• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

It's not Traveller? OK, Why not??

Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:

You're the first person I've ever read complain about Pink Floyd, so I'll consider that one as personal preference.
Ah, well your the first person I've met in over a decade that doesn't.



Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:

George Lucas and the problems with The Phantom Menace were due to scripting, not special effects. So that analogy falls a bit flat, even though I agree that TPM was bantha poodoo.
I say they're directly related. Couldn't be bothered coming up with a story when he thought a computer could do it for him. Lazy CGI to cover up plot holes, and awfully directed digital vomit at that. The effects were not honed as they were in SW. There was just more of them, and irritating they were too..

Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:

I'm a fan of Miyazaki, but wouldn't his talent shine just as well if he made live-action movies? Defining the medium as a limit is a bit soft here becuase Miyazaki has had critical success with manga as well as anime, but I understand what you are saying.
Quite possibly, but I doubt it. He's too shy to direct live action. But you compare like with like. Ghibli films are orders of magnitude superior to anything Disney has done since 1979 (not including Pixar here), with huge teams of animators and full frame rates (ok, notwithstanding Hunchback of Notre Dame, which is pretty damn good). Manga is a case in point. You can hardly get a more limited medium than comic books.

Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:

While saying that a person may play Traveller however they wish while also saying that Traveller needs to be fixed and that however they are playing Traveller isn't right - it comes off as you inferring that if someone does not play Traveller in the manner which you are advocating is playing Traveller the wrong way. Seems awefully judgemental that inferance.
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. It doesn't imply that at all. That's just being defensive.

Sorry, just had to get a response in to those tangental queries...

And that, I guess, is that. Til next time, folks.
 
Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
Can I ask: Is there anyone, but anyone, who plays Taveller combat strictly according to the LBBs? Who resolves tasks strictly according to the LBBs?

No houserule?

Not a one?

Congrats, then: for you the game is not broken. You win the infraweb, and I wish I had a laurel wreath icon to post here, just for you, you special person.
I don't play it this way now, but we did play it by-the-book for years when the game was first released, and if the original little black books were the only Traveller titles available today, I could happily go back to playing that way again.

I use additional rules to expand options, not to replace "broken" systems. The original game is playable out of the box - official variants, houserules, stuff from fanzines and fansites, that's just sauce for the goose.
 
All this time, I thought the topic was " It's not Trav..why not?"

its pretty much established that the majority of people use house rules ( and indication that the game is not perfect...its been around 30 years BECAUSE its easy to modify to individual tastes. ), but isn't the main thrust of this thread asking how many/how radical those house rules/setting can change and not be a different game? aka " Exactly WHAT IS Traveller? " ( obvious answer: " whatever the players say it is." ) IMHO, arguing about that is stupid.

everyone has their own ideas about the balance between the realism they want/beleive, and the swashbuckling fantasy they want to experience.
Just leave it at that and show your ideas to change it in case they might be useful to others......

...or keep arguing about angels on pinheads
 
Originally posted by Rhialto the Marvelous:
1. I'm officially sulking because Liam didn't incorporate my single but succinct and indeed profound post on this topic in his thread survey. In recompense I demand to be made a moderator.
file_23.gif
Be careful what you wish for...
file_23.gif


sincerely,
 
Wow, I've been reading this for a week!

Remember being very excited when S10 (Solomani Rim) came out--finally, a TRAVELLER map for the area around Earth! Crushing disappointment when IT DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO REALITY!!!

For lack of a better source, I am using someone's conversion of stars to a TRAVELLER 2D map. Harold D. Hale, I think? May not be very accurate, but gives e enough realism to get by.

For me, part of the fun of TRAVELLER is taking that string of numbers that gave an unrealistic result and making a background that fits. I do that with characters all the time for their backstory.

Mal, I haven't had the pleasure of reading your more realistic system generation rules, but I look forward to it.

No, adding more realism doesn't make it any less TRAVELLER. My ATU has ion drives, limited FTL commo and stargates, but I still call it TRAVELLER...Hard SF in the background, ready to give detail as necessary. Space Opera upfront, so players can see lots of pretty explosions...
file_23.gif
 
Originally posted by Dominion Loyalty Officer:
For me, part of the fun of TRAVELLER is taking that string of numbers that gave an unrealistic result and making a background that fits.
That was one of my first responses on a Traveller forum, ever. Then someone pointed out how common these little bugs were, and I started to wonder. Then someone said, have you seen Malenfant's Revised Stellar Generation Tables? I haven't had a moment's peace since.
file_28.gif


"If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor"
 
Reading James Maliszewski sometimes confluted blog hit some sort of resonnance with me:

Traveller on the Brain
A propos of nothing (really!) except maybe that I have too much time on my hands and should probably be doing something more productive, I have come up with the definitive list of what makes Traveller the game it is and why it succeeded so brilliantly as the definitive SF RPG, despite numerous setting and rules changes. Anyone wishing to seize the Iridium Throne for themselves would be wise to heed these words.

1. The field of play is LARGE, very large. Nothing less than 100s, preferably 1000s, of planets is needed to convey the appropriate feel of interstellar immensity.

1b. The speed of travel between said planets is slow, measured in weeks, probably longer for very great distances.

1c. There is no interstellar communication except via the aforementioned slow travel between planets.

1d. The primary interstellar government is thus necessarily laissez-faire in all areas that do not impinge upon its central claim to authority, namely the maintenance of interstellar trade on which many worlds depend for their very survival. Said government can be seen as "good" or "evil" as your political sensibilities so incline you, but such judgments are generally beside the point, with "aloof" and/or "distant" being more generally appropriate. Naturally, local representatives of said government can be (and are) as just or venal as you wish.

1e. There are a handful of organs of interstellar governance, primarily military and/or pertinent to the maintanence of trade and communications. Otherwise, most organizations are more local in origin.

1f. Technology and economics exist in such a state as to provide a justification for interstellar trade and, therefore, government (and, of course, player character employment).

2. Humanity (humaniti, if you prefer) is the dominant species in charted space.

2a. Said dominant species is not, despite however many years it exists in our future, noticeably different from 21st century people, either physically, psychologically, or even culturally. Consequently, their behavior and motivations are thus completely comprehensible to your average gamer.

2b. If aliens exist, they may be as alien as human comprehensibility and a limited special effects budget allows, which is to say, they may be the Mexican non-union equivalents of genuinely alien beings, but they cannot truly be so alien that they cannot be meaningfully interacted with or played by a guy in a suit or what cable TV series computer graphics can manage.

2c. Any truly alien aliens are safely extinct, preferably leaving behind lots of wacky artifacts to be found by bad guys, used in government black ops programs, or generally used as maguffins in adventures.

3. Technology is first and foremost a prop. It can be shiny or grimy as you wish, but it should never get in the way of a good rollicking adventure, an interesting planetary culture, or otherwise circumvent any of the enumerated principles above.

4. If you saw it in a SF movie or TV show or read it in a SF book, it should be possible to include it in the game, even if in a (heavily) modified form.
 
Originally posted by kafka47:
2c. Any truly alien aliens are safely extinct, preferably leaving behind lots of wacky artifacts to be found by bad guys, used in government black ops programs, or generally used as maguffins in adventures.
To which I would add:

2c(i). A truly alien alien can be introduced as a plot device or a mcguffin, however.
 
Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dominion Loyalty Officer:
For me, part of the fun of TRAVELLER is taking that string of numbers that gave an unrealistic result and making a background that fits.
That was one of my first responses on a Traveller forum, ever. Then someone pointed out how common these little bugs were, and I started to wonder. </font>[/QUOTE]IMO, the problem there isn't that the system produces lots of severely buggy UWPs. The problem is that no one went through the ones that were produced for the OTU and vetted them. I once tried, as an experiment, to run through two published subsectors and see how long it would take to fix them. It took me two evenings, about eight hours.

Buggy UWPs are a great springboard for the imagination, and sometimes they provoke you into thinking of something you'd never have thought of otherwise. But you can't expect to be able to come up with something inspired for every one of them, which is where I disagree profoundly with Marc Miller.

What I do is to think about a seemingly buggy UWP for ten minutes, trying to come up with an explanation. If I can't, I assigng a 'Saving Throw Against Weirdness' to it and roll a die. For something that's only moderately unlikely I might assign a throw of 5 or less on a D6; for my pet abominations (like worlds too small to hold on to their atmospheres) I might assign a throw of 1; in many cases I just use the 'fifty percent rule' and assigng a throw of 3 or less. If the world makes its throw, I try again, this time being willing to involve Ancients, Imperial Edicts, staggering coincidences, and other monumental weirdness (But still not absolute impossibilities). If I still can't come up with anything, I give up and change the UWP in the least possible way (or, if I happen to get a good idea, the most interesting way).

Like fire, random generation is a good servant but a terrible master.


Hans
 
*bump because it's relevant*

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=f3243ef81b72faaeca9d3f712c0b279c&t=316130

I just chanced upon this rather interesting thread on rpgnet. I don't know if the original poster was inspired by my hypothetical on this thread or just came up with the idea on his own (much more likely methinks), but he's asking what Traveller would be like without the aliens.

What's interesting is the response he gets on rpgnet - namely that pretty much everyone said "eh, you could do it and it wouldn't really make much difference at all" (which is what I said here). Everyone commenting there appears to be at least familiar with Traveller too.

Yet when I said the same thing in passing here, I had people telling me that it definitely wouldn't be Traveller (though now I've pointed it out, I'm sure some people will descend on that thread to "correct" the locals ;) ).

Interesting.
 
It's also interesting that people are strangely quiet about this here.

Could it be because this implies that CotI is very conservative, reactionary and static in its approach to Traveller? Or do those crazy rpgnetters just "not understand Traveller"?

I'm curious to know where this difference in approach comes from.
 
Mal, mal, mal....

There's a huge difference between

a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike
b) Replacing the alien race you hate the most with a new "race" or with a human state.
c) Eliminating ALL of the races and replacing them with humans.

Traveller is flexible and resilient. Everybody tweaks the OTU to emphasize the sort of background they think makes the most sense. But at some point (say, around point "c" or so...) a change becomes so invasive or so drastic that the game you're playing ceases to retain that nebulous "Traveller" flavor that we all know and love.

Besides... CotI folk are bound to be somewhat defensive in the face of your caustic and negative approach. The guy on the other board clearly loves Traveller... and him changing one major swath of the setting is all in good fun. You, on the other hand, sound pretty trollish in your post above.

Could you please try to find something more positive to do?
 
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
[QB] Mal, mal, mal....

There's a huge difference between

a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike
b) Replacing the alien race you hate the most with a new "race" or with a human state.
c) Eliminating ALL of the races and replacing them with humans.
Not really.

The guy on the rpgnet thread wanted to get rid of all the aliens and replace them with humans - he got a generally positive response, and people weren't claiming that the different appearance is what made the aliens so cool, and nobody was screaming at him saying that it wouldn't be Traveller.

Whereas when I suggest the same thing in passing here on CotI, I got lots of people saying the exact opposite.

Why? And don't say "because you suggested it", because that's BS. I'd like to think that people are smarter than that here.

But at some point (say, around point "c" or so...) a change becomes so invasive or so drastic that the game you're playing ceases to retain that nebulous "Traveller" flavor that we all know and love.
I think this is completely false in this case. Like I said earlier, changing the appearance of a race would in no way impact the "Traveller flavour". Hell, most of the time the other aliens don't even have an impact in most Traveller games.

Besides... CotI folk are bound to be somewhat defensive in the face of your caustic and negative approach. The guy on the other board clearly loves Traveller...
Why on earth should that make any difference though? The fact is, a big change is being made and people railed against it a hell of a lot more here than they did over there. Since when is it acceptable to do that if you "love Traveller" and not acceptable to do that if you don't? Does CotI have double-standards that depend on the attitude of the person making the change now? That makes no sense.


You, on the other hand, sound pretty trollish in your post above.

Could you please try to find something more positive to do?
If I sound trollish, it's because I want to get people to think about this here. I think this says a lot about the prevalent attitude on CoTi toward Traveller, and I'd like to hear why people think the responses are so different.

If you think I'm being "negative" then by all means don't respond to this thread. I'm just trying to examine why people have the attitudes they have here and to get them to think about it more, and personally I think that sort of discussion can be quite positive (assuming that people can remain rational about it and don't start getting all hysterial, which may be asking a bit much here). And if people are uncomfortable with that... well, sometimes uncomfortable questions need to be asked in order to understand and maybe improve things, and I don't see anyone else asking them here.
 
Let me get this straight if I don't have Aslan, Hivers, Vargr and the other non-human races in my game I'm not playing Traveller?
 
Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Let me get this straight if I don't have Aslan, Hivers, Vargr and the other non-human races in my game I'm not playing Traveller?
Not necessarily.

You can easily do that under "a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike."
 
Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Let me get this straight if I don't have Aslan, Hivers, Vargr and the other non-human races in my game I'm not playing Traveller?
That depends


We were playing Traveller for a long time before the Aliens were even invented (or at least published/accessible for our group).

Once we knew about them we incorporated them and were obviously still playing Traveller.

So the question becomes, if we had ignored the addition of Aliens would we have still been playing Traveller or would our decision have meant we had abandoned the game?

It's semantics I say and like many such arguments, ultimately pointless. All it really speaks to is if you're playing Traveller in the OTU with the official Aliens or YTU with or wtihout any Aliens, and both can be fun.
 
Jeff, I'm not talking "de-emphasizing alien races I dislike", I'm talking about never having them in the first place, no contact, no history, no presence. If I want to have MTU without aliens at all does it stop being Traveller even when it's created and played with the Classic Traveller rules? I'll admit it's not OTU background but without the aliens does it cease to be Traveller?
 
Originally posted by Jeffr0:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Let me get this straight if I don't have Aslan, Hivers, Vargr and the other non-human races in my game I'm not playing Traveller?
Not necessarily.

You can easily do that under "a) De-emphasizing alien races you dislike."
</font>[/QUOTE]For my own clarification you do think that had our group kept playing Traveller without (as in never even considered, not simply "de-emphasized") Aliens after they were introduced, even though when we began playing there were NO Aliens, that we would not have been playing Traveller?

And Randy is not saying he'd play them down the way I read it. He says he'd not have them. And you seem to be saying that means he'd not be playing Traveller which is certainly your opinion and counts for exactly that much. My opinion, worth not a whit more, is that he would still be playing Traveller. And my advice again to Randy and others is "Stuff Opinions!" and have fun
 
Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Jeff, I'm not talking "de-emphasizing alien races I dislike", I'm talking about never having them in the first place, no contact, no history, no presence. If I want to have MTU without aliens at all does it stop being Traveller even when it's created and played with the Classic Traveller rules? I'll admit it's not OTU background but without the aliens does it cease to be Traveller?
Sure. No problem here. Traveller existed just fine without Aliens... and there's no requirement to add them in.

It might be argued that you're really playing a form of Proto-Traveller... just simply due to the degrees of seperation from the OTU. As long as you love Traveller with all your heart, many heresies can be forgiven.
file_22.gif
 
On further thought, I think the greater issue is NOT whether a modification to a game makes it "Traveller" or "Not Traveller" - after all, if you're happy with the change you make then who bloody cares what you want to call it.

I think the greater issue is that it seems that there's an attitude that making the change itself is somehow "wrong" on this board (but not, apparently, elsewhere), and I'm wondering if people really are comfortable with that.
 
Back
Top