Evolution of TRAVELLER star generation

[Hal]

Hello folks,
This directed at the powers that, along with those who might grapple with the following issue:

When TRAVELLER first started, generating star system data was largely met by the simple "main world" concept - one main world per system hex. Then came book 6 Scouts. That introduced multiple stars per hex. Thing is, no one ever seemed to expand on that when MegaTraveller first came out, or in the years thereafter.

My question is this:

If main worlds are generated for M4 V stars, why aren't main worlds generated for companion stars that are distant companions?

At this stage of the game so to speak, I'm thinking that TRAVELLER needs to evolve so that the blind spot we have today is dealt with.

To wit:

All hex identification numbers need a new component. Since the game rules will likely be computerized at some point in time, might I suggest the following system and why.

All hex number Id values take the form xxyy:A

The reason? It won't change existing files too much. In addition, the symbol ":" can easily be trapped for in programming. Each companion system data can now be expanded upon with throwing too much of a curveball into the works, and encourage GM's to start populating companion star systems instead of leaving them depopulated. If Imperial citizens will populate an M4 V star system with only one star in that system, then the would populate a far companion as well.

The secondary value after the ":" need not be a letter, it can be a number instead. Thoughts?

 

[flykiller]

If main worlds are generated for M4 V stars, why aren't main worlds generated for companion stars that are distant companions?

they can be, not a problem, roll the dice and there you go. the only issue is now you have two "main worlds" that are in one hex but in jump terms that hex is now divided into sub-hexes. this makes for messy official maps, but for your own imtu atu house-rule maps it's not an issue.

At this stage of the game so to speak, I'm thinking that TRAVELLER needs to evolve so that the blind spot we have today is dealt with.

you can always deal with it yourself. imtu atu house-rule IS traveller evolution.

 

[whartung]

I don't think the extra secondary value is necessary.

We already have to potentially manage dozens of bodies in each system, each of which can potentially have an individual UWP and star port and act as a jump destination.

One of the worlds will simply be "more main" than the other and that one "wins the hex".

 

[flykiller]

We already have to potentially manage dozens of bodies in each system, each of which can potentially have an individual UWP and star port and act as a jump destination ...

... and as a source of adventures! more worlds! one could be pop9industrial and the other could be pop7ag, think of the possibilities! trade, corporate espionage, politics, overt/covert military actions, trade war, safaris, phloston paradise cruise ships - without having to deal with jump! sounds great.

 

[welsh]

One world per hex is an arbitrary rule intended to do what Traveller does well: to simplify things.

 

[flykiller]

traveller is supposed to provide a gaming environment. simple or complex, so long as it's good, it's all good ....

 

[Hal]

One world per hex is an arbitrary rule intended to do what Traveller does well: to simplify things.

That's kind of like inventing all these wonderful things to make a car more efficient, and then leaving the throttle in the steering column or the high beam buttons on the floor.

Visiting scout: "This is a primary star system with a companion system. I see all this stuff in this system, I wonder what is in the companion star system?"

Local 1: "Oh nothing. It doesn't have a main world, so nothing is worth visiting it for, and no one wants to go there"

Local 2: "not even the criminals will go there, because there is no main world!"

Local 1: "Say, don't you know that no one ever comes back from going to a companion star system?"

Ten years later...

Scout 2: "Gee, Scout 1 never came back. I wonder what is in the companion star system..."

It almost makes for a Murphy's rules style cartoon.

 

[flykiller]

I wonder what is in the companion star system...

the planet of lonely star system companion girls.

would you come back?

 

[aramis]

On inhabited world per system is the general simplification in most Space Opera Sci-Fi.

EG:

• In Niven's Known Space, we know almost nothing about the system Jinx, We Made It, or Kzin is in, except the mainworld and primary star.
• In Star Trek, only a few episodes have two worlds of note 3 of them IIRC. 2 of which are shown as being at war. The third is never actually seen, just referenced in dialogue - Romulus/Remus.
• In Bujold's Vorkosiverse, only one system besides Sol has more than one significant inhabited world - Jacksons' Whole. In fact, most "multi-place" systems in that setting are multiple stations, with no significant planet-bound society.
• Niven and Pournelle's CoDo setting (Used in the Falkenberg and Motie series), again, 1 world per system is habitable - and so the rest are essentially ignored, or used solely as "terrain" for space battles.
• McCaffrey's various sci-fi works generally have one inhabited world per system. Several, tho', have 2.

It's a genre reflection rule.

 

[flykiller]

On inhabited world per system is the general simplification in most Space Opera Sci-Fi ... It's a genre reflection rule.

for many people traveller's "big attraction" is its semi-scientific semi-real-world approach. anyone who wants space opera would be better served by d&d-in-space. if one wishes space opera there's no need for "planet generation systems", just fat-lady it into existence and there we are.

 

[aramis]

for many people traveller's "big attraction" is its semi-scientific semi-real-world approach. anyone who wants space opera would be better served by d&d-in-space. if one wishes space opera there's no need for "planet generation systems", just fat-lady it into existence and there we are.

Marc has explicitly stated (last month) that Traveller was never intended to be Hard Sci Fi; it's always been Space Opera.

The implication is that those using it for hard sci-fi are using it off-label, and the issues they have may be their own fault.

 

[creativehum]

On inhabited world per system is the general simplification in most Space Opera Sci-Fi.

EG:

• In Niven's Known Space, we know almost nothing about the system Jinx, We Made It, or Kzin is in, except the mainworld and primary star.
• In Star Trek, only a few episodes have two worlds of note 3 of them IIRC. 2 of which are shown as being at war. The third is never actually seen, just referenced in dialogue - Romulus/Remus.
• In Bujold's Vorkosiverse, only one system besides Sol has more than one significant inhabited world - Jacksons' Whole. In fact, most "multi-place" systems in that setting are multiple stations, with no significant planet-bound society.
• Niven and Pournelle's CoDo setting (Used in the Falkenberg and Motie series), again, 1 world per system is habitable - and so the rest are essentially ignored, or used solely as "terrain" for space battles.
• McCaffrey's various sci-fi works generally have one inhabited world per system. Several, tho', have 2.

It's a genre reflection rule.

I've only read a few of them, but the Dumarest books seems to follow this model as well.

For Traveller the model matters because of the core SF conceit:
Communication moves at the speed of travel

Because of this distinctly different cultures spread across the stars remain distinct and alien

It also makes those who travel between the stars (Travellers) a unique type of person.

 

[welsh]

That's kind of like inventing all these wonderful things to make a car more efficient, and then leaving the throttle in the steering column or the high beam buttons on the floor.

True, but it's only an issue when Book 6 comes along.

Is there any reason there couldn't be two entirely independent stars in the same hex? Nope. It's just a rule that's there for simplicity. This simplification gave us a mapping convention that Book 6 chooses not to break.

Some interesting scenarios could come out of generating a mainworld in the companion system. But I think a system with two interesting "mainworlds" is likely to be rare.

 

[flykiller]

those using it for hard sci-fi are using it off-label

gosh. who knew?

Marc has explicitly stated (last month) that Traveller was never intended to be Hard Sci Fi ... the issues they have may be their own fault.

more than one major world in a hex is a fault? ok, I'll take that fault and give me more, love 'em. been house-ruling for 30 years, ain't gonna stop now.

marc, love your game, partly because there's more to it than you anticipated.

 

[flykiller]

But I think a system with two interesting "mainworlds" is likely to be rare.

given that half of all star systems are multiples one might expect such situations to be almost common. of course one may decree so or otherwise according to what one is willing to referee.

 

[welsh]

given that half of all star systems are multiples one might expect such situations to be almost common. of course one may decree so or otherwise according to what one is willing to referee.

The key word there is "interesting." Of course, this depends what you define as interesting ... but a lot of worlds in the Imperium are low-pop backwaters.

And if we generate these alternate mainworlds within an existing mapped sector, we need to impose a rule that the second mainworld can't have a better starport, higher tech etc., than the existing mainworld, else we are redrawing the map ... this tends to push them to be backwaters.

Now, if generating a subsector from scratch, things do get much more interesting.

 

[Timerover51]

Following up a previous comment, both Andre Norton and H. Beam Piper tend to have only one main world per system, but Norton does vary from this in her novel Voodoo Planet of the Solar Queen series, where there is two inhabitable worlds, Xecho and Khatka, orbiting the same star.

Xecho is described as follows.

This water-logged world combined all the most unattractive features of a steam bath and one could only dream of coolness, greenness—more land than a stingy string of islands.

Khatka is described as similar to Africa.

In Storm Over Warlock, Norton mentions two other planets in the Circe star system, both uninhabitable: Witch and Wizard.

Piper mentions more than one planet per system a couple of times, but in neither case are they viewed as main worlds. There is the planet Abaddon in the Marduk system in Space Viking, about in the same position as Pluto in our system. He also has the Garner Trysystem in The Cosmic Computer.

 

[whulorigan]

Is there any reason there couldn't be two entirely independent stars in the same hex? Nope. It's just a rule that's there for simplicity. This simplification gave us a mapping convention that Book 6 chooses not to break.

Some interesting scenarios could come out of generating a mainworld in the companion system. But I think a system with two interesting "mainworlds" is likely to be rare.

Just as an interesting side-note, the old Paranoia Press Sectors (Vanguard Reaches and Beyond, ca 1980 & 1981) had a few hexes with multiple mainworlds. The sector-hexmap had two dots in those particular hexes.

 

[GypsyComet]

The definition of "Main World" is per hex, so there will be only one. Companion stars can have populated worlds, but since only one world is the "Main", all others are lesser in some respects. All advanced system generation rules across editions use limits on population and Tech Level and impose the status of "spaceport" on other worlds.

You could ignore one or all of these limits for your purposes, BUT there is nothing in the rules stopping you from having two or more *significant* worlds in a system.

Modern understanding of gas giant radiation belts aside, a large gas giant in the habitable zone could host quite a few shirtsleeve moons. Under standard rules one of them would have more people and higher tech, and have the designated starport, but if that world has billions of people and a sufficiently high TL, the other moons can easily host hundreds of millions of people each, have good port facilities, and match or come close to the same TL. It is barely a stretch of the rules to say that ship building is dispersed among the moons, as long as the "main" has an A Port. Political rivalries and corporate scofflaws can put the lie to the idea of Gov 6 and Gov 1 secondary worlds being politically subordinate, and of course it all breaks loose if the main world is Balkanized.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

One factor in this discussion might be the role and capabilities of terraforming...

One inhabitable main world per system is the default by conventional thinking, as so ably expounded upon by Aramis (Thanks for the great listing, really brought back the memories), but what happens when technological species start using terraforming, or planet-forming, to build additional comfortably inhabitable environments? Literally changing desert to garden? Or vice-versa? Swamp to farmland... Maybe Bwaps change farmland to swamp... Who knows?

Or, for that matter, what happens when unconventional life is considered. A jovionoid gas-giant dweller or vacuum-dwelling open-space species really complicates what is inhabitable in the first place. What about mineral-based life, silicoids perhaps, not based upon meaty carbon-oxygen liquid biochemistries?

Other sci-fi authors have explored those trope and even based entire plot lines and arcs on various differing species (...not your run-of-the-mill oxy-breathing humanoid) wanting different things out of a system of worlds. Some have them coexist (...they mostly want different resources and worlds, right?) , but then others have them find the "other" abhorrent and quickly degenerate to violence. Jihad for fun, pleasure, compulsion, and competitive advantage?

Machine life throws even one more wrench into the works. Surely, the possibility exist that machine life could arise and evolve on its own rather than wholly (wholely) be considered "artificial". Maybe such life is mineral-based...

Fun stuff to ponder, and from my limited understanding of Traveller, fully compatible with the basic Traveller game system and classic background.

I loved many of the early Classic Traveller materials, especially the FASA ones, which often explored such themes.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.