Further Playtesting? Merc? Scouts? High Guard? Others?

[Border Reiver]

Now that the book is published and hitting the shops will there be any playtesting/previews of the advanced rulesets?

In the meantime can I take this opportunity to congratulate Gareth, Chris and everyone else involved for the Traveller core rules, it is very nice and more importantly accessable. It will attract criticism (including my own personal bugbears about it) but is overall a very sound and playable game.

 

[rust]

Now that the book is published and hitting the shops will there be any playtesting/previews of the advanced rulesets?

I would love to see more playtests. However, after their experiences with
the open playtest of the main rules the Mongoose people would truly need
nerves of steel and an incredible frustration tolerance to agree to suffer
anything of that kind again ...

 

[-Daniel-]

Now that the book is published and hitting the shops will there be any playtesting/previews of the advanced rulesets?

I would love to see more playtests. However, after their experiences with
the open playtest of the main rules the Mongoose people would truly need
nerves of steel and an incredible frustration tolerance to agree to suffer
anything of that kind again ...

I agree with Rust. I would not expect Mongoose to do much more "open" playtesting. I am sure they will have playtesting done, but to open it up to all of us again seems like it would be a mistake.

Daniel

 

[atpollard]

An open playtest would be a lot less painful to the publisher if they just avoided the 'Topics' and read only the 'official' responses via e-mail.

The flames of war can rage on ... but the office will remain a quiet place.

 

[B_Steele]

An open playtest would be a lot less painful to the publisher if they just avoided the 'Topics' and read only the 'official' responses via e-mail.

The flames of war can rage on ... but the office will remain a quiet place.

The problem is however, that the flame wars that happen here can look very bad for the Traveller community or new players looking to see what Trav is all about.

I am personally all for internal playtesting only, especially after the onslaught of craziness that happened with the open one, but that is a decision that occurs a few pay-grades higher than mine within the 'Goose.

-Bry

 

[dmccoy1693]

The problem is however, that the flame wars that happen here can look very bad for the Traveller community or new players looking to see what Trav is all about.

I am personally all for internal playtesting only, especially after the onslaught of craziness that happened with the open one, but that is a decision that occurs a few pay-grades higher than mine within the 'Goose.

I understand it isn't exactly the most pleasant experience, but I was able to use the playtest doc to get some of my gamers interested in a game other then D&D (for once).

 

[-Daniel-]

I understand it isn't exactly the most pleasant experience, but I was able to use the playtest doc to get some of my gamers interested in a game other then D&D (for once).

But at this point the main rule book will be out so I believe an open playtest of support materials would not play that same role IMO.

Daniel

 

[rust]

But at this point the main rule book will be out so I believe an open playtest of support materials would not play that same role IMO.

Ah, just imagine the kind of "lively discussion" the ship building and space
combat rules of the new High Guard could cause, or the "debate" about
the trade rules of a new Merchant Prince ... :twisted:

 

[hdrider67]

An open playtest would be a lot less painful to the publisher if they just avoided the 'Topics' and read only the 'official' responses via e-mail.

The flames of war can rage on ... but the office will remain a quiet place.

The problem is however, that the flame wars that happen here can look very bad for the Traveller community or new players looking to see what Trav is all about.

I am personally all for internal playtesting only, especially after the onslaught of craziness that happened with the open one, but that is a decision that occurs a few pay-grades higher than mine within the 'Goose.

-Bry

I disagree. If you have an internal only playtest, you get less of an idea how the final product will be received. Sure the testing will be cordial but you run the risk of being *too* cordial.

That said, I disliked the acrimony here as much as anyone. You have new posting guidelines that address that. If those are applied strenuously, you should be fine.

If nothing else, the closed playtest should include some of the regular forum members who managed to criticize without being abusive.

Not that I'm asking or anything... ;-)

But at this point the main rule book will be out so I believe an open playtest of support materials would not play that same role IMO.

Ah, just imagine the kind of "lively discussion" the ship building and space
combat rules of the new High Guard could cause, or the "debate" about
the trade rules of a new Merchant Prince ... :twisted:

LOL!!

Seriously, though. I've been making some noise on scaling ship weapons. Having people who are critical of the first draft could make a good product better, at least by giving ideas that could be sued as optional components (like the FTL options in the preview). I think positive criticism would be great and criticism (of all types) stopped the T/E mechanic from being a bigger problem for Mongoose.

 

[Border Reiver]

:lol:
I hadn't realised that everything had become so acrimonious whilst I my iBook was getting repaired. I'd seen some strongly worded opinions but I take it things got out of hand :roll:

Oh well. Plus ça change.

 

[AKAramis]

:lol:
I hadn't realised that everything had become so acrimonious whilst I my iBook was getting repaired. I'd seen some strongly worded opinions but I take it things got out of hand :roll:

Oh well. Plus ça change.

The really hot-under-the-collar posts got their threads deleted... quite a few threads got deleted.

 

[kafka]

ok, you answered my earlier question. However, I think that you are wrong to abandon the idea of open testing...yes, it is painful for people to tear each other apart and the ideas that some have but it does create a better product. I think the whole Traveller community stands united in their desire to see that Mongoose produce the best product possible even if it means waiting longer for product.

 

[AKAramis]

from here, it looks lie two certain shouters got a decent system needing a minor fix tossed in favor of a much less tested and less useful system.

The problem is that the open playtest created much dissension, and turned into bad publicity right quick.

Open playtest is seldom good overall.

 

[Allensh]

ok, you answered my earlier question. However, I think that you are wrong to abandon the idea of open testing...yes, it is painful for people to tear each other apart and the ideas that some have but it does create a better product. I think the whole Traveller community stands united in their desire to see that Mongoose produce the best product possible even if it means waiting longer for product.

Sadly, this is not true. I occasionally am on the #Traveller IRC channel on Undernet and there is one person on there who adamantly seems to want MGT to fail. It also seems to be cooly received and largely ignored on the Traveller Mailing List.

And this is too bad, because I really like MGT even with the "issues" with armors and weapon bays (all easily fixable).

Allen

 

[Infojunky]

It also seems to be cooly received and largely ignored on the Traveller Mailing List.

Cooly? Allen how long have you been a member of the TML? And what was your Essay?

It was receive quite well by that crowd. I don't know where you would get cool from. Yes the TML has 20 years of inertia, there are far too many inside jokes and other hot button topics than you could shake a stick at. But right now it is holding it's collective breath to see how Mongoose handles the Grand old Game. 'cuase we went all out for T4 and got royally screwed. The TML membership contains authors of material for every edition of the game.

For all that, we need new dynamic members, Join, jump in, and hold on, the list is what the membership makes it. And most likely it will be going still when this forum goes flat.

 

[cmdrx]

It was receive quite well by that crowd. I don't know where you would get cool from. Yes the TML has 20 years of inertia, there are far too many inside jokes and other hot button topics than you could shake a stick at. But right now it is holding it's collective breath to see how Mongoose handles the Grand old Game. 'cuase we went all out for T4 and got royally screwed. The TML membership contains authors of material for every edition of the game.

For all that, we need new dynamic members, Join, jump in, and hold on, the list is what the membership makes it. And most likely it will be going still when this forum goes flat.

Goodness, I had all but forgotten the TML. I joined that thing back in the Mid-90s when TNE was the latest thing, and yes I was one of the guys who got burned by T4. I was also one of the "regulars" on #traveller irc. Sadly I have largely went inactive on that thing due to life and work schedules. I have been told that is the "sign of the aging gamer". I sure hope not! To take a quote from a Monty Phyton movie: "I'm 37! I'm not old!"

But yes. The TML will be here when the 10th editon of Traveller comes out some time in the mid 21st century (you can bet D&D will be up to 15th) and the young bucks are the "Great Old Ones".

 

[-Daniel-]

The problem is that the open playtest created much dissension, and turned into bad publicity right quick.

I have to agree with AKAramis here. The flame wars were so bad at one point I almost gave up on MGT and just keep to playing CT. One member reached out to me and suggested I just wait until the book comes out and ignore both sides of the wars.

To that member I will always be greatful. The book came out and was much better then the wars made me feel it would be. On top of that many of the folks who were so angry seemed to have mellowed once it was out.

Daniel

 

[AKAramis]

The problem is that the open playtest created much dissension, and turned into bad publicity right quick.

I have to agree with AKAramis here. The flame wars were so bad at one point I almost gave up on MGT and just keep to playing CT. One member reached out to me and suggested I just wait until the book comes out and ignore both sides of the wars.

To that member I will always be greatful. The book came out and was much better then the wars made me feel it would be. On top of that many of the folks who were so angry seemed to have mellowed once it was out.

Daniel

A few of them simply took their bitch and moan elsewhere.

 

[-Daniel-]

A few of them simply took their bitch and moan elsewhere.

Yes, that too. :lol:

Daniel

 

[Supergamera]

The problem is however, that the flame wars that happen here can look very bad for the Traveller community or new players looking to see what Trav is all about.

I am personally all for internal playtesting only, especially after the onslaught of craziness that happened with the open one, but that is a decision that occurs a few pay-grades higher than mine within the 'Goose.

-Bry

Even with flame wars, the open test could have drawn more attention to and awareness of the product than a closed test would have.

Do you believe that the open test:
a) contributed or detracted from the sales of the product?
b) resulted in a better or worse product?