Is it Traveller?

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Ptah:
I voted, but also found the choices conflate mechanics and setting.

That's an opinion expressed in the linked thread and arguments I read between posters there, Ptah, and so it bore mentioning as part of the poll. They seemed to be as confused as the question, don't you see?

To me orginal Traveller has no setting, it was some time (from an impatient teenager's point of view) before any was published. By the time a commercial setting arrived, me and everyone I knew who played had already created a Traveller Universe. That's what LBB3 was for.

For me, Traveller mechanics are a skill-based system, using a non-linear resolution mechanic (2D6, for example), where the speed of interstellar communication does not exceed the speed of interstellar travel, where interstellar travel takes a fair amount of time, takes place through a region that has no contact with the normal universe, and where these FTL engines require obscene amounts of fuel. I'm very open as to how one implements those concepts, for it to still be Traveller to me.

For example, on system generation. I always felt empowered to change things as I saw fit especially with respect to stellar primaries. I also had fun explaining weird random generation results like a size 3 world with atm 8, well clealy this is some high density world, read mining colony, and maybe some very active volcanism and or life form is pumping out air faster than it can escape. Now I have a possible center for adventure. What if a disease threatens that life form, how dangerous is this vulcanism. So making the stellar primary stuff more "realistic" really wouldn't change MTU one wit, but I still would enjoy the information.

On computers, I never took the space requirements to be read literally. I always assumed it included sensors, communications gear, control linkages, back up systems, etc. All things that can add to the effectiveness of a ship in battle.

On trade rules and economics, I was always grateful that Traveller even had such a thing, but always took them as suggestions that would certainly change based on YTU and the economic conditions in it.

On setting, to me Traveller has never been about the setting. So I'll leave it to the owners/creators of the Official Traveller Universe (OTU) to determine what is and is not official. But it seems to me if you get rid of the Imperium and/or the aliens you are really changing major aspects of that setting in a way that's disruptive to people's campaigns and expectations.

That's my take on it.

And I thank you for your input sir!

sincerely,

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Jame:
I don't know if I understand the questions well enough to vote.

May I suggest you read the whole thread this came about from, and then, after contemplating all sides of the argument, look at the questions once again, without the rhetoric or the polarizing names attached.

then try it again.

sincerely,

 

[kaladorn]

I appreciate the difficulty for some in defining 'Traveller', who separate 'Traveller: The Setting/OTU' from 'Traveller: The Game Rules'. I'm one of those.

For me, Traveller is any of the existent versions with any official or reasonably sane sounding tack-ons from Challenge, JTAS, TJ, TD, fanzines, etc. That's a 'by the book' answer for the rules side.

Setting wise, OTU in all its glory and inanity, is Traveller. This includes the Ithklur, the Hivers, the Bwaps, the Virushi, the Githiasko and many others, along with Nobles, the Imperial Marines, the Solomani (Federationist freemen or Space commie/nazi types, take your flavour), the Zhos (stinking mindbenders), and so on. All of that for me is also Traveller.

I don't know enough astrophysics to know exactly what parts of system gen are broken (little or large amounts) nor how to fix them. I'd like a minimalist approach from someone who is 'in the know' about current real-world wisdom to help fix the most egregious breaches without requiring a major re-write of the OTU's shape and form. Obviously, changing a star type isn't. Changing a major population center or the sort of patchy tech and government distribution would be. As someone said, details matter here. But I would like minimalist fixes put in place by someone who understands the problems.

Same with trade. I don't want a complete overhaul. Citizen Thrash had some well thought out trade stuff in Gurps, I wish we could reasonably import it back to other Traveller variants. Having a better idea of realistic trade relationships and trading mains would be a fun GM helper. Trying to tweak things to stay somewhat close the the historical idea of which regions matter would also be peachy.

Combat? Yeah, always something to do here. A new version of FF&S to marvel at and ignore. Same with Brilliant High Gaurd. I want deckplans, but I've never had a player complain their wasn't enough jump drive fuel space allocated or that their the ship's electronics took up one 2m square too few. So I use deckplans from all of the eras together... my players don't care and neither do I, other than having neat ship plans to lay out to move their characters around in. I'm usually more concerned with small arms combat and ACQ, MT and Striker seem to cover off most areas of concern (or my Stargrunt II port).

For me, any bastardized version of Traveller is still Traveller. It's just maybe not Traveller as I'd choose to play it. But vive la difference. I'm not cinematic (more towards the gritty end as far as personal combat and ship combat goes, but without a detail fixation though I do direly wish Brilliant Lances worked with MT ship designs). I don't like psi (a lot) or oddball jump drives or the virus or the empress wave. I like your standard small trader crew, small merc crew, small explorer crew, or bunch of semi-criminal adventurers.... doing stuff, going places, meeting aliens, not shooting every last one of them (just a fair few) and having memorable gaming sessions.

If I get that, it is Traveller. That's what Traveller really is - good memories shared with your players. Notice this is rules system agnostic! :0)

 

[Supplement Four]

Hey, Liam,

Why is it you get to lock your post to the top of this forum, marked as "important"?

Not a little "Security-Officer-because-I-can", is it?

-S4

 

[Malenfant]

I threw my votes in too, of course (I leave it to the reader to guess how I voted ) - just have some comments on the questions though.

Just generally, I think some of the options in the poll just add noise to the results and don't actually serve any useful purpose (specifically the last ones on Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q6).

Q3 could have been answered by implication via Q2 - I'm guessing that the ones you didn't tick in Q2 are probably the same ones you ticked in Q3.

The last option in Q2 and Q3 aren't really related to the question asked, which is "what in your opinion changes what we know today of the game of Traveller least/most?" (which is a bit oddly phrased - I presume you meant "what changes would cause the greatest/least divergence from what you would call 'Traveller'?" or something). You're not really asking how anyone actually plays the game or whether they consider it "broken" here - that would probably have been better off as a separate question of "To what extent do you think that Traveller requires 'fixing' before it is playable?" (answers: It's perfect out of the box/I just need to tweak some rules and then it's good to go/ I need to rewrite large chunks for it to work for me/what I play isn't recognisable as Traveller anymore).

Q4 I think is basically asking what Q2 and Q3 asked, but in a more focussed manner. So far the results for that pretty much tally with Q2 and Q3.

Q5 as phrased is a bit nonsensical, because we know that Traveller isn't realistic in many regards. I think what you're actually asking here is "is realism in the game (or lack of it) important for you?"

Q6 is also odd - the question really is "how do you use Traveller?", not "why did you vote in this poll?".

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Hey, Liam,

Why is it you get to lock your post to the top of this forum, marked as "important"?

Not a little "Security-Officer-because-I-can", is it?

-S4

if you want an answer, and not a stage to play on, PM me, by all means. Otherwise, thank you for your vote, and your post sir!

sincerely,

 

[Pickles]

I can't remember how I voted ...

But it does look like people are leaning towards the 'Traveller as a setting' camp. Which makes sense to me, having used Traveller (No 'Classic' in those days) rules exactly one time before switching to BRP. So I probably voted that way, too.

 

[Liam Devlin]

fascinating thus far... of 44 polled03/03/2007:

Q1

50% clearly mix various rulesets to how they play Traveller.
* Thats 11-1(22 > 2) vs. out of the box & no changes purists.
*That's 3-1 (22 > 7) vs. the I' don't know.
*That's nearly 2-1 (22> 13) vs. the 1 system ruleset + homerules.

Q2 & Q3

Shows us that we're all across the board as to what facts & science changes we know today affects how we play the game.

Q4

The setting seems for the current majority 3.5-1 (35 > 10) to make the game known as "Traveller" vs. those who think otherwise.
+ Against changing the stars, its 35-1
+ Against any changes nearly 4-1 (35 > 9).

Q5

A clear split emerged of slightly less than2-1 (28 > 16) those who think there's enough realism already vs, those who think it hasn't enough.

Q6

Reveals that 2.5-1 (31 > 13) are still playing this game.
+31-1 who hates polls, and stands alone.

Further Interpretation is in the eye of the reader...

sincerely,

 

[mike wightman]

Who on earth keeps finding these?

 

[atpollard]

Who on earth keeps finding these?

Since it is yet another poll broken by a board update at some point in the past, I closed it.

 

[aramis]

Who on earth keeps finding these?

Usually? New Users.