John--
I think you're right, and the main reason we didn't go with that scenario
is that was just what MT supposedly was all about, and blew it. It didn't
seem like a good idea to say, "remember that thing we just tried? We're
going to try it again and do it right."
Dave
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:53:56 -0700, John Potter <>
wrote:
> I am running a Regency TNE game at the moment and having read much of
> the back story for the Imperium I can say it was probably time for it to
> fall apart. Given the cyclic nature of human behavior any system human
> will construct will eventually devolve. But a more scientific reasoning
> may be found in the 2nd rule of thermodynamics, ordered system move
> towards disorder or entropy theory.
> But really I think it may have been possible for the imperium to fall
> into warring client empires instead of a complete meltdown. While the
> Virus is an interesting catalyst I feel that humans can be
> incredibly ingenuousness when pushed into a corner.
> A splintered state scenario gives several advantages. 1. GMs get the
> choice from several 'tones' where they want to set their campaigns.2.
> Several splinter states allows for epic space conflicts if that is what
a
> GM wants 3. Struggles for contested world resources is a perfect
military
> setting campaign where the GM can just pick the splinter states he
wasn't
> involved4. A splintered state scenario also allows for espionage setting
> campaigns as empires trying to via for political, technological, or
> military superiority over enemies AND allies. 5. Multi-sided conflicts
> lets profiteering abound, pirates, corsairs, blackmarketeers, smugglers
> all have a chance to play a part in the setting allowing a multitude of
> possible roleplaying opportunities for campaigns. 6. The 'Firefly'
> scenario is very viable also in a splintered state setting where the
> player's are on the fringes of the empires trying to make a living.
> The major downside; 1. Content creation is a multi-headed hydra to
> wrangle.2. It costs more for a company to do because of the added
> personnel required to write and fact check content.
> In short its more work and costs more to do but is the 'best' solution
> in my opinion.
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Evyn MacDude wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:03 PM, wrote:
> Here's something I've often wondered over the years.
>
> The argument has been made that one of the flaws of TNE is that it
> ruined
> the Imperium. (A subset of that is that is was okay to ruin the
> Imperium,
> but Virus was the wrong choice. We'll save that for a different
> discussion.)
>
> What do you think, or what do you think other Traveller players in 1993
> think we should have done instead?
>
> Not a blessed thing..... Other than reference Hard Times a little more
> stridently, but to be honest if you read and played Hard Times the
> Imperium was Toast..... So really from the Big Picture, Not a thing...
> Short of the "shower scene" resolution, which we published in Challenge
> 59
> 1/2, and which SJG appropriated for GT, what is another way that we
> could
> have, or should have moved forward? Because to me, the editions of
> Traveller which keep moving into the past don't make a whole lot of
> sense.
> The historicity is all wrong. How can characters "change the world" in
> a
> history that is already written?
>
> Yep. But that's my analysis, which I applied 20 years ago. What other
> good
> options would you have liked to see, or do you think others would have
> preferred?
> Preferred? I liked the setting, the whole creepy backwaters and monster
> ships, brought some bite to the Largely Vanilla Universe. It also
> allowed for lots of places for a industrious GM to carve out
> a campaign space all of his own. One of the huge problems with the
> online Traveller Fan-Base is that they don't play the game, just collect
> and read it. One of the things the edition change did was allow more
> modern SF to be played in the Traveller Universe, which is one of the
> huge weaknesses of the Mega-Traveller edition of the game. --
> Evyn