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.

 

[MasterGwydion]

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.

You do realize that over time, you will end up with incompatible books that are supposed to be part of the same setting?

 

[shirgall]

You do realize that over time, you will end up with incompatible books that are supposed to be part of the same setting?

If they are adventures it matters not at all to me. If they are settings books, a little editorial consistency would be appreciated. There are plenty of material errors to chase down as well, I'd put it in the same category.

 

[hopsnbaer]

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?

Just want to answer your question.

I don't care.

I call continually adding options and random rule changes as Rule Bloat and as a general rule I am against it. You are not going to get rid of it because it helps sell product. I also have no problem starting a game with just the Core Rulebook and nothing else and ignoring any rule that I find offensive.

I mean you can literally play a version of Traveller with 2 pages of rules. See Quantum Cepheus.

I don't see how getting upset over inconsistencies, rule changes or adds that you can just ignore as productive when it doesn't really make a difference to my Narrative.

I look at Traveller as a story telling game not a sim. if it were a wargame probably.

You are just causing yourself dissonance by dwelling on it.

 

[Vormaerin]

For some people is it is very important that there be hard rule answers to questions. That's never really been Traveller's main design, because it's covering an extremely broad swath of options. There are, of course, more inconsistencies and conflicting rules than we'd like. But the idea that it is possible to put every necessary situational ruling in the core rule books does not make sense to me.

While there are additions to the rules that I don't like, I also know that there are people who do like those additions. And I'm sure there are rules additions that I think are cool that other people are like "ugh, bloat!".

IMHO, authors should try to resolve situations with the existing rules whereever possible. But if you are introducing a new kind of situation, that may not be possible.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Just want to answer your question.

I don't care.

I call continually adding options and random rule changes as Rule Bloat and as a general rule I am against it. You are not going to get rid of it because it helps sell product. I also have no problem starting a game with just the Core Rulebook and nothing else and ignoring any rule that I find offensive.

I mean you can literally play a version of Traveller with 2 pages of rules. See Quantum Cepheus.

I don't see how getting upset over inconsistencies, rule changes or adds that you can just ignore as productive when it doesn't really make a difference to my Narrative.

I look at Traveller as a story telling game not a sim. if it were a wargame probably.

You are just causing yourself dissonance by dwelling on it.

For some people is it is very important that there be hard rule answers to questions. That's never really been Traveller's main design, because it's covering an extremely broad swath of options. There are, of course, more inconsistencies and conflicting rules than we'd like. But the idea that it is possible to put every necessary situational ruling in the core rule books does not make sense to me.

While there are additions to the rules that I don't like, I also know that there are people who do like those additions. And I'm sure there are rules additions that I think are cool that other people are like "ugh, bloat!".

IMHO, authors should try to resolve situations with the existing rules whereever possible. But if you are introducing a new kind of situation, that may not be possible.

If it isn't possible to do within the existing rules, add a rule. Just put it in a rulebook, not in an adventure. Another reason to do this, it requires whoever writes the rule initial to be away that it will have to pass muster in regard to the larger overall rules of the game.

If someone writes an adventure set in the OTU in 1,105 and has new rules allowing warp drive to be used at TL-9, then it shouldn't be in an OTU book.

What do you guys have against all rules being in a rule book? It literally holds you back in no way whatsoever, but it causes people like me no end of grief. Doing it my way costs you nothing. It may cost Mongoose a bit more in quality control, but more quality control is never a bad thing. So, why speak against something that as you all have said, doesn't affect you at all?

 

[hopsnbaer]

If it isn't possible to do within the existing rules, add a rule. Just put it in a rulebook, not in an adventure. Another reason to do this, it requires whoever writes the rule initial to be away that it will have to pass muster in regard to the larger overall rules of the game.

If someone writes an adventure set in the OTU in 1,105 and has new rules allowing warp drive to be used at TL-9, then it shouldn't be in an OTU book.

What do you guys have against all rules being in a rule book? It literally holds you back in no way whatsoever, but it causes people like me no end of grief. Doing it my way costs you nothing. It may cost Mongoose a bit more in quality control, but more quality control is never a bad thing. So, why speak against something that as you all have said, doesn't affect you at all?

I get where you are coming from.

I just don't think it realistic to expect that an author of an adventure, that gets what they think is a great idea that they want, and think they need to make the adventure interesting, won't put it in and then we expect Mongoose to remove it because it's not in a core book somewhere.

Especially not MJD who seems to be the Stephen King of pumping out Traveller material and messing with the rules.

I think you will be a happier if you just make what they give us yours and ignore the stuff you don't like.

have you ever run an adventure exactly as it was written?

I also have no issue with you sticking to your guns and working towards rules harmony.

and that's just my opinion.

 

[Sigtrygg]

How about an example of an author making up a ship design subsystem rather than a system that already exists in the latest version of HG?

It demonstrates that the author didn't know the current version of HG well enough, and the editorial team didn't think to themselves "this already exists in HG2022 in this form that does what the author of this adventure intends" and change it to match the rules as written in a core rule book.

 

[hopsnbaer]

How about an example of an author making up a ship design subsystem rather than a system that already exists in the latest version of HG?

It demonstrates that the author didn't know the current version of HG well enough, and the editorial team didn't think to themselves "this already exists in HG2022 in this form that does what the author of this adventure intends" and change it to match the rules as written in a core rule book.

That would be cool, but I don't think with 50 years of history and almost 20 years of that Mongoose history to look back on, we will see that.

I don't think it realistic to expect changes, and more than likely using the rule as it is stated in the module, won't hurt my next story.

If it comes up later, I will deal with it and try to maintain a consistent ruling for the players.

Even with all the warts and boils, I still love the game.

Mongoose seems to be making large staffing changes, I think there have already been changes in that direction.

 

[Vormaerin]

Ideally, multiple systems covering the same situation would be avoided before printing or resolved in the updates.

But I think that's a tangent to the actual point, which is that adding new rules for new things is actually acceptable as a general principle.

 

[MasterGwydion]

How about an example of an author making up a ship design subsystem rather than a system that already exists in the latest version of HG?

It demonstrates that the author didn't know the current version of HG well enough, and the editorial team didn't think to themselves "this already exists in HG2022 in this form that does what the author of this adventure intends" and change it to match the rules as written in a core rule book.

I can show the opposite. Something in the general rules that was in Element-class Cruisers, and is the rule in Charted Space, but isn't in High Guard.

Also, how many different types of M-drive are there now scattered among the different books? Concealed M-Drives, Adjustable M-Drives, etc. Why is none of that in the book that actually covers building ships? I know this gives @Arkathan a headache. He has said as much on these boards. It is not just me.

I hate finding a cool new ship in a new book and find out that there is no way to build it because I don't have rules for it, because the ship's author found the rule in a non-rulebook, liked it, and included it in his design. Can't build the Ghalalk-class Cruiser. No rules for pods in High Guard, but the Ghalalk-class Cruiser is in High Guard.

 

[mavikfelna]

How about an example of an author making up a ship design subsystem rather than a system that already exists in the latest version of HG?

It demonstrates that the author didn't know the current version of HG well enough, and the editorial team didn't think to themselves "this already exists in HG2022 in this form that does what the author of this adventure intends" and change it to match the rules as written in a core rule book.

This is why we 4 different ramscoops that all work differently and Incompatible with each other and often other rules

 

[MasterGwydion]

This is why we 4 different ramscoops that all work differently and Incompatible with each other and often other rules

I hadn't even seen that one yet, but good call.

 

[hopsnbaer]

This is why we 4 different ramscoops that all work differently and Incompatible with each other and often other rules

Yeah, but does it hurt the story to use any one of those? I mean do you really need to know how a car engine works for a car chase?

I agree that is just lazy...

 

[Sigtrygg]

That would be cool, but I don't think with 50 years of history and almost 20 years of that Mongoose history to look back on, we will see that.

It has already happened, I am citing an example. There are others, as has been mentioned while I was composing this post lol.

I don't think it realistic to expect changes, and more than likely using the rule as it is stated in the module, won't hurt my next story.

The point I am making is that some authors are making up new rules for their work because they don't know the current rules, and the editorial team doesn't enforce the use of the rules as written. Which leads to contradictions for later authors and confusion for referees and players.

If it comes up later, I will deal with it and try to maintain a consistent ruling for the players.

It has already happened.

Even with all the warts and boils, I still love the game.

We all do, that is why we play it, that is why we visit these boards, and that is why we comment about the game.

Mongoose seems to be making large staffing changes, I think there have already been changes in that direction.

I don't think so.

All of that said I don't mind new rules in adventures or supplements that are necessitated by the lack of rules in the core books to cover the topics covered by the adventure or supplement. But to make up a new sub system just because you can't be bothered to learn the rules you are writing for...

 

[Sigtrygg]

Ideally, multiple systems covering the same situation would be avoided before printing or resolved in the updates.

In an ideal world that would be the task of the editorial team before it gets to general release.

But I think that's a tangent to the actual point, which is that adding new rules for new things is actually acceptable as a general principle.

If there are no core rules to cover the adventure or supplement situation then I am all for it.

 

[MasterGwydion]

In an ideal world that would be the task of the editorial team before it gets to general release.

If there are no core rules to cover the adventure or supplement situation then I am all for it.

I have no problem with this, but in the next printing/publishing of the appropriate rulebook, the rule should be printed in there as well, not just in adventures.

Edit -

Use Encyclopedia Britannica as an example. They only put out new editions every several years, but they updated them and printed them with the updates yearly. So, whenever you bought the book, it was the most updated printing. As in RPG books, the newer books overrule the text in older books.

 

[shirgall]

If go in the "ideal" direction we all have to have the same exact value system around all of the aspects, constraints, levers, and processes of gameplay. Good luck.

 

[MasterGwydion]

If go in the "ideal" direction we all have to have the same exact value system around all of the aspects, constraints, levers, and processes of gameplay. Good luck.

No. We don't. Just put all of the rules in rulebooks. How does that negatively impact your gaming? How does that favor one Referee over another? One player over another? It doesn't. It affects you not at all. You want to make it this whole huge philosophical/existential discussion. It isn't. Just put all of the rules in the rulebooks. It is literally the reason they exist. To contain rules.

Edit - This is all I am saying. Nothing more. Just this.

 

[shirgall]

No. We don't. Just put all of the rules in rulebooks. How does that negatively impact your gaming? How does that favor one Referee over another? One player over another? It doesn't. It affects you not at all. You want to make it this whole huge philosophical/existential discussion. It isn't. Just put all of the rules in the rulebooks. It is literally the reason they exist. To contain rules.

Edit - This is all I am saying. Nothing more. Just this.

Those rules will contradict one another unless you make value judgements about what is in, what is out, and what has to be changed. The philosophical content is "optionality doesn't hurt the referee or the system or the brand". It does require some curation for the referee. Put the widely-agreed and solid gameplay stuff in the core, yes. But the rest, give them elbow room to be creative.

 

[Arkathan]

Those rules will contradict one another unless you make value judgements about what is in, what is out, and what has to be changed. The philosophical content is "optionality doesn't hurt the referee or the system or the brand". It does require some curation for the referee. Put the widely-agreed and solid gameplay stuff in the core, yes. But the rest, give them elbow room to be creative.

Rules that contradict each other have no point existing. Whether you call it insanity, sloppiness, laziness or ignorance - it carries negative connotations for the game system. The PTB's need to choose which one is valid, and that is what is valid.
Editing should eliminate proposed rules that conflict with existing rules, unless the goal is to supersede the existing rule - in which case that needs to be plainly stated.
Setting specific rules need to be stated as setting specific.