Thread: COTI

How many people on this list are also COTI members?

I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
list refugees from COTI?

I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
and responded to some threads in the last day.

Dave

I am over there. You can pick up some good ideas and such from the folks over
there.

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

________________________________
Sent: Fri, January 25, 2013 1:57:26 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] COTI

How many people on this list are also COTI members?

I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
list refugees from COTI?

I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
and responded to some threads in the last day.

Dave

I keep meaning to go back but haven't posted since around Thanksgiving last
year. Have some revisions for Turin and more Starship Ops stuff as well as
some armored fighting vehicle house rules, that I need to post there and
here.

___
>From my T989
On Jan 25, 2013 11:57 AM, > wrote:

**

How many people on this list are also COTI members?

I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
list refugees from COTI?

I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
and responded to some threads in the last day.

Dave

I saw a number of your posts over there, and responded to a couple. You're
just "Uxi" over there, not "Master."

Honestly, I think most of what I put up, with the exception of the Paul
Brunette stuff, is stuff I have answered several times over in other
forums, but what the heck, maybe someone there would want to see it.

Now I have to figure out how to link to that post I made here (Yahoo TNE)
about nuke missiles (Terriers, Tartars, can't miss, FF&S, Underlap), as I
referred to it on COTI without a link to the complete monologue.

> I keep meaning to go back but haven't posted since around Thanksgiving
> last
> year. Have some revisions for Turin and more Starship Ops stuff as well as
> some armored fighting vehicle house rules, that I need to post there and
> here.
>
> ___
> From my T989
> On Jan 25, 2013 11:57 AM, > wrote:
>
> **
>
>
> How many people on this list are also COTI members?
>
> I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
> list refugees from COTI?
>
> I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
> and responded to some threads in the last day.
>
> Dave
>
>
>

Over on Coti as well under "Shield"

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 7:57 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] COTI

How many people on this list are also COTI members?

I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
list refugees from COTI?

I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
and responded to some threads in the last day.

Dave

I used to be years ago but the signal to noise ratio, plus its connection to T20, annoyed me.

I prefer the SF-RPG boards. I don't post there much, about as much as I post here.

\_/
DED

--- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>
> How many people on this list are also COTI members?
>
> I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
> list refugees from COTI?
>
> I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
> and responded to some threads in the last day.
>
> Dave
>

I am a member, but I agree it is a very busy site. For better or worse, it is an economic haven for game designers---that's why I check in every now and then.

--- On Fri, 1/25/13, DED > wrote:

From: DED >
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To:
Date: Friday, January 25, 2013, 1:19 PM

 

I used to be years ago but the signal to noise ratio, plus its connection to T20, annoyed me.

I prefer the SF-RPG boards. I don't post there much, about as much as I post here.

\_/
DED

--- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>
> How many people on this list are also COTI members?
>
> I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
> list refugees from COTI?
>
> I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
> and responded to some threads in the last day.
>
> Dave
>

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM, > wrote:

> How many people on this list are also COTI members?
>
> I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
> list refugees from COTI?
>

Well, technically I am also. but it has been some time since I was over
there.
--
Evyn

I was just curious. I also deliberately came here instead of COTI last
summer as I remember COTI being a real hotbed of TNE slagging which I was
not interested in.

I was mostly curious if it was a waste of time to post over there since
everyone there intested in TNE was already here.

> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM, > wrote:
>
>> How many people on this list are also COTI members?
>>
>> I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is
>> this
>> list refugees from COTI?
>>
>
> Well, technically I am also. but it has been some time since I was over
> there.
> --
> Evyn
>

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:57:18 -0600 (CST), wrote:

>How many people on this list are also COTI members?

>I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
>list refugees from COTI?

I'm over there as (probably pretty obviously) FreeTrav. Not a refugee;
just using this as another pulse-point for the Traveller community.

--
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
The Electronic Fan-Supported
Traveller® Fanzine and Resource


http://www.freelancetraveller.com
http://come.to/freelancetraveller
http://freelancetraveller.downport.com/

®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2009. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

CyberNET Web Hosting (http://www.cyberwebhosting.net)
The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)

I like it. There is some good discussion there. That said, in my youth, I
always enjoyed poking the eyes of some of the old timers on the TML, too.
I'm more mellow and mature these days and I do think its a good place for a
bigger slice of Traveller fandom. At least a long as we have out
reservation here, too for a tighter focus on TNE.
___
>From my T989
On Jan 25, 2013 3:06 PM, > wrote:

> **
>
>
> I was just curious. I also deliberately came here instead of COTI last
> summer as I remember COTI being a real hotbed of TNE slagging which I was
> not interested in.
>
> I was mostly curious if it was a waste of time to post over there since
> everyone there intested in TNE was already here.
>
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM, > wrote:
> >
> >> How many people on this list are also COTI members?
> >>
> >> I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is
> >> this
> >> list refugees from COTI?
> >>
> >
> > Well, technically I am also. but it has been some time since I was over
> > there.
> > --
> > Evyn
> >
>
>
>

It depends so much on the kindness of the people. I've found kind people there and talked to some business owners and it's nice to know how the trade is developing and where it's developing. I know a lot of people that really love SciFi20 (the new name for an updated T20). It's not for me, but I try to stay open and cheerful. If I start with a compliment, I find most people are quite willing to discuss any old thing.

--- On Fri, 1/25/13, Master Uxi > wrote:

From: Master Uxi >
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] COTI
To:
Date: Friday, January 25, 2013, 4:32 PM

 

I like it. There is some good discussion there. That said, in my youth, I always enjoyed poking the eyes of some of the old timers on the TML, too. I'm more mellow and mature these days and I do think its a good place for a bigger slice of Traveller fandom. At least a long as we have out reservation here, too for a tighter focus on TNE.
___
>From my T989

On Jan 25, 2013 3:06 PM, > wrote:

 

I was just curious. I also deliberately came here instead of COTI last
summer as I remember COTI being a real hotbed of TNE slagging which I was
not interested in.

I was mostly curious if it was a waste of time to post over there since
everyone there intested in TNE was already here.

> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM, > wrote:
>
>> How many people on this list are also COTI members?
>>
>> I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is
>> this
>> list refugees from COTI?
>>
>
> Well, technically I am also. but it has been some time since I was over
> there.
> --
> Evyn
>

I’m on there but I really post anything there now.

Antony aka skaran

From: [] On Behalf Of Charles Popp
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013 4:06 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] COTI

I am over there. You can pick up some good ideas and such from the folks over there.

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

________________________________
Sent: Fri, January 25, 2013 1:57:26 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] COTI

How many people on this list are also COTI members?

I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
list refugees from COTI?

I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
and responded to some threads in the last day.

Dave

_____

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6055 - Release Date: 01/24/13

There's a guy over there, "LeperColony," who has started a lot of threads
that I enjoyed.

Another guy, "Vargas," that I must I have talked to in the past, based on
some of the insights he shared.

> It depends so much on the kindness of the people. I've found kind people
> there and talked to some business owners and it's nice to know how the
> trade is developing and where it's developing. I know a lot of people that
> really love SciFi20 (the new name for an updated T20). It's not for me,
> but I try to stay open and cheerful. If I start with a compliment, I find
> most people are quite willing to discuss any old thing.
>
> --- On Fri, 1/25/13, Master Uxi > wrote:
>
>
> From: Master Uxi >
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] COTI
> To:
> Date: Friday, January 25, 2013, 4:32 PM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> I like it. There is some good discussion there. That said, in my youth, I
> always enjoyed poking the eyes of some of the old timers on the TML, too.
> I'm more mellow and mature these days and I do think its a good place for
> a bigger slice of Traveller fandom. At least a long as we have out
> reservation here, too for a tighter focus on TNE.
> ___
> From my T989
>
> On Jan 25, 2013 3:06 PM, > wrote:
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I was just curious. I also deliberately came here instead of COTI last
> summer as I remember COTI being a real hotbed of TNE slagging which I was
> not interested in.
>
> I was mostly curious if it was a waste of time to post over there since
> everyone there intested in TNE was already here.
>
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM, > wrote:
>>
>>> How many people on this list are also COTI members?
>>>
>>> I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is
>>> this
>>> list refugees from COTI?
>>>
>>
>> Well, technically I am also. but it has been some time since I was over
>> there.
>> --
>> Evyn
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dear Folks -

Dave asked:
> How many people on this list are also COTI members?

Hi Dave! Hyphen here. I read the CotI site almost every day when I travel to work. Obviously I have nothing better to do.

Actually, tell a lie, I'm re-reading the _Power Projection_ rules. Our Brisbane group has just finished a "Death Station" scenario run by Trav_TNE's own "Duke Craig", and the next GM in line is going to run PP. Apparently we're going to have a few characters each, fight a starship battle, and whoever's left standing somehow continue on from there.

Shades of ST: Voyager, Ep 1, I'm thinking. ;-)

Anyway, it means I'll FINALLY be able to break out the beautiful felt starfield battlemap I purchased years ago from a guy in Canada, and maybe my Ad Astra AHL mini might finally be used in anger...

I'm also still a subscriber to the TML, although I usually just skim over the table of contents. Obviously I'm a Trav junkie.

Finally, I do not know if you received word, but there was some sad news over on the CotI boards. Marc (Avery) let us know that Hunter Gordon, who started the board and was the driving force behind T20, passed away from cancer. He had been fighting it for a number of years.
----------------------------------------------------------
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson ..at.. Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)
http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"

Dear Folks -

--- In , "DED" wrote:
>
> I used to be years ago but the signal to noise ratio, plus its connection to T20, annoyed me.
>
> I prefer the SF-RPG boards. I don't post there much, about as much as I post here.
>
> \_/
> DED

What annoys you about T20?

Oh, and where is your "Traveller in the DED Zone" jump point located these days?
----------------------------------------------------------
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson ..at.. Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)
http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"

I am still on COTI, but rarely post and read once or twice a month. I don’t have time for much more these days. The little I dabble in Traveller I post on my web site these days.

--
Roger Malmstein
www.travellerfreepo

No, I had not heard that. I had heard that he had cancer, but I never
really knew the cadre that was after my time. I think Hunter was the guy
that set me up with my account back in 2004.

> Dear Folks -
>
> Dave asked:
>> How many people on this list are also COTI members?
>
> Hi Dave! Hyphen here. I read the CotI site almost every day when I travel
> to work. Obviously I have nothing better to do.
>
> Actually, tell a lie, I'm re-reading the _Power Projection_ rules. Our
> Brisbane group has just finished a "Death Station" scenario run by
> Trav_TNE's own "Duke Craig", and the next GM in line is going to run PP.
> Apparently we're going to have a few characters each, fight a starship
> battle, and whoever's left standing somehow continue on from there.
>
> Shades of ST: Voyager, Ep 1, I'm thinking. ;-)
>
> Anyway, it means I'll FINALLY be able to break out the beautiful felt
> starfield battlemap I purchased years ago from a guy in Canada, and maybe
> my Ad Astra AHL mini might finally be used in anger...
>
> I'm also still a subscriber to the TML, although I usually just skim over
> the table of contents. Obviously I'm a Trav junkie.
>
> Finally, I do not know if you received word, but there was some sad news
> over on the CotI boards. Marc (Avery) let us know that Hunter Gordon, who
> started the board and was the driving force behind T20, passed away from
> cancer. He had been fighting it for a number of years.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson ..at.. Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)
> http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw
> "I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"
>
>
>

I think you're "Zparkz" over there.

> I am still on COTI, but rarely post and read once or twice a month. I
> don’t have time for much more these days. The little I dabble in
> Traveller I post on my web site these days.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Roger Malmstein
> www.travellerfreepo

Hmmm. I have no direct experience of post-GDW Traveller politics, so even
when people tell me about it I can hardly remember which one is which.

Actually at one point I think I confused Hunter with EDG/Consty, probably
because they had each run a Traveller-oriented board. I know my saying
that must be galling to Consty, but it's simply my utter lack of knowledge
of the post-1995 terrain that allows me the luxury of my ignorance.

Perhaps I ought not to be dabbling in the dark COTI arts. I know I was
wearied by the widespread anti-TNE sentiment there years ago, so had no
presence there since my 2004 letter-from-exile.

> --- In , "DED" wrote:
>>
>> I should've been more specific. It isn't T20 the Trav version that
>> annoyed me so much as the company that put out the product, QuikLink
>> Interactive. There were issues regarding money and product which I'd
>> rather not go into. Suffice it to say, it's done, but the experience
>> soured me on them.
>
> Same here... Hunter did some things involving money, business and the
> politics of the community that IMO aren't really forgiveable. I think COTI
> also has an overblown sense of its own importance - Mongoose is where
> Traveller is at now, while CotI just caters for people who like CT and T5.
>
>

--- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>
> Hmmm. I have no direct experience of post-GDW Traveller politics,
> so even when people tell me about it I can hardly remember which
> one is which.

It's probably better that you stayed out of it ;)

> Actually at one point I think I confused Hunter with EDG/Consty,
> probably because they had each run a Traveller-oriented board. I
> know my saying that must be galling to Consty, but it's simply my
> utter lack of knowledge of the post-1995 terrain that allows me the
> luxury of my ignorance.

I am galled! (not really) ;) Though the SFRPG boards do cater to more than Traveller now.

> Perhaps I ought not to be dabbling in the dark COTI arts. I know I
> was wearied by the widespread anti-TNE sentiment there years ago,
> so had no presence there since my 2004 letter-from-exile.

To be fair, your resurfacing there is what put a lot of the anti-TNE sentiment to bed. It was hard for the TNE haters to keep spouting their... misinterpretations when there's a guy who was actually THERE telling the truth about it.

 I would have said that CoTI is the place for T20 and and SciFi20. Isn't it funny how sites that claim "We support all versions of Traveller" often only support one--and religiously so? --- On Sat, 1/26/13, > wrote:

From: >
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To:
Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 5:17 PM

 

Hmmm. I have no direct experience of post-GDW Traveller politics, so even
when people tell me about it I can hardly remember which one is which.

Actually at one point I think I confused Hunter with EDG/Consty, probably
because they had each run a Traveller-oriented board. I know my saying
that must be galling to Consty, but it's simply my utter lack of knowledge
of the post-1995 terrain that allows me the luxury of my ignorance.

Perhaps I ought not to be dabbling in the dark COTI arts. I know I was
wearied by the widespread anti-TNE sentiment there years ago, so had no
presence there since my 2004 letter-from-exile.

> --- In , "DED" wrote:
>>
>> I should've been more specific. It isn't T20 the Trav version that
>> annoyed me so much as the company that put out the product, QuikLink
>> Interactive. There were issues regarding money and product which I'd
>> rather not go into. Suffice it to say, it's done, but the experience
>> soured me on them.
>
> Same here... Hunter did some things involving money, business and the
> politics of the community that IMO aren't really forgiveable. I think COTI
> also has an overblown sense of its own importance - Mongoose is where
> Traveller is at now, while CotI just caters for people who like CT and T5.
>
>

the very fact that COTI is almost straightforward ANTI TNE is why i eventually lost interest in the site. it was difficult to find any recurring interest in The New Era from a majority of the sites regulars. The best of CT is well represented there, and like all of us, (mostly) I cut my teeth on Classic travelers as my first scifi RPG.
It DOES have several great threads for adventure hooks, many of which are TNE friendly. Probably the only reason I stayed there for as long as I did.

--- In , Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>  I would have said that CoTI is the place for T20 and and SciFi20. Isn't it funny how sites that claim "We support all versions of Traveller" often only support one--and religiously so? --- On Sat, 1/26/13, dcndcn13@... wrote:
>
>
> From: dcndcn13@...
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
> To:
> Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 5:17 PM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Hmmm. I have no direct experience of post-GDW Traveller politics, so even
> when people tell me about it I can hardly remember which one is which.
>
> Actually at one point I think I confused Hunter with EDG/Consty, probably
> because they had each run a Traveller-oriented board. I know my saying
> that must be galling to Consty, but it's simply my utter lack of knowledge
> of the post-1995 terrain that allows me the luxury of my ignorance.
>
> Perhaps I ought not to be dabbling in the dark COTI arts. I know I was
> wearied by the widespread anti-TNE sentiment there years ago, so had no
> presence there since my 2004 letter-from-exile.
>
> > --- In , "DED" wrote:
> >>
> >> I should've been more specific. It isn't T20 the Trav version that
> >> annoyed me so much as the company that put out the product, QuikLink
> >> Interactive. There were issues regarding money and product which I'd
> >> rather not go into. Suffice it to say, it's done, but the experience
> >> soured me on them.
> >
> > Same here... Hunter did some things involving money, business and the
> > politics of the community that IMO aren't really forgiveable. I think COTI
> > also has an overblown sense of its own importance - Mongoose is where
> > Traveller is at now, while CotI just caters for people who like CT and T5.
> >
> >
>

Sadly, the edition wars continue. TNE and the cluster-go-round that was T4 attract the most derision from others, but T20 attracts a fair amount as well. Each gets slammed for different reasons, though. Despite having helped playtest/write T20 (Doc Skull and I are at the top of the playtesters list on the credits page for a reason), I fully appreciate the reasons why people dislike it.

I have a CotI account and wander in occasionally, but when several of the "Traveller is its setting" fanatics lit into Mongoose for their rules/setting split scheme with a heat I have not seen since the launch of TNE, and chose to do so on CotI, I abandoned it as my central point of Traveller discussion. Most of my post count there comes from the T20 playtest days.

The "we support all versions" failure is not the fault of the forum's creator, though initially Hunter was just as edition-blind to anything past early MT as any TNE denier. Compared to the two other dominant Traveller fora at the time (TML and the SJG board), Hunter was open-minded about finding solutions in editions beyond his direct experience, and he set up CotI on that basis. That the user base he attracted contained edition-blind fanatics as well as reasonable-appearing closet TNE haters is hardly his fault.

The Traveller fanbase as a whole is now nearly impossible to consider as a whole. It split with TNE's release, which led to a CT/MT split that SJG exploited, creating a GURPS/everyone else split in the process. The editions of the Long Night, including T20 and T4, have their followings, but Mongoose was the next big edition. This naturally led to it splitting the fanbase, though it brought a significant number of people back into Traveller from long absences.

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.

--- In , Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>  I would have said that CoTI is the place for T20 and and SciFi20. Isn't it funny how sites that claim "We support all versions of Traveller" often only support one--and religiously so? --- On Sat, 1/26/13, dcndcn13@... wrote:
>
>
> From: dcndcn13@...
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
> To:
> Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 5:17 PM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Hmmm. I have no direct experience of post-GDW Traveller politics, so even
> when people tell me about it I can hardly remember which one is which.
>
> Actually at one point I think I confused Hunter with EDG/Consty, probably
> because they had each run a Traveller-oriented board. I know my saying
> that must be galling to Consty, but it's simply my utter lack of knowledge
> of the post-1995 terrain that allows me the luxury of my ignorance.
>
> Perhaps I ought not to be dabbling in the dark COTI arts. I know I was
> wearied by the widespread anti-TNE sentiment there years ago, so had no
> presence there since my 2004 letter-from-exile.
>
> > --- In , "DED" wrote:
> >>
> >> I should've been more specific. It isn't T20 the Trav version that
> >> annoyed me so much as the company that put out the product, QuikLink
> >> Interactive. There were issues regarding money and product which I'd
> >> rather not go into. Suffice it to say, it's done, but the experience
> >> soured me on them.
> >
> > Same here... Hunter did some things involving money, business and the
> > politics of the community that IMO aren't really forgiveable. I think COTI
> > also has an overblown sense of its own importance - Mongoose is where
> > Traveller is at now, while CotI just caters for people who like CT and T5.
> >
> >
>

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.

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.
>

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.

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.

That's what I usually hear in response. I don't really think that's a good excuse/explanation for the issues though.

For one thing, "Space Opera" doesn't need any worldgen, period. You just have your "desert planet" or "forest planet" or whatever. In fact, most of the time the planets and stars aren't even a factor in the story in Space Opera. I don't even really agree that Traveller is a system that is exclusively Space Opera because of this (if it was, what was the need of presenting those rules in the first place?).

IMO it's more a case of "if you're going to present rules to create worlds, then at least make a decent effort to get it right". I accept that they tried with book 6 (they got it wrong, but it was an effort at least), but the flaws and errors have just been propagated without much effort to fix them through the subsequent decades.

But more to the point, it creates a universe that just makes no damned sense, which is deeply unsatisfying.

--- In , Charles Popp wrote:
>
> 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.

James--

I just posted a rambling thing over on COTI about how balkanized Traveller
has been since a long time ago, and I didn't even go into editions (having
next to no experience in that: in my day there were only three).

Your points here really drove home to me how a balkanized game has further
splintered and splintered some more as time has gone by. It's kind of like
that new age-y "visualization" thing. Think about something enough and you
attract it to you. The same way the "Rebellion" said the 3I was a phony
tissue paper veneer, the past 20 years have shown "Traveller" to be the
same. People pledging allegiance to a red sun they won't or can't follow.

Sucks to be Marc.

> Sadly, the edition wars continue. TNE and the cluster-go-round that was
> T4 attract the most derision from others, but T20 attracts a fair amount
> as well. Each gets slammed for different reasons, though. Despite having
> helped playtest/write T20 (Doc Skull and I are at the top of the
> playtesters list on the credits page for a reason), I fully appreciate the
> reasons why people dislike it.
>
> I have a CotI account and wander in occasionally, but when several of the
> "Traveller is its setting" fanatics lit into Mongoose for their
> rules/setting split scheme with a heat I have not seen since the launch of
> TNE, and chose to do so on CotI, I abandoned it as my central point of
> Traveller discussion. Most of my post count there comes from the T20
> playtest days.
>
> The "we support all versions" failure is not the fault of the forum's
> creator, though initially Hunter was just as edition-blind to anything
> past early MT as any TNE denier. Compared to the two other dominant
> Traveller fora at the time (TML and the SJG board), Hunter was open-minded
> about finding solutions in editions beyond his direct experience, and he
> set up CotI on that basis. That the user base he attracted contained
> edition-blind fanatics as well as reasonable-appearing closet TNE haters
> is hardly his fault.
>
> The Traveller fanbase as a whole is now nearly impossible to consider as a
> whole. It split with TNE's release, which led to a CT/MT split that SJG
> exploited, creating a GURPS/everyone else split in the process. The
> editions of the Long Night, including T20 and T4, have their followings,
> but Mongoose was the next big edition. This naturally led to it splitting
> the fanbase, though it brought a significant number of people back into
> Traveller from long absences.
>
> 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.
>
> --- In , Richard Crowley wrote:
>>
>>  I would have said that CoTI is the place for T20 and and SciFi20.
>> Isn't it funny how sites that claim "We support all versions of
>> Traveller" often only support one--and religiously so? --- On Sat,
>> 1/26/13, dcndcn13@... wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: dcndcn13@...
>> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
>> To:
>> Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 5:17 PM
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. I have no direct experience of post-GDW Traveller politics, so
>> even
>> when people tell me about it I can hardly remember which one is which.
>>
>> Actually at one point I think I confused Hunter with EDG/Consty,
>> probably
>> because they had each run a Traveller-oriented board. I know my saying
>> that must be galling to Consty, but it's simply my utter lack of
>> knowledge
>> of the post-1995 terrain that allows me the luxury of my ignorance.
>>
>> Perhaps I ought not to be dabbling in the dark COTI arts. I know I was
>> wearied by the widespread anti-TNE sentiment there years ago, so had no
>> presence there since my 2004 letter-from-exile.
>>
>> > --- In , "DED" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I should've been more specific. It isn't T20 the Trav version that
>> >> annoyed me so much as the company that put out the product, QuikLink
>> >> Interactive. There were issues regarding money and product which I'd
>> >> rather not go into. Suffice it to say, it's done, but the experience
>> >> soured me on them.
>> >
>> > Same here... Hunter did some things involving money, business and the
>> > politics of the community that IMO aren't really forgiveable. I think
>> COTI
>> > also has an overblown sense of its own importance - Mongoose is where
>> > Traveller is at now, while CotI just caters for people who like CT and
>> T5.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

> To be fair, people can't even agree on what Traveller *is*.

Exactly. And that problem dates back a long way. I just posted something
to that effect on COTI. And that was without even bringing editions into
it, which raises the problem a couple exponential powers.

> 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.
>
>
>

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.
>>
>
>
>

> 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).

The way I characterized this in TNE when I tried to fix the stars was that
they were added like a stamp collection. Someone felt that Traveller
should include every type of star ever heard of, never mind if they were
Pop I or Pop II so would be remotely close to each other, made any sense
with the worlds supposedly around them, and just scotch-taped them on that
way.

It was a continuation of the way the Pop triad in the UPP were generated
independently of the size triad which made no sense to begin with, and
then adding stars randomly on top of that just put the cart further out
ahead of the horse. And then when you have DGP getting all excited and
randomly generating these things by the thousands and putting them out on
GEnie so poor Traveller players could get invested in them and cry "foul"
if we tried to discard them just made it worse. (Because that was my
original plan, but after having dug into it, realized that the barn door
had been open for too long and the horses were long gone.)

The thing that bugs me the most is when you pointed out that we tried to
fix them but didn't go far enough. I thought we had made a good effort,
but by the time you pointed that out to me I could no longer clearly
remember the process we tried to implement.

> 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.
>
>
>
>

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.
>
>
>

Consty pretty much said what I just said: "If you don't intend it to mean
anything, then why say it?"

No one will ding you for saying, "Hey, I'm just space opera." But if you
make the claim to be more than that, and don't bother, then there is a
legitimate case that you have misrepresented yourself.

At one point early in TNE I had hoped to mesh the 2300 system into
Traveller to make it easier, but as soon as I opened the books, realized
that it was impossible. Every garden and furnace and whatever else world
in 2300 all fell into UPP 777XXX, plus or minus 2 in each digit, or
something close to that. And the real irony there is that 2300, which
billed itself as even more up-to-date and scientifically accurate than
Traveller had actually taken a giant step back to Star Wars, simply
changing the names. Garden planet = Forest Moon of Endor. Tatooine, Desert
Planet = something else. Hoth, Ice Planet = something else.

While practical in game/generation/design terms, it was oddly disconcerting.

> That's what I usually hear in response. I don't really think that's a good
> excuse/explanation for the issues though.
>
> For one thing, "Space Opera" doesn't need any worldgen, period. You just
> have your "desert planet" or "forest planet" or whatever. In fact, most of
> the time the planets and stars aren't even a factor in the story in Space
> Opera. I don't even really agree that Traveller is a system that is
> exclusively Space Opera because of this (if it was, what was the need of
> presenting those rules in the first place?).
>
> IMO it's more a case of "if you're going to present rules to create
> worlds, then at least make a decent effort to get it right". I accept that
> they tried with book 6 (they got it wrong, but it was an effort at least),
> but the flaws and errors have just been propagated without much effort to
> fix them through the subsequent decades.
>
> But more to the point, it creates a universe that just makes no damned
> sense, which is deeply unsatisfying.
>
>
> --- In , Charles Popp wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>

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

You're absolutely right that it must have veracity and be playable, and
that's why the stars are a problem.

To be playable, you can simply assume, "whatever world you live on gets
enough solar radiation to be liveable." The problem with the stars is that
a lot of the Traveller-generated worlds create high-population,
agricultural worlds that orbit stars not bright enough to melt ice on the
planet. So the problem is that the detail added runs counter to
playability. The solution is to either ditch the counter-productive detail
or make it work.

Traveller will never be 100% scientifically accurate. Jump drive,
contragrav, gravitic laser focusing, psionics, force growing clones with
identical personalities and memories to existing people, Ancients, Vilani,
Vargr, etc., will not exist in our lifetimes. It is escapism, but it tries
to be escapism at levels more credible than Flash Gordon, George Lucas,
Edgar Rice Burroughs, etc. Not because trying to be "more credible" makes
it better, it doesn't. But if it sets out to be more more credible, it
should follow through. While we must make up untruth like jump drives and
psionics to be escapist, stars really do exist now, and it's possible to
write rules to allow liveable planets to exist around liveable stars, and
those have not yet been rectified.

I apologize if any of the above seems like I am contradicting or arguing
with you, I'm just trying to clarify the point about stars and how it does
fit with your assessment below.

Actually, one last thing: the stars in Traveller are phony. they have
nothing to do with the stars that exist within a a couple hundred parsecs
of Earth. They are all randomly generated. (And that is not a problem for
me, just wanted to mention it.) To play a game that actually attempts to
portray the stars we know to be out there, you'd want to play 2300,
although even that has seen improvements in interpretation since it was
published. (Cue Consty, although this is not a 2300 list).

Dave

> 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
>
>
>
>

> 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.

FWIW, only the Marches seem to be inviolate, and even there the stars are being looked at. Other sectors are being vetted for at least some of these issues, if not all of them.

> - the apparent non-existence of rogue planets

More "non-coverage", I think. As you say, Book 6 implied strongly that such worlds are out there, but since we hadn't actually found any in 1977, they would have been tough to characterize. I'm certain that had GDW issued rules for them we would be ridiculing those just as much as you now bemoan their absence.

> - the broken stargen tables that allow habitable worlds to be preferentially found around white dwarfs and subdwarf stars

Based on my own recent reading, I suspect this resulted from getting two generations of stellar terminology blended together. I gather astronomers now often use "degenerate star" for what Traveller and the last fifty years of popular science publications refer to as "dwarf stars", while the proper usage of "Dwarf" includes our own Sun and anything else that isn't a "Giant". Statements to the effect that X% of the stars in the Milky Way are Dwarf Stars are *really* easy to parse as the CT and MT stellar tables if you don't know that the terminology has sharpened.

> the stars that inexplicably gain mass when they age (brought about by a lack of research on stellar evolution)

Since I have no idea where the stellar characteristics table in Book 6 came from, I will not otherwise comment.

> - the ridiculous amount of systems with close white dwarf companions

Perhaps you have a different definition of "Close" than Book 6 does?

> - habitable worlds around high mass giants and main sequence stars with lifespans too short to allow them to exist

I think Dave's "Stamp collecting" explanation covers this one, plus the random nature of the CT/MT tables. Are those tables fixable? That depends on whether the average player is willing to accept a system generation chapter three times the size of the CT/MT/TNE chapters put together. The DMs and special cases get prohibitive after a while. There is a compromise, I'm sure, but would anyone actually be happy with it?

--- In , "constantine_thomas_uk" wrote:
>
> 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.
>

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
>  
> --- 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
>
>
>
>

Three little black books, Luxury!

Ah back in the day...we didn't need all of these new fangled
computers and gadgets and books.

We had two sticks and a rock between three of us and an afternoon of
fun was digging a hole.

Ahh a hole in the road, Luxury

And then there was Traveller which opened up a whole universe of
possibilities to allow us to leave our own lives behind and imagine
worlds and individuals far removed from ourselves.

Megatraveller, then opened up the possibilities of playing politics
in gaming (though there were definately some inconsistencies)

--- In , "James" wrote:
> > - the apparent non-existence of rogue planets
>
> More "non-coverage", I think. As you say, Book 6 implied strongly that such worlds are out there, but since we hadn't actually found any in 1977, they would have been tough to characterize. I'm certain that had GDW issued rules for them we would be ridiculing those just as much as you now bemoan their absence.

The problem isn't with describing the rogues themselves. It's the fact that they would be in every 'empty hex', which means that one has to explain why they're not used to jump across 'gaps' on the map between systems (which also is part of the clusterfrak that is the 'empty hex jump').

We can find rogue planets with current technology (not very easily, but it's possible). The Imperium could certainly find them with TL 9+ tech. If you can jump to gas giants and terrestrial worlds within a system, you can deliberately jump to rogue planets if you know where they are. If you can do that, there are no 'empty hexes', and every world can be reached using J1 from everywhere else (it may take several J1s to cross a 'gap', but it becomes possible). Rogue planets will also have hydrogen (either because they're gas giants, or on their moons, or on their surfaces if they're rocky/icy bodies) so it's possible to refuel from them. I covered this in an SJG JTAS article in 2003.

The canonistas would have me believe that because none of the above is covered in canon, rogue planets must be very rare or non-existent in the OTU. Rogue planets exist as a result of being ejected from planetary systems when they are very young. If that's not happening, gravity must work very differently in the OTU. Obviously this is not a satisfying explanation, because it has consequences that are completely ignored elsewhere in the setting.

I would prefer to say that rogue planets exist in large numbers in the empty hexes, but they are unreachable by jump. For that to be the case, ships would have to be pulled out of jump by a mass at the other end (going back to the aforementioned 'empty hex jump' can of worms) and that mass must at least be stellar (over 0.08 solar masses). Rogue planets aren't reachable because their masses are less than 0.08 MS. I suggested an exception to handle in-system jumps, whereby any world within 1000 AU of a stellar mass could still be reachable by jumping to it.

> > - the broken stargen tables that allow habitable worlds to be preferentially found around white dwarfs and subdwarf stars
>
> Based on my own recent reading, I suspect this resulted from getting two generations of stellar terminology blended together. I gather astronomers now often use "degenerate star" for what Traveller and the last fifty years of popular science publications refer to as "dwarf stars", while the proper usage of "Dwarf" includes our own Sun and anything else that isn't a "Giant". Statements to the effect that X% of the stars in the Milky Way are Dwarf Stars are *really* easy to parse as the CT and MT stellar tables if you don't know that the terminology has sharpened.

No, it's nothing to do with that. It's actually because the DMs on the star generation table when a habitable mainworld already exists are borked - the tables should be extended to higher values because of the large DM, but they're not. As a result, you have to assume that the results corresponding to the highest values on the table should be applied to higher numbers. If you do that, a lot of habitable mainworlds will end up with F subdwarf (VI) or white dwarf primaries.

> > the stars that inexplicably gain mass when they age (brought about by a lack of research on stellar evolution)
>
> Since I have no idea where the stellar characteristics table in
> Book 6 came from, I will not otherwise comment.

Neither do I, but they evindently thought that giant stars would be moree massive than the main sequence stars that they evolved from.

> > > - the ridiculous amount of systems with close white dwarf companions
>
> Perhaps you have a different definition of "Close" than Book 6 does?

Nope. Though i will correct myself and say that while some of those will be close, it's more the fact that there are so many companion stars that are white dwarfs. This may be more a TNE issue since a lot of the stars generated for that (e.g. in the Regency sourcebook) have this problem. I just opened it to a random page and of the 11 systems with companion stars listed in one subsector, ALL of them have white dwarf companions. But I think this stems from a huge overabundance of them generated by the tables in book 6.

> > - habitable worlds around high mass giants and main sequence stars with lifespans too short to allow them to exist
>
> I think Dave's "Stamp collecting" explanation covers this one, plus the random nature of the CT/MT tables. Are those tables fixable? That depends on whether the average player is willing to accept a system generation chapter three times the size of the CT/MT/TNE chapters put together. The DMs and special cases get prohibitive after a while. There is a compromise, I'm sure, but would anyone actually be happy with it?

It's fixable. I've fixed it. See the revised Star Generation Tables on my worldbuilding page ( http://evildrganymede.net/rpgs/worldbuilding/ ). And the Stellar evolution essay there too, for that matterr.

I no longer use the star generation charts alone but rather create interesting worlds based on current astronomical knowledge of star types. The probability of variable stars, novas and pulsars. Dead stars are a possibility for my stuff, too. I find that the generation systems in TNE are quite accommodating to real-world astrographics--and it makes for a more fun session and more probable setting. I kinda do a transplant of current data into the systems of star types, likely orbits and habitable zones Using a system from 1977 can be easy and quick and, I feel, real-world physics can be translated into Traveller-speak somewhat easily, IMHO.  

--- On Mon, 1/28/13, constantine_thomas_uk > wrote:

From: constantine_thomas_uk >
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To:
Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 1:54 AM

 

--- In , "James" wrote:
> > - the apparent non-existence of rogue planets
>
> More "non-coverage", I think. As you say, Book 6 implied strongly that such worlds are out there, but since we hadn't actually found any in 1977, they would have been tough to characterize. I'm certain that had GDW issued rules for them we would be ridiculing those just as much as you now bemoan their absence.

The problem isn't with describing the rogues themselves. It's the fact that they would be in every 'empty hex', which means that one has to explain why they're not used to jump across 'gaps' on the map between systems (which also is part of the clusterfrak that is the 'empty hex jump').

We can find rogue planets with current technology (not very easily, but it's possible). The Imperium could certainly find them with TL 9+ tech. If you can jump to gas giants and terrestrial worlds within a system, you can deliberately jump to rogue planets if you know where they are. If you can do that, there are no 'empty hexes', and every world can be reached using J1 from everywhere else (it may take several J1s to cross a 'gap', but it becomes possible). Rogue planets will also have hydrogen (either because they're gas giants, or on their moons, or on their surfaces if they're rocky/icy bodies) so it's possible to refuel from them. I covered this in an SJG JTAS article in 2003.

The canonistas would have me believe that because none of the above is covered in canon, rogue planets must be very rare or non-existent in the OTU. Rogue planets exist as a result of being ejected from planetary systems when they are very young. If that's not happening, gravity must work very differently in the OTU. Obviously this is not a satisfying explanation, because it has consequences that are completely ignored elsewhere in the setting.

I would prefer to say that rogue planets exist in large numbers in the empty hexes, but they are unreachable by jump. For that to be the case, ships would have to be pulled out of jump by a mass at the other end (going back to the aforementioned 'empty hex jump' can of worms) and that mass must at least be stellar (over 0.08 solar masses). Rogue planets aren't reachable because their masses are less than 0.08 MS. I suggested an exception to handle in-system jumps, whereby any world within 1000 AU of a stellar mass could still be reachable by jumping to it.

> > - the broken stargen tables that allow habitable worlds to be preferentially found around white dwarfs and subdwarf stars
>
> Based on my own recent reading, I suspect this resulted from getting two generations of stellar terminology blended together. I gather astronomers now often use "degenerate star" for what Traveller and the last fifty years of popular science publications refer to as "dwarf stars", while the proper usage of "Dwarf" includes our own Sun and anything else that isn't a "Giant". Statements to the effect that X% of the stars in the Milky Way are Dwarf Stars are *really* easy to parse as the CT and MT stellar tables if you don't know that the terminology has sharpened.

No, it's nothing to do with that. It's actually because the DMs on the star generation table when a habitable mainworld already exists are borked - the tables should be extended to higher values because of the large DM, but they're not. As a result, you have to assume that the results corresponding to the highest values on the table should be applied to higher numbers. If you do that, a lot of habitable mainworlds will end up with F subdwarf (VI) or white dwarf primaries.

> > the stars that inexplicably gain mass when they age (brought about by a lack of research on stellar evolution)
>
> Since I have no idea where the stellar characteristics table in
> Book 6 came from, I will not otherwise comment.

Neither do I, but they evindently thought that giant stars would be moree massive than the main sequence stars that they evolved from.

> > > - the ridiculous amount of systems with close white dwarf companions
>
> Perhaps you have a different definition of "Close" than Book 6 does?

Nope. Though i will correct myself and say that while some of those will be close, it's more the fact that there are so many companion stars that are white dwarfs. This may be more a TNE issue since a lot of the stars generated for that (e.g. in the Regency sourcebook) have this problem. I just opened it to a random page and of the 11 systems with companion stars listed in one subsector, ALL of them have white dwarf companions. But I think this stems from a huge overabundance of them generated by the tables in book 6.

> > - habitable worlds around high mass giants and main sequence stars with lifespans too short to allow them to exist
>
> I think Dave's "Stamp collecting" explanation covers this one, plus the random nature of the CT/MT tables. Are those tables fixable? That depends on whether the average player is willing to accept a system generation chapter three times the size of the CT/MT/TNE chapters put together. The DMs and special cases get prohibitive after a while. There is a compromise, I'm sure, but would anyone actually be happy with it?

It's fixable. I've fixed it. See the revised Star Generation Tables on my worldbuilding page ( http://evildrganymede.net/rpgs/worldbuilding/ ). And the Stellar evolution essay there too, for that matterr.

> Sux to be Marc? I don't think so, I think it is great to be Marc,

Good point, Craige, and I'm sure he'd wish to be nowhere else. However,
he's got a lot of expectations to fulfill, and that has to amp up the
pucker factor.

Perhaps it does if you consider the success of the Mongoose version and the somewhat quiet  nature of the T5 launch. I've been having a tough time getting around the new T5 rules and, as a result, may not produce as much material for that setting. I don't think MWM had a lot to do with T4/Imperium and its troubles, he farmed out a lot of the work that he might have overseen himself but didn't. Maybe he should have farmed out some of T5 to new artists and writers--and had some of the gorgeous work of Chris Foss interspersed.  I'm a T4 fanboy and really love the potential that Imperium had

--- On Mon, 1/28/13, > wrote:

From: >
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To:
Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 7:00 AM

 

> Sux to be Marc? I don't think so, I think it is great to be Marc,

Good point, Craige, and I'm sure he'd wish to be nowhere else. However,
he's got a lot of expectations to fulfill, and that has to amp up the
pucker factor.

So is T5 released now? Are are you referring to stuff you've seen in
playtest?

Shows you how close I am to the Traveller pulse.

> Perhaps it does if you consider the success of the Mongoose version and
> the somewhat quiet  nature of the T5 launch. I've been having a tough
> time getting around the new T5 rules and, as a result, may not produce as
> much material for that setting. I don't think MWM had a lot to do with
> T4/Imperium and its troubles, he farmed out a lot of the work that he
> might have overseen himself but didn't. Maybe he should have farmed out
> some of T5 to new artists and writers--and had some of the gorgeous work
> of Chris Foss interspersed.  I'm a T4 fanboy and really love the
> potential that Imperium had
>
> --- On Mon, 1/28/13, > wrote:
>
>
> From: >
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
> To:
> Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 7:00 AM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>> Sux to be Marc? I don't think so, I think it is great to be Marc,
>
> Good point, Craige, and I'm sure he'd wish to be nowhere else. However,
> he's got a lot of expectations to fulfill, and that has to amp up the
> pucker factor.
>

Yeah, I'll put my oar in the water here, and in the process stake out an even more heretical position. I always thought the system/world generation rules were one of the biggest mistakes Traveller made.

If you've just staked out an Imperium of 11,000 worlds I can certainly understand the appeal of a procedural generation system. Problem is that if you care about scientific accuracy, you run into all the problems previously referenced, and your system needs to take them into account. Your spectrum type table needs to take into account Pop I and II stars, you have to let that modify stellar age, and stellar age and a bunch of other things determine whether you can even have habitable planets, let alone what their composition is in terms of metals, nitrogen, oxygen, and so forth. Note that we're not talking about a system that's going to generate 100% accurate planetary systems to a level that would satisfy a Ph.D astronomer, because I don't think that's what's being asked for (even by our resident Ph.D astronomer!) We're just talking about a system that will not generate physical absurdities like sunny garden planets circling eensy weensy small white stars. We haven't even gotten to the people yet, where we will need to prevent other absurdities like the overpopulated North Korea planet one jump away from Happy Fun Freedom Planet in an Imperium that supposedly allows free star travel.

I think the only possible response here is "Oy vey". Such a project might have appealed in my college days but I no longer have quite the same desire to hurt myself in the name of gaming as I once did.

On the other hand, if you're going to do a space opera setting, it makes a helluva lot more sense to do planets the way Path of Tears did. Subsector map indicating the stuff PCs care about at a glance, which is basically gas giants Y/N, water Y/N, people Y/N, starport Y/N and type. Most planets get a one or two sentence writeup sketching out what they're like and maybe giving a plot hook, a few cooler planets get one or two pages full of adventure hooks. None of the stat generation is necessary, because space opera don't care what the mass of your planet is, its hydrography, or anything else in the UPP. It cares about the story, so you toss everything out, get to that ASAP, and then exit stage left.

Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random system in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant that a lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same system enabled GDW and its various licensees to run through entire sectors of space at high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in their wake. The result is that most of the described space in the OTU has neither science behind it, nor any hooks on which to hang a story- just strings of hexadecimal waiting out there in the darkness to pounce on the unwary writer trying to make sense or a story out of the whole mess.

It bears repeating: oy vey. This is why I stay inside the AO, kids. It may be infested with Puppeteers, Soleans, and (worse) technarchs, but at least things in there make some *sense*.

-JTD

"I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
And that's an awful lot, girl"

- Team America: World Police

I'm right there with you. It's another artifact of Traveller trying to be
all things to all people, and became one more thing that spun out of
control. Good intentions, difficult to maintain.

> Yeah, I'll put my oar in the water here, and in the process stake out an
> even more heretical position. I always thought the system/world
> generation rules were one of the biggest mistakes Traveller made.
>
> If you've just staked out an Imperium of 11,000 worlds I can certainly
> understand the appeal of a procedural generation system. Problem is that
> if you care about scientific accuracy, you run into all the problems
> previously referenced, and your system needs to take them into account.
> Your spectrum type table needs to take into account Pop I and II stars,
> you have to let that modify stellar age, and stellar age and a bunch of
> other things determine whether you can even have habitable planets, let
> alone what their composition is in terms of metals, nitrogen, oxygen, and
> so forth. Note that we're not talking about a system that's going to
> generate 100% accurate planetary systems to a level that would satisfy a
> Ph.D astronomer, because I don't think that's what's being asked for (even
> by our resident Ph.D astronomer!) We're just talking about a system that
> will not generate physical absurdities like sunny garden planets circling
> eensy weensy small white stars. We haven't even gotten to the people yet,
> where we will need to prevent other absurdities like the overpopulated
> North Korea planet one jump away from Happy Fun Freedom Planet in an
> Imperium that supposedly allows free star travel.
>
> I think the only possible response here is "Oy vey". Such a project might
> have appealed in my college days but I no longer have quite the same
> desire to hurt myself in the name of gaming as I once did.
>
> On the other hand, if you're going to do a space opera setting, it makes a
> helluva lot more sense to do planets the way Path of Tears did. Subsector
> map indicating the stuff PCs care about at a glance, which is basically
> gas giants Y/N, water Y/N, people Y/N, starport Y/N and type. Most
> planets get a one or two sentence writeup sketching out what they're like
> and maybe giving a plot hook, a few cooler planets get one or two pages
> full of adventure hooks. None of the stat generation is necessary,
> because space opera don't care what the mass of your planet is, its
> hydrography, or anything else in the UPP. It cares about the story, so
> you toss everything out, get to that ASAP, and then exit stage left.
>
> Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random system
> in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant that
> a lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same system
> enabled GDW and its various licensees to run through entire sectors of
> space at high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in their wake. The
> result is that most of the described space in the OTU has neither science
> behind it, nor any hooks on which to hang a story- just strings of
> hexadecimal waiting out there in the darkness to pounce on the unwary
> writer trying to make sense or a story out of the whole mess.
>
> It bears repeating: oy vey. This is why I stay inside the AO, kids. It
> may be infested with Puppeteers, Soleans, and (worse) technarchs, but at
> least things in there make some *sense*.
>
> -JTD
>
> "I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark
> When he made Pearl Harbor
> I miss you more than that movie missed the point
> And that's an awful lot, girl"
>
> - Team America: World Police
>
>
>
>

I have to agree. And a good deal of the fan material isn't any better. A bunch of guys said, "Hey, let's develop these sectors!" but all they did was randomly generate systems. They didn't put any thought into what they were doing either or provide any library data to explain it. So I'm tossing it out and starting from scratch.

\_/
DED

--- Jeff Dougherty wrote:
>
>
> Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random system in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant that a lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same system enabled GDW and its various licensees to run through entire sectors of space at high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in their wake. The result is that most of the described space in the OTU has neither science behind it, nor any hooks on which to hang a story- just strings of hexadecimal waiting out there in the darkness to pounce on the unwary writer trying to make sense or a story out of the whole mess.
>

Yup. Since we know the locations are effectively random, too, best in
universe answer is to make them maps of jump space, which can be discarded
and/or updated since an old Vilani mainworld might be nothing in ROM and/or
3I, much less New Era.
___
>From my T989
On Jan 28, 2013 9:04 AM, "DED" > wrote:

> **
>
>
> I have to agree. And a good deal of the fan material isn't any better. A
> bunch of guys said, "Hey, let's develop these sectors!" but all they did
> was randomly generate systems. They didn't put any thought into what they
> were doing either or provide any library data to explain it. So I'm tossing
> it out and starting from scratch.
>
> \_/
> DED
>
> --- Jeff Dougherty wrote:
> >
> >
> > Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random system
> in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant that a
> lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same system enabled
> GDW and its various licensees to run through entire sectors of space at
> high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in their wake. The result is
> that most of the described space in the OTU has neither science behind it,
> nor any hooks on which to hang a story- just strings of hexadecimal waiting
> out there in the darkness to pounce on the unwary writer trying to make
> sense or a story out of the whole mess.
> >
>
>
>

> So I'm tossing it out and starting from scratch.
>
> \_/
> DED

You have no idea how much I wished I had had that option when I was at
GDW, as that's what I really wanted to do, and even looked into the
feasibility of it. But by then that buggy DGP program based on the flawed
GDW-published system (systemS, actually, as there were several accreted
layers) generation thing had permeated the fandom.

Say what you will about me, but I was very serious about not pulling the
rug out from under players/GMs who were using stuff that we had allowed
them to believe was true. And in this case I'm speaking of the way GDW had
allowed DGP to speak on their behalf for so long. I felt it would be a
real breach of faith with the existing players, so did not do it.

Dave

> --- Jeff Dougherty wrote:
>>
>>
>> Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random system
>> in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant
>> that a lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same
>> system enabled GDW and its various licensees to run through entire
>> sectors of space at high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in their
>> wake. The result is that most of the described space in the OTU has
>> neither science behind it, nor any hooks on which to hang a story- just
>> strings of hexadecimal waiting out there in the darkness to pounce on
>> the unwary writer trying to make sense or a story out of the whole mess.
>>
>
>
>

My intent was to always roll back only so far as I had to, and in this
case it would have been Atlas of the Imperium, which showed the locations
and some other data.

> Yup. Since we know the locations are effectively random, too, best in
> universe answer is to make them maps of jump space, which can be discarded
> and/or updated since an old Vilani mainworld might be nothing in ROM
> and/or
> 3I, much less New Era.
> ___
> From my T989
> On Jan 28, 2013 9:04 AM, "DED" > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> I have to agree. And a good deal of the fan material isn't any better. A
>> bunch of guys said, "Hey, let's develop these sectors!" but all they did
>> was randomly generate systems. They didn't put any thought into what
>> they
>> were doing either or provide any library data to explain it. So I'm
>> tossing
>> it out and starting from scratch.
>>
>> \_/
>> DED
>>
>> --- Jeff Dougherty wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random
>> system
>> in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant
>> that a
>> lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same system
>> enabled
>> GDW and its various licensees to run through entire sectors of space at
>> high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in their wake. The result is
>> that most of the described space in the OTU has neither science behind
>> it,
>> nor any hooks on which to hang a story- just strings of hexadecimal
>> waiting
>> out there in the darkness to pounce on the unwary writer trying to make
>> sense or a story out of the whole mess.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

Well, you might not have wanted to "pull the rug out from under players/GMs" with regards to the bad DGP (and whomever else) data but isn't that what happened anyway with the OTU storyline?

Before I go any further, let me state that I really enjoy what you did with TNE. I don't want you to think otherwise. But by releasing Virus upon the fractured remains of the Imperium, you in fact *did* pull the rug out from under them. At least, that's how they reacted upon hearing the news that the Imperium, and the little niche they carved out of it with their campaigns, was definitely no more.

I agree that the factions were so far gone that there was no hope for a neat and tidy reunification, but I believe that there were players out there who were clinging to some unfounded hope that it *could* be done, assuming you were going to select the faction of *their* choice. Of course, if you hadn't selected their faction, you would've had a whole different tirade: "You can't have a vargr as Emperor!", "Strephon was a clone! The real one died!", "Margaret was a genocidal monster!" And so on and so on.

I think you were in a Catch-22 situation. You'd hear the wrath of Trav-fanatics no matter what you did. Yes, IMO changing the UWP's would've stirred up more wrath in the short term, but maybe in the long run it would've been accepted. The stellar data was improved so that was a good start. I don't think anyone complained about that.

Of course that's all easy for me to say. :)

\_/
DED

--- dcndcn13@... wrote:
>
> > So I'm tossing it out and starting from scratch.
> >
> > \_/
> > DED
>
> You have no idea how much I wished I had had that option when I was at
> GDW, as that's what I really wanted to do, and even looked into the
> feasibility of it. But by then that buggy DGP program based on the flawed
> GDW-published system (systemS, actually, as there were several accreted
> layers) generation thing had permeated the fandom.
>
> Say what you will about me, but I was very serious about not pulling the
> rug out from under players/GMs who were using stuff that we had allowed
> them to believe was true. And in this case I'm speaking of the way GDW had
> allowed DGP to speak on their behalf for so long. I felt it would be a
> real breach of faith with the existing players, so did not do it.
>
> Dave
>
> > --- Jeff Dougherty wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random system
> >> in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant
> >> that a lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same
> >> system enabled GDW and its various licensees to run through entire
> >> sectors of space at high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in their
> >> wake. The result is that most of the described space in the OTU has
> >> neither science behind it, nor any hooks on which to hang a story- just
> >> strings of hexadecimal waiting out there in the darkness to pounce on
> >> the unwary writer trying to make sense or a story out of the whole mess.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

:-)

Yes, I almost went on to say, "except for the Virus...and thruster plates,
etc.," but figured I'd give someone else the pleasure of saying that.

Yes, absolutely. In changing things, and in my opinion, changing or
updating or "improving" things was inevitable, I always had a whole series
of tests or rules or threshholds in my mind. And in this case the one in
play was that of widespread "physical data" vs. storyline/history.
Obviously that had been done previously with the "Rebellion," so I/we
wasn't/weren39;t the first. But knowing how many people had already built
their own sector/subsector campaigns, saying, "all of your UWPs are null
and void" is far more damaging than, "the larger world in which your
subsectors exist has just undergone a sea change."

And as we've discussed before, given where we already were, Rebellion,
Hard Times, we had to do something, and collapse and reboot seemed the
most...practical/reasonable/logical.

> Well, you might not have wanted to "pull the rug out from under
> players/GMs" with regards to the bad DGP (and whomever else) data but
> isn't that what happened anyway with the OTU storyline?
>
> Before I go any further, let me state that I really enjoy what you did
> with TNE. I don't want you to think otherwise. But by releasing Virus upon
> the fractured remains of the Imperium, you in fact *did* pull the rug out
> from under them. At least, that's how they reacted upon hearing the news
> that the Imperium, and the little niche they carved out of it with their
> campaigns, was definitely no more.
>
> I agree that the factions were so far gone that there was no hope for a
> neat and tidy reunification, but I believe that there were players out
> there who were clinging to some unfounded hope that it *could* be done,
> assuming you were going to select the faction of *their* choice. Of
> course, if you hadn't selected their faction, you would've had a whole
> different tirade: "You can't have a vargr as Emperor!", "Strephon was a
> clone! The real one died!", "Margaret was a genocidal monster!" And so on
> and so on.
>
> I think you were in a Catch-22 situation. You'd hear the wrath of
> Trav-fanatics no matter what you did. Yes, IMO changing the UWP's would've
> stirred up more wrath in the short term, but maybe in the long run it
> would've been accepted. The stellar data was improved so that was a good
> start. I don't think anyone complained about that.
>
> Of course that's all easy for me to say. :)
>
> \_/
> DED
>
> --- dcndcn13@... wrote:
>>
>> > So I'm tossing it out and starting from scratch.
>> >
>> > \_/
>> > DED
>>
>> You have no idea how much I wished I had had that option when I was at
>> GDW, as that's what I really wanted to do, and even looked into the
>> feasibility of it. But by then that buggy DGP program based on the
>> flawed
>> GDW-published system (systemS, actually, as there were several accreted
>> layers) generation thing had permeated the fandom.
>>
>> Say what you will about me, but I was very serious about not pulling the
>> rug out from under players/GMs who were using stuff that we had allowed
>> them to believe was true. And in this case I'm speaking of the way GDW
>> had
>> allowed DGP to speak on their behalf for so long. I felt it would be a
>> real breach of faith with the existing players, so did not do it.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> > --- Jeff Dougherty wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random
>> system
>> >> in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant
>> >> that a lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same
>> >> system enabled GDW and its various licensees to run through entire
>> >> sectors of space at high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in
>> their
>> >> wake. The result is that most of the described space in the OTU has
>> >> neither science behind it, nor any hooks on which to hang a story-
>> just
>> >> strings of hexadecimal waiting out there in the darkness to pounce on
>> >> the unwary writer trying to make sense or a story out of the whole
>> mess.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

I think I totally disagree. I feel that the TNE universe did create a good environment for players. The UPPs had to be there as a framework to work with. For me, the MegaTraveller fan, everything came together in "Survival Margin."  It was a better backstory than the Rebellion Sourcebook. The TAS news reports in Survival margin are better than I've seen anywhere. That was what I meant by larger than life personalities with larger than life egos. I immediately attached myself to Dulinor and never looked back. I mean "Real Strephon" was out there, but Dulinor was a real hero with a real story. It was a new story, a new type of character generation and new rules for just about everything--but it was well done and is still a good example of how positive role-playing should be approached.
 
I didn't like/understand Virus at first, either but then I realized that the point of the Dawn League was the idea that space was dangerous now and we couldn't just hop in an xboat, visit anywhere we liked and plant flowers instead of naval bases. These thoughts are reflected in the TNE novel trilogy. It's a tremendous challenge to a referee, but if refereeing were easy and transparent, how could it do any good for anyone. I only wish GDW were still alive and kicking--maybe we could've had more development for Dark Conspiracy. :) 

--- On Mon, 1/28/13, DED > wrote:

From: DED >
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To:
Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 12:55 PM

 

Well, you might not have wanted to "pull the rug out from under players/GMs" with regards to the bad DGP (and whomever else) data but isn't that what happened anyway with the OTU storyline?

Before I go any further, let me state that I really enjoy what you did with TNE. I don't want you to think otherwise. But by releasing Virus upon the fractured remains of the Imperium, you in fact *did* pull the rug out from under them. At least, that's how they reacted upon hearing the news that the Imperium, and the little niche they carved out of it with their campaigns, was definitely no more.

I agree that the factions were so far gone that there was no hope for a neat and tidy reunification, but I believe that there were players out there who were clinging to some unfounded hope that it *could* be done, assuming you were going to select the faction of *their* choice. Of course, if you hadn't selected their faction, you would've had a whole different tirade: "You can't have a vargr as Emperor!", "Strephon was a clone! The real one died!", "Margaret was a genocidal monster!" And so on and so on.

I think you were in a Catch-22 situation. You'd hear the wrath of Trav-fanatics no matter what you did. Yes, IMO changing the UWP's would've stirred up more wrath in the short term, but maybe in the long run it would've been accepted. The stellar data was improved so that was a good start. I don't think anyone complained about that.

Of course that's all easy for me to say. :)

\_/
DED

--- dcndcn13@... wrote:
>
> > So I'm tossing it out and starting from scratch.
> >
> > \_/
> > DED
>
> You have no idea how much I wished I had had that option when I was at
> GDW, as that's what I really wanted to do, and even looked into the
> feasibility of it. But by then that buggy DGP program based on the flawed
> GDW-published system (systemS, actually, as there were several accreted
> layers) generation thing had permeated the fandom.
>
> Say what you will about me, but I was very serious about not pulling the
> rug out from under players/GMs who were using stuff that we had allowed
> them to believe was true. And in this case I'm speaking of the way GDW had
> allowed DGP to speak on their behalf for so long. I felt it would be a
> real breach of faith with the existing players, so did not do it.
>
> Dave
>
> > --- Jeff Dougherty wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random system
> >> in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant
> >> that a lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same
> >> system enabled GDW and its various licensees to run through entire
> >> sectors of space at high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in their
> >> wake. The result is that most of the described space in the OTU has
> >> neither science behind it, nor any hooks on which to hang a story- just
> >> strings of hexadecimal waiting out there in the darkness to pounce on
> >> the unwary writer trying to make sense or a story out of the whole mess.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

I too did not like TNE at first. That was until I got my hands on the other
books for the RECS then I was hooked. The chance to go out and rediscover the
universe is a great pull. The only thing was the fact that that the real state
of most worlds condition after the crash was too light. I think the spooky and
just depression nature was too downplayed.

The different versions of Traveller each gave you a different type of play. I
can not comment on Mongoose as I do not have any of their stuff nor will I. Past
issues with that company has me leery,I just hope Marc does not regret dealing
with them. Also,GURPS basically abandoning their line is not cool either.
And in this day and age why there is no miniatures is beyond reason. Both ground
and Space.

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: Richard Crowley
Sent: Mon, January 28, 2013 4:26:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI

I think I totally disagree. I feel that the TNE universe did create a good
environment for players. The UPPs had to be there as a framework to work with.
For me, the MegaTraveller fan, everything came together in "Survival
Margin." It was a better backstory than the Rebellion Sourcebook. The TAS news
reports in Survival margin are better than I've seen anywhere. That was what I
meant by larger than life personalities with larger than life egos. I
immediately attached myself to Dulinor and never looked back. I mean "Real
Strephon" was out there, but Dulinor was a real hero with a real story. It was a
new story, a new type of character generation and new rules for just about
everything--but it was well done and is still a good example of how positive
role-playing should be approached.

I didn't like/understand Virus at first, either but then I realized that the
point of the Dawn League was the idea that space was dangerous now and we
couldn't just hop in an xboat, visit anywhere we liked and plant flowers instead
of naval bases. These thoughts are reflected in the TNE novel trilogy. It's a
tremendous challenge to a referee, but if refereeing were easy and transparent,
how could it do any good for anyone. I only wish GDW were still alive and
kicking--maybe we could've had more development for Dark Conspiracy. :)

--- On Mon, 1/28/13, DED > wrote:

>From: DED >
>Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
>To:
>Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 12:55 PM
>
>
>
>Well, you might not have wanted to "pull the rug out from under players/GMs"
>with regards to the bad DGP (and whomever else) data but isn't that what
>happened anyway with the OTU storyline?
>
>
>Before I go any further, let me state that I really enjoy what you did with TNE.
>I don't want you to think otherwise. But by releasing Virus upon the fractured
>remains of the Imperium, you in fact *did* pull the rug out from under them. At
>least, that's how they reacted upon hearing the news that the Imperium, and the
>little niche they carved out of it with their campaigns, was definitely no more.
>
>
>I agree that the factions were so far gone that there was no hope for a neat and
>tidy reunification, but I believe that there were players out there who were
>clinging to some unfounded hope that it *could* be done, assuming you were going
>to select the faction of *their* choice. Of course, if you hadn't selected their
>faction, you would've had a whole different tirade: "You can't have a vargr as
>Emperor!", "Strephon was a clone! The real one died!", "Margaret was a genocidal
>monster!" And so on and so on.
>
>I think you were in a Catch-22 situation. You'd hear the wrath of Trav-fanatics
>no matter what you did. Yes, IMO changing the UWP's would've stirred up more
>wrath in the short term, but maybe in the long run it would've been accepted.
>The stellar data was improved so that was a good start. I don't think anyone
>complained about that.
>
>
>Of course that's all easy for me to say. :)
>
>\_/
>DED
>
>--- dcndcn13@... wrote:
>>
>> > So I'm tossing it out and starting from scratch.
>> >
>> > \_/
>> > DED
>>
>> You have no idea how much I wished I had had that option when I was at
>> GDW, as that's what I really wanted to do, and even looked into the
>> feasibility of it. But by then that buggy DGP program based on the flawed
>> GDW-published system (systemS, actually, as there were several accreted
>> layers) generation thing had permeated the fandom.
>>
>> Say what you will about me, but I was very serious about not pulling the
>> rug out from under players/GMs who were using stuff that we had allowed
>> them to believe was true. And in this case I'm speaking of the way GDW had
>> allowed DGP to speak on their behalf for so long. I felt it would be a
>> real breach of faith with the existing players, so did not do it.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> > --- Jeff Dougherty wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random system
>> >> in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant
>> >> that a lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same
>> >> system enabled GDW and its various licensees to run through entire
>> >> sectors of space at high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in their
>> >> wake. The result is that most of the described space in the OTU has
>> >> neither science behind it, nor any hooks on which to hang a story- just
>> >> strings of hexadecimal waiting out there in the darkness to pounce on
>> >> the unwary writer trying to make sense or a story out of the whole mess.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Richard--

Thank you very much for the compliments. I know we certainly worked our
a$$es off to make it compelling, and I had to write SM over my 1992
Christmas "vacation," but was pleased with the results. That sort of
"loving attention to detail" is the sort of thing that I always thought
was at the heart of doing things right, and was not always possible under
time constraints.

However, rather than continuing to roll in my laurels (if I may be
permitted to pretend I have any :-)), I'm going to jump to your DC
thought.

After Les left, I also became de facto line manager for DC, which was in
the midst of being phased out (just as X Files was catching on--had we had
the manpower and the ability to read those X Files tea leaves, DC could
have been the thing to keep GDW alive, maybe). I REALLY regretted that we
were phasing it out, because I thought we were just hitting our stride
with Empathic and Proto-Dimensions SBs. As I developed those, I really
started getting excited about where we could take DC, but they were
already known to be the last ones, as we didn't have the manpower to do
that in addition to TNE, T2K, boardgames, miniatures, etc. I think there
could have been a great expansion to the vision of DC, as well as a cool
proto-dimensions expansion for Minion Hunter. For the longest time I felt
DC didn't really have a cohesive vision of what the game was about, it was
a grab bag of creepy things without a structure behind it. But ESB and
PDSB provided that, I thought, and we really could have done great things
with that. If, if, if, if.

> I think I totally disagree. I feel that the TNE universe did create a good
> environment for players. The UPPs had to be there as a framework to work
> with. For me, the MegaTraveller fan, everything came together in
> "Survival Margin."  It was a better backstory than the Rebellion
> Sourcebook. The TAS news reports in Survival margin are better than I've
> seen anywhere. That was what I meant by larger than life personalities
> with larger than life egos. I immediately attached myself to Dulinor and
> never looked back. I mean "Real Strephon" was out there, but Dulinor
> was a real hero with a real story. It was a new story, a new type of
> character generation and new rules for just about everything--but it was
> well done and is still a good example of how positive role-playing should
> be approached.
>  
> I didn't like/understand Virus at first, either but then I realized that
> the point of the Dawn League was the idea that space was dangerous now and
> we couldn't just hop in an xboat, visit anywhere we liked and plant
> flowers instead of naval bases. These thoughts are reflected in the TNE
> novel trilogy. It's a tremendous challenge to a referee, but if refereeing
> were easy and transparent, how could it do any good for anyone. I only
> wish GDW were still alive and kicking--maybe we could've had more
> development for Dark Conspiracy. :) 
>
> --- On Mon, 1/28/13, DED > wrote:
>
>
> From: DED >
> Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
> To:
> Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 12:55 PM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Well, you might not have wanted to "pull the rug out from under
> players/GMs" with regards to the bad DGP (and whomever else) data but
> isn't that what happened anyway with the OTU storyline?
>
> Before I go any further, let me state that I really enjoy what you did
> with TNE. I don't want you to think otherwise. But by releasing Virus upon
> the fractured remains of the Imperium, you in fact *did* pull the rug out
> from under them. At least, that's how they reacted upon hearing the news
> that the Imperium, and the little niche they carved out of it with their
> campaigns, was definitely no more.
>
> I agree that the factions were so far gone that there was no hope for a
> neat and tidy reunification, but I believe that there were players out
> there who were clinging to some unfounded hope that it *could* be done,
> assuming you were going to select the faction of *their* choice. Of
> course, if you hadn't selected their faction, you would've had a whole
> different tirade: "You can't have a vargr as Emperor!", "Strephon was a
> clone! The real one died!", "Margaret was a genocidal monster!" And so on
> and so on.
>
> I think you were in a Catch-22 situation. You'd hear the wrath of
> Trav-fanatics no matter what you did. Yes, IMO changing the UWP's would've
> stirred up more wrath in the short term, but maybe in the long run it
> would've been accepted. The stellar data was improved so that was a good
> start. I don't think anyone complained about that.
>
> Of course that's all easy for me to say. :)
>
> \_/
> DED
>
> --- dcndcn13@... wrote:
>>
>> > So I'm tossing it out and starting from scratch.
>> >
>> > \_/
>> > DED
>>
>> You have no idea how much I wished I had had that option when I was at
>> GDW, as that's what I really wanted to do, and even looked into the
>> feasibility of it. But by then that buggy DGP program based on the
>> flawed
>> GDW-published system (systemS, actually, as there were several accreted
>> layers) generation thing had permeated the fandom.
>>
>> Say what you will about me, but I was very serious about not pulling the
>> rug out from under players/GMs who were using stuff that we had allowed
>> them to believe was true. And in this case I'm speaking of the way GDW
>> had
>> allowed DGP to speak on their behalf for so long. I felt it would be a
>> real breach of faith with the existing players, so did not do it.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> > --- Jeff Dougherty wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random
>> system
>> >> in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant
>> >> that a lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same
>> >> system enabled GDW and its various licensees to run through entire
>> >> sectors of space at high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in
>> their
>> >> wake. The result is that most of the described space in the OTU has
>> >> neither science behind it, nor any hooks on which to hang a story-
>> just
>> >> strings of hexadecimal waiting out there in the darkness to pounce on
>> >> the unwary writer trying to make sense or a story out of the whole
>> mess.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> I think the spooky and just depression nature was too downplayed.

Some of that was deliberate. We had a bunch of existing critics who were
always sharpening their knives to accuse us of "dark" games, and allowing
TNE to be influenced too much by DarkCon. But obviously that potential was
there for referees. We just didn't "shine a lot of light" on that.

> The different versions of Traveller each gave you a different type of
> play. I
> can not comment on Mongoose as I do not have any of their stuff nor will
> I. Past
> issues with that company has me leery,I just hope Marc does not regret
> dealing
> with them. Also,GURPS basically abandoning their line is not cool either.
> And in this day and age why there is no miniatures is beyond reason. Both
> ground
> and Space.
>
>
> 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: Richard Crowley
Sent: Mon, January 28, 2013 4:26:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
>
>
> I think I totally disagree. I feel that the TNE universe did create a good
> environment for players. The UPPs had to be there as a framework to work
> with.
> For me, the MegaTraveller fan, everything came together in "Survival
> Margin." It was a better backstory than the Rebellion Sourcebook. The TAS
> news
> reports in Survival margin are better than I've seen anywhere. That was
> what I
> meant by larger than life personalities with larger than life egos. I
> immediately attached myself to Dulinor and never looked back. I mean "Real
> Strephon" was out there, but Dulinor was a real hero with a real story. It
> was a
> new story, a new type of character generation and new rules for just about
> everything--but it was well done and is still a good example of how
> positive
> role-playing should be approached.
>
>
> I didn't like/understand Virus at first, either but then I realized that
> the
> point of the Dawn League was the idea that space was dangerous now and we
> couldn't just hop in an xboat, visit anywhere we liked and plant flowers
> instead
> of naval bases. These thoughts are reflected in the TNE novel trilogy.
> It's a
> tremendous challenge to a referee, but if refereeing were easy and
> transparent,
> how could it do any good for anyone. I only wish GDW were still alive and
> kicking--maybe we could've had more development for Dark Conspiracy. :)
>
> --- On Mon, 1/28/13, DED > wrote:
>
>
>>From: DED >
>>Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
>>To:
>>Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 12:55 PM
>>
>>
>>
>>Well, you might not have wanted to "pull the rug out from under
>> players/GMs"
>>with regards to the bad DGP (and whomever else) data but isn't that what
>>happened anyway with the OTU storyline?
>>
>>
>>Before I go any further, let me state that I really enjoy what you did
>> with TNE.
>>I don't want you to think otherwise. But by releasing Virus upon the
>> fractured
>>remains of the Imperium, you in fact *did* pull the rug out from under
>> them. At
>>least, that's how they reacted upon hearing the news that the Imperium,
>> and the
>>little niche they carved out of it with their campaigns, was definitely
>> no more.
>>
>>
>>I agree that the factions were so far gone that there was no hope for a
>> neat and
>>tidy reunification, but I believe that there were players out there who
>> were
>>clinging to some unfounded hope that it *could* be done, assuming you
>> were going
>>to select the faction of *their* choice. Of course, if you hadn't
>> selected their
>>faction, you would've had a whole different tirade: "You can't have a
>> vargr as
>>Emperor!", "Strephon was a clone! The real one died!", "Margaret was a
>> genocidal
>>monster!" And so on and so on.
>>
>>I think you were in a Catch-22 situation. You'd hear the wrath of
>> Trav-fanatics
>>no matter what you did. Yes, IMO changing the UWP's would've stirred up
>> more
>>wrath in the short term, but maybe in the long run it would've been
>> accepted.
>>The stellar data was improved so that was a good start. I don't think
>> anyone
>>complained about that.
>>
>>
>>Of course that's all easy for me to say. :)
>>
>>\_/
>>DED
>>
>>--- dcndcn13@... wrote:
>>>
>>> > So I'm tossing it out and starting from scratch.
>>> >
>>> > \_/
>>> > DED
>>>
>>> You have no idea how much I wished I had had that option when I was at
>>> GDW, as that's what I really wanted to do, and even looked into the
>>> feasibility of it. But by then that buggy DGP program based on the
>>> flawed
>>> GDW-published system (systemS, actually, as there were several accreted
>>> layers) generation thing had permeated the fandom.
>>>
>>> Say what you will about me, but I was very serious about not pulling
>>> the
>>> rug out from under players/GMs who were using stuff that we had allowed
>>> them to believe was true. And in this case I'm speaking of the way GDW
>>> had
>>> allowed DGP to speak on their behalf for so long. I felt it would be a
>>> real breach of faith with the existing players, so did not do it.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> > --- Jeff Dougherty wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Traveller ended up doing neither of these. They created a random
>>> system
>>> >> in which the various factors didn't really inter-relate, which meant
>>> >> that a lot of the maps as written were just stupid. *But* that same
>>> >> system enabled GDW and its various licensees to run through entire
>>> >> sectors of space at high speed, leaving UPPs and not much else in
>>> their
>>> >> wake. The result is that most of the described space in the OTU has
>>> >> neither science behind it, nor any hooks on which to hang a story-
>>> just
>>> >> strings of hexadecimal waiting out there in the darkness to pounce
>>> on
>>> >> the unwary writer trying to make sense or a story out of the whole
>>> mess.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

Interesting, never figured on a DarkCon connection. I always thought of TNE as Twilight 2000 with starships... ;>)

-Wayne

>>We had a bunch of existing critics who were always sharpening their knives to accuse us of "dark" games, and allowing TNE to be influenced too much by DarkCon. But obviously that potential was there for referees. We just didn't "shine a lot of light" on that.

Empathic sourcebook is great for Panic institutes and Proto Dimensions for
Empress Wave.... Jk. Sort of. ;)
___
>From my T989
On Jan 28, 2013 3:55 PM, "waynes_books" > wrote:

> **
>
>
> Interesting, never figured on a DarkCon connection. I always thought of
> TNE as Twilight 2000 with starships... ;>)
>
> -Wayne
>
> >>We had a bunch of existing critics who were always sharpening their
> knives to accuse us of "dark" games, and allowing TNE to be influenced too
> much by DarkCon. But obviously that potential was there for referees. We
> just didn't "shine a lot of light" on that.
>
>
>

Dear Folks -

Well, _Survival Margin_ (and _Arrival Vengance_*) are two of my favourite Traveller books. I agree with Doug Berry: the restoration of Strephon was the most skillful retcon I've ever seen.

(*)Plus Doug's addendum to AV (which I can't find now, grr) where his TNE group landed outside Strephon's palace at Usdiki, only to find a tomb (like Balin's) with the inscription: "Here lies Strephon Aella Alkhalikoi, Emperor of the Third Imperium. The Gods Punish Those Who Grow Too Proud.".

Doug said his group were silent for five minutes after that.
----------------------------------------------------------
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson ..at.. Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)
http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"

Where can I find the TNE novels?

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: Hyphen_DJW
Sent: Mon, January 28, 2013 6:08:06 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI

Dear Folks -

Well, _Survival Margin_ (and _Arrival Vengance_*) are two of my favourite
Traveller books. I agree with Doug Berry: the restoration of Strephon was the
most skillful retcon I've ever seen.

(*)Plus Doug's addendum to AV (which I can't find now, grr) where his TNE group
landed outside Strephon's palace at Usdiki, only to find a tomb (like Balin's)
with the inscription: "Here lies Strephon Aella Alkhalikoi, Emperor of the Third
Imperium. The Gods Punish Those Who Grow Too Proud.".

Doug said his group were silent for five minutes after that.
----------------------------------------------------------
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson ..at.. Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)
http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"

Argh auto correct... Psionic, not panic lol

___
>From my T989
On Jan 28, 2013 3:59 PM, "Master Uxi" > wrote:

> Empathic sourcebook is great for Panic institutes and Proto Dimensions for
> Empress Wave.... Jk. Sort of. ;)
> ___
> From my T989
> On Jan 28, 2013 3:55 PM, "waynes_books" > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Interesting, never figured on a DarkCon connection. I always thought of
>> TNE as Twilight 2000 with starships... ;>)
>>
>> -Wayne
>>
>> >>We had a bunch of existing critics who were always sharpening their
>> knives to accuse us of "dark" games, and allowing TNE to be influenced too
>> much by DarkCon. But obviously that potential was there for referees. We
>> just didn't "shine a lot of light" on that.
>>
>>
>>
>

Only saying that there could have been so much interest if the company had been able to keep going. DarkCon was just another game with the d10 system. It would be interesting to see how horror role-playing would had developed. It was off-topic and purely speculative.

--- On Mon, 1/28/13, waynes_books > wrote:

From: waynes_books >
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To:
Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 3:55 PM

 

Interesting, never figured on a DarkCon connection. I always thought of TNE as Twilight 2000 with starships... ;>)

-Wayne

>>We had a bunch of existing critics who were always sharpening their knives to accuse us of "dark" games, and allowing TNE to be influenced too much by DarkCon. But obviously that potential was there for referees. We just didn't "shine a lot of light" on that.

They are available at Drive-thru RPG ( $12 for all four books-pdfs) and you can still find the original paper-bound copies on amazon and ebay for about $7-10 each. The thing is is that there are two versions of the final novel: "The Backwards Mask" and "The Errand" by Marc Miller and Matthew Carson. Both of them are excellent and reflect much of their author's style and impressions of the New Era setting. There is also great debate concerning which one of the final two books offer the better conclusion to the trilogy. The PDFs of the original books, To Dream of Chaos and "The Death of Wisdom" are scanned to PDF but not OCR'ed and thus do not convert to kindle format (or epub, for that matter) very well at all. There are extra materials in the front of both of the first two books that need to be seen by the reader. They just don't convert well to azw or epub.

--- On Mon, 1/28/13, Charles Popp > wrote:

From: Charles Popp >
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To:
Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 4:15 PM

 

Where can I find the TNE novels?

 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: Hyphen_DJW >
To:
Sent: Mon, January 28, 2013 6:08:06 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI

 

Dear Folks -

Well, _Survival Margin_ (and _Arrival Vengance_*) are two of my favourite Traveller books. I agree with Doug Berry: the restoration of Strephon was the most skillful retcon I've ever seen.

(*)Plus Doug's addendum to AV (which I can't find now, grr) where his TNE group landed outside Strephon's palace at Usdiki, only to find a tomb (like Balin's) with the inscription: "Here lies Strephon Aella Alkhalikoi, Emperor of the Third Imperium. The Gods Punish Those Who Grow Too Proud.".

Doug said his group were silent for five minutes after that.
----------------------------------------------------------
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson ..at.. Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)
http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"

> Interesting, never figured on a DarkCon connection. I always thought of
> TNE as Twilight 2000 with starships... ;>)

Yeah, we were accused of that too.

> -Wayne
>
>>>We had a bunch of existing critics who were always sharpening their
>>> knives to accuse us of "dark" games, and allowing TNE to be influenced
>>> too much by DarkCon. But obviously that potential was there for
>>> referees. We just didn't "shine a lot of light" on that.
>
>
>
>

Yeah, we ought to spread around that ESB and PDSB were actually shadow TNE
products. That ought to pi$$ some people off!

However, you can probably tell that the TNE psionics rules were heavily
drawn from/influenced by DC Empathy, as they both used the same engine.

> Empathic sourcebook is great for Panic institutes and Proto Dimensions for
> Empress Wave.... Jk. Sort of. ;)
> ___
> From my T989
> On Jan 28, 2013 3:55 PM, "waynes_books" > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Interesting, never figured on a DarkCon connection. I always thought of
>> TNE as Twilight 2000 with starships... ;>)
>>
>> -Wayne
>>
>> >>We had a bunch of existing critics who were always sharpening their
>> knives to accuse us of "dark" games, and allowing TNE to be influenced
>> too
>> much by DarkCon. But obviously that potential was there for referees. We
>> just didn't "shine a lot of light" on that.
>>
>>
>>
>

--- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
> I was going to write a Challenge article explaining the science behind
> stars, the main sequence, HR diagram, stellar evolution and all that, to
> show how many of the "star types" out there were actually just the same
> star during different periods of its life, and how some of those different
> periods of its life would mean that all of its planets had been burned
> away. But like many things, never got around to it.

Something like this, perhaps? ;)
http://evildrganymede.net/rpg/world/stellarevol.pdf

> Yes, that can be very rewarding, until you get to the point where you
> realize that you keep having to come up with rationalizations for things
> that don't make any sense, and that happens more often than not, and
> then...

I've often said that the problem with explaining wacky UWPs is that you end up with a universe full of exceptions, rather than worlds that actually fit the rules. I've redone the worldgen (it may see the light of day sometime...) so that it doesn't result in crazy UWPs - there are still interesting ones, but they're interesting in a way that actually makes sense.

I'm on COTI, under the moniker "Starviking" - though time constraints leave me an occasional visitor these days.

It's a useful forum - very busy, but with some talented people contributing to it. It had a major dose of moderation problems back in the day, but last time I looked it had passed those days by.

I'm sad to hear of Hunter's passing - we lost him and Andrew Boulton recently. Happy trails to both of them.

I'll have to pop in soon to see your contributions Dave - something for me to look forward to!

Eamon

________________________________
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 4:57
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] COTI


 
How many people on this list are also COTI members?

I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
list refugees from COTI?

I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
and responded to some threads in the last day.

Dave

> > Not having any sort of astronomical background I had no idea that the star tables in CT were broken, and I haven't had a chance to read world tamers or any of the newer versions yet.
>
> I was going to write a Challenge article explaining the science behind stars, the main sequence, HR diagram, stellar evolution and all that, to show how many of the "star types" out there were actually just the same star during different periods of its life, and how some of those different periods of its life would mean that all of its planets had been burned away. But like many things, never got around to it.

That would have been a good read.

> > One of the things I enjoy the most about the game is taking a UPP and coming up with a story of how those group of numbers actually describe a real world.
>
> Yes, that can be very rewarding, until you get to the point where you realize that you keep having to come up with rationalizations for things that don't make any sense, and that happens more often than not, and then...

100% agree, just not there yet.

> > I enjoy that, even though the players may go "nothing here, on to the next system!"
>
> And all your hard work gets wasted and you have to do it again for the next world which might not make any sense. Hard for the GM, and "too hard for the GM" and "doesn39;t make scientific sense" make something that needs to be straightened out in the game.
>
> Dave

Ah, the bane of the GM, ungrateful players. I put my creative excesses from my play-by-email games into my fanzine. I take your point though as even in the play-pit of Reavers' Deep that I game out of I have found myself writing the lines 'although X is stated in the library data, in actual fact because of (insert excuse - locals call it this, Imperials/victors/remnants changed history, etc) Y is actually the truth.'

I still do enjoy doing this though. I guess I have the time to think things up that I wouldn't/couldn't do if I was playing face to face.

Brett.

On 29 Jan 2013 at 12:20, wrote:

> "XXXX: Threat or Menace?" was one of Frank's favorite lines. I don't
> remember where he got it from. Maybe National Lampoon, same place where we
> got, "Hiver Mechnod Photo Hello."

It's from the Spiderman comics, back in the 60s J. Jomah Jameson was
notorious for the Daily Bugle having stories with headlines such as
"SPIDERMAN: THREAT OR MENACE?"
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com

I remember the name Andrew Boulton, but can't place it. I'm sure I had
some kind of contact with him back at GDW.

> I'm on COTI, under the moniker "Starviking" - though time constraints
> leave me an occasional visitor these days.
>
> It's a useful forum - very busy, but with some talented people
> contributing to it. It had a major dose of moderation problems back in the
> day, but last time I looked it had passed those days by.
>
> I'm sad to hear of Hunter's passing - we lost him and Andrew Boulton
> recently. Happy trails to both of them.
>
> I'll have to pop in soon to see your contributions Dave - something for me
> to look forward to!
>
> Eamon
>
>
> ________________________________
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 4:57
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] COTI
>
>
>  
> How many people on this list are also COTI members?
>
> I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
> list refugees from COTI?
>
> I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
> and responded to some threads in the last day.
>
> Dave
>
>
>

Brett wrote:

> Ah, the bane of the GM, ungrateful players.

My favorite example from my campaign is when I had carefully gotten my PCs
down onto a world, negotiating with local tribes where they could not get
back to their small craft quickly, when the giant, 400,000 ton spherical
ship appeared in orbit. This was actually their invitation to be "invited
aboard" and immersed in a complex, Dune-like political intrigue thing. I
had all of the NPCs generated, and all of the stub possible storylines.

But my PCs decided that anything that big must simply be a target. And so
they decided they were going to blow it up. I like to reward creativity,
and a couple hundred really unlikely die rolls, and brilliant heroic PC
improvisation later, which I also like to reward, there was a shattered
400,000 ton husk in orbit.

After getting over congratulating each other, they turned to me and said,
"so now what?"

And I held up the file folders of NPCs and said, "All this stuff, but you
just killed them all. So we're done for the night."

Ah, yes, of course. Thank you for clarifying that.

By the time I knew Frank he was no longer reading superhero comics, just
things like the C&D inspiration.

> On 29 Jan 2013 at 12:20, wrote:
>
>> "XXXX: Threat or Menace?" was one of Frank's favorite lines. I don't
>> remember where he got it from. Maybe National Lampoon, same place where
>> we
>> got, "Hiver Mechnod Photo Hello."
>
> It's from the Spiderman comics, back in the 60s J. Jomah Jameson was
> notorious for the Daily Bugle having stories with headlines such as
> "SPIDERMAN: THREAT OR MENACE?"
> --
> Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
> shadow at shadowgard dot com
>
>
>

He was a great bloke, Big traveller fan even 20 years ago when I knew him.
He ran several fun Traveller games I still remember today. Never let his
illness get in the way even taking part in several of the LARP events at
university. Sadly I lost touch with him after university but even now
characters from his Traveller game keep making an appearance in my current
games

On 30 January 2013 15:46, > wrote:

> **
>
>
> I remember the name Andrew Boulton, but can't place it. I'm sure I had
> some kind of contact with him back at GDW.
>
> > I'm on COTI, under the moniker "Starviking" - though time constraints
> > leave me an occasional visitor these days.
> >
> > It's a useful forum - very busy, but with some talented people
> > contributing to it. It had a major dose of moderation problems back in
> the
> > day, but last time I looked it had passed those days by.
> >
> > I'm sad to hear of Hunter's passing - we lost him and Andrew Boulton
> > recently. Happy trails to both of them.
> >
> > I'll have to pop in soon to see your contributions Dave - something for
> me
> > to look forward to!
> >
> > Eamon
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
From: "
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 4:57
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] COTI
> >
> >
> > Â
> > How many people on this list are also COTI members?
> >
> > I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is
> this
> > list refugees from COTI?
> >
> > I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
> > and responded to some threads in the last day.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

--
"Any Sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from Science"
Agatha, Girl Genius
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205

Andrew did the Traveller Calendar

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Moreton
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] COTI

He was a great bloke, Big traveller fan even 20 years ago when I knew him. He ran several fun Traveller games I still remember today. Never let his illness get in the way even taking part in several of the LARP events at university. Sadly I lost touch with him after university but even now characters from his Traveller game keep making an appearance in my current games

On 30 January 2013 15:46, > wrote:

I remember the name Andrew Boulton, but can't place it. I'm sure I had
some kind of contact with him back at GDW.

> I'm on COTI, under the moniker "Starviking" - though time constraints
> leave me an occasional visitor these days.
>
> It's a useful forum - very busy, but with some talented people
> contributing to it. It had a major dose of moderation problems back in the
> day, but last time I looked it had passed those days by.
>
> I'm sad to hear of Hunter's passing - we lost him and Andrew Boulton
> recently. Happy trails to both of them.
>
> I'll have to pop in soon to see your contributions Dave - something for me
> to look forward to!
>
> Eamon
>
>
> ________________________________
From: "
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 4:57
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] COTI
>
>
> Â
> How many people on this list are also COTI members?
>
> I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or is this
> list refugees from COTI?
>
> I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over there
> and responded to some threads in the last day.
>
> Dave
>
>
>

--
"Any Sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from Science"
Agatha, Girl Genius
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205

That was after my time. I'm thinking he did stuff for Challenge or DGP or
MT or was active on one of the lists. He maybe even did something for TNE,
but my brain cells that stored that died.

> Andrew did the Traveller Calendar
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Andrew Moreton
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] COTI
>
>
>
>
> He was a great bloke, Big traveller fan even 20 years ago when I knew
> him. He ran several fun Traveller games I still remember today. Never
> let his illness get in the way even taking part in several of the LARP
> events at university. Sadly I lost touch with him after university but
> even now characters from his Traveller game keep making an appearance in
> my current games
>
>
>
> On 30 January 2013 15:46, > wrote:
>
>
> I remember the name Andrew Boulton, but can't place it. I'm sure I had
> some kind of contact with him back at GDW.
>
> > I'm on COTI, under the moniker "Starviking" - though time
> constraints
> > leave me an occasional visitor these days.
> >
> > It's a useful forum - very busy, but with some talented people
> > contributing to it. It had a major dose of moderation problems back
> in the
> > day, but last time I looked it had passed those days by.
> >
> > I'm sad to hear of Hunter's passing - we lost him and Andrew Boulton
> > recently. Happy trails to both of them.
> >
> > I'll have to pop in soon to see your contributions Dave - something
> for me
> > to look forward to!
> >
> > Eamon
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
From: "
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 4:57
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] COTI
> >
> >
> > Â
> > How many people on this list are also COTI members?
> >
> > I think Uxi, Dan "Far Trader" Burns, but is it most? All? Some? Or
> is this
> > list refugees from COTI?
> >
> > I was feeling all burned-out and Travellery and wandered all over
> there
> > and responded to some threads in the last day.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Any Sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from Science"
> Agatha, Girl Genius
> http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205
>
>