New thought about the course of Traveller

[robject]

I think that this was unintentional and incremental.

During the development of Traveller as a game, there were three slow, somewhat unintended, but certain nonetheless currents of development from the three little books of Classic Traveller to the massive electronic (and soon physical) tome which is Traveller 5. I call this kind of development "creep" as it was, as far as I can tell, unintended, and usually quite slow, but it did change the game considerably.

The first creep, and the only one with relatively undebatable detrimental side effects on the game, was the Modifier Creep. [...]

A second type of creep, which is more a matter of taste, is complexity creep. Classic Traveller was a very simple game, where a character can be described in a few rows of text and a starship in a single paragraph; character generation and ship-building were very simple, sometimes too simple, and very quick (about five minutes per character). Book 4: Mercenary and Book 5: High Guard added many more details, including a much more cumbersome character generation system, as well as much more technical ship design rules. [...]

A third type of creep is scale creep - the gradual change from pocket empires or a loose Imperium as implied by the first three books to a much grander, more secure and much more powerful Imperium as implied by later products.

This is a great analysis! I love this sort of commentary; it's something I can sink my teeth into, and we can all benefit from a little 20/20 hindsight.

I think rules progressions were actually due to the Three Black Books being simplistic but surprisingly popular: they could not contain much detail. The authors didn't suddenly decide to support big empires: they only had so much space to do what they wanted to do.

So then, when Traveller became a hit, the Three LBBs could not support its popularity. Traveller grew in a relatively unstructured way and often by third party (like the Environment series by the Keiths). The rules which encompass most of the Traveller universe were written within 10 years of the LBBs. After that, few truly "new" rules were written, though there were some (gun creation for example).

Thus we can divide Traveller into three phases:

Phase I. 1977-1978. The Three Little Black Books, never intended to be comprehensive, but intended to be a complete game, and necessarily simplistic due to space requirements.

Phase II. 1978-1988. Support for the Traveller universe via expanding the rules into the concept space. Aliens and alien characteristics (Caste, Charisma, Curiosity...), mercenary support, fleet and Navy support, wargaming support, Scout/star systems support, Merchant/trading support, chargen (citizen-type careers), world environments, robots, systematized tasks, vehicle design. Forms and charts. Starship operations (SOM by DGP).

Phase III. 1989-2012. Attempts to simultaneously finish out rules expansions (e.g. DGP's World Builder's Handbook) while also conglomerating everything in a systematic way (e.g. MegaTraveller and every rule system that came after it).


We've been in Phase III for 20+ years.


So when we get to Traveller5, comprehensive, existing, scattered rules are integrated together. Subject material treated by earlier rules expansions got ported into the Core Rules Set. The result is a Compendium of rules that are integrated, rather than piecemeal. It's a reference work for a consistent Marc's-eye-view of the Traveller universe.

What Traveller5 gives me, as far as starships go, is a way to hide its complexity. I can create valid, fully defined starships with a shortened version of ACS which is about the length and complexity as Book 2's starship design sequence. For a long time I've wanted that.

 

[mike wightman]

Why not just use LBB2 then?

It's a lot simpler than T5, and with a few extra 4t modules just as varied.

Come to think of it why not just use CT for all the rules needed to play the game and just use T5 for filling in any gaps and for universe design?

CT LBB1-3 could be expanded to the size of the later rule books as far as page count. That would allow for the 2 pages it takes to detail the DGP task system (or something similar) and replace the combat system with T4s. Spacecraft could be based on a fixed version of HG2 - use either % based components or modular components based on the % to maintain compatibility.

Update and fix world design.

In 3 56 page books you would have T6.

The makers, the technology description chapters, genetics, sophonts , robots etc could be edited to make the next few supplements.

Go back to a simple game system that works and then build on it with the new ideas.

It would also be compatible with CT, MT, MgT immediately.

 

[Vladika]

Why not just use LBB2 then?

It's a lot simpler than T5, and with a few extra 4t modules just as varied.

Come to think of it why not just use CT for all the rules needed to play the game and just use T5 for filling in any gaps and for universe design?

CT LBB1-3 could be expanded to the size of the later rule books as far as page count. That would allow for the 2 pages it takes to detail the DGP task system (or something similar) and replace the combat system with T4s. Spacecraft could be based on a fixed version of HG2 - use either % based components or modular components based on the % to maintain compatibility.

Update and fix world design.

In 3 56 page books you would have T6.

The makers, the technology description chapters, genetics, sophonts , robots etc could be edited to make the next few supplements.

Go back to a simple game system that works and then build on it with the new ideas.

It would also be compatible with CT, MT, MgT immediately.

I will pay for my copy right now!

 

[savage]

The rules which encompass most of the Traveller universe were written within 10 years of the LBBs. After that, few truly "new" rules were written, though there were some (gun creation for example).

Thus we can divide Traveller into three phases:

Phase I. 1977-1978. The Three Little Black Books,

Phase II. 1978-1988. Support for the Traveller universe via expanding the rules into the concept space.
Phase III. 1989-2012. Attempts to simultaneously finish out rules expansions

So when we get to Traveller5, ...
What Traveller5 gives me, as far as starships go, is a way to hide its complexity. I can create valid, fully defined starships with a shortened version of ACS which is about the length and complexity as Book 2's starship design sequence. For a long time I've wanted that.

I think your phases are skipping the expansion into other rule sets before being pulled into T5. We have seen growth from other 3rd parties.

Also, I think it's good that the complexity aligns with LBB Book2, but T5 also takes away the big ship universe. There is an old product saying, "Don't take away features."

 

[robject]

[...]
CT LBB1-3 could be expanded [...] detail the DGP task system (or something similar) and replace the combat system [...] fixed version of HG2 [...]

[...] Update and fix world design. [...]

[...] The makers, the technology description chapters, genetics, sophonts , robots etc could be edited [...]

Some of T5 can be used with Classic Traveller, Mega, and Mongoose. I really like that a Book 2 starship can be very easily ported into Traveller5 (have you read my post on that?). And yet, T5 is not CT... and doesn't have to be.

Frankly, that list you quote can't fit into an LBB 1-3 mold. It bursts out of its shell and becomes something else. LBB 1-3 is not expandable. You will break compatibility at some point and there's no going back. It is possible that you might even be tempted to replace the 2D task system. And then you have something else: it might be T5, it might be GURPS or HERO, but it isn't CT, MT, or MgT.

Put another way: CT has a lot of stuff, but integration would break my mind, and is plagued by either-or: each decision you make narrows the rules, and by definition Classic Traveller players are not united in the CT rules they use.

 

[mike wightman]

I hereby make a prediction

In 10 years time there will be more people using CT + house rules than there are using T5.

LBB1-3 is infinitely expandable - everyone on this board just about can attest to it.

I am using T5 to do what I quoted, it fills in some of the gaps that CT has.

But, CT + has a simple skill list and simple task system, it has a proven combat system...

 

[mike wightman]

I will pay for my copy right now!

All I have to do is win the lottery so I can buy the rights from Marc

 

[Blue Ghost]

Golan2072; I think all that's true, but if you look at all of the RPGs and War Sims that came out at that time you'll note that games like Car Wars or Star Fleet Battles, and a few others, got more complex nearly to the point of being broken.

I attribute that more to market forces of people wanting more material than to an inherit flaw in the game design. Still, it would be nice if the old 2d6 mechanic had been tweaked earlier to work with high energy weapons and what not.

 

[robject]

In 10 years time there will be more people using CT + house rules than there are using T5.

That's possible. For sure, there are more people using CT than T4, TNE, or MT. It's a safe bet that T5 needs more than the current Core Rules to get anywhere.

(And I'm hoping to get a concept or two from High Guard 1 into BCS...)

I am using T5 to do what I quoted, it fills in some of the gaps that CT has.

...and that's fine. In a way, that's what I used the T5 draft to do, as it was being written... I just happened to have replaced every CT subsystem with a T5 one But I still use CT: for example, the alien modules, and the adventures. (Although I do admit to having converted the Aslan and Vargr modules to Traveller5, using MT's Referee's Companion as corrected source).


My prediction is that Mongoose Traveller will be top dog for the forseeable future. It is the edited, integrated Classic Traveller that you have asked for, and released as a simple rulebook + supplements rather than one big lump, to boot. And it is more closely related to Traveller5, if you can believe that. Have you tried it?

 

[Chuck Anumia]

I agree

MT didn't become a usable setting until hard Times - everything prior to that was too meta-plot driven and too grand. But Hard Times showed the effect of the chaos caused by the rebellion and more importantly gave us a setting where PC scale action made a difference..

Just a thought, and I've never tried this but may give it a go, it may be an interesting setting to stretch out the timeframe of Hard Times a bit and slowly collapse the worlds of a sector/subsector during the earlier rebellion period, with the large fleet actions being used as random 'acts of god'. keep them in the background but occasionally a world may be flattened due to fleet action.

I was also wondering what modules, adventures and ideas will come from T5 (if any)?
I would like to see some game modules but perhaps with the compilation of T5 as it is, the GM is expected to create his own adventure modules based upon his ideas and those of his players.
Stretching the timeframe of the results of the rebellion into the local sectors where the players are is a great idea and theme.
I personally like the idea that my players can have some influence in the outcome of the rebellion in their location even if it is only to pass on information others will use or actually become involved on one side or another fighting for what they believe in or like Han Solo "Just for Profit".

 

[Blue Ghost]

I think my biggest complaint about poster / player / GM/Ref anecdotes on game sessions is the fact that a lot of the after action accounts I've read seemed to have had deep and profound impacts upon the Imperium and her neighbors. Players X, Y, and Z infiltrate some noble party, gleam some facts, then act like some special forces team to change the course of history.

I always wondered what the attraction of Wagnerian adventuring was. It just seems too grand , obtuse and otherwise "in your face" for lack of a better term. What about exploring really cool caves with massive crystal formations, or trekking into a forest of massive fungus or something?

Just me.

 

[madmike]

Very true. But a referee should tailor their gaming sessions to suit the group they run the game for.

For instance, my group come from fantasy RPG origins and they expect action and combat. Over the last two years, that desire has tempered and I can now spin a better story, but it is still there and as a referee telling that story, I need to cater for it or at the very least make allowances for some form of combat to be had, no matter how lethal it is in Traveller.

At least now it does not need to be in every session. They are deriving more fun in achieving things without needing to shoot off star hot plasma, coherent light or magnetically accelerated metal.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Oh very true. I'm all for adding action for the players where needed, and I think that was kind of the point of MT's direction for the Imperium, but for the groups where I administered the adventure, the adventure was the adventure, and didn't have huge ramifications for the subsector, much less anyplace else.

So when I read about players destroying planets, or changing the political course of a sector, or borders or what not, I wonder how strong the adventure was in order to necessitate all that highfalutin political military mumbo-jumbo.

Just me.

 

[madmike]

It never goes that far. The players in my group know that there are consequences if guns are drawn.

 

[Hyphen]

Dear Folks -

Just thought I might address a few points. (It's taken me a while.)

I was skimming the threads and saw some comments about how MT materials were slanted to fit a point of view. That kicked off a chain of thoughts.

Classic Traveller was written.

Then Star Wars 4-6 came out. Not just big ships, but rebellions, with factions, bases, fleets, nobility on the rebel side. So we got MT. Sure, the 3I and surrounding is huge, but let's blow the whole setting up, not just part, and they rewrote everything, and added adventures in accounting.

Actually, I disagree a bit with your timeline.

Consider this: _SW_ and CT Trav were released in 1977; _Empire_ was 1980; _Jedi_ came out in 1983.

The LBB's were still coming out at this time. Admittedly Books 4 & 5 pre-date _Empire_, but Bk 6 was 1983 (as was Starter Traveller), Bk 7 was 1985 (with chargen first in JTAS #12, 1981), and Bk 8 Robots was 1986.

I'd have said that it's more likely that High Guard was a response to Star Wars, not MT. HG was when Traveller went from a small- to a big-ship universe.

In contrast, MT came out in 1987, years later.

MT came about because GDW-proper was doing other things. They thought maybe they should devote a bit more time to Traveller, but had no time available - so they looked to DGP for help. DGP had just written Bk 8: Robots (as well as half-a-dozen Digests), so had a proven track record. DGP replaced the ad-hoc Traveller task system with their own (which had been refined through the pages of their Digests), and attempted (bravely) to integrate Striker with Traveller. As for the background, many fans apparently had lamented the rise of the "monolithic Imperium", and wanted somewhere where their actions really could make a difference. Thus, "blow up" the monolith and introduce smaller areas run by the Rebellion's factions.

Then the 80s sci-fi anarchy wave came, so Miller blew it up again, this time sticking the final knife in Traveller's body by not only ruining another setting, but getting Vampire self aware ships in the mix with literally space pirates with swords and filth.

Again, this doesn't fit the timeline. Marc had left GDW in 1991 to sell insurance, prior to the TNE setting. Marc said, "I found that the activity wasn't supporting the lifestyle I had grown accustomed to." Hard Times was written in late 1991. Dave Nilsen took over the manuscript in September as his first task - which was behind schedule even before he joined GDW.

When Dave was hired, the principals at GDW (i.e. Frank & Loren; Marc was still an owner, but wasn't working there anymore) already knew that there was going to be a new version of Traveller. GDW had realised they had neglected one of their flagship products: MegaTraveller had inadequate support, too much errata, and no-one at GDW knew the MT system (fan questions about rules were still being sent to Joe & Gary at DGP). Frank had decided that they would convert Traveller to the GDW "House Rules" system, so they could support it (DGP had already announced they were dropping support for Traveller). Apart from that, however, when Dave wanted "to get a handle on where Traveller was intended to go", he found that "there was a bit of a vacuum where you would expect a creative team".

Most of the "gradual destruction and decline" storylines had been written by out-of-house designers, following the Rebellion Sourcebook maps. Dave argued that for fans to believe GDW were serious about a new edition, even based on the "House Rules", GDW had to demonstrate a serious commitment to the product.

This could be done by pulling Traveller development back in-house, and having direct creative control.

Survival Margin was written over Christmas 1992, and released in 1993. TNE was released in 1993.

Literally chasing movies is what ruined Traveller. Compare with D&D, who changed mechanics and even worlds, but never the concept setting.

As I said, the timeline doesn't fit this interpretation. Nor do the explicit words of Loren Wiseman, Joe Fugate (on this list), and Dave Nilsen, who all ought to know. (Over on the TNE-Mailing List, Dave Nilsen has been giving us some background on what was happening in GDW around that time.)

MT didn't become a usable setting until hard Times...

and

I dropped Traveller after MT hit the shelves. Our group got into char-gen with MT, and loved reading the background, but, and this is the BIG but, ... where're the game modules? Where's MT LBB Adventure 1 "The Spinward Marches Plot" (I made that title up just now).

That was the only drawback that I saw to MT. It's like writing down the rules for Monopoly, describing the playing pieces, the money, titles, deeds, the Chance and Community Chest cards, and everything else, but not providing the board and playing pieces.

and

That was a big sticking point for me, they went to all the trouble of leveling the Imperium and then did almost nothing with it.

Apparently none of you were alone in this criticism. In Dave's own words: "One of the main--and legitimate--complaints about MT was that GDW (or GDW and DGP) introduced this giant historical change to arguably "open up" the game, but that this huge change was utterly unsupported by material which would help refs and players run campaigns in it".

And this was on top of the errata(*).

(*)Full disclosure: I'm a big fan of MT, and believe that once you incorporate the errata, it is the best Trav system ever. Actually, I should say, once you also add in Wil's (Aramis') mods, especially the "Stat/3 = bonus" and 4-8-12-16-20 difficulty ranges. This is what I'm currently using in the "Grand Tour" campaign.

P.S.

"...Wagnerian adventuring..."

Thanks Blue, that phrase has now become part of my vocabulary!!

 

[rancke]

I'd have said that it's more likely that High Guard was a response to Star Wars, not MT. HG was when Traveller went from a small- to a big-ship universe.

HG was where Traveller turned to Big Ships, no argument there. But was that as a response to Star Wars or because someone sat down and worked out how many 5000T ships worlds with billions of inhabitants could actually afford?


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

Hey Hyphen. Long time, no see. Always happy to add to vocabulary.

I guess my other beef with the MT era was that in retrospect it seemed like the MT era was promoting adventures with big reprecussions. The D&D equivalent is a band of adventurers, a wizard (mage), ranger, fighter, cleric and a thief going off to some dungeon infested with bad guys, and then once they emerge, suddenly Kingdoms go to war or merge, and all kinds of geopolitical stuff takes place. To me that's just kind of silly. Couldn't those same five characters simply go treasure hunting, save the daughter of some local noble, and then move onto the next thing?

When I used to generate adventures for various player groups, no matter the RPG system, I didn't reach for big themes to keep my players interested. It was confront the danger or enemies, and then cash in. I think the "biggest thing" any of my groups confronted was an NPC we called "Enemy of the Galaxy" (a comical riff on Hero of the Galaxy mentioned in the back of 1001 Characters). "Enemy" was a pretty bad mofo who could take hits/damage like no one's business. His power bids were thwarted more than once by my players.

One time my guys were on a Hero Class Aslan merc ship. "Enemy" was down on his luck, and wanted to snag one of these beauties for himself. My players had been hired on by an Aslan merc team a kind of afterthought for fire support and canon fodder on their next mission. They were human, and ergo would get thrown in the front ranks of the first assault when it came time to secure the LZ on some Solomani world. But, during a layover or something (I forget), "Enemy" managed to gas the entire crew.

Ah, but the gas only effected the Aslan, meaning the PCs were the only ones unaffected. They confronted "Enemy" and his platoon of boarders, and through some damn good die throwing and pretty ingenious tactics, and just sheer guts, they fought him off. The teams heavy gunner, Marc Grendell, had an Aliens LMG with a gyro mount, and emptied a 100round belt/clip into "Enemy", who barely toppled over from damage (I really tried to challenge my players this time).

Now here's the real kicker; even though "Enemy" was beaten, and his fire teams completely vanquished, there really weren't any medals awarded, nor nobles who took notice, nor big geo-political ramifications...the attack on the Solomani world not withstanding. It just happened to be a scenario that my guys got through. Worlds didn't change hands, no one was dethroned, no worlds were destroyed, major battle fleets weren't routed.

But, reading the MT background, again to me, it almost seemed like they might be encouraging that.

Ergo, I guess it's a good thing no adventures were published

 

[GypsyComet]

Ergo, I guess it's a good thing no adventures were published

MT settled into a "Life During Wartime" mode for PCs, with Knightfall, Flaming Eye, and early examples like Nail Mission.

As noted, even DGP was only sort of supporting the Rebellion period at that level, instead spending a lot of their time prior to it, in a sort of "danceband on the Titanic" vibe. There are a lot of folks who love the DGP material. That is actually part of the problem. DGP was lovingly showing off the last days of the Imperium of 1110 to 1115 while also showing us the horrors of the decade to follow. That likely backfired, as so much of the fanbase seems to separate the two in publication time. By showing us what they were simultaneously destroying, they created a hatred of the Rebellion period.

Marketing error, or just an error? Hard to say at this point.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, I think Garyius2003's tirade on Star Wars and Traveller has a few ounces of truth in it. That is I think the backstory for the SW saga was well known by the time MT came around, and I think there was some inspiration and a bit of an homage to help facilitate a possible SW gaming session using the Traveller rules. But that's just my wild speculation.

I wasn't too concerned about the rebellion because A) I had to drop Traveller at the point in my life for professional reasons, and B) it really seemed inconsequential. Example; if you were to run one of the LBB classic adventures with an adjusted year to place it into the Rebellion era, it really wouldn't alter the adventure much, if at all.

The only adventure that I can think of that would have been radically altered would have been "Expedition to Zhodane" or maybe even "Mission on Mithril".

As for the future of Traveller, well, I haven't read the latest milieu, so I'm not up to speed on what's going on in the Imperium "now", so to speak. But, hopefully it's post Rebellion and post Virus.

 

[Hemdian]

I'm not sure I buy the SW connection. As others have pointed out the dates don't match very well. But one thing I did notice lining up was Hard Times (1991) and TNE (1993) with the Yugoslav wars (1991-1999). I remember when I first read Hard Times, as much as I hated what was happening to my 'beloved' 3I, there was a cold relentless inevitability that was difficult to deny.