What is Traveller?
- Thread starter Colin
- Start date
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Is it Traveller? IMO:
What books do you use for creating ships, setting, characters, equipment, and so on?
What books do you use as reference when you need to look up damage, skill definitions, combat details, trade, and so on?
If you use nothing at all but Traveller sources, then yes, you are playing Traveller.
If you are using sources from other games or house rules then you are running a Traveller Hybrid. What is your largest source? If it is Traveller, then you are playing a Traveller Hybrid. In abbreviated lingo, I can see someone still referring to the game as Traveller because saying 'It's 63% Traveller, 12% Star Trek, 9% Mechwarrior, 6% Firefly, some Alien, Star Wars and house rules.' doesn't roll off the tongue too easily.
What books do you use for creating ships, setting, characters, equipment, and so on?
What books do you use as reference when you need to look up damage, skill definitions, combat details, trade, and so on?
If you use nothing at all but Traveller sources, then yes, you are playing Traveller.
If you are using sources from other games or house rules then you are running a Traveller Hybrid. What is your largest source? If it is Traveller, then you are playing a Traveller Hybrid. In abbreviated lingo, I can see someone still referring to the game as Traveller because saying 'It's 63% Traveller, 12% Star Trek, 9% Mechwarrior, 6% Firefly, some Alien, Star Wars and house rules.' doesn't roll off the tongue too easily.
I've played Traveller games with non-Traveller rules.
All of which you can have without any of the various Traveller rules.
How can a definition of Traveller that excludes something that is clearly labeled 'Traveller' possibly be correct?
Except Traveller:2300, that is. GDW tacitly admitted that it wasn't Traveller when they reissued it under another name. :devil:
Hans
That depends on what you mean by 'splitting hairs'.I think we're in the realm of splitting hairs now.
Hans
PathfinderAP
SOC-12
Yes, I'm sure, to me that would include, GURPS Traveller, and T20 but to name two
You could put Battledress and plasma guns in any game, your point being?
Reread what I wrote, its my opinion.
High lighted for your ease
PathfinderAP
SOC-12
Traveller covers a vast area of play within the setting,
you can easly play in a low tech setting "by the book",
Covered with characters like the Barbarians etc,
But where do you draw the line in saying what is allowed?
If I see an article in Challenge, or an old copy of White dwarf?
what if I email one of the many games writers an idea and he said it was a fine rule for the game would that count?
The fact is, almost everyone adds house rules of some sort, even if its just to fix a typo in the game it changes what the rules that are as written,
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
In the realms of splitting hairs...
Just curious. What is Classic Traveller (for you)?
LBB1-3? Plus LBB4-8? Plus... ?
To me, everything post LBB1-3 is in the realm of your "optional, expansion, spin off..." subsets. Some of it is incompatible with LBB1-3. I call everything post LBB1-3 CT+ myself for that reason.
In that case I can agree with your take on MT and T4 being not CT, as they were largely collections of what I label CT+, but it's all still Traveller.
TNE was a different beast, still Traveller though.
GURPS was again a different beast, not my cuppa, but still Traveller.
T20 is also another beast, but very close to CT+, definitely Traveller.
Mongoose Traveller, even as different as it is, clearly Traveller.
What makes them all (to varying degrees granted) Traveller to me? Primarily I think it's the Prior History char gen. Not the rules that's done by. Not even the setting it's done in (though a non-sci-fi non-far-future setting stretches it, but not to breaking if done well).
Just curious. What is Classic Traveller (for you)?
LBB1-3? Plus LBB4-8? Plus... ?
To me, everything post LBB1-3 is in the realm of your "optional, expansion, spin off..." subsets. Some of it is incompatible with LBB1-3. I call everything post LBB1-3 CT+ myself for that reason.
In that case I can agree with your take on MT and T4 being not CT, as they were largely collections of what I label CT+, but it's all still Traveller.
TNE was a different beast, still Traveller though.
GURPS was again a different beast, not my cuppa, but still Traveller.
T20 is also another beast, but very close to CT+, definitely Traveller.
Mongoose Traveller, even as different as it is, clearly Traveller.
What makes them all (to varying degrees granted) Traveller to me? Primarily I think it's the Prior History char gen. Not the rules that's done by. Not even the setting it's done in (though a non-sci-fi non-far-future setting stretches it, but not to breaking if done well).
PathfinderAP
SOC-12
Yes all 8 of the LBB's, + supplements,
That being said, I never use any of the aliens books, I started on Basic Traveller (which never had any aliens) and played so long before I saw the aliens books that it would have felt wrong to just drop them in, we got so use to the game without them that Traveller for us was alien free,
I'm not saying you can't play Traveller with less than the full lot of LBB's and supplements, not at all, but they add to the game
Last edited:
For me, CT is TTB, LBB4-6, Sups 1-11 AM 1-7, Adv 3,5, & RSG, Striker, & TTA, plus JG sectors x4. (I never used veterans, and 12 was forms and charts, most of which I never used. Everything else in my CT collection I got after college, and it isn't played.)
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Maybe Marc defined CT when he made a CD of it?
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
To me Traveller is LBB 1-3 and Supplements 1-2, as these are generic or original Traveller, what others have called proto Traveller.
Classic Traveller is everything else pre MT because this is where we start to see the OTU come into play.
Just MHO.
Regards,
Ewan
Classic Traveller is everything else pre MT because this is where we start to see the OTU come into play.
Just MHO.
Regards,
Ewan
I disagree that GT and T20 aren't Traveller, but that's not important to the point I was making: That whatever it is that makes one campaign Traveller and another campaign non-Traveller has very little to do with what rules you are using. You can run Traveller games with non-Traveller rules and you can run non-Traveller games with Traveller rules.
That whatever Travellerness Battledresses and plasma guns add to a game is a setting issue, not a rules issue.
Opinions can be wrong. Flat Earthers are of the opinion that the Earth is flat. I'll reprase my question: How can an opinion of what 'Traveller' is that excludes something that is clearly labeled 'Traveller' possibly be correct?
Hans
Because no one can grade opinions.
You can't? That's going to be news to a lot of people. So the opinion of someone who believes the Earth is flat is just as valid as the opinion of someone who believes it is round(ish)?
In my opinion you're wrong.
Hans
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
If the opinion is that the label is incorrect. (That's not my opinion, just a logic solution).
An opinion is a personally held conviction. It does not require facts or reality to support it. Your opinion can be all sorts of different than mine but you'll never affect my opinion. You can prove the reality of your opinion (depending on topic) but you really can't ever say my opinion is wrong. It's mine.
It's like grading poetry or art.
It's like grading poetry or art.
beowulf2044
SOC-12
On the other side, there are those things that are packaged and sold as 'Traveller'. There was a time I was fairly certain I could have had my dog 'Approved for use with Traveller'.
I've just backed down from my position on this particular opinion, so I don't see much to be gained from beating that horse, but in a general sense you're dead wrong. According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, an opinion (of the kind we are expressing here) is a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter; or a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge; or a generally held view. That doesn't mean an opinion can't be based on facts. In fact, one of the definitions of 'wrong' in that same dictionary is "having an opinion that does not agree with truth or the facts".
Any opinion (or, if you like, personally held conviction) that isn't based to some degree on facts or reality of some kind is worthless. And the opinion that all opinions are equally valid is a pernicious fallacy.
Hans
While I may agree with you in substance, the reality of opinions and whether or not they are worthless is in the eye of the beholder.
Similar threads
