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):
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
)
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):
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).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.
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
