Ah ... Babylon 5 is a Mongoose Traveller universe now ...It would change any Traveller universe ...
Ah ... Babylon 5 is a Mongoose Traveller universe now ...It would change any Traveller universe ...
No, the players could call up someone they know there and ask him about current market conditions, and how they're likely to change in a week, giving them more of an idea of what would sell well. It would make a diffrence.
I have no clue what all the proper terminology should be but based on the book title: Universe of Babylon 5, I'm not sure if calling it a Traveller universe is correct.Ah ... Babylon 5 is a Mongoose Traveller universe now ...
Option 1: If nothing else, wouldn't a product produced at location THERE cost more at location HERE due to transportation costs?From a meta-game standpoint, instantaneous communications will have one of two impacts:
Option 1: one interplanetary market where the price THERE is the same as the price HERE.
Option 2: some meta-game force causes local prices to be different and unpredictable.
Just take a look at the text on the back cover:I have no clue what all the proper terminology should be but based on the book title: Universe of Babylon 5, I'm not sure if calling it a Traveller universe is correct.
Ah ... Babylon 5 is a Mongoose Traveller universe now ...
You're distinguishing between text and rules again.
Can I take this as a tacit agreement with me that the text is not in fact the rules?
Yep, agreed.Yes, but it would still be changed if the status of FTJ commo was changed, wouldn't it? The presence or lack of it would still make a large difference.
Sorry, but to use a definition that directly contradicts the definition of theWhen we in this thread stated that settings with FTL comms such as B5 and Slammers cannot be thought of as Traveller ...
And if someone bought a basset hound and insisted it was a fox, would the fact that he owned the critter prove that he was right?Ah ... Babylon 5 is a Mongoose Traveller universe now ...
That has to be wrong for a start. If the book gives a decent description of the Babylon 5 universe, I can't imagine not being able to use it to run a campaign using Basic Roleplaying or GURPS or Heltesagaerne (my own house rules) for the mechanics.Just take a look at the text on the back cover:
"To use this supplement, a referee will require the Traveller core rules."
If he owned the dog breeding association that decided upon the definitionAnd if someone bought a basset hound and insisted it was a fox, would the fact that he owned the critter prove that he was right?
Now, I have reluctantly concluded that non FTL communication is ‘Fundamental’ to the O.T.U. Setting but barely impacts the actual rules (MgT or CT).
And of the two, the text is more important than the rules. You can change the rules without changing the text, but if you change the text, you usually have to change the rules to conform.The text is a type of rules and the rules are a type of text.
You obviously do see there is a difference between prose descriptions and "raw game mechanic"-style rules. I'm not arguing here that you can have a game without one or the other, merely that they are in fact distinct. They serve different functions and have different applicability to an actual table-side gaming session.What I'm doing is trying - and failing - to explain to you that the TEXT and the RULES are the same damn thing. They're two parts of a whole, two complimentary aspects of the same theme. Each supports the other, one does not exist without the other, one cannot exist without the other.
I suppose you are free to believe whatever you want, no matter how outlandish or baseless.Stepping out of the game here, I'm beginning to suspect that your continued questions in the face of repeated explanations by several people mask a certain motive. When we in this thread stated that settings with FTL comms such as B5 and Slammers cannot be thought of as Traveller, you suddenly appeared asking about what specific rules depend on the presumption of no FTL comms.
Apparently, what you're trying to accomplish here is to develop some excuse that will bolster Mongoose's claims that Traveller was/is a generic sci-fi rules set and then use that excuse to "prove" that B5 or Slammers are Traveller settings rather than just being settings powered by Traveller.
I quite agree with you. I think I already mentioned that.Traveller was never a generic sci-fi rules set.
Sorry, but to use a definition that directly contradicts the definition of the
publisher of the game, and that will contradict the definitions of the players
who play other versions of Traveller than the Third Imperium, is confusing
in the short run and self-defeating in the long run.
I suppose you are free to believe whatever you want, no matter how outlandish or baseless.Whipsnade said:Apparently, what you're trying to accomplish here is to develop some excuse that will bolster Mongoose's claims that Traveller was/is a generic sci-fi rules set and then use that excuse to "prove" that B5 or Slammers are Traveller settings rather than just being settings powered by Traveller.
My point was simply that the "no FTJ communications" restriction is not as fundamental to the Traveller rules as everyone seems to assume, though it is fundamental to the OTU.
Because I find making an argument to be entertaining. What else are internet forums for?Then perhaps you can tell us *why* this argument that you're flogging with such enthusiasm matters...
For some reason, you're stretching awfully hard to press an argument that most of us do not find convincing (and that requires a very dubious downgrading of plain statements in the first paragraph of the Traveller rules). Why?
One can usually safely assume that the publisher's definition and the IP ow-Actually, in the case of Mongoose, for most of their settings, the definition is NOT theirs to make; the publisher is NOT the authority, the IP owner is.