Originally posted by SolCommissionar:
Your point is taken. I did say " mostly all" however. Certainly Marc Miller's agreement is implied, although it has been limited to "reset to 1116 and No Virus at Large".
My feeling is that if he didn't like it, he didn't have to allow those beneath him to publish it. But he did.
Marc's vision is his vision. But a game that sticks to one vision only (with little development at that) is not IMO a very interesting one.
That bespeakes the realization that Traveller lost far more players from the upset than it gained in the 90's. The widespread advent of the web helped change that in the late 90's, but by then the damage was done.
Sometimes ditching the old is a good thing. I'd much rather bring in a new breed of players who are versatile and interested in a dynamic, evolving setting rather than keep an old guard who are stodgy, conservative and whine every time something changes.
It wasn't just me - possibly you were in primary school in the 90's, but I speak as an eye witness.
And so do I - I was at university in the 90s, thank you very much.
I have no intention of debating Dave Nilsen's motives or impact on Traveller.
Have you actually read what he's said, or are you one of these people who think he's the devil incarnate for "destroying Traveller"? It's on
this thread, starting around the bottom of page 2.
Again, I agree, at least in MT's case. As I said, and as others have also pointed out, the Rebellion wasn't the problem, it was the lack of Resolution to the Rebellion, followed by the Virus Memory Wipe, that did the main damage.
Well, the Rebellion was never going to end with everyone having a group hug and the setting turning back into what it was before. The rebellion was resolved IMO in the way it should have been - utter destruction and slow death by atrophy. I thought that the release of Virus was a perfectly reasonable "final nail in the coffin" (and plot mcguffin to wipe the slate clean).
People such as you may go on about a "memory wipe", but that didn't actually happen. True, what happened before was rendered somewhat irrelevant by events, but that would have happened even if the rebellion had ended via the "Wounded Colossus/Hard Times" route of everything just grinding to a halt. Every world was changed and effected by Hard Times, never mind Virus. Was that history "wiped"? No. It was still there, but people had a lot more important things to worry about than rebuilding past glories.
In GDW's defence (still my favorite game company, BTW) there were multiple industry pressures that made any venture especially hazardous.
Again, DN and Loren have explained these.
Fact is, Traveller needed a boot up the arse in the late 80s anyway. Nothing new had really come out for it for years - MT was a logical step to bring it the game into the late 80s and make it current.
There are baskets & baskets, three bags full, of games that are dynamic and changeable, which no one plays that I've heard of (Gamma World, anyone?)
Gamma World is still being played. In fact, it's just had a fairly successful d20 version. All the White Wolf World of Darkness games also had a changing background too, and an order of magnitude more players than play Traveller still play those.
The only game that really compares to Traveller is Heroquest, which is the new version of Runequest. And that's had a small but devoted following for about as long as Traveller has. But even that's changed over the years.
Traveller is amazing in the sheer output of the fans, powered by the web, which allows it to survive TWO less-than-sterling incarnations (TNE & T4). How many games of Cadillacs & Dinosaurs do you think have web support?
You're comparing apples and oranges - C&D was never a very popular game to start with. And the support for TNE and T4 on the web is larger than you give credit.
I suspect the fanbase was a key factor in transfering Traveller to GT - since the ready-made market was in place. This doesn't take away from SJ's brave decision to pick up part of the franchise.
I don't see how it was THAT brave. T4 had (or was in the process of) keeling over, and SJG took up the reins because they had the good people interested in reviving and developing the game. And they've done a damn good job so far, and I hope they'll continue to do so for many more years.
It is the Common Universe which keeps this fan-based output healthy & active.
Most people don't even play in the OTU - they play in something close to it, but they tweak this and that. And even if the game wasn't being actively developed by a publisher, I'm sure fans would still be putting up webpages showing off their Traveller stuff.
What you fail to grasp is that the "Common Universe" is there in all incarnations of the game. Even TNE and T4. It's just the same universe played at different eras is all.
Why, Comrade Malefant, I hadn't realized it was your perogative to decide what we were allowed to complain about in this forum.
While I'm not using the fact to back my position here, you'll note that I
am the moderator of this board.
I just get pissed off when people complain about the game as if the designers MUST change it for them. If people don't like what the designers do then they can still continue to play the game how they've always played it and let everyone play the new version in peace. Some Traveller fans seem to be incapable of understanding this.
Let me see if I understand you - I'm to "imagine" that something which actually happened, happened differently, because it's more realistic?
You don't understand me at all, evidently. I'm saying that the SolCon tearing itself apart in a civil war would be a bloody huge event on the "global" scale of Charted Space. This is a major state that's been there for hundreds of years. It'd be like the USSR or the USA having a civil war on Earth - everyone around them would be getting VERY nervous, and various other states may decide to chip in one way or another. Either way, it would definitely change the world.
Regardless what happens, Charted Space around the SolCon after whatever is going on inside it is over is likely to be a somewhat different political landscape to what it was before. Anything else would be unrealistic.
Agreed - but there is a question of degree.
We are talking marketing here. If you buy a product, and the manufacturer changes the product in some way where you no longer like it, you buy another product.
Quite. It's not rocket science.
But if it does turn out that you don't like it, then you'll be doing everyone a favour if you didn't complain about it all the time to the people that do. Once or twice to make your point is enough, but to still go on years later as some people have done with Traveller is ridiculous. The internet seems to bring out this attitude in people, that they think they can change things back to the way they were if they whine long enough about it. It doesn't work that way - if you don't like the way the game is going then you can either just leave the game and play something else, or carry on playing it the old way. Because ultimately it's up to the
designers if they're going to change the game back or continue with the new version, not you.
For all the very loud complaints and flamewars that TNE and MT got and caused, they still did pretty damn well for themselves and for GDW. And indeed, they got a lot of praise from some quarters too. And despite what some people may claim, TNE wasn't what brought GDW down either.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />People can have a choice to accept any official changes or not in their MTUs and can ignore whatever they like in an altered OTU - it doesn't invalidate anything that's gone before.
Herein you are dead wrong.</font>[/QUOTE]No, I'm actually quite correct
. I HAVE done this myself. The background for White Wolf's Mage and Wraith games changed quite dramatically in their backgrounds. I REALLY didn't like the changes in Mage (Wraith just came to a conclusion, Mage changed completely). But I didn't whine about it to everyone in earshot. I just shrugged, returned my copy of the new edition, and carried on playing the old version.
This was something we couldn't make FAC understand.
Most likely this was because you were wrong and he was right.
The bulk of the players depend on support from the Game Designers, because the GDs have the time and the talent and the players have the money and the demand.
Er, no. The whole point of Traveller, initially, was to be a generic scifi RPG for GMs to make their own background. Then they decided to have an official background (Charted Space). Now, if people choose to become reliant on everything that the company publishes then that's their decision - but they should realise that if they ARE totally reliant on it then they have to take the rough with the smooth.
If the game changes in a way they don't like, they have a simple decision to make - either (a) continue playing using the old rules and background that they've always been happy with, or (b) continue with the new version and get used to that, or (c) stop playing the game in any form altogether because for some reason they're so "offended" by the new version that it puts them off playing the old one.
The first option is the most sensible if you don't like the new version - that way you lose nothing. The second option is there if you have an open mind and are willing to change things. The third option is just plain stupid.
The Official Universe serves to give players from all over the world a common setting with which to relate with each other. This allows you to arrive at a convention, sign up for a Traveller game, play 3rd Imperium, with a minimum of surprises.
All very well, but a lot of people don't play vanilla Traveller. Convention games are there largely to introduce people to the setting so of course they're going to be close to the default. But that doesn't mean that every other game played elsewhere has to be.
Contrary to some beliefs, most people *do* want more of the same - only different same.
This statement makes no sense whatsoever.
This is why I think a Solomani Civil War is not a bad idea. I have maintained that dissolving the Sphere would not be a good idea, since the Rim is (or was) the second most popular setting for adventures (Cold War vs. Frontier, wasn't it?)
We'll see what happens. Personally, I don't mind either way, so long as there are knockon effects to the setting afterwards - because you don't have something like this happen without consequences.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
But if Traveller fans insist on sticking exactly to an altered OTU that they don't enjoy playing in - and then proceed to complain loudly about it while expecting the authors to change everything back just because they can't figure out that it's OK for MTUs to diverge from the OTU - then frankly they're really just too dumb to be playing RPGs.
Well, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss anyone with a shared interest in RPG's as "dumb".</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if they can't figure out that they can continue to play their games the way they've always played them, then they're pretty dense.
Agreed, it would be foolish to play in a campaign where you didn't like the backstory. The alternative is to suggest players "vote with their feet" - but that's a luxury YOU can afford, not the people who are trying to make a living at this.
And that's a risk that designers take when they change a setting. But the fact that they DO change it means that they're willing to accept the risk. They know damn well that people can leave their market if they don't like it. They also know that changes can attract new people to the market too though.
Game Design ain't Art - it's entertainment.
No, it's a damn sight more than that actually. Game design requires that you are aware of the consequences of every rule you make and every background feature you add, and it's also a business in terms of trying to sell the game to a rather small market.
Playing the games is entertainment. Game design, while occasionally fun, is also damn hard work.
[/tongue in cheek]
