Errata: Tech-World UWP and write up don't match - Aslan and Trojan Reaches both broke

I would argue the other way. Stats are currently in line with UWP - if players think the villain is str 9, 99% of the time that will be true. But 1% of the time, it won't be, largely for the same types of reasons the UWP might not be correct.

UWP happens to interact with players more often, so it's simply more noticeable.
 
Nelphine said:
I would argue the other way. Stats are currently in line with UWP - if players think the villain is str 9, 99% of the time that will be true. But 1% of the time, it won't be, largely for the same types of reasons the UWP might not be correct.

UWP happens to interact with players more often, so it's simply more noticeable.
Click to expand...
That character sheet for said NPC would still say the correct number, regardless of what the PCs think. That is "in game". I am talking about "out of game".
Characters can make a million wrong assumptions. That doesn't change the rules of the game. This problem only exists because some "genius" way back in the day decided to make UWP both an "in game" star chart compiled by the Imperial Scout Service (which can have inaccurate information), and an "out of game" statistical game mechanic that functions just like the PC's stats, but for planets (which should never be inaccurate, unless players cheating on their character sheets has become acceptable now as well).
 
Sure. It was 8 when they first encountered the villain. The character sheet said so.

Then the ref realizes that due to other things that occurred, that it made no sense, the villain needed a +1 modifier.

Now the sheet says 9, and it has always been 9, even though when they first encountered the villain it was 8.
 
The fact that UWP is 'in game' is absolutely a feature. And it means, in those 1% of cases where the ref does need to change it, or decide between conflicting information, the ref is always right, and can point to a rule in the game about why they are right. And the players can never say 'but this number is 100% accurate, your number is wrong.'

This is a very very important, and very strong, fearure of traveller.
 
Maybe I'll come at this another way? Have you literally never, as a ref, looked at a player sheet after months, talked to the other players, got their unanimous agreement, and just.. changed the stat? 'I know your character rolled 5 dex, but you've been a great sport, and we've adventured lots, and it makes no sense. Bravo, your character has now been dex 6 this entire time, congrats on no longer having a penalty'?

That is literally something you can do as a ref, and I've done it on multiple occasions. Stats are no more permanent than UWP.

However, I will point out, in all of these discussions it is NEVER the player that can make the decision that the stats or UWP are wrong. That is ALWAYS a ref decision. So the comment about players cheating isn't relevant.
 
Nelphine said:
Maybe I'll come at this another way? Have you literally never, as a ref, looked at a player sheet after months, talked to the other players, got their unanimous agreement, and just.. changed the stat? 'I know your character rolled 5 dex, but you've been a great sport, and we've adventured lots, and it makes no sense. Bravo, your character has now been dex 6 this entire time, congrats on no longer having a penalty'?
Click to expand...
Then it would say 6 on the character sheet. This is exactly what I am saying. If you change it, change it. Don't leave it as a 5 on the character sheet and say that it counts as a 6. You change the sheet? Correct? That is all that I am saying.

As a Ref, I change things all of the time, but never the meanings of things. I will never call a Dex 5 a Dex 6. I will change a Dex 5 to a Dex 6, but that change will always be reflected on the character sheet. With UWPs, you are saying change it, but don't change the sheet. You would never tell a player to do that. Or am I wrong? I was always taught that use any numbers which aren't on your character sheet, then you are cheating. If the Ref asks you what your DEX is and you say 6, when your character sheet says 5, then you are cheating. Correct? Why treat UWPs differently? They are stats for planets. Or is your viewpoint, Referee cheating is fine, but player cheating is not. That I can at least understand.
Nelphine said:
That is literally something you can do as a ref, and I've done it on multiple occasions. Stats are no more permanent than UWP.

However, I will point out, in all of these discussions it is NEVER the player that can make the decision that the stats or UWP are wrong. That is ALWAYS a ref decision. So the comment about players cheating isn't relevant.
Click to expand...
 
i think the basic is that when a referee does it, it doesn't have to be cheating. its simply changing. whether thats changing a 5 to a 6, or changing the definition of pop 6 to include 800k people, its a change, not cheating. its only cheating if its being done expressly to hurt the players (not the same as the characters). If its being done in the name of gameplay, or story, its not cheating.

the whole point of the 1% is to allow the ref (or Mongoose) to change things - whether a number, a definition, or a whole rule - and still follow the rules. It is specifically to allow things - anything. And by putting it right into the UWP and the definitions up front (this is an in game stat, that while we trust it so often that we'll build other rules around it, its still an in game stat that is subject to change and errors - and if that might cause you as a player problems, make sure you discuss it with your ref, rather than assuming that it is always infallible), that these are in game stats, both the ref but also the players (especially rules-lawyery players) are shown what kind of game it is, and that there isn't supposed to be anything where the PLAYERS can say 'gotcha' to the referee (we went here because we knew we could sell our speculative trade for 10 billion, ha ha, now we're buying a battlecruiser, cuz travellermap said so!); thus helping attract the kinds of players who wont' do that in the first place. And encouraging communication, which is fundamentally one of the most important staples of the entire tabletop rpg genre.
 
Last edited:
Nelphine said:
i think the basic is that when a referee does it, it doesn't have to be cheating. its simply changing. whether thats changing a 5 to a 6, or changing the definition of pop 6 to include 800k people, its a change, not cheating. its only cheating if its being done expressly to hurt the players (not the same as the characters). If its being done in the name of gameplay, or story, its not cheating.

the whole point of the 1% is to allow the ref (or Mongoose) to change things - whether a number, a definition, or a whole rule - and still follow the rules. It is specifically to allow things - anything. And by putting it right into the UWP and the definitions up front (this is an in game stat, that while we trust it so often that we'll build other rules around it, its still an in game stat that is subject to change and errors - and if that might cause you as a player problems, make sure you discuss it with your ref, rather than assuming that it is always infallible), that these are in game stats, both the ref but also the players (especially rules-lawyery players) are shown what kind of game it is, and that there isn't supposed to be anything where the PLAYERS can say 'gotcha' to the referee (we went here because we knew we could sell our speculative trade for 10 billion, ha ha, now we're buying a battlecruiser, cuz travellermap said so!); thus helping attract the kinds of players who wont' do that in the first place. And encouraging communication, which is fundamentally one of the most important staples of the entire tabletop rpg genre.
Click to expand...
See, I could never trust a Ref like that. If the rules are only the rules when he says they are, that is a group I would never play with. I like more structure to My rules so there can be less structure to My game. 100% of My games are sandbox style. I can't plan a trade route or use anything in the WBH if the numbers don't actual mean what the book says they mean. That is as a Referee as well as a player. If I have to double check every little thing with the Referee to see if, in this case, 2+2=4, then why even have a rule book for Me to read. I will just tell the Ref what My character wants to do and the Ref can tell Me what happens. No die rolling, no needing to learn a system, nothing. I cannot play that way. I need things concrete.

Again, if you change something, why not actually change the number? I cannot wrap My head around it. Cheating doesn't matter why you do it. Cheating is dishonesty. Maybe you cheated for good reasons. Doesn't matter. It is still cheating. If the rules, as established, do not apply to everyone, then they can not apply to anyone. How many times around a table have you heard the phrase, "If it isn't on your character sheet, you do not have it.."? Almost every game I have ever been a player in has been run that way. Home games, Con games, in person games, online games, all of them.

This is why I have such a hard time understanding why you think "cheating" is okay in any part of the game. If I change something, My players know it. Their characters may not, but the players do. It is marked on the sheet. Understand that this is from a player, who keeps track of every piece of equipment that my PC is carrying as well as it's encumbrance. I always have. If it is not on a character sheet, it can't be used. If I am running the game, and I make a mistake and forget to write something down (which happens more and more as I get older) , I always make My error to the players' benefit. If I as a player make a mistake and forgot to write something down, then it is My bad, and I actually do not have the thing I thought I had. If I did 8 weeks of training to increase a skill and forgot to mark it on My character sheet, that is My bad. Guess I need another 8 weeks to try and learn that skill.

That is just Me. I take the good with the bad, but if there is no record, it doesn't exist. I also created a rule for increasing Stats through the same learning process. I thought it was dumb not having one, so I wrote one. 1 cumulative Study Period per point of increase up to 11. Past that is 4 Study Periods per point from 12 to 14. 9 Study Periods to get from 14 to 15. It is also limited by only being able to raise it 3 points above your starting stats (after character creation is finished.) It gives players more flexibility and it is also done within a 100% non-fuzzy rule.

A game can have 100% flexibility, and still have non-fuzzy rules. I have never thought as a Ref, gee, I am going to change how armor works, but I will not tell My players. That is the same thing.
 
Sure. The disconnect seems to be that since I only want the rules to work 99% of the time (its actually higher than that, but its not 100%), you jump to 'that means they don't work ever'. I understand why a person with your habits can make that leap, but that doesn't make the leap reasonable for most tables - and in fact, I specifically introduce rules for 'how to get an item you don't have written down' in virtually all my games, because I don't WANT any of my players to have to live by that. That's a very roundabout way of the ref saying 'gotcha' to the players, which I dislike. Just because a player forgets something, doesn't mean the character - a long term special ops marine - forgets ammo for his gun.

Continuing on, that means, it doesn't make sense for a GAME to assume that leap, whether a given player or group does. Most people don't consider something changing less than 1% of the time to be cheating, particularly when it's specifically done for the benefit of the story or gameplay - as you said, it should generally always be to the players (but not always the characters) benefit. But sometimes that 'benefit' is 'yes, you are right, it says pop 6, but you've calculated out that there can only be enough life support on this world for 600,000 people, and you're right again. So, since you had already planned to come to this planet for trade purposes, and had planned on getting certain modifiers - I was listening when you were discussing where to go next! - I'm not going to penalize you. You did the math, both for where to go this session, and for what the technology base means. So this planet, DOES have a pop 6 rating, and you get to use that. But there's also only 600,000 people here so that you don't find dead bodies on the streets tomorrow. Today (but not necessarily next session), pop 6 means economic power. Yes, I know that 37 sessions ago we found that planet that, for similar reasons when you were doing the math, ended up with 30,000 people with wealth, so it only had pop 4 for economic power, despite being listed as pop 6 due to the 5 million indentured servants there, and so in that case pop rating meant physical population not economic power because you picked going there based on its pop rating, in order to have enough sophonts for coming up with that psionic protection device from the rampaging monster that needed sheer number of minds to power it. This is exactly why I said that someday pop rating might not mean physical population despite that session.'
 
Last edited:
Condottiere said:
You can break the rule(s), or you could call it an exception to them.

But, you have to explain precisely why.
Click to expand...
Why. ? If I had to explain everything I twik to my players I might as well throw out any plots. It’s the job of the GM to modify the rules to fit his game
 
Nelphine said:
Sure. The disconnect seems to be that since I only want the rules to work 99% of the time (its actually higher than that, but its not 100%), you jump to 'that means they don't work ever'.
Click to expand...
Imho, the rules work 100% of the time, because that 1% that looks different in detail mode is within the rules as written. Every value in the UWP provides a basic, actionable approximation of the planet suitable for driveby applications. And it does this without mandating a specific outcome when you do detailed breakdowns. The rules are written that way so that they can remain simple to use. Size gives you your jump points and 'close enough' gravity, but that gravity might not hold up in detail mode. Atmosphere gives you a close enough effect, but might not hold up once you work out the specifics, especially with Tainted. Law Level has suggested weapons restrictions. But not every LL 9 world has to ban every weapon all the time.

I think your previous point about empowering the Ref to build the world's details is the crucial point. It never breaks the referee's sense of reality, because the referee is the one who decides those things. And the players can just ask in character if they want more details and they may or may not be available.

The ref can, of course, just change the number if that works best for them. But that isn't necessary to change the government type if the representative democracy is actually an oligarchy, because of how corrupt the political parties are.
 
Nelphine said:
Sure. The disconnect seems to be that since I only want the rules to work 99% of the time (its actually higher than that, but its not 100%), you jump to 'that means they don't work ever'. I understand why a person with your habits can make that leap, but that doesn't make the leap reasonable for most tables - and in fact, I specifically introduce rules for 'how to get an item you don't have written down' in virtually all my games, because I don't WANT any of my players to have to live by that. That's a very roundabout way of the ref saying 'gotcha' to the players, which I dislike. Just because a player forgets something, doesn't mean the character - a long term special ops marine - forgets ammo for his gun.

Continuing on, that means, it doesn't make sense for a GAME to assume that leap, whether a given player or group does. Most people don't consider something changing less than 1% of the time to be cheating, particularly when it's specifically done for the benefit of the story or gameplay - as you said, it should generally always be to the players (but not always the characters) benefit. But sometimes that 'benefit' is 'yes, you are right, it says pop 6, but you've calculated out that there can only be enough life support on this world for 600,000 people, and you're right again. So, since you had already planned to come to this planet for trade purposes, and had planned on getting certain modifiers - I was listening when you were discussing where to go next! - I'm not going to penalize you. You did the math, both for where to go this session, and for what the technology base means. So this planet, DOES have a pop 6 rating, and you get to use that. But there's also only 600,000 people here so that you don't find dead bodies on the streets tomorrow. Today (but not necessarily next session), pop 6 means economic power. Yes, I know that 37 sessions ago we found that planet that, for similar reasons when you were doing the math, ended up with 30,000 people with wealth, so it only had pop 4 for economic power, despite being listed as pop 6 due to the 5 million indentured servants there, and so in that case pop rating meant physical population not economic power because you picked going there based on its pop rating, in order to have enough sophonts for coming up with that psionic protection device from the rampaging monster that needed sheer number of minds to power it. This is exactly why I said that someday pop rating might not mean physical population despite that session.'
Click to expand...
I tried to put forth a theory before about how if the Pop number was economic power and not the actual number of people, then all of the UWPs as written now are 100% accurate, but I got jumped on for that idea too.
 
tytalan said:
No the rules are a guideline. Now I agree that rules like combat and other house rules should be upfront and known by the players there are many things like setting rules for example don’t necessarily and possibly shouldn’t be told or explained to the players. For example this current conversations the Ideal the the UWP should never be wrong is really unrealistic when you have extended travel times and worlds that little or no trade, compounded by the fact that’s there not central overhead authority to make certain that things are updated there are going to be wrong data. The fact that sector maps are very much a role play device as well as a GMs tool supports this.

Should a GM be capricious with their rulings? No! Should a GM be upfront with Rule Mechanics changes? Definitely that’s what session zero is about. Should a GM explain that the setting has changed in this way and that? Only if the PCs have a reasonable reason to know about these changes!
Click to expand...
Do you know what the phrase, "The rules are a guideline." means? It means if you do not like a rule, change it. It doesn't mean that the stats mean whatever you want them to mean.

Again, you are discussing in game knowledge versus out of game mechanics. Unless, by "central overhead authority", you mean Mongoose Publishing? How many times do I have to say it? As an in game thing, the UWPs are fine how they are. As an out of game thing, they need to be just as accurate as everything else in the game. Why can you not separate in game knowledge and out of game mechanics? There is no Imperial Scout Service in real life. The UWPs are written by people in the real world as a game mechanic. The UWPs you see on in game maps, are written by a fictional authority. Those are two separate things. Quit trying to tell Me that in game knowledge should be the same as out of game mechanics. It doesn't need to be. In game things can be inaccurate for many, many reasons. Out of game mechanics should never be inaccurate or misleading. For the life of Me, I cannot understand why you guys cannot talk about UWP as an out of game mechanic without trying to explain it from an in-game perspective. Mechanics are the laws of reality in a game. UWPs provided by the Scout Service from a survey done in game and that may or may not be accurate. Now someone, please explain this to Me without using in-game justifications. Extended travel times, in-game, have nothing to do with writing accurate information out of game. How is that hard to understand?
 
Let’s try this again.

I think the problem is a misunderstanding of the UWP. The fact of the matter is the sector maps and the UWPs in them are RP tools to give the PCs some ideal what each system may have (and a possible starting point for the GMs) but they where never meant to be treated as rules. Rules are things like skill use, combat, even construction. The UWP section of the CRB is world building and the UWPs in the sector books are setting descriptions. Do you treat say the Greyhawk map as absolute (if you do than you don’t know your D&D history very well)? Arguing that the UWPs for the Charted Space Setting should be absolute makes no sense it’s a setting not a rule set.
 
tytalan said:
Let’s try this again.

I think the problem is a misunderstanding of the UWP. The fact of the matter is the sector maps and the UWPs in them are RP tools to give the PCs some ideal what each system may have (and a possible starting point for the GMs) but they where never meant to be treated as rules. Rules are things like skill use, combat, even construction. The UWP section of the CRB is world building and the UWPs in the sector books are setting descriptions. Do you treat say the Greyhawk map as absolute (if you do than you don’t know your D&D history very well)? Arguing that the UWPs for the Charted Space Setting should be absolute makes no sense it’s a setting not a rule set.
Click to expand...
The UWPs published by the Scout Service are a setting. UWPs as a mechanic for determining WTN and such are a rule set. They are two separate things that stupidly use the same name. One is in-game. The other is out of game. The Greyhawk map in D&D uses no mechanics whatsoever. The best you can get off of the Greyhawk map is a rough idea of how far apart places are. To make the two comparisons the same, then you would need to take the distances between two cities on the map (say 500km) and then say that those two cities are only 10km apart, not 500km apart like the map says. That would be an actual equivalency.
 
The analogy i like to use is comparing UWP to a character in a fictional universe.

For instance, imagine Lord of the Rings. Gandalf is a character in the books. This seems like Gandalf is Gandalf is Gandalf. But.. in every movie series, Gandalf is different. They're still all Gandalf, and no one tells us at the start of the movie 'hey, this Gandalf doesn't do this, or does do that'. They don't need to. Even though Gandalf changes, and has many, MANY details different, we still know its Gandalf, and that is good enough - and not just good enough, its so good, that we as audience can make highly informed predictions about Gandalf based on what we know from the books or from other movies, even if this Gandalf is played by a different actor.

To your analogy of the Greyhawk map.. I've absolutely completely changed the distances between 2 cities before, without changing the map. Yes, that changes the cities location relative to everything else. As long as I have a good reason, gameplay and story wise, the players are all happy with that - even if they're surprised. I've changed the whole scale of maps in published documents because it didn't make sense for our group, in which case I changed what it says. But that isn't always appropriate.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the example I wrote above about economic in one case, but physical in another. (I don't actually remember how many sessions were between the 2, but that's a real example from a game I ran).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
UWP Tech Level?
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
1K
rinku
R
N
World building new major races
6 7 8
Replies
150
Views
8K
Nelphine
N
M
UWP Real or Not???
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
6K
AndrewW
AndrewW
Geir
Demographics of the Spinward Frontier: Building Sectors
Replies
7
Views
7K
HalC
H
H
The Lamura & The Cytrialin Unity
Replies
5
Views
7K
phavoc
P
Back
Top