What Changes to UWP would you like to see?

[Infojunky]

As a bunch of universe building is going on, what problems are y'all running into?

I for one would like a better way of handling system contents. In that a system is a big place. But from the UWP there is really no way to describe it.

The other is the Port coding system, it covers too much. On it's face is shows what services that are available, then it turns around and is used as a trade level indicator.

My next bug-a-boo is Tech Level. I generally use it as the gross infrastructure indicator and general availability of technical goods, not as the maximum limit of what can be found on the world.

So any thoughts?

 

[EDG]

I think it would have been nice if Mongoose had elaborated somewhat on the UWP when they mentioned it in the MGT book. For example, they don't list any of the usual Base codes (and combinations of base codes), neither do they describe where to put the Temperature code. I think that's resulted in some confusion as people new to Traveller may not be able to display their worlds/sectors in a way that others can understand or are used to.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I would have liked them to include the PBG (population multiplier, # of Asteroid Belts and # of GG) that was developed and refined in previous versions of Traveller.

I would also have liked Stellar data. Again, this was shown in previous versions.

I agree with EDG, how to incorporate the Temperature would have been nice.

BUT, Mongoose Traveller didn't really use the UWP, they just listed it as "older versions used this".

If you put the data in a table, you have room for all the other stuff added, Temperature, Culture etc. BUT, it doesn't connect back to Classic Traveller or any other version very well.

 

[EDG]

I would have liked them to include the PBG (population multiplier, # of Asteroid Belts and # of GG) that was developed and refined in previous versions of Traveller.

I never really understood why the number of belts was listed in the PBG. It's not like it's essential for people to know that. GGs obviously have a use as refueling points. Belts could I guess if they have icy bodies in them that can be refuelled from, but it's not a dead cert (unlike GGs).

 

[Galaga]

Is that what that PBG bit I see next to older version UWP codes is for?

I assumed it meant Planets Belts Gas giants.

What does it mean by Population multiplier?

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I thought that as well for a LONG time.

The "P" is the Population Multiplier.

The population digit is the power of ten of the population, or one order of magnitude between digits. The multiplier gives you the first digit of the population.

So a Population of 7 would be 10-99 Million people. A Population Multiplier is 4 means that there are 40,000,000 people.

In math terms:

PM x 10^(Pop) = Actual Population.

Does that make sense?

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

EDG: I never understood why you even needed to know how many GG were present. You only need 1 to refuel (unless you use common sense and land on an icy moon and use that instead with a lot less risk...).

If you don't give ALL the information about the system, number of planets, number of belts and number of GG, then having one, or two, of them doesn't help much.

HOWEVER, there was one trade volume calculator that used the number of belts and the number of GG in their calculations. Maybe that is why they originally only gave you part of the info that you would need to build the entire system. I wasn't there, I don't really know.

Personnally, I would like an "all or nothing" with regards to number of objects in the system.

 

[Vile]

Is that what that PBG bit I see next to older version UWP codes is for?

I assumed it meant Planets Belts Gas giants.

I thought that as well for a LONG time.

heh, same here. It just made sense that all three would relate to physical components. :lol:

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

IMHO they SHOULD have made it that way, but I wasn't involved in the decision making...

 

[Gee4orce]

Mongoose seem to have killed off the Scout Waystation base code too - which was pretty useful in determining XBoat routes :-/

I'd like to see stellar data made more important, although in reality the vast majority of stars are M class - red - so there's not likely to be a great deal of variation.

Temperature should definitely be right there in the UPP - but I'd like to see more granularity too. Surface gravity could be noted too - it's related to world size, but also to density, so a large world isn't necessarily high G, and vice versa.

Length of day and length of year are also important information for Travellers.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

The problem is that the more you add to the UWP, the longer it takes to create that UWP.

Sure, many (maybe most) people are going to use computer programs or spreadsheets to make their subsectors/sectors. But, if you make the UWP everything to everyone, it becomes like the old Ship Profile... so long that it basically becomes incomprehensible.

I would rather the UWP tracked Gravity rather than size, but that is just me. Adding still more extensions also creates the incomprehesible string of gibberish that can drive away new players.

A UWP, with Temperature is probably good enough for a starting point. THEN, when I as the referee need to detail out a world, I can do that to whatever level of detail I want.

I played CT for many years with stellar data or number of GG or belts or any of that. The Referee made it up on the spot if needed (that's what I did anyway).

I would like to see a layered approach to the details.

1. Create the UWP per the TMB.
2. Create the basics about the system (# planets, # belts, # GG, Star(s) etc).
3. Create the details about any world or moon (one by one as needed).

Then I can go as deep as I need to, when I need to, for a given system.

 

[Infojunky]

Actually I think I asked two questions inadvertently.

One is do you think that UWP should be converted to USP (Universal System Profile), and if so what should it track?

The other is What data should be added to the standard? Pop, Belts, Gas Giants, Star types, Economic extensions?

While I would like a system based data-track generating systems to this level of detail in any quantity is a pain in the ass.... By hand any ways....

Trade details, or at least rules for them exist, but mostly they are in Gurps products or vastly out of print in earlier editions.

Any ways thanks for the input.

 

[klingsor]

With the old (LBB) Scouts book it was possible to generate a whole star system quite easily - which would be a lot easier now with computers. However nice this would be, and I sad otaku that I am would love it, it would vastly inflate the size of the setting books - each system in the Spinward Marches would pretty much require a page to itself and that would make a pretty pricey book - Glisten subsector alone would be 30 odd pages.

 

[GypsyComet]

There is a balance to be struck between the broad panorama (most obviously represented by the old Atlas of the Imperium, but also seen in the sector books) and the "details I can use NOW" (as seen in the Tarsus box and the half-dozen world books done by SJG).

The problem faced by Traveller is that the closer in and more detailed a product gets, the less likely it will be useful to the broadest base of potential purchasers, AND the more likely that some detail of planetology, xeno-biology, or pseudo-history will annoy some subset of the fanbase*.

I'll mine any Traveller product for ideas, but then I've run Traveller for years. It's a natural Referee reflex. Not every Traveller fan is the same way.

The pattern in publication has generally been "Sector/Adventure", with adventures used as the medium for fleshing out an entire world or system. Some of the adventure writers also present the subsector as context.

T20 decided to split the sector into quarters - Quadrants. Four subsectors is a much more manageable chunk than 16, and also escapes some of the "hemmed in" feeling that a single presented subsector can give. It also allows a more readable map of space on a standard page than a full sector.

But if you are going to give an area of space the full treatment, the subsector is about as large as you want to get. Keep in mind that you'll be annoying all prior players in that subsector, since you'll be overwriting worlds they've actually killed people on, but that's the risk of OTU publication.


--

* fanbase < > player base, by the way

 

[klingsor]

I agree such detail does not a commercial product make - The old Beltstrike and Tarsus modules are a nice reminder.

For my own use though I would be tempted to generate the subsector, I just need to automate the process first.

 

[GypsyComet]

I actually made good use of the Tarsus box just last night. It's just that single world products aren't going to find as wide an audience.

 

[Infojunky]

I actually made good use of the Tarsus box just last night. It's just that single world products aren't going to find as wide an audience.

See that is area where Fan participation is a grand thing.

Oh the infamous TML we had a Landgrab, this is where different people staked out a world to detail then posted.

A data base of detailed worlds could be useful for the general pop....

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

AND it is all legal now under the FUP!

 

[Infojunky]

AND it is all legal now under the FUP!

Er? It was always legal.... I'm not sure I get your point?....

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I'm not sure it was all legal.

Before posting material related to a copyrighted product (Traveller) did you get permission from the owner of that material? If not, then it wasn't legal, it just wasn't prosecuted.

Usually, companies don't waste their time on free fan sites, but I believe that they are in fact illegal under copyright law.

I am not a lawyer though. I've been wrong before (well once... I thought I was wrong, but I wasn't :wink: )