------------------------------

Bundle: 563
Archive-Message-Number: 7079
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 94 14:42:46 CST
From: [-- REDACTED --] (David Johnson)
Subject: Traveller Background 1

Gentlesophonts:

Great!  We've begun to move on to the details of TNE background *and* have
begun to explore aspects of other background settings.

From Saturday night:

Grant Sinclair [-- REDACTED --] writes:
  
> HIWG Australia has been developing Yiklerzdanzh sector (the one
> immediately spinward of Far Frontiers) for the last couple of years.

I look forward to seeing this work.  How will it be distributed?

The idea of group development is also an interesting one.  How were
individual development tasks divided up?  I'm especially interested in
how you `patched up the missing parts'?
  
 
Stewart Johnson [-- REDACTED --] writes:
 
> 	A thought occurred to me the other day. How widespread is the
> use of standard GalAnglic throughout what was the Imperium?

My take was that *most* Imperial citizens spoke Galanglic - if not as their
birth tongue then as a `good' second language.  Good modern examples might
be Hispanics in the US or the Japanese - both groups that speak English as
a second language but for very different reasons.  This would be true on 
almost all worlds that were regular participants in Imperial society - say
Early Stellar tech levels and higher.  Less-advanced and backwater worlds
would have more divergent languages although here also those who interact
regularly with off-worlders would speak Galanglic.

IMHO, language skills have often been neglected in science fiction as a whole.
(Mostly because viewers or readers often only understand English).  The
*Star Trek* movies, with English sub-titles for Klingon and Vulcan, were
excellent exceptions, especially considering that *Star Trek* has been a 
`flagrant violator' in this respect.

The key with language in the post-Imperial era (PIE? As in `in-the-sky'?)
:-) is going to be who needs to learn the other's language.  Star Vikings
on Discovery, Integration and Regeneration missions will learn to speak the
local lingo while those on Recovery mission probably won't bother.  Folks
who want to interact with the RC, the Free Traders or the Regency will
learn whatever dialect of Galanglic that these various folks speak.  Certainly
by the time the Reformation Coalition meets the Regency they will have about
as much of a chance of understanding each other as an Australian sheep farmer
and a Mississippi moonshiner (or a New Delhi businesswoman and a Quebecois
hydroelectric engineer).
 
 
Allen Shock [-- REDACTED --] writes:

>   The RC is governed by a representative democracy,

Who is represented?  In other words, who gets to vote?  Adults only?  Women
only?  Residents only?  What establishes residency?  (If I immigrate from the
Wilds two days before an election can I vote?)  Do individual worlds make
these decisions?  (And are the requirement for voting different from those
for serving in the government?)

> the Centrist bloc, who are in favor
> of a strong central government based on the Feudal Technocracy model

Hmmm, I always thougt a feudal model was very decentralized.  In a feudal
system each baron's authority is based upon the support of her vassals.  This
tends to keep power from being concentrated in a central authority.  A `feudal'
system was what Alexander the Great and King Arthur had to destroy in order
to become the monarch (literally `single ruler').  GDW alway got this wrong.
Lucan would have *never* been able to cow the Moot in a true feudal aristocracy.
(The Imperium was not a `technocracy' because noble patents were not based
upon technical or economic abilities.  GDW didn't get this part of Piper's
Sword World's right either.)

> Federalists, who are in favor of a looser organization which allows worlds to
> develop their own social systems.

Okay, like the Revolutionary American Federalists.  Since the government is
described as `representative' I assume neither the Centrists nor Federalists
believe in aristocracy?  Democracy, or some form of voting at least, is the
way to govern.  One wonders where these `progressive' attitudes come from
(hasn't it been suggested that the Regency is more `democratic' as well?) in
the ruins of a millenia of aristocracy?  Democratic traditions just don't
spring up over night, or even in seventy years, after that sort of history -
look at the former Soviet Union.  (How long has it been since the Magna
Charta?)  And the post-Imperial states haven't had a big democracy offering
financial incentives to make the move to democracy either.  Only in the mind(?)
of GDW . . . .

> In all, the RC is a fairly organized
> governmental entity (at least for a relatively new government),

Okay, which means the Star Vikings are either all `bad' or all `good'
depending on how you see the RCES defining it's role.  There won't be much
variation in the ranks.

> "Space Vikings" of H. Beam Piper fame. (By the way
> what's the name of that book? I'd like to read it.)

It's *Space Viking*, but it, and probably most of Beam's `Future History'
novels and anthologies are probably out of print.  Try the used paperback
stores.  They're all great reads.

> according to PATH OF TEARS, pages 30-31:
>    DISCOVERY: Basic exploration and information-gathering. The Discovery
> Mission Statement reads "Identify and locate key resources neccesary to
> establish interstellar commerce."
>    RECOVERY: "Secure and preserve those assets currently in the Wilds
> neccesary to the establishment of interstellar commerce."

Aren't *markets* the fundamental `necessity of interstellar commerce'?
Doesn't this sort of preclude `chicken stealing' of any sort?  (Whether I
call it `identification', `location', `preservation' or whatever?)  Wasn't
the collapse of *markets* (and access to them), in GDW's own words, what
led to the collapse of the Imperium during the Rebellion rather than a lack
of resources?  (Do they ever read what they put out after it hits the stores?)

> Hot Recovery, where those who have the tech
> want to keep it. All missions against TED's (Technologically Elevated
> Dictatorships) fall into this category.

Okay, so `good' Vikings only hit TEDs while `bad' Vikings will take it from
you regardless.  Who makes this TED determination anyway?  The RCES?  That's
sort of like the 1950s CIA looking for commies isn't it?

>     INTEGRATION: Actual integration of inhabited worlds into the RC. Quoting
> from the book, "Diplomacy is the preferred means of integrating a world into
> the Coalition". When the people like the government, and it treats them well,
> the RC tags the planet TDO (Trade and Diplomacy Only), no SAG's allowed.

So this is the United Federation of Planets!  :-)  (Join Starfleet!  Tour the
galaxy!  Meet interesting aliens!  And sleep with them!  :-)

>     A second type of Integration method is Pacification. Only two worlds have
> been integrated this way, but there will undoubtably be more.

And this is the US in Somalia (only RC citizens give a damn about folks who
aren't just like them and aren't squeemish in the face of casualties)?  Or is
this the Soviets in Afghanistan, which the RCES uses as a training guide?  With
a relatively stable, centralized government in the RC this `good vik' - `bad
vik' issue will have to be resolved.

>      REGENERATION is the final step; helping the worlds to rebuild their
> technological base and reestablishing interstellar commerce. This is, as the
> book points out, the major goal of the RC. Two operations are used here;
> Commerce with Free Traders and RC merchants, 

Is this sort of like letting Exxon or Alcoa come into your country to help
you develop?  (Or William Penn buying Manhattan for a handfull of beads?)
Doesn't sound too benevolent to me.

> and Bootstrap operations, where
> the members function much as Peace Corps members do, helping the people
> relearn
> the technology they need.

Now this sounds benevolent but this has to come from altrusim - the RC won't
recognize any benefit (other than spiritual) from this sort of behavior for
decades.  My question is: do the TNE rules spend as much time explaining
irrigation network as they do explaning armor piercing rounds?

Some really important issues need to be decided here for the RC but there
seems to be a lot of potential too.


Dane Johnson [-- REDACTED --] writes:

Some too kind words about me.  Thank you, but talk about a waste of bandwidth!
:-)

> it strongly resembles the tone I've seen developing over on the TNE
> Pocket Empire mailing list.

How do I get on that list?

>  That tone is one of empire building and the
> forging of an interstellar government out of a group of loosely
> cooperating worlds who face unknown dangers at their borders.

Maybe, but empire buliding is seldom very altruistic and often very bloody.
It seems to me there's a fundamental conflict in the goals of the RC.  Is GDW
trying to make the RC everything to everyone?  Should they?  And more
importantly, can they?  Is there the potential for a split between empire-
builders and altruisitc-developers?  It seems the internal structure of the
RC is more important to the Centrists, Federalists, and other blocs than are
these fundamental issues of how the RC will interact with the rest of the
world.
 
> Whether that will be in the form of the RC and the Regency
> combining or what, I dunno.

You can bet that by the time the RC meets the Regency each will have its
own interests which will most likely be in conflict.  Those who have
`rebuilt from scratch' won't have any interest in turning over what they've
wrought to those who stood by `holding the torch'.  Now there's an interesting
conflict!  (And d**n, now I've gone and broadcast it to everyone!)

> 	Of course, in many ways, this is a basic marketing ploy on the
> part of GDW, and a not-unfamiliar one

'Nuff said.
 
> if GDW had chosen to remove all of the "New Era" specific data
> from the TNE rulebook

But who would have bought what would then have been basically just a reprinting
of the Twilight/C&D rules?

> Background can, in most cases, be safely divorced from one another,
> especially in a game like Traveller where Background issues affect
> people's enjoyment of the game.

Yes, but knowing Travellers, who would then have just bought the rules?
This is the one thing that GDW is *very* good at.  They know their customers
and how to get into their pockets.
 
> 3.  What I'm planning on doing, in terms of background, is the
> development of an Imperial setting away from the standard area but
> during the Imperial era.

Great!  Look forward to reading more about it.

So, some good stuff on the RC and a beginning of some `alternate' Imperium
campaigns.  More, more!  And who's adventuring in the Regency?  What's going
on there?  Or do we have to wait for the sourcebook?  What about completely
original campaigns - don't have to wait for a sourcebook for those?

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------