Kicking it off ... with a question!

[rancke]

Originally posted by Aramis:
GT is licensed to be Non-authoritative (rules/setting)

You really happen to know the exact wording of SJG's Traveller license?

Until someone who actually knows what he is talking about tells me otherwise, I'm going to assume that the GTU is meant to be a bona fide alternate universe with a change point some time prior to 132- 1116.

None of them jive compleatly.

Get any two sourcebooks about the same historical period published by different companies and you will find discrepancies. That doesn't mean they don't (try to) describe the same setting.

I counted some dozen (many relatively trivial) differences between the GTU and the OTU pre 1116.

Sure. So have I. Some of them are mistakes and ought, IMO, to be errata'ed by SJG. Ask Loren Wiseman or Jon Zeigler[*] and they will probably tell you that I've bent their ears on such subjects way more than they care for.

[*] Not to mention Doug Berry.

The GURPS Traveller products are far from perfect. (Just yesterday I noticed something that I consider a big mistake in the very book I co-authored). But that doesn't mean that all the changes introduced by GT are wrong. Some of them are very right, since they fix obvious mistakes from previous Traveller incarnations. When you take a piece of canon that can't possibly be right and change it, you're doing a good thing. When you take a piece of canon that can't possibly be right and perpetuate it, you're doing a bad thing.

It also has defined, in ways no other Traveller line has, way to F*ing much nigling detail that, for the people I game with, invalidates their views, and poisons potential player pools, who neither understand, nor care, that GT is neither setting nor rules authoritative for "Traveller".

Let me get this straight. GT products provide a wealth of detail that lots of Traveller fans welcome and because your players are unable to grasp the simple concept of ignoring the bits they don't like, SJG is somehow doing something wrong?

I'm afraid I can't give this piece of nonsens the reply it so richly deserves without overstepping the bounds of polite discussion.

Now, take another example: in order to recreate the abilities of a CT psionicist in GT, you either jack up the point totals (into the 200+ range for comparable ranges for even PSR 5 characters), shorten the ranges, or do other "Stupid Math Tricks", or you write a different psionics system.

I agree with you 100% about the GT psionics rules. The writers didn't even try to emulate the underlying reality of how psionics works in a Traveller universe. They just took the vanilla GURPS psionics systems and trimmed it a bit. As I said, GT is far from perfect (Don't ask me about my opinion of the 20% rule for streamlined ships or my opinion of SJG's refusal to correct this egregious mistake). GT psionics ought to be completely rewritten. In fact, I'm working on an article about that very subject.

(Or, you use the GURPS magic system... which is point wise far more reasonable).

Interesting. I hadn't thought about that. Maybe because I'm almost totally ignorant of the GURPS magic system.

Essentially, GURPS changes things without noticing it has changed them, simply by mandating "No changes to extant rules" and intercompatability.

I agree that there are some serious problems with some GT rules. But that doesn't make me throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've always regarded the Charted Space background to be the essence of Traveller, not the rules. I can happily take all the new information GT supply me with about the setting and ignore the part of the rules that I don't like.

I don't confuse the rules with the setting.


Hans

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Aramis:
[QB]Seriously, tho', GT diverges further and further... as more gets published... and it is the GURPSies cramming GURPS-drek at me as tho it was "Divine revelation from The Traveller Gawd Marc". Its not. If it contradicts T20 settingwise, it's WRONG. Just as if it contradicted T4, TNE, MT, or CT setting. Make that contraticts them for pre 1116 materials.

I'm not opposed to GT itself... GT is for a wholly different crowd than those I play with....

You really do have an attitude problem with GURPS and TNE - based largely on ignorant assumptions, I might add. You spouted a load of ignorant crap about TNE on another thread too IIRC, that I had to wade in on and correct you on.

If you don't like it, fine. But please, do stop denigrating the people who do like it. You're not impressing anybody with this superiority complex of yours.

And generally, if people could stop sneering at those who play and enjoy other forms of the game, and stop spreading their mistaken assumptions and/or blatant lies about those games (and their authors, for that matter), then I think the Traveller community would benefit enormously. I'm sick and tired of all the negativity that people like Aramis throw around here when it comes to other version of Traveller.

Live and let live, people. If you can't do that, then kindly do the rest of us a favour and get the hell out of this hobby - because your attitude isn't remotely beneficial to anyone.

Never cared for virus. Wrote to GDW against it when it was announced.

Well, that explains a lot about your attitude...

 

[aramis]

Marc made the "Non Authoritative" statement in several public fora, and YOU KNOW That, Hans. I trust that Marc choses not to lie to people on the boards...

Liekwise, it was made clear to playtesters for T20 that GURPS was not a valid source to draw from due to license.

As for rules: Hans, you and I have argued that out before, publicly and not...

System does matter. When a broken set of rules is put forth, coupled to a setting, the setting is (re)shaped by the broken rules. When CG rules provide requirements which differ that has a trickle down to the setting. EG: All marines having BD *skill* in GT, but nowhere else. It can be inferred that either Marc never bothered reading Loren's Article, OR, Loren was WRONG, OR Marc avoids comment to keep the debate going and avoid making a public embarrasment for the diehard BD troopie. Even the T5 draft fails to address the issue.

When combat rules try to reflect the setting... if space detection ranges are realistic, Piracy suffers. If they are short, piracy becomes viable, since, in general, you can't prevent a jumpout, and can't predict a jump in... so you have to loiter to find prey.

Likewise, it can be inferred from GT, which explicitly states to use GURPS Psionics that Psionics are hard, rare and short ranged in the GTU. Which presents a very FLAWED view of the Zhodani and their capability.

Another inference that can be made is that the GT 3I is much less intrusive in shipping matters than the OTU 3I, simply by lack of rigid price fixing... And price fixing is the only way to explain the CT numbers...

 

[robject]

Interesting about the GT Marine always having BD skill. I suppose Imperial marines might be required to learn it (a la Starship Troopers), but it definitely sounds like a variant rather than a core concept to Traveller.

 

[aramis]

One of many very significant but easily overlooked points of change.

Based upon an article by loren in the CT era, which for some reason, never managed to make its way into the rules mechanics of any later edition until GT. Including T5.

The most obvious, of course being shipping costs...

And of course, I do have a copy of GT... and GTFT... and found the latter nigh unto unplayable for its detail levels. And more, it was nearly unuseable for me since it was not directly compatable with CT nor MT. Of course, those who feel GURPS is the One True Way should probably stay away from boards noted for anti-GT bias...

One other thing about the T5 draft... due to the availability of non random skill, it is possible for the diehard BD fan GM to mandate BD there, but as of the last circulated draft, it wasn't a service automatic, even at level 0.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Aramis:
...GT diverges further and further... as more gets published... and it is the GURPSies cramming GURPS-drek at me as tho it was "Divine revelation from The Traveller Gawd Marc".

Oh, you poor thing. Do the nasty, evil GURPSie hooligans invade your home when you play Traveller, pour Diet Coke on your T20 books, heckle your players, and call you names? Well, then you certainly have grounds for complaints. Try calling the cops next time. That will probably work better than bitching on a bulletin board.

Much of the blame rests SQUARELY with GT refs. Refs who preach GT as the OTU, even post 1116....

Blame for what? Annoying you?

and the GTU is not for me... I like the rebellion. It made sense. I'd noticed the bit about the assassinations and barracks emperors before MT was announced.

So play in the Rebellion Era. Who is stopping you? Not me. You could still use GT material that concerned previous periods if you wanted to, and you can ignore it if you don't like it.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Marc made the "Non Authoritative" statement in several public fora, and YOU KNOW That, Hans. I trust that Marc choses not to lie to people on the boards...

No I don't. I've never seen any of those statements. I know that GT and T20 are not legally binding on each other, because that would be unworkable. But as far as I know there is nothing that prohibits Hunter from using ideas from GT or Loren from using ideas from from T20. I would certainly be very surprised if Marc had not learned enough from the Roger Sanger debacle to provide for that in the licenses.

But if Marc has said that GT material isn't authoritative, what is your problem? Just ignore it. Marc has given you his permission.

Likewise, it was made clear to playtesters for T20 that GURPS was not a valid source to draw from due to license.

That is IMO a poor choice on Hunter's part, but that's his affair. I do know that GT material is required to stick to previously published material unless the authors can persuade the editors that said PPM is broken. So far I don't know of any GT material about the Gateway region that would have required drawing upon T20 material, but I certainly hope that Hunter would be pleased if such material paid attention to what he has created (And I do expect that he would be annoyed if it contradicted it).

Likewise, it can be inferred from GT, which explicitly states to use GURPS Psionics that Psionics are hard, rare and short ranged in the GTU. Which presents a very FLAWED view of the Zhodani and their capability.

And as I said in a previous post, I think the GT psionics rules are wrong. Demonstrably wrong. So are several other GT bits. But you seem to think that all GT additions to the Traveller universe are bad, for no other reason than that they are GT. That sort of blind, knee-jerk rejection is, IMO, not only wrong, but foolish.

Another inference that can be made is that the GT 3I is much less intrusive in shipping matters than the OTU 3I, simply by lack of rigid price fixing... And price fixing is the only way to explain the CT numbers...

If it had been possible to explain the CT numbers by price fixing, I'm absolutely sure that Jim McLean would have used CT figures in Far Trader and used price fixing to explain them. But it is not possible to use price fixing to explain CT figures. It is simply not possible to explain CT figures. The best you can do is ignore the discrepancies. Which is why FT changed the CT figures. The CT trade system is broken and FT tried to fix it.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by robject:
Interesting about the GT Marine always having BD skill. I suppose Imperial marines might be required to learn it (a la Starship Troopers), but it definitely sounds like a variant rather than a core concept to Traveller.

The GT Marine does not always have BD skill. The Imperial marine always have BD skill. There's a difference. No one claims that all marines of all Human navies everywhere in Charted Space have BD skill.

And when you think about it, the notion that the CT character generation rules are supposed to be valid for every marine force in Charted Space (implying that all marine forces in Charted space are carbon copies of each other) is such a very silly one, wouldn't you agree?


Hans

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Aramis:
[QB]Based upon an article by loren in the CT era, which for some reason, never managed to make its way into the rules mechanics of any later edition until GT. Including T5.

Sweet freaking jeepers, man, does it really destroy the game for you if a sodding marine has battledress skill in GT but doesn't elsewhere?!

If it does, I suggest you take a deep breath, and retire from this game - it really isn't worth being THAT obsessive about a game.

Or did you write to SJG to complain about that too?

And of course, I do have a copy of GT... and GTFT... and found the latter nigh unto unplayable for its detail levels. And more, it was nearly unuseable for me since it was not directly compatable with CT nor MT.

So sell your copies to someone who can appreciate them, and stop whining about them!

Of course, those who feel GURPS is the One True Way should probably stay away from boards noted for anti-GT bias...

Oh, the hypocrisy!!

Look where you are. This is the GURPS Traveller board. Are you really suggesting that it's not OK for people who like GURPS Traveller to stay here - on a board that is actually set aside for their version of the game - and defend it from random idiotic trolls like you who waltz in saying "GT crap and it's not the one true way"?? What the heck are you trying to do here? Do you get some perverse kicks out of coming to THE GURPS TRAVELLER BOARD on CotI and pissing in the cornflakes of GT fans who read this? Apparently you do.

Or perhaps, since there is an anti-GT bias on CotI generally, you could figured this new board was set up to allow people to vent that and obviously wasn't set up as a place where people could sensibly, rationally and constructively discuss aspects of GT without fear of getting hassled by those who think that CT is The One True Way?

Like I said, you really have an obnoxious superiority complex about this. I evidently should add 'conceit' to your list of sins too.


By all means, go ahead and like whatever version of traveller that you like. But at least have the decency to allow others to play and enjoy what they like without having to put up with your intolerant crap and bile about GT.

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Malenfant:


If it does, I suggest you take a deep breath, and retire from this game - it really isn't worth being THAT obsessive about a game.

Or did you write to SJG to complain about that too?

....

Like I said, you really have an obnoxious superiority complex about this. I evidently should add 'conceit' to your list of sins too.


By all means, go ahead and like whatever version of traveller that you like. But at least have the decency to allow others to play and enjoy what they like without having to put up with your intolerant crap and bile about GT.

Geez Malenfant sounds like he is not the only one taking a fun game a little too seriously.

 

[Malenfant]

Meaning what, exactly?

Why should a random internet troll be allowed to slag off the game I like on a board set aside for it, but I shouldn't be allowed to defend the game I like from those trolls? I don't think that has anything to do with how seriously one takes the game at all.

If GT bothers them that much, why can they not run off and play on the rest of the CotI boards and leave those of us who do like it to talk about it here without having to worry about someone jumping in and throwing insults and wrong assumptions around?

 

[aramis]

I pointed out something that is IMPORTANT in other areas of the COTI board, which, BTW, is NOT a GURPS board, and has a rather snide header for the GT subsection:
"GURPS Traveller
A forum for discussing that 'other' Traveller game... "

It doesn't say that its for promoting GT. It says disucssing GT. discussion, to me, implies the ability to go "off the party line"...

You want no interference from those who want to discuss the flaws as well as the perks? Go hang out at JTAS...

Perhaps that last is a little harsh, but what the heck.

It is important to note that it does diverge.

And yes, I know I can, as a GM, make GT fit actual OTU pre 1116, but then I have to inform potential players that I am doing so, and where it comes from. More work than its worth.

GURPS is probably one of the best simulationist engines out there... But GT appears very much to be "Loren's Traveller.", At least from where I sit andwho I game with.

And it doesn't get clearly labelled as such.

And yes, I know that SJ sees the forcible "Bend to fit extant GURPS rules" mode as a good thing. Both from a personal response by SJ when the mode of operation changed, and from current policy towards GPD, as evidenced by SVC, Gary Plana, and SPP's comments on the GPD sub-board over at StarFleetGames.com.

Never said that was bad. Said it was different form the other major licenses, to wit, Hero (pre 4th), Fuzion, and d20. Something to be wary of, not as in avoid, but to keep in mind when using it as a source.

And I would ask you to refrain from personal attacks. Yes, I made a snidde remark, targeted at Hans... of an ilk that should probably have been private messaged... but if you look back in the COTI and TML archives, Hans and I have had this kind of banter in public fora for, what, 8+ years now? (far less often since I quit the TML...) And Hans probably would/will PM me if offended...

Yes, it does make a big difference on whether "All Imperial Marines are BD troopies"... since I tend to run heavy on the military side of life in the IMTU. which, for the most part, is pretty close to the OTU until about 1130 or so...

No game, no history, is ever fully consistant. But there are clear contradictions with GT in setting matters that have DRASTIC impacts upon my storylines: merchantile rules, and Imperial military forces.

 

[vutpakdi]

At the risk of being whalloped from all sides, could we all just agree to disagree and move on to civilly discussing other matters? Yelling at each other about how the other person is wrong isn't going to change the other person's mind.

One side likes GURPs and the other side doesn't for various reasons. No grand change of opinion is likely to result from continuing this flame war.

<ducking for cover>

Ron

 

[ACK!!]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Meaning what, exactly?

Why should a random internet troll ...

... without having to worry about someone jumping in and throwing insults and wrong assumptions around?

Ok, Aramis has strong opinions but troll? Come on Malenfant you have been long enough to know better than that.

That second statement is what I was addressing in my post.

You can't bash someone for inflammatory language and for taking the game too seriously when you yourself starts off calling the man arrogant, accussing him of a superiority complex and calling him a troll.

I think it appears hypocritical of you to call a man a hypocritic when you engage in the same manner of behavior you are calling him out on.

If you said that at times Aramis is very opinionated

sub Pot { exec kettle(black) }

 

[Malenfant]

What Aramis is doing is waltzing in here, proclaiming that GT is crap, while also making erroneous assumptions and insulting the intelligence of (a) the people who wrote it and (b) the people who play it. That is bang out of line, and I don't see why such behaviour should be tolerated.

How the hell do you expect me to respond to that, exactly? He IS being arrogant, he DOES have a superiority complex (illustrated by his attitudes towards TNE as well), and he IS trolling. There's a term on rpg.net for this - it's called "threadcrapping". It's when someone comes along into a discussion that is generally civil and then drops a load of unconstructive, inflammatory garbage into it. It's like going into a thread that is praising something and instead saying "I think it's crap and you're all stupid for liking it". It's trolling, plain and simple, and trolls do not deserve to be treated with any kind of respect IMO.

This sort of thing happens very often here with GT and TNE. You always get someone coming along - usually a diehard CT grognard - who does nothing more than piss on the game and making false claims about (a) the game itself, (b) the people who play it, and (c) the people who wrote the games and their motivations. Certainly, some of the treatment that TNE authors in particular have got here utterly sickens me. That sort of attitude and behaviour disgusts me, and frankly most people here are definitely old enough to know better than to do that.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Aramis:
I pointed out something that is IMPORTANT in other areas of the COTI board, which, BTW, is NOT a GURPS board, and has a rather snide header for the GT subsection:
"GURPS Traveller
A forum for discussing that 'other' Traveller game... "

It doesn't say that its for promoting GT. It says disucssing GT. discussion, to me, implies the ability to go "off the party line"...

You want no interference from those who want to discuss the flaws as well as the perks? Go hang out at JTAS...

Perhaps that last is a little harsh, but what the heck.

You're not discussing the flaws of the game though. If that's all you were doing, that'd be fine. GT certainly does have flaws - and I've butted heads with people over them many times on JTAS - but you're going way beyond attacking the game; you're doing it in such a way that attacks the players and the authors too.

You're making assumptions that are wrong and claiming those to be fact, you're insulting the intelligence of GT players and the authors of the books, and you're assigning false motivations to people who have worked on the GT line.

And this IS a GURPS board, just as the TNE board is a TNE board, and the MT board is an MT board. I couldn't give a rat's arse whether or not QLI itself supports GURPS - they set this board up so that GT fans could discuss the game here on CotI - as well as elsewhere like on JTAS. They should be allowed to discuss that version of the game without every thread being crapped on by hostile parties like yourself.

There is simply no justification whatsoever for you to come on this board - or the TNE board, for that matter - and think you have carte blanche to throw around your kind of malicious, unconstructive negativity. If you were on a public discussion board at WotC, and saw a board for discussing non-d20 games published by other companies, would you expect that they set it up so their own fans could use it as a place to slag other games off willy-nilly? If you would, then frankly you must be an idiot.

And I actually raised that point about the board title myself with Hunter earlier (see page 1 of this thread), and he made it clear that he didn't mean it in the derogatory sense (he even added the winky smiley at the end)

 

[ACK!!]

Hold on new frickin' questions for the GURPS unintiated soul that I am.

Why is GT such a good simulatist system?

I have heard a couple of people say that this system is good for that.

But what the heck does that mean?

GURPS is a roll down? Did I read that right in the GURPS lite? Are there roll-over conversions?

Most players do not care of roll-under task systems.

Also, have people tried to forge lifepath stuff into the point system for chargen?

What the heck is the Space Combat and Travel Rules like for GT?

_

 

[Malenfant]

"Simulationist" is a term from one (functional, but over-rated, IMO) paradigm of gaming. The simulationist style of play favours sticking to dice rolls, a realistic depiction of the universe, and does not allow players to influence the outcome via things like drama points or stunts. GURPS or Spacemaster favours simulationist play, as I think most versions of Traveller do actually. (as to why GURPS is such a good simulationist system (ie why it favours that style of play)? Because it's just the way it's designed!

).

The alternatives are "narrativist" and "gamist". The narrativism is the sort of story/drama-based style encouraged by games like Feng Shui or Heroquest, with fuzzily defined stats where players can influence the outcome of the rolls using stunts and hero points and so on. It's often said that the story is more important there than what the dice say.

"gamist" is more like d20. This style favours encouraging characters to become progressively more powerful, there's more goal-based development (gotta get more XP for the next level so I can get X feat!), and lots of things to kill and stuff to take. This style has a definite sense of 'winning' as one progresses.

As I understand it though, they're more accurately used as descriptions of styles of play than descriptions of systems. Simulationist players want things to be realistic, narrativist players are more interested in being a part of the story, and gamist players are more interested in getting more stuff and beating more monsters. These players obviously will be attracted more to games that favour their style of play.

Personally, I think it's a bit too simplistic a breakdown to be particularly realistic though. I like simulationist play myself, but have a strong narrativist streak too.

At least, that's what I understand of it.


Other questions:

GURPS is a roll-under system - roll 3d6 to get below your skill total.

I would like to see some evidence for your statement that "most players do not care for roll-under task systems". I have certainly not found this to be true, and indeed I haven't found any players of any game that even care whether a system is roll over or under, just so long as it works.

I think there was a points-based lifepath system printed as a JTAS article at some point. Yeah, it's here (only accessible if you subscribe to JTAS though).

What do you want to know about the Space Combat and Travel rules, specifically?

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
And I actually raised that point about the board title myself with Hunter earlier (see page 1 of this thread), and he made it clear that he didn't mean it in the derogatory sense (he even added the winky smiley at the end)

And since it appears that the winky smiley may not be enough to show it was meant as a good natured rib, I am going to remove the comment.

This thread is beginning to get a bit hostile and I would ask everyone to please take it down a notch.

This is the GT forum and as such it is here for fans of the game. Bottom line, non-GT fans are considered by me to be 'guests' in this forum. Please act as such. This goes for every game-specific forum here. Perhaps I should post this as a rule somewhere...

At the same time I expect the residents to be equally as courteous to the 'guests'. It goes both ways.

No matter who you are, if you ever feel that a post is out of line or otherwise inappropriate, there is a 'Report Post' link at the bottom right of every post made. Click that link and you can send me a short message about the problem and a direct link so that I can take a look.

I return you to your previously running debate

Hunter

 

[Malenfant]

Thank you, Hunter.

For my part, I apologise for getting a little too annoyed here. I just wish that everyone could be content to let others enjoy Traveller in whatever manner they prefer, without feeling the need to sneer at them for doing it differently, or to slag off the game.