Canon Problems with Traveller5 Core Rules?
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
Color me confused boss.
I mean as far as I understood, T5 was the new canon.
What I am I missing here?
Could you restate the question in a fashion that makes sense to us masses?
I mean as far as I understood, T5 was the new canon.
What I am I missing here?
I think the question is, "What T5 changes invalidate or contradict previously established canon?"
The T5 changes to nobility, for example, contradict sections of GURPS Traveller: Nobles. I think the changes also cascade down into many canonical sources that discussed or depicted nobles, like the SMC or CT: Rim of Fire. So you could have a world that was described as having a baronet but under T5 would have only a knight.
The T5 changes to nobility, for example, contradict sections of GURPS Traveller: Nobles. I think the changes also cascade down into many canonical sources that discussed or depicted nobles, like the SMC or CT: Rim of Fire. So you could have a world that was described as having a baronet but under T5 would have only a knight.
I'm doing due diligence, because I am asking this same question of all versions in their discussion areas.
It may be absurd in this case. For example, it conflicts with GURPS Traveller on nobility, but Marc was aware of prior art. I'm not saying he made any changes without knowing what he was doing, but just the same it might be useful to know where the changes are.
This also informs the canon-status, so to speak, of other rule sets. In other words, I could have asked it another way: In which places does T5 adjust canon and conflict with MgT, GURPS, TNE, CT/MT, etc?
So I'm asking anyway.
It may be absurd in this case. For example, it conflicts with GURPS Traveller on nobility, but Marc was aware of prior art. I'm not saying he made any changes without knowing what he was doing, but just the same it might be useful to know where the changes are.
This also informs the canon-status, so to speak, of other rule sets. In other words, I could have asked it another way: In which places does T5 adjust canon and conflict with MgT, GURPS, TNE, CT/MT, etc?
So I'm asking anyway.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Nobility only seems relevant in the number of responsibilities and perquisites they bestow on NPC or PCs.
And how much they reflect European medieval peerage.
Baronet is a knight who inherited the title, so his family could be the permanent planetary representative to the Moot and Imperial planetary justice of the peace.
If the plan is to make it more merit based, it can be any member of an Imperium order of knighthood.
And how much they reflect European medieval peerage.
Baronet is a knight who inherited the title, so his family could be the permanent planetary representative to the Moot and Imperial planetary justice of the peace.
If the plan is to make it more merit based, it can be any member of an Imperium order of knighthood.
I posted responses in other threads about Nobles before (linked below).
Under CT/MT, Knights and Baronets could be created by either an Archduke or an Emperor, but all higher titles derived form the Emperor exclusively. Under T5, Archdukes may also create Barons (per Imperiallines #7).
Essentially, under G:T's expansion of the CT/MT Nobles system, every Imperial Member World (for the most part) was assigned at least a Baron, minimum. Under T5, this has been changed to an Imperial Knight (and this knighthood may or may not be hereditary).
Under CT/MT, Knights and Baronets could be created by either an Archduke or an Emperor, but all higher titles derived form the Emperor exclusively. Under T5, Archdukes may also create Barons (per Imperiallines #7).
The world-assignments of nobility under T5 have changed significantly from prior canon.
The size/scope of Noble Land Grants (formerly "fiefs") has also changed.
Land Grants Under MT/GT:
Land Grants Under T5:
Under CT/MT, Knights and Baronets are NOT Peers (no Moot-votes), whereas all Barons (and higher) are Peers (with voting in the Moot), regardless of whether or not they are Honor, Rank (Ceremonial), or High (Landed) Nobles. Under T5, only Landed (High) Nobles have Moot-votes, and Landed Baronets do have Moot-votes.
The size/scope of Noble Land Grants (formerly "fiefs") has also changed.
Land Grants Under MT/GT:
[FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]
Land Grants Under T5:
[/FONT][/FONT]
Last edited:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Changes to TL progression for certain technologies is the first thing that springs to mind.
The next is stuff like wafer tech that is absent for CT (the brain interface article in JTAS is possible a pre-cursor to it).
The next is stuff like wafer tech that is absent for CT (the brain interface article in JTAS is possible a pre-cursor to it).
Yes, that's good information, thank you Mike.
Key changes in t5 that are huge....
1) ability of big ships to deny smaller ships departure via jump.
2) Higher grades of Jump Drive at TL's that indicate their existence should be known to the 3I
3) Astrogation is MUCH harder than it used to be.
4) Noble Estates much more defined
4.1) Nobles content disagrees with G:Nobles
4.2) Only T5 establishes multiple landed nobles on a given world
Note that 1 does not mean they don't jump, it means they come back right where they were... which means both sides have a week for repairs and making ready
1) ability of big ships to deny smaller ships departure via jump.
2) Higher grades of Jump Drive at TL's that indicate their existence should be known to the 3I
3) Astrogation is MUCH harder than it used to be.
4) Noble Estates much more defined
4.1) Nobles content disagrees with G:Nobles
4.2) Only T5 establishes multiple landed nobles on a given world
Note that 1 does not mean they don't jump, it means they come back right where they were... which means both sides have a week for repairs and making ready
<shields raised> <cloaking device engaged> <Red alert>
I guess a lot will be determined by how the responder wants to define, or even accept, canon.
MTU <> YTU <> OTU, where <> means not equal
I play fast and loose with the rules anyway, with the intent being to have fun. I don't worry too much about official if it will interfere with the flow, although I do try to be consistent.
<cowers behind the nearest large asteroid>
Anyway, from my standpoint I see
- Stellar and MW generation, tho that has pretty much changed with virtually every new version...
- Trade codes and remarks (ties in to generation above)
- Hop/skip/jump/leap/bound (fantastic drives)
- Psionics
- Importance, cultural, and economics factors
- Trade and commerce -- pax and cargo generation/limits
- Starship combat - ship compartments, process, and in general
- Tech level progression, and stage effects
Some of these are totally new, and therefore now became canon, since they come from the febrile mind of the canon-creator. That may irritate some gamers, but there it is.
These are the big ones I've been enjoying.
YMMV, and all that.
I guess a lot will be determined by how the responder wants to define, or even accept, canon.
MTU <> YTU <> OTU, where <> means not equal
I play fast and loose with the rules anyway, with the intent being to have fun. I don't worry too much about official if it will interfere with the flow, although I do try to be consistent.
<cowers behind the nearest large asteroid>
Anyway, from my standpoint I see
- Stellar and MW generation, tho that has pretty much changed with virtually every new version...
- Trade codes and remarks (ties in to generation above)
- Hop/skip/jump/leap/bound (fantastic drives)
- Psionics
- Importance, cultural, and economics factors
- Trade and commerce -- pax and cargo generation/limits
- Starship combat - ship compartments, process, and in general
- Tech level progression, and stage effects
Some of these are totally new, and therefore now became canon, since they come from the febrile mind of the canon-creator. That may irritate some gamers, but there it is.
These are the big ones I've been enjoying.
YMMV, and all that.
David Johansen
SOC-12
I think that it's fairly clear that nobility is primarily hereditary but there is plenty of precedent for loosing it or for individuals to be elevated due to competence. CT has +1 Soc as a mustering out benefit for Navy characters after all.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Here's one that may be relatively easy to undo in a future update if it was unintentional.
This part about what is allowed to mount on a firmpoint...
T5.09 page 276 said:
... conflicts with some canon fighters from CT and MT that mount missile launchers. The Rampart fighter from S5 and SMC has a 2 seat variant mounting a missile launcher and the heavy fighter presented in S9 has a laser and missile rack installed (for two prominent examples from CT)
I think it is supposed to read:
[FONT=arial,helvetica]
Since one firmpoint can be declared per 35 dton (or less) of craft, the point is so that a limit can be placed on the number of starship-scale weapons on small craft (while still noting that battlefield scale weapons can be mounted there as well). So a 10 dton fighter can have one fimpoint, which is sufficient to mount 1 starship-grade turret-style weapon (such as a missile-launcher), but no more. A 40 dton craft could mount up to 2 missile-launchers (or sandcasters, or lasers), etc.
[/FONT]
I almost hesitate to bring this up...
Per the new rules for planetary generation, is it possible to generate a gas giant less star system? I haven't looked it over too closely, but it seems that the Spinward Marches still use the GPS values generated with CT Scouts or MegaTraveller. Makes me wonder if the "importance" value would change if these worlds were generated using T5. Again, I didn't check that closely.
Correction: Rules for rolling up a star system without gas giants is possible: Roll 2d6/2 - 2 and drop fractions. This rule increases the number of star systems without gas giants over that of the original SCOUTS book or the MEGATRAVELLER rules which only had a system go without a gas giant on a roll of a 10 thru 12 on 2d6. The new rule means that on a roll of a 2 thru 5, there will be no gas giants for the star system in question. Statistically speaking, the original odds of rolling zero gas giants were 6 in 36. Now, they are 10 in 36. No biggie...
Per the new rules for planetary generation, is it possible to generate a gas giant less star system? I haven't looked it over too closely, but it seems that the Spinward Marches still use the GPS values generated with CT Scouts or MegaTraveller. Makes me wonder if the "importance" value would change if these worlds were generated using T5. Again, I didn't check that closely.
Correction: Rules for rolling up a star system without gas giants is possible: Roll 2d6/2 - 2 and drop fractions. This rule increases the number of star systems without gas giants over that of the original SCOUTS book or the MEGATRAVELLER rules which only had a system go without a gas giant on a roll of a 10 thru 12 on 2d6. The new rule means that on a roll of a 2 thru 5, there will be no gas giants for the star system in question. Statistically speaking, the original odds of rolling zero gas giants were 6 in 36. Now, they are 10 in 36. No biggie...
Last edited:
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Whulorigan, I think the example just above my excerpt (from page 276) makes it pretty clear that Marc meant "less than" rather than "less than or equal to."
The whole section on firmpoints is puzzling from the start because it treats a firmpoint not as a weapon mount attaching point like a hardpoint but as a weapon mount itself, like a turret.
Maybe this should be an errata entry but as the 5.09 rules read now it is also a canon discrepancy.
And specifying that only world-range weapons can be installed specifically excludes missile launchers which are space-ranged weapons.
The whole section on firmpoints is puzzling from the start because it treats a firmpoint not as a weapon mount attaching point like a hardpoint but as a weapon mount itself, like a turret.
Maybe this should be an errata entry but as the 5.09 rules read now it is also a canon discrepancy.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
While on the subject of hardpoints, here is another potential canon discrepancy from the starship design rules:
Page 301 under the weapons mount table: "Each mount occupies one hardpoint."
Canon designs in CT (HG designs) allowed one bay per 1,000 tons so T5.09 designs could have 10x more bays than CT designs.
MT designs required 10 hardpoints per bay. I can't speak to other versions.
Page 301 under the weapons mount table: "Each mount occupies one hardpoint."
Canon designs in CT (HG designs) allowed one bay per 1,000 tons so T5.09 designs could have 10x more bays than CT designs.
MT designs required 10 hardpoints per bay. I can't speak to other versions.
Some of the best posts are non-bossy.
The Marches are... special. The data was generated through successive waves of rulesets, and, more to the point, the data was also jiggered as GDW saw fit. And it's seen stellar-data revision lately. It's not a random sector, and it's not a product of one ruleset.
