Toward a Philosophy of Traveller

[salochin999]

@creativehum

Interesting thoughts.

I agree Traveller suits the episodic TV series model but there's two versions: the "Star Trek" / Dumarest type series where each planet is a self-contained story discarded after use and the "Firefly" version where each story is a self-contained episode but the action takes place within a sub-sector sized box so layers of campaign history: locations, NPCs etc, can build up over time.

I think both can be fun: a type S with orders to check each system along a J1 main from A to B bumping into an adventure every 2-3 systems or an away team based in a particular sub-sector capital being sent on missions within that sub-sector and building up a sense of place over time.

So ironically the second version of Traveller involves not travelling or rather travelling away and back again from a fixed base.

 

[creativehum]

...it just seems absent from this discussion.

I don't think that is the case.

Keep in mind that the Dumarest books have a story-arc. Dumarest is trying to get back to Earth. Boom. Story arc.

In contrast, the A-Team TV series, does not.

So the issue of these past few posts is not whether or not there is a story-arc. (It's a trivial enough matter to slap one on to the type of material/setting/stories we're talking about.)

The contrast is a deeply involved setting that becomes deeper and more developed as the PCs stick around in it, with their actions having consequences that feed more actions that come back at them... as opposed to Dumarest or A-Team structure where the PCs move on... and on, and on, and on...

It might seem to be a subtle distinction. But it will affect everything from how the Referee sets up the setting, how characters are generated in terms of backstories, what sorts of goals (or lack thereof) can be personalized by the Players for his or her PC, and what adventures and play is like.

 

[robject]

Mister robject, is your initial opening post official edicts of Marc Miller wanting to get back to fundamentalist Traveller, or is that a take on how you see Traveller as per your conversations with Marc Miller?

This is me. If it were Marc, then Avery would post.

But in the endless debate over rules-or-setting, I think Traveller is elements of both, but neither. In fact Traveller is more like a sociology experiment. Or experience. And the focus is of course necessarily on travel, but also the implications of who-all travels, and why.

 

[Quint]

I don't think that is the case.

Keep in mind that the Dumarest books have a story-arc. Dumarest is trying to get back to Earth. Boom. Story arc.

In contrast, the A-Team TV series, does not.

So the issue of these past few posts is not whether or not there is a story-arc. (It's a trivial enough matter to slap one on to the type of material/setting/stories we're talking about.)

The contrast is a deeply involved setting that becomes deeper and more developed as the PCs stick around in it, with their actions having consequences that feed more actions that come back at them... as opposed to Dumarest or A-Team structure where the PCs move on... and on, and on, and on...

It might seem to be a subtle distinction. But it will affect everything from how the Referee sets up the setting, how characters are generated in terms of backstories, what sorts of goals (or lack thereof) can be personalized by the Players for his or her PC, and what adventures and play is like.

Not just "get back to Earth" but an omnipresent enemy in the person of the Cyclan and a semi-helpful organization in the person of the... Universal Brotherhood? The ones with anti-violence hypnoconditioning sacramental light...

Later in the series there is also the Children of Terra (or whatever they were called) as well.

I think that could be some useful discussion on this topic by discussing Andre Norton's Free Trader books as well. The same sort of episodic books, but set against (or embedded in) a far more unified setting than Dumarest.

Dumarest and Trask get mentioned a great deal as Traveller ur-sources, but the crew and adventures of the Solar Queen seem to get a great deal of short shrift here on COTI. I wonder why that is given how influential her work seems to have been...

D.

 

[salochin999]

The very things that you list as being lost in the "episodic" model are also the things I would hate to lose as well. In fact, they are the reason I'd like to play!

One practical factor in this is time.

In the past when I was running games with regular and long sessions then I generally preferred in-depth campaigns like you describe where I tried to build up the *depth* of the setting.

Since I've got back into it I'm only running 2-3 games a year with my bros and the sessions can't be more than 2-3 hours so in the first sessions I tried to set up the foundation for a more "Firefly" type setting where they were travelling but within a chunk of recurring space - it was Vilani early expansion so the idea was it would take place within ten parsecs or so of Vland - I found (at least with us) that when the gaps between sessions are too long then all the recurring stuff gets forgotten between sessions.

So now I've given up that idea and I'm going back to the Spinward Marches with park rangers in space i.e. they're going to be in a Type S (there's only two characters so that works well imo) with a mission to visit all the systems on a J1 route between A and B checking the navigation buoys - basically a scout version of the very first Traveller adventure - so I can just make up short one-off little adventures along the route. Then the only thing they need to remember between sessions is - well nothing really.

I think that's the advantage of the "Star Trek" / Dumarest episodic style game - they're very light weight in terms of baggage and can be a collection of one-offs with the same characters and so might be more suitable to more irregular games.

If it was a regular weekly thing I'd go more for the kind of thing you've been describing in your setting.

 

[rancke]

But in the endless debate over rules-or-setting, I think Traveller is elements of both, but neither. In fact Traveller is more like a sociology experiment. Or experience. And the focus is of course necessarily on travel, but also the implications of who-all travels, and why.

Except it's not necessarily on travel, as has already been pointed out.

As for who travels, there's a bit of a discrepancy between the rules (cost of travel) and what the setting shows us (busy starports and tourists and traveling salesmen¹).

¹ There was a canonical adventure or amber zone with a traveling salesman, wasn't there? Or am I misremembering?​

Hans

 

[aramis]

Except it's not necessarily on travel, as has already been pointed out.

As for who travels, there's a bit of a discrepancy between the rules (cost of travel) and what the setting shows us (busy starports and tourists and traveling salesmen¹).

¹ There was a canonical adventure or amber zone with a traveling salesman, wasn't there? Or am I misremembering?​

Hans

I recall a couple. Traveling salesmen make sense, tho', even when, neé especially when travel is expensive. You send one salesman with a couple tons of samples, and he demos the product, and if it is genuinely what people want, he stays put while it arrives; he's sent a codeword signed order (encrypted using a one-time pad). You have him local until it arrives - he has the money put in escrow at the port. Once you sign off for receipt, he gets the cash, you have the goods, and he moves on. He X-mails a large chunk of the cash, keeping his commission and the funds for his next leg or two plus his housing expenses during the wait.

 

[Frankymole]

Keep in mind that the Dumarest books have a story-arc. Dumarest is trying to get back to Earth. Boom. Story arc.

In contrast, the A-Team TV series, does not.

...it will affect everything from how the Referee sets up the setting, how characters are generated in terms of backstories, what sorts of goals (or lack thereof) can be personalized by the Players for his or her PC, and what adventures and play is like.

A case in point would be the Traveller's Digest's Grand Tour campaign. 19(?) separate adventures but with an arc of travelling clockwise around the Imperium, Solomani Sphere and Aslan Hierate on an academic field trip-cum-prize vacation. I don't think there were recurring enemies, but there were some developments like escaping annoyed Aslan when their Major Race secret was exposed...

The first few LBB Adventures have links, especially 2 and 3, but the books can be played standalone with continuing PCs.

 

[Condottiere]

Video conferences would really lag.

Travelling salesman entrusted at this level might be high initiative middle management with their own entourage.

 

[creativehum]

...the setting...

I am pretty sure that for the purposes of this thread there is not "the setting."

If you go back to robject's first post, you can find Bill Cameron's quote about looking at the rules there were created before the setting was created. In fact, toward the end of the quote, he makes it explicit that the point of this exercise is "to create multiple Traveller settings. Multiple settings which move far beyond the OTU."

 

[rancke]

I am pretty sure that for the purposes of this thread there is not "the setting."

The setting supplies clues to how the writers saw the rules applied. If they had created multiple settings then all of them would have provided such clues. As they only provided one setting, that one is all we have, though.

In this particular instance I'm propounding that the busy starports and other factors suggest that the writers didn't realizes the ramifications of the high costs of interstellar transportation, and that had they done so, they might not have liked it.


Hans

 

[creativehum]

The setting supplies clues to how the writers saw the rules applied. If they had created multiple settings then all of them would have provided such clues. As they only provided one setting, that one is all we have, though.

In this particular instance I'm propounding that the busy starports and other factors suggest that the writers didn't realizes the ramifications of the high costs of interstellar transportation, and that had they done so, they might not have liked it.


Hans

The thing is, this line of logic runs counter to the very premise of this thread. I don't actually understand what you're trying to do.

Like, honestly, I have no idea. In any given thread when people say, "We're not dealing with the OTU," you show up to tell everyone, "You're doing it wrong. Here's how it works with the OTU."

What is that?

 

[rancke]

The thing is, this line of logic runs counter to the very premise of this thread. I don't actually understand what you're trying to do.

I think it's very much in line with the premise of the thread. I don't understand what about the statement "The setting supplies clues to how the writers saw the rules applied" is unclear.

Like, honestly, I have no idea. In any given thread when people say, "We're not dealing with the OTU," you show up to tell everyone, "You're doing it wrong. Here's how it works with the OTU."

What is that?

In some cases it's about me missing or forgetting the point that it's not about the OTU. In others it's about people making statements about the OTU despite it not being about the OTU. And in some cases it's about the OTU supplying clues to how to apply the rules.


Hans

 

[creativehum]

I don't understand what about the statement "The setting supplies clues to how the writers saw the rules applied" is unclear.

There is nothing at all unclear about the statement. I never suggested it was unclear in any way. What is unclear to me is why you drag the OTU into every thread, whether or not it belongs in the thread at all.

Here is the full quote from Bill Cameron from the first post of this thread:

"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."

[Emphasis added.]

The assumption from Cameron's quote is that the OTU did not flow from the basic design philosophy of Traveller's original rules. The second paragraph makes it clear that Cameron, rightly or wrongly, believes there is value in looking at the rules before the creation of the OTU. That in those first rules before the the OTU there is something to be mined, and the the fun will be in creating multiple settings that will be very different in nature from the OTU, since the OTU used the rules imperfectly, and the new setting will be grown from the original design philosophy. A philosophy, as defined by Cameron, that predates the OTU and in fact has nothing to do with the OTU since the OTU is an imperfect realization of the OTU.


Then robject, immediately following Cameron's quote, robject (who started the thread, mind you) describes the purpose of the thread:

"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."

[Emphasis added]

In robject's explicit statement of the purpose of the thread, he makes it clear the OTU, while it might express elements of the design philosophy being sought, does not inform that design philosophy. He is agreeing with Cameron that there is a design philosophy found within the early rules of the game independent of the OTU.

As stated clearly in these two posts, the philosophy being sought should inform a setting, and not the setting informing the design philosophy.

So how is dragging mention from a later JTAS scenario in the OTU in line with the purpose of this thread?

 

[rancke]

There is nothing at all unclear about the statement. I never suggested it was unclear in any way. What is unclear to me is why you drag the OTU into every thread, whether or not it belongs in the thread at all.

And I answered your question. In this case I thought that it did belong in the thread.

The assumption from Cameron's quote is that the OTU did not flow from the basic design philosophy of Traveller's original rules. The second paragraph makes it clear that Cameron, rightly or wrongly, believes there is value in looking at the rules before the creation of the OTU.

(Emphasis mine).

That in those first rules before the the OTU there is something to be mined, and the the fun will be in creating multiple settings that will be very different in nature from the OTU, since the OTU used the rules imperfectly, and the new setting will be grown from the original design philosophy. A philosophy, as defined by Cameron, that predates the OTU and in fact has nothing to do with the OTU since the OTU is an imperfect realization of the OTU.

But surely 'imperfectly' does not mean 'not at all'. If the original writers introduced an element into the OTU, the possibility exists that it reflects their original design philosophy, however imperfectly.

In robject's explicit statement of the purpose of the thread, he makes it clear the OTU, while it might express elements of the design philosophy being sought, does not inform that design philosophy. He is agreeing with Cameron that there is a design philosophy found within the early rules of the game independent of the OTU.

And I am suggesting that this assumption may not be entirely correct. Anything one reads into the original rules that does not agree with the only official implementation of those rules of which we know may well be contrary to the original design philosophy, an imperfect implementation of the rules rather than an imperfect application of the perfect rolleyes rules.

As stated clearly in these two posts, the philosophy being sought should inform a setting, and not the setting informing the design philosophy.

So how is dragging mention from a later JTAS scenario in the OTU in line with the purpose of this thread?

Well, I thought it was. But if it upsets you so much, I'll just bow out of the discussion and leave you and Robert to deduce the original design philosophy on your own. And may what you're looking for be there for you to find.


Hans

 

[Hyphen]

Well stated. I've never seen nor heard of "The Persuaders!" before. Most interesting.

You've missed out. Roger Moore (Bond #3) and *the* Tony Curtis (Houdini, The Defiant Ones, Some like It Hot, Spartacus, The Great Imposter...).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066701/

This was after Roger took a turn playing The Saint ('62 to '69) and just prior to him in Live and Let Die ('73).

 

[creativehum]

And I am suggesting that this assumption may not be entirely correct.

Of course it might not be. Yet the exercise of this thread, useful or not, is to work from that premise. Whether you go or stay is not the issue. The issue is exploring the premise of the thread as defined up front.

And I'm not upset. I'm baffled as to why this is so difficult for you.

 

[robject]

Background

So I actually came at this from two directions.

What "IS" Traveller

First, there were discussions on email awhile back, which included Matthew Sprange and Marc Miller and several others, over the defining bits of "Traveller". If you can nail down what Traveller "is", then you could vary the bits that "aren't" Traveller.

Because I tend to like to TRY things, I decided to try my hand at figuring out what those defining bits are. And that's where I got my draft list, which has two sorts of rules in it: one is a setting philosophy, and one is backing mechanics.


What is "TRAVELLER"

After that came the other emails that Bill and Mike, Jeff Zeitlin, Jeff Johnson, Ron Brown, and others commented on. Essentially, there is an underlying assumption about what Traveller is, that resulted in the rules, which in turn the OTU is roughly based on.



Who Travels?

Finally Don McKinney tied it all together (for me) when he stated that Traveller is a WHO, not a WHAT.




Evidences of a Philosophy of Traveller

Here are some things I've been boiling down to get at some root concepts that form and inform Traveller.

So far I have it boiled down to five, but there's still some reorganization that can be done, so.


I. The Traveller Takes Risks. Traveller is a "who", not a "what". Literally, the name of the game is THE primary role intended for its characters. Jump and the 2D hexmap. Refueling. Gravitics. These enable travel -- with risk and real limitations. The focus of good Traveller stories are most often for those who fit the role of risk-taking travellers.

II. Limitations. The primal example is jump space and it's implications. However, limitations also force meaningful decision-making. This permeates character generation, but is also quite obvious in starship design: you can't have everything. This also creates cosmopolitan interstellar space to a large degree. Rather than make all characters classless, the career set is designed to frame how interstellar society works.

III. Diversity. The universe is populated and colored with variety. No two are alike, among starports, starships, worlds, sophonts, characters, and so on. There are many levels of technology, from anachonistic to fantastic, often represented by worlds living right next door to each other. "No two X are alike" is explicitly stated in places, but also follows from how things are designed. This is implicitly supported by Library Data.

IV. Driven by Human Interactions. People are needed to run things. People must interact with other people to solve problems. A traveller faces the moment of trial alongside fellow travellers. People work best in groups. The universe is not automated. This is the social fabric of Traveller. The fact that a character has nearly as many characteristics as an entire world is one example of this people-centrism. And that interaction is socially human, because Traveller is fundamentally about humanity. To underscore the point, rewards are directly through interactions, rather than Experience Points, Levelling Up, and so on.

V. Breaking Social Stratification. The shared experience of being a traveller allows two characters from widely disparate backgrounds to come together. High passage, middle passage, and low passage, as well as the Social Standing characteristic, summarize how the universe typically works. Traveller as a whole, however, tells us how stratification is broken when outsiders come together to solve problems. This is embodied in the Mercenary Ticket. Game success depends on how the story manages the social mobility and camaraderie of being a traveller.

 

[samuelvss]

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.

Actually, if the campaign is gritty, money-starved setting for the PC's that is my understanding of the OTU, and thus MTYU, they often do if have a Type-S. Maybe it's how I present the options....

 

[robject]

I'll try to make it even more succinct. This may not work -- the more abstract I get, the more the points just resemble role-playing games in general.


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

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

III. Defined. Career options, 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.

IV. Mortal. People are people, aging and doomed in four-year chunks.

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

(For that matter, I suppose interstellar space is "stratified" as well, primarily by technological level.)



Let's compare that with Dungeons and Dragons AND Gamma World:

I. Players travel in Medieval modes, including romantic conceptions of magic.
II. Career options defines the adventuring party, but not reality. Reality is framed by the setting.
III. Some meta-game rewards.
IV. While society is stratified, it is assumed that there will be tension between characters from different social levels and alignments.