- Status
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Except for HardTimes/TNE I wasn't "around" when the OTU was created. I started Traveller when MT was out in the US (Germany only had a fourth rate translation of Clunky back then) and I LOVE the OTU! With all the little bugs it has it is still one of the best detailed, richest SciFi GAME universes I know. There are richer universes (CoDo/Future History, KnownSpace) that are "somewhat playabel"(1) and others with more EyeCandy (StarWars)(2) but none with the width of material and scenarios ready-made as Traveller. So yes, I only play OTU - because I LIKE the OTU! Yet to see something as good(3) in an RPG
(1) Missing quite a few "non relevant for novels" stuff, need a lot of work, either "high character turnover"(CoDo) or "all secrets known" (KS)
(2)Let's just say I root for the guys in white and HATE Jedies! I told Palpy to "nuke the place from orbit" when it came to the academy. But did he listen? No! Sending one of those force freaks. Bah
(3) As in "lots of mostly compatible material, lots of work done, lots of detail, lots of potential scenarios"
BardicHeart
SOC-12
Tends to happen on most sites unless the admin consistently crack down on it. Part of it, in my opinion, is a question of passion. Those canonhawks and similar personalities tend to be very passionate about whatever they're going on about. They'll harp on the same topic across multiple threads, so even if you walk away from one discussion and start another elsewhere, they pop up again with the same rhetoric. Even when you confront them with the "Hey, that's great and you can play it that way in your games, but for my games... I DON'T CARE about that stuff" they continue on anyway. Eventually, most of the rest of us give up and just leave the boards because we aren't passionate about this stuff. For most of us, its just a game, and games are supposed to be about having fun, not arguing innane rules or trying to read the mind of the game's authors. So the canonhawks win because they're simply more persistent. The only time they don't win is when you have an active admin staff that watches discussions, and hand out warnings to those who begin derailing or dominating discussions with their rhetoric. Unfortunately, that takes a lot of time and most boards don't have admins that have that much free time and energy.
In the last few weeks I become active here, and very quickly found myself asking the admin if there was an ignore feature here. I know exactly what you are saying.
BardicHeart
SOC-12
For me personally its a mix of reasons.
Some of it is nostalgia. Traveller is one of those games I never got to really play much back in the day, so in some ways I'm making up for that now.
Some of it is familiarity... I know more about the older games than I do the new stuff. There are so many new games on the market these days, most of which are small press, its hard to keep up. I'm past the point of being enthusiastic about "every new game" that comes out. I think there is also some of the feeling that "new games aren't necessarily better than the old games, they just cost more." So I tend to be slow to invest in yet another new game.
Its easier to dust off games you already have, and some of us have a LOT of stuff already. I very nearly started a new Star Frontiers campaign... I haven't played that game in nearly two decades, which made reading over it almost like reading something new but with that feeling of half remembered familiarity.
Cost is a big issue... I literally have a large section in my personal library of just gaming books. When I say large, try to picture a large book shelf, felt lined, each shelf 6 feet long and 8 shelves high, PACKED with various games and over flowing onto two shelves of an identical bookcase next to it. That's not including all the stuff I now have on PDF on my computer and backed up to CDs. Its hard to justify buying yet another new game.
There's all the stuff I still haven't done with older games. Character types I haven't tried yet, campaigns I haven't played in or run. Stories yet to be told. Again, its hard to justify spending on new games when you have so much left yet to do with existing games.
I find most of the gaming products I tend to buy these days aren't new game systems, but either generic supplements or things I can use as a generic supplement for other games. That was exactly how I "migrated" to Traveller. I bought the Robots LBB as an "idea source" for another game I was already playing. That was followed by Hard Times and Pocket Empires. Liking what I saw, I next grabbed some books on starship design, again as source material. Not long after that the GM I was gaming with decided to migrate our Fading Suns campaign to the MegaTraveller rules, which worked pretty well because we had all become frustrated with the flaws in the VPS system (you can only fix so much before you decide its no longer worth the effort). Ironically, MegaTraveller seemed to do a better job with the Fading Suns setting that the VPS rules and the campaign was a lot of fun until I moved. I'd enjoy another FS campaign using Traveller or a Traveller campaign (still undecided), and I'm also looking over the various rules sets for Traveller and trying to decide which one I personally like best (still deciding on that as well). If it weren't for that "accidental" migration I doubt I'd be buying stuff for Traveller now.
Well, personally, I think that most of the problems people have with the 'canonhawks' is actually largely a matter of perspective. Said canonhawks will always look at the OTU first, and unless the discussion is specifically not OTU, they will keep on with that, whereas others will basically assume it's only OTU if specified. From what I remember, most of the times I've seen people having trouble 'overbearing canonhawks' came from this issue. Someone would not care at all about the OTU, and would object to what they perceived as, well, overbearing canonhawking. The thing is, while they see little value in the OTU, the canonhawks are the opposite, and unless a discussion is specifically IMTU, or someone asking for help in his game, or something like that, will discuss from the point of view of the OTU.
The result is, unfortunately, bad blood. Part of the difficulty comes, I think, from the fact that it is extremely difficult to have a reasonable discussion when there is no agreement on the basis of the argument.
The result is, unfortunately, bad blood. Part of the difficulty comes, I think, from the fact that it is extremely difficult to have a reasonable discussion when there is no agreement on the basis of the argument.
Part of the difficulty here is that it doesn't necessarily matter that you don't care about the OTU. If you started the topic, you can specify that you don't care about the OTU for this, but if not, whether you care or not doesn't necessarily matter all that much. And the canonistas around here will always assume OTU unless otherwise specified, partly because it does make a good framework to discuss thing from. When using the OTU, you have a common place to work from.
Okay, first of all, the guy whose posts you don't read? I think he's probably the most reasonable and calm person on this site, and I really don't understand why you have a problem with him. But I guess that's none of my business, so whatever. You might want to give him another chance, though.
And, really, I think you should consider that possibility that your previous experiences have colored you view of 'canonhawks'. Because, really, I don't think that there is anywhere near as much of this holier-than-thou attitude and narrow-mindedness that you seem to be seeing. Admittedly, I'm more of a 'canonhawk' than not, so I'm sure I wouldn't see it the same way as you, but even so, I think you're overreacting.
Also, while there may be some narrow-mindedness and intolerance from the 'canonhawk' side, that isn't the only place it shows up. You, for instance, appear to be intolerant of anything even remotely resembling 'canonhawking', and seem to be unable to consider that there may actually be a use for canon, and that maybe just because the 'canonhawks' don't always accept IMTU arguments in a non-IMTU specific thread, they aren't necessarily narrow-minded.
And finally, while the 'canonhawks' definitely can come off as abrasive and unfriendly, you could also be more accepting of views that do not conform to your view.
Traveller
SOC-12
I wouldn't have a problem with that person except on an opinion thread about a topic not covered by the OTU canon he tried to imply my thoughts and opinions were invalid because I wasn't abiding by the canon. Unfortunately the thread in question, prior to my entrance to it, was with the first response to the original question a IMTU question because there is no canon answer to the question. It's one thing to disagree with another person's opinion because that happens all the time. It's another to tell me I HAVE to adhere to canon to have a meaningful discussion on an opinion thread. I have zero tolerance for that, and thus his posts go unread.
I don't have an issue with discussions about the canon itself, because as a Star Trek canonhawk I've had more than my fair share of them. But such discussions have their place, and he chose both the wrong place and the wrong person. In doing so, he proved this site's reputation on the Internet is well deserved.
I don't have an issue with discussions about the canon itself, because as a Star Trek canonhawk I've had more than my fair share of them. But such discussions have their place, and he chose both the wrong place and the wrong person. In doing so, he proved this site's reputation on the Internet is well deserved.
Ahh. I remember that vaguely. I still think you may have been overreacting, but I'd have to go back and look, and I'm sure you aren't interested in a discussion over whether or not you overreacted. 
As for the reputation of this place, most of the people who refer to it I tend to find obnoxious, so I don't put much weight on it. On the other hand, I haven't seen any references to it anywhere but here, most likely due to not visiting the 'right' places, so I'm not really sure what it entails. Still, the actions of one person shouldn't prove something like that, IMO.
*edit* Well, they aren't entirely off-topic, but still, good point. Probably doesn't even deserve it's own thread, really. I only said anything because I really think that if people worked at it, they could come to an agreement. Doesn't seem likely, though...
As for the reputation of this place, most of the people who refer to it I tend to find obnoxious, so I don't put much weight on it. On the other hand, I haven't seen any references to it anywhere but here, most likely due to not visiting the 'right' places, so I'm not really sure what it entails. Still, the actions of one person shouldn't prove something like that, IMO.
*edit* Well, they aren't entirely off-topic, but still, good point. Probably doesn't even deserve it's own thread, really. I only said anything because I really think that if people worked at it, they could come to an agreement. Doesn't seem likely, though...
Last edited:
Well, I do care. I was all set to apologize for having overlooked the IMTU nature of a discussion, because I know that I do that on occasion. That was until I tracked down the discussion Traveller was referring to. You can find the beginning of it here:Ahh. I remember that vaguely. I still think you may have been overreacting, but I'd have to go back and look, and I'm sure you aren't interested in a discussion over whether or not you overreacted.
After reviewing the course of the debate, I stand by every word I wrote and I feel that while I was no more polite than the moderators demand, I was a lot more polite than Traveller deserved.
People who disagree with me are welcome to PM me. I promise I'll try to be polite.
Hans
Last edited:
Traveller
SOC-12
@travlar
No, you're right about that. The former owner of this site is the one who truly proved that the reputation about this site was well deserved, and that was in 2003 after he showed that he had no clue how to be professional when dealing with his potential customers.
Yes, I likely overreacted, but then again, little on this site has changed between 2003 and 2011 so I haven't missed much.
But, I've derailed the thread enough the past few days, so if you want to discuss this further, drop me a PM. Just don't drop me too many. The ridiculous 15 PM limit will bite us in the a**.
No, you're right about that. The former owner of this site is the one who truly proved that the reputation about this site was well deserved, and that was in 2003 after he showed that he had no clue how to be professional when dealing with his potential customers.
Yes, I likely overreacted, but then again, little on this site has changed between 2003 and 2011 so I haven't missed much.
But, I've derailed the thread enough the past few days, so if you want to discuss this further, drop me a PM. Just don't drop me too many. The ridiculous 15 PM limit will bite us in the a**.
Canonhawks are very useful when one has a question about canon, however. I feel some people, demand some logical consistancy from the OTU that does not actually exist in the real world. A = B rarely in real life and we just deal with it, say a figurative TL7 German car: you either can have a vw bug or mercedes S class, we know this and there is no question of it. Too much consistancy in the OTU sanititizes it and makes it unbelievable, in real life, more often than not A<>B, so say starship A might be very different than B and that is just the way it is. More time should be put into making it plausible, rather than saying there should be a "retcon", which I find most annoying.
I never advocate a retcon until I've first spent a lot of thought on making it plausible and failed. What I find most annoying are people who insist that an explanation that merely shifts the inconsistency actually explains anything and people who insist that there HAS to be a way to explain it, even if they can't come up with one right away. The fact that sometimes they turn out to be right is besides the point. Sure, it's nice when you come up with an explanation after years and years of discussing the same thing over and over, but the amount of time and thought that goes into coming up with such explanations could usually have been better spent filling out scores of blank spots instead.
Hans
Aramis: Then our experiences are different. I still feel that younger players don't have strong emotional ties to the OTU. But even if I am wrong after all, that doesn't explain why young bloods aren't replacing those oldsters lost to attrition of family and age.
Hans: Plausibility is objective, so recommending a retcon because something fails to fit your idea of plausible, even when it might fit others' standards of plausibility seems a tad elitist. As far as floating out new possible explanations or ideas for filling in the gaps, as long as canon is used less as a medium for growth and more as a limiter on what is possible or allowed, why bother?
Hans: Plausibility is objective, so recommending a retcon because something fails to fit your idea of plausible, even when it might fit others' standards of plausibility seems a tad elitist. As far as floating out new possible explanations or ideas for filling in the gaps, as long as canon is used less as a medium for growth and more as a limiter on what is possible or allowed, why bother?
shadowcat20
SOC-12
Concerning the Reputation of this site?
It is the first one I will go to with a question. I know I will get answers based on the rules as written rather than some persons rewrite of the rules as he thinks they should be. I try to stick to OTU and have no use for some other guys verse where there are wookies and other non LBB items.
Also for us over 40 crowd, with jobs, familys, and other commitments to keep us busy this is our corner game store. Some of us come here to knock about the rules because we can not hang out at the store with the guys.
When someone posts wanting a ruling on something it is more than likely OTU so that is the answer he will get. That is not to say there might be issues about what OTU though (LBB, MT, TNE, MgT, T20).
I tend to be calm but the whole canonhawk thing sort of ticked me off. That is why I am on this site, just for those type of people.
It is the first one I will go to with a question. I know I will get answers based on the rules as written rather than some persons rewrite of the rules as he thinks they should be. I try to stick to OTU and have no use for some other guys verse where there are wookies and other non LBB items.
Also for us over 40 crowd, with jobs, familys, and other commitments to keep us busy this is our corner game store. Some of us come here to knock about the rules because we can not hang out at the store with the guys.
When someone posts wanting a ruling on something it is more than likely OTU so that is the answer he will get. That is not to say there might be issues about what OTU though (LBB, MT, TNE, MgT, T20).
I tend to be calm but the whole canonhawk thing sort of ticked me off. That is why I am on this site, just for those type of people.
Last edited:
I suspect you mean that plausibility is subjective and that others don't always agree with me on whether something is plausible or not and that insisting that my opinion is better than theirs is elitist. But they are doing just the same. They claim that the bit in question is perfectly plausible. Why is their opinion better than mine? I believe that convincing TPTB to change it will improved the quality of our shared setting. Why am I not allowed to try to convince them?
And if someone claims that it's possible to fit four elephants into an air/raft (two in the front and two in the back), is it elitist to insist that they're wrong?
Allowed how? If I manage to convince Marc Miller to retcon Pixie, is the Canon Police going to come and force you to change your Pixie? And just how does the new Pixie constrain you any more than the old one did? With the old one, you had to conform to the old description (assuming you care one fig for staying compatible with canon). With the new one, you have to conform to the new description. It's true that if the new description is more detailed, there will be more details that you have to stick to. But you're free to ignore it if you don't like it. And if you do like it, well, that's one star system you don't have to expend time and creativity in detailing for yourself. And isn't that the whole point of using a shared universe? To get material that you don't have to spend time on working out yourself?
Hans
This site may work well for asking things about the OTU, but if you actually want to ask a question about Traveller as a general ruleset, or about anything that deviates from the OTU (or more precisely, the specific concepts of the OTU that people have here) then IME you are far better off asking on the MGT boards, rpgnet, or the SFRPG boards; one tends to get far more useful answers for such questions there.
Given that Traveller has moved beyond the OTU in Mongoose's hands (whether anybody here likes it or not) and the (at best) apathy and (at worst) hostility that non-OTU ideas get here, I would submit that this is probably why this site is fading from prominence.
Last edited:
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Actually rules that can do more than the OTU are nothing new for Traveller. GDW did that 20 years ago with using T2K V2.2 as the rules engine for TNE.
The rules are one thing, the setting is another. Using T2K did not make the Twilight War, Dark Conspiracy or Cadillacs/Dinosaurs part of the OTU (nor the other way round). Neither does MGTs marketing disband the OTU.
For many gamers an official universe is a necessary part of an RPG. Even THE universal games (GURPS, HERO) did one (Yearth/Superhero) and another one was badly hurt by not having one (Fuzion). And MGT has yet to deliver an alternate with all the depth and detail of the Traveller universe.
The rules are one thing, the setting is another. Using T2K did not make the Twilight War, Dark Conspiracy or Cadillacs/Dinosaurs part of the OTU (nor the other way round). Neither does MGTs marketing disband the OTU.
For many gamers an official universe is a necessary part of an RPG. Even THE universal games (GURPS, HERO) did one (Yearth/Superhero) and another one was badly hurt by not having one (Fuzion). And MGT has yet to deliver an alternate with all the depth and detail of the Traveller universe.
I didn't say it was new. I'm saying that when it comes to Traveller, CotI doesn't really bother with anything beyond the OTU (or GDW's other releases).
Again, I didn't say it did. I does however make it merely one possible setting out of many.
In your opinion. Judge Dredd has been around as a setting for longer than the OTU (the first strip was published in 1977), and unlike the OTU has been growing constantly with each new story published throughout that time. I would argue that it a much more detailed setting than the OTU. YMMV obviously.
Last edited:
- Status
