Traveller Theme 3: TNE

[robject]

This discussion is to spell out the rule/setting combination known as TNE. I'll keep this OP updated as the model gets refined.

TNE (Traveller: the New Era) is a hard-space-opera setting, closely related to the OTU. It continues the OTU's timeline after the Rebellion and Hard Times, after Virus was unleashed, and after the destruction of Charted Space. TNE completes the transition to military post-apocalyptic science fiction, from the speculative science fiction of Classic Traveller.

TNE is a good setting for "pocket empire" campaigns.

Specific elements that distinguish TNE from prior rules/setting combos include "wild" AI, a military emphasis, a post-apocalyptic baseline (including limited resources in a variety of cases), durable PCs, a strong Tinkerer's approach to hardware, and strong reinforcement of the "big setting but small game" mindset that was merely suggested before.

Its setting is influenced by more consistent and harder-sci-fi-technology than earlier rulesets, and is only described within books written under the TNE rules. One unique aspect includes replacing gravitic maneuver drives with plasma rockets, called HEPlaR. Another feature is a consistent, integrated, technical architecture for weapons, vehicles, and starships, as well as some technology which is not actually used in any Traveller setting. Of course, the setting itself is portable, with some guidance.

 

[mike wightman]

Note is has the best integrated technical architecture of any version of Traveller, and it was designed as a deliberate return to some of the things CT was meant to do but moved away from.

 

[aramis]

The HEPlaR are "magic plasma rockets" not just "plasma rockets". Their needed exhaust velocities are high sub-frac-C or better (and on fast war-craft can result in required exhaust speeds in excess of C).

The fuel paradigm for PP also changed - from tons per month to tons per year.

And the Tech Architecture is disconnected from reality as far as armored vehicles go; you can't replicate the M1 Abrams, the Leopard III, nor the Challenger even by assuming a one TL superiority.

It's a veneer of hard without the needed structure to hold it up, so it tends to crack and peel, leaving holes in the underlying verisimilitude.

 

[jec10]

And the Tech Architecture is disconnected from reality as far as armored vehicles go; you can't replicate the M1 Abrams, the Leopard III, nor the Challenger even by assuming a one TL superiority.

It's a veneer of hard without the needed structure to hold it up, so it tends to crack and peel, leaving holes in the underlying verisimilitude.

I'll have to take issue with that one. You definitely can replicate them (noting of course that there is no such thing as a Leopard III, so I'll assume Leopard II was intended). I've created them using FF&S.

It is actually the earlier TL tanks that are much harder to replicate, because of FF&S's excessive crew space requirements in the turret at TL6 and below and its over-estimation of the mass of tracked running gear compared with real-life. Creating a Panzer IV is much harder.

 

[aramis]

I'll have to take issue with that one. You definitely can replicate them (noting of course that there is no such thing as a Leopard III, so I'll assume Leopard II was intended). I've created them using FF&S.

It is actually the earlier TL tanks that are much harder to replicate, because of FF&S's excessive crew space requirements in the turret at TL6 and below and its over-estimation of the mass of tracked running gear compared with real-life. Creating a Panzer IV is much harder.

I meant the Leopard II.

 

[robject]

It's a veneer of hard without the needed structure to hold it up, so it tends to crack and peel, leaving holes in the underlying verisimilitude.

The nice, self-correcting aspect of this is that the gearheads get a toy to focus on, and when they become dissatisfied with FFS1's (and 2) lack of verisimilitude, they begin tweaking it.

 

[aramis]

The nice, self-correcting aspect of this is that the gearheads get a toy to focus on, and when they become dissatisfied with FFS1's (and 2) lack of verisimilitude, they begin tweaking it.

It's not a positive thing, tho'. They bitched on the TML, driving MANY of us away, and were largely the reason for the XBML separating from the TML - the gearheads all too often were assinine about it all. T4 made it worse, not better, especially with the force deletion of the XBML.

Then there's the additional issue that, while MT was USP compatible with Bk 5, TNE was mechanically incompatible with prior editions, even tho' many of the design system tables were direct ports.

 

[mike wightman]

I didn't like the TNE setting as much as I had enjoyed Hard Times (didn't like the MT Rebellion setting one bit), but once I got into it it was fun.
I will never like the TNE rule system though - assets and d20 and cinematic combat and all that.

FF&S was a vast improvement on Striker and the MT construction systems. It has yet to find its equal in a Traveller rule set.

 

[robject]

FF&S was a vast improvement on Striker and the MT construction systems. It has yet to find its equal in a Traveller rule set.

FFS is the son of Striker, or perhaps grandson. I agree that a unified detailed system is better than a piecemeal detailed one. But of course its goal must be to support role-playing and the setting, and that is arguably as difficult as creating the detailed design system.

They bitched on the TML, driving MANY of us away, and were largely the reason for the XBML separating from the TML

I do remember that, and I found Xboat to be very enjoyable, and later, the TML was very trying for me at times. Some of them were wrong, and some of us were wrong, and there was always room in the middle. The hotheads tended to grab the spotlight though.

So here we are, 20 years more mature. And I think that's more than just a cipher for "set in our ways". Although some people might think they're too old to be considerate and constructive anymore, I think that no-one on COTI should think that way.

TNE was mechanically incompatible with prior editions, even tho' many of the design system tables were direct ports.

I know that, while TNE and T4 were current, non-gearheads suffered. There are lessons for everyone to learn here.

By my point of view, users of FFS1 and FFS2 have their engines to tinker with. I am not obligated to run according to their rules, and vice versa, but they are free to adjust things. They are even free to adapt FFS to produce components in sync with Traveller5. I would consider that a neat thing.

But Marc doesn't let that particular tail wag the Traveller5 dog.

 

[tjoneslo]

This discussion is to spell out the rule/setting combination known as TNE. I'll keep this OP updated as the model gets refined.

TNE (Traveller: the New Era) is a hard-space-opera setting, closely related to the OTU. It continues the OTU's timeline after the Rebellion and Hard Times, after Virus was unleashed, and after the destruction of Charted Space.

This makes it one of the many post-apocalyptic game settings of the time. Empty worlds, burnt husks, and the thrill of a zombie/robot assault at any time. This was to go along with the Twilight:2000 rules/setttings.

Of the complaints I've seen of the setting (vs. rules), this was either the big selling point (open frontiers!) or the turn off (How many worlds with a billion dead bodies?)

The virus itself also seemed to be a huge argument point. There are several ways you can take the virus, depending upon your point of view:

1) A background boogieman, never appearing but omnipresent threat used to keep the players from wandering too far afield or from becoming too powerful.
2) The Robot Apocalypse come to life. Vampire Fleets book explores several adventures in this theme.
3) A new alien race to explore the universe with. This was mostly left as virus-as-NPCs. It was the ongoing attempt to make Traveller aliens more than just men-with-funny-hats.

 

[jec10]

TNE also gave us the best (to date) starship combat game in canon - Battle Rider.

Vector movement like Mayday. Sensors and jammers that are actually meaningful. The ability to execute tactics rather than simply line your fleets up and roll dice. Integrated with the rulesets' starship design system so the choices made in designing a ship are meaningful in the game (e.g. skimp on reaction mass and you pay a price during the game). All playable in a couple of hours by non-gearheads.

That is not to say it is perfect. Far from it. But it was a giant step in the right direction.

 

[whartung]

This makes it one of the many post-apocalyptic game settings of the time. Empty worlds, burnt husks, and the thrill of a zombie/robot assault at any time. This was to go along with the Twilight:2000 rules/setttings.

Of the complaints I've seen of the setting (vs. rules), this was either the big selling point (open frontiers!) or the turn off (How many worlds with a billion dead bodies?)

And, of course this was simply an aspect of the settings. TNE had "something for everyone".

- Wild west frontier, shoot first ask questions later. Shoot and loot.

- Mid TL society recovering from the verge of collapse.

- The "peace and stability" of the Regency.

The Spinward Marches, for example, haven't really changed in TNE. All of that old material is pretty much still relevant that's staged over there. It's far away from the Virus. So, do all your Coporate Intrigue, Zho psionic spies, and what not all you want. The biggest meta geo-political issue in the SM is a) Norris is King Bossman and b) the Imperium isn't there to back them up. But for "Traveller in the small, me and my freighter" box stock "LBB" adventuring, those don't matter.

 

[GypsyComet]

the gearheads all too often were assinine about it all.

In the end, the gearheads won, but TNE didn't, at least as far as the TML was concerned. It's a pretty joyless place these days and has been since the mid 90s. The changing internet was going to doom the "big tent" of the TML regardless, but its own loudest element accelerated the process.

---

Returning to the original question, the New Era as defined by TNE is several settings sharing a map. Each has its own elements of play, derived separately from the foundations of the whole thing. Unlike the pre-Rebellion Imperium, there are very few civilized places in the New Era where you can minimize the presence and impact of the military. The Regency, closest thing to the old Imperium on the map, is a mash of refugees behind a siege wall that is about to get jumped by a tidal wave. You *can* go whistling about your hum-a-day merchant job, but you'll be ignoring a lot to do so. The siege wall is the top priority, and everyone knows it.

The RC goes from idealist regrowth to a military state in the pages of the introduction. Further attempts at peaceful exploration and trade to reclaim the old Imperium are doomed to swim upstream against the RCES hit teams aimed at anyone deemed to be a TED. As this tracked alongside the rise of Military SF and the fall of Speculative SF in the literature, it is not so much surprising as disappointing. It also tracks with a number of other games that promised one thing in the core book only to deliver another with the supplements. GDW's other developing game of the time, Dark Conspiracy, is also deeply guilty of this, but GDW was hardly the only participant or even the first.

Actual Pocket Empire settings were probably where TNE had the most potential, but they were underserved except by inference. To be sure, Traveller as a whole has gotten a LOT of mileage out of inference over the years.

---

To boil it down, I see the rules/setting combination as heroic/combat leaning with strong military flavor *in play* (as opposed to being a background element in prior editions) including available scenarios and provided support (equipment, vehicles, etc), a struggle between optimism and pessimism on a daily basis, and a requirement in most circumstances to PAY ATTENTION to the little details, from fuel, to ammo, to whether or not your canary was infected. The veneer of hard science is more appropriately termed a veneer of hard detail, I think.
Specific elements that distinguish TNE from prior rules/setting combos include "wild" AI, a military emphasis, a post-apocalyptic baseline (including limited resources in a variety of cases), durable PCs, a strong Tinkerer's approach to hardware, and strong reinforcement of the "big setting but small game" mindset that was merely suggested before.

 

[Golan2072]

The RC goes from idealist regrowth to a military state in the pages of the introduction. Further attempts at peaceful exploration and trade to reclaim the old Imperium are doomed to swim upstream against the RCES hit teams aimed at anyone deemed to be a TED. As this tracked alongside the rise of Military SF and the fall of Speculative SF in the literature, it is not so much surprising as disappointing. It also tracks with a number of other games that promised one thing in the core book only to deliver another with the supplements. GDW's other developing game of the time, Dark Conspiracy, is also deeply guilty of this, but GDW was hardly the only participant or even the first

Is it just me or does the Reformation Coalition have great potential to be an antagonist, possibly similar to the Alliance in Firefly? Just depict it somewhat more heavy-handed and with more imperial ambition, with some of the RC officers having good intentions but a heavy-handed approach and others being more cynical and even more authoritarian... Stamping any non-cooperative government as a "TED" and sending in the Marines to install something friendlier to RC business.

 

[aramis]

Is it just me or does the Reformation Coalition have great potential to be an antagonist, possibly similar to the Alliance in Firefly? Just depict it somewhat more heavy-handed and with more imperial ambition, with some of the RC officers having good intentions but a heavy-handed approach and others being more cynical and even more authoritarian... Stamping any non-cooperative government as a "TED" and sending in the Marines to install something friendlier to RC business.

If it hadn't been so ham-fisted in its presentation, maybe. The RC just doesn't come across as competent enough to be scary.

 

[mike wightman]

Have you actually read Smash and Grab and Path of Tears?
They made mistakes but learned and grew.

If TNE hadn't died a death the RC faced taking on some serious competition - the Covenant of Suffren, who they were destined to defeat, and then the Black Imperium - which would have required the atrocity for the greater good that forever after stigmatised the Star Vikings

 

[Golan2072]

Have you actually read Smash and Grab and Path of Tears?
They made mistakes but learned and grew.

If TNE hadn't died a death the RC faced taking on some serious competition - the Covenant of Suffren, who they were destined to defeat, and then the Black Imperium - which would have required the atrocity for the greater good that forever after stigmatised the Star Vikings

Yes, this is how they are portrayed in Canon. I was just commenting on the fact that if you want, in your own campaign, you can easily paint them as the (not necessarily evil) antagonists if you want without too much of a fuss.

 

[mike wightman]

Is it just me or does the Reformation Coalition have great potential to be an antagonist, possibly similar to the Alliance in Firefly? Just depict it somewhat more heavy-handed and with more imperial ambition, with some of the RC officers having good intentions but a heavy-handed approach and others being more cynical and even more authoritarian... Stamping any non-cooperative government as a "TED" and sending in the Marines to install something friendlier to RC business.

Sorry my post was more a comment on Aramis' post - he has a stated dislike of TNE.
If you play a guild backed free trader plying the space lanes then the RC could definitely be the antagonists.
Similarly if you had a small pocket of TL9/10 developing worlds - again a background for PCs - and the Star Vikings come calling with their TL12 smash and grab tactics then once again they could be the bad guys.

Look at some of the scenarios and play them from the presented antagonists' positions and it could definitely work that way.

 

[Quint]

I didn't like the TNE setting as much as I had enjoyed Hard Times (didn't like the MT Rebellion setting one bit), but once I got into it it was fun.
I will never like the TNE rule system though - assets and d20 and cinematic combat and all that.

Agreed, and I have used it (Hard Times) many times to figure out the effects of a war on subsector just to add verisimilitude for the players. Actually made a mini Adventure-0 out of that one time - go out and survey the quadrant to discover what the actual UPP's are now.

Lots of fun!

D.

 

[aramis]

Sorry my post was more a comment on Aramis' post - he has a stated dislike of TNE.

You're bordering on slander there.

Not TNE as such, but several specific aspects of TNE - Virus snaps the disbelief suspenders, and the Regency Sourcebook was a breach of prior promises by GDW to leave a preserve of the 3I. And the diatribe by DN in H&I (on "don't insult your audience grounds"), plus the Ithklur as a whole I found DEEPLY offensive. (On religious grounds.)

I actually liked TNE as a ruleset, noting that it had issues that needed tweaking (combat damage needs to be d10's, not d6's, to make it possible to kill a guy with a .22 to the head, for example). And the ship encounter tables don't match the rules text. Little things.

Further, with the Hard Times collapse, Virus was needlessly added.