PBG Help

[rust]

In Traveller New Era the population code 0 meant 0 to 9 permanent re-
sidents, with the trade code Barren and the population modifier 0 used for
planets with no population at all and the population modifiers 1 to 9 used
for the cases of 1 to 9 permanent resident.

I just deleted a previous post because I had thought that Mongoose Tra-
veller would use the same system, and therefore did not understand Da-
ryen's post. I wonder why Mongoose has changed this part of the UWP
system, it really does not make much sense.

 

[rust]

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.

Think of an outpost with raw material stores, a well equipped workshop
and a dozen robots programmed with engineering, electronics and me-
chanics skills - this would be much more reasonable than shipping all
kinds of spare parts to a remote outpost in order to stock up on every-
thing which may potentially get broken there.

 

[BP]

... I wonder why Mongoose has changed this part of the UWP
system, it really does not make much sense.

It matches CT's 'No Inhabitants'.

The TNE fix works as a special case (I assume a 0 pop multiplier can only occur with a pop code of 0) override of what was broken and is the best band-aided to not having done things well to begin with. (This is actually how I use the system myself - again, hacking a solution.)

Mongoose 'fixed' the lack of 1-9 sophont support by changing 1 to mean 1+ up to 99 (one presumes). Which, of course, doesn't work out 100% with population modifiers - as now there is no support for 10 to 99. :roll:

 

[daryen]

Well, considering that populations of 1-9 people should be so rare and (generally) so transient, I would recommend their placement be purely by GM fiat.

In other words, you can't roll up a world with 1-9 inhabitants. Rather, it is up to the GM to designated such worlds (presumably primarily choosing between various pop 0 and 1 worlds).

That way you don't screw up the higher progression, and you don't screw up the appropriate number of barren worlds.

 

[DFW]

Well, considering that populations of 1-9 people should be so rare and (generally) so transient, I would recommend their placement be purely by GM fiat.

In other words, you can't roll up a world with 1-9 inhabitants. Rather, it is up to the GM to designated such worlds (presumably primarily choosing between various pop 0 and 1 worlds).

That way you don't screw up the higher progression, and you don't screw up the appropriate number of barren worlds.

Good point.

 

[GypsyComet]

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.

Pretty sure its in the Spinward Marches Campaign, as that is the first expression of the full UWP line for published sectors.

 

[BP]

Ah - that sounds very promising! Any chance anyone can quote the Spinward Marches? (Population codes and Modifier definitions?)

Well, considering that populations of 1-9 people should be so rare and (generally) so transient, I would recommend their placement be purely by GM fiat...

That can always be the case - roll or make up any code... as to 'appropriate number of barren worlds' and rolling - that is a totally arbitrary thing.

Should one even have a randomly generated zero population main world on a chart - what is the point of that unless it has some other special attributes? Why give it any more preference over a population of 1-9? How is it not more transient -no one ever chooses to live there and claim a whole blasted planet, yet its on a chart? Come on, most of the time someone would do that just to name the system after themselves! (Not to mention impose on anyone passing through.) The whole concept of giving hard numbers (in the low ranges) is rather silly, except that we are talking a game that usually involves not much 'in-game' time (as opposed to official fluff timelines and such) and it makes for an interesting, exceptional location just asking for creative explanation.

System generation rules are inherently unrealistic. Having rules for rolling for the option is consistent with the entire design system - just because you think the odds are wacky (and I don't disagree, mind you) - is no reason to not have a roll option. Especially since the majority of mainworld generation and mapping has always been done by computer programs anyway (not saying that was the best thing, either - just the way it is).

All said, the designer should have the dice mechanics reflect the odds chosen arbitrarily in the design system - but hopefully with some logical rationale that is shared...

 

[Ishmael]

I just got home from work and looked over the SRD.
Mongoose, in the SRD, set pop=0 to mean 'no inhabitants', pop=1 to mean 1 to 99 inhabitants and pop=2 on up to be the general 10^pop progression. So, a pop multiplier for pop=0 means zero as X*0=0.

But because pop=2d6-2 without any dm's ( as far as I can tell ), 'no inhabitants' would be rare at only 2.7% of the time. Not having pop dm's based on a world's habitability is a serious flaw, in my opinion, that damages the believability of the world.

 

[GypsyComet]

Not having pop dm's based on a world's habitability is a serious flaw, in my opinion, that damages the believability of the world.

This IS Science Fiction. First wave settlement by barely space-capable societies will be subject to habitability constraints. Seven thousand years later, only the most inhospitable places are going to slow down growth. I would look twice at Atmo B and C worlds with tens of billions of people, but mere vacuum is simple to build for.

I've been looking at Arzul sector over at the Traveller Wikia that was apparently built with such DMs in mind. Worlds that meet or come close to MGT's "Garden" classification were assigned high positive Pop DMs, while marginal worlds were apparently assigned negatives. I'm not sure if the physical stats were tweaked as well, but the subsector I've been looking at has nine HiPops and roughly the same number of Barrens, out of 31 worlds. I haven't confirmed the sector-wide numbers, but the Wikia lists the sector pop as more than twice that of Core or Massilia, at some 1.5 trillion people.

As a different model of settlement, Arzul is a useful comparison to the better known sectors of the Imperium. I'm not going to use it as presented, but it does provide an example of what habitability DMs can do.

 

[BP]

Mongoose is based on CT and largely compatible (and there were apparently restrictions...at least in other books) - CT had no DMs for population.

This is a known and time honored subject of debate tied to a lot of 'canon' and egos. Mongoose may even have been prevented from tweaking these rules much, or choose to avoid the risk of adding to contention.

In CT, a size 5 planet could have no atmo and a very low TL (like 2) yet have the maximum population. Of course, TL is about production and manufacturing - not owning and using - no reason that world couldn't have access to tech that would allow them to survive. It is a bit amusing that in a setting with Jump drives, gravity control and gravitic drives, psionics and 'uplifted' animals (probably the most 'realistic' of all these, ironically) such a thing is not 'believable' :lol:

 

[Ishmael]

This IS Science Fiction. First wave settlement by barely space-capable societies will be subject to habitability constraints. Seven thousand years later, only the most inhospitable places are going to slow down growth. I would look twice at Atmo B and C worlds with tens of billions of people, but mere vacuum is simple to build for.

I'm afraid I have to mildly disagree, if only for economic reasons. The inhospitable worlds ( atm 0,1,2(?), A,B,C will require life support for everyone world-wide along with working areas, etc. just as if they were on a spaceship. The same would go for tainted atmospheres, to a lesser degree perhaps, as well. Paying the costs of that long term life support along with all maintenance costs as per a spaceship will cost a good amount and wreak havoc on a world's economy for such things as Trillion Credit Squadron games. This sort of thing was never accounted for in earlier editions.

It is a bit amusing that in a setting with Jump drives, gravity control and gravitic drives, psionics and 'uplifted' animals (probably the most 'realistic' of all these, ironically) such a thing is not 'believable'

True, but not everyone uses the official setting. Some like the science to be a tad harder than the OTU setting. Jump drive, yes, because its as good as any other explanation for travel between stars. But gravity control and gravitic drives, psionics and 'uplifted' animals?... No. Not for my setting.
Actually, for those who do use the official setting, all the worlds within that setting have already been 'rolled up' by the publishers over the last 30 years I believe, so the issues involving the UWP procedure should be unimportant to OTU players.

 

[GypsyComet]

I'm afraid I have to mildly disagree, if only for economic reasons. The inhospitable worlds ( atm 0,1,2(?), A,B,C will require life support for everyone world-wide along with working areas, etc. just as if they were on a spaceship. The same would go for tainted atmospheres, to a lesser degree perhaps, as well. Paying the costs of that long term life support along with all maintenance costs as per a spaceship will cost a good amount and wreak havoc on a world's economy for such things as Trillion Credit Squadron games. This sort of thing was never accounted for in earlier editions.

Ships have those costs specifically because they are in the hands of PCs. Yes its a metagame reason, but it is the reason.
For permanent installations, engineering solutions with fewer short MTBF parts will be the norm. There will still be parts concerns in many cases, as the corrosive atmospheres are simply murder on moving parts.

As for those economic reasons, there are a couple responses. The first is a repeat: "This is science fiction". Specifically, 50s to 70s Science Fiction. People live in inexplicable places for economic reasons. If there are that many people in such a nasty place, there is probably a really good reason for it. The meta-rules of Traveller being what they are, those reasons may or may not appear on the Trade tables, which are, after all, aimed at the small Free Trader and not the 10kton megafreighter.

And yes, that is directly from the original authors. Traveller's econ engine is built around supporting RPG play on small traders, or, in the case of Trillion Credit Squadron, around supporting fleet campaigns. It is NOT a pennies and tenths accurate picture of what a "real" Third Imperium's economics would be like. It is meant to be run with a few dice rolls, not a mainframe. :!:

Ahem.

It should be noted at this point that "The Economics of Traveller" have been good for some rousing, month-long, knock-down-drag-out arguments in the past.

 

[BP]

...
It should be noted at this point that "The Economics of Traveller" have been good for some rousing, month-long, knock-down-drag-out arguments in the past.

Excellent - more contentious aspects! This thread should really get hop'n now!

 

[Ishmael]

Naw....
I'm done
I just sort of wished this science fiction game had, you know, more science in it.

As far as the economic issues...
maybe "Dynasty" will address that can of worms once its written

 

[DFW]

But gravity control and gravitic drives, psionics and 'uplifted' animals?... No. Not for my setting.

So, you use slow reaction rockets?

 

[BP]

Naw....
I'm done
I just sort of wished this science fiction game had, you know, more science in it.

About populations of distant worlds? :?

I think you are talking more about logic and game mechanics there than science. (And science fiction can be used to explain the irregularities you perceive - atmospheres can be created, filtered and maintained by natural and relatively low tech artificial means... do a little research )

Seriously, this is a game - almost exclusively written by non-scientists. Almost everything in it is unrealistic and unscientific... otherwise it would be a pretty lousy game. I love science, have worked with scientists and have done real scientific research and development work. It is fun in its own way (also hard work), but it would make a lousy game.

I love Traveller, too. But, about the closest thing to science in it is the crude, outdated, and very novice stellar system fluff and a few other bits related to planetary atmospheres - none of which is covered in the Mongoose version. All the other space stuff is largely inaccurate, oversimplified or totally impractical takes on reality, at best (fantasy really). The only things that even come close to being realistic are some specs translated from real world weapons and the like.

I personally like more realism - but to even have a chance at being an enjoyable game that has to be done with a computer. No question about it. Everything has to be simplified to the point where it is pretty much bunk in the real world - the real world isn't simple. Space isn't 2 dimensional and any useful motion isn't linear and 1 dimensional. Planets can't be truly described with a hand full of codes. Combat can't be broken into 6 second intervals or injury abstracted into points. Gravity can't be ignored. Not and be realistic or believable to anyone with RW knowledge and experience.

All fiction requires the suspension of disbelief, at some level, to be enjoyed.

Now, when rule mechanics, editing and mathematical mistakes make the game inconsistent - that is another story! :x

 

[rust]

Seriously, this is a game - almost exclusively written by non-scientists. Almost everything in it is unrealistic and unscientific... otherwise it would be a pretty lousy game.

There are a couple of science fiction games which are a lot more realistic
and have much more scientific accuracy than Traveller, some of them
even had scientists among their authors, and these games are not lousy
at all. :wink:

 

[BP]

About populations on other worlds?

About humans living long term in near-zero gravity and in environments exposing man and machine to the radiation extremes (including EM) found in many common space environments and taking into account the solar wind as well as motion of stellar bodies, orbital transfers and n-body interactions? :?

I'd love to see a space science-fiction game that wasn't unrealistic and unscientific and yet made a not lousy pen and paper game.

Sure, even ignoring the complete space opera fantasy parts that are really the basis of Traveller, there are pen and paper games that are better done than Traveller in various realism aspects - but that is a relative thing (and actually very minor in most regards)... they still require the suspension of disbelief, at some level, to be enjoyed.

 

[DFW]

About populations on other worlds?

About humans living long term in near-zero gravity and in environments exposing man and machine to the radiation extremes (including EM) found in many common space environments

Traveller doesn't have that happening as far as I know...

 

[GypsyComet]

Sure it does, just not obviously.

Belters used to have a fairly nasty Survival check, and a cursory look at even the Spinward Marches will tell you that there are a LOT of Belters, even by just the pre-MGT definition (when Belter was a profession instead of a lifestyle). Glisten alone has a large population that works out in the belt with only a ship for part-time protection. That MGT considers most of the populace of the system to be "Belters" just because they live there just adds to the numbers.

Quite a lot of the Navy will also spend time "outdoors" or in very small craft in close proximity to fusion reactors, high energy projectors, or barely understood wierd science. The Scouts do a lot of that as well, though with fewer weapons.

We view space as dangerous, dark, and deep. That hasn't changed for the citizens of the Third Imperium, but they are part of a society that has been living and working in space for thousands of years. They view gravitics and life support technology about how we view the wheel.