And i worry we aren't explaining clearly enough.. it can mean 600,000. It shouldn't, but it can. And if it does, it should be so rare that your players, including GMs as world builders, should still be able to rely on the map, and therefore pop 6 meaning 600,000 should improve the game for the players, not act as a gotcha moment to screw with the players.
Errata: Tech-World UWP and write up don't match - Aslan and Trojan Reaches both broke
- Thread starter kaladorn
- Start date
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Where in the CRB does it say this? Other than Rule Zero.
'Intelligent' is a subjective term. If you consider robots Intelligent, great, they count. If you don't, great, they don't count. If you consider pre-TL 1 sophonts Intelligent, great, they count. If you don't, great they don't. If you consider non imperial subjects Intelligent, great, they count. If you don't, great, they don't.
You have suggested one paraphrasing of the second sentence "The population code can be taken, for every type of population code, as the number of decimal places following the first number."
I can also paraphrase it: "The population code can be taken, in order to make a general [defined as: considering the main elements of something [defined as: the majority of planets with an UWP] and disregarding exceptions] statement that is inferred from a number of specific cases, as usually [defined as: when not considering one of the exceptions mentioned in the previous definition] the number of decimal places following the first number."
Edit: removing the definitions from the sentence:
"The population code can be taken, in order to make a general statement that is inferred from specific cases, as usually the number of decimal places following the first number."
While you want your interpretation to be the only one, MongooseMatt has specifically said that the wording is chosen so that multiple interpretations can be true.
Last edited:
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
You don't need to be a damn lawyer. They should have said "Conscious." That way the same rule applies across both biological and mechanical sophonts. Especially now that the rules exist for making biological robots. I am trying to simplify, not complicate. If you can enter jumpspace without penalty, then you are counted among the population, if not, then not. See? Easy, Simple. Well-defined. UWP are stats for a planet, no different from stats for a character. They should both have equal accuracy. Either keep it concrete and in line with the rules for other things that have stats, or do not give the worlds any stats. Take your pick. This middle of the road, "it could mean anything to anyone" is bullshit as a rules system. Nothing else is this flimsy in Traveller. None of the character stats are like this. Correct? None of the ship stats? No, of course not. The only difference is the others are used for combat actions and the UWP of a planet is not. If Traveller were a wargame, this would make sense, but it is not a wargame. So why are the meanings of numbers in the combat rules precise, but the rules for the world around the combat is not?
What I want, is not an interpretation. What I want is an actual concrete rule. That is why I buy rulebooks, for actual rules. I know. Shocker buying rule books for actual rules. It is this same mindset that has caused problems that exist over multiple generations of the game.
Ignore the rest and just explain the bold part. I want an immersive, cohesive RPG, not a wargame.
I know you asked to answer the bold, but this is the part that you seem hung up on. You want what you want, apparently without consideration for anyone else.
I go back to our previous discussion about gameplay. You want your suggestion, because it makes sense for your style of play. Great, I 100% understand that.
But your style of play already plans ahead, and so you can say that it IS a hard rule. And that <1% when it comes up that you find a world where pop 6 means 600k... you change it so that the pop code for that world is pop 5 prior to your game interacting with that world. So for you, the flex isn't a problem. You resolve it before it matters, and the rules always mean what the general rule states. At your table, there already is NO flex.
But for the other style of game play, where that information IS NOT known ahead of time, the flex is there to allow the gameplay to continue without causing problems to the players, including the ref.
How does your suggestion account for other tables and other styles of gameplay, assuming that 'change your style of gameplay' isn't an option?
You are also hung up on this. It doesn't mean "anything for anyone". It means what the general rule states (which is what you want your hard rule to be) until that rule would cause problems for the whole table. Then, it means whatever fixes the problems. In your gameplay, the problem at the table occurs if the numbers aren't always a fixed hard rule. Great, your rifle always does 3d6 damage. At another table, there may may be a circumstance where that makes no sense, and the table unanimously agrees it does 3d6+1 for this fight.
Again, not as a gotcha moment. Not the ref going haha my npc does more damage than the book says. Not a player forcing the ref to accept their custom special doohickey needs to be better. Both of those situations are rightfully served by pointing to the general rule and saying 'no.. the definition is written.' The flex is for the whole table unanimously agreeing that the definition in the book doesn't make sense for that scene.
You completely missed my point. I'm not being a damn lawyer. My whole statement would still stand if you replaced intelligent with conscious. The PURPOSE of a subjective definition is to allow different tables to have different definitions. This is a feature, not a loophole that can be abused or causes confusion. Each table chooses what it means, and that is correct. That subjectiveness is done on purpose, and is desired, so that more people can play and enjoy the game, because it allows them to play the way they want and have the rules back them up and make sense.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
My style of play requires changing nothing to account for your style of play. Your style of play can change things to mean whatever you want them to mean. Going from your style of play to My style of play requires Me to spend hours, days, or weeks, prepping for a campaign and fixing errors. In My style of play, you change nothing. In your style of play, I have to double-check everything to make sure it all works together and then change what doesn't. You don't. In your style of play you can "make it up on the fly", so this changes nothing for you or your table. It only effects people like Me who play differently than you. So, you guys are all on about this, but it doesn't even affect you. It does affect Me and My table, and others who game Traveller like We do.
So explain to Me how changing it to be better for Our style of gaming while changing nothing for you or your table, is Me not having consideration for anyone else? I would argue that you are the one not showing Me the consideration that I show you automatically. I have always supported other people's playing style and having their playing style supported by the rules. Anytime anyone asks Me a rules question, I answer it the best I can based on what the books say, I may advise them how We treat it at Our table if the rules are unclear, but one thing that I always do? Tell them, Rule Zero. Do what makes you happy at your table and share your experiences with others so that We can enjoy it too.
And back to crux of disagreement. You already stated that you spend lots of time on prep. When you do that prep.. define the pop code to follow the general rule.
How does the flex rule bother you? At your table.. it's never flex. The general rule can be considered a hard rule.
The only time the flex should come up is if you encounter a situation with partial prep. We have the UWP but not a lot of detail. A story unfolds,and the start is to assume, like with full prep, the general rule holds. But, because not everything was defined, a story takes place which starts to define things- and because it wasn't defined ahead of time, we can stumble into a contradiction between the general rule and the story definition.
In this, and only this situation, the flex comes in. The story could be changed, but there are occasions where that takes far more work than changing a definition.
How are you running into this situation at ALL to have an issue with it?
How does the flex rule bother you? At your table.. it's never flex. The general rule can be considered a hard rule.
The only time the flex should come up is if you encounter a situation with partial prep. We have the UWP but not a lot of detail. A story unfolds,and the start is to assume, like with full prep, the general rule holds. But, because not everything was defined, a story takes place which starts to define things- and because it wasn't defined ahead of time, we can stumble into a contradiction between the general rule and the story definition.
In this, and only this situation, the flex comes in. The story could be changed, but there are occasions where that takes far more work than changing a definition.
How are you running into this situation at ALL to have an issue with it?
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
This only works if the setting is designed that way. I can't use any of the descriptive text if it doesn't match the UWP. I can't use the WBH if the UWP changes at will. I can't use much of anything "as is" if it doesn't match the other systems that relate to it.
If it has a UWP, it was defined ahead of time already. The UWP is the definition. If you have a UWP like this B678*42-8, then yes, you are correct. Everything has not been defined. If it reads B678642-8 then it is defined right there in the UWP. The UWP is the definition.
Because it applies to Law Level as well. and to TL. It is not just one thing that doesn't come up very often. I could use all of the UWPs as concrete numbers, and in My game, I do, but now every time a writer decides not to follow the UWP, it no longer works in My world and I have to "fix" it. My worlds are more or less built from the UWP. That is why I argued two different sides of this with Population. Make it either an economic representation or make it a strict number of physical sophonts. Making it both and neither at the same time doesn't help anyone. I am actually fine with it being either one or the other. I can make both work individually, but I cannot make both work together with the system as laid out in Mongoose books. For the Mongoose system to work, it has to be one or the other.
But.. it does work - you could do the same thing I do. It is the general rule 99+% of the time. Then on occasion, where the story contradicts that (such as when a particular world description gets published), you just decide, which one makes more sense for your table. It takes 30 seconds to decide that for this world, the pop code is only almost what the general rule states. But, changing the story side, can, as you seem to be encountering, take minutes or hours to 'fix'.
Now, I realize what I am proposing here is 'adopt some features of my gameplay'. And that is definitely not a 'good' thing to propose - your playstyle is as good as mine.
So then I look at your playstyle - you are doing the prep work on these worlds anyway. Why aren't you just changing the pop code to match the description, regardless of what has been published? That's in line with what you've described yourself as doing anyway.
Now, I realize what I am proposing here is 'adopt some features of my gameplay'. And that is definitely not a 'good' thing to propose - your playstyle is as good as mine.
So then I look at your playstyle - you are doing the prep work on these worlds anyway. Why aren't you just changing the pop code to match the description, regardless of what has been published? That's in line with what you've described yourself as doing anyway.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
I have an addendum to rule 0.
While learning a new game for the first few sessions a player may challenge my rule interpretations at the table. When we are all on the same page if a player has an issue they discuss it after the game.
If I am running Traveller, RQ/BRP, DnD, and they have a question about a rule or setting it is better for them to leave and never come back.
I joke, new people join sometimes, or I set up a brand new group, so for the new player(s) questions at the table for a few sessions smooths things over.
While learning a new game for the first few sessions a player may challenge my rule interpretations at the table. When we are all on the same page if a player has an issue they discuss it after the game.
If I am running Traveller, RQ/BRP, DnD, and they have a question about a rule or setting it is better for them to leave and never come back.
I joke, new people join sometimes, or I set up a brand new group, so for the new player(s) questions at the table for a few sessions smooths things over.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Basically, if I have to rewrite everything, which I normally do not do, then why buy the books? Or when new players join, I will have to write a book of addenda detailing all of the changes, just so they know the rules and the setting. Players will no longer be able to look over the setting books and apply the material to Our game, not due to what the writers wrote not being awesome, but solely because it had to be changed to fit the rules. Same with all of the Law Level Codes and Government Codes for non-human space. If the writers followed the rules when writing their material, this wouldn't be necessary and I could focus on NPCs and adventure hooks instead of needing to rebuild every world. Also, what does the TL of a world refer to? Some descriptions it is for the planet. Other descriptions, it is for the Starport. In Imperial Space, the starport is TL-12 at a minimum, highger if the TL of the world is higher. Outside of Imperial Space, the TL of the world and the TL of the starport are possibly the same, unless it is on an Imperial Trade Route, in which case they are likely TL-12. Because there is no rule that covers this, I am left having to read each description and then infer what the TL is referring to. This should be the way it is. The TL should refer to the world, not the starport, because of this, "The Tech Level measures the average technology presence on the planet and gives an idea of local production and repair capability. Trade with offworlders may bring in advanced technology; on average, a rich individual can afford technology two or more levels higher than the planetary average. The government may also have access to higher-technology items. A planet’s technology may be one or more levels higher or lower in a particular field, such as Medicine, Communications, Weaponry, Ship Construction, Power Generation, Computers and so forth."
That says on the planet, not on the starport. A TL-1 planet is not going to be considered TL-12 just because that is what may be available in the starport. Exocet in the Trojan Reach is TL-8, but that refers to what the Downport can manufacture locally. The actual TL of the world is TL-0, but you can only learn that by reading the description. So, the UWP, should list the world as TL-0 and the description should say that TL-8 is available locally at the Downport and TL-12 is available imported at the Highport, since it is a GeDeCo-financed facility. Having to fact-check the writers' work is something We as players or referees should never have to do. The UWPs should be what they say they are and not be lying to Us.
right, but.. there is no game where i don't rewrite parts of every single book. i agree it would be awesome, but i've never seen it. not with d&d, not with shadowrun, not with 836 indie games. You always have to rewrite at least part of the rules for your table. Hell, I do the same thing with video games - that's why modding is such an important piece that companies have come to sell how moddable there games are as part of what makes the game appealing. And that's a video game, where the rules 'are set in stone'. Nothing is EVER set in stone.
This comes back to 99%+ does not have to be rewritten. That is a large enough number to be worth while - worth buying, and worth relying on, and worth spending time on. Law levels need to be rewritten? Sure, maybe. But my usual is to throw out the description and go with what's in the core rule, because that's usually what we make our assumptions based on. So I'm not ACTUALLY re-writing, i'm copy and pasting from somewhere else for what makes more sense at our table. Or, if I'm feeling particularly like doing prep, I just make my own tables for that chunk of space. Which still allows me to copy paste just not from something that's published.
This comes back to 99%+ does not have to be rewritten. That is a large enough number to be worth while - worth buying, and worth relying on, and worth spending time on. Law levels need to be rewritten? Sure, maybe. But my usual is to throw out the description and go with what's in the core rule, because that's usually what we make our assumptions based on. So I'm not ACTUALLY re-writing, i'm copy and pasting from somewhere else for what makes more sense at our table. Or, if I'm feeling particularly like doing prep, I just make my own tables for that chunk of space. Which still allows me to copy paste just not from something that's published.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
I have never changed the setting in a D&D campaign in the Forgotten Realms. (My favorite setting in D&D). I always use it just as printed in the books. All of the rules line up with the setting. In D&D this is easier to do as it has no economic system at all. Also, D&D really has no construction system. Hard to violate rules if those rules are never written, but Traveller has decided to make rules for both the economy and construction. Then, after writing those rules, they go and write material that doesn't obey those rules.
There is a reason I stopped updating My D&D collection after 3.5. They made so many changes to the setting and to the rules for no reason whatsoever. 4th Edition completely invalidated everything published previously, so it was worthless to Me and My table. At least when they made 3rd Edition, the settings didn't change, just the mechanics within the setting. Most of the changes between 2nd and 3rd were bringing the rules in line with the story. How you could have elves being considered the most powerful spellcasters in Toril, when elves had a level limit and humans did not? So, they changed the system to bring it in line with the written setting. It meant that all of My 2nd Edition stuff was still good to be used. 4th Edition might as well be a completely new game. Same with 5th Edition. If you treat them as separate games, it works fine.
Why not just write descriptions that match the rules? Just like if you build a house. You build a house based on a blueprint. If you change the house, that blueprint is no longer correct. Or, more pertinent to Traveller and the UWP Codes. If you change the meaning of the numbers on your blueprint from meters to centimeters and do not note the change on the blueprint, what you actually built is not what you thought you were building. You bought materials for a 250m2 house, but have a blueprint that only allows you to build a 250cm2 house. That is the same as the UWP and the description not matching. You read the description and think, "Hey! I have a really cool idea for this place" Then you go there and the UWP says different than the reality. Without being required to make changes, not because I want to make changes, but because if I don't the system doesn't work, it doesn't function. Changing things to be how we want at our table, should not involve having to "fix" the books to make things match. Changing things at a table should always be done because that group wants to do something differently, not because the rules don't work as written.
Right, but there are literally hundreds of tiny nuances across the books. You may never have had to change d&d 1st edition - i did. you didn't have to change 2nd edition - i did. I changed 3rd, and 3.5, and 4th, and 5th. I've changed forgotten realms, i've changed dark sun, i've changed ebberon. There is always something that gets missed.
I've completely abused almost every rule system - in d&d, I made characters that had over 1000 strength, and which had hundreds of thousands of hit points. No rule system works the way you want it to - if you think so, you just haven't pushed it far enough.
But, to be clear, in my opinion, if an author says 'huh, i like where this world is located, and its population is 6, but i want my story to be 500k people' and then simply says in the description that its 500k population, that's NOT using the flex rule. That's the author making a mistake - they should have either found a different world, or changed the pop code to match the description. That's very different to what I'm talking about. An author, should have the time to prep in the way I'm suggesting to you. And when authors make those kinds of mistakes, its fine to point them out. That doesn't change the necessity and reason for the flex rule to exist.
But, if the author changes the pop code to match the description, that does NOT necessitate going through every other published document out there, and changing the pop code in all of those locations. A single sentence at the beginning of the authors description that states 'the last scout survey, shown in the TravellerMap and other documents, says population 6. It turns that this was wrong - if you are playing this module/using this published item, you should note that the population is 5.' is sufficient. That's where the flex rule comes in - in this case, flex says 'changing what it is for this document only, is simpler and more intuitive for the majority of people, then going and invalidating the maps that everyone bought or used elsewhere, especially since this document won't impact them if they don't have it'.
I've completely abused almost every rule system - in d&d, I made characters that had over 1000 strength, and which had hundreds of thousands of hit points. No rule system works the way you want it to - if you think so, you just haven't pushed it far enough.
But, to be clear, in my opinion, if an author says 'huh, i like where this world is located, and its population is 6, but i want my story to be 500k people' and then simply says in the description that its 500k population, that's NOT using the flex rule. That's the author making a mistake - they should have either found a different world, or changed the pop code to match the description. That's very different to what I'm talking about. An author, should have the time to prep in the way I'm suggesting to you. And when authors make those kinds of mistakes, its fine to point them out. That doesn't change the necessity and reason for the flex rule to exist.
But, if the author changes the pop code to match the description, that does NOT necessitate going through every other published document out there, and changing the pop code in all of those locations. A single sentence at the beginning of the authors description that states 'the last scout survey, shown in the TravellerMap and other documents, says population 6. It turns that this was wrong - if you are playing this module/using this published item, you should note that the population is 5.' is sufficient. That's where the flex rule comes in - in this case, flex says 'changing what it is for this document only, is simpler and more intuitive for the majority of people, then going and invalidating the maps that everyone bought or used elsewhere, especially since this document won't impact them if they don't have it'.
Yeah. In cases like Techworld where they just have numbers that don't match with no explanation, that's a mistake. In cases like Cordan or Vanejen or Craw, where the details explain the inconsistency, then they are following the rules. I may decide I don't like that explanation. For instance, I am fine with the discrepancies and reasons on Vanejen, Craw, and Tarsus, but I am not convinced by Cordan. But the Cordan author is following the rules, I just dislike their design. Right from the beginning, Marc Miller has said that the UWP numbers are "guides, not statistics.". That is a necessity to make it possible to describe the myriad possibilities of Sci Fi in only a handful of numbers.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
I think you and I are actually in agreement here. Refs can do what they want, but writers should follow the rules.
Again though, Scout Survey is in game. UWP for mechanics in out of game. All this author has done is make it so his adventure cannot be added to a sandbox campaign since the UWPs in "his universe" don't match the established UWPs in the universe that We are playing, based on other published material. If they all match, they can be used in a wider variety of games, including campaigns that started before that adventure was purchased. If the UWP matches, I can find a way to work it in. If it does not, then I can't use it without having to change a universe that is already in play. I can even work an adventure in on planets that the players have already visited. Planets are big places and so are most starports, but if they change the UWP Code, I can't change it. The PCs have already been there.
Right, but if it's not something obvious like pop code, it's completely reasonable for any given author to not know every nuance of every book. If it's something obvious, sure, it's an error. If it's not, then it's what the flex is designed for - and in this case, the assumption built into the game is that we give flex to the authors, just like we do to refs and tables.
40 years of rules, precedents, and published material is not reasonable for any author, or even publisher, to cover. As an example, the majority of what is on the travellermap was not created by Gier. It's completely reasonable for him to look at something, and say that makes no sense, and change it for a particular document hes writing, but not be able or willing to change it in every other published locale. And it's not reasonable for him to be handcuffed to something that was scribbled by someone 40 years ago, or even 2 years ago. Knowledge changes, rightfully, and when something is known better, we change it, just as you would with prep.
40 years of rules, precedents, and published material is not reasonable for any author, or even publisher, to cover. As an example, the majority of what is on the travellermap was not created by Gier. It's completely reasonable for him to look at something, and say that makes no sense, and change it for a particular document hes writing, but not be able or willing to change it in every other published locale. And it's not reasonable for him to be handcuffed to something that was scribbled by someone 40 years ago, or even 2 years ago. Knowledge changes, rightfully, and when something is known better, we change it, just as you would with prep.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Nowhere in the rules does it state that the Pop Code does not stand for the actual population. Again, here is the quote from the CRB pg 252,
"The Population code measures the planet’s intelligent population. The Population code can be generalised as the number of zeroes following a one, so Population 6 indicates a population in the millions (1,000,000)."
Where does this say that the actual number can be different than the Population Code?
Saying it is a necessity is just a flat out falsehood. The Population Code covers every number from zero to however many zeros a Population Code of Z represents. Show Me one scenario where you need to describe a planet with larger than a Population Code of Z or smaller than a Population Code of 0. I'll wait.
