Miscellaneous World Generation Stuff

Re: Rich Worlds

[email removed] (Derek Wildstar) writes:
>No, a Rich world is one that is prosperous because it has reasonable
>living conditions, is not over- or under- populated, and has a
>government which is conducive to personal prosperity.  If a corporation
>should take over a Rich world, it will cease being Rich, because the
>corporate government would change the way the worlds' inhabitants live
>and work.

Hmm... I dunno. Rich, to me, means rich. Maybe there's a different
adjective for these so-called freedom/middle-pop/relatively nice-
atmosphere type worlds. To strengthen my previous claim, consider
this. Rich worlds under the current system are designated so by
virture of atmosphere, population, and government, while poor
worlds, their supposed antithesis, are designated so by only
atmosphere and hydrosphere (both physical characteristics) and
without any regard to population or government. So the way I see
it (and this is an extreme viewpoint) is that we should use the
"resource" stat you proposed for these "rich" and "poor"
classifications and totally do away with the other criteria.
(Now donning flame-proof battledress :-)


Re: The "Life" Stat

>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.

Yeah. You know my feelings on this: that a human-dominated setting
conflicts with the teaming-universe hypothesis (i.e. if you have one,
you can't realistically have the other). If you have any rebuttals
to this argument, however, feel free to share them. It's something
I wouldn't mind finding a way around.

> -1 if not a Main Sequence (size V) star
> -1 if not a Spectral Class F or G star

I dunno. I think we should just stick with inner & outer zone
modifiers, and I'd be inclined to make those modifiers steep,
even prohibative. The stellar modifiers for those annoying
M-V's & M-VI's can be taken care of by the fact that there is
no habitable zone in such systems (due to the previously
mentioned tidal stress and consequential Roche limit).

>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).

So you want this table to be used in "world building", not in
mainworld (UWP) generation. I still think we should have something
for the UWP stat which is detailed. I admit, mine is probably
overly terran-centric, but at least it has some guts to it
(i.e. you can look at the stat and tell what's there in a
fair amount of detail... for example, there's nothing more
evolved than microscopic plant-life). We need something like
this right in the UWP. If you don't like what's in the table
I proposed, then propose another. Better that than to leave it
completely amorphous.

>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.

True, but I still think that the life-stat itself should tell the
GM something about the world. To say, "Oh, I'm not sure what that
means, I didn't go through world-building for this planet" is
kinda silly.

I agree that I'm locking the table into a terran-centric view of
evolution (which is stupid). But since I'm not a science major, I'm
not really fluent enough in alternate-evolutions to come up with
anything more generalized. If somebody has some ideas for generalizing
the table I proposed while still leaving the GM with a good feel for
what's there based on the stat, please step forward.

>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.

Okay. This is a good start (assuming we overlook the notion that
"kingdoms" other than protista, plant, and animal could evolve).
What I guess I'm looking for is further generalization with more
detail (for values above 8). I admit, it's a tall order.

>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.

I totally agree with you on this. The thing is, while the table was
named a "life" table, it was really a "life/sentience" table. That is,
we tied the evolutionary development of sentience to the evolutionary
development of life. They went hand in hand. If you want to nuke this
hypothesis, just say so, but if not, there there has to be a linkage
either on the table for the UWP score we're inventing or in the
world-building process (I'd prefer the latter, and from what I've
read, you'd probably agree).

>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.

Sounds good, but we still need a good table for establishing how much
the natives have evolved. That should be the life stat in the UWP.
Then we can bring up sentience in the world-building stage and let
each gamer go his or her separate way depending on how much non-human
sentience we want to deal with in our various campaigns.


Re: The "Resource" Stat

Wildstar proposes two methods for rolling & interpreting this
stat. In his conclusion, he seems to prefer his second proposal.

>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).

We still have to be careful with our resource types. That is, if
the planet turns out to have no native life, or very little, and
further seems incapable of supporting any (i.e. vacuum, non-habitable
zone, etc) then having trees and livestock is probably going
to look funky.

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

Yeah, all in all, I like it. I actually like it quite a bit
better than the system I proposed for this same thing last night.
We just need to be a little bit careful with the resource types.

>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.

I'll try to get something worked up for tomorrow night's TML.
You can do the same, and then we can duke it out :-)

>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?

Let's not forget atmosphere. Hmm... this is starting to entail lots
of variables.


Re: Sector Viewing

Well, as you know, once we flesh out these two stats we're
talking about, we'll need a sector viewer that can read 'em.
What I have here is a new sector viewer (for the IBM-PC)
which is compatible with the sunbane (standard) data. I'll
modify the program as we come to a consensus (if we come to
a consensus) to incorporate the "life" and "resource" stats.

Here's the specifics:

        PROGRAM NAME: "galactic" [v1.0] {February 1993}
        GAME SYSTEM: Traveller/MegaTraveller
        AUTHOR: Jim Vassilakos  ([email removed])
        FUNCTION: Sector Viewer
        OPERATING SYSTEM: IBM (MS-DOS)
        PRICE: Public Domain
        COMMENTS: CGA or better required. Allows the user to
              skip from world to world, reading planetary
              descriptions and notes about each world in any
              given star sector. Is compatible with the sunbane
              sector data. Zip file includes Spinward Marches
              data as well as notes on the Yres system. QB45
              source included with the compiled executable.
              Contact the author for a uuencoded version via
              email.
        FILE(s): galactic.zip
        SOURCE(s): Available via Anonymous FTP:
          ftp.cs.pdx.edu (131.252.20.145) in pub/frp/src

Note that it does take a little work getting a sunbane sector ready
to view, but the spinward marches are all there ready to go. All the
user has to do is provide the long-winded world descriptions from
her or his campaign. Let me know what you think.


           _   /|       Jim Vassilakos
           \`o_O'       [email removed]
             ( )        [email removed]
              U         [email removed]
           Aachk!       [phone removed]