The Early Days of Jump.

[aramis]

Or, The OTU isn't one universe...

By looking at rules first, fluff second, one gets a sense that there are several different parallel universes.

One, where 1250 tons is a battlecruiser, and 400 a light cruiser.

One, where 50,000 tons is a cruiser, and 30,000 is a destroyer. We are not told how thrust works.

Another where jump grids are part of the hull, but imune to damage, again, with 50KTd cruisers, and thrust is gravitic.

Yet another where such big ships can be built, but can't maintain high thrust due to lack of surface area for their radiatiors, and where ranges are short and drive thrust reaction mass is near-C.

Yet another still that, while having the same technologies as both the immediate prior two, has very different resolution of combat, and so while the ships may be the same, the expected results are not...

(In order: pre 1980 CT, post 1984 CT, MT, TNE, T4)

At the very least, early (1980 and earlier) stuff is not clearly the same TU as later, even in fluff, as the difference in ship sizes is an order of magnitude.

 

[dean]

" Jump Drive: Starships move across interstellar distances using jump drives. Jump drives are themselves a special high yield power plant linked to an integral net in the craft's hull for initiating and maintaining the jump field......."
Megatraveller Referee's Manual, page 58

Thus it is canon, whether one chooses to use it or not.
It is stated in a primary OTU source and not just in 3rd party MT supplement
Everything else is just opinion.


inferences based on combat tables, etc are moot
using the same methods, I can argue that, by a canon source, there are no sensor antennae in MT as surface explosions don't degrade sensors or communications.

I guess OTU is like a chinese buffet where we pick and choose what we like and ignore the rest.... Arguing about what other people put on their plate is kind of silly.

I guess the point could be made here that just because MT includes them in that version, that does not make them canonical to the entire OTU, just to the OTU that includes MT.

I certainly don't entertain their use in my CT universe (which is, admittedly, non OTU anyway), but would not use them simply because they're not in the CT ruleset.

 

[Ishmael]

multiple OTU's and what's canon in one ruleset is not canon in others?

that kind of makes it even more pointless to argue over it all.
At the very least, one would have to say what ruleset he uses...and then what about house rules?...automatically ATU?

AS for myself, I use jump grids whose cost, etc is based on a ship's surface area and whose performance is related to the ratio of mass to surface area ( ain't spreadsheets fun? )
I picture the grids as being some sort of field emitter that encloses an ellipsoid volume in a magic field during jump. It can be damaged by hull hits which reduce it effectiveness/range. If that field does not enclose a portion of the ship, that portion of the ship is sheared off and gone into j-space ( witch-space IMTU )

 

[jawillroy]

I guess OTU is like a chinese buffet where we pick and choose what we like and ignore the rest.... Arguing about what other people put on their plate is kind of silly.

NO IT ISN'T!! How can you possibly say the jellyfish with fried pork skin isn't the most delicious thing you've ever tasted?!? And how dare you claim the superiority of the Shrimp Shu Mai over the Sichuan Dumplings in Red Sauce?

You're totally right. I am in absolute agreement. I've been drinking my perfect margaritas all night. Can you tell?

 

[dean]

multiple OTU's and what's canon in one ruleset is not canon in others?

that kind of makes it even more pointless to argue over it all.
At the very least, one would have to say what ruleset he uses...and then what about house rules?...automatically ATU?

Yea, I am an old school CT adherent. Anything published outside that (to date) is heresy to me

OTOH, I am seriously going to look at T5 as a replacement. I have players who are dissatisfied with CT as a system and I expect T5 to be a good possibility for finally supplanting it.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Hull grids belong to MT only and third party MT material to boot. Among GDW rules, a "hull grid" is mentioned in CT but it doesn't work like the 3rd party MT grid while TNE is essentially moot on the subject, an observer watchs your jump entry fro information and not your hull grid. Lookng at all the other rules, there are no grids in T4. no grids in GT, no grids in T20

TNE jump drives require surface area.

FF&S2 specifically mentions "a lanthanum hull grid".

GT:Starships shows an xboat jumping, and its grid is visible.

T20 states that jump grids are needed.

 

[BlackBat242]

I'm with Dean... on the first part, anyway.

All this talk about fictional Traveller "future-history"... rebellions, Virus, etc... and "alternate universes" involving GURPS-things, Heroes, and snake-killing creatures is just speculative fiction.

Reality is now... at the start of the 5th Frontier war, as described in small, light-absorbing volumes.

 

[chshrkt]

I guess OTU is like a chinese buffet where we pick and choose what we like and ignore the rest.... Arguing about what other people put on their plate is kind of silly.

QFT

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

?wtf?

QFT

What's 'QFT' anyway?

And BlackBat242 wins the Canon War by declaration of adherence to the LLBs, too bad I use all that groovy 3d art from the GUPRS books....oh and that D_______'s Little Treason does not go off thanks to the measures of a certain group of Tavellers.

I think it's about time to remember people that this isn't about that canon or that canon, I was seeking Illumination on the Origin of the Major Races and their Ascent to the Stars...not start Holy Wars. Also, if there are I shall declare them null I as I chose in this Thread. Only MWM can really speak to what the status is or isn't of Jump Grids and why they only fail sometimes but only on X damage type/roll.

I do use them IMTU right now and I figure if the table says they only blow up on internal hits and such then, that's what happens....unless I fiat as My Right as Referee and I don't want to let you captured...now whether you MisJump, now that's a different matter....as Plot so Moves Jumpspace :devil:....ah...lovely Jumpspace.....ohh...sorry.

Also, since I do use J-Grids if such a problem develops I will say something to the effect of "your hull is hit and the hit is deep enough and carries enough that the counter-sinks can't save the Grid and parts burn out and the Grid to Power Plant Connectors were fried during the back-feed..."
mega:

 

[far-trader]

What's 'QFT' anyway?

Quoted For Truth

(well, in this case anyway, presumably, it's a bit of a contextual thing)

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Thank you..

Well, all a little happy LLB love in, good.
mega:

 

[Ishmael]

what does LLB mean?

I'm solidly in the MT camp... I tossed out my old LBB stuff long ago
( too bad I didn't keep it all...I'd have made good money for it all on ebay..oh well )
At least I kept Striker! and AHL!

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

you got Striker?

what does LLB mean?

I'm solidly in the MT camp... I tossed out my old LBB stuff long ago
( too bad I didn't keep it all...I'd have made good money for it all on ebay..oh well )
At least I kept Striker! and AHL!

And you got AHL, man, I don't have either, though some how I have the world's most beat "Striker" box...go fig.

 

[rancke]

Canon comes in 4 basic parts: Narrative in the Rulebooks, Textual Rules in the Rulebooks, Supplementary materials (as in periodicals, webstuff, 3rd party canonicals, and interviews), and Rulebooks Illustrations.

Wrong. Canon comes in one basic part: Does Marc Miller and his minions accept it or not?

Well... not completely wrong, because at one remove the stuff MM is likely to accept does depend in part on where it was published and who wrote it, etc.

Further, by Marc's article appearing in JTAS, it has acquired Canonical status to many, BUT NOT ALL. Just as Loren's "All marines wear Battledress" article is oft considered outside of canon, so is Marc's jumpspace article. Pretty much, anything in JTAS could be safely ignored and still be "Playing Traveller in the OTU". Much the same as the DGP materials to non MT players.

Considered outside of canon by whom? Marc? Loren? You? Me? There's really no point in discussions where the participants disagree on the basic premises. Once such a disagreement is identified, the best one can do is agree to disagree. One very common disagreement is whether or not something does or does not accurately describe part of the one and only Official Traveller Universe. If you don't think it does, the reasonable thing to do is to allow those of us who do to discuss it in peace.

As far as I'm concerned, the value of evidence about the OTU depends less on when and where it was published (though I do take that into account too) and more on its inherent qualities.

But ALL the rules are consistent: JDrives have little presence on the Hull. (Only one ruleset even mentions hull damage in space combat: TNE.)

That particular rule was consistent while MDrives were fusion torches. Back then, MDrives were at least closer to the surface than JDrives towards the rear. But when MDrives became thrusters, they wound up exactly as close to or as far from the surface as JDrives. Thrusters are, in fact, just as much of an abomination by Bill's definition as jump grids, because they're exactly as incompatible with the combat result tables.

So... The "less effort fix" is Hull Grids don't exist, as the combat system works well enough "at the speed of Drama" (even if it is otherwise unrealistic).

I'm not interested in the least effort fix. I'm interested in the fix that makes the OTU a better RPG setting.


Hans

 

[rancke]

You say the ship has sailed and that is true. The ship has sailed and SANK however.

Why? Why isn't it the combat result tables that got rammed and sunk?

Hull grids belong to MT only and third party MT material to boot. Among GDW rules, a "hull grid" is mentioned in CT but it doesn't work like the 3rd party MT grid while TNE is essentially moot on the subject, an observer watchs your jump entry fro information and not your hull grid. Looking at all the other rules, there are no grids in T4. no grids in GT, no grids in T20, no grids in MGT, and there will be no grids in T5.

Aside from an admittedly canonical 3rd party MT supplement and a selection of old, new, and reused illustrations, jump grids DO NOT APPEAR in any of the other various Traveller rules sets. That's what is wrong with them. They're an outlier, a "one-off", an aberration.

As others have shown, that's not even true. Jump grids do appear in other ("more canonical" if you insist) places. But that's really not relevant at all. What I've been trying to get you to tell me is: "What is inherently wrong with jump grids? I'm sorry, but my grasp of English is simply too weak to rephrase the question in any simpler manner. I'm not asking where jump grids did or did not appear. I'm asking you, what harm do they do? And don't tell me that they're inconsistent with the combat result tables, because I got that. What I don't get is why changing the combat result tables to fit jump grids in is not an option. Assume for purposes of argument that MM did change the CRTs to fit in jump grids. What is so bad about jump grids that even if he did that, they still would mar the OTU so badly?

Look at it this way: do you seriously suggest that we should pay them any more attention than we do jump torpedos? Jump torpedos appear in both a canonical, 3rd party authored, CT adventure and in the Missiles supplement giving them the same "level" of canonical as MT's hull grids. Yet, we ignore jump torpedos don't we? Why aren't hull grids treated in the same fashion?

Actually, if I had my druthers, I wouldn't ignore jump torpedoes, but assuming I did want to, it would be because the necessary fix (allowing jump bubbles of less than 100 dT) would ruin a fundamental aspect of the setting. The combat result tables are not a fundamental aspect of the setting. Changing a few of the results on the tables will not ruin anything. It wouldn't even change the combat process significantly.

You're arguing for their inclusion beyond the limited confines of SSOM and MT. You want to put them places where they don't already exist. You want a change. That means it's up to you to explain why hull grids are worth the retcon they'll require.

Not really. Not any more than I'm required to explain why keeping any other feature of the OTU introduced by accredited Traveller authors is worth doing. Expanding the setting is worth doing in itself.

So, let me flip your question: Why are hull grids worth that retcon? Aside from being "kewl" that is.

That's a good one to begin with. What's wrong with being cool? It's an evocative idea. It adds color to the setting. It allows artists to make pretty pictures.

Apart from that, the only practical, role-playing, benefit I can think of is that it gives a non-infallible way to track a departing ship. If you have multiple observers (so you see all sides of a departing ship), you can calculate exactly where it's going. If you only see one side, your PC can do an astrogation roll and have a shot at guessing where it's going. And the departing ship can try to obscure it's destination by hiding behind a moon or a cloud of sand to foil you. That is a nice potential plot point.

I'm not claiming that those are very compelling reasons to keep jump grids. But then again, I don't think a very compelling reason is needed. After all, the effort it would take to fix the combat result tables is pretty low (and maybe the tables could be improved a bit while we were at it). If you want to get rid of them, it's up to you to show why they're so bad. :devil:


Hans

 

[Whipsnade]

That's a good one to begin with. What's wrong with being cool? It's an evocative idea. It adds color to the setting. It allows artists to make pretty pictures.

Hans,

There is that. But I don't think "kewl" illos are worth retconning the starship combat damage tables for CT, MT, TNE, T4, T20, GT, MGT, and T5. Do you? (Oh, you'll have to retcon starship construction in all those rules sets too, as per the riders/tenders, LASH shipping, and RCES modular clipper questions that will arise.)

Apart from that, the only practical, role-playing, benefit I can think of is that it gives a non-infallible way to track a departing ship.

Non-infallible? That raises a whole host of questions.

You'll remember that when tracking was first suggested, it was described as anything but "non-infallible". The only rules set that even hinted that such a thing may be possible was TNE, and then it added so many qualifiers to it's own suggestion as to make the "ability" more of a "GM allows it to occur this one time" rather than a "Roll this task" or "Roll on this table" issue. What's more and precisely like jump grids, the possibility was broached in a piece of color text and not in any actual rules.

As always, the game designers included a teeny piece of eeny-weeny descriptive "chrome" that the Hobby now wants to inflate into a setting-reshaping certainty. Some sense of proportion should be involved here. I know one fellow who claims that the Ziru Sirka developed jump3 before the Interstellar Wars and his "proof" is the alternate solution to Gvuurdon's Tale in CT's Vargr AM. Making a parsec out of a pittance, like that goof has done, isn't a very good idea.

If you want to get rid of them, it's up to you to show why they're so bad.

I don't need to get rid of them. Every version of Traveller since MT has already done that for me.



Have fun,
Bill

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Read my earlier post - every edition since MT has included grids.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=272138&postcount=106

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Good.

Thank you Mr. Boulton for that Citation.

So can we now say that the color has been accepted as Community Traveller Canon and move back to the origins of Jump Drive...though I suppose this resembles those early Jump Engineering think tanks.

Fritz: We need to keep the Grid, it was glowing right before the damned thing disappeared and then like the bleeding Cheshire Cat again right before it popped back....I'm telling you it's the Coils AND the Grid...and the Power Plant...gentlemen and ladies....*looks around* We can build this...into a ship...
mega:

 

[Whipsnade]

Read my earlier post - every edition since MT has included grids.

Andrew,

Sorry, but no.

And remember, I am and have only been discussing SSOM-style grids only. I'm not dismissing grids out of hand, I'm dismissing SSOM-style grids.

Let's rebut the "support" you found piece by piece:

TNE jump drives require surface area.

Is the surface area explicitly described as being a "hull grid"? Do modular components attached to a clipper frame need a grid installed? How about riders? In other words, must the grid be "open to space", can it be covered by components and small craft and still function? SSOM suggests that it can't, but TNE implies that this is not an issue.

FF&S2 specifically mentions "a lanthanum hull grid".

As does Mr. Miller's JTAS article, but neither are explicitly the SSOM style grids. The JTAS article mentions grids but it assigns them a far different function than SSOM.

GT:Starships shows an xboat jumping, and its grid is visible.

So illos count as rules now? As I wrote above, grids are used but they aren't used as SSOM suggests. (GT also uses mass-based maneuver drives instead of Traveller's volume-based ones. Are we to retcon that into every other version too?)

T20 states that jump grids are needed.

Re-read my comments on the TNE and FF&S2 grids.

SSOM is the outlier here. It's description of the grid and it's function is far different than all the others.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I can't see what's different about the SOM description. It doesn't say you can't cover it.

As for damage, JTAS#24 says,

Breaks in the protective network within a starship hull are a primary cause of the loss of ships in jump.​

but SOM says this requires the loss of over 10% of the grid, so actually SOM tries to fix a problem Marc created!​