The World Builder's Handbook - It Is Here!

[Geir]

It would be good to do an expansion of the "cubic parsec" concept - the one issue I have with the current WBH is the comment about a single system within the parsec. You could easily fit more into an volume of (3.26 by 3.26 by 3.26ly). Firefly/Serenity works within such a configuration.

Somewhere I have a poster of the "34 Tauri" system, showing all the stars planets and moons of that non-existent system ... it might fit within WBH rules, I'd have to get it out and check. Whedon's Firefly concept, as I understand it, was gravity-drive (close enough to m-drive) but no FTL, so these are all worlds, moons, etc., around a complex multi-star system. Bonus points for knowing where the 34 Tauri reference comes from without using a search engine. Or using AI.

I would say that in general, to still be Traveller mapped in subsectors, it should be one 'system' per hex maximum - though I allowed myself an out for star clusters. But there isn't a good mechanism to support multiple systems in a hex without a new mapping paradigm. And while I like your hex approach, it is a method to stay within in confines of the established mapping system. If I was building a new one, I'd just go down the path of the X, Y, Z 3D grid used in 2300.

 

[Dalton Calford]

Somewhere I have a poster of the "34 Tauri" system, showing all the stars planets and moons of that non-existent system ... it might fit within WBH rules, I'd have to get it out and check. Whedon's Firefly concept, as I understand it, was gravity-drive (close enough to m-drive) but no FTL, so these are all worlds, moons, etc., around a complex multi-star system. Bonus points for knowing where the 34 Tauri reference comes from without using a search engine. Or using AI.

I would say that in general, to still be Traveller mapped in subsectors, it should be one 'system' per hex maximum - though I allowed myself an out for star clusters. But there isn't a good mechanism to support multiple systems in a hex without a new mapping paradigm. And while I like your hex approach, it is a method to stay within in confines of the established mapping system. If I was building a new one, I'd just go down the path of the X, Y, Z 3D grid used in 2300.

Although I love 2300 (I have every copy of it from the first print) I always hated the way the maps looked.
What I did to keep with the traveller mapping style, but allowing for multiple systems, I had the primary system be the one with the highest population. If there where no other systems within the cpc (cubic parsec) then I would not bother further detailing the system (unless I was using it in a database and then, why not).
IF there was more than one system within the cpc, I have a little table I use for placement (3x3x3 grid) and I further notate the system ie
0408-212 Sample System
ie in hex 0408 of the sector, in grid coordinate x2, Y1, Z2, each grid coordinate is about a cubic ly.
This keeps the simplicity of the miller projection, adds at most 4 characters to the detail line (3 digits plus a dash) and gives enough detail to figure out distances within the cpc.

I refer to the xyz of the system detail as the local barycenter.
The tables I use take into consideration the local stellar density, the number of systems within the cpc and if any of those systems have gravitationally bound far companions.


I also allow for rogue worlds in my tables ie no central star (the current numbers coming back have the number of rogue planets being significantly higher than what was previously thought) as well as having codes for non-planetary, non-belt based cultures - I happen to use Asterix for the SIZ but use regular codes for atmosphere and water reflecting the local situation within the space colony.

This expands upon the existing notation, while allowing for some very different alien worlds.

Almost forgot to add, one of the ideas I had was inspired by early Hiver background details about them having inferior jump drives initially, so a series of sub-jump ships ie 1-3 ly at time, using other systems within a cpc as stepping stones until their technology got better.

 

[PeterDebney]

It would be good to do an expansion of the "cubic parsec" concept - the one issue I have with the current WBH is the comment about a single system within the parsec. You could easily fit more into an volume of (3.26 by 3.26 by 3.26ly). Firefly/Serenity works within such a configuration.

Firefly is set in a single system, but one with multiple stars, each with their own planets.
I think that you could do this with the existing rules.

The Verse

The Verse (often written 'Verse or 'verse) is a colloquialism for "the universe", all the region of outer space known to mankind. This region is limited to the solar system and the system of stars, planets, and moons colonized by those who left Earth-That-Was. Discovered by scientists in 2020...

firefly.fandom.com

 

[PeterDebney]

Somewhere I have a poster of the "34 Tauri" system, showing all the stars planets and moons of that non-existent system ... it might fit within WBH rules, I'd have to get it out and check. Whedon's Firefly concept, as I understand it, was gravity-drive (close enough to m-drive) but no FTL, so these are all worlds, moons, etc., around a complex multi-star system. Bonus points for knowing where the 34 Tauri reference comes from without using a search engine. Or using AI.

I would say that in general, to still be Traveller mapped in subsectors, it should be one 'system' per hex maximum - though I allowed myself an out for star clusters. But there isn't a good mechanism to support multiple systems in a hex without a new mapping paradigm. And while I like your hex approach, it is a method to stay within in confines of the established mapping system. If I was building a new one, I'd just go down the path of the X, Y, Z 3D grid used in 2300.

One of the fundamental rules of SciFi is that space is two-dimensional - just watch Star Trek
As someone who builds engineering modelling tools for a living, I know that all models are wrong but some are useful. Yes a 2D view of the galaxy is wrong because it loses a dimension, but the hex view is useful because you can draw it on a piece of paper and it is understandable by everyone.
3D maps only work on computer screens or physical models, but neither are practical for tabletop RPG.
Subsector maps work and are a sufficiently accurate abstraction of the distances involved between neighbouring star systems or up to a dozen parsecs. Does it matter in a game that it loses realism if you want to model a 100 or 1000 parsec distance?

 

[PeterDebney]

A thought on the Primary Star Types table - P16
The text states that “If the Referee chooses to include [white and brown dwarfs] as primary stars in some systems, they should choose the Unusual column…”
As we can also create these degenerate and failed stars using the Special Circumstances rules for empty hexes, but there are no options in that section for creating nebulae etc., what about changing the 2- row on the Special column from “Class VI” to “Peculiar”?
Alternatively, might there be an adjustment to the empty hex rules to create any of the Peculiar options?

 

[Reisender]

3D maps only work on computer screens or physical models, but neither are practical for tabletop RPG.

You could use layers.

 

[CordwainerFish]

You could use layers.

I think C. J. Cherryh did that, using slabs of lucite.

 

[Seffix]

You could use layers.

That would make a kick-ass game table...

 

[GabrielGABFonseca]

This is probably the most out-of-character thing I've ever said in my life, but I am personally not in favour of three-dimensional starmaps for Traveller - or at least, not for the OTU or as the default option.

I've spent many days thinking about this in the past, swapped a few ideas with Ken Burnside at one point, and at the end of it all my conclusion was 'this adds nothing to the game but a massive migraine'. On paper, it seems nice - it's more realistic, it means more places to go, and just sounds cool. But once you stop to consider the implications, you realise it just makes the game less fun.

Plotting travel routes for trips longer than two jumps starts to become a pain, not only because you need to either do trigonometry to figure out actual jump distances or introduce a look-up table, but because while in 2D the number of valid destination systems increases proportionately to the square of the jump distance, in 3D it increases with the cube of distance. Using the solar neighbourhood as an example, a Jump 1 drive goes nowhere, a Jump 2 can reach 3.5 star systems (Alpha Centauri+Proxima, Barnard's Star, Luhman 16), a J-3 drive can reach 9 systems, a J-4 drive can reach 32 systems, J-5 can reach 52, and I simply can't be bothered to count the J-6 case.

This is all fine and dandy if you have a computer do it for you like in Elite: Dangerous, but this is a tabletop game, we're fleshy things with limited RAM, and them's the breaks.

Trying to incorporate the third dimension into the star maps would also break the OTU setting in many different (admittedly very interesting and amusing) ways, but it removes all of the fun navigating around and 'terrain' that Traveller maps have, with their mains and traces and clusters and whatnot.

So yeah, it's... something, I guess. If you want 3D space, you either need to build your setting supporting it from the ground-up, and/or have it be much smaller in (perceived) scale than the OTU — which for both instances, is exactly what 2300AD did.

 

[Condottiere]

Mini construction kit that allows whatever three dee hexagon shape compatible with honeycombing.

Local subsector visual aid.

Coloured strings indicate trade and express routes.

 

[CordwainerFish]

This is all fine and dandy if you have a computer do it for you like in Elite: Dangerous

And indeed when I was playing E:\D, whenever I was in the bubble I just said 'to hell with where stars are located, I'll tell the comp the name of the one I want to go to and let it do the grunt work'. Then when I did my circumnavigation of the galaxy, I basically ignored the Z axis.

You ask me, 3D space adds nothing to a game.

 

[Seffix]

Co-orbital planets, anyone?

https://www.science.org/content/article/astronomers-discover-hint-sibling-planets-sharing-same-orbit

 

[Peleliu]

I was wondering how the economic extension results compare to T5. I have never been happy with T5's wild swings especially related to RUs and efficiency ratings. I also find there are far too many negative efficiency worlds. Does the new WBH smooth out these results for randomly generated worlds?

 

[Geir]

I was wondering how the economic extension results compare to T5. I have never been happy with T5's wild swings especially related to RUs and efficiency ratings. I also find there are far too many negative efficiency worlds. Does the new WBH smooth out these results for randomly generated worlds?

To an extent. Yes, efficiency is the 'wild swingy one', so for population 7+ WBH uses 2D3-4 instead of 2D-7 for the variation and adds various DMs.

Also, although the RU equation remains the same (not a keen fan of the negative RU, but I suppose it has its place in a pocket empire at a macro scale), there is also the steps to compute the Gross World Product (GWP), which uses bits and pieces from Trillion credit squadron and others to compute the GWP per person. And for fun, I borrowed (and doubled so it fit better in the 0-F range) the GURPs WTN process and then I added an inequality rating (think GINI coefficient) and a development score (think HDI, but with an open-ended range) and all that ties into starport (and shipyard) capacity and military budget.

 

[Galadrion]

Honestly, I would tend to work primarily with the GWP as an indicator and just use the RU rating (if I used it at all) as a relative indicator of economic importance within the polity. A large positive RU would indicate a massive economic powerhouse, a primary support of the polity, while one significantly closer to zero (whether positive or negative) is probably breaking just about even from year to year (not contributing much to the polity or drawing seriously from it), and a significant negative RU will indicate that, while there is an economy (if there are sophonts, there is an economy), it's not producing enough to cover its own expenses, much less contributing. Either the rest of the polity is lending aid or the underperforming world is running on deficit financing and will fail without corrective action.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I would suggest you stay away from Anton Petrov's youtube channel as it would force a complete re-write of the rules

 

[Geir]

I would suggest you stay away from Anton Petrov's youtube channel as it would force a complete re-write of the rules

A) Trojan planets are allowed by the WBH rules (see Anomalous Planets p. 70)
B) Mostly it's in support of of such things being possible in DNR and the likelihood of Theia, the conjectured progenitor of the collision that resulted in the moon, being a trojan.
C) Personally I don't think they have much chance of surviving the first billion years - by the math, a stable 'perpetual' trojan is only valid for a world 1/25th of the size of 'main' world - and that's a 3-body solution (which isn't actually a predictable math thingee either) and in most systems we'd be dealing with n-body uncertainties. (see Theia, above).

 

[PeterDebney]

I’m interested to note that the Book 6 Scout calculations for the albedo have been replaced by much simpler randomised values. This seems in contrast to the unstated principle of WB to increase the complexity
True it does do away with the circular maths previously required: temperature depends on the albedo, which is dependent on the relative % of snow, ice, forest, and desert, which are dependent on the temperature!
From an ecological perspective, the detailed calculations revealed some worrying aspects to global warming: an increase in temperature leads to a reduction in snow and ice, which reduces the albedo, thus increase temperature and hence a further reduction in ice cover, and so on. Conversely a large snow/ice percentage reduces the temperature. You might see why the Earth has previously flipped in and out of stable ice ages.
With this data and the other factors from WB is it possible to estimate the % splits between forest and desert on a planet?

 

[Geir]

I’m interested to note that the Book 6 Scout calculations for the albedo have been replaced by much simpler randomised values. This seems in contrast to the unstated principle of WB to increase the complexity
True it does do away with the circular maths previously required: temperature depends on the albedo, which is dependent on the relative % of snow, ice, forest, and desert, which are dependent on the temperature!
From an ecological perspective, the detailed calculations revealed some worrying aspects to global warming: an increase in temperature leads to a reduction in snow and ice, which reduces the albedo, thus increase temperature and hence a further reduction in ice cover, and so on. Conversely a large snow/ice percentage reduces the temperature. You might see why the Earth has previously flipped in and out of stable ice ages.
With this data and the other factors from WB is it possible to estimate the % splits between forest and desert on a planet?

There's a reason I didn't want to use the 'typical' factors from Book 6. The most relevant albedo factor is clouds - which ties to both Atmosphere and Hydrographics, which are basic UWP values. Even water albedo depends greatly on the angle of sunlight. Forest depends on seasonal factors, types of vegetation (pink trees? red trees? green trees, silvery?) Deserts: yellow, red, or black sand? Even snow can vary greatly, I don't know if you've ever seen a snowfield covered in red bacteria. Or soot. So there's both that possible variation and the circular math problem (chicken and egg - closest I come to dealing with it is the runaway greenhouse optional rules; no rules for runaway glaciation, though). In the end, it seemed better to stick with the preexisting UWP-related factors and dice for variation. You can back-justify the actual Bond albedo value any way you want. (And that also gives you an easy way to 'cheat' - i.e. adjust the albedo within the possible dice range to get the climate you want).

Maybe detailed climate is something for another JTAS article...

 

[Elured]

Apologies if this has been covered before: for star age calculations are subdwarf (Class VI) stars treated the same as main sequence stars? Thanks in advance!