captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Some thoughts on the EDG worldgen system
First of all, GOOD JOB ! The fact that the discussion has largely focused on the EDGverse and its system vs. MGT/CT speaks to its quality and presentation.
Second, in quite a few ways, it seems to be an improvement over the CT model of planet generation.
Third, to achieve the stated goal of compatibility with modern astrophysics the system does increase the complexity of the worldgen system. It greatly increases the modifiers that must be tracked, somewhat increases the need for lookup tables, and multiplies the number of dice mechanics used.
Fourth regardless of the above, it seems pretty close to CT in spirit, except for the increase in complexity.
I make this comment based on my assumption that some of the flaws in CT worldgen may well have been known at the onset (gas retention by planets was, I think, calculable at in the seventies) and accepted for ease of flow and lowered complexity. Thus, CT did (in this and in other areas) come down far more on the playability side of the old (pre internet) debate about playability vs. realism. Thus, increasing complexity to increase realism is somewhat counter to original CT spirit. However, this isn’t an either or continuum; moderate changes are very reasonable.
Regarding the above, it is also clear that the issue is of vastly differing importance to different players. EDG and I both are on the Realism side, but I’m closer to the playability pole; thus I’m more leery of buying accuracy at the cost of complexity. YMM (and will)V
Physical Stat generation (SIZ,HYD,ATM,temp)
This first post will simply cover the generation of the physical stats; I have less time than I’d like today, and I have to get home to vote….
The increase in complexity is really the only serious flaw I see in the generation of physical stats for worlds.
I personally think that increased correspondence with current real world theory is a good thing, and those areas have been well defined and explained by EDG. However, I also feel that some precision loss would be preferable to reduce the complexity of the mechanisms used. More specifically, I agree with the problems identified, but feel that the gain in accuracy is counterbalanced by the number of details that need be considered by a GM.
That said, I would prefer to see a lack of precision in what is possible to generate, rather than in what should not be generated. Some limits to the possible results seem significantly preferable to allowing impossible results. An example is the perceived need prevent the tiny world/thick atm combos (that are regarded as one of the sillier results of the existing system) and to try to allow and specify the frequency and of worlds with a thin type A atmosphere that isn’t 1 or 2, but code A... A simple statement capping the ATM of small planets at 1 would eliminate the planet/thick atmosphere results, but would lose the possibility of a realistic exotic atm generated randomly on a small planet ,but would also allow removal of one extra table, a new dice mechanic, and several related modifiers.
Comments about the modifiers for population based on ATM will be saved for the discussion on generation of social stats.
Hydrographics has also generated a large set of modifiers, which again seems to be caused by stretching the system to allow possibilities as well as preventing impossibilities. One issue may also be the definition of the Stat. Hydrographics is assumed (and, I think) stated to be H20; and yet, except for fuel, there really is no need to specify the amount of coverage of the planet. If the stat is considered as “exposed landmass”, one obtains the coverage without the problems inherent in worrying about the mix of the fluid. The assumption that a ship can process anything from a GG atmosphere yet requires relatively pure water to crack for fuel is odd. A simple rule that unprocessed fuel is available on any world with a hydro of 1+ covers the fuel needs, and not worrying about what the oceans are composed of removes many of the graded modifiers. My choice would be to keep the extreme temp based ones: atm = 0,1 and Temp= boiling. The former causes the fuel source to be frozen, the latter causes it to be far less likely – (or perhaps vapor); in both cases a decent challenge that would affect play.
The temp generating table seems to work well, and fits nicely with the overall feel of Trav worldgen.
Overall, I do have to say that while I feel that there is too much of a slide towards physical accuracy at the expense of simplicity, I could quite happily see much of the EDG stat generation changes make it into the final product. My points as regards the generation of physical stats do not suggest that the process or the outcome is “broken” (to use the current descriptive) unworkable, or uncomfortable to use.
I suspect that much of the drive to simplicity in original traveller was based on the need to roll up lots of planets by hand in a reasonable time. I haven’t tried out the EDG system or the MGT system manually, which, as I write this, I realize is an error on my part. However, I don’t think that with use it will increase the amount of time needed to roll up a subsector or quadrant unacceptably – certainly more than +10%, and certainly less than double.
More to come...
First of all, GOOD JOB ! The fact that the discussion has largely focused on the EDGverse and its system vs. MGT/CT speaks to its quality and presentation.
Second, in quite a few ways, it seems to be an improvement over the CT model of planet generation.
Third, to achieve the stated goal of compatibility with modern astrophysics the system does increase the complexity of the worldgen system. It greatly increases the modifiers that must be tracked, somewhat increases the need for lookup tables, and multiplies the number of dice mechanics used.
Fourth regardless of the above, it seems pretty close to CT in spirit, except for the increase in complexity.
I make this comment based on my assumption that some of the flaws in CT worldgen may well have been known at the onset (gas retention by planets was, I think, calculable at in the seventies) and accepted for ease of flow and lowered complexity. Thus, CT did (in this and in other areas) come down far more on the playability side of the old (pre internet) debate about playability vs. realism. Thus, increasing complexity to increase realism is somewhat counter to original CT spirit. However, this isn’t an either or continuum; moderate changes are very reasonable.
Regarding the above, it is also clear that the issue is of vastly differing importance to different players. EDG and I both are on the Realism side, but I’m closer to the playability pole; thus I’m more leery of buying accuracy at the cost of complexity. YMM (and will)V
Physical Stat generation (SIZ,HYD,ATM,temp)
This first post will simply cover the generation of the physical stats; I have less time than I’d like today, and I have to get home to vote….
The increase in complexity is really the only serious flaw I see in the generation of physical stats for worlds.
I personally think that increased correspondence with current real world theory is a good thing, and those areas have been well defined and explained by EDG. However, I also feel that some precision loss would be preferable to reduce the complexity of the mechanisms used. More specifically, I agree with the problems identified, but feel that the gain in accuracy is counterbalanced by the number of details that need be considered by a GM.
That said, I would prefer to see a lack of precision in what is possible to generate, rather than in what should not be generated. Some limits to the possible results seem significantly preferable to allowing impossible results. An example is the perceived need prevent the tiny world/thick atm combos (that are regarded as one of the sillier results of the existing system) and to try to allow and specify the frequency and of worlds with a thin type A atmosphere that isn’t 1 or 2, but code A... A simple statement capping the ATM of small planets at 1 would eliminate the planet/thick atmosphere results, but would lose the possibility of a realistic exotic atm generated randomly on a small planet ,but would also allow removal of one extra table, a new dice mechanic, and several related modifiers.
Comments about the modifiers for population based on ATM will be saved for the discussion on generation of social stats.
Hydrographics has also generated a large set of modifiers, which again seems to be caused by stretching the system to allow possibilities as well as preventing impossibilities. One issue may also be the definition of the Stat. Hydrographics is assumed (and, I think) stated to be H20; and yet, except for fuel, there really is no need to specify the amount of coverage of the planet. If the stat is considered as “exposed landmass”, one obtains the coverage without the problems inherent in worrying about the mix of the fluid. The assumption that a ship can process anything from a GG atmosphere yet requires relatively pure water to crack for fuel is odd. A simple rule that unprocessed fuel is available on any world with a hydro of 1+ covers the fuel needs, and not worrying about what the oceans are composed of removes many of the graded modifiers. My choice would be to keep the extreme temp based ones: atm = 0,1 and Temp= boiling. The former causes the fuel source to be frozen, the latter causes it to be far less likely – (or perhaps vapor); in both cases a decent challenge that would affect play.
The temp generating table seems to work well, and fits nicely with the overall feel of Trav worldgen.
Overall, I do have to say that while I feel that there is too much of a slide towards physical accuracy at the expense of simplicity, I could quite happily see much of the EDG stat generation changes make it into the final product. My points as regards the generation of physical stats do not suggest that the process or the outcome is “broken” (to use the current descriptive) unworkable, or uncomfortable to use.
I suspect that much of the drive to simplicity in original traveller was based on the need to roll up lots of planets by hand in a reasonable time. I haven’t tried out the EDG system or the MGT system manually, which, as I write this, I realize is an error on my part. However, I don’t think that with use it will increase the amount of time needed to roll up a subsector or quadrant unacceptably – certainly more than +10%, and certainly less than double.
More to come...
