The order in which UWP stats are generated is non-intuitative:
1. Starport 5. Population 2. World Size 6. Government 3. Atmosphere 7. Law Level 4. Hydrographics 8. TechnologyWhy is the starport generated first? It would be more sensible for starport type to be determined by traffic, and traffic to be determined by population. Consider generating starport type after population. Making this one change, look at cause and effect in the rules:
The Stat What modifies it /------\ /--------------\ 1. Size (nil) 2. Atmosphere (Size) 3. Hydro (Size, Atmosphere) 4. Population (nil) 5. Starport (nil) 6. Government (nil) 7. Law Level (nil) 8. Technology (everything but law level)Regardless of its features, the primary world or asteroid belt in one system is just as likely to have a population of X as the primary world or asteroid belt in any other system. This is less than obvious.
Think about it. You roll up some dinky little ice-ball as the main world in your star system -- surely the fact that this tiny lump of rock has no atmosphere, that it has no liquid water, and that it hasn't even a modicum of elbow room, makes it less likely to have a population of 50 billion people than the garden terra-prime paradise just a couple of parsecs down the road. Yes... you can explain it away. You can say, "Oh, there's this wonderful lanthanum mine." Or you can say. "These people live here... because it's their home" (and then smile convincingly). But it doesn't work. This isn't a little inconsistency. This is a whopping big one.
Jim's 1st Law on main-world generation: Given that everything else is more or less equal, people will tend to migrate to the place that is "nicer". Worlds with a nice atmosphere, some actual water, and so forth, will attract large populations which will in turn build decent starports. Planets that aren't so nice (you know the ones I'm talking about) will not attract people, and hence are unlikely to have lots of traffic or well-equipped starports.
[Note that `people' is implicitly Humaniti -- not necessarily the case on all worlds.]
Jim's 2nd Law: People will attain the resources (technology) that they need to survive, such that those resources are available. If you're really sure that you're going to live on Sonthert/Lanth, then you're going to make sure you have the technology to survive on a near-vacuum planet. (Sonthert, alas, is rated TL3.)
The philosophy of high and low tech worlds living side by side is also questionable. It can be argued that it's possible for a short duration such as a few decades, or given special poltical or social circumstances. But in general, over the course of centuries, eventually there will either be a leveling process or the low TL regions will gain in technology.
The counter-argument to Jim's 1st Law is that all things are _not_ equal. Otherwise, why would anyone live in Chicago when they could move to Hawaii? (Most people would class the latter as nicer than the former!) The answer is economics. People are too poor to move, don't have skills, have family ties. Moreover, if there are no jobs at the new planet, who is going to move there? Equally, the world profiles don't tell the whole story. Just because a place has a "nice" profile - average size, average atmosphere, average hydro -- doesn't mean the rest of it is fun. The planet could be too hot, too cold, inhabited by vorpal bunnies, or whatever.
It is also possible that "blue-sky" Terra-norm worlds might in some cases be more difficult to settle than less inviting worlds -- there'll be life down there, and who knows what might do to prospective settlers? Vacuum worlds are much more predictable, and with proper planning might also be easier on the equipment. So more people might settle there, especially if the colony is well established -- a vacuum world colony interior can be much more sophisticated and spacious than, say, Moonbase Alpha.
Some example UWPs from this system:
X211000-0 E475100-8 D86A6BB-7 X410000-0 A410446-B C66266B-6 E98A237-8 X573220-5 A748483-C A85A766-C A867657-B C310235-7 B220532-D X473000-0 A665ADD-E A8599A8-C C738475-8 A5588B7-9 C634523-8 B332334-9 D545456-5 C575553-7 C110221-8 A667785-7 E75A466-4 D795679-5 C754575-9 E678112-6 X311000-0 X528211-8 B471322-B C874663-6 D453643-4 C668989-9 B5438AE-8 C87A564-6 C474278-8 X226000-0 C410230-7 X303156-8 B9B4230-7 A5949C9-A A685876-7 C594100-8 C539343-7 X9A8000-0 X120000-0 B457867-6 B2518CD-B A631453-FNote that there are some conspicuous differences between this data and "normal" UWP listings. There are more uninhabited or very low-population star systems under the modified rules. This will probably bring down the average starport rating for any given region. Also, there are very few low-tech star systems. The lowest here are both TL4, and in both cases, they've got a breathable atmospheres. As expected, the less-hospitable worlds tend to have lower populations and seedier starports. More surprising is the existence of several lush (atmos=6) worlds with under ten million inhabitants. The system usually has high populations clustered on those worlds. However, when we look at the highest population world in this run, we see that it has a standard atmosphere, so these results are fairly plausible.
It can also be argued that law level will have an effect on tech level. The more oppressive a society is, the less likely it is that genii will appear and create the new technology. Earth history supports this view; the cultures that made the largest advances in technology were the ones with high levels of personal freedom. Certainly, other, less free cultures may do a better job of exploiting some forms of technology, but they'll probably get it from a culture that is more free. One would hardly expect a totally oppressive theocracy to be innovative...
At No Law, there is no way of ensuring that the person who develops new technology will be able to profit from it. If something is good, it will be used by anyone who can get their hands on it, and without paying. This reduces the incentive to research.
At Low Law, there may be some protection, so there will be some innovation. However, it only rates a +1 because the government will normally not be powerful or influential enough to make large investments in research.
At Moderate Law, you will typically have a government that has the power, influence, and revenue to invest in research, and sufficient freedom of information exchange to make it profitable (in terms of results). However, at this stage, the government will probably have a tendency to want to direct the research, rather than dropping the cash on the table, sitting back, and saying, "O.K. folks, let's see what you can come up with."
This directive tendency will continue at higher law levels, and with the continuing decrease in personal freedom and freedom of information exchange, and increasing compartmentalization of research, the return on investment will typically drop heavily. At some point, the government will probably decide that research is unproductive of results, and tech will stagnate (Look at the USSR on Terra in -2531 - most of their technology was acquired through intelligence gathering).
Thus the suggested modifiers to TL based on Law Level:
No Law or Moderate Law +0
Low Law +1
High Law -1
Extreme Law (A-C) -2
Extreme Law (D-E) -3
Extreme Law (F-G) -4
Extreme Law (H+) -5
In a similar vein, one can also suggest a new table for the effect of
government type on tech level:
MegaT gov code DM
-------------- --
0 +0
1 +3
2 +2
3 +0
4 +1
5 +2
6 -2
7 See Note
8 -1
9 -1
A +0
B -1
C +0
D -3
E -5
F -4
Note: For balkanized worlds, generate the national governments of
interest, and use <my other table, which factors in espionage> to
generate gov't TL modifier. (see Note to Note)
Note to Note: The other table mentioned here is essentially identical, except that because of intelligence-gathering activities, negative DMs are moved one notch closer to 0 (i.e. a -1 becomes a 0, -2 becomes -1, and so on.)
Rationale: +0 modifiers - When there is no formal government structure, any new technology developed is unprotected, save by individual effort. In this event, even if the technology is developed, it will be slow to be released, because of concerns of the developer profiting from it (i.e. the developer wants to; others may be more willing to steal the technology than buy it).
In a benign oligarchy, or a charismatic dictatorship, it is less likely that those in power will hear about good ideas that are not developed within the governmental structure, thus reducing the chance of advancement. Such a government, however, will not necessarily _reject_ an idea if it hears about it.
+ modifiers - A company has the utmost interest in development of technology that will allow them to achieve higher return on investment. Ideas will be actively sought after, and explored for their profit-making potential.
Democracies have a high level of personal freedom and will tend to allow ideas to percolate around without interference. Coupled with laws protecting intellectual property, and the fact that the government will generally be pretty busy trying to prostitute itself to the special interests acting in the name of "the people," there will probably be significant opportunity for ideas to be pursued despite theoretical restrictions on the use of government funds. The less a government has to deal directly with the people, the more it will be able to direct research, thus the lower DM for a rep. democracy vs. a parcip. democracy.
- modifiers - The fundamental obstacles to technological progress in these governments are multiple: insularity from people outside the government, doctrinaire educational policies, rewarding of conformity over individual initiative, personal paranoia (in the case of dictatorships), conservatism (including but not limited to religious orthodoxy and extremism)... All of these combine, to varying degrees, and result in an inability to develop ideas once they are presented, and a further reluctance for individuals to present their ideas for fear of being condemned or persecuted for them (recall Nazi Germany's attitude towards "Jewish Physics").
Note that these are only guidelines; fiddle with them to suit your needs. Some of the factors cited for negative DMs might be at work in governments that have positive DMs, and vice-versa.
Also, star type does affect the rest of planetary generation; the combination of M-V stars and hospitable (even agricultural) worlds isn't entirely realistic. So if we do add stellar data in for 'feel', we should take care not to make the same mistake as GDW: i.e., we should first generate star-type according to known stellar frequency data and then generate the mainworld, applying DMs to the UPP data as applicable. This would probably make "inhospitable" worlds even more common than in the modified system above.
One way of expanding upon the limited set of generation rules would be to extend the number of statistics to include:
Resources (independent) - an indicator of the available natural resources on the world. A high value indicates extensive, high-quality, and/or readily exploitable resources (mineral, fossil, vegetable, or animal - this is non-specific, except that it indicates the presence or abscence of resources which otherwise aren't shown in the UWP). Throw 2d6-2 for Resources; DMs subject to Referee whim (for example, the Spinward Marches is known to be deficient in heavy elements; perhaps a DM of -1 to the whole Marches to reflect this?). Restrict the result to the range 0-F.
Life (dependent on atmosphere and hydrosphere) - A general index to the prevalance and variety of life on the world. A low score would indicate a barren world (your average asteroid or iceball) while high numbers indicate a thriving and diverse biosystem Throw 2d6-2; DM-8 for Vacuum, Trace, or Insidious atmospheres, -6 for Very Thin or Corrosive, -4 for Exotic, -2 for Dense/High, Ellipsoid, or Thin/Low, No DM for Thin Tainted, Standard Tainted, or Dense Tainted, and +2 for Thin, Standard, or Dense. Also apply a hydrosphere DM: -4 if 0, -2 if 1, No DM if 2-5, +1 if 6-9, -1 if A. Other DMs can be used too: a +1 for worlds settled or influenced by the Ancients, First Imperium, or Rule of Man (old colonies or terraforming efforts). If Stellar Types are being used, an additional DM for the suitability of the star might not be a bad idea. Restrict to the range 0-F.
The resources score can be used to justify settlements on otherwise
inhospitable worlds, and should serve as a positive DM for population.
The rationale is that there is *some* type of valuable resource present
(which doesn't otherwise show on the UWP), and therefore it is likely
that someone has come (despite the hardship) to exploit it.
A suggestion for interpreting resources scores:
0: Barren
1-4: Poor
5-8: Moderate
9-C: Rich
D+ : Extreme
Poor: Basic chemical diversity necessary to support indigenous life. Otherwise, no claim to fame.
Moderate: One solid natural-resource industry. Roll on table 10a of the MT Ref's Manual. Re-roll 34-54 if life < 4 (see above). Re-roll 65 if life < 5. Re-roll 55-56 if life < 8. Re-roll 61-64 if life < 9. Re-roll 66 if life < A.
Rich: Two natural-resources industries, one of which commands strong subsector-wide influence.
Extreme: Three natural-resource industries, one of which commands sector-wide influence.
Note: The GM should translate natural-resource industries into their manufacturing/processing (2nd stage) industries as seems appropriate. See MT Ref's Manual (pg52) for possibilities.
Another note: Under this system, the resource stat is rolled before the life stat, and the life stat is rolled before the specific industries are determined.
A better method would be to select a resource type (using Table 10a, or some other source), and roll 1d6. This is the "amount" of this resource, but not more than the resource score of the world. The process would repeat until the entire resource score is accounted for. For example:
Resource score (2D) = 10
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 referee's 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 particular goods.
The Life score can be used to get a "feel" for the native biosphere, and
to gauge whether or not there is a native race to consider. One suggestion
(for a campaign with few advanced "minor" races) was:
0: Sterile
1: Amino Acids
2: Single-celled organisms
3: Multi-cellular bacteria
4: Simple vegetation
5: Complex vegetation
6: Microscopic insects & sea life
7: Macroscopic insects
8: Macroscopic sea life
9: Land/Air-based herbivores
A: Land/Air-based predators
B: Large/Complex predators
C: Tool use
D: Fire use
E: Agriculture
F: Symbology (full sentience, TL=0)
D, E, and F may be given higher degrees of technology. 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.
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.
It might well be 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 world's tech level.
Alternatively:
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 minima 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, 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 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.
The followings are minima 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.
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 world's surface would have 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 figuring out a world in the context of a long-standing interstellar community, you can use Resources to represent the attractiveness of the world to the "outside" starfaring cultures, while the Life score can be used as a basis for determing whether there is a "native" culture to interact with.
|
Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises. Portions of this material are Copyright ©1977-1996 Far Future Enterprises. |
Joseph Heck
(joe@mu.org)
21 August 2000