Toward a Philosophy of Traveller

[robject]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. Travellers travel. They travel within the limits of jumpspace, high fuel usage (includes wilderness refueling), and gravitics.

II. Self-Reliance. Remoteness of authority, speed of jump, starports as "deep water" ports, explicit feudalism (and even piracy) supports, empowers and requires the players to make their own decisions and act.

III. Material. Rewards are material, rather than Experience Points, Leveling Up, and so on. Newtonian physics tends to be followed.

IV. Limits and Diversity. Career options, aging and mortality, ship design, subsector design, and decisions made during character generation limit and frame reality. The definitions create a diverse space (hence library data and anachronistic/atavistic worlds), but only within limits.

V. Sociological. Interstellar society is socially stratified (high, mid, and low passage; SOC), but people are still human. The typical game shows how being a traveller crosses classes and breaks stratification.


LONG-WINDED VERSION

Travellers travel.

• Traveller is about travellers - the name is literally the role assumed for the player characters.
• The rules show how characters from all classes and structures take on this fundamental role.
• The rules govern the exploration of the player characters' travels.
• When problems arise, a traveller faces the moment alongside other travellers.
• The shared experience of being a traveller allows two characters from widely disparate backgrounds to come together.
• Game success depends on how the story manages the social mobility and camaraderie of being a traveller.
• The focus of a good Traveller story is on those who fit the role of traveller.
• Traveller has never been a what. Traveller is a who.

There are design assumptions underlying Traveller which were used to create a corpus of rules. Those rules were then used, imperfectly, to create the official setting. Further clouding the picture is the fact that not all of the rules published under the Traveller rubric were crafted with the Traveller design philosophy in mind.

That's why I'm suggesting we return to first principles. Identify the underlying Traveller design philosophy, vet all existing Traveller rules against that philosophy, craft additional Traveller rules using that philosophy, and then use that expanding body of Traveller rules to create multiple Traveller settings. Multiple settings which move far beyond the OTU.

I am going to try to nail down "The" rule underlying Traveller, the Traveller design philosophy.

In order to get a sense of it, I list some core elements of Traveller which seem to define the game's feel -- elements not created by the setting, but rather are embedded in the game. In other words, Traveller's philosophy informs the rules and the setting.

I. Foundational Assumptions

Traveller is all about a base set of assumptions. Science fiction is a huge concept that can be expressed in innumerable forms. While the underlying system any edition of Traveller has used is highly flexible, there are still certain assumptions that are involate.

Violate these, and you lose the 'Traveller', regardless of setting. Keep these, and setting probably doesn't matter.

Here's my list, a modified version of Daryen's list salted with others' comments.

• The Jump Drive is the key to travelling to other stars. Starships of size 100 tons or greater can travel to a nearby star system in about 1 week’s time. Communication travels at the speed of jump (no ansible).
• Sequential jumping. To go two parsecs, you may make two consecutive 1-parsec jumps.
• Starships are designed by purpose (often encapsulated in a single letter code).
• Starports are like Deep Water Ports, and service interstellar ships. No two starports are alike.
• Limitations on space travel makes wilderness refueling worth the risk.
• Cosmopolitan, with aliens, but the universe is largely understandable and consistent.
• Worlds are not homogeneously hi-tech. Backwaters are part of this. This allows anachronism (shotguns and cutlasses) that defy SF conventions.
• Lots of worlds. No two worlds are alike (hence Library Data).
• Naval bases and the Navy career.
• Scout bases and the Scout career.
• Mercenary Tickets and a soldier career (e.g. "Army").
• Social Stratification (High Passage, Mid Passage, Low Berths) -- but player characters break stratification almost by definition.
• Push, Pull, Enigma, Gimmicks (e.g. Black Globes).
• Patrons and patron encounters typically mediate between the vast setting, and the players with their goals.

II. Foundational Mechanics

Foundational but more rules-based.

• Modular mechanics. Like The Traveller Book but don't like its starship design? Swap in Traveller 5's ACS and you're done.
• Pre-career character generation. Chargen is a solo mini-game with its own risks and rewards.
• Six Characteristics per person.
• Physical characteristics take the damage from combat.
• Combat is deadly.
• No "experience points", leveling up, or other metagame rewards.
• The careers and design systems define limits on reality. 2D hex maps, empty hexes.

 

[robject]

Some supporting comments from fellow COTI-ers. First, Jeff Johnson.

No one bothers to ask what Star Fleet Battles, Ogre, CAR WARS, or GURPS is. Nobody digs back into the original flawed edition of Ogre to criticize the current version. Somebody took charge of these lines (or delegated the lines to a dedicated developer) and their respective communities went along with the latest "official" editions for the most part.


There was never a leather bound"Doomsday edition" of Traveller.


There was never a series of increasingly refined Traveller Compendiums.


Traveller first sprawled into a set of barely compatible games... then instead of tuning things up and regurgitating them the way Steve Jackson or Steve Cole would, GDW kept picking up, moving on, and breaking new ground both in the rules and in the setting.


All it would have taken is a stinking measly second edition for MegaTraveller to fix the errata and apply minor improvements based on the requirements *actual play* by people who were not already Traveller canonistas. But no, you have to have the stinking GDW house system nip it all in the bud, didn't you...?


Instead of fixing the contradictions between Book 2 and High Guard... you get Brilliant Lances...?? Well yeah, I guess you did fix the contradictions there via the epic FF&S... but... you throw out grav plates... limit fuel severely... and... made mostly unplayable games into completely unplayable games...!


Traveller's design philosophy... so beautifully elegant in its original character, world, and animal generation systems... it never took hold in the Starship side of things.


Even in the critical area of the meaning of stats and skill levels... it's like every version of Traveller has to take a totally different stab at that.... GURPS wins this one practically just because Steve Jackson had a design philosophy that he stuck to from Melee and Wizard on...! Argh!


But GURPS... it blithely throws out the raw awesomeness of Traveller's best design decisions:


* Char-gen as a game. With death. Do you risk another term, or do you stand pat? Death is essential to the game.


* Squares for deck plans. Brilliant. This is awesome because it makes it SO much easier to draw your own maps from the sketches and diagrams in the source books.


* Two-dimensional space maps-- yeah... it's wargamey... but it is SO much easier to manage. Brilliant. (You have seen people's attempts at 3D space maps, right...? Great in principle, but practically useless.)


But at the same time, so many difficult questions for the newcomer:


* How do you move two hexes on the map when you can only go Jump-1? Does every edition of the game have a different answer...? Does every edition even bother to spell this out...? How much research should the referee be expected to do for something like this...? Why is this topic so flame ridden after 30 years...? Could somebody step up and act like they own this line, or is that too late 70's Gygax for the Traveller community to handle...?


* What is in those "empty" hexes, anyway...?


* And can someone tell me how sand, missiles, lasers, and pulse lasers are supposed to work in this game...? Any of them...?!


So yeah... you have this awesome design philosophy, but there isn't any follow through. No revisions... no management. And any attempt to fix it at this point will only result in further stratification.

 

[robject]

Next up, is Bill Cameron, again:

That is, you couldn't express the 3I setting without changing the rules and GDW never showed us how those rules needed to be changed.

That's why, I believe, Rob has begun this topic. He wants to examine how the rules and the setting(s) can made "seamless". He wants the rules to be able to create the setting (or settings), something that cannot be done at this time.

I suggested and Jeff neatly explained that Rob needs to back up one further step before beginning the process. The design philosophy behind a Traveller rule needs to be identified. Once you know what makes a Traveller rule a Traveller rule, you can "build" as many as rules you need to build as many settings as you want.

 

[creativehum]

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron
"There are design assumptions underlying Traveller which were used to create a corpus of rules. Those rules were then used, imperfectly, to create the official setting. Further clouding the picture is the fact that not all of the rules published under the Traveller rubric were crafted with the Traveller design philosophy in mind.

That's why I'm suggesting we return to first principles. Identify the underlying Traveller design philosophy, vet all existing Traveller rules against that philosophy, craft additional Traveller rules using that philosophy, and then use that expanding body of Traveller rules to create multiple Traveller settings. Multiple settings which move far beyond the OTU."

I am going to try to nail down "The" rule underlying Traveller, the Traveller design philosophy.

In order to get a sense of it, I list here core elements of Traveller which seem to define the game's feel -- and these elements, while expressed by the default setting, are not created by the setting, but rather are embedded in the game. In other words, Traveller's philosophy informed and informs the setting.

Um... this sounds like the underlying song to every post I make. There is no link provided for this quote. Where did the magical text come from?
(And I am very excited about you doing this.)

 

[Timerover51]

I am going to try to nail down "The" rule underlying Traveller, the Traveller design philosophy.

In order to get a sense of it, I list here core elements of Traveller which seem to define the game's feel -- and these elements, while expressed by the default setting, are not created by the setting, but rather are embedded in the game. In other words, Traveller's philosophy informed and informs the setting.

First and over-riding design rule of Traveller:

IT HAS TO SELL.

No sales, no Traveller Universe.

 

[robject]

From Marc's LBBs:

Travellers travel.

From Don McKinney. I think Don has actually nailed the core philosophy of Traveller here.

Traveller is about travellers -- the name of the game is literally the role the game assumes for the player character. No matter what setting is used to run a "Traveller" game, there is a general assumption that there exists a class of individuals, from a wide variety of careers and social distinctions, who possess the ability to freely travel across parts of that universe, and the rules govern the exploration of those travels. Some within this class may be impoverished, and either work for their passage or steal for it, while others possess the ability to fund such travels in some comfort, and there are some who enjoy the highest luxuries while engaged in their travels. But the very nature of such travels breaks down social distinctions -- when problems arise, a real traveller is one who faces the moment alongside other travellers. Those outside this body of travellers can neither understand what would bring a scandalous rogue and the most noble Duke together -- but it is the shared experience of being a traveller which allows it to happen. Settings which apply this notion, and referees who indulge in this experience, take the Traveller role-playing experience to its highest levels. It is when an author or referee take their eyes off the travel, and focus on the story, that the game falters.

When building a campaign [...] it is how the story arc treats and handles this class of travellers that determines success. So long as the social mobility and the camaraderie of being a traveller is upheld and strengthened by the story, the campaign works. When the story pushes the traveller aside, such campaigns fail and collapse.

Therefore, we should not just work for a good story, but for the focus on that travelling class of individuals. What is Traveller is the wrong question. Traveller has never been a what. Traveller is a who.

Summarized:

• Traveller is about travellers - the name is literally the role assumed for the player characters.
• The rules show how characters from all classes and structures take on this fundamental role.
• The rules govern the exploration of the player characters' travels.
• When problems arise, a traveller faces the moment alongside other travellers.
• The shared experience of being a traveller allows two characters from widely disparate backgrounds to come together.
• Game success depends on how the story manages the social mobility and camaraderie of being a traveller.
• The focus of a good Traveller story is on those who fit the role of traveller.
• Traveller has never been a what. Traveller is a who.

 

[atpollard]

Gas Giant refueling actually may not be critical.
It is one of those things that the rules always allow for, but players almost never do.

 

[creativehum]

From Marc's LBBs:

From Don McKinney. I think Don has actually nailed the core philosophy of Traveller here.
<Don's Amazing Quote>

Please go on...

 

[elbmc1969]

* And can someone tell me how sand, missiles, lasers, and pulse lasers are supposed to work in this game...? Any of them...?!

Do you mean in-universe (how they work in the "real world") or in terms of game mechanics?

 

[robject]

There is no link provided for this quote. Where did the magical text come from?

All of these are from email conversations I started a few years ago. This thread is a distillation of several different but related conversations.

 

[creativehum]

All of these are from email conversations I started a few years ago. This thread is a distillation of several different but related conversations.

Great. Thanks. Loving this.

 

[rancke]

I'm sorry to disagree with what seems to be practically everybody else, but it's perfectly possible to run a Traveller campaign where the PCs stay on the same world all the time (though possibly with the odd excursion to neighboring worlds).

Even when campaigns involve traveling, it's quite often not the the raison d'etre for the PCs. Free traders travel because they have to trade, mercenaries travel because they have to get to the war, troubleshooters travel because they have to get to the trouble, naval crew... well, they jump from system to system, but it's not really what I think of as travel.

I wonder... how many campaigns really involve a group of drifters with no goal beyond seeing what's on the next world? I've never run any myself, nor participated in one.

Traveling is certainly a major Traveller trope, but omitting it doesn't turn a campaign non-Traveller.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

cool idea

#

I'd say the most critical element by far is jump being the fastest level of communication as a lot of the rest of the list are at least partially the result of it.

Elements like
- different types of world
- different tech levels
- some degree of feudalism
i.e. cosmopolitan space, are to my mind all partly a consequence of jump.

And some of the other elements
- different star ships
- different star ports
- gas giant refueling (i.e. backwaters)
are partly a product of cosmopolitan space.

That to me is the best aspect of Traveller; that you can - if you wriggle enough - create room for every sci-fi trope ever created all in the Spinward Marches.

Second (for me) would come
- dominant humanity
- sophont direction
although personally I have lots of modified humans imtu they tend to be mostly restricted to the planets they were modified for and are still human just odd looking.

Third (for me)
- cheap energy
- gravitics
as all-purpose tech hand waves that remove a lot of limits to imagination.

In theory you could have all those things with different mechanics.

(I'd say things like high passage, low berths etc are more critical flavor than foundational i.e. they are chrome but necessary chrome like you could call mesh armor anything but it needs to be called mesh for chrome reasons.)

#

Traveller-esque mechanics
- careers
- simplicity
- direct damage / deadly combat
- random generation: in a way this is actually a product of the foundational "cosmopolitan space" idea. if it's possible for worlds to evolve in odd ways due to relative isolation due to jump then figuring out a list of possibilities in advance is very limiting so an alternative is to have random generation and then try and make it make sense after
- ship creation with different useful designs for different tasks
- animal creation
- world creation
- generation rather than lists

 

[creativehum]

I'm sorry to disagree with what seems to be practically everybody else, but it's perfectly possible to run a Traveller campaign where the PCs stay on the same world all the time (though possibly with the odd excursion to neighboring worlds).

robject really hasn't laid down all the thoughts yet (I'm assuming).

Before we try to argue things out of existence the moment they show up (a default stance for some, I understand) why don't we dig about with these fundamentals for a while and see what we come up with.

For example, I found Don's last sentence from that quote charming: "What is Traveller is the wrong question. Traveller has never been a what. Traveller is a who."

So, if we answer the Who? as "Travellers" as defined thus far, they could still be focused on one world for weeks and weeks of play if that's how it turned out.

Now, I'm not saying robject would agree with that, nor Don, nor Marc "Travellers Travel" Miller. But I'm willing to dig into these basics and see if there which ones might be even more fundamental than others.

For example, I find patrons really problematic. The moment the sole motivation for a human becomes money -- as the Patron system sets up -- the moral regulator can fall off human behavior, which leaves us with immoral assholes (in both RPGs and life). That said, rather than jumping in and saying, "Wrong, patrons aren't essential," I'm willing at a thought experiment to dig into the early texts and see if a design philosophy can be dug out of them.

Certainly no harm can come of it (anyone can ignore anything said here) and maybe something interesting will come of it.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Core rules philosophy;

To hit rule / roll for personal combat.
Task rule for skill usage

Just explain starship combat and you got your game.

Everything else is seasoning.

 

[rancke]

Before we try to argue things out of existence the moment they show up (a default stance for some, I understand) why don't we dig about with these fundamentals for a while and see what we come up with.

I wasn't trying to argue traveling out of existence. I thought I made that pretty clear in my statement. I was arguing against the notion that you couldn't possibly have a Traveller campaign without traveling.

For example, I find patrons really problematic. The moment the sole motivation for a human becomes money -- as the Patron system sets up -- the moral regulator can fall off human behavior, which leaves us with immoral assholes (in both RPGs and life). That said, rather than jumping in and saying, "Wrong, patrons aren't essential," I'm willing at a thought experiment to dig into the early texts and see if a design philosophy can be dug out of them.

You can certainly have Traveller campaigns with patrons, and it's useful to explore the dos and don'ts of patrons. I just don't like the notion that you can't possibly run a Traveller adventure that isn't started by a patron.

Apropos, one of the patron tropes that I try to avoid is the one where he's willing or even planning to sacrifice his cat's-paws. I often specify that the patron is willing to back up the PCs if they get in trouble.


Hans

 

[creativehum]

I just don't like the notion that you can't possibly run a Traveller adventure that isn't started by a patron.

Neither do I.

But I don't think we're done drilling down yet.

What is a patron for?
What is travelling from world to world for?

A Traveller can travel without the need of a Patron.
A group of Travellers (people with the temperament of Travellers, as described in posts above) could be on one world for a long time in RPG play. They travelled before, they'll travel again. But the focus of the campaign is on this world. That's viable, I think.

Again, I just don't think we're done drilling yet.

 

[salochin999]

Thinking about it some more the jump thing (potentially at least) creates what was good about the original Star Trek and the Dumarest books.

One episode/book/jump the gang lands on an agricultural hippy commune world, the next jump it's a mid-tech industrial military dictatorship, the next is a low population, high tech world full of robots etc.

The main systems on the main routes might all have significant elements of a homogenized culture through regular communication but anywhere off the main drag can evolve in odd directions.

#

edit: although the players don't have to travel between systems. the potential "oddness" of Traveller systems means you could have a campaign set on one planet e.g. the players grow up in the underhive of a city-planet and try to claw their way out without getting killed by Judge Dredd or they crash land on one of the old fantasy settings like Jorune, Tekumel or John Carter of Mars. They still travel but in a different way.

 

[Condottiere]

Going by the high mortality rate for low passage, and the high cost of staying awake while transitioning, Travelling is the exception for the vast majority of sophonts, unless they place themselves at the disposal of a third party, like a Megacorporation, interstellar military or galactic bureaucracy.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Thinking about it some more the jump thing (potentially at least) creates what was good about the original Star Trek and the Dumarest books.

One episode/book/jump the gang lands on an agricultural hippy commune world, the next jump it's a mid-tech industrial military dictatorship, the next is a low population, high tech world full of robots etc.

The main systems on the main routes might all have significant elements of a homogenized culture through regular communication but anywhere off the main drag can evolve in odd directions.

Well, I remember Avery's interview, that occasionally gets linked or posted here every few years or so, where he said that stories tell us something about ourselves. Classic Trek is a sort of police show with thematic overtones, and Traveller somewhat imitates that, only it uses the disparate personalities forced to cooperate motif.

As I mentioned elsewhere, there's a class of people who are wealthy and who sponsor "reformist" efforts outside the US. They're the people who hire mercenaries or ex-military to go in and deal with a situation, whatever it is. Traveller takes some of its cues from that too. Whether it's something like private companies funding rebels in Central America, or family corporations funding the Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 90s, or, more sinister, a corporation hiring a brigade of mercenaries to overthrow an African government to get mining rights, Traveller emulates those scenarios.

The multi-millionaire patron who owns a yacht, maybe is ex-military, maybe is from some royal or noble house in Europe, who may or may not be part of the team, is reflected in Traveller.

Ultimately if you just have the basic rules down, whatever spice you want to put in there is icing on the cake. That's why in the original iteration of the rules (and somewhat emphasized in the LBBs later on) the authors said you could play any setting you desired.

I'm glad this thread was created, because whether or not I see my dreams come true, I can at least chime in on my experiences of having fun with this game. And there's a reason I come here and not to one of the many Star Trek RPG / sci-fi BBSes, nor the many DND forums, or Gamma World, or any other game or show or series of novels or comic books you can think of.

It's a smart game that's gotten somewhat off track and muddled, but is still a hoot to indulge in