------------------------------ Bundle: 562 Archive-Message-Number: 7062 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 94 15:26:50 CST From: [-- REDACTED --] (David Johnson) Subject: TNE Background 7 Gentlesophonts: Well, first I need to clarify some `timeline' difficulties with my last few messages. For some reason my "TNE Background 4" (TML Msg 7032) appeared *after* my "TNE Background 5" (TML Msg 7033) in Tuesday night's postings. And I messed up my posting in the second group of messages from Tuesday. TML Msg 7044 was also called "TNE Background 5" but should have been "TNE Background 6". Sorry for the confusion. I at least have given up the comparison of TNE background to CT/MT in favor of examining TNE since TNE, as a *fait accompli*, is all that's being supportedby GDW. So far, the discussion has centered on the Star Vikings of the Reformation Coalition since, apparently, that's the only aspect of TNE background that's been presented by GDW in any detail so far. I'd still like to examine other aspects of TNE (and CT/MT and non-Imperium background too) but I guess this is going to be dependent on those of you who are brave enough to venture beyond the GDW scope. For now, let's look at the Star Vikings. [-- REDACTED --] (Brian Makens) writes: > The political structure and currents of the RC are > quite well described as well as RC motivation. How so? An important aspect of Beam's original Space Vikings was that they were highly individualistic and had a great deal of difficulty cooperating. Much like the Vargr of Traveller, the Space Vikings were often fighting among themselves. This situation permitted some to be `blood thirsty barbarians' while others were more sympathetic explorers and developers. (This situation was well preserved, almost to a fault, among the Sword Worlds of the Spinward Marches BTW.) In the novel, there was *no* Space Viking political entity larger than a single planet and many Space Vikings operated from balkanized worlds. Does the political structure of the RC permit this? Or is it a much more cohesive and organized group? The idea of an Exploration Service suggests a greater degree of uniformity than was the case with the petty barons of Beam's Sword Worlds. Another interesting aspect of the novel was that some Sword Worlds detractors of the Space Vikings saw them as a threat because they drew the best talent and resources of the Sword Worlds away from home and into the `wilds' of the Old Empire. The view was even expressed that Space Viking settlers in the Old Empire might be raiding the Sword Worlds themselves in a generation or two. > Some of the these worlds, don't make sense. Worlds > have "data priests" that are in the tech 5-9 eras. > Given that we are talking 20th Century technology, > it takes a rather sophisticated population to support > such a technology(just take a good look around you). > A population that can support tech 5-9 just doesn't > seem the type to go in for supersitious data priests. This is a *very* good point - especially considering the fact that grand parents on these worlds remember days of *much* more advance technology. Consider 20th Century Westerners in the developing world today. They might not be able to repair a laptop computer while exploring in Antarctica, feeding the starving in East Africa, or building irrigation systems in Central America, but they *certainly* aren't going to *worship* the darned thing! > 5. TED model seems to be too simplistic for the worlds etc., > no outsider is going to tell us what to do), the > TED gets stronger and stays in power for a record > length of time(i.e stronger state apparatus than > apparent and force of nationalism than TED model > implies). Not exactly. I doubt the Space Vikings are going to draw a line at the atmosphere and wait for `permission' from the UN to cross it. I also doubt the folks back home are the sort to start calling for the `boys' to be brought home as soon as some of them catch some flak. And BTW, what's a `TED'? (I'm guessing T-something E-something Dictator?) Allen Shock [-- REDACTED --] writes: > I'm running two concurrent campaigns with the New Era rules; one set in the > Reformation Coalition circa 1201, Great. So what's going on? Your players, I assume, are RC explorers? And they're not chicken stealing? What's your take on the organization of the RC government and the issues I raised above? > and the other set in the old Imperium > circa 1106. In fact, I'm running the "Secrets of the Ancients" series (Adv 2 > "Research Station Gamma", Adv. 3 "Twilight's peak" and Adv 12 "Secrets of the > Ancients", for the newbies) I'm surprised to learn this after your ardent support for TNE. :-) > Oh, and by the way; I am definitely ALLEN Shock. Thanks for the clarification. > Oh, and one more thing, while I have taken it upon myself to defend TNE > from it's detractors, I have both CT and MT, and still run CT from time to > time (like this Thursday night). Traveller in all it's forms is far above > anything else. Hey, some common ground! Great! John H Bogan [-- REDACTED --] writes: > If the RCES saw themselves as the heirs to the legacy of the > Imperial (spit on ground) scout service, would they view the > Wilds as "diseased", to be cured with "star-hot plasma, RAM > grenades, and coherent light"? Clearly there's some room for different interpretations of the role of the Space Vikings - which isn't necessarily bad. As has already been pointed out previously, one of the strengths of Traveller has always been the lack of clear distinctions between `good' and `evil' in Traveller - simple examples being both the Zhodani and the Solomani. An important issue though is going to be the degree to which whatever attitude is predominant in the RC is monolithic in it's support or not. The more monolithic the attitude the less chance there will be for both `good' vikings and `bad' vikings. > That may be fine for you, but that's not true for everyone. > I know the people I game with, and even if I don't care how > the maneuver drives work, eventually the players are going > to try something that will MAKE me care about it. This is true, but as a referee I've always felt that consistency is more important that adherence to any rules. If the PCs discover some clever way of dealing with a situation then the NPCs are just as likely to have found a clever counter. (Unless of course, you allow PCs access to *player* knowledge, which can again be countered by allowing NPCs access to *ref* knowledge!) The point is *none* of us *really* knows how the maneuver drive works (and much of the rest of the technology as well, especially the *jump* drive). Some folks are really into this sort of `imagineering' and that's fine, but it's not the sort of game I had in mind when I started this discussion about background. This discussion was started with a deliberate attempt to avoid rules-related issues. I know we've seen where rules might influence the background but in general I believe a good ref can avoid any major problems if her intention is to stay true to background rather than rules and he still maintains consistency. I suspect we'll get a lot of discussion now about the Reformation Coalition. What about the rest of the TNE universe? Who's adventuring in other places? And I'm still waiting to hear from folks that are still adventuring in the Old Imperium campaign or who have gone on to even `bigger and better' settings. Peace, David Johnson Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------