Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > Other Versions of Traveller > MegaTraveller

MegaTraveller Discuss of the MegaTraveller ruleset and the Rebellion Milieu

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 16th, 2003, 01:25 PM
kafka47's Avatar
kafka47 kafka47 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: For the most part : Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,379
Gallery : 28
Visit kafka47's Blog
kafka47 Citizen
Post

I could see a wounded clossus scenario being played out. However, I would hope that Marc would want GDW/DGP to get at the stories behind the Rebellion, show the fatal hubris that led to the decline of the Imperium. I would hope as well that the Rebellion could be used as a story arc that would lead not neccessarily to fragmentation but reinvigorated focus upon the regions away from the CT territories of the Rim & Deneb.

For I believe it was Joe who cited that the Grand Tour allowed them to see the Imperium as a whole for the very first time. I would imagine MWM would want to see the different cultural regions fleshed out. To this end, we would see the beginnings of the noble sourcebook come into play. As high politics along with decisive movements on the battlefield would win battles.

I should also imagine that MWM visualized something like T2000 emerging from the ruins of the Imperium whereby, the Imperium is wasted but pockets of hope and resurgance are mushrooming, in places that we might not otherwise expect. Also, patterns of co-habitation/co-determination (in the German sense of the word) forming amongst the different worlds creating micro-polities.

How he expected the whole thing to end? It would seem that adopting the name of Avery on the lists here, he was, at least, vaguely aware
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old October 16th, 2003, 01:25 PM
kafka47's Avatar
kafka47 kafka47 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: For the most part : Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,379
Gallery : 28
Visit kafka47's Blog
kafka47 Citizen
Post

I could see a wounded clossus scenario being played out. However, I would hope that Marc would want GDW/DGP to get at the stories behind the Rebellion, show the fatal hubris that led to the decline of the Imperium. I would hope as well that the Rebellion could be used as a story arc that would lead not neccessarily to fragmentation but reinvigorated focus upon the regions away from the CT territories of the Rim & Deneb.

For I believe it was Joe who cited that the Grand Tour allowed them to see the Imperium as a whole for the very first time. I would imagine MWM would want to see the different cultural regions fleshed out. To this end, we would see the beginnings of the noble sourcebook come into play. As high politics along with decisive movements on the battlefield would win battles.

I should also imagine that MWM visualized something like T2000 emerging from the ruins of the Imperium whereby, the Imperium is wasted but pockets of hope and resurgance are mushrooming, in places that we might not otherwise expect. Also, patterns of co-habitation/co-determination (in the German sense of the word) forming amongst the different worlds creating micro-polities.

How he expected the whole thing to end? It would seem that adopting the name of Avery on the lists here, he was, at least, vaguely aware
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old October 16th, 2003, 02:17 PM
kaladorn kaladorn is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa (Ontario Subsector/Canada Sector)
Posts: 2,293
Gallery : 0
kaladorn Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by thrash:
Roleplaying metaplots are a bad idea in general, I think: they cast the players as spectators in a drama, rather than actors.
First, I think that's a sweeping generalization and therefore inherently fallacious. Several groups I've played with really enjoyed playing in the Rebellion and found the fact that DGP left the ending unspecified (in the original game box...) as really enjoyable - they were getting to 'do their part' without having the feeling they were being dragged along. Their were big historical events, but the eventual future, at least of their areas, were shaped by their actions.

There will always be history in large scale games. Some groups like it to be weak and vague and don't pay much attention to it, wanting to do their own thing. Other groups want to have a hand in shaping it on the Grand Stage. Still others, like the groups I played with, realize they are small players in a large and dynamic universe, and simply look at it as backdrop - important that it be there for detail/colour, something which defines the shape and nature of the universe, but not something they themselves will manipulate or change.

I don't see that there was anything inherently bad about the Rebellion millieu, and the fact that you could choose to ignore the factions and do your own thing (but the Rebellion would still move along) or you could join a faction and impact your local region made it quite exciting. Lots of potential for intrigue and adventure. Certainly far more than even the CT universe.... far less staid.... a place where Great Things Were Afoot.

Quote:
With the prescience to foresee that result, I would instead use the Rebellion (past tense) as a device to reshape the Official Traveller Universe to whatever I thought would best promote adventuring.
Myself and my players would have said that was exactly what was done in the original MT release.

Some subsequently released products in that series went along and told us how things went, and those felt more like what you are saying - dragging people along. The original product left unsettled factions, unknown endings, and ambiguity - always a great place for a referee to put his own stamp on things.

Quote:
Play the war out to a conclusion using in-house rules (a la 2300 AD and "The Great Game"). Use that data to create a coherent but diverse and dynamic set of roleplaying settings, without the need to wipe the slate and start from scratch (i.e., Virus).
Too simplistic. If you start from the CT 3I, you're already starting with something with so many broken parts (re economics, politics, settlement patterns, military techniques and tactics, etc) that you're going to have a hard time managing coherence.

If this kind of approach was taken to populating the universe originally, things would probably have come out much more interestingly and with greater sense and verisimilitude.

Quote:
The narrative of the war would still be available to referees who wanted to game out specific operations, or run "alternate history" campaigns based on changes in their outcome. The "official" answers would be on the table from the beginning, though, so that everyone else could get on with their own campaigns without fear of subsequent metaplot developments over-writing something they've worked hard to create.
And by putting out the "official" answer, you'd provide a tacit constraint many people would be unhappy with. I think this is one of the worst approaches to the problem, and I think it typifies exactly what they started to do later with the Rebellion Sourcebook, etc. that was what hurt (IMO) the MT concept. Removing the ambiguity, providing resolution, etc. was the antithesis of what made MT a great product.

As for the fear you talk about, I think the problem is MT seemed to say "You decide how you want it to end or who was real and who was not etc." and then it later said "Well, here's how we think it should really all go...". I guess for an on-going product line, the latter wa inevitable. But if they'd just stopped after releasing the MT boxed set, it would be up to the *refs* to decide how things went in their universe and there would be NO fear of being overwritten. It's the fact that, like many movies which spawn sequels where there should not have been, they tried to follow the basic MT set with more product.

I for one think MT was brilliant and right after it was released (well, maybe delay that six months while they fixed the errata!) would have been a good time to fold up shop 'historywise' and let the players and referees move things forward. Or spawn off a whole pile of different threads, each given equal canonical weight, but with enough variety to make most GMs have ease of integration. Thus there would be no *one* canon answer.

I think 'canon' is one of the greatest lodestones around the necks of traveller referees now and in the future. The bulk of the past acts as a drag-anchor to the progress into the future....
__________________
"Tell them, that from this place we will deliver notice to the parliaments of conquerors that a line has been drawn against the darkness. And we will hold that line, .. no matter the cost." -- Cpt. Sheridan "The Long, Twilight Struggle"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old October 16th, 2003, 02:17 PM
kaladorn kaladorn is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa (Ontario Subsector/Canada Sector)
Posts: 2,293
Gallery : 0
kaladorn Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by thrash:
Roleplaying metaplots are a bad idea in general, I think: they cast the players as spectators in a drama, rather than actors.
First, I think that's a sweeping generalization and therefore inherently fallacious. Several groups I've played with really enjoyed playing in the Rebellion and found the fact that DGP left the ending unspecified (in the original game box...) as really enjoyable - they were getting to 'do their part' without having the feeling they were being dragged along. Their were big historical events, but the eventual future, at least of their areas, were shaped by their actions.

There will always be history in large scale games. Some groups like it to be weak and vague and don't pay much attention to it, wanting to do their own thing. Other groups want to have a hand in shaping it on the Grand Stage. Still others, like the groups I played with, realize they are small players in a large and dynamic universe, and simply look at it as backdrop - important that it be there for detail/colour, something which defines the shape and nature of the universe, but not something they themselves will manipulate or change.

I don't see that there was anything inherently bad about the Rebellion millieu, and the fact that you could choose to ignore the factions and do your own thing (but the Rebellion would still move along) or you could join a faction and impact your local region made it quite exciting. Lots of potential for intrigue and adventure. Certainly far more than even the CT universe.... far less staid.... a place where Great Things Were Afoot.

Quote:
With the prescience to foresee that result, I would instead use the Rebellion (past tense) as a device to reshape the Official Traveller Universe to whatever I thought would best promote adventuring.
Myself and my players would have said that was exactly what was done in the original MT release.

Some subsequently released products in that series went along and told us how things went, and those felt more like what you are saying - dragging people along. The original product left unsettled factions, unknown endings, and ambiguity - always a great place for a referee to put his own stamp on things.

Quote:
Play the war out to a conclusion using in-house rules (a la 2300 AD and "The Great Game"). Use that data to create a coherent but diverse and dynamic set of roleplaying settings, without the need to wipe the slate and start from scratch (i.e., Virus).
Too simplistic. If you start from the CT 3I, you're already starting with something with so many broken parts (re economics, politics, settlement patterns, military techniques and tactics, etc) that you're going to have a hard time managing coherence.

If this kind of approach was taken to populating the universe originally, things would probably have come out much more interestingly and with greater sense and verisimilitude.

Quote:
The narrative of the war would still be available to referees who wanted to game out specific operations, or run "alternate history" campaigns based on changes in their outcome. The "official" answers would be on the table from the beginning, though, so that everyone else could get on with their own campaigns without fear of subsequent metaplot developments over-writing something they've worked hard to create.
And by putting out the "official" answer, you'd provide a tacit constraint many people would be unhappy with. I think this is one of the worst approaches to the problem, and I think it typifies exactly what they started to do later with the Rebellion Sourcebook, etc. that was what hurt (IMO) the MT concept. Removing the ambiguity, providing resolution, etc. was the antithesis of what made MT a great product.

As for the fear you talk about, I think the problem is MT seemed to say "You decide how you want it to end or who was real and who was not etc." and then it later said "Well, here's how we think it should really all go...". I guess for an on-going product line, the latter wa inevitable. But if they'd just stopped after releasing the MT boxed set, it would be up to the *refs* to decide how things went in their universe and there would be NO fear of being overwritten. It's the fact that, like many movies which spawn sequels where there should not have been, they tried to follow the basic MT set with more product.

I for one think MT was brilliant and right after it was released (well, maybe delay that six months while they fixed the errata!) would have been a good time to fold up shop 'historywise' and let the players and referees move things forward. Or spawn off a whole pile of different threads, each given equal canonical weight, but with enough variety to make most GMs have ease of integration. Thus there would be no *one* canon answer.

I think 'canon' is one of the greatest lodestones around the necks of traveller referees now and in the future. The bulk of the past acts as a drag-anchor to the progress into the future....
__________________
"Tell them, that from this place we will deliver notice to the parliaments of conquerors that a line has been drawn against the darkness. And we will hold that line, .. no matter the cost." -- Cpt. Sheridan "The Long, Twilight Struggle"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old October 16th, 2003, 02:17 PM
kaladorn kaladorn is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa (Ontario Subsector/Canada Sector)
Posts: 2,293
Gallery : 0
kaladorn Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by thrash:
Roleplaying metaplots are a bad idea in general, I think: they cast the players as spectators in a drama, rather than actors.
First, I think that's a sweeping generalization and therefore inherently fallacious. Several groups I've played with really enjoyed playing in the Rebellion and found the fact that DGP left the ending unspecified (in the original game box...) as really enjoyable - they were getting to 'do their part' without having the feeling they were being dragged along. Their were big historical events, but the eventual future, at least of their areas, were shaped by their actions.

There will always be history in large scale games. Some groups like it to be weak and vague and don't pay much attention to it, wanting to do their own thing. Other groups want to have a hand in shaping it on the Grand Stage. Still others, like the groups I played with, realize they are small players in a large and dynamic universe, and simply look at it as backdrop - important that it be there for detail/colour, something which defines the shape and nature of the universe, but not something they themselves will manipulate or change.

I don't see that there was anything inherently bad about the Rebellion millieu, and the fact that you could choose to ignore the factions and do your own thing (but the Rebellion would still move along) or you could join a faction and impact your local region made it quite exciting. Lots of potential for intrigue and adventure. Certainly far more than even the CT universe.... far less staid.... a place where Great Things Were Afoot.

Quote:
With the prescience to foresee that result, I would instead use the Rebellion (past tense) as a device to reshape the Official Traveller Universe to whatever I thought would best promote adventuring.
Myself and my players would have said that was exactly what was done in the original MT release.

Some subsequently released products in that series went along and told us how things went, and those felt more like what you are saying - dragging people along. The original product left unsettled factions, unknown endings, and ambiguity - always a great place for a referee to put his own stamp on things.

Quote:
Play the war out to a conclusion using in-house rules (a la 2300 AD and "The Great Game"). Use that data to create a coherent but diverse and dynamic set of roleplaying settings, without the need to wipe the slate and start from scratch (i.e., Virus).
Too simplistic. If you start from the CT 3I, you're already starting with something with so many broken parts (re economics, politics, settlement patterns, military techniques and tactics, etc) that you're going to have a hard time managing coherence.

If this kind of approach was taken to populating the universe originally, things would probably have come out much more interestingly and with greater sense and verisimilitude.

Quote:
The narrative of the war would still be available to referees who wanted to game out specific operations, or run "alternate history" campaigns based on changes in their outcome. The "official" answers would be on the table from the beginning, though, so that everyone else could get on with their own campaigns without fear of subsequent metaplot developments over-writing something they've worked hard to create.
And by putting out the "official" answer, you'd provide a tacit constraint many people would be unhappy with. I think this is one of the worst approaches to the problem, and I think it typifies exactly what they started to do later with the Rebellion Sourcebook, etc. that was what hurt (IMO) the MT concept. Removing the ambiguity, providing resolution, etc. was the antithesis of what made MT a great product.

As for the fear you talk about, I think the problem is MT seemed to say "You decide how you want it to end or who was real and who was not etc." and then it later said "Well, here's how we think it should really all go...". I guess for an on-going product line, the latter wa inevitable. But if they'd just stopped after releasing the MT boxed set, it would be up to the *refs* to decide how things went in their universe and there would be NO fear of being overwritten. It's the fact that, like many movies which spawn sequels where there should not have been, they tried to follow the basic MT set with more product.

I for one think MT was brilliant and right after it was released (well, maybe delay that six months while they fixed the errata!) would have been a good time to fold up shop 'historywise' and let the players and referees move things forward. Or spawn off a whole pile of different threads, each given equal canonical weight, but with enough variety to make most GMs have ease of integration. Thus there would be no *one* canon answer.

I think 'canon' is one of the greatest lodestones around the necks of traveller referees now and in the future. The bulk of the past acts as a drag-anchor to the progress into the future....
__________________
"Tell them, that from this place we will deliver notice to the parliaments of conquerors that a line has been drawn against the darkness. And we will hold that line, .. no matter the cost." -- Cpt. Sheridan "The Long, Twilight Struggle"
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old October 16th, 2003, 04:27 PM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is online now
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,618
Gallery : 0
mike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizen
Post

Has anyone ever asked MWM where he wanted the Rebellion Era to go ?

It is a matter of fact that once OT had developed into a game for the Third Imperium setting GDW brought along the Fifth Frontier War to spice things up [img]graemlins/file_23.gif[/img] . It was possible to use the board game as a backdrop to roleplaying but I wonder how many tried (and how many groups had to abandon their outcome when GDW published their version )?

By the end of the FFW the Spinward Marches setting reverted to the status quo. So we had a few years of interesting TNS articles in the JotTAS, a good board game that could fill up a weekend (and that was just sorting the counters, setting up the opening positions and writing the first turn orders [img]smile.gif[/img] ) and very little impact on the adventures published (just how many official adventures were published set during the war [img]graemlins/file_23.gif[/img] )

MT began with the conflict ongoing. Where are the board games for strategic fleet movement and combat, planetary invasion, diplomatic missions? I agree with Ranger that these should have been produced to allow groups to determine their version of how the Rebellion would develop but as Mr Whipsnade points out the authors should have had their own story arc (did the term exist before Babylon5?).

Hard Times was an interesting development and still one of my favourite Traveller settings because the players could actually make a difference. I would have liked MT to have started in this setting and then developed into a game of rebuilding and hope from despair.

As far as supplements go then I would have liked a more in depth look at each fraction, more published adventures linked to each of the fractions and the meta-plot, more volumes of the SOH (big ships please), a few hints at the official future mapped out and possibly a grand adventure/campaign in which the PCs could end up as rulers of a resurgent Imperium(just kidding [img]graemlins/file_23.gif[/img] ). The Onnesium quest, the rest of the Aliens volumes, the Robots and Cyborgs book and deffinately the GDW Travellers through Time scenario (I cann't remember the title but the idea is a group is irradiated during the IW peroid, zip themselves up in cold berths and emerge periodically to try and find a cure and just happen to encounter each interesting turning point in the Imperium's history)

Although if the FFW was anything to go by the eventual outcome would be a restored 3I and a few years wait before the next major conflict .

Don't get me wrong. MT and Hard Times in particular remain my favourite rules incarnation and setting respectively [img]smile.gif[/img] . Like I said at the beginning, I wonder where MWM would have taken the Rebellion?
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old October 16th, 2003, 04:27 PM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is online now
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,618
Gallery : 0
mike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizen
Post

Has anyone ever asked MWM where he wanted the Rebellion Era to go ?

It is a matter of fact that once OT had developed into a game for the Third Imperium setting GDW brought along the Fifth Frontier War to spice things up [img]graemlins/file_23.gif[/img] . It was possible to use the board game as a backdrop to roleplaying but I wonder how many tried (and how many groups had to abandon their outcome when GDW published their version )?

By the end of the FFW the Spinward Marches setting reverted to the status quo. So we had a few years of interesting TNS articles in the JotTAS, a good board game that could fill up a weekend (and that was just sorting the counters, setting up the opening positions and writing the first turn orders [img]smile.gif[/img] ) and very little impact on the adventures published (just how many official adventures were published set during the war [img]graemlins/file_23.gif[/img] )

MT began with the conflict ongoing. Where are the board games for strategic fleet movement and combat, planetary invasion, diplomatic missions? I agree with Ranger that these should have been produced to allow groups to determine their version of how the Rebellion would develop but as Mr Whipsnade points out the authors should have had their own story arc (did the term exist before Babylon5?).

Hard Times was an interesting development and still one of my favourite Traveller settings because the players could actually make a difference. I would have liked MT to have started in this setting and then developed into a game of rebuilding and hope from despair.

As far as supplements go then I would have liked a more in depth look at each fraction, more published adventures linked to each of the fractions and the meta-plot, more volumes of the SOH (big ships please), a few hints at the official future mapped out and possibly a grand adventure/campaign in which the PCs could end up as rulers of a resurgent Imperium(just kidding [img]graemlins/file_23.gif[/img] ). The Onnesium quest, the rest of the Aliens volumes, the Robots and Cyborgs book and deffinately the GDW Travellers through Time scenario (I cann't remember the title but the idea is a group is irradiated during the IW peroid, zip themselves up in cold berths and emerge periodically to try and find a cure and just happen to encounter each interesting turning point in the Imperium's history)

Although if the FFW was anything to go by the eventual outcome would be a restored 3I and a few years wait before the next major conflict .

Don't get me wrong. MT and Hard Times in particular remain my favourite rules incarnation and setting respectively [img]smile.gif[/img] . Like I said at the beginning, I wonder where MWM would have taken the Rebellion?
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old October 16th, 2003, 04:27 PM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is online now
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,618
Gallery : 0
mike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizen
Post

Has anyone ever asked MWM where he wanted the Rebellion Era to go ?

It is a matter of fact that once OT had developed into a game for the Third Imperium setting GDW brought along the Fifth Frontier War to spice things up [img]graemlins/file_23.gif[/img] . It was possible to use the board game as a backdrop to roleplaying but I wonder how many tried (and how many groups had to abandon their outcome when GDW published their version )?

By the end of the FFW the Spinward Marches setting reverted to the status quo. So we had a few years of interesting TNS articles in the JotTAS, a good board game that could fill up a weekend (and that was just sorting the counters, setting up the opening positions and writing the first turn orders [img]smile.gif[/img] ) and very little impact on the adventures published (just how many official adventures were published set during the war [img]graemlins/file_23.gif[/img] )

MT began with the conflict ongoing. Where are the board games for strategic fleet movement and combat, planetary invasion, diplomatic missions? I agree with Ranger that these should have been produced to allow groups to determine their version of how the Rebellion would develop but as Mr Whipsnade points out the authors should have had their own story arc (did the term exist before Babylon5?).

Hard Times was an interesting development and still one of my favourite Traveller settings because the players could actually make a difference. I would have liked MT to have started in this setting and then developed into a game of rebuilding and hope from despair.

As far as supplements go then I would have liked a more in depth look at each fraction, more published adventures linked to each of the fractions and the meta-plot, more volumes of the SOH (big ships please), a few hints at the official future mapped out and possibly a grand adventure/campaign in which the PCs could end up as rulers of a resurgent Imperium(just kidding [img]graemlins/file_23.gif[/img] ). The Onnesium quest, the rest of the Aliens volumes, the Robots and Cyborgs book and deffinately the GDW Travellers through Time scenario (I cann't remember the title but the idea is a group is irradiated during the IW peroid, zip themselves up in cold berths and emerge periodically to try and find a cure and just happen to encounter each interesting turning point in the Imperium's history)

Although if the FFW was anything to go by the eventual outcome would be a restored 3I and a few years wait before the next major conflict .

Don't get me wrong. MT and Hard Times in particular remain my favourite rules incarnation and setting respectively [img]smile.gif[/img] . Like I said at the beginning, I wonder where MWM would have taken the Rebellion?
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old October 16th, 2003, 04:37 PM
daryen's Avatar
daryen daryen is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Frisco, TX, USA
Posts: 1,668
Gallery : 0
daryen Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by kaladorn:
I think 'canon' is one of the greatest lodestones around the necks of traveller referees now and in the future. The bulk of the past acts as a drag-anchor to the progress into the future....
The only way that 'canon' can be a millstone (which is what I think you were trying for) around a referee's neck is if it is used wrong.

Canon is a good thing. But canon is for *writers* and contributors, NOT referees. Writers and contributors need to have canon, so that what is written and added to the game can be as consistent as possible.

A referee, on the other hand, will almost always diverge from canon. They are supposed to. It is also usually a very good idea to change things from canon into his game so that the players won't 'know' everything. Again, this is a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old October 16th, 2003, 04:37 PM
daryen's Avatar
daryen daryen is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Frisco, TX, USA
Posts: 1,668
Gallery : 0
daryen Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by kaladorn:
I think 'canon' is one of the greatest lodestones around the necks of traveller referees now and in the future. The bulk of the past acts as a drag-anchor to the progress into the future....
The only way that 'canon' can be a millstone (which is what I think you were trying for) around a referee's neck is if it is used wrong.

Canon is a good thing. But canon is for *writers* and contributors, NOT referees. Writers and contributors need to have canon, so that what is written and added to the game can be as consistent as possible.

A referee, on the other hand, will almost always diverge from canon. They are supposed to. It is also usually a very good idea to change things from canon into his game so that the players won't 'know' everything. Again, this is a good thing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.