What is Traveller?

[flykiller]

... that will unshackle Traveller and make it generic.

you mean GURPS Traveller didn't? neither T20?

like I said, traveller isn't the rules - 'cept, as pointed out earlier, things like jump and no ftl. not sure I'd call those rules though, more like setting.

traveller is huge, and difficult to run. beginning a game requires that both referee and players invest many days absorbing a very large quantity of information before the first dice are rolled, and as soon as the game begins the need for house rules becomes apparent. an official setting greatly simplifies both tasks, and rules based on the setting make the game more accessible and the inevitable house rules more coherent, and reinforce the setting. "generic" rules simply push off more work onto the referee, and leave him with no guidance except personal experience. the work load can become heavy.

do fans look for a ruleset, or a setting? I mean, I don't know, but I assume MongooseMatt does since he makes a living at it.

 

[rust]

do fans look for a ruleset, or a setting?

This one fan here is definitely looking for a rules set, and he knows quite a
few others who do so, too.

However, the nicest part of Mongoose Traveller is in my view that it deli-
vers both, a rules set that can be used for many kinds of other science
fiction settings as well as the Third Imperium setting - a win-win.

 

[tbeard1999]

I don't think you can reasonably imply that MGT -- as currently written -- is a truly generic system

Ah ha! _Your_ copy might not look generic, but our super-secret-designer's copy does.

You can go a long way on just the core book, I'll maintain, but it will be other settings released by us (and others, perhaps!) that will unshackle Traveller and make it generic.

Well, I should note that I don't particularly hold truly generic rules in any particularly high esteem. I've generally found that games that try to do everything often do nothing particularly well. Of course, your super-secret-designer's copy may change my mind...

So there's nothing derogatory intended in my comment. My point is that both MGT and Classic Traveller have substantial underlying technological assumptions that define them and give them a certain flavor and this makes them not truly generic, though they both may be setting-free. And yes, you can certainly rewire either set into a profoundly different work. But the rewiring will require a lot of effort and the result will not really look like the original work.

Example -- you can design a campaign with MGT Core Rules (or Classic Traveller) that looks very different from the OTU, yet uses most or all of the default assumptions in those rules. My own Commonwealth Campaign is an example. It uses 99% of the technical assumptions of Classic Traveller (or MGT if I used MGT), but it's clearly not the OTU. But I'd submit that it *is* "Traveller" and I think most old school Traveller players would agree.

You could also write a Star Wars supplement for MGT or Classic Traveller. This would require a significant amount of work. A new weapons system. New rules for The Force. New starship design and combat rules. Many more aliens. Etc. While it might use the same game mechanics, I don't think that this would really be "Traveller" as that term has been used for decades. At best, it might be Star Wars Traveller. But really, it's just Star Wars.

By contrast, GURPS or Basic Roleplaying or the latest HERO system are truly generic. They are setting-free and have no significant underlying assumptions in the rules. And as I result, I find them FAR less useful than Classic Traveller or MGT.

I would, however, caution you about the kitchen-sink approach. You might take a look at how Space Opera turned out. Obviously there are significant differences between MGT and Space Opera, but Space Opera really did try to have *everything* in the basic rules.

 

[tbeard1999]

I should add that I think that it might behoove Mongoose to really try to define what "Traveller" is to them. At the very least, it would be an effective rebuttal for criticisms that MGT isn't really "Traveller".

However, for a definition to have any meaning, it needs to, well, define something. It needs to be able to tell us if a game is *not* Traveller IMHO.

So I'd avoid a definition that would include almost any kind of game.

A suggestion, just to start the ball rolling:

"To Mongoose, 'Traveller' means a science fiction roleplaying engine that is a lineal descendant of the original Traveller roleplaying game published in 1977. Like its ancestor, Traveller is a setting-free system in its core version. However, it contains a number of technological assumptions, most of which would qualify as 'hard science fiction'. <In a long blurb, list some of the defining assumptions like Jump Drives, widespread fusion power, gravitics, communication being limited to the speed of travel, scientifically plausible weapons, etc.>

It can include the Original Traveller Universe (OTU). But it can also include other campaigns that use similar assumptions as the OTU but look very different.

In addition, the Core Rules contain flexible and versatile mechanics that can model any science fiction universe. Of course, some universes require more work than others. Hard sci-fi universes like Hammer's Slammers or Falkenburg's Legion require very few changes because they are already very close to Traveller. These other universes are not Traveller, per se, but they are settings powered by the Mongoose Traveller system. And within limits, they are compatible with Traveller."

YMMV, of course.

 

[tbeard1999]

do fans look for a ruleset, or a setting? I mean, I don't know, but I assume MongooseMatt does since he makes a living at it.

*This* fan looks for rules first. Although, in the case of a Traveller branded product I look for similar underlying assumptions to those that have undergirded Traveller for decades.

And I gotta say that as I complete my project of identifying the non-OTU stuff in MGT, that the non-OTU stuff is a very small percentage. I doubt that, overall, MGT is any less "Traveller" than TNE and T4 were. And in some respects MGT strikes a better balance than (IMHO) some of the previous Traveller components. There seems to be no equivalent of the character generation system in LBB4 which churned out characters with an average of twice the number of skills as LBB1 (IIRC), for instance. Mongoose High Guard seems far more compatible with the MGT Core Rules starship design system than LBB5 was with LBB1. And while I don't care for the MGT combat system, it is not as bad as the TNE combat system and looks roughly as useable as MegaTraveller's system.

And once the non-OTU stuff is identified, there won't really be any reason to avoid MGT merely because "it ain't [entirely] Traveller."

 

[flykiller]

*This* fan looks for rules first.

This one fan here is definitely looking for a rules set, and he knows quite a
few others who do so, too.

hm. I always liked the lbb/imperial setting. didn't care much about the rules - if I didn't like a rule I changed it. came up with whole systems, thought some of them were quite good as far as they went.

if traveller is "the rules", and the rules accomodate "traveller" and "star trek" and "star wars" and "transhuman-whatever-it-is", then what exactly is meant by "traveller"?

 

[Whipsnade]

if traveller is "the rules", and the rules accomodate "traveller" and "star trek" and "star wars" and "transhuman-whatever-it-is", then what exactly is meant by "traveller"?

Fly,

That's a tough one...

I'd say Traveller is a set of technological and sociological assumptions underlying the rules. The rules - depending on how much they've been changed - then produce a huge - but finite - group of settings which contain those technological and sociological assumptions.

It's a hard concept to describe in a forum post, I know. A very rough analogy can be found in music. Symphonies have a certain "theme" within them, a piece of music that is instantly identifiable no matter how it has been shifted in tone or scale. The theme is introduced early in the piece and maintained throughout it. Beethoven's 5th contains a famous four note refrain used by the WW2 Allies in radio broadcasts to represent "V" for victory in Morse code. That 4 note piece, and the slightly longer bit which follows, is introduced immediately in the symphony and then echoed throughout it.

As long as those four notes are recognized, you're listening to variations on Beethoven's Fifth. Once those notes are changed out of recognition, you're listening to something else.

Traveller's 'four notes" include jump drive, gravitics, no FTL comms outside of shipping, cheap fusion, limited personal energy weapons, no or very little transhumanism, and the other examples already posted. AS long as you can find those "notes" in a setting, you're playing Traveller. Once enough of those notes are changed beyond recognition, you're no longer playing Traveller.

That means Ty's Commonwealth setting is Traveller despite the lack of gravitics and my Pulp/Chaco War setting wasn't Traveller despite using Traveller's rules.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Allensh]

Traveller is a trademark of Far Future Enterprises for a science-fiction roleplaying game currently produced under license by Mongoose Publishing.

Allen

 

[rancke]

Traveller is a trademark of Far Future Enterprises for a science-fiction roleplaying game currently produced under license by Mongoose Publishing.

Tell me, if Marc Miller sanctions a game with the Traveller label on it which turns out to be a fantasy game with devious Zhohani wizards, savage Vargr werewolves, militant K'Kree centaurs, vily Hiver plantmen, barbarian Solomani sun-worshippers, and Aslan cat-people, would you blame Traveller grognards for saying that it "wasn't really Traveller"? Would you think "We're reimagining the game and if you don't like it, you can lump it" was an acceptable response?

If you would, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. But if you agree that something like that would be wrong, the next question becomes, where is the line? Back when GDW published Traveller 2300, "irate fanboys" protested so much that GDW changed the name to 2300 AD. Were the fans wrong to be upset? Were GDW wrong to change the name? Should they have told the fans to buzz off?

I say that fantasy game ought to be labeled "Traveller Fantasy" or "Wanderer", and that calling it just "Traveller" is wrong. Not legally wrong, but still wrong. (I've been trying to come up with a good adjective for what kind of wrong, and failing. I don't like "morally wrong". But whatever sort of wrong it is, it is wrong. Of some sort. Ehm... so to speak )


Hans

 

[Allensh]

Tell me, if Marc Miller sanctions a game with the Traveller label on it which turns out to be a fantasy game with devious Zhohani wizards, savage Vargr werewolves, militant K'Kree centaurs, vily Hiver plantmen, barbarian Solomani sun-worshippers, and Aslan cat-people, would you blame Traveller grognards for saying that it "wasn't really Traveller"? Would you think "We're reimagining the game and if you don't like it, you can lump it" was an acceptable response?

If you would, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. But if you agree that something like that would be wrong, the next question becomes, where is the line? Back when GDW published Traveller 2300, "irate fanboys" protested so much that GDW changed the name to 2300 AD. Were the fans wrong to be upset? Were GDW wrong to change the name? Should they have told the fans to buzz off?

I say that fantasy game ought to be labeled "Traveller Fantasy" or "Wanderer", and that calling it just "Traveller" is wrong. Not legally wrong, but still wrong. (I've been trying to come up with a good adjective for what kind of wrong, and failing. I don't like "morally wrong". But whatever sort of wrong it is, it is wrong. Of some sort. Ehm... so to speak )


Hans

The question was asked "What is Traveller". My answer was one of the correct answers to that question.

Allen

 

[tbeard1999]

Fly,

That's a tough one...

I'd say Traveller is a set of technological and sociological assumptions underlying the rules. The rules - depending on how much they've been changed - then produce a huge - but finite - group of settings which contain those technological and sociological assumptions.

It's a hard concept to describe in a forum post, I know. A very rough analogy can be found in music. Symphonies have a certain "theme" within them, a piece of music that is instantly identifiable no matter how it has been shifted in tone or scale. The theme is introduced early in the piece and maintained throughout it. Beethoven's 5th contains a famous four note refrain used by the WW2 Allies in radio broadcasts to represent "V" for victory in Morse code. That 4 note piece, and the slightly longer bit which follows, is introduced immediately in the symphony and then echoed throughout it.

As long as those four notes are recognized, you're listening to variations on Beethoven's Fifth. Once those notes are changed out of recognition, you're listening to something else.

Traveller's 'four notes" ...Once enough of those notes are changed beyond recognition, you're no longer playing Traveller.

That means Ty's Commonwealth setting is Traveller despite the lack of gravitics and my Pulp/Chaco War setting wasn't Traveller despite using Traveller's rules.

Well put. Similarly, my Morrow Project game using Classic Traveller and Striker was not Traveller. It was The Morrow Project.

What makes this all frustrating is that "Traveller" -- as that term has been used by its fans for decades -- does not lend itself to simple, objective definitions. We are very much like Justice Potter Stewart, who famously said that while he couldn't define hardcore ⌧ography, he knew it when he saw it. Hence my lack of enthusiasm for an imposed definition (which Colin apparently didn't really intend for me to interpret that way).

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't *try* to define what Traveller is. But we should acknowledge that we will likely be unable to come up with a perfect definition. That said, I think that among old school Traveller fans, there is a surprising degree of agreement as to whether something is "Traveller".

Even if we struggle with the definition.

 

[hunter]

No.

Yes

Drop the attacks on Colin and your perceived "moderator fiat".

Nothing has been "imposed". Colin opened a thread for discussion on "what is Traveller", nor has their been any threat of retaliation if you disagree. Obviously, since you've been doing it in this thread.

 

[atpollard]

Tell me, if Marc Miller sanctions a game with the Traveller label on it which turns out to be a fantasy game with devious Zhohani wizards, savage Vargr werewolves, militant K'Kree centaurs, vily Hiver plantmen, barbarian Solomani sun-worshippers, and Aslan cat-people, would you blame Traveller grognards for saying that it "wasn't really Traveller"?

I probably would.
Let's face it, it's fun to blame grognards and fanboys for stuff.

I suspect that all of the hot air generated by arguing over Traveller versions has had a measurable impact on Global Warming. So for the sake of our Earth Mother, can't we all just get along?

 

[hunter]

For the record, I'm on the side of Traveller is the rules not the setting. To me, the OTU is the default setting for Traveller, but it is not the only possible setting. When the original game first came out, there wasn't an OTU.

To me there are certain tropes that must be maintained in the rules for it to be considered Traveller, and most of that has more to do with character creation and development, than anything else.

 

[tbeard1999]

Yes

Drop the attacks on Colin and your perceived "moderator fiat".

Nothing has been "imposed". Colin opened a thread for discussion on "what is Traveller", nor has their been any threat of retaliation if you disagree. Obviously, since you've been doing it in this thread.

No "attacks" have been made against Colin. If you read them as such, I am sorry that they gave you that impression.

The post that you replied to was a response to others who supported his proposed (?) definition and who strongly insinuated that I was being unreasonable. And I'll note that Colin ended his original post with this sentence:

You may not like it, but there it is, and that's the way it is.

Maybe he meant it as a joke, or maybe he meant it some way that escapes me, but I think it was reasonable of me to assume he was mandating a particular definition of the term "Traveller".

If I was wrong about that, my apologies.

 

[tbeard1999]

For the record, I'm on the side of Traveller is the rules not the setting. To me, the OTU is the default setting for Traveller, but it is not the only possible setting.. When the original game first came out, there wasn't an OTU.

That's how I've always seen it. In 30 years of playing Traveller, I have seldom used the OTU.

But I have typically used the Traveller rules with relatively few modifications and those rules contain a *lot* of assumptions that define a certain "look and feel" regardless of the setting. My Commonwealth setting is nothing like the Third Imperium. But other than a lack of air/rafts, it plays much like any Traveller game.

I suppose that some issues can arise with Traveller aliens. I've always considered them part of the OTU and not part of the Traveller rules. I wonder if that's a majority opinion among Traveller grognards?

 

[tbeard1999]

I probably would.
Let's face it, it's fun to blame grognards and fanboys for stuff.

I suspect that all of the hot air generated by arguing over Traveller versions has had a measurable impact on Global Warming. So for the sake of our Earth Mother, can't we all just get along?

Uh, you do realize that we are gamers, right?

 

[rust]

It is not only difficult to find a definition for "Traveller", this definition also has
a tendency to change whenever new supplements, adventures or entirely new
versions introduce new elements to Traveller.

In my view, a hyperpowerful ageless being living in a dimensional pocket uni-
verse was "not Traveller" until Grandfather made his strange appearance, a
Third Empire ripped apart by rebellious faction was "not Traveller" until it was
introduced, a life form like Virus and reaction maneuver drives were "not Tra-
veller" until ... you get the point.

The hyperdrives I use for my setting were an option in TNE's "Fire, Fusion &
Steel", but I would have hesitated to call them "Traveller", and even so after
they became an option in Mongoose Traveller, but now with the Babylon 5
setting they are standard in a Traveller setting, so I tend to consider them as
"Traveller" now (although not Third Imperium).

In the end, I think once something starts to grow and change, its definition
also needs to be flexible enough to grow and change with it.

 

[hunter]

No "attacks" have been made against Colin. If you read them as such, I am sorry that they gave you that impression.

Not "attacks" per say, but it's a meme you've carried through quite a few posts here.

The post that you replied to was a response to others who supported his proposed (?) definition and who strongly insinuated that I was being unreasonable.

Might have been, might also have been like me and they were tired of hearing your "moderator fiat" claims. Doesn't really matter though, given that it annoyed me.

And I'll note that Colin ended his original post with this sentence:

You may not like it, but there it is, and that's the way it is.

Maybe he meant it as a joke, or maybe he meant it some way that escapes me, but I think it was reasonable of me to assume he was mandating a particular definition of the term "Traveller".

I can kind of see how you might think that, but I read it as more of a "this is how things are with regard to Mongoose's thinking and it's best to discuss it in that context".

That was one of the reasons I made the comment in the Moderation threat about Colin's moderation being read by all moderators and myself. I'll repeat it here. I doubt Colin will allow his work with Mongoose to affect his judgment when moderating here. Should it happen, and again I very much doubt it, it would be seen and dealt with.

If I was wrong about that, my apologies.

Accepted. Just avoid that kind of stuff.

As a side note, I do find it amusing that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't when it comes to moderating. Just a few days ago it was implied that I and CotI are biased against Mongoose, and now it's implied that we might be too biased towards Mongoose!

BTW, tBeard, that last statement was based on your comments, but I'm ribbing you more than anything.

 

[Zob10701]

After reading through this thread, I find it amusing that I think the answer is right there in Hunter's signature...

"It's your game folks, play it however YOU want to play it!"