Worldbuilding 3.2 comments

[captainjack23]

Athos (vorKosiverse)

????

 

[captainjack23]

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"...
.

That's...actually a pretty interesting idea. There is a pretty good argument to be made that the contributing factors are way complicated beyond the anything provided by the UWP (I'm trying :wink so we may as well assign and then retroactively describe.

I have to say I'm unfamiliar w/. 2300. is there somthing comprable in there ? or is it just more generally stochastic ? (yes, I'm being pretentious..plus, I just love the word.)

 

[EDG]

That's...actually a pretty interesting idea. There is a pretty good argument to be made that the contributing factors are way complicated beyond the anything provided by the UWP (I'm trying :wink so we may as well assign and then retroactively describe.

Maybe there is an argument for it (I wouldn't say it's a good one though), but that runs completely contrary to the point of the trade classification system - which is to take the UWP and fit the planet into trade codes based on the numbers therein. If you go by the logic that some or all of the codes really are random then you may as well just throw the whole classification system out of the window. I am completely against anything that makes any aspect of worldgen more subjective or random than it already is.

Maybe the trade codes are dependent on the assumptions that one uses to define them, but I'm proposing something that is compatible with the system that we've been provided with here, that is based on the system that people have been using in the game for the past 25 years. Maybe I'm biased here, but I think that this a lot more useful for the game than coming up with suggestions like randomising them - particularly given that most of the problems with Traveller's worldgen come from the already rampant and unchecked randomisation within it.

Either way, I think it'd be more useful for anyone else to present their own take on the trade code system (or any other aspect of worldgen) in a separate thread to avoid muddying the water in this one.

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

It's pretty clear that capitalised versions are not the standard way of showing the codes. I've never seen them shown like that myself (except due to typographic error).

 

[captainjack23]

That's...actually a pretty interesting idea. There is a pretty good argument to be made that the contributing factors are way complicated beyond the anything provided by the UWP (I'm trying :wink so we may as well assign and then retroactively describe.

Maybe there is an argument for it (I wouldn't say it's a good one though), but that runs completely contrary to the point of the trade classification system - which is to take the UWP and fit the planet into trade codes based on the numbers therein. If you go by the logic that some or all of the codes really are random then you may as well just throw the whole classification system out of the window. I am completely against anything that makes any aspect of worldgen more subjective or random than it already is.

I'm proposing something that fits with the system that we've been provided with here, and also within the system that people have been using in the game for the past 25 years. Maybe I'm biased here, but I think that's a lot more useful for the game than coming up with randomised alternatives - particularly given that most of the problems with Traveller's worldgen come from the already rampant and unchecked randomisation within it. Adding more randomisation just makes it even worse.

Relax. I just said it was "interesting", not "Gar you are getting sleepy ,very sleepy, so sleepy, yes, your eyelids are getting heavy, Gaaaaar , sleep, sleeeeeep, and when you awake you remember nothing of this but will implement this interesting idea in the new version of Traveller."

Easy enough to mistake one for the other, though... 8)

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

I strongly believe that the Population multiplier Belts Gas giants part of the UWP "string" should be included in the basic WorldGen system.

Barren worlds: my take for this TC:

Pop = 0
Gov = 0
Law = 0
TL = 0
Pop multiplier = 0

Yes, TCs need their own thread(s).

 

[AKAramis]

I strongly believe that the Population multiplier BBelts GGas giants part of the UWP "string" should be included in the basic WorldGen system.

Barren worlds: my take for this TC:

Pop = 0
Gov = 0
Law = 0
TL = 0
Pop multiplier = 0

Yes, TCs need there own thread(s).

I agree.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Go here to discuss TCs.

<.....Hiver.......Hiver.........mop.........Hiver......................>

 

[Flynn]

If you take the viewpoint that a world's UWP contains the tech level that is established and mainstream, then the minimum TL based on atmosphere codes drops from the suggestions given by EDG above.

Canonically, the table, as reflected in numerous Marc Miller articles in Challenge magazine, and in several alien modules (starting with the Aslan IIRC), regarding minimum TL for worlds based on atmosphere type proceeds as follows:

Atm    Minimum Tech Level
0      7
1      7
2      7
3      6
4      5
7      5
9      5
A      8
B      8
C      9
D+     6

If Mongoose is going to put such minimums in, and I agree that it should be, then I would prefer to see the canonical values used. To quote the playtest document:

The technology level measures the average technology presence on the planet, and gives an idea of local production and repair capability.

At least, that's my opinion on the subject, for what it's worth. Just thought Mongoose should hear more than one opinion on that particular matter.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[EDG]

I think the important thing is that minimum TL limits that depend on the atmospheres are included in there somehow. I guess the exact values used just depend on how conservative you want to be about the world's production capabilities .

 

[hdrider67]

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 like the fact that more detail is involved in the world creation (including law) but I think the restrictions begin too early and too harshly.

I don't mean to offend but I wonder if it's cultural, given that MGT is being produced in the UK.

For example, Law level of 0 basically means there *is* no law. Pretty much a live or die anarchy from the legal standpoint.

The U.S. is, IMO and based strictly on the CT gun prohibitions a level 3 or 4 restrictive law level. The weapons and drugs columns fit our attitude and laws pretty much dead on but the other columns are restrictive.

Which makes 1 and 2 pretty oppressive for what is otherwise a fairly libertarian legal environment.

I would suggest that the columns be moved down in stair step design.

Level 1: Poison gas, no other restrictions
2: Portable energy, Highly addictive drugs, all others blank
and so on.

The exception to this is ship landing. I think it's still too restrictive, too early but providing a manifest and standing to for inspection is common, even in a libertarian culture. I do think the landing SITES should be less restrictive before LL4 or 5 but I would agree manifest clearance (perhaps prior to landing) and inspection would be expected.

The U.K is probably close to a LL of 8 (again, using CT weapon bans). I've been to the EU but not UK. I'm pretty sure you can leave the UK when you want and laptops aren't confiscated on entry. In fact, in ANY environment technological enough to have iterstellar trade I can't even contemplate not allowing computers.

Also, I didn't see any mention of the Law Level being set to 3 in the area of a starport. Wasn't that the case at least in the empire, that the starport had a constant level of law, exclusive of the surrounding planetary areas?

Anyway, while I DO like the detail I'd prefer to have a wider transition from permissiveness to oppression.

 

[AKAramis]

Here's the MT LL Table:

WORLD LAW LEVEL
Code General Description
0 No law (no prohibitions).
1 Low law (body pistols, explosives, poison gas prohibited).
2 Low law (portable energy weapons prohibited).
3 Low law (machineguns, automatic rifles prohibited).
4 Moderate law (light assault weapons prohibited).
5 Moderate law (personal concealable weapons prohibited).
6 Moderate law (all firearms except firearms prohibited).
7 Moderate law (shotguns prohibited).
8 High law (blade weapons controlled; no open display).
9 High law (weapon possession outside the home prohibited).
A Extreme law (weapon possession prohibited).
B Extreme law (rigid control of civilian movement).
C Extreme law (unrestricted invasion of privacy).
D Extreme law (paramilitary law enforcement).
E Extreme law (full-fledged police state).
F Extreme law (all facets of daily life rigidly controlled).
G Extreme law (severe punishment for petty infractions).
H Extreme law (legalized oppressive practices).
J Extreme law (routinely oppressive and restrictive).
K Extreme law (excessively oppressive and restrictive).
L Extreme law (totally oppressive and restrictive).

TNE uses much the same.

Most of the travel restrictions can be solved by doubling the LL at which they are placed in. SO what's currently on the 5 entry should be at 10, and what's at 9 should be at 18 (J).

The TL Restrictions simply need to go away; it is far too subjective to deal with the way it is presented. (Tho' at LL E+, I can see banning imports of higher than local)

The information resrictions should be about 8 LL's hgher than presented in draft 3.2.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Here's the MT LL Table...

.......dang, ya beat me to it, ya varmint!

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

I've said this before somewhere (?possibly here abouts?) that I seem to recall that T4 (yes, yes, I know, I know... :roll: ) actually has a system for developing a Universal Law Profile, and delves into all the aspects we've been discussing here. *NOTE*: I'm *NOT* advocating we base MongTrav LLs on the T4 ULP - ISTR the T4 system is too unwieldy, but it could provide inspiration for discussion?

I need to dig out the relevant T4 book and post something (short).

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I think we also have to be careful to NOT change things too much. This IS Traveller after all.

I have problems with some areas of the original stuff too, but Gar can only change so much before it really isn't Traveller any more.

I suggest we try to keep our proposals to minor tweeks to the existing/CT system.

Adding in all the codes for the rest of the tables is an easy one, but tweeking the Trade Codes might be a bit harder to do.

Remember, once this is OGL, you can publish your own variation (and maybe get paid for it!). IMTU, I tweek this stuff all the time, but I doubt very much that Mongoose wants to incorporate my "Barren Star" concept, so I don't even suggest it to them.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

I found it!! It was tucked away in the T4 Milieu 0 Campaign Book. So, briefly then;

The Universal Law Profile
This covers the following aspects directly related to the Law Level UWP code:

Armament (ranges from 0 to A - exactly the same as the CT LL descriptions);
Commerce (0 to F);
Communication (0 to F);
Congregation (0 to F);
Movement (of people) (0 to F);
Privacy (0 to F);
Process (of law) (0 to F).

To generate each of the sub-categories:

Throw 2D-7+Pop for Armament;
Throw 2D-7+Armament for Commerce;
Throw 2D-7+Commerce for Congregation;
Throw 2D-7+Congregation for Movement;
Throw 2D-7+Movement for Privacy;
Throw 2D-7+Privacy for Process.

The usual principles for each sub-category apply - 0 is no restrictions, F is extremely tightly controlled. Results are recorded sequentially (e.g. 8456053). Like I said - it's a bit unwieldy, but the information might be useful for discussion purposes.

 

[AKAramis]

I found it!! It was tucked away in the T4 Milieu 0 Campaign Book. So, briefly then;

The Universal Law Profile
This covers the following aspects directly related to the Law Level UWP code:

Armament (ranges from 0 to A - exactly the same as the CT LL descriptions);
Commerce (0 to F);
Communication (0 to F);
Congregation (0 to F);
Movement (of people) (0 to F);
Privacy (0 to F);
Process (of law) (0 to F).

A similar (but less mathematically broken) approach was in WBH, where each category was rolled on 2d6-7+BaseLL

 

[EDG]

The WBH method made a lot more sense I think. Unfortunately they didn't really explain what the magnitude of each code meant there.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

A similar (but less mathematically broken) approach was in WBH, where each category was rolled on 2d6-7+BaseLL

...make that 2D-7+Government for the main LL and the sub-categories (p. 82, WBH) For reference, WBH uses the following sub-categories within its ULP system:

Overall LL;
Weapons;
Trade;
Criminal law;
Civil law;
Personal freedom.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

The WBH method made a lot more sense I think. Unfortunately they didn't really explain what the magnitude of each code meant there.

Absolutely correct, Herr Doktorr There are no actual tables in WBH showing what each code means within each sub-category. :roll:

 

[AKAramis]

The WBH method made a lot more sense I think. Unfortunately they didn't really explain what the magnitude of each code meant there.

True. Oh, and I just double checked, and its' 2d6-7+Government for each...

I've always used LL for the basis for the DLL's... error on my part, but probably a better solution that the official.

Alas, a better fit would probably be 3d3-6, or 2d4-5...