Playtest 2.0 files - Things that still bug me.

[TrippyHippy]

Well, I've have a very busy week at work (a school inspection, no less, which we've thankfully got through well enough now!), so much of my time has been spent with that.

I hope, therefore, that some of my comments are not belatedly late...but I'll list few things nevertheless!

- The game currently has no real Introduction section, to explain the purpose or aim of it.

- Tech-levels are too heavily based upon space travel, currently - 'Pre-Stellar' is a pretty meaningless description. (I do like the proposed discussions of different technological fields however).

- Skill level interpretations should be clarified: 0-Basic, 1-Advanced, 2-Professional, 3-Expert, 4-Master, etc.

- Characteristics are poorly explained at the moment - don't try to explain the functions for skills or combat - explain what they make characters good at in general terms. It would be nice to also have a sidebar about UPPs and Hexadecimal notation, but I'm almost out of hope on that one, currently. I do think the current notation, including bonuses in brackets, is ugly though, rather than useful.

- Character Generation Checklist - it's too long, and fernickity as it is, and is difficult to follow. It needs to be reduced to 10 or less steps and have better explanations.

Career and Assignment options:

I don't like:

Scout: "X-Boat" is too setting specific - should be Courier.
Merchant: "Merchant Marine". What the hell is this? A military assaulting merchant!?! Call it a Corporate Merchant instead.
Noble: "Ruler" is not only a bland name, but also restricted to Nobles who actually rule (and therefore don't travel much)! Please, call it the much more generic/flexible Politician instead.
Rogue - sounds too D&Dish, honestly. 'Criminal' would be better.

And finally......NO CITIZENS! (i.e. No Lister from Red Dwarf, or Kaylee from Serenity, or Luke Skywalker from Star Wars). Cutting out 'Everyman heroes' from the game is cutting out a massive amount of interesting characters and storylines. Please include them! Oh and the Medical Bills list is missing entrees for both Citizens and Merchants, currently.

Skills - a mess at the moment:

- No general 'Tech-use' skill, which could include Comms, Remote Operations and Sensors, etc, as Specialities, along with a load of other devises. I'd also expand the speciality options for Engineering (for things like chemical and genetic engineering, for example).

- Some appalling definitions and explanations in the 'Science' skill. A number of the specialities listed aren't even sciences, technically speaking! In a game that wants to appeal to serious sci-fi fans, this is pretty weak, in my view. You'd be better served calling the skill cluster 'Knowledges' instead, like they do in D20, and getting a good dictionary for each speciality listed - of which I'd add a few more too.

- General inconsistency in the language and tenses, used. Please don't use 'Seafarer' or 'Flyer' for pity's sake! Call them 'Pilot:Watercraft' and 'Pilot:Aircraft' (and 'Pilot:Spacecraft') respectively. Don't use 'Diplomat' or 'Gambler' - call them 'Diplomacy' and 'Gambling', etc.

The combat system works fine, whenever I've tested it, although again, I feel explanations in the step-by-step list could be clarified better. For example, make the stages:

1) Initiative Phase
2) Movement Phase
3) Tick Phase (to avoid confusion, KIS.)
4) Action/Reaction Phase
5) Repeat Phase 1.

Finally, I do like the technological developments in the game, as I think it's entirely approprate to the OTU, to progress in this way. Indeed, I would like to see more essays on science and technological speculation, generally through the book (maybe as part of the Introduction, or as 'Final words'). I'd also like some sort of brief discussion on sources of sci-fi inspiration in books, movies, T.V, and even music too.

 

[SableWyvern]

- The game currently has no real Introduction section, to explain the purpose or aim of it.

I have no doubt you'll find an introduction in the finished product. I doubt it's considered high on the priority list for a playtest document.

- Skill level interpretations should be clarified: 0-Basic, 1-Advanced, 2-Professional, 3-Expert, 4-Master, etc.

This is under discussion in a separate thread, where we have reached something of a consensus, I think.

- Characteristics are poorly explained at the moment - don't try to explain the functions for skills or combat - explain what they make characters good at in general terms. It would be nice to also have a sidebar about UPPs and Hexadecimal notation, but I'm almost out of hope on that one, currently. I do think the current notation, including bonuses in brackets, is ugly though, rather than useful.

- Character Generation Checklist - it's too long, and fernickity as it is, and is difficult to follow. It needs to be reduced to 10 or less steps and have better explanations.

Pretty much in agreement.

Career and Assignment options:

I don't like:

Scout: "X-Boat" is too setting specific - should be Courier.
Merchant: "Merchant Marine". What the hell is this? A military assaulting merchant!?! Call it a Corporate Merchant instead.
Noble: "Ruler" is not only a bland name, but also restricted to Nobles who actually rule (and therefore don't travel much)! Please, call it the much more generic/flexible Politician instead.
Rogue - sounds too D&Dish, honestly. 'Criminal' would be better.

Setting-specfic doesn't bother me in the least. Dunno whether it's an issue or not for Mongoose.

The term merchant marine refers to government-owned or controlled maritime transport. Traditionally, they are best known for their use in war-time in supply convoys and for troop transport, as logistic support to the Navy, and are in many ways a quasi-military organisation. The term as it is used in Traveller is quite accurate and appropriate.

- No general 'Tech-use' skill, which could include Comms, Remote Operations and Sensors, etc, as Specialities, along with a load of other devises. I'd also expand the speciality options for Engineering (for things like chemical and genetic engineering, for example).

That general tech skill might not be a bad idea. Not sure on that one.

- General inconsistency in the language and tenses, used. Please don't use 'Seafarer' or 'Flyer' for pity's sake! Call them 'Pilot:Watercraft' and 'Pilot:Aircraft' (and 'Pilot:Spacecraft') respectively. Don't use 'Diplomat' or 'Gambler' - call them 'Diplomacy' and 'Gambling', etc.

Agreed, or at least be consistent in the application of skill names.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Setting-specfic doesn't bother me in the least. Dunno whether it's an issue or not for Mongoose.

The term merchant marine refers to government-owned or controlled maritime transport. Traditionally, they are best known for their use in war-time in supply convoys and for troop transport, as logistic support to the Navy, and are in many ways a quasi-military organisation. The term as it is used in Traveller is quite accurate and appropriate.

I think having terms that are setting specific is problematic, particularly if elements are not defined well.

If the 'Merchant Marine' tag is to remain, then it needs a much better explanation, while having 'Courier' instead of 'X-Boat' would also provide much more clarity on the Assignment role than is currently shown. My major bug, though, is the 'Ruler' tag for political driven Nobles - which is just a bland, restrictive term.

Oh, and the 'Science' skill, which isn't, as it were.

 

[hdrider67]

I agree with much of that, though I think some of the issues are due to the bare bones nature of the current document, rather than missed items.

I'd like to vote against calling rogue criminal (or even rogue). Someone who skirts being an outright felon but isn't exactly law abiding.

Rapscallion? (LOL), Sharp, Skin, Miscreant, Lowlife, or if you need an actual title, smuggler (though that's been done to death).

Something I think has been missed are the way skills are tied to characteristics. Gun combat is tied to Dex but is Broker EDU, INT, or CHA?

 

[SableWyvern]

If the 'Merchant Marine' tag is to remain, then it needs a much better explanation, while having 'Courier' instead of 'X-Boat' would also provide much more clarity on the Assignment role than is currently shown. My major bug, though, is the 'Ruler' tag for political driven Nobles - which is just a bland, restrictive term.

Oh, and the 'Science' skill, which isn't, as it were.

Not sure what more merchant marine needs regarding description -- they work on giant Imperial and Corporate haulers. Outside the chance that they can be required to work a warzone, transport troops or run a blockade, they wouldn't differ greatly from any other typical space crews.

I do agree that Politician makes a better title than Ruler, and Courier is a perfectly acceptable term at worst.

While some people argue that the social sciences aren't really scientific disciplines, every social science listed is in fact a social science, with the exception of philosophy (AFAIK). The listed Life and Physical sciences are all scientific disciplines. Personally, I don't see an issue with using this system.

 

[captainjack23]

While some people argue that the social sciences aren't really scientific disciplines, every social science listed is in fact a social science, with the exception of philosophy (AFAIK). The listed Life and Physical sciences are all scientific disciplines. Personally, I don't see an issue with using this system.

Some people are incorrect.
You are, however correct in all points made here, including as regards Philosophy. It's worth noting that neither medicine OR Philosophy programs award Ph.D's.

Thanks !

Cap,
-a doctor, but not a physician....

 

[SableWyvern]

People need to learn to edit out quote tags properly. Twice in the last day I've had my comments attributed to someone else. :wink:

Better yet would be board software that didn't include nested quotes by default. 8)

 

[TrippyHippy]

A 'science' is defined by the process of induction. If a theory can't be tested empirically, then it technically isn't a science. History, for example, can't possibly be a 'science', in the same sense that Physics is. It's an (important) academic discipline, based upon accumulating/analysing evidence and establishing fact - but you can't actually set up an experiment to prove anything (unless you had a time machine perhaps) - so the distinction of it being a humanities subject, is made instead.

'Soft sciences' are a seperate issue.

Psychology and Sociology are normally noted as 'soft sciences' but they do still work on scientific principles of induction (at least in certain branches). 'In this case, 'soft science' just means having outcomes that are 'less reliable' than you'd typically expect in the physical sciences. But Philosophy isn't a 'soft science', by contrast, because it's actually an exercise in language and logic instead. This is a related discipline, of course, but not the same thing.

The definition of 'science' they are trying to apply here is that derived from the latin 'scientia' - literally meaning 'knowledge' - but that definition has changed over the last 500 years or so to mean something more specific - and for a game that wishes to appeal to science fans, I think it's worth getting it right. As I said, the simplest option is to change the name for the cluster/umbrella skill, from 'Science' to 'Knowledge'.

Moreover, when you are still defining Chemistry as 'the study of chemistry' and Physics as 'the study of physics', you must know there is more work to do on definitions! :wink:

It is a playtest format, so it's all understandable as it stands, but as a science teacher, I'd be pretty irritated to have the final product of (potentially) my favourite sci-fi game make a pig's ear of it's scientific definitions.

 

[SableWyvern]

A 'science' is defined by the process of induction. If a theory can't be tested empirically, then it technically isn't a science. History, for example, can't possibly be a 'science', in the same sense that Physics is. It's an (important) academic discipline, based upon accumulating/analysing evidence and establishing fact - but you can't actually set up an experiment to prove anything (unless you had a time machine perhaps) - so the distinction of it being a humanities subject, is made instead.

Or, you can just accept that there is a wide body of academic thought that accepts social sciences as science. The community of hard sciences tends to hold a lot of people that disagree, but academia as a whole doesn't seem to have a unified position. Thus, I think Mongoose could legitimately go either way on the issue.

The definition of 'science' they are trying to apply here is that derived from the latin 'scientia'

Maybe, I don't know. I do know that, as I mentioned, all the things they list as social sciences, except philosophy, are commonly known as social sciences in many academic circles.

Moreover, when you are still defining Chemistry as 'the study of Chemistry' and Physics as 'the study of physics', you must know there is more work to do on definitions.

With you 100% on that one.

I also note there is no Cosmology, which seems like a fairly critical field for an interstellar society.

It is a playtest format, so it's all understandable as it stands, but as a science teacher, I'd be pretty irritated to have the final product of (potentially) my favourite sci-fi game make a pig's ear of it's scientific definitions.

Just like it seems that captainjack, who appears to have a PhD in a social science, doesn't like being told his discipline is not a science. 8)

 

[TrippyHippy]

Or, you can just accept that there is a wide body of academic thought that accepts social sciences as science. The community of hard sciences tends to hold a lot of people that disagree, but academia as a whole doesn't seem to have a unified position. Thus, I think Mongoose could legitimately go either way on the issue.

But this isn't true is it?

If you studied History, Liguistics, or Philosophy at any University in the world you wouldn't recieve 'Scientific' status from them. You'd recieve a Bachellor or Master of the Arts . PhD's aren't specifically scientific or arts, incidently - they are philosophical doctorates. Some 'social sciences' like psychology or sociology, or anthropology can be awarded either scientific or arts status, depending on what branches, or schools of thought, you study. If you ended up doing a load of work on Freudian psychoanalysis, for example, you'd probably end up with a BA, rather than a BSc. But you exaggerate the extent of any academic debate about what is, or isn't, a science. It just isn't the case - and I'm part of that academic 'circle' btw, without wanting to appear pompous!

I also note there is no Cosmology, which seems like a fairly critical field for an interstellar society.

Definitely, or at least an Astronomy speciality.

 

[SableWyvern]

But this isn't true is it?

If you studied History, Liguistics, or Philosophy at any University in the world you wouldn't recieve 'Scientific' status from them. You'd recieve a Bachellor or Master of the Arts .

That doesn't mean they're not still considered social sciences. I don't claim any expert knowledge in this debate, but I have seen the debate rage between experts on either side, sufficient to convince me there isn't a single, objectively correct position.

Definitely, or at least an Astrology speciality.

And now we see the truth. History isn't a science, but astrology is?


:wink:

I take it you meant astronomy. 8)

 

[Mongoose Gar]

The skill list's derived from T5. I'll raise issues with Marc Miller, and have another look at the T5 uberlist and try to rearrange things so we still have compatability while also taking playtest comments into account.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Yeah, that was just tiredness on my part. I've changed it now anyway.

But back to the point -

What is happening here is that we are conflating a debate about the legitimacy of certain, generally new, disciplines trying to establish themselves as 'sciences'. These are disciplines like psychology or sociology, or historically anthropology too. There are lots of fledgling sciences emerging all the time, that haven't quite made the breakthrough they need - and are labelled as 'soft sciences' accordingly. I mean, if you want to find the blurring between Astrology/Astronomy as a case in point, you will note that academics have been trying to establish an Astrology-based science of 'Astro-biology' for years!

However, this is not the same thing as History and Philosophy - which are not social sciences by any definition you will get from any university in the world, and have never tried to be. There is no debate on these, at all.

EDIT: Actually, I've just been informed that Linguistics is a legitimate social science, in the same sense that anthropology is. That is, there is scientific method involved in it's study of semantics and grammar, etc. Sorry, about that one.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The skill list's derived from T5. I'll raise issues with Marc Miller, and have another look at the T5 uberlist and try to rearrange things so we still have compatability while also taking playtest comments into account.

Thankyou.

 

[SableWyvern]

Well, this comes from Wikipedia, and I can't be bothered chasing it up through further sources, but apparently the US National Academy of Sciences considers history to be a social science. You've acknowledged linguistics, anthropology, psychology and sociology. If history gets a pass, archeology certainly should. We agree philosophy is technically out.

That makes the Mongoose list look basically ok.

Edit:

The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history.

Sounds a lot like an attemt to apply the scientific method to history, to the extent that is possible.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Quote:
The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history.


Sounds a lot like an attemt to apply the scientific method to history, to the extent that is possible.

That's not scientific method. Scientific method uses induction, not just research. It establishes knowledge by experimentation. That is the point.

I guess, following on from an input from my partner at home with me here, there can be a grey/controversial areas in the various studies surrounding anthropological disciplines. In linguistics, for example, you can apparently experiment on how speech sound is made, based upon facial structure, etc. In anthropology, you can experiment with controlled cultures (a la Big Brother).

The key thing as to what makes a science is the method used. Psychology and Sociology have never been in doubt from me as being (at least in part) social sciences, because those methods can be applied to their disciplines. But how can History possibly apply them?

If nothing else, I would like to see the Traveller game explaining about what scientific method actually means.

 

[captainjack23]

Or, you can just accept that there is a wide body of academic thought that accepts social sciences as science. The community of hard sciences tends to hold a lot of people that disagree, but academia as a whole doesn't seem to have a unified position. Thus, I think Mongoose could legitimately go either way on the issue.

Indeed to both .

"Go not to the academics for advice, for they will say both yes and no, and that your question is grossly ignorant and misinformed"

Just like it seems that captainjack, who appears to have a PhD in a social science, doesn't like being told his discipline is not a science. 8)

Heh. Busted. Well, close to busted. Neuropsychology, really. Research. If I'd been in grad school a few years later, I'd probably have been in the brand new field of Neurosciences. Which, I believe is a biological science, AND a computational science.

As an aside, I just want to note that I think I've been VERY good in not going off into a complete frothing geeky pedantic series of rants on the realism of rules for skilll, intelligence and Education augments, as well as the probablility and consequences of developing Kinetic and neural interfaces... is there an emoticon for clenched teeth ?
Lordy, it is a game after all.

But, yes, Psychology is a science - a bit soft when in the area of human behavior & clinical research(why we use statistics so damned much). The practice of clinical Psychology, however, is often, but not always, nonscientific.

PS did I get the quotes right ? :wink:

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'd say that Neuroscience is about as 'hard' in scientific terms as psychology can possibly go, surely!

I mean, isn't psychology really just a branch (or even a set of interpretations) of neurology, in scientific terms?

 

[AKAramis]

In Re Merchant Marine:

It's a good fit for what it describes. The use matches the real world wet merchant use pretty darned close.

 

[TrippyHippy]

In Re Merchant Marine:

It's a good fit for what it describes. The use matches the real world wet merchant use pretty darned close.

Well, yeah, this has been explained. I'm happy with that explanation providing that they explain what it is clearer in the text. I was honestly confused as to what Merchant Marines were.