Should the OTU UWP Data be Updated?

[hunter]

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.

Unfortunately that isn't reality. People use material from various systems. The GTU is specifically an 'alternate reality' in which the Rebellion never occurred. Everything else is set in the same OTU.

 

[coliver988]

Unfortunately that isn't reality. People use material from various systems. The GTU is specifically an 'alternate reality' in which the Rebellion never occurred. Everything else is set in the same OTU.

But the same OTU isn't even the same between editions!

For an interesting sidetrack, the definition of canon is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction). To make a somewhat long quote (sorry)

When the body of work nominally set in the same fictional universe becomes large enough, it can happen that new material, such as might be found in spin-off television shows, prequels and books, contradicts earlier material. Such contradictions may be a result of bad research, or an attempt to revise, correct or retcon a perceived error in earlier material. The question is which material to favour and which to ignore when attempting to resolve all the material into a consistent whole. Two simple approaches are the "principle of first mention" in which information in the original work provides a foundation which later material must respect, and the revisionist model in which the latest work always supersedes earlier material. However, the situation can be much more complicated.

Anyway - seems like the word canon itself is one of those slippery slope things. We have striking arguments for first mention as well as revionisism. I've not voted here since, as normal, I can't make up my mind (and have not actually played since 1988), but I'm enjoying the show! Seems we're in the much more complicated area.

 

[hunter]

But the same OTU isn't even the same between editions!

The discrepancies in canon between versions are not all that great, particularly in comparison to the OTU and the GTU.

 

[coliver988]

Quote:
Originally Posted by coliver988
But the same OTU isn't even the same between editions!

The discrepancies in canon between versions are not all that great, particularly in comparison to the OTU and the GTU.

and we really don't know if the disrepancies in RTT will be that great either (according to a similar thread, there is at least 1 entire system missing between stuff in CT - that seems pretty great to me at least). So all this could be the proverbial tempest in a teapot and amount to nothing in the end.

But still entertaining!

 

[Supplement Four]

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.

Sing it, brother!

Amen!!!!!

 

[Supplement Four]

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

This is exactly why the OTU data shouldn't be "corrected". It's because we can't agree on what needs changing and how to change it.

This is my point.

Someone, with whom I don't agree, is following his own standards and changing OTU data.

Shouldn't happen. Why? Because not everyone thinks the way you do about this, Hans.

The pop code in the earlier post is a prime example. Your reasons aren't good enough to enact the change.

Yet, you are in a position to do so, and you will do it, right or wrong, because its what you feel is "correct". And, to heck with anyone who disagrees with that.

 

[Supplement Four]

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.

Yes. Good job. Well put.

 

[aramis]

If there are any two people I'd trust to "fix" the Marches, Hans and MJD are the two.

Why? because both of them are willing to go to Marc and say, "This needs to be changed, and here's how and why..." and both of them write quite well.

I disagree with both of them on many things, but I know that either is willing to be consistent and gentle in making alterations.

Most people will never notice.
Most grogs are unlikely to care in the long run.

Let Martin do his job in peace. If he can't convince Marc, then the point is moot, since the only person who REALLY matters on the issue is Marc. Canon is whatever Marc declares is canon. (by corollory, Martin, Hunter, Gar, and Ken never really mattered on that score, either... Martin matters now only because he is the on in the position to sell Marc on changes.)

And, as grognards, we only matter in a peripheral sense at all, in that our reviews may shape how newbs view it, but were are neither the primary market segment nor the ones who will be running it for most of the newbs....

 

[Foxroe]

Let Martin do his job in peace. If he can't convince Marc, then the point is moot, since the only person who REALLY matters on the issue is Marc. Canon is whatever Marc declares is canon. (by corollory, Martin, Hunter, Gar, and Ken never really mattered on that score, either... Martin matters now only because he is the on in the position to sell Marc on changes.)

And, as grognards, we only matter in a peripheral sense at all, in that our reviews may shape how newbs view it, but were are neither the primary market segment nor the ones who will be running it for most of the newbs....

Makes sense.

On a lighter note, has anyone ever posted/published the differences in the SM UWP's from source to source? I was thinking of tackling it myself, but there are so many other things I would like to do, I'm not sure I have the time...

Wait a minute, this sounds remarkably like the Imperial Fringe...

Hey, that would be great! Run the Imperial Fringe as the overall adventure arc, and have the players discover the differences between the original "canon" UWP's and the ones that will be in MongTrav's SM. Hmmm...

(EDIT: Do we know what era MongTrav is supposed to be based in?)

-Fox

 

[aramis]

1105- just before the 5FW...

 

[Thuban]

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.

The history of the game is worth preserving intact.

Where there's a conflict between newer and older canonical references, the original takes precedence.

All IMO, of course.

 

[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.

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.

Of course they're at liberty to ignore canon. That they refuse to do so is not, does not, IMO, give them any right to hijack the game from the rest of us.

Unless they can convince Marc Miller to let them, of course.

I absolutely refuse to put up with silly inconsistencies in my TU. Does that give me the right to hijack the OTU from those who insist on clinging to inconsistencies as long as they're hallowed by long tradition? Only if I can convince Marc Miller to let me. But I think I have just as much right to try as others have to try to keep the OTU frozen.

I'm not claiming any rights here that I'm not willing to give to those who disagree with me, but I absolutely refuse to concede that they have rights that I don't have.

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.

Well, if someone doesn't change inconsistent stuff, I'm obliged by my refusal to countenance inconsistencies to ignore it. And since I'd like my TU to be as close to the OTU as possible, that's just as much a problem for me as loyalty to canon is to them. Why are their problems more worthy of respect than mine?

Go your own way by all means, but it is improper to compel others to follow you.

I do not concede that I'm compelling anyone (except other Traveller authors, of course ) to follow me by convincing Marc Miller to change something in canon. I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head. To speak of compelling anyone is completely over-the-top.

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?

I'd much rather they did everything in their power to develop a good, fun role-playing background (and write good, fun adventures, of course). Which, IMO, includes making every effort to make said background believable and self-consistent. Well... not every effort. A fun background trumps self-consistency. I do want anti-matter bits floating round in the Shionthy system after 300,000 years even that is very unlikely (as a professional astronomer recently informed me that it is).



Hans

 

[rancke]

Unfortunately that isn't reality. People use material from various systems. The GTU is specifically an 'alternate reality' in which the Rebellion never occurred. Everything else is set in the same OTU.

And even the GTU is the same as the OTU up to around 1114 (and very similar for a while longer).


Hans

 

[rancke]

This is exactly why the OTU data shouldn't be "corrected". It's because we can't agree on what needs changing and how to change it.

This is my point.

We don't need to. We have an arbiter (Marc Miller).

Someone, with whom I don't agree, is following his own standards and changing OTU data.

Shouldn't happen. Why? Because not everyone thinks the way you do about this, Hans.

You're right. Not everybody thinks like I do. But why is my opinion less valuable than yours? I think broken stuff should be fixed.

The pop code in the earlier post is a prime example. Your reasons aren't good enough to enact the change.

In your opinion my reasons weren't good enough. What makes you automatically right and me automatically wrong? Why are your opinions worth more than mine?

Yet, you are in a position to do so, and you will do it, right or wrong, because its what you feel is "correct". And, to heck with anyone who disagrees with that.

Apparently you don't realize that I could take that sentence and with exactly the same amount of justification reverse it to apply to you. "Right or wrong, if you could, you'd refuse me permission to make any changes because that's what you feel is "correct". And, to heck with anyone who disagrees with that."


Hans

 

[rancke]

The history of the game is worth preserving intact.

Where there's a conflict between newer and older canonical references, the original takes precedence.

All IMO, of course.

The game is worth preserving if it works. If it doesn't work, it should be fixed.

Where there's a conflict between newer and older canonical references, the one that makes for the best role-playing background takes precedence.

IMO.


Hans

 

[Icosahedron]

I wish I were computer-savvy enough to do nested quotes like you, Hans, but I'll manage without them for now.

How do you do them, BTW?

Of course they're at liberty to ignore canon. That they refuse to do so is not, does not, IMO, give them any right to hijack the game from the rest of us.

Unless they can convince Marc Miller to let them, of course.

But they're not the ones doing any hijacking.

I absolutely refuse to put up with silly inconsistencies in my TU. Does that give me the right to hijack the OTU from those who insist on clinging to inconsistencies as long as they're hallowed by long tradition? Only if I can convince Marc Miller to let me. But I think I have just as much right to try as others have to try to keep the OTU frozen.

As always, the burden of justification should lie with the party advocating change.

I'm not claiming any rights here that I'm not willing to give to those who disagree with me, but I absolutely refuse to concede that they have rights that I don't have.

Well, if someone doesn't change inconsistent stuff, I'm obliged by my refusal to countenance inconsistencies to ignore it. And since I'd like my TU to be as close to the OTU as possible, that's just as much a problem for me as loyalty to canon is to them. Why are their problems more worthy of respect than mine?

For two reasons:
Firstly, although both parties claim to want to stay close to canon, one party is adapting their TU to canon, the other is adapting canon to their TU. Personally, I see one of these as less altruistic than the other.
(Albeit subconsciously - I'm not making any personal accusations here, just outlining why I think one party holds the moral high ground).

Secondly, we don't have an equality of power/persuasion here. We're not dealing with two equal bodies of fans, each petitioning Marc with their own point of view. Instead, we have a group of fans whose opinions may or may not even be heard by Marc, competing with a group who are currently involved in a lucrative business deal with him.
(Again, I'm not suggesting anything deliberately underhanded here, I'm simply outlining something you may not have considered when you claim an equal right to petition Marc in your second quote above).

I do not concede that I'm compelling anyone (except other Traveller authors, of course ) to follow me by convincing Marc Miller to change something in canon. I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head. To speak of compelling anyone is completely over-the-top.

The reason I'm proceeding with this discussion is because I still believe that maybe you don't recognise the gun you're holding for what it is. If I can bring you to recognise that your proposed actions will have the effect of bringing the TUs of all other canon-followers into line with your own, 'superior' TU - just because it is now canon, whether they like it or not - my self-appointed task is complete.

I'd much rather they did everything in their power to develop a good, fun role-playing background (and write good, fun adventures, of course). Which, IMO, includes making every effort to make said background believable and self-consistent. Well... not every effort. A fun background trumps self-consistency. I do want anti-matter bits floating round in the Shionthy system after 300,000 years even that is very unlikely (as a professional astronomer recently informed me that it is).

Hans

Personally, I agree with your take on the OTU completely, Hans, and If I used the OTU, I'd scribble out the bits I didn't like, too. The difference is, I wouldn't petition Marc to do it for me. Having fun is what the game is all about, and a logical, consistent background is a good idea IMHO. But my opinion doesn't count for much - why should yours?

 

[rancke]

I wish I were computer-savvy enough to do nested quotes like you, Hans, but I'll manage without them for now.

How do you do them, BTW?

I take a full copy of the text with me into the editor and cut and paste as needed.

But they're not the ones doing any hijacking.

Assuming for purposes of argument that they exist (see below), I think they do.

As always, the burden of justification should lie with the party advocating change.

And I'm perfectly willing to try to convince Marc Miller et alii. And to resign myself when I don't succeed. For instance, I tried to convince SJG to drop the rule about streamlined ships losing 20% of their interior volume. I failed. So now I'm just sticking to making deckplans for unstreamlined ships.

...although both parties claim to want to stay close to canon, one party is adapting their TU to canon, the other is adapting canon to their TU.

I'm not adapting canon to my TU. My Trojan Reach is very different from that of the OTU (because I did a lot of work on it about a month before DGP published a writeup of it ). I wouldn't dream of trying to convince MM to substitute my version for the existing one, even though I like my own better. I'm trying to fix something that I think is broken. Pretty darn noble of me, really .

Secondly, we don't have an equality of power/persuasion here. We're not dealing with two equal bodies of fans, each petitioning Marc with their own point of view. Instead, we have a group of fans whose opinions may or may not even be heard by Marc, competing with a group who are currently involved in a lucrative business deal with him.

Lucrative business deal? (I had put in three Big Smile smileys here, but we're apparently limited to four in all. Isn't that a bit niggardly? It used to be ten. )

(Again, I'm not suggesting anything deliberately underhanded here, I'm simply outlining something you may not have considered when you claim an equal right to petition Marc in your second quote above).

I can assure you that if anyone came up with a good writeup of any of these disputed systems, they'd have every chance of getting it published in JTAS Online. Of course, it would have to be a good one to make it from there into canon.

The reason I'm proceeding with this discussion is because I still believe that maybe you don't recognize the gun you're holding for what it is. If I can bring you to recognize that your proposed actions will have the effect of bringing the TUs of all other canon-followers into line with your own, 'superior' TU - just because it is now canon, whether they like it or not - my self-appointed task is complete.

Personally, I agree with your take on the OTU completely, Hans, and If I used the OTU, I'd scribble out the bits I didn't like, too.

OK, you wouldn't be bothered, you're just arguing on behalf of others. So just who are those poor people I'm trying to victimize? Do they even exist? Are there actually any die-hard Traveller referees who are incapable of ignoring anything they don't like in canon? Anyone who broken-heartedly had to change the Hofud-with-half-a-million-people of their TU to a Hofud-with-half-a-billion-people when Sword Worlds came out and had his enjoyment of his campaign utterly ruined? Could we hear from anyone who'd actually be inconvenienced if Martin and EDG manages to get some UWPs changed?

The difference is, I wouldn't petition Marc to do it for me. Having fun is what the game is all about, and a logical, consistent background is a good idea IMHO. But my opinion doesn't count for much - why should yours?

Believe me, if my opinion counted for much, the OTU would already look -- well, not very much different, but certainly a bit different.


Hans

 

[Thuban]

The game is worth preserving if it works. If it doesn't work, it should be fixed.

"Broken" and "fixed" are often in the eye of the beholder.

Where there's a conflict between newer and older canonical references, the one that makes for the best role-playing background takes precedence.

But what's best for you and your game may not be best for me and mine.

Leave the OTU alone. It is what it is. Give referees and players the tools to change what they want to change for their games, but don't make the changes for them.

Once again, all IMO.

 

[Supplement Four]

@Hans

The reason I'm proceeding with this discussion is because I still believe that maybe you don't recognise the gun you're holding for what it is. If I can bring you to recognise that your proposed actions will have the effect of bringing the TUs of all other canon-followers into line with your own, 'superior' TU - just because it is now canon, whether they like it or not...

I don't seem to be putting my feelings down on paper (this forum) as well as I should.

Luckily, there's some like-minded Travellers out there who are more eloquent than I.

And, Icosahedron said that beautifully.

You don't recognize the gun you're holding. Yep. That's what I mean to say, too.

 

[Icosahedron]

I take a full copy of the text with me into the editor and cut and paste as needed.

I can't seem to get a full copy - if it's the 'multiquote' feature, it doesn't seem to do anything for me. <shrug> Not to worry, it's no great loss.

OK, you wouldn't be bothered, you're just arguing on behalf of others. So just who are those poor people I'm trying to victimize? Do they even exist? Are there actually any die-hard Traveller referees who are incapable of ignoring anything they don't like in canon? Anyone who broken-heartedly had to change the Hofud-with-half-a-million-people of their TU to a Hofud-with-half-a-billion-people when Sword Worlds came out and had his enjoyment of his campaign utterly ruined? Could we hear from anyone who'd actually be inconvenienced if Martin and EDG manages to get some UWPs changed?

Hans

Ok, I've gone about as far as I can with this. Except to say that according to the poll, somewhat over 30% of respondents want the OTU left alone - that's not an insignificant percentage, though I don't know how it translates to numbers. I think I've achieved my objectives for now, so I'll let the others speak for themselves. It's been an interesting discussion.