Why do they change the Spinward Marches UWPs?

[RandyT0001]

Well, my suspicions with EDG are that I don´t think he´s up for the task.

He has a PhD in planetary science, he knows more about planetary formation that just about anybody else within the Traveller community. He tries to apply logic and reasoning to the corrections to be made. He has offered his time to do this without pay (from my underestanding) because he likes the Traveller game.

Most of his reasoning wasn´t convincing, and he has shown several methodical shortcomings.

Like: not understanding statistics.

Could you give me a couple of examples of his reasoning that are not convincing and why you don't think they are? Could you give me three examples of these shortcomings and explain how they make the new UWP's so bad as to be worse than the pre-corrected UWP's?

I don't see how a lack of understanding of statistics to a collegiate degree level disqualifies him from making these corrections. I don't understand the basis for disagreeing with the need to change these "daft" UWP's using statistics. What in statistics makes it wrong to make these corrections?

EDIT: Or even worse: not understanding UWPs.

What about UWP's does he not understand? It's an alphanumeric sequence that gives some of the most basic atributes of a world. Could you give me a couple of examples of his misunderstanding of UWP's that are worse than his corrections and provide a logical reason that explains why you say they are worse?

 

[Able Baker]

@ Randy: Some of your comments are already adressed by my second post.

He might have a Ph.D. in planetary science, whatever that is. So be it.

That only makes me wonder why he behaves as he does, and why he is posting hundreds of UWPs to "prove" anything. That´s not how it works.

I´m talking about the guy EDG from the Mongoose boards, just so that there is no misconception.

@Hunter: I´m not saying EDG is moronic, sorry. I do think it is "daft" as a principle to limit the options in the possible outcomes of a Referee´s tool, under the moniker of "realism".

Whereas other areas are left as they are. Like encounter tables.
Now are the realistic? Is the TU modelled good by them?

Now, if an overenthusiastic fan has shortcomings: no sweat, not anyones business. But if someone tries to make an impact on the game?

I have not seen him bring up his credentials, but if he was, that´d be a bad move too.

 

[hunter]

@Hunter: I´m not saying EDG is moronic, sorry. I do think it is "daft" as a principle to limit the options in the possible outcomes of a Referee´s tool, under the moniker of "realism".

Understood, it's just a loaded term and easily taken in the wrong context over the internet. No worries, just try to avoid using such terms.

On EDG, yeah most of us know who you are referring to. He's not the most 'diplomatic' of people at times, but he does know his stuff when it comes to planetary science. I'll also say I've never seen him throw his doctorate around in an attempt to impress anyone.

 

[merlin]

CT UWP's suffer from a vast number of oddities as do a number of published UWP's from later versions of the Traveller line.

After all "First Survey" (T4 Supplement) is riddled with inaccuracies, and is canon OTU, but I would be suprised if anyone called for the UWP's contained within that book not to be changed of the sake of maintaining the "integrity" of the OTU.

New editions are a prime opportunity to rectify any mistakes/oddities that may have crept in.

 

[hunter]

After all "First Survey" (T4 Supplement) is riddled with inaccuracies,

Feh, inaccuracies can be said for most products in the T4 line. It's the red-headed step-child of Traveller. Bringing up problems with it is like calling water wet. :smirk:

 

[Able Baker]

I´d like to back it up with one example:

Removed. Please do not copy Dr. Ganymede's posts from other forums. I'm not sure about his Mongoose sig, but he often has specified in his sigs that he does not want his posts copied without his permission, and you do not have it. If you want to reference his work please obtain his permission to copy it or just post a link to it. The link in this case is:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=475901#475901

This is very bad reasoning. I don´t want to go into the details, but here´s a simile: Where are most Americans living? In Kansas? Where the Wheat is?

Now, I´d just like to say that there´s a lot of factors of why and where and when people put their cities and installations. They are not even thought of in his "fixes".

I´m not a historian, but a historian would have his explanations, as would an economist or a sociologist or a demographer.

So, it´s just a patchwork of some ideas of some guy, who shows a very limited horizon in regards of how the TU should be modelled. His "fixes" are not more realistic, but are more limited.

Not anything I´d want for Traveller.

 

[coliver988]

In looking over the actual thread on Avenger's side, most of the changes appear to be tweaks to the planetary size so that they can somewhat logically (won't use realistic ) support the atmosphere and/or hydrosphere. A few tech level, population and starport tweaks.

While I'm not overly fond of changing canon simply for realism, simply modifying a planet's size would seem to have little impact on the Marches per se: has anyone actually used the gravity rules for the smaller worlds? We never played the players bounding around in 10 foot leaps in short sleeves on the size 3 world w/breathable atmosphere (although now I might!). The atmosphere and hydrosphere componentsthey are maintaining except in extreme cases, were always more relevant to actual play.

The population, tech & starport changes will be more noticeable, but if I'm reading their intent correctly, they want to maintain the existing trade and other infrastructure systems, and are trying to minimize any changes.

And there has always been errata even in the Marches, changes from one version to another. Possibly even between printings of the same material. Heck - maybe the surveys were wrong (was that metric or English measurements for that last system?) (and later on, everyone was just too, well, embarrassed, to fix the data)(perhaps too much Douglas Adams or Terry Pritchart lately)

Finally - I also appreciate that this thread has no denigrated into something messy. I usually avoid adding to what can be confrontational threads, and this board usually manages to stay well above that despite having many contrary opinions. As per another thread - it is always interesting to hear other ideas, even if they do oppose my ideas (damn that Liberal Arts degree - makes me too wishy-washy!)

 

[hunter]

In looking over the actual thread on Avenger's side, most of the changes appear to be tweaks to the planetary size so that they can somewhat logically (won't use realistic ) support the atmosphere and/or hydrosphere. A few tech level, population and starport tweaks.

Adjusting planetary size to better fit the atmosphere/hydrographics rating I can accept. That actually wouldn't break anything. Changing anything else could have significant impact.

 

[Foxroe]

Change away, I say...

I've still got my care-worn copy of Supplement 3!

-Fox

 

[sablewyvern]

As was mentioned in the poll on the same topic, EDG clearly knows what he is talking about when it comes to straightforward physical science. However, he also has a particular view on the cultural and sociological effects of different environments and the probabilities of any given planet being settled. While these are perfectly valid views, they are -- when you get down to it -- no more than speculation. "Planets with hostile atmsopheres will not have significant populations, except in extremely rare and unusual circumstances,"* is a purely speculative statement, but EDG regards it as objective truth.

*Edit to clarify: That's a paraphrased comment, not a direct quote of EDG.

 

[chshrkt]

<snip>

And there has always been errata even in the Marches, changes from one version to another. Possibly even between printings of the same material. Heck - maybe the surveys were wrong (was that metric or English measurements for that last system?) (and later on, everyone was just too, well, embarrassed, to fix the data)(perhaps too much Douglas Adams or Terry Pritchart lately)

I have always adjusted the "daft" UWPs as being survey data entry errors. Since I have not seen any canon material use these "daft" planets for adventures or the like, I saw absolutely zero problem with changing them. Infact, having them in the ships astrographic library caused the players to wonder (for instance) how in the heck a size-3 world could possibly have a breathable atmosphere.

Makes for an added extra pull to get them to the next hook in the story line, since I change that world to be whatever I want it to be for the purposes of the plot anyhoo.

Who says that survey data hundreds of years old will not have had some bit changes here and there. Makes the whole "Go out and resurvey this subsector" ticket all that more plausable.

As for MGT changing the UWPs, Like Foxroe states; go for it says I, the old material will always be there for those who want it.

 

[captainjack]

Well, my suspicions with EDG are that I don´t think he´s up for the task.

Most of his reasoning wasn´t convincing, and he has shown several methodical shortcomings.

Like: not understanding statistics.

EDIT: Or even worse: not understanding UWPs.

Able,

As the fellow who had the discussion with him, let me say that the stat issue was mostly with regard to my posting and its approach to sampling vs probabilities.

I'm a statistician, I know the stuff. He doesn't. He needed to to follow my posting and analysis, and he did have to get up to speed if he was gonna do so; however Bayesian vs Frequentist statistics is not exactly the core of the issue with worldgen or traveller, so not knowing it isn't a valid critique in this context, at all. I have issues with EDG, yes indeed....some of them are diplomatic -in fact many of them are diplomatic. But this aint one of em.

So, in comparison, can you tell me the difference between an estimated frequency and a probability statement ?

Given your opinions, why aren't you on the MGT boards ?

 

[aramis]

As it sits, EDG's social assumptions include rejecting the subterranean dwellers of 16th to 19th C europe, including Edinburgh, Paris, etc.

He believes that if they really occurred, it was not by choice.

He genuinely believes people will not be willing to live in hab domes.

But, by the same token, he's not able to post in his own defense here, so please, don't belabor the issue. And he does, from time to time, read what is in the open boards.

 

[hunter]

But, by the same token, he's not able to post in his own defense here, so please, don't belabor the issue.

Please note this is by his choice. I offered to lift it shortly after the original ban, he said he preferred it remained in place. So it does.

 

[robject]

Adjusting planetary size to better fit the atmosphere/hydrographics rating I can accept. That actually wouldn't break anything. Changing anything else could have significant impact.

I can see this. I can sense my resistance to change, but I can live with this. The Marches were designed from a primarily social perspective, not a planetary one.

The only argument beyond the "I'm a grognard" one is that realism is seldom a good enough reason to change games.

 

[Klaus]

Retconning the OTU to eliminate nonsense can only be a good thing in my book.

It will affect exactly nothing, to be honest. Most of those bland number strings in the Spinward Marches have never been written up in anything, apart from in BtC, which, as we know, was only the draft document, and, written by MJD, who is the one conspiring with EDG to concoct this evil scheme...:devil:

Actually no one can fault EDG's physical stats, and it has been tried. On more sociological issues there is debate going on (sometimes spiky, has to be said) about them.

Now remember folks, MongTrav is meant to be the engine for a whole host of games, like SST and Strontium Dog. Should they be saddled with CT nonsense worldgen too?

All those silly worlds make me wince. It's like reading an sf novel and realising the author got the speed of light wrong (yup, has happened, in an otherwise excellent book)! And there are loads of them, and often the rationales for them become remarkably similar. If you want strange anomalies, stick them in yourself as Ref (that's your job). The worldgen system should not produce impossible or unlikely results at all, in my book.

So I regard EDGs system as eliminating the unrealistic, rather than being more realistic.

Regarding those trogolodyte communities from history - they only existed alongside the 'regular' folk and pretty much qualify as an anomaly.

Have to say trying to claim EDG/Mal doesn't know what he's talking about is pretty laughable. His passionate arguments on worldgen were one of the things that attracted me to these boards after discovering Traveller through the reprints, and seeing so much gold but so much scientific nonsense too. His analysis always made sense (and his style was quite entertaining, too). I doubt there is anyone more knowledgable about both planetology and Traveller.

I don't believe the argument that the SM should remain sacrosanct canon holds much water.

a) only a handful of worlds have been written up.
b) many of these write-ups are also inconsistent with each over through all editions.
c) many of the write-ups are also just old material reprinted (soo lazy)
d) unrealistic worlds put people off the game (did me - there's so much good in Traveller but for me this is a major flaw). Those that know/care hate them, those that don't don't know the difference.

If Mongoose released a Spinward Marches book that was just a rehash of all that went on before there would be uproar. And what would be the point? Also what would be the point of doing another bland sector, when all the interesting ones have already been done?

I want to know more about the Marches. Even after 30 years we know almost nothing about it. It's the prime setting for the OTU, containing all the elements that make the OTU what it is. That it should be done is a good thing, that it should be fixed is a given. It should have happened long ago.

 

[robject]

I want to know more about the Marches. Even after 30 years we know almost nothing about it. It's the prime setting for the OTU, containing all the elements that make the OTU what it is. That it should be done is a good thing, that it should be fixed is a given. It should have happened long ago.

Marc put a call out two years ago to take in suggestions for everybody's "one wish" for the Marches: if you had one world you would want to change, what is it, and what's the change? There were several takers, and Marc incorporated the changes in. The thread's somewhere here on COTI.

My example: I asked for a change on the star data on 567-908. It didn't have to change; the world's orbit could have been reeled in. But, I liked everything else about the world; in my mind, the star didn't fit.

Someone else suggested a change to the population on Iderati, I think.

So 'canon' isn't as 'canonical' as we might think.

And I can't echo Klaus' first point better. I want to know more about the Marches. Some bits of it have been Done, but five hundred systems is a lot of real estate, and if it feels confining, then paradoxically that could just mean we know so little about it.

 

[Plankowner]

As someone who has been involved on the Mongoose board with the EDG system and it's possible changes to canon AND as someone who has communicated with MJD regarding the Spinward Marches, I feel the need to say something very important here that has not been said before.

The Spinward Marches are NOT being regenerated. The work at Mongoose is NOT affecting the new Spinward Marches book except in a remote way.

The new Spinward Marches book will start with the Spinward Marches and fix only the worst offenders. Sizes will be adjusted to match atmospheres for some worlds. ERRORS will try to be corrected in a logical manner (2 versions of the marches with different UWPs for the same planet anyone?).

Additionally, where the world has been detailed in canon, changes will be none, or minimal, usually none. I know of one case where the population is being changed because the WRITTEN canon description of the world doesn't match the published UWP. In that case, I believe, they are raising the population of the UWP to match the description of the world (don't remember the name off the top of my head).

EDG's work on the Mongoose board is an attempt to fix the scientifically impossible combinations of worlds and provide some other tweeks to the social aspects based on common sense. Others over there have disagreed with some of his changes (myself included) and he has made changes. BUT, none of the EDG system has been accepted by Mongoose as far as we know. They could throw it all out and go back to LBB3 stuff.

MJD is writing the Spinward Marches book and he is NOT using the EDG system, he is working with the published data and only making minor changes.

Hope that clears up the 2 issues that seem to have been confused as 1 issue on this topic.

 

[Foxroe]

<snipped> ...Hope that clears up the 2 issues that seem to have been confused as 1 issue on this topic.

Hell, I consider myself somewhat of a canon-ista, but I could live with this.

-Fox

 

[Whipsnade]

Retconning the OTU to eliminate nonsense can only be a good thing in my book.

Klaus,

I can agree with that statement...

... providing that we try to preserve previously published canonical descriptions first. If a "daft" world isn't mentioned in some Amber Zone, JTAS article, or other bit of material then by all means change it.

It will affect exactly nothing, to be honest. Most of those bland number strings in the Spinward Marches have never been written up in anything...

Precisely. Most worlds can be retconned into something approaching reality without mussing a single hair on canon's head.

I doubt there is anyone more knowledgable about both planetology and Traveller.

I can agree with the first part of that statement and cannot agree with the second. YMMV.


Have fun,
Bill