mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
As far as Mongoose and MWM are concerned there may be no OTU. The gaming group may very well decide otherwise and hopefully will.
Why pay more for less (from What you like about MGT)
- Thread starter mbrinkhues
- Start date
As far as Mongoose and MWM are concerned there may be no OTU. The gaming group may very well decide otherwise and hopefully will.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yeah, I suppose you might at that. I'm not sure you would (and we'll never know of course) but it could be one of those damned if you do damned if you don't.
Of course the simple solution would have been to keep the Aslan as Aslan and have your own other aliens written for your blank slate concept. You know, a truly blank slate, instead of simply erasing bits from a previous work to insert some different ideas.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
I DO truly believe that the OTU is what makes Traveller. Because it surely isn't the game system(s). Other people IMHO may use the rules (Just like I use TNE to run Twilight, 2300AD, Space:1889 and DC games) but while I would never claim to run TRAVELLER games when using those settings.
Different philosophies and so different IMHO that I will not be using Mgt or it's material anytime soon nor suggest it to anyone who asks. Because that is TOO far away from Traveller for me.
Yes! That's it!
Fair enough!
Matt,
Not the OTU? Let's see it's got Traveller blazoned across the front and specifically mentions the Aslan, but it's not really Traveller and that's not really the Aslan?
Is that what you want me to believe? Really?
Sounds more like an excuse than a reason.
To the contrary, certain technologies and technological assumptions are at the heart of what makes Traveller Traveller. That's what Mongoose doesn't understand.
That division only exists in your minds and advertising copy.
How would I have handled it? What I would have written a set of truly generic sci-fi RPG rules first and then produced a Slammers sourcebook that modified the generic rules for the specific setting. What I wouldn't have done is try and cram Slammers setting specifics into a pre-existing setting as part of an attempt to produce a set of generic sci-fi RPG rules on the cheap.
It's close at first glance and if you don't examine the setting beyond that first glance it remains close. I'm quite certain that soon after the Slammers books is released you'll be fielding questions at your fora about why the Imperial Marines don't use power guns and why the Slammers don't have grav tanks. Who knows? Your explanations there about how Traveller is really only rules and not a setting might actually work.
I didn't think Imperium Games would produce anything of worth and then Pocket Empires was released. (Along with a ton of errata.) That's why I keep saying MgT hasn't "wowed" me yet. It could happen.
There has been some hostility. I've seen and feel more disbelief. After all, when we ask why people like the game the reasons boil down to little more than New & Shiny. Conversely, when we're asked why we don't admire MgT and answer with specific examples on a range of issues, we're slammed for, among other things, not supporting Traveller's "last chance".
Both sides are talking past each other. I can understand that people like using MgT but why can't they understand why I view MgT as a disappointment?
People lose their tempers when they continually receive the same old excuses to their many, well founded questions regarding MgT's many, well documented errors. We know you can do good work because we've seen it. We're understandably concerned when we see, and I'm quoting myself here, the "lousy writing, horrible editing, laughable playtesting, dubious mechanics", and many other failings in what you claim will be the centerpiece of your company's sci-fi RPG settings. If you can't get the initial products correct, and you haven't by a long shot, why should we feel postiive about you getting the follow on products correct too?
You've already lost a good deal of your reputation with the very people who would have continued buying MgT products long after it is no longer the "flavor of the month" and the RPG crowd has moved on.
Regards,
Bill
P.S. By "you" I'm referring to Mongoose and not you personally.
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Question: Who will fill in for the guy in the shower? And who'll play his ex-wife?
Matt,
Well if you'd done the actual work needed to create your own alien race for the example you needed in MgT instead of merely copying the OTU Aslan while also pretending they somehow really weren't the OTU Aslan, people wouldn't be asking the question at all.
Taking a step further back, if you'd done the actual work needed to create your own set of generic sci-fi RPG rules instead of merely copying Traveller while also pretending it somehow wasn't really Traveller, people wouldn't be asking all these questions.
This is just another example of Mongoose wanting to eat their cake and have it too. You want to use the Traveller nameplate while asking people to forget about the last 30+ years of Traveller and you want to use Traveller essentially unchanged as a cheap way of producing a generic set of sci-fi RPG rules while also asking people to believe it's not really the Traveller they've been playing for decades.
Regards,
Bill
Matt,
Please.
You know full well that, if I as a GM were running what I'd announced as a Glorantha or Forgotten Realms[i/] derived campaign suddenly pulled a grav APC and SMG out of my hat, that my players would leave the table in disgust.
Definitely, and in the Chinese sense of that term unfortunately.
Regards,
Bill
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
I believe (just my opinion!) that the reason you are slammed is because certain people on the other side of the fence are very aggressive, and have got people's backs up.
I think they do - I certainly understand!
However, what do you want beyond that? These people have just found a game they like - you have had yours for a long, long time. It really should not need to go beyond that.
Understood.
However, if it had been described as RuneQuest or Dungeons & Dragons, as opposed to Glorantha. . .
I think we'll have to agree to disagree with this one too.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
<slaps hand on forehead>
Silly me. How on Earth could I think that a book named after a core Traveller rulebook would be an Official Traveller Universe book?
My statement was this:
And I have to say that I find the excuse that "of course that isn't intended to be part of Traveller" unconvincing. A far more likely explanation IMHO is that the MGT design has not bothered to educate itself on Traveller canon and is simply throwing everything even vaguely science-fictiony into MGT.
I see nothing insulting in this; rather it reflects my assessment of the available evidence.
Of course, it *is* an unflattering assessment. But that isn't really the same thing as "insulting", is it?
As far as why I got banned, well, I will wager that you can't find find any post in which I insulted someone unless (a) they did it first; or (b) I mistakenly attributed an insult to them (for which I *always* apologize). (I'll allow that I was harsh on the designer; but I'll note that I backed my complaints up with FAR more analysis than the designer apparently did). And isn't it interesting that most (or all?) of the folks banned were critics of MGT?
Anyhow, that's old news. I note that you failed to comment on the editorial excerpt I posted:
Why Guns, And Not Disintegrators?
We are, of course, ignoring the weapons from Mercenary, and are talking about the basic weaponry set forth in Book 1. Projectile throwing weapons dominate the table because we feel that, until the distant future, they will be the most efficient means of one man damaging another.
Traveller has tried to have a sound scientific basis for its rules. Stunners, blasters, and Uranium Q - 37 atomic space modulators are very spectacular, and for this reason comic books and movies make extensive use of them. When examined more closely, however, most of the weaponry people think of when you say science fiction is very unsound scientifically, and those which aren't are incredibly inefficient on such
a small scale.
[Yeah. Like Shuriken Catapults.]
...On the personal, hand-carried level, projectile weapons are going to be with us for a long time to come. Conventional firearms cartridges are very efficient storage cells of energy, and improvements in them are sure to continue for many years. Individual soldiers (and
civilians too) will continue to carry firearms until some more efficient, relatively inexpensive means of energy storage can be developed;and this is not likely to occur in the near future.
The point of this whole discussion is that we did not just throw together the combat system used in Traveller. It came about as a result of a great deal of thought, discussion, testing and argument. It represents, within the limits of a role-playing game, what we think combat in the future is going to be like.
Can you honestly say that your design team has maintained this philosophy with MGT?
Well, given the quality of Mercenary, I'm pretty sure it was the originial source for Mercenary's author.
Bait declined. I have not "discriminated" against anyone. I have merely objected to the addition of utterly implausible weaponry to Traveller -- a game that has explicitely eschewed such "improvements" for 30+ years.
Wouldn't you agree that Star Trek fans could reasonably object to adding The Force and lightsabers to Star Trek? This is really no different.
Only if you accurately summarize the objection when you bring it up.
I'm using the Imperial We, of course.
No. But I would like for you to do this for people who are less familiar with the OTU. Because MGT does not distinguish between what is OTU tech and what isn't, you are encouraging an inaccurate -- in some cases seriously inaccurate -- view of what "Traveller" is -- as that term has been defined pver the last 30 years.
And by the way, I am not some hidebound, grumpy grognard who opposes all change. (Well, I don't oppose all change, anyhow). I merely object to incompetent changes made arbitrarily to a classic.
As proof, I yield to no one in my love of the original Star Trek. But I love the new movie, because it is a well-concieved, expertly designed and explicit reimagining of a classic. It respects ST:TOS canon and the deviations are no more than necessary IMHO. It pleases old school fans like me, and is more accessible for non-Trekkies.
MGT fails utterly on these points, for all the reasons enumerated in this forum. Of course, I am genuinely pleased that it is an economic success. I think that the hobby is improved when non-TSR game companies can make a buck.
And you could easily neutralize this particular complain (deviations from canon) by denoting what things are not considered part of Traveller canon. Why you refuse to do so is a bit of a mystery to me...
This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts! How do you know this? where do you get your data? From the small handful of anti-MgT crusaders on this board, and then you extrapolate that to the rest of the world? Do you really think that you are so important to the continued existence of the Traveller game system that if you don't buy it, it will die?
If so you are being extremely and unjustifiably arrogant.
Or..here's another idea. Maybe if there's a new, popular version of Traveller that lots of other people buy and play, you and the other members of the "Traveller intelligentsia" around here are no longer the big fishes in the small pond that is the shrinking Traveller fanbase, because there is a new and much larger pond now.
I'm really trying to understand where you get off acting like you know what Traveller is better than the GUY WHO CREATED IT, and who obviously approves of what Mongoose is doing. I'm not a "Marc can do no wrong" guy by any means, but I understand that HE decides ultimately what Traveller is and not you.
Once again: If you don't like Mongoose Traveller why not just stay out of this section? what can you possibly gain by continuing to slam the game in the section that is supposed to be about it? Reasonable criticism yes, but this has gone so far beyond reasonable that its mind-boggling!
Allen
Silly me. How on Earth could I think that a book named after a core Traveller rulebook would be an Official Traveller Universe book?
Well, as the past few posts have shown, this is the bone of contention.
And that is another problem. . .
???
Now, Tbeard, I _know_ you have not just ignored all the prior posts.
Let me explain why I am here.
I love games. I love to talk about them.
I do not love being insulted, and I do not love being baited. In short, I am not here to _argue_ with you. If you have a genuine question, please ask it. If you just want to bait me with questions you already know the answer to (likely because I have already answered it elsewhere in the same thread), then I am not interested.
Yes!
I agree with that completely!
My position is that they can still use the same rules system.
You mean OTU
If we (and here I mean you and I, as well as anyone else wanting to join in) cannot agree that Traveller does not automatically have to equal OTU, then we will have to agree to disagree.
In all sense, that is the only option. Otherwise, we will just go round in circles, and this will become a very boring forum.
If you are looking for an honest answer, rather than an argument. . .
I mentioned your favourite bugbear a while back, the MagRail Rifle. If you want nothing to do with the weapon, you are welcome to ignore the few lines it takes up in Mercenary. We never intended anyone to use everything in every book for every setting (though they could if they wanted). Each of the core books is a toolkit that you can use as the situation rises.
However, can you not see in your mind's eye, some player, somewhere, playing in the Marches, or beyond, and coming across some 'weird' alien tech, maybe buried in dusty ruins, or maybe in the hands of a raiding party who have little idea of where it comes from or how it really works? Is that really beyond possibility in the games we play?
It is just one tool. May come in handy in one game, may never be used and be destined to lie at the bottom of the tool box for years to come.
Then again, it may be the favoured tool of the guy playing just a few blocks down from you.
It takes all sorts, as they say, and we are more interested in seeing where the game can take us (creatively speaking), as opposed to following just one path, however well-trodden. Not saying we'll get it right for everyone all the time - but we are going to explore and provide the tools we come up with.
It has been a while since I did the math, but if my memory is correct, the 100 shot backpack for a laser was roughly 20 times the size and weight of a 5 round clip for a LAG (in Classic Traveller). Assuming that the backpack is basicly a battery, then it would have been a trivial difference to convert a 100 shot backpack into 20 five-round energy clips.
My point is that something as 'OTU' as the laser backpack is (at its core) just one of several equally "realistic" assumptions - including the Star Wars 'Blaster'.
I have also found that I have personal problems with 'Realism' getting in the way of a fun game. Realistic Reaction drives mean days, weeks and months travelling between worlds in the same star system and ships that are 80 percent fuel. That puts a damper on most 'Space Opera' fun.
Realism also suggests that the 120mm tank round fires from beyond the horizon and detonates in the middle of the tabletop battlefield ... Everyone within 1 meter (table scale) of the blast is vaporized (Cloth Armor) or shreaded (Battle Dress). Roll up a new party ... While high in realism, it seems kind of low in fun. I might prefer a little 'Halo' (the video game) like unrealism and more Holywood heroics.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Uh, you're confusing a business decision with approval.
And in any case, who cares. I remind you of the JTAS editorial I excerpted:
Why Guns, And Not Disintegrators?
We are, of course, ignoring the weapons from Mercenary, and are talking about the basic weaponry set forth in Book 1. Projectile throwing weapons dominate the table because we feel that, until the distant future, they will be the most efficient means of one man damaging another.
Traveller has tried to have a sound scientific basis for its rules. Stunners, blasters, and Uranium Q - 37 atomic space modulators [and Shuriken Catapults] are very spectacular, and for this reason comic books and movies make extensive use of them. When examined more closely, however, most of the weaponry people think of when you say science fiction is very unsound scientifically, and those which aren't are incredibly inefficient on such a small scale.
...On the personal, hand-carried level, projectile weapons are going to be with us for a long time to come. Conventional firearms cartridges are very efficient storage cells of energy, and improvements in them are sure to continue for many years. Individual soldiers (and civilians too) will continue to carry firearms until some more efficient, relatively inexpensive means of energy storage can be developed;and this is not likely to occur in the near future.
The point of this whole discussion is that we did not just throw together the combat system used in Traveller. It came about as a result of a great deal of thought, discussion, testing and argument. It represents, within the limits of a role-playing game, what we think combat in the future is going to be like.
Can you honestly say that the folks who added Shuriken Catapults acted consistently with this philosophy?
Last edited:
Matt,
Agreed, but you should acknowledge that many of the people who've been playing Traveller for decades do believe that technologies and technological assumptions are at the heart of what makes Traveller Traveller.
To be fair, I've been slammed personally because I've been snarky. My postion has also been slammed because of the perceptions of the readers. We're typing, not talking, and all the vital non-verbal parts of human communication are out of play.
I've had "mine" with a certain name, Traveller, that name has meant something, stood for something, implied something for over 30 years. Traveller is more than sociological details or technological assumptions, it is a certain design philosophy too.
Now there's something else using same name but not all of the underlying aspects. In a few important ways, this new things calling itself Traveller isn't really Traveller at all and, with the release of each new book for this new Traveller all of which also bear the title Traveller, the new thing calling itself Traveller moves further and further away from the real Traveller.
You can have your new game, you can even have a setting book called Traveller for use with that new game, but don't claim that the new game is either Traveller or generic because it is neither.
You didn't do the work that was actually needed. MgT has too many changes to be called Traveller and too few changes to be called generic. You tried to produce a generic set of rules on the cheap while still cashing in on a thirty year old nameplate and the result is what you see now; a set of rules that isn't really generic and a damaged reputation with the very hobbyists who would have bought your products long term.
When you add Mongoose's execrable production standards for MgT that picture becomes even bleaker.
On the plus side, Mongoose has and does publish quality products for fine games. Whether that will occur for MgT, and the history of MgT so far doesn't suggest it will happen, is another question.
Regards,
Bill
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I think that I've been as clear as I can be on my objections to MGT regarding canon.
I'd like an answer to my question. It seems to me to be highly relevant to the discussion at hand. I can rephrase, but the question seems pretty clear to me.
Not as far as I can tell.
Me too.
I did, and the response was "???".
I don't have any other questions yet. I do, however, have a couple of observations/suggestions:
1. The MGT critics here have generally been highly specific about their complaints. Broadly, they boil down to (a) complaints about writing, editing, layout; (b) complaints about deviations from established Traveller canon; (c) complaints about the game mechanics.
2. I am losing patience with the "you're just a bunch of grumpy holdouts" retort -- not that you personally have engaged in that, but too many of MGTs defenders rely on that. I am also tiring of our core arguments being misrepresented. AFAIK, no one has seriously bashed MGT for requiring errata -- indeed, I have publicly praised Mongoose for quickly correcting errors. Yet one of your employees (?) posted a long defense predicated on the assumption that this was a major complaint. A complete waste of time, since no one made this criticism.
3. Regarding canon, the accusation seems pretty clear to me. MGT has added a great deal of stuff that is utterly inconsistent with 30+ years of Traveller. When faced with that assertion, you claim that this is because MGT is a universal system. Yet you have made no attempt to identify material that represents a serious deviation from both the OTU and the assumptions that have undergirded Traveller for 30 years. For cripes' sake, I haven't run a 3I campaign in >20 years. But I *do* generally follow the Traveller technology and social assumptions that have been relatively consistent in every version of Traveller for 30 years. And if I deviate from baseline Traveller assumptions, I'd inform someone if they mistakenly thought that this was part of "Traveller". As I already said, *you* chose to name your game "Traveller". Therefore it is *your* job to indicate deviations from what we've commonly defined as "Traveller" for 30+ years.
Well, bait is often in the eye of the beholder.
But wouldn't you agree that players of the Star Trek RPG would be reasonable if they vociferously objected to a "Star Trek" RPG that included lightsabers and the Force as standard elements (i.e., the rules made no mention that this material was not Star Trek canon)?
No difference.
You mean OTU
No, I don't.
Bill has already explained this, but I'll try to do so as well. MGT deviates significantly from the OTU. But it also deviates significantly from the technological assumptions that have undergirded every version of Traveller since its inception.
These are two different things; I can't say it any clearer than this.
Hopefully my previous statement clarifies what I'm talking about. "TRAVELLER" -- as that term has been used for 30+ years -- includes a lot more than the OTU. Specifically, it includes the technological assumptions common to Traveller games since the beginning.
I choose it merely because it is a perfect encapsulation of the juvenile and haphazard approach to Traveller that I think MGT exemplifies. To put it another way, if I want to play an RPG version of WH40K, I'll do so. It's a relatively easy port to almost any system that handles ranged combat and melee combat well.
But it ain't Traveller. It ain't the OTU and it ain't the baseline assumptions that have been associated with "Traveller" for 30 years.
No. The problem is that Mercenary didn't describe this as mysterious alien technology. It gave this as standard tech.
I think that you are intentionally ignoring the criticism here. No one is arguing that players can't play whatever they want. I've played and refereed Star Wars (d6) and had a blast.
The argument is that it isn't Traveller -- as that term has been defined for 30+ years.
Last edited:
Allen,
The title of the thread is Why pay more for less? Criticism of MgT is implied in that.
As for "slamming" versus "reasonable criticism", reasonable critiques have been posted in threads like these since MgT was in playtest and the nearly all of the rebuttals to them have consisted of generalities like:
1 - It's new and shiny.
2 - I can buy it easier.
3 - We've re-imagined the game.
4 - It's supposed to be generic.
I view most of the criticisms in this thread to be reasonable. They've been supported by actual examples. Criticisms in other threads, and I've made my share, have not been as reasonable.
Like Ty, I'm not against change. I'd like to see many substantial changes in the OTU. Like Ty again, I'm against what I perceive to be incompetent, unexamined, and change for change's sake change and most of Mercenary for MgT is a good example of that.
As has just been pointed out to you again, you're confusing a business decision with line by line approval. If Mr. Miller was as hands on as you believe him to be with MgT's products, would the Aslan be described as an uplifted race like the Vargr? A typo is one thing, a description of a Major Race that invalidates 30+ years of previous materials is something else.
Regards,
Bill
Last edited:
