• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Proto-Traveller

I think that depends on how you, personally, classify psionics - Science Fiction (albeit of the softer variety), or Science Fantasy?

I put psionics more into the Science Fantasy genre. Andre Norton and James Schmitz do pretty well with the concept, but I do not think that most of Norton's work or James Schmitz Agent of Vega stories would qualify as "hard" or even "soft" science fiction.
 
I put psionics more into the Science Fantasy genre.
You're not the only one. But most SF authors and editors are not among those who do, and as I said above, I go with the actual genre definitions.

Andre Norton and James Schmitz do pretty well with the concept, but I do not think that most of Norton's work or James Schmitz Agent of Vega stories would qualify as "hard" or even "soft" science fiction.
Most SF stories that deal with psionics treat it as a hard science. Julian May's Galactic Milieu and Ann McCaffrey's Unicorn stories to name two. Oh, and Schmitz in his Federation of the Hub stories, of course.

Science Fantasy is a blend of SF and Fantasy. To qualify as a Science Fantasy trope as distinct from a Science Fiction trope, it would have to be Fantasy and not SF.

There are tropes (e.g. psionics) that work for both SF and Fantasy. That doesn't make them not SF.


Hans
 
Of course the Proto-Traveller concept was surely built on the players' experience and the Age of Sail, rather than economic analyses.

And I think that's the right way to write a game: for all its hard Science Fact shell, Traveller has a nice gooey Science Fantasy soft center.

I agree that's ideal if you can do it.

My take is purely for those who want a small ship universe but have a brain that insists it must be a big ship universe (cos population x TL).

#

(nb this is only relevant to people who think a certain way)

If I was designing the Spinward Marches from scratch for people who think that way I'd just reduce the pop and TL down to a small ship size, simply say all the 9+ pop, TL12+ systems are in the core regions and in a frontier sector the sector capital might be in the pop 8, TL11-12 range and sub-sector capitals around pop 7, TL10.

#

However even as it is the OTU can be tweaked enough for me by

1) tweaking the trade as described above
and
2) making the big ship navy too big to use

As energy weapons lose a lot of energy with range then if you say IYTU that having the longest range weapons is a critical advantage then it means ships of the line have to have the highest rated energy weapons possible and if that means those weapons need to be as big as possible then it means ships of the line have to be as big as possible.

Which ends up with them maybe costing 50 million credits a jump - each.

So IMTU the alpha systems can have 100 Tigress each and it doesn't matter in the game as I say they are [too expensive / too much of a hassle] to move out of their home system except in wartime leaving sub-sector patrol for small ships.

I prefer that actually as having 100 Tigress conducting a training exercise in Glisten as the players return to their patron makes cool scenery without messing up the small ship flavor in the backwater systems.

#

Only a tiny fraction of people can tolerate J-Space travel

That's an interesting one.
 
But the Age of Sail comes with built-in self-consistency, because Real Life History. I don't know about your players, but mine would feel a strain on their suspension of disbelief if I told them that the Imperial Navy couldn't muster more than four 1250T patrol ships for the Regina Subsector and that Regina and Efate between them didn't seem able to supplement that.

Ah yes, the Suspenders of Disbelief, championed during Traveller 4th Ed by Eris Reddoch et al.

Grognards would definitely have the problem you mention.

Casual Traveller players either do not think about it, or don't bother about it.

Call it "focused on the players instead of the worlds". Or call it sloppy.

Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe, as they say in the 20th century English.
 
I use the definition used by numerous SF authors. Psionics is definitely an SF trope, albeit one of the ones it shares with Fantasy.


Hans

Fair enough. I've seen others classify psionics as outright Science Fantasy, though, which is why I asked.
 
Fair enough. I've seen others classify psionics as outright Science Fantasy, though, which is why I asked.

Such people have misunderstood what Science Fantasy is (namely, the application of the techniques and attitudes of science fiction to traditional fantasy subjects, such as as Robert A. Heinlein's Magic, Inc., Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague de Camp's Harold Shea series. Poul Anderson's Operation Chaos, and Jack Vance's Dying Earth).


Hans
 
Such people have misunderstood what Science Fantasy is (namely, the application of the techniques and attitudes of science fiction to traditional fantasy subjects, such as as Robert A. Heinlein's Magic, Inc., Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague de Camp's Harold Shea series. Poul Anderson's Operation Chaos, and Jack Vance's Dying Earth).


Hans

They are certainly operating from a different definition.

Me, I'm not all that hung up on definitions. "Is it fun?" is my first criteria. :D
 
They are certainly operating from a different definition.
They're operating from a definition that differs from the one used for over 50 years. Not what the term actually means, but what they think it ought to mean. That's muddled thinking.

Me, I'm not all that hung up on definitions. "Is it fun?" is my first criteria. :D
People who use their own private definitions are not amusing nor do they contribute to the lucidity of a discussion. I grant you that there are legitimate alternate definitions for some concepts that can lead to legitimate confusion, but this one isn't one of them.


Hans
 
Fair enough. I've seen others classify psionics as outright Science Fantasy, though, which is why I asked.

Teleportation and Telekinesis (and several of the specials in later editions) push it well past the common psionics accepted by most. (CT has an oblique reference to Doc Smith's Lenses...) Many don't accept those but do accept teleperception and telepathy. Especially since the amount of energy needed to move things requires drawing on some outside source of energy, as projecting inherent personal energy would require nasty drops in temperature to keep in line with thermodynamics.

Plus there's the possibility to get 40 ton flying oceanic predators... on worlds with significant gravity. (up to size 8.) And 3 ton ones on a number of other worlds.

In fact, despite the veneer of hard science, Bk 6 made it even less realistic, because worlds both too hot and too cold wound up with breathable atmospheres.

And there are vacuum plants in CT (Sup 2, page 44).

CT spans the realm of soft sci-fi, most space opera, and the more realistic side of Space Fantasy. But it does do Space Fantasy right in the core box.
 
Teleportation and Telekinesis (and several of the specials in later editions) push it well past the common psionics accepted by most.
Who are 'most'? It certainly doesn't include many, if any, SF authors and editors of the last 50 years.

CT spans the realm of soft sci-fi, most space opera, and the more realistic side of Space Fantasy. But it does do Space Fantasy right in the core box.
CT explains how to deal with traditional Fantasy themes? It mentions Fantasy tropes that are not also SF tropes? I don't believe you. How about a reference or a quote instead of just repeating the same unsupported claim?

I just realized that you may have thought that the examples you mentioned in your post were not SF elements. They are.


Hans
 
Last edited:
I see no reason Traveller couldn't be used for fantasy or low-tech adventures. Even if it's "thrust your space age players into the iron age in some fashion" model.
 
Back
Top