On the contrary, you score a great many "cool" points for being a true grog of the Burgess Shale era of Traveller.
I offer you my backpack powered Laser Carbine in your service.
I offer you my backpack powered Laser Carbine in your service.
I think the only thing that truly defines Traveller, as opposed to any other sci fi setting, is the random chargen and starting the game with mature characters.
And even random chargen goes out the window with T20 and GURPS.
So really, Traveller is just a state of mind, a mode of thought. Aliens, no aliens; OTU, MTU; 1 week jump or not. As long as you play with the spirit of Traveller, then you're a Traveller player.
It's less semantics and more theology, this debate.
BTW, out of all the TV sf settings, it seems many regard Firefly as closest to Traveller, and there there's not an alien in sight.
And even random chargen goes out the window with T20 and GURPS.
So really, Traveller is just a state of mind, a mode of thought. Aliens, no aliens; OTU, MTU; 1 week jump or not. As long as you play with the spirit of Traveller, then you're a Traveller player.
It's less semantics and more theology, this debate.
BTW, out of all the TV sf settings, it seems many regard Firefly as closest to Traveller, and there there's not an alien in sight.
M
Malenfant
Guest
As I said elsewhere, I think there's two things that mean "Traveller" - the rules and the setting.
The rules as you say are varied. I think most people here would probably claim that the main defining aspect of Traveller (as a ruleset) is that it must have several career types and that PCs are created by random chargen, but again as you pointed out T20 and GT don't (but then those same people would probably claim that those "aren't Traveller" as a result). Given the general variability of the various rules editions it doesn't seem to make sense to me to define it this way - but that said, CT was originally presented as a "generic" (see below) ruleset.
Which leaves the Setting - i.e. the Known Space setting, aka the OTU - as Traveller. If you strip it right down then one other thing was provided in books 1-3 that originally defined the game, and that was the 1 week jump. That meant there was a built-in technological assumption (And no alternatives were provided) that rendered the rules non-generic - whether you want to call this an aspect of the setting or system is up for debate.
Now, arguably you're not playing Traveller (the specific Setting) if you remove the aliens, though one the small scale they make little difference to the setting at all - but you are still playing Traveller (the System) if you're using one of the rulesets. Aren't you?
Why do people say that making tweaks to the setting mean that you're not playing Traveller, yet don't seem to have any problem in replacing parts of the Traveller ruleset with their own house rules? The latter seems to happen quite often, after all.
What this really boils down to is "what is it that actually defines Traveller"? What is it that actually sets it apart from other SF RPGs? We've got GURPS Traveller, but what is it that sets that apart from GURPS Space?
I think there's obviously some specific assumptions that make Traveller unique, and they're down to the technology: the 1 week jump and the specifc tech progression (things like thruster plates and nuclear dampers and meson guns). Also there are the specific big interstellar empires and the history. Basically the setting is what makes the game unique, not the rules. It's been demonstrated time and again that you don't need random chargen to define a character - you can get the exact same character in a point-buy system after all.
But in saying that, one has to then accept that Traveller is a specific setting, and admit that it's not a "toolkit" for anything. Then one can argue more convincingly that changing the aliens changes the game (that said, if you look at Star Trek, the Klingons changed from looking very close to human in TOS to looking more different in later series and nobody really seemed to complain about it much because culturally they were the same). But in accepting that it's a setting and not a ruleset, where does that leave things like the worldgen or the ship design?
That was a bit rambly, I had lots of thoughts that I wanted to get out. I just don't accept that Traveller is a "feel" or "spirit" because that's a completely cop-out answer - we can pin it down better than that, surely.
The rules as you say are varied. I think most people here would probably claim that the main defining aspect of Traveller (as a ruleset) is that it must have several career types and that PCs are created by random chargen, but again as you pointed out T20 and GT don't (but then those same people would probably claim that those "aren't Traveller" as a result). Given the general variability of the various rules editions it doesn't seem to make sense to me to define it this way - but that said, CT was originally presented as a "generic" (see below) ruleset.
Which leaves the Setting - i.e. the Known Space setting, aka the OTU - as Traveller. If you strip it right down then one other thing was provided in books 1-3 that originally defined the game, and that was the 1 week jump. That meant there was a built-in technological assumption (And no alternatives were provided) that rendered the rules non-generic - whether you want to call this an aspect of the setting or system is up for debate.
Now, arguably you're not playing Traveller (the specific Setting) if you remove the aliens, though one the small scale they make little difference to the setting at all - but you are still playing Traveller (the System) if you're using one of the rulesets. Aren't you?
Why do people say that making tweaks to the setting mean that you're not playing Traveller, yet don't seem to have any problem in replacing parts of the Traveller ruleset with their own house rules? The latter seems to happen quite often, after all.
What this really boils down to is "what is it that actually defines Traveller"? What is it that actually sets it apart from other SF RPGs? We've got GURPS Traveller, but what is it that sets that apart from GURPS Space?
I think there's obviously some specific assumptions that make Traveller unique, and they're down to the technology: the 1 week jump and the specifc tech progression (things like thruster plates and nuclear dampers and meson guns). Also there are the specific big interstellar empires and the history. Basically the setting is what makes the game unique, not the rules. It's been demonstrated time and again that you don't need random chargen to define a character - you can get the exact same character in a point-buy system after all.
But in saying that, one has to then accept that Traveller is a specific setting, and admit that it's not a "toolkit" for anything. Then one can argue more convincingly that changing the aliens changes the game (that said, if you look at Star Trek, the Klingons changed from looking very close to human in TOS to looking more different in later series and nobody really seemed to complain about it much because culturally they were the same). But in accepting that it's a setting and not a ruleset, where does that leave things like the worldgen or the ship design?
That was a bit rambly, I had lots of thoughts that I wanted to get out. I just don't accept that Traveller is a "feel" or "spirit" because that's a completely cop-out answer - we can pin it down better than that, surely.
Well, true, it is a little glib.
But really this whole debate reminds me of the stuff the founding fathers of the Catholic church were thrashing out between 200AD and 600AD.
I never played Traveller in the 80's, or 90's, so I don't have that same history of understanding that long term players have. You could say I'm a 'born again' Traveller player. But I do recognise in Traveller something distinct and seperate from all the other sf games out there.
Lets examine some articles of faith.
1) 1 week jump.
Changing this is the most severe heresy, akin to denying the virgin birth. However, given that the OTU would change in nature if this were so, but that you kept everything else more or less the same, you could still argue you were playing Traveller, as opposed to Star Wars or Spacemaster.
2) Aliens, like Vargr or Hiver.
Adopting aliens from other properties, like Hutts or Klingons, would not necessarily stop it being Traveller, just as excising Aslan and the rest would not stop it being Traveller. In fact, I could easily see a way of making chargen tables for Starfleet or the Klingons, using the Traveller ruleset. A sort of hybrid game, but something implied in the original CT products.
3) Thruster plates. Well I don't have MT. As far as I can see, CT never mentions thruster plates. Essentially gravitic thruster plates seem to be theological sophistry inferring them from the ship build and operation rules. This goes on all the time in Traveller, most often in rationalising crazy UWPs.
4) Hard Science. This is the strongest aspect that is part of Traveller as a concept. Though it is not total or consistant. However, there is a tone of scientific conservatism that pervades all of Traveller; that the wackier ideas from sf are toned down or not included. This might also be an understanding that such ideas often break or change the game, so as to turn it into something else. Where such things have occurred in the OTU, such as Virus, they have been contraversial and divisive.
I think in reality, it can be any of these things. You are playing Traveller if you say you are. To take the religious analogy further, both Christianity in all its forms and Islam share far more than they diverge from each other, but no fair commentator would say someone claiming to be a Christian is actually a Muslim or vice versa. Zealots and fundamentalists might. There's evidence from these boards that there are such elements inthe Traveller community too.
Rather than define: "What is Traveller?", how about asking...
"What is Orthodox Traveller?"
But really this whole debate reminds me of the stuff the founding fathers of the Catholic church were thrashing out between 200AD and 600AD.
I never played Traveller in the 80's, or 90's, so I don't have that same history of understanding that long term players have. You could say I'm a 'born again' Traveller player. But I do recognise in Traveller something distinct and seperate from all the other sf games out there.
Lets examine some articles of faith.
1) 1 week jump.
Changing this is the most severe heresy, akin to denying the virgin birth. However, given that the OTU would change in nature if this were so, but that you kept everything else more or less the same, you could still argue you were playing Traveller, as opposed to Star Wars or Spacemaster.
2) Aliens, like Vargr or Hiver.
Adopting aliens from other properties, like Hutts or Klingons, would not necessarily stop it being Traveller, just as excising Aslan and the rest would not stop it being Traveller. In fact, I could easily see a way of making chargen tables for Starfleet or the Klingons, using the Traveller ruleset. A sort of hybrid game, but something implied in the original CT products.
3) Thruster plates. Well I don't have MT. As far as I can see, CT never mentions thruster plates. Essentially gravitic thruster plates seem to be theological sophistry inferring them from the ship build and operation rules. This goes on all the time in Traveller, most often in rationalising crazy UWPs.
4) Hard Science. This is the strongest aspect that is part of Traveller as a concept. Though it is not total or consistant. However, there is a tone of scientific conservatism that pervades all of Traveller; that the wackier ideas from sf are toned down or not included. This might also be an understanding that such ideas often break or change the game, so as to turn it into something else. Where such things have occurred in the OTU, such as Virus, they have been contraversial and divisive.
I think in reality, it can be any of these things. You are playing Traveller if you say you are. To take the religious analogy further, both Christianity in all its forms and Islam share far more than they diverge from each other, but no fair commentator would say someone claiming to be a Christian is actually a Muslim or vice versa. Zealots and fundamentalists might. There's evidence from these boards that there are such elements inthe Traveller community too.
Rather than define: "What is Traveller?", how about asking...
"What is Orthodox Traveller?"
M
Malenfant
Guest
Well ideally I'd like us to get away from the religious allegories, because at the end of the day Traveller is a game, nothing more. I think the last thing we want to do is reinforce the pseudo-religious side of it
.
I'd agree with your first three points and I'd really LIKE to agree with the fourth, but I think a lot of others would argue that Hard Science is definitely not an aspect of Traveller that defines it - there seems to be quite a few here who think it's Space Opera.
Personally I think Traveller tries to be more in the realm of Hard SF and has definitely made attempts to do so (the addition of astronomical data CT book 6 and the detail in FF&S seem to support this). However, it's let down by definite flaws in the world design system that create errors that have been allowed to propagate. One could also argue that the thruster plates and jump drive make it unrealistic, but I think that's missing the point somewhat - the technologies may be unrealistic (as far as we can tell) but most of them are broadly based on scientific principles (e.g. maneuver drives are gravity manipulation, nuclear dampers are modifications of the strong/weak nuclear force etc). The only things that are really entirely fanciful and space opera-ish are jumpspace itself and psionics. As long as the technologies are consistently applied however, it can retain a realistic feel even if the details of how they work are fanciful.
I'd agree with your first three points and I'd really LIKE to agree with the fourth, but I think a lot of others would argue that Hard Science is definitely not an aspect of Traveller that defines it - there seems to be quite a few here who think it's Space Opera.
Personally I think Traveller tries to be more in the realm of Hard SF and has definitely made attempts to do so (the addition of astronomical data CT book 6 and the detail in FF&S seem to support this). However, it's let down by definite flaws in the world design system that create errors that have been allowed to propagate. One could also argue that the thruster plates and jump drive make it unrealistic, but I think that's missing the point somewhat - the technologies may be unrealistic (as far as we can tell) but most of them are broadly based on scientific principles (e.g. maneuver drives are gravity manipulation, nuclear dampers are modifications of the strong/weak nuclear force etc). The only things that are really entirely fanciful and space opera-ish are jumpspace itself and psionics. As long as the technologies are consistently applied however, it can retain a realistic feel even if the details of how they work are fanciful.
RandyT0001
SOC-13
I disagree Mal. Travller is the ruleset not the setting. IIRC there are seven licensed rulesets to choose from, CT, MT, TNE, T4, GT, T20, and HeroTraveller(?). If you buy and use any of these rulesets to generate a setting and characters one can claim to be playing Traveller. If that setting introduces different interstellar travel tech than is found within one of those rulesets, for instance warp drive or stargates then you lose the primary assumption within the game and really can't expect players to believe your playing Traveller. To the players you would be playing Stargate SG-1 or StarTrek using the Traveller rules. By the same token you can't use the WW rules system, re-create the OTU setting within that ruleset, and then call it "Traveller". You could say it was a "Travelleresque" setting but IMO you couldn't promote it as "Traveller" at a con or FLGS and expect players readily accept it as "Traveller".
IMO
IMO
M
Malenfant
Guest
I really can't see how Traveller could be possibly be "system" given that there's so many varieties of it (and that they're so different - at one end we have an entirely random chargen in CT, and at the other we have point-buy with GURPS Traveller).
I also see no problem with using other rulesets to recreate the OTU - there's a gaping hole in your logic in that this is exactly what GT (GURPS), T20 (d20), HeroTrav (HERO) and TNE (GDW T2K) did. That being the case, why shouldn't you be able to do the same thing with Silhouette or Storyteller?
And why should a setting that I use (any of) the Traveller rules to run be called Traveller if it has nothing in common with it? I've built my own setting from scratch using the alternate technologies in FF&S, the aliens are totally different and the history is totally different too. Admittedly I ended up using GURPS Space for the system, but had I used the CT rules instead then where's the justfiication in calling that "Traveller"?
I also see no problem with using other rulesets to recreate the OTU - there's a gaping hole in your logic in that this is exactly what GT (GURPS), T20 (d20), HeroTrav (HERO) and TNE (GDW T2K) did. That being the case, why shouldn't you be able to do the same thing with Silhouette or Storyteller?
And why should a setting that I use (any of) the Traveller rules to run be called Traveller if it has nothing in common with it? I've built my own setting from scratch using the alternate technologies in FF&S, the aliens are totally different and the history is totally different too. Admittedly I ended up using GURPS Space for the system, but had I used the CT rules instead then where's the justfiication in calling that "Traveller"?
Rhialto the Marvelous
SOC-13
Major Traveller rules that have deep setting implications--
1. Deadly environment: A Gauss rifle will kill you dead. No mooks, no Star Wars. Crash landings, punctured vacc suits... so many ways to interact with tech, so many ways to die pathetically.
2. Random chargen: you're assigned your lot in life--namely, an average to slightly superior PC in a dangerous environment (see above). Now go forth, using only your wits (and a Gauss rifle, if you can get hold of one), and shine, or die trying.
Yes, point-buy *can* emulate this, provided there are no (super-)heroic point levels. Those would de-Travellerize the game. So would Ads/Disads. Extensive minmaxing rules = not Traveller.
3. 1-week Jump: shapes the politics and the economics of the world like nothing else does (duh).
4. Vastly different TLs: there's probably no good real-world justification for these, but they make the game a lot of fun indeed.
Everything else (most aliens, the anachronistic form of government that is the Imperium and its nobility) is ditchable. Make the Imperium some kind of federation, and all you'll lose is the silly uniforms.
1. Deadly environment: A Gauss rifle will kill you dead. No mooks, no Star Wars. Crash landings, punctured vacc suits... so many ways to interact with tech, so many ways to die pathetically.
2. Random chargen: you're assigned your lot in life--namely, an average to slightly superior PC in a dangerous environment (see above). Now go forth, using only your wits (and a Gauss rifle, if you can get hold of one), and shine, or die trying.
Yes, point-buy *can* emulate this, provided there are no (super-)heroic point levels. Those would de-Travellerize the game. So would Ads/Disads. Extensive minmaxing rules = not Traveller.
3. 1-week Jump: shapes the politics and the economics of the world like nothing else does (duh).
4. Vastly different TLs: there's probably no good real-world justification for these, but they make the game a lot of fun indeed.
Everything else (most aliens, the anachronistic form of government that is the Imperium and its nobility) is ditchable. Make the Imperium some kind of federation, and all you'll lose is the silly uniforms.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
This is a swiftly moving topic to be sure!
The only "problem' I have with the aliens is the numerical probability of so many starfaring space societies essentially right next to each other, at the same essential level of development. I know, I know. "ancients". But something about it seems a little peculiar at times, aside from the fact of my never meeting an alien to compare them by.
But as others have stated, we do have a comparison model of aliens from films and tv and such. Pound for pound, it comes down to a matter of personal taste about aliens. Any and all of them are at least as well defined as other from other sources, be they Klingons, Aslan, or bonehead N'Bari. No matter how "out there" you get with an alien description, it still comes down to a human interpretation of an alien culture/physiology.It's unavoidable unless you avoid it altogether.
The only "problem' I have with the aliens is the numerical probability of so many starfaring space societies essentially right next to each other, at the same essential level of development. I know, I know. "ancients". But something about it seems a little peculiar at times, aside from the fact of my never meeting an alien to compare them by.
But as others have stated, we do have a comparison model of aliens from films and tv and such. Pound for pound, it comes down to a matter of personal taste about aliens. Any and all of them are at least as well defined as other from other sources, be they Klingons, Aslan, or bonehead N'Bari. No matter how "out there" you get with an alien description, it still comes down to a human interpretation of an alien culture/physiology.It's unavoidable unless you avoid it altogether.
I can only speak for myself but I think there is a dnager in change for no other reason than change itself. Ive made changes to my CT game that I dont feel untravellerizes the campaign. for one I gave the aslan thier human hands back. I assume that all 3I BD has grav belts and though it takes a week to jump time passes instantly for those making the jump. Jury is still out on that last one though.
My worry is that with too much change this game we all love will "jump the shark" as they say and die.
I could take the setting from Star Frontiers and the rules from Spacemaster (I did just that 10 years ago).
Is that Spacemaster, or Star Frontiers?
Answer, it's both.
If you use any Traveller ruleset in any setting, it's Traveller in my book. May be Star Trek/Traveller, or Blake's 7/Traveller, but Traveller it is still.
At the same time, you can take any other RPG ruleset, and use it in the OTU. If I used Spacemaster in the OTU, I'd be playing Spacemater/Traveller. If I used GURPS, I'd be playing GURPS/Traveller (hold on a minute...). If I used D20, I'd be playing, erm... Nope. Well, T20 houserules a conversion to a Traveller style of play.
If what we're really asking is: How much can you tinker with the OTU before it stops being the OTU?
Because we're never gonna be able to agree between us what defines Traveller.
Is that Spacemaster, or Star Frontiers?
Answer, it's both.
If you use any Traveller ruleset in any setting, it's Traveller in my book. May be Star Trek/Traveller, or Blake's 7/Traveller, but Traveller it is still.
At the same time, you can take any other RPG ruleset, and use it in the OTU. If I used Spacemaster in the OTU, I'd be playing Spacemater/Traveller. If I used GURPS, I'd be playing GURPS/Traveller (hold on a minute...). If I used D20, I'd be playing, erm... Nope. Well, T20 houserules a conversion to a Traveller style of play.
If what we're really asking is: How much can you tinker with the OTU before it stops being the OTU?
Because we're never gonna be able to agree between us what defines Traveller.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Its a strange question, as there are "OTU" sources everywhere, but few that speak of an entirely OTU game (100% OTU). Is that even possible, really? Most games I take part in are always changed from the norm in some way. I don't ever remeber a game of Trav the years over that was all the way OTU.
Rhialto the Marvelous
SOC-13
Just to clarify the point I was making: Yes, there is a core Traveller identity, it's a mix of a few crucial rules and setting elements, and if you lose one of these you de-Travellerize the game significantly.
You can certainly play in the setting using different rules, all while still playing Traveller--insofar as these new rules emulate and/or port over above Trav rules. See T20.
So, no, the Traveller identity is absolutely not arbitrary. And no, mixing and matching Trav rules with any old setting, or the Trav setting with any old rules set, won't always generate a Traveller game.
The only disagreements most of us are having stem from our opinions as to where precisely to draw the line. Emperor & Nobles: yes/no? Which will in turn influence our opinions about what if anything should be changed in a new edition.
But such discussions are legitimate and useful. They make you think about what you yourself consider core Traveller, and why.
You can certainly play in the setting using different rules, all while still playing Traveller--insofar as these new rules emulate and/or port over above Trav rules. See T20.
So, no, the Traveller identity is absolutely not arbitrary. And no, mixing and matching Trav rules with any old setting, or the Trav setting with any old rules set, won't always generate a Traveller game.
The only disagreements most of us are having stem from our opinions as to where precisely to draw the line. Emperor & Nobles: yes/no? Which will in turn influence our opinions about what if anything should be changed in a new edition.
But such discussions are legitimate and useful. They make you think about what you yourself consider core Traveller, and why.
Unless you're playing the AHL, Striker or Megatraveller version of the rules and are wearing a nice high-tech suit of battledress. Then you're maybe lightly wounded, maybe not.
Unless you count Book 1 chargen as mini-maxing...choosing career based on characteristics providing highest potential of commission and promotion...or based on highest probability of mustering out with a starship. Or choose your gun combat and blade combat skills based on your dex and strength and how heavy a weapon you can carry versus the best bonus you can get from your dex...it's amazing how many of my characters have been crack shots with shotguns.
I'm just joking around and yanking your chain, Rhialto. Don't take me seriously.
I admire your handle, by the way.
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi !
I would do so with TNE or TNE 1248, too.
Ruleswise I started "out of the box", then created tons of house rules, which I stripped away years ago again.
Growing older and older I feel an increasing dislike for the pseudo-noble centered picture of the Imperium and most of the "derived-looking" aliens like Aslan, Vargr or K'Kree, but as my players are pretty used to that, the show goes on that way
Regards,
TE
Regarding the setting I just use and have always used Traveller (namely CT/MT) "out of the box".
I would do so with TNE or TNE 1248, too.
Ruleswise I started "out of the box", then created tons of house rules, which I stripped away years ago again.
Growing older and older I feel an increasing dislike for the pseudo-noble centered picture of the Imperium and most of the "derived-looking" aliens like Aslan, Vargr or K'Kree, but as my players are pretty used to that, the show goes on that way
Regards,
TE
Before this discussion I would have said that (for me) Traveller is the setting, but here Rhialto has given a much clearer description of what I actually think!
I ran what I called a GURPS Traveller game some years before the official version. If rules were all that mattered it would have been "not Traveller" then; but it was close enough to official GT that had I run it 10 years later it would have been Traveller (with a few house rules). This is enough to convince me Traveller isn't the rules.
I've heard descriptions of games that definitely "feel" like Traveller without any of the "official" history, so it isn't that. And different campaign settings which rely on that history (say, Hard Times, Rim of Fire, Gateway to Destiny) can have very different tone and mood, so that's not it either.
Rhialto's post sums it up, and makes concrete the vague feeling I have for "what is Traveller". Thanks!
John
gamers typically do what they want with regards to rules and settings, and they'll call it traveller whether anyone agrees or not. but a publisher is not so unconstrained. he must follow copyright, and at a bare minimum he must be able to say what it is that he's selling. he can't sell star trek and call it traveller. so ... what would a publisher define traveller to be?
Sifu Blackirish
SOC-14 1K
Mal, I read your link to rpg.net (and thanks for that, btw) and I find myself pretty much in agreement with them.
My ATU is VERY humano-centric, with what some have called 'Star Trek' type aliens, with the truly ALIEN ones as major heavies, and even they have elements of Imperial Japanese and Soviet culture. An allied plant race is loosely based on Hivers, and I have a Vargr-type canine race called the Ainuu, who partially overcame their pack instincts with a human xenophobia. Yet all of this still fits into TRAVELLER.
My players never really cared about OTU politics, usually being space-opera munchkins and min-maxers. Still, I could game in the OTU with some tweaks...like the all too brief 70 year span between MT and TNE. IMHO it would heighten mystery value immensely to make that span at least 200 years, or more. Would that shock OTU purists too much?
My ATU is VERY humano-centric, with what some have called 'Star Trek' type aliens, with the truly ALIEN ones as major heavies, and even they have elements of Imperial Japanese and Soviet culture. An allied plant race is loosely based on Hivers, and I have a Vargr-type canine race called the Ainuu, who partially overcame their pack instincts with a human xenophobia. Yet all of this still fits into TRAVELLER.
My players never really cared about OTU politics, usually being space-opera munchkins and min-maxers. Still, I could game in the OTU with some tweaks...like the all too brief 70 year span between MT and TNE. IMHO it would heighten mystery value immensely to make that span at least 200 years, or more. Would that shock OTU purists too much?
What I want to know is what problems people have with the aliens. They may be too similar to humans, but it is very hard to come up with something completely alien, and even harder to use such things. Also, things might be similar because they work best that way. The K'Kree look like centaurs, but how would you make a four legged, inteligent, alien? It needs arms, and at the front is a good place to put them. Or you could say that the K'Kree are where the legends of centaurs came from.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Reasonably reasoned but your question is pretty much my answer. I'm usually not thrilled with aliens, especially as PCs and only marginally less so as NPCs because the ones that can be played are not terribly alien. And the truly alien ones are often very hard to play.
The way too many sci-fi aliens are handled differs little from elves or dwarves in fantasy and are usually just an excuse for some munchkining and played just like the usual human.
My favorite sci-fi alien sums up the ideal treatment for me...
Recall "Alien" the movie and the dead fossilized giant alien the crew of the Nostromo discover while exploring the wrecked ship? That's it. Just this big, long dead, chest exploded, alien. Just sitting there. End of story. The enigma is left to the imagination. That to me is excellent treatment of an alien in sci-fi
Similar threads
