EDG said:
captainjack23 said:
Like I asked, can we pick three tweaks that will make the maximum improvement for the minimum change to the LBB3 system ?
I'd rather not. My view is that it needs to either be fixed completely, or don't bother at all.If you half-fix it, it's still half-broken. Though frankly, I think that not doing anything with it at all is a cop-out - you can't just armwave a system into the game at the last minute and then not playtest it when you've playtested everything else. Then you'd have most of a game that works and some of a game that doesn't.
Okay. Your call with your effort.
Planets below size 5 cannot have an atmosphere greater than their size+2 ;if so rolled, set it equal to size. 0=0, 1=1.
That'd be wrong though. A size 3 world can't have a type 5 atmosphere, it can't hold onto oxygen.
Not to sound "arrogant" but trust me, the limitations on atmospheric composition based on size and the assumption of being in the habitable zone that I mentioned elsewhere are as correct as it's practical to get - that's basically how it really works (at least in a as simplified a way as possible), I've done a lot of the research on this. Suggesting anything that deviates from that isn't going to get you a more accurate way of determining atmosphere type.
IMO the best way is to have a table for small worlds and a table for large worlds. The small world table has the 0/1/A results, the large world table has the full range. (or put it all on one table with apprpropriate DMs)
Actually, that's not arrogant, that's helpful. A= exotic, correct ? So that would cover worlds like titan, small, thin non O2 bearing atmosphere.
(I've always felt that the A classification was an oddity admidst increasing pressure)
The main question from there is what you'd suggest should be the cutoff for the small/large worlds (restricted range vs full range) ?
A secondary question would be given an 0,1,A distribution, which would be more/most likely ? In other words, one possibility that suggests itself is setting the atmosphere to A if it generates a greater atmosphere...or would something like a 3,2,1 distribution work for small worlds (1,2,3 =0, 4,5=1,6=A, perhaps)
Planets below size 5 cannot have a hydrosphere greater than the lesser of its atmosphere or size + 1; If so rolled set it equal to the lesser of the two. 0=0 .
Again, this is incorrect and it's also baseless. If a planet can hold water then it can hold onto lots of it or little of it. You can get a size 6 world completely covered by water if you like, or a size 9 world with 30% coverage.
Good to know. I remember there was significant complaint about tying hydrosphere to size - perhaps I misremember ; would a split like atmos work better ? Or whould all worlds have the whole range ?
Grav: density = size+1 /(greater of Hydrosphere+1 or atmosphere+1; Grav = density x size/8(earth normal)).
First, you're adding a density (and gravity) term. Density should IMO be something that's rolled up on a table, not derived from other stats.
Yeah, I'd always rolled it as separate. The suggestion there was to derive it from just UPP data. Venus does rather put paid to my initial assumption that a planet with an unusually dense atmos would have more grav.
A question about densities - planets should, I suppose, span the range from ice to ....? In other words, what would be the greatest density expected from an LBB mainworld ?
And, if we set earth as 1, what would ice and max be ? Previously I used somthing like (2d6 +3)/10 for density, (.5 to 1.5). Possible ?
