Why I Hate Traveller 5 In One Easy Concept

It's the return of Traveller Tuesday!

Most of you know that I and several confederates savaged the Traveller5 rules last year. Perhaps some of you (I'm looking at you, Faoladh) felt I was being unfair in my assessment of it.  At this point, I believe I wasn't harsh enough, and will explain how I came to this conclusion.

T5 introduces the concept of Extensions for planetary systems. Those Extensions are listed as Importance, Economic, and Cultural.  A picture is included for the Kinorb system from The Traveller Map as an example of how they are used. (and that's why I am ranting about T5 again; I use the Traveller Map quite a lot in my game, and when I saw these odd numbers crop up I needed to know what they meant.)

I will explain these extensions, using the definitions within the game itself, and you can actually see the point where this data stops being useful and is simply an exercise in mathematical masturbation.

This is an example of a useful bit of data. It explains what the extension is and what the numbers mean. You have to read eight pages ahead to find out how to calculate it, but it's an easy case of  "+1 if this, -1 if that"; for example, a Starport of class A or B merits a +1, and Starports of D or worse earn a -1. Add up the values, and if it's 4 or more, it's an important world. That's a good thing to know both data-wise and as background information for role-playing, aka "fluff". I can use this extension, and therefore I like it.

Oh-kay then. I'm not really sure why I'd need to calculate this (and yes, there are calculations involved, this is T5 after all); between Importance and various trade codes (rich, industrial, hi-tech, etc) I can probably figure out if this planet is an economic powerhouse or not, which is really all I'd need for a typical game of Traveller. Maybe I'd need this if the PCs were playing planetary rulers and the planet was theirs to administer (in which case it's a Traveller-themed version of Birthright, but hey, I wrote a game where you can play pre-pubescent talking ponies, so who am I to judge?), but in general I don't need to know (after calculating) the numbers for Resources, Labor, Infrastructure and Efficiency, and then multiply those to get its Resource Units -- in other words, its budget.

And that's all it says on p 427, the same page as the other entries I'm quoting. That's literally all it says about culture. Full stop.

Eight pages later, you get a bit more detail:

There's quite literally nothing further said about it. Not in the main book and not in the errata. Can you see what's missing?

Let's look at the Cx entry for Kinorb again:

What in God's name does any of this MEAN? There's no explanation anywhere in the book. Is a 6 in Symbols a good thing or a bad thing?  Is this culture very homogeneous, or is it very non-homogeneous? And while I see the lowest bound is a 1, what's the high end?

This tells me NOTHING. What's worse is that this is information I could really use: Traveller, at least the way I play it, is about voyaging to exotic locations and getting into trouble with the local inhabitants. Knowing if this is a planet full of superstitious racists is critical, gameable data.

I distinctly get the feeling I am being trolled.

Well done, Marc Miller. I mean it; golf applause all round. You can micromanage the GDP of a planet, but you can't be bothered to tell me anything useful about the people who live there. You've actually managed to transcend George Lucas and have become the RPG publishing equivalent of a cocktease.

Things I Won't Countenance

Okay, ranty time.

People who follow me on Facebook (and, to a lesser extent, read the comments on posts here) probably know that I'll tolerate a lot of bad behavior. I know full well that I take thing personally -- perhaps more personally than they are intended -- and so my guidelines pretty much boil down to "You can disagree with me all you want, you can dislike me all you want, you can even refuse to accept my arguments, but the moment you start insulting me, we're finished."

I'm even going to go a step further and clarify this:  If, while disagreeing with me, you call me blind or stupid or irrational, I will let that slide because I have probably been guilty of expressing a similar sentiment.

So that said, there are some attitudes prevalent on the internet that I regard as such a slap in the face that they're pretty much conversation-killers and friendship-enders.

1)  All men are rapists/ All women are victims

I'm not even going to get into the whole "rape culture" scrum, although you can probably guess what my feelings are about it. No, my biggest problem with this line of thinking is that not only does it unjustly criminalize an entire gender -- "All men have penises, and penises are used to rape," goes the 'logic', "so therefore all men are rapists" -- but it also removes agency (in the philosophical sense) from the female gender.

Claiming that "The way to end rape is to teach boys not to rape" is akin to saying "Women are utterly unable to defend themselves against rape, and therefore must rely on the goodwill of men not to rape them."

Sorry, no. I don't buy that for a second. I'm enough of a feminist to believe that women are perfectly capable of defending themselves against rape, and while of course it is a good and worthwhile thing to teach our male children good manners (especially regarding "drunk doesn't mean consenting" as they approach college), it's also equally incumbent upon us to teach our female children how to avoid situations where they are vulnerable.

I particularly hate it when proponents of this theory trot out the hoary old "A woman should be able to dance naked at a party full of men and not be afraid of rape."  Well, yes, and I should be able to walk through the roughest parts of town with money sticking out of my pockets and not be afraid of someone robbing me, but -- NEWS FLASH! -- the world doesn't work like that.  If it did, we could simply tell our children "Killing people is bad, mmkay?" and end our nation's murder problem within a generation.

Humans are predators. We aren't going to change millions of years of evolution with a few thousand years of civilization.

2)  All [Race/Nationality/Religion] are [this horrible thing]

I'm perfectly okay with people loathing me because they find some aspect of my personality or lifestyle loathesome. I won't necessarily like it, mind you -- my attitude is likely to be "Screw those judgemental assholes" -- but I'll respect their right to that opinion and take comfort in the fact that their dislike of me is based on something I did, and therefore to some extent I deserve their distaste.

However, I go absolutely bugnuts with anger whenever someone hates me because of something over which I have no control. Saying "Of course you'd think that, you're white" is just as goddamn racist as "Of course you'd think that, you're black."

Which isn't to say that discussions about privilege, as tiresome as they can be, don't have a place within our society. But, more often than not, those discussions (usually on Tumblr, the Mos Eisley of the Internet) turn into "If you don't agree with me, I will insult and harass you until you go away."

For more on this topic I direct you to some people who have written far more and far better on the subject: co-blogger Salem MacGourley, this fellow right here, and this lady here.

3) All Gun Owners are Law Abiding (Until They're Not)

And today, this happened, which is what triggered this rant. Someone who I thought was my friend quite literally told me "And so many gun owners are law abiding, responsible and trained, until they're not." I took great and immediate exception to this. At the risk of being pedantic, I shall explain why:

• His statement essentially says "Many, if not all gun owners, are untrained and irresponsible and criminals waiting to happen."  
• I am a gun owner, and he knows it.
• Therefore, he is accusing me of being at least potentially untrained (which is provably false, as my range reports show),  irresponsible (I have been carrying for over 2 years now and not only have I not shot anyone or had a negligent discharge, I haven't even felt the need to draw my pistol) and law-breaking (I haven't gotten so much as a speeding ticket since I started carrying). 
• This loops around to my first point. "All gun owners are law abiding... until they're not" is factually the same as "All men aren't rapists... until they rape" or "All women aren't whores... until they prostitute themselves."
• I'm pretty sure this is a variation on the One True Scotsman logical fallacy, i.e., "Only people without guns can be considered law-abiding, and any law-abiding gun owner clearly is a criminal just waiting to happen, so therefore they aren't law-abiding." 

It's lazy thinking and it's infuriating and it's WRONG. The arguer is essentially asking me to simultaneously prove a negative ("Prove you aren't a criminal")  and prove something in the future ("Prove, today, that you aren't going to do something wrong in the future")  before I'm allowed to exercise my Constitutionally-enumerated right. 

It's like saying "All bloggers don't commit libel and/or plagiarism... until they do. Prove you aren't a plagiarist or libeller, and prove you aren't going to do so in the future, before you can own a blog."

I swear, the next time someone uses this line in a debate I'm going to reply with "And you aren't a pedophile... until you are."  Yes, it's a cheap shot, but if I'm in a fight and someone goes for my eyes, I'm definitely kneeing them in the crotch.

HO. LEE. CRAP.

Someone pinch me, I must be dreaming:

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

Alan Gura did it again.  I never thought I'd see the day that handgun carry became legal in D.C.

I do especially like the addendum of "Oh, by the way, you HAVE to recognize the rights of non-residents to carry as well." That's a lovely bit of boot-in, that is, and having lived in the DC metro area, it's a big deal. Hardly anyone who works in DC actually lives there; they live in MD or VA instead. Reducing it to "residents only" would have denied rights to -- oh, let's say 75% of the people who are in the District during the working day.


You can read the opinion in PDF form here.


Hat Tip to Joe Huffman for the link.

SHTFriday: Making a Paracord Rifle Sling

Between the weather, barfing dogs and squabbling parents, the universe has made it clear that I am not to get any writing done today.

Go enjoy a guest post by Firehand about how to make a paracord sling.

"If you're not confused, you're not paying attention."

     Hellblazer is a series that has always been held dear to my heart. I've got the first 5 or 6 trade collections of the comic, and a few later volumes. One day, I'll get around to picking up all the collections, but it has been a rather long-running series. It'll take a while. In the meantime, there's been the occasional adaptation that's cropped up. There was a film about a dark-haired and dark-coated American man named John Constantine that had some rather good points to it (save the presence of Shia LeBouf, whom I maintain there has not yet been built a bus large enough to properly run over), but was certainly no Hellblazer film. I even made a valiant effort to play through the terrible licensed game that was made said film. Rumour has it Castiel from Supernatural was originally supposed to be John Constantine, but licensing fell through, and we got Misha's charming rogue Angel instead.

     Now in the interests of plausible deniability, I'd like to say that while I am aware of the leaked pilot floating around the internet, I certainly haven't seen it, as that would imply some less-than-legal and certainly immoral ways and means, and I would never ever ever partake in such activities. Just so we're clear. Officially, anything I discuss here has been gleaned from various publicly available video clips and discussions. Honest. If you get my drift.

Walked right off the pages, he has.

     Let's get the giant demonic elephant in the room out of the way. Unlike Keanu, Matt Ryan nails the character of John Constantine. The new John is an asshole. He's selfish, lazy, reluctant to get involved, dripping with gallows humor, and prone to answering questions with truths so audaciously unlikely that people assume he's lying. But he's charming, charismatic, trouble that you just can't say no to, and knows that he's probably the only person equipped to deal with the things that he sees. It's a perfect reflection of the way John's been written in the books for decades now. One of the most important details is covered in the very beginning of the pilot episode, that being Newcastle. Years and years ago, John and some of his more irresponsible and experimental occultist friends accidentally damned a young girl's soul to hell, and he's dealt with crippling guilt since. Everything he's done since Newcastle has been motivated by a conflict between his instinct to avoid responsibility and his desire to redeem himself.

      The other characters are a mixed bag. Chas returns, Constantines hapless but faithful friend. He's American now, like he was in the film, but is portrayed by a gruff, bearded Charles Halford instead of the aforementioned (and afore-cursed) Shia. Visually and performance-wise, he hits the mark so well you don't even miss the original nationality. His omnipresent taxi cab is back, but this time it's a classic 50s Chevy instead of the London Black. Again, much more suitable than a 90s Caprice. The cast is rounded out by the angel Manny, played with a menacing charm by Harold Perrineau, and Lucy Griffiths as Liv. Manny's a fantastic character, but I was sadly disappointed by Liv. I have fond memories of Lucy Griffiths in the BBC's cheesy Robin Hood series, but she just falls flat here. Fortunately, I hear there's recasting afoot, and someone will be taking her place, but playing existing character Zed instead, opening up the possibility of an adaptation of the Damnation Army arc from the books.

     The show has a very interesting feel, a mix between more modern exorcism/possession films and higher-quality horror/adventure shows. The special effects are low-key but believable, with what appear to be a lot of practical effects. Lots of shouting in cod-Latin, as you'd expect from pulp horror. The setting was in interesting choice, being not New York or Los Angeles as you'd expect, but Atlanta of all places. Always knew there was something weird about Atlanta. Due to this (and I mean this in nicest possible way) I half expected to see a Winchester brother wander past in the background. The pacing was a bit odd, and the story didn't flow terribly well, but that's something you'd expect from a pilot episode, and doesn't worry me. Sherlock, for example, has a frankly amateurish pilot episode compared to its premiere.

     Overall, I have high hopes for this adaptation, based on the very limited materials I've seen of it so far, having totally not seen the actual leaked pilot episode. It's certainly better than previous adaptations of Hellblazer that I've seen, and I'm encouraged that Matt Ryan really feels like he understands the character. I honestly thing even my pick, Marc Warren, wouldn't have been better for the role. I've got a feeling this could, if properly handled, be at least as good as DC's other successful television property, Arrow.

     And yes, that was Dr Fate's helmet. I have to go squee now.

[AFHOTWTTGS] It's Constantinople, Not Istanbul

Since Erin's doing it, I thought it was high time that I raided the 'inspirations' file and showed off some of the things behind my long-serving Dark Ages Vampire game - the one into which I've put the most effort in terms of resourcing, showing-rather-than-describing.

The following are a series of pillagings from my various folders, which may illustrate something about how I devise and run my settings, or may just be an excuse to look at some pretty medieval (mostly) things. Who knows?

The chronicle (yeuch) began with the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade; theoretically that's twenty-five or so years before the setting date for Dark Ages Vampire, but screw that - why start after the world-shattering cock-up when you can drop players right into the middle of it, have them lose everything they hold dear, and then casually slide in with "oh by the way you're a vampire now"?

I'm a big fan of vaguely medieval maps, too, at least for showing to players. It's a gesture that has a certain verisimilitude about it - modern, Ordnance Survey style maps with grids and scales lead to a sort of modern way of thinking, whereas this kind of thing sort of... grounds people in the moment. This one creates the illusion of a crowded, crammed city, without being overburdened with details or crowding out the larger features (I can easily spot the Hagia Sophia, Hippodrome, Mese, Varangian Palace, dockmaster's mansion, Jewish and Latin quarters, and all the ways in or out - and that's all that's really needed).

I do use more modern ones with things like gradients and all the churches and distances staked out for planning - this one is the in-game resource. Among its other virtues, incidentally, is its resemblance to the hyper-detailed map from Sold Down The River, which is one of my favourite RPG supplements ever and one I wish I'd kept hold of during the Great Nerdstuff Purge of '08.

The refuge of Lacadaemonia. Just imagine that the land you can see in the background is water, and you'll get there. On this one small slice of land in the middle of the Med, Cainites are safe; they're not obliged to conceal their nature, and they're encouraged, nay instructed, to leave their politicking at the door, on pain of having a pair of Brujah jump up and down on their faces.

Sometimes, of course, the guest is a half-crazed Toreador Methuselah who's recently done diablerie par exellence, is also a closet infernalist, and who will not take "get out or be stomped" as an answer. Isabelle Adjani has exactly the right kind of haunted, fragile-yet-powerful beauty I wanted Mary the Black to have.

(Yes, she's a Toreador in my setting, because thirteen clans is quite enough and I prefer infernalism as a purely cultural practice. If this bothers you, I'm sorry. I also abolished the Ravnos because I hate Chimiestry... Chimerastry... that stupid reality-warping discipline. The Laibon are my thirteenth clan. I'm sure I've committed other blasphemies against canon at some stage.)

Varangian soldiers. Apparently there were, effectively, expatriate Vikings in Byzantium. I can roll with that. The Varangian Guard's keep in the north of the city is a desolate symbol of the Latin conquest, haven to a powerful Nosferatu, a resonant site for our Brujah (who's of Varangian descent himself) and will one day be the centre of resistance against the usurper Prince.

A view from the Med, on returning home from a subplot in Alexandria; a great city under a hunter's moon (yes, it is the moon; be quiet at the back there).

The Berliner

The third and final installment of the "no shit, I was really there" series of tales about visiting East Berlin in the 1980s, this post would not have been possible if I hadn't found an old pamphlet while cleaning out the mess from Dad's room. This was given to everyone who rode "The Berliner," the British troop train which made daily trips from West Germany to West Berlin (and back) across the blasted landscape of East Germany.

Between 1945 and 1990 the British military train travelled daily through Soviet occupied East Germany to the British sector of West Berlin. All the train doors were locked, an armed guard was on board and the British military and civil servants would take about 4 hours to cover the distance of 145 miles.-- http://www.derekcrowe.com/post.aspx?id=128

The pamphlet is a quad-fold design, with a map on one side and instructions on the other.

Technically the back of the pamphlet, this is still the first page as it is the one that would be put on display.

This is the reverse side, showing the name and rank of my father (blurred for reasons of privacy) and our dates of travel. From this page the pamphlet unfolds...

... to reveal this bit of history on the right and begin displaying the map (shown below) on the left. There's a fair density of history and geography in these six paragraphs.

Turning the previous page over, the map continues to unfold and this page appears on the right. This is where stuff, as the saying goes, begins to get real. The whole "We are traveling through hostile territory, no fooling" was driven home as armed (yet polite) British soldiers patrolled the train corridors while it was moving.

And here's the map. I have never been on a safari, but I have been on a troop train through terrain where I was told to "watch out on both sides for the guard dogs, barbed wire, minefields and watch towers" and where "tanks and armoured vehicles can sometimes be seen on manoevers".

I'm not sure why the engine was detached and searched twice but the rest of the train was not. If anyone knows, I'd love to be enlightened.


I truly wish I could remember more of the trip. I was ten years old in 1983, and everything seemed larger than life, and yet much of it is blurred.

• As I mentioned previously, the landscape between Helmstedt and Berlin was a a gray waste as far as the eye could see. I imagine much of the grayness was due to it being late December in Germany, but still I must stress the fact that crossing the border was like was going from Oz to Kansas.  Far off in the distance I could see buildings that looked like they'd been bombed in World War 2 and never repaired. For all I know, that might actually be true. 

• After all that grayness, being let into West Berlin was such a riot of color and sound and style that it made my eyes sizzle. I understand why West Berliners have such a party attitude; they were living on Entropy's Edge. 

"Berlinermauer" by Noir 

• Graffitti on the Western side of the Wall was non-stop. I don't think there was a single section that wasn't covered in some way. So far as I know, the police encouraged (or at least tolerated) it, as it was a graphic "FUCK YOU" to totalitarianism. 

"Berlin-Memorial to the Victims of the Wall-1982" by Lyricmac

• Crossing into East Berlin at Checkpoint Charlie looked exactly like you'd imagine it did. Guards with mirrors looked under the bus while guards with German Shepherds patrolled around us and guards with assault rifles came aboard and demanded "Papieren, Bitte." 

• East Berlin, like the rest of the country, was primarily gray. Any colors present were desaturated, like they had been left in the sun for too long and faded. 

• Vladimir Putin tried to turn my mother into an intelligence asset, as I explained previously.

• So. Much. Goose-stepping. 

• Yes, the Death Zone on the East side of the wall was as terrible as you think it was. We weren't allowed to take pictures, so these will have to do. 

"East Berlin Death Strip seen from Axel Springer Building 1984" by GeorgeLouis 

"Berlin Wall death strip, 1977" by George Garrigues (GeorgeLouis)

• This is a really well-done animation of both the Berlin Wall and wall between East and West Germany. Even through the haze of 30 years ago, this feels accurate. 

• After our visit, we stopped by a museum of of the Wall. The only thing I remember about it were the detailed and amazingly inventive ways people managed to smuggle themselves across to the West. 

And now for a final story:

At some point during our visit to East Berlin -- I think it was after Putin tried to pick up my mom, but I'm not certain -- we stopped at a gift shop that catered specifically to tourists (specifically because East Berliners likely couldn't afford what was being sold there, and probably weren't allowed inside anyway).

There I was, 10 years old and full of energy and bored to death of stodgy old gift shops, so I told my parents I was going out to the parking lot to explore and get some air.  I went outside and, because kids do that sort of thing, I decided to walk behind the building.

When I got to the back of the building - I crap you negative - I saw a semi-trailer parked there, with the rear doors open, and inside was what looked like electronic gear being manned by soldiers in uniform.

Being a good little American, I ran inside and got my father (who was in his full uniform, as required by international treaty), told him he needed to see something, and took him by the hand around the building.

The soldiers there might not have cared if a kid saw them, but one glance at a uniformed member of the United States Army and -- bam! -- they jumped up and closed the doors. I guess my being nosy meant they couldn't have fresh air in their stuffy surveillance trailer.

Of course it was a surveillance trailer. Of course the gift shop was bugged. If anything, the surprise was that they'd be so brazen about it instead of having a spy room in the basement.


That's all I can remember of my visit to East Berlin. It's weird to think that it no longer exists. Sure, eastern Germany exists, but not East Germany. I feel privileged to have visited a country that has passed into history.

Oh, one final bit of funny to wrap this up and bring it full circle to the post that started it all: