World Population And Government Types

[Sapphiremagus]

I'm curious, and my search-fu bore me no fruit, as to why higher populations in world generation gravitate towards dictatorships, autocracies, and oligarchies?

I always thought the larger the population, the harder to control, and so would see Balkanization and Representative Democracies be more common. Granted, my understanding could be skewed due to living in a (theoretically) Representative Democracy, but I thought historically as population grows it becomes harder and harder for a single personality to hold power without consent of the masses?

I can definitely see where it's useful when generating Law - the higher the government level (more restrictive / authoritative), the more legal restrictions - but I question tying government type to population in the way that it is.

What am I missing?

 

[Timerover51]

I'm curious, and my search-fu bore me no fruit, as to why higher populations in world generation gravitate towards dictatorships, autocracies, and oligarchies?

I always thought the larger the population, the harder to control, and so would see Balkanization and Representative Democracies be more common. Granted, my understanding could be skewed due to living in a (theoretically) Representative Democracy, but I thought historically as population grows it becomes harder and harder for a single personality to hold power without consent of the masses?

I can definitely see where it's useful when generating Law - the higher the government level (more restrictive / authoritative), the more legal restrictions - but I question tying government type to population in the way that it is.

What am I missing?

The problem is how the government type is generated by the die roll. With it being 2D6-7 plus population, any high population planet has a better than 50% chance of having a government type factor being equal to its population factor or higher. I would agree that the larger the population on a planet, the greater the tendency towards fragmentation. Just look at the discussion in the threat "Where are we from" with respect to Alaska and Texas for an example.

However, the game mechanics are based on a 2D6 die roll, which does limit what you can do with respect to generating a planet. That is were house rules and the judgement of the Game Master come into play.

I, for one, cannot see a single government type for an asteroid belt, unless the population is very small. The nature of intra-system travel would make maintaining control of the opposite side of the belt quite difficult.

 

[Sapphiremagus]

The problem is how the government type is generated by the die roll. With it being 2D6-7 plus population, any high population planet has a better than 50% chance of having a government type factor being equal to its population factor or higher. I would agree that the larger the population on a planet, the greater the tendency towards fragmentation. Just look at the discussion in the threat "Where are we from" with respect to Alaska and Texas for an example.

However, the game mechanics are based on a 2D6 die roll, which does limit what you can do with respect to generating a planet. That is were house rules and the judgement of the Game Master come into play.

I, for one, cannot see a single government type for an asteroid belt, unless the population is very small. The nature of intra-system travel would make maintaining control of the opposite side of the belt quite difficult.

Oh agreed, and I get the dice mechanic. When I asked why, I more meant the design decision to have the more authoritative governments on the high end and/or tied to population as it is.

I'm currently considering two adjustments to government. The first is to decouple it from population. Possible add restrictions / adjustment based on other factors such as population, tech level, size, etc. This would make Government more like Tech Level in it's determination.

The second is to re-arrange the options on the chart, such that the more authoritative government types cluster towards the low middle / middle of the chart.

 

[Gray Lensman]

If developing your own Worlds/Systems you can always just change any result you don't like. But maybe I am biased. See my sig. :rofl:

 

[Sapphiremagus]

If developing your own Worlds/Systems you can always just change any result you don't like. But maybe I am biased. See my sig. :rofl:

"Make it your own" is always an option for any game system, but I'm a systems guy - I like seeing the universe generate on its own (with the help of dice, of course) and desire for that process to make sense. If I have to handwave something, that generally means (to me) that the system is flawed in some way.

Of course, no system is perfect, and I have no problem adjusting as needed (either with system tweaks or handwaving), but I was just curious if there was an underlying design choice and/or socio-economic concept I was missing.

 

[Timerover51]

Oh agreed, and I get the dice mechanic. When I asked why, I more meant the design decision to have the more authoritative governments on the high end and/or tied to population as it is.

I'm currently considering two adjustments to government. The first is to decouple it from population. Possible add restrictions / adjustment based on other factors such as population, tech level, size, etc. This would make Government more like Tech Level in it's determination.

The second is to re-arrange the options on the chart, such that the more authoritative government types cluster towards the low middle / middle of the chart.

Re-ordering the chart to have the more authoritarian government towards the middle might be the best option if you want to keep the game mechanic. You might also want to change the "Religious Dictatorship" to "Religious Community" and put it at the lower end of the population spectrum. I currently live in a community that was founded as a religious community, and therefore this is based on personal experience as well as historical study. Also, religions do tend to fragment as well.

 

[khadaji2002]

<snip>

The second is to re-arrange the options on the chart, such that the more authoritative government types cluster towards the low middle / middle of the chart.

This sounds like a great idea. I'm running with it.

To touch on the main topic, my method is as follows:

1) If the world is one the PCs will be spending a lot of time at, I don't use the dice. I pick everything and only roll dice if I'm torn between options.

2) If the PCs have just found a world (due to misjump or the like) then I do straight die rolls and run with it. It's the fastest way to keep the game working.

3) If I'm making a subsector, I roll everything, keeping in mind the setting I'm aiming at. This is where the idea of changing the government type rolls come in. Thank you again for such a stealable idea!

 

[Ishmael]

I don't think that the 'gov' roll should determine the type of government at all. If anything, the standard 'gov' roll is the level that the population agrees to be ruled over, pretty much the same as Hofstede's Power Distance Index.

The actual type of government is determined by who actually holds power over the different branches of government and the form of succession within those branches, which goes beyond what a single die roll can determine.

The executive, legislative and judicial branches might all be controlled by a single person, such as the Emperor of the Third Imperium, and succession is held upon death ( as opposed to after a set period of time ) and be hereditary means ( as opposed to election or appointment ).

Who controls each branch is what gives the differences between meritocracies and theocracies. Who the succession is handled provides the differences between democracies and hereditary nobilities.

This is somewhat touched on in World Builder's Handbook.

The 'gov' value affects law level which correlates nicely with Hofstede's Indulgence Index.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

My suggestion is to look at the interplay of law level with government. Putting aside the population for a moment.The high results numerically for government in turn weigh towards even higher results numerically for a generated law level. So that seems consistent "Oppressive" governments require higher control.
But elevating government based on population? I think that it may be the perception the designers had on the role of government back in the '70s when Traveller was first designed. I am not sure how old you all are, but I was 12 when Traveller first came out. Maybe it was the thought that more massive technological achievements seen to that point then, like the Moon Race, the Hoover Dam, the A-Bomb and so on could only be achieved via tight government control. And back then what could require more control than maintaining life support for billions of people on less than ideal (non-garden) worlds?
What's to keep them from leaving to better planets? More control. What's to keep one mentally ill person from killing thousands by bypassing safeties for an airlock or some such tactic. Whether by more/better guards or euthanizing "undesirables", more control. Or to keep "peace".
:coffeesip: For The Good of The Body
"Joy be with you. Peace and contentment"
"Are you here for the festival? It is almost Red Hour."
"You have come to a world without hate, without fear, without conflict, no war, no disease, no crime. None of the ancient evils. Landru seeks tranquility, peace for all, the universal good."

 

[Sapphiremagus]

My suggestion is to look at the interplay of law level with government. Putting aside the population for a moment.The high results numerically for government in turn weigh towards even higher results numerically for a generated law level. So that seems consistent "Oppressive" governments require higher control.

Agreed, which is why I am considering just decoupling population from the GOV roll, and either treat it like POP (get a ten, roll again), or TL (base roll + mods from other attributes).

But elevating government based on population? I think that it may be the perception the designers had on the role of government back in the '70s when Traveller was first designed. I am not sure how old you all are, but I was 12 when Traveller first came out.

Born in '81, so familiar with the era but did not live it.

Maybe it was the thought that more massive technological achievements seen to that point then, like the Moon Race, the Hoover Dam, the A-Bomb and so on could only be achieved via tight government control. And back then what could require more control than maintaining life support for billions of people on less than ideal (non-garden) worlds?
What's to keep them from leaving to better planets? More control. What's to keep one mentally ill person from killing thousands by bypassing safeties for an airlock or some such tactic. Whether by more/better guards or euthanizing "undesirables", more control. Or to keep "peace".
:coffeesip: For The Good of The Body
"Joy be with you. Peace and contentment"
"Are you here for the festival? It is almost Red Hour."
"You have come to a world without hate, without fear, without conflict, no war, no disease, no crime. None of the ancient evils. Landru seeks tranquility, peace for all, the universal good."

You're probably right. I don't like it for MTU, but that's what's great about Traveller - I don't have to make MTU look at all like the OTU. I have issue with the idea that large pop authoritative governments are common, so I'll address it for MTU.

Thanks for the insight!

 

[Condottiere]

Imperfect democracy.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Y'all forget TL.

Makes sense to me, sure the population gets larger but as the tech level rises the tools allowing a small group or even one person to hold control are pretty much part and parcel of the society. By TL-A almost ubiquitous surveillance is possible without too much trouble, but TL-C it is pretty much assured without some reason that keeps the power in check.

But that is just my take.

As to religious authoritarian societies myth and legend of past or future glories yet to come can be a powerful tool of control. Humans seem to have this herd/pack instinct and desire to belong to something larger than themselves.

Still, not like I'm some sort of poli-sci/anthropologist so it's mostly using what I have seen and researched.

 

[Enoki]

My suggestion is to look at the interplay of law level with government. Putting aside the population for a moment.The high results numerically for government in turn weigh towards even higher results numerically for a generated law level. So that seems consistent "Oppressive" governments require higher control.
But elevating government based on population? I think that it may be the perception the designers had on the role of government back in the '70s when Traveller was first designed. I am not sure how old you all are, but I was 12 when Traveller first came out. Maybe it was the thought that more massive technological achievements seen to that point then, like the Moon Race, the Hoover Dam, the A-Bomb and so on could only be achieved via tight government control. And back then what could require more control than maintaining life support for billions of people on less than ideal (non-garden) worlds?
What's to keep them from leaving to better planets? More control. What's to keep one mentally ill person from killing thousands by bypassing safeties for an airlock or some such tactic. Whether by more/better guards or euthanizing "undesirables", more control. Or to keep "peace".
:coffeesip: For The Good of The Body
"Joy be with you. Peace and contentment"
"Are you here for the festival? It is almost Red Hour."
"You have come to a world without hate, without fear, without conflict, no war, no disease, no crime. None of the ancient evils. Landru seeks tranquility, peace for all, the universal good."

That I think is what's most important.

I'd also think that as TL and Pop rise the most prevalent sort of government players would be dealing with were bureaucracies of increasingly onerous intrusion into everything.

I'm reminded of one of the episodes of Sliders where in the opening for a few minutes you get treated to them being on a world dominated by lawyers. They can't buy food because they don't have like 20 different forms on file releasing the vendor from responsibility for things like food poisoning... One of the characters bumps into an old lady and apologizes only to be served a lawsuit minutes later...

I could see some TL 14 world that's say LL 9+ where there are cameras that monitor everything you do in public, with audio like Demolition Man where the fine for swearing or whatever is automatically assessed against your bank account...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zhe85spsw

It really wouldn't matter in terms of the players if the system / planet were ruled by a dictator, elected politician, or whatever. For them, it would be bureaucrats and government officials at every turn they're dealing with.

 

[Timerover51]

That I think is what's most important.

I'd also think that as TL and Pop rise the most prevalent sort of government players would be dealing with were bureaucracies of increasingly onerous intrusion into everything.

I'm reminded of one of the episodes of Sliders where in the opening for a few minutes you get treated to them being on a world dominated by lawyers. They can't buy food because they don't have like 20 different forms on file releasing the vendor from responsibility for things like food poisoning... One of the characters bumps into an old lady and apologizes only to be served a lawsuit minutes later...

I could see some TL 14 world that's say LL 9+ where there are cameras that monitor everything you do in public, with audio like Demolition Man where the fine for swearing or whatever is automatically assessed against your bank account...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zhe85spsw

It really wouldn't matter in terms of the players if the system / planet were ruled by a dictator, elected politician, or whatever. For them, it would be bureaucrats and government officials at every turn they're dealing with.

Two Questions:

1. Would you really want to run a game based on a world like that?

2. How long do you think that your players would put up with it before demanding a different set-up or walking out?

 

[Enoki]

Two Questions:

1. Would you really want to run a game based on a world like that?

You don't have to. It only comes up if that happens to be the sort of world you somehow go to or have to go to.

2. How long do you think that your players would put up with it before demanding a different set-up or walking out?

Even in the rules from MT on, the suggested methodology for interaction with the police / government is based almost entirely on law level. There are quite a few worlds with a 9+ where you are going to get hassled in some way if you are doing anything that draws attention or is potentially illegal.
Many players think, for some reason, they can wander anywhere they want armed to the teeth in body armor, etc. The way I see it is that's the exception, not the rule. If you are on a world that prohibits weapons X, Y, and Z either don't carry them, or do it concealed in some way and take your chances. That's what the government and law level in the UPC are all about.

Look at the Spinward Marches (even though I don't usually run things there lots of people do):

Regina is an impersonal bureaucracy (Gov 9) with a LL of 9. You go carrying a weapon there and it gets reported or detected, you can bet law enforcement is going to show up in short order.
Just getting stuff done is going to be a trip to the DMV from hell with the bureaucracy. Why shouldn't it be?

Deneb would be far worse. It's an amber zone on an X-boat route and a religious dictatorship (Gov D) with a LL of D. You get caught with a pocket knife and off to jail with you most likely. Not kowtowing to the religious whims of the government is probably grounds for arrest and imprisonment. The Star Trek episode with Landru would probably be pretty close to the sort of place Deneb is. You have to dress correctly, act correctly, use the right language in speaking to people, etc., or you are likely to find the authorities all up in you in a heartbeat.


How should those be played otherwise? The players need more skills in stuff other than just combat, at least in my games. Having a player in the group that knows the local customs and such (like liaison) is a big plus, and usually a bigger plus than somebody that has a plasma gun or whatever. But, then, I don't tend to run combat heavy games.

Then again, many players just want to shoot 'n loot...

 

[Carlobrand]

Players aren't generally foolish enough to do something they know will fail. A lot of them probably came from those high law worlds and have stories of their own to tell.

As long as you're very clear about what's out there, the ones with the wit and wisdom to navigate high-law worlds can do so, and the ones who don't like that sort of thing can confine themselves to the starport when the ship is in for repairs and then go have their adventures on some wilderness world. The gamemaster just needs to be careful not to try to force them into some setting they can't manage.

 

[khadaji2002]

As far as roleplaying goes, I'm fine RPing a session where the main plot is dealing with an intrusive government. I wouldn't want to have every session like that by any means, but for a good storyline I'll go through a lot. Had a character in a Traveller game get his Imperium ID stamped as a violent offender as he killed someone trying to sneak into his ship. Given the circumstances (long story, great story, but I won't tl;dr y'all with the details) it made sense and I went with it. My pilot wouldn't even curse hard at people, and he had a flag on his ID severely limiting what he could carry outside the ship in all but the loosest of governments. I had fun with that.

So would I want to roleplay dealing with an intrusive government type every session for a year? No. Would I do it for a good storyline giving my character good reason to be there? Every time.

 

[mike wightman]

By the time populations are measured in biliions the day to day government that anyone encounters will be:
the police and other rule enforcers on the street - on a high TL world that could mean drones, cameras in every public place and shop
smart signage - traffic signs that double as cameras, pedestrian signs that double as cameras etc.
the bureaucracy - the robots, help lines, digital avatars you have to deal with before you even make it to a person
the government - who cares - you are an off worlder and don't get a say - the previous three tiers are your day to day experience with the law level and government type of a world.

 

[kilemall]

You might consider the idea that government gen is simulating if anything a body of scifi literature and not SimGov.

 

[Enoki]

By the time populations are measured in biliions the day to day government that anyone encounters will be:
the police and other rule enforcers on the street - on a high TL world that could mean drones, cameras in every public place and shop
smart signage - traffic signs that double as cameras, pedestrian signs that double as cameras etc.
the bureaucracy - the robots, help lines, digital avatars you have to deal with before you even make it to a person
the government - who cares - you are an off worlder and don't get a say - the previous three tiers are your day to day experience with the law level and government type of a world.

This is what I see as important. What would the players / party encounter as government? They aren't going to be dealing with the planetary leadership or top government officials except in rare circumstances (like there's a noble or famous person in the group). What they're going to encounter is dealing with everyday government bureaucrats for the most part.
On high pop worlds this means you have to go to some office to get permits, licenses, cleared with a visa, or whatever. The government officials aren't going to come looking for you unless you don't do whatever it is they require.
I could see a group on a high law world with an onerous government being required to have a government "minder," maybe a robot on a high tech world, or a person on a low tech one, assigned to them to ensure they obey the rules and don't get into trouble.
Now, they have to figure out ways to get around their nosey little rat to do what they came there for.

I also think that on many worlds the government isn't some monolithic thing. For example, let's say you have a world that has 40% land coverage and a moderate TL, say 7 to 9. There's one large continent and some smaller islands and what not scattered over the rest of the planet. What's to keep such a world from having the UPC government just on the continent with say 80%+ of the population and the government really doesn't care what goes on elsewhere. So, all those little atolls, islands, platforms at sea, etc., are essentially low law or even lawless.

There's plenty of ways to vary what the UPC gives and add to it. Think of it like The Hitchhiker's Guide entry on Earth... "Mostly harmless."