What do we like about traveller!!!
- Thread starter Madarin Dude
- Start date
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
But is it "silly heroics?"
By the way it should be possible (even if unlikely) in the game. After all it happened in real life. It happens to be in the citation that was in Audey Murphy's Congressional Medal of Honor. Reading the stories behind those medals is facinating reading. And there aren't all that many of them to have to read through. Those are true heros. And most of them were just ordinary guys, ordinary courageous guys, but ordinary guys. Audey Murphy was almost turned down for the Infantry. (He was turned down for Paratroopers.) He was also the single most highly decorated soldier in US History for the results of one war. (Douglas MacArthur had more medals but that was over the course of three wars.)
By the way it should be possible (even if unlikely) in the game. After all it happened in real life. It happens to be in the citation that was in Audey Murphy's Congressional Medal of Honor. Reading the stories behind those medals is facinating reading. And there aren't all that many of them to have to read through. Those are true heros. And most of them were just ordinary guys, ordinary courageous guys, but ordinary guys. Audey Murphy was almost turned down for the Infantry. (He was turned down for Paratroopers.) He was also the single most highly decorated soldier in US History for the results of one war. (Douglas MacArthur had more medals but that was over the course of three wars.)
Originally posted by Elliot:
With task system based Traveller rules (MT, TNE, T4, BITs variant) -all this is possible - by making atrociously difficult dice rolls, interrupts, etc...
Its just FATEFUL if you get it wrong
I remember the story of Col. 'H' Jones VC from the Falklands conflict - he picked up his machine gun storming Argentinian bunkers and nearly made it - unfortunately he fell on the last hurdle - to be utterly distasteful (sorry, but to emphasise the point) he failed his dice roll at the last roll.
phil644441
SOC-7
....silly heroics?
Just felt like pointing out that if you're invincible and immune to bullets, charging into a hail of them isn't actually heroic.
AK
P.S. What I like about Traveller (only ever played CT and that only 20 or so years ago until T20 now)....chargen, science fiction (needs updating), generating sectors and subsectors and planets and trying to make up worlds to fit really weird diced outcomes, excellent combat system (NOT!) but excellent everything else system - RPGs where Admin-4 is a superb skill to have!
Nuff said for now...
AK
Just felt like pointing out that if you're invincible and immune to bullets, charging into a hail of them isn't actually heroic.
AK
P.S. What I like about Traveller (only ever played CT and that only 20 or so years ago until T20 now)....chargen, science fiction (needs updating), generating sectors and subsectors and planets and trying to make up worlds to fit really weird diced outcomes, excellent combat system (NOT!) but excellent everything else system - RPGs where Admin-4 is a superb skill to have!
Nuff said for now...
AK
My Friends
What I like best about our game (of whatever flavor - I tend t'wards CT, but have enjoyed TNE, and would be happy to sit 'cross the table from any of you, any "milieu", with pleasure) is the fragility of the character.
You cannot ever afford to be really hit hard, for you _will_ break. You have to think first before acting, plot, scheme, be alert and wary. Then when the moment arrives cry havoc, loose them hounds of war.
Success is sweet, much celebration.
Sometimes you fail, fall in the dust of an alien world, utter defeat. A tragic, perhaps heroic (game) sacrifice, for your friends.
And there is no raise from the dead. No get out of jail free. Not even effective heals!
This makes the character precious.
And, is it not awesome to be in a bind, and have someone else risk their skin, to dig your out of that hell -
"He either fears his fate too much, else his rewards too small, who dare not put it to the touch, to win, or lose, it all." (does anyone remember the attribution? Montrose' toast, I believe)
That is the game, to me.
musings of the sojourner
What I like best about our game (of whatever flavor - I tend t'wards CT, but have enjoyed TNE, and would be happy to sit 'cross the table from any of you, any "milieu", with pleasure) is the fragility of the character.
You cannot ever afford to be really hit hard, for you _will_ break. You have to think first before acting, plot, scheme, be alert and wary. Then when the moment arrives cry havoc, loose them hounds of war.
Success is sweet, much celebration.
Sometimes you fail, fall in the dust of an alien world, utter defeat. A tragic, perhaps heroic (game) sacrifice, for your friends.
And there is no raise from the dead. No get out of jail free. Not even effective heals!
This makes the character precious.
And, is it not awesome to be in a bind, and have someone else risk their skin, to dig your out of that hell -
"He either fears his fate too much, else his rewards too small, who dare not put it to the touch, to win, or lose, it all." (does anyone remember the attribution? Montrose' toast, I believe)
That is the game, to me.
musings of the sojourner
Capt. Blacklight
SOC-12
</font>[/QUOTE]Not that I want to belittle Audie Murphy's achievements, but he has since been tied with Lt. Col Matt Urban.. for the most decorated Soldier of WWII. Both seem to have been outstanding Troops and Both started at the bottom. But I believe while Murphy has more combat camapigns Urban rose to command his Battalion before getting Severely injured in late '44.Originally posted by Bhoins:
But is it "silly heroics?"
. Audey Murphy was almost turned down for the Infantry. (He was turned down for Paratroopers.) He was also the single most highly decorated soldier in US History for the results of one war. (Douglas MacArthur had more medals but that was over the course of three wars.)
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elliot:
With task system based Traveller rules (MT, TNE, T4, BITs variant) -all this is possible - by making atrociously difficult dice rolls, interrupts, etc...
Its just FATEFUL if you get it wrong
Would have been a sporting time to be around either one of those gentlemen during the War.
M
Malenfant
Guest
Yet by being "believable", Traveller is wrong on several counts when it comes to science, maths, and astrophysics.
Still, I don't think "believeable"/"fun" and being realistic are mutually exclusive - there's no reason that you can't have a game that is believable, enjoyable, and realistic at the same time.
There's not that much in practise in 2300AD that makes it hard for lots of people to get into, so I don't think it's fair to say that people didn't get into it because of its realism. If anything, it was more believeable than Traveller, since it was more a hard-sf game (Transhuman Space could also be said to be more believeable, and that's more physically realistic too).
The main thing is that humans in Traveller look like people today, my players can imagine themselves living in that situation, whereas some sci-fi RPGs have had extremely unbelievable/unpleasant world views (e.g. SLA Industries, Cyberpunk).
The main thing I found new players were put off by in 2300AD was the star maps, and techno-speak. OTOH, I played a lot of 2300AD myself, and even got past running around in combat walkers and blowing kafers up (we actually played and liked the Bayern adventure).
Traveller doesn't present the same hurdle that 2300AD does, and its even more accessible to people than Star Wars (e.g. what does a toilet in Star Wars look like, compared to what does a toilet in Traveller look like?).
M
Malenfant
Guest
The problem with the future is that you can't say that people will be the same. That's one of the things I find unbelievable about Traveller and why I prefer things like Transhuman Space.
I mean, we're talking about 3000 years in the future here. An ancient Egyptian or Greek from 1000 BC wouldn't have the foggiest inkling what society would be like in the year 2000 AD, and society has changed immeasurably since then. So pretending that everything will be the same but with spaceships and aliens 3000 years from now is somewhat unbelieveable, don't you think?
I'd say that what Traveller does is make the future seem familiar, which is not necessarily the same as "believeable".
<shrugs> A lot of science fiction is more a thought-experiment (to use Ursula K. Le Guin's words) than actual prediction of what humans will be like x years from now. Realistically in a likely future humans eventually cease to be even remotely "human" and thus unrealatable. This is related to the problem of creating "alien" aliens and realistically roleplaying something other than a non-modern human character.
While I think THS is well done it can have a learning curve to play IMO. Traveller has a different one, the OTU, but just to jump in and play is quite easy while still not being pure space opera. And Authenticists 0w|\| j00 w00t!
Then again a lot of my experience with Science Fiction has been with authors like those that were the basis for Traveller. At least I've branched out in the last 10 years or so. ^_^
Casey
While I think THS is well done it can have a learning curve to play IMO. Traveller has a different one, the OTU, but just to jump in and play is quite easy while still not being pure space opera. And Authenticists 0w|\| j00 w00t!
Then again a lot of my experience with Science Fiction has been with authors like those that were the basis for Traveller. At least I've branched out in the last 10 years or so. ^_^
Casey
phil644441
SOC-7
I love the concept of science fiction. I also love that it's distinct from space opera (or other futuristic genres). The 'hard' edge to science fiction is that it tries to explain the science of the future in terms that are understandable to the scientist of today - extrapolate rather than make up from scratch.
Case in point - "The Day After Tomorrow" - book not movie (although 'hard' SFers of today probably don't rate Heinlein as hard SF).
The science in it is at least purportedly explained as it is extrapolated from the science of today. It may have outlandish results but those results are at least consistent with that extrapolation.
Traveller retains that (to my mind) even though it extrapolates a long way. Being a game, it also has to obfuscate to the degree that those with a science degree can play in the same game as those without as seamlessly as possible. It does that well, too.
A related opint is that, given that I grew up on SF written in the 60s and 70s, if you look at SF's predictions for the year 2000, we can see how the 'predictive' part of SF works out. Very few SF writers at that time predicted the information revolution and the explosion of miniaturisation (especially the omputing power of a chip smaller than my fingernail) let alone nano-technology. But that's not a problem for Traveller, is it.
Similarly with the 'people looking the same in the future'. It may be right to say that there is no reason they should, but neither are there particularly strong reasons they shouldn't. The cyborg principle can be implemented in many ways - overt and covert being two. Same for GE. Same for cloning. Advances in science, and ESPECIALLY advances in the way those advances look to Joe Public, depend on things much further afield than what's efficient - fashion and cultural acceptability factr highly in that - bionic ears did not take off in our society until they were unobtrusive - nothing to do with their efficiency, just their obviousness.
Since I think I'm beginning to sound like a sociologist, I think I'll stop now!
AK
Case in point - "The Day After Tomorrow" - book not movie (although 'hard' SFers of today probably don't rate Heinlein as hard SF).
The science in it is at least purportedly explained as it is extrapolated from the science of today. It may have outlandish results but those results are at least consistent with that extrapolation.
Traveller retains that (to my mind) even though it extrapolates a long way. Being a game, it also has to obfuscate to the degree that those with a science degree can play in the same game as those without as seamlessly as possible. It does that well, too.
A related opint is that, given that I grew up on SF written in the 60s and 70s, if you look at SF's predictions for the year 2000, we can see how the 'predictive' part of SF works out. Very few SF writers at that time predicted the information revolution and the explosion of miniaturisation (especially the omputing power of a chip smaller than my fingernail) let alone nano-technology. But that's not a problem for Traveller, is it.
Similarly with the 'people looking the same in the future'. It may be right to say that there is no reason they should, but neither are there particularly strong reasons they shouldn't. The cyborg principle can be implemented in many ways - overt and covert being two. Same for GE. Same for cloning. Advances in science, and ESPECIALLY advances in the way those advances look to Joe Public, depend on things much further afield than what's efficient - fashion and cultural acceptability factr highly in that - bionic ears did not take off in our society until they were unobtrusive - nothing to do with their efficiency, just their obviousness.
Since I think I'm beginning to sound like a sociologist, I think I'll stop now!
AK
M
Malenfant
Guest
This is one of the things I like about Traveller - the technology has a logical progression. Unfortunately Traveller doesn't usually take the tech and run with it as far as it could. Traveller barely touches on what is actually possible if you have the technology to manipulate gravity and the nuclear forces (ie the thruster plate and the nuclear damper).
Well, I'd say it is a problem, because Traveller doesn't really accomodate the newer scifi tropes. Traveller is mostly based on mid-20th century scifi, not late 20th/early 21st centurty scifi.
I think there are pretty strong reasons to suggest that they should be different. We're approaching the stage now where we can actively shape our future evolution and destiny via genetic manipulation and nanotechnology. I think it's quite possible that humanity won't even be recognisable to us in 1000 years from now, let alone 3000.
Such changes take a while to percolate through (largely because older generations are generally more conservative about such things than the younger), but eventually things do change. You just have to look at how rapidly computers and the internet have changed the world, and look at how readily the younger generation are adapting to it, to see this in action.
phil644441
SOC-7
Malenfant,
agree with almost everything you say, almost totally
!
Small point of disagreement is that I think it is POSSIBLE that humans will look similar in 500 years to how they look now. How LIKELY that is is probably down to a matter of opinion - even though your opinion may be better informed than mine! I also stand by my assertion that, while there may be good scientific reasons why we might look different, there are possible sociological reasons why we might not. And sociological reasons why we might look different - but, Hari Seldon notwithstanding, sociological trends and outcomes are notoriously difficult to predict!
As a teacher (of religion and philosophy, incidentally), I like to use the movie Gattaca when we study 'possible futures' (for obvious reasons). But note that the geneteically enhanced (super)-humans in the movie still LOOK distinctively human - not seriously different from us, despite the overwhelming evidence (for example) that smaller people are much more likely to survive in extended freefall - the sociological pressure for Western males to be 'tall dark and handsome' is borne out in the face of the 'scientific' pressure for short, fat hairy men.
If you look too closely at that statement, it's pretty sweeping, I know - but you get the idea!.
You may or may not think Gattaca is 'good science fiction', but the illustration stands.
Over to you.....
AK
P.S. Thanks for reminding me why I used to post in forums like this all the time - thanks for the 'bounce'!
agree with almost everything you say, almost totally
Small point of disagreement is that I think it is POSSIBLE that humans will look similar in 500 years to how they look now. How LIKELY that is is probably down to a matter of opinion - even though your opinion may be better informed than mine! I also stand by my assertion that, while there may be good scientific reasons why we might look different, there are possible sociological reasons why we might not. And sociological reasons why we might look different - but, Hari Seldon notwithstanding, sociological trends and outcomes are notoriously difficult to predict!
As a teacher (of religion and philosophy, incidentally), I like to use the movie Gattaca when we study 'possible futures' (for obvious reasons). But note that the geneteically enhanced (super)-humans in the movie still LOOK distinctively human - not seriously different from us, despite the overwhelming evidence (for example) that smaller people are much more likely to survive in extended freefall - the sociological pressure for Western males to be 'tall dark and handsome' is borne out in the face of the 'scientific' pressure for short, fat hairy men.
If you look too closely at that statement, it's pretty sweeping, I know - but you get the idea!.
You may or may not think Gattaca is 'good science fiction', but the illustration stands.
Over to you.....
AK
P.S. Thanks for reminding me why I used to post in forums like this all the time - thanks for the 'bounce'!
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Actually history is a good teacher. Man is still reconizable as man over 500 years ago. Even 1000 years ago. Just look at the art from the period. Tut-Ankh-Amun is from 3000 years ago but looks like a man today, well a very young man. In general people are taller and stand straighter, have a larger tendency to obescity (pun not intended.) but are definitely generally recognizable. What makes you think another 3000 years would change that trend, human skull and bone structure hasn't radically changed since the oldest discovery of Homo-Sapiens. Can we evolve? Certainly. In as short a period as 3000 years, highly unlikely. We may add things like cyberware, we may genetically adapt people to certain environments, but the base human isn't likely to change much. Though it is likely we will live a bit longer.
We could probably build our own Sydites by then, or Lurani, but without a specific purpose, such as adapting for a different environment I don't see those changes being in the main. Nor do I see anything that changes general outward appearance, like cyberware, being all that popular. We may be genetically more fit, we might be using plastic surgery to appear more fit, but the baseline human is still likely to be just that, baseline human.
We could probably build our own Sydites by then, or Lurani, but without a specific purpose, such as adapting for a different environment I don't see those changes being in the main. Nor do I see anything that changes general outward appearance, like cyberware, being all that popular. We may be genetically more fit, we might be using plastic surgery to appear more fit, but the baseline human is still likely to be just that, baseline human.
M
Malenfant
Guest
The problem is that I strongly doubt that history is going to be much of a guide for the next few thousand years. Like I said, we can do things now that we couldn't do even 50 years ago. I'm convinced that genetic therapies and stem cell research WILL become common because somebody somewhere in the world will be doing it, and the advantages will soon become very apparent. The problem right now is that technology is advancing relentlessly, but society and morality isn't keeping up - but it's going to have to adapt somehow because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
I'd say that humanity might still be recognisable in the next couple of hundred years. I've no doubt that there will still be haves and have-nots, and genetically-tweaked and not genetically-tweaked (which is one thing I like about Transhuman Space - it's not an entirely shiny future, in some ways it's just as screwed up as our own world today). Doubtless Larsen will chip in here frothing about how nightmarish such a future is
.
But in 3000 years from now (which is when Traveller is set)? I dunno. If technology continues to advance at the rate that it has over the past few decades, we could possibly be like gods - perhaps we'd even be building our own universes in labs.
I've heard suggestions that Traveller is set too far in the future, and the timeline could be compressed greatly. Crunch it down to 300 years in the future rather than 3000, and I could find it more believeable that we're still recognisably human then.
I'd say that humanity might still be recognisable in the next couple of hundred years. I've no doubt that there will still be haves and have-nots, and genetically-tweaked and not genetically-tweaked (which is one thing I like about Transhuman Space - it's not an entirely shiny future, in some ways it's just as screwed up as our own world today). Doubtless Larsen will chip in here frothing about how nightmarish such a future is
But in 3000 years from now (which is when Traveller is set)? I dunno. If technology continues to advance at the rate that it has over the past few decades, we could possibly be like gods - perhaps we'd even be building our own universes in labs.
I've heard suggestions that Traveller is set too far in the future, and the timeline could be compressed greatly. Crunch it down to 300 years in the future rather than 3000, and I could find it more believeable that we're still recognisably human then.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The thing is Traveller technology doesn't advance over the whole 3000 year future.
The long night had the effect of slowing technological progress (and what was the final TL of the ROM??? ).
Also the science of genetics is one of those technological areas that the Imperial culture shies away from developing (like robotics, nanotechnology and psionics).
Are we physically different from our forbears? Not a lot really, and certainly in the USA and Europe lifestyle choises have raised the spectre of the current generation of adolescents having shorter life expectancies that their parents despite advances in medicine.
Hmm, perhaps we must engineer a genetic resistance to obesity
But to continue, if in the future the human race (or at least its technological elite) choose to start modifying their genome they are likely to do so in a way that makes their offspring (or even themselves - if the genetherapy can be integrated with an adult) appear as "normal" as possible. This would avoid the underclasses from being able to target them by sight alone.
While I agree that in all likelyhood genetic diseases will be eradicated and some humans will be genetically modified, I don't believe that the average bod on a TL7 world in the 3rd Imperium would look too dissimilar to you or I.
The long night had the effect of slowing technological progress (and what was the final TL of the ROM???
).Also the science of genetics is one of those technological areas that the Imperial culture shies away from developing (like robotics, nanotechnology and psionics).
Are we physically different from our forbears? Not a lot really, and certainly in the USA and Europe lifestyle choises have raised the spectre of the current generation of adolescents having shorter life expectancies that their parents despite advances in medicine.
Hmm, perhaps we must engineer a genetic resistance to obesity
But to continue, if in the future the human race (or at least its technological elite) choose to start modifying their genome they are likely to do so in a way that makes their offspring (or even themselves - if the genetherapy can be integrated with an adult) appear as "normal" as possible. This would avoid the underclasses from being able to target them by sight alone.
While I agree that in all likelyhood genetic diseases will be eradicated and some humans will be genetically modified, I don't believe that the average bod on a TL7 world in the 3rd Imperium would look too dissimilar to you or I.
M
Malenfant
Guest
Depends on whether you think that a bod on a TL 7 world would have access to all that nice lifesaving genetic engineering available on the higher TL worlds.
Though that's one of the things I don't like about the OTU - the technological disparity between worlds, especially worlds that are in the Imperium. IMTU I'd have the worlds a LOT closer together in terms of technological capability (probably 3 TLs apart at most).
