So it would appear Mongoose will publish first:

[TrippyHippy]

Anything on the horizon for Scouts?

Actually, they could do 'splatbooks' for all the (13) outlined careers, I suppose - with specific rules/developments presented for each.

Oh, and if there is time, could I request that each of these books have some NPC/Pregens in them? In full page spreads, and with character illustrations drawn? About five or so, in each book?

I have often found that the best way to illustrate the concepts found in new game ideas, is to show them used in a pregen. Similarly, some 'pregen' starships would be a good filler too.

Oh, and the campaign book would be useful - particularly if it is generic.

Oh, and a sourcebook for AI: Artificial Intelligences (of all types, including Robots) would be a good idea.

 

[EDG]

Looking at the threads both here and on RPG.net, I don't think we are having trouble getting the Traveller message out to a wider audience. . .

I didn't say you would had trouble doing that. I'm just suggesting that you're not doing yourself any favours by dressing up an interesting new system in 1970s clothing. It just seems like you're being half-hearted about it and not giving it the final push of originality that it deserves.

To use an automobile analogy - when they remade the Volkswagen Beetle and the Mini Cooper, they opted to update the look of the car too rather than keep it exactly the same. While some purists inevitably grumbled, the new look indisputably made the cars a lot more appealing to the modern market. Similarly, given that you're updating the Traveller system, why not update the visual style as well instead of keeping it stuck in the 70s?

I just hope you'll be a lot more adventurous in the final presentation. Sure, it's a lot easier to appease the old guard and appeal to their sense of nostalgia, but don't forget there are a lot of people out there who don't find that 1970s aesthetic particularly appealing (or are actively turned off by it).

 

[SM]

Whilst I wouldn't like to see this as the first (or second or even third...) I've always felt that the military side of Traveller has been a little short on the doctrine of future warfare. The likes of "Grand Fleet" had a pretty good at this for the navy side of things but I've always this was missing from the space/planet interface and ground warfare arenas. Why is this important in a role playing game? Well, apart from the wargaming sides of Traveller always being a key element, doctrine tells you what sort of organisation, equipment and training the military forces will have and this is reflected in the NPCs the players meet and their equipment. For example, if doctrine drives you towards heavy reliance on orbital fire support and that vehicles are not going to survive in that environment, your principal ground fighting force are likely to be heavily equiped well trained infantry (a la Heinlein SST). Perhaps as a section in what ever replaces "Mercenary"?

 

[Mage]

I for one am not from the 70s generation of games, and will by said books. There is a demand. It is not just all gamers from back in the old school days who play and pay nowadays. It gives me a chance to get a copy of the book compatible with the new versions as well without having to scour ebay or pay skyrocketing prices. That and it is smart, because they are cors and usefyl products.

A lot of people will by stuff that sells like arms and equipment books, ship guides, or monster manuals, because they are core and essential to most games.

Mongoose know what they are doing with rpgs.

I like the covers actually, and I am from a newer generation of gamers. I think they are nice, elegant and conservative. I also tried looking up different old traveller books on ebay and found few that looked like that.

I think the older VW looker better IMHO.

It would be suicide for them if they rereleased old stuff in a nw system. Odds are it will just be the same name but with major changes and decent content.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Looking at the threads both here and on RPG.net, I don't think we are having trouble getting the Traveller message out to a wider audience. . .

Similarly, given that you're updating the Traveller system, why not update the visual style as well instead of keeping it stuck in the 70s?

With respect, the first time I got interested in a Traveller product was in 2000 - when the Classic Traveller Reprints were released. It was the elegant, minimalistic cover that hooked me in. It simply looked a lot more striking than any other game on the shelf. Not nostalgia, not conservative, not 1970s.....just classy.

Moreover, whenever anybody starts to talk about 'modernising' the image of Traveller, they invariably start pushing really bland ideas like 'stars in the background' or 'gothic spaceships'. To me, these are just boring and pretty much the same as every other sci-fi game out there already.

It's no secret that sci-fi rpgs have traditionally been the poor cousins in terms of sales, compared to other gaming genres - with just one exception: Traveller.

I think that the style and presentation, iconic as it is now, is something that should be given the utmost respect. If you want to replace it, you had better make damn sure that what you are replacing it with is damn good. Otherwise, don't fix what isn't broken.

 

[EDG]

Moreover, whenever anybody starts to talk about 'modernising' the image of Traveller, they invariably start pushing really bland ideas like 'stars in the background' or 'gothic spaceships'. To me, these are just boring and pretty much the same as every other sci-fi game out there already.

I have to boggle at logic that declares that a plain black cover with a line on it and some text is less boring than one with a picture of a space or scifi scene. That sort of logic is nothing to do with being "iconic", it's either that you just have a thing for minimalist covers or nostalgia is overriding rational thought. Either way, it's a crazy thing to say.

For crying out loud, I've seen (and got!) textbooks with more imaginative covers than those damned LBBs. And the LBB covers certainly do not evoke any images of adventure and exploration among the stars.

But if Mongoose is determined to hide a potentially interesting new take on Traveller beneath crappy, outdated 1970s aesthetics then then so be it. All I know is that I want images of the far future evoked when I look at a scifi game, not images of the last century.

 

[Eris]

I mean, come on guys. Surely you can think of more original names for a books about Mercenaries and Ship Design and an Asteroid Belt setting than rehashing old names (and more original book covers, for that matter).

The _material_ will be original - however, we would be very foolish _not_ to capitalise on older titles. . .

Speaking as an old Traveller grognard...You got that right!

The old names will give the new players you're hoping to draw in and us old-timers a shared frame of reference.

 

[Thuban]

The old names will give the new players you're hoping to draw in and us old-timers a shared frame of reference.

QFT.

Seven-hundred and sixty... and I thought the original 76 patrons was incredibly awesome... Ten times that awesomeness may just be lethal...

I can see the warning label now: WARNING: Book so Awesome, your head WILL EXPLODE.

I'm stocking up on duct tape and maybe investing in a football helmet.

 

[Deniable]

I like reusing the old look and names. The old players will know instantly what they need. The new players will find a lot of information available online that is somewhat usable with the new version. Do a Google search for the titles and consider how much material is available on day one.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I have to boggle at logic that declares that a plain black cover with a line on it and some text is less boring than one with a picture of a space or scifi scene. That sort of logic is nothing to do with being "iconic", it's either that you just have a thing for minimalist covers or nostalgia is overriding rational thought. Either way, it's a crazy thing to say.

For crying out loud, I've seen (and got!) textbooks with more imaginative covers than those damned LBBs. And the LBB covers certainly do not evoke any images of adventure and exploration among the stars.

But if Mongoose is determined to hide a potentially interesting new take on Traveller beneath crappy, outdated 1970s aesthetics then then so be it. All I know is that I want images of the far future evoked when I look at a scifi game, not images of the last century.

Your perception, I might suggest, isn't backed up by sales figures.

As I've said, the most striking cover I've seen in this decade - not the 1970s (I've only known about Traveller since this point) - was the minimalistic black cover of the Classic Traveller Reprints. It's style sucked me in, wheras all the other sci-fi covers were unappealing and cliched. I think the sales figures for both this publication, and the original Classic books speak for themselves.

In short, I think your perception is mistaken.

 

[EDG]

Your perception, I might suggest, isn't backed up by sales figures.

Sales figures? You mean the same old crowd buying the new editions of the books every time it's re-released? The Traveller market hasn't grown much at all since TNE - most of its existing fans are neophobic, and its core demographic is old and graying.

IMO a new edition means nothing if it doesn't attract new people. Sure, the old crowd will undoubtedly flock to buy yet another Traveller book that they don't need because they'd compulsively buy it anyway - I swear some people would buy used toilet paper if it had Traveller's name on it. But the true mettle of an RPG is how well it attracts new people to itself, and it's not going to do that by looking like it came out of the 1970s.

In short, I think your perception is mistaken.

What, my perception that re-using an unevocative black cover is dull, boring and unimaginative? I think you're the one that's deluded if you think I'm wrong about that.

 

[MongooseMatt]

But the true mettle of an RPG is how well it attracts new people to itself, and it's not going to do that by looking like it came out of the 1970s.

I'll take you up on that wager!

 

[EDG]

I'll take you up on that wager!

I'd be interested to see how you think you'll be able to get accurate numbers for who exactly is buying your books (i.e. whether they're old or new fans).

Plus, today's market generally expects books to be all fancy looking and glossy and colourful (at least, that's what you publishers keep telling us) - if 70's minimalist aesthetics worked today you'd think more books would look like they were made in someone's garage.

So I stand by my observations. And there are other people who have voiced the same opinion and expressed their distaste for the 1970s look - I think you'll find that outside the skewed world of the internet (where you're more likely to find the frothing fanboy who'll take anything you throw at them) that they're going to be the majority.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Sales figures - in terms of the significantly larger numbers of players buying Classic Traveller (and Classic Traveller reprints) in comparison to any of the other editions (MT, T:TNE, T4, T20). I'd argue that the cover design actually has something to do with that. It is evocative, and stylish, even if you lack the imagination to see it.

Moreover, looking at all the other editions, it's patently obvious that their covers have dated - a lot, lot worse in some cases.

I also think you are wrong to label a minimalistic, black cover as being somehow linked to the 1970s. It's not. It's timelessly simple. Even GURPS cottoned on to the iconic nature of the simple black cover, when it did it's version.

 

[EDG]

Sales figures - in terms of the significantly larger numbers of players buying Classic Traveller (and Classic Traveller reprints) in comparison to any of the other editions (MT, T:TNE, T4, T20).

And again, I'm fairly certain that most of the people who bought the reprints are the same people who bought the originals in the 70s and 80 and buying it again, to replace their tatty originals. Sure, some people got into CT with the reprints, but they're a minority. It means nothing in terms of expanding Traveller to a new market.

I'd argue that the cover design actually has something to do with that. It is evocative, and stylish, even if you lack the imagination to see it.

And I'd argue that the cover was not a driving force behind the sales of the CT reprints, and that it evokes nothing. How the hell CAN a black cover with a bit of text and a coloured line evoke anything?! Sure, it may work as a generically minimalist cover, but that's all it is.

Moreover, looking at all the other editions, it's patently obvious that their covers have dated - a lot, lot worse in some cases.

I guess that's why nobody else does covers like that anymore. Oh wait, they do.

I also think you are wrong to label a minimalistic, black cover as being somehow linked to the 1970s. It's not.

It is when it's a plain black cover with "Traveller" and a coloured line going across it. It's linked to the 1970s because that cover appeared in the 1970s and it's being reproduced today.

Even GURPS cottoned on to the iconic nature of the simple black cover, when it did it's version.

You'll note that they only did that for the corebook. Every other GURPS Traveller book had art on the cover. And the fact that GURPS already did the black cover means that Mongoose are REALLY being dull and unoriginal in doing it yet again. You'll also note that their Mercs book was called "Star Mercs", not "Mercenary"... and that their Scouts book was called "First In", and that their ship design book was called "Starships" and so on. They at least had the imagination to think of different names for their books rather than keep the original names. I'm sure there were quite a few CT fans among the GURPS crowd and I didn't hear them complaining that the GT book names were "unfamiliar".

 

[TrippyHippy]

And again, I'm fairly certain that most of the people who bought the reprints are the same people who bought the originals in the 70s and 80 and buying it again, to replace their tatty originals. Sure, some people got into CT with the reprints, but they're a minority. It means nothing in terms of expanding Traveller to a new market.

Based upon what? You're opinion only goes so far.

And I'd argue that the cover was not a driving force behind the sales of the CT reprints, and that it evokes nothing. How the hell CAN a black cover with a bit of text and a coloured line evoke anything?! Sure, it may work as a generically minimalist cover, but that's all it is.

It's evoked this debate for a start. It's evoked you to complain, endlessly. It's evoked plenty of positive reaction and discussion before too - not just in the 1970s, but every time a new generation of gamers set eyes upon it.

I guess that's why nobody else does covers like that anymore. Oh wait, they do.

But they don't sell much, do they!? Does that not tell you anything?

It is when it's a plain black cover with "Traveller" and a coloured line going across it. It's linked to the 1970s because that cover appeared in the 1970s and it's being reproduced today.

Star Wars emerged in the 1970s, and is still going strong today in terms of it's appeal. So did John Carpenter's Halloween, which also is considered a 'minimalistic' classic (followed by a bunch of garish sequels and remakes). You seem to want to date something, even when it hasn't actually dated. Classic ideas don't date.

You'll note that they only did that for the corebook. Every other GURPS Traveller book had art on the cover. And the fact that GURPS already did the black cover means that Mongoose are REALLY being dull and unoriginal in doing it yet again.

GURPS used the cover because it was iconic, and they knew it. I think Mongoose has come to the same conclusion, which is a good one. It isn't dull or unoriginal - that's your own (increasingly bitter sounding) perception. It's classic.

 

[MercyBlowz]

I'm not a Traveller player. Yet. This new edition might just make me invest.

I like the simple cover. In my opinion it looks classy. If it had a bunch of spaceships or some dude in sci-fi armour or whatever else on it I would find it very, very easy to dismiss it as just another sci-fi rpg. Something I could quite happily ignore.
This way I take notice. It's not any game, it's Traveller.

Some games do better from covers with evocative, exciting scenes, I agree. It was the cover art that made me buy Shadowrun 3rd ed., and I'm glad I did.

Traveller, on the other hand, as something of an elder statesman of roleplaying, benefits from a classic, serene cover.

IMHO anyhow.

 

[EDG]

Based upon what? You're opinion only goes so far.

Sure, it's opinion. But its based on the fact that a variety of gaming stores I have frequented in my time didn't have the CT books flying off the shelves - in fact, they had a lot of trouble selling even the handful they initially had in stock. Whereas they had no trouble selling GURPS Traveller or T20.

It's evoked this debate for a start. It's evoked you to complain, endlessly. It's evoked plenty of positive reaction and discussion before too - not just in the 1970s, but every time a new generation of gamers set eyes upon it.

The game might, but that's not because of the cover. I think you sorely overestimate how many new gamers have recently got into CT though.

But they don't sell much, do they!? Does that not tell you anything?

It tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about. All those fancy covers you're complaining about sell TONS of copies of RPGs. In fact the market has moved specifically toward "high production values" and fancy covers in recent years precisely because more people buy books with that sort of presentation.

Star Wars emerged in the 1970s, and is still going strong today in terms of it's appeal. So did John Carpenter's Halloween, which also is considered a 'minimalistic' classic (followed by a bunch of garish sequels and remakes). You seem to want to date something, even when it hasn't actually dated. Classic ideas don't date.

And plenty of other things came out in the 70s that don't have any appeal today whatsoever. You're just arbitrarily putting CT among the "classics", but the reality is that it's a dated game largely driven and talked about by a hardcore of frothing, aging fanboys who think it's the best thing ever made. It really isn't - it has been demonstrably surpassed in every single way by other generic SF RPGs that have come out since the 1970s.

It isn't dull or unoriginal - that's your own (increasingly bitter sounding) perception. It's classic.

It's very clear to me that you think CT is the best thing ever and without flaws. Which is great, but neverending praise is not a good driver of change when a new edition comes around. If everyone said that they were happy with the game as it was, then a new edition is pointless (and to be honest, I think a lot of the old guard are going to ignore MongTrav and just carry on with whatever rules they've been using for the past 20-30 years anyway - that's what's happened with most of the other editions of the game, why should this be any different?). And certainly I am not alone in thinking that the LBB style is dated, dull, unimaginative and boring - but then I (and those who agree with me) aren't looking at the game through rose-tinted glasses, or confusing what is merely the admiration of a minimalist style with a "classic" label.

The people who aren't so emotionally attached to the game can see the problems with the LBB-style presentation and have complained about them here and elsewhere. And IMO they're the ones that Mongoose should really be caring about, because they're the ones that will need convincing when it comes to buying their game when it comes out, and they're the ones that are going to bring the game to a new generation of gamers. Assuming of course that Mongoose is actually interested in making the game as appealing as possible to the new generation.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Sure, it's opinion. But its based on the fact that a variety of gaming stores I have frequented in my time didn't have the CT books flying off the shelves - in fact, they had a lot of trouble selling even the handful they initially had in stock. Whereas they had no trouble selling GURPS Traveller or T20.

It's an unqualified opinion, based solely on your own perceptions.

The game might, but that's not because of the cover. I think you sorely overestimate how many new gamers have recently got into CT though.

Really? The sales have been strong enough to be sustained over seven years, with multiple supplements. In gaming terms, that's a lot!

It tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about. All those fancy covers you're complaining about sell TONS of copies of RPGs. In fact the market has moved specifically toward "high production values" and fancy covers in recent years precisely because more people buy books with that sort of presentation.

Resorting to pathetic ad hominems certainly won't help your arguments either.

I've actually debated this very issue with a professional game designer working for a very prominant games company. The truth is, with the exception of Traveller, most sci-fi rpgs have been dreadful flops - and have had sales that are dwarfed by fantasy or horror games. Yet Classic Traveller - with that iconic cover - has been one of the best selling rpgs ever. Not the other editions, you'll note, just Classic Traveller. And even if you try the old "that was a long time ago" argument, the point is reinforced by the fact that the Classic reprints sales also dwarfed the sales of the other edition reprints too, as well as most other sci-fi games. And that's with a 30 year old set of rules and manuscript!

As MercyBlowz has just said, it's not just another sci-fi rpg - it's Traveller!

And plenty of other things came out in the 70s that don't have any appeal today whatsoever. You're just arbitrarily putting CT among the "classics", but the reality is that it's a dated game largely driven and talked about by a hardcore of frothing, aging fanboys who think it's the best thing ever made. It really isn't - it has been demonstrably surpassed in every single way by other generic SF RPGs that have come out since the 1970s.

Utter nonsense. Traveller has a large current gaming fanbase, and is a GAMA Hall of Fame inductee. By any standards, the game is a classic. None of this can be said of any other generic sci-fi game. The current excitement amongst the gaming community, about the new edition, is testement to that status too. Face it - even you wouldn't be here, if you didn't know what Traveller was.

It's very clear to me that you think CT is the best thing ever and without flaws.

No I don't. I just know the things that are good, and what the actual flaws are. Your criticisms by comparison are scattershot.

And certainly I am not alone in thinking that the LBB style is dated, dull, unimaginative and boring - but then I (and those who agree with me) aren't looking at the game through rose-tinted glasses, or confusing what is merely the admiration of a minimalist style with a "classic" label.

I'm sure that you and your friends will get on famously - but it's odd that you are the only one repeatedly complaining.

The people who aren't so emotionally attached to the game can see the problems with the LBB-style presentation and have complained about them here and elsewhere.

You are emotionally attached to your own opinions of what the 'problems' are, and 'proving' that you're opinions are important, too.

Everybody on this board, and at Mongoose too, are just as interested as you are (if not moreso) in making Traveller as appealing as possible to the new generation. They simply don't all agree with your ideas.

 

[Cowboy]

I'll take you up on that wager!

I'd be interested to see how you think you'll be able to get accurate numbers for who exactly is buying your books (i.e. whether they're old or new fans).

Plus, today's market generally expects books to be all fancy looking and glossy and colourful (at least, that's what you publishers keep telling us) - if 70's minimalist aesthetics worked today you'd think more books would look like they were made in someone's garage.

So I stand by my observations. And there are other people who have voiced the same opinion and expressed their distaste for the 1970s look - I think you'll find that outside the skewed world of the internet (where you're more likely to find the frothing fanboy who'll take anything you throw at them) that they're going to be the majority.

My my, aren't we condescending? I like how you phrased that so that anyone who states that the minimalist design works well is automatically a "frothing fanboy". Perhaps you're frothing a bit yourself, there?

I note that you're also contradicting yourself. Traveller fans are at the same time "neophobic" and unwilling to accept anything new and fanboys who'll take anything you throw at them. I should think each individual Traveller fan could only possibly be one or the other.

Now, considering that the Beatles didn't do too porly with The White Album and Metallica did pretty well commercially (<- understatement) with their black album, I think it's safe to say that a minimalist cover won't necessarily do any worse than a cover that lives up to the public's expectations of what such a product should look like. If anything, it's likely to generate more sales. In an oversaturated marketplace you need to stand out and it's tough to do that by looking the way everyone's come to expect such a product to look since the reason people have come to expect this is because everything else looks this way.

Especially when Classic Traveller has probably sold more copies than any of the subsequent editions that did away with the "boring 1970's" cover that came after that (MegaTraveller, TNE, T4).

The whole "Traveller fans are neophobic" has become a mantra but I don't really have the impression it's accurate. Over on RPGnet, the previews released thus far from the blog have had the Traveller fans raving about how great it sounds. So I doubt the relative lack of success of those subsequent editions has had anything to do with Traveller fans being "neophobic" and has had more to do with qualities of those products.

MegaTraveller had MegaErrata and many felt the rebellion changed the universe into something different. (I loved it - does this mean I don't qualify as a "grognard"?) People preferring CT to MT isn't really neophobia. MT simply wasn't what had appealed to them in a sci-fi game in the first place. Note that it somehow failed to attract any significant number of new fans in spite of the colorful covers.

TNE was T2K set in something only barely recognizable as the Traveller universe and suffered from errata problems on about the same scale as MT. It moved the timeline ahead far enough that you couldn't really keep playing with the same characters even if you did think of a way to convert them over as they'd have died of old age. No neophobia, just a really poor game. It's a Traveller that contains none of what appealed to the fans in Traveller and everything that didn't in T2K2. Colorful Zeleznik cover.

T4 was just an ugly mess. Again, fans didn't reject it out of neophobia but because it was a bad game and the Chris Foss painting on the cover (as well as the many interior color plates by same artist) didn't apparently bring in the new fans in significant numbers.

GURPS Traveller, now that did bring in some new fans (and some of the old too!) and no wonder! It was a solidly written product and a very good version of Traveller. I'd be very surprised if it hasn't been the best selling version of Traveller since CT even though many of the old CT fans dismissed it for not using anything recognizable as the old Traveller system. Oh, and it went with the CT look for the core book.

Generally, if you have one of the best selling and most popular properties within a given category on your hands (in this case sf rpg's), it's a bad idea to scrap the things that are most distinctive about said property.

You'll also find that the look of the LBB's isn't really especially 70's - they don't look like any other RPG from that period. The minimalist cover has prevented them from looking dated. Look at practically any other RPG from that period and you'll find loads of artwork with bell-bottoms and wide collars that date it very, very badly. Try to look like an 00's product now and chances are the book will look dated and embarrassing once we get to about the middle of the 10's.

Man, I'm just going to stop now. I've already rambled on for long enough.