Should the OTU UWP Data be Updated?

[R_Chance]

Figuring out the reasons for the odd UWPs was one of the most fun and creative aspects of using the OTU. I enjoyed the challenge myself. The "what the hell" aspect of working with those UWPs encouraged creativity and some of the best adventures we had.

 

[chshrkt]

... 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.

Sir, may I buy you a pint?

 

[moout_diablo]

... If the star type would make it impossible for native life to exist on a world where canon says it does, ok fix it. ...

That's the one place where I strenuously disagreed with the Doctor. Having a population doesn't mean it has to have been native. I could see red starts supporting some form of imported life, if only for a much shorter span.

I voted yes but only because I would like to see some of the crazier worlds fixed, like vacc worlds with billions of pop a parsec or two from an empty garden world. Social stuff (pop need not be changed but the vacc world could be given an atmo and a little water.

 

[rancke]

I need to word this gently, because I mean it as fact (factually speaking about my opinion, that is) and not as a basis to upset you (Hans) or start a flamewar.

So, read my comments with that in mind. They're not meant to offend.

Don't worry. I think of fellow role-players as kindred spirits until the opposite is proven. As such, I tend to interpret comments in the friendliest way possible. It takes quite a lot to offend me. Honest disagreement doesn't even come close. The only instances I can recall that really offended me were accusations of deliberate dishonesty. So fire away.

But, what you've said here is exactly why I'm against any changes. I've been in discussions with you, Hans. And, while I in no way mean this as disrespectful, I just plain don't agree with you on a lot of issues, especially when it comes to UWPs and trade routes and such.

And you are in perfect agreement with every last little thing the original authors established?

So, what we have, from my perspective, is someone who I think is "wrong" on this very issue changing OTU world data.

Actually, what you have is someone you disagree with petitioning an editor to make changes. I don't know for sure that Jon consulted Marc Miller, but I'm quite sure he didn't give us permission to make those changes without some form of sanction from Marc.

I don't have anything against Hans. I like the dude. I've exchanged friendly banter around the TML and this forum for years. But, I find myself not agreeing with him a lot on this very issue.

It just seems plain "wrong" to change OTU data. Even the pop codes.

I can see why you don't want changes for what you believe to be the worst. That's fair enough. Myself, I'd prefer discrepancies resolved the way I like best, but I'd much rather have them resolved, even if it is in a way I wouldn't have chosen myself, than not have them resolved, but I can appreciate that others may not feel the same way. But do you really feel that all OTU data is absolutely flawless and that any changes would automatically be for the worse? Because I can't see any other justification for not wanting them changed at all.

For instance, what specifically do you object to about changing (correcting ) the population level of Hofud from 6 to 8? Have you done a writeup of Hofud with half a million people that you now feel is invalidated? Were you planning to run an adventure on Hofud that won't work now? Were you working on a submission for JTAS? Just how does the change cause you any bother?



Hans

 

[rancke]

Plus, what Hans said above about stuffing a stellar distribution table onto the sector data confirms a long held suspicion about how it was done.

Ouch! Please don't take what I said as confirmation of anything. I have no special knowledge about how the stellar data for the Spinward Marches was generated. I based my statement entirely on the same information you did, the apparent total lack of any correlation between star type and Terran-norm and Terran-prime worlds. I should have said that the stellar distribution was apparently just stuffed onto the sector data. My apologies. I try not to state assumptions as facts, but sometimes I slip up. Sorry about that.


Hans

 

[Plankowner]

Regarding the stellar distribution. I don't know that this happened, but if they used the data right out of Scouts, they would have lots of screwed up results (like they have0.

Scouts failed to properly account for that +4 DM for ATM 4-9. Rolls greater than 12 should not have been M Dwarves, it should have been K or G v stars.

The tables were broken so if someone tried to use them (I know radical thought using the published world generation method on published sectors!), then they would have gotten screwed up results.

The problem with trying to match real world star types to Traveller, is the huge number of worlds with breathable atmospheres. There are not enough stars with habitable zones to fit all the habitable worlds into. Therefore, you have to say that not all the stars are present on the map and then you don't need to use the standard distribution of stars, you can pretty much use whatever you need to (lots of K, G and F stars and very few M stars and no OBA stars).

 

[Supplement Four]

But do you really feel that all OTU data is absolutely flawless and that any changes would automatically be for the worse? Because I can't see any other justification for not wanting them changed at all.

Of course you can't! You're "for" the change!

R_Chance, a few posts above, said it best, so I'll quote him: "Figuring out the reasons for the odd UWPs was one of the most fun and creative aspects of using the OTU. I enjoyed the challenge myself. The "what the hell" aspect of working with those UWPs encouraged creativity and some of the best adventures we had."

That's exactly how I feel.

That, and CT data is not something I would like to see changed--by anybody--and especially by someone whom I find myself on the opposite of the fence when these types of discussions have been made in the past.

For instance, what specifically do you object to about changing (correcting ) the population level of Hofud from 6 to 8?

Let me answer your question with another question. Why would you want to change the pop level of Hofud?

 

[rancke]

Of course you can't! You're "for" the change!

That most certainly depends on which change you're referring to. I'm not, for example, in favor of changing Alell's or Fornice's sizes, even though they're both too small for their atmospheres. Why? Because they have both been written up in adventures. I am in favor of changing the size of Feri and a stack of other worlds. Why? Because they're too small for their atmospheres, I've already used up my tolerance for super-dense worlds with Earthlike mantles on Alell and Fornice, and none of those worlds have been written up so I'm not messing up any previously published writeups by making those changes.

R_Chance, a few posts above, said it best, so I'll quote him: "Figuring out the reasons for the odd UWPs was one of the most fun and creative aspects of using the OTU. I enjoyed the challenge myself. The "what the hell" aspect of working with those UWPs encouraged creativity and some of the best adventures we had."

That's exactly how I feel.

I've enjoyed the challenge myself on a lot of occasions. But when I've tried for a long time to come up with a workable explanation and failed, the enjoyment vanishes. Sometimes there just isn't any way to explain a particular UWP to my satisfaction. Others disagree. I've had plenty of people tell me that Pixie makes perfect sense, really. But I've yet to see an explanation of Pixie's UWP that works for me.

That, and CT data is not something I would like to see changed--by anybody--and especially by someone whom I find myself on the opposite of the fence when these types of discussions have been made in the past.

You're either dodging my question or missing my point. I'll repeat it: Do you really feel that every single bit of CT information is absolutely flawless?

Let me answer your question with another question. Why would you want to change the pop level of Hofud?

That's not an answer, that's dodging my question, but I don't mind answering you:

Partly to fit with the canonical information about Hofud's historical role and its logical ramifications. Hofud was one of the three successor states to the Sacnoth Dominate that subsequently began fighting among themselves. In other words, Hofud was powerful enough to stave off Sacnoth and Gram both. Sacnoth and Gram, you'll remember, were the two most powerful Sword worlds back then. Hofud was also the cornerstone of several pocket empires up through history. Partly to provide a better counterweight to Sacnoth in the Border Worlds. Even with the changes Paul and I were able to elicit permission for, Sacnoth's population outweighs the rest of the Border Worlds by ten to one. Before, it was something like 30 to 1.

We didn't just pull those changes out of a hat, you know.

Now, how about answering my question? What specifically do you object to about changing the population level of Hofud from 6 to 8?


Hans

 

[robject]

]
R_Chance, a few posts above, said it best, so I'll quote him: "Figuring out the reasons for the odd UWPs was one of the most fun and creative aspects of using the OTU. I enjoyed the challenge myself. The "what the hell" aspect of working with those UWPs encouraged creativity and some of the best adventures we had."

Pseudo-official re-branding in process:

New IMTU code: wth-ct

Meaning: Classic "What The Hell" Traveller.

I like it.

 

[hunter]

Well the main problem with all of this is that whatever changes larger or small that Martin has decided upon haven't been run past or approved of by Marc. Those changes will now be reviewed before a decision to allow them or not is made.

 

[Supplement Four]

Sometimes there just isn't any way to explain a particular UWP to my satisfaction. Others disagree. I've had plenty of people tell me that Pixie makes perfect sense, really. But I've yet to see an explanation of Pixie's UWP that works for me.

This is what scares me. By your own admission, Pixie's UWP can be justified to others. But you're not convinced.

So...by your standard, that world might be changed.

You're either dodging my question or missing my point. I'll repeat it: Do you really feel that every single bit of CT information is absolutely flawless?

I think it is what it is. And, I haven't met a UWP yet that I couldn't justify to my own satisfaction.

So, in that regard, yes, I think its flawless. I think any UWP in the Spinward Marches can be justifed in some way or another.

Likely? Maybe not. But, some justification can be found.

And, the worlds that aren't "likely" are the most interesting. They shouldn't be changed. No aspect of them.

That's not an answer, that's dodging my question, but I don't mind answering you:

Partly to provide a better counterweight to Sacnoth in the Border Worlds. Even with the changes Paul and I were able to elicit permission for, Sacnoth's population outweighs the rest of the Border Worlds by ten to one. Before, it was something like 30 to 1.

We didn't just pull those changes out of a hat, you know.

Now, how about answering my question? What specifically do you object to about changing the population level of Hofud from 6 to 8?

I needed your answer to provide my own. I suspected that the reason Hofud's pop is changed would be something I wouldn't agree with. And, as you answer above shows, I was correct in thinking that way.

You're changing the pop of a world in the OTU because, to you, it makes a little more sense.

That's not reason enough to change OTU data. It's not an overwhelming, can't-live-without-it, answer.

Throughout the hundreds and hundreds of years that Hofud has been populated, there could be several palatable reasons for the world's population being what it is.

I'm strongly against any types of changes like these to the OTU. Basically, what is happening, is that the OTU is being changed on the basis of a few GM's preference.

And, that's not reason enough.

 

[Supplement Four]

Congratulations, you win a coconut for being the first person to ask *me* what's happening.

Martin,

It sounds like you're not inclined to discuss aspects of it here on this forum, but would you consider just posting a list here--just a list, with before and after UWPs, of the worlds that will be changed?

I wouldn't mind taking a look at that list to see what's being changed. And, I'm sure others here would like to peruse it as well.

 

[Foxroe]

I have to agree, I enjoy the challenge of exercising the right-side of my brain just as much as the left-side. When I see another small-diameter world with anything other than a thin atmosphere I think "OK, what's the reasoning behind this one?". I never think, "Man! I am sick and tired of these damnable super-dense worlds!".

Maybe there really are a lot of super-dense worlds out there. Who really knows. Maybe that's too boring. CT gave us at least one other idea (whether we think that it's possible or not), but I can think of others. Why not an artificially generated atmosphere? Does it really need to be a "breathable" atmosphere? Maybe its composed of a gas mixture containing slightly more massive elements than what is traditionally found in an atmosphere, so it's retained by the lower gravity. Could the unusual atmosphere originate from within the planet, and it is continuously bleeding off into space? Could it be due to some native life that has been converting mineral deposits to some elemental gas? Could it be the result of an Ancient terra-forming project? Perhaps the planet itself is entirely artificial, or maybe the planet itself is alive! Could it be that the condition is currently unexplainable and it still being debated and studied by scientists? The possibilities are endless.

I guess my point is, I can comfortably come up with a different explanation for any code possible under the original Book3 system, even as "unscientific" as it may be... and I'll enjoy it to boot! I'm sure the "scientists" amongst all of us will be able to easily rebut much of my random regurg-ination above, but I really don't care. Just about any creative explanation is good enough in my book, considering I'm willing to accept Vargr, artificial gravity, and FTL travel.

I voted "no" on this poll because that's just the stubborn grognard in me. The people that are publishing the game can change whatever they want, whether 33% of us like it or not. I'm not forced to buy the new material and no one can stop me from still enjoying my LBS3.

-Fox

 

[far-trader]

...Does it really need to be a "breathable" atmosphere?

By definition ALL atmosphere types, except exotic, corrosive, and insidious, are "breathable" in Traveller. That is they are a standard gas mix capable of supporting life as we know it. Some may be tainted, thin or thick, and require minor assistance to breath, but the mix remains the same. And I find even that extremely unlikely without special circumstances. To try to then "fix" the multitude where the size is too small (and again, in Traveller size IS gravity), well I have to wear belts so my pants stay up before long.

Add to that (when it came along) the orbital/stellar complexity and examples of even more bizarreness where even a world is impossible, never mind a small one with liquid water and a standard atmo, well, even the belt starts to strain.

Don't take me wrong, I'm all for imagination and found it fun too, a few times.

My biggest problem with it is it gets tiresome quick. I'd prefer that ALL the worlds be made less abnormal so that the Ref can make their own special worlds SPECIAL.

 

[Anthony]

I find implausibly small worlds with atmospheres not much of a problem; my players are unlikely to notice the problem. Social stupidity that is either obviously nonsensical or can easily and profitably be taken advantage of by PCs, however, is a fairly serious problem.

 

[aramis]

Actually, FT, it isnt defined as the O2-N2 mix, per se, just breathable non-irritant in the indicated density, and with a proportionate amount of O2.

Now, as I understand it, a "standard" atmosphere is 0.75b to 1.25b, with atmospheric O2 in the 0.16-0.25 bar PPO2... the inert may be Nitrogen, or may be something else...

 

[daryen]

Well the main problem with all of this is that whatever changes larger or small that Martin has decided upon haven't been run past or approved of by Marc. Those changes will now be reviewed before a decision to allow them or not is made.

Wow. That's pretty impressive.

You don't even really know what changes Martin and Mongoose are considering. All you have is hearsay, speculation, and rumor mongering. Yet, despite the complete lack of information available, you feel you must take it upon yourself to have Marc make decisions on changes that are, as of this point, unknown? On a product that is being produced for and by a completely different company? With a different license?

Why? Is it just too much to let Martin finish his effort so that he and Mongoose can present the changes and ideas to Marc?

 

[daryen]

It sounds like you're not inclined to discuss aspects of it here on this forum, but would you consider just posting a list here--just a list, with before and after UWPs, of the worlds that will be changed?

I wouldn't mind taking a look at that list to see what's being changed. And, I'm sure others here would like to peruse it as well.

Why? Why should he do that?

Let him to make whatever changes he wants to try and present them to Mongoose. Once he and Mongoose agree on what they want to do, they can present it to Marc. What is so wrong with that?

 

[daryen]

While I am on a roll, here is another thing: The UWP of the Spinward Marches has always been a continual evolution. These are NOT changes that reflect in-game progress, but rather retroactive canonical changes. Just about every list has done this and, quite frankly, the most cited UWP list, the Spinward Marches Campaign, is probably the worst resource with the most mistakes. And the most definitive resource, the Regency Sourcebook, is the most hated.

So, if "no changes can be made", what listing should be used? Why?

Quite frankly, what the real answer seems to be is that people want their changes made to the Spinward Marches, but no one else's.

 

[daryen]

Sometimes there just isn't any way to explain a particular UWP to my satisfaction. Others disagree. I've had plenty of people tell me that Pixie makes perfect sense, really. But I've yet to see an explanation of Pixie's UWP that works for me.

This is what scares me. By your own admission, Pixie's UWP can be justified to others. But you're not convinced.

So...by your standard, that world might be changed.

Lots of people accept that the lunar landings were faked and that there is a face on Mars. Just because someone buys a hairbrained explanation that is inconsistent with the rest of canon doesn't mean it actually makes sense.

And, quite frankly, when it gets right down to it, Hans has a greater knowledge of the Spinward Marches than just about anyone else I know. I don't agree with everything he says or has written (just ask him; he'll tell you), but he does have a vast knowledge of the Marches. Why should I agree with your opinion over his?

You're either dodging my question or missing my point. I'll repeat it: Do you really feel that every single bit of CT information is absolutely flawless?

I think it is what it is. And, I haven't met a UWP yet that I couldn't justify to my own satisfaction.

So, in that regard, yes, I think its flawless. I think any UWP in the Spinward Marches can be justifed in some way or another.

OK, if all of the CT UWP information is flawless, help me out with some questions here.

Which version of Zeycude is correct? The one with an Imperial naval base or the one without? Which version of Pavanne is correct?

Does Jesedipere exist or not?

What is the government on Chronor? On Nonym? On Terant 340?

What is the TL on Roup? On Terra Nova? On Dinomn? On Yori? On Regina?

These are all from CT sources, which are all, by your definition, "flawless". Which is correct? Are they all correct at the same time?