Strange New Worlds

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Here's something useful in a game...

There's a table, pg. 40 of Grand Survey that tells you if it will rain or not (and other weather conditions) and a single roll of the dice.

-S4

I've never understood this sort of thing. Generally one really doesn't need tables to say whether it'll rain - it's surely better left to common sense, it's not like the likelihood of rain generally is that esoteric to figure out. It just seems like a completely unnecessary table - a "single roll of the dice" is all well and good but surely it's better to just not roll dice at all and say "OK, it's started raining" (obviously the info on the effects that weather conditions have on travel etc are useful information though).

It just strikes me as odd when people say that Traveller gives them freedom to do anything they want in their games, and yet at the same time it has these tables that seem to expect people to be rolling for absolutely everything that could happen (e.g. the likelihood of rain, what ship passes you on your way to the starport, etc). I'd find that kind of thing to be actually restrictive myself.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Here's something useful in a game...

There's a table, pg. 40 of Grand Survey that tells you if it will rain or not (and other weather conditions) and a single roll of the dice.

-S4

I've never understood this sort of thing. Generally one really doesn't need tables to say whether it'll rain - it's surely better left to common sense, it's not like the likelihood of rain generally is that esoteric to figure out. It just seems like a completely unnecessary table - a "single roll of the dice" is all well and good but surely it's better to just not roll dice at all and say "OK, it's started raining" (obviously the info on the effects that weather conditions have on travel etc are useful information though).

It just strikes me as odd when people say that Traveller gives them freedom to do anything they want in their games, and yet at the same time it has these tables that seem to expect people to be rolling for absolutely everything that could happen (e.g. the likelihood of rain, what ship passes you on your way to the starport, etc). I'd find that kind of thing to be actually restrictive myself.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I've never understood this sort of thing. Generally one really doesn't need tables to say whether it'll rain - it's surely better left to common sense, it's not like the likelihood of rain generally is that esoteric to figure out.

(snip)

It just strikes me as odd when people say that Traveller gives them freedom to do anything they want in their games, and yet at the same time it has these tables that seem to expect people to be rolling for absolutely everything that could happen (e.g. the likelihood of rain, what ship passes you on your way to the starport, etc). I'd find that kind of thing to be actually restrictive myself.

See your point, but have to disagree, Mal. At least in some cases.

Sure, if rolling and rolling is bogging down a game, then throw it out. Don't roll for random encounters. Don't check to see an NPC's reaction on the reaction table. Don't roll to even see if it will rain.

But sometimes...

Rolling things adds something "cool" to a game session. It's that air of unpredictability. A player comes up with a question, and the GM says, "I don't know. Let's see..." And, away the dice go.

As a GM, I find it "fun" to discover things, along with the players, as the game moves along.

If rolling and rolling does nothing but bog down the game, then I'll be the first to throw it out and make up stuff as we go.

But...well, let me give you an example that comes to mind. This is a real scenario that happened in my last Traveller campaign a few years ago. It's one of those "we-still-talk-about-it" moments.

The characters were in a startown bar. They had gotten there simply because one of the crew wanted to get a drink while the ship was in town. This wasn't one of my planned encounters at all. We were just winging it. Sometimes, some of the best gaming sessions happen that way.

Well, some of the crew (three of them) go into the bar, settle in, and get a drink. I role play NPCs in the bar, just doing stuff off the top of my head. An enjoyable role playing encounter happens. I take the opportunity as GM to use that vehicle to give the PCs some information I wanted them to have. The players were "ecstatic" because they thought they had "earned" something (the info) because of their actions in the bar. I liked them feeling that way, and I sure as heck wouldn't tell them that I was going to find some way to get them that info--I just saw an opportunity to put the info in the game where it looked like it grew out of the conversation with the bar NPCs.

So, GM and PCs are happy.

I felt the encounter was getting a little stale, and I sure didn't want to ruin a good thing--we'd had such a cool time doing this role play encounter off-the-cuff, that I decided to "herd" the players back to the ship.

So, a bar fight broke out. Not around the players, but a few tables over. I figured the players would take that time to exit the bar and return to the ship rather than deal with the fairly high law level on the world.

Normally, I would have predicted my PC's actions perfectly, but what I didn't realize was that the PCs had formed a bond with the NPCs who they roleplayed with earlier in the encounter. Now that the fight broke out, they weren't about to run if the NPCs were going to be involved in the fight.

I saw what they were doing, and in an effort to continue to herd them back to the ship, I had the barfight escalate. First, a knife was drawn--from a fist fight to weapons--then bottles were broken and used as weapons. Pool cues. Until finally, the first pistol made its appearance.

Well...

I was thinking that that would scare the PCs off. I run an exciting game, but combat is deadly in my campaign. When you're dead, you're dead. And, my players tend to get attached to their PCs. They respect combat--they know they're not superheroes. The could die.

Given that, and the fact that the planetary security might bust in at any moment, I figured the PCs would make their exit.

They didn't.

So, the bar fight turned deadly, quickly.

One PC ran and jumped over the bar. The player said, "This is a bar, right? There's got to be a shotgun, or a ballbat, or some such weapon under here somewhere, yes?"

I don't know.

This is where I went to dicing.

"Let the dice decide."

Higher die said, yes, there was a weapon somewhere near where the character was.

The players' smiled.

I separated the bar into 6 separate sections, the PC being in section 3, and rolled 1D to see exactly where the weapon would be attached to the underside of the bar.

....I roll a "3". Right in front of the PC.

"Yeah!" The players yelled!

"What is it?" The player asked, "Right after I jumped over the bar, I looke up, and what do I see staring me in the face?!"

Well, we came up with five weapons: A shotgun (1-2); a pistol (3); a ballbat (4); a knife (5); and a buzzer that would immediately call the cops (6).

I let the player roll this one. It was such a cool thing to happen in a game. All the random rolls has scored in his favor.

As the single die he rolled flopped on the table, all of use strained our necks to see the outcome.

"2"

The PC was staring at a shotgun strapped to the underside of the bar.

He pulled that sucker from its straps and came up pumping that sucker at the guys with the guns who had escallated the barfight to the gunfight in the first place.

It was cool shit.

We still talk about that night.

You know, Mal, had I just made it up as I went along and said, "Sure, there's a weapon there. You see a shotgun right in front of you after you recover from your dive," it wouldn't have been near as cool.

What made that game session so cool (besides the well role-played encounters) was that the game session turned out the way it did because of the random die rolls.

So, I say, yeah, random rolls definitely have a place in an enjoyable RPG session.

It's the good GM that doesn't let them get out of hand. Don't dice for everything. Use your sense of drama, taste, and timing. Always keep the game interesting.

And, always keeping the game intersting sometimes means random rolls.

At least, that's the way I run my games.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I've never understood this sort of thing. Generally one really doesn't need tables to say whether it'll rain - it's surely better left to common sense, it's not like the likelihood of rain generally is that esoteric to figure out.

(snip)

It just strikes me as odd when people say that Traveller gives them freedom to do anything they want in their games, and yet at the same time it has these tables that seem to expect people to be rolling for absolutely everything that could happen (e.g. the likelihood of rain, what ship passes you on your way to the starport, etc). I'd find that kind of thing to be actually restrictive myself.

See your point, but have to disagree, Mal. At least in some cases.

Sure, if rolling and rolling is bogging down a game, then throw it out. Don't roll for random encounters. Don't check to see an NPC's reaction on the reaction table. Don't roll to even see if it will rain.

But sometimes...

Rolling things adds something "cool" to a game session. It's that air of unpredictability. A player comes up with a question, and the GM says, "I don't know. Let's see..." And, away the dice go.

As a GM, I find it "fun" to discover things, along with the players, as the game moves along.

If rolling and rolling does nothing but bog down the game, then I'll be the first to throw it out and make up stuff as we go.

But...well, let me give you an example that comes to mind. This is a real scenario that happened in my last Traveller campaign a few years ago. It's one of those "we-still-talk-about-it" moments.

The characters were in a startown bar. They had gotten there simply because one of the crew wanted to get a drink while the ship was in town. This wasn't one of my planned encounters at all. We were just winging it. Sometimes, some of the best gaming sessions happen that way.

Well, some of the crew (three of them) go into the bar, settle in, and get a drink. I role play NPCs in the bar, just doing stuff off the top of my head. An enjoyable role playing encounter happens. I take the opportunity as GM to use that vehicle to give the PCs some information I wanted them to have. The players were "ecstatic" because they thought they had "earned" something (the info) because of their actions in the bar. I liked them feeling that way, and I sure as heck wouldn't tell them that I was going to find some way to get them that info--I just saw an opportunity to put the info in the game where it looked like it grew out of the conversation with the bar NPCs.

So, GM and PCs are happy.

I felt the encounter was getting a little stale, and I sure didn't want to ruin a good thing--we'd had such a cool time doing this role play encounter off-the-cuff, that I decided to "herd" the players back to the ship.

So, a bar fight broke out. Not around the players, but a few tables over. I figured the players would take that time to exit the bar and return to the ship rather than deal with the fairly high law level on the world.

Normally, I would have predicted my PC's actions perfectly, but what I didn't realize was that the PCs had formed a bond with the NPCs who they roleplayed with earlier in the encounter. Now that the fight broke out, they weren't about to run if the NPCs were going to be involved in the fight.

I saw what they were doing, and in an effort to continue to herd them back to the ship, I had the barfight escalate. First, a knife was drawn--from a fist fight to weapons--then bottles were broken and used as weapons. Pool cues. Until finally, the first pistol made its appearance.

Well...

I was thinking that that would scare the PCs off. I run an exciting game, but combat is deadly in my campaign. When you're dead, you're dead. And, my players tend to get attached to their PCs. They respect combat--they know they're not superheroes. The could die.

Given that, and the fact that the planetary security might bust in at any moment, I figured the PCs would make their exit.

They didn't.

So, the bar fight turned deadly, quickly.

One PC ran and jumped over the bar. The player said, "This is a bar, right? There's got to be a shotgun, or a ballbat, or some such weapon under here somewhere, yes?"

I don't know.

This is where I went to dicing.

"Let the dice decide."

Higher die said, yes, there was a weapon somewhere near where the character was.

The players' smiled.

I separated the bar into 6 separate sections, the PC being in section 3, and rolled 1D to see exactly where the weapon would be attached to the underside of the bar.

....I roll a "3". Right in front of the PC.

"Yeah!" The players yelled!

"What is it?" The player asked, "Right after I jumped over the bar, I looke up, and what do I see staring me in the face?!"

Well, we came up with five weapons: A shotgun (1-2); a pistol (3); a ballbat (4); a knife (5); and a buzzer that would immediately call the cops (6).

I let the player roll this one. It was such a cool thing to happen in a game. All the random rolls has scored in his favor.

As the single die he rolled flopped on the table, all of use strained our necks to see the outcome.

"2"

The PC was staring at a shotgun strapped to the underside of the bar.

He pulled that sucker from its straps and came up pumping that sucker at the guys with the guns who had escallated the barfight to the gunfight in the first place.

It was cool shit.

We still talk about that night.

You know, Mal, had I just made it up as I went along and said, "Sure, there's a weapon there. You see a shotgun right in front of you after you recover from your dive," it wouldn't have been near as cool.

What made that game session so cool (besides the well role-played encounters) was that the game session turned out the way it did because of the random die rolls.

So, I say, yeah, random rolls definitely have a place in an enjoyable RPG session.

It's the good GM that doesn't let them get out of hand. Don't dice for everything. Use your sense of drama, taste, and timing. Always keep the game interesting.

And, always keeping the game intersting sometimes means random rolls.

At least, that's the way I run my games.

-S4

 

[Malenfant]

Well, something like that is a little different IMO, you're basically just arbitrarily saying "OK, there's a random chance that there's a weapon available in a place where there's likely to be one". Another example of that would be the chance that you'd find the keys in a parked car. That sort of thing gets done all the time in roleplaying.

But something like rolling to see the chance of rain seems a bit overkill. It just generally is one of those things that happens whenever it's important enough to consider - it happens all the time in the background, and rolling for it just seems to push it to the foreground as if it's suddenly more important.

I guess it depends on GMing style. I find that too much randomness just complicates things, so like you say a good GM would use this method where appropriate.

 

[Malenfant]

Well, something like that is a little different IMO, you're basically just arbitrarily saying "OK, there's a random chance that there's a weapon available in a place where there's likely to be one". Another example of that would be the chance that you'd find the keys in a parked car. That sort of thing gets done all the time in roleplaying.

But something like rolling to see the chance of rain seems a bit overkill. It just generally is one of those things that happens whenever it's important enough to consider - it happens all the time in the background, and rolling for it just seems to push it to the foreground as if it's suddenly more important.

I guess it depends on GMing style. I find that too much randomness just complicates things, so like you say a good GM would use this method where appropriate.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
But something like rolling to see the chance of rain seems a bit overkill.

I don't think so. I've actually looked for such a chart in Traveller before (which is why I thought it would be of interest to some GMs...and why I drew attention to it by posting it).

I'd use it.

I guess it depends on GMing style. I find that too much randomness just complicates things, so like you say a good GM would use this method where appropriate.

Absolutely. If you're stopping the game just to pull out a supplement and make a die roll to see if it rains, then you're using it wrong, imo.

Nobody cares. Just make a call on what the weather is (if it's even important) and move on.

But, let's say the players have just blasted a cart load of howood from the trees in Pysadi. It's a trek back to the starport, and the PCs are trying to get there quick because they don't want to get caught. They never received the licenses they needed to do the howood blasting.

Now, they're in thier four-wheeled cart being pulled by their single oxyen-analog.

I could see me, GMing this situation, pulling out the weather chart, rolling for weather as the PCs entered different hexes, and checking their movement rates.

As long as it's exciting and "makes sense", I'd use it.

If it didn't matter, I'd skip everything and just say, "It was a long road back. You suffered some light rain, and the cart almost got stuck in the mud once. But, you're back at the ship now. In a few hours, you'll have the ship loaded and the cart discarded. Is there anything else you want to do before you make orbit?"

Just depends on the game.

So, I think the weather chart can be valuable.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
But something like rolling to see the chance of rain seems a bit overkill.

I don't think so. I've actually looked for such a chart in Traveller before (which is why I thought it would be of interest to some GMs...and why I drew attention to it by posting it).

I'd use it.

I guess it depends on GMing style. I find that too much randomness just complicates things, so like you say a good GM would use this method where appropriate.

Absolutely. If you're stopping the game just to pull out a supplement and make a die roll to see if it rains, then you're using it wrong, imo.

Nobody cares. Just make a call on what the weather is (if it's even important) and move on.

But, let's say the players have just blasted a cart load of howood from the trees in Pysadi. It's a trek back to the starport, and the PCs are trying to get there quick because they don't want to get caught. They never received the licenses they needed to do the howood blasting.

Now, they're in thier four-wheeled cart being pulled by their single oxyen-analog.

I could see me, GMing this situation, pulling out the weather chart, rolling for weather as the PCs entered different hexes, and checking their movement rates.

As long as it's exciting and "makes sense", I'd use it.

If it didn't matter, I'd skip everything and just say, "It was a long road back. You suffered some light rain, and the cart almost got stuck in the mud once. But, you're back at the ship now. In a few hours, you'll have the ship loaded and the cart discarded. Is there anything else you want to do before you make orbit?"

Just depends on the game.

So, I think the weather chart can be valuable.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

According to Grand Census, starports will have a minimum TL within the boundary of the starport even when the UPP says the planet is of lower TL.

In other words, a starport will use the world's TL as it's own unless that TL falls beneath a minimum. Those minimums are:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Class A TL 10
Class B TL 9
Class C TL 8
Class D TL 7
Class E TL 6
Class X TL 0</pre>[/QUOTE]So, if you're lookin' at Pysadi, in the Aramis subsector, the world is TL 4, but it's Class C starport is TL 8.

And, the GM can consider that some technology from a higher-tech starport will "leak out" to the area around the starport.

A Class C starport on a TL 13 world will, though, be rated at TL 13.

 

[Supplement Four]

According to Grand Census, starports will have a minimum TL within the boundary of the starport even when the UPP says the planet is of lower TL.

In other words, a starport will use the world's TL as it's own unless that TL falls beneath a minimum. Those minimums are:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Class A TL 10
Class B TL 9
Class C TL 8
Class D TL 7
Class E TL 6
Class X TL 0</pre>[/QUOTE]So, if you're lookin' at Pysadi, in the Aramis subsector, the world is TL 4, but it's Class C starport is TL 8.

And, the GM can consider that some technology from a higher-tech starport will "leak out" to the area around the starport.

A Class C starport on a TL 13 world will, though, be rated at TL 13.

 

[Supplement Four]

How about considering zero population worlds, yet the UPP of the planet includes a law level and a technology rating...?




First off, Miltary and Scout bases don't have to be counted in the population of the world.

The pop code of a world indicates the permanent residence of beings, so transient population is not counted.

Consider a zero-pop world may be a park planet with a few caretakers. Maybe it's a privately owned preserve of a noble. Maybe it's a tourist world with millions of visitors per year.

Research station, automated starport, wilderness training planet for marines...all possibilities.

Gov code 0 (No government or family bonds only) will typically mean that there are few people on the planet.

Gov code 1 (Company/corporation) may mean it's a warehouse planet, executive resort, or being mined for valuable resources.

Gov code 2 (Participating democracy) is most natural form of government for 10 people or less. Maybe it's a research group or a small religious sect. Political exiles, maybe.

Gov code 3 (Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy) is most likely a world wholly owned by a noble family. Or, maybe it's one of the Imperium's wholly owned worlds.

Gov code 4 (Representative democracy) might be a case where the planet is a colony of another world, subject to that other world's government.

Gov code 5 (feudal technocracy) is likely to indicate a scientific group led by their to scholar.

A Red Zone with no pop could mean a world devestated by war--with dangerous residues of war.

Basically, with a little thought, any zero-pop world can become an intriguing place to explore during a game.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

How about considering zero population worlds, yet the UPP of the planet includes a law level and a technology rating...?




First off, Miltary and Scout bases don't have to be counted in the population of the world.

The pop code of a world indicates the permanent residence of beings, so transient population is not counted.

Consider a zero-pop world may be a park planet with a few caretakers. Maybe it's a privately owned preserve of a noble. Maybe it's a tourist world with millions of visitors per year.

Research station, automated starport, wilderness training planet for marines...all possibilities.

Gov code 0 (No government or family bonds only) will typically mean that there are few people on the planet.

Gov code 1 (Company/corporation) may mean it's a warehouse planet, executive resort, or being mined for valuable resources.

Gov code 2 (Participating democracy) is most natural form of government for 10 people or less. Maybe it's a research group or a small religious sect. Political exiles, maybe.

Gov code 3 (Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy) is most likely a world wholly owned by a noble family. Or, maybe it's one of the Imperium's wholly owned worlds.

Gov code 4 (Representative democracy) might be a case where the planet is a colony of another world, subject to that other world's government.

Gov code 5 (feudal technocracy) is likely to indicate a scientific group led by their to scholar.

A Red Zone with no pop could mean a world devestated by war--with dangerous residues of war.

Basically, with a little thought, any zero-pop world can become an intriguing place to explore during a game.

-S4

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
...here's some considerations in making alien planets into strange new worlds in your campaigns...

Gravity Most regular ship runs adjust their gravity gradually in jump space to accustom passengers to the gravity of the destination world. Correct response to new gravity takes two weeks to develop at minimum.

For physical actions yes, if the variant is big enough. But I don't think it takes that long and should be variable.

Perhaps a better way to do it would be 1 hour of activity under the new gravity per cumulative difference in Size. So going from a Size 8 body (Earth) to a Size 1 body (Luna) would take 8 - 1 = 28 hours ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 28 hours ).

I'd say divide that by 4 for the number of days. In this case, 1 week of training in .125Gs will prepare the Earther for working on Luna.

Further, in case training is cut short, I'd apply a DM to checks based on the amount of training completed. Using the above again: DM -7 initially. After 7 hours that drops to DM -6. And so on.

In the event that you need to switch to a different gravity part way through training you of course lose all the training time and have to start again.

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Marksmanship skills require 1D -Skill weeks (minimum of 2) of daily practice to restore full proficiency. Scouts and Marines in active service may waive this rule.

BS, to be blunt

Most marksmanship tasks are at close enough range that any drop difference to range is going to be inconsequential, especially for Laser weapons (duh). And why should Scouts get a break? Did a Scout write these rules Marines, sure, they probably train all the time in all kinds of conditions. That's their job. In fact without constant training marksmanship suffers. Period. But that's not in the rules.

And in the cases of long range marksmanship, again, there won't be a factor, a good marksman will have noted the difference in terminal range and adjust their sights accordingly.

Losing footing maybe, if they're silly enough to not assume a proper brace stance in the first place. But I'd put this in the physical action DM above, as a save type throw IF they miss the shot badly (ie fumble mechanics).

Damage from falls is also not going to be a simple issue. Terminal velocity is the key. I think you achieve that faster in high G but the limit is going to be based on air resistance. Falling from a height in a vacuum is going to suck worse than in a dense atmo whatever the gravity. Ignore any falling damage changes, it's far too random an effect anyway. Falls from sitting have killed while falls from miles have been survived. Granted those are extremes but this is one detail I've never worried overmuch about. I just do 1D for short falls (up to a few meters), and start adding dice after that until it "feels" right

Yes carrying capacity in lower gravity is increased for what a person can manage while carrying capacity is reduced in higher gravity. Has been since LBB1 I thought. I don't bother with End adjustment, if you are carrying less already factored to be your limit by gravity then that's the same as carrying more in a lower gravity. It balances out.

I'm also pretty sure most of the design rules make anti-grav work against local gravity so I never change the operating limits of grav vehicles for local gravity, they just balance out. Likewise in higher gravity. At least that was the way I understood it. It makes it much easier anyway

For ground vehicles you should carry more in lower gravity to maintain proper traction. If you are light you won't have proper handling, especially at speed.

Aircraft will have more or less lift ability in thinner or denser atmosphere. But won't operate well too far outside their designed parameters.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
...here's some considerations in making alien planets into strange new worlds in your campaigns...

Gravity Most regular ship runs adjust their gravity gradually in jump space to accustom passengers to the gravity of the destination world. Correct response to new gravity takes two weeks to develop at minimum.

For physical actions yes, if the variant is big enough. But I don't think it takes that long and should be variable.

Perhaps a better way to do it would be 1 hour of activity under the new gravity per cumulative difference in Size. So going from a Size 8 body (Earth) to a Size 1 body (Luna) would take 8 - 1 = 28 hours ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 28 hours ).

I'd say divide that by 4 for the number of days. In this case, 1 week of training in .125Gs will prepare the Earther for working on Luna.

Further, in case training is cut short, I'd apply a DM to checks based on the amount of training completed. Using the above again: DM -7 initially. After 7 hours that drops to DM -6. And so on.

In the event that you need to switch to a different gravity part way through training you of course lose all the training time and have to start again.

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Marksmanship skills require 1D -Skill weeks (minimum of 2) of daily practice to restore full proficiency. Scouts and Marines in active service may waive this rule.

BS, to be blunt

Most marksmanship tasks are at close enough range that any drop difference to range is going to be inconsequential, especially for Laser weapons (duh). And why should Scouts get a break? Did a Scout write these rules Marines, sure, they probably train all the time in all kinds of conditions. That's their job. In fact without constant training marksmanship suffers. Period. But that's not in the rules.

And in the cases of long range marksmanship, again, there won't be a factor, a good marksman will have noted the difference in terminal range and adjust their sights accordingly.

Losing footing maybe, if they're silly enough to not assume a proper brace stance in the first place. But I'd put this in the physical action DM above, as a save type throw IF they miss the shot badly (ie fumble mechanics).

Damage from falls is also not going to be a simple issue. Terminal velocity is the key. I think you achieve that faster in high G but the limit is going to be based on air resistance. Falling from a height in a vacuum is going to suck worse than in a dense atmo whatever the gravity. Ignore any falling damage changes, it's far too random an effect anyway. Falls from sitting have killed while falls from miles have been survived. Granted those are extremes but this is one detail I've never worried overmuch about. I just do 1D for short falls (up to a few meters), and start adding dice after that until it "feels" right

Yes carrying capacity in lower gravity is increased for what a person can manage while carrying capacity is reduced in higher gravity. Has been since LBB1 I thought. I don't bother with End adjustment, if you are carrying less already factored to be your limit by gravity then that's the same as carrying more in a lower gravity. It balances out.

I'm also pretty sure most of the design rules make anti-grav work against local gravity so I never change the operating limits of grav vehicles for local gravity, they just balance out. Likewise in higher gravity. At least that was the way I understood it. It makes it much easier anyway

For ground vehicles you should carry more in lower gravity to maintain proper traction. If you are light you won't have proper handling, especially at speed.

Aircraft will have more or less lift ability in thinner or denser atmosphere. But won't operate well too far outside their designed parameters.

 

[far-trader]

To be honest some of those rules strike me as being invented whole by someone who has never experienced the conditions or looked hard enough at the reality.

Like a rule I read in a Dragon mag years ago, dealing with extreme cold conditions. Something about drinking hot liquids in freezing air tempuratures causing your teeth to crack. I had to laugh out loud, wondering what tropical clime the author lived in and who was telling them tall tales, as I have enjoyed steaming hot chocolate outdoors in the middle of winter and my teeth never once cracked. They were always in my mouth of course, at a nice cosy body temperature

What I'm saying is, never, NEVER, take a "rule" as truth just because it gets printed up in some game. Use your own judgement or research to confirm it first.

 

[far-trader]

To be honest some of those rules strike me as being invented whole by someone who has never experienced the conditions or looked hard enough at the reality.

Like a rule I read in a Dragon mag years ago, dealing with extreme cold conditions. Something about drinking hot liquids in freezing air tempuratures causing your teeth to crack. I had to laugh out loud, wondering what tropical clime the author lived in and who was telling them tall tales, as I have enjoyed steaming hot chocolate outdoors in the middle of winter and my teeth never once cracked. They were always in my mouth of course, at a nice cosy body temperature

What I'm saying is, never, NEVER, take a "rule" as truth just because it gets printed up in some game. Use your own judgement or research to confirm it first.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
How about considering zero population worlds, yet the UPP of the planet includes a law level and a technology rating...?

Very few of these will ever work out (none that I can think of). Government needs citizens. Law level needs enforcers and enforced. TL needs people to make stuff - unless it's totally automated, which could work, but my players would love to come across an unpopulated high-TL factory work.

First off, Miltary and Scout bases don't have to be counted in the population of the world.

Fine, if such bases are present.

Consider a zero-pop world may be a park planet with a few caretakers. Maybe it's a privately owned preserve of a noble. Maybe it's a tourist world with millions of visitors per year.

Even 1 caretaker would result in a population UWP of 1. Millions of tourists would require tens of thousands (at least) of permanent staff. Counting such as 'transient' is stretching things, IMO.

Research station, automated starport, wilderness training planet for marines...all possibilities.

A research station with no reseachers? A fully automated starport? And why would a wilderness training planet have a government, law level or TL? It would surely be interdicted.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
How about considering zero population worlds, yet the UPP of the planet includes a law level and a technology rating...?

Very few of these will ever work out (none that I can think of). Government needs citizens. Law level needs enforcers and enforced. TL needs people to make stuff - unless it's totally automated, which could work, but my players would love to come across an unpopulated high-TL factory work.

First off, Miltary and Scout bases don't have to be counted in the population of the world.

Fine, if such bases are present.

Consider a zero-pop world may be a park planet with a few caretakers. Maybe it's a privately owned preserve of a noble. Maybe it's a tourist world with millions of visitors per year.

Even 1 caretaker would result in a population UWP of 1. Millions of tourists would require tens of thousands (at least) of permanent staff. Counting such as 'transient' is stretching things, IMO.

Research station, automated starport, wilderness training planet for marines...all possibilities.

A research station with no reseachers? A fully automated starport? And why would a wilderness training planet have a government, law level or TL? It would surely be interdicted.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
Even 1 caretaker would result in a population UWP of 1.

Actually, Pop-0 can be 0-9 people.

Pop-1 means 10-99.

Pop-2 means 100-999.

Etc.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
Even 1 caretaker would result in a population UWP of 1.

Actually, Pop-0 can be 0-9 people.

Pop-1 means 10-99.

Pop-2 means 100-999.

Etc.