Common Sense: Evaluating UWPs

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Straybow:

Really, the only way a UWP can be truly broken is failing to dictate the technology level required to support the rest of the UWP.

What is it when a world has Pop 0 but non-zero Government, Law Level, Tech?

The Sunbane/GEnie data has many such worlds.


There are 31 worlds in this data that have Atm 6 and Pop 0. Many of those Pop 0 worlds have non-zero Social Stats, three of them have TL-14. One has Gov 5, a Feudal Technocracy. I guess we don't have to have an arguement over what a Feudal Technocracy is on this world (Delphi0411/SubSec A), because there is no one there to conduct it! (Oh, there are 247 (or so) Imperial worlds under this data with Pop 0 and subsequent non-zero Social Stats.)

And then there is Tavonni/Vilis, E-567000-7. 3 Planetiod Belts, 4 Gas Giants, and a G6 star to boot! There's a good one. Practically Earth-like, no Amber or Red Zone, no pesky government to stop people from moving in, and a cross-roads for wilderness refueling and asteroid mining. And there's no one there? Nobody? (Oh, this world is at TL-7, I like that as well.)

 

[Straybow]

I believe the "official" answer to pop 0 UWPs is that UWP represents only indigenous population. The population of Imperium-controlled starport, naval bases, scout bases, etc are not included. Corporate bases staffed by personnel holding citizenships elsewhere don't count. Long-term visitors don't count.

Feudal Technocracy? Maybe there are a number of competing corporations running operations on the planet. The corps have charters from the Imperium to enforce laws against squatting, poaching, smuggling etc and therefore function as local government.

I admit that social stats are harder to explain than physical stats, but those details are always more difficult to flesh out.

I would advocate diminishing the limitations imposed on planetary physical stats. For example, what limit on population should be imposed based on hydrography rating? Hydro A means nearly 100% ocean, so they should be very limited in population. But planets are really big, so unless the GM decides it means negligible (far less than 1%) land area limits aren't called for.

1% of Earth's surface is 2 million square miles (5M km²), which is roughly equal to the size of India. India's population is over 1 billion, supported by relatively primitive and inefficient agriculture. A smaller size 4 planet with 95% ocean (still A on the Hydro scale) would have the same total land area.

What if the land isn't a large continent, but an archipelago? Indonesia has over 200 million people and an even smaller total land area. Indonesia also uses farming methods that haven't changed for thousands of years.

OK, how about the reverse: a planet with Hydrographics 0? The GM will have to rule whether this means literally no standing water, but again a very small percentage is still a large body or bodies of water that can create significant "lake effect weather."

Atmospheric types are easily mitigated with the technologies available to a spacefaring civilization. Sealed arcologies and subsurface habitats are par for the course.

A milieu depicting an era of exploration and bootstrap colonies has to take account of the cost of establishing production and an economic base. But for a mature interstellar milieu all such factors are sunk costs, folded into the statistics generated.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Straybow:
I believe the "official" answer to pop 0 UWPs is that UWP represents only indigenous population. The population of Imperium-controlled starport, naval bases, scout bases, etc are not included. Corporate bases staffed by personnel holding citizenships elsewhere don't count. Long-term visitors don't count.

Well, I personally dislike invisible and indeterminate values. "Oh, there's this other number you don't know the value of affecting things." If there is another population set, there should be another Pop stat on the UWP (probably the extended UWP). (I mean I really don't like them.)

The rules are also fairly clear that TL-7 requires that the world be turning out TL-7 goods (ok, not *all* TL-7 goods, but at least some, and with general capability to gear up for any type of TL-7 production necessary). Does this mean that the transient population is running the TL-7 production, and as well is capable of ramping up other TL-7 production on demand?

Well, not to complain too much without doing something, my little ideal UWP project includes an Imperial Block of stats which lists the total transient population from off-world.

Originally posted by Straybow:

Feudal Technocracy? Maybe there are a number of competing corporations running operations on the planet. The corps have charters from the Imperium to enforce laws against squatting, poaching, smuggling etc and therefore function as local government.

So, the UWP Government for the mainworld may be used to describe government functions conducted on the offworld population which is not included in the UWP Pop value? That's a double standard.

The Starport population is on Imperial Territory, inside the extrality line, and it will be governed by Imperial Law, not some local government.

Still, the idea that the off-world transient population outside the extrality line is controlled by some form of government in which the government employees are all themselves off-world transients is very interesting.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Ok, what about non-zero Law Level with Pop 0 and Gov 0?

Gov 0 is, effectively, Anarchy. A Lawful Anarchy? Ooooh.

Although, of the 61 Imperial worlds with (Pop = 0 AND Gov = 0 AND Law <> 0) in the data I have, the highest Law Level is only 5.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:

Well, we are talking (I think) the Mainworld UWP here so maybe there is always a better candidate for a mainworld in a system than some Europa like iceball

Try telling that to the billions who settle on worlds with Insidious atmospheres... - ANYWHERE is better than that, and it is hideously unlikely that there are no rockballs or other much more habitable worlds anywhere else in those systems to live on. </font>

A weak response but maybe that world with the insidious atmosphere is at least geologically active enough to sustain a magnetic field sufficient to protect it from lethal solar radiation whereas all the rocky bodies in the system are dead and baked by the sun(s). An especially weak argument when we don't seem to need to worry about that radiation in our spaceships so presumably a space station or even a base on or in an asteroid could be as well protected.

Or maybe the Insidious atmo is the very reason that is the mainworld. Its a valuable resource that can only be managed on site. Or there is some valuable resource on the planet itself that makes it worth settling there despite the atmo problems. Or the world is being terraformed from its current state and that requires a lot of managing and or study on site.

Or there is no good reason except that, maybe, the basic system was only ever meant as a seed for the imagination and should never have been used to populate space wholesale with entirely randomly generated worlds. Again, I like the challenge of coloring inside the lines, at least for the few worlds that are both a problem and likely to be noticed as such by the PC's. I don't want to do that for the whole universe though and don't believe it should be necessary. The TML Landgrab was a good idea in that respect, with different interested parties detailing and making sense of the basic UWPs of the Imperium.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Malenfant:
Yeah, but the problem remains that you can't make a Europa-like world while using the default UWP system.

Well, we are talking (I think) the Mainworld UWP here so maybe there is always a better candidate for a mainworld in a system than some Europa like iceball

Or maybe such worlds are so far below the minimum accepted for classification as a "mainworld" that the system doesn't need to generate them...

"This is where you decided to settle? This slushball of frozen gases? That'll never do, pack your things you're being relocated to your new home in the asteroid belt where you can mine vital ores for the Imperium. Your new home will be Asteroid 7320, that's what's going on the charts." </font>[/QUOTE]For a mainworld, yes. But when it comes to system generation, there are lots of small bodies, each with their own UWP. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, but I'm pretty sure most of the expanded system generation rules were quite different for all the non-mainworld generation. I recall very different rules for detailing satellites which would to my mind be what we're talking with respect to Europa like worlds. Again the basic UWP is that, basic. I think sometimes people expect too much of it. I've always taken it as simply a nudge for the imagination if needed or, as is more often the case with the PCs, just an idea of what they can get as they skip through yet one more sleepy one port system on the way to the bright lights of the next high tech world, until 'adventure' trips them up

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Ok, what about non-zero Law Level with Pop 0 and Gov 0?

Gov 0 is, effectively, Anarchy. A Lawful Anarchy? Ooooh.

Although, of the 61 Imperial worlds with (Pop = 0 AND Gov = 0 AND Law <> 0) in the data I have, the highest Law Level is only 5.

Anarchy is NOT Chaos

Click the word for a decent definition.

An Anarchy could very well be described as having a law level imo. And Gov 0 is not necessarily an actual anarchy anyway. With a Pop 0 its more likely to be the family bonds level, as in a single family since Pop 0 means 0-9 individuals, not always ZERO individuals. The law level would represent the family's view on such, in this case you have a family that will take offense to anyone coming around packing pistols or military weapons.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Straybow:
I believe the "official" answer to pop 0 UWPs is that UWP represents only indigenous population.

That would reduce ther value of the UWP for game purposes considerably.


At least one canonical world description (Macene/Rhylanor) explicitly includes the transients.


All trade figures in GT:Far Trader are based on the UWP; a world with transients would have trade based on the transient population.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
my little ideal UWP project includes an Imperial Block of stats which lists the total transient population from off-world.

My ideal UWP project includes someone going over the randomly generated numbers and changing those that don't make sense.


Hans

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by rancke:
My ideal UWP project includes someone going over the randomly generated numbers and changing those that don't make sense.

Yup.

It's amazing how Traveller players are so utterly determined to make elabourate excuses for the things that are broken instead of just fixing them. It really puzzles me.

 

[Psion]

It's amazing how Traveller players are so utterly determined to make elabourate excuses for the things that are broken instead of just fixing them. It really puzzles me.

It amazes me how many people want to make a shorthand abbreviation do something that there is no way that it has a hope of doing.

I'm all for making a more robust, accurate planet gen algorithm. And better yet, making it open content so all games can take advantage of it. But I don't see hope cobbling all the details down into a UWP style abbreviation of any clarity.

You really ought not be amazed, Morte. I have toyed many times with the thought of booting traveller and writing a system that has all of the good of it plus shoring up things that bother me (UWPs, 2D sector maps, starship combat that really isn't playable for capital ships, etc.) But why don't I? Why don't we all? Because Traveller is a game that fans are well invested in and has enough fanbase momentum to drive 3 versions currently in print (4 if you count DTRPG) and intimations of a 4th.

 

[Flynn]

That's part of the reason I started this thread, so that I could weed out the overtly non-sensical UWPs during the actual sector generation itself.

Of course, the evaluation routines could be run over an existing sector, and the UWPs updated to make things more reasonable.

-Flynn

 

[Psion]

Gateway to Destiny has an interesting precedent. One world is described as being "overdue for updating starport and tech codes." This implies to me that UWP codes can be wrong.

And in the case of extra-imperial worlds, they probably are frequently so. I'm just imagining an independant world pulling an "Enron", misrepresenting its appeal as a trade port to draw in more traders.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Psion:
You really ought not be amazed, Morte.

Sorry, but I am amazed and that's all there is to it.

Actually it pleases me that I haven't just given up and gotten used to it. I still have some spirit left.

I have toyed many times with the thought of booting traveller and writing a system that has all of the good of it plus shoring up things that bother me (UWPs, 2D sector maps, starship combat that really isn't playable for capital ships, etc.) But why don't I? Why don't we all? Because Traveller is a game that fans are well invested in and has enough fanbase momentum to drive 3 versions currently in print (4 if you count DTRPG) and intimations of a 4th.

Is that why you don't do it? I don't do it because:

(a) I don't have a license to publish a Traveller RPG.

(b) I've been warned many times that publishing RPGs is the road to ruin.

(c) I worry that if I did do it, MWM wouldn't approve my version for publication.

(d) I'd rather pay a capable professional (unlike me) to do it. I'm more interested in playing RPGs than writing them.

(e) At the end of the day, there's always correction fluid. It would be nice if somebody would apply it before I paid for the product, but I can use it too...

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by Morte:
Is that why you don't do it?

Well, there are obviously unspoken implications to my statement. Things like familiarity, support, and a well written and understood (and IME, PLAYABLE) body of work figure in prominently.

I don't do it because:

(a) I don't have a license to publish a Traveller RPG.
(...)
(c) I worry that if I did do it, MWM wouldn't approve my version for publication.

When it comes down to it, my "3d starmaps" requirement would probably put me so far afield from the Traveller universe that whatever I did in that vein would only be "Traveller in spirit."

(b) I've been warned many times that publishing RPGs is the road to ruin.

(d) I'd rather pay a capable professional (unlike me) to do it. I'm more interested in playing RPGs than writing them.

Fundamentally what I am about, but don't think I haven't thought about jumping on the bandwagon. Not because I think it would net me a lot of money. Because I would like to see it done right. (Heck, that's what inspired me to join the ENnies gig.)

(e) At the end of the day, there's always correction fluid. It would be nice if somebody would apply it before I paid for the product, but I can use it too...

So, are you just gonna dip to whole Gateway book in it?

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Psion:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />(e) At the end of the day, there's always correction fluid. It would be nice if somebody would apply it before I paid for the product, but I can use it too...

So, are you just gonna dip to whole Gateway book in it? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Here's the crux: only the UWPs I use. I think there are about 30 broken UWPs in the Galian Federation, but I don't have to touch them unless I run a game there...

It must be awful for published writers. For example, if i were taking a party to Stoner for an adventure of my own invention, I could change the size/atmosphere/hydrosphere to 8/6/6 in about two seconds, and my problems would vanish. Poor old Michael Taylor had to work with the UWP he was given. I once had the idea of submitting a TA to QLI, but I gave up over the course of this thread.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Morte:
It's amazing how Traveller players are so utterly determined to make elabourate excuses for the things that are broken instead of just fixing them. It really puzzles me.

This amazes me too, actually. I find it especially amusing when people say "oh, those UWPs aren't broken, you just have to use your imagination to come up with a reason to make it work".

No. Fact is, they ARE broken.

They may not be broken in ways that are obvious to people, but they're still broken. This is especially true of the stellar data - for example, you absolutely cannot ever have a habitable planet around a white dwarf. Ever. At all. Yet there are many systems in the GENII data that have that, and the Book 6 design system even biases favourably towards generating them.

You also cannot have a standard atmosphere (or even ANY atmosphere) around a body the size of our moon (unless you're in the depths of the outer zone), without having a planet that is utterly, ridiculously dense. One or two in the whole of entire Charted Space I can possibly accept, but a damn sight more than that are generated by the Book 6 system.

I really can't see how you can have 80 billion people living on a rockball with no atmosphere either. Hell, I can't even see how you can have 80 billion people living on our own habitable planet - I can't see how it could possibly support that many.

It also, as I've mentioned before, means that Traveller becomes a universe filled with exceptions rather than rules - we're forced to come up with outlandish explanations for what are a large number of outlandish UWPs, rather than for just a few. This is extremely inelegant and totally shatters any semblance of realism. I'm all for a few odd worlds, but not the numbers of them that they currently exist.

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by Morte:
Here's the crux: only the UWPs I use. I think there are about 30 broken UWPs in the Galian Federation, but I don't have to touch them unless I run a game there...

I have seen you bring this up before (in your review.) And it's a fair call.

I'm not sure if I'd try to run with it or "punt" it. If I was writing my own sector, I'd reroll it till I was happy with it (actually not, since I wouldn't use Traveller worldgen anymore, but when I did, that's what I would do.) If I was running something out of the Gateway book, I'd probably look for a reason why.

I never had a problem doing that before. I think GtD sort of makes it a bit more in your face because, well, it gives you 4 whole sectors worth of anomolies to contemplate.

But as you say, you only need worry about the UWPs you use. 4 sectors gives you a lot more worlds than you will ever use. I anticipate I will probably only ever run games in the Glimmerdrift Beta and Crucis Alpha quadrants. Stoner is my only nemesis. And as stated, I see it more as opportunity than nemesis.

I don't find it that unlikely, having dealt with folks from big cities who find empty lots and swaths of forest a waste. Once acustomed to a lifestyle, it seems pretty rational that 56th century spacers aren't all going to want to go camping on weekends.

It must be awful for published writers. For example, if i were taking a party to Stoner for an adventure of my own invention, I could change the size/atmosphere/hydrosphere to 8/6/6 in about two seconds, and my problems would vanish. Poor old Michael Taylor had to work with the UWP he was given.

I think the idea of a honeycombed world or a world swarming with orbital habitats (or both) sounds much cooler than going with the Star Trekkish "every world is california" approach.

I've heard RPG editors and developers say that they get much more creative results out of writers when they are assigned something than when they do their own pet projects. This is much the same thing.

Again, I am not disputing your point that we shouldn't have to do it so much. But the idea of Taylor's Stoner sounds like it will be a more interesting end product than your Earth-clone would be.

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
No. Fact is, they ARE broken.

They may not be broken in ways that are obvious to people, but they're still broken. This is especially true of the stellar data - for example, you absolutely cannot ever have a habitable planet around a white dwarf. Ever.

Agreed. Broken. Edit: We've talked about this before, in your Evil Dr. persona over at RPGnet. This is likely an artifact of the way the stats were created, i.e., using mainworld first generation, which is inherently fuxxored as it lets you skip, hop, and jump past the built in realistic modeling of the system that does exist.

Not that, even using book 6 "the right way", it factors a whole lot into population. But it's still better than the old books 1-3 "subsector level" generation.

I think the best way to approach worlds like this is to retrofit the "ground up" modifiers to the world to give you a picture of what it would really be like.

Or, more simply, to white out the star type. Or trade it with a nearby star that would make it so both worlds make sense. (e.g., if there is a nearby G-type star orbited by a rockball outpost, trade stars with the world with the white dwarf.)

I really can't see how you can have 80 billion people living on a rockball with no atmosphere either.

That is a horse of a different color. Hard to imagine =/= impossible.

Hell, I can't even see how you can have 80 billion people living on our own habitable planet - I can't see how it could possibly support that many.

Was it upthread or elsewhere somebody pointed out that there was a study estimating that, given far less meat consumption, Earth could support 130 billion?

In fact, I think you have just given me an explanation on why the Galian Federation isn't so implausible. On Earth it amazes me the rate at which we are expanding. We need some biomass to support us, and we are encroaching on our environment with our living space. Perhaps they NEEDED to move people offworld to feed them. Perhaps the habitable planets are basically giant farms.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Psion:
Again, I am not disputing your point that we shouldn't have to do it so much. But the idea of Taylor's Stoner sounds like it will be a more interesting end product than your Earth-clone would be.

We're starting to go round the houses a bit here,

but I guess I think it's worth saying that the key words there are "so much".

I think the usual way for publishers to deal with so many broken worlds in canon has been to quietly steer clear of them and only use the more amenable ones. The duds (on the order of 50%) were left for the poor sap who bought the book to figure out when his players sold cargo there.

This, I reckon, is why we hardly ever got setting books which detailed every world in a given area.

What I would probably do when running a campaign in G993 is to alter the UWPs for most of the dubious worlds that confront me, especially when it's for consistency (e.g. to make a "powerful" pocket empire actually powerful). Otherwise, I'm creating a future where everybody is be even stupider than they are now. But occasionally I'll see a wacky one, keep it, and go to town on it.