That makes sense that it was UWP related. Since 1117/1120 data should be
available for everything (another way of saying that is that there should
not be a case where you have ONLY 1202 data available), a 1202-1248 system
may not be necessary, unless the 1120-->1248 system doesn't allow for some
values established for 1202 in TNE.
I seem to recall some discussion that they wanted to finish fixing the
stars, but may not have been given permission to do that. That bugged me,
because I tried to fix them in TNE but apparently didn't go far enough or
something. The requirement was to 1) get rid of all stellar remnants
(dense central core of star remaining after Red Giant, Planetary nebula,
Supernova, etc., in other words, anything with Luminosity Class D) with
habitable worlds, and 2) Fluff up stars that weren't providing a viable
life zone for worlds with biospheres, especially Agricultural and Rich
worlds (and maybe some others) which obviously had a livable climate.
The reasons for this were:
1) Stellar remnants have burned off the atmospheres of all their worlds,
there will be no "habitable" worlds, meaning worlds with atmospheres and
biospheres where you can stand outside without a vacc suit. Where the
system only contains airless worlds where people live in caves and domes,
these can be post Red Giant.
2) Because worlds described as Agricultural and Rich just make no sense
around a tiny pinpoint star whose rays don't warm anything.
And in both cases, since the UPP precedes the star in generation, game
significance, and game evolution (Many worlds were generated as only UPPs
before UWPs and stars were grafted on in Scouts) stars must be brought in
line with planets. The planet is the truth, the star is a footnote added
for SF color.
(And it may be that stars even came after UWPs, so are actually tertiary
and not even secondary for game color.)
I'm not sure what we missed, but I am assured we did miss something. Part
of the reason for that may be that the "fix" was applied manually,
resulting in possible errors or inconsistencies in technique, and it was
not applied by me, so I can't look anyone in the eye and say, "I did it, I
know how I did it, and I know I did it right." Geo Gelinas stepped forward
to take that on, I had lots of discussions with him on what had to happen,
believed he understood the goal, went through some iterations on his
approaches to refine them, and then I checked his work when it came in,
making sure there were no D luminosity class stars with worlds with
non-Zero Atmo and Hydro, checking Ag, Ri, (and whatever else) worlds to
ensure there were ample habitable zones, and so on. And then this system
was passed on to other writers to use following Geo's guidelines (or in
some cases he just did them for them) and I checked them when they came
in.
I might have missed stuff in checking, or it may be that the replacement
was too conservative. The goal of the manual replacement was to be
conservative, so as not to do violence to existing campaigns, where
important worlds where players "knew" that the star which had been Class M
was now Class F, and honestly I don't know if ANY Traveller players would
have noticed the difference, but I was trying to be considerate. So the
idea was to stay within Stellar class where possible and bump up the
Luminosity Class. In some cases Geo did replace dinky or D stars with
brighter classes, following some "not very often" guideline which made
sense in the discussion.
In addition, I modified the star generation tables to reflect the above,
and I thought that took care of it. I think I even removed Luminosity
Class VI and VII, because VII was synonymous with D, and VI Subdwarfs were
suspect for some reason.
Anyway, I understand that somewhere I missed something, which annoys me,
because I didn't like changing official "hard facts," so if we had to do
it, I wanted to only have to do it once and do it right. And it wasn't
because I wasn't aware of H-R diagrams or stellar evolution and how stars
age and wander off the main sequence. But I apparently missed something,
which is irritating, as I've pointed out.
Maybe it had something to do with old dwarfs that had left the main
sequence and were already red giants so would have already eaten their
planets. For example, when Sol becomes an RG its radius may extend out to
Earth, so that's three planets eaten, and now Mars is the first planet of
5 or 6 (Pluto). My take on that was that however many planets extended
system generation produced, that was how many planets remained outside the
star's surface. And the habitable zone was calculated on those planets in
the normal way. And because we're not talking about "habitable to normally
evolved life," we're talking about habitable in the 8000 years since
humanity has been in space and landed there, a snapshot in a stellar life
cycle, it washes out. Maybe with larger stars their giant phases eat more
or maybe all, but I would apply the same logic, along with 1) who says
there weren't originally 20 planets, so you're only seeing the 10 that are
left, we don't know enough about system evolution to say that's
impossible, and 2) the principle of sticking as much as possible with what
Traveller already says is there so as not to do violence to established
campaign "facts."
Cue the Good Dr. Ganymede. And get ready for me to start saying, "Crap!
Ow! Kicking myself hurts!" Maybe I just won't check my e-mail for a few
days.
> Yes, they're system-less, but that's with regards to starship design,
chargen, tasks, combat, etc. It doesn't mean they don't provide a couple
rules/procedures of their own. One of the few consistencies among the many
> Traveller versions is the UPP. 1248 makes use of that for the
> crash/recovery procedure. It worked off of 1120 data. Not sure if it had
anything for 1202 to 1248 conversion, but I can look it up if someone
really needs to know.
>
> \_/
> DED
> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>
>
> ---In , <> wrote :
>
> DED--
> > A GM is going to have to decide how much hell rained down on the
world
> > in their TU. I know that in the 1248 sourcebooks, there were tables
to
> > roll on to determine how far a world crashed and how much it
recovered
> > by the time 1248 rolled around. But if you're gaming in 1202, I'm not
sure how useful they'd be to you.
>
> I had thought that the 1248 books were kind of "system-less," but those
tables make sense. I guess that makes at least three generations of
> tables
> to account for the results of the "Rebellion."
>
> 1. Hard Times decline tables
> 2. TNE Collapse Tables
> 3. 1248 Collapse/recovery tables
>
> Actually there were more than that. The TNE collapse tables only worked
> on
> 1117 pre-collapse UWPs, there was also a separate process for
collapsing
> worlds that had already been declined by the HT tables. Geo Gelinas may
have created that.
>
>
>
>
>
available for everything (another way of saying that is that there should
not be a case where you have ONLY 1202 data available), a 1202-1248 system
may not be necessary, unless the 1120-->1248 system doesn't allow for some
values established for 1202 in TNE.
I seem to recall some discussion that they wanted to finish fixing the
stars, but may not have been given permission to do that. That bugged me,
because I tried to fix them in TNE but apparently didn't go far enough or
something. The requirement was to 1) get rid of all stellar remnants
(dense central core of star remaining after Red Giant, Planetary nebula,
Supernova, etc., in other words, anything with Luminosity Class D) with
habitable worlds, and 2) Fluff up stars that weren't providing a viable
life zone for worlds with biospheres, especially Agricultural and Rich
worlds (and maybe some others) which obviously had a livable climate.
The reasons for this were:
1) Stellar remnants have burned off the atmospheres of all their worlds,
there will be no "habitable" worlds, meaning worlds with atmospheres and
biospheres where you can stand outside without a vacc suit. Where the
system only contains airless worlds where people live in caves and domes,
these can be post Red Giant.
2) Because worlds described as Agricultural and Rich just make no sense
around a tiny pinpoint star whose rays don't warm anything.
And in both cases, since the UPP precedes the star in generation, game
significance, and game evolution (Many worlds were generated as only UPPs
before UWPs and stars were grafted on in Scouts) stars must be brought in
line with planets. The planet is the truth, the star is a footnote added
for SF color.
(And it may be that stars even came after UWPs, so are actually tertiary
and not even secondary for game color.)
I'm not sure what we missed, but I am assured we did miss something. Part
of the reason for that may be that the "fix" was applied manually,
resulting in possible errors or inconsistencies in technique, and it was
not applied by me, so I can't look anyone in the eye and say, "I did it, I
know how I did it, and I know I did it right." Geo Gelinas stepped forward
to take that on, I had lots of discussions with him on what had to happen,
believed he understood the goal, went through some iterations on his
approaches to refine them, and then I checked his work when it came in,
making sure there were no D luminosity class stars with worlds with
non-Zero Atmo and Hydro, checking Ag, Ri, (and whatever else) worlds to
ensure there were ample habitable zones, and so on. And then this system
was passed on to other writers to use following Geo's guidelines (or in
some cases he just did them for them) and I checked them when they came
in.
I might have missed stuff in checking, or it may be that the replacement
was too conservative. The goal of the manual replacement was to be
conservative, so as not to do violence to existing campaigns, where
important worlds where players "knew" that the star which had been Class M
was now Class F, and honestly I don't know if ANY Traveller players would
have noticed the difference, but I was trying to be considerate. So the
idea was to stay within Stellar class where possible and bump up the
Luminosity Class. In some cases Geo did replace dinky or D stars with
brighter classes, following some "not very often" guideline which made
sense in the discussion.
In addition, I modified the star generation tables to reflect the above,
and I thought that took care of it. I think I even removed Luminosity
Class VI and VII, because VII was synonymous with D, and VI Subdwarfs were
suspect for some reason.
Anyway, I understand that somewhere I missed something, which annoys me,
because I didn't like changing official "hard facts," so if we had to do
it, I wanted to only have to do it once and do it right. And it wasn't
because I wasn't aware of H-R diagrams or stellar evolution and how stars
age and wander off the main sequence. But I apparently missed something,
which is irritating, as I've pointed out.
Maybe it had something to do with old dwarfs that had left the main
sequence and were already red giants so would have already eaten their
planets. For example, when Sol becomes an RG its radius may extend out to
Earth, so that's three planets eaten, and now Mars is the first planet of
5 or 6 (Pluto). My take on that was that however many planets extended
system generation produced, that was how many planets remained outside the
star's surface. And the habitable zone was calculated on those planets in
the normal way. And because we're not talking about "habitable to normally
evolved life," we're talking about habitable in the 8000 years since
humanity has been in space and landed there, a snapshot in a stellar life
cycle, it washes out. Maybe with larger stars their giant phases eat more
or maybe all, but I would apply the same logic, along with 1) who says
there weren't originally 20 planets, so you're only seeing the 10 that are
left, we don't know enough about system evolution to say that's
impossible, and 2) the principle of sticking as much as possible with what
Traveller already says is there so as not to do violence to established
campaign "facts."
Cue the Good Dr. Ganymede. And get ready for me to start saying, "Crap!
Ow! Kicking myself hurts!" Maybe I just won't check my e-mail for a few
days.
> Yes, they're system-less, but that's with regards to starship design,
chargen, tasks, combat, etc. It doesn't mean they don't provide a couple
rules/procedures of their own. One of the few consistencies among the many
> Traveller versions is the UPP. 1248 makes use of that for the
> crash/recovery procedure. It worked off of 1120 data. Not sure if it had
anything for 1202 to 1248 conversion, but I can look it up if someone
really needs to know.
>
> \_/
> DED
> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>
>
> ---In , <> wrote :
>
> DED--
> > A GM is going to have to decide how much hell rained down on the
world
> > in their TU. I know that in the 1248 sourcebooks, there were tables
to
> > roll on to determine how far a world crashed and how much it
recovered
> > by the time 1248 rolled around. But if you're gaming in 1202, I'm not
sure how useful they'd be to you.
>
> I had thought that the 1248 books were kind of "system-less," but those
tables make sense. I guess that makes at least three generations of
> tables
> to account for the results of the "Rebellion."
>
> 1. Hard Times decline tables
> 2. TNE Collapse Tables
> 3. 1248 Collapse/recovery tables
>
> Actually there were more than that. The TNE collapse tables only worked
> on
> 1117 pre-collapse UWPs, there was also a separate process for
collapsing
> worlds that had already been declined by the HT tables. Geo Gelinas may
have created that.
>
>
>
>
>