• 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.

Should the OTU UWP Data be Updated?

Should the OTU UWP Data be Updated?


  • Total voters
    101
I can't say it any better than Hunter did in the other CotI thread: "I've got no problems changing the system to generate more 'realistic' worlds, but I have a big problem with changing those worlds in the OTU."

That goes double ditto, super-whammo, twice, thrice, and mucho more for me.

Change the world creation rules to deliver more realistic results if you want, but don't mess with the Official Traveller Universe we have all known and loved for the decade or three.
 
Guess who? (well, when I started typing I was the lone voice of assent, I was gonna figure out how to stuff the poll but a couple beat me to it ;) )

:)

Hell yes, change it already!

Look, most of the grognards will never notice, they aren't buying RTT anyway. It's for new players, players who don't have access to some of the old stuff, the old broken stuff, so they get to have new stuff, new broken stuff perhaps, but broken in new and interesting ways ;)

The big thing is it should better serve the new players as there won't be a number of reasons to explain impossible UWPs equal to the number of players. Because there won't be such extreme oddities in numbers too large to ignore. The RTT Traveller Universe will be more consistent. That's a good thing. And it doesn't matter that it's not the OTU (a term I come to view with more and more derision the more it's flaunted as holy), just as it doesn't matter that the GTU differs from the OTU.

I had a different reply posted, but I counted to 10. A few times...

...I still almost posted it anyway, but in the interest of not starting a war I instead offer this reasoned and calm response :smirk:
 
Look, most of the grognards will never notice, they aren't buying RTT anyway.

They might not buy the rules, but they likely will buy the supplements.

It's for new players, players who don't have access to some of the old stuff, the old broken stuff, so they get to have new stuff, new broken stuff perhaps, but broken in new and interesting ways ;)

It's always for new players...so was T20.

The big thing is it should better serve the new players as there won't be a number of reasons to explain impossible UWPs equal to the number of players. Because there won't be such extreme oddities in numbers too large to ignore. The RTT Traveller Universe will be more consistent. That's a good thing. And it doesn't matter that it's not the OTU (a term I come to view with more and more derision the more it's flaunted as holy), just as it doesn't matter that the GTU differs from the OTU.

Most of those 'new' players would never notice nor care.

I had a different reply posted, but I counted to 10. A few times...

...I still almost posted it anyway, but in the interest of not starting a war I instead offer this reasoned and calm response

Good move. I'd hate to have to give you a 'time out' ;)

While I'd prefer they not change the existing OTU published material, I'm not going to condemn them for it. They are going to do what they feel best. I will however continue to state my opinion on the matter when it comes up.

So I guess I fall in between. I can see the reasoning behind why some feel it should be changed (and agree to a small extent) but can also understand (and agree to a larger extent) why some don't want the changes made.
 
I had a different reply posted, but I counted to 10. A few times...

...I still almost posted it anyway, but in the interest of not starting a war I instead offer this reasoned and calm response :smirk:

I don't understand...is there something in my first two posts in this thread that was inflamatory? (I re-read it. I don't see anything that would offend.)



EDIT: It'll be interesting to see how this poll turns out. I've got no idea how the masses are going to respond. I just know how I feel about it.
 
Please don't single MJD out on this issue.

I changed the wording of the poll title from 'Should MJD be allowed' to 'Should Mongoose be allowed'.
 
Word is, MJD will be changing some of the more "daft" UWP's in the Spinward Marches sector in the MGT supplement he's writing. How do you feel about this? Is this a good thing? Or, should this not be allowed to occur?"


Supplement Four,

The poll is flawed on it's face and my responses will explain why.

My answers are in order:

1) My feelings will depend on which UWPs are changed and for what reasons, but my feelings have no bearing on the matter whatsoever (see #3 below).

2) "Good" is relative term. Generally speaking and IMHO, there UWPs whose "physical" bits should definitely be tweaked. However, the "social" bits should only be changed with extreme reluctance and close-to-vanishing rarity.

3) "Allowed" is a loaded term. Only one man can allow anything to occur in Traveller and NOBODY HERE is that man.

Keeping #3 firmly in mind, this poll and thread should either be locked or "disappeared" before it becomes a problem.


Have fun,
Bill
 
Last edited:
2) "Good" is relative term. Generally speaking and IMHO, there UWPs whose "physical" bits should definitely be tweaked.

Respectfully, you sound to me as if you should vote "yes" above.

I'm against any change to the OTU Spinward Marches data, whether it be considered "broken" or not. So, I voted "no".
 
yes..change what's broke
If the uwp rules change and the OTU doesn't..there will be people howling about how the OTU can't be made using the official rules. Detailed and important worlds that are broke can be explained, but fix the broken ones out of the 11,000 that are mostly never heard of.

by not changing the bad ones, Trav would be held back.
Fanatical adherance to the OTU including the bad is part of why new rulesets often have deficiencies (imho). Backward compatibility is not always a good thing....
 
Hiya Whipesnape! Long time no see. Glad to see you still hanging around!

On the poll, I don't particularly have an issue with it outside of the singling out of MJD. Martin is doing what has been asked of him by Mongoose.

Allowing fans to vote on their opinion I don't see as an issue.
 
On the poll, I don't particularly have an issue with it outside of the singling out of MJD. Martin is doing what has been asked of him by Mongoose.

Hunter, I changed the body text of the OP from "MJD" to "Mongoose", but I'm not allowed to change the Thread title.

You fixed the poll. You might want to fix the Thread title too.
 
Hunter, I changed the body text of the OP from "MJD" to "Mongoose", but I'm not allowed to change the Thread title.

You fixed the poll. You might want to fix the Thread title too.

Got it, thanks for reminding me and being a good sport about it.
 
Respectfully, you sound to me as if you should vote "yes" above.

S4,

Sorry if I came across as harsh, I didn't mean it that way. It's just that my ideas about UWP are too complicated to be encompassed in a two-option poll.

Generally speaking, Hunter's position is mine: "Don't change the OTU". However, my idea of the OTU is extremely narrow. I don't count any UWPs in post-CT materials for example. That leaves us with only four detailed sectors: the Marches, the Rim, Corridor, and Gvurrdon(sp), plus a handful of subsectors like the Islands, Egryn, and Pax Rulin. Nearly everything else - especially the DGP sectors and maps - can and should be thrown out.

That being said, I'm for a very judicious retconning of some of the UWPs in the areas I isted above. CT sysgen is over 30 years old and is very broken. The UWPs generated that sysgen - and generated by horribly flawed applications of that sysgen (I'm looking at you DGP and whoever created the Genie data set) - need to be corrected on a one by one basis.

What do I mean by "judicious" retconning? Well, if a UWP has ever been featured in an article - that is if there are canonical materials beyond a UWP listing depending on said UWP - that UWP should be left alone regardless of how "daft" it may be.

After reading the linked threads, I am not worried that MJD is writing a Marches sourcebook for Mongoose. I am worried that Dr. Constantine Thomas is handling the UWP updates however. While I will eagerly support any of his changes to the physical side of sysgen and pre-existing UWPs, I have great reservation about his understanding regarding the social side of the UWP. His quote about Class A ports on low-pop worlds is just one case in point while another occurred during a thread at SJGames.

Dr. Thomas was working on mapping trade routes for an entire sector. He began a thread to ask questions of the GT:FT authors and get suggestings from others who had done similar projects. He mentioned in passing a "backwater" world that had a huge trade route passing through it that linked two subsectors. The situation seemed completely implausible to him, so he was going to retcon the world in question a high-pop, high tech system. He was going to change the world into something which made more sense; a high-pop "cosmopolitan trade entrepot".

The fact that he already more than a dozen of those worlds in his sector; every high-pop world with a port of suffcient size would be a "cosmopolitan trade entrepot", never crossed his mind. The fact that he was going to retcon something intriguing and solitary out of existence never crossed his mind either.

I suggested that he might find it better to leave the world alone because it was different and suggested some Real World parallels. He decided to make the change as the original world or my suggestions made little sense to him. I then wrote up a long post on the nature "tank towns" as they existed both historically and currently in the Real World, but decided not to post the material because I knew from experience I had no possibility of getting the basic idea across to him whether he decided it had merit or not.

IN MY EXTREMELY HUMBLE OPINION. Dr. Thomas should be allowed to fiddle with the physical half of the UWP to his heart's content while his work with the social half of the UWP should be carefully vetted.


Have fun,
Bill
 
Generally speaking, Hunter's position is mine: "Don't change the OTU". However, my idea of the OTU is extremely narrow. I don't count any UWPs in post-CT materials for example. That leaves us with only four detailed sectors: the Marches, the Rim, Corridor, and Gvurrdon(sp), plus a handful of subsectors like the Islands, Egryn, and Pax Rulin. Nearly everything else - especially the DGP sectors and maps - can and should be thrown out.

Is there a reason you leave the 4 sectors of Gateway out?

IN MY EXTREMELY HUMBLE OPINION. Dr. Thomas should be allowed to fiddle with the physical half of the UWP to his heart's content while his work with the social half of the UWP should be carefully vetted.

Have to go with that myself.
 
Hiya Whipesnape! Long time no see. Glad to see you still hanging around!

Hunter,

Nice to be back... briefly sadly.

I've another travel job and, while I carry a laptop, it's a company laptop. Making matters worse, it get's "cleaned" by our IT guys routinely and scads of personal stuff; like mailing lists and forums, is somewhat frowned upon.

I do supplier audits now. We go out hired as a third party to audit and certify that suppliers manufacture things in the manner they say they do while using the materials they say they do. This means my laptop gets crammed full off all sorts of proprietary information belonging to both our clients and the people I'm auditing so my laptop get a pretty thorough "flushing" after each and ever visit.

All of that severely limits the amount of non-work material I keep or access on my machine. :(

It seems that in 2008 I'm back to being a paper & pencil Traveller again!


Have fun,
Bill
 
Hunter,

Stupidity? Old-timer's syndrome?

Nah, just at our age our brains are getting full (in my case I'm not exactly sure what with...) ;)

Actually, I thought Gateway had been tackled in MT.

Was originally a Judges Guild area but decanonized until we redid it and released Gateway to Destiny.
 
Back
Top