Why do some people want Traveller to fail?

[tbeard1999]

My problem with this is that it is a "debate" between very small numbers of
people on both "sides", the "critics" as well as the "fanboys", while the posts
of both sides tend to be a nuisance for the huge majority of people on this
board, who are neither interested in this "debate" nor willing to participate
in it, I think.

My problem is that there seems to be a (hopefully) small number of folks who want to peremptorily quash all criticism of MGT. As a Big Fan of Free Speech, I can't see this as A Good Thing.

And their favorite tactic seems to be to increase the level of acrimony, then complain to the moderators about the level of acrimony. The goal, of course, being to get the thread locked. Personally, I suspect that the moderators are catching on to the tactic. At least I hope so.

Individuals should not be able to lock a thread just by acting out IMHO.

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition... [T]he ultimate good...is better reached by free trade in ideas...that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market... -- Justice Holmes, dissent in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).

 

[Allensh]

It is pretty much accepted in the industry that the average life of a particular edition of an RPG is 5-7 years. Some games go longer, others not as long but this seems to be about the average. At that point, sales of the game seem to level off or decline and a new edition is needed to maintain viability of the product line. Since just redoing a little text and art and slapping "new edition" on it would tend to anger customers, these new editions often involve changes to the rules to fix perceived problems or to incorporate new ideas that the designers have. Without these changes, the game would eventually drop in sales to where it could probably not be sustained. Thus, "evolve or die".

The problem with the term "evolution" is the same I commented on elsewhere in regard to the term modern...people seem to think I meant "new and innovative" when what I really meant was "more like the RPGS being published today in style than those from 1977". MGT incorporates some things that are commonly found in RPGs today that were not found in CT. In some ways, the game is both "modern" and "classic"...which is why I think it is doing so well.

The reason I wanted the thread closed is because it was written in anger at a specific indvidual, and I should not have done that. It is not communicating what I intended and quite frankly, my words are being twisted by some people to the point where all I can do is get frustrated.

I wasn't talking about criticism of MGT in this thread..but if you really want to see what I was upset about, go to the 760 Patrons thread and read the sarcastic post by Supplement Four about a book he hasn't even read. There was no reason other than sheer unpleasantness for him to post that rather than saying "this book doesn't sound like one I would like". And yeah...I did that too to some extent in my original post, which is why it is gone. It was a mistake. I am sorry.

Allen

 

[tbeard1999]

It is pretty much accepted in the industry that the average life of a particular edition of an RPG is 5-7 years. Some games go longer, others not as long but this seems to be about the average. At that point, sales of the game seem to level off or decline and a new edition is needed to maintain viability of the product line. Since just redoing a little text and art and slapping "new edition" on it would tend to anger customers, these new editions often involve changes to the rules to fix perceived problems or to incorporate new ideas that the designers have. Without these changes, the game would eventually drop in sales to where it could probably not be sustained. Thus, "evolve or die".

Okay, I get the distinction and that you didn't intend to imply that MGT was particularly innovative. And I have no problem with rules being improved over time...so long as the "improvements" really are improvements. I have little patience with changes for change's sake.

The reason I wanted the thread closed is because it was written in anger at a specific indvidual, and I should not have done that. It is not communicating what I intended and quite frankly, my words are being twisted by some people to the point where all I can do is get frustrated.

Fair enough. Heaven knows I've gotten frustrated, so I can't cast stones. Or stow thrones, for that matter.

Supp Four is a friend and is passionate about CT. I can see how that could be misinterpreted -- heck, I've gotten exasperated at him in the past. But I really don't think he has an irrational hatred of MGT. I just think that he -- like others -- just doesn't think that MGT is the game he wants to play. So he advocates for CT. Is that really so terrible?

 

[Allensh]

I just think that he -- like others -- just doesn't think that MGT is the game he wants to play. So he advocates for CT. Is that really so terrible?

No it isn't.

Allen

 

[far-trader]

Awww...

GROUP HUG!

(and I had such low hopes for this thread :devil: )

(seriously you guys are scaring me, tbeard and allen mending fences, I swear if S4 strolls in and says something nice I'll scream :smirk: )

 

[Klaus]

The interesting thing here is that all of us here debating have changed our minds/positions since the earliest days of the playtest. We changed our minds as the facts (ie: the rules as published) changed, which proves, at least in the content of our posts, that we are rational people.

What I find frustrating is the false dichotomy between "fans" and "critics". The critics have often praised aspects of MGT as published, just as many fans couched their praise with many caveats about things they might change or house-rule. It looks like we are falling victim to the narcissism of small differences that seems to plague Traveller in all its forms, like we are reverting to some kind of type.

In fact there is probably greater consensus here than the frustrations that leak into some our posts imply.

Is it possible to agree on these points in general terms?

• That MGT is a form of updated/reformed/consolidated CT.

• That some of us were hoping for something more/different than/to an updated/reformed/consolidated CT, and are therefore disappointed.

• That others of us quite like the idea of an updated/reformed/consolidated CT, so are quite pleased.

• That the number and depth of future MGT releases looks promising, and because of general compatibility all Traveller players may get something out of some of the forthcoming product.

• That MGT is selling very well and that can only be good for all corners of Traveller fandom.

We should be able to discuss what we like or don't like, and do so emphatically, and passionately, without raking over old conflicts or creating a new artificial divide in our Traveller universe. So can we just pause, take a breath, and move on, and refrain from attaching labels to each other when we argue out our differences?

 

[rust]

Is it possible to agree on these points in general terms?

For me, yes - without hesitation or caveats. And I agree wholeheartedly
with what you wrote.

 

[tbeard1999]

The interesting thing here is that all of us here debating have changed our minds/positions since the earliest days of the playtest. We changed our minds as the facts (ie: the rules as published) changed, which proves, at least in the content of our posts, that we are rational people.

Or indecisive...

What I find frustrating is the false dichotomy between "fans" and "critics". In fact there is probably greater consensus here than the frustrations that leak into some our posts imply.

I agree that the "fans" are not necessarily 100% enamored of MGT and that the "critics" are not necessarily 100% disenchanted with MGT. But labels are often necessary for clarity (or to prevent overly long descriptive clauses), so I'll probably still use them when necessary. However, we should all bear in mind that labels are necessarily simplifications and not put too much stock in them outside the context in which they're offered.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

@#$%^ %#^^& &$* *%$@ %#$#% ()%^^% forum civility rules!!! :frankie:

The title of this topic is absolute nonsense.

Sometimes, I often wonder at how many JTAS issues could have been written with all of the energy expended on arguing over which rule system or version is best.

It is no wonder that 30 years after it was made, Traveller still struggles to keep its head up in an already rocky market for non-television show sci fi games. I for one am glad to be getting new books. I am coming at Traveller as a consumer. As an objective demographic, if you will.

As a consumer, I do not care what the arguments are about. At all. Not one bit. I have a two part role: To learn whatever system is presented and apply it to a game or a game element. I want a simple system skeleton that I can stick my own custom stuff on. Not a bunch of pre-calculated tables and impenetrable minutae. The MGT book has got that. T20 had that. They didnt make the mistake that MT and T4 made.

I am 150% enthusiastic about my hobby. I freely admit that had I my druthers, I would gladly spend the rest of my natural (and potentially unnatural with all this new bio tech) life designing deckplans and robots and guns and planets and such for fun because it is fun. It's the next best thing to being there for me.

The other thing is: I have two sons... One is a teenager, and has certainly been bitten by the Traveller Bug. The second is about to be born. Any time now. I didn't need to force feed it to the first one. He grew up around it, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Same thing for the new kid. He's going to play Traveller. Who knows? Maybe they'll be doing it for real one day.

To all those fans and publishers that are currently producing books/PDFs/stone tablets/scrolls, etc:

Good work! Thank you! Keep up the good work and keep Traveller on the shelf for another 30 years. Even if its Traveller: Pokemon. Enough pep talk. Back to salt mine!

To all of those complaining/fighting/rowing:

There are multiple forums and outlets to express any sort of additional or optional rules or systems that you see fit. People listen. More than any other gaming community that I have ever seen, and with the absolute greatest possible restraint and tolerance. But there are LIMITS. You can expect no result by browbeating people into electronic submission.

With any project, there must be edits and cuts for content, lest you end up with a 500 page book with five tables of Rope Swinging Success Charts. There should not be fights like this. Ever. Feeling pissed off? Go detail one of the 5 gazillion systems on the frickin map. Go build a ship. Go set up a Play by post or a face to face game. Go start your own book and get ready for some (hopefully) constructive criticism from some very critical critics.

Overall, I would say that the Traveller community on the whole would be best served by getting new people to buy the game, and in so doing, discover its long history. Hopefully in so doing they do NOT discover topics like this.

ugh.

 

[Allensh]

Actually, it wasn't. ACT has many more problems than MGT has, and if the choice was between ACT or MGT, I'd jump on MGT and be very, very happy about it.

Having just re-read ACT today (and preparing to get the manuscript bound to make it easier to do so), would be interested in knowing what these problems were.

Allen

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Well, I stand corrected. It would seem that some folks do want some versions of Traveller to fail, and therefore, in a way, kind of are making Traveller fail.

I am sure they mean well, and want to stay true to whatever past version or incarnation of the game is "thiers" but I think this fosters a stultifying close-mindedness, or maybe a full on snobbery of another version. Maybe they do mean well, but I am really having a lot of trouble seeing that.

Is it a "nerd" thing? A "dork" thing? Popular culture will lead you to believe that it is, but right now, I am seeing it as a "Negative Publicity" thing, and it really sucks. At least to me it does.

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, I stand corrected. It would seem that some folks do want some versions of Traveller to fail, and therefore, in a way, kind of are making Traveller fail.

Many just want a good version of Traveller to be published. Not a servicable one. Not an "OK" version. They want a dynamite version of Traveller to be published that captures the magic that Classic Traveller did way back when it was just called Traveller.

Mongoose Traveller, despite promises and expectations, does not do that.

I am sure they mean well, and want to stay true to whatever past version or incarnation of the game is "thiers" but I think this fosters a stultifying close-mindedness, or maybe a full on snobbery of another version. Maybe they do mean well, but I am really having a lot of trouble seeing that.

And, maybe some just don't like Mongoose's version of Traveller.

You see some negativity towards it because not everyone likes what Mongoose has done with the game.

Do you expect people, who generally love Traveller, who find a new version lacking not to complain about it? These people are let down. They love Traveller, had high hopes for a new edition, and what are they rewarded with? Mediocre core rule book, silly 760 Patrons, and blah Mercenary.

The game is not universally liked, especially by a lot of the crowd who have been in love with Traveller for decades.

I mean, it's a bit unrealistic to see someone say, "Hey! I read the new Mongoose Traveller! And, it sucks! Isn't that great! I hate it! I ain't gonna change from Classic Traveller, but I was tempted by all the hype and promises Mongoose made before the game was released. Wooo-hooo! I don't like this game, but, by the gods, I sure hope they keep publishing crap that doesn't interest me! I really do!"

When people care about something and see that something being mishandled, it's fair to say that they will gribe about it in the negative.



It wouldn't surprise me, now, after seeing the direction that Mongoose is taking Traveller, that we see phasers and small, hand held laser weapons in Traveller, jacked in cybernetically, sans triggers, to a character's head, so that his thoughts and his nano-enhanced INT and EDU scores give him modifiers to hit. All this, traveling in a starship that uses warp drive, mounts a matter transporter, fueled by anti-matter.

That's not Traveller. That's Star Trek. But, it seems that Mongoose is taking Traveller in these very non-traditional avenues.

And, many of the people who've loved Traveller for decades are none too happy about Mongoose breaking the Traveller universe.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I see. So what part of the "Traveller Universe" am I to consider as being "fixed", if I were to come at it from the perspective of a new consumer?

What clear, precise, and direct information has been provided directly to potential new players in a mass-market sense? In a selling a game sense?

I have heard that you are some kind of CT purist, and in that, we should have several things in common. I can remember a time where I would buy a chunk of driftwood if it had the Sunburst on it. Every game effort I work up I has some aspect of CT in mind. It is a Classic.

I can also remember a time where I stopped buying Traveller stuff, because I hated the format, the overcomplicated rules, the concrete background, the rehashed (and kind of snoozy) artwork, and the change I poercieved in the tone. The addition of "grit" I thought. A lot of people I guess (I had no way of knowing, there was no internet or anything) thought that the CT background was "boring" or something, so all of these other writers of course had better ideas.

I literally said to my gaming group, "You know the gaming biz is taking a hit right alongside comics when even Traveller is starting to suck." And then we called it a day.

Then ad nauseum. It turns out that every time some new company comes out with a version, they for some reason have to "reimagine" background elements, instead of concentrating on the idea of the "Universe" has a cohesive background.

This may be why Traveller has got respect, but no players. Who the hell outside of this community could objectively sit and figure this crap out, or would want to? This community would do well to get realistic about the game industry as it is today. Time spent on Role Playing Games has competition from many other sources.

You guys act like I'm trying to keep you from speaking your mind, when actually, I am asking that you extend the nomal courtesy that you would to anyone else that was working on a product with the Traveller name on it.

 

[Supplement Four]

I see. So what part of the "Traveller Universe" am I to consider as being "fixed", if I were to come at it from the perspective of a new consumer?

Hm...where to start...

I think the several threads addressing problems with MGT will do for starters. No need to recall them all here.

I have heard that you are some kind of CT purist, and in that, we should have several things in common.

I've been all over with Traveller and came back to the basics. Yep. Pure CT is the way to go, imo.

I can remember a time where I would buy a chunk of driftwood if it had the Sunburst on it.

That's actually pretty funny!

I remember being that way. That was before THE BIG DISAPPOINTMENT, the first of several: TNE, GT, T4, T20, THero, MGT. All of them taking Traveller away from where it should have never strayed.

How much do players and rpg buyers care about rule sets and not just background material? Some care A LOT. I'm one of them.

MT, at least, is recognizeable as "CT Third edition".

I can also remember a time where I stopped buying Traveller stuff, because I hated the format, the overcomplicated rules, the concrete background, the rehashed (and kind of snoozy) artwork, and the change I poercieved in the tone.

Was that around the time of TNE?

You guys act like I'm trying to keep you from speaking your mind, when actually, I am asking that you extend the nomal courtesy that you would to anyone else that was working on a product with the Traveller name on it.

Just don't like the game. I don't down it more than I "up" things I like. This is an opinion forum.

It does seem as if we who do not like what Mongoose is doing with Traveller are victim of reverse censorship (attempted censorship). I mean, I'm sure everything would be hunky-dorey if we all posted nothing but nice things about MGT.

I'll also point out that, being a CT pureist, as you call me, I don't go crying every time someone states that CT is an "old man's game sorely in need of updating" and that "its broken" and what not. Talk to EDG on the Mongoose forum. He'll tell ya how crappy CT is.

Yet, I'm not posting everytime he says something negative about CT, saying, "But, you're wrong! Why can't you just say something nice? Buy the book, then give me your opinion!"

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

It was actually the release of MT. I despised:

1. the Rebellion setting: I thought it was too much "grit" of the same lame sort of "grit" that Star Trek used to "beef" up flagging interest in Deep Space Nine with the Dominion War. The Rebellion didnt make much sense,
and talk about wrecking the OTU!

2. the three book design with the foil cover was very of its time, ala "Special 4-part Iron Man Collectors Covers" that wrecked the comics industry in the early 90s,

3. The god awful, overcomplicated, written totally for gearheads and inaccessable vehicle and ship design system, expanded character creation, mandatory extended star system generation, etc, etc. etc.
All of my players got royally pissed when we switched because to make new characters took hours, and it took me weeks to cook up stuff.
(As a CT purist myself, I refused to even use the Adventures, saving those for Special Events )

4. The worst result of this was that it soured them to Traveller in general, and it was soon pulled from our rotation. There were other Sci Fi games out that didnt require less commitment for them as casual players. They were not Traveller Nuts like I was, but that is ok.

See? Everyone has an opinion. Let's just say its the "creative reiteration" of the opinions that is becoming a problem, and I think you know that.

I gave a completely objective review of my purchase of the t20 book, and it was less than glowing, and then I stopped my reviewing, because I realized that I was being a dick. Even tho t20 had problems, it was still a Traveller book, and one that people put a lot of effort into, out of love of the game. Who am I to crap on that? Having to put up with this kind of crap must drive these dudes nuts. There is criticism, and then there is "sandbagging".

Maybe it comes down to you should think about buying the book anyway, you never know. The investment now could help finance the release of your CT brain implant, like I'm going to get.

Smile and wave until a Traveller Movie comes out, then we'll critique until our eyeballs fall out. The Traveller Universe is going to need people in it that play it to keep going, no matter what rule system they are using. How else are the new players going to discover thier roots? Searching for threads? I do not think so...

 

[Andrew Boulton]

This is going nowhere. Thread locked.