What are Your Worlds Missing?
- Thread starter BP
- Start date
From lucasdigital and The Chef, I get - if the characters are well played they can easily overlook realism of the setting's fictional elements. Thus supporting a low Level of Detail/Realism regarding planetary sciences - with a higher 'level' of roleplay. Rust points out 'believable characters' and 'habits and motivations' can be from response to particular details. Paladin refers to 'mood setting' and '2-5 fluff characteristics'.
So what is one suspending disbelief about - i.e. what details - and what roleplay is supporting this?
Example: High helium atmo = squeaky voice. Appling a higher level of detail/realism may require that the atmo be less dense - so heavy breathing, easily exhausted; irritating respirator? Higher Levels of Detail/Realism might include - How much helium for effect? What impact on other gases necessary for life? Where did it come from? Chances of cerebral gas embolism? Effects on movement, flight, weapons, wound recovery, corrosion, combustion and sound transmission? ...
So what is one suspending disbelief about - i.e. what details - and what roleplay is supporting this?
Example: High helium atmo = squeaky voice. Appling a higher level of detail/realism may require that the atmo be less dense - so heavy breathing, easily exhausted; irritating respirator? Higher Levels of Detail/Realism might include - How much helium for effect? What impact on other gases necessary for life? Where did it come from? Chances of cerebral gas embolism? Effects on movement, flight, weapons, wound recovery, corrosion, combustion and sound transmission? ...
it really does depend on what your own level of knowledge, enjoyment and expectations would be.
for example if i was writting a module with BP Rust or EDG in mind then i know that the level of detail on the environment would need to be significantly higher than it is now. or else you will not find it enjoyable.
with my gaming group, though small, i have an IT director (so that makes computer interaction relatively detailed) and my partner who is a chemist, (not the dispensing kind) who has a good understanding of physics and biology. However, in our role playing unless absolutly necessary to the plot (ie areas racked with earthquakes, hostile atmo requiring suits etc) the place where we are at a given time doesn't require an indepth analysis.
i personally feel the less details the better, let the players make up in their own imaginations about the set. My scientists girlfriend points out that from BP's example below, about a high helium environment, she would be doing this in her head, and if necessary using the computer to say is this environment safe. she would be less than chuffed if i as the GM had to spell that out to her.
as for roleplaying with actors. it is a lot of fun, and indeed it was roleplaying games that made me want to dedicate my educational life to drama.
Chef
Yep.The Chef said:
For example, "my" players are most interested in discovery and explo-
ration, as well as in diplomacy, politics and economics, and I design the
setting accordingly, with "much to discover" and "much to negotiate",
so my setting's planets and the societies living there are very detailed.
However, the players are not at all interested in militaria and combat,
so I do not write much choice of weaponry into the setting, I do not
describe any details of weaponry, civilian starships are unarmed and
pirates and raiders do not exist.
So, what the players are interested in and enjoy, and therefore expect
me to consider when writing a setting, is what I "deliver" to them. With
other players, the setting might look very differently, with lots of hostile
alien bugs and fleets of pirates and raiders, and not many details descri-
bing the planetology of the battlefield.
Dave Chase
Mongoose
Attempting to give the players things that they will enjoy is important and makes a game more fun.
But occiasionaly you run into things like
One player is desiring merchant/trade
One player is wanting action and some fighting and some interaction
One player is wanting to succeed (Level) in command and doesn't mind fighting to get to the top
One player is wanting to just interact and roleplay
Trying to find a balance in this group is a bit harder. Not impossible, but more effort.
Instead of detailing the worlds that they visit, I make references to various things like TL level, Locales talking about the weather, and sometimes news at the top of the hour like stuff.
It gives the feel of the current enviroment yet allows the players to dive in deeper if needed, with out feeling like they are missing anything.
Dave Chase
But occiasionaly you run into things like
One player is desiring merchant/trade
One player is wanting action and some fighting and some interaction
One player is wanting to succeed (Level) in command and doesn't mind fighting to get to the top
One player is wanting to just interact and roleplay
Trying to find a balance in this group is a bit harder. Not impossible, but more effort.
Instead of detailing the worlds that they visit, I make references to various things like TL level, Locales talking about the weather, and sometimes news at the top of the hour like stuff.
It gives the feel of the current enviroment yet allows the players to dive in deeper if needed, with out feeling like they are missing anything.
Dave Chase
alex_greene
Guest
I mentioned Dune in my post.
Imagine my surprise when it turned up on the Channel 5 TV schedule yesterday afternoon, mere hours after my post.
Imagine my surprise when it turned up on the Channel 5 TV schedule yesterday afternoon, mere hours after my post.
lucasdigital
Banded Mongoose
It just struck me that we'll all know the answer to the thread's question, come December when James "Terminator, Aliens, Abyss" Cameron releases his latest movie - Avatar. Early word is that he depicts the world of Pandora with a level of detail far beyond anything we've seen before. I'm sure it'll be inspirational stuff in terms of creating believable and detailed world settings.
Best coverage here:
http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/
Best coverage here:
http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/
kafka
Mongoose
Interesting cities...what makes Bangkok different than Prague. Fortunately, when I travel I tend to the route of pushing my face as close to way locals actually live giving me an insight for what is really happening on the ground. However, this still often results in cities that I create being pastiches. Also, I can do historical cities but what of cities of the far future. Again the result becomes a pastiche of different SF influences. So I would not mind to see a City Builder kit.
Also, a book about the Future...certainly once I get my hands on the Central Supply Catalogue, parts of this will be filled in. But, one of the things that Traveller lacks is a solid feel how technology begins to impact everyday life without cliche.
Also, a book about the Future...certainly once I get my hands on the Central Supply Catalogue, parts of this will be filled in. But, one of the things that Traveller lacks is a solid feel how technology begins to impact everyday life without cliche.
The most important/useful items areBP said:
For the Solar System
- type of Star
- # of planets and asteroid belts
- size of each
- how far from sun are the main places PCs will go
For the Planet
- Size
- atmosphere and water
- major sites (sahara desert vs amazon vs Everest)
- basic climate and temp if going outside
It needs to not have any glaring "this could never happens"
I do a lot with the worlds in my games. They are as much NPCs as the people are. It's one of the reasons that I love the now out of print World Builder's Handbook.
Biggest thing missing for me as GM to make planets more believable for players is the eco-systems.
Barren, desert, ice world = no problemo.
"Earth standard" or "terran seeded" or whatever you want to call it, also easy.
Believable planet with it's own unique eco-system without *lots* of prep, less so.
There are lots of great treatments of eco-systems in science fiction, everything from Dune, Deathworld, Legacy of Heorot, the Ian Cormac novels recently have some neat stuff, Iain M. Banks's books often have great ideas (dirigible behemothaur used as a covert rendezvous? awesome).
But in terms of not too far "out there" ecosystems where I can describe to players what they can see (grass? trees? animals?) or inteact with (eat or get eaten by, stung etc) out in the boonies, I'm often at a loss; random creature tables don't cut it for me.
Barren, desert, ice world = no problemo.
"Earth standard" or "terran seeded" or whatever you want to call it, also easy.
Believable planet with it's own unique eco-system without *lots* of prep, less so.
There are lots of great treatments of eco-systems in science fiction, everything from Dune, Deathworld, Legacy of Heorot, the Ian Cormac novels recently have some neat stuff, Iain M. Banks's books often have great ideas (dirigible behemothaur used as a covert rendezvous? awesome).
But in terms of not too far "out there" ecosystems where I can describe to players what they can see (grass? trees? animals?) or inteact with (eat or get eaten by, stung etc) out in the boonies, I'm often at a loss; random creature tables don't cut it for me.
lucasdigital
Banded Mongoose
Quiller said:
I absolutely agree. Travellers table based systems are supposed to underpin your ideas with a realistic basis, though too many referees forget to add the necessary flesh.
The 2300ad supplement 'Aurora Sourcebook' is probably the finest example of an RPG alien world, well worth picking up just for inspiration.
For me, I don't want too much information. I need enough to illustrate this world to my players, and enough to create interesting plot hooks. And the world needs to be unique enough that it can be remembered later on. Not, "Yorbund ... which world was that?"; but more like, "Tatooine, oh that place!"
So I need a basic geographical or geological knowledge. I need a hook, maybe something about the world's orbit, its star or its gelogy that gives me a definate physical hook. One hook that will affect life on the world.
Then I look at settlement, what kind of human culture will cope with the peculiarity of this world? I take an analogy from history or modern culture. Then I look at TL and decide how culture and TL overcome the physical limitations of the world. Steampunk is a great inspiration, giving you weird tech designs for much earlier tech levels, that way your TL 4 world doesn't look like Victorian London. Steam monorails, monitor ironclads, clockwork computer society etc. I pay particular attention to transport, that carries alot of flavour for me, and I try to create fairly unique transport types on a planet.
Then I look at the culture, and polish it up with a couple of interesting hooks.
That's all I need. A one-page write up, with some space art of photos of strange cities, landscapes, ruins, transport from the net. Try and get a picture of the world from orbit - a visual representation your players will remember. For me, what's important is not what's written down about the world in my notes, but the view of the world the players have of the world in their heads...
So I need a basic geographical or geological knowledge. I need a hook, maybe something about the world's orbit, its star or its gelogy that gives me a definate physical hook. One hook that will affect life on the world.
Then I look at settlement, what kind of human culture will cope with the peculiarity of this world? I take an analogy from history or modern culture. Then I look at TL and decide how culture and TL overcome the physical limitations of the world. Steampunk is a great inspiration, giving you weird tech designs for much earlier tech levels, that way your TL 4 world doesn't look like Victorian London. Steam monorails, monitor ironclads, clockwork computer society etc. I pay particular attention to transport, that carries alot of flavour for me, and I try to create fairly unique transport types on a planet.
Then I look at the culture, and polish it up with a couple of interesting hooks.
That's all I need. A one-page write up, with some space art of photos of strange cities, landscapes, ruins, transport from the net. Try and get a picture of the world from orbit - a visual representation your players will remember. For me, what's important is not what's written down about the world in my notes, but the view of the world the players have of the world in their heads...
Klaus Kipling
Mongoose
Actually, a 'uniform' 'climate' may not be that unusual. Mars is obviously a desert world, and in Earth's past we were an ice planet. Thinking the terrain on these worlds is uniform is somewhat simplistic - just look at all the deserts of the worlds and Antarctica.
I think a problem with UWP generation is that it starts from the middle. Bottom up would be a Bk6 style approach (but this time actually having some regard for science), and top down, where the ref decides what type* of world he wants and then goes from there. Unfortunately the UWP process assumes worlds with Terran like life on it (most worlds having a breathable atmosphere) without ever mentioning that fact, or even having a stat to measure it.
*I prefer a top down approach generally, especially when I want control over the world to be visited. Bottom up and the UWP will generate worlds often quite different than what you planned for.
So, I'd designate a world as, for example, (a) industrial powerhouse, or (b) settlement colony, or (c) mining colony, or (d) enforced low tech world, or (e) resort world. This would give me the parameters I need for the rest.
(a) can actually be any size or atmosphere, but it needs a large, high tech population. It would depend on whther I wanted a shirtsleeve environment or not.
(b) This would have earth like conditions, suitable for farming etc. It could be marginal, such as being cold or having a relatively thin atmosphere, or even a 'desert' world.
(c) This can be anything, but is more likely to be a hostile environment else it would probably be a settlement colony. So extreme weather or temperature, no atmosphere or a poisonous one, could be very high gravity or a very small world.
(d) this would need to be a veritable paradise, with everything just right for a colony that harks back to some luddite pastoral utopia.
(e) This would need a breathable atmosphere, oceans, a warmish temperature (at least in the habited parts), and maybe some unique topography, like enormous mountains or canyons, or singing forests, etc. Gravity would be close to earth normal, with perhaps a tendency to be slightly lower than 1g.
Obviously there's more to it than that, but usually I'm wanting a particular type of world and the standard worldgen process does not give that to me. Maybe we need a top down method too?
One thing that should be considered is the age of the world, maybe just as fluff text, to give some context.
The atmosphere of Earth has varied massively over the aeons. It took complex life to produce the oxygen rich atmosphere we breath, and plants on land came after that. The age of the world will define it's terrain and climate just as much as its size and orbit. In fact, a planet's age is probably a far more significant and useful factor than any other..
I think a problem with UWP generation is that it starts from the middle. Bottom up would be a Bk6 style approach (but this time actually having some regard for science), and top down, where the ref decides what type* of world he wants and then goes from there. Unfortunately the UWP process assumes worlds with Terran like life on it (most worlds having a breathable atmosphere) without ever mentioning that fact, or even having a stat to measure it.
*I prefer a top down approach generally, especially when I want control over the world to be visited. Bottom up and the UWP will generate worlds often quite different than what you planned for.
So, I'd designate a world as, for example, (a) industrial powerhouse, or (b) settlement colony, or (c) mining colony, or (d) enforced low tech world, or (e) resort world. This would give me the parameters I need for the rest.
(a) can actually be any size or atmosphere, but it needs a large, high tech population. It would depend on whther I wanted a shirtsleeve environment or not.
(b) This would have earth like conditions, suitable for farming etc. It could be marginal, such as being cold or having a relatively thin atmosphere, or even a 'desert' world.
(c) This can be anything, but is more likely to be a hostile environment else it would probably be a settlement colony. So extreme weather or temperature, no atmosphere or a poisonous one, could be very high gravity or a very small world.
(d) this would need to be a veritable paradise, with everything just right for a colony that harks back to some luddite pastoral utopia.
(e) This would need a breathable atmosphere, oceans, a warmish temperature (at least in the habited parts), and maybe some unique topography, like enormous mountains or canyons, or singing forests, etc. Gravity would be close to earth normal, with perhaps a tendency to be slightly lower than 1g.
Obviously there's more to it than that, but usually I'm wanting a particular type of world and the standard worldgen process does not give that to me. Maybe we need a top down method too?
One thing that should be considered is the age of the world, maybe just as fluff text, to give some context.
The atmosphere of Earth has varied massively over the aeons. It took complex life to produce the oxygen rich atmosphere we breath, and plants on land came after that. The age of the world will define it's terrain and climate just as much as its size and orbit. In fact, a planet's age is probably a far more significant and useful factor than any other..
Mithras said:
Oh, ok - I see - you don't need much
If I interpret what you mean - I presume it is that you don't need a lot of 'technical details', but rather flavor details.
As for the picture of the world from orbit - that implies that you are not talking about the 'minds eye' picture your players form. A picture is worth a thousand words is not lost on most people - and it has the advantage of unifying the 'view' your players carry forward.
It also opens the playing field to technical data that lies behind the image - such as ice cover, seasons, lighting, etc. And contradictions - if its an agricultural world then it better show the right conditions - or maybe it grows mushrooms.
For me detail isn't about numbers - but about setting the scene and supporting the plot - too much can bury it - not enough can undermine it.
Klaus Kipling said:
Character gen is bottom up as well - for players. For referee's it is generally a top down approach - you pick and choose from the tables and only role when the results are not pertinent to your needs or you just can't decide and/or get a thrill from die rolling.
The same goes for planet gen - pick your characteristics and fill them into the UWP. Use the tables to keep it sane (unless insanity is your game) and the die when, again, the outcome is not that relevant to your goal - i.e. just adds color and dimension to your world.
The bottom up approach is there to allow 'rapid' generation of content to 'fill' your Traveller Universe. The top end approach is implied by you filling in the blanks with reference to the values in the tables. Since you might desire to start this from any characteristic - a documented top down approach might be way to complicated. (Of course, some formulas could be provided to make this easier).
Definitely - though in and of itself, it is largely irrelevant. Age can determine a great many aspects - from tectonics, orbit, satellites, etc. But this is an extremely bottom up approach. Whether the Earth is 8 Billion years old or 10,000 what actually effects regular life is what is here now and in the cosmically brief future - seasons, 24 hour day, large tidally locked satellite, sufficient atmo, tremendous diversity of life, etc. (Note, I'm not saying the past isn't important - I spend a lot of free time pursuing knowledge in just these types of areas and consider them germane to Understanding.)Klaus Kipling said:
For an RPG, the age of a planet wouldn't just add a colorful detail - but a detail that could contradict the other, more pertinent details for which settings depend upon. In almost all cases - 'the planet is really old' would suffice for any habital world. For non-habital one might go with 'relatively young'. Millions and billions of years really doesn't have much impact on roleplay - just colorful narrative that can be more casually filled in less potentially damaging ways (to the Sense of Disbelief when scientific theory changes and advances).
I've spent some time contemplating (as opposed to actually doing :wink
my own personal world gen - and age was one of the first characteristics I started with - and the first one I threw out.If I don't mistake your gist -> Tables and stats are fine to form a framework for the stage... but world building needs more to make it 'real' for players.lucasdigital said:
Mithras just pointed out some nice ones as have many others. This is infact what I am looking for in terms of 'Details' and 'Level of Detail'.
Hi,
One easy way to make worlds seem distinctive might come from recent work astrobiologists have done on the colours of vegetation that would make sense under stars of other colours:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-color-of-plants-on-other-worlds&page=5
e.g. it might make sense for foliage under an F-type star to be blue or red; under an M-star, it could be black.
One easy way to make worlds seem distinctive might come from recent work astrobiologists have done on the colours of vegetation that would make sense under stars of other colours:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-color-of-plants-on-other-worlds&page=5
e.g. it might make sense for foliage under an F-type star to be blue or red; under an M-star, it could be black.
Here is my write up of Denotam:
Denotam 0603 B739573-A N Non-industrial G
A world with one hemisphere always facing its star, Denotam is a fierce waterworld. On the hot side, steam clouds, ferocious boiling storm clouds and boiling waters can kill instantly. The dark side is perpetually night-time, lashed by rainstorms and lightning. Humans live below the sea surface mining minerals from volcanic vents on the ocean floor. There are two large moons with pull at Denotam, causing the underwater volcanoes and creating huge tides which can leave areas of seabed exposed hundreds of thousands of square kilometres in area. Every 13 hours these vast sand flats are covered over by 300km/hour tidal waves. In comparison, the volcanic ever-dark seabed is a safe place.
Humans are organised into three rival mining families or clans, perpetually in conflict. The starport is neutral, a large well supported floating base used by all three sides to ship their minerals off-world. They mine the resources from huge seabed rigs which pipe up the minerals to floating platforms. From there robotic catamaran barges transport the minerals to the starport for shipment. Submersible technology is well developed on Denotam, G-Carriers and grav-buses are used to transport personnel and small cargoes from platform to platform or platform to starport.
Where do I get my orbital visuals? http://www.chienworks.com/~aramisangel/sw/swplaces1.html
Denotam 0603 B739573-A N Non-industrial G
A world with one hemisphere always facing its star, Denotam is a fierce waterworld. On the hot side, steam clouds, ferocious boiling storm clouds and boiling waters can kill instantly. The dark side is perpetually night-time, lashed by rainstorms and lightning. Humans live below the sea surface mining minerals from volcanic vents on the ocean floor. There are two large moons with pull at Denotam, causing the underwater volcanoes and creating huge tides which can leave areas of seabed exposed hundreds of thousands of square kilometres in area. Every 13 hours these vast sand flats are covered over by 300km/hour tidal waves. In comparison, the volcanic ever-dark seabed is a safe place.
Humans are organised into three rival mining families or clans, perpetually in conflict. The starport is neutral, a large well supported floating base used by all three sides to ship their minerals off-world. They mine the resources from huge seabed rigs which pipe up the minerals to floating platforms. From there robotic catamaran barges transport the minerals to the starport for shipment. Submersible technology is well developed on Denotam, G-Carriers and grav-buses are used to transport personnel and small cargoes from platform to platform or platform to starport.
Where do I get my orbital visuals? http://www.chienworks.com/~aramisangel/sw/swplaces1.html
lucasdigital
Banded Mongoose
Facinating article Marchand, many thanks.
The image of a forest or jungle of jet coloured fauna is doing my head in. :-D
The image of a forest or jungle of jet coloured fauna is doing my head in. :-D
