• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Traveller renaissance

CH, I see what you mean now. I have differences in point of view, but find your point of view quite sound and your care in stating what you believe and how you feel well-reasoned, as usual.

And Aramis, I'm right there with you on wondering how all this plays out... which makes the topic of renaissance so interesting and important to me.
 
I never played it, but from what I understand, 4E's problem was 4E, not Pathfinder.

In other words, I'm not sure 4E would have done better if Pathfinder wasn't around.

I am getting confused about your point as well, Aramis. Pathfinder continued D&D 3 ed -- which was discontinued with the start of 4E.

CE isn't continuing a line that has been discontinued. It is a repackaging of the current game line (MgT)

I am not seeing a direct or applicable analogy to Pathfinder here.
 
I can't imagine you getting an infraction for stating an opinion.

Here's mine: Books 1-3 are incredibly well written. There's no fat and in 140 or so digest sized pages the game has enough material and compact rules to keep a group playing for years. The lack of art means, adventures, or setting material means the game is not guiding me in what sorts of adventures or play I'm supposed to be playing, but allows me to use the rules to build whatever kind of setting and adventures I want based on whatever stories I have read that I love. (The text on the back of the box of both editions make it clear that this is the purpose of the game.)

I have no expectations that everyone will, or should, respond to Books 1-3 as I do. There's nothing authoritative in my words, simply my response.

Different people want different things from different RPGs. That's why new games and new approaches have developed over 40 years. A vast variety of games exist because some people's needs weren't met -- so new games game along to meet those needs.

But I have found in recent years that the early RPGs do a bang up job of meeting the needs of what I want from an RPG.

Well, one of the reasons I never got into "Gamma World" was because it didn't have that DIY vibe, but an actual setting, and a kind of emphasis on a sort of "mad scientist" approach to scifi gaming; i.e. creating your mutant character kind of thing.

So yeah, Traveller succeeded because it had that hammer and nails kind of approach. Whether that still serves it I guess is a matter of personal taste. But, like I said, it's stuck around because I think there's a lot of people like me who have a fondness for it as a passtime. But that it hasn't exploded onto the scifi scene like a Star Trek or Star Wars, much less a Bab-5, because of its plainness.

Maybe the upcoming TV series will change that. Who knows?

I think if mister Miller wants Traveller to really expand, then maybe reworking T5 as a CT generic rule set with another section dedicated to an optional "Imperium Setting" might be in order.

Whatever. I'm glad the game's been part of my life, and I've enjoyed the podcasts I'm discovering on YouTube. I hope there's more to come.
 
There is definitely an OSR bloom for Traveller going on. Over at rpg.net a guy has posted his version of The Fantasy Trip Traveller - a SJG The Fantasy Trip hack for CT. He abbreviates it TFT or T^3

It's not bad :)

I still think MWM could make a shedload of cash with a CT 40th anniversary edition.
I believe the canonical phrase here is, "shut up and take my money!"
 
I still love Top Secret/SI.

Just because a system is old doesn't mean that it's a bad system. Just because a game has a new edition doesn't make the previous edition lose value. I still love 1E AD&D, with all its quirks.


You lost me at the bolded part.

When SI came out, we referred to it as "Sucks Intentionally"... being long-time TS players before then. ;)
 
To get back on topic, to get this game thriving again, so I can find players and actually play instead of tinkering here on this site and SJGames, one of the points made in the video was that D&D had the level mechanic.

We all know about gaining experience to level up so you can get bonuses and better gear to kill nastier monsters and bigger numbers of bad guys.

In TTB Miller mentions that giving players a ship and large gobs of cash and equipment at the outset is not a good idea. Well, okay, but there's no limitation on what you can buy, and there's no mechanic to regulate or modulate a progression to keep the players interested in gaming, unless you're like us here and have a love of both the genre and the game itself.

It seems like starting out younger, as per the video, so that you can gain experience and add to your skill, as opposed to being a seasoned vet, would turn the game on its head in a good way, attract younger players, and create that level mechanic without creating the pitfall that D&D fell into by letting the players create uber-characters.

This way you can have a young team of IISS service people assigned to a scout ship, or a fire team of army men or marines, who, as they accomplish goals, can gain experience to add to their skills, and eventually they can purchase that high powered ACR or LASER carbine ... or that starship as opposed to relying on a loaner.

That's what I think should have happened way back when, was probably intended, but not articulated as such.

Your players can start as young as grammar school (Newt from "Aliens" or Will Robinson from "Lost in Space") and progress through teenage years into young adulthood, at which point they might have something like a Vacc Suit- 1 or CmbtRifleman - 1 or pilot - 1, or all of thee above and more (computer, mechanic, medic, and so forth), and their money and gear would be reflective of people that age; maybe the teenager has a car and a rudimentary electronics kit or something. Maybe he's got a 22 that his parents bought him or something.

So, that's kind of my take. Other games start you off as a young adult, ready to take on the world with some kind of kit and training, and that would not be a bad example to follow.

Take the old JTAS / Challenge char gen rules of how to gen a character from those ages, and either go ahead and play them as they are in a "low level" adventure, or let them progress through chargen until a desired age (16? 17?) is reached, and then start their adventuring career there.

The game as it's structured now is designed for retirees to play out their retirement. As per some of my blog ramblings that was probably intentional, but, if that's the case, and you want to create a kind of "training tool" for young people to be inspired for whatever, then tearing a page from other RPGs might be the way to go.

The other option is to leave it as is, and let us monkies beat on it with monkey wrenches and just let it fester.

If I were to redesign Traveller from the ground up, that's how I would do it;

1) char gen from any age
2) adventures appropriate to skill level; i.e. "For Skill Level 1- 2 Characters"
3) Set the Imperium aside as an optional rule after the rules are explained.

None of this, in my opinion, is likely to happen, but that's how I would approach it, and the guy in the video has inspired me to write this.

Truth be told since I can't find a gaming group, as much as I loved playing (when I could play) I'm tired of it because I haven't been able to play nor write, other than post thoughts here.

Having said that, this is what I think would serve the system well, and put it back in the lime light with SJ's GURPS line (even though they publish a GURPS Version of the game) along with all the other stuff that's out there, even the SW and ST RPGs.

Over the years I've come to rediscover the "magic" of exploring the Imperium and all that it is in a fictional vein, and had hoped that it would thrive with some better writing and better graphics with a cleaner, more well organized, rule set.

But, it is what it is, and I thought I'd start this thread to see what other people think.

In the meantime I'm going to jump into my Wayne Peter's Florian class scout ship for a while, shut the cabin door, seal up both ramp and airlock, and kick back and watch a few holo vids for a while. Maybe the "really good" kind, *wink wink, nudge nudge, say anymore* (no, I'm not a big Monty Python fan, but that line does seem to be understood by my age bracket).

p.s. it is disheartening that younger blood has not come to this website to share and exchange thoughts and what they would like. But, whatever.
 
I am getting confused about your point as well, Aramis. Pathfinder continued D&D 3 ed -- which was discontinued with the start of 4E.

CE isn't continuing a line that has been discontinued. It is a repackaging of the current game line (MgT)

I am not seeing a direct or applicable analogy to Pathfinder here.

No, you're just blissfully ignorant of some of the nastiness about the migration to 4... This is all from just before 4E was released.

Wizards, upset that so much of the 3.X sales was 3PP, killed the direct license.

Pathfinder was IMMEDIATELY born, and 4E wasn't even in playtest. As with CE and MGT 2E, once the new license (or lack thereof) was announced, a 3PP made an open license product announcement to continue a "Name to support"...

4E announced that it was going to limited 3PP licensing... still free, but VERY limited... All the 3PP jumped ship, most to Paizo, the rest apparently to the OSR.

Mind you, at this point in the narrative, 4E is still in closed playtest. Pathfinder is in open playtest. And all the 3PP's started jumping ship.

I'm seeing 3PP doing the same thing. MGT2 only just got the third core book into stores, and 3PP support largely has abandoned them in favor of Cepheus.

4E became almost irrelevant. It's small playerbase (maybe 30% of 3.5E's specific fanbase, counting the 2:1 newb to grog ratio of 4E players. Yes, the numbers I've seen say only 10% of the 3.X audience went 4E; more than 30% went Pathfinder, which also has a 4:1 or better newb:grog ratio)

Traveller's D&D4E equivalence is MgT2... which has fairly onerous license terms... and has low market penetration, and now is competing with a free (or nearly so) alternative, which is built from their prior edition.

The question is, "Will Traveller have a 5E equivalent resurgence, or will the CE crowd move steadily away from Official Traveller?"

And, from where I sit, MgT2 is pretty much 2/3 of the way to being as bad as D&D4E... it's mostly attracting newbs, not grogs. Matt's still apparently under the delusion that he's "Unifying the fanbase." Truth is, he's expanded the fan base, but his grog penetration isn't great. CE, on the other hand, is by grogs for grogs, and has already gotten the biggest names in Traveller 3PP's of the current era on board...
 
Traveller's D&D4E equivalence is MgT2... which has fairly onerous license terms... and has low market penetration, and now is competing with a free (or nearly so) alternative, which is built from their prior edition.

The question is, "Will Traveller have a 5E equivalent resurgence, or will the CE crowd move steadily away from Official Traveller?"

And, from where I sit, MgT2 is pretty much 2/3 of the way to being as bad as D&D4E... it's mostly attracting newbs, not grogs. Matt's still apparently under the delusion that he's "Unifying the fanbase." Truth is, he's expanded the fan base, but his grog penetration isn't great. CE, on the other hand, is by grogs for grogs, and has already gotten the biggest names in Traveller 3PP's of the current era on board...

What's the solution?
 
That's not a bad idea, honestly.

Fundamentally, Marc needs, in the current climate, to have a free compatibility license that doesn't rob the creative of their creator's moral rights and US copyrights.

In a LinkedIn private message exchange Marc Miller / Avery stated that you all were looking for more adventure material, and not more ships, vehicles and equipment guides. So, I hung around for that. My patience has worn out though. Now I just post stuff that I think is fun.

Reflecting on the game I was pretty convinced that it was designed as a security training tool. Which, to me, means that even though scifi is theoretically aimed at teens and men with scifi hankerins, again just my impression here, that the game in reality was meant as a training tool for active duty and retired security. But then why publish two computer games? So, my thinking shifted once again (even though you're playing out your retirement in the game ... why is that?).

I think Marc Miller is a great concept guy, but like I said, the LBBs were dry and clinical reads. I had to sit in on a D&D session to learn how to play (maybe within ... what now ... three or four months of my friend buying me the starter edition), and the example of play in TTB was tucked near the back, not lending itself to exposition.

So when Hunter and I chatted via email, there was lots of talk here about a T5, but then T5 comes around, and it's unplayable (or so I've been told). Oh well.

I've had a great time with Traveller. And I'll continue to post on my blog and here and there, but I think I'm done with it otherwise.

I remember my mom telling me what I fool I was to send in SSDs to Steve Cole down in Amarillo without charging money. Eh, she really didn't understand that SSDs were proprietary to the game, but I'm starting to get those feelings with Traveller.

Whatever. I hope more people chime in here, but I've said all I had to.

You know, I really wanted to write for this thing. But, like everything else, reality has a different lot for you. Oh well.

my best to everyone who wants to keep the fire going
 
Randomness at 4AM. Just finished watching this guy. I agree with his initial observations, some of his premise(s), but not his conclusions.

You have the union of sets, gamers, sci-fi fans, and fantasy fans. He is right in that these days that of the pool of sci-fi gamers, more now than in previous years (or decades) are less Niven/Asimov hard science and more science-fantasy oriented. He is also correct that the trend is for these younger gamers more to desire "character advancement" after chargen is done and play has begun.
Even I think the CT system is too slow. TNE had a blindingly fast advancement system, but that was the GDW house system
* You received 1-6 XP per session (typically 2). Spend the new level in XP and your skill goes up to the next level (pg. 133)
MgT is a middleground. Slower than TNE, faster than CT.

He is correct about changes in taste of sci-fi. One thing that has not been addressed is different technology assumptions. Because of an insistence in rules tied to campaigns with the primary tech assumptions of Jump Drive, no FTL comms, TL for AI and so on, this is a turn off for more prospective, younger GMs and players. Nevermind the underlying reasons (Age of Sail, people not machines solving problems and so on), more younger players want that.

The best thing that Traveller could do for a renaissance is:
A.Decouple the OTU from from the rules
B.Set up different Tech assumptions, put them in the main rulebook or a techbook with sidebars like "Jump and Hyperdrive: Why Can't I Use Both?" or "Why is AI such a high TL?"
 
I don't know about you, but I'm willing to step off the train with "pseudo-mystical reverence" and "rose colored glass."

Again, that's his deal. I'm glad he has a setting he likes and a rules system he likes. But I'm comfortable using the word "dismissive" regarding his view of the Classic Traveller rules.

Or maybe he's just referring to those kinds of folks, not the rules themselves: i.e. he's dismissive of that kind of nostalgic reaction from some? If you're right that he's also dismissive of the rules the reaction is based on, well his loss.:)
 
Not JUST MgT... T5 and older editions.

Depending upon fan and 3PP handling, it could make all FFE-owned Traveller irrelevant, as well. Much as Pathfinder did for 4E D&D.

I guess I don't see how that is likely: I suppose there's some way in which it could happen, but much of the CT and MT (don't know about T4 or T5) stuff seems easily usable with CE, even if one doesn't use the 3I. How do you mean "irrelevant"?

I see CE as much more of a direct challenge to MgT2e: personally, I'd rather have an inexpensive toolkit (CE) than a slick, re-packaged set of rules that are only slightly different from the previous edition (MgT2e). But if MgT2e is selling well I'm in the minority.
 
Traveller's D&D4E equivalence is MgT2... which has fairly onerous license terms... and has low market penetration, and now is competing with a free (or nearly so) alternative, which is built from their prior edition.

The question is, "Will Traveller have a 5E equivalent resurgence, or will the CE crowd move steadily away from Official Traveller?"

And, from where I sit, MgT2 is pretty much 2/3 of the way to being as bad as D&D4E... it's mostly attracting newbs, not grogs. Matt's still apparently under the delusion that he's "Unifying the fanbase." Truth is, he's expanded the fan base, but his grog penetration isn't great. CE, on the other hand, is by grogs for grogs, and has already gotten the biggest names in Traveller 3PP's of the current era on board...

While I agree with the comparison of D&D 4e and MgT2e, I'm of the opinion that CE is much more in the "spirit" of CT, and the fact that it has spawned variant settings (Orbital, These Stars Are Ours!, etc.) is fully in that spirit of "take this toolkit and framework, do what you want with it". I think I must not understand what "Official Traveller" is: is it strictly MgT2e? That plus T5? :confused:
 
The best thing that Traveller could do for a renaissance is:
A.Decouple the OTU from from the rules
B.Set up different Tech assumptions, put them in the main rulebook or a techbook with sidebars like "Jump and Hyperdrive: Why Can't I Use Both?" or "Why is AI such a high TL?"

Well, CT is still available from FFE, and in a version satisfying A: the FFE 000, one-volume reprint of the 1981 version of LBB 1 - 3. The next-closest thing in spirit is CE (though it departs from CT by filling in the gaps and rounding off the edges).

CE would seem to be the likeliest vehicle for B.
 
While I agree with the comparison of D&D 4e and MgT2e, I'm of the opinion that CE is much more in the "spirit" of CT, and the fact that it has spawned variant settings (Orbital, These Stars Are Ours!, etc.) is fully in that spirit of "take this toolkit and framework, do what you want with it". I think I must not understand what "Official Traveller" is: is it strictly MgT2e? That plus T5? :confused:

Well that's the thing. We've had this argument over and over again as to what this thing really is. I'm still stuck in 1981 - 82 mode, where the Imperium is optional, and you can make of this what you will.

But, according to Marc Miller's interview people wanted background material, so now it's a setting oriented thing with scattering or various kinds of rules.

Unlike Star Fleet Battles Marc Miller / Avery (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't seem to have to deal with parties like Paramount / CBS or Franz Joseph, all of whom contributed or own Star Trek in some way shape or form. Traveller is his, no questions asked.

And if that's the case, then I'm just tired of "Well, here's the next big thing."

I've been wanting a session so I can create, and if I can't do that, then write and pay for whatever license I need to. But it's like I can't even do that now. So, off to the Florian ... or maybe my Antelope Class freighter (a knock off Mil Falcon that looks like a scout).

Okay, now I'm bowing out for a long time.
 
So, this guy posted this vid on YouTube, and has some thoughts regarding the game's current status;

https://youtu.be/vybGM6mXGrU

What do you think?

What I posted in reply to one of his commentators...

To take what you say about Traveller being a big space sandbox is true. Yet to say that Star Wars RPG is easy to know what your playing is also true, Light v Dark, Alliance v Empire, Jedi v Sith...Etc., Etc. Take D&D for instance, What is it? It is Fantasy Sandbox, unless you have a particular campaign setting such as Raven Loft, which is fantasy horror. The PC's are heroes dealing with the minions and trickery of an Elder vampire overlord.

More to the point Traveller is what you make it. It is sandbox, It is an open canvas and it needs paint. Do you want a paint by number? Adapt a story and follow the progression. Do you want creative free form? Then get a crew, get a ship, get a job and cruise the black.

You've mention Firefly RPG, funny, Firefly is perhaps the best example of Traveller on television, Now Scy-fy has given us The Expanse, A military intrigue Traveller ,,,, The is also Killjoys, A Canadian SciFi very close to what could be a Bounty hunter styl Traveller campaign. Look around, Traveller is everywhere.
:coffeesip:

[edit] Also...I can agree somewhat with his concept of Renaissance, but I have posted elsewhere that it is exposure, marketing is a great issue. For a game setting in particular, I like TNE, and T4, it opens up the scope to the reach out and explore the unknown, or revist what was once known as in TNE. With Mega Trav, the is war, period. These are what many of the general sci-fi adventures focus on. With CT and the 3I in general. It is somewhat limiting at first glance, as it seems everything is already explored and the charted, settled, and well you have to deal with it, could be some of the daunting aspect of perception in the Trav Universe. Of course the same can be said for Trek and Star Wars.

Noting the truth is that the 3I is vast expansive and is a Swiss cheese empire. In other words yeah it's charted, and settled and has boundaries, but it is full of pockets, voids, and just plain silliness. :P . There are limitless planets and systems to explore, discovered, not yet discovered and even very well settled. Their is intrigue, espionage, and just plain back alley trade offs and throat cutting... This is Traveller!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top