Toward a Philosophy of Traveller

[robject]

OK, that was a reductio ad absudum. Now to re-quote part of Jeff's concern.

His conclusion first:

So yeah... you have this awesome design philosophy, but there isn't any follow through. No revisions... no management. And any attempt to fix it at this point will only result in further stratification.

Now, know that his email was to a smaller group of specific people in a fit of general frustration. He didn't ignite a flamewar. He did stir people up to think about the problem in a practical way. But his above quote was finally incorrect.

Incorrect, because (for example) Marc owns Traveller5, and wrote it because he loves Traveller and believes in T5. He takes full responsibility for its problems, and is correcting them. Still. Yes, he's slow and methodical. But at least he is managing Traveller.

Traveller first sprawled into a set of barely compatible games... then instead of tuning things up and regurgitating them the way Steve Jackson or Steve Cole would, GDW kept picking up, moving on, and breaking new ground both in the rules and in the setting.

All it would have taken is a stinking measly second edition for [your Traveller ruleset of preference here] to fix the errata and apply minor improvements based on the requirements of *actual play* [...]

Jeff's second paragraph was an expansion on the first, originally using MegaTraveller as the example of GDW's lack of attention to the current line. Rather than fix what's there (with CT, and later with MT), they move on and start over, apparently without learning their lesson.

Note that there is a Traveller5, second edition, and we're partway through the errata. I'll post an unofficial update on that.

Traveller's design philosophy... so beautifully elegant in its original character, world, and animal generation systems... it never took hold in the Starship side of things.

Even in the critical area of the meaning of stats and skill levels... it's like every version of Traveller has to take a totally different stab at that....

More general case examples of how GDW would not address issues, but rather would just start over and make the same mistakes in a new way.

I don't know what Jeff's problem is with original starship design -- perhaps the unfortunate Book 2 versus HG split -- but in my mind T5 has brought typical ship design up to speed, and is formulaic enough to stay consistent with Big Ships once Marc is ready for BCS.

And as for stats and skills. I will say that Marc *is* building off of the previous version of Traveller, rather than starting over... and that the (major) improvements to the system are directly the result of criticisms of T4.

But at the same time, so many difficult questions for the newcomer:

* How do you move two hexes on the map when you can only go Jump-1? Does every edition of the game have a different answer...? Does every edition even bother to spell this out...? How much research should the referee be expected to do for something like this...? Why is this topic so flame ridden after 30 years...? Could somebody step up and act like they own this line, or is that too late 70's Gygax for the Traveller community to handle...?

* What is in those "empty" hexes, anyway...?

* And can someone tell me how sand, missiles, lasers, and pulse lasers are supposed to work in this game...? Any of them...?!

Now THOSE are interesting questions to me.

 

[creativehum]

About Jeff's questions:

* How do you move two hexes on the map when you can only go Jump-1? Does every edition of the game have a different answer...? Does every edition even bother to spell this out...? How much research should the referee be expected to do for something like this...? Why is this topic so flame ridden after 30 years...? Could somebody step up and act like they own this line, or is that too late 70's Gygax for the Traveller community to handle...?

* What is in those "empty" hexes, anyway...?

* And can someone tell me how sand, missiles, lasers, and pulse lasers are supposed to work in this game...? Any of them...?!

1) Can you tell me what he means by the first question? I feel like I've been introduced to the tail end of a long discussion but don't really understand the question. A J-1 ship can't go two hexes... But clearly there is a question to be answered. Can you break this out for me?

2) Empty... space? I'm not sure I understand the question.

3) Yes. Answer to this would be awesome!

 

[creativehum]

I've removed the "HUMAN" point, because frankly I know of no RPGs where players DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. Perhaps I've gotten the definition wrong. I may backtrack on this one again.

I really liked the five points from the previous post. I'm too busy to respond right now fully, but already mulling them.

Just wanted to say that the focus on the Human was always one of the charms of Basic Traveller for me. PCs aren't Robots or Transhumans* but, for whatever reason, still just people as people have been.

I want to write more on this and the rest of the points, but later. Just wanted to say... before you cut that point, think about it a bit more. Because I think there's value in it. For whatever reason, Basic Traveller assumes the people, as people, aging and doomed in four-year chunks, are still interesting and valuable in and of themselves.


*Any Traveller setting can have transhumans, and android PCs and lots more. Again, just talking about Traveller as out-of-the-box.

 

[robject]

For whatever reason, Basic Traveller assumes the people, as people, aging and doomed in four-year chunks, are still interesting and valuable in and of themselves.

Hmm, the fact of aging IS a good point.

 

[creativehum]

Hmm, the fact of aging IS a good point.

I believe it's a vital point.

i've always found an interesting and compelling tension between the definitively finite nature of human lives as presented in the rules, and abundant and infinite universe the rules present.

No matter what, you're PC is going to die -- cut down in a gun fight or dying of old age. That's how the game works. And yet... there's so much to see! Always one more thing to see! You've seen more than most people ever will as a traveller... and yet you keep going, and still, you'll never see it all.

 

[Reban]

I'm just thinking out loud on a slight tangent without wanting to derail the discussion (which is very interesting).

What is Traveller? It's a sci-fi rules set with a strong background but each Ref and gaming group make their own version of the OTU or depart farther to build an ATU.

That's the genius of Traveller one can cherry-pick the OTU for things that work IMTU or you can tweak "foundational assumptions" to build an ATU that is closer to the kind of sci-fiction you want to play and it works for a range of styles from Space Opera to Hard Sci-fi (while being less adaptable to pure Cyperpunk or Transhumanist settings).

Anyway, that's what attracts me to Traveller, now back to the business of the thread.

 

[mike wightman]

A Traveller in game is a person who has had the epiphany that what they have been doing with their lives so far is over and they have to head out on their own.

Their old career is gone, and the society they were part of no longer wants them in that role. Rather than lie down and wait for the end they break with society norms and begin to Travel. They adventure, seeking to gain rewards that actually matter:
a sense of worth, money, reputation (not social status since they are now living outside societal norms)... that sort of thing.

Remember what it says in the Final Word to referees:

The players themselves have a burden almost equal to that of the referee: they
must move, act, travel in search of their own goals. The typical methods used in life
by 20th century Terrans (thrift, dedication, and hard work) do not work in
Traveller; instead, travellers must boldly plan and execute daring schemes for the
acquisition of wealth and power.

 

[creativehum]

A Traveller in game is a person who has had the epiphany that what they have been doing with their lives so far is over and they have to head out on their own.

Their old career is gone, and the society they were part of no longer wants them in that role. Rather than lie down and wait for the end they break with society norms and begin to Travel. They adventure, seeking to gain rewards that actually matter:
a sense of worth, money, reputation (not social status since they are now living outside societal norms)... that sort of thing.

Remember what it says in the Final Word to referees:

The players themselves have a burden almost equal to that of the referee: they must move, act, travel in search of their own goals. The typical methods used in life by 20th century Terrans (thrift, dedication, and hard work) do not work in Traveller; instead, travellers must boldly plan and execute daring schemes for the acquisition of wealth and power.

Mike's summary might not work for everyone, but certainly it's the reading I've always had of the Basic Traveller rules. And I think that Final Words page is vital to understanding the game and the philosophy. (Nice job, Mike.)

 

[Frankymole]

The point was made in 1980s reviews of Traveller, and introductory articles too, that unlike historical fiction (then) and a lot of SF and fantasy literature, the humans in Traveller very much had a twentieth century (and western, capitalist) outlook and set of values. Not what many authors would expect for 3000 years and thousands of world colonisations hence. But vital, it was thought, for player identification at least when new to the game.

 

[McPerth]

As I understand, the critical question is what defines Traveller, as much as what it is. When I started playing it, what caught my attention and, IMHO, definied it against other games I played was:

• The Chargen system, as noted by some
• The fact that skills where more critical than stats (something that changed in latter versions)
• The lack of character level (as said also, reward was not in experience points (something not valid for T20, as I've heard)
• Characters are not exceptional bread of men (no character class people as opposite to ordinary people), just their interests and training made them different from ordinary people
• More or less coherent technology system, even while very variable technolgies appeared (it was the first place where I heard about TLs)
• A more or less coherent ship design system that allowed you to design your own ship
• A more or less coherent and easy way to define planets, allowing you to roll them on spot and yet giving you variability

For example, I find patrons really problematic. The moment the sole motivation for a human becomes money -- as the Patron system sets up -- the moral regulator can fall off human behavior, which leaves us with immoral assholes (in both RPGs and life).

From its own beginings, some of the published traveller adventures (be them patrons, amber zones, casual encounters or merc missions) are of quite dubious morals...

Another point of Traveller is that there's nothing like "alignment" on it

 

[creativehum]

From its own beginings, some of the published traveller adventures (be them patrons, amber zones, casual encounters or merc missions) are of quite dubious morals...

Another point of Traveller is that there's nothing like "alignment" on it

Dubious morals I have no problem with. Seriously, reference points for me for Traveller are not SF stories but (as I've mentioned in other threads) movies like The Man Who Would Be King, The Wild Bunch, Wages of Fear, Heat, and more. In each of these tales, the protagonists, even when they are thieves, still have some sort of code. My concern is when there are when no lines the PCs will not cross. So, perhaps I am squeamish at some point. But I think I'm also fairly wide on where that line is.

EDIT TO ADD: I have become more comfortable with the idea of Patrons. And, in some ways, this thread is responsible for that in ways I cannot quite identify.

The key is, as long as the PCs have the choice to say no to a job, or can choose to turn the tables on their would be employers, or go off on their own, I'm fine with it. In my games the Players can have their PCs choose to do anything they want. I will never expect them to behave a certain way or choose to do a certain thing. I have no "adventure" planned. Just a situation.

In the kind of setting based on the kind of philosophy we're talking about, I can see really cool sessions coming out of this.

That said, I always think of this passage from the Final Words Mike quoted: "The players themselves have a burden almost equal to that of the referee: they must move, act, travel in search of their own goals. The typical methods used in life by 20th century Terrans (thrift, dedication, and hard work) do not work in Traveller; instead, travellers must boldly plan and execute daring schemes for the acquisition of wealth and power." Ideally I would want my Players to have their PCs come up with their own goals, their own ambitions. They might seek out Patrons to help attain those goals, but at its best, our play would be the Players telling me what dreams the PCs have, and me laying out the opportunities and obstacles that present themselves "in search of their own goals."

 

[mike wightman]

The point was made in 1980s reviews of Traveller, and introductory articles too, that unlike historical fiction (then) and a lot of SF and fantasy literature, the humans in Traveller very much had a twentieth century (and western, capitalist) outlook and set of values. Not what many authors would expect for 3000 years and thousands of world colonisations hence. But vital, it was thought, for player identification at least when new to the game.

The reviewers got it wrong and hadn't read to the end of the book.

If you (generic you not directed at Frankymole) have a copy of LBB3 read the Final World section - therein may be found the lens through which you may scry the philosophy of Traveller.

(aside - the OTU developed into a setting where these ideals are not possible due to the benevolent monolithic strong Imperium - rather than the past its prime empire it was originally envisaged as)

 

[Frankymole]

But doesn't the human-centric, people driven approach also take the view that human nature has not changed? As with the no transhumans rule, etc, we also find that our 20th century western drives are not modified as new players to the game. We identify, rather than playing to completely new psychologies and values. The morality and laws of even the proto- Imperial setting are recognisable, and the patrons' missions in 76 patrons are all as we'd expect and understand, as are mercenaries and their tickets. Even the naval ranking structure is as we've developed here in 1977-ish. The technology is different, and that's about it. The aliens are the means to play someone "other" than a modern human being in psychological terms rather than merely tech skills.

 

[rancke]

The reviewers got it wrong and hadn't read to the end of the book.

If you (generic you not directed at Frankymole) have a copy of LBB3 read the Final World section - therein may be found the lens through which you may scry the philosophy of Traveller.

That's the bit that was quoted earlier, right?

The players themselves have a burden almost equal to that of the referee: they must move, act, travel in search of their own goals. The typical methods used in life by 20th century Terrans (thrift, dedication, and hard work) do not work in Traveller; instead, travellers must boldly plan and execute daring schemes for the acquisition of wealth and power.

It seems to me that it doesn't say that PCs aren't 20th Century Westerner expys; it says that PCs can't use traditional 20th Century methods. In other words, they could well be 20th Century Westerner expys who have to come up with unusual solutions.

(As an aside, this seems to me to be in error. At least, I can't think of any adventures or amber zones where such solutions aren't applicable. But perhaps I'm mistaken and the methods used to solve Traveller adventures are actually 19th Century methods).

(aside - the OTU developed into a setting where these ideals are not possible due to the benevolent monolithic strong Imperium - rather than the past its prime empire it was originally envisaged as)

If creativehum will forgive me for replying to a statement about the OTU in a thread where the OTU explicitly have no place, I have to say that while you're technically right, you're also completely wrong.

It's true that logically the Imperium, as it evolved, ought to be able to put the kibosh on a lot of frontier behavior. However, no more so than subsector governments and individual high-population worlds were from the very first original Traveller rules. The basic philosophy that makes one random world in 12 a high-population world ensures that, if taken to the logical conclusion, there is no such thing as a frontier anywhere in any Traveller setting.

And the Imperium, as it evolved, is portrayed as interfering no more as it was portrayed as interfering in the beginning. Yes, the Imperium ought to turn the Spinward Marches into a non-frontier. But so should any subsector government, and so should any high-tech, high-population world. And yet, Mora and Trin and Glisten and Rhylanor and a dozen pop 8 worlds are portrayed as lying right next to backwater frontier worlds. They were so portrayed in Supp 3, and they are so portrayed in MgT: The Spinward Marches.

Personally, I blame the original philosophy that failed to have the world generation system distinguish between wildernesses, frontiers, growing civilizations, mature civilizations, and ancient civilizations, all of which ought to have quite different population and starport distributions.


Hans

 

[creativehum]

If creativehum will forgive me for replying to a statement about the OTU in a thread where the OTU explicitly have no place, I have to say that while you're technically right, you're also completely wrong.

I see no problem with comparing and contrasting the OTU against the original game set if that's what someone wants to do. My point was, clearly, that trying to retrofit the original game to be what could justify the Third Imperium in this thread makes no sense, since the point of the thread is to see what you get if one does not take that point of view.

Such comparisons might be profitable. They also might lead to endless side-discussions where the original purpose of the thread is lost and everything gets yanked to talks about how things work in the Third Imperium.

Finally, this sort of thread attracts people aren't particularly enamored with the OTU. The desire for something else is what prompts the start and participation in thread. References to the OTU will often dig at the OTU. Which might in turn prompt others to defend the OTU. And then the thread is about the OTU. Again, sadness.... as that was never the point of the thread.

***

As for the discussion of the last few posts:

Guys, we're getting caught up in an argument about reviews and introductory articles that have not been reference or quoted. We don't even know specifically what we're responding to.

My guess is, thinking back to what would have dominated SF Pop-Culture in the early 80s, we'd still have Star Trek, Star Wars on the movie front, and on the novel front the big books would have been Dune, Foundation Trilogy, and Heinleine's books. (And many more! That's not the point!) The point is that most of these settings/stories are about high minded ideas -- a utopian federation starship funded with endless materials and energy; a battle against an evil empire; an ecological-based SF epic; the concept of psychohistory; and it goes on. In other words, none of this stuff is about making a buck. And Traveller is all about making a buck when you open the little black box and pull out Books 1, 2, and 3. If there's contrast to be made, it is between the down-to-earth concerns of Traveller against big-idea ideals of most SF. That would be a bump for lots of people. (I assume it still is.)

Whether or not the characters are from the 20th century isn't the point. In fact, they can't be... I don't even know how the conversation has reached this point. They're not. They're from a setting in the Far Future. But they ethos of the setting -- at least for the PCs and why they exist as adventurers -- is one of mercantile concern. They need to make a living. And, as Mike says clearly and correctly, by definition, at the core of Traveller's philosophy, they choose to do it in a bold and adventurous way. They aren't just looking for a job. They are looking to matter in a way they gives them control over their own lives in an environment where control can be taken.

***

Finally, Hans, I know you think that all high pop worlds suddenly rain lawful civilization down upon all worlds. But here's the thing:

No.

The core Traveller philosophy assumes the setting of play is at the remove from civilization proper. That's just a given. It's implied in all the rules, it's implied in the implied setting material, its in the equipment and kinds of ships listed in the rules, in the Final Words, and even in the introductory texts to both Book 4 and Book 5. Civilization is "Back That Way." And that's it.

So, what does a Referee do with a High Pop world? Anything he wants? It could be a world where 50 billion people are stacked up Matrix-like living in a VR environment while 1 billion do maintenance work on the machinery. It could be a plague world where disease renders most people almost helpless and a small percentage live in luxury and with high tech. It could be a world falling into decay, where infighting for the last scraps of resources prevent anything profitable from happening in terms of interstellar trade or travel. Or could be a fantastically wealthy world that wants little to do with the unwashed masses in the star systems around, them exploiting them but holding back technology and causing those worlds lots of strife as they exploit them.

The possibilities are endless.

And here's the thing: In Traveller, the essence of Traveller that we're talking about in this thread, the World Generation system is there to spark the Referee's imagination. And part of that sparking is making sense of the random results within the confinement of a subsector or two that makes sense in a setting that is beyond the reach of the remote centralized government implied and stated in the rules.

The response, "Worlds like that don't make sense in that kind of setting" doesn't fly in this thread, because the point is to find a reason to make it make sense. The Referee has the opportunity to come up with a cool, unique world that fits into that setting. That's it.

And if the Referee can't, per the rules, he can blow off the result and write up whatever UWP he wishes.

I know in other threads when challenged with "I don't like responses where I'm told I have to justify things that make no sense." All I can say here is: "Too bad." That's what the World Generation system Traveller was designed to do. If you don't like it, don't use it! But stop telling the rest of us that it doesn't make sense. As an opportunity to dream up cool, specific worlds that are really unique based on fascination SF concepts it works like gangbusters. It requires work and imagination and thinking outside the box and coming up with a lot of cool, outlandish settings. But for some of us, that's what we want.

The Third Imperium, god bless it, has the feel of a faux First World 20th century Western landscape... which made things easy, I believe, for people to grasp quickly. But that was never the feel I got when I read the original three books for the kind of setting it asked me to dream up. And the kind of setting I want was in those first three books.

 

[rancke]

Whether or not the characters are from the 20th century isn't the point. In fact, they can't be... I don't even know how the conversation has reached this point. They're not.

But they are being played by people from the 20th (now 21st) century. Absent a setting description that explains how to play a Farfuturian, the default assumptions are going to be based on that.

Finally, Hans, I know you think that all high pop worlds suddenly rain lawful civilization down upon all worlds.

That's right. I think that any high-population world with access to interstellar ships will spread their civilization to their neighbors.

A low- or mid-tech high-population world won't do the same, but since I don't know the odds of getting low-, mid- and high-tech high-population worlds, I glossed over that part. I do know that the sample sectors we have access to (in the OTU ) provide more than enough high-tech ones to back up my claim.

But here's the thing:

No.

The core Traveller philosophy assumes the setting of play is at the remove from civilization proper.

True. This is what is known as a discrepancy.

The response, "Worlds like that don't make sense in that kind of setting" doesn't fly in this thread, because the point is to find a reason to make it make sense. The Referee has the opportunity to come up with a cool, unique world that fits into that setting. That's it.

That wasn't the response I gave to Mike, though. He made a statement that I considered erroneous and I attempted to refute it.

I know in other threads when challenged with "I don't like responses where I'm told I have to justify things that make no sense." All I can say here is: "Too bad." That's what the World Generation system Traveller was designed to do. If you don't like it, don't use it! But stop telling the rest of us that it doesn't make sense.

You know what? The CotI boards have a tradition of tolerance for tangents. If you don't like that, "Too bad". Please stop telling me what I can and can't post. You can ask me nicely, and since I try to be a nice guy, odds are that I'll try to accomodate you. But if someone makes a statement that I disagree with, I'm going to challenge it, whatever the thread is about.

And if you don't like that, too bad.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

The assumption from Cameron's quote is that the OTU did not flow from the basic design philosophy of Traveller's original rules.

I don't think the precise OTU flows from the design philosophy (it could just as easily be a collection of pocket empires) however personally - it maybe only if you have a particular way of thinking - I do think some aspects of the OTU flow from some of the *specific numbers* that come out of the world generation however that can easily be changed either of two ways.

1) The world generation provides a range of numbers so if you want a different setting change the range of numbers.

2) Change the premise of what the numbers mean.

#

For example I like the OTU now I have finally figured out how to make it the way I like - creating wilderness inside the OTU - but otherwise I think creativehum's ATU premise is a better fit for how I see the Traveller philosophy i.e. (if I understand it right)

step 1) An Imperium with lots of colonies
step 2) A collapse and long night leading to the isolated colonies developing in their own unique way
step 3) One system relearns jump tech and starts to expand as a second Imperium *but* at the point where the game starts they are near the early stages of this process and have only re-integrated some of the old colonies leaving lots still outside Imperium space e.g. say the new Imperium has incorporated a region of 4x4 sub-sectors but there are other 4x4 sub-sector regions all the way around the Imperium core with a ton of old colony worlds.

The old colonies outside Imperium space could range from stone age cannibals to solar system space travel but not jump.

#

If you wanted a setting like that then you can either add DMs to the world generation (Mongoose does this and I think it's a very good idea) or keep the original numbers but change the premise.

For example if the premise is as above and an outer colony world rolls up a population of 8 and TL of 12+ what could that mean? According to the premise the lost colonies shouldn't have a tech level that high and new Imperial colonies shouldn't have a population that high - easy, you make it a new small Imperial colony with high tech on top of a much larger old colony population with lower tech.

(And a colony of Imperials outside Imperium space doesn't have to be an Imperial colony - maybe it's a merchant company's base or pirates or a rogue Imperial admiral who mutinied and set up his own kingdom: "The Admiral Who Would Be King.")

(Or say it's an old colony that has high TL but not jump.)

#

I think a key part of the design philosophy is travelling to lots of worlds which have developed in unique ways so a setting needs to support that imo (and there are multiple ways to do it).

1) An expanding 2nd Imperium with lots of un-incorporated old colony worlds to explore.

2) An aging Imperium which hit it's peak long ago and is in the process of losing control and breaking up.

3) A ribbon Imperium that extends from alpha system to alpha system and ignores everything else.

(and probably others)

#

Originally Posted by robject View Post
I've removed the "HUMAN" point, because frankly I know of no RPGs where players DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. Perhaps I've gotten the definition wrong. I may backtrack on this one again.

I always took this to mean there are pilots and navigators and drivers and gunners rather than AI and robots doing it all.

If you take your list as a hierarchy rather than a straight list then if "unique worlds" is nearer the top than "human centric" then human centric can be the default but on some worlds it's over ruled and on those worlds it's all about robots, AI, transhumans, bio-engineering etc.

#

edit:

a new small Imperial colony with high tech on top of a much larger old colony population with lower tech

This is a way round the problem - and whether or not it's a problem is an individual thing - of how many ships a pop 8, TL12 world ought to be able to build and support. If it's actually 250,000 TL12 Imperials and 6 billion TL 4 natives then problem solved.

 

[creativehum]

Hi Salochin999,

Without doubt the OTU grows from the original design philosophy. The points at hand in this matter for me are:

1. There are a myriad number of settings that could flow from the original designer philosophy. The OTU is but one of them.
2. The OTU obviously doesn't work with the original design philosophy. Which is fine. Once someone makes a concrete setting certain details will be made specific, tweaking the design philosophy as required to make this setting this setting and not another setting.
3. However, the notion that because the OTU depends on new underlying philosophies that run counter to the original underlying philosophies, so that the original underlying philosophies are wrong or must be corrected because the OTU exits is anywhere along the spectrum from preposterous to bizarre.

In other words, just because one adventure in the run of the JTAS said there are interstellar traveling shoe salesmen in the Third Imperium doesn't mean that interstellar travel shouldn't be dangerous or that travellers aren't exceptional as a type of person. it simply means that the creators of the OTU built one sort of setting out of the original rules. That's the prerogative of anyone creating a setting.

In the same way, the setting I've been working on is but one expression of how one could grow a Traveller setting from the original rules. I assume, as Bill Cameron does at the start of this thread, and Marc Miller did when he wrote Traveller, that a varied and countless number of permutations are available.

"Remember that the original concept for Traveller was very GURPS-ish: a generic system that could emulate every possible part of SF. And in the first year, we did very little support beyond the basic rules. It was only after we started writing adventures that the Imperium started taking shape as a real background."
-- Marc Miller

This isn't me contradicting you on any of your final points. I'm simply stating what I mean and don't mean, to make it clear we're pretty much in agreement.

****

This is a way round the problem - and whether or not it's a problem is an individual thing - of how many ships a pop 8, TL12 world ought to be able to build and support. If it's actually 250,000 TL12 Imperials and 6 billion TL 4 natives then problem solved.

I agree with this philosophy of the Referee using the UWP random generation system. It is a tool "to prod the imagination," (to quote Book 3), not a straight jacket. In Basic Traveller there was no mention of the UWP being generated by the Scout Service. It was an artifact of gaming, there to inspire the Referee to create cool and unexpected ideas, settings, and situations. In my view, the Referee who is using the World Creation system as some sort of codified bit of textbook analysis is missing the point. One jumbles the numbers up, dreams, and concocts a vision of a world that turns one on. The actual numbers can be interpreted in many ways, each slightly different for each given world, to make the most compelling, fun planet one can.

 

[salochin999]

@creativehum

There are a myriad number of settings that could flow from the original designer philosophy.

Sure, no argument there. The design philosophy implies lots of unique worlds and that leads to the idea of a random generation system and that could lead to a myriad number of settings.

My point is simply that if any specific iteration of random world generation leads to results a GM doesn't like then they can either change the results as you say or if (like me) they want it to be as random as possible at first and then strictly follow the logic (as they see it) from the initial randomness then they should modify the generation system in advance to leave out the kind of results that don't fit the setting they want.

 

[creativehum]

I did a mix of the pre-modifying and adjusting after the fact, by the way.

I chose to use a Frontier Table for Starport Types.
All Population results of tens of billions were automatic re-rolls. (I don't want worlds that heavy with people. Billions will be an extraordinary pop in this subsector.

I did bump one A-class starport down to a B. I already had two A-class starports and didn't want a third.