Traveller and other rpg's must rely a certain level of veracity but they must be playable, as well. If Traveller were completely scientific and rules for jump routes, grav plates, air/rafts and such were reviewed each year to insure that the science bits were 100% compatible with current theory, it would be great. On the other hand, the game might not be picked up by new players with basic science literacy and would be further reserved to the community of science majors and enthusiasts. I don't know what a grognard is, but I guess it's bad to be one. I struggle greatly as a referee because the wonder of science is not always the exactitude of problem solving and understanding a new truth for the first time. It is for enthusiasts, but might not be for another person just wanting to play a game as an escape. In my opinion, the backstory of TNE might have been fanciful but it was appealing to a new crowd (or at least it hoped to be). The science of TNE
and MegaTraveller would benefit greatly from a revision to their scientific basis
--- On Sun, 1/27/13, > wrote:
From: >
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To:
Date: Sunday, January 27, 2013, 6:48 PM
Charles--
This is not a flame, but just a response. If the game works for you as is,
that's great.
But my rejoinder is that Traveller always tried to be, or present itself
as, a game that took the knowable science seriously. It drew heavily on
Poul Anderson who knew how to build a world. And it had (DGP) books like
the World Builder's Handbook that were very serious about designing worlds
and ecospheres. So to just ignore or slap on willy-nilly the stars that
are the center and generator of all life around them is just sloppy. And
Traveller was supposed to be better than that.
I mean, if the nature of the star really doesn't matter, which it doesn't
if you slap it on randomly as an afterthought, then why go through the
charade of pretending it's an F or a G or a white dwarf that couldn't heat
a teakettle?
Its the lack of connections between aspirations and execution in something
that was made randomized/automated that is the disappointment.
Dave
> I know I am gonna get flamed or it but:Dude,it is just a game not a
> simulation.
> It is Space Opera,you know the stuff you read as a kid and saw on the big
> screen.
>
> Wherever you go there you are-Buckaroo Banzai
>
>
> We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to
> visit
> violence on those who would do us harm. (Winston Churchill)
>
>
>
>
> My brother is so stupid he sold his truck for gas money
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
From: constantine_thomas_uk
Sent: Sun, January 27, 2013 6:37:33 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
>
>
> To me, a serious flaw is one that means the setting just makes no physical
> sense. I guess other people can ignore those more easily, but with my
> science
> background I can't.
>
>
> (things like:
>
> - the tiny cannonball worlds with breathable atmospheres
> - the apparent non-existence of rogue planets (contradicted by the rules
> in book
> 6, which require there to be a LOT of rogue planets to allow the required
> 1 in 3
> systems to be able to have at least one captured planets)
> - the broken stargen tables that allow habitable worlds to be
> preferentially
> found around white dwarfs and subdwarf stars
>
> the stars that inexplicably gain mass when they age (brought about by a
> lack of
> research on stellar evolution)
> - the ridiculous amount of systems with close white dwarf companions
> - habitable worlds around high mass giants and main sequence stars with
> lifespans too short to allow them to exist
>
> etc... )
>
> There's only so many times (once or twice maybe) that you can blame the
> Ancients
> for this sort of thing. Fact is, there's no 'in-setting39; reason for these
> - it's
> all down to the authors failing or not bothering to do their research
> (this was
> all known in the 1970s).
>
>
> What gets me isn't so much that these problems are still in the worldgen
> system
> (even in T5, from what I've heard), it's that some people will acknowledge
> that
> these issues exist, and then happily make up reasons to explain them that
> make
> even less sense than the problems themselves.
>
>
> As I said elsewhere, the scientists in the OTU must be so confused by
> their
> inconsistent, contradictory physical universe. How on earth could they
> explain
> it all?
>
>
> --- In , "James" wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>
4
and MegaTraveller would benefit greatly from a revision to their scientific basis
--- On Sun, 1/27/13, > wrote:
From: >
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To:
Date: Sunday, January 27, 2013, 6:48 PM
Charles--
This is not a flame, but just a response. If the game works for you as is,
that's great.
But my rejoinder is that Traveller always tried to be, or present itself
as, a game that took the knowable science seriously. It drew heavily on
Poul Anderson who knew how to build a world. And it had (DGP) books like
the World Builder's Handbook that were very serious about designing worlds
and ecospheres. So to just ignore or slap on willy-nilly the stars that
are the center and generator of all life around them is just sloppy. And
Traveller was supposed to be better than that.
I mean, if the nature of the star really doesn't matter, which it doesn't
if you slap it on randomly as an afterthought, then why go through the
charade of pretending it's an F or a G or a white dwarf that couldn't heat
a teakettle?
Its the lack of connections between aspirations and execution in something
that was made randomized/automated that is the disappointment.
Dave
> I know I am gonna get flamed or it but:Dude,it is just a game not a
> simulation.
> It is Space Opera,you know the stuff you read as a kid and saw on the big
> screen.
>
> Wherever you go there you are-Buckaroo Banzai
>
>
> We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to
> visit
> violence on those who would do us harm. (Winston Churchill)
>
>
>
>
> My brother is so stupid he sold his truck for gas money
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
From: constantine_thomas_uk
Sent: Sun, January 27, 2013 6:37:33 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
>
>
> To me, a serious flaw is one that means the setting just makes no physical
> sense. I guess other people can ignore those more easily, but with my
> science
> background I can't.
>
>
> (things like:
>
> - the tiny cannonball worlds with breathable atmospheres
> - the apparent non-existence of rogue planets (contradicted by the rules
> in book
> 6, which require there to be a LOT of rogue planets to allow the required
> 1 in 3
> systems to be able to have at least one captured planets)
> - the broken stargen tables that allow habitable worlds to be
> preferentially
> found around white dwarfs and subdwarf stars
>
> the stars that inexplicably gain mass when they age (brought about by a
> lack of
> research on stellar evolution)
> - the ridiculous amount of systems with close white dwarf companions
> - habitable worlds around high mass giants and main sequence stars with
> lifespans too short to allow them to exist
>
> etc... )
>
> There's only so many times (once or twice maybe) that you can blame the
> Ancients
> for this sort of thing. Fact is, there's no 'in-setting39; reason for these
> - it's
> all down to the authors failing or not bothering to do their research
> (this was
> all known in the 1970s).
>
>
> What gets me isn't so much that these problems are still in the worldgen
> system
> (even in T5, from what I've heard), it's that some people will acknowledge
> that
> these issues exist, and then happily make up reasons to explain them that
> make
> even less sense than the problems themselves.
>
>
> As I said elsewhere, the scientists in the OTU must be so confused by
> their
> inconsistent, contradictory physical universe. How on earth could they
> explain
> it all?
>
>
> --- In , "James" wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>
4