Apologies in advance for the poor quality of this image, but it was the best I could find. It's the second page of a two-page advertisement (the first page is almost identical to the one I posted yesterday) for GDW's then-upcoming science fiction RPG, Traveller: 2300, which appeared in issue #115 (November 1986) of Dragon.
The advertisement is significant for a couple reasons. First, the section under the heading "history" suggests a connection to Twilight: 2000, though it's not explicit. That was the first indication my younger self had to the fact that this wasn't, despite its title, a prequel game to Traveller. My younger self was also confused by the reference to the "Second French Empire," since, being very keen on history, I remembered the period between 1852 and 1870, when Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte reigned as Napoleon III. It was a rare misstep by GDW, a company that usually gets its history right, and was soon corrected in subsequent ads and in the text of Traveller: 2300 itself, but I still remember the error to this day.
The second notable thing about the advertisement is its emphasis on "playable realism," both in its game mechanics and in its scientific speculations. Rules-wise, Traveller: 2300 isn't anything special, even for its time. In fact, there were enough problems with its original rules that I suspect it's the reason why GDW went ahead with a revision of the entire game less than two years later (under the title, 2300AD, by which its usually known).
However, on the science end of things, Traveller: 2300 was definitely a step up from Traveller's broader, slightly more space opera take on these matters – or so it appeared in 1986. Science, especially astronomy and astrophysics, is a constantly evolving body of knowledge, so I can't blame the designers at GDW were not being up on the latest data and theories. Remember, this was before the Internet made it much easier to keep up to date. Given what they had to work with, I think GDW did a creditable job of creating a plausible, grounded vision of human interstellar civilization three centuries hence.
I certainly liked it – so much so that I largely abandoned my true love, Traveller proper, for a number of years in favor of its little brother. And, despite its many flaws, I still love the idea of Traveller: 2300, hence my desire to one day follow up Barrett's Raiders with a science fiction campaign depicting Earth and its interstellar colonies several centuries after the wreck of the Twilight War.
"...dominated by the (nth) French Empire" is really at odds with "a plausible, grounded vision of human interstellar civilization" there.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it was an interesting diversion from most cyberpunk inspired SF of the time which had Japan as a future dominating culture. But while there were several aspects that still sound reasonable (American and German balkanization, Chinese ascendance) the French ascendance sounds like either a forced return to a Victorian era milieu or simply a lucky draw for the representative player in "The Game".
As I understand it, French ascendancy was the result of a combination of factors, principally that France sat out the war in Twilight: 2000 and then took advantage of the chaos to fill the vacuum. It was also the result of a "thumb in the scale" in The Game, because GDW wanted the world of 2300 to have a different political dynamic from the 20th century.
DeleteYes, and it was the 19th century!
Delete"this wasn't, despite its title, a prequel game to Traveller" - wait, it's not? I thought that it was a prequel.
ReplyDeleteNope. Entirely different timeline, different FTL tech, different aliens. There's no decadent Vilyani Empire waiting out there in the stars, but there are the actively hostile Kafer to trigger humanity's first interstellar war effort and a variety of other species, both more an less advanced than we are.
DeleteI was somewhat surprised by "monumentous", which I'm fairly sure is a neologism. However, it seems that the word is documented, though the origin is fuzzy. I wonder if this could in fact be the textual original of a portmanteau of "monumental" and "momentous".
ReplyDeleteI'm equal parts ashamed at personally not noticing that and delighted at meeting another philologist in the comments section :)
DeleteThere doesn't seem to be any question about the word's origins:
Delete"monumental(adj.)
c. 1600, "pertaining to a monument," from Late Latin monumentalis "pertaining to a monument," from monumentum (see monument). From 1650s in the loose sense of "conspicuous, vast, stupendous, comparable to a monument." Extended sense of "historically prominent, conspicuous to posterity" is by 1844."
It's just an adjectival form of monumental, not a portmanteau and certainly not original to this ad.
Monumental _is_ the adjective form :D
DeleteThe half-dozen earliest uses I could find (the last decade of the 19th century) are presented tongue-in-cheek as neologisms, sometimes being discussed as such in the source text.
Sounds like a self-conscious portmanteau either copied knowingly, copied unknowingly, or reinvented on the spot by GDW -- to me, at least.
@Dick McGee: The word in the ad is not "monumental", it is "monumentous".
Delete@Gern: Yeah, a little disappointing to find earlier uses, though the rarity still makes it fun, and even so it's an interesting choice in the ad. It's a good reminder of how much it was still primarily a hobbyist industry even so late.
DeleteI too have kicked around the idea of a 2300 campaign. I think the rules are pretty solid and I dig the “hard tech” and “neo-colonial” vibe.
ReplyDeleteI guess I’ll put it to a vote: Classic Traveller, Coriolis, or 2300. Each has a very different feel.