Keep trying. Maybe none of Us have thought of the right answer yet. Trial and error is like that. lolYeah, and that may have to be the answer. I just dont like it. I feel like there is a simple answer if i just try enough things.
Yeah, and that may have to be the answer. I just dont like it. I feel like there is a simple answer if i just try enough things.
That is a lot of dice rolls where no effect is the only result. Yet would make my game more tedious and time consuming having to take on the responsibility of occurrence checking. So I would much prefer referee intervention to determine the outcome as such occurrences are potential plot seeds or plot leads.so 1 in 1296 systems or 1 in 4 sectors) then roll 2d6
Yes, they are interesting. You've got the possibility of 8 different adventures. While I believe I understand what you are doing, and the results of probabilities can be fascinating, I still don't think probabilities are a means to an end as far as how exotic anomalies appear. Simply because for entertainment value, they need to be placed within detection of the players, not three, four or five sectors away. That doesn't strike me as being very worthwhile for the players. But maybe you or someone can teach me something else.Question though.. are the other results interesting enough to provide an interesting result if you DO roll those 4 6s?
This sounds to Me like something that is better handled by a computer program. I play a lot of Civ 5 on the computer. All of its "random" maps are procedurally generated, but the computer still knows what is there at game start. It doesn't generate new everytime you can see a new hex.The goal is specifically to create an exploration focused game, where the players have a ship designed for extended scouting, and a year+ mission - a la Star Trek.
You can absolutely place other species instead, but one of the ... biggest appeals? for me in Traveller is that almost everything CAN be procedurally generated, and so you can have a group without a 'standard' gamemaster where someone has to 'know' what is coming ahead of time. The goal is for the gamemaster to enjoy the exploration as much as the other players.
I'd done a similar style of thing, but without full rules. And we were doing say.. 50 systems per night? Something like that? 1 per 5 minutes sounds about right, although some had diplomatic repurcussions which would take a lot longer, and if there was a full adventure, that could be a whole evening on one system. And when we ended (somewhere around 800 systems), we felt that lack of concrete rules for other E.T. was a noticeable gap.
Yeah, but they are all separate. What you are talking about is a multi-sector polity designed from one system. Or am I mistaken?I mean, that's how dungeon crawlers are generated. Like the ancient tunnels in diablo 2, or the level with the hostage in castle of the winds. They generate from the start of the dungeon, and follow rules about what is generated next, and what monsters are generated in the discovered locations, but they have underlying rules about special locations and monsters that need to be generated at a later point in the dungeon which restrict what architecture can be generated so that the connections will make sense
The goal is specifically to create an exploration focused game, where the players have a ship designed for extended scouting, and a year+ mission - a la Star Trek.
Not sure what you are meaning between these two quoted replies. Yes, do something Star Trek or do something dungeon crawler if you like, but Star Trek is not a dungeon crawler. It is a TV programme or movie where some anomaly happens every week - even if that is implausibly against statistical odds. So, something between wanting a procedurally generated dungeon crawler or wanting highly romanticised science fiction, like Star Trek, something has to give. Or does it happen like that, in your view?I mean, that's how dungeon crawlers are generated.
He means procedural generation of the universe, as a dungeon crawler, but the overall theme of the campaign is a lot like Star Trek, with its 5-year exploration mission.Not sure what you are meaning between these two quoted replies. Yes, do something Star Trek or do something dungeon crawler if you like, but Star Trek is not a dungeon crawler. It is a TV programme or movie where some anomaly happens every week - even if that is implausibly against statistical odds. So, something between wanting a procedurally generated dungeon crawler or wanting highly romanticised science fiction, like Star Trek, something has to give. Or does it happen like that, in your view?
I would settle for that as a balanced game. However, between posts #127 and #135, there is indication that Star Trek-like anomalies are intending to be procedurally generated via 4d6 successes, which is equivalent to once in 4 subsectors. Ie, not as campaign hooks, but as random encounters.He means procedural generation of the universe, as a dungeon crawler, but the overall theme of the campaign is a lot like Star Trek, with its 5-year exploration mission.
That is how I read it too. He is not generating adventure hooks. He is generating stuff. Just think of it like he is writing the rules to run a Charted Space-like Solo Exploration Game. True, he is actually playing with others, but what heh is trying to do would be well-suited to a Solo Game as well. If you think of it as for a solo game, then you will have an easier time understanding the direction he is headed in.I would settle for that as a balanced game. However, between posts #127 and #135, there is indication that Star Trek-like anomalies are intending to be procedurally generated via 4d6 successes, which is equivalent to once in 4 subsectors. Ie, not as campaign hooks, but as random encounters.