Terraforming as a Trade Classification

[Thuban]

You'll note that nobody claimed it would . . .

Strawman.

. . . but whether you enjoy it or not (or care about it or not) still doesn't change the fact that it's broken.

"Broken" as a realistic simulation of the physical world, yes. "Broken" as a game mechanic, no.

If I expected Traveller to provide me with a physically accurate simulation of the real universe, then I would probably be disappointed, as you obviously are. But that's not my expectation; my expectation is a playable roleplaying game, so my goals are met.

For me, world generation isn't broken, any more than I find the ship building rules broken because of the heat problem. My suspension of disbelief with respect to the Traveller universe is sufficient that the failure of either of these rules to perfectly model the physical world is irrelevant. "Broken," in this instance, is in the eye of the beholder.

If you don't care either way about it then you obviously have nothing to lose if it's fixed.

And nothing to gain, either.

Strawman again.

 

[EDG]

You'll note that nobody claimed it would . . .

Strawman.

And that alone tells me it's not worth arguing with you (and as a note, try actually arguing against something instead of just waving your arms and saying "strawman" at anything you feel you don't agree with).

I've proposed the changes, and they're being looked over on the EDG worldgen thread. If you're not interested in that then that's up to you, but I'm not going to waste my time persuading you otherwise here.

 

[AKAramis]

Neither WBH nor GT:FI were MWM's work... they both reflect outside design teams releasing outside Marc's immediate purview.

So? The point is that they carried on in the same vein as the original Book 6.

(funnily enough, everything released for Traveller outside of Marc's "immediate purview" has IMO been of vastly higher quality than the material released with Marc's involvement or oversight).

The point is that they can not be validly used to infer ANYTHING about Marc's desires for realism, since he had literally no control over Traveller from the start of MT until T4.

Bk 6, being based upon erroneous data, only gives an illusion of realism, and while it was light-years ahead of the competition, it was also the only role-playing game then in print doing whole systems at all. (Several wargames did: Starfire being one of them, and at the time, nowhere as well as Traveller. Starships and Spacemen simply says to make it up... and FGU's Space Opera was mainworlds only.)

Quite simply put, it was a nod to those wanting to play "in system".

 

[EDG]

The point is that they can not be validly used to infer ANYTHING about Marc's desires for realism, since he had literally no control over Traveller from the start of MT until T4.

I never said they did. I just said that they continued in the same vein as Book 6.

Bk 6, being based upon erroneous data, only gives an illusion of realism, and while it was light-years ahead of the competition, it was also the only role-playing game then in print doing whole systems at all.

Quite simply put, it was a nod to those wanting to play "in system".

They really didn't just put all that astronomical data stuff in there so that people to play "in system". They didn't pull those numbers for stellar radius, luminosity, temperatures etc out of their asses for the hell of it - it's very clear that it was attempt to bring real astronomical data into the game (and that stuff is entirely unnecessary to play "in system" too - if that Astronomical Data section wasn't there you'd still be able to generate the rest of the system).

Really, the data itself is probably right for what was known at the time - the way they actually implemented it though was the problem, because they really screwed that up. The stargen tables are certainly broken - as I have pointed out elsewhere, they primarily generate subdwarf and white dwarf primaries for habitable worlds because of non-existent error-catching when applying DMs. IIRC that in the initial prints of book 6 the world temperature calculation formula was also wrong. And they fundamentally misunderstood the relation between stellar size and type, mass, and evolution (a star doesn't suddenly put on weight to become a red giant).

Those are all problems in the implementation, not the data. But it's obviously an attempt to bring realism into the game.

 

[EDG]

The point here really is that it makes no difference to the game whatsoever to bump up the small world sizes so that they can hold onto their atmospheres. The worst it does is change the time it takes to get to and from the planet's 100D distance, which doesn't really matter for anything since ships will generally have enough fuel to travel that distance no matter what the size of the planet.

Meanwhile, doing that solves one of the major realism problems in the game. It's no loss to anyone who never cared about it beforehand, and a big gain for those who do. I'm seeing nothing but advantages to changing the sizes, and no disadvantages.

 

[AKAramis]

The point here really is that it makes no difference to the game whatsoever to bump up the small world sizes so that they can hold onto their atmospheres. The worst it does is change the time it takes to get to and from the planet's 100D distance, which doesn't really matter for anything since ships will generally have enough fuel to travel that distance no matter what the size of the planet.

Meanwhile, doing that solves one of the major realism problems in the game. It's no loss to anyone who never cared about it beforehand, and a big gain for those who do. I'm seeing nothing but advantages to changing the sizes, and no disadvantages.

It changes a few worlds in canon (since their G's have been published already, and one of them is Terra...). That's the only drawback.

It directly affects every world detailed in The Traveller Adventure, AM6, Twilight's Peak, etc...

But it is a simple and economical fix.

 

[EDG]

It changes a few worlds in canon (since their G's have been published already, and one of them is Terra...). That's the only drawback.

Well Terra's obviously not going to change (unless somehow they got that wrong!)

It directly affects every world detailed in The Traveller Adventure, AM6, Twilight's Peak, etc...

It'll change them, but not that anyone would notice. I can't think of a single instance where a world's radius was important in those adventures.

But it is a simple and economical fix.

Yes, which is why I'm wondering why some people seem so terrified of it.

 

[gamesmeister]

Meanwhile, doing that solves one of the major realism problems in the game. It's no loss to anyone who never cared about it beforehand, and a big gain for those who do. I'm seeing nothing but advantages to changing the sizes, and no disadvantages.

Amen to that! Can't understand the resistance myself :?

 

[atpollard]

Really, the data itself is probably right for what was known at the time - the way they actually implemented it though was the problem, because they really screwed that up.

As a private observation, this is my biggest concern for any system generation rules. 'Reality' is changing so rapidly in this area that whatever rules are created will be 'wrong' in a very short time (look at the 'hot Jupiter' issue for example).

This is not to say that 'I demand that tiny worlds with dense, oxygen-rich atmospheres must continue to be allowed around dwarf stars', but rather to urge that we 'Keep It Simple Stupid' because some of it is little more than the best guess of the month. Inaccurate caused by simplifications can be forgiven more easily that a complex set of rules that are just as inaccurate.

I generally like EDGs work on this, I just hope that the modifiers and 'special rules' can be kept to a minimum.

 

[EDG]

Really, the data itself is probably right for what was known at the time - the way they actually implemented it though was the problem, because they really screwed that up.

As a private observation, this is my biggest concern for any system generation rules. 'Reality' is changing so rapidly in this area that whatever rules are created will be 'wrong' in a very short time (look at the 'hot Jupiter' issue for example).

Hot Jupiters aren't a problem here - it's true that the EDG system doesn't account for them, but it doesn't really need to since we're not dealing with the rest of the system. But if you want an elegant fix, just say all those Close White Dwarf companions you see in Traveller canon are really Hot Jupiters - then that problem is solved while making the setting a lot more realistic (it would also allow the Hivers to exist too, since their homeworld has a close white dwarf companion - if that was really there then their homeworld would have been fried).

The thing people may not realise is that in the late 1970s planetary science was in its infancy. When Traveller was first published I think the Pioneer probes had just flown by Jupiter, and the Voyager probes were on their way there, and Viking was doing its thing on Mars for the first time. The technology has improved massively since then - we've had probes fly past or orbit around or trundle around every major planet since then, our understanding of solar system evolution and formation has increased phenomenally, and we have new observational tools that enable us to detect distant planets around other stars and get a feel for how common our system's configuration is.

Our knowledge of planetary science has changed a lot over the past 10-20 years, but I think that rate of change has slowed down considerably now - we've caught up mostly on what there is to know. We're a lot more comfortable with our understanding of the universe now, and there's a lot less gaps in our knowledge.

Though either way, updating the worldgen to current knowledge now and maybe having it look a bit dated in 30 years is a lot better than keeping the existing worldgen that already is wrong in many places and can only look more obsolete as time goes on.

I generally like EDGs work on this, I just hope that the modifiers and 'special rules' can be kept to a minimum.

I've tried to do that in the rules I've written. I don't think there's anything more complicated in there than people have already been dealing with.

 

[pasuuli]

None of this seems to be contradictable. Planet science changed a lot because we knew next to nothing about planets. We've got more data now. Maybe the picture is fuzzy but you know what the image looks like.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Also, none of the new data contradicts the idea of minimum size for Oxygen atmospheres.

Sure, Hot Jupiters were a surprise and Neptune and Uranus still have some mysteries to their formation, but a Terrestrial world in the Habitable zone is pretty well known. Oxygen will not exist on small worlds, won't find it, forget it, move on.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Not to throw another unaccountable in the mix, but I've just read the short entry on Carbon Planets that looked very interesting from a game point of view.

System gen rules really could do with extensive commentary, that explains why the rules are so and add a little info on stuff that is unusual and not accounted for in the system, like black holes and hot jupiters.

 

[captainjack23]

The point here really is that it makes no difference to the game whatsoever to bump up the small world sizes so that they can hold onto their atmospheres. The worst it does is change the time it takes to get to and from the planet's 100D distance, which doesn't really matter for anything since ships will generally have enough fuel to travel that distance no matter what the size of the planet.

Meanwhile, doing that solves one of the major realism problems in the game. It's no loss to anyone who never cared about it beforehand, and a big gain for those who do. I'm seeing nothing but advantages to changing the sizes, and no disadvantages.

Hmmm, thats a heck of an economical fix, really. Keep the Size codes the same, but bump up the lower ones and make the atm potential part of the definition.

So, how 'bout
0= asteroids
1= planetiods (smaller than ceres, larger than....rubble, I guess...vesta ?
2= dwarf planets plutoish size (ceres?)
3= small planets up to mars (size 4, right ?) (defined as trace atm possible)
4= large planets (5000+) (defined as oxy retaining)
5= ...
6= ...
7= ...
8= 8000 (earth)

(categories are best guesses on my part - the idea is to decouple the code from the measurement)

This leaves Sol sytem with 4 GG, 3 small (more if moons are included), 2 large , several dwarf, lots of planetoids (counting various moons), bags of asteroids.

Generation rule: 2d-7+size:

Max Atm:
size 0-2, 0
size 3: 1 or 2 (depending on if you see 2 as O/N or a thing exotic.
That will give size 3 worlds lots of trace atmos, but they are actually size 4, and FWIU from EDG, they are a classic boundry case -can hold some gasses , but not heavy stuff.
Thereafter, it seems to work. EDG ?

 

[EDG]

So, how 'bout
0= asteroids
1= planetiods (smaller than ceres, larger than....rubble, I guess...vesta ?
2= dwarf planets plutoish size (ceres?)
3= small planets up to mars (size 4, right ?) (defined as trace atm possible)
4= large planets (5000+) (defined as oxy retaining)
5= ...
6= ...
7= ...
8= 8000 (earth)

I'd rather not categorise them myself, just keep the codes.

Thereafter, it seems to work. EDG ?

Well, I fixed this in my EDG rules. Size 2- don't have atmospheres (atm 0), size 3-4 only can have atm 0,1,or A, and size 5+ can have any atmosphere.

 

[captainjack23]

I'd rather not categorise them myself, just keep the codes.

So, completely bail on the actual sizes ? Or just have the diameter numbers ?

 

[captainjack23]

The below is brainstorming...

Well, one personal dislike I have is the use of multiple tables for generation - we need not get into that now - but I was wondering if you even need the SIZ small planets table if regular rule statements can be made to cover the atmospheres.

As far as I can see, and I may be wrong, this is a quick look, the main purpose of the table is to allow type A atmospheres on smal planets that might have thin mixes of odd gases-

Was there some overriding reason for keeping atm 2 as being an O/N style of very thin ? By definition its too thin to support (human) life but doesn;t require vacuume protection; which makes it functionally equiv to "A"-scuba gear equiv needed. (and likely a big thick puffy coat)

That would allow dropping the small planet table and just using rules approact - no mods, no special tables, just somthing very similar to the "If Siz =0, ATM =0" existing rule.

Granted the 1d6 roll also defines the distribution of such worlds, but it isn't very granular, and while a 2d system w/. caps ensure that the ends are more frequent, but isn't the composition more of an issue than the liklehood of trace vs exotic(very thin) on an type 4 planet ?

to be clear, my suggestion this: since the sizes of the planets can be bumped, so can the ATM category of 2; which allows a rules based, rather than amodifier + table approach to generating ATM. My percieved advantage being: one less table is one less table to worry about" , and "one less method is one less method".

 

[EDG]

Well, one personal dislike I have is the use of multiple tables for generation - we need not get into that now - but I was wondering if you even need the SIZ small planets table if regular rule statements can be made to cover the atmospheres.

You need the sizes to determine gravity, horizon, and stuff like that. Plus leaving them out is kinda like describing a person without mentioning his build, you don't get a very good image of them without that.

As far as I can see, and I may be wrong, this is a quick look, the main purpose of the table is to allow type A atmospheres on smal planets that might have thin mixes of odd gases

It's more to exclude them from the breathable atmospheres than allow them access to A. And the only real difference between atm 1 and A is that A is thicker (it usually starts at Very Thin and gets denser).

Was there some overriding reason for keeping atm 2 as being an O/N style of very thin ? By definition its too thin to support (human) life but doesn;t require vacuume protection; which makes it functionally equiv to "A"-scuba gear equiv needed. (and likely a big thick puffy coat)

It's true that atm 2 might as well just be another kind of "exotic" atmosphere because of that. But it includes oxygen, so can only be found on size 5 or larger worlds.

That would allow dropping the small planet table and just using rules approact - no mods, no special tables, just somthing very similar to the "If Siz =0, ATM =0" existing rule.

How does it involve dropping the small planet table? I'm not following you.

Granted the 1d6 roll also defines the distribution of such worlds, but it isn't very granular, and while a 2d system w/. caps ensure that the ends are more frequent, but isn't the composition more of an issue than the liklehood of trace vs exotic(very thin) on an type 4 planet ?

Given the choice is three atmospheres (0,1,A), 1d6 is fine because it doesn't have to be granular.

to be clear, my suggestion this: since the sizes of the planets can be bumped, so can the ATM category of 2; which allows a rules based, rather than amodifier + table approach to generating ATM. My percieved advantage being: one less table is one less table to worry about" , and "one less method is one less method".

Not sure what you're referring to as "rules based" here - it's all rules. I certainly see no reason to drop size from anything though, and as for "one more table", well, rolling 1d on another table isn't exactly rocket science. You're not going to get away from tables in Traveller though.

 

[captainjack23]

<snip>
Not sure what you're referring to as "rules based" here - it's all rules. I certainly see no reason to drop size from anything though, and as for "one more table", well, rolling 1d on another table isn't exactly rocket science. You're not going to get away from tables in Traveller though.

I'll try again. We missed each other on line one, I fear. My fault, as I'm typing between real world work surges....

I'm not suggesting that SIZ be dropped. That was a screw up/typo.
I'm not drawing a bizarre distinction about rules based games or somthing: just between a table plus modifiers, and a statement capping a result.
Granularity referred to frequency of any result, not to the range of results.

So, to restart:
I'm suggesting doing away with having a special table for siz<5 planets.

Here is how:
One disallows O2 from type 2 ATM, so we can call 2 = a thin A.
Call it "very thin, unbreathable/exotic"

(rationale : it's canon, but so what ? ; its functionally equiv t type A, which we want.and if the amount can't contribute to O/N breatability, its a waste of a category; yes, that means that theres a discontinuity in at the lower end for pressure of O/N atmospheres, but it has no effect whatsoever on play)

Given that:

generate ATM w/. 2d6-7+siz (for all worlds)

with the following statements limiting the results:
IF siz 3-4 ATM max =2
IF siz<3, ATM =0.

One less table and its attendent mods is simpler. We can disagree if it is a significant difeference, perhaps.

 

[EDG]

(rationale : it's canon, but so what ? ; its functionally equiv t type A, which we want.and if the amount can't contribute to O/N breatability, its a waste of a category; yes, that means that theres a discontinuity in at the lower end for pressure of O/N atmospheres, but it has no effect whatsoever on play)

But then if you do that you've got atm 1 that is trace, exotic; then atm 2 that is very thin, exotic, and then atm which is Exotic (everything else). Its bad enough that there's two 'exotic' categories as is, do we really need a third?

Given that:

generate ATM w/. 2d6-7+siz (for all worlds)

with the following statements limiting the results:
IF siz 3-4 ATM max =2
IF siz<3, ATM =0.

One less table and its attendent mods is simpler. We can disagree if it is a significant difeference, perhaps.

But then you'll end up with a lot more atm 2s than 1s and 0s. In this system:

For size 3, a roll of 4- (17%) would be atm 0, 5 (11%) would be atm 1, and 6+ (72%) would be atm 2.

For size 4, a roll of 3- (8%) would be atm 0, 4 (8%) would be atm 1, and 5+ (83%) would be atm 2.


Compare that to the current EDG system:

In EDG for size 3: 50% would be atm 0, 33% would be atm 1 and 17% would be atm A.

In EDG for size 4: 17% would be atm 0, 33% would be atm 1 and 50% would be atm A.


The EDG results strike me as being much more realistic. The smaller worlds here should be more likely to have vacuum or trace atms than the larger ones.