Hello Phil,

> On November 13, 2019 at 11:20 AM "Phil Pugliese (via tml list)" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
>
> This is where, IMO, too much detail (Hello, MT!), erodes the 'system'.

In my opinion the lack of detail erodes the system worse because there is no information on the fixes you have suggested other than what the designer wrote up in the design.

> There is really no way to know how much of *anything* will be needed in this far, far, future .
> universe to be able to do *anything*.

Practically all of the science fiction stories I've read has "no way to know how much of *anything* will be needed in the far, far future universe to be able to do *anything*. However, the stories are still good reading and Traveller is an ongoing story. Unfortunately, like so many stories that continue for a while details change more often than not with conflicts with earlier stories.

> All we have are some general guidelines, which frequently conflict, and also which, for all we
> know, are the product of bureaucratic decrees rather than actual hard & fast requirements.

Yes, we have a general frame work based on the game designers vision of the far, far future that was written to allow the fans to make up their stories with the caveat that they could modify those guidelines to suit the fans story. The result has been changes or fixes that for whatever reason failed to be included in the 'official' rules.

> Since we can see such things all around us in our present day 'universe', I see no reason to

> expect it to be any different.

> Just consider the difference in habitability requirements for US naval vessels present &
> past. Not to mention the differences 'tween different navies.

I have often had pointed out to me that Traveller is not the real world though there are elements of the real world used as the frame work of the Traveller Universe.

> On November 13, 2019 at 11:02 AM "Phil Pugliese (via tml list)" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:

> Don't forget there are three distinct CT canons involved & conflicting here.

> There is the 'canon' concerning the details of the Xboat design.
> There is the 'canon' of CT LBB2 concerning starship construction.
> There is the 'canon' of CT LBB5 HG also concerning starship construction.

> Following any one of the above will necessarily conflict with the other two.

> That's why I maintain that the idea of 'canon' in the TU has, for all intents & purposes,
> ceased to really exist.

> There are too many contradictory versions of 'official canon'.

> Whenever the 'canon' come up it's always prudent to ask?
> "Which canon?", as there are so many different ones.

I have tried to be clear for the source I have been using with the all of the designs I posted, unfortunately bouncing between the sources has led to errors.

The reason for the conflicts is that the fixes, modifications, or changes where not documented to allow others to recreate the designs.

In the end the fans broke the canon by either adding their own fixes which got published apparently with the documentation of fixes being omitted.

I feel that Donald McKinney made a valiant attempt in his Consolidated Erratas to fix the canon. Unfortunately, he passed away before completing the task which in the case of the design systems probably would not have worked since there is no application that a majority of the fans agree on.

Tom Rux

Tom Rux