I have to comment on Dow Rieder's joke about bugging me with the little
ways in which Traveller plays it fast and loose with spacetime. I wouldn't
say that I completely dodge the issue by saying, "OK, if you're so bright,
figure out why everyone else isn't doing it"; I tend to think that "everyone"
isn't doing it because it can't be done. In other words, I limit the physically
impossible parts of Traveller to doing the things they were designed to do by
the idiots who wrote the rules, and simply draw the line at anyone utilizing
them for nefarious purposes. I suppose I should justify the lines I draw, but
with a group of mature and unmunchkinlike gamers like the one I run, it isn't
a problem to say, "Look, there's a reason it can't be done: game mechanics.
If I must, I'll make one up for your characters to grok, but why bother?"
It's easy to wave one's hands at fantasy games: if magic works, all bets are
off, period. Dragons and Unicorns and so on can exist, and that's all she
wrote. Science Fiction games are a tougher proposition, though; at least to a
certain extent, they must follow the physical laws of the world as we know
them. I did an informal talk on this at a GenCon many years ago, and postulated
two extremes when approaching this problem, and tried to rate various games
in terms of their positions between those two extremes. I called the extremes
"ScienceFantasy" and "Scientifiction," or if you prefer, "HyperFantastic" and
"HyperRealist". Both extremes start with the same assumption: that Einstein
was wrong. The HyperFant view is then, "Well, if relativity doesn't work, then
all bets are off, and let's have some fun." The HyperReal view, however, is,
"We have a lot of data on how the Universe works already; it doesn't berc
ome
invalid, only extended in applicability." One view shreds the reality we know;
the other adds elements of wonder to the familiar world.
The primary advantage of HyperFant games is that they're more romantic. The
technology is glitzy and exciting, and it's easier to believe in things like
true love and Good vs Evil. The primary advantage of HyperReal games is that
they make sense, and are believable in a fundamental way that makes them easy
to relate to. Both means have their advantages and shortcomings; neither is
"right" or "wrong." Also, both have fundamental pitfalls; all HyperFant games
eventually degrade into silliness when things get out of hand, and all Hyper-
Real games run into inconsistencies at some point.
Some examples: Star Wars is the ultimate HyperFant game, with starfighters
dogfighting, lightsabres humming, and (dead HyperFant giveaway!) "Blasters"
blazing. A close second is Space Opera, with its melange of Star Wars, Dune,
and the Lensman series of books. Other games with strong HyperFant leanings
are the Mechanoid games, Star Ace, Star Frontiers (if you think OUR jump
drives are nonsensical...!), and Star Trek. The FASA games tend to appeal
to wide audiences because they straddle the fence; both BattleTech/MechWarrior
and Shadowrun go full tilt in both directions. HyperReal games include FTL
2448, Traveller 2300, and (tho I haven't worked much with it) GURPS Space.
The ultimate HyperReal game from a scientific standpoint is unquestionably
Albedo, whose starship combat system is totally realistic and VERY unpleasant.
And in a close but fading second place, alas, is Traveller.
In the first ten years of its development, Traveller was the ultimate in
playable, accurate HyperRealist SF gaming. Everything made a fair amount
of sense, certain implied physicalities ("Thruster plates? What're THOSE?")
helped keep things consistent, and there was no attempt to glitz up the rules
by adding nifty-keen stuff like reactionless drives and so on. More problems
have been created than were solved by doing this, and instead of attracting
a wider audience with the "new and neato Traveller," GDW and DGP have only
succeeded in aggravating those with a penchant for consistency and accuracy
in their science.
So what do we do about it, you ask? Well, every GM has his own methods; I
prefer to roll with the punches. Thruster plate technology is only useful
for moving starships, Jump technology only works for Jumps, and antigrav
technology is used for moving things around cleanly. I have other games that
I can run, like Space Opera and my own StarGate rules, that are either
deliberately campy or brutally realistic; in Traveller, I prefer to wince
through Dow's discoveries, dream of the good'ol'days, and just try to run
the most fun game I can. Ultimately, it's the characters and the fun they have
that makes or breaks any RPG, and at least as of this rev of the rules,
people are still people.
I'm a shaddupa now.
metlay