T5 Errata Discussion Thread

[Midgardsormr]

unfortunately Classic Traveller and the versions that strives to be close to Classic Traveller has an absolute ban against any type of die other than D6. This, I believe, includes T5[*].

[*] Or am I wrong?​

Page 23: "Only D6 dice are used in Traveller. Sometimes, in order to remain true to the D6 concept, the system contorts D6 die rolls to achieve special
results (for example, even distributions from 1 to 10 or 1 to 9). While purists may object, no one else will mind if you use an available D10 or D20."

I don't know if that qualifies as an "absolute ban," but I personally keep a full set of polyhedrals in my kit.

But for the purposes of the errata, the Even Distribution table is given on page 31, and the instructions for that table explicitly mention the Population Multiplier:
"This table is most commonly used in creating the Population Multiplier associated with the population exponent of worlds. Because the population multiplier modifies the exponent, a result of 0 or 10 is not applicable (zero creates a zero result; ten increases the value to the next order of magnitude)"

 

[rancke]

But for the purposes of the errata, the Even Distribution table is given on page 31, and the instructions for that table explicitly mention the Population Multiplier:

"This table is most commonly used in creating the Population Multiplier associated with the population exponent of worlds. Because the population multiplier modifies the exponent, a result of 0 or 10 is not applicable (zero creates a zero result; ten increases the value to the next order of magnitude)"

That sounds like an idea that wasn't thought through. It's certainly nothing like an even distribution, a zero result is meaningless (unless it means removing all population from the world, i.e. make the population level 0), and increasing the value to the next order of magnitude still requires a population multiplier (and opens up for population B worlds -- a group of 11,000 worlds would have an average of 8.5 pop B worlds with a 24 % chance that one of them was a pop C world. >><<)

So perhaps Don should talk to Marc Miller about it? I still maintain that my suggestion is more elegant. But, of course, MM may feel that upping the population level occasionally is a desirable feature.


Hans

 

[Draconian]

Population Code and Population Multiplier

I don't see any problem. There are two numbers: a Population Code, the 4th digit in the UWP after the Starport Type. This is the "exponent" of the population, so 6 means 10⁶ or a million, 9 means 10⁹ or a billion. The values which can be generated are from 0 to 15 but these are the exponents.

But then there is a population multiplier, which can only be a roll from 1 to 9 (0 and 10 are explicitly not used). This is a multiplier or "mantissa" to the number. So if you roll a 9 for Population Code and 5 for the multiplier it means 5 x 10⁹ or five billion. In that way a more precise population figure can be obtained than classic Traveller.

What I don't like about the Population system is that it's thoroughly random, independent of the planet size, atmosphere or resources, and every 216th planet on average may generate a population from (1-9) x 10¹⁵ or 1-9 quadrillion (in the "American" style of counting millions, billions, trillions). Yikes! Even with cheap fusion energy it beggars belief.

 

[rancke]

I don't see any problem. There are two numbers: a Population Code, the 4th digit in the UWP after the Starport Type. This is the "exponent" of the population, so 6 means 10⁶ or a million, 9 means 10⁹ or a billion. The values which can be generated are from 0 to 15 but these are the exponents.

But then there is a population multiplier, which can only be a roll from 1 to 9 (0 and 10 are explicitly not used). This is a multiplier or "mantissa" to the number. So if you roll a 9 for Population Code and 5 for the multiplier it means 5 x 10⁹ or five billion. In that way a more precise population figure can be obtained than classic Traveller.

All very true, but I don't see how it resolves the problem.

What I don't like about the Population system is that it's thoroughly random, independent of the planet size, atmosphere or resources...

You and me both, but evidently Marc Miller does like it. It's certainly not like people haven't been complaining about that for many, many years now.

...and every 216th planet on average may generate a population from (1-9) x 10¹⁵ or 1-9 quadrillion (in the "American" style of counting millions, billions, trillions).

Traveller uses the American style. So trillions it is.

Well, well, well; trillions of inhabitants, that's new. If Marc Miller introduced the possibility of worlds with trillons of inhabitants, I don't suppose the possibility of having a pop 10 world upped to a pop 11 world will worry him.


Hans

 

[Draconian]

I still fail to see where the problem is. The master equation for the roll is:


Population = (Population Multiplier 1-9 roll) x 10^{(Population Code 0-15)}

P. 31 specifically states the 1-9 Even Distribution table is used for the Population Multiplier. This makes unique numbers that can't overlap. For 9 x 10³ or 9,000 people, the next higher possible population is 10,000 but that's only achieved with a 1 x 10⁴ determination, a 1 on the 1-9 Even Distribution table, and a 4 on the 2D-2 Population Code determination. There is no Even Distribution roll 1-9 that will make a result that carries over into a different Population Code.

 

[rancke]

I still fail to see where the problem is. The master equation for the roll is:


Population = (Population Multiplier 1-9 roll) x 10^{(Population Code 0-15)}

This makes unique numbers that can't overlap. For 9 x 10³ or 9,000 people, the next higher possible population is 10,000 but that's only achieved with a 1 x 10⁴ determination.

According to the rule Midgardsomr quoted, population multipliers are determined by throwing 2D and subtracting 2. I assume that at this point the population level has already been determined. If the result is 1 to 9, the population multiplier becomes 1 to 9. If the result is 0, it "creates a zero result", which I'm not sure how to interpret. And if the result is 10, the population level is increased by one, from X to X+1. At which point, presumably, you roll once more for population multiplier, since you still haven't determined one.

One consequence of this rule would be that one world in 36 has its population level increased by one. Since one world in 36 starts the process with a pop level of 10, one world in 1296 will wind up with a pop level of 11, or hundreds of billions. For an empire the size of the Imperium, the result would be an average of 8.5 pop 11 worlds, which, ignoring the possibility that one of those worlds could become a pop 12 world, would make the population average 4.2 trillions more than the population of the Imperium, with a 27.6% higher tax base.

Some people may think that's a problem, others may not. I belong to the first group. I don't think Traveller universes need a 28% size increase in naval forces.


Hans

 

[Draconian]

According to the rule Midgardsomr quoted, population multipliers are determined by throwing 2D and subtracting 2. I assume that at this point the population level has already been determined. If the result is 1 to 9, the population multiplier becomes 1 to 9. If the result is 0, it "creates a zero result", which I'm not sure how to interpret. And if the result is 10, the population level is increased by one, from X to X+1. At which point, presumably, you roll once more for population multiplier, since you still haven't determined one.

One consequence of this rule would be that one world in 36 has its population level increased by one. Since one world in 36 starts the process with a pop level of 10, one world in 1296 will wind up with a pop level of 11, or hundreds of billions. For an empire the size of the Imperium, the result would be an average of 8.5 pop 11 worlds, which, ignoring the possibility that one of those worlds could become a pop 12 world, would make the population average 4.2 trillions more than the population of the Imperium, with a 27.6% higher tax base.

Some people may think that's a problem, others may not. I belong to the first group. I don't think Traveller universes need a 28% size increase in naval forces.


Hans

You are confusing Population Codes (the 4th digit after the Starport Type in the UWP) with a Population Multiplier in the PBG section of the Second Survey Extended code, which is not related explicitly to the population but which is determined as a value from 1-9 from the Even Distribution table of p. 31. There are no 0's and 10's permitted for it. The description on p. 31 says this Population Multiplier is associated with the Population Exponent, but that does not mean it IS the Population Exponent. Maybe that is what is causing the confusion.

Once you roll a 2D-2 to determine the Population Code (if 10 (A), a re-roll can balloon to as much as 15(F)), take the base population as 10 to the power of this Population Code. THEN roll a Population Multiplier of from 1-9 with the 1-9 Even Distribution table given on p. 31. Multiply this Population Multiplier with 10^{Population Code} to get the more precise population of the mainworld. Because the Population Multiplier is not part of CT planet codes, it is determined afterwards, and only if necessary.

To get a Population Code, roll 2D-2, which gives 0-10. But if 10, re-roll as 9+1D. You can actually get values from 0 to F (15). But this code is the EXPONENT, the power of 10 of the population, which can range from 10⁰ (1-9 people, explorers, crazy miners) to 10¹⁵: 1-9 quadrillion.

There is no "overlap" as you suggest, no instance where the Population Multiplier can throw the population to the next-higher Population Code.

 

[rancke]

You are confusing Population Codes (the 4th digit after the Starport Type in the UWP) with a Population Multiplier in the PBG section of the Second Survey Extended code, which is not related explicitly to the population but which is determined as a value from 1-9 from the Even Distribution table of p. 31. There are no 0's and 10's permitted for it. The description on p. 31 says this Population Multiplier is associated with the Population Exponent, but that does not mean it IS the Population Exponent. Maybe that is what is causing the confusion.

What seems to be causing the confusion is that the rule Midgardsomr quotes goes like this:

"This table is most commonly used in creating the Population Multiplier associated with the population exponent of worlds. Because the population multiplier modifies the exponent, a result of 0 or 10 is not applicable (zero creates a zero result; ten increases the value to the next order of magnitude)"​

Emphasis mine.

The way I read it, the 2D die roll mentioned is supposed to establish the population multiplier, not the population exponent (aka population level).

Does 'this table' refer to some other way to obtain a result between 0 and 10?


Hans

 

[Draconian]

What seems to be causing the confusion is that the rule Midgardsomr quotes goes like this:

"This table is most commonly used in creating the Population Multiplier associated with the population exponent of worlds. Because the population multiplier modifies the exponent, a result of 0 or 10 is not applicable (zero creates a zero result; ten increases the value to the next order of magnitude)"​

Emphasis mine.

The way I read it, the 2D die roll mentioned is supposed to establish the population multiplier, not the population exponent (aka population level).

Does 'this table' refer to some other way to obtain a result between 0 and 10?


Hans

No, that's incorrect. The text only meant to say that the Population Multiplier (a random value from 1-9, with a table to generate it on p. 31) is multiplied to the value 10-to-the-power-of-(Population Code). Synonyms like "associated" and "modified" do not have a mathematical meaning in there. It modifies the power-of-ten value of the population, not the exponent (the Population Code itself). The Population Multiplier acts as a "mantissa" in math. It may be leading you to believe that the multiplier should somehow take over the role of the Population Code. It does not.

First determine the Population Code, which oddly has nothing to do with suitable atmosphere, gravity or resources, but is a roll of 2D-2. If the result is 10, roll again on 9+1D. You will get a value somewhere between 0 (minimum) and F or 15 (maximum). Take 10 to the power of this, that's the base population figure for the world, anywhere from 1 to 1 quadrillion. THEN multiply by the Population Multiplier (1-9). That digit is off in the extension of the UWP code somewhere (the PBG block). There is no overlap. A value of 1,000 to 9,000 is all still in the Population Code 3. 10,000 is over in Population Code 4.

 

[Draconian]

Hydrographics A

According to the v.71 errata, a size A world with hydrographics A would be tagged as both a Water World and as an Ocean World.

You're right! There's an overlap in the two codes if the Size of the world is A, could be either code (but only if Atmosphere range is right too).

 

[dalthor]

Starship ergonomics

Ok, per page 348 for starship ergonomics, ergo quality is console space in squares divided by number of consoles, then subtract 5. This default value ASSUMES a bridge. Without bridge, subtract seven (7) instead of 5.

This means that even if every console on the ship is a spacious console at 2 tons, your best possible ergo factor is -1. This affects Mishap rolls in a BAD WAY, although this is a pretty nice workstation. (And yes, you can increase the size of the console.) So, WHAT USE is a spacious console?

IMTU, I only subtract 1, or 3 if there is no bridge. I also give a modifer based on the installed computer system. The modifier is (cells - consoles). This give a bonus if the ship's computer capacity exceeds the number of consoles (reduced user workload), and a bad modifier if the computer is underpowered.

This makes much more sense to me. So, what do you all think?

Dalthor

 

[rancke]

No, that's incorrect. The text only meant to say that the Population Multiplier (a random value from 1-9, with a table to generate it on p. 31) is multiplied to the value 10-to-the-power-of-(Population Code). Synonyms like "associated" and "modified" do not have a mathematical meaning in there. It modifies the power-of-ten value of the population, not the exponent (the Population Code itself). The Population Multiplier acts as a "mantissa" in math. It may be leading you to believe that the multiplier should somehow take over the role of the Population Code. It does not.

I'm perfectly aware of the difference between the population level and the population multiplier, thank you. I just jumped to the conclusion that the sentence 'The table is used in creating the population multiplier' referred to the population multiplier rather than the population level. And I still don't see how it can possibly be interpreted in any other way.

First determine the Population Code, which oddly has nothing to do with suitable atmosphere, gravity or resources, but is a roll of 2D-2. If the result is 10, roll again on 9+1D. You will get a value somewhere between 0 (minimum) and F or 15 (maximum). Take 10 to the power of this, that's the base population figure for the world, anywhere from 1 to 1 quadrillion.

So far so good.

THEN multiply by the Population Multiplier (1-9).

What population multiplier? I haven't done anything to establish it yet, have I?

That digit is off in the extension of the UWP code somewhere (the PBG block).

Not if I'm rolling up a new UWP, it isn't. Not until I roll it up. You seem to be confusing the process of establishing the population figures with how to interpret them.


Hans

 

[Draconian]

Okay, so to get the Population Multiplier, just make a random pick between 1 and 9. The table p. 31 shows how to derive it from 2D, first die, then second die.

I think the problem is they never TOLD anyone anywhere to roll for Population Multiplier.

Multiply this by the ten to the power of the exponent (the Population Code) to get the approximate value of population.

 

[thalassogen]

Last errata update has been two months ago and nearly no infos since then...
Any hint on when to expect the next update?

I would appreciate the chance to give more feedback on the rules and the errata before the player's handbook is even starting out. I would really like a clean, error-free game. I would also appreciate more infos on the state of things. I understand that Don is occupied, aren't there any other channels to keep people informed? Am I missing a communication platform? I do not use G+, FB or Twitter. Should I?

 

[Draconian]

Last errata update has been two months ago and nearly no infos since then...
Any hint on when to expect the next update?

I would appreciate the chance to give more feedback on the rules and the errata before the player's handbook is even starting out. I would really like a clean, error-free game. I would also appreciate more infos on the state of things. I understand that Don is occupied, aren't there any other channels to keep people informed? Am I missing a communication platform? I do not use G+, FB or Twitter. Should I?

I went through the whole book quite thoroughly during my vacation, and turned up so many errata it was crazy. By this I mean things affecting rules procedures. There were spelling typos too, but I didn't mention the obvious ones that had no real effect.

Perhaps from the additions of me and others, the key people involved are getting discouraged. Or it was mentioned that they wanted to place priority on looking at the combat system again.

Let us hope there is an efficient revision process constructively developed between the writers and the fandom.

 

[rancke]

Okay, so to get the Population Multiplier, just make a random pick between 1 and 9. The table p. 31 shows how to derive it from 2D, first die, then second die.

I think the problem is they never TOLD anyone anywhere to roll for Population Multiplier.

So is that an errata? Should the rules include instructions to roll for Population Multiplier during world generation?

And should the text Midgardsormr quoted be errataed? It states quite unequivocally that the table allows results from 0 to 10, not 1 to 9. If that's wrong and the table only allows results from 1 to 9, the text should be corrected.


Hans

 

[thalassogen]

As I already said two pages ago: Yes, this is errata. And I made a suggestion, too. On Jul 29th Don passed this topic to Marc. For reference, here you go: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=446825&postcount=142

 

[DonM]

Last errata update has been two months ago and nearly no infos since then...
Any hint on when to expect the next update?

I would appreciate the chance to give more feedback on the rules and the errata before the player's handbook is even starting out. I would really like a clean, error-free game. I would also appreciate more infos on the state of things. I understand that Don is occupied, aren't there any other channels to keep people informed? Am I missing a communication platform? I do not use G+, FB or Twitter. Should I?

Don's getting unoccupied. What a pile of stuff to go through. I don't think you're missing anything. Marc has had do deal with some personal issues of his own. I'll nudge him for an update.

 

[Draconian]

And should the text Midgardsormr quoted be errataed? It states quite unequivocally that the table allows results from 0 to 10, not 1 to 9. If that's wrong and the table only allows results from 1 to 9, the text should be corrected.


Hans

No, it is saying that rolls of 0 or 10 would do incorrect things. It does not actually say you can allow a roll of 10 and bump the Population Code into the next category. It means NOT to do that.

 

[rancke]

And should the text Midgardsormr quoted be errataed? It states quite unequivocally that the table allows results from 0 to 10, not 1 to 9. If that's wrong and the table only allows results from 1 to 9, the text should be corrected.

No, it is saying that rolls of 0 or 10 would do incorrect things. It does not actually say you can allow a roll of 10 and bump the Population Code into the next category. It means NOT to do that.

That's not how I read it. I stand by my statement with one small amendment; I'll substitute 'implies' for 'states'. The text Midgardormr quoted quite unequivocally implies that the table allows results from 0 to 10, not 1 to 9 and explains what the result of a 0 and a 10 is.

The quote may be wrong. The table may not allow 0s and 10s to be generated. But that's what the quote implies.


Hans