Consolidated TNE Errata

[DonM]

"...whilst looking like a classic TED, it's actually a Charismatic Oligarchy"

i.e. Charismatic Oligarcies are not TED governments.

So, no Charismatic Oligarchies, no Self-Perpetuating Oligarchies, no Captive Governments or Religious Dictatorships, no Religious Autocracies and no Totalitarian Oligarchies. If the TED Government Table is adopted as official errata then you are going to have to cover Path of Tears in red ink.

I've got to ask Frank and Loren if they really intended that TEDs were only dictatorships, because the notes we have indicate quite the opposite.

ARRGH! And the sad fact is that Path of Tears is a real jewel of a book, too.

Perhaps someone took the D in TED too literally.

 

[Starviking]

I've got to ask Frank and Loren if they really intended that TEDs were only dictatorships, because the notes we have indicate quite the opposite.

ARRGH! And the sad fact is that Path of Tears is a real jewel of a book, too.

Perhaps someone took the D in TED too literally.

The thing is, PoT lists its designers as: Frank Chadwick, Dave Nilsen and Loren Wiseman.

There's even more in the book that indicates that TEDs are dictatorial governments - I was just pulling out the stuff that pertained to the worlds in the RC AO.

 

[DonM]

I was reviewing the notes last night...

What if at the beginning of the page 191 errata I add a note that the following is an alternative approach to governments in the Wilds that GDW had drafted but not implemented when they closed...

Will that work?

Frank and Loren indicate they don't remember. Marc wasn't there. Dave doesn't do Traveller anymore. So, Mr. Starviking, it's you and I at the moment.

 

[wnourse1]

Lurking here - Don, I think your suggestion makes sense in terms of preserving 'canon'. Supporting Starviking's argument as well is the definition of TED in PoT p.29 which talks of TEDs being warlords.

I've certainly always thought of TEDs as Dictatorships or Oligarchies which maintain their grasp on power, and personally would probably subtype a government which came up as TED based on that table. It makes more sense (to me), particularly on all the balkanised worlds that SV pulled from PoT, that there's more than a single government type that uses relic tech to preserve their hold on power.

 

[epicenter00]

Re: TEDs

There's actually a canon drift in what a TED is - it's right there in the Path of Tears supplement where there's the flavor text about the RC Marine talking about "garbage stinks" and the details about the insurgency growing on Oriflamme.

If none of the "official" GDW types remember anymore - strictly speaking I'd say that a TED is a "dictator" in the way that college students throw around the word "fascist." That is, anyone they don't like that seems intent on oppressing them. I think they're true dictatorships in the PoT sourcebook because they're supposed to be easily identifiable bad guys (and girls). But I think the later intent was that the dictatorship in this case could consist of one more more individuals - a true dictatorship to an oligarchy that rules regardless of the consent of the people. That the people are oppressed and unhappy basically seems to be the cornerstone of the definition of a TED (unhappy) vs. Feudal Technocracy (happy or at least accepting).

The seed of the Oriflamme insurgency is that the Marines come back from fighting these TEDs and they find Oriflamme's government resembles that of the TEDs too closely for them to like it and they identify that it is basically the control of technology itself that keeps the technarchs on Oriflamme in power and wealth. That the line between a TED and Feudal Technocracy is blurry at best should be kept around, even at the expense of the rules (eg the trade tables being modified) since it was clearly being developed into one of the big moral divisions in the RC.

 

[Antony]

Wasn't a TED a government type the RC called anyone they were going to "steal" technology from?
ie A propaganda term.

 

[Starviking]

My problem with the Errata is this...

The errata for the second printing is actually *fan suggested* errata for the first printing!

The errata is a TML compiled list, and is available at:

http://traveller.mu.org/archive/TNE/errata/TNE-Errata.txt

The errata's given date from June and July 1993 - and so predates the revised edition of TNE.

The errata is split into two parts:

[highlight]Official Errata from Loren on GENIE, dated 8th of July 1993.[/highlight]

[highlight]An Unofficial Errata List compiled by Guy Garnet, with the help of lots of HIWG people and suggestions from the TML list. Dated 26th of June 1993[/highlight]


Guy's list states:

Each entry then describes what is in error, and provides a suggested fix
for the problem. In some cases, several different fixes are possible; the
preferable one is listed first, with alternates following it.

Some entries have commentary, which explain why the item is believed to be
in error, provide the rationale used to construct the fix, or discuss the
merits of the alternate fixes.

Each entry closes with an attribution, the person who first reported the
error to me (in many cases, multiple people have spotted each error; many
thanks to all of you!).

So it's obviously an errata suggestion list.


Loren's errata has only this to say on governments:

Page 191
A number of players have expressed concern that there
are now two parallel sets of government type codes, one for
the Wilds, and one for use elsewhere, as this will cause
confusion when reading UWPs. Players should think of the
government digit not as a firm definition in the same man-
ner as a size or hydrographics code. Rather, it is a
descriptive tool to help create an effective roleplaying
atmosphere. Unlike all other digits of the UWP which are
quantifiable, government type is highly descriptive in na-
ture and is often a judgement call. For example, is a board
of directors a Participating Democracy, a
Company/Corporation, or a Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy?
Future Traveller: The New Era products will expand and
further detail world governmental descriptions. The basic
book was not able to contain such a system for reasons of
space, and because the game had to allow players to gener-
ate pre-Collapse Imperial worlds, the classic Traveller
method of government generation was retained as an interim
system. In providing the Wilds government types, we aimed
to increase the diversity of world types that can be
visited, and further fuel players' imaginations. Like real
governments, UWP government digits can change unpredict-
ably, and exist to help referees create interesting cam-
paigns, rather than existing as ends in themselves.

The Unofficial Errata includes the changes suggested in the current TNE Errata Document for p191, here suggested by Guy Garnet of the HIWG. Beyond the information replicated in the Errata document he says:

Commentary: There is no digit, field, or position in the UWP which
designates a world as being in the wilds. Therefore it is impossible to
determine (without some knowledge outside of the UWP) the government type
of a world. In addition to being extremely confusing to the referee and
players, this also plays havoc with the trade and commerce rules.

This was fixed by giving wilds worlds the Allegiance code "Wi". Worlds with "Wi" used the Wilds Governments Table. It also had the added bonus of being able to identify worlds that were in contact with starfarers with the traditional "Na" allegiance code and traditional governments - like many worlds in Diaspora Sector.

He follows with a good discussion on the thoughts behind this suggested rule-change, and then in the last paragraph says:

The retroactive changes required to implement this change should be minor;
only materials produced with the uncorrected T:TNE rules, and which use the
Wilds government type table will need to be changed. The following table
summarises the corrections needed:

Note the use of he term [highlight]'uncorrected T:TNE rules'[/highlight] - showing that it definitely refers to the first printing of the TNE Rulebook.

Now if any of these suggestions were considered valid by GDW then they would have been added to the Mark 1, Mod 1 Rulebook, published in December 1993. Now I don't have the time to go through all the errata right now - but it looks like any government changes to the revised rulebook are out - and any of the Unofficial Errata that was not added to that rulebook are out too.

 

[Max]

...whilst looking like a classic TED, it's actually a Charismatic Oligarchy"

i.e. Charismatic Oligarcies are not TED governments.

not necessarily, the technologically elevated dictatorships refers to how they (obtained and) maintain power, through access to higher level tech, not the form of the government. If the Montezuma government classes maintains their power through higher tech they are TEDs, if they do so though persuasion of the population they are COs. What is in need of correction is that one of the COs on Montezuma (Seacrest) is specifically called a TED in the text on page 108 of POT despite the earlier note that Montezuma is not a TED and an assigned government code of 5-CO.


CO: a government drawn from a class or group which maintains power through being persuasive

TED (CO): a government which maintains power through the use of high tech and is drawn from a persuasive class or group

 

[DonM]

Now if any of these suggestions were considered valid by GDW then they would have been added to the Mark 1, Mod 1 Rulebook, published in December 1993. Now I don't have the time to go through all the errata right now - but it looks like any government changes to the revised rulebook are out - and any of the Unofficial Errata that was not added to that rulebook are out too.

I actually already explained this not discrepancy to you in e-mail. I guess that answer was not enough?

I have that file, and a file with more comments for an article that was supposed to be in Challenge #78. Which is after the revised rulebook. So I think I'll go with the "alternative rule" suggestion I made in forum.

I wish I had all of the file. It's an edited version of some of Guy's stuff, some other stuff Loren thought he added, and some notes that might be from a meeting. I have the file you are referring to from both the archives AND from the HIWG CD.

I'm a role-playing game archeologist.

Anyway, I did go the "alternative rules" route. I'm sorry that was not you wanted. The revised draft is up on my website.

What is in need of correction is that one of the COs on Montezuma (Seacrest) is specifically called a TED in the text on page 108 of POT despite the earlier note that Montezuma is not a TED and an assigned government code of 5-CO.

Nuts. I'm not sure if it is too late to get this into the version that will be on the CD or not..

 

[Starviking]

I actually already explained this not discrepancy to you in e-mail. I guess that answer was not enough?

No Don, it was not. In fact it was pretty dismissive, as was your response to the changes at Trin, and your lack of acknowledgment of the fact that Naval Bases can be present at sub-B class ports in canon - Mirriam in the Spinward Marches being a good example.

Anyway, I did go the "alternative rules" route. I'm sorry that was not you wanted. The revised draft is up on my website.

In my book, when errata are suggested for an update of a product, but are then not accepted for that product then they are rejected errata - not alternative rules.

Nuts. I'm not sure if it is too late to get this into the version that will be on the CD or not..

Well, if you look at the book Don you'll also see that the governement tables for Montezuma give Seacost's government as a Charismatic Oligarchy - so either the TED reference is a typo, or an expression of the ambiguity of the situation.

 

[DonM]

No Don, it was not. In fact it was pretty dismissive, as was your response to the changes at Trin, and your lack of acknowledgment of the fact that Naval Bases can be present at sub-B class ports in canon - Mirriam in the Spinward Marches being a good example.

Actually, that's on a different fix list. The naval bases issue affects multiple Traveller legacy editions.

In my book, when errata are suggested for an update of a product, but are then not accepted for that product then they are rejected errata - not alternative rules.

Well, Challenge #78 never came out because GDW ended Challenge, and then ended GDW. That's not rejection, that's postponement. Trust me, if we could find any component of those last two TNE projects that might be close to use, Marc would clean up the drafts and have them on the CDs.

As far as why include this specific item, from what I've been able to decipher, the government changes for TEDs and the Wilds were the most annoying part of TNEs rule changes in Worldgen, and unfortunately, they never really fixed them up. The "alternate rules" Guy Garnett proposed and Loren tinkered with in 92-93(?) try to fold them back into the normal rules, but do so at the cost of orphaning the TNE products based on the existing TED and Wilds WorldGen rules.

I wish I had a file (physical file, the kind you stick papers in, not a computer file) that both Frank and Loren referred to. Apparently they put answers to people who mailed them in it, but it's long lost with the closing of GDW.

Even worse is that while TNE is different mechanics than the earlier Traveller editions, much of it is derivative (trade, worldgen, etc), and fixes to that SHOULD have been carried on to T4. But, as I've stated elsewhere, TNE had elements from MT without including the errata from MT (including Trade and Worldgen).

Well, if you look at the book Don you'll also see that the governement tables for Montezuma give Seacost's government as a Charismatic Oligarchy - so either the TED reference is a typo, or an expression of the ambiguity of the situation.

Hmm... Well, I didn't get it in, so for now it's how it is. Any recommendations on how to handle the difference? What fix allows the adventure to be played easier?

As to the rest of the errata, any other issues? I expected that the area where I'd drop the ball was in deciphering the FF&S errata, as that is all over the place in little pieces. If the TED/Wilds Government errata is the biggest issue in the document, I'm actually very surprised.

 

[DonM]

Ok, it's been over two years, and I'm reviving this thread. I'd like to start with the errata as it is now (0.02) and see what people want fixed.

Especially if Starviking is still around. I'm inclined to agree with his position above, and not just because he's the only commenter.

Starviking, if you are still around, what did you want fixed in the errata (give me page numbers, I'm still working slowly).

 

[Starviking]

Ok, it's been over two years, and I'm reviving this thread. I'd like to start with the errata as it is now (0.02) and see what people want fixed.

Especially if Starviking is still around. I'm inclined to agree with his position above, and not just because he's the only commenter.

Starviking, if you are still around, what did you want fixed in the errata (give me page numbers, I'm still working slowly).

Still around, but busier - will get looking through things this week.

 

[LeperColony]

I am relatively new to TNE and Traveller, but I would enjoy being part of the revision process, if possible.

 

[LeperColony]

The values for battledress in the main TNE book seem very low. TL 14 battledress has an AV of 8, but in the RCES book TL-12 has an AV higher than that.

 

[Starviking]

The values for battledress in the main TNE book seem very low. TL 14 battledress has an AV of 8, but in the RCES book TL-12 has an AV higher than that.

It could either be that the TL-14 battledress is a light one - or that the heavy battledress the RC uses, whilst well-suited for raiding regressed worlds, would be eaten up in a Third Imperium battlefield due to its high agility and initiative penalties.

I also wouldn't classify this as errata myself - there'd be enough variation in designs and design philosophies in the future to account for situations like this.

 

[LeperColony]

It could either be that the TL-14 battledress is a light one - or that the heavy battledress the RC uses, whilst well-suited for raiding regressed worlds, would be eaten up in a Third Imperium battlefield due to its high agility and initiative penalties.

I also wouldn't classify this as errata myself - there'd be enough variation in designs and design philosophies in the future to account for situations like this.

Maybe so, but it seems reasonable that anything in the main book that lacks any other description or qualifiers is going to be a fair representation of the item's capabilities at that tech level, not a niche design. That is almost universally the dichotomy between equipment lists in core books and equipment books.

Also, at TL-12, the RCES is producing a light battledress with AV 6 and no AGI or init penalties. Are you telling me that TL-14 can only add 2 AV while increasing AGI and init penalties?

In an unrelated matter, there may also be a problem with the system generation rules. I posted a thread about it in the main TNE section.

 

[Starviking]

Maybe so, but it seems reasonable that anything in the main book that lacks any other description or qualifiers is going to be a fair representation of the item's capabilities at that tech level, not a niche design. That is almost universally the dichotomy between equipment lists in core books and equipment books.

Also, at TL-12, the RCES is producing a light battledress with AV 6 and no AGI or init penalties. Are you telling me that TL-14 can only add 2 AV while increasing AGI and init penalties?

In an unrelated matter, there may also be a problem with the system generation rules. I posted a thread about it in the main TNE section.

Fire, Fusion, & Steel Mark 1 Mod 1 has a table of sample battle dress designs on page 41. The light battle dresses in that table match those given on page 359 of the Mark 1 Mod 1 rulebook. The light TL-12 has an Agl penalty of -2, and an Init penalty of -1. The heavy TL-12 has -3 and -2 respectively, which matches that given in the RCES Equipment Guide. This suggests that the penalties were left out for the RCES Light Battle Dress. Add one to the Errata list

 

[LeperColony]

Well, as long as something Battledress related gets errata!

 

[LeperColony]

Don, system generation needs some errata/clarification. Are you open to suggestions there?