I tend not to use star system data in my games these days. The planets are where the players hang out on so that's where I concentrate my details.
In the early days I used to love system generation, I had a fascination with astronomy. Not so much these days, I look at the worlds and the people and places on and around them. I also tend to fuzz over the time in between worlds, unless I want to make a situation of that. I had a bar fight break out between passengers just to keep the crew on their toes.
I also like the design ideas behind the show Firefly, you want dozens of planets and hundreds of moons in your system, sure why not!
Brett.
---In , <dedly@...> wrote :
Hi all,
No doubt that you've heard about the discovery of seven Earth-sized (04 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
In the early days I used to love system generation, I had a fascination with astronomy. Not so much these days, I look at the worlds and the people and places on and around them. I also tend to fuzz over the time in between worlds, unless I want to make a situation of that. I had a bar fight break out between passengers just to keep the crew on their toes.
I also like the design ideas behind the show Firefly, you want dozens of planets and hundreds of moons in your system, sure why not!
Brett.
---In , <dedly@...> wrote :
Hi all,
No doubt that you've heard about the discovery of seven Earth-sized (04 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