Steve rants:
>MORE loud laughter!
>
>Hans, sounds like you REALLY want to play the Star Wars RPG, not Traveller.
Sounds wrong then, I don't care enough for the Star Wars universe. I did
start playing Traveller just because it was the only SF game around, but I
stuck to it because of the background information that appeared by and by.
I'd kinda like to stick to the rules too, but only in order to be able to
contribute to that background. If not for that I'd've converted to my own
home-grown system a long time ago.
>And aren't you one of the guys who used to say rude things
>about grav, and wish for realistic fusion drives?
No.
>Quite frankly, I am pretty disgusted by the fact that everyone seems
>willing to change the "laws of the universe" rather than face up to the
>situation presented, and learn to live with it.
That's partly because the situation presented does not agree with the laws
of the universe.
>If you use the starship
>rules ("laws of nature") from TNE, you have to learn to deal with the
>fact that ANY ship can toast ANY city (well, any city at TL12-, and most
>any at TL14-).
Exactly. And that does not really square too well with the entire history
of the Imperium as we know it, does it?
It sounds like you've lost touch with the fact that Traveller is a game,
not a simulation. The most important thing about a game is that it's rules
be _consistent_, not that they be realistic. Realism is _often_ a good
thing both because realism tends to be consistent (Mother Nature is such a
stickler for consistency) and because it dosen't burden the players'
willing suspension of disbelief, allowing me to save that up for when it's
really needed. But if realism starts infringing on gamability then realism
can take a long walk off a short pier.
> So what does that mean? Well, landing ships should be RIGHT OUT!
Bang goes the Traveller background. Score one against realism.
>Allowing a fusion gun that size near ANY city is INSANE!
I agree 100%. It is insane unless the city has adequate defenses. Since
Traveller ships DO land near cities it is unrealistic to assume that such
defenses does not exist.
>So ships
>should be docking at space stations FAR from a planet (like
>geostationary orbit, for instance.
But they don't, so there is something wrong with the assumptions. Either
ships don't use fusion drives or the cities have defenses. QED. (Since a
ship in itself is a pretty horrible weapon even if it is just dropped
from any appreciable height I suggest that the defenses are the most
reasonable, but perhaps some other explanation can be found.)
>That gives the planetary defenses
>time to scrag anyone who deviates from traffic corridors toward the
>planet). You should LAND in shuttles that have ONLY scramjet/chemical
>rocket drives (getting up and down will be pretty damn tricky. Sort of
>like 2300AD).
> Of course, out in the Wilds, there is NO WAY IN HELL that you can
>keep PCs (OR NPCS!!!!!) from landing anywhere they like, and toasting
>anyone they dislike!
Of course there is. I'm the Referee. If I don't want it it doesn't happen.
I sure would like a better explanation for my players than 'because I say
so", of course. But I'll use that one if I can't come up with something
better. I repeat, this is a game, not a simulation.
However, I don't really think I want to keep NPCs from toasting anyone they
like in the Wilds. What I want to protect is the civilization centers without
which there would be no SF role-playing because there would be no SF tech.
>So live with it.
No.
>Or stop complaining, and go back
>to Megatraveller starship rules (yeah, the ones most of you have spent
>YEARS complaining about)! And remember this the next time you decide to
>cry out for "more realistic starship rules".
What I've cried out for is consistent starship rules. Rules that dosen't
(realistically) place huge defense squadrons around every planet in every
system in any interstellar state, but still allow a motley bunch of PCs
to own a starship, for example.
And Steve rants on in another message:
> A Proposal:
>
> Far all those who don't like the idea that the TNE universe is a
>dangerous place, full of people (PCs and NPCs) who have the power to
>toast cities if they want to,
Hey, this is for me!
> I would like to propose the formation of a
>Working Group to Study the Problems, and find Solutions. I propose that
>the Working Group be called
>
> The Traveller Done Wrong Working Group (TDW).
>
> The main focus for this Working Group should be the use of Magic and
>Wishful Thinking to alter the TNE "reality" to suit their view of "the
>Way Things Should Be".
Steve, the day you provide me a realistic (Even almost realistic. I'll give
you the jump drive for free) explanation of the history of Charted Space
as we know it (Or drop the Traveller Universe completely) you can begin
being sarky about magic and wishful thinking and unrealism. Until then
you're just blowing hot air.
> And I further propose that all you people who are kvetching about
>the usefulness of a fusion drive as a weapon should immediately join
>this working group, since you are patently incapable of handling
>"Traveller Done Right".
"Traveller Done Tedious and Unplayable" more like it.
> In that vein, I'd like to extend a personal invitation to Wildstar,
>Hans, and Bertil to start this Working Group off with a bang.
>Hopefully, you all can have a report ready REAL SOON NOW...
Come off your high horse, Steve. If you're so hung up on realism how can
you play Traveller at all? How can you ignore the horrible travesty of
the laws of nature that the jump drive is? How can you play in a galaxy
that is apparently a parsec thick? How can you play TCS with such an
unrealistic economic system? (Even with the improvements you've made it
is still rather unrealistic.) You're no more hung up on realism than I
am, your priorities are just different. My priorities are 1) making the
game fun, and 2) trying to save the Traveller Imperium background (if
possible). Oh yeah, and 3) contributing to Aoreriyya (I sometimes wish
I hadn't gotten my interest caught there. It would be much easier to
crush the Rebellion, teach the Vargr a lesson, work out a modus vivendi
with the Aslans, and get on with my campaign without bothering about TNE
at all).
> PS. My, I'm getting acid these days...
Give your stomach a rest, Steve.
>"Traveller Done Wrong - Let's get the Science OUT of Science Fiction
>Roleplaying...."
"Traveller Done _Really_ Right - Let's get the GAME into Science Fiction
Roleplaying and let the science take a hike if it dosen't approve..."
Wildstar:
>[email removed] (Hans Rancke) writes:
>>Item: I don't want just any starship owner to be able to torch
>>planets at will, yet we have these super blowtorches. Answer: Planetary
>>force screens.
>
> Please, No! This opens far too many cans of worms than it solves.
You may be right. Maybe it would be better to drop the fusion drives instead.
>Secondly, to make these "new" missiles useful, you really want to have a
>MFD (Master Fire Director) which allows you to ignore some or all of the
>increased difficulty levels associated with the new missiles. Bertil
>suggested (and I agree) that MFDs should be restricted-purchase items,
>and normally found only on warships.
Sounds good. I suppose that moving the spaceports away from the main cities
is not much of a retcon, given how few planetary maps we have (for if the
cities rely on defense batteries then they wouldn't allow fusion powered
ships closer than they would have time to shoot them down over relatively
open land (or sea). How far would you say a starport should be from
anything you really want to protect?)
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
[email removed]
- ------------
"The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
events based on the individual situation."
_76 Patrons_, p. 8