• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

New Moot Benefit: Lost Rules of Traveller

Andrew Boulton

Andrew Boulton

The Adminator
Now available in the Moot Spire:

Special Supplement 4: Lost Rules of Traveller

This special supplement examines and interpolates various Lost Rules tucked away and forgotten in various Traveller® sources, and was produced to complement the Classic Traveller Reprints from Far Future Enterprises.
 
This is an interesting document, mainly from an archeological perspective. Be interesting to find out why these changes were made, but the reasons are probably lost in the mists of memory.

But one thing puzzles me...

I seem to recall hearing various folks talking about this project. Didn't a whole lot of people contribute to it? Possibly not; credit is assigned to Don McKinney (unless I missed something when I looked this over) so maybe I'm thinking of something else.

I presume that the contributors (if any) got a copy? As I noted elsewhere, I suspect that more revenue can be generated by selling a supplement than making it a Moot benefit, but in either case folks are having to pay for access to it... so presumably the people who've already paid in terms of time and effort have at least had a freebie?

Making them buy Moot membership to get access to a document they helped compile seems a little... ungracious. Especially since you'd probably sell a little document like this for a few dollars at most... and Moot membership costs a lot more than that.

At risk of belabouring the point, my experience is that articles written to be Moot freebies could probably better be sold as products to a large audience.
 
Yes, I've had numerous people look at various drafts of this over the years. I actually started this BEFORE I started the CT Errata... then errata became my life. But if you delve into the various topics here at COTI, you'll see plenty of postings related to this.

The intention is to make it available in the Moot for final comments, and then it will be available for download at DriveThruRPG, and on the revised CT CD-ROM (available soon from FFE).
 
Forgive my missing something obvious, but... where's the benefit to Moot members?

If this is going to be on sale to the general audience, then it's not exclusive Moot content...

This is a bit like what happened last time around... pretty much the same problem as when I was line editor at you-know-where.
 
Hmm... Give Marc and Andrew time. The new sign on the door's only been there like two weeks. Also, I didn't say when it would be available for download (because I don't believe in posting dates).
 
MJD said:
This is an interesting document, mainly from an archeological perspective. Be interesting to find out why these changes were made, but the reasons are probably lost in the mists of memory.
Click to expand...

Now this is the real meat... and one of the reasons why I started into the errata business in the first place.

The whole 1977 LBB -> 1981 LBB -> 1982 TTB -> 1983 Starter evolution is intriguing at a rules level. And yes, I wish I did know why some tweaks were made here and there.

Some changes in Mayday are brought back to the main ruleset, just like Snapshot and AHL. But other changes from AHL/Striker went into a mysterious draft called the "Traveller Advanced Combat System", and that then turned into MegaTraveller instead of another CT boardgame.
 
I'm entirely fine about giving Marc and Andrew time.

What I'm trying to do is also give them the benefit of my experience so that they don't have to repeat the mistakes if you-know-who (YKW). I've already explained why I think the COTI takeover was a bad idea in the first place, but it's a done deal so the next best thing is to try to point out where 'we' went wrong so that maybe Marc and Andrew don't have to tread the same ground.

I know you don't like me saying things that Marc might not want to hear, but the alternative is to watch the same mistakes being made and then say 'I didn't tell you so'.

Which seems a bit churlish.

As I've recently pointed out to Marc, I watched a thriving Ju-Jitsu class crash and burn in just 3 months as a result of decisions that I could have told the guy in charge were bad ones (because I'd been there before, too). Only problem was, he didn't want to listen to me telling him his brilliant idea was horribly flawed.

So he just cut me out of the discussions.

The result?

October... 30+ regulars and a solid future
Late October... decision implemented
Late Decmber... 6 regulars.
Early after the Christmas break the class shut down.

I know from bitter experience where being the guy who says 'that's a duff idea' instead of 'oooh, yes, let's do that' leads, but if I have good reason to think a mistake is being made, I still feel I owe it to folks to point it out.

Which is why I'm trying to point out the flaws in the COTI/Moot setup... I'm actually trying to help.
 
I'm glad you're wanting to help. I'll pass this over to Marc, and I'm sure Andrew will review it (and probably already has).

My personal interest is more in getting comments from the Moot before the booklet is released in public and someone only then tells me I got stuff wrong. :oo:

I do know Andrew and Marc are discussing a lot of different ideas for the Moot, and COTI in general, and all of us will see them as they develop.
 
Like I said, I've trodden this ground and 'we' didn't get it right last time.

It's be a shame for someone lse to make the same mistakes.
 
I do think that the people who contributed should be credited, and should receive a copy.

Not doing one of those would be a bit insulting. Not doing both is going to upset people, and these are the folks that will be there to help you with the next project... or not.
 
Ouch. That would be like crediting everyone who contributed to the errata projects...

And the people who contributed to one, but helped with the development of the other.

I suppose I could try going over two years of posts across the various forums and see what I can come up with...
 
More I thought about, I knew I had a list somewhere. Ok, that's one more thing to add when I make edits.

The shoe is on the other foot now... I'm handling errata to my own stuff!
:rofl:
 
I just spotted another bit of errata in relation to hull build times. LBB2 (1981) p. 22 (book)/p. 23 (PDF):
Code: 
     STANDARD HULLS
Tons Main Drives MCr Time
 100  85  15       2  9
 200 185  15       8 11
 400 350  50      16 14
 600 515  85      48 22
 800 635 165      80 25
1000 835 165     100 27
On the same page, in the Drive Potential table (at the bottom of the page) the build times are given as:
Code: 
Hull  Time
 100  10
 200  12
 400  16
 600  24
 800  28
1000  30
2000  32
3000  34
4000  35
5000  36
I *think* the first set of build times (at the top of this post) are the 1981 build times, and the second set (above) are the 1977 build times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Other new full-book careers for CT.
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
BlackBat242
B
M
Higher Technology Items on Low Tech Worlds and Improvements
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
chipla
C
robject
Traveller Rules As Written
5 6 7
Replies
125
Views
4K
Condottiere
C
M
Traveller Core Rulebook Update 2022 - eBook & Pre-Order
Replies
16
Views
566
aramis
aramis
robject
Milieu Overview - Galaxiad (1902)
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
robject
robject
Back
Top