The tables for generating 1248 stats is in the first book at the back
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:14 PM, <> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:14 PM, <> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>