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

[dmccoy1693]

The way in which Traveller is BUILT limits it's utility in certain sci-fi settings. You can force those settings into Traveller but you end up damaging both the setting the the game.

I do understand what you and others are saying. I hear your opinions. I do not share them. I see what Mongoose published as swapping out a few tables, making some new ships, and some new aliens shy of having Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, Stargate Atlantis, Farscape, and Babylon 5. That is my opinion. YMMV.

 

[aramis]

Fundamentally, the problem is that a bunch of people don't realize that system matters a lot.

A few outright reject the presumption that system is important.
Several of us accept it wholeheartedly that system matters, and implies a setting by it's very set-up.

The Mongoose staff all seem to be falling more towards the first of those two poles.

 

[robject]

I do understand what you and others are saying. I hear your opinions. I do not share them. I see what Mongoose published as swapping out a few tables, making some new ships, and some new aliens shy of having Star Wars, Star Trek, BSG, Stargate Atlantis, Farscape, and Babylon 5. That is my opinion. YMMV.

It's in fact exactly what they did -- no doubt about it. Mongoose certainly got a lot of mileage out of its changes.

I think the advantages to Traveller and the entire Traveller community outweighs the cost (and there was obviously a cost).

The holy war appears to be about whether the result is Traveller or not.

Which indicates to me that we're all wasting time here.

 

[Whipsnade]

By opening Traveller up to more people, more gamers are included - which could _not_ have been done if we had stuck with OTU alone.

Matt,

No one here is suggesting that you should have stuck to the OTU alone so quit using it as a defense, okay?

What we're saying is that you've done it "on the cheap". You took a rules set that was never really generic, added a few other bits to it that still don't make it generic, and are now selling it as if it actually were generic. What you've got isn't Traveller enough to support the OTU and isn't generic enough to support other sci-fi settings.

You could have produced a Mongoose generic sci-fi rules set. You could have used Traveller as a starting point from which the construct that rules set. You could have then produced setting books that neatly fit the generic rules set without damaging either the rules or the settings involved.

You did none of those things however. Why you chose to do none of them can only be guessed at and thus shouldn't be discussed here.

You could have done it right and still brought in all the new players. Furthermore, by doing it right, your truly generic rules would fit more settings more easily and bring in even more players.

No previous versions of Traveller, including the First Three LBBs, were truly generic and the Mongoose version of Traveller isn't generic either. You, your advertising, and your "supporters" can claim otherwise but the facts cannot be contested. Traveller never was generic and MgT is not generic. Both can and may support different settings, but the range of those settings is still limited by the rule's underlying assumptions, by the "weft and warp" of their construction.


Regards,
Bill

 

[dmccoy1693]

Several of us accept it wholeheartedly that system matters, and implies a setting by it's very set-up.

Just curious but did you or anyone else accept T4, THero, T20, GT or any of the other non-CT based systems as being "Traveller"? How do you resolve those differences? I mean if you're playing T20, you're playing D&D that's been modified to the speicifickes of Traveller, not a CT based game.

 

[Whipsnade]

That's not exactly true. Matt authorized the creation of a PDF that denotes what things are OTU-compatible. Not which things are OTU-specific. There is a difference.

Colin,

True, there is a difference.

My point still stands however. Why is such a pdf necessary if, as Doc McCoy and others suggest, that the MgT core book is truly generic and the Marches book contains the OTU setting?

Shouldn't all the information regarding OTU-compatibility already be found in what is described as an OTU setting book?


Regards,
Bill

 

[dmccoy1693]

Colin,

True, there is a difference.

My point still stands however. Why is such a pdf necessary if, as Doc McCoy and others suggest, that the MgT core book is truly generic and the Marches book contains the OTU setting?

Shouldn't all the information regarding OTU-compatibility already be found in what is described as an OTU setting book?


Regards,
Bill

Because the OTU isn't a generic setting. It is a kitchen sink setting where you can play just about any kind of game in that setting, but it is not generic. The system, however, is generic.

 

[Whipsnade]

Just curious but did you or anyone else accept T4, THero, T20, GT or any of the other non-CT based systems as being "Traveller"? How do you resolve those differences? I mean if you're playing T20, you're playing D&D that's been modified to the speicifickes of Traveller, not a CT based game.

Doc,

My answer is that "It Depends". There are aspects of many of the systems you name that are not Traveller. It's as if we're using a sliding scale.

GT is a good example. While possibly being more realistic, it's ship and vehicle building systems are not Traveller because they use very different underlying assumptions like mass instead of volume.

GT also ignores the "PC- NPC Equality" found in nearly all other versions of the game. GURPS PCs are routinely built with more points than NPCs while in Traveller PCs and NPCs use the same chargen. You can end up with "weak" NPCs or PCs in chargen, but whether that occurs or not is up to chance. It is not designed into the game as with GT.

T20's use of levels means it's chargen is not Traveller for much the same reason GT's chargen isn't. T20's ship construction system is much more like Traveller's than GT's is however.

Your question has little to do with our criticism of MgT however. Our criticism is more about how MgT has been sold as a generic sci-fi system when none of the actual work needed to turn Traveller into a generic sci-fi system has not been done.

As I've repeatedly stated, Mongoose changed both too much and not enough; too much to make MgT work well in the OTU and not enough to make it work well in other settings.

Please note my use of the word "well". You can use any RPG system for any RPG setting. Whether the resulting game would be worth playing is another question entirely.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Allensh]

Fundamentally, the problem is that a bunch of people don't realize that system matters a lot.

A few outright reject the presumption that system is important.
Several of us accept it wholeheartedly that system matters, and implies a setting by it's very set-up.

The Mongoose staff all seem to be falling more towards the first of those two poles.

so what kind of setting is implied by GURPS? Hero? Savage Worlds?

Actually, I do sort of agree with you. System does imply a setting. And, assuming you eliminate the peripheral items that don't fit, I do not see anything in Mongoose Traveller that precludes its use for running in the OTU, anymore than any of the other systems would not work for Traveller with appropriate adjustments.

What I AM saying is that there is nothing wrong with separating somewhat Traveller the setting from Traveller the system by including things that facilitate expanding the rules beyond the OTU, with more extreme changes being found in the various setting books. I feel that the TMB uses Traveller as its baseline but includes things to go beyond that; the various "black cover" sourcebooks have additional items that you CAN use if you want to, but you do not HAVE to. Objecting so strenuously to them even BEING in the book is what confuses me. So they are there...don't use them!

I use combat implants and other "cyberwear" in MTU. If you don't..ignore them.

It is not the fact that you and others do not like MgT that gets me. It is the way that some people have decided to make it their personal crusade to ruin Mongoose Traveller (see the stuff that mbrinkhues has been saying) that baffles me. Surely they realize this is a futile and ultimately thick-headed excerise? The problem is, it completely ruins my enjoyment of these boards. It keeps me from even wanting to communicate with these people even when I DO feel like talking about earlier editions. It bothers me greatly that you and apparently the other moderators allow this section of the board to be assailed by these people when I KNOW that if I and others excerised "freedom of speech" in the other sections, we'd get infractions and bans outright in a very short time.

Hunter's "online home of Traveller" basically no longer exists, as it is painfully obvious that anyone who likes MgT is really not welcome here. I was on the TML back on the TNE days, I saw the vitriol and the split first-hand..and this is far worse. And its just as senseless and stupid now as it was then.

Allen

 

[tbeard1999]

Hunter's "online home of Traveller" basically no longer exists, as it is painfully obvious that anyone who likes MgT is really not welcome here.

Oh please. There's an entire forum here devoted to MGT and the majority of posts appear to me to be favorable.

The fact that COI *tolerates* dissenters does not render it intolerant of MGT fans.

I was on the TML back on the TNE days, I saw the vitriol and the split first-hand..and this is far worse. And its just as senseless and stupid now as it was then.

Well, to paraphrase Kissinger, such rivalries are so bitter because the stakes are so low.

Look--I don't think that CT (or MT or TNE or T4) fans seriously want MGT to fail. For one thing, a successful MGT makes Marc Miller money. I think that fans of other editions of Traveller will all agree that this is a Good Thing. I think most would also agree that the hobby needs game companies to survive. Mongoose--whatever its flaws--is clearly run by gamers. That makes it worthy of survival and success in my book.

However, *any* product can be improved and MGT is no different. In my experience, the most useful feedback I get as a game designer is the negative feedback. And my own rules have been *improved* by candid (if sometimes energetic) critical debate. I see no reason that MGT should be exempt from this.

Maybe I just accept this because of my job, but the adversarial process tends to *work*. Your enemies will expose your weaknesses FAR quicker than your friends will. People that hate your game will uncover the real problems in your game FAR faster than fans will.

And some critics are not as grotesquely unreasonable as you often insinuate (perhaps unknowingly).

For instance, I doubt that anyone has been harder on MGT than I have. Yet if you *honestly* review my posts, you'll see that I have applauded things that I thought were done right. And increasingly, I've made concrete suggestions on how to "improve" the game (at least as I define the word "improve"). And, not to blow my own horn, but Mongoose apparently agreed with the primary criticism I made of the playtest rules. Of course, there's no evidence that my particular disagreement tipped the scales or anything. But folks who dismissed my criticisms as nothing but mean spirited complaining were shown to be wrong when the system was ditched.

So it's more complex than you imply, Allensh. Believe it or not, I like Traveller. And I like to bloviate about game mechanics. I bear MGT no ill-will. As I've said, I already play the game I want to play. But I do not think that MGT is well-served by the old attitude "if you can't say something nice, don't say it". Nor do I agree that "attacking" a game someone likes is the same as making a personal attack on that person.

Who knows...I might even someday make a positive contribution to MGT...

I'd also note -- not accusing you of anything -- that unconditional love for an RPG does not really do the designers any favors. Their goal is -- or should be -- to improve the game. That is not made easier by unconditional love. One thing I will say about Mongoose is that Matt does seem to have a genuine interest in improving his products. We may well disagree on what will "improve" the product, but it speaks well that he's willing to energetically engage the critics.

I do the same with my own rules (though I am just an amateur).

 

[Whipsnade]

And, assuming you eliminate the peripheral items that don't fit, I do not see anything in Mongoose Traveller that precludes its use for running in the OTU...

Allen,

Pretend you're new to Traveller and pick up MgT's core books. Now, tell me which of the items listed there are peripheral and don't fit the OTU?

... anymore than any of the other systems would not work for Traveller with appropriate adjustments.

How do you know which adjustments to make when you're new to Traveller?

That's Mongoose's big excuse in all this; We're bringing in new players. So how do all these new players know what is the stuff meant the Traveller/OTU setting and what is the generic stuff meant for other settings?

What I AM saying is that there is nothing wrong with separating somewhat Traveller the setting from Traveller the system by including things that facilitate expanding the rules beyond the OTU

I am saying that too, quite forcefully at times.

I am also saying that Mongoose has not yet separated the setting from the rules in any meaningful fashion. All they've done is further scramble the setting with the rules.

I feel that the TMB uses Traveller as its baseline but includes things to go beyond that...

I feel that they didn't go beyond that far enough. They chose a quick and cheap route which also allowed them to misuse a nameplate. They bolted a few geegaws onto a non-generic set of rules and now want us to believe the rules are suddenly generic. They aren't generic because Mongoose avoided doing the work needed to make them generic.

People opening MgT's core books to find Traveller find something that isn't Traveller enough and people opening MgT's core book to find a generic rules set find something that isn't generic enough. It's neither fish nor fowl, and it fails because of that.

I use combat implants and other "cyberwear" in MTU. If you don't..ignore them.

Precisely. You use cyberware in Your Traveller Universe which also happens to be a different setting from the OTU. You mark the differences between the two while Mongoose deliberately ignores them because they need to keep claiming that MgT is somehow generic. What's more, this need to keep claiming that MgT is somehow generic has led Mongoose to add non-OTU items to the OTU setting.

It is not the fact that you and others do not like MgT that gets me.

Disappointed is a better word for my feelings. I quite like some aspects of MgT and have said so in various thread. I'm disappointed because Mongoose failed to produce either a new version of Traveller or a generic sci-fi rules set. They did too much on one hand, not enough on another, and failed the game, themselves, and their customers in the process.

It is the way that some people have decided to make it their personal crusade to ruin Mongoose Traveller (see the stuff that mbrinkhues has been saying) that baffles me. Surely they realize this is a futile and ultimately thick-headed excerise?

If it's futile, why are you worried?

It keeps me from even wanting to communicate with these people even when I DO feel like talking about earlier editions.

How many times have you posted in this thread? And the others? And the tone you perceive somehow keeps you from wanting to communicate?

I was on the TML back on the TNE days, I saw the vitriol and the split first-hand..and this is far worse.

I lurked on the TML that period and this is baby sh*t compared to the TNE. There are less than 10 people actively posting in this thread while the TNE flame war involved dozens.

And its just as senseless and stupid now as it was then.

Senseless and stupid? After hearing our specific complaints, Matt has authorized the creation of a pdf which will specifically list the OTU-compatible aspects and items found in MgT's allegedly generic core books. That's a rather large accomplishment in my opinion.

Also, if what you, Jon, and the others claim to be true actually was true, that MgT was actually generic and the Marches supplement presented the specific OTU setting, such a pdf wouldn't be necessary, would it?


Regards,
Bill

 

[tbeard1999]

so what kind of setting is implied by GURPS? Hero? Savage Worlds?

The problem is that the comparisons are not reasonable (at least re GURPS and Hero). These systems are explicitely "universal" and clearly state that within.

MGT calls itself "Traveller". For many gamers, that term has described a certain setting, the OTU for ~30 years. For others, that term has decribed a series of RPGs with pretty consisten underlying tech assumptions -- jump drive, plausible weaponry, attention to detail on military stuff, etc. Both groups of gamers are reasonable, IMHO, if they expect a game that is (a) called "Traveller" and (b) packaged to evoke the classic edition of Traveller to, in fact, resemble what they have defined as "Traveller" for THREE DECADES.

Now, I happen to think that the decision to make MGT into a universal ruleset is sensible. Why reinvent the wheel every time. But I don't think that the MGT core rules make it clear that this is a generic rules set.

Nor do I think that anyone at Mongoose set out to deceive anyone. My guess is that like most businesses, RPG products can seldom have all the resources they theoretically need. And I don't imagine the license was cheap (it shouldn't be; Traveller has real value IMHO). I think that there was a lot riding on that first printing and that mistakes were made (they always are in my experience, including my own rules). EDIT -- I don't always remember this, but I should. There is an INFINTE difference between producing a professional gaming product and knocking together a set of house rules for personal play. So we really should cut game companies and designers some slack on quality issues. To a point, of course.

But I don't think that is is accurate or helpful to pretend that MGT -- as shipped -- was an explicitely generic game in the same way that GURPS, Hero or Basic Roleplaying was. It may have been intended to be generic, but it didn't ship in that condition. Therefore, insinuating that Old School Traveller fans are somehow being unreasonable isn't itself very reasonable.

 

[tbeard1999]

Fundamentally, the problem is that a bunch of people don't realize that system matters a lot.

A few outright reject the presumption that system is important.
Several of us accept it wholeheartedly that system matters, and implies a setting by it's very set-up.

The Mongoose staff all seem to be falling more towards the first of those two poles.

An interesting question.

I think that system matters, though not as much as some do. I am confident of my skills -- and more importantly my willingness ("arrogance", one of my buddies chimed in) -- to modify a ruleset into something I want to play (and that my friends want to play), so I'm probably more tolerant of flaws than many folks.

But I do consider the system important. My time and energy is limited and it would take FAR longer to modify (say) 1st Ed. Chivalry and Sorcery into my type of sci-fi RPG than, say, Runequest (or CT). So I do consider system important if only because some systems are easier to modify than others.

I strongly agree that even "universal" systems can imply a great deal by what they include (and what they don't). In other words, "setting-free" is not necessarily the same as "generic".

Classic Traveller is a perfect example of this. When printed, it was clearly setting-free. But it provided a great deal of information on the kind of campaign that would result from using the rules as written. For instance...

1. Feudalism, implied by the social status attribute and the titles associated with high ratings (and the fact that a high social status was an advantage in some careers).

2. Communication limited to speed of travel. Explicitely stated.

3. Interstellar travel costly -- explicit in the starship economics section and implicit in the fact that tech levels were so variable.

4. Relatively "hard" sci-fi -- implied by the absence of tropes like blaster pistols, force fields, raygus, etc. Strongly implied by the fact that firearms are the preferred weapons even into the future.

5. Plentiful energy -- fusion power.

6. Gravitic manipulation -- demonstrated by air/rafts; arguably implied by reactionless thrusters (if you accept the "grav plate" rationale).

7. Human-centric setting -- no rules for aliens.

Etc., etc.

So while the game was setting-free, it imposed a great deal of default settings on a campaign. Of course, the referee was free to deviate from those settings. But clearly, a game dramatically different from the default settings -- Star Wars or Star Trek for instance -- would require a lot of work. For instance, adding lightsabers isn't enough for a Star Wars Traveller campaign. You have to explain why any sane person would carry them in lieu of a shotgun (same is true of blasters). So you have to add better armor, or sooper dodging skills, or whatever. Kinda hard to build a Star Destroyer with LBB2, so you need a Big Darned Starships design system. Gotta add deflector shields. Escape pods. A reactionless starship combat system. Gotta add expansive rules for alien PCs. Etc.

 

[Klaus]

Pretend you're new to Traveller and pick up MgT's core book. Now, tell me which of the items listed there are peripheral and don't fit the OTU?

Well, nothing, really, except the optional FTL drives...

Pretend you're absolutely correct on what the OTU actually is, and point out stuff in TMB that isn't.

 

[Whipsnade]

Well, nothing, really, except the optional FTL drives...

Klaus,

Yeah, nothing much beyond options to the FTL drive that has identified Traveller for thirty years.

Is there anything saying that jump drive and only jump drive is used in the OTU? I'm looking at the section now and can't find such a statement. Lots of stuff about jump drive being "traditional" but nothing about it's primacy in the OTU.

Pretend you're absolutely correct on what the OTU actually is, and point out stuff in TMB that isn't.

It's the TMB plus the other so-called core books. This thread is full of examples and I'm currently working with Ty to list many others.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Klaus]

This thread is full of examples and I'm currently working with Ty to list many others.

So apart from MagRail weapons, frag cannon, artillery battle dress, and an errant use of the word "uplifted", what else is on the list?

FYI, I do include magrail in my games, but using big slugs rather than discs, and I have no problem at all with artillery battle dress, which I can't see verboten by any previous edition of Traveller anyway.

BTW, you said "core book", not "core books".

 

[Whipsnade]

BTW, you said "core book", not "core books".

Klaus,

Thanks, I'll fix it.


Regards,
Bill

 

[mbrinkhues]

Just curious but did you or anyone else accept T4, THero, T20, GT or any of the other non-CT based systems as being "Traveller"? How do you resolve those differences? I mean if you're playing T20, you're playing D&D that's been modified to the speicifickes of Traveller, not a CT based game.

Actually no problem. Granted, I ditched CT as soon as I got my hands on MegaTraveller and never looked back. TNE later got choosen because I played a lot more Merc:2000 back then and just one system helped.

Currently I choose systems based on the scenario and maybe players. Character-oriented gets played by GURPS, action stuff is either TNE or, if I have a pro-D20 crowd (rare) by T20. Shiptech is done by FFS but using Thrusters instead of Heplar.

Since for me Traveller is a universe/setting, not a rules set I don't care much about the mechanics as long as they fit my needs (Relatively deadly, close to realism in my option, a CharGen that gives me a lot of control, a ready-made Traveller adaption to buy) So I can live with the compressed TL of Gurps etc.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Unfortunately, there isn't much I can do about anything you said, mbrinkhues. But this one:



How do you like your combat system? Sorry I never played GURPS or T2K 2.2. Tell me about it.

ACtually... hold that thought. I'm going to fork that to a different thread. (I have a publishing company and I know how to use it.)

Relatively deadly. The GURPS system will make sure that a single 7.62x51 will normally badly hurt if not kill an un-armored character. T2K is a bit more foregiving but the second hit will normaly dispatch a character. Weapon ranges etc. are also close to realism. T2K uses a different concept, including "Bullet shyness" in the ranges while GURPS uses realistic ranges and adds rules for that effect. Same for grenades, tanks etc. Tank vs. Rifle should be a win for the tank. If you want to kill an IFV or tank bring a AT-weapon.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Allensh you are wrong.

It is my opinion that Mgt is NOT the best Traveller system currently published. That there are better incarnations (GT, TNE, MT) availabel. So if someone asks me, that's what I will tell them. Anything else would be a lie coming from me.

I will state that option when Mgt is discussed and/or if I write a review I will bring up it's defects as I see them. Your option may vary but "quality" in RPGs can't be precisely measured. Writing a review or giving a counter-argument when someone praises Mgt is totally okay. As said before: Each side states it's arguments, makes it's presentation and the better side wins.

While some state "live and let live" that is not an option if one rejects Mgt as a system AND the number of players/GM is limited. In that case you have to convince people to your side. Same for material written. Convincing potential writers that writting a GT article for JTAS is better than writing an Mgt one for S&P is in my best interest since chances are the Mgt material needs a massiv rework to become useabel if at all.

It's all about arguments and presentation. One can make a system look good or bad while still telling the truth. Example:

"Mgt primary chargen system is based on the CT system. But where the CT system only offered 5 carreers, the Mgt system offers 16 and each of these has three sub-careers to choose from. In addition to that the chargen has an intergral livepath/history generator"

"Mgt primary chargen system is based on the 30 year old CT system. Like it's ancestors from the early days of roleplaying it is mostly random-based giving the player little to no control about what character he will end up with. While it offers some addional possible careers the options in chargen are far smaller than in most other Traveller rules systems"

Both are totally fact based.