Strange New Worlds

[Gadrin]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Or alternatively, dismiss them as stupid, nonsensical results created by a random generation system .

Some consider this a feature, others consider this a bug.

I'd have to agree, sometimes the "retro-fit canon" is clever, but mostly it's a tribute to BS-artistry, defending their choice of RPGs (and not just Traveller).

After all, it's a space game, with cats and dogs running around on two legs, shooting weapons.

 

[Gadrin]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Or alternatively, dismiss them as stupid, nonsensical results created by a random generation system .

Some consider this a feature, others consider this a bug.

I'd have to agree, sometimes the "retro-fit canon" is clever, but mostly it's a tribute to BS-artistry, defending their choice of RPGs (and not just Traveller).

After all, it's a space game, with cats and dogs running around on two legs, shooting weapons.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Or alternatively, dismiss them as stupid, nonsensical results created by a random generation system .

Some consider this a feature, others consider this a bug.

I'm in the "it's a feature" camp. I remember MWM, back on the TML about ten years ago, talking about this. Some people were taking the stance that UPPs like this didn't make sense. MWM said that one of the things he really enjoyed about Traveller was taking a UPP and making it make sense.

I'm with Marc on this one.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Or alternatively, dismiss them as stupid, nonsensical results created by a random generation system .

Some consider this a feature, others consider this a bug.

I'm in the "it's a feature" camp. I remember MWM, back on the TML about ten years ago, talking about this. Some people were taking the stance that UPPs like this didn't make sense. MWM said that one of the things he really enjoyed about Traveller was taking a UPP and making it make sense.

I'm with Marc on this one.

-S4

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
MWM said that one of the things he really enjoyed about Traveller was taking a UPP and making it make sense.[/QB]

Which'd be great... if they ever made sense. But they don't. But then that's not surprising given that you're taking a bunch of randomly generated things and throwing them together - you can hardly expect coherent results all the time.

As a result, the OTU is full of nonsense. Why the hell would you have a perfectly habitable garden world with only 3 people on it (then again, why the hell would you have a tiny airless rockball with 10 billion people on it right nextdoor)?

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
MWM said that one of the things he really enjoyed about Traveller was taking a UPP and making it make sense.[/QB]

Which'd be great... if they ever made sense. But they don't. But then that's not surprising given that you're taking a bunch of randomly generated things and throwing them together - you can hardly expect coherent results all the time.

As a result, the OTU is full of nonsense. Why the hell would you have a perfectly habitable garden world with only 3 people on it (then again, why the hell would you have a tiny airless rockball with 10 billion people on it right nextdoor)?

 

[Space Cadet]

You should check out some of the worlds I'm generating in My Traveller Universe Sol Subsector. By the way Malenfant, I based it on your 3-d star map. It is not a cannonical Traveller sector, I just started with the Star data and let the dice roll. I used the Stars Unlimited program to generate the initial UPP, then I used the system generating Data to generate the Moons around the Main World, the gas giants and where they are, and the asteroid belts. All I list about the other planets are their sizes and their diameter in kilometers.. I've also randomely determined the rotation rates of the main worlds, and their orbital period duration in years. You can look at them and see if you find any silly nonsense results. The tech Level of Earth in this campaign is B. F is the highest tech level in the sector. I've also determined the size of the size zero worlds, at least the one with the Starport on it.

The social data is rather arbitrary. As for why a garden world would have 3 people on it, perhaps humans would find the wildlife to be rather unpleasant, maybe the climate is unbearably humid and hot, maybe the planet is swampy and the air is filled with nasty biting insects that spread diseases or are venomous. The ground could be squishy and filled with poisonous critters, and giant carnovourous monsters, the day length could be unbearably long for humans, such as 80 hours for instance, and just one parsec away could be an asteroid belt with 10 billion people.

The first thing that must be remembered is that asteroid belts have way more surface area than any single planet, it is easier to burrow into an asteroid than into a planet due to the lack of gravity. Once enscounced in an asteroid, the humans can set their day length to whatever they want, the air temperature inside could be set and a constant 72 degrees with just the right amount of humidity.

A perfectly habitable planet is basically one where you can breath their air unassisted and walk around on the surface without a space suit, this perfectly habitable planet can still be a rather unpleasant place to live. What if the gravity is 1 1/8th times Earth's gravity, is a size 9 world, has an 80 hour day, is hot and tropical full of biting insects and is swampy. The planet has no continents and instead the land area is broken up into millions of islands seperated by stretches of water filled with carnivourous sea creatures, some of which are venoumous. All sorts of creepies and crawlies inhabit the island, they bite and they sting. Lots of slithering reptiles with poisonous fangs. Flowers whose pollen causes hallucinations and allergic reactions in some people. There are no deserts, and high levels of rainfall across most of the planet 60% of the time. Now tell me, would you rather live here than in an air conditioned cave dug out of an asteroid?

 

[Space Cadet]

You should check out some of the worlds I'm generating in My Traveller Universe Sol Subsector. By the way Malenfant, I based it on your 3-d star map. It is not a cannonical Traveller sector, I just started with the Star data and let the dice roll. I used the Stars Unlimited program to generate the initial UPP, then I used the system generating Data to generate the Moons around the Main World, the gas giants and where they are, and the asteroid belts. All I list about the other planets are their sizes and their diameter in kilometers.. I've also randomely determined the rotation rates of the main worlds, and their orbital period duration in years. You can look at them and see if you find any silly nonsense results. The tech Level of Earth in this campaign is B. F is the highest tech level in the sector. I've also determined the size of the size zero worlds, at least the one with the Starport on it.

The social data is rather arbitrary. As for why a garden world would have 3 people on it, perhaps humans would find the wildlife to be rather unpleasant, maybe the climate is unbearably humid and hot, maybe the planet is swampy and the air is filled with nasty biting insects that spread diseases or are venomous. The ground could be squishy and filled with poisonous critters, and giant carnovourous monsters, the day length could be unbearably long for humans, such as 80 hours for instance, and just one parsec away could be an asteroid belt with 10 billion people.

The first thing that must be remembered is that asteroid belts have way more surface area than any single planet, it is easier to burrow into an asteroid than into a planet due to the lack of gravity. Once enscounced in an asteroid, the humans can set their day length to whatever they want, the air temperature inside could be set and a constant 72 degrees with just the right amount of humidity.

A perfectly habitable planet is basically one where you can breath their air unassisted and walk around on the surface without a space suit, this perfectly habitable planet can still be a rather unpleasant place to live. What if the gravity is 1 1/8th times Earth's gravity, is a size 9 world, has an 80 hour day, is hot and tropical full of biting insects and is swampy. The planet has no continents and instead the land area is broken up into millions of islands seperated by stretches of water filled with carnivourous sea creatures, some of which are venoumous. All sorts of creepies and crawlies inhabit the island, they bite and they sting. Lots of slithering reptiles with poisonous fangs. Flowers whose pollen causes hallucinations and allergic reactions in some people. There are no deserts, and high levels of rainfall across most of the planet 60% of the time. Now tell me, would you rather live here than in an air conditioned cave dug out of an asteroid?

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Actually, Pop-0 can be 0-9 people.

Pop-1 means 10-99.

Pop-2 means 100-999.

Etc.

We'll have to agree to differ on the intent of the rules. IMTU I see pop 1 = 1-99. Anyway, It's not something I'm likely to get pedantic about.

The problem, as with all ambiguities, lies in the rules. UWP pop 0 is clearly stated as "No inhabitants" (LBB3 p.11, LBB6 p.27). UWP pop 1 is given as "Tens of inhabitants". There is clearly an error in the rules here, as there should have been a "Single figures of inhabitants" line between these two.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Actually, Pop-0 can be 0-9 people.

Pop-1 means 10-99.

Pop-2 means 100-999.

Etc.

We'll have to agree to differ on the intent of the rules. IMTU I see pop 1 = 1-99. Anyway, It's not something I'm likely to get pedantic about.

The problem, as with all ambiguities, lies in the rules. UWP pop 0 is clearly stated as "No inhabitants" (LBB3 p.11, LBB6 p.27). UWP pop 1 is given as "Tens of inhabitants". There is clearly an error in the rules here, as there should have been a "Single figures of inhabitants" line between these two.

 

[The Shaman]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
I'm in the "it's a feature" camp.

Same here.

Take two identical UWPs, add a shot of imagination, and come up with two very different worlds.

Take a "nonsense" ( ) UWP, puzzle over it awhile, and come up with something that, if not 100% plausible, will still be distinctive and intriguing for the effort put into it.

Yup. Definitely a feature.

 

[The Shaman]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
I'm in the "it's a feature" camp.

Same here.

Take two identical UWPs, add a shot of imagination, and come up with two very different worlds.

Take a "nonsense" ( ) UWP, puzzle over it awhile, and come up with something that, if not 100% plausible, will still be distinctive and intriguing for the effort put into it.

Yup. Definitely a feature.

 

[Malenfant]

I'm sorry, I have to laugh when I hear that sort of response.

Where's the imagination involved in coming up with a ludicrous explanation for a tiny rockball that's less massive than Earth's moon yet has a habitable N2/O2 atmosphere, orbits a red giant, and has tens of billions of people on it frolicking around in the really low gravity? Not only do you have to come up with an nonsensical explanation for it once, but you also have to do that every time you see that sort of world (and there are a lot of them in the OTU). Perhaps you also have an explanation for the zillions of systems where habitable worlds are orbiting close binaries consisting of a main sequence star and a white dwarf too (including at least one major race's homeworld, which should have been burnt to a crisp when the WD was a red giant)? Any explanations for these are often nowhere near 100% plausible, they're not even 0% plausible most of the time. I had to come up with several of these wacky explanations for the GT Sword Worlds book and it was just painful to do.

It just boggles my mind that some people (including the game's designer, apparently, which explains so much about Traveller) actually think these frequent anomalies are features?! They're nothing of the sort - they're the result of bad design, pure and simple. It's very clearly the result of a world generation system that creates impossible and/or nonsensical outliers among the systems that do work, nothing more... A sensible, well-considered system wouldn't generate these anomalies in the first place, and certainly wouldn't encourage people to embrace or accept them.

If you see a nonsensical result then just discard the damn thing and come up with something else that does actually work - saves a lot of trouble later on. At the very least accept that it is actually nonsensical to start with. But I see no reason to pride yourself in coming up with an explanation that "makes it work" when all you're really doing is arbitrarily fudging reality to fit the nonsensical result.

 

[Malenfant]

I'm sorry, I have to laugh when I hear that sort of response.

Where's the imagination involved in coming up with a ludicrous explanation for a tiny rockball that's less massive than Earth's moon yet has a habitable N2/O2 atmosphere, orbits a red giant, and has tens of billions of people on it frolicking around in the really low gravity? Not only do you have to come up with an nonsensical explanation for it once, but you also have to do that every time you see that sort of world (and there are a lot of them in the OTU). Perhaps you also have an explanation for the zillions of systems where habitable worlds are orbiting close binaries consisting of a main sequence star and a white dwarf too (including at least one major race's homeworld, which should have been burnt to a crisp when the WD was a red giant)? Any explanations for these are often nowhere near 100% plausible, they're not even 0% plausible most of the time. I had to come up with several of these wacky explanations for the GT Sword Worlds book and it was just painful to do.

It just boggles my mind that some people (including the game's designer, apparently, which explains so much about Traveller) actually think these frequent anomalies are features?! They're nothing of the sort - they're the result of bad design, pure and simple. It's very clearly the result of a world generation system that creates impossible and/or nonsensical outliers among the systems that do work, nothing more... A sensible, well-considered system wouldn't generate these anomalies in the first place, and certainly wouldn't encourage people to embrace or accept them.

If you see a nonsensical result then just discard the damn thing and come up with something else that does actually work - saves a lot of trouble later on. At the very least accept that it is actually nonsensical to start with. But I see no reason to pride yourself in coming up with an explanation that "makes it work" when all you're really doing is arbitrarily fudging reality to fit the nonsensical result.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

Originally posted by Malenfant:

I'm sorry, I have to laugh when I hear that sort of response.

Where's the imagination involved in coming up with a ludicrous explanation for a tiny rockball that's less massive than Earth's moon yet has a habitable N2/O2 atmosphere, orbits a red giant, and has tens of billions of people on it frolicking around in the really low gravity? Not only do you have to come up with an nonsensical explanation for it once, but you also have to do that every time you see that sort of world (and there are a lot of them in the OTU). Perhaps you also have an explanation for the zillions of systems where habitable worlds are orbiting close binaries consisting of a main sequence star and a white dwarf too (including at least one major race's homeworld, which should have been burnt to a crisp when the WD was a red giant)? Any explanations for these are often nowhere near 100% plausible, they're not even 0% plausible most of the time. I had to come up with several of these wacky explanations for the GT Sword Worlds book and it was just painful to do.

It just boggles my mind that some people (including the game's designer, apparently, which explains so much about Traveller) actually think these frequent anomalies are features?! They're nothing of the sort - they're the result of bad design, pure and simple. It's very clearly the result of a world generation system that creates impossible and/or nonsensical outliers among the systems that do work, nothing more... A sensible, well-considered system wouldn't generate these anomalies in the first place, and certainly wouldn't encourage people to embrace or accept them.

If you see a nonsensical result then just discard the damn thing and come up with something else that does actually work - saves a lot of trouble later on. At the very least accept that it is actually nonsensical to start with. But I see no reason to pride yourself in coming up with an explanation that "makes it work" when all you're really doing is arbitrarily fudging reality to fit the nonsensical result.

You know, a recent poll shows that yours is a minority opinion on this subject.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

Originally posted by Malenfant:

I'm sorry, I have to laugh when I hear that sort of response.

Where's the imagination involved in coming up with a ludicrous explanation for a tiny rockball that's less massive than Earth's moon yet has a habitable N2/O2 atmosphere, orbits a red giant, and has tens of billions of people on it frolicking around in the really low gravity? Not only do you have to come up with an nonsensical explanation for it once, but you also have to do that every time you see that sort of world (and there are a lot of them in the OTU). Perhaps you also have an explanation for the zillions of systems where habitable worlds are orbiting close binaries consisting of a main sequence star and a white dwarf too (including at least one major race's homeworld, which should have been burnt to a crisp when the WD was a red giant)? Any explanations for these are often nowhere near 100% plausible, they're not even 0% plausible most of the time. I had to come up with several of these wacky explanations for the GT Sword Worlds book and it was just painful to do.

It just boggles my mind that some people (including the game's designer, apparently, which explains so much about Traveller) actually think these frequent anomalies are features?! They're nothing of the sort - they're the result of bad design, pure and simple. It's very clearly the result of a world generation system that creates impossible and/or nonsensical outliers among the systems that do work, nothing more... A sensible, well-considered system wouldn't generate these anomalies in the first place, and certainly wouldn't encourage people to embrace or accept them.

If you see a nonsensical result then just discard the damn thing and come up with something else that does actually work - saves a lot of trouble later on. At the very least accept that it is actually nonsensical to start with. But I see no reason to pride yourself in coming up with an explanation that "makes it work" when all you're really doing is arbitrarily fudging reality to fit the nonsensical result.

You know, a recent poll shows that yours is a minority opinion on this subject.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
IMTU I see pop 1 = 1-99.

(snip)

UWP pop 0 is clearly stated as "No inhabitants" (LBB3 p.11, LBB6 p.27).

It does say that on the chart, but if you read the description on pg. 7 of LBB3, you'll see that the code is an exponent of 10, which means that Pop 1 can't be 1-9.

Flash forward to Grand Census, when the table is corrected on pg. 47.

Also note pg. 8 of LBB3 under referee's notes. A comment is made about "specific characteristics" of worlds that should be taken to heart when looking at the Pop codes (and other UPP data). For example, Pop code 2 doesn't always mean 100 people. It could mean 546 people, for example.

If you want to take a step into MT, check out pg. 22 of the Ref's Manual. You'll see Pop Code 0 = 0-9 people there as well.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
You know, a recent poll shows that yours is a minority opinion on this subject. [/QB]

It doesn't, actually.

This isn't about realism - it's about a failure to recognise that a system is just plain broken, because no attempt is made to weed out or discard the nonsensical results from the world generation system. Or the character generation system for that matter.

It's a systematic problem with Classic Traveller as a whole, in that you're expected to keep exceptional results produced by a random generation system and repeatedly concoct unlikely explanations for them, when those results shouldn't even be outputted in the first place. You'd have the same problem with any system that is so heavily based on randomness.

It's all down to insufficient error-checking in the systems used in the game, really.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
IMTU I see pop 1 = 1-99.

(snip)

UWP pop 0 is clearly stated as "No inhabitants" (LBB3 p.11, LBB6 p.27).

It does say that on the chart, but if you read the description on pg. 7 of LBB3, you'll see that the code is an exponent of 10, which means that Pop 1 can't be 1-9.

Flash forward to Grand Census, when the table is corrected on pg. 47.

Also note pg. 8 of LBB3 under referee's notes. A comment is made about "specific characteristics" of worlds that should be taken to heart when looking at the Pop codes (and other UPP data). For example, Pop code 2 doesn't always mean 100 people. It could mean 546 people, for example.

If you want to take a step into MT, check out pg. 22 of the Ref's Manual. You'll see Pop Code 0 = 0-9 people there as well.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
You know, a recent poll shows that yours is a minority opinion on this subject. [/QB]

It doesn't, actually.

This isn't about realism - it's about a failure to recognise that a system is just plain broken, because no attempt is made to weed out or discard the nonsensical results from the world generation system. Or the character generation system for that matter.

It's a systematic problem with Classic Traveller as a whole, in that you're expected to keep exceptional results produced by a random generation system and repeatedly concoct unlikely explanations for them, when those results shouldn't even be outputted in the first place. You'd have the same problem with any system that is so heavily based on randomness.

It's all down to insufficient error-checking in the systems used in the game, really.