Bland covers. Why?

[tneva82]

As for the rule books being better served without art, I don't buy it. GURPS and Hero have produced a lot of generic rule books and yet still managed to give them imaginative covers with artwork on them, so why can't Mongoose do that too?

So how would you create art for rulebooks that give _no preconception whatsoever_ regarding feeling of setting? Pretty hard actually. Have a gun there and people except to see guns when those rules are used yet there's actually no reason why main rules would be used with setting involving gun. Etc etc etc.

 

[tneva82]

Sure, but they don't have any evidence that it wouldn't be selling even better if it had a good, evocative illustration on the cover...

No evidence against either. But odds are it would sell less.

 

[EDG]

So how would you create art for rulebooks that give _no preconception whatsoever_ regarding feeling of setting? Pretty hard actually. Have a gun there and people except to see guns when those rules are used yet there's actually no reason why main rules would be used with setting involving gun. Etc etc etc.

The point with generic books isn't that you must have it without any preconception at all of a feel of a setting, the point is to show that the rules can do a wide variety of things. Look at the interior art of the GURPS or Hero books and you'll see a big variety of scenes appropriate to the text (combat might have a fantasy melee, or superheroes punching it out, or people shooting laser guns at eachother, or monsters ripping into 1920s investigators, but the point is that it's all combat no matter what).

But if you want 'no preconception of setting at all' then you're better off just not having any artwork.

 

[tneva82]

I don't just want Traveller to be cool for the 30+ (or even 40+) crowd, I want Traveller to be cool for the current generation of gamers - the teens teens and the 20-somethings.

Then you need to create cookie-cutter hack&slash rules more reminent of MMORPG's than classic RPG's. Have fun creating that.

 

[tneva82]

Because I just see a huge squandered opportunity here - it's a new edition, why not try to establish a new identity for the line as well?

Lemme see. Do I want to sell to _big_ crowd of old players who are interested in improved rules or this marginally _small_ group who might be interested.

I think you are going to get lot bigger sales by appealing to the exponentially larger group.

Face it. RPG's are dying games so number of new people are minimal and those few who are going to be interested are going to be interested on merits of _game_. Unless you go for MMORPG generation with cookie-cutter rules and big PR marketing but I don't want to see such a watered down rules for travelers thank you very much!

Why not put a scene where people are you know, making shady deals, like the ones that many of the patrons would want them to do?

And create preconceptions when it's supposed to be _generic_ supplement. Yeah. That's going to be such a good idea. Who says they have to be shady deals in a first place?

 

[tneva82]

But if you want 'no preconception of setting at all' then you're better off just not having any artwork.

And funny that they went for that route for the generic supplements while non-generic supplement got (not so great) art to cover. Gee I wonder why...

 

[EDG]

Then you need to create cookie-cutter hack&slash rules more reminent of MMORPG's than classic RPG's. Have fun creating that.

And people accuse me of being hard on the "old gamer" crowd, and yet they happily sneer at the younger generation... :roll:

You can talk about appealing to a big older crowd of gamers, but given an entirely different approach Traveller could have appealed to a huge crowd of active, younger gamers.

D&D4e is very MMO-ish and by all accounts its pretty bloody successful so far (hell, I actually like it more than 3.5e). Or does that mean nothing?


And I really don't see any evidence that RPGs are dying - evolving maybe, but not dying. But from where I'm standing the RPG market's never been better.

 

[EDG]

And funny that they went for that route for the generic supplements while non-generic supplement got (not so great) art to cover. Gee I wonder why...

You were talking about interior artwork, weren't you? Besides, the BRP book and the GURPS corebooks have cover art that shows their multi-genre 'generic-ness' very well.

Anyway, I'm OK with the corebook being the CT style cover. It's the supplements that I have the problem with, whether they're generic or not. And is 760 patrons really generic? It doesn't have any Aslan or Hivers or OTU races? (genuine question, I thought it did have those).

 

[tneva82]

but given an entirely different approach Traveller could have appealed to a huge crowd of active, younger gamers.

Which crowd? There is no such crowd...

D&D4e is very MMO-ish and by all accounts its pretty bloody successful so far (hell, I actually like it more than 3.5e). Or does that mean nothing?

Yes. It appealed to MMORPG group which is justabout only area where you could get new blood but for that to work for traveller you would have to make hack&slash MMORPG style rules. Thanks but no thanks. I rather take quality rules and leave hack&slash MMORPG group play D&D.

 

[EDG]

Yes. It appealed to MMORPG group which is justabout only area where you could get new blood but for that to work for traveller you would have to make hack&slash MMORPG style rules. Thanks but no thanks. I rather take quality rules and leave hack&slash MMORPG group play D&D.

Not at all. Actually, from a design perspective I think the 4e rules are pretty damn awesome. REALLY streamlined, less numbers flying around, a lot more modular... it's really good I think, and very cleverly designed. And it's pretty canny of them to do it that way (I was cynical at first too, then I actually played it and was pretty amazed at the simplicity).

There's no reason at all for Traveller to be inherently any less enjoyable and appealing if it was made like that. It might not appeal to you perhaps, but the market seems to be deciding that they quite like the MMO-style approach. And frankly, I think RPGs could do with being more streamlined and simpler - doesn't make them "dumber" or anything like that, but anything that means you spend less time figuring out modifiers at the table and more time actually roleplaying is good in my books.

Have you actually tried D&D4e yourself, or are you just dismissing it out of hand?

 

[tneva82]

and more time actually roleplaying is good in my books.

Roleplaying? D&D4? Two terms that don't match up. D&D is just tactical skirmishing in dungeons rather than role playing. Go there, kill the orcs, take the loot. Find next orcs.

 

[EDG]

Roleplaying? D&D4? Two terms that don't match up. D&D is just tactical skirmishing in dungeons rather than role playing. Go there, kill the orcs, take the loot. Find next orcs.

Hm. I guess the three year high level political D&D campaign I just played must have been some kind of hallucination then...

One could argue that Traveller is just economics with a bit of conflict - find a patron, do a job, maybe get in a bit of trouble, return for payback, find another patron.

You can make anything sound dull if you set your mind to it . But it really sounds to me like you haven't played D&D (let alone 4e) at all. Sure, it's combat heavy but there's absolutely nothing forcing anyone to play like that.

 

[-Daniel-]

Roleplaying? D&D4? Two terms that don't match up. D&D is just tactical skirmishing in dungeons rather than role playing. Go there, kill the orcs, take the loot. Find next orcs.

Hm. I guess the three year high level political D&D campaign I just played must have been some kind of hallucination then...

One could argue that Traveller is just economics with a bit of conflict - find a patron, do a job, maybe get in a bit of trouble, return for payback, find another patron.

You can make anything sound dull if you set your mind to it . But it really sounds to me like you haven't played D&D (let alone 4e) at all. Sure, it's combat heavy but there's absolutely nothing forcing anyone to play like that.

I have to agree with EDG 100% here. Any rule set can be turned into a non-role playing exercise and any rule set in the hands of a real role playing GM can be an exciting, living, breathing role playing haven. True that some rule sets lend themselves better one way or the other, but it is a joke to say that a rule set is “devoid of role playing”. It is the GM and players who make or break that aspect of the game.

Daniel

 

[rust]

... but given an entirely different approach Traveller could have appealed to a huge crowd of active, younger gamers.

I think it is a bit early for this assumption.

MGT obviously sells very well, and right now I see no way to know whe-
ther it sells to that presumed huge crowd or not, and whether this has
anything to do with the cover or not.

Also, D&D 4.0 is not exactly the great step forwards welcomed by the
younger players. At least half of what I hear and read is quite critical,
and many obviously decided to stay with, for example, 3.5 and Pathfin-
der.

So, in both cases, we should perhaps wait with a judgement until we ha-
ve more reliable data ... :wink:

 

[EDG]

MGT obviously sells very well, and right now I see no way to know whether it sells to that presumed huge crowd or not, and whether this has anything to do with the cover or not.

To be clear, neither do I. I get that MGT is selling well, but I was just suggesting that had Mongoose decided to go all the way and deliberately aim it at the MMO-type market then they might sell even more copies. Of course Mongoose wouldn't have done that anyway - can you imagine the hissyfits that would have erupted at how much Traveller had changed as a result? It'd make the TNE furore look like a minor squabble!

Also, D&D 4.0 is not exactly the great step forwards welcomed by the younger players. At least half of what I hear and read is quite critical,
and many obviously decided to stay with, for example, 3.5 and Pathfin-
der.

Try it yourself and see. You may be surprised.

 

[rust]

Try it yourself and see. You may be surprised.

Ah, I am no longer into Fantasy any more, I watch the debate from the
sideline. However, if there will be a Future d20 4.0, I might perhaps give
it a try.

 

[Jeff Hopper]

I've read and heard enough critical opinion of D&D4 both online and in person by those who have tried it. While D&D4 may be big, it is not universally liked or going to replace the 3.x D&D of many gamers who are instead taking a long hard look at Paizo's Pathfinder system.

Maybe a MMORPG is best played on a computer and not a tabletop, but that is something that we can better figure out in a year after the game has come out and not this soon.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I have played D&D 4th edition, and it does feel like a skirmish/minatures game. Longterm players of D&D that I have spoken to in clubs tend to express the view that the game is fun.....but not D&D as they see it.

Notwithstanding the usual resistence to change from some fanbases, it is still noteworthy that many D&D groups are playing older editions. Much moreso than after the release of 3rd edition.

 

[EDG]

Thing is, I'm pretty sure that people were grumbling about D&D 3.0 when it came out too. And for them there's things like OSRIC.

I'm sure there will be those who carry on playing D&D 3.5 in its various forms (and to be fair, it wasn't bad, and there were some really good takes on it - I really dug Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved for example, and d20 Modern was pretty cool too). But personally I don't see myself going back to it at all... 3.5 was WAY too crunchy at high levels and far too detailed for my tastes. I find I quite like like the elegance and simplicity of D&D4e, and how that holds up at the higher levels.

Not that 4e is perfect though - I think the game does lose something with that simplicity... but as a player I think it's a hell of a lot more manageable than 3.5e.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Some long time fans were grumbling about D&D3.0, but nothing like this volume - they were very much a small minority.

Moreover, the prevailant buzz about 3rd edition was that it was attracting back many old fans, that had moved on from D&D during the previous decade or so. This is not the case with 4th edition.

Don't get me wrong, D&D 4th will still have a large fanbase, but it's not the 'inclusive' game that 3rdEd/d20/OGL aspired to be.

Looking at the gaming groups I go to, as it stands, the D&D community looks to be fractured by it's editions in a manner that entirely relates to the way the Traveller community is/was.