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

[atpollard]

(You see, the one thing the nay-sayers on this forum tend to miss is the idea that, as human beings, we have a natural ability to try something, find it doesn't work so well, and then try something different - just like any other area of life, really!)

OH, Sure. Play the Human Card.


As a practical suggestion, Starship and craft designs based on some 'magic' reactionless drive that ignores mass is acceptably plausible to use as-is. However, Reaction Drives (presented as optional rules) really do need a design system that at least gives a nod to calculating mass. You may want to add MASS to the next version of your design rules (even something as simple as 'all starships average 5+Armor Factor metric tons per displacement ton'.)

 

[mbrinkhues]

Then just stick to the OTU books, easily identified by their covers - Aslan is just about to go to print. See what you think of those (I have a feeling you will like Aslan ).

After looking at Psion I seriously doubt that. And after looking through Scouts I doubt it delivers anything that has not been said back in the days of CT or MT.

However, it _does_ strike me as a little disingenuous when OTU veterans (not necessarily yourself!) complain about things not being marked as OTU when they, of all people, should know the difference and make their own selections. Which brings us on to. . .

Maybe because not all players are that experienced and the presence of stuff well outside the OTU technology means I have to spend time explaining "this is not allowed because..." instead of playing. Maybe I have seen in other versions of the game how EASY it is for the publisher to solve that problem and spare me the time. A simply "skull and crossbones" after every non-OTU stuff would have done it.

Okay, let's take an issue that was raised on these forums - the MagRifle Rifle (Shurikat), a clearly non-OTU weapon.

Umm, why call it non-OTU? Sure, it has not appeared before and sure, you may not find them handed out as standard issue by the planetary marines but, honestly, is there not somewhere they could appear?

There does seem a reluctance (and veterans can be just as guilty of this as newbies) to grasp just how HUGE the OTU is. The amount of planets, peoples, and _space_ shown in just the Marches is mind-boggling. And it is said that nowhere in this massive expanse of space and time is there room for a MagRail Rifle?

Sorry, don't buy that, not for a minute.

Sure you don't, you published that book. Sorry but the weapon breaks a VERY important element of the OTU: Trying to be as realistic as possible for a SciFi game. And the MagRail simply will not work! And it's just one example, the "Energy ball mortar" is another nice one. SciFi works best if it remains relatively acceptabel.

The whole point of the core 'black' books is for you to pick and choose what you want from your campaign, not to straitjacket the OTU. In effect, as soon as you take the OTU home, it becomes a Your-TU. Different people will make different choices about what they want to see in it. You may choose to ban the MagRail Rifle completely - and that is cool. Someone else may choose to completely arm a roving mercenary band with them, perhaps a gift from an old employer - and that is no less cool than your choice!

Someone may even want, in HTU, a wackly time traveller with a scarf and a blue box. Are you seriously going to tell him that he can't?

If he plays in my group: YES

If he offers that as "Traveller" on a Convention: YES

Otherwise I don't care. I DO care about the fact that using Mgt would cause me additional work without any additional benefit. As stated above, it would have been easy for you to prevent that

Ultimately, the black core books are toolkits, which players can dip in and out of as they see fot for their campaigns. It is right and proper that each book, each toolkit, has items you would never let into your current campaign. That is as it should be. On the other hand, it is also possible that you may find exactly the right campaign for those items next year, and that someone else is using them right now.

We said right at the start that there would be a disconnect from Traveller and the OTU, and the core books are part of that.

That's one of the reasons I stopped buying your stuff. It ISN'T Traveller. IMHO it's a so-so "Universal" system with all the "New Rules Set" problems that simply rides on Travellers name. Had you published it as "Mongoose Universal SciFi" and stated that "We'll do a Traveller supplement or two" I'd see this different. It would make accepting some of the bad pieces a lot easier

Take them as toolkits from which you can switch and select as you see fit and, I hope, their purpose will become much clearer.

See above. Traveller != Universal system IMHO.

Well, all we can really agree to here is to wait for the heavyweight settings that are coming for Traveller - starting with Hammers Slammers, and closely followed by Dredd. Let's discuss them then.

Aside from my dislike of playing in "book/movie" universes in general I don't think H/S is a playabel universe unless you un-balance it a lot. Non-tankers don't even get a name in most of the stories...

To be fair, these are all very subjective, surely?

Any review is and buying a book has little to do with engineering style decisions

I made some comments about this on a recent Planet Mongoose post myself.

In short, we won't be doing any more massive ships as deck plans after Warships of Babylon 5 - they do indeed have limited utility. However, I _am_ glad that we have done at least one truly huge ship, because it at least gives you an idea of the layout that can be applied to others. On Planet Mongoose, I quoted a Star Wars game I ran where players were infiltrating a Droid Control Ship and the cutaway diagrams (hardly deck plans) from DK were a superb resource, just for giving me an idea of what should go where as the players roamed.

The Dreadnought was presented for a similar reason, but we won't be doing any more over-sized vessels unless they appear in box set format and we can have some massive pieces of paper devoted to them.

(You see, the one thing the nay-sayers on this forum tend to miss is the idea that, as human beings, we have a natural ability to try something, find it doesn't work so well, and then try something different - just like any other area of life, really!)

Oh I have given you the benefit of the doubt and will read reviews. But you have IMHO failed to deliver in many places when it comes to Traveller. Others did a far better job for it.

The very sad thing is that you CAN produce stuff that is true to the "spirit" of a setting as seen by your Conan Material. That's an example how to do it right. While I don't use your system (GURPS for Fantasy if Fantasy at all) I do use quite a few of your setting books for additional background.

 

[tbeard1999]

Then just stick to the OTU books, easily identified by their covers - Aslan is just about to go to print. See what you think of those (I have a feeling you will like Aslan ).

Except that the "OTU Books" contain some of the most cringe-inducing deviations. For instance, the shuriken catapults are in Mercenary.

However, it _does_ strike me as a little disingenuous when OTU veterans (not necessarily yourself!) complain about things not being marked as OTU when they, of all people, should know the difference and make their own selections.

Matt, *you* are the one who decided to call this game "Traveller". *You* are the one who made fidelity to the original a key part of your advertising. Therefore, it is not my obligation to make your products consistent with your advertising. And I think that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a game called "Traveller" to generally follow 32 years of canon and assumptions that have been associated with "Traveller".

Nor do I find it shocking that fans of a particular genre object to inappropriate and/or absurd additions. I think that if Captain Kirk suddenly brandished a lightsaber and started talking about the Force, Star Trek fans would complain (and Star Wars fans would point and laugh). This is no different than introducing plagiarized Warhammer 40K gear into Traveller.

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.

Heck, it might work wonders. But it ain't Traveller IMHO.

Okay, let's take an issue that was raised on these forums - the MagRifle Rifle (Shurikat), a clearly non-OTU weapon.

And let's be candid -- a weapon plagiarized from WH40K.

Umm, why call it non-OTU? Sure, it has not appeared before and sure, you may not find them handed out as standard issue by the planetary marines but, honestly, is there not somewhere they could appear?

Ignoring the fact that it is plagiarized from a popular science fantasy wargame, the weapon is technologically absurd for any number of reasons that have already been detailed in this forum. The primary reason being that the energy cost of propelling a sharpened disk would propel a bullet or fin stabilized round FAR more effectively. "Because it's so Kewl" is a stupid reason to add an implausible weapon to Traveller IMHO.

Traveller has always been characterized by sober, competent analysis of science and military trends. Its weaponry in particular, has always been plausible. From JTAS#3:

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.

You really should make your designers read this editorial.

Matt, ridiculous sci-fi weapons have been around since long before Classic Traveller. For 30 years, the designers of Traveller rejected absurdtech. And in the process, created a distinctive game.

MGT now attempts to undo all that by indiscriminately introducing all manner of silly, derivative tripe. And I object to dumbing down a classic.

(You see, the one thing the nay-sayers on this forum tend to miss is the idea that, as human beings, we have a natural ability to try something, find it doesn't work so well, and then try something different - just like any other area of life, really!)

The problem with this assertion is that there are ample opportunities to "try something". Among the RPGs that I have actually run are: Space Opera, TFT, the Morrow Project, Call of Cthulhu, D&D of every flavor, numerous homebrews, Cyberpunk, every variety of Traveller, Dragonquest, Ars Magica, Other Suns, every version of Runequest, Ringworld, Worlds of Wonder, Star Frontiers, and others I'm sure. I've played in far more.

So you misunderstand the essential complaint regarding canon -- we object to tripe being indiscriminately added to Traveller.

Especially by folks who obviously have not bothered to actually educate themselves on Traveller canon or key areas of competence that should be required for Traveller designers. I mean, for cripes' sake, the designer of your core rules didn't even know that an assault rifle is less powerful than a standard rifle.

And please, don't flatter yourselves. As the JTAS editorial makes clear, ridiculous sci-fi weaponry has been around for many, many decades. MGT isn't plowing any new ground by adding absurd weapons and technology to Traveller.

And if your position is now that MGT is merely a hodgepodge of sci-fi tech indiscriminately thrown into a bucket, then please either call it something besides "Traveller" or at least identify the stuff that isn't part of the OTU.

 

[MongooseMatt]

After looking at Psion I seriously doubt that. And after looking through Scouts I doubt it delivers anything that has not been said back in the days of CT or MT.

Then. . . you have nothing to worry about!

Maybe because not all players are that experienced and the presence of stuff well outside the OTU technology means I have to spend time explaining "this is not allowed because..." instead of playing.

Mate, seriously, that is not a big deal, and it is something that happens in a great many gaming circles anyway. . .

Sure you don't, you published that book. Sorry but the weapon breaks a VERY important element of the OTU:

You are telling someone else what their TU should look like?

Umm, no. Just. . . no.

SciFi works best if it remains relatively acceptabel.

Again, no. Clearly, there is a lot of room for all views in science fiction.

The very sad thing is that you CAN produce stuff that is true to the "spirit" of a setting as seen by your Conan Material.

In _your_ opinion (and ours, as it happens).

But, and here is the thing you really can't avoid, there areplenty of people who will tell you that we have got Conan wrong. That there are too many breasts inside it. That Conan on our covers is not Aryan enough.

You see, I _get_ that you have issues with Traveller, and I respect that. It has not triggered anything in you yet and, maybe, it never will. I _get_ that you would have done things differently.

But you have to allow that a great many other people _do_ like it and they may not all be OTU newbies. Also, every time we release a new setting for Traveller, the fan-base will inevitably increase.

And all that should be fine with you too - after all, as S4 keeps pointing out, you already have your own game. Let the others who want to play this one do so in peace, without badgering them!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Except that the "OTU Books" contain some of the most cringe-inducing deviations. For instance, the shuriken catapults are in Mercenary.

Umm. . . Mercenary isn't an OTU book, it is a core book.

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.

You see, this is why you got banned on our forums - you just can't help with the insults.

No, such material is in the core supplements because they are core asupplements designed for use with the game as w whole, not a single setting.

And let's be candid -- a weapon plagiarized from WH40K.

Are you sure that is the original source? Really?

"Because it's so Kewl" is a stupid reason to add an implausible weapon to Traveller IMHO.

That depends on the campaign you are playing. For some campaigns, that might be reason enough. Unlike you, we do not discriminate between the way players might want to play these games.

MGT now attempts to undo all that by indiscriminately introducing all manner of silly, derivative tripe. And I object to dumbing down a classic.

Objection noted. Can we move on?

So you misunderstand the essential complaint regarding canon -- we object to tripe being indiscriminately added to Traveller.

Apparently not.

Umm, who is 'we'?

And please, don't flatter yourselves.

Wouldn't think of it.

And if your position is now that MGT is merely a hodgepodge of sci-fi tech indiscriminately thrown into a bucket, then please either call it something besides "Traveller" or at least identify the stuff that isn't part of the OTU.

Do you really need _me_ to tell _you_ what should be in the OTU, and what shouldn't?

 

[tbeard1999]

Maybe because not all players are that experienced and the presence of stuff well outside the OTU technology means I have to spend time explaining "this is not allowed because..." instead of playing. Maybe I have seen in other versions of the game how EASY it is for the publisher to solve that problem and spare me the time. A simply "skull and crossbones" after every non-OTU stuff would have done it.

Or this symbol:

Sure you don't, you published that book. Sorry but the weapon breaks a VERY important element of the OTU: Trying to be as realistic as possible for a SciFi game. And the MagRail simply will not work! And it's just one example, the "Energy ball mortar" is another nice one. SciFi works best if it remains relatively acceptabel.

Well, Traveller works best that way (outside of required handwaves like FTL and gravitic tech).

I don't object to lightsabers, blasters, shuriken catapults, avatars, Warp Spiders, etc. I object to someone arbitrarily inserting them into a classis RPG that has consciously avoided such stuff for 30+ years.

Otherwise I don't care. I DO care about the fact that using Mgt would cause me additional work without any additional benefit. As stated above, it would have been easy for you to prevent that

Yup. The failure to do so is what makes me strongly suspect that the design team is ignorant of Traveller canon (and related areas like military tech).

That's one of the reasons I stopped buying your stuff. It ISN'T Traveller.

Not as that term has been defined for 3 decades.

IMHO it's a so-so "Universal" system with all the "New Rules Set" problems that simply rides on Travellers name. Had you published it as "Mongoose Universal SciFi" and stated that "We'll do a Traveller supplement or two" I'd see this different. It would make accepting some of the bad pieces a lot easier

Agreed. But at this point, it is turning into a hodgepodge of science fictiony tech without rhyme or reason. But you miss a basic marketing point -- MGT is not a particularly inspiring rules set. Without the "Traveller" moniker, it would fail miserably in the market.

Aside from my dislike of playing in "book/movie" universes in general I don't think H/S is a playabel universe unless you un-balance it a lot. Non-tankers don't even get a name in most of the stories...

I do hope that the MGT design team pays more attention to HS canon than they did to Traveller canon.

The very sad thing is that you CAN produce stuff that is true to the "spirit" of a setting as seen by your Conan Material. That's an example how to do it right. While I don't use your system (GURPS for Fantasy if Fantasy at all) I do use quite a few of your setting books for additional background.

Yeah, that really is the unfortunate thing. I've always gotten the impression that Mongoose was run by gamers for gamers. They just missed it on Traveller for me.

 

[mbrinkhues]

You are telling someone else what their TU should look like?

Umm, no. Just. . . no.

I tell people what the OTU looks like! Totally different thing.

If a GM claims "Traveller" and then delivers "Honorverse with serial number removed" I WILL leave the table. Because for me TRAVELLER <=> OTU with the system in use being secondary at best

But you have to allow that a great many other people _do_ like it and they may not all be OTU newbies. Also, every time we release a new setting for Traveller, the fan-base will inevitably increase.

Quantity may have a quality of it's own but Quantity sold is NOT an argument for Quality(1). More than one purchase was either a "collector" or one like me that bought it initially because "Give a new edition a chance"

And most of what you currently release does not increase the TRAVELLER fanbase but may increase the fanbase for your "Universal System". Granted this is due to the difference in views what TRAVELLER is. For me it's the OTU, for you it's a system

And all that should be fine with you too - after all, as S4 keeps pointing out, you already have your own game. Let the others who want to play this one do so in peace, without badgering them!

Nope. IMHO people see "Traveller" on your covers and get a totally wrong impression what that is. And that is a bad thing.

(1) Even more true with books or movies.

 

[MongooseMatt]

If a GM claims "Traveller" and then delivers "Honorverse with serial number removed" I WILL leave the table. Because for me TRAVELLER <=> OTU with the system in use being secondary at best

Now, I was going to say that this is the best argument you have made and that, for me at least, clarifies your position precisely.

Nope. IMHO people see "Traveller" on your covers and get a totally wrong impression what that is. And that is a bad thing.

Then you come up with this - this line makes you look like a bit of a fanatic.

I'll see if I can put our position across as well as you did yours.

If you truly believe that Traveller = OTU, then you are at best ignoring all those people who, for years, ran Traveller without the OTU.

Our approach is no different from theirs.

We consider the OTU in a similar fashion to, say, Glorantha or the Forgotten Realms. They may be the premier settings for their respective games, but to restrict the games to those settings would be a backward step. We don't want to segregate, we want to be inclusive.

Please note, I am not trying to change your mind, simply state our position. With you having done the same, I would hope we now understand one another a little better.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Or this symbol:

If that is _truly_ what you think of non-OTU material, then I cannot see that we have much more to discuss.

Yeah, that really is the unfortunate thing. I've always gotten the impression that Mongoose was run by gamers for gamers. They just missed it on Traveller for me.

If only you could understand that what we have done with Traveller was never intended as a personal insult to you, your family and your clan. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

I tell people what the OTU looks like! Totally different thing.

Incidentally, According to His Holiness, the Lord Marc Miller, no - it is _not_ a totally different thing. What you do with your TU is completely up to you. As far as a gaming group is concerned, there is _no_ overiding OTU.

 

[Whipsnade]

Then just stick to the OTU books, easily identified by their covers - Aslan is just about to go to print. See what you think of those (I have a feeling you will like Aslan ).

Matt,

Aslan should be very interesting. I for one am intrigued about how you're going to handle the previous assertion you've made in MgT that the Aslan are an uplifted species like the Vargr. That's going to be one helluva a rabbit you pull from your hat there.

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.

However, it _does_ strike me as a little disingenuous when OTU veterans (not necessarily yourself!) complain about things not being marked as OTU when they, of all people, should know the difference and make their own selections.

That's disingenuous in itself. Of course we vets know where you've failed to adhere to the OTU. We knew the OTU before you got your license. Those new to Traveller, however, will have no chance of separating OTU from non-OTU bits in you publications.

Okay, let's take an issue that was raised on these forums - the MagRifle Rifle (Shurikat), a clearly non-OTU weapon. Umm, why call it non-OTU?

Aside from it being silly you mean? That fact that it's totally unrealistic is why there's an issue here. GDW were wargamers first and they brought a wargamer's attitude towards personal weaponry in Traveller. It had to be realistic. That's why personal lasers require power packs for example. The various additions in your version of Mercenary ignored that fundamental aspect of Traveller.

Ultimately, the black core books are toolkits...

Then write and advertise them as such. Don't continue slapping a Traveller logo on what you believe to be is a generic sci-fi RPG.

Even when Traveller consisted of three little black books it was manifestly not a generic set of sic-fi RPG rules. The technologies and other assumptions within the original rules precluded use on other settings without major changes, changes that essentially meant you were playing another RPG.

How do I know this? Because I`used some of Traveller's rules to run a pulp campaign set during the 1930s Chaco War. However, despite using guns, personal combat, and psionics rules from Traveller, I wasn't running anything that remotely resembled a Traveller campaign and I was intellectually honest enough to admit that.

You want to publish a generic set of sci-fi rules? Fine. Then do the [work and write one. By all means use Traveller as a starting point, but do the actual work needed to produce an actual set of generic rules instead of piggybacking on Traveller so you can use the game's "nameplate" while you also damage it with your "generic" additions.

We said right at the start that there would be a disconnect from Traveller and the OTU, and the core books are part of that.

You're saying there's a disconnect and we're saying we haven't seen one or anything even remotely resembling one.

Take them as toolkits from which you can switch and select as you see fit and, I hope, their purpose will become much clearer.

As clear as mud.

Well, all we can really agree to here is to wait for the heavyweight settings that are coming for Traveller - starting with Hammers Slammers, and closely followed by Dredd. Let's discuss them then.

I'm waiting for the Slammers setting book because, IMHO, it's going to show one way or another whether Mongoose "gets" Traveller. (I'm also waiting for it because the Slammers could be a great setting.)

At first blush, the Slammers' universe looks very much like Traveller. Once you do the work however, you realize that there are fundamental differences between the two. I'm not just talking about power guns or the lack of contragravity, the Traveller universe and the Slammers' universe differ in what is the most crucial aspect of any interstellar sci-fi setting; FTL drives. It will be [very interesting to see how Mongoose handles that.

To be fair, these are all very subjective, surely?

Subjective? Sure, some of the complaints are subjective. Too many others are quite specific though. You can trawl through this thread alone and find specific examples of many of MgT's failings complete with page numbers.

Yes, there's been grousing. But there's been honest critiques also.

I'd like to end with one point that I feel is important in this discussion. S4 makes it repeatedly. We are not slamming Mongoose out of hand and as a whole. We're just very disappointed instead.

We know you can produce quality work, S4 brings up your d20 Conan supplement and I've heard the same praise from other people whose opinions I trust. Knowing that Mongoose can produce quality products, we're understandably concerned why nothing of any real quality has been produced for MgT yet. That concern only increases when we read about your grandiose plans to use Traveller-like rules across multiple settings. If, as your own ad copy claims, the game is going to be a centerpiece of your sci-fi efforts, why have the sourcebooks been so shoddy in so many different ways?

You've produced nothing that has sparked a "Wow!" and plenty that has resulted in a "WTF?". Will there be something from MgT as magnificent as Path of Tears, HG2, or Interstellar Wars? d20 Conan shows you're capable of it, but so far MgT tells another another story.

I do hope you take the time to closely review this thread and the other one discussing why people like MgT. There has been a lot of bloviating on both sides of the "issue" but, in the whole, the arguments of MgT's supporters boil down to it's "New & Shiny" and "It's Easily Available" while the arguments of MgT's detractors contain many specific examples of lousy writing, horrible editing, laughable playtesting, dubious mechanics, serious deviations from the OTU which are not noted in any way, silly deviations from the same also not noted, unrealistic tech assumptions, and unabashed plagiarism from other games(1).

We're concerned, we're troubled, our minds are uneasy, and, given what we've seen so far, asking us to trust you isn't going to help.


Regards,
Bill

1 - Come on, you could have at least filed the serial numbers off the W40K stuff.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Aslan should be very interesting. I for one am intrigued about how you're going to handle the previous assertion you've made in MgT that the Aslan are an uplifted species like the Vargr. That's going to be one helluva a rabbit you pull from your hat there.

Well, don't hold your breath Remember, the core book is _not_ OTU. The _only_ reason the Aslan and other races are in there at all is to provide examples of aliens for new players. We could just as easily featured the Swamp Creatures of Belthon VI!

We are regarding the Aslan book as a blank slate in that regard.

Those new to Traveller, however, will have no chance of separating OTU from non-OTU bits in you publications.

The trouble is, for many of these items, there is no absolute answer. People can make their own minds up.

Then write and advertise them as such. Don't continue slapping a Traveller logo on what you believe to be is a generic sci-fi RPG.

Traveller <> OTU.

Or, put a better way, Traveller <> (automatically) OTU.

The owner and creator of Traveller himself believes this, and loves the idea of Traveller venturing to other universes. He thinks it has that potential. _That_ is why the Traveller logo appears on those books.

Even when Traveller consisted of three little black books it was manifestly not a generic set of sic-fi RPG rules. The technologies and other assumptions within the original rules precluded use on other settings without major changes, changes that essentially meant you were playing another RPG.

Rubbish. A new Drive table does not un-make Traveller, any more than a new equipment list does. Or a new set of aliens.

It _does_ un-make the OTU, of course, but then if you are doing all the above, then you are manifestly not playing the OTU.

And we are not going to pretend otherwise.

You're saying there's a disconnect and we're saying we haven't seen one or anything even remotely resembling one.

The OTU books are labelled Third Imperium and have illustrated covers. Core Traveller books are plain black. That is the division between them.

At first blush, the Slammers' universe looks very much like Traveller. Once you do the work however, you realize that there are fundamental differences between the two. I'm not just talking about power guns or the lack of contragravity, the Traveller universe and the Slammers' universe differ in what is the most crucial aspect of any interstellar sci-fi setting; FTL drives. It will be [very interesting to see how Mongoose handles that.

Indeed, it had us scratching our heads for a while. However, given the focus of Hammers, how would you have habndled it?

All that said, Hammers is certainly very close to a particular style of Traveller play than many other settings and, as such, was a good choice to lead with.

We're concerned, we're troubled, our minds are uneasy, and, given what we've seen so far, asking us to trust you isn't going to help.

Sorry, you misunderstand - I am not asking that at all. Maybe you'll get your 'wow' book, and maybe it will be soon. The thing is, I cannot tell you which book that will be. You have to make your own mind up.

The only thing I really object to is the level of hostility aimed at those who dare to say they like the game (especially when, at the moment, they are in the majority - globally speaking, at least) and, especially those who take the opportunity to be just plain rude about my staff and to me personally (TBeard, looking at you).

Speaking honestly, who wouldn't?

 

[Gallowglacht]

Or this symbol:

How would this animation work in the book? I assume a small box in the corner with pictures of the animation in various stages, to be used as a flickbook animation? This could be done but would require the non-OTU equipment to be places in the corners, this might make layout a bit harder, but I assume you feel the added effort would be worth it.


I got no dog in this fight, just trying to lighten the mood a bit...

 

[MongooseMatt]

I got no dog in this fight, just trying to lighten the mood a bit...

You can have my dog

 

[Whipsnade]

If you truly believe that Traveller = OTU, then you are at best ignoring all those people who, for years, ran Traveller without the OTU.

Matt,

You're confusing the social aspects of the OTU with the technological assumptions underlying the OTU, and I now understand why you don't understand our complaints.

I can, and have, ran and played Traveller campaigns that never mentioned the Third Imperium, Solomani, Vargr, Yaskodray, or any of the thousands of other social, cultural, and historical bits associated with the OTU setting. However, those campaigns did still use jump drive, realistic personal weapons, contragravity, and all of the technologies associated with the OTU setting.

You think OTU equals "Third Imperium". You don't realize that OTU also equals certain technologies and technological assumptions. That's why you still don't "get" Traveller.

Our approach is no different from theirs.

As I've explained above, your approach is nothing like theirs because you haven't understood that technology counts too.

We consider the OTU in a similar fashion to, say, Glorantha or the Forgotten Realms.

Then you've considered wrong. Glorantha and Forgotten Realms will make for good examples of what you just don't grok yet.

I'm playing in a Glorantha and/or Forgotten Realms-derived setting and drive up to the castle in my grav APC, pull out a submachinegun, and shoot down the gate guards. Am I still playing in a Glorantha and/or Forgotten Realms-derived setting?

According to you I still am because the social aspects of Glorantha and Forgotten Realms are still in play. Of course we both know that is utter nonsense because I've just violated every technological assumption of the settings.

Cramming non-OTU technologies and technological assumptions into something labeled Traveller is no different than my using grav APCs and SMGs in Glorantha. Because of the technologies and technological assumptions woven into it's design and basic design philosophies, Traveller is not and never has been a generic sci-fi rules set.

Mongoose can write a generic sci-fi RPG rules set, if you want to do the work and Traveller will make a good starting point for that project. Traveller itself however is not a generic sci-fi RPG rules set and it does Mongoose no good to keep pretending otherwise.


Regards,
Bill

 

[far-trader]

Well, don't hold your breath Remember, the core book is _not_ OTU. The _only_ reason the Aslan and other races are in there at all is to provide examples of aliens for new players. We could just as easily featured the Swamp Creatures of Belthon VI!

We are regarding the Aslan book as a blank slate in that regard.

Quick question then. Why call them Aslan? Why not Lionmen, or Catliens, or something really original like whatever they call themselves in their own language translated as best as possible to human ears and vocalizations? Why confuse the issue by calling them Aslan if they are Aslan only in name? And presumably the same holds true for the other classic Traveller aliens as well.

 

[MongooseMatt]

You think OTU equals "Third Imperium". You don't realize that OTU also equals certain technologies and technological assumptions. That's why you still don't "get" Traveller.

To take your analogy further, we put the OTU and Third Imperium in a box, and then acknowledged there are other boxes in the same room.


We could be labouring the metaphor. . .

I'm playing in a Glorantha and/or Forgotten Realms-derived setting and drive up to the castle in my grav APC, pull out a submachinegun, and shoot down the gate guards. Am I still playing in a Glorantha and/or Forgotten Realms-derived setting?

Well, here is the thing - you could be playing Traveller.

In fact, with your specific example, there is no reason you couldn't be playing OTU. . .

Traveller is not and never has been a generic sci-fi rules set.

Then, one way or the other, this is likely to be an interesting few years.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Quick question then. Why call them Aslan? Why not Lionmen, or Catliens, or something really original like whatever they call themselves in their own language translated as best as possible to human ears and vocalizations?

Because then we would have had people asking why we didn't call them Aslan.

 

[far-trader]

...Traveller <> OTU.

Or, put a better way, Traveller <> (automatically) OTU.

Or perhaps even better maybe (really just trying to help clarify):

Mongoose Traveller <> OTU (Official or Originial Traveller Universe)

Mongoose Traveller = Generic Sci-Fi Rules and Multiple Settings

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Ahem.

Some people are resorting to personal attacks. Please stop, because when they get reported I have to come down here and read all this crap, which I'd rather avoid because I'm trying to pretend MGT was just a bad dream.