ERRATA - It Begins!

EDG said:
SSWarlock said:
EDG said:
Page 181 (again):

Ga (Garden): I think there needs to be a temperature restriction here too...

And a tech level restriction as well for Roasting and frozen worlds as well.

Yeah I'm thinking TL 7 for both at least?

well, consider that it is possible to have a solid tech 2 society in hard arctic areas, although the lack of any summer period would be a crucial differnce. I'd suggest that as soon as a minimum of steam power (TL 4) is available, survival is possible in frozen environments. ; although it isn't symmetrical - low tech stuff works better against the lack of heat than against its overabundance. Still, one could imagine a ww2 level (TL 6 ?) dealing with extreme heat and actually, most of the tech for sub 200 degree F climate control can probably be assembled at tech 5.
 
I'd also remove the tainted atmospheres from the Ga requirements, as a garden world by definition should have a breathable atmosphere.
 
EDG said:
Page 181:

Trade codes:
{SNIP}

Ni (Non-Industrial): should be pop 1-6 surely, not pop 4-6 as shown in the table??

{And Snip here too}

I think the intent was that a Low Population world (POP 1-3) assumes Non-Industrial and doesn't need both classifications.

Similar to an Asteroid Belt automatically including the Vacuum Code.
 
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
EDG said:
Page 181:

Trade codes:
{SNIP}

Ni (Non-Industrial): should be pop 1-6 surely, not pop 4-6 as shown in the table??

{And Snip here too}

I think the intent was that a Low Population world (POP 1-3) assumes Non-Industrial and doesn't need both classifications.

Similar to an Asteroid Belt automatically including the Vacuum Code.

As its a trade code, I'd say that if they describe the same trade need, they are redundant. Other wise not. Would a Va differ too much from an Asteroid in terms of imports/exports ? Possibly; zero G stuff at the least would sell better in belts; Ni and Lo, not sure. Possibly theres a critical level where a small colony becomes non-self sufficient as it grows ?

or, possibly its an error. ;)
 
captainjack23 said:
{SNIP}
Ni and Lo, not sure. Possibly theres a critical level where a small colony becomes non-self sufficient as it grows ?
{SNIP}

This was my assumption, but I haven't looked at the trade tables to see the difference between Ni and Lo.

Speaking of trade codes, I ran into several worlds with A or higher atmosphere and no water when using the Space Opera world gen options. These would have come up as a Desert trade code, which didn't seem appropriate for the Exotic atmospheres. Should the Desert trade code require an atmosphere range of 2-9 instead of 2+?
 
Klaus Kipling said:
The ship shares issue really needs clarification, as without that we can't really tell whether the trade rules work proper like.

While 1% seems more likely given the explanatory text both there and under the 'old ships' section, 1% per ship share seems a piffling amount for PC's.

A handful of ship shares are barely better than none for a bunch of players.
In the LBBs, I seem to recall that it takes 20% to get a loan for a ship. We generated three Player Characters the other night and between us, we didn't even get half that. 1% per Ship Share definitely seems a small amount when you are trying to get a mortgage for a ship.
 
-Daniel- said:
I too think the chart is wrong. Otherwise it would be too easy for a group of four or five players to just buy a new ship outrite from the start.

Daniel

I don't know about that. Fans of Joss Wedon may remember a certain *pair* of ex-Army grunts who pooled their ship shares and bought a used far trader... a Firefly class one, at that...

Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
I'd give it the Tiny Trait.

Think of it as R2D2 or Hewey, Dewey and Lewey (for you older folks). Maybe even insectile in apprearance with lots of limbs for various jobs.

Or (if it uses antigrav,) B.O.B. or V.I.N.CENT from "the Black Hole", if one absolutely must...
 
alex_greene said:
It used to be 10%, not 1%. With 10%, 10 ship shares would have given you full ownership.
I'd probably like it better with 10%; 1% seems a bit too low.

Or maybe 5% per share could be a good compromise.
 
Yeah - 1% broke the purpose of having ship shares as benefits. 10% was reasonable as it allowed teams to start with a ship - which was the whole point.

Note, maybe the Benefits tables should have been changed to 2d6 - where the odds follow curves. Consider - a 1 term unpromoted merchant has a 1 in 6 chance of getting 5 Free Trader shares or..er..a blade!

Of course, the Old Ship's rules (Core pg 136) does not work with 10% shares - but this should be a simple adjustment to 2d6 shares per 10 years, with a major damage table for being sold at less than XX% (which could include a lucky option - like divorcee was decreed ship and is giving it away to spite ex-spouse.)

As to the downpayment - it is not directly mentioned in MGT, but 'total financed price equals 220%...' (Core pg 137) is 20% over the total it should be - so either it is wrong, a 20% deposit is required, or a 10% financed deposit.
 
I'm not sure if I missed it, I tried to read through everything in the thread. Population on world building says to roll 2D6 -2 for population, which results in a possible result of 0 - 10...there are 12 population levels and I can not find and DM's to the population roll.
 
sorinkat said:
I'm not sure if I missed it, I tried to read through everything in the thread. Population on world building says to roll 2D6 -2 for population, which results in a possible result of 0 - 10...there are 12 population levels and I can not find and DM's to the population roll.

Populations over A are the realm of GM option. You need to decide to pkace them, or use alternate rule for system gen....
 
As Infojunky stated... note that the Variations defined on pg 180 provide for a DM +1 in the Hard Science settings for Atmo 5, 6 or 8.

(FYI: Type 12 is trillions, described as a World-City. With a population density as high as Manila (densest?) the whole earth would have a population of about 22 trillion. If one ignores oceans, but counts all land (half of which is pretty inhospitable) that would be about 6.5 trillion.)
 
So... I notice that most of the discussion on this thread is from 2008. However, there does not seem to be a basic set errata anywhere I could find. Surely this has been codified and published by now?
 
Back
Top