What are the Touchstones of Traveller?

[robject]

This is going to resemble my "What Is Traveller?" sticky.

I'll use "touchstone" to describe a presupposition upon which Traveller is built. I'm going to try to abandon the term "canon", since it seems that that term is actually divisive rather than effective. Yes, y'all've convinced me, and maybe y'all know who y'all are.*

There are very few touchstones in Traveller. I don't know how many, but I would say they're on the order of 7-plus-or-minus-two. Offhand I would describe them as:

Characters and Combat.
1. Nothing stops an adversary like kinetic energy (bullets).
2. Society is cosmopolitan and stratified. The typical game shows how being a traveller crosses classes and breaks stratification.

Starships.
3. The speed of communication is limited to the speed of travel.
4. Don't worry so much about gravitics, power, or mass.
5. The smallest jump-capable ship is 100 displacement-tons.

Worlds and Adventures.
6. No two places are alike. This also means that economic imbalances drive interstellar interactions.
7. Wilderness refueling is worth it.

-----

Touchstone: An excellent quality or example that is used to test the excellence or genuineness of others.

I saw this term used by @Spinward Flow, and have realized that this term works better than the old term "canon".

Canon: A law or rule of doctrine or discipline, enacted by a council or other competent ecclesiastical authority.

Traveller doesn't have a competent ecclesiastical authority. At least one of those words is wrong at any given time.



------
* This doesn't mean we can't write a Traveller Bible, OTU Bible, or some other kind of reference work. It's just that it is unlikely to be "authoritative" in any centralized canon-like sense.

 

[Quint]

I think Touchstones and Canon are different things and Traveller the setting/game engine has both.

 

[Dragoner]

A lot of that looks like what is the Third Imperium, imo of course. To me Traveller is mostly 2d6, skill based, no classes or levels. I mean, a lot of this is an opening to "That's not Traveller" arguments, which were originally used vs mongoose ten years ago, and now mongoose people I have seen use it vs CE. It is what it is, I doubt anything will put out the flame wars, I just sort of think Traveller is what Marc says it is until he says different, to quote Don McKinney, is sort of the best definition.

 

[Spinward Flow]

4.5 Economics 1.5: Utopias Aren't Found. Hardly any worlds within the setting can be described as idyllic utopias of futuristic sci-fi, since avarice and greed are still significant motivating factors of the human condition. Megacorporations exercise monopoly power to enrich themselves at the expense of others, petty rivalries flare up between star systems while others are simply left to their own devices (if not for all intents and purposes abandoned as backwaters not worth visiting). Wealth inequality requires astronomical terminology just to approximate the sense of scale. Some places are better off than others, of course, but nowhere is "perfect" where everyone lives in some kind of fantastical harmony. That very lack of perfection offers a richness of setting for drama, strife, conflict and even opportunism and a sense of adventure to thrive. And then there's the Pirate's Code of "Take all you can, give nothing back!"

 

[bookwyrm]

Traveller is a randomly created universe where players and their characters do their best to survive while searching for the order their game master diligently keeps out of their reach.

the multiple rule sets for Traveller are there to keep the players and game masters guessing, confused, on their toes, and continually on the path of fun.

it seems to me that the true Touchstone of Traveller is that it's a multi technological, futuristic setting, with a rich history, with a huge variety of places to adventure, and you don't have to be human if you don't want to be. it seems like everything else has been 'cannonized'.

and although many players may disagree on which rule set is best, we all agree with the Touchstone 'Traveller is fun'.

 

[whulorigan]

I saw this term used by @Spinward Flow, and have realized that this term works better than the old term "canon".

I think Touchstones and Canon are different things and Traveller the setting/game engine has both.

To me:

1) Canon is a term for the OTU setting (or any other specified setting).
2) Touchstone as a term has to do with the presuppositions inherent in the Ruleset as regards building a campaign setting.

 

[Spinward Flow]

To me:

1) Canon is a term for the OTU setting (or any other specified setting).
2) Touchstone as a term has to do with the presuppositions inherent in the Ruleset as regards building a campaign setting.

 

[robject]

A lot of that looks like what is the Third Imperium, imo of course. To me Traveller is mostly 2d6, skill based, no classes or levels.

re 3I (setting): That's something for me to think about a bit.

To many people, Traveller is mostly 2d6, but people play GURPS: Traveller and Traveller5. Maybe "six sided dice"?

"No levels" is good.

 

[Condottiere]

What makes Traveller, Traveller; much like what makes ShadowRun, ShadowRun, or Battletech, MechWarrior.

 

[Dragoner]

re 3I (setting): That's something for me to think about a bit.

To many people, Traveller is mostly 2d6, but people play GURPS: Traveller and Traveller5. Maybe "six sided dice"?

"No levels" is good.

I thinks Hans said he stopped using the 3d6 in GURPS in favor of a d20, T5 still has the 2d6, only subsumed into the Nd6; one could call it d6, though that's another system. T5 is still built off the 2d6, and a lot of its subsystems still use it primarily, its most tasks that have changed. Though I think if someone wanted to say Traveller in another forum, usually its "2d6, and skills, no classes or levels" which in its way is similar to BRP, except without the d100.

The other thing is the setting, which T5 only moderately has, with Cirque, and GURPS with Loren-verse/ISW. It is also where my own feelings become more subjective, I mean people have mentioned my setting being more optimistic, and that is ok, though I don't really see that except vs a more grimdark kind of setting, like running the 3I as a WH40K lite universe or something. Which it's all good, people should do what they like.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

1. Characters 1: Agency. Your superior officer is weeks away; you have to make decisions. Supported by "one week per jump/hop/etc", no ansible, etc.

I would say this is the only one, the rest are just features of the 3I setting. This is where Traveller differs from most other systems and settings.

 

[JMiskimen]

I think the Touchstone of Traveller - in all incarnations - is that it is a brilliantly simple toolkit to assist your imagination.

You can create nearly anything and anyone to complete a rich and viable role playing game setting (or adopt the vast OTU and its various eras) and play out unlimited campaigns for years.

All a referee needs is imagination and players, and considering that solo playing is becoming more popular, even players are optional.

One could even make the arguement that Traveller paved the way to solo playing rpgs with its worldbuilding tools; which, while often imitated, have proven to be more than enough to engage and entertain fans on their own.

 

[whartung]

I think the Touchstone of Traveller - in all incarnations - is that it is a brilliantly simple toolkit to assist your imagination.

I think the LWB personifies this.

160 pages, and it's "everything". As much as I enjoyed Mercenary and High Guard, they're just added detail but not necessary. After that, everything goes off the rails.

Make no mistake, I like the vast, galaxy spanning empire that the 3rd Imperium became. The differential equations in the assorted world books and trade sims and the calculus of FF&S.

But the 3 books, especially bound together as a unit. "Phenomenal cosmic powers! Itty bitty living space."

 

[infojunky]

Touchstones of Traveller for me is the core simplicity. One can hop in to one’s trusty starship and be someplace else. All with the framework of three Little Black Books.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Touchstones of Traveller for me is the core simplicity. One can hop in to one’s trusty starship and be someplace else. All with the framework of three Little Black Books.

It can be. The basic premise is, "it's all there". In CT "it's all there" in three small volumes. It's all there in T5, too -- but for that, you need to center yourself on the "Design/Map/Detail Only As Really Necessary" philosophy and avoid getting bogged down in the details (which are there, but you don't have to use them).

 

[McPerth]

I'd add/change/comments

0: Game 0: no setting based RPG (unlike MERP, SW, TOR, etc)

2. Characters 2: No "levels".

Characters are already seasoned veterans, no young newstarters, As such, character improvement is not the goal

2.a. Characters 4: No alignment (not manicheistic game). Three are no good/bad guys, just conflicting interests.

2.b. Characters 5: No character class (or wild card, or whatever yo ucall it) characters. The y are as good (or bad) as any other they can find along the way, and being PC is not an advantage.

3. Characters 3: Society is cosmopolitan and socially stratified (high, mid, and low passage; SOC), but Humans are still Human. The typical game shows how being a traveller crosses classes and breaks stratification.

Assuming OTU (see 0 above)

6. Starships 1: The smallest interstellar ship is 100 tons. Questions notwithstanding.
7. Starships 2: Gravitics is a thing. Results in a fantasy-level simplification in starship design.

7b. Starships 3: jump drives aside, ships use (mostly) newtonian movement by vector. No fancy maneuvers in space.

(probably more wil lcome, as I think more about it)

 

[Grav_Moped]

No fancy maneuvers in space.

Spaceships don't act like airplanes or ocean vessels!

 

[McPerth]

Spaceships don't act like airplanes or ocean vessels!

Sure, but, used as I were to science-fiction films and serials, it took me knowing Traveller (in early 80's) to realize it...

In my defense, I was just a teenager then...

 

[mike wightman]

I am having a hard time replying to this thread because a lot of the tropes/touchstones that have been mentioned I have overwritten in games of yore.
When I ran Star Trek scenarios using Traveller then warp drive and subspace communication are a thing - but I am still using Traveller character generation, personal combat, saving throw resolution.
So you can do away with jump, no ftl communication, and still be playing Traveller.

I know people run active duty campaigns, so technically the characters are not Travellers at all, they are still in service. But they are still playing Traveller.

So the only touchstone I can think of is no character levels or XP points.

 

[McPerth]

Traveller character generation

See that even in this point, TNE is quite different from other versions...

So the only touchstone I can think of is no character levels or XP points.

And even this can be argued, as some versions (as T4) have what would be the equivalent to XP to raise skills...