Why Other Versions of Traveller Failed

[Elliot]

I thought that Twilights Peak was the best GDW adventure to date - It took the best of AD&D concepts (a dungeon, a quest, an awesome magic item) and set it in the 3I political setting (Zhodani conspiracy, mercantile activity, kudos for players with Imperial government). We played it for months and then went onto the Secret of the Ancients, which wasn't so good.

I thought the Marooned/Across the Bright Face type stuff was a bit dull - too many random encounters for no gain.

By the way - were the aliens in Shadows droyne??????

I agree with the need to spice up

 

[Blue Ghost]

I seem to recall they were some kind of reptillian race, but I'm not really sure.

 

[The Gneech]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
I seem to recall they were some kind of reptillian race, but I'm not really sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Shadows, they're just identified as "reptilian, derived from quadrupedal carnivore stock" and there's no detail whatsoever ... their culture, even their current state of existence. That the colony was a failure is established ... if there are survivors, and what state of barbarism they've reverted to in the corrosive atmosphere, is up to the referee.

Shadows is, essentially, a map, a few animal encounters, and not much else.

-The Gneech


------------------
--

http://www.suburbanjungle.com - The life, loves, and career of aspiring supermodel and ferocious predator, Tiffany Tiger

"I pity da fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world and then goes home cryin' to his momma!" -Mr. T

 

[Elliot]

I ask if they're Droyne because (1) the skeleton has a bag of coyns and (2) Twilight's Peak says at the start that it follows Shadows and RSG?

This seems conclusive, but the Ref's section in Shadows says that the aliens were a minor race who had died out (early trav, I know!!)

By the way, I also think Shadows was a bit poor as well

 

[T. Foster]

Blah, enough about how boring GDW's adventures were. I'd much rather make up extra details and bad-guys to add excitement than have to constantly ignore stuff and/or shoe-horn my players into correctly following 'the plot.' As fun and exciting as the legendary Sky Raiders Trilogy is, any adventure that includes instructions such as "make sure the PCs lose this fight and are captured, and that NPCs XY&Z don't get killed" is an immediate turn-off for me.

I actually consider it a refreshing change of pace that GDW gave me the freedom to use the situations and settings in their adventures as I saw fit, and weren't constantly forcing gratuitous fight scenes and 'dramatic climaxes' on me. Not that I would've minded a little guidance, perhaps a couple pages of suggestions for 'how to use this setting in an adventure' (a la The Kinunir), but I still prefer GDW's boring plotlessness to the linear tournament-style scenarios most companies were (and presumably still are) churning out.

 

[Shadow Bear]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T. Foster:
Blah, enough about how boring GDW's adventures were. I'd much rather make up extra details and bad-guys to add excitement than have to constantly ignore stuff and/or shoe-horn my players into correctly following 'the plot.' As fun and exciting as the legendary Sky Raiders Trilogy is, any adventure that includes instructions such as "make sure the PCs lose this fight and are captured, and that NPCs XY&Z don't get killed" is an immediate turn-off for me.

I actually consider it a refreshing change of pace that GDW gave me the freedom to use the situations and settings in their adventures as I saw fit, and weren't constantly forcing gratuitous fight scenes and 'dramatic climaxes' on me. Not that I would've minded a little guidance, perhaps a couple pages of suggestions for 'how to use this setting in an adventure' (a la The Kinunir), but I still prefer GDW's boring plotlessness to the linear tournament-style scenarios most companies were (and presumably still are) churning out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a DM of many years, I also do not care to use adventures right off the shelf. I use the background material to enhance my campaigns. CT gave a lot of material to work with. You could pull ship designs, government types, mega corps and brand names from the adventures and stick them into your campaign as needed.

It is up to the refree to make the session interesting to the players. The game designers should give your a good rules frame work and a fairly detailed setting with which to start.

 

[Gallowglass]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T. Foster:
Blah, enough about how boring GDW's adventures were. I'd much rather make up extra details and bad-guys to add excitement than have to constantly ignore stuff and/or shoe-horn my players into correctly following 'the plot.' As fun and exciting as the legendary Sky Raiders Trilogy is, any adventure that includes instructions such as "make sure the PCs lose this fight and are captured, and that NPCs XY&Z don't get killed" is an immediate turn-off for me.

I actually consider it a refreshing change of pace that GDW gave me the freedom to use the situations and settings in their adventures as I saw fit, and weren't constantly forcing gratuitous fight scenes and 'dramatic climaxes' on me. Not that I would've minded a little guidance, perhaps a couple pages of suggestions for 'how to use this setting in an adventure' (a la The Kinunir), but I still prefer GDW's boring plotlessness to the linear tournament-style scenarios most companies were (and presumably still are) churning out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I first played the RPG's, the austerity and brevity of the LBB's and adventures like the Kinunir and Shadows were too unnerving: I retreated to systems which held my hand a bit more (published more linear scenarios) and allowed heroic fights (combat was less deadly). But very rapidly I got fed up as a both player and ref simply shepherding PC's down a pre-determined path. I rapidly stopped playing the systems that seemed the worst offenders (AD&D in particular) and returned to the LBB's and systems like RQ that expected players to improvise. Having played Griffin Mountain, the Kinunir suddenly looked very good: thin on the information front, but structurally sound. Situation and setting with enough threads that the characters can find their own drama. The Traveller Adventure stumbles in a few places, but the basic set up (a mystery that the PC's are mis-directed on, a reason to go wandering a little off the beaten track, and a whole slew of information and situations for them to find) is excellent.

What fired me up to start running CT again with my bunch of newbies was re-reading the CT adventures, especially the early ones: the sparse feel of here is the sketch of a situation, where will the players take it? Compare this to things like the Marco Volo trilogy for AD&D 2e (fun, but bright players will spot the strings VERY rapidly and cardinal sin, the denoument involves multiple NPC's talking to each other with PC's as witnesses) or One ofthe harlequin packs for Shadowrun (out you pc's on th eplot train and everybody can turntheir brains off and just roll dice as required, *yawn*). Plus, a personal bias, I like the sense of wonder feel of Annic Nova and Shadows et al.

 

[Murph]

I love the FASA stuff, and yes it is a bit linear, but I ignored that. I use their adventures as a starting point to develop my own tailored to my group. The GDW published adventures required more work per module than the FASA ones.

I still got to the end, but took a different route than the published one. Plus the FASA stuff had more value added items like the maps, and more illustrations. I really like the pull out maps.

 

[MT++]

Instead of long adventures, maybe it would be better to do Snapshots?

Sort of like 76 Patrons but with more meat but short: 1-2 pages

Biggest problem with SF is non-linearity (hey, a new word!)

You have access to travel (irony of game name is not lost on me), you have access to firepower and characters can go off on tangents.

A friend started a Traveller campaign witha game plan. One of the news items he threw in for flavour really gathered the players' attention. And they would not let go of it. He had to go with that plan for the campaign instead.

I do not pretend to speak for anyone besides me, but I have found in the past that many Traveller fans prefer little tidbits over whole adventures. A few crumbs to throw the ravening beasts, err, players while you think of a way to fit in their agenda with your campaign goals

 

[GypsyComet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MT++:
I do not pretend to speak for anyone besides me, but I have found in the past that many Traveller fans prefer little tidbits over whole adventures. A few crumbs to throw the ravening beasts, err, players while you think of a way to fit in their agenda with your campaign goals<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the reasons that The Traveller Adventure is considered to be one of the best Trav campaigns ever published is that it is a longterm story told in, as you put it, "snapshots". It is quite possible to drop its chapters into a game at wide intervals and still tell the story. It's a format that has been used several other times (Knightfall, Lords of Thunder, Sky Raiders, the Ancients Cycle, the Digest Cycle) but never quite as well as it came out in The Traveller Adventure, telling the tale of the March Harrier.

The old Amber Zones were a something else, as they were a set of "linked" adventures of a different sort. Between the Amber Zones and the TAS News, we got the progressing story of the Spinward Marches (and to a lesser extent the Third Imperium). The success of these, as shown by the immense loyalty to the Third Imperium setting in general and the Marches specifically, is that they made the Traveller playing community feel as if they were a part of the Marches. Most of us old Traveller players "know" the Marches because we grew up there, smuggling food into Roup and racing against the nuclear Thunder on Zyra.

My point? The above was the long-range success of the CT material, adventures and all. MT tried to spread that to the whole Imperium and failed due to the scope of the events at the time. TNE returned to the Marches a bit too late, while T4 never got there. T5 has the potential to feed from the great subconscious loyalty to the Marches, since it will likely be dated just before the first serious Imperial settlements there. T20 is hoping to replicate the phenom in another part of the Imperium, but will, in my honest opinion, need to visit the Marches before some will take it seriously.

 

[Shadow Bear]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GypsyComet:
Between the Amber Zones and the TAS News, we got the progressing story of the Spinward Marches (and to a lesser extent the Third Imperium). The success of these, as shown by the immense loyalty to the Third Imperium setting in general and the Marches specifically, is that they made the Traveller playing community feel as if they were a part of the Marches. Most of us old Traveller players "know" the Marches because we grew up there, smuggling food into Roup and racing against the nuclear Thunder on Zyra.

My point? The above was the long-range success of the CT material, adventures and all. MT tried to spread that to the whole Imperium and failed due to the scope of the events at the time. TNE returned to the Marches a bit too late, while T4 never got there. T5 has the potential to feed from the great subconscious loyalty to the Marches, since it will likely be dated just before the first serious Imperial settlements there. T20 is hoping to replicate the phenom in another part of the Imperium, but will, in my honest opinion, need to visit the Marches before some will take it seriously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAS News and the Spinward Marches were the heart of CT and indeed gave it a loyal fan base. It was intersting to see more material on the Core but the Spinward Marches was the area I cared most about. Whatever time period of area T5 covers they must include TAS News as it is the heart beat of Traveller.

 

[kafka47]

Traveller has failed to gain the name recognition that D&D, as the primary SF game on the market which is why it keeps going under. CT did accomplish this for a while but then the nature of SF changed and it seemed rusted. Compared to what people then expected from SF.

MT, a great milieu, but essentially only supported with one product - Rebellion Sourcebook. All other things were just secondary editions, unless you count the non-cannon support.

TNE great story arcs, but, given that the players were not involved crashed and died.

T4 had great prospects and great line of products. One problem: it virtually ignored just all Traveller history.

The main moto for T5 ought to be keep it simple. Have a richly illustrated product, a skeleton of rules and focus upon the background. Most players believe they know what the Traveller cannon is, so there is no need to repeat. Create a very wide canvas then begin publishing Milieu 0 type supplements to fill in the details. Begin with a Milieu that everyone can relate to. This for me was the Rebellion, but, take a few steps back circa 1110.

GT does this milieu very well, but, it remains static based upon what is established as cannon. The planetary surveys are really breaking new ground and have interesting ideas.

Why not a giant sourcebook entitled: Traveller 5: The Third Imperium?

This would chronicle the raise and fall of the 3I from conception to its decline. With all the different versions of Traveller out there, I wonder how new gamers would react to an attractive storybook with rules coming later? There is always endless discussion of the merits of this ruleset over another. Maybe if we put the background first, we could lose much of the rancour that has caused the loss of fan base over the different versions?

[This message has been edited by kafka47 (edited 05 September 2001).]

 

[TimberWolf]

I started gaming CT back in 84' and had almost all the books at one time.

The only reason why I got into MT was it used the rules from book 4, book 5 etc. but I soon found out that making starship was noting like Book 5.. Aaaaaa! but I loved the history/background.

TNE was okay and I still use the background setting for my current game using, Fuzion System.

T4
It was more like a remake of CT and ending up getting the core rule book and after downloading the 20+ page list of printing errors, I sold it for $5
What I did not really like about T4 was waiting three months for my book.
The company that had the website for T4 was a real pain.

What I was wishing for with T4 was other books to cover MT history, TNE history etc.

I enjoy Traveller in all its printings and wish luck with any upcoming printing.
Maybe this time it will stand the test of time just like CT.

-David

 

[William]

Ping!
While this is an old dead thread, I thought I'd try to get it going again as there are many more members of CotI now than there were last September.

So, all you new folks, what are your thoughts on the subject?

William

 

[Solo]

My Rant, take it for what it's worth.

Very few players ever come to Traveller (in my 20 years of experience) "knowing" the background other than a few generalities. Playing with groups who have always been avid gamers - playing a variety of games instead of players who only followed one game (wether D&D, Traveller or something else) has given me a slightly different perspective.

IMHO most players only care about the background as it relates to them (i.e., how can it help my character or how does it endanger my character.) In my experience the great wealth of Traveller history is a help to the GM in plotting a game but a hinderance if the GM attempts to relay that history at once or in large chunks to players. So I don't see a History book as being the right vehicle for a re-release of Traveller. (But a good one after the main book and and adventure.)

What has to happen for Traveller to be extremely successful (rather than a niche game) is that it has to have as much mass appeal to sci-fi gamers as D&D has for fantasy gamers. (note: unfortunatly for Traveller sci-fi games have never had the success of fantasy in the marketplace.) To do this the background has to be interesting, the technology up to date and the presentation (read packaging) flavorful.

First, the Travellers background is wonderful but players want to know where they are and what's going on quickly. Presenting a small area (as has been done on the website with the cluster) in the main book as an area of play would IMO be for the best. Make the place interesting and wild. Worry less about the science (there are other games that do that better anyway.) And more about the adventure (read space opera).

Second, the technology of Traveller has to be seen as more advanced than our own. It was a repeated statement by players in a campaign I ran 10 years ago that: "Traveller the game of the Far Future: Next Tuesday." Biotech, A.I., nanotech, etc. needs to be part of the setting from the start not add ons. Yes, I know people are in love with the Traveller of 25 years ago, but that was 25 years ago.

Finally, in terms of presentation Traveller has always been lacking in quality and reached the pinnacle of bad with T4. Professional graphic design and printing are not optional anymore for a game that wants to go head to head in today's market. Great design, great illustrations sells. T20's look will help sell more copies in shops than all the history in the world.

End of Rant.

-S.

 

[Craig]

Solo's point about technology outpacing CT can also be applied to Science Fiction itself. The complaints about boring CT adventures are mostly due to changing expectations of SF gaming. When CT first came out, SF was dominated by authors such as Asimov, Niven, and Pohl. Yes, there were battles and adventures, but most dilemnas were overcome by reason and scientific knowledge.

CT had the misfortune of being released in 1977. Yes, 1977. The date that Star Wars was released. Space Opera suddenly ruled Hollywood. The trend continued in 1984, when William Gibson wrote Neuromancer. Suddenly, technology was no longer our friend.

Finally, after investing heavily in a single background, CT gradually abandoned its role as the primary generic SF rpg system. A role which Steve Jackson was more than happy to pick up with GURPS. GURPS also had the advantage of being multi-genre, and able to rely on a wider fanbase.

In short, Traveller is in the position that Star Trek, the Next Generation was in after its second season. The old formula of encounter alien/anomaly/disease, then solve using science/tech/deus ex machina was no longer working. Thus, the writers began focusing on character development, and the show took off.

For T5 to work, it needs to keep the strengths of CT in the areas of planet creation, background, and scope. It also needs to reflect recent advances in technology, and current trends in the gaming community. Yep, that's right: detailed, realistic (and easy to use) generation tables and systems for GMs; and elegant, streamlined skill/combat resolution rules for players.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

My thoughts on Traveller past, present and future.

I'll warn you now that I'm a freak, based on what I've read on this thread. I think CT is outdated and very over-rated, Megatraveller was probably the best implementation of Traveller, I really liked TNE, T4 was a waste of time, and GURPS Traveller is excellent. T20 I'll probably pick up, but I don't see any need whatsoever for T5.

I got into CT in the late 80s at school, and just found it too incoherent for my purposes (I didn't have *all* the books, but I had a lot of the orginal supplements). And the system was just too old and broken for my tastes. And it was just sooo *dull*. The Traveller universe was so big, there was little to actually focus the players on, I thought.

Megatraveller I liked a lot. It presented all that info from CT much more coherently, and the civil war provided a more exciting backdrop for the players. Also, three of the best books ever done for Traveller IMHO were released then - Vilani & Vargr, Solomani & Aslan, and the World Builders Handbook. Yes, they're all DGP, but I'd been waiting for aliens books to come out for ages (I know, CT had some, but they were too obscure to track down by the time I got into Trav). Shame DGP shut down before they could do the really interesting aliens. And it's a pity it all got erased from Canon too.

Then came TNE. Sorry, but I loved this. The Foundation influence really showed through here, and the Fall was a great time to do some adventuring. Also produced the best book ever done for Trav - Fire Fusion and Steel 1/e, which is an invaluable resource for any sci-fi game, IMHO. The only problem was that the adventures were mostly the same - visit backwater planet, topple techno-dictator, install new civilised government etc. But as a concept it was fine.

T4. Waste of time, IMHO. Shoddy editing, amateur style, totally ignored all previous versions of Traveller. The only good thing was the Chris Foss art.

GURPS Traveller. Finally, a *complete* version of Trav comes out! Finally, we have info on all the major alien races (I was jumping for joy when the K'Kree/Aslan Alien Races book came out, cos I finally could find out something about the K'Kree!). Finally we have a decent world design system that doesn't produce ridiculous worlds (I got some stupid planets in previous systems - a habitable world around an A5 giant?! I don't think so!). Finally we have a wealth of info on just about everything! The only thing GT has against it IMHO is the vehicle design system, but I think the GURPS vehicle system is horribly clunky. Otherwise I'm pretty happy with GT.

Still to come:

GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars. This promises to be great. A lot of discussion's been going on about this over on the JTAS boards, and many points (largely messy inconsistencies from CT)have been hammered out already. But this all bodes well for IW.

T20: I'll probably pick this up, I'm rather interested to see how it translates to d20 and what they do with the new background.

T5: I really don't see the point of this. There's already 5 versions of Traveller, are *all* the previous systems so flawed? Are Trav players really incapable of adapting the setting to their favourite systems? The last thing Traveller needs is yet another game mechanics system, surely.
Now, something that would be far more useful would be a setting book - no stats or anything, just a 'Mileu' type book that had everything you needed to know about a specific era. Leave it to the players to adapt that to a specific system. That I could see as being much more useful.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts and opinions on the matter...

 

[GypsyComet]

It annoys me that people think that any edition of Traveller (aside from T4) "failed". Of the other editions, TNE had the shortest lifespan, and that was *5* years. MT had about the same, and CT was closer to 8 years. All amazingly long compared to the games people currently consider "successful" (noting that D&D and GURPS are exceptions to that generalization). TNE's lifespan was shortened due to GDW going under, true, but it wasn't TNE that failed.

 

[kafka47]

I think the real problem is dating when Traveller actually took off. Sure, CT came out in 1977 and was an instant hit, but that was because there was no other competition. I think it was only in 1982 that a regular stream of products began appearing unless we count the licencees. I think that GDW still felt their money could be made in wargames.

MT did little to alter that perception that GDW was simply a wargame company, as they did little to support the Traveller line putting far more resources into T2000 & T2300, as it seemed at the time. For a while, I think Traveller fans were hoping that the whole Traveller enterprise ought to be handed over to DGP who seemed to be coming out with consistantly high quality product and taking the game to new heights. But, we who loved the story arc of the Rebellion found that increasingly the main reason for having the Rebellion was dying out. GDW responded by taking us to non-Imperial space - the Hinterworlds. But, along the way introduced us to Hard Times, which IMHO stands out as the best Traveller supplement, however disjointed the text. But, what MT did best was what the Journal had been doing for years...illustrating our Traveller universe beyond hexagons.

TNE came as shock to those who love the Imperial Campaign. [I know I wouldn't touch it for years - my first purchase was Players' Forms which I assumed would be Forms & Charts updated.] But, then it began to evolve into something that we knew and loved...here I am not talking about the Regency Sourcebook. TNE smashed its way through all previously held Traveller assumptions and allowed us to start anew. Sadly, other than out in fandom there was not much support.

T4 was a valiant approach to keep the name of Traveller alive. Pity they never followed up with Stu Dollar's ideas nor really understood Traveller until Milieu 0. But, T4 will always standout for me a defensive posture rather than as an attempt to really keep the flame alive. I am not sure what Marc was thinking when the proposal came around for T4...but it was probably something better than nothing. T4 also marked the end of fan support as it encouraged no licencees other than BITS. This is what killed Traveller.

GT while I like the premise. I do not like the fact that it remains far too static and cannot escape what CT had built. There were many supplements that were copied thought for thought from CT. While I continue to support GT, I can really only do so out of guilt rather than actually liking what they will produce.

T20 is the last hope for Traveller to evolve into a role playing game rather than simply roll playing. I am really hoping there will be lots more adventures and mood setting supplements rather endless books of tables as my wife looks at my Traveller collection in dismay.

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by kafka47:
I think the real problem is dating when Traveller actually took off. Sure, CT came out in 1977 and was an instant hit, but that was because there was no other competition. I think it was only in 1982 that a regular stream of products began appearing unless we count the licencees.

Eh? Those years were marked by the near constant (for the time) march of Books, Supplements, Adventures, and Double Adventures, not to mention JTAS, newer printings of the main rules, the boxed games (Tarsus, Beltstrike, AHL), and the Traveller Adventure.

Judges Guild and FASA were early licensees, true, as was Games Workshop UK (serving also as the UK publishers of the game itself). DGP was a *very* late arrival by comparison, as were Grenadier and Gamelords. We could have generally done without Group One, IMHO, though time-wise they were about in the middle of the CT era.
Of these companies, only FASA and GW UK even came close to the volume produced by GDW for CT (the bulk of DGPs work being MT).