RE: Trav Background, automation, people

In our last episode of "TNE Background : An Analysis"
[email removed] (David Johnson) said:
>
> Tom O'Neill [email removed] says:
>
> > Concerning the TNE setting, its strengths are its weaknesses. The major
> > advantages of TNE over CT/MT are (a) no knowledge of previous history is
> > necessary, reducing the amount of reading for new players; (b) apart from
> > the Regency, everywhere is a frontier zone ripe for re-exploration and
> > rediscovery;
>
> Again, the same would hold for a `frontier' CT/MT campaign.

True. TNE was not necessary for this.
>
> > (c) the Virus, although mostly under control, is still an
> > ever-present threat and has massively reduced automation, putting
> > emphasis back on the skills of people.
>
> Hmmm, an interesting point but not one that I've encountered.  I don't
> quite see how the background itself would do this (take away or add
> emphasis on character skills).  Isn't that more a function of `the rules'
> and referee interpretation?  I'd like to hear more on this point.

In fact I think the rules of CT and MT did say in certain places that the
emphasis should be on people and the skills of people. One reason Trav's
computers have always have been Neanderthals is to avoid the "Star Trek
Computer" problem of the PC's saying "Computer, solve this incredibly
complex problem" and the computer replying "Sure, no problem". Maybe
this is a rules point as well, but what is possible in a setting limits
the adventures that may be run for it. TNE produces a situation where
there are (by logical deduction) far less safety features in equipment
than in the Imperium days. When a PC tries something dangerous there
probably won't be a fail-safe to bail her out of trouble. It will be
more dangerous than the pre-Imperium situation, but except for relics
this will just redefine the definitions of what is dangerous and what is
possible. Just think of all the computer-assisted equipment which has been
brain-damaged (ie virus-proofed) in the TNE setting, and it becomes clear
that a lot of previously routine tasks are so no longer. This means that
the players can be forced to do the work without depending on "toys",
and without having to carefully plot to make their technological "toys"
ineffective, as it is built into the background.

You are right in that this is a 'referee interpretation' thing. It is all
very well saying that so-and-so makes PC's skills more important, but it
all depends on how the referee runs things. If the plot demands that the
PCs must do something, they will generally do it, regardless of
consistency.
>
>> The disadvantages are that (a) previous history and
>> technology is changed, to the detriment of continuity for some campaigns;
>
> And a `frontier' sourcebook would have avoided this.
>
>> (b) apart from the Recency, nowhere is really safe as everywhere is a
>> frontier
>>  zone; (c) the Virus is a flagrant Plot Device
>
> Sort of like all those orc-filled holes in the ground from D&D, isn't it?
>
>> and questions such as
>> whether something as complicated as a starship could be operated by
>> manual control with minimal computer assistance are ignored.(I can just
>> see the astrogator tapping in the millions of parameters for a jump
>> from one computer to another by hand without any mistakes(no
>> error-checking, that would  be too dangerous) :-).
>
> Well, this seems to be a rules-oriented point which, not having the TNE
> rules, I can't comment on.  It would seem though that sophonts might be
> able to effectively compensate for a lack of automation - Herbert's *Dune*
> universe comes to mind as a good example.

My above comment was exagerrating slightly. Traveller has historically
jumped through hoops to outlaw automated starships. Starships had to
have a full crew to push buttons and be bored stiff for a week. Jump
torpedoes disappeared, AI's were unstable (The Kinunir etc.). And now
with the Virus we discover that starships can run themselves and maintain
themselves, but only if they are bloodthirsty maniacs.

This is a rules-and-technology oriented point, but one that annoyed one of
my players in a now-hibernating campaign. He was interested in starships
only as a means of transport, and resented the requirement of a full crew
a ship which should have been able to fly itself most of the time. For
other players, the starship was the only constant in the game, and they
wanted to know how the hunk of metal they were trusting their lives to
worked. Once this information is defined it does affect plots, and the
things the PC's attempt to do.

The *Dune* point is interesting - I would interpret Dune's technology as
being based on psionics and genetic engineering. This is a real shift
from the mainstream Imperium culture, and would involve an entirely
different mindset. It is an interesting idea for a culture with psionics
and psionic star travel that entirely abandoned computers (or perhaps it
subsequently developed psionic star travel).
                                                    Tom

  Tom O'Neill  |   [email removed]          [email removed]
- ---------------!--------------------------------------------------------------
                    Fact is stranger than fiction