Oops, realize that I forgot to respond to your question about grognards.
Grognard is French for "grumbler." It was a term given to Napoleon's Old
(Imperial) Guard (as distinguished from the normal non-old Imperial
Guard), composed by soldiers who had been with him since the beginning of
the Napoleonic Wars. They were called the grumblers because they had been
with Napoleon for so long they were allowed lapses in discipline like
whining and kvetching because of their long service.
In the 1970s Jim Dunnigan of SPI began using this name for "old time"
wargamers from the early 60s who would whine and complain, and in about
the past 10 years "old-school" gamers have begun taking on the term
"grognards" for themselves as a humorous badge of honor, being basically
synonymous for being old and grumpy and yelling, "Hey, you kids get off my
lawn."
Aside from the usual, "things were better in the old days," their big
thing is that RPGs were ruined when they started going heavily into
background stories, as they were better when everyone invented their own
universes and there was no official universe. The reason is that it got in
the way of those who wanted to run their own universes, supposedly served
as a deterrent against new gamers getting involved, and general
fist-shaking. In Traveller terms this coincides with the rise of the 3I
setting, which variously begin with The Spinward Marches, the various
Emperor's Lists, the Rebellion, and so on.
So "Grognard" is not really a bad thing, as those who are grognards like
calling themselves grognards. However, they agree that they like to shake
their fists at newfangled stuff, so generally look down on anything
current, because they don't need it. "Back in my day, we could get by with
3 little black books, 2D6, and a needle. We didn't need pens, we'd just
prick our fingers and write in our own blood."
> 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
> Â
> --- On Sun, 1/27/13, > wrote:
>
>
> From: >
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
> To:
> Date: Sunday, January 27, 2013, 6:48 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
Grognard is French for "grumbler." It was a term given to Napoleon's Old
(Imperial) Guard (as distinguished from the normal non-old Imperial
Guard), composed by soldiers who had been with him since the beginning of
the Napoleonic Wars. They were called the grumblers because they had been
with Napoleon for so long they were allowed lapses in discipline like
whining and kvetching because of their long service.
In the 1970s Jim Dunnigan of SPI began using this name for "old time"
wargamers from the early 60s who would whine and complain, and in about
the past 10 years "old-school" gamers have begun taking on the term
"grognards" for themselves as a humorous badge of honor, being basically
synonymous for being old and grumpy and yelling, "Hey, you kids get off my
lawn."
Aside from the usual, "things were better in the old days," their big
thing is that RPGs were ruined when they started going heavily into
background stories, as they were better when everyone invented their own
universes and there was no official universe. The reason is that it got in
the way of those who wanted to run their own universes, supposedly served
as a deterrent against new gamers getting involved, and general
fist-shaking. In Traveller terms this coincides with the rise of the 3I
setting, which variously begin with The Spinward Marches, the various
Emperor's Lists, the Rebellion, and so on.
So "Grognard" is not really a bad thing, as those who are grognards like
calling themselves grognards. However, they agree that they like to shake
their fists at newfangled stuff, so generally look down on anything
current, because they don't need it. "Back in my day, we could get by with
3 little black books, 2D6, and a needle. We didn't need pens, we'd just
prick our fingers and write in our own blood."
> 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
> Â
> --- On Sun, 1/27/13, > wrote:
>
>
> From: >
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
> To:
> Date: Sunday, January 27, 2013, 6:48 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>