captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Hi,
EDG and I have decided that the best place for me to make some of my ideas about basic worldgen systems is in its own thread, rather than in his beta version test of his sytem. Which is fine by me, since I'm still contributing there.
So what I'm hoping to have here is a system that is based on a fundamentally important difference in our views, articulated before, but most recently, and probably most effectively, by Hans Ranke.
The core of his argument is here:
That said, I'm going to (hopefully) present two ways to deal with the issues that seem most pressing as regards worldgen in CT and MGT.
1. a guideline approach and
2. a minimalist mechanical approach.
Note that they are not mutually exclusive, and both do have the starting premise that the system is a tool, not an automated system, and that some GM assessment will be needed.
stay tuned.
World Generation: Overview
This proposal accepts from the beginning that there will have to be GM analysis and correction into any of the worldgen systems, but most especially the CT , and by extension, the MGT version.
In general, there are three areas of what seems to be consensus on problems with the worldgen system.
1. Planetary parameters
-atmospheres too dense for size.
-hydrographic inconsistent with atmosphere
-poor range of atmospheres
2. Habitability Problems
-too many people
-too many people in a crappy planet
-odd combinations of nearby worlds(empty gardens next to teeming hellholes)
-Primitive populations on unsurvivable worlds
3. Social problems
-population x Gov limits
-phantom and potemkin starports
-government names
-technology spread and distribution
There may well be more. Exclusion is not a comment, just my own ignorance. I hope that the solutions proposed will either apply to, or guide the way tof ixing any unlisted issues. Additionally, there are also a whole class of issues that relate to the whole preferred flavor of the referee’s campaign, and how to achieve it; I may or may not get to those. .
Generally, these issues revolve around two complaints: physical impossibility vs belief stretching.
The above list (roughly) breaks down into those categories as follows.
Physically Impossible
Atmospheres too dense for size.
Hydrographics inconsistent with atmosphere
Primitive populations on unsurvivable worlds
Belief stretching
-population x Gov limits
-phantom and potemkin starports
-government names
-technology spread and distribution
-too many people
-too many people in a crappy planet
-odd combinations of nearby worlds(empty gardens next to teeming hellholes)
-population x Gov limits
-phantom and potemkin starports
-government names
-technology spread and distribution
The distinction is obviously artificial and of my own choosing in several of the cases; regardless, I use this metric as the two types of problem often suggest different solutions.
In my earlier post, I alluded to two strategies for fixing issues with worldgen. In fact, they are the two different class of solutions implied by the above division.
Specifically, and to get to the point (finally), I’d use mechanistic solutions to deal with problems of impossibility, and rule/guideline based solutions for problems of belief. And then, if one doesn’t work well enough, try the counterpart. If neither work well enough try something else. If that fails, go back to playing Creeks and Crawdads using the SF supplement: “Star Fish Battles”.
Mechanistic solutions alter the mechanisms of the system – examples include changing dice types, modifiers, table entries, etc.
Rule/guideline based solutions set basic limits on the output of the system. Caps and limits, and also default values fall into this category. The typical one is “ If size =0, ATM =0, but also a guideline such as “ only one depots should be placed in any given sector”, and “Alsan alegence worlds will not be found in Zhodani space”
Next up, the actual suggestions:
Dealing with Problems of Impossibility
This covers the problems which are best described as physical impossibilities. These include The atmosphere problem, the Hydrographics issue and the non-surviablity problem.
1. Solving the atmosphere problem.
I’m with EDG on the need for this. However, he and I differ on how to do it,so……thanks to a free market economy, you now can get two ways !
Goals:
I’d like to solve the issue , keep the distributions clean , limit the use of modifiers where possible, and use standard dice mechanisms where ever possible. Looking like the solar system is gravy.
Two changes solve the problem.
1. Rewrite ATM type 2 or accept that it is functionally an exotic type.
description changed to:
Note, the MGT ATM 2 description isn’t even that specific, which is fine.
2. Now for the planets:
Done.
Advantages:
- Teeny dense ATM planets gone;
- max atm for 3 & 4 is 2, but most will be 0 or 1
- no extra tables or more modifiers;
- Same old boring 2d-7 mechanic; no confusing change for old gamers
- distribution of ATM for siz 4 isn’t reversed and all weird-lookin’
- ATM A is no longer an anomalous spike in the distribution of ATM results.
- May actually represent the solar system dynamics of these worlds.
2. Elliptical Atmospheres Do Not Exist.
Simple solution: Don’t use them, stop the table at C.
Advantages: Simple, hews to old LBB2 conventions.
Disadvantages: results in lots of type C worlds,due to capping effect.
The latter point suggests a less simple solution, as some of us (myself included) feel that type C should be rarer than B, if only for practicality.
Less simple solution: Add in type D "Panthalassic or Anomalous/Other”
Described it as as (something like):
Done.
Advantages:
- uncaps C, thereby reducing its frequency
-adds in cool, newly discovered and theoretically rare types without adding lots of new entries.
-is a low frequency result, even with capping.
-Disadvantages:
-Changes CT structure, oddifies some older UWP data .
-Category isn’t very granular
3. Hydrographics inconsistent with and unconnected to Atmosphere types
This seem to me to be one of the issues that has less effect on the play of the game or the flavor regardless of right or wrong. As I understand it, various atmospheres should have different fluid components, and more or less coverage of same.
Honestly, I’d just roll it up and go by what is already available in CT .
The last two sets are right out of CT; the alien modules, BTW…in this case module 4, Zhodani
If Temp is going to be an option, I’d add a final
Make a note that
Done
4. Primitive populations on non-survivable worlds:
This is the classic tech 0 population on type C worlds. Actually, that’s a pretty rare combination, if not quite impossible. More representative would be tech 3- living in AT 2,3 or tainted atm planets. NOTE: The problem only exists if one considers the population to be the colonists, and not the natives (which is my opinion, and seems to be the case). The basic solution is pretty well available in CT:
Set a tech minimum for the problematic ATM types:
If there is a population, and its final tech is not equal to or greater than the minimum, it becomes an empty world according to the original CT ruling: POP= 0 GOV= 0 LL= 0 etc. This increases the frequency of empty worlds by about...11% + ? regardless, it's worth considering.
Another resolution of the rule suggests that the tech of the population should be raised to the minimum required. This gives lots more low/medium tech colonies on risky worlds, and suggests either an overcrowded society, or a very stable one (or both). the first approach produes a more sparse habitation, perhaps a frontier or a post collapse area
.
As seen there I have noted the CT version, and some changes I suggest. The main reasoning for the changes is that the TLs have slid around a bit since publication (or else I want my flying car right now !!!!) and need a bit of adjusting, and second, that I think it underestimates the ability of even early industrial societies to cope and retain slightly higher items of tech when it’s life or death.
A & B are differentiated to reflect the differing survivability requirements....heck, A could be as low as 5 or 6, all considered - when were the first underwater long term habitations built ? But I digress.
The increased AT rating changes are just to differentiate A &B, and acknowlege both TL drift after 30 years, and the difficulties of the worst atmospheres.
Honestly, my version is just chromed CT – either works fine.
(This issue also has a believability component, so see below)
Done
Problems of belief
1. Habitability
Before we get to the table and dice parts, some comments on Habitability issues.
EDG feels I underestimate the difficulties of colonizing the A+ atm worlds; I feel he underestimates the effects of technology.
So here’s my solution: the minimum Tech tables for odd atm types already are part of traveller (see above). If habitability (as opposed to survivability) is an issue, an elegant solution would be to simply add another column to the TLxATM type table, and label the original column Min TL for survivability and the second “minimum TL for habitability”.
All one has to accept is that that where the tech exists to survive on the plant, the next step is having pleasant habitations – that are, well, habitable.
Define the terms as follows
Survivability is the level at which life is possible and can be sustained long term - but with great difficulty, and constant attention to survival needed.
Habitability is the level at which the life can exist in comfort (more or less); while it may require advanced tech, considerible engineering and dedicated support staff, day to day life is possible for the bulk of the population without attention to the planetary environment.
Note: neither considers safety relative to earth type worlds. The dome may collapse and kill millions, but most of the people don't need to do anything special just to live day to day.
If a planet has the survivable TL, but not the habitable TL, halve the population. If the TL is equal or greater to the Habitability level, leave it alone.
For the taint worlds, the survivability is the same as habitability – the solution is easy enough that the system isn’t stretched to provide it.
Given the above, I see no particular need for further limiting the population on the “hellhole” planets; in any case, they are actually a rare combination despite the complaints about them.
Done
<begin latest additions to text 021608>
Government
The main issues here seem twofold: what the heck is a “insert GT here” (or alternately “that’s not a “insert GT here”); and why can’t huge planets have low Government types (or vice versa.)
"What the heck is..."
Good questions. As to the first, not only are specific terms to political science used (charismatic, for one –it don’t mean your sixth stat in D&D), but they are 30 years old.
There are a wide variety of ways to reconfigure the list, and many suggestions about the proper relationship of societal control to population; all of them share two features: they also rely on an individuals understanding of political descriptors, and two they have little or no consensus. So, I really don’t see too much of solution other than trying to be very flexible in ones definition of what they mean. The USA’s official GT in the advertising copy is 4 (as was he Stalinist USSR) , but we can also be defined as 3 , 9 or C depending on how cynical I’m feeling from day to day….and a 6 when I’m in a real tinfoil-hat mood.
"why can't pop A have GT 1"
As to the second issue, If one feels that all govt types should be available to all populations, the problem is there are 14 types, and 11 slots on a 2d6 roll. One solution would be to simply collapse all off the dictatorship options together as “dictatorship,charismatic, non-charismatic oligarchic or religous”. If more granularity is needed, perhaps roll off among the collapsed examples.; or siply have two tableswith equal chances of roling on either (table for “odd population numbers and table for even population numbers However, as is well known, I have a phoia of adding tables or subrolls. So, I’ll move on here, having suggested heretical solutions to apostates who care to listen to doctrinal lies……
A CT+GM input solution
However, CT comes to the rescue. It's clear that the gov table varies by polity, situation and and species
ccupied solomani territory is rich in captive worlds; Aslan and vargr have difefrent lists, as do zhodani and dryone, and etc); Once again, if it is seen a a tool, one that is currently calibrated to produce an OTU flavor, the probem is made easier – if you wish a corporate setting, switch 5 and 1; if a terrifying fascist super empire is needed, change one or more of the lower GTs to captive.
So.
1. Set the table up as you wish. Otherwise, the LBB is the default for an imperium-like setting.
2. 2d6 –7 + pop.
Done.
EDG and I have decided that the best place for me to make some of my ideas about basic worldgen systems is in its own thread, rather than in his beta version test of his sytem. Which is fine by me, since I'm still contributing there.
So what I'm hoping to have here is a system that is based on a fundamentally important difference in our views, articulated before, but most recently, and probably most effectively, by Hans Ranke.
The core of his argument is here:
That said, I'm going to (hopefully) present two ways to deal with the issues that seem most pressing as regards worldgen in CT and MGT.
1. a guideline approach and
2. a minimalist mechanical approach.
Note that they are not mutually exclusive, and both do have the starting premise that the system is a tool, not an automated system, and that some GM assessment will be needed.
stay tuned.
World Generation: Overview
This proposal accepts from the beginning that there will have to be GM analysis and correction into any of the worldgen systems, but most especially the CT , and by extension, the MGT version.
In general, there are three areas of what seems to be consensus on problems with the worldgen system.
1. Planetary parameters
-atmospheres too dense for size.
-hydrographic inconsistent with atmosphere
-poor range of atmospheres
2. Habitability Problems
-too many people
-too many people in a crappy planet
-odd combinations of nearby worlds(empty gardens next to teeming hellholes)
-Primitive populations on unsurvivable worlds
3. Social problems
-population x Gov limits
-phantom and potemkin starports
-government names
-technology spread and distribution
There may well be more. Exclusion is not a comment, just my own ignorance. I hope that the solutions proposed will either apply to, or guide the way tof ixing any unlisted issues. Additionally, there are also a whole class of issues that relate to the whole preferred flavor of the referee’s campaign, and how to achieve it; I may or may not get to those. .
Generally, these issues revolve around two complaints: physical impossibility vs belief stretching.
The above list (roughly) breaks down into those categories as follows.
Physically Impossible
Atmospheres too dense for size.
Hydrographics inconsistent with atmosphere
Primitive populations on unsurvivable worlds
Belief stretching
-population x Gov limits
-phantom and potemkin starports
-government names
-technology spread and distribution
-too many people
-too many people in a crappy planet
-odd combinations of nearby worlds(empty gardens next to teeming hellholes)
-population x Gov limits
-phantom and potemkin starports
-government names
-technology spread and distribution
The distinction is obviously artificial and of my own choosing in several of the cases; regardless, I use this metric as the two types of problem often suggest different solutions.
In my earlier post, I alluded to two strategies for fixing issues with worldgen. In fact, they are the two different class of solutions implied by the above division.
Specifically, and to get to the point (finally), I’d use mechanistic solutions to deal with problems of impossibility, and rule/guideline based solutions for problems of belief. And then, if one doesn’t work well enough, try the counterpart. If neither work well enough try something else. If that fails, go back to playing Creeks and Crawdads using the SF supplement: “Star Fish Battles”.
Mechanistic solutions alter the mechanisms of the system – examples include changing dice types, modifiers, table entries, etc.
Rule/guideline based solutions set basic limits on the output of the system. Caps and limits, and also default values fall into this category. The typical one is “ If size =0, ATM =0, but also a guideline such as “ only one depots should be placed in any given sector”, and “Alsan alegence worlds will not be found in Zhodani space”
Next up, the actual suggestions:
Dealing with Problems of Impossibility
This covers the problems which are best described as physical impossibilities. These include The atmosphere problem, the Hydrographics issue and the non-surviablity problem.
1. Solving the atmosphere problem.
I’m with EDG on the need for this. However, he and I differ on how to do it,so……thanks to a free market economy, you now can get two ways !
Goals:
I’d like to solve the issue , keep the distributions clean , limit the use of modifiers where possible, and use standard dice mechanisms where ever possible. Looking like the solar system is gravy.
Two changes solve the problem.
1. Rewrite ATM type 2 or accept that it is functionally an exotic type.
description changed to:
Code:
“Tainted/Very Thin . This atmosphere unbreathable due to lack of sufficient pressure or mixed non-breathable gases in addition or instead of O2”.Note, the MGT ATM 2 description isn’t even that specific, which is fine.
2. Now for the planets:
Code:
a. Roll as normal, 2d-7 + SIZ
b. If Siz <3 (0,1,2) ATM =0
c. IF SIZ = 3 or 4, and ATM>2, ATM =0 .*
d. If Siz >5, no change.
* This creates a mild distributional oddity: siz 3 planets have a slightly higher probability (approx 5%) of having a type 2 atm compared to siz 4.
One solution is to set the default for type 4 to 1 or 2 if calculated atm >2.Done.
Advantages:
- Teeny dense ATM planets gone;
- max atm for 3 & 4 is 2, but most will be 0 or 1
- no extra tables or more modifiers;
- Same old boring 2d-7 mechanic; no confusing change for old gamers
- distribution of ATM for siz 4 isn’t reversed and all weird-lookin’
- ATM A is no longer an anomalous spike in the distribution of ATM results.
- May actually represent the solar system dynamics of these worlds.
2. Elliptical Atmospheres Do Not Exist.
Simple solution: Don’t use them, stop the table at C.
Advantages: Simple, hews to old LBB2 conventions.
Disadvantages: results in lots of type C worlds,due to capping effect.
The latter point suggests a less simple solution, as some of us (myself included) feel that type C should be rarer than B, if only for practicality.
Less simple solution: Add in type D "Panthalassic or Anomalous/Other”
Described it as as (something like):
Code:
“Worlds atmosphere is panthalassic having an extremely dense atmosphere with only vague distinction between atmosphere and ocean, and/or exhibitis rare pressure/altitude effects found in dense atmospheres, such as high/low atmosphere types.”Done.
Advantages:
- uncaps C, thereby reducing its frequency
-adds in cool, newly discovered and theoretically rare types without adding lots of new entries.
-is a low frequency result, even with capping.
-Disadvantages:
-Changes CT structure, oddifies some older UWP data .
-Category isn’t very granular
3. Hydrographics inconsistent with and unconnected to Atmosphere types
This seem to me to be one of the issues that has less effect on the play of the game or the flavor regardless of right or wrong. As I understand it, various atmospheres should have different fluid components, and more or less coverage of same.
Honestly, I’d just roll it up and go by what is already available in CT .
Code:
Type D ATM = A
Siz 0,1, HYD =0
ATM 0, 1, A,B,C = HYD-4If Temp is going to be an option, I’d add a final
Code:
–1 if hot
+1 if coldMake a note that
Code:
”with ATM types A+, the oceans will be more or less composed of non-water fluids, or mixes of water and other fluids.”Done
4. Primitive populations on non-survivable worlds:
This is the classic tech 0 population on type C worlds. Actually, that’s a pretty rare combination, if not quite impossible. More representative would be tech 3- living in AT 2,3 or tainted atm planets. NOTE: The problem only exists if one considers the population to be the colonists, and not the natives (which is my opinion, and seems to be the case). The basic solution is pretty well available in CT:
Set a tech minimum for the problematic ATM types:
Code:
ATM CT Min Tech MY Tech MIN
2- 7 6
3 6 5
4,7,9 5 4
A,B 8 7/9
C 9 A
D - 9If there is a population, and its final tech is not equal to or greater than the minimum, it becomes an empty world according to the original CT ruling: POP= 0 GOV= 0 LL= 0 etc. This increases the frequency of empty worlds by about...11% + ? regardless, it's worth considering.
Another resolution of the rule suggests that the tech of the population should be raised to the minimum required. This gives lots more low/medium tech colonies on risky worlds, and suggests either an overcrowded society, or a very stable one (or both). the first approach produes a more sparse habitation, perhaps a frontier or a post collapse area
.
As seen there I have noted the CT version, and some changes I suggest. The main reasoning for the changes is that the TLs have slid around a bit since publication (or else I want my flying car right now !!!!) and need a bit of adjusting, and second, that I think it underestimates the ability of even early industrial societies to cope and retain slightly higher items of tech when it’s life or death.
A & B are differentiated to reflect the differing survivability requirements....heck, A could be as low as 5 or 6, all considered - when were the first underwater long term habitations built ? But I digress.
The increased AT rating changes are just to differentiate A &B, and acknowlege both TL drift after 30 years, and the difficulties of the worst atmospheres.
Honestly, my version is just chromed CT – either works fine.
(This issue also has a believability component, so see below)
Done
Problems of belief
1. Habitability
Before we get to the table and dice parts, some comments on Habitability issues.
EDG feels I underestimate the difficulties of colonizing the A+ atm worlds; I feel he underestimates the effects of technology.
So here’s my solution: the minimum Tech tables for odd atm types already are part of traveller (see above). If habitability (as opposed to survivability) is an issue, an elegant solution would be to simply add another column to the TLxATM type table, and label the original column Min TL for survivability and the second “minimum TL for habitability”.
All one has to accept is that that where the tech exists to survive on the plant, the next step is having pleasant habitations – that are, well, habitable.
Define the terms as follows
Survivability is the level at which life is possible and can be sustained long term - but with great difficulty, and constant attention to survival needed.
Habitability is the level at which the life can exist in comfort (more or less); while it may require advanced tech, considerible engineering and dedicated support staff, day to day life is possible for the bulk of the population without attention to the planetary environment.
Note: neither considers safety relative to earth type worlds. The dome may collapse and kill millions, but most of the people don't need to do anything special just to live day to day.
If a planet has the survivable TL, but not the habitable TL, halve the population. If the TL is equal or greater to the Habitability level, leave it alone.
Code:
ATM CT Survivable TL My Survivable TL Habitable TL
2- 7 6 7
3 6 5 6
4,7,9 5 4 4
A,B 8 7/9 8/A
C 9 A B
D - 9 A
If TL < survivable, POP=0, GOV =0 LL=0
If TL < habitable and > survivable POP = POP/2
If TL < habitable, no change needed.Given the above, I see no particular need for further limiting the population on the “hellhole” planets; in any case, they are actually a rare combination despite the complaints about them.
Done
<begin latest additions to text 021608>
Government
The main issues here seem twofold: what the heck is a “insert GT here” (or alternately “that’s not a “insert GT here”); and why can’t huge planets have low Government types (or vice versa.)
"What the heck is..."
Good questions. As to the first, not only are specific terms to political science used (charismatic, for one –it don’t mean your sixth stat in D&D), but they are 30 years old.
There are a wide variety of ways to reconfigure the list, and many suggestions about the proper relationship of societal control to population; all of them share two features: they also rely on an individuals understanding of political descriptors, and two they have little or no consensus. So, I really don’t see too much of solution other than trying to be very flexible in ones definition of what they mean. The USA’s official GT in the advertising copy is 4 (as was he Stalinist USSR) , but we can also be defined as 3 , 9 or C depending on how cynical I’m feeling from day to day….and a 6 when I’m in a real tinfoil-hat mood.
"why can't pop A have GT 1"
As to the second issue, If one feels that all govt types should be available to all populations, the problem is there are 14 types, and 11 slots on a 2d6 roll. One solution would be to simply collapse all off the dictatorship options together as “dictatorship,charismatic, non-charismatic oligarchic or religous”. If more granularity is needed, perhaps roll off among the collapsed examples.; or siply have two tableswith equal chances of roling on either (table for “odd population numbers and table for even population numbers However, as is well known, I have a phoia of adding tables or subrolls. So, I’ll move on here, having suggested heretical solutions to apostates who care to listen to doctrinal lies……
A CT+GM input solution
However, CT comes to the rescue. It's clear that the gov table varies by polity, situation and and species
ccupied solomani territory is rich in captive worlds; Aslan and vargr have difefrent lists, as do zhodani and dryone, and etc); Once again, if it is seen a a tool, one that is currently calibrated to produce an OTU flavor, the probem is made easier – if you wish a corporate setting, switch 5 and 1; if a terrifying fascist super empire is needed, change one or more of the lower GTs to captive. So.
1. Set the table up as you wish. Otherwise, the LBB is the default for an imperium-like setting.
2. 2d6 –7 + pop.
Done.
) Hell, even hijacking is better than derailing.. Plus, getting thoughts on this topic out there is a good thing. Now I can read your ideas, too. 
