Life and Resource Scores

First off, I'd like to thank Jeff Zeitlin for some interesting
suggestions for Government and Law Level TL mods; these bear trying out.

[email removed] (james vassilakos) writes:
> Two nights ago, Wildstar proposed adding a life stat to the UWP in order
> to account for the extent of a planet's ecosystem (presumably to be
> modified by colonization whether destructive or beneficial). However,
> he suggested rolling under the stat on 2d6 to determine whether or not
> native sentience has evolved. Mark Watson argued that this is probably
> too liberal, and being conservative on this issue (my reasoning can be
> read in yesterday's TML), I'm offering the following table for criticisms.

Since all of the other UWP stats reflect the condition of the world as
it is now, and changes are inferred; I'd assume that the changes due to
colonization have already been applied (just like the effects of any
terraforming have already been applied).  Given this, and given that
upon reflection even I think that rolling 2d6 for Life or less is
probably too liberal, try the following:

Life Score
0 = Sterile (although "organic" compounds may be present).
1 = Pre-Life (sophisticated "organic" compounds, precursors to life).
2+  Some Life Present (at least single-"cell" simple organisms).
    As the Life score increases, the number and size of the ecosystems
    increase, as does the number and complexity of the organisms which
    can be found there.  Remember that this applies equally to
    native life-forms as well as "imported" forms (due to activity of
    the Ancients, colonization, or simply by accident).  The minimums
    for native development of a given complexity can be figured out from
    the table below.

Whether or not you apply DMs to the Life score based on the stellar zone
the planet is in (inner, habitable, or outer) depends on your views on
really outrageous biochemistries.  If you believe that sentient life can
evolve in ecospheres in gas giants or on ultra-cold (or ultra-hot)
worlds, the zone DMs should be no more than -2 or -4.  In this case, I'd
suggest using a -3 for Inner and Outer Zone worlds, and a DM of 0 for
worlds in the habitable zone.  This is probably compatible with the
Classic Traveller vision of the universe (which is heavily indebted to
Larry Niven and Edward E ("Doc") Smith) with intelligent gas-giant
dwellers and all sorts of exotic life-forms, and sentient life-forms are
all over the place, although many of them (from the Jgd to the Cymbiots
aren't really "life as we know it").

While the above pretty accurately describes the way I feel, I certainly
understand if this isn't everybody's cup of tea.  For a lot less life in
general, and a lot less intelligent life, try the following DMs:
- -1 if not a Main Sequence (size V) star
- -1 if not a Spectral Class F or G star
- -6 if in Inner Zone
- -4 if in Outer Zone
This should cause the most Life to cluster around the habitable zone of
class F and G Main Sequence stars (in other words, stars like the Sun or
a little brighter).  Thus most life will be "life as we know it", and
will be much less prevalent than in the first method.

Now throw 2d6 and subtract the results from the Life Score:
0-  No significant native organisms (all "boring" or imported).
1 = "Interesting" native single-cell organisms.
2 = "Interesting" native microscopic (multi-cell) organisms.
3 = "Interesting" native plants (macroscopic).
4 = "Interesting" native animals (non-sentient).
5 = Complex native ecosystem (multiple "Interesting" organisms).
6+  Native Sentient or near-Sentient life (always interesting).

The second throw should probably be part of the "world building"
procedure, and not part of the basic generation.  Once the throw is
made, the referee will then have to decide (as part of the detailed
world description) what the "interesting" things about the planet are.

From the above procedure, you can see that it is possible to generate a
world with a lush and complete biosphere, all of which is the result of
a large colonisation effort.  This also makes the minimum Life score for
a world to have native sophonts to be 8.  This system causes one or two
worlds to have native sentient (or "near-sentient", an out for referees
who don't want this many minor races around) per subsector.  Assuming
the Life DMs balance out (and they may not, I didn't check) random
generation will have about 5.4% for all worlds (or a little less than one
in 18) with native sentient or near-sentient life.

> [table omitted in the interest of brevity]

I really wouldn't want to lock down that exactly what each level on the
scale means.  Comparing two ecosystems on Earth is rough enough;
extending this to encompass, for example, silicon based
methane-breathers will stretch it too far.  Not every world is going to
have a carbon and water based metabolism that arose from the oceans.

I really don't agree with this, particularly from C (Tool Use) on up;
these distinctions should really be made as part of the details for the
native sentient or semi-sentient race.  The exact stage of development
should probably be determined by the referee during the "world building"
stage of generating planetary details.  I should also point out that
while the use of tools and fire is pretty much a clincher for sentient
or semi-sentient creatures, by the time they are practicing agriculture
the society is pretty much at TL-0.

Using the tables above as a guide, the followings are minimums for
native life forms:

0 = Sterile
1 = Pre-Life
2 = Life (maybe even pre-cellular life)
3 = Single-Celled organisms
4 = Multi-cellular organisms
5 = "Plant" life
6 = Animal life
7 = Complex ecosystems
8 = MINIMUM for native sentient organisms.

But please note that it is possible for a world to have a Life score of
12, but not have any "interesting" native life.  One possibility is a
world that has been colonized, and the colonist's imported plants and
animals have out-competed the native ecosystem, which as become nearly
extinct.  This is a definite possibility, particularly on worlds that
have been civilized for thousands of years.  Another possibility is a
world that is covered with oceans, which are literally filled with an
amazing diversity of single-celled organisms.  Literally every square
centimeter of the worlds' surface has something living on it.  Although
such a world might have a relatively high Life rating, it may only rate
as having "interesting" single-celled organisms.

> For the more liberal-minded,
> you may want to give C+ various higher degrees of technology than
> what has been listed.

I would think that it is better to have the Life score as independent of
the natives' TL as possible.  The Life score can be used to determine
whether or not there *are* natives, but their TL is more properly the
province of the worlds' TL score.  If the world has both a native
population and human colonists, the UWP TL score will indicate the
population that interstellar travellers will interact with the most.
When "building" such a world, the native race and its technology can be
detailed.

> Re: Resources Stat

Here are some suggestions for the Resources score, too.

Roll 2d6 and subtract this total from the resources stat:
0-  Nothing worth commercial exploitation (at this time).
1-3 Better sources exist elsewhere; local commercial exploitation only
4-7 Major Source; important subsector-wide producer
8+  Principal Source; important sector-wide producer
The referee will then have to decide what commodity (or commodities) the
world's resources represent.  While this is relatively quick and dirty,
there are some potential problems.  These problems are the same as the
ones inherent in the scheme proposed by Jim: it is quite possible to
roll up two worlds, both major producers or better, and both with the
same resource, all in the same subsector.

Either Jim's method, or the method above (I don't think it's very
important either way; the two are nearly equivalent) are probably
suitable for most referees.  On re-consideration, Jim's system is
simpler, and therefore probably the better of the two.

A better method would be to select a resource type (perhaps using Table
10a, or from some other source), and roll 1d6.  This is the "amount" of
this resource, but not more than the resource score of the world.
Continue until the entire resource score is accounted for.  An example
is in order:

2d6 Roll 10 for the Resource score of the world.
1st Resource: #61, Livestock.  Amount: 5
2nd Resource: #42, Plants (wood).  Amount: 4
3rd Resource: #63, Livestock.  Amount: 1 (a 3 was rolled).

So, our hypothetical world produces Livestock at Level 6 (the two
livestock resources add, at the referees' discretion), and Plants (wood)
at Level 4.

Comparing all of the scores and types within the subsector and within
the sector will reveal the primary producers of each type.

> I admit, this is all very cut & dry, but it's easier to complicate
> a simple system than to simplify a complex one.

Agreed.  While I don't like your Life system, the resource system you
present is very simple and has the desired effect.  One suggestion,
though: prehaps we should come up with a resource type table which is
more appropriate than good 'ol Table 10a/b.  A better variety of
resources, and with the table organised so that we can use a DM based on
Life, Size and/or other planetary stats would be good.

One possibility would be to use a 1d6+1d6 table (like tables 10a) and
apply DMs to the first die based on the Life Score (Life 0=-2, 1-3=-1,
4-6=0, 7-9=+1, 10+=+2) and the second die based on the world size (Size
Asteroid/VerySmall/Small=-1, Large=+1).  What do y'all think?


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