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

[GypsyComet]

Unabashedly ripping off WH40K to add shurikin catapults to the OTU[/]i is one thing. Completely misrepresenting one of the Six Major Races is another.

In the case of the Aslan, this is a long-standing tradition. No version released to date is complete or without significant issues of vision.

If this thread has proved anything to me, it is that the TML was wise to reach a détente on certain matters of Traveller religion. The one that seems to have come to the forefront here is the "Rules vs Setting" question. One view is at the base of Ty's arguments, and at the forefront of Whipsnade's and mbrinkhues'. The other view forms the foundation for Mongoose's entire Traveller line.

The two sides are NOT going to agree on this point. Not 15 years ago on the TML, and not now.

 

[aramis]

Britti_Lover:
What I've seen of the "Bab5 traveller" is so thoroughly UNINSPIRING that I doubt it worth the cost.

Also, when it comes to Generic... Traveller and D&D are both claimed to be Generic. Neither truly is. D&D is, until 4E, tied to Jack Vance's magic, Moorcock's Law/Chaos dichotomy, and Tolkein's races. Yes, each supports several different settings, but all those settings are very similar, and settings without that similarity either require massive alterations of the core rules, or alteration of the setting to match the rules.

Even GURPS suffers this, to a lesser degree, most noted by running some of the less realistic settings (Like Lensman, SpecOps, or IOU); GURPS works well for a far wider range than Traveller, because it was designed specifically to cover a wider range. It still sucks for a wide range of settings.

So saying Traveller is Generic is all well and good, but it belies the problem that they didn't remove the assumptions from the rules that make it not generic. They slapped a few poorly thought out additions on, like alternate drives, and made some changes in economics of starships (without understanding the ramifications of them). They changed just enough of the assumptions that it no longer shares the same understandings of UWP's (since law level was given several new effects), but it also creates an equally strong "High Law means the encounter TL has to be low" logic error.

Ironicly, the LEAST generic Traveller ruleset is TNE. So much of the setting is encoded into the rules mechanics that one needs another edition to play during the classic 3I with it. (Simply because the encounter tables are so highly tweaked into the virus wilds.) It has all kinds of alternate tech... but the CGen and Encounters rules require massive retrofit to be anything other than tales of the virus wastelands.

MT, while having slightly different assumptions, is as generic as any traveller rules have ever been... and are more so than CT or Mongoose... With Hard Times, (or the two challenge articles combined in the back of HT), one can run Terradyne, or Jovian Chronicles; the ship encounters are actually still fairly generic, but probably should be reworked for those settings. Still, it's strongly influenced by the OTU in the character generation. The trade approximations are still tied to the 1 week trip time. The Jump Drive still reigns supreme.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Dunno about JBE,

Check out the free creature (Sand Cobra) at DriveThruRPG

but some of the material in Mercenary is clearly lifted from WH40K...

So much for "entirely new..."

If you're going to quote me, take it in context. Its entirely new for Traveller. Traveller has never had it before. And lets be frank, RPGs are not developed in a vacuum. D&D 4E borrowed heavily from WOW. Exalted borrows from Martial Arts movies and the Illiad. Why shouldn't a sci-fi game borrow from sci-fi movies and games? How is that bad? If I want my home game to steal elements from Pitch Black/Chronicles of Riddick, Star Wars and Night of the Living Dead, I'd like to buy a book so I am not required to make it all up myself.

Products that I am creating, I'll be getting inspiration from somewhere.

 

[atpollard]

They slapped a few poorly thought out additions on, like alternate drives ...

I am not sure that this statement is accurate (but I tend to agree with almost all your other concerns).

I admit to being a starship design "fanboy" (If I can use that term on myself without getting a warning ) and I would not have done things the way that they did. In fact, I strongly disagre with some aspects of the design sequence.

But having looked hard at the rules and 'talked' with some of the rules architects, I am convinced that most of the changes (I am unqualified to speak for all of them) were at least thought out and intentional. Right or wrong, they do not appear to have been carelessly 'slapped on'.

 

[dmccoy1693]

They are paying you after all.

I was referring to my own company. Mongoose isn't paying my company. I am publishing my own products. They do not direct me to publish any particular products.

You can do the same if you care enough and are creative enough.

Even if I wanted to, I could not. I am not permitted to write OTU material.

But I do not have any desire. Why should I chase after a market that Mongoose either is in or will be in? I'd rather carve out my own niche that is either to small for Mongoose to fill or (my actual goal) what no one has tried to do with traveller before.

If my products do not work in your game, I understand. I'm not going to be making products for everyone. I'm going to be making products for those looking for something different. Maybe its someone that's played in the OTU for 30 years and is looking for a completely different setting. Maybe its someone looking for "unrealistic" tech because they want to incorporate something from their favorite movie into their game. Hell, maybe its a magic system (urban fantasy is popular in fiction right now, why not put a sci-fi spin on it). I don't know. No matter what happens, I expect a wild ride.

 

[aramis]

I am not sure that this statement is accurate (but I tend to agree with almost all your other concerns).

I admit to being a starship design "fanboy" (If I can use that term on myself without getting a warning ) and I would not have done things the way that they did. In fact, I strongly disagre with some aspects of the design sequence.

But having looked hard at the rules and 'talked' with some of the rules architects, I am convinced that most of the changes (I am unqualified to speak for all of them) were at least thought out and intentional. Right or wrong, they do not appear to have been carelessly 'slapped on'.

If they had been thought out well, they would have included modifications to T&C for them.

 

[Kilgs]

Therefore, these same assumptions should not be discarded out of hand -- particularly by folks who can't be bothered to actually understand them.

Wha? So I have to understand things to play them in a RPG or write about them?

That's just silly.

 

[Whipsnade]

Wha? So I have to understand things to play them in a RPG...

Kilgs,

No. You don't need to understand things to play them in a RPG.

... or write about them?

Yes. As the writer you do need to understand things to write about them in a RPG.

The reason you need to understand them is because the players may not, so you need to craft rules and descriptions with a certain level of in-game plausibility and internal consistency that can make up for the players' lack of knowledge.

As an writer you're supposed to be better than the average player, not worse.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Klaus]

If you're still reading this guff, Matt, please don't let it affect anything Mongoose might have planned. The 'Self-Appointed Moral Guardians of Traveller Purity' may have a POV (and of course it's valid for them), but just because they shout the loudest doesn't mean they are right or that their views are shared by anyone else.

These pages and pages of repetitive droning are testament to that.

There are several folk here that are not enamoured with MGT but do not feel the need to shove it down everyone elses throat everytime other folk want to chat about their game.

Maybe some people should learn some dignity and just accept that plenty of folk do not agree with you so leave off browbeating everyone else with near identical posts.

This is a pretty unedifying spectacle. Makes the recent 'Pit shennanigans look tame and mild. Since this is now officially a theological war the 'Pit is where it should really be, if it still existed.

:nonono:

 

[MongooseMatt]

You tried to produce a generic set of rules on the cheap

If only you knew. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

Matt,
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?

I believe we have already covered this. However. . .

As it defines Traveller, as oppposed to the OTU, of course not - we wanted (and by we, I mean Mr Miller as well) to a wide expanse of other universes, of which you'll see just a smattering this year. This meant we needed to widen Traveller's scope greatly.

OTU material, on the other hand, was always intended to be rock solid. You could add other Traveller elements as you saw fit to the OTU, as presented by us (which means specific OTU books, before anyone leaps on that statement!).

So, in terms of Traveller in and of itself, the approach had to change from the editorial quoted.

The OTU, however, would vey much keep that approach (though that is not to say nothing will change. . .).

Here's the kicker: Mongoose hasn't produced those rules yet.

Traveller is only a few months old, give us a chance

Traveller does automatically equate certain technologies, technological assumptions, and design philosophies.

That is where we must disagree. Traveller (now, at least) is a rules set.
[/QUOTE]

 

[mbrinkhues]

Thanks for the personal attack, there, Ty.

I was certainly not bashing CT. I was providing factual evidence that the quote you keep throwing out is hogwash. And I'll just add more evidence - repulsors, meson guns, black globes, nuclear damper screens.

The point is that Traveller has never been "hard sci-fi". And if Mongoose is changing the focus of Traveller to bring in more players, and increase their business, and all apparently with Marc's blessings, then I say more power to them, and wish them success.

Matt, I am planning to buy your product at some point in the near future.

NO SciFi System with FTL can be purely "hard" science. But GDW tried hard to

+ Break as few rules as possible (They did even better with 2300AD)

+ Keep the stuff "down to the ground"

+ Do some reality-checking / base it on then-current science

Sure there are technobabble elements but far less than in most SciFi games/universes. And some of the elements you mention are either do-abel, have been considered do-able or at least would work in the Traveller universe. Namely Repulsors (GravTech), Nuclear Dampers (Using strong/weak force) and Plasma/Fuzion guns.

 

[MongooseMatt]

So, no. I do not intend to rehash material produced years ago. Mongoose paid for that license and that is their purview. I will not be attempting to beat them to the punch nor do a slightly different take that may or may not be closer that they may have missed the mark on, if they did indeed miss the mark.

This is actually a very good point.

We have effectively made Traveller Open Content - if there is anything you don't like in the game or setting, you _can_ effectively produce (and even publish) your own. . .

So, put your money where your mouth is. If you truly believe we are leaving tens of thousands of people behind with the new Traveller, produce something yourself. If it starts outselling our books, you can be pretty sure we'll take notice.

But I don't think it will. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

Matt, if you're reading this, I intend this as a constructive post. I'm not trying to insult you. This is one potential customer speaking his mind about a product to a publisher.

Understood.

However, please also understand that we cannot write a games system specifically for you - we need to cover many bases.

It's about the content. It's about the way Mongoose is going about treating the Traveller universe.

With respect, I believe our discussions here have highlighted something slightly different.

The difference of opinion is not with the Traveller Universe - it is with Traveller itself. What some people regard as a set of assum,ptions and conventions, we call a rules system.

I _think_ I would be right in saying that there have been no massive issues with the one OTU book yet published (Marches), and I am fairly confident about Aslan (about to go to print).

You can't do that with Traveller.

Our position would be that you could not do it with the OTU - you can do pretty much anything you like with Traveller.

Don't put silly stuff in books that are titled "Traveller". All stuff in a book marked "Traveller" should be considered OTU.

I am sorry, but I cannot agree less with this. The OTU already has its own logo.

And, I hate to keep dragging this up, but this is the direction Mr Miller agrees with too. He (and his minions!) review everything we produce for Traveller, I talk with him regularly on the phone, where we discuss new products and new settings and I can honestly say he is more interested in Traveller visiting other universes, while maintaining the integrity of the OTU (via clearly defined books).

You may have a few people bad mouthing your Conan rpg, but I can tell you that many, many, many more say good things about it than not.

But here is the thing. Once we go beyond this forum, the same applies to Traveller. We get far, far more positive feedback than negative.

These writers know that what flys in a Lord of the Rings game prolly won't fly in a Conan game.

A fair point. However, to take the analogy to Traveller;

D20 = Traveller
Conan = OTU

We are _still_ debating about the difference between setting and system. It is our position that the two are different things.

 

[mbrinkhues]

This is actually a very good point.

We have effectively made Traveller Open Content - if there is anything you don't like in the game or setting, you _can_ effectively produce (and even publish) your own. . .

So, put your money where your mouth is. If you truly believe we are leaving tens of thousands of people behind with the new Traveller, produce something yourself. If it starts outselling our books, you can be pretty sure we'll take notice.

But I don't think it will. . .

Matt, your current licence does NOT allow that. I can't publish stuff in the established 3I, only in "Foreven". So stuff like an Antares/Julian SB is not doabel. The people left behind are interested in 3I/3I compatible material so a setup with a "Julian Clone" facing a "3I clone" in Foreven won't run.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Matt, your current licence does NOT allow that. I can't publish stuff in the established 3I, only in "Foreven". So stuff like an Antares/Julian SB is not doabel. The people left behind are interested in 3I/3I compatible material so a setup with a "Julian Clone" facing a "3I clone" in Foreven won't run.

Well, you not only have an entire sector to play with in the OTU, but you can also publish YTU, with whatever conventions you like.

This is the point you are trying make, is it not? That Traveller and TU is one and the same.

You can certainly publish something along those lines.

 

[tbeard1999]

If you're going to quote me, take it in context. [Shuriken catapults are ] entirely new for Traveller. Traveller has never had it before.

A distinction without a difference.

As I noted elsewhere, ridiculous, implausible weaponry (and other tech) were around long before RPGs. MGT gets no points for plagiarizing a notably absurd weapon from a well known and very popular science fantasy wargame. Note that I am not overly bothered by the plagiarism, though I think that the original source should be acknowledged. I'm bothered by the fact that it's such an insufferably stupid weapon.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Well, you not only have an entire sector to play with in the OTU, but you can also publish YTU, with whatever conventions you like.

This is the point you are trying make, is it not? That Traveller and TU is one and the same.

You can certainly publish something along those lines.

As we say in Germany "Verarschen kann ich mich alleine" Sorry but the rubber-sector of Foreven is a YOKE when one wants to publist OTU material.

 

[tbeard1999]

The beauty of Traveller is - it is a generic set of Science Fiction rules - a general outline for you to fill in the details.

THE THIRD IMPERIUM is completely optional. If you don't like it - don't use it - OR use only what you like from it.

Once again, a MGT advocate refuses to acknowledge a fundamental point. Since this has been stated over and over, it grow increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is intentional. However, in the interest of amity and clarity, I'll try one more time:

"TRAVELLER" -- AS TERM HAS BEEN USED FOR 30+ YEARS -- INCLUDES FAR MORE THAN THE 3I SETTING (AND ITS DERIVATIVES).

What part of this statement is so difficult to grok?

To amplify -- the underlying technical and social assumptions, and the rigorous attention to detail (especially in the military tech) is what many of us have called "Traveller" over the last 30+ years.

And MGT is frankly an embarrassment on that point. MGT Mercenary in particular may be the *worst* professional RPG supplement ever produced -- quite an accomplishment, really. It is clearly the worst written and edited that I've ever seen. And it is equally clear that the author knew little about military affairs and simply tossed in whatever Kewl weapons he could find. I guess I should be relieved that we didn't have lightsabers, phasers and warp spiders. Given the fact that Traveller has always had well-reasoned military tech, this is a particularly glaring (and galling) flaw.

And by the way, Traveller has *never* been a "universal RPG" in any meaningful sense of the term. Rather, it was originally a setting-free RPG with a strongly defined set of technological and social assumptions. To run "Star Trek" or "Star Wars", you would have had to re-write 2/3 of the game (I know from personal experience). That is not a "universal RPG".

 

[tbeard1999]

Wha? So I have to understand things to play them in a RPG or write about them?

That's just silly.

Well, I am unreasonable about things like that.