How many people think GURPS Traveller is canon?

[Custodian]

My question is this:

Who thinks GURPS Traveller is cannonical in the same way (or to the same degree) that Classic Traveller is for Mongoose Traveller?

I ask this as someone who was never all that impressed with GURPS, probably due to my experiences playing Steve Jackson's superior Fantasy Trip (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantasy_Trip) beforehand.

I still keep a number of GURPS and GURPS Traveller books in my archives but for me they're not much more useful than my The Next Era rulebook.

 

[Infojunky]

My question is this:

Who thinks GURPS Traveller is cannonical in the same way (or to the same degree) that Classic Traveller is for Mongoose Traveller?

I ask this as someone who was never all that impressed with GURPS, probably due to my experiences playing Steve Jackson's superior Fantasy Trip (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantasy_Trip) beforehand.

I still keep a number of GURPS and GURPS Traveller books in my archives but for me they're not much more useful than my The Next Era rulebook.

Canon, no. But a lot of Traveller isn't canon any more.

But with that being said there is a bunch of material in Gurps:Traveller that is quite good and applicable outside of Gurps. Gurps: Freetrader and Starports both provide excellent background and economic support. While you might say that it is Gurps, Many of the authors of the Gurps books cut their teeth writing for earlier editions of Traveller. This Includes Loren Wiseman who is as much responsible for the look and feel of Traveller as Marc is. While Gurps:Traveller is Traveller in Gurps terms there are many ideas there that are useful across the board.

As for Ship parts remember a Gurps space is the equivalent of a Displacement Ton.

As a final point for me Traveller has always been as much the 3rd party products as the "official" ones. They all add to the toolkit.

 

[EDG]

I find the best way to treat canon (if one cares about what is "official") is to consider it as specific to each version. GT is canon for GT. CT is canon for CT. MT is canon for MT. MGT is canon for MGT, and never the twain (thrain? quadrain?) shall meet. Treat them all as different games - which is what they really are - and you'll spare yourself a lot of headaches.

<rant>
I really don't get the obsession some people have about canon and different editions - for example, there's the ridiculousness of complaining that their precious game has been destroyed because of what a new edition says (as if anyone's holding a gun to their head and forcing them to use that in their games anyway). And then there are the complaints about how two things in different editions are different and so are contradictory and incompatible. Well, so what? Surely people can't be trying to directly and accurately convert CT characters and ships to MT, or to GT or MGT - that's just silly. Just recreate the character in the new edition, use the ship as described in the new edition, and be done with it - and if it's different from before, well, ignore it and say that's how it's always been, and carry on. It's really not hard to do.
</rant>

What's more important though is that canon doesn't matter for anyone except those who are writing official supplements. Everyone else can and should pick and choose whatever they want for their own games, from any sources they please, and to hell with canon.

 

[Custodian]

I think Loren Miller is the most useful part of GURPS Traveller but I remain unimpressed by their rules and the way the products of those rules are expressed. I'm glad that edition has passed now.

For by-the-book MGT I tend to assume that Mongoose material trumps CT but CT remains the larger body of work for reference.

Do I get upset when a new version of Traveller comes out that I don't like? No, I just buy representative samples, monitor the situation and wait for a better version and, thanks to MGT, a better version is here.

I'm looking forward to Mongoose Traveller: Judge Dredd of course.

 

[EDG]

Personally I think GT was one of the best written, best researched, and best presented editions of Traveller (It helps that I liked GURPS too. I'm a points-based fan, I cannot stand the random chargen of CT). And Interstellar Wars is pretty awesome too IMO.

I think MGT is decent enough, but it has a long way to go before it can approach GT in terms of general quality IMO. Not that I can complain about the material in MGT so far though (except for the editing)... it's just that the GT stuff was more detailed and better thought-through IMO.

 

[rust]

I agree with EDG, GURPS Traveller is canon for GURPS Traveller (authors,
not necessarily players), and the GURPS version of Traveller includes lots
of most useful material, "crunch" as well as "fluff".

 

[Tathlum]

No. But only because of the wake-up-in-the-shower, alternate timeline thingy. Quality wise I think there is plenty of good stuff in there. I'd be a bigger fan only I'm not too keen on Gurps and the non-metric and slightly different tech levels stopped me getting more into it from a Traveller point of view.
So it isn't canon on a technicality.


As to wether I'd use any of it, yes I would. I don't care about canon for canons sake. If something is good and doesn't break suspension of disbelief/immersion in my Traveller game, it's in. No matter where it came from.

 

[Sangrolu]

I'm not sure what the meaning of canon is other than argument points for deciding who wins internet arguments.

If the question really boils down to "do I give GT primacy when it comes to forming a baseline for running games in the OTU", then no, I do not. I think some rules stuff for GURPS is great (not chargen though... stuff like First In. GURPS chargen is blatantly un-traveller and un-fun AFAIAC). The setting stuff is hit-and-miss. STARPORTS for example, is pretty good, and more or less fills in a lot of blanks while overall maintaining compatibility with other versions, but the ALIENS series is full of stuff that is an ill fit for the OTU, like races pulled from Spacemaster.

 

[CosmicGamer]

AFAIAC? Please explain what this means.

Re: OP: I don't own gurps and have never even seen it, not even in my local store or someone else's copy.

With CT, I only own a small fraction of what is available. With MGT, I only own 2 items so far. I don't buy most additional items since I still have fun playing the game without having to invest additional money.

Personally, I totally ignore 'canon' and just game in a universe based on the material I have, even non traveller sources. I do adhere to the core principles (LBB 1-3 and MGT core rulebook, the only Traveller rules I own), such as communication at the speed of ships, jump travel, and such.

I wonder why one person or group even cares what another person or group considers canon? As pointed out, the only place it seams to matter is when people argue in forums.

Ok, thats my view, now standing back and looking at things, I believe each version of traveller takes place in a different time period so 'canon', as in a history of the universe, could be every version who's time line takes place before or during the period your game takes place in?

 

[Dave Chase]

AFAIAC= As Far As I Am Concerned


On topic, I think that all of Traveller is Cannon, its just like automobile manufacturers. They all make cars and some parts between those cars can be used on any car. Some are very specific to the manufacturer and take a lot of tweeking to make it work with another brand.

In my Traveller game, I use any and all parts of any Traveller published material.

In my Futura game (home brew style), I use any and all things you can find in science fiction.

So, as said by others, it just depends on your view point.

Ford, GM, Nissian, Honda, etc

CT, GURPS, TNE, MGT, etc

Dave Chase

 

[GypsyComet]

I will treat non-timeline-dependent setting bits as "Canon applicable". Events after 1116? No.

As such I consider the Interstellar Wars book as an "official" treatment of that era, and the little setting tidbits in the rest of GT are all open season. Similarly, the *tools* of GT (the aforementioned Spaceports, Free Trader, and First In) are also all open season.

All editions have things to bring to the table, and all editions have things that need to be ignored.

The "This Edition Canon" that EDG speaks of is a useful madness-preventing caveat, but if you are a writer, you get to treat as Canon what Marc tells you to treat as Canon.

At the gaming table, you get to treat as Canon what YOU want to treat as Canon. No amount of shouting from anyone not at your table can or should change that.

 

[Jame Rowe]

I agree with EDG, GURPS Traveller is canon for GURPS Traveller (authors,
not necessarily players), and the GURPS version of Traveller includes lots
of most useful material, "crunch" as well as "fluff".

Add me as echoing rust and Edgy. :wink:

 

[GamerDude]

I find the best way to treat canon (if one cares about what is "official") is to consider it as specific to each version. GT is canon for GT. CT is canon for CT. MT is canon for MT. MGT is canon for MGT, and never the twain (thrain? quadrain?) shall meet. Treat them all as different games - which is what they really are - and you'll spare yourself a lot of headaches.

I agree with EDG for the most part.

A while back when this came up (one of the many times) I asked Mark Miller "What books are canon for Traveller and where could I possibly get them." The answer was all the books published by GDW, plus the folks who did T4 (can't remember the publisher off the top of my head). Everything else was "a very good reference but not canon."

Rants aside, I think the biggest thing to focus on is "what are you trying to do". The "Official" universe is good as a reference point, a map, etc but the moment you do anything for your campaign it becomes Your Traveller Universe. Write down what you are doing, make sure the players what's in YOUR universe, and let the dice of adventure roll.

Good luck!

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I agree. I am running a campaign set in the Spinward Marches in 1248. The first thing I did was change several things about the setting to fit what I wanted for my campaign.

When I posted those changes and a campaign summary on the Avenger Boards (the group that published the material), the author liked what I did and enjoyed my take on some of the things he had said. He didn't seem bothered in the slightest that I took the campaign in a VERY different direction from what he had envisioned. So, if the author doesn't care, why should anyone else?

AUTHORS have to worry about canon, but Referees and players don't.

 

[kristof65]

After getting back into Traveller thanks to MgT, and seeing the debate canon causes, I've decided canon doesn't mean crap, except to those who want to argue.

So now I consider all the versions of Traveller to be nothing more than reference material for MTU. I mostly pull from MgT, CT, MT and GT, but mostly from CT.

 

[Allensh]

My question is this:

Who thinks GURPS Traveller is cannonical in the same way (or to the same degree) that Classic Traveller is for Mongoose Traveller?

I ask this as someone who was never all that impressed with GURPS, probably due to my experiences playing Steve Jackson's superior Fantasy Trip (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantasy_Trip) beforehand.

I still keep a number of GURPS and GURPS Traveller books in my archives but for me they're not much more useful than my The Next Era rulebook.

The setting for GURPS Traveller was advertised at the time of its release as an alternate history, a "what if the Rebellion portrayed in Megatraveller had never happened?" sort of thing. Therefore it could be considered "alternate canon".

Now as for GT: Interstellar Wars, I hear there are some issues with that.

As far as Mongoose Traveller goes, CT being "canon" only applies to those products that are actually set in the Original Traveller Universe.

This is all my opinion...and is usually the case with all such views expressed in a discussion on what is and isn't "canon", since that can vary for each person involved.

Allen

 

[Infojunky]

After getting back into Traveller thanks to MgT, and seeing the debate canon causes, I've decided canon doesn't mean crap, except to those who want to argue.

So now I consider all the versions of Traveller to be nothing more than reference material for MTU. I mostly pull from MgT, CT, MT and GT, but mostly from CT.

My friend you are spot on.

 

[Emperor Herdan]

After getting back into Traveller thanks to MgT, and seeing the debate canon causes, I've decided canon doesn't mean crap, except to those who want to argue.

So now I consider all the versions of Traveller to be nothing more than reference material for MTU. I mostly pull from MgT, CT, MT and GT, but mostly from CT.

My friend you are spot on.

I agree as well. Well said ! (both of you)

Take care

E. Herdan

 

[GypsyComet]

A while back when this came up (one of the many times) I asked Mark Miller "What books are canon for Traveller and where could I possibly get them." The answer was all the books published by GDW, plus the folks who did T4 (can't remember the publisher off the top of my head). Everything else was "a very good reference but not canon."

Which is amusing and horrifying all at once, given how badly Marc himself allowed GDW Canon to be treated by Imperium Games (the T4 people). Some of that was him directly, too.

On the other hand, a couple of the new aliens from T4 Aliens Archive are actually useable and not painfully bad, so granting them some continuing status is fine by me. If anything needs to be re-visited, it is that set of aliens. With the exception of the Newts (whose entry in AA is, er... "idiosyncratic") none of the other races have seen exposure elsewhere.

By comparison, I can do without the aliens added in GURPS Traveller.

 

[qstor]

but the ALIENS series is full of stuff that is an ill fit for the OTU, like races pulled from Spacemaster.

I too like the GT books a lot but can live without the Spacemaster races. I enjoy point buy games but I'm running MGT now, using T20, CT, GT and other materials for the game.

Mike