Why don't new people play Traveller?

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Isnt that a general RPG problem ?
Or is it just a personal problem ?
A friend ran a Delta Green session a couple of weeks ago. With just a story and a bit of background and nearly no preparation.
I asked mayself, why isnt that possible in Traveller, too ? I always fall into a "need more maps, stats, etc" mode, which extents preparation into "the far future". (Hmmm, perhaps thats why Traveller has the subtitle "Adventures in the far future")
There are lots of predefined characters and stories. There are tons of maps.
So, whats missing ?

Delta Green is just one huge setting book. Everything is written in meticulous detail, and presented in such a way that makes you say "goddamn that's so cool!". I mean, the memos and stuff they have in it are printed to look like classified government documents (which was kinda worrying, given that I was reading the book on the plane as I was flying to Canada )

Traveller, on the other hand, has no such "coolness". The GURPS books are well written but are very dry. Also, The insistence on sticking to the "Library Data" format makes people think that it's about as fun as reading an encyclopaedia. Plus it just throws disconnected facts at you in alphabetical order, not a coherent setting that you can actually do something with.

I'd say that the Gateway Domain book is definitely a more interesting read compared to older books, though even then most of the book is a load of maps and a list of worlds - again, somewhat "encyclopaedic' in feel.

 

[Evo Plurion]

Paraquat hit the nail on the head. It's ridiculous to accuse Traveller or any particular RPG of hindering easy creation of a campaign settings.

Use your BRAINS, people! Our creative muscles have softened to the point where we want everything spoon-fed. It's become too taxing to conceive anything on our own.

Ideally, RPG systems should lay out a few core mechanics for character generation and task resolution, while leaving the world-building to the ref and the players. I've seen countless posts here and elsewhere in which players worry about how certain rules affect gameplay or hinder their ability to enjoy role-playing. Hunter's signature says:

The ONLY rules to T20. Everything else is a suggestion...
…1) The Referee is right.
…2) If the book says one thing and the referee says another, see rule #1...
…3) Argue about it AFTER the game
It's your game folks, play it however YOU want to play it.

If there's something about the OTU or the rules you don't like, dump it! Make up your own stuff. Marc Miller, GDW and QLI have no jurisdiction over how you run your RPG.

 

[flykiller]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There is is, my asseration that the OTU needs a core-Worldbook.

(considering just the spinward marches) you mean a four hundred and forty worlds-book? </font>[/QUOTE]A core-Worldbook would not deal with the individual worlds. World = Overall Milieu, not individual planets.

It would contain the complete history of the OTU, from all the races. It would fill in the all gaps in the known histories (the big gaps, not the little itty bitty ones).

It would provide people with the "feel" and "mindset" of the OTU.

It would have the campaign and GM advice for the setting that is found in so many other places.</font>[/QUOTE]you mean like the "GURPS traveller" 2nd edition book by wiseman?

 

[Malenfant]

I think it's a valid point actually. Very few Traveller books have actually provided any advice on how to run games. Saying "use your imaginations" is all very well, but games don't do that anymore. Plus it's missing a huge point: people just don't have the time to make a setting from scratch, and they WANT the advice. And there's nothing wrong with adding a creative kickstart to a book - interesting hooks actually make people want to play the game more.

The only time I don't want a background is when the game is actually supposed to be generic (like GURPS Space or Star HERO) - then I know I'm getting it to make my own. Otherwise, I want something that throws loads of ideas at me and makes me want to pluck some out of the air as they fly past and use them. And I think a lot of gamers think that way too.

One thing that Traveller seems to lack is "mystery". Everything seems too well explained - there seems to be little that's unknown. Until (guess what) QLI came along, we'd mapped everything and everyone knew what everything was. Now along comes the Deadspace phenomenon - and all of a sudden my interest is piqued in the setting. What is it? What's causing it? Where are the ships going? Can I write an adventure based around it? Mystery makes a very good "hook", and it lures people in and gets them excited about the game.

Traveller basically needs a lot more hooks, I think. And it needs hooks that are relevant to what people are interested in today.

 

[flykiller]

Ideally, RPG systems should lay out a few core mechanics for character generation and task resolution, while leaving the world-building to the ref and the players.

concur. but in traveller that is an overwhelming amount of work.

Saying "use your imaginations" is all very well, but games don't do that anymore.

in that case the "game" morphs to literature. and more than one person has said they use traveller material as literature.

Traveller basically needs a lot more hooks, I think.

what would hook you?

 

[jcrocker]

I got into Traveller with MegaTraveller - I was kinda taken aback by how epic-scale the game universe was. Eleven thousand worlds? Talk about learning curve!

Great background, lots of depth, but it took a while to get the hang of.

A Worldbook would be a great idea - maybe short start-up adventures from several points of view:
-one on Capital for those who want to play a political game;
-somewhere out on the fringe for some Scouts to roll up system survey results;
-a bunch of mercenaries about to earn their pay;

snapshots, really - they don't have to be too long, but just some examples to show the way and make it easier for people to dive into the game. What the Subject on the Street knows about things. Something where you could roll up your characters, and start - not have to design a spreadsheet to track how many widgets you have to move to turn a profit [not at first!]

 

[etherflyer]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Y'know... I think actually the OTU is exactly the problem. I really don't think that making it smaller or fiddling around with ship sizes would make any of the issues go away.

I think you're wrong. The problem is that different people want different things. Some people want huge ships, others want only small ones. Some people want a huge area, others a small one. Some people want grim and gritty, others epic and heroic. Some people want hard science, others space opera.

You can't be all things to all people with a single setting.

 

[etherflyer]

Originally posted by Michael Taylor:
Quotes: Heavy Gear: Mecha pilot from a frontier world on the front line of a rebellion against the invading tyrannical earth forces?"
Check. Or a Liberati infiltrator into the largest human city, crawling with occupying earth forces? Check.
Blue Planet: GEO Marshalls enforcing the law on a hostile alien world? Check. Natives railing against the influx of new colonists who are slowly destroying your way of life? Check. Researchers trying to discover new alien lifeforms (and survive encountering them)? Check. "

In one way or another all of the above can be fitted into the OTU. Perhaps what is needed is a bit more definition of conflict points in the OTU.

Two points:

1) Conflict =/= combat.

2) The other games are more focused. Blue Planet limits you to a single world/TL. Likewise the others: there are immediate assumptions about what you will be doing. Traveller has traditionally been more open (probably a legacy of the initial generic idea).

Part of the problem may be that, out of the box, Traveller is a setting without a focus on what you do, what goals to have. Adventures like the EPICS don't help much, as they still leave a lot of work for the GM.

 

[etherflyer]

Originally posted by Michael Taylor:
Quotes: Heavy Gear: Mecha pilot from a frontier world on the front line of a rebellion against the invading tyrannical earth forces?"
Check. Or a Liberati infiltrator into the largest human city, crawling with occupying earth forces? Check.
Blue Planet: GEO Marshalls enforcing the law on a hostile alien world? Check. Natives railing against the influx of new colonists who are slowly destroying your way of life? Check. Researchers trying to discover new alien lifeforms (and survive encountering them)? Check. "

In one way or another all of the above can be fitted into the OTU. Perhaps what is needed is a bit more definition of conflict points in the OTU.

Two points:

1) Conflict =/= combat.

2) The other games are more focused. Blue Planet limits you to a single world/TL. Likewise the others: there are immediate assumptions about what you will be doing. Traveller has traditionally been more open (probably a legacy of the initial generic idea).

Part of the problem may be that, out of the box, Traveller is a setting without a focus on what you do, what goals to have. Adventures like the EPICS don't help much, as they still leave a lot of work for the GM.

 

[etherflyer]

Originally posted by signless:
No. Adventure in space. I seem to recall an old OMNI magazine article that featured some biologists who "designed" a fire-breathing "dragon"...and then talked about why that creature would never exist...ON EARTH.
I'm talking about paying as much homage to exobiology as has been paid to physics and economics in the game.

Being done, but it's a harder task than simple newtonian physics. Biology is hard, unlike physics.

Check out Paul Drye's work on JTAS..

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Saying "use your imaginations" is all very well, but games don't do that anymore.

in that case the "game" morphs to literature. and more than one person has said they use traveller material as literature.
</font>[/QUOTE]I think you missed my point completely. Games still require you to use your imagination - but they don't expect you to do all the work. Traveller just says "here's this huge universe... do stuff in it!". Whereas most other games would say "here's this huge universe, which has X that nobody understands, Y lurking in the background waiting to strike, and Z about to explode... do stuff with it!".

Traveller basically needs a lot more hooks, I think.

what would hook you? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Something interesting

. Alien mystery, dark plots, wars just about to happen, worldshaking events, being able to make a big difference... campaigns that are specifically focussed on the NON-RETIRED variety of character. Something to actually make the Traveller universe sound dynamic and exciting!

Not doing odd jobs for random patrons. Not trading. Not being a merc looking for your next ticket. Not directing all your efforts to struggling to get your next paycheck. I understand what people mean when they say that Traveller is "bland" or "mundane".

Stuff like that.

 

[aramis]

I think the big problem is multifold:

1) Canon is too big. A new edition needs to literally IGNORE ALL PRIOR EDITIONS as an official statement, and essentially, reset the canon clock. (WWGhas done this several times. It's not so much a "thr prior stuff is wrong", but a "For all official purposes, the X edition is the sole determinant of what is right")

2) Traveller lacks good advice for the new Ref. Always has. With gaming growing, new refs need to have guides. Bk0 was useful, ut not quie far enough.

3) Traveller needs a clear setting book that portrays the setting in articles and vignettes, rather than just encyclopaedia entries.

4) Traveller needs a tech overhaul, as part of the new setting.

None of these are terrifically popular with licensees, tho... because they make the older settings less comercially viable.

I have no problem makiing neew traveller players. New refs, however,, are a problem, wich DTRPG and MWM may just have solved this summer. (MT being available now).

Just look at 2300: the traveller line that wasn't OTU!

Personally, I think a new OTU should be about 4 domains in size. It shoudl have a nearly full domain central empire, with a clear core and frontier. There should be an enemy empire or two, of similar size. THere should be several smaller client states, and a crossable rift along one edge... what lies across the rift? nothing majorly organized. At least one "High-tech non-intercourse" polity of a few worlds should exist (Can you say "Vorlon"? I knew you could!) surrounded by a number of worlds that it protects, but otherwise fails to rule.

I love the OTU. Hans loves the OTU. Hans and I see very different things in the OTU, since we're both extrapolating from inherently contradictory sources, and put different emphasis on what has how much value, and then proceed to build up mental constructs whcih become seriously clashing. (Just look at the 2 page debate going on.)

Which brings up the worst part of the OTU: The fanboys. Me, Dave Golden (Say, how is Dave?), Hans Ranke, Malenfant, Blue, Chris and many others. We love our settings. Each of us sees a different OTU, and we tend to preach it at each other as if it were religion. (I am including myself here. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.) We search our favorite translation of the "Scriptures of Traveller", and try to convince each other, and unfortunately, the newbies, of the "heresey" of their views.

The newbies, however, often can't get, and even if they can, can not afford, a canon library of the type that us fanboys have.

 

[Malenfant]

Which brings up the worst part of the OTU: The fanboys. Me, Dave Golden (Say, how is Dave?), Hans Ranke, Malenfant, Blue, Chris and many others. We love our settings. Each of us sees a different OTU, and we tend to preach it at each other as if it were religion.

Er, what the heck am I doing on that list?! I'm probably one of the most ardent proponents of tearing it all down and throwing canon out of the window!!! I have absolutely no loyalty to the OTU whatsoever!

 

[daryen]

This is coming from an (assuming I have the definition right) old grognard who still remembers his initial (steep) learning curve with Traveller.

Whoever keeps hammering the setting book issue is completely correct. Traveller has always understood a "setting" to involve specific listings of UWPs for a specific area, possibly accompanied by an alphabetical listing of discrete ideas, terms, and concepts. This, I think, is unfortunate.

One thing I think would be really cool is if someone (i.e. QLI) would take Don McKinney's Traveller Integrated Timeline and turn that into a "History of the Imperium" sourcebook.

The only maps allowed are "Map of the Imperium" level maps. No UWPs, no dot maps. Just big maps showing the borders of the various interstellar governments. (And don't skip the little guys. E.g. why are the Darrians, Sword Worlds, and Floriani never included on those big maps, but bunches of other, much less relevant, ones are? Don't be arbitrary.)

Tell the story in prose. Don't use the library data format. Feel free to include a glossary and/or index, but don't make that the primary means of presenting the information.

Tell the *whole* story. If you want to mention "current day" mysteries, great. But old "mysteries" that have explained need to be explained (e.g. the Ancients). I don't care if it will "spoil" some ancient adventure or whatever; if the item is 20 years old, there aren't any spoilers anymore.

Without a book like that, it will remain next to impossible to introduce new players to the OTU without having them completely overwhelmed and lost.

 

[Malenfant]

There are some very interesting points being made by flyingmice and Bruce Baugh on page 11 of the rpgnet thread... (plus I'm amazed it's got to page 11...!)

Personally I think flyingmice has nailed the problems bang on.

 

[flykiller]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Traveller basically needs a lot more hooks, I think.

what would hook you?</font>[/QUOTE]Something interesting

. Alien mystery, dark plots, wars just about to happen, worldshaking events, being able to make a big difference... campaigns that are specifically focussed on the NON-RETIRED variety of character. Something to actually make the Traveller universe sound dynamic and exciting!</font>[/QUOTE]lots of buzzwords there. can I get you to be more specific? describe an adventure you would like to run in.

 

[PBI]

Anyone ever looked at TSR's Alternity game? It was more or less their GURPS attempt, but they did it quite well and I think Traveller could learn from TSR. TSR brought the good things about D&D (concrete advice on how to create adventures and campaigns, on how to run them, and discussions on why things were the way they were in the rules) but did not build any sort of official setting into the core rules (they did plug their Stardrive campaign setting by using it to illustrate some examples of how rules work). They also released a campaign setting (Stardrive) which was fully developed, contained in a single book (and was not as large as the OTU), but was divorced from the core rules; nothing prevented players or GMs from designing their own setting, either at a higher tech or lower.

If Trav really wants to return from the ashes, break the OTU up into smaller chunks and release it as such, in the same way that other RPGs did/do. That way, you give new players a starting point, but don't lock them into having to digest several volumes of setting before they can play (if they want to go with the OTU, which most new players/GM will, since they don't know the system, being new), and it provides a built-in potential revenue stream as the other bits of the OTU come out.

I still play (and love) D&D, but I haven't played in an official campaign setting in over a decade (perhaps longer), because I'm now fully comfortable with (and prefer) creating my own settings and campaigns. That means I don't buy new settings, but I do take long, hard looks at non-setting specific expansions and additions (equipment, new RP streams, etc).

Traveller is to RPGs what Tolkien is to fantasy today; great material, honoured for being a pioneer, but smiled at as being a bit too quaint or even cliche. As much as I've tried, I simply can't read Tolkien, for example, because as I'm reading LOTR, all I can think of is "this has been done a hundred times before and it's so transparent".

Time to really drag Traveller into a New Era, but without destroying what drew fans to it in the first place.

 

[daryen]

I think rebooting the OTU is a great idea. I completely agree the OTU is way too big. However, I think that what Aramis proposed is still too big. The area focused on needs to be no bigger than a single "domain" (i.e. four sectors).

Andake sure that one of the four sides of the domain is open to "frontier" where there are absolutely no big boys. As has been mentioned millions of times before, what use is a "scout" service that has nothing to scout?

 

[hirch duckfinder]

the trouble with travellwer is it is GOOD . it requires thought and maturity .
that's why it can't attract quick - fix youngsters. which , in my book , is a good thing.

they'll grow into it.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by hirch duckfinder:
the trouble with travellwer is it is GOOD . it requires thought and maturity .
that's why it can't attract quick - fix youngsters. which , in my book , is a good thing.

they'll grow into it.

Sorry, but that's 100% elitist nonsense. Traveller fans are not somehow "better" or "more mature" than any other gamer (older != more mature. And just look at how some of the arguments that have plagued this game have ended up. For one thing, mature people don't fling death threats at game designers for destroying the published universe...)

Then again, this may be part of the problem. If everyone else sees people with this sort of attitude in the Traveller community it's small wonder they don't want to be a part of it.