Quick summary of my problems with the EDG world system.

[captainjack23]

This is the quick and dirty summary of my thoughts about the issues with the EDG system. As I said in the other thread, I’d have liked to take more time, and be more diplomatic, but the question was called by the author, and while I may be alone in my opinion, I’d like to get it out there.

The simple answer is this. Except for some small parts, I feel that the EDG system should not be used as a whole; despite plugging the most glaring holes in the system, it adds too much complexity when much simpler solutions are either possible, or already exist.

The more complex reason is this, and I hope this isn’t read as personal attack: whole system is far too reflective of the personal opinions of one person, and in most cases is based on well thought out, but basically amateur concepts of how the game and the world should work. And given that one of the few people with any kind of credentials as a socio-political-economic expert is MWM, I really don’t see why one should abandon one opinion for another, potentially less well informed one.

The problem is that the EDG system as a whole does produces a result that is a radical change from what CT would produce; and the goal of this product was to hew closely to CT. Not toss out and rebuild. I’ll get into this part a bit later, if I have the time. That said, the only glaring problems are these: physical limits on what atmospheres and planets work together, inhospitable worlds with way too low tech; and lack of definition for the relationship of a starports to its world.


Here’s what I see as actually needful for a playable MGT that doesn’t depart or support a personal vision of CT.
1. Cap the small planet atmospheres at 1 or 0,(or 2) It takes too much effort and additional fussiness to meet the complete EDG model of accuracy. Capping is way close enough for the payoff in accuracy vs. generation complexity.
2. Define how a starport relates to the planet it’s on –the only important questions are this: does it have a population independent of the planetary population, and to what extent should planetary tech drive or limit the type or existence of a starport. The simplest, and equally reasonable answers are this: the starport is independent of the native population and technology, and there should be a small tech flow outwards from the starport if the local tech is lower. But, bases have fences, and the latter can also be ignored if needed.
3. Habitability of various atmospheres is a non-issue. Minimum techs are already well defined in classic traveller, and do the job fine. If it is really necessary, change the definition of the limit to “minimum Tech for optimal habitability” and note that the minimum is generally one less. End of fuss.
4. Make it explicit that the LL is not just about gun ownership, bring all the notes about what it means into one coherent mass, and with regards to the MGT manuscript, clarify some of the effects on information and import issues.

As far as I can see, the rest falls into creating a distinct personal vision of what traveller should be, and would be best served by either making an entirely new RPG, or using the OGL to produce an acceptable personal traveller.

Some more comments on other aspects to come.

 

[captainjack23]

Quick addition to my list of needed fixes.

Reduce modifier bloat overall. Tracking all the accreted dice mods and extra tables across CT is a problem that has lots of examples and comments. The EDG system does not improve this probleml, and, in fact, makes it worse.
That said, the new tables and modifiers approach iis VERY appropriate for an OGL suppliment, or even a scout type Mongoose suppliment

 

[rje]

...whole system is far too reflective of the personal opinions of one person...

This is not a sufficient reason to not use it. If they like it, they'll find a way to use it, and EDG has always had good ideas. And, as the work of one person, it has coherence.

But, as your next paragraph hinted, maybe you meant that EDG has a different attitude towards sci-fi gaming -- a grittier one, like 2300AD.

Your suggestions seem okay to me.

 

[captainjack23]

...whole system is far too reflective of the personal opinions of one person...

This is not a sufficient reason to not use it. If they like it, they'll find a way to use it, and EDG has always had good ideas. And, as the work of one person, it has coherence.

But, as your next paragraph hinted, maybe you meant that EDG has a different attitude towards sci-fi gaming -- a grittier one, like 2300AD.

Your suggestions seem okay to me.

Yes to all three.
That wouldn't be sufficient,per se, and I'm not saying toss everything he says. The system as a whole is what is problematic.
EDG system is coherent, but in the wrong direction both mechanically and in terms of flavor for Traveller.

My opinion.

Ironically, it creates a great setting for my favorite kind of sci-fi - "where no man has gone before".

 

[EDG]

despite plugging the most glaring holes in the system, it adds too much complexity when much simpler solutions are either possible, or already exist.

If you can point out where these simpler solutions exist, I'd be interested to see them. So far though the solutions that you have proposed (e.g. for the small world atmospheres) simply don't work - they produce unrealistic results.

whole system is far too reflective of the personal opinions of one person, and in most cases is based on well thought out, but basically amateur concepts of how the game and the world should work. And given that one of the few people with any kind of credentials as a socio-political-economic expert is MWM, I really don’t see why one should abandon one opinion for another, potentially less well informed one.

Yeah... that's not a reason at all. You're assuming for a start that MWM is some kind of great socio-political-economic expert, when all the evidence from his games so far seems to indicate that he really isn't (or that if he is, he really fails in his ability to express that in rules). e.g. higher populations are not necessarily run by oppressive governments (CT thinks they are though), the economics of CT have long been known to be fundamentally broken as well. And if it's less complexity you want then believe me, following MWM's approach will only give you more.

The problem is that the EDG system as a whole does produces a result that is a radical change from what CT would produce; and the goal of this product was to hew closely to CT. Not toss out and rebuild.

It wasn't, though. The goal of this exercise was always first and foremost to correct the glaring flaws in CT's worldgen - namely (a) the unrealistic physical stats for the planets and (b) the unrealistic population (and starport) distribution caused by ignoring biases against hostile environments. Compatibility with CT was a concern, yes, but at the end of the day given a choice between CT compatibility and correcting those errors, I chose in favour of correcting the errors.

I’ll get into this part a bit later, if I have the time. That said, the only glaring problems are these: physical limits on what atmospheres and planets work together, inhospitable worlds with way too low tech; and lack of definition for the relationship of a starports to its world.

And worlds that have way too many people despite being totally uninhabitable, unpleasant hellholes.

Here’s what I see as actually needful for a playable MGT that doesn’t depart or support a personal vision of CT.

What do you think MGT is exactly? It's Gar's personal vision of what he thinks Traveller should be. Yes, he's tempering that somewhat with input from everyone else, but don't think that the authors biases should remain out of the game. If that's the case then Traveller will never change, and personally I think the best parts of Traveller have historically come from people who have pushed their personal visions onto the game and evolved it into something new.

1. Cap the small planet atmospheres at 1 or 0,(or 2) It takes too much effort and additional fussiness to meet the complete EDG model of accuracy. Capping is way close enough for the payoff in accuracy vs. generation complexity.

It's one extra (small) table, for crying out loud, and it works. The way you're talking about it makes it sound like rocket science. Your method simply doesn't work, it produces results that are too unrealistic.

2. Define how a starport relates to the planet it’s on –the only important questions are this: does it have a population independent of the planetary population, and to what extent should planetary tech drive or limit the type or existence of a starport. The simplest, and equally reasonable answers are this: the starport is independent of the native population and technology, and there should be a small tech flow outwards from the starport if the local tech is lower. But, bases have fences, and the latter can also be ignored if needed.

I disagree entirely. The starport is clearly part of the population, and is clearly dependent on local technology - and that is much more simple than assuming it isn't. It makes a hell of a lot more sense for the starport to be using technology built by the surrounding culture for its repairs etc (like airports are here, for example), not to be some isolated, self-contained enclave that may be vastly higher tech (and more populated) than the society around it.

3. Habitability of various atmospheres is a non-issue. Minimum techs are already well defined in classic traveller, and do the job fine. If it is really necessary, change the definition of the limit to “minimum Tech for optimal habitability” and note that the minimum is generally one less. End of fuss.

OK, who's putting their personal biases on the game now? It isn't a non-issue at all, and there's no "fuss" either. The minimum techs may have been defined in CT but they were never implemented in the worldgen and thus produced a lot of crazy results where people couldn't survive on the planets they were living on. They're implemented now in the EDG system, and it works.

4. Make it explicit that the LL is not just about gun ownership, bring all the notes about what it means into one coherent mass, and with regards to the MGT manuscript, clarify some of the effects on information and import issues.

That I agree with, but it's already kinda dealt with in the MGT rules.

As far as I can see, the rest falls into creating a distinct personal vision of what traveller should be, and would be best served by either making an entirely new RPG, or using the OGL to produce an acceptable personal traveller.

I think, from reading your comments, that the issue is more that you personally don't agree with the vision of Traveller that the EDG worldgen rules create (and apparently think that the addition of one extra table and a few more modifiers is "overly complicated", though you apparently have no problem with the MGT Temperature table and all the extra law details), and not that there's any actual problem with them.

 

[captainjack23]

To avoid cross discussion and clogged threads , I'll post new critique in new threads.

 

[captainjack23]

despite plugging the most glaring holes in the system, it adds too much complexity when much simpler solutions are either possible, or already exist.

I think, from reading your comments, that the issue is more that you personally don't agree with the vision of Traveller that the EDG worldgen rules create (and apparently think that the addition of one extra table and a few more modifiers is "overly complicated", though you apparently have no problem with the MGT Temperature table and all the extra law details), and not that there's any actual problem with them.

I'd rather avoid dealing with arguments about this until I'm finished, but I will say for now, you are incorrect; I do think, and have stated, that there are issues beyond simple personal taste. So please don't try to redefine my dialogue before I've made it. Read it again, if need be.

I must say (again) that it is poor form to ask for feedback and then start arguing against it in the middle.

 

[AKAramis]

...whole system is far too reflective of the personal opinions of one person...

This is not a sufficient reason to not use it. If they like it, they'll find a way to use it, and EDG has always had good ideas. And, as the work of one person, it has coherence.

But, as your next paragraph hinted, maybe you meant that EDG has a different attitude towards sci-fi gaming -- a grittier one, like 2300AD.

Your suggestions seem okay to me.

Actually, in the social sciences area, EDG's opinions DO overweight, and are not backable with evidence.

His physical data is firmly grounded and well backed. (I don't like the added complexity, don't roll up sectors using a computer, and do roll up subsectors from time to time by hand. But I'm the minority there.) It is worth including.

But his changes to social data are not inherently any better than MWM's, and MWM's are the default. Probably should stay that way, too.

 

[anselyn]

But his changes to social data are not inherently any better than MWM's, and MWM's are the default. Probably should stay that way, too.

MWM's 30 year-old assumptions - until we see anything newer and better?

In the early 80s when I saw MWM discussing these things, it was always in the context of the social and technological patterns of Earth then. Things move on. Globalisation has massively changed the diversity on Earth that he saw then - Science has advanced - and more than anything else years of play has tested the game.

Game writers in 2008 are not members of a Supreme Court that needs to read back to the intention and wisdom of the Founding Father. Please - let's not shackle new authors in that way.

 

[EDG]

Actually, in the social sciences area, EDG's opinions DO overweight, and are not backable with evidence.

But as you say, neither are MWM's. At least I make an attempt to explain it though and present it in a logical framework - in CT Marc just seems to say "let the dice roll where they may" and makes no attempt to provide any kind of explanation or guidance for the results.

That said, I'm not averse to seeing what happens if some of the pop DMs are toned down a bit. But I maintain that some form of environmental population DMs are necessary.

But his changes to social data are not inherently any better than MWM's, and MWM's are the default. Probably should stay that way, too.

That's nowhere near a good enough reason to keep them IMO. The current methodology does not work well at all - if it did, people wouldn't have to think "why the hell would people want to live here?" when they look at yet another Cytherean hellhole with billions of people on it (or some other unlikely situation) and have to come up with increasingly contrived reasons for them to do so. If it worked, people could just roll up their planets and think "OK, that makes sense" and get straight down to figuring out what sort of adventures they'd be able to run on it . I strongly disagree that this requirement to come up with contrived, exceptional explanations is a "feature" of the game - it's really nothing more than bad design, hidden behind an excuse of "flexing your imagination to come up with a reason for a nonsensical result". Personally, I want to see that mentality tossed in the garbage and burned as it should have been a long time ago, in favour of something where you don't have to contrive wacky reasons to explain world after world after world and can just get on with making the universe.

Really, my underlying philosophy is to create a normal universe with a few exceptions, whereas Marc's philosophy (if he even had one) seems to be to create a mostly wacky universe with a few normal systems. Sure, that's a "personal vision" that I have for the game, but it's a damn sight more focussed than the alternative of just keeping things as they are, which is known to have problems.

At the end of the day though, if people want to see Marc Miller's vision of the game then they can go and get T5, and I'm sure it'll be everything they want it to be. But I think forcing Mongoose Traveller into the same box just for the sake of "sticking to Marc's vision" is killing MGT before it starts - it is IMO far better for the game to just let MGT strike out in its own way and push the limits of what Traveller is and inject something original into the mix, rather than just stick to the same old ideas rehashed over and over.

 

[EDG]

Game writers in 2008 are not members of a Supreme Court that needs to read back to the intention and wisdom of the Founding Father. Please - let's not shackle new authors in that way.

That's always been a problem with Traveller - "canon". I'd much rather see old material superseded by new material (which is what everything that isn't a religion does) than the other way round. That would produce a much more forward-thinking game than what we have.

 

[EDG]

I'd rather avoid dealing with arguments about this until I'm finished, but I will say for now, you are incorrect; I do think, and have stated, that there are issues beyond simple personal taste.

So far you haven't really demonstrated that. You don't like more tables, check. You don't like more DMs, got that. But so far you haven't demonstrated any fundamental problem with the whole system itself. You claim it doesn't produce results that are similar to CT, but I've been trying to get things to look as close as possible as I can. As I said, there are going to be fundamental differences because of the drive to get a realistic/sensible setting, but I really don't think the results look that different to CT. Most of the actual social trade classifications (Ag, In, etc) are about the same in the EDG version as they are in CT.

I must say (again) that it is poor form to ask for feedback and then start arguing against it in the middle.

Perhaps it would have been better for you to post your full argument then, instead of just half of it?

 

[captainjack23]

But his changes to social data are not inherently any better than MWM's, and MWM's are the default. Probably should stay that way, too.

MWM's 30 year-old assumptions - until we see anything newer and better?

In the early 80s when I saw MWM discussing these things, it was always in the context of the social and technological patterns of Earth then. Things move on. Globalisation has massively changed the diversity on Earth that he saw then - Science has advanced - and more than anything else years of play has tested the game.

Game writers in 2008 are not members of a Supreme Court that needs toread back to the intention and wisdom of the Founding Father. Please - let's not shackle new authors in that way.

Agreed. But neither do I see a need to shackle new authors to one person's unverifiable opinions just because they came out 3 years ago.

There have been theoretical developments in socioeconomics since the 70's, but the basics upon which the UWP are derived are esentially the same:
Increased population and technology make it easier for a governement to impose stricter controls on the populace;
Larger populations generally have less representative governments than smaller .
Governements impose more control as they become less representative.
Not all sizes of populations have all possible governments.

Theory has evolved, yes; but the differneces are irrelevent to somthing as coarse grained as an RPG. trust me on this.


The govenment names could be changed - they are after all just examples. The GOV/LL/POP represents an intercorrelated three axis model of proulation, representation, and social control, which is still valid.

So, yes. change things if you want - just don't argue fact based on age. The research and literature exists if you want to do that kind of a ctitique; but it's big, and rigourous.

 

[captainjack23]

I'd rather avoid dealing with arguments about this until I'm finished, but I will say for now, you are incorrect; I do think, and have stated, that there are issues beyond simple personal taste.

So far you haven't really demonstrated that. You don't like more tables, check. You don't like more DMs, got that. But so far you haven't demonstrated any fundamental problem with the whole system itself. You claim it doesn't produce results that are similar to CT, but I've been trying to get things to look as close as possible as I can. As I said, there are going to be fundamental differences because of the drive to get a realistic/sensible setting, but I really don't think the results look that different to CT. Most of the actual social trade classifications (Ag, In, etc) are about the same in the EDG version as they are in CT.

I must say (again) that it is poor form to ask for feedback and then start arguing against it in the middle.

Perhaps it would have been better for you to post your full argument then, instead of just half of it?

Perhaps it would have been better for me to use my time productively, say at work ? Sorry about that. You asked for feedback, and seemed okay with it and with partial posts.when I put effort into being nicey nice. Now, not so much, I guess.
I'll post as I can. Obviously the issue is too hot for you to be patient, and fine with that. Its taking me longer than I thought. So, you post as you want, do with it what you want; argue, agree, contradict, rant. I've got my stuff to do. People will read and decide.

This is turning into an attentional black hole. You seem to have lost track of the fact that you asked for feedback from the public...if you'd rather I stop doing you what is essentially a favor, just say the word.

 

[EDG]

Perhaps it would have been better for me to use my time productively, say at work ? Sorry about that. You asked for feedback, and seemed okay with it and with partial posts.when I put effort into being nicey nice. Now, not so much, I guess.
I'll post as I can. Obviously the issue is too hot for you to be patient, and fine with that. Its taking me longer than I thought. So, you post as you want, do with it what you want; argue, agree, contradict, rant. I've got my stuff to do. People will read and decide.

This is turning into an attentional black hole. You seem to have lost track of the fact that you asked for feedback from the public...if you'd rather I stop doing you what is essentially a favor, just say the word.

I asked for contructive feedback. Like I said elsewhere, I'm not interested in seeing "I don't like this" or "I don't like that" - it's a given that not everybody is going to find the system to their tastes. What I was hoping for more statistical analysis and examination, but all you've posted so far is subjective opinion and you're just echoing what you said earlier about reducing tables and DMs (because you don't like them, though you really do overstate the "added complexity") and reducing the UWP to something completely different that keeps detail to a minimum. Well that's great, but if you want to do that then start another thread to propose your own different worldgen system.

 

[EDG]

Agreed. But neither do I see a need to shackle new authors to one person's unverifiable opinions just because they came out 3 years ago.

How are your opinions any better? I can stand by mine because they're built around a logical framework at least, that can be extrapolated to new situations (which Marc's do not).

There have been theoretical developments in socioeconomics since the 70's, but the basics upon which the UWP are derived are esentially the same:
Increased population and technology make it easier for a governement to impose stricter controls on the populace;

I've not noticed stricter controls over western society because of its higher technology. Hell, some of the most restrictive countries in the world are still a few tech levels behind us.

Larger populations generally have less representative governments than smaller .

Rubbish. There are a hell of a lot of low population nations that have "less representative" governments. And the US is supposedly quite representative but has about 280 million people.

Governements impose more control as they become less representative. Not all sizes of populations have all possible governments.

Funny, I've seen religious dictatorships function on the small cult level and the large nation level. Democracies function on large and small scale too.

Theory has evolved, yes; but the differneces are irrelevent to somthing as coarse grained as an RPG. trust me on this.

Why should we trust you on that? You're just saying that "it's too complicated to model in an RPG" when it obviously doesn't have to be. Planetary science is a hell of a lot more complicated and detailed than social science and yet I've successfully shown how to model it in an RPG here (as have books like GT:First In). And at the end of the day, surely your opinion is just another opinion on social science that has no more or less validity than mine or Marc's or anyone else's.

 

[captainjack23]

Perhaps it would have been better for me to use my time productively, say at work ? Sorry about that. You asked for feedback, and seemed okay with it and with partial posts.when I put effort into being nicey nice. Now, not so much, I guess.
I'll post as I can. Obviously the issue is too hot for you to be patient, and fine with that. Its taking me longer than I thought. So, you post as you want, do with it what you want; argue, agree, contradict, rant. I've got my stuff to do. People will read and decide.

This is turning into an attentional black hole. You seem to have lost track of the fact that you asked for feedback from the public...if you'd rather I stop doing you what is essentially a favor, just say the word.

I asked for contructive feedback. Like I said elsewhere, I'm not interested in seeing "I don't like this" or "I don't like that" - it's a given that not everybody is going to find the system to their tastes. What I was hoping for more statistical analysis and examination, but all you've posted so far is subjective opinion and you're just echoing what you said earlier about reducing tables and DMs (because you don't like them, though you really do overstate the "added complexity") and reducing the UWP to something completely different that keeps detail to a minimum. Well that's great, but if you want to do that then start another thread to propose your own different worldgen system.

Okay, so you only want feedback you approve of. Should I run it by you first and let you post what you think is relevent and constructive ? Sorry if I misunderstood what you were asking for. I'm starting to feel that you don't appreciate my efforts .

I'd happily provide some nice feeling comments about what I liked about the system, and have because I do like your work, but, time and effort are short, here, and honestly, I thought you'd have enough confidence in your work to tolerate some disagreement.

 

[captainjack23]

EDG writes:
Why should we trust you on that? You're just saying that "it's too complicated to model in an RPG" when it obviously doesn't have to be. Planetary science is a hell of a lot more complicated and detailed than social science and yet I've successfully shown how to model it in an RPG here (as have books like GT:First In). And at the end of the day, surely your opinion is just another opinion on social science that has no more or less validity than mine or Marc's or anyone else's.

Okay, don' t trust me on that. That's actually a good idea.

Look it up, and come up with a discussion based on current literature supporting your changes and position. You know, like in grad school ?

Last comment for now on this thread. Take your time reading up on the literature. I look forward to reading your discussion.
<edit. never never comit to this. It would appear that I do have a bit more to say....to other posters>

However, if you don't have the time or motivation to do so, then I guess you'll have to trust me, or, alternitively, stop demanding proof from others and refusing to provide it yourself. Its always easiest to expect others to do the hard work.

<edited to clear up who I was responding to>

 

[anselyn]

So, yes. change things if you want - just don't argue fact based on age. The research and literature exists if you want to do that kind of a ctitique; but it's big, and rigourous.

I agree with you. I trust your opinion.

I wasn't arguing fact based on age. I was asking for the possibility of change not stating a necessity for it.

Traveller will always tend towards being a system where the game rules become the generic "physics" of the universe rather than rules to enable a game with verisimilitude of a shared literary universe. That's why it's important to have the discussions I've been witnessing here. I congratulate you and EDG for the quality of the rules and the discussion we've seen.

My concern is that the collective project doesn't get sidetracked by, say, giving sanctity to a DM of +1 that was possibly decided fairly arbitrarily at some point in the past.

 

[captainjack23]

So, yes. change things if you want - just don't argue fact based on age. The research and literature exists if you want to do that kind of a ctitique; but it's big, and rigourous.

I agree with you. I trust your opinion.

I wasn't arguing fact based on age. I was asking for the possibility of change not stating a necessity for it.

Traveller will always tend towards being a system where the game rules become the generic "physics" of the universe rather than rules to enable a game with verisimilitude of a shared literary universe. That's why it's important to have the discussions I've been witnessing here. I congratulate you and EDG for the quality of the rules and the discussion we've seen.

My concern is that the collective project doesn't get sidetracked by, say, giving sanctity to a DM of +1 that was possibly decided fairly arbitrarily at some point in the past.

Thats a very reasonable concern, and it helps to hear that now and then. I'm not usually a talmudic type of arguer, generally,
I think I'm trying to base those kind of decisions on a consistent metric (value for effort, and burden of proof for change) ...but I'll think about it.