Worldbuilding 3.2 comments

[EDG]

I'll break this down by section and page number shown at the bottom of the page in the Playtest draft (1-17). This does need some work (some parts are incomplete or broken). It's also clearly too heavily based on CT book 3, and ignores many of the developments of the worldgen system made in Traveller since then.


pg 2. World Design: Please change the name of the planet profiles to Universal World Profile (UWP). Yes, I know it's technically correct in CT terms to call it a "Universal Planetary Profile" but that can get easily confused with Universal Personality Profile (which is what the character profile is called in CT) since both are shortened to UPP. In fact this is presumably why it was renamed to "Universal World Profile" in Megatraveller and later products, so sticking to the outdated CT definition seems counterproductive to me.


pg 3. Reading World Profiles: This explanation is going to confuse people, because that's not a typical world profile. What you want to show is something like this:

Cogri     0101   CA6A643-9 N  Ri Wa      A 413 Im  G2 V

The first component is the name.
The second component (four digit number) is the hex location (column and row)
The string of digits following that denote, in order: 
•  Starport quality 
•  Size 
•  Atmosphere Type 
•  Hydrographic percentage 
•  Population 
•  Government Type 
•  Law Level 
•  (hyphen)
•  Tech Level

The next component marks any bases present on the world – examples include N for Naval Base, S for Scout Base.   

This is followed by any Trade Codes for the planet. 

The travel zone for the system is next - A = Amber Zone, R = Red Zone. If no code is given then the world is either unclassified or a Green Zone.

The three digit PBG number follows next. The first digit is the population multiplier (between 1 and 9) - multiply this by the world population UWP digit to get the exact population of the planet. The second digit is the number of asteroid belts in the system. The third is the number of gas giants in the system.

Then there is a two letter allegiance code showing the polity that the world is aligned with ("Na" is "non-aligned", "Im" is Imperial, etc).

Finally, the stars present in the system are shown.

(EDIT: Added allegiance code, which I forgot! Thanks, Deniable)

That accurately explains what an actual UWP that shows all the features looks like. As it stands, the description omits the zones, and claims that asteroid belts or gas giants are indicated by "A" or "G" which has never been the case as far as I'm aware.


pg 3. Size: The size table is wrong. The size UWP digit shows the diameter of the world in miles - to translate that into a diameter in kilometres you have to multiply the size UWP by 1600. It seems that the values in the table in the book is largely arbitrary, and not remotely compatible with past versions of the game.

Also, I think size S (Small World) should be included in the table, to account for smaller bodies like moons.

A corrected table is shown below. The gravities assume a typical composition (and therefore density) for a body of that size, so they are much more accurate and realistic, and you don't have Mars' gravity looking weird like in the original table. Also, since you now don't have the obvious link between UWP digit and diameter (i.e. that 1 is 1000 miles, 2 is 2000 miles tec), I think it might actually be worth dropping diameter altogether and just listing the world radius (makes it easier to calculate stuff later on if you need to, since radius is used for gravity calculations etc).

Digit  Diameter/km    Radius/km    Gravity/g       Example
0/S    < 800 km       < 400 km     Negligible      Mimas, Asteroids
1      1,600 km         800 km        0.05         Triton
2      3,200 km       1,600 km        0.15         Luna, Europa
3      4,800 km       2,400 km        0.25         Mercury, Ganymede
4      6,400 km       3,200 km        0.35         Mars
5      8,000 km       4,000 km        0.45         
6      9,600 km       4,800 km        0.70         
7     11,200 km       5,600 km        0.90         Venus
8     12,800 km       6,400 km        1.00         Earth
9     14,400 km       7,200 km        1.25         
A     16,000 km       8,000 km        1.40

 

[EDG]

Pg 4. Atmospheres: I'm not comfy with "Under most circumstances, a planet cannot have an atmosphere score greater than twice its size" - it's way too simplistic, and while it may kinda be true for worlds in the habitable zone, it's not true for worlds anywhere else (A small size 3 planet could easily have an exotic atmosphere (10/A), which is more than twice its size code).

The atm table is incomplete and contains some errors:

Mars today does not have a Very Thin atmosphere - it has a Trace atmosphere (average atmospheric pressure is 0.007 atms). I think it was listed as atm 3 in scouts because it was supposedly partially terraformed at some point, but if you're going to use a real planet as a reference then it seems daft to refer its fictional atmosphere that it doesn't have yet in this table .

I always thought Venus got off too lightly with its atmosphere classification. It really should be Insidious (C), not Corrosive (B) - we're at TL 8 or 9 right now in material science terms and we still can't come up with suits that can withstand the conditions there (oven-hot temperature, 90 atm pressure, acidic atmosphere...). I would therefore propose upgrading Venus to a C, because it's a lot closer to what such a world would be like (you honestly can't really get much worse than Venus...).

Most importantly, you've omitted the higher values of the table. These values are not optional - I don't care that they showed up in book 6, the fact is that you're rolling 2d-7+size to generate the numbers here, and the highest values you can roll for size 8, 9 and A are 13 (D), 14 (E), and 15 (F) respectively. You must include these values in the table or people won't know what to do with them (and they sure don't default to Insidious atmospheres).

This leads to the question of what to do with the E ("ellipsoidal") atmospheres, which are silly and nonsensical (atmospheres just don't work like that). It's somewhat awkward because canonically speaking D is "Dense High", and F is "Thin, Low" and there are numerous canonical examples of those, but only a handful of Ellispoidal worlds have been mentioned (Easter being the archetypal one, in the Solomani Rim).

My ideal solution would be to keep D as "Dense, High", move "Thin, Low" to the E slot to replace Ellipsoidal, and change F to "Panthalassic".

Dense, High (D): These worlds have thick N2/O2 atmospheres, but their mean surface pressure is too high to support unprotected human life (high pressure nitrogen and oxygen are deadly to humans). However, pressure naturally decreases with increasing altitude, so if there are highlands at the right altitude the pressure may drop enough to support human life. Alternatively, there may not be any topography high enough for humans to inhabit, necessitating floating gravitic or dirigible habitats or sealed habitats on the surface.

Thin, Low (E): The opposite of the Dense, High atmosphere, these massive worlds have thin N2/O2 atmospheres that settle in the lowlands and depressions and are only breathable there - the pressure drops off so rapidly with altitude that the highest topographic points of the surface may be close to vacuum.

Panthalassic (F): Panthalassic worlds are a theoretical class of massive volatile-rich world, represented by a massive earth-sized rocky planet surrounded by a water layer that is hundreds of kilometres thick (so thick that the water changes to high pressure ices below a few dozen kilometres). The atmosphere is thick and steamy and often contains oxygen simply because the light from the star breaks down the water vapour in the atmosphere into its component atoms (the hydrogen escapes into space), though the oceans may have exotic forms of life in them producing the O2 as well. Either way they're not as habitable as one might think, but they're a very exotic environment. Obviously by their nature Panthalassic worlds would (without exception) automatically have hydrographics of A.

0       None                Moon          0.00        Vacc Suit 
1       Trace               Mars     0.001 to 0.09    Vacc Suit 
2       Very Thin, Tainted             0.1 to 0.42    Respirator, Filter 
3       Very Thin                      0.1 to 0.42    Respirator 
4       Thin, Tainted                 0.43 to 0.7     Filter 
5       Thin                          0.43 to 0.7     
6       Standard            Earth     0.71 to 1.49    
7       Standard, Tainted             0.71 to 1.49    Filter 
8       Dense                         1.50 to 2.49    
9       Dense, tainted                1.50 to 2.49    Filter 
10 (A)  Exotic              Titan     0.1  to 100     Air Supply and/or Vacc Suit 
11 (B)  Corrosive                     0.1  to 100     Vacc Suit 
12 (C)  Insidious           Venus       up to 1000    Vacc Suit 
13 (D)  Dense, High                    2.5 to 100     Vacc Suit in lowlands
14 (E)  Thin, Low                      0.0 to 0.7     Vacc Suit in highlands
15 (F)  Panthalassic                   1.5 to 100s    Air Supply and/or Vacc Suit

The only problem is that this would change the nature of the F atmospheres in canon (that said, the rest of what I say here generally throws canon out of the window anyway!). You could change E to Panthalassic and keep F as Thin, Low but that means you can get size 9 Panthalassics. I guess that's not a real problem though, they'd be a little on the small side but basically would be really extreme water worlds. That would be a workable solution.


EDIT: Oh, and also: Assuming we're talking about worlds in the habitable zone here (see my Temperature post below), size 2- worlds always have atm 0 - don't even roll for them. The only time they can have atmospheres is if they're in the Outer Zone, and even then it's always 1 or A - but let's not get into other Zones because that will really complicate things.

While size 3-4 worlds can retain exotic (CO2) atmospheres, they can't have breathable atmospheres (they can't hold onto oxygen or water vapour), and so should roll 1d6 on this table:

1d   Atm code

0-2: 0
3-4: 1
5-7: A

DM-1 if size 3 in the Habitable zone
DM+1 if size 4 in the Habitable zone

Size 5+ worlds can have a full range of atmospheres, and roll 2d-7+size as normal.

This gives you realistic results without requiring crazy tiny superdense cannonballs to explain your size 1 rockballs with breathable atmospheres. Trust me, the corrections I'm proposing here are accurate, realistic, and correct - I have crunched the numbers for worlds of all sizes with realistic densities in the Habitable zone and this is what came out. If these are implemented then it instantly hacks out the major physical realism problem that has afflicted mainworld UWPs in one fell swoop.

 

[EDG]

(EDIT: I should point out that the temperature table in the 3.2 rules is unusable since there is no way to determine what the world's orbit is, so we don't know what DMs to apply to the roll!)

Pg 5 - World Temperature: This is a world of complication I think (though I note it's box text), because you're talking about orbital zones (Inner, Habitable, etc) and so far haven't mentioned how to place worlds in zones. At this stage, I'd suggest not doing this - just assume the main world is always in the habitable zone, it's easier.

If a world is closer than the inner edge of the habitable zone, it's automatically Roasting. If a world is further than the outer edge of the habitable zone, it's automatically Frozen. In most cases, there is no need to roll for either of these, there's no way around it.

The sole exceptions are D (Dense High) and F (Panthalassic) worlds, which have atmospheres that are so thick that they may actually be Temperate in the Middle Zone (the zone that Mars occupies, between the outer edge of the Habitable zone and the inner edge of the Outer zone). But that's it.

For any other world in the Habitable Zone, I'd say just roll 2d6 on a table like this. Thinner atmospheres can't retain heat very well, and thicker atmospheres will trap heat - really thick atmospheres and ones that are rich in greenhouse gases will roast the surface - so throw some DMs in there:

2d6  Temperature

2-   Frozen
3    Cold
4    Cold
5    Temperate
6    Temperate
7    Temperate
8    Temperate
9    Temperate
10   Hot
11   Hot
12+  Roasting

DM -2 if atm 2 or 3.
DM -1 if atm 4 or 5 or E (Thin Low). 
DM +1 if atm 8 or 9. 
DM +2 if atm A or D or F (Panthalassic). 
DM +6 if atm B or C (runaway greenhouse effect). 

If atm 0 or 1, roll 2d6 without DMs to determine average temperature, but temperature swings from Roasting during the day to Frozen during the night.

(Cold = Icy, Roasting = Boiling)

That'll tell you whether it's at the inner edge (Hot/Roasting) or outer edge (Cold/Frozen) of the habitable zone, or in an Ice Age (Frozen), or a nice Goldilocks world (Temperate).

And just leave it at that. Any other worlds in the system are either Frozen or Roasting.

 

[EDG]

pg 5/6: Hydrology

For starters, it's not "Hydrology", it's "Hydrographics". Hydrology is the study of water on a planetary scale, Hydrographics is "those parts of a map, collectively, that represent surface waters." - so hydrographics is more appropriate. Plus, it's always been called Hydrographics in Traveller .

This section needs a bit more info.

First, if you're generating the World Temperature then that needs to have an effect on the Hydrographics roll. You're unlikely to have a Boiling world with water all over it, for example (not impossible, but it'll be a steamy hothouse world and not very habitable).

If you want to get right technical with it, the atmospheric pressure should limit the hydrographics too (this has always been ignored in Traveller, but it's actually really obvious if you think about it). Water boils at lower temperatures at low pressures (so much so that the only way to boil food in high altitude places like Nepal is in sealed pressure cookers), so if you have for example a hot world with an average temperature of 50°C and a very thin (0.2 pressure) atmosphere, then your water is pretty damn close to boiling (it boils at a temperature of 59° there) - so it's not actually likely that it'd even have that much water on the surface to start with because over billions of years it would have slowly evaporated away while it's bubbling like crazy.

Another point is that A/B/C atmospheres are the only ones that can have liquid that is not water on their surfaces, but this is not always the case. You can say it's generally true for B and C atmospheres, but worlds with type A atmospheres in the habitable zone can and do have water on them. We know this for a fact, because we know that for the first couple of billion years of Earth's history it was covered with water oceans but didn't have any oxygen in the atmosphere (so would be classed as Exotic (A) here).

Also you need to note that atm 0 and 1 worlds will have ice rather than water on their surface if they have hydrographics. Though if we're assuming that all the worlds generated here are in the habitable zone then it's unlikely because the water would be boiled off and eventually lost to space (or continually boiled off and redeposited on the night side - but there's unlikely to be a lot of it either way).

Finally, not only can small worlds (size 5-) not hold onto a breathable atmosphere, they also can't hold onto liquid water (H2O is a lighter molecule than O2). Ice is a different matter, since that's in solid form and can be stable if the temperature allows it to be. But liquid water in an exotic atmosphere on a size 3 or 4 world would evaporate away into space, so they'd be dry (they might have icecaps at the poles though if the temperatures were always below freezing there). Size 2- worlds (and size 3 and 4 worlds that have atm 0 or 1) already have a penalty for having atm 0 and so don't need to be punished even more.

So we need more DMs here, clearly. I'd define them like this:

DM-6 for size 3 or 4 and atm A.
DM-6 for atm 0 or 1. 
DM-4 for atm 2 or 3.
DM-4 for atm B or C.
DM-2 if Hot temperature.
DM-6 if Boiling temperature.
Hyd = A for atm F (Panthalassic).

That's just off the top of my head, but you get the idea. Hot worlds should have less water. Worlds with very thin atmospheres should have less water. Worlds with no atmospheres in the habitable zone should hardly have any.

 

[EDG]

(running out of time here, so I'm going to rush through this bit)

pg 6. Population: How do you get populations of B and C, do you just put them in deliberately? (I do like that only homeworlds or really old colonies can have pops that high!).

I'd still say that you need some DMs based on the world's environment.

e.g.

DM -1 if size 3-. (due to low gravity)
DM -1 if size A.  (due to high gravity)

DM -2 for atm 0-3, A, F
DM -1 for atm 4, 7, 9, D, E 
DM +2 for atm 5, 6 ,8 
DM -4 for atm B
DM -6 for atm C

That puts more people on the nicer worlds and less on the horribly hellish ones. It means you can a maximum of hundreds of millions on the vacuum and exotic worlds, or billions on the tainted habitable worlds, or trillions on the garden worlds, or millions on the Corrosive worlds, or tens of thousands on the Insidious hellholes. Makes a lot more sense to me, while also keeping some populations on the wacky planets.


pg 7. Government: I see gov 5's stumped people for examples again... . TEDs (Technologically Elevated Dictators) from TNE are an extreme example of these - they and their goons rule the populace because they've got all the high-tech stuff and the populace are kept in the stone ages. Weird thought: Isn't a starship crew basically a Feudal Technocracy? Everyone has their technical skills after all, but all bow down to the Captain...

Again though, you're missing the high end of the table because it's not in book 3. The highest gov you can roll (traditionally) if you have pop 9 is E (14), and F (15) if you have pop A. Now that you have pop B and C, you need to make more government types to cover government rolls of G (16) and H (17).

E: Religious Autocracy
F: Totalitarian Oligarchy
G: ?
H: ?

However, the government codes are still biased in that it assumes that higher population worlds are going to end up with dictatorial/oligarchic governments. There isn't really an easy fix for these though, unless you just roll 3D-3 for all populations and take what you get (I think Rikki Tikki Traveller suggested that, and I kinda like it). You could also add a further DM-3 for pop of 3 or less to the 3d-3 roll, to push the low pop worlds away from the more extreme governments. Plus if you did 3d-3 you wouldn't need to figure out a G or H gov .

I like the Rival faction stuff, and the Cultural Differences table - though you need to tell us how to roll up the Cultural Differences, it looks like it's 1d as the tens and 1d as the digits?


pg 10 - Law Level. Again, you need to tell us what restrictions apply when we roll a result of 10+ on the 2d-7+gov roll. Now that we have governments going up to H we need to have a law table that covers up to results of N (22), or at least some kind of guidance there. Megatraveller had a good measure of increasing oppression from A to L, but it was jarringly different to the old "define law by weapon possession" system from 0-9.

I do like the way the table shows restrictions on things that aren't weapons though. It's good as far as it goes, though I would suggest spreading it out so that all the options aren't crammed in from 0-9.

The other Law stuff (sentencing etc) looks good too, haven't time to test it out in detail now though.


pg 13. Starports. Unless you're changing things here, the starport table is slightly inaccurate for the OTU - type E starports do not carry unrefined fuel at all according to CT book 6.

It's nice that you have pop-based DMs there, but they could be stronger IMO. I can't see a pop 2 planet having a type A starport for example - I'd say the DM should be -4 for pop 3 or less (max of C).


pg 14. Tech Level. The table needs to go up to F. It's mostly the same as the one in Book 6, but I'd suggest a couple of extra DMs too that I always felt were missing.

Additional DMs:
DM +2 if size S. 
DM +1 if atm F (missing from table)
DM +1 for gov 5 (missing from table - shouldn't be a DM for gov 4)
DM +1 if hydro 0 (it'd be hard to live on a bone dry planet). 
DM +2 if gov 7 (balkanised worlds tend to conflict more, and war drives technological advances). Keep the DM+1 for gov 0, because of low level conflicts. 
DM -2 if gov E (a religious autocracy shouldn't be any less anti-technological than a religious dictatorship...)

You should also have minimum TLs for planets too based on their environment - if the TL is lower than that, then people can't survive there so you'd need to either turn it into an uninhabited world or bump up the TL to the minimum required to survive.

While traditionally it's been limited to the TL at which respirators and filters etc first appear, I tend to assume that they become perfected and mass-produced enough to sustain colonies at one TL higher than the level at which they are introduced.

Minimum Atm Tech Level

Atm     Min TL
0/1/F    8 
2/3      6
4/7/9    4 
A        8
B        9 
C        A

So if the TL is lower than that, increase it to this minimum. That way we don't get the stupid TL 5 worlds trying to live on Insidious hellholes... (yeah yeah, I've heard the arguments about how this sort of thing is a wacky outlier and how cool it is. But that's just TOO wacky - it's like suggesting that the ancient Romans could build colonies on the sea floor, it just can't happen).



....and I'm done (for now). That's most of my comments and complaints about the things I care most about... I'll look at the other worldbuilding stuff over the weekend!

 

[AKAramis]

One nitpick from the atmospheres: Mars also is not a breathable atmosphere... even if you dense it up, a CO2 atmosphere is toxic to humans.

pretty much agree with the above by EDG.

 

[EDG]

One nitpick from the atmospheres: Mars also is not a breathable atmosphere... even if you dense it up, a CO2 atmosphere is toxic to humans.

Yeah, that's why I assumed that it got the 3 code because it had been terraformed a bit (because 3s need oxygen to count as such) - dunno if it ever got officially explained as such though. But otherwise, today it's definitely a 1.

pretty much agree with the above by EDG.

Thanks!

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Ditto for me and EDG's comments.

UPP vs UWP
Definitely use UWP, not UPP, for reasons as cited by EDG.

Minor Issue 1
Some versions of Traveller use a "-" to tack on the TL of the world to the UWP, others don't. Thoughts? Personally I prefer the "-", as I think

Mongoose A867978-8

*looks better* than

Mongoose A867978 8

although I admit both have been used in canon publications. Thoughts on this?

Minor Issue 2
Trade Classifications & Remarks are often, although not always, abbreviated to the code used on the trade tables, i.e. Ri for Rich, Na for Non-agricultural, Va for Vacuum, in alpha-order. .sec files use this format. Thoughts on using whole words or abbreviations?

"G", "A", "PBG"
The use of "G" to indicate a GG is shown in the Solomani Rim (CT Supplement 10) book. The use of "A" to indicate an asteroid belt in-system is *mentioned* in one of the GDW books, but I don't remember which. Anyway, it's irrelevant as the PBG element of the UWP superceded it.

 

[Deniable]

OK, let's have a crack at a better version of the 'Reading World Profiles' box. I'll use a line out of a .SEC file, but they look like what I've seen in most Traveller products:

Reading World Profiles
Older Traveller products and websites may describe planets using a single line of hexadecimal (find a better name, it's not hex) code, such as:

Cogri         2419 CA6A643-9    N   Ni Ri Wa           432 Im M1 II

(I added the naval base to help the example. I might have to add an amber zone as well.)

The first component is the name of the world.
The second component is the world’s hex location in the subsector or sector hex map.
The string of digits following that denote, in order:

• Starport quality
• Size
• Atmosphere Type
• Hydrographic percentage
• Population
• Government Type
• Law Level
• A '-' in this position is a separator.
• Technology Level

The next component marks any bases present on the world – N for Naval, S for Scout.
This is followed by any Trade Codes for the planet. These are usually written as a two letter abbreviation.

This is followed by a code for travel zones, R for a red zone and A for an amber zone.

The following three digits denote in order:

• Population multiplier.
• The number of asteroid belts in the system.
• The number of gas giants in the system.

This is followed by a two letter code for the owner of the system. 'Im' indicates the Third Imperium.

Any further text is data on the system's star or stars.
[[[ End box ]]]

 

[EDG]

Dammit, I knew I forgot something - the allegiance code!
I've added it now to my UWP block in the first post, thanks.

 

[Deniable]

And I missed that you'd already written my whole post. D'oh

 

[EDG]

pg 17. Trade Codes

CORRECTIONS: "IC", "PO" and "NI" should be "Ic, "Po" and "Ni" (second letter is always lower case). Industrial (In) should be atm 7 OR 9, not 7 TO 9. Water World (Wa) should be hyd 10 (A), not atm 10+.


NEW CODES: It's nice to see some new codes in there (Lt, Ht, Ga). Garden seems redundant though, since it's basically the same as Ag (especially if you use my suggestion that only size 5+ worlds have breathable atms (4-9) anyway).

I'd also propose a new code:

Op (Oppressive): Law level A+.

Oppressive worlds are generally Amber Zones. If the Law Level is F+, then the world is always at least Amber Zone, and usually is a Red Zone.

EXISTING CODES: These could do with a bit of tweaking. I realise these may be regarded as inviolate, but hear me out here .

Fl (Fluid Oceans): As mentioned above, not all type A atmospheres have non-water oceans, and all the type A atmospheres in the habitable zone that have hydrographics will definitely have water (it's the only liquid that is stable at habitable temperatures). Given that we're assuming the world is in the habitable zone here, I think Fl should be changed to Atm B and C only and hyd 1+.

In (Industrial): This always struck me as stupid. So we have Very Thin and Tainted atmospheres as being industrial worlds, but they also need populations in the billions? Why? Why not have vacuum and trace atmospheres as industrial (since you're not going to care about polluting them). Why are atmospheres being polluted by industry in the first place, that'd only happen with low-tech polluting technologies. Why do you need billions of people to be an industrial society? It seems a completely arbitrary definition to me, and very limiting.

I'd set the atmospheres as "all the tainted and non-breathable ones". So that's atm 0-3, 4, 7, 9, A-C. I'd also lower the population down to say 8 or maybe even 7 - tens or hundreds of millions of people should be more than enough to justify an industrial base. If you set it at pop 7 then that also means that any world with pop 6 or less is by implication non-industrial, which fits the definition of Ni. It also means that Industrial worlds aren't so darned rare...

Low Pop (Lo): Low population worlds are pop 1-3, not 0-3. Or at least, they can be pop 0 as long as there's a population multiplier of 1+. Otherwise Barren worlds (with no people on them) will count as Low Population worlds, which isn't how it works.

Na (Non-Agricultural): As it stands it's fine, but it looks like it would overlap a lot more often with my new definition of In above. But that's OK - it's fine to have an industrial world that is also non-agricultural, what we want to avoid is one that is agricultural and non-agricultural or industrial and non-industrial at the same time. So I think this works out OK. The only tweak I'd make is to include atm A-C in the definition, since obviously those atmospheres cause the same problems as the other unbreathable ones from 0-3.

Ni (Non-Industrial): Ni needs to be pop 1-6, not 0-6. Otherwise technically Barren worlds with no people on them are Non-Industrial.

Ri (Rich) and Po (Poor): These have long been bugbears of mine, mostly because they should be opposites but instead we have Ri defined in social terms and Po defined without them. If we are talking solely about natural resources, then the definition should be entirely physical. If we are talking about social/cultural resources then the definition should be entirely social. If we are talking about a mix of both then the definition should be mixed - and as it stands one is a mix and the other is entirely physical.

In terms of natural resources, large worlds tend to have more volcanic activity and plate tectonics, and therefore mineral resources are more abundant. Small worlds aren't that active, and tend to have less mineral resources. Asteroid belts would also tend to have lots of mineral resources (metal asteroids etc).

If a world has a biosphere (i.e. breathable atmosphere) then that opens up a massive natural resource because you can get biological products and chemicals and pharmaceuticals etc. Worlds without this obviously won't have access to that sort of thing, though one could argue that the right kind of exotic atmosphere (e.g. Titan) could have large hydrocarbon resources to draw from.

If a world has high population and/or long history then there'd be a lot of social and cultural resources (art, poetry, literature, multimedia etc). Low pop worlds or new colonies won't have this. I'm not sure government type is really an issue - for example, Soviet Russia was an oppressive government but I would argue that the artistic paraphanalia that it produced (propaganda posters, statues, communist trinkets) were culturally valuable.

So, large size (7+) + breathable atmosphere (4-9) + high pop (8+) = large amounts of all resource types and therefore could be called "Rich".

Small size (1-4) + unbreathable atmosphere (0-3, A-C) + low pop (5-) = little usable resources of any kind, and therefore "Poor".

I think that makes a lot more sense for the Ri and Po definitions.


So here's a summary of the proposals/changes here:

Fl (Fluid Oceans): Atm B or C, Hyd 1+.
In (Industrial): Atm 0-3, 4, 7, 9, A-C.  Pop 7+.
Lo (Low Population): Pop 1-3.
Na (Non-Agricultural): Atm 0-3, A-C. Pop 6+.
Ni (Non-Industrial): Pop 1-6.
Ri (Rich): Siz 7+, atm 4-9, pop 8+
Po (Poor): Siz 1-4, atm 0-3, A-C. pop 5-.
Op (Oppressive): Law A+.
Wa (Water World): Hyd A.

 

[AKAramis]

Note that, as written, most of us would consider LL5+ oppressive, as it includes suppression of information regularly.

The whole information line seems pretty badly skewed from prior editions... while I like having that kind of info, that spread should be running 0-18, not 0-9. Same for travel. Otherwise, you have just preculded both Firefly/Serentity and the OTU, as well as Star Wars, and even, to a great extent, Sten, the Vorkosiverse, and several others. Of these, the OTU is the only truly important one, but the others are all common inspirations.

And the tech level restrictions are absurd as written. They preclude the same settings as well, and preclude even modern earth. Some of the most repressive states have been technology leaders for their era. (Some times by brute force and ignorance, as in the soviets... or espionage and mimicry ala China).

 

[captainjack23]

Note that, as written, most of us would consider LL5+ oppressive, as it includes suppression of information regularly.

I do agree that the info and tech limits as written are too draconian.

-but see below, 5 is the lowest likely LL) The table needs stretching, I think; as it is it's not all that hard to get a LL=9 result, which will skew the overall common law level upwards quite a bit It's worth noting that LL5 will be the minimum average LL . (assuming GT 5 is the average GT, with the cap of LL9). - and given the information and tech limits makes things like the Xboat network somewhat of an anomaly as described.

And I'm not even sure that I fully undersatand the intent of the TL restrictions. restricted Imports ? protective Taxes and/or tariffs ? Highly monitored and controlled ?

I'm thinking that the TL limits should be perhaps restated as the max tech above the planets tech, rather than a straight TL limit - so, LL 5 may limit advanced tech to local TL +2, and TL 9 may interdict competing (different) technology at lower levels, perhaps.

So lets see: USA: Pop 8, TL 7/8, GT= 4,6 or 9 depending on who you believe, Trade codes for the obsessive = Ag, Ga, Ri
(okay, just to get it out of the way, cultural quirks, pick from 21(bathrooms and hygene), 63,35,36,12,66 (internet) not completely flattering, but hey, I live here)

LL = 5, really, arms maybe 4 (but, try and pack heat in urban centers & busness buildings) assuming anagathics = fly by night nostrums and dangerous experimental treatments; drugs and entry rules seem about right...information ? There are lots of speech issues,yes, but not one level above "severely curtailed" , nor the free press limited to one level below "none". The computer stuff is hard to know but seems very off target.

Hmmmm.

 

[captainjack23]

A few counter-quibbles, mostly based upon a different view of what trade codes are. They aren't census, astronmical or sociological codes for a world; they are indicators of what specific kind of trade sets will work there.
It's a trade category, a description of what may sell well or be bought cheap, NOT a world description for a census. Think of Hobo marks and codes.

Generally, also, Non codes indicate a demand, regular codes indicate demand and supply. They do not neccessarily indicate opposites.

pg 17. Trade Codes



EXISTING CODES: These could do with a bit of tweaking. I realise these may be regarded as inviolate, but hear me out here .

Fl (Fluid Oceans): As mentioned above, not all type A atmospheres have non-water oceans, a<snip.

They'll still be polluted - with the exotic components of the atmosphere. Perhaps simply changing the definition to "..the surface liquid is other than water or highly tainted water, and .."

Brings it into line with the atmospheric rating paradigm which seems to be "can humans use this, and if not, note it and bugger the details ".

Or, "you can sell Evian there"

In (Industrial): This always struck me as stupid. So we have Very Thin and Tainted atmospheres as being industrial worlds, but they also need populations in the billions? Why? <snip> It seems a completely arbitrary definition to me, and very limiting. <snip>
It also means that Industrial worlds aren't so darned rare...

I've always seen the In trade value as being a hive type world and/or gedi prime. An extreme, assuming that any world with over a small population and tech of 5+ will be industrial as we see it. An In world is a specific trade target.

So: bring breathing masks, water purifiers, indestructible clothing, space enhancing luxuries, etc. Possibly also birth control devices. One could also actually manage to sell that huge load of .327 whitworth-hex non-ferrous lock bolts you got stuck with by the hivers....as a job lot.

Plan to be paid in socket wrenches, which will be very, very cheap.
,
Actually, this is an example of how In and NonIn can work together....if a planet is frantically producing (say for a war (WWII) or export (China) or tribute (Weimar) ) , the public may well have no access to the output, and have a demand for rationed/limited stuff....which can be....satisfied, for a price. <rubs hands together,smiles>

Low Pop (Lo): Low population worlds are pop 1-3, not 0-3. Or at least, they can be pop 0 as long as there's a population multiplier of 1+. <snip>which isn't how it works.

But... a world with 9 people is low population, no ? a world without a population is useless for trade,true, but only occurs ~10% of the time with a 0 code (assuming a linear multiplier) , and about as viable for resource exploitation as one with a few hundred. Whatever the trade kit is for low pop worlds is, its likely to be VERY popular on code 0 worlds (see: "Mudds Women" in STOS)

Na (Non-Agricultural): <snip>what we want to avoid is one that is agricultural and non-agricultural or industrial and non-industrial at the same time. <snip>.

"customers to whom normal boring solomani mass market food is exotic"

Also, quite a few countries export their best ag produce, such as coffee, and citizens have to import it agian if they dont want the crap. This would qualify for an Ag (growing and exporting) and Non-ag (demand for import)

Ni (Non-Industrial): Ni needs to be pop 1-6, not 0-6. Otherwise technically Barren worlds with no people on them are Non-Industrial.

Again, as above for low pop worlds.

Ri (Rich) and Po (Poor): These have long been bugbears of mine, mostly because they should be opposites <snip>

I think that makes a lot more sense for the Ri and Po definitions.

Not neccessarily from a trade viewpoint. Rich worlds and Poor worlds may both need or provide basic resources, and have similar prices (oil prices: consider Nigeria and the USA both as oil producers, one Ri, one NOT) and while both are a good market for entertainment (say) or medical goods (even better)- the difference is, you can sell expensive entertainment for the ri world, and inexpensive entertainment for the poor world. Sophisiticated specialized medical gear at the ri worlds , and...well, needles and sanitary masks, at the Po world.

So here's a summary of the proposals/changes here:

.
Op (Oppressive): Law A+.
Wa (Water World): Hyd A.

Okay, those two work. I especially like adding "oppressive"
This says "watch your butt trading here, but there'll be a heck of a black market, most likely"

 

[EDG]

A few counter-quibbles, mostly based upon a different view of what trade codes are. They aren't census, astronmical or sociological codes for a world; they are indicators of what specific kind of trade sets will work there.

Sure, but they're still based on real physical or social characteristics of the planet. They're not arbitrary.

They'll still be polluted - with the exotic components of the atmosphere. Perhaps simply changing the definition to "..the surface liquid is other than water or highly tainted water, and .."

Not necessarily. Early Earth had liquid water oceans under an N2 and CO2 atmosphere - that was it, the water wouldn't have been polluted by any exotic components.

I think it's more likely to be highly contaminated by things like acids and so on under B or C atmospheres than A.

I've always seen the In trade value as being a hive type world and/or gedi prime. An extreme, assuming that any world with over a small population and tech of 5+ will be industrial as we see it. An In world is a specific trade target.

Maybe, but I've never seen that as a Traveller trope really. Industrial worlds (i.e. worlds that produce that kind of things) shouldn't necessarily have to be BladeRunner-esque polluted, overcrowded urban nightmares.

But... a world with 9 people is low population, no ? a world without a population is useless for trade,true, but only occurs ~10% of the time with a 0 code (assuming a linear multiplier) , and about as viable for resource exploitation as one with a few hundred. Whatever the trade kit is for low pop worlds is, its likely to be VERY popular on code 0 worlds (see: "Mudds Women" in STOS)

Which is why I put in the get-out clause of "or pop 0 with population multiplier of 1+". The problem is that the current system doesn't generate population multipliers, and if it's not going to then it's much easier to just assume that the world is completely uninhabited and ignore the 1-9 people that would have otherwise been there.

Also, quite a few countries export their best ag produce, such as coffee, and citizens have to import it agian if they dont want the crap. This would qualify for an Ag (growing and exporting) and Non-ag (demand for import)

Well that's probably what would happen in reality anyway, you can't really just whitewash a world with a single trade category - realistically a world that is Ag could also be industrial and non-agricultural as well. This is what you get with such an abstracted system though.

Again, as above for low pop worlds.

And again, if you have population multipliers then that's a way to get around the 0 pop worlds. But the basic system doesn't have them so unless they're included it's better IMO to ignore the 1-9 population and just say that pop 0 means "no people". It's a lot simpler all round.

Not neccessarily from a trade viewpoint. Rich worlds and Poor worlds may both need or provide basic resources, and have similar prices (oil prices: consider Nigeria and the USA both as oil producers, one Ri, one NOT) and while both are a good market for entertainment (say) or medical goods (even better)- the difference is, you can sell expensive entertainment for the ri world, and inexpensive entertainment for the poor world. Sophisiticated specialized medical gear at the ri worlds , and...well, needles and sanitary masks, at the Po world.

True, but again remember this is an abstracted system. I explicitly assumed that a world had to have all of natural and biological and social resources at high or low levels to be classed as Rich or Poor. I could have said that it'd be Rich if it had one or two of those at high levels, but that would make it more complicated. And I've not even accounted for technological differences or anything either.

We know that a world with high natural, biological and social resources is generally going to be "Rich" by anyone's definition. And we know that a world that lacks natural, biological and social resources is going to be "Poor" and I think that kind of definition is good enough given the limitations of the system.

I think you raise valid points that would be applicable in a more detailed system, but the aim here is to have a quick way to get a general overview of a world for trade purposes, and taking all the factors into account that you mentioned would add too much nitty-gritty.

 

[captainjack23]

A few counter-quibbles, mostly based upon a different view of what trade codes are. They aren't census, astronmical or sociological codes for a world; they are indicators of what specific kind of trade sets will work there.

Sure, but they're still based on real physical or social characteristics of the planet. They're not arbitrary.

Eh. Thats debatable in any look at socio-economics. Even more so, here.

I really think that we fundamentally disagree here - my view is not to impose more detail, but to point out that the point of the codes informs their definition - not the other way around. ...they do reflect how the trade works, because the trade system is built around them.
They are useful in that they produce effects. The effects are caused by the factors. Its a tautology, and that's fine because its a game. They are an end item, not a beginning.

I think you raise valid points that would be applicable in a more detailed system, but the aim here is to have a quick way to get a general overview of a world for trade purposes, and taking all the factors into account that you mentioned would add too much nitty-gritty.

Nope; you're misreading me 100%. The factors already exist in condensed form in the ratings. The ratings inform the trade decisions. The trade system is driven by the ratings and the players decisions. What already exists is a general overview; trying to get it to reflect any more detail, or a physical science based classification scheme is what I think is a bad idea. Its a mercantile classification scheme. With the possible exception of water worlds & fluid oceans, your points don;t seem to help that classification scheme, more accurate they may be from a planetology/sociology perspective.

Accuracy is only needful if it improves the effect of the classification. which in this case is trade based.

 

[EDG]

Well I go by the words "Industrial", "Non-Agricultural", "Rich", "Poor" etc and those define the UWP combinations that correspond to their definitions.

And I am going by the trade effects too. I just think that it makes a lot more sense for Rich and Poor worlds to be defined as extremes of "resource-rich" and "resource-poor" and that those should both be consistently defined by size + atm + pop combinations. As it stands in the original definitions, why should "Rich" include pop and gov definitions and while Poor is entirely based on physical definitions? That makes no sense to me at all.

And none of what I proposed for the trade codes invalidates or changes any of the trade effects, it just opens them up to more worlds (and means we don't have silly situations like only a handful of worlds capable of industrial production per quadrant because those are the only ones that have pop 9+ and tainted atmospheres).

I'm not trying to "impose more detail" in this regard either, I'm just arguing for more rationally/sensibly defined UWP combos that actually reflect the characteristics of the trade code description.

I don't think I"m misreading you 100%, I'm disagreeing with you 100%. I don't for a second buy into or agree with the idea that one shouldn't aim for more meaningful definitions just because because the classification is "trade based" (whatever that means).

And I'm not even using a "physical science based classification scheme" either. Unless you mean that I'm basically looking at the worlds, saying "they have these UWP combos, so they fit into these trade classifications, and that determines the modifiers on the trade tables" - but that's exactly how it's supposed to work. The fact is that the worlds are (and always have been) defined by the UWPs, and those UWPs determine the trade classifications. No version of Traveller has ever stated "this is a Rich world, so it has to have this UWP combo to satisfy that".

I think that "accuracy" (or at least a more rational approach like I'm proposing here) certainly does improve the effect of the classification - I wouldn't have proposed it otherwise. It means you get results that are actually more meaningful and less puzzling (e.g. why should only atm 0-3 be non-agricultural when atm A-C are also unbreathable?).

 

[captainjack23]

Well I go by the words "Industrial", "Non-Agricultural", "Rich", "Poor" etc and those define the UWP combinations that correspond to their definitions.

All I read is lots of opinions, from both of us, and I'm not going to get caught up in defending them like facts; so we've gotten about as far as is needful to help Gar.

 

[AKAramis]

I've always seen In to be worlds like Geidi Prime... or Necromunda... where the environment is already destroyed by massive industry beyond the recoverable point.

Ni is worlds like Arakis (Dune), or Athos (vorKosiverse), or Ballybran (McCaffrey's FSP), where there is literally no industrial base per se.

Ag is worlds with massive agricultural basis sufficient to support far more than their own population by natural growth processes. Not many come to mind, but Athos (vorKosiverse) and Caladan (Dune).

Na is worlds where local agriculture is either inedible or essentially non-existent. Arakis and Salusa Secondus (Dune) and Ballybran (FSP) come to mind.

Personally, I think the Ag/Na and In/Ni codes should be randomized rather than deterministic.

Then again, I'm in favor of a more 2300-ish world gen, but I realize that that is not "Traveller"...

As to Capitalization NA and Na have both been used, as have Ni and NI.