Wilds Government Codes

[aramis]

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.

There are several major possibilities for these TEO's (Technologically Elevated Oligarchies)...

1. The TEO is a TO that can, to a limited extent, manufacture more of the tech base
   • This rules out a Type 6 because they can produce more archaeotech
   • Even if they can produce more, they might not be able to design more, if the factory unit is entirely automated.
2. The TEO is merely a small subunit instead of a single individual
   • The distinction really is negligible between a small-but-powerful oligarchy, a junta militaria (itself a form of oligarchy in some cases), and a dictator with "friends" - they are all usually dictatorial governments with a visible dictator (even if, in some cases, he's merely the mouthpiece of a council), and a small cadre of influential folks in charge collectively.
   • This would be consistent with the tables, and with an in-universe coding error probability, to go either way. The TED dictator and friends might be miscast as a TEO, and a real TEO might be miscast as a single dictator if the scouts can't see the actual workings.
3. The TED code applies when the source of authority is solely the Archaeotech.
   • not consistent with the tables
   • Consistent with the "popular" TEO's coded as TO's in TNE
4. The TO code is used for a TEO when there has been a non-violent transfer of authority; the TED code when not.
   • not consistent with the tables.
   • again, allows for scout observation errors
   • very subjective standard
   • Doesn't seem to jive with the exemplars, either

My money would be on TEO's being TO's if there is a STABLE oligarchy (as Montezuma seems to have), and TED's if there is no stable oligarchy. Then again, I don't see the distinction between a Junta Militaria and a Dictator as particularly relevant, viable, nor useful.

 

[Starviking]

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?

What I think would be best would be for the HIWG suggestions for Mods to the First Version of the TNE Rulebook to be identified as such, and placed in another section, preferably at the end of the document, so as to indicate that they are in no way official. The HIWG mechanisms are placed in the Mark 1 Mod 1 sections which isn't the version of the rulebook they refer to.

The message also indicates that the rule changes "have the cleanest approach for working within existing rules", i.e. the Mark 1 Mod 1 of the Rulebook, but to be honest they'd invalidate any Subsector Data in that book, and swathes of the other books - which up until GDW closed continued to used the Wilds Govt Code 6 to indicate a TED. Dave Nilsen even mentioned something to this effect in Challenge 77.

I am also not sure the HIWG suggestions were modified by GDW in any way - but if you give me time I will look at the TML posting and your section in the Errata and see if I can find any variance.

 

[DonM]

What I think would be best would be for the HIWG suggestions for Mods to the First Version of the TNE Rulebook to be identified as such, and placed in another section, preferably at the end of the document, so as to indicate that they are in no way official. The HIWG mechanisms are placed in the Mark 1 Mod 1 sections which isn't the version of the rulebook they refer to.

The message also indicates that the rule changes "have the cleanest approach for working within existing rules", i.e. the Mark 1 Mod 1 of the Rulebook, but to be honest they'd invalidate any Subsector Data in that book, and swathes of the other books - which up until GDW closed continued to used the Wilds Govt Code 6 to indicate a TED. Dave Nilsen even mentioned something to this effect in Challenge 77.

I am also not sure the HIWG suggestions were modified by GDW in any way - but if you give me time I will look at the TML posting and your section in the Errata and see if I can find any variance.

Why exclude Guy Garnett's notes from the errata and not other fan contributions? Most "errata" is basically fans writing in complaining or suggesting.

I'll provide a CT errata story that is related to this.

In 1985 Marc Miller received a series of questions from a fan related to Special Supplement 3 (Missiles) and its use. Marc took the opportunity to correct some of the problems and wrote a very lengthy response. Great stuff, except then over the years Marc would lose his copy of the response.

In 2007, during my request for errata suggestions, the respondent would post the images of that letter to one of the forums -- the only copy remaining of the only errata for SS3. Without that fan's contribution, that would be forever lost.

I understand you dislike the proposed errata, but do you have any other suggestions for dealing with the problems Guy is trying to work around?

Rather than use Guy's material at all, what is your suggestion for the problem? I do suppose we could just note the problem for now, and ignore Guy's suggestions, and see if something else presents itself.

 

[aramis]

In tackling the TNE UWP anomalies, what products used the TNE wilds codes? (I don't know... I didn't buy much of the TNE line; virus snapped my disbelief suspenders WAY too hard.)

Any changes from from that will necessitate correction of those as well.

 

[Starviking]

In tackling the TNE UWP anomalies, what products used the TNE wilds codes? (I don't know... I didn't buy much of the TNE line; virus snapped my disbelief suspenders WAY too hard.)

Any changes from from that will necessitate correction of those as well.

Any of them that made reference to wilds government code 6 - which are a lot, up to and including the last issue of Challenge, number 77.

 

[Starviking]

Why exclude Guy Garnett's notes from the errata and not other fan contributions? Most "errata" is basically fans writing in complaining or suggesting.

I understand you dislike the proposed errata, but do you have any other suggestions for dealing with the problems Guy is trying to work around?

Rather than use Guy's material at all, what is your suggestion for the problem? I do suppose we could just note the problem for now, and ignore Guy's suggestions, and see if something else presents itself.

Ok, the version I have of your errata provides Guy and HIWGs suggestions as Errata to the SECOND PRINTING. Guy's suggestions were for the FIRST PRINTING. Sorry, for the caps, but I want to make sure we're communicating here.

If you read the link here: http://www.mu.org/~joe/traveller/archive/TNE/errata/TNE-Errata.txt then it becomes plain as day, especially as Loren writes:

Page 191
A number of players have expressed concern that there
are now two parallel sets of government type codes, one for
the Wilds, and one for use elsewhere, as this will cause
confusion when reading UWPs. Players should think of the
government digit not as a firm definition in the same man-
ner as a size or hydrographics code. Rather, it is a
descriptive tool to help create an effective roleplaying
atmosphere. Unlike all other digits of the UWP which are
quantifiable, government type is highly descriptive in na-
ture and is often a judgement call. For example, is a board
of directors a Participating Democracy, a
Company/Corporation, or a Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy?
Future Traveller: The New Era products will expand and
further detail world governmental descriptions. The basic
book was not able to contain such a system for reasons of
space, and because the game had to allow players to gener-
ate pre-Collapse Imperial worlds, the classic Traveller
method of government generation was retained as an interim
system. In providing the Wilds government types, we aimed
to increase the diversity of world types that can be
visited, and further fuel players' imaginations. Like real
governments, UWP government digits can change unpredict-
ably, and exist to help referees create interesting cam-
paigns, rather than existing as ends in themselves.

Loren posted this about two weeks after the posting of Guy's suggestions and 5 months before the publication of the SECOND PRINTING.

Can you check over this and tell me if you agree that Guy's errata at least applies to the wrong PRINTING? Can we agree that as it applies to the FIRST PRINTING, and was not adopted, that it needs to be move to it's own section - for an alternative version of the TNE Rules?

Unless we can agree on the basics I can't see how we can progress any further.

 

[aramis]

Any of them that made reference to wilds government code 6 - which are a lot, up to and including the last issue of Challenge, number 77.

Several don't use Wilds codes at all that I can tell... Regency SB, forex.

 

[DonM]

Ok, the version I have of your errata provides Guy and HIWGs suggestions as Errata to the SECOND PRINTING. Guy's suggestions were for the FIRST PRINTING. Sorry, for the caps, but I want to make sure we're communicating here.

If you read the link here: http://www.mu.org/~joe/traveller/archive/TNE/errata/TNE-Errata.txt then it becomes plain as day, especially as Loren writes:



Loren posted this about two weeks after the posting of Guy's suggestions and 5 months before the publication of the SECOND PRINTING.

Can you check over this and tell me if you agree that Guy's errata at least applies to the wrong PRINTING? Can we agree that as it applies to the FIRST PRINTING, and was not adopted, that it needs to be move to it's own section - for an alternative version of the TNE Rules?

Unless we can agree on the basics I can't see how we can progress any further.

I'm going to disagree. The material wouldn't have been kept in their errata file if they weren't considering it, and two weeks would not have been enough time for GDW to consider the material. I suspect they received it, decided to keep it for review, put it in the file, and years later we're discussing it.

:rofl:

 

[Starviking]

Several don't use Wilds codes at all that I can tell... Regency SB, forex.

Check the systems beyond the Regency Frontier in Deneb Sector - quite a few Wilds codes there.

 

[Starviking]

I'm going to disagree. The material wouldn't have been kept in their errata file if they weren't considering it, and two weeks would not have been enough time for GDW to consider the material. I suspect they received it, decided to keep it for review, put it in the file, and years later we're discussing it.

:rofl:

Don,

I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to engage you on this subject - indeed doing a lot of work on it in 2009, despite having an awful lot of things going on in my life. If you can't even address my point that logically the HIWG/Guy Garnett applies to the First Printing, and not the Second (as stated in your TNE Errata) then I am not inclined to waste any more of my time and effort on your endeavour.

 

[LeperColony]

Did the second printing even change the Wilds government codes? If it didn't, then the point seems significantly less relevant. We can't assume GDW intended not to use the suggestions simply because they weren't included, because GDW has neglected much easier fixes across whole editions (See the "empty orbits" heading above gas giants in system generation, and the fact that TNE system generation references the MT player's and referee's guide).

 

[Starviking]

Did the second printing even change the Wilds government codes? If it didn't, then the point seems significantly less relevant. We can't assume GDW intended not to use the suggestions simply because they weren't included, because GDW has neglected much easier fixes across whole editions (See the "empty orbits" heading above gas giants in system generation, and the fact that TNE system generation references the MT player's and referee's guide).

AFAIK the second printing didn't change the Wilds govt codes, however I'd need a copy of the first printing to be 100% certain.