If you ever wanted to know the origins of the concept for the Aslan...

[MasterGwydion]

The problem (well its a problem from my point of view at least) with the wiki is that it is full of fanom, mixed almost indistinguishably with canon from actual published material.

The jabberwock article in the original JTAS cited makes no mention whatsoever of genassist or uplift of the species.

I think what is reproduced in the wiki is material from a fan project known as "BARD" (Bureau of Aggregate Reference Data) created by denizens of the TNE mailing list.

@MongooseMatt

Then can we please get a wiki for the OTU???

I don't go look up stuff in the encyclopedia to find out what Billy Bob down at the 7-11 thinks of how whales evolved. I go to an encyclopedia to find facts that have been vetted by knowledgeable people. Why should a wiki be any different?

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

So, I guess the technical answer is, yes, humans have genetically studied and altered alien creatures. They seem to be only one example and a very niche case, so I am not sure if we can infer much from this weird case. So, you may be right, and humans cannot geneer alien species.

Now that I have found that source I can add from that source

eference	"Bestiary: The Crested Jabberwock." Journal of the Travellers' Aid Society 15 44-45.
Canon	No
Also see

So not canon and in the OTU not an uplifted species.

I looked at the alien races listed on the Wiki as uplifted AND canon none of them were human uplifts.

So the answer seems to be - unproven.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Now that I have found that source I can add from that source


So not canon and in the OTU not an uplifted species.

I looked at the alien races listed on the Wiki as uplifted AND canon none of them were human uplifts.

So the answer seems to be - unproven.

Okay, then we have our answer. Unproven. Thank you.

 

[WHULorigan]

You would not dare say that to their faces...

And you would be most correct in that assumption . . .

 

[WHULorigan]

@MongooseMatt

Then can we please get a wiki for the OTU???

I don't go look up stuff in the encyclopedia to find out what Billy Bob down at the 7-11 thinks of how whales evolved. I go to an encyclopedia to find facts that have been vetted by knowledgeable people. Why should a wiki be any different?

The existing wiki already has an effort begun in that direction. There are articles that begin with the Tag "Library Data: <Title>" that contain only the Canon information for the article title in question. The project is only in the early phases, and the articles are not open for casual editing by just anyone.

 

[MasterGwydion]

The existing wiki already has an effort begun in that direction. There are articles that begin with the Tag "Library Data: <Title>" that contain only the Canon information for the article title in question. The project is only in the early phases, and the articles are not open for casual editing by just anyone.

I am impressed! Thank you to any and all who are putting their time and effort into that project! Thank you!

 

[rinku]

Keeping in mind that canon Library Data entries are the same as canon Wikipedia articles - they may well contain simplifications and inaccuracies. And canon TAS News articles are at best as reliable as BBC News or New York Times ones. Or whatever news service you happen to respect as reliable.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Keeping in mind that canon Library Data entries are the same as canon Wikipedia articles - they may well contain simplifications and inaccuracies. And canon TAS News articles are at best as reliable as BBC News or New York Times ones. Or whatever news service you happen to respect as reliable.

Then they are useless for building a history of Charted Space or for much other worldbuilding. I want actual facts about the setting, not people's opinions who live within the setting.

 

[Endie]

Mongoose are in the difficult position here that the last thing they want is for the contents of their printed material to be documented in the wiki beyond the most surface level, because once you get someone copy-pasting swathes of content into the free wiki (as others have tried to do with text and imagery in freely-distributed documents) then sales are harmed.

Then they are useless for building a history of Charted Space or for much other worldbuilding. I want actual facts about the setting, not people's opinions who live within the setting.

Don't read JTAS then, because many of the best articles are along the lines of "I am a K'kree and here is why I hate everyone else." Naturally, those are internal world viewpoints and therefore unreliable narration. Personally, I love them. The same, as we have discussed before, goes for the Survey data, which are an in-universe artifact and are therefore are never 100% reliable and will always drift from accuracy over time as revolutions occur, wars change populations etc.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Mongoose are in the difficult position here that the last thing they want is for the contents of their printed material to be documented in the wiki beyond the most surface level, because once you get someone copy-pasting swathes of content into the free wiki (as others have tried to do with text and imagery in freely-distributed documents) then sales are harmed.

All I am saying is make it accurate. Don't allow fanon. If it is presented as fact on the wiki, it should be because the published material also says that it is fact.

Don't read JTAS then, because many of the best articles are along the lines of "I am a K'kree and here is why I hate everyone else." Naturally, those are internal world viewpoints and therefore unreliable narration. Personally, I love them. The same, as we have discussed before, goes for the Survey data, which are an in-universe artifact and are therefore are never 100% reliable and will always drift from accuracy over time as revolutions occur, wars change populations etc.

I love in universe perspectives. They add flavor and color and spice to the setting. They make the setting feel real.

The survey data on the otherhand, should be in-universe for players, but Referees need the actual OOG numbers so that we can use them in the equations in published materials such as the WBH.

There should be a clearly defined line between in-universe fluff and out-of-universe game mechanics, but the fluff should never contradict the rules.

Also, how do you have any idea what the IN is actually like and how it is actually organized if all of the "sources" are unreliable? In real life that makes sense, but the Referee is supposed to have a God's Eye View of the universe, so therefore should know or at least have access to all of the facts. Some people will argue that that is for individual Referees to decide. I disagree. If you want the Referee to decide everything, have the Referee design his own setting. In a published setting, there should be actual facts. If I wanted to design everything myself, I wouldn't be using an already established setting.

 

[Endie]

All I am saying is make it accurate. Don't allow fanon. If it is presented as fact on the wiki, it should be because the published material also says that it is fact.

I love in universe perspectives. They add flavor and color and spice to the setting. They make the setting feel real.

The survey data on the otherhand, should be in-universe for players, but Referees need the actual OOG numbers so that we can use them in the equations in published materials such as the WBH.

There should be a clearly defined line between in-universe fluff and out-of-universe game mechanics, but the fluff should never contradict the rules.

Also, how do you have any idea what the IN is actually like and how it is actually organized if all of the "sources" are unreliable? In real life that makes sense, but the Referee is supposed to have a God's Eye View of the universe, so therefore should know or at least have access to all of the facts. Some people will argue that that is for individual Referees to decide. I disagree. If you want the Referee to decide everything, have the Referee design his own setting. In a published setting, there should be actual facts. If I wanted to design everything myself, I wouldn't be using an already established setting.

If I want absolute certainty (I don't) I can just say "the scout service is right and nothing has ever changed".

 

[MasterGwydion]

If I want absolute certainty (I don't) I can just say "the scout service is right and nothing has ever changed".

Then go look up the official write-ups for Tech World and for Cordan. Which is correct, the fluff saying there are millions more on the planet than the UWP says or the UWP which says that there are millions fewer on the planet?

 

[Endie]

Then go look up the official write-ups for Tech World and for Cordan. Which is correct, the fluff saying there are millions more on the planet than the UWP says or the UWP which says that there are millions fewer on the planet?

Both are explained perfectly well in a way that says why the Scout Service was technically right. Counting methodologies differ. The divergence is explained. And if it wasn't? Who cares, barring Michael Falk:

The extreme position "the published service figures are the acts of an omniscient god who was able to count everyone" is just laughable. So this planet has 7 people on it and will always have seven people on it until the players show up? Uh-huh.

One has to put aside one's neurodivergence and accept uncertainty for a game played with actual, real people to work. I admit that for people that don't play the game with other people (and sure, I know that this forum has a lot of those) then what they want is generally absolute narrative certainty, because Traveller doesn't exist outside the books and their heads. But for most of us we want some inspiration and stats to hang a game off of in all its messy, uncertain glory.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Both are explained perfectly well in a way that says why the Scout Service was technically right. Counting methodologies differ. The divergence is explained. And if it wasn't? Who cares, barring Michael Falk:

The extreme position "the published service figures are the acts of an omniscient god who was able to count everyone" is just laughable. So this planet has 7 people on it and will always have seven people on it until the players show up? Uh-huh.

One has to put aside one's neurodivergence and accept uncertainty for a game played with actual, real people to work. I admit that for people that don't play the game with other people (and sure, I know that this forum has a lot of those) then what they want is generally absolute narrative certainty, because Traveller doesn't exist outside the books and their heads. But for most of us we want some inspiration and stats to hang a game off of in all its messy, uncertain glory.

So, your point of view is that the literal people creating the universe (the writers of the books and creators of the rules) shouldn't have to obey them? Yes, I am neurodivergent and yes that changes my views on a lot of things, but I would not think that people obeying the rules of the game would be one of them.

The rules state that a UWP of 4 is between and including 10,000 and 99,999 sophonts. If the writers give the planet this UWP, but then say it actually has 10,000,000 sophonts. They are not obeying their own rules, and they have made using the UWP stat for the calculations in the WBH impossible. Which number do I use? The UWP number or should I recalculate a new UWP number based off of the fluff text? This also means that every subsector chart which only lists planetary UWPs can no longer be trusted to be accurate. That is what it means if the fluff and the UWPs no longer have to match. Which number will be used in future publications? Rules need consistency to be effective. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Edit - Also, shipbuilding rules. The writers keep breaking the rules on almost every ship they publish.

 

[Endie]

So, your point of view is that the literal people creating the universe (the writers of the books and creators of the rules) shouldn't have to obey them? Yes, I am neurodivergent and yes that changes my views on a lot of things, but I would not think that people obeying the rules of the game would be one of them.

The rules state that a UWP of 4 is between and including 10,000 and 99,999 sophonts. If the writers give the planet this UWP, but then say it actually has 10,000,000 sophonts. They are not obeying their own rules, and they have made using the UWP stat for the calculations in the WBH impossible. Which number do I use? The UWP number or should I recalculate a new UWP number based off of the fluff text? This also means that every subsector chart which only lists planetary UWPs can no longer be trusted to be accurate. That is what it means if the fluff and the UWPs no longer have to match. Which number will be used in future publications? Rules need consistency to be effective. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Edit - Also, shipbuilding rules. The writers keep breaking the rules on almost every ship they publish.

First, I wasn't referring specifically to you (I used "one" instead of "you").

And nobody, writers or players, is bound by numbers that are at best a snapshot of when the second survey was carried out for that world, so may be a century before. I see that as freedom, you see that as unsettling. But the blunt truth is that your preferred approach has never been and will never be the one the real company running Traveller takes.

I know that you and I have this argument every two weeks, and so there is no point in going over it yet again since neither can persuade the other and everyone else is probably rolling their eyes at us.

 

[MasterGwydion]

First, I wasn't referring specifically to you (I used "one" instead of "you").

And nobody, writers or players, is bound by numbers that are at best a snapshot of when the second survey was carried out for that world, so may be a century before. I see that as freedom, you see that as unsettling. But the blunt truth is that your preferred approach has never been and will never be the one the real company running Traveller takes.

I know that you and I have this argument every two weeks, and so there is no point in going over it yet again since neither can persuade the other and everyone else is probably rolling their eyes at us.

So, let me say again to be clear... Your point of view is that the people who write the rules, should not be bound to them when writing published material? Not, if Mongoose wants to take the game in a different direction and changing the rules, but writing rules and then breaking them?

Rules should not be immutable, but whatever the rules are, the writers should be bound by them. If they are not, then why have rules in the first place?

 

[Endie]

So, let me say again to be clear... Your point of view is that the people who write the rules, should not be bound to them when writing published material? Not, if Mongoose wants to take the game in a different direction and changing the rules, but writing rules and then breaking them?

Rules should not be immutable, but whatever the rules are, the writers should be bound by them. If they are not, then why have rules in the first place?

Yes, you have said that often, and it is important to remember that people can understand you but still disagree with you.

To you they are rules, and you mention about why you are particularly prone to discomfort on that matter. To Mongoose (and to me, for all that matters!) they are guidelines. See the official rule zero on p.4, which says that the rules are simply a framework. Don't ask whether that applies to rule zero itself, or the universe will disappear.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Yes, you have said that often, and it is important to remember that people can understand you but still disagree with you.

To you they are rules, and you mention about why you are particularly prone to discomfort on that matter. To Mongoose (and to me, for all that matters!) they are guidelines. See the official rule zero on p.4, which says that the rules are simply a framework. Don't ask whether that applies to rule zero itself, or the universe will disappear.

Rule Zero applies when playing the game, not when publishing material for the game.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Rule Zero applies when playing the game, not when publishing material for the game.

Designers can’t use Rule 0, only the consumers.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The rules say here is how to generate planets.

The setting says the UPPs were last surveyed decades ago so may well have changed, thus granting referees wiggle room for their interpretation of the setting.

I have two copies of CT S:3 Spinward Marches - one looks like it has never been read, the other is full of annotations and my changes to UPPs and the like.