Worldbuilding canon-changes in T20

[T. Foster]

Something which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else so far that leapt off the page while I was perusing my new copy of the THB last night is a couple of possibly significant canon-changes that are under-the-radar in the T20 world-design chapter. First on p. 377 (Step 8) is the -2 DM for Population for worlds with an atmosphere other than 0, 5, 6, or 8 that (effectively) makes non-asteroid Industrial worlds impossible. While I know that (as Chris Thrash is fond of pointing out) this change dates back to CT Bk 6, it's IMO just as significantly noteworthy that it wasn't carried over into MT or TNE (where it shows up in the pop roll for "other worlds" in the system, but not for Mainworlds). HiPop Industrial hellhole worlds with polluted atmospheres are a longstanding staple of the OTU with MANY examples included in canon (by my quick count 22 in the Spinward Marches alone!). But by the letter of the T20 rules, these are no longer possible.

The other change (also on p. 377, Step 9) is even more surprising because AFAICT it has no basis in prior canon and was (apparently) a whole-cloth invention of the T20 designers. Namely, Class A starports now require a minimum population of 4, Class B a min pop of 3, and pop 0 automatically becomes Startport X. While I can see the "sense" in making this change, I think it's worth pointing out that it also seems to be exactly the sort of rules "fixing" that Martin said was specifically avoided in T20. To wit (from the "Recreating Traveller" COTI article):

What we deliberately did not do was try to "fix" parts of the Traveller game system. There are numerous reasons for this, but the most basic one was compatibility. Every single Traveller player has his or her own favourite fixed, tweaks and general fiddlings-with. The existence of a mainstream "control strain" of Traveller gives everyone a common reference point from which to understand the tweaks. If we'd 'fixed' something, then we'd have moved the baseline, which means that some of that common ground would have disappeared.

This sentiment (which I happen to agree with) seems contradictory to a whole-cloth canon change regarding starports that has the (unintended?) consequence of rendering significant hunks of canonical OTU world-data no longer possible under the rules (i.e. erasing some of that aforementioned "common ground"). Sure low pop high quality starports are a credibility strainer, but no moreso IMO than per-jump cargo pricing, reactionless thrusters, meson guns, the 2D starmap or any other of Traveller's many famous handwaves, and no less embedded in prior canon (e.g. Pixie/Regina (SM 1903): A100103-D).

I'm curious why this one area was apparently allowed to be "fixed" when many others were not only left "unfixed" but left defiantly unfixed. Can anyone provide any insight here -- Martin? Hunter? Playtesters?

(Edited to (hopefully) make the tone seem less confrontational and keep Garf happy

)

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

Pardon me but... does this really have you enraged?

I mean on the scale of outrages this rates well below I donno, hunting humans for sport. probably below spitting on the sidewalk for me.

of course I've never paid close enough attention to the niggly details of any rules set to have noticed.

but I wonder, what exactly is your intent with this post?

1) get them to change this rule back?
2) paint MJD to be a hypocrite, (for what purpose? do you -know- him?
3) sustain some moral outrage because they didn't apply some -fix- you proposed?

I'm honestly curious. I find your post puzzling in that I don't know what you've set out to prove or why you expect me to care.

Especially with an acusatory style that makes it seem as if you think you're revealing the conspiracy of the century.

 

[themink]

No Garf, you are clearly reading him wrong.

At the end of the post he says that this is the only area that has been "fixed", everything else was "unfixed". So his comment is actually an accolade how well the design team stuck to the idea of leaving things broken.

He raises one point that it so small as to be negligible and then caps it of by saying that in "His" Traveller Universe it will be done the way he likes.

He also says that, since he is rolling up worlds and therefore not playing in known space, he knows he will be clashing with canon anyway.

Or Possibly I am reading a little too much between the lines (Tongue firmly in cheek)

Quick questions
a) Who cares?
b) Who rolls up worlds and then doesn't adjust for "sense"? The tables give a framework that you can build a sector on top of.

 

[T. Foster]

I read the rulebook. I noticed something that was changed from the old versions. I remembered the designers making a specific point that they weren't going to make such changes and wondered if this was an oversight, a deliberate double-standard, or something else. I'm not "upset," and I'm not "accusing" anybody of anything, I'm just curious (and slightly surprised no one else had noticed/mentioned it). Maybe I should re-edit my previous post to add a bunch of smileys.

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

Maybe I donno. it's heard to hear sarcasm and read emotion from text. I'm sorry if I jumped on you.

The tone of your post was that you had a grudge over this error/change/reversal and were making case against the accused.

For all I know you may even be right. Frankly though I don't buy your argument that a minor change in a table constitutes a major cannon change. IMO anyway.

I apologise if I offended you. There have been plenty of errata reports posted here. It's not what you said. It's how I interpreted how you said it.

I personaly sensed an acusation of Hypocrisy against MJD, now frankly the man is nothing more than a set of initials (who help bring an AWESOME book to my doorstep) but...I thought such an accusation was a frankly dick-headed thing to do. If that was not your intent. you have my apologies.

Sincerely
Peter Garfield White

 

[T. Foster]

I've edited my original post to hopefully make my curious-not-confrontational tone clearer. Just in case there's any lingering misapprehension, though, I'd like to state clearly and plainly that I am not attacking Martin or accusing him of any sort of hypocrisy or anything else. Martin is barely more than a set of initials to me either (our sum total interaction consists of public posts here and/or on the TNE-RCES mailing list and a handful of impersonal emails from when I test-read Diaspora Phoenix) and I too think he's doing great work as writer, line editor, and dogsbody to the masses.

In all honesty, though, let me admit that I do have a little hidden theory about how those changes happened. In essence, I suspect that those DMs were added in an early playtest draft, before Martin, Hunter, et al. had formulated their "no 'fixes'" policy, and that by the time that policy decision had been made these fixes (which are, after all, pretty darn minor) were overlooked and forgotten about and passed under the radar all the way into the final product. If that is indeed the case 'errata-ing' them out might be nice, or perhaps an explanatory sidebar (like the note on OTU TLs on p. 380), but whatever is done (even if it's nothing at all) I won't be broken up about it and promise I won't hold any grudges. Well, maybe just a little grudge

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by T. Foster:
Tfoster-First on p. 377 (Step 8) is the -2 DM for Population for worlds with an atmosphere other than 0, 5, 6, or 8 that (effectively) makes non-asteroid Industrial worlds impossible. ...

The other change (also on p. 377, Step 9) is even more surprising because AFAICT it has no basis in prior canon and was (apparently) a whole-cloth invention of the T20 designers. Namely, Class A starports now require a minimum population of 4, Class B a min pop of 3, and pop 0 automatically becomes Startport X. "
-------------------------------------------------
YUS!
I use that latter one already!(pop 4 A-port/ Pop3 B-port/and so on.). YUS! Great minds think alike. Good Ideas are contagious!
(makes fer a happy heretic doing his jig!)

 

[GBoyett]

Foster does point out an important fact about the population modifier. It's almost impossible to get an industrial world.

An Industrial world is defined as having a Pop 9+ and Atmos 0,1,2,4,7,9

Either the definition needs to be changed or the modifier rule changed. Maybe have it omit the -2 for tainted atmospheres.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by George Boyett:
Foster does point out an important fact about the population modifier. It's almost impossible to get an industrial world.

An Industrial world is defined as having a Pop 9+ and Atmos 0,1,2,4,7,9

Either the definition needs to be changed or the modifier rule changed. Maybe have it omit the -2 for tainted atmospheres.

--------------------------------------
As a world builder in the TNE era, I'll go with the tweak for the latter option GAB, on tainted atmospheres 4,7, & 9 fer MTU.

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by T. Foster:

In all honesty, though, let me admit that I do have a little hidden theory about how those changes happened. In essence, I suspect that those DMs were added in an early playtest draft, before Martin, Hunter, et al. had formulated their "no 'fixes'" policy, and that by the time that policy decision had been made these fixes (which are, after all, pretty darn minor) were overlooked and forgotten about and passed under the radar all the way into the final product.

In actual matter of fact, these changes were put in at a relatively late date, and because I (and a couple of other people)jumped up and down and screamed about it for several weeks.

As someone who has spent many hours trying to write up plausable explanations for some of the most offbeat worlds generated by the random system generation system, I must say adding some DMs to remove some of the more implausable systems is a godsend. Trying to explain one TL2 pop9 world with no atmosphere can be done. Trying to explain 12 or 20 is impossible.

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by tjoneslo:
In actual matter of fact, these changes were put in at a relatively late date, and because I (and a couple of other people)jumped up and down and screamed about it for several weeks.

Hmm, were you (plural, the designers & playtesters) aware of Martin/QLI's "no rules fixes" policy at the time this fix was made, and, if so, did anyone mention that perhaps this fix and that policy might be seen as contradicting each other?

And did you decide what to say when a newly-minted T20 fan who's read (in the rulebook (p. 372) and in the above-quoted article from this site) that the results of the T20 rules are "fully compatible" with previous editions picks up one of the 11* (by my quick count) previously published versions of Regina subsector and notices that 6** of the 32 worlds (18.75%) aren't possible under the rules?

I'm not such a hidebound canonista that I object to massaging random results to come up with something sensible (and in fact that's exactly what I did with Massilia IMTU), and likewise I'd have no objection at all to a sidebar in the rules explaining that this was done for the OTU and encouraging individual refs to do the same for their own worlds, but I do object*** to silently embedding such a "fix" in the rules themselves, especially after publicly stating that no such fixes were made (and giving (IMO) a very good reason why not).

*Adv. 1, Supp. 3, Deluxe Traveller, The Traveller Book, Spinward Marches Campaign, Adv. 12, MT Imperial Encyclopedia, MTJ1, TNE rulebook, Regency Sourcebook, Behind the Claw

**Efate (0105 A646930-D), Ruie (0209 C776977-7), Pixie (0303 A100103-D), Roup (0407 C77A9A9-6), Enope (0605 C411988-6), Rethe (0808 E230AA8-8)

***not as strongly as it probably seems to those reading this, but I am a little troubled by the apparent double-standard, and since no one else seems to be bothered at all, it's apparently down to me or nobody to complain about and draw attention to it.

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

And really what kinda gearhead/grognard would care?

seriously If I were a new minted fan and found that some of the existing worlds couldn't be created using the die rolls I was given to roll...

Meh...

I really wouldn't care enough to even bother figuring out why.

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

Really man, I STILL think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Eager to argue the point with whomever disagrees with you.

a) because you MUST be right?

b) because right or wrong, your hoping to get others to grab their pitchforks and light their torches?

I'm sorry if I seem rude but I just -DON'T- understand what the big deal is that it must keep going on and on... two charts are different and you have to tweak the worlds should you be needing to roll worlds up anyway...

THIS is your big 'Canon Violation'?

Get over it.

 

[T. Foster]

An almost 20% error rate between the rules and the most commonly published practical application of those rules seems significant to me. If published vehicle designs were 20% off from the design rules people would notice, and complain (I know this because past designs have been inaccurate and people have complained). I think the world designs should be held to the same standard, or at least have an explanation given as to why they're not.

YMM-and obviously does-V, but then why make a point of repeatedly saying how much you diasgree with me? If my complaint is really as trivial and unimportant as you claim then no one will respond to it, it will drop down the page and eventually disappear as newer topics are posted, and I'll accept that no one but me thought it was a worthwhile issue (well, except for Chris Thrash, who, naturally, praised it! ).

(Edited to remove some ill-advised spite. Sincerest apologies

)

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

A valid final point

 

[trader jim]

I think everyone should read HUNTERS signature....

 

[savage]

Ya know. Its great to have standards but when I purchase and run the game, it is my world.
If I want an industrial asteroid belt I'll explain
that it has all of the requirements in system, or
if I want a class A starport on a low population world I'll completely automate it.

It good that they're aiming to reproduce the game as closely as possible. It generates discussion about the errors in the original system.

Hopefully they'll produce a book of recommended fixes for all the broken rules. 3d space combat...

Savage

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by savage:
Hopefully they'll produce a book of recommended fixes for all the broken rules. 3d space combat...

If you're a JTAS Online subscriber you should definitely check out Rulefixer-in-Chief Chris Thrash's ongoing 'Traveller: Third Millenium' series in which he's been rebuilding the OTU from the ground up, maintaining the 'feel' of Classic Traveller while fixing all of the most egregiously unrealistic and/or illogical bits. If you aren't a subscriber I'd say this series is almost worth the subscription price ($15 for 2 years) all by itself, except that it's recently gone on indefinite hiatus since Mr. Thrash can (apparently) no longer access the JTAS site from his computer .

When/if T5 is published, it's one of my dreams that it would be effectively two systems in one -- providing the traditional 'baseline' (i.e. CT) systems followed by more realistic/logical 'advanced' alternatives. It may not be feasible or marketable, but since the same can probably be said of T5 at all I figure it doesn't hurt anyone for me to dream...

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by T. Foster:
First on p. 377 (Step 8) is the -2 DM for Population for worlds with an atmosphere other than 0, 5, 6, or 8 that (effectively) makes non-asteroid Industrial worlds impossible. ...

The other change (also on p. 377, Step 9) is even more surprising because AFAICT it has no basis in prior canon and was (apparently) a whole-cloth invention of the T20 designers. Namely, Class A starports now require a minimum population of 4, Class B a min pop of 3, and pop 0 automatically becomes Startport X.

REALLY?! Hot damn, that's cool. Score two for Hunter & Co. in my book.</font>[/QUOTE]I'd say score one. Totally eliminating the possibility of having industrial worlds seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But I heartily applaud the starport/population size fix (Assuming for purposes of argument that QuickLink will actually use those fixes on their UWPs). Now if they'd only add a rule to the effect that low-population worlds must always be owned by some more populous world (or megacorporation or other powerful organization), I'd be content ).

As for preserving canon, I submit that you could apply these corrections to every affected world in the Spinward Marches that does not have a specific write-up (outside of the unfortunate GT: Behind the Claw), and no one but the canonistas would notice a thing.

I submit that broken canon doesn't deserve to be preserved.

For worlds that do have established write-ups (Pixie's shipyard) or are important to maintain for other reasons, I think it is appropriate to apply Marc Miller's handwave and posit the presence of unusually rich natural resources (i.e., a high Resource Abundance Modifier in GT).[/B]

Does the rule say that you invariably fix conflicts between starport type and population size by reducing the starport type? Why can't Pixie be fixed by boosting the population to 60000 instead of reducing the starport to C? That would fit fine with the old, old statement that Pixie's yard can handle 600 T ships. It'd still be a pretty strange setup, but not a completely implausible one (Actually, it would be an implausible world as opposed to an impossible one, but that would work. Some implausible worlds is fine. It's when you get too many of them that the ol' willing suspension of disbelief gets strained past the breaking point. All IMO, of course).

Hans

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by rancke:
Does the rule say that you invariably fix conflicts between starport type and population size by reducing the starport type? Why can't Pixie be fixed by boosting the population to 60000 instead of reducing the starport to C? That would fit fine with the old, old statement that Pixie's yard can handle 600 T ships.

FWIW the rule itself is a -DM on the starport type table for LoPop worlds (with the additional (probably unintended) consequence of also making class X starports MUCH more common than shown in existing canon). As for 'updating' existing worlds there are, of course, no guidelines for doing so, because officially QLI doesn't seem to be acknowledging that this even IS a change (per the statement on p. 372 that the system is "fully compatible" with previous versions).

As for the other issue, the now-much-rarer Industrial worlds, I submit that the definition of Industrial must be revised somehow (whether by Mr. Thrash's suggested lowering of the Pop threshold or some other way), if only because T20's Bk3-based Trade & Commerce system places great importance on Industrial worlds (and no importance whatsoever on non-Ind HiPop worlds*) that at least suggests they're much more prominent than the maybe half-dozen per sector seen under the current rules + definition (Atm 0, Pop 9+).

*while T20 world-gen still produces all 15 of the trade codes from Bk7/MT/TNE/T4, only the original 6 from Bk3 (In, Ni, Ag, Na, Ri, Po) are used in the T&C system. The other codes are, apparently, solely for descriptive purposes.