Realism and design systems

[GamerDude]

EDG...
PLEASE READ MY ENTIRE POST AND TAKE IT WITH A 'FRIENDLY, CONVERSATIONAL' TONE.
Now, I've never said I "didn't want detail" but neither do I need detailed physic dissertations only a PhD could follow.

What do you think I'm doing here, exactly?

Well, that's an excellent question. This whole topic was the degeneration/hijacking of a very simple thread about T5 vs MGT... I tried to have some humor about it and got attitude. I do like to have a system that I can use without needless detail, excessive rolling, etc. Of course I never saw you identify yourself as a 'astrophysicist'... (and I'm still trying to find your post with that one link). But, to me it seems your are more interested in just getting people to say "yes oh that's good, your soo good" and not actually conveying anything. Remember, we can't see you... bodylanguage, voice tone, facial expressions, we can only go by what you right and it does get filtered through our own filters.

The GT:Far Trader system, while nice and hugely detailed... was way more than I personally will ever use. The direction you took the conversation in was like... total overkill without really saying much.

I like a BALANCE between ease-of-use and having some basis in reality. Your little dissertation about "if you put X kind of system in..." not only feels like a little bit of a frustrated rant, but is a much longer version of exactly what I said I wanted... "if you have a certain star, where can things go". Nothing complex, don't need a bunch of random generation tables, just guidelines so I have a clue. Your examples are what I'm looking for. What I'm not looking for is the amoutn of math and detail your MSc and PhD use/allow.

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?

[/quote]Why does it have to be the other way around? Personally, when I come up with a scenario I have a starting point, a goal, and a general idea how I want to get from one to the other. If someone wants to randomly gen up a system and then figure out a story to go around it... cool let them. Me? I have a story to tell and need a solar system where the story can be placed without the story being derailed by something totally stupid like the 'red giant with an ice planet in the orbit of Mercury" (little joke there).

What I'm getting is, with all your schoolign and degrees... you want to do this only at the super-high level from the perspective of "system gen first ONLY" even though that's not the only way to do it.

Oh, by the way... I own EVERY GT book except First In... I want it but ain't paying the $150+ that's being asked for it that the stores which have it want to be paid for it. If you have a copy you're willing to part with for say $30 (or best offer) I'm open ti buying it.

 

[GamerDude]

hey EDG....

In reading the second page of posts, I keep seeing something.

IMO, you have a chip or something on your shoulder. Whenever someone doesn't see things exactly the way you do (or you interpret what they said as conflicting with how you see things) you get defensive.

Telling someone that its "a case of poor planning" (or sounds like one) when the realities of running a game rear their ugly heads isn't right. In a game system where the players have free will to do what they want, or where random rolls can send a ship way off the map/planned adventure is life, not poor planning.

If, in the middle of a session the players decide they want to buy/get a new ship and to design/outfit it themselves... why should they be forced to pick from a list of pregen'd ships? IMO shoe-horning the players like that will only piss off the players. Why include rules that say what a particular hull size/style can have and tell the players "sorry, in the entire universe you can only buy one of these X ships here." Sounds like Henry "you can have a model-T in any color you want, as long as it's BLACK".

Now, the characters might not be able to make the purchase/place the order where they are in the game (planet/location wise) in which case it's reasonable to say "hey, can we wait until the characters get to a place they can actually obtain this new ship". But, if they are at a place where they can actually purchase a ship... why not let them?

As can happen in a real universe with FTL travel, in a game players can end up someplace other than their intended destination. They have the option to go where they want instead of any of the X choices the GM has dangled out in front of them. Heck, I had a group decide to check out a plot hook that I had hung out for them like 2 months ago (and nearly a year game time-wise) and DIDN'T have the adventure with me (I don't carry my entire game world and every little thing I've ever written to every session.... we play at a game store).

Anyway, for what they are worth, those are my politely expressed opinions and observations.

 

[EDG]

EDG...
PLEASE READ MY ENTIRE POST AND TAKE IT WITH A 'FRIENDLY, CONVERSATIONAL' TONE.

That's like saying "no offense but...", when you're actually going to go right ahead and offend me anyway...

But, to me it seems your are more interested in just getting people to say "yes oh that's good, your soo good" and not actually conveying anything. Remember, we can't see you... bodylanguage, voice tone, facial expressions, we can only go by what you right and it does get filtered through our own filters.

You never learn do you? Is there part of "discuss the message, not the messenger" that you're not getting? Don't expect further responses, answers, help, or anything else from me, ParanoidGamer. I've tried to be reasonable with you (even after you sent me a load of very insulting PMs) but you just cannot resist making digs about me (oh, "politely" of course) and ascribing false motivations to what I say, and it seems to me that you are just looking for any excuse to make things personal now.

It's not even remotely your place to talk about me (or anyone else on) these boards, and your opinion about individuals is neither solicited nor welcome - you just keep bringing this sort of crap into the discussion. Your opinions about me are not relevant to the thread and have added nothing to the discussion at all, and frankly I'm really not interested in wasting my time reading any of your points after that. Go hide your insults behind "politely expressed opinions" with someone else.

 

[captainjack23]

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 "harassment 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.

So your suggestion is to give each weapon a legality rating, which would relate to a general law level ? All that seems to do is shift the problem, but it's an interesting idea. I do agree that the emphasis on what weapons can be carried where is probably due the tendency of players to max out their carry, as 'twer.

As to American centric, well yes. Guns guns guns. Our political hot potato. I've never been sure if the enlightened democracies (read western Europe, and the commonwealth ex and current members club) are the anomaly (decent civil rights, strict gun control) or if the US is the anomaly with an unusually loose gun control for our control level (yes, I'm an American). By population, I guess we are about equally representative....

It does seem that if LL = authoritarian control, generally increased control = reduced gun ownership : but not always the reverse.


It does seem that the GURPS control level is more important for players than an actual Gov type. Actually, it may make most sense to make weapon control its own factor, with a modification for control level.

 

[captainjack23]

Getting back to design systems...

I note that the table by EDG doesn't specifiy a size or range of sizes for the stars generated...I may have missed it, though.

Why this would matter is for calculating the 100D limit for the star, and if it includes the orbit of the main starport. Seems this would be fairly useful info to include in stargen.

Is there an easy way to quantify or classify a star by this 100d limit ? Without opening a can of bloodthirsty evil worms, it may be a better approach to generating star systems....star color is good stage dressing, but doesn't have as big a consequence for play mechanics as size.

Something like 1-F, with sol at (say) 7, and assuming a 0 value orbit.
likely
size n orbits 100d orbit spectra
1 1-4 0 R
....
7 d6+6 2 K,G

Reassessing the stars according to what a hypothetical navigator would need to know seems as good a way as any:

"Yeah, its a type 7G start - port is at orbit 3, so no prob. Jump in direct like."

I'd almost suspect that classifying a stars size simply by the number of orbits it shadows with its 100d limit is a very likely working classification for Traveller. That allows larger stars and smaller stars to have the same classification - with the assumption that larger stars have bigger seperation between orbits..a giant R and a dwarf R can have the same rating (say, 2) if only the orbits out to 2 are shadowed.

(do we have any idea about this ?)

"Earth. Hmmmm. Sol - Oh yeah, main spaceport is orbit 3, star is a type 2G. closest belt is at 5, gas giant at 6. Jump on in. Wait. Dear god. Look out for this moon. "

(remember, according to traveller, Sol has an empty orbit 0)

Cap

 

[EDG]

So your suggestion is to give each weapon a legality rating, which would relate to a general law level ? All that seems to do is shift the problem, but it's an interesting idea. I do agree that the emphasis on what weapons can be carried where is probably due the tendency of players to max out their carry, as 'twer.

I guess I'm thinking that if the weapon legality code is less than the law level then it's highly restricted or forbidden, but if it's higher then it's perfectly legal to carry or needs some easy-to-acquire permit (depending on the magnitude of the difference either way). Which IIRC is not unlike the GURPS system.

As to American centric, well yes. Guns guns guns. Our political hot potato. I've never been sure if the enlightened democracies (read western Europe, and the commonwealth ex and current members club) are the anomaly (decent civil rights, strict gun control) or if the US is the anomaly with an unusually loose gun control for our control level (yes, I'm an American). By population, I guess we are about equally representative....

Well, I know which sort of system I prefer...

It does seem that if LL = authoritarian control, generally increased control = reduced gun ownership : but not always the reverse.

I guess the ideal solution would be a "Legal Profile" like in DGP's World Builder's Handbook, which had an 'average law level' represented by the UWP but also broke it down into separate codes for weapons, civil law, etc. But that obviously won't fit in one digit of a UWP .

 

[EDG]

I note that the table by EDG doesn't specifiy a size or range of sizes for the stars generated...I may have missed it, though.

You mean radius? No, it doesn't... the idea is to just use all the radii, masses, luminosities etc from book 6 for the types rolled up in my tables. Or from whatever source you want, to be honest.

Why this would matter is for calculating the 100D limit for the star, and if it includes the orbit of the main starport. Seems this would be fairly useful info to include in stargen.

Would be tricky to do though, since the starport may not necessarily be in the habitable zone. You can say what the first orbit beyond the 100D limit is though. Presumably at some point in the system description you can also say what orbit the mainworld (and starport) are in too so you can compare them.

Is there an easy way to quantify or classify a star by this 100d limit ? Without opening a can of bloodthirsty evil worms, it may be a better approach to generating star systems....star color is good stage dressing, but doesn't have as big a consequence for play mechanics as size.

There's no reason why you can't describe both. Star colour (i.e. spectral type) is pretty damn important for determining things like the age of the system and where the habitable planets are so it definitely is not "stage dressing".

I'd almost suspect that classifying a stars size simply by the number of orbits it shadows with its 100d limit is a very likely working classification for Traveller. That allows larger stars and smaller stars to have the same classification - with the assumption that larger stars have bigger seperation between orbits..a giant R and a dwarf R can have the same rating (say, 2) if only the orbits out to 2 are shadowed.

Why though? What's wrong with just saying it's an M5 V star (or even just "a red dwarf") with its 100D limit at orbit 0? Why come up with abstractions when what we've got works perfectly well? All we need to do is multiply whatever radii we're using for the stars by 200 and we have the 100D distance, so we list that in a table and that's that - problem solved.

The star classification really isn't scary and I can't see any reason why it should be simplified. If you just want to add 100D limits then why not just do that? Not everything has to be boiled down to terms that are only relevant to the game.

"Earth. Hmmmm. Sol - Oh yeah, main spaceport is orbit 3, star is a type 2G. closest belt is at 5, gas giant at 6. Jump on in. Wait. Dear god. Look out for this moon. "

Well, we can get that from the system descriptions we already have. Except you'd call the star a "G2 V" or a "yellow dwarf".

(remember, according to traveller, Sol has an empty orbit 0)

Also remember that "fixed orbits" are utter nonsense. None of the planets we've seen in other systems conform to the orbits in our solar system - we know the Traveller system is competely wrong here. It's as glaring an error as the TL 12 cellphones in the equipment list that can't do a fraction of the things that our own TL 8 ones can today, let alone more stuff.

 

[captainjack23]

LL and GT are two digits, correct ?
I actually do like the idea of assigning weapons a legality...it allows the LL digit to focus on control more than anything else - and allows for fairly easy expression of anomalies such as :

USA: GT=4, LL=5 All weapon legalities are at -2
Canada GT=4, LL =4
Australia GT=4, LL =5 All weapon legalities are at +2
1960 Rhodesia GT=3, LL =6 All weapon legalities are at -3 for citizens.
1950 Soviet Union GT=B LL=7 All weapon legalities are +4 except longarms in wilderness areas.

(note to all and sundry: these are my dog-headed guesses based upon little or no research for Display Purposes Only , and not designed to start a political fight)

Cap

 

[EDG]

LL and GT are two digits, correct ?

Law Level in the UWPs is one digit (0-L).
I don't know what you're referring to as "GT" though. GURPS Traveller legality level?

So I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the rest of your post.

(Maybe it's better to split the law level discussion off into another thread?)

 

[captainjack23]

I note that the table by EDG doesn't specifiy a size or range of sizes for the stars generated...I may have missed it, though.

You mean radius? No, it doesn't... the idea is to just use all the radii, masses, luminosities etc from book 6 for the types rolled up in my tables. Or from whatever source you want, to be honest.

Can book 6 be trusted on this ? I wasn't criticising your table per se, just bringing in the idea that it's important info that should be easily included in any Traveller stargen.

Also I used size to avoid bringing up the mass vs diameter issue of jump masking; radius is fine.

Why this would matter is for calculating the 100D limit for the star, and if it includes the orbit of the main starport. Seems this would be fairly useful info to include in stargen.

Would be tricky to do though, since the starport may not necessarily be in the habitable zone. You can say what the first orbit beyond the 100D limit is though. Presumably at some point in the system description you can also say what orbit the mainworld (and starport) are in too so you can compare them.

That was the idea - define the first orbit outside the 100d limit, and the orbit of the starport; the habitable zone can be independent of the starport location.

Is there an easy way to quantify or classify a star by this 100d limit ? Without opening a can of bloodthirsty evil worms, it may be a better approach to generating star systems....star color is good stage dressing, but doesn't have as big a consequence for play mechanics as size.

There's no reason why you can't describe both. Star colour (i.e. spectral type) is pretty damn important for determining things like the age of the system and where the habitable planets are so it definitely is not "stage dressing".

Mainly what I propose here is just a way to present the info from an astrogator's point of view. Thought experiment to clear up two different functional uses of stellar data.

I'd almost suspect that classifying a stars size simply by the number of orbits it shadows with its 100d limit is a very likely working classification for Traveller. That allows larger stars and smaller stars to have the same classification - with the assumption that larger stars have bigger seperation between orbits..a giant R and a dwarf R can have the same rating (say, 2) if only the orbits out to 2 are shadowed.

Why though? What's wrong with just saying it's an M5 V star (or even just "a red dwarf") with its 100D limit at orbit 0? Why come up with abstractions when what we've got works perfectly well? All we need to do is multiply whatever radii we're using for the stars by 200 and we have the 100D distance, so we list that in a table and that's that - problem solved.

The star classification really isn't scary and I can't see any reason why it should be simplified. If you just want to add 100D limits then why not just do that? Not everything has to be boiled down to terms that are only relevant to the game.

Agreed, but bear with me for a bit - this is just thinking out how to separate the navigational info from the stellar system creation information - the need to present both in a simple UWP or UWP + a few notes is part of the problem, it seems. Seperating the stellar creation data (without eliminating it) would allow more such info to be presented possibly in an under the hood type section , and would allow the UWP to be more generic with regard to system theory. It would also make retrofixing the bogus data much easier if the UWP was defined as simply the navigational description of a planet and star system: ie, what is the minimum that a navigator and possibly a trader (or a player) needs to know, and no more: What the starport planet is like is the UWP; what the navigator needs is where you can jump in and out of the system, where is the main(starport) world, where are the belts (for space opera issues) and where is the cheap fuel. Thus :

Sol (OTU) UWP 867966 USP 3356 G2V

The first is for the players and traders, the second is for the astrogators and players and the third is for the GM...and stage dressing for the players.

"Earth. Hmmmm. Sol - Oh yeah, main spaceport is orbit 3, star is a type 2G. closest belt is at 5, gas giant at 6. Jump on in. Wait. Dear god. Look out for this moon. "

Well, we can get that from the system descriptions we already have. Except you'd call the star a "G2 V" or a "yellow dwarf".

(remember, according to traveller, Sol has an empty orbit 0)

Also remember that "fixed orbits" are utter nonsense. None of the planets we've seen in other systems conform to the orbits in our solar system - we know the Traveller system is competely wrong here. It's as glaring an error as the TL 12 cellphones in the equipment list that can't do a fraction of the things that our own TL 8 ones can today, let alone more stuff.

The above raises two questions for me
1.I know the Bodes law assumption is fantasy - is that what you mean by fixed orbits ?
2. Beyond fixed orbits, is it a fair assumption that a larger star would have more and more spaced out orbits ??

Cap

 

[captainjack23]

LL and GT are two digits, correct ?

Law Level in the UWPs is one digit (0-L).
I don't know what you're referring to as "GT" though. GURPS Traveller legality level?

So I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the rest of your post.

Sorry. Government type. read above as "LL and GovT each have separate digits, correct ?"

(Maybe it's better to split the law level discussion off into another thread?)

Sure. If it goes further from here, I guess so.

Cap

 

[captainjack23]

Oh, by the way... I own EVERY GT book except First In... I want it but ain't paying the $150+ that's being asked for it that the stores which have it want to be paid for it. If you have a copy you're willing to part with for say $30 (or best offer) I'm open ti buying it.

I think SJG has reprinted it as a PDF. Given that its a softcover anyway, its probably the way to go. I got mine by a fluke, it came with Mercs and ground forces.

 

[EDG]

Can book 6 be trusted on this ? I wasn't criticising your table per se, just bringing in the idea that it's important info that should be easily included in any Traveller stargen.

Technically the values in book 6 are wonky but not too hideously wrong. The reality is that the luminosity and radius of a star increases as it evolves along its main sequence. Personally I define stars by mass and cross-reference their age on massive evolution tables to figure out those values, but that'd be too complex for use in a published RPG.

The book 6 values are OK for internal consistency though.

Agreed, but bear with me for a bit - this is just thinking out how to separate the navigational info from the stellar system creation information - the need to present both in a simple UWP or UWP + a few notes is part of the problem, it seems.

Hopefully I won't be shot for saying this, but Gar or Chris were rumbling about getting rid of UWPs altogether earlier in the playtest. I don't know if they're on the cards to stay now or if they're going to switch to a GURPS Traveller-like verbal description/table/stat block format.

Seperating the stellar creation data (without eliminating it) would allow more such info to be presented possibly in an under the hood type section , and would allow the UWP to be more generic with regard to system theory. It would also make retrofixing the bogus data much easier if the UWP was defined as simply the navigational description of a planet and star system: ie, what is the minimum that a navigator and possibly a trader (or a player) needs to know, and no more: What the starport planet is like is the UWP; what the navigator needs is where you can jump in and out of the system, where is the main(starport) world, where are the belts (for space opera issues) and where is the cheap fuel.

Well if you go for that approach then things like world size don't matter - all that matters is gravity because that's something directly "useful" from a player perspective. But that isn't what Traveller's about (and personally I hate reducing the amount of information available. If you give the world size then you can figure out all sorts of other stuff from that like mass and horizon distance that you can't get from just the simplified/useful parameter on its own).

I don't see a problem with giving the original data and the derived values separately though, so long as both are there.

The above raises two questions for me
1.I know the Bodes law assumption is fantasy - is that what you mean by fixed orbits ?

Yes. Planets just don't form in uniform orbits of 0.2 AU, 0.4 AU, 0.7 AU, etc.

2. Beyond fixed orbits, is it a fair assumption that a larger star would have more and more spaced out orbits ??

No, there's no reason at all that it would have more and more spaced out orbits at all. In fact I'd be amazed to find a planet that naturally formed in-situ in an orbit beyond 50 AU from any star (though it's possible that some may migrate out to that sort of distance and beyond). But more massive stars don't necessarily have more orbits, and giant stars will only have the orbits they had when they were still Main Sequence.

One thing Traveller definitely screwed up on was the idea that giant stars somehow can have planets further away from them than main sequence stars. The system doesn't magically scale up when a star enters its giant phase. Surviving planets can however be relocated to further orbits than they were before (about twice or maybe three times as far) when the star turns into a white dwarf - the star loses a lot of mass in the process, which has the effect of expanding the orbits. But then what you'll have are some more distant outer worlds and no inner worlds since they got consumed by the red giant phase.

EDIT: Though "orbits" is itself a weird concept that only has any meaning if you think of them as slots for planets to go in. Stars can have many or few planets depending on the circumstances of their formation... you could have a few big planets or a lot of smaller planets, migrating gas giants can toss things around, binary systems where the companion star is located in or passes through the primary's planetary system tend to be emptier of planets because the companion ejects a lot of planet-forming material out of the system... there's a lot of possible factors to determine how many planetary bodies a star has and what sort they are. A massive star may have a few planets, a less massive star may have a lot of planets, or vice versa or anything in between.

 

[GamerDude]

Oh, by the way... I own EVERY GT book except First In... I want it but ain't paying the $150+ that's being asked for it that the stores which have it want to be paid for it. If you have a copy you're willing to part with for say $30 (or best offer) I'm open ti buying it.

I think SJG has reprinted it as a PDF. Given that its a softcover anyway, its probably the way to go. I got mine by a fluke, it came with Mercs and ground forces.

Thanks Capt!

Say, could you point me to the link for EDG's proposed system since he isn't interested in providing it to me? Thanks.

 

[GamerDude]

Go hide your insults behind "politely expressed opinions" with someone else.

Um... I guess you missed where I said I'm trying to find the link to your document but can't find it.
Anyone out there who can help me find that link to EDG's proposed system?

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Here you go, courtesy of your local friendly Hiver....

 

[GamerDude]

Here you go, courtesy of your local friendly Hiver....

Thank you so much dear friend Hiver.

After giving the doc the 'once over' it is a bit 'involved'. I notice it says "11/25/05" meaning it's not a revision of the T5 or MGT star generation system.

SO, while discussing this particular document is interesting, and may just be hyper-realistic, how does it apply to T5/MGT?

 

[captainjack23]

2. Beyond fixed orbits, is it a fair assumption that a larger star would have more and more spaced out orbits ??

No, there's no reason at all that it would have more and more spaced out orbits at all. <Good stuff snipped for brevity> But then what you'll have are some more distant outer worlds and no inner worlds since they got consumed by the red giant phase.

Understood, stars don't gain mass (just volume) when they enter the giant phase. Two more questions:

Would the above apply to stars still on the main sequence (I may be using the wrong term, I mean stars in the pre-expansion phase of their lifespan) that differ in mass ? Ie more mass = higher prob of more planets ?

Given what you said about orbit formation, is there any way to predict or "tableify" the orbital distances of planets in a starsystem ? It sounds like "whatever you feel like" is what the above boils down to ?(I know that planetary types have required distances to form, such as the habitable zone); or is there any link between orbital placement and star mass ?

 

[captainjack23]

Here you go, courtesy of your local friendly Hiver....

DON'T TOUCH THAT YOU FOOL !!.....

oh dear. Too, too late.....not paranoid enough, I guess.

Cap

 

[EDG]

Would the above apply to stars still on the main sequence (I may be using the wrong term, I mean stars in the pre-expansion phase of their lifespan) that differ in mass ? Ie more mass = higher prob of more planets ?

Enh. Remember all that stuff I said about how any stars can have pretty much any number of planets? It all depends on how dense the protoplanetary disk is, how material is distributed within it, the metallicity of the star, any rampaging jovians that form...

Probably overall I'd say that low mass stars tend to have fewer planets, and high mass stars tend to have more (up to a point - the O and B stars probably won't have any (or very few) since their solar winds are so strong that they blast away the dust and gas around them before planets really have a chance to form. And then they explode . )

Given what you said about orbit formation, is there any way to predict or "tableify" the orbital distances of planets in a starsystem ? It sounds like "whatever you feel like" is what the above boils down to ?(I know that planetary types have required distances to form, such as the habitable zone); or is there any link between orbital placement and star mass ?

I think the best way is 2300AD's system. You start with a random orbit between 0.1 and 1 AU, and then roll on a table of multipliers that go from say 1.3 to 2.5 to determine each orbit after that. You multiply the previous orbit by the multiplier to get the new orbit, then roll on the multiplier table again to find the next out out, and so on.

In our case, we started with an orbit at 0.4 AU (Mercury), multiplied that by 1.8 (roughly) to get 0.7 AU (Venus), multiplied that by 1.4 to get Earth (1 AU), multiplied that by 1.6 AU to get Mars... and so on.

That way you get a variety of configurations, and all the systems are different. Add some eccenricity to the mix and things start getting interesting.