UPPs, Starports, and Superdense

Cynthia Higginbotham [email removed] writes:

>         To generalize from this: world UPPs are snapshots (we all know
> this).  The less logical a particular UPP is, the more likely it is to be
> a temporary condition.  This kind of UPP should be revised by the Referee
> as appropriate; what the PCs encounter, and what is published in the
> update column of the Wall Street Journal (Library Data edition) will not
> match the UPP in the Official Third Imperial Grand Survey.

One suggestion is to xerox or retype the world data for the subsector
you are adventuring in.  Put the copy in your campaign notebook and
update the world UPPs as the players encounter them.  This way you can
fudge the values of just about anything and remain consistent when the
players return to the world at some point in the future.

>[starport ratings and traffic levels]

One problem with quantifing the traffic levels in aggregate tons a year
is the problem of deciding what the trade level should be.  By this I
mean that everyone's concept of how much interstellar traffic there
actually *IS* in the Imperium varies greatly.  Heck, I'm not even
self-consistent in my own view.

At one end of the spectrum is the "luxury trade" concept.  This is that
interstellar trade is a relatively rare and expensive thing, and that even
the busiest ports have at most a few dozen ships in port at once.  This
point of view seems implicit in many of the earliest Traveller
materials.  Trade therefore makes up a very little part of the Gross
Imperial Product, and most worlds are almost entirely self-sufficient.

The other end of the extreme is where the Imperium is one large
interstellar economy; with most worlds dependent on interstellar imports
or exports to maintain their technology and standard of living. Such a
model calls for hundreds or thousands of ships in port at even
moderately busy systems.  This point of view is implicit in almost
anything written for MegaTraveller.

I tend to suspect that the latter case is probably more accurate, but I
would hate to create a rating system that dictated a level of trade to a
referee that was comfortable with something else.

>         What does size of the vessel have to do with how much traffic a
> system sees?   I personally think that a port that sees 120,000 Free
> Traders a year rates a higher traffic rating than a port that sees one
> 100,000 ton bulk hauler a year.  I suggest you rate traffic by Aggregate
> Tons of ships (not cargo) rather than by tonnage of individual vessels.

This is why I used two numbers in my rating system.  The traffic rating
indicates the aggregate tonnage of shipping (in a vague sort of way),
while the facilities code shows what the landing pads, yards, and repair
shops are capable of (a code A-?0 world might find constructing a
scoutship to be a challenge, while a A-?F world would be quite capable
of million-ton behemoths).

Using the large-scale trade assumptions, a rough guide to my system
would go something like:

Trade Volume (with Cynthia's interpretation of Scott's ragings):
  F = a billion aggregate tons or more (more than "H")
  D, E = over a hundred million aggregate tons ("H")
  A, B, C = over ten million aggregate tons ("M")
  7, 8, 9 = over a million aggregate tons (high "L")
  4, 5, 6 = over a hundred thousand aggregate tons (Low "L")
  1, 2, 3 = over ten thousand aggregate tons (high "O")
  0 = at least a thousand aggregate tons (low "O")
  Z = less than a thousand aggregate tons ("Z")

> I accept that advanced technology could create something tougher than
> single-crystal metals without knowing the details.
>         I tend to reserve degenerate matter and meson atoms for
> explanations of Monadium; they are too high tech and too tough to be
> Superdense.  (BTW, degenerate matter is Really Neat Stuff -- and its
> characteristics match almost all the observed characteristics of Monadium
> except one).

I tend to hand-wave on this one.  Most players are satisfied with my
explanation of "Partially-collapsed matter" and don't ask for details.
You are right, though: degenerate matter ("neutronium" to my players)
and meson atoms are probably way-higher than TL-15.


[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                         in the Far Future