• 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.

The path least traveller-ed

It's important to note that LBBs 1-3 are light on on Science-Fiction. It's isn't just the archaic weapons I'm talking about. I'm pointing out that the original rules contained:
  • Jump Drive Technology for Interstellar Travel
  • Interstellar Civilizations
  • Interstellar Communication Moves at the Speed of Interstellar Travel
  • Indigenous Life Forms on Countless Worlds
  • Psionics
  • Cold Sleep
  • Grav Vehicles
  • Advanced Drugs
  • Laser Canons
  • Laser Rifles

And that's it for the SF elements.
Wrong.
It also included pocket computers,
  • hyper efficient M-drives,
  • workable if inefficient fusion power,
  • Reflec Armor
  • Ablat armor
  • Battle Dress armor - Powered armor a la Starship Troopers.
  • Electronic Sights for small arms (not a big leap in '77, but they really only start seeing development in the 80's. By the early 90's, they were a reality, if too expensive for common use. in 1977 they existed for crew served weapons on vehicles...)
  • Wireless Network Hand Computer (Bk3, p. 14)
  • Artificial Gill (Bk 3, p 13)
  • 3 day Cold Light Lantern
  • Anti-laser sand (Bk2)
People forget that hand comps were way underrated... but still well beyond 1977's "doable"...
 
Wrong.
It also included pocket computers [and more]...

Hi Wil,

Good catch on the power armor and battle dress. As for the defensive systems against laser fire, I group them under the offensive weapon technology itself.

As for everything else on your list... what can I say? I'm not talking new tech or advanced gear in that previous post. I'm talking about SF concepts that can fire the imagination. And, again, each element you note, apart from the Battle Dress, is mundane material all the PCs are familiar with. An cold lantern or better gun sight is not strange or startling to the PCs. And it is a character encountering the strange and startling that often make SF worth something emotionally. A sense of surprise, wonder, and awe.

I agree you caught me out on a technicality. But I think you're sweeping past the point I made. If you can read A Princess of Mars, The Stars My Destination, The Star King, Death World, and the other books listed in that previous post and think, "Yes, but original Traveller had pocket computers," I really don't know what to say. It's a forest and trees issue, as far as I can tell.

But it does speak very much to the grounded, gear-focused, let's-not-go-crazy-here SF-aesthetic that took hold of the Traveller line a few years after the game's release.

What I am arguing for (in a thread called "The Path Least Traveller-ed") is opening up the possibilities of using ideas for SF images and concepts, for those who are interested in doing so, by going back to the SF stories and novels that inspired the game in the first place.

While I am agreeing with you I did not list every item that was not in existence in 1977, what I'd really love to talk about is the notions above about aesthetics and inspiration. What do you think about that stuff?
 
I read Dorsai as a kid. Couldn't stand Dune, but loved watching Star Wars. My games reflect that in many ways. Looking at how movers and shakers actually do their thing is fun, dealing with the challenges of changing a planetary, or interplanetary, culture.

Have added the RCN series, Honor Harrington, and several more to my list of "that sounds like a fun set of challenges!" list.
 
Hi Wil,

Good catch on the power armor and battle dress. As for the defensive systems against laser fire, I group them under the offensive weapon technology itself.

As for everything else on your list... what can I say? I'm not talking new tech or advanced gear in that previous post. I'm talking about SF concepts that can fire the imagination. And, again, each element you note, apart from the Battle Dress, is mundane material all the PCs are familiar with. An cold lantern or better gun sight is not strange or startling to the PCs. And it is a character encountering the strange and startling that often make SF worth something emotionally. A sense of surprise, wonder, and awe.

I agree you caught me out on a technicality. But I think you're sweeping past the point I made. If you can read A Princess of Mars, The Stars My Destination, The Star King, Death World, and the other books listed in that previous post and think, "Yes, but original Traveller had pocket computers," I really don't know what to say. It's a forest and trees issue, as far as I can tell.

But it does speak very much to the grounded, gear-focused, let's-not-go-crazy-here SF-aesthetic that took hold of the Traveller line a few years after the game's release.

What I am arguing for (in a thread called "The Path Least Traveller-ed") is opening up the possibilities of using ideas for SF images and concepts, for those who are interested in doing so, by going back to the SF stories and novels that inspired the game in the first place.

While I am agreeing with you I did not list every item that was not in existence in 1977, what I'd really love to talk about is the notions above about aesthetics and inspiration. What do you think about that stuff?
The thing is, in 1977, when it was written, all of those would have been sci-fi. Many were predictable, yes, as evolutions, but still were science fiction.

It's not at all like the first few ERB Barsoom novels - where the tech was all either pre-modern (19th C and earlier) or "magical"... (Much as I love Burroughs writing, it's pure fantasy. And it doesn't ask "what if?"... it's adventure pure and simple. )

Verne, however, stuck pretty close to "This should be doable"... as does CT Bk 1-4. Sandcasters being a huge exception.

Sandcasters are, in themselves, not terribly hard to grasp - a canister launcher. What differs, tho', is what they do... the contained sand is a defense against lasers, and a highly effective one, spreading out over several dozen km, yet still managing to matter. It's nearly physics breaking. (And why they seem to work differently in every edition...) it's CT's 2nd big break from plausible. (1st is Psionics.)

Traveller is a very different kind of setting than Burroughs. It's actually Sci-Fi, not fantasy writ interplanetary. (Then again, the public conceit that Fantasy and Sci-Fi are different is still not universally accepted... )
 
Sandcasters are... CT's 2nd big break from plausible. (1st is Psionics.)

Traveller is a very different kind of setting than Burroughs. It's actually Sci-Fi, not fantasy writ interplanetary. (Then again, the public conceit that Fantasy and Sci-Fi are different is still not universally accepted... )

And yet...

These are the characters, with their respective books, referenced in Supplement 1: 1001 Characters:
  • John Carter (Barsoom series)
  • Kimball Kinnison (Lensmans series)
  • Jason dinAlt (Stainless Steel Rat series)
  • Earl Dumarest (Dumarest series)
  • Beowulf Shaeffer (Known Space series)
  • Anthony Villiers (Anthony Villiers trilogy)
  • Dominic Flandry (The Flandry series)
  • Kirth Girsen (Demon Princess series)
  • Gully Foyle (Stars My Destination)
These are the books that have psionics in them:
  • John Carter (Barsoom series)
  • Kimball Kinnison (Lensmans series)
  • Earl Dumarest (Dumarest series)
  • Beowulf Shaeffer (Known Space series)
  • Anthony Villiers (Anthony Villiers trilogy)
  • Dominic Flandry (The Flandry series)
  • Gully Foyle (Stars My Destination)

That is, all but two. (The Demon Prince series mentions psionics as a possibility, but I haven't seen anyone use such powers yet. And Jack Vance, author of the Demon Prince series, uses psionics in his Science Fiction series Planet of Adventure.)

When one looks at the books Miller references as sources for Traveller, one finds, again and again, elements in Science Fiction tales people would reject in the years after Traveller's publication because they are not "real" Science Fiction... but once were considered Science Fiction.*

Because while Verne certainly is the father of the Hard SF we all know today, Verne wasn't cited by Miller as an inspiration. The authors and books Miller references are all adventure tales, writing in a form of Romance tradition, that happens to be set in space.

What I'm confused by is how one could claim "Traveller is actually science fiction," while dismissing the psionics because psionics aren't plausible. Because the fact is Traveller has psionics. And it has psionics because it was supposed be rowdy, colorful, adventure fiction set in the far future of the sorts of fiction that a lot of people would consider not Traveller-like at all.

Isn't the inclusion of psionics, especially in light of the books listed above, suggestive of the idea that it wasn't suppose to be what we call "real Science Fiction" at all?

* A whole separate issue is the fact that the division many people people hold today between SF and Fantasy did not exist in the fandom field before the 70s. Pulp adventure stories were anything but hard SF... and folks lapped them up in SF magazines.
 
Last edited:
Dan dare was a British pulp comics take on scifi.

The Seventies marks the start of more visual media starting to influence our expectations in this genre, probably due to better artists being employed to visualize these stories, and more money and better technology available to moving pictures people.
 
any reason you can't do that in 3i?


You can, Fly, but it's hard. There's been so much written for so long now that the referee and players cannot help but import 3I/OTU meta-knowledge into a session. A ref will mention some factoid related to the game in question and then a player - or sometimes the ref himself! - will say "Wait a minute... Supplement X says Y about Z and that means..."

... rpg action takes place many strata below the "huge astro-political arc" level...

My campaigns never even approached the same time zone of "huge astro-political arc" and yet that stuff did effect them. I actually shanghaied one long term campaign to the Islands Subsectors because we weren't able to keep up with TNS blurbs regarding the Fifth Frontier War. If the stuff is out there, it will find it's way in.

The stuff is going to seep in unless you make an effort not to allow it. That's what I think Proto and/or 4-4-4 is all about. It's a deliberate attempt to limit or fence off huge chunks of canon and rules to prevent your Traveler RPG session from becoming an OTU trivia contest.

The referee can say to his players "I only used Proto to prep and plot, so nothing else is going to apply. Forget all the rest. You won't need it." The players can then concentrate on playing rather than arguing for one version's psionic rules, a second's battledress, and a third's description of Thisbe.

I think this "Simplify and/or prune so we can more easily play" approach is at the heart of the so-called OSR movement.

This simplification can only help writers too. A couple years back I sat down to write up a loosely linked group of six Amber Zones, three short adventures, and a campaign all centered on GT's Heya Impact. Two weeks after starting, I was still trying to make the descriptions found in TTB's "Ship in the lake" jibe with S:3, SMC, RSB, BtC, WBH, and First In. A month after that, I'd stopped work. Years later, I look at my notes and can't decipher about half the ideas I'd had.

I should have "gone Proto". Like TTB, I should have said "Heya is..." without explanation or justification. If I had, maybe some group would be having fun gaming the Rapid Re-Survey Project Office's attempts to apply the "Huhn Minimal" to the question of which system needs to be scouted next.
 
Last edited:
There's been so much written for so long now that the referee and players cannot help but import 3I/OTU meta-knowledge into a session ... My campaigns never even approached the same time zone of "huge astro-political arc" and yet that stuff did effect them.

I see that as a benefit. any adventure, including one based on lbb1-3, is not a simple isolated incident plopped in the middle of a void. it has entire sectors on either side of it and a thousand years of history behind it, and these all play a role in what that adventure is. or can, or should, if the story is at all "realistic". it anchors the story, gives it perspective, and allows for coherent expansion of the game. I don't see that as limiting, I see that as support.

I've always said that anyone capable of playing traveller is capable of playing it their own way, and that most do. anyone wants to draw up their own free-standing setting, go for it. but if they find the 3i "limiting" then I think they'll eventually find their own setting, and lbb1-3, equally "limiting", and for the same reasons. the onlly difference will be they'll be comfortable with the setting delimiters, because the delimiters will be their own.
 
That's what I think Proto and/or 4-4-4 is all about. It's a deliberate attempt to limit or fence off huge chunks of canon and rules to prevent your Traveler RPG session from becoming an OTU trivia contest.

heh. I thought that was what "imtu" was for. not to mention all the little "au++, li-" etc codes.

ten years ago I ran vargr a certain way imtu. one guy responded, "give us a break, they're common in the spinward marches, everybody knows about them." I told him imtu it's a little different. hardly trivial, but he accepted it and we played on, for years, it worked out real well. and something similar in every game of traveller I've ever seen.

in addition to official proto/444 I suppose there will be proto/444 "plus" versions as well?
 
You can, Fly, but it's hard. There's been so much written for so long now that the referee and players cannot help but import 3I/OTU meta-knowledge into a session. A ref will mention some factoid related to the game in question and then a player - or sometimes the ref himself! - will say "Wait a minute... Supplement X says Y about Z and that means..."
A good point. Especially if the players are playing anything other than CT. And CT has 4 different core rules entry points... B1-3 1977. B1-3 1981, TTB (83), and Starter... Both TTB and Starter include the OTU...


My campaigns never even approached the same time zone of "huge astro-political arc" and yet that stuff did effect them. I actually shanghaied one long term campaign to the Islands Subsectors because we weren't able to keep up with TNS blurbs regarding the Fifth Frontier War. If the stuff is out there, it will find it's way in.
Meanwhile, I've had entire parties of movers and shakers - one party centered around a Duke from the Noble Career who was involved in working for Norris to negotiate the end of the 5FW, and every PC was on a first name basis (at least outside the view of the press) with His Grace Norris Duke Regina and Her Grace Delphine Duchess Mora.

I had another campaign where Strephon was still unmarried, and seeing one of the PC's...
... She was a peer...
... but that ended when she died. From surgery. Elective surgery.

I've had players playing the movers and shakers...

@CreativeHum
The S1 list isn't "the inspirations list"...
The S4 list is equally as informative...
  • 1. Luke Skywalker, from Star Wars, by Gene Lucas.
  • 2. James "Slippery Jim" di Griz, from The Stainless Steel Rat, by Harry Harrison.
  • 3. Sargeant Major Calvin, from Sword and Sceptre, and The Mercenary, by Jerry Pournelle.
  • 4. Senior Physician Conway, from the Sector General series, including Major
  • Operation and Ambulance Ship, by James White.
  • 5. Jame Retief, from the Retief series, including Galactic Diplomat and Retief's War, by Keith Laumer.
  • 6. Lord Darth Vader, from Star Wars, by Gene Lucas.
  • 7. Harry Mudd, from Star Trek.
  • 8. Simok Artrap, from The Stars, Like Dust, by Isaac Asimov.
Only 3 are very pulpy at all: Slippery Jim, Luke and his father.

CT 77 included a lot of reasonable speculation, much of which doesn't fit many of the pulps. And the list above shows that classic pulps aren't the sole inspirations.

Far more telling is that large swathes of the OTU are grounded firmly in CJ Cherryh, Issac Asimov, and Doc Smith. Doc Smith was a failed projection.

As for Psionics... A great many otherwise hard settings have Psi. And more than 10% of the population believe in it as plausible. It's inclusion is one of those "Sure, right, whatever, :rolleyes:" moments for many, but thoroughly plausible for not a few. And those not a few tend to be disproportionately more highly represented in the RPG player base.
 
As for Psionics... A great many otherwise hard settings have Psi. And more than 10% of the population believe in it as plausible. It's inclusion is one of those "Sure, right, whatever, :rolleyes:" moments for many, but thoroughly plausible for not a few. And those not a few tend to be disproportionately more highly represented in the RPG player base.

Oh HEY, you never know what will set off thoughts.

This particular one is about how I tend to ground psionics in some sort of consistent 'science' within IMTU.

The stickler has always been Teleportation, but now, if I think of it as jump, well then that means IMTU that they are in a jump for a week subjectively, with all manner of technical, medical and psychological hurdles, not to mention aging.

And, it means that some bright boy is going to want to figure out how to get a bunch of teleportation jockies to jump ships without the normal drives, ala StarForce.

And maybe they do the whole planetary mind sleep with amped up telepaths.

Industrial strength psionics. The Zhos don't have a chance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starforce:_Alpha_Centauri

Not seriously going to make Traveller StarForce, but it could make for one helluva scary R&D gone wrong adventure.
 
"Gene Lucas"? :P
Trek Wars :)
could be interesting.

A peaceful federation of planets that seeks only the betterment of all being destroyed from within by a bunch of terrorist freedom fighters who use a lot of psionics.

As to psionics - I have run games set in Julien May's universe which were great fun, but I usually don't involve psionics in my harder sci fi campaigns - I will steal the rules to explain augmentation implants for example (the awareness talent lends itself easily to describing bio or cyber enhancements).

For MTU I explain psionics away as very high TL hyper dimensional interface handwavium originally invented by one of the first starfarer races...
 
I see that as a benefit. any adventure, including one based on lbb1-3, is not a simple isolated incident plopped in the middle of a void.


It is benefit, Fly, but it's a benefit only up to a certain point. It's a matter of degree.

All the background Death Station or Twilight's Peak need is "... a remote centralized government (referred to in this volume as the Imperium), possessed of great industrial and technological might, but unable, due to the sheer distances and travel times involved, to exert total control at all levels everywhere within its star-spanning realm.It's a matter of degree."

Unless the adventure or campaign specifically require such information there's no real need to detail the IN's budget, the existence/structure of the IA, or any of the other thousands of imponderable, unanswerable, and - ultimately - unnecessary questions I regularly bloviate about here.

Now Wil's "high level" campaigns (which I greatly envy) required information on how the nobility runs the Imperium, what command structures are in place, and so forth just as my Active Duty IISS campaign needed me to suss out how that service was organized in the Trin's Veil subsector.

I've always said that anyone capable of playing traveller is capable of playing it their own way, and that most do.

I think most do. I be surprised if anyone played any version of Traveller straight out of the box.

the onlly difference will be they'll be comfortable with the setting delimiters, because the delimiters will be their own.

But that's what Proto and/or 4-4-4 are, Fly. They're ways to quickly and succinctly set delimiters. Instead of paging through 40 years of versions and materials to select which bits and pieces you want to stitch together, instead of your players then having to remember that this piece is in play while those pieces aren't, you simply say it's LBB:1 -3 and leave it at that.

The background is still there, but it's in the background where it belongs and where it's myriad details, conundrums, and conflicts are of no consequence.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, I've had entire parties of movers and shakers - one party centered around a Duke from the Noble Career who was involved in working for Norris to negotiate the end of the 5FW, and every PC was on a first name basis (at least outside the view of the press) with His Grace Norris Duke Regina and Her Grace Delphine Duchess Mora.

I had another campaign where Strephon was still unmarried, and seeing one of the PC's...
... She was a peer...
... but that ended when she died. From surgery. Elective surgery.

I've had players playing the movers and shakers...

@CreativeHum
The S1 list isn't "the inspirations list"...
The S4 list is equally as informative...
  • 1. Luke Skywalker, from Star Wars, by Gene Lucas.
  • 2. James "Slippery Jim" di Griz, from The Stainless Steel Rat, by Harry Harrison.
  • 3. Sargeant Major Calvin, from Sword and Sceptre, and The Mercenary, by Jerry Pournelle.
  • 4. Senior Physician Conway, from the Sector General series, including Major
  • Operation and Ambulance Ship, by James White.
  • 5. Jame Retief, from the Retief series, including Galactic Diplomat and Retief's War, by Keith Laumer.
  • 6. Lord Darth Vader, from Star Wars, by Gene Lucas.
  • 7. Harry Mudd, from Star Trek.
  • 8. Simok Artrap, from The Stars, Like Dust, by Isaac Asimov.
Only 3 are very pulpy at all: Slippery Jim, Luke and his father.

CT 77 included a lot of reasonable speculation, much of which doesn't fit many of the pulps. And the list above shows that classic pulps aren't the sole inspirations.

Far more telling is that large swathes of the OTU are grounded firmly in CJ Cherryh, Issac Asimov, and Doc Smith. Doc Smith was a failed projection.

As for Psionics... A great many otherwise hard settings have Psi. And more than 10% of the population believe in it as plausible. It's inclusion is one of those "Sure, right, whatever, :rolleyes:" moments for many, but thoroughly plausible for not a few. And those not a few tend to be disproportionately more highly represented in the RPG player base.

Hi Wil,

First, I too am always envious and in awe of the high level campaigns you design and play. They always sound great.

Second, I didn't mean to say the list from Supplement 1 was an "inspirational" list for Classic Traveller. All I was saying is that when Miller grabbed a bunch of fiction off the top of his head, that was the list he grabbed. I think it's telling. Others might not.

Third, yes, Asimov and other others you name are certainly influential for the Official Traveller Universe. But as I, others, and even you have noted, there's no straight line from LBBs 1-3 to the OTU. This isn't to say there's anything wrong with the OTU or it shouldn't exist. The entire point of LBBs 1-3 is to serve as a toolkit to build whatever setting someone wanted. GDW wanted the Third Imperium, and the expanded and altered ideas from the toolkit to make what they wanted.

Fourth, when I do talk about inspirational fiction for LBBs 1-3, I simply go to what Miller said himself in a Space Gamer interview from 1981 and other interviews.

In these interviews Miller always makes it clear:
a) there was never any assumption GDW would be producing an official setting when the gang was working on Traveller (everyone assumed the purpose of an RPG rules set was for the Referee to build his own setting for his friends to explore)
b) he seldom names the books and authors most people who love the OTU name when describing the OTU. (In the interview linked to above the first names out of his mouth are The Demon Princes series, the Flandry series, and the Dumarest series.

Now, those book are fun entertaining pulp adventure stories. But anyone reading them with an eye toward "real" or "speculative fiction" would have to dismiss them.

I'm not sure of what you think of them, though. What do you think of them?

I do know you recently posted about how you received an email from Miller clarifying that LBBs 1-3 were not striving to be Hard SF, but, instead, the pulp tales he mentions in interviews. So, I'm not exactly sure how what I'm saying is particularly controversial or worthy of argument.

Now, I might be defending pulp differently than you! So, it occurs to me you might be drawing your lines differently than I am. But, again, none of the series listed by Miller are speculative nor have any regard for actual science. They have the feel of reality, yes. And that's due to solid writing. But they aren't SF in the way you seem to suggest the OTU is. (If I'm misreading you, again, apologies.)

Finally, all of this is neither here nor there. The OTU took root in a specific way around 1981, it kept growing, becoming the assumption for many, many players. (Not all. Off this board, when I wander the internet, I find most people using CT don't use the OTU, but in stead are happy building their own settings. This board is, of course, self-selective.)

For many people Traveller is the setting, the rules don't matter. It's a kind of SF with a Hard SF edge, a certain kind of feel in a specific setting, and that's great.

My own bugbear has been that when I first arrived on this site to talk about CT and the cool possibilities contained in LBBs 1-3 a few folks kept showing up to tell me I was doing everything wrong because "that's not how it works in the Third Imperium." Even when I made it clear that I wasn't interested in the Third Imperium, folks showed up with the logic underlying the Third Imperium to say, "Well, this is how it has to work." (Note, of course, that one could easily use the CT rules play in settings like The Demon Princes books, the Flandry books, and the Dumarest books and those settings aren't anything like the Third Imperium! Note further the entire notion of interstellar civilizations is suspect, so anyone speaking of how it would really work as if talking about how a car engine works is someone to gently walk away from.)

It struck me as weird that there was only one way one was supposed to use the rules, so, I dug further into the rules, found interviews with Miller, read the books he mentioned (which are a blast), and was able to dig the LBBs 1-3 out from under decades of OTU development.

I'm content now with what I found -- keys of a sort to the kind of game that inspired me when I first found the rules when I was a teenager -- but a kind of game that became stranger and less interesting the more OTU material I ended up buying. It was a personal project, but one I've loved.

My RPG time is limited, and I'm running another game now, but I look forward setting up a Traveller game in the future. It probably will probably be like the Noble House conflicts found in Dune, along with the fantastical situations and environments found in both Dune and the kinds of fantastical SF environments and situations in the books that originally inspired Miller for the game.

I think it'll be a blast. And really, that's all that matters.
 
Last edited:
I guess the existence of the Thieves World box set from Chaosium has always colored my opinion of Traveller (specifically CT) as an "anything" framework. While clearly designed for SF, how "hard", "soft" or whatever was obviously not immutable, since Marc and Mary Beth wrote that section of the set. For those who don't have it, it presents CT versions of the major TW personalities, some with a skill in "Magic", the details of which are left to the Ref.

Definitely a lonely, overgrown trail through the wilderness, though.
 
I guess the existence of the Thieves World box set from Chaosium has always colored my opinion of Traveller (specifically CT) as an "anything" framework.


I once used CT for a pulp/noir campaign set during the Chaco War. Raiders of the Lost Ark was my inspiration, psionics stood for magic, and adapting the rules was as easy as capping the tech level.

CT can be used for a lot of settings once you strip away all the stuff associated with 3I/OTU. Sadly, once you move past LLB:4, removing the 3I/OTU becomes increasingly difficult as the Traveller's official setting increasingly becomes woven into Traveller's rules.

Definitely a lonely, overgrown trail through the wilderness, though.

It had been done and it had been done far more often than you assume. It just hadn't been published.
 
A good point. Especially if the players are playing anything other than CT. And CT has 4 different core rules entry points... B1-3 1977. B1-3 1981, TTB (83), and Starter... Both TTB and Starter include the OTU...
I guess the existence of the Thieves World box set from Chaosium has always colored my opinion of Traveller (specifically CT) as an "anything" framework. While clearly designed for SF, how "hard", "soft" or whatever was obviously not immutable, since Marc and Mary Beth wrote that section of the set. For those who don't have it, it presents CT versions of the major TW personalities, some with a skill in "Magic", the details of which are left to the Ref.

Definitely a lonely, overgrown trail through the wilderness, though.
Traveller for me has always been the Third Imperium, and the rules tend to evolve in trying to make the game playable.

One of the big realizations I've had reading and writing about all this stuff is that when it comes to someone's understanding of Traveller:
  1. When someone encountered the rules
  2. Which edition they encountered
  3. What other Traveller materials they read
  4. What other games they had played before encountering Traveller
  5. What SF stories and movie they had seen
All form a solid belief for that person about what Traveller is.

This seems sort of obvious the moment you think about it.

What I have found startling is that this "imprint" of understanding the game seems so rooted in many people that it's almost genetic.

I encountered Traveller before there was a Third Imperium (and would not be for two years), so for me The Third Imperium was this thing you could use if you wanted, but was not an immutable part of the game.

But I can see how someone picking up Starter Traveller or The Traveller Book, or any of the later editions of the game as their first encounter with Traveller would assume that Traveller is Third Imperium. Especially if they've never read LBBs 1-3 as is, without imposing assumptions from later editions on the text they are reading.

This observation is bigger than Traveller for me. Its a sudden realization (based off anecdotal evidence!) that we probably firm up our beliefs about things very quickly based off of fairly specific experiences!
 
Last edited:
One of the big realizations I've had reading and writing about all this stuff is that when it comes to someone's understanding of Traveller:
  1. When someone encountered the rules
  2. Which edition they encountered
  3. What other Traveller materials they read
  4. What other games they had played before encountering Traveller
  5. What SF stories and movie they had seen
All form a solid belief for that person about what Traveller is.

This seems sort of obvious the moment you think about it.

What I have found startling is that this "imprint" of understanding the game seems so rooted in many people that it's almost genetic.

I encountered Traveller before there was a Third Imperium (and would not be for two years), so for me The Third Imperium was this thing you could use if you wanted, but was not an immutable part of the game.

But I can see how someone picking up Starter Traveller or The Traveller Book, or any of the later editions of the game as their first encounter with Traveller would assume that Traveller is Third Imperium. Especially if they've never read LBBs 1-3 as is, without imposing assumptions from later editions on the text they are reading.

This observation is bigger than Traveller for me. Its a sudden realization (based off anecdotal evidence!) that we probably firm up our beliefs about things very quickly based off of fairly specific experiences!

Pffft.

We already have a roll for that, the Reaction Roll.

Simply apply it to everything, not just interpersonal interactions.

<player rolls 12 reaction of character to first sight of messed up ship in junkyard>

It's beautiful!

Other characters: It's junk! A deathtrap! It will never fly.

We can make this work. It just needs some love.
 
Back
Top