Why all the hatas hatin' on MGT?

[far-trader]

Illustrative of the rules as starting point and loose guidelines vs end all and be all is a game we played ages ago with LBBs 1-3 as the main source...

One player wanted a Punk, Laser-Chainsaw Sculptor, branching into Starship Hull Surface Sculpting and embarking on an interstellar advertising and exhibition tour (the goal to create one of kind art for rich clients by messing with their Yachts iirc), with my character's DD type S as transport and first work (with a skull motif)...

...no problem in our game at the time. He rolled a character (Scout and/or Other I think), we sketched up some "Arts" background and skills, and a combo weapon/tool skill for the Laser Chainsaw (and stats for same). I had a 15mm fig with a mohawk and muscle shirt (both of which got painted shades of metallic purple iirc) which seemed suitably Punk.

Try getting away with that in some ref's games now

Which is not to say that our bunch didn't fall into the whole module and rule playing trap for a while. I think that probably is the biggest reason we didn't play as much, and RPGs in general slowed. While it was what people were asking for, and buying, it really wasn't what they wanted to play, though it was only subconsciously at the time.

 

[MJD]

My physics degree likes realistic worlds and astophisics stuff, but my common sense is willing to ignore the whole definition of a class A port except the 'it's really good' part.

 

[HG_B]

My physics degree likes realistic worlds and astophisics stuff, but my common sense is willing to ignore the whole definition of a class A port except the 'it's really good' part.

"Class *" star ports are just a def invented by a gov anyway. I have always mixed and matched services by what is logical for the system. Even a "D" if medium traffic has refined fuel as it's profitable to make and deliver, etc.

 

[MJD]

Me too. But the book is very specific about what is present at a Class A port etc. My point is that 'the book' needs to be clear that definitions are loose - the way you and I interpret them - but it's not. In fact, there has long been a move to classify and codify and generally nail down everything to a set of cookie-cutter definitions. That really can't work when you're trying to present a universe ful of variation.

 

[rancke]

"Class *" star ports are just a def invented by a gov anyway. I have always mixed and matched services by what is logical for the system. Even a "D" if medium traffic has refined fuel as it's profitable to make and deliver, etc.

I still don't see the problem as being the definition of what exactly an Excellent/Good/Routine/Poor/Frontier quality starport is as much as the difficulty to explain why a world with such and such a location, population and tech level doesn't have at least a Good Quality starport, or what possible use a world with such and such a location, population, and tech level could have for an Excellent Quality starport. The current definitions may be in need of a few tweaks (I think they are, as I've been arguing about Class A vs. Class B and as Martin pointed out about Class D vs. Class E), but apart from that the real problem is and always has been the reluctance to fix discrepancies in previously published material.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Me too. But the book is very specific about what is present at a Class A port etc. My point is that 'the book' needs to be clear that definitions are loose - the way you and I interpret them - but it's not. In fact, there has long been a move to classify and codify and generally nail down everything to a set of cookie-cutter definitions. That really can't work when you're trying to present a universe ful of variation.

Of course, and that is a problem for the game moving forward with new players/GMs. The game, IMO, tends to attract logical, science minded people. When your "rules" are illogical on the face, it doesn't help the product line.

The UWPs that look to be generated by someone on LSD also don't help...

 

[far-trader]

"Class *" star ports are just a def invented by a gov anyway. I have always mixed and matched services by what is logical for the system. Even a "D" if medium traffic has refined fuel as it's profitable to make and deliver, etc.

I don't actually get this. I agree the definition is essentially what you say, a bureaucratic code (or IMTU a TAS code) of what you'll find available. But saying that a "D" in a medium traffic system will have refined fuel is wrong. It won't be a "D" by definition then. It will be "A" or "B" dependent on what other service levels are available. (continued below)

Me too. But the book is very specific about what is present at a Class A port etc. My point is that 'the book' needs to be clear that definitions are loose - the way you and I interpret them - but it's not. In fact, there has long been a move to classify and codify and generally nail down everything to a set of cookie-cutter definitions. That really can't work when you're trying to present a universe ful of variation.

I think it's more a matter of saying that nonsense results need to be vetted, not that the definitions have to be even less well defined. Continuing HG_B's example the rules should be clear that if you roll up a system with a Class D starport, and you envision a lot of interstellar traffic for it that you need to upgrade the starport (maybe, see below). You shouldn't be saying "Well this Class D starport is different from what defines a Class D starport."

Know what I mean?

The logical course is not to redefine the definition for every case, but to change the result to the desired result for any case that is nonsense so the definition fits.

"This Class D starport has refined fuel." is not a logical step.

"This Class D starport makes no sense because it can't support the trade that exists through here, I'll change it to a Class B starport." is the logical step.

This simple logical step of vetting UWPs in context gets rid of all the idiocy.

Sure there could be more variation in some descriptions, and that is up to the ref or writer's imagination. There is room for variation within the loose definitions. It shouldn't change the fact that the code defines a certain loose set of requirements. You wouldn't for example say "Well, atmosphere code 0 means vacuum, but the TL is only 3 so the billions of people would suffocate if I don't redefine Atm0 to mean breathable in this case?" No, you'd say "Well, Atm0 won't work here, I'll change it to Atm5 so the low-tech pop can breath." Right?

Sadly, I do get the sense that the rules need to be a bit more in the readers faces about applying logic and common sense and not just accepting a die roll as a fait accompli. That random results need intervention at times, and interpretation in context. But one shouldn't loose sight of the fact or neglect to mention that sometimes a seemingly illogical result is not necessarily wrong, just interesting, and that some should be kept for that reason with an explanation provided. To again use HG_B's example...

"Hmmm, a Class D starport on the main with all that trade running through it. That's curious. I wonder why it was never upgraded? Maybe there's a fuel cartel in the systems immediately beyond it that are blocking upgrades so they can sell more fuel and demountable fuel tanks in their systems for anyone running through that system. And anyone foolish enough to risk the unrefined fuel will find they "require" a port mandated safety flush and clean when they arrive in the outlying systems if they bought unrefined fuel. And maybe there are some speculators shipping fuel into the Class D system and selling it at a profit, charging more than the standard rate but still less than the cost of the flush and clean. The regulars know this, but the PCs might not if they are new to the route and don't ask around... "

... and adventure ensues.

Not for every case of course. Not if the explanation is too stretched. Nor if an idea doesn't present itself with a little thought. And not for cases where the PCs are just passing through. etc.

 

[Jame]

The UWPs that look to be generated by someone on LSD also don't help...

OMG! BRB - LSD, PCP. G2G!




I'm sorry. Just had to. :rofl:

 

[HG_B]

I don't actually get this.

Pretty simple. Look up what a "D" is and add only refined fuel. Nothing else. The "code" doesn't allow for that. See, simple.

 

[rancke]

Pretty simple. Look up what a "D" is and add only refined fuel. Nothing else. The "code" doesn't allow for that. See, simple.

Yes it does. It has all the facilities necessary to qualify as a Class D but lack one or more of those necessary to qualify as a Class C. Hence it is a Class D. That is to say, the rating agency, having only those two possibilities to choose between, would choose to rate it a D.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Yes it does. It has all the facilities necessary to qualify as a Class D but lack one or more of those necessary to qualify as a Class C. Hence it is a Class D. That is to say, the rating agency, having only those two possibilities to choose between, would choose to rate it a D.


Hans

So, in Trav rules, a Class D can have refined fuel? Book & Pg. # pls...

BTW- Class C isn't allowed to have refined fuel...

 

[rancke]

So, in Trav rules, a Class D can have refined fuel? Book & Pg. # pls...

Sorry, I have to refer you to common sense. If that doesn't work for you, you're on your own on this one. The rules are not the setting; at best, they're an imperfect reflection of the setting.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Sorry, I have to refer you to common sense. If that doesn't work for you, you're on your own on this one.

I'm talking what the rules ACTUALLY say. If YOU make an assertion that the rules DON't say that, and then refuse to back it up. That is something else entirely... Others can fill in the blank.

 

[Blix]

Sure there could be more variation in some descriptions, and that is up to the ref or writer's imagination. There is room for variation within the loose definitions. It shouldn't change the fact that the code defines a certain loose set of requirements. You wouldn't for example say "Well, atmosphere code 0 means vacuum, but the TL is only 3 so the billions of people would suffocate if I don't redefine Atm0 to mean breathable in this case?" No, you'd say "Well, Atm0 won't work here, I'll change it to Atm5 so the low-tech pop can breath." Right?

What is wrong with your first option? There are actually rules in the game that say that if the TL is too low then the world must be uninhabited (e.g. in the CT Alien Modules, and the Collapse rules of TNE).

Such a world may retroactively have never been colonized (and why should every system on the map be colonized anyway?), or it may house the ruins of a colony or society that tried to survive there but ultimately failed. I think that is more interesting than changing it to a habitable world.

 

[far-trader]

What is wrong with your first option?

Nothing. Actually you nailed it in your reply that another fix it would be to make it uninhabited.

I chose to change the conditions to habitable and keep the pop in my example of a fix. In your example of a fix you chose to keep the conditions and change the pop to zero. Both work. Both show the random results are nonsense. The only difference is what any one ref desires for that situation. Another might go more extreme and say all the population exists in sealed caves far below the surface that do have a breathable atmosphere recycled by a unique set of conditions. Or whatever.

The point being a fix is needed and that's what the ref's or writer's intelligence and imagination are for. The rules can't do that. And without that, adhering slavishly to random results "because it is the rule" is silly.

And I think you missed the main point just as HG_B has. One does not change the definition of a stated condition to fit the needs. One changes the results. Atm0 means "vacuum". Atm0 does not mean "I need a breathable atmosphere here so this Atm0 means breathable air.", you change the UWP to the proper Atm code (or whatever to make it sensible). Starport Class D means "No refined fuel". Starport Class D does not mean "I need refined fuel here so this Starport Class D has refined fuel.", you change the UWP to the proper Starport Class (or whatever makes it sensible). It really is that simple.

 

[far-trader]

...Others can fill in the blank.

If I didn't know better I'd say this is trolling and a borderline personal attack. But I know you know better right.

 

[rancke]

I'm talking what the rules ACTUALLY say. If YOU make an assertion that the rules DON't say that, and then refuse to back it up. That is something else entirely... Others can fill in the blank.

I made the assertation that starport codes allowed for starports with refined fuel available but no repair or shipyard facilities present.

As for the rules, here you go:

"The basic rules deal only with the major aspects of the way the universe works, allowing the referee to fashion details to suit individual preferences." [TBB:10]​

So the fact that the rules don't mention starports with refined fuel but no repair or shipyard facilities is not proof that no such starports exist. The rules do seem to to indicate that there is no separate classification for such starports, no Class <gamma> or <delta> as the case might be, but then, none is needed, as the Class D code can cover it.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

I made the assertation that starport codes allowed for starports with refined fuel available but no repair or shipyard facilities present.

As for the rules, here you go:

...

Hans

BZZZZZZT. Nice try but no cigar.

 

[Blix]

Starport Class D means "No refined fuel". Starport Class D does not mean "I need refined fuel here so this Starport Class D has refined fuel.", you change the UWP to the proper Starport Class (or whatever makes it sensible). It really is that simple.

Not really. What if a starport is nothing more than a landing pad with an automated fuel refinery, so refined fuel is available? Is that an E starport (nope, because fuel of any kind is available there), a D starport (nope, because refined fuel is available), or a C starport (nope, because there are no repair facilities there)?

 

[far-trader]

Not really. What if a starport is nothing more than a landing pad with an automated fuel refinery, so refined fuel is available? Is that an E starport (nope, because fuel of any kind is available there), a D starport (nope, because refined fuel is available), or a C starport (nope, because there are no repair facilities there)?

The point is by definition a starport with just a landing pad won't have an automated fuel refinery. If there is enough traffic to warrant a fuel refinery and all that goes with selling refined fuel then there is enough traffic for and the field will have been ungraded to a Class B or Class A Starport. Simple.

If there is not enough traffic to warrant setting up refined fuel sales then there is not enough traffic to warrant a shipyard either, so the field will not be Class A or B. It may be Class C if there is a reasonable demand for repairs. Or it will be less. I don't get this need to complicate matters and invent reasons for a Starport to exist that is (for example) just a bare patch of bedrock with a signal beacon (Class E) but oh btw there is an automated fuel refinery and storage and everything else associated with fuel sales because... why exactly? If the traffic is there to support refined fuel sales, why is it still just a dumpy dusty bare patch of bedrock? THAT makes no sense.

Are you and HG_B really not following the logic of this? I can try to make the point more clearly, and will if needed, but I get the feeling you're simply not reading my full replies, or worse purposefully ignoring them for other reasons.