Given the fact that Traveller fans are probably the most constitutionally
inclined to discard the setting ("IMTU", all of the Grognards), removing
campaigns from the setting is practically a given.
> Depends on the definition of "serious flaw" I suppose.
>
> To me, a serious flaw would be something that was both difficult to ignore
> or remove from the setting AND prevented the setting from telling the
> sorts of stories/sessions/campaigns that the game is intended to tell.
>
> --- In , "constantine_thomas_uk" wrote:
>>
>> To be fair, people can't even agree on what Traveller *is*. And it's not
>> helped by the fact that most of the OTU grognards are so invested in it
>> that they willingly blind themselves to its many serious flaws as a
>> setting - I even recently had some of them claim to me on the SJG board
>> that these flaws were because the OTU actually has different fundamental
>> (and inconsistently applied, apparently) physical laws to our own! If
>> one has to go to that level of self-delusion to cover up a setting's
>> flaws then something's gone wrong somewhere...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "James" wrote:
>> > Watching all of this over the last 20+ years, as well as the edition
>> neutral noodling that the TML occupies its time with these days. leads
>> me to think that the idea of a grand unified Traveller is
>> unattainable. Ask any ten Traveller fans what Traveller is to them and
>> you get twelve answers, at least four of which define the answers of
>> everyone else as heretical. the divides are over rules both general
>> and specific, the timeline of the setting, and even things like page
>> layout and publication choices. These are rifts that are not ever
>> going away.
>>
>
>
>
inclined to discard the setting ("IMTU", all of the Grognards), removing
campaigns from the setting is practically a given.
> Depends on the definition of "serious flaw" I suppose.
>
> To me, a serious flaw would be something that was both difficult to ignore
> or remove from the setting AND prevented the setting from telling the
> sorts of stories/sessions/campaigns that the game is intended to tell.
>
> --- In , "constantine_thomas_uk" wrote:
>>
>> To be fair, people can't even agree on what Traveller *is*. And it's not
>> helped by the fact that most of the OTU grognards are so invested in it
>> that they willingly blind themselves to its many serious flaws as a
>> setting - I even recently had some of them claim to me on the SJG board
>> that these flaws were because the OTU actually has different fundamental
>> (and inconsistently applied, apparently) physical laws to our own! If
>> one has to go to that level of self-delusion to cover up a setting's
>> flaws then something's gone wrong somewhere...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "James" wrote:
>> > Watching all of this over the last 20+ years, as well as the edition
>> neutral noodling that the TML occupies its time with these days. leads
>> me to think that the idea of a grand unified Traveller is
>> unattainable. Ask any ten Traveller fans what Traveller is to them and
>> you get twelve answers, at least four of which define the answers of
>> everyone else as heretical. the divides are over rules both general
>> and specific, the timeline of the setting, and even things like page
>> layout and publication choices. These are rifts that are not ever
>> going away.
>>
>
>
>