captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Social stats(GOV, POP, LL, TECH and PORT).
Most of the proposed changes to social stats on the planets are based on a personal and at times idiosyncratic view of how population and government and habitability should be defined. Ironically, the only version written by anyone who can claim expert status is MWM (I also exclude myself), so other than the most glaring inconsistencies, I see no reason to change the system based on a personal view of traveller, as opinions, even well thought out and internally consistent, are essential of equal vale without some underpinnings. So, yes, I’ll go with the CT bundle of opinions.
Most of the EDG modeling (and most critiques of the CT system) seem to be based around two issues: habitability, and equal distribution.
The habitability issue (i.e. people can live on a planet, but would they) is mooted by two issues: first, as discussed above, traveller assumes that (if the minimum tech is there) people will live there, and once there, people tend to stay, and populations expand. Again, while this its elf is an unverifiable opinion, all we have to go against it is well thought out but essentially amateur ideas critical about how it should (or would)work. Thus I don’t see a personal vision as worthy of severe changes to the system; nor, as its pretty central to what defines traveller, that it really is open for modification (to paraphrase a certain document: : we hold these to be self evident; if you reject these, the game is entirely different. ).
The second reason is that thus far every argument that this is an issue I have seen is based on current day perceptions of what is habitable. Habitability is an observation about something, not a rule....and the decision will change (at the least) every tech level. I live in an area that 50 years ago lacked sufficient fresh water to support a huge population; lots of us live in an environment that only air conditioning has made habitable (if you doubt this, spend a year in Houston or LA or Queensland or Brazil without one). So, given the importance of tech to habitability, I'd suggest that slightly increasing the minimum tech level for a given ATM is all that is needed....define it, if needed as the minimum tech needed to make a world effectively habitable. Or don't. What the EDG system seems to miss is that the OTU, and the general design of the system is to create a lived-in universe, not an empty frontier. People live on crappy worlds because their great great grandparents had a good reason, and since then, it hasn't killed them, and emigration isn't an option for 99% of most populations. If not, why do some of the worst areas have huge populations -and had the habitability issues before the population ? Examples are Ethiopia, Sudan, and California to name a few.
So, give it a minimum tech level; define it as either minimum habitability , or raise it a bit and call it optimum habitability.
GOVERNMENT LAW AND etc.
(explanding on an earlier post)
The issue here seems to be that all governemnts should be appropriate for all populations, except when small. I understand that the small pop table is in response to the MGT statement about small governemnts being highly variable.
Its not clear though, why one table allows all governents to habe applicable to all populations, and then a subtable severly limits the liklihood of small populations having most government types.
That said, I think that part of the percieved issue is due to an over attention to the names tagged on the government levels.
The govenment names could be changed - they are after all just examples. The GOV/LL/POP represents an intercorrelated three axis model of proulation, representation, and social control, which is still valid.
For the record, I know that some government type names do have effects on the game - specifically with regard to Tech level. Ive never liked the specific examples, and I've often thought that the assumed controlx innovation correlation is overstated.....free communication does encourgae research and progress, but(as we szee here) can also hinder it due to cacophany; plus opressive governemnts are nothing if not able to focus on a topic if they feel they need to. Stalinist russia focuses on bombs and space travel, and either caught up or stayed ahead of the west, simply because it was uncle joes hobby horse. So, I'd be okay with positive mods, perhaps, but certainly nonnegative ones, and wouldn't mind ditching the whole lot.
As regards the age of the theory, yes, here have been theoretical developments in socioeconomics since the 70's, but the basics upon which the UWP are derived are esentially the same:
Increased population and technology make it easier for a governement to impose stricter controls on the populace;
Larger populations generally have less representative governments than smaller .
Governements impose more control as they become less representative.
Not all sizes of populations have all possible governments.
Theory has evolved, yes; but the differneces are irrelevent to somthing as coarse grained as an RPG. trust me on this.
So, yes. change things if you want - just don't argue fact based on age. The research and literature exists if you want to do that kind of a critique; but it's big, and rigourous.
More may be coming but not today.
Most of the proposed changes to social stats on the planets are based on a personal and at times idiosyncratic view of how population and government and habitability should be defined. Ironically, the only version written by anyone who can claim expert status is MWM (I also exclude myself), so other than the most glaring inconsistencies, I see no reason to change the system based on a personal view of traveller, as opinions, even well thought out and internally consistent, are essential of equal vale without some underpinnings. So, yes, I’ll go with the CT bundle of opinions.
Most of the EDG modeling (and most critiques of the CT system) seem to be based around two issues: habitability, and equal distribution.
The habitability issue (i.e. people can live on a planet, but would they) is mooted by two issues: first, as discussed above, traveller assumes that (if the minimum tech is there) people will live there, and once there, people tend to stay, and populations expand. Again, while this its elf is an unverifiable opinion, all we have to go against it is well thought out but essentially amateur ideas critical about how it should (or would)work. Thus I don’t see a personal vision as worthy of severe changes to the system; nor, as its pretty central to what defines traveller, that it really is open for modification (to paraphrase a certain document: : we hold these to be self evident; if you reject these, the game is entirely different. ).
The second reason is that thus far every argument that this is an issue I have seen is based on current day perceptions of what is habitable. Habitability is an observation about something, not a rule....and the decision will change (at the least) every tech level. I live in an area that 50 years ago lacked sufficient fresh water to support a huge population; lots of us live in an environment that only air conditioning has made habitable (if you doubt this, spend a year in Houston or LA or Queensland or Brazil without one). So, given the importance of tech to habitability, I'd suggest that slightly increasing the minimum tech level for a given ATM is all that is needed....define it, if needed as the minimum tech needed to make a world effectively habitable. Or don't. What the EDG system seems to miss is that the OTU, and the general design of the system is to create a lived-in universe, not an empty frontier. People live on crappy worlds because their great great grandparents had a good reason, and since then, it hasn't killed them, and emigration isn't an option for 99% of most populations. If not, why do some of the worst areas have huge populations -and had the habitability issues before the population ? Examples are Ethiopia, Sudan, and California to name a few.
So, give it a minimum tech level; define it as either minimum habitability , or raise it a bit and call it optimum habitability.
GOVERNMENT LAW AND etc.
(explanding on an earlier post)
The issue here seems to be that all governemnts should be appropriate for all populations, except when small. I understand that the small pop table is in response to the MGT statement about small governemnts being highly variable.
Its not clear though, why one table allows all governents to habe applicable to all populations, and then a subtable severly limits the liklihood of small populations having most government types.
That said, I think that part of the percieved issue is due to an over attention to the names tagged on the government levels.
The govenment names could be changed - they are after all just examples. The GOV/LL/POP represents an intercorrelated three axis model of proulation, representation, and social control, which is still valid.
For the record, I know that some government type names do have effects on the game - specifically with regard to Tech level. Ive never liked the specific examples, and I've often thought that the assumed controlx innovation correlation is overstated.....free communication does encourgae research and progress, but(as we szee here) can also hinder it due to cacophany; plus opressive governemnts are nothing if not able to focus on a topic if they feel they need to. Stalinist russia focuses on bombs and space travel, and either caught up or stayed ahead of the west, simply because it was uncle joes hobby horse. So, I'd be okay with positive mods, perhaps, but certainly nonnegative ones, and wouldn't mind ditching the whole lot.
As regards the age of the theory, yes, here have been theoretical developments in socioeconomics since the 70's, but the basics upon which the UWP are derived are esentially the same:
Increased population and technology make it easier for a governement to impose stricter controls on the populace;
Larger populations generally have less representative governments than smaller .
Governements impose more control as they become less representative.
Not all sizes of populations have all possible governments.
Theory has evolved, yes; but the differneces are irrelevent to somthing as coarse grained as an RPG. trust me on this.
So, yes. change things if you want - just don't argue fact based on age. The research and literature exists if you want to do that kind of a critique; but it's big, and rigourous.
More may be coming but not today.
