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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old September 10th, 2016, 04:32 AM
MongooseMatt MongooseMatt is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 779
Gallery : 0
MongooseMatt Citizen+MongooseMatt Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aramis View Post
Further Mongoose doesn't actually get everything reviewed. By labelling it a general product, rather than OTU specific, Mongoose avoids the whole approvals process.
This is just completely untrue. Completely. High Guard went through the same process as everything else.
  #112  
Old September 10th, 2016, 05:12 AM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,151
Gallery : 0
mike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flg View Post
And yet this material was published with the approval of Marc Miller, was it not? So perhaps you should be asking him why he approved something that was different to what came before? (he's changing things wholesale himself in T5 after all.)
I am - that's why I made this thread.
I want to know if Marc has authorised this or is it a slip up - like the Ancient ancible network in MgT Secret of the Ancients which MWM had said on many occasions is not permitted at any TL in the setting.



Quote:
Yes, and perhaps some would be better off stepping back a little and getting some perspective here. This is a ship plan in a book, it's not like the entire setting has been turned upside down (again, many of the changes in T5 are far greater than this and yet people don't complain because it's OK for MWM to change everything but not anybody else to make far smaller changes?).
Actually 'we' stopped complaining about T5 because 'we' were threatened with forum sanctions and bans for doing so. Look at some of the threads for evidence of this

The reason why I have maintained an interest in T5 is Marc's novel, all the tech in the novel is in T5 and oddly enough can be found hidden away in MgT 2e if you know where to look for it.

Quote:
At worst, just think of it as the plans being different in the MGT universe. Big deal.

It is a big deal, it is indicative that MgT can change prior canon, introduce new canon, retcon iconic designs, introduce cinematic ship combat to a setting universe that didn't have such things. The MgT 3I setting is canonical as I understand it and thus overwrites previous.

This has implications for authors of new products and TAS contributors.
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
  #113  
Old September 10th, 2016, 05:25 AM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,151
Gallery : 0
mike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MongooseMatt View Post
This is just completely untrue. Completely. High Guard went through the same process as everything else.
So who authorised the changes to the AHL deck plans? Aramis has stated that Don had sadly passed away before the plans were done.
Is this a MWM authorised retcon to an iconic design yes or no?

That was my original question.

And once again can I publically state that I like what you have done in the new HG2e book - while I have some quibbles - it offers a giant toolbox for ship designs for a variety of settings:
early TL space exploration with reaction engines, railguns and missiles - check
standard 3I space technology - check
variant drives for settings that use warp drives, hyperdrives and the like - check
new weapon systems for a range of setting possibilities - check
space station construction, belt mining, fleet combat are all just icing on the cake, oh and every single CT ship from LBB2 up to S:9 fighting ships.

I have the pdf (obviously) and I will be buying the hardback the day it hits the shelves.
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
  #114  
Old September 10th, 2016, 09:39 AM
creativehum's Avatar
creativehum creativehum is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,336
Gallery : 2
creativehum Citizen++creativehum Citizen++creativehum Citizen++creativehum Citizen++
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flg View Post
And it still is a game. Good grief, this really is not in the slightest bit important. I think some people are taking this rather more seriously than it deserves.

So big whoop, some deckplans changed in a book. If you prefer the old ones, keep using them - nobody's stopping you. If you don't, then use the new ones. It's not going to shatter the universe or anything if you do.
Flg,
If I may, there's no good that will come from this line of posting.

When I first came to this site, I came to ask questions about the rules of Classic Traveller, about how people played, what people did with the rules, and how they built settings.

What I discovered is that this site is very focused on the house setting GDW created for Traveller, that has been built up over 40 years. (The name of the site should have probably tipped me off... but I'd didn't realize it didn't mean more than "People who love Traveller.")

The lens through which most posts are made are through the setting material. So, even if one is posting on the Classic Traveller sub-forum, people will arrive and answer questions and make comments in the context of the setting materials available in the 70s and early 80s -- even if you originally post that's you are not interest in using the official setting material. It is simply reflexive for most of the board members.

This is not a criticism, and I'm not finding fault in it. But it is what it is. This is the point of view of the board. The way I came to think of it is that for a lot of people The Third Imperium and the Official Traveller Universe is a hobby unto itself.

This was a new perspective to me. Until I came to this board, I never would have thought that would be a thing. For me the setting material is there to use, or not use, to support RPG adventure gaming sessions. I find the rules of Classic Traveller compelling -- while GDW's OTU, after a while, left me cold.

My point of view on these matters isn't better than any other point of view. Just different. And because it was different it took me a while to realize the underlying focus this site. I see it now as this amazing model train set being built by all these hands, with everyone making sure the guage of all the models are the same, all the pieces make sense together, that the environment on the table makes sense and is pleasing to the eye.

It isn't my hobby, if you will allow me the metaphor. But I have come to see it is the hobby for many of the people here. It's their pleasure. And continuing to poke at it isn't going to be productive in any way. You are telling people, "Don't get worked up about the consitancy of this fictional setting," when, for most people here, the consistency of the setting material is the point.

For myself, I curtailed my posting, and when I post I'm very specific about what I'm after. I ended up starting up a blog to talk about the Traveller-things I wanted to hash out because, ultimately, they are not the focus of this forum. Just as I don't understand the focus of setting-as-hobby, there are a jillion Traveller players who don't understand how I can have an interest in Traveller without the setting. For them the setting is the game, and that's that.

Now, this site is filled with really smart people with really smart ideas about the rules and mechanics, which is why I continue to hang out here. When I have a question or idea I want to bounce around, I'll come here first when it comes to Classic Traveller. But, again, I ask in a very narrow, specific way, making clear the paremeters I'm working within.

So, I suggest, as someone whose point of view is similar to your own, drop it. There's nothing her that needs to be fixed, no point of view that needs to be corrected. This is this site, with a focus on these issues of cannon and setting. It is the fun and pleasure of many of the people here. To battle that makes no sense; to come close to belittling the pleasure of other people makes little sense.

It's a hobby. Life is hard. Hobbies distract us and refresh us from those difficulties. There's nothing to be gained by telling people these pleasures are wrong.
__________________
TRAVELLER: Out of the Box. Lots of blog posts about original Traveller and playing with Traveller Books 1-3.
"The beauty of Classic Traveller Book 1, 2, and 3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves." -- Mike Wightman
"The beauty of Classic Traveller Book 1, 2, and is that the ref must make most of the decisions himself." -- flykiller
  #115  
Old September 10th, 2016, 12:40 PM
flg flg is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 61
Gallery : 0
flg Citizen-
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike wightman View Post
So who authorised the changes to the AHL deck plans? Aramis has stated that Don had sadly passed away before the plans were done.
Is this a MWM authorised retcon to an iconic design yes or no?
Are there any AHL deckplans presented in T5 at all? I guess not, because if it had appeared in there in its altered form then people would have just shrugged and went "oh well, it's changed". Or maybe there are and they're just the same as the old ones?

I would assume it is different in MGT because MWM has decided it's different now, but since MGT presented the change first there's a huge hullaballoo about it here because people think it's Mongoose "disrespecting the canon". Maybe this is a problem that is caused by people thinking that T5 is the only version that matters and MGT isn't, when it appears that they actually both matter because they're reflections of the same thing. MGT can get things out of the door first because T5 is still a work in progress, so it appears that they're changing things when actually they're "previewing the change" which will appear in T5 later. (maybe. This is just a theory).

Though again, MWM should be the one confirming or denying the change. We shouldn't have to rely on mouthpieces, delegates or third parties to know what's new and what's not. There really needs to be better communication from him about what is or isn't canon.
  #116  
Old September 10th, 2016, 12:43 PM
Condottiere Condottiere is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,920
Gallery : 0
Condottiere Citizen++Condottiere Citizen++Condottiere Citizen++Condottiere Citizen++
Default

The answer is original intent, delivered by second hand.
  #117  
Old September 10th, 2016, 01:00 PM
McPerth's Avatar
McPerth McPerth is online now
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 7,462
Gallery : 0
Visit McPerth's Blog
McPerth has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Condottiere View Post
The answer is original intent, delivered by second hand.
Could you please explain better what do you mean? Original intent by who?
__________________
Duke of ShaiaVland 3215 B64A998-E
Marquis of Ashtagz Tyui SR 1818C548786-8
SEH for actions in Extolay

I'm not afraid about bullets, what scares me is the speed at which they're incoming.
  #118  
Old September 10th, 2016, 01:24 PM
flg flg is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 61
Gallery : 0
flg Citizen-
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by McPerth View Post
Could you please explain better what do you mean? Original intent by who?
Unless Condotierre is really MWM, he wouldn't be in a position to state what "the answer" was.

We really don't need people chiming in and claiming to be authoritative when they're not in a position to know for sure. We need a firsthand source - either Matt or MWM. No enigmatic statements, just a clear "this was authorised by MWM" or "this was not authorised by MWM".
  #119  
Old September 10th, 2016, 01:36 PM
whartung whartung is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,269
Gallery : 0
whartung Citizen+whartung Citizen+whartung Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flg View Post
And it still is a game. Good grief, this really is not in the slightest bit important. I think some people are taking this rather more seriously than it deserves.
So, yea, you pretty much missed the point.

You may as well say that a "Star Wars" roleplaying game is "just a game" when they come out with the "Yavin Encounter" module that talks about the that scrappy bush pilot, Biggs Darklighter, from Tatooine that blew up the Death Star in his B-Wing. Moff Tarkin had him in the sites of his pursuing TIE fighter when Lando Calrissian distracted him with a laser blast from his XS-1200 freighter, the famed "Sky Princess". But with the pressure off him, the B-Wing pilot was able to use his computer to get the torpedo in to the heat duct, thus destroying the Death Star.

I mean, that's how it happened, right?

Doesn't really matter. Just a game.
  #120  
Old September 10th, 2016, 01:49 PM
Condottiere Condottiere is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,920
Gallery : 0
Condottiere Citizen++Condottiere Citizen++Condottiere Citizen++Condottiere Citizen++
Default

It's been stated a number of times that the original intent for the Azhantis was longitudal decks, rather than a pancake stack.

This answer has always been delivered indirectly, and taken on faith.
Closed Thread

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
Element 118 Officially Named whulorigan Imperial Research Station 1 July 12th, 2016 02:23 AM
anyone ever use any of these deckplans? flykiller The Lone Star 6 March 10th, 2015 04:28 PM
Deckplans LordVan The Fleet 6 May 5th, 2008 11:57 PM
Official deckplans vs. accurate deckplans bozzutoman The Fleet 56 May 31st, 2006 09:40 PM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.