Why allow Criticism of MGT?

[MongooseMatt]

I want to see CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM of MGT. Comments like "I don't think this rule works (here's why), but I've come up with a way to get around it (here it is), what do you think?" should be encouraged. Hell, even if you say "I don't like this rule, but I don't know how to fix it, can anyone help?" that's a good thing too, because at least you're asking for someone to help constructively there.

I agree - and I'll give an example.

We more or lessed ignored TBeard for the longest time. We found him to be very. . . passionate. . . is the nice way of saying it. Downright evangelical, bordering on rude is not, but that is how he came across.

And then he posted on these forums that he wanted to see A, B, and C in Traveller. We read through these points and thought 'is that all he is after? Hell, we can do that!'

We are now chatting amicably on email, and TBeard has been enlisted to help sort the things he wants to see.

If all criticisms were like that, this board would be a much nicer place and, just maybe, people would be getting the game they want. So, if you have 'issues' with Traveller as it currently stands, try setting out your arguments in a reasonable manner, with realistic suggestions on how you would like to see it changed. Reprinting the rules from scratch is not realistic. Adding a sub-system to the rules, either via PDF, S&P or a new supplement probably _is_ doable.

But you have to let us know, and rants _will_ be ignored.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Let's wait and see how they're going to mangle the Aslan next!

You see, that is the kind of rant I am talking about. We have had next to no criticisms fo the first OTU book we did (Marches), and you presume Aslan is going to go downhill?

 

[rancke]

This post on Planet Mongoose from almost a year ago, for a start:

http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.u...le=travelling_the_cosmos&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

In which Mongoose discuss how they'll be using Traveller as the rules for Hammers Slammers, Babylon 5, Judge Dredd, and Strontium Dog.

Thank you. I stand corrected. You're right. I hadn't read that before.


Hans

 

[mbrinkhues]

You see, that is the kind of rant I am talking about. We have had next to no criticisms fo the first OTU book we did (Marches), and you presume Aslan is going to go downhill?

You did? IIRC Marting Dougherty of ComStar games did it and he's an old hand at Traveller and the OTU. IF he also does Aslan, it might be useabel.

 

[MongooseMatt]

You did? IIRC Marting Dougherty of ComStar games did it and he's an old hand at Traveller and the OTU. IF he also does Aslan, it might be useabel.

It is a Mongoose book, not a Comstar one. And yes, I know what you are trying to say - see my post above about constructive criticism vs. prats.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I'm gone for one weekend and look at what I miss.

FOR ME PERSONALLY, it was always clear that Mongoose intended to use the 'Traveller rules' for other settings (like Babylon 5) as well as the OTU (now identified in the titles of MgT books as 'The Third Imperium').

For me, it was clear that they fully intended to use Traveller as a rulesset from the minute they announced it. Link.

Mongoose will also be using Traveller in its licensed science-fiction properties (each featuring a Traveller logo).

We have pioneered this concept already with Runequest, publishing a rules set and supporting adventures and sourcebooks, then using the Runequest rules as the basis for other alternative fantasy role-playing settings, such as Hawkmoon, Elric and Lankhmar.
...
To the greatest extent possible, we intend that there be a transportability of characters, concepts, and even equipment between the various systems. So, it will be perfectly possible for your Strontium Dog Bounty Hunter to land on a planet in his Scout/Courier, only to find him battling for his life against waves of Warrior Bugs – with no conversion needed between the games!

All games and settings will therefore be able to utilise the core supplements, such as High Guard, Mercenary, and 760 Patrons, while retaining their own character.

They were upfront about this 2 years ago. I really don't understand why this debate is STILL going on.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Maybe it's time to chill for a bit.

Getting a bit too worked up about the "anti's" (note, some irony in use here) isn't going to do the "pro" (ditto) cause any good, and the arguing about arguing is getting somewhat wearisome.

I want to talk about Traveller, especially in the Mongoose flavour...

I second the motion. ... Going to start a new thread.

 

[aramis]

They were upfront about this 2 years ago. I really don't understand why this debate is STILL going on.

Except for the B5 book, it wasn't clear that they were going to do them as supplements, and it's still not exactly clear that way...

Take RQ vs Elric... same core rules, but repackaged with different base options to tweak the flavor... rather than calling MRQ generic, they point out it's core for Glorantha, but can be adapted for other settings. When they did their own, they did all the work, and that's not inconsiderable, given the difference of settings.

Any game engine CAN be adapted. Some are easier than others.

 

[Allensh]

Except for the B5 book, it wasn't clear that they were going to do them as supplements, and it's still not exactly clear that way...

Take RQ vs Elric... same core rules, but repackaged with different base options to tweak the flavor... rather than calling MRQ generic, they point out it's core for Glorantha, but can be adapted for other settings. When they did their own, they did all the work, and that's not inconsiderable, given the difference of settings.

Any game engine CAN be adapted. Some are easier than others.

I have to admit...I was under the impression that the B5 book would have all the rules in it, re-written and optimised for Babylon 5. I was somewhat dissapointed when this was not the case, but I ascribed it to the lessening sales of the B5 line as a whole and the eventual sunsetting of the license (a decision I really wish they would reconsider, but I know that probably will not happen).

Allen

 

[dmccoy1693]

Except for the B5 book, it wasn't clear that they were going to do them as supplements, and it's still not exactly clear that way...

Take RQ vs Elric... same core rules, but repackaged with different base options to tweak the flavor... rather than calling MRQ generic, they point out it's core for Glorantha, but can be adapted for other settings. When they did their own, they did all the work, and that's not inconsiderable, given the difference of settings.

Any game engine CAN be adapted. Some are easier than others.

I thought MRQ was generic. I mean you can take the generic book Monsters II and use it in an Erlic game. Monsters II is not a Glorantha book.

 

[atpollard]

For me, it was clear that they fully intended to use Traveller as a rulesset from the minute they announced it. Link.

They were upfront about this 2 years ago. I really don't understand why this debate is STILL going on.

I am not trolling for a fight, but was it really clear to you from that announcement that Mercenary, High Guard, Scout, Merchant Prince, etc. were all to be published by Mongoose as generic rules intended to apply equally to B5, Stronium Dog, Hammers Slammers and The Third Imperium?
It was not to me.

In the week that you were gone, Matt posted a statement here on COTI that made it crystal clear that Mongoose views the Traveller rules and items bearing that logo as Generic Sci-fi rules and items bearing "The Third Imperium" as OTU material. I can accept that now that I am aware of it and it changes my view of what I expect in the current and yet unreleased 'Traveller Books'.

Much of the criticism for the Traveller Books (even just looking on the Mongoose site) appears to stem from some form of "that is not supposed to be in the Official/Original Traveller Universe", so I must not have been alone in my misunderstanding.

I congratulate you on your insight (no sarcasm, I mean that), and this post is just intended to answer your inquiry about why this is still being discussed: It is new to some (and perhaps many) of us.

 

[Allensh]

I am not trolling for a fight, but was it really clear to you from that announcement that Mercenary, High Guard, Scout, Merchant Prince, etc. were all to be published by Mongoose as generic rules intended to apply equally to B5, Stronium Dog, Hammers Slammers and The Third Imperium?
It was not to me.

In the week that you were gone, Matt posted a statement here on COTI that made it crystal clear that Mongoose views the Traveller rules and items bearing that logo as Generic Sci-fi rules and items bearing "The Third Imperium" as OTU material. I can accept that now that I am aware of it and it changes my view of what I expect in the current and yet unreleased 'Traveller Books'.

Much of the criticism for the Traveller Books (even just looking on the Mongoose site) appears to stem from some form of "that is not supposed to be in the Official/Original Traveller Universe", so I must not have been alone in my misunderstanding.

I congratulate you on your insight (no sarcasm, I mean that), and this post is just intended to answer your inquiry about why this is still being discussed: It is new to some (and perhaps many) of us.

I was not immediatley aware of their plan to include non-OTU material in the black cover books, but I figured it out pretty quickly upon seeing Mercenary and it was confirmed by the author of that book in a post on Mongoose's boards shortly thereafter.

I do wish they had identified more clearly those items that were not for use in the OTU (unless the GM decides they are, of course), but it wasn't that big a deal to me. Still isn't. but I know Ty Beard is working on a document to address that concern and hopefully that will help the situation a lot.

Allen

 

[Supplement Four]

You see, that is the kind of rant I am talking about. We have had next to no criticisms fo the first OTU book we did (Marches), and you presume Aslan is going to go downhill?

Well, let's just say that Mongoose has disappointed me with regards to Traveller with every release so far. You know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?"

Based on what I've seen and heard about MGT so far, I'm skeptical that Aslan will impress me, especially when you're touting changes to the Aslan from the Alsan we've known for the last 30 years.



I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I won't say another thing about the Aslan book until it comes out. And, I will look at it with an open mind.

I'll raise a cup in the hopes that I am surprised.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I am not trolling for a fight,

Sorry I didn't mean sound like I gunning for a fight. I was actually attempting to help "cover your back" (for lack of a better phrase).

I congratulate you on your insight (no sarcasm, I mean that), and this post is just intended to answer your inquiry about why this is still being discussed: It is new to some (and perhaps many) of us.

Ehh, I'll admit that most of my "insight" has been due to largely watching Mongoose rather closely. I've been living, breathing, eating, and sleeping MGT for almost 2 years now. First time I considered starting my own was less than 1 week before the official announcement was made. Leaving d20 behind and going full steam into Traveller made complete sense to me. I tried freelancing through initially, but frankly I'm much happier publishing for the game.

 

[tbeard1999]

I agree - and I'll give an example.

We more or lessed ignored TBeard for the longest time. We found him to be very. . . passionate. . . is the nice way of saying it. Downright evangelical, bordering on rude is not, but that is how he came across.

Moi? Why, I'm the soul of civility and courtesy

And then he posted on these forums that he wanted to see A, B, and C in Traveller. We read through these points and thought 'is that all he is after? Hell, we can do that!'

We are now chatting amicably on email, and TBeard has been enlisted to help sort the things he wants to see.

If all criticisms were like that, this board would be a much nicer place and, just maybe, people would be getting the game they want. So, if you have 'issues' with Traveller as it currently stands, try setting out your arguments in a reasonable manner, with realistic suggestions on how you would like to see it changed. Reprinting the rules from scratch is not realistic. Adding a sub-system to the rules, either via PDF, S&P or a new supplement probably _is_ doable.

But you have to let us know, and rants _will_ be ignored.

As an amateur game designer -- in a genre where the fans seem FAR more intolerant and opinionated than they are here -- I have some sympathy with Mongoose on this point.

However, it really is not the job of the player to fix problems in a game. Indeed, in my experience, many players are not able to suggest effective mechanical remedies. No slur on anyone intended; I can tell if my truck isn't running right, but I would be hopeless in suggesting how to fix it.

And in my personal experience, we have several FFT players who have been invaluable in improving the game. They have very good instincts when it comes to identifying problems. Yet their mechanical suggestions have been impractical every single time. (To their credit, they are happy if we fix the problem; they don't really get invested in their particular solution).

They are excellent players and astute observers; they just aren't real stong on game mechanics.

Of course, it never hurts to try to suggest alternatives or fixes. But understand that even if a given fix addresses the problem, it may well cause undesirable side effects in other systems. Games are complex and seriously interrelated systems. So no one should get overly invested in their suggested fix.

Anyhow, what helps *me* in my games is when someone explains in concrete terms what their particular gripe is.

"I just don't like combat" is a fair statement, but it's virtually no help at all to the designer.

"Combat is too fiddly" is better, but still not a lot to go on.

Far better is "During combat with more than ~4 figures, the thus and such subsystem takes way too much time for very little benefit; in addition, it can produce unreasonable results <insert example of how unreasonable results appear>" (And FWIW, I tried very hard to explicitely identify the problems in MGT when I first discovered them).

I'd think that MGT designers are the same as I am on this point.

I'd also add that as a designer, I've discovered that some flaws are so systemic that they can't be fixed. More accurately, modifying them creates equal or worse problems. In that case, the designer is better off (a) living with the flaw; or (b) replacing the subsystem.

 

[tbeard1999]

Look around. Do you see their sort of divisive crap being allowed anywhere else?

Do people regularly and frequently turn up on the Steve Jackson Games forums and moan about how SJG doesn't understand GURPS and that GURPS 4e was wrong?

Oh, I suspect that you can find all kinds of negative comments -- on forums not owned by SJG. And, for all I know, on forums owned by SJG.

You do grok the fact that COI is not a Mongoose owned site, yes?

And FWIW, I have never* deleted a negative post on my FFT email list. As noted, I find that negative comments are usually the most useful source for ideas on how to improve the game.

*Oh, I'd probably toss someone if they got offensive enough. But I understand -- as apparently you do not -- that a criticism of a game I like <> a personal attack on me.

 

[Allensh]

Oh, I suspect that you can find all kinds of negative comments -- on forums not owned by SJG. And, for all I know, on forums owned by SJG.

You do grok the fact that COI is not a Mongoose owned site, yes?

And FWIW, I have never* deleted a negative post on my FFT email list. As noted, I find that negative comments are usually the most useful source for ideas on how to improve the game.

*Oh, I'd probably toss someone if they got offensive enough. But I understand -- as apparently you do not -- that a criticism of a game I like <> a personal attack on me.

Criticism of a game I like is not a personal attack. Criticism of game I like that is stated in an arrogant, condescending and insulting manner is an attack, of sorts at least, and I object to that kind of "criticism".

And if I make a statement in defense of a game- even a somewhat impassioned one, which I am sometimes guilty of- that isn't an attack either.

Allen

 

[dmccoy1693]

However, it really is not the job of the player to fix problems in a game. Indeed, in my experience, many players are not able to suggest effective mechanical remedies. No slur on anyone intended; I can tell if my truck isn't running right, but I would be hopeless in suggesting how to fix it.

You can however tell your local car dealer that you'd like better speakers and a subwuffer to pump the bass. To continue with the metaphor your complaint isn't that the car sucks, its that the options package didn't have everything you wanted with it.

 

[Spinward Scout]

And if your car is getting crappy gas mileage and stalls every time you stop at a stoplight, you either take it to a shop where it can be repaired or buy a new car. Now when you buy that new car, you'll want it to be just the car that ran really well for you in the past before it broke down, you fit great in the driver seat, etc... And you end up disappointed if it isn't the great car you were looking for and instead starts to break down immediately after buying it - needs a new windshield wiper right away, has pieces falling off within a month of buying it. In fact, you end up so disappointed in this new car that you tell everyone you know not to ever buy that kind of car since it's so crappy.

Is that the kind of analogy you were looking for?

:rofl:

 

[tbeard1999]

Criticism of a game I like is not a personal attack. Criticism of game I like that is stated in an arrogant, condescending and insulting manner is an attack, of sorts at least, and I object to that kind of "criticism".

And if I make a statement in defense of a game- even a somewhat impassioned one, which I am sometimes guilty of- that isn't an attack either.

Yes, I think that legitimate criticisms can be cloaked in terms offensive enough to constitute a personal attack. However, this is an extremely subjective thing and reasonable people can dramatically differ on what constitutes "arrogance", "condescention", etc. I also think that game designers should recognize that criticism does come with the turf to some degree.

And agreed that a defense of a game you like isn't necessarily an attack on critics of that game -- until you do things like insinuate that they are just being irrational, bear an unreasonable grudge against the game, are jerks, etc. These things are all tactics used quite often by the "pro" side of the debate. These tactics become especially offensive (IMHO) when they are offered in lieu of a response to the criticisms.

Of course, it takes two to tango. Sometimes, a criticism is framed in terms that do not allow a response. "I just don't like it", for instance. In that case, it might help to recognize that this may well be an accurate statement, made in reasonably good faith. So instead of responding that the person is being irrational or is stupid for being unable to explicitely identify what he dislikes, you might try something like "well, I can't really respond to that because we are discussing a matter of personal taste and you've given me nothing to go on. Perhaps you could identify what mechanics you dislike?"