gurps aliens

[AndreaV]

Originally posted by MJD:
Not Quite.

We don't want to work in a shared universe. We want to work in the Traveller universe. Now, we have no access to SJG's works-in progress, so we can't possibly keep track of what they're about to do.

With respect, until such time as somebody takes personal charge of writing every single item for Traveller, the TU is a shared universe.

But, I don't think anyone expects you to keep track of what they're going to do, but we would like you to keep track of what they have done

At risk of sounding like I'm sniping (i'm not), GT has already "bent" some aspects of the Traveller universe (world generation and trade, particualrly). This resulted from the vision of individual freelancers. Should QLI follow this new model, even through it varies from the accepted OTU?

No, we should not. We will not. Our rules were specifically designed to emulate CT and the universe created with those rules. We think that is best and we'l;l continue to do it.

Okay, I'm going to echo Hans here. Those changes were logical and (in the case case of the trade rules) neccessary to bring the system into line with real world logic. It does concern me that T20 appears to be sticking with the ridiculous "cost per jump" trade model. Canon adherance is good. Blind canon adherance where it doesn't make sense is not (I can stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far).

 

[AndreaV]

Originally posted by JFZeigler:
For example, you won't be seeing any more SJG material in the middle of QuikLink's geographic "patch," now that we know where that is.

Uhmm, Jon, I know that GT Humaniti has at least two races that are "in the middle of QL's patch" (I wrote them). One of them (the Otrai) is no big deal and can easily be ignored or shifted, but the Luriani are a fairly major player in Gateway.

 

[JFZeigler]

Originally posted by Andrewmv:
Uhmm, Jon, I know that GT Humaniti has at least two races that are "in the middle of QL's patch" (I wrote them). One of them (the Otrai) is no big deal and can easily be ignored or shifted, but the Luriani are a fairly major player in Gateway.

Heh. As it happens, I'm working on Humaniti even as we speak. I hadn't noticed the problem yet, but I was wondering if it might crop up.

I fear this is going to have to be one of those cases where we accept that there may be a difference in treatment. Hunter and Martin may like your version of the Luriani and Otrai when they see it, or they may decide to go in another direction entirely.

To restate more precisely: on my watch SJG is probably going to avoid any new projects that would infringe on the conceptual space that's been allocated to QuikLink. This is a courtesy to QuikLink and to the fan community in general -- an attempt to avoid as many canon problems as possible. I don't think SJG can be expected to yank material out of works already in progress, though. That would be costly to us and unfair to you, the author of said material.

One good thing: I don't think any other books already in the pipeline are likely to present similar concerns.

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

Slightly off topic here but I thought I'd post where I -know- somone at SJC reads:

Kudo's to whomever designed the Gurps Traveller Core book to copy the cover of the CT Deluxe Boxed set. (right down to the radio transmission from 'Free Trader' Beowulf)

That's what suckered -me- into buying that supplement. (BTW I don't own gurps but I used to find your supplements adequete for converting Champions to favourite universes and as such had bought a few of them....)

I now return you to your regularly scheduled topic, sorry for the little sidebar.

Garf.

 

[AndreaV]

Originally posted by JFZeigler:
Heh. As it happens, I'm working on Humaniti even as we speak. I hadn't noticed the problem yet, but I was wondering if it might crop up.

Yah, can I have it now, please, pretty please, pretty please with sugar on top (Humaniti is one of the books I'm most looking forwards to, and not only because part of its mine)

One good thing: I don't think any other books already in the pipeline are likely to present similar concerns.

I think mostly this is caused by the long time that Humaniti has been in production (almost two years now IIRC). I wrote and submitted the Luriani and Otrai well before T20 was ever announced. I generally suspect (or maybe just hope) that most freelancers will be going out of their way to avoid problems.

 

[MJD]

What I think about CT is my business, but I will say that it differs from what Hans suggests.

T20 was designed to emulate the feeling of CT as far as possible because it's fun to play in. And besides, (gingerly steps around deceased equine quadraped) everyone has their own "fix" for some aspect of Traveller. If we did all of the ones we wanted, we'd alienate most of the fandom whose own fixes were different. We felt that there had to be common ground, and the best common ground was that accetped for ther past 25 years. Certain inconsistencies and "broken" concepts are part of that universe.

That's why we did it this way. Some people want it different, and don't like what we've done. So be it. We did what we thought best under the circumstances.

As to Marc-Sanctioned rules changes... Hans, do you actually KNOW Marc specifically agreed to these things and sanctioned them, or is that comment speculation based upon what you'd expect to be true? I'm not aware of Marc wanting these changes - if he had, he'd have directed us accordingly.

But anyway... SJG's courtesy in not publishing stuff in the middle of our patch is much appreciated! Similarly, we'll not go rampaging about the Spinward marches...

 

[Tanuki]

Originally posted by JFZeigler:

Now, I do suspect that you're going to see SJG paying a bit closer attention to canon in future. It's unfortunately true that on rules mechanics, we've "bent" Traveller a bit beyond tolerances in a few places. We may fix that where possible. For example, at some point I would like to revise First In to make the default options something much closer to Classic world generation. The current design for that book has its disadvantages (and I say that as the guy who wrote it).

The worst rule-bending that SJGames has done is in starship creation. Too many _major_ changes there from CT/HG and not all for the better.

 

[Gallowglass]

Originally posted by MJD:
Well, there we are. As Jon says, we can't go clearing everything with one another, so there will be some clashes. But overall, we're all doing our best to avoid conflict.

And you know? Our best is what there is, like it or not.

And the most sensible attitude to "canon" ever in all of SF sub-creation? Marion Zimmer Bradley, who didn't give a fig and prefaced every Darkover novel with the caveat that what she was interested in was the story, not the exact timeline.

Given that RPG books are reference works to a common shared world, not fiction, I think Martin and John's respective statements are very welcome, and the best possible for the fans: even if the same company was handling the two eras as separate lines that's about the best you could expect (look what T$R managed...)

 

[JFZeigler]

Originally posted by Tanuki:
The worst rule-bending that SJGames has done is in starship creation. Too many _major_ changes there from CT/HG and not all for the better.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Unfortunately that's a much harder problem to solve, as the requisite changes would invalidate a lot of already-published material.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Tanuki:
The worst rule-bending that SJGames has done is in starship creation. Too many _major_ changes there from CT/HG and not all for the better.

Well, they didn't really produce anything more incompatible than FF&S(TNE) or FF&S2(T4)

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by MJD:
As to Marc-Sanctioned rules changes... Hans, do you actually KNOW Marc specifically agreed to these things and sanctioned them, or is that comment speculation based upon what you'd expect to be true? I'm not aware of Marc wanting these changes - if he had, he'd have directed us accordingly.

I don't know for a fact that Marc specifically agreed to these things and sanctioned them (It wouldn't surprise me to learn that he did, because I know Loren has consulted him on other issues of continuity, but I know nothing about it). But neither is it speculation. I do know that Marc autorized Loren Wiseman to be editor of SJG's Traveller line (or maybe he authorized SJG to select a line editor). So those changes were made by someone authorized by Marc Miller to make them.
The rest is, of course, just my opinion (Well, not just mine . As for fixes, I'm much more interested in internal consistency than any specific fix. But I do think it is a bad thing for the publisher of a game universe to ignore bits that are broken, and a crying shame to ignore fixes by other, authorized, Traveller publishers.

Now, if you actually think that the CT ticket prices make sense, that's a different matter. I'm no more in favor of changing canon when it isn't necessary than I am of leaving it unchanged when change is needed. But if you do, I sure wish you'd explain them to me.

Hans

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by rancke:
As for fixes, I'm much more interested in internal consistency than any specific fix. But I do think it is a bad thing for the publisher of a game universe to ignore bits that are broken, and a crying shame to ignore fixes by other, authorized, Traveller publishers.

Now, if you actually think that the CT ticket prices make sense, that's a different matter. I'm no more in favor of changing canon when it isn't necessary than I am of leaving it unchanged when change is needed. But if you do, I sure wish you'd explain them to me.

One person's necessary fix is another's capricious canon-breaker. Pricing cargo per-parsec rather than per-trip makes more economic sense, but a 3D starmap makes more astronomical sense, realistic reaction-based drives make more physical sense, and Moore's Law-following supercomputers make more comp-sci sense. Which are 'necessary fixes' and which are canon-breakers? Sure restructuring the trade system doesn't have quite the drastic canon-altering effect that adopting a 3D starmap would, but it does have significant canon-consequences (specifically by reducing the viability of jump-1 ships and the importance of mains) that can't/shouldn't be ignored entirely.

Fixes for Traveller are like opinions (or a**holes) -- everybody's got one. So to keep a common playing field IMO those fixes should be either kept to minor/trivial details (dates, UWP ratings, etc.) or clearly labeled as optional variants. But to declare that the ~93% of Traveller fans who don't use GT should change one of the fundamental ways the OTU has worked for 25 years just because Jim MacLean has a degree is economics is (IMO) arrogant in the extreme.

 

[Solo]

I think it has to be remembered (as MJD pointed out) that GURPS:Traveller occurs in a variant universe/timeline. It uses Classic/MT/T4/ as its start point.

T20 is not a variant(and has never claimed to be), but Classic/MT/T4/TNE with a different rules set. (as I understand it.)

So, if your interest is in remaining "canon" (whatever that means to you) then you'd be best served following the T20 background than the GURPS one.

Of course, what does this matter? There's a reason we refer to the Traveller universe as IMTU...

Just some random, useless thoughts. Ignore at will.

 

[AndreaV]

Originally posted by Tanuki:
The worst rule-bending that SJGames has done is in starship creation. Too many _major_ changes there from CT/HG and not all for the better.

<cough>FFS1</cough>, <cough>HePLAR</cough>, <cough>no thrusters</cough>

 

[Gallowglass]

Originally posted by Andrewmv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tanuki:
The worst rule-bending that SJGames has done is in starship creation. Too many _major_ changes there from CT/HG and not all for the better.

<cough>FFS1</cough>, <cough>HePLAR</cough>, <cough>no thrusters</cough></font>[/QUOTE]Quick, someone get a Andrew a glass of water!

(Although I also had a bizarre "Carry On..." moment and almost typed "Quick nurse the spoons..." but then with a temperature nudging 39Celsius I REALLY shouldn't have come in to work today...)

 

[MJD]

I don't buy the "Marc authorized GT therefore everything it is an official fix" line. There are too many layers of vagueness there.

As to explaining to every individual why we ignored or didn't make their pet fix... no.

I don't have time, and I don't care to.

What it comes down to is... we've produced this game as we saw best. Judge it how you like, but we had good reasons for every decision. We don't have the time to explain those decisions, nor any obligation to do so.

Out of courtesy, I'm prepared to make the statement that the CT-standard is the ultimate starting point for everyone's fixes (including mine). Therefore, by sticking close to it, we retain a central position compatible with everyeone else's starting point. By shifting the baseline to what WE thought the fixed version should be, we'd mover aaway from the centre and make some folks' otherwisse minor tweaks into enotrmous and incompatible changes.

So, we stuck to the original baseline, meaning that the OTU (starting point for the variants inevitably created by every single referee the moment he starts to run a game)remains considtent.

I know that won't please everyone, but it's the best solution for the overall situation.

 

[RabidVargr]

Sorry MJD,

I think you guys made a major error in not sticking to the actual timeline where the Vargr take over and rule the universe.

*shakes his head in dispair*

RV

What's wrong with you people!!??

 

[MJD]

Thanks for that reasoned and rational suggestion.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by T. Foster:
One person's necessary fix is another's capricious canon-breaker. Pricing cargo per-parsec rather than per-trip makes more economic sense, but a 3D starmap makes more astronomical sense, realistic reaction-based drives make more physical sense, and Moore's Law-following supercomputers make more comp-sci sense. Which are 'necessary fixes' and which are canon-breakers?

That's easy. If they are internally consistent, they're not canon-breakers. A flat universe may be weird, but it works. Pricing cargo per jump does not work. Having an entire slice of society missing from the social scale does not work. Having the Sword Worlds and the Darrians squabble over one set of worlds in some references and a different set of worlds in other references does not work. Having the Darrian sun flare in -927 and -925 and -924 does not work.

Sure restructuring the trade system doesn't have quite the drastic canon-altering effect that adopting a 3D starmap would, but it does have significant canon-consequences (specifically by reducing the viability of jump-1 ships and the importance of mains) that can't/shouldn't be ignored entirely.

Jump-1 ships are perfectly viable with per-parsec prices. It's just a question of figuring out what the cost should be to make it viable. Something that has already been done, btw.

Fixes for Traveller are like opinions (or a**holes) -- everybody's got one. So to keep a common playing field IMO those fixes should be either kept to minor/trivial details (dates, UWP ratings, etc.) or clearly labeled as optional variants.

I disagree. No matter how many perfectly viable options a given issue has, only one can be true for any given universe. The OTU is supposed to be one particular universe. So while it is fine to list different variants, one should always be labled as the one that applies to the OTU -- our common playing field as you call it. And if the one that applies at the moment isn't internally consistent, it should be made consistent.

But to declare that the ~93% of Traveller fans who don't use GT should change one of the fundamental ways the OTU has worked for 25 years just because Jim MacLean has a degree is economics is (IMO) arrogant in the extreme.

Jim McLean doesn't really enter into it at all. I was of the opinion that prices per jump was utterly silly (and I mean willing-suspension-of-disbelief-shattering silly) long before GT was a even a gleam in Steve Jackson's eye. It was gratifying and validating that Jim turned out to agree with me (on this particular issue but if he had stuck to that rule, I would be arguing that both QuickLink and SJG ought to change it to something sensible.

So I apologize for inadvertently diverting the argument. I didn't really mean that QuickLink ought to change this or any other rule for the sole reason that SJG had done so. They ought to change it because it is wrong (They ought to change it to something similar to what SJG changed it to out of a desire to keep the universe as internally consistent as possible). So at most the fact that SJG changed it is an added incentive, as it were.

Do I really have to add that all this is just my opinion?

Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by MJD:
So, we stuck to the original baseline, meaning that the OTU (starting point for the variants inevitably created by every single referee the moment he starts to run a game) remains consistent.

That is an attitude I would applaud if it wasn't for the sad fact that it works only if the original baseline is consistent. It isn't. So by sticking to the original baseline, you'll ensure that the OTU remains inconsistent.

I've said it before, but it propably got lost in the issue of whether the GTU is authorized or not: Keeping canon is a Good Thing when canon is internally consistent. It is a Bad, Bad, Bad Thing when canon is not consistent in the first place. As for who decides whether or not it works, obviously you do (unless Marc takes a hand). But I feel entitled to call your attention to what I percieve as flaws. If you tell me I'm wrong or that you don't want to discuss it, then so be it, but if you want to convince me that I'm wrong, you'll have to come up with something better than 'because we say so'.
The real issue (which I take the blame for sidetracking) is whether QuickLink should go against historical or social facts established by SJG when said facts are fully compatible with Classic Traveller canon material. I am of the opinion that you should not do so, because it lowers the internal consistency of the Traveller universe (both Traveller universes and detracts from the illusion that this is a 'real' universe.

Hans