|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 7, 2018 5:57:25 GMT -6
I'm sure this has been debated feverishly elsewhere (like CotI); I haven't checked yet. According to the "Errata" for CT, planetary hydrographics should be calculated using 2D -7 + atmosphere. But as far as I can tell, it only states this in the text of the '81 edition (and the Starter set). Everywhere else ('77 text and checklist, '81/Starter checklist, Traveller Book text and checklists) it's 2D -7 + size. It just doesn't make sense to me (from a game perspective - not a "scientific" perspective... classic Traveller isn't really meant to be a "hard sci-fi" game). Using size makes all of the possibly generated values for hydrographics a smooth progression, and you're more likely to come up with low hydrographics on worlds with no/little atmosphere, or exotic+ atmospheres (unless the world is big). If atmosphere is used instead of size, it generates a non-contiguous set of numbers (because of that -4DM for atmospheres >9) that give a much better chance for the presence of water (even at the atmospheric extremes). And why subtract atmosphere and apply a -4DM for extreme atmospheres? I've always used size in the calculation and I take no issue with it, so I will likely continue to do so. What I want to know is, why is this official errata? Is it official? How were the Spinward Marches' hydrographics generated? Does one ruling or the other make more sense (yeah, I know... science)? Am I making sense? Has anyone else ever been bothered by this? There are other inconsistencies in the errata as well (I'm looking at you, Weapons Tables!), so I wouldn't be surprised if this is a mistake. (Feel free to educate me, call me an idiot, tell me to ease off on the wine, or tell me I'm "straining at gnats."  ) |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 8, 2018 3:48:58 GMT -6
There's also mention of this in "SS4: The Lost Rules" (included on the updated CT CDROM), but I don't believe SS4 was ever printed. Am I wrong? SS4 seems to be a recent digital creation and not a scan of original material (like most things on the CDROM).
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Aug 8, 2018 7:20:14 GMT -6
I don't know, but I am interested in the answer as well. The text of Vol 3 '77 says Size, and makes a further note about the Hydrographics being 0 if the Planetary Size is 0 or 1. Then it gives the modifiers based on Atmosphere.
So I'd say it's one more thing that was okay in the original rules, but somebody changed it after the fact and put it into the errata (for whatever reason).
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Aug 9, 2018 16:10:04 GMT -6
The text for TTB and ST also both have Hydro = 2D - 7 + Atmosphere. To some extent, it makes sense to me, so I now use 2D - 7 + Atmosphere, but 2D - 7 + Size works just fine also.
As to how the worlds in the Spinward Marches were generated, it's not clear how many were generated totally randomly and how many were hand picked to at least some degree. I also know world data has changed over the editions of the Spinward Marches and there is lots of discussion over at CotI about it.
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 10, 2018 8:59:00 GMT -6
You want to head over to the SFRPG forums and ask the Evil Doctor Ganymede.  About 10 or 12 years ago a bunch of us wrote a Spica Sector supplement for Classic Traveller, and EDG came up with some cool mods to make the CT world gen make a bit more sense without completely re-writing it. I don't remember the details, though. And then MM gave a licence to Mongoose and everyone else's permits went poof  This thread might be of interest: www.sfrpg-discussion.net/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=3192 |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 12, 2018 2:09:03 GMT -6
You want to head over to the SFRPG forums and ask the Evil Doctor Ganymede. About 10 or 12 years ago a bunch of us wrote a Spica Sector supplement for Classic Traveller, and EDG came up with some cool mods to make the CT world gen make a bit more sense without completely re-writing it. I don't remember the details, though. And then MM gave a licence to Mongoose and everyone else's permits went poof This thread might be of interest: www.sfrpg-discussion.net/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=3192Hmmm... says I have to log in when I click on that link... |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 12, 2018 2:10:55 GMT -6
Thanks fellas. It's definitely not game breaking; I was just curious about the "history" of it I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Aug 13, 2018 9:09:46 GMT -6
I used to use Size, until last year when I adjusted it to Atmosphere after reading the errata. It works ok either way, but I sort of like the way it cascades - Size affects Atmosphere, which affects Hydrographics
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 13, 2018 20:15:39 GMT -6
I'm sure it doesn't really make a big difference anyway, but it just seems like it was an oddly conceived afterthought and not really errata. If atmosphere is being used to calculate hydrographics, why "double-dip" and subsequently apply a DM for atmosphere? Why not drop the DM if one is using the planet's atmosphere in the calculation?
The errata document as a whole isn't really errata in my opinion - it tries too hard to make all four editions the same rather than simply correcting proofing/printing mistakes. For instance, why backport newer material to the original '77 rules from the later CT editions? Those changes to later editions were changes to that edition, not changes to the original rules. It would be like putting out an additional supplement to OD&D after the release of AD&D to make the two games the same...
The errata just seems like more of a fan-generated document than anything official. Plus it makes CT look like a big mess ("They left out all of this stuff? What a terribly written game!"). It seems to me one could easily get away with ignoring the document all together and just sticking with one edition of the CT rules for sake of simplicity.
Anyway, just my rambling opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Aug 14, 2018 9:27:57 GMT -6
Some good points
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Aug 14, 2018 11:37:40 GMT -6
I think you have a certain rightness to the errata. The errata are recognized as "official" by Marc Miller, but they were clearly the personal project of Don McKinley. It's pretty clear he dismissed 1977 (maybe his first set was 1981). It does seem like he wanted 1981 to be the "same" as The Traveller Book, so any changes between 1981 and TTB are back ported to 1981. Then a few things did get lost between 1977 and 1981. They have been forward ported as errata.
My personal take on the specific issue is that I see the sense of the 1981 rules for Hydro, so I use them. Honestly it doesn't make much matter either way, the numbers are a set of random numbers with some internal logic to them that may or may not be realistic. But they are just a random setting generator. That's cool. I have changed some worlds so the UWP matches or works with an adventure I want to make use of. I reserve the right to make other changes.
In a wider scope, I am using 1977 as my rule base, but there are bits and pieces I like from 1977 or even The Traveller Book, so I incorporate them into my game. I try and make note in my house rules, but don't always succeed. Many of them are really only GM visible rules so if they don't make it into the house rules it's not the end of the world. I have even used a bit or two from the errata.
Frank
|
|
)
