Starship Power System Defective?

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Everyone does remember that Gar said a LONG time ago that the power in V3.2 still wasn't right and he was going to up it again?

There has been a lot of discussion on a subject that Gar has said he will fix. Not sure why it is still being discussed.

Now, if you want to suggest HOW the table should be fixed and WHY, THAT would probably help the situation. Arguing IF is should be fixed is a moot point, since it will get changed.

 

[tbeard1999]

In practice, the system needs a proper movement system (we used mayday's, which is the best one I've seen), 1 point per drive letter for MD and PP, and the rest was pure draft 3.1. It worked well. Quite well in fact, since for a merchantman, you have to choose: jump out or fight.

So, once again, a host of significant changes need to be made to beat the system into something resembling a useful system.

Isn't this the designer's job?

 

[tbeard1999]

Everyone does remember that Gar said a LONG time ago that the power in V3.2 still wasn't right and he was going to up it again?

There has been a lot of discussion on a subject that Gar has said he will fix. Not sure why it is still being discussed.

Now, if you want to suggest HOW the table should be fixed and WHY, THAT would probably help the situation. Arguing IF is should be fixed is a moot point, since it will get changed.

Gee, since there's only two days left for playtesting, isn't he cutting it kinda slim?

Or are we to simply take Mongoose's word that the current utterly useless system will somehow be beaten into a useable shape before the game goes to print?

<shrug>

I'm not optimistic here.

 

[EDG]

Isn't this the designer's job?

Take this advice from someone who's (successfully) contributed to a lot of playtests - if a playtester has an idea to improve a system then it's up to the playtester to suggest that method in the playtest. If you just want to sit there saying "this is wrong, but I'm not going to suggest how to fix it because I don't think it's my job" then you're not being particularly helpful. And certainly bitterly sniping at it at every opportunity you get (and on every internet board or list you can find, apparently) isn't helping anyone either.

Now with the core system (that you keep complaining about), you have a point. It's not the playtester's job to come up with entirely new core engines for the game (which is what MWM seemed to expect during the T5 playtest on CotI), but it IS the playtester's job to point out where it's wrong and where it needs fixing and to make suggestions for how to fix it.

All that stuff I'm doing for the worldgen is squarely under the playtesters' remit. I'm looking at existing systems (MGT and CT), analysing the problems I see, and then suggesting changes via the EDG system and doing analysis of that to make sure it works. If it necessitated an entire rewrite of the worldgen system from scratch, then producing all of that would be the designer's job, but as it is I'm just modifying the existing system so that's the playtester's job. And at the end of the day it's up to the designers to read the case I'm presenting and decide whether they want to adopt parts or all of it (or none of it).

 

[Golan2072]

The main problem IMHO with the power system is that most Power Plants produce less energy in a round than an M-drive of the same letter consumes in that round. It feels quite counter-intuitive that way, and contradicts previous products (such as CT in which a power plant allows an M-drive of the same letter to perform at its full rating). I suggest that each power plant should produce the exact amount of power points an M-drive of the same letter consumes; thus a civvie ship could either maneuver or fire or recharge its batteries (and and allow for a turn of both maneuver and fire), while a military craft with an expensive, cargo-hold-devouring over-rating power plant could do both with ease.

 

[rje]

The main problem IMHO with the power system is that most Power Plants produce less energy in a round than an M-drive of the same letter consumes in that round.

For starters, I endorse Aramis' suggested power changes. And, perhaps, then bump up power output, and twiddle the round length proportionally.

 

[tbeard1999]

Isn't this the designer's job?

Take this advice from someone who's (successfully) contributed to a lot of playtests - if a playtester has an idea to improve a system then it's up to the playtester to suggest that method in the playtest. If you just want to sit there saying "this is wrong, but I'm not going to suggest how to fix it because I don't think it's my job" then you're not being particularly helpful.

As a game designer, I disagree vehemently. As a matter of fact, it is not the playtester's job to fix a defective mechanic; rather, it is the playtester's job to validate the mechanics that have (supposedly) already been tested by the designer. Identifying hidden problems and defects is the playtester's job. Catching obvious problems and designing the game is the designer's job.

Of course, if the playtester has a better idea, there's nothing wrong with him suggesting it.

In addition, it is always possible that a mechanic cannot be fixed, but should instead be replaced. This is the case IMHO with the timing/effect syatem.

But it is patently absurd to imply that I have an obligation to fix a defective mechanic. If a machine is broken, my ability to repair the machine has nothing to do with whether it's actually broken.

What's galling about the starship energy system is that the designer clearly made no effort whatsoever to validate the rules before dumping them into the playtest document. As a game designer. I would have far more regard for my playtesters (and more professional pride, for that matter).

The willingness to offer up pure garbage like that does not make me particularly sanguine about it being magically turned into a viable mechanic after "playtesting" is done.

 

[AKAramis]

What's galling about the starship energy system is that the designer clearly made no effort whatsoever to validate the rules before dumping them into the playtest document. As a game designer. I would have far more regard for my playtesters (and more professional pride, for that matter).

The willingness to offer up pure garbage like that does not make me particularly sanguine about it being magically turned into a viable mechanic after "playtesting" is done.

Posts by Gar on the Planet Mongoose blog predate the inclusion of those rules in the playtest draft. They include notes about playing it.

So not entirely without testing.

 

[tbeard1999]

What's galling about the starship energy system is that the designer clearly made no effort whatsoever to validate the rules before dumping them into the playtest document. As a game designer. I would have far more regard for my playtesters (and more professional pride, for that matter).

The willingness to offer up pure garbage like that does not make me particularly sanguine about it being magically turned into a viable mechanic after "playtesting" is done.

Posts by Gar on the Planet Mongoose blog predate the inclusion of those rules in the playtest draft. They include notes about playing it.

So not entirely without testing.

If true, then this calls into serious question the designer's competence. The absurdities and inanities in the power system were obvious to me on the first read-through. I find it impossible to believe that they could have been unnoticed by any halfway competent deigner.

 

[tbeard1999]

I came across this perceptive comment on wargame design that seems to anticipate MGT:

The fraternal twin to stodgy design is "change far the sake of change." Here, the designer discards everything (he thinks), and refuses to be bound by "old fashioned" ideas. However, he has nothing better to offer - just a different (and usually more complicated) variety of stodginess.

--Steve Jackson and Nick Scheussler. Game Design Volume 1: Theory and Practice, p. 5, (1981)

On combat:

"Basically, the combat system should be a quick, simple tactical game in which the combat abilities of the pieces are drawn from the characteristics of the characters. Simplicity is the prime virtue of such a system. D&D, with a combat system so rudimentary as to be laughable, has proven immensely popular. Chivalry and Sorcery boasts a highly realistic combat system, which plays so slowly as to be seen only rarely in tournament play. The moral ought to be clear. Realism and detail are nice. Speed and comprehensibility are much more important." p. 37 (Emphasis mine).

Here are some comments on playtesting:

Playtesting is the process of playing a new game design, over and over, in order to spot flaws and improve playability. The importance of playtesting in the production of a finished game design cannot be overstated. Ninety percent of all game defects could have been corrected by satisfactory playtesting. There is no excuse far failure to playtest a design thoroughly before putting it on the market; it indicates either gross ignorance, total egotism, or an absolute lack of interest in giving the gamer his money's worth. ...A company or designer that is unwilling to playtest games should be in another line of work - it's that simple. (Emphasis mine)

...

When you feel that you have the rules the way you want them, and that the game works, you're ready for the second stage of playtest: blindtesting. The essence of blindtesting is that new playtesters are exposed to the game without the benefit of advice from the designer or other experienced players. (Emphasis mine) (p. 33)

We're now theoretically "blindtesting"...see the problem?

 

[EDG]

As a game designer, I disagree vehemently.

So what published games have you actually designed? Just so I know your level of experience here.

As a matter of fact, it is not the playtester's job to fix a defective mechanic; rather, it is the playtester's job to validate the mechanics that have (supposedly) already been tested by the designer. Identifying hidden problems and defects is the playtester's job. Catching obvious problems and designing the game is the designer's job.

You know what - either you're involved in a playtest because you want to make the game better, or you're not. Who does what "job" - and how that goal is reached - is really not important.

Now, I'm quite sure that you'll continue to bitch and whine about how you think the rules are broken and how it's not your job to fix it, but believe me, we really do get that you think the system is broken, and I'm sure Mongoose are aware of your opinions too. But I think most people here are getting pretty damn tired of hearing it.

If you're here to playest, then damn well playtest. If you're just here to grumble and moan and throw around your negative opinions at every opportunity then I don't think you'll be welcome here for very long. You can either carry on tilting at windmills or you can get back to doing something actually useful.

 

[tbeard1999]

As a game designer, I disagree vehemently.

So what published games have you actually designed? Just so I know your level of experience here.

A Fistful of TOWs 2 and (soon) FFT3. FFT2 covers modern mechanized warfare from 1950 to 2010. FFT3 will cover 1914 through 2010, with supplements for the mid 21st century. ETA is mid 2008.

Oh, and 29 years of roleplaying, board wargaming and miniature wargaming experience. 28 years playing Traveller.

And you?

As a matter of fact, it is not the playtester's job to fix a defective mechanic; rather, it is the playtester's job to validate the mechanics that have (supposedly) already been tested by the designer. Identifying hidden problems and defects is the playtester's job. Catching obvious problems and designing the game is the designer's job.

You know what - either you're involved in a playtest because you want to make the game better, or you're not. Who does what "job" - and how that goal is reached - is really not important.

Oh, I disagree. Since the designer gets paid to, well, you know, design the game, then I kinda think that it's his job to well, you know, design the game.

And while it's not necessary for a game to be perfect before being released to playtesters, its basic mechanics...like task resolution and combat (both personal and starship) should be functional and free of glaring errors. The failure to do this is usually a strong indication that the game will suck. At the very least it raises serious questions about the designer's competence and/or professional pride.

Playtesting should be to refine and validate, not cover up inept design decisions or plain old fashioned slopiness.

Now, I'm quite sure that you'll continue to bitch and whine about how you think the rules are broken

<shrug>

As long as it's defective, I'll continue to point it out. At the very least, Mongoose cannot say that they were unaware of the problems. And given the regrettable tendency of game companies to foist half-baked designs on the gaming public, only to replace them with "second editions", I think that candor about a game's weaknesses is a Good Thing.

and how it's not your job to fix it, but believe me, we really do get that you think the system is broken, and I'm sure Mongoose are aware of your opinions too. But I think most people here are getting pretty damn tired of hearing it.

And now we get to the point, don't we. You can't effectively rebut my arguments, so you demand that I stop being so nasty to your beloved game.

Request denied.

You're whining to the wrong person. Mongoose can shut me up anytime by banning me from this forum. This would, of course, speak volumes about how good they really think MGT is. In any case, I am quite confident that the marketplace will treat MGT as it deserves to be treated.

I'm just trying to warn Captain Smith that he might want to slow down when sailing through that ice field.

And if it's all the same to you, I think I'll keep bringing up flaws that I see in MGT. I'll even comment about things I like...should they come up.

If you're here to playest, then damn well playtest. If you're just here to grumble and moan and throw around your negative opinions

Once again, I'm getting the sense that you object to the fact that my criticisms are accurate. And if you can't debate on the merits, I guess all you really have is shooting the messenger, right?

...I don't think you'll be welcome here for very long.

I think that I can suffer that fate pretty easily.

You can either carry on tilting at windmills or you can get back to doing something actually useful.

Well, if there are any specific flaws in my reasoning, feel free to specifically identify them. If not, well, rest assured I'll give your emotional requests all the attention they deserve.

 

[EDG]

A Fistful of TOWs 2 and (soon) FFT3. FFT2 covers modern mechanized warfare from 1950 to 2010. FFT3 will cover 1914 through 2010, with supplements for the mid 21st century. ETA is mid 2008.

Oh, and 29 years of roleplaying, board wargaming and miniature wargaming experience. 28 years playing Traveller.

And you?

OK... so you've designed an amateur war game and that makes you a "professional game designer"? I mean, bully for you for publishing something, but that's really a far cry from being a roleplaying game designer.

Well, since we're cock-waving, here's my credentials... :roll:
Co-author of Transhuman Space: Under Pressure,
Credited playtester on several SJG supplements (uncredited on more),
Lead Playtester and contributor to GT:Sword Worlds,
Writer of two JTAS articles,
Contributing playtester on Avenger's 1248 books.

(So I've actually had stuff published by an established RPG company).

Also, 24 years of roleplaying experience (with some wargaming). 24 years of playing pretty much every RPG under the sun, including Traveller.

And now we get to the point, don't we. You can't effectively rebut my arguments, so you whine and snivel and shrilly demand that I stop being so nasty to your beloved game.

I think you're mistaken about how much I care about your arguments. I don't, because you've repeatedly droned on about how much you hate it. What you don't get is that after you made your initial point, all you've done is annoyed people. Hell, Mongoose have even said that they're taking another look at the T/E system and you're still doing nothing except spitefully slagging them off at every opportunity.

You're here to playtest - so do something useful and playtest.

Once again, I'm getting the sense that you object to the fact that my criticisms are accurate. And if you can't debate on the merits, I guess all you really have is shooting the messenger, right?

Nope. Fact is, I no longer care if you have a point or not. Your overwhelmingly unconstructive and unhelpful attitude has dissuaded me from examining your points in the detail they'd otherwise deserve.

But I sense that you're too obstinate to listen, so I'm wasting my time on you.

 

[tbeard1999]

A Fistful of TOWs 2 and (soon) FFT3. FFT2 covers modern mechanized warfare from 1950 to 2010. FFT3 will cover 1914 through 2010, with supplements for the mid 21st century. ETA is mid 2008.

Oh, and 29 years of roleplaying, board wargaming and miniature wargaming experience. 28 years playing Traveller.

And you?

Well, since we're cock-waving... :roll:

I'm just answering questions. Please resist future urges to share your fantasies.

You might tell us what this has to do with whether or not the starship energy system is badly defective, though.

Credited playtester on several SJG supplements (uncredited on more), Lead Playtester on GT:Sword Worlds, co-author of Transhuman Space: Under Pressure, writer of two JTAS articles.

24 years of roleplaying experience (with some wargaming). 24 years of playing pretty much every RPG under the sun, including Traveller.

(I'm sure we've had this discussion before. I remember looking at TOW and thinking "why does this guy think that designing an amateur war game makes him a professional game designer?")

You now see the primitive fear-threat reaction. The specimen is about to boast of his strength, the weaponry of his vessel, his doctorate and so on.
Next...
frustrated into a need to display physical prowess, the creature will throw himself against the transparency.

Actually, I don't think we have had such a discussion. For one thing, it isn't called TOW. But if you have any specific complaints, feel free to mosey over to the FFT email group and we can discuss them.

And your pathetic attempt to somehow pull rank invokes pity.

And now we get to the point, don't we. You can't effectively rebut my arguments, so you whine and snivel and shrilly demand that I stop being so nasty to your beloved game.

I think you're mistaken about how much I care about your arguments. I don't,

You sure are wasting a lot of time not caring about my arguments. In any case, I said that you're mad that I am criticising your beloved game.

because you've repeatedly droned on about how much you hate it. What you don't get is that after you made your initial point, all you've done is annoyed people.

You are lecturing about annoying people? Heh.

Hell, Mongoose have even said that they're taking another look at the T/E system and you're still doing nothing except spitefully slagging them off at every opportunity.

If all I'm doing is repeating myself, then you should have no problem ignoring me. Of course, if I am identifying and disecting real flaws that you missed, well, you wouldn't be pissy about that, right?

Once again, I'm getting the sense that you object to the fact that my criticisms are accurate. And if you can't debate on the merits, I guess all you really have is shooting the messenger, right?

Fact is, I no longer care if you have a point or not. Your overwhelmingly unconstructive and unhelpful attitude has dissuaded me from examining your points in the detail they'd otherwise deserve.

Well...bye.

 

[AKAramis]

To put it poetically, Ty:

People tend not to shoot the messenger for bringing the message, but for hanging around pestering them with it after delivery.

 

[tbeard1999]

To put it poetically, Ty:

People tend not to shoot the messenger for bringing the message, but for hanging around pestering them with it after delivery.

<shrug>

If you keep repeating the same defenses, I think it's reasonable for me to repeat the same attack. Perhaps you can articulate some principled difference between the two, but I can't.

 

[SableWyvern]

OK... so you've designed an amateur war game and that makes you a "professional game designer"? I mean, bully for you for publishing something, but that's really a far cry from being a roleplaying game designer.

I'd just like to chime in to say that FFoT is not the wargaming equivalent of some random dude's RPG pdf. Ty is at least as entitled to call himself a real game designer as any of the Indie RPG producers adored by the RPG.net crowd.

By any objective standard (production values, coherency of rules etc...) A Fistfull of TOWs is of comparable or superior quality to any other micro-armour scale game on the market (back in the day, when Space Marine/Epic was still boxed and on the shelves, he would have lost out on production standards there).

And, I say that as someone who has disagreed with the man on many points regarding MGT, so it's not fanboyishness by any stretch.

 

[captainjack23]

OK... so you've designed an amateur war game and that makes you a "professional game designer"? I mean, bully for you for publishing something, but that's really a far cry from being a roleplaying game designer.

I'd just like to chime in to say that FFoT is not the wargaming equivalent of some random dude's RPG pdf. Ty is at least as entitled to call himself a real game designer as any of the Indie RPG producers adored by the RPG.net crowd.

By any objective standard (production values, coherency of rules etc...) A Fistfull of TOWs is of comparable or superior quality to any other micro-armour scale game on the market (back in the day, when Space Marine/Epic was still boxed and on the shelves, he would have lost out on production standards there).

And, I say that as someone who has disagreed with the man on many points regarding MGT, so it's not fanboyishness by any stretch.

Heh. As one who has seldom argued with you, I'll happily fanboy; I can say I really like your fistful series, as well the colonials on mars series. Ran a big game or two w/......hmmmm...the "hobby hovel guy"....to avoid using real names .

Anyway, yeah, they are really pro games, and were well before the indie game online movement took off. But I'm just a fanboy..... :wink:

 

[tbeard1999]

OK... so you've designed an amateur war game and that makes you a "professional game designer"? I mean, bully for you for publishing something, but that's really a far cry from being a roleplaying game designer.

I'd just like to chime in to say that FFoT is not the wargaming equivalent of some random dude's RPG pdf. Ty is at least as entitled to call himself a real game designer as any of the Indie RPG producers adored by the RPG.net crowd.

By any objective standard (production values, coherency of rules etc...) A Fistfull of TOWs is of comparable or superior quality to any other micro-armour scale game on the market (back in the day, when Space Marine/Epic was still boxed and on the shelves, he would have lost out on production standards there).

And, I say that as someone who has disagreed with the man on many points regarding MGT, so it's not fanboyishness by any stretch.

Heh. As one who has seldom argued with you, I'll happily fanboy; I can say I really like your fistful series, as well the colonials on mars series. Ran a big game or two w/......hmmmm...the "hobby hovel guy"....to avoid using real names .

Anyway, yeah, they are really pro games, and were well before the indie game online movement took off. But I'm just a fanboy..... :wink:

Thanks to both of you. The colonials game was Orc's Drift, which detailed battles between 19th century colonial powers and various fantasy races in the "Centre of the Earth". I've always wanted to flesh that out into a full blown game system. I still have the "Queen's Own Dwarven Rifles" regiment.

As for FFT2 being an "amateur" product, well it is a printed product (with glossy color cover, countersheet and reference card), which is more professional than any of the PDF-only "professional" products out there. And while it is spiral bound, this was a choice. Spiral binding is actually more expensive and time intensive than perfect binding, but it lays flat, which is a very useful quality for a set of game rules.

And I and my developer (co-author on FFT3) spent hundreds of man hours on FFT2 and well over $2000 on monographs and books to supplement our own very extensive personal libraries. FFT2 has the most comprehensive data lists of any modern wargame ever. We've worked even harder on FFT3. It will contain triple the data of FFT2 and will have the most comprehensive modern data collection ever and its WWII data will compare favorably to the dedicated WWII rulesets. And it's a remarkably fast playing and intuitive game, even with such depth in the data. Oh and I designed FFT3 so that the rules system could accomodate battles set in the distant future detailed in a certain classic science fiction roleplaying game...

FFT has been the target of interest (and encouragement) from several heavyweights in the gaming field. I won't sell it for three reasons. First, it is *my* game; I will not lose control of it. Second, it's a niche product and the profits will never buy me a vacation home on Aruba. Therefore, I'd rather keep the ego gratification and maybe accept a bit less money. Third, I'm an entrepreneur by inclination. So I don't mind investing some capital in my game.

And the FFT email group is lively and blunt most of the time. Despite this, I have never locked a thread and have only had to issue warnings a few times (and there's over 600 members IIRC). So I'm pretty sure that FFT is a "real" wargame and therefore I'm a "real" game designer.

That said, I proudly accept the moniker of "amateur" game designer. I'd note that anyone who has a "real" job is an "amateur" game designer. This would include EDG, I suspect.

And as you noted, I have designed dozens of other games. Some were awful; they will never see the light of day. (This is why I am contemptuous of designers who insist on forcing crappy mechanics; I ruthlessly kill my crappy games, so I expect them to do the same).

Of the remainder, most are free in PDF format.

Some are on very esoteric subjects, so they simply aren't worth trying to sell (I mean, I actually designed TWO wargames to simulate the War of the Worlds (Tripods and Hussars and A Fistful of Tripods; both were well-received by the five people on the planet Earth interested in wargaming the subject ). A Fistful of Sardaukar, my Dune skirmish wargame, is in this category (and would make me uncomfortably familiar with the legal team of Frank Herbert's estate should I try to sell it).

Other designs have been well regarded, but I don't have time to develop them into a sufficiently comprehensive product that I'd be comfortable selling. (Which explains why I detest poorly developed games; again, I walk the walk.) High Seas Drifter, my WWII capital ship combat is a lot of fun, but needs rules for smaller ships; Orc's Drift was well received, but needs development; Railgun: 2100, the sci-fi version of FFT was stillborn because of FFT2 and FFT3; it will appear as a full blown game after FFT3; A Fistful of Dragons is a modern skirmish wargame that has been enthusiastically well received by my initial playtesters, though again, too sparse right now.) A Fistful of Bolters, my replacement game for WH40K works very well, but I've lost interest (and don't want to meet GW's legal team, so I could never sell it). Where Panzers Dare, the WWII version of FFT2 is being folded into FFT3.

In addition, I've designed several sets of ancient miniature rules, several sets of fantasy rules, several sci-fi miniature rules and a starship combat game based on High Seas Drifter.

I've also designed a number of RPGs. All were enjoyed by my players, but none really did anything that wasn't already done at least as well by commercial games. In a bizarre example of parallel evolution, my last sci-fi RPG contained mechanics nearly identical to the Serenity RPG. My game predated Serenity by 4 years, but I never made it available outside my circle of friends, so there's no way Serenity could be a ripoff. My combat system was different, and better IMHO. I'll probably take advantage of the Mongoose SRD to do my own version of Traveller at some point. I'm very likely to create a Traveller module for Chaosium's soon to be released Basic Roleplaying system. My problem is that I love to fiddle with systems, but I despise having to fully develop a background.

I have a fun Boxing Card game and a Football card game that I will sell when I become independently rich and can start or buy my own game company.

So you can probably tell that EDG's sneering about my "amateur" status made me chuckle at his naivite...

And if you like my games, you aren't a fanboy. You're a very astute and insightful gamer who appreciates quality designs, of course

 

[captainjack23]

And if you like my games, you aren't a fanboy. You're a very astute and insightful gamer who appreciates quality designs, of course

well....obviously.

And yeah, Orc's drift. The name alone was worth the price of admission..... :wink:

Back to Traveller.....