gurps aliens

[MJD]

Now, we had no idea that this would happen. So don't vilify us for making this devilish pact.

And by the way, as a long-time freelancer in the games industry, I can publicly say that SJG is BETTER to work with than almost everyone else. They do edit, they do agree outlines and stick to them, and they actually pay freelancers on time.

BtC would have been far worse had anyone else published it (with maybe some exceptions).

That's how the games industry is. It's unique. I publish work in many fields - security, defense, etc - and nowhere do you find standards like in the games industry.

To put that another way, here's a choice:

1. Find me a company whose practices are better than SJG, and prove it from the point of view of an insider,ie a freelancer who has to work with them.

2. Accept that some publications will be flawed. SOme badly.

3. Decide that you don't want to see TRaveller in print ever again.

4. Create a games company that does it "properly" (like a non-games publisahing firm) and try to make it viable.

Those are the options, people.

And anyway... we were approached to write a TRaveller book; we did. It's done. Too many aliens? Hah! By the standards set in The Traveller Adventure, our ratio of new races to subsectors is LOW.

BtC Sold out. I'm told by store managers that for every copy of Rim of Fire that sells, 3 people ask for Behind the Claw.

 

[kafka47]

I guess the contraversy regarding GURPS Aliens goes to the heart of the Hard SF vs Space Opera debate.

The Hard SF among us, I included, would like to believe in Aliens but seriously doubt their existance. Therefore, Space is just alot of that...space. It in itself provides sufficient wonder and excitement. The Aliens that are out there must conform to an ecosystem and a cultural matrix that is wholly different to our own. GT violates that on several levels.

Whereas, the Space Opera fans amongst us, saw Traveller as the natural outgrowth of Star Wars and wanted to play in that universe. Lots of interspecies relationships and a populated universe creating a multicultural mosiac that reflects and refracts the images that we see on planet Earth.

When we examine the Mission Statement of Traveller, we see that both are the Traveller vision. To reconcile the the two there is Roger E. Moore article called "Dwarves in Space" that I would bring your attention to about the joys and perils about bring AD&D to Space.

So I have come a long way from my disgust of GT Aliens, in that I can find a place in my universe for them, even if it is not Charted Space. It will be very interesting to see what innovations that T20 will bring to the Traveller universe. The most important thing is to advance the storyline (even though it has definite parameters of the timeline)...because, I don't want to wait for MJD's M1248 to get my fix of new Traveller. So Hunter you bear a heavy burden and I think by making this an Open Project, you have done well and will be rewarded.

(BTW, I know that SJG is a separate licence but what will the relationship between T20 & GT?)

 

[MJD]

For the record, my Traveller universe is almost entirely poulate by humans and Vargr. Other races tend to fall into the "hey, there's a ...."

No Cantina, y'see?

 

[MJD]

There is NO relationship between GT and T20.

GT uses a variant universe based on much of the same Canon, but T20 is based firmly in the OTU. Naturally this means that there is some commonality, but no deliberate attempt has been made to fit with existing GT works.

In most cases, the difference is minor, and irrelevant. But that's becuase of the common parentage of the two settings.

 

[Rodina]

So it wasn't perfect. Whoopty do. I think BtC is a pretty solid supplement and given that deadline, I'm doubly impressed.

I don't get the acrimony from Aramis. I just treat things in BtC (or anything else) that don't work in MTU as products of a horribly devious misinformation campaign. More's the point, a divergence from canon can make you think about why there is such a divergence. If it turns out somewhere (let's say) there's a reference to the Duke of Mora, and we all know its a matriarchy, think of some plausible reason that Mora would ever claim it had a Duke (say, to deal with the Aslan in some capacity) and you get all kinds of cool nuggets for adventures.

And, gee, I've earned a total of $20 from writing for game supplements ($5 for a Car Wars weapon design when I was 11! Big cash!) And if I ever presume to tell a professional game writer what they ought to do in order to (gosh!) make a living, please beat me about the head and neck with a large fish.

 

[al duc]

Since BtC proved so popular, maybe we can hope for an eventual 2nd edition. My wishlist would be:
- a correction to the typos and errata;
- tables for the worlds data, à la Rim of Fire;
- with the saved space (a few pages at the very least), an extended description for some worlds and the advance of the timeline by a few years.

But even as it is now, BtC is still IMHO the definitive sourcebook for the Spinward Marches.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by MJD:
There is NO relationship between GT and T20.

GT uses a variant universe based on much of the same Canon, but T20 is based firmly in the OTU. Naturally this means that there is some commonality, but no deliberate attempt has been made to fit with existing GT works.

"Some commonality"? The history of the GTU and the history of the OTU is supposedly the same up until some time in 1116. That means that there is a very firm, no, make that extremely firm, relationship between T20 and GT: The T20 campaign universe is the forerunner of the 1120s of the GTU no less than the Classic Era of the OTU.

Hans

 

[AndreaV]

Originally posted by MJD:
There is NO relationship between GT and T20.

GT uses a variant universe based on much of the same Canon, but T20 is based firmly in the OTU. Naturally this means that there is some commonality, but no deliberate attempt has been made to fit with existing GT works.

In most cases, the difference is minor, and irrelevant. But that's becuase of the common parentage of the two settings.

WOOH, back up the hard drive. *no relationship*!!!!! If I understand correctly T20 is based on the OTU set in 1000 and GT is a variant with a divergance point at 1116. Everything in the GT universe up till 1116 is supposed to be the same at the OTU. That looks like a pretty darn strong relationship to me.

If a GT book states that Grand Poobar Jane of Vildvodle was assassinated in 992, T20 can not have her strutting around in 1000 (and vis versa). I *REALLY* (emphasis deliberate) hope that Quiklink and SJG are both going to make the effort to maintain canon consistancy.

 

[MJD]

Can of worms there...

Yes, there shoudl be 100% commonalist until 1116. However, we cannot slavishly follow what SJG is doing, and vice versa. Eg, Granicus worldbook. It's in the middle of "our" patch.

If they write some hisotry, we can follow it (are we lifting their ideas here? Is this legal?) - but what if it makes our vision of this region in 1000 invalid?

So, while we follow pre-GT canon, and we try to keep commonality, it is not possible toi guarantee 100% meshing between two licensees.

I mean, what if we did a Spinward marches 1000 suplement, or they did Gateway 1120? We could mess up one another's playgrounds quite badly.

Argh. It's a mess.

So, we try to keep commonality, but GT is officially a variant, and if our vision differs from theirs, we go with what we think is right.

There's no other way to do it.

 

[AndreaV]

Originally posted by MJD:
Can of worms there...

<snip>

So, we try to keep commonality, but GT is officially a variant, and if our vision differs from theirs, we go with what we think is right.

There's no other way to do it.

Yes its hard, but most of these problems can be resolved by talking to one another. I've always assumed that both Quiklink's and SJG's licence would allow other companies access to "backstory" (like it was in the old GDW days). BTW as far as I'm concerned, the onus is on both Quiklink and SJG (or actually their authors) to keep canon, so when Quiklink establishes canon, I expect SJG publications to follow it too.

BTW GT is only a variant after 1116, up till that point its official (if I recall Loren correctly, their licence specifically requires them to keep it so).

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by MJD:
Yes, there should be 100% commonalist until 1116. However, we cannot slavishly follow what SJG is doing, and vice versa. Eg, Granicus worldbook. It's in the middle of "our" patch.

If they write some history, we can follow it (are we lifting their ideas here? Is this legal?)

You mean Marc Miller hasn't included a proviso in your license to the effect that anything you establish is automatically considered part of the background and available as background to any other legitimate Traveller author?

Damn! You'd think the whole DGP debacle would have made something like that automatic...

- but what if it makes our vision of this region in 1000 invalid?

That's a problem in any shared universe. The solution is communication. I imagine Loren and Jon will tread carefully on your 'patch' and consult you before messing with it. (And vice versa).

I mean, what if we did a Spinward Marches 1000 supplement, or they did Gateway 1120?

I thought there already was a Gateway 1120? Aka The Lords of Thunder? And I'd love a Spinward Marches 1000 supplement (especially if I got to help out writing it .

So, we try to keep commonality, but GT is officially a variant, and if our vision differs from theirs, we go with what we think is right.

There's no other way to do it.

Since GT is only a variant after 1116, I really, really hope you'll think that what is right is to coordinate with SJG. IMO there's no other way to do it.

Hans

 

[Al_Beddow]

Originally posted by aramis:
I just realized I missed one key question's answer.

I have GURPS. I have LOTS of GURPS stuff. Very little is GT. In general I've found GURPS treatment of non-humans has not improved much from that of TFT: Man In Rubber Suit.

The older I get, the less GURPS has appealed to me. Partly writing styles, partly the inconsitancy of the earlier materials (Conan had some of the exact same ads and disads as horseclans, at different costs, amongst a slew of other problems). Now that the Compendia are out, that's been fixed. But the system is awkward where I want friendly, and ponderous where I want streamlined, and it lacks a task system (which is an argument which belongs elsewhere).

This is also my complaint with GURPS. SJ Games hasn't been keeping a close watch on how the different authors do the same thing. That's why they came out with compendium I and II, to solidify many of the variations on such relatively common things like "super strength."

I also gave up on G:T because of the inconsistencies within it. There are two different versions of the Aslan (one in G:T and another in the GT:AR_), they list the sections in a ship as taking up X spaces with each space taking up 4 hexes at 1M across, then draw ships where the cargo hold alone has twice the number of spaces as the entire ship should have. Very poor planning and coordination.

I had between 1/2 and 3/4 of ALL the GURPS stuff (including ALL the G:T, Space, etc). I got so fed up with the problems I sold it all for a song

 

[MJD]

It is simply not feasible for QLI and SJG to discuss everything they intend to do and try to keep canon complicity 100%. CT couldn't do that in its own in-house books.

We'll take our source material from existing Trav stuff, but as I said before, if there's a clash then so be it. GT uses a variant universe, and if they backdate stuff into the history then we'll accept it if it fits our vision. If not, we'll go our way.

I will not be expecting SJG's Interstellar Wars line to comply with the data I created for The Last Hurrah...

 

[Ron]

Originally posted by MJD:
[...]
I will not be expecting SJG's Interstellar Wars line to comply with the data I created for The Last Hurrah...

GURPS Traveller's stuff is not from the Traveller's original universe, so I don't care if they depart much from it. However, I have the impression that Interstellar Wars will be part of the Traveller continuity. Wouldn't FFE requiring a more strict adherence of the established history of the setting? I would also be nice to see events portrayed in GT:IW cited in future non-SJG's Traveller books.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by MJD:
It is simply not feasible for QLI and SJG to discuss everything they intend to do and try to keep canon complicity 100%.

OK, so the reason you may refrain from using something established by SJG isn't that the GTU is an alternate universe, but because it is too much of a bother to keep track of it. Fair enough. I hope nothing of the nature actually occurs, because one reason I like the idea of a set of Traveller publications set in Milieu 1000 is that information about how things were a century before the time my campaigns are set will add richness and texture and depth to 'the present'. But, of course, only if the past is actually the past for my setting. What's the use if there are versimilitude-destroying discrepancies between the two versions?

I can't help wondering why you want to work in a shared universe if you don't want to work in a shared universe.

CT couldn't do that in its own in-house books.

It's one thing to realize that mistakes are bound to happen no matter how careful everybody is. It's quite another to use this as a reason not to be as careful as possible in the first place.

We'll take our source material from existing Trav stuff, but as I said before, if there's a clash then so be it. GT uses a variant universe, and if they backdate stuff into the history then we'll accept it if it fits our vision. If not, we'll go our way.

Well, as I said above, I hope it doesn't become an issue, then, because it sounds to me like that would make the T20 universe the alternate one. It stands to reason that if the OTU and the GTU are identical up until 1116 and something differs between Year 1000 in the GTU and Year 1000 in the T20 universe, then the same difference exists between the OTU and the T20 universe.

Hans

 

[MJD]

Not Quite.

We don't want to work in a shared universe. We want to work in the Traveller universe. Now, we have no access to SJG's works-in progress, so we can't possibly keep track of what they're about to do.

Since we're both going on existing canon, compliance should be good. However, we and they both have directions we want to go in - directions *cleared with Marc* before we began.

We can not and will not be dictated to by another games company's decisions (however untentionally!). It simply is not possible to operate like that.

Our Traveller universe comes from a vision shared between me, Hunter and Marc. I don't know how much inflence Marc has at SJG, nor what the current policies may be over there regarding freelancer freedom.

So I say again... we're coming from a common point, so we should fit together well. If there are differences, so be it. QLI cannot chase around trying to make sure everything matches with the GT universe, nor can SJG try to follow our lead.

At risk of sounding like I'm sniping (i'm not), GT has already "bent" some aspects of the Traveller universe (world generation and trade, particualrly). This resulted from the vision of individual freelancers. Should QLI follow this new model, even through it varies from the accepted OTU?

No, we should not. We will not. Our rules were specifically designed to emulate CT and the universe created with those rules. We think that is best and we'l;l continue to do it.

SJG's policy decisions are their business, and made for good reasons. I've worked with them and liked the experience, and I *like* the GT system and variant universe. Heck, Neil and I helped create it!

But none of that matters. QLI is sticking to the OTU, SJG created a variant. There is 99% commonality, and clashes can easily be ignored or put down to variance.

Anyway... in 1120, they report that history happened *like this*. When you go there, you find it happened *like that*.

I suspect the real world works like that too. Historical "facts" known today are not how it actually was.

Okay... been thinking out loud here. Bottom line is that complicity is desirable and we'll be working towards it. There will no doubt be some cross-pollution of ideas anyway, increasing the mesh. But we can't follow one another's lead, or we;ll just be running around in circles.

So; we'll try, but there will be clashes. Can't be helped - the only way to avoid it is to close one of the companies. That is not going to happen.

That's how it is. If people want to hate us for it, we can't help that. All we can do is our best, and we know it won't please everyone.

 

[JFZeigler]

For the record, I suspect SJG's policy during my tenure as Line Editor is going to be pretty much the mirror image of QuikLink's policy in this regard. That is, we'll make every reasonable effort to avoid canon clashes with the T20 material, and since we're covering different regions and time periods it shouldn't be difficult to do so. (For example, you won't be seeing any more SJG material in the middle of QuikLink's geographic "patch," now that we know where that is.) But the two companies can't operate in close consultation. In the final analysis, it's up to Marc to approve whatever either of us does and keep us all honest.

Now, I do suspect that you're going to see SJG paying a bit closer attention to canon in future. It's unfortunately true that on rules mechanics, we've "bent" Traveller a bit beyond tolerances in a few places. We may fix that where possible. For example, at some point I would like to revise First In to make the default options something much closer to Classic world generation. The current design for that book has its disadvantages (and I say that as the guy who wrote it).

Meanwhile, I plan to keep a very close eye on new rules systems in future material. GURPS Traveller is its own entity, but it doesn't benefit us to wander too far from the common language that most Traveller fans speak. This should help us avoid canon clashes too.

 

[MJD]

Well, there we are. As Jon says, we can't go clearing everything with one another, so there will be some clashes. But overall, we're all doing our best to avoid conflict.

And you know? Our best is what there is, like it or not.

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

Originally posted by MJD:
Well, there we are. As Jon says, we can't go clearing everything with one another, so there will be some clashes. But overall, we're all doing our best to avoid conflict.

And you know? Our best is what there is, like it or not.

Sounds like a reassuring and noble sentiment to me. You're going to try to avoid um.. discontinuities. You are comunicating as well as is reasonable to expect. Who could ask for anything more?

Garf.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by MJD:
At risk of sounding like I'm sniping (I'm not), GT has already "bent" some aspects of the Traveller universe (world generation and trade, particualrly). This resulted from the vision of individual freelancers.

I beg to differ. It resulted from various authorized Traveller writers deciding that certain aspects of the then-current Traveller universe were inconsistent (with the laws of physics in the first instance and with itself in the second) and fixing the errors. All approved by Marc Miller (or an editor authorized by Marc Miller to do so). That means it was a canon revision and should now be part of the Traveller universe (any TU). (For instance, I was very disappointed when I noticed that you had stuck to the old severely broken fixed-prices-regardless-of-distance-of-jump. And when there is such a simple fix that will even retain the old High/Middle/Low Passages.)

Should QLI follow this new model, even through it varies from the accepted OTU?

Yes you should. In both cases it involves aspects of the TU that has nothing whatsoever to do with the differences between the different alternate universes. The laws of nature and the ways economy works does not differ from universe to universe. If they hadn't been broken in the OTU, SJG would have been wrong to change them in the GTU. If they're not broken any longer, you should stick to it (Mind the if; if you think the new rules are broken, then you have every reason to change them (although I think it would be a bad thing to change them back, because they were most certainly broken)).

Our rules were specifically designed to emulate CT and the universe created with those rules. We think that is best and we'll continue to do it.

You think the original CT rules and setting was perfect in every way and contained no errors and inconsistencies whatsoever? I beg leave to doubt that. Sticking to CT canon is a good thing as long as it makes sense, but sticking to CT canon just because it is canon, even when it is inconsistent, is a bad, bad, bad thing.

Let me repeat that: Bad, bad, bad.

Anyway... in 1120, they report that history happened *like this*. When you go there, you find it happened *like that*.

I suspect the real world works like that too. Historical "facts" known today are not how it actually was.

That's how the real world works, all right. But an RPG book is not a history book. Unless something is clearly marked as viewpoint writing (or it is clearly implied, as in the case of library data), any information presented in an RPG module -- anything presented as Referee's information -- should be 'the truth'.

Bottom line is that complicity is desirable and we'll be working towards it. There will no doubt be some cross-pollution of ideas anyway, increasing the mesh.

That's fine. And a lot more than I got from reading your previous messages (The fault may be mine). All I really hope for is that you try to make the two settings mesh.

That's how it is. If people want to hate us for it, we can't help that. All we can do is our best, and we know it won't please everyone.

Any time I start taking a hobby seriously enough to hate someone over it, I'll drop the hobby. I'm not inclined to hate (or even dislike) you for a difference of opinion. But if your version of the Scouts differ from that in First In by more than can be accounted for by the passing of 12 decades, then I'm not going to pretend that I think it is right. Not even if your version is a bit better (Now, if it is mindbendingly better, I'll consider it. After all, I'm not a fanatic ).

Hans