T5SS Update: X Starports

[DonM]

They have returned, which means errata, but I think we'll all agree having them back is better than having them gone.

At the moment, when an X starport is rolled:

The system is red-zoned, "Fo"rbidden, and and the starport is X or Referee's discretion.

Which is why not all the X's stayed Xs.

www.travellermap.com

 

[thesmiths4]

I always thought that X starports just had those really questionable adult establishments just outside the extrality line.

(Flashy barker-ish guy: "Yes, my boy, the Hivers actually shake hands!"
Hick in from the sticks: "Gee mister, I'd like to shake hands with one of them critters! That sounds mighty friendly!")

 

[Vargas]

Is it still a red zone if it falls outside a government's, or other authority's, purview?

 

[rancke]

They have returned, which means errata, but I think we'll all agree having them back is better than having them gone.

At the moment, when an X starport is rolled:

The system is red-zoned, "Fo"rbidden, and and the starport is X or Referee's discretion.

I don't see why any change from the original concept is necessary.

Starport X means 'no starport, not even a flat stretch of bedrock with a beacon'.

Within reach of the IISS that effectively means that worlds with Class X starports has to be interdicted, because if they weren't interdicted, the Scouts would have put in a Class E starport (the minimal kínd).

Since the TAS automatically impose red zones on interdicted worlds, that means that all worlds with Class X starports also have red zones, at least within reach of the IISS. However, out on the edge of Charted Space, you would be able to find worlds with no starports that were not interdicted and not redzoned.

And you can't reason the other way, that all redzoned worlds lack starports. So changing 'Starport X' to mean "interdicted world, starport could be anything" is reducing the information content of the label.


Hans

 

[Reban]

Is it still a red zone if it falls outside a government's, or other authority's, purview?

Red zone is only a travel advisory though, a "I wouldn't go there if I were you" or "no trespassing". Interdiction and patrols will depend on if it is in a governments purview.

 

[Vargas]

Red zone is only a travel advisory though, a "I wouldn't go there if I were you" or "no trespassing". Interdiction and patrols will depend on if it is in a governments purview.

I admit I was keying on Don's use of '"Fo"rbidden'.

 

[DonM]

Hey, "Fo" is the T5 term...

In previous canon, an X starport could mean:

1. no starport.
2. an starport of type for referee to determine
3. unidentified starport (no one's been there and survived to tell the tale)

It just so happens that these were also red-zoned, because TAS was kind enough to warn us all to avoid them.

In T5 RAW, that applies, but the errata pushed #3, and of course T5 RAW adds the "Fo" code. After some discussion, Marc has decided to change the errata, and of course within the OTU, T5 actually tells us #2.

What needs to be explained, despite Hans' insistence otherwise, is that an X starport, when rolled, may be anything the referee desires, but that system is off-limits.

There are canon "Xs" of high tech worlds with epidemics, and they had better starports, and certainly the current starport is not "none", as the starport facilities are used for the automated delivery of medicines to help the suffering populace. The rules many not have gotten us there, but canon does. And it's useful to place those tools in the hands of Referees who may wish to do similar in their personal settings.

So, the bulk of "X" starports return in the update.

 

[Hemdian]

I always had a problem with the difference between ‘E’ and ‘X’ when ‘X’ meant no starport: on an unexplored barren world you can’t find a flat place to land anywhere on the planet? o: And a beacon you could just drop from orbit. The difference between ‘E’ and ‘X’ seems so trivial as to hardly be worth the distinction.

When the Zhodani Core Route website was up (you can still see a copy in the WayBackMachine) there was an email conversation between Chris Lineham and Marc. In it Marc stated his choice (then) was that unexplored barren worlds should be marked as ‘E’. This leaves ‘X’ to mean if there is a starport it is unavailable for civilian use due to restrictions. This seems much more useful.

(So in system generation, if you roll ‘X’ that is what is recorded in player information but the referee should secretly reroll for the actual starport (as this might have modifiers for TL).

But it could also be argued that in some (most?) cases of a forbidden world, not only should the starport be marked ‘X’ but also Population, Government, Law Level, and TL. The physical codes can be determined by remote scan but the social codes require going down and interacting with people on the ground.

 

[aramis]

An E Port expects trade. An X world has no spot expecting off world trade. That's a huge difference, Peter. The beacon is almost a formality; I have used in play some E ports without a beacon, but published coordinates.

On a world with an X, no one expects you wherever you land.
On an E, if you land at the beacon or the published coordinates, someone will be watching and check on you, if not be waiting to see if you're going their way., and sell you overpriced local food.

 

[rancke]

Hey, "Fo" is the T5 term...

What does it stand for?

In previous canon, an X starport could mean:

1. no starport.
2. an starport of type for referee to determine
3. unidentified starport (no one's been there and survived to tell the tale)

In previous canon, an X starport was defined as "No starport. No provision is made for any starship landing." [SM:36, TB:84, to name but a couple of references]

It just so happens that these were also red-zoned, because TAS was kind enough to warn us all to avoid them.

That's right.

What needs to be explained, despite Hans' insistence otherwise, is that an X starport, when rolled, may be anything the referee desires, but that system is off-limits.

Except that a world that is redzoned because of, say, a world war wouldn't be off limit.

There are canon "Xs" of high tech worlds with epidemics, and they had better starports, and certainly the current starport is not "none", as the starport facilities are used for the automated delivery of medicines to help the suffering populace.

What canon references? I can't think of any, but I could have missed them, I suppose.

The rules many not have gotten us there, but canon does. And it's useful to place those tools in the hands of Referees who may wish to do similar in their personal settings.

The thing is, you're removing a tool from the hands of referees because you're introducing a greater degree of ambiguity to the definition.

So, the bulk of "X" starports return in the update.

Well, that part is just fine.


Hans

 

[Hemdian]

An E Port expects trade. An X world has no spot expecting off world trade. That's a huge difference, Peter. The beacon is almost a formality; I have used in play some E ports without a beacon, but published coordinates.

On a world with an X, no one expects you wherever you land.
On an E, if you land at the beacon or the published coordinates, someone will be watching and check on you, if not be waiting to see if you're going their way., and sell you overpriced local food.

So can you have an 'X' on a world that isn't forbidden?

What's the code after a scout has visited a barren world and placed an automated beacon by a convenient flat spot. There are no people and thus no expectation of trade. Is that an 'X' or an 'E'?

My understanding is that starport codes usually imply a level of trade but are explicitly based on facilities. Maybe we need a code 'F' meaning no port but if you want to land then go ahead.

 

[whulorigan]

Hey, "Fo" is the T5 term...

What does it stand for?

Fo = "Forbidden"

 

[rancke]

Fo = "Forbidden"

Thank you.


Hans

 

[aramis]

So can you have an 'X' on a world that isn't forbidden?

What's the code after a scout has visited a barren world and placed an automated beacon by a convenient flat spot. There are no people and thus no expectation of trade. Is that an 'X' or an 'E'?

My understanding is that starport codes usually imply a level of trade but are explicitly based on facilities. Maybe we need a code 'F' meaning no port but if you want to land then go ahead.

Since it's going back to pre-T5 meaning, an X is surveyed, but has no designated landing spot.

I would suggest that any E ports with no population be converted to X ports; the beacon isn't the key element - it's the expectation of people landing there, and that it's a location for trade.

The distinction on paper has always been weak, but in play, many people have made extensive use of it.

For example - on a world with a population of 50 people or so, if the locals are scattered around the whole world in couples to quads, then the port code should be an X... you're not going to get significant trade, and any homestead is likely to be as bad as any other for a merchant spacer. On the other hand, a world with 20 people all living in one compound, the flat spot just outside of town probably counts as an E even if no beacon - you can expect all the offworld trade to be concentrated there.

(Note: I griped about Mongoose's text for E ports during the playtest; it doesn't reflect the realities of the extant adventures. TTA lists Focaline, with an E-port, as a Trade Station!)

 

[DonM]

That then leads to the question, what is an Imperial Trade Station? (from The Traveller Adventure)

Some other odd things found as small bits in canon of a similar nature, such as Mongoose's Imperial Consulates... What's an Imperial Consulate? In Mongoose Traveller, an Imperial Consulate is an administration office for various imperial departments such as commerce, justice and foreign affairs. Characters wishing to report significant crimes or obtain various permits will need to visit a consulate.

I don't suppose anyone's ever gathered up these odd bits over the years some where?

 

[aramis]

That then leads to the question, what is an Imperial Trade Station? (from The Traveller Adventure)

There are a few paragraphs in TTA about them as a clade...
in the LD:

Trade Station: Establishment for the promotion of interstellar
commerce. There is no single controlling agency for trade stations; some are established by private cornpanks, on their own or under contract to the Imperium, some are run by the scout service, and others are operated by different branches of the imperial government.
There are five trade stations in the Aramis subsector operated by the scout service to promote trade with the Vargr. The installations, at Lablon, Jesedipere, Junidy, Focaline, and Zila, serve as clearing houses for merchant dealings. They provide numerous free services: language translation, temporary warehousing, brokerage, computer files of merchant information, a commodity exchange, and others.​

Jesidipere's is detailed over pages p. 125-126.
Nasemin's is mentioned in a news brief on p 111
There are passing references to Zila's on p. 61
Lablon's has a passing reference on p. 18.

All other references I can find are in the SS1, Bk7 and MT Character Generation sequences (searching on both "Trade Station" and "Trading Station" - both are used in TTA).

 

[DonM]

What canon references? I can't think of any, but I could have missed them, I suppose.

I dug up the Marches references... the "was" stats are from Supplement 3.

Shionthy (2306 Spinward Marches), was X000742-8; now C000742-8. The X interdiction was for navigation reasons, but since miners are known to be present searching for antimatter over such a long period of time, the starport was raised to C. Shionthy also had a very specific stellar change (per Marc, 9/2009).

Corfu (2602 Spinward Marches), was X895674-8, now C895674-8. Quarantined after 1065 (approximately 40 years before 1105?) due to a virulent epidemic. The X interdiction is medical, so starport raised to C. This was interesting, as Marc wanted Second Survey to be 1065, so our T5SS 1065 Marches needed a pre-quarantine starport. Marc elected to make it "C" (9/2009).

Zephyr (3138 Spinward Marches), was X89556A-3, now C89556A-5. World was founded as a food provider for Trin [GT inference], warranted improving the starport to C to provide for trade (per Marc, 9/2009). This one is interesting as GT:BtC has removed the interdiction while the Imperium negotiates with the rebels. Personally, I'd say this was already in the works but delayed by the 5FW, OR it's a post-5FW Norris change.

Victoria (1817 Spinward Marches), was X697770-4, now D6D7772-2. There are mentions that permits are available to give access to Victoria, but not the moon, and apparently someone had contacted Marc in the past about changing the TL because of the lack of metal. Marc's view was that given the existence of permits, and the paranoia of the Scouts and Navy about the system, that there had to be a location for a starport, and he opted for D rather than E (per Marc, 9/2009).

Zykoca (3004 Spinward Marches), was X994542-6, now D994542-6. GT:BtC says the starport was attacked in 1097, so it was given a starport (per Marc, 9/2009).

Lewis (3107 Spinward Marches), was X427402-D, now D427402-7. Decided to define Lewis based on the pre-Tukera closing stats outside of the estates, for Second Survey's 1065 (per Marc, 9/2009).

I could not find notes on Penkwhar or Zykoca in my quick search. Note that the Spinward Marches Droyne worlds are put into this category (non-X starports red-zoned/Forbidden) by the T5SS, but they were C starports in Supplement 3 (CT).

 

[DonM]

All other references I can find are in the SS1, Bk7 and MT Character Generation sequences (searching on both "Trade Station" and "Trading Station" - both are used in TTA).

Right -- just like the only mention of Imperial Consulates is in the Mongoose Core Rulebook.

I'm reminded of the "Steppeworld" classification in the K'kree CT book.

At the moment, the T5SS isn't using either trade stations or consulates, and we're not looking at the moment to change that. We're also not adding Steppeworlds to the T5 trade classifications (there's plenty already).

 

[aramis]

Right -- just like the only mention of Imperial Consulates is in the Mongoose Core Rulebook.

I'm reminded of the "Steppeworld" classification in the K'kree CT book.

At the moment, the T5SS isn't using either trade stations or consulates, and we're not looking at the moment to change that. We're also not adding Steppeworlds to the T5 trade classifications (there's plenty already).

I initially brought it up for Hemidan to show that an E-Port can be a trade center, more than just "a beacon on the bedrock". As it is for two worlds in TTA.

 

[rancke]

Right -- just like the only mention of Imperial Consulates is in the Mongoose Core Rulebook.

Exit Visa shows an Imperial consulate on Alell and Zilan Wine shows one on Zila.

At the moment, the T5SS isn't using either trade stations or consulates, and we're not looking at the moment to change that.

In my opinion, plain common sense dictates that the Imperium would have some sort of mechanism for day to day contact with the governments of member worlds and some mechanism for handling day to day problems of Imperial citizens on member worlds. Why not the legations that GT:Far Traders mention for the first and the Imperial consulates that Exit Visa and Zilan Wine show handling day to day problems of Imperial citizens for the second?

(With, and this is an addition of my own, worlds with populations too small to rate a full Imperial legate having the local Imperial consul handling legational duties too. Worlds with even smaller populations may have to settle for a vice-consul.)

Note that Imperial legations and consulates wouldn't need a remark in the notes column because they'd be on every member world (not just on some, as Mongoose has it).


Hans