Transparantly Bogus Rationale

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Traveller's schizophrenic like this.

Now, now, stay off my turf unless you want a full on lecture on the difference between a hysterical conversion state and full-blown psychosis

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
The classic Traveller example is the cannonball world - the tiny rockball in the habitable zone that's half the size of the moon but can still hold onto a dense N2/O2 atmosphere. To do that, it needs a density of tens of thousands of kg/m3, much higher than any natural planet-forming material could possibly have.

My thought on that was that after 3000 years of terraforming and gravity/antigravity technology, might it be technically feasable to install enough MD in a planet's dead core to nudge it into the habitable zone and boost the gravity. Traveller terraforming was one of those areas I never got around to studying about.

 

[Malenfant]

That's way above the 3I's maximum tech level.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
The point again is that people's fun or enjoyment of the game as it is isn't the issue. If the problems don't get in your way then great, have a ball - but that doesn't mean the problems aren't real or worth being bothered about.

Actually, it does.

If this were a science class being taught or a symposium, then I'd totally agree with the need for scientific accuracy. The fact is that Traveller is a game, and because it is a game, the science only needs to be good enough for game play. So this problem that you feel exists in the scientific accuracy of a game is inconsequencial to actual game play. Traveller should therefore not be used as source material for a dissertation on astronomy, not that the original writers of Book 6 ever wanted to write a textbook.

Now, understanding your feelings on this matter, even though I disagree with them, there are others like yourself who wanted to come up with a better system for planetary generation. A couple of good examples of alternate world and system generation rules can be found in the Missouri Archive. Now, you write well on this subject, your articles on Brown Dwarfs and Interstellar Wanderers in JTAS attest to this. So why haven't you come up with an alternate planetary generation system? If you do so, you can demonstrate what you are saying easier and prove to people that you are correct in that there is a real problem.

 

[mctesla]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
At some point it's got to be better to just tear the whole thing down again and start again.

Sounds like a reason for you to create your own game from scratch to me, or just play Transhuman Space (which I own, and have great respect for your work therein).

Your argument seems to revolve around the idea that 'any changes made to the official game don't affect the games they've spent all their time creating and running', yet you seem convinced that the official game needs changing to reflect how you play it. No offense, but there seems to be a lack of intellectual honesty there.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
So why haven't you come up with an alternate planetary generation system?[/QB]

Who said I hadn't?

For starters, I'm not interested in making it available for free - there's several years work and research in there.

Second, I've had some interest in it from a publisher, which is another reason not to post anything public about it. You may be seeing some results from it in the next few months, possibly.

I really don't need to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about and that there's a real problem after all the posts I've made and the articles I've published on JTAS and on my website. Even a cursory examination of book 6 stargen reveals its fatal design flaws (which I've also demonstrated). So yes, there's a real problem and I've shown what it is - you may not care a jot about it, but again that doesn't mean I'm wrong to care about it myself.

It may be just a game, but for some of us verisimilitude is as important as rolling dice and having fun. If the setting doesn't make sense - whether it's economic sense, or physical sense, or social sense or anything else - that can put the dampers on the fun as well.

I just notice that you seem to be implying that it's wrong for me to be critical of aspects of the game that you don't care about - whereas I'm not making any judgement call at all on whatever you find fun. If you think that anything I say is getting in the way of the fun you have playing Traveller, then that's a baseless interpretation entirely of your own making.

If you're happy with what you've got then by all means carry on playing how you like - I just don't see why you're continuing to complain about people talking about things that make no difference to you in the first place.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by loyal_citizen:
Your argument seems to revolve around the idea that 'any changes made to the official game don't affect the games they've spent all their time creating and running', yet you seem convinced that the official game needs changing to reflect how you play it. No offense, but there seems to be a lack of intellectual honesty there. [/QB]

Not at all. I'm not interested in changing the official game to "how I play it" - all I'm interested in is changing the official game into something that make some kind of coherent, non-contradictory sense. There's too many things in Traveller that just go thrown in there with no thought for the consequences, hence why we have endless argument and discussion here about world design, fleet logistics, economics, technology and all that other stuff that makes no sense when you stop and think about it for half a second.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I just notice that you seem to be implying that it's wrong for me to be critical of aspects of the game that you don't care about - whereas I'm not making any judgement call at all on whatever you find fun.

And when false assumptions begin to be read into my posts, its time for me to drop the subject.

 

[Malenfant]

Well let's see what you said:

Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Honestly, I've never seen Traveller claim it was anything more than a role-playing game, so why read all the extra crap into it?

Just play the game and enjoy it for what it is, a game.

Mal, have you ever considered that a person with a degree in Planetary Science shouldn't play Traveller if it offends their sensibilities so much?

And then you dismissed my suggestion that other people can be concerned about issues like realism and implied that they were wrong to feel that way:

Actually, it does.

If this were a science class being taught or a symposium, then I'd totally agree with the need for scientific accuracy. The fact is that Traveller is a game, and because it is a game, the science only needs to be good enough for game play. So this problem that you feel exists in the scientific accuracy of a game is inconsequencial to actual game play.

It isn't "inconsequential to actual game play" if it gets in the way of actual game play for those of us who feel that verisimilitude and a sensible setting is an integral part of the enjoyment we get from playing. There's no right or wrong about it here, just different tastes. Maybe you've just never encountered people like that, I dunno.

Throughout this entire thread you've been basically asking why people like me don't just shut up and play and enjoy the game as it is. Well, it's because we don't like the game as it is - and we're not wrong to think that, just as you aren't right in what you think either. It's all down to individual taste.

So as far as I can see it's not a "false assumption" that I'm reading into your posts, it's exactly what you've been saying here.

 

[stofsk]

If Traveller didn't bill itself as 'hard SF' rather than 'soft SF or Space Opera ("Boo hiss!")' then it wouldn't leave itself open to someone like Malenfant coming along and pointing out how x, y or z is scientifically wrong.

That's the problem. If Traveller were honest with itself it'll say "This is a science fiction game with a different flavour to Star Wars/Trek/Dune/Whatever" and there wouldn't be a problem. It's when it starts saying this is a hard sf game that people like me roll my eyes. Ancients (mystical MacGuffins)? Psionics (mind magic)? Gravitics (technological magic)? All the stuff Malenfant says about astronomy and how stars form etc?

And the fact it isn't integral to the plot at all, or the way the game is run, makes me wonder wtf the big deal is. He's not saying the game sucks, he's saying the game has gotten it's facts wrong - something that ought to be corrected in a sane, sensible world. For me personally, it doesn't matter that much. However, to give you some perspective, whenever I see a typo in a finished product I roll my eyes. Typos happen, but that's why we have editors. Now a scientist will look at traveller technology and cry.

 

[Malenfant]

And the fact it isn't integral to the plot at all, or the way the game is run, makes me wonder wtf the big deal is.

That's the irony really - more often than not it doesn't make any difference to anyone's games whether the setting is realistic or not. Some folks seem to think that realism or a setting that makes sense will get in the way of their fun, but it really doesn't at all. It doesn't matter to the game if you land on a habitable planet orbiting a blue supergiant or on one orbiting a sunlike star.

But it's a double-edged sword - while I can say "we can just fix the problems and you won't notice any difference", they can say "if we won't notice any difference then why fix the problems?". I'm saying you don't really lose anything in game terms by fixing those problems, whereas they say you don't really gain anything in game terms by fixing them.

Thing is, you do gain something by attempting to make things sensible and/or realistic - you gain verisimilitude and consistency, which are more important to some people than to others.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

A thesis:
There is no hard SF RPG out there.
Any game I know in this genre contains aspects of technological bullshit. (Well, usually social or cultural bullshit presented there is somehow ignored).
The name itself implies its very nature: its "f"ictional.

A question:
Who or what says, that Traveller is something like hard SF anyway ?

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And the fact it isn't integral to the plot at all, or the way the game is run, makes me wonder wtf the big deal is.

That's the irony really - more often than not it doesn't make any difference to anyone's games whether the setting is realistic or not. Some folks seem to think that realism or a setting that makes sense will get in the way of their fun, but it really doesn't at all. It doesn't matter to the game if you land on a habitable planet orbiting a blue supergiant or on one orbiting a sunlike star. </font>[/QUOTE]I know exactly what you mean. It's something I've noticed about the Star Wars fan community something shocking. It's ok to dress like a Wookiee or get up in a Vader costume and act like an arsehole - try to discuss the merits of Dr Saxton's Endor Holocaust Theory and people go "Woah, slow down - that's nerd talk."

There are grown men - grown, adult males - who dress up in the metal bikini Princess Leia made unforgettable. I swear to you. Scout's honour. They look down at the tech nerds for taking it too seriously.

The comedy writes itself, sometimes.

(incidentally I think it would be cool to walk around on a planet orbiting a blue star, but I wouldn't think it would be habitable, and I would be wearing SPF+10 million.)

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
A question:
Who or what says, that Traveller is something like hard SF anyway ?

I'm aware of one occurence, that in the T20 THB. It specifically says it's hard sf. That's why there are no bug-eyed monsters or ray guns (but it has Droyne and laser guns?)

 

[TheEngineer]

So T20 is causing the problems

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
So T20 is causing the problems

Yeah yeah I walked right into that one.

"LOL d20 is t3h sux am i rite ROFLCOPTER"

[insert indignation here]

et cetera et cetera...

 

[The Shaman]

Originally posted by Border Reiver:
I think it's important for people to understand that a great deal of gaming involves TBRs. That is to say, we decide what is best for the game first, and then justify it.

When I referee Traveller (or any other RPG for that matter), what I worry about are the things that affect the adventurers directly.

That relegates a lot of material to the status of chrome.

Striker is a good example - is the players' experience of the game better served by knowing the exact size of the ATV's power plant and the exact amount of fuel it requires, or is saying, "The ATV has a three day supply of fuel remaining" reasonable enough? In my experience, the latter is good enough about 90% of the time, and the other times I can make up something appropriate to the circumstances.

The same is true of the astrophysical elements. We played Traveller for years without ever worrying about stellar mass and luminosity or whether or not a Mars-sized world could hold onto a dense, breatheable atmosphere for four billion years. Even after Scouts was introduced, we rarely bothered with more than figuring out satellites or nearest neighbors, or whether or not there was a planetoid belt in the system, unless for some reason it was specifically germained to the adventure as some sort of plot device or setting dressing. Mostly it was chrome, something interesting but ultimately completely irrelevant to what was important to the adventurers at the time, and therefore dispensible - nice to have, perhaps, but not a need-to-have by any means.

Originally posted by Border Reiver:
Why not decide whether it is a fun part of the game and get over it, perhaps even play the game instead of trying to run it down?

Playing the game is definitely my personal preference.

 

[Valarian]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
What gets me is that over 30 years, there's been little movement to officially correct these errors.

Mal, rather than complain, release some fixed UWPs for the worlds/sectors that offend. This could be part of the fix project for the Spinward Marches or an ATU project.

This would add to the Traveller universe by giving some added realism to those who want it.

I know it's a big project, but pick a sector and start. A gradual release sector by sector could redefine the OTU.

 

[Border Reiver]

I thought there was a project to fix all the UPPs (in te Imperium at least), isn't that Robject's pet project with a large number of contributors?

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Border Reiver:
I thought there was a project to fix all the UPPs (in te Imperium at least), isn't that Robject's pet project with a large number of contributors?

Whatever happened to that?