Some questions about the Imperium

[aramis]

Hirch:
While I dislike the BtC supplement, if you have not prior conceptions of the Marches, and plan on not digging out CT/MT sources, it is great. Excellently presented and fairly sound.

If you are a GURPSy, and not a Traveler Grognard, it's well worth it.

It does, however, have both the "lack of the 5FW" issue Bill mentioned, and contradicts in a few places published CT/MT "fluff" data (stuff besides UPP). Partly due to a fairly hasty "Playtest", partly due to a lack of seriously canon-monger individuals in the BtC playtest. (I read over a friend's shoulder, and he posted several items of conflict which were not corrected). It appears that they didn't even bother checking against "The Traveller Adventure". (Said friend wouldn't because I was RUNNING TTA at the time.) Quite specifically, anything which was DGP derived was off-limits, and so was open for conflict.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Mora being the sector capital doesn't appear in Supplement 3 - at least not in my editions.

No, but neither did it list anywhere else as the sector capital.

By the time of the Spinward Marches Campaign Mora was listed as sector capital - and Regina had gone up two TLs

Regina hadn't gone up two TLs. A mistake in Regina's UWP had been corrected.

Proof? Well, in The Kinunir we learn that Regina's shipyards are able to build jump-4 ships. That requires a space TL of 13. It's possible for a world to have a space TL one higher than its high common TL, but three higher? I don't think so.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Except that in CT 2nd edition a TL10 world can build a jump 4 ship, the limitation being the computer model - no such limit in 1st ed.

It is limited to 400t however

So I agree, with the switch to the High Guard ship paradigm Regina had to become TL13.

Grand Census gives Regina a TL of up to 13 in certain areas.

 

[far-trader]

Hmm, three 400ton hulls adds up to 1200tons

Anyway, the major TL stumbling block is the computer, a model/7 (TL13) with some AI experimental additions.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Aramis:
It does, however, have both the "lack of the 5FW" issue Bill mentioned, and contradicts in a few places published CT/MT "fluff" data (stuff besides UPP). Partly due to a fairly hasty "Playtest", partly due to a lack of seriously canon-monger individuals in the BtC playtest. (I read over a friend's shoulder, and he posted several items of conflict which were not corrected). It appears that they didn't even bother checking against "The Traveller Adventure". (Said friend wouldn't because I was RUNNING TTA at the time.) Quite specifically, anything which was DGP derived was off-limits, and so was open for conflict.

I'd heard that most of the problems with BtC stem from the fact that for some reason SJG published what was actually an early playtest draft and not the final thing. Hence why it has so many actual errors (wrong populations etc) in it compared to previous canon.

Though personally, TTA is so damn obscure and hard to find today I wouldn't expect anyone to use it as the base for anything.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Though personally, TTA is so damn obscure and hard to find today I wouldn't expect anyone to use it as the base for anything.

With the advent of the Internet that's not much of a problem any more. Just post a query on an appropriate board or hold a playtest. Someone will have even the most obscure of Traveller publication.


Hans

 

[Malenfant]

Maybe so, but it would cost more to get it on ebay and ultimately you're still tied to a product that very few people still have or even care about.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Maybe so, but it would cost more to get it on ebay and ultimately you're still tied to a product that very few people still have or even care about.

Who's talking about buying anything? You ask whoever has that obscure Traveller publication what it says about the subject you're working on and he tells you.


Hans

 

[Malenfant]

Yeah, but my point is that I don't see why something written now would have to rely on something that was written over 20 years ago and that probably contradicts everything written since then anyway because the background hadn't been developed remotely as fully as it is today.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Yeah, but my point is that I don't see why something written now would have to rely on something that was written over 20 years ago and that probably contradicts everything written since then anyway because the background hadn't been developed remotely as fully as it is today.

Well, I think that in a shared universe there's merit in respecting the work of other contributors, unless there are weighty reasons to disregard it. "It doesn't make sense" is a weighty reason. "It contradicts everything written since then" is definitely a weighty reason. But "I have a slightly better idea" isn't ("I have a much, much better idea" is another story ). And "I can't be bothered to find out about it" is definitely not a weighty reason.


Hans