T5 vs Mongoose Traveler

[captainjack23]

The problem was the combat system. Highly accurate and actually flowed but it's level of realism hurt on one very annoying way. It was virtually impossible to hurt anyone.

So it wasn't very realistic then? Keep in mind that "detailed" is not the same as "realistic". You can have a very detailed system that produces inaccurate results (like book 6, for example).

Actually, I very fondly remember Space opera...and never never play it, for the same reasons. Problem is, for its time it was the most realistic bullet damage system; might still be. Problem also was it was one of the cases where realism did equal detail, as abstraction was eschewed as (hold your breath) unrealistic. If a short case 7.62 round didn't do less damage than an eastblock 7.62, then it was quite verifiably WRONG.

Yet, it was completely unsatisfying as a game simulation- (I guess there was too much in house playtest by the same like minded group).

So, for this and lots of similar examples, I ( and I suspect lots of us here) really do have a "what do you have on the table as a solution" attitude to the realism issue particulalry when its touted in a gaming system. Because, we've been burned before.

Assuming that someone's concern that the 'ensuring a high level of accuracy' is just an 'irrational fear' is a huge assumption and a bit of an 'irrational assumption' in itself.

I don't think it is, based on what's been said. Right here in this post you've reiterated your desire for a realistic but simple system... which is what I've been saying is possible to do all along, but it still sounds like you don't actually believe it. It's like people are so wrapped up in this concept that realism is necessarily a lot more complicated that they just cannot get their heads around the concept that it doesn't actually have to be at all, even when evidence that shows that is presented to them. That's what makes it an irrational fear.

So it isn't an irrational fear of realism, but a reasoned skepticism of claims of realism. Possibly exaserbated by poorly or arrogantly presented claims (not a snipe, just remembering other rants in the fan press)

But then the distinction is one of my profession's discussion, and so it may seem clearer to me. Give that filter a try when parsing peoples arguments - it may help you get your point across.- that and unlike MANY others, in this case, you have brought a solution to the table.

Cap.

BTW. anyone know the actual average density of stars in the OTU area ?

M

 

[AKAramis]

I'll be good(ish), and come back to the gaming table to game. Just don't make me sit next to the hiver, okay ? He keeps....looking at my dice. Funny-like.

.....You're worried, aren't you..........


.....you should be........

At least we know Hivers lack the ability to use psionics... it's just those hourglass irises that make you feel odd...

As to Realism...

We (terrans of 2007-2008) know what the stellar distribution is; the rules should approximate that. That's not an unreasonable request.

We (terrans of 2007-2008) have a reasonable model of planetary formation processes, one which was recently shaken up (last 10 years) by the finding of lots of planets which didn't fit the model. We can reasonable say that the model now in place is reliable as it results in systems that would show up the way the systems we're observing do. But unless TPF gets off the ground, we won't be knowing if these models are in any way accurate until we can resolve the TP's TPF is supposed to find. (TP=Terrestrial Planet.) We also know that our current methods do not produce enough data to match all the outputs the current science model produces, but what we can see can be replicated.

We (terrans of 2007-2008) have a reasonable range of values where we expect life, and a significant minority expecting life well beyond those limits. Still others (again, a minority, again significant) expect no life even if we find lots of proto-earth type planets.

We (terrans of 2007-2008) have a reasonble belief that our current atmosphere is a product of our planets life processes; any atmosphere with our mix should have life.

 

[EDG]

Actually, I very fondly remember Space opera...and never never play it, for the same reasons. Problem is, for its time it was the most realistic bullet damage system; might still be. Problem also was it was one of the cases where realism did equal detail, as abstraction was eschewed as (hold your breath) unrealistic. If a short case 7.62 round didn't do less damage than an eastblock 7.62, then it was quite verifiably WRONG.

Yet, it was completely unsatisfying as a game simulation- (I guess there was too much in house playtest by the same like minded group).

Well, if in most cases it proved impossible to actually damage anyone with a bullet fired from a gun, it doesn't sound all that realistic to me... but then all I've got is a comment from another poster here to go on with that.

So it isn't an irrational fear of realism, but a reasoned skepticism of claims of realism. Possibly exaserbated by poorly or arrogantly presented claims (not a snipe, just remembering other rants in the fan press)

It's not coming across as "reasoned skepticism" though. It's coming across as "eek, don't make it realistic, that'll make it more complicated!" with no further elaboration. If people have been burned by overcomplex realism in the past then fair enough, but that's still no reason to assume that the only way to get realism is to be overcomplicated.

BTW. anyone know the actual average density of stars in the OTU area ?

It should be a lot denser than shown on the hex maps.

 

[captainjack23]

Actually, I very fondly remember Space opera...and never never play it, for the same reasons. Problem is, for its time it was the most realistic bullet damage system; might still be. Problem also was it was one of the cases where realism did equal detail, as abstraction was eschewed as (hold your breath) unrealistic. If a short case 7.62 round didn't do less damage than an eastblock 7.62, then it was quite verifiably WRONG.

Yet, it was completely unsatisfying as a game simulation- (I guess there was too much in house playtest by the same like minded group).

Well, if in most cases it proved impossible to actually damage anyone with a bullet fired from a gun, it doesn't sound all that realistic to me... but then all I've got is a comment from another poster here to go on with that.

Perhaps I'm confusing it with "morrow project" Same era, same issues.

So it isn't an irrational fear of realism, but a reasoned skepticism of claims of realism. Possibly exaserbated by poorly or arrogantly presented claims (not a snipe, just remembering other rants in the fan press)

It's not coming across as "reasoned skepticism" though. It's coming across as "eek, don't make it realistic, that'll make it more complicated!" with no further elaboration. If people have been burned by overcomplex realism in the past then fair enough, but that's still no reason to assume that the only way to get realism is to be overcomplicated.

Come across to you, yes. And, that, I guess is the final authority you need to worry about. Although it will effect how people read your arguments, NTS; if you're misreading them, I suspect they have little reason to correctly read you. But, as I said, your goals, your call as to method.

BTW. anyone know the actual average density of stars in the OTU area ?

It should be a lot denser than shown on the hex maps.[/quote]

NO KIDDING ! :wink: Could I please get a ballpark number ? 5x ,6x, 2x, 4x ? Aramis ?, EDG ? Anyone ? Bueller ?
I'm asking you because there are experts here, and I want to look at MY stellar generation as regards what kind of a numerical sample of REAL stars the ones on the Trav maps represent. - not to set up some king of verbal trap.

 

[EDG]

Come across to you, yes. And, that, I guess is the final authority you need to worry about. Although it will effect how people read your arguments, NTS; if you're misreading them, I suspect they have little reason to correctly read you. But, as I said, your goals, your call as to method.

Well, my comments on this subject were referring to a general impression that I'd got in discussions like this in the past that seemed like an irrational fear of realism. Some people here evidently took that to mean "if you don't like realism then you're irrational", which is a completely incorrect interpretation of what I said. I'm being pretty clear about what I say here, it seems that other people are reading things into it that I'm not saying.

And as an aside, if one side is misreading the other, that's not even remotely justification for the other side to return the favour. Misreading someone out of sheer spite is somewhat immature and unconstructive.

NO KIDDING ! :wink: Could I please get a ballpark number ? 5x ,6x, 2x, 4x ?

Apparently around our neighbourhood it's near one star per cubic parsec (see http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec26.html ) (the galactic core is nearer 100 stars per cubic parsec). But since traveller maps assume that the universe is flat and made up of hexes, that doesn't really translate very well to "stars per flat hex area". But I guess you could call it "at least one star per hex".

But then you have all the Brown Dwarfs lurking out there (they likely outnumber even red dwarfs, so there's probably at least one of those lurking per hex on a Traveller map) too.

Note that "rifts" as described in traveller don't really exist in the real universe, at least not within our spiral arm. Maybe it'd be more possible between the spiral arms, but the scale of the traveller maps is too small for that.

 

[captainjack23]

And as an aside, if one side is misreading the other, that's not even remotely justification for the other side to return the favour. Misreading someone out of sheer spite is somewhat immature and unconstructive.

Let me be clear here, that wasn't what I was suggesting. On the whole, this community seldom resorts to misreading out of spite. Misunderstanding due to lack of understanding, or poorly presented arguments, or emotional issues, yes. Misreading someone because they piss you off by their assumptions about you is, unfortunately, human nature.

If a teacher consistantly couldn't pitch his point to his target audience in a class, I'd like to think that he'd rethink his delivery.

That said, A koan for Kristmas:

What is the one thing all the people who misunderstand, get pissy and have arguments with you over your opinions have in common ? Specifically, what is the one common factor in every argument you've had in every newsgroup, ever ?

NO KIDDING ! :wink: Could I please get a ballpark number ? 5x ,6x, 2x, 4x ?

Apparently around our neighbourhood it's near one star per cubic parsec (see http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec26.html ) (the galactic core is nearer 100 stars per cubic parsec). But since traveller maps assume that the universe is flat and made up of hexes, that doesn't really translate very well to "stars per flat hex area". But I guess you could call it "at least one star per hex".

But then you have all the Brown Dwarfs lurking out there (they likely outnumber even red dwarfs, so there's probably at least one of those lurking per hex on a Traveller map) too.

Note that "rifts" as described in traveller don't really exist in the real universe, at least not within our spiral arm. Maybe it'd be more possible between the spiral arms, but the scale of the traveller maps is too small for that.

THANKS ! so traveller, based on the system generation (book 2) of about one star every other hex in core areas, and less inothers is off by somewherre like a factor of....lets see, 2.6 ? (overall average across all conditions - vs 1/parhex actual).

 

[GamerDude]

Traveller doesn't assume a "FLAT" galaxy. It just doesn't get overly into distances above/below the galactic plane when creating the map. While I recognized that two starts, unless they are at the same distance above/below the galactic plane are actually farther apart than a "looking down" 2D projection would reflect, it wasn't necessary for Traveller to work well. After all, interstellar travel is done by a totally fictional "Jump Drive" and didn't require getting into th level of detail an actual 3D stellar mapping system would provide.

Bottom line: It was realistic enough for the game.

NOTE: Does the OTU actually use the real starmap of this region of the Milkyway Galaxy or it's own starmap? (doesn't matter if it is based on reality, gives a nod to reality, ignoring reality)

............................
As far as Space Opera went (A game that is STILL in production and available from the publisher at http://www.fantasygamesunlimited.net/shop/?shop=1&cat=4& ), it was a matter of weapons being able to A) Just hit the target then B) Penetrate the armor once it is hit and C) having the damage done get through the damage reduction provided by the armor.

Depending on the weapon (projectile or laser/beam), the armor the target was wearing, their size/position (1/4 man sized, prone, etc), and your rolls (I think it was made on a d10), it would be very hard to just hit the target.

You might need a 3- to hit, a 2- to penetrate, do 1d10 damage against a DR of 4. That breaks down to a 30% chance to just make contact, if you made contact a 20% chance of penetrating the armor at all... (for a combined actual 6% chance of hitting&penetrating), and then doing a max 5 pts of damage (meaning you rolled a 6 or better)... or a total 3% chance of doing 1-5 points of damage.

All that rolling for what? pretty much ZERO effect?

Of course, if you look at things like Star Wars (and just about any popular action move set in "today")... you can have 8,000 bullets/laser bolts being fired with maybe 7 people dying, each one dying from just a single successful shot that managed to actually HIT a target other than the wall.

On the other hand, shoot a rifle or 5.56 mm rifle (M-16) or shotgun at someone wearing a Kevlar vest (and yes, hit them where the protective plates are) and how often does that shot penetrate? Well, the purpose of the armor is to stop the round/shot from getting to the person wearing the vest (and if it gets through actually causing serious damage). Looking at this the Space Opera's combat system quite nicely reflects reality. Unfortunately it reflects it in a way that really slows play down because typically it is rare for a shot actually do any damage.

............................
Then we have when a person colors their perception of what others are saying by applying a "general impression of past discussions (but not this one)" (Italicized portion added by me) means anyone not having a general fear of 'realism' will be viewed as having that fear.

Entering into any conversation wearing such a narrowing set of 'blinders' on your understanding of what someone else has written, causing all kinds of problems, particularly when that person refuses to acknowledge that predisposition to misunderstanding what someone else writes, we have what this thread has degraded into...

 

[EDG]

If a teacher consistantly couldn't pitch his point to his target audience in a class, I'd like to think that he'd rethink his delivery.

Oh, I've rethought my delivery several times and restated it ad nauseam. The fact that it's always the same two or three people (who apparently have a history of problems with me) just don't seem to get it indicates that I'm dealing with "bad students" (to continue the teacher analogy) that just aren't worth dealing with anymore.

What is the one thing all the people who misunderstand, get pissy and have arguments with you over your opinions have in common ? Specifically, what is the one common factor in every argument you've had in every newsgroup, ever ?

I'd say it's other peoples' insistence on taking a discussion about a game personally and then accusing me of saying things I didn't say (and believe me I've had that done to me so many times I've lost count, even when I've been sure to be very clear about what I've said so as to avoid any kind of ambiguity that may be misinterpreted) and turning things into veiled (or obvious) personal attacks.

I know (because it's painfully transparent) that you're trying to bait me into saying "oh, *I'm* the common factor" but that really is not what the problem is here. Most people don't have a problem with me, or at least are intelligent enough to realise that I'm not deliberately trying to run rings around people or be a smartass at them (I hate it when people do that to me, so I certainly wouldn't do that with other people), but on every board there's always been a bunch of people who independently decide (probably because they share the same mindset) that they're going to misread and twist what I say regardless. I guess that's the problem with the internet - you get all sorts on it who have their own agendas and reasons for doing things and their own ways of interpreting what others say. I've learned the hard way to be very careful about what I say and I've been as clear as I can be in this discussion, but still people are hassling me for what I say (or more often for what they think I'm saying) instead of just discussing the points I'm making. And all I can say to them is "if you're that frustrated by what I say then it's better for you to just walk away, but I'm not attacking you personally".

The problem as always is that people insist on making it personal - instead of discussing the ideas I'm talking about, I get attacked personally for what I say, and that is the wrong way to carry out any discussion. I have not insulted anyone personally on this board, and I'm not about to start insulting anyone personally on this board. Meanwhile I've had insults and snarky comments thrown at me publicly and by PM by people (including yourself) who somehow have twisted what I've said into what they claim is something offensive to them. And any kind of reassurance that it's not offensive just gets met with more insults.

But of course, now I've said that I'm going to get a bunch of sarcastic posts from that crowd accusing me of being arrogant or being a martyr or whatever. To which I say "whatever" - some people just think what they want to think and there's not much I can do about it. So can we just skip the "witty retorts" and get back to discussing Traveller, perhaps?

Just talk about the ideas and keep the playground insults out of it, for crying out loud. There's no justification to make the snarky comments and throw the insults to make your point - I'm not doing that to anyone else so why do other people see fit to do so to me? We're here to talk about Traveller, not about individuals or to hurl insults at eachother.

 

[EDG]

Traveller doesn't assume a "FLAT" galaxy. It just doesn't get overly into distances above/below the galactic plane when creating the map. While I recognized that two starts, unless they are at the same distance above/below the galactic plane are actually farther apart than a "looking down" 2D projection would reflect, it wasn't necessary for Traveller to work well. After all, interstellar travel is done by a totally fictional "Jump Drive" and didn't require getting into th level of detail an actual 3D stellar mapping system would provide.

It is a flat galaxy though in Traveller. By removing the vertical 'z-axis' the distances and/or directions between stars gets progressively more twisted and distorted as you move away from the origin. You've got known stars that should be dozens of lightyears above or below the plane of others that are squished to be on the same level, so the actual distance between a "squished" star and the origin is greatly reduced.

As a matter of fact, this is something I've done a lot of work on as well - the simplest solution I found was to make "layered subsector maps" by stacking subsectors on top of eachother, with each one separated by 1 pc. The problem is that (a) we don't know all the stars in our neighbourhood (the dim M V stars are hard to find, even at a distance of a few lightyears) and (b) if we can't see the dimmer stars near us then we certainly are missing a hell of a lot of those stars as we go further from Sol. So this kind of mapping is only really accurate within about 6pc of Sol, but in that volume it's very accurate.

See here for a full breakdown of this issue and the maps I made.

Bottom line: It was realistic enough for the game.

Actually the bottom line is that it worked for the game. Realism didn't really come into it.

NOTE: Does the OTU actually use the real starmap of this region of the Milkyway Galaxy or it's own starmap? (doesn't matter if it is based on reality, gives a nod to reality, ignoring reality)

Not even remotely. It's got a few of the bright nearby stars, but the rest is entirely fictional. Chris Thrash attempted to link known stars in the Solomani Rim to some of the systems with some success, but for sectors beyond that (like the Spinward Marches) it's entirely fictional.

 

[captainjack23]

If a teacher consistantly couldn't pitch his point to his target audience in a class, I'd like to think that he'd rethink his delivery.

Oh, I've rethought my delivery several times and restated it ad nauseam. The fact that it's always the same two or three people (who apparently have a history of problems with me) just don't seem to get it indicates that I'm dealing with "bad students" (to continue the teacher analogy) that just aren't worth dealing with anymore.

What is the one thing all the people who misunderstand, get pissy and have arguments with you over your opinions have in common ? Specifically, what is the one common factor in every argument you've had in every newsgroup, ever ?

I'd say it's other peoples' insistence on taking a discussion about a game personally and then accusing me of saying things I didn't say (and believe me I've had that done to me so many times I've lost count, even when I've been sure to be very clear about what I've said so as to avoid any kind of ambiguity that may be misinterpreted) and turning things into veiled (or obvious) personal attacks.

I know (because it's painfully transparent) that you're trying to bait me into saying "oh, *I'm* the common factor" but that really is not what the problem is here. Most people don't have a problem with me, or at least are intelligent enough to realise that I'm not deliberately trying to run rings around people or be a smartass at them (I hate it when people do that to me, so I certainly wouldn't do that with other people), but on every board there's always been a bunch of people who independently decide (probably because they share the same mindset) that they're going to misread and twist what I say regardless. I guess that's the problem with the internet - you get all sorts on it who have their own agendas and reasons for doing things and their own ways of interpreting what others say. I've learned the hard way to be very careful about what I say and I've been as clear as I can be in this discussion, but still people are hassling me for what I say instead of just discussing the points I'm making. And all I can say to them is "if you're that frustrated by what I say then it's better for you to just walk away, but I'm not attacking you personally".

The problem as always is that people insist on making it personal - instead of discussing the ideas I'm talking about, I get attacked personally for what I say, and that is the wrong way to carry out any discussion. I have not insulted anyone personally on this board, and I'm not about to start insulting anyone personally on this board. Meanwhile I've had insults and snarky comments thrown at me publicly and by PM by people (including yourself) who somehow have twisted what I've said into what they claim is something offensive to them. And any kind of reassurance that it's not offensive just gets met with more insults.

But of course, now I've said that I'm going to get a bunch of sarcastic posts from that crowd accusing me of being arrogant or being a martyr or whatever. To which I say "whatever" - some people just think what they want to think and there's not much I can do about it. So can we just skip the "witty retorts" and get back to discussing Traveller, perhaps?

Just talk about the ideas and keep the playground insults out of it, for crying out loud. There's no justification to make the snarky comments and throw the insults to make your point - I'm not doing that to anyone else so why do other people see fit to do so to me? We're here to talk about Traveller, not about individuals or to hurl insults at each other.

I read over this round of emails, and I find no insults or playground jibes.
I have in fact complimented you on your starsystem generation, and asked for, and been thankful for your input on stellar density. I was snarky earlier, yes, but that was wrong of me, and I'm past that now.

Yes, I suggested that you look at why you have repeatedly run into this problem, because by your own admission you have. So, I was trying to suggest that maybe if you always feel persecuted, perhaps, just perhaps, you are bringing something to the situation.

I mean, yes, you do have some good ideas, and yes, you are probably smarter and more educated than many on the board, possibly including myself, but you do seem to spend most of your time defending yourself, or counterattacking rather than presenting you work and ideas - I am struck by the quality of the star generation table, which I never knew you had actually produced, because you spend perhaps the majority of your time on this, and possibly other various boards defending your posting style, or attacking someone elses. It gets lost in the chaff, see ?

Yes, people do give you a hard to snarky to hostile time. I have, so have others. Its probably fair to note, though, that you also seem to be about the only person here who seems to constantly get the treatment you complain of, and from a variety of sources; and we have some very strident opinions here. Do you think that you cannot possibly be bringing something to the situation, or do you really believe that you are constantly posting on boards populated by the same set of over sensitive egotists and narcissists?
And if so,given the stress it seems to cause you, and the fact that you've stated publicly that you dislike T5 and CT and T4, why on earth are you constantly getting in these situations ?

It is possible that you are the only reasonable person in this thread, or the only intelligent person here, or the only reasonable person but honestly, do you really think that to be the case ? And no, I'm pretty sure that the "two or three" people here attacking you are unlikely to be the same ones who attacked you on the QLI boards, or on rpg.net; most of us, myself included, haven't said boo to you before this. It may be three or four here, but its a different three or four on each of the boards...so it does add up.

I'm honestly not sure why suggesting that you may have contributed something to your reputation and lack of welcome on several gaming groups is a playground insult. Nor do I think that I am unintelligent simply because I don't like your attitude. If I had to be honest, I think I'm unintelligent because I'm writing this instead of wrapping presents and getting to bed. Which means, I'm outta here...tonight.

and,oh, despite all else, Merry Christmas.

 

[EDG]

Look everyone, it's really not that hard. I am sick and tired of fending off PMs of petty insults and thread derailments from the same people here. If what I say (or what you think I say) offends you that much then just ignore what I say and spare me the armchair psychiatry and the commentary and leave it at that - we're all supposedly here to discuss Traveller, not eachother.

I'm quite sure that neither my own nor anyone else's "motivations" and "attitude" are valid topics of discussion on this board, and I'm really not interested in discussing them via PM either. I'm not attacking anyone here and I don't see any reason why I should be attacked here either. I have an opinion and I have every right to express it civilly, as does everyone else - but if you choose to interpret that as "arrogance" or anything else then that's entirely your interpretation because I'm really not saying it like that, and there's not much I can do about how you choose to interpret what other people say.

Now for the last time, can we please just get back to Traveller?

 

[AKAramis]

EDG, Cap'n:

Play nice, both of you.

Let the bygones be bygones.

I do agree that the Bk2 system was "close enough for playing" and that Bk6 is badly broken. I don't think Bk6 is worth fixing; replacing, maybe, but not "Fixing" since the process of fixing requires sufficient changes as to be annoying, and will invalidate vast swaths of canon.

And despite my mild (by comparison to some on COTI) canonistaness, those bad star designations can, as far as I care, be deleted.

I do want proper star type ratios. I do like certain oddities, like Regina orbiting a Gas GIant, and that orbiting the star. But, if the stellar data is fixed, we still need something that reflects the best exploration of known data... and that's something the the Mongoose doesn't have time for for the core rules as a certainty.

I am, for what it is worth, hoping that Mongoose rolls back the release date, since a large chunk of the important parts have yet to hit the draft: System Generation, Trade rules, and ship movement.

 

[captainjack23]

Look everyone, it's really not that hard. I am sick and tired of fending off PMs of petty insults and thread derailments from the same people here. If what I say (or what you think I say) offends you that much then just ignore what I say and spare me the armchair psychiatry and the commentary and leave it at that - we're all supposedly here to discuss Traveller, not eachother.

In fact, It's armchair Psychology, not Psychiatry. :wink:
Psychiatry would suggest meds, whereas I just suggested you look at your own behavior. Which isn't a petty insult, just a suggestion. As to the rest...they are observations, documentable ones, not insults, and oddly enough, meant well. As to abusive PM's, well, that is what the admin is for. I've sent you one serious pm and a holiday greeting. You've sent me one, and a very testy threat.

Again, if your mailbox is full of hostile pms, and no one else's is, well....any chance that means something ? How many of the people you claim are hounding you have your track record with respect to....well, being told to play elsewhere ? How many people have to spend all their time defending themselves ? read the posts and count. Not many at all, if any.

Okay, in any case, you have convinced me that your points are better than your arguments, and that your interpersonal style detracts from both. And that on some level, arguing is more important to you than getting your point across, which is a shame, as your points are better than your arguments. If it doesn't bother you that you keep getting into these situations...well fine. You're not paying me for advice, and it's your issue.


Again, merry Christmas, and thanks for the info and starsystem table. Good luck discussing traveller. You do have a lot to offer.
Cap

 

[EDG]

Which part of "drop it" are you not getting, captainjack? Half of the posts in this thread has been people whining about how I post or my supposed "attitude" and me defending myself from that and trying to get it back on track, and that's even after myself and a mod have come on and said to just talk about Traveller. Enough already. I'm not interested in and don't want or need anyone's "advice", and I don't care about anyone's opinion or judgement of me. Just talk about the damned game, will you?

As for my "testy threat", that was me telling you that I'd reported you for the unwarranted rant that you made about me when I answered another poster's question about Marc's attitude to realism earlier on in this thread. But since it seems that you are unwilling to act on my requests to get the topic back on track to Traveller and paranoidgamer just seems to want to throw petty insults at me via PM, I've reported the pair of you and will leave it in the hands of the mods.

 

[captainjack23]

EDG, Cap'n:

Play nice, both of you.

Let the bygones be bygones.

I'll give it a try, but I do reserve the right to respond when oars get stuck in, as was the case here. And I have been very nice, this time. I mean, if I've been insulting, I don't see it, and if so, I'll back off and apologise.

I am however amenable to shutting the heck up about this so that we can get back to talking geek, and not behavioral intervention.

I do agree that the Bk2 system was "close enough for playing" and that Bk6 is badly broken. I don't think Bk6 is worth fixing; replacing, maybe, but not "Fixing" since the process of fixing requires sufficient changes as to be annoying, and will invalidate vast swaths of canon.

Yeah, I cant see much benefit in that. T5 is about massive detail. Honestly, I think less is better in this arena. Theres a star, it has a planet. the planet needs more detail than the star. The star needs a bit of detail for chrome, but much else seems to be a slipprey slope. EDG's table is about the most that would be useful for MGT, I think.

And despite my mild (by comparison to some on COTI) canonistaness, those bad star designations can, as far as I care, be deleted.

I do want proper star densities. I do like certain oddities, like Regina orbiting a Gas GIant, and that orbiting the star. But, if the stellar data is fixed, we still need something that reflects the best exploration of known data... and that's something the the Mongoose doesn't have time for for the core rules as a certainty.

Agreed. You know, I somehow never noticed regina was a satellite until earlier this year, when it came up in my campaign. Poorly detailed or not, I was glad to have the reference material.

Some cleanup may be good, but throwing away too much will really impoverish Traveller.

I am, for what it is worth, hoping that Mongoose rolls back the release date, since a large chunk of the important parts have yet to hit the draft: System Generation, Trade rules, and ship movement.

As to Traveller, yeah I'm concerned too about the release date. However, I'll be delighted and satisfied to see the ship and ship combat systems in another draft, far more than the starsytem generation. 'course, just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Its possible that those parts need the least feedback and are being handled in house.

I mean, really, the arguments about Star generation do boil down to this: if the system is reality based, is it accurate, which perhaps three people on the board can reasonably address, and will probably contradict each other; and if not, should it be, which everyone can address and will, with no more authority than anyone else.

I can imagine a certain hesitation in presenting them here..

:wink:

 

[captainjack23]

Which part of "drop it" are you not getting, captainjack?

I guess the "drop it" part and why it's your prerogative ? But okay. Its not in the spirit of the season.

Half of the posts in this thread has been people whining about how I post or my supposed "attitude" and me defending myself from that and trying to get it back on track, and that's even after myself and a mod have come on and said to just talk about Traveller. Enough already. I'm not interested in and don't want or need anyone's "advice", and I don't care about anyone's opinion or judgement of me. Just talk about the damned game, will you?

Although the other half are disturbing comments from hivers...hmmm. I just had a thought about why we are all ......
Nah. Can't be.

But sure: here's what I see in the actual traveller part of the thread. T5 is over busy, but while less complicated, there seems little time to playtest what exists in MGT. Personally I wonder if the starsytem generation needs massive community input compared to the combat and ship design system; it really is kind of an either or system. I'd prefer to see more shipstuff in the next version and can live without the starsytem generation -see my answer to aramis for details. I've ordered T5, and am interested in seeing what they have. I know they closed the playtest, but I'm not convinced that that means it isn't playtested, per se. Just that it may have some in-house issues. And then, maybe not.

I do like MGT - I suspect that I will be able to convert my CT campaign and not increase the complexity, whereas, I suspect T5 will be mainly a reference work for me.

Still good work in both camps.

As for my "testy threat", that was me telling you that I'd reported you for the unwarranted rant that you made about me when I answered another poster's question about Marc's attitude to realism earlier on in this thread. But since it seems that you are unwilling to act on my requests to get the topic back on track to Traveller and paranoidgamer just seems to want to throw petty insults at me via PM, I've reported the pair of you and will leave it in the hands of the mods.

Yeah, my bad, I reread your pm, and yes it wasn't a threat - It was informing me that you HAD reported me. I guess since I never heard anything about it from the mods, I assumed that you hadn't yet made the report. Please accept my apologies for claiming you made a threat. Obviously, that isn't the case.

I'll certainly be attentive if they do have something to say this time.
And thanks for the heads up.

Cap

 

[MJD]

Returning for a moment to Traveller....

My feeling is that MongTrav will be what I want from a game - playable, plausible, fun. A perfect model of the universe that never upsets the people who awarded my physics degree? Nah. Believable enough that I can suspend disbelief? Yup.

T5 almost certainly won't do that for me. I lost interest in the playtest years ago; it was just so enormously over-detailed. It was full of rules for creating tables to create attributes with random values to codify things that could be eyeballed on the fly because (to me) they don't matter to a fast-moving adventure game.

My mate Neil loves this kind of thing. Where I'll handwave an ecossytem that we're visiting for one session he'll generate the top dozen creatures with World Biulders Handbook and decide which is the top creature, ie candidate for a minor race if there is one. T5 is his kind of game.

For me, it's just too detailed and it tries to codify everything. (Detail does not always equate to accuracy, by the way). I could never learn or make much use of a 1000 page game. 10 pages is a stretch for me.

I do have serious issues with efforts to codify everyrthing, such as 'all adventures begin at the starport' - it feels too 1976 for my taste and in any case it's awfully restrictive. But it will appeal to some people who want different things from a game.

In short, I don't think T5 will appeal to people like me, the 'roll 2 dice, blow stuff up' style of gamers. There is a segment of the game community that like that sort of massive detail and loads of charts, but I don't know how big it is. I also think it has much to do with nostalgia - I know there are certain Traveller tropes that I just love but honestly,it's not because they're all that good. It's just that we have such fond memories of them.

Anyway. T5 will find its audience, there's a certain kind of gamer who wants what this 1000-page epic will deliver. I'm not among them, and I suspect neither are the majority of modern gamers.


Which is why I think that MongTrav is a far better bet for success. At least it's giving me what I'm looking for.


(Having said all that, I'll go and admit that for all its flaws, some of them horrific, my favourite version of Traveller is T4.)

 

[pasuuli]

(Having said all that, I'll go and admit that for all its flaws, some of them horrific, my favourite version of Traveller is T4.)

T4? Isn't that like 1,000 pages of MegaTraveller done wrong?

 

[MJD]

I have no interest in style vs style discussions. It's been done to death and the viewpoints are often entrenched, complete with barbed wire and mines.

I've liked something about each edition but T4 worked best for me. Of course, I fiddled with it quite a lot but I tend to do that with any game. T4 had many flaws and some of the books were AWFUL but I used it as a basis for some great games. To tell the truth I rarely use all that much of a rules system beyond the core mechanics.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

(Having said all that, I'll go and admit that for all its flaws, some of them horrific, my favourite version of Traveller is T4.)

T4? Isn't that like 1,000 pages of MegaTraveller done wrong?

More like CT poorly revised. But MJD's point still stands about the use of rules. Personally I would *never* use T4 rules, but I like the setting. It's all a matter of personal choice/taste/preference.