I'd like to reply to Mike Mikesh's long apologia concerning TNE. I'll
also touch on a couple of other commnets people have made so far....
Mikesh writes:
> GenCon/Origins '92 is over, and there's a lot of news. The GDW
>staff conducted 2 seminars for the public, then a full day's Traveller
>Writers' Conference at Bloomington, Illinois the day after the con.
And I wasn't invited, of course. *sigh* It pays to remind oneself on
occasion that not EVERYONE recognizes one's importance in any given field.
|->
(Actually, Loren probably appreciated the peace and quiet....)
> The Writers' Conference was conducted by David Nilsen, Steve
>Maggi, Loren Wiseman, and Frank Chadwick. The outside writers around
>the table were Bertil Jonell, Mike Mikesh (HIWG), Greg Videll (HIWG),
>Harold Hale, Rob Prior (HIWG), Terry McInnes (HIWG), Scott Olson
>(HIWG), and Clay Bush (HIWG). What follows is a fusion of information
>collected from both the Conference and seminars. (Many thanks to
>Terry McInnes for having arranged the conference.)
I would've loved to be there for however many seconds I lasted until
I was forcibly ejected. Had I been presented with some of the data
given below in piecemeal form, rather than in one letter in the order
given, I think I would have had a stroke or committed murder or both.
I commend those present for having had the patience to let GDW feed
them the whole kishkeh; I wouldn't have made it to the end.
However, having had the package spelled out below in detail, and having
had several hours to cogitate, AND having reminded myself of the famous
story of Isaac Asimov's trip to see a sneak preview of "2001" when it
came out, I can now post a reply to the information given below. I would
appreciate it greatly if Bryan Borich would be so kind as to post this
where Mike and the HIWG dudes, and the GDW staff, can see it.
- ---
I would like to start off by teaching everyone a little phrase I made
up, that is central to this post: Economics Drives Design (Up To A
Point), or EDDUTAP. What this means is that as much as I would
LOOOOOVE to jump down GDW's collective throat with my biggest set of
hobnailed Purist's Boots strapped on, I have only a very limited right
to do so. Consider:
On the one hand, a game company relies to an extent on reorders, which
means relying on the continued interest of its players. This implies that
a conscious decision to cut loose a prior game universe and start fresh
with a system that bears only a cursory resemblance to the old one is a
form of corporate suicide.
On the other hand, like so many other areas of goods-and-services marketing,
the game company relies to an extent on generating fresh interest in its
products, by issuing newer versions and (hopefully) better rules systems.
A company that remains hidebound in an old system is committing a form of
corporate suicide.
So whom do we believe? Well, from MY perspective as a long-time end user
AND a writer of material for these games, I know damn well which way a
smart company leans, if it wants to stay alive: toward innovation and
increased variety, even at the risk of alienating old-guard purists.
We have invested years of our time, and hundreds of dollars of our money,
per capita, in a universe that is now being torn down, admittedly with
70 years' leeway for the resolution of any or all existing storylines
and plenty of room for new ones. We have a right to be pissed off, and
(if we feel the need strongly enough) to vote with our wallets for the
destruction of TNE, and of GDW with it. But on the other hand, GDW has
the right to try to stay in business, doesn't it?
Let's wake up and smell the coffee, people. Just for a few minutes, let's
unstrap our laser carbines, take off our PRIS binocs, and look around the
real world for a minute, and see the fact that *we are a dying breed.*
It is true that in the late 1970s and early to mid 1980s, TRAVELLER was
an enormously popular game with a worldwide following, and the Imperium
is still the most detailed game universe ever.... but times change, and
the gaming community is certainly changing, all around us. The vast
majority of the TRAVELLER community that bought all those books has moved
on now, either to new games like SHADOWRUN that fit the modern gaming
milieu of violence, sex and teen-angst or out of the gaming world entirely.
We are all that's left, and we are not a very big community any more.
Hundreds of us, perhaps. Maybe even thousands. But NOT enough to keep
a company like GDW alive on the basis of our loyalty, especially when
every misstep on their part is instantly dissected and catcalled (sometimes
with good reason, viz. Shattered Ships, sometimes not so) by all of us.
If those proportions, the size of the community using an old rules system
and fiercely loyal to its creators in comparison to the size of the
community looking for something new/different/better, were applied to a
marketing strategy in any other form of commerce, the case for innovation
would be made instantly. Why should gaming be different?
There is a solid community of old-timers out here that can keep the old
Imperium alive, in fine detail, for decades, as a non-profit cottage
industry-- in fact, I encourage the TML and the HIWG to spearhead this
effort, by encouraging and distributing the materials produced by those
interested in preserving the old Imperial milieu. But it is unreasonable
to expect GDW to try to stay alive by pleasing us all, and it makes
perfect sense for them to use the TRAVELLER name as a springboard to
launch their newest SF effort. After all, "Economics Drives Design."
Okay, break time. At this point, I can hear a number of my dearest friends,
Mark Cook chief among them, snorting fire from their nostrils, steaming
from the ears, and muttering words like "Traitor" and "castrate" in my
general direction. They're not stupid, and neither am I: they know that
I am not, with that statement, shrugging my shoulders and giving GDW
carte blanche to do whatever they dman well please with our beloved
universe. This is the crux of saying "(Up To A Point)."
I am willing to work with GDW, to do constructive criticism, to
rewrite what needs to be rewritten (and make deadlines, now that my
Ph.D. is out of the way), and to heckle what DESERVES heckling-- and
what I consider to deserve heckling is any rules or background that
DON'T WORK. If an idea makes sense to me, and I can see how and why it
was included to make TNE sell better in today's market, then I don't
care if it violates old-Traveller canon, although I hesitate to
approve retroactive changes in reality ("retcons," to comics readers).
But if an idea is just plain stupid or useless, or reflects bad
planning or thinking, then I reserve the right to say so, and loudly.
I will playtest TNE, if I'm given the chance. I will buy it and work with
it. I will write folio modules for it, and contribute articles to CHALLENGE
for it, and help to make it a competitor to the other good games out there.
I will tolerate the massive changes to the old way of thinking that GDW
posits-- IF they're put forth in a workable manner. And that's my final word.
Now, on to my specific comments:
> GDW admits they did not support MEGATRAVELLER (MT) adequately.
>An underlying reason was simply that they did not play MT, and so did
>not know the system very well. As a result, temptation was too great
>to redirect support elsewhere. GDW wasn't offering this reason as an
>excuse, only as an explanation.
This explains a whole hell of a lot. I'm not saying that as an indictment,
only as an observation.
> First off, TNE will belong to the GDW house role playing system.
This makes sense, if the new rules work reasonably well. I'm not too old
to learn yet another rules system; I just want GDW to understand beforehand
that I will support the stuff they do right in as loud a voice as I can,
and I will come down on the stuff they do wrong like a ton of bricks.
This applies particularly to suspension not of disbelief but of known
physical realities. Loren once offered to use the people on the TML,
many of whom are scientists, to fix the serious problems in the science
that we DO know about (like thruster plates violating Conservation of
Energy). I sincerely hope that he'll keep that promise....
> Second, its very easy for gaming groups to hop among GDW RP games
>and even borrow elements from one another.
Chaosium tried this and it didn't work very well. Stick to reason 1, it
makes more sense. (i.e. a house system is easier to bugfix and cheaper too).
> Third, the house role playing system is a direct descendant of
>classic TRAVELLER. TRAVELLER was their first RP game, but never
>received the benefits of GDW's advances in RP game system design. Now
>they finally have a chance to do so. TRAVELLER is coming home.
This statement is meaningless propaganda. Reread it; it says absolutely
nothing. It's not classic TRAVELLER in rules or milieu, so what's left?
> Contrary to what some might believe, this is not a move just to
>make more money with a new rules set. While it is true that new rules
>sell well, the initial sales of TNE will pay for itself and that's
>all. It takes a lot of effort and resources to put out a rules set.
>Profit comes as a result of reorders, so for TNE to be profitable, it
>must be good and its appeal must grow.
Oh, give me a break here! I'm willing to spend money on products if
they're GOOD products; please don't insult my intelligence by saying
that you're not selling them to make money; you're either a liar or a
fool. I can't tolerate either. You're damn right that growth is vital
to a game's longevity, but don't try to make us believe that the
initial sale is an act of charity. A loss-leader for followup
products? MAYBE I could swallow THAT, given my ignorance of the game
industry's economics, but somehow I doubt it. Give us credit for a
little intelligence, okay? It's OKAY to earn money. Honest!
>Unfortunately, the Rebellion itself became a spectator sport, too
>large in scope for player characters to interact with.
True, but if wild frontiers were ALL you wanted, why not just a new game,
or better yet the wonderful forces set in motion in HARD TIMES?
> The background for TNE is set 70 years after the Rebellion (circa
>1190) in a time when interstellar society has completely collapsed.
This is wise, and a good nod to those with campaigns yet to finish.
> This element of the background was deliberate so that players do
>not have to be familiar with the Imperium setting. There is a lot to
>know, which is probably a large part of TRAVELLER's appeal to many
>HIWGers. But GDW cannot afford to let TRAVELLER become a game for
>elite and dedicated players. New players are intimidated by the
>volume of information that exists, which is impeding TRAVELLER's
>growth. So, TNE will render most of that information unknown and
>unnecessary without invalidating the previous literature.
Also a wise marketing move; I won't argue with it at all.
> Established players will undoubtedly look back at classic
>TRAVELLER with a sense of nostalgia
Of course we do. THOSE rules WORKED. (Pretty much, anyway.)
> TNE will come as two books. The first will have only the rules.
>The second will contain the Imperium background. The aim is to give
>players the option to adopt other science fiction universes for their
>campaigns. GDW is even seriously considering a 2300 AD Sourcebook,
>restoring support for 2300 AD as a subset of TRAVELLER.
Interesting. I don't know how the 2300AD purists would swallow it, but
it'd be better than nothing, one would hope. I also like the idea of
sourcebooks for the Ziru Sirka, the Ramshackle Empire, and maybe (hell,
I'd write THIS one MYSELF!) the Third Imperium in the Sixth Century:
Expanding to reabsorb the Terran worlds, and developing the ideas that
we all take for granted (Jump-4? WOW!). Not to mention a sourcebook for
the Imperium in 1120 or so, as Strephon deals with Dulinor's failed
assassination attempt, the Naval conspiracies that surfaced in the
Fifth War, and the politicking of the Archdukes that he recently
reappointed....
> TNE will definitely not be an outgrowth of MT. Although MT was
>an award winning game design
What award? Most Errata in One Volume Of Rules? Dumbest Ship Combat System?
Worst Pseudoscience?
>particular, GDW will completely revise the ship design system to make
>it easier. Digest Group made a special effort to assure that classic
>ships were convertible to MT. GDW, however, will not do this so as to
>not risk compromising the new system.
All I can say is, it had better be an improvement. We've had compatibility
without convenvience, and now you're taking compatibility away....
> Three versions of faster-than-light drives will be presented in
>the rules, jump drive (TRAVELLER), stutterwarp (2300 AD), and star
>gates (resembling Pournelle's MOTE IN GOD'S EYE universe).
I'm actually looking forward to this, being one of the few people out
here who actually understands why the distance limit for stutterwarp was
set to the particular number of ly that it was. I've had star gates as
Ancient artifacts in my Trav games for over thirteen years, and a system
for running a lower-tech version in place for nearly eight. I'd LOVE
to get Traveller working with some of those ideas.
> The ship combat system might include a vector combat system, like
>what appeared in GDW's MAYDAY. However, GDW hopes to simplify bringing
>distant ships to tactical range without burdening players with vector
>mechanics just to get their ships to close. A vector combat system
>will probably not appear if GDW uses instead the stutterwarp combat
>system (see later).
I'd recommend it anyway. A simple diagram explanation as given in MAYDAY
would help a lot, and it makes a lot of physical sense. On the other
hand, I'd recommend laminated play boards with markers rather than the
old system of past, present and future position counters....
> The world generation system will remain as it is with one minor
>exception. The stars a system will be a factor of the kind of main
>world generated. Its too difficult rationalizing the large number of
>hospitable worlds circling stars of types unlikely to have anything
>but dead planets. So, most of the star types in the sector data lists
>will change (where stellar data exists at all).
Again, not a major hassle. Improves science, little damage to rules.
> Doing this, however, will skew the stellar population
>unnaturally. Most real stars are red dwarfs, whereas they will be
>uncommon in TRAVELLER. However, a misconception crept into star charts
>that GDW might decide to throw back out. Charts were only meant as
>navigation aids. They originally did not represent the actual
>positions of the star systems nor all of the star systems present.
BZZZZT! Caught you here, people! This is a great idea, and very handy--
well worth reviving, by allowing a "less dense" universe. BUT! The whole
point of stutterwarp is that every star must be used as a stepping stone,
even if it's worthless. If stutterwarp was a retcon, and in use all over
the Imperium before the Short Nap, then there will exist large clouds of
well-known space in addition to the simple maps. Be careful!
> Seventy years after the Rebellion, struggling pocket empires will
>be far and few between. The Long Night was supposed to be desolate,
>but too many exceptions, such as Ral Ranta in the Hinterworlds, were
>written back in. GDW plans to be very restrained in the number and
>size of pocket empires that exist by this time.
Smart move. (Though the Ral Ranta, being in the Hinterworlds, didn't
really hurt anything.)
> The New Era will be an age of discovery. Explorers (Star Vikings)
>from the pocket empires will go out and recontact worlds in a fashion
>loosely resembling what we see in STAR TREK. Starships are still
>especially rare and valuable during this time. Boarding action will
>prevail in space combat so as to capture, not destroy, the hardware.
This implies a major paradigm shift in the game, and one that I feel
others may have strong objections to. Expect long, drawn out treatises
from people with extensive economic backgrounds, demonstrating how that
is highly unlikely in any society capable of building ships at all.
But I won't be one of them-- in fact, I rather like the idea. One part
of TRAVELLER I never liked was that starships were neither appropriately
rare and costly nor appropriately cheap and easy to find.
And to Bertil, for his comment on the Metlay System of Space Combat:
THHPHHHBBBT!
|->
> Deneb survives, thanks in part to an impassioned appeal by Chuck
>Kallenbach (Paranoia Press; HIWG). Vargr activity across the Corridor
>slowed the migration of the Virus long enough to give Norris time to
>prepare and counter it. As a result, the Empire of Deneb remains a
>powerful interstellar state even in the New Era.
This is a soft spot in my heart, and I'm damn grateful for it. But I'd
dearly love to know how they were able to actually stop the Virus....
> There is much to say about the Virus, but I will gloss over most
>of the details and leave them to CHALLENGE 64. Keep in mind that the
>Virus is only a device that gets us to the New Era. The New Era is set
>in stone, and refinements to the Virus and history must give us that
>result.
That still doesn't remove the fact that the device used to get there
should make sense. I won't forgive an idiotic idea to get from Point A
to Point B. But I haven't rendered a decision on the wisdom of this
one, yet....
> The silicon lifeforms of Cymbeline (see ADVENTURE 13 - SIGNAL GK)
A-HA! NOW things begin to get very interesting! This is not a computer
virus at all, this is a malevolent lifeform with the ability to self-
reproduce given suitable raw materials and adapt itself to a number of
different environments. THIS I can live with, with only one small
problem: the people at GDW seem to have forgotten that the Cymbeline
chips (called the Cmybiotica in my game, where they were and are a potent
plot thread) were only discovered and isolated in the early 1100s, and
a lot of their research was only preliminary before the Solomani bombed
Cymbeline into a cinder. I find it VERY difficult to believe that a
life form with dubious loyalty would, or could, be incorporated into
every starship in the Imperium and surrounds, particularly while Hard
Times were tearing down trade bridges rather than building them up.
> As you can see, the Virus offers an endless number of exciting
>science fiction plots.
I still wouldn't call this a virus, and the only way to put it in
place would be to retcon SIGNAL GK out of existence or push the events
therein at least one century earlier, preferably more. A minor point--
this sort of explanation actually sits better with me than any
computer-virus thing hinted at before. After all, the Cymbiotica are
not only sentient, they are also self-replicating and self-mobile!
>STAR VIKINGS
Dumb name. Sorry, guys, but you've gotta do better than this. The rest
of it is great, though; a typical Manipulation, just on a grander scale.
> The 'long ship' is a class of starship apparently unique to the
>Star Vikings. This is an unstreamlined ship with a good jump range,
>but minimal or possibly no maneuver drive. It carries rider ships
>which are actually used to contact worlds.
The Alcyon? Nah.....|->
> TRAVELLER is not a dark future game and TNE will not be either.
>Dave was very clear about his distaste for "wallowing" in decay and
>ruin, so TRAVELLER will keep its space opera cum hard science fiction
>feel. TNE will focus on exploration and expansion, looking toward a
>positive future and not a negative one. Even though TNE will include
>things like cybernetic body parts, these will not be presented in a
>way to suggest a cyberpunk genre.
Well, thank the Great Pack for that. I was wondering for a while there.
This is perhaps the boldest move on GDW's part yet, since everyone in
the universe seems to be concentrating on nihilism and angst-ridden
violence to sell product now. I wish them well.
> GDW will return to being vague about technology. From the
>feedback they received, STARSHIP OPERATOR'S MANUAL explained too much,
>so things like the lanthanum grid for jump drives will not be carried
>over.
Wise move. But that's still not going to save you if what you DO talk
about is bad science. Remember, the big argument about thruster plates
came from a reading of the ship design rules, not the tech description.
> The enormous amount of errata for MT was mentioned twice during
>the seminars. The GDW panel assured the audience that there will
>inevitably be some errata, but it will not happen again in the same volume.
Lordy, I hope not.
> GDW is seriously considering including TWO faster-than-light star
>drives in the Imperial setting, traditional jump drive and stutterwarp
>from 2300 AD. Frank Chadwick and Lester Smith favor this because
>stutterwarp makes for a very interesting space combat system.
Star gates. Don't forget star gates! |->
> This will be the only real discontinuity between MT and TNE that
>GDW will consider. If used, TNE will assume that stutterwarp existed
>and was actively employed through all the Imperiums despite lack of
>mention in MT and classic TRAVELLER.
Honk BZZZZT! Research the retcons this will require.
> Although GDW is writing TNE in-house, they still need outside
>writers, particular for CHALLENGE. The CHALLENGE adventures will help
>give players a feel for the new game. A little more room is available
>in CHALLENGE, thanks to GDW's new magazine. JOURNEYS, as its called,
>will support multigenre games and pull over some things that occupied
>space in CHALLENGE.
Sign me up, people. Get me a set of guidelines and turn me loose.
(And invest in some real artists, for heaven's sake! Use Dave Dietrick,
Liz Danforth, Mike Vilardi, and people of that calibre exclusively--
go to the level of Crompton only in a pinch, and punt anyone less
talented than that. Good art sells games, and bad art keeps them from
being sold.)
- --
dr. michael metlay \ TEAM-METLAYISM OF THE WEEK (from N. Rothwell):
atomic city \ "Neeed." As in, "I know I have a huge rig of
\ twenty synths and a computer I don't know how
[email removed] \ to use yet, but, well, I Neeed a K2000...."