Palompi, Planet of Mystery

[jgreely]

Crucis Margin, 1701, X101200-0 600.

Mystery 1: how do 600 people survive on an airless rockball with stone-age technology?

Mystery 2: how does an airless rockball with minimal gravity manage to hang onto 10% surface liquid?

Mystery 3: What possible use does the Free and Holy Federation of Amil have for this rock?

It's their only Jump-2 link with Viyard Concourse, their primary trade partner, so my best guess is that it's a refueling station (ice mine, no local manufacturing) for trade ships, and access is explicitly restricted (class X port) to approved merchant houses to control the flow of TL-14 goods to Viyard.

Perhaps the mining is even performed by people who've tried to smuggle unapproved goods through. Hmm, I think "The Ice Mines of Palompi" has a nice ring to it.

-j

 

[clementk]

Palompi Purgatory Prison Planet?

Amil's Church of Stellar Divinity right? What's the star(s) in the system like?

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by J Greely:
[QB] Crucis Margin, 1701, X101200-0 600.

Mystery 1: how do 600 people survive on an airless rockball with stone-age technology?

They don't .

Mystery 2: how does an airless rockball with minimal gravity manage to hang onto 10% surface liquid?

It doesn't. If you have no surface pressure, you don't have any liquid - it evaporates into space.
Technically (according to books 3 and 6), hydrographics on a vacuum world require that the Ice-capped (Ic) code be added to the data - that seems to have been forgotten here.

Interestingly, in the Judges Guild data there is no population on this planet. (funny. I thought the GtD book was supposed to regenerate the UWPs because the JG stuff was removed from canon??). So at least the X starport makes sense in that case, because there's nobody there.

Oh, and if it was just a case of 'restricted access' then surely it'd just be a Red Zone?

This just reeks of "wrong UWP" to me. Someone forgot to put the Ic code in, and someone didn't check the social data when they added the population.

The simple solution is to add the Ic code and add the minimum TL required to survive on a vacuum world. Unless of course you really want to break your head coming up with an in-game reason to explain something that is very clearly incorrect.

 

[jgreely]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Greely:
Mystery 1: how do 600 people survive on an airless rockball with stone-age technology?

They don't .</font>[/QUOTE]That was my first thought as well, but there's canon support for the TL being what a world can sustain and/or produce goods at (which is in some ways more useful information for the potential visitor as part of a UWP-level summary).

It's quite reasonable to assume that a low-tech world belonging to a high-tech allegiance is supported by out-system resources, particularly if there's an obvious reason to maintain a presence there. In this case, the book clearly states that Amil exports high-tech goods to Viyard Concourse, and Palompi is by far the best way to get there with Jump-2 ships.

Given they've got TL-14, I'd expect most official trade to go direct from Rickamil to Santee in Jump-3 ships, but if there's any smuggling or "informal" traffic between the two allegiances, it most likely passes through Palompi; there's just no reasonable alternative. Since there's no gas giant, the (cough) "surface liquid" on Palompi is the only way to refuel.

And, yes, I do consider it an odd UWP, which is why I posted about it, but I don't think the only, or even easiest, answer is to consider it an error.

Technically (according to books 3 and 6), hydrographics on a vacuum world require that the Ice-capped (Ic) code be added to the data - that seems to have been forgotten here.

I see Ic used a few other places in the book, but not consistently. Flynn did a good job cleaning that up for his GtD SEC files.

Oh, and if it was just a case of 'restricted access' then surely it'd just be a Red Zone?

It would be, if T20 and GtD defined class X starports that way, but they quite clearly don't. Of the 23 class X starports listed, only 4 are also marked as Red Zones. Now, maybe that's a mistake, or maybe the people who created T20 canon don't think "X implies R". But that's a discussion we've already had at length.

This just reeks of "wrong UWP" to me. Someone forgot to put the Ic code in,

Given that trade codes can be deterministically derived from the UWP, it's not so much wrong UWP as "incomplete trade codes".

-j

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by J Greely:

That was my first thought as well, but there's canon support for the TL being what a world can sustain and/or produce goods at (which is in some ways more useful information for the potential visitor as part of a UWP-level summary).

Ugh. That's a useless definition for me. I'd rather know what the TL one would expect to find in the system is. And if people need to use tech to survive in a hostile environment, then that's the tech I'd expect to find, and the number that should be listed in the UWP.

The TL that can be produced tells me nothing about the TL that is actually being used (which I think is infinitely more useful than some armwavy manufacturing definition). Thus we get a situation where a world with hightech pressurised domes somehow gets listed as TL 0.

It's quite reasonable to assume that a low-tech world belonging to a high-tech allegiance is supported by out-system resources, particularly if there's an obvious reason to maintain a presence there. In this case, the book clearly states that Amil exports high-tech goods to Viyard Concourse, and Palompi is by far the best way to get there with Jump-2 ships.

So if it's the best way to get there, why does it have no starport? Why is it chronically undeveloped? If it's the only way through then surely it should have a thriving starport and be a major waystation?

Since there's no gas giant, the (cough) "surface liquid" on Palompi is the only way to refuel.

Well, it's ice. There is no liquid there - liquid cannot survive if exposed in a vacuum, it either freezes or evaporates.

Besides, if you can refuel in a system, and the people in the system work at the refueling site, then surely that means the starport is D, not X.

And, yes, I do consider it an odd UWP, which is why I posted about it, but I don't think the only, or even easiest, answer is to consider it an error.

I think it's certainly the easiest answer. Unless you want to waste your time thinking about how it can make sense. I don't view these contradictory UWPs as "challenges to my imagination", I view them as unecessary errors and wastes of time.

I see Ic used a few other places in the book, but not consistently. Flynn did a good job cleaning that up for his GtD SEC files.

Well, any world with atm 0 or 1 with hyd 1+ should be listed as Ice-capped (though there are some liquids that could survive at certain temperatures in a Trace atmosphere, assuming that is one between 0 and 0.1 atms) - certainly, any world with atm 0 must be Ic.

It would be, if T20 and GtD defined class X starports that way, but they quite clearly don't. Of the 23 class X starports listed, only 4 are also marked as Red Zones. Now, maybe that's a mistake, or maybe the people who created T20 canon don't think "X implies R". But that's a discussion we've already had at length.

I must've missed that. But my point was that if it's restricted (which is your interpretation) then it should be a Red Zone. If it's not listed as such, then either it's wrong, or your interpretation is wrong and it's not restricted.

Given that trade codes can be deterministically derived from the UWP, it's not so much wrong UWP as "incomplete trade codes".

Well, it's a wrong UWP in the sense that there's a population there with no tech support, and a vacuum world with liquid on it.

 

[jgreely]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
So if it's the best way to get there, why does it have no starport?

My point exactly. After all, they went to the trouble of writing up details on the system immediately adjacent to it, so there's a good chance they noticed the UWP. It wasn't fixed, so maybe it wasn't broken.

Or maybe it was a mistake, and my No-Prize is in the mail.

Besides, if you can refuel in a system, and the people in the system work at the refueling site, then surely that means the starport is D, not X.

Right. If you could refuel there, it would be a D. But you can't. From the point of view of someone planning a journey through unfamiliar systems, Palompi is a poor choice of route.

Realistically, I think UWPs are so abstract that they're only useful for people who aren't planning to go there, just pass through on the way to somewhere else. People on Rickamil probably don't even know the UWP for Palompi, and they don't need to; it's right next door, after all, and they've probably owned the place for centuries.

Given that, I can't get too worked up about the oddballs. Change them, explain them, avoid them, whatever. I only brought up Palompi because it amused me. For adventuring in that region, I'm more interested in Arket (A886989-C), which sits at one end of a long string of attractive non-aligned worlds.

Unless you want to waste your time thinking about how it can make sense.

Um, it's a game, so pretty much by definition I'm wasting my time. Obviously, different gamers enjoy different things...

But my point was that if it's restricted (which is your interpretation) then it should be a Red Zone. If it's not listed as such, then either it's wrong, or your interpretation is wrong and it's not restricted.

I don't see an inconsistency. Red Zone means "someone says stay out of this system", X means "there's no known place for J Random Traveller to park his ship if he goes there". Why not? Well, that's more information than you can fit into a UWP, just like there can be a dozen different reasons for declaring a Red Zone. [for instance, in the Spinward Marches, are Lewis (X427402-D), Nirton (X600000-0), and Djinni (E459000-9) Red for the same reason?]

I know what you want them to mean, and I agree that the quote you dug up the last time supports it for other editions of Traveller (as does the best available data I can find for the Spinward Marches sector), but by the book, T20 doesn't do it that way. OTU (T20 edition) separates the concepts of X and R.

Well, it's a wrong UWP in the sense that there's a population there with no tech support, and a vacuum world with liquid on it.

The former is only wrong if you insist on one specific definition for the TL field in the UWP, and the latter is only wrong if you insist that "Ic" is really part of the UWP, not a derivative of it the way the other trade codes are.

I can see legitimate arguments for both views on TL, but I'm leaning toward the one that more closely matches the T20 canon. Which includes Palompi.

-j

 

[Falkayn]

Gee ... sounds interesting. I think Ice Mines of Palompi has a great ring to it - and maybe they don't sell the ice, and that's why it's not in the trade code?

Or maybe it is not so much ice-capped as ice-littered, and so the Ic designation was left off (i.e. ice is present in permanently shaded areas of craters, deep rifts, but not at the poles).

It could be like that ice mine that Kirk got thrown into by the Klingons ... the workers have no decent tech, making do with basically stone-age implements, whilst the guards (who are rotated off-world regularly and are not classified into the UWP have more sophisticated gear). The guards maintain basic life support functions for everyone at a higher than stone-age level (which is how they survive), but for UWP purposes the local TL is 0.

The starport is even easier to explain as canon has plenty of references to private starports that do not affect the UWP ... the # and type of starports is of vital interest to any traveller going through a place, but that is simply not covered by the UWP.

But where do UWPs outside the Imperium come from anyway? The IISS? Who would trust those slimeballs to get anything right if it was more than 2 parsecs off their primary trade routes? If the UWPs aren't IISS, then how can you trust the locals to give you good data? If it comes from some traders guild then you can be sure it's full of holes wherever some important guildmember has a secret to keep.

UWPs are good guides, but IMO flaws in them are more interesting when roleplayed around rather than simply jumped up and down on.

 

[Malenfant]

I view UWPs as an objective tool for GMs to understand what a system is like. As such, they're never inaccurate because of some in-game reason - if a class C starport has been destroyed since the last survey, then it'd be listed as X in the UWP, so the GM knows it's destroyed. Now, maybe a GM would fiddle with the UWPs and hand that to the players so that they still think it's a class C, but the GM has to know what's really going on in the sector and the published UWPs are the only way be consistent about that.

The problem is when provided UWPs are just plain wrong, which gives the GM headaches trying to figure out how to make sense of them. This results in inconsistencies in their interpretations, making the idea of an OTU even more farcical as everyone tries to come up with their own different explanations.

 

[jgreely]

I view UWPs as a tool for both players and GMs, and as such, they're only as accurate as the GM decides they should be. If a class C starport has been destroyed since the last survey, then starmaps available to someone in another sector will continue to show it as a class C until the news has not only propagated, but been independently confirmed. For worlds outside the Imperium, that could take years.

I think it's reasonable to assume that anything printed in GtD is available to players and their characters. That means it was the most recent published information available on the planet the campaign started on, when their first adventure started. If they spend the next six months in the Alpha quadrant of Ley, their information on the Delta quadrant of Crucis Margin will just be that much more out of date, freeing up the GM to make whatever changes he wishes.

-j

 

[mike wightman]

Since the subject of refueling in this system has come up here's something that never made it into Traveller AKAIK, even though it is in Imperium and Dark Nebula.

Tankers are mobile stations {ships in DN} capable of manufacturing fuel directly from stellar atmospheres.

 

[Flynn]

Thanks for the compliments, guys, for those that noticed and mentioned the updated trade codes in my GtD *.sec files.

Personally, to resolve some of these issues, I've written a Data Cleanser subroutine that I run on UWPs I use for my game, which tidies up a lot of the random data so that it's easier to make sense of it.

The Data Cleanser will:</font>

• Assign Red and Amber Zones according to my personal criteria (inspired by Galactic and MWM's code in Challenge #26);</font>
• Raise low TLs of populated worlds to the minimum needed to survive within a particular atmosphere;</font>
• Raise the TL of populated worlds with B-class starports to TL6, to support spacecraft construction;</font>
• Raise the TL of populated worlds with A-class starports to TL9, to support starship construction;</font>
• Make unpopulated worlds barren, i.e. X???000-0 (or alternatively, giving a population to non X-class worlds with no population, then regenerating Government, Law Level and Tech Level, for stricter AotI adherence.)</font>
• And finally recalculate trade codes.</font>

This is, of course, only if I want to keep the UWPs as close to Atlas of the Imperium standards as possible, while making them easier to work with creatively. Afterwards, I tend to go through and have a more hands-on approach to modifying UWPs, if I have a particular purpose in mind.

This way, I can make a few exceptions if I want to, and remove the rest that might come from a random generation method.

I did not do this with the GtD *.sec data, because some of the published adventures capitolize on those exceptions, and I wanted to provide data that was accurate to that published by QLI.

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

What? Ships can refuel from stars now?! (Oh I see, it didn't make it into the game. But then, why is it that things like GT:IW are referring to Imperium for lots of its history, but conveniently ignoring that?)

 

[jgreely]

Originally posted by Flynn:
I did not do this with the GtD *.sec data, because some of the published adventures capitalize on those exceptions, and I wanted to provide data that was accurate to that published by QLI.

Ditto. One of the primary reasons I wrote sec2pdf was so I could modify sector data as I saw fit and then produce good-looking maps that matched. For general use, however, I think it's important to be able to produce maps that match official sources and errata.

In other words, if Hunter drops in and says that Palompi was a horrible mistake and should really have a different UWP, I'll cheerfully change it.

-j

 

[mike wightman]

There are other bits that are ignored in Traveller as well, such as planets could be terraformed in 100 years, and the Imperium had visited Earth many years before, during the Summerian era.

 

[Flynn]

Yeah, but who wants to ignore cool things like that?

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[mike wightman]

If Imperium and Dark Nebula are meant to be true histories of the OTU then the things I've mentioned should be allowed in Traveller - but then, the various versions aren't without their own peculiarities.
Unless the paradigm shift/alternative universe card is played

 

[Malenfant]

This is why I wish Marc (for he is the ultimate arbiter of all things Trav) would just pipe up and say "OK. that early stuff is a mess. Here's how it's all supposed to work/how it really happened/the best solutions proposed by people in the Trav community, and this time it's consistent".

Though I guess (a) people would probably still argue about it, or (b) maybe he just likes things to be left ambiguous so people can argue about it and solve things their own way, or (c) he doesn't have the time and/or inclination to fix things, or (d) people would complain about the solutions anyway, or (e) something I forgot, or (f) any/all of the above .

 

[RainOfSteel]

Well, I, for one, would be happy if Marc did such a thing. Especially if the fabled Second Survey just came out and said it. "It the beginning, it was all a mess; it was the best mess we could do, but we're redoing it, and so here it is." Actually get it in print.


Yes, there would be endless kibitzing, but we have that already, so it changes nothing.

Also, IMO, once the quality of such a "fix" began to show itself in the long run, most people would come over.