Things that are broken from CT book 3 worldgen

EDG

Mongoose
(moved from the "2008" thread)

captainjack23 said:
Well, could you post a summary of what you see as the most glaring problems with the LBB3 system ?

- law levels, gov types, and atm types not present for all possible results that can be rolled (missing D/E/F atms, E/F govs, A+ law)
- Atmospheres not tallying with world size (small worlds can't have breathable atmospheres).
- No accounting for stars or orbital placement (which later conflicts with book 6).
- population not linked to habitability (habitable worlds should have higher populations, non-habitable worlds should have less people).
- government type unnecessarily and nonsensically tied to population.
- law levels only relate to weapon possession and not anything actually useful like criminal law, trade law, social permissibility etc.
- starport not related to anything at all when it should be related to population and/or world location on map and/or tech level.
- base types are only related to starports, don't account for population etc
- tech levels and population levels should be able to support starports.

...and that's just what I can come up with on the spot. It's pretty broken IMO.
 
I don't really have a horse in this race, but I would like to mention that any fix for the problems listed above should still allow for unusual outliers that occur with reasonable frequency.

Frex, habitability -- there's no reason a TL14 society couldn't reach huge populations on an "uninhabitable" world, with appropriate motivation. And, if you have a high-pop, high-tech "uninhabitable" world, you can later have a a high-pop, lower-tech "uninhabitable" world after a technological decline or disaster.

If every result is immediately and self-evidently the obvious, logical and correct one, the system will be lose a great deal of flavour.
 
EDG said:
(moved from the "2008" thread)

captainjack23 said:
Well, could you post a summary of what you see as the most glaring problems with the LBB3 system ?

Great thanks ! A few questions.

- law levels, gov types, and atm types not present for all possible results that can be rolled (missing D/E/F atms, E/F govs, A+ law)

D/E/F atmospheres are MT, correct ? I was under the impression that they were somewhat nonsensical or redundant, in any case (elipsoid = out, dense/high & thin/low types were just variants of other codes)

- Atmospheres not tallying with world size (small worlds can't have breathable atmospheres).
- No accounting for stars or orbital placement (which later conflicts with book 6).

Note, these questions should only apply to planets <= 10,000miles diam (as per worldgen)

What would you think is the max atmosphere a size code could support - a straight +1 or +2 ?

Should an atmos max also vary by size (ie smaller +1, larger +2 etc. ?), and if so, where would you estimate a good place for the cutoff by size.

I'm assuming that any atmos minimum would be more influenced by orbital placement than size, but not exclusively...correct ?

Should placement imply planet, or should it be the other way around ?
Size would seem to be not related to placement, would the atmosphere be the best clue ? (mall + atmos = farther out, larger plus less atmos = closer )

Are there some general rules of thumb about world placement as relating to max/min for atmos and hydro ?


Obviously stellar type will be a huge variable: would it make sense to limit basic programmed world gen to main sequence non-giants of types M,K,G and F ? the effects of giant lifecycle and short lifespan high end stars on planets suggest that they should be placed thoughtfully rather than based on a dice system ?


- law levels only relate to weapon possession and not anything actually useful like criminal law, trade law, social permissibility etc.

Hmmmm. LL was the general basic roll for general harassment level and customs complexity in CT . I agree about the guns issue, guns should have a law level assigned them, as per our other discussion.


- tech levels and population levels should be able to support starports.

I've always felt that the starport should be considered its own entity in any case - a type D+ port should have a minimum population tech and law value applicable ONLY to it if lower than the host planet.

Somthing along the lines of
port Pop min Tech Min
A 4 9
B 3 8
C 2 7
D 1 6
 
SableWyvern said:
I don't really have a horse in this race, but I would like to mention that any fix for the problems listed above should still allow for unusual outliers that occur with reasonable frequency.

Frex, habitability -- there's no reason a TL14 society couldn't reach huge populations on an "uninhabitable" world, with appropriate motivation. And, if you have a high-pop, high-tech "uninhabitable" world, you can later have a a high-pop, lower-tech "uninhabitable" world after a technological decline or disaster.

If every result is immediately and self-evidently the obvious, logical and correct one, the system will be lose a great deal of flavour.

Understood. Outliers are good - impossible is bad.

Interesting point about the High tech Vacc planets. In a lot of ways, past a certain tech, colonizing a vacc world is much easier than one with a nasty atmosphere and/or ecosystem....and certainly more predictable.

With grav tech, actually, one has to wonder why all colonies not on rockballs aren't in orbit or deep space ? But that would be way less fun - quite like buisness travel around the industrialized present day world. Airport =airport =airport Hotel =hotel=hotel meetingroom =....well, you get it.

Cap
 
captainjack23 said:
D/E/F atmospheres are MT, correct ?

Book 6. Actually they first appeared in the Solomani Rim LBB supplement.

I was under the impression that they were somewhat nonsensical or redundant, in any case (elipsoid = out, dense/high & thin/low types were just variants of other codes)

E is definitely out, it's pure nonsense. Atmospheres don't magically stay spherical if the planet's ellipsoidal.

D is quite possible for large worlds - they either have dense atmospheres where the oxygen pressure at sea level is too high for humans but breathable at high altitude, or short atmospheric scale heights.

F is also possible for large worlds with particular kinds of topographys (large basins, deep rifts) - the thin atmosphere settles in the lowlands and the bulk of the (much higher) surface is much lower pressure. Again you need a short scale height though, which means a big, massive world.


Note, these questions should only apply to planets <= 10,000miles diam (as per worldgen)

Yes, I'm talking about terrestrial worlds here.


What would you think is the max atmosphere a size code could support - a straight +1 or +2 ?

Not that simple. Assuming that the world is in the habitable zone and has earthlike density:

Worlds with size S, 1 or 2 can't have atmospheres or liquid hydrographics, period.
size 3 worlds can have atm 0, 1 (trace, exotic) and no liquid hydrographics.
size 4 worlds can have atm 0, 1 or possible A (thicker exotic) and no liquid hydrographics.
size 5-8 worlds can have atm 0-C in the habitable zone and any liquid hydrographics.
size 9 or A worlds can have any atm type and any liquid hydrographics.


I'm assuming that any atmos minimum would be more influenced by orbital placement than size, but not exclusively...correct ?

It's complicated - it's affected by size (gravity) and temperature (distance from star).

Should placement imply planet, or should it be the other way around ?

It depends how the orbits are defined in MGT. The problem is that a lot of main sequence stars don't actually have habitable zones that overlap with the fixed orbits of Traveller (guess what, the tables in book 6 are wrong - they don't correspond to the luminosity values given for the stars).

I'd assume that the world is in the habitable zone if it's got atm 2-9, D, or F. If it's got a 0, 1, A, B, or C then it doesn't have to be in the Hab zone (but it could be) because there's no oxygen in the air.

Are there some general rules of thumb about world placement as relating to max/min for atmos and hydro ?

Try to avoid size 6+ worlds in the outer zone - bigger worlds tend to become gas giants out there because they can hold gases more easily.

Obviously stellar type will be a huge variable: would it make sense to limit basic programmed world gen to main sequence non-giants of types M,K,G and F ? the effects of giant lifecycle and short lifespan high end stars on planets suggest that they should be placed thoughtfully rather than based on a dice system ?

Right now, it's best to avoid the star issue. It's also easier if in MGT book 6 there is no size modifiers for the orbit number or for M V stars - that way you don't have mismatches between the world sizes and the stars. The assumption for the basic system should be that the planets are orbiting main sequence stars (unless they're not habitable worlds, in which case they can orbit anything).


I've always felt that the starport should be considered its own entity in any case - a type D+ port should have a minimum population tech and law value applicable ONLY to it if lower than the host planet.

Somthing along the lines of
port Pop min Tech Min
A 4 9
B 3 8
C 2 7
D 1 6

Starports don't exist in vacuum though (well, unless they're Highports ;) ) - you're really not going to get a type A starport on a low pop world that's miles away from anywhere. That'd be like putting Heathrow or JFK airport outside a small village in Ethiopia.

I'd say you need a population at least in the millions (6+) to warrant having a type A starport there, along with TL 9+ so that it can build interstellar spacecraft.
 
SableWyvern said:
I don't really have a horse in this race, but I would like to mention that any fix for the problems listed above should still allow for unusual outliers that occur with reasonable frequency.

Frex, habitability -- there's no reason a TL14 society couldn't reach huge populations on an "uninhabitable" world, with appropriate motivation. And, if you have a high-pop, high-tech "uninhabitable" world, you can later have a a high-pop, lower-tech "uninhabitable" world after a technological decline or disaster.

If every result is immediately and self-evidently the obvious, logical and correct one, the system will be lose a great deal of flavour.

I think we have to be really careful with this. Exceptions should be just that - exceptional - otherwise you have a setting where the exceptions become the rule. That's the big problem I have with the old "of course you should make up ludicrous explanations for nonsensical UWPs" excuse - that and the fact that I feel it's just a cover for bad game design if the designer's response to patently nonsensical results is "it's supposed to be a test for your imagination". If you had something like that crop up in the ship or character design I don't think it'd be accepted by most people.

But the point is that one tiny rockball with an atmosphere, or one vacuum world with a high population may be OK if you can come up with a reasonable explanation for its existence (e.g. the rockball is a superdense fragment of a planet's inner core, or the vacuum world is packed with refugees from somewhere else because it's the closest place available for them) but having several of these per subsector means that you have wacky and unusual situations cropping up all the time (what, you have six size 1 planets with thick atmospheres? How the heck did all those superdense cores just happen to be exposed at the same time in different systems?!), and the universe just doesn't work like that.

I mean, take your high pop vacuum world - in a universe where mineral resources don't really mean much (since pretty much every system has an asteroid belt with raw metals floating right there, which would be just as accessible as a vacuum world because you need the same tech to get to them) you can't really use "high mineral resources" as an excuse for people to populate such a world. Plus the low gravity would be a problem for anyone stepping outside. Plus it leads one to believe that there's absolutely no better place for a colony in the system at all, which is hard to believe. Plus, why won't people live on the large, habitable planet in the next system instead? Why would they stay cooped up in domes on a tiny little rockball where a crack in the walls means disaster?

I can see hundreds or thousands of people living on those hostile vacuum worlds - they'd be perfect for outposts, research bases, small colonies of ideologues etc... but not millions of people, particularly when habitable planets are in such abundance elsewhere in the subsector. Ordinary people generally want to live in the most comfortable environment they can, and you can bet that most would want to be able to run around in the open and breath in natural air and feel rain on their faces.
 
EDG said:
I think we have to be really careful with this. Exceptions should be just that - exceptional - otherwise you have a setting where the exceptions become the rule.

I have no issue with this. On the matter of pure cosmological reality, I'll leave the decisions to the experts on what should be probabable, possible, unlikely and by GM fiat only.

As to which planets are settled and which not ... I think you're applying a very specific set of political, cultural and economic considerations which, while valid, are nevertheless very subjective.

Suppose the following:
- The Imperium actively encourages and assists with settlement for the purpose of improving trade, creating strategic infrastructure and -- in developing regions -- for the simple purpose of staking a claim.

- Corporations encourage and assist with settlement mainly for the purposes of medium or long-term economic gain, as well as to enable operation without being beholden to local regimes.

- Obscenely wealthy members of the nobility encourage and assist with settlement mainly for notiriety, to advance their pet project, for political reasons, out of simple magnanimity, for other similar reasons, or any combination thereof.

- The wealthy move to wherever the hell they want, because they can afford to. They make up a tiny proportion of migrants, however.

- The adventurous migrate to frontiers or places where they will be challenged, or have opportunities to make their fortune.

- Many migrants move because conditions require them to -- career advancement is predicated on taking an assignment on world X or some such.

- Most migrants are immigrating to frontier regions that offer opportunities they do not have where they are. Usually, a combination of financial incentives, job opportunities and the prospect of starting on an equal footing with a lot of others.

- Old, stable systems typically see little immigration or emigration -- the costs of interstellar passenger travel, combined with the risks involved if things don't work out at the other end, are too high

Given those (fairly arbitary) suppositions, I'm not convinced the vast bulk of colonisation would occur on gentle, habitable worlds. You could add some more suppositions in to make sure that it does ... but you could also continue to refine things such that a good percentage of colonistion is on worlds that are far less than ideal for human habitation. Given that I think "most reasonably high pop worlds = high-tech, earthlike" is rather boring, I'd rather assume a scenario that makes this not the case.
 
SableWyvern said:
Given that I think "most reasonably high pop worlds = high-tech, earthlike" is rather boring, I'd rather assume a scenario that makes this not the case.

But that's the thing - why do you think they're boring? Would you call Earth boring? These worlds are full of indigenous alien life that can kill the PCs outside the cities, and full of people with social and political machinations that can the PCs can get involved in (or screwed by). There's tons to do on that sort of world.

Whereas the low-pop outposts on hostile worlds are IMO much more interesting - you get that feel of isolation, of being on a frontier, of the unknown lurking around the corner, of civilisation teetering on the edge at the mercy of its technology, and they're great for "monster movie" type scenarios where you get there and find some isolated settlement wiped out mysteriously. ;) I think having the hostile worlds be low pop and out of the way brings those aspects out to the fore instead of hiding them behind the "high population coreworld" stuff.
 
Since ATM E is nonsense as you say, perhaps we could come up with an alternate definition?

How about Extremely Dense - in the sense of Venus or even denser? NOT breathable at all and at sea level, the air is almost liquid.

Niven (I think) wrote a short story about such a world where the atmosphere merged into the liquid ocean. Think of an atmosphere that is ALMOST Gas Giant in nature.

Other suggestions?
 
EDG said:
But that's the thing - why do you think they're boring?

I don't think such a world is boring. It can be a place of great excitement and adventure.

I do think that when every developed world has to meet that criteria, then Charted Space as a whole becomes less interesting (to use a little less hyperbole).

But, as I implied in my first post, I'm not really invested either way. The local region (about six subectors worth) for my upcoming TU is pretty much done (Although, I'm cursing you for educating me on cosmological realities so I can no longer assume some of the more unusual worlds could feasibly exist. :evil: :wink: )

How about Extremely Dense - in the sense of Venus or even denser? NOT breathable at all and at sea level, the air is almost liquid.

I've always assumed the "standard" exotics covered atmospheres with Venusian qualities (corrosive or insidious would fit the bill), but it probably deserves it's own category.
 
In Re colonies on "uninhabitable" worlds:

There is a concept called environmental adaptation, and another called experiential preferfence that are key here.

Environmental adaptation is the process of individuals and/or species adapting to a new environment. In individuals it is primarily psychological, at least on earth. Not enough is known to know how fast and far individuals will physically adapt. Species adaptation will be cultural and physical; we know (from the russian experiments) that speciation can be rather quick; 5 generations was enough to take wolves and get them divergent enough that they no longer willingly interbred with outside wolves, and looked like foxes.

Cultural adaptation probably can be compared to incluturation; we know that, on average, and excluding muslims, incluturation generally takes the immigrant generation and the next two to become assimilated; that 2nd locally born generation ususally is fairly well assimilated (in the absence of anti-inculturation religions such as Islam).

experiential preference is the concept that an individual is most comfortable in the place they have experienced most. It is a well known phenomena in long-term inmates, especially maximum security inmates, and has documentation of the effect going back several centuries, specifically to the underground dwellers of several european cities' subterranean sections. (Yes, plenty of them existed.)

The preference for time "outside" is an experiential preference, not one inherent to the species.

So these rockball colonies can be seen that, if they last 3-5 generations, will most likely have populations who call it home, and don't have the psychology to desire "open air" and "wild plants".... at least a portion of them will voluntarily remain/return to raise their own children, if there is sufficient economic activity to support it. Given 10 generations, and enough economy to support building the domes and tunnels needed, populations to the tens of thousands are quite possible; by 20, a million+ are possible, and the culture would be fully inside adapted, and most likely, a subspecies would have formed unless there was constant immigration and emigration.
 
AKAramis said:
The preference for time "outside" is an experiential preference, not one inherent to the species.

So these rockball colonies can be seen that, if they last 3-5 generations, will most likely have populations who call it home, and don't have the psychology to desire "open air" and "wild plants".... at least a portion of them will voluntarily remain/return to raise their own children, if there is sufficient economic activity to support it. Given 10 generations, and enough economy to support building the domes and tunnels needed, populations to the tens of thousands are quite possible; by 20, a million+ are possible, and the culture would be fully inside adapted, and most likely, a subspecies would have formed unless there was constant immigration and emigration.

Until I see studies done on normal families that have spent several generations cooped up in a fragile tin can surrounded by an environment that will instantly kill them, I don't believe that the studies you quoted are remotely relevant to the situation.

The closest we have on Earth to living on a rockball world are the bases in Antarctica and those are still pleasant by comparison (because a hull breach isn't going to very rapidly kill you, you can still actually step outside and not require an oxygen mask, and you're not liable to go flying off because of the low gravity). A closer comparison would be living on the abyssal plains on the deep seafloor, where a hull breach or air recycling problem will most certainly be fatal.

These are not places where normal everyday joe families will want to be - it takes a special kind of person to want to be there. I also think that our very genetics is going to play a strong role in our drive to be able to the open air and normal gravity. A lot of people get claustrophobic in cooped up conditions and it's not just down to psychological twitchiness. Even in Antarctica's case, people that work at McMurdo Sound have to undergo strict psychological evaluation to see if they can cope with the stresses of working in those circumstances.

And at the end of the day, if there's a vastly more habitable option (i.e. an earthlike planet nearby) then I think that people are quite simply going to want to take it regardless of how acclimatised they are - the only reason they won't is if they are physically unable to (e.g. if they've adapted to low gravity and would be physically disabled in higher gravity).

But like I said, I think it's possible that thousands of people may live on hostile worlds but they'll be there for a purpose - to mine, to have ideological freedom, because they're paid a lot of money to be there, etc - that they consider more important than their discomfort and the risk of horrible death by suffocation or decompression. But not millions or billions.
 
If you want to see what a more realistic quadrant of space looks like, then take a look at this thread on the TAS boards where I posted one:

http://www.traveller.comstar-games.com/viewtopic.php?t=1470

It's still not perfect, but it's a lot better than what you'd get from book 3 (or even 6).


You can also see an example of strict book 6 compatibility (which also shows how very different a book 6 sector would be from a book 3 one) from at:

http://www.traveller.comstar-games.com/viewtopic.php?t=1469


Those links also include discussion of the changes made and why they were made. I'd be interested to know if people think those quadrants would be "boring" in terms of adventures.
 
EDG said:
I'd be interested to know if people think those quadrants would be "boring" in terms of adventures.

Just to be perfectly clear, my use of the term "boring" was an over-exaggeration. Things like populous exotic worlds make the galaxy more interesting (IMO); that doesn't mean galaxies without them are boring. I'm also of the opinion that "more interesting" in this context doesn't equate to "better" or "more appropriate" in all settings or styles of game.

I do find that populous exotic worlds are part and parcel of what I expect from Traveller; I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of making them less common -- I just don't think they should be nearly as rare as you are proposing.
 
SableWyvern said:
Just to be perfectly clear, my use of the term "boring" was an over-exaggeration.

I have heard people honestly claim that such a setting would somehow be "boring" though, hence my defensiveness on the topic ;).

Things like populous exotic worlds make the galaxy more interesting (IMO); that doesn't mean galaxies without them are boring. I'm also of the opinion that "more interesting" in this context doesn't equate to "better" or "more appropriate" in all settings or styles of game.

I do find that populous exotic worlds are part and parcel of what I expect from Traveller; I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of making them less common -- I just don't think they should be nearly as rare as you are proposing.

Well, if you take a look at those sample quadrants, I don't think the hostile worlds are too rare there. There's still a decent mix of environments, it's just that the less habitable worlds tend to have less people on them.
 
I sent this along to Gar as a suggestion for modification of the basic Book 3 UWP generator. This is for MAINWORLDS only.

I submit it here for comments:

UWP: Starport - Size-Atmosphere-Hydrographics-Population-Government-LawLevel - Tech Level

Modified Hexidecimal is used like in CT.

1. Roll Size (SIZ) 2D-2
Size is measured in Kilometers and is the RADIUS of the world (different than CT).

2. Roll Atmosphere (HYD): 2D-7+SIZ
If SIZ 1-: ATM=0
If Size 2: ATM 1- only is allowed (reduce any higher rolls to 1)
Definitions are per CT with the added atmospheres from Book 6 (except maybe for E per discussions here).

For any roll of exactly 12: ATM=B (Not A like in Book 6)

3. Roll Hydrographics (HYD): 2D-7+SIZ
If SIZ 1-: HYD =0
If ATM 1- or A+: DM -4

4. Roll Population (POP): 1D
DMs: ATM 1-: -2
ATM: 4, 7, 9: +4
ATM 5, 6, 8: +5
ATM B+: -2
If you roll exactly a 6, ignore above DMs and roll POP = 2D-2

5. Roll Government (GOV): 2D-7+POP
No change from CT, just add in the other GOV codes from MT etc.
If POP=0, GOV=0

6. Roll Law Level (LL): 2D-7+GOV
No change from CT, just add additional restrictions for LL above A.
If POP=0, LL=0

7. Roll Starport (SP): 2D-7+POP
Use the following table:
Code:
Roll Starport
 1-   X
 2    E
 3    E
 4    D
 5    D
 6    C
 7    C
 8    B
 9    B
10+   A
This ties the starport slightly to the population, but still gives you a lot of variations.

8. Roll Tech Level (TL): 1D+DMs
DMs per the CT Table with the added codes accounted for.

The following minimum TLs exist:

SP A: 9
SP B: 8
ATM 3- or A+: 5
POP 0: TL=0

9. Roll for bases per CT.
Consider adding a code for Imperial Army Base????

10. Determine World Classifications
Trade and other classifications are per CT, with the added Barren, Hi POP and Low POP codes

11. Roll UWP Extension (PBG)
P is the population multiplier
B is the number of planetary belts
G is the number of Gas Giants

Roll PBG on the following table, rolling 2D for each:
I strongly suggest that for P, if the POP=A, only roll 1D, since 90 BILLION people on a planet seems VERY high to me, no matter what the TL, but that I a personal thing.

Code:
Roll  P  B  G
 1-   1  -  -
 2    1  0  0
 3    2  0  0
 4    3  0  0
 5    4  0  1
 6    4  0  1
 7    5  0  2
 8    5  0  2
 9    6  1  3
10    7  1  3
11    8  2  4
12    9  3  5

For the basic system don't worry about the stars etc. Save it for Scouts.

COMMENTS?
 
Changing the SIZ from diameter in Miles to radius in Kilometers, means that Earth/Terra would be a SIZ=6 world, not SIZ=8 as it is in CT. I suggested this to help eliminate some of the problems with small worlds with thick atmospheres.

In my suggested SIZ categories:

Luna: SIZ=1
Mars: SIZ=3
Earth/Venus: SIZ=6
Titan: SIZ=2

This WOULD make all previous UWPs not be the same, but the conversion is pretty simple if necessary.
 
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
Changing the SIZ from diameter in Miles to radius in Kilometers, means that Earth/Terra would be a SIZ=6 world, not SIZ=8 as it is in CT. I suggested this to help eliminate some of the problems with small worlds with thick atmospheres.

In my suggested SIZ categories:

Luna: SIZ=1
Mars: SIZ=3
Earth/Venus: SIZ=6
Titan: SIZ=2

This WOULD make all previous UWPs not be the same, but the conversion is pretty simple if necessary.


And a size 10 world would be a size 12 or 13 in the old parlance, which is pretty dang big, but not impossible.
 
A SIZ A (10) world would be right on the ragged edge of being a Gas Giant. That gives us everything from asteroid belts through Gas Giants on the same scale.

Combine these sizes with the new definition of Atmosphere E (VERY DENSE) and it gives you those Panthelasian planets that we can almost detect and theory says should be out there somewhere.

Under CT, there was a gap between the largest world you could roll (10,000 mile diameter) and a Small Gas Giant. This fixes that AND reduces the number of small worlds with large atmospheres, all with a definition change that doesn't require any re-rolling of UWPs that existed before, except for the solar system.
 
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
I sent this along to Gar as a suggestion for modification of the basic Book 3 UWP generator. This is for MAINWORLDS only.

<snip>

COMMENTS ?

Good job ! I was working on a similar approach, glad to see it got done.

It looks like the main goals are the same: Generation of a planet takes the same time as LBB3, and some glaring anomalies are removed.
I have a few differences, but none worth arguing about, except that the UPP changes would be contentious (if very clever) ....and may be vetoed if canon compatability is stressed in the final version.

I'll post mine, by and by.

Cap
 
Back
Top