Settings: Near Earth or in a Galaxy Far, Far Away?
- Thread starter Golan2072
- Start date
I prefer to work in the Spinward Marches. That's because I think it takes a huge amount of work to describe an SF campaign background in enough detail to provide the minimum background information players deserve, and in the TU the Marches is closer to reaching that minimum than any other region. If a lot of people work hard on it, we might actually get there one of these decades. So I try to do my bit
.Hans
I like the mixed TL and uneven development of the Spinward Marches. The Solomani rim is to developed and High tec for my taste. Allso I like the mix of Aslan, Darrian, Droyne, Vargr, Zhodani, ect. It has a more lawless and fronter feeling, in many sub-sectors. Yet the trailing parts and into the adjacent spinward parts of the Rift sector while being safer, have the same uneven develoment and mixed TL, to run low combat games in.
I always liked the Known Space situation. Imperium in the middle of a few equal powered polities and a couple of possible exploration areas. Spinward Marches as the main area to start. Earth somewhere over that way on the other side of the Rift. But... I like faster Jump Drives and I think the TL's should reflect an Interstellar government - at least TL-9 to participate unless a preserve world or such. Low TL's should be more rare, I think.
casquilho
SOC-13
If playing Traveller I like to use the space as defined by the OTU.
If I am doing some other SciFi then I do not want Earth at all. Too many things tied to real life and it is better for Earth to not exist per say.
Of course that is a generic answer, I am open to many other ideas I have seen over time.
Daniel
If I am doing some other SciFi then I do not want Earth at all. Too many things tied to real life and it is better for Earth to not exist per say.
Of course that is a generic answer, I am open to many other ideas I have seen over time.
Daniel
I currently use the "Honorverse" of David Weber's Honor Harrington novels as
the background universe of my setting, more because of the detailed political
situation than because of any militaria (and mainly because I was too lazy to
create my own background universe ...).
So, Earth does exist, and in a way is still important, but it is far, far away
from the region of my immediate setting, at the "other end" of the part of the
Galaxy that was explored by humans.
the background universe of my setting, more because of the detailed political
situation than because of any militaria (and mainly because I was too lazy to
create my own background universe ...).
So, Earth does exist, and in a way is still important, but it is far, far away
from the region of my immediate setting, at the "other end" of the part of the
Galaxy that was explored by humans.
beowulf2044
SOC-12
Science Fiction Adventure on the Edge of Tomorrow
I've loved Traveller since 1979, but while Sector and Galactic sized maps are cool to look at, they're a little impractical for a player campaign (There's a planet named Asgard? Kewl! Let's check it out!" "That'll take months to get there."). Currently, I'm writing some games to run at Kubla Con in California using Jason Flynn Kemp's excellent Terran Confederation background (along with some cool pictures from an old German sci fi show named Raumpatrouille for graphics and 'the look'). Using an early, non-Imperium Terran-centric enviroment will allow new Traveller players a chance to be on even ground with those of us who know what the heck a Virushi is.
I've loved Traveller since 1979, but while Sector and Galactic sized maps are cool to look at, they're a little impractical for a player campaign (There's a planet named Asgard? Kewl! Let's check it out!" "That'll take months to get there."). Currently, I'm writing some games to run at Kubla Con in California using Jason Flynn Kemp's excellent Terran Confederation background (along with some cool pictures from an old German sci fi show named Raumpatrouille for graphics and 'the look'). Using an early, non-Imperium Terran-centric enviroment will allow new Traveller players a chance to be on even ground with those of us who know what the heck a Virushi is.
Sifu Blackirish
SOC-14 1K
Dominion Loyalty Officer speaks!
As a true believer in the doctrine of Terran Manifest Destiny (as you all are, aren't you?) I had to have Terra there. I have scenarios ranging from the very beginning of starflight, and even before, to ones involving the Spinard Marches. And beyond...
My astrography is based on Harold D. Hale's Known Star List, which is the only reference I had to squash real stars into two dimensions. Exact locations are still in flux, so if anyone has a better resource, share, please!
As a true believer in the doctrine of Terran Manifest Destiny (as you all are, aren't you?) I had to have Terra there. I have scenarios ranging from the very beginning of starflight, and even before, to ones involving the Spinard Marches. And beyond...
My astrography is based on Harold D. Hale's Known Star List, which is the only reference I had to squash real stars into two dimensions. Exact locations are still in flux, so if anyone has a better resource, share, please!
If I'm playing in the OTU then I'm probably in the Marches, but for my own universes, I prefer Sol to be a long lost myth. It gets rid of a lot of the baggage around real life / astrography. It also lets me run multiple rise / fall cycles and play with whatever tech and modified races that I like.
I have to agree with Jame,
Why is there no "What Sol?" option.
There is one. I voted that way... :devil:
I've decided I'm not running the OTU any more...
Last edited:
Kyle Aaron
SOC-10
For my Just Speculatin' campaign, I won't be using the Traveller universe at all. It's set in 2037, at the dawn of the interstellar age... so I'm using nearby star catalogues with planets tossed about as I see fit.
For me, Near Earth vs. Non Earth is a tough call. Both have their advantages and disadvantages:
Near Earth Advantages:
1) Real stars and speculating based on what is known on them add to the suspension of disbelief of the setting. This also helps make the scifi hard with minimal handwaves needed.
2) A feeling of continuity and connection to the world we live in; most human cultures and cultural references would be at least partially familiar to players (especially if the setting is relatively near-future). No need to invent complete human cultures from scratch, or, failing that, having to explain why a human culture millenia into the future looks suspiciously like the contemporary USA or ancient Rome.
3) Ability to run a near-future interstellar campaign without blatant plot devices/handwaves (such as a one-time wormhole/stargate depositing a colony ship in a far, far region of space).
4) Ability to have STL interstellar colonization prior to the invention of the Jump Drive without pushing the date too far into the future.
Near Earth Disadvantages:
1) Real space is 3D. This means you either have to use a cumbersome 3D starmap (and lose all the benefits of the unrealistic-but-easy-to-use Traveller 2D subsector map), or go through the headache of flattening the universe to fit into classical 2D Traveller starmaps (tried that, and its a severe headache). This is also an issue with Traveller's jump drives with their parsec-increment movement
2) Our knowledge about our stellar neighbors evolves quite quickly. This means that new discoveries would destroy the suspension-of-disbelief advantage of setting elements based on outdated information.
3) Having to deal with all the baggage - social, political, historical and cultural - of Earth, especially in a near-future setting.
4) More limits on the stellar phenomena (nebulae, quasars, and so on) you could invent without harming suspension of disbelief.
5) Using real stars means more referencing to deal with when constructing the universe rather than just rolling on with the worldgen tables.
Non Earth Advantages:
1) You could easily use the standard Traveller stellar generation rules and 2D subsector maps without too much damage to suspension of disbelief.
2) You could use any stellar arrangement you want and which is conductive to your game.
3) You an avoid dealing with Earth's social, political, historical and cultural baggage.
4) You avoid having your universe becoming obsolete by new discoveries in astronomy.
5) You are less restricted when placing stellar phenomena.
Non Earth Disadvantages:
1) The stellar setting itself is usually fictional, and thus less useful to the suspension of disbelief, especially if you want a hard-scifi setting.
2) Extrapolating from real-world cultures and/or using cultural references would hurt the suspension of disbelief, or, for the very least, require blatant plot-devices built into the setting. This is especially problematic in far-future settings.
3) Using a near-future timeline is problematic and usually requires some form of a blatant plot-device such as a one-time wormhole/stargate depositing a colony ship/fleet in an unknown remote area.
4) you'll have to work hard on human cultures to prevent them from looking like copies of real-world cultures, especially if your setting is set far in the future.
5) STL interstellar colonization prior to the invention of FTL requires much longer periods of time, or, failing that, blatant plot devices.
6) In order to explain the existence of humans in a far-off region of space, you either need a previous far-ranging human culture (which collapsed at least once, otherwise the tech level would be too high), ancient aliens planting humans all over space, or blatant plot-devices transporting near-earth humans to distant regions.
Near Earth Advantages:
1) Real stars and speculating based on what is known on them add to the suspension of disbelief of the setting. This also helps make the scifi hard with minimal handwaves needed.
2) A feeling of continuity and connection to the world we live in; most human cultures and cultural references would be at least partially familiar to players (especially if the setting is relatively near-future). No need to invent complete human cultures from scratch, or, failing that, having to explain why a human culture millenia into the future looks suspiciously like the contemporary USA or ancient Rome.
3) Ability to run a near-future interstellar campaign without blatant plot devices/handwaves (such as a one-time wormhole/stargate depositing a colony ship in a far, far region of space).
4) Ability to have STL interstellar colonization prior to the invention of the Jump Drive without pushing the date too far into the future.
Near Earth Disadvantages:
1) Real space is 3D. This means you either have to use a cumbersome 3D starmap (and lose all the benefits of the unrealistic-but-easy-to-use Traveller 2D subsector map), or go through the headache of flattening the universe to fit into classical 2D Traveller starmaps (tried that, and its a severe headache). This is also an issue with Traveller's jump drives with their parsec-increment movement
2) Our knowledge about our stellar neighbors evolves quite quickly. This means that new discoveries would destroy the suspension-of-disbelief advantage of setting elements based on outdated information.
3) Having to deal with all the baggage - social, political, historical and cultural - of Earth, especially in a near-future setting.
4) More limits on the stellar phenomena (nebulae, quasars, and so on) you could invent without harming suspension of disbelief.
5) Using real stars means more referencing to deal with when constructing the universe rather than just rolling on with the worldgen tables.
Non Earth Advantages:
1) You could easily use the standard Traveller stellar generation rules and 2D subsector maps without too much damage to suspension of disbelief.
2) You could use any stellar arrangement you want and which is conductive to your game.
3) You an avoid dealing with Earth's social, political, historical and cultural baggage.
4) You avoid having your universe becoming obsolete by new discoveries in astronomy.
5) You are less restricted when placing stellar phenomena.
Non Earth Disadvantages:
1) The stellar setting itself is usually fictional, and thus less useful to the suspension of disbelief, especially if you want a hard-scifi setting.
2) Extrapolating from real-world cultures and/or using cultural references would hurt the suspension of disbelief, or, for the very least, require blatant plot-devices built into the setting. This is especially problematic in far-future settings.
3) Using a near-future timeline is problematic and usually requires some form of a blatant plot-device such as a one-time wormhole/stargate depositing a colony ship/fleet in an unknown remote area.
4) you'll have to work hard on human cultures to prevent them from looking like copies of real-world cultures, especially if your setting is set far in the future.
5) STL interstellar colonization prior to the invention of FTL requires much longer periods of time, or, failing that, blatant plot devices.
6) In order to explain the existence of humans in a far-off region of space, you either need a previous far-ranging human culture (which collapsed at least once, otherwise the tech level would be too high), ancient aliens planting humans all over space, or blatant plot-devices transporting near-earth humans to distant regions.
I have always played with real stars around Sol and was immensely frustrated when Solomani Rim (until Hale's work) did not live up to the real world. However, now for the first time ever I am playing in the Spinward Marches and quite like it. Notwithstanding, I preference for Hard SF tells me that Traveller ought to aim for realistic stars and system generation.
My first homebrew universe was a kind of "focused elsewhere" with Terra off the map to spinward. I'm presently working on my second homebrew universe with Sol at the center.
Here's a generic Sol Subsector map I made for the project:
http://mopu.blogspot.com/2006/10/generic-sol-subsector.html
Here's a generic Sol Subsector map I made for the project:
http://mopu.blogspot.com/2006/10/generic-sol-subsector.html
Last edited:
Plankowner
SOC-13
When I started in 1977, I created a region (later expanded to be a Sector, but originally there WERE NO Sectors) called the Plieades Cluster. The center of the Sector is the Plieades Star Cluster (the real one), so Earth is "Off the Map, THAT way". They know where it is, but do not have the technology to get there.
I used a BIG misjump to get a group of colonists there and had them divide into several colonies. That let me keep Earth cultures but limit them to the ones that I wanted/knew something about.
Later when the Spinward Marches were published, I did a lot of campaigning (as player and GM) there.
So, Earth has almost always been "Off the Map That Way".
As a gear up for my new campaign, I am working in the Spinward Marches again (1248 timeline). BUT, I keep coming back to my ATU. Since it's MINE, I just can't seem to give it up.
I DID make a 2D map of near space that I like, but I had to make several assumptions that others may not agree with that could make it work or not work for someone else.
I used the HYG star list, converted everything to galactic XYZ coordinates and distance. I then used the X and Y values to calculate an angle called THETA (for lack of a better term). Where 0 degrees Theta was Coreward. I then plotted all the stars using Theta and the true distance.
Advantages: All stars are about where you would expect them to be relative to Coreward or Rimward. All stars are at their true distances.
Disadvantes: Since it is 2D, stars that are actually fairly close together in the visible sky may be on opposite sides of the map. This happens if they happen to be close to the galactic plane. Unfortunately Castor and Pollux fell into this category, so rather than being fairly close to each other, they end up on opposite sides of the map. I hand moved that one, but I am sure there are others that I missed.
MAJOR DISADVANTAGE: Actual number of stars goes up with the cube of the distance from Earth, but in a 2D map, it only goes up with the square of the distance. That means that the farther from Earth you go, the denser the stars get and you end up with many stars in every hex. To fix that, you can drop a lot of those dim M stars, or stars without names (just numbers). Things really fall apart after about 40-50 light-years and beyond that you might as well make things random and just keep a few of the brighter stars for reference.
If you change the Hex size from 1 parsec (3.26 ly) to 5 ly, you get the standard density of stars near Earth.
I used a BIG misjump to get a group of colonists there and had them divide into several colonies. That let me keep Earth cultures but limit them to the ones that I wanted/knew something about.
Later when the Spinward Marches were published, I did a lot of campaigning (as player and GM) there.
So, Earth has almost always been "Off the Map That Way".
As a gear up for my new campaign, I am working in the Spinward Marches again (1248 timeline). BUT, I keep coming back to my ATU. Since it's MINE, I just can't seem to give it up.
I DID make a 2D map of near space that I like, but I had to make several assumptions that others may not agree with that could make it work or not work for someone else.
I used the HYG star list, converted everything to galactic XYZ coordinates and distance. I then used the X and Y values to calculate an angle called THETA (for lack of a better term). Where 0 degrees Theta was Coreward. I then plotted all the stars using Theta and the true distance.
Advantages: All stars are about where you would expect them to be relative to Coreward or Rimward. All stars are at their true distances.
Disadvantes: Since it is 2D, stars that are actually fairly close together in the visible sky may be on opposite sides of the map. This happens if they happen to be close to the galactic plane. Unfortunately Castor and Pollux fell into this category, so rather than being fairly close to each other, they end up on opposite sides of the map. I hand moved that one, but I am sure there are others that I missed.
MAJOR DISADVANTAGE: Actual number of stars goes up with the cube of the distance from Earth, but in a 2D map, it only goes up with the square of the distance. That means that the farther from Earth you go, the denser the stars get and you end up with many stars in every hex. To fix that, you can drop a lot of those dim M stars, or stars without names (just numbers). Things really fall apart after about 40-50 light-years and beyond that you might as well make things random and just keep a few of the brighter stars for reference.
If you change the Hex size from 1 parsec (3.26 ly) to 5 ly, you get the standard density of stars near Earth.
I tried doing something similar and ran into the same problem. I like your solution of "thinning out" the stars and ignoring some of the nameless Type-M's; however some of them seem to have potential for habitable planets look here or here).
Also, how did you plot the locations of these stars on the map? I did it by hand with a ruler and a protractor and it was a messy and inaccurate chore. Is there any free computer program capable of doing this?
Last edited:
