Why pay more for less (from What you like about MGT)

[Whipsnade]

If you have a genuine question, please ask it.

Matt,

I think Ty has asked a genuine question, so I'll repeat it.

You can read the essay excerpted from JTAS, an essay which explicitly describes the design philosophy behind Traveller. (Please note the essay refers to Traveller and not to the OTU.)

Given that essay, can you claim that Mongoose adhered to the philosophy stated in it when producing Mercenary for MgT?

My position is that they can still use the same rules system.

By all means yes. A Star Trek and Star Wars setting can use the same rules.

Here's the kicker: Mongoose hasn't produced those rules yet. All you have is something changed too much to be called Traveller and something changed too little to be actually generic.

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.

Traveller doesn't automatically equate the OTU. Traveller does automatically equate certain technologies, technological assumptions, and design philosophies. While we can argue whether MgT has adhered to the first two, it's manifestly self-evident that MgT completely ignored the third. All you need do is compare Mercenary with the JTAS essay.

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?

That's a mcguffin, not a rule. That's an item given or withdraw solely by GM fiat and not something with a purchase price on a weapons table.

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.

It's more likely to lurk forever and unexplained in the game like a living frog found in a limestone block, wholly out of place, out of character, and out of sync with the weapon design philosophy expressed for Traveller in JTAS.

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.

You want new paths? Then create them. Use Traveller to produce a truly generic set of sci-fi RPG rules. Do the actual work, don't just rely on the nameplate because the nameplate implies a certain range of things.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

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.

AT,

Wow! So you did that too!

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'.

Yup, you can build a blaster. Loren Wiseman even wrote an example of that in JTAS.

Of course the real point here is that you can't build a LIGHTSABER.

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.

Too much realism does spoil the game. After all, lasers can be used to blind far more easily than wound or kill. While GDW didn't set Traveller's realism dial set to maximum, they most certainly did have it set to a higher level than that found in Mercenary for MgT.

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.

You know, I brought up that exact point in this thread.


Regards,
Bill

 

[dmccoy1693]

You know, the 3.5 Dungeons Master's Guide has guns in it. Muzzle loaders and the like. Not many people realize that because most people just overlook that. I once ran a game where a player asked if he could take a class that used them. I said no. His justification was that it was in the book. My justification was that it wasn't in the setting.

Just thought I'd share that tidbit of personal history.

 

[aramis]

Matt, Fordy:

My biggest complaints about MGT, in order:
1) core book materials that preclude extant canon
1.1) The most egregious is the Law Level effects table
2) Economics in core book don't work (if the price for passage works out to less per ton than cargo, no one carries passengers.)*
3) while a little errata is normal, the level you've had is unacceptably high, especially since most of it is failure to proofread.
4) no power point system - the restrictions by plant rating are unrealistic and far less realistic
5) the assumption that the core books need not support the OTU**
6) Mercenary appears written by someone who knows nothing about weapons nor the military
7) PDF images of deckplans at 150 DPI; especially for larger ships, 1200DPI or EPS line art...

I have done publications work. The gaming industry is the only segment where errata is an acceptable practice, and insufficiently proofread materials routinely go to press. A proof copy, and 3 sets of fresh eyes, and many of the errata should have been caught. I've had a textbook with a corrections sheet, once, out of over 150 textbooks (EDM Teacher's Manual, to be specific... 36 calculation errors in the answer key... for 30 weeks of work).

———————————————​

*See the Who Needs Stewards for the math, AGAIN (it's not obvious in this post, but it's there... after a skill 1 steward, the income per ton for MP is 708/t for J1... below the 1000/t for J1 cargo. I did a similar analysis during the playtest, too. HP is 318/t for J1, and J2 is 1068/t, vs 1200 for cargo) That's a MAJOR screwup on your part. The economics mean that there is pricefixing on a massive score, and therefor no one shoud build passenger capable J1 ships, and no one should accept high passengers on J1 or J2 ships; it's a loss of money... only subbies should carry passengers J1, and only subbies carry HP j2.

———————————————​

** The fact that one has to redact without extant labels the non-otu materials means that the "core books" are not OTU friendly.
That certain elements are counter to the OTU, like the pricing on travel is annoying; the issue with the LL Effects is canon-breaking on a grand scheme. Check my emails from the playtest, and you'll note that I caught that BEFORE you went to press.

 

[atpollard]

Of course the real point here is that you can't build a LIGHTSABER.

Setting aside the issue of whether a railgun disk rifle is silly (too personal choice), surely a handheld railgun is no less "realistic" than a coilgun (gauss) or a laser.

From my limited PLAYING experience with MgT:Mercenary, I find that the balance among the support weapon choices is often overlooked in the intense focus on a few weapon descriptions and artillery ranges. I was actually quite impressed with what I saw at the squad-level scale of play.

 

[captainjack]

Allen,

The title of the thread is Why pay more for less? Criticism of MgT is implied in that.
[snip]

Regards,
Bill

Well, as mah daddy would say, "Why'd ya ask fer mah opinion and then argue with me 'bout it, if ya weren't lookin t' start a fight ? "

And I never did find out who was paying for the next round.

 

[Whipsnade]

You know, the 3.5 Dungeons Master's Guide has guns in it. Muzzle loaders and the like. Not many people realize that because most people just overlook that.

Doc,

Yup, they're in there and I wish they'd included rifles. ADDe3.5's great-great-great-great grandfather Chainmail had guns in it too.

I once ran a game where a player asked if he could take a class that used them. I said no. His justification was that it was in the book. My justification was that it wasn't in the setting.

Nice save!

Of course the issue here isn't quite the same.

Traveller, even before the OTU setting, didn't have weapons like MgT's Magrifles or Star Wars lightsabers. More importantly, the personal weapon design philosophy for Traveller specifically, and not just the OTU setting, precluded weapons like the Magrifle and lightsaber. Traveller just wouldn't do weapons like that according to the people who invented Traveller.

A GM can drop a Magrifle or lightsaber into his setting as a mcguffin, but there's a great difference between a mcguffin and an entry on a weapons table complete with market pricing.


Regards,
Bill

 

[tbeard1999]

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.

Yep. The abbreviation "IMTU" makes it clear that we do not consider the 3I, its descendants and antecedents to constitute all that is "Traveller".

As noted, my campaigns have not been set in the 3I since the late 1980s. Yet I am perfectly comfortable with saying that we play "Traveller".

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.

Agreed. Traveller has been characterized by a great deal of thoughfulness in its underlying assumptions. Consider the mini-essays in LBB4 on the future of warfare. Is there *anything* in MGT that approaches that degree of thoughtfulness? Instead of that, we get "Laz Guns for Hire" and Warhammer 40K weaponry...

Again, I acknowledge that it's probably a formidable challenge to match that kind of work. But no one forced Mongoose to take on the challenge. And if you can't match the design skill, couldn't you at least avoid spurious changes?

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.

I don't know that there was any conscious decision to scrimp, but you have (IMHO) correctly assessed the problem.

Of course, I suspect it made far more marketing sense to lead with a set of Traveller rules than a set of generic rules followed by a series of Traveller genre books.

I think that this could have worked better, if they'd simply indicated which elements were "generic" and which were "Traveller".

Of course, that would have required a significant body of knowledge about what Traveller is...

 

[Whipsnade]

And I never did find out who was paying for the next round.

Cap'n,

I'd stand everyone a round if I could!

The Sox start a West Coast swing tonight. That means I'll be taking a nap soon so my wrinkled white fanny can stay awake for the 2000 EST start time. Yawn... I honor of the West Coast swing, I've a six of Anchor Steam in the 'fridge. Sadly, I won't be enjoying all six tonight, but I will have a finger or three of Glenfiddich neat as a nightcap.


Regards,
Bill

 

[tbeard1999]

Setting aside the issue of whether a railgun disk rifle is silly (too personal choice), surely a handheld railgun is no less "realistic" than a coilgun (gauss) or a laser.

The problem is that the energy required to fling a sharpened disc (even if the ballistics work, which they don't) would fling a bullet FAR more effectively.

 

[Whipsnade]

Of course, I suspect it made far more marketing sense to lead with a set of Traveller rules than a set of generic rules followed by a series of Traveller genre books.

Ty,

Agreed. Mongoose obviously cares a great deal about the nameplate as it gives their rules instant recognition. Sadly, the same amount of care isn't felt for what is under the nameplate.

Keeping the "nameplate" effect in mind, leading with a Traveller book was a marketing necessity. That doesn't mean that Mongoose shouldn't have produced a truly generic set of sci-fi RPG rules however. They could have used a Traveller sourcebook to introduce those rules, in much the same manner that SJGames uses the "Powered by GURPS" line. You can play a "Powered by GURPS" release out of the box while still getting a peek at GURPS itself. In this manner, Mongoose could have used the Traveller nameplate to introduce the truly generic sci-fi RPG rules they created from Traveller.

Of course, that would have required work.

I think that this could have worked better, if they'd simply indicated which elements were "generic" and which were "Traveller".

They could have easily noted what was generic and Traveller. There's also another similar option that further reduces the confusion; the "dual book" method.

Mercenary would lay out Mongoose's generic mercenary material and contain a section showing you how to use certain portions of that material for the specific Traveller setting. A GM would not only know what actually was Traveller, but they'd also have an example of how to use the generic materials to fashion their own settings. Because that last bit is how Mongoose regularly claims they want MgT top be used, their failure to provide an example is rather odd.

(Oddly enough, or not so oddly enough, SJGames uses the "dual" book method in it's core books. For example, you learn all about magic and then are shown how magic is used in a specific setting so you can use it in yours.)

Mongoose could have simply copied that method it what it continues to refer to as it's Traveller core books.

Of course, that would have required a significant body of knowledge about what Traveller is...

Again, that means work.


Regards,
Bill

 

[dmccoy1693]

Of course the issue here isn't quite the same.

I fail to see how it is. A major publisher with a budget, distribution capabilities and advertising potential is ... producing a sufficient amount of material to support that budget, distribution capabilities and advertising potential. The TMB had more pages than all 3 LBBs and the new book's pages are double the size. They need to fill that additional space with something. Same is true with every book there after.

Plus they have the license for a decade. If they reprint everything in CT verbatum, at their production schedule, they'd only last two, maybe three years. Sooner or later they'd have to add something.

If you don't like lightsabers, don't use them. That simple. If I want lightsabers and energy blasters available at every corner drug store in my setting, I can do that. Makes me happy and keeps me buying more books. If I didn't have all the brica-bracka I desire, I might go with a different system. Translation: I wouldn't be buying Traveller books. That's decreased sales. If I see no use for submersibles because water is the rarest naturally occuring mineral in my setting, I am under no obligation to use them. But I'm not going to yell because Mongoose is making a book on submersibles. If I don't like them, I don't have to use them. That simple.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Setting aside the issue of whether a railgun disk rifle is silly (too personal choice), surely a handheld railgun is no less "realistic" than a coilgun (gauss) or a laser.

From my limited PLAYING experience with MgT:Mercenary, I find that the balance among the support weapon choices is often overlooked in the intense focus on a few weapon descriptions and artillery ranges. I was actually quite impressed with what I saw at the squad-level scale of play.

Well my problems with Merc's weapons:

+ All errors could have been prevented by reading a short overview on military technology, less than 500pages should have done it.

+ Weapon ranges are wrong, mostly to short. Even the "Himmlerorgel" had a better range than the MLRS in the book

+ Needless "new weapon" in the Frag Canon. That think is a damn howitzer so call it so. And supply some more ammo types

+ Impossible weapon in the "energy ball mortar". Energy balls would have worked for the AT-gun (direct fire) but not for the mortar

+ Lack of size/weight for the heavy weapons. If you only give me one type of TL-6 mortar at least give me an idea WHAT mortar. Don't have to give a caliber but a weight or a size so I can guess wether we are talking 60mm or 120mm. Same for the AT-gun, the range of those is huge within one TL (Compare the 37mm and 128mm AT-gun from WWII)

+ Giving size/weight would have nicely solved the discussion about the "artillery battledress" Knowing what mortar or AT-gun size we are talking would have given a good hint at the things size

+ Lack of vehicles, you could have given us the classic trio (Speeder,Astrin,Trepinda)


The book has some good sides like the Mission generator and the base descriptions. Ironically what I consider "better of in an adventure" in Scouts would have been a nice addition to Merc: Some sample units and bases.

 

[Whipsnade]

I fail to see how it is.

Doc,

Should I be surprised?

The TMB had more pages than all 3 LBBs and the new book's pages are double the size. They need to fill that additional space with something.

True, they need to fill that space with something. But why fill it with incompetently produced materials? I'm not criticizing the fact that they included new materials, I'm criticizing the fact that they included materials that are the products of lousy writing, horrible editing, and laughable playtesting and which involve dubious mechanics.

Plus they have the license for a decade. If they reprint everything in CT verbatum, at their production schedule, they'd only last two, maybe three years. Sooner or later they'd have to add something.

Then take the time and produce something good.

If you don't like lightsabers, don't use them. That simple.

Let me explain again. It's not a matter of me liking lightsabers or not. It's a matter of the men who invented Traveller saying that weapons like lightsabers have no place in the game. They are not part of the design philosophy that Ty quoted from JTAS.

As a GM, I can drop any damn thing I please into my Traveller games.

As a writer and publisher, I should be respectful enough to comply with the design philosophies expressed by those who invented Traveller.

Traveller doesn't do lightsabers or shurikin catapults or any of the other "militarily illiterate" things that are found in MgT's Mercenary.

If I see no use for submersibles because water is the rarest naturally occuring mineral in my setting, I am under no obligation to use them. But I'm not going to yell because Mongoose is making a book on submersibles. If I don't like them, I don't have to use them. That simple.

What you can do as a GM an what you should do as an author/publisher are two very different things.

Once again, your decision whether to use submarines or lightsabers in you personal Traveller universe is yours and yours alone. However, if Traveller's designers deliberately excluded submarines and lightsabers from the game and then you published and sold a book that included them, you're guilty of several things not the least of which is disrespect and a deliberate ignorance of canon.

Don't confuse your options as a Traveller GM with your duty as a Traveller author, especially when you are a Traveller author.


Regards,
Bill

 

[aramis]

To clarify Bill's rhetoric a bit:

Traveller's defining traits as a brand are realistic militaria, technology and weapons, and Jump Drive with its ramifications.

An author of a core or OTU product has a responsibiity to the brand to live up to that core ethic.

An author of a "for use with Traveller" product has a lesser obligation to that core ethic; material not true to it should be so noted.

An author of a "Powered by Traveller" product has even less of an obligation, in that it need only be true to itself, not to the traveller core ethic.

A GM has no obligation to that core ethic, unless his players demand it.

 

[Whipsnade]

Thank you for that, Aramis.

It's always startling to see my frothings distilled down to a handful of pithy talking points!


Regards,
Bill

 

[beowulf2044]

I believe it was S-4 who stated he demanded greatness in a product. I agree with the spirit of his contention, although I'd settle for accuracy. My difficulty with Traveller and related products has been a history of errata and mis-prints. The highly regarded High Guard started out as a product with errors that were corrected by GDW. Not so with the Weapon Matrix that has appeared in every incarnation since the original. From Snapshot on down, there have been errors in the damage dice on the Body Pistol and Cutlass (and before anyone chooses to argue these points, Don M was kind enough to confirm this on a prior, unrelated post). In addition, the Weapon Matrix in The Traveller Book has the Range Modifier for the Dagger match that of the Blade at Short Range.

These may be small quibbles and bits, but because they were never corrected, these errors have manifested themselves in Weapons Matrix works by others. Mark Twain once wrote something to the effect that one shouldn't follow the advice found in books on health, as one could die of a mis-print. Well, that applies to Player Characters, who could conceivebly 'die' due to a mis-print.

Simple accuracy in detail is all I want.

 

[BillDowns]

I have to quibble with the assertion

Traveller's defining traits as a brand are realistic militaria,....

Emphasis mine.

Any game which has the PGMP, FGMP, and 1 m x 15 cm missiles with a 6g powered envelope of 180,000 km cannot be considered realistic.

 

[tbeard1999]

I fail to see how it is. A major publisher with a budget, distribution capabilities and advertising potential is ... producing a sufficient amount of material to support that budget, distribution capabilities and advertising potential. The TMB had more pages than all 3 LBBs and the new book's pages are double the size. They need to fill that additional space with something. Same is true with every book there after.

Plus they have the license for a decade. If they reprint everything in CT verbatum, at their production schedule, they'd only last two, maybe three years. Sooner or later they'd have to add something.

I think that there was plenty of scope for MGT that would have produced (a) a product acceptable to us oldtimers; (b) and that wasn't merely a re-hash of CT. For instance, I think that the MGT character generation system could have replaced the CT character generation system. A new combat system was an obvious need for CT (obvious because of the sheer number of replacement combat systems ginned up by folks like me). IMHO, the High Guard starship design system could have been used as is and would have worked very well (maybe with some tweaks for small ships). I find little use in universal task systems, but I'm in the minority. Something like the MT task system would have worked fine.

A compiled and edited CT with the above enhancements would have been WELL worth buying IMHO.

 

[tbeard1999]

Well my problems with Merc's weapons:

+ All errors could have been prevented by reading a short overview on military technology, less than 500pages should have done it.

Or, review copies circulated among folks with some demonstrated knowledge of modern weapons, such as yourself. <shrug> I've designed two editions of a well-regarded set of modern miniature wargame rules (A Fistful of TOWs; third edition covering 1910-2015 coming out this year hopefully) and would have been happy to review Mercenary and provide (confidential) feedback. I'm sure that COI has plenty of old school grognards that would have been happy to help out.

Or, as you suggest, the designer could have educated himself on the basics of modern military tech.

Heck, you could produce a pretty creditable supplement by following the mini-essays in LBB4.