several T2K products, I rather liked the TNE system, although the background felt too much like Gamma World to be attractive. I conisdered running TNE/FFS1 in a Golden Age setting (but there were no players). MT is, of course, incomplete, so I don't really have the whole "system" to evalute in a modern light, though I've been able to read plenty of background material. Of course, I also got the CT reprints, and T20, and a few of the later GT products.
And that leaves me here today, spending my spare time designing another Traveller campaign (background, mostly; I've been footdraging lately, waiting for H&E 2.0 to come out in complete form), still without the prospect of players (let's not go into how foolish that probably is).
M
Malenfant
Guest
I notice you didn't answer TheEngineer's question.
So you had problems with errata, complexity of ship building etc - fine. But your campaigns were on/off affairs anyway, it's not like you've been playing Traveller every week since 1980. It's not like suddenly you'd lost your Traveller fix. And again, it's not like your CT books suddenly became unusable for writing your own material.
Your problem seems to be more that you don't like the other versions of the game as much as you like CT. But there are still people playing CT, and there are still people playing other versions of the game. How hard it is to find players still interested in playing these will vary. You're probably more likely to persuade people (especially new gamers) to play GT or T20 nowadays. Have you tried looking for a T20 group? More to the point, did you just give up if you didn't find one, or are you still actively looking?
If you're that keen on playing Traveller, you have to be willing to put in the effort to find players or join groups - and chances are you will find people if you look hard enough and are open-minded enough. If you don't do that, there's the option of just playing with Traveller - designing ships, worlds, subsectors, settings, whatever. At least you have boards or webpages to post your creations on. And you can certainly use CT for all of this (which you clearly are most comfortable with) if you don't like the other versions.
What do you want to do with Traveller, exactly? You asked me if I was a Traveller fan - but are YOU? You seem to bounce in and out of the game from what you've said here. For most of the 90s you didn't seem to be too interested in continuing to develop your material.
So you had problems with errata, complexity of ship building etc - fine. But your campaigns were on/off affairs anyway, it's not like you've been playing Traveller every week since 1980. It's not like suddenly you'd lost your Traveller fix. And again, it's not like your CT books suddenly became unusable for writing your own material.
Your problem seems to be more that you don't like the other versions of the game as much as you like CT. But there are still people playing CT, and there are still people playing other versions of the game. How hard it is to find players still interested in playing these will vary. You're probably more likely to persuade people (especially new gamers) to play GT or T20 nowadays. Have you tried looking for a T20 group? More to the point, did you just give up if you didn't find one, or are you still actively looking?
If you're that keen on playing Traveller, you have to be willing to put in the effort to find players or join groups - and chances are you will find people if you look hard enough and are open-minded enough. If you don't do that, there's the option of just playing with Traveller - designing ships, worlds, subsectors, settings, whatever. At least you have boards or webpages to post your creations on. And you can certainly use CT for all of this (which you clearly are most comfortable with) if you don't like the other versions.
What do you want to do with Traveller, exactly? You asked me if I was a Traveller fan - but are YOU? You seem to bounce in and out of the game from what you've said here. For most of the 90s you didn't seem to be too interested in continuing to develop your material.
RainOfSteel
SOC-14 1K
So, apparently, you weren't really done. How many more times is that going to happen?
</font>[/QUOTE]What? Must I requote your own words to you, again?
It was pretty simply. I stated people's efforts at designing their campaigns were an investment which they felt was valuable, and which they reasonably felt upset about when events occured that devalued that investment.
You immediately and without support stated that the investment I mentioned was illusory. Coming along now and trying to justify it is pretty late (and since it can't be justified by any means, is impossible anyway; the sheer chutzpah of it, stating that people's efforts and value of their efforts are illusory).
Your position is, quite clearly, that it isn't possible to devalue the investment I was referring to (at least, on those even minutes when the investment is a reality, who knows what's going on during the odd minutes, when the investment is illusory), and therefore all problems associated with it are non-existant. I shall cast your own words back at you once again. "That's strictly your opinion, stop touting it as otherwise."
Criticizing something, even fiercely or impolitely, is not always assigning "blame".
And, in any event, this is a complete failure to deal with a central fact. Dead systems are unattractive. If a company choses to cease support for a system, that too, is a choice. The company's choice. I do not blame the company for doing so (as you keep insisting I do, when I don't). However, following this up by insisting that people not get upset over the loss of the value in their investment due to the company's actions (no, the company is not responsible for the loss in the value of that investment, as you keep insisting I've said, when I haven't), or demeaning their feelings on the subject with various slurs, innuendos, and outright rudeness (telling people to go shut up is the height of rudeness on the internet), without a position with even one leg to stand on . . . as I said, sheer chutzpah.
Basically, this is nothing more than an attempt to extend the idea of the "investment" as a solid reality.
Oops, and reading just a little farther down, you fail to describe in what way my concept of the "investment" was crap, failing to support the initial statement made several posts ago (in whatever form you really meant it to be).
You have stated that the value of the investment can't be devalued. Since it's value can only be in the eyes of the GM and the players, it's subjective and beyond your ability to nail down as an absolute.
If a gamer says his investment in a discontinued system has been devalued, then no encycolpedia-sized dissertation can refute that statement, because the only one to whom it applies is that particular gamer, of course, because it came from that gamer's judgement.
Of course, I also realize that you've stated that the judgement of all gamers who think that way are flawed, childish, etc. This is strictly your opinion. Considering the credentials and education of many of those who feel that way, it's a position that seems largely unsupportable to me (although that last assertion is also only my opinion).
</font>[/QUOTE]You haven't pointed out where I misunderstood anything. Not even one single time. Instead you've managed to assert I've made several statement I haven't. You made one entire paragraph of the post based on a statement I never made. In each case I've noted how and why I never made those statements. Several times you've made assertions and failed to follow them up (which I noted). I've backed up all my assertions with notes and examples. Oh, and there's been lots of reiteration of the obvious or already agreed upon as if it were actually important to the Topic (and let us not forget that this is a TNE Flame War Topic).
You know, you can create a new Topic called "Evil Grognard Conspiracy to whine [or whinge, I'm not sure which] about the past and diss MT and TNE's authors and publishers." I'm sure this vein of discussion will find a wider audience there. I won't promise not to post my own refutations there, but I won't be upset if people justifiably rip any invalid arguments I make to shreds.
One more post, just to clarify your misrepresentations of what I say.
</font>[/QUOTE]What? Must I requote your own words to you, again?
It was pretty simply. I stated people's efforts at designing their campaigns were an investment which they felt was valuable, and which they reasonably felt upset about when events occured that devalued that investment.
You immediately and without support stated that the investment I mentioned was illusory. Coming along now and trying to justify it is pretty late (and since it can't be justified by any means, is impossible anyway; the sheer chutzpah of it, stating that people's efforts and value of their efforts are illusory).
Your position is, quite clearly, that it isn't possible to devalue the investment I was referring to (at least, on those even minutes when the investment is a reality, who knows what's going on during the odd minutes, when the investment is illusory), and therefore all problems associated with it are non-existant. I shall cast your own words back at you once again. "That's strictly your opinion, stop touting it as otherwise."
Mal says: "all these values," but doesn't explain which values I hung on the "investment" concept I was discussing that confuse the issue.
Since I never said anything of the kind, I'm wondering why you're stating I did. In any event, since that statement above never happened, I shall now happily call it illusory (once more getting a chance to toss your words back at you).
It? What it? What are you talking about? Obviously this sentence hangs upon the previous one, but since the previous sentence wasn't uttered by me, not even by implication, that renders this sentence null and void.
I believe I already stated this, but it's self-evident, anyway.
Why yes it is.
Why, yes it is.
Since I have, numerous times up to this point, stated over and over again that blame has nothing to do with my opinions or thoughts, I wonder why you yet again accuse me of it? Maybe other people think this way, but not me.
This is all hanging off the direct misquote and the non-existant blame thing. It's invalid on the face of it.
Wait! This is a position flip-flop. First, it's the gamer's choice to play or not play. Then, it might not be. Hmmm, this is a position weakening statement.
Well, not to belabor the obvious by this point, but I didn't blame anyone for anything.
Criticizing something, even fiercely or impolitely, is not always assigning "blame".
And then life comes along and makes off with it, and who knows where it's gone? (I am, of course, referring to the loss of my own game notes as I mentioned in my other recent post.)
And, in any event, this is a complete failure to deal with a central fact. Dead systems are unattractive. If a company choses to cease support for a system, that too, is a choice. The company's choice. I do not blame the company for doing so (as you keep insisting I do, when I don't). However, following this up by insisting that people not get upset over the loss of the value in their investment due to the company's actions (no, the company is not responsible for the loss in the value of that investment, as you keep insisting I've said, when I haven't), or demeaning their feelings on the subject with various slurs, innuendos, and outright rudeness (telling people to go shut up is the height of rudeness on the internet), without a position with even one leg to stand on . . . as I said, sheer chutzpah.
Yes, they could, but this doesm't deal with the fact that dead systems are unattractive, and people who've just had their investment shot in the heart (in their view, which doens't make it the publisher's fault, but doens't stop the feelings from from happening anyway).
And yet again a statement that attaches no meaning to the immediate segment of the discussion in this Topic.
I'd've never thought . . . of course we can't.
I made no complaint about the the loss of the old TML archives. I made a point about another issue by illustrating how investments can be lost over time using the mild difficulty in recovering the old TML archives as an example. Using something as an example to illustrate a point is not complaining about it.
What are you talking about? I never had access to the TML before 2003. When would I have backed them up properly? You're walking around on thin air on that completely baseless accusation, falling away into a deep, deep canyon, to land in a puff of dust like Wiley Coyote after doing something less than intelligent while in pursuit of the roadrunner.
I'm glad for you. I do to, now, because I've scraped to afford it. But back in the day, I had no computer to write on due to financial difficulties. My notes were paper.
Basically, this is nothing more than an attempt to extend the idea of the "investment" as a solid reality.
And so, you've never lost anything in two consecutive moves before? If you've never lost anything in a move (assuming you ever have moved), then you are luckly beyond compare.
Here we're back to the non-existant "blame" thing again. Who is flogging a dead horse here?
I think it's pretty clear you have no sympathy for Traveller Fans or gamers in general, so . . . why would I expect any from you or even care whether it came? In any event, as far as the arguments have gone, this statement is not in support of any of them, and so is completely irrelevant.
This is an alread admitted fact, I've admitted it many times. It is I who do not see why you return to it over and over again.
It's a good thing you have the "rolleyes" smilely there. Otherwise that would be a complete reach out into the parking lot across the street outside the stadium. With the "rolleyes" it's a simply dismissable (and not blithely, either) digression into more irrelevancy.Originally posted by Malenfant:
unless of course someone from GDW came to your house to wrest all your work from you.
Since you admitted to not reading what I was saying by annoucing, "I got bored . . .," and, "Whatever it was you were talking about," then how could you have possibly known? Those were the best position weakening statements you've made so far.
Oops, and reading just a little farther down, you fail to describe in what way my concept of the "investment" was crap, failing to support the initial statement made several posts ago (in whatever form you really meant it to be).
This has already been admitted to be true.
This has already been admitted to be true.
I'd've never thought.
But the attractiveness of their utility has gone down, and will continue to go down as time goes by.
There you go again. I never said it disappeared. In fact, I spent a segment of a previous post post stating I'd never said it disappeared. I'd said it was devalued. While I'd appreciate if you'd stop attributing statments to me which I've never made, at this point, I expect it'll continue.
You have stated that the value of the investment can't be devalued. Since it's value can only be in the eyes of the GM and the players, it's subjective and beyond your ability to nail down as an absolute.
If a gamer says his investment in a discontinued system has been devalued, then no encycolpedia-sized dissertation can refute that statement, because the only one to whom it applies is that particular gamer, of course, because it came from that gamer's judgement.
Of course, I also realize that you've stated that the judgement of all gamers who think that way are flawed, childish, etc. This is strictly your opinion. Considering the credentials and education of many of those who feel that way, it's a position that seems largely unsupportable to me (although that last assertion is also only my opinion).
Mine never really followed the official line anyway. The official line had nothing to do with it for me (although I see where it did for others).
Already admitted to be true.
So the fact that you wilfully misunderstand what I say means that my assertions are "unsupported"? Riiight.
</font>[/QUOTE]You haven't pointed out where I misunderstood anything. Not even one single time. Instead you've managed to assert I've made several statement I haven't. You made one entire paragraph of the post based on a statement I never made. In each case I've noted how and why I never made those statements. Several times you've made assertions and failed to follow them up (which I noted). I've backed up all my assertions with notes and examples. Oh, and there's been lots of reiteration of the obvious or already agreed upon as if it were actually important to the Topic (and let us not forget that this is a TNE Flame War Topic).
You know, you can create a new Topic called "Evil Grognard Conspiracy to whine [or whinge, I'm not sure which] about the past and diss MT and TNE's authors and publishers." I'm sure this vein of discussion will find a wider audience there. I won't promise not to post my own refutations there, but I won't be upset if people justifiably rip any invalid arguments I make to shreds.
M
Malenfant
Guest
I don't even have a clue what you're talking about anymore, Chris. You seem to shift the goalposts of the argument left right and centre whenever it suits you, you ignore clarifications that I post now in favour of something I said several pages ago, and you're generally being irritatingly pedantic over every word I say. And what's more you seem fixated on the "topic", which apparently is just to have a random flame war for its own sake.
You know what people say on rpgnet when someone comes along and whinges that their favourite system is "dead"? They say things like "Funny, the words haven't disappeared from the paper in my books". Which is what I've been saying all along. Maybe if you stopped fixating on things in terms of "investments" you may actually see that.
What do you want here? Do you want me to say "aw diddums, I feel for your loss, it's so terrible?". Games die all the damn time! Several of my favourite games have died over the past 20 years, do I whine about it all the time? No. If you are too thin-skinned to deal with that then that really isn't anybody else's problem but yours, and you shouldn't expect any sympathy.
But, as is proven time and time again, a dead game does not disappear. CT is still here, and that's basically "dead" in that it is not really supported by any publishers (reprints and dual stats don't really count. It's not like anyone is officially publishing NEW material specifically for CT). People still play AD&D1e, Jorune, Blue Planet, and a whole host of other games that are "dead". This is a fact.
You keep going on about "value" and "investment". The usefulness of material you create doesn't change when a game dies. Therefore it's "value" - however you may define that - doesn't change either. If you stick to CT, then you'll see that everything you have ever written for CT is still valid for it. This would still be the case if Traveller had completely and permanently died in 1985. What's illusory is the fact that you think the "value of your investment" goes down when the game dies. It quite simply doesn't. If you can't see that, that's your problem.
Yeah, dead systems are unattractive. This has always been the case. But still people play them albeit in smaller numbers than played while they were still active.
All of this is well supported - I have a very solid leg to stand on, and I've explained repeatedly why this is the case. Your response seems to be to claim that I don't support anything I say, which is unsurprising when your attitude is to ignore my responses.
So given all this, I find it impossible to see where your problem is, or even what you're arguing about, or why.
Since this sounds like something that you claim is a central point, I'll comment on it.
You know what people say on rpgnet when someone comes along and whinges that their favourite system is "dead"? They say things like "Funny, the words haven't disappeared from the paper in my books". Which is what I've been saying all along. Maybe if you stopped fixating on things in terms of "investments" you may actually see that.
What do you want here? Do you want me to say "aw diddums, I feel for your loss, it's so terrible?". Games die all the damn time! Several of my favourite games have died over the past 20 years, do I whine about it all the time? No. If you are too thin-skinned to deal with that then that really isn't anybody else's problem but yours, and you shouldn't expect any sympathy.
But, as is proven time and time again, a dead game does not disappear. CT is still here, and that's basically "dead" in that it is not really supported by any publishers (reprints and dual stats don't really count. It's not like anyone is officially publishing NEW material specifically for CT). People still play AD&D1e, Jorune, Blue Planet, and a whole host of other games that are "dead". This is a fact.
You keep going on about "value" and "investment". The usefulness of material you create doesn't change when a game dies. Therefore it's "value" - however you may define that - doesn't change either. If you stick to CT, then you'll see that everything you have ever written for CT is still valid for it. This would still be the case if Traveller had completely and permanently died in 1985. What's illusory is the fact that you think the "value of your investment" goes down when the game dies. It quite simply doesn't. If you can't see that, that's your problem.
Yeah, dead systems are unattractive. This has always been the case. But still people play them albeit in smaller numbers than played while they were still active.
All of this is well supported - I have a very solid leg to stand on, and I've explained repeatedly why this is the case. Your response seems to be to claim that I don't support anything I say, which is unsurprising when your attitude is to ignore my responses.
So given all this, I find it impossible to see where your problem is, or even what you're arguing about, or why.
- Status
