Things that are broken from CT book 3 worldgen

[captainjack23]

So, it looks to me like the assumption in the GT table is exactly what you are arguing for. Unification over division.

No it's not.

All I'm saying is start with a totally different human culture, (or ours after another say, 1500 to 2,000 years), who's to say they might not be better at working out differences... How does huge interstellar imperium come into being while allowing the factions on any individual world to just keep going at each other? (Yes, the Imperium doesn't get involved in intraplanetary wars unless they are thought to have an effect on the Imperium itself.

anyway, the point is just because with our meger TL 6/7 world (based on the LBB3 tech table) cant figure out how to do better at building a working world gov't doesn't mean other worlds (or even us in another 1,000+ years) couldn't do that.


On LBB3 and the Govt/LL, I don't like it... it assumes that only large population planets can have world gov't, and such. I look at getting a max roll/minimum roll and then applying the minimum/maximum modifier on it. Large pop worlds are more likely to be basically oppressive gov'ts and lower pop worlds (even with pops in the millions) are more likely to have something closer to feudal or a multi-nationalistic society. while it might be hard for our world to have such a situation, a TL 8/9 could conceivably establish a world gov't that is some form of democracy/republic (USA is actually a republic not a true democracy). Instantaneous communications and rapid travel makes that quite easy.

Unfortunately this begs the question, do we go with a bunch of tables for the interrelation of possibilities, some better guidance on what is most likely in order to allow GM's the ability to do some manual validation of random rolls (or some other method)

Wait. Only high pop worlds are united ?


GT= 2d6-7+Pop.

Ave Pop =5, so GT roll = 2d6-2
Ave GT roll = 5 Feudal technocracy (whatever that is...).
Balkanized (many world govs) is on a 9 ; 11% of the possible rolls.
One world govt.89%


High Pop=10
GT roll w/. high pop 2d6+3
Average GT= GT 10 (nasty ass dictatorship IIRC)
Balkanized (type 7) on a 4 or 8% of the rolls.
one world 92%.

Low pop = 2
GT roll w/. low pop 2d6-5
Ave roll is 2 (participatory demos, IIRC)
Balkanization is still a possible result on a 12 (3%) ....even with less than a thousand people. So 97% world governement , more than on a High Pop world.

When there are less than 100 people on the world (pop =1/0) balkanization becomes impossible. Probably quite reasonable......

Pop 12 even has balkanized as a result with a roll of a 2 (2d6+5)...and I'm not even sure if that rating is possible by the rules.

And all these rolls are independent of tech.

So, I guess I don't understand your point about unified worlds and population and Tech...or one of us is misremembering the rules ?

 

[captainjack23]

How bout' "In the far future, all we can go on is the fact that currently there is no place on earth so crappy and horrible that people don't raise families....except Antarctica, and if the Inuit historically had better boats, or current international law was different, they'd be there too."

The Inuit would need bloody good boats to get to Antarctica from northern Canada...

Yes indeed. Although they could come down from the west greenland villages...or hop a B-52 out of Thule. Point is, they could live there once they get there.

Although, being clever, they'd probably stop when they hit long beach or tahiti. Which is your point, I admit.

 

[captainjack23]

How bout' "In the far future, all we can go on is the fact that currently there is no place on earth so crappy and horrible that people don't raise families....except Antarctica, and if the Inuit historically had better boats, or current international law was different, they'd be there too."

Actually, I think that while that forms a reasonable starting point, it's also easily dismissed as to its relevance depending on what further assumptions you wish to make (and, it is necessary to make further assumptions, even if they're limited to, "And, once we reach the stars, humans will have the capability and desire to continue to settle and raise families anywhere they can."

Yeah, just being cute. But it's a great quote, and I've always wanted to use it even if its unsupportable in the final analysis (in the situation I'm applying it to)

 

[SableWyvern]

So, I guess I don't understand your point about unified worlds and population and Tech...or one of us is misremembering the rules ?

I'm with you, captain. Either paranoidgamer is saying something completely different to what he appears to be saying, or he's working from some incorrect assumption.

Anway, here's a quick run-down of the first 28 systems in my upcoming campaign, generated using TNE:

Mainworlds with global govenrments
Valinaire: Pop 1,000, Technocracy
Hallowblight: Pop 3,000, Technocracy
Iduas: Pop 7,000, Technocracy
Folly Ring: Pop 20k, Captive Government
Karnport: Pop 30k, Civil Service
Lucient: Pop 50k, Participatory Democracy
Perdition: Pop 60k, Reperesentative Democracy
Newgoyle: Pop 90k, Captive Goverenment
Utoria: 100k, Captive Government
Astendgard: Pop 300k, Representative Democracy
Girdle of Heavan: Pop 200k, Technocracy
Vestaven: Pop 300k, Captive Government
Crystal Palace: Pop 400k, Technocracy
Orvani: Pop 400k, Technocracy
Ruben: Pop 3 millioin, Charismatic Dictator
Freeholme: Pop 20 million, Representative Democracy
Haven: Pop 80 million, Representative Democracy
Estarrion: Pop 100 million, Civil Service
Illania: Pop 700 million, Captive Government
Kestigan: Pop 800 million, Charismatic Dictator
Goyle's Steading: Pop 3 billion, Impersonal Bureaucracy
Lochlowen: Pop 20 billion, Charismatic Oligarchy
Archilester: Pop 70 billion, Impersonal Bureaucracy

Mainworlds without global governements
Ervalla: Pop 1,000, No Gov
Aitenkall: Pop 400k, Balkanised
Herveticus: Pop 200 million, Balkanised

 

[EDG]

There's only two types of government that are "non-global" - Anarchy (0) and Balkanised (7). Both are basically "distinct groups (or nations) of people with different social and political and moral codes".

Everything else is "global" in a population sense, in that the government rules the entire populace. Your pop 1 world that has a company government (1) - that's "global", because it covers all the population. So is the pop 2 world with the participating democracy (gov 4). The pop 5 world with the self-perpetuating oligarchy (gov 3) is global too, as is the pop 9 world with the Charismatic Oligarchy (gov C).

The pop A world with gov 7 isn't global. Neither is the pop 3 world with gov 0.

So high pop worlds can have global governments, and low pop worlds can have global governments... or both can have non-global governments. I don't see where this bias of high pop = global governments exists.

 

[AKAramis]

Harrington...gravimowhozits ? You modeled tech and ship combat from the age of sail ...huh ? probably first written as a one off book, no series planned.

Actually, STL as modeled in the Honorverse is quite realistic. Ok we don't have fusion plants and such but they use physics. Ships don't turn on a dime like SW, ST, and any other number of series both on screen and print which used "nertia-less propulsion".

Instead ships must accelerate, they must slow down, they have to apply thrust to turn and vectors are figured on how the applied thrust changes the current velocity vector.

Sure they accelerate... at 50+G's.

 

[GamerDude]

Sez you... :wink:

Hey... my wife saw that wink. Took me 15 minutes to explain I don't roll that way. :evil grin:

Actually.....'nertia-less propulsion does use physics....just not the inertia based inertial movement parts of physics.

My main beef w/. HH is the lengths they go to, and the hoops they jump thru to make it a super high tech 19th century society with broadside combat ships with long guns and carronade analogues. It's a good read, but if I have to read the justification for broadside weaponry and invulnerable keels one more time.....

Not to say that I don't read them.....

I TOOOTALLLY agree. It's like the problems Robert Jordan had with the Wheel of Time series. Constantly rehashing what went on before. Hell by the time he got to book eight it was like half of it was in-depth rehash.

That and the (basic) repetitiveness of "Haven has a plan, Honor somehow is right where everything is going to happen, big battle/crisis, recognition of Honor and reminisce over the dead and wounded"

So, as an open letter to David Webber: WE GET IT! move on and just give us great stories!

 

[GamerDude]

...
So, I guess I don't understand your point about unified worlds and population and Tech...or one of us is misremembering the rules ?

Moving this to a new thread CT LBB3 - LL/Govt to avoid clogging this one any more.

Besides adding some prior posts from this thread, I have posted my opinion on the subject

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I have to say that I quite like the idea of rolling 3D for the population and taking the "best" two based on atmosphere.

There is a certain elegance to it and it matches the idea used in autofire combat rules.

A simple variation would be:

Roll 3D, if ATM 4-9, drop the lowest, if ATM other than 4-9, drop the highest.

Then POP = 2D-2

I REALLY like this!

 

[GamerDude]

Cool idea....

What do you do if they are all the same? {{teasing}}

 

[EDG]

Roll 3D, if ATM 4-9, drop the lowest, if ATM other than 4-9, drop the highest.

How do you figure out the probability spread for something like this? At least with straight DMs the probabilities are pretty straightforward and intuitive.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Cool idea....

What do you do if they are all the same? {{teasing}}

Close your eyes and point!

Actually, that is the spirit of MWM telling you that this particular world REALLY needs to have that population.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I like knowing the odds as much as the next dice roller, but I don't know enough about statistics and probability theory to figure it out and as I said, I'm not sure I really need to.

I guess we could use a spreadsheet and make up 1000 worlds using that method and see what the numbers come out to. That would work and maybe not take too long. Let me see what I can whip up tonight.

 

[atpollard]

I guess we could use a spreadsheet and make up 1000 worlds using that method and see what the numbers come out to. That would work and maybe not take too long. Let me see what I can whip up tonight.

3D6 is only 216 possible combinations (6^3) so it would be easier to make a spreadsheet that lists all of the permutations, calculates the sum of highest and lowest two, and counts the results.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Heh! Thanks! I was wondering how I was going to do that!

 

[captainjack23]

I guess we could use a spreadsheet and make up 1000 worlds using that method and see what the numbers come out to. That would work and maybe not take too long. Let me see what I can whip up tonight.

3D6 is only 216 possible combinations (6^3) so it would be easier to make a spreadsheet that lists all of the permutations, calculates the sum of highest and lowest two, and counts the results.

FWIW, the concept is the same as roll2d6 and reroll either the lower (or the higher), and retaining the higher of the reroll or the low roll.

So, its the probablility that one dice will roll equal to or greater than another, in one sense, but in terms of changing the average, it is the equivelent of a +/- 1.5 modifier to a 2d6 roll :

(Details )
To find: the probablity of a 2d6 roll modified by the probabbility of a NOT(tie) [30/36] and the probabliity that the lower dice will be rerolled for an equal or greater result (21/36) calculated in terms of a change to the average. Computing the (weighted) averages for the adjusted value of one dice should do the trick (the other will be unaffected, by definition, and thus ave = 3.5) so:
7/2 +(7/2*1)
8/6+(8/2*5/6)
9/6+(9/2*5/6)
....
etc
180/36 =5 for one dice, adjusted for rerolls.

So, adjusted avearge is 3.5 + 5 or 8.5. (adjusted average of 2d6 , rerolling low and keeping the higher of the low or the reroll - initial ties accounted for, keeping the effect symmetric)

So, roll three pick two highest ave = 8.5,
roll three pick two highest ave =5.5

BTW for 3d6 reroll low dice the effective mod is +/- 2.5, IIRC.

 

[EDG]

I was hoping more for a bell curve there actually rather than just what the average result was. i.e. whats the probability of getting 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10,11, and 12 with that kind of system?

 

[captainjack23]

I was hoping more for a bell curve there actually rather than just what the average result was. i.e. whats the probability of getting 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10,11, and 12 with that kind of system?

The easy one: A normal 2d6:
permutations = 36; (6x6 Df 1)

Result..02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Freq.....01 02 03 04 05 06 05 04 03 02 01

divide each frequency by 36, to get %

The tricky one:

Result..02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Freq.....01 03 07 12 19 27 34 36 34 27 16
divide frequencies by 216

 

[EDG]

So this 3d system is inherently skewed in favour of high values then (11s ans 12s are a LOT more likely than with a normal 2d system) - which won't be desirable unless we actually WANT the results to be skewed in favour of those values.

Personally I don't really see what we gain by using this 3d system instead of a simple 2d system with modifiers.

 

[captainjack23]

So this 3d system is inherently skewed in favour of high values then (11s ans 12s are a LOT more likely than with a normal 2d system) - which won't be desirable unless we actually WANT the results to be skewed in favour of those values.

Personally I don't really see what we gain by using this 3d system instead of a simple 2d system with modifiers.

Without taking sides, the main advantage would be to eliminate having to look up a list of modifiers in a table. The mechanic is pretty easy to remember.