After the MGT debacle, T5 may not look so bad...

[aramis]

As Arthur said, the playtest was a nightmare.

Rather than open recruitment, and then dealing the group behind closed doors, they simply made the files openly available and allowed open commentary.

The actual protocol was not board based, either; it was to be sent via email back.

But the heated debates were rather over the top.
Mongoose's handlign of them was even more so: just delete the thread and don't tell anyone why.

Major changes appeared after playtest, but without being playtested.

 

[zonk]

Aramis wrote:

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Major changes appeared after playtest, but without being playtested. [/FONT]

Was it ever decided that was the case? There was no private playtesting of the changes?

I dunno, I just remember that being mooted here at COTI as a possiblity

 

[aramis]

They might have been, but when one promises an open public playtest, then delivers a significant chunk of content (Combat, Ship Combat, and Tasks) that are completely different, then one's public playtest promise is bogus.

Not that what's there is bad. (It's not great, but neither is it bad.) It's not, however, what was publicly playtested.

And the Debacle was more than just the lack of apparent playtesting; it was the mishanding of the playtest process, the public view of what should not have been public, to wit, playtesters discussing the playtest, and the piss poor handling of the the forum in which the discussions were occurring.

It could have been handled far better. Heck, simply not permitting discussions of it would have been better. Making less of a "big deal" about the public playtest would have been a big first step.

 

[mike wightman]

Don't you think the public "playtest" was just a clever bit of marketing?

It raised interest in the game, got it talked about on lots of web forums, and did actually allow some creative input from the fanbase making them feel like they had contributed something.

I think the private playtest hypothesis is probably close to the truth, but I'm still glad to have the playtest files because there is some useful stuff there.

 

[Supplement Four]

Don't you think the public "playtest" was just a clever bit of marketting?

Bit of marketing? Yes. Clever? No.

If you look earlier in the thread, even Hunter weighs in with this type of comment.

In the end, I think the playtest hurt Mongoose more than it helped. Several vocal people found their deep seeded dislike of the game during the playtest. I'm one of them. I came to the playtest with open eyes and high expectations. I continue to be completely impressed with Mongoose's Conan d20 rules. They really captured the feel for that game's universe. I was hoping they'd do the exact same with Traveller.

I keep wondering to myself how a company can do such a superb job with one game and fail so miserably (imo) with another.

I know MGT is selling. But, every MGT supplement I get my hands on, all I can think is, "This isn't Traveller. It's some other game, but it's not Traveller."

 

[Andrew Boulton]

But, every MGT supplement I get my hands on, all I can think is, "This isn't Traveller. It's some other game, but it's not Traveller."

IKWYM. It's like Invasion Of The Traveller Snatchers - most people are fooled by this imposter, there's just a bunch of us crazies screaming warnings at passing cars...

 

[aramis]

It's better, IMO, than T4... and about on par with TNE.