Worldbuilding canon-changes in T20

[GypsyComet]

I, on the other hand, find it vaguely amusing that not one of you has seen fit to froth over the removal of Type VI stars from the stellar table, and the near-removal of white dwarves as Primary stars, since these obviously invalidate all that nice MT-era sector data...

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by GypsyComet:
I, on the other hand, find it vaguely amusing that not one of you has seen fit to froth over the removal of Type VI stars from the stellar table, and the near-removal of white dwarves as Primary stars, since these obviously invalidate all that nice MT-era sector data...

---------------------------------------------
Or the decimal rating for M-class dwarfs!
heretically yours (with no M type-VI stars...!),

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by GypsyComet:
I, on the other hand, find it vaguely amusing that not one of you has seen fit to froth over the removal of Type VI stars from the stellar table, and the near-removal of white dwarves as Primary stars, since these obviously invalidate all that nice MT-era sector data...

I don't have any complaint about that since 1) it follows a similar change made in TNE, 2) it was done for legitimate realism purposes*, 3) I'd known beforehand (from posts on this board) that it was coming, and 4) I've never paid a whole lot of attention to the canonical stellar data anyway. FWIW I'm also not complaining about the fact that worlds in the Outer Zone can no longer have Atm A, or the reversion to CT's 2D-7+Atm (instead of MT/TNE's 2D-7+Siz) for Hydrosphere, or the various small changes on the T&C available cargo & passengers tables (though I did notice all of them).

*legitimate in that AFAIK Bk6 was written to approximate RL scientific understanding of the time, which has evolved in the years since Bk6 was published. No similar claim can be made for the population or starport rolls, which are both purely imaginary and were also deliberately** allowed to be 'unrealistic' from the start so as to provide a wide variety of interesting and unique world combinations for Travellers to visit, explore, and adventure on. Devising explanations for the 1 or 2 'anomalous' worlds that will likely come up in a hand-generated subsector is fun and sparks valuable plot ideas -- the 'problem' only arises when trying to explain the dozens of anomalies that come up when generating entire sectors (or domains, or the entire Imperium) on a computer. IMO the real problem then lies not in the system itself but in those trying to use it for a purpose ("detail the entire universe") for which it was never intended.

**I'm surmising that, but since starport type, physical environment, and population would so logically be tied together, making them all mutually independent must have been a deliberate choice. And that, I think, is really the core of my discontent with this rule change -- it doesn't represent an actual 'correction' of a previous error or oversight, but rather a shift in design-philosophy, away from "produce a wide possibility of results to inspire referee creativity" towards "produce something more or less scientifically plausible." In doing so it favors the gearheads, grognards, and armchair historians over those who actually play the game, and moves Traveller a little further from its 'hard space opera' roots (Tubb, Anderson, Asimov, etc.), and is thus IMO a bad move.

 

[themink]

A much more accurate way to determine locations and properties of systems would be to start with a large quantity of very hot matter, very close together and watch to see what happens. (recipie for apple pie - start with a large cloud of hydrogen)

Failing that you could list a set of rules for a science and have the refs apply those rules (ie form stars into "bubbles" require stage 3 stars first to determine the presence of stage 2 stars etc.

Failing that, just give a ref a set of random tables they can roll numbers on and then adjust the result based on what type of universe they want to roleplay in.

Failing that, give them a predetermined universe.

Again re-iterating, see hunters sig. Whatever you want, take it. (It's like the most selfish utilitarianism, but more fun)

 

[TheRaptor]

The main reason people are complaining/talking about these rule changes is they go against the statment previously made by the senior designers. That being that the systems would be compatiable with CT systems. Now this really hasn't been followed form comments I am hearing (I don't own T20). People are saying you cannot convert HG2 vessels 100% and that DM's have been added to system generation. Now frankly the only thing I am concerned about is the *apparent* hypocrisy going on.

If you felt that changes to CT system generation where needed why not put them in a side bar? People with rulist agendas will kill T20! There are lots of screw-ups and weird things in canon! Do these all need to be fixed? No! look at the real world! No one would believe the real world if it where an RPG its to weird. People live thousands of meters up mountains, others kill each other for little reason!

However covertly inserting rules changes when it was stated that such covert assaults would not happen will not gain you fans! It is not CT canon that is broken! It is your rules! The spinward marches are generated using the book 2 system. Nothing you do will convince the actual IP holders to retrospectivally change canon! All you will do is annoy Trav players with older systems from buying yours.

James

 

[hunter]

The atmospheric modifiers is an error, not a canon change. The modifiers should apply to non-mainworld bodies only.

As for the claims of misrepresentation, etc. Folks, get real. Martin basically said we aren't following any agenda to 'fix' what some folks may see as broken in Traveller. He's right. I didn't design the rules with the idea of 'Ah, now I can fix things the way I think they should be'. If you look, there are damn few changes and those that are there are fairly minor, and don't change the flavor, feel, or play of the game.

The problem with any change, is that no one will be satisfied. Some will complain that we changed anything at all, others will complain that we haven't made enough changes. Even had I not made any changes, folks would still complain about the things that they thought we should have fixed.

So what it boils down to is basically I listen to the fans (in this case the playtesters), I consider the ramifications of possible changes. If I think they can be implemented without too much distruption and they are reasonable they might be 'fixed'. Yes I get to decide what is 'reasonable' and what gets changed (well with approval from Marc), but it is also my butt, my company, and my reputation on the line every time.

Me, all I want to do is publish Traveller stuff. Hopefully good Traveller stuff. If you spot a problem, bring it up. But fer crimmy sake, please don't read conspiracies into things if it takes me a while to respond!

So can we quit with the canon conspiracy theories now? If you really have to keep em going take it to Random Static please.

Hunter

 

[Liam Devlin]

Well said, boss!

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hunter:
The atmospheric modifiers is an error, not a canon change. The modifiers should apply to non-mainworld bodies only.

Hmmm, well, that's too bad. I guess I'll go on being a gadfly, then.

I do wonder how immigrants know which will be the mainworld before it's settled, to know whether to ignore the unbreathable atmosphere or not? Seems like a pretty important distinction.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, some of the mainworlds are a bit crazy. I can't see why anyone in their right minds would want to settle on a world with an Insidious atmosphere, but there are mainworlds like that (sometimes with rather high populations too). I always explained that IMTU as "the people settled on huge space stations around the planet, and aren't actually on the surface". But that said, *why* they'd want to do that rather than settle on the next rockball in or out (which is still going to be a damn sight more habitable than the Type C atmosphere) is beyond me.

I'd say that people are more likely to settle (in large numbers) on the most immediately habitable world in the system, or failing that the one with the most useful resources. I can't see any resources worth enduring an Insidious or Corrosive atmosphere for though, at least beyond a tiny mining outpost.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Dr Evil Ganymede posted-
"Well, some of the mainworlds are a bit crazy. I can't see why anyone in their right minds would want to settle on a world with an Insidious atmosphere, but there are mainworlds like that (sometimes with rather high populations too). I always explained that IMTU as "the people settled on huge space stations around the planet, and aren't actually on the surface". But that said, *why* they'd want to do that rather than settle on the next rockball in or out (which is still going to be a damn sight more habitable than the Type C atmosphere) is beyond me.

I'd say that people are more likely to settle (in large numbers) on the most immediately habitable world in the system, or failing that the one with the most useful resources. I can't see any resources worth enduring an Insidious or Corrosive atmosphere for though, at least beyond a tiny mining outpost."
_____________________________________________
Well, unofficially answering this...IMTU, Type C atmosphere worlds need TL-12 breathing Hostile environment or better tech to survive upon.
In Orbit, habitats (as per JTAS article therein) can be sustained at TL-8+. So I concur the majority (for simple matter of expense of settlement) live in orbit.

As for resources...there are a lot of industrial uses for corrosives in metal treatment/ alloy polishing etc, not to mention diluted for cleaning & other solvents.
A planet with a high content of such in its seas or atmopsheres is itself a raw resource for the Bulk freighter trade of the Imperium. High expenses on set up, but they pay off.
I mean even at TL-6 worlds, ammonia is used a cleaning agent, so your products/ byproducts spun off these worlds have a vast marketout there.
My .000000125 Mcr worth. Hope that helps.

 

[EvilDrGanymede]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
_____________________________________________
As for resources...there are a lot of industrial uses for corrosives in metal treatment/ alloy polishing etc, not to mention diluted for cleaning & other solvents.
A planet with a high content of such in its seas or atmopsheres is itself a raw resource for the Bulk freighter trade of the Imperium. High expenses on set up, but they pay off.
I mean even at TL-6 worlds, ammonia is used a cleaning agent, so your products/ byproducts spun off these worlds have a vast marketout there.
My .000000125 Mcr worth. Hope that helps.

See, I always interpreted Type Cs to be uninhabitable at any Imperium TL - which is why they were so bad. So you could always go get your corrosive things from a Type B atmosphere, where the environment could be held at bay with available technology.

 

[T. Foster]

(NOTE: Having read and accepted Hunter's explanation above, I'm not complaining about, criticizing, or even addressing T20 at all with this post -- I'm just musing about game-design-philosophy in general.)

This discussion is more and more coming to remind me of a game-philosophy debate I had a couple years back during one of the TML's periodic Task System Wars. Namely, with a 2D6 randomizer, the smallest possible percentage is 2.8%, which, when trying to model exceptional "1-in-1000" odds causes a dilemma: either such occurences will be elimininated entirely or they will occur much more often than they realistically 'should.'

For sake of an interesting, exciting, and unpredictable game I consistently choose the latter, which, on the relatively small scale of my individual games (~40 worlds in a subsector, a couple dozen task attempts in a play-session) works out fine -- the disparity between the 'game odds' and the 'real odds' isn't particularly noticeable. A problem arises when those exaggerated probabilities are extrapolated into larger, statistical, situations -- building the entire Imperium with the Bk3 rules, or the famous RQ battles in which dozens of soldiers chop off their own legs -- but the rules were never even meant to model such situations, and should obviously yield to common sense for them.*

I wholeheartedly agree that IN GENERAL people will tend to settle on habitable worlds, but I maintain there are still going to be those "1-in-1000" cases where a hellhole world for some reason or another has a population of a couple billion, or a garden world only a few dozen, and IMO those are the worlds that are the most interesting -- the ones I want to go to and adventure on. So if the rules force a choice between having such worlds being more common than is realistically likely (2.8% instead of 0.1%) or not existing at all, I choose the former.

*In the case of the Imperium, if Chris Thrash or Marc Miller or Hunter Gordon or whomever else wants to come up with a detailed, realistic world-building procedure and use it to model a 'statistically plausible' Imperium where 1-in-1000 cases actually occur only 1 time in 1000, that's fine with me. In fact, consistent with my statement above, I'd encourage it. The likely result is that most of the Imperium would end up a very boring place that I wouldn't particularly want to adventure in, but since that pretty much fits the impression of the Imperium given by early-CT canon anyway, I don't have a problem with it -- but only with the proviso that I'd like to see the canonical Spinward Marches spared as an 'anomalous' sector where the normal rules don't apply and things are allowed to remain more concentratedly 'interesting' (which is already somewhat the case due to, for instance, the number of canonical Minor Races in the Marches).

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by T. Foster:
*In the case of the Imperium, if Chris Thrash or Marc Miller or Hunter Gordon or whomever else wants to come up with a detailed, realistic world-building procedure and use it to model a 'statistically plausible' Imperium where 1-in-1000 cases actually occur only 1 time in 1000, that's fine with me.

Oh, I can do that (Not really, but this will work too). Here it is:

1) Generate the UWPs you want based on whatever random method suits you bets.

2) Go through each UWP and decide if it is plausible. If it is, check it off and go on to the next.

3) For each UWP that you consider implausible, spend 15 minutes trying to come up with a workable explanation for the odd circumstances without becoming too bizarre or invoking the Ancients. If you can, check it off and go on to the next.

4) If you can't come up with a good explanation, make a 'saving throw against weirdness' of whatever difficulty you think reasonable. For instance, if you roll a 3 on 3D6. If you make the roll, spend an hour trying to come up with an explanation for the odd circumstances, resorting to really bizarre explanations or even the Ancients if you have to. If you can, check it off and move on to the next.

5) If you haven't managed to figure out an explanation, change the UWP to something that works (I generally favor the smallest change that will make sense except that I like to increase the population of low-pop garden worlds and lower the population of high-pop hell-holes). Check it off and go on to the next.

There! Simple, no? You get mostly plausible worlds without ruling out the possibility of the truly strange. You can get fancier, if you like. You could, for instance, have a 'saving throw against the Ancients' that became lower the further the world was from Regina subsector. That way you would hvae a larger proportion of Ancient weirdness close to Eskaloyt's original location.

The real problem with the canonical UWPs is that no one did something like this

Hans

 

[T. Foster]

Originally posted by rancke:
Oh, I can do that (Not really, but this will work too). Here it is:

<SNIP>

The real problem with the canonical UWPs is that no one did something like this

A nice rule-of-thumb system which, combined with Chris Thrash's previously posted other rule-of-thumb system (to model populations tending to settle along trade routes) probably gives about all we need and is, in fact, a pretty close (if more organized) representation of what I've been gradually trying to do with the 'Alpha Quadrant' (subsectors A,B,E,F) of Massilia IMTU. Only problem is it requires a lot of time and individual attention -- which is presumably why, at least so far, no one* has seemed willing to even attempt anything like it for the Imperium (i.e. the GEnie data) as a whole.

*Well, I suppose the HIWG might have, but my outsider's impression is that they were more concerned with naming worlds and coming up with cultural and/or historical details than actually taking a microscope to the worlds themselves. Perhaps there should've been a parallel PIWG (Planetology of the Imperium Working Group) ...