Ask MongooseMatt ANYTHING!!!

[Terry Mixon]

Okay, not really anything, but when we post questions about the rules or potential typos in the feedback area, we often don't receive a response, so I'm creating this thread in the hopes of getting some response to questions we have, even if it is "we're looking at that" or some such.

I'll kick this off with a question I posted a few days ago. The emergency low berths in High Guard 2022 Update are listed at MC1 a pop. Seems real pricy since Mongoose 1e and all the previous versions of Traveller we checked had it being KCr100. In Mongoose 1e, it was listed as MCr.1 and we suspect a typo. Can we get some clartity on that so we can update the starship build sheet to reflect what we suspect if we're right? Thanks.

Also, allow me to suggest that adding KCr, BCr (or GCr to please @Geir), and TCr to your repertoire would be really helpful and would minimize the complaints about not having comma separation in your big numbers, too.

And sorry for all the wild AMA questions you're about to get @MongooseMatt.

 

[Arkathan]

I don't recognize that difference for one very simple reason. You have then allowed something designed only for that adventure to now be a part of the general rules of the game. Writers of Adventures and Writers of Campaigns should not be allowed to write rules. That is for rule books and the Writers of Rulebooks.

For an adventure or campaign, I can excuse a McGuffin of limited utility/number of uses and which cannot be replicated that exists outside the rules.
Flat out rule changes are indeed an issue though.

 

[Numbers0to1]

It looks like the release schedule has been updated, which is always an intriguing moment. I was happy to see some new titles on the list. I noticed that Brushfires is listed twice. Is Brushfires a two-part release?

 

[CordwainerFish]

I noticed that Brushfires is listed twice.

"I like Brushfires."

 

[Condottiere]

Writers should explain the rational for exceptions to the rule.

 

[shirgall]

I don't recognize that difference for one very simple reason. You have then allowed something designed only for that adventure to now be a part of the general rules of the game. Writers of Adventures and Writers of Campaigns should not be allowed to write rules. That is for rule books and the Writers of Rulebooks.

I disagree, I think adventure settings may have good cause for specialized rules. For example, I have a setting that is very close to a star, and I borrowed some rules for dealing with heat from an adventure, because the core rules were not specific to my scenario. That said, I don't think anyone wants to buy every single book just to get all the optional rules that really only apply to adventures in those spaces.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I disagree, I think adventure settings may have good cause for specialized rules. For example, I have a setting that is very close to a star, and I borrowed some rules for dealing with heat from an adventure, because the core rules were not specific to my scenario. That said, I don't think anyone wants to buy every single book just to get all the optional rules that really only apply to adventures in those spaces.

It’s different when the end user does that vs the game designers. We should use Rule 0, but they shouldn’t.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I disagree, I think adventure settings may have good cause for specialized rules. For example, I have a setting that is very close to a star, and I borrowed some rules for dealing with heat from an adventure, because the core rules were not specific to my scenario. That said, I don't think anyone wants to buy every single book just to get all the optional rules that really only apply to adventures in those spaces.

You can totally change anything you want at your table. Obviously. I am just saying that published adventures and campaigns should obey the rules from the rulebooks and the rules specific to the setting that they are in. (Such as needing a sophont mind to not take a penalty when jumping in Charted Space, which is only a rule in Charted Space)

 

[hopsnbaer]

You can totally change anything you want at your table. Obviously. I am just saying that published adventures and campaigns should obey the rules from the rulebooks and the rules specific to the setting that they are in. (Such as needing a sophont mind to not take a penalty when jumping in Charted Space, which is only a rule in Charted Space)

Serious question. Can you name a game that has done that? A lot of the alure of adventures and source books is the new rules and options.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Serious question. Can you name a game that has done that? A lot of the alure of adventures and source books is the new rules and options.

I cannot.

Are we trying to make Traveller like every other game out there? Is that your goal? Do you want to keep repeating the same mistakes of the last 40+ years?
If the allure of an adventure book is new rules, then someone did something wrong and then they have rules scattered over a huge number of books. Once this happens game designers can no longer use the rules as written, because they don't know all of the rules that are scattered everywhere. By that point it is all rules argument because rules in different places conflict with each other, etc.

I will ask you a more important serious question. Is that what you want Traveller to be?

 

[shirgall]

It’s different when the end user does that vs the game designers. We should use Rule 0, but they shouldn’t.

You can totally change anything you want at your table. Obviously. I am just saying that published adventures and campaigns should obey the rules from the rulebooks and the rules specific to the setting that they are in. (Such as needing a sophont mind to not take a penalty when jumping in Charted Space, which is only a rule in Charted Space)

I don't people are getting my point that there was a published adventure that had additional rules I found applicable, which saved me time.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I don't people are getting my point that there was a published adventure that had additional rules I found applicable, which saved me time.

I have no problem with them reprinting rules in an adventure to save time, but no rules should exist only in that adventure and not in any rulebook.

Edit - That is how you end up with rules all over the place and writers of new material not able to know all of the rules since they are scattered about willy-nilly. Then they make adventures or write storylines that you cannot accomplish by following the rules. See all of the published ship designs that don't obey the rules in High Guard for examples.

 

[shirgall]

I have no problem with them reprinting rules in an adventure to save time, but no rules should exist only in that adventure and not in any rulebook.

Edit - That is how you end up with rules all over the place and writers of new material not able to know all of the rules since they are scattered about willy-nilly. Then they make adventures or write storylines that you cannot accomplish by following the rules. See all of the published ship designs that don't obey the rules in High Guard for examples.

It is literally the nature of optional rules that they distract from the core.

If you want T5, play T5, but it's daunting to be that comprehensive when you try to bring people in.

 

[MasterGwydion]

It is literally the nature of optional rules that they distract from the core.

If you want T5, play T5, but it's daunting to be that comprehensive when you try to bring people in.

Optional rules are fine. That is what the Traveller Companion compiles. I have no issue with optional rules. They just need to be clearly stated as optional. Also, those optional rules should never be used in OTU published material. Why? Because then that makes that optional rule, no longer optional. Which takes us back to if it is not an optional rule, then it should be in a rulebook and not an adventure book.

I can't stand T5. Too complicated. When I was younger, I may have liked it. That was when I loved doing the math in FFS, but now that just makes my head hurt. Although, I can't figure out the organizational system for how the T5 books are laid out either, so I can never find anything that I am looking for in them. That might have something to do with it as well.

 

[shirgall]

I don't think you are getting the hierarchy.

Rule zero: All rules are optional to the end user
Core rules: the mechanics and constraints expected to operate in all settings
Expanded rules: additional mechanics (rules) and constraints for specialized scenarios, like High Guard for building spacecraft
Setting rules: homogenous history and mechanics (rules) expected to operate in a particular setting, like the Third Imperium
Campaign rules: homogenous history and mechanics for a series of play sessions covering a linked set of adventures
Adventure rules: a series of set pieces, narrative, and mechanics intended to cover a group's endeavors

A lower tier's rules supersede only for that tier and below. Nothing about Element Class Cruisers stops people from playing Traveller the core rules or Core Rules + High Guard way except the referee... and that Referee uses Rule Zero anyway, so why argue about it?

Do we want to get into how I dislike using boon and bane and prefer to allow players to change any roll by "1" so long as they take a significant consequence? Oh no, I have broken the core rules! I have ruined Traveller for everyone!

 

[MasterGwydion]

I don't think you are getting the hierarchy.

Rule zero: All rules are optional to the end user

Referee sets the laws of physics

Core rules: the mechanics and constraints expected to operate in all settings
Expanded rules: additional mechanics (rules) and constraints for specialized scenarios, like High Guard for building spacecraft

Basic rules of physics...

Setting rules: homogenous history and mechanics (rules) expected to operate in a particular setting, like the Third Imperium

Earth - Specific rules of physics such as the acceleration due to gravity (roughly 9.8m/s2), but does not violate any of the above rules.

Campaign rules: homogenous history and mechanics for a series of play sessions covering a linked set of adventures

United States of America - Specific laws such as the national drinking age. Does not violate any of the laws of physics in the above categories.

Adventure rules: a series of set pieces, narrative, and mechanics intended to cover a group's endeavors

State of Ohio - Specific laws which do not violate the laws of physics or the laws of the United States, such as having a driving age of 16.

A lower tier's rules supersede only for that tier and below.

Lower tiers should never violate higher tiers.

Nothing about Element Class Cruisers stops people from playing Traveller the core rules or Core Rules + High Guard way except the referee... and that Referee uses Rule Zero anyway, so why argue about it?

An Element-class Cruiser is in High Guard.

You seem to have an issue with understanding what I am saying. You are an end-user and can do anything you wish. Mongoose is the publisher and should be required to follow their own rules. If they want to add new rules, put it in the rulebook.

Do we want to get into how I dislike using boon and bane and prefer to allow players to change any roll by "1" so long as they take a significant consequence? Oh no, I have broken the core rules! I have ruined Traveller for everyone!

You are an end-user and can do whatever you want at your table and it is fine, encouraged even. How do you see what I am saying as constraining what you do at your table? It does not. Nor does what you do at your table ruin Traveller for anyone.

You are an end-user and can do anything you like.

I am not talking about end-users. Why do I have to keep repeating this same thing? I am talking about the publishers. So, nothing that you do at your own table has any bearing on this conversation. Nor anything I do at my table either, for that matter. We are discussing game design and publishing. We are not discussing how the game is played. We are discussing how it is written, edited, and published.

 

[shirgall]

Basic rules of physics are already discarded by the M-drive and J-drive. The rest of your post is invalid.

 

[shirgall]

Snark aside, I don't think your argument that publishers cannot make adventures that have rule differences makes no sense and hurts the product line.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Snark aside, I don't think your argument that publishers cannot make adventures that have rule differences makes no sense and hurts the product line.

Then you agree with me. If I read your reply right. It has a lot of double negatives.

You don't think that publishers can't make adventures with rule differences makes no sense and hurts the product line

Meaning you do believe that publishers can't make adventures with rule differences.

As you said, snark aside. I think it is a quality control issue. How do you control rule bloat if there are random rules all over the place and any adventure writer can make up any rules that they wish? Over time, you end up with a mess. Is that what you are advocating?

 

[shirgall]

No, your argument "publishers cannot make adventures that have rule differences" makes no sense and hurts the product line.

 

[shirgall]

My approach with new endeavors at the table is to start at the core and add what makes sense. I don't look at my entire library and try to rationalize localized differences. It's a tree not a soup.