The first section below is my file copy of a long flame I sent to GEnie.
Counter productive, probably, but I had to get it off my chest. (Another
lance, Sancho, the windmill is still standing!) Since GEnie reformatted it
strangly, I thought that it would be better to send this version. It was/is
message 39 in Topic 29. Messages 40 and 41 were short, of no particular
consequence.
Rob
(So tell me, was I really way out of line? My judgment isn't too good on
this subject...)
Comments on various things recently discussed in topics 3 and 29 follow.
Since it is getting late, I fear that I was rather more curt and ironic in
some sections than was absolutely necessary. Apologies in advance...
------------
In Topic 3, Message 422 Dave Nilsen writes:
> -- Why the Twilight System? Because other extremely popular GDW
> games use the system, and this will allow more people to try other games
> in our line without having to learn an entirely new rules system. Once
> you know the system, you'll be able to pick up any of our RPGs and
> get playing quickly.
I've seen this argument already, of course. Is the amount of discussion on
GEnie any indication of popularity? There hasn't been a meaty message about
Twilight:2000 (except for a request for errata, to which the response was 'If
you've bought the supplement, you don't need the errata') in months, and there
have been a grand total of 2 (_2_) messages about Cadillacs and Dinosaurs in
the last six months. I'm glad my paycheck doesn't depend on that sort of
popularity...
In addition, I am left with the strong impression from years of being around
this hobby that it is the topic that sells things not the compatible game
system. I've never met anyone who mentioned buying a Chaosium game on a topic
that he didn't like just because it had a compatible game system. In my local
hobby shop, the two hottest sellers are Battletech/Mechwarrior and Shadowrun.
FASA doesn't seem to be suffering too badly from having different game systems
(and the only Chaosium they seem to be able to sell is Call of Cthulhu, which
leads me to believe that there's not much crossover between players of CoC,
Stormbringer and RuneQuest...)
> Also, and this is of real benefit to you players, it will allow
> us to put out more role-playing modules and variant settings along
> the lines of Cadillacs and Dinosaurs. If we have to design a new
> system from scratch every time we want to create a new RPG setting,
> there's no way we could make the time to do very many. However, if
> we can build on an established system that is already well-known
> among our players, it makes it possible for us to produce more fun stuff
> for you to play without having to mortgage the farm on long development
> times and costs.
Apologies, but did I just hear you say that I, a gamer, am going to benefit
from you making substantial changes in my favorite rules so that you can spend
more time turning out such 'popular' products as C&D which I won't buy, rather
than spending time on putting out products for my favorite game, which I will
buy? Besides, with all due respect, I think that I am not unusual in scarce-
ly having enough time already to play the games that I have, a situation only
made worse by the lack of available labor-saving products for my favorite
game. You people don't really think I enjoyed designing 300 vehicles, do you?
Or that I would have done it if I could have bought three decent books of them
at $12.00 apiece? You should be worried about supporting your exisiting
games, not casting one book one shots on the market. The reason that support-
ed games sell is that it is easier for a GM to run one than it is to make up
everything from scratch.
> And, once you know the new system, playing Dark Con or Twilight
> with your friends, even if you don't do it more than once a year,
> will be as easy as falling off a bicycle.
> Certainly the New Traveller will make evolutionary modifications to
> the Twilight system, just as Dark Con did. We will add things that
> will allow it to retain that unique Traveller flavor.
Enough evolutionary changes and you might as well use a different game system
as far as I am concerned. Look at my post commenting on the T:2000 rules: it
doesn't look like there is going to be much that carries over, and what there
is will be lost in the mass of necessary information about space, different
worlds, ships, vacc suits, trade and commerce and the like.
> -- Vehicle designs will replicate as much as possible the general
> results of current vehicle design, as much as MT designs gave results
> demonstrably similar to earlier takes on Traveller. However,
> the system will not require you to buy time on the MIT mainframe to
> generate a fleet of starships.
Oh joy. Unfortunately, MT did not give results very similar to previous
editions of Traveller. The trouble is that I have a h*** of a lot more time
invested in MT work now, which will probably be useless. (If I seem negative,
please remember that I'm probably the only person stupid enough to do 300+ MT
vehicle designs by hand--yes, I have no computer. (-:)
> -- Starship combat will be more fun and more detailed.
I hope so...I think that this is one of the most serious shortcomings of the
current rules, which is why I usually use a modifed Mayday system.
> -- One major thrust of the revision is to make the game accessible
> to first-time players, without requiring them to become disciples of
> someone who's been playing since 1977 in order to get the hang of
> it, which MT, unfortunately does.
Yup. 'Course, I am one of those '77 type people. I think the 'layered'
design scheme being discussed here is the best method I can imagine at the
moment.
> Please allow us to assure you that we have been reading your
> comments and concerns, and that these have been very reassuring to
> us, as the things you have been talking about have reconfirmed to
> us that our assessment of what we want to do with the revision is
> right on target with our audience. Many of the things you've
> discussed are things we are already planning, but it's nice to
> get the positive feedback so quickly.
Somehow this doesn't sound very reassuring, given that everyone has vehemently
denied any desire to switch systems. This tells you that you are right on
target?
> However, since we are still in the fairly early stages of
> nailing down specifics, this will be the last bean-spilling we'll
> be able to indulge in for a while. We just need time to fully
> form our work. But keep the comments coming, we do read them.
Are you sure that we can't interest you in a pool of very interested and
experienced people to playtest/comment before it's too late to make changes?
This sounds a lot like a polite dismissal..."We'll be back after we've decided
what you'll like, but really, we do read all of this stuff. We just find the
comments easier to ignore if they don't have much to do with what we're actu-
ally doing...."
------------
In Topic 29 Message 32, M.TURNAGE1 writes:
> Star Viking's miniatures _ground combat_? Ok...Loren, not to second-guess
> y'all, but does GDW really think that it'd sell? It's been my experience
> that SF miniatures rules have poor sales...
While I like the idea of having a Traveller ground combat system based on
Command Decision, I have to second Mike's qualms. Unless you folks at GDW
have a manufacturer lined up for miniatures that match the flavor of your
game, I can't see too many people buying this one. The only source that I'm
sure of for small scale SF vehicles is the 'conventional forces' section of
the Ral Partha Battletech line. Since we don't know anything about the Space
Viking background (oops...Star Viking), I don't know if there is some reason
why gravtanks wouldn't be used, and the B'tech ground vehicles are all
tracked, aren't they? An analogy: Imagine a _miniatures game_ about combat
with Roman legions, in a hobby where the only figures available are 14th
century plate armored knights and English longbowmen. Sure, you _could_
convert them <??>, but not enough people are going to bother to sell enough
copies of the game to justify putting it out. I'd really rather see a well-
done board game on the topic...scale for a miniatures game is going to be a
problem too, if you allow some of the sorts of tanks that easy to design under
the MegaTraveller rules (2000+ kph, weapons with 250km range, multiple high
rate of fire antipersonnel lasers to keep the infantry suppressed--if there is
any infantry.) Did you ever see any of the Adjutant vehicle books for Strik-
er? Even using the Striker rules, I think I could back-convert some MT de-
signs that would wipe out anything of theirs from _way_ off the table. I'll
take a 20MCr grav tank over 40 500kcr tracked tanks with CPR guns any day.
------------
In Topic 29 Message 33 Loren writes:
> Mark: Do we think Star Viking will sell...no, we always do games we think
> will bomb :) Seriously, we think it will be worth the trouble. I think you
> may like it.
Like Chaco, Their Finest Hour (1st ed), Red Star/White Eagle, Double Star,
Belter, Dark Nebula, Space:1889, Cadillacs and Dinosaurs....you don't need me
telling you how to run your business, but, much as I liked some of the things
I just mentioned, they haven't been great commercial successes, have they?
What is Star Viking going to have going for it that Striker didn't?
------------
In Topic 3, Message 425, Jay writes:
> It really is a fact of a roleplayers life that games are going to
> change and the stuff you had before might not be useful anymore.
Jay, I hope you are speaking personally on this, and not as a representative
of a game company. I dislike being reminded that I am thought of primarily as
a cash cow by companies. When I find that a company is 'upgrading' a product
in a direction that I don't want to move in, particularly when it renders any
large investment of previous material obsolete, then I _stop buying_. After
all, if AD&D1 was fun before, and AD&D2 is more expensive, I won't buy it (and
didn't--I actually stopped adding AD&D material with Unearthed Arcana. TSR
didn't collapse, of course...)
> I think that with Traveller, though the only thing you'll really be losing
> out on is the mechanics.
Which, for some unknown reason, nearly everyone who has expressed an opinion
on this board generally likes.
> As far as putting EVERYTHING in one volume... would you really want to
> spend the money for what it would cost to buy a game that tried to include
> everything? I have no idea what will be included but I imagine a good cross
> section of information (like DC).
Would I really want to spend the money on a game that didn't include enough to
play with? In my opinion, enough to play with means that I need some sort of
world design and ship design system (See more below on the latter). The lack
of such basic (for SF) things would be interpreted as the start of an effort
to milk me for money for endless supplements. I consider the availability of
supplements of the 'compendium' sort to be worthwhile in so far as they are
conveniences rather than necessities.
> This question may make me unpopular but... how important is ship creation to
> a role-playing game anyway? If you are given enough examples of ships to
> run a campaign, why would you want to spend hours on end tinkering
> with ship designs? ...
I haven't got a very clear answer for this one. The only thing I can say for
sure is that it is important, even if in some rational system it shouldn't be.
I've heard complaints about the lack of such a system in 2300 (yes, I know,
it's in Star Cruiser...) The way most Traveller campaigns I've ever seen are
structured, ships are very important, hence are worth including in the basic
rules. Would you say that MegaTraveller includes enough ships in the ImperÅhÉ‘lÊ’mÄŒgÈkÇjÆŽiÆŽiÇjÉ‘lË“nÌ”oÆŽgÇhÈŽjÇiÅ‹gˆdÀƒb¾`ňgÁ„c¾`¼}^½~_¾`¿}a¾|`´wVº}\¼^¶yXµxX¸{[µxZpR±sZ±sZ¯pY®oXnY¬mX¬mX¬mX¬kY¨gU¥fS§hU¦gR¤eP£gQ§kU¢eT cRaS™]O•XQ‘TM‘UQ”XT˜\X“WSSOŽRNˆOLƒJG€HGƒKJ…QR‚NO|ILyFIuDIsBGq@Eo>CnDNi?Ih>He;E^7>b;BkBFkBFwKNtHKwDEzGHLJ„OM†MJ„KHI<”\O–^S™aV‘ZQˆQHXR†QK{GE‡SQ…RUuBEk:?uDINUNUh7<[email removed]?I`@K_?J[>FW:BS6<T7=\@CdHK_?H\<EU4;[:AfCI_<B`9>sLQwLQi>Cm>Be6:€PR€PR‰VY}JM‡WW”dd„YWrGEoIHnHGQ10šzyx\\]AA`DE_CD^?CfGKa@E^=Bb<Ee?HjAFh?Dj;?k<@tABzGH‚LMWXIJ€JK…QRKL‡Rial
Encyclopedia to run a campaign? I wouldn't...
Rob Dean
************
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 43 Sun Nov 24, 1991
DIGEST.GROUP [Staff] at 17:18 EST
Rob,
I really did want this topic to be a more positive one than your message 39
would seem to indicate. I would really appreciate you keep those kinds of
messages in topic 1 (since that seems to be a sort of Potpourri topic).
As I've said before - I'm not speaking for anybody but myself in this
category. I'm a potential consumer who had very little contact with
Megatraveller aside from attempting to get through the rules a couple of
times. I may have a little more knowledge about things than some because of my
ties to DGP and because I attended GENCON this year and was at a very eye-
opening Traveller seminar with Marc Miller.
If what Marc had said there is true - There are already plans for miniatures
in the works for the new mini game. Remember the old Grenadier mini's??
I never thought that there weren't enough ships in 2300AD.
Continuing to remark on how much you don't want the T2K rules in the new
revision probably won't change the fact that it will be there. Remember, that
is one of the things that was remarked on as being "set in stone."
- - Jay
------------
Category 11, Topic 29
Message 44 Sun Nov 24, 1991
R.DEAN14 [Rob Dean] at 20:32 EST
Regarding Twilight:2000, I'll shut up now. I do remember the Grenadier
miniatures, although they came out at one of my financial low points, and I
heard the Trav seminar at Origins. I hope GDW gets them back on the amrket,
though I must add that 25mm will be a lot better for doing the routine work of
a role-playing game than for playing large miniatures battles. The main
problem from a gamer's point of view with 25mm is that tanks and other
vehicles will be too expensive. I'm basing this opinion on the prices of 20-
25mm lead or resin tanks for WWII and modern, which probably are low sales
volume items for their manufacturers, and thus fairly comparable. The
historical miniatures gaming world is engaging in a lot of complaining about
how hard it is to find and interest new people right now, and the second
biggest complaint you hear being discussed is the high cost of initial
investment in miniatures. (The first is the unnappealing format and
complicated nature of the rules--assuming that Star Viking is comparable to
Command Decision or Combined Arms, this will be less of an issue than it would
be if you wanted to become an ancients gamer using the much complained about
WRG Ancients rules, a discussion for another topic--though there is no
miniatures discussion here, is there?). Anyway, as much appreciated as the
Traveller 25s will be, mass combat using micro-armor type equipment will be
easier to hook newcomers with. (IMHO... and our local miniatures cabal has
recently snagged two new people for the group by starting a microarmor project
using Command Decision due to the comparatively low start-up cost.)
Rob Dean
------------