PBG Help

[BP]

Two questions regarding the PBG elements commonly found in system listings-

• 1) Where is PBG defined (published sources)?
  
  2) Is the population multiplier for a mainworld or for a system...
  • 
    According to http://traveller.wikia.com/wiki/Population_Multiplier -
    The first digit of the "PBG" element of a UWP is the population multiplier. The number is used with the Population code in the UWP to determine the mainworld's overall population.
    
    But no sources are quoted and PBG seems more consistent as system modifiers, not mainworld (which means its most likely mainworld ).

Thanks!

 

[rust]

"PBG" is most probably defined in T4, other versions (MegaTraveller, TNE)
used the same system, but with another name (e.g. TPPG in TNE). I can
look up the definition in TNE, but I am not certain whether this is exactly
the same definition as in T4.

 

[hdan]

I have no idea where PBG is defined officially.

Personally, I sort of "hand wave" it - lush, garden worlds with high POP probably have most people living there (especially if they are below TL-10 or so), but barren rocks with high POP probably have people scattered all over the system, with the "main world" just being a sort of central hub of activity in the system.

 

[rust]

Most Traveller versions have rules for the design of complete systems,
with the other planets of a system having their own UWPs and subordi-
nate facilities (e.g. spaceports). When using these design rules, one de-
termines the population of the other planets without subtracting their
population from the previously designed mainworld's population. In my
view this is a kind of "circumstantial evidence" that the UWP of a main-
world counts only the mainworld's population, and does not include the
populations of other planets of the system.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Mssr BP,

--MT's World Builder's Handbook, p. 72.

 

[SSWarlock]

Actually, "PBG" was first defined as such in the MT Referee's Manual in 1983.

P = Population Multiplier

Determine the population multiplier for the mainworld.
Roll 1D and determine if the result is odd or even.
If even, roll 1D - 1 for a result from 0 to 5. Ignore and reroll results of 5.
If odd, roll 1D + 4 for a result from 5 to 9. Ignore and reroll a result of 0.

And, of course,
B = Planetoid Belts (i.e. asteroid belts)
G = Gas Giants

 

[rust]

Actually, "PBG" was first defined as such in the MT Referee's Manual in 1983.

Hmm - in my MT Referee's Manual I find only TPGP, which - as mentio-
ned in my first post ^^, is basically the same system as PBG, but does
not necessarily have the same definition concerning the populations of
the mainworld and the secondary worlds of the system. :?

 

[SSWarlock]

rust, you are correct. My bad.

 

[BP]

Thanks!

The population modifier as a multiplier to the mainworld's population seems to have strong support - at least

My sector file notes (in programs) indicate this data did not exist in the AotI data generated by Marc and added to by DGP with the GEnie (later Sunbane) data ~'89... so MegaTraveller sounds about right for first introduction... or maybe a Traveller's Digest article...

 

[zero]

Where are the rules to create a whole system? Is that the World-Builder's Handbook, or something else? :?

 

[rust]

Where are the rules to create a whole system? Is that the World-Builder's Handbook, or something else? :?

In Classic Traveller it was Book 6: Scouts, in MegaTraveller it was in the
Referee's Manual, in Traveller New Era it was a chapter of the core rules,
in T4 - no, forget that one, you would need a truck to transport the erra-
ta. Mongoose Traveller does not yet have extended system generation
rules.

 

[daryen]

PBG was formally added to the system in MegaTraveller. Perhaps DGP had previewed the idea in Grand Survey. I wouldn't know; I have never even seen that book. But MegaTraveller is where GDW added it.

BTW, if anyone decides to add PBG into Mongoose Traveller, I have one strong request: Don't roll for the population multiplier if the population digit is 0. It is stupid and annoying. If the population is 0, then the multiplier should be 0 since no one is there!

 

[Liam Devlin]

PBG was formally added to the system in MegaTraveller. Perhaps DGP had previewed the idea in Grand Survey. I wouldn't know; I have never even seen that book. But MegaTraveller is where GDW added it.

BTW, if anyone decides to add PBG into Mongoose Traveller, I have one strong request: Don't roll for the population multiplier if the population digit is 0. It is stupid and annoying. If the population is 0, then the multiplier should be 0 since no one is there!

Concur!

 

[Ishmael]

I disagree...
In MT Ref's manual at least, a population value of '0' meant 'less than 10' with a minimum of '0' and a maximum of '9'. Thus a pop multiplier would still apply.

I prefer rolling a 3 digit pop modifier which is used with the population value thus;
pop modifier of 'xxx' and a pop value of X gives a population of 10^X.xxx
For example, a UWP pop of 5 and a pop modifier of 634 gives a population of 10^5.634, or a population of ~430,527
This provides a population that follows Benford's Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

To find the old fashioned pop multiplier, just 10^.xxx, or in the case of the example, 10^.634, or ~4.3053
Population growth could be handled by simply adding a small amount to this pop modifier and it'd still follow an exponential growth curve.

 

[daryen]

I disagree...
In MT Ref's manual at least, a population value of '0' meant 'less than 10' with a minimum of '0' and a maximum of '9'. Thus a pop multiplier would still apply.

Doesn't matter. It is still stupid.

If you have a population multiplier, then you have a non-zero population. This means you end up with a government and LL and tech level, all of which are virtually meaningless when you have a "population" of 1-9 people. It just doesn't work well.

It also means it is virtually impossible to generate a world with no population. Even if you roll 2D-10, you still have less than a 10% chance for an unpopulated world because of the stupid population multiplier. Really? That makes sense how?

Seriously, the best solution for pop zero worlds is to leave the population multiplier at zero.

 

[Liam Devlin]

I think on top of that, Govt 0 should lead to LL 0 in the common sense bracket...

YMMV, of course :wink:

 

[rust]

I think it would depend a lot on the reason for the presence of the 1-9
people.

In the majority of cases they will probably be the crew of some kind of
permanent outpost, since such a small number of people is unlikely to
be able to survive without offworld support, and in such a case their go-
vernment type, law level and technology level will probably be that of
the government or organization which established the outpost.

Just think of Antarctica, or of a future Moon Base. The fact that there
are (or will be) only very few people there does not mean that they are
not subjects of a government, do not have to abide by laws, and do not
have a technology.

Moreover, government type, law level and technology level do not have
to be identical with that of the world they came from. An interstellar or-
ganization or a corporation which establishes an outpost on a planet that
does not belong to any state can decide upon the way the outpost is run,
can have its own rules of conduct as the local law and can have a diffe-
rent technology level than the homeworld's average one.

So, whether such data are meaningless depends less on the system that
creates them and more on one's interpretation for the reason of the data.

 

[Ishmael]

I disagree...
In MT Ref's manual at least, a population value of '0' meant 'less than 10' with a minimum of '0' and a maximum of '9'. Thus a pop multiplier would still apply.

Doesn't matter. It is still stupid.

Great!
Now that its established that the actual rules are stupid in some cases ( many/most cases in the UWP procedures, imho ), then that should open a discussion for a total UWP rules re-write to follow science more closely and make the population follow common sense while having tech and starports follow population.
( not that it'll even happen due to the near obsessive requirement to keep using 30+ year old rules... UWP generation, in this case :roll: )

 

[daryen]

Actually, the additional rules given in the core rule book do a decent enough job at implementing many fixes already.

My point on PBG is that for any population other than 0, the population number is just an enhancement of the information already provided. But, with population 0, it actively changes the otherwise existant information. That, in my opinion, is bad.

As a different solution, leaving the rest of the data alone (meaning gov-LL-tech remain as zero) while providing the population multiplier is fine by me. The TL of zero would still apply with 9 residents, as the adventurers still can't get any technological goods, even if those 9 residents are armed with laser rifles.

But the overall UWP should not be completely changed just because a population multiplier is provided. It should enhance the existing information, not outright change it.

 

[BP]

Classic Traveller Scouts stated the 'population digit is an exponent of 10'. But, the original table and the Scouts table equated 10 to the 0 power as 0 instead of 1. So, over thirty years ago there was this compound error. The definition was wrong - and so was the table. Thus, it had a little gapping hole... no allowance for 1-9 people (potentially useful ala rust's excellent example).

[Not to mention using the term Inhabitants, then redefining it as Sophonts underneath, instead of just using Sophonts and defining that... :roll:]

A better table would have looked like:

0  0                               No Sophonts
1  1 to 9                          Less than 10 Sophonts
2  10 to 99                        Tens of Sophonts
3  100 to 1,000                    Hundreds of Sophonts
...
A  1,000,000,000 to 9,999,999,999  Millions of Sophonts

Formulas are often hard to write out unambiguously, that is as reason mathematicians use symbols. In this case, population equals 10 raised to the population digit minus one power or zero if less than one, upto one less than 10 raised to the population digit power. But the table above is real easy to understand without any other description.

Then there would have been no 'population multiplier', but rather 'leading population digit'. They are effectively the same thing, except, the populations differ by a power of ten - and no hole in the number list...

Using the above table could 'break' some canon - but, most of these details were left out (or wrong, or contradicted other canon anyway).