Wanted: Curmudgeony Grognards (to talk TL 5-7 Rockets)

[Baroun Tardis]

Also, in conventional-explosives form, a key plot point in Pournelle's King David's Spaceship. (WIkipedia)

Edit: It's amazing the things one remembers after all those years... didn't even have to guess at the title.

Loved that book. One of my favorites.

 

[Baroun Tardis]

I got into an argument years ago when I said, 'If it weren't for JFK killing the space program, we could be on the Moon now."

Apollo killed us. Sigh.

In my alternate history, Space Dragon got pushed instead of Saturn.... and they used it to implement Project Horizon.
Later, the Horizon orbital station was the assembly point for the parts ferried up by Dragons, and they built the Orion drive System Cruisers.

 

[atpollard]

There's an easy solution: Call your house rules house rules and don't claim they are RAW.

We all use house rule, so why pretend we don't?

Ummm ... sort of.
Let me make a statement and then ask a couple rhetorical questions.

STATEMENT:
S7: Traders and Gunboats shows graphically on all starships and explicitly labels on most starships TWO Maneuver Drives. The back of the book explicitly identifies them as "Book 2" designs.

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS:

1. Does this mean that LBB2 drives (A, B, C, etc) are actually installed as "pairs" of drives?
2. If #1 is true, then does there not exists 1/2 of an A drive [according to S7 rather than a "house rule"]?
3. Since LBB5 specifically states that I can use LBB2 drives in a LBB5 design and S7 identifies a 1/2 A drive as something that exists, is it really a "house rule" or a component from a supplement (like Jump Cables from S9) that we need to create our own stats for (like Laser Pistols)?

So the nature of the CT BEAST is that the line between "house rule" and "interpolation of official rule" is a deliberately broad a fuzzy line.
Are JUMP TORPEDOES a RAW or a HOUSE RULE?

If one is simply looking for validation of ones pet idea, the feedback is going to sting.
If one wants to have one's ideas challenged, the feedback will expose errors and "logic" weaknesses and allow one to make them better.
(It just requires a bit of armor on one's ego).

Ultimately, even the "OFFICIAL RULES" appear to have an element of "somebody's house rules" to them ... so labeling EVERYTHING a "house rule" isn't the answer, either.

[EDIT: change S5 to S7]

 

[mike wightman]

Sorry for this.
S5 is Azhanti High Lightning.

I think you mean S7 Traders and Gunboats

 

[atpollard]

Sorry for this.
S5 is Azhanti High Lightning.

I think you mean S7 Traders and Gunboats

"Never trust a man that only knows one way to spell a word" - Mark Twain

 

[mike wightman]

By the way have you noticed the 20t launch (not the one that comes with the subbie) is only TL8?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS:

1. Does this mean that LBB2 drives (A, B, C, etc) are actually installed as "pairs" of drives?

An LBB2 (or LBB5) drive is a system that you can draw on the deck plan however you want. You can draw it as 17 tiny thrusters, but they are still a single system and can be destroyed by a single hit. In total they should have about the volume of the lettered drive.
Just like a "stateroom" is 4 Dt living space that you can divide into as many cabins, rooms, and corridors as you like.

S7, p15-16:
ScoutICourier (Type S): Using the type 100 hull, the scout/courier is equipped ... The ship has jump drive A, maneuver drive A, and power plant A, producing a performance of jump-2 and 2-G acceleration. ...

These are a set of three A drives and power plant (S7 p17):
This is a set of two A drives and a power plant (S7 p17):

1. If #1 is true, then does there not exists 1/2 of an A drive [according to S7 rather than a "house rule"]?

No, by RAW there are only A, B, C, ..., Z drives. Drives can't combine, two A drives does explicitly not make a B drive, however you draw a deck plan.
What you infer or think is a reasonable extension is a house rule.

1. Since LBB5 specifically states that I can use LBB2 drives in a LBB5 design and S7 identifies a 1/2 A drive as something that exists, is it really a "house rule" or a component from a supplement (like Jump Cables from S9) that we need to create our own stats for (like Laser Pistols)?

Both a ½A drive and a Laser Pistol are added by you as you see fit, so are your house rules.

So the nature of the CT BEAST is that the line between "house rule" and "interpolation of official rule" is a deliberately broad a fuzzy line.
Are JUMP TORPEDOES a RAW or a HOUSE RULE?

Depends on the edition you use? They are RAW in LBB2'77, but gone by LBB2'81 or even LBB5'79.

Ultimately, even the "OFFICIAL RULES" appear to have an element of "somebody's house rules" to them ... so labeling EVERYTHING a "house rule" isn't the answer, either.

RAW is someones house rules, e.g. MWM.

MWM (the Super-Referee) makes RAW. We call it RAW because it is printed in an official book, not because it is better than anything else. It's just our common reference.
The Referee makes house rules for his game.
The menial player can only suggest house rules to the Referee.

Ultimately the local Referee makes the rules for his particular game, taking RAW and the players in consideration.
But, of course, you do not set the rules for my game and vice versa.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

By the way have you noticed the 20t launch (not the one that comes with the subbie) is only TL8?

None of the smallcraft or ships in LBB2 has any defined TL.
LBB3 describes "non-starships" from TL7 and LBB5'80 describes how to build them, so why not?

I would not use that, but that would be my house rule.

 

[atpollard]

MWM (the Super-Referee) makes RAW. We call it RAW because it is printed in an official book, not because it is better than anything else. It's just our common reference.

The RAW disagree from "book to book" and "printing to printing" ... creating a "house rule" quality to any specific "book-edition-rule" within Classic Traveller. (That was my point.) So while I admire the consistency of your P.O.V. ... I respectfully disagree with it.

[Which makes your P.O.V. especially painful to hear and valuable for me (personally). I can always count on you to 'kick some sand' on any 'spiffy' idea I have ... which is what 'spiffy ideas' need if we are to avoid STARGATES and LIGHTSABRES.]

 

[atpollard]

An LBB2 (or LBB5) drive is a system that you can draw on the deck plan however you want.

You do know that "Rhetorical Questions" are intended to illustrate a point and are not intended to be answered.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You do know that "Rhetorical Questions" are intended to illustrate a point and are not intended to be answered.

Yes, but you loaded them with assumptions that I obviously disagreed with. So I disagreed.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The RAW disagree from "book to book" and "printing to printing" ... creating a "house rule" quality to any specific "book-edition-rule" within Classic Traveller. (That was my point.) So while I admire the consistency of your P.O.V. ... I respectfully disagree with it.

What I understand you are saying is: RAW is what you want it to be, RAW is subjective, and we are not using the same RAW. You don't see a difference between RAW and house rules?

For me it's much simpler: RAW is the published written rules in the books. We can disagree about what is means or how to interpret it, but it simplifies matters enormously if we can agree about what the text is.

Anything else is house rules. I have house rules, you have house rules, everyone has house rules. I really don't see what the big deal is about that?


So, e.g. a ½A drive:
Is it in LBB2? No.
Does that mean it's a house rule? Yes.
Can you use it? Yes, of course, in your game.
Can you say it's in LBB2? No, of course not.

Is there really anything to disagree about in that? Are we disagreeing about what the actual text in LBB2 is?

Why is it so provocative to say that a ½A drive is not in LBB2, when it, as far as I can see, obviously isn't?

 

[atpollard]

RAW is the published written rules in the books.

... and what THEY did with those rules. [That is where we disagree, I think.] I see the things that they DID as "Implied Rules", even if one can correctly argue that they are not "as written" in the Starship Design chapter. For example, there is NOTHING in the Starship Design of CT about throwing "ropes" around an object and towing it through Jumpspace. In fact, the RAW would PROHIBIT IT! ... and yet, there it is in a design example (creating an IMPLIED RULE that it can be done).

 

[Grav_Moped]

You do know that "Rhetorical Questions" are intended to illustrate a point and are not intended to be answered.

What if there were no rhetorical questions?

 

[Baroun Tardis]

The other thing to consider, and muddying the water further, is if you look through the early JTAS, there's a lot of articles about "house rules" that ended up becoming LBBs, or written into future editions.

Insofar as the drive is in two parts on the deck plan: My read is 'Yes, those are two 1/2A. You want to build a ship with a single 1/2A? I suppose you jump out of airplanes with only your main chute and no reserve chute too? And you have a vacc suit with just one air bottle and no patch kit? "

I'm gonna commit me some CT heresy here: The more I read T5, the more I realize it's just CT with many of these questions answered by The Man Himself.

 

[mike wightman]

CT 77 states jump torpedoes exist, CTA4 includes jump torpedoes.

The setting and later rules write them out of existence both in rules and setting.

CT LBB2 77 states pp must be at least the same size as the m-drive, the description of the subsidised liner makes use of this, the far trader makes use of this, the xboat bends it to its extreme.

HG79 changes the rule to pp must be same as j-drive or m-drive, this would be included in the revision to LBB2 in 81, and yet the HG stats of the far trader and the text description of the far trader have it as j2, m1, pp1, while the capsule description gives it 222. Not bad, rules and setting contradictions in the same ship, in the same supplement.

What is a heavy laser? I ask because the original Gazelle has two PA turrets that are treated as heavy lasers plus stuff.

The rules as written are the rules. We can all read them, quote them and use them or infer house rules from them.

The Third Imperium setting is not based on the rules as written, it can't be, since there are so many different iterations of the rules that are similar to each other and yet are different, sometimes in subtle but far reaching ways.

The Traveller Adventure describes a setting using HG for the big stuff the IN is up to, and yet uses LBB2 81 for the most part, and there are still xboats...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

... and what THEY did with those rules. [That is where we disagree, I think.]

That is not quite my disagreement.

I see the things that they DID as "Implied Rules", even if one can correctly argue that they are not "as written" in the Starship Design chapter. For example, there is NOTHING in the Starship Design of CT about throwing "ropes" around an object and towing it through Jumpspace. In fact, the RAW would PROHIBIT IT! ... and yet, there it is in a design example (creating an IMPLIED RULE that it can be done).

Agreed, it can be done.
But we don't know how to do it.
Here comes the disagreement (perhaps?): The system we put into place to make it is a house rule.

If you say e.g. "Jump ropes takes 1% of carried cargo and cost MCr 1 per Dt", I would say house rule.
If I say "Jump ropes takes 10% of carried cargo and cost MCr 10 per Dt", I would still say house rule.
Neither is in the books.

In fact, the RAW would PROHIBIT IT! ...

I wouldn't even go that far. The rules doesn't prohibit much, they describe how to do things. We already know we can carry stuff outside the hull (Demountable tanks, Drop tanks) and it is described how they work and how much they cost, so that is RAW.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

CT 77 states jump torpedoes exist, CTA4 includes jump torpedoes.

The setting and later rules write them out of existence both in rules and setting.

Yes, editions differ. LBBs'77 is different from later LBBs, and late CT with Striker and JTAS#24 is, I believe, a bit different again. And all of them are different from MT. It's easier to discuss RAW, if we agree what RAW we mean...

And, agreed, the 3I setting isn't identical to the Traveller rules.

 

[Grav_Moped]

... and what THEY did with those rules. [That is where we disagree, I think.] I see the things that they DID as "Implied Rules", even if one can correctly argue that they are not "as written" in the Starship Design chapter. For example, there is NOTHING in the Starship Design of CT about throwing "ropes" around an object and towing it through Jumpspace. In fact, the RAW would PROHIBIT IT! ... and yet, there it is in a design example (creating an IMPLIED RULE that it can be done).

Except that it's only implied. RAW, only that specific ship design can do it, because it -- and only it -- is stated in print as being able to do it, and there are no rules given for doing so in original designs.

This is similar to the XBoat in the same text: It does not need power plant fuel (and may not actually have a power plant), but it is the only ship design in the universe (after LBB2'81, and excluding collector drives) for which this is possible within the Rules as Written.

Here comes the disagreement (perhaps?): The system we put into place to make it is a house rule.

If you say e.g. "Jump ropes takes 1% of carried cargo and cost MCr 1 per Dt", I would say house rule.
If I say "Jump ropes takes 10% of carried cargo and cost MCr 10 per Dt", I would still say house rule.
Neither is in the books.

It's kind of a disagreement, in that (IMO) "house rules" can be more, or less, consistent with the printed rules ("better" or "worse" house rules).
For example, one of those stats might be closer to how Jump Ropes were implemented on that one example than the other stats.


Edit to add: I'm using "Better" and "Worse" there with relation to the Rules as Written. It's perfectly possible that inference, interpolation, or extrapolation from the Rules as Written could result in outcomes that, while perfectly aligned with the RAW, are nonetheless detrimental to playability or indeed completely nonsensical.

 

[Condottiere]

Generally speaking, I'm pretty sure a lot of readers noticed that engineering/drives were split in a number of deckplans.

I know I did and thought about semiAs.

If performance/volume is linear, it shouldn't matter; if it's not, then each division should be considered independent and calculated separately.