How should the Rebellion have been developed as a product line?

[DED]

Originally posted by daryen:
I still don't see the "badness" of this. I have personally never seen anyone who runs "unmodified" Traveller, either with the rules or the setting. Heck, there's one guy on the boards who plans on blowing up Regina! Everyone diverges from canon once a game starts.

I have to agree. Everytime someone I talked about Traveller with mentions their TU, there's alwasy a "but" thrown in. And that "but" is always followed by what that person has done in their TU that isn't done in the OTU.

MTU certainly deviates from the OTU. As far as players comparing MTU to the OTU, it never happens. They're curious to know what I'm going to incorporate from the OTU into MTU but they've never bothered to invest the time to compare the two. As far as they're concerned, MTU is all that matters.

And I've never heard of any ref's getting grief over their TU diverging from the OTU. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm saying I haven't heard of it happening.

And even if the Rebellion setting was not moved forward, there would still be arguments over canon. Take the Vargr and ihatei "invasions": do they make sense, or are they just silly. Heck, take the assassination: was Dulinor only unlucky, or was he just stupid? Was Strephon stupid?

These subjects are still being debated after all these years, though I consider them moot at this point.

The only way to avoid arguments over canon is to not have any setting. Of course that wouldn't help the TML, as they would just start arguing over the rules. (What? They already do that, too? Oh.)

So true.

I view Traveller as one long story that's still being told. IMO, canon is good when it's used to maintain consistency in the overall storyline. For example, if QLI, who has been given permission by MM (the one person who gets to decide canon), to put their stamp on the OTU, were to suddenly state that there was no Rebellion because a black hole swallowed Ilelish sector or that Strephon was the love child of some Master Manipulator Hiver and "Grandfather", I can see canon being invoked. It's fine for Alternate Timelines (like Gurps) and everybody else's TU, but the OTU shouldn't have revisionist history stuff along those lines just to suit the current whim. It doesn't make for a good story.

Could they do it? Sure. Should they do it? No.

It's like finding out that Kirk really loved Klingons his whole life and all his battles with them never happened or were just a dream.

Canon should be utilized to maintain the overall story. Of course, that's hard to do given the number of authors that have been involved with Traveller through the years. There's bound to be conflicting reports. Hopefully they'll just be minor ones.

===Looking around for the flamethrowers===
Oh wait this isn't the TML. Maybe I won't get burned.

 

[DED]

Originally posted by daryen:
I still don't see the "badness" of this. I have personally never seen anyone who runs "unmodified" Traveller, either with the rules or the setting. Heck, there's one guy on the boards who plans on blowing up Regina! Everyone diverges from canon once a game starts.

I have to agree. Everytime someone I talked about Traveller with mentions their TU, there's alwasy a "but" thrown in. And that "but" is always followed by what that person has done in their TU that isn't done in the OTU.

MTU certainly deviates from the OTU. As far as players comparing MTU to the OTU, it never happens. They're curious to know what I'm going to incorporate from the OTU into MTU but they've never bothered to invest the time to compare the two. As far as they're concerned, MTU is all that matters.

And I've never heard of any ref's getting grief over their TU diverging from the OTU. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm saying I haven't heard of it happening.

And even if the Rebellion setting was not moved forward, there would still be arguments over canon. Take the Vargr and ihatei "invasions": do they make sense, or are they just silly. Heck, take the assassination: was Dulinor only unlucky, or was he just stupid? Was Strephon stupid?

These subjects are still being debated after all these years, though I consider them moot at this point.

The only way to avoid arguments over canon is to not have any setting. Of course that wouldn't help the TML, as they would just start arguing over the rules. (What? They already do that, too? Oh.)

So true.

I view Traveller as one long story that's still being told. IMO, canon is good when it's used to maintain consistency in the overall storyline. For example, if QLI, who has been given permission by MM (the one person who gets to decide canon), to put their stamp on the OTU, were to suddenly state that there was no Rebellion because a black hole swallowed Ilelish sector or that Strephon was the love child of some Master Manipulator Hiver and "Grandfather", I can see canon being invoked. It's fine for Alternate Timelines (like Gurps) and everybody else's TU, but the OTU shouldn't have revisionist history stuff along those lines just to suit the current whim. It doesn't make for a good story.

Could they do it? Sure. Should they do it? No.

It's like finding out that Kirk really loved Klingons his whole life and all his battles with them never happened or were just a dream.

Canon should be utilized to maintain the overall story. Of course, that's hard to do given the number of authors that have been involved with Traveller through the years. There's bound to be conflicting reports. Hopefully they'll just be minor ones.

===Looking around for the flamethrowers===
Oh wait this isn't the TML. Maybe I won't get burned.

 

[DED]

Originally posted by daryen:
I still don't see the "badness" of this. I have personally never seen anyone who runs "unmodified" Traveller, either with the rules or the setting. Heck, there's one guy on the boards who plans on blowing up Regina! Everyone diverges from canon once a game starts.

I have to agree. Everytime someone I talked about Traveller with mentions their TU, there's alwasy a "but" thrown in. And that "but" is always followed by what that person has done in their TU that isn't done in the OTU.

MTU certainly deviates from the OTU. As far as players comparing MTU to the OTU, it never happens. They're curious to know what I'm going to incorporate from the OTU into MTU but they've never bothered to invest the time to compare the two. As far as they're concerned, MTU is all that matters.

And I've never heard of any ref's getting grief over their TU diverging from the OTU. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm saying I haven't heard of it happening.

And even if the Rebellion setting was not moved forward, there would still be arguments over canon. Take the Vargr and ihatei "invasions": do they make sense, or are they just silly. Heck, take the assassination: was Dulinor only unlucky, or was he just stupid? Was Strephon stupid?

These subjects are still being debated after all these years, though I consider them moot at this point.

The only way to avoid arguments over canon is to not have any setting. Of course that wouldn't help the TML, as they would just start arguing over the rules. (What? They already do that, too? Oh.)

So true.

I view Traveller as one long story that's still being told. IMO, canon is good when it's used to maintain consistency in the overall storyline. For example, if QLI, who has been given permission by MM (the one person who gets to decide canon), to put their stamp on the OTU, were to suddenly state that there was no Rebellion because a black hole swallowed Ilelish sector or that Strephon was the love child of some Master Manipulator Hiver and "Grandfather", I can see canon being invoked. It's fine for Alternate Timelines (like Gurps) and everybody else's TU, but the OTU shouldn't have revisionist history stuff along those lines just to suit the current whim. It doesn't make for a good story.

Could they do it? Sure. Should they do it? No.

It's like finding out that Kirk really loved Klingons his whole life and all his battles with them never happened or were just a dream.

Canon should be utilized to maintain the overall story. Of course, that's hard to do given the number of authors that have been involved with Traveller through the years. There's bound to be conflicting reports. Hopefully they'll just be minor ones.

===Looking around for the flamethrowers===
Oh wait this isn't the TML. Maybe I won't get burned.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I don't think it is effective to apply Terran sociological scenarios to this, and I base this on the scales of distance involved... many elements the rebellion mirror terran happenstance but with that fundamental difference, a difference that has a profound impact indeed...

I think that the imperiums survival through many assassinations constitutes much more than "luck" whatever that is, If this were not so, why was the Assassination concept a part of the 3I's governmental policy?

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I don't think it is effective to apply Terran sociological scenarios to this, and I base this on the scales of distance involved... many elements the rebellion mirror terran happenstance but with that fundamental difference, a difference that has a profound impact indeed...

I think that the imperiums survival through many assassinations constitutes much more than "luck" whatever that is, If this were not so, why was the Assassination concept a part of the 3I's governmental policy?

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I don't think it is effective to apply Terran sociological scenarios to this, and I base this on the scales of distance involved... many elements the rebellion mirror terran happenstance but with that fundamental difference, a difference that has a profound impact indeed...

I think that the imperiums survival through many assassinations constitutes much more than "luck" whatever that is, If this were not so, why was the Assassination concept a part of the 3I's governmental policy?

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I always thought an inter-species coflict would have been more "believeable". Perhaps even a Coalition vs. the 3I..

PS: Sidur Haski (my home system) remained loyal to the Imperium during the Iilelsh Revolt way back when... FYI

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I always thought an inter-species coflict would have been more "believeable". Perhaps even a Coalition vs. the 3I..

PS: Sidur Haski (my home system) remained loyal to the Imperium during the Iilelsh Revolt way back when... FYI

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I always thought an inter-species coflict would have been more "believeable". Perhaps even a Coalition vs. the 3I..

PS: Sidur Haski (my home system) remained loyal to the Imperium during the Iilelsh Revolt way back when... FYI

 

[Erik Boielle]

Ah well, the Rite of Assaination thingy was there was inventented to allow certain concerned parties to bump off a nutty Emperor nice and legal like.

Much like saying, No we arn't in a recession because its only a recession after three periods of negative growth and we've only had two.

So, Technically yes I did shoot the Emperor, by this almost dry act of moot shows I was just enacting a legal noble priviledge.

Sadly, once in existance, Bad Men would keep using that bloody piece of paper as an excuse.

 

[Erik Boielle]

Ah well, the Rite of Assaination thingy was there was inventented to allow certain concerned parties to bump off a nutty Emperor nice and legal like.

Much like saying, No we arn't in a recession because its only a recession after three periods of negative growth and we've only had two.

So, Technically yes I did shoot the Emperor, by this almost dry act of moot shows I was just enacting a legal noble priviledge.

Sadly, once in existance, Bad Men would keep using that bloody piece of paper as an excuse.

 

[Erik Boielle]

Ah well, the Rite of Assaination thingy was there was inventented to allow certain concerned parties to bump off a nutty Emperor nice and legal like.

Much like saying, No we arn't in a recession because its only a recession after three periods of negative growth and we've only had two.

So, Technically yes I did shoot the Emperor, by this almost dry act of moot shows I was just enacting a legal noble priviledge.

Sadly, once in existance, Bad Men would keep using that bloody piece of paper as an excuse.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
I think that the imperiums survival through many assassinations constitutes much more than "luck" whatever that is, If this were not so, why was the Assassination concept a part of the 3I's governmental policy?

Luck may be only one of the factors involved. The Empire of this Assassination period was not the same as that of some prior periods....

As to the why, my opinion is that it was a post-facto (or pre-facto but very desperate) attempt to solve a problem with a Head of State gone loco-madman-bugf***. He was a nutter and needed removed. The only way they could think to do it was to justify it 'Grandly'. They obviously were less worried with precedent and repercussion than they were with the here-and-now problems of having a nutbar running the "Big Show".

Sadly, it turned out to have been a problematic precendent to set, taken all in all with a number of other precedents.

You may choose to envision the scale of the empire as something that means the rules are different. IYTU, that's fine. For my mind, I don't really have any sense of what life is like in Botswanaland, and it's more than a day or two away by my available travel methods or information gathering routes. So, effectively, it isn't that much further away than something in the next sector. And mentally, it's about the same. And Rome used to govern, after a fashion, far flung Imperial extents that took a long long time to travel between. I don't think this is beyond human experience or scope, and if it was, there'd be no basis for discussion since we have in common the human experience, but any imaginary response predicated on assumptions that normal human approaches no longer apply is rather likely to end fruitlessly, as all operate on differing assumptions and theories, all of equal plausibility given the founding assumption.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
I think that the imperiums survival through many assassinations constitutes much more than "luck" whatever that is, If this were not so, why was the Assassination concept a part of the 3I's governmental policy?

Luck may be only one of the factors involved. The Empire of this Assassination period was not the same as that of some prior periods....

As to the why, my opinion is that it was a post-facto (or pre-facto but very desperate) attempt to solve a problem with a Head of State gone loco-madman-bugf***. He was a nutter and needed removed. The only way they could think to do it was to justify it 'Grandly'. They obviously were less worried with precedent and repercussion than they were with the here-and-now problems of having a nutbar running the "Big Show".

Sadly, it turned out to have been a problematic precendent to set, taken all in all with a number of other precedents.

You may choose to envision the scale of the empire as something that means the rules are different. IYTU, that's fine. For my mind, I don't really have any sense of what life is like in Botswanaland, and it's more than a day or two away by my available travel methods or information gathering routes. So, effectively, it isn't that much further away than something in the next sector. And mentally, it's about the same. And Rome used to govern, after a fashion, far flung Imperial extents that took a long long time to travel between. I don't think this is beyond human experience or scope, and if it was, there'd be no basis for discussion since we have in common the human experience, but any imaginary response predicated on assumptions that normal human approaches no longer apply is rather likely to end fruitlessly, as all operate on differing assumptions and theories, all of equal plausibility given the founding assumption.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
I think that the imperiums survival through many assassinations constitutes much more than "luck" whatever that is, If this were not so, why was the Assassination concept a part of the 3I's governmental policy?

Luck may be only one of the factors involved. The Empire of this Assassination period was not the same as that of some prior periods....

As to the why, my opinion is that it was a post-facto (or pre-facto but very desperate) attempt to solve a problem with a Head of State gone loco-madman-bugf***. He was a nutter and needed removed. The only way they could think to do it was to justify it 'Grandly'. They obviously were less worried with precedent and repercussion than they were with the here-and-now problems of having a nutbar running the "Big Show".

Sadly, it turned out to have been a problematic precendent to set, taken all in all with a number of other precedents.

You may choose to envision the scale of the empire as something that means the rules are different. IYTU, that's fine. For my mind, I don't really have any sense of what life is like in Botswanaland, and it's more than a day or two away by my available travel methods or information gathering routes. So, effectively, it isn't that much further away than something in the next sector. And mentally, it's about the same. And Rome used to govern, after a fashion, far flung Imperial extents that took a long long time to travel between. I don't think this is beyond human experience or scope, and if it was, there'd be no basis for discussion since we have in common the human experience, but any imaginary response predicated on assumptions that normal human approaches no longer apply is rather likely to end fruitlessly, as all operate on differing assumptions and theories, all of equal plausibility given the founding assumption.

 

[TheDS]

To head back in the general direction of the posted topic, I recall thinking that the Rebellion was going to be a tool that would break up the Imperium into smaller, more manageable pieces. The intended ending was that there was no real end to it. That's why everyone was so evenly matched, or botched up their advantages, or whatever.

I have no particular problem if the makers had no idea where the story was supposed to go, or even if they had none in mind beyond breaking up what looked like a stagnant, monolithic juggernaut into more manageable chunks.

What really bugs people is that it all got swept away, so that the whole thing was pointless. Had that not happened, people would still be rooting for their favorite faction, and bowing to the wisdom of making things like "Rebellion" and "Hard Times". It could have gone further, to create Faction books, much like there are Species books. That's pretty much what it looked to me like it was supposed to do: eternal struggle between 10 or so factions, each claiming all the others. Kind of like Germany or Italy before they were united.

Eventually, a few hundred years down the line, the pieces would start putting themselves back together. But before all this could happen, the powers that be decided the universe had gotten a little too dark, and decided to wipe the slate clean, invalidating everything before it... kind of like a nuclear war would do HERE if we had one. Sure, a lot of people thought it sucked, but hey, dying DOES suck. I sure don't want to see mushroom clouds outside my window one day, because it would invalidate all that anyone has ever done.

But a game or story can survive such a catastrophe if the writers want it to; it's not so hard to survive if you're a figment of some one's imagination. The powers that be decided against the eternal conflict, and decided against the whole civil war thing coming to a peaceful end. They ended up with a number of pocket empires, kind of like where MT was going, but instead of being at war with all other empires out there, the players are fighting for something noble, the rebirth of civilization, not some flag or banner, whose dubious value served only to get them into trouble. It allows the player to feel good about his chosen game-home.

 

[TheDS]

To head back in the general direction of the posted topic, I recall thinking that the Rebellion was going to be a tool that would break up the Imperium into smaller, more manageable pieces. The intended ending was that there was no real end to it. That's why everyone was so evenly matched, or botched up their advantages, or whatever.

I have no particular problem if the makers had no idea where the story was supposed to go, or even if they had none in mind beyond breaking up what looked like a stagnant, monolithic juggernaut into more manageable chunks.

What really bugs people is that it all got swept away, so that the whole thing was pointless. Had that not happened, people would still be rooting for their favorite faction, and bowing to the wisdom of making things like "Rebellion" and "Hard Times". It could have gone further, to create Faction books, much like there are Species books. That's pretty much what it looked to me like it was supposed to do: eternal struggle between 10 or so factions, each claiming all the others. Kind of like Germany or Italy before they were united.

Eventually, a few hundred years down the line, the pieces would start putting themselves back together. But before all this could happen, the powers that be decided the universe had gotten a little too dark, and decided to wipe the slate clean, invalidating everything before it... kind of like a nuclear war would do HERE if we had one. Sure, a lot of people thought it sucked, but hey, dying DOES suck. I sure don't want to see mushroom clouds outside my window one day, because it would invalidate all that anyone has ever done.

But a game or story can survive such a catastrophe if the writers want it to; it's not so hard to survive if you're a figment of some one's imagination. The powers that be decided against the eternal conflict, and decided against the whole civil war thing coming to a peaceful end. They ended up with a number of pocket empires, kind of like where MT was going, but instead of being at war with all other empires out there, the players are fighting for something noble, the rebirth of civilization, not some flag or banner, whose dubious value served only to get them into trouble. It allows the player to feel good about his chosen game-home.

 

[TheDS]

To head back in the general direction of the posted topic, I recall thinking that the Rebellion was going to be a tool that would break up the Imperium into smaller, more manageable pieces. The intended ending was that there was no real end to it. That's why everyone was so evenly matched, or botched up their advantages, or whatever.

I have no particular problem if the makers had no idea where the story was supposed to go, or even if they had none in mind beyond breaking up what looked like a stagnant, monolithic juggernaut into more manageable chunks.

What really bugs people is that it all got swept away, so that the whole thing was pointless. Had that not happened, people would still be rooting for their favorite faction, and bowing to the wisdom of making things like "Rebellion" and "Hard Times". It could have gone further, to create Faction books, much like there are Species books. That's pretty much what it looked to me like it was supposed to do: eternal struggle between 10 or so factions, each claiming all the others. Kind of like Germany or Italy before they were united.

Eventually, a few hundred years down the line, the pieces would start putting themselves back together. But before all this could happen, the powers that be decided the universe had gotten a little too dark, and decided to wipe the slate clean, invalidating everything before it... kind of like a nuclear war would do HERE if we had one. Sure, a lot of people thought it sucked, but hey, dying DOES suck. I sure don't want to see mushroom clouds outside my window one day, because it would invalidate all that anyone has ever done.

But a game or story can survive such a catastrophe if the writers want it to; it's not so hard to survive if you're a figment of some one's imagination. The powers that be decided against the eternal conflict, and decided against the whole civil war thing coming to a peaceful end. They ended up with a number of pocket empires, kind of like where MT was going, but instead of being at war with all other empires out there, the players are fighting for something noble, the rebirth of civilization, not some flag or banner, whose dubious value served only to get them into trouble. It allows the player to feel good about his chosen game-home.

 

[Erik Boielle]

I dunno.

King Arthur doesn't win.

He goes down, but he does leave a little hope for the future, and starts the whole Chivalry and Knightly Values thing that is the foundation of British Civilisation.

Well, sorta*.

But anyway,

You may sometimes wish that the story ends with all the knights having adventures and feasts, and before L and G get in on and bust it up, but thats how the story goes and somehow I find it more satisfying.

Sorta.

I find I enjoy watching arnie gun down droves of bad guys then make a pithy remark more as I get older.

So, er, it seems more grown up if you have a miserable end?

No, I'm out.

>>Had that not happened, people would still be rooting for their favorite faction,<<

Which leads me back to the Splats thing I was talking about.

Making the factions different, but all in ways that appeal to people makes for easy entry. Slike how some people like The Rebels, and some The Empire, and some Han Solo. Only designed to foster that kind of thing.

But then all the old regimes are implicated in starting and sustaining the war.

Shard to look good after that.

* But I think thats how the story works.

 

[Erik Boielle]

I dunno.

King Arthur doesn't win.

He goes down, but he does leave a little hope for the future, and starts the whole Chivalry and Knightly Values thing that is the foundation of British Civilisation.

Well, sorta*.

But anyway,

You may sometimes wish that the story ends with all the knights having adventures and feasts, and before L and G get in on and bust it up, but thats how the story goes and somehow I find it more satisfying.

Sorta.

I find I enjoy watching arnie gun down droves of bad guys then make a pithy remark more as I get older.

So, er, it seems more grown up if you have a miserable end?

No, I'm out.

>>Had that not happened, people would still be rooting for their favorite faction,<<

Which leads me back to the Splats thing I was talking about.

Making the factions different, but all in ways that appeal to people makes for easy entry. Slike how some people like The Rebels, and some The Empire, and some Han Solo. Only designed to foster that kind of thing.

But then all the old regimes are implicated in starting and sustaining the war.

Shard to look good after that.

* But I think thats how the story works.