Summary of problems with CT Physical Stats/EDG fixes.

[captainjack23]

(Posted in its own thread to avoid discussing a critique in the middle of the critique being posted. :wink: )


Summary of problems with CT Physical Stats/EDG fixes.

I like a system that deals with the size/ATM issue and looks at temp as it is included in MGT . Adding extra atmospheres is fun, but if it causes more adjustments, not worth it. Simple changes that produce the same effective results are appropriate for the basic rules. More accuracy than that is for those who wish to add complexity. Adding it to the core shapes the whole system.


Size
Metric or imperial, not important, we can move on. Change the values of the codes to fix the atmosphere issue ? Perhaps, but it creates backward compatibility issues, which, like it or not, is a constraint for this version.
Atmospheres:
Values above C seem to be mainly chrome, and cool, but they stretch the limits of HYD and require modifiers for readjustment, so lose em. Again, low payoff for extra complexity. D and E (high, low) can be subsumed easily in 8/9 atm with big planets. Make it a trade code, perhaps, or lose them. Otherwise, no change.
Note that MGT doesn’t specify that the low density atmospheres are O/N mixes, just unbreathable; they differ only in terms of what protection is needed.

Hydrographics
Stop worrying so much about minute effects of ATM on Hyd. It’s only there for the fuel, and ships can seemingly handle tremendous amounts of impurities in their H2 supply. Otherwise, all it needs do is indicate how likely it is that the characters will get wet feet. This seems to be the approach MGT has already taken.

Temp
Making room for this is good, but again, it has way to many effects for the benefit they produce. I’ve outlined this in my earlier detailed post about the physical stats.

Plus, I note that the MGT draft has it as a box item, and does not include it in the discussion of basic world stats. Given that, I think its effect on the planet stats listed should be minimized.

Again, most of the additional detail would be more appropriate for a supplement, or an OGL version, rather than saddling the core with such specific and more complex mechanisms.

While some have argued that the complexity or time required for a system is irrelevant due to personal computers and software, I think making that a design argument misses the point that few players will have the time, resources or interest in writing custom worldgen programs, as the software isn’t available. Even here, on the forums perhaps three of us have developed three different worldgen programs, and I know it took me longer to write test and debug a program that can generate 100K systems in a few minutes than to use a CT or MGT to generate a subsector. Finally, releasing a pen and paper RPG with the assumption that a laptop or server is a needed resource seems somewhat off base to me.


Social stat issues next.

 

[EDG]

Values above C seem to be mainly chrome, and cool, but they stretch the limits of HYD and require modifiers for readjustment, so lose em.

Right here, you lose me. What you're proposing here seems to be a completely new worldgen system, not comments on tweaking mine or even the MGT system. The D+ atmospheres have been in Traveller since Scouts, and there is in fact a point to them (well, to the D and F ones anyway) because they are only available for larger, massive planets. They absolutely should not be removed (if nothing else, what atmosphere types would you replace them with? You need results of 13-15 if you're roll high for size 8+ planets).

Again, low payoff for extra complexity. D and E (high, low) can be subsumed easily in 8/9 atm with big planets. Make it a trade code, perhaps, or lose them. Otherwise, no change.

It's funny how you say that backward compatibility is a constraint, and then a few lines later cheerfully toss out things that have been there for ages.

Note that MGT doesn’t specify that the low density atmospheres are O/N mixes, just unbreathable; they differ only in terms of what protection is needed.

So? They're still the same atmospheres as defined in CT.

Stop worrying so much about minute effects of ATM on Hyd. It’s only there for the fuel, and ships can seemingly handle tremendous amounts of impurities in their H2 supply. Otherwise, all it needs do is indicate how likely it is that the characters will get wet feet. This seems to be the approach MGT has already taken.

Again, you seem more interested in "what does this mean for characters" (which is a known bias of yours, given previous discussion) rather than "what does this actually mean for the planet", which allows the GM to add a ton of useful detail and also can potentially give him a lot more ideas. Atmosphere has a definite effect on hydrographics - that's part and parcel of making the planets more realistic.

Plus, I note that the MGT draft has it as a box item, and does not include it in the discussion of basic world stats. Given that, I think its effect on the planet stats listed should be minimized.

In for a penny, in for a pound. If MGT is considering temperature, then it has to consider EVERYTHING about temperature. You can't have hydrographics on an earthlike world if the temperature is Boiling, for example, so that needs to be accounted for.

Again, most of the additional detail would be more appropriate for a supplement, or an OGL version, rather than saddling the core with such specific and more complex mechanisms.

These aren't complex or specific. Supplements should IMO have more detailed rules for the rest of the system and star types, but all the stuff I'm describing here is pretty damn basic.

While some have argued that the complexity or time required for a system is irrelevant due to personal computers and software, I think making that a design argument misses the point that few players will have the time, resources or interest in writing custom worldgen programs, as the software isn’t available. Even here, on the forums perhaps three of us have developed three different worldgen programs, and I know it took me longer to write test and debug a program that can generate 100K systems in a few minutes than to use a CT or MGT to generate a subsector. Finally, releasing a pen and paper RPG with the assumption that a laptop or server is a needed resource seems somewhat off base to me.

I sure as hell have never argued that one should use a computer program to generate planets. I did it here because we needed to test out the statistics (well, and because it'd be fun to do it). But you absolutely, positively, definitely do NOT need a computer program to create a mainworld for Traveller. It's only slightly more complicated than what was present in Book 6, so it might take a couple more minutes to generate it, but nobody's time is at that much of a premium that this is a deal-breaker.

Again, I just get the impression that you're arguing mostly from personal preference rather than actually presenting any coherent argument against the system itself.

 

[captainjack23]

< a lot of cut n' paste argument snipped to once again encounter the following canard>
Again, I just get the impression that you're arguing mostly from personal preference rather than actually presenting any coherent argument against the system itself.

Please believe that you can take my feedback and do whatever you want with it. However, treating it as dissent to be quashed or bait for a big opinion based argument is just plain a waste of time. I'm not going to even argue with you about your constant misrepresentation what I am saying. People can read it and decide. I honestly have no illusions that you are going to change one jot at this point right now; I'm not sure you're capable of it ; you seem to simply want to quash whatever dissent I represent, which is understandable if you dont think your sytem can stand on its own.

Why are you posting your system changes here and asking for feedback if you cant tolerate any disagreement or feedback ? Are you simply fishing for compliments ? You have a very funny way of doing it, if so.

I'll decide later if I feel like putting up any more of a requested critique just to be shouted down and demonized.

Life is short, and this is a game. And you sir, are a bad investment in time.

Goodnight, and god bless.

 

[JRMapes]

snip a bunch of stuff ...


Finally, releasing a pen and paper RPG with the assumption that a laptop or server is a needed resource seems somewhat off base to me.

i have yet to find a problem with the EDG system that will make me toss up my hands and walk away. It's not exactly MWM Traveller WorldGen but the results are more preferable IMO.

I have generated a number of worlds by hand since the EDG system was posted - probably around 25 or so in total - and I have done them all with the toss of the dice. I roll up almost all of my game worlds by hand (using LBB Scouts). Compared between the two, I've not seen any exaggerated length of additional time using the EDG System.

Granted I haven't used a stop watch but just glancing at the clock on the wall seems to me there isn't much more than a 3-5 minute difference in roll up time when I tried alternating between the two.

I suppose that people that have an aversion to addition and subtraction may take significantly longer but the added time would fall evenly between the two systems. There is nothing complex about the original or the EDG system.

My final opinion is if you want better/logical worldgen that comes close to mimicking CT results without the "absurdity worlds" and one that you don't need a calculator or computer to figure out (unlike some of the more over the top systems out there) the EDG Worldgen is it. (you dont need a calc for CT worldgen either obviously)

Furthermore, if you add EDG's revised stellar generation system to the worldgen then you have IMO a pretty darn solid system to build worlds on regardless of the game system.

But thats just me - I like smart and playable vs. dumbed down for easy flow.


Jerry

 

[captainjack23]

snip a bunch of stuff ...


Finally, releasing a pen and paper RPG with the assumption that a laptop or server is a needed resource seems somewhat off base to me.

i have yet to find a problem with the EDG system that will make me toss up my hands and walk away. It's not exactly MWM Traveller WorldGen but the results are more preferable IMO.
I have generated a number of worlds by hand since the EDG system was posted - probably around 25 or so in total - and I have done them all with the toss of the dice. I roll up almost all of my game worlds by hand (using LBB Scouts). Compared between the two, I've not seen any exaggerated length of additional time using the EDG System.

Granted I haven't used a stop watch but just glancing at the clock on the wall seems to me there isn't much more than a 3-5 minute difference in roll up time when I tried alternating between the two.

I suppose that people that have an aversion to addition and subtraction may take significantly longer but the added time would fall evenly between the two systems. There is nothing complex about the original or the EDG system.

My final opinion is if you want better/logical worldgen that comes close to mimicking CT results without the "absurdity worlds" and one that you don't need a calculator or computer to figure out (unlike some of the more over the top systems out there) the EDG Worldgen is it. (you dont need a calc for CT worldgen either obviously)

Furthermore, if you add EDG's revised stellar generation system to the worldgen then you have IMO a pretty darn solid system to build worlds on regardless of the game system.

But thats just me - I like smart and playable vs. dumbed down for easy flow.


Jerry

Its surprising that attempting to create clean mechanics is interpreted as dumbed down.

Still, as I've tried to point out, I do think the physical stats in EDG are good enough, although I think they're somewhat too fiddly; my main point there is that think the effort is more than the benefits reward -but, that's my opinion. But (as I said) I can still live with it;
I'm delighted to hear some actual input on time needed to generate worlds manually, it confirms what I suspected and discussed in my first post - no real problem with excessive time to generate.

The main issue I have with the system as a whole is that it takes some good changes based on sound physical data, and bundles them with a huge wad of personal opinions about how future population systems will work, and produces a very different set of worlds, and so a very different game. Even EDG acknowledges that his opinions on social stat generations are no better than mine or anyone else, and that his system produces a very different traveller universe. Do you feel that the POP/GOV/LL results of EDG are inherently more realistic than any other model ? If so, well and good. If not, well, perhaps it at least needs discussion. Which, it seems ain't gonna happen without a tooth an nail fight over each assertion or comment. That isn't developing a system, its defending a vanity project

That is the only thing I've found to throw up my hands over.

 

[EDG]

First, thanks for the support JRMapes .

Its surprising that attempting to create clean mechanics is interpreted as dumbed down.

You dumbed down several parts actually. You proposed ditching the D-F atmospheres because you thought they weren't necessary and complicated things too much. And you wanted to remove all the hydrographics modifiers because you didn't feel they were necessary or important.

although I think they're somewhat too fiddly; my main point there is that think the effort is more than the benefits reward -but, that's my opinion.

We get that you think it's "fiddly" , we really do.

Even EDG acknowledges that his opinions on social stat generations are no better than mine or anyone else, and that his system produces a very different traveller universe.

I don't think they do produce a very different Traveller universe. Pop B/C worlds notwithstanding, look at that EDG quadrant I made - does that really look so unrecognisable as a Traveller universe? It looks very similar to one to me, it just doesn't have the dumb, wacky worlds that require stupid explanations.

Do you feel that the POP/GOV/LL results of EDG are inherently more realistic than any other model ? If so, well and good. If not, well, perhaps it at least needs discussion. Which, it seems ain't gonna happen without a tooth an nail fight over each assertion or comment.

And who the hell are you to tell me that it isn't more realistic than any other model - particularly the existing one, which is known to have several flaws in it? You're no authority in social science (which you admit is a very fuzzy field), but at least my system has an internal logic to go by, unlike the existing totally random "this hellhole is just as likely to have the same (high or low) population as that garden world" crap that we've had to put up with for over 30 years.

I've said - many times - that the social stuff is subjective. I know people are going to disagree with it. But the system I've come up with here produces much more reasonable, consistent results than the random mess that we've had in CT. And if that changes the distribution of the population to do so then so bloody well be it.

That isn't developing a system, its defending a vanity project

And with that, I really don't need to hear any more from you. The sad thing is that you know exactly what sort of response I was asking for, because the EDG worldgen thread was full of the kind of analysis and discussion that I wanted, and you could have provided it. But you chose not to.

Yeah, we're done.

 

[captainjack23]

First, thanks for the support JRMapes .

Its surprising that attempting to create clean mechanics is interpreted as dumbed down.

You dumbed down several parts <blah>

have provided it. But you chose not to.

Yeah, we're done.

Well, actually, I don't wind people up like this just for fun.

I thought that if you were putting it up for consideration for inclusion in MGT, some discussion of its overall desirability or needfulness was appropriate, and might be appreciated. Obviously, from your veiwpoint, and reaction, this is not the case.

My comments obviously are seeming more critical and irrelevant than I would imagine is possible, but, it's your baby, and its important to you. However, this is far more effort and emotional energy than I expected some well intentioned feedback would result in. I thought I was giving you what you wanted, but obviously I was in error. If you need to continue to rail at me to feel better about that, I can't stop you, but I'll try not to exacerbate it; I suspect we look foolish enough as is.
So, that's that, good luck, and, hopefully goodbye to EDGworldgen.