Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
Why should Traveller solely aim to please its established fanbase? How would it ever attract new people then? And given how apparently picky part of the fanbase is, I don't think anything would ever satisfy them even if you went out of the way to make something that attempted to do so.
I don't recall saying that the old fan base should be the sole target. In fact, if you read what I wrote, I suggest that having the entire fanbase aboard (new and old) will lead to more fiscal viability of the enterprise. And yes, there will be those you can never please. However, that does not mean you should neglect making an attempt to please some of those you can.
So have I.... I guess I use the term 'grognard' to mean 'those really stubborn CT fans who don't like change'.
I thought it was just one of us who was a veteran of the old days, rather than married to them. For the record, I buy from BITS and QLI and support further progress for the game in whatever format.
To be honest, Trav's had 6 different versions come out (CT, MT, TNE, T4, GT, T20), with possibly another coming out in the distant future (T5). I'm sure a lot of people who have followed Traveller through the years have already paid enough for what they've got. Publishers have got to be reaching the point of diminishing returns in catering to the long-term fans (or even already gone way past it).
Yes and no. As long as the newer version is seen to do things better, it has some place. MT was CT plus tasks, to my mind, plus an advancement of the OTU setting. So it was good. TNE was an advancement of the setting, however I percieved it as a step back in some ways. Ship combat was better once you had BL, but not very compatible backwardly. So it wasn't perfect. CT was the first, and it was okay, though had too many niggly numbers (needed the task system). GT was good for what it did for the setting (Rebellion alternative that meshed up until 1115) and for what it offered in terms of connectivity to the larger GURPS pool of players and products. T20 had a D20 justification, so not so bad, and picked an inoffensive way to blend into the timeline. T4.... well, that blew chunks, IMO. Sadly, it was supposed to be updated CT, but it was...fugly in my opinion.
So, a new version (T5) has to bring to the table either an enhancement of the strengths of a prior version, the redress of some of the weaknesses, or integration with a new product line that offers new options. So far as I can see, it is T4 rehashed plus some ideas for doing things 'a new way' which actually I don't think is a good way to move forward when the old way, with some repairs, could be very very solid, tried and true. Plus if it is presented as poorly as T4, it will be a disaster.
So, there is a place for new versions, but not 'because we can' or 'because it is time to sell a new one' or 'because we churn through our fanbase every 18 months'. How about 'because it fixes the problems of the old one' or how about 'because it adds to the options' or how about 'because it enhances slightly some old things and presents them more clearly, concisely and with no errata'? These are all fine reasons.
Let me put it this way - what would you do if they made a change in the OTU that really screwed up that model you made that you presumably spent a lot of time on? You could either throw a strop and storm out of Traveller forever, thus making a decision to cast aside all the time and effort you put into making the model in the first place, and doing nobody any favours at all. Or you could attempt to incorporate the change and come to some sort of comprimise. Or you could ignore the OTU change completely, and stay happy with the model that you constructed. Remember, nobody - least of all the writers of the game - is holding a gun to your head and saying 'thou shalt incorporate these changes into your own setting or else'.
You will note I *said* as much. However, then every product I buy, I have to say 'does this depend on that OTU thing I didn't use' before I know if it will fit in. Do I want that? If I have to do that kind of work, why am I buying other people's stuff? I'm essentially going to rewrite it myself anyway if I do that. My point is, with some parts of the setting very stable (map, basic mechanics of things like economics, jump, etc), then you can have a lot of fun with history, politics, etc. and different time periods, races, etc. and add to the setting without 'breaking' what has already been done.
So your game may diverge with the OTU after a while if you ignore the change. Who cares?! Let it. Surely what's important is that your own universe makes sense to you, and is consistent to you and your players.
Do this enough times along the way and
1. OTU products then become problematic to use (hence why buy them?)
2. You may get caught in slips if you do use OTU products, as you discover later they had some dependency on something you didn't do or use
Chances are, the divergence will be so insignificant or irrelevant to actual play that you can shove it in the background and ignore it anyway.
One man's insignificant...
Some people would waive off the economics rules as 'not important to the gaming experience'. I find they underpin the whole logic of the universe. Others think that how jump works is a niggling detail. Some think this is absolutely critical. So insignificant is a lot in the eyes of the beholder.
Changing a population digit on a UWP will not cause anyone's universe to collapse!
No, but a campaign world built on a JG or PP product, then overwritten entirely by something else which is mentioned in the new OTU product will leave you thinking.... hmmm... without it, this breaks X Y and Z in the surrounding sectors now..... but with it, I may have to toss everything I did.... Tough choice to be put.
So, changing small things (your point) probably won't be earth shattering. But small or large is often, as I point out in counter, in the eyes of the observer.
'Feats' are a game mechanic from T20. They're system specific things that never even existed in Traveller before anyway. That sort of thing can't really be helped, short of changing rulesets.
Nor did I say otherwise. I just said it is hard to translate. I can translate (using the BITS Task System) most CT/MT/TNE/T4 stuff into one another. But T20 is.... a harder mate up. GT might also be tough. Unavoidable? Maybe. Something it would be nice to have some scholarly thought put into, for portability? Definitely.
Remember, nobody's forcing you to use these things in your universe anyway. You don't have to slavishly follow what is said in the books.
Why is it that everyone who doesn't care about canon harps on that I think it introduces issues to diverge from it a bit, but only a bit? <rhetorial query>
I heard this PoV from others, and you'll note my objections. I don't have to follow things slavishly, but changes have consequences, and the further I diverge, the less like 'Traveller' (at least the common universe) my game becomes. Is that bad? Maybe, if new players don't recognize my TU as a TU.... or if this means new products get tougher to use.
If you aren't in the TU, you probably don't buy the products to use at all, so you don't see this issue. If you are in the OTU and flex with it, you don't see it either. Only if you are in something near to a TU and have problems with some of the flexing does this show up.
Years ago I wrote up my own version of the Reaver's Deep sector, with absolutely no regard for existing canon (because I didn't know any existed anyway). Now I know there's some Reaver's Deep canon out there... but I don't care, because What's official canon isn't relevant to MTU
But if you *were* using an OTU, not a different one, and you had some of the stuff you thought was OTU overwritten, then the new stuff all ties neatly together, so your bit doesn't tie in. So you're left figuring out what to do. And this isn't really required, given the amount of uncovered material or different periods or whatever there is to do. Papering over, or major philosophical changes, aren't a good thing. Now, MT is a special case as DGP stuff is problematic. I hate that, but it is the way it is.
(and my traveller universe that I wrote those up for was a lot closer to CT than what I was using later on). Now, if you'd spent a few months writing up something like that and were happy with it, and then found that there was already canonical material, would you REALLY tear your hair out in anguish and wonder whether you should ditch your own material?
No, but every time I DL'd a new TAS bulletin, I'd have to give it the jaundiced eye and say "Does it apply in my world?". Every time I bought a new supplement, I'd have to check where it was set. If it was in RD, I'd have to say "hmmmm.... better get a look at it before I buy it to know what part of it might be useful, if any....".
If you're totally out of the OTU, you're liberated from this. If you're totally in the OTU, flex freely with it, then you've got no issue either. Only half way between do you have an issue. Sadly, I think there are a lot of us whose TU fits that category.
So why didn't you just say 'oh, screw what they've written, we'll carry on playing what we like'? How do the changing 'official rules and settings' make anything that you've done any less valid or enjoyable?
One of the reasons you *buy* a product, is to gain the benefit of someone else doing design and testing work on it. You can then integrate it, hopefully easily, into your work. When you discover that suddenly you're going to be doing all the work, because the new iteration is utterly unpalatable, suddenly that makes the ref's job much harder. That, and the player's being split on what they liked/hated about the new/old, and people feeling the world was being wrecked or abandoned, or the part of the world they developed being rewritten.... it just leaves a bad taste. Sure, you can ignore all that, but that may bring to an end all the useful stuff you *were* getting from the published products (and you know the new ones won't be of use).
From a business perspective, I think this was a poor decision on the part of the designers. IMO.
I get the impression that you're choosing to anchor yourself to whatever the 'official line' is, and I'm not sure why.
No, just to something consistent while trying to reap the benefits of new work with minimal consideration or extra work involved in rewriting the material.
Don't forget what Traveller was originally - a toolkit with which to make your own sci-fi backgrounds.
What it was or was not is besides the point to what it is. Further, it was never that to me. I started with Deluxe Trav in 1980 or 1981, but the OTU started to form pretty much around the Spinward Marches. It wasn't what it is today, but it was still recognizable as the OTU.
Heck, for the first few books of CT, there was no official background setting at all! One of the things that I will give credit to T20 for is that it goes back to those 'toolkit' roots. So why not take whatever you're comfortable with from the rules and the setting and put that into your own game, and ignore the rest?
Frankly, I'm not going to pay someone for supplements, expansions, etc. if they aren't of any use. And changing some core assumptions or rewriting bits of history helps to assure that.
I don't really care what they do - I can't control that. They'll make decisions as they see fit. I can only state my own likely reactions and those of my group. As consumers, we're likely to buy X and not buy Y and possibly become alienated by Z. Whether everyone understands or agrees is merely an interesting side topic. Arguments abound, but for a business, it is what I shell out cash for that determines their success.
