mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
We'd first need to know which worlds are going to be detailed in the Grand Adventures.
Gateway systems with descriptions
- Thread starter Morte
- Start date
M
Malenfant
Guest
And um... I just rather brutally reality-checked it. Sorry
And um... I just rather brutally reality-checked it. Sorry
Otherwise I really wonder why you play this game.
I have no problem tweaking the World Builder's Guide level data (especially since the WBD program tends to screw it up anyways).
That said, I am really more interested in comments on the part I did -- the text paragraphs.
M
Malenfant
Guest
I'd really like to see you point out where my "supposed" reality checks have faltered before (where it wasn't a case of "well, the UWPs broken, it's physically impossible as it is", which has occurred many times - but that's not my fault). I'd wager I know a hell of a lot more about planetary science that you ever will, considering that's what my day job is.
I could have been more constructive with you, sure. Fact is though, there are a lot of things that are wrong about world generation in Traveller, and in the explanations that people come up with for the broken UWPs (largely because they don't realise that the explanations don't work). But most of the time there isn't a realistic solution other than to change the UWP. I don't even have to "try hard to find wrong things" - they leap out at me. My comments about health in low gravity may have been speculation, but since nobody's actually tried living in such conditions anyway, any facts on the matter are also likely to be as speculative as anything I say about it. (I'm not aware of any studies about long-term living in lunar gravity - if there are any I'd like to know about them).
Also, IIRC the way WBH figures temperatures is not entirely accurate anyway. I'll have to check up when I get home. (I can't recall how it does it, it's Orbit Factor * (something) * albedo * greenhouse effect isn't it?). The method in GT: First In is much more realistic.
And the text paragraphs are all very well but if the UWP that they're based on is dubious then you may as well ignore realism altogether (it makes me wonder why you bothered generating the WBH stats anyway). As I said though, I find it rather doubtful that anyone would want to build a low-tech enclave in the polar regions of a roastingly hot, very young, low gravity world.
As for why I play the game, I don't
But hey, nobody's forcing you to listen to what I say about it anyway.
The Stoner discussion stands out to me. But to be fair, you didn't start that one. Wasn't is also you who suggested that an Earthlike world couldn't have 80 billion people, and stuck to your guns despite being referred to a study that suggested that it could, in fact, support much more than that?
That's nice. But I am no dunce when it comes to planetary science and I have noticed in these discussions in the past where you have went for the most immmediate explanation or speculated away from explaining the environment instead of towards it.
I appreciate that you know a lot about planetary science and appreciate it when you use your powers for good, not evil.
Oh, I realize that. When I have time to sit down and design the system that shall succeed Traveller
I'll include more realistic world gen. I'll also include things that really bug me, too, like getting rid of artificial gravity and (really, this is the point that makes nitpicking planets seem absurd to me) making 3D star charts.But in the meantime, the effort here is to take canon worlds from Gateway and develop them to something I can actually use on Friday night. Please find your own thread to expound on why UWPs don't work; there are plenty around. I know why they don't work; using my GAME oriented thread as a sounding board for your favored wailing post, albeit that I agree with you that they need fixed, is not helpful.
That's another aspect of your arguments I find dubious -- the thought that people are free to move when and where they please, or don't make ill informed decisions. You may know lots about planetary science, but how much do you know about people and society?
I see. I am looking for interesting places for my much less scientifically inclined than me players to visit.As for why I play the game, I don't- I just talk about it.
Perhaps, but I think the appropriate thing to do is to find or start an appropriate thread about deconstructing the system and post it there. But when I post a thread assuming a canon UWP as a baseline, I don't think that is the right place to use as your sounding board. You may derive satisfaction out of it; my satisfaction comes Friday night.
M
Malenfant
Guest
Sure, an earthlike world might, but nothing will persuade me that a 1000km wide vacuum world like Stoner could.
That's because the immediate explanation is usually what happens. I've said this often, and I'll say it again - the real universe is not full of exceptions, it's full of rules. The Traveller universe, on the other hand, is full of wacky, extraordinary worlds that very often require some very silly, contrived explanations to justify their existence.
Most of the time, the way to make things realistic is not to contrive an unlikely explanation for it - it's to change it so that the explanation is no longer required.
Excuse me for trying to educate people on how the universe really worksI appreciate that you know a lot about planetary science and appreciate it when you use your powers for good, not evil.
And I'm not stopping you from doing that. I just find your explanation somewhat lacking in realism. Realistic does not equal "unplayable".
Jeez, could you be any more sanctimonious?! Are you one of these people who thinks they're somehow better because they play a game instead of talk about it?! This attitude of yours pissed me off while you were on rpg.net too... I was trying to point out the realism flaws in your description, not get on a soapbox about anything. Oh well, since you're making it quite clear that you're not interested in my input then I won't bother commenting on any of your problems again.
Fine. I'm still waiting for you to explain why a low tech primitivist "back to nature" enclave would willingly want to settle on a world that is so darn uninhabitable. I know enough about people and society to know that they're not that bloody stupid. But hey, it's your TU.
Again, being realistic has nothing to do with being "interesting". It's up to you to make it interesting for your players, it doesn't matter if the world is a superdense asteroid with a habitable atmosphere orbiting a supergiant or whether it's a meticulously designed realistic world. I'm not somehow stopping you from doing that.
You posted a description of a world with no stated expectations about how any analysis of it should work. If you didn't want it analysed you should have said so in the initial post, but you didn't. It's not my fault that you didn't make that clear. Believe it or not I was actually trying to point out where your world ran into problems from a realism point of view.
But as I said, I won't bother to comment further if you want to be that ungracious about it.
First off, let me start by saying that I mean nothing personal by this discussion and I really think there is no reason to get upset.
And explanations I have offered in the past have not been farfetched at all. For example, in your last "reality check", you claimed there would be no atmosphere. I said I assumed it was a young world. That is not a stretch.
Redefining the UWPs so the resource is invalid is beyond to point of diminishing returns for what it is worth to play a game for me. So I choose to work with it. Further, exceptions aren't a problem for me. They make things interesting.
However, I don't need to be told that planet generation system has problems again. I already know. And to have you hammer that point home after we have had repeated discussions that should have made clear that I know that is somewhat insulting. And your post came across as very patronizing.
But don't get me wrong. You have given me valuable information and ideas in the past, and I don't want some sort of emnity to form between. So please, continue to comment. But please, don't use it as a chance to tell me that the canon data is screwy. I already know and we have had that discussion before.
That is all I ask. I'm not trying to hurl insults.
And OTOH, nothing you said in that discussion conviced me that it wasn't. So, there's the answer to your question.
Not necessarily so, no. Truth is stranger than fiction and things do turn out different than we anticipate them. For example, what we know now about extrasolar planets is way different than what we expected a mere 20 years ago.
And explanations I have offered in the past have not been farfetched at all. For example, in your last "reality check", you claimed there would be no atmosphere. I said I assumed it was a young world. That is not a stretch.
Sure, and I share that philosophy -- to a point. That point being that I don't want to change the UWP except in the most extreme circumstances. DRAHCIR counts. Stoner does't.
Redefining the UWPs so the resource is invalid is beyond to point of diminishing returns for what it is worth to play a game for me. So I choose to work with it. Further, exceptions aren't a problem for me. They make things interesting.
I was being serious. I do appreciate your input. And I do appreciate when you can tell me something I don't know, like that a stable, potentially life-sustaining atmosphere is possible on tidal locked worlds. That was the root of one of my biggest and most persistent beleivability problems in the Traveller universe. You informed me in a way that lets me enjoy the game more, and I thank you.Excuse me for trying to educate people on how the universe really works
However, I don't need to be told that planet generation system has problems again. I already know. And to have you hammer that point home after we have had repeated discussions that should have made clear that I know that is somewhat insulting. And your post came across as very patronizing.
No, just pointing out that we obviously have different goals and different expectations, and it may be best that certain topics be discussed in different venues. Is that so unreasonable?
Why? For campaign play purposes, it's really not important. Such a fact might come up if I were to write a whole adventure around this world, and that fact was an important peice of background data for the game. But lacking any such intention, I have no need to. Hopefully refs interesting in exploring it in more depth will create a suitable reason.
It was pretty hard for me not to be ungracious when you came across as sitting me down and telling me the facts of life.You posted a description of a world with no stated expectations about how any analysis of it should work. If you didn't want it analysed you should have said so in the initial post, but you didn't. It's not my fault that you didn't make that clear. Believe it or not I was actually trying to point out where your world ran into problems from a realism point of view.
But as I said, I won't bother to comment further if you want to be that ungracious about it.
But don't get me wrong. You have given me valuable information and ideas in the past, and I don't want some sort of emnity to form between. So please, continue to comment. But please, don't use it as a chance to tell me that the canon data is screwy. I already know and we have had that discussion before.
That is all I ask. I'm not trying to hurl insults.
M
Malenfant
Guest
True. But there's still a common underlying logic to how they all work. They're not all crazy one-offs that require a particularly contrived set of circumstances to be able to work (unlike many Traveller worlds, which do seem to be like this).
It would have to be a very young world though - so young that it would be extremely unlikely for there to be any free oxygen in the atmosphere, and also the atmospheric loss rate is likely to be huge. (if the world is that young then the star itself may cause problems by flaring lots too).
A universe full of exceptions is ridiculous to me. Sure you get the odd one here and there, but while each world or star may be unique, they still conform to the same physical laws. And I've already shown that the stellar data that is generated by Traveller canon is drastically unrealistic, so it's should come as no surprise that the UWPs it generates are wrong too.
Even so, being realistic does not mean that a world is somehow rendered boring as a result. Look at the worlds in the GT:Sword Worlds book if you have that - those are as realistic as I could make them within the constraints of the UWP (that was a bugger, I can tell you, and in some cases it was stretched about as far as reality could get) - would you say those aren't "interesting" enough to play in?
I don't know where you read any "patronising" tone in my post, it certainly wasn't intended or written that way. I just listed the problems with your physical assumptions, is all. But again, you never made it clear that you weren't interested in that sort of analysis anyway.
Then please make that clear from the start. I'm not psychic, I can't tell what sort of response you're after when you post things if you don't say what you're looking for.
Because things like that don't happen at random, that's why. Maybe you have a different approach to me, but when I write anything in any game it has to be there for a logical, self-consistent reason. When last I looked it wasn't an axiom of the Traveller setting that people do random things for no other reason than to make an interesting story.
Sure, you can just armwave and say "these people settled on this largely uninhabitable world because they felt like it", but if you do that you should expect awkward questions from people like me asking why they settled there and not a more habitable world that would be more suitable for their chosen lifestyle. If you brushed those questions aside as being irrelevant to your stories then that implies to me that you're not really putting much thought into the consequences and effects of what you write, which is bound to lead to inconsistencies and problems down the line - and god knows Traveller is full enough of that sort of thing already.
Maybe you should try reading what's written instead of what you think the author's attitude is - perhaps you'd be less likely to get people's backs up. I wasn't trying to patronise you at all, and it's not my fault that you took it that way. If that wasn't what you were after, what was wrong with you just saying "thanks, but I'm not after that sort of analysis, here's what I was more interested in?". I certainly don't make it a point to remember what every random person on Coti is interested in, and I think it's unreasonable for you to expect that I do, especially when you don't make that clear in the first place.
But you don't have to understand all of that logic to play a game. Sure, there is obviously some history behind how the colonists got here and why they didn't chose another world if it was a choice at all. But again, unless I am exploring that planet in a game, going into that in great detail is wasted effort for me.
This is where our difference in philosophy lies. Of course we have brought this point up in many thread, so it sort of strikes me as beating a dead horse.
I never said it did. In fact, as I have stated, I would be very interested in writing a "next generation hard(er) SF game" with many more realistic touches, like more realistic star generation. But my purpose now is to play a game using the existing material.
Ah, but were they interesting because of the tweaks you made to make them work?
But no, I don't have it as I do not play GURPS nor in the Marches, currently.
Fair enough. And likewise, many things I have said weren't meant as hostile, but can come across as hostile in a messageboard. So can we bury the hatchet already?
I have no problems if you rip apart the world builder deluxe physical data. That's mutable AFAIAC (and largely junk for that matter; I find I usually have to sit down with a spreadsheet and rework the city populations. BID.) But I am drawing from canon UWP. Suggesting that the world would have to be larger is fine too. But repeating known errors in the overly-simplistic planet gen system which where wrong before I ever started typing is not productive.
Because things like that don't happen at random, that's why. Maybe you have a different approach to me, but when I write anything in any game it has to be there for a logical, self-consistent reason.</font>[/QUOTE]My philosophy is that just because things like that happen at random doesn't mean I have to define it that that much depth. Yes, there is a reason. But unless it is campaign pertinent, there is no reason for me to waste my time coming up with that reason in great depth. The PCs may encounter a dozen worlds in a night of play; I cannot maintain that level of effort maintaining details that never enter play.
This, FYI, is an example of why many of your posts come across as patronizing. At no time did I say they colonized the planet "just because they felt like it." I didn't give a reason. If someone is interested in a reason, they can extrapolate and make one. Like I have done for setting details of settings I have run many times.
People do things in the real world that seem irrational to outsiders who don't have the full story. I don't feel compelled to explain the full story every time. It's just not in my game preparation time budget. Making expansive, realistic histories takes time, and if the players are never going to be exposed to those facts, it is just not worth it to me.
etherflyer
SOC-12
Not a problem in a private game. But I feel that the authors of an official sourcebook owe it to the readers to work those reasons out. After all, part of what they are being paid for is to do the hard work so those of us who just want to play don't have to!
(I write both as player and author here. I like to think we did a decent job with Sword Worlds. I know that we put a lot of effort into trying out different explanations, in order to come up with one that was both plausible and entertaining. Not all of the background made it into the book, but we worked it out nonetheless.)
That depends on the sort of book you are talking about, really. Sword Worlds sounds like a very detailed take on a set of worlds. I really don't expect the brief world descriptions in GtD or the EAs to have the same depth as the worlds detailed in the Sword Worlds book do. I mean it's what, a standard GURPS 128 page book, covering about 1 subsector worth of worlds in depth. GtD is twice as long, but covers a whole domain. Obviously it's going to be less detailed.
But the brief descriptions do give me a starting point to start conceiving my own plots and/or hadling layovers on the world, and give me enough room to expand if needed. Sword Worlds sounds like the sort of book I would use if I wanted to run an extended campaign specifically concerning the Sword Worlds and/or involving details of their history.
Michael Taylor
SOC-13
Quote form malenfant: Sure, you can just armwave and say "these people settled on this largely uninhabitable world because they felt like it", but if you do that you should expect awkward questions from people like me asking why they settled there and not a more habitable world that would be more suitable for their chosen lifestyle.
This is exactly the proble i'm facing trying to justify why 80 BILLION people settled/were born/live on Stoner when there are 3 agricultural earth-like worlds jump1 or 2 away.
It is a real problem. Any suggestions anyone, other than the usual "it was a mining paradise"?
This is exactly the proble i'm facing trying to justify why 80 BILLION
people settled/were born/live on Stoner when there are 3 agricultural earth-like worlds jump1 or 2 away.It is a real problem. Any suggestions anyone, other than the usual "it was a mining paradise"?
M
Malenfant
Guest
More to the point, I think if an author of anything - official or not - doesn't explain why he's set things a certain way (or at least made it obvious by implication), the reader can't tell whether he's thought about it but chosen not to discuss it (in which case, why not?) or whether he's not thought about it in the first place. Justifications are never extraneous, IMO - and I think it's always dangerous to assume that your readers are just going to accept any assumptions you make without question.
This might deserve a few ideas and someone had some good takes on it in the UWP thread.Originally posted by Michael Taylor:
This is exactly the proble i'm facing trying to justify why 80 BILLION
It is a real problem. Any suggestions anyone, other than the usual "it was a mining paradise"?
My other quick take would be that maybe there was a significant habitation on those worlds but were deliberately moved off of it because they ended up needing the natural resources.
I'll revisit this when I get home. It might take its own thread.
M
Malenfant
Guest
...and why didn't they settle on any larger world in the Stoner system? Even a size 4 or 5 vacuum world would at least be a bit less crowded and would have higher gravity too. Or are there no other worlds there?Originally posted by Michael Taylor:
This is exactly the proble i'm facing trying to justify why 80 BILLION
It is a real problem. Any suggestions anyone, other than the usual "it was a mining paradise"?
And do you really need 80 billion people to mine a tiny rockball?! Imagine 80 billion people on our own moon - why would they want to live there?!
