Jump Into Empty Hexes, Y/N?

[BlackBat242]

Consider me suitably slapped, Hunter.

I keep forgetting that the material has been reprinted, and want to make sure that those I am discussing with also have the article I am referring to... which it seems some don't.


As for the "precipitate" matter, in the surrounding text Marc makes it clear that that effect only applies to an attempt to exit Jump within 100 diameters of a body.

No mention is ever made of this happening under any other circumstance, and considering that many "jumpspace flight-paths" would surely pass very close to large objects within the target system on the way to the planned exit point, if it always happened any time you accidentally passed too close, he would have mentioned it... and he didn't.

The only mentions of mass/gravity effecting Jump in any way refer to its effect during/on transitions to/from normal space and jumpspace.



He also explains long-distance mis-jumps as being the result of somehow accidentally entering an unplanned level of jumpspace. He says that there are different jumpspaces, which yield different distances for the same energy expended. The OTU understanding of Jump theory only allows planned access to one specific type of jumpspace, which provides the results in the book for distance/speed/fuel used/mass of ship.

He does say "Some believe that a proper understanding of the phenomena can produce jump drives capable of greater jumps than are currently available."

 

[inexorabletash]

...that Library snippet that claims Capital sits at the only crossing of the rift for thousands of parsecs.

If you assume that the Great Rift and Lesser Rift extend for thousands of parsecs, then the Imperium does actually straddle the only convenient crossing, with Capital smack in the center.

On the scale of thousands of parsecs, only. At the scale of hundreds of parsecs, at least, the rifts do appear to be part of single large rift which the stars claimed by the Imperium interrupt.

(I realize this is not related to the point you're making, and that the above is only true from a certain point of view.)

 

[rust]

Of course, that sentence doesn't really make much sense.

Yep, there are many sentences in the OTU material that do not really make
much sense, or that directly contradict each other. o:

Therefore I always considered it a somewhat strange idea to try to estab-
lish an OTU "canon". It is a bit like mediaeval science, where scholars threw
quotations of various scriptures at each other to prove their points.

In the end, there seem to be almost as many OTU "canons" as there are peo-
ple trying to establish an OTU "canon". This makes for lively discussions (the-
re is always some point to disagree on ...), but in the long run I prefer to
ignore "canon" and concentrate on building my own setting.

So, whether ships can jump into empty hexes or not - from my point of view
this depends solely on whether you want them to be able to. If it makes your
setting more interesting or "realistic", they can, otherwise they can not.

 

[tbeard1999]

Under CT Bk 2, it was quite possible that a J1 ship couldn't go six jumps...

That would be 60% JFuel, and 20Td PP Fuel, by the letter of the rules, and thus 100 and 200 Td ships have no remaining space for people, after adding drives.

True, but it's also a fact that one can design Bk2 Jump-1 ships that can go six jumps. In any case, the quoted sentence is in a supplement for use with High Guard. One can design High Guard J-1 ships to go six jumps.

For that matter, one could design J-2 ships to go three consecutive jumps.

So I think my point remains--the quoted passage doesn't make much sense, as it stands. If the passage is to be taken as literally correct, then I think we have to infer that two consecutive jumps into empty hexes is forbidden.

Or, we can conclude that the sentence was poorly written and/or incomplete. It might, for instance, have only been given *one* alternative to a Jump-6 ship, a Jump-3 ship with extra fuel. (That's my favored interpretation).

 

[tbeard1999]

Yep, there are many sentences in the OTU material that do not really make
much sense, or that directly contradict each other. o:

Therefore I always considered it a somewhat strange idea to try to estab-
lish an OTU "canon". It is a bit like mediaeval science, where scholars threw
quotations of various scriptures at each other to prove their points.

I don't object to identifying canon. I think that this is a useful and even crucial activity if we're gonna talk about what Traveller is.

However, we have to accept that specific bits of canon may well contradict one another and that there may be equally valid, but different, ways to reconcile these contradictions.

 

[rust]

If "canon" is used as a way to "unite" by defining some common ground, I do
agree that it can be useful. On the other hand, if it is used to "divide" (in the
worst case: "My Traveller is more canon than your Traveller"-arguments), it
is more harmful than useful.

Traveller is a game, not a set of laws or a religion, where something like a ca-
non really is important (and arguments are nevertheless all too common ...).
In Traveller I see "canon" as something rather unimportant. Besides, I like to
"explore" many different OTUs ...

But, as always, this is just my personal opinion.

 

[rancke]

I don't object to identifying canon. I think that this is a useful and even crucial activity if we're gonna talk about what Traveller is.

However, we have to accept that specific bits of canon may well contradict one another and that there may be equally valid, but different, ways to reconcile these contradictions.

In many cases mutually contradictory bits of canon are potentially equally valid (though there are some instances where I feel one version is clearly a better choice than the other). But two mutually contradictory statements can't both be true in one and the same universe. If they could, they wouldn't be contradictory. Likewise, two different ways to reconcile two mutually contradictory statements are very likely to not be able to both be true in the same universe. And the OTU is supposed to be one single universe.


Hans

 

[tbeard1999]

In many cases mutually contradictory bits of canon are potentially equally valid (though there are some instances where I feel one version is clearly a better choice than the other). But two mutually contradictory statements can't both be true in one and the same universe. If they could, they wouldn't be contradictory. Likewise, two different ways to reconcile two mutually contradictory statements are very likely to not be able to both be true in the same universe. And the OTU is supposed to be one single universe. Hans

These observations may be true, but I'm not sure what your point is.

If you're trying to bootstrap this into an argument that there's no such thing as canon, I don't think you'll get much traction. Contradictory information in the Real World is nothing new. For eons, humans have wrestled with reconciling contradictory information and have managed (generally) to do so without abandoning the idea that there are objective facts out there.

And while there are some canon statements that are contradictory, vague or illogical, 95%+ of them are not contradictory, vague or illogical. "There is no FTL communication" is an element of Traveller canon that seems pretty clear to me, for instance.

Therefore, it seems unreasonable to me to disregard 95% of the information because 5% may not be clear.

As a lawyer, I wrestle with contradictory and vague statutes, cases and contracts all the time. (If you think game designers are sloppy, try the US Internal Revenue Code). Despite this lack of 100% certainty, the legal system manages to continue to function.

When I was studying to be a historian, I did not throw my hands up and conclude that there were no historical facts because accounts of the same events often differed.

 

[tbeard1999]

If "canon" is used as a way to "unite" by defining some common ground, I do
agree that it can be useful. On the other hand, if it is used to "divide" (in the
worst case: "My Traveller is more canon than your Traveller"-arguments), it
is more harmful than useful.

Seems to me that you can argue that *any* facts can be used to "divide", if there's ever a disagreement over the accuracy of a factual statement.

I'm not sure that gets us very far.

Traveller is a game, not a set of laws or a religion, where something like a canon really is important (and arguments are nevertheless all too common ...).

Of course. To paraphrase Kissinger and others, such debates are so acrimonious because the stakes are so low.

In Traveller I see "canon" as something rather unimportant. Besides, I like to "explore" many different OTUs ...

I have no qualms with that. Ironically, I defend the notion of a Traveller canon while I've always run non-OTU campaigns.

However, if we are to have a meaningful discussion on what "Traveller" is, I think that there has to be a (more or less) agreed upon body of canon by which we can judge. (As well as an openly acknowledged body of canon that is generally ambiguous or contradictory).

Otherwise, how can we object when someone releases a game that they claim is "Traveller", yet contains lightsabers, deflector shields, FTL communications, wizards and blasters? If there's no such thing as "canon", then wouldn't such a game be just as much "Traveller" as LBB1-3?

As noted, there may be areas of disagreement. But I submit that a relatively small percentage of canon is reasonably subject to argument.

 

[Garyius2003]

Garyius2003, I've no more brain left today to run costs, but I can't help but think it could be started smaller, and done cheaper - especially if it were done in-house by a single trade corp, and kept proprietary. Every ship you send there brings fuel, supplies, and cargo that will sell well at the other side of the rift; it leaves the cargo at the way-station for the next company ship to come through (from the other side!) and goes back the way it came. None of this is based on carrying passengers or paid freight; everything stays in house. I suspect a trade corp could build up quite a profitable enterprise in the deep. The trick would be building it up into something strong before the word got out. Once non-company ships start calling, that's when it gets really interesting.

I agree, my calc was to set up a gov-sub rift station at local tech that could sell 9k tons per month or could sell half that much for 5 years and have enough extra to top off a fleet batron.

In fact, plonk the whole thing in the rift J-4 out, and after 7.5 years of shipping out one batron could tank up (of course it would be well after that the fuel was in place) --figure 20 years of shipping two batrons could go out and on the way back be met by fleet tankers who could get enough fuel to come back as well.

For that sort of strike from the blue the 3I would pay, heck the yearly costs would be less than fleet tankers who couldn't do the work and come back.

 

[rancke]

These observations may be true, but I'm not sure what your point is.

If you're trying to bootstrap this into an argument that there's no such thing as canon, I don't think you'll get much traction.

I was arguing against the notion that two mutually contradictory statements can be valid for the same universe.

Contradictory information in the Real World is nothing new. For eons, humans have wrestled with reconciling contradictory information and have managed (generally) to do so without abandoning the idea that there are objective facts out there.

In the Real World facts are more or less immutable. Even such things as historical facts that we will never be able to be sure of. If you have one source saying that a meteor strike took place at 10 o'clock and another source that says 12 o'clock, you may be never be able to determine the truth (hey, both sources may be wrong), but the one thing you can be fairly sure of is that it didn't take place at BOTH 10 and 12 o'clock.

In the OTU, facts are subject to change. If Marc Miller wakes up one day and decides that jump-1 drives cost MCr1 per dT, then jump-1 drives cost MCr1, and they always did, and any statements about them costing MCr 4 are wrong.

But even Marc Miller can't say that they cost MCr4 when the ships are built and MCr1 when we calculate the cost of running them. The two costs may be equally valid (they're both imaginary, after all), but they can't both be true at the same time.

When I was studying to be a historian, I did not throw my hands up and conclude that there were no historical facts because accounts of the same events often differed.

But you don't have the same time-traveling abilities that Traveller writers do. They can go back in time and set adventures in the past. and when they do, they will show which of the accounts is the one true one.

And then another writer can set another adventure in the same past and show that another account is the one true one


Hans

 

[tbeard1999]

I was arguing against the notion that two mutually contradictory statements can be valid for the same universe.

I agree that two unambiguous, truly contradictory factual assertions cannot be valid for the same universe. But, in practical terms, so what?

Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'm getting the sense that you're trying to work up to an argument that there is no such thing as "the OTU."

If that's where you're headed, I'd consider that other forms of entertainment -- novels, movies, television shows -- have continuity problems. Yet can we *really* claim that there's no such thing as the "official Star Wars universe" or the "official Star Trek universe"? *Anything* created by fallible humans will have flaws and it seems rather pointless to assert that there are no established standards if *any* flaws exist.

In any case, my take FWIW is that there *is* an "official" body of information detailing the "official" Traveller universe. Like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate. But it also contains a great deal of information that cannot reasonably be called ambiguous or contradictory. The latter is clearly "canon".

Contradictory or ambiguous statements are IMHO "canon", but the reconciliation of contradictions and ambiguities are legitimate subjects for discussion and opinions can reasonably vary. At the very least, they define the boundaries. For instance, High Guard and Book 2 may differ on how much a given drive costs. I can choose between them and either choice could be called "canonical". But if I add a third choice (that is not canonical), then my universe is not canonical. I'll leave it to theologians to determine if there are subdivisions in the canon (i.e., the LBB1-3 OTU, the CT OTU, the MT OTU, etc.)

As a referee, I simply choose which contradictory bits I'll prefer and reconcile ambiguities as reasonably as I can. If I stop there, I think that MTU can be called "canonical" (assuming that my reconcilliations are indeed rational).

Perhaps another way to slice it is to say that "canon" is a list of standards that an "official" Traveller universe must comply with. Where canon is ambiguous or contradictory, then I believe that any reasonable reconciliation will be "canonical".

 

[jawillroy]

"And then another writer can set another adventure in the same past and show that another account is the one true one"

Or you can just dust yourself off, pick one set of core books, and extrapolate from there by your own dernself. ^_^

 

[rust]

I agree that there is a Traveller "canon" (although I do not like the word "ca-
non" because of its religious background, and would prefer "standard" - but
this is a matter of personal taste).

However, in my view the attempt to define a Traveller "canon" is the attempt
to define the realities of a non-real universe. While this can doubtless be very
interesting and sometimes useful, and can also bring a lot of fun, I can not
bring myself to see it as a very serious endeavour.

So, if someone would publish a game with light-sabers, FTL communications
and lots of other "non-canonical" stuff, and would call it "Traveller", I would
not mind at all (except from a legal point of view).
I would take a look at it, decide whether it contains anything I might like for
my setting, and then buy or ignore it (most probably: ignore it).

In the end, I (and my players) define what is "canon" in my setting, and this
is far more important to me than any "official" Traveller "canon" - especially
since in thirty years of playing Traveller I have never encountered two iden-
tical "canonical" Traveller universes ...

What counts is whether the players like a setting and have fun with it, and
this alone should influence whether ships can jump to empty hexes or not,
not anything written by someone years ago and continents away.

Again, just my personal opinion (and quite off topic - sorry).

 

[jawillroy]

For my part, looking at standards/canon is useful because there's so much contradiction and confusion written into the system. I certainly don't mind coming up with my own rationales to sort such ciphers out, but by comparing other Travellers' interpretations I can often do better than I might have on my own.

Since I'm trying not to work with anything outside LBB123, I'm using deep, early canon to shed light on how those early rules generally get interpreted. When I was on my first go-around with these books back in '84, I didn't know a single other gamer who was into the game, so I was on my own with it back then. Guess I'm making up for lost time.

 

[tbeard1999]

I agree that there is a Traveller "canon" (although I do not like the word "ca-
non" because of its religious background, and would prefer "standard" - but
this is a matter of personal taste).

However, in my view the attempt to define a Traveller "canon" is the attempt
to define the realities of a non-real universe. While this can doubtless be very
interesting and sometimes useful, and can also bring a lot of fun, I can not
bring myself to see it as a very serious endeavour.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you. Part of the attraction of hobbies (to me at least) is that they are not "serious" in comparison to most daily activities of life.

So, if someone would publish a game with light-sabers, FTL communications and lots of other "non-canonical" stuff, and would call it "Traveller", I would not mind at all (except from a legal point of view).

But would you actually agree that it's "Traveller" in any meaningful sense of the word (as you define "Traveller")?

In the end, I (and my players) define what is "canon" in my setting, and this is far more important to me than any "official" Traveller "canon" - especially since in thirty years of playing Traveller I have never encountered two identical "canonical" Traveller universes ...

I wouldn't think that this would be possible, or necessary. Traveller canon includes (for instance) published adventures. Every group would resolve these adventures differently.

What counts is whether the players like a setting and have fun with it, and this alone should influence whether ships can jump to empty hexes or not, not anything written by someone years ago and continents away.

Since I run a somewhat non-canonical Traveller campaign myself, I would be hard pressed to disagree.

 

[rust]

But would you actually agree that it's "Traveller" in any meaningful sense of the word (as you define "Traveller")?

No, even if it would use the Traveller mechanics, I would probably call it a
Traveller clone or variant, like all the other games which obviously borrowed
heavily from Traveller.

 

[rust]

...by comparing other Travellers' interpretations I can often do better than I might have on my own.

Yes, I think this is a very good point. I also enjoy to compare other peoples'
solutions to a problem in order to develop the solution that works best for my
setting.

 

[aramis]

In general, Ty, there are 4 basic approaches to resolving canon conflicts.

1) Oldest is most right
2) Newest is most right
3) Most authoritative source is most right
4) Most sensible is most right.

You will find that most CT fans take #1; during the great flame wars of 1994-1996 on the TML, #2 was predominant amongst the TNE crowd.

#3 has the problem of defining authoritativeness... But, it is why I reject out of hand any attempts to claim anything in GT as canon outside of GT.

Hans tends to take #4.

The problem is that it doesn't appear that the concept of canonicity hits until the TNE era.

 

[rust]

I would tend to add:

5) The one that fits my setting best from among 1) - 4) [preferably 4)]

Sometimes an idea from CT works best, and therefore becomes a part of my
"Traveller Standard", sometimes it is an idea from a later edition, and some-
times I add something from a non-Traveller source to the standard, if it fits
in and makes sense (although it is then an addition to the standard, not a
part of it).