3D Star Map opinions?

[Madmax]

I'm considering running Traveller in a 3D star map.
In standard Traveller the galaxy is only 1 parsec thick, in real life the Milky Way is around 3 hundred parsecs thick. This means the entire volume of Charted Space of the game could be fit in 1/300th the space shown on, for example, travellermap.com.
To me it seems that having 3 dimensions to choose from when travelling, instead of just 2, may offer many more options to the players, as well as just making the whole experience seem more like actual space travel instead of flat ocean travel.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone has tried running a 3D star map game, and what advantages and/or disadvantages they may have found to it.

 

[tjoneslo]

The biggest difficulty I've found with a 3D map is showing it to players and having them understand it.

There are a whole bunch of ways to represent a 3D map on a 2D page. Or put it up on a computer/tablet screen to be interactive. I've even seen some really cool 3D models.

But the hard part has always been what do I give to my players and have them understand all the relationships. If we're here how where can we go next? If the bad guys are running away, where could they possibly go?

This gets worse with the more stars you try to include in your universe. T:2300 did about a subsector worth of worlds, and that seems to be the largest size I've seen effectively done.

 

[flykiller]

worked for a while on a 3d map depiction, but after a while decided it didn't add anything to an actual game. great fun to play with, sure, "realistic" and all that sure, but irrelevant to an rpg.

 

[flykiller]

I would probably define a subsector as standard 8pc x 10pc, but also either 9pc or 11pc deep (North/South) - i.e. the mean plane of the subsector is at the center, with stars above/below noted in the hex as either ±1 to ±4pc or ±5pc.

pretty much what I did. but depicting multiple systems in one stacked hex, and calculating all the partial jump numbers (1.4 parsecs, 1.76 parsecs, etc) and ruling what jump numbers could jump what partials, got annoying.

 

[whulorigan]

Are you planning on using your own custom setting, or some variant of the Third Imperium?

If the latter, one of the problems you will need to deal with is that 3D will change the trade and communication routes by opening up alternate route possibilities, or drying up existing ones (as connecting-worlds on existing routes might now be bypassed).

Additionally, you will need to consider that exiting "impassible rifts" due to low stellar density may end up having ways around them (i.e. by going over/under the low-stellar density areas).

If I were doing it using Traveller mapping conventions, I would probably define a subsector as standard 8pc x 10pc, but also either 9pc or 11pc deep (North/South) - i.e. the mean plane of the subsector is at the center, with stars above/below noted in the hex as either ±1 to ±4pc or ±5pc. Note that this means that you might have more than one star per "hex", but they might be separated one from another by several parsecs in the z-direction.

Here are some existing threads:

1. Stellar Cartography in a 2D Universe
2. Mapping a new universe
3. My go at a 3D Traveller Sector map
   
4. 3D Map Form
   
5. 2-D vs 3-D Mapping Experiences

 

[whulorigan]

. . . but . . . calculating all the partial jump numbers (1.4 parsecs, 1.76 parsecs, etc) and ruling what jump numbers could jump what partials, got annoying.

I just drop fractions. To get beyond 2pc, you need a J-3 drive, etc.

 

[flykiller]

I just drop fractions. To get beyond 2pc, you need a J-3 drive, etc.

sure. but then suddenly it's much harder to get anywhere with the standard j1/j2 pc boats unless the stars are densely packed. and that's annoying too.

I found that the few players who objected to 2d space were usually satisfied with "3d is difficult to manage, we just do it this way to make it easier".

 

[aramis]

sure. but then suddenly it's much harder to get anywhere with the standard j1/j2 pc boats unless the stars are densely packed. and that's annoying too.

I found that the few players who objected to 2d space were usually satisfied with "3d is difficult to manage, we just do it this way to make it easier".

I've always fallen back on the "JSpace is a planar dimension created by Yaskodray psionicly."

 

[coliver988]

I've always fallen back on the "JSpace is a planar dimension created by Yaskodray psionicly."

I like that. And I've always gone with the map is merely the jump mapping and does not reflect the real 3D space. It gets quite a bit hazy after that of course, but maps are always just a convenience to represent something else.

I've seen several star maps made subway-style, with the understanding of jump gates or other binary-style transportation systems (it is there or not there to paraphrase Yoda)

 

[sudnadja]

I like that. And I've always gone with the map is merely the jump mapping and does not reflect the real 3D space. It gets quite a bit hazy after that of course, but maps are always just a convenience to represent something else.

I've seen several star maps made subway-style, with the understanding of jump gates or other binary-style transportation systems (it is there or not there to paraphrase Yoda)

Do you have a different map for NAFAL travel between the stars, or do you just disallow it completely?

 

[kilemall]

SPI's StarForce had a 1970s map, and their scifi game Universe had an updated one. I got ahold of both, but really didn't see playvalue in them.


The 2300 7.7 LY radiation dump in gravity well bit was again a ship FTL mechanic meant to create nodal stop/encounter systems, different in conception from Traveller but performing the same game function.



So the question you have to ask yourself is what game value are you looking to pull from having a 3-D map and do you want a porous freebooter map or a military/adventure choke point map?

 

[whartung]

Are you making your own stars? Why density are you planning on using?

The biggest problem with 3D maps is simply the vast number of stars.

Consider a generic subsector as 4 parsec radius (it's 10x8 parsecs, being rectangular, but we'll just go with 1/2 of 8).

Your space volume going from 2D to 3D is 530% larger. So, you generic subsector (50% chance of a system) goes from 25 systems to 133.

When you go to a full sector (16 parsec radius), you're talking 2130% larger in 3D. From 400 system to 8000+ systems.

And, of course, if you aren't making your own stars, the ones near us are mostly pretty crummy.

 

[willtron3030]

hooboy.

So I've been playing with 3D maps (again) for about a year now. I started with simple random placement and, well, random was a problem for me. Also, managing coordinates was a bit untidy. So I abandoned random.

I began looking at sphere packing algorithms, and started with hexagonal close packings. Conversions from integer coordinates to actual spatial coordinates was a bit wobbly, and reversing that was a gold-plated pain in the aft compartment.

I'd been intimidated by face-centered cubic packings until I made a simple breakthrough in how I saw the lattice in my head. Envision a 3D space, centered on 0,0,0 where each increment in the X, Y, or Z axes represents a distance of sqrt(2)/2 (~0.707) parsecs, or ~2.306 light years. To create a face-centered cubic packing of systems with close neighbors one parsec apart, only place systems at or near coordinates where the sum of X, Y, and Z is even. Every system has up to twelve neighbors one parsec away. Next, I added a little variance to the calculated positions, using a randomized azimuth, elevation, and distance (up to a quarter parsec). The number of potential destinations for a single jump escalates rapidly, compared to 2D:

jump	2d neighbors	3d neighbors
1	6	12
2	18	54
3	36	176
4	50	380
5	80	766
6	116	1288

I'll skip over the details, but I used NetworkX to look for connected components (mains) for each jump number at various stellar population densities. It converges VERY quickly to a single connected component; at about 0.4, the cluster becomes a huge jump-1 main. The cluster begins to converge at about 0.02 for jump-6.

At any stellar density where jump 1 provides access to more than a few systems, nearly the entire volume is reachable at jump 3 or 4. I've modeled some remedies, none so far to my liking.

• High Density, low tech: You can eventually get most places you want on J1 or J2.
• Diminishing returns: Jumps of higher orders produce smaller improvements (e.g. 1=1.0, 2=1.9, 3=2.6, 4=3.1, 5=3.4, 6=3.5). The cluster still becomes very, very interconnected around J4
• Space is inhospitable: You can go a long way through many systems before reaching one that supports life. Scouts have to be able to jump in *and* out, even if refueling isn't possible in a system, such as multi-stellar systems where planets never formed or were tossed out.
• Jump distances are only partly related to physical distance: THIS is what I'm trying to tweak and model right now. I'd like the scale factor to be deterministic, not arbitrary. I'm modeling jump distances scaled by stellar mass, temperature or luminosity of the origin and destination stars.

 

[willtron3030]

So the question you have to ask yourself is what game value are you looking to pull from having a 3-D map and do you want a porous freebooter map or a military/adventure choke point map?

Exactly the reason I like the idea of having a factor other than simple distance that affects travel. If you can reach more destinations from some stars than others, those hubs become the choke points for military and economic purposes.

 

[coliver988]

Do you have a different map for NAFAL travel between the stars, or do you just disallow it completely?

Honestly it has never come up: why travel for years or decades when a week will do?

For me, it is just part of the game universe, and I am okay with some gross simplifications.

That, and I just like maps in general. I can do 2D maps. The few attempts I've made for 3D maps and modeling, well, lets just say I never got far. And they are a lot harder to share.

 

[sudnadja]

Honestly it has never come up: why travel for years or decades when a week will do?

For me, it is just part of the game universe, and I am okay with some gross simplifications.

That, and I just like maps in general. I can do 2D maps. The few attempts I've made for 3D maps and modeling, well, lets just say I never got far. And they are a lot harder to share.

In T5 there NAFAL travel is common enough that it is mentioned in the rules, yet it doesn't mention jump space and sublight space being different from each other. I do think it would be interesting to split travaller into 3d traveller and 2d traveller, at least for the purposes of mapping, particularly if there is gameplay around earth, where the 3d positions of stars have more meaning and players are more likely to know when stars are placed right next to each other on a 2d map when they are nowhere near each other in 3d space.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone has tried running a 3D star map game, and what advantages and/or disadvantages they may have found to it.

I use them about 1/3 of the time. There hasn't been any advantage or disadvantage to them. They are just 3D is all.

 

[mike wightman]

3D starmaps are great fun to play around with - but at the table in my experience they cause more trouble than they are worth.

 

[Kilgs]

I used Astrosynthesis for my homebrew solo Great Game which was going to be a game setting. The application is wonderful and I love it.

But, as noted above, everyone would have needed to have a copy to experience the map. 2D prints/images were bad looking. Since I was planning on running it online it just stopped being feasible.

Nice thing about AS is that it maps out all the distances for you. Generates planetary maps, you name it. It's an incredible program.

 

[Condottiere]

Three dee star mapping should probably wait until someone generates a computer simulation that you can easily navigate on a tablet, and which would require a rather extensive retconning of Third Imperium astrography.

Probably a lot easier within a single solar system, with rogue comets and off kilter planets.