World Builder's Handbook Feedback

[Dalton Calford]

I agree about the density of the material. I would rather pay more and get a higher page count.
I would love a few flow charts with links to the appropriate pages so as to guide the reader through the process, even if that is a separate pdf.
A pdf listing the math formulas and what each variable represents would be great. Even better would be the formulas in excel format. The math formulas are great but, since most people still use bedmas for order of operations without understanding the notation that breaks bedmas, you can have misunderstanding in how the formulas are used. Since Excel is ubiquitous and very specific, any grey area is removed.
I would love to have more of the material from DGP's wbh combined with T5's varying hex count world maps.
But the most important thing would be a standard for data formatting.
I can guarantee that multiple system building programs will appear soon and a data exchange standard would be wonderful to ease cross system data sharing.

 

[Onji esq.]

I agree about the density of the material. I would rather pay more and get a higher page count.
I would love a few flow charts with links to the appropriate pages so as to guide the reader through the process, even if that is a separate pdf.
A pdf listing the math formulas and what each variable represents would be great. Even better would be the formulas in excel format. The math formulas are great but, since most people still use bedmas for order of operations without understanding the notation that breaks bedmas, you can have misunderstanding in how the formulas are used. Since Excel is ubiquitous and very specific, any grey area is removed.
I would love to have more of the material from DGP's wbh combined with T5's varying hex count world maps.
But the most important thing would be a standard for data formatting.
I can guarantee that multiple system building programs will appear soon and a data exchange standard would be wonderful to ease cross system data sharing.

Yes, when I do take the time to learn this it almost certainly be including excel with it. Stadardization or encouragment in that direction would be an amazing start.

 

[Geir]

Okay, if it's not too late to fix:
p. 228 Back hole Diameter should be = 5.9 km x Mass(ʘ)

 

[Dalton Calford]

Ok, I have been reading through the book for the third time, with the latest edits, and I am missing where I find the system density methods ie

roll 3d6	Roll a <> or higher	Effect
Extra Galactic	18	-3
Rift	16	-2
Sparse	13	-1
Scattered	11	--
Standard	10	--
Dense	9	+1
Cluster	7	+2
Core	6	+3

With the different chances of a system occurring, or what affect that may have on the system contents.

Roll 2d6	Column to use on Star Type Determination
3-	Unusual
4-9	Standard
10	Special
11	Hot
12	Giants
13+	Peculiar

The above is just an example, ie the lower the density, the odds are for smaller stars and brown dwarfs, but could have larger ones.

 

[Geir]

I think I get what you're saying.
The first thing - system density - is not there. On page 14 it references the Core book and the Sector Construction Guide for determining system density. (So as it explicitly says, out of scope: dealing with individual hexes in this book , not subsectors or sectors).

So second thing, no difference in probability of a star type occurring based on density. If a system is indicated at whatever density is determined, then use the System Determination table on page 15 and Roll on the 2D on the Type column. If the result is a 2, roll on the Special column, or, optionally choose to roll on the Unusual Column instead. On a roll of 12, roll on the Hot column.

In the Special Circumstance chapter, the empty hex contents are based on the system density determined for the region, but again, the odds of all types of objects are related to the pre-established system density.

There are probably multiple competing factors that could skew the types encountered at various densities, including the special case of a globular cluster where all or most stars have one (or two) set age. Not sure how many scenarios and factors there would be, so it's not worth the extra complexity if the results aren't liable to match 'reality' any more than the location of Deneb does (sorry, non sequitur from an entirely unrelated conversation, but in 'reality' Deneb should be about another 12 sectors to Spinward). If you want to add differences based on density for your system determination, feel free, but I think your example 2D table has too low a probability of standard systems.

 

[Dalton Calford]

I think I get what you're saying.
The first thing - system density - is not there. On page 14 it references the Core book and the Sector Construction Guide for determining system density. (So as it explicitly says, out of scope: dealing with individual hexes in this book , not subsectors or sectors).

So second thing, no difference in probability of a star type occurring based on density. If a system is indicated at whatever density is determined, then use the System Determination table on page 15 and Roll on the 2D on the Type column. If the result is a 2, roll on the Special column, or, optionally choose to roll on the Unusual Column instead. On a roll of 12, roll on the Hot column.

In the Special Circumstance chapter, the empty hex contents are based on the system density determined for the region, but again, the odds of all types of objects are related to the pre-established system density.

There are probably multiple competing factors that could skew the types encountered at various densities, including the special case of a globular cluster where all or most stars have one (or two) set age. Not sure how many scenarios and factors there would be, so it's not worth the extra complexity if the results aren't liable to match 'reality' any more than the location of Deneb does (sorry, non sequitur from an entirely unrelated conversation, but in 'reality' Deneb should be about another 12 sectors to Spinward). If you want to add differences based on density for your system determination, feel free, but I think your example 2D table has too low a probability of standard systems.

Hi Geir,

It's a shame you did not take on density. My example I posted was just something I played with while on lunch and not intended as a final by any means, just a "perhaps".

I have downloaded all objects in the sinbad database, out to a 1000pc radius of earth, mostly to get a representative example of how often items occur within our nearby stellar neighbourhood (plus I am looking at updating my nbos project). The concept being to have a map based upon our cross section of the local arm, in a full Miller projection.

It will require a bit of work on my part, given the number of objects, and will necessitate my changing your "one system per hex" limit, as that does not work even in close proximity (150 ly) of earth.

I hope that Mongoose gets their ORC/OGL/TAS license work complete soon, as I have a number of things I would like to actually share, but, don't want to cause issues due to miscommunication over license terms.

An example, is your "decimal orbits". I would have created a "IISS 3rd Survey 1106" (or something like that) which converted the 42 decimal orbits into integers ie

New Orbit​	Traveller Orbit​	Distance AU​
0​	0​	0​
1​	0.05​	0.02​
2​	0.06​	0.024​
3​	0.07​	0.028​
4​	0.08​	0.032​
5​	0.09​	0.036​
6​	0.1​	0.04​
7​	0.11​	0.044​
8​	0.12​	0.048​
9​	0.13​	0.052​
10​	0.14​	0.056​
11​	0.15​	0.06​
12​	0.16​	0.064​
13​	0.17​	0.068​
14​	0.18​	0.072​
15​	0.19​	0.076​
16​	0.2​	0.08​
17​	0.21​	0.084​
18​	0.22​	0.088​
19​	0.23​	0.092​
20​	0.24​	0.096​
21​	0.25​	0.1​
22​	0.26​	0.104​
23​	0.27​	0.108​
24​	0.28​	0.112​
25​	0.29​	0.116​
26​	0.3​	0.12​
27​	0.31​	0.124​
28​	0.32​	0.128​
29​	0.33​	0.132​
30​	0.34​	0.136​
31​	0.35​	0.14​
32​	0.36​	0.144​
33​	0.37​	0.148​
34​	0.38​	0.152​
35​	0.39​	0.156​
36​	0.4​	0.16​
37​	0.5​	0.2​
38​	0.55​	0.22​
39​	0.6​	0.24​
40​	0.65​	0.26​
41​	0.7​	0.28​
42​	0.75​	0.3​
43​	1​	0.4​
44​	2​	0.7​
45​	3​	1​
46​	4​	1.6​
47​	5​	2.8​
48​	6​	5.2​
49​	7​	10​
50​	8​	20​
51​	9​	40​
52​	10​	77​
53​	11​	154​
54​	12​	308​
55​	13​	615​
56​	14​	1230​
57​	15​	2500​
58​	16​	4900​
59​	17​	9800​
60​	18​	19500​
61​	19​	39500​
62​	20​	63241​
63​	21​	126482​

The decimal orbits come from the Companion and Close orbit random placement rolls, but they could also hold planets.
Gas Giants have been found orbiting within the "Sub 1" orbit ranges, some with temperatures hotter than the surface of SOL.
What was previously conceptualized as the "Trojan zone" where the temperatures are hot enough that anything orbiting would effectively be liquid due to the melting temperature of most materials, has now been found to exist with planet sized objects, not just the small asteroid belt objects as originally conceptualized.
I would also base the distances on "from the surface of the star" vs. "from the centre of the star" as many stars are far larger or smaller than our own system. Some stars would have their surfaces in orbit 8 of the original Traveller system.
The above system would also allow for useful orbits on smaller stars.

 

[Chlustin]

Will you correct the typos in the pdf-version of the books, so when I purchased it, I can download the corrected version?

 

[Dalton Calford]

Will you correct the typos in the pdf-version of the books, so when I purchased it, I can download the corrected version?

They have been updating and putting out new files for download, regularly. If you purchase it now, you will be getting a version that was just released last week and has had significant updates/corrections/adjustments.

This is probably driving the poor admins at Mongoose nuts (they put out a totally new update a month or so ago, just to be getting changes as they were posting it)

The amount of work the whole mongoose team has put into this, is amazing. I just finished reading it for the second time and only by coding it up will I find any more issues.

 

[harunmushod]

The "IISS CLASS IV SURVEY" example on p.144 includes this note in the ATMOSPHERE section of the form: "Atmosphere marginally breathable (0.1 ppo) to 3.6 km altitude"

Where does it explain how that is calculated? I've tried the scale height related formulae but I can't replicate the result in the quote.

 

[Geir]

I was probably smarter (or hadn't consumed so much scotch) when I did this originally, but really quick, reverse engineering it in Excel:

From the second equation on page 82:
The formula
=0.151/(EXP(1)^(3.6/8.763))
gives an answer of 0.100129 - the oxygen partial pressure at 3.6 km above mean 'sea level'

Where
0.151 is the oxygen partial pressure Pressure(m)
3.6 is the altitude above mean height(a)
8.763 is the scale height H
and exp(1) is Excel's way of computing e (2.718... something... something...)

 

[harunmushod]

The maths is beyond me but I asked ChatGPT and it came back with a different answer for height(a) (see attached screenprint - excuse my atrocious spelling). Could you check the equation?

 

[Geir]

Well, since ChatGPT hallucinated a value of about negative 5 meters, which is wrong in both units and sign (it should never be a lower pressure below the mean level) I would put it down as another hallucination and ignore the computer, which after all, just places the most likely words one after another...

There is a little error: In your query pressure(m) should be 0.151, not 1.51. But even at 1.51, the answer should be about 23.8km based on the modified formula which the AI provides.

And I have no idea why it thinks it's a 'transcendental equation that cannot be solved algebraically'. The value of pi is just as transcendental as e and any equation dealing with circles, ellipses, spheres, etc. can certainly be solved algebraically - so that's a snooty statement made to make itself sound smart, but pretty much irrelevant.

I tried using ChatGPT to help me along when I was doing formulas for Pioneer and it messed up up all the time. At best, its errors were just off by a factor of 10. At worst, its answers were just plain wrong, or 'not even wrong.' That was ChatGPT 3.5 - I haven't tried the paid version.

Worse, if you do what it tells you to do with the alternate equation, take the natural log of the mean pressure (.151) divided by the limiting pressure (.1) and multiple that result by H (8.763) you get... about 3.6 (or 23.8 with the 1.51 value you fed it). So the AI can't be trusted to do its own math right. And then it gets snippy about it.

(Sorry, not trying to be condescending to you, but certainly trying to be dismissive of the AI...)

 

[Galadrion]

Or, as I say all the time at work, "We may not have artificial intelligence down yet, but by God, do we have artificial stupidity nailed down..."

 

[Nightstride]

I may have found an issue with the Rolls and results for determining Size for the example Zed star system’s worlds table on page: 55.

Maybe I'm not reading it correctly, but as an example, the Size Rolls column has the following formula for a terrestrial planet: 3: 4+4+3 = 11 or B however per the table on page 54 for Terrestrial World Sizing, and assuming that the 3 before the colon is the first roll, the formula should instead be 3: 4+4 = 8. The table seems to indicate the +3 should only come into play when the initial roll is 5 or 6.

 

[harunmushod]

Well, since ChatGPT hallucinated a value of about negative 5 meters, which is wrong in both units and sign (it should never be a lower pressure below the mean level) I would put it down as another hallucination and ignore the computer, which after all, just places the most likely words one after another...​

There is a little error: In your query pressure(m) should be 0.151, not 1.51. But even at 1.51, the answer should be about 23.8km based on the modified formula which the AI provides.

And I have no idea why it thinks it's a 'transcendental equation that cannot be solved algebraically'. The value of pi is just as transcendental as e and any equation dealing with circles, ellipses, spheres, etc. can certainly be solved algebraically - so that's a snooty statement made to make itself sound smart, but pretty much irrelevant.

I tried using ChatGPT to help me along when I was doing formulas for Pioneer and it messed up up all the time. At best, its errors were just off by a factor of 10. At worst, its answers were just plain wrong, or 'not even wrong.' That was ChatGPT 3.5 - I haven't tried the paid version.

Worse, if you do what it tells you to do with the alternate equation, take the natural log of the mean pressure (.151) divided by the limiting pressure (.1) and multiple that result by H (8.763) you get... about 3.6 (or 23.8 with the 1.51 value you fed it). So the AI can't be trusted to do its own math right. And then it gets snippy about it.

(Sorry, not trying to be condescending to you, but certainly trying to be dismissive of the AI...)

Thanks! The 1.51 was indeed the error. Not ChatGPT's fault, just mine.

With further help from ChatGPT, I think I have a re-expressed a version of the equation for calculating the maximum height for breathable air assuming a minimum ppo of oxygen is 0.1 for breathable air:

height(a) = H x (ln(pressure(m)) + 2.30)​

[2.30 being the ln of 0.1. "Pressure(m)" is the "Partial Pressure of Oxygen (ppo) bar" as calculated on p.81.]

Does that look right to you?

 

[harunmushod]

On p.189, is a negative infrastructure score treated as +1 for the purpose of calculating resource units?

 

[Geir]

On p.189, is a negative infrastructure score treated as +1 for the purpose of calculating resource units?

Yes, but slightly sloppy wording on my part: previous page:
If a world has no population or if the world’s infrastructure factor is less than 0, it has no infrastructure.
Should really say:
...if the world’s infrastructure factor is less than 0, it is recorded as 0.
So 0 becomes 1 on the RU calculation.

 

[Geir]

Thanks! The 1.51 was indeed the error. Not ChatGPT's fault, just mine.

With further help from ChatGPT, I think I have a re-expressed a version of the equation for calculating the maximum height for breathable air assuming a minimum ppo of oxygen is 0.1 for breathable air:

height(a) = H x (ln(pressure(m)) + 2.30)​

[2.30 being the ln of 0.1. "Pressure(m)" is the "Partial Pressure of Oxygen (ppo) bar" as calculated on p.81.]

Does that look right to you?

I think that will give the correct answer, though ~2.30 is the ln(10) or 1/0.1.
So you could just say height(a) = H x ln(pressure(m) x 10).

 

[harunmushod]

I think that will give the correct answer, though ~2.30 is the ln(10) or 1/0.1.
So you could just say height(a) = H x ln(pressure(m) x 10).

Yes, that is a more elegant way of putting it. Thanks.

 

[Levi Dash Card]

First of all, I'm loving this book. It has all the crunchy bits I've been wanting for my Pocket Empires campaign.

On p.131, the native lifeforms Compatibility Rating is expressed as 2D - (Biocomplexity Rating/2) + DMs

However, the Zed Prime example use a biocomplexity of 5, a DM+2, and a +3 modifier that isn't explained in the formula or the example. Is the +3 a typo (meaning Zed Prime's Compatibility Rating is 6, not 9), or are we missing something from the Compatibility Rating formula?