What is Traveller?

[Whipsnade]

Uh, no. I never argued that at all.

Jason,

Sorry, but no. Your many posts in this thread are still there for everyone to read and the context of the thread in which those posts were made is still there for everyone to read too.

Let me re-quote your very first post again:

Is "No FTL communications" really encoded in the rules, or is it just one of the fundamental elements of the Third Imperium's universe? Can you give me an example of where it's assumed in the rules?

The thread at the time was discussing how the Hammer's Slammers setting could be powered by Traveller and also not be Traveller. You then frisked in with your quibbles about "fundamental elements" and "rules", and your deliberately mistaken insistence that one can be examined outside of the context of the other.

You can't escape you're own words, Jason, and you can't escape the context in which you posted them.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Jason]

Jason,

And that example is fundamentally wrong because you're unaware of what Tolkien was writing and when he was writing it.

That's a pretty broad assumption to make without knowing anything about how much I've studied Tolkien and his writings.

He did no such thing. LOTR may be a narrative sequel to The Hobbit, just as The Silmarillion is a narrative prequel to both, but LOLTR is not an intellectual or physical sequel to The Hobbit.

Tolkien had been working on his mythos well before writing what became The Hobbit as a series of holiday letters to his children. He spun that light fantasy out of the same already extent materials that he would also use to create Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, and all the rest. None intellectually preceded the rest because all were derived from the same already extent source materials, albeit at different times and for different reasons.

Did Tolkien begin The Lord of the Rings explicitely as a sequel to The Hobbit? Of course he did.
Tolkien wrote to his publisher in December of 1937 "I have written the first chapter of a new story about Hobbits - 'A long expected party'."
In many, many of the letters that follow in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Tolkien refers to the work as a sequel to The Hobbit.
Christopher Tolkien's publishing of his father's notes makes it clear that The Lord of the Rings began as a sequel, with much the same narrative tone as The Hobbit, and only became something greater after Tolkien made it such. If Tolkien had kept to his original purpose in writing a sequel, Aragorn would have been a hobbit named Trotter.
Yes, the unpublished (and never really completed) Silmarillion was the backdrop to both works, but The Hobbit definitely did preceed The Lord of the Rings in more than one sense. When it was first written the Ring was nothing more than a nice trinket that made you invisible. When Tolkien finished LOTR he even realized that Gollum's behavior towards the Ring in The Hobbit was wrong, and that chapter ("Riddles in the Dark") was revised so that Gollum did not give it up willingly, as in the original version of the story.

This is all becoming very tedious Jason and it's been going on for far too long. Let me remind everyone - and yourself - how you began this "discussion" with your first post to this thread:

By your own admission, I clearly acknowledged that "no FTJ communication" was fundamental to the setting and the OTU in my first post, so your accusation that I was arguing something else to begin with is disproven.

It's been repeatedly explained to you that no-FTJ comms is both a fundamental aspect of the Traveller universe and is encoded in the rules as a theme.

"Explaining" is not the same as presenting a winning argument.

I won't comment on your motives for continuing to insist that this willfully ignorant interpretation is correct.

You won't? Didn't you say I'm trolling you in your last post?

Your methods on the other hand, are repetitive, have been refuted, and are now reduced to nothing but quibbles and a deliberate examination of the rules outside of the context in which they were written.

They have in no way been refuted. In fact, you said you agreed with my basic premise concerning the trade rules. I consider that validation of my argument.

 

[robject]

Succession is not what I was arguing about, actually.

Well, ok, you're right. But:

(1) The topic is somewhat moot -- FTL comms (beyond jump speed of course) is not a reality in the 3rd Imperium, because the 3rd Imperium was built directly off of Classic Traveller. The Imperium was created to showcase the rule set, not innovate on it. (Besides, something as fundamental as FTL comms would surely deserve a mention, right alongside the text that says "information travels at the speed of jump, BUT communications travel faster than that". Tachyon Beam Dictors just aren't there.)

(2) The topic was originally about "What is Traveller?", and the FTL concept is just a leaf on a branch of that topic, and is part of that larger discussion about what bits from the original rules remain core, and which bits have been modularized, generalized, updated, or changed in successive rule sets.

Folks list Jump as a core aspect of Traveller, and yet it was optional within the TNE rules set, which was labelled "Traveller". This forces a decision that official labels do not equal what fans see; thus we get into the realm of succession and validity in rules sets.

 

[rancke]

Folks list Jump as a core aspect of Traveller, and yet it was optional within the TNE rules set, which was labelled "Traveller". This forces a decision that official labels do not equal what fans see; thus we get into the realm of succession and validity in rules sets.

There's also the example of Traveller:2300, published by the same company that published Traveller, where the fans (a large number of them, that is) loudly protested that "This isn't Traveller!" Did the company tell the fans that it, the company, had the right to decide what was and was not Traveller and if the fans didn't like it, they could lump it? It did not. It said, in effect, "OK, OK, we get it! Sorry about that." and proceeded to reissue the game under a name that didn't imply that it was Traveller.

As I've argued before, Mark Miller has the legal right to publish a fantasy game and call it Traveller, but I'm firmly convinced that it wouldn't be Traveller, whatever MM claimed.

As Bill said, a game with FLT com is not Traveller, whatever anyone claims.


Hans

 

[Klaus]

As Bill said, a game with FLT com is not Traveller, whatever anyone claims.

A game with FLT com is not OTU, but it can be Traveller. That distinction is surely obvious? If I'm using Traveller to play in the Far Avalon setting, I'm using Traveller, not BRP.

Or if I'm not, what am I playing then?

 

[rancke]

A game with FLT com is not OTU, but it can be Traveller. That distinction is surely obvious?

Certainly. It's just one I disagree with. That distinction is surely obvious?

If I'm using Traveller to play in the Far Avalon setting, I'm using Traveller, not BRP.

Or if I'm not, what am I playing then?

You're playing Far Avalon (what's that?) using rules from Traveller. :devil:


Hans

 

[robject]

A game with FLT com is not OTU, but it can be Traveller. That distinction is surely obvious? If I'm using Traveller to play in the Far Avalon setting, I'm using Traveller, not BRP.

Or if I'm not, what am I playing then?

That question is all about definitions. Because the rules was the setting, there's been tension between the two as GDW began the messy task of unsuccessfully separating the two.

Consider a rules system which can "run" the "default" Traveller setting "natively". Regardless of what its other capabilities are, is it Traveller?

In a way, Traveller, the setting, is larger than the OTU: it's all the assumptions that the OTU showcases, but does not rely on the OTU. Rather, the OTU relies on it. So "Traveller" can be seen as a meta-setting, or meta-rules, or an intermediate layer, or something.

Third Imperium Milieu
      |
Traveller Setting
      |
    Rules

So when someone talks about divorcing the rules from the setting, you have to ask what he means.

It's like we need to define the OTU as a milieu and Traveller as a setting.

 

[Klaus]

Certainly. It's just one I disagree with. That distinction is surely obvious?

You're playing Far Avalon (what's that?) using rules from Traveller. :devil:

Hans

Actually, I'm playing Traveller using the Far Avalon setting. Not using rules from Traveller, but the whole Traveller rule-set.

Far Avalon is a new setting from Avenger/Comstar, designed to be used by Traveller, and ultimately, I think, the Avenger-BRP rules Translight.

However, the Traveller rules companion is coming out first.

Traveller is a rules system first. It's the only sensible way to discuss it. It can be defined by random/semi-random prior history based chargen, a set of 6 clearly termed attributes, and uses a 2d6 mechanic. That isn't a perfect definition, as it actually excludes TNE , but it applies to 4 out of 5 of the 'official' editions.

That the OTU can be played with other rulesets is a given, but those that have been licensed make it explicitly clear in their names that they are using different rules, ie: GURPS: Traveller and T20.

(note: GURPS and T20 do not use the 6 classic attributes, they use attributes associated with their rules system. This makes them inherently different beasts, before we even get to dice mechanics)

I do not like GURPS, and T20, while a fine effort, is not truly able to shoehorn things like prior history into a rulest unsuited to it. I like Traveller, in the way that it resembles the form of CT, MT, T4, or MGT (I haven't really bothered to look deeply at TNE). And while I do admire the OTU and will play in it, I find it awkward and difficult to run a campaign in without having to tell the players: "No, you can't do that in the OTU" when they make reasonable requests (based on their 21c sf fandom).

But if I am not using the OTU, no one can tell me that I'm not playing Traveller! You have no right, for one, and can summon no intellectual proof to justify it anyway.

I'm not playing a different game with the same name: that is just nonesense - as in, it doesn't mean anything. Neither am I going to argue that if you play in the OTU but using BRP or Starblazer or whatever that you are not playing a Traveller game. Because yes, Traveller can mean setting, too.

Traveller is a broad enough church that all our definitions can be right. But if Traveller isn't a ruleset, it's not really anything.

And if we go by the first post of this thread, for the purposes of discussion on this here MGT board, Traveller means rules and OTU means setting. It really is that simple.

 

[robject]

Far Avalon is a new setting from Avenger/Comstar, designed to be used by Traveller, and ultimately, I think, the Avenger-BRP rules Translight.

I know of the Far Avalon setting, and like it, by the way.

Please note that Traveller + FTL Comms seems more like Babylon 5 than Traveller.

See? We have a nomenclature issue.

Traveller is a rules system first. It's the only sensible way to discuss it. It can be defined by random/semi-random prior history based chargen, a set of 6 clearly termed attributes, and uses a 2d6 mechanic. That isn't a perfect definition, as it actually excludes TNE , but it applies to 4 out of 5 of the 'official' editions.

OK, you have a point: Traveller has a rules system. But, as GURPS and T20 and TNE showed us, Traveller can also be a setting atop some other rules system.

So there's Rules, and then there's Setting. And as anyone who has home-brewed a subsector knows already, there's a Setting on top of the setting, what I tentatively labelled the milieu.

If you build a new assumption into a setting, you've got a different (more or less) setting.

 

[rancke]

Actually, I'm playing Traveller using the Far Avalon setting. Not using rules from Traveller, but the whole Traveller rule-set.

Far Avalon is a new setting from Avenger/Comstar, designed to be used by Traveller, and ultimately, I think, the Avenger-BRP rules Translight.

Well, if the Far Avalon setting embodies the Traveller paradigm, then you're playing Traveller when you play in the Far Avalon setting.

Traveller is a rules system first. It's the only sensible way to discuss it.

If that's your attitude, why bother discussing it? Since your way of looking at it is the only sensible one, it follows that anyone who disagrees with you is not making sense, so why don't you just go away and leve the discussion to people who, while they may disagree with each other at least respect each other's opinion.

"It's the only sensible way to discuss it" indeed! It's a good thing I'm not prone to take offense, because that attitude is calculated to get riiight up my nose.

It can be defined by random/semi-random prior history based chargen, a set of 6 clearly termed attributes, and uses a 2d6 mechanic. That isn't a perfect definition, as it actually excludes TNE , but it applies to 4 out of 5 of the 'official' editions.

To me 'Traveller' is a set of basic assumptions that constitutes a framework. As long as the setting reflect these basic assumptions and the rules reflect the setting, you're[*] playing Traveller. If the rules and/or the setting does not reflect these basic assumptions, you're[*] not playing Traveller.

[*] Generic 'you'.​

If, for example, you use D20 to play a game in the OTU and include the magic part, you're not playing Traveller. If you use it without the magic (and without any other features that would be at odds with the Traveller paradigm), you are.

And while I do admire the OTU and will play in it, I find it awkward and difficult to run a campaign in without having to tell the players: "No, you can't do that in the OTU" when they make reasonable requests (based on their 21c sf fandom).

Why would you not allow them to do it if the requests are reasonable? If the requests are reasonable then, by definition, it ought to be possible to do them in that setting, and if the rules don't allow it, the rules reflect the setting inadequately and are ripe for houseruling, since setting is more important than rules.

But if I am not using the OTU, no one can tell me that I'm not playing Traveller! You have no right, for one, and can summon no intellectual proof to justify it anyway.

What gives you the right to tell me what I can and can't tell you?

If you run a game that doesn't conform to what I regard as the Traveller paradigm, then I have every right to tell you that in my opinion you're not playing Traveller. You're not obliged to accept my opinion, of course.

I'm not playing a different game with the same name: that is just nonesense - as in, it doesn't mean anything.

Does too!

Neither am I going to argue that if you play in the OTU but using BRP or Starblazer or whatever that you are not playing a Traveller game. Because yes, Traveller can mean setting, too.

It means setting first, and in a sense only, except insofar as the rules reflect the setting.

But if Traveller isn't a ruleset, it's not really anything.

Wrong. Rules are merely a reflection of the Traveller paradigm.

And if we go by the first post of this thread, for the purposes of discussion on this here MGT board, Traveller means rules and OTU means setting. It really is that simple.

But we do not all of us go by the first post of this thread. If we did, there wouldn't be a thread, just the original post. To some of us, Traveller does not mean rules. So it's simply not that simple.


Hans

 

[Klaus]

If that's your attitude, why bother discussing it? Since your way of looking at it is the only sensible one, it follows that anyone who disagrees with you is not making sense, so why don't you just go away and leve the discussion to people who, while they may disagree with each other at least respect each other's opinion.

"It's the only sensible way to discuss it" indeed! It's a good thing I'm not prone to take offense, because that attitude is calculated to get riiight up my nose.

I'm talking about frames of reference, not points of view. (That's why I said "discussing", not "looking" ). What do we call the rules (etc) if not Traveller?

The rules are the only concrete thing there. The rest depends on your point of view (as these threads are testament to).

Another setting with many of the flavours of the OTU is the Firefly 'Verse.

I could run a game of Firefly using Traveller. I would be playing Traveller. Or I could run it using Serenity, in which case I wouldn't.

I could, in fact, with a little tweak, use Serenity to run Far Avalon (or BRP, etc). Even if the setting does carry many of the OTU flavours, I would not be then running a Traveller game. My players would not recognise it as such.

My first thought when seeing the CT reprints was, "This system is perfect for a Trek game". That would be Trek, powered by Traveller. In fact, Traveller, IMO, is a better system to run a Trek game with than FASA's rpg, but that's a digression too far.

 

[aramis]

Traveller was, from about 1986 to about 1998, pretty much JUST the setting, because the rules in force varied quite a bit. But Traveller was seen as the setting by a great many since about 1981... heck, 1987-88 saw 3 systems in distribution with the Traveller name: CT, T2300, and MT.

 

[rancke]

I'm talking about frames of reference, not points of view. (That's why I said "discussing", not "looking" ). What do we call the rules (etc) if not Traveller?

Traveller rules (all the various versions) are Traveller (Though not always Third Imperium). They can be used to play Traveller and they can be used to play not-Traveller. Other rules are not Traveller, but may or may not be usable for Traveller.

If you use Traveller rules to play in the Third Imperium setting[*], are you playing Traveller? My answer: Yes.

If you use Traveller rules to play Conan, are you playing Traveller? My answer: No.

If you use Basic Roleplaying[**] to play in the Third Imperium setting, are you playing Traveller? My answer: Yes.

If you use Basic Roleplaying to play Call of Cthulhu, are you playing Traveller? My answer: No.

Can you be playing in the OTU and not be playing Traveller? My answer: Yes. If you, for instance, use GURPS Cinematic rules to play High Adventure on Regina, you're not playing Traveller. If you play in 17th Century France, you're not playing Traveller... not even if you use the Traveller rules.

[*] Or any other setting that conforms to the Traveller paradigm.

[**] Or any other set of rules suitable for emulating the Traveller paradigm.​

What, IMO, do all Traveller campaigns have in common, then? Do they all use the same rules? No, even if you stick to the rules sets that are labeled 'Traveller', we're talking about eight or ten different sets. And you can play Traveller using a lot of other rules sets. Do they all use the same setting? No, a lot of Traveller campaigns are set in non-OTU settings. Do they all conform to the same paradigm? IMO: Yes!

The rules are the only concrete thing there. The rest depends on your point of view (as these threads are testament to).

The rules depend on your point of view too. Even if you stick to the ones with a 'Traveller' label on them, you're still choosing between eight or ten sets.

Another setting with many of the flavours of the OTU is the Firefly 'Verse.

I could run a game of Firefly using Traveller. I would be playing Traveller. Or I could run it using Serenity, in which case I wouldn't.

That's probably true (with some caveats that are, I hope, obvious from what I wrote above).

I could, in fact, with a little tweak, use Serenity to run Far Avalon (or BRP, etc). Even if the setting does carry many of the OTU flavours, I would not be then running a Traveller game. My players would not recognise it as such.

That depends on how well the Serenity rules reflect the Traveller paradigm. I don't know them, so I can't say one way or the other.

My first thought when seeing the CT reprints was, "This system is perfect for a Trek game". That would be Trek, powered by Traveller.

Exactly. It would be 'powered by Traveller'. It wouldn't be Traveller (Communication far in excess of speed of travel, 'particle of the week' type solutions, 'exalted being of the week' NPCs).


Hans

 

[PathfinderAP]

What is Traveller?

Classic Traveller is the true Traveller, everything else to me can be seen as either an optional rules expansion/system subset or spin off,

TNE Traveller....Spin off
MT Traveller....Spin off
T4 Traveller.... Rules expansion
GURPS Traveller....Spin off
T20 Traveller....Spin off
Mongoose Traveller....Rules expansion

You need your UPP, your stats ranging from 1 to 15,
Your skills ranging from 0 to 5 (anything above 5 is odd, but doable)
You roll everything with D6's

Traveller is Battledress and plasma guns, its Jump drive and fuel scooping,
its Scouts, and Mercs, Air rafts and Vac suits,

Is it setting or is it rules that make it Traveller?
to me its both, I don't want to play GURPS Traveller or T20 Traveller
the rules don't feel right,

The Traveller Setting is an open sand box,
The Traveller System is a tool box,

You pick, You choose, You make it your own

 

[spinwardpirate]

Traveller is Battledress and plasma guns, its Jump drive and fuel scooping,
its Scouts, and Mercs, Air rafts and Vac suits...

What if my campaign takes place entirely on a low tech planet in a backwater subsector, where all the characters are Barbarians? Is it still Traveller?

 

[rancke]

What if my campaign takes place entirely on a low tech planet in a backwater subsector, where all the characters are Barbarians? Is it still Traveller?

I'd say not, although I concede that it's arguable. It's analogous to the example I gave of historical campaigns. By definition, every historical campaign technically speaking takes place in the OTU, but I still don't think they embody enough of the Traveller paradigm to qualify. Your example has at least one more Traveller feature, the fact that the people on your low tech planet came to it in some way. But I think you still need a bit more to make it Traveller.

But that's just an opinion.


Hans

 

[spinwardpirate]

Now add one character. An ex-Scout. Decided to "go native." Would that tip the balance?

 

[rancke]

Now add one character. An ex-Scout. Decided to "go native." Would that tip the balance?

Could be. Probably not. Possibly. Maybe. Depends on what sort of adventures you run. There is a spectrum here. At one end you have the campaigns that definitely are Traveller, because it features most or all the important Traveller tropes. At the other end you have the campaigns that are definitely not Traveller because they directly contradict the Traveller tropes. In between you have a vast group of campaigns that doesn't feature much, if anything, in the way of Traveller tropes but do not, OTOH, contradict any of them either. I prefer not to include them in in the fold, but I really have no strong opinions either way. If your Scout employs the advanced, high-tech knowledge he has in a way that significantly impacts on the story, then I guess it is Traveller. Maybe.



Hans

 

[spinwardpirate]

I suppose it doesn't matter so much, except for when one is getting ready to pitch a campaign to prospective players. If I say, "Hans, I want to run a game of Traveller and I would like you to play." If you get no elements of science fiction, you, and probably all the other players, are going to be disappointed. I suspect that disappointment decreases with the addition of each element identified as being 'Traveller'.

It just so happens I'm planning to do something similar to this. The players are going to be stranded with very little tech. They'll find more as the game progresses. I'll let you know how they react.

 

[PathfinderAP]

What if my campaign takes place entirely on a low tech planet in a backwater subsector, where all the characters are Barbarians? Is it still Traveller?

Its still Traveller, its all part of the setting, low tech levels are covered