T5 discussions at rpg.net
- Thread starter mike wightman
- Start date
Having come across all Traveller canon in one big lump, digested over the past 4 years, it seems to me now to be as complicated, inconsistent, nonesensical and contradictory as our real world human history.
Even if you only go back 200 years to the beginning of the modern age, it's apparent our knowledge and interpretation and weighting of events can be completely different depending on your point of view.
You can treat Traveller canon in a similar way. You can say that what you want to keep is the apparent truth, and contradictory material can be apocryphal or propaganda. It's what makes it such a rich setting.
That's not saying it isn't without problems. I'm against 're-imagining' (how I hate that word!) that tries to build an absolutist truth and history that is the correct-and-only-viewpoint, but I'd like to see it streamlined somewhat and elaborated on.
Why hasn't the technological paradigm developed whatsoever? Why do people insist nanotech is anathema to the OTU? To me it is inconcievable that jump drives and 'magic' reactionless thrusters could be made without it. The admittedly conservative computer systems would also require it, since we are already using it to make our (more primitive than OTU) advanced processors. That is not to say I want 'blue-goo' and the T2000; to me nanotech is like mass production, an industrial method, and doesn't have to imply omnipotent machine intelligences. In fact, the appearance of Virus obviously implies nanotech in all it's glory does exist in the OTU.
That is but one example. My main beef with the OTU is the obstinate technological restrictions that keep it looking like 1979 with spaceships. A revamp needs to open up the tech tree; this doesn't mean adopting all crazy-ass sf ideas - the OTU should still be conservative, but not ossified.
There's also the need to sort out starship design. The original Bk2 m-drives were just a way to come up with a sequence that didn't involve keeping track of reaction mass - it was loose and abstract system not intended to be realistic. By MT we have the absurdium of reactionless drives. Not against such ideas per se but the way the explanation was framed just looks like a desperate excuse.
By far the biggest problem is the UWP. Not just the broken methodology; it's the entire concept. It's only good for generating thousands of minimal sketches that don't really give enough info to really help a ref without lots more work, yet stop him putting the kind of world he wants where he wants without just ignoring the UWP, which kinda defeats the object.
A better way would be describing important or significant worlds in some detail, preferably giving account to their placement on mains etc, then just sketching in the others as 'Mining Colony' or 'Religious Enclave', giving the refs real freedom to elaborate on. And why should every single system be settled? There are vanishingly few systems with no population within the Imperium.
The random generation route just gives us reams and reams of stale uninteresting UWPs, and means any ref developments have to occur off map, meaning (given the travel times) that a ref either runs just published adventures or ignores them altogether. I'd assume most would want to mix and match, but this is very hard indeed in the OTU.
Even if you only go back 200 years to the beginning of the modern age, it's apparent our knowledge and interpretation and weighting of events can be completely different depending on your point of view.
You can treat Traveller canon in a similar way. You can say that what you want to keep is the apparent truth, and contradictory material can be apocryphal or propaganda. It's what makes it such a rich setting.
That's not saying it isn't without problems. I'm against 're-imagining' (how I hate that word!) that tries to build an absolutist truth and history that is the correct-and-only-viewpoint, but I'd like to see it streamlined somewhat and elaborated on.
Why hasn't the technological paradigm developed whatsoever? Why do people insist nanotech is anathema to the OTU? To me it is inconcievable that jump drives and 'magic' reactionless thrusters could be made without it. The admittedly conservative computer systems would also require it, since we are already using it to make our (more primitive than OTU) advanced processors. That is not to say I want 'blue-goo' and the T2000; to me nanotech is like mass production, an industrial method, and doesn't have to imply omnipotent machine intelligences. In fact, the appearance of Virus obviously implies nanotech in all it's glory does exist in the OTU.
That is but one example. My main beef with the OTU is the obstinate technological restrictions that keep it looking like 1979 with spaceships. A revamp needs to open up the tech tree; this doesn't mean adopting all crazy-ass sf ideas - the OTU should still be conservative, but not ossified.
There's also the need to sort out starship design. The original Bk2 m-drives were just a way to come up with a sequence that didn't involve keeping track of reaction mass - it was loose and abstract system not intended to be realistic. By MT we have the absurdium of reactionless drives. Not against such ideas per se but the way the explanation was framed just looks like a desperate excuse.
By far the biggest problem is the UWP. Not just the broken methodology; it's the entire concept. It's only good for generating thousands of minimal sketches that don't really give enough info to really help a ref without lots more work, yet stop him putting the kind of world he wants where he wants without just ignoring the UWP, which kinda defeats the object.
A better way would be describing important or significant worlds in some detail, preferably giving account to their placement on mains etc, then just sketching in the others as 'Mining Colony' or 'Religious Enclave', giving the refs real freedom to elaborate on. And why should every single system be settled? There are vanishingly few systems with no population within the Imperium.
The random generation route just gives us reams and reams of stale uninteresting UWPs, and means any ref developments have to occur off map, meaning (given the travel times) that a ref either runs just published adventures or ignores them altogether. I'd assume most would want to mix and match, but this is very hard indeed in the OTU.
Klaus:
really simply: adding the full implications of the new technologies would be a reimagining. You can't have it both ways.
After the Traveller 2300 flub, GDW realized that a significant chunk saw Traveller as the setting.
They made a choice, with the next traveller edition: Build, not Revise. Short term, a success. By the time of TNE, the traveller board games were purely OTU. The TNE Era Traveller board games were limited: Brilliant Lances (TNE's Space Commbat), Battle Rider (streamlined fleet combat), and Striker II (Minis rules for ground combat).
They boxed in the identity to being the OTU, and adding rather than revising.
Traveller 2300 was the turning point in the GDW approach. It was also shortly after that event that they pulled most of the licenses.
really simply: adding the full implications of the new technologies would be a reimagining. You can't have it both ways.
After the Traveller 2300 flub, GDW realized that a significant chunk saw Traveller as the setting.
They made a choice, with the next traveller edition: Build, not Revise. Short term, a success. By the time of TNE, the traveller board games were purely OTU. The TNE Era Traveller board games were limited: Brilliant Lances (TNE's Space Commbat), Battle Rider (streamlined fleet combat), and Striker II (Minis rules for ground combat).
They boxed in the identity to being the OTU, and adding rather than revising.
Traveller 2300 was the turning point in the GDW approach. It was also shortly after that event that they pulled most of the licenses.
It's Classic Traveller because it's Classic. It's retro. It's nostalgia, but WELL PLACED nostalgia.
The truth or roleplaying is that the game Depends 68% on the referee, 20% on the social dynamics of the player group, and 12% on the rules.
So in the hands of a good Referee, Classic and MT work. T5 Will work too, just as T4 can, in the hands of a good referee.
I'm looking forward to T5.
The truth or roleplaying is that the game Depends 68% on the referee, 20% on the social dynamics of the player group, and 12% on the rules.
So in the hands of a good Referee, Classic and MT work. T5 Will work too, just as T4 can, in the hands of a good referee.
I'm looking forward to T5.
M
Malenfant
Guest
That's all well and good if you're just playing a game and don't give a toss about the background. But there's a lot of people here who "play with" Traveller rather than play the game, who take apart the background and setting and history and data and try to make sense of it, and who run into these consistency problems. And there are people who are trying to write new products set in that universe who have to wade through all the inconsistencies and try to make sense of it. And they're the ones that have problems here.
B
Black Globe Generator
Guest
Playing the game and not "giving a toss" about the background are not mutually inclusive - one can play an immersive Traveller adventure without fretting about why a power plant requires so much fuel, for example.
I wonder to what extent this really matters to people who are interested in Traveller - gearheads may be abundant, but there is also a continuum, from the gamer who designs her own Book 2 ships to the gamer who designs a whole new ship construction system. Should the focus of Traveller be the latter gamer, or the former?
My general impression is extreme gearheading is the sport of a pretty small, specific audience - catering to that small subset of the gamer pool doesn't strike me as a good strategem for a game publisher.
I think that depends on what those writers are trying to accomplish - DGP certainly seemed to do pretty well within the constraints of CT.
It's not like every bit of canon needs to be religiously observed. How many adventures (other than Leviathan of course) or sector settings reference jump torpedos? Does the Annic Nova 'break' everything we know about em- and jay-drive function in the TU?
I think too much is made of this argument.
M
Malenfant
Guest
Well it's alright for the players, but the GM has to go through the unnecessary effort of wading through the errors and inconsistencies to make the game 'immersive' enough to make sense. You're just seeing the end result of his work as a player.
It's not really about the "focus" of Traveller though. The gamer who designs her ships using Book 2 and nothing else might be perfectly happy, but the gamer that's trying to make sense of the different ideas and approaches in Book 2 and Book 5 is stuck scratching his head. And the one trying to figure out how Book 2, Book 5, FF&S, and FF&S2 can exist in the same universe and all be simultaneously valid is totally hooped.
Nobody is expecting anyone to cater to them directly, but sooner or later there's going to be a Ship Design System/Technical Architecture book released and I think they'd rather prefer that it makes some degree of sense and fits with the OTU background, even if it means throwing out everything that came before.
Yeah, and then that all got tossed in the garbage because of legal issues. Which is a shame, because before GT came along I thought the DGP stuff was the best material that had been produced for Traveller.
It's apparently quite different from what came later. Personally I (along with most people, from what I gather) just explain that by saying that it's early work that was done before anyone even had a clue what the OTU technologies were or how they worked, and as such shouldn't be considered as part of the OTU. I'm not actually sure if Marc has officially nixed them from the setting though because of that or if he still claims they're canon though.
That's one of the reasons why I was trying to put together the Top 250 worlds of Known Space list. If you didn't have 11,000+ worlds to look at, you'd be bouncing all over Known Space and only just keeping track of how many jumps it takes to get from one place to the next - and maybe only roleplaying out 1 Jump week through the whole trip. I mean, things like UWP and Law Levels and such are almost too much information for the "characters" - it's all too much information. Don't give me 101 Ways To Make a Starship, give me 101 Starships. Ok, bad example, I'm not a gearhead. But separate the two. Already done up equipment/vehicles/ships book and a separate book for tinkering and building your own. Or how about don't give me 101 Worlds of the Spinward Marches, give me 101 Worlds of Known Space. Traveller needs to think big - I think that would make it much more successful. If the rules are in the book to create your own worlds, why show the OTU setting? If you make your own, it's overwriting what's there already. They need to separate. How about a Traveller Design Guide - a mix of World Builder's Handbook and Fire,Fusion and Steel. I mean, do people bother making homebrews when they like the setting?
Stepping off my soapbox,
Dameon
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
I'll beg to differ on Alternity being usable. The task system and experience progressions were linked disasters, the specifics of combat another again. What distinguished Alternity is that it did an amazing job of *looking* usable. Our group got six levels into character advancement during play, looked at the list of things that seriously needed changing based on our experiences, and dropped it like a hot rock.
M
Malenfant
Guest
I wasn't saying that Alternity was usable, so much as T5 isn't. T5 is a clunky, anachronistic anathema compared to modern RPGs.
I meant "like Alternity" in the sense that you had a sci-fi specific toolkit there that was used as the rules for a variety of backgrounds. That's what Traveller should be, but it isn't - instead it's a toolkit for making games that look like the OTU and have the same assumptions.
I meant "like Alternity" in the sense that you had a sci-fi specific toolkit there that was used as the rules for a variety of backgrounds. That's what Traveller should be, but it isn't - instead it's a toolkit for making games that look like the OTU and have the same assumptions.
B
Black Globe Generator
Guest
Malenfant, I haven't been "just a player" in a Traveller game since around 1985 or so. Those inconsistencies don't stop me cold as a referee - I decide what works best for the setting I want to run, and the campaign I think the players will enjoy, and I move on.
It seems to me that that already happened, with MT and then FF&S, and it didn't seem to make a dent. I don't buy into the idea of the "perfect" gamebook - I believe what works for the extreme gearheads is unlikely to appeal to the more casual gamer who wants a big book full of starships and vehicles and doesn't care how they were put together. Where do you think the designers should invest their effort?
Tossed in the garbage? I use Vilani and Vargr, Grand Census and Grand Survey IMTU - just because it's no longer in print doesn't mean that the material stopped being useful.
I wouldn't presume to speak for most people, but given that both of those technologies offered a radical, even revolutionary, departure from core conceits of the OTU one might expect that anyone cleaving to the canon universe to take them into account, yet I don't know of any other supplements or adventures that mention either one except in passing. Traveller authors deviate from canon, and invent new material, so I still don't understand why these "inconsistencies" are believed to be such a show-stopper.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
With the exception of the CT-MT edition change, the mechanical changes have always been extreme, and even CT to MT was non-trivial for many reasons. Thus, instead of (to use the extreme other cases) the relatively smooth transitions that Battletech and (until the most recent change) the World of Darkness had between editions, you get large groups of players looking at the mechanical change and asking "why bother? What we are using *works*." Even the juggernaut that is D&D suffers from this kind of segmentation, because TSR and WotC made extensive mechanical changes between editions.
D&D doesn't suffer from quite the "no clear majority" problem that Traveller does, however. Old grognards statements to the contrary notwithstanding, the vast majority of the D&D community uses the last two editions (3.0 or 3.5).
No such statement can be made for Traveller. EVERY edition has its dedicated players, and there are no clear majorities. NONE of the various editions of Traveller are "out of date", particularly since Marc returned CT and MT to availability, Hunter put CT stats in his T20 support materials, and several of the Traveller fanzines (in the past) and websites (now) chose to be edition eclectic.
That is why past editions are still relevant, and why whatever gets released as "T5" should make an attempt to provide unification, even if only in some of the periferal systems.
I've long held the belief that mechanics determine style of play. Mechanics that support fast play under any circumstances will tend to get used for fast and furious Action, because the mechanics won't get in the way. Mechanics that require an extensive glare at either a rulebook or character sheet to get away from a set list of actions, or worse, to perform that set list at all, will simply not support immersive Action. This is the fundamental reason D6 worked for Star Wars, and D20 doesn't, particularly if a Jedi is involved.
With that in mind, I don't mind that the various editions of Traveller are markedly different in their task resolutions and book-keeping, because this reality supports vastly different play styles and thus reaches potential players of "Traveller" who might otherwise have never given it a second look.
What bothers me is that the support systems also changed significantly with each edition, and sometimes within an edition. My specific gripe, as you can probably guess, is with vehicles and starships, though planetary system generation has also changed several times. Things that define one edition of Traveller (or worse, became part of the Canon history in one edition) are simply impossible in another, with the upshot that we are now not really all in the same setting.
And yet we claim to all be playing the same game in the same setting (heretics aside).
M
Malenfant
Guest
It's still more work than necessary. I'd rather have no inconsistencies there to start with.
A dent in what?
FF&S was the sort of Tech book that Traveller needed. Unfortunately the rest of the line wasn't so generic. If you have a core rule book with chargen and the engine, an FF&S-style Tech Architecture book covering all the tech and ship/vehicles design possibilities, a WBH/First In-style world design book, and a GURPS Uplift-style Alien design book with a bunch of details aliens in it, that'd be the ideal Traveller for me. And then Setting-wise you have big tomes covering each era of the OTU, and probably throw in 2320AD and anything else too.
T20 had the right idea. It's a shame QLI is basically dead, it's going to need a full new edition and a relaunch if Hunter ever gets back to go anywhere now, and I wouldn't be surprised if Marc just pulled the license anyway once T5 comes out if nothing's happened til then.
I don't think they should invest it on any one thing. The gearhead part of the community is pretty big, they'd be nuts to ignore it. If they want to attract the active players and GMs then they should darn well put out books to attract them. Adventures can pull in the GMs, but there's nothing out there that really attracts the players - for that you need things like Splat books, which Traveller lacks.
I didn't say they were. I meant that the DGP stuff had been striken from canon because of the legal issues around it. Doesn't stop anyone from using them in their own games, but I'm not really interested in what people do in their own games, I'm talking about what is and isn't part of the official canon, and there's some pretty darn good stuff in there that isn't part of the OTU anymore because of some legal pettiness.
Then what are you doing here? If you don't understand or even see the points here, then obviously you can continue merrily on your way.
The point is that they shouldn't HAVE to do intellectual gymnastics to explain the inconsistencies and errors when they're writing new material. The Traveller setting is a nightmare for authors. Just because you don't see that or it's not directly relevant to you doesn't make the point any less valid.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Fair enough. We move on...
RandyT0001
SOC-13
This thread has degraded into another example of "What's wrong with Travller" or "What are the problems/ greatness of Traveller" which we have hashed and rehashed and rehashed, over and over again. Most of us have our favorite version/ ruleset for Travller. Most of us have our favorite era within the overall Traveller setting whither it's Classic, Rebellion, New Era or the latest 1248. I'm sure we would all like to "play" Traveller if we could find enough local players to have a go at it. Some of us "play" Traveller online and some of us have to settle with "playing with" Traveller until our fortunes change. So be it. Do what you like or want to do with Traveller.
If there isn't a Travller version/ ruleset or setting you like then make it. If you want to fix the "problems" with Travller, both rules and setting, Malenfant then develop a business proposal for Marc, get a design group together, get a license and write it. I'm not trying to be derogatory here but if you have a better way and a well developed setting you'd like to see then take the big plunge and write it. Since joining as Malenfant in Dec of 2003 you've make over 5500 posts and if each is an average of 50 words then you've written over 275,000 words. Put that effort into a new version of Traveller and you've got three books of about 100 pages each (including some art). If it's as good as what you would like to see Traveller be then most of us would probably buy it.
Anyway, I think we fallen into the same old arguements again about the "problems" of Traveller. Maybe it's time we drop this deviated thread like we've done with the others.
If there isn't a Travller version/ ruleset or setting you like then make it. If you want to fix the "problems" with Travller, both rules and setting, Malenfant then develop a business proposal for Marc, get a design group together, get a license and write it. I'm not trying to be derogatory here but if you have a better way and a well developed setting you'd like to see then take the big plunge and write it. Since joining as Malenfant in Dec of 2003 you've make over 5500 posts and if each is an average of 50 words then you've written over 275,000 words. Put that effort into a new version of Traveller and you've got three books of about 100 pages each (including some art). If it's as good as what you would like to see Traveller be then most of us would probably buy it.
Anyway, I think we fallen into the same old arguements again about the "problems" of Traveller. Maybe it's time we drop this deviated thread like we've done with the others.
M
Malenfant
Guest
Oh, I've put my money where my mouth is... I've written two JTAS articles for SJG, helped on the Sword Worlds book (and saw firsthand how much of a problem nonsensical canon can be), and am helping on the Spica project. My experience on the T5 so-called "playtest" was uniformly bad, and I left that because Marc wasn't remotely interested in listening to what any of the playtesters (not just me) were saying.
I'm sure I could potentially do a big project like that, but currently I just don't have the time or inclination to do more than talk about it or help out with the projects I've chosen to be involved in.
I'm sure I could potentially do a big project like that, but currently I just don't have the time or inclination to do more than talk about it or help out with the projects I've chosen to be involved in.
B
Black Globe Generator
Guest
So basically what you're saying is that the game should reflect your own narrow personal preferences? That yours is the mainstream opinion? And that authors in general find it difficult to write for Traveller, the evidence of adventures and supplements being published both professionally and by the fan-community notwithstanding?
Well. Okay.
Perhaps I don't share your certainty and I'm willing to challenge my own assumptions?
Clearly. That doesn’t seem to affect your certitude about what makes the game better for everyone, however, a stance I find puzzling.
Right back to you, Malenfant.
I'm done here now.
Whoa there, pardner.
Let's get something straight. Online forums like these are mainly for compulsive Travellers. By definition, we all have narrow interpretations.
I do think it's a shame that publishers have to pick the system they publish for, rather than "writing Traveller material" -- if they rely on rules, that is.
M
Malenfant
Guest
If you actually read what I'm saying instead of being accusatory and trying to pick a fight, you'll see that all I'm saying that there are severe inconsistencies in the rules and the setting that need to be removed.
My own personal preference is that the rules should be made separate from the setting, and that both should have their inconsistencies and problems ironed out so they're usable by everyone - GMs, players, authors, gearheads, whatever - with as few problems as possible. I'm not the only one that thinks that either. I'm not entirely sure why anyone would have a problem with that at all though, since it makes the game better for everybody.
