Why don't new people play Traveller?

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by daryen:
<snip>
To give it a term, what I am referring to is "assumptions". These are things about the games technology, tools, style, and so forth that color and direct the game.

Foremost amoung this is jump drive. Quite frankly, if you take away jump drive (whether it is stupid or not is irrelevant), then you have something other than Traveller. Are there different FTL systems? Sure. But Traveller has jump drive.

To a lesser extent, this also applies to many other items that have been mentioned before. Open-topped "air rafts". Contragravity. Shotguns in space. Swords in space. Things like that. Once you have eliminated all of these "problems", you end up with a new scifi RPG. I don't know what it is, but it sure ain't Traveller.
<snip>

Which is why the mechanics of the game need to be divorced from the setting. A Technical Architecture that can produce a Design Sequence capable of generating the classic tech elements of the OTU on a componentized basis will let us keep the necessary jump drive (in the official Setting Products), revise such things as computers, etc., with new Design Sequences supporting them (and will allow "old" Design Sequences for those who wish to stick to the old ways), and everything we want wrapped up.

A new, science-revised OTU that retains the bare-minimum "old-tech" (like the jump drive) to retain the nature of the OTU. This leads to all the new Setting products we want, i.e., continuing publication and support of the game, with, at a minimum, a central core- Worldbook of the OTU (a modern slick-cover hardback that will be attractive to a large sector of gamers today; heck, I'm an old gamer, and I really like the presentation of the new books from other game systems . . . the cover of Exalted: The Abyssals is outstanding!).

All the tools necessary to build whatever new milieu are also present, because new Design Sequences can pop out of the Technical Architecture (that would be a bit involved, though . . . a lot of work, which would make such "additional" Design Sequences something that could sell in supplemental products).

 

[Gruffty]

I think the game mechanics should be separate from the setting/mileu too. (That's all you get for Cr 0.02)

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Robert Prior:
And while I can see that you are wedded to the D20 system <snip>

Here you'd be wrong. We are looking seriously at reintroducing a slightly revised version of CT as a lighter rules system to complement T20. We are already dual-stating many products, it would take much to make them all this way.

Something you might want to do is look at the MTU codes that were popular on the TML, as a short-hand way of describing someone's campaign setting. Might give you an idea which settings to develop first.

The MTU codes might be a bit obscure to translate for those not familiar with them, but I agree something along those lines would be needed to explain what concepts are used in a given setting.


Hunter

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Robert Prior:
To argue against abandoning the things I like about the setting.

Let me make this clear now, we will do other settings, but we will not 'reboot' the OTU. The OTU is the OTU. To make significant changes in the available technologies available would invalidate everything that came before. You cannot just drop in things like cybertech, nanotech, etc. with any real meaning without also completely changing the underlying assumptions about the OTU. It would be like dropping aliens into the Foundation universe. They don't belong there.

That doesn't mean that a new setting cannot be created that does use those assumptions, it just won't be the OTU.

Hunter

 

[Spinward Scout]

then they not merely actively discourage but insult, bray and berate those new players

Not sure what forum you've been looking at Bryan, but I've never seen this here. It's usually more like the grognards yelling at each other. This forum is very tame compared to most. I used to get into arguements all the time on the Wizards Star Wars discussion group.

We play it because we can't let our buddies down. They're on the Beowulf, somewhere, man. And they're in trouble...

signless, that is THE reason to play. That's why I'm running a Star Wars game for some old high school friends. Because that's what they want to play (not that I mind GMing the game).

Something I keep seeing reoccuring is people asking for a Worldbook. Something that separates the rules system from the setting. Yes, we almost need that at this point with so many different rules systems. Basically a Traveller Primer Encyclopaedia & History without any rules system information. Separated by different Eras sounds like it would work. Then people can decide on what rules they want to use. No UWPs, just plain text (i.e Zhodane is the capitol of the Zhodani Consulate and is...). The original Star Trek universe kinda ended up the way CT Traveller is now: enemies on every border and nowhere else to explore. Then they moved it up about 75 years (Star Trek Universe time) and started over with The Next Generation. Which is just what MT and TNE did, then T4 did just the opposite and went back 1000 years, GT went around MT and continued where CT left off, and now T20 is backing up about 100 years from CT if I've read things right. Yes, the OTU is TOO WELL DEFINED in that there is no where else to go that No One Has Gone Before, but only if you are talking about the CT timeline. Now, the problem with going BACK in the timeline is that players can't ever make any SIGNIFICANT changes in the timeline unless you want the timeline to be different. If you could care less what happens in the CT timeline and you are playing the T20 Gateway Campaigns, then you can knock your socks off. I think this is one of the things people get a little afraid of (hey, I can't do that because the future timeline of Traveller says that this happened that way and not this way). If you are thinking that way, then yes, the Traveller universe is VERY constraining. Me personally, I'm not a gearhead, so I could really care less whether the computers are huge or small enough to fit into my wristwatch - but I do want more cargo and fuel space on my starship. I think the Traveller universe is a neat place, and I think it should be preserved, but I also think there should be more provisions for other universes (one of the old Dragon magazines had a section on the Asimov Cluster I thought was a neat idea - a group of worlds that were based on the worlds in the Foundation series). When I look at the Traveller universe, I separate it into domains (even those outside the Imperium) and it makes things easier to swollow. Known Space is 128 sectors. If you separate that into 4 sector domains, that narrows it down to 32 domains and each one can have it's own "flavor" and short list of important worlds. Ignore the sector detail and definitely ignore the subsector detail. Ok, so there's 14 planets within range of our starship - which one is the IMPORTANT one? This is what I think is wrong with Traveller. It's TOO DETAILED. Yeah, I want to know that Zhodane is the capitol of the Zhodani Consulate, but I don't need to know much else about it other than it has breathable atmosphere and I might get taken into custody as a spy if I go there. Blur the universe a bit. Focus only on the IMPORTANT worlds of Known Space and the universe will look a lot smaller. And more FUN to play in.

I've always thought that the Traveller's Aid Society would have blurred the universe for people. Only Sociologists would need to know that the world is Pop A and TL B - all the characters need to know is that there are a lot of people there and you can buy "this" type of gun and "that" type of equipment. Unless your character is the scientist type, it's just too much information for the basic player character. The Traveller's Aid would have probably made their own classifications for worlds: Primitive, Pre-Stellar, Stellar, Interstellar, Galactic, Intergalactic, etc..., that way, the people get the information they NEED without wading through a bunch of technical jargon that a soldier or a doctor would never need to know. Ok, so the computers are big - what character REALLY needs to know how they work or are fixed?

The following is THE definition of Traveller:

Traveller postulates that mankind has conquered the stars, and that travel from one stellar system to another is commonplace. However, the tremendous distances involved dictate that interstellar voyages can take weeks, months, and sometimes even years. A situation similar to Earth in the eighteenth century is created, where communication is limited to the speed of travel, and the stage is set for adventure in a grand fashion, with all the trappings of classic science fiction: giant, star-spanning empires (good, evil, or both), huge starfleets, wily interstellar merchants (or pirates, depending upon your point of view), complex diplomatic maneuvers, larger-than-life heroes, heroines, and villains.

Which part would you like to change?

Just my .02Cr,

Scout

 

[flykiller]

as a professional musician , i know that you can't spend too much time chasing the market without sacrificing integrity and quality .

well ...

that might be true for a finished product like music. but an rpg is not a finished product. the game depends on players to make it work. the game will never be better than the players, but if the players are any good they'll make the game more than what it was when they bought it. appealing to a mass market may produce more hard-working players that just appealing to players who work hard.

 

[etherflyer]

Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Robert Prior:
And while I can see that you are wedded to the D20 system <snip>

Here you'd be wrong. We are looking seriously at reintroducing a slightly revised version of CT as a lighter rules system to complement T20. We are already dual-stating many products, it would take much to make them all this way. </font>[/QUOTE]Include a task system like MT had, and it would be ideal

 

[Spinward Scout]

People keep saying the Traveller universe is too big. Jump time is 160-some hours, plus or minus something-or-other. If you want to make the Traveller universe more easily accessible, make the Jump time 160-some MINUTES, plus or minus something-or-other. That makes travel time about 3 hours instead of 7 days. Cut Jump fuel consumption in half or a quarter. Or divide it by 60 if that's what you'd be doing to the Jump time, too. Tweek the system to make it yours - just don't expect everyone to tweek it along with you. Make it a house rule and write it down - then you can say "hey - this is how I do it. Would anyone else like to do it this way?" I think a lot of people are looking for Traveller variants - which is still the Traveller universe, just tweeked a bit.

Later,

Scout

 

[etherflyer]

Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Robert Prior:

Something you might want to do is look at the MTU codes that were popular on the TML, as a short-hand way of describing someone's campaign setting. Might give you an idea which settings to develop first.

The MTU codes might be a bit obscure to translate for those not familiar with them, but I agree something along those lines would be needed to explain what concepts are used in a given setting.


Hunter </font>[/QUOTE]I wasn't suggesting the codes themselves -- I find _any_ code too obscure now I play infrequently -- but the conceptual structure behind them. (Eg. big/small Imperium, weak/strong Imperium, etc...)

 

[etherflyer]

Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Robert Prior:
To argue against abandoning the things I like about the setting.

Let me make this clear now, we will do other settings, but we will not 'reboot' the OTU. The OTU is the OTU. To make significant changes in the available technologies available would invalidate everything that came before. You cannot just drop in things like cybertech, nanotech, etc. with any real meaning without also completely changing the underlying assumptions about the OTU. It would be like dropping aliens into the Foundation universe. They don't belong there.

That doesn't mean that a new setting cannot be created that does use those assumptions, it just won't be the OTU.

Hunter </font>[/QUOTE]That works for me.

 

[flykiller]

People keep saying the Traveller universe is too big.

that's like saying the local library is too big. it's not like you're supposed to read all of it. the actual playing area can be any size the referee decides.

 

[hunter]

Originally posted by Robert Prior:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hunter:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Robert Prior:
And while I can see that you are wedded to the D20 system <snip>

Here you'd be wrong. We are looking seriously at reintroducing a slightly revised version of CT as a lighter rules system to complement T20. We are already dual-stating many products, it would take much to make them all this way. </font>[/QUOTE]Include a task system like MT had, and it would be ideal </font>[/QUOTE]That and changes to the combat system to get rid of the table references. All in all it would be 100% compatible with the original CT.

Hunter

 

[bryan gibson]

from Damon Toth
............
Not sure what forum you've been looking at Bryan, but I've never seen this here. It's usually more like the grognards yelling at each other. This forum is very tame compared to most. I used to get into arguements all the time on the Wizards Star Wars discussion group.

..............

Oh, by all means, and you'll note I didn't point at any given forum, either. Frankly, CoTI is far and away the most civil of any forum...but ya know? its the grogs "yelling" at each other that puts other folks off...don't even get me started on the number of folks I could name that quit responding to these very boards because of what were seen as pointless arguments or discussions.

Coti is far and away the nicest of the forums, and I think we have a generally good crowd, but I doubt theres anyone can deny just how offputting the TML can be to beginners.

and this is just online, the comment was sparked by the responses of Mark Siefert and others I have met in the game stores. We are Old Guard, older players...you don't attract new ones by sneering at them as a GM at the Warroom did, or by bemoaning their vapid tastes like Mark did.

Now, not to bust on Mark because frankly I have to say I can see his points and I have been there too...but the fact is, Traveller isn't a cup of tea most folks just jump out at.

Look, where else does anyone discuss the physics of the game and provide references? While its all very well for some of us, I now a lot of high school kids that take one look and say NUH UH!

Now, does that make em dumb, stupid or lazy? nope...it means they were daunted by the game....its not at all nessecary for the gaming community to regard Trav as a game that requires a degree to play, although there are lots of players that seem to like that cachet.

A certain relaxing of the drill is nessecary...Trav is a hard sci fi game, and for most peoples that spells ~BORING~...so the thing is to get em in easy.

I find that dumping the 25 year plus mass o data isn't the way, I know a lot that shy away from Dand D the same way...( basically, they pick the edition they have, rather than try to keep up)and rather than present them with whether its CT, MT,TNE, T4, T20, GT, Tranhuman Space, (....anyone else confused yet?)I just try to give em a good game to start...hook em that way.

Really, OTU is daunting for old timers, or there wouldn't be so much discourse on it, and aside from Star Wars...boy, talk about canon, like it or not, THERES a rich universe- I can't think of any with more history attached.

And, yes, I agree the OTU has many flaws, and requires some drastic changing...not a reboot, I agree with Hunter on that one, but what I think it needs badly is a more dynamic approach. Gateway was a start, and I think the new TNE stuff will help too. 25 years of the Marches I think is plenty, lets see some new ground being explored.

Now, I am not full of snappy answers, here, and won't pretend to be, these are observations and my notions...any ideas out there?

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by hunter:
<snip>
That and changes to the combat system to get rid of the table references. All in all it would be 100% compatible with the original CT.

Hunter

So when can I buy it

 

[etherflyer]

Originally posted by bryan gibson:
Look, where else does anyone discuss the physics of the game and provide references? While its all very well for some of us, I now a lot of high school kids that take one look and say NUH UH!

On the other hand, my high school kids use Traveller to learn science. Grade 10 weather dynamics and ecology; grade 11 & 12 Newtonian mechanics; and new this year the grade 12 earth and space science course.

 

[Elliot]

I dont get this - in my neck of the woods (i.e. the biggest city in Europe and one of the biggest in the world) Quick Link Traveller products sell out within two weeks of hitting the shops, Power Projection is a rare treat in terms of being able to purchase it and GURPS products go within a few months of hitting the shelves for the fourth time (I am referring to Covent Garden's excellent Orc's Nest as my standard of shopping)

Here is a quote I overheard from the employees at Orc's Nest (advert) whilst going through their re-order list = 'The trouble is we order T20, we get a couple of copies in and it sells out and they (i.e. QL) can't provide another copy for a month or two'. That is not a dying game, chaps. It is one of the few games in Orc's Nest where people are of the character to have a conversation about.

Traveller is not D&D - it never has been, it always has been a lesser game in terms of sales. But a better game in terms of players and that includes now.

Traveller has a mega loyal fan base and that means new players are buying stuff to play with old gamers- and none of the 9 pages of these posts are convincing me otherwise as they are old grognard discussions which repeat the 'Traveller is a broken game, la, la, la'.

The two things that has always let Traveller down is a lack of glossy DnD style 'modules' in hard copy and a 'alternative' equipment book that allows silly weapons like blasters and light sabers. Add that and Trav becomes the generic SCi Fi game

Hunter, old boy, I would also like a 3rd Imperium sourcebook as a matter of priority, please. Pretty please.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

I'd like to add something here that hasn't been addressed. It seemed to me that a major coup happened for gaming in general when you could walk into a major book store chain like B Dalton's or Waldenbooks and pick up a D&D book, a second one happened when you could go into the local Toys-R-Us and buy a copy of WEGs Star Wars Introductory Adventure Game. Maybe selling at locations that are more accessible to the general populkace would bring in more new people (at least it seems that it would to me - I cannot say that I have any expert knowledge of the marketing involved in this).

What Traveller needs to gain more new players is a basic system (like T20 Lite or GURPS Lite or the Star Wars Introductory Adventure Game) that is inexpensive to purchase, provides a brief overview of what an RPG is, lightly covers the background of the OTU (as an option or an example of what can be done), and is "newbie-friendly" in its manufacture (lots of examples and reduced number-crunching). Having it sold in large chain stores like Borders, B Daltons, Books-A-Million, and toy store chains like Toys-R-Us or K B Toys would also help a great deal (a real demonstration of popularity would be if you could purchase a version of Traveller from a Wal-Mart or a Target IMHO). I would highly recommend that the Star Wars Introductory Adventure Game be used as a model for what this version of Traveller would look like, it does the job of teaching a new gamer what an RPG is very well (also IMHO).

Another thing that I could suggest would be to include mention that the OTU is not set in stone, that it is fluid at its edges. There are plenty of empty hexes on the canon maps to place interesting objects in deep space. If the idea of Provinces is used (I stated it in the IMTU section if my memory serves me) then each new referee could have their own subsector to play with and customize for their game without breaking canon, but giving the group a way to move into the canon areas.

Lastly, to try and present a more unified front to Traveller - see if conversion rules for all ofd the incarnations of Traveller can be compiled and presented as a free PDF. I am not sure what liscensing requirements this would entail, but it sure would go a long way to showing that Traveller is still just a single game supported by many different systems.

So far everything else that I could think of has been covered in the discussion.

Oh, and Thank You for presenting one of the most interesting threads that I have read. Kudos!

 

[flykiller]

Now, does that make em dumb, stupid or lazy? nope...it means they were daunted by the game....

how 'bout a traveller starter kit? remember d&d's keep on the borderlands? a basic adventure or two, with several subsequent related adventures leading off from it.

 

[siefertma2]

Wow... who would have thought that one frustrated rant could bring all this about?

In retrospect, I'm beginning to see the reasons why Traveller has problems drawing new players.

I'm not one of the old guard who got into Traveller back in "The Day." The very first game Traveller related game I ever played was T20. From there, I started looking into the earlier versions of the game. Indeed, for the longest time, I bought into the argument (from my friends) that Traveller was overly complicated and "bland." From the little I saw at the time, a couple old copies of the LBBs, I saw their point.

Let's face it, CT, MT, TNE, and T5 were not exactly "user friendly" in their presentation. In just about every instance, the rules had a tendency to read like stereo instructions, generally lack examples, based on 1977 technology assumptions, and tends to be dependent on minutiae that most gamers would prefer to avoid. (i.e. Do I HAVE to calculate the interest rate on the mortgage on my starship?) . While the gearheads and the world builders may love to calculate the cubic volume of their grav tank's fusion engine or the diameter of a star system's "life zone," it doesn't appeal to the average role-player who is looking for an adventure.

Then I noticed T20 and GT, by far the most approachable formats. While artwork and nice layout don't make a game, they at least drew me into to give Traveller a second look. When I compared CT to GT and T20, I found the latter version didn't bog down players with piles of forms and mathematics. That, and the creation systems allowed players to play something other than the stereotypical "grizzled old merchant" that CT tends to favor

Now, as it has been pointed out, there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to CT: We could try to take a lot of the "randomness" out of character generation and give players more class options, update some of the tech (We can make plausible excuses why biotech and nanotech don't exist like social pressure or that it was found to be unworkable, but IBM-style mainframe computers running starships and society? COME ON!), and perform a little copy editing to make the rules read less like a calculus textbook. Thrown in quality artwork and layout, and you would have something.

The only thing that you would have to get past is the "blandness" argument.

 

[Michael Taylor]

Quote: "how 'bout a traveller starter kit? remember d&d's keep on the borderlands? a basic adventure or two, with several subsequent related adventures leading off from it."

Any epic could be used as a starter adventure (although epic 1 would be the best).

The "intro to T20 ruleset" would be T20 Lite, although the best is the hardback T20 rulebook of course.

After reading this mammoth thread I reckon it's pointless trying to say to the publishers of traveller (FFE, QLI and GURPS) that canon needs to be changed. As Hunter says, it aint gonna happen.
So, we are stuck with Canon, which is no big deal, because people who want a (much) smaller-empire TU will get it with 1248.
People who want different tech, non-vanilla bad-guys and lots of AI will get it with 1248.
People who want to rebuild civilisations will get it with 1248.
MJD and QLI are making up Canon as they write 1248, so there is already presented in fornt of us, the opportunity to change the TU as it is evolving, and no doubt the adventures that will be written for 1248 will add to the flavour of that era of the OTU - completely different flavour to the CT, M:0 or MT eras.
My old gaming group from the 1980s (you know who you are, you rascalls) is now scattered far and wide around NZ, so I can't get them together and grill them on what they would want to see in any new campaign, but I can sure see that virtually all would want to use T20 (new and suits D and D gamers) and choose the pre-manufactured setting (Gateway or 1248). This is better than the old CT era, where there was only two choices: the OTU or make a variant OTU or your own setting, with all the vast work that either option entailed. I chose to use the OTU.
I reckon that if a third imperium history was to be written there would have to be useful threads for a referee to pull adventure ideas off, as well as a "primer" for people simply too bewildered to start looking at traveller as a serious gaming option. And make it like GtD in terms of artwork (esp the cover) so it could compete with some of the glorious artwork done for fantasy RPG front covers.
In the meantime, QLI will be continuing to work on alternate settings for people who dont like the OTU (ie: Gateway and 1248 settings in this context) namely: HH, LOA and 2320AD.