Toward a Philosophy of Traveller

[robject]

Well the analysis in a nutshell is there are two hidden assumptions underlying the rest
- density of trade
- potential fleet sizes
and these assumptions effect a lot of what comes after.

...

The small fleet vs large fleet decision is effectively a decision over how easy it is for one world to conquer another world.

That last point is a very good one. I see original assumptions about fleet compositions being retconned by 1979, with ship size ranges expanded when they were just not "big enough".

Is this a prime example of something Hans sees, where the OTU feeds back to change original assumptions? Certainly the OTU was and is a testing ground for ideas.

 

[salochin999]

That last point is a very good one. I see original assumptions about fleet compositions being retconned by 1979, with ship size ranges expanded when they were just not "big enough".

Is this a prime example of something Hans sees, where the OTU feeds back to change original assumptions? Certainly the OTU was and is a testing ground for ideas.

That's the decision to be made.

Should later additions (based on different assumptions imo) be assumed to overwrite the original or should the original be identified and purged of inconsistent later additions.

Either are viable options.

However personally I'd say create a additional first step - specifying the setting's foundational assumptions - and then you can have both.

Something like:
- Dumarest Traveller: tramp trade / small fleets
- Silk Road Traveller: mixed trade / large or small fleets
- GURPS/GDW Traveller: dense trade / large fleets
(and plenty more options as well)
and then take the base rules and modify them as needed for the particular setting assumptions.

 

[robject]

Another thought.

Megacorps were added, but I think this is not "core". It's an implication of Large Empires.

Also note that SOC F was probably the original upper limit for social standing. Thus, Large Empires is not core... but Pocket Empires might be.

While this could help explain the original focus on small starships, I think Big Ships are the reality for Traveller. I can't say whether they were always understood to be so, but they certainly have been since 1979.

In other words, the core philosophy for Traveller was not settled in 1977. I suspect it was pretty much settled by the time LBB8 came out, but LBB4-8 also clearly have Third Imperium meterial in them. For example, the names of the megacorps.

 

[creativehum]

Megacorps were added later, but I think this is not "core". It's an implication of Large Empires.

I was thinking about this specifically last week. Megacorps are the definition of everything changed from the original feel of the game to the default assumptions of the OTU. They define ease of commerce, trade, and travel of the OTU. They imply a homogenized interstellar environment in which a suit can travel comfortably across eight parsecs and know that he will be able to plug directly into the same corporate culture that he left behind a subsector away.

I understand completely the place megacorps have in the Third Imperium. I just don't understand how that kind of environment makes sense for Player Characters as described by Mike's excellent summary of travellers further upthread.

As both salochin999 and robject have been discussing, these are dials to turn. I'm not saying one is better than the other. But the megacorp blows right by an implied setting centered on Type A and R traders, scout ships, merc cruisers, and culturally-at-odds neighboring star systems. (Or to look at it another way -- to be a neighboring star system isn't to be that "close" at all. In a setting without megacorps, the gulf between stars is still big and still matters. it is a vastness that most people, cultures, and technologies do not traverse.)

 

[aramis]

That last point is a very good one. I see original assumptions about fleet compositions being retconned by 1979, with ship size ranges expanded when they were just not "big enough".

Is this a prime example of something Hans sees, where the OTU feeds back to change original assumptions? Certainly the OTU was and is a testing ground for ideas.

Actually, it's the OTU having reality quakes when the rules changed, and people did the math based upon those changes.

Which is easier to run - a large fleet (1000+) of GCr1 Carriers under Bk2 (1000Td, J6 TL15, 36 fighters J0 M6 P6) or a few dozen CGr300+ cruisers under Bk 5. Oh, and the offensive version? 18 fighters, 1000Td, J3 M3 P3 ... and 82% the cost, and TL13.

And, given the lifestyle expenses and low prices of ships, the fleets are of course going to be huge, because the lifestyle expenses tell us the expected incomes.

On the other hand, if ships are properly expensive, then PC's cannot afford them and shipping is rare... so we're stuck with cheap ships.

 

[rancke]

Also note that SOC F was probably the original upper limit for social standing. Thus, Large Empires is not core... but Pocket Empires might be.

SOC F was originally (1st ed.) a planetary level. There were two more titles above duke, it was said, prince and king, and both were used for planetary rulers. I think you're right about emperors being for pocket empires.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

Purely on a personal note this subtle shift in underlying assumption between 1-3 and 4-8 is probably what scrambled my mental image of the OTU all those years ago - something I only managed to unscramble recently.

 

[salochin999]

...

I think Big Ships are the reality for Traveller.

...

Although I personally agree with the logic of that there are ways out of it for those who don't want it.

1. There is separate logic for merchants and navy so if you specify that trade between systems is generally low volume than you only need small merchant ships.

(You might still have very large non-jump merchant ships *within* systems.)

2. As above but a silk road version where there are large merchant ships but only along the main routes between the prime systems with the rest of space being small ships.

3. The size / cost of naval ships can be spun the other way around if you hand wave that defense >>> attack; if say a prime system could build hundreds of Tigress size non-jump SDBs and every moon around every fuel source in the system is studded with missile bases and mega lasers manned by 200 million reservists etc then you might find that there was no point to having a large jump-capable fleet of large ships. The fleets and ships might still be huge but non-jump.

If for example you hand-waved that on average it took the combined resources of eight prime systems to build a big enough jump-capable fleet to successfully defeat one prime systems non-jump defenses then that damps down the ability to expand leading to a more city-state or pocket empire model.

#

Picking one setting option is easier but a setting flow chart sounds like something that might be useful - especially if it had optional random rolls at key junctures.

This is making me think of those old Gamma World flow charts

https://firebreathinglizards.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/gammaworldp32.gif

There could be one or more defaults for ease of writing additional material.

 

[creativehum]

I think Big Ships are the reality for Traveller. I can't say whether they were always understood to be so, but they certainly have been since 1979.

In other words, the core philosophy for Traveller was not settled in 1977. I suspect it was pretty much settled by the time LBB8 came out, but LBB4-8 also clearly have Third Imperium meterial in them. For example, the names of the megacorps.

I have always assumed that Books 1-8 were modular. A Referee and Players could pick and choose amongst given options to build the "toolkit" they wanted for both their setting and play. For example, does anyone here think one has to use the system generation sequence rules from Book 6, the trade rules from Book 7, or must use Robots in their setting because Book 8 exists?

My assumption goes deeper down than this as well. Not only is each book modular (and can be used or dismissed at any given table) but within each book we were handed tools and idea to use, modify or dismiss.

For example, in both the '77 and '81 editions of Book 3, the Tech Level charts make no mention of any sort of "average" technology for any interstellar civilization. It was assumed, as far as I can tell, that each group would decide for themselves how far technology had advanced for their setting, what the average was, what might be considered exceptional. (The "Imperial Average" elements in the Tech Level chart were introduced in Starter Traveller and The Traveller Book.)

Thus, the ships in Book 2 max out at J-3. There's no reason to assume (or at least I didn't) that there were ships that could do a J-6 in every setting a Referee might create. The rules are there to make such a ship. But as far as I could tell such technology might well belong to an advanced, alien civilization and not available to the PCs or their civilization. It was up to me to decide.

Please remember: all this thinking is from years ago... back when I was a teen, back when I had bought the little black box containing Books 1, 2, and 3 from the Compleat Strategist in Manhattan in 1977. Everything I needed to play Traveller was right in that box. If I needed more I could extrapolate it from the materials at hand. And not only did I not feel a lack of any kind with those first three books, there was no way I could assume more material was coming. (I played Advanced Dungeons & Dragons the same way: I had the three hardcovers, never bought a module or setting materials of any kind.)

Moreover, the additional material that did arrive didn't expand the game -- it offered options on how to play. As Marc Miller said of Books 2 and 5, respectively, in an interview from several years ago: "There’s the simpler system for the more casual players, and then the deeper system for more involved players."

So, my question: Am I the only one here who doesn't assume that Classic Traveller Books 1-8 are a complete package that form a whole that has to be treated as a whole? This isn't a challenge. I am really fascinated by this.

And, I guess a second question: Given all the bumps and work and retconning required to make all these pieces work as a whole, why go down that road? Why not assume that that the tools are there to make your own tool box and the Third Imperium is but one example of the kind of setting one can make? Especially as Salochin999 pointed about above...

"Purely on a personal note this subtle shift in underlying assumption between 1-3 and 4-8 is probably what scrambled my mental image of the OTU all those years ago - something I only managed to unscramble recently."

...the shift in thinking between what was contained in the Traveller black box and all the information that came after is large.

EDITED TO ADD: I suspect a lot of this is an issue of time: When did a person pick up Traveller? Which edition? The fact is, a lot of people not only did not experience Basic Traveller the way I did. But beyond many people who love Traveller might well never have even seen the original editions of Books 1, 2, and 3. Reading those books is a specific and very different experience than reading The Traveller Book. (Remember that apart from Book 4 Mercenary, for two years after the original boxed set was published that was it.)

I'm sure if I bumped into Traveller books 1-8 after they had all been published along with seven years worth of material I'd probably assume they were designed as a workable, consistent whole.

 

[rancke]

3. The size / cost of naval ships can be spun the other way around if you hand wave that defense >>> attack; if say a prime system could build hundreds of Tigress size non-jump SDBs and every moon around every fuel source in the system is studded with missile bases and mega lasers manned by 200 million reservists etc then you might find that there was no point to having a large jump-capable fleet of large ships. The fleets and ships might still be huge but non-jump.

During the Age of Sail it was possible to build shore batteries strong enough to defeat any ship-of-the-line. Ships-of-the-line were still built to project power away from shore batteries.

If for example you hand-waved that on average it took the combined resources of eight prime systems to build a big enough jump-capable fleet to successfully defeat one prime systems non-jump defenses then that damps down the ability to expand leading to a more city-state or pocket empire model.

There's a very strong correlation between the size of the fleets (whether many small ships or fewer big ships) that worlds can afford and the cost of a PC-sized ship. Make fleets too expensive and PC-sized ships become too expensive. (It's already a bit of a problem in the actual Traveller rules).


Hans

 

[aramis]

Back in the mid 80's, I looked at the CT rules as describing a setting. Only one game in my collection didn't have an explicit setting - D&D - and it implied one.

Traveller had an implicit setting - in the combination of Atlas, Sups 8&11, and the adventures. The rules in Bk 1-7 and Sup 4 implied a lot more about the setting.

The OTU existed. It existed in two terms for me - the early OTU of Bk 1-4, sup 1-4, and Adv 1-4. And then, the more mature form, which was the rest. They were (and are) incompatible settings, both grown from the assumptions of the rules in those books.

But always, it looked like a setting and a ruleset building to that setting.

That setting was defined by the Jump Drive, the nature of the tech paradigm, and the fluff of Sups 8 & 11, and adventures 6-13. And that setting was, every bit as much as the rules, carried forward in MegaTraveller.

For me, Traveller never was a Generic ruleset. It didn't do Trek worth a damn when I tried, while FASA's STRPG did. It didn't do Star Wars well, either - the ships were too small, the tech too low. Nor (old) BSG. Nor any of the other sci fi I was into.

 

[Frankymole]

(Remember that apart from Book 4 Mercenary, for two years after the original boxed set was published that was it.)

I'm sure if I bumped into Traveller books 1-8 after they had all been published along with seven years worth of material I'd probably assume they were designed as a workable, consistent whole.

Traveller was also publicised as being modular, so not only were the LBB adventures and supplements optional, but referees and players could buy as much or as little beyond LBBs 1-3 as they wanted, and ignore the rest.

 

[mike wightman]

If you came to Traveller via The Traveller Book then it's no surprise you saw a set of rules tied to a setting, since a lot of TTB is setting material for the Imperium.

If you got into Traveller via the 77 boxed set or even the 81 revised boxed set the Imperium is not mentioned as a setting and the rules are for you to make up your own setting.

It even states in the introductory section of the FFE LBB0-8 reprints that Traveller was intended at the outset as generic game that could re-create any sci-fi theme or setting.

It is a game about the Travellers, the setting is just a backdrop for their adventures.

 

[aramis]

If you came to Traveller via The Traveller Book then it's no surprise you saw a set of rules tied to a setting, since a lot of TTB is setting material for the Imperium.

If you got into Traveller via the 77 boxed set or even the 81 revised boxed set the Imperium is not mentioned as a setting and the rules are for you to make up your own setting.

It even states in the introductory section of the FFE LBB0-8 reprints that Traveller was intended at the outset as generic game that could re-create any sci-fi theme or setting.

It is a game about the Travellers, the setting is just a backdrop for their adventures.

The 81 deluxe box ALSO has the imperium - it shipped with Adv 0 and Bk 0, plus the Marches Map, both of which mention the imperium. Content-wise the paid (which is what I started with) was very much "Traveller is playing the Imperium and settings like it."

Starter is essentially the same content as TTB.

And a number of the adventures are anything BUT about travel. Most specifically, Tarsus and Beltstrike. Neither really is about going anywhere so much as 'Here's an interesting place to be from that also has adventure opportunities right here." Setting subsets shaped by the interstellar travel, but not making use of it.

 

[creativehum]

The 81 deluxe box ALSO has the imperium - it shipped with Adv 0 and Bk 0, both of which mention the imperium. Content-wise the paid (which is what I started with) was very much "Traveller is playing the Imperium and settings like it."

An excellent point. The full color map of the Spinward Marches was gorgeous. Certainly when I saw that map I wanted to play there. (It was only later, when I dug into more of the specifics of the actual setting of the Marches and Third Imperium, that I discovered that the actual politics and economics and culture really wasn't what I was looking for.)

It is interesting to me that in 1981 GDW released two boxed sets, each containing Books 1, 2, and 3 in their original format.

1. One box, Basic Traveller, was identical in format to the 1977 edition of the boxed set and contains (like the 1977 edition) no mention of the Imperium and assumes the the subsector and world generation rules will be used by the Referee to create his own setting.
2. The second box, the Deluxe edition, as noted above, contains the exact same three rulebooks, but also with the material Aramis mentions above that leads play directly into GDW's Official Setting.

While I don't know what the thinking was behind that, it certainly seems to be it could suggest that GDW was offering two paths for people walk when buying the game -- one focused on GDW's setting and one without.

***
A side note: Book 0: An Introduction to Traveller (which came with the Deluxe Traveller box) actually makes no mention of the Imperium. The text of Book 0 continues the explicit notion found in Books 1, 2, and 3 that the Referee will be making up his own setting:

"In planning a campaign, there are a number of considerations. The beginning
referee should (as always) start out small. It may be fun to sketch out a galaxyspanning
empire of several hundred thousand worlds, but you will never be able to
organize the necessary information on an empire that large, much less create it in
any reasonable length of time. Start out small, and work your way up.

"A single subsector is the best location for a first campaign..."

-- An Introduction to Traveller, p. 28

And so on...

However, Appendix III: Overview of Traveller Material does contain a listing of all the Traveller products published up until that time. And certainly many of these reference and involve GDW's Official Traveller Universe. Even with this, however, the word Imperium does not appear in the book.

 

[Frankymole]

While I don't know what the thinking was behind that, it certainly seems to be it could suggest that GDW was offering two paths for people walk when buying the game -- one focused on GDW's setting and one without.

Reviews at the time in magazines and books like Dicing With Dragons inferred that the background was there for rushed or hurried referees who did not have the time or inclination to develop their own setting. Of course, campaigns were seen as a step further and deeper than a single adventure or even a few sessions of relatively standalone play, and so really an optional add-on to "standard" sessions. Often a deep background would be irrelevant to immediate adventures and only become clear through linked campaign adventures; The Traveller Adventure was the exemplar of this. The Imperial Fringe (Adventure 0 in Deluxe) perhaps less so! A lot of gamers were expected to be playing other games in between Traveller sessions... quaint idea!

 

[salochin999]

...

There's a very strong correlation between the size of the fleets (whether many small ships or fewer big ships) that worlds can afford and the cost of a PC-sized ship. Make fleets too expensive and PC-sized ships become too expensive. (It's already a bit of a problem in the actual Traveller rules).


Hans

Yeah I'm not saying make the ships more expensive - if anything you could reduce the cost because the critical factor here is the *relative* power of jump-capable attack vs non-jump capable defense.

I'm saying if you stipulate that defense >>> attack then the bulk of the big ships that the prime systems build might end up being non-jump system defense ships.

example

Setting after a long night where there are multiple prime systems - some expansionist and some not with the non-expansionist systems putting most of their naval budget into system defense. If you specify defense >>> attack then the expansionist powers are likely to hit road blocks very soon and be unable to expand leading to mostly static city-state or pocket empire setting - maybe lots of large ships but mostly guarding the prime systems themselves and some on border systems midway between two primes but largely absent elsewhere.

#

I'm not suggesting this is how to do it just saying it's another setting option.

The analogy would be a time in history when castle building was well ahead of siege ability.

 

[robject]

Thread resurrect.

On re-reading the summary on the OP, I realized there was one element that needs to be emphasized: the remoteness of authority empowers and requires the players to make their own decisions and act.

The "speed of jump", "starports are Deep Water ports", explicit feudalism (even the existence of piracy) all support this free agency.

 

[creativehum]

Thread resurrect.

On re-reading the summary on the OP, I realized there was one element that needs to be emphasized: the remoteness of authority empowers and requires the players to make their own decisions and act.

The "speed of jump", "starports are Deep Water ports", explicit feudalism (even the existence of piracy) all support this free agency.

Yes.

 

[kilemall]

First and over-riding design rule of Traveller:

IT HAS TO SELL.

No sales, no Traveller Universe.

Heh, to paraphrase the old Mechwarrior-

No Sales, No Galaxy.