Mike--
> I don't know if I have the WTH around anywhere, so I can't speak to the
> tables easily.
Well, I would say that all of the WTH tables that were also in TNE should
be identical to the ones in TNE. But you know how my batting average is
running on that topic of late. I swear I painted that yellow house purple.
I know it's still yellow, but there's got to be a purple house in this
neighborhood someplace.
> On the subject of M0-4 stars working, it is my understanding they can.
> (Heck Mire has an M0V, and I don't think anyone has tried to change it.)
It was
> just the dinky red dwarfs that were the issue (e.g. Alell).
Right, that is my assumption (the hab zone assumption), but there have
been enough remarks about too-cold stars that I'm wondering if there's
another consideration beyond hab zone, so that I don't have to wonder if
shoe-gnomes replaced the correct paste-ups with something else after I
went to bed.
> If I remember right, the problem with both giants and main sequence stars
> O,B,A is that they just don't last the couple billion years required for
> life to develop. That said, it isn't as necessary to worry about the
> giants, as a few habitable worlds around a giant is cool for the type of
SF that
> is Traveller.
That goes back to my assumption that in Traveller we are not really
thinking about native life. I know that we casually refer to native life
(and then ignore the animal encounter tables by flying over them in
air/rafts per recent discussions), but what Traveller is REALLY talking
about is starfaring races colonizing them in the last 8000 years, or
Grandfather plopping his experiments down 300,000 years ago, which is
still an eye-blink in stellar evolution. I assume that all of these
colonies are bringing their own seed corn and domestic animals with them.
BUT, two caveats:
1. We do need to establish where those "minor (independently evolved)
races" come from and ensure they have longer-lived stars, and I will admit
now that I am not conscious of having done that, although I think Geo did.
But my major thought was always those are the exceptions rather than the
rule, and the rule is colonization, where stellar lifespan is not a big
issue.
2. To a lesser extent we do need to think of worlds where we established
significant local animals (e.g., Tree Krakens) and ensure that those
worlds have long-lived stars. I definitely admit to not doing that. But
Traveller has always been a colonization game, not a locally-evolved life
game. Guaran or Glea (whichever one it is) and worlds like that, we
definitely have to keep an eye on.
The argument could and perhaps should be made that my colonization
assumption is invalid, or let's say "invalid as a universal rule." But in
about 95% of the cases the UWP population in question is about 8000 years
old, and the H in the table supports that.
There are a lot of issues and POVs to examine in all of this, something as
big as Traveller's Charted Space, and lots of special cases, exceptions,
etc. With all that in my mind right now trying to fit it in "on the side"
with the rest of TNE was maybe never going to work. The process would have
to start with:
1. Identify all homeworlds of indigenous minor races and mark them for
special stellar attention (or just say, "must be V")
2. Identify all worlds where any adventure, article, etc., has identified
distinctive local flora and fauna, and mark these for special stellar
attention (or just say, "must be V")
Then modify the stars as otherwise discussed. I don't know to what extent
the players were hooked on distinctive local stars. I know there was the
odd case of, "this subsector is known for the bright XXX star..." but I
don't think there was a lot of that. It's really just another lesson of
being careful on putting out overly-specific detail in cases where you
don't need it or haven't completely thought it through to begin with.
> Mike West
>
>
>
>
>
> From: []
> On Behalf Of
>
>
>
> I still have to loop back and finish looking at the earlier one, but I
> think there's still something going on in 3 and 4 based on other remarks
> about M0-4 being too cold, and giants being inadmissible.
>
> Is it your understanding the using the habitable zones table is adequate,
> or that there is something beyond that?
>
>
>
>
> I don't know if I have the WTH around anywhere, so I can't speak to the
> tables easily.
Well, I would say that all of the WTH tables that were also in TNE should
be identical to the ones in TNE. But you know how my batting average is
running on that topic of late. I swear I painted that yellow house purple.
I know it's still yellow, but there's got to be a purple house in this
neighborhood someplace.
> On the subject of M0-4 stars working, it is my understanding they can.
> (Heck Mire has an M0V, and I don't think anyone has tried to change it.)
It was
> just the dinky red dwarfs that were the issue (e.g. Alell).
Right, that is my assumption (the hab zone assumption), but there have
been enough remarks about too-cold stars that I'm wondering if there's
another consideration beyond hab zone, so that I don't have to wonder if
shoe-gnomes replaced the correct paste-ups with something else after I
went to bed.
> If I remember right, the problem with both giants and main sequence stars
> O,B,A is that they just don't last the couple billion years required for
> life to develop. That said, it isn't as necessary to worry about the
> giants, as a few habitable worlds around a giant is cool for the type of
SF that
> is Traveller.
That goes back to my assumption that in Traveller we are not really
thinking about native life. I know that we casually refer to native life
(and then ignore the animal encounter tables by flying over them in
air/rafts per recent discussions), but what Traveller is REALLY talking
about is starfaring races colonizing them in the last 8000 years, or
Grandfather plopping his experiments down 300,000 years ago, which is
still an eye-blink in stellar evolution. I assume that all of these
colonies are bringing their own seed corn and domestic animals with them.
BUT, two caveats:
1. We do need to establish where those "minor (independently evolved)
races" come from and ensure they have longer-lived stars, and I will admit
now that I am not conscious of having done that, although I think Geo did.
But my major thought was always those are the exceptions rather than the
rule, and the rule is colonization, where stellar lifespan is not a big
issue.
2. To a lesser extent we do need to think of worlds where we established
significant local animals (e.g., Tree Krakens) and ensure that those
worlds have long-lived stars. I definitely admit to not doing that. But
Traveller has always been a colonization game, not a locally-evolved life
game. Guaran or Glea (whichever one it is) and worlds like that, we
definitely have to keep an eye on.
The argument could and perhaps should be made that my colonization
assumption is invalid, or let's say "invalid as a universal rule." But in
about 95% of the cases the UWP population in question is about 8000 years
old, and the H in the table supports that.
There are a lot of issues and POVs to examine in all of this, something as
big as Traveller's Charted Space, and lots of special cases, exceptions,
etc. With all that in my mind right now trying to fit it in "on the side"
with the rest of TNE was maybe never going to work. The process would have
to start with:
1. Identify all homeworlds of indigenous minor races and mark them for
special stellar attention (or just say, "must be V")
2. Identify all worlds where any adventure, article, etc., has identified
distinctive local flora and fauna, and mark these for special stellar
attention (or just say, "must be V")
Then modify the stars as otherwise discussed. I don't know to what extent
the players were hooked on distinctive local stars. I know there was the
odd case of, "this subsector is known for the bright XXX star..." but I
don't think there was a lot of that. It's really just another lesson of
being careful on putting out overly-specific detail in cases where you
don't need it or haven't completely thought it through to begin with.
> Mike West
>
>
>
>
>
> From: []
> On Behalf Of
>
>
>
> I still have to loop back and finish looking at the earlier one, but I
> think there's still something going on in 3 and 4 based on other remarks
> about M0-4 being too cold, and giants being inadmissible.
>
> Is it your understanding the using the habitable zones table is adequate,
> or that there is something beyond that?
>
>
>
>