Chris, et al: Spinward Marches

[hdrider67]

Assuming you guys decide to go with EDGs excellent suggestions, is there even time to incorporate the worldgen in time for the marches book, or will you be staying with the worldgen stuff from 3.2?

With the book releases so close together, it almost would seem the mechanics EDG put together would have been too late.

Expiring minds want to know.

 

[Zowy]

I don't want the Spinward Marches "fixed" to much. It is after all the main area for the bases, outposts and settlements of the Ancient Droyne. The Final War spaned 2,000 years and made a mess of the area :? But many of the worlds they did not use planet busters on can fall outside the norm.

Please don't hurt me EGD

 

[Klaus Kipling]

I'd like to see decanonised that the Ancients were actually Super-Droyne and the whole Grandfather malarky.

Have that as one theory among many, maybe the most respected theory, but lets have others to keep the mystery there.

The Ancients are spoiled when we all know who they were. they need to remain an enigma!

 

[rje]

I'd like to see decanonised that the Ancients were actually Super-Droyne and the whole Grandfather malarky.

Have that as one theory among many, maybe the most respected theory, but lets have others to keep the mystery there.

The Ancients are spoiled when we all know who they were. they need to remain an enigma!

Let's just footnote the Ancients and move on to new story arcs!

 

[tjoneslo]

Assuming you guys decide to go with EDGs excellent suggestions, is there even time to incorporate the worldgen in time for the marches book, or will you be staying with the worldgen stuff from 3.2?

If you go read This Thread on the Avenger Enterprises board, you can see exactly what changes are being made. And if you're quick, suggest some others.

 

[EDG]

I think its safe to say that any changes are going to be as minimal as possible. If you actually look at the thread on the Avenger board I've posted an updated version of the Sword Worlds that doesn't change much at all (sure, a lot of world sizes have changed, but those don't really affect anything).

The most that can happen for the vast majority of planets is that the TL will go up or down a little, or that the pop digit will go up or down by one or two, or the starport will change to the next better or worse type.

Some people appear to be getting hysterical about it, but there's simply nowhere near the level of change to warrant that reaction (that said, these are grognards that we're talking about here, and the SM is one of their sacred cows)- Regina isn't suddenly going to change into a low population hellhole or anything like that. These are tweaks, not a wholesale rewrite of the UWPs.

So don't panic.

 

[-Daniel-]

So don't panic.

But us old men love to panic. :wink:

Thanks for the heads up.

Daniel

 

[Se Chris]

Assuming you guys decide to go with EDGs excellent suggestions, is there even time to incorporate the worldgen in time for the marches book, or will you be staying with the worldgen stuff from 3.2?

We're still incorporating changes into the final document. I'll let everyone know when it's all finalised.

 

[rancke]

I think its safe to say that any changes are going to be as minimal as possible. If you actually look at the thread on the Avenger board I've posted an updated version of the Sword Worlds that doesn't change much at all (sure, a lot of world sizes have changed, but those don't really affect anything).

When we wrote Sword Worlds we asked for and was denied permission to change various worlds sizes. So we (mostly Paul) put a whole lot of sweat into coming up with explanations for those worlds sizes. And the rather detailed descriptions we wrote for those worlds were based on the canonical sizes. So while I sympathize a whole lot with your desire to correct weird world sizes, perhaps the Swords Worlds isn't the place to do it?

In a related issue, we did receive permission to change the populations of some of the worlds (Hofud, Dyrnwyn, and Durendal, IIRC) based on what those worlds had historically accomplished (it's hard to conquer a neighboring world if your population isn't big enough to support a navy). I don't have the figures present, but will you use those figures if I get them to you?


Hans

 

[EDG]

When we wrote Sword Worlds we asked for and was denied permission to change various worlds sizes. So we (mostly Paul) put a whole lot of sweat into coming up with explanations for those worlds sizes. And the rather detailed descriptions we wrote for those worlds were based on the canonical sizes. So while I sympathize a whole lot with your desire to correct weird world sizes, perhaps the Swords Worlds isn't the place to do it?

Oh, I know all about that - Paul was working with me a hell of a lot to figure those out - I was the one that did all the number crunching and helped him come up with the explanations (I'm perversely proud of the Enos one, even though it's a really dumb explanation that might just possibly work once in the entire galaxy. Of course, in the OTU there's zillions of worlds like that...)

But we've got the complicating issue of whether MGT needs to be compatible with GT. Personally I'd rather see those crazy physical explanations thrown out of the window here, despite the work we did on them for GT:SW. But it'd be nice to see the social adjustments that were made in the MGT SM book.

 

[rancke]

Oh, I know all about that - Paul was working with me a hell of a lot to figure those out - I was the one that did all the number crunching and helped him come up with the explanations

Right! (Smacks head). I knew that. It had just slipped my mind. Sorry.

(I'm perversely proud of the Enos one, even though it's a really dumb explanation that might just possibly work once in the entire galaxy. Of course, in the OTU there's zillions of worlds like that...)

So keep Enos and change all the other ones. The ones that haven't been written up yet.

But we've got the complicating issue of whether MGT needs to be compatible with GT.

Well, obviously it doesn't need to be, or the question wouldn't arise in the first place. But I think the proper question is "Wouldn't it be nice if new Traveller material was as compatible with old material as possible?"

If all Enos was was a string of numbers in a couple of UWP catalogs, I'd cheerfully watch you change them. But I think it is a great waste of material to invalidate detailed writeups. There's so much of the Traveller Universe that remains to be evoked. Why invalidate some of the meager bits that we've managed to assemble over the last 30 years?

Personally I'd rather see those crazy physical explanations thrown out of the window here, despite the work we did on them for GT:SW. But it'd be nice to see the social adjustments that were made in the MGT SM book.

Right, I'll dig them out and post them ASAP.



Hans

 

[hdrider67]

Assuming you guys decide to go with EDGs excellent suggestions, is there even time to incorporate the worldgen in time for the marches book, or will you be staying with the worldgen stuff from 3.2?

We're still incorporating changes into the final document. I'll let everyone know when it's all finalised.

Thanks!