Another Empress Wave theory

[daryen]

There is a good reason for the preference for the habitable zone world: "free" energy.

Even if all non-GG in the system are airless worlds, settlers would still gravitate for the habitable zone so that, once they have their domes and such set up, they can start growing things.

Sure, you can always set up farther away, but why create energy that can be better used elsewhere when you can use "free" energy for your growing things, and use your created energy for other purposes?

(This does, admitedly, assume all of the worlds are basically equal. If a world way out in the system is made of lanthinum, then obviously it will be the prefered planet to colonize.)

 

[kaladorn]

Even assuming than the comments about MT and CT are correct, and I contend they aren't the smoking gun that some seem to think:

With MT being 'Forbidden Canon' in terms of current development, not to mention mostly unavailable to new players, it is extremely unrealistic to expect anything said in that context to be considered in the slightest, one way or the other - it simply CANNOT be used as a basis for current work and is effectively only canonical until overwritten.

Whereas I think this situaiton is unfortunate, even if I did think you were right about what MT said, this is the way things are and will be so you may as well accomodate yourself to the idea. And if it is the best evidence of the rules proving the absence of jump masking, if it even does that which I can't see especially given Thrash's point about shadowing, then that's no evidence at all given the "Forbidden Canon" status of that work, its unvailability as new product on shelves, and the fact it can't be used to basis current or future work on.

This situation may suck. But it is what we're stuck with. And before you go blaming Miller et. al. for this, you may want to thank Mr. Sanger first.

 

[daryen]

Uh, MT is not "forbidden canon". Only stuff put out by DGP under their copyright is "forbidden canon". (This includes some CT material, too.) Anything done by GDW is still considered full canon.

For example, MTJ#4 was done by GDW, not DGP. As a result, the Lords of Thunder have the full effect of canon. So much so, that QLI's efforts in the area are bending over backwards to make sure they don't effect the "future".

Chris was referencing the Imperial Encyclopedia (not the SOM), which is part of the boxed set produced by GDW. The Imperial Encyclopedia is "canon". (And quite useful, too, as it collects lots of things that were scattered about in CT.)

 

[William]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
With MT being 'Forbidden Canon' in terms of current development,

As an aside - only DGP copyright material is forbidden canon. Anything that is copyright by GDW is still available for use by a prospective writer for G:T.

William

 

[daryen]

Regardless of canon, it appears (to me, anyway) that you are talking past each other anyway.

What has obviously happened is that Mr. Miller's (among others) understanding of jump has evolved over time. This doesn't mean it "changed", per se, just that as questions arose he had to answer them. As a result, the rules of the time grew to include his answers.

So, originally you just had to be 100D from the planet or GG you were leaving. Then someone asks what happens if the planet is inside its sun's 100D. Well, he had to answer it, so he said you had to be outside both.

Then someone asks what happens if a ship accidentally leaves jump space inside the target's 100D. He answered that by saying you can't. Then someone realized that if the target can "influence" jump space, any other intervening object potentially could, too. He answered that, and now we have jump masking.

So, yes, the rules regarding jump have changed over time. Does that mean canon has "changed" or that Mr. Miller has "changed his mind" about jump? Not really. It just means that as questions arose from ambiguities, he answered the questions. (Which, whether you like the answers or not, is actually a good thing.)

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by daryen:
What has obviously happened is that Mr. Miller's (among others) understanding of jump has evolved over time. This doesn't mean it "changed", per se, just that as questions arose he had to answer them. As a result, the rules of the time grew to include his answers.

This is why I believe that later work supersedes earlier work when describing what's canonical. That's the whole point, after all - if canon gets updated, that becomes the new canon. I think most of the problems with Trav canon come from the fact that people insist on sticking to whatever was first written, not with whatever was LAST written.

I've not seen that happen with any other sci-fi background - hell, in Star Trek: The Original Series, Klingons were originally more human-looking, and then suddenly they changed into the familiar bumpy-headed big foreheaded guys. There was a bit of fuss when it changed, but people accepted it. If that was to happen in Traveller you'd have people screaming seven shades of murder about it in no time

 

[Erik Boielle]

** I've not seen that happen with any other sci-fi background - hell, in Star Trek: **

Pull the other one. Its got bells on it.

No one has complained about enterprise mangling canon, or commented on the revisionist history seen in Star Wars The New Batch.

Course, players of RPGs feel they have more creative ownership of the settings they play in, and what with this internet thingy have a direct approach to RPG authors and can harangue them on the spot rather than only at cons.

And people don't seem to have enjoyed some small modifications done to Gamma World by the D20 version...

Its just something you have to live with.

Evolve or become stagnant. Even if the evolution is going back two editions to the ‘roots’ of whatever.

(The TS list does have a decidedly loose approach to things being canon. But you just wait for the third edition…)

 

[flykiller]

I think most of the problems with Trav canon come from the fact that people insist on sticking to whatever was first written, not with whatever was LAST written.

well, going with whatever was last written renders the word "canon" meaningless, which near as I can figure is what is happening. you have to sympathize with miller and far-future. traveller canon is full of holes and gaps and inconsistencies that beg for updates and corrections, but so many people have put so much work into what already exists that any change is treated as yet another version at best or is ignored at worst.

perhaps instead of calling it "canon" we should call it "legacy".

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Erik Boielle:
** I've not seen that happen with any other sci-fi background - hell, in Star Trek: **

Pull the other one. Its got bells on it.

No one has complained about enterprise mangling canon, or commented on the revisionist history seen in Star Wars The New Batch.

Well, I couldn't see anything obviously contradictory in either of those two (apart from those silly Mitochondria from Phantom Menace). Maybe I just don't know enough about them.

But still, I do think there's an element of topsy-turvyness in the way some people prioritise Traveller Canon. But that's just my opinion.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by daryen:
Chris was referencing the Imperial Encyclopedia (not the SOM), which is part of the boxed set produced by GDW. The Imperial Encyclopedia is "canon". (And quite useful, too, as it collects lots of things that were scattered about in CT.)

Okay, are you telling me the MT boxed set is not forbidden canon? Or that (more confusingly) parts of it are and are not? I ask this because my impression of the inability to produce a CDRom of the errata'd MT rules was a product of DGP copyright holder's wishes (or lack thereof). That to me suggested that all of the stuff in that boxed set was DGP copyright.

Would someone clarify for me what, in MT, is and is not GDW copyrighted? (One issue of MTJ which is hard to come by isn't of much concern, but other things like IE and other major products would be - if they are GDW copyright, they should be reprinted!)

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Okay, are you telling me the MT boxed set is not forbidden canon? Or that (more confusingly) parts of it are and are not?

Yes, I am. The entire MT boxed set is canon. It has to be, or there is no Rebellion at all!

The only stuff that is "forbidden canon" is stuff that is DGP copyright, both CT and MT. This includes Grand Survey/Grand Census, World Builder's Handbook, Starship Operator's Manual, Vilani & Vargr, Solomani & Aslan, and, of course, the entire Travellers' Digest.

This does not include the MT boxed set, COACC, Fighting Ships, the Rebellion Sourcebook, and anything else copyright GDW.

As for reprints, you have to ask Mr. Miller. From what I have seen on these boards (I forget exactly where) he is finally considering doing MT reprints at some point. When that might happen, who knows? He has lots more to do on CT, T2K, and 2300 before he would get to MT, and his track record for timeliness ain't that great.

Edit: Go here to see Mr. Miller's thoughts on MT reprints (and MT in general). The reprints are the last question.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by thrash:
Using CT Book 6 (Scouts), p. 28, for spectral class frequencies (whether accurate or not), and looking only at main sequence (size V) stars, 74% of all mainworlds are permanently shadowed. On average, 93% of all jumps involve jump shadowing at one or both ends (versus 95% for jump masking, using the same figures).

Is there any evidence that the authors of CT and MT material ever gave any consideration to these numbers or their ramifications? Not that I can find. Is there evidence that they did not consider the ramifications? Yes, or they would never have put all those earthlike worlds with breathable atmosphere around red dwarfs where there are no orbits for them to fill. In the light of this, is it possible that most of them unconciously considered the mainworld that orbited outside the stellar jump limit the default setup? I'd say it is very possible.


Hans

 

[TheDS]

I definitely believe that it wasn't thought out. A lot of stuff wasn't thought out. This is fairly common. But they didn't have the luxury WE have of simply NOT publishing. They had to get something out there, and didn't necessarily have the time to be thorough. Still, I would think after 20 years, this 1-to-1 J-to-N relationship would have been brought up somewhere besides DGP publications.

The horse must not be dead yet, since we're all still beating on it, and not even a plea for sanity has helped. :shrug:

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Was the need to be outside a stars 100d limit ever explicitly stated in any rulebook (other than GT)? An evil voice in my head really hopes it was SOM, and therefore forbidden canon

Is the stellar data in Bk6 accurate, and do the other system generation rules (MT, TNE, etc) use the same figures? ie do they all give the same % of habitable zones within 100d?

A handwave that many people use is to say that 100d is only an approximation, and that the actual distance is also dependent on density.*

For rocky bodies, 100d is very close to the real value, but for stars it's actually much less - maybe only 80d (or whatever value we need to keep most habitable zones outside the limit).

Yes, it's a bit of a fudge, but it's a good one. If we could get Marc to okay this then the problem goes away. The scientists are happy, 'cos we're obeying the laws of physics and not ignoring the star; the lazy refs are happy, 'cos they can carry on with a clear conscience; people who like jump masking can probably find enough situations where it still applies (eg the whole inner system); and people who don't care either way won't have to listen to us arguing about it any more.


*Based on Marc's comments, this is not unreasonable. In his JTAS article, he said:

"the perturbing effects of gravity make it impractical to begin a jump within a gravity field of more than certain specific limits based on size, density , and distance. The general rule of thumb is a distance of at least 100 diameters out from a world or star (including a safety margin)"

(my emphasis).

 

[kaladorn]

I'll bet you several MCr that Marc doesn't think of this as a problem.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

I think one of the biggest problem with this is the fact that the jump limit is in practise based on radius (never mind what Marc says about density - there's no sign that density plays any role in practise in what's been published in the OTU). If it was defined using an object's mass or gravity, with density definiing lower limits (so you don't get messed up by a random gas cloud in interstellar space) then one could be much more consistent with it.

But right now, you can end up being dropped out of jumpspace by a styrofoam ball that just happens to be bigger than your ship, while a nickel-iron asteroid that's smaller than your ship but more massive doesn't drop you out at all.

 

[FrancoisUldry]

Originally posted by Evil Dr Ganymede:
I think one of the biggest problem with this is the fact that the jump limit is in practise based on radius (never mind what Marc says about density - there's no sign that density plays any role in practise in what's been published in the OTU). If it was defined using an object's mass or gravity, with density definiing lower limits (so you don't get messed up by a random gas cloud in interstellar space) then one could be much more consistent with it.

But right now, you can end up being dropped out of jumpspace by a styrofoam ball that just happens to be bigger than your ship, while a nickel-iron asteroid that's smaller than your ship but more massive doesn't drop you out at all.

I remember reading an article in JTAS 21 or 22 stating that some jump points where sometimes inside the external atmosphere of suns...

That does not account for diameters ? (I will have to reread the article to tell you why it is so

Francois

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by thrash:
Which is it, Hans? Jump shadowing should have been included, but was insignificant and therefore negligible (even though as written it affects not less than 39% of all jumps), or GDW didn't believe their own star system generation rules, anyway? You're weaseling, and it's unworthy of you.

Jump shadowing should have been included, since by the MT rules they would have affected 39% of all jumps. But I suspect that the MT authors didn't realize that. They certainly didn't realize that a lot of the red dwarfs they introduced invalidated the existence of the mainworlds that orbited them. So there is at least one aspect of GDW's star generation system that they didn't understand.

But don't tell me you can't see difference between 1) not realizing that a lot of worlds lies inside stellar jump limits and therefore ignore/forget about the possibility, and 2) not realizing that a large number of jumps goes from one side of a sun to the other side of a sun. That's not worthy of you.

Two GDW authors -- Marc Miller and Loren Wiseman, no less -- have independently said that jump masking is the way things work. Your evidence to the contrary is flimsy and suppositional.

Marc Miller also says that the Imperial warrant that was carried by the Kinunir is identical to Norris' warrant, a patent absurdity. Jump masking is the way things work now. I don't dispute that. I'm saying this is something new, something introduced in GT and that it doesn't show up anywhere in any previous Traveller publication (Unlike jump shadowing).


Hans

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by rancke:
But don't tell me you can't see difference between 1) not realizing that a lot of worlds lies inside stellar jump limits and therefore ignore/forget about the possibility, and 2) not realizing that a large number of jumps goes from one side of a sun to the other side of a sun. That's not worthy of you.

Personally, I think that there are many things that the original Trav authors didn't mention or consider because they didn't think it through properly. Which is why we have to argue about it for years later

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Before we start another canonical war I would like to ask what kind of value one or the other method has for gameplay ?

Well, that's the bottom line, isn't it? What's best for the game?
[...]
If you want to include the star's 100d limit, it's more complicated. You need to know the stellar type, then look up the diameter and multiply it by 100, and work out what orbit numbers that covers. Then you need to work out what orbit the mainworld is in.

</font>[/QUOTE]I generally handwaved* that the mainworld is nearly always** at least 100D from the primary.


* Yet Another Half-Hearted Handwave
** The Referee may wish to make some mainworlds harder to get to.

Edit: Beats me how you could get a habitable world outside the hab zone, though. Luckily none of the people in my Travelling groups ever thought about stellar radii.