# World Builders help

Geir, thank you for your answer. It helped me to move on to the next steps of generating the star system. I will probably run into another problem soon.

p38, Step 2 Optionally, if the star and/or its companion... and if the HZCO (determined in the following section) lies within Orbit# 0.13, then the maximum allowable
Orbit# for that star, individually, is...
Does the above refer to the HZCO for the pair, or for either or both of them individually?

In other words, if there were a companion pair such as shown below, where both are sufficiently dim to allow individual orbits, should I:

a. calculate the HZCO for each individually using only their own luminosity
b. calculate the HZCO for each individually using their combined luminosity (i.e. use the HZCO from Aab for both Aa and Ab)
c. they have no HZCO, set it to 0

In this case, the maximum allowable orbit for the stars individually is 0.25 x (1-0.25) x 0.39 = Orbit #0.0731, so technically since the MAO for these is 0.01 they can have planets in orbit individual (yes, you probably know this, just working it out in my head- with my fingers, really).

And looking at the table on p. 42 - it also allows the HZCO to exist within that range around both of them. Because temperature is a function of distant squared and additive temperatures use T^4, then I would suspect that the effect of one star on the other's planet would be single digits or so. (could do all the math, but won't) Therefore... yes, a.) is the better choice. On average, the world might be a little warmer, but stick with the star the world orbits.

I'd like to thank you again for all your help. I really, truly appreciate it.

So... p45 Step 3, determine baseline Orbit#s for worlds - these all seem to assume a viable HZCO, but particularly if in Step 2 the primary did NOT have a valid HZCO but did have some allocated orbits, we will end up with a baseline number putting us in any of 3A-3C, all of which have HZCO as an expected input in the formulae.

Do we use the raw value as calculated on p41-43 even though it's outside of the allowed orbit#s?

Do we use the greater of HZCO or MAO, as I believe 3B does?

Or, (just for 3B), does the first formula always use HZCO even if MAO is greater, since it has HZCO instead of minimum orbit#?

Below is a good example system - it has no usable HZCO at all (which is why I put them in parentheses, so I can still see the values but know they are outside the Allowed Orbit#s). Of course I can just place planets as I see fit, but I've been trying to figure it out by the book and getting my head all tied up in knots debating terminology with myself on steps 2 and 3 lol.

I'd like to thank you again for all your help. I really, truly appreciate it.

So... p45 Step 3, determine baseline Orbit#s for worlds - these all seem to assume a viable HZCO, but particularly if in Step 2 the primary did NOT have a valid HZCO but did have some allocated orbits, we will end up with a baseline number putting us in any of 3A-3C, all of which have HZCO as an expected input in the formulae.

Do we use the raw value as calculated on p41-43 even though it's outside of the allowed orbit#s?
If the baseline orbit is unavailable, you should move to the nearest available orbit. So in the case below, for A that would be inward to 0.60 for the only planet available for it. Ba and Bb don't have any planets, so for AB, the only choice you have is to move out to 6.60 for what would need to be the inner of the 8 planets.
Do we use the greater of HZCO or MAO, as I believe 3B does?
Yes, because you can't use less than the MAO
Or, (just for 3B), does the first formula always use HZCO even if MAO is greater, since it has HZCO instead of minimum orbit#?
Since the MAO is greater, that would be the start of the allowable orbit range, so that paragraph at the top of p.45 should apply and the baseline would be MAO + 2D-7 ÷ 10 (with numbers less than 7 on the roll being ignored, reverse (meaning flipping the sign on the + or - so it goes into an allowed zone) or rolled again).
Below is a good example system - it has no usable HZCO at all (which is why I put them in parentheses, so I can still see the values but know they are outside the Allowed Orbit#s). Of course I can just place planets as I see fit, but I've been trying to figure it out by the book and getting my head all tied up in knots debating terminology with myself on steps 2 and 3 lol.

View attachment 2143
Yeah, some systems are gonna suck, because the stars get in the way. That's unfortunately the way it is. The key thing to remember is that if it's not an allowable orbit, move to the nearest orbit that is allowable, even if it's far from habitable. In the example above, the one planet around A would always need to move in, or else it would be a planet around AB and not just A.

(I hope that all made sense, I had a couple of drinks with dinner...)

Yes, because you can't use less than the MAO
So for Step 3A-C, we should use HZCO as is if valid, MAO if HZCO is below the minimum, and Maximum Allowable Orbit# if HZCO exceeds it?

E.g. if HZCO is 3.30 and allowable orbits are 0.61 - 2.50, use 2.50 in all of the equations and "if HZCO greater than..." type statements, and if HZCO were 0.5, then use 0.61 instead.

Or do we use HZCO as is for the conditions and calculations and then clamp the result of that between Min and Max Allowable Orbit#?

(I hope that all made sense, I had a couple of drinks with dinner...)
Well-deserved.

So for Step 3A-C, we should use HZCO as is if valid, MAO if HZCO is below the minimum, and Maximum Allowable Orbit# if HZCO exceeds it?

E.g. if HZCO is 3.30 and allowable orbits are 0.61 - 2.50, use 2.50 in all of the equations and "if HZCO greater than..." type statements, and if HZCO were 0.5, then use 0.61 instead.
Yes.
Or do we use HZCO as is for the conditions and calculations and then clamp the result of that between Min and Max Allowable Orbit#?
No, but you may still need to clamp down the results to fit the planets into allowable orbits.

Not a question, just wanted to show off my progress from this weekend (this is from an automated tool I'm building that will eventually be shared via GitHub):

Not a question, just wanted to show off my progress from this weekend (this is from an automated tool I'm building that will eventually be shared via GitHub):
View attachment 2160
Very nice!

Not a question, just wanted to show off my progress from this weekend (this is from an automated tool I'm building that will eventually be shared via GitHub):
View attachment 2160
Wow! I'm seeing a three star system right?

Wow! I'm seeing a three star system right?
Correct! I thought this one was neat because so many planets are in/near the HZ. It doesn't handle moons yet, but it will.

In-ter-esting, very interesting.

One of the things which immediately jumped out at me is that the B component is enormously distant from the Aab component. Our star's (Sol's) heliopause - effectively the boundary of our Solar system - is about 120 AU from the star, which makes it almost certain that the two components of this system will have two separate heliopauses (not sure what the generic term would be, so I'm just going with that). I would guess that that, even more than the distance between the stars, would pretty much mandate that any travel between the A and B components would be by Jump, not Maneuver - crossing over the heliopause boundary means an enormous increase in the cosmic radiation you'd face. Something to consider.

Hm... that is indeed very interesting! According to my quick Wiki-search, Sol's heliosphere extends about 100-120 AU, so the above system would definitely have a massive stretch of exposed space - very cool, thanks for pointing it out!

I also just noticed B5's orbital radius - that planet would probably fall outside of its own star's heliopause, so it would be pretty much unprotected from cosmic radiation by either set of stars. So, a distant, extremely cold iceball, and probably inundated by radiation - a very unhealthy environment... but maybe one of great interest to certain kinds of scientist. Looks like an ideal location for a remote research station. A very lonely one...

Playing around with the Unusual and Peculiar types and generated this very interesting system - how'd you like to be an HZ around a black hole?

Playing around with the Unusual and Peculiar types and generated this very interesting system - how'd you like to be an HZ around a black hole?

View attachment 2166
So ignoring the giant gaping supermassive black hole... that system shouldn't be old enough (the B8IV) to have any habitable planets - ~125 million years max in the main sequence for that mass and ~14 million years as a subgiant. And the temperature of zero for the thing I was ignoring... could be... accurate, but I doubt I accounted for the accretion disk in the rules.

But interesting, that's for sure. I like the 0.4115 hour day for the innermost black hole world... and I'm wondering if we need to take account relativistic speeds for the orbit and some time dilation (and some tidal forces) for being that close to the black hole.

So ignoring the giant gaping supermassive black hole... that system shouldn't be old enough (the B8IV) to have any habitable planets - ~125 million years max in the main sequence for that mass and ~14 million years as a subgiant. And the temperature of zero for the thing I was ignoring... could be... accurate, but I doubt I accounted for the accretion disk in the rules.

But interesting, that's for sure. I like the 0.4115 hour day for the innermost black hole world... and I'm wondering if we need to take account relativistic speeds for the orbit and some time dilation (and some tidal forces) for being that close to the black hole.
Yes, some of the peculiar and unusual objects have, uh, shall we say, "gaps" in the information produced by your otherwise most excellent guide.

Speaking of gaps, you're not wrong - the Class IV's lifespan should be < 1 Gyr for sure, here, but it seems my attempt to handle the System Age Adjustment step by continually increasing the mass of any post-stellar object until it surely must come into range of the Primary star's lifespan has failed in a most spectacular fashion here. Just look at that mass on the Black Hole!!! Lol.

Clearly that was either poorly thought out, poorly implemented, or both.

EDIT: I found the problem. It says "Use the Final Age (see page 22)" which I interpreted as "Use the Final Age (see page 22)", so I went by the age table on that same page... needless to say, add +2 to +14 Gyr via the Small Star Age formula was clearly not the right call.

Last edited:
A few other questions:
1. p38 Available Orbits, Multi-Star, Step 2, Secondary / Companion stars may optionally have independent planetary orbits if they are, and I quote, "dimmer than M5 V or M5 VI stars or are brown dwarfs".

Should I interpret this as:
a. Only main sequence stars of M5-9 V, M5-9 VI, and brown dwarfs qualify
b. Any "star" that is dimmer than 0.0029 (the luminosity of an M5 V) qualifies

If the former, all post-stellar and other peculiar objects would NOT qualify, while they pretty much all will if the latter.

2. Baseline Number, is it really intended to use the Total Worlds for the entire system, or, especially since the way orbits are allocated the primary star will already include all of A+AB+ABC+ABCD (which would be used for the System Baseline), would it make more sense to use the Total Worlds only for the stellar object in question?

E.g in a system where A has 2 worlds, B has 2, and AB has 4, the System Baseline should use 6 Total Worlds (A+AB i.e. 2+4) since those all technically orbit around A, while the Baseline for B, if being determined separately, should use only its own 2 Total Worlds.

3. System Spread, Maximum, do "Total Stars" in this formula include companions? It does not say to exclude them so I'm assuming it does, just double-checking.

4. Protostars, when breaking apart Terrestrial planets into a bunch of chunks for a < 5 million year old protostar can result in chunks of Size 0 down to as much as -5; a. should such small chunks still be added as planets? and b. if so, should -1 and below be treated as Size 0?

5. Any luck figuring out what "directly orbits beyond the first" means for stars and planets?
For now, as this is really only used for eccentricity, I'm going with:
a. Any object orbiting a companion, its host, or both, is considered to be orbiting +1 since the other star would have a major influence regardless of configuration
b. Any object orbiting a Secondary star is also considered orbiting every star (including companion, if any) all the way back to and including the primary

A few other questions:
1. p38 Available Orbits, Multi-Star, Step 2, Secondary / Companion stars may optionally have independent planetary orbits if they are, and I quote, "dimmer than M5 V or M5 VI stars or are brown dwarfs".

Should I interpret this as:
a. Only main sequence stars of M5-9 V, M5-9 VI, and brown dwarfs qualify
b. Any "star" that is dimmer than 0.0029 (the luminosity of an M5 V) qualifies

If the former, all post-stellar and other peculiar objects would NOT qualify, while they pretty much all will if the latter.
Depends... The obvious answer is a., but there could be secondary objects created, like white dwarf and neutron star planet created after the star dies, so b. would be fair.

1. Baseline Number, is it really intended to use the Total Worlds for the entire system, or, especially since the way orbits are allocated the primary star will already include all of A+AB+ABC+ABCD (which would be used for the System Baseline), would it make more sense to use the Total Worlds only for the stellar object in question?

E.g in a system where A has 2 worlds, B has 2, and AB has 4, the System Baseline should use 6 Total Worlds (A+AB i.e. 2+4) since those all technically orbit around A, while the Baseline for B, if being determined separately, should use only its own 2 Total Worlds.
As written, total worlds for the entire system. I put a statement in there (p. 45) that you can treat them separately if you want, so it depends - since it looks like you're doing this programmatically, you should pick one way or the other (I picked as written for my spreadsheet-of-doom) , but it's meant to be a bit 'fluffy' for the Referee to look at a system and say 'Nah, that doesn't look right', and go the other way..

1. System Spread, Maximum, do "Total Stars" in this formula include companions? It does not say to exclude them so I'm assuming it does, just double-checking.
(wow, chopping this up seems to mess up numbering) Include companions.

1. Protostars, when breaking apart Terrestrial planets into a bunch of chunks for a < 5 million year old protostar can result in chunks of Size 0 down to as much as -5; a. should such small chunks still be added as planets? and b. if so, should -1 and below be treated as Size 0?
Treat less than 0 as 0 - there will be lots of little asteroids.

1. Any luck figuring out what "directly orbits beyond the first" means for stars and planets?
For now, as this is really only used for eccentricity, I'm going with:
a. Any object orbiting a companion, its host, or both, is considered to be orbiting +1 since the other star would have a major influence regardless of configuration
b. Any object orbiting a Secondary star is also considered orbiting every star (including companion, if any) all the way back to and including the primary
a. is not as intended, but probably more accurate... or not - could also be that the eccentric ones got ejected.
b. is as intended.

So ignoring the giant gaping supermassive black hole... that system shouldn't be old enough (the B8IV) to have any habitable planets - ~125 million years max in the main sequence for that mass and ~14 million years as a subgiant. And the temperature of zero for the thing I was ignoring... could be... accurate, but I doubt I accounted for the accretion disk in the rules.

But interesting, that's for sure. I like the 0.4115 hour day for the innermost black hole world... and I'm wondering if we need to take account relativistic speeds for the orbit and some time dilation (and some tidal forces) for being that close to the black hole.
You should also take into account that the worlds that close in around a black hole will likely be fried by the radiation from the accretion disk. While black holes themselves are dark (fun fact: their original name was ‘dark star’) they can also be the brightest objects in the universe.

If you fancy a deep dive into black holes (in general; a deep dive into an individual BH is not recommended) then A Short History of Black Holes by Dr Becky Smethurst is excellent. And then what might happen once the BH finishes collapsing read White Holes by Carlo Rovelli, which is a beautiful read.

Replies
1
Views
161
Replies
81
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
37
Views
3K