Bland covers. Why?

[Xoph]

I ordered CT on Disk because of MGT.

And yes, I like the black covers they are very distinctive. I first noticed the book becuase of the cover. I think all core supplements should be done with that cover.

On the topic of covers did any one else notice the 760 Patrons cover looks like it was zoomed in on and therefore trimed too far on the top and right? Yo can totally tell if you compare it to the core book.

 

[Jame Rowe]

A cover illustration would help sell these books guys!

It _so_ wouldn't.

Impression of California Valley ... Uh, Kid ... is given a:

7!

 

[EDG]

I am not convinced that this is true. Almost all RPGs have cover illustrations, so the classic Traveller look really stands out as something special.

Bingo!

I can see why it can be argued that it'd stand out... but my issue with it is that apparently nobody could come up with a more original way for it to do so. And it seems odd to revert to the look of a version that hasn't had anything new produced for it for what, 25 years? I guess WotC don't agree with that logic given that the new D&D books look like something new and not like AD&D 1e...

 

[AKAramis]

And frankly, the black covers haven't been done for corebooks since the CT days. MT didn't have then, TNE didn't have them, T4 had black covers with pictures, and the T20 books didn't have them either. Sure, some of the adventures and supplements released for T20 did have the LBB look, but then again all the Traveller's Aides didn't.

So is the LBB really that 'distinctive' of Traveller? I don't think it is.

If Mongoose wants to aim at the CT crowd then it's recognisable, but I don't think the LBB look is doing them any favours with the newer generation - and I suspect that is probably why they went for something different (i.e. cover artwork) with the Spinward Marches book.

During MT, there were complaints on WWIV-Net subs that it didn't "look like Traveller." (I was one of those complaining.) TNE, yeah, well, it didn't look like either CT nor MT.

T4: black covers, inset illos. Crappy illos, at that. Other than the Illos, a nice look.

GT: looks much like T4.

However, CT has been the visual reference.

And, to be honest, the people I've seen ask about it MORE because the cover is so simple.

 

[rust]

I guess WotC don't agree with that logic given that the new D&D books look like something new and not like AD&D 1e...

As far as I understand it, WotC would not want to see D&D 4.0 associated
in any way with AD&D 1.0, because their major sales argument usually
has been that each new edition was very much different from the previous
ones (why else buy edition after edition after edition ...).
Different covers underline the differences.

On the other hand, a major sales argument for MGT is that it is close to
the spirit of CT, and therefore it could help sales to have MGT associated
with CT.
Similar covers underline the association.

 

[-Daniel-]

If Mongoose wants to aim at the CT crowd then it's recognisable, but I don't think the LBB look is doing them any favours with the newer generation - and I suspect that is probably why they went for something different (i.e. cover artwork) with the Spinward Marches book.

I suspect that it is more along the lines of what Rikki Tikki Traveller said:

The RULES books are basic black.

The SETTING books (Spinward Marches) have picture-like covers.

I also agree with him that I would expect any "setting books" to be colorful with pictures. To be honest I would say the saem for any adventures they elect to do. Belter for example, should have pictures.

But to be honest, I was going to buy the most of the books either way.

Daniel

 

[Ishmael]

Black with line and text....without any preconceived notions of what the universe looks like. Rules are not settings. Let settings books have pictures of what the setting looks like.

For those who do not wish to play in the OTU, let them decide what their own look is.

 

[EDG]

As far as I understand it, WotC would not want to see D&D 4.0 associated in any way with AD&D 1.0, because their major sales argument usually has been that each new edition was very much different from the previous ones (why else buy edition after edition after edition ...). Different covers underline the differences.

On the other hand, a major sales argument for MGT is that it is close to
the spirit of CT, and therefore it could help sales to have MGT associated
with CT.
Similar covers underline the association.

That's what I don't get. The implication is that the majority of Traveller fans are a backward-looking bunch, who only like new things if they're remiscent of the old (and to be honest, that implication seems to be largely supported by reality). It could even be argued that a lot of Traveller fans haven't really moved past CT. It's like saying "give us new, just don't give us different".

It also seems a bit harsh on the later editions too. Is there nothing worth reminiscing about with MT or TNE or T4 or GT or anything else? is CT the be-all and end-all of Traveller? Of course it isn't.

But then on the other hand you have D&D fans who apparently don't expect new editions to be reminiscent of the old ones (at least not so much as Traveller fans). The new edition of D&D is pretty much a brand new game that has some superficial similarities to the older D&Ds, and pretty much nothing in common with 1e at all. Not that everyone has to like the new direction, but at least it's going forward somewhere.

I can see how any group would feel some nostalgia about the earlier editions of the game, and there's always going to be those that claim that the first editions are the best and that's fair enough. But I just don't get why the Traveller community seems to cling so much to CT. I just think it's a pity that Mongoose has given the rules a long overdue updating, yet they're still choosing to present them in such an unimaginative, retro way.

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?

 

[Imperator58]

Here I go again, as promised!
Me personally, I started Traveller w/ Classic. Recently, Quiklink Interactive got the license and decided to do it as a d20 game. I thought, AWESOME!! I'd love to have it made compatible with other d20 games. Kinda like GURPS traveller, but more familiar.
Then came the pain: a six-month wait for my pre-order AFTER the game was released, no Contact information, a $45 price tag and then forty pages of arrata - page after page after page of entire charts that were effed up. I put the damned thing on the shelf and that was that. Done, and done.
So, I was certainly willing to take Traveller in a new direction, but the unspeakable mismanagement of the game under QLI ruined it. I frankly expected Traveller to never raise it's head again! Buried at last, I thought.
But Mongoose got it, and basically - after like SIX EDITIONS - elected to go back to Square One. I think it's a Good Thing. Traveller's one of the best games ever made, but it's just had the snot beat out of it; people need to see it at it's basic best. So I wouldn't bash the Old (wo)Men of the Game too bad. It's had thirty years to do different stuff, and they didn't work. Go back to the Black Books and enjoy the ride.

 

[rust]

... yet they're still choosing to present them in such an unimaginative, retro way.

I think, as a company they have to present the game in the way that
has the highest probability to create a high number of sales. And the
Traveller fan community being as it is, the "retro way" most likely is
the best approach from a commercial point of view.

 

[EDG]

I think, as a company they have to present the game in the way that has the highest probability to create a high number of sales. And the
Traveller fan community being as it is, the "retro way" most likely is
the best approach from a commercial point of view.

Yeah, but the Traveller community is a bit odd in that regard. A lot of Traveller fans are just collectors, rather than players. Some are curious to see how a new system handles things, but lets face it - most of the people being targeted by Mongoose have been playing the game for 30-odd years have got their own systems that they're quite happy with thank you very much, and it will take a lot of convincing to get them to drop all that and adapt to a new system.

Whereas the people who are interested in seeing a new version of the game that fixes the problems with the old edition (and there are several significant problems with CT) are being presented with something that does that, and yet looks pretty much like the old game that had those problems in the first place.

It just seems a bit contradictory to me. Mongoose's Traveller is a good step forward from CT in terms of the rules, and I think it's dragged the game kicking and screaming into the 21st century finally... but it seems to be presented in precisely the wrong way to get the attention of the people who'd be most interested in seeing that.

 

[EDG]

It's had thirty years to do different stuff, and they didn't work. Go back to the Black Books and enjoy the ride.

I'd say that's somewhat inaccurate. Maybe it didn't work for you, but if you're going to sit there and tell me that MT, TNE and GURPS Traveller "didn't work" then I'll point you to a lot of people who think that those worked pretty damn well for them .

But T20 was chronically mismanaged, yes. It started off promising, but just didn't follow through. And it's dead now because of that.

 

[AKAmra]

1) The black is basic and timeless, unlike most illustrations.
2) MGT, according to Mongoose, is selling very well with the black.
3) I'm very partial to an understated, classy cover over illustrations. The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and D&D 3.5 Limited Edition covers are good examples. I think the new BRP book should have been the Chaosium Dragon on a plain field of color (say gold on green or silver on black) - hopefully the hard cover version will be.

P.S. I really like the color coded covers of QLI, that was a great idea and I hope Mongoose does something similar.

 

[EDG]

1) The black is basic and timeless, unlike most illustrations.

It's basic, yes. And it's "timeless" only in the sense that it's a plain colour - plain red or blue or yellow is equally "timeless" in that regard.

I don't doubt that it plucks the nostalgia strings for some people. I'd have just preferred to see something more forward-thinking instead.

2) MGT, according to Mongoose, is selling very well with the black.

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...

I think the new BRP book should have been the Chaosium Dragon on a plain field of color (say gold on green or silver on black) - hopefully the hard cover version will be.

Ugh. I love the cover of the BRP book as it is - the multi-genre Leonardo Da Vinci quite cleverly shows what the system can do (and it's much better than the really awful one that was originally planned and rejected very loudly by the fans!)

 

[Infojunky]

I for one am a big fan of doing what ever it takes to keep the prices of game supplements down to the lowest possible level. And the stark cover of Traveller books are a good start, one less expense to inflate the cost.

A game book is meant to be used, not displayed.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Impression of California Valley ... Uh, Kid ... is given a:

7!

Oh, like, whatever. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

I guess WotC don't agree with that logic given that the new D&D books look like something new and not like AD&D 1e...

On the other hand, Goodman Games has built an entire company based on replicating 1e scenarios. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

2) MGT, according to Mongoose, is selling very well with the black.

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...

With current sales, Traveller has every chance of being the second best selling RPG of 2008.

Umm, I'll take that.

 

[EDG]

With current sales, Traveller has every chance of being the second best selling RPG of 2008.

Umm, I'll take that.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I suspect that it would still have been the second best selling RPG of 2008 with a picture on the cover.

(presumably the first are the new D&D books?)

 

[Myrm]

Hmm the poll diesnt really reflect the line. Spinward has a pretty illustration. THe core books don't. So there is obviously flexibility.

Im afraid Im with the LBB style vote. Yes its minimalist, but its striking and it provides a line identity. If I go to the DnD aisle the books are all sort of colours and styles, I can't tell on the shelf where DnD/WotC ends and Vampire/White Wolf starts.

Traveller I can see from the other side of the shop. Even if its a now book that black with a bold coloured stripe and text stands out and screams 'Lookee here, you don't own me yet but you know Im Traveller' - and yes I nearly missed Spinward Marches on the shelf. There are other lines that use this type of advertising and I think it has considerable merit.

Is it particularly useful in the hobby in general as Point of Sale advertising - I don't know - While I missed Spinward Marches on the shelf I knew it was coming and had pre-ordered it at the shop so they had my copy off to the side anyway. I know a lot of people who work like that....but brand identity is good IMO. Classic Traveller style is probably recognisable even to those who play subsequent generations of the game, so you likely catch them too. I do not know enough to wonder if artist costs keep the book price down.