This one is going to hurt. Along with Starfinder and Pathfinder 2, I have boxed up my Mongoose Traveller 2E books and put them aside for a while. I always feel bad when I do this, since there is always that "promise of fun" sitting in these books, and the problem isn't the game is bad at all.
The problem is I have too many better games to play.
Better, is of course, subjective and will mean a different thing to different people, so always factor in your experience and background. For some, the new Traveller is the perfect game, and more power to you! This is never about edition wars or system advocacy, what games I put away for a while is always a reflection with where I am in life, my current interests, wanting to explore the new games I have, and my previous experience with the system and having seen most of it - and there not being enough to explore that I have not already.
Another factor is my recent purchase of the POD version of the original Traveller Book. This reminded me of how we adapted the 2d6 system to games like Car Wars, and how the first three little black books were an ideal "micro 2d6 system" to use as the RPG rules for many wargames, and how fun the original rules were to mod and adapt to new uses.
Original Traveller was like the system you could write down on the back of a few index cards and have 90% of the rules ready to go.
The new Traveller is a huge system, with a lot of detailed subsystems, and the game does not feel as quick and easy anymore. They go the Rolemaster route of thinking "charts equal detail" in some places, especially character generation, and there are times I feel that charts do not equal interesting content or fun. While it may be fun to have all this detail and different outcomes, a plethora of charts ultimately does not make a game.
Design makes a game.
I know, the original Traveller had charts too, but those were like a single page (for character creation) and they were minimized in scope and use. The tightness of the system meant that career chart with all the skills and career options was one page, and it didn't go on and on for a chapter or more. The game had to be frugal, and the charts were frugal too, which increased their usefulness and focus.
This is not to say the new Traveller is poorly designed, it just feels a bit unfocused to me and feels like a larger system trying to do what the original did in a few simple books with minimal rules.
Also, I do not like the specialty skills in new Traveller where you are forced to divide a skill into subskills when you get a +1. This hides the complexity of the skill list and bloats the system, while making some careers way less fun to play (engineering and science) just because of the vast number of subskills that need to be fed with skill levels. If you are a combat character with a few weapons, you will level up the skills you use at the table a lot faster than careers that need to divide skill points.
Also some skill specialties make no sense. If I am a Vargr, wolf person, why do I need to buy Melee (Unarmed) to punch, kick, or wrestle someone and Melee (Natural) to claw and bite them? When you get into this chart- and list-ification of game design you begin to see all sorts of strange subskills that from a design point of view make little sense, but to someone making a list it makes sense since, "we have to cover that option too!"
GURPS does this too (especially in the expansion books), and this is one of those trends in game design that makes sense to a game writer, but it shows a lack of understanding of what makes a game play and feel good at the table, or a lack of playtesting to iron out these obvious logical inconsistencies. GURPS has this skill (from some book) that covers the handling of hazardous materials, like toxic waste. So you mean a starship or real world engineer never works with hazardous waste? No part of that reactor is dangerous? Give me a break, the engineering skill covers avoiding injury on the job.
Otherwise every engineer needs that skill now (or a lot of careers are shortened), and you have put another tax on certain non-combat career paths. The answer to making non-combat careers interesting to play is not more complexity and more options. It lies in game design and making those rolls matter. Star Trek Adventures comes to mind, and the momentum/threat system shows thought was put into making every roll in a session matter to the success of the group's adventure.
I am not boxing up the Traveller Book though. That is still an inspiration and tight design, and right now opening it gives me a lot of good feelings and memories.
I am also not boxing up the newer OSR 2d6 retro-clone Cepheus Deluxe, since this feels like "Phat Traveller" to me, sort of an alternate take on generic 2d6 system with a lot of great ideas in it. I still have to find a use for this, and I have the fantasy version as well, so I would like to read them more.
I will likely unbox this and come back to the new Traveller, I always do. But for me, boxing up a game helps me focus on the few I want out, and lets me enjoy the ones I chose to focus on more. This eliminates the ugly "choice paradox" I have with my game collection, in that I have so many shelves my house feels like a game store, and I end up looking at my entire collection and playing nothing. Like all games, new Traveller has quirks and design decisions I don't agree with, but that does not make the game unfun or unworthy. I can fix those with a few tweaks. And if I wanted to play in the 3rd Imperium you bet I would use the new Traveller system, since that is where the fun and interest is at the moment.
Choice paradox sucks, and I box up games just to limit my choices and make my life better. I would rather enjoy a few games at a time than play none of hundreds. My Steam library agrees with me on this one, with a few hundred unplayed games on there.
What games do I have that are more interesting to me at the moment?
Stay tuned...
No comments:
Post a Comment