Traveller 5 vs Mongoose Traveller comparison

[SpaceBadger]

T5 looks to be a raging success, for one persons bank account.

So don't buy it. Problem solved.

Me, I've gotten enough enjoyment out of Traveller over the past 34 years (errata and all) that I'm willing to buy it and take a look, even if I don't end up using much from it, even if as you say the main effect is to boost Marc Miller's bank account. I've gotten enough previous enjoyment from his work that it is worthwhile to me to take the chance. YMMV, obviously.

 

[Dragoner]

We can go round robin with this forever and not get anywhere. T5 is what it is, and it will never be all things to all people, that is impossible. The doomsayers will always be right in their own minds about 'how bad it is'; for me, as just a humble GM & player for 30+ years, I like it, value received. It has a huge amount of story elements, Marc's ideas on how it should be played, background information, tables, makers, etc. . I love Traveller, warts and all, what can I say?

 

[Shonner]

If I take the sum of all the Traveller parts over the decades (all the editions and books and boardgames), it is an amazing entirety.

 

[Dragoner]

If I take the sum of all the Traveller parts over the decades (all the editions and books and boardgames), it is an amazing entirety.

Agreed! I have never seen more official, 2nd party and user generated content for a sci-fi rpg; I was surfing for "spacecraft" images and out of nowhere a Traveller deck plan came up, and it was great!

 

[rich4421972]

How does one improve on the "roll 8+ using 2D6" mechanic? Traveller 5 will soon reveal if it can be done or not.

I'm interested in how players (new and old) will use Traveller 5 and what sci-fi themes/settings they will bring to their Traveller game sessions based on the sci-fi books they've read that were published between T4's release and now?

I agree. On the other hand, I thought there was going to be a setting called "Milieu 200." But I'm not completely understanding how that will play out. There's much more play to Traveller5 than there has been to previous editions. Character generation alone is a game in itself.

 

[Vladika]

If you have been actively involved in the Beta process, your opinion of it being a cluster f*** would be valid.

No matter who has, or has not been, involved in the Beta process, a Cluster F*ck is a Cluster F*ck.

I really have no idea who you are but, if as you say after working on this for 4 years I hope it turns out better than say "Scouts"?

Yes many books have ERRATA unfortunately for 35 years Traveller has been plagued with it. So, how about no more excuses and passing the buck?

Maybe you could point out to me a book, or rules set, with more ERRATA than Traveller? I love Traveller, but I hate redlining every single book I've bought over the years.

How about I quit gripping about it when "whoever" gets it right? Until then, I've bought and paid for the privileged.

Instead of making excuses maybe you should listen to rich4421972. BTW I'm a Structural Engineer and know just how right he is. I don't know what your education might be in, or what your training has been, but you are dead wrong.

 

[Shonner]

There's much more play to Traveller5 than there has been to previous editions. Character generation alone is a game in itself.

And in Mongoose Traveller, character generation is an even bigger/deeper game.

 

[rich4421972]

And in Mongoose Traveller, character generation is an even bigger/deeper game.

I agree. I misspoke. I kinda meant how there are 14 characteristics and 13 careers including citizens, craftmen and functionaries. To me, that's some serious role-playing. It's actually quite humbling.

 

[aramis]

No matter who has, or has not been, involved in the Beta process, a Cluster F*ck is a Cluster F*ck.

And with that, you've just insulted just about everyone involved.

You've made your point, probably should get infracted for how, but I'm in a bad mood, so I'm holding off on that. Walk away from the thread.

 

[pendragonman]

No matter who has, or has not been, involved in the Beta process, a Cluster F*ck is a Cluster F*ck.

I really have no idea who you are but, if as you say after working on this for 4 years I hope it turns out better than say "Scouts"?

Yes many books have ERRATA unfortunately for 35 years Traveller has been plagued with it. So, how about no more excuses and passing the buck?

Maybe you could point out to me a book, or rules set, with more ERRATA than Traveller? I love Traveller, but I hate redlining every single book I've bought over the years.

How about I quit gripping about it when "whoever" gets it right? Until then, I've bought and paid for the privileged.

Instead of making excuses maybe you should listen to rich4421972. BTW I'm a Structural Engineer and know just how right he is. I don't know what your education might be in, or what your training has been, but you are dead wrong.

And I am a published professor of mathematics. More errata than traveller...How about the rules for Star Fleet Battles? Easier done than said...

Now, if you have purchased a copy of T-5, yes you have bought and paid for the priviledge. Otherwise, I disagree.

 

[rich4421972]

And I am a published professor of mathematics. More errata than traveller...How about the rules for Star Fleet Battles? Easier done than said...

Now, if you have purchased a copy of T-5, yes you have bought and paid for the priviledge. Otherwise, I disagree.

Over the years, I have propped up my love of Traveller4 on 25+ pages of "Consolidated errata" (and that's just for the core rulebook). I don't really mind because I feel I know what the authors intended and I like it and keep hoping that I'll finally "get it."

 

[pendragonman]

Over the years, I have propped up my love of Traveller4 on 25+ pages of "Consolidated errata" (and that's just for the core rulebook). I don't really mind because I feel I know what the authors intended and I like it and keep hoping that I'll finally "get it."

Exactly. Clearly I haven't yet. but hope remains.

 

[savage]

looking forward to T5

It is great that so many people dedicated their time to assist Marc in creating a cleaner version of Traveller documentation.

In the 1980s, GDW was a busy, busy place. Writers, artists, etc from ISU would spend time assisting full-time staff in creating the games we all know and love. Some would become full-time staff as well. The tools we're not as good, meaning "draft to product" technology did not flow nicely.
Numerous product lines, short timelines, and tight budgets.

It must be a real blessing for Marc to be able to have one release, and an opportunity to create "his view" of Traveller with everyone's input.

 

[rancke]

A real copy editor would have needed months to get it done to your version of "proper" and would still have had errors in it.

That would be my notion of proper and I see no reason to put 'proper' in quotes. In this context I mean 'performed by a professional'. Who would have weeded out a lot of the errors, particularily the more egregious.

Those additional months would have pushed back delivery to well passed the current timeline, which would then open up the authors to grousing about delayed delivery of a product they paid for.

Instead of grousing because the product they paid for is not up to professional standard, you mean?


Hans

PS. Someone made the point that the product is not out yet, so how can we know about its quality? I'm going by the posts I've read in this thread. I would be perfectly happy if it turns out that they've given me a false impression.

 

[rancke]

I was happy to give the time I did playtesting and proofreading.

Yeah, I would have been happy to give my time too. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy way to pay money on-line, so I wasn't able to get in on the playtest. Mind you, I might not have gotten in on it even if I had been able to pay. I have never been able to appreciate the concept of having to pay for the priviledge of helping someone.

(My many years of GURPS playtesting came about because I was paying for something else that I wanted (Pyramid) and got access to the playtests on account of that).


Hans

 

[rich4421972]

Yeah, I would have been happy to give my time too. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy way to pay money on-line, so I wasn't able to get in on the playtest. Mind you, I might not have gotten in on it even if I had been able to pay. I have never been able to appreciate the concept of having to pay for the priviledge of helping someone.

(My many years of GURPS playtesting came about because I was paying for something else that I wanted (Pyramid) and got access to the playtests on account of that).


Hans

I feel that the kickstarter was a worthy endeavor simply because of the contact available with Marc Miller as he finalized the product. To me, that's the part I wanted. Thus, I got to see the game in development /*/and/*/ get some cool-lookin' dice. The GURPS deal with Pyramid is a good deal, too. Just sayin'

 

[pendragonman]

That would be my notion of proper and I see no reason to put 'proper' in quotes. In this context I mean 'performed by a professional'. Who would have weeded out a lot of the errors, particularily the more egregious.



Instead of grousing because the product they paid for is not up to professional standard, you mean?


Hans

PS. Someone made the point that the product is not out yet, so how can we know about its quality? I'm going by the posts I've read in this thread. I would be perfectly happy if it turns out that they've given me a false impression.

You have often argued in these forums/boards and made your position clear that any error is too many. There is no product out there free of any errors from everyone's point of view.

I have been part of the Beta since the beginning. We have all done our best to remove the more egregious errors and repair the more obscure descriptions in the interest of the best product possible. We have seen many, many updated versions of the text over the years, sometimes the new version doesn't fix something we pointed out, sometimes it does. We did our utmost to help craft our latest version of our friend.

Since no one outside of the Beta has any real knowledge of what errors there are, or were, or will be, you can guess that this forum is full of the nay-sayers and boo-birds who prey on another's failure. So you can well be advised to not to accept their position. Truth is, I think only 3 or 4 people have seen the actual version at the printers, so no one truly knows how much actual error is left.

All I know is that I am tired of people with no knowledge of the facts attacking the process used and thinking that using an outside editor could have done a better editing process and still kept true to the author's vision.

 

[rancke]

You have often argued in these forums/boards and made your position clear that any error is too many.

I have? Curious, because I don't recall having that position at all.

I do think that avoidable errors should be avoided. I also think that correcting inconsistencies improves a game setting.

There is no product out there free of any errors from everyone's point of view.

True, but besides the point.

I have been part of the Beta since the beginning. We have all done our best to remove the more egregious errors and repair the more obscure descriptions in the interest of the best product possible. We have seen many, many updated versions of the text over the years, sometimes the new version doesn't fix something we pointed out, sometimes it does. We did our utmost to help craft our latest version of our friend.

Very commendable, but not really relevant.

Since no one outside of the Beta has any real knowledge of what errors there are, or were, or will be, you can guess that this forum is full of the nay-sayers and boo-birds who prey on another's failure. So you can well be advised to not to accept their position. Truth is, I think only 3 or 4 people have seen the actual version at the printers, so no one truly knows how much actual error is left.

I think that anyone connected to the industry can tell you that a professional copy-editor helps eliminate many errors. The one we had for GT:Sword Worlds was certainly of great help to us.

All I know is that I am tired of people with no knowledge of the facts attacking the process used and thinking that using an outside editor could have done a better editing process and still kept true to the author's vision.

Um... do you know what a copy-editor does? He improves formatting, style, and accuracy of the text. He is not concerned with the substance of the text. That's what you have an editor with knowledge about the subject matter for. One is not a substitute for the other.

It would be a miracle if the absence of a good copy-editor won't result in a lot of errors going uncorrected.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

I have been part of the Beta since the beginning. We have all done our best to remove the more egregious errors and repair the more obscure descriptions in the interest of the best product possible. We have seen many, many updated versions of the text over the years, sometimes the new version doesn't fix something we pointed out, sometimes it does. We did our utmost to help craft our latest version of our friend.

Since no one outside of the Beta has any real knowledge of what errors there are, or were, or will be, you can guess that this forum is full of the nay-sayers and boo-birds who prey on another's failure. So you can well be advised to not to accept their position. Truth is, I think only 3 or 4 people have seen the actual version at the printers, so no one truly knows how much actual error is left.

All I know is that I am tired of people with no knowledge of the facts attacking the process used and thinking that using an outside editor could have done a better editing process and still kept true to the author's vision.

+1

It bears repeating that it is NOT full of proofreading errors, some people you could swear were professionals with the way they dug into it.

For example, whether people like the xD6 mechanic or not, the mechanic is not an error, it is intended to be that way.

For the non-beta testers, there is a whole forum section hidden where we all made comments on how things should work and we all saw the final drafts; if you did not, comments on what people have not seen are ridiculous.

Sometimes I get the feeling that this is the "this is why we can't have nice stuff" moment, such as why Marc doesn't post, it's because he will be endlessly harangued about x-boats or that "their" was misspelled in LBB 4 multiple times.

 

[rancke]

It bears repeating that it is NOT full of proofreading errors, some people you could swear were professionals with the way they dug into it.

Repeating?

For the non-beta testers, there is a whole forum section hidden where we all made comments on how things should work and we all saw the final drafts; if you did not, comments on what people have not seen are ridiculous.

Then telling us that there was no need for a copy-editor because there was nothing he could do to improve the text would be a better refutation than telling us that there was no time and who cares about errors anyway?

I'm happy to hear that there was no need for a copy-editor and find it a much better reply. Thank you.

Sometimes I get the feeling that this is the "this is why we can't have nice stuff" moment, such as why Marc doesn't post, it's because he will be endlessly harangued about x-boats or that "their" was misspelled in LBB 4 multiple times.

That's the sort of thing that a good copy-editor would have spotted.


Hans