New setting for Traveller needed

[Prime_Evil]

Sci-fi, on the other hand, is based on technology and on the projection of today's society into the future. And technology and society change quite quickly in the past few centuries. Concepts which were at the core of yesteryear's sci-fi might be outdated to the point of being almost alien to this year's new player.

Social change is at least as important as technological change in modern SF and this is one area where the OTU is very weak. It reflects assumptions about how an interstellar society might work drawn from authors writing during the Golden Age of the 1950s and early 1960s with the memory of WWII still in their recent memory. The SF genre during this period was heavily influenced by the stable of writers gathered by John W. Campbell, most of whom were political conservatives with vaguely libertarian ideals drawn from Ayn Rand - Heinlein is the most obvious example, but there are plenty of others. Most of them assumed that the future would be a continuation of the present social arrangements - with Western cultures retaining dominance over the rest of the world and 'mainstream' values informing future political systems. Most of these authors were horrified by the rise of New Wave authors in the late 1960s and early 1970s - Samuel Delaney, John Varley, Phillip K. Dick, Ursula Le Guin, Joanna Russ - most of whom explored non-western and / or non-mainstream political, social, and sexual arrangements.

 

[Chas]

Social change is at least as important as technological change in modern SF.

It's a good point and it's something that Traveller could and should excel in given the nature of the setting. But that takes a very good game master to carry off effectively. The variances in humans should be equivalent to alien races.

There is another factor in all this. I came back, as it were (hey, I have bought product and will buy more) because Traveller has a wargame type aspect with the ship design and battles. I've been there done that with different D&D settings and game styles and really liked Eclipse Phase for example (never wanted to Star Wars or Star Trek as RPG). Regardless Traveller has offered me something that I've been missing.

 

[F33D]

If anything, I'm starting to think that the commentary in this thread shows that a separate common ATU may not be possible after all; everyone would be looking from something different for the others.

This is a common problem with SF games - unlike the fantasy genre where it is possible to fall back upon archetypal imagery with strong mythic resonances (magic swords, dragons, demons, dungeons, etc), every SF universe is designed from scratch and even basic features (FTL travel, weapons, armour) can differ wildly from one universe to the next.

I think you & Ishmael nailed it.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I love Traveller for what it is, but worry that the OTU isn't developing along with the genre that it claims to represent - there is a growing gap between the kind of 'classic' space opera that inspired Traveller and the the 'New Space Opera' movement represented by authors such as Iain Banks, Alastair Reynolds, Peter F. Hamilton, Neal Asher, Ken Macleod, Charles Stross, et al. There is still some decent traditional military SF coming out of the US that is compatible to some degree with the OTU - David Weber, Jack Campbell, Elizabeth Moon, Lois Mcmaster Bujold etc - but although these authors are very entertaining, they aren't really doing anything new or original with space opera.

The interesting thing is that OTU fans often mention authors from the latter list, but very rarely those from the former list. I think part of the reason is that the authors on the second list are far more conservative in their assumptions about future social changes and don't really play around with alternative political structures. I get the feeling that many Traveller GMs are uncomfortable with things like the anarchist utopia of the Culture in Iain Bank's novels, the Demarchists and Cojoiners of Alastair Reynolds, the AI-ruled Polity of Neal Asher's Polity novels, the socialist futurism of Ian Macleod, etc. There is absolutely nothing preventing Traveller from being used to simulate really different cultural and political forms, but most published material both from Mongoose and third parties sticks close to the comfortable feudalism that every galaxy-spanning empire had back in the Golden Age of the 1950s.

As I've mentioned before, my solution to this dilemma would be to keep the Third Imperium exactly as it is (because it IS still fun in its own way) but to advance the timeline and show the Fourth Imperium a couple of hundred years down the track - developing along different lines from its predecessor and incorporating a range of more recent influences...

 

[Wil Mireu]

The interesting thing is that OTU fans often mention authors from the latter list, but very rarely those from the former list.

Supporting data point: I don't like the OTU, find the 'Classic Space Opera' list authors boring (or dislike them), and think most of the authors on the so-called 'New Space Opera' list are awesome.

 

[Golan2072]

I love Traveller for what it is, but worry that the OTU isn't developing along with the genre that it claims to represent - there is a growing gap between the kind of 'classic' space opera that inspired Traveller and the the 'New Space Opera' movement represented by authors such as Iain Banks, Alastair Reynolds, Peter F. Hamilton, Neal Asher, Ken Macleod, Charles Stross, et al. There is still some decent traditional military SF coming out of the US that is compatible to some degree with the OTU - David Weber, Jack Campbell, Elizabeth Moon, Lois Mcmaster Bujold etc - but although these authors are very entertaining, they aren't really doing anything new or original with space opera.

The interesting thing is that OTU fans often mention authors from the latter list, but very rarely those from the former list. I think part of the reason is that the authors on the second list are far more conservative in their assumptions about future social changes and don't really play around with alternative political structures.

I actually do not know many of these authors; I guess I'll have to spend some more money through AbeBooks soon (the local libraries typically carry only older books). I grew up on a steady diet of Arthur C. Clarke and Larry Niven (Asimov was also available but I didn't seem to enjoy his books), and, later, Kim Stanley Robinson, as well as some Heinlin and Frank Herbert. Later I read the Hyperion Cantos by Dan Simmons, which I also love.

Outer Veil was inspired by Kim Stanely Robinson's Mars Trilogy (my overall favourite work of sci-fi), Larry Niven's Known Space, Alien(s) (films and the related computer game Alien vs. Predator), Firefly, System Shock 1 and 2 (computer games), and some influence by Arthur C. Clarke and even Babylon 5.

 

[GypsyComet]

As I've mentioned before, my solution to this dilemma would be to keep the Third Imperium exactly as it is (because it IS still fun in its own way) but to advance the timeline and show the Fourth Imperium a couple of hundred years down the track - developing along different lines from its predecessor and incorporating a range of more recent influences...

Traveller was on this path with TNE and 1248, and T5 provides hints that it may still be the future.

 

[enderra]

Hey guys,

Actually, there is a "standard science fiction" archetype, if you will, in the same vein as Tolkien, and that's the Roman Empire stereotype. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Empire_%28Asimov%29#Consensus_cosmogony

I realize that it's not exactly the same, but add Star Trek and Star Wars and then in the same way you get away with rayguns, hyperdrives, humanoid aliens, and the like. You don't even really have to explain any of it, the same way you do not need to explain Elves or dragons or magic or, as the earlier example was, a sword and inn.

So the OTU is actually pretty "spot on".

I do not believe that "modern science fiction" is really all that different from the classics - and there really aren't any "memorable new trends". Well, with the possible exception of transhumanism/posthumanism and I believe turning humans into something different makes for exceedingly bad fiction - and hence, games - because people won't be able to relate properly to the characters (that's why most successful Sci Fi franchises either have no aliens, or cosmetically-altered humans with slightly odd customs).

So, what's the problem with the OTU?

In my opinion it is actually not so much dated, as never having been a very good setting to begin with. It simply became popular on the merit of being the only game in town, no pun intended, if you wanted to do Sci Fi role-playing. It lacks a "sense of place", and has never even been developed well. And when it was expanded, it was usually by moving the timeline along with various catastrophes (civil war, virus) which were heavy-handed attempts to correct mistakes (whether perceived or real) in the original design and to switch to the house rules system of the day.

OTU doesn't need new assumptions, it just needs some actual coherent worldbuilding. Too late for that now, of course, with 35 years of entrenched fans, and almost certainly not commercially viable. 3I books probably sell OK on inertia alone.

 

[dragoner]

The OTU is really a grognard argument, or arguing about nothing, really; because to paraphrase Clausewitz on battle plans: no OTU survives contact with the game table. The OTU afaik is Marc's campaign setting, and as such is meant for his game, much as anyone else's campaign setting.

I use the parts I like and don't with the rest, though I wouldn't really care to publish 1323 just because I steal whatever from anywhere I like for my game and wouldn't want to be burdened with checking for copyrights and etc.; in my game right now, and this is one thing that is great about Mongoose, is that the players are going through a system with mutants and such from Strontium Dog; sort of a tip of the hat to Metamorphosis Alpha.

One last thing about TL's; they are actual a game artifact, not an OTU deal, as abstract and awkward as they are. I think we all deal with them in a different way, for my setting, it is the beginning of a post-scarcity society at the higher TL's, at least in the core worlds.

 

[High Orbit Drifter]

The Roman Empire stereotype is a very Gold Age concept, the best modern example is Star Wars, which is very consciously a Gold Age work, if not even pre-Gold Age with all its Buck Rodgers ideas.

The OTU is really a grognard argument, or arguing about nothing, really; because to paraphrase Clausewitz on battle plans: no OTU survives contact with the game table

Well, thats true of any setting. Back in the day my D&D Greyhawk setting was mostly my interpretation of the Elric universe than anything else.

And yes, there are some very vocal Traveller grognards that will brook no dissent on their ideas of the OTU. And some of those ideas make the setting dull and unplayable. But to me there is a LOT of good in the setting, and it certainly still sells the books as Mongoose can attest to.

 

[dragoner]

And yes, there are some very vocal Traveller grognards that will brook no dissent on their ideas of the OTU. And some of those ideas make the setting dull and unplayable.

I thought I was the only one who noticed this.

My Greyhawk and Spinward Marches LBB both were penciled up where we had wargamed them as well. But the gist of the statement is that the argument about the OTU is tired, and not very realistic in that it changes so much anyways. I use the OTU in a manner, but I change it as well, and it is definitely better than having to reinterpret the careers in chargen for example.

 

[GypsyComet]

And yes, there are some very vocal Traveller grognards that will brook no dissent on their ideas of the OTU. And some of those ideas make the setting dull and unplayable.

There is a generation gap showing in the fan base that tends to fall along Campbellian vs post-Drake lines (Spec Fic vs Mil SF, by other labels). There are also hard science fiction types vs space opera. Finally, there are those who recognize that their way of playing Traveller is not the only way, and those who do not.

Inspirations for *your* Traveller game can come from any subset of text, graphical, TV, movie, web, or even audio SF. I certainly don't have a problem with that, applied to your version of the OTU or something else entirely.

The inspirations for the game and the setting that arose from it in the 80s are not so mutable. Some people have a problem with that, but insulting the older SF, the setting, and the fans who *do* like it is not productive.

For the record, most Military SF bores me, just as I'm sure Asimov, Anderson, Chandler, Tubb, and Norton bore some of you. Learn to accept that other people like what you don't, and play the game.

 

[Sigtrygg]

What I always found odd about the OTU:

every time a new rule book was published the setting changed to accept it

we never found out what the core Imperial worlds were like in all their TL15 wonder

frontier worlds with a TL higher than Earth today were presented as backwaters - almost like wild west settlements.

 

[GypsyComet]

What I always found odd about the OTU:

every time a new rule book was published the setting changed to accept it

we never found out what the core Imperial worlds were like in all their TL15 wonder

frontier worlds with a TL higher than Earth today were presented as backwaters - almost like wild west settlements.

That would be the attitude of the core worlds talking. That and economics.

Economic structures of the setting have been causing arguments for decades now. These arguments are usually fiercest between people trying to make the small ship commerce rules present in every edition extend to the entire Imperium.

The setting has changed, if not with every single edition. Part of this is a side effect of the moving timeline, and part is a reflection of what I mentioned earlier: every group is playing a different game, all of which are still Traveller. GDW was playing one way, DGP (the drivers of a lot of MegaTraveller) were playing another, not to mention all the other CT licensees. The two line editors who closed out the MT era were also playing different sorts of games. TNE was a big change on its face, but once again was a different set of assumptions, favored play modes, and story lines. While T4, GT, T20, and MGT were all "flashbacks" of one sort or another, each was written by people with different ideas.

 

[High Orbit Drifter]

There is a generation gap showing in the fan base that tends to fall along Campbellian vs post-Drake lines (Spec Fic vs Mil SF, by other labels). There are also hard science fiction types vs space opera. Finally, there are those who recognize that their way of playing Traveller is not the only way, and those who do not.

Inspirations for *your* Traveller game can come from any subset of text, graphical, TV, movie, web, or even audio SF. I certainly don't have a problem with that, applied to your version of the OTU or something else entirely.

The inspirations for the game and the setting that arose from it in the 80s are not so mutable. Some people have a problem with that, but insulting the older SF, the setting, and the fans who *do* like it is not productive.

For the record, most Military SF bores me, just as I'm sure Asimov, Anderson, Chandler, Tubb, and Norton bore some of you. Learn to accept that other people like what you don't, and play the game.

Ah, but we're talking about published material. I could have time-traveling dragons in MTU for all anyone cares, but if you put those in a published work (or worse, Santa hats on killer aliens) you're fan base is going to respond negatively.

I agree, there is a big gap between the Military SF and Spec Fic crowd, and another between the Gold Age Spec Fic crowd, the (insert term)punk crowd, and the more recent crowd. The challenge for a writer, and publisher, is to make a work that appeals across the board. I think the OTU did that, at least briding the Mil and Spec Fic crowd, giving them a common ground to play in.

I believe its just a writing challenge to produce setting/adventures/etc., for the OTU rather than a need for a whole new setting. Why would you need a new setting if the one you have not only has a lot of the groundwork done, but is by its nature expandable?

There are characteristics of the OTU that might not fit everyone's tastes. The limits on FTL travel. The ban on psionics, the limits on robotics and cybernetics. Grav tech. Unlimited power for ships. Nobles and empire. But taking those out I'm not sure its Traveller anymore.

For example, I picked up the Robots book. It say Traveller on the cover, but it did not have a single Traveller reference in it. It has a number of ideas on settings, none of which are Traveller-esque. Aside from any other aspects of the book, I could use it for my TU, but really the Traveller name is only on it to get Traveller fans to buy the book.

And I guess that the point of a Traveller book.

 

[F33D]

There are characteristics of the OTU that might not fit everyone's tastes. The limits on FTL travel. Grav tech. Unlimited power for ships. But taking those out I'm not sure its Traveller anymore.

Those examples are characteristics of the Game rules. Not the 3I setting...

 

[GypsyComet]

There are characteristics of the OTU that might not fit everyone's tastes. The limits on FTL travel. Grav tech. Unlimited power for ships. But taking those out I'm not sure its Traveller anymore.

Those examples are characteristics of the Game rules. Not the 3I setting...

Not quite. Those are "crunch", or rules influenced by setting. They are very much tied to the setting, and could be changed were you so inclined. The results would still be Traveller (see 2300AD, for example), but they would no longer be the Third Imperium.

The default these days is not for unlimited *power*, but for unlimited thrust as long as you have power. There is a difference. Default Traveller actually underestimates fusion fuel efficiencies by two orders of magnitude or so, in order to get PCs out of their ship occasionally.

Grav tech is a simplifier. Go look at 2300AD if you want to not have it. The Third Imperium would look different without it, but could still be done.

Limited psi is both a game saver (do you really want the one guy who rolls lucky to be a superhero?) and a flavor decision. I can point directly at the sources for this type of psi, and it isn't Lensmen, Darkover, or even Star Wars. The system is easy to turn into Lensmen, though I recommend anyone contemplating high-end psi to actually read the Lensmen books and Chalker's "Four Lords of the Diamond" first just to understand what genie bottle you will be opening.
(I don't really recommend reading Darkover unless you like romance science fantasy.)

The social limits on psi are for exactly the same reasons, and are absolutely tied to setting.

 

[F33D]

There are characteristics of the OTU that might not fit everyone's tastes. The limits on FTL travel. Grav tech. Unlimited power for ships. But taking those out I'm not sure its Traveller anymore.

Those examples are characteristics of the Game rules. Not the 3I setting...

Not quite. Those are "crunch", or rules influenced by setting.

The published 3I setting came after these rules.

 

[High Orbit Drifter]

There are characteristics of the OTU that might not fit everyone's tastes. The limits on FTL travel. Grav tech. Unlimited power for ships. But taking those out I'm not sure its Traveller anymore.

Those examples are characteristics of the Game rules. Not the 3I setting...

No, the exact opposite.

Any SF games rules can produce the Traveller setting. The Traveller setting requires specific adjustments and assumptions on the game rules - specifically those I mentioned.

The Little Black Books, MegaTraveller, T4, GURPS and Mongoose are all seperate game systems and all produced Traveller (and can produce other settings as well).

Travller itself appears to be a setting. You can shoe-horn in other settings (Judge Dredd would fit on any world with arcologies, for example).

 

[GypsyComet]

Those examples are characteristics of the Game rules. Not the 3I setting...

Not quite. Those are "crunch", or rules influenced by setting.

The published 3I setting came after these rules.

Eight editions ago. Now they are conscious decisions made to sustain that setting. They can be changed.

Seeing your response below, I see you have no idea what this discussion is actually about, and have dragged it into pointless minutia. Again.