UWP spelled out in Adventures?

[Supplement Four]

I was looking through S&P recently, and I spied a Traveller scenario. So, I took a look at it, which leads me to this question.

I saw the UWP, and then, right below it, taking up space, the entire UWP is spelled out.

The whole purpose of the UWP is to save space and present an entire world using just a few codes strung together.

Is this practice held throughout all MGT adventures, where, right under the UWP, it is spelled out that the world has a breathable atmosphere or a balkanized government type--when we already know that from the code?

If so, it seems like a waste of space.

If not, then maybe it was just this one magazine article writing trying to be...what? Complete?

 

[FreeTrav]

The definition of the UWP is in the Traveller Core Rules. However, it's not unusual for source material - for example, a planetary writeup in a magazine - to be potentially useful in a system other than the writeup was aimed at, and not everyone who reads Signs and Portents is necessarily going to be playing Traveller. Given that, it makes sense for a multi-system-targeted publication to go beyond game-specific info, and provide both the targeted-system expression of the data, and a full explanation of what it means (for those who are not using the targeted system).

Were the magazine specific to Traveller, I would agree with you about the waste - but I don't see a reason to complain about S&P.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

The UWP is the equivalent of a zip file. It compresses the data. I dunno about anyone else, but I prefer the actual information rather than having to unpack it myself.

The UWP only has utility if space is scarce, so really, unless you are trying to pack a whole sector into a 30 page book, there's not really much need for it.

Anyway, it is not as if it saves that much space, as a UWP can be described in a couple of sentences. When, for an adventure, you need to add all the info the UWP does not contain, another line or two is hardly breaking the word count bank.

 

[Supplement Four]

My question is: Is it normal in MGT materials to use the UWP and then explain it in a paragraph? Or, just see the UWP?

 

[Garuda]

I would expect that an offical core book or supplement published by MGT would likely give the UWP only.

However, S&P is a bit different. Much of the material published is from contributors. This means that writing styles may vary but I know that S&P are now looking to be far more uniform in presentation.

The UWP in its abbreviated form actually gives only a range for some of the statistics such as size and hydrographics. An elaboration given afterwards will usually provide more precise detail for the reader. Also, not everybody knows 'off by heart' the UWP (I certainly don't) and an elaboration saves a Referee having to look up the detail each time.

Unless the UWP is one of several in a list I don't see the harm in providing an elaboration of detail for the convenience of the reader.

Just my tuppence worth. 8)

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

S4: From what I have seen, YES, it is typical for the Mongoose publications to list both the UWP and the explanations.

 

[dmccoy1693]

My question is: Is it normal in MGT materials to use the UWP and then explain it in a paragraph? Or, just see the UWP?

The spinward marches book has only the UWP's listed.

 

[Bygoneyrs]

To be honest it would be best if Both the UWP and a description were to be included to spell it out and add character and details for eveyone to know what the flavor of the world should be.

Penn

 

[EDG]

UWPs are handy shorthand in subsector lists, but IMO that's about it. I'd rather see a text description of the planet.

 

[dmccoy1693]

UWPs are handy shorthand in subsector lists, but IMO that's about it. I'd rather see a text description of the planet.

I wrote up a series of planets (two of which were published by Mongoose in Signs and Portents) that had a UWP and a longform write up of the UWP. Are these what you're referring to S4?

 

[Supplement Four]

Are these what you're referring to S4?

Naw, I think it was Part II of an adventure in #67 or so.

Anyway, it's of little consequence. I was just wondering how the "Mongoose form" was in official supplement. This confirms something about MGT I already believed, but it's not worth going into here.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[The Chef]

i like the way planets are descripted in SM.

you have the UWP for the basic details, with the more interesting points made clear in the text. this is how planets should be described.

But i also like it when as a gm i don't have to wrack my brains working out the uwp and it is presented in text form. makes for good information for the pcs.

Chef

 

[Garuda]

This confirms something about MGT I already believed, but it's not worth going into here.

Wow. Sounds like something sinister? :twisted:

 

[EDG]

This confirms something about MGT I already believed, but it's not worth going into here.

Wow. Sounds like something sinister? :twisted:

S4 has a history of complaining - a lot - about MGT on That Other Traveller Board. I wouldn't encourage him to elaborate here as it will only end in flames.

 

[Supplement Four]

S4 has a history of complaining - a lot - about MGT on That Other Traveller Board. I wouldn't encourage him to elaborate here as it will only end in flames.

Yep, it's no secret that I have a lot of issues with MGT. But, I didn't start this thread to talk about them. I was only curious about the UWP being spelled out along with the codes.

 

[Garuda]

S4 has a history of complaining - a lot - about MGT on That Other Traveller Board. I wouldn't encourage him to elaborate here as it will only end in flames.

I was being flippant.

I’m struggling to understand how S4 believes that making a referee’s job easier is a problem or how this ‘confirms something’ he believes about MGT.

 

[Supplement Four]

I’m struggling to understand how S4 believes that making a referee’s job easier is a problem or how this ‘confirms something’ he believes about MGT.

That's funny. You and Edg automatically assume what has been confirmed for me is negative.

Heck, maybe it's positive.

Either way, I really never intended this as flame bait, so I'm not going down that road. I got my answer. Thanks to those who participated.