Underwhelmed

[captainjack]

Ooooo-kay.

So it looks like the consensus on this thread is that you all don't like it mainly because you didn't write it. Fair enough, actually.
Some dislike it as it is nothing new, some as it isn't a reprint with cleanup. Both are good reasons, and both suggest very strong and unmet personal expectations. Okay.

Does anyone consider that a re-release (even of what is seen as a half baked version) may well be good for Traveller as a whole ?

Just curious.

Cap

 

[Icosahedron]

My objection isn't that I didn't write it, just that their play isn't as good as 'the play what I wrote'.
IMHO of course - but MHO counts because it determines what I pay for.
Neither does MGT (as shown) provide 'something new'. I bought GURPS Starports, not because I like (or will convert to) the GURPS system, but because it provided an adaptable mechanic for generating a starport from scratch, which no other form of Traveller does (AFAIK).

A half baked release could be a twin-edged sword. Yes, it might introduce a few newbies to Traveller but, as several people have indicated, gamers expect better these days, and if the new version isn't amongst the front-runners of today's releases those newbies are likely to be disappointed with their purchase and may be turned off all versions of Traveller permanently.

I've never read Kipling (or Milne, or Barrie, or...) but I know their characters. Older styles of writing can be offputting - I found Scott's Ivanhoe boring, but I loved the film. However, this indicates exactly why a rewriting of Traveller needs to be brought up to date. The new generation of gamers want something different - maybe the whole premise of Mongoose Traveller is flawed? Who are their proposed customers anyway?

 

[opensent]

Ooooo-kay.

So it looks like the consensus on this thread is that you all don't like it mainly because you didn't write it. Fair enough, actually.
Some dislike it as it is nothing new, some as it isn't a reprint with cleanup. Both are good reasons, and both suggest very strong and unmet personal expectations. Okay.

Does anyone consider that a re-release (even of what is seen as a half baked version) may well be good for Traveller as a whole ?

Just curious.

Cap

But don't we already have a better re-release? =

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/catalog/pview.pl?action=view&stocknum=ffe000&h=header_ct&s=

 

[tbeard1999]

Ooooo-kay.

So it looks like the consensus on this thread is that you all don't like it mainly because you didn't write it. Fair enough, actually.
Cap

Since we've been quite clear that we don't like it because the game is lousy, your obtuseness on this point is perplexing. Nor do I much appreciate a bald, unsupported dismissal of my own relatively detailed critique of the game. I might just as well reply that you like it because you're a witless fanboy. (Not saying that, of course, but it would be essentially identical to what you've just said about me).

I and others have given specific examples of what things we dislike about it, so I cannot understand why you misrepresented our objections so flagrantly.

Or do you have some agenda that we should be aware of?

 

[rancke]

Does anyone consider that a re-release (even of what is seen as a half baked version) may well be good for Traveller as a whole?

If they do a good job on the background material, it would be good for Traveller as a whole, since background material can be used with any rules set.

It's very unlikely that I'll ever use the new rules, since the ones I use now are perfectly adequate for my purposes. But I hope I'll want to buy it for the background material. To me, the success or failure of any new Traveller material depends on how well it meshes with previously published material, i.e. how much respect those who write the background material pays to what has gone before.Though I have to add that respecting what has gone before doesn't mean uncritically accepting everything, good or bad. It means being aware of what has already been established, and if it works, don't change it, if it doesn't work, fix it.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Not all of us posting n the thread dislike the mechanics.

I have issues with a few bits. Specifically how damage is generated, and the addition of enlisted rank structures to the rules, but I am liking the combat system, CharGen, and task system. The tech changes are no surprise, and in fact seem a simplificate of TNE's tech changes.

I find it well thought out and surprisingly workable; my initial reaction to it was similar to Ty's, but unlike several other posters, I did more than just read and condemn. I read, tried, and discovered it works.

And Cap'nJack: a halfbaked edition is good for no one.
An edition that a bunch of crotchety grognards dislike is not good, either. One that divides the grogs is accceptable, since it provides for a base of positive commentary.

In any case, the game needs to appeal not so much to the Grogs as to the current gaming public. What the grogs want mechanically is often at odds with what the market demands.

 

[Border Reiver]

I actually quite like it, a diamond in the rough. I doubt it will ever fully replace MT or TNE in my affections but it does take me back to those heady days of CT simplicity.

 

[Mytholder]

My two comments as the writer of Mongoose Traveller:
1) If you have comments and criticisms, please send them to the mongoosetravellerplaytest@gmail.com address.
2) Pretty much everyone who has played the combat system has liked it, at least according to the playtest feedback I've recieved. It seems that it's the writing as opposed to the actual mechanic that's offputting. While there's a lot of tweaking and fixing to be done, I'm happy with the basic structure of it.

 

[Icosahedron]

I find it well thought out and surprisingly workable; my initial reaction to it was similar to Ty's, but unlike several other posters, I did more than just read and condemn. I read, tried, and discovered it works.

So initially, you too read and condemned?

I don't feel I've condemned it, I've just said that at first reading I've seen nothing that screams at me to buy it, or even try it. When I buy a ruleset or supplement two things need to happen:
1: I need to get the cellophane off and thumb through to see what it contains. (Hence I seldom buy new or via internet - and top marks to Mongoose for the playtest).
2: In those initial moments, something needs to grab my attention enough to put my hand in my pocket. (With a playtest available to take home, those few minutes may be extended considerably - IF something grabs my attention enough to get the dice out.)

In any case, the game needs to appeal not so much to the Grogs as to the current gaming public. What the grogs want mechanically is often at odds with what the market demands.

This was my other point - who will buy MGT? If the grogs are a significant proportion of the 'current gaming public' market, as someone said before you need to keep it original and just fix the bugs. However, if the bulk of the market is newbies a whole generation younger than us, I doubt if they'll be interested in a set of patched-up 30 year old mechanics and you need to make a clean sweep and start from scratch with state-of-the-art mechanics. (If your licence allows it).
One thing you definitely don't need is a bad compromise (and before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying MGT is a bad compromise, I've not read enough to form an opinion.)

Anyway, of all the grogs, dyed-in-the-wool CTers like me are the most difficult to persuade - after all, MT, TNE, T4 and GURPS have already tried and failed to budge us - what hope does Mongoose have? And if we're unlikely to buy it, does our opinion matter?

 

[captainjack]

Since we've been quite clear that we don't like it because the game is lousy, your obtuseness on this point is perplexing. Nor do I much appreciate a bald, unsupported dismissal of my own relatively detailed critique of the game. I might just as well reply that you like it because you're a witless fanboy. (Not saying that, of course, but it would be essentially identical to what you've just said about me).

I and others have given specific examples of what things we dislike about it, so I cannot understand why you misrepresented our objections so flagrantly.

Or do you have some agenda that we should be aware of?

Ty, you really need to back off and chill. Yes, I didn't provide a detailed rundown of all your points, and was pretty off the cuff in my summation, but really, that was , for me, the least important part of the post; if you'll read it again, I said it was a good issue. I wasn't being sarcastic. The people on this list have pretty extensive experience...and their opinions hold weight. As I said, fair enough reasons. Sorry if that part was what set you off; consider it retracted and apologised for.

They main issue,for me, was one of unmet expectations, which I also have, and have been considering the extent to which it is fair for me to impose them on another work. I didn't express it well, that's clear.

For me, a big issue IS that I didn't write it; in some areas it does fail tests that I set up for my own rules, it excludes important points, and focuses on irrelevencies; and I think I have better solutions to the issues I see.

I'm just not sure, per se, how relevant these issues should be. The urge to apply my own very well informed judgements of what works and is good (but is essentially only tested by me) is very seductive. But is it a good thing ? I do trust my own opinions in this matter, but should I trust others ?

Okay. Perhaps too much introspection. Perhaps that is my hidden agenda; to run my mouth off in public....

Ty, if you really want to take me to task further for this, I probably deserve it. I'm going to suggest that if so, we do it by PM. I really don't want to start a flame war. I'll happily participate, but would spare the other listmembers my poor writing skills in responses.

-Cap

 

[BigBadRon]

This was my other point - who will buy MGT?

Probably I would, but mainly just for completeness (I have everything else, so not buying this would seem... churlish. )

Whether I'd actually use it, or not, would be a completely different matter. My two copies of GT are still unopened, and my copy of T20 saw very little use, the same as T4, TNE, and MT.

I'm still an unreformed CT player, I'm afraid.

So... buy it? Yes. Use it (based on the playtest document)? Unlikely.

 

[RossWinn]

Playtest Document v2

I think this is a much more elegant and refined set than version 1. It balances nicely between old-school feel and more clearly developed modern mechanics.

 

[tbeard1999]

Not all of us posting n the thread dislike the mechanics.

I find it well thought out and surprisingly workable; my initial reaction to it was similar to Ty's, but unlike several other posters, I did more than just read and condemn. I read, tried, and discovered it works.

Well, I have tried out several firefights and I stand by my critique. I think that the combat system sucks wind. Not only is it artificial, clumsy and non-intuitive, you can't even replicate standard skirmish tactics. Oh and everything else I said about it...

It's like a car with 2 transmissions, 5 wheels and 2 engines. Yes, such a vehicle could work, if you were desperate enough. But it's a colossal waste of resources especially if a simpler vehicle with 1 engine and 1 transmission is available.

And please don't assume that you're the only one who's tried it out.

 

[Ishmael]

...still studying it, but although I like the time&effect idea, I probably won't change from my modified MT stuff for characters and tasks and personal combat. I still need to think and try to see how well the task system scales to everything else beyond individual actions.

I think the clincher for me will be the Mongoose ideas for world building and tech building....a good set of rules for making sets and props for the story will go a long way for me. Background, not so much because I'll make my own instead ( a little bit'o'canon for broad historical stuff, but hazy and non-specific because I tend to change things around as I like. ).

 

[tbeard1999]

Ty, you really need to back off and chill.
...

Sorry if that part was what set you off; consider it retracted and apologised for.

Just to be clear -- I objected to what I perceived to be a dismissal of detailed critiques as simple, childish bias. It is certainly possible that my criticisms are unreasonable, based on flawed readings of the rules, etc. If you think that's the case, then please feel free to rebut what I've said. If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.

They main issue,for me, was one of unmet expectations, which I also have, and have been considering the extent to which it is fair for me to impose them on another work. I didn't express it well, that's clear.

My expectations are the same as any other game I buy -- it must be a decent game. In the case of an RPG, I want a robust and appropriate character generation system. I want a combat system that is appropriate to the genre. Etc. So far, MGT does not make the grade. Granted, this is a playtest document. But my criticisms are of fundamental systems, not of sloppy editing or poor expression. I interact with the Federal Income Tax Code on a daily basis; it would take a pretty poorly written document to turn me off.

While I think that MGT *can* make the grade, I do not think that the designer is willing to ditch his combat system and sequence of play. This would be necessary for me to like the system.

But if indeed the feedback is overwhelmingly positive, then I certainly can't blame him for sticking with it. As a game designer myself, I am very aware that you cannot please everyone.

My only further comment would be that I cannot easily come up with a way to fix the combat system and sequence of play. So if attitudes change about them, I strongly urge that they be scrapped. I don't think that they can be effectively patched.

For me, a big issue IS that I didn't write it; in some areas it does fail tests that I set up for my own rules, it excludes important points, and focuses on irrelevencies; and I think I have better solutions to the issues I see.

To some extent, this is unavoidable. And every revision of an RPG has to confront this, so MGT isn't unique.

I am willing to evaluate MGT without reference to CT or to my own house rules. Having done so, I can see promise in the character generation system. But I am extremely negative about the combat system. And since my games have lots of combat, this is a big deal for me.

 

[aramis]

My two comments as the writer of Mongoose Traveller:
1) If you have comments and criticisms, please send them to the mongoosetravellerplaytest@gmail.com address.
2) Pretty much everyone who has played the combat system has liked it, at least according to the playtest feedback I've recieved. It seems that it's the writing as opposed to the actual mechanic that's offputting. While there's a lot of tweaking and fixing to be done, I'm happy with the basic structure of it.

1) done. Last sunday. After next session, will send futher. That should be sunday.
2) I'm one of those "The structure is sound, but the wrong fittings are presently on" crowd.

 

[Jame]

1) done. Last sunday. After next session, will send futher. That should be sunday.
2) I'm one of those "The structure is sound, but the wrong fittings are presently on" crowd.

I agree with aramis on number 2.

 

[captainjack]

I agree with aramis on number 2.

yeah, my final conclusion on the rules as a whole is essentially that. And that is what editing is for, no ?

(haven't actually been able to playtest the combat rules, though)

-cap

 

[Jame]

yeah, my final conclusion on the rules as a whole is essentially that. And that is what editing is for, no ?

(haven't actually been able to playtest the combat rules, though)

-cap

My objections are based upon (1) the relative cumbersomeness of CharGen and (2) the tech level scale, where I think that the first 6 (counting TL 0) are out of whack, even for Traveller.

 

[weasel fierce]

we've messed around with it and my general thoughts so far are: (this is mainly in comparison to CT)

Character creation: A few numbers are off, but overall, its a lot easier than TNE and far more interesting than CT or MT. The events and Connections rule are well worth it, and I like having a higher ratio of 0 level skills.

Task system: I really like the timing/effect, though its only relevant to a small number of situations. Having a standardized unskilled penalty of -3 works well I think.

Combat: Only brief pokes at it so far, but so far the bits I like are that characters being shot at are less likely to shoot back (as you will want to spend ticks dodging), while characters that can rely on armour or cover are generally fighting more efficiently.
The main concern I can see is that its easy for a character to be unable to act for a few turns if they get stranded alone, but that duplicates the result in games like Stargrunt II, where a lone unit is easily suppressed and neutralized.

Lethality seems about on par with CT (in both games, 1 or 2 shots will put you on the ground, but be somewhat unlikely to kill you)
I do appreciate not having to add up 3 pages worth of chart derived modifiers, and the lack of "auto-hits" making unarmoured characters a bit less likely to die in the first exchange.

Skill improvement: The V2 version is simple, easy to use and very efficient.


Not a lot of bad things really, though the homeworld skill chart needs to be redone or ditched in favour of a simple "previous experience" list. Some of the events needs to be tweaked with a bit, and I'd like something more extensive for aliens, but thats propably unlikely to be in the main book.


I guess some of you guys are pretty vehement about not liking it. Overall, I think its a step in a good direction for the most part. But then, to each their own