BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
IMHO only one person should be making changes. And it isn't Mongoose.
Should the OTU UWP Data be Updated?
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
casquilho
SOC-13
I voted on the poll, but I have to say I find the issue very funny. I have yet to meet a GM who did not change things in one form or another anyway. This included many of the basic background issues. Heck, some ignored the maps 100%.
So the fact that another person wants to change things to match their way of thinking does not seem odd to me.
Daniel
So the fact that another person wants to change things to match their way of thinking does not seem odd to me.
Daniel
Rhialto the Marvelous
SOC-13
What Mr. Whipsnade said in his #2.
An oversized starport is not the same as an undersized planet with an atmosphere. The latter is a physical aberration, the former is a setting plot hook.
An oversized starport is not the same as an undersized planet with an atmosphere. The latter is a physical aberration, the former is a setting plot hook.
chshrkt
SOC-12
Then just tell that player that he has inaccurate data. It is YOUR universe after all, right?
Yet again, I find a poll by WJP with extraneous stuff on what should be a yes/no/not_sure kind of question, resulting in my not being willing to vote.
I'm in favor of changing them, but I don't consider the old ones "daft" or any such hyperbole.
Then again, I don't mind unrealistic worlds. Really. But I know people who do, and it will be easier if the more egregious examples are fixed.
I'm in favor of changing them, but I don't consider the old ones "daft" or any such hyperbole.
Then again, I don't mind unrealistic worlds. Really. But I know people who do, and it will be easier if the more egregious examples are fixed.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
Gotta admit that I haven't voted either. Not so much because of the wording, I can parse the hyperbole, but because it doesn't have my choice.
If the Atmosphere/Hydro is off because the size is too small, fine, change the size. If the star type would make it impossible for native life to exist on a world where canon says it does, ok fix it. Otherwise I don't think it should be changed. The changes I support don't make much difference at all to the setting itself and 'fix' the more egregious of the 'daft' UWPs to be found.
If the Atmosphere/Hydro is off because the size is too small, fine, change the size. If the star type would make it impossible for native life to exist on a world where canon says it does, ok fix it. Otherwise I don't think it should be changed. The changes I support don't make much difference at all to the setting itself and 'fix' the more egregious of the 'daft' UWPs to be found.
No matter which way they go, someone will be peeved.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Class A or B Starports with a population code of 2 or less? (With some very rare exceptions I would think that a Population code of at least 5 for a Class A Starport and 4 for a Class B Starport.)
I am not saying that there aren't errors. I am saying that only one person should have the power to make those kind of changes especially to the most heavily used part of the OTU. And then only in extreme circumstances, should there even be a change. This isn't Gateway, where what is being changed was an area that was covered by a company that didn't sell lots of copies. This isn't Reaver's Deep where there is information there but it is incomplete. This is the most heavily used and most written about sector in the OTU. Changing the specs in the Spinward Marches scraps a serious body of work that people might want to use. (To include the reprints that MWM is selling from his website.)
If Mongoose doesn't like the stats in the Spinward Marches, let them develop someplace else.
An observation:
Lots of discussion here... a couple of statements of fact about who is doing what. Can any of the participants honestly say they know what's really going on?
Think carefully about your answer, because I'm fairly sure nobody has asked the person (that would be me) who actually knows what is going to happen, what is being done, and so forth.
I'm not planning in discussing this project on several boards so questions might have to be asked on site Avenger site; I'll just point out that at least one 'factual' statement above about what's happening is in fact based on an assumption and isn't entirely correct.
I'm sure that this whole business will pass into the common memory in the same way that I get hate mail for the stupid Dandelions I made up for Behind the Claw... even though Marc Miller did them for The Traveller Adventure.
Lots of discussion here... a couple of statements of fact about who is doing what. Can any of the participants honestly say they know what's really going on?
Think carefully about your answer, because I'm fairly sure nobody has asked the person (that would be me) who actually knows what is going to happen, what is being done, and so forth.
I'm not planning in discussing this project on several boards so questions might have to be asked on site Avenger site; I'll just point out that at least one 'factual' statement above about what's happening is in fact based on an assumption and isn't entirely correct.
I'm sure that this whole business will pass into the common memory in the same way that I get hate mail for the stupid Dandelions I made up for Behind the Claw... even though Marc Miller did them for The Traveller Adventure.
hunter
Ancient - Absent Friend
That's a good point. I'm going to rephrase the poll to a more generic, 'should the OTU UWPs be updated'. I think it's an interesting question. I won't however change the choices as that will screw up the poll.
I think you have a few more supporters these days Martin, I wouldn't worry about it too much!
I voted no, but then again, I really don’t care. I still have my cherished Supplement 3.
I can understand why some of us orthodox grognards might be upset about changes. We hear change and we immediately assume the worst case scenario: complete random regeneration of the UWP’s based on a new set of rules. However, so long as the changes are carefully thought out and don’t really affect the existing canon, it shouldn’t be a big deal.
Unfortunately, no matter what is done, someone’s not going to be happy with it.
-Fox
I can understand why some of us orthodox grognards might be upset about changes. We hear change and we immediately assume the worst case scenario: complete random regeneration of the UWP’s based on a new set of rules. However, so long as the changes are carefully thought out and don’t really affect the existing canon, it shouldn’t be a big deal.
Unfortunately, no matter what is done, someone’s not going to be happy with it.
-Fox
As someone who has actually been allowed to make some changes (population levels of some of the Sword Worlds), I agree completely with Bill. Some should be changed, some shouldn't. Which ones? Well, if they're broken, fix them. If they're not, don't.
Another of Bill's points are also important: If there is a canonical writeup of the place, try really hard to work with it. For instance, Forine is one of those too-small worlds with a breathable atmosphere. But it has been described in an adventure. So use one of the 'odd-ball' explanations on it (I've been working on a writeup of Forine and used the "unusually heavy core with an Earthlike mantle" explanation. IMO, you shouldn't eliminate ALL the odd worlds. Keep a few. Just make sure they're the exceptions and not the general rule.
Hans
I have a slightly different take: If you can think of an explanation (and haven't used it too often before
), don't change it. If you can't think of an explanation, do change it.That way, you can keep a few of the astronomically odd worlds. A few is fun, many is not. And getting rid of the M-class stars for most of the Earthlike worlds (but not all of them), that would be good too. As for social oddities. It's easier to come up with explanations for social oddities, but it's not always possible. A-class starports in systems with just enough people to run a shipyard, but no customers might be explainable (I actually have a bigger problem with B-class starports in systems with no customers for the boatyard), but having a bank keeping a shipyard in a near-empty system in working order for several centuries in the hope that one day the customers will show up is not, IMO, an explanation that works. Change that to a C- starport with a mothballed shipyard instead.
Hans
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
No, that's just as bad because then you end up with an unrealistic distribution of stars, and Malenfant's head explodes.
This is a huge can of worms.
If you fix the system generation rules so they produce realistic results (which LBB6 only partially did), you end up with the problem that not only are canon sectors unrealistic, they aren't even valid under the rules. This is true already, of course.
If you then fix the sectors so they're valid and realistic, they end up full of cold, red stars orbited by lifeless rocks. Not much fun, and canon goes out the window.
You can just fix the worst bits, but then you end up with sectors that break canon and are *still* unrealistic and invalid.
No, it fixes an old error, because the original assignment of stars to systems was done without reference to the UWPs of the mainworld. Someone just took a list of percentage distribution of stars and randomly assigned a star to each UWP. Which gave you scores of worlds with breathable atmospheres orbiting tidelocked around M class stars. I'm as fond of tidelocked worlds as the next guy, but I really think that entirely too many for fun.
(Actually, it was even worse by CT/MT/TNE/T4 rules. There you had scores of worlds with breathable atmospheres orbiting outside the life zone. You see, in Book 8 and its descendants, most M-class stars only have outer orbits.)
Just think of it as the Traveller Universe either not being the same as our universe (the flatness of the galaxy is another clue
) or that Traveller maps ignore a lot of stars. Including a lot of those worthless ones with Class M stars.Hans
Rhialto the Marvelous
SOC-13
I have a slightly different take: If you can think of an explanation (and haven't used it too often before
That way, you can keep a few of the astronomically odd worlds. A few is fun, many is not. And getting rid of the M-class stars for most of the Earthlike worlds (but not all of them), that would be good too. As for social oddities. It's easier to come up with explanations for social oddities, but it's not always possible. A-class starports in systems with just enough people to run a shipyard, but no customers might be explainable (I actually have a bigger problem with B-class starports in systems with no customers for the boatyard), but having a bank keeping a shipyard in a near-empty system in working order for several centuries in the hope that one day the customers will show up is not, IMO, an explanation that works. Change that to a C- starport with a mothballed shipyard instead.
That sounds like a good way to think of the whole thing. The focus is on the game setting; developed setting trumps reality. The rest is open for discussion.
Renaissance Man
SOC-12
This discussion is extremely interesting for someone who hasn't gamed in the OTU and doesn't know canon from his own arse. I see every UWP as a helpful suggestion, nothing more. The idea that some kind of change in one version of the rules could affect how I run my game is preposterous.
Similar threads
