Campaign types and system type/generation changes III

[captainjack23]

I've again moved this thread, this time so that the stat iscussions don't interrupt it. And yes, this is the edited version, without the arguing about arguing.

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: types of campaigns and system/trade generation

________________________________________
I moved this here out of the actual stats thread of EDG's, hopefully to expand the discussion without interrupting that thread.




Zowy wrote:
I don't like all the low TL worlds. My games tend to have a lot of TL 9-11 worlds and my trade ships tend to be built on TL 11-13 hulls. I never was a fan of seeding lots of low TL colonies. With fusion power and automation you shold be able to have a level 8-9 Tec base even on your colony, mineing, and outpost worlds.

Yeah, having more advanced tech is an issue, but - in game terms, generating campaigns and adventures) while it's very important for trade games, it's less so for Merc games, and a bad idea for scout and merchant explorer games.

As I see it, it really isn't to design a system that allows unsupervised generation of planets per se - but rather lots of reasonably acceptable worlds, some interesting oddities for adventure hooks, and some mistakes which are corrected by the GM.

So, the system above generates good worlds for an "age of exploration and exploitation"type campaign, and an okay one for a "where no man has gone before, at least recently" type campaign. And sort of hoses a traders campaign.

Given that, the thought is yes, perhaps shifting the results towards a more generic baseline would be helpful for genericization...if vanilla is how to make something generic, that is. Another way is to provide a baseline and explicit options, which, obviously is where I'm heading here.

My suggestion is that the game would benefit both from 'baselining' the generation system, and providing explicit tested options. I think some basic Mods that will shape the result towards the GM's campaign goal would be as helpful as mods which produce a reasonable realistic baseline...and before anyone yells, the goals are Arrownot mutually exclusive.

While they could be as simple as "+1 to population for an old continuous civilization" , I think using what we have here we could generate some more subtle ones.

_________________
Captainjack23, KOD
Marquis d'Remulak, Sol 1833

 

[captainjack23]

Deniable
Stoat
posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject:


________________________________________
So if I'm reading this right, what you're looking for is a basic system that works well enough plus some options to flavor different regions. For example a maturity level for a (sub)sector to either raise or lower the local tech levels to make a region more interesting for the trader or explorer type players.

Some versions of Traveller have indirectly done this by modifying the starport up/down depending on the region's level of development. This then inflicted modifiers on the TL. Bringing TLs up shouldn't be a big problem, but lowering TLs [1] may make worlds non-viable. The issue is then to make them barren worlds or to enforce a floor on the TL.

[1] Kind of like TNE's collapse effects.
Klaus Kipling
Stoat

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Didn't the original Old Expanses use a 6 for the 1D roll for TL and let everything else fall as it may (with a Max TL of F)? You ended up with LOTS of worlds in the B+ TL, even if things were marginal. There may have been a POP DM too, but it has been too long since I looked at that stuff.

 

[captainjack23]

Klaus Kipling
Stoat
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Those odd, unique, and reality-defying worlds should not be produced by the system, IMHO. If a Ref wants 'em, he can just 'ave 'em, by GM Fiat.

A (mindless*) system should not be generating them.


*mindless in the way a computer program can crunch the numbers. Wink


Some mods for the type of area (frontier, core, colonies) would be cool, but I can think of it being quite a complication right now - maybe something to leave for a future Scouts supplement.
_________________
In the end, we're all dead.

 

[captainjack23]

DaltonCalford
Mongoose


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 198


PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:36 am Post subject:
Well,

I would like to see other trade codes taken into consideration that are currently not handled by the rules but should be.

Subsector Capital - Such places should demand more luxery items and generate more mail than others.

Sector Capital - See Subsector Capital.

ShipYards - NI and Starport A, such a combination would requre large amounts of imports of equipment

Class A starports - they would need extra rare earths to produce the jump drive.

Young Colony - They would need more of everything

Amber zones - All shipping costs should go up due to the danger involved

X-Boat Route - All items cost/sell for less due to abundance of items

X-Boat Way Station Higher demand for certain types of goods

Navel depot lower demand for most goods as they are brought in by long term contracts supplied by the mega-corps.

Now, most of the above codes are created by the referee and not the generation system, but, the trade and commerce rules should take them into account.

Just my 2c worth

best regards

Dalton

 

[captainjack23]

Rikki Tikki Traveller
Banded Mongoose


Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 244
Location: Kansas USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:26 am

Post subject: Reply with quote
Deniable wrote:
So if I'm reading this right, what you're looking for is a basic system that works well enough plus some options to flavor different regions. For example a maturity level for a (sub)sector to either raise or lower the local tech levels to make a region more interesting for the trader or explorer type players.

Some versions of Traveller have indirectly done this by modifying the starport up/down depending on the region's level of development. This then inflicted modifiers on the TL. Bringing TLs up shouldn't be a big problem, but lowering TLs [1] may make worlds non-viable. The issue is then to make them barren worlds or to enforce a floor on the TL.

[1] Kind of like TNE's collapse effects.


I have handled this with a GM Fiat DM to the POP roll (for younger sub-sectors), a DM -2 eliminates Hi Pop and In worlds and creates more Ba (uninhabited) worlds that haven't been settled yet. A similar DM on the Starport table eliminates (or makes VERY rare) the Class A starports.

One that I find useful in settled regions is 1d3+3 for the TL dice. It gives you from 4-6 instead of 1-6 which brings up the lower TLs a bit.
_________________
What?

 

[captainjack23]

Generally, some some guidelines might be helpful - there are those of us who like looking at a map, and building a game out of what we see. In this case, we get to build the map frpm the ground up, or at least to tweak it one direction, but still get a surprise when we see the whole thing. So, yes, this is based on " how to tweap the Sociopolitical factors for your desired campaign"

 

[captainjack23]

That said, consider the OTU - as pointed out, most people live on Pop A worlds, due to how the basic dice roll works....81% in fact on the average. So we generally have one world that is surrounded by 39 or so other worlds that barely equal 20% of the big worlds population. If one extend that to Hi Tech worlds (9+), its about 97%.

So we have on average, one huge world, and two big worlds in a subsector that matter for population. And, generally 2 out of three will be a massive In world.

A great universe for a trade campaign....and one that very much resembles western urbanized economies when one substitutes cities for planets. A subsector seems to be analogous to a Western uropean country - One Huge city (Paris) a few big cities (Lyin, Marseille Lille). (Germany and Britain have similar set ups - Italy and Spain more disperesed - essentially no Huge cities, all Big cities) Some have just a big city and the rest smaller (Greece, Poland, portugal). Generally a main city, and several at one order of magnitude less. And, essentially no real frontier.

So....economically, The EU (nowadays) is a good model for the economy of the Imperium. And a trade campaign. Which, oddly enough, is what the EU is largely about.

 

[captainjack23]

Rikki Tikki Traveller wrote:

Deniable wrote:
So if I'm reading this right, what you're looking for is a basic system that works well enough plus some options to flavor different regions. For example a maturity level for a (sub)sector to either raise or lower the local tech levels to make a region more interesting for the trader or explorer type players.

Some versions of Traveller have indirectly done this by modifying the starport up/down depending on the region's level of development. This then inflicted modifiers on the TL. Bringing TLs up shouldn't be a big problem, but lowering TLs [1] may make worlds non-viable. The issue is then to make them barren worlds or to enforce a floor on the TL.

[1] Kind of like TNE's collapse effects.

I have handled this with a GM Fiat DM to the POP roll (for younger sub-sectors), a DM -2 eliminates Hi Pop and In worlds and creates more Ba (uninhabited) worlds that haven't been settled yet. A similar DM on the Starport table eliminates (or makes VERY rare) the Class A starports.

One that I find useful in settled regions is 1d3+3 for the TL dice. It gives you from 4-6 instead of 1-6 which brings up the lower TLs a bit.

Exactly, and good ideas. Stqarting from my thesis that the OTU really is set up for a traders campaign (firefly), where else do we go ?
How do we do somthing like the age of exploration ? More disperesed population points, surrounded by....different but generally much lower populations. (none, if you regard all non-europeans as "alien species, which they did, right or wrong).

Note that a simple pop -1 mod makes Ind worlds about 1/3 as frequent, while keeping the populartion ratios of worlds intact - 81 % of the people will still be in one world...but less In worlds, more empty resource worlds (3x) , etc. Sounds much less settled, more frontierish.


Golden age of rome ?
Pop +1 ? Population ratios mostly intact, but, lots of hives, lots of In worlds, few empty spaces, less ag, less garden, less Ni....average government more repressive, too, and more totalitarian. Perfect for a "blows against the empire" style campaign. (apologies to Paul Kantner).

Not quite the pop rations of classical rome, but can fit the Romes plus latifundias model)

How about Eastern Europe during the troubled years of the 20-30's (for a merc campaign) . Hmmmm. Question for discussion.

Obviously the above ignores tech differences. Which is a problem,although tech and pop are related, it's somewhat tenuous.

Thoughts ?












Figures roughly scraped from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aire_urbaine

 

[captainjack23]

Didn't the original Old Expanses use a 6 for the 1D roll for TL and let everything else fall as it may (with a Max TL of F)? You ended up with LOTS of worlds in the B+ TL, even if things were marginal. There may have been a POP DM too, but it has been too long since I looked at that stuff.

I'm embarassed to say, I don't know. Which version of traveller was that generated for ?

 

[Deniable]

TNE rolls a d6 for TL and then applies modifiers. Given that it is set in the Old Expanses, this may be what you're thinking of. It also modifies the chances of different starports based on "how well travelled" the subsector is. [1] This of course indirectly affects the TL of the world.

[1] Backwater, standard, mature or cluster.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Well, it was a LONG time ago, but it was definitely CT era (I dropped out of the Traveller universe about 1984), I don't have Book 7 for example (except in the reprint PDF files).

I am pretty sure it wasn't "official" in the same sense as the Vanguard Reaches, Beyond, Ley and Glimmerdrift Reaches weren't official.

I just remember a lot of TL C+ worlds and when I redid the UWPs backwards for TL, it came out that every system had a 6 for the 1d6 roll. It certainly makes sense for a Core/long settled region though.

My personal preference is for a bit lower TL than Traveller uses. I like to top out my TL at about 12.

 

[pasuuli]

I like the idea of adding or subtracting ONE to or from SIZ, POP, TL, and/or the Starport Table to produce a "mood". Maybe you're onto something.

Size+1 ... mainworlds tend to have more atmosphere, water.
Size-1 ... mainworlds tend to have less atmosphere, water.
Pop+1/-1 as you mentioned.
TL+1/-1
Starport+1/-1 as you mentioned (also affects TL)

Density modifiers? I'm thinking of 1d6-1 circular areas per sector, each 2d6-2 parsecs in radius, and each with a random density. So you can end up with a hunk of rift where a couple of these intersect, or a small, very dense patch of worlds, or various combinations of that.

Of course, you can always craft your own sparse and dense regions. Maybe that's best.

 

[Golan2072]

Keep in mind that most Traveller worldgen systems assume a long-settled universe. Most worlds had time to develop on their own, and thus you have both random placement of high-tech, high-pop worlds on the starmap and the existence of very low-tech worlds next to higher-tech ones. Also, most worlds had time to develop their own political systems independently of each other, and the typical Traveller interstellar government tolerates a very wide range of planetary regimes. This works well for a universe which either had a previous Human civilization (and then a Long Night), a wave of STL sleeper/generation-ship colonization prior to the invention of the J-Drive, Ancients-placed minor Human races, or a large number of independently-developed sophont races.

If you want a near-space, early-colonial setting as in Alien(s), you will need a high-tech high-pop big-starport "core", a lower-tech (though with high-tech imports) low-pop bad-starport frontier, and a beyond-frontier area with many unsettled worlds. Colonial governments would also be more similar to that of the metropolis (or, instead, Gov 6 representing a colonial administration) unless a colonial revolt has occurred or unless we're taking about 'unsanctioned' colonies set up by dissidents. In such a setting you'd probably want to add significant DMs (or caps) to pop, TL and starport based on the world location (positive for the core, negative for the frontier) and limit the range of possible governments according to each colonial empire (in my previous attempt I've used a 1D6 table for each polity).

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

The problem that I have with the "they had a long time to develop independently" arguement is that the Long Night was over a thousand years ago! There has been a LONG time for things to even out a bit.

Also, in the case of the Spinward Marches, there has never been a long night. The Marches were first explored in the first century with major settlement occuring in the 3rd and 4th centuries. That was 600 years ago! No Long Night and 600 years of interstellar travel and trade. That is NOT the "long time to develop independently". Only the Daryens and Swordworlders can make that claim.

 

[Golan2072]

The problem that I have with the "they had a long time to develop independently" arguement is that the Long Night was over a thousand years ago! There has been a LONG time for things to even out a bit.

So, in fact, the CT worldgen system is even less fitting to this situation as I've thought - as it assumes almost complete independence of development. It works best of Milieu-0 types of scenarios in which you have a large number of independent worlds wither without interstellar contact or just emerging into starflight.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Exactly Golan. End of the Long Night is exactly how the basic world gen system would work.

For something more structured or organized, such as initial exploration or long settled without a Long Night or the Spinward Marches, a different way to generat Starport, Population, Government and TL would have to be used.

Suggestions would be to come up with your own Government table (keeping the codes of course) so that you generate the types of governments that you want.

Don't like the Third Imperium, but want to have "The Democratic Order of Planets", then skew the rolls so that GOV codes 2 and 4 are more common. As the GM, you are going to have to do that yourself though, the basic system won't do it for you.

I like the idea of having 4 general regions in any setting:

Core Worlds (Higher pop and TL)
Settled Worlds (mid pop and TL, the "standard")
Frontier Worlds (low pop and TL)
Unexplored Worlds (no pop and TL, but occasional natives and "lost colonies".

Each region needs separate ways to create all of the "Social" UWP characteristics. You could even have a DM on the ATM and HYD rolls in the Core worlds to represent terraforming, polution or both.

I would even argue that if you DON'T have a central government, like the Imperium, but a group of Pocket Empires, then you need to have separate GOV tables for each of those.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Regarding Stellar Densities, I typically start with a blank sector map and draw in Density lines, then roll the stars in each region.

I may want a rift/sparse area to be in portions of 2 subsectors, but when the rolls come out, the randomness will give it a slightly different look than a smooth line. Random also gives you regions of unexpected density or rifts, which is always good for surprises.

I tend to generate the 3 physical stats of all the UWPs first and decide where my "core worlds" are going to be. Looking at the stellar locations I then decide where the Settled region is, and finally I look at the map and draw the edge of the Frontier.

Then I go back and create the social characteristics of each UWP based on the region that it is located in. In my tables I always have a "random" possibility which allows for the chance of the unexpected Hi Pop world in the middle of the Frontier (representing a Lost Colony or alien homeworld). Sometimes, I then have to adjust the Region of the worlds around it if I want them to have more influence.

It is a very fluid and go-back-and-do-it-again type of system, but I get the feel of what I want, with surprises, which is what I am after. Because honestly, I am not imaginative enough to come up with all the weird things I want to have IMTU.