> dcnilsen13 wrote:
>
> >>I seem to recall some discussion that they wanted to finish fixing
the
> stars, but may not have been given permission to do that. That bugged
me,
> because I tried to fix them in TNE but apparently didn't go far enough
or
> something.<<
>
> You tried, which is more than can be said of others.
Thanks, but what did I do wrong, or fail to do?
> When generating the stars for the four sectors that appeared in the
second 1248 sourcebook, "Bearers of the Flame", EDG was on board and all
of us were determined to make the stars right to
> the best of our
> ability. In the 8 years that have passed, I'm sure we've learned a bit
more about astrophysics that EDG would want to
> tweak those stars a bit more.
Right, and that's part of why I was determined to be conservative and only
change what was necessary (stars with no habitable zones, stellar remnants
that would have killed their worlds already). In a game like Traveller,
which intends to remain in print forever and also uses terms like "canon,"
you can't afford to get into chasing the latest scientific theories all
the time, because UWPs are "Holy Sacraments." People get honked over
HEPLaR and laser focal arrays but changing UWPs all the time would be
pouring permanent itching powder down their shorts. Because another 8
years from now someone will want to tweak them again. I don't think you
can afford to do that, plus I think it keeps you permanently nuts.
It's like the way we had to rewrite T2K every couple years to chase
current events until Frank hit upon the idea of splitting the universe off
at Yeltsin. At least that was just background information and didn't
change game mechanics.
> Someone started a rumor that when MJD was writing the Spinward Marches
book for Mongoose he had assembled a team to overhaul the stars and even
the UPP's. It wasn't true, but so many grognards
> screamed bloody murder that MM was forced to make a formal announcement
declaring that no such thing was going to happen.
> And that's too bad that the rumor was false, because we still have
garden worlds around M8 V dullards (or whatever) just > to appease those
who can not stand the thought of changing one iota of the sacred UWP's.
Wow. There's got to be a good conspiracy theory in there somewhere.
Traveller is nothing without conspiracy theories.
But back to howling grognards, that's why I had a conservative approach on
the changes. Not because I think "the players are over-sensitive, can't
afford to tick them off," but because for WHATEVER reason, a vast number
of Traveller players
are collectors/completists, and they want to collect all those UWPs, which
are very important to them, and if we're stupid enough to give them to
them, there is some kind of assumption that they are going to be
reasonably stable. So I get why people don't want them changed. They're
hard enough to read and make sense of to begin with, but if little digits
start randomly changing here and there, how can you tell what is what?
What is a fix, what is a typo? Which of these eye-watering rows of
numerals can you trust? We'd all be running around like Oedipus gouging
our eyes out.
BUT HERE'S THE THING PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE, some of these star fixes are
not just amateur and professional astronomers being all fussy and
demanding current scientific accuracy, THEY ARE ERRATA. Traveller extended
system generation said to place mainworlds Size 1+, Atm 4-9 in the
habitable zone, which requires there to be one. The term "habitable zone"
must mean something, else it would not be in the game. If it doesn't mean
anything, then IT'S an erratum and needs to be removed. Further, in many
cases the UWPs were generated automatically by a buggy DGP program and it
is not clear if the Star DMs were applied correctly. But the bottom line
is that IF THE "OFFICIAL" UWPs DON'T REFLECT THE GENERATION SYSTEM THEY
ARE ERRATA and must be brought into line with it.
And while we're in there, since this is supposed to be a SF game which
takes the S remotely seriously, we shouldn't have lush planets around
white dwarf stellar remnants, because it shows we don't care and we're not
serious about this. We ought to have at least that much self-respect. OR
AT THE VERY LEAST, anyone who says, "keep your hands off my stars" will be
shot if he ever complains about anything being "unrealistic" anywhere else
in the game. "Virus would never happen, but I'm keepin' my Agro worlds
around White Dwarfs." BLAM!
But I think there is a line. We SHOULD fix stars that are ERRATA (no
habitable zone for main worlds that require them), and not assign
degenerate stars to worlds with atmospheres.
But we should not be chasing current scientific theory all day. The game
was designed in 1977, and its 1977 design is locked into its UWPs and
that's okay. The game is never going to realistic. We've got a flat map
that is not based on actual star locations but claims to include Earth,
we've got jump drive, psionics, etc., etc., so we can afford to draw a
lone somewhere.
That's my balancing point, not like it's up to me anyway. I just remember
when it was and I keep flashing back.
> IMTU, I've been changing the UWP's where my campaigns are active (Vland
and Windhorn). I've been altering stars to fit the mainworlds and bumping
up world sizes to ensure they have sufficient > mass to retain their
atmospheres (as EDG educated us/me).
That would be beyond my line based on the "errata" test, as it's not
errata unless you're also re-doing the world generation system to disallow
current results. I get how you to ought to allow for molecular mass and
escape velocity and thermal motion, but those first two UWP digits are
from the oldest layer of Traveller, back when they were UPPs and not UWPs.
To me that would just be a "traditional embedded mistake" that we know is
in error but it's been in the game for 37 years, so we just accept it,
UNLESS it has a significant game effect, such as performance of vehicles
in atmosphere (e.g., gravity doesn't jibe with atmospheric pressure so
planes don't fly right).
Also, now that we are finding exoplanets for the past couple years, we are
going to start getting the doors blown off our assumptions on solar system
formation, so I wouldn't be in a hurry to change things we'll just want to
change again in a couple more years.
But, you still haven't answered, what did I do wrong in TNE, what did I
miss in TNE, what did I screw up in TNE so that it still has to be redone?
> These changes have been posted on my website (where applicable) and I
include notes for each subsector in case anyone
> really wants the old stats (though Berka and Travellermap will always
carry the originals).
>
> \_/
> DED
> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>
>
> >>I seem to recall some discussion that they wanted to finish fixing
the
> stars, but may not have been given permission to do that. That bugged
me,
> because I tried to fix them in TNE but apparently didn't go far enough
or
> something.<<
>
> You tried, which is more than can be said of others.
Thanks, but what did I do wrong, or fail to do?
> When generating the stars for the four sectors that appeared in the
second 1248 sourcebook, "Bearers of the Flame", EDG was on board and all
of us were determined to make the stars right to
> the best of our
> ability. In the 8 years that have passed, I'm sure we've learned a bit
more about astrophysics that EDG would want to
> tweak those stars a bit more.
Right, and that's part of why I was determined to be conservative and only
change what was necessary (stars with no habitable zones, stellar remnants
that would have killed their worlds already). In a game like Traveller,
which intends to remain in print forever and also uses terms like "canon,"
you can't afford to get into chasing the latest scientific theories all
the time, because UWPs are "Holy Sacraments." People get honked over
HEPLaR and laser focal arrays but changing UWPs all the time would be
pouring permanent itching powder down their shorts. Because another 8
years from now someone will want to tweak them again. I don't think you
can afford to do that, plus I think it keeps you permanently nuts.
It's like the way we had to rewrite T2K every couple years to chase
current events until Frank hit upon the idea of splitting the universe off
at Yeltsin. At least that was just background information and didn't
change game mechanics.
> Someone started a rumor that when MJD was writing the Spinward Marches
book for Mongoose he had assembled a team to overhaul the stars and even
the UPP's. It wasn't true, but so many grognards
> screamed bloody murder that MM was forced to make a formal announcement
declaring that no such thing was going to happen.
> And that's too bad that the rumor was false, because we still have
garden worlds around M8 V dullards (or whatever) just > to appease those
who can not stand the thought of changing one iota of the sacred UWP's.
Wow. There's got to be a good conspiracy theory in there somewhere.
Traveller is nothing without conspiracy theories.
But back to howling grognards, that's why I had a conservative approach on
the changes. Not because I think "the players are over-sensitive, can't
afford to tick them off," but because for WHATEVER reason, a vast number
of Traveller players
are collectors/completists, and they want to collect all those UWPs, which
are very important to them, and if we're stupid enough to give them to
them, there is some kind of assumption that they are going to be
reasonably stable. So I get why people don't want them changed. They're
hard enough to read and make sense of to begin with, but if little digits
start randomly changing here and there, how can you tell what is what?
What is a fix, what is a typo? Which of these eye-watering rows of
numerals can you trust? We'd all be running around like Oedipus gouging
our eyes out.
BUT HERE'S THE THING PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE, some of these star fixes are
not just amateur and professional astronomers being all fussy and
demanding current scientific accuracy, THEY ARE ERRATA. Traveller extended
system generation said to place mainworlds Size 1+, Atm 4-9 in the
habitable zone, which requires there to be one. The term "habitable zone"
must mean something, else it would not be in the game. If it doesn't mean
anything, then IT'S an erratum and needs to be removed. Further, in many
cases the UWPs were generated automatically by a buggy DGP program and it
is not clear if the Star DMs were applied correctly. But the bottom line
is that IF THE "OFFICIAL" UWPs DON'T REFLECT THE GENERATION SYSTEM THEY
ARE ERRATA and must be brought into line with it.
And while we're in there, since this is supposed to be a SF game which
takes the S remotely seriously, we shouldn't have lush planets around
white dwarf stellar remnants, because it shows we don't care and we're not
serious about this. We ought to have at least that much self-respect. OR
AT THE VERY LEAST, anyone who says, "keep your hands off my stars" will be
shot if he ever complains about anything being "unrealistic" anywhere else
in the game. "Virus would never happen, but I'm keepin' my Agro worlds
around White Dwarfs." BLAM!
But I think there is a line. We SHOULD fix stars that are ERRATA (no
habitable zone for main worlds that require them), and not assign
degenerate stars to worlds with atmospheres.
But we should not be chasing current scientific theory all day. The game
was designed in 1977, and its 1977 design is locked into its UWPs and
that's okay. The game is never going to realistic. We've got a flat map
that is not based on actual star locations but claims to include Earth,
we've got jump drive, psionics, etc., etc., so we can afford to draw a
lone somewhere.
That's my balancing point, not like it's up to me anyway. I just remember
when it was and I keep flashing back.
> IMTU, I've been changing the UWP's where my campaigns are active (Vland
and Windhorn). I've been altering stars to fit the mainworlds and bumping
up world sizes to ensure they have sufficient > mass to retain their
atmospheres (as EDG educated us/me).
That would be beyond my line based on the "errata" test, as it's not
errata unless you're also re-doing the world generation system to disallow
current results. I get how you to ought to allow for molecular mass and
escape velocity and thermal motion, but those first two UWP digits are
from the oldest layer of Traveller, back when they were UPPs and not UWPs.
To me that would just be a "traditional embedded mistake" that we know is
in error but it's been in the game for 37 years, so we just accept it,
UNLESS it has a significant game effect, such as performance of vehicles
in atmosphere (e.g., gravity doesn't jibe with atmospheric pressure so
planes don't fly right).
Also, now that we are finding exoplanets for the past couple years, we are
going to start getting the doors blown off our assumptions on solar system
formation, so I wouldn't be in a hurry to change things we'll just want to
change again in a couple more years.
But, you still haven't answered, what did I do wrong in TNE, what did I
miss in TNE, what did I screw up in TNE so that it still has to be redone?
> These changes have been posted on my website (where applicable) and I
include notes for each subsector in case anyone
> really wants the old stats (though Berka and Travellermap will always
carry the originals).
>
> \_/
> DED
> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>