Why do they change the Spinward Marches UWPs?

[captainjack]

Its pretty much a moot point now, I guess.
Without revealing my personal stand on the issue, I see it as a loss/loss result in the long run. Given all the bruhaha around the issue I can't imagine the the decision was based on a careful consideration of the need or lack of need for incorporating more modern data to maintain a quality product (was that neutral enough ?) but rather the need to terminate an issue that has gotten too convoluted and impacted , and thus really really emotional, and likely a waste of time.

<SNIP>

As a result, I can't imagine this is going to be any help in terms of integrating fan input in the future, no matter what the issue is....I rather suspect that its hard to not see the situation as a bunch of overinvolved hobbyists stirring the hell out of a teacup....and for the record, I explicitly do not apply apply that anyone specifically or in particular; and acknowledge that I'm guilty of it too.

 

[michaelpooley]

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.

this is a personal attack. But is being allowed.

 

[michaelpooley]

why?

 

[michaelpooley]

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.

how?

 

[far-trader]

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.

this is a personal attack. But is being allowed.

A: It's from almost three years ago. Resurrecting long dead threads is ok within reason, but not just for reigniting dead fights.

B: The proper methodology for issues is to hit the report button, not add to the flames by posting about it.

C: It is questioning points and stating opinion. It does not look like a personal attack. For example: "Far-Trader is stupid." would be a personal attack, correct or not. "Far-Trader is wrong about 1+1=3." would be a fair statement, correct or not

So... His "fixes" are not more realistic, but are more limited..

why?

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the OP, they haven't been around for a couple months. But it's possible they'll come back to reply.

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.

how?

Here's another don't hold your breath for an OP reply, I haven't seen Hunter post here in a long time and don't expect he will. I could be wrong though. And of course others may offer their opinions on these now that you have reanimated this dead horse (not a dig, there may be some retread life in it... )

 

[MJD]

Never saw all this debate the first time around, but here it is now.

As to my 'UWP fixes', I began compiling a list of possible UWP issues to present to Marc so that we might discuss *the possibility of* quietly altering the ones that aren't carved into stone in a published adventure. Most of the potential changes were minor, such as making a world size 3 instead of size 1 so that it could actually have its listed atmosphere and hydrographics. We did consider presenting things like odd TLs and population, though in most cases those were more of an issue and probably would have been left alone.

I never planned to use EDG's system; these were simple hand fixes.

However, someone told Marc that was going to change the Spinward Marches UWPs without permission and, without asking me what I was doing or verifying anything, Marc vetoed the whole idea of messing with UWP data and appointed a rival licensee to vet my work so that I could not perpetrate any further such heresy. That was quickly withdrawn (it's ilegal, for a start) but the veto remained.

Then, about 18 months after Spinward Marches was released (it uses Supplement 3 UWPs straight out of the book, no reference to other, later versions), Marc published an official product containing altered Marches UWPs.

I think it's pretty obvious what I think of that.

 

[michaelpooley]

B: The proper methodology for issues is to hit the report button, not add to the flames by posting about it.

C: It is questioning points and stating opinion. It does not look like a personal attack. For example: "Far-Trader is stupid." would be a personal attack, correct or not. "Far-Trader is wrong about 1+1=3." would be a fair statement, correct or not

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the OP, they haven't been around for a couple months. But it's possible they'll come back to reply.

Here's another don't hold your breath for an OP reply, I haven't seen Hunter post here in a long time and don't expect he will. I could be wrong though. And of course others may offer their opinions on these now that you have reanimated this dead horse (not a dig, there may be some retread life in it... )

I did not know the proper procedure about how to report an infraction.

I do however condsider implied personal attacks like "this person's work is stupid" as the same as saying the person is stupid and that is what the original post did.

Both Abelbaker and hunter made statements but never backed those statements up.

 

[Sanjuro]

Here's a radical thought:
If you are playing CT, use CT UWPs etc as canon.
If " " " MT, " MT.....

Etc...

Takes cover and awaits incoming...

 

[HG_B]

Here's a radical thought:
If you are playing CT, use CT UWPs etc as canon.
If " " " MT, " MT.....

Etc...

Takes cover and awaits incoming...

I guess one could. But, nutty is nutty no matter what version.

 

[rancke]

I guess one could. But, nutty is nutty no matter what version.

Also, good is good, and ignoring all the good material that has been produced for all the other versions over the years (whichever version you choose, there has been produced more material for the other versions than for yours), is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


Hans

 

[Sanjuro]

Or just use what works and try not to get too worked up about whether it is canon?
Of course, this only works for MTU; it does not solve the problem if you want to publish for the OTU. I don't envy anyone trying to solve that issue...

 

[far-trader]

I did not know the proper procedure about how to report an infraction.

No worries, I anticipated as much was the reason for my moderator note on that point (I should probably have also noted for you the "report" post button is the little "warning" triangle icon in the top right of every post heading, but you've probably found it already )

I do however condsider implied personal attacks like "this person's work is stupid" as the same as saying the person is stupid and that is what the original post did.

I do see you point, but I don't know what happened at the time, I wasn't moderating then. My recollection of what I did see is vague. Many of the posts at the time were deleted for going too far over the line and being clearly attacks or other problems (you can't see them, I might not have then, I don't particularly want to at this time even though I can see the ones that were only soft deleted, and I have no way of knowing how many were fully deleted).

Both Abelbaker and hunter made statements but never backed those statements up.

Some of those deleted posts may have been replies to the statements, and so on. We've even had some users delete their own posts for one reason or another so there may be missing posts in the thread throwing a wrench into the context. And yes, even some of Hunter's posts in that thread were moderator deleted (some by Hunter himself). Maybe that post too should have been dealt with, maybe it even was, infractions are not visible to the public and sometimes are not handled with actual infractions but via PM. This late in the game I can't see addressing that post or others that far back any further unless the offended party(s) insisted. And then it would be a bit of nightmare because of the time passed.

Please do report any current or recent issues though, they will be looked at and dealt with.

 

[Garnfellow]

Wait, where did Miller publish updated UWPs?

 

[far-trader]

Wait, where did Miller publish updated UWPs?

I should probably let someone else field this because I'm not sure I'm recalling it right.

I think they are not yet published but only talked about being released as part of T5.

 

[MJD]

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=64319

I can't now find the announcement that it containes updated UWPs, but I recall how I felt when I heard that it did. And a conversation I had with one of the people involved that resulted from that revelation.

 

[Amra]

As a customer that bought MGT Spinward Marches I can say that I'm very disappointed that MJD's fixes weren't included. I own the CT CD, but I don't give a flying fig what the old UWPs were, I'm buying a new Traveller game and I want errors fixed.

What's the point of a new edition if I have to live with old mistakes because it's "canon" in an edition I have no intention of running? A new edition should offer the freedom to improve the setting. Why should the quality of what I'm buying be limited by a product published decades ago?

Those that want CT stuff have it in the FEE line and have no reason to object to new Traveller canon in a new line.

I'd think that the CT crowd should be happy. Most everything is already available (or they own it already). Buy the CT CD and the FEE reprints and your good to go; ignore all the MGT stuff, you don't have to spend any more money.

It pisses me off that MGT is being forced to reprint the mistakes of past editions because of this absurd annal retentive attitude.

 

[MJD]

It's important to realise (you obvously do but others might not) that the edict not to touch the original UWPs came from marc. Mongoose and I were forced to simply accept this instruction.

It's a shame really, this new edition was a chance to smooth out a few of the issues in the Marches region and recude the amount of beleivability disconnects. But it wasnt to be.

I suspect that had we been permitted to compile our list and present it to Marc the way we wanted (issue; suggested fix; likely consequences) he'd have gone for some, many or even all of the things we wanted to suggest.

Sadly it never got past the compilation phase. Someone posted on these boards the question - should I be allowed to change the UWPs? Half a dozen people got very upset about it, into which debate I posted that nobody had actually asked what I was doing.

Then, out of nowhere came the censure and the edict not to do what we were accused of doing (which bore little resemblance to what we were actually doing). Someone who has Marc's ear told him that we were up to no good and he just believed it rather than checking. I have issues with his lack of trust, but in truth I beleive that he was misled by someone with an agenda. I know who it was.

To prevent a repeat of this terrible thing, Marc appointed Hunter Gordon (of QLI, a rival licensee) to vet all my work for Avenger and Mongoose before it got to him. You can probably imagine what I thought about that; it was quickly withdrawn but it was real slap in the face for me.

And then 'fixed' UWPs came out in the FFE map pack thing a few months later. I found that extemely offensive. Essentially FFE forced Mongoose to put out a product that wasn't what the writer wanted (and would have been even better than it is had we been permitted to do what we intended) and then published a product containing amended data on the same subject. Canon fans can debate whether that makes the Mongoose UWPs (which were taken from Supplement 3 directly) obsolete, or not. I don't care at this point.

There were, IMO, some very poor decisions made by FFE here. Traveller canon is contradictory enough withough further compounding the issue like this.

But most importantly I want to point out that none of this was my fault or that of Mongoose. It was Traveller fanboy politics, or maybe the intervention of a rival licensee with an agenda, that caused this issue.

 

[Garnfellow]

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=64319

I can't now find the announcement that it containes updated UWPs, but I recall how I felt when I heard that it did. And a conversation I had with one of the people involved that resulted from that revelation.

Well that's interesting. Haven't done a side-by-side comparison yet, but I do see that the UWP data in that product has some new fields. I assume these are T5 things?

Could anyone explain what these fields mean:

{Ix}
(Ex)
[Cx]
N
W

 

[travlar]

Yeah, those are T5 things. {Ix} is importance, with 4+ being important, and 0- being unimportant. whatever that means... (Ex) would be economic extension, the first digit being resources, the second labor (population), the third being infrastructure, and the fourth barriers. [Cx] is cultural extension; homogeneity, acceptance, strangeness, and symbols. Not really sure what the symbols bit means, but the others are fairly obvious, at least.

Are you sure that it has updated UWPs? I know there was some work on what the UWPs would have been some year earlier than 1105 or whatever the 'normal' is.

 

[BillDowns]

All of this discussion simply enhances my very earliest decision to ignore the OTU. THis made back when the very first Spinward Marches supplement came out.