Colony and outpost governments

[rancke]

Assuming a world is owned by some outside government or organization, the government type should logically be '6', captive government, appointed by outsiders. But within that frame, the type of government appointed by the outsiders could be several different ones.

Which of the traditional Traveller governments do you think a colony or an outpost could have, which are out of the question, and which of them do you think are most likely?

Note: Colonies owned by their own populations do not count.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

Just a quick note.

Any of the totalitarian or bureaucratic government should work.

Under the right conditions I could see a Feudal Technocracy working well.

 

[Elv]

I thought about this a bit while preparing one of my government articles for JTAS ("Rule from Without"), before I abandoned writing in favour of being in a lot of pain (hopefully a phase I'm leaving behind me now).

I would say that nothing's ever ruled out - even 0 (no government structure), which could apply to a penal colony where the criminals are dumped and left to their own devices, for example.

In terms of likelihood...well, bureaucracy and autocracy/dictatorship are always good bets, as Vladika says. Outposts are quite likely to be corporate, colonies more likely to be religious, captive governments oligarchies. If I pick the article up again, I fully intend to create some tables.

 

[HG_B]

Which of the traditional Traveller governments do you think a colony or an outpost could have, which are out of the question, and which of them do you think are most likely?

Hans

A democracy could work.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Ah, the homeworld.

I would think they automatically have whatever form of government the "owning" world has. I can't see a reason they would have anything else.

 

[Highorbit_drifter]

I would guess nearly any goverment that makes sense as a subsidary to the home government.

A Totalitarian or Religious government will have the same type.
A Charismatic Oligarchy or Dictatorship will probably have a non-charismatic leader. That is, a group at home appoints a single person at a much smaller colony; although an oligarchy is possible as well but I doubt it likely unless the colony is large.
Non-charismatic leader will have any sort of dictatorship or bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies will probably have bureaucracies, but its possible they have a not too drastic oligarchy. Probably never a single individual rule though - the Bureaucracy would never stand for that.
Representative Democracy could have a Bureaucracy or even the same type of democracy, or an Athenian democracy. An Athenian homeworld rule would likely see the same thing offworld, but maybe an oligarchy (even a charismatic one).
Nearly any of them but the most despotic could have a corporate colony or technocracy.

Then again it depends on the nature of the colony. An Athenian Democracy could send out a despotic ruler over a prison colony that mines the vital unobtanium for their life support systems. Or a totalitarian could send out a colony of self willed, self governed Party elite - their summer/get-a-way homes when they're not at home opressing the masses (although that probably doesn't make much sense in terms of Traveller jump times).

I abandoned writing in favour of being in a lot of pain

I just picked up that hobby, tearing some ligiments in my lower back the other day. Writing, and sitting in general, now comes in very short spurts. As does standing. And laying down. I'd try floating but they don't sell grav belts around here just yet...

 

[whulorigan]

I would think they automatically have whatever form of government the "owning" world has. I can't see a reason they would have anything else.

Not necessarily. For example, an owning world (of virtually any government type) could lease a world out to a corporation, thus giving the "colony" a corporate government.

Or, a Representative Democracy might appoint a bureaucracy to oversee a colony's affairs.

Consider that the early American Colonies were subject to a British Monarchy (with a Parliament), but that the individual colonies were each individually different and largely allowed home rule, until British-government interference resulted in the events leading up to the American War of Independence/American Revolution.

 

[pennshome723]

I would say build the back story first of what organization or home world started the colony in the first place. Then define why they settled the world and are there any political fighting going on to gain control there. Working out all these details can only help make some small background sub plots that could effect gaming there.

 

[rancke]

I would say build the back story first of what organization or home world started the colony in the first place. Then define why they settled the world and are there any political fighting going on to gain control there. Working out all these details can only help make some small background sub plots that could effect gaming there.

Yes, but that's not what I'm interested in here. As John guessed, I'm examining the possibility of a variant world generation step. See, I just don't believe in low-population worlds that are sovereign in the numbers the vanilla world generation system throws up. I'm not saying you can't have a few Monacos and Tongas among your star systems[*]. But I am saying that it won't be two fifths of all the systems around. The vanilla system makes 15 out of every 36 mainworlds have a population of less than a million. And apparently those worlds are supposedly sovereign unless the government throw is 6.

(I will add that scores of official writeups describe various low-population worlds as being controlled from outside regardless of what the government code says. The most common fallacy seems to be the code 1 worlds that almost universally get described as owned by outside corporations (that would logically be a government type 6, folks) rather than run as companies.)

[*] Though in that connection I will just say that it's considerably easier to believe that powerful neighbors will allow a tiny population to occupy a couple of square kilometers of a world than that they will allow a small population to occupy an entire planet.​

So I'm thinking of working out a variant system that begins something like "If population level 1-3 check outpost table; if population level 4-5, check colony table."


Hans

 

[SpaceBadger]

Unless I already have a political system made up for the relationship between owning government and subject government, I just re-roll to see what type the subject government is, then try to make sense of the roll, then if it just doesn't fit I will re-roll until I get something that works with whatever I have already decided.

 

[rancke]

Unless I already have a political system made up for the relationship between owning government and subject government, I just re-roll to see what type the subject government is, then try to make sense of the roll, then if it just doesn't fit I will re-roll until I get something that works with whatever I have already decided.

I use that one too. It's the oft-ignored 'Final Rule' of Traveller world generation: "If it doesn't work, change it". While such a rule is an excellent safety net and failure to use it a black mark against any official book, it doesn't improve the performance of the system, merely backstops it. I'd like to improve the system (Though I fully intend to keep the Final Rule too ).


Hans

 

[HG_B]

So I'm thinking of working out a variant system that begins something like "If population level 1-3 check outpost table; if population level 4-5, check colony table."


Hans

Something like that would be better.

 

[Elv]

Yes, but that's not what I'm interested in here. As John guessed, I'm examining the possibility of a variant world generation step. [...] So I'm thinking of working out a variant system that begins something like "If population level 1-3 check outpost table; if population level 4-5, check colony table."

Do you have definitions for outpost and colony? From my article I have the (rather vague) statement,

An outpost is usually small, typically PR4- (fewer than 100,000 people), and the inhabitants tend to be long-term but temporary. A colony is usually larger, typically PR4+ (10,000 people or more), with a majority who do intend to stay for life.​

I also had this initial stab at deciding between the two:

To decide randomly whether a world is an outpost or a colony:
PR: Outpost If:
-3: 2d6 > PR (automatic for PR 0 or 1)
4: 1d6 < 4
5+: 2d6 > PR+5 (never for PR 7+)​

There followed a little about subordinate worlds, and then some ideas (not yet written in coherent form) about the difference between the sort of colony where you plonk some of your people down to grow your society (or at least make more room back home), and the sort where you impose your rule on a population of indigenes. There would have been tables for internal government for each of the three kinds.

Perhaps when you have your ideas together they could be combined? Basically it can be presented as a way of fleshing out gov 6, or as a replacement step for people that can't stomach the small pop independent worlds.

 

[rancke]

Do you have definitions for outpost and colony?

From my Historical Event Generator:

"An OUTPOST is a place where the majority of the population does not plan to stay their whole life. Examples are mining outposts, military outposts, scientific research stations, and trade stations. An outpost is probably not very old, but this is not a given. It must have been in regular contact with its parent society for its entire existence. Most outposts eventually turn into outpost colonies (see below).

A COLONY is a place where a sizable part of the population plans to stay, but which is in some way -- e.g. militarily, economically, politically -- tied to a stronger, established society. There are many kinds of colonies; see below for details.

A MAINWORLD is a fully established, stable society."
​

From my article I have the (rather vague) statement,

An outpost is usually small, typically PR4- (fewer than 100,000 people), and the inhabitants tend to be long-term but temporary. A colony is usually larger, typically PR4+ (10,000 people or more), with a majority who do intend to stay for life.​

Heh. Not too different from my take:

"A world with low population (PR 3 or less) is either an outpost, a recently established colony, or a failing colony.

A recently established colony was established within the last few decades and is busily building itself up.

A failing colony can be as old as you like, but the older it is, the more likely it is that its present status is due to some fairly recent catastrophic decline of the population. Most small populations either fail completely or grow to stable size within a few generations; it is rare for a colony to hang on by its fingernails for centuries.

A world with a low medium population (PR 4 to 6) is most likely a growing or stagnated colony. Settlements of that size have a certain amount of resiliency and rarely fail completely. They are not, on the other hand, strong enough to defend themselves properly, so if they are stable societies, they will have a 'big brother' (like the Imperium or some other strong power) to defend them (unless there are no nearby aggressors, of course). If there is no big brother available, some other explanation for their immunity from acquisitive neighbors is needed.

A world with a high medium (PR 7 or 8) or high (PR 9 or 10) population is always a mainworld."​

Perhaps when you have your ideas together they could be combined? Basically it can be presented as a way of fleshing out gov 6, or as a replacement step for people that can't stomach the small pop independent worlds.

I'll send you a copy of my Historical Event Generator.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

If Earth history is to serve as example, any kind of government can be in a colony, and even it can have more population (and quite evolutionated society) that the owning government (think on British India in the 19^th centurey, with more population tan UK, long established society and even, in many cases, its own satellite governments).

I'd say the more common satellite governments will be oligarchies, dictatorships and boureaucracies (EDIT: aside, of course, from military rule END EDIT), but we cannot rule a democracy (for internal affairs) or een anarchy (no established local governments). All those cases have happened in Earth.

 

[Lapthorn]

Yes, but that's not what I'm interested in here. As John guessed, I'm examining the possibility of a variant world generation step. See, I just don't believe in low-population worlds that are sovereign in the numbers the vanilla world generation system throws up.

...

So I'm thinking of working out a variant system that begins something like "If population level 1-3 check outpost table; if population level 4-5, check colony table."


Hans

As a simple first step all worlds with PR 5 or less can get Gov 6 automatically except by GM fiat (those Tongas and Monacos).

What kind of 6 it is can then be determined on a basis of MOARN.

If you're still looking for ideas, GURPS Interstellar Wars has separate government tables for outposts from other types of world.

 

[Drakon]

I would think they automatically have whatever form of government the "owning" world has. I can't see a reason they would have anything else.

Political, economic or cultural oppression by the homeworld government or people would be one reason to start a new colony. Rejection of the old political structure, and trying something new is one reason people start colonies to begin with.

History is replete with examples of colonies who did things differently from the home nation.

 

[Carlobrand]

Political, economic or cultural oppression by the homeworld government or people would be one reason to start a new colony. Rejection of the old political structure, and trying something new is one reason people start colonies to begin with.

History is replete with examples of colonies who did things differently from the home nation.

Even back then, one needed resources to start a colony. On the one hand, the folk most likely to pull up roots and try their hand in a new and potentially dangerous setting were often those with the least investment in the status quo. On the other hand, the ones with the wealth and resources to commit to such ventures had ultimate veto over which variety of discontents they would tolerate and which they wouldn't, and the wealthy tend to have some interest in preserving the status quo. The result was something of a balance between rejecting the old structure and representing the old power interests in a new place. There were occasional instances of wealthy misfits who could back like-minded colonists, but there was a limit to how much "rejection of the old political structure" you could get away with before your colonizing plans got officially scrunched.

 

[aramis]

Even back then, one needed resources to start a colony. On the one hand, the folk most likely to pull up roots and try their hand in a new and potentially dangerous setting were often those with the least investment in the status quo. On the other hand, the ones with the wealth and resources to commit to such ventures had ultimate veto over which variety of discontents they would tolerate and which they wouldn't, and the wealthy tend to have some interest in preserving the status quo. The result was something of a balance between rejecting the old structure and representing the old power interests in a new place. There were occasional instances of wealthy misfits who could back like-minded colonists, but there was a limit to how much "rejection of the old political structure" you could get away with before your colonizing plans got officially scrunched.

Quite a few colonies were founded by groups who raised the money by selling everything and fleeing in barely sail-worthy ships with dubiously adequate quantities provisions of even less trustworthy quality.

Others were essentially dumping grounds for undesirables - literally taking religiously or politically undesired segments (like homeless and criminals, or in the case of Liberia, former slaves), and shipping them off with token provisions.

 

[McPerth]

And, as told before, in some cases they were subject governments that could be quite different from those in the country tht hold them. I keep thinking in many British subject states in 19^th century, as few of them where constututional monarchies or democraies as UK was.