The World Builder's Handbook - It Is Here!

[harunmushod]

2nd query from me. I’m lost in this table on p.38:
For the two references to “result” which result do you mean? The result of the Terrestrial Planets roll or the results of the number of post-stellar objects.

Neither do I understand the example:
“A 2D-2 roll for terrestrial planets is 12-2 -1(for the post￾stellar object) = 9, and the Referee adds a DM+D3-1 resulting in 2, totalling 11 terrestrial planets. The Zed system has 4+2+11 = 17 worlds.”.

I guess maybe the problems are

• the use of the world “result” could mean two different things;
• I’m not sure what “DM+D3+1 means (DM of “+D3-1” or some unclear DM to which you add D3-1);
• “If the result [which result?] is less than 3 | Reroll [reroll what?] as D3+2”

Could you clarify? Sorry if this is also unclear, but frankly, I’m so confused, I’m not sure which bit is confusing me.

 

[Geir]

2nd query from me. I’m lost in this table on p.38: View attachment 1126
For the two references to “result” which result do you mean? The result of the Terrestrial Planets roll or the results of the number of post-stellar objects.

Neither do I understand the example:
“A 2D-2 roll for terrestrial planets is 12-2 -1(for the post￾stellar object) = 9, and the Referee adds a DM+D3-1 resulting in 2, totalling 11 terrestrial planets. The Zed system has 4+2+11 = 17 worlds.”.

I guess maybe the problems are

• the use of the world “result” could mean two different things;
• I’m not sure what “DM+D3+1 means (DM of “+D3-1” or some unclear DM to which you add D3-1);
• “If the result [which result?] is less than 3 | Reroll [reroll what?] as D3+2”

Could you clarify? Sorry if this is also unclear, but frankly, I’m so confused, I’m not sure which bit is confusing me.

You're correct. That is barely sensible as written and I had to go into my convoluted spreadsheet code to be sure what I meant. The intent is to force the distribution into 3 -12 to conform to a T5 range (which is actually 2D, but it doesn't count the mainworld and anyway... doesn't matter, I was trying to force a lower disruption wit the same overall result). This is a case only the first item on that list is an actual DM and the others are adjustments to boundary conditions. It makes more sense like this:


I'll add that to the feedback thread.

 

[harunmushod]

3rd query. Still on p.38 under MULTI-STAR SYSTEM ALLOWABLE ORBITS. 2nd numbered paragraph says: " If a star has a companion, all available Orbit# around a star and its companion are considered circumbinary – they orbit both stars, and any Orbit# less than 0.50 plus the companion’ eccentricity are not available." Would that be the new Minimum Allowable Orbit# for both the main star and the companion?

You're correct. That is barely sensible as written and I had to go into my convoluted spreadsheet code to be sure what I meant. The intent is to force the distribution into 3 -12 to conform to a T5 range (which is actually 2D, but it doesn't count the mainworld and anyway... doesn't matter, I was trying to force a lower disruption wit the same overall result). This is a case only the first item on that list is an actual DM and the others are adjustments to boundary conditions. It makes more sense like this:

View attachment 1131
I'll add that to the feedback thread.

Thanks. That's cleared that up for me.

 

[Geir]

3rd query. Still on p.38 under MULTI-STAR SYSTEM ALLOWABLE ORBITS. 2nd numbered paragraph says: " If a star has a companion, all available Orbit# around a star and its companion are considered circumbinary – they orbit both stars, and any Orbit# less than 0.50 plus the companion’ eccentricity are not available." Would that be the new Minimum Allowable Orbit# for both the main star and the companion?

Yes. Meaning the pair is treated as one combined parent with a MOA of 0.50 + the companion's eccentricity (which would be between 0 and 1).

 

[harunmushod]

Yes. Meaning the pair is treated as one combined parent with a MOA of 0.50 + the companion's eccentricity (which would be between 0 and 1).

In that case, could you either explain if and how this example on p.40 is correct, or can I offer it as something that may need correcting?

 

[Geir]

In that case, could you either explain if and how this example on p.40 is correct, or can I offer it as something that may need correcting? View attachment 1134

The key there is the statement "neither of the Companions nor their direct primaries are allowed to have direct Orbit#s." which means that the only MAO that is relevant is the one for B. The basic MOA for all the rest do not matter or apply, all but B should just be a dash. thus:

(not a big fan of left-justifying numbers, but that's the accept Mongoose style, so I'll roll with it)

 

[harunmushod]

The key there is the statement "neither of the Companions nor their direct primaries are allowed to have direct Orbit#s." which means that the only MAO that is relevant is the one for B. The basic MOA for all the rest do not matter or apply, all but B should just be a dash. thus:
View attachment 1136
(not a big fan of left-justifying numbers, but that's the accept Mongoose style, so I'll roll with it)

yup same on left justifying numbers, but I did it on my form because that’s how it was in the book.

Thanks for pointing that out. Again, helpful.

 

[harunmushod]

The key there is the statement "neither of the Companions nor their direct primaries are allowed to have direct Orbit#s." which means that the only MAO that is relevant is the one for B.

On reflection, I'm going to suggest that rule needs to be stated somewhere other than just the example, and I'm not clear where else it is stated.

 

[harunmushod]

On reflection, I'm going to suggest that rule needs to be stated somewhere other than just the example, and I'm not clear where else it is stated.

On further reflection, and having now read p.48 (on System Spread) I'm finding it hard to imagine that a primary star and its companion don't have an MAO, particularly given on p.48 that "Determine the spread by subtracting the baseline Orbit# by the Minimum Allowable Orbit# (MAO, see
page 39) for the parent star or the MAO by a parent star and its companion (see page 38) then divide the result by the baseline number." (my emphasis).

Is the MAO not equal to 0.5 plus the companion's eccentricity. So in the revised table for the Zed example, shouldn't the MAO of the Primary and companion be 0.61, rather than "-"?

 

[Geir]

On further reflection, and having now read p.48 (on System Spread) I'm finding it hard to imagine that a primary star and its companion don't have an MAO, particularly given on p.48 that "Determine the spread by subtracting the baseline Orbit# by the Minimum Allowable Orbit# (MAO, see
page 39) for the parent star or the MAO by a parent star and its companion (see page 38) then divide the result by the baseline number." (my emphasis).

Is the MAO not equal to 0.5 plus the companion's eccentricity. So in the revised table for the Zed example, shouldn't the MAO of the Primary and companion be 0.61, rather than "-"?

Yes, but the flow of the example doesn't describe the 0.61 until after that table, so I'm not sure it works with that flow to have it in that table where it is.

 

[harunmushod]

Yes, but the flow of the example doesn't describe the 0.61 until after that table, so I'm not sure it works with that flow to have it in that table where it is.

OK. I see the table on p.63 does in fact confirm the 0.61, but it remains unclear to me as written. My best suggestion is to clarify 2. on the list on p.38 so that it is clear star plus companion have an MAO of 0.5+ companion eccentricity, and then clarify the example that the 0.02 for most of the MAOs listed is not the final MAO.

(I'll ask any further questions in the World Builder's Handbook Feedback thread).

 

[Peleliu]

The table header on pg. 40 should be corrected. MAO vs MOA.

 

[Reisender]

Can we keep all the error reports to the World Builder's Handbook Feedback thread please? It does not make much sense to have them in two separate threads, it just makes it harder to follow them, both for the users and the author.
It would be much appreciated ff a forum moderator would be so kind to move them over. Thank you very much.

 

[MongooseBella]

Can we keep all the error reports to the World Builder's Handbook Feedback thread please? It does not make much sense to have them in two separate threads, it just makes it harder to follow them, both for the users and the author.
It would be much appreciated ff a forum moderator would be so kind to move them over. Thank you very much.

I'm keeping an eye on both, and implementing them

 

[AlanMN]

Could use a booklet with just the tables and formulas.

 

[Bill Sheil]

Hi @Geir. Is there any discussion or awareness on the official FFE, T5SS or Traveller Map groups about the discrepancy between your temperature calculations and the Book 6/Traveller 5/Traveller Map model? Specifically the albedo calculation (possibly greenhouse effect too) which is linear in the other sources (Book 6, T5) but a fourth root in your formula?

So far as I can see your formula is correct, it is consistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann model of thermal equilibrium and online sources universally agree. The Book 6 formula therefore seems to have been wrong for many decades and so too is T5SS World Builder's document and the Traveller Map that are still derived from it.

And the error can be very, very significant. There are a lot of worlds in TravellerMap that are significantly colder than they should be, and probably a few that are hotter as well. For example the large planet in orbit 0 of the Aramis/Aramis system, of which the main world is a moon, is in the habitable zone but has a surface temperature (on traveller map) of -204C. It has a cited Albedo of 0.8 (ocean and ice coverage) but that should, correctly, give a surface temperature of about -50/-60C after applying a multiplier of 0.66 ((1 - 0.8) ^ 0.25); whereas in TravellerMap the absolute surface temperature is multiplied by 0.2 (1 - 0.8); corresponding to a real world albedo of 0.998 - something like a polished mirror - cold enough to freeze Nitrogen.

Because there is a kludge/conversion factor built in, worlds with Terran standard albedo (and greenhouse effect) should be correct but worlds that vary from the terran norm (deserts, waterworlds) have increasingly large errors in surface temperature.

I am aware that the T5 World Builder may not be official but I think some of the results of the formulas are now bleeding into canon.

Currently I am waiting to register with the COTI forum so I can raise the issue there but I cannot see anyone else flagging it a the moment.

Also, great book. Congratulations!

 

[Geir]

Hi @Geir. Is there any discussion or awareness on the official FFE, T5SS or Traveller Map groups about the discrepancy between your temperature calculations and the Book 6/Traveller 5/Traveller Map model? Specifically the albedo calculation (possibly greenhouse effect too) which is linear in the other sources (Book 6, T5) but a fourth root in your formula?

So far as I can see your formula is correct, it is consistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann model of thermal equilibrium and online sources universally agree. The Book 6 formula therefore seems to have been wrong for many decades and so too is T5SS World Builder's document and the Traveller Map that are still derived from it.

And the error can be very, very significant. There are a lot of worlds in TravellerMap that are significantly colder than they should be, and probably a few that are hotter as well. For example the large planet in orbit 0 of the Aramis/Aramis system, of which the main world is a moon, is in the habitable zone but has a surface temperature (on traveller map) of -204C. It has a cited Albedo of 0.8 (ocean and ice coverage) but that should, correctly, give a surface temperature of about -50/-60C after applying a multiplier of 0.66 ((1 - 0.8) ^ 0.25); whereas in TravellerMap the absolute surface temperature is multiplied by 0.2 (1 - 0.8); corresponding to a real world albedo of 0.998 - something like a polished mirror - cold enough to freeze Nitrogen.

Because there is a kludge/conversion factor built in, worlds with Terran standard albedo (and greenhouse effect) should be correct but worlds that vary from the terran norm (deserts, waterworlds) have increasingly large errors in surface temperature.

I am aware that the T5 World Builder may not be official but I think some of the results of the formulas are now bleeding into canon.

Currently I am waiting to register with the COTI forum so I can raise the issue there but I cannot see anyone else flagging it a the moment.

Also, great book. Congratulations!

Nobody (but you) has approached me on the subject of the differences in the temperature calculations. One of the reasons I got upset enough to do my own research and make my own process back in... well 40 years ago, was Book 6, and the kludge in the old WBH was not an improvement... if you're going to make it mathy - do it right. Once potential mitigation is that I also repurposed Orbit 0 to be a range of things less than Orbit 1 (i.e., 0.01 AU to less than 0.4 AU), not just to explain, I don't know, a large fraction of detected exoplanets, but also to allow for some 'movement' of worlds especially around dimmer stars so their environment could be better explained. And of course I added Spread - instead of whole Orbit numbers, to allow for compact or sparse systems (Not 100% happy with the Spread construct, but it makes system creation work a little smoother without going into... more complicated methods. Even with the tweaks of Spread maximums, somewhere between 0.1 and 1% of systems need a manual kick to avoid going out beyond Orbit 20 and a similar percentage of systems will pack a large number of worlds in some HZs - which is odd, but not necessarily bad or wrong).

Travellermap itself doesn't do any temperature calculations. Traveller World apparently does, but I haven't looked at it close enough to reverse engineer it. For T5, at its usable(?) level, all T5 really cares about is HZ, Hot and Cold, and Frozen... it doesn't even do what Mongoose Traveller (and I) call Boiling. The ability to do fractional orbits was already there (not explicitly in T5 that I can find, but certainly in established lore), so moving something around a bit to make the temperatures match the desired climate (or just assigning a value for albedo or greenhouse that makes it work out) is acceptable.

I mined the old WBH very heavily for my book, adapting what made sense, plugging holes that I thought existed, and then stretching things to was compatible(ish) with both the Core book and T5.

The only rather long conversation on the T5SS groups was actually one I instigated about T5 cultural extension Acceptance, for which my Xenophilia is an equivalent... except T5 has it without variability as a straight Population + Importance calculation, with high population, important worlds always highly accepting of outsiders and low population backwaters always like something out of Deliverance (a movie I've actually never seen and it isn't on my list) - anyway , I could provide enough counter examples to be confidence that whatever you called that characteristic, there was going to need to be variability, both with friendly little backwaters and (pick an example) highly populated polities with little tolerance for those who don't toe the party line or look and act like every else (especially since these worlds where also most likeliest to have nasty governments and high law levels).

And as for Aramis, Travellermap does not give it a Sa characteristic to make it a moon, but Traveller World does, so I'm not sure where that comes from. To my recollection, in the Traveller Adventure, Aramis wasn't mentioned as a moon.

 

[GabrielGABFonseca]

The ability to do fractional orbits was already there (not explicitly in T5 that I can find, but certainly in established lore), (...)

Yes, T5 does have and support fractional orbits natively! See Page 32 of Traveller 5.1 Core Book 1: Characters and Combat (yes, I find the fact it is not in Core Book 3: Worlds and Adventures weird too).

And as for Aramis, Travellermap does not give it a Sa characteristic to make it a moon, but Traveller World does, so I'm not sure where that comes from. To my recollection, in the Traveller Adventure, Aramis wasn't mentioned as a moon.

Traveller World uses a default random seed for systems and planets that may cause a mainworld to be placed as a moon even when not specified on the T5SS data. There is, if memory serves me, an option if you go View → Your Preferences to curtail such things, but I could be wrong.

 

[alex_greene]

A news article on the structure of the Sol solar system. Secret "Symmetries"

 

[Vormaerin]

Might just be bad luck on my part, but I've never had Traveller worlds generate a system that I'd actually want to use. Which is probably just the nature of random, it doesn't have any means of selecting for interesting.