What is Traveller?

[Ishmael]

Every RPG game I have ever seen has a rule that says the rules are guidelines only. The ref can choose to ignore them completely if he likes.
Adherence to an official setting is the same.

As certain assumptions about how the Traveller universe works are embedded in the rules as written, any game that uses the rules without mangling them too much will be also use those same base assumptions about the universe and thus the game will be Traveller.

 

[Murdoc]

What about players who use house rules to change rules they don't like in an RPG. Are they still playing the game?

I think that I have to disagree with some on this one. I would say yes to this question, and for reasons I stated many pages back. To reiterate (and maybe clarify):

Is "Traveller" the rules? No, because we see many very different rules systems (including Classic, GURPS, and T20) that are still considered "Traveller" because of some other quality that they all share in common.

Is "Traveller" then the OTU setting? No, because in any of these rules systems you can use non-OTU settings. Hiver-dominated space. Vulcan traders. Whatever.

What then makes "Traveller" different? If the OTU setting and rules are all there is, then Traverller would be a truly generic game. However, I think that many will agree that it is not, for many reasons. If this is the case, then there must be some third quality that defines what makes a game Traveller regardless of the rules used, or the setting used.

This is what I (and some others) were calling the "assumptions" or "essence" of the game: Jump drive and all that. These are in the "text" that some have mentioned as being separate from the rules. Well, I agree that they are separate, and would argue that this "text" is not less important, it is more important. Personally I like how in GURPS Traveller the first thing they have to do is point out all the differences between Traveller SF and other SF games/stories that player might run into. Jump drives only, laser guns exist, but not such-and-such other SF guns, anti-grav occurs at an earlier tech level and is related with artificial gravity, etc. These things you can have in many different, non-OTU settings, but are what remain the only truly consistant thing between all versions of Traveller. If you take those away, then Traveller just becomes a series of often unrelated generic rules systems that come preferencially bundled with this OTU thing that you may or may not use. Like if GURPS came with a Star Trek "default" setting or somesuch.

 

[rust]

Jump drives only, laser guns exist, but not such-and-such other SF guns, anti-grav occurs at an earlier tech level and is related with artificial gravity, etc. These things you can have in many different, non-OTU settings, but are what remain the only truly consistant thing between all versions of Traveller.

In which case Babylon 5, Hammer's Slammers and Judge Dredd would definite-
ly not be Traveller, which would bring this definition into a contradiction with
Mongoose's entire Traveller program, and would turn it into a not exactly very
useful definition, I think.

 

[aramis]

A lot of people have been complaining about their definitions of both RuneQuest and Traveller for some time.

Since Matthew tried to explain it before the playtest, in fact, for Traveller.

One interesting thing about fandom... when you try to contradict the fannon view, you often come out the villain.

 

[rancke]

One interesting thing about fandom... when you try to contradict the fannon view, you often come out the villain.

I could be misremembering, but didn't I see the Mongoose redefinition of Traveller defended on the basis that those who objected were in the minority among the fans? In other words, that those who didn't approve were in the wrong because the majority did approve?


Hans

 

[aramis]

The problem, Hans, is that the defense was used pretty much only on Mongoose's boards, and several threads strongly laden against it simply disappeared. Creative editing, if you will, making any open support of it on the mongoose boards irrelevant, since silencing of dissent was normative.

Not just locking the threads, but deleting the threads.

 

[rust]

I do not remember whether the majority / minority question played an impor-
tant role in past discussions, but I could well imagine that it could play an in-
teresting role in the future.

Just imagine what a debate about the definition of Traveller would look like in
the case that more Traveller players would play the Judge Dredd version of
Mongoose Traveller than the Third Imperium version - which I consider as un-
likely, but not as impossible.

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

Perhaps I will get my question answered the second time around.

Unless it's too uncomfortable?

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was written with the assumption, and a merely tacit one in this case mind you, that Big Blue Sentient Cheeses whose asses are lit on fire are unavailable as character classes.

Is that assumption actually reflected in the rules, though?

 

[Whipsnade]

Is it? If I have a group of players who are playing with all the rules as written, but are ignoring things that just appear in the text rather in a game mechanics form, are they not still playing the game?

Jason,

They aren't playing the game because they're ignoring the theme.

Traveller's has a theme and that theme existed before both the descriptive text and the rules. The descriptive text explains the theme and the rules are only mechanisms that match the theme. When my Pulp - Chaco War players used Traveller chargen, Traveller combat, Traveller weapons, Traveller equipment, and Traveller psionics they weren't playing Traveller because the Traveller theme is missing.

Using my musical analogy again, the rules are merely notes. The theme explains how those notes are used and how they're used in relationship with each other. Every symphony uses the first four note of Beethoven's Fifth, but only Beethoven's Fifth uses them in that specific manner.

I can use the "notes" of GURPS:Magic to play different "themes" like Technomancer, Banestorm, or Dungeon Crawl. How the notes are used is just as important as the notes themselves.


Regards,
Bill

 

[atpollard]

Perhaps I will get my question answered the second time around.

Unless it's too uncomfortable?

The 1st edition AD&D rules listed a specific number of classes and races which could be played with each class also having additional restrictions (such as Paladin Alignments). Thus any race/class not explicitly detailed in the rules could not be used under the 'official rules'. But as always, you are free to create your own house rules for your game.

Therefore, "Big Blue Sentient Cheeses whose asses are lit on fire" are not permitted in Tournament Play, but you are free to play "Big Blue Sentient Cheeses whose asses are lit on fire" in your home game.

So, why the heck is this question relevant or important? Your post implies an 'urgency' in getting it answered.

 

[travlar]

It may not be considered a rule if it has no affect on any other game mechanic or aspect of play. If it's just a statement that stands by itself without any relevence to the rest of the game then I might not consider it a rule.

It has a lot of relevance to the rest of the game. A universe with FTJ communication would be drastically from one without it. Even if it wouldn't have any effect on any of the rules, it would still change the game a lot. Even if none of the rules are changed by it's inclusion, that doesn't mean it's still Traveller unless you say it's only the rules that make it Traveller. And even then, it remains a rule, because it is one. The rule is "no FTJ communication." Looks like a rule to me.

 

[rancke]

The problem, Hans, is that the defense was used pretty much only on Mongoose's boards, and several threads strongly laden against it simply disappeared. Creative editing, if you will, making any open support of it on the mongoose boards irrelevant, since silencing of dissent was normative.

Not just locking the threads, but deleting the threads.

I wasn't trying to revisit the truth or falsity of that argument. It just struck me that such an argument, in itself, implies that it is the fans who decide, not Mongoose and not even Marc Miller. :devil:


Hans

 

[rust]

I wasn't trying to revisit the truth or falsity of that argument. It just struck me that such an argument, in itself, implies that it is the fans who decide, not Mongoose and not even Marc Miller. :devil:

Perhaps we should organize an election to a Traveller Fandom Global Supreme
Council, which then authorizes a Select Traveller Definition Committee to de-
velop a draft for a final definition of Traveller, to be accepted or refused by a
Global Traveller Definition Referendum ... :rofl:

 

[rancke]

Perhaps we should organize an election to a Traveller Fandom Global Supreme Council, which then authorizes a Select Traveller Definition Committee to de-velop a draft for a final definition of Traveller, to be accepted or refused by a Global Traveller Definition Referendum ... :rofl:

Nah, what's the point? Most of the fans apparently don't know what True Traveller is. There aren't many of us left who do, it seems.


Hans


(It pains me to have to imply that some people are incapable of recognizing a joke when they see it, but experience tells me I need to add a ).

 

[Jason]

Perhaps I will get my question answered the second time around.

Unless it's too uncomfortable?

I didn't think you were serious.

I would assume that Big Blue Sentient Cheeses would be a racial choice, not a class.

 

[rust]

Nah, what's the point? Most of the fans apparently don't know what True Traveller is. There aren't many of us left who do, it seems.

Yep, I have heard the IUCN will move our status from VN (Vulnerable) all the
way up to CR (Critically Endangered - Extremely high risk of extinction in the
wild) on the next Red List of Threatened Species.

(Just in case: )

 

[Jason]

Jason,
Traveller's has a theme and that theme existed before both the descriptive text and the rules.

You're distinguishing between text and rules again. Can I take this as a tacit agreement with me that the text is not in fact the rules?

 

[Jason]

It has a lot of relevance to the rest of the game. A universe with FTJ communication would be drastically from one without it. Even if it wouldn't have any effect on any of the rules, it would still change the game a lot. Even if none of the rules are changed by it's inclusion, that doesn't mean it's still Traveller unless you say it's only the rules that make it Traveller. And even then, it remains a rule, because it is one. The rule is "no FTJ communication." Looks like a rule to me.

Like I said earlier, it's a given that the OTU would not be the same with FTJ communication. But are the rules (of whatever version of Traveller) really written such that if there were FTJ communication they would be totally different, or is "no FTJ communication" an aspect of the OTU and not really the Traveller rules per se?

You're quite right that Traveller isn't just the rules, but I think no-FTJ communication is not really written into the rules such that including it would drastically change the rules.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Like I said earlier, it's a given that the OTU would not be the same with FTJ communication. But are the rules (of whatever version of Traveller) really written such that if there were FTJ communication they would be [totally] different, or is "no FTJ communication" an aspect of the OTU and not really the Traveller rules per se?

You're quite right that Traveller isn't just the rules, but I think no-FTJ communication is not really written into the rules such that including it would drastically change the rules.

No, not totally.

Your statement above has an or as if one or the other statements should be true but I believe the answer is No to both parts.

Since this is taking place in the Mongoose thread, I've noticed little mention of the speed of communication in the Core Rulebook and IYTU or InSomonesMongooseTravellerRulesBasedUniverse there could possibly be FTL communication.

 

[Jason]

No, not totally.

Your statement above has an or as if one or the other statements should be true but I believe the answer is No to both parts.

The original claim was that no-FTJ communications are fundamental to Traveller. "Fundamental" would indicate to me that any change in that assumption would create drastic changes in the rules (perhaps even making it "totally different"). I just don't see it in the rules. The OTU yes, the rules no.