What are Your Worlds Missing?

[BP]

Per a suggestion from captainjack23 on an unnamed thread...

In discussing Level of Details for Traveller, and narrowing it down to Worlds -

i) What details of astronomy, geology, topology, meteorology, etc. are most useful in actual roleplay (or just design)?

ii) How realistic do they need to be to justify your 'suspension of disbelief', yet still be playable?

(Excepting 'intelligent' life forms, culture and other social issues - or not).

 

[rust]

i) What details of astronomy, geology, topology, meteorology, etc. are most useful in actual roleplay (or just design)?

Distance from the sun and other celestial bodies of the system, presence
and number of moon(s), length of day and length of year, climate, length
and intensity of seasons, composition of the atmosphere (at least whether
breathable or not), all landforms that can be seen on the planet's map
(depends on the planet in question), volcanic and tectonic activity, the
frequency and strength of precipitations and storms, everything that is
unique to that specific planet (especially its biosphere)

ii) How realistic do they need to be to justify your 'suspension of disbelief', yet still be playable?

They need to be plausible and free of (easily recognized) contradictions.

 

[The Chef]

i think i really should design some planets, cos suspension of disbelief in my games have nothing to do with the surroundings but all to do with performance.

but thats what 12 years of drama training does to you

chef

 

[rust]

but thats what 12 years of drama training does to you

You can see a planet as a kind of stage design for a drama. Using the sta-
ge design of Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" for Shakespeare's
"Henry V" does not exactly support the suspension of disbelief, no matter
how good the performance of the actors may be. :wink:

 

[The Chef]

AHH but plays like the woman in black, has no real set, just a few props brought to life as the actors perform. its upto the audiences imaginations to bring the world together.

thats how i play, the set may well be, "this is a desert planet, limited resources with wide oaisis of drinkable water". but i wont think about how natural these places are, cos they are just set, looked over as the place where the real business of adventuring happens.

Unless it is a really big factor in the plot line, its really not mentioned.

 

[rust]

No problem with that, using no stage design and leaving it to the imagi-
nation of the audience / players is a quite good way of doing it, too.
However, if one prefers to use a stage design, it seems prudent to use
a good and fitting one.

 

[BP]

Well put rust... and I will be adding 'the frequency and strength of precipitations and storms' to MTU settings now 8)

I would bet your game sessions are extremely interesting and enjoyable The Chef - but I wonder how well your worlds would be played given the lesser talents/experience of those not blessed with your 12 years of training...

...to be honest I fail to see how such a book could be 'written'. If I don't misunderstand, you are advocating a very minimalist level of detail to define the 'world set'?

I've seen only a few plays in my years - all of which lacked any elaborate set and I thoroughly enjoyed. I would like to say my imagination filled in the blanks and the characters and plot glossed over anything missing (kind of like greebles for starship or city details fool the mind into seeing detail not otherwise present) - but alas, on recollection, the plays I've seen I already had prior visual sets implanted by prior viewing of Hollywood renditions and those are what come to mind.

Please enlighten...

 

[lucasdigital]

I believe the point The Chef is making is that there's more to suspending disbelief than making sure your background conforms with our current understanding about planetary sciences. There's no point in spending a huge amount of time setting up a world that's utterly believable if it's populated by characters who are not.

I imagine role playing with trained actors must be very cool

 

[rust]

There's no point in spending a huge amount of time setting up a world that's utterly believable if it's populated by characters who are not.

True, but a detailed world also gives a lot of clues what believable charac-
ters from this world should be like, for example what cultural skills they
can be expected to have, depending on the circumstances even some of
their habits and motivations - people are shaped by the world they live
in.

For example, someone from a low tech desert world should have some
well developed survival skills, he may consider a cup of water a more
valuable gift than an iridium coin, and taking a bath may seem far more
luxurious to him than the sector duke's gala dinner.

 

[Paladin]

Enough to be functional and mood setting is good enough for me. There isn't much point in spending an hour+ developing a planet that may end up being a speed bump in the players travelling plans. Basic MP provided stats and 2-5 fluff characteristics to make it unique initially and then fluff it out as it goes if the players linger and I'm good.

 

[lucasdigital]

I've had a think about this. I've never bothered with geology or matters of climate as these elements were never strictly relevant to the adventures at hand. It they were - then I'd add them, at least superficially.

Giving the players a good clear understanding of the planet's environment is always important to me. For me, gravity and atmospheric composition are the most important things to address. I strive for realism, but always mindful that Traveller isn't supposed to be hard SF. I'd avoid having a planet where the moon fills the sky, because that clearly couldn't be supported by orbital mechanics, but I wouldn’t lose sleep if my 2 mile high plateau couldn’t exist on the prevalent Hercynotype mountain range.

I've always detested the Star Wars approach of creating worlds that are summed up as a single environ. I'd happily have my player's get lost at sea on a 'desert planet', just to make a point about how big and varied planets are.

 

[rust]

I've always detested the Star Wars approach of creating worlds that are summed up as a single environ.

I agree - mostly. Just take Mars as an example, the entire planet indeed
is a desert world. However, its terrain is (almost) as varied as that of our
Earth, but the variations follow another, completely different basic theme.

What Star Wars did wrong was, in my view, that they not only reduced
their worlds to a single basic theme (desert, ice, forest ...), but also for-
got to introduce the many possible variations of that basic theme.

 

[CosmicGamer]

i) What details of astronomy, geology, topology, meteorology, etc. are most useful in actual roleplay (or just design)?

This varies greatly depending on the adventure/campaign. The world could just be a quick stop for a ship to resupply and the characters are just passengers traveling to a further stop the ship will be making. The GM has no side adventures for this location other than letting the characters do a little shopping and stop at the local pub. Little detail would be needed.

If the characters are part of a shipwreck, colony, or other situation where they will be spending a long time on a world, much detail would be needed.

ii) How realistic do they need to be to justify your 'suspension of disbelief', yet still be playable?

In a universe as vast as ours, scientists have how many star systems and planets that they can closely observe? I believe as new discoveries are found, scientists are throwing out old ideas and coming up with new ones and they don't all agree and have the same theories. What is realistic probably varies quite a bit from person to person, no?

I'm pretty ignorant when it come to the hard science of planet/moon/system formation. I know that there are things like escape velocity, but do not know how to, or care to calculate them. I believe objects (like a ship, station, or a moon) orbiting a planet of a certain mass or gravity at a certain distance need to maintain a certain speed? If the GM uses a wrong figure I would never know it though.

When you jump, where in it's orbit will the destination planet be? Where is the gas giant? In one month, when you return to this system, what is the new locations of everything? If the GM gives details about the planets orbits yet somehow everything is still located the same in relation to each other one month later, then there is some disbelief. Taking time out of the game to calculate the correct location of every object in the system is not my idea of fun. Leaving out the detail about the planets orbit would be preferred.

When not needed, often less detail is better.

 

[alex_greene]

In one adventure I've written, set on Regina, I've got the characters travelling along back roads from one of the outlying villages to the capital, taking in the delights of a forest of tall trees in the dark of the night, illuminated by the light reflecting off Assiniboia.

In some of my stories, I described the landscape and what wilderness there is on Rhylanor; the bleak, industrial environment of Collace; the varied landscape of Tarkine (forests, farmland, mountains); and, of course, my central character's homeworld of Esalin.

(Just to add to the fun, in one of my stories this same character had to conduct a rescue mission on Earth (yes, Earth!) - it didn't take much of an effort to describe the landscape of South Wales, 2009 AD by comparison.

A pity my character was so busy: I could have set several stories on Earth, having my character explore such varied regions as Croagh Padraig in Co. Mayo, Eire; the Grampians; the Black Sea; Sighisoara, birthplace of Vlad Tepes; the Nasca plain; Milan, home of the Lucifuge from Hunter: the Vigil; Las Vegas, NV; the Redwood Forest; the City of London; Manhattan; Uluru; Tunguska, and ultimately Gondwanaland.

Instead he had to content himself with investigating a supposed werewolf case that bothered the residents of Bridgend, S. Wales).

 

[Stofsk]

I've always detested the Star Wars approach of creating worlds that are summed up as a single environ.

I agree - mostly. Just take Mars as an example, the entire planet indeed
is a desert world. However, its terrain is (almost) as varied as that of our
Earth, but the variations follow another, completely different basic theme.

What Star Wars did wrong was, in my view, that they not only reduced
their worlds to a single basic theme (desert, ice, forest ...), but also for-
got to introduce the many possible variations of that basic theme.

The thing is, we don't see a lot of the planets of Star Wars. Why should we? For all we know, Tattooine and Hoth and so on have more varied terrain, it just so happens that the action we see takes place in certain areas.

 

[EDG]

The thing is, we don't see a lot of the planets of Star Wars. Why should we? For all we know, Tattooine and Hoth and so on have more varied terrain, it just so happens that the action we see takes place in certain areas.

I thought we saw quite a lot of them actually. Tatooine was a big brown desert world, Hoth was a white ice world, Yavin's moon and Endor were both green forest worlds, Corsuscant is one big city world, and that planet at the end of part III was a big lava world.

 

[Stofsk]

The thing is, we don't see a lot of the planets of Star Wars. Why should we? For all we know, Tattooine and Hoth and so on have more varied terrain, it just so happens that the action we see takes place in certain areas.

I thought we saw quite a lot of them actually. Tatooine was a big brown desert world, Hoth was a white ice world, Yavin's moon and Endor were both green forest worlds, Corsuscant is one big city world, and that planet at the end of part III was a big lava world.

I meant we only see a slice of each planet the characters visit. The only planet where we see more of than usual is Naboo.

Tattooine gets as much exposure and you're right, it is nothing more than a desert world. (the name of the last planet you referred to is Mustafar )

 

[alex_greene]

Arrakis in Dune was a desert planet. Yet even Arrakis had mountainous terrain and an underground environment with caves and water.

And the Planet of the Dead in the Doctor Who 2009 Easter Special was a complete desert only because it had been destroyed by those big metal flying manta Swarm things.

 

[Stofsk]

Arrakis in Dune was a desert planet. Yet even Arrakis had mountainous terrain and an underground environment with caves and water.

So did Tattooine. It had sand swept dunes and rocky mountainous regions.

 

[alex_greene]

versus

No contest.