World Builder's Handbook Feedback

[Geir]

An inconsistency to fix:
p. 129: In the paragraph below the Biocomplexity DMs, change the sentence:
A result of less than 1 becomes 1 and greater than 10 becomes 10.
To
A result of less than 1 becomes 1.

And on the last row of Biocomplexity Rating table, change the entry:
A (10)
to
A (10)+


And no, I have no idea what biocomplexities above 10 would look like, I'm not complex enough to imagine or understand it (which is always a good science fiction trope if used sparingly and cleverly).

 

[Seffix]

Would it be possible to place a sample UWP somewhere towards the front of the book with the page numbers of (or links to) the section headers where each of the parameter is calculated?

 

[Geir]

Would it be possible to place a sample UWP somewhere towards the front of the book with the page numbers of (or links to) the section headers where each of the parameter is calculated?

Interesting idea. Of course it would be of most value in link form to PDF users - even though I own all the books (I prefer the term, 'collector' not the 'h' word), I generally use the PDFs. The logical place to put something like that would be in the blue text box on page 3, but frankly I'm too tired on a Sunday night to figure out a workable way to do it without taking up too much space. But it should be the whole 'standard' UWP, from Starport to Tech Level.

 

[Galadrion]

If you're considering making a download for this, I would suggest not only the sample UWP, but the various IISS Survey Forms you've detailed in this book as well - not even filled out (it's not necessary for this purpose), but with labels referencing each section of each form, listing where in the new WBH each procedure is detailed. For an example of what I mean, take a look at the Core Rule Book 2022 Update and the ship form on page 150. It would be a highly useful "working index" for your book.

 

[Seffix]

If you're considering making a download for this, I would suggest not only the sample UWP, but the various IISS Survey Forms you've detailed in this book as well - not even filled out (it's not necessary for this purpose), but with labels referencing each section of each form, listing where in the new WBH each procedure is detailed. For an example of what I mean, take a look at the Core Rule Book 2022 Update and the ship form on page 150. It would be a highly useful "working index" for your book.

I believe they did that:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0609/6139/0839/files/World_Builders_Handbook_Forms_and_Templates_Jul23.pdf?v=1689155737

 

[Geir]

I believe they did that:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0609/6139/0839/files/World_Builders_Handbook_Forms_and_Templates_Jul23.pdf?v=1689155737

I believe you are correct... they didn't let me know they did that, but I had asked them to do so.

 

[Galadrion]

Well, my main reason for suggesting that was to suggest adding the comments (take a look at the reference page I included for the core rulebook). I saw the file you referenced, but it does not include the markups I suggested, which were the main point.

 

[Dan D]

Can someone check my math in re: tidal heating effects? I've got a size 5 planet with 0.17 Earth masses, orbiting a pair of stars having a combined 0.869 Solar masses at a distance of 0.691 AU with an orbital period of 0.616 years and an eccentricity of 0.47. If I plug these values into the formula at the bottom of p. 126, I get a tidal heating factor of over 30,000, which is absurd. The planet should sublimate into a cloud of gas and disperse.

If my math is right but my input parameters are such an outlier that the model doesn't apply (probably due to that eccentricity), does anyone have a workaround?

 

[Geir]

Can someone check my math in re: tidal heating effects? I've got a size 5 planet with 0.17 Earth masses, orbiting a pair of stars having a combined 0.869 Solar masses at a distance of 0.691 AU with an orbital period of 0.616 years and an eccentricity of 0.47. If I plug these values into the formula at the bottom of p. 126, I get a tidal heating factor of over 30,000, which is absurd. The planet should sublimate into a cloud of gas and disperse.

If my math is right but my input parameters are such an outlier that the model doesn't apply (probably due to that eccentricity), does anyone have a workaround?

The formula is generally intended for for use with moons around gas giants and would tend to be fairly insignificant for planets. But it should still work.

Did you use 'Distance in Mkm' (about 103.65) and period days (about 225) in the denominator?

The formula should be: (combined star mass x 332971[which is the mass of the sun in Earth masses])^2 x Size^5 x (eccentricity)^2 all divided by
3000 x (150 x AU distance)^5 x (period years x 365.25) x world mass

It should look like: ( (0.869*332971)^2 x 5^5 x (0.47)^2 ) / ( 3000 x (150*0.691)^5 x (0.616*365.25) x 0.17 )
Which is about 0.042.

 

[Dan D]

The formula is generally intended for for use with moons around gas giants and would tend to be fairly insignificant for planets. But it should still work.

Did you use 'Distance in Mkm' (about 103.65) and period days (about 225) in the denominator?

The formula should be: (combined star mass x 332971[which is the mass of the sun in Earth masses])^2 x Size^5 x (eccentricity)^2 all divided by
3000 x (150 x AU distance)^5 x (period years x 365.25) x world mass

It should look like: ( (0.869*332971)^2 x 5^5 x (0.47)^2 ) / ( 3000 x (150*0.691)^5 x (0.616*365.25) x 0.17 )
Which is about 0.042.

Oh I see. I thought the first statement of the formula was for planets and the second statement of the formula was for moons. And I didn't see units in the first statement so I figured Primary Mass was in solar masses, Distance was in AU and Period was in years.

 

[Dalton Calford]

Is there an errata updated version? I have seen comments about clarification and corrections, including some that came out the very day the last official update was posted, but I have not seen any newer updates.

 

[Geir]

Is there an errata updated version? I have seen comments about clarification and corrections, including some that came out the very day the last official update was posted, but I have not seen any newer updates.

Pending.
I've been tardy with okaying the final draft, partially from other commitments, but also to give a little more time for bugs to arise. I've been 'reminded' to provide feedback, so if nobody finds anything new, I'll give the thumbs up on the current draft, that'll be posted as an updated PDF and go off to the printers.

 

[Dalton Calford]

Pending.
I've been tardy with okaying the final draft, partially from other commitments, but also to give a little more time for bugs to arise. I've been 'reminded' to provide feedback, so if nobody finds anything new, I'll give the thumbs up on the current draft, that'll be posted as an updated PDF and go off to the printers.

Hold off from the printers until we get at least one more chance to proofread the doc. I want as solid a physical book as possible

 

[Sigtrygg]

I agree - send out what you think is the final pdf for one last proof reading pass at least.

 

[Geir]

I've made that request (just now)

 

[Dalton Calford]

I've made that request (just now)

Thanks Geir,
This book is going to be well used for the next bit and I want to make sure I don't have to keep going back to various iterations of different errata sheets.

Best regards
Dalton

 

[Dalton Calford]

Has a SSP (Stellar System Profile) been defined? ie an updated UWP that lists all the extended details, from Biosphere to extended Tech details and economic details. In other words, a single standardized profile for data exchange.

 

[Geir]

Has a SSP (Stellar System Profile) been defined? ie an updated UWP that lists all the extended details, from Biosphere to extended Tech details and economic details. In other words, a single standardized profile for data exchange.

There are bits and pieces of profile all over the book but not in a unified string. Since the point (or a point) is that you only need to build the detail you need, then its difficult to create a single string that isn't filled with unknowns - especially around moon and planetoid quantity and properties. I can think of a number of ways to do it in a machine readable format, but it would be close to incomprehensible in print. And potentially pages long even with a smaller font.

 

[Dalton Calford]

There are bits and pieces of profile all over the book but not in a unified string. Since the point (or a point) is that you only need to build the detail you need, then its difficult to create a single string that isn't filled with unknowns - especially around moon and planetoid quantity and properties. I can think of a number of ways to do it in a machine readable format, but it would be close to incomprehensible in print. And potentially pages long even with a smaller font.

Sadly, unless a standard is set, we will have even more of a mess of inconsistent data. A master detail structure is suggested. Ie system position, common name, aligence, etc. Max pop, max tl, world count, belts, gas giants etc
<Tab> star details
<tab><tab>orbit and world details
Etc

 

[Onji esq.]

You guys are great. This stuff is amazing to read! This book I think is already a must use for any version of Traveller for me. I have a much more rudimentary piece of feedback.

In short, The book is dense in layout and thus more difficult to read then it needs to be.

I suspect this was a design decision to sure everything fits into a certain page count, but I at least found myself intially very confused when I was trying to follow even the primary star creation. The table and its descriptions were intially not clear to me. If I'm understanding correctly the Sar Type Determination table is not in most of the situations used for reading along the rows(If I understand it correctly). If that's the case the information could then be broken up per column into several list, rather then having all the information together. So it may read something like roll 2d6>Look at type "list">If its special go to special "list" for star type instead.

Does this make sense? Or maybe i'm off base. Just my intial feedback. It's holding me back until I read couple of other books, because I think with this book I while have to take a few more notes and a requirement to reread a little more.

Anyway incredible book either way keep up the good work.