There's canon, and then there's canon

[robject]

This used to be called the "What is Traveller?" discussion.

The term "canon" was imported by fans (Hans!) into Traveller fan discussions in the early 1990s. It assumed there was a set of rules upon which we can discuss topics in a consistent way. From the beginning, it was used as a bludgeon against other fans -- at first, it was CT versus TNE. Once the term became mainstream, people realized that the term was a bit ridiculous.

Another common term for at least the last 30 years is "read as written". This is dangerous because the rules are seldom complete, often unreliable, and I suspect it's impossible (without a panel of lawyers) to write "complete" rules.

But of course, we know that Traveller is in the habit of violating itself, from the beginning. So arguing from "canon" will frequently fail, even when you are convinced.

I think there are elements of Traveller that are indeed canon. I mean, *I* think that Traveller has to be defined by something. But I betcha there are fewer elements than we think.

Then there are the gray areas. Those elements which are clearly not canon, and yet they're published.

 

[Condottiere]

Rules can evolve.

Canon can be retconned.

 

[infojunky]

Note, we all play Traveller, it just is that no two of those games is the same.

 

[Hairy Jim DeGriz]

Travelling 1-6 parsecs in jump space takes about one week (using current technology). This is what kept me hooked on Traveler. No popping over from Efate to Terra for a weekend jaunt. Because without that limitation, space is actually constrained and manageable. Other than that, everything else seems malleable.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Travelling 1-6 parsecs in jump space takes about one week (using current technology). This is what kept me hooked on Traveler. No popping over from Efate to Terra for a weekend jaunt. Because without that limitation, space is actually constrained and manageable. Other than that, everything else seems malleable.

Indeed. Unlike a lot of SF (or Sci-Fi, or Space Fantasy), the Traveller universe's interstellar travel is explicitly NOT at the Speed of Plot. That's important in creating the OTU's "ambiance," as it were.

 

[mike wightman]

This has always been a tricky question. Is Traveller the rules, the setting, a mixture of both? Or is it a particular mindset when running/playing a game. An awful lot of people out there in rpg land think Traveller is the Third Imperium setting the role playing game.

I have used Traveller over the years for more homebrew settings than you can shake a stick at, some with very different core tech assumptions (looking at you Culture) - am I playing Traveller in a setting other than the Third Imperium?

What if I use my favourite proto-Spinward Marches setting to run a game using a different game engine, am I still playing Traveller?

What if I use the Aftermath rules to run a planet of the week sci fi campaign which feels like a Traveller game?

 

[McPerth]

One of the problems I always found on Traveller "canon" is that there are many points in OTU "canonical" history taht don't dit in to the Traveller rules (mostly in CT/MT) or are contradictory.

I have already told in several threads about OTU history or Fleet combat that, IMHO, the results given in OTU history are (moslty in ship's losses) are fully against the HG rules where ships are rarely lost (understood as not easily reparable), but downgraded and "mission killed" ,but usually repairable in a few weeks if taken to repair facilities (or the facilities taken to them).

Of course, this is because I believe the setting and rules must not be contradictory, something I know may disagree ,seeing them two "unrelated" things, one a narrative and the other a game.

And, to be clear, not saying this makes neither of them any less interesting, just distrubing to me.

 

[Ulsyus]

Wasn't Traveller originally written to be played in any SF setting? I remember reading the section on famous characters at the end of the LBBs and marveling at John Carter of Mars.

So, if it was originally written for any setting, and the 3I et al were added later, doesn't that make the system the core of the game?

 

[mike wightman]

It was indeed written from the perspective of the referee designing their own setting.

 

[whartung]

Regarding the HG losses, if one side is made combat ineffective, then aren't they simply at the mercy of the victorious fleet? While the meat of the combat is over, when one side prevails, even if capable of maneuver, doesn't necessarily mean they're getting away.

If they have jump fuel, then, yes, they can get away. If not, then they're pretty much sitting ducks and should either surrender or scuttle. They could run to the dark and cower, but odds are they'd be harried by the system fleet, prevented from fueling, etc. Mind this can have strategic impact if it pins a battle fleet in system to chase after it, but someone is going to run out of fuel, or supplies sooner than the other.

 

[Spinward Flow]

should either surrender or scuttle.

If ships are "mission kills" and the battle is lost, since the ships cannot be recovered by friendly forces I would fully expect scuttling of ships to be logical response.

Trouble is, most starships/battle riders devote no tonnage whatsoever to being able to evacuate the crew so as ship could be safely scuttled without the loss of all hands aboard ... and a Ship's Locker can only contain but so many Rescue Balls ...

 

[whartung]

Trouble is, most PLAYERS starships/battle riders devote no tonnage whatsoever to being able to evacuate the crew

Fixed that for you. What do we care about these crews. If it doesn't give me good DMs, I'm not bolting it to my ship. They should feel grateful they have food and air conditioning.

It would be interesting to see a life boat/life ball system for larger ships. Wonder what kind of tonnage it would take.

 

[McPerth]

To avoid deriving this thread ,that was interesting enough, this was discussed in this old thread

 

[Spinward Flow]

this was discussed in this old thread

Old is right!
That old thread started more than 12 years ago!

 

[McPerth]

That old thread started more than 12 years ago!

One of the first I participated in, as you can read in my first post there...

And thanks to remind me how old I'm getting

 

[whartung]

I dunno if it's worth restarting the old thread, so for now I'll just plonk this here.

I think a starship can be effectively scuttled with a few well placed satchel charges destroying sensitive, critical control systems. I don't think you need to blow the ship up in to smithereens. Basically use charges to apply surgical "critical" hits to the major systems. While you leave behind a somewhat intact hull, it's still going to require years of repair, and lots of money.

It's also not difficult, if the drives are intact, to put the ship on collision coarse with, well, anything (planets, gas giant, star), even if the crew survives and ejects. They don't even have to impact anything. Point the ship to deep space and turn on the infamous long burning Traveller M-Drives.

The issue here is that the victor is going to have to dispatch craft to catch up to, board, break in to, and seize control of the ship. And, simply, it takes times to rally forces, arrange expeditions, and catch up with those ships. The longer it takes to organize, the farther away they get. Point the fleet in to different directions, to make it more difficult.

As witnessed during the Rebellion, the repair and replacement times of starships is what crushed the offensives. Ships that take years to build being lost in hours of combat is not sustainable.

 

[McPerth]

I think a starship can be effectively scuttled with a few well placed satchel charges destroying sensitive, critical control systems. I don't think you need to blow the ship up in to smithereens. Basically use charges to apply surgical "critical" hits to the major systems. While you leave behind a somewhat intact hull, it's still going to require years of repair, and lots of money.

In fact, according TCS repair rules, if you have the capacity and the money, it would take 5-8 weeks to repair any amount of criticals...

And, again, this is setting dependent, according the war rules and customs ion it. While currently a shio would be scuttled before allowing it to be captured, along most of human history (at least solomani ) surrendering the ship was the honorable thing to do when crippled, to acoid loss of life.

The "don't give up the ship" by Cpt Lawrence was severly criticized as unnecessary loss of life, and seen nearly as a crime of war in 1813

For good or bad, it's not clear what canon war laws/customs are in OTU (I dont mena Imperial Rules of War, but among powers). While there are no references to denied surrender, neither are there many to captured ships (and those few are by boarding) nor to the dichotomy durrender/scuttle. High losses reported in many naval battles would hint scuttling, but most naval reports talk about "destroyed", not scuttled, and no specific reference about it that I have read (Bard Endeavour excepted)...



If people thinks the issue is worth discussing and this clogs the thread, I'll move the posts to the old thread (where I believe they belong)

 

[Condottiere]

Scuttling usually means opening up the seacocks, or blowing them up.

Hard to imagine that opening up the cargo hatches would have the same effect in space, unless you could make the hull implode.

In either case, gravity is a key ingredient, hence a decaying orbit or direct collision into a large gravity well; I suppose disabling the manoeuvre drives by blowing them up would qualify.

 

[Dragoner]

Flood the interior with hydrogen, light a match. lol

 

[Grav_Moped]

Flood the interior with hydrogen, light a match. lol

Ship is now Configuration Code 5: Sphere