No release date yet?
- Thread starter The Thing
- Start date
Fed Slayer
SOC-1
Enquiring minds think alike. June 2007 has come and past, a status update would be nice.
This is probably for the best as rushing it for a special anniversary, then ending up with a sub par product wouldn't do anybody any good...
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
You'd be surprised how little good it would do. Most people who claim they want to playtest the material just end up reading it over and not doing anything with it, including commenting on it much less bothering to play it.
Currently though, it's in the hands of a small core group that is actively working with Marc on the project and actively providing feedback.
I was surprised how little good it would do.
At least there appears to be something resembling a real timetable now. Maybe we'll hear some news soon.
Scott Martin
SOC-13
Well you do usually get feedback on how it breaks compatibility with previous versions 
I'm also hoping for some news soon...
Scott Martin
I'm also hoping for some news soon...
Scott Martin
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
Well you do usually get feedback on how it breaks compatibility with previous versions
Feh you were honestly lucky if you got that and often it was in the form of a frothing diatribe about how Marc has no clue how Traveller5 should be...:nonono:
L
lordmalachdrim
Guest
I have a couple of questions.
One, once this bad boy is out where do I go to get my hands on it.
Secondly, is there a mailing list I can put my name on that will notify me of it's release and or delays?
One, once this bad boy is out where do I go to get my hands on it.
Secondly, is there a mailing list I can put my name on that will notify me of it's release and or delays?
Gosh I just wanted to actually test components of it; like rolling up characters and see how they (ahem) feel. Muggergaming the starship combat rules, trial adventures with the new task rules...
I think I would be suprised at the value of having a small group doing the testing
cheers
I think I would be suprised at the value of having a small group doing the testing
cheers
You should probably read this then:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/news/news_item.php?pkid_news=166
Mark
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/news/news_item.php?pkid_news=166
Mark
And it's amazing how durable and frothing the diatribe is.
RObject,
Part of it was Marc's detatchment. No offense, but working through a mouthpiece (you) increases the diatribe levels AND decreases the participation levels.
The most active playtests I've seen have been those with high designer involvement with the playtesters and CONSTANT 2-way dialogue between designer and playtest GM's.
I may disagree with some of Hunter's design decisions, but Hunter was "in the trench" taking the concerns of the playtesters quite seriously throughout the design process.
Marc wasn't. He was distant, and no "revisions" came forth for the playtesters to see motion. The T5 playtest on T5.com and here was the perfect example of how to discourage playtesters.
Further, it was looking like you were filtering what got through to Marc. A designer should not have a filter from the playtesters; Simon of Black Industries could have avoided a number of player complaints during the WFRP2 playtest simply by not deleting the "This didn't work" posts and allowing Chris Pramas to see them.
Add to this that the first fruits of design were the most emotional ones: Char Gen and Tasks, then a bit on small craft... you can't pick much more contentious areas, and then to ignore the input...
Marc mishandled the playtest. Badly. The diatribes are a natural result of both open playtest and lack of designer participation.
Part of it was Marc's detatchment. No offense, but working through a mouthpiece (you) increases the diatribe levels AND decreases the participation levels.
The most active playtests I've seen have been those with high designer involvement with the playtesters and CONSTANT 2-way dialogue between designer and playtest GM's.
I may disagree with some of Hunter's design decisions, but Hunter was "in the trench" taking the concerns of the playtesters quite seriously throughout the design process.
Marc wasn't. He was distant, and no "revisions" came forth for the playtesters to see motion. The T5 playtest on T5.com and here was the perfect example of how to discourage playtesters.
Further, it was looking like you were filtering what got through to Marc. A designer should not have a filter from the playtesters; Simon of Black Industries could have avoided a number of player complaints during the WFRP2 playtest simply by not deleting the "This didn't work" posts and allowing Chris Pramas to see them.
Add to this that the first fruits of design were the most emotional ones: Char Gen and Tasks, then a bit on small craft... you can't pick much more contentious areas, and then to ignore the input...
Marc mishandled the playtest. Badly. The diatribes are a natural result of both open playtest and lack of designer participation.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
Agreed I was, but at the same time those involved did respect the fact that I was one designing the game how I felt it should be designed. Something I did not really see from a number of those in the previous attempt at an open T5 development.
A lot had to do with not getting any real feedback on how to improve what was being designed but instead demands that it be changed completely. One of the things with the T20 playtest was that you guys tried to work with what was presented rather then just reject it wholesale.
That's pretty screwed up I agree (the WFRP2 playtest).
And note I am not referring to you Aramis when I am mentioning about some of those involved. As you said, you might not always agree, but you also don't get an attitude when there is disagreement. One of the reasons I enjoyed working with you on T20!
I've claimed some of the fault before, and I'll do it now once again: I'm the one who asked for "playtest" materials after all, without knowing what a loaded word that is. And so the moot forum's name was and is misleading, it seems.
What we got was, as someone else noted, Marc's design notes and drafts. Whereas, as I was later told, a Playtest (I'll capitalize it for clarity) is a complete manuscript plus a structured environment.
And so I think it would put me off if, when expecting to get a Playtest, I instead got something unpolished and incomplete, and no coordination.
But, ignorant of how game design works, I didn't have such expectations, and am happy to see anything at all, and I want to encourage Marc. I've thought about ideas he shares, and tested the materials he gave out, in the hopes that I can find improvements, and possibly offer a helpful suggestion once in awhile.
I've told him my preferences for things Traveller, and many others have too, but then what? I can't hold my breath and wait for him to change his mind before I offer more input. His focus shifts around, and there's lots to do. And I've got a little time (and I understand that that's a luxury).
Frankly, testing the hell out of what he's produced, whether we like it or no, is the most helpful thing we can do for him. Our impressions, as well as our findings, then gain value. And please note that every one of his playtest files has an e-mail address at the bottom, where you may send suggestions, and that includes the results of your playtesting. That's your direct line to Marc.
What we got was, as someone else noted, Marc's design notes and drafts. Whereas, as I was later told, a Playtest (I'll capitalize it for clarity) is a complete manuscript plus a structured environment.
And so I think it would put me off if, when expecting to get a Playtest, I instead got something unpolished and incomplete, and no coordination.
But, ignorant of how game design works, I didn't have such expectations, and am happy to see anything at all, and I want to encourage Marc. I've thought about ideas he shares, and tested the materials he gave out, in the hopes that I can find improvements, and possibly offer a helpful suggestion once in awhile.
I've told him my preferences for things Traveller, and many others have too, but then what? I can't hold my breath and wait for him to change his mind before I offer more input. His focus shifts around, and there's lots to do. And I've got a little time (and I understand that that's a luxury).
Frankly, testing the hell out of what he's produced, whether we like it or no, is the most helpful thing we can do for him. Our impressions, as well as our findings, then gain value. And please note that every one of his playtest files has an e-mail address at the bottom, where you may send suggestions, and that includes the results of your playtesting. That's your direct line to Marc.
Last edited:
Thanks, Hunter... one good thing, though, is that, during the t20 playtest, you didn't read impassioned argument (in the technical sense) as hostile (or at least calmed down before reply).
And some of the features were serious compromises... Like Battledress for Marines... and it is the best outcome. The published rule allows for an "All Marines are BD Troops" (Per LKW's JTAS Article), and for "BD is an Elite Arm of the IM" per Bk 4, MT, and Striker... and leaves the choice to the Ref.
Likewise, the T&C and Ship Design have significant chunks of "playtester contribution," and a few "WTF Was Hunter Thinking" elements got lambasted and removed... Of course, the Smart Playtester SAYS "WFTWHT?!?", and then begins the typing with, "Hunter, this section doesn't seem to make sense..." or "Hunter, this is causing this other problem..."
After all, my first reaction to Workstation Terminals was "Coolness!" until I started to use it.... then it was a string of invective.
I do hope that the T20 T&C is made available to Mongoose, or otherwise paralleled in MoTrav... it's the most fun of the options. Fun enough that I've been doing some solo MT using T20's tables...
Robject:
Testing it requires that it be up to a nearly useable standard to be useful.
It also requires that Marc be willing to listen, even when he doesn't like what he's hearing.
Neither of which was evident, tho' the latter can not be ascertained with certainty from here.
The multi-die task system, for example, was almost identical to Marc's T4.1 Task system of 1998. It's been playtested, and while it works for a few, it was (if you will recall) the most contentious part of the T4 rules. And an area Marc was unwilling to listen to feedback on.
And worse, a part that my players were unwilling to revisit.
I'm certain Marc loves it... but that's the hard part of being a designer with a playtest going: sometimes you have to swallow your pride, and realize that some elements are seen as utter crap, even though you yourself love them.
Been through that in Alpha testing my own Dorm Rules Miniatures Rules... but I couldn't draw a base for beta playtest. (Heck, in many years, I've gotten one bit of out-house feedback... a positive one...)
And some of the features were serious compromises... Like Battledress for Marines... and it is the best outcome. The published rule allows for an "All Marines are BD Troops" (Per LKW's JTAS Article), and for "BD is an Elite Arm of the IM" per Bk 4, MT, and Striker... and leaves the choice to the Ref.
Likewise, the T&C and Ship Design have significant chunks of "playtester contribution," and a few "WTF Was Hunter Thinking" elements got lambasted and removed... Of course, the Smart Playtester SAYS "WFTWHT?!?", and then begins the typing with, "Hunter, this section doesn't seem to make sense..." or "Hunter, this is causing this other problem..."
After all, my first reaction to Workstation Terminals was "Coolness!" until I started to use it.... then it was a string of invective.
I do hope that the T20 T&C is made available to Mongoose, or otherwise paralleled in MoTrav... it's the most fun of the options. Fun enough that I've been doing some solo MT using T20's tables...
Robject:
Testing it requires that it be up to a nearly useable standard to be useful.
It also requires that Marc be willing to listen, even when he doesn't like what he's hearing.
Neither of which was evident, tho' the latter can not be ascertained with certainty from here.
The multi-die task system, for example, was almost identical to Marc's T4.1 Task system of 1998. It's been playtested, and while it works for a few, it was (if you will recall) the most contentious part of the T4 rules. And an area Marc was unwilling to listen to feedback on.
And worse, a part that my players were unwilling to revisit.
I'm certain Marc loves it... but that's the hard part of being a designer with a playtest going: sometimes you have to swallow your pride, and realize that some elements are seen as utter crap, even though you yourself love them.
Been through that in Alpha testing my own Dorm Rules Miniatures Rules... but I couldn't draw a base for beta playtest. (Heck, in many years, I've gotten one bit of out-house feedback... a positive one...)
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
LOL yeah good thing ya'll couldn't see me sometimes
And yes always better to calm down, THEN post.Very true, unfortunately I saw a lot of the opposite with regard to T5. Not everyone, but enough of those that basically were annoying enough to put Marc off of working more closely.
It's not open content, but if they asked I certainly wouldn't mind it.
