creativehum
SOC-14 1K
I am probably misunderstanding but doesn't the quoted passage suggest exactly the proposition I was proposing?
Traveller renaissance
- Thread starter Blue Ghost
- Start date
I am probably misunderstanding but doesn't the quoted passage suggest exactly the proposition I was proposing?
So what I find confusing is:
When talking about purely the rules as they are in the book, some folks will talk about how the rule is broken because it doesn't fit the 3I setting. And then the thread goes astray from the original question (where at least some times the original poster actually stated they aren't using the 3I - this has happened to me, and I've seen it happen to creativehum).
I've also been confused when being explicit about talking about Books 1-3 to have stuff from other books or supplements thrown in under the seeming assumption that anyone playing "Classic Traveller" is using all the available material.
And then there's the forums I'm confused about:
In My Traveller Universe - there still seems to be the assumption that people are playing in the 3I setting.
What is the difference between Imperial Interstellar Scout Service (Details of the worlds of the Imperium (and beyond)) and In the OTU (In the Official Traveller Universe. Any milieux that's been published in any edition. Not for discussion of rules except in reference to how they reflect the OTU)?
I'm also a bit confused when someone asks a question about the 3I in The Lone Star.
Maybe it would help those of us who want to talk setting other than the 3I if there was an explicit forum for "My non-3I Traveller Universe" (M-3ITU as opposed to MTU?).
I get that a large number of folks here like to talk about the 3I, but there does also seem to be room for folks who want to do something different. It would be nice if it was easier for those who wanted to talk about setting other than the 3I do know where to post and have people respond appropriately.
Frank
When talking about purely the rules as they are in the book, some folks will talk about how the rule is broken because it doesn't fit the 3I setting. And then the thread goes astray from the original question (where at least some times the original poster actually stated they aren't using the 3I - this has happened to me, and I've seen it happen to creativehum).
I've also been confused when being explicit about talking about Books 1-3 to have stuff from other books or supplements thrown in under the seeming assumption that anyone playing "Classic Traveller" is using all the available material.
And then there's the forums I'm confused about:
In My Traveller Universe - there still seems to be the assumption that people are playing in the 3I setting.
What is the difference between Imperial Interstellar Scout Service (Details of the worlds of the Imperium (and beyond)) and In the OTU (In the Official Traveller Universe. Any milieux that's been published in any edition. Not for discussion of rules except in reference to how they reflect the OTU)?
I'm also a bit confused when someone asks a question about the 3I in The Lone Star.
Maybe it would help those of us who want to talk setting other than the 3I if there was an explicit forum for "My non-3I Traveller Universe" (M-3ITU as opposed to MTU?).
I get that a large number of folks here like to talk about the 3I, but there does also seem to be room for folks who want to do something different. It would be nice if it was easier for those who wanted to talk about setting other than the 3I do know where to post and have people respond appropriately.
Frank
I can't speak for why other people do anything, but for me ...
1. Sometimes I respond to a Topic from a "Today's Post" search and just miss which forum it is in. More than once I have had to go back and delete a CT answer to a T5 question because they asked a simple question and I didn't notice that it was in the T5 Forum. There are some 'headers' that can be selected when starting a topic ... like RULES ONLY or CT ONLY or IMTU ONLY that might help in some cases.
2. Sometimes, there is no answer in the LBB1-3 but there might be relevant data in another location (like an adventure). I will sometimes present that as fodder for discussion rather than any sort of "Here is your definitive answer." Absent an official answer in the rules, an unofficial hint from another book is better than nothing.
3. Topics drift and people sometimes want to talk about something related that pulls the conversation off on a bunny trail. As a MOD, I have on a few occasions just split a topic to allow each train of thought to continue unmolested by the other. If cross posting of topic drift is really getting in the way, report it and request that the thread be split. If the posts can be separated easily, then we will (often the case when four people are having two different conversations in one thread).
Ok, will take that into consideration. Though I've seen people even still post something that doesn't fit the tag in the thread subject.
Yea, that's cool, at least when done in the spirit of answering the question.
I complained in a thread once, and got shot down... I'll make more use of tags in my thread subjects, and continue to keep a thick skin...
Frank
Those are all questions answered yes (well, a couple no) anyone using the 1977 edition of Classic Traveller before Traveller was associated with the 3I. But answering the 3I way on all of those doesn't drag in all the other bits of the 3I, especially those that conflict with the 1977 rules.
And I'd strongly argue that someone creating a setting using purely those rules would be justified in saying their setting is not the least bit derivative of the 3I setting.
This I can answer.
Interstellar Scout Service (Details of the worlds of the Imperium (and beyond)) is for discussions of the actual worlds. Usually more detailed data on one specific world in a sinngle post. As an example, questions about Mora or the Lunion or the terraforming of the Iron system would go into ISS with one topic for each system.
In the OTU (In the Official Traveller Universe. Any milieux that's been published in any edition. Not for discussion of rules except in reference to how they reflect the OTU) is for discussions about the imperium in general. This would be the place to discuss issues larger than one system, like the Empress Wave or the Long Night or the Founding of the First Imperium. Note that all of these are OTU topics and none are specific to the actual rules.
That's called posting in the wrong Forum.
I think that IMTU is the correct Forum for this and there is an "IMTU" header on a pull down menu that can be added to the Topic to clearly mark it as such. If you think that the conversation is being stepped on, report it and ask to have the off-topic posts removed. Someone will look at it.
Thanks, that really helps. I was initially confused when the new forum appeared, and presumably some of the continued confusion is folks still posting in ISS.
Yea... It just seems to happen a lot... But sometimes I'm overly pedantic about misplaced posts...That's called posting in the wrong Forum.
Ok, will consider reporting if I feel stepped on again...
I do think this is a great forum even if I've only got passing interest in the 3I setting these days (I will occasionally read a post). And I keep poking in the two 3I specific forums because sometimes there's conversations there that need not be 3I specific, for example, the "Cargo Costs" thread seems to be more a rules discussion (though crossing editions) than a 3I discussion.
I agree. It is where I tend to feel most comfortable these days.
All I am saying is that from the standpoint of having a discussion, it would be a lot more of a "variation from that OTU" assumptions than starting with something like Star Trek or Star Wars would be (or a universe with no FTL travel, but Instant Communications like Ender's Game). Those would be true NOT LIKE THE THIRD IMPERIUM universes where comparisons to the OTU would be worthless.
The fact is that a LOT of the character of the 3I is wired into the early rules. You will really need to show me where talking about the 3I is detrimental to the conversation. I just have not noticed the problem you have. PM me next time you run into something so I can see what you are seeing.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
My general response to this line of logic is the following (which I posted in a previous thread):
There are definitely implied setting details to be gleaned from the rules. But the fact is if one tried to build the Third Imperium from them alone one would fail.
There are details that do in fact line up with The Third Imperium, of course. But many details can also line up with the settings of the Dumarest books, the Demon Princes books, the Flandry books, the Solar Qeen Books, the Co-Dominion books, The Space Vikings, and others. This is a testament to the strength of the game Miller wrote. It was built to handle many settings built by many referees --and it does. But each of these settings is obviously distinct and would be an application of the basic rules as well the addition of setting specific material. A setting grown from Books 1-3 doesn't limit the setting of play at all. (In fact, strip away enough rules, whip up some new service tables. and you can be playing on Barsoom with minimal effort. But that goes beyond the subject at hand.)
My point is one can use the Classic Traveller (Books 1-3) rules to build settings that lean on most of the implied setting details but that are still unique from each other and would contradict each other or not conform to one another.
That one can build a setting like the Dumarst book, Space Viking, and the Third Imperium from the core rules doesn't make them similar settings or the same setting. And we haven't even touched on all the cool setttings that any Referee could come up with on his own that still could be grown from the rules and still be different from the settings listed above.
Last edited:
A little history...
When the site was founded, it was founded to support CT/OTU as a pair, with lesser support for other editions, other settings, and no support for non-Traveller rules. It also had some support for the GRIP virtual table top; after all, QLI sold GRIP and the GRIP Traveller Edition. Essentially, Hunter's primary aim was support for CT over GRIP, and Hunter saw the OTU as part of CT.
Then Hunter got a wild idea - a D20 system version of Traveller. Add official support for T20 THB to the primary goals.
When the license was pulled, Hunter all but disappeared from the site, working instead from a sister site he'd hosted on the same server. That became SciFi-20's support site.
Somewhere along the way, Hunter cut a CT PDF deal with Marc, and bought the rights to all the Traveller materials from Judges Guild.
For a while, it had an open politics discussion area, the Political Pulpit. When hunter went AWOL, it descended to nastiness. Andrew closed and deleted it.
Marc bought the board, and the T20 rights, and the JG rights from Hunter. (Hunter's son owns SF20, since Hunter's passing).
The focus is now triple - to support all official editions of Traveller, to support the OTU, and to be a nucleus for the general traveller BBS-using community. I put the NTG section in because I got tired of infracting people for discussing non-traveller games. Easier to let us have those discussions in a part of the board where they won't bother people.
So, Traveller rules doing OTU hits two of the three goals, but ATU support is not outside the actual goals of the board. Nor is doing the OTU with other rulesets. Nor is just hanging out in RS and NTG and looking at other game engines from a traveller fan perspective.
Bottom Line: To support the Traveller Game in all its forms, and to be a focal point for the Traveller community.
Cool... And this goal is reasonably visible as one engages here, but hang around long, and get involved in discussions, and invariably one will run into one of the more rabid fans (of a particular set of rules or a particular vision of the 3I or both)...
(and sorry folks, looking at my thread start history, I definitely started some in the wrong place...)
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
And my real question, I suppose, is it really a matter of "rabid fans"? Or people really into the OTU as the default/expected/normal/presumed way to play the game and talking to other with people who share that assumption? And it isn't weird at all of them to steamroll conversations that don't make that assumption. Because for lots and lots of people Traveller is the setting.
Of course, for many, many people Traveller is not a setting, but a game to make your own setting with cool SF premises. That's what the the Basic Traveller rules say, so people take the rules at their word. And an oddball like me comes along and gets confused because my core assumptions run counter to the notion that "Of course Traveller is the Third Imperium."
So there's nothing wrong with how conversations run here. It is exactly how they should go given the nature of the site.
I want to point out the reason I bring this up in this thread because the question of what a "renaissance" might be about (setting or game) still stands in my view. In one case it is about encouraging people to play in a setting. In the other it is encouraging an explosion of creativity as many settings are built to illustrate the possibilities of the game in the spirit of the D&D OSR.
Also, Aramis, thanks for the history of the site.
Also, thanks for all the replies. I think my question has been answered!
Last edited:
Intersting. My comment on the latest exchanges is that there does seem to be some angst regarding the core rules verse the "official" / "optional" / "default" setting for the game. Such that, in my opinion at least, in order to attract newer players to both game and forum that perhaps separating the basic rules from the setting in a future edition might be in order.
*back to the scout ship*
*back to the scout ship*
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
For the record I have no angst about this matter.
Well, maybe angst was a less accurate term. Perhaps "concern" or a desire for clarity between the rules and the setting, seems to be a tacit desire based on the entire thread.
It's something I've lobbied for in the past, but haven't really taken up as a cause. Though I do think it would attract more people to both game and these forums.
As an example; Star Fleet Battles has hundreds of pages of rules on races and tech and unique situations that are endemic to the game, even though a good portion are unique situations (ESG-Web interaction or Andromedan PA panels in the WYN radiation zone, and so forth). Traveller really doesn't have too much of that. CT, GT and even MT to a lesser degree, have one basic mechanic, and then some tributary combat mechanics. But none of them is dependent on the players knowing anything about any of the races (one or two exceptions). Even ACS starship combat is basic and simple. And where you could introduce new techs to starship combat, it wouldn't radically alter the basic core mechanics of the starship combat system (adding vectors, selecting targets, firing, allocating damage and what not).
That's just my sense.
I posted this thread because for all of the game's popularity (and yes, I get it that it's not the big fish in the small pond anymore as per the early 80s), the activity here seems rather tame compared to other forums. And so when that guy in the video starting telling his thoughts, it made me concerned. QED.
It's something I've lobbied for in the past, but haven't really taken up as a cause. Though I do think it would attract more people to both game and these forums.
As an example; Star Fleet Battles has hundreds of pages of rules on races and tech and unique situations that are endemic to the game, even though a good portion are unique situations (ESG-Web interaction or Andromedan PA panels in the WYN radiation zone, and so forth). Traveller really doesn't have too much of that. CT, GT and even MT to a lesser degree, have one basic mechanic, and then some tributary combat mechanics. But none of them is dependent on the players knowing anything about any of the races (one or two exceptions). Even ACS starship combat is basic and simple. And where you could introduce new techs to starship combat, it wouldn't radically alter the basic core mechanics of the starship combat system (adding vectors, selecting targets, firing, allocating damage and what not).
That's just my sense.
I posted this thread because for all of the game's popularity (and yes, I get it that it's not the big fish in the small pond anymore as per the early 80s), the activity here seems rather tame compared to other forums. And so when that guy in the video starting telling his thoughts, it made me concerned. QED.
One of the guys at Evil Hat noted that rules without settings sell far fewer copies.
I've heard the same from 7 different retailers, 3 game designers, and seen it on two corporate blogs.
Generic games are not a good seller. And yet, designers want to design them. The most successful model, financially, seems to be single ruleset with a different, slightly adapted core ruleset, across multiple games.
Who's using this model?
- Fantasy Flight Games
- Paladium Books
- Cubicle 7
- Deep 7
- Modiphius
- Pinnacle Entertainment Group*
- Evil Hat Productions*
- Steve Jackson Games*
- Margaret Weiss Productions*
Note that SJG is actively supporting only two RPGs... GURPS and In Nomine. GURPS has the nifty generic corebooks... but it also has a lot of titles which are worldbooks with GURPS Lite bound in. The Vorkosigan Saga RPG is actually GURPS Lite tacked onto a worldbook. So is GURPS Prime Directive. Why? Because it lowers the entry barrier. Those who like GURPS will buy the corebook and expand their options; those who don't but want the worldbook now have the data to make decent conversions from GURPS stats to their favorite engine.
FFG has gone whole hog to adapted core rules...
FFG Star Wars has 7 entry points; 4 beginner games, 3 corebooks. Almost nothing mechanically changes in the rules; the character options change quite a bit.
FFG's 40K RPGs (now OOP) were 6 different corebooks... using adaptations of the same engine.
FFG's End of the World - 4 rulebooks, each with multiple settings.
Modiphius has Conan, Star Trek, and 3 other settings, all using the same basic engine.
Note that MWP made significant alterations to fit the setting, but the player interface with the rules was very much the same across Smallville, Firefly, Marvel Heroic, and Leverage... character gen was very different in each, but once you know the dice mechanics for one, adapting to the others is just figuring out which dice are free and which cost a plot point.
Burning Wheel uses a core engine, adapted. It implies setting in 2 of its 4 games; the other two, it's attempting to mechanically evoke a previously published one. (another setting included one is apparently done but not being released...)
Not all of C7's games use the same system, but several (Rocket Age, DWAITAS. at least one other) use the same core rules. Be interesting to see their WFPR4E mechanics...
Oh, and when White Wolf stopped using it... they kind of dropped off the radar.
Nihilistic_Impact
SOC-2
Well a few years ago it was fun to play. Had a buddy cop routine going between my psyker and a friend's tech priest.
This time around as GM has been interesting in how little I recall of the many rules and just do everything I can to keep the action flowing. Did make laminated cheat sheets for the combat modifiers.
Sadly though I have to say I will not get to run Traveller, I am a victim of my groups success. At this point the players feel they are at their limits for games. So I have to wait for a campaign to end.
ShawnDriscoll
SOC-14 1K
A popular setting will trump a system. People will buy a Star Wars setting regardless of the system used.
Will new players buy Traveller because of its setting? You know the one, where characters die during chargen. That is the setting most tabletop RPGers think of when they hear, "Traveller." Even for those that play Traveller that don't play that certain edition of the rules. That setting puts new players off from trying it out when it's the first thing said about the game rules by both veteran and non-veteran players of any RPG system.
Will new players buy Traveller because of its setting? You know the one, where characters die during chargen. That is the setting most tabletop RPGers think of when they hear, "Traveller." Even for those that play Traveller that don't play that certain edition of the rules. That setting puts new players off from trying it out when it's the first thing said about the game rules by both veteran and non-veteran players of any RPG system.
But hasn't this been one of the core issues discussed in this thread, and the supposed draw or popularity of the CT rules?
I can't speak for anyone else, but when my friend bought me the starter edition all those eons ago, there was a kind of mix between a sort of generic "do all" setting and rules, but no real official backdrop as far as I can remember.
It was't quite on par with watching the first Star Wars film in 77, but it had that kind of "this is new and needs exploration" draw to it. With SW the backdrop was "in your face", so to speak, so you were compelled to watch the drama and story unfold. With a paper and pencil RPG the draw wasn't quite as powerful (nor necessary, unlike films), but the lack of defining characteristics seemed like it compelled the reader and players to delve further into the material. I'm guessing that was by design.
Similar threads
