Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > Other Versions of Traveller > Mongoose Traveller

Mongoose Traveller Discussion forums for the Traveller rules from Mongoose Publishing.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 26th, 2008, 12:30 AM
casquilho's Avatar
casquilho casquilho is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Burbank
Posts: 364
Gallery : 0
casquilho Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allensh View Post
I actually feel that some of the "grognards" WANT Traveller to fail because then it stays their little exclusive club.
Thank you Allen for saying "some".

As a person who is old enough and crusty enough to call himself a grognard, I can say I want MGT to make it. I even went so far as to put cash deposits down for the next three books at my FLGS.

Daniel
__________________
"You'll want to hear about my new obsession.
I'm riding high upon a deep depression.
I'm only happy when it rains." - Garbage
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old June 26th, 2008, 12:33 AM
tbeard1999's Avatar
tbeard1999 tbeard1999 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tyler
Posts: 2,687
Gallery : 0
tbeard1999 Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allensh View Post
Frankly, I don't give an Aslan's patootie about "rebutting his arguments".
Yeah, I'm getting that. (And I'd always assumed that Aslans had a far cooler name for that piece of anatomy than "patootie". <sigh> Another disappointment in life.)

Quote:
As for "raving fanboys"...whatever. No game is perfect and that includes Mongoose Traveller, but it is a far sight better than no Traveller at all and way better than the overcomplicated and badly handled messes that every other version of Traveller except CT has been.
I never used the word "raving". And your response doesn't actually answer my original question -- aren't fanboys just as bad as folks who unreasonably dislike a game? If not, please explain why unconditionally loving a game is somehow better than unconditionally hating it?

Quote:
Given what has been said about how well MGT is selling and the rapidity with which both its first printing and the Spinward Marches book sold out, it appears to me that people WANT a version of the game that hearkens back to the things that made Traveller fun and enjoyable, but with "upgrades" to incorporate at least some of what has been learned about RPG design in the last 30 years.
You infer a lot from a single sales statistic. All I infer is that people are buying the game in sufficient quantities to exhaust the initial print runs. Since I lack mindreading skills and have not conducted extensive marketing research, I'm not sure my speculations on customer motivation would be very useful. Nor does the mere fact that a print run was exhausted tell us much. The print run could have been unusually small. Or unusually high.

And I don't agree that much in MGT that exemplifies "what has been learned about RPG design in the last 30 years". Its best mechanics are lineal descendants of CT mechanics...or outright duplicates. Little in MGT is particularly innovative (and it's significant that Mongoose ditched the more "innovative" playtest mechanics, presumably because they sucked). Of course, I've never been impressed with innovation for its own sake. Far too often, I find that "innovation" is used to rationalize design incompetence. So MGT's lack of innovation is fine with me.

Quote:
I have every version of the playtest documents on my computer and I can tell you with certainty that if Supplement Four thinks that those documents qualify him to comment on the game as it was actually published he is mistaken.
Well, I have those documents as well, and I disagree with you. <shrug>

Quote:
I actually feel that some of the "grognards" WANT Traveller to fail because then it stays their little exclusive club.
Yeah, that must be it. I mean, they couldn't possibly have legitimate complaints about the game, could they?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old June 26th, 2008, 03:34 AM
aramis's Avatar
aramis aramis is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Anchorage, AK, USofA
Posts: 27,441
Gallery : 52
Visit aramis's Blog
aramis has disabled reputation
Send a message via ICQ to aramis Send a message via AIM to aramis Send a message via Yahoo to aramis
Default

Ty:

Ship Building: adding lots of (not in the playtest) options IS a major change, as is deleting power points.
Combat: completely new, due to changes to the task system.
Tasks: 2/3 of the task system stripped out (rather than fixed)
World Building: again, optional subsystems added... ones that in this case arose out of the playtest.
Animal Encounters: not in the playtest
T&C: limits on base goods available added (MAJOR impact; under Draft 3.2, one could ALWAYS find enough to fill a ship...
Ship Shares: changed from flat value to percent of ship.
Ship Combat: entirely new as well due to task system change.

All of these are pretty hefty changes. Far more changes than the doubling of XP in prior service that occurred between T20 MS23 and T20 printing 1, and the rewording of a few feats for clarity.

And between skills and tasks, you have the core of the player interface in play... changing the task system is a major change.

And, as a general rule, playtest rules at any stage are often not reflective of the final rules. (B5W was a %ile system in playtest... the 1d20 system was sprung AFTER playtest round 3... of 4 rounds... and round four was in-house only. It is a far better fleet game for it, but not so nice a ship-duel game.)
__________________
~ Aramis
aramis.hostman.us /trav
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!
Archduke of Sylea (CORE 2118)
Duke of the Third Imperium (SPIN 0534)
Count Terra (SOLO 1827)
Count Gorod (REFT 1302)
Count of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2232)
Viscount of Adabicci (SPIN 1824)
Marquis of the Solomani Rim (SOLO 0606)
Marquis of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2410)
Baron of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2231)
Knight of the Iridium Throne (CORE 1434)
Sir William Hostman (OLDE 0512)
Sir William Hostman (DAGU 0622)
Knight of Deneb (REFT 2239)
SEH w/Diamonds for Extreme Heroism - Battle of Boughene
MCG - Battle of Boughene
TAS: William Hostman (CORR 2506)
TAS: Bearer (DAIB 1326)
IMTU ct+ tm++ tne tg-- tt+ tmo+ t4- t20+ to ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt au ls pi+ ta he+ st+
Wil Hostman 0602 C539857-9 S A724
OTU: 95% 3i an+ au+ br- cpu± dt± f+ fs++ ge± ih- inf± j± jf+ jm+ jt+ ls- n= nc+ pi+ pp-- tp+ tr+ tv- vi-- xb+-
Unless there is bold red text, presume my posts to be my personal material only.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old June 26th, 2008, 03:53 AM
VT1099ace's Avatar
VT1099ace VT1099ace is offline
Citizen: SOC-9
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sacramento
Posts: 46
Gallery : 0
VT1099ace Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supplement Four View Post
Just for clarity, I use CT "as-is" with no mods. (Not that I haven't modded the hell out of the old girl in the past.)

And, I consider CT much more than just Books 1-3. CT is everything ever written for CT, including magazine articles and various supplements by third party companies. Imo, there's no reason to hamper yourself to LBBs 1-3 when there's a whole universe of CT goodies out there to use.

I can understand the appeal of a Traveller game system for a T gamer who doesn't own all the neat and nifty CT stuff out there (since many of the CT items are long out of print and very hard to find). Also note, though, that most editions of Traveller after CT, starting with MT, attempted to combine CT info from various books and sources--all in one place.

If you look at CT as just as Books 1-3, then, yes, it's bare bones. If you look at it like I do, CT is extremely deep with lots of things addressed beyond LBBs 1-3. But, you've got to look beyond those first three books.
my-my aren't we being a bit snippy....MGT is a core rules not a complete rules...if it where, and included all the canon mods, tweaks and changes from every official source to include everthing from small vehicles to robots to megatonne ships to total star system design down to the samllest 'plutiod' (sorry sould resist that) Hell, the bloody thing would be 2 (or more) inches thick and weigh 5 lbs (or more)!!

Sheez, where would you make the choice to stop and say 'that's enough to get started..'? They covered the basic books (LBB 1-3) and hit the points the majority of players would need (char gen, combat, basic ship design, ship combat, major world creation, critters for those worlds, trade, psi, patrons). even included some advance stuff (ship armor, weapons like PA's) that wasn't in LBB 1-3.

most of the arguements I've read give me the impression that most of you are having (or had) too high of hopes for the mongose version and are disapointed that it didn't live up to your ideal image. I think because you've been working with the old-guard rules so long they're like a broken in shoe or glove, every crease and fold is known, fitted and familiar.

NOTE: I use the word 'you' in a collective sense, GM's and players that cut they're teeth on the old LBB's, since that seems to be where most of the griping comes from..

ofcourse I know this will get me flamed like standing too close to a 6G m-drive, but there! I said I peace so let'r rip...

Last edited by VT1099ace; June 26th, 2008 at 03:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old June 26th, 2008, 08:47 AM
tbeard1999's Avatar
tbeard1999 tbeard1999 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tyler
Posts: 2,687
Gallery : 0
tbeard1999 Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aramis View Post
Ty:

Ship Building: adding lots of (not in the playtest) options IS a major change, as is deleting power points.
Sorry William (or is it Bill or Wil?), I don't see it that way.

Quote:
Combat: completely new, due to changes to the task system.
Which I noted. And not to quibble, but far more than the task resolution was changed in the combat system.

Quote:
Tasks: 2/3 of the task system stripped out (rather than fixed)
<shrug> We'll have to agree to disagree on whether ditching certain mechanics "fixed" the system. Personally, I have to stifle a pretty serious <yawn> when folks start going on about task systems. Never in the field of gaming has so much agonizing been done for such little gain. IMHO of course.

And AFAIK, Supp Four did not mention the task systems...

Quote:
World Building: again, optional subsystems added...
IMHO, extremely modest additions. I stand by my statement on this point.

Quote:
<snip> All of these are pretty hefty changes.
Sorry, but I don't agree. I think one can get a pretty good idea of how MGT runs by reading the playtest rules (and noting which systems were redone). It's clear to me that Supp Four focuses strongly on roleplaying and character in his campaigns, so I'd imagine that his primary interest would be the character generation system.

In any case, I think that many of the criticisms leveled at Supp Four were overwrought and greatly overstated. He expressed an opinion, clearly labeled it as such, and did so in relatively polite terms. The reaction has been, IMHO, shrill and very disproportionate.

Last edited by tbeard1999; June 26th, 2008 at 10:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old June 26th, 2008, 08:50 AM
tbeard1999's Avatar
tbeard1999 tbeard1999 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tyler
Posts: 2,687
Gallery : 0
tbeard1999 Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VT1099ace View Post
my-my aren't we being a bit snippy...
Opinions may differ, but Supp Four's critics get my vote for the "who's being the snippiest" contest here.

Quote:
MGT is a core rules not a complete rules...if it where, and included all the canon mods, tweaks and changes from every official source to include everthing from small vehicles to robots to megatonne ships to total star system design down to the samllest 'plutiod' (sorry sould resist that) Hell, the bloody thing would be 2 (or more) inches thick and weigh 5 lbs (or more)!!
You make a reasonable point, but have you actually compared the size of MGT to CT? Each of the LBBs was about the equivalent of 24 MGT pages. So MGT's 192 pages is roughly equivalent in size to Books 1-8. I wonder...can we really conclude that MGT is comparable to LBBs 1-8 in coverage and detail? And personally, I'd ditch LBB8 and substitute Snapshot (or AHL) and the chargen segments of Supplement 4 if I wanted to maximize the coverage argument. Robots are cool, but I'm skeptical that they needed their own book.

For that matter, can we say that MGT has comparable depth and scope to, say, MegaTraveller's core books? Both are about 200 pages long...

Quote:
Sheez, where would you make the choice to stop and say 'that's enough to get started..'? They covered the basic books (LBB 1-3) and hit the points the majority of players would need (char gen, combat, basic ship design, ship combat, major world creation, critters for those worlds, trade, psi, patrons). even included some advance stuff (ship armor, weapons like PA's) that wasn't in LBB 1-3.
Agreed that MGT compares well with LBB1-3. But that's pretty faint praise when you consider that MGT has 2.66 times as many pages.

Quote:
most of the arguements I've read give me the impression that most of you are having (or had) too high of hopes for the mongose version and are disapointed that it didn't live up to your ideal image. I think because you've been working with the old-guard rules so long they're like a broken in shoe or glove, every crease and fold is known, fitted and familiar.
Yeah, that's probably it. I mean, they couldn't have legitimate complaints about the game, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VT1099ace View Post
ofcourse I know this will get me flamed like standing too close to a 6G m-drive, but there! I said I peace so let'r rip...
Seems to me that expressing support for MGT is about the least bold thing someone can do here. So far, I am not aware of anyone being seriously attacked for liking the game. So I wouldn't worry too much about being flamed if I were you.

Last edited by tbeard1999; June 26th, 2008 at 09:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old June 26th, 2008, 06:52 PM
Supplement Four's Avatar
Supplement Four Supplement Four is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,571
Gallery : 0
Supplement Four Citizen+Supplement Four Citizen+Supplement Four Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VT1099ace View Post
my-my aren't we being a bit snippy....
Not at all. I meant what I said. I was just clarifying.

I know that the printed word can be viewed differently by different people, but your post sure reads to me much more "snippy" than mine does.



Quote:
most of the arguements I've read give me the impression that most of you are having (or had) too high of hopes for the mongose version and are disapointed that it didn't live up to your ideal image.
I would agree with this. From what I've seen--especially in the various reviews giving the book a "C" (see earlier in the thread)--MGT hasn't lived up to some of our collective expectations.

Personally, I was hoping for an "A+". I wanted a home run. I wanted that Traveller game update that so many of us have been dreaming about.

A milktoast "C" is just another version of Traveller, like so many others that have come before. My impression is that it's "OK", and "better than nothing", but "nothing to get excited about."

Yes. It's fair to say that I am disappointed.

I'm looking at MGT average when I was wishing for MGT GREAT.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old June 26th, 2008, 07:11 PM
VT1099ace's Avatar
VT1099ace VT1099ace is offline
Citizen: SOC-9
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sacramento
Posts: 46
Gallery : 0
VT1099ace Citizen
Default

tbeard1999, sup 4...

your reply's where not as scathing as I was braced for...(ok, dropping defensive posture know )

I'd of given it a 'B' in my book, I had the feeling they wheren't going go too far afield from the feel of the old stuff, and was quite suprised actually at the mods they made to unify the mechanic, blend a bit of the advanced char gen with the basic to give a few more skills, etc... plus I like the simple, non-graghical assault on the senses (not like some game books, I could mention...) actually raised it's rating for me.

It was/is what I expected, a little more in some things, a little let down in others...

Last edited by VT1099ace; June 26th, 2008 at 07:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old June 26th, 2008, 07:38 PM
Eisenmann Eisenmann is offline
Citizen: SOC-8
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 36
Gallery : 0
Eisenmann Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allensh View Post
I actually feel that some of the "grognards" WANT Traveller to fail because then it stays their little exclusive club.
Nailed it.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old June 26th, 2008, 08:17 PM
casquilho's Avatar
casquilho casquilho is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Burbank
Posts: 364
Gallery : 0
casquilho Citizen
Default

I would agree with VT1099ace, I would give it a B.

For me, the fact is I was very happy once the book hit my hands. I had become so discouraged by all the flame wars and fighting durring the playtest that I had very low expectations for the product.

When I finished reading it the first time I was happy. It had the feel and tone I was looking for. I do nto agree with 100% of everything in the book, but when have I ever done that with any rule system? Never.

This product can give the players and GM a feel for what I have always called the Traveller Spirit. So it gets a B.

Daniel
__________________
"You'll want to hear about my new obsession.
I'm riding high upon a deep depression.
I'm only happy when it rains." - Garbage
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
It was 30 years ago today... Baron Saarthuran Random Static 22 June 27th, 2008 04:44 PM
Is today the end...? Spinward Scout Random Static 5 June 8th, 2008 01:45 AM
Type SF - Fast Scout/Courier (CT Book 5 and Book 2) far-trader The Fleet 9 January 31st, 2006 12:42 PM
Ordered T20 Today William T20 - Traveller for the D20 System 1 October 19th, 2002 09:20 PM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010-2013 Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.