Should the OTU UWP Data be Updated?

[Thuban]

Perhaps not. I'd love a few examples, though. In what way was the changes to the populations of Hofud, Dyrnwyn, Durendal, and Sting bad for you and yours? What problems would changing some world sizes cause you? What problems would changing some starports cause you? What changes do you fear Mongoose would wreak on you Spinward Marches?

Most importantly, why would any changes anyone wreaks on the OTU version of the Spinward Marches affect your Spinward Marches, unless you yourself apply them to your TU? Please show me the mythological "gun" that Isocahedron and Supplement 4 speaks of (since they're apparently not going to).

Go back and re-read Rhialto's post up-thread, and you will have my answer to all of your questions.

Also, I don't appreciate the increasingly snarky tone of your replies.

 

[rancke]

Let's not take this discussion into a "tone" where we're arguing with malice.

Certainly not.

I want to make sure you understand that just because I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I think you're an evil person, pull the legs off of kittens, and everything you say is something that should be ignored.

I don't mean to come across that way at all, and I apologize if I do. I simply disagree with you on this issue (and, some "like" issues in the past).

And you didn't come across like that. But you (and several others) do come across as having difficulties coming up with concrete (as opposed to theoretical) arguments. No offense intended.

But, to answer your questions, the "gun" Ico was speaking of is that you were in a favored position to force through the changes you thought were needed. You had the ear of the right people. That's the "gun".

I thought that was clear from Ico's post.

Well, first of all, I don't see myself as being in the position you ascribe to me. But that's not really the part I have issues with. The part I really can't get my head around is how any official changes to the OTU, no matter who are responsible for them, can possibly "force" anyone to adopt them. Isocahedron then began talking about people who are so loyal to the Official Traveller Universe that the just HAD to adopt all changes, even if they absolutely loathed them. I'm wondering if these people actually exist, and if they do, if they can explain to me why they are that dependent on official stamps of approval.

I would be totally against changing the pop codes and govt codes, TL's, Starports, and things like that just because of whatever reason the writers felt that the Spinward Marches 1105 data should be changed. That's wrong. And, they've got the "gun" on us who don't want it changed.

If you could explain to me why it would be wrong, it might help. After all, there are lots of things about the OTU that would cause me some annoyance if it was changed. I know why I would consider it wrong to change any number of UWPs (It usually one of two reasons: 1) 'That's easy to explain' and 2) 'That has already been explained'. But why is it wrong to change inconsistent or self-contradictory information? So far I've been unable to get anyone to give me anything more specific than "That's just wrong!" Well, I have a perfect answer to that:

"Is not!"



Hans

 

[hunter]

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.

That statement can easily be turned around on those who want to change canon.

You are at liberty to ignore canon as it currently exists. That you refuse to do so and insist on change doesn't give you the right to hijack the game from the rest of the fan base.

That said, I support some changes

 

[rancke]

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.

That statement can easily be turned around on those who want to change canon.

I believe I've endeavored to express the same opinion myself.

You are at liberty to ignore canon as it currently exists. That you refuse to do so and insist on change doesn't give you the right to hijack the game from the rest of the fan base.

Actually, I'm not at liberty to ignore canon as it currently exists when writing Traveller material for publication.

When I'm not writing for publication, I can and have ignored canon to my heart's content.

That said, I support some changes

You fiend!!


Hans

 

[hunter]

Actually, I'm not at liberty to ignore canon as it currently exists when writing Traveller material for publication.

When I'm not writing for publication, I can and have ignored canon to my heart's content.

Which IMO is one of the reasons any changes need to be though out carefully before being made.

You fiend!!

Heh, that's mild compared to some of the things said of me on other forums

 

[Ishmael]

Canon is not forced upon individual ref's...but it is forced upon those wanting to write for Trav? And because individual ref's often base events in their TU on canon, the effect can trickle down. And given that supplements are wanted by many to help ref's with little time to create their own stuff. non-OTU's will generally be colored by canon. That's the 'gun' so far as I see it.

no wonder all the gnashing of teeth about it.

Thank goodness I came to my senses and realised that it won't affect me no matter what.

 

[rancke]

Which IMO is one of the reasons any changes need to be though out carefully before being made.

Amen, Brother! You speak the Truth! Can I get a Hallelujah from the choir?!

I would never advocate changing canon without thinking it over very carefully.

One of my many projects is an adventure set on Walston in District 268. Walston has been written up before (in TDG), and I've tried to include everything. It is one of those worlds orbiting a Class M V star, and so should be tidelocked. However, the existing description makes absolutely no mention of this rather obvious fact. So what I did was say that the Walston system was too young for it to've become tidelocked. This would also make it much too young to've developed a biosphere of its own, yet it had one anyway. As usually when something like this is found, the Ancients are suspected, but no one knows for sure.

This type of "explanation" ("It's strange, isn't it? It's a complete mystery!") works (for me, no doubt there are people for whom it doesn't work) as long as it isn't used over and over again. One inhabitable world mysteriously still retaining its rotation close to an M-class main sequence star is fun; many such worlds is just belief-suspender-snapping.

My point is, though, that I don't want to get rid of all the weird worlds. Just enough of them to make the ones that remain special.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Canon is not forced upon individual ref's...but it is forced upon those wanting to write for Trav? And because individual ref's often base events in their TU on canon, the effect can trickle down. And given that supplements are wanted by many to help ref's with little time to create their own stuff. non-OTU's will generally be colored by canon. That's the 'gun' so far as I see it.

But my point is that if they've already based their work on existing canon then they still have that work and can just ignore the new stuff. And if they haven't based any work on the old stuff yet, they can just base it on the new stuff and no harm done (Or on the old stuff, if they prefer that).

Thank goodness I came to my senses and realized that it won't affect me no matter what.

Thank you! That really cheered me up to hear!


Hans

 

[hunter]

Amen, Brother! You speak the Truth! Can I get a Hallelujah from the choir?!

I would never advocate changing canon without thinking it over very carefully.

Which includes making Marc part of that thinking, preferably during the discussions and not afterward, if only for the fact that you might end up having to totally rewrite things if he does not approve.

There were changes made to the Gateway UWPs, but I consulted with Marc and got his approval beforehand.

Contrary to popular belief, Marc isn't necessarily against changes being made.

 

[rancke]

Contrary to popular belief, Marc isn't necessarily against changes being made.

I know. He's just opposed to changing UWPs to fit preconceptions. Whereas I am in favor of changing them to fit the preconceptions that 1) There's a correlation between the habitability of worlds and the number of people living on them and 2) Worlds interact with and affect neighboring worlds.

But I'd never dream of trying to sneak anything past him. If he insist on keeping something that I dislike, I'll either accept it or just not work with that particular world. It's not like there's a shortage of worlds to set adventures on!


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

But why is it wrong to change inconsistent or self-contradictory information? So far I've been unable to get anyone to give me anything more specific than "That's just wrong!" Well, I have a perfect answer to that:

"Is not!"

Let's just say, being hypothetical....

That I think, in the deepest part of my heart, that the OTU UWP data should be changed so that there are more worlds with standard atmospheres. Let's say I back that up with a whole lot of references, here and there, where I point out, "Hey! If you read between the lines just right, THIS IS what canon is saying! So, let's change the worlds so that most worlds where Travellers adventure--most of the subsector capitals, anyway, have a standard atmosphere...

"You see, it makes so much sense to me that the Scout Service would be attracted to worlds with standard atmos over other types of worlds. It makes sense that those are the worlds that would be colonized first. Plus, it's easier for the GM and players in that, like Star Trek, each world you go to has a breathable atmo--and the GM doesn't have to worry with Vacc Suits and such. It'll make for a better game!

"And, it makes so much sense! Did I already say that! Canon supports it. Look at the history of the Marches. The Solomani colonized a large chunk of it. So, they'd prefer standard class atmos.

"So, let's do that. Let's make many of the system main worlds and most of the subsector capitals have a std. atmo. We have a little room there to throw in some variation...so that we don't wipe out all the diversity. We can have thin std atmos and dense std atmos. Heck, we'll even throw in the occasional tainted std atmo.

"Won't the OTU be so much better that way? Won't it be so much more believable?

"And, while we're at it, since this is such a grand opportunity, we should also look at world size too. You see, the Solomani would be most attracted to worlds with 1G gravity fields. So, what we need to do is skew the world size more towards Size 8 so that there are more worlds out there were a Solomani would rightfully colonize. I mean, it's just not logical that a Solomani, used to a std. 1G field would volunteer to live the rest of his life colonizing a Size 4 world where the G field is half a G. Same goes for the bigger worlds too. It doesn't make any sense that normal humans would colonize a Size 4 world when there is a perfectly fine Size 8 world right next door.

"And, hey, while we're at it, let's re-arrange the X-Boat lanes too! Let's make them make sense! The X-Boat communication lanes are also the main trade jump routes, so we need to make some changes, here and there, so that they all make sense.

"This is a grand opportunity. We can finally get the Spinward Marches, officially, the way I...er, I mean...we, yeah, we...the way we want it.

"Are you with me!"







Would you agree with that, above, Hans, if that were what I was selling?

Of course not.

Why?

Because changing the Spinward Marches to fit the criteria I mention above would be wrong, wouldn't it? You'd be against such change, no?

Well, take that as an exaggerated example of how some of us (a third of us, judging by the poll) view the changes you want to make.

We view it as wrong.

Now that I've taken the time to write all this out--something I thought was pretty clear before--you're not going to ask me, "But, why is it wrong?" again, are you?

 

[hunter]

I know. He's just opposed to changing UWPs to fit preconceptions. Whereas I am in favor of changing them to fit the preconceptions that 1) There's a correlation between the habitability of worlds and the number of people living on them and 2) Worlds interact with and affect neighboring worlds.

I won't disagree but with one caveat; worlds already written up in canon. I don't mean UWPs I mean worlds that have been a least somewhat detailed in canon materials. Making changes to those UWPs, particularly habitability and/or population can possibly invalidate those existing materials. That doesn't mean I think those UWPs cannot be changed, just again any changes have to take into consideration the effects they would have on previously published material. If the changes would invalidate that previous material I don't think the change should be made.

But I'd never dream of trying to sneak anything past him. If he insist on keeping something that I dislike, I'll either accept it or just not work with that particular world. It's not like there's a shortage of worlds to set adventures on!

I don't think you or anyone else tried to sneak anything past him. I think a bad decision was made not to consult him first.

 

[rancke]

Let's just say, being hypothetical....

That I think, in the deepest part of my heart, that the OTU UWP data should be changed so that there are more worlds with standard atmospheres. Let's say I back that up with a whole lot of references, here and there, where I point out, "Hey! If you read between the lines just right, THIS IS what canon is saying! So, let's change the worlds so that most worlds where Travellers adventure--most of the subsector capitals, anyway, have a standard atmosphere...

But that's already the case:

* Jewell: standard, tainted
* Regina: Dense
* Aramis: Corrosive (But there's a sound political explanation).
* Vilis (current capital of Vilis): Dense, tainted
* Arden (former capital of Vilis): Thin
* Lanth: Standard, tainted
* Rhylanor: Very thin (but the highest TL in the subsector)
* Lunion: Dense, tainted
* Mora: Dense, tainted
* Iderati: Dense
* Glisten: Asteroid Belt (and again the highest TL in the subsector)
* Trin: Dense, tainted.

And if you interpret the taints in atmospheres on high-population worlds as industrial, it gets even closer to what you're asking for, since those taints wouldn't have been there when they were first settled.

"You see, it makes so much sense to me that the Scout Service would be attracted to worlds with standard atmos over other types of worlds. It makes sense that those are the worlds that would be colonized first.

I agree with you so much. Of course, just because one world is colonized before another doesn't mean that it will be the most powerful of the two eight or nine centuries later. Why, Glisten wasn't colonized until 300 and was still a backwater in 400. At that time everyone expected Bellion to stay the subsector capital forever (What, you've never heard of Bellion? Bellion is the habitable world in the New Rome system that originally attracted settler to that system and got overhauled by New Rome as the most populous world in the system -- And, no, it's not canonical (yet ))

Plus, it's easier for the GM and players in that, like Star Trek, each world you go to has a breathable atmo--and the GM doesn't have to worry with Vacc Suits and such. It'll make for a better game!

That's probably why so few adventures even mention atmospheric taints.

"And, it makes so much sense! Did I already say that! Canon supports it. Look at the history of the Marches. The Solomani colonized a large chunk of it. So, they'd prefer standard class atmos.

Well, if you're referring to the Sword Worlders, they did, indeed, colonize a long string of worlds with breathable atmospheres. A lot of Solomani do prefer breathable atmospheres. Just as a lot of Imperials do. And a lot of Vilani. A lot of humans of every stripe, actually. But I'd expect belters to prefer space stations with their controlled environments to those nasty, dangerous world surfaces filled with uncontrolled bio-hazards. Enough of them to explain quite a few systems without a habitable world.

"So, let's do that. Let's make many of the system main worlds and most of the subsector capitals have a std. atmo. We have a little room there to throw in some variation...so that we don't wipe out all the diversity. We can have thin std atmos and dense std atmos. Heck, we'll even throw in the occasional tainted std atmo.

"Won't the OTU be so much better that way? Won't it be so much more believable?

It certainly would be a LOT more believable if the correlation between habitability and population size was a quite a bit higher than 0.

"And, while we're at it, since this is such a grand opportunity, we should also look at world size too. You see, the Solomani would be most attracted to worlds with 1G gravity fields. So, what we need to do is skew the world size more towards Size 8 so that there are more worlds out there were a Solomani would rightfully colonize. I mean, it's just not logical that a Solomani, used to a std. 1G field would volunteer to live the rest of his life colonizing a Size 4 world where the G field is half a G. Same goes for the bigger worlds too. It doesn't make any sense that normal humans would colonize a Size 4 world when there is a perfectly fine Size 8 world right next door.

All other things being equal, that's very true. So when we find that this has happened anyway, we can try to explain it by coming up with reasons why all other things wasn't equal. But I sure wish there was at bit of a correlation between habitability and population size.

"And, hey, while we're at it, let's re-arrange the X-Boat lanes too! Let's make them make sense! The X-Boat communication lanes are also the main trade jump routes, so we need to make some changes, here and there, so that they all make sense.

You're reading my mind. Many of the X-boat routes do indeed not make any sense. They give the impression of having been set up according to some semi-hemi-demi random process by someone who didn't think about the ramifications of the technology rather than by rational thought processes. I do have a sort of explanation for that, but those doglegs really are ridiculous.

"This is a grand opportunity. We can finally get the Spinward Marches, officially, the way I...er, I mean...we, yeah, we...the way we want it.

"Are you with me!"

Well, a lot of what you say sounds great, but of course I'd have to examine each of your proposed changes carefully before I can endorse it.

Would you agree with that, above, Hans, if that were what I was selling?

Of course not.

Why?

Because changing the Spinward Marches to fit the criteria I mention above would be wrong, wouldn't it? You'd be against such change, no?

No, a lot of it sounds perfectly reasonable. But as I said, I'd have to examine each proposed change separately. I wouldn't approve unnecessary changes.

Well, take that as an exaggerated example of how some of us (a third of us, judging by the poll) view the changes you want to make.

You don't know what changes I want to make, or how many, just that I want to make some.

I will mention that there is a whole slew of 'gray area' UWPs, UWPs that I would have changed if I was working on the very first release of the Spinward Marches, but which I feel should be left alone for the sake of canonical continuity.

We view it as wrong.

Now that I've taken the time to write all this out--something I thought was pretty clear before--you're not going to ask me, "But, why is it wrong?" again, are you?

Well, yes I am. So far you still haven't come up with any reason WHY changing inconsistent and self-contradictory background material is wrong.

I, on the other hand, may have been remiss in not explaining why I think that not changing inconsistent and self-contradictory material is wrong: It's because it reduces the believability of the background unnecessarily, making it harder to suspend disbelief in the setting.



Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

(S4 reads Hans' rebuttal to S4's post where S4 gave a ludicrous example to help explain the point, sees that Hans actually agrees with the ludicrous post...throws up his hands in the universal gesture of "giving up".)

 

[rancke]

(S4 reads Hans' rebuttal to S4's post where S4 gave a ludicrous example to help explain the point, sees that Hans actually agrees with the ludicrous post...throws up his hands in the universal gesture of "giving up".)

I know that you thought your example was ludicrous, because you told me so. But I don't understand what is ludicrous about thinking that having some correlation between habitability and population level is more plausible than having no correlation whatsoever. Or why it would be ludicrous that a courier system that is designed to provide the most efficient communication between the national capital and provincial capitals was as fast as the available technology allows.

So I did my best to show you why I don't think it is ludicrous. Why do you think it is?


Hans

 

[rancke]

I won't disagree but with one caveat; worlds already written up in canon. I don't mean UWPs I mean worlds that have been a least somewhat detailed in canon materials. Making changes to those UWPs, particularly habitability and/or population can possibly invalidate those existing materials. That doesn't mean I think those UWPs cannot be changed, just again any changes have to take into consideration the effects they would have on previously published material. If the changes would invalidate that previous material I don't think the change should be made.

You know, Hunter, you and I think so much alike (on this subject, anyway) that it's uncanny. Are you sure you're not my long-lost twin brother?


Hans

 

[hunter]

You know, Hunter, you and I think so much alike (on this subject, anyway) that it's uncanny. Are you sure you're not my long-lost twin brother?

Heh, stranger things have happened in my life!

Problem with what we want is having the time and/or manpower resources to go through the ton of canon material published on the Spinward Marches to document exactly which worlds have been written of, what those details are, before we can even begin to look at the UWPs and consider any changes.

Because sure enough if we miss something and the changes get published, somebody is going to spot it and we'll never hear the end of it

 

[rancke]

Problem with what we want is having the time and/or manpower resources to go through the ton of canon material published on the Spinward Marches to document exactly which worlds have been written of, what those details are, before we can even begin to look at the UWPs and consider any changes.

Because sure enough if we miss something and the changes get published, somebody is going to spot it and we'll never hear the end of it

If we (whoever 'we' would turn out to be) got the go-ahead for something like that, we would miss some things and make some mistakes. I know, because Jon and Paul and Robert and I really did our utmost to avoid mistakes in Sword Worlds and we still made some. (I'm real embarrassed about the 'not' I left out of my writeup of the Revised Gregorian Calendar ).

But that wouldn't be a real problem provided we were willing to errata said mistakes as they were pointed out to us. And provided, of course, that we did a good enough job in the first place that the number of mistakes were fairly low.

Ah, well. It's a pipe-dream, anyway...

Hans

 

[hunter]

If we (whoever 'we' would turn out to be) got the go-ahead for something like that, we would miss some things and make some mistakes.

We being those who would support such an endeavor.

I know, because Jon and Paul and Robert and I really did our utmost to avoid mistakes in Sword Worlds and we still made some. (I'm real embarrassed about the 'not' I left out of my writeup of the Revised Gregorian Calendar ).

Heh, yeah I'm familiar with the feeling

But that wouldn't be a real problem provided we were willing to errata said mistakes as they were pointed out to us. And provided, of course, that we did a good enough job in the first place that the number of mistakes were fairly low.

Good point. Yes it would have to be faithfully errata'd to finish the job.

Ah, well. It's a pipe-dream, anyway...

For the moment maybe, but I can always continue to hope!

 

[Icosahedron]

I know that you thought your example was ludicrous, because you told me so. But I don't understand what is ludicrous about thinking that having some correlation between habitability and population level is more plausible than having no correlation whatsoever. Or why it would be ludicrous that a courier system that is designed to provide the most efficient communication between the national capital and provincial capitals was as fast as the available technology allows.

So I did my best to show you why I don't think it is ludicrous. Why do you think it is?


Hans

I really don't want to get re-involved in this discussion - it's not my fight, I don't even use the OTU - but...

It's ludicrous because there comes a point with changes when the 'new' OTU is no longer recognisable as the same OTU, it's not just corrected, but altered beyond recognition. The ludicrous example clearly crosses that line. I know this is not what you are advocating, but once change is begun, where do you draw the line? Who draws the line? Marc? With several voices in one ear and none in the other?

It's not like there's a shortage of worlds to set adventures on!

So set your writings on worlds that are not controversial, and continue playing in your version of the OTU without altering everyone else's. That way everybody is happy.