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

[Allensh]

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.

Truthfully, Ty, I agree with this. Mongoose Traveller, as presented, has some nods to other sci-fit settings in it but is not strictly generic as Savage Worlds or GURPS is. I kind of see the game as trying to cover sci-fi mostly; Mongoose has Runequest for the fantasy stuff, for example. I believe from what I have seen they are building towards a "generic science-fiction" rulesset, not an all-encompassing one like GURPS.

Allen

 

[mbrinkhues]

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".

MagRails without a disk is a totally different weapon (and one that basically has been shown in Challenge, a Gaus LAG). Houserules can fix a lot of things but a game system should work OOB.

Artillery battledress may (heavy BD, TNE) or may not (MiniMech) work in Traveller. It's the lack of size/weight that makes the decision impossible.

 

[Allensh]

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".

It should be pointed out, since Whipsnade's response was obviously directed at me that I was referring specifically to the main Traveller Core Book and was not including Mercenary, High Guard or Scouts in my comment.

So lets see that list. No reason to wait on it...maybe others could help you add to it. But limit it to the core book, because that is what I said.

Allen

 

[tbeard1999]

It should be pointed out, since Whipsnade's response was obviously directed at me that I was referring specifically to the main Traveller Core Book and was not including Mercenary, High Guard or Scouts in my comment.

So lets see that list. No reason to wait on it...maybe others could help you add to it. But limit it to the core book, because that is what I said.

Allen

Let's not. I've agreed to keep everything confidential until done. It will be out when it's out.

 

[aramis]

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.

Most of my players are MT fans. Most of them started with either MT or TNE, and all prefer MT over TNE, mostly due to weapons modelling. (TNE is very self-consistent, but a poor model; you literally can't kill an NPC with a single shot from a .22LR. TNE 2.x had the exact same problem, but due to the fan base communication issue, the designers were much less insulated when TNE came out... or at least, Loren wasn't.

My players flat-out rejected virus as unrealistic; too fantasy for our games.

Most embraced T4, until it became clear that the task system was broken. Campaign was finished out with a 3D6 roll high (5/10/15/20/25/30 TNs) max DM+12, StatDM=Stat/2 MT variant. NONE of us liked the ship systems. We use it for some materials, like Psionics, which we reversed back to MT, but in general, it was a miss. We won't bother with T5, because the primary interface with game mechanics is the task system, and MWM has stuck with that damned suckwad dice by difficulty roll-low T4 task system.

The T20 playtest was embraced as well. One of my group it was his first exposure to Traveller; he prefers MT. Overall, if we're going to play a non-MT Traveller, T20 is it. And T20 makes so many divergences from D20 standards that it doesn't feel much like D&D. It doesn't feel much like CT, either... but we don't do CT except for setting.

MGT, we played in the playtest but the game folded just as the playtest closed due to players leaving state. We loved the ship and personal combat in PTD3.2. We noticed (and ty confirmed), and we suggested a fix for, the break in the task system, but it was either ignored or rejected. We feel the open playtest was both mishandled and mostly a publicity stunt.
MGT Ship design was decent in playtest, passable in print, since they eliminated power point use.
I've run a couple sessions since, and the combat system is poorly worded, and far less fun than the PTD. My players are willing to play under Draft 3.2, but not under released rules.

GT: Not a consideration; I hate GURPS as a ruleset... I find it cumbersome and filled with details in the wrong places.

HT: Haven't run it, did buy it. Looks useable. Many of my group appreciate the Hero System already.

EABA, WoD: Ran Traveller using both systems. EABA feels really good, WoD fairly close, but not as good. Useful for converting VTM 1E players.

CT: We've tried a few CT games since MT... it does NOT work for us. Mind you, what doesn't work is the CGen and the lack of task system, plus the lack of integration of damage scales...

We keep hoping, and keep being disappointed.

 

[Allensh]

Let's not. I've agreed to keep everything confidential until done. It will be out when it's out.

Understood.

Allen

 

[MongooseMatt]

After all if the Mgt fans get to strut out/support THEIR version and call it "the best" I have the right to do the same with mine.

Do they do it in forums set aside for other versions?

 

[MongooseMatt]

I see. You want to cash in on name recognition,

We want Traveller to be played as many people as possible, yes.

 

[MongooseMatt]

MgT is generic? Where's my phaser then? Transporters? Mecha? Geneering? Where's all the other sci-fi stuff in what is allegedly the CORE rules book for a sci-fi RPG?

It doesn't need those things to be generic - it needs to be able to act as a foundation to those things to be generic. Which is what we have done.

Mongoose did it on the cheap.

You keep saying this, as if that will make it more true. However, you have no idea just how far wrong you are in saying that, on several levels.

GDW made a mistake by not fully separating rules from setting. Mongoose is furthering that mistake, despite having the example of GDW before them..

So, two large (RPG-wise) and successful companies choose to do one thing, you would choose to do another. Does it not at least occur to you that there may be solid reasons for why these companies are doing what they do?

We're talking about how Traveller's [basic construction naturally limits it to a certain range of settings.

And we are disagreeing with that assumption. Furthermore, we will be offering proof in the form of Slammers, Dredd and many others over the next decade.

This is a disagreement over facts and the facts are wholly against you.

The sad thing is you truly believe that.

No, what we are debating here are assumptions and opinions. Not facts.

Why would that pdf be needed if, as you suggest, the core book was a generic system and the Marches supplement contained the setting materials?

. . .

Because people asked for it.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Mr Miller fills the role of Gary Gygax. As for Mongoose Matt, I feel that time will reveal his role to be that of Gygax's ex-wife.

Don't be so bloody rude.

I am quite happy to talk to anyone, to answer questions, to explain why why do certain things. As I explained before, I love talking about games.

If you want to turn the discussion into name-calling, I am really not interested.

 

[MongooseMatt]

so sales are no fair mark of success as a game before you jump all over that defense

Maybe.

But continued sales, across the entire range, _are_ a good indicator.

 

[MongooseMatt]

The Customer Service was good. But a product that didn't NEED that level of customer service would have been a lot better.

We always strive for perfection. However, in the real world, what is important is how you deal with problems _when_ they arise. I believe we have placed Mongoose at or at least near the top of customer service in that regard.

 

[MongooseMatt]

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

To be fair, I would call this particular forum anything but 'friendly'. It is certainly driving more than a few people away from here and on to our boards (which, it has to be said, does us nothing but good).

 

[mbrinkhues]

Do they do it in forums set aside for other versions?

On some boards they do.

 

[Kyle Aaron]

Thanks for the reminder your boards exist, MongooseMatt. It'll be good to be able to step away from bitter-non-gamers arguing about "canon" and why edition X suxxorz.

 

[rancke]

Thanks for the reminder your boards exist, MongooseMatt. It'll be good to be able to step away from bitter-non-gamers arguing about "canon" and why edition X suxxorz.

Yeah, people like that sucks.


Hans

 

[fiat_knox]

When the atmosphere gets toxic, terraform.

I'll stick here.

In answe to the question "Why pay more for less?" I can only surmise that there are those who'd want there to be nothing at all on the market to buy. They'd rather close the market down than see it sell a product that they do not want.

And that doesn't work. It's hubristic beyond belief.

The market is there for Mongoose Traveller. The books are flying off the shelves, eagerly snapped up by old and new Traveller fans. Most of all, first timers are buying Traveller and getting into it. A whole new generation of gamers are running Traveller now, and that is probably a huge legacy to give to the game and the culture.

That trumps any amount of vitriol and bile spewed here on these or on any other fora.

 

[Icosahedron]

We always strive for perfection. However, in the real world, what is important is how you deal with problems _when_ they arise. I believe we have placed Mongoose at or at least near the top of customer service in that regard.

Not trying to diss you in any way, Matt, but what is more important is predicting and preventing problems _before_ they arise. Dealing with problems responsibly makes you a good supplier, but preventing them would make you a better one.

Nobody has a crystal ball, but a number of the complaints I have seen here suggest that some of the problems could have been forseen without one. Hopefully, as you suggest, these are a thing of the past. Time will tell.

 

[mbrinkhues]

We always strive for perfection. However, in the real world, what is important is how you deal with problems _when_ they arise. I believe we have placed Mongoose at or at least near the top of customer service in that regard.

Let's just say I have seen complex software systems rolled out with less problems than most of the Mgt products so far.

And we are not talking minor spelling/gramar stuff here but things that any half-decend QA MUST catch. About the only way stuff like the deckplans in Base, the problems in HG, missing stuff in Scouts etc. get's out of the warehouse is a massiv lack of Quality Assurance at more than one label combined with "rush" delivery

 

[MongooseMatt]

Let's just say I have seen complex software systems rolled out with less problems than most of the Mgt products so far.

With how many resources behind them, and to what deadlines?