Robots

[EDG]

It all depends on how you define D&D. Defined like you have it above, then, yes 4E is definitely D&D. If you define it as "magic feels magical because it works in a completely different way (i.e. different set of rules) than swinging a sword does," than no, 4E is not D&D. If you define D&D as having THAC0, elf is a class, bard is only something you can take after you've mastered several other classes, than 3E wasn't D&D. It all depends on what the person feels is important about D&D.

I think people obsess about this sort of thing far too much (same goes for the "it's not Traveller" arguments too) - whether it does or doesn't fit some completely arbitrary definition of what the game should be "really" is totally missing the point. IMO the only question that people should really be asking themselves is "do I enjoy playing this game". If the answer is yes, then great, keep playing. If not, then then they'd be better off finding another game that they do enjoy.

 

[GypsyComet]

It has Book 8 ROBOTS in it. CT is close enough to MGT, that with a little eye squinting, you could probably make it work until something more MGT oriented comes along.

For my taste the technology of Book 8 is quite outdated, especially the
power systems (a superconductor loop energy cell should do much bet-
ter than those batteries, I think), but also some other parts of it.

Meh. As long as a Robots book uses technology in line with the rest of the game, it's all good.

 

[dmccoy1693]

IMO the only question that people should really be asking themselves is "do I enjoy playing this game".

QFT

 

[GypsyComet]

It all depends on how you define D&D. Defined like you have it above, then, yes 4E is definitely D&D. If you define it as "magic feels magical because it works in a completely different way (i.e. different set of rules) than swinging a sword does," than no, 4E is not D&D. If you define D&D as having THAC0, elf is a class, bard is only something you can take after you've mastered several other classes, than 3E wasn't D&D. It all depends on what the person feels is important about D&D.

I think people obsess about this sort of thing far too much (same goes for the "it's not Traveller" arguments too) - whether it does or doesn't fit some completely arbitrary definition of what the game should be "really" is totally missing the point. IMO the only question that people should really be asking themselves is "do I enjoy playing this game". If the answer is yes, then great, keep playing. If not, then then they'd be better off finding another game that they do enjoy.

The play is the thing, yes.

If a particular game no longer delivers the same type of play that you were getting from its previous edition, the name on the cover doesn't matter. The game might be a lot of fun, but if it isn't the fun you were looking for, then you go elsewhere for that type of fun.

Hasbro and WotC bank on the belief that "D&D" is an absolute. They are wrong.

 

[EDG]

If a particular game no longer delivers the same type of play that you were getting from its previous edition, the name on the cover doesn't matter. The game might be a lot of fun, but if it isn't the fun you were looking for, then you go elsewhere for that type of fun.

Then by all means they should keep playing the old edition and enjoying their games - nobody's forcing anyone to switch to the new one after all. Usually people seem to complain because they can't buy new material for their games since the old editions aren't supported anymore but that's really the consequence of their own decision to stick with the old edition, not the publishers' decision to move on with a new edition.

This applies to anything, be it D&D, Traveller, or any other RPG.

Hasbro and WotC bank on the belief that "D&D" is an absolute. They are wrong.

No, the fans are banking on D&D (or any other game) being an absolute. WotC, or Mongoose, or anyone else is banking on people being willing to adapt to a new edition that may (and often is) different to what came before. It's just a subset of fans who not only don't like the new direction, but who also want to complain about it endlessly when there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do about it. No company has ever gone back to a previous edition - TSR didn't, GDW didn't, Mongoose didn't either (sure, the new Traveller does harken back to CT in a lot of ways, but it's still a new game with different rules).

There'd be a lot less flame wars in RPG circles if people could just accept that their own decision to not follow a game into a new edition has inevitable consequences. If they just stuck to their older editions and continued to have fun with those, and let the people who want to go with the new edition have fun with that too then everyone would get along so much better. But the publishers aren't going to stop making new editions of games, either way - if the new edition sells really poorly then they'll have to reconsider their approach, but usually that doesn't happen. Even 4e, while being less popular than 3e was, is still selling pretty darn well.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Hasbro and WotC bank on the belief that "D&D" is an absolute. They are wrong.

Actually, D&D (just like Traveller) is a brand. D&D (just like Traveller) has changed over the years to be games that are very different from their origins. But because the one that held the rights to the brand name said it was so, it was so. It was true with T4/T20 as compared to CT/MGT and it is true with D&D 4E as compared to 3.x D&D.

Wizards of the Coast says that D&D is 4E. That is the case.

EDIT: that doesn't mean I have to like it. I will be playing Pathfinder instead of 4E, myself.

 

[GypsyComet]

Traveller seems, for good or ill, to have a large fanbase that *does* stick to their favorite prior edition.

Interestingly, Traveller also bucks the trend when it comes to the "feel" carrying over. Each edition has felt different, and been set in a different type of SF environment, than the edition before it, and has done so on purpose.

Ahem.

ROBOTS have been part of Traveller from very early and have drawn a lot of effort in several editions, but always seem to be kept as an afterthought when it came to writing for the setting. Of the adventures written for Classic and Mega by GDW or DGP, only the Digest Cycle features a robot as anything but a curiosity or maguffin, and only a few robots appear at all. In GDW works, most of the visible robots are affiliated with aliens and enemies.

So... Is the Imperium intended to be a robot using culture?

 

[captainjack23]

ROBOTS have been part of Traveller from very early and have drawn a lot of effort in several editions, but always seem to be kept as an afterthought when it came to writing for the setting. Of the adventures written for Classic and Mega by GDW or DGP, only the Digest Cycle features a robot as anything but a curiosity or maguffin, and only a few robots appear at all. In GDW works, most of the visible robots are affiliated with aliens and enemies.

So... Is the Imperium intended to be a robot using culture?

Somthing I and my players have been working with. It clearly wasn't *cough*cough* years ago; but now, oddly enough, it seems more of an issue. Partly I think because the idea of a robot has evolved considerably; from a big tin woodsman with the three laws, to a softball size flying laptop. It seems that the robot in SF has nowadays become more of a personalized tool than a loyal manservant.

So far, it seems that the presence of a big Asmovian robot seems too intrusive, but the absence of a smart-ass iBot hovering nearby is really jarring.

Also, and this is just speculation: if you have ATW (Asmovian Tin Woodsmen) robots, some knuckleheaded player is going to want to play one......but so far, no one has volunteered to play a flying Blackberry.....

 

[EDG]

Traveller seems, for good or ill, to have a large fanbase that *does* stick to their favorite prior edition.

If they do, they don't seem to do it quietly though. Or at least, there's an element of the fanbase that can't resist being very noisy about edition changes (see the reaction to TNE, for example).

 

[GypsyComet]

Traveller seems, for good or ill, to have a large fanbase that *does* stick to their favorite prior edition.

If they do, they don't seem to do it quietly though. Or at least, there's an element of the fanbase that can't resist being very noisy about edition changes (see the reaction to TNE, for example).

I was on the TML at the time. I'm more aware of the damage that month did than most.

 

[EDG]

Also, and this is just speculation: if you have ATW (Asmovian Tin Woodsmen) robots, some knuckleheaded player is going to want to play one......but so far, no one has volunteered to play a flying Blackberry.....

Present that "flying Blackberry" as a Knife Drone from the Culture books, and that might change .

Plus, there are options to play Automated Kill Vehicles (Robot drones) in Transhuman Space - among other things...

 

[captainjack23]

.

Present that "flying Blackberry" as a Knife Drone from the Culture books, and that might change .

Nah, I don't game with highschool munchkins any more -not since I was one, myself, anyway...

.
Plus, there are options to play Automated Kill Vehicles (Robot drones) in Transhuman Space - among other things...

When I run transhuman space, I will. Probably not gonna happen soon. Most of my bunch is very high tech computer headed types at work. Generally, the appeal of playing sentient processes seems to be lost on them.

Plus...that's GURPS, not traveller......

 

[EDG]

Just because you could potentially personally kill every living thing within a 50 mile radius within about 10 minutes, doesn't mean you have to...

 

[Infojunky]

Somthing I and my players have been working with. It clearly wasn't *cough*cough* years ago; but now, oddly enough, it seems more of an issue. Partly I think because the idea of a robot has evolved considerably; from a big tin woodsman with the three laws, to a softball size flying laptop. It seems that the robot in SF has nowadays become more of a personalized tool than a loyal manservant.

Gee my bots tend to run the entire gambit, but I am a heretic, I have always had self-mobile AIs in my games, as well as the assortment of floating, crawling etc toasters to provide flair/otherness to my settings.

Couple this with all the various engineered and uplifted intelligences that run around in my head and thus my games Bots start to be mundane. I have taken great inspiration from Gurps over the years for populating my universe, what's not to love about Chtulu worshiping uplifted Octopi?

In the end I also must point out that Bots, mobile expert systems, etc... Are all old tech, things that have been in use for 1000s of years.

 

[rust]

In our setting we have lots of drones, for example for mining, many
(somewhat misnamed) remotes, for example for survey, and few ex-
tremely expensive robots, for example for medical treatment or as
instructors - and all starships with their low AI computers could also
be considered robots.

Drones are always remotely controlled, remotes have enough "intelli-
gence" to carry out all basic activities without human supervision, and
robots are truly intelligent (but hardly creative) and can do the jobs
they were designed for almost without any human interference.

When I started the campaign in this setting, I decided to introduce all
those semi-robots and robots because otherwise the colony setting
would have needed a lot more human colonists, forcing me to handle
a very high number of NPCs. It just seemed easier to fill at least some
of the "slots" with robots without names, personalities and motivations
- the perfect "background extras".

Until now no player has asked to play a robot, and I do not expect that
to happen: Robots, although defined as "mobile", are a very stationary
part of the background, they stay on their jobs and do not go where
there are adventures to deal with.

 

[BP]

Robots played a big role in Asimov's verse - especially the answer to why they where not overly present. (They decided that humanity was better served without them).

I like the Star-wars style of droids. They are ever present, like with most species - diversity being the norm. They are however, not Asimov 3 Laws compliant (and therefore don't evolve the 4th law). This means that their motivations need to be defined either based on self, or a fundamental logic based on intended function.

Of course, one runs up against the question of why they do not become an all powerful race, ala Matrix style (Grandfather was really a what?).

Robot races and Clone races raise the question on what should limit them. As with Asimov's robots, and the modern world - the question is what makes them self-limiting (i.e. no more expansionist enterprises - such as Roman empire, British and numerous others throughout history).

 

[Bygoneyrs]

In my game I design my robots with a INT score and depending on that score, it defines home many skills/levels the robot can have installed into their brain. Then they use their INT score to make checks to see if they can do what is asked of them and etc. Makes it very easy to manage the robots that way.

Penn

 

[Infojunky]

To be quite honest I still use the robot construction system from jTas, and wing it from there....

 

[Ishmael]

Of course, one runs up against the question of why they do not become an all powerful race, ala Matrix style (Grandfather was really a what?).

project 2501?
( the Final War being to exterminate biological Ancients and remaining Droyne being the surviving biologicals?... manipulated to keep them from becoming a threat again?... dumbed down in the same manner that humans were uplifted? )

 

[captainjack23]

Just because you could potentially personally kill every living thing within a 50 mile radius within about 10 minutes, doesn't mean you have to...

Yeah, but when you can, it's always on the table.