Sunday, August 05, 2012

Houston, We Have Anachronisms...

Eric brought it to my attention that several technologies featured in the fan-made TRO:3063 are anachronisms.  I knew that, but thought we could cover our arses with heaps of handwavium - 'experimental' and 'prototype' waved like majestic fronds...

Well, even with Quirks inserted from Strategic Operations, we can't really justify the appearance of weapons so long before their 'official' intro date.  SO - no HPPCs, no LPPCs, no LACs, no SNPPCs, etc.

But we have Blazers.  Yersh we do.  And ERPPC capacitors.  We already have fixes for most of the, er, issues on a roster.  Intro dates are changing.  But I am going to be one writing SOB for the next week.

I still think Rocket Launchers should be available in 3063, and comparing notes with my sources, find that The Powers That Be might have made a mistake on the intro date.  Erg.  BLEH.

I don't want to turn this book into an XTRO.  IMHO, the XTRO machines were so many McGuffins, never intended for players.  Ours are meant to see action.  So the Quirks, while popular with some, are thus far a no-go.  But what do you, the BattleTech reader, think?  Keep the Quirks?  Leave a note and tell me.  

But do hurry.  After tomorrow, I am gonna be up to my ass in textual alligators and draining the swamp is not going to be easy....

After all this, we are still on schedule!  It's just that we have very little time to effect these changes.  Please stand by....

Thanks for stopping in.



 Ashley said...

I think you have to bite the bullet as you are basically hoisted on your own petard with this.

Steven Satak said...

I would bite the bullet in any case, because as you know, I *like* the taste of bullets.

Hoisted on my own petard? What's a petard? And how have I hoisted myself on it? Now, I started four years ago figuring all this stuff was legal. Never once occurred to me that the magic words would not cover the bases, but I have been convinced otherwise quite recently.

Essentially, this thing is so good, anachronisms have actually become a *problem*, as they stick out now like a sore thumb.

Meh. I think of it as suddenly realizing that those four pieces of art I commissioned three years back now do not measure up to the standard of the rest of the book. They must be replaced. And so I am doing the same with the writing and references.

Wish me luck, O Pink One!

Metaldragon0 said...

So...are you suggesting you are going to go back and change any of the unit load-outs that have those weapons? If so, I would find that an exercise in futility.

My opinion is that you should just roll with what you've got, and forget about the canon. Otherwise you'll just go crazy.

 Ashley said...

A petard is a bomb. I'm surprised at you.

However, much luck to you.

Steven Satak said...

Well, some have said I was mad to start with this in the first place.

Look, the issue is one of credibility; the game is story-driven and anachronism really effs things up unless there's a GOOD reason for it - ONCE. (Or twice... maybe three times, if you own the company).

If I can't keep it interesting, useful and within the existing storyline, it's just more fan wank, as some on the company boards call it.

Hell, it's probably fan wank anyways, but it will be pretty and will read well.

Metaldragon0 said...

Well, you should do what you think is best I guess. As a person who has been following this project since near the beginning, I might just be getting impatient!

Anyway, madness being a cause of this thing isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some of the best creative minds were kinda crazy, heh.

Rudel Gurken said...


Just keep it as it is ;)
We dated back some of the new "3025-looking" Equipment anyway.
L/H/SNPPC back to a couple of years after the standard PPC, LMG and HMG back to the date of the standard MG, Rocket Launchers back to early spaceflight and the LAC we even set before the standard ACs as it's predecessors ;)

Steven Satak said...

As I said in the blog post, this is not (thus far) putting us behind schedule. So your wait would be no longer than it would if we *didn't* have issues.

Release should be during GenCon, though I would like it to be earlier if possible.


Steven Satak said...

@Rudel: are you referring to German BattleTech, your own efforts or company products I have not seen yet?

I am aware that fan organizations have done a lot of stuff a little... different from the company's line. But rotary AC/20s is pretty cray-zeee and so, in my case, is 'adjusting' the introduction dates to suit myself.

Honestly? It's my fault for not bringing myself up to speed. I am thankful for Eric's dedication to the game. We will hammer a solution out and damned soon.

Faraday77 said...

Hm...most probably the 'dumb question of the year' (and apologies for it in advance), but is the TRO fluff so much fixed on '63 that it wouldn't be less work to change fluff and in-universe release year?

Steven Satak said...

Actually, the number of actual textual massage required for the current plan is a LOT less than if we decided to rename the whole thing 'TRO: 3064'. Or 3065. Or 3066.

The ones we are working are the ones that are simply too far in advance of the release date for the offending technology. HPPCs don't appear until late 3066, at the earliest.

Don't worry, fellas! We got it handled.

Rudel Gurken said...

Quote-@Rudel: are you referring to German BattleTech, your own efforts or company products I have not seen yet?

I'm just referring to our (the handfull of friends that i play BT with) own efforts ;)
Just handle it as you see fit. It would'nt be a problem with me regardless of which way you choose!

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be possible to keep the original designs as later variants of the original mech, vehicle of aerospace fighter. That way you can keep the anachronism and even make the designs available for use in the Jihad era?

Kind regards,


Steven Satak said...

@ Maurits: We would like to keep the anachronisms, but everything in the text is done 'in-universe' and unless this is done as an "Ugrade" from a later era (say, 3071), it's not possible to see how they could see into the future.

We WILL mention that experimental stuff like HPPCs may eventually replace the current 3063 equipment. But that is as far as we can go. Sorry.

Zureal said...

yes, quirks are awesome :)also, any way we could get a DL to read, i have the old one but i find i doint want to wait anymore! lol, just wana see it, and love it, and drool over it, make love to it, kiss it...... no, im NOT a weirdo!

Sharlin said...

I'm sure you'll be fine and that this glorious project will still be a testament to all the work you and many others have done.

Steven Satak said...

I will leave the quirks in - TIME PERMITTING!! We really have a lot to do. I have already done the redesign for the offending machines, taking my cue from Eric and Donald's hard work in that direction.

I don't think it will be a real problem with most of the designs - I am keeping them on-track with substitutes that hit just as hard, but have drawbacks of their own. It will add a bit more challenge to the mission profile, but re-writing and getting them to the editors will take time.

Fortunately, I have a crack team of editors who love the game and are already experienced with this TRO. We will get through this. Probably most of the heavy lifting will be done this weekend. I should be in the clear by noon on Monday, God and the editors willing.