> I always allow inhabited inhospitable worlds which had too
> low a tech to be affected by Virus
> to have a good chance of surviving in some manner the direct effects of
> the Collapse - whether they survive
> into the New Era is another thing. Same holds for worlds which have a
> Hard Times tech that is less or not
> susceptable to Virus.
You reminded me that we had to have TWO systems to collapse worlds. One
that collapsed them from their intermediate Hard Times values, and one for
worlds that never got HT mods that were collapse all the way from their 3d
Imp values.
And in practice, we rolled in the stellar fix to that same process.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:03:31 +0100 (BST), Eamon Watters
<> wrote:
>>And this leads me to one of the major changes to existing data that I
> made
> >in TNE, the wholesale stellar change.
>
> >1. Just out of curiosity, what did the folks on this list think of
> that? I
> >don't think I had any choice.
>
> Anything that enhances the reality of the setting without drastically
> increasing complexity
> is fine by me, or, as my thoughts at the time were: "Cool!"
>
> >Lastly, this dovetails full circle into "collapsing worlds" with
> Virus.
> >This was something Frank was really adamant about, getting rid of all
> of
> >the marginal worlds where you had to come up with all kinds of
> complicated
> >rationalizations for how people were living there at all, much less by
> the
> >billions. And I think his reason for this was really largely
> aesthetic,
> >that it didn't make sense when you looked at it at the gross level.
> With
> >jump drives, where we'd already established that starships run around
> with
> >holds full of low-cost junk from world-to-world, we have Cheap Travel.
> So
> >why do so many people stay on deadly worlds? Didn't make no sense. But
> it
> >also had the effect of pruning out of TNE the need to run adventures
> on so
> >many worlds where you had to spend so much time explaining how people
> could
> >even live there to begin with.
>
> I think a lot of worlds could be rationalised as perhaps hold-overs
> from older days, settlements
> that once made sense, but now do not. Traveller though did have too
> many inhospitable inhabited
> worlds in relation to the truly hadbitable worlds that had minimal
> habitation.
>
> That said, I always allow inhabited inhospitable worlds which had too
> low a tech to be affected by Virus
> to have a good chance of surviving in some manner the direct effects of
> the Collapse - whether they survive
> into the New Era is another thing. Same holds for worlds which have a
> Hard Times tech that is less or not
> susceptable to Virus.
>
> Eamon
>
>