Empty Jump Hex Solutions: comments critiques and rants

[AKAramis]

If in doubt, post a quote from the original Book 2 Classic Traveller rules:

Oh come on...that's like saying ships are prohibited from sailing across the deep ocean because they sail from one port to another port.

No, Stephen is dead right. The rules say what they say - if you're interpreting that to mean "but they can also go anywhere else" then you really are adding an interpretation that is neither explicitly stated nor implied in the rules.

They say may, not must. This construct, linguistically, involves choice. If that passage precludes EHJ's, it also precludes Same Hex Jumps. Both are canonical in GDW publications for CT.

 

[kristof65]

I'm interpreting it to mean "origin to destination".

The most logical origin and destinations in interstellar travel are star systems, therefore star system to star system. In no way does it specify that the route can't have stops along the way.

If I tell you I am going to drive from Los Angeles to New York without any other details, do you automatically know my route and stops, even if you don't know what type of vehicle I'm driving?

 

[EDG]

They say may, not must. This construct, linguistically, involves choice.

If you're going to get that picky about it, the "may" clearly applies to the "activate the jump drive" part, not the "move to another star system" part. It may (activate the jump drive AND move to another star system), or it may not (activate the jump drive AND move to another star system).

 

[EDG]

The most logical origin and destinations in interstellar travel are star systems, therefore star system to star system. In no way does it specify that the route can't have stops along the way.

So long as you realise that your interpretation is adding data where none is made explicit. The text explicitly says "from star system to another". It does not explicitly say "or anywhere in between, or in empty space" - you are adding that yourself to what is stated.

Maybe this is down to "letter of the rules" vs "spirit of the rules", I dunno. I can't do the "spirit" side in discussions like this, because that part's entirely down to one's interpretation of the intent whereas the letter of the rules are unambiguous to everyone.

If I tell you I am going to drive from Los Angeles to New York without any other details, do you automatically know my route and stops, even if you don't know what type of vehicle I'm driving?

No, but that has nothing to do with this at all. Consider a game based on railways - if a rule says that a train has to end its turn at a train station, then it can't end it on the track between two stations. That is unambiguous. What you're suggesting is that it could end its turn in between because it doesn't say that it can't - you're taking the absence of evidence to the contrary to mean that something else can happen, when the most literal interpretation of the rule is to say that it can't happen because it's not explicitly stated.

 

[StephenT]

If I tell you I am going to drive from Los Angeles to New York without any other details, do you automatically know my route and stops, even if you don't know what type of vehicle I'm driving?

A better comparison would be "If I tell you I'm going to jump from one side of a hole in the ground to the other, do you automatically know that I'm not going to stop in mid air for a rest half-way through jumping?

Yes, I know that rules-lawyers can take that quote from Book 2 and poke holes in it. That's exactly what GDW did back in the 1980s. The rules didn't actually say in black and white that empty hex or same hex jumps were prohibited, they just assumed it... so when they thought up those ideas, there was nothing specific anybody could point to to say "You can't do that."

And so, all the people who came into Traveller late, in the 1980s instead of the 1970s, grew up with the idea that EHJs were in Traveller from the beginning. But they weren't.

 

[Jame Rowe]

Simplest solution, as per CT:
There is no penalty whatsoever for jumps to/from empty hexes.

Any non-use in prior periods was cultural, not technical.

This is what my group and I have decided too.

 

[kristof65]

Maybe this is down to "letter of the rules" vs "spirit of the rules", I dunno. I can't do the "spirit" side in discussions like this, because that part's entirely down to one's interpretation of the intent whereas the letter of the rules are unambiguous to everyone.

I find it interesting that you say that. Because it's RPGs in general, and Traveller specifically that taught me a lot about critical thinking, drawing conclusions, and applying logic. Lessons that have served me well in life.

And the letter of the rules are not always unambiguous to everyone, otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions in the first place. I'm not adding anything to get an acceptable interpretation, I'm simply looking at it from a different angle than you are - IE, glass half full, versus glass half empty.

 

[EDG]

Put it down to my science background then... the thing about interpreting data is that you have to be absolutely clear that you're taking the data as it is, and THEN applying an interpretation. Making assumptions about data right from the start more often than not leads one down the wrong path.

I remember an instance where we unrolled a big image of Olympus Mons, and one of my colleagues said "wow, look at those lava flows!". At which point one of the professors there said "no, they're lobate features. We don't know if they're formed by lava, or debris flows, or collapses, or something else". The moral being that just because something looks like it has an obvious interpretation, that doesn't mean that explanation is the right one. Take it step by step though and don't leap to conclusions, and then you'll be on the right track.

The thing about rules is that you initially have to take them as they are - then you can add interpretations to them beyond what is actually stated (and make it clear that you're doing so), but if we're going right back to the start here (as we are) then it's really not useful to add things that the rules aren't actually explicitly saying there.

 

[GypsyComet]

I remember an instance where we unrolled a big image of Olympus Mons, and one of my colleagues said "wow, look at those lava flows!". At which point one of the professors there said "no, they're lobate features. We don't know if they're formed by lava, or debris flows, or collapses, or something else". The moral being that just because something looks like it has an obvious interpretation, that doesn't mean that explanation is the right one.

That and a lot of the other science disciplines seem to think that Geologists are simpletons...

But I digress.

 

[EDG]

That and a lot of the other science disciplines seem to think that Geologists are simpletons...

But I digress.

Considering that we usually have to be aware of (if not actually use) a heck of a lot more interdisciplinary stuff (across biology, chemistry, and physics) than many other fields of science, I find that sort of statement to be rather amusing .

This sort of thing is all silly really, but hey, scientists are about as geeky as you can get so it's not a surpise .

 

[GypsyComet]

That and a lot of the other science disciplines seem to think that Geologists are simpletons...

But I digress.

Considering that we usually have to be aware of (if not actually use) a heck of a lot more interdisciplinary stuff (across biology, chemistry, and physics) than many other fields of science, I find that sort of statement to be rather amusing .

This sort of thing is all silly really, but hey, scientists are about as geeky as you can get so it's not a surpise .

Yes, we are. (B.S. Geology, 1990, by the way)

One of the brainiest people I know is a PhD Geochemist who used to routinely glaze over all the old TMLers when a geology or chemistry question came up. She also plays a mean Vargr...

 

[captainjack23]

And yet, when a social scientist suggests that a simple social formulation is unlikely, everyone is an expert...

 

[GypsyComet]

And yet, when a social scientist suggests that a simple social formulation is unlikely, everyone is an expert...

More than a few elements of this game universe we obsess over are easily explained by the fact that it is populated by, well, *people*.

 

[kristof65]

Put it down to my science background then... the thing about interpreting data is that you have to be absolutely clear that you're taking the data as it is, and THEN applying an interpretation. Making assumptions about data right from the start more often than not leads one down the wrong path.

And I understand that completely, given that I do technical support for control systems, and have 20+ years of experience in troubleshooting and repairing electronics.

But RPG rule systems (or any game, for that matter) aren't created by any of the physical forces of nature that cause planets to form, volcanoes to erupt or even transistors to route electricity to and fro. They are created by people, and written in languages that aren't as clear cut with their definitions as scientific terms are supposed to be.

Take a look at the word "Survival" as used in Traveller character generation. That word alone has multiple meanings, any one of which are correct. The most literal translation of it as used in CT means that if a character fails his Survival role, he's dead - plain and simple. In MgT, that word takes on another meaning - to fail that roll merely gives the PC a roll on a mishap table - rather than dying, the PC has somehow not made it through an unfortunate situation unscathed, but not necessarily dead. Both are correct, but the only way one can infer the correct meaning for each edition is to look at the material around it.

Bottom line - RPG rule systems are not hard data, they are more like theorems for interpreting the data of die rolls and player input.

 

[EDG]

But RPG rule systems (or any game, for that matter) aren't created by any of the physical forces of nature that cause planets to form, volcanoes to erupt or even transistors to route electricity to and fro. They are created by people, and written in languages that aren't as clear cut with their definitions as scientific terms are supposed to be.

Most of the time that's true. But sometimes they do write things unambiguously. And a statement that says "jump allows a ship to travel from one star system to another" is unambiguously saying that it needs to have a star system at both ends of the trip. Any other interpretation is something that is added by the reader.

Now it is true that all the texts on the subject, when brought together, are contradictory and ambiguous. And that some of those texts, taken individually, are even contradictory and ambiguous. But the one that Stephen quoted isn't one of them.

Take a look at the word "Survival" as used in Traveller character generation. That word alone has multiple meanings, any one of which are correct. The most literal translation of it as used in CT means that if a character fails his Survival role, he's dead - plain and simple. In MgT, that word takes on another meaning - to fail that roll merely gives the PC a roll on a mishap table - rather than dying, the PC has somehow not made it through an unfortunate situation unscathed, but not necessarily dead. Both are correct, but the only way one can infer the correct meaning for each edition is to look at the material around it.

That's not the same though. The rules actually changed between editions - in CT originally it means that the character would unambiguously die - they then added the optional survival rule in later printings of the CT books. And then Mongoose introduced more rules.

You're talking about an evolution of the rules themselves, but within each edition the rule was pretty unambiguous.

Bottom line - RPG rule systems are not hard data, they are more like theorems for interpreting the data of die rolls and player input.

That may be true in places where they are unclear and subject to interpretation - but sometimes the rules are pretty clear and unambiguous.

 

[kristof65]

And a statement that says "jump allows a ship to travel from one star system to another" is unambiguously saying that it needs to have a star system at both ends of the trip. Any other interpretation is something that is added by the reader.

No, it's not. Take a look at the various definition of allow:

al·low (-lou)
v. al·lowed, al·low·ing, al·lows 
v.tr.
1. To let do or happen; permit: We allow smoking only in restricted areas.
2. To permit the presence of: No pets are allowed inside.
3. To permit to have: allow oneself a little treat.
4. To make provision for; assign: The schedule allows time for a coffee break.
5. To plan for in case of need: allow two inches in the fabric for shrinkage.
6. To grant as a discount or in exchange: allowed me 20 dollars on my old typewriter.
7. Chiefly Southern & Midland U.S. 
a. To admit; concede: I allowed he was right.
b. To think; suppose: "We allow he's straight" American Speech.
c. To assert; declare: Mother allowed that we'd better come in for dinner.
v.intr.
1. To offer a possibility; admit: The poem allows of several interpretations.
2. To take a possibility into account; make allowance: In calculating profit, retailers must allow for breakage and spoilage

Taking some of the various definitions, the sentence can be re-written to say "jump permits a ship to travel from one star system to another" or "jump offers the possibility for a ship to travel from one star system to another" or even "jump makes provision for a ship to travel from one star system to another."

The numerous definitions of travel cloud the sentence even more.

That's not the same though. The rules actually changed between editions - in CT originally it means that the character would unambiguously die - they then added the optional survival rule in later printings of the CT books. And then Mongoose introduced more rules.

You're talking about an evolution of the rules themselves, but within each edition the rule was pretty unambiguous.

Only because the information surrounding the word clears things up. Yes, it's an evolution of the rules. But it's the same word, using two different meanings.

Which is my point - it's not clear cut in the case of EHJs, because there is no other information that alludes one way or the other in the initial books, and later information swings it towards allowing them.

Bottom line - RPG rule systems are not hard data, they are more like theorems for interpreting the data of die rolls and player input.

That may be true in places where they are unclear and subject to interpretation - but sometimes the rules are pretty clear and unambiguous.

I agree that sometimes they are that clear. I just disagree this is one of those places. The mere fact we're debating the meaning of the sentence means that it IS subject to more than one interpretation.

 

[EDG]

I agree that sometimes they are that clear. I just disagree this is one of those places. The mere fact we're debating the meaning of the sentence means that it IS subject to more than one interpretation.

If one is determined to use every possible meaning of the words in the sentence, maybe - people can use that sort of strategy to put any interpretation they want on anything. But we're really not seeing the wood for the trees here - if we're going to analyse the meaning of every single word in a statement then that's way too much effort IMO to make for an RPG.

I think it's safe to assume that the authors weren't deliberately trying to obfuscate and confuse the readers by using alternative meanings for words that aren't the most commonly used meanings. Otherwise, there'd just be no point in writing anything since every statement could be taken in whatever way the reader wanted rather than providing them with a clear ruling on something (which is the purpose of writing it in the first place).

So taking the most commonly used meanings of the words, and taking the statement most literally, "jump drive allows a ship to travel between star systems" means that the jump drive permits a ship to travel between two systems that include stars. The important part here is the "between star systems" part, which is explicit in saying that both endpoints have to contain stars (and as I said, I do realise that using brown dwarfs instead of actual stars is an extension of what is stated in that rule - but one can just as easily get around this by saying that they are low-mass stars there instead of BDs).

The Survival rules have changed over time, and so too have the EHJ rules. Later on, it became apparent that yes, EHJs were in fact possible because they were described in 1100s era adventures. One could claim that they were always possible and retcon out the earlier statements that they were not (which would in itself cause problems for the IW era where they were explicitly stated as being impossible), or one could assume that both rules are correct and just declare that they weren't possible at one point in the chronology of the setting, and then changed to being possible at a later date (which is what GT:IW assumes). Personally, I think the latter option works just fine and causes a lot less problems than assuming that they were always possible, evidently others disagree though.

 

[GypsyComet]

[peanut gallery]
And then there is that other much maligned profession: Technical writers.
[/peanut gallery]

 

[Maedhros]

[noob question] So, empty hexes on the star map are actually empty (i.e. contain nothing but empty space) rather than being occupied by a star that lacks a useable system of planets? That would make it so that every star in a sub-sector had planetary bodies, which is perhaps a bit of a stretch.[/noob question]

 

[rust]

Unless you subscribe to the idea that every single star in the Traveller
universe has some kind of a planetary system with at least one body
that could become an inhabited mainworld (or belt), the empty systems
can hardly all be empty...