How much detail in a sector supplement?

[mike wightman]

Just wondering what people prefer in sector supplements:

a broad overview and lots of scope for individual referee customisation, the CT S:3 Spinward Marches as an example

or

every detail for every world, GT: Behind the Claw as an example.

 

[rancke]

Just wondering what people prefer in sector supplements:

a broad overview and lots of scope for individual referee customisation, the CT S:3 Spinward Marches as an example

or

every detail for every world, GT: Behind the Claw as an example.

None of the above. This is a false dichotomy. Any supplement has lots of scope for individual referee customisation, and providing every detail for every world in a sector is quite simply impossible (Indeed, providing every detail for a single world is impossible). What BtC provides is a broad overview with lots of scope for individual customisation for each world in the Spinward Marches.

No offense, Mike, but really, to imply that a two-paragraph description of a world provides a detailed picture of it is sheer hyperbole.

To answer the question as best I can, I think that the amount of detail provided in The Traveller Adventure and GT:Sword Worlds is pretty reasonable. However, a sector book with that level of detail would be too thick, take too much effort to write, and too expensive, so I'd say that for practical purposes you probably can't achieve sector books much more information-dense than BtC.


Hans

 

[tjoneslo]

There are some intermediate versions of this. GT:Rim of Fire is an excellent example of balance. A number of important worlds detailed, more space spend on (political, astrographic) overviews of the whole area. The GT version of the UWP has more details than the CT version, and so the tables of stars had more information than the corresponding tables from the Spinward Marches Campaign.

Gateway to destiny (the T20 book with 4 sectors) followed a similar style.

 

[rancke]

There are some intermediate versions of this. GT:Rim of Fire is an excellent example of balance. A number of important worlds detailed, more space spend on (political, astrographic) overviews of the whole area. The GT version of the UWP has more details than the CT version, and so the tables of stars had more information than the corresponding tables from the Spinward Marches Campaign.

Gateway to destiny (the T20 book with 4 sectors) followed a similar style.

I tend to forget about Rim of Fire because I don't do much work in the Solomani Rim, but I shouldn't. In many way RoF is BtC Done Right and a much better example of a detailed sector book (and still very far from being anywhere near overly detailed).

If you (a publisher) is willing to put out a book with page count similar to that of Gateway to Destiny, my suggestion for a sector book would be:

* The sector overview and 14 of the subsectors done to Rim of Fire standard.
* Two subsectors done to Sword Worlds standard.
* Several worlds in those subsectors done to the next higher level of detail.
* At least one, possibly several, adventure locales done to the standard of the Regina Startown campaign (in JTAS Online).

Such a book would really allow players and referees to dive right in.


Hans

 

[Space Hamster]

I like the GT: Behind the Claw approach. The little blurb on the planets is stuff a player can know with a little research and give the GM a jump off point. As a GM you can change anything you want. Chapter one gives you a quick overview to the powers that be. Chapter 2 gives you a quick overview of the races that interact there. Chapter three gives you the little blurb on the planets. Chapter four gives GMs some possible backgrounds.

We have resources like travellermap to get lists of planets.

 

[Dagrill]

To answer the question as best I can, I think that the amount of detail provided in The Traveller Adventure and GT:Sword Worlds is pretty reasonable. However, a sector book with that level of detail would be too thick, take too much effort to write, and too expensive, so I'd say that for practical purposes you probably can't achieve sector books much more information-dense than BtC. Hans

I love all those world maps in Gurps Sword World, brilliant!

Regards

David

 

[whulorigan]

GT:Rim of Fire is an excellent example of balance. A number of important worlds detailed, more space spend on (political, astrographic) overviews of the whole area.

Gateway to destiny (the T20 book with 4 sectors) followed a similar style.

If you (a publisher) is willing to put out a book with page count similar to that of Gateway to Destiny, my suggestion for a sector book would be:

* The sector overview and 14 of the subsectors done to Rim of Fire standard.
* Two subsectors done to Sword Worlds standard.
* Several worlds in those subsectors done to the next higher level of detail.
* At least one, possibly several, adventure locales done to the standard of the Regina Startown campaign (in JTAS Online).

I agree. GT: Rim of Fire, GT: Sword Worlds, and Gateway to Destiny are the level of detail I like. Plenty of room for expansion, but a good solid framework of information to build from. Hans's outline seems like an excellent framework for a Sector Book.

 

[robject]

I tend to forget about Rim of Fire because I don't do much work in the Solomani Rim, but I shouldn't. In many way RoF is BtC Done Right and a much better example of a detailed sector book (and still very far from being anywhere near overly detailed).

[...]

* The sector overview and 14 of the subsectors done to Rim of Fire standard.
* Two subsectors done to Sword Worlds standard.
* Several worlds in those subsectors done to the next higher level of detail.
* At least one, possibly several, adventure locales done to the standard of the Regina Startown campaign (in JTAS Online).

Such a book would really allow players and referees to dive right in.

Let me wrap my head around that. The method has an ever-increasing level of detail focused on an ever-decreasing area of the sector. So to reword your words above:

1. Broad sector overview, however many pages that takes (20 pages).
2. Subsector maps and UWPs for 14 subsectors, with a brief overview/summary of the subsector (call it 30 pages).
3. Subsector maps and UWPs for 2 subsectors, with a paragraph for each world (56 out of 80 worlds, call it 30 pages).
4. Several worlds within those 2 subsectors with a page or two of detail (the remaining 24 worlds, 50 pages).
5. Several locations within those targetted worlds that are expanded out further (a dozen locations, call it 30 pages).

160 pages, approximately?

 

[Kilgs]

I would say Gateway to Destiny level detail. But it's not an option... :-(

Best sector supplement. EVAH.

 

[aramis]

I'd say 1/3 page is good. Enough to provide a hook. Half page if including a map.

BTC was a bad product on several scores - it wastes a paragraph telling what can easily be encoded (a problem, to be honest). The same data as provided in 6-10 lines of text can be put into 5 lines of two (Label: value) pairs, or one line of UWP. Second, it's not well checked against prior canon. Third, the writing is bland in many entries.

Pure UWP's is not as much as I like; for me, the bare minimum is the Judges Guild level - UPPs and a paragraph per subsector, plus a number of major worlds get maps and an extra paragraph, and the major cultures get some ref's notes.

My true preference is for a book that provides a paragraph to 3 paragraphs per system, and an encoded system UWP list.

 

[rancke]

Let me wrap my head around that. The method has an ever-increasing level of detail focused on an ever-decreasing area of the sector. So to reword your words above:

1. Broad sector overview, however many pages that takes (20 pages).
2. Subsector maps and UWPs for 14 subsectors, with a brief overview/summary of the subsector (call it 30 pages).

I haven't worked out the page counts, but these two parts would correspond to the entire Rim of Fire. Or perhaps slightly less.

3. Subsector maps and UWPs for 2 subsectors, with a paragraph for each world (56 out of 80 worlds, call it 30 pages).
4. Several worlds within those 2 subsectors with a page or two of detail (the remaining 24 worlds, 50 pages).

Each subsector should be in enough detail to resemble Sword Worlds. Again possbly a bit less.

At least two worlds (the two subsector capitals) to GT Planetary Survey standard. Possibly a bit less. A couple of other worlds with most different cultures to similar standards.

5. Several locations within those targetted worlds that are expanded out further (a dozen locations, call it 30 pages).

At least one, possibly more, starting areas aimed specifically at beginners.


Hans

 

[Quint]

None of the above. This is a false dichotomy. Any supplement has lots of scope for individual referee customisation, and providing every detail for every world in a sector is quite simply impossible (Indeed, providing every detail for a single world is impossible). What BtC provides is a broad overview with lots of scope for individual customisation for each world in the Spinward Marches.

No offense, Mike, but really, to imply that a two-paragraph description of a world provides a detailed picture of it is sheer hyperbole.

To answer the question as best I can, I think that the amount of detail provided in The Traveller Adventure and GT:Sword Worlds is pretty reasonable. However, a sector book with that level of detail would be too thick, take too much effort to write, and too expensive, so I'd say that for practical purposes you probably can't achieve sector books much more information-dense than BtC.


Hans

Yeah, I'm board with this. I know that people would scream because we're trained to think in terms of "sectors" but I wonder if Quadrant books would make more sense. While I appreciate the sector level of information I've noticed over the years that most of the time, players tend to stay within a subsector sized area most of the time, sometimes ranging across a quadrant-sized area, and only move across a sector-sized area if I have set up an adventure that requires them to do so.

D.

 

[rancke]

Yeah, I'm board with this. I know that people would scream because we're trained to think in terms of "sectors" but I wonder if Quadrant books would make more sense. While I appreciate the sector level of information I've noticed over the years that most of the time, players tend to stay within a subsector sized area most of the time, sometimes ranging across a quadrant-sized area, and only move across a sector-sized area if I have set up an adventure that requires them to do so.

Quadrant books would make a lot of sense. Although I have one problem with the concept, that the Duchy of Regina sprawls across five subsectors and two quadrants. And I'd really like to be involved in writing The Duchy of Regina.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

I think a Duchy of Regina book would be an excellent idea.

 

[Spinward Scout]

35 years and no one has directly tackled the first subsector - Regina. I'd pay good money for a Duchy of Regina book. Especially one which had a limited bibliography of all of the previously published adventures for each of those worlds.

Or a Regina subsector campaign book, similar to The Traveller Adventure.

 

[Timerover51]

35 years and no one has directly tackled the first subsector - Regina. I'd pay good money for a Duchy of Regina book. Especially one which had a limited bibliography of all of the previously published adventures for each of those worlds.

Or a Regina subsector campaign book, similar to The Traveller Adventure.

One problem with that is references to the Regina subsector are spread all over the various rule sets and supplements. You would have to limit it to a specific rule set, and then determine what sources are going to be used. Do you include all of the articles in the JTAS and also anything that shows up in Challenge magazine, along with all adventures published, from Classic to Traveller 5. Would you include all of the information for the Rebellion as well?

I could see one based on Classic with additional information restricted to JTAS 1 through 24, which is readily available.

 

[rancke]

One problem with that is references to the Regina subsector are spread all over the various rule sets and supplements.

Yup. Lovely mass of material to draw from, from The Kinunir to various MgT adventures.

You would have to limit it to a specific rule set, and then determine what sources are going to be used.

Why would you have to do that? Just use it all. Most setting material can be used with any rules and if there is some you can't use, just don't use it.

Do you include all of the articles in the JTAS and also anything that shows up in Challenge magazine, along with all adventures published, from Classic to Traveller 5.

Certainly. I would have to weed out any contradictions and I'm sure there are details that wouldn't be worth the word count to include, but I'd consider any material I could get my hands on.

Would you include all of the information for the Rebellion as well?

Anything relevant, yes. If the module was set in 1105 I would ignore anything that applied to later dates, but anything that could be backdated would be grist for my mill.

I could see one based on Classic with additional information restricted to JTAS 1 through 24, which is readily available.

So can I, but I can't see any reason to apply such a restriction.


Hans

 

[Vargas]

Or a Regina subsector campaign book, similar to The Traveller Adventure.

Swoon . . .

I could see one based on Classic with additional information restricted to JTAS 1 through 24, which is readily available.

That would be my preference as well. I'd be worried that trying to pull in all the various bit and bobs from N different versions of the game would bog it down. YMWV.

 

[rancke]

That would be my preference as well. I'd be worried that trying to pull in all the various bit and bobs from N different versions of the game would bog it down. YMWV.

The writers wouldn't be obliged to include everything.

In fact, the tendency to include everything that has gone before regardless of relevance is one I deplore. Handled right a reference can increase the verisimilitude of the setting, but handled wrong it can sound a note of profound sourness. I remember the Imperial Household Cavalry getting a riding animal that wasn't a horse. Fair enough. But what it did get was an obscure riding animal from an obscure world on the Imperial fringe. Not impossible, no, but I think the kian was used for no other reason than that it was the only (one of the few?) non-Terran riding animal that had been written up, and that didn't feel right to me.


Hans

 

[robject]

Hans, I appreciate your analysis on canon matters. You have a good eye for these things.