Charles--
This is not a flame, but just a response. If the game works for you as is,
that's great.
But my rejoinder is that Traveller always tried to be, or present itself
as, a game that took the knowable science seriously. It drew heavily on
Poul Anderson who knew how to build a world. And it had (DGP) books like
the World Builder's Handbook that were very serious about designing worlds
and ecospheres. So to just ignore or slap on willy-nilly the stars that
are the center and generator of all life around them is just sloppy. And
Traveller was supposed to be better than that.
I mean, if the nature of the star really doesn't matter, which it doesn't
if you slap it on randomly as an afterthought, then why go through the
charade of pretending it's an F or a G or a white dwarf that couldn't heat
a teakettle?
Its the lack of connections between aspirations and execution in something
that was made randomized/automated that is the disappointment.
Dave
> I know I am gonna get flamed or it but:Dude,it is just a game not a
> simulation.
> It is Space Opera,you know the stuff you read as a kid and saw on the big
> screen.
>
> Wherever you go there you are-Buckaroo Banzai
>
>
> We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to
> visit
> violence on those who would do us harm. (Winston Churchill)
>
>
>
>
> My brother is so stupid he sold his truck for gas money
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
From: constantine_thomas_uk
Sent: Sun, January 27, 2013 6:37:33 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
>
>
> To me, a serious flaw is one that means the setting just makes no physical
> sense. I guess other people can ignore those more easily, but with my
> science
> background I can't.
>
>
> (things like:
>
> - the tiny cannonball worlds with breathable atmospheres
> - the apparent non-existence of rogue planets (contradicted by the rules
> in book
> 6, which require there to be a LOT of rogue planets to allow the required
> 1 in 3
> systems to be able to have at least one captured planets)
> - the broken stargen tables that allow habitable worlds to be
> preferentially
> found around white dwarfs and subdwarf stars
>
> the stars that inexplicably gain mass when they age (brought about by a
> lack of
> research on stellar evolution)
> - the ridiculous amount of systems with close white dwarf companions
> - habitable worlds around high mass giants and main sequence stars with
> lifespans too short to allow them to exist
>
> etc... )
>
> There's only so many times (once or twice maybe) that you can blame the
> Ancients
> for this sort of thing. Fact is, there's no 'in-setting39; reason for these
> - it's
> all down to the authors failing or not bothering to do their research
> (this was
> all known in the 1970s).
>
>
> What gets me isn't so much that these problems are still in the worldgen
> system
> (even in T5, from what I've heard), it's that some people will acknowledge
> that
> these issues exist, and then happily make up reasons to explain them that
> make
> even less sense than the problems themselves.
>
>
> As I said elsewhere, the scientists in the OTU must be so confused by
> their
> inconsistent, contradictory physical universe. How on earth could they
> explain
> it all?
>
>
> --- In , "James" wrote:
>> Depends on the definition of "serious flaw" I suppose.
>>
>> To me, a serious flaw would be something that was both difficult to
>> ignore or
>>remove from the setting AND prevented the setting from telling the sorts
>> of
>>stories/sessions/campaigns that the game is intended to tell.
>
>
>
This is not a flame, but just a response. If the game works for you as is,
that's great.
But my rejoinder is that Traveller always tried to be, or present itself
as, a game that took the knowable science seriously. It drew heavily on
Poul Anderson who knew how to build a world. And it had (DGP) books like
the World Builder's Handbook that were very serious about designing worlds
and ecospheres. So to just ignore or slap on willy-nilly the stars that
are the center and generator of all life around them is just sloppy. And
Traveller was supposed to be better than that.
I mean, if the nature of the star really doesn't matter, which it doesn't
if you slap it on randomly as an afterthought, then why go through the
charade of pretending it's an F or a G or a white dwarf that couldn't heat
a teakettle?
Its the lack of connections between aspirations and execution in something
that was made randomized/automated that is the disappointment.
Dave
> I know I am gonna get flamed or it but:Dude,it is just a game not a
> simulation.
> It is Space Opera,you know the stuff you read as a kid and saw on the big
> screen.
>
> Wherever you go there you are-Buckaroo Banzai
>
>
> We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to
> visit
> violence on those who would do us harm. (Winston Churchill)
>
>
>
>
> My brother is so stupid he sold his truck for gas money
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
From: constantine_thomas_uk
Sent: Sun, January 27, 2013 6:37:33 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
>
>
> To me, a serious flaw is one that means the setting just makes no physical
> sense. I guess other people can ignore those more easily, but with my
> science
> background I can't.
>
>
> (things like:
>
> - the tiny cannonball worlds with breathable atmospheres
> - the apparent non-existence of rogue planets (contradicted by the rules
> in book
> 6, which require there to be a LOT of rogue planets to allow the required
> 1 in 3
> systems to be able to have at least one captured planets)
> - the broken stargen tables that allow habitable worlds to be
> preferentially
> found around white dwarfs and subdwarf stars
>
> the stars that inexplicably gain mass when they age (brought about by a
> lack of
> research on stellar evolution)
> - the ridiculous amount of systems with close white dwarf companions
> - habitable worlds around high mass giants and main sequence stars with
> lifespans too short to allow them to exist
>
> etc... )
>
> There's only so many times (once or twice maybe) that you can blame the
> Ancients
> for this sort of thing. Fact is, there's no 'in-setting39; reason for these
> - it's
> all down to the authors failing or not bothering to do their research
> (this was
> all known in the 1970s).
>
>
> What gets me isn't so much that these problems are still in the worldgen
> system
> (even in T5, from what I've heard), it's that some people will acknowledge
> that
> these issues exist, and then happily make up reasons to explain them that
> make
> even less sense than the problems themselves.
>
>
> As I said elsewhere, the scientists in the OTU must be so confused by
> their
> inconsistent, contradictory physical universe. How on earth could they
> explain
> it all?
>
>
> --- In , "James" wrote:
>> Depends on the definition of "serious flaw" I suppose.
>>
>> To me, a serious flaw would be something that was both difficult to
>> ignore or
>>remove from the setting AND prevented the setting from telling the sorts
>> of
>>stories/sessions/campaigns that the game is intended to tell.
>
>
>