Fixing up my UWP codes

[Stattick]

Well, I finally bought the book from RPGNow tonight... And so I'm having to fix up the UWP codes for the sector I wrote up. The playtest didn't have all of the info in it. They changed some of the info too...


Anyway, here's the first question: What do you do with a world that has a Population of 0, but there're bases there? :lol:

Personally, I'm thinking of leaving the pop at 0, but leaving the Starport and bases. The Starport would be run by the Imperium itself. Think of it as something like a rest stop along the highway. Now, if the place isn't a total hellhole, just give it a little bit of time before somebody starts up an actual colony on it. Perhaps some enterprising family will open up a Quicky Mart or something just outside of the Starport.


Second question: The playtest didn't include the catagories 13-16 for atmosphere... so my sector doesn't have any of those. They're all 12's from the high rolls for atmo (Insidious). Recommendations for retconning them? I don't know jack as far as statistics go, and it wouldn't be safe to trust me with anything beyond elementary algebra, so the maths, they boggle my puny brain.

 

[Vile]

Don't know about question 2, but as for the starports and bases ...

A lot depends on the class o starport. E-class are likely to be unmanned, in any case. The TMB also gives a bit of a get-out-clause in saying that you might get big facilities on low-pop worlds because times have changed, and trade routes have moved - but that sort of thing only works once or twice, and a world with an A-class starport going to pop 0 might be hard to pull off.

 

[Woas]

For the first issue, perhaps give the system a red travel code? Whatever is there must be really important/super-double-ultra-Dick Cheney-secret and the official head count is classified... thus the 0 population.
Or perhaps reports came in that the planet is on a crash course with an asteroid in X amount of time and the population was evacuated to neighboring systems, leaving all the infrastructure behind (and if there is a research base in the system, perhaps its automated to study the impending crash).
Or a third... space zombies! The population succumbed to a strange, psionic plant native to the planet that was thought to be harmless. In actuality the plant's spores take root in the brain and changes the host into a zombie/mind thrall... again leaving all the infrastructure but in poor repair, and no official population.

What it comes down to, for me and MTU at least, is that the UWP represents free information that a character would find on his or her ship's library software, just like you or I would search Swahili on Wikipedia today. Who knows when the last time it was updated, how accurate it is, or if there is some biased in the info.

For the second question, personally I'd just go back and redo the atmosphere roll and set up some gimmick like... roll twice take the highest of the two. Or roll d6, 1: atmosphere is now 13; 2: atmosphere is now 14; 3: atmosphere is now 15; 4: atmosphere is now 16; 5 and 6: keep atmosphere at 12.

 

[EDG]

Anyway, here's the first question: What do you do with a world that has a Population of 0, but there're bases there? :lol:

If it's pop 0, there's nobody there. (gov, law, and TL would be 0 too - the rules say this at the top of pg 173).

MGT changed things a bit here - they seem to say that pop 1 is 1-99 people whereas in previous editions it was 10-99 people, and pop 0 was 1-9 people. Personally I prefer the MGT approach - there's got to be a code that flat out means that there's nobody there, and 0 is a logical one to use for that.

Personally I would say that pop 0 worlds - being uninhabited - cannot have bases. If it does have a base, at least give it a pop of 1.

I would also strongly recommend using the "Hard Science" variation here (see pg 180) where you determine the starport by rolling 2d-7+population. That way you don't get crazy results like a type A starport being on a world with a handful of people (the relation between starport and population is its own can of incendiary worms in itself, BTW).

Second question: The playtest didn't include the catagories 13-16 for atmosphere... so my sector doesn't have any of those. They're all 12's from the high rolls for atmo (Insidious). Recommendations for retconning them? I don't know jack as far as statistics go, and it wouldn't be safe to trust me with anything beyond elementary algebra, so the maths, they boggle my puny brain.

Easiest thing to do is just re-roll the atmosphere for any size 8 worlds with atm C and accept the new results. The approach that Woas suggested would skew the statistics though (e.g. a size 8 world with atm C would have got that on a roll of 11 or 12 - a probability of about 8%. But rolling 1d6 gives the D+ atms a flat 1 in 6 chance (~17%) of occurring). You wouldn't skew the stats if you just re-rolled the atmosphere and used the full range though.

 

[GypsyComet]

A prior interpretation of the population number is that it indicates *permanent* population, ie. "natives". If the base is the only facility and source of people, then there can still be no permanent population, just the transient Imperial personnel.

 

[Woas]

Easiest thing to do is just re-roll the atmosphere for any size 8 worlds with atm C and accept the new results. The approach that Woas suggested would skew the statistics though (e.g. a size 8 world with atm C would have got that on a roll of 11 or 12 - a probability of about 8%. But rolling 1d6 gives the D+ atms a flat 1 in 6 chance (~17%) of occurring). You wouldn't skew the stats if you just re-rolled the atmosphere and used the full range though.

The way I read it was that Stattick had created a number of systems using playtest rules which omitted atmosphere classes 13-16 so that during system creation if a result higher than 12 was made, it just got defaulted back down to 12. Stattick didn't record the actual result (perhaps thinking based on the playtest info that 12 was the highest?) and didn't record the actual result so is wondering if there was a way to re-establish a 12+ atmosphere. Perhaps I'm miss reading this though.
Rerolling the atmosphere flat out (2d6-7+planet size) would give the whole array of atmospheres again which, as far as I understand, isn't desired. Only the 'special' atmospheres (12+) are desired.

 

[RandyT0001]

A prior interpretation of the population number is that it indicates *permanent* population, ie. "natives". If the base is the only facility and source of people, then there can still be no permanent population, just the transient Imperial personnel.

Personally I always considered the idea that the population number is "permanent" population something of a cop-out on trying to explain the low population for a A/B class starport world. How long are the transient workers allowed to remain on planet before the Scout Service reclassifies them as "permanent" residents? Let's say it one day short of a year (364 days). Are the workers forced off the planet at gunpoint should they decide to stay past that time? An A/B sized starport would have thousands it not tens of thousands of workers (IMO) and none of them want to stay here on a productive paying job? Just because Bob Smith and his family of five leave the planet on day 364 only to be replaced by James Jones and his family of seven on what would have been Smith's day 365 excuses the Scout Service from listing the world with a "permanent" population above 0? Is there some law preventing people from settling on the planet? If you got thousands of transient workers they will still need the basics of life (the bars, stores, etc of startown) and nobody wants to (or is permitted to) permanently settle here to provide those services to the transient Imperial workers?

It really doesn't make sense (IMO) to say that these "transient" workers are not considered "permanent" and cannot be counted as population as far as the UWP is concerned. If you have a A/B/C starport on a world and the population is 0 (zero) just re-roll the population as a d6+4. Re-calculate the government and law level (and tech level if necessary) based on the new population. Problem solved and it makes more sense.

 

[Stattick]

First issue: I flipflopped a bit on it, and finally just got rid of all of the bases and starports. Once I start mapping everything out (again), if I really decide to put a population and/or base on one of those population 0 worlds, I can. (The "rolls" are just a guideline for me, and if inspiration takes me in a direction that's a little different then the rolls, then I tend to go with the inspiration.)

The way I read it was that Stattick had created a number of systems using playtest rules which omitted atmosphere classes 13-16 so that during system creation if a result higher than 12 was made, it just got defaulted back down to 12. Stattick didn't record the actual result (perhaps thinking based on the playtest info that 12 was the highest?) and didn't record the actual result so is wondering if there was a way to re-establish a 12+ atmosphere. Perhaps I'm miss reading this though.
Rerolling the atmosphere flat out (2d6-7+planet size) would give the whole array of atmospheres again which, as far as I understand, isn't desired. Only the 'special' atmospheres (12+) are desired.

Yeah, you've got the right of it... Only I didn't actually roll the results. I wrote a spreadsheet to do it for me. Took bloody forever... but probably less then half of the time it would have taken to actually roll out a whole sector by hand. And now I've got to do some re-writes of the spreadsheet to bring it back in line with the official rules. I'm still undecided as to whether or not to keep the spreadsheet on the default write-up style, use the space opera rules, or go with the hard science rules... I'll probably go with the hard science. I don't think I'll retroactively apply hard science in the sector that I've already written up. Too much of a hassle, unless I just scrape the whole thing and start anew. Neither me, nor my players would be happy with me starting fresh since we're already playing.

I think what I'm going to do, to help immulate the bell curve that should have been in there, is to give a small percentage for an F (10%), a somewhat higher for an E (15%), a decent for a D (25%), and then the highest chance for a C (50%). Something along those lines, and then roll percentage on all of the C results in my sector.

 

[EDG]

...and someone let the incendiary worms out . Seriously, the permanent vs transient argument has raged endlessly!

Personally I think the pop digit is the permanent population, if only because giving a number for the transient population is going to be pretty useless since it's changing all the time. And I think it has to include population at bases and starports too if it's going to be useful.

 

[AKAramis]

Keep in mind: the bases might not actually be on the mainworld...

Perhaps on a moon, perhaps in orbit, perhaps elsewhere in system.

 

[GypsyComet]

It really doesn't make sense (IMO) to say that these "transient" workers are not considered "permanent" and cannot be counted as population as far as the UWP is concerned. If you have a A/B/C starport on a world and the population is 0 (zero) just re-roll the population as a d6+4. Re-calculate the government and law level (and tech level if necessary) based on the new population. Problem solved and it makes more sense.

Makes more sense to you perhaps.

Altering the UWP of a home-rolled system is no big deal, but for published data it can create as many problems as it solves.

Solutions for the problem were solicited. Transient populations are a solution. So is altering the UWP.

If one makes more sense than the other to you, go for it.

 

[Gee4orce]

The Hard SF rules to factor in population when determining the starport code, but I've found that they generate LOTS of X class starports. I mean, 1/2 to 2/3 of all the worlds in a sector. That's too many for my liking, personally.

The actual roll to determine the starport type feels correct - on average a world with billions of inhabitants will have a B class port; it's just that the other modifiers to population for the hard SF rules mean that higher pop worlds are fewer and further between than normal.

So...I'd suggest using the hard SF rule for starport code even if you don't use the other hard SF rules for population mods.

 

[RandyT0001]

Solutions for the problem were solicited. Transient populations are a solution. So is altering the UWP.

Yet another solution is thousands and thousands of robots to operate the starport and base. Under CT rules a population code of 0 (zero) could have meant that the world had 0-9 inhabitants who could be the human controllers of the robot workforce.

 

[phild]

Personally I think the pop digit is the permanent population, if only because giving a number for the transient population is going to be pretty useless since it's changing all the time.

But a permanent population can include transient population within it. London has a permanent population of, I dunno, 6 million people? Of those, around 100,000 are university students who move out once or twice a year and are probably registered to vote at their home town, and may only be in London for a few years. Another few 100,000s will be tourists who are entirely transient as individuals - but the point is there are always a few 000,000 tourists. Not the same individuals (who are transient) but as representatives of a tourist population which is semi-permanent.

As such, a family of imperial workers who are replaced by another family of imperial workers are transient individuals but a semi-permanent population, and as such *should* be counted in the population data. After all, it says there are 0-99 people of some kind: it doesn't name them.

 

[AndrewW]

Another few 100,000s will be tourists who are entirely transient as individuals - but the point is there are always a few 000,000 tourists. Not the same individuals (who are transient) but as representatives of a tourist population which is semi-permanent.

I wouldn't count 0 tourists...

 

[EDG]

PhilD said that, not me!

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

The Hard SF rules to factor in population when determining the starport code, but I've found that they generate LOTS of X class starports. I mean, 1/2 to 2/3 of all the worlds in a sector. That's too many for my liking, personally.

The actual roll to determine the starport type feels correct - on average a world with billions of inhabitants will have a B class port; it's just that the other modifiers to population for the hard SF rules mean that higher pop worlds are fewer and further between than normal.

So...I'd suggest using the hard SF rule for starport code even if you don't use the other hard SF rules for population mods.

The suggestion for the HS starport rule was actually mine (my claim to fame in the TMB!).

I suggested that any roll below 2 should be an E class starport, not an X. X should be rare. If there are people, there is going to be a flat spot and a searchlight or a landing beacon, which makes it an E not an X starport.

So, to fix the 1/3-1/2 worlds with X class starports, try my suggestion and see if that fixes some of the problems. Of course, that just means you get lots of E class starports instead, but at least there is SOMETHING there...

 

[AndrewW]

PhilD said that, not me!

Yup, quoting got messed up on that one fixed now.

 

[Stattick]

The Hard SF rules to factor in population when determining the starport code, but I've found that they generate LOTS of X class starports. I mean, 1/2 to 2/3 of all the worlds in a sector. That's too many for my liking, personally.

The actual roll to determine the starport type feels correct - on average a world with billions of inhabitants will have a B class port; it's just that the other modifiers to population for the hard SF rules mean that higher pop worlds are fewer and further between than normal.

So...I'd suggest using the hard SF rule for starport code even if you don't use the other hard SF rules for population mods.

While I'm kind of surprised that you generated so many X starports, I have to remind myself that I tacked on additional modifiers to TL for Temp and Hydro that aren't in the book. So it raised the mean TL up higher then it would otherwise have been. My mean TL is > 7.5. That skews my results quite a bit over what the base system would have produced. And of course the higher TL produced fewer X's for me then it would by the non-tweaked version.

 

[Stattick]

Oi.... I just discovered that there's a serious error in my spreadsheet for calculating TL.