Traveller's direction; history and future

[creativehum]

Certainly. But is the refusal to kowtow to the local ruler one of them or can the hopeful shipbuyer just go somewhere else?

Yes, by the way. Absolutely. In fact, I said as much in my post.

 

[rancke]

This question is going to come of much harsher than I intend, but I don't know how else to ask this:

You are aware that there is no way to play Basic Traveller "just by the book," yes?

(Don't worry, I don't bruise easily. Indeed, I sometimes come across as more abrasive than I intend to because of that. Anyway, if you want to offend me, you will have to work hard on it .)

Yes, I am aware that Really Basic Traveller leaves a lot of ground uncovered.

So, yes. One rolls the worlds. And yes, there is a star spanning nobility of some kind implied in the character creation section. But at some point the GM is going to have figure out what that means. The easiest assumption is that the nobility is overlaid over the governments created by the random UWPs. This might be quite peaceful. There might be tensions. But one never needs to imagine that one needs to roll a monarchy government to make a planet part of the interstellar empire. (Certainly the OTU doesn't.)

No, but you do need to roll a dictatorship if you want the world to have a ruler that can act like the European monarchs I gather you would like those nobles to be analogues of. Otherwise you're down to rival governments rather than rival individuals with absolute monarchial powers.

To keep coming back and trying to trap me in the LBBs implied setting when the setting must be expanded is beginning to bewilder me. I'm running out of runway to see where you're going with this line of thinking.

I thought I explained that in my previous post. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm contradicting you. You made a statement of fact that I disagree with. I gave a counterargument. You gave a counterargument. I elucidated my previous statement.

I'm relatively new to the forums.

And I certainly don't want to scare you off. New viewpoints are always welcome.

If one must assume the use the existence of the OTU and canon in any forum except the IMTU forum, I apologize. Certainly, the specific discussion of this thread would seem to be the exception to this rule (if it exists). But if I'm doing it wrong, I apologize and I'll let a mod advise me.

I didn't say that you MUST do anything. I have no such authority and wouldn't say anything like that even if I had. I just explained that the way people read posts depends in part on where they're posted. If you want to discuss a general idea and want to use your TU to illustrate a point, no problem. But if you want to discuss aspects of your own personal TU in particular, then I suggest (since I'm not a moderator, I can do no more ) that the IMTU forum would provide better results and less miscommunication.


Hans

 

[rnadams2]

You are aware that there is no way to play Basic Traveller "just by the book," yes? The GM is going to have to, by definition, overlay other elements of culture, history and society to create the fictional setting.

in fact, the text constantly states this will have to be done in almost every aspect of the game.

Or is it that doing so is playing Traveller by the book. After all, if the books state that these interpretations need to be made, is that not "by the book?"

I'm not picking on anyone; I just think that the definition of "by the book" as presented, er, by the book, points to an open universe. Not "settingless," but rather assuming that a setting will be provided by the referee and enhanced by the players' interactions with it.

I guess it's why I hesitate to refer to the Third Imperium setting as the "Official Traveller Universe"; it's official in that it's been created and supported by the game's founders, but calling it thus tends to, I fear, turn some away from stepping off on their own and creating something original.

 

[creativehum]

Hans,

Thanks so much for your awesome reply.

First, as far as MTU goes... there is no such thing yet. I'm currently running a couple of limited Burning Wheel games for two different groups of friends. But last year, for local Old School-themed game day, I picked up a copy of the boxed LBBs and ran Across the Bright Face.

Reading the rules again after many years away made me think, "You know, these rules are kind of awesome." Tie this to the fact that I was mad about the rules when I read them as a teen--but didn't quite know what to do with them, and I've spent some time on and off digging into what has worked and not worked for people by reading blogs and forums.

I'm now at a point where I think I've settled on how I'd like to use the rules. The setting is beginning to take shape. I've got an email out to a friend who might have some other friends who might want to play. We'll see! But I am really keen on this. (This site has been really helpful in help me take the rules apart and put them back together again in a really constructive way!)

So, I wasn't really pushing MTU. I was pinging off something someone said two pages ago, and now, this being the internet, we're here. It is helping me sort out some ideas for MTU. But I'm really just riffing off the LBBs and the kind of game I wanted 30 years ago.

***

As for the need to roll dictatorships:
No.

First, you know as well I do the the rules tell the Ref to change the UWP to whatever he wants. So there's need to roll dictatorships.

Second, I don't even need dictatorships. I assume that the Imperial Nobility is placed "over" or side-by-side with the local culture and government. The relationship can either be good or horrific, or somewhere in-between. The relationship can be stable. But it can also rise and fall. I want it to rise and fall.

Unlike you, from the posts I've seen, I don't assume that the entire economy of the planet is working hand-in-hand together to construct starships.

As I'm envisioning this, the Noble Houses will rule worlds, A Class Starports with the Tech needed for starships, as well as few neighboring worlds. They might rule several ship building worlds, or one. They might be content with what they have, or desire more. They jockey with each other for control of worlds, stirring up trouble for each other on each other's worlds or on worlds that no one controls but that can still cause trouble.

But they have to deal with the worlds they rule as well. A chunk of the military budget will go to keeping peace with the locals -- or at least threatening war with the locals. I don't want the Noble Houses to have easy and complete control on a given world. (I don't even want worlds that have lack Noble rulers to be completely unified.) Why? Because I'm looking for all the places where the system could fail, where conflict can flare, where trouble can brew, where the political and social structure can crumble. Why? Because adventure. And why do I assume systems will be in place that are so fragile? Because people.

***

Please keep in mind, I'm still spitballing this.

If we look at Dune, we've got the Noble Houses (Major and Minor), The Emperor, the Space Guild, the Bene Gesserit... all forming an unstable means of holding peace. When it comes to MTU, I don't want the Noble Houses to have all the power. But I do think I want something more romantic than bankers. (Fair enough, right?) What I'll be adding to make sure the tension on the Noble House fleets is in play is something I still have to sort out.

 

[creativehum]

Or is it that doing so is playing Traveller by the book. After all, if the books state that these interpretations need to be made, is that not "by the book?"

I'm not picking on anyone; I just think that the definition of "by the book" as presented, er, by the book, points to an open universe. Not "settingless," but rather assuming that a setting will be provided by the referee and enhanced by the players' interactions with it.

I guess it's why I hesitate to refer to the Third Imperium setting as the "Official Traveller Universe"; it's official in that it's been created and supported by the game's founders, but calling it thus tends to, I fear, turn some away from stepping off on their own and creating something original.

I just want to step in and say I agree with your sentiments completely.

The two sentences you quoted were designed to make the same point by ironic contrast.

This is why, as I dig into Traveller, I'm working only from Books 1-3 -- almost as an experiment. I really want to know what comes of it. The Third Imperium is just one of many sources for me -- like Dune or the non-SF movies that I think capture the feel of the fiction contained in the original black box (The Treasure of Sierra Madre, for example, or The Man Who Would Be King, The Wages of Fear, or Heat.) But there's no real connection between the two for me. It's what some people did with the rules. But it's not the thing to do with the rules.

 

[rancke]

As for the need to roll dictatorships:
No.

First, you know as well I do the the rules tell the Ref to change the UWP to whatever he wants. So there's need to roll dictatorships.

Sure, you can change the government types to dictatorships. No argument there. It'll just not be the UWPs you rolled up.

Second, I don't even need dictatorships.

Yes, you do. Or possibly feudal technocracies. I've never managed to figure out just how FTs differ from ordinary feudal rule.

I assume that the Imperial Nobility is overplayed the local culture and government.

Do you mean overlaid?

The relationship can either be good or horrific, or somewhere inbetween.

If the relationship is such that the noble is not the one giving the orders then he's not the ruler, although he could be the nominal ruler.

But unlike you, from the posts I've seen, I don't assume that the entire economy of the planet is working hand-in-hand together to construct starships.

I don't assume any such thing. I do assume that in democracies, the rulers are elected, not hereditary, in bureaucracies the nominal rulers are actually constitutional rulers (with written or unwritten constitutions as the case may be), in oligarchies there are several rulers, and so on and so on.

As I'm envisioning this, the Noble Houses will rule worlds, A Class Starports with the Tech needed for starships, as well as few neighboring worlds.

In which case the governments of those worlds will not be democracies, oligarchies, constitutional monarchies, theocracies, etc..

Not that there is anything wrong with a setting where interstellar nobles rule worlds.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

@creativehum

One thing to consider might be the history of YTU.

option 1) The dominant power is the first to develop space travel, they have planted lots of colonies - own species or native sentients - and are seeking to maintain their position. cf the Ancients in the OTU.

option 2) There was a dominant power / powers at one or more points in the past but there was some kind of fall and rebuilding

In the first case only the dominant power has the knowledge and needs to prevent others stealing it.

In the second case - assuming the current dominant power was simply the first to claw their way back up to space travel - there will be caches of ancient knowledge scattered all over the universe that would need to be tracked down and either destroyed or captured.

 

[creativehum]

I swear I tried to defeat the autocorrect several times on that word. It got through after all.

As for how the governments work, I see how them working differently than you.

But listen, I'll think on it. The point being I'll make whatever decisions I have to make to get the setting I want. I'm not sure how this is even a concern?

 

[creativehum]

@creativehum

One thing to consider might be the history of YTU.

option 1) The dominant power is the first to develop space travel, they have planted lots of colonies - own species or native sentients - and are seeking to maintain their position. cf the Ancients in the OTU.

option 2) There was a dominant power / powers at one or more points in the past but there was some kind of fall and rebuilding

In the first case only the dominant power has the knowledge and needs to prevent others stealing it.

In the second case - assuming the current dominant power was simply the first to claw their way back up to space travel - there will be caches of ancient knowledge scattered all over the universe that would need to be tracked down and either destroyed or captured.

I think I'm going with 2. (I'm not that fond of the seeding stuff.) And the qualifier for 2 only means for effort and energy expended by interested parties -- so it's all good.

 

[creativehum]

By the way...
This has all gone really farther afield on some stuff I've been mulling in my head than I meant it.
I'm going to step out of the thread now.
When I start posting on this stuff, it'll be after I'd had the pleasure of generating some actual material, thought out and a bit more concrete.
Thanks for the conversation though! It's given me a lot to think about!

 

[salochin999]

If you assume noble rule as the basic context of YTU then one possible way to treat a rolled government type is as a reflection of the current noble.

So government Types and their possible translation for this context: (I'll use the title Baron in the examples but could be any)

0 No government structure.
- Current Baron is insane - Caligula

1 Company/Corporation.
- Baron is CEO

2 Participating Democracy.
- Baron has elected advisory parliament - Britain 1600s

3 Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy.
- System has multiple worlds or planet has multiple continents with control divided between the Baron and multiple Knights

4 Representative Democracy.
- Baron handed most planetary governance over to a parliament but retains full control of military and foreign affairs

5 Feudal Technocracy.
- localized technocracy?

6 Captive Government
- rebellion? private war?

7 Balkanization.
- as #3 oligarchy but broken down - Britain vs America 1700s or Mars vs Earth in a bunch of books

8 Civil Service Bureaucracy.
- similar to #5 maybe but one big central bureaucracy instead of local ones?

9 Impersonal Bureaucracy.
- like #8 but more 1984 ish

A Charismatic Dictator.
- Atreides

B Non-Charismatic Leader.
- Harkonnen

C Charismatic Oligarchy.
- as #3 but very popular

D Religious Dictatorship.
- Baron wrapped in religious cloak - Pharoah


#5, #8 and #9 could be basically the same but with varying degrees of responsiveness and authoritarianism

 

[aramis]

It's not really a viable secret if several hundred worlds have it.

Also, you don't need a class A starport to build starships. You need a TL9+ shipyard. There a rule in High Guard that worlds with the requisite tech level can build starships regardless of its starport rating.

You do need a shipyard that builds ships for the civilian market to get an 'A' rating for your starport. In other words, if you have a shipyard that only builds ships for the navy (or for a single company or otherwise limited group of people), it doesn't count towards a Class A starport rating.


Hans

No such rule in HG.

Bk 5 HG says:

Availability: Starships (with jump drives) may be constructed at the shipyard of any class A starport; non-starships (without jump drives) may be constructed at the shipyard of any class A or class B starport.​

A5 TCS also requires an A or B port to build ships.

In "Initial Fleets":

There are no limits other than tech level and budget, although starships may be built only at A starports, non-starships only at A or B starports, and planetoid ships only in systems where planetoids are available. Pilots are effectively unlimited, given populations and revenues such as they are in any campaign game.​

In "refitting:

Outmoded ships may be improved by refitting; obsolete systems are replaced by newer models. All refitting must be done at an A or B starport, and jumpdrives may be refitted only at A starports. Refitting involves the complete removal of an old system and the installation of a new one; for instance, if a power plant is refitted, the entire power plant is removed and a new one put in its place. Refitting takes up shipyard capacity equal to the refitting ship's tonnage.​

 

[steventirey1985]

No such rule in HG.

Bk 5 HG says:

Availability: Starships (with jump drives) may be constructed at the shipyard of any class A starport; non-starships (without jump drives) may be constructed at the shipyard of any class A or class B starport.​

A5 TCS also requires an A or B port to build ships.

In "Initial Fleets":

There are no limits other than tech level and budget, although starships may be built only at A starports, non-starships only at A or B starports, and planetoid ships only in systems where planetoids are available. Pilots are effectively unlimited, given populations and revenues such as they are in any campaign game.​

In "refitting:

Outmoded ships may be improved by refitting; obsolete systems are replaced by newer models. All refitting must be done at an A or B starport, and jumpdrives may be refitted only at A starports. Refitting involves the complete removal of an old system and the installation of a new one; for instance, if a power plant is refitted, the entire power plant is removed and a new one put in its place. Refitting takes up shipyard capacity equal to the refitting ship's tonnage.​

I think he may be talking about this part:

The Imperial Navy may procure ships of up to tech level 15, although it also procures vessels at tech levels 10 through 14. A subsector navy may procure ships at any shipyards within its borders. A planetary navy may procure ships at any shipyard within the borders of its subsector; alternatively, a planetary navy may construct ships on its planet, using local resources, even if a shipyard is not present.

 

[creativehum]

If you assume noble rule as the basic context of YTU then one possible way to treat a rolled government type is as a reflection of the current noble.

So government Types and their possible translation for this context: (I'll use the title Baron in the examples but could be any)

0 No government structure.
- Current Baron is insane - Caligula

1 Company/Corporation.
- Baron is CEO

2 Participating Democracy.
- Baron has elected advisory parliament - Britain 1600s

3 Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy.
- System has multiple worlds or planet has multiple continents with control divided between the Baron and multiple Knights

4 Representative Democracy.
- Baron handed most planetary governance over to a parliament but retains full control of military and foreign affairs

5 Feudal Technocracy.
- localized technocracy?

6 Captive Government
- rebellion? private war?

7 Balkanization.
- as #3 oligarchy but broken down - Britain vs America 1700s or Mars vs Earth in a bunch of books

8 Civil Service Bureaucracy.
- similar to #5 maybe but one big central bureaucracy instead of local ones?

9 Impersonal Bureaucracy.
- like #8 but more 1984 ish

A Charismatic Dictator.
- Atreides

B Non-Charismatic Leader.
- Harkonnen

C Charismatic Oligarchy.
- as #3 but very popular

D Religious Dictatorship.
- Baron wrapped in religious cloak - Pharoah


#5, #8 and #9 could be basically the same but with varying degrees of responsiveness and authoritarianism

Thanks!

 

[salochin999]

Looking back to the original question I'd say the two things most wanted might be

1. A more generic version of the rules with setting removed or (as you need char gen and the career choices are part of the setting too imo) a book with the bare mechanics rules at the front and sections on different setting rules from different scifi sub-genres (including appropriate char gen careers, tech etc) at the back.

and/or

2. OTU - as apart from anything else the Spinward Marches has a lot of nostalgia value - but with the wilderness part of space more conceptually explicit so GMs can jump their players between Foundation and Firefly more easily.

 

[Shonner]

The trick is that no matter what setting you strip out, another will creep in just from the rules written.

"Generic Sci-Fi" doesn't sound cool for an RPG title. And when the game says that it takes play in the year blah blah after the blah blah event blah blah years ago, there's the game's setting starting to show. And since most players want their space combat spelled out for them, the setting then really takes over.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I grew up with Traveller, and was really looking forward to contributing to it in a professional, fun and healthy way. I think I still can, but I think Traveller itself has gotten mired in its default setting.

Like some lady was telling me last year, Traveller has survived off the good will of a lot of nostalgic players. At first I thought she was dead wrong, but the "official" boards lack the kind of activity that SJ Games or Wizards of the Coast has.

I think part of the issue is that there's a dichotomy of wanting to stick with "hard science" as a basis for gameplay, and there's also the wanna-be sci-fi game that can be all things to all people, but has been weighed down by the 3I and all that entails, and a lack of willingness to address "other science fiction venues" due to the established tech and established setting.

And the problem there is that, as per the woman I talked with, whom I've known for years via online forums, there isn't any new blood, and the T5 rules, for all their worth, feel like a much needed retread of CT, but caught up in its own default legacy. Fortunately Mongoose has opened up some new frontiers.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the coming months.

 

[Shonner]

Mongoose Traveller is set up pretty well for outside settings/genres to use its system. I never thought of Traveller as hard sci-fi. I thought of it as a certain early 60's sci-fi style (sword and stars stuff). I have yet to see a Traveller game session even use hard sci-fi in it, unless Lost in Space is considered hard sci-fi (which is how most Traveller sessions go). Traveller will forever suffer from players trying to play it as D&D in space ("why are we playing this game if we don't get any XP?" kind of deal).

 

[Timerover51]

I think that Grav Tech appears too early in TL (per RAW) to allow for much Hard Science.
TL 8 ... we could build a fusion rocket and a space elevator ... or just take the air raft to orbit.

Once everything flies using a magic black box (fusion and grav drives and artificial gravity and inertial compensation) ... where would you put the hard science?

No Air Rafts to orbit in my Universe. Altitude limit is about 4000 feet above sea level, Earth Atmosphere. Thin atmosphere it is about 1000 feet, very thin it has to be enclosed and pressurized, ditto trace and vacuum. I have not put in a compensation for difference in planetary radius as the Raft gets further away from the planetary equator. This assumes that the contra-gravitiy field is acting against the planetary center of mass at the core of the planet. You can go higher on lower gravity planets, but then enclosure and pressurization is a mandate, which does make them a tad more expensive. Also more sensitive to winds as well.

 

[Blue Ghost]

That's the big beef I had with D&D (apart from other issues) and their exp system. XP was never meant to be "a real reward", but a game mechanic to describe a characters increase in worldly knowledge as he fought or magicked or used some skill in a world without indoor plumbing. The crap you kill the better got with your sword, staff, bow or spell book, ergo the better you'd be tackling the more dangerous critters.

But it's like that became the focus of the game, and stuff like the actual story and environment almost, or rather essentially, took a back seat to "leveling up". Traveller didn't have that (thank goodness), and focused on the adventure itself. But maybe RPers want the whole XP thing.

All I know is that I didn't ... and still don't.