Consolidated T4 Errata

[snrdg082102]

Morning aramis,

Once the update is done, we can host the official stuff (eg, SSDS) here. I'll just have to manually upload them.

Thank you too for the update on the status, now if I can only figure out where all the good stuff is I'm golden ;-)

 

[Marchand]

Did the corrected First Survey data ever get posted anywhere?

 

[DonM]

Yes, although it will at some point be superceded by T5SS when we get around to Milleu Zero. That being written, I thought Marc put his corrected pdf of that material on the T4 CD?

 

[McPerth]

Not sure of that being an errata, but I find it incoherent:

While tactics skill is defined as training and experience in small unit tactics (up to units of 1000 trops or spaceships) (bold is mine), so I understand it merges what in CT/MT is tactics and ship tactics.

Even so, there's no way a Navy officer can adquire de skill outside the Naval Accademy, as it is not in the Navy skill tables.

Also, when it says spaceships (as bolded), does it incude starships (my guess is yes, but it should be specified)?

 

[Rabbit 3]

"During the resulting Luriani War (93-96). the Protectorate forces proved they had lost none of their flair for three dimensional warfare. They inflicted several sharp defeats on Imperial forces and eventually led to a cease-fire on terms very favorable to the Luriani. Despite the face-saving settlement, the Luriani War left a legacy of mistrust. Tensions between the Protectorate and Imperium remained high for many decades after the war." (GT:H p104-105)

Because the text in GT humaniti makes it clear this isn't what happened As Don says its minor (insignificantly so) in either GT or T20, it only causes problems in M0. It just happens that were I set my games

This one rather suggests to me historians argueing about what happened centuries after the event, in the 1100`s Imperial most likely.
Why not keep BOTH versions as canon, let individual referee`s who want to set campaigns during this period decide for themselves what happened and leave fixing things until T5 is ready to revisit Mileu 0.

 

[rancke]

This one rather suggests to me historians argueing about what happened centuries after the event, in the 1100`s Imperial most likely.

Why not keep BOTH versions as canon, let individual referee`s who want to set campaigns during this period decide for themselves what happened and leave fixing things until T5 is ready to revisit Mileu 0.

Because setting information in authorial voice (aka information for referees) is supposed to be the truth. Explaining away discrepancies as viewpoint writing misses that point rather badly.

(Unless it actually IS viewpoint writing from the start, of course).

Also, there's usually¹ nothing to be gained from leaving background facts vague. Individual referees are free to ignore the most firmly established canon fact if they want to. Ambiguities don't increase that freedom one whit. It does, OTOH, ensure that half the referees who are forced to choose between possible alternatives will turn out to be wrong when and if an official source ever gets around to fixing the fact for the OTU.

¹ I admit to the occasional exception.​

Hans

 

[rich4421972]

Because setting information in authorial voice (aka information for referees) is supposed to be the truth. Explaining away discrepancies as viewpoint writing misses that point rather badly.

(Unless it actually IS viewpoint writing from the start, of course).

With three different versions of history, it might be necessary for a referee to choose one (with the admission of the conflicting information)

It seems, to me, that the natural flow of storytelling is the most important skill a referee could have with these books. I think that multiple histories might benefit different styles of play. Perhaps there are always two versions of reporting any event in history. Couldn't the referee consult all sources and then propose one for use as the "official voice" of history in the game?

I'm not suggesting labeling one version as subjective and the other as objective. Couldn't these problems be determined by the setting of the adventure/one-shot? I do see the problem with the need for factual events.

I think doing this would help flesh out these histories more and might even soften the differences between the milieux. Anyways, that's how I would approach it.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening all,

Look at the historical events that have occurred in the real world different sides have a different version of the same events. Which Traveller history is the correct one depends on one's point of view or the only the individual likes best.

With three different versions of history, it might be necessary for a referee to choose one (with the admission of the conflicting information)

It seems, to me, that the natural flow of storytelling is the most important skill a referee could have with these books. I think that multiple histories might benefit different styles of play. Perhaps there are always two versions of reporting any event in history. Couldn't the referee consult all sources and then propose one for use as the "official voice" of history in the game?

I'm not suggesting labeling one version as subjective and the other as objective. Couldn't these problems be determined by the setting of the adventure/one-shot? I do see the problem with the need for factual events.

I think doing this would help flesh out these histories more and might even soften the differences between the milieux. Anyways, that's how I would approach it.

 

[rich4421972]

I really like the way that the T5 errata includes "clarifications" and "omissions" for various conflicts in rules given. It would be really neat if the T4 errata document contained similar "omissions" and "clarification" statements that could be used to make a quick ruling on the canonicity of a particular event or issue.

Some of these issues would be difficult to find if the referee was only familiar ( or had access to) one of the three historical sources (Traveller4, Gateway or GT).

I know that I would be very nervous as a referee at a convention if I picked one set of history to use and was called out on it by a well-informed convention goer. That is one thing that I fear most as a convention referee.

So, for the sake of convention referees, it would be nice to have these clarifications in a single document (even if they did overlap in places). I would want my players to have the most fun possible. All this while I get free admission (and a discount on my hotel room) and a constant supply of pizza

 

[rancke]

I know that I would be very nervous as a referee at a convention if I picked one set of history to use and was called out on it by a well-informed convention goer. That is one thing that I fear most as a convention referee.

A simple solution to that is to include a disclaimer in the tournament announcement to the effect that some details may be different. Repeat the disclaimer just before you start the game.

Better yet, if it's just one specific discrepancy that bothers you, specifiy which version is true in your con scenario.

(And finally, always include the words "knowledge of the Traveller universe is not necessary to enjoy this scenario" in the appetizer. )


Hans

 

[rancke]

With three different versions of history, it might be necessary for a referee to choose one (with the admission of the conflicting information)

It may be necessary, yes, but it ought not to be. Which is why, if you have two or more different versions, all held in the authorial voice, this is a bona fide canon discrepancy that ought to be resolved by TPTB declaring one version to be the Truth and the other versions(s) to be the Not Truth. Because only one of them can actually be true for the same universe.

It seems, to me, that the natural flow of storytelling is the most important skill a referee could have with these books. I think that multiple histories might benefit different styles of play. Perhaps there are always two versions of reporting any event in history. Couldn't the referee consult all sources and then propose one for use as the "official voice" of history in the game?

You, as a referee, are always free to decide what the truth is for your own TU. But even in your universe, only one of mutually exclusive versions can be true. You may not want to tell your players which one it is; you may not want to decide for yourself which one it is. And as long as it makes no difference to the play, it doesn't matter. But if it ever does come down to a situation where it makes a difference ("We've opened the grave. Is it the one Blackheart the Pirate was buried in? We look for the personal computer with the directions for his treasure that legend says was buried with him. Is it there?"), you have to decide.

The thing is, the OTU is not your TU or my TU or anybody's TU (except perhaps Marc Miller's). It the common frame of reference for all of us. And only one version can be the truth in any one universe, including the OTU.


Hans

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy rich4421972,

Here is my rough idea of the Traveller Time Line

1. Classic Traveller (CT) is the mature 3I.

2. MegaTraveller (MT) is the collapse of the 3I.

3. Traveller the New Era (TNE) is picking up the pieces .

4. Marc Miller's Traveller (T4) is the early years of the 3I effectively picking up the pieces from the two earlier empires.

5. GURPS Traveller (GT) doesn't have the MT collapse and TNE picking up the pieces.

6. Traveller 20 (T20) Gateway?) is, IIRC, similar to GT

7. Mongoose Traveller (MgT or MGT) is, IIRC, similar to GT

8. Traveller 5 - no clue at this time, hopefully I'll be able to purchase this one in the near future.

My recommendation is to clearly state what time line you are using and have the players agree to that time line.

I really like the way that the T5 errata includes "clarifications" and "omissions" for various conflicts in rules given. It would be really neat if the T4 errata document contained similar "omissions" and "clarification" statements that could be used to make a quick ruling on the canonicity of a particular event or issue.

Some of these issues would be difficult to find if the referee was only familiar ( or had access to) one of the three historical sources (Traveller4, Gateway or GT).

I know that I would be very nervous as a referee at a convention if I picked one set of history to use and was called out on it by a well-informed convention goer. That is one thing that I fear most as a convention referee.

So, for the sake of convention referees, it would be nice to have these clarifications in a single document (even if they did overlap in places). I would want my players to have the most fun possible. All this while I get free admission (and a discount on my hotel room) and a constant supply of pizza

 

[aramis]

Actually,

In years imperial...
CT is 1100 to 1110, Spinward Marches, Solomani Rim, and 3 alien sectors, plus 5 additional subsectors. Plus, the atlas - but the atlas does NOT include UWPs for anything.
MT is 1116 to 1135 (1120 to 1135 is Hard Times), domain of deneb, vland sector, hinterworlds sector, diaspora sector, and a vargr and aslan sector each. (Counting DGP releases as well as GDW)
TNE is 1200 to 1240 Spinward Marches and the Reformation Coalition
T4 is 30 to 90, and covers the whole atlas... but has multiple issues.
T20 is 990 to 1010 or so, and focuses on the Gateway domain.
GT is 1115-1130+, focuses on the Marches, but lacks the rebellion; it also has lots more details, far more setting detail than any other edition, including a bunch of small contradictions.
GTIW is about –2700 Imperial.
MGT is 1105 and to date has 3 imperial sectors I'm aware of. It's sticking to replication of CT materials setting wise, but making changes that contradict both CT and GT at times.
T5 has no official time setting.
HT has no specific time setting, but has specific adaptations for 1105-1240

There is also a t20 supplement - 1248 - which covers 1248-to the 1250's.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning aramis,

I mentioned my time line was rough, of course the amount of sanding to smooth out the roughness was not stated.;-)

Thanks for smoothing off the roughness.

Actually,

In years imperial...
CT is 1100 to 1110, Spinward Marches, Solomani Rim, and 3 alien sectors, plus 5 additional subsectors. Plus, the atlas - but the atlas does NOT include UWPs for anything.
MT is 1116 to 1135 (1120 to 1135 is Hard Times), domain of deneb, vland sector, hinterworlds sector, diaspora sector, and a vargr and aslan sector each. (Counting DGP releases as well as GDW)
TNE is 1200 to 1240 Spinward Marches and the Reformation Coalition
T4 is 30 to 90, and covers the whole atlas... but has multiple issues.
T20 is 990 to 1010 or so, and focuses on the Gateway domain.
GT is 1115-1130+, focuses on the Marches, but lacks the rebellion; it also has lots more details, far more setting detail than any other edition, including a bunch of small contradictions.
GTIW is about –2700 Imperial.
MGT is 1105 and to date has 3 imperial sectors I'm aware of. It's sticking to replication of CT materials setting wise, but making changes that contradict both CT and GT at times.
T5 has no official time setting.
HT has no specific time setting, but has specific adaptations for 1105-1240

There is also a t20 supplement - 1248 - which covers 1248-to the 1250's.

 

[Marchand]

MGT is 1105 and to date has 3 imperial sectors I'm aware of. It's sticking to replication of CT materials setting wise, but making changes that contradict both CT and GT at times.

Just to note I count at least 4 and maybe 5 Imperial sectors in MGT sector books - Spinward Marches, Deneb, Reft and Solomani Rim have all had full-on sector book treatment; and you could make a case for counting Alpha Crucis (in the Solomani race book) as it has a sliver of Imperial territory.

EDIT: should be 5 or 6 - as whulorigan rightly notes, Trojan Reach is in the Aslan book too

 

[whulorigan]

Just to note I count at least 4 and maybe 5 Imperial sectors in MGT sector books - Spinward Marches, Deneb, Reft and Solomani Rim have all had full-on sector book treatment; and you could make a case for counting Alpha Crucis (in the Solomani race book) as it has a sliver of Imperial territory.

Trojan Reach (in the Aslan Race book) also has some Imperial territory.

 

[Marchand]

I just logged in to correct my earlier post but you beat me to it!

 

[rich4421972]

Thank you all so much! This was really helpful for me.

rich

 

[DonM]

I really like the way that the T5 errata includes "clarifications" and "omissions" for various conflicts in rules given. It would be really neat if the T4 errata document contained similar "omissions" and "clarification" statements that could be used to make a quick ruling on the canonicity of a particular event or issue.

Some of these issues would be difficult to find if the referee was only familiar ( or had access to) one of the three historical sources (Traveller4, Gateway or GT).

I know that I would be very nervous as a referee at a convention if I picked one set of history to use and was called out on it by a well-informed convention goer. That is one thing that I fear most as a convention referee.

So, for the sake of convention referees, it would be nice to have these clarifications in a single document (even if they did overlap in places). I would want my players to have the most fun possible. All this while I get free admission (and a discount on my hotel room) and a constant supply of pizza

As the Traveller Legacy Edition Errata guy, is there a specific set of items in the T4 rules you need clarification?

As to that methodology (Correction, Omission, Clarification, Addition), it's not original to T5 -- it was actually developed by DGP for MegaTraveller errata, and I've applied across all of the legacy errata compilations (CT, Mega, TNE, T4) and used it for T5 because it is so flexible.

 

[McPerth]

While in starships crew requirements (page 95) stewards are told about, there is no steward skill nor are they in the crew salary list (page 113, as already said in the consolidated errata, page 7), so no way to fill those positions is given.

In order to be the least disruprive posible to the game system (mostly to chargen), I suggest those posible solutions:

1. Define Steward skill (copy and paste from CT/MT) as a new specialty of the Charisma cluster, related to Soc.
2. Use Carousing as the skill for the stewards (also coherent with MT, where it served as Steward at -1 and the minimum skill level for a steward was 0).

See that in any case, it will be realted to Soc, something that might seem odd to many people, as it is not seen a high soc skill. This can be explained due to our Solomani bias, as for the Vilani (the to their shugilii tradition) it is a more prestigious occupation.

In any case, in page 113, add the steward as crewmember with 3000 Cr/month of salary (as in CT, as are other crew salaries).