MarcusIII
Emperor Mongoose
It wasn't popular and almost no one played it. Because it didn't fit well with class levels. Even though D&D was wildly popular then too.
Traveller 5E
- Thread starter Sigtrygg
- Start date
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
It was popular enough to get several print runs. Going by CotI anecdotes and forum activity there were as many active players of T20 back in the day as there are MgT players now.
It failed because Hunter Gordon was ill then died, and MWM pulled the plug on the licence and gave it to Mongoose.
It failed because Hunter Gordon was ill then died, and MWM pulled the plug on the licence and gave it to Mongoose.
Yes, the assertion that T20 was played by “almost no one [sic]” is silly, unevidenced and flies in the face of the experience of the CotI founders. In fact, it was sufficiently successful to have wider product ranges than TNE, T4 and T5.
Fortunately, during its print run it had a sufficiently-large player base to give us some nice products based in an area of charted space that has been largely ignored by other Traveller products.
Fortunately, during its print run it had a sufficiently-large player base to give us some nice products based in an area of charted space that has been largely ignored by other Traveller products.
Agreed
Almost correct.
The Mongoose license was signed while all three other licenses had time left (GURPS, T20 & 2320, and Traveller for Hero); Marc was able to negotiate to renew GT. Hunter was not well - Cancer and chemo - but only a few of us — board staff at COTI, Marc, Loren — were told what was going on, and MJD and Hunter had become estranged over matters of contract, so there was no reason to push for extending it; it wasn't getting new product outside the 2320 project... And Traveller for Hero was years in without product - they shoved a gorgeous 2 volume set out the door at the 11th hour. (I wish I'd had the money for the hardcovers, but at least I got the PDFs.)
The 2320 author made the move to Mongoose, and while he had to adjust a bit, by all accounts he's given on COTI, it's worked well for him.
Last edited:
actionman
Emperor Mongoose
You heard right. D&D has been a house built on sand since 3rd edition. It's as if their business model is planned obsolescence.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
They went down a rabbit hole with the latest version which has alienated an awful lot of people, me certainly. I will ignore "the message" if there is other stuff that is worth it, but I see no reason to get this 5.5 edition, and if they continue with pushing "the message" with 6th edition I won't be buying it either.
Is this deliberately ironic, or do you not know what the sales of 5th were compared to 3rd?
I mean, I’m no fan of 5th (I did enjoy 3rd) but it’s an order of magnitude of improvement in sales.
5.5 appears to have been a terrible mess, particularly as an exercise in branding. It’s undoubtedly a technical improvement on 5.0 which fixes a number of game design issues. But the way it was sold was confused, and the artwork and messaging reflected a certain activist approach from their staff which didn’t have the market they believed.
actionman
Emperor Mongoose
In the popular D&D village illustration for the 2024 D&D Pride Collection, the beholder's central eye had a particular design instead of a pupil like its other eyes. Funny how the FBI describes a very similar symbol. What a strange coincidence. Coincidences these days. Oh well.
I don't think they can stop. They willingly devoted themselves to it, drove away everyone who didn't fit their paradigm, and if they reverse course, those who'll buy anything that carries the D&D brand may not be enough to sustain them.
actionman
Emperor Mongoose
I don't care how many people buy that pos, my point was that D&D keeps changing rulesets. 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, 5.5e, and now a possible 6e, which all require the playerbase to buy new books for each edition, this is not a firm foundation. D&D's fanbase are loyal to the D&D brand, not the game mechanics (the players that were loyal to 3e game mechanics went to Pathfinder, the ones that were loyal to 2e went to OSR games). Therefore any game trying to appeal to D&D players will have to engage in this constant creation of new D&D-compatible editions to keep appealing to them.
They made their choices. *shrug* Propaganda does not good art make.
D&D's new romantasy genre is doing well, though.
EDIT: Call of Cthulhu and Runequest both have more editions than D&D, but the game systems in these editions are still very similar and to a large part compatible. D&D's new editions are often completely different games with the same name and similar setting fluff, like 2e to 3e, 3.5e to 4e, 4e to 5e, and now 5.5e to the possible 6e.
EDIT: And Stranger Things is done now, and Critical Role moved on from D&D, so it won't have those to help it. Who cares, time will tell.
Last edited:
You do understand that every major games company generates revenue, periodically, by refreshing the ruleset and selling the rulebooks and other books again? It's not just something that TSR, then WotC, then Hasbro's "WotC" division did. I mean, from the last bit of your post where you defensively edit in some attempts to get ahead of that, I guess you may be slightly aware of how nonsensical that is:
Call of Cthulhu - 7th edition
Shadowrun - 6th Edition
Vampire - 5th Edition
Oh and you know what? Check out a game called Traveller. The good Lord himself knows how many editions MWM has licensed out but possibly even more than D&D (which is saying a lot because you missed out at least five entire D&D editions that I can think of, off the bat, including the longest-lasting version with huge sales).
If you think that lots of editions of a game are signs of incipient disaster then whoah I have some bad news for you about our common love. And if you think that "still very similar and to a large part compatible" is a defence then hey: let me introduce you to some wholly incompatible editions of a game called Traveller. Check out the name of this thread.
P.S. Neither CoC nor Runequest have more editions than D&D, btw.
Edit: actually I take back the apology, having re-read the post. It's not rude to say that your assertively-stated opinion (see below) is nonsensical. You dismiss D&D (not a game I, myself, enjoy any more) as "built on sand" for having lots of editions that are not compatible. Traveller has more editions that are even less compatible.
I would say, however, that you did adopt an aggressively dismissive line yourself: I get that you don't like other game systems, but you did set the tone by calling other peoples' hobbies a "pos", "propaganda", "romantasy" etc.
I would say, however, that you did adopt an aggressively dismissive line yourself: I get that you don't like other game systems, but you did set the tone by calling other peoples' hobbies a "pos", "propaganda", "romantasy" etc.
Talon Greyfeather
Banded Mongoose
No, I absolutely DO NOT think the game is broken, RAW. I think the RAW provide a framework for the table to create whatever sci-fi style they want. However, not every rule, option, or tech provided in the framework needs to apply to the chosen sci-fi style. I only remove that which does not apply to the universe the table wishes to play in. And if they want it all, then it is up to me as the referee to provide them with appropriate challenges.
Tutting and judging certainly seems to be the rule here in these forums rather than the exception. What I find bemusing are the people that talk about how ALL rules, options, and tech must be allowed for any sci-fi style when they don't apply to every sci-fi style in the first place. Is that limiting player options? Maybe. But if personal shields, Ion cannons, or sentient AI don't belong in the universe, then no. It's not limiting player option; it is maintaining universe integrity.
So yes, the Traveller ruleset can be used to run a game in any variety of sci-fi styles. But the referee must be prepared to address the fact that they may have to prepare differently for that and not be surprised when the players get enough bonuses that make only Formidable or Impossible tasks a challenge. It doesn't mean that the GM is incompetent. The expectation that the rules are somehow going to maintain balance when the players get all of the toys is not realistic.
Talon Greyfeather
Banded Mongoose
Why do all rules, tech, etc need to apply to all sci-fi styles? If it doesn't apply, don't use it. The rules should be tailored to the setting not governing what the setting should be.
I only addressed the rules, tech and options explicitly allowed in Charted Space and canonical for Charted Space according to the Mongoose rulebooks.
If - as you suggest - you believe that some of those should be removed by the GM in order to provide a balanced game then yes: you believe that the RAW need fixed.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
A referee can pick and choose, that is what Traveller was originally intended to do.
The charted space setting on the other hand uses all those rules, cyberware, expert systems etc. so if you remove those options you are no longer playing in the charted space setting with the rules intended for that setting.
And I completely encourage every referee to use only what suits their table and ignore what doesn't fit.
And speaking of the charted space setting, the latest from World's Largest RPGs,
"Traveller’s setting has always been incredible, but not every table wants to learn a new, complex system. Traveller 5E brings the iconic setting and campaign tools into a framework many players already know - making it easier to jump into the far future."
"Traveller’s setting has always been incredible, but not every table wants to learn a new, complex system. Traveller 5E brings the iconic setting and campaign tools into a framework many players already know - making it easier to jump into the far future."
Yes & No. Technically, all the things exist in Charted Space. But Charted Space has not been updated to reflect the existence of all the things that didn't exist when its framework was established.
As far as whether the rules themselves are broken, that's subjective. Certainly, a maximizing build will distort things, but that's pretty much true in any game rules in which gear has mechanical rather than mainly narrative effects.
Honestly, I think it's mostly a mismatch between the mechanics and the fiction. It feels like a lot of people assume all the competency enhancements are on one side only. Situations like the Stainless Steel Rat novels, where only the best of the best can even squeeze through the cracks are a not unlikely possibility for how things work. So, yeah, you have a +1 to all Broker skills, but so does everyone else in the field, so who cares? They basically offset, except when they don't and you just romp. Or you are on LowTechnia and your expert system has no access to data to actually help you.
I also think there's a bit of fear of competency porn. It is not, imho, intrinsically a problem that your pilot has no reasonable chance of screwing the pooch when flying the ship. Unless he's flying an unstreamlined ship with damaged controls while trying to make a non-disastrous landing on a comet. Competency porn is only a problem when you let your party cover all the bases with it. And that's pretty hard in Traveller, given how stingy it is with skill ranks.
