Wilds Government Codes

[DonM]

And yet the errata matches word-for-word one unofficially suggested by HIWG members on the TML several months before the Mark 1 Mod 1 version of TNE was released to correct problems with the first version. Why would GDW, over two years later want to release an update for an outdated version of the rules, rather than the current one they'd been using?

Also, I think it's Don's notes, and I think they're in error.

(Sorry for the brief reply - busy, busy, busy day!)

1. Since Marc wasn't at GDW during the TNE period, the notes I had are what he was given, which wasn't much. And I've contacted both Frank and Loren to sort out some things. Neither of them saved anything. Frank cleaned that stuff out when he moved from Illinois, Loren the same. Ouch.

2. Both Frank and Loren were given notes by TML and HIWG members. It would make sense that at least one of them would at some point have those notes. That posts from the TML got into a GDW file don't surprise me at all.

3. I have been more than willing to make changes -- but other than one or two people, I've had no serious proposals to fix the TNE rules. Remember, whatever you do to fix the government rules MUST work with the rest of the rules. I don't play TNE regularly, so I'm much more reluctant to suggest errata for it than MegaTraveller or Classic Traveller.

So Hans -- please send me your fixes. Marc's been wanting an update, and yes, the current version of the errata is on the TNE CD. Drop me a note, I'll send you the current errata draft.

And as far as errata is concerned, it isn't always a matter of replacing with later versions of Traveller. Every edition of Traveller has parts which were never replaced by a later edition, even if they are related. On the other hand, certain rules seem to never change much...

 

[LeperColony]

Even if Don were to invent them out of thin air (not that I'm saying he did), if Marc accepts them they become official, so the distinction between Frank, Loren, Don, the TML, and the HIWG seems academic at best.

 

[Starviking]

2. Both Frank and Loren were given notes by TML and HIWG members. It would make sense that at least one of them would at some point have those notes. That posts from the TML got into a GDW file don't surprise me at all.

And it wouldn't surprise me either - it makes perfect sense that they'd have the files for the suggested errata to the first version of TNE.

3. I have been more than willing to make changes -- but other than one or two people, I've had no serious proposals to fix the TNE rules. Remember, whatever you do to fix the government rules MUST work with the rest of the rules. I don't play TNE regularly, so I'm much more reluctant to suggest errata for it than MegaTraveller or Classic Traveller.

The Wilds are a very specific case, with their own rules for generating governments - and they work well. Why must they be 'fixed' to work with other editions of Traveller?

So Hans -- please send me your fixes. Marc's been wanting an update, and yes, the current version of the errata is on the TNE CD. Drop me a note, I'll send you the current errata draft.

Have the "Mark 1 Mod 2 rules" been cut in this version, or at least identified as suggested changes to the first release of TNE?

And as far as errata is concerned, it isn't always a matter of replacing with later versions of Traveller. Every edition of Traveller has parts which were never replaced by a later edition, even if they are related. On the other hand, certain rules seem to never change much...

I'd suggest the Wilds and their specific govt rules should be one of them.

 

[McPerth]

That's truly a hot thread... Two days offline and more than 3 pages of new posts.. If you don't slow it down it will become quite difficult to follow .

IMO, governement code 7 doesn't mind the different states are warring among themselves.

How would you otherwise rate a planet like the one represented on this thread (do you remember it, Hans)?

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=376865&postcount=13
(full thread)http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=24799

There whould be several societies (may be seen as diferent governments) moslty unaware about one another, probably with very divergent government classes...

As it referes to an interdicted world, there's no posibility to rate it for the goverment most contacted or where the starpost is on (as there's none), so it's dificult to rate as one government code for all the planet, yet there are no warring states, as they have not enough contact to war...

We must not forget that government codes, as most codes so used, are very loose generalizations, often overlaping among them, and should be interpreted by the referee.

Not all plantes with the same government rate will be equally governed, and the same code may mean very different things (or the same government may be given several codes, depending on the interpretation).

Many European contries in today's RW (e.g. Spain or UK) are parlamientary monarchies. Depending on how are they seen, a monarchy may be seen as a dictator (either charismatic or non-charismatic) or an oligarchy (ditto). The fact of being parlamientary it's likely to be seen as a democracy (most probably representative, but some times may even be participative).

So, depending on the moment they are rated or the interpretation the IISS (or RC explorers, as we're on a TNE thread) make from what they see, they could be rated 6 diferent codes each country. They could be rated all equal (with their dissimiliraties) or different (eith their similitudes).

 

[DonM]

I'd really like to seperate the overall "errata sources and how valid are they" discussion from the "Wilds Government Codes, do they work" discussion.

And the errata in question is here:

http://dmckinne.winterwar.org/pdfs/ConsolidatedTNEErrata.pdf

 

[DonM]

Have the "Mark 1 Mod 2 rules" been cut in this version, or at least identified as suggested changes to the first release of TNE?

Since the very first version, this statement has been in the errata:

"Second, the errata for the “Mark I, Mod 1” second printing Traveller: The New Era rulebook; all of this errata also applies to the first printing rulebook as well."

Since the second version (10/15/09), there's been this message:

"The existing rules on TEDs caused problems with other rules. The mechanisms below have the cleanest approach to working within existing rules. These were drafted originally by Guy Garnett, then modified by GDW but not published prior to it’s closing. They are presented as an alternative to the published rules, not a replacement."

Not sure what else you would want?

 

[LeperColony]

One of the problems with TED is that GDW did not use it consistently. They seemed to regard it both as a government type, and as a descriptor for other forms of governments. You can see this most clearly in the write up about Montezuma in PoT. Several of the CO-5 governments are described as TEDs.

If TED is a government code, it must tell us something that is distinct and unique about the manner in which the government is organized and/or how it functions. If the desire is to keep it as a government code, then those unique details have to be identified.

For it to be a descriptor, all it needs to do is indicate that the government it is modifying/clarifying rules by virtue of technological elevation.

 

[Starviking]

One of the problems with TED is that GDW did not use it consistently. They seemed to regard it both as a government type, and as a descriptor for other forms of governments. You can see this most clearly in the write up about Montezuma in PoT. Several of the CO-5 governments are described as TEDs.

If TED is a government code, it must tell us something that is distinct and unique about the manner in which the government is organized and/or how it functions. If the desire is to keep it as a government code, then those unique details have to be identified.

For it to be a descriptor, all it needs to do is indicate that the government it is modifying/clarifying rules by virtue of technological elevation.

Path of Tears page 73 says:

"...and so the government is, at first glance, a classic technologically elevated dictatorship. However, the Gnostic Brotherhood and the Psionic Institute play such a powerful role in government that it is more accurate to consider the states oligarchies"

So it seems that Montezuma is an exception.

 

[LeperColony]

Except that the more detailed description in PoT uses terms like "Seacost's Ted..." and "Polaris is growing increasingly friendly to the Coalition, and so relations with some of the other TEDs, especially Centrum, are deteriorating."

Also, if you look at the Wild's government generation chart, you are supposed to see if the world is balkanized. Next, there is a roll to determine if the world is governed by a TED. I would assume if the world is balkanized then TED represents the "most common form of government" mentioned under the balkanized step, except that it specifically states that if the roll results in a TED then the world government code is automatically 6.

 

[rancke]

Path of Tears page 73 says:

"...and so the government is, at first glance, a classic technologically elevated dictatorship. However, the Gnostic Brotherhood and the Psionic Institute play such a powerful role in government that it is more accurate to consider the states oligarchies"

So it seems that Montezuma is an exception.

How would this work for an explanation?

TED is short for two different terms: 'Technologically Elevated Dictatorship' and 'Technologically Elevated Dictator'.

A Technologically Elevated Dictatorship is a technical term for a technologically elevated government that is run by a bona fide dictator. It thus does not cover any kind of oligarchy. Technologically Elevated Dictator, on the other hand, is a broader, more imprecise term used by RECS personnel to demonized anyone that uses relic technology to impose his will on others; this would include TE oligarchs.


Hans

 

[LeperColony]

I actually prefer something like having Gov Code 6 represent a "Technologically Elevated Government," which then could be most of the other government types listed, but it is one that rules by virtue of technological control rather than implicit or explicit popular support or participation.

A TED would just be a form (perhaps the most common one) of TEG in which the ruler(s) have no regard for the needs of the populace.

I feel that any errata on TED would have to establish criteria that separates it from other government codes. Hence, a TED TO must be in some sense different than a TO ruling by virtue of relic technology.

 

[Starviking]

Except that the more detailed description in PoT uses terms like "Seacost's Ted..." and "Polaris is growing increasingly friendly to the Coalition, and so relations with some of the other TEDs, especially Centrum, are deteriorating."

But, as I quoted - the leaders are TEDs, but the influence of the Gnostic Brotherhood and the Psionic Institute is enough to classify the govts as oligarchies. The other two powers have influence - but the TEDs are still the leaders.

 

[rancke]

Except that the more detailed description in PoT uses terms like "Seacost's Ted..." and "Polaris is growing increasingly friendly to the Coalition, and so relations with some of the other TEDs, especially Centrum, are deteriorating."

But that's the Ref's section, isn't it? The official (viewpoint writing) story is that it's a TED, but the real (authorial voice) story is that this is not true. So it's listed as a TED, but it isn't one.


Hans

 

[LeperColony]

But that's the Ref's section, isn't it? The official (viewpoint writing) story is that it's a TED, but the real (authorial voice) story is that this is not true. So it's listed as a TED, but it isn't one.


Hans

No, in the mission briefing section on pg. 73 it's listed as a Balkanized/CO. That section also claims that the influence of the Brotherhood and the Institutes makes it more like an Oligarchy. But that does nothing to explain why GDW continues to use TED to talk about the nations. Remember, the terminology they use is Polaris has problems with "other" TEDs, especially Centrum. As in, nation X, which is a TED, has problems with country Y, also a TED.

In fact, Montezuma is an excellent example of why TEG is a better concept than TED. You have a number of elevated warlords, along with several powerful institutions. Therefore, you have technologically elevated government, but you don't have a true dictatorial system (apparently) because of the influence of the Brotherhood and the Institutes. So there is a "TED" at the head of each government, but each government actually takes the form of a CO.

 

[Starviking]

No, in the mission briefing section on pg. 73 it's listed as a Balkanized/CO. That section also claims that the influence of the Brotherhood and the Institutes makes it more like an Oligarchy. But that does nothing to explain why GDW continues to use TED to talk about the nations. Remember, the terminology they use is Polaris has problems with "other" TEDs, especially Centrum. As in, nation X, which is a TED, has problems with country Y, also a TED.

Because the leaders are generally TEDs, the wider government COs. Note the Polaran leader is just referred to as the 'ruler', and the most important leader, Zherord Magwanu is only described as the "Protector General of Montezuma and Governor of Centrum"

In fact, Montezuma is an excellent example of why TEG is a better concept than TED. You have a number of elevated warlords, along with several powerful institutions. Therefore, you have technologically elevated government, but you don't have a true dictatorial system (apparently) because of the influence of the Brotherhood and the Institutes. So there is a "TED" at the head of each government, but each government actually takes the form of a CO.

Not really, Montezuma's UWP is that of a Balkanised CO - it never got designated a TED (or TEG if you prefer) in world generation. The author gave a bit more flavour to the world in the write-up, making TEDs part of the mix. If anything Montezuma is an argument against TEGs, as according to the system it is a Charismatic Oligarchy.

 

[LeperColony]

Because the leaders are generally TEDs, the wider government COs. Note the Polaran leader is just referred to as the 'ruler', and the most important leader, Zherord Magwanu is only described as the "Protector General of Montezuma and Governor of Centrum"

The fact that the canon works failed to go into depth sufficient to provide a name to the leader of Polaris is irrelevant to whether or not he is a TED. If he is, then his government is technologically elevated by definition. He could have been called Harvey McStupid, Grand Poobah of the Western Shores and it would have no effect on the government code.

If the leader is a TED, then the government should be TED under the rules. Note the definition, "A leader holds power by virtue of caches of technologically advanced weaponry." If the individual in power holds power because of his tech weapons, he is a TED regardless of the manner in which he chooses to organize his state.

Note that a leader with advanced weaponry needed not implement a repressive state (though it seems most would). Thus, a TED can certainly govern through a CO, and it would be appropriate for the world to be coded CO if it were TEG-CO.

Not really, Montezuma's UWP is that of a Balkanised CO - it never got designated a TED (or TEG if you prefer) in world generation. The author gave a bit more flavour to the world in the write-up, making TEDs part of the mix. If anything Montezuma is an argument against TEGs, as according to the system it is a Charismatic Oligarchy.

First of all, we cannot simply ignore parts of canon we don't like by calling them descriptive. The fact is, Montezuma and TEDs are inextricably and canonically linked, but their exact relationship is unclear. That is what makes Montezuma the perfect case for a TEG code. There are TEDs. That is a fact. No amount of evasion is going to get around that. The question is how to harmonize the interplay of TED with CO in the case of Montezuma, and how to distinguish TED TO's from TO's who rule "by use of pre-Collapse technology."

 

[rancke]

First of all, we cannot simply ignore parts of canon we don't like by calling them descriptive.

No, but we can distinguish between viewpoint writing and authorial voice. Please note that I haven't examined Path of Tears in detail, so I don't know if it applies here. But the mission briefs are clearly viewpoint writing while the Ref's Info is (or at least ought to be) authorial voice.

Incidentally, if we have two bits of canon that are mutually contradictory, then we not only can, we can't not, ignore one bit or the other. The real problem comes when we disagree on which bit to ignore. (That's where someone in authority coming up with a ruling is a Really Good Thing).


Hans

 

[LeperColony]

No, but we can distinguish between viewpoint writing and authorial voice. Please note that I haven't examined Path of Tears in detail, so I don't know if it applies here. But the mission briefs are clearly viewpoint writing while the Ref's Info is (or at least ought to be) authorial voice.

I agree we can. Unfortunately, the troublesome bits are in the Referee's section.

Incidentally, if we have two bits of canon that are mutually contradictory, then we not only can, we can't not, ignore one bit or the other. The real problem comes when we disagree on which bit to ignore. (That's where someone in authority coming up with a ruling is a Really Good Thing).

I agree with this, but it is equally necessary to recognize the difference between conflicting and contradictory statements. Conflicting statements can be harmonized such that both remain true, with clarification or qualification. Contradictory statements cannot.

Where canon has difficulties, I tend to think it is better to first see if they can be harmonized before they are written off or hand waved away.

 

[Starviking]

The fact that the canon works failed to go into depth sufficient to provide a name to the leader of Polaris is irrelevant to whether or not he is a TED. If he is, then his government is technologically elevated by definition. He could have been called Harvey McStupid, Grand Poobah of the Western Shores and it would have no effect on the government code.

You were advancing an argument based on the fact that some leaders were called TEDs - I was just pointing out that some were not so defined.

If the leader is a TED, then the government should be TED under the rules. Note the definition, "A leader holds power by virtue of caches of technologically advanced weaponry." If the individual in power holds power because of his tech weapons, he is a TED regardless of the manner in which he chooses to organize his state.

But it is not "how he chooses to organise his state" it's the fact that there are two other power players in Montezuman politics.

Note that a leader with advanced weaponry needed not implement a repressive state (though it seems most would). Thus, a TED can certainly govern through a CO, and it would be appropriate for the world to be coded CO if it were TEG-CO.

Certainly the threat of use would be there too.

First of all, we cannot simply ignore parts of canon we don't like by calling them descriptive. The fact is, Montezuma and TEDs are inextricably and canonically linked, but their exact relationship is unclear. That is what makes Montezuma the perfect case for a TEG code. There are TEDs. That is a fact. No amount of evasion is going to get around that. The question is how to harmonize the interplay of TED with CO in the case of Montezuma, and how to distinguish TED TO's from TO's who rule "by use of pre-Collapse technology."

There is system stuff, and then there is the flavour that the author brings. I am not calling for the descriptive pieces on Montezuma to be ignored. It is a fact that Montezuma, as produced by the TNE system rules, is a CO. At the basic level it cannot be a full TED/TEG, and that is why TEDs are only part of the mix.

As for distinguishing basic TO's from TO's that rule by use of pre-Collapse technology - use the Path of Tears rules on remaining Imperial Era and Hard Times tech - if the TO has access to higher tech I'm sure they'd use it. Then you can note that in descriptive text.

 

[LeperColony]

You were advancing an argument based on the fact that some leaders were called TEDs - I was just pointing out that some were not so defined.

Actually, the only ones "not so defined" are the ones with no definition at all, so far as I can recall. Every single government mentioned is called a TED (in the referee section) but listed a CO.

But it is not "how he chooses to organise his state" it's the fact that there are two other power players in Montezuman politics.

Yes, but he is a TED. If he's a TED, then the government is Technologically Elevated no matter how it is structured. If he isn't in power by virtue of his technology, then he isn't a TED. A CO has the confidence of the citizenry and, presumably, the different members of the oligarchy, while not necessarily co-equal, at least require agreement to remain in power.

In Montezuma's case, the Brotherhood and the Institutes seem mostly to be influencing factors whose reach moderates a TED. Thus, the CO listing is a representation of the fact that the ruler does not hold complete dominion over his state. This makes sense given parts of the Montezuma write up. And yet it doesn't completely square with the most common notions of a TED which, to me at least, is someone (or a group of someones) who sits on a pile of high tech relics and tells people how it's going to be. That seems to exist on Montezuma too, and it's the interplay that is causing trouble.

That's why it's a candidate for a TEG. It is a government that is technologically elevated, and it has TEDs leading COs.

There is system stuff, and then there is the flavour that the author brings. I am not calling for the descriptive pieces on Montezuma to be ignored. It is a fact that Montezuma, as produced by the TNE system rules, is a CO. At the basic level it cannot be a full TED/TEG, and that is why TEDs are only part of the mix.

As for distinguishing basic TO's from TO's that rule by use of pre-Collapse technology - use the Path of Tears rules on remaining Imperial Era and Hard Times tech - if the TO has access to higher tech I'm sure they'd use it. Then you can note that in descriptive text.

First of all, whether or not TEDs can be part of the mix isn't really clear under the rules. If you look at Wilds government generation, if you get a TED result from the tech level loss roll, the government code is "automatically" 6 (TNE 191). You can still get a TED result from the chart with a 6, but if the world is balkanized (as Montezuma is), then the roll represents the most common form of government.

Really it would seem mistaken to mention TEDs in relation to Montezuma, except that GDW does so in several places, and it is the only adjective used to describe national leaders. That's why I've said GDW either had an unclear concept of TEDs, or an inconsistent application of it.

My question regarding TO's wasn't what separates natural TOs from tech TOs, but what separates TED TOs (TEDs who get TO results on the errata TED type chart) from TOs who use technology to maintain their rule. For some people, there is no difference. But if that's true, then it means the TED government result really has no meaning. All it does is describe how the government remains in power.