Too many Amber zones?

[GoblynByte]

I've randomly generated 3 sub sectors so far, and I seem to be coming up with a lot worlds that qualify for Amber travel code status. Using the qualifications on page 180 I'm averaging 60% of worlds in a sub sector getting Amber status. Is this normal? Is this what you guys tend to get? Or am I doing something wrong, do you think?

(Note: I apologize for the flood of questions regarding world generation. If you can't tell, I'm in the midst of a project.)

 

[GypsyComet]

Are you using one of the variant DM sets for atmosphere, water, and people? The "Space Opera" and "Hard Science" variants in the main book can really change the feel of a subsector.

 

[WistfulD]

What are they being amber zoned for?

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

I haven't tried rolling a subsector, but my suggestion would be to take the rolled up stats as a starting point, then "tailor" and edit them to better fit the feel you are looking for.

If you want more or less amber zones, then work out which worlds you don't want to be amber zoned, then tweak the stat line to avoid the amber zoning.

Or, think of a in universe reason why a would that would normally be classed as amber is, in this instance, not in need of zoning. interesting exceptions can add character to a subsector.

 

[GoblynByte]

Are you using one of the variant DM sets for atmosphere, water, and people? The "Space Opera" and "Hard Science" variants in the main book can really change the feel of a subsector.

No, no variants. Just the standard formulas.

What are they being amber zoned for?

Atmosphere 10+, government 0, 7, or 10, or a law level of 0 or 9+. (per MGT Core Rulebook pg 180).

I haven't tried rolling a subsector, but my suggestion would be to take the rolled up stats as a starting point, then "tailor" and edit them to better fit the feel you are looking for.

I'm trying to establish that baseline from which to start. But the frequency of Amber zones seems odd. Just trying to figure out if others have had similar rates.

 

[GypsyComet]

Atmosphere 10+, government 0, 7, or 10, or a law level of 0 or 9+. (per MGT Core Rulebook pg 180).

Those conditions come up far more often than you'd think, especially if you have worlds that are trending high on population or size.

While the book doesn't say so, the social triggers are merely good indicators, not fool proof. The OTU is full of worlds that meet the criteria but lack the Amber travel code. Not all balkanized worlds are at war, or even tense, and Charismatic Dictators don't have to include outsiders in their edicts or be xenophobes. Clan/Family setups (Gov 0) are associated with small populations, and are not always violent, though they may have unpublished laws that you'll have to break to discover.

Law Levels are a better indicator, since the LL digit is explicitly tied to visitor harassment.

 

[salochin999]

Atmosphere 10+, government 0, 7, or 10, or a law level of 0 or 9+. (per MGT Core Rulebook pg 180).

If it was me I'd use those world values to indicate *potential* Amber zones and then roll 8+ (or some other number) to see if it gets one.

 

[GoblynByte]

If it was me I'd use those world values to indicate *potential* Amber zones and then roll 8+ (or some other number) to see if it gets one.

That's a good idea! Certainly not that I'm opposed to having oversight on the process, but (at least at the moment) I'm trying to automate as much of the process as possible for the fun and challenge of developing story elements from randomized elements. Having a simple mechanic to lessen the appearance of them is a good thing.

 

[Shonner]

Mongoose Traveller generates a world with an amber zone about 50% of the time. I have my computer then do an additional "1 out of 3 are really amber zone worlds".

 

[rancke]

Atmosphere 10+, government 0, 7, or 10, or a law level of 0 or 9+. (per MGT Core Rulebook pg 180).

Text says that such worlds should be considered for amber zone status. It's not mandatory. (Just what is different about the way red zones are assigned (at the discretion of the ref) eludes me).

Also, just why you shouldn't consider worlds with other atmospheres, government types, and law levels for amber zone status likewise eludes me. The entire rule/guideline seems to me to be nugatory.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Amber zones, and red zone status for that matter, should be able to change over time. The referee is the only one who can decide how the changing politics and threat levels on worlds can change their status over time for his/her campaign.

The campaign would have to last a few years for such changes.

Having a system design process that highlights potential amber and red zones can make this process easier.

 

[rancke]

Is there a list of canonical reasons for red and amber zones? I was just about to go through BtC and make such a list when it struck me that someone may already have done it, and there's no reason to duplicate efforts.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

BtC is not canonical.

 

[Hyphen]

BtC is not canonical.

News to me.

It's co-authored by Martin Dougherty, who would have to be one of the three gurus most likely to know what's in the Marches.

The other two?

Dave Nilsen - who had to don his knee-high waders to trawl through the muck of "canon" to produce the Regency Sourcebook, and who says "I'll bet I know more about inconsistencies within original Traveller and MegaTraveller than anyone left alive, and only I know where the bodies are buried".

And Hans Rancke-Madsen, who has been studying the Marches for at least two decades (in comparison, I only consider myself to be a dabbler) ;-)

The only difference is that BtC was written for the GT timeline, where the Rebellion didn't happen, so there may be some post-1116 references that do not work if you are using the Rebellion. Pre-1116 you're golden.

You could cross-check it with the RSB (where Rebellion has occurred).

 

[mike wightman]

Don't shoot the messenger - BtC has had issues since the wrong draft was published.

It has been stated on record that BtC shouldn't be used as a canon reference.

The MgT Spinward Marches book is a more up to date look at the SM - and check out who the author is...

 

[tjoneslo]

After reading through about two dozen world entries with amber zones, I've reduced the list of options to the following simpler list:

• Primitive Culture - The IISS restricts access to the world because of a primitive sophont culture.
• Biohazardous environment - Something in the environment is dangerous to sophonts, but (may) not be present enough to affect the atmosphere rating.
• Biohazardous flora / fauna - The life forms on the world present a serious hazard to sophonts, beyond the usual danger from wild animals.
• Visitors restricted - Military Rule - The world is controlled by the military, is considered an potential active war zone.
• Visitors restricted - Cultural - The local world government restricts visitors because of local laws or cultural norms present a threat.
• Civil unrest - The local world has an ongoing civil war, which may affect visitors.

These can be expanded upon, or combined for more interesting results. The list is approximately in order of least to most common.

 

[GoblynByte]

Text says that such worlds should be considered for amber zone status.Hans

Huh. That's funny. When reading that sentence in the book I glazed right over the word "for." So it was the difference between "should be considered Amber..." and "should be considered for Amber..." I could have had some unsuspecting travellers to an incorrectly labelled world because of a misread!

Grammar, folks! It saves lives! Which is funny considering I put "to" instead of "too" in the title line of this thread.

 

[Meeko100]

Text says that such worlds should be considered for amber zone status. It's not mandatory. (Just what is different about the way red zones are assigned (at the discretion of the ref) eludes me).

Also, just why you shouldn't consider worlds with other atmospheres, government types, and law levels for amber zone status likewise eludes me. The entire rule/guideline seems to me to be nugatory.


Hans

Seems to be a system full of exceptions. The code seems to just give a guess for what could/should be there. As said in someone else's post, plenty of dictators and hyper-law level world are perfectly fine. But just as a rule, its easy to say that these likely are not cool places to go.

A Republic with LL6-ish AMD earth like atmosphere normally wouldn't be an amber-zone. But if it had a short little war with its neighbor (just enough so they navy won't roll up), and is getting #rekt, then that would be an amber-zone, but the space dictators place may be fine to go to. Or, at least, its not marked as dangerous.

 

[Jame]

After reading through about two dozen world entries with amber zones, I've reduced the list of options to the following simpler list:

• Primitive Culture - The IISS restricts access to the world because of a primitive sophont culture.
• Biohazardous environment - Something in the environment is dangerous to sophonts, but (may) not be present enough to affect the atmosphere rating.
• Biohazardous flora / fauna - The life forms on the world present a serious hazard to sophonts, beyond the usual danger from wild animals.
• Visitors restricted - Military Rule - The world is controlled by the military, is considered an potential active war zone.
• Visitors restricted - Cultural - The local world government restricts visitors because of local laws or cultural norms present a threat.
• Civil unrest - The local world has an ongoing civil war, which may affect visitors.

These can be expanded upon, or combined for more interesting results. The list is approximately in order of least to most common.

I would suggest the following addition:

Environmental hazard - Geological - The world has an active geological feature such as an unstable crust or volcanic feature or other feature.

E.H. - Atmospheric

E.H. - Temperature

Obviously they need expansion.

 

[salochin999]

Huh. That's funny. When reading that sentence in the book I glazed right over the word "for." So it was the difference between "should be considered Amber..." and "should be considered for Amber..." I could have had some unsuspecting travellers to an incorrectly labelled world because of a misread!

Grammar, folks! It saves lives! Which is funny considering I put "to" instead of "too" in the title line of this thread.

If you take the Mongoose list as meaning "more likely to have an Amber zone" you could say something like

- those systems which fit on the list get an amber warning on a throw of 8+ (or whatever number seems best)
- those systems which don't fit on the list get one on a 12+
- then systems that get an amber warning then roll another 2d6 and

2-6: the system has an amber warning at the start of play and it's a long running one that will still be there at the end of a year
7: the system has an amber warning at the start of play but it is a temporary event which will be over within a year
8-9: the system doesn't have an amber warning at the start of play but some event will create a temporary one during the year
10-12: the system doesn't have an amber warning at the start of play but some event will create a long running one during the year.

Some temporary events could be a regular thing in that system e.g. a system that has massive volcanic activity for a few months every year or a world which goes too close to it's sun every year and everyone has to go underground for a few months.