FFE Spinward Marches map (not MGT!)
- Thread starter EDG
- Start date
- Status
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
[quote ="EDG"]
So if anyone who has access to T5 and the MGT SM book could answer my question about how closely (if at all) the T5 social/cultural/economic codes tally with the descriptions in the MGT book, I'd be interested to know the answer.
[/quote]
To save y'all the $2.00 needed to get the UWP's in the FFE map since you have access to the rest....
The quick answer based on a 20% sample (that first page)
1. All of the cultural codes that it shares with MGT are identical. (govt,Pop and LL). Tech is never off by more than 1 and is generally the same.
2. Mostly the common trade codes are the same -although in some cases the size changes alter them.
3. Most of the other columns on the FFE map are not part of MGT worldgen, so really its not an issue -plus, the Ix, EX and Cx are all derived from the UPW codes, and so reflect them.
4. The rest are physical characteristics that MGT doesn't address. But they do match up with previuious Traveller data in other and earlier editions.
5. If you are curious if the prose description in MGT matches the abstract technical data in the FFE map, I looked at Jewell and louzy - and given that we are comparing a set string of eight digits (in the Cx and Ex columns)with 5 text column's of Martin J's excellent description, I'd have to say they are a not unreasonable matchup. If you want to go through and parse each of the extension codes for critical comparison with MJD/MGT spinward, have fun. It's a lot of work for little gain from my point of view. Plus, keep in mind that the FFE map is I believe from 15 years in MGT's future, so there's lots of room for major cultural changes if you need them.
1994 - 2009 Earth , for instance has seen a few, I think you'll agree.
Hopefully that answers the question ?
So if anyone who has access to T5 and the MGT SM book could answer my question about how closely (if at all) the T5 social/cultural/economic codes tally with the descriptions in the MGT book, I'd be interested to know the answer.
[/quote]
To save y'all the $2.00 needed to get the UWP's in the FFE map since you have access to the rest....
The quick answer based on a 20% sample (that first page)
1. All of the cultural codes that it shares with MGT are identical. (govt,Pop and LL). Tech is never off by more than 1 and is generally the same.
2. Mostly the common trade codes are the same -although in some cases the size changes alter them.
3. Most of the other columns on the FFE map are not part of MGT worldgen, so really its not an issue -plus, the Ix, EX and Cx are all derived from the UPW codes, and so reflect them.
4. The rest are physical characteristics that MGT doesn't address. But they do match up with previuious Traveller data in other and earlier editions.
5. If you are curious if the prose description in MGT matches the abstract technical data in the FFE map, I looked at Jewell and louzy - and given that we are comparing a set string of eight digits (in the Cx and Ex columns)with 5 text column's of Martin J's excellent description, I'd have to say they are a not unreasonable matchup. If you want to go through and parse each of the extension codes for critical comparison with MJD/MGT spinward, have fun. It's a lot of work for little gain from my point of view. Plus, keep in mind that the FFE map is I believe from 15 years in MGT's future, so there's lots of room for major cultural changes if you need them.
1994 - 2009 Earth , for instance has seen a few, I think you'll agree.
Hopefully that answers the question ?
After consulting with someone who does have the T5 playtest draft, they confirmed that the Ix, Ex, and Cx (Importance, Economic, and Cultural apparently) extensions do contain random elements when they are generated, and are not directly related to the social UWPs.
So, my question still needs to be answered (i.e. whether or not the information from those extensions has been designed to agree with what is known from text descriptions for those worlds, or if they're just randomly generated), preferably by someone who knows what they're talking about this time.
So, my question still needs to be answered (i.e. whether or not the information from those extensions has been designed to agree with what is known from text descriptions for those worlds, or if they're just randomly generated), preferably by someone who knows what they're talking about this time.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:
Ah, no doubt your friend can verify it if you are worried that I have some kind of reading disorder :lol: , but have "someone who does have the T5 playtest draft" show you pdf page 13 of the worlds and star systems doc (current version). In fact, you'll see that most of the values for Cx and Ex (and Ix) are directly related to the social UWP's; with some modifiers -some random, some not. So he seems to be misleading you -or perhaps, more charitably, didn't understand the question you posed.
Yes, there are random elements in both Cx and Ex...some of the hated flux, BTW, ..but almost all are to modify one of the static UWP parameters; and some are just the UWP params (labor, for instance). Said elements include pop law level, trade codes, starport and TL.
So, if you were expecting a dice free planet extension system, I guess you will be disappointed.
Again, the given values for Louzy and Jewel seem similar enough to what MJD wrote - given that he wasn't generating raw numbers, and I don't recall him ever addressing all the same issues in all the same terms (what is the resource value of Jewel except in general terms ?); though, I suppose one could see contradictions if one wanted to. So, if you expect to see cultural extension that directly map your perception of MJD's text, again, you'll probably be disappointed. But hey -people still can't agree on what TL or Government types should mean or influence or include, so I think its a pretty slim basis to argue from.
However, since I don' t know what I'm talking about , I think I've put enough of my time into answering questions you posted - but seem to have the answers for, anyway (you're welcome, by the way). My main advice to you: don't buy it. It uses dice in some cases, and doesn't directly and exactly parse the MGT text to generate some ratings.
Also, looking through the full-size preview on DTRPG, which gives you three pages of UWPs, it looks like the stellar data is still largely nonsensical - there are still far too many white dwarf binaries, and habitable planets are still orbiting red giants (e.g. 2419 Cogri, 2411 Keanou, 2402 Heya, 2232 Crout, 1924 Ianic, etc).
If any world sizes have indeed changed, then it'll be interesting to see if the grognards will start shrieking about how "their" worlds have suddenly changed. Given the racket that they were making when Martin attempted to fix the UWPs, I don't really see how this is any different - it's still changed, and whether it's changed my Marc or anyone else shouldn't make any difference if the change itself was what was unacceptable.
If any world sizes have indeed changed, then it'll be interesting to see if the grognards will start shrieking about how "their" worlds have suddenly changed. Given the racket that they were making when Martin attempted to fix the UWPs, I don't really see how this is any different - it's still changed, and whether it's changed my Marc or anyone else shouldn't make any difference if the change itself was what was unacceptable.
Well, this is nice.
First I'm forbidden to consider a UWP fix and hauled over the coals for contemplating it. (and the 'line editor' incident was inflicted upon me to prevent me ever doing something so unprofessional ever again) and now, a year later, there's a UWP cleanup largely along the lines I was proposing.
WTF?
(rest of post deleted)
First I'm forbidden to consider a UWP fix and hauled over the coals for contemplating it. (and the 'line editor' incident was inflicted upon me to prevent me ever doing something so unprofessional ever again) and now, a year later, there's a UWP cleanup largely along the lines I was proposing.
WTF?
(rest of post deleted)
I'll make a prediction... there will be no fuss about these changes.
Back when I was compiling a list of possible issues and fixes to present to the Mongoose line editor who would decide which, if any, to present to Marc for consideration (yes, that's all we were doing), there was a major problem about it.
In truth, the 'fan' part was a small number of misinformed individuals (six, as I recall) having a debate about whether I should be allowed to do various things that someone, somewhere had decided I might do. There was no truth in any of it, and it was just a typical self-righteous grognard panic.
The actual problem was politics behind the scenes. One of my competitors (and it wasn't Mongoose) told Marc I was doing something I shouldn't. Nobody checked or anything... the boot just came down.
There won't be any politics this time so it will just quietly be accepted. And oh look, another contradictory canon sourceto make lfe hard for the writers. Yeah, we really needed one of those.
Back when I was compiling a list of possible issues and fixes to present to the Mongoose line editor who would decide which, if any, to present to Marc for consideration (yes, that's all we were doing), there was a major problem about it.
In truth, the 'fan' part was a small number of misinformed individuals (six, as I recall) having a debate about whether I should be allowed to do various things that someone, somewhere had decided I might do. There was no truth in any of it, and it was just a typical self-righteous grognard panic.
The actual problem was politics behind the scenes. One of my competitors (and it wasn't Mongoose) told Marc I was doing something I shouldn't. Nobody checked or anything... the boot just came down.
There won't be any politics this time so it will just quietly be accepted. And oh look, another contradictory canon sourceto make lfe hard for the writers. Yeah, we really needed one of those.
MJD said:
Well, to be fair, you're OK since your work on the Marches is Mongoose canon on the subject
. All you or anyone else writing for Mongoose needs to do is stay consistent with that, and screw anything else . But yeah, it is bizarre that the FFE UWPs were "fixed" (at least partially) like this while yours got stomped on without anyone even bothering to see what you were doing. There's definitely at least some size changes in the FFE doc (e.g. Raweh in Five Sisters is now size 4, not size 1).
Of course the puritans will be ignoring MGT anyway and taking the FFE UWPs as gospel (literally), but I doubt they'd bat an eyelid at the changes. AFAIK none of them have even noticed this is out yet. Again, bizarre.
Vile
Banded Mongoose
Well, this puritan is quite happy to take Mongoose SM as the gospel and everything else as a may-or-may-not be useful fluff. Probably not that useful (for a third-party writer), as it relates to the OTU. Just wallpaper, then.EDG said:
Although I think I've just come to the rather depressing realisation that I'm no longer of an age when I'd buy roleplaying maps to hang on my walls ...
andrew boulton
Mongoose
EDG said:
Given that you refused to help Marc with this, you can't really complain.
A
Anonymous
Guest
andrew boulton said:
It takes two to tango.
andrew boulton said:
Excuse me? :shock:
...
Seriously, WTF? :shock:
I don't know what lies you've been fed (or choose to believe), but actually I did offer to help Marc - I was originally very keen on helping Marc when T5 was announced. Back on the original T5 "playtest" (such as it was) on CotI, I did actually try to encourage people to make the worlds and stars more realistic there (that was the only reason I signed up for the damn thing). And you know what I got from Marc (or whatever lackey of his was running the playtest)? I think the exact words were "but we like having habitable worlds around blue supergiants".
So I gave up and left the playtest, though Marc (or was it Hunter...) decided to actually boot me off the board for good measure because he "didn't like my attitude" (given that we had been waiting around for ages to actually have something to test and then got half-written scraps, what little we were given was was too incomplete to test properly, and we were told that Marc wasn't interested in changing anything anyway and that our job was to just test what was in front of us, and nobody was listening to me anyway... I felt I was wasting my time there).
So let me make this crystal clear for all involved, so it doesn't get misrepresented again - Marc was the one who refused my help, not the other way around. And since that was the case, I saw no reason to allow him to leech my ideas from elsewhere anywhere else. But Marc and his lackeys decided that meant I "didn't want to work with them" and that I was causing the problems, when in fact they were the ones who rejected my help in the first place. But this is how twisted things have gotten in Traveller's politics.
So the idea of you saying it's my fault (especially when you know absolutely nothing about the situation) couldn't be further from the truth at all, and is pretty damned offensive to me. I offered to help him to get this stuff right, and I was more than willing to do so... but he decided he wasn't interested in what I had to say, and he was the one that pushed me out.
andrew boulton
Mongoose
The first playtest was a bit of a disaster, and I'm not sure how much of the feedback (including yours) Marc actually saw. Probably not much.
When the current round started, I asked you if I could let him see your notes. Not only did you refuse, you threatened legal action if anything similar appeared in T5.
When the current round started, I asked you if I could let him see your notes. Not only did you refuse, you threatened legal action if anything similar appeared in T5.
andrew boulton said:
I and plenty of others wasted a lot of time on that "disaster", and the BS I got from him about it afterwards was pretty unbelievable. He was certainly aware of my "feedback" since I got a very patronising email from him about it (the only time I've ever had any direct communication with him, since he insists on doing everything else via lackeys).
And now you know why. He completely rejected my help the first time, and I knew his attitude from his email. If he hadn't been a complete ass about it back then, I may have been willing to help him, but given the way I was treated by him I sure as hell wasn't going to help him or let him use my stuff later on.
Again, he's the one to blame, not me.
And more to the point, as rust pointed out, I wasn't the only source for information on how to get the stars fixed. Marc could have easily found others sources for that, but evidently he didn't.
What I find interesting (and bringing this back to MGT) is that changes have now been made to the UWPs that were not allowed to be made by Martin for the MGT Spinward Marches book. And yet nobody is complaining about those changes today, unlike back then when people on CotI screeched so much about it that Marc unilaterally (and without checking) shut down Martin's efforts to even try to figure out what changes could be necessary.
What I find interesting (and bringing this back to MGT) is that changes have now been made to the UWPs that were not allowed to be made by Martin for the MGT Spinward Marches book. And yet nobody is complaining about those changes today, unlike back then when people on CotI screeched so much about it that Marc unilaterally (and without checking) shut down Martin's efforts to even try to figure out what changes could be necessary.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Also a question that so far hasnt raised it head.
So what are the offical UWP's for the Spinward Marches now, these new ones or the MGT Spinward Marches sourcebook ?
So what are the offical UWP's for the Spinward Marches now, these new ones or the MGT Spinward Marches sourcebook ?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Code:
From the archives of GDW, we have located the original hand drawn draft of the Spinward Marches sector map and matched it with the final published map (as included in Deluxe Traveller) and with a white background map as well.
To this, we have added five pages of world data for the sector...- Status
