Toward a Philosophy of Traveller

[robject]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Once long ago in a place close by this was a hobby motivated by imagination and a desire to act out that imagination... [and then it became someone's job, therefore gone are the halcyon days of yore]

[/FONT]Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

And remember... Traveller was never just a hobby to GDW.

Unless you're referring to Chainmail? (Ah, nope, that was a product as well).

 

[mcobb]

Interesting thread. It has forced a re-read the CT 3 books. The biggest thing that I haven't seen discussed is the use of the (2D) for resolution. This implied that a DRM of +2 is more than twice as good as a +1. The philosophy is supported by the low number of skills during character generation (which was my nemesis as a teen). Does books 4-7 break the philosophy?

MC

 

[robject]

Not necessarily, but arguably Books 1-3 were self-limited to be as much as possible in as little as possible. And they did a good job of it.

 

[kilemall]

Sometimes less is more.

 

[aramis]

[/SIZE][/FONT]Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

And remember... Traveller was never just a hobby to GDW.

Unless you're referring to Chainmail? (Ah, nope, that was a product as well).

Well, kind of... TSR was a hobby of Gygax's until D&D suddenly got "big"... (when your circulation goes from the "about a hundred per year" to "several hundred per month", either you cease to be a hobbyist, you work lots of extra hours, you fail to meet demand, or you make a go at going pro. Or some combination of the above. Based upon the various histories... Gygax did all of those...

Chaosium started as a hobbyist publisher, I've been told (by Greg Stafford).

Palladium is one of the few RPG companies that didn't start as a hobby - on the other hand, the first two games were developed as hobbies that Kevin Siembieda then commercialized when he went pro.

GDW is another. But GDW started as a wargames company, not an RPG company.

At least if one assumes "Hobby" to be "not one's primary source of income"...

 

[mcobb]

CTs combat to-hit system is normalized to a rifle at medium range. I also find it interesting that clear terrain is a + DRM instead of 0. I think the philosophy is driving toward "think a way out of the situation before resorting to guns-a-blazing."

Another factor is the inclusion of ancient 'pole arms' in the weapon mix. I'm am struggling to see a philosophy for their inclusion. Was there an attempt to have a common set of weapons with D&D? I must be forgetting about the use of these weapons in some early SF. The pole arms seem out of place for a SF setting, IMO.

MC

 

[kilemall]

CTs combat to-hit system is normalized to a rifle at medium range. I also find it interesting that clear terrain is a + DRM instead of 0. I think the philosophy is driving toward "think a way out of the situation before resorting to guns-a-blazing."

Another factor is the inclusion of ancient 'pole arms' in the weapon mix. I'm am struggling to see a philosophy for their inclusion. Was there an attempt to have a common set of weapons with D&D? I must be forgetting about the use of these weapons in some early SF. The pole arms seem out of place for a SF setting, IMO.

MC

Don't know their actual thinking at the time, but likely due to their existence in some scifi novels for barbarian natives or Long Night scenarios, and also right in line with the shotguns and starships theme- an axe can kill you just as dead as a plasma gun.

 

[McPerth]

CTs combat to-hit system is normalized to a rifle at medium range. I also find it interesting that clear terrain is a + DRM instead of 0. I think the philosophy is driving toward "think a way out of the situation before resorting to guns-a-blazing."

Also in AH:ASL bein at open had a detrimental modifier when fired upon. I guess most combat systems assume that people is trying to take cover in combat, and when they don't (or they don't have cover) they are more vulnerable.

Another factor is the inclusion of ancient 'pole arms' in the weapon mix. I'm am struggling to see a philosophy for their inclusion. Was there an attempt to have a common set of weapons with D&D? I must be forgetting about the use of these weapons in some early SF. The pole arms seem out of place for a SF setting, IMO.

Pole arms are basic weapons at low TLs, so I feel nice to have them included in Traveller. See also that a bayonet, when set on a rifle, is treated as a pole arm, and bayonet is integral in most armies equipement and training.

 

[creativehum]

CTs combat to-hit system is normalized to a rifle at medium range. I also find it interesting that clear terrain is a + DRM instead of 0. I think the philosophy is driving toward "think a way out of the situation before resorting to guns-a-blazing."

I believer your point (which I emphasized) is absolutely vital to the CT philosophy. The rules consistently point the Players to think along these lines.

One possible correction: When you say "clear terrain is a + DRM" I think (but am not sure) you are looking at the Terrain DMs Table. But this table does not refer to rolls to hit. These are DMs to be applied to the Encounter Range Table. As far as I know, other than rules for Cover and Concealment, there are no DMs for terrain itself in Classic Traveller.

Another factor is the inclusion of ancient 'pole arms' in the weapon mix. I'm am struggling to see a philosophy for their inclusion. Was there an attempt to have a common set of weapons with D&D? I must be forgetting about the use of these weapons in some early SF. The pole arms seem out of place for a SF setting, IMO.

Yes, books like The Dumarest novels as well as the SF pulp adventures of the 50s and 60s that form the backbone of inspiration for Classic Traveller are full of archaic weapons.

Although Classic Traveller became a "harder" science fiction over time as it became equated with Third Imperium (which is a very civilized place, even on its frontier), if one looks at the rules of the original three books one finds that the implied setting of play is an area removed from the core of interstellar civilization and of widely divergent technology, dangerous space travel, and limited trade. Especially if one looks at the Space Lane rules from 1977, it was assumed communication and trade between many worlds within a subsector would be slow if non-existent.

The implication was that many worlds would be varied -- cut off culturally and in terms of tech. Many worlds might be quite primitive. The Player Characters would be veterans of services from a more uniform Tech base, but travel to the frontiers, like vets from the Civil War heading West, vets from British Empire making their fortunes in Colonial India or exploring Africa, or vets from the US's 20th century wars becoming soldiers of fortune around the globe.

This isn't to say, of course, the game system couldn't be used for countless other setting and situations. But yes, the archaic weapons found in the game, which has always confounded so many people, are perfectly of a piece when one looks at all the rules as a whole and the setting of adventure they imply.