T5 vs Mongoose Traveler

[GamerDude]

... and remember that this is just a game. All wacky sciences aside, this is for peoples' enjoyment first and foremost... Happy Holidays from the "it's just a game, not a college thesis to be argued for your Masters Degree" camp.

Thanks for making the very same point I was trying to get across.

Personally speaking, the harder and crunchier the science gets - the farther I get from being interested. I write, design and ultimately play these games in order to have an escape from reality.

I love how some folks take anyone who take this opinion as being some like a religion of "the more realistic a game is the less fun it is" and over react to doctoral level discussions of stellar mechanics, sword crafting, or shoe lace tying.

As a friend of mine (who is involved with game companies at several levels) put it after reading this thread.. "this is just one big 'who as the bigger educational penis' " competition. :roll: :shock:

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, joyous commercialized winter season, or whatever you celebrate.

 

[captainjack23]

Alright...enough is enough.

Everybody: slow down, calm yourselves, and remember that this is just a game. All wacky sciences aside, this is for peoples' enjoyment first and foremost.

<snip >
We can't please everybody, it is the nature of the industry. But please, if someone out there is in the displeased camp of thinking - be polite in your discussions about your displeasure. We all want people to come and play Traveller, not avoid it because of hostilities on our forums.

We'd like to have a GOOD place for discussion, not a hostile one, don't we?

Thanks all,
Bry

Point.

I let holiday stress and old issues get the better of me. Sorry...I'll be good(ish), and come back to the gaming table to game.
Just don't make me sit next to the hiver, okay ? He keeps....looking at my dice. Funny-like.

Cap

 

[Deniable]

It could be worse, you could have two Zhodani exchanging meaningful looks all through dinner.

Now a question of protocol. What is the best seating pattern for a hiver, two aslan, a vargr, and several mixed vilani/ solomani humans? Will the k'kree need a salad fork?

And now for song:
five psionic droyne,
four scratching vargr,
three solomani mensch,
two noble aslan,
and a hiver mopping up the floor.

 

[captainjack23]

Now a question of protocol. What is the best seating pattern for a hiver, two aslan, a vargr, and several mixed vilani/ solomani humans? Will the k'kree need a salad fork?

1. In comfortable chairs on their respective homeworlds......
2. Only if he has to defend his salad from a carnivore.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Actually, perhaps the point is not that the worldgen system should be realistic as to what worlds are possible (though making sure impossible worlds were impossible would be good), but that it should generate the kind of worlds we can see people actually colonising.

At least as far as a Book 3 style system goes.

There are too many airless high population rockballs out there in the OTU, and far too many garden worlds with no population at all (and often next door), and that strains verisimilitude to breaking point.

A bit like a sci fi film having the astronaut taking off his helmet and scratching his nose while on EVA, or that book I was reading where the author got the speed of light wrong.

So we shouldn't be seeing equivalent elementary errors in a worldgen system, like dense nitrogen/oxygen atmospheres on tiny worlds. When it hits star systems, there is a pretty good argument not to roll dice to make them anyway. Surely, a simple checklist of rules would sort out most systems (Star is Red Giant, therefore no tropical paradise world be orbiting in this system).

And ultimately it's not about modelling scientific theories correctly, but about not producing results a schoolchild could tell you were wrong, which is what CT worldgen does. Those odd worlds can always be added by referee fiat. A worldgen system should not be producing them.

Ultimately it's just colour, but it's nice to get it right. Given the choice between a worldgen system that gave out fairly 'realistic' results and one that patently generates 'mad' ones which one would you prefer?

And it's not like FTL or other handwavium. We know the Moon is not, and never has been, made out of cheese. And there's no man there, at least since 1973.

And the default mode is space opera - here FTL does exist but planets should be, as far as possible, and possibly only on a superficial level, realistic.

Anyhow, didn't mean to restart a battle, just point out something that got lost in the crossfire. Verisimilitude is not about increased complexity, and if a system is to be designed, it might as well fit recognised theories as not.

 

[EDG]

Verisimilitude is not about increased complexity, and if a system is to be designed, it might as well fit recognised theories as not.

Exactly . Except that - despite the fact that it requires no extra effort on the part of GMs or Players - people will still argue that actually it may as well NOT fit recognised theories because those people perceive no gain in fitting to them, because they think it will be "too complicated". (It doesn't require much extra effort on the designer's part either for that matter - at least no more than any other discussion going on in the playtest part of the board).

 

[captainjack23]

Anyhow, didn't mean to restart a battle, just point out something that got lost in the crossfire. Verisimilitude is not about increased complexity, and if a system is to be designed, it might as well fit recognised theories as not.

Nah, no prob. Really, the problem seems to be that as of yet, all the attempts that really push the verisimilitude have been about increased complexity, and end up as insanely overcomplicated, and anachronistic in ten years, and/or dominate the play of the game. Traveller has a pretty bad record in these respects, both in equating realism with complexity, and using it as a final argument; perhaps it was just the style of rules and play in period that pushed it, but I remain skeptical about this being resolved in my lifetime (and who can afford anagathics with a California Mortgage).

To be honest, pushed to the wall, I would like to see a more accurate modeling of science, I just haven't seen it done in a major way that improves the game more than the cutcorner version detracts from it.

I also, in case it hasn't been apparent, have a bit of an issue with the realism club being applied as an argument...once unconstrained realism starts being invoked as a damnation, a BIG can o' worms is open, and lots of things fall apart. Note that I said "realism club" not "an emphasis on realism". As an absolute ("self evident") argument, it is just such a meaningless criticism in an imaginary playground.


That said, I do believe that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin (or doc oc) of small minds". The problem being, how to define foolish? Is it the level of consistency, or the attempt ? Luckily for you all, I have been empowered by a higher authority (my ego) to make this distinction..... :mrgreen:

Cap

 

[EDG]

To be honest, pushed to the wall, I would like to see a more accurate modeling of science, I just haven't seen it done in a major way that improves the game more than the cutcorner version detracts from it.

I've already done it (See here for my Revised Stellar Generation Tables PDF. I should point out I'm not presenting this as something to use in MGT, just as an example to illustrate my point). I've fixed the star generation tables so that habitable planets aren't biased towards orbiting subdwarfs and white dwarfs. The fix was very simple - just extend the table up to values beyond a 2d6 roll of 12, since the problem is caused by the +4 DM applied if habitable worlds are known to exist. I also tweaked the size columns so that results were more realistic. And I sorted out the problems caused by the silly +primary size and type DMs.

The result is that you end up with sensible stars, and remove the problem of those troublesome close D stars.

This is what I'm talking about here though - the changes mean that the table is jiggled around a bit and tweaked and corrected, but at the end of the day you're still rolling 2d6 a few times to get the star types. So there's no added complexity.

Now, some people may suggest that such a change isn't worth making because they don't feel that realism or verisimilitude are important, and if they think that then I really can't help them. Personally I'd rather expend no extra effort to get better results than no extra effort to keep it the same.

 

[captainjack23]

To be honest, pushed to the wall, I would like to see a more accurate modeling of science, I just haven't seen it done in a major way that improves the game more than the cutcorner version detracts from it.

I've already done it (See here for my Revised Stellar Generation Tables PDF).

<snippage for brevity.
at the end of the day you're still rolling 2d6 a few times to get the star types. So there's no added complexity.

pretty good looking. Pretty straightforward.
I have a different approach, but yours is fine, too.
Semi related question: what is the actual average density of stars in a Traveller ParHex ? (not rift or cluster, just a ballpark) I'm too lazy and full of christmas cheer to look it up.

Now, some people may suggest that such a change isn't worth making because they don't feel that realism or verisimilitude are important, and if they think that then I really can't help them. Personally I'd rather expend no extra effort to get better results than no extra effort to keep it the same.

Well, sure. But, really, I think that's an exaggeration, if a sincere one.

I don't think that many (or most) gamers are leery of realism because they are opposed to it per se - its just that, for far and away in the history of miniature and board games and rpg's, more realism does equate to out of proportion complexity; and often based on a very tenuous connection to anything other than the authors opinion of what realism should be. (the bullet porn posts over on the remnants of the TML-TNE list, for instance... :? )

Gamers almost universally have some interest in realism at bottom, if only due to the interest in simulating some aspect of history or fiction; it's just where to draw the line and say: this is a foolish consistency.

For most of us it is a cost/benefit analysis: if I reject as system that is touted as realistic, it's because it is either badly inconsistent with the game type (physics and fighting style in D&D) or a bad deal in terms of playability lost for complexity gained (book 6, much of MT ).

And yes, your stellar fix does fall into a gain/gain category: well done. Just see that skepticism about realism in games is not inherently anti-realism, just experience with far too many attempts that fail.

Cap

 

[EDG]

And yes, your stellar fix does fall into a gain/gain category: well done. Just see that skepticism about realism in games is not inherently anti-realism, just experience with far too many attempts that fail.

Right, but I don't see a need to pander to an irrational fear that says that any attempts at realism could add a lot of complication. That tends to close minds to the possibility of realism with little or no extra complexity, and it ends up not being attempted for fear of "scaring people off". And then (IMO) everyone loses.

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't have to add any extra complication at all, and I've given an example of how that is possible - that's the point I was making. IMO the onus is on the Traveller designer to present as realistic a system as possible with as little extra complexity as possible. It can be done.

 

[AKAramis]

The issue of atmospheres is readily fixed, but not without altering UWPs across the board... splitting it into pressure and then mix, with pressure tied to size. It does add another die-roll and calculation, and another table to memorize/lookup-upon.

Fixing populations is also an easy fix, one that doesn't require a Bk6 style generation, either: If atmosphere isn't Thin, Standard, or Dense, Pop=1d-1, not 2d-2. Adding a DM-1 if tainted, DM-1 if no water or all water.

An expanded system ala Bk6, but vaguely realistic, is worth having done right, but many will never touch it... until someone automates it, I'm unlikely to use it.

 

[Allensh]

actually, there's a good reason for the Imperium to locate at least some colonies on airless rockball worlds, especially in the beginning; the need to hold and claim territory to establish and advance the Imperium. However, when you wind up with 10 billion people on an airless rockball world with a tech level of 1, that's where silliness ensues. THAT kind of thing I would not mind fixing. I'm not sure we need to worry that much about planets around red stars; who knows what we'll actually find out about planet formation when we actually get out there? Sure, we develop theories based on observation from the vantage point of this planet...and every now and then I read articles where they find something that blows their theory out of the water. How much more so when we actually can go look up close?

Here's what I think should happen; I think all the pregenerated sector data with the exception of the Spinward Marches and maybe the Solomani Rim should be scrapped, not corrected, and we should just start over. Ditch all those sectors that were generated with faulty computer programs 15+ years ago, especially if its a sector that has never actually been used. If there's a way to revise the system generation rules that does not add complexity and does not change the UWP in the sense of adding picky sub-categories and more numbers, let's do that. The advent of MGT is the perfect time to clean house, if its going to be done.

Allen

 

[EDG]

I'm not sure we need to worry that much about planets around red stars; who knows what we'll actually find out about planet formation when we actually get out there? Sure, we develop theories based on observation from the vantage point of this planet...and every now and then I read articles where they find something that blows their theory out of the water. How much more so when we actually can go look up close?

I'm sure we'll find lots of weird things specific to individual planets (or types of planet) but I don't think there are any more surprises in terms of the layout of the systems. Either way the Traveller worldgen system can't even begin to generate the sort of systems we know exist today, quite how to fix that without just recreating every planetary system already listed is going to be difficult to say the least.

Here's what I think should happen; I think all the pregenerated sector data with the exception of the Spinward Marches and maybe the Solomani Rim should be scrapped, not corrected, and we should just start over.

Problem is that you then end up with one or two unrealistic sectors (SM and maybe SR) that look massively different to everything else that is more realistic.

 

[GamerDude]

Right, but I don't see a need to pander to an irrational fear that says that any attempts at realism could add a lot of complication. That tends to close minds to the possibility of realism with little or no extra complexity, and it ends up not being attempted for fear of "scaring people off". And then (IMO) everyone loses.

There is a difference between "an irrational fear..." and what happened in this thread where the subject got quite technical. For the average person (like myself) when the discussions starts getting into stellar mechanics, gets so 'high level" that people can't recognize a joke and/or loose sight of the original goal of improving the game, then the discussion has been so derailed that it's back to a big 'measuring contest'.

I am all for a greater level of 'realism' but not at the expense of fun gameplay.

For example, I used to play a great game called "Space Opera". Wonderful levels of detail and overall a very good system. The skill system was incredibly detailed (although missing guidance on how to do a few things).

The problem was the combat system. Highly accurate and actually flowed but it's level of realism hurt on one very annoying way. It was virtually impossible to hurt anyone. Roll to hit, then roll to penetrate then roll for damage. if you were very lucky there was a 01 - 03 percent chance of actually hurting a target on any shot. The entire group got so annoyed with all this that we gave up on it.

Assuming that someone's concern that the 'ensuring a high level of accuracy' is just an 'irrational fear' is a huge assumption and a bit of an 'irrational assumption' in itself.

 

[EDG]

There is a difference between "an irrational fear..." and what happened in this thread where the subject got quite technical. For the average person (like myself) when the discussions starts getting into stellar mechanics, gets so 'high level" that people can't recognize a joke and/or loose sight of the original goal of improving the game, then the discussion has been so derailed that it's back to a big 'measuring contest'.

But this "high level discussion" is of no consequence to you as a player, and if you don't follow it then it's no loss to you - it's more for the people who are trying to figure out what they need to account for and why it's important. All YOU need to be concerned about is what comes out the other end of it - namely, a design system that is simple enough for you to use and understand but also realistic and consistent.

If other people want to turn it into a "nyah, I'm smarter than you" contest then that's up to them, but my only concern was to dispel the notion that realism necessarily requires more complexity.

I am all for a greater level of 'realism' but not at the expense of fun gameplay.

And, as has been repeated time and time again here, it is quite possible to have realism and simplicity (what is "fun" or not is up to the individual though).

The problem was the combat system. Highly accurate and actually flowed but it's level of realism hurt on one very annoying way. It was virtually impossible to hurt anyone.

So it wasn't very realistic then? Keep in mind that "detailed" is not the same as "realistic". You can have a very detailed system that produces inaccurate results (like book 6, for example).

Assuming that someone's concern that the 'ensuring a high level of accuracy' is just an 'irrational fear' is a huge assumption and a bit of an 'irrational assumption' in itself.

I don't think it is, based on what's been said. Right here in this post you've reiterated your desire for a realistic but simple system... which is what I've been saying is possible to do all along, but it still sounds like you don't actually believe it. It's like people are so wrapped up in this concept that realism is necessarily a lot more complicated that they just cannot get their heads around the concept that it doesn't actually have to be at all, even when evidence that shows that is presented to them. That's what makes it an irrational fear.

 

[GamerDude]

But this "high level discussion" is of no consequence to you as a player, and if you don't follow it then it's no loss to you - it's more for the people who are trying to figure out what they need to account for and why it's important. All YOU need to be concerned about is what comes out the other end of it - namely, a design system that is simple enough for you to use and understand but also realistic and consistent.

Now THAT is a load of arrogance. I'm the GM who is already running a game using the playtest doc. It's not that I don't follow it, it's that I think your being inane. All YOU need to worry about is YOUR game and leave the rest of the world alone.

 

[EDG]

Now THAT is a load of arrogance.

No, it isn't - it's called "being practical".

All this discussion about realism is behind the scenes and under the hood - whether you follow it or not isn't the issue, the issue is that this should all be condensed into a form that you can use and that has minimum complexity at the end of the day. If you were coming to this game after the playtest, you wouldn't even see this discussion - all you'd see is the final system and that would be all that you care about.

From the perspective of you as a GM or player, you've already said that your primary concern is having a system that is ultimately usable and playable and preferably has some degree of realism. But it seems that you're complaining about the discussion that leads to that. It's like complaining about a complex mechanical discussion about engine design when all you want to do is drive the car that it's in - you've admitted that you don't care how it works as long as it does work. And that's fine, but if you don't want to let the mechanics talk about the engine then you're not going to get a car that works very well.

Hell, I'm arguing for getting all this complex stuff out of the way for the end user and putting it in a form that's easy to use and understand, but it seems that all I'm getting is abuse for saying that. I can't win, it seems.

I'm the GM who is already running a game using the playtest doc.

And nothing I've said here is stopping you from continuing to do so.

 

[jerich01]

After lurking on this list for a while and then going back through any recent documents we are:

1) Complaining about something we haven't seen.
2) Arguing about a 15-20 year old system
3) Not really proposing a coherent alternative (though since we've only seen playtest docs this is probably impossible at this point).

How about we wait and see what happens and go from there... And since this discussion does seem to have some practical value lets move it elsewhere and getback to discussing T5 vs. MP-T.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

I'll be good(ish), and come back to the gaming table to game. Just don't make me sit next to the hiver, okay ? He keeps....looking at my dice. Funny-like.

.....You're worried, aren't you..........


.....you should be........

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Will the k'kree need a salad fork?

No, it will need a steak knife and some Blue Cheese Sauce to eat the rare-done steak the Hiver Chef will prepare for it

And now for song:
five psionic droyne,
four scratching vargr,
three solomani mensch,
two noble aslan,
and a hiver mopping up the floor.

:roll: Not here, I won't be