Malenfant
February 13th, 2007, 02:12 PM
Split from the TBR thread:
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
I'm not sure how far you can change Book 3 and it still be Traveller. Maybe just a couple of small changes to eliminate small worlds with too much atmo or Insidious worlds with not enough Tech or too much pop.
The distribution of the Book 3 rules defines the feel of the Traveller "Galactic Empire", for better or for worse. There's many people who claim that changing the world distribution or how systems are generated etc would make the game "not Traveller".
I'd like to see some proof of this.
For example: Changing systems like Regina so that they orbit a single star (not a close binary with a white dwarf that should have fried any planets nearby when it was a red giant), or with gas giants in stable orbits, and so on absolutely does NOT make it "not Traveller". You can have the same people on Regina, the same history of the system, the same importance of the system etc. Nothing changes for the purposes of actual game play or setting.
Another example: If you had rarer habitable worlds, would it really make much of a difference to the setting? Most of the major worlds in the OTU are habitable anyway. Anything else doesn't need to be - those adventures that you have on the backwater vaguely habitable worlds can still be done on backwater uninhabitable worlds, in domes or underground caverns or whatever. The setting may change a bit, but the adventures and history etc can largely stay the same.
Another example: If you got rid of all the aliens, would Traveller really change much in practice? Not really, I think. You have enough variants of Humaniti running around as it is - most of the history of the Imperium just depends on the Vilani, Solomani and Zhodani being around. Given that most of the aliens are humans in funny suits, you can easily ditch the suits. Vargr don't need to be uplifted dogs, they can just be a specific species of humaniti (or just a bunch of people with their own unique social code, like Reavers in Firefly). Aslan could just be a race of noble warrior humans with a different social code. Hivers could be a more advanced race of human who like tinkering with other races. KKree and Droyne are more problematic, but then there's nothing really distinctive about the Droyne anyway, and the K'Kree could just be replaced with any ultra-xenophobic human race anyway. Heck, just replace Droyne with devolved humans anyway, seeded across space by a long-gone Precursor race. Or if you're being really wacky you could say that the "droyne" were a race of humans who existed on Earth before our current civilisations but who headed off into space (call em Atlanteans, I dunno smile.gif ).
Either way, would making all the aliens human change anything in practice? I don't really think it would. So long as they acted the same as the existing races, the history of the setting would just be identical. Minor details would be different but you could still run exactly the same games as before.
another example: Would making the setting more realistic change the history? By which I don't mean changing how jump drive works or anything, I mean having a yellow sunlike star instead of a blue supergiant around this planet, or making the economics work properly in general or whatever. I don't think it would affect anything at all - you still have your empire in space, the psionics suppressions still happen, frontier wars happen exactly the same way...
So how exactly does making these changes suddenly make the game "Not Traveller" if those changes would have very little effect on the setting in practical terms? Is this just down to some peoples' impression that Traveller is just the rules (which never made sense to me in the first place, given that the setting is what's remained constant over the last 30 years, whereas the rules have changed frequently).
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
I'm not sure how far you can change Book 3 and it still be Traveller. Maybe just a couple of small changes to eliminate small worlds with too much atmo or Insidious worlds with not enough Tech or too much pop.
The distribution of the Book 3 rules defines the feel of the Traveller "Galactic Empire", for better or for worse. There's many people who claim that changing the world distribution or how systems are generated etc would make the game "not Traveller".
I'd like to see some proof of this.
For example: Changing systems like Regina so that they orbit a single star (not a close binary with a white dwarf that should have fried any planets nearby when it was a red giant), or with gas giants in stable orbits, and so on absolutely does NOT make it "not Traveller". You can have the same people on Regina, the same history of the system, the same importance of the system etc. Nothing changes for the purposes of actual game play or setting.
Another example: If you had rarer habitable worlds, would it really make much of a difference to the setting? Most of the major worlds in the OTU are habitable anyway. Anything else doesn't need to be - those adventures that you have on the backwater vaguely habitable worlds can still be done on backwater uninhabitable worlds, in domes or underground caverns or whatever. The setting may change a bit, but the adventures and history etc can largely stay the same.
Another example: If you got rid of all the aliens, would Traveller really change much in practice? Not really, I think. You have enough variants of Humaniti running around as it is - most of the history of the Imperium just depends on the Vilani, Solomani and Zhodani being around. Given that most of the aliens are humans in funny suits, you can easily ditch the suits. Vargr don't need to be uplifted dogs, they can just be a specific species of humaniti (or just a bunch of people with their own unique social code, like Reavers in Firefly). Aslan could just be a race of noble warrior humans with a different social code. Hivers could be a more advanced race of human who like tinkering with other races. KKree and Droyne are more problematic, but then there's nothing really distinctive about the Droyne anyway, and the K'Kree could just be replaced with any ultra-xenophobic human race anyway. Heck, just replace Droyne with devolved humans anyway, seeded across space by a long-gone Precursor race. Or if you're being really wacky you could say that the "droyne" were a race of humans who existed on Earth before our current civilisations but who headed off into space (call em Atlanteans, I dunno smile.gif ).
Either way, would making all the aliens human change anything in practice? I don't really think it would. So long as they acted the same as the existing races, the history of the setting would just be identical. Minor details would be different but you could still run exactly the same games as before.
another example: Would making the setting more realistic change the history? By which I don't mean changing how jump drive works or anything, I mean having a yellow sunlike star instead of a blue supergiant around this planet, or making the economics work properly in general or whatever. I don't think it would affect anything at all - you still have your empire in space, the psionics suppressions still happen, frontier wars happen exactly the same way...
So how exactly does making these changes suddenly make the game "Not Traveller" if those changes would have very little effect on the setting in practical terms? Is this just down to some peoples' impression that Traveller is just the rules (which never made sense to me in the first place, given that the setting is what's remained constant over the last 30 years, whereas the rules have changed frequently).
Jeffr0
February 13th, 2007, 02:54 PM
Mal, this just isn't Traveller.... (http://irregularwebcomic.net/94.html) tongue.gif
Roger Calver
February 13th, 2007, 02:55 PM
Thats very true, Travellers history and background is not connected in any way to the games (what ever version) rules system.
Changes to even major parts like as Mal said the aliens still has no effects to the setting.
You can plug Traveller into any system of your choice and its still Traveller no more no less.
This is for me one of the major bug-bears to the whole "do we need a new Traveller rule-set" issue because do we need one ?
Changes to even major parts like as Mal said the aliens still has no effects to the setting.
You can plug Traveller into any system of your choice and its still Traveller no more no less.
This is for me one of the major bug-bears to the whole "do we need a new Traveller rule-set" issue because do we need one ?
Roger Calver
February 13th, 2007, 02:56 PM
smile.gif smile.gif
Andrew Boulton
February 13th, 2007, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
Mal, this just isn't Traveller.... (http://irregularwebcomic.net/94.html) tongue.gif :)
Yes, you could make these changes, and individually they wouldn't make much difference, but when combined I think they would make the OTU a different place. In fact, there would no longer be *an* OTU, but *two*, which defeats the object of having an official universe. Traveller is too fragmented as it is; I don't think it would survive a change like this.
Mal, this just isn't Traveller.... (http://irregularwebcomic.net/94.html) tongue.gif :)
Yes, you could make these changes, and individually they wouldn't make much difference, but when combined I think they would make the OTU a different place. In fact, there would no longer be *an* OTU, but *two*, which defeats the object of having an official universe. Traveller is too fragmented as it is; I don't think it would survive a change like this.
Malenfant
February 13th, 2007, 03:47 PM
I'm not seeing how there'd be two OTUs...?
Admittedly that was an extreme example though, my point was really that changes could be made 'under the hood' to the setting so to speak that wouldn't actually change anything practical about the game in terms of what you'd do in it or the history of the setting itself... yet some people would still say "oh no, that's not Traveller anymore". I just don't see how that claim would be justified.
I mean, let's say you have fewer habitable worlds. That would mean that the population concentrates more on the habitable ones. But instead of saying "oh, now they have to do 17 jumps to get to that backwater world that they could have done in one jump", instead you just put the backwater on one of the habitable planets. Now instead of spending months in jump, you have your adventure in a small town in the boonies on one of the habitable worlds - so the longer jumps don't become a problem anymore.
Either way you still have the same adventure as you would have had before, it's just in a different spot.
Admittedly that was an extreme example though, my point was really that changes could be made 'under the hood' to the setting so to speak that wouldn't actually change anything practical about the game in terms of what you'd do in it or the history of the setting itself... yet some people would still say "oh no, that's not Traveller anymore". I just don't see how that claim would be justified.
I mean, let's say you have fewer habitable worlds. That would mean that the population concentrates more on the habitable ones. But instead of saying "oh, now they have to do 17 jumps to get to that backwater world that they could have done in one jump", instead you just put the backwater on one of the habitable planets. Now instead of spending months in jump, you have your adventure in a small town in the boonies on one of the habitable worlds - so the longer jumps don't become a problem anymore.
Either way you still have the same adventure as you would have had before, it's just in a different spot.
Commander Drax
February 13th, 2007, 03:51 PM
But the rules are no substitute for the imagination, if you don't like the results of the tables then just change it, after all there is no such thing as a table that can reliably and consistently give you realistic results, there's just to many variables in the universe at large, against what we currently know to be true or may specualte to be true. 3 or 4 pages of tables cant give you that variety.
ravells
February 13th, 2007, 03:52 PM
LOL! Excellent, Jeffr0!
I am one of those lucky people who would revel in the mental image of planets orbiting binary stars rather than wondering whether it is in fact possible (because I would have no idea). It may be true that Traveller can be run along more scientifically accurate principles, but for me the idea of what Traveller 'is' was set down 25 years ago when I was in college, so revisions which change that mental image would make Traveller a different game for me.
Ravs
I am one of those lucky people who would revel in the mental image of planets orbiting binary stars rather than wondering whether it is in fact possible (because I would have no idea). It may be true that Traveller can be run along more scientifically accurate principles, but for me the idea of what Traveller 'is' was set down 25 years ago when I was in college, so revisions which change that mental image would make Traveller a different game for me.
Ravs
Malenfant
February 13th, 2007, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Commander Drax:
But the rules are no substitute for the imagination, if you don't like the results of the tables then just change it, after all there is no such thing as a table that can reliably and consistently give you realistic results, there's just to many variables in the universe at large, against what we currently know to be true or may specualte to be true. 3 or 4 pages of tables cant give you that variety. There is certainly such thing as a set of tables that can give you much better and more realistic results than what was assumed 30 years ago. Maybe that set of tables itself will be out of date in 30 years but it's definitely better than what we've got right now smile.gif
But the rules are no substitute for the imagination, if you don't like the results of the tables then just change it, after all there is no such thing as a table that can reliably and consistently give you realistic results, there's just to many variables in the universe at large, against what we currently know to be true or may specualte to be true. 3 or 4 pages of tables cant give you that variety. There is certainly such thing as a set of tables that can give you much better and more realistic results than what was assumed 30 years ago. Maybe that set of tables itself will be out of date in 30 years but it's definitely better than what we've got right now smile.gif
Malenfant
February 13th, 2007, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
[QB]I am one of those lucky people who would revel in the mental image of planets orbiting binary stars rather than wondering whether it is in fact possible (because I would have no idea).Oh it's perfectly possible, don't worry about that. smile.gif
It may be true that Traveller can be run along more scientifically accurate principles, but for me the idea of what Traveller 'is' was set down 25 years ago when I was in college, so revisions which change that mental image would make Traveller a different game for me.But why? That's why I'm asking here - you're surely not saying that (for example) it will break the game if your planet orbits a single star instead of a binary.
Say you have a scout ship incoming with your PCs on it to land on a habitable planet orbiting a high mass binary red giant system (very unrealistic), with all the plot baggage associated with it.
Great. Now replace the binary red giant with a single sun-like star. Or even a double one, for all I care (with planet moved to a habitable orbit accordingly) So what changes with respect to plot, etc? Well, the 100D limit is now suddenly smaller... that's it though really. And most people don't care much about in-system transit time (and if they do, a good GM will give you have as much time as is required to complete the scene anyway and that's it).
So the only real difference is that the ship may arrive on the planet a bit sooner, and now everything's lit up with yellow instead of red light, otherwise the PCs disembark on the starport, and do their stuff exactly as before. Yet because of this sort of change, suddenly this isn't Traveller anymore??
[QB]I am one of those lucky people who would revel in the mental image of planets orbiting binary stars rather than wondering whether it is in fact possible (because I would have no idea).Oh it's perfectly possible, don't worry about that. smile.gif
It may be true that Traveller can be run along more scientifically accurate principles, but for me the idea of what Traveller 'is' was set down 25 years ago when I was in college, so revisions which change that mental image would make Traveller a different game for me.But why? That's why I'm asking here - you're surely not saying that (for example) it will break the game if your planet orbits a single star instead of a binary.
Say you have a scout ship incoming with your PCs on it to land on a habitable planet orbiting a high mass binary red giant system (very unrealistic), with all the plot baggage associated with it.
Great. Now replace the binary red giant with a single sun-like star. Or even a double one, for all I care (with planet moved to a habitable orbit accordingly) So what changes with respect to plot, etc? Well, the 100D limit is now suddenly smaller... that's it though really. And most people don't care much about in-system transit time (and if they do, a good GM will give you have as much time as is required to complete the scene anyway and that's it).
So the only real difference is that the ship may arrive on the planet a bit sooner, and now everything's lit up with yellow instead of red light, otherwise the PCs disembark on the starport, and do their stuff exactly as before. Yet because of this sort of change, suddenly this isn't Traveller anymore??
mbrinkhues
February 13th, 2007, 04:13 PM
For me there are few things that make Traveller unique:
The absence of FTL comms
Add "Lichtspruch" capacity to ships or even planets and the underlying fabric changes. Instant or near-instant communications unravels the whole need for nobility and local self government, allows quick reports of enemy attacks and fleet movements or prior warnings in case of a renegade Admiral from the Marches
The J-Drive and minimum size
While I do like universes where a Rampart-Sized fighter can go FTL I still won't integrate Stutterwarp or Kalups Linearkonverter into the OTU. Again the "1 Week and nothing can touch you" defines the universe, making advanced recon of targets hazy and the simple recall of a fleet in motion impossibel
The size
The sheer size of the 3I with it's multi-month message delays is important to a lot of the history of the 3I as well as to it's governmental system.
The Aliens
Maybe this is from the G:AR books that form the background for my view on Vagr, Aslan et all. But to me they are more than "rubber suit" humans. I could do away with the Ancients and make Vagr into a canine race. But without them the universe is different. This would be like the switch from the TOS to the Enterprise Vulcans. I prefer the latter(1) but they are different(2)
Used and dirty
This is not the "all white" TNE Federation of Seasons 1-3. This is Babylon 5, the CoDominion and a healthy dose of Domenic Flandry or Ryder Hook. It is a used, dirty and living universe. Change that and you loose what keeps most adventurers in the "game" in universe
On the other hand a lot of things are optional:
Sublight Engines
While I prefer the reactionless, 6-10g max Thrusters I can do with TNE's HepLar and I can do with higher performance figures. Won't change much IMHO
Planetary systems
IMTU humans settle three types of planets: Habitabel ones, those with extremly rare minerals and strategically important ones. No one settles a desolate, unimportant backwater "just because"
Ship sizes
I am a BSU fan but I can live with small ships only. Again, it won't change Traveller
(1) I HATE elves and like to see them getting kicked. TOS Vulkans are IMHO space elves.
(2) And some are a "fair size prettier" just like TNE doctors.
The absence of FTL comms
Add "Lichtspruch" capacity to ships or even planets and the underlying fabric changes. Instant or near-instant communications unravels the whole need for nobility and local self government, allows quick reports of enemy attacks and fleet movements or prior warnings in case of a renegade Admiral from the Marches
The J-Drive and minimum size
While I do like universes where a Rampart-Sized fighter can go FTL I still won't integrate Stutterwarp or Kalups Linearkonverter into the OTU. Again the "1 Week and nothing can touch you" defines the universe, making advanced recon of targets hazy and the simple recall of a fleet in motion impossibel
The size
The sheer size of the 3I with it's multi-month message delays is important to a lot of the history of the 3I as well as to it's governmental system.
The Aliens
Maybe this is from the G:AR books that form the background for my view on Vagr, Aslan et all. But to me they are more than "rubber suit" humans. I could do away with the Ancients and make Vagr into a canine race. But without them the universe is different. This would be like the switch from the TOS to the Enterprise Vulcans. I prefer the latter(1) but they are different(2)
Used and dirty
This is not the "all white" TNE Federation of Seasons 1-3. This is Babylon 5, the CoDominion and a healthy dose of Domenic Flandry or Ryder Hook. It is a used, dirty and living universe. Change that and you loose what keeps most adventurers in the "game" in universe
On the other hand a lot of things are optional:
Sublight Engines
While I prefer the reactionless, 6-10g max Thrusters I can do with TNE's HepLar and I can do with higher performance figures. Won't change much IMHO
Planetary systems
IMTU humans settle three types of planets: Habitabel ones, those with extremly rare minerals and strategically important ones. No one settles a desolate, unimportant backwater "just because"
Ship sizes
I am a BSU fan but I can live with small ships only. Again, it won't change Traveller
(1) I HATE elves and like to see them getting kicked. TOS Vulkans are IMHO space elves.
(2) And some are a "fair size prettier" just like TNE doctors.
Keklas Rekobah
February 13th, 2007, 04:32 PM
Would any of the following make Traveller into Traveller-Not, whether considered in whole or in part?
1) No Aslan or Vargr. Instead, an uplifted canine-feline hybrid (or precursor species) with intense curiosity and an unpredictable temper, which takes over the respective niches of the Aslan and Vargr.
2) "Stargates" as per the movie and series' of the same name, maximum one per subsector. They are usually located on marginal worlds, or in marginal environments on populated worlds.
3) A region of space that is at least one sector in volume, in which no culture has had any recorded contact with the Imperium or its neighbors. Technology is similar to, but not always the same as, normal Imperial standards.
4) A slight modification of the world generation procedure that provides a POP DM based on the the "867" environment of Terra, so that greater human populations occur on worlds closest to Terra's environment, and progressively less population on worlds that are progressively less like Terra.
5) A system-generation method that does allow for tide-locked marginal worlds orbiting brown dwarf stars, but that does not allow them to be the dominant star system form.
6) A rule that allows for a branch of the Psionics Institute to be found on a POP-8 world on a 2D roll of 12+.
Thank you.
1) No Aslan or Vargr. Instead, an uplifted canine-feline hybrid (or precursor species) with intense curiosity and an unpredictable temper, which takes over the respective niches of the Aslan and Vargr.
2) "Stargates" as per the movie and series' of the same name, maximum one per subsector. They are usually located on marginal worlds, or in marginal environments on populated worlds.
3) A region of space that is at least one sector in volume, in which no culture has had any recorded contact with the Imperium or its neighbors. Technology is similar to, but not always the same as, normal Imperial standards.
4) A slight modification of the world generation procedure that provides a POP DM based on the the "867" environment of Terra, so that greater human populations occur on worlds closest to Terra's environment, and progressively less population on worlds that are progressively less like Terra.
5) A system-generation method that does allow for tide-locked marginal worlds orbiting brown dwarf stars, but that does not allow them to be the dominant star system form.
6) A rule that allows for a branch of the Psionics Institute to be found on a POP-8 world on a 2D roll of 12+.
Thank you.
Jeffr0
February 13th, 2007, 04:34 PM
I don't understand the bee in Mal's bonnet.
First In includes revised system generation rules. It includes options for making things turn out more like Book 3. It includes guidelines for GM's that want to take Traveller canon on various systems and make them more scientifically consistent.
What else do you want?
The things you care about only affect the broadest elements of the setting while the PC's are in-system. It can effectively be ignored in most cases.
I challenge you to create a detailed Traveller subsector with a corresponding set of Adventure Seeds, Amber Zones, Short Adventures, and an Adventure where the stellar characteristics of the systems are actually relevant to the game sessions.
It hasn't been done and it won't be done. This is maximum effort for minmal returns-- par for the course in post-CT Traveller supplements....
(edited for spelling)
First In includes revised system generation rules. It includes options for making things turn out more like Book 3. It includes guidelines for GM's that want to take Traveller canon on various systems and make them more scientifically consistent.
What else do you want?
The things you care about only affect the broadest elements of the setting while the PC's are in-system. It can effectively be ignored in most cases.
I challenge you to create a detailed Traveller subsector with a corresponding set of Adventure Seeds, Amber Zones, Short Adventures, and an Adventure where the stellar characteristics of the systems are actually relevant to the game sessions.
It hasn't been done and it won't be done. This is maximum effort for minmal returns-- par for the course in post-CT Traveller supplements....
(edited for spelling)
Malenfant
February 13th, 2007, 04:52 PM
I know First In went a lot of the way toward fixing these issues. But (a) a lot of CT fans start hissing and spitting at the mention of GURPS Traveller ;) , and (b) it doesn't actually change the OTU.
You're right, this is all background stuff, but the point is that if it doesn't harm anything to change them so they're sensible or realistic then you don't have much to lose by doing it anyway. If you have people who are willing to make the changes then can you really complain that they've been made if they won't change how your play?
And the "bee in my bonnet" here specifically is this: If these changes were hypothetically to be made, then you'd get people complaining that it suddenly isn't Traveller when in fact nothing practical has changed in game terms to change it from what it was before.
The purpose of this thread isn't to debate whether realism is better or worth doing - it's to debate whether actually making this sort of change would really make the game "not Traveller". If it doesn't change any practical aspect of the setting to do it, then why is it suddenly not Traveller?
You're right, this is all background stuff, but the point is that if it doesn't harm anything to change them so they're sensible or realistic then you don't have much to lose by doing it anyway. If you have people who are willing to make the changes then can you really complain that they've been made if they won't change how your play?
And the "bee in my bonnet" here specifically is this: If these changes were hypothetically to be made, then you'd get people complaining that it suddenly isn't Traveller when in fact nothing practical has changed in game terms to change it from what it was before.
The purpose of this thread isn't to debate whether realism is better or worth doing - it's to debate whether actually making this sort of change would really make the game "not Traveller". If it doesn't change any practical aspect of the setting to do it, then why is it suddenly not Traveller?
Maladominus
February 13th, 2007, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
I don't understand the bee in Mal's bonnet.
I do. It's called tilting at windmills.
I don't understand the bee in Mal's bonnet.
I do. It's called tilting at windmills.
Malenfant
February 13th, 2007, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Maladominus:
I do. It's called tilting at windmills./QB]Actually, it's called "trying to have an intelligent discussion with people about something". :rolleyes:
If you don't care for or about the topic at hand, then don't waste everyone's time by posting on the thread.
I do. It's called tilting at windmills./QB]Actually, it's called "trying to have an intelligent discussion with people about something". :rolleyes:
If you don't care for or about the topic at hand, then don't waste everyone's time by posting on the thread.
Jeffr0
February 13th, 2007, 05:19 PM
My, we're touchy today...
Maladominus
February 13th, 2007, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
If you have people who are willing to make the changes then can you really complain that they've been made if...You're misguided if you think anyone but Marc W Miller can make official changes. He owns the rights to Traveller, and only he has the authority to license it out to someone else or to "revise" the game in any significant way. And if your goal is to influence the direction and design decisions for the not-yet-released T5, then why is this outside of the T5 forums? Debating with someone like Jeffr0 won't do you any good to alter the development decisions that Mr. Miller will be making for T5 or any future Traveller variant.
Your best bet would be to email or get in touch with Marc Miller himself. But since you are famous for taking potshots at him and publicly demonizing Marc Miller at every opportunity in the past, I am quite certain that you consider him below you. Therefore, the possibility that there could be an information exchange (or dialogue) between you and Mister Miller is a moot point.
If all you want to do is to put forth your own (unofficial) House Rules of a more realistic CT.... uhhh, then who is stopping you? I can name several people on these forums that are already doing this, already putting forth proposals and house rule systems to enhance improve and "correct" Classic Traveller. Supplement Four, as one example, has been dishing out tons of excellent "house rules" material which makes this 30-year old tired dog "Classic Traveller" a lot more plausible and more balanced. He's put out effort to clean up the loopholes and cover the potholes of our beloved old game. And yet, I don't seem to recall Supplement Four picking fights and starting a bunch of terse dead-horse arguments with anyone about his ideas to make CT better. Do you?
If you have people who are willing to make the changes then can you really complain that they've been made if...You're misguided if you think anyone but Marc W Miller can make official changes. He owns the rights to Traveller, and only he has the authority to license it out to someone else or to "revise" the game in any significant way. And if your goal is to influence the direction and design decisions for the not-yet-released T5, then why is this outside of the T5 forums? Debating with someone like Jeffr0 won't do you any good to alter the development decisions that Mr. Miller will be making for T5 or any future Traveller variant.
Your best bet would be to email or get in touch with Marc Miller himself. But since you are famous for taking potshots at him and publicly demonizing Marc Miller at every opportunity in the past, I am quite certain that you consider him below you. Therefore, the possibility that there could be an information exchange (or dialogue) between you and Mister Miller is a moot point.
If all you want to do is to put forth your own (unofficial) House Rules of a more realistic CT.... uhhh, then who is stopping you? I can name several people on these forums that are already doing this, already putting forth proposals and house rule systems to enhance improve and "correct" Classic Traveller. Supplement Four, as one example, has been dishing out tons of excellent "house rules" material which makes this 30-year old tired dog "Classic Traveller" a lot more plausible and more balanced. He's put out effort to clean up the loopholes and cover the potholes of our beloved old game. And yet, I don't seem to recall Supplement Four picking fights and starting a bunch of terse dead-horse arguments with anyone about his ideas to make CT better. Do you?
Malenfant
February 13th, 2007, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
My, we're touchy today... No, I just have little tolerance for trolls who don't contribute anything useful to a discussion.
This is a discussion board - let's get back to discussing the subject at hand, shall we? Like I said, if the topic bores you or doesn't interest you then you don't need to post here.
My, we're touchy today... No, I just have little tolerance for trolls who don't contribute anything useful to a discussion.
This is a discussion board - let's get back to discussing the subject at hand, shall we? Like I said, if the topic bores you or doesn't interest you then you don't need to post here.
Malenfant
February 13th, 2007, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Maladominus:
You're misguided if you think anyone but Marc W Miller can make official changes. He owns the rights to Traveller, and only he has the authority to license it out to someone else or to "revise" the game in any significant way.This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in this thread.
And if your goal is to influence the direction and design decisions for the not-yet-released T5, then why is this outside of the T5 forums?...and again, this has nothing to do with this thread. I'm asking a specific question about what makes something "not Traveller", not "taking potshots at T5". I've not even mentioned it here.
Debating with someone like Jeffr0 won't do you any good to alter the development decisions that Mr. Miller will be making for T5 or any future Traveller variant.What, so all discussion is worthless unless it's with someone in control? That's ridiculous. We might as well not talk about anything on these boards then.
If all you want to do is to put forth your own (unofficial) House Rules of a more realistic CT.... uhhh, then who is stopping you?Nothing. I have a website full of my ideas and house rules for making a more realistic TU. It's in the link in my sig, if you'd bothered to look.
Now that you've finished ranting, can we get back to the question I raised please? I don't know why it's so hard for some people to understand that they can just go elsewhere and post about something else that interests them if a particular topic bores them. Do you spend your time butting into verbal conversations and yelling at the parties involved to stop talking about it, or asking why they're talking about it? I'd hope not.
You're misguided if you think anyone but Marc W Miller can make official changes. He owns the rights to Traveller, and only he has the authority to license it out to someone else or to "revise" the game in any significant way.This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in this thread.
And if your goal is to influence the direction and design decisions for the not-yet-released T5, then why is this outside of the T5 forums?...and again, this has nothing to do with this thread. I'm asking a specific question about what makes something "not Traveller", not "taking potshots at T5". I've not even mentioned it here.
Debating with someone like Jeffr0 won't do you any good to alter the development decisions that Mr. Miller will be making for T5 or any future Traveller variant.What, so all discussion is worthless unless it's with someone in control? That's ridiculous. We might as well not talk about anything on these boards then.
If all you want to do is to put forth your own (unofficial) House Rules of a more realistic CT.... uhhh, then who is stopping you?Nothing. I have a website full of my ideas and house rules for making a more realistic TU. It's in the link in my sig, if you'd bothered to look.
Now that you've finished ranting, can we get back to the question I raised please? I don't know why it's so hard for some people to understand that they can just go elsewhere and post about something else that interests them if a particular topic bores them. Do you spend your time butting into verbal conversations and yelling at the parties involved to stop talking about it, or asking why they're talking about it? I'd hope not.
ravells
February 13th, 2007, 05:50 PM
Um no, I'm saying that if a man in a bowler hat walked up to my character claiming himself to be a hiver, it just wouldn't be traveller to me.
Sure if the changes were so incidental that they wouldn't make any difference to the adventure (one star / two stars), then yeah - no difference at all apart from the loss of one cool mental image which could have been tossed into the description.
Ravs
Sure if the changes were so incidental that they wouldn't make any difference to the adventure (one star / two stars), then yeah - no difference at all apart from the loss of one cool mental image which could have been tossed into the description.
Ravs
mbrinkhues
February 13th, 2007, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Heretic Keklas Rekobah:
Would any of the following make Traveller into Traveller-Not, whether considered in whole or in part?
1) No Aslan or Vargr. Instead, an uplifted canine-feline hybrid (or precursor species) with intense curiosity and an unpredictable temper, which takes over the respective niches of the Aslan and Vargr.
Yes. Aslan and Vagr are part of the Setting as is. Besides the description of the new race barely fits the Vagr and has nothing Aslan in it
2) "Stargates" as per the movie and series' of the same name, maximum one per subsector. They are usually located on marginal worlds, or in marginal environments on populated worlds.
Yes. They dramatically shorten the time of a news transfer. Suddenly Sylea-Regina takes 4-6 weeks using two J6 couriers and two Stargates. Barons and above can attent the Moot in person for important decisions and sending politicians to Sylea instead of having nobles becomes practical similar to the 19th century USA
3) A region of space that is at least one sector in volume, in which no culture has had any recorded contact with the Imperium or its neighbors. Technology is similar to, but not always the same as, normal Imperial standards.
Depends on what is different and how the "no contact" is explained. If the culture is between J5+ Rifts and obeys Traveller Physiks it might work but even than it stretches the concept. Works better if it is "far beyond known space" similar to 1248.
4) A slight modification of the world generation procedure that provides a POP DM based on the the "867" environment of Terra, so that greater human populations occur on worlds closest to Terra's environment, and progressively less population on worlds that are progressively less like Terra.
Should work
5) A system-generation method that does allow for tide-locked marginal worlds orbiting brown dwarf stars, but that does not allow them to be the dominant star system form.
No problem IMHO
6) A rule that allows for a branch of the Psionics Institute to be found on a POP-8 world on a 2D roll of 12+.
IMHO that would break Traveller for me. Psionics, Magic, The Force etc. have always been elements that are best restricted to NPC and bad guys. With that many potential institutes, it would be hard to argue against PC Psis (a No-No IMTU)
Thank you. Please.
Would any of the following make Traveller into Traveller-Not, whether considered in whole or in part?
1) No Aslan or Vargr. Instead, an uplifted canine-feline hybrid (or precursor species) with intense curiosity and an unpredictable temper, which takes over the respective niches of the Aslan and Vargr.
Yes. Aslan and Vagr are part of the Setting as is. Besides the description of the new race barely fits the Vagr and has nothing Aslan in it
2) "Stargates" as per the movie and series' of the same name, maximum one per subsector. They are usually located on marginal worlds, or in marginal environments on populated worlds.
Yes. They dramatically shorten the time of a news transfer. Suddenly Sylea-Regina takes 4-6 weeks using two J6 couriers and two Stargates. Barons and above can attent the Moot in person for important decisions and sending politicians to Sylea instead of having nobles becomes practical similar to the 19th century USA
3) A region of space that is at least one sector in volume, in which no culture has had any recorded contact with the Imperium or its neighbors. Technology is similar to, but not always the same as, normal Imperial standards.
Depends on what is different and how the "no contact" is explained. If the culture is between J5+ Rifts and obeys Traveller Physiks it might work but even than it stretches the concept. Works better if it is "far beyond known space" similar to 1248.
4) A slight modification of the world generation procedure that provides a POP DM based on the the "867" environment of Terra, so that greater human populations occur on worlds closest to Terra's environment, and progressively less population on worlds that are progressively less like Terra.
Should work
5) A system-generation method that does allow for tide-locked marginal worlds orbiting brown dwarf stars, but that does not allow them to be the dominant star system form.
No problem IMHO
6) A rule that allows for a branch of the Psionics Institute to be found on a POP-8 world on a 2D roll of 12+.
IMHO that would break Traveller for me. Psionics, Magic, The Force etc. have always been elements that are best restricted to NPC and bad guys. With that many potential institutes, it would be hard to argue against PC Psis (a No-No IMTU)
Thank you. Please.
Malenfant
February 13th, 2007, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by The Shaman:
]That's setting the bar a little high, don't you think? A personal preference isn't really something you can prove to someone else's satisfaction.It's one thing to say "I don't think that's what Traveller is about". It's another to say "that's not Traveller". The former is clearly an opinion, the latter sounds more like a statement.
I don't think that's a compelling argument for either leaving it alone or making a change to "fix" it - if it has no effect on playing the game, then what purpose does the change serve?Again, that depends on what you're after. If verisimilitude and realism and consistency matters to you, then it does serve a purpose.
Originally posted by Malenfant:
If it's a change with minimal impact on the setting, then why change it at all?Why not change it though? If you can fix it for minimal effort then why not fix it? It just strikes me as being intellectually lazy to ignore it.
I mean, if you're writing a program and you see a programming error that doesn't really affect the output but is still a flaw nonetheless, do you just ignore it or do you fix it so it's not a problem in future? I'd fix it myself.
Those minor details you dismiss are a big part of the speculative fiction aspect of the Traveller universe in my experience. K'kree starships are designed with the psychological and physiological differences of the K'kree in mind - changing the K'kree to "human militant vegetarian xenophobes" eliminates the whole aspect of what life among the K'kree is like.You'd have to change it, undoubtedly, but if you're a psychotic homicidal xenophobe then you can find another justification to use than vegetarianism ;) .
The point of my example of changing the aliens was to illustrate that you could still have the basic setting and history of Traveller remain roughly unchanged, so long as something else similar filled their niche.
Many of the aliens presented in the OTU are remarkable for their Otherness, and do a fine job of conveying an alien presence while at the same time being playable enough to make them fun to encounter in the context of the game.I've never really found any of the aliens in Traveller to be that unique or interesting myself. They've largely been one-dimensional space opera cliches, IMO, and it's not as if you couldn't theoretically replace them with "human with a funny attitude".
In any case, I think that replacing the aliens with different human cultures would be a dramatic and unwelcome change.Sure. But if that was what was presented at the start instead of the alien-filled OTU, I don't think many would really care because the attitudes of the races would remain similar. I don't think that it's the pointy ears that makes people like Vulcans in star trek, or the crinkly foreheads that make them like Klingons - its the society and the culture and the characters you get from those races that makes them interesting.
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Stars move around planets in your concept of a realistic universe?!? ;) OK, I missed that in the editing ;) .
Originally posted by Malenfant:
The big question in my mind is, what purpose does making these changes serve? How do they make the experience of the game more enjoyable?
Most of these are just hypothetical (extreme) examples. I'm not actually saying we should drop all the aliens in Traveller or anything, just trying to illustrate my point.
Saying that a planet orbits a different star doesn't suddenly break the game and make it "not Traveller", as some people might claim
My question as a referee or player for anyone looking at changing the current assumptions isn't, "How can you make this more realistic?" but rather "How does changing the system improve on what I already have? How does it make the experience of the game better?" If you can't answer that question succinctly, then you're probably peddling a solution for a problem I don't have.Depends how you want it improved really. If the existing trade system doesn't work for larger entities, then sooner or later you're going to wonder how the botched-together small-scale one can be adapted to work at that scale. But if you had a usable system that worked equally well regardless of scale, wouldn't you want to use that instead?
I would much rather have an abstract system that's playable, even if it's a little goofy, than a realistic one that adds nothing to the enjoyment of the people sitting around the table.I'd rather have an abstract system that is based on realism myself. The less goofy it is, the better - but I certainly don't want to drown everyone in formulas and tables during gameplay either.
Originally posted by Malenfant:
From the way you phrase this question, you assume that your perception of what is important or not about the setting is universal.I'm assuming that there's a core definition of Traveller that people are using by which to define the game - and if something deviates from that, then people cry "that's not Traveller!". My opinion or perception of that doesn't come into it.
What I'm unconvinced by is the assertation that making those changes really does makes it "not Traveller". Again, people can get into a tizzy if I (or anyone) suggests changing a star or a planet into something else, even if nothing else about the system changes. Why should that make a difference to whether it's really "Traveller" or not?
Instead of posing a question that cannot be answered, how about offering us all the reasons why you think making the game more "realistic" would be an improvement over what we have now?I think I already have, many times. It makes the setting more believable and internally-consistent, and adds verisimilitude where there was none before. Let's face it, if everything made sense in Traveller, then we wouldn't keep having the same arguments all the time about trade or realism or budgets and how they all can't possibly work as they stand.
How does realistic star system generation make for more exciting adventures? As I mentioned earlier, we played Traveller for years with almost no thought to this at all and had a blast, so how does my game get better by including a more up-to-date system for detailing mainworlds or star systems?It can give you more possibilities for things to do elsewhere in the system or on the mainworld that wouldn't have been apparent otherwise, for one thing. If you have more information at hand then you can use it in more ways.
I'm a Traveller player - sell me on your vision. Convince me why I should care.I don't really think that I need to convince you though, to be honest. If you're happy with what it is, then you don't need the extra realism. If you're not happy with how it is but would be happier with more realism, then won't need any convincing smile.gif .
]That's setting the bar a little high, don't you think? A personal preference isn't really something you can prove to someone else's satisfaction.It's one thing to say "I don't think that's what Traveller is about". It's another to say "that's not Traveller". The former is clearly an opinion, the latter sounds more like a statement.
I don't think that's a compelling argument for either leaving it alone or making a change to "fix" it - if it has no effect on playing the game, then what purpose does the change serve?Again, that depends on what you're after. If verisimilitude and realism and consistency matters to you, then it does serve a purpose.
Originally posted by Malenfant:
If it's a change with minimal impact on the setting, then why change it at all?Why not change it though? If you can fix it for minimal effort then why not fix it? It just strikes me as being intellectually lazy to ignore it.
I mean, if you're writing a program and you see a programming error that doesn't really affect the output but is still a flaw nonetheless, do you just ignore it or do you fix it so it's not a problem in future? I'd fix it myself.
Those minor details you dismiss are a big part of the speculative fiction aspect of the Traveller universe in my experience. K'kree starships are designed with the psychological and physiological differences of the K'kree in mind - changing the K'kree to "human militant vegetarian xenophobes" eliminates the whole aspect of what life among the K'kree is like.You'd have to change it, undoubtedly, but if you're a psychotic homicidal xenophobe then you can find another justification to use than vegetarianism ;) .
The point of my example of changing the aliens was to illustrate that you could still have the basic setting and history of Traveller remain roughly unchanged, so long as something else similar filled their niche.
Many of the aliens presented in the OTU are remarkable for their Otherness, and do a fine job of conveying an alien presence while at the same time being playable enough to make them fun to encounter in the context of the game.I've never really found any of the aliens in Traveller to be that unique or interesting myself. They've largely been one-dimensional space opera cliches, IMO, and it's not as if you couldn't theoretically replace them with "human with a funny attitude".
In any case, I think that replacing the aliens with different human cultures would be a dramatic and unwelcome change.Sure. But if that was what was presented at the start instead of the alien-filled OTU, I don't think many would really care because the attitudes of the races would remain similar. I don't think that it's the pointy ears that makes people like Vulcans in star trek, or the crinkly foreheads that make them like Klingons - its the society and the culture and the characters you get from those races that makes them interesting.
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Stars move around planets in your concept of a realistic universe?!? ;) OK, I missed that in the editing ;) .
Originally posted by Malenfant:
The big question in my mind is, what purpose does making these changes serve? How do they make the experience of the game more enjoyable?
Most of these are just hypothetical (extreme) examples. I'm not actually saying we should drop all the aliens in Traveller or anything, just trying to illustrate my point.
Saying that a planet orbits a different star doesn't suddenly break the game and make it "not Traveller", as some people might claim
My question as a referee or player for anyone looking at changing the current assumptions isn't, "How can you make this more realistic?" but rather "How does changing the system improve on what I already have? How does it make the experience of the game better?" If you can't answer that question succinctly, then you're probably peddling a solution for a problem I don't have.Depends how you want it improved really. If the existing trade system doesn't work for larger entities, then sooner or later you're going to wonder how the botched-together small-scale one can be adapted to work at that scale. But if you had a usable system that worked equally well regardless of scale, wouldn't you want to use that instead?
I would much rather have an abstract system that's playable, even if it's a little goofy, than a realistic one that adds nothing to the enjoyment of the people sitting around the table.I'd rather have an abstract system that is based on realism myself. The less goofy it is, the better - but I certainly don't want to drown everyone in formulas and tables during gameplay either.
Originally posted by Malenfant:
From the way you phrase this question, you assume that your perception of what is important or not about the setting is universal.I'm assuming that there's a core definition of Traveller that people are using by which to define the game - and if something deviates from that, then people cry "that's not Traveller!". My opinion or perception of that doesn't come into it.
What I'm unconvinced by is the assertation that making those changes really does makes it "not Traveller". Again, people can get into a tizzy if I (or anyone) suggests changing a star or a planet into something else, even if nothing else about the system changes. Why should that make a difference to whether it's really "Traveller" or not?
Instead of posing a question that cannot be answered, how about offering us all the reasons why you think making the game more "realistic" would be an improvement over what we have now?I think I already have, many times. It makes the setting more believable and internally-consistent, and adds verisimilitude where there was none before. Let's face it, if everything made sense in Traveller, then we wouldn't keep having the same arguments all the time about trade or realism or budgets and how they all can't possibly work as they stand.
How does realistic star system generation make for more exciting adventures? As I mentioned earlier, we played Traveller for years with almost no thought to this at all and had a blast, so how does my game get better by including a more up-to-date system for detailing mainworlds or star systems?It can give you more possibilities for things to do elsewhere in the system or on the mainworld that wouldn't have been apparent otherwise, for one thing. If you have more information at hand then you can use it in more ways.
I'm a Traveller player - sell me on your vision. Convince me why I should care.I don't really think that I need to convince you though, to be honest. If you're happy with what it is, then you don't need the extra realism. If you're not happy with how it is but would be happier with more realism, then won't need any convincing smile.gif .
Keklas Rekobah
February 13th, 2007, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Heretic Keklas Rekobah:
Would any of the following make Traveller into Traveller-Not, whether considered in whole or in part?
1) No Aslan or Vargr. Instead, an uplifted canine-feline hybrid (or precursor species) with intense curiosity and an unpredictable temper, which takes over the respective niches of the Aslan and Vargr.
Yes. Aslan and Vagr are part of the Setting as is. Besides the description of the new race barely fits the Vagr and has nothing Aslan in it
2) "Stargates" as per the movie and series' of the same name, maximum one per subsector. They are usually located on marginal worlds, or in marginal environments on populated worlds.
Yes. They dramatically shorten the time of a news transfer. Suddenly Sylea-Regina takes 4-6 weeks using two J6 couriers and two Stargates. Barons and above can attent the Moot in person for important decisions and sending politicians to Sylea instead of having nobles becomes practical similar to the 19th century USA
3) A region of space that is at least one sector in volume, in which no culture has had any recorded contact with the Imperium or its neighbors. Technology is similar to, but not always the same as, normal Imperial standards.
Depends on what is different and how the "no contact" is explained. If the culture is between J5+ Rifts and obeys Traveller Physiks it might work but even than it stretches the concept. Works better if it is "far beyond known space" similar to 1248.
4) A slight modification of the world generation procedure that provides a POP DM based on the the "867" environment of Terra, so that greater human populations occur on worlds closest to Terra's environment, and progressively less population on worlds that are progressively less like Terra.
Should work
5) A system-generation method that does allow for tide-locked marginal worlds orbiting brown dwarf stars, but that does not allow them to be the dominant star system form.
No problem IMHO
6) A rule that allows for a branch of the Psionics Institute to be found on a POP-8 world on a 2D roll of 12+.
IMHO that would break Traveller for me. Psionics, Magic, The Force etc. have always been elements that are best restricted to NPC and bad guys. With that many potential institutes, it would be hard to argue against PC Psis (a No-No IMTU)
Thank you. Please. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmm... yes... I see... Thank you.
How about...
1) The uplifted canine-feline precursor occurs in a "1248"-like region of space where neither the Aslan or Vargr have ever appeared?
2) There is only one "Stargate" per sector, instead of one per subsector?
3) It is far beyond known space.
4) It seems to work for me, as well.
5) It seems to work for me, as well.
6) Just because a POP-8 world has an Institute, does not mean that the characters are any more likely to find it, or that they are any more likely to have Psi or be trainable. It could work, for those who allows psi in their campaigns. Then again, the only psi character I've allowed had a latent ability, which the character knew nothing about (and the player barely suspected), so that I could manifest it as a plot device when needed.
"No, there is no obvious reason why that device works only for your character. Maybe you should look into it... after you escape from prison, of course." graemlins/file_23.gif
(And the Hiver took notes.)
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Heretic Keklas Rekobah:
Would any of the following make Traveller into Traveller-Not, whether considered in whole or in part?
1) No Aslan or Vargr. Instead, an uplifted canine-feline hybrid (or precursor species) with intense curiosity and an unpredictable temper, which takes over the respective niches of the Aslan and Vargr.
Yes. Aslan and Vagr are part of the Setting as is. Besides the description of the new race barely fits the Vagr and has nothing Aslan in it
2) "Stargates" as per the movie and series' of the same name, maximum one per subsector. They are usually located on marginal worlds, or in marginal environments on populated worlds.
Yes. They dramatically shorten the time of a news transfer. Suddenly Sylea-Regina takes 4-6 weeks using two J6 couriers and two Stargates. Barons and above can attent the Moot in person for important decisions and sending politicians to Sylea instead of having nobles becomes practical similar to the 19th century USA
3) A region of space that is at least one sector in volume, in which no culture has had any recorded contact with the Imperium or its neighbors. Technology is similar to, but not always the same as, normal Imperial standards.
Depends on what is different and how the "no contact" is explained. If the culture is between J5+ Rifts and obeys Traveller Physiks it might work but even than it stretches the concept. Works better if it is "far beyond known space" similar to 1248.
4) A slight modification of the world generation procedure that provides a POP DM based on the the "867" environment of Terra, so that greater human populations occur on worlds closest to Terra's environment, and progressively less population on worlds that are progressively less like Terra.
Should work
5) A system-generation method that does allow for tide-locked marginal worlds orbiting brown dwarf stars, but that does not allow them to be the dominant star system form.
No problem IMHO
6) A rule that allows for a branch of the Psionics Institute to be found on a POP-8 world on a 2D roll of 12+.
IMHO that would break Traveller for me. Psionics, Magic, The Force etc. have always been elements that are best restricted to NPC and bad guys. With that many potential institutes, it would be hard to argue against PC Psis (a No-No IMTU)
Thank you. Please. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmm... yes... I see... Thank you.
How about...
1) The uplifted canine-feline precursor occurs in a "1248"-like region of space where neither the Aslan or Vargr have ever appeared?
2) There is only one "Stargate" per sector, instead of one per subsector?
3) It is far beyond known space.
4) It seems to work for me, as well.
5) It seems to work for me, as well.
6) Just because a POP-8 world has an Institute, does not mean that the characters are any more likely to find it, or that they are any more likely to have Psi or be trainable. It could work, for those who allows psi in their campaigns. Then again, the only psi character I've allowed had a latent ability, which the character knew nothing about (and the player barely suspected), so that I could manifest it as a plot device when needed.
"No, there is no obvious reason why that device works only for your character. Maybe you should look into it... after you escape from prison, of course." graemlins/file_23.gif
(And the Hiver took notes.)
Malenfant
February 13th, 2007, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Heretic Keklas Rekobah:
[QB] Would any of the following make Traveller into Traveller-Not, whether considered in whole or in part?
1) No Aslan or Vargr. Instead, an uplifted canine-feline hybrid (or precursor species) with intense curiosity and an unpredictable temper, which takes over the respective niches of the Aslan and Vargr.I think two different races would still be necessary. There's two societal niches to fill - an unpredictable, balkanised status-based society for the Vargr, and a proud warrior/noble savage type for the Aslan. Again, I don't see why you can't have both replaced by culturally different humans to be honest.
2) "Stargates" as per the movie and series' of the same name, maximum one per subsector. They are usually located on marginal worlds, or in marginal environments on populated worlds.Well one of the stated aims of Traveller was to keep up an "18th century sail in space" theme, so instant traveltimes would definitely break that. I do think that even if you had the transit take a week, this would definitely be "not Traveller" though - you'd be funnelling all the traffic into specific routes (where the gates are), everything would be surface based (little need for spacecraft at all), and so on. This would be a change that would be very noticeable I think.
3) A region of space that is at least one sector in volume, in which no culture has had any recorded contact with the Imperium or its neighbors. Technology is similar to, but not always the same as, normal Imperial standards.
4) A slight modification of the world generation procedure that provides a POP DM based on the the "867" environment of Terra, so that greater human populations occur on worlds closest to Terra's environment, and progressively less population on worlds that are progressively less like Terra.
5) A system-generation method that does allow for tide-locked marginal worlds orbiting brown dwarf stars, but that does not allow them to be the dominant star system form.
6) A rule that allows for a branch of the Psionics Institute to be found on a POP-8 world on a 2D roll of 12+.I don't think any of these would suddenly make the game "not Traveller".
[QB] Would any of the following make Traveller into Traveller-Not, whether considered in whole or in part?
1) No Aslan or Vargr. Instead, an uplifted canine-feline hybrid (or precursor species) with intense curiosity and an unpredictable temper, which takes over the respective niches of the Aslan and Vargr.I think two different races would still be necessary. There's two societal niches to fill - an unpredictable, balkanised status-based society for the Vargr, and a proud warrior/noble savage type for the Aslan. Again, I don't see why you can't have both replaced by culturally different humans to be honest.
2) "Stargates" as per the movie and series' of the same name, maximum one per subsector. They are usually located on marginal worlds, or in marginal environments on populated worlds.Well one of the stated aims of Traveller was to keep up an "18th century sail in space" theme, so instant traveltimes would definitely break that. I do think that even if you had the transit take a week, this would definitely be "not Traveller" though - you'd be funnelling all the traffic into specific routes (where the gates are), everything would be surface based (little need for spacecraft at all), and so on. This would be a change that would be very noticeable I think.
3) A region of space that is at least one sector in volume, in which no culture has had any recorded contact with the Imperium or its neighbors. Technology is similar to, but not always the same as, normal Imperial standards.
4) A slight modification of the world generation procedure that provides a POP DM based on the the "867" environment of Terra, so that greater human populations occur on worlds closest to Terra's environment, and progressively less population on worlds that are progressively less like Terra.
5) A system-generation method that does allow for tide-locked marginal worlds orbiting brown dwarf stars, but that does not allow them to be the dominant star system form.
6) A rule that allows for a branch of the Psionics Institute to be found on a POP-8 world on a 2D roll of 12+.I don't think any of these would suddenly make the game "not Traveller".
alanb
February 13th, 2007, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
Um no, I'm saying that if a man in a bowler hat walked up to my character claiming himself to be a hiver, it just wouldn't be traveller to me.Sounds like Traveller to me. I'd just assume it was a manipulation...
Um no, I'm saying that if a man in a bowler hat walked up to my character claiming himself to be a hiver, it just wouldn't be traveller to me.Sounds like Traveller to me. I'd just assume it was a manipulation...
Jeffr0
February 13th, 2007, 07:09 PM
How many rules in Soccer would we have to change before it would cease to be soccer?
That's not quite the same question, of course.
There's the OTU, there's the early Proto-Traveller universes, there's the necessary ATU that every referee undertakes even if he desires to play in the OTU, and there's the intentional ATU that plays with a few key premises but nevertheless does not stray to far from the implied universe of Books 1-3 or Books 1-8.
I think we all agree that the OTU with a few technical details changed for pedantic "scientific" reasons would still be Traveller. But take away the flat-space hex maps and create a 3D system generation system that is completely "realistic" and I think you begin to stray into something that really isn't Traveller anymore-- which is the point of that web comic I linked to.
If we were to go back and edit out all of the scientific errors in H G Wells novels or classic Star Trek episodes... would it still be what it was? The changes that Mal calls for can be as jarringly inappropriate to me as George Lucas's reworking of the Star Wars special effects in the 90's....
Mal is in fact playing GURPS Space. Not Traveller.
Traveller can be re-envisioned in the same way the Battlestar Galactica was... but that's a whole different game.... Change the system generation details and then where do you stop? If you don't revise everything else to be just as realistic, then you'll have a stylistic mismatch that's as incomprehensible as Greedo shooting first!
That's not quite the same question, of course.
There's the OTU, there's the early Proto-Traveller universes, there's the necessary ATU that every referee undertakes even if he desires to play in the OTU, and there's the intentional ATU that plays with a few key premises but nevertheless does not stray to far from the implied universe of Books 1-3 or Books 1-8.
I think we all agree that the OTU with a few technical details changed for pedantic "scientific" reasons would still be Traveller. But take away the flat-space hex maps and create a 3D system generation system that is completely "realistic" and I think you begin to stray into something that really isn't Traveller anymore-- which is the point of that web comic I linked to.
If we were to go back and edit out all of the scientific errors in H G Wells novels or classic Star Trek episodes... would it still be what it was? The changes that Mal calls for can be as jarringly inappropriate to me as George Lucas's reworking of the Star Wars special effects in the 90's....
Mal is in fact playing GURPS Space. Not Traveller.
Traveller can be re-envisioned in the same way the Battlestar Galactica was... but that's a whole different game.... Change the system generation details and then where do you stop? If you don't revise everything else to be just as realistic, then you'll have a stylistic mismatch that's as incomprehensible as Greedo shooting first!
Rover
February 13th, 2007, 07:57 PM
Mal,
This is a rather interesting conversation. Thanks for starting it.
For me Traveller is kinda like pornography, I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it. But I’ll give it a shot. (define Traveller that is.)
Sure there are purists that want everything by the book, and if they have fun playing that way hey more power to them. Then there are those who want to change things up, tweak things to their own satisfaction, hey that works too.
Traveller was never intended to be an astrophysical simulation sure we can look at the rules and say wouldn’t be more realistic if we changed this or modified that. If I wanted realism I wouldn’t be playing Traveller. Sure I’d like to hop planets on my own spaceship IRL, but I would never want to get in a gunfight, not even once, but that is something that happens to my characters on a regular basis.
As for the rules, I never looked at the rules as defining Traveller, or even the setting. I have played in CT, T2300, T20 and a couple of home brewed variants including 1 based on the old TSR Top Secret game system that I remember being great fun to play. I played in the OUT, in various ATU’s and I rum my own TU. Geographically it is in the Spinward Marches, but I do not allow aliens, not a one in the whole of MTU. (Oh there are rumors) I barely even use the variants of Humaniti
For me Traveller must have a few basic concepts for me to call it Traveller:
-SF setting with a hard science feel, no fantastical elements. No Magic, no ghosts etc.
-Jump based space travel, that takes a week.
-No FTL communication
-A vast universe populated with various tech levels and cultures, a monolithic empire spanning thousands of worlds
-Skill based characters generated by terms of Service.
And as far as I am concerned the most important aspect of all
-A small space ship with a diverse crew hopping from planet to planet trying to make a buck and stay a head of the law.
For me it more of a feeling than a rule set that defines traveler. I bought the games in the late 70;s and the LBB’s are dear to me, but I love playing T20. So as far as I am concerned you can change almost the whole thing, just keeping the loosest of frameworks, and it is still Traveller to me.
This is a rather interesting conversation. Thanks for starting it.
For me Traveller is kinda like pornography, I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it. But I’ll give it a shot. (define Traveller that is.)
Sure there are purists that want everything by the book, and if they have fun playing that way hey more power to them. Then there are those who want to change things up, tweak things to their own satisfaction, hey that works too.
Traveller was never intended to be an astrophysical simulation sure we can look at the rules and say wouldn’t be more realistic if we changed this or modified that. If I wanted realism I wouldn’t be playing Traveller. Sure I’d like to hop planets on my own spaceship IRL, but I would never want to get in a gunfight, not even once, but that is something that happens to my characters on a regular basis.
As for the rules, I never looked at the rules as defining Traveller, or even the setting. I have played in CT, T2300, T20 and a couple of home brewed variants including 1 based on the old TSR Top Secret game system that I remember being great fun to play. I played in the OUT, in various ATU’s and I rum my own TU. Geographically it is in the Spinward Marches, but I do not allow aliens, not a one in the whole of MTU. (Oh there are rumors) I barely even use the variants of Humaniti
For me Traveller must have a few basic concepts for me to call it Traveller:
-SF setting with a hard science feel, no fantastical elements. No Magic, no ghosts etc.
-Jump based space travel, that takes a week.
-No FTL communication
-A vast universe populated with various tech levels and cultures, a monolithic empire spanning thousands of worlds
-Skill based characters generated by terms of Service.
And as far as I am concerned the most important aspect of all
-A small space ship with a diverse crew hopping from planet to planet trying to make a buck and stay a head of the law.
For me it more of a feeling than a rule set that defines traveler. I bought the games in the late 70;s and the LBB’s are dear to me, but I love playing T20. So as far as I am concerned you can change almost the whole thing, just keeping the loosest of frameworks, and it is still Traveller to me.
Malenfant
February 13th, 2007, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
There's the OTU, there's the early Proto-Traveller universes, there's the necessary ATU that every referee undertakes even if he desires to play in the OTU, and there's the intentional ATU that plays with a few key premises but nevertheless does not stray to far from the implied universe of Books 1-3 or Books 1-8.Yep.
I think we all agree that the OTU with a few technical details changed for pedantic "scientific" reasons would still be Traveller.We should all agree on that, but there are a few who probably wouldn't.
But take away the flat-space hex maps and create a 3D system generation system that is completely "realistic" and I think you begin to stray into something that really isn't Traveller anymore-- which is the point of that web comic I linked to.Well first, the point of that web comic was that a realistic universe would contain a lot of gas giants and rockballs around dim red stars. I disagree that it would be "more boring" or less interesting as a result though.
But the question of a 3D vs a 2D universe is one that I don't think people have really explored properly. A lot of folks have dismissed a 3D universe as being "not Traveller" but I don't think they've made much of an effort to see what it would take to bring it closer to Traveller. I don't believe it'd be impossible to make a 3D universe that would look and feel like Traveller in practical terms.
Let's leave out the realism issues and just say that the aim is to make a universe that is 3D in distribution but as close to traveller as possible. And let's also assume we have some way to present the universe in a manner that is easily interpretable. Some of the problems/issues touted with a 3D universe include that empires would be smaller (because they're not all spread out on a single plane), or that borders would be more porous because there are more ways around a given planet.
If the 3D universe must be present, then can we tweak the existing Traveller technologies to avoid or minimise these issues? Has anyone even tried doing this? I know I've made a 3D map of stacked subsectors of the real stars near Sol, available on my website. All Jump drives needed was to factor in the vertical distances between the stars too, and that was it. So jump tech can work the same way... can we contrive any way to avoid the porous border issue? Maybe one way to solve this and make the empires feel bigger is to totally disallow deep space jumps, so you HAVE to go from one end of the empire to the other via a specific route.
Has anyone really thought about this at all? I don't recall seeing much discussion of what it would actually take to keep a Traveller feel in a 3D universe.
The changes that Mal calls forMost of those I'm not actually "calling for" - again, they were hypothetical examples.
But let me ask this. If you had been presented at the start with a universe identical to Traveller in terms of its setting and history, except where all the aliens were actually different races/cultures of humans (and their cultures and how they get along with everyone else is otherwise the same as in the OTU), would you be doing anything different with that game compared to the OTU? Because I think you'd be playing exactly the same games in that TU as you're playing now in the OTU.
Traveller can be re-envisioned in the same way the Battlestar Galactica was... but that's a whole different game.... Change the system generation details and then where do you stop? If you don't revise everything else to be just as realistic, then you'll have a stylistic mismatch that's as incomprehensible as Greedo shooting first!I don't think you would actually. You can easily have different levels of realism across various aspects of the setting. Take DP9's Jovian Chronicles for example - a realistic solar system, with giant robots and cinematic action. Does it clash? Not really. One's in the background, the other's in the foreground.
There's the OTU, there's the early Proto-Traveller universes, there's the necessary ATU that every referee undertakes even if he desires to play in the OTU, and there's the intentional ATU that plays with a few key premises but nevertheless does not stray to far from the implied universe of Books 1-3 or Books 1-8.Yep.
I think we all agree that the OTU with a few technical details changed for pedantic "scientific" reasons would still be Traveller.We should all agree on that, but there are a few who probably wouldn't.
But take away the flat-space hex maps and create a 3D system generation system that is completely "realistic" and I think you begin to stray into something that really isn't Traveller anymore-- which is the point of that web comic I linked to.Well first, the point of that web comic was that a realistic universe would contain a lot of gas giants and rockballs around dim red stars. I disagree that it would be "more boring" or less interesting as a result though.
But the question of a 3D vs a 2D universe is one that I don't think people have really explored properly. A lot of folks have dismissed a 3D universe as being "not Traveller" but I don't think they've made much of an effort to see what it would take to bring it closer to Traveller. I don't believe it'd be impossible to make a 3D universe that would look and feel like Traveller in practical terms.
Let's leave out the realism issues and just say that the aim is to make a universe that is 3D in distribution but as close to traveller as possible. And let's also assume we have some way to present the universe in a manner that is easily interpretable. Some of the problems/issues touted with a 3D universe include that empires would be smaller (because they're not all spread out on a single plane), or that borders would be more porous because there are more ways around a given planet.
If the 3D universe must be present, then can we tweak the existing Traveller technologies to avoid or minimise these issues? Has anyone even tried doing this? I know I've made a 3D map of stacked subsectors of the real stars near Sol, available on my website. All Jump drives needed was to factor in the vertical distances between the stars too, and that was it. So jump tech can work the same way... can we contrive any way to avoid the porous border issue? Maybe one way to solve this and make the empires feel bigger is to totally disallow deep space jumps, so you HAVE to go from one end of the empire to the other via a specific route.
Has anyone really thought about this at all? I don't recall seeing much discussion of what it would actually take to keep a Traveller feel in a 3D universe.
The changes that Mal calls forMost of those I'm not actually "calling for" - again, they were hypothetical examples.
But let me ask this. If you had been presented at the start with a universe identical to Traveller in terms of its setting and history, except where all the aliens were actually different races/cultures of humans (and their cultures and how they get along with everyone else is otherwise the same as in the OTU), would you be doing anything different with that game compared to the OTU? Because I think you'd be playing exactly the same games in that TU as you're playing now in the OTU.
Traveller can be re-envisioned in the same way the Battlestar Galactica was... but that's a whole different game.... Change the system generation details and then where do you stop? If you don't revise everything else to be just as realistic, then you'll have a stylistic mismatch that's as incomprehensible as Greedo shooting first!I don't think you would actually. You can easily have different levels of realism across various aspects of the setting. Take DP9's Jovian Chronicles for example - a realistic solar system, with giant robots and cinematic action. Does it clash? Not really. One's in the background, the other's in the foreground.
The Shaman
February 13th, 2007, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
It's one thing to say "I don't think that's what Traveller is about". It's another to say "that's not Traveller". The former is clearly an opinion, the latter sounds more like a statement.I think the latter is just the former in fewer words. ;) Originally posted by Malenfant:
If verisimilitude and realism and consistency matters to you, then it does serve a purpose.As the cast of "Sesame Street" might sing, "One of these things is not like the others!"
A setting and a rules system can provide verisimilitude ("the appearance of truth") and consistency without being realistic. Verisimilitude strives for the suspension of disbelief, not a rendering of objective truth.
Many fantasy roleplaying games and settings offer both consistency and verisimilitude, but are not realistic.
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Why not change it though? If you can fix it for minimal effort then why not fix it? It just strikes me as being intellectually lazy to ignore it.It strikes me as intellectually remiss to expect others to disprove a negative - that's a rhetorical dodge.
(An analogy: You don't get to claim that 37582 Faraday is a giant primordial mallomar, and then tell your critics to prove you wrong! ;) )
The burden is on you to show why making the OTU more realistic is an improvement, not on others to prove that it isn't. Originally posted by Malenfant:
I mean, if you're writing a program and you see a programming error that doesn't really affect the output but is still a flaw nonetheless, do you just ignore it or do you fix it so it's not a problem in future? I'd fix it myself.Most end-users run the program without ever examining the code at all, and therefore it's a complete non-issue for them either way. Originally posted by Malenfant:
The point of my example of changing the aliens was to illustrate that you could still have the basic setting and history of Traveller remain roughly unchanged, so long as something else similar filled their niche.For me, and I imagine for a number of other Traveller gamers, "humans with funncy cultures" aren't really similar enough to fill the niche, not by a long shot. Originally posted by Malenfant:
I've never really found any of the aliens in Traveller to be that unique or interesting myself. They've largely been one-dimensional space opera cliches, IMO, and it's not as if you couldn't theoretically replace them with "human with a funny attitude".This sounds a lot less like, "What makes the OTU the OTU?" and more like, "Here's stuff I can't stand about the OTU that I think should be changed." Originally posted by Malenfant:
But if that was what was presented at the start instead of the alien-filled OTU, I don't think many would really care because the attitudes of the races would remain similar.Now we're no longer talking at all about what makes the OTU the OTU, and talking solely about an ATU that is built around your personal preferences.
That's not a bad thing of course - if you wrote it and published it as a .pdf, I might even buy it - but it doesn't really seem to be what you started out asking. Originally posted by Malenfant:
Most of these are just hypothetical (extreme) examples. I'm not actually saying we should drop all the aliens in Traveller or anything, just trying to illustrate my point.
Saying that a planet orbits a different star doesn't suddenly break the game and make it "not Traveller", as some people might claim.Okay, but my questions as to how this makes the game better than it is now is still open. . . Originally posted by Malenfant:]Depends how you want it improved really. If the existing trade system doesn't work for larger entities, then sooner or later you're going to wonder how the botched-together small-scale one can be adapted to work at that scale. But if you had a usable system that worked equally well regardless of scale, wouldn't you want to use that instead?Ah, now we have something to discuss.
My answer is, "It depends." Is the system easy to use? Does it provide the same options the players have now, or more options without additional complexity? Does it actually fit my campaign?
This last one goes directly to the issue of scale. I've had no problem with characters running small shipping lines using nothing but the LBB 2 trade tables and the variant speculation rules in JTAS, so scaling up the rules hasn't been a problem in search of a fix.
On the other hand, I've never tried a game where the adventurers are running an Al Morai-size line, and such a system, if playable, could prove handy.
My question is, do we really need to change the OTU assumptions to create a workable, character-scale variant that would make that possible?
Moreover is it impossible to write a rules variant without first creating a top-down economic model of the Third Imperium? Originally posted by Malenfant:
I'd rather have an abstract system that is based on realism myself. The less goofy it is, the better - but I certainly don't want to drown everyone in formulas and tables during gameplay either.If you can balance the two, great. In my experience it takes an exceptional game designer to do that - many try, few succeed.
I prefer those who err on the side of playability, since that's where the rubber meets the road.
I don't believe for a moment that the OTU has a total of thirty-six goods and commodities that make up the whole of the speculative trade, but the playability of the trade rules is more important than a more complete and more complicated system. Originally posted by Malenfant:
I'm assuming that there's a core definition of Traveller that people are using by which to define the game - and if something deviates from that, then people cry "that's not Traveller!".Flash! Gamers have strong opinions!
In other breaking news, water is still wet! ;) Originally posted by Malenfant:My opinion or perception of that doesn't come into it.Ah, but it does, it does, considering how many of the things you so vocally proclaim need to "fixing" happen to coincide with your personal likes and dislikes.
I wager you're not as objective as you'd like to believe. Originally posted by Malenfant:
What I'm unconvinced by is the assertation that making those changes really does makes it "not Traveller". Again, people can get into a tizzy if I (or anyone) suggests changing a star or a planet into something else, even if nothing else about the system changes. Why should that make a difference to whether it's really "Traveller" or not? For me, most of it doesn't. I fool with canon all the time - my perogative as a referee.
Many gamers, regardless of system or setting, value portability - in my experience these people are the ones most concerned with preserving canon unchanged. They are a tough crowd to convince otherwise - about as tough as those who demand a high degree of realism in their science fiction roleplaying games. Originally posted by Malenfant:
I think I already have, many times.No, you've said, "Realistic is better!" and invited others to challenge your assumption. That's not the same thing. Originally posted by Malenfant:
It makes the setting more believable and internally-consistent, and adds verisimilitude where there was none before.See above for verisimilitude, realism and consistency. Originally posted by Malenfant:
Let's face it, if everything made sense in Traveller, then we wouldn't keep having the same arguments all the time about trade or realism or budgets and how they all can't possibly work as they stand.Yeah, and no one EVER has these same arguments about OTHER gaming systems or settings. ;)
Dude, that's just gamers. It has nothing to do with Traveller. Originally posted by Malenfant:
It can give you more possibilities for things to do elsewhere in the system or on the mainworld that wouldn't have been apparent otherwise, for one thing. If you have more information at hand then you can use it in more ways.See, now this is how you make your argument! This is a selling point.
That said, in my experience playing Traveller, we didn't need Scouts, or World Builders' Handbook, or First In, to come up with different and varied worlds to explore. Most of these systems were too cumbersome, too detailed, for our fast-moving games.
That doesn't mean we lacked for double-planets or tidally-locked worlds or gas giant ring systems or iceballs in our games - we just added them in where we wanted them, as the adventures or circumstances called for. We had variety and mystery and wonder, and we didn't need a rules system to create that for us.
I think the bottom line is this: You value realism as a desireable goal in and of itself, and you have strong opinions about what you like and don't like, so why not leave the OTU to those who like it as it is, and stick with your ATU, where everything can be as you think it ought to be?
It's one thing to say "I don't think that's what Traveller is about". It's another to say "that's not Traveller". The former is clearly an opinion, the latter sounds more like a statement.I think the latter is just the former in fewer words. ;) Originally posted by Malenfant:
If verisimilitude and realism and consistency matters to you, then it does serve a purpose.As the cast of "Sesame Street" might sing, "One of these things is not like the others!"
A setting and a rules system can provide verisimilitude ("the appearance of truth") and consistency without being realistic. Verisimilitude strives for the suspension of disbelief, not a rendering of objective truth.
Many fantasy roleplaying games and settings offer both consistency and verisimilitude, but are not realistic.
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Why not change it though? If you can fix it for minimal effort then why not fix it? It just strikes me as being intellectually lazy to ignore it.It strikes me as intellectually remiss to expect others to disprove a negative - that's a rhetorical dodge.
(An analogy: You don't get to claim that 37582 Faraday is a giant primordial mallomar, and then tell your critics to prove you wrong! ;) )
The burden is on you to show why making the OTU more realistic is an improvement, not on others to prove that it isn't. Originally posted by Malenfant:
I mean, if you're writing a program and you see a programming error that doesn't really affect the output but is still a flaw nonetheless, do you just ignore it or do you fix it so it's not a problem in future? I'd fix it myself.Most end-users run the program without ever examining the code at all, and therefore it's a complete non-issue for them either way. Originally posted by Malenfant:
The point of my example of changing the aliens was to illustrate that you could still have the basic setting and history of Traveller remain roughly unchanged, so long as something else similar filled their niche.For me, and I imagine for a number of other Traveller gamers, "humans with funncy cultures" aren't really similar enough to fill the niche, not by a long shot. Originally posted by Malenfant:
I've never really found any of the aliens in Traveller to be that unique or interesting myself. They've largely been one-dimensional space opera cliches, IMO, and it's not as if you couldn't theoretically replace them with "human with a funny attitude".This sounds a lot less like, "What makes the OTU the OTU?" and more like, "Here's stuff I can't stand about the OTU that I think should be changed." Originally posted by Malenfant:
But if that was what was presented at the start instead of the alien-filled OTU, I don't think many would really care because the attitudes of the races would remain similar.Now we're no longer talking at all about what makes the OTU the OTU, and talking solely about an ATU that is built around your personal preferences.
That's not a bad thing of course - if you wrote it and published it as a .pdf, I might even buy it - but it doesn't really seem to be what you started out asking. Originally posted by Malenfant:
Most of these are just hypothetical (extreme) examples. I'm not actually saying we should drop all the aliens in Traveller or anything, just trying to illustrate my point.
Saying that a planet orbits a different star doesn't suddenly break the game and make it "not Traveller", as some people might claim.Okay, but my questions as to how this makes the game better than it is now is still open. . . Originally posted by Malenfant:]Depends how you want it improved really. If the existing trade system doesn't work for larger entities, then sooner or later you're going to wonder how the botched-together small-scale one can be adapted to work at that scale. But if you had a usable system that worked equally well regardless of scale, wouldn't you want to use that instead?Ah, now we have something to discuss.
My answer is, "It depends." Is the system easy to use? Does it provide the same options the players have now, or more options without additional complexity? Does it actually fit my campaign?
This last one goes directly to the issue of scale. I've had no problem with characters running small shipping lines using nothing but the LBB 2 trade tables and the variant speculation rules in JTAS, so scaling up the rules hasn't been a problem in search of a fix.
On the other hand, I've never tried a game where the adventurers are running an Al Morai-size line, and such a system, if playable, could prove handy.
My question is, do we really need to change the OTU assumptions to create a workable, character-scale variant that would make that possible?
Moreover is it impossible to write a rules variant without first creating a top-down economic model of the Third Imperium? Originally posted by Malenfant:
I'd rather have an abstract system that is based on realism myself. The less goofy it is, the better - but I certainly don't want to drown everyone in formulas and tables during gameplay either.If you can balance the two, great. In my experience it takes an exceptional game designer to do that - many try, few succeed.
I prefer those who err on the side of playability, since that's where the rubber meets the road.
I don't believe for a moment that the OTU has a total of thirty-six goods and commodities that make up the whole of the speculative trade, but the playability of the trade rules is more important than a more complete and more complicated system. Originally posted by Malenfant:
I'm assuming that there's a core definition of Traveller that people are using by which to define the game - and if something deviates from that, then people cry "that's not Traveller!".Flash! Gamers have strong opinions!
In other breaking news, water is still wet! ;) Originally posted by Malenfant:My opinion or perception of that doesn't come into it.Ah, but it does, it does, considering how many of the things you so vocally proclaim need to "fixing" happen to coincide with your personal likes and dislikes.
I wager you're not as objective as you'd like to believe. Originally posted by Malenfant:
What I'm unconvinced by is the assertation that making those changes really does makes it "not Traveller". Again, people can get into a tizzy if I (or anyone) suggests changing a star or a planet into something else, even if nothing else about the system changes. Why should that make a difference to whether it's really "Traveller" or not? For me, most of it doesn't. I fool with canon all the time - my perogative as a referee.
Many gamers, regardless of system or setting, value portability - in my experience these people are the ones most concerned with preserving canon unchanged. They are a tough crowd to convince otherwise - about as tough as those who demand a high degree of realism in their science fiction roleplaying games. Originally posted by Malenfant:
I think I already have, many times.No, you've said, "Realistic is better!" and invited others to challenge your assumption. That's not the same thing. Originally posted by Malenfant:
It makes the setting more believable and internally-consistent, and adds verisimilitude where there was none before.See above for verisimilitude, realism and consistency. Originally posted by Malenfant:
Let's face it, if everything made sense in Traveller, then we wouldn't keep having the same arguments all the time about trade or realism or budgets and how they all can't possibly work as they stand.Yeah, and no one EVER has these same arguments about OTHER gaming systems or settings. ;)
Dude, that's just gamers. It has nothing to do with Traveller. Originally posted by Malenfant:
It can give you more possibilities for things to do elsewhere in the system or on the mainworld that wouldn't have been apparent otherwise, for one thing. If you have more information at hand then you can use it in more ways.See, now this is how you make your argument! This is a selling point.
That said, in my experience playing Traveller, we didn't need Scouts, or World Builders' Handbook, or First In, to come up with different and varied worlds to explore. Most of these systems were too cumbersome, too detailed, for our fast-moving games.
That doesn't mean we lacked for double-planets or tidally-locked worlds or gas giant ring systems or iceballs in our games - we just added them in where we wanted them, as the adventures or circumstances called for. We had variety and mystery and wonder, and we didn't need a rules system to create that for us.
I think the bottom line is this: You value realism as a desireable goal in and of itself, and you have strong opinions about what you like and don't like, so why not leave the OTU to those who like it as it is, and stick with your ATU, where everything can be as you think it ought to be?
Ptah
February 13th, 2007, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by The Shaman:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Malenfant:
It's one thing to say "I don't think that's what Traveller is about". It's another to say "that's not Traveller". The former is clearly an opinion, the latter sounds more like a statement.I think the latter is just the former in fewer words. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Good manners is all about how you say things as much as what you say. Even more important on a message board where we can't hear tone or read facial expressions. Grammatically, the former statement is qualified as personal opinion. The latter statement is declarative, and connotates an assertion of fact.
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Malenfant:
It's one thing to say "I don't think that's what Traveller is about". It's another to say "that's not Traveller". The former is clearly an opinion, the latter sounds more like a statement.I think the latter is just the former in fewer words. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Good manners is all about how you say things as much as what you say. Even more important on a message board where we can't hear tone or read facial expressions. Grammatically, the former statement is qualified as personal opinion. The latter statement is declarative, and connotates an assertion of fact.
Malenfant
February 14th, 2007, 12:04 AM
This is a digression from the point, but picture this situation:
----------------
Joe: "hey, I'm playing this great fantasy game, it's really fun, especially when I bash people to death with my sword!"
Fred: That's grea- wait, what? You bash people to death with your sword?
Joe: Yeah! We bash kobolds into a pulp with them all the time, it's great!
Fred: But that's not how swords are supposed to be used. You're supposed to ideally stab or slice with them - they're not bashing weapons!
Joe: Huh, well the rules don't say anything about stabbing or sliceing. Who cares anyway, I'm having fun. Tell you what, you tell me why it'd be better to change the rules so that my sword can be used "realistically", and I'll change them.
Fred: Uh...
----------------
That's really what people seem to be expecting me to do here. You want me to demonstrate to you why the game would be better if minor changes were made to make it based more on how things actually work? It'd be better because that's how things actually work!. Things would make more sense then, and not conflict because it was randomly thrown together. But it can still be just as fun as it was before, the fun's just reoriented a bit. That's the bottom line really - I can't really offer any further defence than that.
I think people have an irrational fear of realism in game settings - they think it somehow will make everything dull and boring. I've seen no evidence to support this at all. I've had as much fun in realistic games as unrealistic ones, as have other players I've gamed with in both situations.
----------------
Joe: "hey, I'm playing this great fantasy game, it's really fun, especially when I bash people to death with my sword!"
Fred: That's grea- wait, what? You bash people to death with your sword?
Joe: Yeah! We bash kobolds into a pulp with them all the time, it's great!
Fred: But that's not how swords are supposed to be used. You're supposed to ideally stab or slice with them - they're not bashing weapons!
Joe: Huh, well the rules don't say anything about stabbing or sliceing. Who cares anyway, I'm having fun. Tell you what, you tell me why it'd be better to change the rules so that my sword can be used "realistically", and I'll change them.
Fred: Uh...
----------------
That's really what people seem to be expecting me to do here. You want me to demonstrate to you why the game would be better if minor changes were made to make it based more on how things actually work? It'd be better because that's how things actually work!. Things would make more sense then, and not conflict because it was randomly thrown together. But it can still be just as fun as it was before, the fun's just reoriented a bit. That's the bottom line really - I can't really offer any further defence than that.
I think people have an irrational fear of realism in game settings - they think it somehow will make everything dull and boring. I've seen no evidence to support this at all. I've had as much fun in realistic games as unrealistic ones, as have other players I've gamed with in both situations.
mctesla
February 14th, 2007, 12:30 AM
Wow-- go to work and come home to 3e6 posts in this discussion (on TWO threads, no less)!
Originally posted by The Shaman:
Whole bunch of stuff snipped
Sir--- you've made my arguments better than I could have done. Thank you for both your eloquence and your mannerly response.
Originally posted by Malenfant:
It'd be better because that's how things actually work!. Again, if realism is the goal, there are much larger elephants in the room than whether a O class star is less appropriate for a published star system vs. a G or K.
Originally posted by The Shaman:
Whole bunch of stuff snipped
Sir--- you've made my arguments better than I could have done. Thank you for both your eloquence and your mannerly response.
Originally posted by Malenfant:
It'd be better because that's how things actually work!. Again, if realism is the goal, there are much larger elephants in the room than whether a O class star is less appropriate for a published star system vs. a G or K.
Malenfant
February 14th, 2007, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by loyal_citizen:
Again, if realism is the goal, there are much larger elephants in the room than whether a O class star is less appropriate for a published star system vs. a G or K. [/QB]True. But the point is that changing it from an O to a G doesn't suddenly make the game "not Traveller". That being the case, I'm not sure I understand the fear that people have of what the game would be if it was made more realistic. If that was to happen... then it wouldn't really make much difference at all to the game you're playing.
Again, if realism is the goal, there are much larger elephants in the room than whether a O class star is less appropriate for a published star system vs. a G or K. [/QB]True. But the point is that changing it from an O to a G doesn't suddenly make the game "not Traveller". That being the case, I'm not sure I understand the fear that people have of what the game would be if it was made more realistic. If that was to happen... then it wouldn't really make much difference at all to the game you're playing.
Anthony
February 14th, 2007, 12:45 AM
My general reaction is that, well, fixing cosmetic oddities such as star types wouldn't make the game Not Traveller, and fixing things that are ragingly nonsensical, while it has a meaningful effect, wouldn't make the game Not Traveller either.
However, a key question here is opportunity cost. Fixing these things (and distributing the changes) takes effort. Does this fix really get us anything that makes it worth the effort?
However, a key question here is opportunity cost. Fixing these things (and distributing the changes) takes effort. Does this fix really get us anything that makes it worth the effort?
flykiller
February 14th, 2007, 01:01 AM
Again, if realism is the goal"realism" is the wrong word here - perhaps "precison" would be a better descriptor. the pursuit of precision may be a rewarding personal drive, but excess precision is wasted and useless effort. over and over again one sees the question popping up: "will this proposed change get my game anywhere? will it help my game? will it matter in the game?" clearly the answer is no, so a referee may decide he has more pressing game matters to attend.
Malenfant
February 14th, 2007, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Again, if realism is the goal"realism" is the wrong word here - perhaps "precison" would be a better descriptor. the pursuit of precision may be a rewarding personal passtime, but excess precision is wasted and useless effort. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, no.
You can be very precise and still be unrealistic and incorrect. But you can also be realistic and not necessarily be precise about it. I'd rather have realism than precision.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Again, if realism is the goal"realism" is the wrong word here - perhaps "precison" would be a better descriptor. the pursuit of precision may be a rewarding personal passtime, but excess precision is wasted and useless effort. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, no.
You can be very precise and still be unrealistic and incorrect. But you can also be realistic and not necessarily be precise about it. I'd rather have realism than precision.
Hal
February 14th, 2007, 02:02 AM
From my perspective, I'm in agreement with Mal's premise, that it is best to create something that has as much accuracy and realism as we can muster. As it is, I am running a Traveller Campaign where the old data is being tweaked and made to be more realistic (as best as I can that is). Worlds that had neither a Gas Giant or Water will remain as presented within the Traveller Universe unchanged. However, worlds that are improbable or impossible get changed.
Let us take an example from CT's Books 2 & 3 ok? Roll 2d6-2 for world diameter. Lets say for the sake of argument, we get a 4 on 2d4. That becomes a 2 after subtracting 2 right? Now we have a 2,000 mile diameter world as our starting block in visualizing a world right? Now, lets roll 2d6-7+world diameter size. We roll a 12! 12-7+2 is 7. So our world here has a diameter of 2,000 miles, and an atmosphere type "Standard - tainted". Rolling a 10 on 2d6, our hydrographics will, oddly enough, be a 10 (or 100% covered by water). After all, 10-7 plus atmosphere type of 7 becomes a 10. So our new world has a diameter of 2,000 miles, has a Standard Atmosphere, tainted by something as yet undefined, and has a hydrographics rating of 100%. Now, turning to pages 36 and 37 of CT's book 2: Starships, we find that the world's gravity is listed as being .25 g's. In real life? Such a world is incapable of retaining water vapor in its atmosphere. Such a world would lose its oceans in short order and become a desert world. Now I ask you - why place details of a world in the game, if you're going to ignore the details? And if you're given the numbers to crunch in the game (ie gravity rating for a world), and you realize that such number crunching proves that the world as generated can't exist - what do you do?
Me? I do NOT like the stellar details for the Spinward Marches as presented in THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN. The rules were implemented in a flawed manner so as to not match SCOUTS or MEGATRAVELLER. For me, the best thing to do is go back to SUPPLEMENT 3: SPINWARD MARCHES and redo the entire thing using the star system generation of choice and saying "That was old stuff and clearly wrong. This is the new stuff and as right as I can make it". If my players within the campaign don't bother to compare the original data from CT on the spinward marches - aren't going to know that I've been changing the data myself so as to be somewhat consistent with the old dataset, but has been corrected as best as I can using GURPS SPACE 4e.
If they can't tell the difference NOW with the modified rules - how can it be said it isn't TRAVELLER?
These are the changes that I'm implementing for use with Traveller: The Spinward Marches in my traveller Univese:
1) Atmosphere type takes precendence. If a world is intended to be a Standard Atmosphere type and has a lot of people living on it - I change its low diameter to one that will have that kind of atmosphere.
2) On worlds where the hydrographics are higher than zero, then the world's minimum diameter has to be large enough to retain water vapor. If it isn't, then I change the diameter to at least the minimum required.
3) On worlds where the population value is HIGH, and the atmosphere type is Standard, then the star type may not be an M class star. I automatically make it at least a K class star.
How does this impact on the game? It doesn't impact all too much on the TRAVELLER game! The world's history remains the same. The star's location on the map remains the same. The general stats remain the same. The only thing that changes are:
As a result of the star type also determining its radius, the 100 diameter limit for habitable worlds becomes changed over that listed in MEGATRAVELLER or THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN. The 100 diameter limit for the world in question also changes. The odd thing is? Unless they compare the material in MEGATRAVELLER against my universe, they can't even TELL there's a difference. All they know is that a world with a diameter of 5,000 miles has a 100 diameter limite of 500,000 miles instead of the original 2,000 miles as generated by die rolls and a faulty system. All they know is that they're told that the star in the system they're in is a K class star when instead, in MEGATRAVELLER or THE SPINWARD MARCHES campaign, it is listed as an M8 or M9 class main sequence star. It has NO impact on the game as far as they can see (or I for that matter).
So - my take on Mal's question is this:
If the history of the worlds remains consistent with what it was originally, and only minimal changes are made such as stellar types, orbial positions, etc - then make the changes. Think about it - how many worlds within the Traveller Universe has ever been FULLY detailed? A full detailed write up would include the following:
1) When was the world originally settled?
2) what is the world's average temperature?
3) What is the world's history for the last 100 years?
4) Who is in charge of the government on that world?
5) What does the atmosphere smell like?
Those are just SOME of the details one would perhaps need to make a world come alive for their players. I'd wager however, that if you took away the OLD material and replaced it with the same material that had been corrected and upgraded - that the Traveller Campaigns would play the same unless a GM happened to have that one world's stats memorized from the times of old...
Let us take an example from CT's Books 2 & 3 ok? Roll 2d6-2 for world diameter. Lets say for the sake of argument, we get a 4 on 2d4. That becomes a 2 after subtracting 2 right? Now we have a 2,000 mile diameter world as our starting block in visualizing a world right? Now, lets roll 2d6-7+world diameter size. We roll a 12! 12-7+2 is 7. So our world here has a diameter of 2,000 miles, and an atmosphere type "Standard - tainted". Rolling a 10 on 2d6, our hydrographics will, oddly enough, be a 10 (or 100% covered by water). After all, 10-7 plus atmosphere type of 7 becomes a 10. So our new world has a diameter of 2,000 miles, has a Standard Atmosphere, tainted by something as yet undefined, and has a hydrographics rating of 100%. Now, turning to pages 36 and 37 of CT's book 2: Starships, we find that the world's gravity is listed as being .25 g's. In real life? Such a world is incapable of retaining water vapor in its atmosphere. Such a world would lose its oceans in short order and become a desert world. Now I ask you - why place details of a world in the game, if you're going to ignore the details? And if you're given the numbers to crunch in the game (ie gravity rating for a world), and you realize that such number crunching proves that the world as generated can't exist - what do you do?
Me? I do NOT like the stellar details for the Spinward Marches as presented in THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN. The rules were implemented in a flawed manner so as to not match SCOUTS or MEGATRAVELLER. For me, the best thing to do is go back to SUPPLEMENT 3: SPINWARD MARCHES and redo the entire thing using the star system generation of choice and saying "That was old stuff and clearly wrong. This is the new stuff and as right as I can make it". If my players within the campaign don't bother to compare the original data from CT on the spinward marches - aren't going to know that I've been changing the data myself so as to be somewhat consistent with the old dataset, but has been corrected as best as I can using GURPS SPACE 4e.
If they can't tell the difference NOW with the modified rules - how can it be said it isn't TRAVELLER?
These are the changes that I'm implementing for use with Traveller: The Spinward Marches in my traveller Univese:
1) Atmosphere type takes precendence. If a world is intended to be a Standard Atmosphere type and has a lot of people living on it - I change its low diameter to one that will have that kind of atmosphere.
2) On worlds where the hydrographics are higher than zero, then the world's minimum diameter has to be large enough to retain water vapor. If it isn't, then I change the diameter to at least the minimum required.
3) On worlds where the population value is HIGH, and the atmosphere type is Standard, then the star type may not be an M class star. I automatically make it at least a K class star.
How does this impact on the game? It doesn't impact all too much on the TRAVELLER game! The world's history remains the same. The star's location on the map remains the same. The general stats remain the same. The only thing that changes are:
As a result of the star type also determining its radius, the 100 diameter limit for habitable worlds becomes changed over that listed in MEGATRAVELLER or THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN. The 100 diameter limit for the world in question also changes. The odd thing is? Unless they compare the material in MEGATRAVELLER against my universe, they can't even TELL there's a difference. All they know is that a world with a diameter of 5,000 miles has a 100 diameter limite of 500,000 miles instead of the original 2,000 miles as generated by die rolls and a faulty system. All they know is that they're told that the star in the system they're in is a K class star when instead, in MEGATRAVELLER or THE SPINWARD MARCHES campaign, it is listed as an M8 or M9 class main sequence star. It has NO impact on the game as far as they can see (or I for that matter).
So - my take on Mal's question is this:
If the history of the worlds remains consistent with what it was originally, and only minimal changes are made such as stellar types, orbial positions, etc - then make the changes. Think about it - how many worlds within the Traveller Universe has ever been FULLY detailed? A full detailed write up would include the following:
1) When was the world originally settled?
2) what is the world's average temperature?
3) What is the world's history for the last 100 years?
4) Who is in charge of the government on that world?
5) What does the atmosphere smell like?
Those are just SOME of the details one would perhaps need to make a world come alive for their players. I'd wager however, that if you took away the OLD material and replaced it with the same material that had been corrected and upgraded - that the Traveller Campaigns would play the same unless a GM happened to have that one world's stats memorized from the times of old...
Jeff M. Hopper
February 14th, 2007, 02:02 AM
Mal, I think I've got what the basic disagreement is here. You feel that the lack of realism in Traveller is a major problem for the game. OK, I can grok that. However, when you say that Traveller should be rewritten in order to bring more realism into the game, then you are trying to install a personal viewpoint onto the game that not everyone shares.
Nobody is stopping you from modifying Traveller to what suits you best. In fact, there have been quite a few who have encouraged you to do so, because they'd like to see the result (like myself). Yet it is an unrealistic expectation to believe that since you find the lack of realism to be a problem in your own Traveller game, that Traveller players in general find that also to be a problem in their games and want it corrected.
It's like what Kipling said:
"There are Nine-and-Twenty ways
Of making tribal lays,
And every one of them is Right!"
Nobody is stopping you from modifying Traveller to what suits you best. In fact, there have been quite a few who have encouraged you to do so, because they'd like to see the result (like myself). Yet it is an unrealistic expectation to believe that since you find the lack of realism to be a problem in your own Traveller game, that Traveller players in general find that also to be a problem in their games and want it corrected.
It's like what Kipling said:
"There are Nine-and-Twenty ways
Of making tribal lays,
And every one of them is Right!"
flykiller
February 14th, 2007, 03:15 AM
So our new world has a diameter of 2,000 miles, has a Standard Atmosphere, tainted by something as yet undefined, and has a hydrographics rating of 100%.http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040810.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070207.html
here we have a real-life example (not the result of some simulation) of something almost exactly like this. book 3 says that the hydrographic percentage doesn't have to be water. so there you are.
book 3 and 6 have always been recognized as being a little hinky at the edges. good referees spin a good story out of it, or reach down with a pencil and change a number or two if they feel a better story will arise from it. saying book 3 or 6 aren't good enough is like saying 3.14 for pi isn't good enough. if you're a nasa scientist plotting a multi-million dollar probe's ten year course to pluto, it might not be. if you're a gamer running a game, it certainly is.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070207.html
here we have a real-life example (not the result of some simulation) of something almost exactly like this. book 3 says that the hydrographic percentage doesn't have to be water. so there you are.
book 3 and 6 have always been recognized as being a little hinky at the edges. good referees spin a good story out of it, or reach down with a pencil and change a number or two if they feel a better story will arise from it. saying book 3 or 6 aren't good enough is like saying 3.14 for pi isn't good enough. if you're a nasa scientist plotting a multi-million dollar probe's ten year course to pluto, it might not be. if you're a gamer running a game, it certainly is.
RandyT0001
February 14th, 2007, 08:09 AM
Flykiller Titan has, in Traveller terms, an exotic atmosphere not a standard atmosphere with free oxygen. In Traveller world generation rules you can't roll up Titan's 2Axxxx UWP.
Andrew Boulton
February 14th, 2007, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
I'm not seeing how there'd be two OTUs...?The original OTU, and the new improved version.
If I could go back 30 years and whisper in Marc's ear there are many things I'd like to change about the OTU. I'd make your changes to the stars and worlds, and lose a lot of the planets, history, and aliens.
But I can't.
The OTU is what it is, warts and all.
I'm not seeing how there'd be two OTUs...?The original OTU, and the new improved version.
If I could go back 30 years and whisper in Marc's ear there are many things I'd like to change about the OTU. I'd make your changes to the stars and worlds, and lose a lot of the planets, history, and aliens.
But I can't.
The OTU is what it is, warts and all.
atpollard
February 14th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Rover:
For me Traveller is kinda like pornography, I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it. But I’ll give it a shot. (define Traveller that is.)Thank you for your parenthetical clarification. For a moment I thought that our PG rating was in danger. smile.gif
For me Traveller is kinda like pornography, I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it. But I’ll give it a shot. (define Traveller that is.)Thank you for your parenthetical clarification. For a moment I thought that our PG rating was in danger. smile.gif
Jeffr0
February 14th, 2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Hal:
These are the changes that I'm implementing for use with Traveller: The Spinward Marches in my traveller Univese:
1) Atmosphere type takes precendence. If a world is intended to be a Standard Atmosphere type and has a lot of people living on it - I change its low diameter to one that will have that kind of atmosphere.
2) On worlds where the hydrographics are higher than zero, then the world's minimum diameter has to be large enough to retain water vapor. If it isn't, then I change the diameter to at least the minimum required.
3) On worlds where the population value is HIGH, and the atmosphere type is Standard, then the star type may not be an M class star. I automatically make it at least a K class star.
How does this impact on the game? It doesn't impact all too much on the TRAVELLER game! The world's history remains the same. The star's location on the map remains the same. The general stats remain the same.I don't think anyone is saying that this isn't Traveller. Who is Mal fighting against?
These sorts of things that are the rites of passage for any referee that tries to make use of the OTU. Even before Book 6, referee's would improvise these sorts of details. Where are the Traveller nuts that supposedly get fits of hysteria at the slightest hint of changing the OTU? They don't exist because Mal's just beating up a straw man....
Mal's proposal to get rid of all the aliens is NOT Traveller. At best it's a highly customized ATU. The whole Grandfather/Ancients thing is pretty fundamental to the setting... and making these sorts of changes triggers a butterfly affect impacts all sorts of things. Referees that dislike certain aliens tend to simply ignore them or omit them from anything more than their cantina scenes; that's the Traveller way.
Mal's proposal to make habital worlds rarer is NOT Traveller. The shifting of the backwaters is a crafty technique for using Traveller scenarios with other home brew universes, I admit. And stealing ideas certainly fundamental to being a good ref. But this kind of sweeping change is a veritable tsunami of destruction to the core "feel" of the OTU. How many of the game's systems would you have to overhaul to make this fly? No... this is too invasive. An article or a series of JTAS articles could provide enough information to bring this nearly to ATU status, but it would need a lot of help. I'm skeptical.
These are the changes that I'm implementing for use with Traveller: The Spinward Marches in my traveller Univese:
1) Atmosphere type takes precendence. If a world is intended to be a Standard Atmosphere type and has a lot of people living on it - I change its low diameter to one that will have that kind of atmosphere.
2) On worlds where the hydrographics are higher than zero, then the world's minimum diameter has to be large enough to retain water vapor. If it isn't, then I change the diameter to at least the minimum required.
3) On worlds where the population value is HIGH, and the atmosphere type is Standard, then the star type may not be an M class star. I automatically make it at least a K class star.
How does this impact on the game? It doesn't impact all too much on the TRAVELLER game! The world's history remains the same. The star's location on the map remains the same. The general stats remain the same.I don't think anyone is saying that this isn't Traveller. Who is Mal fighting against?
These sorts of things that are the rites of passage for any referee that tries to make use of the OTU. Even before Book 6, referee's would improvise these sorts of details. Where are the Traveller nuts that supposedly get fits of hysteria at the slightest hint of changing the OTU? They don't exist because Mal's just beating up a straw man....
Mal's proposal to get rid of all the aliens is NOT Traveller. At best it's a highly customized ATU. The whole Grandfather/Ancients thing is pretty fundamental to the setting... and making these sorts of changes triggers a butterfly affect impacts all sorts of things. Referees that dislike certain aliens tend to simply ignore them or omit them from anything more than their cantina scenes; that's the Traveller way.
Mal's proposal to make habital worlds rarer is NOT Traveller. The shifting of the backwaters is a crafty technique for using Traveller scenarios with other home brew universes, I admit. And stealing ideas certainly fundamental to being a good ref. But this kind of sweeping change is a veritable tsunami of destruction to the core "feel" of the OTU. How many of the game's systems would you have to overhaul to make this fly? No... this is too invasive. An article or a series of JTAS articles could provide enough information to bring this nearly to ATU status, but it would need a lot of help. I'm skeptical.
Scarecrow
February 14th, 2007, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
Who is Mal fighting against?I don't think he's fighting against anyone. He's just trying to understand why a lot of folks have a hissy fit when anyone suggests changes to the rules and/or canon, even when those changes are minor cosmetic ones that won't impact on the setting visibly.
Changes to world creation I can take or leave. I make my planets the same way George Lucas does so I'd ignore world creation no matter how realistic it was. So I guess I'm saying, change it if you like I wouldn't notice. I certainly wouldn't complain about it not being Traveller.
Changing the aliens though would, I think, break the setting visibly. The aliens have a very distinctive look about them and that adds a lot of colour to the setting for me nomatter how infeasible they might be. They are, I think intrinsic to the setting's flavour. Suddenly making them all human would break the setting as surely as say, making Regina an ice world. If you've been there before in an adventure, it'd make no sense!
Crow
Who is Mal fighting against?I don't think he's fighting against anyone. He's just trying to understand why a lot of folks have a hissy fit when anyone suggests changes to the rules and/or canon, even when those changes are minor cosmetic ones that won't impact on the setting visibly.
Changes to world creation I can take or leave. I make my planets the same way George Lucas does so I'd ignore world creation no matter how realistic it was. So I guess I'm saying, change it if you like I wouldn't notice. I certainly wouldn't complain about it not being Traveller.
Changing the aliens though would, I think, break the setting visibly. The aliens have a very distinctive look about them and that adds a lot of colour to the setting for me nomatter how infeasible they might be. They are, I think intrinsic to the setting's flavour. Suddenly making them all human would break the setting as surely as say, making Regina an ice world. If you've been there before in an adventure, it'd make no sense!
Crow
Roger Calver
February 14th, 2007, 09:39 AM
I think that its just best to agree to disagree on these topics and leave out the who is fighting who remarks.
Jeffr0
February 14th, 2007, 09:49 AM
Oops.
(Grr...)
Dang. I try to actually take Mal's question seriously and everyone gets stuck on my poor choice of words.
Sorry Roger....
(Gnashes teeth.)
(Grr...)
Dang. I try to actually take Mal's question seriously and everyone gets stuck on my poor choice of words.
Sorry Roger....
(Gnashes teeth.)
Scarecrow
February 14th, 2007, 10:03 AM
I was just looking at the top of my monitor. It has a whole load of my Traveller paper miniatures along the length of it. I think they'd be a lot less interesting if they were all human :(
Crow
Crow
atpollard
February 14th, 2007, 10:05 AM
On the subject of “Stargates� and what makes something “not Traveller�:
(For this discussion a Stargate is assumed to be anything that allows interstellar travel except a J1 to J6 Jump Drive installed on a starship.)
As previously stated, much of the feel of the Official Traveller Universe comes from the dynamics of ships travelling from point A to point B with many areas being FAR from the center of government. Any “stargate� which connected the Sector capitals with the Imperial capital would alter the basic function of the Imperial government and radically change the Traveller “feel�.
The construction of a J1 to J6 “stargate� which allowed a non-starship to jump to the next world in 1 week would be different but could function as a viable Traveller setting.
The existence of a wormhole like connection between certain systems (for example all binary stars have a natural connection to all adjacent binary stars) that can only be accessed by creating a “Stargate� at each end would create a very different but possibly interesting Alternate Traveller Universe. It would create more of a Honor Harrington Universe type of Imperium with certain systems becoming critical nodes for commercial and military reasons. This could mesh well with the 36 parsec maximum misjump and the theoretical gravity neutral jump point between two massive objects, so it does have some basis in Traveller “lore�.
Just some thoughts for discussion.
(For this discussion a Stargate is assumed to be anything that allows interstellar travel except a J1 to J6 Jump Drive installed on a starship.)
As previously stated, much of the feel of the Official Traveller Universe comes from the dynamics of ships travelling from point A to point B with many areas being FAR from the center of government. Any “stargate� which connected the Sector capitals with the Imperial capital would alter the basic function of the Imperial government and radically change the Traveller “feel�.
The construction of a J1 to J6 “stargate� which allowed a non-starship to jump to the next world in 1 week would be different but could function as a viable Traveller setting.
The existence of a wormhole like connection between certain systems (for example all binary stars have a natural connection to all adjacent binary stars) that can only be accessed by creating a “Stargate� at each end would create a very different but possibly interesting Alternate Traveller Universe. It would create more of a Honor Harrington Universe type of Imperium with certain systems becoming critical nodes for commercial and military reasons. This could mesh well with the 36 parsec maximum misjump and the theoretical gravity neutral jump point between two massive objects, so it does have some basis in Traveller “lore�.
Just some thoughts for discussion.
Malenfant
February 14th, 2007, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />[qb]So our new world has a diameter of 2,000 miles, has a Standard Atmosphere, tainted by something as yet undefined, and has a hydrographics rating of 100%.http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040810.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070207.html
here we have a real-life example (not the result of some simulation) of something almost exactly like this. book 3 says that the hydrographic percentage doesn't have to be water. so there you are.</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong again.
As I've already pointed out, small worlds can hold onto thick atmospheres ONLY if they're in the outer zone. Titan couldn't hold onto its atmosphere if it was in the habitable zone. (plus, it's got atm A, not 6).
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />[qb]So our new world has a diameter of 2,000 miles, has a Standard Atmosphere, tainted by something as yet undefined, and has a hydrographics rating of 100%.http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040810.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070207.html
here we have a real-life example (not the result of some simulation) of something almost exactly like this. book 3 says that the hydrographic percentage doesn't have to be water. so there you are.</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong again.
As I've already pointed out, small worlds can hold onto thick atmospheres ONLY if they're in the outer zone. Titan couldn't hold onto its atmosphere if it was in the habitable zone. (plus, it's got atm A, not 6).
Malenfant
February 14th, 2007, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
These sorts of things that are the rites of passage for any referee that tries to make use of the OTU. Even before Book 6, referee's would improvise these sorts of details. Where are the Traveller nuts that supposedly get fits of hysteria at the slightest hint of changing the OTU? They don't exist because Mal's just beating up a straw man....They do exist though. Every time I propose trying to make something more realistic in the OTU, I get people saying "but that wouldn't be Traveller".
Mal's proposal to get rid of all the aliens is NOT Traveller. At best it's a highly customized ATU.I don't know how many more times I have to say that this was a hypothetical example.
The fact that Hivers are big starfish or Aslan are cat-like isn't the thing that makes them cool. What people like about them are their culture and history and how they interact with others. Had they been defined initially as humans with those cultures, I suspect that few people would have thought they were less interesting.
By analogy, I don't think the fact that Planet X orbits a blue supergiant or a binary star or a red dwarf or whatever is what's making it interesting from a game perspective - it's the adventures that you can have on the planet and the people on it. Whether you have those adventures under a city-sized protective dome or in the open air, or in actinic blue light or dim red light doesn't really make much difference in practice.
The whole Grandfather/Ancients thing is pretty fundamental to the setting... and making these sorts of changes triggers a butterfly affect impacts all sorts of things.You say that, but I don't think it does matter to most people. What you need is a Precursor race that left the odd ruin scattered around and who apparently destroyed a few planets in the process. Nobody in the Traveller setting even knows who Grandfather is.
Mal's proposal to make habital worlds rarer is NOT Traveller. The shifting of the backwaters is a crafty technique for using Traveller scenarios with other home brew universes, I admit. And stealing ideas certainly fundamental to being a good ref. But this kind of sweeping change is a veritable tsunami of destruction to the core "feel" of the OTU. How many of the game's systems would you have to overhaul to make this fly? No... this is too invasive. An article or a series of JTAS articles could provide enough information to bring this nearly to ATU status, but it would need a lot of help. I'm skeptical.Well first you just start with a statement saying that this wouldn't be Traveller. Then you dismiss the "backwater shift" that actually works perfectly well. How many scenarios do you know that require the players to be on a specific world? Yes, it's crafty, but most of the time it will actually work (plus it makes people realise that worlds really are actual planets with other settlements on them, not just one big startown they stop off at). You mention this core "feel" of traveller that is supposed to remain sacrosanct, but don't really define it... but it's quite possible to make these changes in a way that retains this "core feel" - it's just that people seem to be scared to admit or investigate this.
These sorts of things that are the rites of passage for any referee that tries to make use of the OTU. Even before Book 6, referee's would improvise these sorts of details. Where are the Traveller nuts that supposedly get fits of hysteria at the slightest hint of changing the OTU? They don't exist because Mal's just beating up a straw man....They do exist though. Every time I propose trying to make something more realistic in the OTU, I get people saying "but that wouldn't be Traveller".
Mal's proposal to get rid of all the aliens is NOT Traveller. At best it's a highly customized ATU.I don't know how many more times I have to say that this was a hypothetical example.
The fact that Hivers are big starfish or Aslan are cat-like isn't the thing that makes them cool. What people like about them are their culture and history and how they interact with others. Had they been defined initially as humans with those cultures, I suspect that few people would have thought they were less interesting.
By analogy, I don't think the fact that Planet X orbits a blue supergiant or a binary star or a red dwarf or whatever is what's making it interesting from a game perspective - it's the adventures that you can have on the planet and the people on it. Whether you have those adventures under a city-sized protective dome or in the open air, or in actinic blue light or dim red light doesn't really make much difference in practice.
The whole Grandfather/Ancients thing is pretty fundamental to the setting... and making these sorts of changes triggers a butterfly affect impacts all sorts of things.You say that, but I don't think it does matter to most people. What you need is a Precursor race that left the odd ruin scattered around and who apparently destroyed a few planets in the process. Nobody in the Traveller setting even knows who Grandfather is.
Mal's proposal to make habital worlds rarer is NOT Traveller. The shifting of the backwaters is a crafty technique for using Traveller scenarios with other home brew universes, I admit. And stealing ideas certainly fundamental to being a good ref. But this kind of sweeping change is a veritable tsunami of destruction to the core "feel" of the OTU. How many of the game's systems would you have to overhaul to make this fly? No... this is too invasive. An article or a series of JTAS articles could provide enough information to bring this nearly to ATU status, but it would need a lot of help. I'm skeptical.Well first you just start with a statement saying that this wouldn't be Traveller. Then you dismiss the "backwater shift" that actually works perfectly well. How many scenarios do you know that require the players to be on a specific world? Yes, it's crafty, but most of the time it will actually work (plus it makes people realise that worlds really are actual planets with other settlements on them, not just one big startown they stop off at). You mention this core "feel" of traveller that is supposed to remain sacrosanct, but don't really define it... but it's quite possible to make these changes in a way that retains this "core feel" - it's just that people seem to be scared to admit or investigate this.
atpollard
February 14th, 2007, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
I was just looking at the top of my monitor. It has a whole load of my Traveller paper miniatures along the length of it. I think they'd be a lot less interesting if they were all human :( A Point of clarification, please. Are Klingons, Vulcans, and Romulans all "human"? I was just curious where the human/alien line fell with respect to anthropomorphism.
I was just looking at the top of my monitor. It has a whole load of my Traveller paper miniatures along the length of it. I think they'd be a lot less interesting if they were all human :( A Point of clarification, please. Are Klingons, Vulcans, and Romulans all "human"? I was just curious where the human/alien line fell with respect to anthropomorphism.
Jeffr0
February 14th, 2007, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
You mention this core "feel" of traveller that is supposed to remain sacrosanct, but don't really define it... but it's quite possible to make these changes in a way that retains this "core feel" - it's just that people seem to be scared to admit or investigate this. I've invested a lot in getting to know the Traveller Universe: time, money, aggravation, and failed campaign ideas.
I've got zero patience for the unrestrained scientific accuracy and "realism" critiques. In the first place, it undermines my confidence in the Traveller gaming tools that actually go a long way toward making the Universe accessible. In the second place, I lack the technical proficiency to apply standards of realism across all of the game's subsystems and in the actual game scenarios.
Maybe you can make all the changes and retain some semblance of the undefinable "core feel." But what if you're eliminating most of the things that attracted me to the system to begin with?
I value playability over realism. I love the default "sense of space" that Traveller has had from the beginning: it's so much more anchored than the nebulous Star Wars/Star Trek deal. I get defensive when someone's critique implies that my campaign is somehow illegitamate or that this thing I've invested so much time in is dumb.
[Aside: One reason this is such a sticky topic is that it's almost like a religious debate: How much of the Bible can you change and it still be a Christian? Can you compromise on 6 day creation and still be a Christian? Can you add the Book of Morman and still be a Christian? Or even more controversial: How far can you change Tolkien's characters and still have a Lord of the Rings Movie???]
You mention this core "feel" of traveller that is supposed to remain sacrosanct, but don't really define it... but it's quite possible to make these changes in a way that retains this "core feel" - it's just that people seem to be scared to admit or investigate this. I've invested a lot in getting to know the Traveller Universe: time, money, aggravation, and failed campaign ideas.
I've got zero patience for the unrestrained scientific accuracy and "realism" critiques. In the first place, it undermines my confidence in the Traveller gaming tools that actually go a long way toward making the Universe accessible. In the second place, I lack the technical proficiency to apply standards of realism across all of the game's subsystems and in the actual game scenarios.
Maybe you can make all the changes and retain some semblance of the undefinable "core feel." But what if you're eliminating most of the things that attracted me to the system to begin with?
I value playability over realism. I love the default "sense of space" that Traveller has had from the beginning: it's so much more anchored than the nebulous Star Wars/Star Trek deal. I get defensive when someone's critique implies that my campaign is somehow illegitamate or that this thing I've invested so much time in is dumb.
[Aside: One reason this is such a sticky topic is that it's almost like a religious debate: How much of the Bible can you change and it still be a Christian? Can you compromise on 6 day creation and still be a Christian? Can you add the Book of Morman and still be a Christian? Or even more controversial: How far can you change Tolkien's characters and still have a Lord of the Rings Movie???]
Roger Calver
February 14th, 2007, 11:28 AM
My comment was in general and not at you, its very easy to make a post were words can be taken out of context (I have done this before myself), thats one reason I try to preview mine before posting.
Sorry if you took it as I was taking a poke at you :(
Sorry if you took it as I was taking a poke at you :(
Keklas Rekobah
February 14th, 2007, 11:40 AM
So...
a) If a "Stargate" network placed its terminals no closer than 36 parsecs from each other, it would not violate the "Spirit of Traveller." Keep in mind that my intent was always to place these items on marginal worlds or in marginal regions of populated worlds, and never inside the Moot chambers, for example. Your thoughts, please?
b) Excerpt from 76 More Patrons, MCMLXVIth edition: What appears to be a middle-aged human male catches the attention of the adventurers. He is wearing a bowler hat, a 3-piece suit, and patent-leather shoes. He is carrying a bumbershoot in one hand, and a carpetbag in the other. He sports a neatly-trimmed mustache and round eyeglasses. He introduces himself as a Hiver, and offers the adventurers an assignment: deliver a wrapped parcel to a specific address on the other side of the extrality line, and return with another. They will be paid Cr1000 for their troubles. The outcome is:
1) The patron has been thouroughly manipulated into believing that he is a Hiver, and the assignment is legitimate.
2) The patron is merely working for a Hiver, and the assignment is legitimate.
3) The patron is thouroughly delusional, and the assignment is bogus.
4) The patron's real name is Parsifal Hiverson, he is a reconstructionist, and the package contains priceless artifacts from Terra's pre-starflight era.
5) As #4, and the package contains a priceless Ancient artifact.
6) As #4, and the package contains three silk shirts, custom-tailored for a shapely female human. Upon receipt of the package, the female offers another assignment to the adventurers...
a) If a "Stargate" network placed its terminals no closer than 36 parsecs from each other, it would not violate the "Spirit of Traveller." Keep in mind that my intent was always to place these items on marginal worlds or in marginal regions of populated worlds, and never inside the Moot chambers, for example. Your thoughts, please?
b) Excerpt from 76 More Patrons, MCMLXVIth edition: What appears to be a middle-aged human male catches the attention of the adventurers. He is wearing a bowler hat, a 3-piece suit, and patent-leather shoes. He is carrying a bumbershoot in one hand, and a carpetbag in the other. He sports a neatly-trimmed mustache and round eyeglasses. He introduces himself as a Hiver, and offers the adventurers an assignment: deliver a wrapped parcel to a specific address on the other side of the extrality line, and return with another. They will be paid Cr1000 for their troubles. The outcome is:
1) The patron has been thouroughly manipulated into believing that he is a Hiver, and the assignment is legitimate.
2) The patron is merely working for a Hiver, and the assignment is legitimate.
3) The patron is thouroughly delusional, and the assignment is bogus.
4) The patron's real name is Parsifal Hiverson, he is a reconstructionist, and the package contains priceless artifacts from Terra's pre-starflight era.
5) As #4, and the package contains a priceless Ancient artifact.
6) As #4, and the package contains three silk shirts, custom-tailored for a shapely female human. Upon receipt of the package, the female offers another assignment to the adventurers...
Jeffr0
February 14th, 2007, 11:53 AM
Heretic, your stargates are certainly within the realm of what was intended for referee's using Book 3. You're creating a fundamentally different ATU where Books 1, 2, 3 work more or less the same. You could steal large swaths from the OTU as needed.
I don't see any reason why a Traveller fan should pitch a fit over this. It's just another ATU concept in the tradition of the Solar Triumvarite...
I don't see any reason why a Traveller fan should pitch a fit over this. It's just another ATU concept in the tradition of the Solar Triumvarite...
Malenfant
February 14th, 2007, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
I've got zero patience for the unrestrained scientific accuracy and "realism" critiques. In the first place, it undermines my confidence in the Traveller gaming tools that actually go a long way toward making the Universe accessible.Well for a start, that's a rather telling statement. If these critiques undermine your confidence in the tools in Traveller, that means you're ultimately unhappy with the tools you have - otherwise you wouldn't care about the criticism.
You seem to be blaming other people for pointing out problems that you'd either consciously ignored or not considered before.
In the second place, I lack the technical proficiency to apply standards of realism across all of the game's subsystems and in the actual game scenarios.Nobody is expecting anyone else to make the game 100% realistic in everything. Heck, it's always been other people saying "if you make one thing realistic, you have to make it all realistic" which is a total fallacy.
Maybe you can make all the changes and retain some semblance of the undefinable "core feel." But what if you're eliminating most of the things that attracted me to the system to begin with?It seems you're missing the whole point of the thought exercise here - to make changes that would make things more realistic or sensible or coherent, while NOT eliminate the things that attracted people to the system in the first place.
I value playability over realism.So do I. I just don't accept that you can have one but not the other - it's quite possible to have both.
I get defensive when someone's critique implies that my campaign is somehow illegitamate or that this thing I've invested so much time in is dumb.I think your response here typifies the main problem with having this sort of discussion - namely that people get over-defensive and read things into posts that aren't there. I've not once said here that anyone's campaigns are "illegitimate" or that what you've invested your time in is "dumb".
[Aside: One reason this is such a sticky topic is that it's almost like a religious debate: I think it's like a religious debate only in the sense that people seem to be entrenched in their beliefs about what the game should be (heck, they do call it "canon", after all). One of the reasons I started this topic was to try to get people to stop and think more rationally about what Traveller really is, and whether making certain types of changes to it would really change that at all. So far it's attracted some people who are interested in thinking about that - but it's also attracted some people who react pretty much as if I've offended their religious sensibilities too. ;)
I've got zero patience for the unrestrained scientific accuracy and "realism" critiques. In the first place, it undermines my confidence in the Traveller gaming tools that actually go a long way toward making the Universe accessible.Well for a start, that's a rather telling statement. If these critiques undermine your confidence in the tools in Traveller, that means you're ultimately unhappy with the tools you have - otherwise you wouldn't care about the criticism.
You seem to be blaming other people for pointing out problems that you'd either consciously ignored or not considered before.
In the second place, I lack the technical proficiency to apply standards of realism across all of the game's subsystems and in the actual game scenarios.Nobody is expecting anyone else to make the game 100% realistic in everything. Heck, it's always been other people saying "if you make one thing realistic, you have to make it all realistic" which is a total fallacy.
Maybe you can make all the changes and retain some semblance of the undefinable "core feel." But what if you're eliminating most of the things that attracted me to the system to begin with?It seems you're missing the whole point of the thought exercise here - to make changes that would make things more realistic or sensible or coherent, while NOT eliminate the things that attracted people to the system in the first place.
I value playability over realism.So do I. I just don't accept that you can have one but not the other - it's quite possible to have both.
I get defensive when someone's critique implies that my campaign is somehow illegitamate or that this thing I've invested so much time in is dumb.I think your response here typifies the main problem with having this sort of discussion - namely that people get over-defensive and read things into posts that aren't there. I've not once said here that anyone's campaigns are "illegitimate" or that what you've invested your time in is "dumb".
[Aside: One reason this is such a sticky topic is that it's almost like a religious debate: I think it's like a religious debate only in the sense that people seem to be entrenched in their beliefs about what the game should be (heck, they do call it "canon", after all). One of the reasons I started this topic was to try to get people to stop and think more rationally about what Traveller really is, and whether making certain types of changes to it would really change that at all. So far it's attracted some people who are interested in thinking about that - but it's also attracted some people who react pretty much as if I've offended their religious sensibilities too. ;)
mbrinkhues
February 14th, 2007, 12:14 PM
Assuming the classical StarGate (do we get a Carter with it :D ) the following set-up would likely result:
+ One stargate per sector with instant travell between gates
+ Maximum distance in a sector is 44 parsecs length wise, 32 width, 37 diagonal. So we can have around 1 gate/sector
+ So a J6 courier can reach a stargate in about 6-7 weeks from the sector capital at worst, around 3 is more realistic
+ Each Gate in a Galaxie sees all others so we can get the Sylea Sector gate and go there instantly.
+ Maximum Flight time again 6-7 weeks to Sylea with around 3 being more realistic
So we get a worst time of 14 and a best of 6 weeks from any Sector to Sylea. Compare that to the 40+ weeks it takes now. Granted, the way is only useabel for priority cargo and news but that is more than enough to massively change Traveller.
+ Norris will have Problems pulling of his two "Imperial Warrent" stunts in 1105 and 1118
+ News of enemy fleets approaching will out-distance the rather slow fleets by weeks changing whole "surprise deep raids"
+ Virus will spread like Wildfire
+ Dulinor will have major problems pulling of his post-coup escape and rally of forces
+ Strephy will not be away in the deep Periphery to meet the Psi-Chick Vision
And the gate worlds will not remain unimportant backwaters for long. They will become important regions of the local area. Maybe Shantytown style but important.
So unless you add some Worms, this can is better left close. Unless you want to play StarGate or ZbV. Those CAN be a lot of fun if you ditch the movie crews and change some background. Cossacks and Krauts anyone?
+ One stargate per sector with instant travell between gates
+ Maximum distance in a sector is 44 parsecs length wise, 32 width, 37 diagonal. So we can have around 1 gate/sector
+ So a J6 courier can reach a stargate in about 6-7 weeks from the sector capital at worst, around 3 is more realistic
+ Each Gate in a Galaxie sees all others so we can get the Sylea Sector gate and go there instantly.
+ Maximum Flight time again 6-7 weeks to Sylea with around 3 being more realistic
So we get a worst time of 14 and a best of 6 weeks from any Sector to Sylea. Compare that to the 40+ weeks it takes now. Granted, the way is only useabel for priority cargo and news but that is more than enough to massively change Traveller.
+ Norris will have Problems pulling of his two "Imperial Warrent" stunts in 1105 and 1118
+ News of enemy fleets approaching will out-distance the rather slow fleets by weeks changing whole "surprise deep raids"
+ Virus will spread like Wildfire
+ Dulinor will have major problems pulling of his post-coup escape and rally of forces
+ Strephy will not be away in the deep Periphery to meet the Psi-Chick Vision
And the gate worlds will not remain unimportant backwaters for long. They will become important regions of the local area. Maybe Shantytown style but important.
So unless you add some Worms, this can is better left close. Unless you want to play StarGate or ZbV. Those CAN be a lot of fun if you ditch the movie crews and change some background. Cossacks and Krauts anyone?
mbrinkhues
February 14th, 2007, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeffr0:
These sorts of things that are the rites of passage for any referee that tries to make use of the OTU. Even before Book 6, referee's would improvise these sorts of details. Where are the Traveller nuts that supposedly get fits of hysteria at the slightest hint of changing the OTU? They don't exist because Mal's just beating up a straw man....They do exist though. Every time I propose trying to make something more realistic in the OTU, I get people saying "but that wouldn't be Traveller".
Mal's proposal to get rid of all the aliens is NOT Traveller. At best it's a highly customized ATU.I don't know how many more times I have to say that this was a hypothetical example.
The fact that Hivers are big starfish or Aslan are cat-like isn't the thing that makes them cool. What people like about them are their culture and history and how they interact with others. Had they been defined initially as humans with those cultures, I suspect that few people would have thought they were less interesting.
</font>[/QUOTE]Disagree! Making the Aslan human makes the "JASC" - Just Another Samurai Clone. Same for the Hivers, welcome to the Illuminati. And Human KKree are called Newkirk Youth or PETAs. It is only through the combination with being another Alien race that they become interesting for me.
By analogy, I don't think the fact that Planet X orbits a blue supergiant or a binary star or a red dwarf or whatever is what's making it interesting from a game perspective - it's the adventures that you can have on the planet and the people on it. Whether you have those adventures under a city-sized protective dome or in the open air, or in actinic blue light or dim red light doesn't really make much difference in practice.
I only partially agreed. While the exact stellar type does not matter (actually few players really care) the light and environment are important. Logans Run works because of the enclosed place, Aliens work because there is no place to hide outside the base, the dual Suns of Kregen are a part of the whole etc.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The whole Grandfather/Ancients thing is pretty fundamental to the setting... and making these sorts of changes triggers a butterfly affect impacts all sorts of things.You say that, but I don't think it does matter to most people. What you need is a Precursor race that left the odd ruin scattered around and who apparently destroyed a few planets in the process. Nobody in the Traveller setting even knows who Grandfather is.
</font>[/QUOTE]With a few minor changes I can drop the whole Precursor stuff. Reduce the HUMAN races in number and make the early colonists from Vland or drop them all except Solomanie, Vilanie and Zhodanie, make the Vagr simple Canine-looking like the Aslan and there you go. The human sub-races add nothing to the game.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Mal's proposal to make habital worlds rarer is NOT Traveller. The shifting of the backwaters is a crafty technique for using Traveller scenarios with other home brew universes, I admit. And stealing ideas certainly fundamental to being a good ref. But this kind of sweeping change is a veritable tsunami of destruction to the core "feel" of the OTU. How many of the game's systems would you have to overhaul to make this fly? No... this is too invasive. An article or a series of JTAS articles could provide enough information to bring this nearly to ATU status, but it would need a lot of help. I'm skeptical.Well first you just start with a statement saying that this wouldn't be Traveller. Then you dismiss the "backwater shift" that actually works perfectly well. How many scenarios do you know that require the players to be on a specific world? Yes, it's crafty, but most of the time it will actually work (plus it makes people realise that worlds really are actual planets with other settlements on them, not just one big startown they stop off at). You mention this core "feel" of traveller that is supposed to remain sacrosanct, but don't really define it... but it's quite possible to make these changes in a way that retains this "core feel" - it's just that people seem to be scared to admit or investigate this. </font>[/QUOTE]Size, travelling and travelling time are important to the Universe. There is no "backwater" if you have a starship, ships boat or an enclosed air/raft. So you either drop the tech and end up playing Milleniums End or you keep it and need the planets.
And if you drop travelling time, you drop newslag. And again, you change the universe. If I want live broadcast from Earth I play Babylon5 or Orion, not Traveller.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeffr0:
These sorts of things that are the rites of passage for any referee that tries to make use of the OTU. Even before Book 6, referee's would improvise these sorts of details. Where are the Traveller nuts that supposedly get fits of hysteria at the slightest hint of changing the OTU? They don't exist because Mal's just beating up a straw man....They do exist though. Every time I propose trying to make something more realistic in the OTU, I get people saying "but that wouldn't be Traveller".
Mal's proposal to get rid of all the aliens is NOT Traveller. At best it's a highly customized ATU.I don't know how many more times I have to say that this was a hypothetical example.
The fact that Hivers are big starfish or Aslan are cat-like isn't the thing that makes them cool. What people like about them are their culture and history and how they interact with others. Had they been defined initially as humans with those cultures, I suspect that few people would have thought they were less interesting.
</font>[/QUOTE]Disagree! Making the Aslan human makes the "JASC" - Just Another Samurai Clone. Same for the Hivers, welcome to the Illuminati. And Human KKree are called Newkirk Youth or PETAs. It is only through the combination with being another Alien race that they become interesting for me.
By analogy, I don't think the fact that Planet X orbits a blue supergiant or a binary star or a red dwarf or whatever is what's making it interesting from a game perspective - it's the adventures that you can have on the planet and the people on it. Whether you have those adventures under a city-sized protective dome or in the open air, or in actinic blue light or dim red light doesn't really make much difference in practice.
I only partially agreed. While the exact stellar type does not matter (actually few players really care) the light and environment are important. Logans Run works because of the enclosed place, Aliens work because there is no place to hide outside the base, the dual Suns of Kregen are a part of the whole etc.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The whole Grandfather/Ancients thing is pretty fundamental to the setting... and making these sorts of changes triggers a butterfly affect impacts all sorts of things.You say that, but I don't think it does matter to most people. What you need is a Precursor race that left the odd ruin scattered around and who apparently destroyed a few planets in the process. Nobody in the Traveller setting even knows who Grandfather is.
</font>[/QUOTE]With a few minor changes I can drop the whole Precursor stuff. Reduce the HUMAN races in number and make the early colonists from Vland or drop them all except Solomanie, Vilanie and Zhodanie, make the Vagr simple Canine-looking like the Aslan and there you go. The human sub-races add nothing to the game.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Mal's proposal to make habital worlds rarer is NOT Traveller. The shifting of the backwaters is a crafty technique for using Traveller scenarios with other home brew universes, I admit. And stealing ideas certainly fundamental to being a good ref. But this kind of sweeping change is a veritable tsunami of destruction to the core "feel" of the OTU. How many of the game's systems would you have to overhaul to make this fly? No... this is too invasive. An article or a series of JTAS articles could provide enough information to bring this nearly to ATU status, but it would need a lot of help. I'm skeptical.Well first you just start with a statement saying that this wouldn't be Traveller. Then you dismiss the "backwater shift" that actually works perfectly well. How many scenarios do you know that require the players to be on a specific world? Yes, it's crafty, but most of the time it will actually work (plus it makes people realise that worlds really are actual planets with other settlements on them, not just one big startown they stop off at). You mention this core "feel" of traveller that is supposed to remain sacrosanct, but don't really define it... but it's quite possible to make these changes in a way that retains this "core feel" - it's just that people seem to be scared to admit or investigate this. </font>[/QUOTE]Size, travelling and travelling time are important to the Universe. There is no "backwater" if you have a starship, ships boat or an enclosed air/raft. So you either drop the tech and end up playing Milleniums End or you keep it and need the planets.
And if you drop travelling time, you drop newslag. And again, you change the universe. If I want live broadcast from Earth I play Babylon5 or Orion, not Traveller.
Keklas Rekobah
February 14th, 2007, 01:38 PM
Bummer.
My problem is two-fold: I like both the Stargate and Traveller concepts equally (although Samantha Carter DOES tip the scales slightly in SGs favour).
In the SG universe, there are limitations on Stargate operations; 38-minute maximum on time, one-way matter transfer per use, enormous amounts of energy required, seismic events caused by activation that require inertial damping, et cetera. This coupled with the relative rarity of starships (an entire world's economy and resources are depleted to build even one Ha'Tak, for instance) and power sources to drive them (naquadah, naquadria, and zero-point modules), tends to isolate exploration teams from their bases of operations for extended periods. These limitations could be used to force the "Square Peg" Stargates into the "Round Hole" OTU.
In summary, Stargate just ain't Traveller, so using Stargates within the OTU would require such major modifications of the Stargate concept and/or severe limitations on their use, that they would no longer resemble the original concept.
Besides, Grandfather already invented a gate system, so why go to a lot of trouble to impose another?
Back to square one: I like both the Stargate and Traveller concepts equally.
Bummer.
My problem is two-fold: I like both the Stargate and Traveller concepts equally (although Samantha Carter DOES tip the scales slightly in SGs favour).
In the SG universe, there are limitations on Stargate operations; 38-minute maximum on time, one-way matter transfer per use, enormous amounts of energy required, seismic events caused by activation that require inertial damping, et cetera. This coupled with the relative rarity of starships (an entire world's economy and resources are depleted to build even one Ha'Tak, for instance) and power sources to drive them (naquadah, naquadria, and zero-point modules), tends to isolate exploration teams from their bases of operations for extended periods. These limitations could be used to force the "Square Peg" Stargates into the "Round Hole" OTU.
In summary, Stargate just ain't Traveller, so using Stargates within the OTU would require such major modifications of the Stargate concept and/or severe limitations on their use, that they would no longer resemble the original concept.
Besides, Grandfather already invented a gate system, so why go to a lot of trouble to impose another?
Back to square one: I like both the Stargate and Traveller concepts equally.
Bummer.
Malenfant
February 14th, 2007, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Disagree! Making the Aslan human makes the "JASC" - Just Another Samurai Clone. Same for the Hivers, welcome to the Illuminati. And Human KKree are called Newkirk Youth or PETAs. It is only through the combination with being another Alien race that they become interesting for me.[/quote]
I think the Aslan are "Just another Samurai Clone" though. The only difference really is that they have a dewclaw. But aside from that there is nothing you can do with them that you couldn't do with a matriarchal human society. Because these races are so similar to humanity, the outward appearance of these race is just eye candy really - I don't think that really lends anything to what makes them unique. That's the whole point of the "humans in funny suits" thing, if humans can act the same way then they're not really alien.
The Hivers could easily be replaced by an advanced human race who have mastered memetics (because that's what "manipulation" really is). Heck, even the tossing out of hiver larvae to fend for themselves is nicked straight from human history (the Spartans).
And as I pointed out, the Kkree could just as easily be replaced by any bunch of psychotic, homicidal xenophobic humans. Vegetarianism would be must as valid a cause to massacre other to that sort of bunch as racism or anything else smile.gif .
Again, I'm not saying they SHOULD be replaced by them, I'm just pointing out that they're really not as alien as people make them out to be. If they were, it wouldn't be so easy to replace them with humans to the same effect. None of this is really a statement on whether they're "cool" or "interesting", I'm just saying that they don't HAVE To be physically different to have the same effect on the setting.
[/QUOTE]Logans Run works because of the enclosed place, Aliens work because there is no place to hide outside the base[/quote]
Yes.... but there's no reason you can't still do that in a Traveller game. If you need an enclosed space, then there's bound to be a way to put one into any setting.
the dual Suns of Kregen are a part of the whole etc....and no. That's like saying Tatooine needs two suns to be what it is - it doesn't.
Size, travelling and travelling time are important to the Universe. There is no "backwater" if you have a starship, ships boat or an enclosed air/raft. So you either drop the tech and end up playing Milleniums End or you keep it and need the planets.
And if you drop travelling time, you drop newslag. And again, you change the universe. If I want live broadcast from Earth I play Babylon5 or Orion, not Traveller.I don't believe that's necessarily true. After all there's lots of stories that have been written (or even that have happened) that are set on Earth that require people to be isolated, and they can manage that easily. Break the radio, or the air/raft's grav plates, do whatever is necessary to isolate them and you still have the setting you need.
Disagree! Making the Aslan human makes the "JASC" - Just Another Samurai Clone. Same for the Hivers, welcome to the Illuminati. And Human KKree are called Newkirk Youth or PETAs. It is only through the combination with being another Alien race that they become interesting for me.[/quote]
I think the Aslan are "Just another Samurai Clone" though. The only difference really is that they have a dewclaw. But aside from that there is nothing you can do with them that you couldn't do with a matriarchal human society. Because these races are so similar to humanity, the outward appearance of these race is just eye candy really - I don't think that really lends anything to what makes them unique. That's the whole point of the "humans in funny suits" thing, if humans can act the same way then they're not really alien.
The Hivers could easily be replaced by an advanced human race who have mastered memetics (because that's what "manipulation" really is). Heck, even the tossing out of hiver larvae to fend for themselves is nicked straight from human history (the Spartans).
And as I pointed out, the Kkree could just as easily be replaced by any bunch of psychotic, homicidal xenophobic humans. Vegetarianism would be must as valid a cause to massacre other to that sort of bunch as racism or anything else smile.gif .
Again, I'm not saying they SHOULD be replaced by them, I'm just pointing out that they're really not as alien as people make them out to be. If they were, it wouldn't be so easy to replace them with humans to the same effect. None of this is really a statement on whether they're "cool" or "interesting", I'm just saying that they don't HAVE To be physically different to have the same effect on the setting.
[/QUOTE]Logans Run works because of the enclosed place, Aliens work because there is no place to hide outside the base[/quote]
Yes.... but there's no reason you can't still do that in a Traveller game. If you need an enclosed space, then there's bound to be a way to put one into any setting.
the dual Suns of Kregen are a part of the whole etc....and no. That's like saying Tatooine needs two suns to be what it is - it doesn't.
Size, travelling and travelling time are important to the Universe. There is no "backwater" if you have a starship, ships boat or an enclosed air/raft. So you either drop the tech and end up playing Milleniums End or you keep it and need the planets.
And if you drop travelling time, you drop newslag. And again, you change the universe. If I want live broadcast from Earth I play Babylon5 or Orion, not Traveller.I don't believe that's necessarily true. After all there's lots of stories that have been written (or even that have happened) that are set on Earth that require people to be isolated, and they can manage that easily. Break the radio, or the air/raft's grav plates, do whatever is necessary to isolate them and you still have the setting you need.
The Shaman
February 14th, 2007, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Every time I propose trying to make something more realistic in the OTU, I get people saying "but that wouldn't be Traveller".First, I don't think the reaction is universal to all of what you propose. Looking at this thread, the idea of eliminating the existing aliens clearly doesn't resonate with most of the posters, but the idea of changing star types to a distribution that is closer to what is known for planetary formation is largely met with a shrug and a "Whatever."
As I said earlier, some gamers value canon because they value portability, the idea that if they play with five different referees that the setting will be highly consistent between all five games.
Though you may not agree with that point of view, it's not necessarily A Bad Thing.
Now I play in an ATU, so such changes don't affect my game, but I can definitely understand why some gamers would take umbrage at a proposal to revamp the whole of the universe they've been using consistently for many years, whether those changes seem relatively minor or not to you. As Scarecrow noted in an earlier post, making Regina a canonical iceball might impact a lot of games, depending on the amount of detail the referee already established in the campaign, so some of this resistance you feel is out there may be entirely practical in that regard.
And while you may not agree with it, the canon IS Traveller for that reason. Traveller is both a rules system and a setting. The rules can be used to run many different kinds of games with no regard to setting (or even science or speculative fiction - Chaosium's Thieves' World fantasy setting includes Traveller conversion notes, for example) - conversely the setting can be used with many different game systems (there are setting conversions for d20 and GURPS of course, as well as FUDGE, The Fantasy Trip, and HERO that I know of) independent of the Traveller system. However, there is only one OTU, one shared canon universe in which scores of authors and tens of thousands of gamers invested for over three decades now. For many gamers that shared universe, no matter how wonky it may be when compared to our real universe, IS Traveller.
I hope you understand why some gamers might get a little touchy when someone comes along and says, "Your setting is broken! Let me fix it!"
And by the way, you really need to drop the whole "fear of realism" thing. If you mean it to be as offensive as it sounds, you're not doing yourself any favors in generating support for your ideas about how to make the Traveller experience better. If you don't mean it to be offensive, you need to take a step back and think about how that might come across to someone who values portability and playability more highly than fixing something that for them isn't broken in the first place.
I might as well toss this in here as well: Originally posted by Malenfant:
You want me to demonstrate to you why the game would be better if minor changes were made to make it based more on how things actually work? It'd be better because that's how things actually work!.So a realistic Traveller universe is better because it's realistic?
Congratulations, the orbital eccentricity of your argument is 0.000! ;)
As I noted upthread, clearly you place a high emphasis on realism with respect to planetary formation and star system organization. That's your thing - we get it. It's something that you value above existing canon. Other Traveller players value portability - others still are invested in the shared history of the development of the OTU.
A game setting that realistically reflects what is known (and speculated) about our own universe is one of a number of competing values among Traveller gamers - it is not the only value, nor is presumptively the most important of those values, particularly given the elephant in the room that's been largely ignored in this discussion: the entire Traveller universe is a made-up place!
You know that realistic aspect of our universe I would love to see projected into Traveller? I'd love a longer list of known stars and more accurate star positions. I'd love to be able to look up at night and say, "Yeah, that's where my character is right now!" more often than I can. The list of catalogued stars mapped in the game is pitifully short, but as much as I might want more such stars, it's not likely to happen because the star positions on the two-dee maps of Traveller aren't meant to be an accurate representation of our real universe. It's a game setting, and it takes liberties with reality in the name of playability and practicality.
Let's say for the sake of argument that I could invest the time and effort to search SIMBAD and plot the positions of every possible star for which we have accurate distance measurements, developing some sort of algorithm that would allow me convert their positions to the two-dee mapping system of Traveller. After my work is complete, I might come back to MWM and the Traveller community and say, "'Lo, here's a list of stars and their positions. All we have to do is change the positions of a hundred and twenty of the stars in the OTU, and eliminate another two hundred altogether, and then our star maps will be REALISTIC. . ."
Would I like something like that? Yes. Do I expect other gamers to embrace it? Some. Do I think that the OTU should be modified to accomodate my work? No - it's an ATU, and I believe that's how it should be, because I respect the values of those who would like to see the OTU preserved as it's developed over decades. I wouldn't consider those who don't appreciate my astrometrical exertions hostile to my goals - I recognize that their priorities are simply not my own.
Food for thought. Originally posted by Malenfant:
I don't know how many more times I have to say that [replacing aliens with humans] was a hypothetical example.Given that MWM is unlikely to give you the opportunity to implement ANY of your proposed changes any time soon, I'd have to say it's all hypothetical - fanciful, even. ;)
That said, you did bring it up as an example, so I don't know why you'd expect people not to respond to it. Originally posted by Malenfant:
The fact that Hivers are big starfish or Aslan are cat-like isn't the thing that makes them cool. What people like about them are their culture and history and how they interact with others. Had they been defined initially as humans with those cultures, I suspect that few people would have thought they were less interesting.Again I disagree.
The physiological and psychological needs of the K'kree result in a completely different approach to starship design. That's their alienness translated into something tangible that the players can explore through their characters. The culture of the K'kree is developed around their distinctive physical and mental traits, so one is an outgrowth of the other.
This is true of other aliens in the OTU as well, in my opinion. I don't believe this is readily replicated by "humans with funny cultures." Originally posted by Malenfant:
By analogy, I don't think the fact that Planet X orbits a blue supergiant or a binary star or a red dwarf or whatever is what's making it interesting from a game perspective - it's the adventures that you can have on the planet and the people on it. Whether you have those adventures under a city-sized protective dome or in the open air, or in actinic blue light or dim red light doesn't really make much difference in practice.I agree, but as I stated up-thread, that's not an argument for introducing a higher degree of realism either. If it's of no consequence to most gamers, then uch a change is superfluous. Originally posted by Malenfant:
You say that, but I don't think it does matter to most people.Unless you have some sort of concrete gamer survey data or something you can point to, I don't think saying "most people" share your values about this is valid. Some gamers, certainly - "most" gamers, sounds like overreaching. Originally posted by Malenfant:
What you need is a Precursor race that left the odd ruin scattered around and who apparently destroyed a few planets in the process. Nobody in the Traveller setting even knows who Grandfather is.The Ancients are pretty heavily woven into the backstory, and the discovery of the connection with the Droyne was a big part of more than one published adventure (and who knows how many homebrewed adventures).
You don't like the Ancients' shtick, take it out - it's your ATU. Expecting others to embrace such a change to the OTU? Well, I believe someone mentioned tilting at windmills up-thread. . . ;)
It's been fun, but I actually have to get some "realistic" work done today, so forgive me if I don't respond to any further replies. smile.gif
Every time I propose trying to make something more realistic in the OTU, I get people saying "but that wouldn't be Traveller".First, I don't think the reaction is universal to all of what you propose. Looking at this thread, the idea of eliminating the existing aliens clearly doesn't resonate with most of the posters, but the idea of changing star types to a distribution that is closer to what is known for planetary formation is largely met with a shrug and a "Whatever."
As I said earlier, some gamers value canon because they value portability, the idea that if they play with five different referees that the setting will be highly consistent between all five games.
Though you may not agree with that point of view, it's not necessarily A Bad Thing.
Now I play in an ATU, so such changes don't affect my game, but I can definitely understand why some gamers would take umbrage at a proposal to revamp the whole of the universe they've been using consistently for many years, whether those changes seem relatively minor or not to you. As Scarecrow noted in an earlier post, making Regina a canonical iceball might impact a lot of games, depending on the amount of detail the referee already established in the campaign, so some of this resistance you feel is out there may be entirely practical in that regard.
And while you may not agree with it, the canon IS Traveller for that reason. Traveller is both a rules system and a setting. The rules can be used to run many different kinds of games with no regard to setting (or even science or speculative fiction - Chaosium's Thieves' World fantasy setting includes Traveller conversion notes, for example) - conversely the setting can be used with many different game systems (there are setting conversions for d20 and GURPS of course, as well as FUDGE, The Fantasy Trip, and HERO that I know of) independent of the Traveller system. However, there is only one OTU, one shared canon universe in which scores of authors and tens of thousands of gamers invested for over three decades now. For many gamers that shared universe, no matter how wonky it may be when compared to our real universe, IS Traveller.
I hope you understand why some gamers might get a little touchy when someone comes along and says, "Your setting is broken! Let me fix it!"
And by the way, you really need to drop the whole "fear of realism" thing. If you mean it to be as offensive as it sounds, you're not doing yourself any favors in generating support for your ideas about how to make the Traveller experience better. If you don't mean it to be offensive, you need to take a step back and think about how that might come across to someone who values portability and playability more highly than fixing something that for them isn't broken in the first place.
I might as well toss this in here as well: Originally posted by Malenfant:
You want me to demonstrate to you why the game would be better if minor changes were made to make it based more on how things actually work? It'd be better because that's how things actually work!.So a realistic Traveller universe is better because it's realistic?
Congratulations, the orbital eccentricity of your argument is 0.000! ;)
As I noted upthread, clearly you place a high emphasis on realism with respect to planetary formation and star system organization. That's your thing - we get it. It's something that you value above existing canon. Other Traveller players value portability - others still are invested in the shared history of the development of the OTU.
A game setting that realistically reflects what is known (and speculated) about our own universe is one of a number of competing values among Traveller gamers - it is not the only value, nor is presumptively the most important of those values, particularly given the elephant in the room that's been largely ignored in this discussion: the entire Traveller universe is a made-up place!
You know that realistic aspect of our universe I would love to see projected into Traveller? I'd love a longer list of known stars and more accurate star positions. I'd love to be able to look up at night and say, "Yeah, that's where my character is right now!" more often than I can. The list of catalogued stars mapped in the game is pitifully short, but as much as I might want more such stars, it's not likely to happen because the star positions on the two-dee maps of Traveller aren't meant to be an accurate representation of our real universe. It's a game setting, and it takes liberties with reality in the name of playability and practicality.
Let's say for the sake of argument that I could invest the time and effort to search SIMBAD and plot the positions of every possible star for which we have accurate distance measurements, developing some sort of algorithm that would allow me convert their positions to the two-dee mapping system of Traveller. After my work is complete, I might come back to MWM and the Traveller community and say, "'Lo, here's a list of stars and their positions. All we have to do is change the positions of a hundred and twenty of the stars in the OTU, and eliminate another two hundred altogether, and then our star maps will be REALISTIC. . ."
Would I like something like that? Yes. Do I expect other gamers to embrace it? Some. Do I think that the OTU should be modified to accomodate my work? No - it's an ATU, and I believe that's how it should be, because I respect the values of those who would like to see the OTU preserved as it's developed over decades. I wouldn't consider those who don't appreciate my astrometrical exertions hostile to my goals - I recognize that their priorities are simply not my own.
Food for thought. Originally posted by Malenfant:
I don't know how many more times I have to say that [replacing aliens with humans] was a hypothetical example.Given that MWM is unlikely to give you the opportunity to implement ANY of your proposed changes any time soon, I'd have to say it's all hypothetical - fanciful, even. ;)
That said, you did bring it up as an example, so I don't know why you'd expect people not to respond to it. Originally posted by Malenfant:
The fact that Hivers are big starfish or Aslan are cat-like isn't the thing that makes them cool. What people like about them are their culture and history and how they interact with others. Had they been defined initially as humans with those cultures, I suspect that few people would have thought they were less interesting.Again I disagree.
The physiological and psychological needs of the K'kree result in a completely different approach to starship design. That's their alienness translated into something tangible that the players can explore through their characters. The culture of the K'kree is developed around their distinctive physical and mental traits, so one is an outgrowth of the other.
This is true of other aliens in the OTU as well, in my opinion. I don't believe this is readily replicated by "humans with funny cultures." Originally posted by Malenfant:
By analogy, I don't think the fact that Planet X orbits a blue supergiant or a binary star or a red dwarf or whatever is what's making it interesting from a game perspective - it's the adventures that you can have on the planet and the people on it. Whether you have those adventures under a city-sized protective dome or in the open air, or in actinic blue light or dim red light doesn't really make much difference in practice.I agree, but as I stated up-thread, that's not an argument for introducing a higher degree of realism either. If it's of no consequence to most gamers, then uch a change is superfluous. Originally posted by Malenfant:
You say that, but I don't think it does matter to most people.Unless you have some sort of concrete gamer survey data or something you can point to, I don't think saying "most people" share your values about this is valid. Some gamers, certainly - "most" gamers, sounds like overreaching. Originally posted by Malenfant:
What you need is a Precursor race that left the odd ruin scattered around and who apparently destroyed a few planets in the process. Nobody in the Traveller setting even knows who Grandfather is.The Ancients are pretty heavily woven into the backstory, and the discovery of the connection with the Droyne was a big part of more than one published adventure (and who knows how many homebrewed adventures).
You don't like the Ancients' shtick, take it out - it's your ATU. Expecting others to embrace such a change to the OTU? Well, I believe someone mentioned tilting at windmills up-thread. . . ;)
It's been fun, but I actually have to get some "realistic" work done today, so forgive me if I don't respond to any further replies. smile.gif
mbrinkhues
February 14th, 2007, 02:00 PM
Sorry Malenfant but what you call a "funny suit" IS the important difference IMHO. THEY ARE NOT HUMANS so Humans can not replace them. Forcing that change would make me throw the game once and for all. At best it would be 2300AD without the fun, not Traveller. At worst it get's "Kick the PeTa" and "Beat up the A******" since humans with extreme personalities are not the same as Aliens.
Actually Kregen NEEDS two suns to be what it is. Just like the moons and all. Part of the setting, including religions, conflicts and environment. Otherwise it would be just another fantasy thingy.
And "break the gravplates", sorry but "Transporter Malfunction of the Week" is another game system and even there it get's boring quickly. Sure one can force such stuff but again, it's no longer Traveller. It's "That other Game with the pointy eared guys"(1)
Btw there is a lot of difference between the Spartan treatment of their adolescent and the Hiver larva.
(1) I still prefer the "Mirror Universe" version of First Contact. Cochran using the MPi on the space-elve was just "The right stuff"
Actually Kregen NEEDS two suns to be what it is. Just like the moons and all. Part of the setting, including religions, conflicts and environment. Otherwise it would be just another fantasy thingy.
And "break the gravplates", sorry but "Transporter Malfunction of the Week" is another game system and even there it get's boring quickly. Sure one can force such stuff but again, it's no longer Traveller. It's "That other Game with the pointy eared guys"(1)
Btw there is a lot of difference between the Spartan treatment of their adolescent and the Hiver larva.
(1) I still prefer the "Mirror Universe" version of First Contact. Cochran using the MPi on the space-elve was just "The right stuff"
Jeffr0
February 14th, 2007, 02:15 PM
Go go go Shaman!
You say it better than I ever will. Perfect!
You say it better than I ever will. Perfect!
The Shaman
February 14th, 2007, 02:16 PM
Okay, I really do need to get some work done, but I couldn't let this one pass without comment: Originally posted by Malenfant:
Heck, even the tossing out of hiver larvae to fend for themselves is nicked straight from human history (the Spartans).Actually that's called "r-selection strategy" and it's the most common reproductive strategy among organisms on Earth.
I'd be quite surprised to learn that the Spartans were used as a model for the creation of the Hivers.
Okay, now to work. . .
Heck, even the tossing out of hiver larvae to fend for themselves is nicked straight from human history (the Spartans).Actually that's called "r-selection strategy" and it's the most common reproductive strategy among organisms on Earth.
I'd be quite surprised to learn that the Spartans were used as a model for the creation of the Hivers.
Okay, now to work. . .
Malenfant
February 14th, 2007, 02:38 PM
I think we're arguing over tangents. But yes, good point about the 'R-selection" thing, the Spartans were just more obvious to me as an intelligent culture that did that sort of thing.
Sorry, but from what I've seen some people DO have a fear of realism, especially the ones who say "oh but it'll make everything boring". It won't - it'll change some things, but the setting can still be as exciting or fun as it was before, just in less wacky ways. And I don't think a setting needs to be unrealistic for people to have fun in it.
But if people say they're happy with what they've got, and then say that adding realism wouldn't change anything for them, then I'm not really seeing why they'd see it as a problem.
And Michael - sorry, I just can't see why a given planet needs two suns to be the game setting that it is. PCs generally won't care if the planet they land on has one or two suns, or four-legged or six-legged lifeforms, or anything like that unless they have an actual effect on the plot.
But I think we've established here that most people wouldn't actually mind if things were more realistic, so long as it didn't change their game play. Whether anyone else sees any point in doing that is another matter.
Sorry, but from what I've seen some people DO have a fear of realism, especially the ones who say "oh but it'll make everything boring". It won't - it'll change some things, but the setting can still be as exciting or fun as it was before, just in less wacky ways. And I don't think a setting needs to be unrealistic for people to have fun in it.
But if people say they're happy with what they've got, and then say that adding realism wouldn't change anything for them, then I'm not really seeing why they'd see it as a problem.
And Michael - sorry, I just can't see why a given planet needs two suns to be the game setting that it is. PCs generally won't care if the planet they land on has one or two suns, or four-legged or six-legged lifeforms, or anything like that unless they have an actual effect on the plot.
But I think we've established here that most people wouldn't actually mind if things were more realistic, so long as it didn't change their game play. Whether anyone else sees any point in doing that is another matter.
mbrinkhues
February 14th, 2007, 02:44 PM
Malenfant, read up on Kregen and you see where the whole system would change without Zim an Zair.
Malenfant
February 14th, 2007, 03:08 PM
Oh, I thought Kregen was just some random system name you made up as an example. What's it from?
I mean, if it NEEDS two suns to be what it is (I dunno, do people on it have a religion based on two suns?) then obviously you can't change it to just have one. I'm just saying if you don't need those things, then you can afford to change them.
EDIT: And having just looked it up, none of the arguments here apply to it anyway - it's clearly a wacky space opera type thing ((a) it's set around Antares, and (b) one of the suns is green). Any realism arguments wouldn't apply here.
I mean, if it NEEDS two suns to be what it is (I dunno, do people on it have a religion based on two suns?) then obviously you can't change it to just have one. I'm just saying if you don't need those things, then you can afford to change them.
EDIT: And having just looked it up, none of the arguments here apply to it anyway - it's clearly a wacky space opera type thing ((a) it's set around Antares, and (b) one of the suns is green). Any realism arguments wouldn't apply here.
kafka47
February 14th, 2007, 03:16 PM
As an exploration into different ideas of the Traveller Universe, I think that you see there is a pattern of agreement. Now, Mal., you have to square the circle of the people who like Space Opera, afterall, all Traveller is about making a game that Hard SF fans can enjoy and a game for Space Opera enthuasists. As I have said before we are not far apart. I just don't believe that change will come by trashing people's past work and it will come from building a better future. Thanks for doing your part, Mal.
atpollard
February 14th, 2007, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Sorry, but from what I've seen some people DO have a fear of realism, especially the ones who say "oh but it'll make everything boring".Actually, the word "REALISTIC" appears to be the source of a fair percentage of the semantic misunderstanding. Mal appears to define "realistic" in this topic as correcting glaring errors in planet size/atmosphere/star type, and few people would probably disagree very strongly with that.
The cartoon presented earlier shows that "realism" pushed to it's limits results in many star systems with no habitable planets, no alien life and vasy quantities of the same old airless rocks and gas giants. It is debatable whether such a game would be fun. Few would recognize it as the Traveller Imperium.
Sorry, but from what I've seen some people DO have a fear of realism, especially the ones who say "oh but it'll make everything boring".Actually, the word "REALISTIC" appears to be the source of a fair percentage of the semantic misunderstanding. Mal appears to define "realistic" in this topic as correcting glaring errors in planet size/atmosphere/star type, and few people would probably disagree very strongly with that.
The cartoon presented earlier shows that "realism" pushed to it's limits results in many star systems with no habitable planets, no alien life and vasy quantities of the same old airless rocks and gas giants. It is debatable whether such a game would be fun. Few would recognize it as the Traveller Imperium.
rogermccarthy
February 14th, 2007, 08:25 PM
On the Hiver larvae pretty sure that came from the Martian life cycle described in Heinlein's Red Planet and Stranger in a Strange Land.
More generally you can play Traveller without aliens but why would you want to?
Intelligent aliens are a major theme that start appearing with the first adventure books and JTAS and account for a serious percentage of all Traveller publications.
Strip them out and it might indeed still be Traveller but would definitely be Traveler-minus .
You can make pizza without tomatoes (and in fact the Italians did exactly that for 2,000 years) but once tomatoes have been discovered and several billion people over 400 years have agreed that yes, pizza way tastes way nicer with tomatoes, why would you want to argue that because you can theoretically have a pizza without tomatoes that tomatoes have nothing to do with pizza....
Sure it takes more to make good pizza than chucking a tin of tomatoes on a flatbread and throwing it into an oven with some processed cheese but that is down to the quality of the cook and the ingredients he chooses to use - not down to the recipe.
Ditto for Traveller aliens - if they are not alien enough for you then you need to work harder to make them so.
More generally you can play Traveller without aliens but why would you want to?
Intelligent aliens are a major theme that start appearing with the first adventure books and JTAS and account for a serious percentage of all Traveller publications.
Strip them out and it might indeed still be Traveller but would definitely be Traveler-minus .
You can make pizza without tomatoes (and in fact the Italians did exactly that for 2,000 years) but once tomatoes have been discovered and several billion people over 400 years have agreed that yes, pizza way tastes way nicer with tomatoes, why would you want to argue that because you can theoretically have a pizza without tomatoes that tomatoes have nothing to do with pizza....
Sure it takes more to make good pizza than chucking a tin of tomatoes on a flatbread and throwing it into an oven with some processed cheese but that is down to the quality of the cook and the ingredients he chooses to use - not down to the recipe.
Ditto for Traveller aliens - if they are not alien enough for you then you need to work harder to make them so.
kafka47
February 15th, 2007, 08:43 AM
Intelligent aliens are a major theme that start appearing with the first adventure books and JTAS and account for a serious percentage of all Traveller publications.
Strip them out and it might indeed still be Traveller but would definitely be Traveler-minus.Not sure that I would agree with you here. I would view it as a challenge to role playing assumptions before Firefly came along and changed the landscape of Science Fiction back to a different sort of creature again (one more established in the literary canon than the visual arts).
TNE/Hard Times makes some pretty bold statements about the collapse of Interstellar Civilization leading to Xenocide. It is quite possible to play Traveller without the aliens without diminishing Traveller. Of course, one can do handwaves, like Pocket Universes and the like. However, do keep in mind, one of the core elements of Traveller is that it is a Human-Dominated Universe. As much as humans may share that power, it is still the basic premise that aliens take second place and hence should be kept as alien as possible. However, if you give your players access to all the contents of the AMs, your Campaign Notes, and all go see the same movies/watch the same TV programs/read the same books/visit the same Internet sites then keeping the aliens, alien is a hard task.
One way is to start off in a pocket of space in which Aliens are sparce and that way you build up slowly the human centred universe approach, and then when they see something different...you will achieve the WOW factor.
So, I think we are in agreement on many points, alte. However, challenge yourself and others by removing aliens...might make for an interesting campaign.
Strip them out and it might indeed still be Traveller but would definitely be Traveler-minus.Not sure that I would agree with you here. I would view it as a challenge to role playing assumptions before Firefly came along and changed the landscape of Science Fiction back to a different sort of creature again (one more established in the literary canon than the visual arts).
TNE/Hard Times makes some pretty bold statements about the collapse of Interstellar Civilization leading to Xenocide. It is quite possible to play Traveller without the aliens without diminishing Traveller. Of course, one can do handwaves, like Pocket Universes and the like. However, do keep in mind, one of the core elements of Traveller is that it is a Human-Dominated Universe. As much as humans may share that power, it is still the basic premise that aliens take second place and hence should be kept as alien as possible. However, if you give your players access to all the contents of the AMs, your Campaign Notes, and all go see the same movies/watch the same TV programs/read the same books/visit the same Internet sites then keeping the aliens, alien is a hard task.
One way is to start off in a pocket of space in which Aliens are sparce and that way you build up slowly the human centred universe approach, and then when they see something different...you will achieve the WOW factor.
So, I think we are in agreement on many points, alte. However, challenge yourself and others by removing aliens...might make for an interesting campaign.
mbrinkhues
February 15th, 2007, 09:42 AM
Kafka47:
IMHO it is quite possibly to play SciFi without Aliens, quite a few movies and novels do or relegate them to the rather abstract enemy type. It might be possibel to put Aliens in Traveller on the backburner, making them rarely seen and interacted with NPC.
Adding new races is acceptabel if they fit the background. I.e there is no place for another major race between the Aslan and the Heroic Defenders of pure Humanity (aka Solomanie) but a minor one might work.
Dropping them totally makes for a new universe. One that might be interesting but not Traveller.
Replacing them by Humans changes the outlook from "They are not humans, can't judge them by our standards" to "They are amoral, degenerated freaks, organise a Posse and string them up" Not my type of game
IMHO it is quite possibly to play SciFi without Aliens, quite a few movies and novels do or relegate them to the rather abstract enemy type. It might be possibel to put Aliens in Traveller on the backburner, making them rarely seen and interacted with NPC.
Adding new races is acceptabel if they fit the background. I.e there is no place for another major race between the Aslan and the Heroic Defenders of pure Humanity (aka Solomanie) but a minor one might work.
Dropping them totally makes for a new universe. One that might be interesting but not Traveller.
Replacing them by Humans changes the outlook from "They are not humans, can't judge them by our standards" to "They are amoral, degenerated freaks, organise a Posse and string them up" Not my type of game
kafka47
February 15th, 2007, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Kafka47:
IMHO it is quite possibly to play SciFi without Aliens, quite a few movies and novels do or relegate them to the rather abstract enemy type. It might be possibel to put Aliens in Traveller on the backburner, making them rarely seen and interacted with NPC.
Adding new races is acceptabel if they fit the background. I.e there is no place for another major race between the Aslan and the Heroic Defenders of pure Humanity (aka Solomanie) but a minor one might work.
...
Replacing them by Humans changes the outlook from "They are not humans, can't judge them by our standards" to "They are amoral, degenerated freaks, organise a Posse and string them up" Not my type of game I cannot see where we disagree. Although, the last point, is rather contentious. Human history is filled with us turning against the Other, even when that Other is ourselves. Humans against other Humans is even a subculture of Traveller as point out, the Solomani versus Imperial versus Zhodani mindsets. There is no reason why you cannot have further conflicts of that nature and still not called in Traveller (one might argue 1248 achived just that by extrapolating from the TNE xenocides).
Then in the middle, I come across:
Dropping them totally makes for a new universe. One that might be interesting but not Traveller.
Not true, humanity is the centre of the Traveller Universe. It was done this way to prevent a reoccurance of the D&D paradigm that GDW sought to get away from in creating a new game. Traveller is certainly about a cosmopolitian universe but its diversity lies within its reflections & refractions of the human story not about exploring the alien-ness of the universe.
Aliens are the ultimate Other, which, then allow us to explore a different aspect of our humanity. They are given cultural archetypes that we can refer back to the human story but they are ultimately alien. To describe how alien, they are is only a sketch and the referee is encouraged to do more.
Of course, you can always create YTU, and make it as Star Wars/Star Trek, as you like but it remains corely human unless you have a group of people with wild imaginations (which don't take a slight but as a complement). Again, as it/I has/have been pointed out, "It is YOUR Game, do what you want with it."
Kafka47:
IMHO it is quite possibly to play SciFi without Aliens, quite a few movies and novels do or relegate them to the rather abstract enemy type. It might be possibel to put Aliens in Traveller on the backburner, making them rarely seen and interacted with NPC.
Adding new races is acceptabel if they fit the background. I.e there is no place for another major race between the Aslan and the Heroic Defenders of pure Humanity (aka Solomanie) but a minor one might work.
...
Replacing them by Humans changes the outlook from "They are not humans, can't judge them by our standards" to "They are amoral, degenerated freaks, organise a Posse and string them up" Not my type of game I cannot see where we disagree. Although, the last point, is rather contentious. Human history is filled with us turning against the Other, even when that Other is ourselves. Humans against other Humans is even a subculture of Traveller as point out, the Solomani versus Imperial versus Zhodani mindsets. There is no reason why you cannot have further conflicts of that nature and still not called in Traveller (one might argue 1248 achived just that by extrapolating from the TNE xenocides).
Then in the middle, I come across:
Dropping them totally makes for a new universe. One that might be interesting but not Traveller.
Not true, humanity is the centre of the Traveller Universe. It was done this way to prevent a reoccurance of the D&D paradigm that GDW sought to get away from in creating a new game. Traveller is certainly about a cosmopolitian universe but its diversity lies within its reflections & refractions of the human story not about exploring the alien-ness of the universe.
Aliens are the ultimate Other, which, then allow us to explore a different aspect of our humanity. They are given cultural archetypes that we can refer back to the human story but they are ultimately alien. To describe how alien, they are is only a sketch and the referee is encouraged to do more.
Of course, you can always create YTU, and make it as Star Wars/Star Trek, as you like but it remains corely human unless you have a group of people with wild imaginations (which don't take a slight but as a complement). Again, as it/I has/have been pointed out, "It is YOUR Game, do what you want with it."
Malenfant
February 15th, 2007, 10:56 AM
Replacing them by Humans changes the outlook from "They are not humans, can't judge them by our standards" to "They are amoral, degenerated freaks, organise a Posse and string them up" Not my type of gameWait, so a different alien culture would be OK, but the same different human culture means that they're automatically amoral degenerate freaks who should be strung up? Sorry, not following the logic there at all - in the vast majority of cases there's no reason to treat both in the same way. Sure, you'll get problems if you've got a human culture that eats their young or something ;) , but that's going to be less likely.
I mean, a homicidally xenophobic culture is a homicidally xenophobic culture no matter how limbs it has (and honestly, they're the ones most likely to treat anyone different as amoral, degenerate freaks). A human race that acted like the Aslan is no more amoral or degenerate or freakish than the alien Aslan are.
I mean, a homicidally xenophobic culture is a homicidally xenophobic culture no matter how limbs it has (and honestly, they're the ones most likely to treat anyone different as amoral, degenerate freaks). A human race that acted like the Aslan is no more amoral or degenerate or freakish than the alien Aslan are.
Space Cadet
February 15th, 2007, 11:29 AM
How about this? A human centric universe could have this origin.
First complex life is rare, intelligent life is still rarer, and intelligent life that builds technological space travelling civilizations is rarest of all. There may be one per galaxy or fewer, that is why we listen to the heavens and hear nothing.
Second diversity, the early jump drives had a major defect, they would take you to you destinations, but they would slide across the boundary into other Universes, these other universes are parallel to our own, they contain their own Earths with humans on it, but travel to these universes is totally random and unpredictable.
The early explorers would explore a star system and settle it, they would return to a completely different Earth from the one they left, and if they headed back to the colony they established, they would find it gone.
A starship which traveled to another star system would end up in that star system in a parallel universe, they wouldn't be able to return to their universe of origin, they could only travel to yet another parallel universe. The more often they use the jump drive, the more different the new universe is from their own, until they get to a point where they enter a universe where humans have never evolved, try and try as they may to get back, but they keep on moving further away. This effect is more pronounced if you jump long distances. The early tests of the jump drive were over short distances within system, these early results proved promising as the probes either stayed within the same universe or were replaced by a probe from another universe that was so similar that no one could tell the difference. This flawed jump technology leaves alot of stranded colonists from many different parallel Earths. After further research and development, the jump drive is fixed, they still can't figure out a way to travel to a parallel universe and come back, but they did fix the jump drive so that it reliably travels interstellar distances and remain in the same universe, but meanwhile you have a whole bunch of interstellar colonies in one universe that were established by a whole bunch of parallel Earth's where history took a decidedly different turn.
There are NAZI colonies, Communist colonies, colonies established by technological roman and greek empires, colonies established by Neandertals. Some nonchristian pagan colonies, some colonies that are very ancient, some colonies that lost their technological basis and went primitive. Most of the colonies were established within 6,000 years of each other, most within a couple of centuries. Some histories had more rapid technological advance than others.
But I must state again, the defective jump drives cannot reach a specific parallel universe intentionally, all they can do is enter a random parallel, and as for the people that sent them, they are effectively gone forever and never return. The Jump Drives can only be fixed to work as FTL engines, no one has developed the ability to navigate multiple universes and reach the one that send the Nazis to a far away planet. The very randomness of the defective jump drives prevents the senders from getting them back and determining how well they are doing in intentionally reaching a specific universe. Meanwhile all these left overs from alternate realities come in contact with each other, and some of them do not get along.
First complex life is rare, intelligent life is still rarer, and intelligent life that builds technological space travelling civilizations is rarest of all. There may be one per galaxy or fewer, that is why we listen to the heavens and hear nothing.
Second diversity, the early jump drives had a major defect, they would take you to you destinations, but they would slide across the boundary into other Universes, these other universes are parallel to our own, they contain their own Earths with humans on it, but travel to these universes is totally random and unpredictable.
The early explorers would explore a star system and settle it, they would return to a completely different Earth from the one they left, and if they headed back to the colony they established, they would find it gone.
A starship which traveled to another star system would end up in that star system in a parallel universe, they wouldn't be able to return to their universe of origin, they could only travel to yet another parallel universe. The more often they use the jump drive, the more different the new universe is from their own, until they get to a point where they enter a universe where humans have never evolved, try and try as they may to get back, but they keep on moving further away. This effect is more pronounced if you jump long distances. The early tests of the jump drive were over short distances within system, these early results proved promising as the probes either stayed within the same universe or were replaced by a probe from another universe that was so similar that no one could tell the difference. This flawed jump technology leaves alot of stranded colonists from many different parallel Earths. After further research and development, the jump drive is fixed, they still can't figure out a way to travel to a parallel universe and come back, but they did fix the jump drive so that it reliably travels interstellar distances and remain in the same universe, but meanwhile you have a whole bunch of interstellar colonies in one universe that were established by a whole bunch of parallel Earth's where history took a decidedly different turn.
There are NAZI colonies, Communist colonies, colonies established by technological roman and greek empires, colonies established by Neandertals. Some nonchristian pagan colonies, some colonies that are very ancient, some colonies that lost their technological basis and went primitive. Most of the colonies were established within 6,000 years of each other, most within a couple of centuries. Some histories had more rapid technological advance than others.
But I must state again, the defective jump drives cannot reach a specific parallel universe intentionally, all they can do is enter a random parallel, and as for the people that sent them, they are effectively gone forever and never return. The Jump Drives can only be fixed to work as FTL engines, no one has developed the ability to navigate multiple universes and reach the one that send the Nazis to a far away planet. The very randomness of the defective jump drives prevents the senders from getting them back and determining how well they are doing in intentionally reaching a specific universe. Meanwhile all these left overs from alternate realities come in contact with each other, and some of them do not get along.
Border Reiver
February 15th, 2007, 12:03 PM
Tom, I've started another thread for alternate ideas so this one can stay on the prickly "what is Traveller" question rather than wander into speculative territory. Cool?
Jeffr0
February 15th, 2007, 12:13 PM
Space Cadet's premise is NOT Traveller.
It's Jump Technology triggering a "Banestorm" of sorts to create a really twisted Infinite Worlds setting.
You could use his idea as a basis for the background of a Book 3 subsector... and leave it as a mystery for the players to figure out. Make it a three part adventure culminating into "Twilight's Bane."
It's Jump Technology triggering a "Banestorm" of sorts to create a really twisted Infinite Worlds setting.
You could use his idea as a basis for the background of a Book 3 subsector... and leave it as a mystery for the players to figure out. Make it a three part adventure culminating into "Twilight's Bane."
mbrinkhues
February 15th, 2007, 12:47 PM
Malenfant, Kafka47:
The difference between "Them Aliens" and "Them Humans" (There is not race in human) is that it is (at least for me) easier to seperate real world feeling from the game with the former than with the latter. Makes it easier not to "Go out and kick the KKree" and instead work on peaceful interaction.
To me humans acting like KKree or Vagr Raiders of Hhkar or Hivers deserve to be shot where they stand and I freely admit that my real world reactions and dislikes shape my characters.
Kafka47:
I never said Aliens as PC, there are few races in Traveller that actually work as PC (Bwap maybe). But if I drop them, I change a lot of the basic system and have to find more reasons why equivalents to (Vagr raiders, land-seeking Aslan etc) exist or I have to drop the elements. See above for some problems with that.
And If I drop them, I get something along the lines of Ryder Hook, Vattas War or Honor Harrington. All intersting universes but not Traveller
The difference between "Them Aliens" and "Them Humans" (There is not race in human) is that it is (at least for me) easier to seperate real world feeling from the game with the former than with the latter. Makes it easier not to "Go out and kick the KKree" and instead work on peaceful interaction.
To me humans acting like KKree or Vagr Raiders of Hhkar or Hivers deserve to be shot where they stand and I freely admit that my real world reactions and dislikes shape my characters.
Kafka47:
I never said Aliens as PC, there are few races in Traveller that actually work as PC (Bwap maybe). But if I drop them, I change a lot of the basic system and have to find more reasons why equivalents to (Vagr raiders, land-seeking Aslan etc) exist or I have to drop the elements. See above for some problems with that.
And If I drop them, I get something along the lines of Ryder Hook, Vattas War or Honor Harrington. All intersting universes but not Traveller
The Shaman
February 15th, 2007, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
. . .good point about the 'R-selection" thing. . . Population growth rate in ecological algebra is represented with a small-r, not a capital-R. ;) Originally posted by atpollard:
Mal appears to define "realistic" in this topic as correcting glaring errors in planet size/atmosphere/star type, and few people would probably disagree very strongly with that.In the first post of the thread, the OP put out three examples: (1) changing star types so that they match more closely the distribution of known stars and currently understood processes for the development of planetary systems, (2) reducing the number of habitable worlds, and (3) replacing "humans in furry suits" aliens with "humans with funny cultures."
The first probably has the least potential impact on the OTU, though I think it's a mistake to assume that it has no impact whatsoever, for reasons I outlined above (i.e., existing campaigns that make use of the current OTU data, or metagame reasons related to the shared history of the development of the OTU over the course of thirty years); in fact, the more I think about this, the more I think it's actually somewhat more complicated that just changing a type O star to a type G star. The second example hasn't been discussed much, and the third generated quite a few comments and seems to be taken as a significant change to the OTU, at least judging from the posters who've responded to this thread so far.
I think that if any or all of these ideas were packaged as an ATU, they'd be greeted with some real enthusiasm by a quite a few Traveller gamers - on the other hand, insisting that they be incorporated into the OTU is likely a lead balloon destined for a hard landing. ;)
. . .good point about the 'R-selection" thing. . . Population growth rate in ecological algebra is represented with a small-r, not a capital-R. ;) Originally posted by atpollard:
Mal appears to define "realistic" in this topic as correcting glaring errors in planet size/atmosphere/star type, and few people would probably disagree very strongly with that.In the first post of the thread, the OP put out three examples: (1) changing star types so that they match more closely the distribution of known stars and currently understood processes for the development of planetary systems, (2) reducing the number of habitable worlds, and (3) replacing "humans in furry suits" aliens with "humans with funny cultures."
The first probably has the least potential impact on the OTU, though I think it's a mistake to assume that it has no impact whatsoever, for reasons I outlined above (i.e., existing campaigns that make use of the current OTU data, or metagame reasons related to the shared history of the development of the OTU over the course of thirty years); in fact, the more I think about this, the more I think it's actually somewhat more complicated that just changing a type O star to a type G star. The second example hasn't been discussed much, and the third generated quite a few comments and seems to be taken as a significant change to the OTU, at least judging from the posters who've responded to this thread so far.
I think that if any or all of these ideas were packaged as an ATU, they'd be greeted with some real enthusiasm by a quite a few Traveller gamers - on the other hand, insisting that they be incorporated into the OTU is likely a lead balloon destined for a hard landing. ;)
Malenfant
February 15th, 2007, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
To me humans acting like KKree or Vagr Raiders of Hhkar or Hivers deserve to be shot where they stand and I freely admit that my real world reactions and dislikes shape my characters.
I think that's somewhat extreme myself. I mean, Hivers don't really act any different to clever politicians (a rarity, I know) or advertisers - not exactly something worth shooting someone where they stand. And I probably don't want to know what you think of other real world cultures that aren't your own...
I never said Aliens as PC, there are few races in Traveller that actually work as PC (Bwap maybe).Bwap are classic "humans in funny suits", they have one one schtick and that's it - they're the "bureaucrat race". They could easily be replaced by humans filling the same niche, and nothing would really change much (hell, the Vilani are very bureaucratic as it is).
To me humans acting like KKree or Vagr Raiders of Hhkar or Hivers deserve to be shot where they stand and I freely admit that my real world reactions and dislikes shape my characters.
I think that's somewhat extreme myself. I mean, Hivers don't really act any different to clever politicians (a rarity, I know) or advertisers - not exactly something worth shooting someone where they stand. And I probably don't want to know what you think of other real world cultures that aren't your own...
I never said Aliens as PC, there are few races in Traveller that actually work as PC (Bwap maybe).Bwap are classic "humans in funny suits", they have one one schtick and that's it - they're the "bureaucrat race". They could easily be replaced by humans filling the same niche, and nothing would really change much (hell, the Vilani are very bureaucratic as it is).
The Shaman
February 15th, 2007, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
I mean, Hivers don't really act any different to clever politicians (a rarity, I know) or advertisers - not exactly something worth shooting someone where they stand. Shooting politicians and advertisers sounds like fun.
One of the memes used to explore aliens and alien societies in speculative fiction is the role of convergent evolution on the development of alien lifeform and the potential for cultural similarity that may arise between intelligent species. I don't have the book handy to look up the specific quote, but one of the characters in Jack McDevitt's The Engines of God mentions this, something to the effect that all of the alien cultural evidence that humans discovered in their explorations pointed to certain universal traits among intelligent beings.
I think this is the meme around which Traveller aliens need to be viewed: that in the OTU, the physical and chemical constraints of habitable worlds contribute to similar ecological niches, that convergent evolution results from adaptation to those niches by different organisms, and that a comparable convergent cultural evolution takes place among intelligent species. This is a valid approach found in many works of speculative fiction.
While this may not appeal to those who want their aliens to be inscrutable enigmas of extreme biochemistry, it does offer the singular advantage of providing an eminently playable approach for a sci-fi roleplaying game, one in which players are likely to (1) want to interact with alien species or (2) actually play an alien character. Aliens which share similar physical or cultural traits are a feature, not a bug - it's to the game's advantage that aliens and humans share as much physical and cultural baggage as they do, not its detriment.
Of course, if that's not your cup of tea, then it's all going to be silly and pointless - create your own ATU where the conditions you prefer are prevalent, or try another system or setting altogether.
As a final thought, I think you may be underplaying the alienness of some of the OTU sophonts. I don't think anyone in my Traveller campaigns ever equated Hivers with "clever politicians" or "advertisers," if for no other reason than my Hiver manipulations are Rube Goldberg-like in complexity producing inscrutable results. Bwaps aren't just the "bureaucratic" alien - their complex minds and rigorous training make them the undisputed masters of social feng shui as they seek to create and patterns and structures from the living beings of the universe.
I mean, Hivers don't really act any different to clever politicians (a rarity, I know) or advertisers - not exactly something worth shooting someone where they stand. Shooting politicians and advertisers sounds like fun.
One of the memes used to explore aliens and alien societies in speculative fiction is the role of convergent evolution on the development of alien lifeform and the potential for cultural similarity that may arise between intelligent species. I don't have the book handy to look up the specific quote, but one of the characters in Jack McDevitt's The Engines of God mentions this, something to the effect that all of the alien cultural evidence that humans discovered in their explorations pointed to certain universal traits among intelligent beings.
I think this is the meme around which Traveller aliens need to be viewed: that in the OTU, the physical and chemical constraints of habitable worlds contribute to similar ecological niches, that convergent evolution results from adaptation to those niches by different organisms, and that a comparable convergent cultural evolution takes place among intelligent species. This is a valid approach found in many works of speculative fiction.
While this may not appeal to those who want their aliens to be inscrutable enigmas of extreme biochemistry, it does offer the singular advantage of providing an eminently playable approach for a sci-fi roleplaying game, one in which players are likely to (1) want to interact with alien species or (2) actually play an alien character. Aliens which share similar physical or cultural traits are a feature, not a bug - it's to the game's advantage that aliens and humans share as much physical and cultural baggage as they do, not its detriment.
Of course, if that's not your cup of tea, then it's all going to be silly and pointless - create your own ATU where the conditions you prefer are prevalent, or try another system or setting altogether.
As a final thought, I think you may be underplaying the alienness of some of the OTU sophonts. I don't think anyone in my Traveller campaigns ever equated Hivers with "clever politicians" or "advertisers," if for no other reason than my Hiver manipulations are Rube Goldberg-like in complexity producing inscrutable results. Bwaps aren't just the "bureaucratic" alien - their complex minds and rigorous training make them the undisputed masters of social feng shui as they seek to create and patterns and structures from the living beings of the universe.
mbrinkhues
February 16th, 2007, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
To me humans acting like KKree or Vagr Raiders of Hhkar or Hivers deserve to be shot where they stand and I freely admit that my real world reactions and dislikes shape my characters.
I think that's somewhat extreme myself. I mean, Hivers don't really act any different to clever politicians (a rarity, I know) or advertisers - not exactly something worth shooting someone where they stand. And I probably don't want to know what you think of other real world cultures that aren't your own...
</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry but Hivers are more than the mytical "clever politician". Unless you consider Stalin, Mussoline or Göbels "clever politicians". Manipulation the population of an enemy world to a point that the enemie has to perform genocide on them, massively changing a race and it's behaviour and doing what they did in 1248 is far past what is acceptabel.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I never said Aliens as PC, there are few races in Traveller that actually work as PC (Bwap maybe).Bwap are classic "humans in funny suits", they have one one schtick and that's it - they're the "bureaucrat race". They could easily be replaced by humans filling the same niche, and nothing would really change much (hell, the Vilani are very bureaucratic as it is). </font>[/QUOTE]That is why the Bwap are the race that might work. Again, there is more to a Bwap than that in GT but one might get away with wet Bureaucrat
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
To me humans acting like KKree or Vagr Raiders of Hhkar or Hivers deserve to be shot where they stand and I freely admit that my real world reactions and dislikes shape my characters.
I think that's somewhat extreme myself. I mean, Hivers don't really act any different to clever politicians (a rarity, I know) or advertisers - not exactly something worth shooting someone where they stand. And I probably don't want to know what you think of other real world cultures that aren't your own...
</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry but Hivers are more than the mytical "clever politician". Unless you consider Stalin, Mussoline or Göbels "clever politicians". Manipulation the population of an enemy world to a point that the enemie has to perform genocide on them, massively changing a race and it's behaviour and doing what they did in 1248 is far past what is acceptabel.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I never said Aliens as PC, there are few races in Traveller that actually work as PC (Bwap maybe).Bwap are classic "humans in funny suits", they have one one schtick and that's it - they're the "bureaucrat race". They could easily be replaced by humans filling the same niche, and nothing would really change much (hell, the Vilani are very bureaucratic as it is). </font>[/QUOTE]That is why the Bwap are the race that might work. Again, there is more to a Bwap than that in GT but one might get away with wet Bureaucrat
Liam Devlin
February 16th, 2007, 11:19 PM
Well, here we are...
I'm with 'Crow & others--removal of key portions of the setting = X < Traveller, & therefore not Traveller, but yields instead a setting with "Traveller (insert users choice) game mechanics".
+I'm not for removing any of Traveller's aliens --that's my job as a GM to make them more realistic/ believable in game play: that includes sentient & non-sentient creatures.
+Aliens as Player characters-- I've had folks play Vargr, Aslan, Ithklur, Droyne, and Hivers. No one played a K'Kree. Not one. They make a dandy NPC race though. Bwap? Sure. The perfect Bureaucratic race match up for the Vilani <grins>, and its damp/moist, not "wet" Pols, MB--think Skinks, walking upright ;)
If I wanted "rubber-suited" aliens, I'd play in the Gene Roddenberry any-alien & humans are sexually viable/ compatible 'Verse, Not this one. I refuse to comment on the plethora of half-Vulcans, 1/2 Klingons, 1/2 Betazoids, Orions, and so on, beyond which is fantasy-setting shtuff in RPG's, not hard science of what we understand of DNA today. Again--Not Traveller.
+The Jump Drive is the Jump drive.--Now a more realistic way of using it/ explaining it would be using acceleration time, and then punching out when escape velocity is achieved--as Bryan Gibson does in his ATU "Terran Praesidium" setting. Same amount of time is used up/ and same distances crossed / Same TL needed for the Jays to achieve their distance/ fuel requirements. His is an ATU example using realism, & an alternate timeline-historical setting. The 'week-in-the-hole" still stands as one of the reasons why a great many Historical events occurred the way they did.
+Historical setting 1st Imperium to the 4th. Sorry GURPS fans, diverging off into 1117+ "it never happened" (no Rebellion) made GT an ATU as I define it.
+Realistic Stars & System generation --Here I as the GM like to use the best known science available. I know folks who've played this game from DAY 1, and they still haven't wrapped their brain around the UWP digit data string for worlds. CT began, then MT picked it up; TNE continued and added to the process (dropping the infamous Type VI stars). Why shouldn't a new version update the process? There is precedence, after all. Only MWM holds that answer.
+Realism in the game, per se. I like to put cause & effect into the game. I like the players to have to make real-life type decisions in their adventures.
Example: So ya'll Succesfully Hijack a starship, don't wonder why you're being hunted, okay? The law is the law, and while you can get away now..you're still running, they're still waiting.
Another example: Law level 0 means the same applies to any Law enforcement team of that System Government response to YOUR lack of lawfulness is one of my favorites. Don't expect a warm fuzzy shrug, and when you open up with an Autopistol in a crowded SPA terminal there, or yell "I've got a BOMB" there. Expect the most extreme prejudice to be meaningfully applied in the most expedient fashion.
Example: Choosing who lives or dies often occurs in real life, and sometimes you face the choice of the ones you love, the ones you can save, and the ones you can't.
Example: A Successful ending to an adventure isn't always "a Happily ever after". You can win against all of the odds, and still be a pauper. Sometimes the heroes die, the asteroid strikes the planet, the jump drive totally criticals out.
The above are all My takes on realism & Traveller. Thought I'd share.
Whose next?
I'm with 'Crow & others--removal of key portions of the setting = X < Traveller, & therefore not Traveller, but yields instead a setting with "Traveller (insert users choice) game mechanics".
+I'm not for removing any of Traveller's aliens --that's my job as a GM to make them more realistic/ believable in game play: that includes sentient & non-sentient creatures.
+Aliens as Player characters-- I've had folks play Vargr, Aslan, Ithklur, Droyne, and Hivers. No one played a K'Kree. Not one. They make a dandy NPC race though. Bwap? Sure. The perfect Bureaucratic race match up for the Vilani <grins>, and its damp/moist, not "wet" Pols, MB--think Skinks, walking upright ;)
If I wanted "rubber-suited" aliens, I'd play in the Gene Roddenberry any-alien & humans are sexually viable/ compatible 'Verse, Not this one. I refuse to comment on the plethora of half-Vulcans, 1/2 Klingons, 1/2 Betazoids, Orions, and so on, beyond which is fantasy-setting shtuff in RPG's, not hard science of what we understand of DNA today. Again--Not Traveller.
+The Jump Drive is the Jump drive.--Now a more realistic way of using it/ explaining it would be using acceleration time, and then punching out when escape velocity is achieved--as Bryan Gibson does in his ATU "Terran Praesidium" setting. Same amount of time is used up/ and same distances crossed / Same TL needed for the Jays to achieve their distance/ fuel requirements. His is an ATU example using realism, & an alternate timeline-historical setting. The 'week-in-the-hole" still stands as one of the reasons why a great many Historical events occurred the way they did.
+Historical setting 1st Imperium to the 4th. Sorry GURPS fans, diverging off into 1117+ "it never happened" (no Rebellion) made GT an ATU as I define it.
+Realistic Stars & System generation --Here I as the GM like to use the best known science available. I know folks who've played this game from DAY 1, and they still haven't wrapped their brain around the UWP digit data string for worlds. CT began, then MT picked it up; TNE continued and added to the process (dropping the infamous Type VI stars). Why shouldn't a new version update the process? There is precedence, after all. Only MWM holds that answer.
+Realism in the game, per se. I like to put cause & effect into the game. I like the players to have to make real-life type decisions in their adventures.
Example: So ya'll Succesfully Hijack a starship, don't wonder why you're being hunted, okay? The law is the law, and while you can get away now..you're still running, they're still waiting.
Another example: Law level 0 means the same applies to any Law enforcement team of that System Government response to YOUR lack of lawfulness is one of my favorites. Don't expect a warm fuzzy shrug, and when you open up with an Autopistol in a crowded SPA terminal there, or yell "I've got a BOMB" there. Expect the most extreme prejudice to be meaningfully applied in the most expedient fashion.
Example: Choosing who lives or dies often occurs in real life, and sometimes you face the choice of the ones you love, the ones you can save, and the ones you can't.
Example: A Successful ending to an adventure isn't always "a Happily ever after". You can win against all of the odds, and still be a pauper. Sometimes the heroes die, the asteroid strikes the planet, the jump drive totally criticals out.
The above are all My takes on realism & Traveller. Thought I'd share.
Whose next?
Rhialto the Marvelous
February 17th, 2007, 01:12 AM
As I said elsewhere, I'm with Mal all the way on the Aslan and Vargr. All other aliens I find tolerable if administered sparingly (again, no Star Wars cantina, please).
Thing is, as somebody (Mal himself?) pointed out somewhere: you can remove the cats and dogs from your TU no problem. They're very modular. What would really change? Especially if the niceties of canon history don't bother you?
I think Marc deserves some credit as a designer for this pick-and-choose modularity. You can almost not play D&D without Elves & Dwarves. But Traveller is different.
Thing is, as somebody (Mal himself?) pointed out somewhere: you can remove the cats and dogs from your TU no problem. They're very modular. What would really change? Especially if the niceties of canon history don't bother you?
I think Marc deserves some credit as a designer for this pick-and-choose modularity. You can almost not play D&D without Elves & Dwarves. But Traveller is different.
Malenfant
February 17th, 2007, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
Thing is, as somebody (Mal himself?) pointed out somewhere: you can remove the cats and dogs from your TU no problem. They're very modular. What would really change? Especially if the niceties of canon history don't bother you?
I think Marc deserves some credit as a designer for this pick-and-choose modularity. You can almost not play D&D without Elves & Dwarves. But Traveller is different. Not sure if I was the one that pointed that out. I recall saying that the Aslan and Vargr are largely on the borders, and that most of the interesting stuff in the setting happens between the Vilani, Solomani and Zhodani. You could get rid of the Aslan and Vargr from your average 3I-set traveller game and not really notice that much difference.
I think it's mostly because they're on the borders of the 3I anyway, and the main settings for Traveller have focussed on Imperial space mostly. I don't see much evidence for any deliberately cunning modular design here... elves and dwarves in D&D are usually thoroughly mixed up with the humans, whereas the major aliens in Trav are mostly in their own empires away from the 3I.
Thing is, as somebody (Mal himself?) pointed out somewhere: you can remove the cats and dogs from your TU no problem. They're very modular. What would really change? Especially if the niceties of canon history don't bother you?
I think Marc deserves some credit as a designer for this pick-and-choose modularity. You can almost not play D&D without Elves & Dwarves. But Traveller is different. Not sure if I was the one that pointed that out. I recall saying that the Aslan and Vargr are largely on the borders, and that most of the interesting stuff in the setting happens between the Vilani, Solomani and Zhodani. You could get rid of the Aslan and Vargr from your average 3I-set traveller game and not really notice that much difference.
I think it's mostly because they're on the borders of the 3I anyway, and the main settings for Traveller have focussed on Imperial space mostly. I don't see much evidence for any deliberately cunning modular design here... elves and dwarves in D&D are usually thoroughly mixed up with the humans, whereas the major aliens in Trav are mostly in their own empires away from the 3I.
Rhialto the Marvelous
February 17th, 2007, 01:31 AM
That's my point, Mal! But you've been so grumpy these past couple of days you wouldn't give Marc credit for general relativity if he had discovered it. tongue.gif
I'm telling you, he's better than you think... simply to have made known space as BIG as it is is a stroke of genius. In a space this size, you can lose anything you don't like to see in your own TU.
I'm telling you, he's better than you think... simply to have made known space as BIG as it is is a stroke of genius. In a space this size, you can lose anything you don't like to see in your own TU.
Malenfant
February 17th, 2007, 01:51 AM
Wait, you realise I'm disagreeing with you, right? ;)
At first the 3I setting didn't even exist, so anything could go (well, so long as it had jump drive that worked a certain way, and PCs that were older than your D&D standards, etc). And the 3I setting was built fairly piecemeal anyway.
Yes, the blanks mean that you can customise it to how you please, but I don't think it was purposefully designed to be like that from the start, I think it's just an unintended but desirable side effect that fell out of the way the setting was growing.
And if that was actually the intent, then why is canon even an issue to anyone? I gather that Marc is wanting to produce a Second Survey for T5 where every sector in the 3I is defined - there's no gaps there for people to do their own thing in. So if it really was a 'stroke of genius' to allow people to do that, he seems to be taking steps to change that now.
At first the 3I setting didn't even exist, so anything could go (well, so long as it had jump drive that worked a certain way, and PCs that were older than your D&D standards, etc). And the 3I setting was built fairly piecemeal anyway.
Yes, the blanks mean that you can customise it to how you please, but I don't think it was purposefully designed to be like that from the start, I think it's just an unintended but desirable side effect that fell out of the way the setting was growing.
And if that was actually the intent, then why is canon even an issue to anyone? I gather that Marc is wanting to produce a Second Survey for T5 where every sector in the 3I is defined - there's no gaps there for people to do their own thing in. So if it really was a 'stroke of genius' to allow people to do that, he seems to be taking steps to change that now.
far-trader
February 17th, 2007, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
...And if that was actually the intent, then why is canon even an issue to anyone? I gather that Marc is wanting to produce a Second Survey for T5 where every sector in the 3I is defined - there's no gaps there for people to do their own thing in. So if it really was a 'stroke of genius' to allow people to do that, he seems to be taking steps to change that now. As the original* Grognardy Gearheadonist Canonmonger(tm) (hey, where's my favorite and onlyist licensed GGC been of late anyway?) I tend to take up canon as an issue only for official answers to OTU matters. For my own game, and most any one I'd want to play in I expect certain creative deviations. Makes the whole "It's not Traveller" issue a bit of a moot point for me.
* well not really, but I did coin the turn of phrase ;) I think
But anyway, onto the point I was aiming for, tangent to topic though it may be (hold still ya silly point, how am I s'posed to hit a moving target) I get the feeling that the current RPG crowd wants it all detailed, complete with guided adventures. Checklists to follow on how to present the scenario. Fully detailed NPCs including actual scripts of repsonses to expected lines of PC inquiry. Etc., etc...
So it's not surprising that Marc intends to attempt to give them that in the form of a fully detailed universe. It's what they want. He'll fail of course. Not for trying but because it's impossible to satisfy that level of completeness.
It used to be the ideal was "give me the tools" to create my game. Be that a fantasy setting with magic and swords, elves and trolls, dragons and demons. Or a modern setting, an historical setting, a horror setting, a campy setting, or a future setting. Now it seems the call from the market is "give me the setting" and tell me how to play your game. I dunno, maybe it's just the cynic in me. I long for the days of players and refs creating homespun stories rather than comforming to packaged modules of complete A to proceed to B by doing C :( Yeah I'm just an old coot graemlins/file_28.gif You young uns and your fancy percentiles, why I remember when all we had was a coin to flip. One coin mind you. We had to share that and wrap up the game before the pizza arrived since that was the delivery tip graemlins/file_22.gif
...And if that was actually the intent, then why is canon even an issue to anyone? I gather that Marc is wanting to produce a Second Survey for T5 where every sector in the 3I is defined - there's no gaps there for people to do their own thing in. So if it really was a 'stroke of genius' to allow people to do that, he seems to be taking steps to change that now. As the original* Grognardy Gearheadonist Canonmonger(tm) (hey, where's my favorite and onlyist licensed GGC been of late anyway?) I tend to take up canon as an issue only for official answers to OTU matters. For my own game, and most any one I'd want to play in I expect certain creative deviations. Makes the whole "It's not Traveller" issue a bit of a moot point for me.
* well not really, but I did coin the turn of phrase ;) I think
But anyway, onto the point I was aiming for, tangent to topic though it may be (hold still ya silly point, how am I s'posed to hit a moving target) I get the feeling that the current RPG crowd wants it all detailed, complete with guided adventures. Checklists to follow on how to present the scenario. Fully detailed NPCs including actual scripts of repsonses to expected lines of PC inquiry. Etc., etc...
So it's not surprising that Marc intends to attempt to give them that in the form of a fully detailed universe. It's what they want. He'll fail of course. Not for trying but because it's impossible to satisfy that level of completeness.
It used to be the ideal was "give me the tools" to create my game. Be that a fantasy setting with magic and swords, elves and trolls, dragons and demons. Or a modern setting, an historical setting, a horror setting, a campy setting, or a future setting. Now it seems the call from the market is "give me the setting" and tell me how to play your game. I dunno, maybe it's just the cynic in me. I long for the days of players and refs creating homespun stories rather than comforming to packaged modules of complete A to proceed to B by doing C :( Yeah I'm just an old coot graemlins/file_28.gif You young uns and your fancy percentiles, why I remember when all we had was a coin to flip. One coin mind you. We had to share that and wrap up the game before the pizza arrived since that was the delivery tip graemlins/file_22.gif
Blue Ghost
February 17th, 2007, 03:47 AM
*shrugs* :rolleyes:
Is this discussion really neccesary?
Is this discussion really neccesary?
Malenfant
February 17th, 2007, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
*shrugs* :rolleyes:
Is this discussion really neccesary? Very few discussions on this board can be called "necessary". If the existence of this particular discussion offends you so much, then by all means go find another discussion to post in that interests you instead - nobody's forcing you to contribute anything here or to even read this thread.
So far there's been six pages of discussion here, so evidently it must be something that some people consider to be worth talking about.
*shrugs* :rolleyes:
Is this discussion really neccesary? Very few discussions on this board can be called "necessary". If the existence of this particular discussion offends you so much, then by all means go find another discussion to post in that interests you instead - nobody's forcing you to contribute anything here or to even read this thread.
So far there's been six pages of discussion here, so evidently it must be something that some people consider to be worth talking about.
Liam Devlin
February 17th, 2007, 05:03 AM
Come to think of it Mal, the earliest UWP's I recall seeing didn't even have stellar data on them, they were just: A987654-A B Ri 512 Im
MT's Rebellion Sourcebook (page 34) shows of the 19 Imperial Depot UWP's only three had gas giants, as late as 1987 (date of publication). But No Stellar data...zip, nada, zilch.
Berka's CT Sector site here:
http://zho.berka.com/data/CLASSIC/
for example, is entirely devoid of any Stellar data, making such an undertaking possible (gigantic of course, but possible).
Would it still be traveller afterwards? yes.
2.) On the issues of removal/ or transmogriphication of Aliens into Humans with differing cultures (aka the Aslan & Vargr), I see your point from the "where their empires lay" POV, but once they were meshed with the broader 3I, 2I, 1I historical perspectives it changes too much of that part of the setting for my taste.
Is it doable? Yes.
Would it be Traveller or an ATU with traveller mechanics?-IMO, an ATU.
3.) On the issue of habitable worlds/ and High Pop rockballs, it hasn't come up among in game play between players & I "why" there were 4-5 billion here, when there were utterly better survivable worlds elsewhere in my MT, TNE and later Tne: 1248 campaigns...(I played CT, never reffed it, FWIW). It added to the tragedy and near sightedness of the people in the metaplot of the Collapse--I simply looked at it as they went there for the Jobs & good economic benefis, unknowingly as the rebellion shattered the Imperium that in eight-ten years they'd be gasping for air, killing one another for a berth to get off a coffin of their own making.
Some of the Minimum TL's to survive on a world, and MSP issues we've taken to task in TNE:1248, which were both positive steps in the right direction, IMO, and were ones which I was but one among many helped to shape, yourself included.
That being said, applying those kind of changes to the pre-TNE, pre MT era Traveller would change the setting to some extent, poulation-wise. that's more of an undertaking than even I have time for, trust me.
Is it doable? yes.
Is it still traveller after it is done, or is it an "ATU"?
In so much as certain High Population centers might have to be "moved", yes, with minor tweaks to certain worlds.
The final line: The more you change, the less it becomes Traveller in its setting.
+Realistic Stars-No problem
+Retrofitting worlds to better reflect real Stars--minor tweak to orbits, and the majority of these worlds have never been done anyway. Again, no Problem. Start Changing all of the populations, you've bought yourself a self inflicted headache for 11,000 worlds+ the rest of charted space (see Berka's site and start counting the sectors thus done.. :eek: )
+Changing the Alien races--Nope. graemlins/file_28.gif
I await your counter arguments,
sincerely,
MT's Rebellion Sourcebook (page 34) shows of the 19 Imperial Depot UWP's only three had gas giants, as late as 1987 (date of publication). But No Stellar data...zip, nada, zilch.
Berka's CT Sector site here:
http://zho.berka.com/data/CLASSIC/
for example, is entirely devoid of any Stellar data, making such an undertaking possible (gigantic of course, but possible).
Would it still be traveller afterwards? yes.
2.) On the issues of removal/ or transmogriphication of Aliens into Humans with differing cultures (aka the Aslan & Vargr), I see your point from the "where their empires lay" POV, but once they were meshed with the broader 3I, 2I, 1I historical perspectives it changes too much of that part of the setting for my taste.
Is it doable? Yes.
Would it be Traveller or an ATU with traveller mechanics?-IMO, an ATU.
3.) On the issue of habitable worlds/ and High Pop rockballs, it hasn't come up among in game play between players & I "why" there were 4-5 billion here, when there were utterly better survivable worlds elsewhere in my MT, TNE and later Tne: 1248 campaigns...(I played CT, never reffed it, FWIW). It added to the tragedy and near sightedness of the people in the metaplot of the Collapse--I simply looked at it as they went there for the Jobs & good economic benefis, unknowingly as the rebellion shattered the Imperium that in eight-ten years they'd be gasping for air, killing one another for a berth to get off a coffin of their own making.
Some of the Minimum TL's to survive on a world, and MSP issues we've taken to task in TNE:1248, which were both positive steps in the right direction, IMO, and were ones which I was but one among many helped to shape, yourself included.
That being said, applying those kind of changes to the pre-TNE, pre MT era Traveller would change the setting to some extent, poulation-wise. that's more of an undertaking than even I have time for, trust me.
Is it doable? yes.
Is it still traveller after it is done, or is it an "ATU"?
In so much as certain High Population centers might have to be "moved", yes, with minor tweaks to certain worlds.
The final line: The more you change, the less it becomes Traveller in its setting.
+Realistic Stars-No problem
+Retrofitting worlds to better reflect real Stars--minor tweak to orbits, and the majority of these worlds have never been done anyway. Again, no Problem. Start Changing all of the populations, you've bought yourself a self inflicted headache for 11,000 worlds+ the rest of charted space (see Berka's site and start counting the sectors thus done.. :eek: )
+Changing the Alien races--Nope. graemlins/file_28.gif
I await your counter arguments,
sincerely,
Madarin Dude
February 17th, 2007, 07:49 AM
I think the aliens are necessary alien to a point but nto so extreme. I agree what was said abotu Rodenberry aliens half vulcans etc. You need a few thigns one is slow communications and travel the stargates just kind of change the feel of it. One of the things that is so good is the feel of being at sea and beign detached from the universe in jump space add FtL coms and jump gates a major part of the feel is gone.
Malenfant
February 17th, 2007, 11:53 AM
+Retrofitting worlds to better reflect real Stars--minor tweak to orbits, and the majority of these worlds have never been done anyway. Again, no Problem. Start Changing all of the populations, you've bought yourself a self inflicted headache for 11,000 worlds+ the rest of charted space (see Berka's site and start counting the sectors thus done.. [Eek!] )I'm pretty sure I've presented a realistic Regina system somewhere on CotI before, at least in parts. That's one of the iconic systems, and it's so full of problems - the close white dwarf companion, the huge size of Regina and other satellites compared to its primary, the extreme distance of such a large satellite as Regina from its primary, the habitability of Regina itself (it'd be tidelocked to Assiniboia... and given its rather long orbital period its day length would be extreme).
All of that can be solved if the system is tweaked, but most likely the easiest way to do it is to have Regina as an individual planet orbiting Lusor in the habitable zone.
All of that can be solved if the system is tweaked, but most likely the easiest way to do it is to have Regina as an individual planet orbiting Lusor in the habitable zone.
Blue Ghost
February 17th, 2007, 02:13 PM
'Wasn't offended, Mal, just curious. It seems to be a lot of rehashed material, and I thought some of the veterans might've pointed that out.
Malenfant
February 17th, 2007, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
'Wasn't offended, Mal, just curious. It seems to be a lot of rehashed material, and I thought some of the veterans might've pointed that out. Take a look elsewhere here. Can you honestly find many discussions about Traveller and the OTU that haven't been rehashed or done before?
'Wasn't offended, Mal, just curious. It seems to be a lot of rehashed material, and I thought some of the veterans might've pointed that out. Take a look elsewhere here. Can you honestly find many discussions about Traveller and the OTU that haven't been rehashed or done before?
The Shaman
February 17th, 2007, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
Is this discussion really neccesary?Some roleplaying gamers enjoy this sort of meta-gaming - others just aren't happy unless they have something to rail against. ;)
I prefer "value-added" discussion myself, stuff I can take back to our game: rules interpretations or variants, setting chrome, or adventure seeds.
There are critics everywhere, and sites like this one give them an outlet. I refuse to let their issues spoil my fun. smile.gif
Is this discussion really neccesary?Some roleplaying gamers enjoy this sort of meta-gaming - others just aren't happy unless they have something to rail against. ;)
I prefer "value-added" discussion myself, stuff I can take back to our game: rules interpretations or variants, setting chrome, or adventure seeds.
There are critics everywhere, and sites like this one give them an outlet. I refuse to let their issues spoil my fun. smile.gif
Malenfant
February 17th, 2007, 04:50 PM
Some people sneer at those who "play with games" instead of just play them, but personally I'd just tell those sneerers to mind their own business. As long as everyone is enjoying themselves then nobody else has any business telling others how they should enjoy their games - and certainly nobody else has any business telling anyone else what to do with what they've spent their money on.
You can refuse all you like to not let us "spoil your fun", but you're responding to a threat to your fun that doesn't exist. Personally I don't care if you play a completely unrealistic game, if you're enjoying yourself then by all means carry on as you are.
You can refuse all you like to not let us "spoil your fun", but you're responding to a threat to your fun that doesn't exist. Personally I don't care if you play a completely unrealistic game, if you're enjoying yourself then by all means carry on as you are.
The Shaman
February 17th, 2007, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Some people sneer at those who "play with games" instead of just play them, but personally I'd just tell those sneerers to mind their own business.Perhaps you'd be happier with the editorial control of a blog instead of posting your thoughts in a chaotic environment like a message board?
I'm not at all sure if this site is good for your blood pressure. ;) Originally posted by Malenfant:
As long as everyone is enjoying themselves then nobody else has any business telling others how they should enjoy their games. . . Does that extend to telling them games are better if they are more realistic?
(The unspoken inference being that if your game isn't realistic, it is somehow inferior to one that is. I'm not assuming that's your intent, but you do tread very close upon that line, unwittingly or not.) Originally posted by Malenfant:
You can refuse all you like to not let us "spoil your fun". . .Oh, I am most decidedly a refusenik at heart! Originally posted by Malenfant:
. . .but you're responding to a threat to your fun that doesn't exist.No, I'm saying that there is no threat to my game that can come from discussions like this one, which incidentally I've been happy to play along with quite a bit more than is my usual inclination. Originally posted by Malenfant:
Personally I don't care if you play a completely unrealistic game. . .In a courtroom they call that, "Assuming facts not in evidence."
You assert repeatedly that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow "anti-realism." Since you've never played with our group, I don't really think you're in a position to comment on that with any authority whatsoever.
What I have said is that I value playability first and foremost. That doesn't inherently preclude attempting to create a realistic setting. Originally posted by Malenfant:
. . .if you're enjoying yourself then by all means carry on as you are.Are you giving me permission, or offering a blessing? ;)
Some people sneer at those who "play with games" instead of just play them, but personally I'd just tell those sneerers to mind their own business.Perhaps you'd be happier with the editorial control of a blog instead of posting your thoughts in a chaotic environment like a message board?
I'm not at all sure if this site is good for your blood pressure. ;) Originally posted by Malenfant:
As long as everyone is enjoying themselves then nobody else has any business telling others how they should enjoy their games. . . Does that extend to telling them games are better if they are more realistic?
(The unspoken inference being that if your game isn't realistic, it is somehow inferior to one that is. I'm not assuming that's your intent, but you do tread very close upon that line, unwittingly or not.) Originally posted by Malenfant:
You can refuse all you like to not let us "spoil your fun". . .Oh, I am most decidedly a refusenik at heart! Originally posted by Malenfant:
. . .but you're responding to a threat to your fun that doesn't exist.No, I'm saying that there is no threat to my game that can come from discussions like this one, which incidentally I've been happy to play along with quite a bit more than is my usual inclination. Originally posted by Malenfant:
Personally I don't care if you play a completely unrealistic game. . .In a courtroom they call that, "Assuming facts not in evidence."
You assert repeatedly that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow "anti-realism." Since you've never played with our group, I don't really think you're in a position to comment on that with any authority whatsoever.
What I have said is that I value playability first and foremost. That doesn't inherently preclude attempting to create a realistic setting. Originally posted by Malenfant:
. . .if you're enjoying yourself then by all means carry on as you are.Are you giving me permission, or offering a blessing? ;)
Malenfant
February 17th, 2007, 06:38 PM
Wow, I have no idea how anyone could possibly misread what I said so badly. Sometimes I think people are just looking to pounce on anything I say for the sake of trying to paint me as a bad guy. Your responses couldn't be further from what I said.
I don't recall ever telling anyone that they're playing their games wrong if they're not doing it realistically and shouldn't be enjoying themselves if they do that. My issue has always been with what's written in the books, it's never been with how people play their games.
What other people infer from what I say is entirely up to them, but that doesn't mean I'm actually saying that. On the contrary, I try to be as clear as possible about what I mean (the odd editing slip gets through occasionally though). So you can infer all you like that I'm claiming that people who play unrealistic games are playing it wrong and shouldn't be having fun that way, but as far as I can recall I've never said that or even implied that.
In a courtroom they call that, "Assuming facts not in evidence."I thought it was quite clear from the context that I was talking generally, not specifying you (The Shaman) specifically. Replace "you" with "anyone" if it makes it any clearer.
The point is that how anyone plays their games or how they enjoy them or even if they play the games at all is completely irrelevant to any discussion about the merits of realism or what Traveller is.
I don't recall ever telling anyone that they're playing their games wrong if they're not doing it realistically and shouldn't be enjoying themselves if they do that. My issue has always been with what's written in the books, it's never been with how people play their games.
What other people infer from what I say is entirely up to them, but that doesn't mean I'm actually saying that. On the contrary, I try to be as clear as possible about what I mean (the odd editing slip gets through occasionally though). So you can infer all you like that I'm claiming that people who play unrealistic games are playing it wrong and shouldn't be having fun that way, but as far as I can recall I've never said that or even implied that.
In a courtroom they call that, "Assuming facts not in evidence."I thought it was quite clear from the context that I was talking generally, not specifying you (The Shaman) specifically. Replace "you" with "anyone" if it makes it any clearer.
The point is that how anyone plays their games or how they enjoy them or even if they play the games at all is completely irrelevant to any discussion about the merits of realism or what Traveller is.
Blue Ghost
February 17th, 2007, 08:11 PM
Chill, Mal smile.gif
It's all in good Traveller fun.
Let the esoterics continue... tongue.gif
Shaman, that was kind of the answer I was looking for. I wasn't sure if anybody had caught on or not.
Please, all, carry on ;)
It's all in good Traveller fun.
Let the esoterics continue... tongue.gif
Shaman, that was kind of the answer I was looking for. I wasn't sure if anybody had caught on or not.
Please, all, carry on ;)
The Shaman
February 17th, 2007, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Wow, I have no idea how anyone could possibly misread what I said so badly.I'll bet you are a HUGE Eric Burdon fan. ;)
(Me, I'm more of a Ritchie Blackmore (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6570771584475346533&q=space+truckin) man, myself.)
Pacem.
Wow, I have no idea how anyone could possibly misread what I said so badly.I'll bet you are a HUGE Eric Burdon fan. ;)
(Me, I'm more of a Ritchie Blackmore (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6570771584475346533&q=space+truckin) man, myself.)
Pacem.
Merxiless
February 22nd, 2007, 07:29 PM
I just got here from many month's absence, and have been catching up for a day or two.
*sigh*
[/Engage Irony Drive]
Joe: "Hey, I'm playing this great hard core science fiction game, it's really fun, especially since I can't leave my home solar system, in less than a real-time year."
Fred: That's grea- wait, what? You can take 6 Gees during the trip? What character class are you? Flying Strawberry Jam?"
Joe: Yeah! We can't move stuff around with our minds, either! No places to learn any of that, no Jedi Acadmies, no Vulcan monasteries, no Psionic Institutes!
Fred: Man. What about swords? Can I have an energy sword?
Joe: Huh, well that's all Hollywood crap. I mean, most of that stuff - Gee, haven't you ever read any Physics books?!
Fred: No! Woot! I want to go to a place like Tattoine. Or Jack Vance's Big Planet. Or Trantor.
Joe: Man. Sorry for you. You need to go off in your corner and play 30 year old Traveller. I'll see you around when you've seen the light. Oh yeah, it travels at 186,282 miles per second. In Vacuum.
[/Disengage Irony Drive]
Demonstrate to anyone, why the game would be better if minor changes were made to make it based more on how things actually work, in real life.
It's a game. Supposed to be fun, says so right there on the label. Adventures among 10,000 worlds. Not just the one or the nine or the however many number it is this week.
Win me over. Force me to burn 5 crates of Traveller materials in disgust and loathing, because I've been clueless, and misled by the Forces of Darkness, slinking around the Temples of GDW, all these years.
If anyone out there can design a system that both realistic, AND is more fun than what we have in Traveller, and I swear, I'll buy it, because it will be well worth the 50.00+ cover price.
I see pages of "discussions", and "debate", but no .pdf or hardcover.
You claim:
"It'd be better because that's how things actually work!. Things would make more sense then, and not conflict because it was randomly thrown together."
How they work? You mean like Dragon's breath and Magic? Jump Drive, and Black Globes? Clarke's Technology as Magic? How DOES that work?
"I'm not sure I understand the fear that people have of what the game would be if it was made more realistic."
Whoah, I thought you meant Ultra Realistic. You mean, slightly realistic enough for you, but retaining and discarding the elements you wish. Right? And call it Traveller as a whole?
Go forth, and write it. It will either make you money, or fail.
"The fact that Hivers are big starfish or Aslan are cat-like isn't the thing that makes them cool. "
Wrong. Your word. You like to use it a lot on others.
Here's a clue: Talking cats that fly spaceships rock. Big starfish with Guns that wave their limbs to talk rock harder.
"By analogy, I don't think the fact that Planet X orbits a blue supergiant or a binary star or a red dwarf or whatever is what's making it interesting from a game perspective..."
Wrong. It's all about the flavor.
*sigh*
[/Engage Irony Drive]
Joe: "Hey, I'm playing this great hard core science fiction game, it's really fun, especially since I can't leave my home solar system, in less than a real-time year."
Fred: That's grea- wait, what? You can take 6 Gees during the trip? What character class are you? Flying Strawberry Jam?"
Joe: Yeah! We can't move stuff around with our minds, either! No places to learn any of that, no Jedi Acadmies, no Vulcan monasteries, no Psionic Institutes!
Fred: Man. What about swords? Can I have an energy sword?
Joe: Huh, well that's all Hollywood crap. I mean, most of that stuff - Gee, haven't you ever read any Physics books?!
Fred: No! Woot! I want to go to a place like Tattoine. Or Jack Vance's Big Planet. Or Trantor.
Joe: Man. Sorry for you. You need to go off in your corner and play 30 year old Traveller. I'll see you around when you've seen the light. Oh yeah, it travels at 186,282 miles per second. In Vacuum.
[/Disengage Irony Drive]
Demonstrate to anyone, why the game would be better if minor changes were made to make it based more on how things actually work, in real life.
It's a game. Supposed to be fun, says so right there on the label. Adventures among 10,000 worlds. Not just the one or the nine or the however many number it is this week.
Win me over. Force me to burn 5 crates of Traveller materials in disgust and loathing, because I've been clueless, and misled by the Forces of Darkness, slinking around the Temples of GDW, all these years.
If anyone out there can design a system that both realistic, AND is more fun than what we have in Traveller, and I swear, I'll buy it, because it will be well worth the 50.00+ cover price.
I see pages of "discussions", and "debate", but no .pdf or hardcover.
You claim:
"It'd be better because that's how things actually work!. Things would make more sense then, and not conflict because it was randomly thrown together."
How they work? You mean like Dragon's breath and Magic? Jump Drive, and Black Globes? Clarke's Technology as Magic? How DOES that work?
"I'm not sure I understand the fear that people have of what the game would be if it was made more realistic."
Whoah, I thought you meant Ultra Realistic. You mean, slightly realistic enough for you, but retaining and discarding the elements you wish. Right? And call it Traveller as a whole?
Go forth, and write it. It will either make you money, or fail.
"The fact that Hivers are big starfish or Aslan are cat-like isn't the thing that makes them cool. "
Wrong. Your word. You like to use it a lot on others.
Here's a clue: Talking cats that fly spaceships rock. Big starfish with Guns that wave their limbs to talk rock harder.
"By analogy, I don't think the fact that Planet X orbits a blue supergiant or a binary star or a red dwarf or whatever is what's making it interesting from a game perspective..."
Wrong. It's all about the flavor.
Malenfant
February 22nd, 2007, 08:03 PM
I see pages of "discussions", and "debate", but no .pdf or hardcoverTwo published JTAS articles ("Brown Dwarfs" and "Interstellar Wanderers" if you're curious), actually. Plus the world descriptions in the GT Sword Worlds book. Oh, and also co-author on SJG's Transhuman Space: Under Pressure (in which I wrote the realistic extraterretrial oceans chapter, though yes we were wrong about Titan). That enough for you?
The Sword Worlds book is a prime example of what I'm talking about though, I don't think the more realistic physical descriptions in there (and it took a lot of fiddling to get them to work, BTW) made the what's presented in the book any less fun or exciting at all.
But hey, if you want to believe that realism automatically means "all fun must be crushed out of the game", then that's up to you. That really isn't true at all though - realistic settings can be a lot of fun indeed, but to claim that to have fun you MUST have energy swords, or blue supergiants or nonsensical aliens, or anything else like that is as ridiculous as claiming that "realism destroys all fun".
The Sword Worlds book is a prime example of what I'm talking about though, I don't think the more realistic physical descriptions in there (and it took a lot of fiddling to get them to work, BTW) made the what's presented in the book any less fun or exciting at all.
But hey, if you want to believe that realism automatically means "all fun must be crushed out of the game", then that's up to you. That really isn't true at all though - realistic settings can be a lot of fun indeed, but to claim that to have fun you MUST have energy swords, or blue supergiants or nonsensical aliens, or anything else like that is as ridiculous as claiming that "realism destroys all fun".
Merxiless
February 22nd, 2007, 09:07 PM
It doesn't seem to me like more realism "crushes the fun" it just destroys the imaginative, storytelling aspects that are Space Opera, by definition.
I don't recall ever telling anyone that they're playing their games wrong if they're not doing it realistically and shouldn't be enjoying themselves if they do that. I personally need Blue Giant Stars, and Laser Pistols and Jump Drive. Space Empires, and huge ships with a hundred guns. Because going to the store for a pack of cigarettes in West Ohio is just. not. thrilling. epic. adventure.
"It's not Traveller, why not?"Traveller is whatever Marc Miller says it is. Regardless of anyone's feelings about it.
There's your answer. Here are some more:
If it doesn't allow Jump, it isn't Traveller.
If it doesn't allow for Felinoid or Wolfoid aliens, it's not Traveller.
I recall years ago, when "Real Science" said Gas Giants close in to a solar primary were "Impossible". Damn that Hubble telescope for it's hubris. Maybe a Traveller player designed it.
Traveller is not real science. Some aspects of it are fanciful, imaginary, and wholly fictional, or story elements.
Traveller players and referees who (please read closely) 'Enjoy the game as printed, in its various versions' know that, from the start.
Other people play something else, or start their own game company.
Trilling adventures. Deadly encounters. Imaginative worlds, based on well known authors of speculative science fiction.
If Traveller needs fixed, fix it in it's entirety, submit it as T5.5, have it be instantly recognized for its merit, and become everyone's hero, or write a "realistic" game system that rivals it.
If it's better than Traveller, or otherwise useful, I'll buy it, as a reference work, to add to my other shelves of sfrpg material.
I don't recall ever telling anyone that they're playing their games wrong if they're not doing it realistically and shouldn't be enjoying themselves if they do that. I personally need Blue Giant Stars, and Laser Pistols and Jump Drive. Space Empires, and huge ships with a hundred guns. Because going to the store for a pack of cigarettes in West Ohio is just. not. thrilling. epic. adventure.
"It's not Traveller, why not?"Traveller is whatever Marc Miller says it is. Regardless of anyone's feelings about it.
There's your answer. Here are some more:
If it doesn't allow Jump, it isn't Traveller.
If it doesn't allow for Felinoid or Wolfoid aliens, it's not Traveller.
I recall years ago, when "Real Science" said Gas Giants close in to a solar primary were "Impossible". Damn that Hubble telescope for it's hubris. Maybe a Traveller player designed it.
Traveller is not real science. Some aspects of it are fanciful, imaginary, and wholly fictional, or story elements.
Traveller players and referees who (please read closely) 'Enjoy the game as printed, in its various versions' know that, from the start.
Other people play something else, or start their own game company.
Trilling adventures. Deadly encounters. Imaginative worlds, based on well known authors of speculative science fiction.
If Traveller needs fixed, fix it in it's entirety, submit it as T5.5, have it be instantly recognized for its merit, and become everyone's hero, or write a "realistic" game system that rivals it.
If it's better than Traveller, or otherwise useful, I'll buy it, as a reference work, to add to my other shelves of sfrpg material.
Ishmael
February 23rd, 2007, 10:53 PM
I don't think the problem is so much about realism as its about OTU 'stuff' often not making reasonable sense ( like economics and airless 500km diameter rockballs with no water or atmosphere having populations in the billions...too often )
to me, such things form the foundation of the setting...if they aren't correct to at least the casual glance..the rest of the setting will be increasingly flawed and thus increasingly unbeleivable.
My personal hatred is for reactionless thrust and the fact that grav tech destroys other forms of transportation ( with grav tech, how can there be gunfights on top of burning zeppelins or cutlass duels on top of freight trains speeding through blizzards. )
it is for this reason that I mostly ignore OTU, which didn't really exist at all when I first started playing the game.
< I have to admit that these days, I mostly play *with* the game >
to me, such things form the foundation of the setting...if they aren't correct to at least the casual glance..the rest of the setting will be increasingly flawed and thus increasingly unbeleivable.
My personal hatred is for reactionless thrust and the fact that grav tech destroys other forms of transportation ( with grav tech, how can there be gunfights on top of burning zeppelins or cutlass duels on top of freight trains speeding through blizzards. )
it is for this reason that I mostly ignore OTU, which didn't really exist at all when I first started playing the game.
< I have to admit that these days, I mostly play *with* the game >
Pickles
February 23rd, 2007, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Ishmael James:
I don't think the problem is so much about realism as its about OTU 'stuff' often not making reasonable senseNail on the head. I think people are confusing 'realisn' with 'real life' when they react so negatively to the idea.
Maybe 'internal realism' is a better term to use?
I don't think the problem is so much about realism as its about OTU 'stuff' often not making reasonable senseNail on the head. I think people are confusing 'realisn' with 'real life' when they react so negatively to the idea.
Maybe 'internal realism' is a better term to use?
Merxiless
February 24th, 2007, 12:11 AM
I like to come up with explanations that "might" fit the weird results the dice I use to generate world give me. If I can't by any stretch, make a concept fit, I do, in fact modify it towards believability.
500km diameter rockballs with no water or atmosphere having populations in the billions.
I'm assuming there are no heavy metals, since it's a rocky core. Okay so mining for heavier metals is out. But the moon's crust has lithium, maybe some kind of lithium mine, hollowed out, or it's a gigantic sector hospital / military base. Maybe a significant portion is used for treating the toughest Bipolar cases in the sector, or perhaps a low Gee shipyard, depending on what else is in the system.
Yeah, stretching it, surely, but for me, that's part of the fun, explaining the anomalies.
I'm not reacting negatively to the "Realism" per se, it's in the way that the message is couched... "I'm right, your wrong, and My Own Brand of Realism to my Specifications should be Traveller. For Everyone."
That's how it comes off, at least to me.
I figure I paid for the game, let me play it. Silly, and nonsensical pulpish s-f or not, as I choose. But please don't mandate it for me.
500km diameter rockballs with no water or atmosphere having populations in the billions.
I'm assuming there are no heavy metals, since it's a rocky core. Okay so mining for heavier metals is out. But the moon's crust has lithium, maybe some kind of lithium mine, hollowed out, or it's a gigantic sector hospital / military base. Maybe a significant portion is used for treating the toughest Bipolar cases in the sector, or perhaps a low Gee shipyard, depending on what else is in the system.
Yeah, stretching it, surely, but for me, that's part of the fun, explaining the anomalies.
I'm not reacting negatively to the "Realism" per se, it's in the way that the message is couched... "I'm right, your wrong, and My Own Brand of Realism to my Specifications should be Traveller. For Everyone."
That's how it comes off, at least to me.
I figure I paid for the game, let me play it. Silly, and nonsensical pulpish s-f or not, as I choose. But please don't mandate it for me.
Malenfant
February 24th, 2007, 12:30 AM
I really cannot be held responsible for people reading things into what I say that aren't there.
I've made it abundantly clear here, over and over, that I'm really not interested in telling anyone how to enjoy their games. I asked a specific question, and then certain people took that to mean that I'm saying everyone else is wrong and that I'm trying to impose my gaming style on everyone. Which it utter BS.
I've made it abundantly clear here, over and over, that I'm really not interested in telling anyone how to enjoy their games. I asked a specific question, and then certain people took that to mean that I'm saying everyone else is wrong and that I'm trying to impose my gaming style on everyone. Which it utter BS.
Ishmael
February 24th, 2007, 11:19 AM
Merxiless: I have no problem trying to explain anomolies, but with the way the rules were originally written, there seem to be so many 'anomolies' that they really aren't anomolous anymore. For me at least, it causes the overall setting not make sense. It also brings economic issues into play...for that rockball..where is the food coming from? I can't sit well with "hydroponic farms" all the time...or that "ubunfdant fusion power makes everything possible"...or " the tech is more advanced than we presently know about "
As for " is it Traveller?"...of course it is!...every last incarnation of the game regardless of the style of play is still Traveller. There is more to Trav than the OTU ( which truly exists for only one person ).
The cool thing about this game is that most of what others use or invent for their own game can be used in other's games regardless of the style of play.
Thats the beauty of it..the original CT was universal...a toolbox to build any universe the players could imagine. To try to force it all into a single setting or else be labelled 'heretic' is ludicrous.
this is more about what style of play than about anything else.
<--- heretic and proud of it
As for " is it Traveller?"...of course it is!...every last incarnation of the game regardless of the style of play is still Traveller. There is more to Trav than the OTU ( which truly exists for only one person ).
The cool thing about this game is that most of what others use or invent for their own game can be used in other's games regardless of the style of play.
Thats the beauty of it..the original CT was universal...a toolbox to build any universe the players could imagine. To try to force it all into a single setting or else be labelled 'heretic' is ludicrous.
this is more about what style of play than about anything else.
<--- heretic and proud of it
Merxiless
February 24th, 2007, 01:04 PM
If these critiques undermine your confidence in the tools in Traveller, that means you're ultimately unhappy with the tools you have - otherwise you wouldn't care about the criticism.It's not criticism of the game, it is calling people who are happy with it Obsessive, and [insert past posts by Malenfant here].
You seem to be blaming other people for pointing out problems that you'd either consciously ignored or not considered before.The problem that I see is not that I have not examined Traveller canon in depth, and found it wanting. I don't believe that. Some of the planets are off. Maybe a lot of the Stars generated with Book 6 Scouts v1.0 are way off.
I consciously choose to ignore these things.
As a referee of my game, that's my perogative.
Planetary systems with white dwarfs. Binary systems with a close orbit.
My problem with your approach is that in this quest for "Realism" it will remove some or all of the imaginative elements that are a core foundation of my game.
I in fact do not want it to be 100% correct according to modern theories of astrophysics. It's a game. My players don't care. For them, it is the visual, the story, the action. If I want to worry about what lies beneath Titan, I'll make it up, and be happy. Period, end of story.
You make the stand that Realism will improve it. For all. But you are also acting as the person that will choose where that goes. It's not your responsibility. Your vote is one of a group. As is mine.
You have generated a more "realistic" planetary generation system. Some have adopted it. Grand.
I like the one that I have written myself, but I am in no position to try to make it "official," nor suggest is is "better" for anyone other than myself, and my group.
On the one hand Malenfant, you say "you do not tell anyone how to run Traveller." On the other hand, to you, people that are not willing to look at Traveller are aging guys with "heads up their arse"; Obsessive hold-outs to a dead game that needs to be brought up to modern marketing standards.
Your insulting tone makes it impossible for me, personally, to take anything that you have to offer to the community, not matter how well backed up by heavily researched science.
Seriously, no matter how many JTAS articles you've done, or what chapters of what publications you've worked on, give your words weight in my book, any more.
Go off, and rewrite Barsoom, Dejah thoris, Stories about Venus that have rain clouds and jungles. They are part and parcel of What Brought us here from the Pulps.
Why is that SUCH a problem for you to understand?
You seem to be blaming other people for pointing out problems that you'd either consciously ignored or not considered before.The problem that I see is not that I have not examined Traveller canon in depth, and found it wanting. I don't believe that. Some of the planets are off. Maybe a lot of the Stars generated with Book 6 Scouts v1.0 are way off.
I consciously choose to ignore these things.
As a referee of my game, that's my perogative.
Planetary systems with white dwarfs. Binary systems with a close orbit.
My problem with your approach is that in this quest for "Realism" it will remove some or all of the imaginative elements that are a core foundation of my game.
I in fact do not want it to be 100% correct according to modern theories of astrophysics. It's a game. My players don't care. For them, it is the visual, the story, the action. If I want to worry about what lies beneath Titan, I'll make it up, and be happy. Period, end of story.
You make the stand that Realism will improve it. For all. But you are also acting as the person that will choose where that goes. It's not your responsibility. Your vote is one of a group. As is mine.
You have generated a more "realistic" planetary generation system. Some have adopted it. Grand.
I like the one that I have written myself, but I am in no position to try to make it "official," nor suggest is is "better" for anyone other than myself, and my group.
On the one hand Malenfant, you say "you do not tell anyone how to run Traveller." On the other hand, to you, people that are not willing to look at Traveller are aging guys with "heads up their arse"; Obsessive hold-outs to a dead game that needs to be brought up to modern marketing standards.
Your insulting tone makes it impossible for me, personally, to take anything that you have to offer to the community, not matter how well backed up by heavily researched science.
Seriously, no matter how many JTAS articles you've done, or what chapters of what publications you've worked on, give your words weight in my book, any more.
Go off, and rewrite Barsoom, Dejah thoris, Stories about Venus that have rain clouds and jungles. They are part and parcel of What Brought us here from the Pulps.
Why is that SUCH a problem for you to understand?
Malenfant
February 24th, 2007, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Merxiless:
It's not criticism of the game, it is calling people who are happy with it ObsessiveWhich I've never done. I have never made a link between "people who are happy with Traveller" and "obsessive people". Those are not connected at all.
I consciously choose to ignore these things.OK, but you do realise those issues are still there whether you ignore them or not.
My problem with your approach is that in this quest for "Realism" it will remove some or all of the imaginative elements that are a core foundation of my game.Will it though? That's what I'm asking. Is having a Regina orbit a close binary when that can't really be the case that much of a 'core foundation' to your game that it falls apart completely if that is taken away? The fact that we replace two stars - the smaller of which isn't even visible at all from Regina in the glare of Lusor - with one just causes the whole thing to collapse does it? Really? I don't think it is at all.
I in fact do not want it to be 100% correct according to modern theories of astrophysics. It's a game. My players don't care. For them, it is the visual, the story, the action. If I want to worry about what lies beneath Titan, I'll make it up, and be happy. Period, end of story.That's fine. Enjoying what you play is what matters, I've never said anything to the contrary.
You make the stand that Realism will improve it.I'm saying that from experience. I can look at just a UWP and a star type and that can tell me a hell of a lot about the history of the system and what the planets on it are like. It is possible to get a LOT of supplemental information from what is provided if you know how to do it. Sure, most of it will be "chrome" (as mentioned on that thread), but it also gives you a lot of stuff to play with that you hadn't realised before.
For example, there's a secondary star in a near orbit in the system. As it turns out, in some cases that can pump the eccentricity and/or the inclination of planetary orbits further in. That gives you climate cycles to play with that would seriously influence the evolution of life on the planet. Sometimes those cycles are short enough that they'd be noticeable on a historical timescale, so maybe a colony established a few thousand years ago when the planet was in a nice circular orbit is now finding itself enduring long periods of deep freeze and short blistering summers as the planet's orbit is stretched out. Makes the place a bit more interesting, and you have a backup of saying "this really could happen" rather than just plucking some random thing out of the air that may or may not make any sense or be consistent with the environment.
Or even if none of that happens and you just have everything in roughly circular orbits, have you thought how much light and warmth that other star would provide? It might be bright enough to seriously affect daily cycles of life on the planet. It could just be a bright star in the sky (like Venus), or be bright enough to cast shadows and to see by at night (like the full moon), or it could be so bright that it causes significant scattering in the sky and basically turns night into day, in which case night would only truly fall when both stars rise and set at similar times. That could enormously influence life on the planet, not to mention ruling out such things as "waiting for when it's dark before we go sneak around that camp" and thus causing players to think of other ways to be subtle.
All of this just from stopping and thinking about how things would really be on these alien worlds, instead of just throwing random ideas together to make an inconsistent mess. Think of the realistic consequences of things and suddenly you see them in a new light.
Now I'm sure you could argue that it's too much effort and that it stops you from doing "cool stuff that could be fun" but I've not seen that to be the case. More often than not, thinking realistically actually creates new situations (that are also fun) that you most likely hadn't even considered before.
On the one hand Malenfant, you say "you do not tell anyone how to run Traveller." On the other hand, to you, people that are not willing to look at Traveller are aging guys with "heads up their arse"; Obsessive hold-outs to a dead game that needs to be brought up to modern marketing standards.Again, I have never made that connection at all, you just did that. My "heads up their arses" comment referred to people who think that what they believe about the popularity of the game in the RPG market and what they think it can do in the future if it continues on its current path takes precendence over the cold, hard facts of the current RPG market. It has nothing to do with how they play their games at all.
Your insulting tone makes it impossible for me, personally, to take anything that you have to offer to the community, not matter how well backed up by heavily researched science.Then that's your loss. Personally I'm primarily interested in the message rather than the messenger.
Go off, and rewrite Barsoom, Dejah thoris, Stories about Venus that have rain clouds and jungles. They are part and parcel of What Brought us here from the Pulps.I've no intention of doing that at all, because those are Space Opera or Pulp. They're not even remotely supposed to be realistic in any way at all, and to rewrite them would just destroy what makes them unique.
The problem here really is again Traveller's schizophrenia. With GURPS Space or Star HERO you had clearly divided options that could let you play Space Opera/Space Fantasy or Hard/Realistic SF. Nobody would argue that someone running a Space Opera using GURPS Space is "playing it wrong"... but Traveller never really made that distinction. It gave us Space Opera-like worldgen in Book 3, and then threw a hard-sf system at us in Book 6 and expected the two to co-exist. And later editions of the game have only propagated that contradiction - MT and TNE and GT felt more hard sf, while T4 and maybe T20 felt more space opera. But the problem is that you can't really have a single setting be both at once.
So we get people saying it's supposed to be space opera so realism doesn't matter, and we get people saying it's supposed to be hard-sf and so realism does matter. All I'm saying here is that neither is really pivotal to defining Traveller though - you can add or remove some realistic or unrealistic elements to your settings and it doesn't really change the game all that much.
It's not criticism of the game, it is calling people who are happy with it ObsessiveWhich I've never done. I have never made a link between "people who are happy with Traveller" and "obsessive people". Those are not connected at all.
I consciously choose to ignore these things.OK, but you do realise those issues are still there whether you ignore them or not.
My problem with your approach is that in this quest for "Realism" it will remove some or all of the imaginative elements that are a core foundation of my game.Will it though? That's what I'm asking. Is having a Regina orbit a close binary when that can't really be the case that much of a 'core foundation' to your game that it falls apart completely if that is taken away? The fact that we replace two stars - the smaller of which isn't even visible at all from Regina in the glare of Lusor - with one just causes the whole thing to collapse does it? Really? I don't think it is at all.
I in fact do not want it to be 100% correct according to modern theories of astrophysics. It's a game. My players don't care. For them, it is the visual, the story, the action. If I want to worry about what lies beneath Titan, I'll make it up, and be happy. Period, end of story.That's fine. Enjoying what you play is what matters, I've never said anything to the contrary.
You make the stand that Realism will improve it.I'm saying that from experience. I can look at just a UWP and a star type and that can tell me a hell of a lot about the history of the system and what the planets on it are like. It is possible to get a LOT of supplemental information from what is provided if you know how to do it. Sure, most of it will be "chrome" (as mentioned on that thread), but it also gives you a lot of stuff to play with that you hadn't realised before.
For example, there's a secondary star in a near orbit in the system. As it turns out, in some cases that can pump the eccentricity and/or the inclination of planetary orbits further in. That gives you climate cycles to play with that would seriously influence the evolution of life on the planet. Sometimes those cycles are short enough that they'd be noticeable on a historical timescale, so maybe a colony established a few thousand years ago when the planet was in a nice circular orbit is now finding itself enduring long periods of deep freeze and short blistering summers as the planet's orbit is stretched out. Makes the place a bit more interesting, and you have a backup of saying "this really could happen" rather than just plucking some random thing out of the air that may or may not make any sense or be consistent with the environment.
Or even if none of that happens and you just have everything in roughly circular orbits, have you thought how much light and warmth that other star would provide? It might be bright enough to seriously affect daily cycles of life on the planet. It could just be a bright star in the sky (like Venus), or be bright enough to cast shadows and to see by at night (like the full moon), or it could be so bright that it causes significant scattering in the sky and basically turns night into day, in which case night would only truly fall when both stars rise and set at similar times. That could enormously influence life on the planet, not to mention ruling out such things as "waiting for when it's dark before we go sneak around that camp" and thus causing players to think of other ways to be subtle.
All of this just from stopping and thinking about how things would really be on these alien worlds, instead of just throwing random ideas together to make an inconsistent mess. Think of the realistic consequences of things and suddenly you see them in a new light.
Now I'm sure you could argue that it's too much effort and that it stops you from doing "cool stuff that could be fun" but I've not seen that to be the case. More often than not, thinking realistically actually creates new situations (that are also fun) that you most likely hadn't even considered before.
On the one hand Malenfant, you say "you do not tell anyone how to run Traveller." On the other hand, to you, people that are not willing to look at Traveller are aging guys with "heads up their arse"; Obsessive hold-outs to a dead game that needs to be brought up to modern marketing standards.Again, I have never made that connection at all, you just did that. My "heads up their arses" comment referred to people who think that what they believe about the popularity of the game in the RPG market and what they think it can do in the future if it continues on its current path takes precendence over the cold, hard facts of the current RPG market. It has nothing to do with how they play their games at all.
Your insulting tone makes it impossible for me, personally, to take anything that you have to offer to the community, not matter how well backed up by heavily researched science.Then that's your loss. Personally I'm primarily interested in the message rather than the messenger.
Go off, and rewrite Barsoom, Dejah thoris, Stories about Venus that have rain clouds and jungles. They are part and parcel of What Brought us here from the Pulps.I've no intention of doing that at all, because those are Space Opera or Pulp. They're not even remotely supposed to be realistic in any way at all, and to rewrite them would just destroy what makes them unique.
The problem here really is again Traveller's schizophrenia. With GURPS Space or Star HERO you had clearly divided options that could let you play Space Opera/Space Fantasy or Hard/Realistic SF. Nobody would argue that someone running a Space Opera using GURPS Space is "playing it wrong"... but Traveller never really made that distinction. It gave us Space Opera-like worldgen in Book 3, and then threw a hard-sf system at us in Book 6 and expected the two to co-exist. And later editions of the game have only propagated that contradiction - MT and TNE and GT felt more hard sf, while T4 and maybe T20 felt more space opera. But the problem is that you can't really have a single setting be both at once.
So we get people saying it's supposed to be space opera so realism doesn't matter, and we get people saying it's supposed to be hard-sf and so realism does matter. All I'm saying here is that neither is really pivotal to defining Traveller though - you can add or remove some realistic or unrealistic elements to your settings and it doesn't really change the game all that much.
Gadrin
February 24th, 2007, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
So we get people saying it's supposed to be space opera so realism doesn't matter, and we get people saying it's supposed to be hard-sf and so realism does matter. All I'm saying here is that neither is really pivotal to defining Traveller though - you can add or remove some realistic or unrealistic elements to your settings and it doesn't really change the game all that much. I went with GURPS Space and Ultra-Tech to add chrome to what I felt was a very vanilla setting. Found out that GT author David Pulver added a lot of that too. BITS with its Serabi Genetics and others added some extra spice to the mix as well.
The quiz in the back of the LBBs where they statted out both Star Wars and Trek PCs (among others) was nice, I felt it was like saying: "you take it from here".
I've had people tell me that it's not feasible to run a J-3 ship in a J-2 area (or some such nonsense) because they've spreadsheeted out some GT Traveller statistics. I say phoey and trash the statistics and do what you want. It's a game, get what you want out of it. If I don't game with a canon-ista, so much the better.
So we get people saying it's supposed to be space opera so realism doesn't matter, and we get people saying it's supposed to be hard-sf and so realism does matter. All I'm saying here is that neither is really pivotal to defining Traveller though - you can add or remove some realistic or unrealistic elements to your settings and it doesn't really change the game all that much. I went with GURPS Space and Ultra-Tech to add chrome to what I felt was a very vanilla setting. Found out that GT author David Pulver added a lot of that too. BITS with its Serabi Genetics and others added some extra spice to the mix as well.
The quiz in the back of the LBBs where they statted out both Star Wars and Trek PCs (among others) was nice, I felt it was like saying: "you take it from here".
I've had people tell me that it's not feasible to run a J-3 ship in a J-2 area (or some such nonsense) because they've spreadsheeted out some GT Traveller statistics. I say phoey and trash the statistics and do what you want. It's a game, get what you want out of it. If I don't game with a canon-ista, so much the better.
mbrinkhues
February 25th, 2007, 05:37 PM
The good think on Traveller is that the vast majority of groups and players don't care about the little problems and strange elements. Most simply enjoy a setting without needing 100 percent realism.
They like the Aliens, the Megacorps, the Government system and simply accept that not everything is correct. And guess what: This group includes quite a few people who KNOW what is wrong because they have the academic/engineering degrees to know.
If one start to demand "Realism" one quickly ends up with Transhuman Space. Or more exactly Transhuman space without Bioroids, Genmods, Mind-Transfer, Anti-Matter Drives, AI's ... since all those are not Realistic.
Simple realism in Traveller would either demand larger ship crews on the merchant (Triple Watch) or more automatisation (No place for players), far smaller computers, massive expert systems (even less places for players), an equalising of technology,no thrusters...
"Realism" in SciFi is just another word for "Boooooring". So I keep my Aliens, my strange star systems and multi-ton computers and do the same I did in 2300AD: Ignore the "Realism" minority.
They like the Aliens, the Megacorps, the Government system and simply accept that not everything is correct. And guess what: This group includes quite a few people who KNOW what is wrong because they have the academic/engineering degrees to know.
If one start to demand "Realism" one quickly ends up with Transhuman Space. Or more exactly Transhuman space without Bioroids, Genmods, Mind-Transfer, Anti-Matter Drives, AI's ... since all those are not Realistic.
Simple realism in Traveller would either demand larger ship crews on the merchant (Triple Watch) or more automatisation (No place for players), far smaller computers, massive expert systems (even less places for players), an equalising of technology,no thrusters...
"Realism" in SciFi is just another word for "Boooooring". So I keep my Aliens, my strange star systems and multi-ton computers and do the same I did in 2300AD: Ignore the "Realism" minority.
Malenfant
February 25th, 2007, 06:47 PM
"Realism" in SciFi is just another word for "Boooooring".Again, that's a false statement, as has been frequently demonstrated here. You may think that realistic settings are boring yourself (which is fine), but there's no evidence to suggest that it is automatically boring for everyone. There's still plenty of fun to be had in a more realistic setting, and like I said the example of changing the stars that Regina orbits into more realistic ones isn't going to do anything to suddenly make it "less fun".
It's also not necessary to apply realism universally. Just because one aspect of the setting is realistic doesn't mean that every aspect has to be. I've frequently mentioned DP9's Jovian Chronicles as a prime example - it's set in a realistic solar system, but the action is very cinematic and the tech is pseudo-realistic, and it works just fine and a lot of people enjoy it too. You don't happy to apply realism to absolutely everything to have a fun, playable game.
I just think people are being immediately dismissive of something that can actually add a lot to their games without sacrificing anything else - least of all the fun - in the process.
It's also not necessary to apply realism universally. Just because one aspect of the setting is realistic doesn't mean that every aspect has to be. I've frequently mentioned DP9's Jovian Chronicles as a prime example - it's set in a realistic solar system, but the action is very cinematic and the tech is pseudo-realistic, and it works just fine and a lot of people enjoy it too. You don't happy to apply realism to absolutely everything to have a fun, playable game.
I just think people are being immediately dismissive of something that can actually add a lot to their games without sacrificing anything else - least of all the fun - in the process.
far-trader
February 25th, 2007, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Realism" in SciFi is just another word for "Boooooring".Again, that's a false statement...</font>[/QUOTE]And again I totally agree with Mal.
In fact Realism is the root of SciFi. Far from being boring it is critical to the genre. If you don't have realism you don't have SciFi, you have Fantasy or something else. And I'm not knocking Fantasy as a genre, I'm just saying it's different.
For example Fantasy allows "magic" while SciFi does not. SciFi may tread into the "technology indistinguishable from magic" area but not without a basis in reality behind it.
Is that concept boring? Not a bit. Can it be made boring? Absolutely, but then you blame the presentation not the idea.
I don't think anyone is saying a SciFi game should read like a university textbook, that would be boring.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Realism" in SciFi is just another word for "Boooooring".Again, that's a false statement...</font>[/QUOTE]And again I totally agree with Mal.
In fact Realism is the root of SciFi. Far from being boring it is critical to the genre. If you don't have realism you don't have SciFi, you have Fantasy or something else. And I'm not knocking Fantasy as a genre, I'm just saying it's different.
For example Fantasy allows "magic" while SciFi does not. SciFi may tread into the "technology indistinguishable from magic" area but not without a basis in reality behind it.
Is that concept boring? Not a bit. Can it be made boring? Absolutely, but then you blame the presentation not the idea.
I don't think anyone is saying a SciFi game should read like a university textbook, that would be boring.
mbrinkhues
February 26th, 2007, 04:18 AM
Realistic:
No FTL drives
No Energy based Maneuver Drives
No Gravity technology
No Anti-Matter plants, VERY large Fusion plants
All Thrusters need huge amounts of fuel (TNE Heplar are unrealistic already)
Sorry but there is little adventure left once I do Traveller or 2300AD realistic.
As for the rest: realism (small caps) does not add to a game for me or most players. Most gamers don't care about it so it is unnecessary effort better used otherwise
No FTL drives
No Energy based Maneuver Drives
No Gravity technology
No Anti-Matter plants, VERY large Fusion plants
All Thrusters need huge amounts of fuel (TNE Heplar are unrealistic already)
Sorry but there is little adventure left once I do Traveller or 2300AD realistic.
As for the rest: realism (small caps) does not add to a game for me or most players. Most gamers don't care about it so it is unnecessary effort better used otherwise
Pickles
February 26th, 2007, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Realistic:
No FTL drives
No Energy based Maneuver Drives
No Gravity technology
No Anti-Matter plants, VERY large Fusion plantsRealistic for contemporary fiction, certainly. Internally realistic for science fiction, set centuries from now? Who is to say?
Most gamers don't care ... Careful, now, there are scientists in this thread - you might have to back that up with figures! tongue.gif
Seriously, though, I haven't found this to be the case in any of the groups I have gamed with over the decades. The Traveller players of my aquaintance have always had at least a passing interest in keeping things as realistic as they knew how. I'll always remember one time, when I foolishly allowed the PCs to escape an underground flash flood by ducking into a side tunnel. "Actually, hydraulic pressure should be equal in all pipes...", piped up one player before realising that he was arguing for the watery (not really water) death for the party.
Realistic:
No FTL drives
No Energy based Maneuver Drives
No Gravity technology
No Anti-Matter plants, VERY large Fusion plantsRealistic for contemporary fiction, certainly. Internally realistic for science fiction, set centuries from now? Who is to say?
Most gamers don't care ... Careful, now, there are scientists in this thread - you might have to back that up with figures! tongue.gif
Seriously, though, I haven't found this to be the case in any of the groups I have gamed with over the decades. The Traveller players of my aquaintance have always had at least a passing interest in keeping things as realistic as they knew how. I'll always remember one time, when I foolishly allowed the PCs to escape an underground flash flood by ducking into a side tunnel. "Actually, hydraulic pressure should be equal in all pipes...", piped up one player before realising that he was arguing for the watery (not really water) death for the party.
mbrinkhues
February 26th, 2007, 11:20 AM
To my best of knowledge the first three things violate the currently accepted laws of physics. smile.gif
As for the rest, groups may differ and my players never cared for too much realism. Maybe because we all had bad experiences (StarTrek(2) and realism, StarWars, Milleniums End and Realism(1) etc)
(1) Assasination by ATGM can really kill a scenario
(2) Hunt for Red Klingons isn't all that funny
As for the rest, groups may differ and my players never cared for too much realism. Maybe because we all had bad experiences (StarTrek(2) and realism, StarWars, Milleniums End and Realism(1) etc)
(1) Assasination by ATGM can really kill a scenario
(2) Hunt for Red Klingons isn't all that funny
Malenfant
February 26th, 2007, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
To my best of knowledge the first three things violate the currently accepted laws of physics. smile.gif
But not, perhaps, as-yet undiscovered laws of physics. If you get rid of the conjectural technology side of science fiction just because we can't do it today, you don't really have much else to play with.
To my best of knowledge the first three things violate the currently accepted laws of physics. smile.gif
But not, perhaps, as-yet undiscovered laws of physics. If you get rid of the conjectural technology side of science fiction just because we can't do it today, you don't really have much else to play with.
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 11:51 AM
Realistic for contemporary fiction, certainly. Internally realistic for science fiction, set centuries from now? Who is to say?No one, without a time machine. Having not one copy of such a device on my wrist or in my storage space, it is all speculation.
Speculation of what is possible is the point, but "realism" (as I see it, what is real, right now, today's world) rules that out.
My Traveller campaign is firmly is the camp of space opera, not "realism".
Thus, I am free to do whatever I want for the story, and not worry about the exact details of how something that might be possible 1000 years in the future might work.
Thus I have a planet, a crew, a starship, a challenge, some enemeis, some conflict, drama, and a whole bunch of fun.
I once, long ago designed as "realistic" a planet as I thought possible. I ran a scout initial survey mission, where the players discovered all these little details of the animals, the climate, the lost ruins, the temperature of different areas based on albedo, latitude, proximity to a local sea.
After we were done, the whole player group said:
"Man, we never want another survey mission again." "Just gloss it over, give us the big picture."
"If I wanted gaming by spreadsheet, I'd go to work, after hours."
"No offense, but I'd rather chew rocks."
We went back to:
- Giant asteroids tumbling in space, a la Return of the Jedi (even though "real" belt density is much lower, I'm told).
- Cloud cities floating lazily over a gas giant (even though winds would rip one apart, i guess.)
- Planets with moons in close orbit inside Roche's limit, causing massive tides.
- Colonies on planets with no microbial life in the native soil.
Fun was had, because it was all about STORY, not scientific accuracy that was not worth the effort to track down to the Nth degree.
Speculation of what is possible is the point, but "realism" (as I see it, what is real, right now, today's world) rules that out.
My Traveller campaign is firmly is the camp of space opera, not "realism".
Thus, I am free to do whatever I want for the story, and not worry about the exact details of how something that might be possible 1000 years in the future might work.
Thus I have a planet, a crew, a starship, a challenge, some enemeis, some conflict, drama, and a whole bunch of fun.
I once, long ago designed as "realistic" a planet as I thought possible. I ran a scout initial survey mission, where the players discovered all these little details of the animals, the climate, the lost ruins, the temperature of different areas based on albedo, latitude, proximity to a local sea.
After we were done, the whole player group said:
"Man, we never want another survey mission again." "Just gloss it over, give us the big picture."
"If I wanted gaming by spreadsheet, I'd go to work, after hours."
"No offense, but I'd rather chew rocks."
We went back to:
- Giant asteroids tumbling in space, a la Return of the Jedi (even though "real" belt density is much lower, I'm told).
- Cloud cities floating lazily over a gas giant (even though winds would rip one apart, i guess.)
- Planets with moons in close orbit inside Roche's limit, causing massive tides.
- Colonies on planets with no microbial life in the native soil.
Fun was had, because it was all about STORY, not scientific accuracy that was not worth the effort to track down to the Nth degree.
Klaus
February 26th, 2007, 12:25 PM
You could use the analogy of spelling.
Fine, people can communicate without proper spelling, u can uz txt spk 2 tlk 2 ya homiz, and fair enough, there's a whole generation doing just that.
However, properly spelled words allow for more nuance and subtlety and sophistication.
Similarly, if you don't care about realistic solar systems then the OTU is fine. If you do, however, it is severely broken. Having realistic systems doesn't affect the space opera approach, you can still do what you want. But it breaks the hard sf approach.
When I see space opera style, whether in rpg, book, or tv/screen form, I keep seeing the same old chesnuts over and over. Hard sf style stuff keeps coming up with new and inventive problems.
This is not to say one style is superior to the other (hell, I used to love d6 Star Wars), just that space opera can co-exist with hard sf in a (mostly) realistic setting. The reverse is not true.
BTW, how does having a planet having no microbial life affect play in any form, space opera or hard sf?
Fine, people can communicate without proper spelling, u can uz txt spk 2 tlk 2 ya homiz, and fair enough, there's a whole generation doing just that.
However, properly spelled words allow for more nuance and subtlety and sophistication.
Similarly, if you don't care about realistic solar systems then the OTU is fine. If you do, however, it is severely broken. Having realistic systems doesn't affect the space opera approach, you can still do what you want. But it breaks the hard sf approach.
When I see space opera style, whether in rpg, book, or tv/screen form, I keep seeing the same old chesnuts over and over. Hard sf style stuff keeps coming up with new and inventive problems.
This is not to say one style is superior to the other (hell, I used to love d6 Star Wars), just that space opera can co-exist with hard sf in a (mostly) realistic setting. The reverse is not true.
BTW, how does having a planet having no microbial life affect play in any form, space opera or hard sf?
ravells
February 26th, 2007, 12:26 PM
I with you 100% there, Merxiless. For me it's all about the story. Yes there has to be some internal consistency, but 'realism' makes the game too much hard work for a non-scientist like me. I'm reading an SF book written in 1943 called 'The Radium Rebels'. The premise of the story is that a mad scientist lives on an island with massive Radium reserves which he mines and uses to fuel flying machines, evesdrop on radio communications and make clothing. The 'science' is laughable but it's a good romp. I'm sure the time many people reading it may have thought that it was credible. How handwavium has changed!
Ravs
Ravs
flykiller
February 26th, 2007, 01:49 PM
In fact Realism is the root of SciFi ... I don't think anyone is saying a SciFi game should read like a university textbook, that would be boring.well then the problem becomes where to draw the line.
take book 6. does it "absolutely fail"?
take book 6. does it "absolutely fail"?
Malenfant
February 26th, 2007, 01:54 PM
I once, long ago designed as "realistic" a planet as I thought possible. I ran a scout initial survey mission, where the players discovered all these little details of the animals, the climate, the lost ruins, the temperature of different areas based on albedo, latitude, proximity to a local sea.
After we were done, the whole player group said:
"Man, we never want another survey mission again." "Just gloss it over, give us the big picture."
"If I wanted gaming by spreadsheet, I'd go to work, after hours."
"No offense, but I'd rather chew rocks."I'd submit that they weren't bored by realism itself - they were bored by how you presented it.
Of course people aren't going to get excited by doing a bunch of sensor rolls that reveals new numbers to them - I've played in that sort of game myself and it bored the heck out of me. Realistic gaming isn't about taking readings and making notes, it's still about doing something exciting and fun. The only difference is that the background is a lot more coherent and interesting because of that extra information.
And for those of you who claim that "realism sucks out the fun", I'm working on a realistic Regina system now (full writeup so far can be found on this thread (http://www.traveller.comstar-games.com/viewtopic.php?t=900) on the Avenger TAS boards. I'm not going to bother posting it here since certain people seem to insist on heckling me no matter what). So far the realistic version is turning out to be a much more varied system with a lot more opportunity for 'fun' than the default one.
At the end of the day, if you want to run Traveller as a Space Opera then nobody's stopping you and nobody is complaining about it. Since Space Opera is supposed to be unrealistic (or at least not care about realism at all) anyway, I'm wondering why you complain so much about realism at all since it's never going to be an issue in your game to start with.
After we were done, the whole player group said:
"Man, we never want another survey mission again." "Just gloss it over, give us the big picture."
"If I wanted gaming by spreadsheet, I'd go to work, after hours."
"No offense, but I'd rather chew rocks."I'd submit that they weren't bored by realism itself - they were bored by how you presented it.
Of course people aren't going to get excited by doing a bunch of sensor rolls that reveals new numbers to them - I've played in that sort of game myself and it bored the heck out of me. Realistic gaming isn't about taking readings and making notes, it's still about doing something exciting and fun. The only difference is that the background is a lot more coherent and interesting because of that extra information.
And for those of you who claim that "realism sucks out the fun", I'm working on a realistic Regina system now (full writeup so far can be found on this thread (http://www.traveller.comstar-games.com/viewtopic.php?t=900) on the Avenger TAS boards. I'm not going to bother posting it here since certain people seem to insist on heckling me no matter what). So far the realistic version is turning out to be a much more varied system with a lot more opportunity for 'fun' than the default one.
At the end of the day, if you want to run Traveller as a Space Opera then nobody's stopping you and nobody is complaining about it. Since Space Opera is supposed to be unrealistic (or at least not care about realism at all) anyway, I'm wondering why you complain so much about realism at all since it's never going to be an issue in your game to start with.
Malenfant
February 26th, 2007, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by flykiller:
take book 6. does it "absolutely fail"? [/QB]It does try, but still produces unrealistic results. There are mistakes in formulae (depending on what edition of it you have), there's too much randomness with too little consideration (so we get thick atmospheres on tiny rockballs), and the way that modifiers are applied to tables is poorly thought out which causes major problems that I've already pointed out and solved to an extent by changing things so that they're applied properly.
But if book 6 (and things like WBH and so on that followed the detailed worldgen tradition) wasn't there, then Traveller would be quite justified to call itself a Space Opera game. It's that attempt at added realism that raises the expectations.
take book 6. does it "absolutely fail"? [/QB]It does try, but still produces unrealistic results. There are mistakes in formulae (depending on what edition of it you have), there's too much randomness with too little consideration (so we get thick atmospheres on tiny rockballs), and the way that modifiers are applied to tables is poorly thought out which causes major problems that I've already pointed out and solved to an extent by changing things so that they're applied properly.
But if book 6 (and things like WBH and so on that followed the detailed worldgen tradition) wasn't there, then Traveller would be quite justified to call itself a Space Opera game. It's that attempt at added realism that raises the expectations.
ravells
February 26th, 2007, 03:49 PM
The problem I have Mal, is that I am not a scientist, so I just have to work with what I'm given! Good drama doesn't really depend on whether the science is right or wrong (although it would be a shame to lose some of the tropes - merxiless has listed some good examples), but if the science was correct I would prefer it because by learning the rules, I'd actually be learning some accurate science too.
Ravs
Ravs
Malenfant
February 26th, 2007, 03:56 PM
Well that's the thing - the tropes that Merx listed are Space Opera tropes. Of course you'd lose those in a more realistic/hard-sf setting, because that's not what that genre is about.
But as you point out, good drama isn't dependent on realism. Heck, look at Outland or Alien, those are very gritty, very realistic SF films and they certainly have drama!
It is quite possible to pick things up as you go along too. Heck, just keep your ear to the ground when it comes to astronomy news and then think "what would that be like?".
But as you point out, good drama isn't dependent on realism. Heck, look at Outland or Alien, those are very gritty, very realistic SF films and they certainly have drama!
It is quite possible to pick things up as you go along too. Heck, just keep your ear to the ground when it comes to astronomy news and then think "what would that be like?".
Jeff M. Hopper
February 26th, 2007, 03:59 PM
I've gone with realism until it gets in the way of game play, then it takes a back seat. Traveller is, after all, a game first and foremost. You know, something you use for entertainment and escapism.
You've got to admit - Traveller as a game has got to have something powerful going for it to inspire this much passion in people after thirty years. Lets face it, some people are positively maniacal about Traveller.
You've got to admit - Traveller as a game has got to have something powerful going for it to inspire this much passion in people after thirty years. Lets face it, some people are positively maniacal about Traveller.
Klaus
February 26th, 2007, 04:00 PM
Having realistically based data also helps when you've got a player that does know science, or more worryingly, one that thinks they do, based on watching Star Trek.
If the setting is full of nonsense then players are gonna try using nonsense to get one over.
High space opera, a la Star Wars, is just DnD in space, really. ;)
If the setting is full of nonsense then players are gonna try using nonsense to get one over.
High space opera, a la Star Wars, is just DnD in space, really. ;)
Jeff M. Hopper
February 26th, 2007, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Klaus:
Having realistically based data also helps when you've got a player that does know science, or more worryingly, one that thinks they do, based on watching Star Trek.
Except when that adherance to realistic data turns off the other players who were interested up to that point.
Having realistically based data also helps when you've got a player that does know science, or more worryingly, one that thinks they do, based on watching Star Trek.
Except when that adherance to realistic data turns off the other players who were interested up to that point.
Malenfant
February 26th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Except when that adherance to realistic data turns off the other players who were interested up to that point. [/QB]How are they going to know? Most players would just accept what's thrown at them, the GM's the only one that has to think about what's realistic or not. As long as it keeps the players interest - which is pretty much down to how its presented, IMO - then why should there be a problem?
If what you're concerned about is realism getting in the way of what players want to do, then that's a concern with the game engine. Some things just aren't possible to do, period - despite what movies show. If you're running a cinematic campaign then sure, you can do the john woo flying through the air with both guns (held sideways) blazing and killing hundreds of mooks. But in a more gritty, realistic campaign if you do that you're more likely to get yourself killed.
Except when that adherance to realistic data turns off the other players who were interested up to that point. [/QB]How are they going to know? Most players would just accept what's thrown at them, the GM's the only one that has to think about what's realistic or not. As long as it keeps the players interest - which is pretty much down to how its presented, IMO - then why should there be a problem?
If what you're concerned about is realism getting in the way of what players want to do, then that's a concern with the game engine. Some things just aren't possible to do, period - despite what movies show. If you're running a cinematic campaign then sure, you can do the john woo flying through the air with both guns (held sideways) blazing and killing hundreds of mooks. But in a more gritty, realistic campaign if you do that you're more likely to get yourself killed.
Klaus
February 26th, 2007, 04:25 PM
You can have a certain level of realism without being dry.
Imagination and creativity work better when there's limits. You don't have to overwhelm players with incredibly long number strings (that's what High Guard's for) or complicated equations and relationships (oops, that's Book 6).
Basically, if there's already some arcane mechanics in the game, which there is, they might as well be as realistic as possible. They are not, but as Mal has proved, fixing it is a: possible, and b: not a game breaker.
I think the point is not to be hyper realistic, just not incredibly, and obviously, unrealistic, which half the OTU is, more or less.
Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy. Traveller is, after all, not the type of game where every planet speaks English and looks like Canada.
Imagination and creativity work better when there's limits. You don't have to overwhelm players with incredibly long number strings (that's what High Guard's for) or complicated equations and relationships (oops, that's Book 6).
Basically, if there's already some arcane mechanics in the game, which there is, they might as well be as realistic as possible. They are not, but as Mal has proved, fixing it is a: possible, and b: not a game breaker.
I think the point is not to be hyper realistic, just not incredibly, and obviously, unrealistic, which half the OTU is, more or less.
Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy. Traveller is, after all, not the type of game where every planet speaks English and looks like Canada.
Jeff M. Hopper
February 26th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
How are they going to know? Most players would just accept what's thrown at them, the GM's the only one that has to think about what's realistic or not. As long as it keeps the players interest - which is pretty much down to how its presented, IMO - then why should there be a problem?
Referee preperation time. As your search for nonexistant data on the Regina system has demonstrated, to make the game more realistic requires an investment in time on the part of the referee that is about an order of magnitude greater than what already exists for game prep.
If, as you say, the players aren't going to notice - then why go to the extra effort? What is the benefit to me, as a referee?
How are they going to know? Most players would just accept what's thrown at them, the GM's the only one that has to think about what's realistic or not. As long as it keeps the players interest - which is pretty much down to how its presented, IMO - then why should there be a problem?
Referee preperation time. As your search for nonexistant data on the Regina system has demonstrated, to make the game more realistic requires an investment in time on the part of the referee that is about an order of magnitude greater than what already exists for game prep.
If, as you say, the players aren't going to notice - then why go to the extra effort? What is the benefit to me, as a referee?
Jeff M. Hopper
February 26th, 2007, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Klaus:
You can have a certain level of realism without being dry.Agreed.
Originally posted by Klaus:
Imagination and creativity work better when there's limits.Do you have proof to back up this opinion?
Originally posted by Klaus:
I think the point is not to be hyper realistic, just not incredibly, and obviously, unrealistic, which half the OTU is, more or less.
Interesting point, but considering that this is a game that has been around and popular for thirty years demonstrates that unrealism isn't as big a problem as people would be led to believe.
Originally posted by Klaus:
Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy. And this disrupts actual game play how?
You can have a certain level of realism without being dry.Agreed.
Originally posted by Klaus:
Imagination and creativity work better when there's limits.Do you have proof to back up this opinion?
Originally posted by Klaus:
I think the point is not to be hyper realistic, just not incredibly, and obviously, unrealistic, which half the OTU is, more or less.
Interesting point, but considering that this is a game that has been around and popular for thirty years demonstrates that unrealism isn't as big a problem as people would be led to believe.
Originally posted by Klaus:
Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy. And this disrupts actual game play how?
mbrinkhues
February 26th, 2007, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Well that's the thing - the tropes that Merx listed are Space Opera tropes. Of course you'd lose those in a more realistic/hard-sf setting, because that's not what that genre is about.
But as you point out, good drama isn't dependent on realism. Heck, look at Outland or Alien, those are very gritty, very realistic SF films and they certainly have drama!
It is quite possible to pick things up as you go along too. Heck, just keep your ear to the ground when it comes to astronomy news and then think "what would that be like?". Outland and Alien realistic? Where? In the fact that anything around Jupiter will be roasted by the radiation for the Io-Jupiter link? The Alien eggs that survive for how long? The whole Alien species?
Sorry, little realism there.
Well that's the thing - the tropes that Merx listed are Space Opera tropes. Of course you'd lose those in a more realistic/hard-sf setting, because that's not what that genre is about.
But as you point out, good drama isn't dependent on realism. Heck, look at Outland or Alien, those are very gritty, very realistic SF films and they certainly have drama!
It is quite possible to pick things up as you go along too. Heck, just keep your ear to the ground when it comes to astronomy news and then think "what would that be like?". Outland and Alien realistic? Where? In the fact that anything around Jupiter will be roasted by the radiation for the Io-Jupiter link? The Alien eggs that survive for how long? The whole Alien species?
Sorry, little realism there.
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 04:53 PM
All good points, Jeff.
To skip back a bit, there is some kind of law or requirement of biology that to grow plants in soil you must have already had that soil "laced" with microbes, for some reason based in both organic chemistry and biology that I don't quite understand.
I read this in one of those Asimov or Heinlein "An SF-writer, writes on real science" books.
The end result is you can't take a world that has no native life, and just drop a colony that is designed to grow it's own food there in native soil without that soil being prepared over quite some time by microbial life. Plants just won't grow, is the gist of it.
Again, I'm no biologist. I respect the facts behind it on a science level, but it just blows my whole colony here, colony there setup out of the water, and messes with what I set up years and years before reading the specific book / article.
To skip back a bit, there is some kind of law or requirement of biology that to grow plants in soil you must have already had that soil "laced" with microbes, for some reason based in both organic chemistry and biology that I don't quite understand.
I read this in one of those Asimov or Heinlein "An SF-writer, writes on real science" books.
The end result is you can't take a world that has no native life, and just drop a colony that is designed to grow it's own food there in native soil without that soil being prepared over quite some time by microbial life. Plants just won't grow, is the gist of it.
Again, I'm no biologist. I respect the facts behind it on a science level, but it just blows my whole colony here, colony there setup out of the water, and messes with what I set up years and years before reading the specific book / article.
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 04:57 PM
Yeah I saw both Outland and Alien, and while immensely enjoying them both, AND using some parts of them for the basis of my own Traveller campaign, I'd call them both Gritty, but not.. all that "realistic."
Not even 2001 nor 2010 is "realistic" Though I'd say it has close to the most "Realism" or "pseudo-realistic" elements of any pair of sci fi space travel films I've ever seen.
Not even 2001 nor 2010 is "realistic" Though I'd say it has close to the most "Realism" or "pseudo-realistic" elements of any pair of sci fi space travel films I've ever seen.
Klaus
February 26th, 2007, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Klaus:
Imagination and creativity work better when there's limits.Do you have proof to back up this opinion?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. 15 years as an artist, studying, practicing, teaching. Varez. Can. Captain Beefheart. 8-bit Nintendo game music. Sushi. Picasso. Star Wars vs The Phantom Menace. El Mariachi vs Desperado. Doctor Who. Haiku. Chess. Einstein. Miyazaki. Tezuka. Bad Taste vs King Kong. Tetris. Ascii art. I could go on.
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Klaus:
Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy. And this disrupts actual game play how? </font>[/QUOTE]When your player says. "But this planet is far too small for such a dense atmosphere." You reply, Erm, it's really dense..
"So it must have loads of radioactives or heavy metals. Lets set up a mining base and get rich." or
"Yeah, but so were the last two planets we went to. What gives?"
And yes, I've had players who would ask such reasonable questions.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Klaus:
Imagination and creativity work better when there's limits.Do you have proof to back up this opinion?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. 15 years as an artist, studying, practicing, teaching. Varez. Can. Captain Beefheart. 8-bit Nintendo game music. Sushi. Picasso. Star Wars vs The Phantom Menace. El Mariachi vs Desperado. Doctor Who. Haiku. Chess. Einstein. Miyazaki. Tezuka. Bad Taste vs King Kong. Tetris. Ascii art. I could go on.
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Klaus:
Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy. And this disrupts actual game play how? </font>[/QUOTE]When your player says. "But this planet is far too small for such a dense atmosphere." You reply, Erm, it's really dense..
"So it must have loads of radioactives or heavy metals. Lets set up a mining base and get rich." or
"Yeah, but so were the last two planets we went to. What gives?"
And yes, I've had players who would ask such reasonable questions.
Malenfant
February 26th, 2007, 05:04 PM
It's down to priorities really - a ref should be prepared to do some er... preparation anyway. I'm sure some refs spend ages detailing an entire startown that players only visit a tiny part of, and that would just be classed as 'normal prep' for such people.
This is all pre-game prep anyway. When a ref is initially designing the subsector or whatever, that's when he'd do all this work. (presumably the ref is going to be doing actual work here too, not just grabbing random subsector sheets and throwing them together). It just depends on how much time one is willing to put into it is all.
But if that realistic data already existed in a usable form, would you use it?
This is all pre-game prep anyway. When a ref is initially designing the subsector or whatever, that's when he'd do all this work. (presumably the ref is going to be doing actual work here too, not just grabbing random subsector sheets and throwing them together). It just depends on how much time one is willing to put into it is all.
But if that realistic data already existed in a usable form, would you use it?
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
I'm reading an SF book written in 1943 called 'The Radium Rebels'...[snip]The 'science' is laughable but it's a good romp.
Ravs Exactly. I love pulp stories like those. And roleplaying games based on them, a la WEG Indiana Jones, ICE Pulp Heroes, Hero Games' Pulp Hero, etc.
Great fun, screw the science. Fit the "pseudoscience" to the setting.
Death rays, Zeppelin airfields, Some huge mirror array that will be used to melt the South pole...all of that stuff is good stuff for a game, for use by Dr. Evil and his minions.
A lot of the sci fi authors started with those type stories.
I'm reading an SF book written in 1943 called 'The Radium Rebels'...[snip]The 'science' is laughable but it's a good romp.
Ravs Exactly. I love pulp stories like those. And roleplaying games based on them, a la WEG Indiana Jones, ICE Pulp Heroes, Hero Games' Pulp Hero, etc.
Great fun, screw the science. Fit the "pseudoscience" to the setting.
Death rays, Zeppelin airfields, Some huge mirror array that will be used to melt the South pole...all of that stuff is good stuff for a game, for use by Dr. Evil and his minions.
A lot of the sci fi authors started with those type stories.
mbrinkhues
February 26th, 2007, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Klaus:
You can have a certain level of realism without being dry.
Imagination and creativity work better when there's limits. You don't have to overwhelm players with incredibly long number strings (that's what High Guard's for) or complicated equations and relationships (oops, that's Book 6).
Basically, if there's already some arcane mechanics in the game, which there is, they might as well be as realistic as possible. They are not, but as Mal has proved, fixing it is a: possible, and b: not a game breaker.
I think the point is not to be hyper realistic, just not incredibly, and obviously, unrealistic, which half the OTU is, more or less.
Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy. Traveller is, after all, not the type of game where every planet speaks English and looks like Canada. But where does one stop with "some realism"? Do we stop with what some people think planets should be?
Or maybe we should fix computers, they are EXTREMLY BROKEN as any engineer of Applied Computer Science, Speciality Process Control Systems can tell you.
Or maybe the ship crews. They are far too small, they need massiv computer/robot aid or more crew. Again, having done 24/7 operations in technical systems I can asure you about that.
How about technological differences? Shouldn't they have stopped long ago, at least in the core sectors? The 3I has Standard Data Packets for a small fee so uplift your planet
I can likel make a dozend valid points where Traveller is "Unrealistic" that need to be changed. None will have grave consequences but in the long run, it will stop being Traveller. And where does one stop?
Another problem is that the re-work costs unneccessary effort that I can spend better for other things.
And "Realism" is something I have 140+ hours per week, it's called a life. Same for my players/GM's. Roleplaying for us is escapism and there I WANT to be able to pull a "Chow Yun Fat" and add a "Walker" just for fun. If I want realistic weapons I go to the shooting range or a reservists shootng, not to an RPG session.
Add in that I find space rather uninteresting outside of SciFi books and movies and would rather see any efforts on missions past GEO and ALL manned missions stopped and the money used on earth and you might see why I have even less interest in "Reality".
You can have a certain level of realism without being dry.
Imagination and creativity work better when there's limits. You don't have to overwhelm players with incredibly long number strings (that's what High Guard's for) or complicated equations and relationships (oops, that's Book 6).
Basically, if there's already some arcane mechanics in the game, which there is, they might as well be as realistic as possible. They are not, but as Mal has proved, fixing it is a: possible, and b: not a game breaker.
I think the point is not to be hyper realistic, just not incredibly, and obviously, unrealistic, which half the OTU is, more or less.
Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy. Traveller is, after all, not the type of game where every planet speaks English and looks like Canada. But where does one stop with "some realism"? Do we stop with what some people think planets should be?
Or maybe we should fix computers, they are EXTREMLY BROKEN as any engineer of Applied Computer Science, Speciality Process Control Systems can tell you.
Or maybe the ship crews. They are far too small, they need massiv computer/robot aid or more crew. Again, having done 24/7 operations in technical systems I can asure you about that.
How about technological differences? Shouldn't they have stopped long ago, at least in the core sectors? The 3I has Standard Data Packets for a small fee so uplift your planet
I can likel make a dozend valid points where Traveller is "Unrealistic" that need to be changed. None will have grave consequences but in the long run, it will stop being Traveller. And where does one stop?
Another problem is that the re-work costs unneccessary effort that I can spend better for other things.
And "Realism" is something I have 140+ hours per week, it's called a life. Same for my players/GM's. Roleplaying for us is escapism and there I WANT to be able to pull a "Chow Yun Fat" and add a "Walker" just for fun. If I want realistic weapons I go to the shooting range or a reservists shootng, not to an RPG session.
Add in that I find space rather uninteresting outside of SciFi books and movies and would rather see any efforts on missions past GEO and ALL manned missions stopped and the money used on earth and you might see why I have even less interest in "Reality".
mbrinkhues
February 26th, 2007, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
It's down to priorities really - a ref should be prepared to do some er... preparation anyway. I'm sure some refs spend ages detailing an entire startown that players only visit a tiny part of, and that would just be classed as 'normal prep' for such people.
This is all pre-game prep anyway. When a ref is initially designing the subsector or whatever, that's when he'd do all this work. (presumably the ref is going to be doing actual work here too, not just grabbing random subsector sheets and throwing them together). It just depends on how much time one is willing to put into it is all.
But if that realistic data already existed in a usable form, would you use it? Strange, I never constructed a subsector for Traveller. There where some around to use. Like the Spinward Marches, Diaspora...
Neither do I spend hours detailing a starport. A short walk through a harbor district sets the basics and off we go. None of my players want a 1:10000 military map for most games(1) they are happy with a rough description and a basic sketch.
To your last question: I would not care. I need a rough stellar map and some systems, don't care wether they are realistic or not unless I play 2300AD(2).
(1)And for T2K games I actually use REAL 1:10000 maps.
(2)In that case I would NEVER use a "realistic" map - breaks the game
It's down to priorities really - a ref should be prepared to do some er... preparation anyway. I'm sure some refs spend ages detailing an entire startown that players only visit a tiny part of, and that would just be classed as 'normal prep' for such people.
This is all pre-game prep anyway. When a ref is initially designing the subsector or whatever, that's when he'd do all this work. (presumably the ref is going to be doing actual work here too, not just grabbing random subsector sheets and throwing them together). It just depends on how much time one is willing to put into it is all.
But if that realistic data already existed in a usable form, would you use it? Strange, I never constructed a subsector for Traveller. There where some around to use. Like the Spinward Marches, Diaspora...
Neither do I spend hours detailing a starport. A short walk through a harbor district sets the basics and off we go. None of my players want a 1:10000 military map for most games(1) they are happy with a rough description and a basic sketch.
To your last question: I would not care. I need a rough stellar map and some systems, don't care wether they are realistic or not unless I play 2300AD(2).
(1)And for T2K games I actually use REAL 1:10000 maps.
(2)In that case I would NEVER use a "realistic" map - breaks the game
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Klaus:
When your player says. "But this planet is far too small for such a dense atmosphere." My reply would be, "Yes, it's a mystery, isn't it. How will you go about finding out why?"
Then it is not just the single solution of mining for radioactives.
- Terraformed only a few millenia ago by some lost race
- It was once larger, and is shrinking from the inside out, due to some sort of high gravity dimensional rift or .. something.
- It does have a dense core, but the core is lead.. or some other non-radioactive metal.
- The players never find out, and it remains an unexplained enigma / puzzle, that might spin out for years, as they try to figure it out, meet with scientific NPCs in game, do their own surveys.
That's my spin on such a situation. Again, I'm seeking story factors for scenarios, not "realism"
Oncce something is explained, categorized, and defined, it is no longer a mysterious unknown, it is known, and...that's that.
Things that the players do not know keep up the uncertainty, and thus add to the dramatic tension.
Once it is resolved, it's no longer dramatic, time to move on.
When your player says. "But this planet is far too small for such a dense atmosphere." My reply would be, "Yes, it's a mystery, isn't it. How will you go about finding out why?"
Then it is not just the single solution of mining for radioactives.
- Terraformed only a few millenia ago by some lost race
- It was once larger, and is shrinking from the inside out, due to some sort of high gravity dimensional rift or .. something.
- It does have a dense core, but the core is lead.. or some other non-radioactive metal.
- The players never find out, and it remains an unexplained enigma / puzzle, that might spin out for years, as they try to figure it out, meet with scientific NPCs in game, do their own surveys.
That's my spin on such a situation. Again, I'm seeking story factors for scenarios, not "realism"
Oncce something is explained, categorized, and defined, it is no longer a mysterious unknown, it is known, and...that's that.
Things that the players do not know keep up the uncertainty, and thus add to the dramatic tension.
Once it is resolved, it's no longer dramatic, time to move on.
mbrinkhues
February 26th, 2007, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Merxiless:
All good points, Jeff.
To skip back a bit, there is some kind of law or requirement of biology that to grow plants in soil you must have already had that soil "laced" with microbes, for some reason based in both organic chemistry and biology that I don't quite understand.
I read this in one of those Asimov or Heinlein "An SF-writer, writes on real science" books.
The end result is you can't take a world that has no native life, and just drop a colony that is designed to grow it's own food there in native soil without that soil being prepared over quite some time by microbial life. Plants just won't grow, is the gist of it.
Again, I'm no biologist. I respect the facts behind it on a science level, but it just blows my whole colony here, colony there setup out of the water, and messes with what I set up years and years before reading the specific book / article. Actually you could do the "lacing" yourself, bringing your own microbes etc. That's what most likely would have to be done to use i.e Mars soil if some of the stranger Mars ideas ever find finance.
All good points, Jeff.
To skip back a bit, there is some kind of law or requirement of biology that to grow plants in soil you must have already had that soil "laced" with microbes, for some reason based in both organic chemistry and biology that I don't quite understand.
I read this in one of those Asimov or Heinlein "An SF-writer, writes on real science" books.
The end result is you can't take a world that has no native life, and just drop a colony that is designed to grow it's own food there in native soil without that soil being prepared over quite some time by microbial life. Plants just won't grow, is the gist of it.
Again, I'm no biologist. I respect the facts behind it on a science level, but it just blows my whole colony here, colony there setup out of the water, and messes with what I set up years and years before reading the specific book / article. Actually you could do the "lacing" yourself, bringing your own microbes etc. That's what most likely would have to be done to use i.e Mars soil if some of the stranger Mars ideas ever find finance.
Jeff M. Hopper
February 26th, 2007, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
But if that realistic data already existed in a usable form, would you use it? Depends on the data. If 90% of it is crap I or my players won't use, then why would I want it?
I enjoy Traveller and I enjoy astronomy, doesn't mean I want to tear apart the OTU and rewrite everything so that it fits in with the latest Hipparcos catalog data.
But if that realistic data already existed in a usable form, would you use it? Depends on the data. If 90% of it is crap I or my players won't use, then why would I want it?
I enjoy Traveller and I enjoy astronomy, doesn't mean I want to tear apart the OTU and rewrite everything so that it fits in with the latest Hipparcos catalog data.
Jeff M. Hopper
February 26th, 2007, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Klaus:
Yes. 15 years as an artist, studying, practicing, teaching. Varez. Can. Captain Beefheart. 8-bit Nintendo game music. Sushi. Picasso. Star Wars vs The Phantom Menace. El Mariachi vs Desperado. Doctor Who. Haiku. Chess. Einstein. Miyazaki. Tezuka. Bad Taste vs King Kong. Tetris. Ascii art. I could go on. Not trying to be insulting, but could you be a little bit more clear in showing your proof? All I got out of the above was that you are claiming expertise as an artist.
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Klaus:
Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy. And this disrupts actual game play how? </font>[/QUOTE]When your player says. "But this planet is far too small for such a dense atmosphere." You reply, Erm, it's really dense..
"So it must have loads of radioactives or heavy metals. Lets set up a mining base and get rich." or
"Yeah, but so were the last two planets we went to. What gives?"
And yes, I've had players who would ask such reasonable questions. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Sounds instead like the opportunity to create a new adventure path that the players are more interested in.
Besides, the high density atm/small world may only be the current conditions. Nobody said that they have to last. :D
Yes. 15 years as an artist, studying, practicing, teaching. Varez. Can. Captain Beefheart. 8-bit Nintendo game music. Sushi. Picasso. Star Wars vs The Phantom Menace. El Mariachi vs Desperado. Doctor Who. Haiku. Chess. Einstein. Miyazaki. Tezuka. Bad Taste vs King Kong. Tetris. Ascii art. I could go on. Not trying to be insulting, but could you be a little bit more clear in showing your proof? All I got out of the above was that you are claiming expertise as an artist.
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Klaus:
Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy. And this disrupts actual game play how? </font>[/QUOTE]When your player says. "But this planet is far too small for such a dense atmosphere." You reply, Erm, it's really dense..
"So it must have loads of radioactives or heavy metals. Lets set up a mining base and get rich." or
"Yeah, but so were the last two planets we went to. What gives?"
And yes, I've had players who would ask such reasonable questions. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Sounds instead like the opportunity to create a new adventure path that the players are more interested in.
Besides, the high density atm/small world may only be the current conditions. Nobody said that they have to last. :D
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Neither do I spend hours detailing a starport. Exactly. Placing it down on paper like the old Judges Guild 50 starport books just makes it one big space dungeon with the buildings outside.
I find that it constrains my ability to tell a flowing story, and bogs it down into minute details like:
It takes you 15 minutes to walk to the gun shop and another 15 to buy the scopes you ordered. 20 minutes to go to the tramway, then 15 minutes to get money exchanged, more to wait for the tram, after your party spends a few minutes at the ticket booth. 20 minute tram ride to the Cargo dealer. All faithfully followed on the map.
It's tedious.
I'd rather have it set up like this:
"We jump for Denali III, so we can sell off those rifles we got from the guys across the border."
You arrive at the Denali downport and there are clusters of ships leaving too and fro. An Oberlindes line freighter is boosting for orbit under full power, and the roar is deafening.
"We catch a tram to the Cargo Dealer's office."
Arriving at the Office, you all have been arguing with him for a good half hour.
The Cargo dealer says, "Good gods, you guys drive a hard bargain. Okay, here's the deal: 3.5 mil for the rifles, but you got to drop off 2 loads for me on Altos II by the end of the week, no questions asked. That's my final offer, take it or leave it."
And then the players decide.
If they want to do something different, I go with that, instead, thus nothing I ever set up is sitting there, unused, and I don't have to agonize over feet, yards, inches, and millimeters to do X.
Neither do I spend hours detailing a starport. Exactly. Placing it down on paper like the old Judges Guild 50 starport books just makes it one big space dungeon with the buildings outside.
I find that it constrains my ability to tell a flowing story, and bogs it down into minute details like:
It takes you 15 minutes to walk to the gun shop and another 15 to buy the scopes you ordered. 20 minutes to go to the tramway, then 15 minutes to get money exchanged, more to wait for the tram, after your party spends a few minutes at the ticket booth. 20 minute tram ride to the Cargo dealer. All faithfully followed on the map.
It's tedious.
I'd rather have it set up like this:
"We jump for Denali III, so we can sell off those rifles we got from the guys across the border."
You arrive at the Denali downport and there are clusters of ships leaving too and fro. An Oberlindes line freighter is boosting for orbit under full power, and the roar is deafening.
"We catch a tram to the Cargo Dealer's office."
Arriving at the Office, you all have been arguing with him for a good half hour.
The Cargo dealer says, "Good gods, you guys drive a hard bargain. Okay, here's the deal: 3.5 mil for the rifles, but you got to drop off 2 loads for me on Altos II by the end of the week, no questions asked. That's my final offer, take it or leave it."
And then the players decide.
If they want to do something different, I go with that, instead, thus nothing I ever set up is sitting there, unused, and I don't have to agonize over feet, yards, inches, and millimeters to do X.
ravells
February 26th, 2007, 05:28 PM
And "Realism" is something I have 140+ hours per week, it's called a life.Yes, I can relate to that! That's what I like about the 'evolution of a starport' project, I can just let my imagination run riot and forget about thankless clients, legal opinions and money grabbing so and sos who use the court system as an engine to make money rather than to resolve genuine diputes (and those arn't even the lawyers).
Playing traveller is the same...once a week on Sundays I enter this lovely fantastical realm on Grip with Valarian where I can lose myself for a couple of hours in something that isn't real. That said, if the rules were written with realism in mind, it would be better for me, because I'd actually be playing and learning at the same time. And if I felt the realism got in the way of a beautiful setting, I'd lose the realism. Like Merx said, having big zepplin airfields and people flying around wearing grav belts is the way to go for me.
Ravs
Playing traveller is the same...once a week on Sundays I enter this lovely fantastical realm on Grip with Valarian where I can lose myself for a couple of hours in something that isn't real. That said, if the rules were written with realism in mind, it would be better for me, because I'd actually be playing and learning at the same time. And if I felt the realism got in the way of a beautiful setting, I'd lose the realism. Like Merx said, having big zepplin airfields and people flying around wearing grav belts is the way to go for me.
Ravs
Malenfant
February 26th, 2007, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Outland and Alien realistic? Where? In the fact that anything around Jupiter will be roasted by the radiation for the Io-Jupiter link? The Alien eggs that survive for how long? The whole Alien species?
Sorry, little realism there. [/QB]I think it's funny that you're even stricter about realism than I am. ;)
Those are realistic movies as far as sf goes. But like I said, I don't demand 100% realism in everything, and I think expecting that is somewhat unreasonable. This is science-fiction we're talking about after all, not a science documentary.
I'm all for a good story, and I don't really care if the setting is realistic or not - what matters more to me is that it's consistent and coherent. And if you have to stretch reality in places to get that then I'm happy to do it, but only if it doesn't create a jarring inconsistency in the process. And if you have to stretch it in too many places then it just starts to get silly (which is basically what Traveller does).
Outland and Alien realistic? Where? In the fact that anything around Jupiter will be roasted by the radiation for the Io-Jupiter link? The Alien eggs that survive for how long? The whole Alien species?
Sorry, little realism there. [/QB]I think it's funny that you're even stricter about realism than I am. ;)
Those are realistic movies as far as sf goes. But like I said, I don't demand 100% realism in everything, and I think expecting that is somewhat unreasonable. This is science-fiction we're talking about after all, not a science documentary.
I'm all for a good story, and I don't really care if the setting is realistic or not - what matters more to me is that it's consistent and coherent. And if you have to stretch reality in places to get that then I'm happy to do it, but only if it doesn't create a jarring inconsistency in the process. And if you have to stretch it in too many places then it just starts to get silly (which is basically what Traveller does).
ravells
February 26th, 2007, 05:40 PM
Sorry don't mean to threadjack but one little quote went unnoticed:
Klaus said:
Yes. 15 years as an artist, studying, practicing, teaching. WHERE are your traveller pictures???? I want to see!
Ravs
Klaus said:
Yes. 15 years as an artist, studying, practicing, teaching. WHERE are your traveller pictures???? I want to see!
Ravs
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Klaus:
When I see space opera style, whether in rpg, book, or tv/screen form, I keep seeing the same old chesnuts over and over. Pardon, but when I see writing in any form, in any media, I see the same old chestnuts over and over.
Boy meets girl.
Brother kills brother.
Coming of age.
Fish out of water.
Rebels against the Empire.
Empire against the Barbarians.
Zero to 100.
Fall from Greatness.
A daring enterprise.
The last mission before retirement / blaze of glory.
Save the earth, before doom befalls it.
And ALL of THOSE are valid.
It's all the human condition, human stories, of heroes, and villains, despite the specific set of rules used.
Just the details of setting and genre change slightly, (or more than slightly) in the telling.
And the setting of Traveller was set long ago, with evolutions over time via different editions, that some embraced, and some didn't. Thus results all of this division by rules set.
Making it more realistic is yet another refinement and revision, to Traveller pocket universe 326-A-v3.1b
Everyone's concept of Traveller is, I think, slightly different. But as long as there is general agreement on what is "Basic" to the setting, those people can play together.
When I see space opera style, whether in rpg, book, or tv/screen form, I keep seeing the same old chesnuts over and over. Pardon, but when I see writing in any form, in any media, I see the same old chestnuts over and over.
Boy meets girl.
Brother kills brother.
Coming of age.
Fish out of water.
Rebels against the Empire.
Empire against the Barbarians.
Zero to 100.
Fall from Greatness.
A daring enterprise.
The last mission before retirement / blaze of glory.
Save the earth, before doom befalls it.
And ALL of THOSE are valid.
It's all the human condition, human stories, of heroes, and villains, despite the specific set of rules used.
Just the details of setting and genre change slightly, (or more than slightly) in the telling.
And the setting of Traveller was set long ago, with evolutions over time via different editions, that some embraced, and some didn't. Thus results all of this division by rules set.
Making it more realistic is yet another refinement and revision, to Traveller pocket universe 326-A-v3.1b
Everyone's concept of Traveller is, I think, slightly different. But as long as there is general agreement on what is "Basic" to the setting, those people can play together.
ravells
February 26th, 2007, 05:42 PM
What does zero to 100 mean?
Ravs
Ravs
Malenfant
February 26th, 2007, 05:49 PM
I also find it interesting that I've been saying "you don't need to go totally overboard on realism" (and that's coming from a member of the "realism is not a bad thing" camp) and yet others - who happen to be in the "realism = booooring" camp - seem to be insisting that if you have realism then everything has to be meticulously detailed and 100% realistic.
It seems to be a circular, strawman argument. Merx backed up his claim that realism must make a game boring by citing an example where he chose to run a boring realistic game. That doesn't prove anything at all - I've run interesting, realistic games myself, and there are several SF RPG lines out there that are realistic (e.g. Transhuman Space, Blue Planet) that people find enjoyable and definitely aren't bored by. They're certainly not for everyone, but if it's not for you then don't worry about it - carry on having fun doing space opera, nobody's stopping you!
But to drag this back on topic, the point was that adding some more realism to the setting doesn't necessarily make it "not Traveller" at all if it's done right.
It seems to be a circular, strawman argument. Merx backed up his claim that realism must make a game boring by citing an example where he chose to run a boring realistic game. That doesn't prove anything at all - I've run interesting, realistic games myself, and there are several SF RPG lines out there that are realistic (e.g. Transhuman Space, Blue Planet) that people find enjoyable and definitely aren't bored by. They're certainly not for everyone, but if it's not for you then don't worry about it - carry on having fun doing space opera, nobody's stopping you!
But to drag this back on topic, the point was that adding some more realism to the setting doesn't necessarily make it "not Traveller" at all if it's done right.
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 05:49 PM
Some person who:
Is in dire straits, and makes it good through hard effort (and thus success) - A Zero to 100 story
"Coal Miner's Daughter" (Life of Loretta Lynn)
or via luck (and since fortune is fickle, loses it all, when luck takes it away again, leaving them with appreciation of what they had, riches in spirit.)
"The Jerk" starring Steve Martin.
I could give more examples if you've never seen those, but I'd have to consult my screenwriting books in depth for some time.
Is in dire straits, and makes it good through hard effort (and thus success) - A Zero to 100 story
"Coal Miner's Daughter" (Life of Loretta Lynn)
or via luck (and since fortune is fickle, loses it all, when luck takes it away again, leaving them with appreciation of what they had, riches in spirit.)
"The Jerk" starring Steve Martin.
I could give more examples if you've never seen those, but I'd have to consult my screenwriting books in depth for some time.
Klaus
February 26th, 2007, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Not trying to be insulting, but could you be a little bit more clear in showing your proof? All I got out of the above was that you are claiming expertise as an artist.
No insult taken. One of the main things you are taught at art college is to set yourself limits to work within. You get creative by challenging those limits. When you teach, you need to set defined limits to get the best out of your students.
An example. Doing life drawing with the wrong hand, with a 10 second time limit. That's a standard exercise. Produces interesting results.
Another example (probably contraversial): Pink Floyd wrote good songs, but knob twiddled all the soul out of it on their 32 track mixing desks. However, all the covers I've heard are fantastic.
With Star Wars, George Lucas was severely limited in what he could do with special effects, and with budget. He worked against them and produced an arguable masterpiece. TPM had no limits with budget or cgi, and was a lazy, godawful mess.
And you have to admit Bad Taste is far more creative than the cgi borefest that is King Kong.
Tezuka and Miyazaki tell epic stories in 5 frames a second.
Einstein's great leap of imagination came from struggling with the limits of known physics.
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Sounds instead like the opportunity to create a new adventure path that the players are more interested in.
Besides, the high density atm/small world may only be the current conditions. Nobody said that they have to last. :D Well, it is, the first time round. There's only so many excuses you can make. There are an awful lot of those tiny rocks with shirtsleeve conditions.
Agreed, the problems with the OTU don't have to spoil your fun. But it niggles, where it needn't have done.
BTW, does anyone think Firefly would be any better if the ships made zooming sounds in space? smile.gif
Not trying to be insulting, but could you be a little bit more clear in showing your proof? All I got out of the above was that you are claiming expertise as an artist.
No insult taken. One of the main things you are taught at art college is to set yourself limits to work within. You get creative by challenging those limits. When you teach, you need to set defined limits to get the best out of your students.
An example. Doing life drawing with the wrong hand, with a 10 second time limit. That's a standard exercise. Produces interesting results.
Another example (probably contraversial): Pink Floyd wrote good songs, but knob twiddled all the soul out of it on their 32 track mixing desks. However, all the covers I've heard are fantastic.
With Star Wars, George Lucas was severely limited in what he could do with special effects, and with budget. He worked against them and produced an arguable masterpiece. TPM had no limits with budget or cgi, and was a lazy, godawful mess.
And you have to admit Bad Taste is far more creative than the cgi borefest that is King Kong.
Tezuka and Miyazaki tell epic stories in 5 frames a second.
Einstein's great leap of imagination came from struggling with the limits of known physics.
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Sounds instead like the opportunity to create a new adventure path that the players are more interested in.
Besides, the high density atm/small world may only be the current conditions. Nobody said that they have to last. :D Well, it is, the first time round. There's only so many excuses you can make. There are an awful lot of those tiny rocks with shirtsleeve conditions.
Agreed, the problems with the OTU don't have to spoil your fun. But it niggles, where it needn't have done.
BTW, does anyone think Firefly would be any better if the ships made zooming sounds in space? smile.gif
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 06:00 PM
With Star Wars, George Lucas was severely limited in what he could do with special effects, and with budget. He worked against them and produced an arguable masterpiece. TPM had no limits with budget or cgi, and was a lazy, godawful mess.This can be easily argued to be the fault of the story / screenplay. With a better story, and more development, this could have potentially done much better, with the graphics as frosting on the cake.
As it was it was mostly a focus on visual elements of the setting, and not dramatic elements of the story (where it properly should have been to make an effective film).
As it was it was mostly a focus on visual elements of the setting, and not dramatic elements of the story (where it properly should have been to make an effective film).
Klaus
February 26th, 2007, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
WHERE are your traveller pictures???? I want to see!
Ravs Well since my hard drive died I've kinda lost most of it (yup, this numbnutz failed to back up), but I do have a piece in the last issue of the Stellar Reaches (http://stellarreaches.nwgamers.org/), page 10.
Need to get out the graphics tablet again...
WHERE are your traveller pictures???? I want to see!
Ravs Well since my hard drive died I've kinda lost most of it (yup, this numbnutz failed to back up), but I do have a piece in the last issue of the Stellar Reaches (http://stellarreaches.nwgamers.org/), page 10.
Need to get out the graphics tablet again...
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 06:01 PM
I've always been a fan of "zooming sounds, engines, weapons fire, and the like in space"
No realistic at all. But fun.
No realistic at all. But fun.
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 06:05 PM
Oh yeah, and addendum:
Fighters turning like World war II planes, except with no air or lift in space is also on my list of pretty cool.
Fighters turning like World war II planes, except with no air or lift in space is also on my list of pretty cool.
ravells
February 26th, 2007, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Klaus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ravs:
WHERE are your traveller pictures???? I want to see!
Ravs Well since my hard drive died I've kinda lost most of it (yup, this numbnutz failed to back up), but I do have a piece in the last issue of the Stellar Reaches (http://stellarreaches.nwgamers.org/), page 10.
Need to get out the graphics tablet again... </font>[/QUOTE]I hope you get your tablet out soon! Great picture! It must have been soul destroying to have lost all your work.
Ah I see what you mean by zero to 100 now. cheers
Ravs
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ravs:
WHERE are your traveller pictures???? I want to see!
Ravs Well since my hard drive died I've kinda lost most of it (yup, this numbnutz failed to back up), but I do have a piece in the last issue of the Stellar Reaches (http://stellarreaches.nwgamers.org/), page 10.
Need to get out the graphics tablet again... </font>[/QUOTE]I hope you get your tablet out soon! Great picture! It must have been soul destroying to have lost all your work.
Ah I see what you mean by zero to 100 now. cheers
Ravs
Klaus
February 26th, 2007, 06:18 PM
But you can't say it wouldn't spoil Firefly in a small way.
Mal's point about inconsistency hits the nail on the head. Traveller models the military aspects to minutae, as evidenced by 5 military careers (inc. COTI) and Striker, yet the Scientist doesn't even get any science skills.
Whatever your favoured mode of play, you need a consistent backdrop. The OTU doesn't offer that on close inspection. And it's easily fixed, either by tweaking UWPs yourself or using a better model to produce them
Ta, Ravs. Somethings brewing, but not sure exactly what form yet. smile.gif
Mal's point about inconsistency hits the nail on the head. Traveller models the military aspects to minutae, as evidenced by 5 military careers (inc. COTI) and Striker, yet the Scientist doesn't even get any science skills.
Whatever your favoured mode of play, you need a consistent backdrop. The OTU doesn't offer that on close inspection. And it's easily fixed, either by tweaking UWPs yourself or using a better model to produce them
Ta, Ravs. Somethings brewing, but not sure exactly what form yet. smile.gif
mbrinkhues
February 26th, 2007, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Outland and Alien realistic? Where? In the fact that anything around Jupiter will be roasted by the radiation for the Io-Jupiter link? The Alien eggs that survive for how long? The whole Alien species?
Sorry, little realism there. I think it's funny that you're even stricter about realism than I am. ;)
Those are realistic movies as far as sf goes. But like I said, I don't demand 100% realism in everything, and I think expecting that is somewhat unreasonable. This is science-fiction we're talking about after all, not a science documentary.
I'm all for a good story, and I don't really care if the setting is realistic or not - what matters more to me is that it's consistent and coherent. And if you have to stretch reality in places to get that then I'm happy to do it, but only if it doesn't create a jarring inconsistency in the process. And if you have to stretch it in too many places then it just starts to get silly (which is basically what Traveller does). [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Actually the problems with both movies are in the same region as your proposed changes. After all it's just changing a moon or an alien :cool:
As for the rest: I don't care enough about Astronomy to actually notice the "errors" in Traveller so I don't have a problem with them.
And the rest where all similar examples to yours. Your pet problem are Astronomy and Aliens. Another Persons Problems are Computers and Gravitics, a third has...
Where do you stop changing the universe? After all everybodys "errors" have the same value.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Outland and Alien realistic? Where? In the fact that anything around Jupiter will be roasted by the radiation for the Io-Jupiter link? The Alien eggs that survive for how long? The whole Alien species?
Sorry, little realism there. I think it's funny that you're even stricter about realism than I am. ;)
Those are realistic movies as far as sf goes. But like I said, I don't demand 100% realism in everything, and I think expecting that is somewhat unreasonable. This is science-fiction we're talking about after all, not a science documentary.
I'm all for a good story, and I don't really care if the setting is realistic or not - what matters more to me is that it's consistent and coherent. And if you have to stretch reality in places to get that then I'm happy to do it, but only if it doesn't create a jarring inconsistency in the process. And if you have to stretch it in too many places then it just starts to get silly (which is basically what Traveller does). [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Actually the problems with both movies are in the same region as your proposed changes. After all it's just changing a moon or an alien :cool:
As for the rest: I don't care enough about Astronomy to actually notice the "errors" in Traveller so I don't have a problem with them.
And the rest where all similar examples to yours. Your pet problem are Astronomy and Aliens. Another Persons Problems are Computers and Gravitics, a third has...
Where do you stop changing the universe? After all everybodys "errors" have the same value.
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 06:35 PM
I think I saw that Scientists got Science skills in MT. I am sure I recall being able to get robotics, and sensors and such.
I solve the "perceived problem" by not inspecting the setting too closely, and just tell stories.
As to your point:
And it's easily fixed, either by tweaking UWPs yourself or using a better model to produce themYet you also say, "you need a consistent backdrop."
Except that the "Consistent Backdrop" is what you / others want to change, via "tweak" or "better model".
Which is, I think the crux / point of argument for those who don't want it changed, by either method.
The setting as is, it might be unrealistic, but its not changing when someone comes along with a "fix", which may or may not be applicable to everyone / anyone in specific. Doing otherwise results in more work, and effort for the referee to keep track.
Again, I think this falls back into who designed it, and approves it as canon. When GDW makes those kinds of changes, and makes them Official, people accept the changes, stick with what they have, or abandon it, as a game.
I know that some have added in new sectors to the setting, and got them "approved" via license, or emailing Marc for permission / review.
But I will always feel, if I want to change it, I change it for me, not to even attempt anything on the order of: "Oh, this is so much better, more realistic, let's make everyone do it."
That's the point where I will resist, actively.
I solve the "perceived problem" by not inspecting the setting too closely, and just tell stories.
As to your point:
And it's easily fixed, either by tweaking UWPs yourself or using a better model to produce themYet you also say, "you need a consistent backdrop."
Except that the "Consistent Backdrop" is what you / others want to change, via "tweak" or "better model".
Which is, I think the crux / point of argument for those who don't want it changed, by either method.
The setting as is, it might be unrealistic, but its not changing when someone comes along with a "fix", which may or may not be applicable to everyone / anyone in specific. Doing otherwise results in more work, and effort for the referee to keep track.
Again, I think this falls back into who designed it, and approves it as canon. When GDW makes those kinds of changes, and makes them Official, people accept the changes, stick with what they have, or abandon it, as a game.
I know that some have added in new sectors to the setting, and got them "approved" via license, or emailing Marc for permission / review.
But I will always feel, if I want to change it, I change it for me, not to even attempt anything on the order of: "Oh, this is so much better, more realistic, let's make everyone do it."
That's the point where I will resist, actively.
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
And the rest where all similar examples to yours. Your pet problem are Astronomy and Aliens. Another Persons Problems are Computers and Gravitics, a third has...
Where do you stop changing the universe? After all everybodys "errors" have the same value. I agree, exactly.
I might have a focus on changing ship missiles, and 3 act stories. That doesn't mean everyone else should, or feel compelled to.
And the rest where all similar examples to yours. Your pet problem are Astronomy and Aliens. Another Persons Problems are Computers and Gravitics, a third has...
Where do you stop changing the universe? After all everybodys "errors" have the same value. I agree, exactly.
I might have a focus on changing ship missiles, and 3 act stories. That doesn't mean everyone else should, or feel compelled to.
Klaus
February 26th, 2007, 06:40 PM
I think the point here is that computers and gravitics are future tech that we can apply plausible handwavium to. Aliens are the purest speculation anyway, so you can plausibly justify almost anything.
The astronomical problems break some concrete laws of physics that we can't handwave away. Thats the nigglesome bit.
The astronomical problems break some concrete laws of physics that we can't handwave away. Thats the nigglesome bit.
flykiller
February 26th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Traveller models the military aspects to minutaereally? I didn't notice floor buffer operations in the list of skills ....
Whatever your favoured mode of play, you need a consistent backdrop.if it tried to cover everything officially, how thick would the book be?
it can't cover everything, so some compromise is made - it tries to cover what most people want and need to play.
running CT, a player says he wants to be a journalist, so I make up career tables for it and invented a couple of new skills. took half an hour.
Whatever your favoured mode of play, you need a consistent backdrop.if it tried to cover everything officially, how thick would the book be?
it can't cover everything, so some compromise is made - it tries to cover what most people want and need to play.
running CT, a player says he wants to be a journalist, so I make up career tables for it and invented a couple of new skills. took half an hour.
mbrinkhues
February 26th, 2007, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Klaus:
But you can't say it wouldn't spoil Firefly in a small way.
Mal's point about inconsistency hits the nail on the head. Traveller models the military aspects to minutae, as evidenced by 5 military careers (inc. COTI) and Striker, yet the Scientist doesn't even get any science skills.
Whatever your favoured mode of play, you need a consistent backdrop. The OTU doesn't offer that on close inspection. And it's easily fixed, either by tweaking UWPs yourself or using a better model to produce them
Ta, Ravs. Somethings brewing, but not sure exactly what form yet. smile.gif Actually NO GDW system models military careers anywhere near reality once you leave the US system. I could model exactly TWO out of about 20 professional (non conscript) german soldiers.
And while I don't know about CT, the Scientist in MT does get the full set of Science skills (Roll of 5 and 6, pg 23) and some more in Technical (Roll 3 and 4, pg 23)
As for the rest, the Traveller Universe of MT and better is rather stabel and consistent unless one starts searching for bugs and problems.
But you can't say it wouldn't spoil Firefly in a small way.
Mal's point about inconsistency hits the nail on the head. Traveller models the military aspects to minutae, as evidenced by 5 military careers (inc. COTI) and Striker, yet the Scientist doesn't even get any science skills.
Whatever your favoured mode of play, you need a consistent backdrop. The OTU doesn't offer that on close inspection. And it's easily fixed, either by tweaking UWPs yourself or using a better model to produce them
Ta, Ravs. Somethings brewing, but not sure exactly what form yet. smile.gif Actually NO GDW system models military careers anywhere near reality once you leave the US system. I could model exactly TWO out of about 20 professional (non conscript) german soldiers.
And while I don't know about CT, the Scientist in MT does get the full set of Science skills (Roll of 5 and 6, pg 23) and some more in Technical (Roll 3 and 4, pg 23)
As for the rest, the Traveller Universe of MT and better is rather stabel and consistent unless one starts searching for bugs and problems.
mbrinkhues
February 26th, 2007, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Klaus:
I think the point here is that computers and gravitics are future tech that we can apply plausible handwavium to. Aliens are the purest speculation anyway, so you can plausibly justify almost anything.
The astronomical problems break some concrete laws of physics that we can't handwave away. Thats the nigglesome bit. If future tech would be more advanced or even on the 1980s level, I would agree. Traveller Computers are closer to ENIAC in size.
And if I can accept Aliens (That I don't believe in IRL), FTL, MDrives and Gravitics (That break the currently accepted laws of physics just as well) than I can also accept the stellar problems. After all we are ignoring Einstein and Newton so we might just as well ignore Kepler and Gallilei.
I think the point here is that computers and gravitics are future tech that we can apply plausible handwavium to. Aliens are the purest speculation anyway, so you can plausibly justify almost anything.
The astronomical problems break some concrete laws of physics that we can't handwave away. Thats the nigglesome bit. If future tech would be more advanced or even on the 1980s level, I would agree. Traveller Computers are closer to ENIAC in size.
And if I can accept Aliens (That I don't believe in IRL), FTL, MDrives and Gravitics (That break the currently accepted laws of physics just as well) than I can also accept the stellar problems. After all we are ignoring Einstein and Newton so we might just as well ignore Kepler and Gallilei.
Klaus
February 26th, 2007, 06:54 PM
Indeed it can't cover everything. But there should be adequate coverage of things important to sci fi of a hardish flavour (like science), which the OTU does exhibit when it comes the socio-political side of things.
Or more to the point, the stuff thought up by a person rather than generated by dice. That's what is so frustrating to those who care, I think. We like the stuff the game's creators came up with, which is why we play Traveller. The broken stuff didn't have an imagination behind it, just a pair of cubes with numbers on them.
If the data were fixed, all the folks who don't bother with that stuff wouldn't notice the difference, but the folks that do would have an itch scratched.
It's not about saying this is the way you have to play Traveller.
Or more to the point, the stuff thought up by a person rather than generated by dice. That's what is so frustrating to those who care, I think. We like the stuff the game's creators came up with, which is why we play Traveller. The broken stuff didn't have an imagination behind it, just a pair of cubes with numbers on them.
If the data were fixed, all the folks who don't bother with that stuff wouldn't notice the difference, but the folks that do would have an itch scratched.
It's not about saying this is the way you have to play Traveller.
Klaus
February 26th, 2007, 07:10 PM
Depends how much computing power you think you need to plot a jump. Or run a battleship.
The terms are vague here. You could argue it is a battery of computers, including capacitors and cooling systems. OK, in this case, a jump plottable computer at tech level 5 is out of the question, but thats a minor change in the scheme of things.
I don't believe in little green men or greys either, but you can't prove there ain't a bunch of 20 tentacled beasties having a similar conversation 80000 parsecs away... Yet.
As for FTL and gravitics, etc, known physics makes it unlikely, but since we can't get the 2 best models to quite fit, there's wiggle room for those with imagination and hope. But the astrography does stuff we can prove is wrong, is observably untrue.
The terms are vague here. You could argue it is a battery of computers, including capacitors and cooling systems. OK, in this case, a jump plottable computer at tech level 5 is out of the question, but thats a minor change in the scheme of things.
I don't believe in little green men or greys either, but you can't prove there ain't a bunch of 20 tentacled beasties having a similar conversation 80000 parsecs away... Yet.
As for FTL and gravitics, etc, known physics makes it unlikely, but since we can't get the 2 best models to quite fit, there's wiggle room for those with imagination and hope. But the astrography does stuff we can prove is wrong, is observably untrue.
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 07:28 PM
..Until things like polar jetting Black holes are discovered. Or were. Whatever those things are called.
Untrue, in so far as we have not seen all corners of the Universe.
Untrue, in so far as we have not seen all corners of the Universe.
Merxiless
February 26th, 2007, 07:31 PM
Ponder, what if the physical laws of the Universe change as you approach areas of space that were around during the Big Bang? i.e. 15 billion light years out, or whatever?
And yes, I mean, I know okay that this spot was around 15 billion years ago, and space has stretched, or whatever..., just .. see this is where I am like pfft, leave the science to scientists, I want to play the game.
All sorts of crazy things might be found, in places like that. Or closer.
And yes, I mean, I know okay that this spot was around 15 billion years ago, and space has stretched, or whatever..., just .. see this is where I am like pfft, leave the science to scientists, I want to play the game.
All sorts of crazy things might be found, in places like that. Or closer.
Klaus
February 26th, 2007, 07:38 PM
The tiny planet with a dense, breathable atmosphere will, however, always be untrue.
Also, the airless ball with billions of inhabitants next door to a deserted garden world. Strains credulity beyond breaking point, at least with the multiple instances all over the OTU. More people seem to live on hellholes than places with fresh air in fifth millenium.
Also, the airless ball with billions of inhabitants next door to a deserted garden world. Strains credulity beyond breaking point, at least with the multiple instances all over the OTU. More people seem to live on hellholes than places with fresh air in fifth millenium.
Malenfant
February 26th, 2007, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Merxiless:
[QB] Ponder, what if the physical laws of the Universe change as you approach areas of space that were around during the Big Bang? i.e. 15 billion light years out, or whatever?
And yes, I mean, I know okay that this spot was around 15 billion years ago, and space has stretched, or whatever..., just .. see this is where I am like pfft, leave the science to scientists, I want to play the game.
Well obviously, since there's no such thing as "an area of space that was around during the Big Bang". Oh wait, there I go, I'm oppressing your space opera universe. graemlins/file_23.gif
Look, at the end of the day, realism is not an issue for you. Which is great, nobody's complaining about your space opera games and nobody's trying to stop you running them. What I find curious is why you've spent so much time here trying to prove that "realism is boring" if it's a subject you don't even care about.
Traveller obviously isn't pure Space Opera. It can certainly be run like that, and it's not wrong to run it like that either - but it's also got a good deal of (attempts at) realism in it, even though it's nowhere near as realistic as it could be. It seems to pay lip service to both Space Opera and Hard SF without being completely true to either of them. And this again all boils down to the schizophrenic nature of the game - it's trying to be Space Opera and Hard SF at the same time, and all that does is lead to conflict about "how the game is supposed to be played", and about whether the setting itself should be wild and wacky a la space opera or realistic a la Hard SF.
[QB] Ponder, what if the physical laws of the Universe change as you approach areas of space that were around during the Big Bang? i.e. 15 billion light years out, or whatever?
And yes, I mean, I know okay that this spot was around 15 billion years ago, and space has stretched, or whatever..., just .. see this is where I am like pfft, leave the science to scientists, I want to play the game.
Well obviously, since there's no such thing as "an area of space that was around during the Big Bang". Oh wait, there I go, I'm oppressing your space opera universe. graemlins/file_23.gif
Look, at the end of the day, realism is not an issue for you. Which is great, nobody's complaining about your space opera games and nobody's trying to stop you running them. What I find curious is why you've spent so much time here trying to prove that "realism is boring" if it's a subject you don't even care about.
Traveller obviously isn't pure Space Opera. It can certainly be run like that, and it's not wrong to run it like that either - but it's also got a good deal of (attempts at) realism in it, even though it's nowhere near as realistic as it could be. It seems to pay lip service to both Space Opera and Hard SF without being completely true to either of them. And this again all boils down to the schizophrenic nature of the game - it's trying to be Space Opera and Hard SF at the same time, and all that does is lead to conflict about "how the game is supposed to be played", and about whether the setting itself should be wild and wacky a la space opera or realistic a la Hard SF.
alanb
February 26th, 2007, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Klaus:
Also, the airless ball with billions of inhabitants next door to a deserted garden world. Strains credulity beyond breaking point, at least with the multiple instances all over the OTU.It falls down because there are no downsides to "deserted garden worlds" in the OTU. You can just plop yourself down and start plowing.
The Real World(tm) would probably less forgiving. It could well be the case that airless rocks would be better places to live than worlds full of biological hazards and dangerous chemicals.
But that's certainly not the case in the OTU.
Also, the airless ball with billions of inhabitants next door to a deserted garden world. Strains credulity beyond breaking point, at least with the multiple instances all over the OTU.It falls down because there are no downsides to "deserted garden worlds" in the OTU. You can just plop yourself down and start plowing.
The Real World(tm) would probably less forgiving. It could well be the case that airless rocks would be better places to live than worlds full of biological hazards and dangerous chemicals.
But that's certainly not the case in the OTU.
Jeff M. Hopper
February 26th, 2007, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Klaus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Not trying to be insulting, but could you be a little bit more clear in showing your proof? All I got out of the above was that you are claiming expertise as an artist.
No insult taken. One of the main things you are taught at art college is to set yourself limits to work within. You get creative by challenging those limits. When you teach, you need to set defined limits to get the best out of your students.
An example. Doing life drawing with the wrong hand, with a 10 second time limit. That's a standard exercise. Produces interesting results.
Another example (probably contraversial): Pink Floyd wrote good songs, but knob twiddled all the soul out of it on their 32 track mixing desks. However, all the covers I've heard are fantastic.
With Star Wars, George Lucas was severely limited in what he could do with special effects, and with budget. He worked against them and produced an arguable masterpiece. TPM had no limits with budget or cgi, and was a lazy, godawful mess.
And you have to admit Bad Taste is far more creative than the cgi borefest that is King Kong.
Tezuka and Miyazaki tell epic stories in 5 frames a second.
Einstein's great leap of imagination came from struggling with the limits of known physics.
</font>[/QUOTE]OK, now I got you. Although several things are argueable in your examples.
You're the first person I've ever read complain about Pink Floyd, so I'll consider that one as personal preference.
George Lucas and the problems with The Phantom Menace were due to scripting, not special effects. So that analogy falls a bit flat, even though I agree that TPM was bantha poodoo.
I have not seen either bad Taste or the new King Kong, so I can't really say anything on those two.
I'm a fan of Miyazaki, but wouldn't his talent shine just as well if he made live-action movies? Defining the medium as a limit is a bit soft here becuase Miyazaki has had critical success with manga as well as anime, but I understand what you are saying.
As for Eienstein, he is considered a success not because of working within the limits (as is being advocated by the pro-realism faction) - but because he broke out of those limits.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Not trying to be insulting, but could you be a little bit more clear in showing your proof? All I got out of the above was that you are claiming expertise as an artist.
No insult taken. One of the main things you are taught at art college is to set yourself limits to work within. You get creative by challenging those limits. When you teach, you need to set defined limits to get the best out of your students.
An example. Doing life drawing with the wrong hand, with a 10 second time limit. That's a standard exercise. Produces interesting results.
Another example (probably contraversial): Pink Floyd wrote good songs, but knob twiddled all the soul out of it on their 32 track mixing desks. However, all the covers I've heard are fantastic.
With Star Wars, George Lucas was severely limited in what he could do with special effects, and with budget. He worked against them and produced an arguable masterpiece. TPM had no limits with budget or cgi, and was a lazy, godawful mess.
And you have to admit Bad Taste is far more creative than the cgi borefest that is King Kong.
Tezuka and Miyazaki tell epic stories in 5 frames a second.
Einstein's great leap of imagination came from struggling with the limits of known physics.
</font>[/QUOTE]OK, now I got you. Although several things are argueable in your examples.
You're the first person I've ever read complain about Pink Floyd, so I'll consider that one as personal preference.
George Lucas and the problems with The Phantom Menace were due to scripting, not special effects. So that analogy falls a bit flat, even though I agree that TPM was bantha poodoo.
I have not seen either bad Taste or the new King Kong, so I can't really say anything on those two.
I'm a fan of Miyazaki, but wouldn't his talent shine just as well if he made live-action movies? Defining the medium as a limit is a bit soft here becuase Miyazaki has had critical success with manga as well as anime, but I understand what you are saying.
As for Eienstein, he is considered a success not because of working within the limits (as is being advocated by the pro-realism faction) - but because he broke out of those limits.
Jeff M. Hopper
February 26th, 2007, 09:51 PM
As I've stated before, realism works until you start interfering with game play - then it has to go.
Considering some of the complaints about FTL and artificial gravity, aren't those two aspects of science fiction that players expect to see since they show up in science fiction TV and Movies so often? In that, Traveller meets the expectations of players and works.
Considering some of the complaints about FTL and artificial gravity, aren't those two aspects of science fiction that players expect to see since they show up in science fiction TV and Movies so often? In that, Traveller meets the expectations of players and works.
Malenfant
February 26th, 2007, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
As for Einstein, he is considered a success not because of working within the limits (as is being advocated by the pro-realism faction) - but because he broke out of those limits. [/QB]Einstein broke out of the limits of newtonian physics - the point is that he was still ultimately constrained by the limits of reality itself though. He didn't somehow invent a "cooler reality" by thinking out of the box - that reality was there all the time but previously unnoticed. He just opened peoples' eyes to it.
The thing with realistic scifi it's accurate until the reality that it's based on is better understood (at which point it can be updated) - the thing with unrealistic scifi is that it's wrong all the time. Whether that's important to you or not is another matter
You say that the "pro-realism faction" is advocating "working within the limits" as if we're stagnant, close-minded conservatives who are out to limit everyone's choices and oppress everyone's imaginations. Nothing could be further from the truth - if anything we're trying to make people realise that there is actually a lot of interesting stuff out there that can add a lot of fun to a game. We're just trying to open peoples' eyes to the immense possibilities that really are out there and say "hey, you know what? These are cool too!".
Look at Mars. Hell, look at Earth - they're as realistic as you can get because they ARE real. And then tell me you can't think of anything fun or interesting to run on the realistic planets in our own solar system. So what if the planets are dead? You can still run a lot of high human adventure in those environments, are you really going to tell me those wouldn't enjoyable? You certainly don't need canals or martians with heat rays or lost alien civilisations to have an interesting and enjoyable story.
All I'm seeing here are strawmen created by the "reality is boring faction" because they basically don't see any need to actually think about what they are creating. They make wide sweeping generalisations and saying that "realism is always boring", but what they actually mean when they say that is "realism isn't for us". One's expressed as a statement of fact, but the truth is it's just an opinion.
I think much of this really boils down to the fact that some people just don't like being told what to think. Realism is being portrayed as some terrible threat to people's ideas, something that puts limits on their imaginations so things can't be crazy and wacky as they'd like them to be. And yet when I sit down and make a realistic system all I see are a myriad possibilities opening up ahead of me every time I sit down and think about things, that make the place more vivid and real and consistent and add much more depth where none existed before.
And that's the thing really - the wild and wacky space opera style is primarily for people who can't or won't take a closer look and scratch beneath the surface. Sure, it's fun and enjoyable, but there's no depth to it. It's not designed to be thought-provoking or conjectural or even necessarily consistent or coherent. A realistic Hard SF style on the other hand appeals to people who ask "well, why does that work like that?", and when they peel away the surface they can reveal more layers that make everything work togethre as a satisfying, consistent, cohesive whole.
Neither style is objectively better or worse than the other, or "right" or "wrong" - they just appeal to different kinds of people is all.
As for Einstein, he is considered a success not because of working within the limits (as is being advocated by the pro-realism faction) - but because he broke out of those limits. [/QB]Einstein broke out of the limits of newtonian physics - the point is that he was still ultimately constrained by the limits of reality itself though. He didn't somehow invent a "cooler reality" by thinking out of the box - that reality was there all the time but previously unnoticed. He just opened peoples' eyes to it.
The thing with realistic scifi it's accurate until the reality that it's based on is better understood (at which point it can be updated) - the thing with unrealistic scifi is that it's wrong all the time. Whether that's important to you or not is another matter
You say that the "pro-realism faction" is advocating "working within the limits" as if we're stagnant, close-minded conservatives who are out to limit everyone's choices and oppress everyone's imaginations. Nothing could be further from the truth - if anything we're trying to make people realise that there is actually a lot of interesting stuff out there that can add a lot of fun to a game. We're just trying to open peoples' eyes to the immense possibilities that really are out there and say "hey, you know what? These are cool too!".
Look at Mars. Hell, look at Earth - they're as realistic as you can get because they ARE real. And then tell me you can't think of anything fun or interesting to run on the realistic planets in our own solar system. So what if the planets are dead? You can still run a lot of high human adventure in those environments, are you really going to tell me those wouldn't enjoyable? You certainly don't need canals or martians with heat rays or lost alien civilisations to have an interesting and enjoyable story.
All I'm seeing here are strawmen created by the "reality is boring faction" because they basically don't see any need to actually think about what they are creating. They make wide sweeping generalisations and saying that "realism is always boring", but what they actually mean when they say that is "realism isn't for us". One's expressed as a statement of fact, but the truth is it's just an opinion.
I think much of this really boils down to the fact that some people just don't like being told what to think. Realism is being portrayed as some terrible threat to people's ideas, something that puts limits on their imaginations so things can't be crazy and wacky as they'd like them to be. And yet when I sit down and make a realistic system all I see are a myriad possibilities opening up ahead of me every time I sit down and think about things, that make the place more vivid and real and consistent and add much more depth where none existed before.
And that's the thing really - the wild and wacky space opera style is primarily for people who can't or won't take a closer look and scratch beneath the surface. Sure, it's fun and enjoyable, but there's no depth to it. It's not designed to be thought-provoking or conjectural or even necessarily consistent or coherent. A realistic Hard SF style on the other hand appeals to people who ask "well, why does that work like that?", and when they peel away the surface they can reveal more layers that make everything work togethre as a satisfying, consistent, cohesive whole.
Neither style is objectively better or worse than the other, or "right" or "wrong" - they just appeal to different kinds of people is all.
Jeff M. Hopper
February 26th, 2007, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Neither style is objectively better or worse than the other, or "right" or "wrong" - they just appeal to different kinds of people is all. So why can't you drop this subject and let the people who buy the game choose how to play it?
Considering how much passion Traveller inspires in people even after thirty years, I'd say that the game has done something right.
Neither style is objectively better or worse than the other, or "right" or "wrong" - they just appeal to different kinds of people is all. So why can't you drop this subject and let the people who buy the game choose how to play it?
Considering how much passion Traveller inspires in people even after thirty years, I'd say that the game has done something right.
Malenfant
February 26th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
So why can't you drop this subject and let the people who buy the game choose how to play it?graemlins/file_21.gif If anything, Merxiless is the one who keeps on actually attacking anything here and prolonging the discussion, and you're asking me to drop the subject?
I've not made any attempt to impose any play style on anyone at all. In fact the whole point of the thread was to ask why people get so defensive and claim it's "not Traveller" when someone says "hey, how about I fix this thing?".
Considering how much passion Traveller inspires in people even after thirty years, I'd say that the game has done something right.There's plenty of things that inspire passion - sometimes for centuries - but that's certainly not proof that they're actually doing anything "right" ;)
So why can't you drop this subject and let the people who buy the game choose how to play it?graemlins/file_21.gif If anything, Merxiless is the one who keeps on actually attacking anything here and prolonging the discussion, and you're asking me to drop the subject?
I've not made any attempt to impose any play style on anyone at all. In fact the whole point of the thread was to ask why people get so defensive and claim it's "not Traveller" when someone says "hey, how about I fix this thing?".
Considering how much passion Traveller inspires in people even after thirty years, I'd say that the game has done something right.There's plenty of things that inspire passion - sometimes for centuries - but that's certainly not proof that they're actually doing anything "right" ;)
Merxiless
February 27th, 2007, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
So why can't you drop this subject and let the people who buy the game choose how to play it?
Well said.
So why can't you drop this subject and let the people who buy the game choose how to play it?
Well said.
Jeff M. Hopper
February 27th, 2007, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
I've not made any attempt to impose any play style on anyone at all. In fact the whole point of the thread was to ask why people get so defensive and claim it's "not Traveller" when someone says "hey, how about I fix this thing?".
There's plenty of things that inspire passion - sometimes for centuries - but that's certainly not proof that they're actually doing anything "right" And this is the crux of the matter.
While saying that a person may play Traveller however they wish while also saying that Traveller needs to be fixed and that however they are playing Traveller isn't right - it comes off as you inferring that if someone does not play Traveller in the manner which you are advocating is playing Traveller the wrong way. Seems awefully judgemental that inferance.
Hell, saying that Traveller needs to be fixed implies that it was broken to begin with. If the game was broken, then why is it still around?
I've not made any attempt to impose any play style on anyone at all. In fact the whole point of the thread was to ask why people get so defensive and claim it's "not Traveller" when someone says "hey, how about I fix this thing?".
There's plenty of things that inspire passion - sometimes for centuries - but that's certainly not proof that they're actually doing anything "right" And this is the crux of the matter.
While saying that a person may play Traveller however they wish while also saying that Traveller needs to be fixed and that however they are playing Traveller isn't right - it comes off as you inferring that if someone does not play Traveller in the manner which you are advocating is playing Traveller the wrong way. Seems awefully judgemental that inferance.
Hell, saying that Traveller needs to be fixed implies that it was broken to begin with. If the game was broken, then why is it still around?
Malenfant
February 27th, 2007, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
While saying that a person may play Traveller however they wish while also saying that Traveller needs to be fixed and that however they are playing Traveller isn't rightWhich I haven't said at all.
I've said that Traveller needs to be fixed. There are serious and well known issue with its consistency and coherency across the board - not just with planetary realism, but with the way its sociopolitics, military structure and the economics of trade work at the very least.
I have never said that if someone continues to play using these unmodified, uncorrected rules that "their way of playing traveller isn't right". I have actually stated repeatedly that the way someone plays Traveller or the enjoyment that they get from that is of no consequence to this argument at all.
My issue is with the game alone, not with how people play it. Always has been.
- it comes off as you inferring that if someone does not play Traveller in the manner which you are advocating is playing Traveller the wrong way. Seems awefully judgemental that inferance.Well, you're the one inferring it... why are are asking me that question?
English 101: The reader infers, the writer implies. The former is the reader actively interpreting text in a particular way that may or may not actually be what was intended, the latter is the writer writing in such a way as to actively suggest something to the reader.
You have been inferring things that I have not said and then assigning those statements to me.
Hell, saying that Traveller needs to be fixed implies that it was broken to begin with. If the game was broken, then why is it still around?Many religions are "broken" in the sense that they are filled with historical inaccuracy, fiction labelled as fact, and outright contradiction, and they've been around for thousands of years. Why are they still around?
Or let me put it this way: if Traveller wasn't broken, then why do so many people have to house-rule the hell out of it before they can sit down and play it? Why has it had six different editions if the first one was supposedly so perfect? Why does so much of the setting fail to make sense when you stop and think about it for more than half a second?
While saying that a person may play Traveller however they wish while also saying that Traveller needs to be fixed and that however they are playing Traveller isn't rightWhich I haven't said at all.
I've said that Traveller needs to be fixed. There are serious and well known issue with its consistency and coherency across the board - not just with planetary realism, but with the way its sociopolitics, military structure and the economics of trade work at the very least.
I have never said that if someone continues to play using these unmodified, uncorrected rules that "their way of playing traveller isn't right". I have actually stated repeatedly that the way someone plays Traveller or the enjoyment that they get from that is of no consequence to this argument at all.
My issue is with the game alone, not with how people play it. Always has been.
- it comes off as you inferring that if someone does not play Traveller in the manner which you are advocating is playing Traveller the wrong way. Seems awefully judgemental that inferance.Well, you're the one inferring it... why are are asking me that question?
English 101: The reader infers, the writer implies. The former is the reader actively interpreting text in a particular way that may or may not actually be what was intended, the latter is the writer writing in such a way as to actively suggest something to the reader.
You have been inferring things that I have not said and then assigning those statements to me.
Hell, saying that Traveller needs to be fixed implies that it was broken to begin with. If the game was broken, then why is it still around?Many religions are "broken" in the sense that they are filled with historical inaccuracy, fiction labelled as fact, and outright contradiction, and they've been around for thousands of years. Why are they still around?
Or let me put it this way: if Traveller wasn't broken, then why do so many people have to house-rule the hell out of it before they can sit down and play it? Why has it had six different editions if the first one was supposedly so perfect? Why does so much of the setting fail to make sense when you stop and think about it for more than half a second?
TheEngineer
February 27th, 2007, 01:52 AM
A game is a game is a game ....
Merxiless
February 27th, 2007, 01:54 AM
Jeff, I agree.
Saying that Traveller needs to be fixed postulates that it was "broken" to begin with.
It doesn't need fixed, for those who have been playing it for over 30 years, and enjoying those 30 years of it, just fine.
If a person is of a mind that it is broken, then it of course follows that anyone that feels like they can do better, please, by all means, go forth and multiply, divide, do long division, or lengthy integrations and fix it, or design something better.
Doing that, actually doing the work of "improving it" will serve to accomplish same for anyone who wants such "fixes". Everyone else not involved can keep on playing, and stay happy.
That will actually accomplish something more than trying to convince people that like it well enough already that it is "broken", which is nothing more than prejudice against the original design, and just a matter of opinion, obviously.
Saying that Traveller needs to be fixed postulates that it was "broken" to begin with.
It doesn't need fixed, for those who have been playing it for over 30 years, and enjoying those 30 years of it, just fine.
If a person is of a mind that it is broken, then it of course follows that anyone that feels like they can do better, please, by all means, go forth and multiply, divide, do long division, or lengthy integrations and fix it, or design something better.
Doing that, actually doing the work of "improving it" will serve to accomplish same for anyone who wants such "fixes". Everyone else not involved can keep on playing, and stay happy.
That will actually accomplish something more than trying to convince people that like it well enough already that it is "broken", which is nothing more than prejudice against the original design, and just a matter of opinion, obviously.
Rhialto the Marvelous
February 27th, 2007, 02:18 AM
Can I ask: Is there anyone, but anyone, who plays Taveller combat strictly according to the LBBs? Who resolves tasks strictly according to the LBBs?
No houserule?
Not a one?
Congrats, then: for you the game is not broken. You win the infraweb, and I wish I had a laurel wreath icon to post here, just for you, you special person.
And yet precisely because you're so special you don't matter. Because you're a tiny minority. An anecdotal blip. The fact that there's a mountain range of house rules out there says that CT as written never quite worked.
You can draw two conclusions from that:
a) You houserule the hell out of it until it works, and you love doing that. Nothing wrong with that. Au contraire, S4 has been doing this in a majorly impressive way. It's actually an opportunity for creativity.
b) You eagerly await an improved edition. Maybe because time's short, because you don't feel like being THAT creative, or because you simply love a game that's so well designed, it's playable out of the box. It's no longer 1977, there are now such games.
In my case, I'm returning to Traveller after a long absence. I have a choice now:
1) Review the actual CT rules, review everything S4 has done, look at Mayday for ship combat, look at Striker for ground combat, maybe buy Trav Digest for the UTP. And pull it all together.
2) Or I'll just use MT. I have the box, I have the errata, it's CT++ anyway. But it just doesn't feel right playing Sky Raiders with MT, you know?
3) Or I put my stakes on T5. In which case it better be good.
But what I'm not going to do is play LBBs as is. Because nobody's doing that.
No houserule?
Not a one?
Congrats, then: for you the game is not broken. You win the infraweb, and I wish I had a laurel wreath icon to post here, just for you, you special person.
And yet precisely because you're so special you don't matter. Because you're a tiny minority. An anecdotal blip. The fact that there's a mountain range of house rules out there says that CT as written never quite worked.
You can draw two conclusions from that:
a) You houserule the hell out of it until it works, and you love doing that. Nothing wrong with that. Au contraire, S4 has been doing this in a majorly impressive way. It's actually an opportunity for creativity.
b) You eagerly await an improved edition. Maybe because time's short, because you don't feel like being THAT creative, or because you simply love a game that's so well designed, it's playable out of the box. It's no longer 1977, there are now such games.
In my case, I'm returning to Traveller after a long absence. I have a choice now:
1) Review the actual CT rules, review everything S4 has done, look at Mayday for ship combat, look at Striker for ground combat, maybe buy Trav Digest for the UTP. And pull it all together.
2) Or I'll just use MT. I have the box, I have the errata, it's CT++ anyway. But it just doesn't feel right playing Sky Raiders with MT, you know?
3) Or I put my stakes on T5. In which case it better be good.
But what I'm not going to do is play LBBs as is. Because nobody's doing that.
Jeff M. Hopper
February 27th, 2007, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Many religions are "broken" in the sense that they are filled with historical inaccuracy, fiction labelled as fact, and outright contradiction, and they've been around for thousands of years. Why are they still around?
When did Traveller become analogous to a religion?
Traveller is a game.
Many religions are "broken" in the sense that they are filled with historical inaccuracy, fiction labelled as fact, and outright contradiction, and they've been around for thousands of years. Why are they still around?
When did Traveller become analogous to a religion?
Traveller is a game.
Jeff M. Hopper
February 27th, 2007, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
But what I'm not going to do is play LBBs as is. Because nobody's doing that. Since we're having this conversation, I'd say that some people are.
But what I'm not going to do is play LBBs as is. Because nobody's doing that. Since we're having this conversation, I'd say that some people are.
Merxiless
February 27th, 2007, 02:40 AM
I would not say, "not playing Straight LBB means it's broken."
I will say "The Referee should feel free to flesh out the game rules as he or she desires, since the core rules of any game system, to properly cover every possible situation, will necessarily be impossibly large."
Referees should feel free to add to, change or replace rules that they don't like, to make play more enjoyable for their own individual group.
Because it doesn't cover or explain everything doesn't mean it is "broken."
If your problem is combat, change it.
Some want more realism, some want more playability.
Have at it. I'm happy with what I had, until T4 came out. Then I liked it more. Does this mean that Classic Traveller was "Broken?" Hardly, and not in my book.
I took The Traveller Book, and 2d6 to sea in 1988, and we played two out of three nights after hours on the messdecks, for over 7 months, with no problems.
Nobody nitpicked, we all had fun. It's not broken.
It's just not nearly as satisfying for some people here. Do your fixes, as you will.
I will say "The Referee should feel free to flesh out the game rules as he or she desires, since the core rules of any game system, to properly cover every possible situation, will necessarily be impossibly large."
Referees should feel free to add to, change or replace rules that they don't like, to make play more enjoyable for their own individual group.
Because it doesn't cover or explain everything doesn't mean it is "broken."
If your problem is combat, change it.
Some want more realism, some want more playability.
Have at it. I'm happy with what I had, until T4 came out. Then I liked it more. Does this mean that Classic Traveller was "Broken?" Hardly, and not in my book.
I took The Traveller Book, and 2d6 to sea in 1988, and we played two out of three nights after hours on the messdecks, for over 7 months, with no problems.
Nobody nitpicked, we all had fun. It's not broken.
It's just not nearly as satisfying for some people here. Do your fixes, as you will.
Malenfant
February 27th, 2007, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
When did Traveller become analogous to a religion?
Traveller is a game. [/QB]You do know that 'canon' is a primarily a term used in a religious context, right?
Besides, it became analogous to a religion when it started to share many similarities to one. First the "Traveller canon", there are the "heresies" of various ATUs, then you have a patched together body of knowledge assembled gradually from various sources over time which have been updated and altered by many over the passage of time (much like your average holy texts), then you have the zealots who "believe" in the work so much that they can't actually recognise the flaws in its logic when they're right in front of them... so yeah, it's perfectly reasonable to use religious analogies for Traveller.
Obviously, it's merely a game. Perhaps if people started treating it as such instead of as an inviolate holy text then we might actually get somewhere.
When did Traveller become analogous to a religion?
Traveller is a game. [/QB]You do know that 'canon' is a primarily a term used in a religious context, right?
Besides, it became analogous to a religion when it started to share many similarities to one. First the "Traveller canon", there are the "heresies" of various ATUs, then you have a patched together body of knowledge assembled gradually from various sources over time which have been updated and altered by many over the passage of time (much like your average holy texts), then you have the zealots who "believe" in the work so much that they can't actually recognise the flaws in its logic when they're right in front of them... so yeah, it's perfectly reasonable to use religious analogies for Traveller.
Obviously, it's merely a game. Perhaps if people started treating it as such instead of as an inviolate holy text then we might actually get somewhere.
Malenfant
February 27th, 2007, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by Merxiless:
[QB] I would not say, "not playing Straight LBB means it's broken."
I will say "The Referee should feel free to flesh out the game rules as he or she desires, since the core rules of any game system, to properly cover every possible situation, will necessarily be impossibly large." There's a big difference between "broken" and "incomplete".
Traveller is broken. I've demonstrated that it is in one way already - if you apply the +4 DMs for pre-existing habitable mainworlds to the star size and type in the continued generation system described in Book 6, then the primary star is suddenly very likely to be a subdwarf or a white dwarf. This is completely nonsensical, because someone didn't properly consider how the tables interact with the DMs when they wrote it. It's either bad design or bad playtesting.
There are other aspects that have been raised. Tiny rockballs can hold onto atmospheres that they are completely unable to retain under any circumstance. Another example is that trade in CT doesn't work in many ways.
Because it doesn't cover or explain everything doesn't mean it is "broken."Correct. And totally beside the point.
Gaps in the rules aren't the problem, the issue is that some of those rules are actually, demonstrably broken in the sense that they produce nonsensical results. Parts of the the game do not work as intended, so it is therefore broken to an extent.
You may choose to ignore that, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is still fundamentally broken.
[QB] I would not say, "not playing Straight LBB means it's broken."
I will say "The Referee should feel free to flesh out the game rules as he or she desires, since the core rules of any game system, to properly cover every possible situation, will necessarily be impossibly large." There's a big difference between "broken" and "incomplete".
Traveller is broken. I've demonstrated that it is in one way already - if you apply the +4 DMs for pre-existing habitable mainworlds to the star size and type in the continued generation system described in Book 6, then the primary star is suddenly very likely to be a subdwarf or a white dwarf. This is completely nonsensical, because someone didn't properly consider how the tables interact with the DMs when they wrote it. It's either bad design or bad playtesting.
There are other aspects that have been raised. Tiny rockballs can hold onto atmospheres that they are completely unable to retain under any circumstance. Another example is that trade in CT doesn't work in many ways.
Because it doesn't cover or explain everything doesn't mean it is "broken."Correct. And totally beside the point.
Gaps in the rules aren't the problem, the issue is that some of those rules are actually, demonstrably broken in the sense that they produce nonsensical results. Parts of the the game do not work as intended, so it is therefore broken to an extent.
You may choose to ignore that, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is still fundamentally broken.
Liam Devlin
February 27th, 2007, 03:14 AM
In accordance with the rules of moderation set down by the TLP, this discussion since 13 Feb 2007 until today, has yielded the following statistical data (numerically greatest to least, & the alphabetically where tied) from 36 posting members:
Author: Malenfantx with 43 posts
merxiless x 20 posts
Michael Brinkhues x 19 posts
Jeffr0 x 10 posts
Jeff M. Hopper & Klaus with x 9 posts each
The Shaman x 8 posts
ravs x 6 posts
atpollard, Heretic Keklas Rekobah, & Roger calver each with x 4 posts
Blue Ghost, flykiller, Kafka47, Liam Devlin, & Rhialto each with x 3 posts.
alanb, Andrew Boulton, Far Trader, Ishmael James, Maladominus, Scarecrow, & The Bromgrev each with x 2 posts
and alte, anthony, Border Reiver, CDR Drax, Gadarin, Hal, loyal_citizen, Madarin Dude, Ptah, Randy Tyler, Rover, Space Cadet, & The Engineer weighed in with x 1 post each.
graemlins/paragraph.gif That's an approximate 1% representation of the 350+ odd active posters of this board.
graemlins/paragraph.gif The original query about what changes one could make to Traveller (tm) and it it still be traveller broke down somewhere along the way into the view that the author was "telling folks how to play the game"; and the arguments of was the game "broke" or not, warranting such changes as he suggested.
This could have, IMO perhaps been better served by a poll, on the Imperial Scout Surveys board.
Look at where we're at now:
If you're in this to out shout/ out last the other guy to "declare victory"--give it up. I saw no one in 185 odd posts changing opinions here.
There is however, a clear side of those who want changes of some sort to the original game & a side who does not. I think a poll of those who actually post here would be a better way to define that if we're looking for a numeric answer of members here, rather than dwindle this down to an essential "it's broke--it's Not" website brawl.
On the flip side, this has been more civilly conducted than previous topics the past two weeks, and I thank you all.
So how about someone doing that poll? How about competing polls?
An if its broke, what changes can you tweak/ make and it still be Traveller, & another poll for the Its not Broke crowd?
Any takers?
Author: Malenfantx with 43 posts
merxiless x 20 posts
Michael Brinkhues x 19 posts
Jeffr0 x 10 posts
Jeff M. Hopper & Klaus with x 9 posts each
The Shaman x 8 posts
ravs x 6 posts
atpollard, Heretic Keklas Rekobah, & Roger calver each with x 4 posts
Blue Ghost, flykiller, Kafka47, Liam Devlin, & Rhialto each with x 3 posts.
alanb, Andrew Boulton, Far Trader, Ishmael James, Maladominus, Scarecrow, & The Bromgrev each with x 2 posts
and alte, anthony, Border Reiver, CDR Drax, Gadarin, Hal, loyal_citizen, Madarin Dude, Ptah, Randy Tyler, Rover, Space Cadet, & The Engineer weighed in with x 1 post each.
graemlins/paragraph.gif That's an approximate 1% representation of the 350+ odd active posters of this board.
graemlins/paragraph.gif The original query about what changes one could make to Traveller (tm) and it it still be traveller broke down somewhere along the way into the view that the author was "telling folks how to play the game"; and the arguments of was the game "broke" or not, warranting such changes as he suggested.
This could have, IMO perhaps been better served by a poll, on the Imperial Scout Surveys board.
Look at where we're at now:
If you're in this to out shout/ out last the other guy to "declare victory"--give it up. I saw no one in 185 odd posts changing opinions here.
There is however, a clear side of those who want changes of some sort to the original game & a side who does not. I think a poll of those who actually post here would be a better way to define that if we're looking for a numeric answer of members here, rather than dwindle this down to an essential "it's broke--it's Not" website brawl.
On the flip side, this has been more civilly conducted than previous topics the past two weeks, and I thank you all.
So how about someone doing that poll? How about competing polls?
An if its broke, what changes can you tweak/ make and it still be Traveller, & another poll for the Its not Broke crowd?
Any takers?
Merxiless
February 27th, 2007, 03:20 AM
I am pretty certain that the thread topic was not:
"Traveller is fundamentally broken."
Seems to me it was originally more along the lines of "Why are 'fixes for realism' not Traveller?"
Just because it has not been explained to the satisfation of all parties, doesn't mean it hasn't been explained, in detail, ad nauseum.
I'm done here. I'm fully confident that all points have been covered, as far as I am concerned.
"Traveller is fundamentally broken."
Seems to me it was originally more along the lines of "Why are 'fixes for realism' not Traveller?"
Just because it has not been explained to the satisfation of all parties, doesn't mean it hasn't been explained, in detail, ad nauseum.
I'm done here. I'm fully confident that all points have been covered, as far as I am concerned.
Malenfant
February 27th, 2007, 03:28 AM
I think somewhere along the way I got an answer to my question, which was that most people actually would still call it "Traveller" if details were tweaked a little for realism's sake (e.g. primary stars altered, orbits moved, world size or atmosphere changed, things like that), but not if things were changed wholesale (eg jump drive changed for something else, aliens replaced by human equivalents).
Again, the work I'm doing on the Realistic Regina case study on the TAS boards (see here (http://www.traveller.comstar-games.com/viewtopic.php?t=900)) should demonstrate the difference that changing an existing system into a more realistic one makes. People can then take a look at that and decide for themselves whether that difference would add or subtract fun from their game, or make it any less "Traveller".
Again, the work I'm doing on the Realistic Regina case study on the TAS boards (see here (http://www.traveller.comstar-games.com/viewtopic.php?t=900)) should demonstrate the difference that changing an existing system into a more realistic one makes. People can then take a look at that and decide for themselves whether that difference would add or subtract fun from their game, or make it any less "Traveller".
Liam Devlin
February 27th, 2007, 03:44 AM
In accordance with the rules of moderation set down by the TLP, this discussion since 13 Feb 2007 until today, has yielded the following statistical data (numerically greatest to least, & the alphabetically where tied) from 36 posting members:
Author: Malenfantx with 45 posts
merxiless x 22 posts
sorry folks, server speeds again!
I almost forgot as well:
There was also the minority present of the "what the heck is the argument" crowd, which while not for the tweaks/ realism changes, certainly leans towards the "it's not broke" side to some extent.
My thanks to all for the civil debate once again, and those within the thread who asked for it--thank you Mr. Calver.
Author: Malenfantx with 45 posts
merxiless x 22 posts
sorry folks, server speeds again!
I almost forgot as well:
There was also the minority present of the "what the heck is the argument" crowd, which while not for the tweaks/ realism changes, certainly leans towards the "it's not broke" side to some extent.
My thanks to all for the civil debate once again, and those within the thread who asked for it--thank you Mr. Calver.
Liam Devlin
February 27th, 2007, 04:49 AM
For a silent (if you wish to) poll, look here:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000419;p=1#0000 00
Those wishing to regurgitate and re-affirm may do so as well. My votes reflects my posts here, in case your wondering...
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000419;p=1#0000 00
Those wishing to regurgitate and re-affirm may do so as well. My votes reflects my posts here, in case your wondering...
mbrinkhues
February 27th, 2007, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
Can I ask: Is there anyone, but anyone, who plays Taveller combat strictly according to the LBBs? Who resolves tasks strictly according to the LBBs?
No houserule?
Not a one?
Congrats, then: for you the game is not broken. You win the infraweb, and I wish I had a laurel wreath icon to post here, just for you, you special person.
And yet precisely because you're so special you don't matter. Because you're a tiny minority. An anecdotal blip. The fact that there's a mountain range of house rules out there says that CT as written never quite worked.
You can draw two conclusions from that:
a) You houserule the hell out of it until it works, and you love doing that. Nothing wrong with that. Au contraire, S4 has been doing this in a majorly impressive way. It's actually an opportunity for creativity.
b) You eagerly await an improved edition. Maybe because time's short, because you don't feel like being THAT creative, or because you simply love a game that's so well designed, it's playable out of the box. It's no longer 1977, there are now such games.
In my case, I'm returning to Traveller after a long absence. I have a choice now:
1) Review the actual CT rules, review everything S4 has done, look at Mayday for ship combat, look at Striker for ground combat, maybe buy Trav Digest for the UTP. And pull it all together.
2) Or I'll just use MT. I have the box, I have the errata, it's CT++ anyway. But it just doesn't feel right playing Sky Raiders with MT, you know?
3) Or I put my stakes on T5. In which case it better be good.
But what I'm not going to do is play LBBs as is. Because nobody's doing that. My closing 0.5 Euro:
====================
I would totally agree on changing the game system. I have houserules and changed MT and TNE quite a bit, including writing a new chargen for T2K/TNE(1), same with other game systems. And I have more than a few WTF with MT and to a lesser degree TNE(4). I also never used some rules like encounter tables.
But I have always seperated rules from settings. And the reason for the x, x->n, n € |N rules systems for Traveller has a lot to do with marketing and companies having their own system, less with problems in the last GDW incarnation (TNE) IMHO. I mean why should SJG use another system instead of GURSP?(2)(3).
I have found reasons to fine-tune the OTU by adding some things from real life (Spacers Guild etc) or fleshing others out (nobles) but unlike say Shadowrun (where I basicall re-wrote the background once) I do not make big changes to the OTU. I might realise some "strange" things, similar to the fact that I realise language problems in RIFTS or 2300AD(5). But I never cared enough to change them
I assume some people might go for a more realistic stellar/system generation, maybe taking a look at GURPS Space or First In for alternates. As stated, when the result keeps the Traveller feeling and is "for free" I might use it. But it is not something I would pay money for since it will not enhance my gaming experience.
From the examples given by all here, this is very much a "our group" thing. Some groups query every small detail(6), some groups gloss over them. As long as the group as a whole is okay with it, the primary target of the game is reached: Everybody had a fun evening.
So: Have fun, play Traveller and share your ideas even so we will rip them appart and burry them :D You can do the same with mine for compensation :cool:
(1) I check any "Near Future"/"Present day" system that claims realsim by trying to build myself, my father and my mother. Can't even get close with the T2K/TNE systems in terms of age and skill level/skills (Some to high, some to low, some not there)
(2) I admit a T4 using the T2K system would have been interesting. Might have made me pick up the game
(3) I thing Traveller works best with a "Point Buy" system where you can tailor your character. My preferred system would be Fuzion for it's ease
(4) Never played enough CT to comment
(5) And while I buggered Colin about spellings I actually never changed writings in my 2300AD games
(6) Had such a player in BattleTech (boardgame) once
Can I ask: Is there anyone, but anyone, who plays Taveller combat strictly according to the LBBs? Who resolves tasks strictly according to the LBBs?
No houserule?
Not a one?
Congrats, then: for you the game is not broken. You win the infraweb, and I wish I had a laurel wreath icon to post here, just for you, you special person.
And yet precisely because you're so special you don't matter. Because you're a tiny minority. An anecdotal blip. The fact that there's a mountain range of house rules out there says that CT as written never quite worked.
You can draw two conclusions from that:
a) You houserule the hell out of it until it works, and you love doing that. Nothing wrong with that. Au contraire, S4 has been doing this in a majorly impressive way. It's actually an opportunity for creativity.
b) You eagerly await an improved edition. Maybe because time's short, because you don't feel like being THAT creative, or because you simply love a game that's so well designed, it's playable out of the box. It's no longer 1977, there are now such games.
In my case, I'm returning to Traveller after a long absence. I have a choice now:
1) Review the actual CT rules, review everything S4 has done, look at Mayday for ship combat, look at Striker for ground combat, maybe buy Trav Digest for the UTP. And pull it all together.
2) Or I'll just use MT. I have the box, I have the errata, it's CT++ anyway. But it just doesn't feel right playing Sky Raiders with MT, you know?
3) Or I put my stakes on T5. In which case it better be good.
But what I'm not going to do is play LBBs as is. Because nobody's doing that. My closing 0.5 Euro:
====================
I would totally agree on changing the game system. I have houserules and changed MT and TNE quite a bit, including writing a new chargen for T2K/TNE(1), same with other game systems. And I have more than a few WTF with MT and to a lesser degree TNE(4). I also never used some rules like encounter tables.
But I have always seperated rules from settings. And the reason for the x, x->n, n € |N rules systems for Traveller has a lot to do with marketing and companies having their own system, less with problems in the last GDW incarnation (TNE) IMHO. I mean why should SJG use another system instead of GURSP?(2)(3).
I have found reasons to fine-tune the OTU by adding some things from real life (Spacers Guild etc) or fleshing others out (nobles) but unlike say Shadowrun (where I basicall re-wrote the background once) I do not make big changes to the OTU. I might realise some "strange" things, similar to the fact that I realise language problems in RIFTS or 2300AD(5). But I never cared enough to change them
I assume some people might go for a more realistic stellar/system generation, maybe taking a look at GURPS Space or First In for alternates. As stated, when the result keeps the Traveller feeling and is "for free" I might use it. But it is not something I would pay money for since it will not enhance my gaming experience.
From the examples given by all here, this is very much a "our group" thing. Some groups query every small detail(6), some groups gloss over them. As long as the group as a whole is okay with it, the primary target of the game is reached: Everybody had a fun evening.
So: Have fun, play Traveller and share your ideas even so we will rip them appart and burry them :D You can do the same with mine for compensation :cool:
(1) I check any "Near Future"/"Present day" system that claims realsim by trying to build myself, my father and my mother. Can't even get close with the T2K/TNE systems in terms of age and skill level/skills (Some to high, some to low, some not there)
(2) I admit a T4 using the T2K system would have been interesting. Might have made me pick up the game
(3) I thing Traveller works best with a "Point Buy" system where you can tailor your character. My preferred system would be Fuzion for it's ease
(4) Never played enough CT to comment
(5) And while I buggered Colin about spellings I actually never changed writings in my 2300AD games
(6) Had such a player in BattleTech (boardgame) once
TheEngineer
February 27th, 2007, 05:11 AM
Just ROTFL smile.gif
Rhialto the Marvelous
February 27th, 2007, 12:50 PM
1. I'm officially sulking because Liam didn't incorporate my single but succinct and indeed profound post on this topic in his thread survey. In recompense I demand to be made a moderator. graemlins/file_23.gif
2. Funny, I'm looking at 2300AD right now, and while I haven't gotten to combat yet, chargen and task res are looking quite nice on paper. I wonder if anyone plays Trav using these?
3. (3) I thing Traveller works best with a "Point Buy" system where you can tailor your character. My preferred system would be Fuzion for it's ease:eek:
Okay, that lttle paragraph has enough material for two 20-page flame wars in it. graemlins/file_28.gif :D
2. Funny, I'm looking at 2300AD right now, and while I haven't gotten to combat yet, chargen and task res are looking quite nice on paper. I wonder if anyone plays Trav using these?
3. (3) I thing Traveller works best with a "Point Buy" system where you can tailor your character. My preferred system would be Fuzion for it's ease:eek:
Okay, that lttle paragraph has enough material for two 20-page flame wars in it. graemlins/file_28.gif :D
Klaus
February 27th, 2007, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
You're the first person I've ever read complain about Pink Floyd, so I'll consider that one as personal preference.Ah, well your the first person I've met in over a decade that doesn't. smile.gif
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
George Lucas and the problems with The Phantom Menace were due to scripting, not special effects. So that analogy falls a bit flat, even though I agree that TPM was bantha poodoo. I say they're directly related. Couldn't be bothered coming up with a story when he thought a computer could do it for him. Lazy CGI to cover up plot holes, and awfully directed digital vomit at that. The effects were not honed as they were in SW. There was just more of them, and irritating they were too..
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
I'm a fan of Miyazaki, but wouldn't his talent shine just as well if he made live-action movies? Defining the medium as a limit is a bit soft here becuase Miyazaki has had critical success with manga as well as anime, but I understand what you are saying. Quite possibly, but I doubt it. He's too shy to direct live action. But you compare like with like. Ghibli films are orders of magnitude superior to anything Disney has done since 1979 (not including Pixar here), with huge teams of animators and full frame rates (ok, notwithstanding Hunchback of Notre Dame, which is pretty damn good). Manga is a case in point. You can hardly get a more limited medium than comic books.
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
While saying that a person may play Traveller however they wish while also saying that Traveller needs to be fixed and that however they are playing Traveller isn't right - it comes off as you inferring that if someone does not play Traveller in the manner which you are advocating is playing Traveller the wrong way. Seems awefully judgemental that inferance.Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. It doesn't imply that at all. That's just being defensive.
Sorry, just had to get a response in to those tangental queries...
And that, I guess, is that. Til next time, folks. smile.gif
You're the first person I've ever read complain about Pink Floyd, so I'll consider that one as personal preference.Ah, well your the first person I've met in over a decade that doesn't. smile.gif
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
George Lucas and the problems with The Phantom Menace were due to scripting, not special effects. So that analogy falls a bit flat, even though I agree that TPM was bantha poodoo. I say they're directly related. Couldn't be bothered coming up with a story when he thought a computer could do it for him. Lazy CGI to cover up plot holes, and awfully directed digital vomit at that. The effects were not honed as they were in SW. There was just more of them, and irritating they were too..
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
I'm a fan of Miyazaki, but wouldn't his talent shine just as well if he made live-action movies? Defining the medium as a limit is a bit soft here becuase Miyazaki has had critical success with manga as well as anime, but I understand what you are saying. Quite possibly, but I doubt it. He's too shy to direct live action. But you compare like with like. Ghibli films are orders of magnitude superior to anything Disney has done since 1979 (not including Pixar here), with huge teams of animators and full frame rates (ok, notwithstanding Hunchback of Notre Dame, which is pretty damn good). Manga is a case in point. You can hardly get a more limited medium than comic books.
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
While saying that a person may play Traveller however they wish while also saying that Traveller needs to be fixed and that however they are playing Traveller isn't right - it comes off as you inferring that if someone does not play Traveller in the manner which you are advocating is playing Traveller the wrong way. Seems awefully judgemental that inferance.Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. It doesn't imply that at all. That's just being defensive.
Sorry, just had to get a response in to those tangental queries...
And that, I guess, is that. Til next time, folks. smile.gif
The Shaman
February 27th, 2007, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
Can I ask: Is there anyone, but anyone, who plays Taveller combat strictly according to the LBBs? Who resolves tasks strictly according to the LBBs?
No houserule?
Not a one?
Congrats, then: for you the game is not broken. You win the infraweb, and I wish I had a laurel wreath icon to post here, just for you, you special person.I don't play it this way now, but we did play it by-the-book for years when the game was first released, and if the original little black books were the only Traveller titles available today, I could happily go back to playing that way again.
I use additional rules to expand options, not to replace "broken" systems. The original game is playable out of the box - official variants, houserules, stuff from fanzines and fansites, that's just sauce for the goose.
Can I ask: Is there anyone, but anyone, who plays Taveller combat strictly according to the LBBs? Who resolves tasks strictly according to the LBBs?
No houserule?
Not a one?
Congrats, then: for you the game is not broken. You win the infraweb, and I wish I had a laurel wreath icon to post here, just for you, you special person.I don't play it this way now, but we did play it by-the-book for years when the game was first released, and if the original little black books were the only Traveller titles available today, I could happily go back to playing that way again.
I use additional rules to expand options, not to replace "broken" systems. The original game is playable out of the box - official variants, houserules, stuff from fanzines and fansites, that's just sauce for the goose.
Ishmael
February 27th, 2007, 07:12 PM
All this time, I thought the topic was " It's not Trav..why not?"
its pretty much established that the majority of people use house rules ( and indication that the game is not perfect...its been around 30 years BECAUSE its easy to modify to individual tastes. ), but isn't the main thrust of this thread asking how many/how radical those house rules/setting can change and not be a different game? aka " Exactly WHAT IS Traveller? " ( obvious answer: " whatever the players say it is." ) IMHO, arguing about that is stupid.
everyone has their own ideas about the balance between the realism they want/beleive, and the swashbuckling fantasy they want to experience.
Just leave it at that and show your ideas to change it in case they might be useful to others......
...or keep arguing about angels on pinheads
its pretty much established that the majority of people use house rules ( and indication that the game is not perfect...its been around 30 years BECAUSE its easy to modify to individual tastes. ), but isn't the main thrust of this thread asking how many/how radical those house rules/setting can change and not be a different game? aka " Exactly WHAT IS Traveller? " ( obvious answer: " whatever the players say it is." ) IMHO, arguing about that is stupid.
everyone has their own ideas about the balance between the realism they want/beleive, and the swashbuckling fantasy they want to experience.
Just leave it at that and show your ideas to change it in case they might be useful to others......
...or keep arguing about angels on pinheads
Liam Devlin
February 27th, 2007, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
1. I'm officially sulking because Liam didn't incorporate my single but succinct and indeed profound post on this topic in his thread survey. In recompense I demand to be made a moderator. graemlins/file_23.gif Be careful what you wish for... graemlins/file_23.gif
sincerely,
1. I'm officially sulking because Liam didn't incorporate my single but succinct and indeed profound post on this topic in his thread survey. In recompense I demand to be made a moderator. graemlins/file_23.gif Be careful what you wish for... graemlins/file_23.gif
sincerely,
Sifu Blackirish
March 1st, 2007, 09:18 PM
Wow, I've been reading this for a week!
Remember being very excited when S10 (Solomani Rim) came out--finally, a TRAVELLER map for the area around Earth! Crushing disappointment when IT DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO REALITY!!!
For lack of a better source, I am using someone's conversion of stars to a TRAVELLER 2D map. Harold D. Hale, I think? May not be very accurate, but gives e enough realism to get by.
For me, part of the fun of TRAVELLER is taking that string of numbers that gave an unrealistic result and making a background that fits. I do that with characters all the time for their backstory.
Mal, I haven't had the pleasure of reading your more realistic system generation rules, but I look forward to it.
No, adding more realism doesn't make it any less TRAVELLER. My ATU has ion drives, limited FTL commo and stargates, but I still call it TRAVELLER...Hard SF in the background, ready to give detail as necessary. Space Opera upfront, so players can see lots of pretty explosions... graemlins/file_23.gif
Remember being very excited when S10 (Solomani Rim) came out--finally, a TRAVELLER map for the area around Earth! Crushing disappointment when IT DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO REALITY!!!
For lack of a better source, I am using someone's conversion of stars to a TRAVELLER 2D map. Harold D. Hale, I think? May not be very accurate, but gives e enough realism to get by.
For me, part of the fun of TRAVELLER is taking that string of numbers that gave an unrealistic result and making a background that fits. I do that with characters all the time for their backstory.
Mal, I haven't had the pleasure of reading your more realistic system generation rules, but I look forward to it.
No, adding more realism doesn't make it any less TRAVELLER. My ATU has ion drives, limited FTL commo and stargates, but I still call it TRAVELLER...Hard SF in the background, ready to give detail as necessary. Space Opera upfront, so players can see lots of pretty explosions... graemlins/file_23.gif
Pickles
March 2nd, 2007, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Dominion Loyalty Officer:
For me, part of the fun of TRAVELLER is taking that string of numbers that gave an unrealistic result and making a background that fits.That was one of my first responses on a Traveller forum, ever. Then someone pointed out how common these little bugs were, and I started to wonder. Then someone said, have you seen Malenfant's Revised Stellar Generation Tables (http://www.evildrganymede.net/rpg/traveller/traveller.htm)? I haven't had a moment's peace since. graemlins/file_28.gif
"If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor"
For me, part of the fun of TRAVELLER is taking that string of numbers that gave an unrealistic result and making a background that fits.That was one of my first responses on a Traveller forum, ever. Then someone pointed out how common these little bugs were, and I started to wonder. Then someone said, have you seen Malenfant's Revised Stellar Generation Tables (http://www.evildrganymede.net/rpg/traveller/traveller.htm)? I haven't had a moment's peace since. graemlins/file_28.gif
"If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor"
kafka47
March 6th, 2007, 11:52 AM
Reading James Maliszewski sometimes confluted blog hit some sort of resonnance with me:
Traveller on the Brain
A propos of nothing (really!) except maybe that I have too much time on my hands and should probably be doing something more productive, I have come up with the definitive list of what makes Traveller the game it is and why it succeeded so brilliantly as the definitive SF RPG, despite numerous setting and rules changes. Anyone wishing to seize the Iridium Throne for themselves would be wise to heed these words.
1. The field of play is LARGE, very large. Nothing less than 100s, preferably 1000s, of planets is needed to convey the appropriate feel of interstellar immensity.
1b. The speed of travel between said planets is slow, measured in weeks, probably longer for very great distances.
1c. There is no interstellar communication except via the aforementioned slow travel between planets.
1d. The primary interstellar government is thus necessarily laissez-faire in all areas that do not impinge upon its central claim to authority, namely the maintenance of interstellar trade on which many worlds depend for their very survival. Said government can be seen as "good" or "evil" as your political sensibilities so incline you, but such judgments are generally beside the point, with "aloof" and/or "distant" being more generally appropriate. Naturally, local representatives of said government can be (and are) as just or venal as you wish.
1e. There are a handful of organs of interstellar governance, primarily military and/or pertinent to the maintanence of trade and communications. Otherwise, most organizations are more local in origin.
1f. Technology and economics exist in such a state as to provide a justification for interstellar trade and, therefore, government (and, of course, player character employment).
2. Humanity (humaniti, if you prefer) is the dominant species in charted space.
2a. Said dominant species is not, despite however many years it exists in our future, noticeably different from 21st century people, either physically, psychologically, or even culturally. Consequently, their behavior and motivations are thus completely comprehensible to your average gamer.
2b. If aliens exist, they may be as alien as human comprehensibility and a limited special effects budget allows, which is to say, they may be the Mexican non-union equivalents of genuinely alien beings, but they cannot truly be so alien that they cannot be meaningfully interacted with or played by a guy in a suit or what cable TV series computer graphics can manage.
2c. Any truly alien aliens are safely extinct, preferably leaving behind lots of wacky artifacts to be found by bad guys, used in government black ops programs, or generally used as maguffins in adventures.
3. Technology is first and foremost a prop. It can be shiny or grimy as you wish, but it should never get in the way of a good rollicking adventure, an interesting planetary culture, or otherwise circumvent any of the enumerated principles above.
4. If you saw it in a SF movie or TV show or read it in a SF book, it should be possible to include it in the game, even if in a (heavily) modified form.
Traveller on the Brain
A propos of nothing (really!) except maybe that I have too much time on my hands and should probably be doing something more productive, I have come up with the definitive list of what makes Traveller the game it is and why it succeeded so brilliantly as the definitive SF RPG, despite numerous setting and rules changes. Anyone wishing to seize the Iridium Throne for themselves would be wise to heed these words.
1. The field of play is LARGE, very large. Nothing less than 100s, preferably 1000s, of planets is needed to convey the appropriate feel of interstellar immensity.
1b. The speed of travel between said planets is slow, measured in weeks, probably longer for very great distances.
1c. There is no interstellar communication except via the aforementioned slow travel between planets.
1d. The primary interstellar government is thus necessarily laissez-faire in all areas that do not impinge upon its central claim to authority, namely the maintenance of interstellar trade on which many worlds depend for their very survival. Said government can be seen as "good" or "evil" as your political sensibilities so incline you, but such judgments are generally beside the point, with "aloof" and/or "distant" being more generally appropriate. Naturally, local representatives of said government can be (and are) as just or venal as you wish.
1e. There are a handful of organs of interstellar governance, primarily military and/or pertinent to the maintanence of trade and communications. Otherwise, most organizations are more local in origin.
1f. Technology and economics exist in such a state as to provide a justification for interstellar trade and, therefore, government (and, of course, player character employment).
2. Humanity (humaniti, if you prefer) is the dominant species in charted space.
2a. Said dominant species is not, despite however many years it exists in our future, noticeably different from 21st century people, either physically, psychologically, or even culturally. Consequently, their behavior and motivations are thus completely comprehensible to your average gamer.
2b. If aliens exist, they may be as alien as human comprehensibility and a limited special effects budget allows, which is to say, they may be the Mexican non-union equivalents of genuinely alien beings, but they cannot truly be so alien that they cannot be meaningfully interacted with or played by a guy in a suit or what cable TV series computer graphics can manage.
2c. Any truly alien aliens are safely extinct, preferably leaving behind lots of wacky artifacts to be found by bad guys, used in government black ops programs, or generally used as maguffins in adventures.
3. Technology is first and foremost a prop. It can be shiny or grimy as you wish, but it should never get in the way of a good rollicking adventure, an interesting planetary culture, or otherwise circumvent any of the enumerated principles above.
4. If you saw it in a SF movie or TV show or read it in a SF book, it should be possible to include it in the game, even if in a (heavily) modified form.
The Shaman
March 6th, 2007, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by kafka47:
2c. Any truly alien aliens are safely extinct, preferably leaving behind lots of wacky artifacts to be found by bad guys, used in government black ops programs, or generally used as maguffins in adventures.To which I would add:
2c(i). A truly alien alien can be introduced as a plot device or a mcguffin, however.
2c. Any truly alien aliens are safely extinct, preferably leaving behind lots of wacky artifacts to be found by bad guys, used in government black ops programs, or generally used as maguffins in adventures.To which I would add:
2c(i). A truly alien alien can be introduced as a plot device or a mcguffin, however.
rancke
March 6th, 2007, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dominion Loyalty Officer:
For me, part of the fun of TRAVELLER is taking that string of numbers that gave an unrealistic result and making a background that fits.That was one of my first responses on a Traveller forum, ever. Then someone pointed out how common these little bugs were, and I started to wonder. </font>[/QUOTE]IMO, the problem there isn't that the system produces lots of severely buggy UWPs. The problem is that no one went through the ones that were produced for the OTU and vetted them. I once tried, as an experiment, to run through two published subsectors and see how long it would take to fix them. It took me two evenings, about eight hours.
Buggy UWPs are a great springboard for the imagination, and sometimes they provoke you into thinking of something you'd never have thought of otherwise. But you can't expect to be able to come up with something inspired for every one of them, which is where I disagree profoundly with Marc Miller.
What I do is to think about a seemingly buggy UWP for ten minutes, trying to come up with an explanation. If I can't, I assigng a 'Saving Throw Against Weirdness' to it and roll a die. For something that's only moderately unlikely I might assign a throw of 5 or less on a D6; for my pet abominations (like worlds too small to hold on to their atmospheres) I might assign a throw of 1; in many cases I just use the 'fifty percent rule' and assigng a throw of 3 or less. If the world makes its throw, I try again, this time being willing to involve Ancients, Imperial Edicts, staggering coincidences, and other monumental weirdness (But still not absolute impossibilities). If I still can't come up with anything, I give up and change the UWP in the least possible way (or, if I happen to get a good idea, the most interesting way).
Like fire, random generation is a good servant but a terrible master.
Hans
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dominion Loyalty Officer:
For me, part of the fun of TRAVELLER is taking that string of numbers that gave an unrealistic result and making a background that fits.That was one of my first responses on a Traveller forum, ever. Then someone pointed out how common these little bugs were, and I started to wonder. </font>[/QUOTE]IMO, the problem there isn't that the system produces lots of severely buggy UWPs. The problem is that no one went through the ones that were produced for the OTU and vetted them. I once tried, as an experiment, to run through two published subsectors and see how long it would take to fix them. It took me two evenings, about eight hours.
Buggy UWPs are a great springboard for the imagination, and sometimes they provoke you into thinking of something you'd never have thought of otherwise. But you can't expect to be able to come up with something inspired for every one of them, which is where I disagree profoundly with Marc Miller.
What I do is to think about a seemingly buggy UWP for ten minutes, trying to come up with an explanation. If I can't, I assigng a 'Saving Throw Against Weirdness' to it and roll a die. For something that's only moderately unlikely I might assign a throw of 5 or less on a D6; for my pet abominations (like worlds too small to hold on to their atmospheres) I might assign a throw of 1; in many cases I just use the 'fifty percent rule' and assigng a throw of 3 or less. If the world makes its throw, I try again, this time being willing to involve Ancients, Imperial Edicts, staggering coincidences, and other monumental weirdness (But still not absolute impossibilities). If I still can't come up with anything, I give up and change the UWP in the least possible way (or, if I happen to get a good idea, the most interesting way).
Like fire, random generation is a good servant but a terrible master.
Hans
Malenfant
March 12th, 2007, 12:24 AM
*bump because it's relevant*
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=f3243ef81b72faaeca9d3f712c0b279c&t=316130
I just chanced upon this rather interesting thread on rpgnet. I don't know if the original poster was inspired by my hypothetical on this thread or just came up with the idea on his own (much more likely methinks), but he's asking what Traveller would be like without the aliens.
What's interesting is the response he gets on rpgnet - namely that pretty much everyone said "eh, you could do it and it wouldn't really make much difference at all" (which is what I said here). Everyone commenting there appears to be at least familiar with Traveller too.
Yet when I said the same thing in passing here, I had people telling me that it definitely wouldn't be Traveller (though now I've pointed it out, I'm sure some people will descend on that thread to "correct" the locals ;) ).
Interesting.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=f3243ef81b72faaeca9d3f712c0b279c&t=316130
I just chanced upon this rather interesting thread on rpgnet. I don't know if the original poster was inspired by my hypothetical on this thread or just came up with the idea on his own (much more likely methinks), but he's asking what Traveller would be like without the aliens.
What's interesting is the response he gets on rpgnet - namely that pretty much everyone said "eh, you could do it and it wouldn't really make much difference at all" (which is what I said here). Everyone commenting there appears to be at least familiar with Traveller too.
Yet when I said the same thing in passing here, I had people telling me that it definitely wouldn't be Traveller (though now I've pointed it out, I'm sure some people will descend on that thread to "correct" the locals ;) ).
Interesting.
Malenfant
March 12th, 2007, 11:29 AM
It's also interesting that people are strangely quiet about this here.
Could it be because this implies that CotI is very conservative, reactionary and static in its approach to Traveller? Or do those crazy rpgnetters just "not understand Traveller"?
I'm curious to know where this difference in approach comes from.
Could it be because this implies that CotI is very conservative, reactionary and static in its approach to Traveller? Or do those crazy rpgnetters just "not understand Traveller"?
I'm curious to know where this difference in approach comes from.
Jeffr0
March 12th, 2007, 11:46 AM
Mal, mal, mal....
There's a huge difference between
a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike
b) Replacing the alien race you hate the most with a new "race" or with a human state.
c) Eliminating ALL of the races and replacing them with humans.
Traveller is flexible and resilient. Everybody tweaks the OTU to emphasize the sort of background they think makes the most sense. But at some point (say, around point "c" or so...) a change becomes so invasive or so drastic that the game you're playing ceases to retain that nebulous "Traveller" flavor that we all know and love.
Besides... CotI folk are bound to be somewhat defensive in the face of your caustic and negative approach. The guy on the other board clearly loves Traveller... and him changing one major swath of the setting is all in good fun. You, on the other hand, sound pretty trollish in your post above.
Could you please try to find something more positive to do?
There's a huge difference between
a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike
b) Replacing the alien race you hate the most with a new "race" or with a human state.
c) Eliminating ALL of the races and replacing them with humans.
Traveller is flexible and resilient. Everybody tweaks the OTU to emphasize the sort of background they think makes the most sense. But at some point (say, around point "c" or so...) a change becomes so invasive or so drastic that the game you're playing ceases to retain that nebulous "Traveller" flavor that we all know and love.
Besides... CotI folk are bound to be somewhat defensive in the face of your caustic and negative approach. The guy on the other board clearly loves Traveller... and him changing one major swath of the setting is all in good fun. You, on the other hand, sound pretty trollish in your post above.
Could you please try to find something more positive to do?
Malenfant
March 12th, 2007, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
[QB] Mal, mal, mal....
There's a huge difference between
a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike
b) Replacing the alien race you hate the most with a new "race" or with a human state.
c) Eliminating ALL of the races and replacing them with humans.Not really.
The guy on the rpgnet thread wanted to get rid of all the aliens and replace them with humans - he got a generally positive response, and people weren't claiming that the different appearance is what made the aliens so cool, and nobody was screaming at him saying that it wouldn't be Traveller.
Whereas when I suggest the same thing in passing here on CotI, I got lots of people saying the exact opposite.
Why? And don't say "because you suggested it", because that's BS. I'd like to think that people are smarter than that here.
But at some point (say, around point "c" or so...) a change becomes so invasive or so drastic that the game you're playing ceases to retain that nebulous "Traveller" flavor that we all know and love.I think this is completely false in this case. Like I said earlier, changing the appearance of a race would in no way impact the "Traveller flavour". Hell, most of the time the other aliens don't even have an impact in most Traveller games.
Besides... CotI folk are bound to be somewhat defensive in the face of your caustic and negative approach. The guy on the other board clearly loves Traveller...Why on earth should that make any difference though? The fact is, a big change is being made and people railed against it a hell of a lot more here than they did over there. Since when is it acceptable to do that if you "love Traveller" and not acceptable to do that if you don't? Does CotI have double-standards that depend on the attitude of the person making the change now? That makes no sense.
You, on the other hand, sound pretty trollish in your post above.
Could you please try to find something more positive to do?If I sound trollish, it's because I want to get people to think about this here. I think this says a lot about the prevalent attitude on CoTi toward Traveller, and I'd like to hear why people think the responses are so different.
If you think I'm being "negative" then by all means don't respond to this thread. I'm just trying to examine why people have the attitudes they have here and to get them to think about it more, and personally I think that sort of discussion can be quite positive (assuming that people can remain rational about it and don't start getting all hysterial, which may be asking a bit much here). And if people are uncomfortable with that... well, sometimes uncomfortable questions need to be asked in order to understand and maybe improve things, and I don't see anyone else asking them here.
[QB] Mal, mal, mal....
There's a huge difference between
a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike
b) Replacing the alien race you hate the most with a new "race" or with a human state.
c) Eliminating ALL of the races and replacing them with humans.Not really.
The guy on the rpgnet thread wanted to get rid of all the aliens and replace them with humans - he got a generally positive response, and people weren't claiming that the different appearance is what made the aliens so cool, and nobody was screaming at him saying that it wouldn't be Traveller.
Whereas when I suggest the same thing in passing here on CotI, I got lots of people saying the exact opposite.
Why? And don't say "because you suggested it", because that's BS. I'd like to think that people are smarter than that here.
But at some point (say, around point "c" or so...) a change becomes so invasive or so drastic that the game you're playing ceases to retain that nebulous "Traveller" flavor that we all know and love.I think this is completely false in this case. Like I said earlier, changing the appearance of a race would in no way impact the "Traveller flavour". Hell, most of the time the other aliens don't even have an impact in most Traveller games.
Besides... CotI folk are bound to be somewhat defensive in the face of your caustic and negative approach. The guy on the other board clearly loves Traveller...Why on earth should that make any difference though? The fact is, a big change is being made and people railed against it a hell of a lot more here than they did over there. Since when is it acceptable to do that if you "love Traveller" and not acceptable to do that if you don't? Does CotI have double-standards that depend on the attitude of the person making the change now? That makes no sense.
You, on the other hand, sound pretty trollish in your post above.
Could you please try to find something more positive to do?If I sound trollish, it's because I want to get people to think about this here. I think this says a lot about the prevalent attitude on CoTi toward Traveller, and I'd like to hear why people think the responses are so different.
If you think I'm being "negative" then by all means don't respond to this thread. I'm just trying to examine why people have the attitudes they have here and to get them to think about it more, and personally I think that sort of discussion can be quite positive (assuming that people can remain rational about it and don't start getting all hysterial, which may be asking a bit much here). And if people are uncomfortable with that... well, sometimes uncomfortable questions need to be asked in order to understand and maybe improve things, and I don't see anyone else asking them here.
RandyT0001
March 12th, 2007, 12:21 PM
Let me get this straight if I don't have Aslan, Hivers, Vargr and the other non-human races in my game I'm not playing Traveller?
Jeffr0
March 12th, 2007, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Let me get this straight if I don't have Aslan, Hivers, Vargr and the other non-human races in my game I'm not playing Traveller? Not necessarily.
You can easily do that under "a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike."
Let me get this straight if I don't have Aslan, Hivers, Vargr and the other non-human races in my game I'm not playing Traveller? Not necessarily.
You can easily do that under "a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike."
far-trader
March 12th, 2007, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Let me get this straight if I don't have Aslan, Hivers, Vargr and the other non-human races in my game I'm not playing Traveller? That depends smile.gif
We were playing Traveller for a long time before the Aliens were even invented (or at least published/accessible for our group).
Once we knew about them we incorporated them and were obviously still playing Traveller.
So the question becomes, if we had ignored the addition of Aliens would we have still been playing Traveller or would our decision have meant we had abandoned the game?
It's semantics I say and like many such arguments, ultimately pointless. All it really speaks to is if you're playing Traveller in the OTU with the official Aliens or YTU with or wtihout any Aliens, and both can be fun.
Let me get this straight if I don't have Aslan, Hivers, Vargr and the other non-human races in my game I'm not playing Traveller? That depends smile.gif
We were playing Traveller for a long time before the Aliens were even invented (or at least published/accessible for our group).
Once we knew about them we incorporated them and were obviously still playing Traveller.
So the question becomes, if we had ignored the addition of Aliens would we have still been playing Traveller or would our decision have meant we had abandoned the game?
It's semantics I say and like many such arguments, ultimately pointless. All it really speaks to is if you're playing Traveller in the OTU with the official Aliens or YTU with or wtihout any Aliens, and both can be fun.
RandyT0001
March 12th, 2007, 12:41 PM
Jeff, I'm not talking "de-emphasizing alien races I dislike", I'm talking about never having them in the first place, no contact, no history, no presence. If I want to have MTU without aliens at all does it stop being Traveller even when it's created and played with the Classic Traveller rules? I'll admit it's not OTU background but without the aliens does it cease to be Traveller?
far-trader
March 12th, 2007, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Let me get this straight if I don't have Aslan, Hivers, Vargr and the other non-human races in my game I'm not playing Traveller? Not necessarily.
You can easily do that under "a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike." </font>[/QUOTE]For my own clarification you do think that had our group kept playing Traveller without (as in never even considered, not simply "de-emphasized") Aliens after they were introduced, even though when we began playing there were NO Aliens, that we would not have been playing Traveller?
And Randy is not saying he'd play them down the way I read it. He says he'd not have them. And you seem to be saying that means he'd not be playing Traveller which is certainly your opinion and counts for exactly that much. My opinion, worth not a whit more, is that he would still be playing Traveller. And my advice again to Randy and others is "Stuff Opinions!" and have fun smile.gif
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Let me get this straight if I don't have Aslan, Hivers, Vargr and the other non-human races in my game I'm not playing Traveller? Not necessarily.
You can easily do that under "a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike." </font>[/QUOTE]For my own clarification you do think that had our group kept playing Traveller without (as in never even considered, not simply "de-emphasized") Aliens after they were introduced, even though when we began playing there were NO Aliens, that we would not have been playing Traveller?
And Randy is not saying he'd play them down the way I read it. He says he'd not have them. And you seem to be saying that means he'd not be playing Traveller which is certainly your opinion and counts for exactly that much. My opinion, worth not a whit more, is that he would still be playing Traveller. And my advice again to Randy and others is "Stuff Opinions!" and have fun smile.gif
Jeffr0
March 12th, 2007, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Jeff, I'm not talking "de-emphasizing alien races I dislike", I'm talking about never having them in the first place, no contact, no history, no presence. If I want to have MTU without aliens at all does it stop being Traveller even when it's created and played with the Classic Traveller rules? I'll admit it's not OTU background but without the aliens does it cease to be Traveller? Sure. No problem here. Traveller existed just fine without Aliens... and there's no requirement to add them in.
It might be argued that you're really playing a form of Proto-Traveller... just simply due to the degrees of seperation from the OTU. As long as you love Traveller with all your heart, many heresies can be forgiven. graemlins/file_22.gif
Jeff, I'm not talking "de-emphasizing alien races I dislike", I'm talking about never having them in the first place, no contact, no history, no presence. If I want to have MTU without aliens at all does it stop being Traveller even when it's created and played with the Classic Traveller rules? I'll admit it's not OTU background but without the aliens does it cease to be Traveller? Sure. No problem here. Traveller existed just fine without Aliens... and there's no requirement to add them in.
It might be argued that you're really playing a form of Proto-Traveller... just simply due to the degrees of seperation from the OTU. As long as you love Traveller with all your heart, many heresies can be forgiven. graemlins/file_22.gif
Malenfant
March 12th, 2007, 01:12 PM
On further thought, I think the greater issue is NOT whether a modification to a game makes it "Traveller" or "Not Traveller" - after all, if you're happy with the change you make then who bloody cares what you want to call it.
I think the greater issue is that it seems that there's an attitude that making the change itself is somehow "wrong" on this board (but not, apparently, elsewhere), and I'm wondering if people really are comfortable with that.
I think the greater issue is that it seems that there's an attitude that making the change itself is somehow "wrong" on this board (but not, apparently, elsewhere), and I'm wondering if people really are comfortable with that.
Jeffr0
March 12th, 2007, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by far-trader:
For my own clarification you do think that had our group kept playing Traveller without (as in never even considered, not simply "de-emphasized") Aliens after they were introduced, even though when we began playing there were NO Aliens, that we would not have been playing Traveller?On the contrary, you score a great many "cool" points for being a true grog of the Burgess Shale era of Traveller. (http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/othroads/burgess.html)
I offer you my backpack powered Laser Carbine in your service.
For my own clarification you do think that had our group kept playing Traveller without (as in never even considered, not simply "de-emphasized") Aliens after they were introduced, even though when we began playing there were NO Aliens, that we would not have been playing Traveller?On the contrary, you score a great many "cool" points for being a true grog of the Burgess Shale era of Traveller. (http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/othroads/burgess.html)
I offer you my backpack powered Laser Carbine in your service.
Klaus
March 12th, 2007, 01:27 PM
I think the only thing that truly defines Traveller, as opposed to any other sci fi setting, is the random chargen and starting the game with mature characters.
And even random chargen goes out the window with T20 and GURPS.
So really, Traveller is just a state of mind, a mode of thought. Aliens, no aliens; OTU, MTU; 1 week jump or not. As long as you play with the spirit of Traveller, then you're a Traveller player.
It's less semantics and more theology, this debate.
BTW, out of all the TV sf settings, it seems many regard Firefly as closest to Traveller, and there there's not an alien in sight.
And even random chargen goes out the window with T20 and GURPS.
So really, Traveller is just a state of mind, a mode of thought. Aliens, no aliens; OTU, MTU; 1 week jump or not. As long as you play with the spirit of Traveller, then you're a Traveller player.
It's less semantics and more theology, this debate.
BTW, out of all the TV sf settings, it seems many regard Firefly as closest to Traveller, and there there's not an alien in sight.
Malenfant
March 12th, 2007, 02:20 PM
As I said elsewhere, I think there's two things that mean "Traveller" - the rules and the setting.
The rules as you say are varied. I think most people here would probably claim that the main defining aspect of Traveller (as a ruleset) is that it must have several career types and that PCs are created by random chargen, but again as you pointed out T20 and GT don't (but then those same people would probably claim that those "aren't Traveller" as a result). Given the general variability of the various rules editions it doesn't seem to make sense to me to define it this way - but that said, CT was originally presented as a "generic" (see below) ruleset.
Which leaves the Setting - i.e. the Known Space setting, aka the OTU - as Traveller. If you strip it right down then one other thing was provided in books 1-3 that originally defined the game, and that was the 1 week jump. That meant there was a built-in technological assumption (And no alternatives were provided) that rendered the rules non-generic - whether you want to call this an aspect of the setting or system is up for debate.
Now, arguably you're not playing Traveller (the specific Setting) if you remove the aliens, though one the small scale they make little difference to the setting at all - but you are still playing Traveller (the System) if you're using one of the rulesets. Aren't you?
Why do people say that making tweaks to the setting mean that you're not playing Traveller, yet don't seem to have any problem in replacing parts of the Traveller ruleset with their own house rules? The latter seems to happen quite often, after all.
What this really boils down to is "what is it that actually defines Traveller"? What is it that actually sets it apart from other SF RPGs? We've got GURPS Traveller, but what is it that sets that apart from GURPS Space?
I think there's obviously some specific assumptions that make Traveller unique, and they're down to the technology: the 1 week jump and the specifc tech progression (things like thruster plates and nuclear dampers and meson guns). Also there are the specific big interstellar empires and the history. Basically the setting is what makes the game unique, not the rules. It's been demonstrated time and again that you don't need random chargen to define a character - you can get the exact same character in a point-buy system after all.
But in saying that, one has to then accept that Traveller is a specific setting, and admit that it's not a "toolkit" for anything. Then one can argue more convincingly that changing the aliens changes the game (that said, if you look at Star Trek, the Klingons changed from looking very close to human in TOS to looking more different in later series and nobody really seemed to complain about it much because culturally they were the same). But in accepting that it's a setting and not a ruleset, where does that leave things like the worldgen or the ship design?
That was a bit rambly, I had lots of thoughts that I wanted to get out. I just don't accept that Traveller is a "feel" or "spirit" because that's a completely cop-out answer - we can pin it down better than that, surely.
The rules as you say are varied. I think most people here would probably claim that the main defining aspect of Traveller (as a ruleset) is that it must have several career types and that PCs are created by random chargen, but again as you pointed out T20 and GT don't (but then those same people would probably claim that those "aren't Traveller" as a result). Given the general variability of the various rules editions it doesn't seem to make sense to me to define it this way - but that said, CT was originally presented as a "generic" (see below) ruleset.
Which leaves the Setting - i.e. the Known Space setting, aka the OTU - as Traveller. If you strip it right down then one other thing was provided in books 1-3 that originally defined the game, and that was the 1 week jump. That meant there was a built-in technological assumption (And no alternatives were provided) that rendered the rules non-generic - whether you want to call this an aspect of the setting or system is up for debate.
Now, arguably you're not playing Traveller (the specific Setting) if you remove the aliens, though one the small scale they make little difference to the setting at all - but you are still playing Traveller (the System) if you're using one of the rulesets. Aren't you?
Why do people say that making tweaks to the setting mean that you're not playing Traveller, yet don't seem to have any problem in replacing parts of the Traveller ruleset with their own house rules? The latter seems to happen quite often, after all.
What this really boils down to is "what is it that actually defines Traveller"? What is it that actually sets it apart from other SF RPGs? We've got GURPS Traveller, but what is it that sets that apart from GURPS Space?
I think there's obviously some specific assumptions that make Traveller unique, and they're down to the technology: the 1 week jump and the specifc tech progression (things like thruster plates and nuclear dampers and meson guns). Also there are the specific big interstellar empires and the history. Basically the setting is what makes the game unique, not the rules. It's been demonstrated time and again that you don't need random chargen to define a character - you can get the exact same character in a point-buy system after all.
But in saying that, one has to then accept that Traveller is a specific setting, and admit that it's not a "toolkit" for anything. Then one can argue more convincingly that changing the aliens changes the game (that said, if you look at Star Trek, the Klingons changed from looking very close to human in TOS to looking more different in later series and nobody really seemed to complain about it much because culturally they were the same). But in accepting that it's a setting and not a ruleset, where does that leave things like the worldgen or the ship design?
That was a bit rambly, I had lots of thoughts that I wanted to get out. I just don't accept that Traveller is a "feel" or "spirit" because that's a completely cop-out answer - we can pin it down better than that, surely.
Klaus
March 12th, 2007, 03:17 PM
Well, true, it is a little glib.
But really this whole debate reminds me of the stuff the founding fathers of the Catholic church were thrashing out between 200AD and 600AD.
I never played Traveller in the 80's, or 90's, so I don't have that same history of understanding that long term players have. You could say I'm a 'born again' Traveller player. But I do recognise in Traveller something distinct and seperate from all the other sf games out there.
Lets examine some articles of faith.
1) 1 week jump.
Changing this is the most severe heresy, akin to denying the virgin birth. However, given that the OTU would change in nature if this were so, but that you kept everything else more or less the same, you could still argue you were playing Traveller, as opposed to Star Wars or Spacemaster.
2) Aliens, like Vargr or Hiver.
Adopting aliens from other properties, like Hutts or Klingons, would not necessarily stop it being Traveller, just as excising Aslan and the rest would not stop it being Traveller. In fact, I could easily see a way of making chargen tables for Starfleet or the Klingons, using the Traveller ruleset. A sort of hybrid game, but something implied in the original CT products.
3) Thruster plates. Well I don't have MT. As far as I can see, CT never mentions thruster plates. Essentially gravitic thruster plates seem to be theological sophistry inferring them from the ship build and operation rules. This goes on all the time in Traveller, most often in rationalising crazy UWPs.
4) Hard Science. This is the strongest aspect that is part of Traveller as a concept. Though it is not total or consistant. However, there is a tone of scientific conservatism that pervades all of Traveller; that the wackier ideas from sf are toned down or not included. This might also be an understanding that such ideas often break or change the game, so as to turn it into something else. Where such things have occurred in the OTU, such as Virus, they have been contraversial and divisive.
I think in reality, it can be any of these things. You are playing Traveller if you say you are. To take the religious analogy further, both Christianity in all its forms and Islam share far more than they diverge from each other, but no fair commentator would say someone claiming to be a Christian is actually a Muslim or vice versa. Zealots and fundamentalists might. There's evidence from these boards that there are such elements inthe Traveller community too. ;)
Rather than define: "What is Traveller?", how about asking...
"What is Orthodox Traveller?"
But really this whole debate reminds me of the stuff the founding fathers of the Catholic church were thrashing out between 200AD and 600AD.
I never played Traveller in the 80's, or 90's, so I don't have that same history of understanding that long term players have. You could say I'm a 'born again' Traveller player. But I do recognise in Traveller something distinct and seperate from all the other sf games out there.
Lets examine some articles of faith.
1) 1 week jump.
Changing this is the most severe heresy, akin to denying the virgin birth. However, given that the OTU would change in nature if this were so, but that you kept everything else more or less the same, you could still argue you were playing Traveller, as opposed to Star Wars or Spacemaster.
2) Aliens, like Vargr or Hiver.
Adopting aliens from other properties, like Hutts or Klingons, would not necessarily stop it being Traveller, just as excising Aslan and the rest would not stop it being Traveller. In fact, I could easily see a way of making chargen tables for Starfleet or the Klingons, using the Traveller ruleset. A sort of hybrid game, but something implied in the original CT products.
3) Thruster plates. Well I don't have MT. As far as I can see, CT never mentions thruster plates. Essentially gravitic thruster plates seem to be theological sophistry inferring them from the ship build and operation rules. This goes on all the time in Traveller, most often in rationalising crazy UWPs.
4) Hard Science. This is the strongest aspect that is part of Traveller as a concept. Though it is not total or consistant. However, there is a tone of scientific conservatism that pervades all of Traveller; that the wackier ideas from sf are toned down or not included. This might also be an understanding that such ideas often break or change the game, so as to turn it into something else. Where such things have occurred in the OTU, such as Virus, they have been contraversial and divisive.
I think in reality, it can be any of these things. You are playing Traveller if you say you are. To take the religious analogy further, both Christianity in all its forms and Islam share far more than they diverge from each other, but no fair commentator would say someone claiming to be a Christian is actually a Muslim or vice versa. Zealots and fundamentalists might. There's evidence from these boards that there are such elements inthe Traveller community too. ;)
Rather than define: "What is Traveller?", how about asking...
"What is Orthodox Traveller?"
Malenfant
March 12th, 2007, 03:50 PM
Well ideally I'd like us to get away from the religious allegories, because at the end of the day Traveller is a game, nothing more. I think the last thing we want to do is reinforce the pseudo-religious side of it smile.gif .
I'd agree with your first three points and I'd really LIKE to agree with the fourth, but I think a lot of others would argue that Hard Science is definitely not an aspect of Traveller that defines it - there seems to be quite a few here who think it's Space Opera.
Personally I think Traveller tries to be more in the realm of Hard SF and has definitely made attempts to do so (the addition of astronomical data CT book 6 and the detail in FF&S seem to support this). However, it's let down by definite flaws in the world design system that create errors that have been allowed to propagate. One could also argue that the thruster plates and jump drive make it unrealistic, but I think that's missing the point somewhat - the technologies may be unrealistic (as far as we can tell) but most of them are broadly based on scientific principles (e.g. maneuver drives are gravity manipulation, nuclear dampers are modifications of the strong/weak nuclear force etc). The only things that are really entirely fanciful and space opera-ish are jumpspace itself and psionics. As long as the technologies are consistently applied however, it can retain a realistic feel even if the details of how they work are fanciful.
I'd agree with your first three points and I'd really LIKE to agree with the fourth, but I think a lot of others would argue that Hard Science is definitely not an aspect of Traveller that defines it - there seems to be quite a few here who think it's Space Opera.
Personally I think Traveller tries to be more in the realm of Hard SF and has definitely made attempts to do so (the addition of astronomical data CT book 6 and the detail in FF&S seem to support this). However, it's let down by definite flaws in the world design system that create errors that have been allowed to propagate. One could also argue that the thruster plates and jump drive make it unrealistic, but I think that's missing the point somewhat - the technologies may be unrealistic (as far as we can tell) but most of them are broadly based on scientific principles (e.g. maneuver drives are gravity manipulation, nuclear dampers are modifications of the strong/weak nuclear force etc). The only things that are really entirely fanciful and space opera-ish are jumpspace itself and psionics. As long as the technologies are consistently applied however, it can retain a realistic feel even if the details of how they work are fanciful.
RandyT0001
March 12th, 2007, 03:55 PM
I disagree Mal. Travller is the ruleset not the setting. IIRC there are seven licensed rulesets to choose from, CT, MT, TNE, T4, GT, T20, and HeroTraveller(?). If you buy and use any of these rulesets to generate a setting and characters one can claim to be playing Traveller. If that setting introduces different interstellar travel tech than is found within one of those rulesets, for instance warp drive or stargates then you lose the primary assumption within the game and really can't expect players to believe your playing Traveller. To the players you would be playing Stargate SG-1 or StarTrek using the Traveller rules. By the same token you can't use the WW rules system, re-create the OTU setting within that ruleset, and then call it "Traveller". You could say it was a "Travelleresque" setting but IMO you couldn't promote it as "Traveller" at a con or FLGS and expect players readily accept it as "Traveller".
IMO
IMO
Malenfant
March 12th, 2007, 04:11 PM
I really can't see how Traveller could be possibly be "system" given that there's so many varieties of it (and that they're so different - at one end we have an entirely random chargen in CT, and at the other we have point-buy with GURPS Traveller).
I also see no problem with using other rulesets to recreate the OTU - there's a gaping hole in your logic in that this is exactly what GT (GURPS), T20 (d20), HeroTrav (HERO) and TNE (GDW T2K) did. That being the case, why shouldn't you be able to do the same thing with Silhouette or Storyteller?
And why should a setting that I use (any of) the Traveller rules to run be called Traveller if it has nothing in common with it? I've built my own setting from scratch using the alternate technologies in FF&S, the aliens are totally different and the history is totally different too. Admittedly I ended up using GURPS Space for the system, but had I used the CT rules instead then where's the justfiication in calling that "Traveller"?
I also see no problem with using other rulesets to recreate the OTU - there's a gaping hole in your logic in that this is exactly what GT (GURPS), T20 (d20), HeroTrav (HERO) and TNE (GDW T2K) did. That being the case, why shouldn't you be able to do the same thing with Silhouette or Storyteller?
And why should a setting that I use (any of) the Traveller rules to run be called Traveller if it has nothing in common with it? I've built my own setting from scratch using the alternate technologies in FF&S, the aliens are totally different and the history is totally different too. Admittedly I ended up using GURPS Space for the system, but had I used the CT rules instead then where's the justfiication in calling that "Traveller"?
Rhialto the Marvelous
March 12th, 2007, 04:14 PM
Major Traveller rules that have deep setting implications--
1. Deadly environment: A Gauss rifle will kill you dead. No mooks, no Star Wars. Crash landings, punctured vacc suits... so many ways to interact with tech, so many ways to die pathetically.
2. Random chargen: you're assigned your lot in life--namely, an average to slightly superior PC in a dangerous environment (see above). Now go forth, using only your wits (and a Gauss rifle, if you can get hold of one), and shine, or die trying.
Yes, point-buy *can* emulate this, provided there are no (super-)heroic point levels. Those would de-Travellerize the game. So would Ads/Disads. Extensive minmaxing rules = not Traveller.
3. 1-week Jump: shapes the politics and the economics of the world like nothing else does (duh).
4. Vastly different TLs: there's probably no good real-world justification for these, but they make the game a lot of fun indeed.
Everything else (most aliens, the anachronistic form of government that is the Imperium and its nobility) is ditchable. Make the Imperium some kind of federation, and all you'll lose is the silly uniforms.
1. Deadly environment: A Gauss rifle will kill you dead. No mooks, no Star Wars. Crash landings, punctured vacc suits... so many ways to interact with tech, so many ways to die pathetically.
2. Random chargen: you're assigned your lot in life--namely, an average to slightly superior PC in a dangerous environment (see above). Now go forth, using only your wits (and a Gauss rifle, if you can get hold of one), and shine, or die trying.
Yes, point-buy *can* emulate this, provided there are no (super-)heroic point levels. Those would de-Travellerize the game. So would Ads/Disads. Extensive minmaxing rules = not Traveller.
3. 1-week Jump: shapes the politics and the economics of the world like nothing else does (duh).
4. Vastly different TLs: there's probably no good real-world justification for these, but they make the game a lot of fun indeed.
Everything else (most aliens, the anachronistic form of government that is the Imperium and its nobility) is ditchable. Make the Imperium some kind of federation, and all you'll lose is the silly uniforms.
Baron Saarthuran
March 12th, 2007, 05:24 PM
This is a swiftly moving topic to be sure!
The only "problem' I have with the aliens is the numerical probability of so many starfaring space societies essentially right next to each other, at the same essential level of development. I know, I know. "ancients". But something about it seems a little peculiar at times, aside from the fact of my never meeting an alien to compare them by.
But as others have stated, we do have a comparison model of aliens from films and tv and such. Pound for pound, it comes down to a matter of personal taste about aliens. Any and all of them are at least as well defined as other from other sources, be they Klingons, Aslan, or bonehead N'Bari. No matter how "out there" you get with an alien description, it still comes down to a human interpretation of an alien culture/physiology.It's unavoidable unless you avoid it altogether.
The only "problem' I have with the aliens is the numerical probability of so many starfaring space societies essentially right next to each other, at the same essential level of development. I know, I know. "ancients". But something about it seems a little peculiar at times, aside from the fact of my never meeting an alien to compare them by.
But as others have stated, we do have a comparison model of aliens from films and tv and such. Pound for pound, it comes down to a matter of personal taste about aliens. Any and all of them are at least as well defined as other from other sources, be they Klingons, Aslan, or bonehead N'Bari. No matter how "out there" you get with an alien description, it still comes down to a human interpretation of an alien culture/physiology.It's unavoidable unless you avoid it altogether.
Jamus
March 12th, 2007, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
On further thought, I think the greater issue is NOT whether a modification to a game makes it "Traveller" or "Not Traveller" - after all, if you're happy with the change you make then who bloody cares what you want to call it.
I think the greater issue is that it seems that there's an attitude that making the change itself is somehow "wrong" on this board (but not, apparently, elsewhere), and I'm wondering if people really are comfortable with that. I can only speak for myself but I think there is a dnager in change for no other reason than change itself. Ive made changes to my CT game that I dont feel untravellerizes the campaign. for one I gave the aslan thier human hands back. I assume that all 3I BD has grav belts and though it takes a week to jump time passes instantly for those making the jump. Jury is still out on that last one though.
My worry is that with too much change this game we all love will "jump the shark" as they say and die.
On further thought, I think the greater issue is NOT whether a modification to a game makes it "Traveller" or "Not Traveller" - after all, if you're happy with the change you make then who bloody cares what you want to call it.
I think the greater issue is that it seems that there's an attitude that making the change itself is somehow "wrong" on this board (but not, apparently, elsewhere), and I'm wondering if people really are comfortable with that. I can only speak for myself but I think there is a dnager in change for no other reason than change itself. Ive made changes to my CT game that I dont feel untravellerizes the campaign. for one I gave the aslan thier human hands back. I assume that all 3I BD has grav belts and though it takes a week to jump time passes instantly for those making the jump. Jury is still out on that last one though.
My worry is that with too much change this game we all love will "jump the shark" as they say and die.
Klaus
March 12th, 2007, 06:18 PM
I could take the setting from Star Frontiers and the rules from Spacemaster (I did just that 10 years ago).
Is that Spacemaster, or Star Frontiers?
Answer, it's both.
If you use any Traveller ruleset in any setting, it's Traveller in my book. May be Star Trek/Traveller, or Blake's 7/Traveller, but Traveller it is still.
At the same time, you can take any other RPG ruleset, and use it in the OTU. If I used Spacemaster in the OTU, I'd be playing Spacemater/Traveller. If I used GURPS, I'd be playing GURPS/Traveller (hold on a minute...). If I used D20, I'd be playing, erm... Nope. Well, T20 houserules a conversion to a Traveller style of play.
If what we're really asking is: How much can you tinker with the OTU before it stops being the OTU?
Because we're never gonna be able to agree between us what defines Traveller.
Is that Spacemaster, or Star Frontiers?
Answer, it's both.
If you use any Traveller ruleset in any setting, it's Traveller in my book. May be Star Trek/Traveller, or Blake's 7/Traveller, but Traveller it is still.
At the same time, you can take any other RPG ruleset, and use it in the OTU. If I used Spacemaster in the OTU, I'd be playing Spacemater/Traveller. If I used GURPS, I'd be playing GURPS/Traveller (hold on a minute...). If I used D20, I'd be playing, erm... Nope. Well, T20 houserules a conversion to a Traveller style of play.
If what we're really asking is: How much can you tinker with the OTU before it stops being the OTU?
Because we're never gonna be able to agree between us what defines Traveller.
Baron Saarthuran
March 12th, 2007, 10:59 PM
Its a strange question, as there are "OTU" sources everywhere, but few that speak of an entirely OTU game (100% OTU). Is that even possible, really? Most games I take part in are always changed from the norm in some way. I don't ever remeber a game of Trav the years over that was all the way OTU.
Rhialto the Marvelous
March 12th, 2007, 11:20 PM
Just to clarify the point I was making: Yes, there is a core Traveller identity, it's a mix of a few crucial rules and setting elements, and if you lose one of these you de-Travellerize the game significantly.
You can certainly play in the setting using different rules, all while still playing Traveller--insofar as these new rules emulate and/or port over above Trav rules. See T20.
So, no, the Traveller identity is absolutely not arbitrary. And no, mixing and matching Trav rules with any old setting, or the Trav setting with any old rules set, won't always generate a Traveller game.
The only disagreements most of us are having stem from our opinions as to where precisely to draw the line. Emperor & Nobles: yes/no? Which will in turn influence our opinions about what if anything should be changed in a new edition.
But such discussions are legitimate and useful. They make you think about what you yourself consider core Traveller, and why.
You can certainly play in the setting using different rules, all while still playing Traveller--insofar as these new rules emulate and/or port over above Trav rules. See T20.
So, no, the Traveller identity is absolutely not arbitrary. And no, mixing and matching Trav rules with any old setting, or the Trav setting with any old rules set, won't always generate a Traveller game.
The only disagreements most of us are having stem from our opinions as to where precisely to draw the line. Emperor & Nobles: yes/no? Which will in turn influence our opinions about what if anything should be changed in a new edition.
But such discussions are legitimate and useful. They make you think about what you yourself consider core Traveller, and why.
SgtHulka
March 12th, 2007, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
Major Traveller rules that have deep setting implications--
1. Deadly environment: A Gauss rifle will kill you dead. No mooks, no Star Wars. Crash landings, punctured vacc suits... so many ways to interact with tech, so many ways to die pathetically.Unless you're playing the AHL, Striker or Megatraveller version of the rules and are wearing a nice high-tech suit of battledress. Then you're maybe lightly wounded, maybe not.
Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
Yes, point-buy *can* emulate this, provided there are no (super-)heroic point levels. Those would de-Travellerize the game. So would Ads/Disads. Extensive minmaxing rules = not Traveller.Unless you count Book 1 chargen as mini-maxing...choosing career based on characteristics providing highest potential of commission and promotion...or based on highest probability of mustering out with a starship. Or choose your gun combat and blade combat skills based on your dex and strength and how heavy a weapon you can carry versus the best bonus you can get from your dex...it's amazing how many of my characters have been crack shots with shotguns.
I'm just joking around and yanking your chain, Rhialto. Don't take me seriously.
I admire your handle, by the way.
Major Traveller rules that have deep setting implications--
1. Deadly environment: A Gauss rifle will kill you dead. No mooks, no Star Wars. Crash landings, punctured vacc suits... so many ways to interact with tech, so many ways to die pathetically.Unless you're playing the AHL, Striker or Megatraveller version of the rules and are wearing a nice high-tech suit of battledress. Then you're maybe lightly wounded, maybe not.
Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
Yes, point-buy *can* emulate this, provided there are no (super-)heroic point levels. Those would de-Travellerize the game. So would Ads/Disads. Extensive minmaxing rules = not Traveller.Unless you count Book 1 chargen as mini-maxing...choosing career based on characteristics providing highest potential of commission and promotion...or based on highest probability of mustering out with a starship. Or choose your gun combat and blade combat skills based on your dex and strength and how heavy a weapon you can carry versus the best bonus you can get from your dex...it's amazing how many of my characters have been crack shots with shotguns.
I'm just joking around and yanking your chain, Rhialto. Don't take me seriously.
I admire your handle, by the way.
TheEngineer
March 13th, 2007, 02:58 AM
Hi !
Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
Its a strange question, as there are "OTU" sources everywhere, but few that speak of an entirely OTU game (100% OTU). Is that even possible, really? Most games I take part in are always changed from the norm in some way. I don't ever remeber a game of Trav the years over that was all the way OTU. Regarding the setting I just use and have always used Traveller (namely CT/MT) "out of the box".
I would do so with TNE or TNE 1248, too.
Ruleswise I started "out of the box", then created tons of house rules, which I stripped away years ago again.
Growing older and older I feel an increasing dislike for the pseudo-noble centered picture of the Imperium and most of the "derived-looking" aliens like Aslan, Vargr or K'Kree, but as my players are pretty used to that, the show goes on that way smile.gif
Regards,
TE
Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
Its a strange question, as there are "OTU" sources everywhere, but few that speak of an entirely OTU game (100% OTU). Is that even possible, really? Most games I take part in are always changed from the norm in some way. I don't ever remeber a game of Trav the years over that was all the way OTU. Regarding the setting I just use and have always used Traveller (namely CT/MT) "out of the box".
I would do so with TNE or TNE 1248, too.
Ruleswise I started "out of the box", then created tons of house rules, which I stripped away years ago again.
Growing older and older I feel an increasing dislike for the pseudo-noble centered picture of the Imperium and most of the "derived-looking" aliens like Aslan, Vargr or K'Kree, but as my players are pretty used to that, the show goes on that way smile.gif
Regards,
TE
Elv
March 13th, 2007, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
Just to clarify the point I was making: Yes, there is a core Traveller identity, it's a mix of a few crucial rules and setting elements, and if you lose one of these you de-Travellerize the game significantly.Before this discussion I would have said that (for me) Traveller is the setting, but here Rhialto has given a much clearer description of what I actually think!
I ran what I called a GURPS Traveller game some years before the official version. If rules were all that mattered it would have been "not Traveller" then; but it was close enough to official GT that had I run it 10 years later it would have been Traveller (with a few house rules). This is enough to convince me Traveller isn't the rules.
I've heard descriptions of games that definitely "feel" like Traveller without any of the "official" history, so it isn't that. And different campaign settings which rely on that history (say, Hard Times, Rim of Fire, Gateway to Destiny) can have very different tone and mood, so that's not it either.
Rhialto's post sums it up, and makes concrete the vague feeling I have for "what is Traveller". Thanks!
John
Just to clarify the point I was making: Yes, there is a core Traveller identity, it's a mix of a few crucial rules and setting elements, and if you lose one of these you de-Travellerize the game significantly.Before this discussion I would have said that (for me) Traveller is the setting, but here Rhialto has given a much clearer description of what I actually think!
I ran what I called a GURPS Traveller game some years before the official version. If rules were all that mattered it would have been "not Traveller" then; but it was close enough to official GT that had I run it 10 years later it would have been Traveller (with a few house rules). This is enough to convince me Traveller isn't the rules.
I've heard descriptions of games that definitely "feel" like Traveller without any of the "official" history, so it isn't that. And different campaign settings which rely on that history (say, Hard Times, Rim of Fire, Gateway to Destiny) can have very different tone and mood, so that's not it either.
Rhialto's post sums it up, and makes concrete the vague feeling I have for "what is Traveller". Thanks!
John
flykiller
March 13th, 2007, 02:02 PM
gamers typically do what they want with regards to rules and settings, and they'll call it traveller whether anyone agrees or not. but a publisher is not so unconstrained. he must follow copyright, and at a bare minimum he must be able to say what it is that he's selling. he can't sell star trek and call it traveller. so ... what would a publisher define traveller to be?
Sifu Blackirish
March 13th, 2007, 09:39 PM
Mal, I read your link to rpg.net (and thanks for that, btw) and I find myself pretty much in agreement with them.
My ATU is VERY humano-centric, with what some have called 'Star Trek' type aliens, with the truly ALIEN ones as major heavies, and even they have elements of Imperial Japanese and Soviet culture. An allied plant race is loosely based on Hivers, and I have a Vargr-type canine race called the Ainuu, who partially overcame their pack instincts with a human xenophobia. Yet all of this still fits into TRAVELLER.
My players never really cared about OTU politics, usually being space-opera munchkins and min-maxers. Still, I could game in the OTU with some tweaks...like the all too brief 70 year span between MT and TNE. IMHO it would heighten mystery value immensely to make that span at least 200 years, or more. Would that shock OTU purists too much?
My ATU is VERY humano-centric, with what some have called 'Star Trek' type aliens, with the truly ALIEN ones as major heavies, and even they have elements of Imperial Japanese and Soviet culture. An allied plant race is loosely based on Hivers, and I have a Vargr-type canine race called the Ainuu, who partially overcame their pack instincts with a human xenophobia. Yet all of this still fits into TRAVELLER.
My players never really cared about OTU politics, usually being space-opera munchkins and min-maxers. Still, I could game in the OTU with some tweaks...like the all too brief 70 year span between MT and TNE. IMHO it would heighten mystery value immensely to make that span at least 200 years, or more. Would that shock OTU purists too much?
travlar
March 13th, 2007, 10:39 PM
What I want to know is what problems people have with the aliens. They may be too similar to humans, but it is very hard to come up with something completely alien, and even harder to use such things. Also, things might be similar because they work best that way. The K'Kree look like centaurs, but how would you make a four legged, inteligent, alien? It needs arms, and at the front is a good place to put them. Or you could say that the K'Kree are where the legends of centaurs came from.
far-trader
March 13th, 2007, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Kaale Dasar:
What I want to know is what problems people have with the aliens. They may be too similar to humans, but it is very hard to come up with something completely alien, and even harder to use such things. Also, things might be similar because they work best that way. The K'Kree look like centaurs, but how would you make a four legged, inteligent, alien? It needs arms, and at the front is a good place to put them. Or you could say that the K'Kree are where the legends of centaurs came from. Reasonably reasoned but your question is pretty much my answer. I'm usually not thrilled with aliens, especially as PCs and only marginally less so as NPCs because the ones that can be played are not terribly alien. And the truly alien ones are often very hard to play.
The way too many sci-fi aliens are handled differs little from elves or dwarves in fantasy and are usually just an excuse for some munchkining and played just like the usual human.
My favorite sci-fi alien sums up the ideal treatment for me...
Recall "Alien" the movie and the dead fossilized giant alien the crew of the Nostromo discover while exploring the wrecked ship? That's it. Just this big, long dead, chest exploded, alien. Just sitting there. End of story. The enigma is left to the imagination. That to me is excellent treatment of an alien in sci-fi :cool:
What I want to know is what problems people have with the aliens. They may be too similar to humans, but it is very hard to come up with something completely alien, and even harder to use such things. Also, things might be similar because they work best that way. The K'Kree look like centaurs, but how would you make a four legged, inteligent, alien? It needs arms, and at the front is a good place to put them. Or you could say that the K'Kree are where the legends of centaurs came from. Reasonably reasoned but your question is pretty much my answer. I'm usually not thrilled with aliens, especially as PCs and only marginally less so as NPCs because the ones that can be played are not terribly alien. And the truly alien ones are often very hard to play.
The way too many sci-fi aliens are handled differs little from elves or dwarves in fantasy and are usually just an excuse for some munchkining and played just like the usual human.
My favorite sci-fi alien sums up the ideal treatment for me...
Recall "Alien" the movie and the dead fossilized giant alien the crew of the Nostromo discover while exploring the wrecked ship? That's it. Just this big, long dead, chest exploded, alien. Just sitting there. End of story. The enigma is left to the imagination. That to me is excellent treatment of an alien in sci-fi :cool:
Rhialto the Marvelous
March 14th, 2007, 03:12 AM
Awesome example, far trader!
Personally, I do am partial to sentient, planet-sized oceans, i.e. Solaris (the Lem book and the Tarkovskij movie, not the Clooney movie, bleargh).
Also, the Xiang in 2300AD. Maybe.
Personally, I do am partial to sentient, planet-sized oceans, i.e. Solaris (the Lem book and the Tarkovskij movie, not the Clooney movie, bleargh).
Also, the Xiang in 2300AD. Maybe.
Sifu Blackirish
March 17th, 2007, 12:39 PM
Does anyone have a comment on this?
Alternative World Generation systems (http://traveller.mu.org/house/altWorldGeneration.html)
I know it's old, but did his tweak remove most of the nonsensical results of book 3?
BTW, thanks very much Malenfant, for the link to the Active Topics portion of the board. It's now my new home page!
Alternative World Generation systems (http://traveller.mu.org/house/altWorldGeneration.html)
I know it's old, but did his tweak remove most of the nonsensical results of book 3?
BTW, thanks very much Malenfant, for the link to the Active Topics portion of the board. It's now my new home page!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét