Why Were There Not Multiple Settings for Classic Traveller?

[creativehum]

Over in this thread, the conversation moved away from the core topic, and onto other matters I'm curious abut.

First, Whipsnade, made this really really smart (and in my view) utterly accurate post:

Traveller canon accreted. As Mike correctly points out, there was no plan beyond the need for the next adventure.

Making things worse, there was no Greyhawk or Blackmoor either. No long running and very personal sci-fi campaign settings lovingly crafted by the men who'd become GDW using early versions of the rules set that would become Traveller.

OTU canon was assembled much like how California was geologically assembled. Dozens of times over hundreds of millions, island chains rammed ashore on the North American Plate leaving behind a complex and diverse geological potpourri west of the Rockies where juxtaposed "suspect terranes" are not just different but whose geologic evolution is also incompatible.

So we have the nebulous "idea" of Traveller repeatedly colliding with different versions, authors, publishers, and so forth accreting canon with every collision.

CT1e comes ashore in 1977, is subducted by the 1981 version, and leaves fragments behind only to be quickly followed by the early adventures, and two versions of High Guard among dozens of others things. Publishing "tectonics" brings MT ashore soon after followed by smaller collisions involving MT-ish terranes all leaving their own fragments behind. The process keeps repeating with every new version, every addition to canon, every supplement, and every 3rd party publication up through the explosion of OGL products we're seeing today.

In the end, we're left with a collection of fragments which can never be reconciled with each other.

But I want to move slightly sideways, away from concerns about reconciling the setting details of the OTU, and address something mentioned in passing. Specifically, the references to Greyhawk and Blackmoor. Because the fact is, over its history, GDW created MANY settings for it's D&D line.

With that in mind:

flykiller wrote:

the first three books specified navies and armies and scout services and nobility, which suggests an awful lot about the implied setting. it also specified high passage, which all by itself suggests entire volumes about the implied setting. it also listed forgery and bribery as skills, which suggests entire volumes more about the implied setting.

starting with those three books, the otu seems like the sparsest and most minimal setting possible.

I disagree with this completely, for lots of reasons. But the most important (which I discuss in this post) that the original Traveller books (LBBs 1-3) had almost no science-fiction in them, with the clear and stated purpose (in the text and on the back cover of the box) that the Referee would be adding whatever fantastical and weird SF elements he wanted to his setting, based on books, movies, or his own imagination. The game had a default "conservative" SF feel (with Jump Drive and Communication at the Speed of Travel being the only real conceits that the game establishes as mattering to the setting).

As Whipsnade replied ot flykiller:

Not an implied setting, but instead an implied range of settings. While the First Three LLBs aren't going to give your Star Trek or Star Wars without wholesale and fundamental changes, they will still give you far more than the OTU however.

But this range is SO MUCH LARGER in terms of weirdness and SF premise, and pulp-SF premise, and if one wants to go there, HARD SF premise...

I mean, even Whipsnade's reply is somewhat mired in the accretion of the Third Imperium in our own imaginations. That is, given the Jump Drive and and Communication at the Speed of Travel conceits, no, one will not have Star Wars or Star Trek as given.

But both of those universes do have large navies, armed forces, scouts... (in some of the early source material, Luke wanted to go to the Imperial Academy), Forgery, Bribery (smuggling exists in the Star Wars universe, of course). When the Enterprise Crew goes to a world modeled on Nazi Germany or a world modeled on Chicago Mobsters, they encounter people armed with the same archaic weapons that many readers of original Traveller first complained about.

So, while one cannot, because of the two core SF conceits of the game, recreate the settings precisely, one could easily use the rules of Books 1-3 to build one's own setting that leans toward those two other properties. Someone could have gone to the imperial academy and then joined a Rebellion against the Empire. Light Sabers are just weapons with damage dice, and Force rules could be grown out of a modified Psionics System. A Referee could build a benevolent Federation-like government and have the PCs travel in a exploration ship to new worlds, and so on...

But those are just examples of the larger point:

The number of kinds of settings, with the dials of fantastical to SF premises turned in any direction, are nearly infinite in terms of what one builds for a setting using the original Traveller rules. (As flykiller points out, there is some sort of interstellar organization with a navy, army, and so on. As I point out, yes... and that imperial government might be countless light years away from where the PCs are adventuring, or the governments might be much smaller than the OTU Imperium, and still have such forces. There are million ways to interpret those implied setting assumptions.)

And then Whipsnade noted:

Setting materials sell. Adventures sell. Campaigns sell. Even Build-A-Whoosit books sell. Rule systems not so much.

GDW was wise enough to know they were in business to sell things, so they made things which sold.

And so , this:

How come only one setting for Classic Traveller? (The later editions of Traveller all assumed and leaned on the existence of the OTU, despite the text of MT saying it could be used for any setting the Referee wished).

If TSR could grow out many different settings using its own, core flexible rules, wouldn't it make sense to offer other possibilities for the Traveller system as well?

The original Traveller (1977) rules suggested that one or two subsectors would be enough for years of play. (A notion I think it still accurate).

A subsector that was full of Dumarest-like worlds with a couple of core SF mysteries based on biology or the ecosystem could stand as a terrific setting for the Traveller rules.

A subsector full of political, hot-house intrigue (without a huge Imperium breathing down everyone's neck, keeping the peace) could be a terrific setting for the Traveller rules.

A more pulpy subsector with the feel of John Carter or Howard Chaykin's Ironwolf comic book would be a terrific setting for the Traveller rules.

All these things are possible once one assumes that the original Traveller rules were there for the Referee to build from and onto, not the limit of what the setting was supposed to be about. (Which, again, is explicit in the text and the box cover.)

I know many, many people built their own settings with the Traveller rules (especially in the first two years of the game, when there was no setting and one had to).

But I'm curious why the OTU, compelling as it is, was the only setting GDW built? And I'm curious if anyone ever proposed other setting that would be very different in tone and feel from the OTU?

As others note over on that other thread, the conflation of the Traveller rules and the Traveller setting became more and more pronounced over time. But there's no reason for this conflation to have prevented someone from developing a very different feel for a completely different setting. Not a distant subsector still sitting in the OTU's universe, but something completely different.

I'm curious about this. Just a thought that's been wriggling around in my head. And now seems to be as good a time as any to ask about it.

Thoughts?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

As far as I know D&D was and is far larger (in sales) than Traveller, so supports a much larger publishing volume.


I thought there were multiple settings: Spinward Marches, Solomani Rim, Trojan Reaches, etc. The Imperium and its timeline is more of a meta-setting?

The Imperium game was included into the Traveller timeline. The game Invasion: Earth was explicitly set in the Imperium's past. The idea of a campaign in some other time was pretty obvious.

 

[Vargas]

I believe the answer is because it's difficult enough coming up with and supporting one setting coupled with the fact that there was an expectation that many people would come up with their own. I remember a time when "I don't use the Third Imperium" was a standard disclaimer.

 

[whartung]

There are a lot of settings for Traveller.

You can consider any of the independent polities a different setting -- Solomani vs Aslan vs Zhodani.

All of those settings are as unique as any of the classic D&D settings.

Despite the similar "D&D can be used for anything" trope, it didn't have any more real diversity than Traveller does. Where's the "Wild West" with D&D rules? Where's the 1950's Milwaukee Noir Urban Fantasy campaign with D&D rules? With D20, much of those splinters rose up. With GURPs those kinds of things rose up. Settings without mechanics. But pre-D20? With D&D? No.

Everything was settings AND mechanics. Nobody bought Shadowrun for it's Dice Pools, and D&D was high fantasy.

Within D&D, the different campaigns had different geography and politics, but beneath it all it was "D&D and fighters and clerics and mages" swinging the same swords and casting the same spells. High fantasy, same magic, different targets.

Similarly the Aslan and Solomani are different geography and different politics, but they still have similar tech.

In the larger META game of empires clashing, sure, there's interface. But clearly someone living within the Aslan society and Solomani society would have a much different experience than one living within the Imperium. And there's plenty of room to "adventure" in any of those areas with barely a notice of the Imperium. As Proto Traveller proponents like to say, "you only need a couple sub sectors" to have "endless adventure". Solomani and Aslan have lots of room, much of it isolated from the meddling Imperium-ists.

Finally, of course, there's TNE. If you want a large example of a developed, different setting in Traveller, there's TNE. The setting people love to hate -- you know, because it's different. It is completely different. TNE didn't need TNE mechanics to stand apart, it's simply a different universe. As many have complained, the distance from the shattered imperium was too short -- 70 years. Make it 150, destroying most generational memory, (which is readily doable), and, yup, completely new universe outside of the Regency.

You can also argue that 2300 is a different setting. Outside of Stutterwarp, 2300 didn't need it's own mechanics to be 2300. 2300 was about the goings on within each of the national arms of space and the invading aliens. 2300 was apparently not popular enough to mandate it's own D20 or GURPs translation, but it would have worked with any of those as well.

 

[robject]

many people would come up with their own. I remember a time when "I don't use the Third Imperium" was a standard disclaimer.

This. When someone like myself bought the first three Little Black Books, they immediately started creating.

They rolled up some characters. It's quick and easy to do, and yet the results have enough depth to suggest storylines for your universe.

They rolled up a subsector. Once again, the imagination makes connections and the history forms.

Maybe they built some starships... but just as likely, they used the ones that were there. (THERE's a point to ponder: what if the LBBs didn't provide ANY example starships? Answer: we would have created our own -- and Book 2 ship design is easy, so we'd have been happy doing it. Consider that this in a way could be seen as a limitation of the LBBs.)


Dumarest as a Setting

This may be the easiest setting of them all: an undifferentiated galaxy of autonomous worlds, and two known star-spanning organizations, one benign, the other malign, but both dangerous in different ways. Nobility is only local to worlds. Interstellar lawlessness means that space is relatively unsafe.

 

[aramis]

I believe the answer is because it's difficult enough coming up with and supporting one setting coupled with the fact that there was an expectation that many people would come up with their own. I remember a time when "I don't use the Third Imperium" was a standard disclaimer.

There's also the issue that the 3I was itself the draw for many. By 1982, the 3I was in full swing. Not much more accretion to the setting tropes, so much as simply providing more stuff to work in.

Star Frontiers (1981) had easier rules to use, but didn't have the construction kit modality. It's setting was baked in, and more corporatist, and less serious. It wasn't much harder to do variant settings with, but didn't actually support doing so nearly as well - the tools were absent. Setting was in 3 products, the rest were adventures that didn't really build the setting that much.

Starships & Spacemen (1978) had a construction kit modality, and a Trek knock-off setting framework, but no additional support, no official setting materials, and thus a mandated minimum framework setup time. And didn't do nearly as much help in building that setting as CT. So, essentially, it died for lack of support.

Ringworld (1984) had a defined setting, no setting building tools, and was very very mechanically integrated to the setting. Plus, Chaosium didn't have the store presence of GDW.

FASA spun off from doing Traveller supplements in 1983 into doing a couple other settings... Star Trek, Dr. Who, Battletech. They learned very early that good settings sell product... but that scaffolding for expansion is also a good thing.

Traveller had the support of a bunch of setting material, useful in-universe voice point materials and objective materials. And was getting awards for them.

For many of us, the semi-mature 3I of 1982-1987 was what we were introduced to, what we played, what sucked us in and kept us coming back. We had official places to play and the tools to make unofficial places to play, 30+ books of additional materials from a dozen companies, and lots of depth to explore. TTB and ST also incorporated more of the prose setting than the LBBs, and so were a different start point altogether.

that 6 years of product line growth changed the meaning of Traveller.

 

[flykiller]

that 6 years of product line growth changed the meaning of Traveller.

it didn't change the meaning of traveller. it clarified it.

 

[aramis]

it didn't change the meaning of traveller. it clarified it.

No, it Changed it. No game's core value is unchanged by supplementation.

 

[flykiller]

it didn't change the meaning of traveller. it clarified it.

No, it Changed it.

ok. changed it from "unclarified" to "clarified".

 

[Leitz]

An issue is that our shared "fantasy" mental models are somewhat similar, depending on the culture you reference. While Chinese or Japanese mythology differs from Greek or Norse, within that culture we have a shared "normal". With the Lord of the Rings that firmed up for a lot of us. Worlds like Greyhawk and Blackmoor were settings, but not too different.

With Science Fiction there's much less of a shared mental model. Star Trek and Star Wars are both awesome but provide vastly different feels. Add in the dozens of good sci-fi authors and you have that many more divergent models. The upshot of LBB 1-3 is that you could pretty much use your own model and write up what you wanted.

With that in mind you have people like atpollard here who create sandboxes and we play in them. I'm doing a little fiction writing in that sandbox and we're developing the "stuff" that makes things move forward. There are big issues like an impending war that is threatened to kill everyone involved to higher than standard TL stuff to twelve year old boys being surprised someone sticks up for them.

It really depends on what you and your group wants. Some folks like the freedom to create. Some want a laid out world. The more you buy the more likely it is that you'll find something that impacts your mental model.

 

[flykiller]

The upshot of LBB 1-3 is that you could pretty much use your own model and write up what you wanted.

that can be done without lbb1-3. so what do lbb1-3 bring to the table?

exactly.

 

[creativehum]

so what do lbb1-3 bring to the table?

Books 1-3 bring these things to the table:

Traveller Tools of Play

• Six specific Characteristics
• Six background services for character creation and background history
• Character creation rules
• Personal combat rules
• Space combat rules
• A skill system with a specific and limited list of skills
• A resolution system (2D6 +/- DM ≥ Saving Throw)
• Random person encounter tables
• Encounter range tables
• Reaction tables
• Random animal encounter table
• Patron encounter table
• Starship encounter table
• Generating a Subsector
• Generating system Main Worlds (UWP)
• The various values of the UWP
• Generating space lanes (1977 Edition)
• Starship expenses tables
• Starship income tables
• Experience rules
• Psyonic rules
• Drugs and their effects on other rules
• Weapons, vehicles, and equipment with effects on other rules
• Ship component/construction tables
  Edited to add:
• Starship Financing
• Interstellar Trade

After that, the setting and the types of the adventures are up to the Referee and the Players.

I think Rumor Tables are awesome for Traveller play. But they are not introduced until Adventure 1, and folded into the The Traveller Book and Starter Traveller editions.

But clearly the list above is exactly and concretely what Books 1-3 bring to the table.

No clarification was needed. People in the hobby in 1977 picked up the game and knew exactly what to do with it.

 

[creativehum]

I completely get the point of view that people made up their own settings. The game was built precisely to do that, and said as much on the box. So, yes, I get that.

As for all D&D being the same, I think Al-Qadim, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Planescape, and Ravenloft,off the top of my head, not only are different in color, but had specific rules to create a different feel and kind of play for each setting.

And, honestly, I was just curious. I think Aramis' suggestion, "They made one, it sold great," is a perfectly reasonable answer. And certainly what I would have assumed.

 

[flykiller]

No clarification was needed. People in the hobby in 1977 picked up the game and knew exactly what to do with it.

... because none of the cited material was particularly unique to traveller.

what was unique?

the setting. the implied setting.

navy. marines. army. nobles. interstellar trade. interstellar transport of important people. retirement. interstellar insurgencies. bribery, forgery, mortgage payments, tremendously expensive efforts and ships and people, all working for and against ... who? what? where? when? why?

the imperium answered those questions and very well. how could it have been otherwise?

 

[creativehum]

the imperium answered those questions and very well. how could it have been otherwise?

A million ways, really.

I could come up with sixteen variations that utilize the implied setting elements but are all different from each other, over the weekend.

People have done this with the original Traveller rules for decades.

That your imagination seems incapable of doing this boggles me. I don't use the word "boggle" in some sort of pejorative or exaggerated sense. I mean, honestly, I have no idea how to interpret your statement.

The notion that one could read the 1977 edition the Traveller rules and assume that the only place you could end up for a setting is GDW's OTU is simply weird. I say that knowing you are not alone in this belief. That doesn't make it any less weird. Even with the implied setting elements, if one simply reads the text from 1977 there are so many ways a setting could play out.

Thank you for reminding me of the mortgage payments and trade tables. Don't know how they slipped my mind. I'll add them to the list.

 

[flykiller]

I have no idea how to interpret your statement.

ok.

 

[aramis]

The notion that one could read the 1977 edition the Traveller rules and assume that the only place you could end up for a setting is GDW's OTU is simply weird. I say that knowing you are not alone in this belief. That doesn't make it any less weird. Even with the implied setting elements, if one simply reads the text from 1977 there are so many ways a setting could play out.

You simply can't get to the OTU as portrayed in MT from just CT-77 Bks 1-3.

Nor even from the 1981 version Bk 1-3 alone, either.

But you can get really close with the 1983 The Traveller Book...

You NEED books 4 & 5 to get the OTU. Book 6 is really already in the OTU, not generic, despite half the content not being tied at all to the OTU.

You also need Supplement 4.

With Bks 1-5, plus either Sup 4 or SMC, and one of TTA, Sup 3, Sup 10, or SMC, you can really get that OTU feel.

 

[Enoki]

I think the biggest thing holding Traveller back was always the character generation and growth portion of the game. Generation was geared towards using a character for a scenario or two then being done with them. On to the next character and scenario.

D&D had the appeal of a player eventually building really powerful characters and using one over a prolonged time.

I think a mix is best. If characters can't grow and players find some attachment to them, it detracts from the game. On the other hand, being able to grow a character into some sort of demi-god is bad too.

 

[Leitz]

Aramis' statement that supplements alter the assumptions seems right. I'm not against supplemental material, I've spent lots on them for more than one game.

However, the LBBs in and of themselves do not need the later material. Trade rules were new to games. Shop rules were new to games, starting characters out later than the onset of adulthood was new. Providing a useful model for significant planetary data was new. Using Education as a key metric was new. Building starships was new. Building substantial capital investments was new.

I played both the Little Black Books (Traveller) and Little Brown Books (D&D) in 1978. Lots of differences. Greyhawk was a marketable product, as was the 3I. More sales for the former.

 

[Leitz]

I think the biggest thing holding Traveller back was always the character generation and growth portion of the game. Generation was geared towards using a character for a scenario or two then being done with them. On to the next character and scenario.

Not sure on that. I do like character growth, but the first game I ever played the college kids were talking about the star ship they were building. That got me hooked. So skill and stat changes may not happen as often but roles and possessions can. Even with that, Edu and Soc can change upward fairly easily if you try.