World Builders Handbook/Book 6?

[DaltonCalford]

I am curious if Mongoose is going release an updated version of LBB6 (Scout) or MegaTraveller's WBH?

Rules for detailing the entire solar system systematically are something I am looking for along with extra rules for culture generation.

This has been a part of traveller for decades and I am wondering if the new version of Traveller is going to fill this hole in the product line?

 

[DFW]

MGT Book 3 Scouts Pg. 92

Doesn't have cultural details though.

 

[rust]

I seem to remember that this subject has been mentioned several times
in the more distant past, but not recently.

In a way I would prefer if Mongoose would take its time to develop any
world building system that is more detailed than the one in the core rules.
The current stream of astronomical discoveries shows that much of what
was considered reliable knowledge was closer to an exception than to a
rule, and that many of our previous ideas about planetary systems and
planets were only partially true.

If Mongoose would now publish a world building system based upon the
outdated knowledge, they would receive a lot of flak from those fans who
follow the astronomical news. And to use the newly aquired knowledge is
still somewhat dangerous, because the dust has not yet settled, and it is
not at all certain what this new hypothesis will declare plausible, possible
or impossible.

So, for now I continue to use GURPS Traveller First In (good on culture)
and GURPS Space 4e (mostly good on physical data) for my world buil-
ding, and do not hold my breath for a detailed Mongoose Traveller world
building system.

 

[DFW]

Indeed. The recent past discoveries (dating to published data of only a few days ago) shows that long held theories of planetary system development have been falsified. Based on our current sampling rate (basically 0%), I wouldn't expect any accurate new theories to be formulated within our life time. Unless, there is unexpected breakthroughs in long range detection which would have to be extreme, to say the least.

http://www.physorg.com/news77463300.html
http://news.discovery.com/space/exoplanets-solar-system.html

 

[AndrewW]

A world builders handbook has been mentioned before as coming, though who knows when it might see the light of day.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Yumm. I hope the astronomical portion is updated to current knowledge.

 

[Colin]

Indeed. The recent past discoveries (dating to published data of only a few days ago) shows that long held theories of planetary system development have been falsified. Based on our current sampling rate (basically 0%), I wouldn't expect any accurate new theories to be formulated within our life time. Unless, there is unexpected breakthroughs in long range detection which would have to be extreme, to say the least.

http://www.physorg.com/news77463300.html
http://news.discovery.com/space/exoplanets-solar-system.html

"Falsified" is a little strong, as it overtly implies deliberate, well, lying. The theories were as accurate as they could be given the small sample size. Even now, though, all of those extrasolar planets, the ones we can actually detect, may well be the freaks. Perhaps the model holds true for other systems, without the freakish worlds that we can detect from here.

Then again, maybe not. But to describe the process so far as "falsification" does a gross disservice to the people who devote their life's work to this field. And perhaps denotes a misunderstanding of how the work of science is actually accomplished.

Even today, the Kepler mission announced the discovery of two planets transiting the same star, a first. Science grows with the accumulation of new data. Theories changes to fit the observable universe. That's how it is done.

 

[rinku]

Indeed. The recent past discoveries (dating to published data of only a few days ago) shows that long held theories of planetary system development have been falsified. Based on our current sampling rate (basically 0%), I wouldn't expect any accurate new theories to be formulated within our life time. Unless, there is unexpected breakthroughs in long range detection which would have to be extreme, to say the least.

http://www.physorg.com/news77463300.html
http://news.discovery.com/space/exoplanets-solar-system.html

Its not so much "breakthroughs in long range detection" that is needed, but larger array baselines. NASA's Space Interferometry Mission is due for launch in 2014. The mission was supposed to launch in 2005, but budget cuts have kept it delayed. Technology and science are NOT the reason we've not already detected small planets - it's funding.

We're only *just* now putting up satellites designed to detect small planets; Kepler was launched about 18 months ago, and the data from that isn't expected to be crunched until next year.

I'd be astounded if we don't have a decent sample size of exo-solar systems to work with in our lifetimes - most likely with programs already in place and planned we should have it by the end of the decade.

@OP: The MegaTraveller WBH was in fact a Digest Group Publications product and not part of the GDW copyright that Mongoose has access to as far as I know. There was a TNE WBH issued by GDW, so maybe the name did get transferred, though. The stuff in Mongoose Scouts is equivalent to the solar system building rules out of CT book 6. However, basic rules p. 177 has a table for generating cultural details that is roughly equivalent to those in WBH; that's probably why they didn't revisit them in Scouts. There's also nothing preventing you from using the old WBHs if you have them - they are pretty much version independant.

 

[Sevya]

I am curious if Mongoose is going release an updated version of LBB6 (Scout) or MegaTraveller's WBH?

Rules for detailing the entire solar system systematically are something I am looking for along with extra rules for culture generation.

This has been a part of traveller for decades and I am wondering if the new version of Traveller is going to fill this hole in the product line?

I'd recommend just using the World Builder's Handbook. I don't recall anything in the world building portion of the book that would not be compatible with MgT. Mongoose stellar data are fully compatible with Classic and Mega- Traveller.

This approach does, however, ignore all the astronomical discoveries since 1989. Of course, with how often new things are being discovered these days in the area of exoplanets, you could publish something today and it might be obsolete by the time it gets back from the printer...

Sevya

 

[DFW]

"Falsified" is a little strong, as it overtly implies deliberate, well, lying.

Umm, that is the term used in science to describe a theory has been proven incorrect under the scientific method. As in, E=MC2 was successfully falsified by the discovery of extra-galactic gamma-ray bursts that exceeded the energy level allowed for under the formula E=MC2 when the inverse sqaure law was applied to the burst origination points...

 

[DFW]

Its not so much "breakthroughs in long range detection" that is needed, but larger array baselines. NASA's Space Interferometry Mission is due for launch in 2014.

In order to know enough about the planets found (not just size, density, etc.) what you are mentioning is not enough, by far.

 

[rinku]

Don't be too worried about "all the new discoveries"; up till now the exoplanets we can detect are pretty much pre-selected to be unusual cases. It's *quite* possible that the hot jupiters should be considered as a type of failed binary star instead of a type of planet.

As a comparison, in the list of the top 20 brightest stars that can be seen from Earth, 25% of them are type B, and only 40% are main sequence (type V). This is NOT a representitive sample of star type distribution. The vast majority of stars in our stellar neighbourhood are too dim to be seen with the unaided eye. In the list of the 20 *nearest* star systems, we have one non-dwarf Type A (Sirius A), 75% Type M and all of them are main sequence.

 

[rinku]

Its not so much "breakthroughs in long range detection" that is needed, but larger array baselines. NASA's Space Interferometry Mission is due for launch in 2014.

In order to know enough about the planets found (not just size, density, etc.) what you are mentioning is not enough, by far.

No, that's where spectroscopy comes in to it. Current science and technology is capable of detecting water and atmospheric content (IIRC there was one profiled earlier in the year). We just need the gear to be in space with a decent baseline for a large synthetic array. I'd point out that this is NOT extremely expensive stuff in space science terms - the original SIM budget was only $700M, or less than 5 F-22 Raptors.

 

[DFW]

Its not so much "breakthroughs in long range detection" that is needed, but larger array baselines. NASA's Space Interferometry Mission is due for launch in 2014.

In order to know enough about the planets found (not just size, density, etc.) what you are mentioning is not enough, by far.

No, that's where spectroscopy comes in to it. Current science and technology is capable of detecting water and atmospheric content (IIRC there was one profiled earlier in the year). We just need the gear to be in space with a decent baseline for a large synthetic array. I'd point out that this is NOT extremely expensive stuff in space science terms - the original SIM budget was only $700M, or less than 5 F-22 Raptors.

Yes, quite correct. http://ces.jpl.nasa.gov/documents/thesisWhitePaper_v7-swain.pdf

 

[BP]

... As in, E=MC2 was successfully falsified by the discovery of extra-galactic gamma-ray bursts that exceeded the energy level allowed for under the formula E=MC2 when the inverse sqaure law was applied to the burst origination points...

Sorry that 'theory' was found in error quite some time ago...

Einstein's theories are constantly being tested (as well they should be) and also constantly being applied (some, very fortunately, less than others). To date, no experiment has successfully contradicted dE = dMC^2, and a number of NASA and ESA programs have validated Einstein's theories in the more extreme environs of space (such as Cassini-Huygens). They have not been successful in validating any alternate models.

Not to say Gamma-ray bursters aren't a fascinating wonder of our universe that still hold many secrets.

For some good stuff on that check out the Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), which was renamed Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope IIRC by Dr. Alan Stern - whom I've met several times as he was my father's boss for many years and is now the P.I. for New Horizons (the Pluto mission) part of which was fabbed in the high-bay clean room connected to my dad's lab (my dad fabbed and vaccum tested the UV imaging instrument, Alice for that mission and the earlier Rosetta - he also worked on one that flew on Cassini-Huygens as well).

Putting this into a MGT context RE:Worlds - I am very much a fan of astrophysics and research - but, I wouldn't play traveller if I wasn't also a fan of Science-Fiction. My players expect to spend time on worlds - and traveling in space between them. Jump 'time' really doesn't offer to much in the way of RP opportunities (at least on non-Capitol ships).

The lack of rules because of silliness by a handful of folks who think the system has to be 'realistic' really harms one of the important parts of the game. Even in the early 80's when I began playing Traveller, I knew the system generation rules were 'wrong'. Didn't keep them from being fun. To be quite frank - very little in the game is truly 'realistic' at all - it is a game after all.

I won't even get into the delusional nature of many of these arguments about what is realistic for worlds. As DFW stated 'Based on our current sampling rate (basically 0%)...', these folks are mostly just peeing in the wind anyway...

 

[Blix]

Indeed. The recent past discoveries (dating to published data of only a few days ago) shows that long held theories of planetary system development have been falsified

I'll just draw your attention to a thread on CotI where I pointed out the error in DFW's interpretation of how science works (DFW is already aware of this thread, since he started it there).

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=22484

I'm not really interested in continuing that discussion here since I've said pretty much all I wanted to say on the topic over there. If you disagree with what I say there, then you should save yourself some time and read the rest of the thread first as well, because I'm sure that many of the counter-arguments that you'd raise were made in there too.


Suffice it to say that scientists are not "delusional", "myopic" or anything else like that, and neither is anything being "falsified" or "disproved" here. Theories adapt and change with new data - that is how science works, and always has done. If you believe that science is written in stone (or should be), then you are wrong. If you believe that scientists think or claim that it's written in stone, then you're also wrong.

Our theories of planetary formation have not gone out of the window or been discarded; they've merely changed. We still think that all planets (including our own) form from accreting gas and dust; migration was just added when the Hot Jupiters were discovered (and that also helped explain a few things about our own solar system). I'm sure more things will be added as more rocky planets are discovered around other systems. Nothing was ever "invalidated" during this process though - just modified. Again, that is how science works.

BTW, personally I play Science Fiction RPGs because I want to play in a setting that is fictional and scientific. I can get fiction anywhere, but it's the science in science-fiction that makes it unique, interesting and specific.

EDIT: Also, "realistic" is relative. If we had to wait til we had every bit of information about planets and stars and other things before we 'committed' to formulating theories or statements about them then we'd never get anywhere. Maybe the simulations that we call "realistic" today will in the future be mocked as mercilessly as the pre-1950s idea that Venus was a jungle planet... but given what we know at the time, it's realistic enough.

I for one would rather make the attempt to keep up with the current state of knowledge what than just ignore or dismiss it and say we'll never understand it. There's nothing "delusional" about that, and I think that a lot of (if not most) educated people do fully appreciate and understand that what we consider "realistic" at any given time is subject to change as new data is received.

EDIT: Changed quote to DFW. Apologies to BP.

 

[BP]

I won't even get into the delusional nature of many of these arguments about what is realistic for worlds. As DFW stated 'Based on our current sampling rate (basically 0%)...', these folks are mostly just peeing in the wind anyway...

I'll just draw your attention to a thread on CotI where I pointed out the error in your (and DFW's) interpretation of reality (DFW is already aware of this thread, since he started it there).

Sorry.

I made no 'interpretation of reality' - nor did I anywhere state 'scientists were delusional'*. You have misread my statement - and made some very invalid assumptions. The quote taken out of context from my post was in relation to MGT and 'purists' who somehow think Traveller is supposed to somehow match reality. It doesn't - and that is not now, nor has it ever been its goal.

In all likelihood, I might agree with at least the intent behind many of the statements you did post, though I simply have no interest in reading them. Especially after reading your post above.

If you bothered to read my entire post, you might have picked up on the fact that I have quite a bit of respect for scientific inquiry and scientists in general. In point of fact, I spent quite some time on a recent vacation discussing various aspects of the upcoming Juno mission with several scientists involved in the project (one of which I have known for over 10 years).

In all likelihood, chances are good you haven't spent anywhere near the time with space scientists as I have.

As I stated - I am a big 'fan' of science as well. And have been reading Science fiction for over 30 years - so definitely a fan there as well. Even back in my early days of CT I added missing 'details' like inclination and eccentricity and made 'corrections' for orbital 'slots' and albedo. I used simplistic orbital mechanics and gravitational assists for my Traveller's.

But that is me - I like that and was able to add it on to what GDW provided. I don't have any expectation that everyone should conform to that model. That is unrealistic.

* - Having actually worked with a number of scientists over the years, I cannot say they are universally not delusional.

 

[Treebore]

Traveller has the Ancients. Their science was so far advanced that they can, and have, created pocket universes, ring worlds, and anything else any GM wants to dream up, and none of it would make any sense as to how they came about based on our current knowledge level, so "reality" doesn't really matter in Traveller, except when we are creating what we consider to be "normal" systems, and even then, the vast majority of people playing Traveller will have anywhere near the level of expertise needed to argue how implausible anything is. Except maybe my son, he is quit the Astronomy Hobbyist, so he might have learned enough bu now. Or the rare player who is the Astronomer or other scientific field that would teach them enough to know better than what is in the Traveller rules.

I mean, how many of you are scientifically expert enough to really understand current creation theories/hypothesis in depth enough to truly argue with what is contained in Traveller rules?

Especially when our understanding of the creation of the universe is so juvenile that no one can say with any true authority how anything was created? We only "know" one thing. Everything exists. How that all came about we can only hypothesize and theorize about. We are far from incontrovertible understanding of it all.

 

[Blix]

I made no 'interpretation of reality' - nor did I anywhere state 'scientists were delusional'*.

Admittedly most of my post was aimed at DFW. In retrospect I should have replied to one of his posts, not yours. Sorry about that.

That said, I do have an issue with your statement that I conflated in there, when you said "I won't even get into the delusional nature of many of these arguments about what is realistic for worlds." I notice that you've said that several times on this board, and I strongly disagree with it.

The quote taken out of context from my post was in relation to MGT and 'purists' who somehow think Traveller is supposed to somehow match reality. It doesn't - and that is not now, nor has it ever been its goal.

I think the existence of CT book 6 totally proves you wrong there; GDW most definitely made an attempt to match reality there in the Astronomical Data section. "GURPS Traveller: First In" is another example of how realism was brought into Traveller. "Fire Fusion and Steel" for TNE was yet another. Maybe they didn't completely succeed at being realistic, but they certainly tried.

So you are incorrect to suggest that people who claim that the game has ever attempted to be realistic are "delusional" or "are making delusional claims", and they also are not "peeing in the wind". Traveller has always had the option of being played in either a very unrealistic universe or in a more realistic one. I don't think that one or the other is the "right way", they are both equally valid ways to play the game. Sure, it's probably more common to play it "unrealistically", but why should anyone who prefers to run with more realism care about that? They'll most likely have players who also prefer realism, so where's the conflict?

And why claim that it "harms one of the most important parts of the game" if people think the system has to be realistic? Sure, "fun" is important when you're playing a game, but not all people agree on the definition of "fun". Some find designing realistic vehicles or star systems to be fun. Others think it's fun to argue about the economics of the game and to try to make those more realistic. Some want to run the game fast and loose and cinematic, others want to run it as gritty and realistic. Nobody here should be claiming that any of those approaches is "wrong" or "not fun" or "harming the game".

 

[Blix]

Especially when our understanding of the creation of the universe is so juvenile that no one can say with any true authority how anything was created? We only "know" one thing. Everything exists. How that all came about we can only hypothesize and theorize about. We are far from incontrovertible understanding of it all.

We know a lot more than just that "everything exists". Nobody claims to understand everything completely, but we're certainly not blundering around in complete ignorance.