World building new major races

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.

You could model your "ET" type as an anomaly. In the WHB, Anomalies can be Star generated, Planet or Locally generated. (WBH, page 16) A result of anomaly can be anything the Referee decides: hypothetical exotic stars (quark, strange, electroweak, dark matter, and so on), alien megastructures, wormholes, star gods and so forth.

Some "anomalies and wonders of Chartered Space are mythical, some real, and some not quite either" page 2 of Referees Briefing 2 Anomalies and Wonders. This source allows for previously unknown Alien races to have pre-existed before the dominant race inhabited the place.

Between the scope of RB2 and the WBH "anomaly placeholders", I think you could construct your ET lore and setting.
 
Star anomalies are listed in the far-right column of the Star Type Determination Table (WBH, page15). This column is labelled Peculiar. More about Peculiar star types is described on (WBH, page 16).

Also check out:
    • Unusual and Peculiar Object Luminosity (page 20).
    • True Anomaly (page 28, blue insert box).
    • Native sophonts ... (page 29)
    • Empty Orbits (page 48)
    • Anomalous Planets ('anomalous orbits', page 50 - 59)
    • Spectra anomalies (page 14, page 60)
    • Optional Anomalous Moons Procedure (page 77)
    • Large-scale features or anomalies (page 137)
    • Anomalies in local product availability ... (page 174)
    [*]
 
Last edited:
ok, so the suggstion i'm currently working with:

take some reasonable number of dice (maybe 6d6, or 8d6 - or even 4d6 if i can come up with enough interesting things). require all of them to be 6s. that shouldn't be enough by itself, but if i can make other interesting results every time this occurs, then we're no longer in the realm of absurd dice rolling, we're just in 'and now you do the silly check' and then what silliness ensues

kind of like the check for native life, where a 2 or a 12 results in current life, and a 3-11 results in a failed civilization


so.. what ideas can we get for things that could be interesting, but not full on 'met another E.T.' that are nevertheless very rare?

i like the anomalies idea (but per other thread, i don't own the WHB, so at the moment i'm stuck making up my own stuff for it)

we could probably do .. 'someone ran away from your own E.T. and this is where they live'
and
'generation ships were sent out from your E.T. a long (purposefully not defined) time ago, and this is where they live'
and
'some nearby sophont that isn't an E.T. has somehow ended up stranded here'

what other types of things should be this rare?
 
ok what about something like:
in every system, after rolling for native life and determining the presence of known E.T.s, then roll 4d6. If all 4 result in a 6 (so 1 in 1296 systems or 1 in 4 sectors) then roll 2d6:
Roll 2d6:
- 2: the 1/4 buried ruins of a pop 9 core world (but now pop 0) is on the most hospitable world in the system with no inhabitants capable of detecting spacegoers. roll TL as it if were a new E.T. but it is not associated to any E.T. still existing
- 3: centuries ago, a sub-light generation ship crashed here; place a pop 5 TL9 (choose an appropriate known E.T. or if none, roll a new species) world on the most habitable world in the system with no inhabitants capable of detecting spacegoers; they have no knowledge of where they come from
- 4: a derelict (it has suffered 95% hull damage and 9 critical hits) 100000 dton civilian space station thousands of years old is found. roll TL as if it were a new E.T. but it is not associated to any E.T. still existing
- 5: a derelict (it has suffered 95% hull damage and 9 critical hits) 1000 dton military ship thousands of years old is found. roll TL as if it were a new E.T., but it is not associated to any E.T. still existing
- 6: the 1/2 buried ruins of a pop 7 minor world (but now pop 0) is on the most hospitable world in the system. roll TL as it if were a new E.T. but it is not associated to any E.T. still existing
- 7: the 3/4 buried ruins of a pop 4 colony (but now pop 0) is on the most hospitable world in the system. roll TL as it if were a new E.T. but it is not associated to any E.T. still existing
- 8: a derelict (it has suffered 95% hull damage and 9 critical hits) 10000 dton civilian freighter thousands of years old is found. roll TL as if it were a new E.T. but it is not associated to any E.T. still existing
- 9-12: If the system is within 1 parsec of the homeworld of an E.T. (including yours), then there is a pop 1 (TL 1 higher than the E.T. homeworld) world in the system from that E.T but they fled in an experimental ship without knowledge or permission of that E.T
-- If the system is not withing 1 parsec of an E.T. homeworld, then the system is in the explored region of another E.T. (choose an appropriate species from a crashed generation ship elsewhere or roll a new E.T. species, and roll for inhabited world per E.T. generation)
 
Last edited:
so 1 in 1296 systems or 1 in 4 sectors) then roll 2d6
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.

Think of anomalies as being like garnish for a meal at a restaurant. A good cook knows how to prepare the ingredients and knows the science of cook times as well as taste. Yet, when it comes to arranging a garnish, this is pure intuitive aesthetic as to what looks right, and where it occurs.

So think of anomalies as being like a cooks garnish rather than 'number crunched' dice/die rolls. The players need to find, and be attracted to, the anomalies, otherwise the campaigns turn plain boring. So plant the anomalies where they can be found, rather than four sectors away because some 'average' determined that to be the outcome.

You still can use descriptive narrative, to describe the random uniqueness of the unfolding plot because I don't deny that 'randomness' is a compelling gaming theme.
 
eh, the idea is that its once per system, you roll 4d6. if they don't all roll 6s, nothing happens. if they do all roll 6s, something interesting happens (not always an E.T.)

is rolling one set of 4 dice too much per system, when you consider how many other dice you have to roll? this is meant to be kind of a grand finale 'you've done all the standard stuff, rolled worlds, done lots of math.. now.. roll a handful of dice for probably no reason, just so you can roll dice!'

I admit its not for everyone, so I'll put it in as optional IF you want to randomly find E.T.s


Question though.. are the other results interesting enough to provide an interesting result if you DO roll those 4 6s?
 
Question though.. are the other results interesting enough to provide an interesting result if you DO roll those 4 6s?
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.

Your problem seems to be that you want to determine what a human being looks like, from only seeing a severed toe. I am aware of no way to make that happen.
 
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
 
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
Yeah, but they are all separate. What you are talking about is a multi-sector polity designed from one system. Or am I mistaken?
 
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.
I mean, that's how dungeon crawlers are generated.
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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.

At least, that has been My mindset on it so far, and I have tried to be helpful. I haven't always succeeded at helping or understanding, but We can only try...lol...
 
Back
Top