Realism and design systems

[EDG]

(spliced off from the Mongoose vs T5 trainwreck)

Yeah, I cant see much benefit in that. T5 is about massive detail. Honestly, I think less is better in this arena. Theres a star, it has a planet. the planet needs more detail than the star. The star needs a bit of detail for chrome, but much else seems to be a slipprey slope. EDG's table is about the most that would be useful for MGT, I think.

I find it interesting that you consider the stargen to be so expendable. I detect a general bias here (not just from you) - I get a sense of "it's OK to have a detailed ship design or chargen system that makes sense, but it's not OK to have a detailed world/stargen system that makes sense. At most, a simple world/stargen system that makes sense would be nice, but that's still distinctly optional."

Why should that be the case? The thing that makes a space-based SF setting interesting is IMO the environment. Alien worlds, alien species, weird things that you'd never see in your planetbound real life, and a sense of wonder about the universe. Sure, SF stories may ultimately be the same old stories and plots we've set on earth but placed in exotic environments, but that "alienness" (along with technology and FTL) is arguably a big part of what makes the "interstellar scifi" genre what it is - just like the presence of Magic and Gods and monsters make Fantasy what it is as opposed to historical fiction. So why scrimp on the part that makes it unique?

Agreed. You know, I somehow never noticed regina was a satellite until earlier this year, when it came up in my campaign. Poorly detailed or not, I was glad to have the reference material.

Regina also doesn't work, on a variety of levels. For one thing, it has to be tidelocked to the gas giant it orbits - that means its 48-day long orbital period becomes its day length relative to its star. Which means it slowly roasts during its long day and freezes during its long night, and isn't habitable.

That's the most obvious thing that comes from thinking about it for half a second with a minimum of specialised knowledge - it orbits a gas giant at 55 radii, so it's tidelocked (like every satellite in the solar system), so it has a long day, so it's not habitable. And that's not getting into how it's much larger than the biggest moon a Jupiter-mass gas giant can form around it (it could orbit a brown dwarf instead but that raises other complications), or the horrendous levels of radiation it's bathing in being around a gas giant that's close to its star. The only way I could get Regina to work was to put it in its own orbit around its primary star, not as a gas giant satellite.

A similar mistake is the "size 1 rockball with breathable atmosphere and water" one - that a body half the size of Earth's moon could, in the habitable zone, retain a thick atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. So let's think about how it holds onto that atmosphere and water - it'd have to have high gravity in that warm environment (Titan can hold onto an atmosphere in the outer solar system only because it's so cold out there. Warm it up to habitable temperatures and it'll lose it all very rapidly). If our 800km radius (size 1) rockball has high gravity, then it must have high density - how high, you ask? Try in the region of 120,000 kg/m3, which gives it a surface gravity of 2.7g. I'll tell you right now that there is no natural planet-forming material even close to being that dense (you have to get into the realm of white dwarf matter or neutronium and other silliness, which certainly isn't going to be forming planets). And yet these habitable rockballs are all over the place in the Traveller universe (and no, terraforming won't work either, since the atmosphere would be lost to space about as fast as it can be generated). In fact, to hold onto water as well as N2/O2, you need to be at least size 5 (radius 4000 km), so that's the minimum size for an earth-like planet with a breathable atmosphere and water in the habitable zone.

Now I'm sure some people are just saying "who cares, I don't want realism in my games", but ask yourself whether you want your powerplants to output enough energy in the shipgen systems to run the ships, or skills to make sense for the characters you make. The worldbuilding errors I described above are commonplace in Traveller right now, and they fail the "makes sense" criterion of the design system playtests as much as those erroneous powerplants or missing skills do in the other design systems. The logic seems to be that because the average user won't know the difference either way then it's not worth correcting, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's an erroneous result. And it strikes me as misguided to apply a low standard of "makes sense" to one design system and a high standard to others. By fixing the worldgen errors you end up with a universe that actually makes sense while still being filled with exactly the same adventures you'd have had in the "broken" universe.

There's a lot of stuff like this that can be corrected in Traveller's worldgen systems, and it can be done without adding any more complexity to the design system than is already there in the shipgen and chargen systems. And if you can cope with those then you can cope with the worldgen too, so why not fix it?

I mean, really, the arguments about Star generation do boil down to this: if the system is reality based, is it accurate, which perhaps three people on the board can reasonably address, and will probably contradict each other; and if not, should it be, which everyone can address and will, with no more authority than anyone else.

I'd much rather have the handful of people who know about a subject contribute to correcting the design systems than a lot of people who know very little about it doing that. Let the experts figure out the "makes sense" part while everyone else can then test the system they come up with for usability and efficiency. It seems to me that there's nothing to lose and a lot to gain by doing so.

 

[Golan2072]

I find it interesting that you consider the stargen to be so expendable. I detect a general bias here (not just from you) - I get a sense of "it's OK to have a detailed ship design or chargen system that makes sense, but it's not OK to have a detailed world/stargen system that makes sense. At most, a simple world/stargen system that makes sense would be nice, but that's still distinctly optional."

The reason for this attitude is that, in most cases, generating a ship or character with a detailed ship/character generation system takes less time and effort than designing a star-system using a detailed system. Make a worldgen system that isn't more complex or time consuming than chargen/ship design and this attitude will probably disappear.

And yes, I'm all for fixing the CT worldgen system's errors as long as complexity doesn't get too high.

 

[tjoneslo]

There's a lot of stuff like this that can be corrected in Traveller's worldgen systems, and it can be done without adding any more complexity to the design system than is already there in the shipgen and chargen systems. And if you can cope with those then you can cope with the worldgen too, so why not fix it?

I'd much rather have the handful of people who know about a subject contribute to correcting the design systems than a lot of people who know very little about it doing that. Let the experts figure out the "makes sense" part while everyone else can then test the system they come up with for usability and efficiency. It seems to me that there's nothing to lose and a lot to gain by doing so.

For this I agree 100%. Worldgen does not need to be complex or difficult. But the current system in Book3/Book 6 has some inaccuracies that drive me nuts. I like the GT:First In rules better because they produce better (more playable, easier to explain, useful) star system without any more time than producing a star system using any of the other Traveller rule sets.

I also liked the original CT Book 3 system of generating only the main world of the system. If your players are going to be traveling around a lot, it's all the data you need. But I dislike the disconnect between the population and the habitability of the world. I miss the idea of, if I'm building a larger empire, that the population of the world is completely disconnected from the population (and governments) of the worlds around it.

I don't like having to explain for the 24th time why this size 3 world has a dense atmosphere. Or for the 17th time why the high-population hell hole worlds has a virtually uninhabited garden world neighbor. Or any of the other really odd things that the current worldgen system produce.

These really could be fixed, and without difficulty.

 

[Golan2072]

But I dislike the disconnect between the population and the habitability of the world.

This is an excellent point - and this should be doable with a few DMs. However, to do this well you'd probably want to generate TL before the other social world characteristics, as the higher the TL, the easier it is to colonize less habitable worlds. Also, you should still have an option for an inhabitable world (say, an airless moon with valuable mineral resources) to have pop-A and for a habitable world (say, a resource-poor world) to have low pop, though the chances for such anomalies should be lower than in CT.

Another point: if you really want to have believable population sizes, add a general "resources" characteristics to each world giving DMs to the pop roll - and thus creating a reason for a high population to live on an airless world or for only a handful of people live in an otherwise habitable world. This could also tie in with belting rules, adding DMs to prospecting rolls in a given belt. But, on the other hand, this adds another layer of complexity.

I miss the idea of, if I'm building a larger empire, that the population of the world is completely disconnected from the population (and governments) of the worlds around it.

The thing is that different settings call for different correlations between worlds:

1) A stable, mature empire, in which extreme governments are rare (most empires won't tolerate aggressive and/or disruptive member worlds), most TLs tend to be centered about median interstellar ones, and population sizes are determined by the economical value/lure of each world rather than by the world's location (except for really isolated worlds, that is).

2) A colonial setting, in which there is a high-tech high-pop core and a low-tech, low-pop periphery, not to mention a higher than usual percentage of Gov-6's (colonies owned by off-world interests). Of course, you could have several "cores" if you want more than one civilization.

3) A "rebirth" setting following a "long night" (i.e. a significant period without much interstellar contact), allowing for a great variety of government types and TLs, as well as many uninhabitated or "boneyard" worlds.

If you want to take inter-world interactions in the worldgen system, then each of these scenarios would require different rules... Adding yet another layer of complexity.

 

[EDG]

The reason for this attitude is that, in most cases, generating a ship or character with a detailed ship/character generation system takes less time and effort than designing a star-system using a detailed system. Make a worldgen system that isn't more complex or time consuming than chargen/ship design and this attitude will probably disappear.

I dunno, it always took me at least as long to build a ship in High Guard as it took for me to build a planetary system using Scouts...

And yes, I'm all for fixing the CT worldgen system's errors as long as complexity doesn't get too high.

tjoneslo mentioned some of the social problems - I also hate the fact that population is unrelated to any physical parameters. Venus-like hellholes shouldn't have populations in the billions - hell, they shouldn't even have populations in the millions. If there's any other kind of world in the system then that should be much more preferable than the type B or C atmosphere. And if there isn't, then there's no reason good enough for people to settle on that B or C world in the first place. And I'd rather have positive DMs for the population on worlds with breathable (untainted) atmospheres.

If nothing else, it means that you have pleasant "core worlds" that are habitable and the rest of the uninhabitable worlds are filled with smaller outposts with a thousands or tens of thousands of people. And isolated outposts tend to be better spots for adventure.


Also, Traveller has historically tied government to population when there's no real link between them at all. Why should high population worlds be the only ones that should have religious dictatorships (D/E) or Totalitarian Oligarchies (F). Why can't they have democracies (especially if they're high tech and are able to have 'cyberdemocracies' where everyone votes via the internet)? The link between pop and gov needs to be broken IMO.

And the law level definitions are useless IMO. I think they show some kind of wacky American bias to think that the legality of bearing firearms is the determinant of how civilised and law-abiding a society is - a place where they're banned would by implication be considered "oppressive", which is just crazy. We've got 11 law levels (0-A) that are defined by what weapons you can carry, and the rest are about how much your civil rights are crushed. It seems a very bizarre way to define it... so how about a more meaningful scale?

Heck, I'd rather toss out law levels altogether and replace it with a 'cultural scale' with "Liberal" at one end and "Conservative" at the other (in the literal senses of the words, not in the modern American sense that's been twisted from their original meanings). Liberal cultures would generally be more permissive and open to change, whereas Conservative cultures would be more restrictive and static. It'd be an abstraction but in game mechanics terms this part of the UWP would still register the likelihood of being hassled by law enforcement (or just the rest of society) since conservative societies would tend to want to restrict you more, so it doesn't change much.

 

[GamerDude]

I love all this talk of a "realistic but workable system generator", but every single one I've seen skips one thing...

Generating the stars themselves. How far away from each other, the types, etc. Even GT:Far Trader's rules only cover xboat and trade routes.


I also don't understand why numbers get tossed around without any references. I mean needing a density that generates a gravity of 2.7g in order to hold an earthlike-atmosphere? Why not a 1g gravity to hold an earthlike-atmosphere? Are there any actual astrophysicists in the audience? Or is this just some speculation?

I do agree (and have always hated) systems where moons have been terraformed to be 100% earthlike. nearly perfect atmosphere, lush vegitation, etc. That moon does need to be around the size of earth and in an orbit where it gets the right amount of heat and such. Star Wars (Yavin in the first movie), Firefly (lots of terraformed moons), Stargate SG1/Atlantis (about 1/3 of the places are earthlike moons) and such.

T20 had a nice little system (or was that the Stargate SG-1 game)?

Here's a simpler solution: Just provide guidance for what needs to go where. For each class of star what the habital zone is, where the gas giants are, might it have or not have an asteroid belt and let people pick. Do we need random generation instead of some guidelines to create the system the story needs?

What range of star types can even support earthlike planets? what are the habitalble regions for each of these stars, etc etc etc...


AS A SIDE NOTE: it's nice to see this in its own thread.

 

[EDG]

Generating the stars themselves. How far away from each other, the types, etc. Even GT:Far Trader's rules only cover xboat and trade routes.

That's easy. I've already linked to my own stargen rules that fix the problems with Traveller's stargen. And if you want stars, then you needed to get GT:First In, not Far Trader - the latter only covers economics.

I also don't understand why numbers get tossed around without any references. I mean needing a density that generates a gravity of 2.7g in order to hold an earthlike-atmosphere? Why not a 1g gravity to hold an earthlike-atmosphere?

Because it doesn't work like that. I could go into the physics of it but I got the distinct impression that you weren't interested in that sort of detail. Atmospheric retention is based on a number of factors, most importantly temperature and mass. But even to get a size 1 world with 1g, it needs to have a density of 44,000 kg/m3, which again is way higher than anything natural.

Are there any actual astrophysicists in the audience?

Yes. Me, for one. (well, not an astrophysicist by career, but I've got the MSc and PhD in it).

Here's a simpler solution: Just provide guidance for what needs to go where. For each class of star what the habital zone is, where the gas giants are, might it have or not have an asteroid belt and let people pick.

What do you think I'm doing here, exactly? For people to know where to put things, they have to understand why they can't put them wherever they like in the first place and what the implications of putting something in a particular location is. You can't escape the fact that there are consequences to consider in any design system. Just like with a spaceship, if you put X kind of system in, then you need to consider Y and Z later on - same with planets. If you have a certain kind of star, then that tells you things about the age of the system and what kind of planets are there. For example, if you have a white dwarf then that tells you that there are no habitable planets and most of the survivors will be refrozen iceballs or gas giants in distant orbits because the inner rocky planets were consumed in the red giant phase.

Or if you put a large gas giant near the habitable zone then its likely that there'd be asteroid belts around it because orbital resonances prevent other planets from forming (that's why we have our asteroid belt). Or if you have a tidelocked planet then you can't have a moon around it because the tides would have caused it to spiral into the planet while its rotation was slowing down. And so on.

The core concepts of the existing worldgen system are fine, it's just the numbers that it generates that are screwy. It needs tweaking and it needs some explanation of what the results mean so that people can understand the implications of what they're making. The main problem with the existing system is that most of the time it just threw out results without any checks on their validity or any guidance on what they mean.

Do we need random generation instead of some guidelines to create the system the story needs?

Why not build the story around the system, rather than the other way round? You do that for characters and ships after all, why should planets be at the whim of the "story" instead?

 

[captainjack23]

(spliced off from the Mongoose vs T5 trainwreck)

Yeah, I cant see much benefit in that. T5 is about massive detail. Honestly, I think less is better in this arena. Theres a star, it has a planet. the planet needs more detail than the star. The star needs a bit of detail for chrome, but much else seems to be a slipprey slope. EDG's table is about the most that would be useful for MGT, I think.

I find it interesting that you consider the stargen to be so expendable. I detect a general bias here (not just from you) - I get a sense of "it's OK to have a detailed ship design or chargen system that makes sense, but it's not OK to have a detailed world/stargen system that makes sense. At most, a simple world/stargen system that makes sense would be nice, but that's still distinctly optional."
<lots snipped for brevity>

In fact, just to be fair here, the comments are out of context - I fear I am being used as a stalking horse here.

I was talking about what might be fixed in the time left for publication, and suggesting that the combat and ship design had a draft with problems, whereas we haven't even seen the stargen rules - and might not, for the reasons quoted. Also that it might take less time effort to fix the stargen rather than the ship design for reasons which which boil down to: easy to test if accurate by comparison to real world and can done more by discussion, not so much playtest; and most of us here don't have much of a meaningful opinion about the astrophysics of the issue.

Its not all about hating astrophysics, I'm uncomfortable with being used as the lead in for that viewpoint. It's just about fixing what we have and what will take more work. As I said, your star table works fine and I'd be quite satisfied with it; so perhaps we can concentrate on stuff that doesn't work so well, which we can contribute to.

Cap
[edited for blatant annoying misspelling(s)]

 

[EDG]

Well, it seemed to me that you were talking about the time limits of the playtest in the post after the post I quoted here (or at least later in the same post). At the part I quoted, it just sounded like you were talking in general terms about your preferences for the world design system.

That said, perhaps the impression I got from the relevant parts of that thread were more from ParanoidGamer, who seems to want a more narrativist system for worldgen than what has previously appeared in Traveller. Traveller's worldgen has (since book 2) traditionally been somewhat detailed and I don't really see a problem with that considering that everything else about the game is generally high on detail as well. I sometimes think that the folks that think it's too detailed really should be looking at other, "looser" SF games like Fading Suns or Star Wars instead of trying to make Traveller into something it isn't.

 

[captainjack23]

Well, it seemed to me that you were talking about the time limits of the playtest in the post after the post I quoted here (or at least later in the same post). At the part I quoted, it just sounded like you were talking in general terms about your preferences for the world design system.

Nope. Talking to Aramis about my preference as to what currently needs work & likely to be of most help. Not a deep disdain for stargen.

That said, perhaps the impression I got from the relevant parts of that thread were more from ParanoidGamer, who seems to want a more narrativist system for worldgen than what has previously appeared in Traveller. Traveller's worldgen has (since book 2) traditionally been somewhat detailed and I don't really see a problem with that considering that everything else about the game is generally high on detail as well. I sometimes think that the folks that think it's too detailed really should be looking at other, "looser" SF games like Fading Suns or Star Wars instead of trying to make Traveller into something it isn't.

I'm not sure that simplifying, loosening or morphing Traveller (or 'narrative-izing''it ) has really been the main posting point; Most seem to just want good play, realism, and detail that doesn't make the game less playable for its inclusion.
The key part part of the whole discussion before it crashed, was that complexity has often been used to simulate realism - and realism used to justify complexity; which is poor design. Realism is good, as is detail, as longa s poor implementation of , manifested as excessive complication, is avoided. Thus, play and realism are the goal.

Are we really on opposite sides here ?

Cap

 

[EDG]

I'm not sure that simplifying, loosening or morphing Traveller (or 'narrative-izing''it ) has really been the main posting point; Most seem to just want good play, realism, and detail that doesn't make the game less playable for its inclusion.

The funny thing is that the design systems have no effect on the playability of the game. You're not going to stop halfway through a session and design a spaceship or a planet after all.

The key part part of the whole discussion before it crashed, was that complexity has often been used to simulate realism - and realism used to justify complexity; which is poor design. Realism is good, as is detail, as longa s poor implementation of , manifested as excessive complication, is avoided. Thus, play and realism are the goal.

That's funny, because I was arguing for right from the start in that discussion that you can have realism without extra complexity, and that it's better to find the balance between the two. So why I was being taken to task for that is beyond me.

Are we really on opposite sides here ?

Apparently not, in that regard.

 

[Golan2072]

We could easily fix the major flows in the Traveller worldgen system without much added complexity or effort:

1) Add DMs to the population roll based on atmosphere and (extreme) hydrographics; that way, garden worlds would attract people while Atmo-C hells won't.

2) Add a minimum TL to sustain Human life table for the various unbreathable atmospheres (and for Hydro-0 as well) - if the minimum TL isn't met, the world is non-inhabitated; this way you'll avoid primitive civilizations on vacuum or insidious-atmosphere worlds.

3) Roll 3D6-3 for government, no DMs, no dependence on population. The only problem would be that bureaucracies and balkanized worlds would be far more common than democracies and dictatorships, but this fits well with the OTU.

4) Add a Resources rating, generated by 2D6-2. Low Resources give a negative DM to population; high Resources give a positive DM to population.

5) Roll TL first (after the physical characteristics and Resources, that is); then check against the minimum TL table; then roll pop, with a DM for TL; roll Starport last and not first, affected by TL, pop and Resources. Starport-A's shouldn't become available before TL9 anyway (as they require jump-drive construction) and Starport C or better would require TL6+.

 

[captainjack23]

I'm not sure that simplifying, loosening or morphing Traveller (or 'narrative-izing''it ) has really been the main posting point; Most seem to just want good play, realism, and detail that doesn't make the game less playable for its inclusion.

The funny thing is that the design systems have no effect on the playability of the game. You're not going to stop halfway through a session and design a spaceship or a planet after all.

No, but nowadays, time between games is what is harder to budget and spend - so the stage dressing complexity does effect play; if it takes way too long to generate anything, or doesn't work in a way that I can learn and not have to relearn every time, it isn't going to be used. This is from a DM viewpoint, I admit.

The key part part of the whole discussion before it crashed, was that complexity has often been used to simulate realism - and realism used to justify complexity; which is poor design. Realism is good, as is detail, as longa s poor implementation of , manifested as excessive complication, is avoided. Thus, play and realism are the goal.

That's funny, because I was arguing for right from the start in that discussion that you can have realism without extra complexity, and that it's better to find the balance between the two. So why I was being taken to task for that is beyond me.

If it makes you feel better, we can attribute that to the EEEEEvil captainjack, from the universe where Spock has a beard and Marc Miller wrote D&D.Alternately, lwe can write me off as a jerk, and move on.

Are we really on opposite sides here ?

Apparently not, in that regard.

Good.

Cap

 

[Golan2072]

A similar mistake is the "size 1 rockball with breathable atmosphere and water" one - that a body half the size of Earth's moon could, in the habitable zone, retain a thick atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. So let's think about how it holds onto that atmosphere and water - it'd have to have high gravity in that warm environment (Titan can hold onto an atmosphere in the outer solar system only because it's so cold out there. Warm it up to habitable temperatures and it'll lose it all very rapidly). If our 800km radius (size 1) rockball has high gravity, then it must have high density - how high, you ask? Try in the region of 120,000 kg/m3, which gives it a surface gravity of 2.7g. I'll tell you right now that there is no natural planet-forming material even close to being that dense (you have to get into the realm of white dwarf matter or neutronium and other silliness, which certainly isn't going to be forming planets). And yet these habitable rockballs are all over the place in the Traveller universe (and no, terraforming won't work either, since the atmosphere would be lost to space about as fast as it can be generated). In fact, to hold onto water as well as N2/O2, you need to be at least size 5 (radius 4000 km), so that's the minimum size for an earth-like planet with a breathable atmosphere and water in the habitable zone.

Yep, realistically speaking, the average Size-1 world with an atmosphere is going to be an Outer Zone cold world with an Exotic atmosphere.

But the problem is that the OTU has been generated with flawed rules and that fixing this will invalidate existing data...

And the law level definitions are useless IMO. I think they show some kind of wacky American bias to think that the legality of bearing firearms is the determinant of how civilised and law-abiding a society is - a place where they're banned would by implication be considered "oppressive", which is just crazy. We've got 11 law levels (0-A) that are defined by what weapons you can carry, and the rest are about how much your civil rights are crushed. It seems a very bizarre way to define it... so how about a more meaningful scale?

I agree that there is a major influence of American political culture on the interpretation of law levels, but remember that law level=gun control also stems from the game need to answer questions such as "where could I take my PGMP-12?" or "Could we carry rifles in the open on this world?". I prefer using law level as a mere indication for police/bureaucratic harassment, but there should be another mechanism to deal with weapon legality as well...

 

[EDG]

But the problem is that the OTU has been generated with flawed rules and that fixing this will invalidate existing data...

So let's fix it and invalidate that broken data. To be honest, most of the time the OTU wasn't even generated using its own rules as they were written anyway. And to be honest, I'm not sure that many people will be screaming if a red giant primary gets replaced by a yellow sun like star anyway, or if a planet gets moved around a couple of orbits or suddenly grows in size. It's not like doing that will destroy their games or anything - and there have been far more major changes in things like ship design over the years than in worldbuilding.

I agree that there is a major influence of American political culture on the interpretation of law levels, but remember that law level=gun control also stems from the game need to answer questions such as "where could I take my PGMP-12?" or "Could we carry rifles in the open on this world?". I prefer using law level as a mere indication for police/bureaucratic harassment, but there should be another mechanism to deal with weapon legality as well...

That can all be factored into the "harrassment roll" anyway though. Heck, just give each weapon its own a 'legality rating' and use that as the target number. That way you don't need to define the law levels in terms of weapons but you also have the weapons linked to the permissiveness of the culture.

 

[AKAramis]

I'm not sure that simplifying, loosening or morphing Traveller (or 'narrative-izing''it ) has really been the main posting point; Most seem to just want good play, realism, and detail that doesn't make the game less playable for its inclusion.

The funny thing is that the design systems have no effect on the playability of the game. You're not going to stop halfway through a session and design a spaceship or a planet after all.

Uhm, actually, it's happened in several campaigns that I needed to roll up a world mid session, as players went off-map...

And it's not uncommon for ships to be designed mid session when the players decide as a group to "upgrade" to a new ship.

 

[EDG]

Uhm, actually, it's happened in several campaigns that I needed to roll up a world mid session, as players went off-map...

That just sounds like poor prep to me. If your players are near the edge of your map then you should really extend the map borders beforehand in case they do something like that. Or, if you're playing in a canonical setting, just look at the existing maps.

But expecting to be able to design a planetary system or even just a mainworld in a couple of minutes during a session is like coming up with a new city in a fantasy campaign in the middle of a session. You're far more likely to just screw the rules and wing it in such cases and then crystallise it after the session ends, than to say "OK, everyone, hang on, I need to figure out what this city (or planet, or whatever) is". And to be honest a planet that's just made up off the top of your head (or pulled from another source) is probably going to be a lot better than a randomised one anyway.

And it's not uncommon for ships to be designed mid session when the players decide as a group to "upgrade" to a new ship.

Then they'd get a ship from the existing ship lists and pull the stats from that. Honestly, there's absolutely no reason to design a whole new ship in the middle of a game session (unless for some reason your campaign is based on naval architecture, in which case that'd be the whole point of it and not be a problem). Sure, they may take a stock ship and add bits to it, but that can be roleplayed out and finalised after the session.

 

[captainjack23]

Uhm, actually, it's happened in several campaigns that I needed to roll up a world mid session, as players went off-map...

That just sounds like poor prep to me. If your players are near the edge of your map then you should really extend the map borders beforehand in case they do something like that. Or, if you're playing in a canonical setting, just look at the existing maps.

But expecting to be able to design a planetary system or even just a mainworld in a couple of minutes during a session is like coming up with a new city in a fantasy campaign in the middle of a session. You're far more likely to just screw the rules and wing it in such cases and then crystallise it after the session ends, than to say "OK, everyone, hang on, I need to figure out what this city (or planet, or whatever) is". And to be honest a planet that's just made up off the top of your head (or pulled from another source) is probably going to be a lot better than a randomised one anyway.

And it's not uncommon for ships to be designed mid session when the players decide as a group to "upgrade" to a new ship.

Then they'd get a ship from the existing ship lists and pull the stats from that. Honestly, there's absolutely no reason to design a whole new ship in the middle of a game session (unless for some reason your campaign is based on naval architecture, in which case that'd be the whole point of it and not be a problem). Sure, they may take a stock ship and add bits to it, but that can be roleplayed out and finalised after the session.

Would that we all had your cooperative players......

<Cut to long shot of harassed looking herdsman surrounded by cats.>

 

[EDG]

2) Add a minimum TL to sustain Human life table for the various unbreathable atmospheres (and for Hydro-0 as well) - if the minimum TL isn't met, the world is non-inhabitated; this way you'll avoid primitive civilizations on vacuum or insidious-atmosphere worlds.

Absolutely, this is a must-have IMO. Forcing people to come up with ludicrous justifications for the TL5 culture on the hellhole world that's worse than Venus is just ridiculous IMO.

3) Roll 3D6-3 for government, no DMs, no dependence on population. The only problem would be that bureaucracies and balkanized worlds would be far more common than democracies and dictatorships, but this fits well with the OTU.

That's a simple fix that works, but it's not ideal IMO. I'm not entirely sure for example that you could really have type 1 gov (corporate) with tens of billions of people - a type 1 gov isn't a cyberpunky setting where corps dominate, it's one where EVERYONE is an employee of the corp. Usually that sort of thing works for low pop outposts, but not for crowded planets. I think there has to be some link with population, just one that isn't as strong as the direct "add the whole pop digit to the gov roll". Something more along the lines of say, a +1 or +2 DM if the pop is 9 or more.

4) Add a Resources rating, generated by 2D6-2. Low Resources give a negative DM to population; high Resources give a positive DM to population.

Resources are tricky. If you have a whole solar system to draw on then you pretty much have all the natural resources you'll ever need (just look at how much metal there is in the asteroid belt, or on Mercury). Biological resources will be less common and only found on lifebearing worlds or worlds with odd atmospheric chemistry (which could include things like Europa or Titan in the outer zone). And Social resources (people, information, etc) largely depends on the number of people living in the system. I think "Resources" would be a bit too vague to be useful, to be honest.

5) Roll TL first (after the physical characteristics and Resources, that is); then check against the minimum TL table; then roll pop, with a DM for TL; roll Starport last and not first, affected by TL, pop and Resources. Starport-A's shouldn't become available before TL9 anyway (as they require jump-drive construction) and Starport C or better would require TL6+.

Yes! Starports definitely need to be rolled last of all, after everything else (and I think they should have minimum populations too as well as minimum TLs, I can't really see a pop 1 world being able to run a type A starport).

 

[AKAramis]

Uhm, actually, it's happened in several campaigns that I needed to roll up a world mid session, as players went off-map...

That just sounds like poor prep to me. If your players are near the edge of your map then you should really extend the map borders beforehand in case they do something like that. Or, if you're playing in a canonical setting, just look at the existing maps.

when misjumps occur and take one beyond the edge... new system needed. I've hand that happen often enough.