High Guard - On The Way

[MongooseMatt]

(and good grief, do you not have any editors?).

That would be me. We used to employ four full-time editors - this way is better.

Actually, I think you need to stop doing public playtests altogether because IMO they're a disaster.

It is a lot of work at our end, but the current edition of Traveller is better for it. That makes the effort worth it.

you could pick out a core group of people who have been most useful in those and see if they want to be your core of volunteer playtesters. Then use those to privately playtest your material, and select one of them to be a Lead Playtester who will also be the liaison between you and the group. The Lead can then direct the group what to focus on if necessary and generally organise them, and compile the suggestions that they make and issues that they find into a coherent form and pass that along to you. Then whoever passes for an editor (or the writer, or whoever) at Mongoose can tick things off as they update the document and you'll know that you haven't missed anything.

That way you don't have to waste your time wading through dozens of discussion threads yourself trying to make sense of arguments that people have or trying to pick out the signal from the noise.

This is more or less exactly what we have done. For High Guard (and the Core Rulebook for that matter), you will see a chap called AndrewW wandering the forums. He monitors everything you chaps say and, in the event I have not trawled through the forums myself, he neatly summarises everything I need to know. You will see him in the rulebooks credited as Andrew Welty.

Beyond this, and beyond the public playtest, we set up five 'rings' of playtesters, all independent, all 'blind' to one another, all with a vested interest in Traveller. One of the rings, for example, was created by me going through comments in the COTI forums and inviting the most passionate/pugnacious posters I could find! The 'Traveller Inner Circle' formed another ring, as did the third party publishers. And so on.

We really don't just create things off the top of our heads - an awful lot goes on behind the scenes. However, after all of that, I am still more than happy to let players go through the books before they are sent off to print because a) we have been specifically asked to do this and b) we get better books as a result.

That, at the end of the day, is what it is all about - better books. The actual process of making them... well, that might be treated like sausages.

However, here is the thing. The new Traveller is a great game.

Something we are doing is working.

 

[fusor]

And yet something is still going wrong, because there are several threads of issues on this board about the new HG book.

Again, I don't buy the "no book will be perfect" line. Sure, a few little non-rules things can slip through but the rules? The rules can and should be perfect, there's no excuse for that especially if you've had lots of playtesters looking at it. And no, that is not an unreasonable expectation - those are what is being tested after all. Despite the excuses that people make, this is not a terribly complex thing - it's not a computer program that needs to work on a variety of different systems, it's an instruction manual, and it's pretty straightforward to make sure that instructions are clear and that they do the thing that they're supposed to do. It looks to me as if people aren't really testing the rules thoroughly enough to find where the holes are and where things aren't explained clearly enough (e.g. breakaway fighters, fighter squadrons, definition of the hull types, Close Structures vs anything else, etc - all of which have been raised here) - if people can spot things from the preview doc that need to be fixed or clarified then you know you're doing something wrong. I just can't believe that these things were looked over in the playtest if people are spotting them the moment the book is "released". Something must be going wrong somewhere - either people aren't testing the right things or not testing them enough, or the things they are finding aren't getting back to you, or you're forgetting to update them in the final product.

At the very least, all the core Traveller ships should have been redesigned with the final version of the new rules. Are they in the new HG 2e? Even if they're not, during the testing process they should have been designed using the system to see if it works or breaks anywhere (and there certainly shouldn't be any copy/pasting of designs from the old version to the new - is that what RTT is saying has happened?). And then the big capital ships from previous editions should have been designed. And then higher and lower tech variants should have been designed. TL 8 ships and TL16+ ships should have been designed to test the extremes of the system. Combat should have been tested. Every system in the book should have been added to several designs to see how well they integrate. How much of that was done?

As for players going through the books - maybe you need to make it clear on DTRPG that for the first 6-12 months the PDF version is not the final version. I sure don't want to spend $40 on a PDF that I know has lots of flaws and I am glad I haven't. Maybe people on the forums know that this is how you want to release PDFs but I'd wager that you have far more customers who don't frequent these boards who don't know that, and who expect an officially released PDF to be a version that doesn't have many bugs in it that they're expected to track down and send back to you to fix. Sure, maybe people expect errata but you're going far beyond that here and saying that the PDF is very likely to be flawed specifically so that people who buy it can fix it, and that's just not right IMO. As I said, I'm OK with you "releasing" the book beforehand to a select group of people to go over after final layout to catch any last things, but treating the official PDF release as a public beta release for the print version and that you want people to pay full price for without being very explicit about it is just really dodgy.

 

[AndrewW]

At the very least, all the core Traveller ships should have been redesigned with the final version of the new rules. Are they in the new HG 2e? Even if they're not, during the testing process they should have been designed using the system to see if it works or breaks anywhere (and there certainly shouldn't be any copy/pasting of designs from the old version to the new - is that what RTT is saying has happened?). And then the big capital ships from previous editions should have been designed. And then higher and lower tech variants should have been designed.

The Core Rulebook and High Guard where both being developed at the same time. The ships in the Core Rulebook where designed with the new rules, however during this process some stuff is subject to change. Those ships are also available in the new High Guard fully updated with rules changes. There are lots of capital ships from previous versions of Traveller and of course these where designed with the new rules, sometimes updated as rules changed.

 

[phavoc]

At the very least, all the core Traveller ships should have been redesigned with the final version of the new rules. Are they in the new HG 2e? Even if they're not, during the testing process they should have been designed using the system to see if it works or breaks anywhere (and there certainly shouldn't be any copy/pasting of designs from the old version to the new - is that what RTT is saying has happened?). And then the big capital ships from previous editions should have been designed. And then higher and lower tech variants should have been designed.

The Core Rulebook and High Guard where both being developed at the same time. The ships in the Core Rulebook where designed with the new rules, however during this process some stuff is subject to change. Those ships are also available in the new High Guard fully updated with rules changes. There are lots of capital ships from previous versions of Traveller and of course these where designed with the new rules, sometimes updated as rules changed.

You see this in other industries, like software for example, where the company needs the revenue source to be positive instead of always negative. Cash flow is king in any business. But, in the era of "I can release an update", there is a growing tendency to ship for financial reasons instead of when it's ready. For pdf's, as long as the publisher will give you a fixed update, it can be frowned upon, but forgiven - within reason. But when you start shipping had copies you cannot get a fix. Your option is to print off the errata, mark up your books, or go buy another one. My 1st edition hard back CRB had all the starships drawn wrong on the deckplans. Yes, I have the dozen or so pages printed off and stuck in my book, but I cannot get a book.

As I pointed out before, MGT, when they had their worst editing experience, did step up and not only replace my Mercenary book, but they offered me two free supplements of my choosing to make up for it. It was actually this effort to go above and beyond that led me to stick with MGT. I still am not a happy camper with the continual editing issues. Which is leading me to stop purchasing the hard copies of books.

Some may say "yay!", for moving to the 22nd century and getting away from hardbacks. But I don't see it that way. Why? Because when I bought my books I bought them from my local game store, who I also got to participate in the very smart program called Bits and Mortar. There I was able to support my local hobby store, support the publisher AND get both the hard back and pdf version. Everyone won there. Now? Well, my local game store has now lost that business from me, which means they won't be buying products from the publisher, which means the publisher won't have the access to gamers they used to. And everybody has lost something. Which do you prefer? Everyone winning, or everyone losing something?

 

[phavoc]

That would be me. We used to employ four full-time editors - this way is better.

I would have to disagree with that. To be fair, though, if you had four editors when 1st Edition was published and just yourself when 2nd Edition was published, then I would agree with you. GOOD editors, that understand the concepts and 'get it' are hard to come by.

It is a lot of work at our end, but the current edition of Traveller is better for it. That makes the effort worth it.

I don't think the public playtest was a disaster. Having participated it was nice to see feedback being accepted, though it seems not everything made it through to the published version.

This is more or less exactly what we have done. For High Guard (and the Core Rulebook for that matter), you will see a chap called AndrewW wandering the forums. He monitors everything you chaps say and, in the event I have not trawled through the forums myself, he neatly summarises everything I need to know. You will see him in the rulebooks credited as Andrew Welty.

Beyond this, and beyond the public playtest, we set up five 'rings' of playtesters, all independent, all 'blind' to one another, all with a vested interest in Traveller. One of the rings, for example, was created by me going through comments in the COTI forums and inviting the most passionate/pugnacious posters I could find! The 'Traveller Inner Circle' formed another ring, as did the third party publishers. And so on.

To fusor's point, with all the "rings" of playtesters you had, it seems many things still slipped through. And it's been acknowledged as much that the pdf currently released is, essentially, another Beta version before it's ready for actual printing. I have no objections to any of this. However, I do think it would only be fair to customers to specifically call this out. Hell, call it a .9 version release if you want. People who are buying it deserve to know that it's still not what you consider to be the 1.0 printable version. If you were then it should be offered as a print version at the same time (which I don't think is a good idea, since it's still needing final edits).

We really don't just create things off the top of our heads - an awful lot goes on behind the scenes. However, after all of that, I am still more than happy to let players go through the books before they are sent off to print because a) we have been specifically asked to do this and b) we get better books as a result.

That, at the end of the day, is what it is all about - better books. The actual process of making them... well, that might be treated like sausages.

However, here is the thing. The new Traveller is a great game.

Something we are doing is working.

I do believe what you are saying here. The amount of work that goes on that people on the board (the majority that is) don't see IS significant.

But, to the complaints being raised, one could arguably point towards the T5 kickstarter version and say what the publisher thinks is a great game, and what many customers think are two entirely different animals. I bought T5 as a kickstarter with a lot of excitement, hoping that the makeover would pick up from GURPS and MGT additions and make the penultimate version of Traveller. And in the end I was thoroughly disgusted with what I got sight unseen. Buried under all the drek IS a game, but the level of drek exceeds what I (and others) are willing to wade through. So my copy sits collecting dust, with the occasional taking down to thumb through it, then I get disgusted again and put it back up.

The Traveller sales you have are, arguable, from the people who have purchased most of the previous versions before. It is this core of people that keeps the game alive as it passes from publisher to publisher. The determination of it being a great game requires the gaming public, not the publisher, to make such judgement.

Please keep working towards the mantra of making a better game, better books and a GREAT game. It's definitely a goal worth working towards.

 

[DickNervous]

Just thought that I should chime in with my 2 credits worth since everyone else is.

Overall, I really like the book in general. Just the aesthetics alone are a huge improvement over pretty much every previous version of Traveller. Like the work on the Core Rulebook, it has brought Traveller into the modern time as far as what an RPG book is expected to look like. I think the layout and organization is well done and the artwork is great. I am still going through all the changes to the ship design process but I haven't seen anything yet that "breaks" the game. That said, it isn't perfect, not that I think anyone could publish a book like this that all people would consider perfect.

• Are there changes that some people (including myself) aren't to thrilled about? You betcha!
• Does it introduce new technologies and options that have never been seen in the OTU before? Indeed it does.
• Does it change the dynamic of space combat? Heck yeah.
• Does it invalidate all previous ship designs? Unfortunately (this is my biggest issue, but I will learn to live with it)

But the thing everyone needs to remember is that, as a Referee or GM or whatever you want to call yourself, YOU get to decide which bits and pieces are allowed. YOU get to decide if things like Tachyon Cannons really exist. Just because it is in the book and an option, doesn't mean you have to use it. Neither Matt nor Marc get to tell you how to run your game. They just provide us with the framework, ideas, and starting points for our imaginations. They provide us with the tools and guides to help us create the worlds and stories we want to tell.

So to Matt, his two other employees, and all the playtesters (not just the ones listed, but EVERYONE who took part in the beta) I would like to say "Job well done and thank you! You have created a solid entry into the Traveller universe, and you should be proud."

And to Matt and his crew, I would add this: "You done good. But enough sitting back and basking in the glow of getting the book out the door. There is still more to do! Get back to work and fix the stuff that snuck through!!!!"

 

[fusor]

But the thing everyone needs to remember is that, as a Referee or GM or whatever you want to call yourself, YOU get to decide which bits and pieces are allowed. YOU get to decide if things like Tachyon Cannons really exist. Just because it is in the book and an option, doesn't mean you have to use it. Neither Matt nor Marc get to tell you how to run your game. They just provide us with the framework, ideas, and starting points for our imaginations. They provide us with the tools and guides to help us create the worlds and stories we want to tell.

Oh, I'm all for adding new options - the more the merrier. I just would like them to work and make sense in terms of the rules, and to integrate with what's already in the game.

"Invalidating all previous ship designs" sounds a little worrying though, unless they've provided updated versions of all the ships using the new rules.

 

[AndrewW]

[*]Does it invalidate all previous ship designs? Unfortunately (this is my biggest issue, but I will learn to live with it)

Well, the plan way back was to keep compatibility with existing ships. Alas, it was decided that had to go to do what we wanted to do with things. Though did try and keep options open.

That said, existing ships can be used just fine for most purposes, though they aren't likely to be identical. Might have issues if you wanted to use them in combat or something but mostly will do the job.

 

[AndrewW]

"Invalidating all previous ship designs" sounds a little worrying though, unless they've provided updated versions of all the ships using the new rules.

There are a lot of ships included in High Guard, the Core Rulebook ships plus a lot from various Classic Traveller sources (mostly S9 Fighting Ships), which happens to include ships that are in the Mongoose Supplement 3: Fighting Ships.

 

[DickNervous]

[*]Does it invalidate all previous ship designs? Unfortunately (this is my biggest issue, but I will learn to live with it)

Well, the plan way back was to keep compatibility with existing ships. Alas, it was decided that had to go to do what we wanted to do with things. Though did try and keep options open.

That said, existing ships can be used just fine for most purposes, though they aren't likely to be identical. Might have issues if you wanted to use them in combat or something but mostly will do the job.

Yeah, the combat is the big problem. But I understand the need for the changes and accept that it had to be done. I just wish there was a "documented process' for converting ships that wasn't to complicated or time consuming. But I am sure that the community will come up with something....

 

[fusor]

Yeah, the combat is the big problem. But I understand the need for the changes and accept that it had to be done. I just wish there was a "documented process' for converting ships that wasn't to complicated or time consuming. But I am sure that the community will come up with something....

if the ships have been redone with the new system (correctly, one hopes) and are in the new book then why do you need to convert anything? Or do you have a lot of custom-made ships?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I just wish there was a "documented process' for converting ships that wasn't to complicated or time consuming. But I am sure that the community will come up with something....

The easy conversion is to do nothing. Sizes are the same, drives are rated the same, staterooms and turrets are the same. Compare a free trader or a patrol corvette/cruiser between CT, MgT1, and MgT2, are the differences really that dramatic?

If you want a really high performance ship or a good warship you have to start from scratch.

 

[DickNervous]

Yeah, the combat is the big problem. But I understand the need for the changes and accept that it had to be done. I just wish there was a "documented process' for converting ships that wasn't to complicated or time consuming. But I am sure that the community will come up with something....

if the ships have been redone with the new system (correctly, one hopes) and are in the new book then why do you need to convert anything? Or do you have a lot of custom-made ships?

The easy conversion is to do nothing. Sizes are the same, drives are rated the same, staterooms and turrets are the same. Compare a free trader or a patrol corvette/cruiser between CT, MgT1, and MgT2, are the differences really that dramatic?

If you want a really high performance ship or a good warship you have to start from scratch.

The ships that have been re-done aren't the ones I am concerned about. It's the other one, but I will be honest that I haven't looked to deeply yet. I know that "Hull" and "Structure" will need to be converted to "Hull Points", and that should be easy. It's the way Power is used that I need to look at since in 1e you didn't have that. I'm sure I will work it out, just going to take some time.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I just wish there was a "documented process' for converting ships that wasn't to complicated or time consuming. But I am sure that the community will come up with something....

Honestly, if it were me... I would just do them from scratch. The new design process is quicker and flows far better than the previous edition, and creating a new ship from scratch takes no time at all (especially if it is in the sub-2,000 ton range).

That said, we have been working on Aslan ships of late, which you will see in a mini-supplement for High Guard in maybe three weeks, and we will be moving onto other ships soon after. We have already statted up some of the vessels from previous supplements (such as the Subsidised Merchant Q-Ship with fighters in its nose!), and I have a hankering to do a mini-supplement for Vargr fairly soon too...

High Guard should give you a good start in ships (barring alien vessels, I think we have just about every ship from CT), and more will be coming on a continual basis!

 

[mancerbear]

Hopefully Solomani ships too, please Matt

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hopefully Solomani ships too, please Matt

We'll get there

Vargr and Zhodani are likely to be next, possibly Sword Worlders too, but we won't forget the Solomani!

 

[mancerbear]

I'd be happy with all of those, especially with my game heading into the Fifth Frontier War and the PCs being exposed to the Sword World Front

 

[MongooseMatt]

I'd be happy with all of those, especially with my game heading into the Fifth Frontier War and the PCs being exposed to the Sword World Front

FFW, you say? You might want to delay the actual outbreak of the war until next year.

Just saying, is all

 

[-Daniel-]

I'd be happy with all of those, especially with my game heading into the Fifth Frontier War and the PCs being exposed to the Sword World Front

FFW, you say? You might want to delay the actual outbreak of the war until next year.

Just saying, is all

Hum, wonder what this might mean. LOL

Nice tease there Sir. :mrgreen:

 

[Condottiere]

Solomani Rim has always been a backwater; Zhodani because they are the most actively in conflict with the Imperium.

I don't think there should be any standard Vargr spacecraft, just a set of tables with random attributes and features that you dice up.