The old rules emulation debate

[aramis]

As for settings, D and D was before Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Forgotten relms and so on. Traveller gave you rules for generating planets, subsectors, and sectors in the basic set before Supplements were produced. You were expected to make your own Imperium. Later it was filled out in publications or farmed out to judges guild, game lords, FASA ect.

The diference between gaming today and 35 years ago is DM's today expect nuts and bolt settings. Back then before the flood of aftermarket companies we made it up ourselves.

Agree entirely with this part.

I'll also point out that the rules in D&D, T&T, Starfaring... all of them left the underlying "reality" up to the GM, covering mostly combat and paranormal elements. CT defined a bit more, but the materials defined in 1977 really didn't define much: Ships, worlds, combat effects, psionics. All things beyond the average college student's experiences, even then.

If there is an underlying reality, it's a comparison of the survival rates to those of the US Military during the Vietnam war. (At least, they're within rounding error to 2d6 throws.) But does that imply an underlying reality being simulated? NO! it implies that Marc grabbed the then readily available data and adapted it for a general consistency with the target audience's expectations, rather than constructing an underlying "reality" to simulate/emulate.

Essentially, CT is assembled by "Rule of Cool"... as were most RPG's of the era. The exceptions being EPT and RuneQuest. EPT and RuneQuest both had underlying realities they were actively trying to emulate. That changes in late 1978... but the core rules didn't actually change to reflect that setting that was associated with them. Mind you, the core rules WERE changed in 1981, but not to be more OTU-friendly. They were simplified a bit in the combat department, and a few changes were made in healing.

 

[SpaceBadger]

Wow, I think I understand what everyone in this conversation is saying, and I think I can see where you are misunderstanding each other, but I'm not sure how to translate...

Maybe it started w the use of the phrase "underlying reality"?

I think what Hans has been saying about game rules being a simplification of an underlying reality might be like this (Hans, of course, feel free to correct me!):

Reality is that some people are stronger/faster/smarter than others. Games simplify this into rules for attributes like Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence.

Reality is that living things can be injured by being shot/stabbed/burned. Games simplify this into rules for weapons doing certain amounts of damage which are applied in certain ways.

Reality is that not all 9mm pistols are exactly the same, or even take the same ammo. Traveller simplifies this into a description of size, weight, damage, etc for a generic 9mm pistol.

I could go on with more examples, but I hope that gets the idea across?

 

[aramis]

Wow, I think I understand what everyone in this conversation is saying, and I think I can see where you are misunderstanding each other, but I'm not sure how to translate...

Maybe it started w the use of the phrase "underlying reality"?

I think what Hans has been saying about game rules being a simplification of an underlying reality might be like this (Hans, of course, feel free to correct me!):

Reality is that some people are stronger/faster/smarter than others. Games simplify this into rules for attributes like Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence.

Reality is that living things can be injured by being shot/stabbed/burned. Games simplify this into rules for weapons doing certain amounts of damage which are applied in certain ways.

Reality is that not all 9mm pistols are exactly the same, or even take the same ammo. Traveller simplifies this into a description of size, weight, damage, etc for a generic 9mm pistol.

I could go on with more examples, but I hope that gets the idea across?

It doesn't make a difference. I understand Hans clearly, and simply think he's seeing things that are not present.

Perhaps part of it is his preference for universal systems (expressed on SJG's boards) and simulation, and my preference for rules that DO NOT emulate reality, but merely play well without being egregiously far from it.

 

[Vladika]

"If the rules describe a simplified version of the setting, there are such details, even though the rules don't mention them."

Bingo!

The rules have to represent "a simplified version of the setting". Unless you want to try saying we know EVERYTHING about our current universe and that all that vast knowledge we have accumulated can fit into a few Little Black Books?

 

[mike wightman]

How does the maneuver drive work in this underlying reality?

Why do jump drive fuel requirements do a bobby ewing?

Over the years the game designers changed both of these several times - easy to do for a set of rules but completely alters the setting.

And there are many other examples of rules changes altering the setting paradigms.

Compare the Imperium presented in the library data and intros to LBB4 and 5 with the Imperium described by the Library Data supplements.

One of the reasons most of the GT books are so good is that they have taken the snapshot of the golden age of the Imperium and replicated a consistent setting
- something that the GDW version never was.

 

[DangerousThing]

One of the reasons most of the GT books are so good is that they have taken the snapshot of the golden age of the Imperium and replicated a consistent setting
- something that the GDW version never was.

There are a few problems with the GT books vs the OTU, as I see it.

First, the nobles in GT scenarios seem to have too much say in day-to-day planetary dealings.

Second, the GT rule set uses mass to affect a ship's acceleration. Basic Traveller doesn't and the OTU seems to fit better with the integral accelerations. Mind you, I think that GURPS simulates reality better and I used to use it for almost everything. I stopped when I had a fortune in books and they went up a level and changed things so I would have had to buy too many books I already had.

Though I still think the GURPS resource books are some of the best research studies on the market.

 

[mike wightman]

I didn't say GT doesn't have its own problems - stupid starship construction rules, adoption of GURPS TL scale rather than Traveller's, rating starports as roman numerals rather than letters, plus a few others.

But at least the authors (usually) do their research and try to write a joined up setting that has its own internal consistency.

 

[rancke]

How does the maneuver drive work in this underlying reality?

Depends. Are you talking fusion torches or thrusters? Thrusters are part (or entirely) imaginary physics, so as per my post above, I'll not address that question. Fusion torches operate differently than what the rules say (mass of the ship is important and acceleration is not in 1G chunks). The rules simplify that for ease of gaming.

Why do jump drive fuel requirements do a bobby ewing?

Imaginary physics and self-contradictory evidence, so again I'll keep my bargepole out of the mess.

Over the years the game designers changed both of these several times - easy to do for a set of rules but completely alters the setting.

And there are many other examples of rules changes altering the setting paradigms.

These changes were attempts to create a more self-consistent game universe. Naturally they would be accompanied with retcons of the background.

Try having a look at the rules changes that weren't associated with retcons. Like the combat rules. Each version strives to create a better (for whatever mix of realism and gameability the authors thought were better) expression of the exact same paradigm, namely realistic (i.e. true to the real universe) combat. I strongly doubt that the fact that the maximum damage any pistol can do in CT is 18 points is an expression of the CT writers' stout conviction that it's impossible to kill an average human (physical stats 777) with one shot from a pistol.

Compare the Imperium presented in the library data and intros to LBB4 and 5 with the Imperium described by the Library Data supplements.

The original descriptions were so vague that they could fit any number of mutually incompatible versions of the Imperium. GT merely refined that to one version for the GTU/{OTU prior to 1116}. Since two mutually incompatible versions of the Imperium can't both be true in the same universe, and since the OTU/GTU is a single universe (up until 1116) that was an entirely appropriate expansion of the CT information.

Whether it was the best possible expansion or even a good expansion is a matter of taste, but it certainly was appropriate to refine the CT version. The alternative would be not to publish anything at all. Every time you add a detail to a game universe, you close off some possibilities. At least you do if you care about self-consistency.

One of the reasons most of the GT books are so good is that they have taken the snapshot of the golden age of the Imperium and replicated a consistent setting
- something that the GDW version never was.

Agreed.


Hans

 

[rancke]

First, the nobles in GT scenarios seem to have too much say in day-to-day planetary dealings.

Which nobles are you talking about? The ones that have powerful planetary positions in addition to their Imperial noble titles? The ones that have Imperial noble titles because of their local planetary roles?

And compared to which CT nobles? Leonard of Aramis who is the head of the government of one world and owns another? Or Delphine of Mora who is Duchess of Mora because of her position as Matriarch of Mora? Or Norris of Regina who has no formal say in how Regina is run?


Hans

 

[Garyius2003]

This.

To build on the point using the 380/9mm example, 380s are loaded weaker because pistols chambered for them tend to be blowback instead of the locking breech used in most 9mms. A large percentage of the time it doesn't make a difference. It really can make a difference sometimes, which can be a plot point or a player advantage.

My jeep doesn't go as fast as a 300 series, but goes off road better. They both drive well on roads and park in garages and burn gas commonly available. They need different parts to fix though, which can be a great plot point. Under the rules they are both simplified the same.

Ok, I am going to regret this......


The whole bullet argument is what is getting me. Round, and barrel length are the major factors in the performance of a weapon. Bullets are the deciding factor not the size, action, or interchangability (SP?) of the gun parts. If the OTU has their own type of SAAMI specs for manufacturing bullets then all weapons of that type will perform basicly the same. When you start playing with the cartridges (.380 and 9mm are only different by 1 or 2 mm case length but serious performance differences) say straight necked vs bottlenecked or length, or even powder charge weight difference it affects the performance more than gun construction would. It may also be different powder types in the same bullet or type of primer could affect performance.

So changing the rounds from world to world may add or subtract a few points of damage from weapon. Gun works the same but ammo makes the difference. Case in point is look at the different ranges, damage, ect from the same weapon with different rounds, HE,HEAP, Tranq so on.

As for settings, D and D was before Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Forgotten relms and so on. Traveller gave you rules for generating planets, subsectors, and sectors in the basic set before Supplements were produced. You were expected to make your own Imperium. Later it was filled out in publications or farmed out to judges guild, game lords, FASA ect.

The diference between gaming today and 35 years ago is DM's today expect nuts and bolt settings. Back then before the flood of aftermarket companies we made it up ourselves.

OK, Incoming (Crawls back in his hole)

 

[Dragoner]

This.

To build on the point using the 380/9mm example, 380s are loaded weaker because pistols chambered for them tend to be blowback instead of the locking breech used in most 9mms. A large percentage of the time it doesn't make a difference. It really can make a difference sometimes, which can be a plot point or a player advantage.

My jeep doesn't go as fast as a 300 series, but goes off road better. They both drive well on roads and park in garages and burn gas commonly available. They need different parts to fix though, which can be a great plot point. Under the rules they are both simplified the same.

Except that you as the GM can add the gravitas to the situation as needed, trying to have the rules do it slows down the game and is for the most part un-needed.

 

[rancke]

My jeep doesn't go as fast as a 300 series, but goes off road better. They both drive well on roads and park in garages and burn gas commonly available. They need different parts to fix though, which can be a great plot point. Under the rules they are both simplified the same.

Another example of what I'm talking about. The rules don't define a setting where all ATVs have identical stats. They describe a setting where a lot of ATVs have pretty similar stats and it's not worth the page space to feature a lot of different versions. That doesn't mean those different versions don't exist in the setting, merely that they haven't been described because most of the time that one version that is described is good enough for gaming purposes.


Hans

 

[Shonner]

The 3rd Imperium is a setting. Any generic RPG's mechanic can work in that setting. Including Traveller's.

 

[aramis]

Another example of what I'm talking about. The rules don't define a setting where all ATVs have identical stats. They describe a setting where a lot of ATVs have pretty similar stats and it's not worth the page space to feature a lot of different versions. That doesn't mean those different versions don't exist in the setting, merely that they haven't been described because most of the time that one version that is described is good enough for gaming purposes.


Hans

MegaTraveler certainly does define how to rate them, and allows building more. So does striker. (And Striker's designs match closely the CT vehicles.) At least in the MT era, the rules do define the universe, as much as G3's Vehicles defines cars for GAD2 (and makes them incompatible with GAD2's source emulated universe, Car Wars) and ships for several settings...

Many GURPS players won't accept alternate stats - it HAS to be built with GURPS rules, or "it can't be done"... I know several. They won't play with ships that are OTU designs but not GT legal. They are total a******s, but they also take the rules as defining the universe prescriptively, not descriptively.

Likewise, I, and many of my players over the years, are those who don't care if there was a universe in mind - the only universe which matters is the one the PC's act within, and that is the universe prescribed by the rules mechanics as interpreted by the GM.

Traveller has so many influences... http://www.irosf.com/q/zine/article/10119 mentions several ... and mixes and matches so liberally in the core, it's rather clear that there wasn't a clear universe in their head.

1970's D&D was worse - more influences, fewer rules to prescribe a universe, and even less descriptive text for a setting.

CT started me down the path to simulationism. The rules have always been, for me, prescriptive. And many of the people I play with as well. And it's clear from the issues that were NOT covered in CT that most of the universe was the GM's to manufacture - it was not a universe emulator, but a toolkit to turn the GM into one. Build your own, just add imagination and dice, and a heap of common sense.

 

[rancke]

MegaTraveler certainly does define how to rate them, and allows building more.

MegaTraveller? You were talking about 'Traveller, at least for the first couple of years'. So what does MegaTraveller have to do with anything?

If anything, the MegaTraveller rules are proof positive that the early CT rules simplified a more complex underlying reality.

However, since this is, in a roundabout way, a mention of a specific rule, I'll point out that while the MegaTraveller construction rules are more complex that the CT rules, they still simplify a more complex reality. There are, for example, lots of ways to make internal combustion engines that isn't covered by the MegaTraveller rules for internal combustion engines, and they don't all have the exact specs that MT engines have.

So does striker. (And Striker's designs match closely the CT vehicles.) At least in the MT era, the rules do define the universe, as much as G3's Vehicles defines cars for GAD2 (and makes them incompatible with GAD2's source emulated universe, Car Wars) and ships for several settings...

No, they don't. What they define, if anything, is the subset of a more complex reality (some times even distortion of that reality) that is to be used for the game unless the referee decides to go into more detail than the rules does. As I've pointed out before, the whole reason for having a referee is that the rules don't define the universe, the way they do for boardgames.

Many GURPS players won't accept alternate stats - it HAS to be built with GURPS rules, or "it can't be done"... I know several. They won't play with ships that are OTU designs but not GT legal. They are total a******s, but they also take the rules as defining the universe prescriptively, not descriptively.

A fallacy doesn't become true just because more than one person embrace it.

Likewise, I, and many of my players over the years, are those who don't care if there was a universe in mind - the only universe which matters is the one the PC's act within, and that is the universe prescribed by the rules mechanics as interpreted by the GM.

It's clear from this that your claim to the contrary notwithstanding, you really don't understand what I'm saying.


Hans

 

[aramis]

MegaTraveller? You were talking about 'Traveller, at least for the first couple of years'. So what does MegaTraveller have to do with anything?

If anything, the MegaTraveller rules are proof positive that the early CT rules simplified a more complex underlying reality.

However, since this is, in a roundabout way, a mention of a specific rule, I'll point out that while the MegaTraveller construction rules are more complex that the CT rules, they still simplify a more complex reality. There are, for example, lots of ways to make internal combustion engines that isn't covered by the MegaTraveller rules for internal combustion engines, and they don't all have the exact specs that MT engines have.



No, they don't. What they define, if anything, is the subset of a more complex reality (some times even distortion of that reality) that is to be used for the game unless the referee decides to go into more detail than the rules does. As I've pointed out before, the whole reason for having a referee is that the rules don't define the universe, the way they do for boardgames.



A fallacy doesn't become true just because more than one person embrace it.



It's clear from this that your claim to the contrary notwithstanding, you really don't understand what I'm saying.


Hans

No, I really do. I juist think it's delusional. There's no underlying reality emulation in early Traveller. It was just a set of mechanics to handle that which was beyond the average person's ability to handle by common sense. Until it hits the GM, there's no shared underlying reality.

YOU INSIST there's a reality that's being poorly emulated.

I reject that there is ANY emulation going on. It's too vague a rule set to be emulating anything. MT is prescriptive enough to be a simulation, but CT isn't. Nor old school D&D, T&T, or some of the other Early games.

And it's thus impossible for it to be axiomatic, as well.

The OTU changes, too. The pre 1981 stuff is VERY different a universe from the Post 1981 stuff. Not just HG. The whole tone of the materials changed.

It's not that they chose suddenly to emulate it better - it's that they chose to have an underlying reality at all. (This is reinforced by Marc's notes in Dragon.)

So why is Combat covered? Because most people suffer from delusions about their own competence at combat. I know a dozen ways to kill someone - I also know I'm probably maybe skilled enough to pull them off, on a good day, with some luck. Most people aren't that self-aware. Thus, Combat is inherently paranormal - to the average person, at least. Starships likewise. And the survivability is a surreality in itself, as is the healing rate. It's as paranormal as the psionics rules.

 

[rancke]

No, I really do. I juist think it's delusional. There's no underlying reality emulation in early Traveller. It was just a set of mechanics to handle that which was beyond the average person's ability to handle by common sense. Until it hits the GM, there's no shared underlying reality.

YOU INSIST there's a reality that's being poorly emulated.

And so there is. Take the game definition of an automatic pistol: "The basic semi-automatic handgun..." [TTB:40] It doesn't describe what a handgun is, because that's part of the basic underlying reality; players and referees are supposed to know what a handgun is and, in broad terms, how it works. Players and referees also know that there are lots of different semi-automatic handguns and that they don't actually all have the exact same specs. They don't all weigh 1000g, they don't all have 15 shot magazines, and the ammunition for them are not really all interchangable. If the CT rules actually defined reality, that would be the case, but they don't.

If a player told the referee that he wanted to commission a gunsmith to make him a handgun that fired bullets that did 3D+1 damage, the referee could tell him that on the meta-level he, the ref, didn't want to introduce such weapons, or he could work out rules for such weapons ("Only 12 shots to a magazine and they cost more and take weeks to manufacture"). But the one thing he couldn't do (at least not without shattering my willing suspension of disbelief and, I'm confident, that of lots of other people) would be to claim that the laws of the universe made it impossible to make handguns in any other size and caliber than the one "defined" by the rules.

I reject that there is ANY emulation going on. It's too vague a rule set to be emulating anything. MT is prescriptive enough to be a simulation, but CT isn't. Nor old school D&D, T&T, or some of the other Early games.

I repeat, I doubt there is any rule in any of the rulessets you mention that doesn't simplify a more complex underlying reality. Might be a few, but I doubt it.

The OTU changes, too. The pre 1981 stuff is VERY different a universe from the Post 1981 stuff. Not just HG. The whole tone of the materials changed.

Apparently you didn't read what I said about the OTU in a previous post. The underlying reality I'm talking about isn't the OTU. It's more fundamental that the OTU and involves things like the definition of what a handgun is. And hundreds of similar things, of course.


Hans

 

[Shonner]

the early CT rules simplified a more complex underlying reality.

Classic Traveller was hardly a simulator of any kind. It was abstract. Yet didn't break game universes it ran inside of.

 

[rancke]

Classic Traveller was hardly a simulator of any kind. It was abstract. Yet didn't break game universes it ran inside of.

And I'm not claiming it was a simulator.

It was very far from being abstract, though. It reflected some very concrete stories and tropes. Humans were supposed to be humans. Much of the equipment (everything pre TL8) was supposed to be familiar to the players and referees. A lot of underlying assumptions were taken for granted.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

For what I see and understand, what you mean when you talk about underlying reality you talk about two different things:

Hans is talking about real world reality (physical laws, etc), while Will is talking about OTU reality, that didn't exist when CT was initially published.

In this sense, Has has his share of right, as any rules set is a simplification about the reality it tries to represent. Otherwise, we'd need lots of volumes to define it, and yet there are things we're not aware (or don't control), so it will have a greater or lesser degree of simplification yet.

Will has also his share of right, as no comparison could be made with a unexisting OTU underlying reality, at least until OTU was described.