# Things that are broken from CT book 3 worldgen

EDG said:
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
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.

Here is a 2d keep lowest and 2d keep highest. Note: out of 216 chances
3d keep low 2d
2 = 16
3 = 27
4 = 34
5 = 36
6 = 34
7 = 27
8 = 19
9 = 12
10 = 7
11 = 3
12 = 1
3d Keep High 2d
2 = 1
3 = 3
4 = 7
5 = 12
6 = 19
7 = 27
8 = 34
9 = 36
10 = 34
11 = 27
12 = 16

gives a nice skewed bell curve with the same range

And here's the python program which crunched the numbers.
Code:
``````set = [1,2,3,4,5,6]
low = [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]
high = [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]
for a in set:
for b in set:
for c in set:
x = []
x.append(a)
x.append(b)
x.append(c)
x.sort()
y = x[0]+x[1]
z = x[1]+ x[2]
low[y] = low[y]+1
high[z] = high[z]+1
print x,y,z
print low
print high
for x in [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]:
print x, "=", low[x],",",high[x]``````
[/code]

Here's 4d keep 2d, out of 6^4.
n = low, mid, high
2 = 171 , 21 , 1
3 = 244 , 54 , 4
4 = 261 , 111 , 15
5 = 224 , 156 , 32
6 = 171 , 201 , 65
7 = 108 , 210 , 108
8 = 65 , 201 , 171
9 = 32 , 156 , 224
10 = 15 , 111 , 261
11 = 4 , 54 , 244
12 = 1 , 21 , 171

captainjack23 said:
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.

But it's pretty rigid. With 2d + DMs, you can add or subtract any modifier and you know that you're just shunting the bellcurve up and down on the x-axis. With this 3d system, you just have the skewed curve and that's it.

EDG said:
captainjack23 said:
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.

But it's pretty rigid. With 2d + DMs, you can add or subtract any modifier and you know that you're just shunting the bellcurve up and down on the x-axis. With this 3d system, you just have the skewed curve and that's it.

That's precisely the point. Shuffling the bell curve pushes the minimum and maximum, as well as the mean, median, mode; it doesn't affect std dev, either.

Moving the bell curve's bulge, however, allows for the extreme results, and affects mean, median, and mode, but doesn't affect range and does affect Std Dev.

So, for population, which has very few natural limits (even a size 1 rock can hold 10 billion people in relative safety with enough food import or hydroponics and enough power). It allows tying them together without eliminating the whole range.

Coupled with the natural DM-2 inherent in the desired 0-10 range, it allows for rare insidious worlds to have pops in the high multi millions, but not many.

In short, it solves the issue of there being too many, without taking away the possibility of the odd one having a billion+.

So the idea would be to use the (3d, keep lowest) for the population of the uninhabitable planets and (3d, keep highest) for the pop of the habitable worlds?

EDG said:
So the idea would be to use the (3d, keep lowest) for the population of the uninhabitable planets and (3d, keep highest) for the pop of the habitable worlds?

Yeah, sounds good to me. Definition of habitable may be a bit iffy, but:

size 5-9
Hydro 2+
Atmo 4-9

= potentially habitable

Perhaps ?

I'd also note that using the 3d/2 -2 metric for govt type may be a good idea.... for pop <8, lowest two. For pop 8+ highest two.

Actually, we can extend this a bit further: use a simple 2d-2 roll for the midrange say: for pop <6 L2d6-2, for 6-8 2d6-2 , for pop 9+ H2d6-2

I admit that that assumes one accepts a link between pop size and canonical govt types. Which I do. YMMV.

Not sure if there is a midrange for population effect, though.

I definitely don't like the idea of using three different dice mechanics (3d keep low, 2d-2, 3d keep high) to determine populations - that's way too clunky IMO.

EDG said:
I definitely don't like the idea of using three different dice mechanics (3d keep low, 2d-2, 3d keep high) to determine populations - that's way too clunky IMO.

They're all "2d6-2", it's just roll an extra and drop one of them. Loads of D&D players know the drill already.

AKAramis said:
They're all "2d6-2", it's just roll an extra and drop one of them. Loads of D&D players know the drill already.

Only from character generation. You don't see them rolling 2d20 for combat and skills and dropping the lowest or highest one.

In terms of processing, with 2d-2 you look at what's on the table you add two numbers and subtract two and you're done. For the 3d one you have to look at three dice, figure which is the lowest or highest and then remove that, and then add the remaining dice together. While it may not be rocket science, it does take a little bit longer to process that. And it seems that you get a similar result to 2d-2 or 2d+2 anyway.

I'm just not convinced that the "3d, drop one" mechanic is worth using here. I certainly don't think it gives us anything that's worth lumbering the user with three different possible dice mechanics to determine a single result. You say it's to allow some extremes to exist, but you know what - sometimes things just aren't possible, or are so unlikely that they shouldn't be coming up enough to register. If you're rolling 2d +/- DM, then yes, there are some numbers you can't get, and them's the breaks. If you really want an extreme or an outlier that are beyond the rollable values, why not just place it deliberately instead?

EDG said:
AKAramis said:
They're all "2d6-2", it's just roll an extra and drop one of them. Loads of D&D players know the drill already.

Only from character generation. You don't see them rolling 2d20 for combat and skills and dropping the lowest or highest one.

In terms of processing, with 2d-2 you look at what's on the table you add two numbers and subtract two and you're done. For the 3d one you have to look at three dice, figure which is the lowest or highest and then remove that, and then add the remaining dice together. While it may not be rocket science, it does take a little bit longer to process that. And it seems that you get a similar result to 2d-2 or 2d+2 anyway.

I'm just not convinced that the "3d, drop one" mechanic is worth using here. I certainly don't think it gives us anything that's worth lumbering the user with three different possible dice mechanics to determine a single result. You say it's to allow some extremes to exist, but you know what - sometimes things just aren't possible, or are so unlikely that they shouldn't be coming up enough to register. If you're rolling 2d +/- DM, then yes, there are some numbers you can't get, and them's the breaks. If you really want an extreme or an outlier that are beyond the rollable values, why not just place it deliberately instead?

Because I prefer a random generation.

And give the choice between negative DM's and their reduced maximum population, sorry, I'd stick with straight 2d6-2 ignoring habitability IN AN OTU-similar universe.

By using 2D-2 with DMs you also skew the high end. Say you give a DM +2 for a certain habitability combination, then what do you do with roll of 12? Your modified roll is now 14. Do you make that 10^14 (100 Trillion people) or do to cap it at 10 (most likely). Then for those types of worlds, it is more likely that you will have POP 10 (15 in 36) than it is for POP 9 (6 in 36). I personally don't think that makes sense.

I would also define habitability very simply, just use ATM

ATM: 4-9: Drop lowest
All Other ATM: Drop highest.

That may be TOO simple though.

Regarding having to think...

This is NOT combat. The GM is rolling this stuff, not the players and (s)he only has to do it when generating a sub-sector, so once to set up the campaign area and maybe a couple of other times during unusual circumstances.

Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
By using 2D-2 with DMs you also skew the high end. Say you give a DM +2 for a certain habitability combination, then what do you do with roll of 12? Your modified roll is now 14. Do you make that 10^14 (100 Trillion people) or do to cap it at 10 (most likely). Then for those types of worlds, it is more likely that you will have POP 10 (15 in 36) than it is for POP 9 (6 in 36). I personally don't think that makes sense.

Yes - its the cap that really skews the range - but I suspect its an artifact of not overloading the Govt Type table as well as keeping size manageable.

Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
I would also define habitability very simply, just use ATM

ATM: 4-9: Drop lowest
All Other ATM: Drop highest.

That may be TOO simple though.

Actually, given the profound effects of technology on habitation and what people consider livable, after some thought, I think that this is about all that is needed as a modifier...for the OTU and OTU-like universes, obviously.

Any society as old and as prone to interregnum effects and/or simple stagnation is very likely to have lots of remnant populations stuck in some odd (and unpleasant) places - and, really, even without further immigration, it only takes a century or two of growth to increase a semi-technological society by orders of magnitude.

So....while one could make an argument that habitability could be ignored, adopting a "choose the most likely/largest modifier and leave it at that solution", some effect for habitability works fine, simply interms of providing for minimizing resources spent keeping people alive (food and air works pretty well. Even desert planets would have some water, particulalry with a O/N atmosphere.

Regarding having to think...

This is NOT combat. The GM is rolling this stuff, not the players and (s)he only has to do it when generating a sub-sector, so once to set up the campaign area and maybe a couple of other times during unusual circumstances.

Yes, true. However, "time consuming" is more likely to be the problem with any mechanic I use as a GM (nowadays especially, but even from the beginning when I was 14). Table lookups take time. Dice roll mechanic modifications work faster for me, based on a simple rule; and although a simple modifier would work just as well, they do seem to quickly get out of hand....I have no idea why one and not the other is the case, it just seems to be easier to stop fiddling when the element of modification is the physical dice. Perhaps, however, I'm odd that way ?

So after all this discussion, is anything actually going make it through to the worldgen in the corebook? Gar?

Also, Mongoose is keeping UWPs, right?

EDG said:
So after all this discussion, is anything actually going make it through to the worldgen in the corebook?

This would be good to know as there was good stuff here...

Well, I'm guessing that the playtest part of all of this in the forum was in fact over some weeks ago. While they made it pretty clear that they read the forums, it's also been clear that the best place for input was sending it off to them...plus, the signal/noise ratio has to be better for them that way. Content aside, theres a lot of text to wade thru.

Everything considered, I think Gar is (and probably has been) mainly finishing up the existing ms with his extension time....rather than trying to add first round playtest stuff at the last minute. And good thing, too, for quality control issues. So, unless it got sent directly before the first(ish) I doubt if it made sense to include much from the board, even if the opportunity and or time existed to do so(which is questionable).

As to the specific planetary stuff, I'm guessing a slightly modded Book 3. We (as a playtest group) really didn't get into it until quite late in the proccess.

So, waiting and seeing what gets released is my main plan at this point.

As I mentioned earlier, I sent Gar my ideas for a slightly revised Book 3 worldgen, most if it just included the later government and LL codes.

I will send him an update for the suggested population (roll 3D and drop one based on habitability). At least he will get that.

If anyone wants to post an alternate way to do it, I strongly suggest you email it in pretty quick. I expect that the final draft will be leaving Gar's hands pretty quickly.

Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
51
Views
10K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
3K