elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (11/01/83)
In a reply to my note about some flaws in the Traveller standard universe, Steven Maurer stated that he agreed with me, listed 7 complaints of his own, and concluded that the whole Traveller system is no good, hardly worth playing in fact! While I agree with some of Steven's complaints, I definitely do not agree with his overall conclusion; in fact Traveller is my favorite FRP game. The majority of Steven's complaints and all four of my original ones can and should be fixed up by the GM (as Steven readily admits); indeed that was the point of my first article. However, two of his indictments are more general and probably deserve some rebuttal from Traveller loyalists. 1) Steven correctly notes that the Traveller standard universe does not satisfactorily incorporate *all* of the complex technologies which can be extrapolated for an interstellar society many thousands of years beyond ours. >>> Where are the Smart Bullets?, Matter Transference Beams?, Psionic >>> Robotics?, Mutagenic Alterators?, Brain Wipes?, Force Fields?, >>> Alien Technology?, Reliable Deep Freze?, Computer Guided (Amazingly >>> Accurate) Weapons Tracking?, Semi-Intelligent Computers?, Vibro (Lazer) >>> Swords?, Cyborgs?, Probability Manipulators?, Alternate Universes?, >>> etc?, etc, etc. Some of these are hinted at in Traveller, but are >>> never implemented at the current tech levels. This is a failing not only of Traveller but also of science fiction and futurology of all types generally. I would be quite interested if anyone could point out a good science fiction novel which adequately treats a large number of novel technologies such as those mentioned in the quote. Really this is just a failing of human ability to predict or imagine the future; in any absolute sense we are hopeless at it, and the best (even very creative) people can do is to concentrate on one or a few possibilities. Thus, I do not think it fair to blame Traveller for not having come up with a truly plausible and detailed future. Anyone bothered excessively by this probably isn't going to go for any SF FRP game (or fiction?). What Traveller does provide is a plausible and playable world based on a *minimal* technology for an interstellar society. Ideally, this leaves the GM enough time, energy, attention, etc. to explore a *few* other advanced technologies when desired. Alternate (parallel) Universes and Intelligent Computers have played a role in some games I have run. 2) Steven's most severe complaint is that the Traveller universe is to large for a GM to fill in the details with any reasonable amount of work. >>> I have a hard time keeping >>> track of my three continents in the FRP that I run. There is just >>> too much there, for me to fill out the world completely. I cannot >>> imaigine what it would be like if I was running a Traveller universe. >>> Whole worlds are reduced to a set of numbers and digits "A862HG", ... Here again there is a real problem which often crops up in SF literature as well as in Traveller. In fact, any GM must constantly trade off the size and scope of his world against the level of detail with which it is presented; there are advantages to both. Traveller probably tends to push the GM toward the size and scope extreme more than some other game systems, but I do not consider this terribly serious. In some ways it can even be an advantage by giving the GM a more challenging and enjoyable "real time" role while playing. In other words it encourages the GM to create at least the details of the game environment as play proceeds rather than in advance. I have found this less difficult than it sounds (and more fun) if I have the general outlines of the game world and the rules clearly in mind.
elt@astrovax.UUCP (11/03/83)
Most of the responses to my article about flaws in Traveller have appeared on the net, and those that were mailed to me did not vary much from those posted. Thus the remarks below mostly refer to my own ideas: Apparently almost no one other than me is bothered by the two dimensionality of space in Traveller, eventhough *almost* everyone seems to realize that real space is three dimensional! I am not too surprised since the Traveller players I know share this indifference. I suspect that the reason it bothers me so much is that I am a professional astronomer, and one of the major problems in astronomy is to restore (determine) the third dimension to the Universe we see in two dimensions on the sky, in other words to measure the distances to objects in the sky. My personal biases aside, it is worth noting that there are at least two important (in game terms) differences between 2 and 3 dimensional spaces. First, the number of objects (star systems) which can be reached in a trip of a given distance (=duration=fuel supply=etc.) scales differently in the two cases; 2D space gives a distance squared law while 3D gives the familiar distance cubed relation. This means that no matter what mean density of objects is used, a 2D space underestimates the number of objects within some range in a 3D space by a factor of the square root of the number of objects in range in 2D. (Thus, a Traveller voyage long enough to potentially visit 100 worlds should have allowed you to reach 1000.) Thus, as big as the Traveller universe is, it is far smaller than the real one! The second important difference has to do with differences between the possible topologies (=connectedness) in 2D and 3D spaces. It influences the number of different nonintersecting routes between two places and has strong implications for military maneuvering. For example, in 2D one is either in direct contact with friendly forces or one is surrounded by the enemy; in 3D, one can have (in a sense) both at the same time. :-) See "Wrath of Kahn" for the dangers of 2D thinking in 3D combat. Is there a *playable* solution for the 2D problem? I have a scheme which I have not tried but which might work and which is in the "spirit" of the Traveller game system. It is probably not of sufficiently general interest to warrant posting, but I would be glad to Email anyone interested a description of the idea.
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (11/04/83)
When Ed wrote his original article asking for problems that people have encountered with Traveller, I replied with an answer which he disagrees with: Traveller is, at best, an unrealistic, unmanageable game. My "indictments" against the game Ed has chosen to attack (in defense of Traveller), so I feel it necessary to explain in more detail my exact feelings on the matter. >> 1) Steven correctly notes that the Traveller standard universe does >> not satisfactorily incorporate *all* of the complex technologies which >> can be extrapolated for an interstellar society many thousands of >> years beyond ours. >> .................... >> This is a failing not only of Traveller but also of science fiction >> and futurology of all types generally. I would be quite interested if >> anyone could point out a good science fiction novel which adequately >> treats a large number of novel technologies such as those mentioned in >> the quote. Really this is just a failing of human ability to predict >> or imagine the future; in any absolute sense we are hopeless at it, >> and the best (even very creative) people can do is to concentrate on one >> or a few possibilities. Thus, I do not think it fair to blame >> Traveller for not having come up with a truly plausible and detailed >> future. Anyone bothered excessively by this probably isn't going to >> go for any SF FRP game (or fiction?). >> What Traveller does provide is a plausible and playable world based on a >> *minimal* technology for an interstellar society. Ideally, this leaves the >> GM enough time, energy, attention, etc. to explore a *few* other advanced >> technologies when desired. Alternate (parallel) Universes and Intelligent >> Computers have played a role in some games I have run. What Traveller also ignores is PRESENT DAY technology, in favor of a romanticized version of the "future". Where else would space-ship officers carry swords, when our own US Navy junked them for all but decorative purposes 100 years ago? Piloting, Navigation, and Gunnery skills are ALREADY being replaced by hyper-sophisticated computers, which reduce targetting, location, and evasion to normal features of the craft, constantly in action. Highjacking?? Don't make me laugh; we already have sophisticated metal detectors which can detect tooth-fillings - and new "unfoolable" fuse detectors are said to detect even purely plastic explosives. Piracy depends upon a ship being able to disguise itself, when it gets into port - not likely, given that we already have enough databases on this planet to register every conceivable ship in the Imperium. Soldier/Naval losses of 20-60% are very unlikely, given the fact that machines are doing more and more fighting for us. ETC, Etc, etc. The problem is that Traveller is not based upon any reasonable form of Science Fiction, but rather upon the 1950's Space Opera. Instead of portraying the future, a sort of "futuristic medievalism" pervades the game. Sword wielding nobility, fly around in spaceships battling pirates on the high space. Teenage youth are pressed by the man-hungry services to learn how to fire space cannonry, as spaceships of yore try to take down each others space drives. Prepare for boarders!!, your captain yells as space-marines swarm abord your craft. You repel them, thanking god you are a part of the Imperial realm and serve such a wonderful emporer. You trade trinkets to savages and aliens, as you visit their foreign planets. If some cocky young buck at the spaceport bar picks a fight, why you'll show him what you're made of!! (the colonial starport police turn a blind eye to roughhousing and murder). I can see why such fantisies appeal to a large number of people. They might even appeal to me if I could find some way of justifying them. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of mind -- my tendency is to follow things to their logical conclusion. Traveller has so many blaring inconsistancies, I wonder if it was thought about at all... >> 2) Steven's most severe complaint is that the Traveller universe is to >> large for a GM to fill in the details with any reasonable amount >> of work. >> ....................... >> Here again there is a real problem which often crops up in SF literature as >> well as in Traveller. In fact, any GM must constantly trade off the size >> and scope of his world against the level of detail with which it is >> presented; there are advantages to both. Traveller probably tends to push >> the GM toward the size and scope extreme more than some other game systems, >> but I do not consider this terribly serious. In some ways it can even be >> an advantage by giving the GM a more challenging and enjoyable "real time" >> role while playing. In other words it encourages the GM to create at least >> the details of the game environment as play proceeds rather than in advance. >> I have found this less difficult than it sounds (and more fun) if I have >> the general outlines of the game world and the rules clearly in mind. Certainly anyone can make up an "Impromptu" run. I almost always do it myself. However, any campaign must have a set up background from which the referee gets ideas to run a game -- in D&D this is the "Dungeon", in Runequest this is "Glorontha", in Chivalry & Sorcery this is "Medeval Europe". In Traveller, the background is the "Ship", and the "Generic Planet". Due to the size of the campaign, almost all the planets end up being the same. When was the last time you heard in a traveller game a recognizable foreign accent?? In a real "Imperium", almost everybody would have an entirely different way of speaking... but of course the referee has to worry about a lot more important things about Starsystem "AH273JOB" than that; The style of play suggested in Traveller makes the players uninterested in anything but the "class" of starport, gas giants, and the gun-control laws. All this detracts from the actual game. Traveller universes I have been in are far less imaginative than all FRP games (with the exception of D&D hack and slash). >> The majority of Steven's complaints and all four of my original ones >> can and should be fixed up by the GM (as Steven readily admits); indeed >> that was the point of my first article. As a final note, I might point out that there comes a point where a referee modifies a system so much, that he is not playing the same game anymore. This leads to all sorts of problems, like character portability, but it also leads to a more fundimental question: If you are not playing the game, why did you buy it? I certainly don't object to people playing their own variants, I do it myself when I referee RuneQuest. However, if a game system is so buggy that it forces the referee to make major rules and worldview modifications, then there is really no point in saying that you play it. Steven Maurer