My thought is simple. And it is based on the fact that I tried maybe harder
than anyone to more "accurize" system generation by changing star types.
Whether or not I went far enough or not far enough, the point is that I
committed heresy against the Holy DGP Glitchy data swamp.
It's just a game, and reality is just reality. I don't care how many times
you revise the system to "catch up to" current science, you won't ever
catch up, and there's an "official" universe that is just the way that it
is. Marc could do some meta "which system generation system do I use"
profile: "classic," "New 'realistic,'" "Current as of 28 March 2017," and
so on, but it's wasted effort. Someday we'll all die and no one will care
how Traveller generated systems. And even if you did, half of the players
would say, "it's no longer Traveller." And the other half would say, "You
Bastards! You're treating us as a bunch of Cash Cows(R) making us buy all
the revised rules, but don't you ever be scientifically inaccurate!"
The systems are already not where they really are, they're all in a plane,
they're all spaced at perfect integer numbers of parsecs away from each
other, there's no such thing as jump drive, computers and anything
computer-related appears to be way off. Traveller is a game about Space
Opera; harder-edged space opera of the Poul Anderson variety, but space
opera. It has always tried to stand pretty close to actual science which is
nice, but is not infinitely extensible. And it has finally officially been
divorced from reality. Divorce sucks, but divorce happens. I admire the way
Traveller tries to remain near real science, and admire the way Traveller
players want to keep the official campaign stuff regularized, but you can't
do both forever. Traveller is a game whose quality....really comes down to
the place it holds in our hearts.
It's why we pushed T2K into an alternative universe that diverged at
Yeltsin, because we couldn't update the game's back-story every week. Same
thing here, as science is speeding up to the rate where it's like current
events.
That's my barf. Feel free to hate me, I'd be disappointed if no one did.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:25 PM, DED [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> No doubt that you've heard about the discovery of seven Earth-sized (0.4
> to 1.4 T-masses) worlds around Trappist-1, an M8 V red dwarf that's a mere
> 40 light years away. Of the seven, three are considered to be within its
> habitable zone.
>
> No disrespect to the game's designers, but Traveller's system generation
> procedure has been taking a beating since Kepler kicked into high gear.
> Dozens of worlds have been revealed orbiting their parent star so close
> that they make Mercury seem like its out in the bleachers. For me, this
> latest discovery is the last straw. It's bizarre enough thinking that an M8
> V can have a habitable zone, but seven worlds orbiting within 0.065 AU? Traveller's
> closest orbit is 0.2 AU, but this is what astronomers are telling us.
>
> It's funny. All these years I've been trying to correct for the game's
> garden worlds that were placed around these pitiful cinders by goosing them
> up to something that actually puts out some heat, and now reality is saying
> that these snowballs actually have habitable zones with worlds in orbits we
> didn't think possible (at least by the game's rules). But if all planets
> orbiting close to red dwarves are tidelocked, as has been argued by some
> astronomers, does it matter? Are they really inhabitable?
>
> I'm at a loss as to what to do.
>
> If there are no set orbits and every star has a habitable zone (HZ), then
> you can put worlds wherever you want around any star you want. So there's
> no need for hard-coded rules. Want a cooler world? Push it towards the
> outer reaches of the HZ. Want a hot world? Push it towards the inner edge
> of the HZ and use black body temp calculations.
>
> I'm tempted to delete all stellar data from all systems I create because
> it all just seems meaningless. And Traveller's seemingly Keplerian orbits
> are now simplistic. I've struggled with modifying Nick Bradbeer's WTH
> spreadsheet to generate more accurate planetary temperature profiles, but
> now that too seems like a lost cause.
>
> So what is everyone doing about this in their TUs? Are you ignoring
> reality because it's too complicated to game, or are you working with an
> alternative system generating procedure?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> \_/
> DED
> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>
>
than anyone to more "accurize" system generation by changing star types.
Whether or not I went far enough or not far enough, the point is that I
committed heresy against the Holy DGP Glitchy data swamp.
It's just a game, and reality is just reality. I don't care how many times
you revise the system to "catch up to" current science, you won't ever
catch up, and there's an "official" universe that is just the way that it
is. Marc could do some meta "which system generation system do I use"
profile: "classic," "New 'realistic,'" "Current as of 28 March 2017," and
so on, but it's wasted effort. Someday we'll all die and no one will care
how Traveller generated systems. And even if you did, half of the players
would say, "it's no longer Traveller." And the other half would say, "You
Bastards! You're treating us as a bunch of Cash Cows(R) making us buy all
the revised rules, but don't you ever be scientifically inaccurate!"
The systems are already not where they really are, they're all in a plane,
they're all spaced at perfect integer numbers of parsecs away from each
other, there's no such thing as jump drive, computers and anything
computer-related appears to be way off. Traveller is a game about Space
Opera; harder-edged space opera of the Poul Anderson variety, but space
opera. It has always tried to stand pretty close to actual science which is
nice, but is not infinitely extensible. And it has finally officially been
divorced from reality. Divorce sucks, but divorce happens. I admire the way
Traveller tries to remain near real science, and admire the way Traveller
players want to keep the official campaign stuff regularized, but you can't
do both forever. Traveller is a game whose quality....really comes down to
the place it holds in our hearts.
It's why we pushed T2K into an alternative universe that diverged at
Yeltsin, because we couldn't update the game's back-story every week. Same
thing here, as science is speeding up to the rate where it's like current
events.
That's my barf. Feel free to hate me, I'd be disappointed if no one did.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:25 PM, DED [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> No doubt that you've heard about the discovery of seven Earth-sized (0.4
> to 1.4 T-masses) worlds around Trappist-1, an M8 V red dwarf that's a mere
> 40 light years away. Of the seven, three are considered to be within its
> habitable zone.
>
> No disrespect to the game's designers, but Traveller's system generation
> procedure has been taking a beating since Kepler kicked into high gear.
> Dozens of worlds have been revealed orbiting their parent star so close
> that they make Mercury seem like its out in the bleachers. For me, this
> latest discovery is the last straw. It's bizarre enough thinking that an M8
> V can have a habitable zone, but seven worlds orbiting within 0.065 AU? Traveller's
> closest orbit is 0.2 AU, but this is what astronomers are telling us.
>
> It's funny. All these years I've been trying to correct for the game's
> garden worlds that were placed around these pitiful cinders by goosing them
> up to something that actually puts out some heat, and now reality is saying
> that these snowballs actually have habitable zones with worlds in orbits we
> didn't think possible (at least by the game's rules). But if all planets
> orbiting close to red dwarves are tidelocked, as has been argued by some
> astronomers, does it matter? Are they really inhabitable?
>
> I'm at a loss as to what to do.
>
> If there are no set orbits and every star has a habitable zone (HZ), then
> you can put worlds wherever you want around any star you want. So there's
> no need for hard-coded rules. Want a cooler world? Push it towards the
> outer reaches of the HZ. Want a hot world? Push it towards the inner edge
> of the HZ and use black body temp calculations.
>
> I'm tempted to delete all stellar data from all systems I create because
> it all just seems meaningless. And Traveller's seemingly Keplerian orbits
> are now simplistic. I've struggled with modifying Nick Bradbeer's WTH
> spreadsheet to generate more accurate planetary temperature profiles, but
> now that too seems like a lost cause.
>
> So what is everyone doing about this in their TUs? Are you ignoring
> reality because it's too complicated to game, or are you working with an
> alternative system generating procedure?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> \_/
> DED
> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>
>