************
Topic 29 Mon Nov 18, 1991
DIGEST.GROUP [Staff] at 00:43 EST
Sub: The WISH List
You know that the new Traveller is coming soon to a game store near you - but
is you had your way, what would you want to see in it?
************
------------
Category 11, Topic 29
Message 17 Wed Nov 20, 1991
K.BRENNAN2 [Kevin] at 19:45 EST
My thoughts on Neo-Traveller:
Quite honestly, many of the changes (and certainly many of the rumors)
don't thrill me. I've been playing Traveller since 1982 and there's a lot of
things I'd like to preserve.
-Things I want kept:
The task system. In my opinion, it's much better than Twilight's skill
resolution. Twilight characters seem incompetent except at the high skill
levels. The MT task system is easy to use, flexible, and versatile. It's
probably the best thing MegaT changed.
Characters. I don't care if the generation rules change. In fact, they
probably should be changed to give players more control. However, I would
like characters created under the MT rules to be usable in Neo-Trav, without
having to be converted. I have a feeling that these two points are things that
I won't get, but I feel that I should try.
Worlds. Again, some of the mechanics could be changed, but the end result
should be the same. Yes, those results are often not very logical, but I don't
want to throw out all those sector listings.
Basically, I'm not in favour of converting Traveller to the Twilight
system. Yes, the rules need to be cleaned up and they need to be more
accessible to new gamers, but this seems like an unnecessary change, and one
that will irritate a great majority of current players. (Here on GEnie and in
several conversations, I've only come across one response that was more
positive than "I can live with it if I have to", and most were firmly
opposed.)
There are some good points about a revision, I admit. The MT rules can be a
bit impenetrable. A revised rule set could help attract new gamers to the
universe. Things that I would approve of changes to include:
Combat. The current rules are pretty abstract, and, while I don't mind
them, a bit more detail and colour would be nice. I'm not terribly attached to
the current rules, and if a less abstract system helps attract gamers, then
by all means change it.
Craft Design. Quite frankly, the current rules are just too hard to work
with. Any design system that requires a spreadsheet is too complex. Please
replace them, though they might be better placed in their own supplement.
Accessibility. MT is just too hard for new gamers to pick up. Neo-Trav has
to be easier to learn.
As for the setting:
I'm very worried that Neo-Trav is beginning to sound like Twilight: 5700.
While it's clear that it will have a darker tone than Classic Traveller, I
don't think that the collapse of inter- stellar civilization (if that is
indeed GDW's plan) is a good idea. In fact, that's a lot of an
understatement. It's the only thing I can think of that could make me decide
not to buy the game.
The Traveller universe has always been a very diverse place, and I think
that Neo-Traveller should emphasize that. If Star Viking requires anarchy,
leave Diaspora in chaos. Further coreward, most of the factions should be
functioning fairly well as interstellar governments, though the aftereffects
of the Rebellion (probably including a rather massive depression) and a cold
war among the factions would give this area a darker feel. Finally, the Domain
of Deneb could remain stable, peaceful, and generally happy, as others have
suggested. Set things up so that the tone of the universe varies. Then the
referee can select an area that will match that tone.
Oh yes: I echo Farstar's sentiments. Do it ONCE, and do it RIGHT. No
eighteen pages of errata this time, please.
And hey: be careful out there.
------------
Category 11, Topic 29
Message 18 Wed Nov 20, 1991
GDW.SUPPORT [Loren W.] at 20:12 EST
I personally guarantee that the revision will not require an 18-page errata
sheet. I can also guarantee that it WILL require some sort of errata
(nobody's perfect).
Brian and TML: I would appreciate it if somebody could arrange for GDW to
receive all rules-relevant discussions from Internet TML and anywhere else you
can think of. The more customer input we have, the closer we can come to
making a game acceptable to most (we are under no illusions that everyone will
love the revision, but we do want the largest number possible to be pleased
with it.
Believe it or not, our discussions at GDW and the suggestions here are
not that far apart...
Mike Metlay (Via Bob): When did I ever call you by your last name? We
were (and are, I hope) on a first name basis. Sorry I could never free up the
time to sit in on one of your Near Miss sessions (its obvious that you are
more disturbed about it than you showed at the time). Seriously, at
conventions I am barely able to function, since I'm usually working on a junk
food overload and about 12 hours overdrawn at the sleep bank. As you say
though, we have to give our first priority to earning a living. Sorry you
object to the Star Viking background, or what you've heard of it so far. I'd
appreciate it if you waited until you heard the whole proposal before making a
final judgement.
Loren Wiseman
------------
Category 11, Topic 29
Message 19 Wed Nov 20, 1991
ED.EDWARDS at 21:32 EST
If other RPG players are like me:
(group 1) 40% buy the rules and never read them
(group 2) 30% buy the rules, read them once, and put them aside
(group 3) 20% buy the rules and find them interesting enough to buy
a few adventure/supplements
(group 4) 10% buy any set of rules (both revised and reformated),
buy virtualy every professional adventure/supplement,
or fanish article concerning the game
Game producers have to sell the game to groups 2,3, and 4 to break even --
they make a profit off of group 1. I presume the profit largely goes toward
the game system for support items, fanzines, etc.
We are most fortunate in TRAVELLER
us group 4 folks have not been
forgotten -- please note the companies could make a profit just catering
to groups 1, 2, and 3.
------------
Category 11, Topic 29
Message 20 Wed Nov 20, 1991
P.BERGHOLD [pete] at 21:37 EST
If I had my way I'd like to see the ORIGINAL Traveller rules get re-
instated... But I know that won't happen so what I'd *really* like to see is
the ship/vehicle building rules get fixed! I *STILL* can't successfully
design a ship by the MegaTraveller rules! I MISS HIGH GUARD!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peter L. Berghold Traveller Fossil at Large
INTERNET: [email removed]
------------
Category 11, Topic 29
Message 21 Wed Nov 20, 1991
C.FAGO1 [Carl Fago] at 21:47 EST
One thing that strikes me in the conversations about a Traveller revision...
It seems that most people don't want a "new" Traveller, they want the old one
fixed correctly.
Why not a second edition MegaTraveller or a "third" edition Traveller??
I always thought the "Mega" part was a bit silly. Why not take the course to
revise (i.e. correct) the systems that have shown excessive weakness and
improve the ones that don't have major flaws?
Then the whole thing could be bundled as Traveller, Third Edition and enter a
major advertising blitz/campaign.
TSR seemed to do this with AD&D and it seems to have worked (from what I see
on the shelves in the stores.) By renaming to Star Viking and casting out the
Imperium or what has been done before, a major segment of the Traveller gaming
population is alienated. By improving on what is already in place, this
segment is kept in tact and with the advertising blitz, the new customers can
be picked up.
Also, if it is a certain segment of the younger crowd that is being targeted,
why not a new module with this in mind? Keep the cost on par with TSR
adventure modules and use this as the targeting media. Use it in the
advertising campaign.
Of course, I am an engineer and not a businessman, but these things make sense
to me. A wholesale revision and renaming does not.
I would be _very_ interested in hearing if these are good ideas and if they
are not, why not.
Thanks for listening.
*-=Carl=-*
And, Loren, with regard to Metlay's bitching about the proposal, or what he
has heard of it, why not upload an abstract so none of us are dealing from the
dark? I appreciate knowing any of what I can so that I can talk from a
position of knowledge rather than a position of conjecture (which I probably
do most of the time.)
------------