Should the OTU UWP Data be Updated?

[hunter]

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?

Actually no one had said that isn't what is going to happen. I said the changes will be reviewed before it will be determined if they are OK'd for release. Which is part of the normal process.

 

[hunter]

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

The question is moot. No one with an official capacity to make that decision has done so.

 

[daryen]

The question is moot. No one with an official capacity to make that decision has done so.

This question was asked to the audience in general, not to you specifically.

And the question is not moot. We don't have a definitive UWP listing for the Spinward Marches. Instead we have multiple competing listings. So, if no changes should be made, which listing is "correct"? Which listing is "definitive"? What is done with the various contradiction?

Seriously. Anyone who says that the CT data is "flawless" has apparently not actually looked at the available data. How are contradictions to be dealt with?

 

[hunter]

This question was asked to the audience in general, not to you specifically.

And the question is not moot. We don't have a definitive UWP listing for the Spinward Marches. Instead we have multiple competing listings. So, if no changes should be made, which listing is "correct"? Which listing is "definitive"? What is done with the various contradiction?

Yes it is a good question that needs to be answered. It's moot because there is a very short list of who can make that call. It's also something that should have been worked out with Marc before the project got started. Would have avoided a lot of the rumor and speculation had they been able to definitively say that the changes are X and they have been approved by Marc.

It wouldn't of course end the debate, but it would have answered the questions.

Seriously. Anyone who says that the CT data is "flawless" has apparently not actually looked at the available data. How are contradictions to be dealt with?

I don't think any one claims it is flawless, but any changes to the UWPs need to be considered carefully before being enacted.

 

[Icosahedron]

As a person who doesn't use the OTU at all, this really isn't my business, but I've been following the arguments with curiosity.
Just an observation, if I may:

Some people like to cling to canon, others less so.
Those who consider canon sacrosanct, prefer a stable environment and don't want any changes.
Those who want to change details are at perfect liberty to do so in their own TU

It seems to me that if there are discrepancies in the existing UWPs between different sources, there is an argument for resolving a 'correct canon' now that the opportunity has arisen. However, I cannot see any justification in changing things just because you can, and perhaps creating further confusion and discord.

Anyone who wants change can freely instigate it for themselves in private - those who don't want change shouldn't have it forced upon them.

A more 'realistic' set of sysgen rules, I am wholly in favour of; customers can use them or not as they see fit - just as they do with every other rule set.
The OTU does not have to be creatable with the RTT rules, it predates them and a simple paragraph to acquaint newbies with that fact should suffice.

I won't vote, as I consider myself ineligible, but for the above reasons I'd be in favour of No Change.

 

[rancke]

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.

If I'm ever in a position to convince Marc or one of his minions, it most certainly will be changed. Would you suggest that I didn't follow my own standards?

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 justified in some way or another.

And I think you're wrong. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

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.

Ah, I see. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that that was an indisputable fact; I thought it was just your opinion. Your unsupported opinion backed by no arguments other than your gut feelings. Silly me.

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.

So in other words, the change does not inconvenience you in any way whatsoever. It just offends your notion of what is fitting and proper. I'm afraid that's just not enough to sway my opinion.

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

No, I suggested the change because it made a lot more sense. Presumably it was approved because TPTB agreed.

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

Please! The day I find myself sufficiently upset by anything connected with Traveller to even approach something that could, by some stretch of the imagination, be considered as serious as that, I'll drop Traveller and get myself another hobby.

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.

Yes, and we used some of them on other worlds. Colada, for instance.

I'm strongly against any types of changes like these to the OTU.

That I've gathered. I still don't understand why, though.

Basically, what is happening, is that the OTU is being changed on the basis of a few GM's preference.

No, when it is changed, it's on the basis of an author convincing TPTB that it's a good idea.

And, that's not reason enough.

From what I can gather, you're opposed to it because you're opposed to it. Not, IMO, a very convincing reason.


Hans

 

[rancke]

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.

If by "all of this" you mean this discussion, I don't see any problem. I don't expect anything I write here, in this forum, to have much influence on what Martin and EDG is going to do or not do. I just thought it was an interesting discussion.


Hans

 

[rancke]

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?

And does Keanou have a hydrography score of 0 or 2?


Hans

 

[rancke]

I don't think any one claims it is flawless, but any changes to the UWPs need to be considered carefully before being enacted.

On that I agree with you one hundred percent. The last thing I want is anyone running through the UWPs and 'correcting' them according to some automatic scheme. Every change should indeed be considered individually and carefully first.


Hans

 

[Andrew Boulton]

And the most definitive resource, the Regency Sourcebook, is the most hated.

Is it? Why?

 

[rancke]

Those who want to change details are at perfect liberty to do so in their own TU

That is perfectly true and completely irrelevant. After all, those who refuse change are just as much at liberty to ignore them in their own TU.

And, BTW, those who wants to write Traveller material are certainly not at liberty to just ignore canon!


Hans

 

[Ishmael]

IF things get changed.........
Regardless of HOW things are changed, this is a great opportunity to make ONE standard OTU map instead of having various ( possibly small ) differences between various sets.

 

[Rhialto the Marvelous]

That I've gathered. I still don't understand why, though.

It's quite simple.

So far, we've focused on in-game reasons. Should Traveller be a game or a simulation? But there's also a fundamental metagame reason.

Apart from Glorantha and the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, Traveller is the longest running, which is to say the most persistent published gameworld in the hobby.

Over the years, minor contradictions notwithstanding, it has acquired its own existential weight, independently of any one book, player, or author, even Marc.

A revision is a threat to this persistency.

Not in the sense that size 2 or 4 matters in any particular case. But in the sense that from now on, every SM UWP published in any book is initially in doubt. It needs verification. Before using it you need to look it up in the Mongoose book. Maybe they changed it?

The point is not just the major pain this is practically, but the doubt it casts on the independence of the gameworld.

Irrational? Plz. We're pretending to be bipedal wolves here.

 

[Jame]

I voted yes. Make of that what you will.

 

[Vargas]

It's quite simple.

So far, we've focused on in-game reasons. Should Traveller be a game or a simulation? But there's also a fundamental metagame reason.

Apart from Glorantha and the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, Traveller is the longest running, which is to say the most persistent published gameworld in the hobby.

Over the years, minor contradictions notwithstanding, it has acquired its own existential weight, independently of any one book, player, or author, even Marc.

A revision is a threat to this persistency.

Not in the sense that size 2 or 4 matters in any particular case. But in the sense that from now on, every SM UWP published in any book is initially in doubt. It needs verification. Before using it you need to look it up in the Mongoose book. Maybe they changed it?

The point is not just the major pain this is practically, but the doubt it casts on the independence of the gameworld.

Nicely stated.

 

[far-trader]

...A revision is a threat to this persistency.

At least you didn't say consistency :smirk:

But really, with umpteen different versions, each contributing a further fracturing and factionalizing of the fan base, somehow we all know it as TRAVELLER.

And every single one of those additions/editions after LBB 1-3 threw wrenches into the consistency to various degrees without damaging any perceived persistency.

So yet another rule set comes along and throws* it's own bend to some parts and people are in a panic?

"OH MY EMPEROR! They can't do that! Traveller will DIE!!"

"But if they change that MY GAME will be broken!!"

"How are new players supposed to know what's real and what's not?!"

I just don't get it. Nor understand how I'm part of it.

Mongoose could come out with a Traveller rules set that coded UWP in plain language instead of numbers, without changing anything, and they'd probably be crucified for that too :smirk:

Now all you kiddies who haven't already memorized what the full UWP string describes, go do that. And for extra credit memorize the USP string description from High Guard too

* potentially, yes nothing is certain yet, this is hypothetical

 

[jcrocker]

Over the years, minor contradictions notwithstanding, it has acquired its own existential weight, independently of any one book, player, or author, even Marc.

A revision is a threat to this persistency.

How is that, exactly? A revision is a revision. If I don't like it, I will not use it, same with any other aspect of the game.

For a real-world example, the Catholic Church has been around for how long now? And they've revised a few things here and there.

Not in the sense that size 2 or 4 matters in any particular case. But in the sense that from now on, every SM UWP published in any book is initially in doubt. It needs verification. Before using it you need to look it up in the Mongoose book. Maybe they changed it?

The point is not just the major pain this is practically, but the doubt it casts on the independence of the gameworld.

I don't see that. If information is good for my TU, I'll use it - I'm really not concerned about its pedigree. If they can systematically clean up a few inconsistencies, good for them.

 

[Icosahedron]

Originally Posted by Icosahedron
Those who want to change details are at perfect liberty to do so in their own TU

That is perfectly true and completely irrelevant. After all, those who refuse change are just as much at liberty to ignore them in their own TU.

Not so. I thought I had made this clear, as it was the crux of my argument - the fact that these are the people who 'refuse change', the people who do cling to canon, ensures that they are not at liberty to ignore canon.
If you make an unofficial change they can ignore it, but if you change official canon they are obliged by their own loyalty to canon to adopt the changes.
Go your own way by all means, but it is improper to compel others to follow you.

And, BTW, those who wants to write Traveller material are certainly not at liberty to just ignore canon!

True, so maybe they should follow canon rather than trying to change canon to fit their own ideas?

Before using it you need to look it up in the Mongoose book. Maybe they changed it?

The point is not just the major pain this is practically, but the doubt it casts on the independence of the gameworld.

Ah! Say no more.

 

[Icosahedron]

If information is good for my TU, I'll use it - I'm really not concerned about its pedigree.

Which gives you a freedom that others, by their loyalty to canon, do not share.

Personally, I agree with your take on Traveller material, I use what I like and discard the rest, but there are others for whom the pedigree of the OTU is very important, and their views ought to be respected.

If you want to do a remake of 'Gone with the Wind', go right ahead - but do not cajole the heirs of Margaret Mitchell (MM, geddit? ) to change the official storyline, just because you think Mr Butler should give a damn!

 

[coliver988]

[FONT=arial,helvetica] If you make an unofficial change they can ignore it, but if you change official canon they are obliged by their own loyalty to canon to adopt the changes.
Go your own way by all means, but it is improper to compel others to follow you.[/FONT]

Here's where I think I am getting confused about the entire idea of canon: is canon specific to a specific edition of Traveller, e.g., Gurps Traveller has it's own history, but it is canon respective of Gurps. CT has a canon version of the Marches, as does MegaTraveller, TNE, etc. Each of those have minor variations from each other. Since this will be for Mongoose Traveller, if you are playing a CT game it won't matter: you won't be using that resource anyway. Playing CT does not force you into using the Mongoose version of the Marches, you use the CT stuff already published 20+ years ago. No one is rewriting the CT Supplement 3.

And perhaps, bringing up the Metagame idea, it is like the old Thieves World idea: a central idea used by a variety of authors that could have contradictions, or a shared RPG source that was Traveller compatible (never got that, so I've no idea how they handled magic and stuff). Since it is a licensed universe, the bottom line for canon is what the license allows.