My canon right or wrong

[rancke]

This is a spinoff from another thread.

It says "most". I quoted it correctly.

Where?

X-Boat routes do form the basis for major trade routes. See page 150 of TTB--

XBoat Routes: The heavy line connecting several worlds are express boat routes providing communications between worlds of the Imperium. These routes are also common trade and transport routes with regular commercial transportation provided by one or more transport megacorporations.



Also see page 81 of TTB under Communication Routes.

See page 136 of TTA, where the major trade routes of the Aramis subsector are discussed (they follow the xboat routes).

I don't see any "most" anywhere.

You began this fork of the discussion by saying that major trade routes do not follow the X-Boat lanes. I'm simply reporting that what you say is false as canon says otherwise.

We've been over that. Not all canon is correct. I think I've provided adequate examples of that. You can't just quote a bit of canon and declare victory. It also has to be internally consistent and consistent with other parts of canon.

The way I see it, there are two kinds of canon: good canon and bad canon (also indifferent canon and dodgy canon and decent canon, but let's keep it simple ). Good canon should be perpetuated; bad canon should be overruled.

I regard the statement you quoted as on a par with such things as the tremendous importance to trade of jump-1 mains and per-jump pricing. They are actively detrimental to the development of a self-consistent game setting. They are broken and should be held up to hatred, ridicule and contempt until such time as TPTB hopefully get around to fixing them. Above all else they should not be made the basis of futher development of the OTU.


Hans

 

[rancke]

It's OK to wander away from canon, change, disregard it, use your logic to take it to a new place--whatever.

But, if you do, don't call it "canon".

But as I've demonstrated, I'm not wandering away from canon. Just away from one piece of canon. I'm sticking closely to other parts of canon. So I'm fully entitled to call it canon.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

Where?
I don't see any "most" anywhere.

Page 104, TTB, first sentence.

 

[aramis]

But as I've demonstrated, I'm not wandering away from canon. Just away from one piece of canon. I'm sticking closely to other parts of canon. So I'm fully entitled to call it canon.


Hans

The moment you intentionally contradict any one piece of canon, you've ceased being canonical.

Canon literally comes from the ecclesiastical term "canon" meaning list. (The use meaning a priest of the cathedral comes from being a priest-canon - literally, a priest on the list of the cathedral.

The use for literary works (including games) means that which is explicitly in the material. Anything NOT EXPLICITLY in the material, and not explicitly approved by the canonical authority (in Traveller's case, Marc) isn't canon.

And in the case of the routes, you've contradicted canon. Which means your deduction, no matter how logic based, is not canon.

 

[rancke]

The moment you intentionally contradict any one piece of canon, you've ceased being canonical.

Nonsens. That would mean that if I claimed that the Maghiz took place in -924 then I had ceased being canonical, because there are separate canonical statements to the effect that it took place in -925 and in -927.

The use for literary works (including games) means that which is explicitly in the material. Anything NOT EXPLICITLY in the material, and not explicitly approved by the canonical authority (in Traveller's case, Marc) isn't canon.

So the canonical statement about the routes is non-canonical too? Seeing as it directly contradicts canonical ship design rules.

And in the case of the routes, you've contradicted canon. Which means your deduction, no matter how logic based, is not canon.

I disagree with your opinion for the reasons mentioned above.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Page 104, TTB, first sentence.

I see. A bit you didn't quote nor reference. And one that doesn't say what you claimed it does.

"Although most commercial starships routinely carry cargos as common carriers, charging a flat rate of Cr1000 per ton for the service, many also engage in speculation by buying goods at low prices, transporting them in spare cargo space, and then selling them for higher prices in markets anxious to have them." [TTB, p. 104]​

The sentence doesn't contrast carrying freight at Cr1000 per ton with carrying freight at some other price, but carrying freight at Cr1000 per ton with carrying speculative cargo. The one and only canonical price received for carrying freight quoted anywhere is still Cr1000 per ton. Except for one or two cases in the setting material (One that I can remember for sure [TTA:44]; there may or may not be more than that).


Hans

 

[rancke]

It's obvious that we've reached a point where both sides are thoroughly entrenched and isn't going to change their respective minds. So I went back to the start of the discussion meaning to see if there was a different approach that might offer a way through. And I noticed that the part of S4's statement that I object to the most isn't actually mentioned in the text he quotes.

X-Boat routes do form the basis for major trade routes. See page 150 of TTB--

XBoat Routes: The heavy line connecting several worlds are express boat routes providing communications between worlds of the Imperium. These routes are also common trade and transport routes with regular commercial transportation provided by one or more transport megacorporations.

[Two other references snipped].

The part that I really object to is the implication that X-boat routes form the basis for trade. As in cause and effect. If the statement merely means that many X-boat routes happen to coincide with major trade routes, then most of my objections goes away. (I still maintain that the sweeping implication that all X-boat routes coincide with major trade routes is wrong; there are canonical X-boat routes that does not follow any major trade route. Also, while J4 passenger service between high-population worlds makes sense and a few J4 freighters carrying time-sensitive goods likewise make sense, the amount of goods going by J4 would be minuscule compared to the amount going by J2/J3).

One reason why I didn't pick up on this before is that I'm almost certain that somewhere else is a canonical statement that does claim that an X-boat route creates trade. But I can't remember where or precisely what it said, so perhaps I'm misremembering.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

LD AM p26:

Selected locations along major trade routes are established as express stations;

Trade routes come first, X-boat routes then overlaid on top. Implication from quote - there are major trade routes that never become part of the x-boat network.

 

[rancke]

LD AM p26:

Selected locations along major trade routes are established as express stations;

Trade routes come first, X-boat routes then overlaid on top.

That makes sense.


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

The moment you intentionally contradict any one piece of canon, you've ceased being canonical..

Does it matter if you intentionally contradict?

If it is unintentional, is it canonical?

I'm not entirely sure what "canonical" means.

Does something have to be "in the list" or

Would something
a) created from canon and not contradicting it at all be canonical?

If a) what if something doesn't contradict, but is entirely uncovered by canon, is it canonical? You make up a name for a bar in the star port. Determine the details of the political structure for a system.
or

b) is only the actual published Traveller material canonical?

If a) what if something doesn't contradict, but is entirely uncovered by canon, is it canonical?

Lets say a play group creates a new 1,000 ton passenger ship class called the Zeetabiner completely within the canonical design rules. Is the Zeetabiner class passenger ship canonical?

There is no reason for such to exist in any other play groups games. Another play group can create a Zeetabiner class 600 ton cargo ship. Are both ships canonical even though they contradict each other.

If yes, then why is it surprising that other canon material published contradicts each other?

 

[Vladika]

OK Here's my oar in the water...

Communications Routes: Within the subsector, local governments will have
established communications or trade routes connecting some (but not all) worlds.
These routes serve as a conduit for messages between businesses and between
governments as well as between people. The also serve as the basic routes that
liners and large freighters travel. The referee should examine the subsector map and
connect key worlds with communications routes. If the subsector is an isolated
community, the routes may not leave the map; if it is part of a larger confederation
or empire, the routes will probably leave the edges to join with other parts of the
sector.
-5- bk3

Emphasis is mine. I believe it it clear that Trade Routes and XBoat Route are NOT necessarily one and the same.

Also note the Spinward Marches Map showing the large number of J4 Xboat routes. The note on the upper right margin of the map CLEARLY states that the lined routes are XBOAT. Many of these routes would be impossible as Trade routes. (J4 excepted as a POSSIBILITY, though not profitable using the canon 1000Cr per ton freight.)

 

[rancke]

b) is only the actual published Traveller material canonical?

Yes, and only that which Marc Miller or his minions accept as canonical. Except that I believe that if something can be logically deduced from canon material then it is also canonical. Thus I believe that "Norris was 40 years old in 1103" is a canonical statement even though it has never been published in any canonical publication.

If a) what if something doesn't contradict, but is entirely uncovered by canon, is it canonical?

It's usual only to distinguish between canon and non-canon, but personally I further distinguish between canon-compatible non-canon and contra-canonical non-canon.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

I believe it it clear that Trade Routes and XBoat Route are NOT necessarily one and the same.

Canon says that major trade routes generally follow the XBoat lanes. I take to mean that often they're the same, but sometimes they're not.

Don't forget the X-Boat bases are located on major trade routes, according to canon, so just by that, there has to be some overlap.

 

[mike wightman]

And then the quote I found - which is repeated in Tarsus LD, so there are two canonical references to it - contradicts this because it says the trade routes exist first and the x-boat route went over the top.

Which sort of makes sense. The Imperium had major trade between worlds - hence trade routes - long before the x-boat network was constructed.

I would think there are lots more major trade routes than there are x-boat links.

 

[Supplement Four]

I would think there are lots more major trade routes than there are x-boat links.

Agreed.

And there are lots more trade routes (minus the "major") than there are X-Boat lanes.

 

[Vladika]

Canon says that major trade routes generally follow the XBoat lanes. I take to mean that often they're the same, but sometimes they're not.

Don't forget the X-Boat bases are located on major trade routes, according to canon, so just by that, there has to be some overlap.

Of course there is overlap. But, consider that it's logical to have Bases on Trade Routes if for no other reason than resupply.

Analogy:

Like intersections of highways and interstates; gas stations and convenience stores are "bases", the side roads (AS WELL AS interstates) are "XBoat Routes". Main Highways and Interstates are "Trade Routes".

Main Highways and Interstates are "trunk lines" for major shipping. Side roads are "Free Trader" runs. Any, or neither, could be XBoat Routes.

End of Analogy.

They don't have to coincide, but, when they do, I'm betting the XBoats are trying to maintain J4 whenever possible. The shorter hops are most likely "mail" carried by the slower subsidized mail carriers.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

J4.

Can some one please clue me into why J4 is unprofitable? Seems to mean that if I am paying Cr 1000/ton period no matter how many Jumps (which I think I have correct, but I am weak on T&C), then shipping it by the fastest method would seem to be the way to go. So, what the fanark am I missing?

I would love discuss this as I am trying to metagame a few Pocket Empires and would like to see what I can do with Trade and Commerce, because as I said this an area I am sadly weak in. My players did not last long enough to do any T&C, mostly because one of them brought the Navy down on the ship with two very contraband BattleDress in the hold.

If you could, please.

Also, what about subsidies? And while it may not be OTU Canon, I can't see why a MegaCorp can't get a nice price cut for buying bulk. I tend to think that might also support J4 trade. That and Imperial Armed Forces (which includes the very real Army) use mostly J4 ships and with the kind of logistical tail they can drag, I think that also might have some bearing on trade and X-Boat routes.

Comments?

 

[Vladika]

Can some one please clue me into why J4 is unprofitable? Seems to mean that if I am paying Cr 1000/ton period no matter how many Jumps (which I think I have correct, but I am weak on T&C), then shipping it by the fastest method would seem to be the way to go. So, what the fanark am I missing?

I would love discuss this as I am trying to metagame a few Pocket Empires and would like to see what I can do with Trade and Commerce, because as I said this an area I am sadly weak in. My players did not last long enough to do any T&C, mostly because one of them brought the Navy down on the ship with two very contraband BattleDress in the hold.

If you could, please.

Also, what about subsidies? And while it may not be OTU Canon, I can't see why a MegaCorp can't get a nice price cut for buying bulk. I tend to think that might also support J4 trade. That and Imperial Armed Forces (which includes the very real Army) use mostly J4 ships and with the kind of logistical tail they can drag, I think that also might have some bearing on trade and X-Boat routes.

Comments?

A player character can not design a ship for J4 that will turn a profit, much less break even. This is a rules anomaly to my way of thinking. Cargo is carried at 1000Cr per ton for a single jump of any length. I, and many others, feel it should be per parsec. This would allow a J4 ship, costing vastly more than a J1 ship, to be profitable. Subsidies, by the rules, still won't work.

What the military can do with unlimited tax Credits is anybody's guess as it's covered nowhere in the rules or setting. Same for whatever Mega corporation discounts there may be.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Can some one please clue me into why J4 is unprofitable? Seems to mean that if I am paying Cr 1000/ton period no matter how many Jumps (which I think I have correct, but I am weak on T&C), then shipping it by the fastest method would seem to be the way to go. So, what the fanark am I missing?

I would love discuss this as I am trying to metagame a few Pocket Empires and would like to see what I can do with Trade and Commerce, because as I said this an area I am sadly weak in. My players did not last long enough to do any T&C, mostly because one of them brought the Navy down on the ship with two very contraband BattleDress in the hold.

If you could, please.

Also, what about subsidies? And while it may not be OTU Canon, I can't see why a MegaCorp can't get a nice price cut for buying bulk. I tend to think that might also support J4 trade. That and Imperial Armed Forces (which includes the very real Army) use mostly J4 ships and with the kind of logistical tail they can drag, I think that also might have some bearing on trade and X-Boat routes.

Comments?

Your doing T5 now? Perhaps a question(s) for a new thread in the forum for the appropriate version of the game since some trade and ship design rules vary.

 

[aramis]

Does it matter if you intentionally contradict?

If it is unintentional, is it canonical?

I'm not entirely sure what "canonical" means.

Does something have to be "in the list" or
[snip]
If yes, then why is it surprising that other canon material published contradicts each other?

Sipmly put: if it ain't published, and ain't expressly approved by Marc, it ain't canon.

Hunter had some decisions he made that didn't see print, and so aren't canon. Even tho' they're grounded in canon, consistent with canon, and such, they are not canon.

NOTHING YOU EVER CREATE IS CANON - Until it sees print in a canonical source.

As for Hans example of the Maghiz - if one uses any date other than the two in print, then they're using non-canonical data. Period. No Exceptions. If they manage to get it into print and approved, then their date becomes canonical.

Canon contradictions are a subject for errata.

Canon only matters (really) for people who want to enable play across groups in the same setting, and for those publishing.

Hans attitude towards canon is part of why I distrust him as an author - he's constantly seeking to alter what's come before.

Many of the changes between editions include some unintentional changes and contradictions to canon, because the author either lacked access to or was unaware of prior canon. It happens.