Fiefs...

[Hal]

Hello Carl,
Funny you should mention that about "good morning Hal" - as I would sometimes jest with my then co-worker named Dave "I can't do that Dave". What makes this even more interesting is the fact that due to an accident of birth, I was born hard of hearing, and learned instinctively to lip read.

Ok, I've tried to write something four times now and deleted it repeatedly because I fear I'm too brain tired to write coherently. But, here is one thought I do not wish to lose before I go to bed, and will return to this issue in perhaps better frame of mind to work the ramifications out.

Here is the problem/issue in a nutshell.

How much land has been set aside for the use by Imperials? How does the world government know what it must allocate in the future? For instance, if the number of nobles is population based, and that the fiefs have to be ceded over to the Imperium in order to fund the land grants (aka fiefs), how much land does the world government have to give up NOW in order to join the Imperium? The questions that are coming to my mind stem from worlds that already have been members of the Third Imperium for a few centuries - which is why I wondered "how did the world know how much land to allocate to the current crop of nobility some 600 years into the future?"

So, I have a sneaking suspicion that the following issues need to be examined.

A) How does the Imperium acquire land on a world?
B) What happens when a world's government changes - say by revolution, forcible annexation (aka war), or even by something as simple as a population influx changing the balance of power and a democracy votes to become a different government type in a bloodless coup.
C) (there was a C, but I lost my train of thought, so I'm closing this post and hitting the sack!)

 

[rancke]

Now, note that Hans made a comment that I'm sure speaks volumes - although I don't think he meant it to per se. The comment was "unless they changed that too".

Oh, I meant it all right.

The real question that comes to mind is this...

How much does Marc feel constrained by other iterations of Traveller? For example, GURPS TRAVELLER's version of NOBLES was pretty much the only book I've seen that gave an in depth treatment of nobility.

Don answered that on another thread recently. Marc is throwing away 30 years' worth of previously published information about nobles, GURPS: Nobles specifically mentioned, for no good reason. A terrible waste and a egregious disregard of any old fan who had gone to any trouble to pay attention to old canon.

Even THAT book however, failed to anticipate Marc's treatment of fiefs in T5 (how could it?!!!). So, the question will arise to the extent of "what is or is not to be deemed legal rules regarding nobility vis a vis T5?

I'd like to elaborate on the "for no good reason" above. All a writer of an RPG setting needs to come up with anything new is that the notion is good enough. It doesn't have to be brilliant, it just has to work. But to change established setting details involves presenting the faithful fans with the choice of going to the trouble of changing their own campaign settings or abandoning the official setting. That sort of thing IMO requires justification. If the original material was flawed, yes, by all means fix it. But if it isn't broken, it should be left alone. Even if the new idea was better than the old one, the cost in backward compatibility is not worth it. Or at least, is not usually worth it. I'm not a fanatic. If the new idea is vastly, hugely, awe-inspiringly better, there may be justification for a retcon.

Is the new T5 version vastly, hugely, awe-inspiringly better than the old one? I've only a hodge-podge of tid-bits to judge from, but so far it does not seem so to me, though I realize that I may be affected by my obvious and undenied unhappiness.

That's not to say that the T5 version is actively bad. I'm not at all sure you couldn't come up with a setting that used these new rules and was a perfectly adequate setting. It wouldn't be the old 3rd Imperium, but it might work well enough in its own right. But that's not really the point. If Marc is willing to ignore canon like this, why should I bother? The chief pragmatic reason why I try to stick as closely as I can to the OTU is so that I can use new material with a minimum of work.

Guess what? Integrating T5 nobles into my TU would be a major undertaking. A lot of work involving tossing a lot of work already done. Thank you very much but no thanks.

And even if I go to the trouble of integrating the T5 view of nobles in my setting, what to prevent Marc from overturning that on another whim in T6?

So make that "tried to stick as closely as I could". Past tense. I just don't see any reason to bother any more.

There remains my chief NON-pragmatic reason to stick to canon. It was fun. I liked coming up with a new puzzle piece that fitted neatly into an empty spot of the vast jigsaw puzzle that was the OTU. I liked coming up with an alternate puzzle piece of the right color to replace an existing piece with a color that didn't fit with the neighbors. So I'm probably not going to stop posting about canon issues in other forums.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Economic Control means the Holder is the government (at least the rights are so similar as to be indistinguishable). Could this conflict with the Government and/or Law Level in the UPP for a particular world? Maybe -- if the world were Gov=2 (Participating Democracy) and there was a noble with control of N hexes, that would seem to fly in the face of the UPP.

However, worlds are big places and I see high homogeneity being the exception rather than the rule. In ancient Greece, the Athenians were Gov=2 and the Spartans were Gov=F (Totalitarian Oligarchy) and they were right next door. They traded with one another and even cooperated from time to time.

There's a government code for that: 7, balkanization. If a significant part of the world (I don't count embassies) is not under the control of the world government, it's not a world government.


Hans

 

[sfchbryan]

Oh, I meant it all right.



Don answered that on another thread recently. Marc is throwing away 30 years' worth of previously published information about nobles, GURPS: Nobles specifically mentioned, for no good reason. A terrible waste and a egregious disregard of any old fan who had gone to any trouble to pay attention to old canon.



I'd like to elaborate on the "for no good reason" above. All a writer of an RPG setting need to come up with anything new is that the notion is good enough. It doesn't have to be brilliant, it just has to work. But to change established setting details involves presenting the faithful fans with the choice of going to the trouble of changing their own campaign settings or abandoning the official setting. That sort of thing IMO requires justification. If the original material was flawed, yes, by all means fix it. But if it isn't broken, it should be left alone. Even if the new idea was better than the old one, the cost in backward compatibility is not worth it. Or at least, is not usually worth it. I'm not a fanatic. If the new idea is vastly, hugely, awe-inspiringly better, there may be justification for a retcon.

Is the new T5 version vastly, hugely, awe-inspiringly better than the old one? I've only a hodge-podge of tid-bits to judge from, but so far it does not seem so to me, though I realize that I may be affected by my obvious and undenied unhappiness.

That's not to say that the T5 version is actively bad. I'm not at all sure you couldn't come up with a setting that used these new rules and was a perfectly adequate setting. It wouldn't be the old 3rd Imperium, but it might work well enough in its own right. But that's not really the point. If Marc is willing to ignore canon like this, why should I bother? The chief pragmatic reason why I try to stick as closely as I can to the OTU is so that I can use new material with a minimum of work.

Guess what? Integrating T5 nobles into my TU would be a major undertaking. A lot of work involving tossing a lot of work already done. Thank you very much but no thanks.

And even if I go to the trouble of integrating the T5 view of nobles in my setting, what to prevent Marc from overturning that on another whim in T6?

So make that "tried to stick as closely as I could". Past tense. I just don't see any reason to bother any more.

There remains my chief NON-pragmatic reason to stick to canon. It was fun. I liked coming up with a new puzzle piece that fitted neatly into an empty spot of the vast jigsaw puzzle that was the OTU. I liked coming up with an alternate puzzle piece of the right color to replace an existing piece with a color that didn't fit with the neighbors. So I'm probably not going to stop posting about canon issues in other forums.


Hans

Seeing how long it took T5 to get out the door, I wouldn't worry too much about T6.

As far as Nobles, I have Gurps Nobles and Robe & Blaster - I'm good. If what Marc put together isn't better than those, his treatment of Nobles will join Flux, Gunmaker, Armormaker, VehicleMaker and everything else that I don't feel are improvements.

It isn't like everyone is just going to dump whatever rules system they are using just because Marc finally got T5 out the door. Very few people are going to play T5 RAW (Rules As Written). They are going to chop & change and use what they want and ignore the rest of it.

I know I am not buying it for the game mechanics (I am a MT guy myself); nor am I going willingly back to a small-ship universe. I am getting it, quite frankly, to see if there is anything in it that might be useful to the rules set that I use.

Truthfully, I don't know who the target audience is for T5. It isn't going to bring in 21st century gamers with it's long, continuous blocks of text, along with graphics from the 1970s. Kids today are visually oriented.

The Old Guard isn't going to dump 30+ years of (more or less) continuity. They have already shown that with the fiasco that was Traveller: The New Error. From what I have read in my Beta CD, there are a lot of solutions to problems that I have never once seen in 30+ years of playing Traveller.

 

[Reban]

Extraterritoriality (in my opinion) doesn't apply here. The noble isn't a foreign head of state. In my mind, it's akin to asking if the US has the right to make its own laws because it shares the continent with Mexico and Canada.

Europe has a huge number of micro states, mostly Principalities and Duchies that exist within or surrounded by bigger countries. Economically they are quite separate but share common culture and language. The bigger state is usually responsible for providing defense and all the major utilities. Often there are no or relaxed border controls but the bigger country recognizes and respects the micro state's sovereignty because the relationship is mutually beneficial, usually the micro state's different tax regime generates a lot of economic activity for the bigger country.

I wouldn't rule out extraterritoriality but I'd apply it in a much softer more elastic manner than the hard XT line at the Starport.

So there you go. For your Terrain Hex, you are the law, and you can delegate this authority. In your Local Hex, it's yours to do as you wish.

I like this explanation its straight forward and simple, but I think Law Level and World Government Code is going to effect how much you are the law in the Terrain Hex.

So, I have a sneaking suspicion that the following issues need to be examined.

A) How does the Imperium acquire land on a world?
B) What happens when a world's government changes - say by revolution, forcible annexation (aka war), or even by something as simple as a population influx changing the balance of power and a democracy votes to become a different government type in a bloodless coup.
C) (there was a C, but I lost my train of thought, so I'm closing this post and hitting the sack!)

A) Most governments have the right to "Compulsory Purchase" land at the basic market price for important projects. On the other hand it might not be acquiring land but "designating" land. Imperial scouts put down a beacon and everything within a radius of it is now "Imperial Land", owners stay but the rules under which they live change.

B) Isn't this one of those things the Imperium says it doesn't concern itself with? As long as taxes get paid and Imperial citizens can go about their business the Imperium doesn't care if its an Anarchy or a a Dictator. It might be up to the Noble on the ground to keep up good relations with the powers that be.

C) I think I'm being affected by the same thing

 

[Bloo]

So, I have a sneaking suspicion that the following issues need to be examined.

I think all those are handled adequately as case-by-case negotiation.

 

[rancke]

A) How does the Imperium acquire land on a world?

If it's land that has extrality or other special priveledges, it has to be set forth in the membership treaty. If it's just something the Emperor can give a noble to provide the income he needs to maintain the dignity of his rank, it can be by simple purchase.

B) What happens when a world's government changes - say by revolution, forcible annexation (aka war), or even by something as simple as a population influx changing the balance of power and a democracy votes to become a different government type in a bloodless coup.

The new government 'inherits' the old membership treaty.


Hans

 

[aramis]

So, I have a sneaking suspicion that the following issues need to be examined.

A) How does the Imperium acquire land on a world?
B) What happens when a world's government changes - say by revolution, forcible annexation (aka war), or even by something as simple as a population influx changing the balance of power and a democracy votes to become a different government type in a bloodless coup.
C) (there was a C, but I lost my train of thought, so I'm closing this post and hitting the sack!)

• barring evidence to the contrary, I would suspect most of it is acquired by set-aside at treaty, some of which isn't claimed by the imperium until later.
  
• The new government has to cope with the extant treaty and respect any current extralities and fiefs. Failure to do so can result in "Imperial Intervention" - a bloody mess for everyone. And the reason enfeoffed nobles keep huscarles.

IMTU, when the 3I "buys land" it can automatically make it extraterritorial, and further, the land is bought at last sale values as adjusted, doubled - 1st to the government at its commercial value, then to the residents; The latter is to void their titles to said lands, and may not even require them to move. The 3I generally restricts to no more than 10%.

IMTU, almost all imperial lands are extrraterritorial, in exactly the same way micronations, Embassies and consulates are. Any adjacent to the starport are extraterritorial in the same way as the starport, and almost all starports are Fiefs IMTU.

 

[Original_Carl]

How much land has been set aside for the use by Imperials? How does the world government know what it must allocate in the future?

My understanding of an empire is that all the land already belongs to the Emperor. The world government is ruling because the Emperor allows it to rule as his delegate. Land isn't allocated by the world government. The Emperor already owns it.

A lot of the discussion here seems to be about setting. T5 as it currently stands has only enough setting to give the rules context. All of my pontificating on extraterritoriality and empires is MTU stuff.

I'm pretty sure there will be more setting material released that will clarify or explain how the Imperium works according to MM.

 

[rancke]

My understanding of an empire is that all the land already belongs to the Emperor. The world government is ruling because the Emperor allows it to rule as his delegate. Land isn't allocated by the world government. The Emperor already owns it.

That's not necessarily or indeed usually the case. Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.

If those states are sovereign (as states pretty often are), the emperor does not own any of the land in them. The same would reasonably apply for member worlds of the Third Imperium. Cleon I started with a federation of worlds all of which were presumably sovereign and the pocket empire centered around Vland which he most certainly didn't own. Then for the first 75 years the Imperium expanded by persuading non-aligned worlds to join voluntarily. It seems unlikely that the governments would do so if it entailed turning over ownership of their worlds to the emperor.

A lot of the discussion here seems to be about setting. T5 as it currently stands has only enough setting to give the rules context.

Sadly, the rules seem to be very strongly tied to one specific setting. Marc missed an opportunity to make Traveller truly generic by having the core rules cover many different possibilities and leaving the specifics of settings (e.g. the Third Imperium setting) to setting modules. I can't even use the OTU as the example because the rules don't cover any part of the OTU except the Third Imperium. No other state in Charted Space is likely to have a nobility that functions like the one delineated in the T5 rules. And what's a poor referee to do if he wants to make up his own interstellar states in his own ATU? How much help is he going to find in the core rulebook for making up the Grand Barulean Autocracy?


Hans

 

[Reban]

My understanding of an empire is that all the land already belongs to the Emperor. The world government is ruling because the Emperor allows it to rule as his delegate. Land isn't allocated by the world government. The Emperor already owns it.

Empire: Noun. An extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly esp. an emperor or empress.

An Emperor doesn't actually have to own anything to rule. In an empire the rulers of states, or the people of states (where ever the sovereignty resides) submit to the rule of one person (an Emperor) or an Oligarchy. The next stage up is an Imperium where the empire is too large to be effectively ruled by one person so the Emperor invests some of his powers in subordinate rulers, in Traveller that's the Archdukes and Dukes.

The Queen of England owns a lot of land, but not because she's Queen. Most of it is contained in duchies that have been passed down family lines or through marriage.

You're right about everything being MTU except for the introduction of Land Grants with T5. Thats a change that PCs are going to run into on a fairly regular basis.

 

[Original_Carl]

Empire: Noun. An extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly esp. an emperor or empress.

"Empire" is broad term, as you're demonstrating here. My vision of the Traveller Universe is heavily colored by Dune and Foundation. That's where my MTU responses come from.

I get that this version of the nobility is different from all the others. I also get that some of you don't like that much at all, thankyouverymuch.

I'm not familiar with any of the Traveller canon some of you are pulling from. I've played LBB Traveller and Mongoose Traveller. I saw Mega Traveller once in 1986 or so. As a result, I'm not nearly as invested in the settings that some of you are. I'm also a bit of an odd duck in that I generally disregard published setting material. I'm not above checking out products from time to time, but I prefer to roll my own.

I'm having a tough time figuring out if you guys are trying to see how you can fit T5 onto an existing setting, or trying to understand the rules as written in the book. Both? Neither?

Regarding the T5 vision of Nobles -- the main things I get from the BBB (Big Black Book) are:

• Nobles are appointed by the Emperor
• Nobles rule territory and get income from that territory
• Nobles who rule territory may participate in the Moot
• Social Standing is inherited
• Wealth can be inherited, but the details are left up to the Referee

That's pretty generic right there. Why all the fuss over this?

 

[rancke]

"Empire" is broad term, as you're demonstrating here.

And not one where all land implicitly belongs to the emperor. It can be (I believe that such was the case with the Japanese Empire, but don't quote me on that), but it is not necessecarily or indeed usually so.

I'm not familiar with any of the Traveller canon some of you are pulling from. I've played LBB Traveller and Mongoose Traveller. I saw Mega Traveller once in 1986 or so. As a result, I'm not nearly as invested in the settings that some of you are. I'm also a bit of an odd duck in that I generally disregard published setting material. I'm not above checking out products from time to time, but I prefer to roll my own.

I, on the other hand, for reasons that seemed good to me at the time, AM[*] heavily invested in the published setting material. What's your point? Are you unable to comprehend what the fuss is about because it doesn't apply to you?

[*] Was.​

Regarding the T5 vision of Nobles -- the main things I get from the BBB (Big Black Book) are:

• Nobles are appointed by the Emperor
• Nobles rule territory and get income from that territory
• Nobles who rule territory may participate in the Moot
• Social Standing is inherited
• Wealth can be inherited, but the details are left up to the Referee

That's pretty generic right there. Why all the fuss over this?

Marc is throwing away 30 years' worth of previously published information about nobles, GURPS: Nobles specifically mentioned, for no good reason. A terrible waste and an egregious disregard of any old fan who had gone to any trouble to pay attention to old canon.

[...]

...to change established setting details involves presenting the faithful fans with the choice of going to the trouble of changing their own campaign settings or abandoning the official setting. That sort of thing IMO requires justification.

[...]

But that's not really the point. If Marc is willing to ignore canon like this, why should I bother? The chief pragmatic reason why I try to stick as closely as I can to the OTU is so that I can use new material with a minimum of work.

Guess what? Integrating T5 nobles into my TU would be a major undertaking. A lot of work involving tossing a lot of work already done. Thank you very much but no thanks.

(Emphasis added.)​

I hope that has cleared up your perplexion.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

Hans, I am of the opinion that Marc stopped caring about "old fans" a long time ago.

1) He is aloof and out of touch with even this boards admin (aramis has claimed he's never met Marc and in any correspondence he is short and of few words). We sure don't see him around here.

2) Marc never ran with CT, developed it or fleshed it out.

3) Marc, by his own admission, was remiss in adequately supervising T4, originally call Marc Millers Traveller.

4) Numerous "Traveller" game systems (Some, due to licensing) that we bought in good faith are no longer available or supported, much less expandable.

5) Internally, in any version I've seen so far, "rules" are inconsistent and "canon" ships are not designed by "canon" rules. That is from publications Marc authored!

6) Nearly nothing has had much in the way or proof reading from the beginning.

7) Other people have even had to do the voluminous Errata.

8) Looking at T5 kickstarter I conclude Traveller fans have been far more loyal to the game than the founders (plural) have been to the fans.

I love the game. It doesn't mean I have to like the way it has been controlled or handled.

For those of you who take exception to this, prove me wrong.

Hopefully Marc has broad enough shoulders to take both responsibility, as well as criticism, for his actions over the years. He can certainly answer the above on this forum any time he cares to. He probably won't get banned at any rate.

On that note, before I get told to "walk away from this thread" I'll rest my complaining here. (It's treason to criticize the Emperor.)

 

[Dragoner]

Marc's not aloof, he answers his phone if you call him; if I were him, I wouldn't post here either, he fought his battles in Vietnam where he won a bronze star, that should be enough. Why be endlessly harassed about x-boats or nobles or something?

 

[aramis]

Hans, I am of the opinion that Marc stopped caring about "old fans" a long time ago.

1) He is aloof and out of touch with even this boards admin (aramis has claimed he's never met Marc and in any correspondence he is short and of few words). We sure don't see him around here.

2) Marc never ran with CT, developed it or fleshed it out.

3) Marc, by his own admission, was remiss in adequately supervising T4, originally call Marc Millers Traveller.

4) Numerous "Traveller" game systems (Some, due to licensing) that we bought in good faith are no longer available or supported, much less expandable.

5) Internally, in any version I've seen so far, "rules" are inconsistent and "canon" ships are not designed by "canon" rules. That is from publications Marc authored!

6) Nearly nothing has had much in the way or proof reading from the beginning.

7) Other people have even had to do the voluminous Errata.

8) Looking at T5 kickstarter I conclude Traveller fans have been far more loyal to the game than the founders (plural) have been to the fans.

I love the game. It doesn't mean I have to like the way it has been controlled or handled.

For those of you who take exception to this, prove me wrong.

Hopefully Marc has broad enough shoulders to take both responsibility, as well as criticism, for his actions over the years. He can certainly answer the above on this forum any time he cares to. He probably won't get banned at any rate.

On that note, before I get told to "walk away from this thread" I'll rest my complaining here. (It's treason to criticize the Emperor.)

The CT rulebooks' ships are mostly CT 1E. The Designs in CT2E are partially retconned. MT Core are all Rounding issue close. T20 were all redesigned with Т20.

But you are dead on that polite disagrement with Marc and his handling of the lines is acceptable.

 

[Hal]

For what it is worth, there's IMTU - which is EVERY SINGLE GM's private game universe, and then there is the published "Official Traveller Universe". Even if someone attempts to create an "IMTU" that is almost 100% based on "OTU", their universe will always be "IMTU" simply because they can and will make decisions that the writers of the OTU would not agree with. It's that simple from where I sit.

Having said that - I'll be the first to confess that if there is something in the OTU that I don't like, I don't use it. Heck, I'm nerving myself to try and redo the ENTIRE Spinward Marches astrogational data and putting it on a web page saying words to this effect:

"While the star names will be the same, and their hex Id number will be the same, many of the worlds will NOT match those generated at random on the simple grounds that randomly generated worlds will not fit known geological or astrophysical data as we now understand them. Conseequently, an attempt will be made to keep the relatively important data consistent, but allow the other data to managed as needed. World diameters and hydrographic data may change in order to support atmosphere and population values. Worlds with populations below a given threshhold, said worlds will not be "recognized" as world governments."

That disclaimer will be put into place, but give people an idea of what they CAN do with their traveller universe and still enjoy the game. It will also, possibly serve as a reference for those players, should I get off my duff, at a local game store for a traveller universe without my having to print it out for everyone, or what have you. The idea is to have FUN with the process of creation - not only of the material itself, but of learning how to create/craft a website.

So - on that note, my observation of "Fiefs" in game play from the (now adopting the Big Black Book acronym) BBB, A implies B. Question is - what is "A" in the sense of "Does a fief's land belong outright to the Emperor's government, and as such, extraterritorial, or is it land that is owned in theory by the World government, and the world has the right to tax the land, enforce its will on the land, and ultimately, confiscate the land in the event that the land owner fails to pay taxes, obey laws, etc.

Some people will vote for the former, some will vote for the latter, and many will chose a path somewhere in-between. When someone makes a comment based upon their Traveller Universe, I hold it no more, and certainly no less valid than anyone's statement - because Marc Miller (and company) seemingly have left it to our devices. Some statements made thus far in CT's and MT's time, are hints and vague at best - again, leaving it to the GM's devices. Truth be told? I don't think that there was any real intention to pin things down simply because...

"why alienate the fan base by pinning something down, when we can leave it to their own imagination and anything we publish will apply mostly to everyone."

As for the authors being loyal to any fan or fan base, or even any individual? Hmmm. Isn't that almost precisely what I pointed out about alienation that would occur if they got pinned down to any one thing? Now, as to the other allegations regarding a failure to adhere to a given standard of rules...

Let me remind everyone, that back when the rules were first written, we didn't have the kinds of computers we have today. We didn't have the internet that we have today. We didn't have the ready access to the "record" that we have today. Traveller as it grew, did not grow on the efforts of one team working with a framework of "continuity" as might a Sci-Fi TV series work off for its writing team. So, yes, there are inconsistencies from game system to game system, and yes, there will be a group whose's thoughts or vision on the Traveller universe differed from those who came before and of those who came after them. Heck, we can't even agree on what nobility and fiefs are like with 10 different people having 20 different views (ok, an exaggeration perhaps, but you get my drift).

So, enjoy the different views from different people. Why? Because if you have to defend your point of view, it helps YOU to give it more substance in your own mind. If you listen to someone else make a point that you hadn't given thought to, it may help you to refine how you will present it in your own game, and perhaps even improve it to something better than you might have on your own.

As for Marc changing things? <shrug> He's human like you and I. He's entitled to see something he likes or thinks he likes better now than before. In a way, he's got it the roughest. Why? Because he has the inertia of 30+ years pushing at his back. In a way, it is like writing code for a computer program. Once you start writing the code and creating the subroutines that you have in order to make the code work - you're committed to working within the framework you've worked upon. Short of scrapping it entirely and starting fresh after discovering that perhaps some decisions weren't the best in the light of 20/20 hindsight, sometimes you have to work with the legacy code despite its inefficiencies and making work anyhow.

So, to be fair to Marc, I've found him to be a kind individual when he dealt with me in correspondance via email. I don't know him as a person, but I suspect that I'd take him as he is, warts and all, simply because he's a human being, not a god incarnate.

 

[Original_Carl]

Are you unable to comprehend what the fuss is about because it doesn't apply to you?

That's an excellent summation. I have empathy, but no sympathy. I think you're being strident about how heavily this would affect your game.

I really like T5 and I think there's a lot of good stuff in it - especially Land Grant speculation and the Noble career. I feel defensive when you use language like "egregious disregard" and "terrible waste" when describing it. Please pardon any rudeness I may have committed in engaging you in discussing T5.

I hope that has cleared up your perplexion.


Hans

Yes, thank you. You've invested a lot of time an effort into your Traveller game and you're disappointed that T5 has not met your expectations. I really do empathize with that.

I hope that you find something to like in T5, but even if you don't I hope you keep playing some version of Traveller.

 

[rancke]

I think you're being strident about how heavily this would affect your game.

You're confident you have a greater appreciation of the effort I've put into keeping my TU compatible with the OTU than I have, are you?

I really like T5 and I think there's a lot of good stuff in it - especially Land Grant speculation and the Noble career.

I've carefully and deliberately not gone there, partly because I only have a limited number of disconnected facts about the T5 rules, but mostly because the quality of the new rules is besides the point.

I feel defensive when you use language like "egregious disregard" and "terrible waste" when describing it.

I should be sorry if old friends like Wil and Don and Rob thought that I was being strident and unreasonable. Sorry, but not repentant. I've tried to select my words with considerable care. I trust they represent my opinion quite accurately.

Please pardon any rudeness I may have committed in engaging you in discussing T5.

I don't think you have been rude.


Hans

 

[aramis]

You're confident you have a greater appreciation of the effort I've put into keeping my TU compatible with the OTU than I have, are you?


I've carefully and deliberately not gone there, partly because I only have a limited number of disconnected facts about the T5 rules, but mostly because the quality of the new rules is besides the point.


I should be sorry if old friends like Wil and Don and Rob thought that I was being strident and unreasonable. Sorry, but not repentant. I've tried to select my words with considerable care. I trust they represent my opinion quite accurately.



I don't think you have been rude.


Hans

We (you and I) disagree on it, in no small part, because I don't see any contradiction in the T5 fluff nor Fief mechanics with the CT/MT sources, but do see that the T5 playtest materials from 8 years ago or so were ignored and couter-written in the GTU. The T5 fiefs rules haven't changed much at all since then. It was one of the first polished looking bits, and it was circulated with the Knighthoods Marc sent out many years ago, as well. Well, perhaps in that too many get fiefs; I like the CT/MT bit about fiefs being relatively rare; PC's generally don't have them.

So, I, too, have little sympathy. T5 isn't a force retcon to the GTU - but it is clearly not the GTU, and is explicitly the OTU. I suspect you'll be writing for MGT and GT, so you're best off ignoring it unless your editor says otherwise.