• 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.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

General Loren's Three Rules (JTAS No. 6: How Closely Must I Stick to the Published Traveller Imperium?)

robject

SOC-14 10K
Admin Award
Marquis
Loren Wiseman framed the concept nicely back in 1980. Page 3.

I would like to take some space here to deal with a question we are often asked... How much can I, as referee, modify the rules, and how closely must I stick to the published Traveller Imperium?
First of all... [the OTU] is to help the referee ... Referees who do not wish to use our materials or who wish to use only parts of it are free to do so, adapting anything to fit as is necessary. ... Referees are free to make any changes to the rules they may with, but with a few caveats:
First: Bear in mind that the rules are interlinked to a great degree. ...
Second: Be careful not to destroy balance of play. ...
Third: Do not modify the basic tenet of Traveller -- that the speed of communication is limited to the speed of travel. ...
 
I used to modify more than now. I found it didn't make sense to others sometimes. These days I've changed very little, just characters with lots of skills and no dog-heads or cat-heads or centaurs, just too silly for me, imagine the Vargr as humanoids with some DNA and traits, not really a change to the rules as such. I used to have high tech levels for starships but have relaxed a bit and design TL 13 starships these days. The great thing about Traveller for me is that it allows creativity, experimentation, as oppose to a "dumb" universe like Warhammer 40,000 with so many commercial and creative constraints.

I agree with the last point very much, space would be feudal and comms limited to travel speed. I see the Traveller universe very much like Dune rather than Star Trek.
 
Player agency, I think, is also in mind. If you can't dial home to the Federation HQ for advice, then you have to decide for yourself what to do and then deal with the consequences.

It gets them a three-fer, doesn't it?

1. Player agency
2. Feudalistic world-building
3. Roman empire-style communications
 
For me one of the most important aspects of Rule Three is to ensure that it is possible to have the game succeed as a 'game of limited knowledge' without running afoul of the level of experience that the characters notionally have.

More often than not, your characters will have what, twenty years of work-life under their belts by the time they start adventuring.

If all those twenty years have been on Wapapitame IV, then that character should know their way around that system pretty well, and the ignorance of that system that the player necessarily exhibits doesn't make good sense. BUT

if the character's 20 years of experience were thirty parsecs away from Wapapitame IV, and the game takes place there, then the world is as new to the character as it is to the player.

(Of course, if the setting is the Spinward Marches, and if the players have some forty years of familiarity with that setting, then there's a different set of benefits and problems that the Referee has to contend with.)
 
I used to modify more than now. I found it didn't make sense to others sometimes. These days I've changed very little, just characters with lots of skills and no dog-heads or cat-heads or centaurs, just too silly for me, imagine the Vargr as humanoids with some DNA and traits, not really a change to the rules as such. I used to have high tech levels for starships but have relaxed a bit and design TL 13 starships these days. The great thing about Traveller for me is that it allows creativity, experimentation, as oppose to a "dumb" universe like Warhammer 40,000 with so many commercial and creative constraints.

I agree with the last point very much, space would be feudal and comms limited to travel speed. I see the Traveller universe very much like Dune rather than Star Trek.
Yeah, the whole wh40k tone loses me, I liked Marc Miller's version 100% better. My native setting is more mature in its own way as well.

Traveller is what I say it is, when I say it, as GM at my table. Usually it's enough to be 2d6 + skill; and I have played and watched it grow since 1979. I have 30+ starships (with deck plans, far more w/o those don't matter); thousands of game pdfs, gigs of stuff I have made over the years. My last more OTU-ish setting, Beyond the Frontier it's near 400 pages, and that was just a quick guide I put together of the 5-6 sectors like back in 2014 or so. Much of that stuff can be repurposed.

Much of this is finding an audience, I know from the stuff I have been selling, it is popular with under 30, international crowd, many from Russia, Japan, and Germany; decent amount from the UK too. Though that set might be appealing to are the more science oriented, plus like for myself, I have a tendency to not use jargon, because it is difficult to translate.
 
Traveller is what I say it is, when I say it, as GM at my table.
Agree. I play with the rules a fair mount, especially the combat rules. Those are far too complex. Mine are deadlier, but it does cut down on characters doing insane things thinking that they never will die.
 
Agree. I play with the rules a fair mount, especially the combat rules. Those are far too complex. Mine are deadlier, but it does cut down on characters doing insane things thinking that they never will die.
I have a whole other game written, almost; though my "Book 2" seems to have become corrupted. I have not exactly been thrilled by Traveller's combat rules, I mean the Gauss Rifle becomes a death ray, and why would anyone use anything else? However, I come over to Traveller from the war game side and prefer battle to be about tactics, nevertheless, realism would probably demand that an artillery shell be an easy TPK, which is not as great for the game, at least an RPG. A bar fight would be different, and a crazy random mix of action, that's ok I guess. I think over time I have become less of a fan of combat in general.
 
Unless it is a mercenary or military campaign I'd give the players a number of reasons as to going kinetic is not always a good idea.

Shoot up a few of them, let them lick their wounds. If they still want to play with the big shiny toys, the other side will have them too (with a bigger budget). If they really go down that path, give them supply chain issues. Parts and ammo are not readily available, legal and/or expensive. If they go black market let them get ripped off. B.R.Snasis (beaten, robbed, stripped nekkid and sold).

Sometimes you have to say screw it. Let them go off the rails. How does another round of character generation grab ya. Most will get the gist...at some point :sneaky:
 
That's one way to look at it. Roll play or role play, their choice.

The players generated some nifty characters and are now invested in them. Getting snuffed doing stupid (S.D.S) enough times they get the hang of the other skills that can you farther than using the Smith and Wesson interface alone.

It's when you walk into a room and see a BFG 9000 in the corner and the bass drops, then you know it's party time. Until then, smooze and stick with your trusty Stat-scraper 300.
 
Usually by the time I'm ready to kill a character, and by that I mean really not being a fan of them anymore, I am also ready to close the book on the game, if it's taking the wind out of my sails. An Italian young woman told me years and years ago: "If it can't be fun, then it can't be done". She's right.
 
Back
Top