World Building.

[Thanos]

Here's my 1st attempt at world building.

Size. I rolled an 6. 6-2=4. 6,400km 0.35g.

Atmo. Rolled 8. 8-7+ 4(planet size)= 5. Thin atmosphere. Pressure 0.43 to 0.7

Temp. Rolled 5. 5-1(atmo 5)=4. Cold. -51 to -0

Hydro. Rolled 9. 9-7+4(planet size)=6. 56% to 65%

Pop. Rolled 4. 4-2= 2. Population in the 100s.

Gov. Rolled 9. 9-7+2=4

Law. Rolled 3. 3-7+4=0

Now comes the mind blower. 2d6 for Star Port. No modifiers?! I got an 11! This places has a class A star port.

Tech. Rolled 2. 2+6(star port A)+1(4 planet size)+1(2 population)=10.

I know I skipped a few things but is this accurate?

 

[rancke]

Looks to me like the DM that makes it impossible to get a Class A starport with less than pop 6 is unaccountably missing from the rules. :devil:


Hans

 

[BytePro]

Yes, that is accurate.

Just to make sure you are intentional on the things skipped:
- Law Level 0 means its an Amber Travel Zone
- the factions roll
- not explicitly stating Habitability Zone (the edge DMs for temp)
- no explicit or rolled cultural development/differences
- noting TL 10 means accessible comms anywhere on surface
- rolling for bases
- defining Trade Codes

Yes, starports are independent of the other world characteristics. If you look at 'Starports and The Law', in-game they basically are as well.

Note that this is a 'Low-Population World' and 'may differ considerably from the descriptions in the rest of this chapter' - which includes everything past generating the Population characteristic. (That includes the starport.)

 

[rancke]

Yes, starports are independent of the other world characteristics. If you look at 'Starports and The Law', in-game they basically are as well.

No offense, but that does not make sense. Starports are only independent of worlds politically if they're inside the Imperium or some similar sort of politics is involved. Arden's starport, to name a canonical example, is very much not independent of Arden's government.

But be that as it may, economically starports would be very strongly linked to the starship traffic they service and that in turn makes for a strong correlation between the population size and the facilities commercially available at the starport -- in other words, starport class.

Another factor that would affect starport class is the amount of traffic that passes through the system, so the astrographical location of the system is also important and any world generation system that fails to take that into account is missing an important aspect.

Note that this is a 'Low-Population World' and 'may differ considerably from the descriptions in the rest of this chapter' - which includes everything past generating the Population characteristic. (That includes the starport.)

Is that a "we can't provide the instructions you need but feel free to change anything that doesn't work for you" rule?


Hans

 

[Nathan Brazil]

No offense, but that does not make sense. Starports are only independent of worlds politically if they're inside the Imperium or some similar sort of politics is involved.
...
Is that a "we can't provide the instructions you need but feel free to change anything that doesn't work for you" rule?
Hans

For Mongoose Traveller Core RAW, Starports have no supporting DMs plus or minus factoring into the roll for Starport.

On pg. 180 as an optional rule for "Hard Science World Creation", the Starport roll is 2d6-7+Population. The Third Imperium is not in the context of the optional rules on pg.180 considered "Hard Science".

Existing errata does not mention your point. For better or worse. As always if the rules are not to one's liking, change them.

 

[rancke]

For Mongoose Traveller Core RAW, Starports have no supporting DMs plus or minus factoring into the roll for Starport.

I suspected as much, as implied by the smiley.

On pg. 180 as an optional rule for "Hard Science World Creation", the Starport roll is 2d6-7+Population. The Third Imperium is not in the context of the optional rules on pg.180 considered "Hard Science".

I've never thought of the 3rd Imperium as hard science, but until recently I did think of it as striving for reasonable verisimilitude. It upsets me every time I run head-first into evidence to the contrary, as when flaws that have been talked about for 36 years remain unfixed in what it touted as the definitive version.

Existing errata does not mention your point.

I didn't think it did. I do think it should.

For better or worse. As always if the rules are not to one's liking, change them.

A rule that reduces setting verisimilitude for no corresponding gain in gamability is, IMO, a bad rule, and as usual the fact that a referee is free to ignore a bad rule does not make it a good rule.


Hans

 

[Thanos]

Using the optional rules gives me a star port class "D". 11-7+2=6. I find this much more reasonable. This also changes the tech level to 4.

Trade Codes would be Lo and Lt?

 

[MCEvans]

No offense, but that does not make sense. Starports are only independent of worlds politically if they're inside the Imperium or some similar sort of politics is involved. Arden's starport, to name a canonical example, is very much not independent of Arden's government.

But be that as it may, economically starports would be very strongly linked to the starship traffic they service and that in turn makes for a strong correlation between the population size and the facilities commercially available at the starport -- in other words, starport class.

Another factor that would affect starport class is the amount of traffic that passes through the system, so the astrographical location of the system is also important and any world generation system that fails to take that into account is missing an important aspect.


Is that a "we can't provide the instructions you need but feel free to change anything that doesn't work for you" rule?


Hans

Just to be a smart a** , explain Fulacin (SM2613 A674210-D) as if randomly generated (which I believe it was and Adv3 was created to explain it).

 

[BytePro]

Starports of mainworlds are, first and foremost, about interstellar connections.

Not about local conditions related to resources, trade or population.

Main worlds, much less entire star systems, are generally able to exist in isolation - so there is no immediate imperative that they have better quality starports based on any local characteristic - an no local trade requirement. Likewise, there is nothing that says a starport must be built or maintained by any sort of permanent population.

This is akin to trucking, rail and ship terminals that exist the world over as simple points of convergence, support and refueling for transport to other locations, not destinations in their own right. In the case of certain military and more extreme locations, the entire population is transient.

These are not the majority in the real world. They are not the majority in Traveller. This has never been 'fixed' because it is not broken - it is by design based on an informed world view and in the context of providing gaming material.

 

[CosmicGamer]

When generating worlds, you don't simultaneously generate them all. It's quite likely you don't even know if the hex next door is a possible trade partner. So it's somewhat understandable that some DM's are not easily determined. Even if you used a dozen DMs it still would not account for all the military, political, economical, technological and other factors between systems.

The starport value, like the others, is based on a random die roll. It produces a range of possibilities. I acknowledge, with 2d6, perhaps not always properly distributed possibilities. But then the oddities are often more interesting than the norms.

I wouldn't call it broken though, because I expect oversimplified world building rules in the core rulebook. Don't know if or when Mongoose is coming out with their world builder book.

 

[rancke]

This has never been 'fixed' because it is not broken - it is by design based on an informed world view and in the context of providing gaming material.

As I've discussed this on numerous other occasions, I won't embark on yet another round. I'll just go straight to the bottom line: The world generation system fails to account for the correlations that I am convinced would exist between habitability and population and between population and starport class. It also produces worlds that require more suspension of disbelief to explain than I can muster and even on occasion worlds that I find it impossible to explain. This, to me, makes the rules broken.

Now, if you believe that there would be absolutely no correlation between habitability and population or between population and starport class, and if you've never come across a UWP you couldn't explain to your satisfaction, then obviously the rules work for you. I'm not so lucky, so to me they are indeed broken.


Hans

 

[JWRouseIII]

Here are some options for a low population Class A starport world.
Hunting Preserve, or some other tourist destination.
Something wiped out the planetary population recently, orbiting starport is all that's left.
Mining planet that shuttles temporary workers in and out because of health problems on the surface. Or it's mined by robots.
Prison Planet.

 

[rancke]

Here are some options for a low population Class A starport world.

Hunting Preserve, or some other tourist destination.

Has facilities that caters to the tourist liners. Refined fuel and adequate repair facilities. Possibly annual maintenance. No spaceboat construction, because a low-population system don't have enough secondary outposts elsewhere in the system to support a spaceboat construction industry. No starship construction, because it's cheaper to build ships in the systems the tourists come from. That would be a Class C starport (Class C+ if there is refined fuel and annual maintenance available).

And not so low population, either, since there would be service personnel to cater to the tourists and the tourists too. (Contrary to popular assumption transients constitute a population too -- there are even canonical examples of systems where the entire population is explicitly composed entirely of transients).

Something wiped out the planetary population recently, orbiting starport is all that's left.

In which case the factories that manufactures the subcomponents that the shipyard assembles don't work any more; and with the shipyard no longer functioning, the starport will be reclassified as soon as the Scouts get around to it -- which will be at the same time as they correct the population from the former high number to the current low number.

Mining planet that shuttles temporary workers in and out because of health problems on the surface.

Transients are still population.

Or it's mined by robots.

Who built the automated mines and why aren't there enough security personnel around to prevent raiders from carrying off those highly portable chunks of wealth the shipyard is building?

Prison Planet.

Prisoners are population too. So are wardens. So are shipyard workers. So are starport personnel.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

Starports of mainworlds are, first and foremost, about interstellar connections.

Not about local conditions related to resources, trade or population.

Main worlds, much less entire star systems, are generally able to exist in isolation - so there is no immediate imperative that they have better quality starports based on any local characteristic - an no local trade requirement. Likewise, there is nothing that says a starport must be built or maintained by any sort of permanent population.

This is akin to trucking, rail and ship terminals that exist the world over as simple points of convergence, support and refueling for transport to other locations, not destinations in their own right. In the case of certain military and more extreme locations, the entire population is transient.

These are not the majority in the real world. They are not the majority in Traveller. This has never been 'fixed' because it is not broken - it is by design based on an informed world view and in the context of providing gaming material.

Agreed and well said. This thread shouldn't be hijacked into the discussion of this subject once again; the basic admonition is to use one's imagination to why it should be, or to change it to suit one's tastes.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

The difficulty I think is that some aspects of Starports are linked to the planet while others are not. If the starports are truly independent, I can see that point of view. Independent of the planet. Sure. Core Rules state independent Imperial appointed governor. Law Level 1 except for psionics which is LL7. Great!
The problem has been that other parts of the game use the Starport though it belongs to the planet itself and not independent. Shipyard sizes in Trillion Credit Squadron are based on Starport and Population is what comes to mind.

In both cases, I would ask if independent do the Starport workers live in the Starport or do they live off-site. Just rambling, but I hope I have made my point.

 

[CosmicGamer]

If the starports are truly independent [snip] Core Rules state independent Imperial appointed governor.

I searched the pdf core rules and did not find the word independent associated with starports. Not even when discussing starport government.

I think there may be some confusing poster comments with actual book content or this may be from a book other than the Mongoose core rules?

The first post using the word was referring to the dice roll being independent - in other words, there were no DMs due to any other system values. This in no way implies the starport itself does not need food, workers, repair parts, and other things. Like how about some ship traffic? Starports are in not independent of everything outside of them and I don't think anyone intended to say such.

In regards to Starport workers being counted as part of the local population, IMTU that may or may not be the case. These workers, since they do not work for the local system nor do they even work on their sovereign ground, have no need to change their citizenship. They very well could be locals though.

 

[HG_B]

The difficulty I think is that some aspects of Starports are linked to the planet while others are not. If the starports are truly independent, I can see that point of view.

They need to decouple some of these rules or, better yet, supply a generic world gen system. (not talking about the genre options)

Let's say an independent world gen system as opposed to hard wiring 3I setting assumptions into the thing.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

At the risk of sounding argumentative, the GM should use common sense and feel free to modify/change undesirable random results.

 

[rancke]

Just to be a smart a** , explain Fulacin (SM2613 A674210-D) as if randomly generated (which I believe it was and Adv3 was created to explain it).

Whoever wrote up Fulacin used the view that the Scouts would assign a Class A rating to worlds that could potentially build starships even if they didn't actually do so right this moment. (In the case of Fulacin there's the requisite machinery but not enough shipyard personnel and no customers).

However, there's a rule in Book 5 to the effect that worlds with the requisite tech level can build military ships using their own resources even if they don't have Class A ratings. In other words, they do have shipyards and they do build starships but they don't build starships for civilian customers. If the above assumption was true, all worlds with only military shipyards would also have Class A ratings. But they don't.

So the "explanation" is that (from the description in Twilight's Peak) Fulacin's starport is actually Class C.


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

too. So are wardens. So are shipyard workers. So are starport personnel.
Hans

Hi Hans,

I have to disagree with you here, my uncle who was a prison warder lived in a village well away from wakefield and commuted to work as do many other people.

I can quite easily see a world with a small population that is a major institution, the
City of London (not the huge rambling mess outside) is qute a good example in this world.

Kind Regards

David