What are Your Worlds Missing?

[BP]

Here is my write up of Denotam: ...

Nice place Mithras - tidally locked - it must have quite the turbulent atmosphere and hydrosphere to keep the 'dark-side' from freezing...

Sounds like a great place to get lost in - complex underwater thermoclines and regular tidally induced underwater sand storms. Certainly some useful plot hooks.

 

[arkhan]

The thing that has always bothered me about "desert worlds" and "ice worlds" is this: how are they habitable? As I understand it, Earth's atmosphere started out high in carbon dioxide, low on oxygen. (The atmospheres of Mars and Venus indicate to me that this is probably the norm for rocky worlds in the habitable zone.) Only after plant life formed in the oceans and began freeing the oxygen from all that CO2 did our planet become habitable for animal life. Now, it seems to me that both desert worlds and ice worlds are decidedly lacking in plant life. So where did all that oxygen come from? (Herbert did a good job of explaining this in the Dune books, but Hoth and Tatooine puzzle me.)

 

[BP]

Of course, the simplest explanation would be that these worlds have changed over time into ice worlds or desert worlds. Orbital, stellar, and atmo changes could all bring about significant, long term change - i.e. globally freezing conditions or vaporized oceans. One could easily use collisions as the reason - as seemingly evidenced by our own solar system.

This and this may be of interest.

 

[EDG]

Here is my write up of Denotam:

Denotam 0603 B739573-A N Non-industrial G

A world with one hemisphere always facing its star

There are two large moons with pull at Denotam

No, there aren't. If a world is tidelocked to its star, it cannot have moons - they are mutually exclusive. If it's tidelocked, any moons must have already spiralled into the planet due to the solar tides that slowed the planet's rotation down.

Also, with atm 3 the water would be boiling at much lower temperature (about 50 C) because of the lack of pressure - maybe that's why the ocean is boiling on one side instead of just redistributing the heat across the planet. Either way the atmosphere (if it's even stable in those conditions) is going to be steamy (laden with water vapour) as a result.

 

[BP]

Here is my write up of Denotam:

Denotam 0603 B739573-A N Non-industrial G

A world with one hemisphere always facing its star

There are two large moons with pull at Denotam

No, there aren't. If a world is tidelocked to its star, it cannot have moons - they are mutually exclusive. If it's tidelocked, any moons must have already spiralled into the planet due to the solar tides that slowed the planet's rotation down. ...

I've been waiting for that :wink:. Something more like Uranus - with poles alternately facing sun every half orbit - would probably fit this description better...

EDG - How about the moon(s?) slowing the rotation of the planet down to be tidally locked (transferred angular momentum rather than tidal forces). This might also fit with large moon(s) close in to the planet - thus resulting in the tectonic (volcanoes) and tidal ocean forces described. Might this, while highly unlikely, be stable long enough to fit Mithras' Denotam - i.e., long enough for most effects of collision (original moon formation ala Earth/Luna) to be down and habitable environ develop (or settle down a little)?

 

[Valarian]

How about if the world spins, but it's tipped on edge. The north pole always faces the sun and the south always faces away. The world spins and the moons orbit the equator?

 

[EDG]

EDG - How about the moon(s?) slowing the rotation of the planet down to be tidally locked (transferred angular momentum rather than tidal forces). This might also fit with large moon(s) close in to the planet - thus resulting in the tectonic (volcanoes) and tidal ocean forces described. Might this, while highly unlikely, be stable long enough to fit Mithras' Denotam - i.e., long enough for most effects of collision (original moon formation ala Earth/Luna) to be down and habitable environ develop (or settle down a little)?

That'd require one moon (can't do it with more - you can't be fully tidelocked to one moon and not the other) - that moon would have to be very massive relative to the planet, and the planet would have to be far enough from the star for solar tides to be negligible (i.e. way beyond the habitable zone) - that's why it works for Pluto.

Also, once the moon and planet are fully locked to eachother, there's no more tides because neither the moon nor the planet are moving relative to eachother.

 

[EDG]

How about if the world spins, but it's tipped on edge. The north pole always faces the sun and the south always faces away. The world spins and the moons orbit the equator?

That's even worse. The solar tides would be acting to force the equator to be parallel to the planet's orbital plane - there's no way it would be tipped on edge and remain like that.

Also, over the course of an orbit, one pole does not always point toward the star in this configuration - it'd start like that, then 0.25 years later the planet would be side on to the star, then 0.25 years later the south pole would be facing the star, then 0.25 years later the planet would be side on to the star, then 0.25 years later the north pole would face the star again.

 

[Mithras]

What would you suggest, EDG, to get my tidally locked world with steaming seas, and rain-lashed night-side with its submarine population?

I liked the idea of the super-tides they were my way of colouring up a Traveller UPP once that had Hydro 90%. I created my world, but later 'transplanted it' to Denotam.

You must know some stuff EDG, what would work?

 

[EDG]

What would you suggest, EDG, to get my tidally locked world with steaming seas, and rain-lashed night-side with its submarine population?

I liked the idea of the super-tides they were my way of colouring up a Traveller UPP once that had Hydro 90%. I created my world, but later 'transplanted it' to Denotam.

You must know some stuff EDG, what would work?

Just remove the moons. You can still have your steaming seas and rainy nightside given the very low pressure atmosphere, and there'd probably still be a little bit of tidal action over the course of one planetary year because the orbit probably won't be totally circular (it won't be very eccentric though because it's been tidelocked).

Though then the question is why a water world has such a thin atmosphere. If it's that rich in volatiles then the atmosphere should be pretty dense.

Alternatively, have it as a young water world with a thicker atmosphere orbiting a hot star (type F). That way it'll be far enough from the star to have moons, so it won't be tidelocked, but it may be hot and steamy especially if it's on the inner edge of the habitable zone.

 

[Mithras]

I think this discussion of my write-up (Denotam) really shows the different ways of creating worlds. I look at the UPP, and create a description and integral plot hooks on what I know of human/physical geography, plus a dash of astrophysics (what little I know of orbits, moons, tidal forces, etc).

I have no doubt there are lots of errors, but the worlds seem real because from a few fundamentals the environment and the culture all flow logically.

EDG - your approach uses current scientific accuracy, and that's great - we use what we know. Does it ever limit your world creation?

 

[EDG]

I think this discussion of my write-up (Denotam) really shows the different ways of creating worlds. I look at the UPP, and create a description and integral plot hooks on what I know of human/physical geography, plus a dash of astrophysics (what little I know of orbits, moons, tidal forces, etc).

Well, I still start with the UWP, but I start with the phyisical stuff and then build the social stuff around it. You can tell a hell of a lot from the UWP if you know how (especially if you have the star type). It's just a matter of having that knowledge to start with.

I have no doubt there are lots of errors, but the worlds seem real because from a few fundamentals the environment and the culture all flow logically.

Yes, but that logic is often based on erroneous assumptions (e.g. that a tidelocked world can have moons). Sure, many people won't notice that, but sooner or later you'll come across someone who does . It's the difference between having a world that seems realistic and having a world that is realistic - it's a lot harder to pick holes in the latter.

EDG - your approach uses current scientific accuracy, and that's great - we use what we know. Does it ever limit your world creation?

Never. It actually expands it, because I can say so much more about the worlds and their environments and their history because of that knowledge.

 

[Mithras]

I've just clicked: Evil Dr Ganymede. EDG.

I've been coming across your name over on RPG.Net for years! Hi!

 

[EDG]

I've just clicked: Evil Dr Ganymede. EDG.

I've been coming across your name over on RPG.Net for years! Hi!

The picture of Ganymede that I have for my icon didn't give it away? Hi

(I guess I should cackle maniacally at this point...

*ahem*

MWAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!)

 

[khazwind]

Well, as someone pointed out above, the world is a stage set. It really is a question of what you and the players need.

For an archetypal free-traders type game, I'd suggest you need a lot of detail so the players can get into the nitty-gritty of planning their journeys.

Somebody mentioned Arrakis. To be honest, if you look at it Arrakis is (excuse the term) stupid. An earth-sized planet, with 0% surface water and anaerobic animals weighing 1000s of tons that excrete oxygen. Doesn't spoil the book because the books aren't really about man vs a hostile physical environment. The books are about man vs a hostile political environment and the politics works well.

In Traveller terms, if the characters are representatives of the regional Duke/Lord their first question on planetfall is not going to be, "what's the star like? How far out from the star is this world? Can I carry guns? What's the best price for radioactive ores here?"

Their first question is going to be, "Where's the hotel? When's our appointment with the planetary ruler? Where's the bar?" In this case, planets probably could be described by a single phrase, because that's all that characters at that level would need.

OTOH, I definitely agree with the people who say, "nothing that is obviously impossible." We're there to play. We've already agreed on jump drives, ancients, intelligent aliens etc. We're disposed to accept your world. I'd say, give enough info to describe the world, but not too much or you risk destroying the believability.

Best example is the Force. We all accepted it, until they explained how it worked.

'course, I could be wrong.

 

[captainjack23]

Well, as someone pointed out above, the world is a stage set. It really is a question of what you and the players need.
Somebody mentioned Arrakis. To be honest, if you look at it Arrakis is (excuse the term) stupid. An earth-sized planet, with 0% surface water and anaerobic animals weighing 1000s of tons that excrete oxygen.

Two points. First, the base of the oxygen producing ecosystem was the local sand based plankton analogues. Lots of stuff living in the sand, actually. And two, the desertization of dune probably happened recently in geological terms, if not human memory. It had a more standard ecosystem beforehand, which no doubt produced lots of the remaining O2.

To be fair, I think that's only discussed in book 3, so its probably the result of someone pointing it out -although, Herbert's knowlege of ecosystems was pretty good -he may have had it planned from step one.

I mention it partly to be pedantic (big surprise, huh ?), but also because it kind of illustrates a problem I see when people critique planets in SF (and traveller) as if how they are now is how they have always been. Planet descriptions are a snapshot, but they are a snapshot of a process, not a static situation. An unstable or gigantic population or irrational social situation (as an example) is seen as a mistake, and not a system on the verge of (perhaps) collapse or at least immanent change. My 2Cr.

BTW, I liked your force example for the perils of showing what's behind the curtain. I'll likely steal it !

 

[EDG]

Planet descriptions are a snapshot, but they are a snapshot of a process, not a static situation. An unstable or gigantic population or irrational social situation (as an example) is seen as a mistake, and not a system on the verge of (perhaps) collapse or at least immanent change. My 2Cr.

I think you're misidentifying the problem - it's not just that the situation itself is nonsensical, it's usually that the manner in which the situation got that way in the first place is nonsensical.

I have no problem with things that are at breaking points or are unstable... so long as the process by which they got there makes sense.

 

[Paladin]

What would you suggest, EDG, to get my tidally locked world with steaming seas, and rain-lashed night-side with its submarine population?

I liked the idea of the super-tides they were my way of colouring up a Traveller UPP once that had Hydro 90%. I created my world, but later 'transplanted it' to Denotam.

You must know some stuff EDG, what would work?

Just remove the moons. You can still have your steaming seas and rainy nightside given the very low pressure atmosphere, and there'd probably still be a little bit of tidal action over the course of one planetary year because the orbit probably won't be totally circular (it won't be very eccentric though because it's been tidelocked).

Though then the question is why a water world has such a thin atmosphere. If it's that rich in volatiles then the atmosphere should be pretty dense.

Alternatively, have it as a young water world with a thicker atmosphere orbiting a hot star (type F). That way it'll be far enough from the star to have moons, so it won't be tidelocked, but it may be hot and steamy especially if it's on the inner edge of the habitable zone.

A planet nearer to its star would allow the temp increase. An exceptionally large but "dim" moon that doesn't reflect enough light/radiation to heat things on the dark side. A larger moon or one with a greater density would increase the tide levels/veracity, the only issue would be the speed of the moon and the rate at which the oceans travel "around" the world. They would need to be slow enough to heat/cool effectively. A much slower axial rotation of the core planet would help allow for the large temp difference on either side and enough time for the underground regions to shift/move appropriately and remain on the dark side of the planet.

 

[Paladin]

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).

To bring the issue back to the original....

Do you prefer:
a. A paragraph or two at most, akin to Spinward Marches; just an idea/hook to run with and let me do the work
b. a short 1-2 page summary of a planet (60-80 planets in a book); give me lots of basic ideas to run with since we change planets frequently
c. a 6-12 page look at things; 18-24 total planets in the book is fine; a very detailed look at things akin to the SITREP pdfs; I want to run my campaign on a handful of planets
d. other

 

[rust]

To bring the issue back to the original....
Do you prefer:
a. A paragraph or two at most, akin to Spinward Marches; just an idea/hook to run with and let me do the work
b. a short 1-2 page summary of a planet (60-80 planets in a book); give me lots of basic ideas to run with since we change planets frequently
c. a 6-10 page look at things; 18-24 total planets in the book is fine
d. a very detailed look at things akin to the SITREP pdfs; I want to run my campaign on a handful of planets
e. other

I would prefer c/d, which is the same, since the SITREPs minus the equip-
ment are also around 10 pages.