Empty Jump Hex Solutions: comments critiques and rants

[captainjack23]

Like I said, canon is relative - there's no real reason why 'canon' should just mean "Marc's OTU".

Well, yes, actually there is. Canon, is in fact the body of work that defines Marc's OTU; no more no less. What the disconnect I see here comes from is the confusion of two ideas: Canon, and...whatever English word is used to describe 'a consistency of story' (I'm a bit tired and my vocabulator module is a bit slow- perhaps 'continuity' ?). To use canon to describe both "Marc's definition of Marc's OTU" and "a series of works that have a consistent and pleasing interaction with a traveller universe" is bound to cause problems.

One is essentially reduced to fighting for ownership of the word "Canon", without really making any progress on defining either the body of work defining the OTU, or defining an overall story for a given traveller universe.

It is pretty clear that both Lauren and Marc see GURPS traveller as not part of the OTU canon; and Marc has had lots of opportunity to update his list to include it, and Lauren has had lots of opportuity to make the case that it is ; and neither has done so. So, that is pretty much that. For Marc's OTU.

It is also clear that arguing about what he should or should not include is entirely disconnected from an attempt to define a particular storyline, as was the intent of this thread.

Marc's story is Marcs campaign. Its available to those who want to use it to either extend his campaign (in which case he wants authorial oversight), or to use as they see fit - which is what we , as the consumers have. And for better or worse, I have never felt that fans own an authors works.*

If this was a novel, it would have been put down and finished for better or worse, long ago. But an RPG universe really is something different; it never quite is nailed down -until it is dead and discontinued. And since, ( :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: ) unfortunately ( :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: ) Traveller hasn't died like quite a few RPG universes, this will be a continuing issue.

So, to continue this tangential argument, I'm in agreement with Aramis that no GT material is Canon until declared otherwise; and I'm in agreement with Doctor Ganymede that it is a distinction irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And I would add, irrelevant to most discussions that examine materials off of the Canon list of Marc's OTU.


*A paraphrase of one of the best statements that I've ever read on the subject is from (god help me, Dave Sim), discussing a letter accusing him of disregarding his Fans opionions of his work: "I'm only obligated to tell the story I intend to tell, as best as I know how; the reader has only the obligation to enjoy it if they in fact enjoy it, to come by it honestly, and to give credit and payment when making actual money or reputation off of it."

 

[captainjack23]

Now, leading up to strephon not being assassinated means a significant change in Dulinor's character, and that has to go back at least as far as the planning, but probably a lot further. And a significant alteration in the Domain of Illellish, from which Dulinor derived the support for his coup. We don't have enough data to actually list the fundamental divergence point.

Well, yes. Or, a purely stochastic event occurred, at the exact moment that defined the split, when Dulinors ship exploded: such as a freak drive failure.

......or a player character got involved...

 

[EDG]

To use canon to describe both "Marc's definition of Marc's OTU" and "a series of works that have a consistent and pleasing interaction with a traveller universe" is bound to cause problems.

And this is why I'm NOT using it to mean "Marc's definition of Marc's OTU", and why I AM using it to mean "a series of works that have a consistent and pleasing interaction with a traveller universe" - because it really is the latter, not the former. In fact, the closest real definition of the word "canon" is this: "the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art". In a gaming/fictional context the real definition of canon is arguably "a series of works written by an officially sanctioned source that authoritatively describe a specific universe".

One is essentially reduced to fighting for ownership of the word "Canon", without really making any progress on defining either the body of work defining the OTU, or defining an overall story for a given traveller universe.

Marc doesn't suddenly get "ownership" of the word canon here though. His Charted Space setting is just one set of canon. GT's Charted Space setting is another set of canon. T20's is yet another one. There is nothing unique or special about Marc's version of events that can or should influence any other licensed version of it. Here's a relevant example - Marc's canon states that the Fifth Frontier War happens in the near future after 1105 in his canon - but Mongoose is under no obligation whatsoever to have it happen in MGT canon. GT didn't have the Rebellion or assassination of Strephon or Virus happen in their canon either.

It is pretty clear that both Lauren and Marc see GURPS traveller as not part of the OTU canon; and Marc has had lots of opportunity to update his list to include it, and Lauren has had lots of opportuity to make the case that it is ; and neither has done so. So, that is pretty much that. For Marc's OTU.

I really don't understand why people insist on relying on the absence of evidence for something to claim that they must be right. The logic really isn't that hard - if X is explicitly stated to be true (or false), then we have proof that X is true (or false). If X is not mentioned at all, then we have no data on whether X is true or not and any conclusion drawn from that is an assumption.

The lack of comment or confirmation means just that - there is no comment or confirmation, not that whatever you assume that they are thinking must be true.

And for better or worse, I have never felt that fans own an authors works.*

We do own them though. It's out of the authors' hands from the moment we buy it and play it and read a work. The author has no right whatsoever to tell us how to enjoy it or how to interpret it. This applies for books, songs, films or anything else (many singers say that it's up to the listener to interpret what they want out of a song. The singer's intent may have been one thing, but they mean different things to different people).

 

[rust]

Well, yes, actually there is. Canon, is in fact the body of work that defines Marc's OTU; no more no less.

I think the two things we should differentiate are Marc's legal position as
the author of his works and the actual content of these works - copyright
and canon.

Marc has the copyright for the canon he created with his works, and the-
refore can decide which parts of it may be used by other authors under
which conditions. This is (legally) binding.

As for the canon itself, the content of the works, Marc can tell others why
he wrote what he wrote and what the intended meaning is, but this is just
Marc's opinion on his own works, no more and no less, and it is in no way
binding. Critics disagree with authors about the meaning of their works all
the time.

So, while Marc definitely has the last word when it comes to what may be
done with his texts, he "only" has a (very important) opinion among other
opinions when it comes to the content and meaning of these texts.

 

[captainjack23]

I think you are reading more into what I write than was my intent.

Marc doesn't suddenly get "ownership" of the word canon here though.

1. A common usage of Canon here is "Marc Millers OTU". Yours is not. Many consider Marc to be an (or the) authoritative source; some do not. Marc has ownership of his canon; similarly, a licenced contributor must, and has decided voluntarily to abide by it. So, yes, it seems that Mongoose may have at least a contractual obligation to follow Marc's canon. Their choice.

There is little to be gained by using the same word to describe two different concepts. Except confusion, and sophistry -(this is not a personal attack, but rather sophistry as defined as a field of disputation).
As an aside, I feel that insisting on ownership of the title Canon, I feel, to some extent diminishes the effectiveness of an argument. There is always the problem that a self inconsistent argument, in fact an absurd one, is perfectly canonical. One becomes more focused on the tilte of "canonical" rather than useful , effective, or interesting. It is at base, an argument for inclusion irregardless of context.
If your point is that the Marc cannon should be replaced, then things make more sense - but it is hard to reconcile appeals to Marcs canon with that point, in the same argument, or with the argument that any canon is irrelevant. Again, not an attack, just a place where I find myself confused by the goal of your discussion.

I really don't understand why people insist on relying on the absence of evidence for something to claim that they must be right.

2. The absence of evidence is not what we are discussing. There is no claim that the GURPS (or other) material does not exist. We are discussing the nature and contents of Canon as an itemized entity, not as a universal( to which absence of evidence arguments may apply).

The X that is true is not " IW may be canonical" but rather "Canon is defined by inclusion". Thus, since we know that Canon is a, b, or c. D. is proposed. While we cannot know anything about D given a, b or c, we can conclude that D is not in (a,b,c).
If your claim is that canon is not (a,b,c) but rather a set that includes d, then they are two unrelated "proofs", and a different discussion; which renders argument rather pointless.

The claim (in the classic form of a syllogism) is that
Given Marc Miller has defined his Canon,
1. The Canon list is defined by explicit inclusion
2. The Gurps material is specifically not included.
3. The GURPS material is not part of Canon. QED

Inclusionary and exclusionary criteria are well developed and defined concepts in logic rhetoric and science, particulalry to examine evidence based but non-universal claims.

Here is why we have both types: If all lists are judged simply by the criteria that they cannot have relevance to anything not listed, any item, no matter how contradictory or ill thought out becomes canon. If one follows such an argument to the logical conclusion, one must assume that you and I are married if I post a list of spouses that does not explicitly exclude you.

Obviously, one cannot practically list everyone I am not married to; thus, an inclusion specific list is used to describe or list my spouses.

Wording is key in this issue. Should I write: "the matrimonial canon is the body of names which defines my spouses; this list details the persons that are properly included in my list of spouses" the list is inclusion specific. Should I write "the following list includes many of the names of my spouses" ; or (worse) "the following list includes many of the names of those who are not my spouses, and many of the names of my spouses" one could conclude that I am married to anyone not listed.

To make a universal claim, I would have to write" I am married to everyone not on the following list: Aardvark, Aaron A ; Aardvark, Aaron A Jr... Zzima, Zzebulon Z" (and obviously, "Ganymede, E.D.) "

Similarly arguments that Aaaron Aadvark has his own matrimonial list is irrelevant to the discussion of mine; and would be best served by framing them explicitly. "I know Marc has his own Canon: I propose this, which includes this item, not in his. Here is why."

We do own them though. It's out of the authors' hands from the moment we buy it and play it and read a work. The author has no right whatsoever to tell us how to enjoy it or how to interpret it.

3. The issue of fan ownership is and was not intended to suggest that one may not do whatever one wants with an authors creation; just that consumer and the aurthor have equal footing -neither has obligation to the other to play as the other insists. Yes the author has no right to tell us how to enjoy it, but neither do we have a right to tell him how to produce it.* ; The authors story is the authors, the readers(player, whatever) story is the readers. My list of authoritative sources is not and cannot be Marc's or yours. (for instance, I choose to exclude most of the boardgame mechanics).

*The exception, obviously is with regards to legal ownership which is mainly a property and income driven issue. You can only use anothers work to profit, either with permission, or if there is significant difference or that both used the same common sources - which is sometimes tricky to prove.

 

[captainjack23]

Well, yes, actually there is. Canon, is in fact the body of work that defines Marc's OTU; no more no less.

I think the two things we should differentiate are Marc's legal position as
the author of his works and the actual content of these works - copyright
and canon.

Marc has the copyright for the canon he created with his works, and the-
refore can decide which parts of it may be used by other authors under
which conditions. This is (legally) binding.

As for the canon itself, the content of the works, Marc can tell others why
he wrote what he wrote and what the intended meaning is, but this is just
Marc's opinion on his own works, no more and no less, and it is in no way
binding. Critics disagree with authors about the meaning of their works all
the time.

So, while Marc definitely has the last word when it comes to what may be
done with his texts, he "only" has a (very important) opinion among other
opinions when it comes to the content and meaning of these texts.

As usual, Rust, you have very succinctly summed up my thoughts in far less words than I can. Thanks !

 

[EDG]

1. A common usage of Canon here is "Marc Millers OTU".

Are you differentiating between "Canon" (uppercase C, specifically Marc's OTU canon), and "canon" (lowercase c, everyone else's)? "canon" is a word in the english language that has a general usage outside of Traveller (again, I note the irony of its primary usage, which is to describe religious texts), and I'm using in it than sense.

Many consider Marc to be an (or the) authoritative source; some do not. Marc has ownership of his canon; similarly, a licenced contributor must, and has decided voluntarily to abide by it. So, yes, it seems that Mongoose may have at least a contractual obligation to follow Marc's canon. Their choice.

Actually, whether or not a licensee must follow Marc's canon is entirely dependent on the specifics of the contract they sign. SJG were allowed to diverge from Marc's canon by not assassinating Strephon. We don't know what Mongoose's contract with Marc allows them to do, or what Mongoose have planned for the 5FW and beyond.

There is little to be gained by using the same word to describe two different concepts.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about this. I'm using canon to mean one thing and one thing only - the authoritative body of work within one specific universe. I don't care if it's Marc's, GT's, T20's, or Mongoose's. Heck, I don't care if it's Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, or Planescape either. They are all separate "canons". You on the other hand appear to be using it to mean Marc's canon only, and that is what is confusing (unless, as I said, you are creating a new concept of "Canon with a capital C" that is separate from "canon with a small c", but that's just being unnecessarily confusing IMO).

If your point is that the Marc cannon should be replaced.

No, I'm saying that Marc's canon should apply only to discussions of CT, MT, TNE, or T4. It shouldn't apply to discussions of MGT, T20, GT, or 1248.

The claim (in the classic form of a syllogism) is that
1. The canon list is defined by explicit inclusion
2. The Gurps material is specifically not included.
3. The GURPS material is not part of Canon. QED

That's great in theory, but in practise it's highly flawed because the canon list is not frequently and regularly updated. New material (inlcuding GT:IW) that has been released since it was last updated has not been considered (AFAIK the last known update of canon list was in the front of the CT Book Reprints, and that was years ago).

Until and unless the canon list is officially updated to include all materials published since the last update, we simply have no information on whether that material is canonical or not.

And besides, Marc's canon list only applies to what is canonical for his own version of the OTU anyway. Maybe GURPS is or isn't part of that, but it doesn't change the fact that anything that SJG publishes for Traveller is canonical for GT - Marc doesn't have any say in that at all.


RULES on the other hand are defined by inclusion. If a rule says that a specific gun does always 1d6 damage, then it always does 1d6 damage - if you say it does 1d8 damage, then you are changing that rule. If a rule specifies that ships can only jump between two star systems, then if you say that they can jump into or out of empty space you are changing that rule.

My list of authoritative sources is not and cannot be Marc's or yours. (for instance, I choose to exclude most of the boardgame mechanics).

Sure, for your own Traveller games you can exclude the boardgames - you can do whatever you like - but they're in the last list of canonical material that Marc defined, so they must count as authoritative and canonical for Marc's OTU whether you like it or not (for the purpose of discussion anyway).

 

[captainjack23]

1. A common usage of Canon here is "Marc Millers OTU".

Are you differentiating between "Canon" (uppercase C, specifically Marc's OTU canon), and "canon" (lowercase c, everyone else's)? "canon" is a word in the english language that has a general usage outside of Traveller (again, I note the irony of its primary usage, which is to describe religious texts), and I'm using in it than sense.

I think you must have left a smiley of of this text..

No, I am using the phrase "Marc's Canon" to mean marc's canon. I don;t think that the term is at all useful or applicable to personal views of authoritative lists of texts. Perhaps I'm too Cavinist.

Actually, whether or not a licensee must follow Marc's canon is entirely dependent on the specifics of the contract they sign. SJG were allowed to diverge from Marc's canon by not assassinating Strephon. We don't know what Mongoose's contract with Marc allows them to do, or what Mongoose have planned for the 5FW and beyond.

[/quote]

Agreed. So that point is settled. If they do, they must; if not, skies the limit.

There is little to be gained by using the same word to describe two different concepts.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about this. I'm using canon to mean one thing and one thing only - the authoritative body of work within one specific universe. I don't care if it's Marc's, GT's, T20's, or Mongoose's. Heck, I don't care if it's Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, or Planescape either. They are all separate "canons". You on the other hand appear to be using it to mean Marc's canon only, and that is what is confusing (unless, as I said, you are creating a new concept of "Canon with a capital C" that is separate from "canon with a small c", but that's just being unnecessarily confusing IMO).

No, I am suggesting that you are using your definition of canon, to argue with a different definition of canon. Which is what is described above. You want to discuss a CT canon, or a TNE canon, or a GURPS canon; which is fine, but a blindside given that (I think) most use of canon is to describe Marc's OTU Canon. It just doesn't seem very precise or effective, is all I'm suggesting, to argue apples, in a discussion of Oranges, and say they are all fruit....

The claim (in the classic form of a syllogism) is that
1. The canon list is defined by explicit inclusion
2. The Gurps material is specifically not included.
3. The GURPS material is not part of Canon. QED

That's great in theory, but in practise it's highly flawed because the canon list is not frequently and regularly updated.

Well, we don't know that at all, and, I clearly have a statement that postdates GT - in the CT pdf collection at the very least. And, in all honesty, I do believe that the GT line was approved under the condition that nothing in it can be used to contradict standard (MWM) canon. No, I won't provide a reference -I'm pretty sure its mentioned by Loren over on the SJG games forums where you post; perhaps you missed it.

Sure, for your own Traveller games you can exclude the boardgames - you can do whatever you like - but they're in the last list of canonical material that Marc defined, so they must count as authoritative and canonical for Marc's OTU whether you like it or not (for the purpose of discussion anyway).

Which is exactly my point. And also that the list doesn't include GT material.

However, since this part of our discussion rests on the concept of inclusionary arguments vs exclusionary arguments, and we seem to be running in circles, I'm going to just agree to disagree. I'm sure you get my point, and also sure that you disagree.

 

[EDG]

No, I am suggesting that you are using your definition of canon, to argue with a different definition of canon. Which is what is described above. You want to iscuss a CT canon, or a TNE canon, or a GURPS canon; which is fine, but a blindside given that (I think) most use of canon is to describe Marc's OTU Canon. It just doesn;t seem very precise or effective, is all I'm suggesting, to argue apples, in a discussion of Oranges, and say they are all fruit....

Sorry, you're the one using the wrong definitions here, not me. What you're saying is tantamount to saying "what does religious canon say about God", while including Jewish canon, Islamic canon, Christian canon, and canon from every other religion in that context. It's meaningless to do so, because they all say different things. Going back to RPGs, I think the fact that most people simplistically assume that Marc's canon is all that matters is why we have these problems here (one could argue that about the religions too I guess, but that's a whole different kettle of fish that isn't appropriate here ).

What I'm saying is tantamount to saying "what does each different religion say about God", and then taking Jewish canon, Islamic canon, Christian canon, and all the other canons as separate, individual entities. Do that and you'll get a much more useful and precise answer than a bunch of contradictions that you're trying to extract some superset of definitions from. Not that this isn't useful sometimes, but in the context of the RPG discussion it isn't because Marc's canon is internally contradictory and GT's isn't, and others don't say anything at all about it so there's no commonality to draw out there.

Or, to use your analogy - you're talking about fruit as if they're all the same, but they're not. There's apples, oranges, pears, and all sorts of other things, and in order to be fully understood and appreciated they need to be treated as separate entities.

 

[captainjack23]

Sorry, you're the one using the wrong definitions here, not me. What you're saying is tantamount to saying "what does religious canon say about God", while including Jewish canon, Islamic canon, Christian canon, and canon from every other religion in that context. It's meaningless to do so, because they all say different things. Going back to RPGs, I think the fact that most people simplistically assume that Marc's canon is all that matters is why we have these problems here (one could argue that about the religions too I guess, but that's a whole different kettle of fish that isn't appropriate here ).

What I'm saying is tantamount to saying "what does each different religion say about God", and then taking Jewish canon, Islamic canon, Christian canon, and all the other canons as separate, individual entities. Do that and you'll get a much more useful and precise answer than a bunch of contradictions that you're trying to extract some superset of definitions from. Not that this isn't useful sometimes, but in the context of the RPG discussion it isn't because Marc's canon is internally contradictory and GT's isn't, and others don't say anything at all about it so there's no commonality to draw out there.

Or, to use your analogy - you're talking about fruit as if they're all the same, but they're not. There's apples, oranges, pears, and all sorts of other things, and in order to be fully understood and appreciated they need to be treated as separate entities.

Well, I'm not going to ascribe simplicity to anyone for simply holding an opinion, so we have to disagree about that.

As to the rest, my only point is:

Canon is only a useful concept for Marc's definition of what contributes to the OTU.
Canon isn't really a useful concept except as it applies to the Marc Miller licened OTU
It isn't helpful to describe personal views as canon, it gains nothing, and in fact detracts from the strength of the argument.



The religious analogy would work if there were lots of people subscribing to various collections described as canon; but, as we see, pretty much everyone has their own ideal view of what is and isn't appropriate to traveller in their universe. One can describe ones own formulation as canon, but it is meaningless. The concept of canon, has an intent, and that intent is that it is a list/outline to guide thought and disputation for others to follow. If no-one follows a particular formulation, calling it canon is just substituting canon for "opinion", and confusing the discussions of canon as commonly held. That said, arguing for a changed canon is fine, and deserves being identified as such.

So, in conclusion, all I am saying is that referring to ones personal formulation of traveller history and rules as a canon and arguing canon with its proponents is inherently going to result in discussions at cross purposes.

 

[captainjack23]

...and, it looks like we're the only two here - even the piano player has gone home. Time to call this discussion quits, I think....

 

[Infojunky]

...and, it looks like we're the only two here - even the piano player has gone home. Time to call this discussion quits, I think....

Yes this circular agruement over cannon is bringing up fears of the Traveller Inquisition.....

>Door being thrown open!< "No One Expects the Traveller Inquisition! Cardinal Fang! Bring in the comfy chair!"

Hey don't you owe me money.... Oh, this an open channel.......

 

[rust]

>Door being thrown open!< "No One Expects the Traveller Inquisition! Cardinal Fang! Bring in the comfy chair!"

Don't use those terrible soft cushions, I confess ! :shock:

 

[thrash]

Find me the exact quote that he used to declare GT "non-authoritative" and "non-canonical", and find me the exact quote where he declared GT:IW to be non-canonical too (and by "non-canonical", we mean "not in line with Marc canon"), and then we can all be clearer on this.

It was on the TML in late 1996 or early 1997. The floppy disk I stored it on went bad back in 2002. So I can't cite it save from memory. However the exact wording was "[...]a non-authoritative rule set[...]"

I've searched my copies of the TML from 4 Sep 1997 (when GURPS Traveller was announced) to 13 August 1998 (when my files run out). The only direct comments from Marc Miller on GURPS Traveller as canon that I could find are:

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:35:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rumor or fact??

In a message dated 97-09-29 02:02:46 EDT, you write:

This statement is not correct.
_________________________
>>My local gamestore owner told me yesterday that GURPS now owns the
>>rights to the Traveller name and IG will no longer be involved in
>>producing game material once their current contract ends. Marc Miller,
>>he said would only be involved peripherally in game product design,
>>and the "alternate history" GURPS was starting would become the
>>"official" one.

Gurps is not supposed to be a one-shot.
__________________________________
>My understanding is that GURPS Traveller is going to be, like most of the GURPS books, a one shot.

Loren is correct... this is an alternative time line, not a replacement for
canon.
__________________________________

There have indeed been assurances from Loren that his project will be
an alternative timeline, not a replacement for the original canon.

Marc Miller

Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:50:22 EDT
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4 vs GT vs T5

In a message dated 98-07-31 14:05:18 EDT, you write:

1. Will GT and T5 support each other or will they be totally different
universes (similar to the jump we'll take going from T4 to GT)?

Theoretically, GT is sent in a divergent universe in which Strephon is not assassinated. And it uses the Gurps rules instead of the Traveller rules. Does that count as the same universe or a different universe?

...

Marc

The only use of the phrase "non-authoritative rule set" on the TML was by one Peter H. Breton, not Marc Miller:

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:25:53 -0500
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pbrenton@mit.edu>
Subject: Bad news for those that don't know...[Rumor Squashing]

Imperium Games is *not* gone. Phil will have to hold his dancing....

Now, I don't speak for IG, but I do own stock in the company. I think it
is important for the Company, the Authors of those items produced, and
for Marc's sake that we 'ride along' a few more months before panicking.
This is not Microsoft, and rumors can hurt companies the size of IG. I'm
not saying "shut up", that would be rude, I'm asking for patience.

Oh, and Marc Miller, who is Far Future Enterprises, retains all the rights
to Traveller and licenses Imperium Games exclusively to produce the
"Authoritative Rules" for Traveller. He also licenses IG non-exclusively
for other supplements and adventures. Marc can (and does) license
others for non-authoritative rules (i.e.SJG) and supplements and
adventures for use with Traveller (CORE/BITS, etc.).

"This is Rumor Control, signing off".

Pete

Given that Imperium Games and Sweatpea both had their licenses revoked within the year, I recommend taking this version with a grain of salt.

It was clear at release that it wasn't canon.

Really?

Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:21:27 -0800
From: "William F. Hostman" <aswfh@UAA.ALASKA.EDU>
Subject: Re:T4 vs GT vs T5

>Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:03:35 EDT
>From: JLAROSEE@aol.com
>Subject: Re:T4 vs GT vs T5
>
...
> 1. Will GT and T5 support each other or will they be totally different
>universes (similar to the jump we'll take going from T4 to GT)?

Some material will be suitable for cross-fertilization of ideas. Prior to
1116, all of the GT Canon is, effectively, the mainstream OTU. Rules
mechanics and stuff derived directly from them will be incompatable.

...

William F. Hostman

 

[rust]

I've searched my copies of the TML from 4 Sep 1997 (when GURPS Traveller was announced) to 13 August 1998 (when my files run out).

Thank you very much, this is very interesting.

 

[EDG]

Ta for the cites, Thrash. Nice to have actual data instead of fuzzy memories...

It was clear at release that it wasn't canon.

Really?

Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:21:27 -0800
From: "William F. Hostman" <aswfh@UAA.ALASKA.EDU>
Subject: Re:T4 vs GT vs T5

>Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:03:35 EDT
>From: JLAROSEE@aol.com
>Subject: Re:T4 vs GT vs T5
>
...
> 1. Will GT and T5 support each other or will they be totally different
>universes (similar to the jump we'll take going from T4 to GT)?

Some material will be suitable for cross-fertilization of ideas. Prior to
1116, all of the GT Canon is, effectively, the mainstream OTU. Rules
mechanics and stuff derived directly from them will be incompatable.

...

William F. Hostman

Niiiiiiice

 

[captainjack23]

To further muddy things:

I was unable to find the "no contradiction" quote (I honestly didn't try all that hard) , but did find a post by Lauren (from 2004 SJG boards) in which he differentiates the license of GT (publish material in an alternate universe") from The IW license (publish material in that period). Of course, he later (2008) later says his memory may be faulty, and should look it up. Never did hear further on that.

Still. He also repeatedly says that "Canon is what Marc says it is".

And what is clear, is that all concerned (Marc, Loren, Steve, probably dave Nielssen) care a lot less about canonical exactitude than many of us here.

That said, the goal here was to reconcile the concept of EHJ across CT and IW regardless of canon. But, I fear, and partly by my own efforts, this is not going to happen.

I do have a post on the issue I'd like to make, but I suspect that it'll be buried in Canon discussion at this point. So....perhaps a new thread sometime soon.

 

[EDG]

That said, the goal here was to reconcile the concept of EHJ across CT and IW regardless of canon. But, I fear, and partly by my own efforts, this is not going to happen.

Not your own satisfaction, perhaps. But several solutions have been proposed by myself and others (and even yourself) across the various threads on the subject. If nothing we've said works for you then maybe it's time to either give it up and drop the subject or lower your standards a bit.

I do have a post on the issue I'd like to make, but I suspect that it'll be buried in Canon discussion at this point. So....perhaps a new thread sometime soon.

What's your goal here really? To find something that works for your own games? You've surely got enough material to figure something out over the four (or more?) threads that you've started on the subject. Just make a decision for your own games, and it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. We really don't need this thrashed out again on another thread.

Or are you trying to reconcile canon itself - in which case why bother? Are you writing an official product that requires EHJs? If not, then leave it for other people to figure out if and when they ever need to worry about whether EHJs were always possible or not. (and either way, CT, TNE and GT don't prevent EHJs in the 1100s era. GT and CT does prevent them in the IW era. So where's the problem? Are you planning some time-spanning campaign that requires you to know the status of EHJs in a variety of different eras?).

I have really lost the thread of why you're so interested in this as to keep wanting to keep the discussion going for so long. .

 

[captainjack23]

That said, the goal here was to reconcile the concept of EHJ across CT and IW regardless of canon. But, I fear, and partly by my own efforts, this is not going to happen.

Not your own satisfaction, perhaps. But several solutions have been proposed by myself and others (and even yourself) across the various threads on the subject. .....
I have really lost the thread of why you're so interested in this as to keep wanting to keep the discussion going for so long. .

Nah. Its not that the suggestions haven't been good, far from it, nor that they're not useful. Its just that this always breaksdown into arguments about what canon contains, rather than what the content suggests.

Note that its been quite a while since there has been a remotely on topic post. Your comment about losing the thread is exactly the problem. There really are two involved, abeit interesting threads mixed up here.

As a final note, and not to start a fight, much as you protest (rightly) snarky comments escalating things, I'd like to object to your posting comments that this tread is irrelevent and/or uninteresting. Since I've answered those questions previously, more than once, its not clear what good you think they do; except to encourage me to shut up. If I'm wrong, and you really still don't get my interest, feel free to pm me.


edit : cleared up wording

 

[EDG]

As a final note, and not to start a fight, much as you protest (rightly) snarky comments escalating things, I'd like to object to your posting "this is irrelevent and or uninteresting".

You can object to that if and when I say that - but I didn't say anything of the sort in my last post, so don't (as usual) put words in my mouth. Neither have I been "snarky".

I just do not see any further value in starting yet another thread on the subject when you already have had four multiple page threads on the subject. It's not that it's "irrelevant", it's not that it's "uninteresting"... it's more that it's a dead horse that has been flogged so much that it's nothing but a red smear on the floor of a crater than wasn't there before.... that then got flogged again. I find it hard to believe that anyone here isn't tired of discussing (or arguing about, or reading about) this.

I just don't see how anybody can say anything more of value on the subject - particularly not to solve the issue to anyone's satisfaction. We've posted and argued about all the available data on the topic from every source imaginable. We've had loads of solutions posted to these threads. You've posted your own solutions too, so if you're happy with those then why not just roll with them? And if it keeps breaking down into unrelated arguments, then maybe that's a clue for everyone to take a step back and take a break from the subject.

MGT is a new edition of the game. It's way too soon for it to get bogged down in this sort of circular, repetitive discussion. Hell, it doesn't even say anything about the subject to start with that would even cause or contribute to such "controversy", so I have no idea why this is even being discussed so much on this board in the first place. If you want to continue this then I would suggest diverting it to CotI or the TML where the locals seem to have more time and inclination to spend ages arguing about this sort of thing.

There's nothing snarky here, I'm just suggesting that for the sake of everyone's sanity on this board that you should perhaps just let it go. You're free to ignore me of course, but I really don't think you'll be gaining much by continuing the subject here.