> > Not having any sort of astronomical background I had no idea that the star tables in CT were broken, and I haven't had a chance to read world tamers or any of the newer versions yet.
>
> I was going to write a Challenge article explaining the science behind stars, the main sequence, HR diagram, stellar evolution and all that, to show how many of the "star types" out there were actually just the same star during different periods of its life, and how some of those different periods of its life would mean that all of its planets had been burned away. But like many things, never got around to it.
That would have been a good read.
> > One of the things I enjoy the most about the game is taking a UPP and coming up with a story of how those group of numbers actually describe a real world.
>
> Yes, that can be very rewarding, until you get to the point where you realize that you keep having to come up with rationalizations for things that don't make any sense, and that happens more often than not, and then...
100% agree, just not there yet.
> > I enjoy that, even though the players may go "nothing here, on to the next system!"
>
> And all your hard work gets wasted and you have to do it again for the next world which might not make any sense. Hard for the GM, and "too hard for the GM" and "doesn39;t make scientific sense" make something that needs to be straightened out in the game.
>
> Dave
Ah, the bane of the GM, ungrateful players. I put my creative excesses from my play-by-email games into my fanzine. I take your point though as even in the play-pit of Reavers' Deep that I game out of I have found myself writing the lines 'although X is stated in the library data, in actual fact because of (insert excuse - locals call it this, Imperials/victors/remnants changed history, etc) Y is actually the truth.'
I still do enjoy doing this though. I guess I have the time to think things up that I wouldn't/couldn't do if I was playing face to face.
Brett.
>
> I was going to write a Challenge article explaining the science behind stars, the main sequence, HR diagram, stellar evolution and all that, to show how many of the "star types" out there were actually just the same star during different periods of its life, and how some of those different periods of its life would mean that all of its planets had been burned away. But like many things, never got around to it.
That would have been a good read.
> > One of the things I enjoy the most about the game is taking a UPP and coming up with a story of how those group of numbers actually describe a real world.
>
> Yes, that can be very rewarding, until you get to the point where you realize that you keep having to come up with rationalizations for things that don't make any sense, and that happens more often than not, and then...
100% agree, just not there yet.
> > I enjoy that, even though the players may go "nothing here, on to the next system!"
>
> And all your hard work gets wasted and you have to do it again for the next world which might not make any sense. Hard for the GM, and "too hard for the GM" and "doesn39;t make scientific sense" make something that needs to be straightened out in the game.
>
> Dave
Ah, the bane of the GM, ungrateful players. I put my creative excesses from my play-by-email games into my fanzine. I take your point though as even in the play-pit of Reavers' Deep that I game out of I have found myself writing the lines 'although X is stated in the library data, in actual fact because of (insert excuse - locals call it this, Imperials/victors/remnants changed history, etc) Y is actually the truth.'
I still do enjoy doing this though. I guess I have the time to think things up that I wouldn't/couldn't do if I was playing face to face.
Brett.