Rules Only: Generic or Official Traveller Universe

[Blue Ghost]

So which do you prefer, or do you even have a preference of a "no-established / generic" setting for your gaming sessions, the OFFICIAL TRAVELLER UNIVERSE, or something you create for you and your players (whatever it may be)?

Just a bit of Clarification;

Vanilla flavored Traveller; some or no OTU.

Official Traveller Universe; Imperium, its neighbors, and all that goes with it.

Some adaptation of a universe; Stargate, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, your favorite universe here.

 

[mike wightman]

This is a tricky one to answer.

In an ideal world they could have written a very detailed, coherent setting book to go alongside the core rule books - this is what you could do with our rules.

The core rules themselves should be as generic as possible with plenty of guidelines on how to build your own setting.

My favourite settings for Traveller are Hard Times, TNE and the setting a ref the most isa my vision for proto-Traveller.

 

[Dagrill]

So which do you prefer, or do you even have a preference of a "no-established / generic" setting for your gaming sessions, the OFFICIAL TRAVELLER UNIVERSE, or something you create for you and your players (whatever it may be)?

I like the CT classic OTU, but bring in other elements from other publishers.

Regards

David

 

[aramis]

Since I really don't consider Traveller anything other than the OTU or a setting using the same technological and financial trope set, I answered OTU. On the other hand, I play a lot of other Sci-Fi games, and have used the MegaTraveller engine for a few of them.

 

[whulorigan]

In an ideal world they could have written a very detailed, coherent setting book to go alongside the core rule books - this is what you could do with our rules.

The core rules themselves should be as generic as possible with plenty of guidelines on how to build your own setting.

I fully agree with this point. Core Rule Mechanics and setting should always be kept separate. That way the mechanics can just be the mechanics (with various rule-options for technology, background, etc, for potential campaigns outlined), while the Setting Rules can state up front specifically what options are being used, and or any other modifications or omissions that are explicitly present in the particular setting.

Mongoose basically went in this direction, but did not go the whole way (i.e. though the MgT Core Rules are supposedly "setting neutral", there is still no "Core OTU Setting Book", like there is for their Babylon 5, 2300AD, et al settings). One of the things I sometimes find confusing with MgT is when I am reading a Core Rulebook or Supplement and find myself wondering whether or not this particular item of technology, or that particular rule, applies to the OTU, or is just a setting agnostic element that needs to be ignored for the OTU-specific setting.

 

[robject]

Although the idea of a genericized, vaguely Dumarest-like TU is attractive, our games have been in the OTU.

 

[whulorigan]

So which do you prefer, or do you even have a preference of a "no-established / generic" setting for your gaming sessions, the OFFICIAL TRAVELLER UNIVERSE, or something you create for you and your players (whatever it may be)?

Frankly, I am somewhere between the Options.
[FONT=arial,helvetica]"Customized - Mostly OTU mixed with a few other elements or house rules[/FONT]" is where I would fall.

 

[Chuck Anumia]

Original/official Traveller Universe

If I wanted to play Star Wars or Star Trek I would use their system!

 

[mike wightman]

Would that be d6SW, d20 SW or the latest version EoE+, for Star Trek would you use FASA or...

I think the point is made

I used Traveller to play SW and ST based games back in the very early 80s because there were no other options.

 

[flykiller]

otu ... so long as, and only if, there is plenty of room for referee-original setting. which is the genius of the otu because it's less a setting and more of a meta-setting.

 

[RandyB]

otu ... so long as, and only if, there is plenty of room for referee-original setting. which is the genius of the otu because it's less a setting and more of a meta-setting.

This is why I have come to like the Reavers' Deep sector. Its still too close to three major empires for my taste, but on the other hand there's the opportunity to take inspiration from the Triangle region of FASATrek.

 

[rancke]

otu ... so long as, and only if, there is plenty of room for referee-original setting. which is the genius of the otu because it's less a setting and more of a meta-setting.

There's always room for referee-original setting. All you need is the willingness to overwrite anything official that doesn't suit you. The room the OTU has for writing your own stuff without overwriting anything seems to me to be down to the sheer impossibility of covering even such a comparatively tiny part of a universe like Charted Space in a mere 35 years' worth of publications. The OTU is a few tenuous patches of information held together by thin threads. There's room to plunk down entire subsectors worth of stuff without overwriting pretty much anything¹. Not by design but of necesscity.

¹ Why you would do that is another question. To me the whole point of a shared universe is to use other people's work to reduce the burden of coming up with everything yourself.
​

As for preference, I'd LIKE to have a setting where I could play without having to do anything about coming up with background information myself. However, since that is, I believe, impossible, I fall somewhere between the OTU and the customized OTU. I try to keep my own TU as close to the OTU simply to be better able to use stuff created by other people, but when that isn't possible, either because no one has come up with what I need to cover or because I don't like what they've come up with, I create and use my own stuff. I made up my own Trojan Reach just months before GDW published its writeup of that sector. I transposed the Night of Conquest adventure to Mewey and developed a lot of background information about the two conflicting population groups (both human) on that world. So when BtC introduced the indiginous minor non-human race that lived on Mewey, I didn't change my Mewey to conform to that². And there are other bits of the OTU that I don't use because I don't like them.

² Since I did plan to submit an adventure set in the background I developed for Mewey, I decided to transplant the whole planetary setup to Borite in the Trojan Reach. Now that MgT has published a completely incompatible Borite (in Pirates of Drinax) and the Mewey of Mewey have been retconned away again (IIRC), I may move it back again. ​

Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, the game seems to have evolved specifically over the last 20 years. In the LBB days, and even with MT's richly defined background, I always saw the OTU as a "metauniverse", where you had elements you could use to fill in gaps in your own universe creation, while ignoring whatever you wanted.

But, I'm thinking I have to shift my own thinking on this, and come to grips with the notion that there is an OTU that people like, use, and want more of. I'm wondering if that's true, or there are still people like me who still see Traveller as a generic sci-fi RPG with a background that's there should you choose to use.

I think this is kind of an important question here. I think it has implications for fans like me, and newer players.

 

[rancke]

Well, the game seems to have evolved specifically over the last 20 years. In the LBB days, and even with MT's richly defined background, I always saw the OTU as a "metauniverse", where you had elements you could use to fill in gaps in your own universe creation, while ignoring whatever you wanted.

But, I'm thinking I have to shift my own thinking on this, and come to grips with the notion that there is an OTU that people like, use, and want more of. I'm wondering if that's true, or there are still people like me who still see Traveller as a generic sci-fi RPG with a background that's there should you choose to use.

I think this is kind of an important question here. I think it has implications for fans like me, and newer players.

What gets me is that people seem to think the two are mutually exclusive. Striving to keep an official setting self-consistent isn't about keeping it unique, it's about keping it useful. If all you're interested in is mining it for elements to fill in gaps in your own universe creation, you obviously don't need it to be self-consistent. But neither does it do you any harm if people strive to improve the self-consistency. Whereas, if you like, use, and want more of a setting, you do want it to be as self-consistent as possible and for new material to stay consistent. So if you want an OTU, help improve it, and if you don't care, why not smile indulgently and let those who do care get on with it in peace? They're not doing you any harm.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

What gets me is that people seem to think the two are mutually exclusive. Striving to keep an official setting self-consistent isn't about keeping it unique, it's about keping it useful. If all you're interested in is mining it for elements to fill in gaps in your own universe creation, you obviously don't need it to be self-consistent. But neither does it do you any harm if people strive to improve the self-consistency. Whereas, if you like, use, and want more of a setting, you do want it to be as self-consistent as possible and for new material to stay consistent. So if you want an OTU, help improve it, and if you don't care, why not smile indulgently and let those who do care get on with it in peace? They're not doing you any harm.


Hans

I like your thoughts a great deal. But it seems like that there's maybe a portion of players who are "conservative", so to speak, and want that official "OTU" stamp in their product. And based on what I've read of T5, it seems like Marc Miller is veering heavily towards a Traveller game that has an established background for its rule set, as opposed to a background that you can use or or not use as you see fit.

I hope I'm wrong on that, but when I started to really read T5 the night before last and last night, I mean from the begining and not just portions I needed for my writing, it had the feel that T5 was establishing a universe first, complete with ancient and "Ancient" history first, verse some rules for players, and then some background that might be useful--as had been the first iteration of the game.

I think it was you or Straybow, or maybe even Whipsnade who stated that the GURPS version of Traveller seemed to be very highly defined, and less open, verse the openess and more utilitarian background of CT. And it feels like T5 might be headed towards GURPS territory in defining what setting the rules are used in, verse giving a setting that the rules may be used in, but is not necessitated by any gaming session.

And that's why I put up this topic and pole. Of the thousands of people who play and visit, there's only a couple dozen who've replied. Not a big deal. But, well, as an author and fan, I like old fashioned "openess" of CT, but with a better rules set (whatever version of the game you use).

Does any of this make sense?

 

[mike wightman]

Take the difference between GDW Spinward Marches and GT Behind the Claw.

I still use my copy of S:3, BtC is barely worth a look.

S:3 gives me stats and a broad canvas, BtC details every world to a greater or lesser degree,.

 

[Golan2072]

I have written my own near-future, hard(ish)-science setting for Mongoose Traveller, called Outer Veil, which is published commercially by Spica Publishing.

I am also working on a variant OTU based on the maps and setting of the Dark Nebula boardgame.

 

[rancke]

I like your thoughts a great deal. But it seems like that there's maybe a portion of players who are "conservative", so to speak, and want that official "OTU" stamp in their product. And based on what I've read of T5, it seems like Marc Miller is veering heavily towards a Traveller game that has an established background for its rule set, as opposed to a background that you can use or or not use as you see fit.

Marc Miller doesn't have the power to dictate whether anyone use or don't use the established background as they see fit. Unless they're doing work for hire on expanding the background, in which case they darn well should use previously published material.

I hope I'm wrong on that, but when I started to really read T5 the night before last and last night, I mean from the begining and not just portions I needed for my writing, it had the feel that T5 was establishing a universe first, complete with ancient and "Ancient" history first, verse some rules for players, and then some background that might be useful--as had been the first iteration of the game.

I can't comment on T5, but the OTU is already established. People have been working on it for 35 years. I don't see anything odious in efforts to ensure that a new set of rules don't invalidate such a setting.

I think it was you or Straybow, or maybe even Whipsnade who stated that the GURPS version of Traveller seemed to be very highly defined, and less open, verse the openess and more utilitarian background of CT.

I see "less open" as "more detailed" and think it's a good thing. You can always ignore a detail if you dislike it, but if all you have is a gap in the available information, you have no option but to spend effort to fill it yourself.

And it feels like T5 might be headed towards GURPS territory in defining what setting the rules are used in, verse giving a setting that the rules may be used in, but is not necessitated by any gaming session.

Again, no one can dictate what setting you use a rules set for. Anyone can go ahead and use T5 for their own setting. Thye only cost is that the OTU becomes less useful and the chance that new material that is published in the future will fit with your alternate TU will be less.

And that's why I put up this topic and pole. Of the thousands of people who play and visit, there's only a couple dozen who've replied. Not a big deal. But, well, as an author and fan, I like old fashioned "openess" of CT, but with a better rules set (whatever version of the game you use).

Whereas I see "openness" as "lack of information". To me, it's a bug, not a feature.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Take the difference between GDW Spinward Marches and GT Behind the Claw.

The main difference is the amount of information each provides. 'Very little' and 'quite a lot'.

I still use my copy of S:3, BtC is barely worth a look.

I use both, though only because of discrepancies between the two. If the author of BtC had paid more attention to SM, BtC would have superceded SM completely.

S:3 gives me stats and a broad canvas, BtC details every world to a greater or lesser degree,.

Very true. And you can use the details or not as you please. You can't use details that aren't there. BtC is clearly vastly more useful than SM. Though it would be more useful if some of the details weren't so implausible and didn't contradict previously published material. That is to say, BtC certainly has its problems. But the amount of detail in it isn't one of them. In that respect it beats SM like a big bass drum.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

rancke; you're right, no one can dictate what you do in your gaming sessions. I'm sure there're players who've used CT rules to resolve D&D scenarios and what not.

That's not really the issue I'm marginally concerned about. I'm wondering if the "meta-universe" quality is yielding (or has effectively yielded) to an official universe that is a prerequisite in order to play; i.e. almost a necessity in order to be familiar with the rules and to play the game itself, though strictly speaking it isn't required.

I think that's coming close to a turn around from the game I played back in the 80s and early 90s.