Revised CT?

[Andrew Boulton]

"Personally I prefer bell-curve engines than flat ones, I think that's more realistic."

Same here (although like Glen BRP is my favourite system). Since "real" Traveller uses 2d6 we should stick to that.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
Same here (although like Glen BRP is my favourite system). Since "real" Traveller uses 2d6 we should stick to that.

As far as I am concerned, 'real' Traveller is the background and doesn't use any kind of die (any more than the real world uses dice). So if 2D6 turns out to be sub-optimal, why not use something better?

In the old days (before I developed my own home rules) I used the MT task system with 3D6 and difficulty level steps of 3. That worked much better (IMO, anyway).


Hans

 

[Malenfant]

As far as I am concerned, 'real' Traveller is the background

Clearly he used "real" in the sense of "Classic"

 

[mike wightman]

Not everyone shares your opinion Hans.
To many people Traveller is the rulesystem first - especially if they don't use the OTU background in their games.
Others consider it to be a fusion of setting and rules, while others, like yourself, consider Traveller to be the OTU background.

I would put myself in the second camp - Traveller is both the rules (some people do not use the OTU as their background), and the setting (hence the ability to use different rulrs systems within the OTU).
It's an either/or, sometimes both, kind of thing.

Isn't this one of those topics that ofetn begins "heated" discussions?

 

[Malenfant]

It's an either/or, sometimes both, kind of thing.

That's the problem. I think "Traveller" needs to be separate from "the OTU".

Look at D&D. It's had many different rules incarnations - the original white box, Basic D&D, AD&D1e, AD&D2e, D&D3e, and now D&D3.5 (at least).

It had many different campaign settings - Planescape, Mystara, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Spelljammer...

Now, can you say that you're playing D&D regardless of which of the aforementioend campaign settings you're playing in? Yes, you can.

ISTR that the Forgotten Realms setting went through some major changes as it changed editions (I'm talking about things like the Avatar War), and presumably the version released for 3.x is even more different. But no matter which version of the game you played, you are still playing D&D and you are still playing Forgotten Realms, right?


Now, why isn't this the case with Traveller?

So there are 6 different rules engines you can use. It's all Traveller, just like all the different versions of D&D are all D&D.

Instead of having lots of totally unconnected settings (leaving out Spelljammer here ) as D&D did, the official Traveller settings are all the same universe but in different eras. Much like Forgotten Realms is still Forgotten Realms regardless of which edition you play, so too are all the different eras of the OTU still the OTU.

In D&D of course, you can make your own setting using whatever rules you like from any edition. Is that D&D? Sure it is. Is it Forgotten Realms? No, it isn't - that's a specific setting.

It Traveller, you can make your own setting using whatever rules you like from any edition. Is that Traveller? Sure it is. Is it the OTU? No it isn't - that's a specific setting.

See what I'm getting at here? If we're to be able to have any meaningful discussion of Traveller (because right now it seems nobody can agree on what the hell Traveller even is), then we surely have to separate rules from setting.

So as:

D&D = a game defined by specific rules (D&D, OD&D, AD&D1, AD&D2, D&D3.x) but with any setting.
Forgotten Realms = a game defined by a specific setting but with any rules.

thus

Traveller = a game definied by specific rules (ie CT rules, MT rules, TNE rules, T4 rules, GURPS rules, or T20 rules) but with any setting.
OTU = a game defined by a specific setting (ie IW era, T4 era, CT era, MT era, TNE era, 1248 era...) but with any rules.


If we don't define things in this (or some similar way) then we have the nonsensical situation of nobody agreeing as to what the game even IS, which is just silly. And if D&D can define itself like this, then why the heck can't we?!

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Traveller = a game definied by specific rules (ie CT rules, MT rules, TNE rules, T4 rules, GURPS rules, or T20 rules) but with any setting.
OTU = a game defined by a specific setting (ie IW era, T4 era, CT era, MT era, TNE era, 1248 era...) but with any rules.

That surely would be nice.
IMHO both difference and problem is that - to a large degree - the Traveller rulesets present mechanics, which influence or define the whole setting on a very high level.
Other words: each ruleset defines in a generic way, how the world around behaves.
Something like D&D tends to mainly define, what characters can do.

In order to achieve a separation it might be neccesary to work out a COMMON base of assumptions and mechanics, which are usable for all the settings presented.

So, where do mechanics belong to, which have such a high impact on the environment and thus the setting ?
Does it belong to the rules or to the setting ?
I really dont know.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
IMHO both difference and problem is that - to a large degree - the Traveller rulesets present mechanics, which influence or define the whole setting on a very high level.
Other words: each ruleset defines in a generic way, how the world around behaves.
Something like D&D tends to mainly define, what characters can do.

Does it though? CT, T4, and T20 were presented as rulesets first - the background came separately (OK, there was some background incorporated in T20 at least in the alien race options and so on. But mostly it's just rules). GURPS Traveller is pretty obviously a ruleset (GURPS) and the setting (Traveller). MT and TNE could be split into setting and rules, but they weren't presented that way so maybe that's why people think of them as one thing.

It's still all ultimately the same setting though.

In order to achieve a separation it might be neccesary to work out a COMMON base of assumptions and mechanics, which are usable for all the settings presented.

I don't think one can say that there are any common mechanics really, in terms of game engine - at least, none that make a difference. For example, Various editions have tried to use the career-based chargen, and some have ignored it.

Ultimately, all the versions are simulating the same universe - the OTU (and yes, I lump GURPS Traveller in that too - it's still essentially the CT universe). Usually the differences come from how the different systems simulate things.

But at it's core I'd say that the OTU can definitely be defined by base assumptions, like:

6 specific major races, lots of minor races
Ancients spreading humans across Charted Space from Terra
Ancients = Droyne
Jump takes a week, up to J6, misjumps possible
100D limits
Four Imperiums (if you include 1248) with a long history
Maneouvre drives, antigrav, 15 TLs
Spinward Marches, Solomani Rim, Gateway, Spica etc

and so on. I think most people could agree on that sort of definition.

So, where do mechanics belong to, which have such a high impact on the environment and thus the setting ?
Does it belong to the rules or to the setting ?
I really dont know.

Surely mechanics, by definition, are rules. What specific ones are you thinking of - things like HEPlar, or jump masking?

 

[TheEngineer]

I meant mechanics like those dealing with jump drive. But maybe thats the only rule related thing, that has this high impact.

Hmm, thinking it over I guess Youre right.
There is another topic, where I asked myself about the impact of a change in some mechanics on the overall setting itself.
Perhaps its really not a big deal to strip rules completely away from the settings or to use another ruleset in another setting.

Taking all the rule-stripped setting stuff together might well fit into one OTU Resource Book, wouldnt it ?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It's an either/or, sometimes both, kind of thing.

That's the problem. I think "Traveller" needs to be separate from "the OTU".

It had many different campaign settings - Planescape, Mystara, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Spelljammer...

Now, can you say that you're playing D&D regardless of which of the aforementioend campaign settings you're playing in? Yes, you can.


Now, why isn't this the case with Traveller?

So there are 6 different rules engines you can use. It's all Traveller, just like all the different versions of D&D are all D&D.

Instead of having lots of totally unconnected settings (leaving out Spelljammer here ) as D&D did, the official Traveller settings are all the same universe but in different eras. Much like Forgotten Realms is still Forgotten Realms regardless of which edition you play, so too are all the different eras of the OTU still the OTU.

It Traveller, you can make your own setting using whatever rules you like from any edition. Is that Traveller? Sure it is. Is it the OTU? No it isn't - that's a specific setting.

See what I'm getting at here? If we're to be able to have any meaningful discussion of Traveller (because right now it seems nobody can agree on what the hell Traveller even is), then we surely have to separate rules from setting.
</font>[/QUOTE]But there are different settings. They all fit in one big galaxy but they are different settings, and you can't just go from one to another. (Well you can but that is a major undertaking.) For example: Gateway, Spinward Marches, Solomani Rim.

They share physics, they share common rules and for parts of each setting they share common laws and government. But they are vastly different.

Now we can also play these settings in different times. For example The Spinward marches is defined in 1107, 1117, 1200 and 1248. No two of these settings are the same, though they are related.

It gives a sense of continuity, something that as long as you are playing, in whichever setting, is familiar. SO you are playing Traveller. It doesn't matter if you are in Core in 1248, Spinward Marches in 1107, Gateway in 993, you are playing Traveller.

Is it the rules? Is it the setting? Who cares? It is a great game that hundreds of people have labored for years to improve, to define and to play in.

And MTU is going to be different from YTU. (By the very nature of roleplaying.) Just like my Forgotten Realms is likely to be vastly different from your Forgotten Realms. So what? In the grand scheme of things does it really matter?

It is one of the things I really love about Traveller. You aren't limited by one small piece of the pie. You aren't very limited in either time or space. And if you put a game in the Spinward MArches, regardless of era it will feel like home. Granted it might be a strange home where lots has changed since the last time you played here, but there will still be that familiar feel to it.

Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms were each continents, (granted things may have changed sine I had those rules back in the dark ages) but nothing said they might not be continents on the same planet. Matter of fact when I played they were 2 of 4 continents that were habitated. (The third one was from Judges Guild and based on the Invincible Overlord series and the fourth was Lankhmar.) And occasional major campaigns travelled between them.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
But there are different settings. They all fit in one big galaxy but they are different settings, and you can't just go from one to another. (Well you can but that is a major undertaking.) For example: Gateway, Spinward Marches, Solomani Rim.

They share physics, they share common rules and for parts of each setting they share common laws and government. But they are vastly different.

In terms of "feel"? Maybe.
In terms of setting? No, they're the same.

That's like saying that the UK, Cambodia, and Tobago are on different planets simply because they're culturally different. That's wrong - they're all on planet Earth.

It gives a sense of continuity, something that as long as you are playing, in whichever setting, is familiar. SO you are playing Traveller. It doesn't matter if you are in Core in 1248, Spinward Marches in 1107, Gateway in 993, you are playing Traveller.

You're playing in the OTU. Assuming you're using a Traveller ruleset, then you're playing Traveller in the OTU. But you're contradicting yourself now - you just said they were all "vastly different", so how can you have "continuity?"

Is it the rules? Is it the setting? Who cares? It is a great game that hundreds of people have labored for years to improve, to define and to play in.

It's a great game that thousands of people have laboured for years to improve, and yet people still can't agree on what it actually is. And if you can't agree what it is, then how can you figure out how to revise it?

And MTU is going to be different from YTU. (By the very nature of roleplaying.) Just like my Forgotten Realms is likely to be vastly different from your Forgotten Realms. So what? In the grand scheme of things does it really matter?

Seems to matter to a lot of people here.

And I'd say that MTU and YTU only applies to peoples' versions of the OTU. If I ran a Space:1999 game using the Traveller ruleset, then that wouldn't be anything to do with the OTU.

Maybe that's a terminology problem too though - it's the "Official Traveller Universe" or "My/Your Traveller Universe". But if Traveller is rules and the "OTU" is Charted Space throughout the ages, then maybe we should rename the OTU to something like "Charted Space". That way it's clearer that (for example) my Space:1999 setting using the Traveller ruleset isn't anything to do with the Charted Space Universe, but is a Traveller game because it uses the Traveller rules.

It is one of the things I really love about Traveller. You aren't limited by one small piece of the pie. You aren't very limited in either time or space. And if you put a game in the Spinward MArches, regardless of era it will feel like home. Granted it might be a strange home where lots has changed since the last time you played here, but there will still be that familiar feel to it.

Yeah, but that's because either way you're playing in the OTU. If you played in my Space 1999 game, it wouldn't feel so familiar.

Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms were each continents, (granted things may have changed sine I had those rules back in the dark ages) but nothing said they might not be continents on the same planet. Matter of fact when I played they were 2 of 4 continents that were habitated.

I think they're different worlds, actually. and things like Mystara and certainly Dark Sun are definitely different worlds. But it's still all D&D.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
But there are different settings. They all fit in one big galaxy but they are different settings, and you can't just go from one to another. (Well you can but that is a major undertaking.) For example: Gateway, Spinward Marches, Solomani Rim.

They share physics, they share common rules and for parts of each setting they share common laws and government. But they are vastly different.

In terms of "feel"? Maybe.
In terms of setting? No, they're the same.

That's like saying that the UK, Cambodia, and Tobago are on planets simply because they're culturally different. That's wrong - they're all on planet Earth.

It gives a sense of continuity, something that as long as you are playing, in whichever setting, is familiar. SO you are playing Traveller. It doesn't matter if you are in Core in 1248, Spinward Marches in 1107, Gateway in 993, you are playing Traveller.

You're playing in the OTU. Assuming you're using a Traveller ruleset, then you're playing Traveller in the OTU. But you're contradicting yourself now - you just said they were all "vastly different", so how can you have "continuity?"

Is it the rules? Is it the setting? Who cares? It is a great game that hundreds of people have labored for years to improve, to define and to play in.

It's a great game that thousands of people have laboured for years to improve, and yet people still can't agree on what it actually is. And if you can't agree what it is, then how can you figure out how to revise it?

And MTU is going to be different from YTU. (By the very nature of roleplaying.) Just like my Forgotten Realms is likely to be vastly different from your Forgotten Realms. So what? In the grand scheme of things does it really matter?

Seems to matter to a lot of people here.

And I'd say that MTU and YTU only applies to peoples' versions of the OTU. If I ran a Space:1999 game using the Traveller ruleset, then that wouldn't be anything to do with the OTU.

Maybe that's a terminology problem too though - it's the "Official Traveller Universe" or "My/Your Traveller Universe". But if Traveller is rules and the "OTU" is Charted Space throughout the ages, then maybe we should rename the OTU to something like "Charted Space". That way it's clearer that (for example) my Space:1999 setting using the Traveller ruleset isn't anything to do with the Charted Space Universe, but is a Traveller game because it uses the Traveller rules.

So:

MTU/YTU = my/your original setting made using a set of Traveller rules as an engine
CSU = The Charted Space Universe (ie the one with the Imperium in it, the default so far)
MCSU/YCSU = My/YOur Charted Space Universe (ie the same setting as the CSU, but with slight differences)

It is one of the things I really love about Traveller. You aren't limited by one small piece of the pie. You aren't very limited in either time or space. And if you put a game in the Spinward MArches, regardless of era it will feel like home. Granted it might be a strange home where lots has changed since the last time you played here, but there will still be that familiar feel to it.

Yeah, but that's because either way you're playing in the OTU. If you played in my Space 1999 game, it wouldn't feel so familiar.

Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms were each continents, (granted things may have changed sine I had those rules back in the dark ages) but nothing said they might not be continents on the same planet. Matter of fact when I played they were 2 of 4 continents that were habitated.

I think they're different worlds, actually. and things like Mystara and certainly Dark Sun are definitely different worlds. But it's still all D&D.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

For me, there are degrees of Travellerness.

Most important is the OTU - the history, astrography, personalities, and the mechanics of how the universe works (this is the only thing the different versions have in common).

Secondly are "semi-rules mechanics", like career-based chargen, UPP/UWPs, "extended hexadecimal" ratings, etc. "real" Traveller (CT/MT/T4) has this, TNE almost does, GT/T20 doesn't.

Thirdly are specific rule mechanics.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
Secondly are "semi-rules mechanics", like career-based chargen, UPP/UWPs, "extended hexadecimal" ratings, etc. "real" Traveller (CT/MT/T4) has this, TNE almost does, GT/T20 doesn't.
[/QB]

Thing is, most of that is down to presentation more than actual rules. You probably could easily come up with an "incomprehensible string of numbers and letters" style character sheet or ship design sheet for T20 based on what's there. Saying that one version of traveller is "more real" or "not Traveller" simply because it doesn't use strings of digits to describe something is missing the point somewhat isn't it?

All the rules are still basically simulating the same universe. At the end of the day, you're playing a merchant or a scout or whatever - what method you use to create him doesn't really matter, so long as the end result is roundabout the same. I could make the same character in T20, GURPS Traveller, CT, (hell, probably even in Silhouette or BESM or D20Future too if the right set of skills and stuff were available). Even though combat mechanics can be very different across the versions, the result is still the same - it's usually quick and lethal.

 

[mike wightman]

One of the things I liked a lot about FF&S was how it gave guidelines for alternative technology developments in other universe not tied to the OTU.
I know that GDW would have liked to have produced a version of T2300 as a setting book for the GDW d20 system with FF&S as the technical architecture book.
This to me was a return to the spirit behind CT - here are the rules, now make up a universe to play in.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Saying Gateway, The Spindward Marches and The Solomani Rim are all the same is like saying Waterdeep, Greyhawk, Lankhmar and the Citystate of the Invincible Overlord are all the same. Because they are all big cities, they are all on the ocean, (as I recall though I might be wrong about Greyhawk I haven't seen that map in 20+ years.) they are all seat of government. And on my world they all had a Tavern called "Ye Olde Adventurers' Inn." (It was a Chain set up by an early enterprising set of PCs who found that adventurers spend all together too much time in bars listening for rumors so they should capitilize on it and while they were sitting around in a bar at least they were making a profit.

They sold franchise rights too.

) But that doesn't make it the same setting. Oh and they all use the same laws of Physics, laws of Magic, though Lankhmar had some variations on this in the official setting rules, had the same races and the same adventuring opportunities. If you looked at it from a rules mechanics standpoint they even looked the same. But they definitely weren't the same.

Now The Spinward Marches has one set of Aliens, the Solomani Rim a different set, and Gateway a third set, though some aliens carry through to all three settings in one way or another, each has aliens that are particular to that setting.

The Solomani RIm is an older part of the Empire with higher Tech levels, less backward worlds and a Cold War going on between the Imperium and the Solomani. There are virtually no independent worlds in the Sector.(One major war fought in the area in the past 1000 years. Though it was relatively recent.)

The Spinward Marches has a border with the Zhodani Consulate and the Sword Worlds and the Imperium has fought 4.5 wars against them in the past 500 or so years. There are a few independent worlds which tend to be concentrated away from the major protagonists though a few are in between them as a sort of DMZ.

Gateway Domain has only one major Empire actually in the setting has three other Major Governments influencing the area but there is a minimum of 1 sector of independent worlds between these governments and the Imperium. The Imperium only comprises 1/4 of the available realestate. There are dozens of little pocket empires and independent worlds. Most of the adventuring opportunities take place away from the Imperium.

Sure the same rules apply, sure the same physics apply, that doesn't make them the same place.

Calling Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms different settings is no different. Calling Mordheim different, now that has different races, different magic, different laws of physics and different rules for a fantasy setting. (WHFRP) Or Middle Earth. These are truly different. But saying these D&D settings are different but the Traveller settings aren't different makes no sense at all to me.

I never said anything like Tobago, Cambodia and the UK were on different planets, I did imply that playing in any of those countries would definitely be different and therefore different campaign settings. It does not take different planets to be different campaign settings. It doesn't even take different Universes to be different campaign settings.

Lets use a different analogy though. Just because they are on the same planet, in your opinion would New York City, Austin, Texas, London, England, Hati, Baghdad and Beiging be the same or different campaign settings? Or sticking to Strictly one language well mostly one language, London, England, Belfast, Ireland, NYC, US, Los Angles, US Honolulu, US, Sydney, Austraila be the same or different if you were to run a game in those locations?

The FRFZ, Bug City and Seattle were all different Campaign settings in Shadowrun, but it was fairly easy to travel between them. (And they were all in North America.)

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
But there are different settings. They all fit in one big galaxy but they are different settings, and you can't just go from one to another. (Well you can but that is a major undertaking.) For example: Gateway, Spinward Marches, Solomani Rim.

They share physics, they share common rules and for parts of each setting they share common laws and government. But they are vastly different.

In terms of "feel"? Maybe.
In terms of setting? No, they're the same.

That's like saying that the UK, Cambodia, and Tobago are on different planets simply because they're culturally different. That's wrong - they're all on planet Earth.

It gives a sense of continuity, something that as long as you are playing, in whichever setting, is familiar. SO you are playing Traveller. It doesn't matter if you are in Core in 1248, Spinward Marches in 1107, Gateway in 993, you are playing Traveller.

You're playing in the OTU. Assuming you're using a Traveller ruleset, then you're playing Traveller in the OTU. But you're contradicting yourself now - you just said they were all "vastly different", so how can you have "continuity?"

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Malenfant]

I think we're using the same words to describe different things. I'm using the word "setting" merely describes a small part of a unique game universe.

In Traveller's case the Marches, Spica, Gateway, and the Rim are different settings - but it's still the same universe whether you want to define it that way or not. it's all part of Charted Space.

The thing with D&D is that Faerun (FR), Greyhawk, Krynn (Dragonlance), and Athas (Dark Sun), Mystara (Basic D&D) and Eberron are all different worlds and different universes. But the rules concepts are all compatible, because they're all based on the D&D ruleset (some emphasise certain aspects more (eg Dark Sun with its psionics) and lack others (eg only Eberron has the clockwork/mecha elements). All of the above are D&D, but they're still not all the same universe.

In Traveller, the closest equivalent will be with QLI's approach: T20 is the core rules, but there are different settings: Gateway/1248, 2320AD, Honor Harrington, and Aldenata. You could say that all of those are Traveller (because they use the same rules), but they aren't all the same universe.

The Marches, the Rim, Gateway, Spica etc are all different "settings" in the same universe of Charted Space. They share a common history, the same races can show up, the same ships ply the spaceways etc.

Sure the same rules apply, sure the same physics apply, that doesn't make them the same place.

Of course it makes them the same place! It's all set in the same universe - "Charted Space". The one with the Imperium and the Rim War, Beowulf traders, and the Aslan and Vargr and K'Kree etc. Whether any of those show up in the games is utterly irrelevant to that definition.

Star Trek: TOS, Next Generation, DS9 and Voyager are all set in the same universe. Sure, they're set in different locations and very different in feel and there's very little overlap between them and you can call them different settings, but they share a common background and the same technologies and races - because they're in the same universe.

Calling Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms different settings is no different.

It's very different - especially if you use an example of Forgotten Realms vs Dark Sun, which definitely ARE different universes.

(WHFRP) Or Middle Earth. These are truly different.

Of course they're different - they don't use remotely the same assumptions, mechanics, or setting. They are not the same universes.

But saying these D&D settings are different but the Traveller settings aren't different makes no sense at all to me.

Everything currently published for Traveller is still aimed at simulating the same universe - that of Charted Space. The "feel" of it is irrelevant - the fact is, you can point to a common map of Charted space and find the Marches, the Rim, Gateway, Spica, and all the other sectors. That's what makes it the same universe, and that's what is important in defining all the settings like Gateway and the Rim.

It does not take different planets to be different campaign settings. It doesn't even take different Universes to be different campaign settings.

Admittedly, Spelljammer tried to make all the D&D settings part of the same universe. In a sense, they are because you could (with a bit of rules adjustment) take a character from one setting and transport him to another via Spelljammer. But for all other practical purposes they're separate universes in the same way that Heavy Gear is a separate universe to Cyberpunk 2020, Blue Planet, Transhuman Space, and Charted Space.

Lets use a different analogy though. Just because they are on the same planet, in your opinion would New York City, Austin, Texas, London, England, Hati, Baghdad and Beiging be the same or different campaign settings? Or sticking to Strictly one language well mostly one language, London, England, Belfast, Ireland, NYC, US, Los Angles, US Honolulu, US, Sydney, Austraila be the same or different if you were to run a game in those locations?

They're different settings, but they're still the same universe. Someone from England, Papua New Guinea, Texas, or Bolivia could show up and tranfer beween any of those settings, because they still exist in the background there.

The FRFZ, Bug City and Seattle were all different Campaign settings in Shadowrun, but it was fairly easy to travel between them. (And they were all in North America.)

You just shot your own argument down there, didn't you?! That's exactly the point I'm making - different settings can be in the same universe. If you accept that the FRFZ, Bug City, and Seattle are in the same universe (the Shadowrun universe), then you can accept that Gateway, Tte Marches, and the Rim are all in the same universe (Charted Space).

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
One of the things I liked a lot about FF&S was how it gave guidelines for alternative technology developments in other universe not tied to the OTU.

That's why I love FF&S too. Hell, I've used it to define the technological architecture (I love that phrase ) for my own settings too.

 

[CarlP]

Originally posted by rancke:
[QB]

As far as I am concerned, 'real' Traveller is the background and doesn't use any kind of die (any more than the real world uses dice).

That's the way I feel about it. For me, Traveller is the Third Imperium, the Spinward Marches, Type-S scouts and Type-A traders. The rules used for it never mattered that much to me, as long as it provides for a fun game.

 

[mike wightman]

So I ask again:
if I pick up LBB 1-3 and use the character generation to design characters, use the starship rules to build ships use the world generation to build a subsector or two to adventure in,am I playing Traveller?

Cos it sure ain't D&D

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Malenfant:

The FRFZ, Bug City and Seattle were all different Campaign settings in Shadowrun, but it was fairly easy to travel between them. (And they were all in North America.)

You just shot your own argument down there, didn't you?! That's exactly the point I'm making - different settings can be in the same universe. If you accept that the FRFZ, Bug City, and Seattle are in the same universe (the Shadowrun universe), then you can accept that Gateway, Tte Marches, and the Rim are all in the same universe (Charted Space). [/QUOTE]

Actually I just stated that even though they are in the same universe, on the same continent even that they are still different settings with different feels.

I also never compared Darksun, (never heard of it) to any of the traditional D&D settings. I compared 4 traditional D&D settings. And made an analogy between them being different settings the same way the major settings in Traveller are different. They may all be in Charted space, they may all use the same laws of physics but you can, especially with a good GM fleshing them each out, feel the difference between them. They aren't the same. And I certainly wouldn't expcet to run into a Zhodane Patrol Cruiser in Gateway or The Solomani Rim. While I would expect Aslan to be fairly common in the Spinward Marches, perhaps a little less so in The Solomani Rim, though still fairly common, I would expect Aslan to be Rare in Gateway. YOu may find Hivers in Gateway, in fact you should eventually find them there. You might find a trade delegation as far away as The Solomani Rim but you wouldn't expect to find them in the Spinward Marches. I personally wouldn't expect to find K'kree in The Solomani Rim or the Spinward MArches at all. Vegans will be almost exclusive to the Solomani Rim. Swordworlders would be pretty exclusive to the Spinward Marches, Kafoe would be pretty much exclusive to Gateway.

On the other hand if I walk out the city gates of Waterdeep, or Greyhawk or THe CItystate of the Invincible Overlord I would expect to find Orcs, Goblins, Gnolls, Orgres, Dragons, and all of them are the same no matter which city I leave. Within the city I expect to find a thriving Docks, a lively merchant quarter, a generic Adventurers Bar, similar to Ye Olde Adventurers Inn, A thieve's Guild, A Merchant's Guild and an Assassin's Guild.

Yet you declare these different settings. But settings that are actually different are the same simply because the area between them is better defined?

The places don't have the same feel. Things that work one way in one are different in the other, even though the physics are the same the laws are not. Just like the difference between walking down the street in Downtown Indianapolis, IN vs. Bed Sty, Brooklyn, NY.