[Traveller World] "This is Free Trader Beowulf..."

edited April 2012 in Story Games
It's an open secret that I am working on a playtest draft of Traveller World. Which is an attempt to recreate the magic of the Classic Traveller LBBs with the Apocalypse World engine. I've been gaining much inspiration from great AW hacks like Dungeon World and The Regiment. The first TW playtest was very instructive and I'm working on an Alpha for GPNW in July.

So tell me...what excited you about the original little black books? Death in chargen? GOT IT.

What else? What would be fun to see in TW?
«13

Comments

  • Competent characters living in the setting and not grinding out quests for XP.

    Starships as characters with their own moves?
  • Lesbian Aslan Space Pirates Throwing Rocks At Planets.

    (Sorry, old Traveller Mailing List joke...)

    I was about to write a bunch of things here, about the basic structural assumptions of the Trav setting: info is the speed of the fastest ship, there is no Prime Directive, economics is everything, any jump is a week...it's not that they're not important for the 'feel' of Traveller, but I'm not sure those were what made it fun.

    The fun was that it could be both utterly unstructured (you've mustered out with a ship/just the clothes on your back, what do you do now?), or completely structured (Listen up, Marines, the target of this operation is a psi den, known to house Zho agents. I want this clean and by the numbers...). There was a well-established setting, with lots of room to run around it, it was a fantastic sandbox. Every race had it's particular cultural stereotype (Human merchant, Vargr pirate, Aslan noble, etc), but were broad enough to have far more characterization available than that, if you desired.

    Thinking on this, the baseline AW playbooks (they're the few I know about) would work, with the Apocalypse numbers filed off and a coat of Traveller paint; Gunlugger, Chopper, Driver, Angel, Hardholder. The last might not work all that well, unless the holding was a ship. Traveller was, for the most part, about...traveling. Really, most of them should work. Brainer would be your rogue psi, or deep-cover Zho operative...

    Traveller wasn't post-apocalyptic (until a later edition), but a system could be. The characters would have to be able to get along almost anywhere, or fail to do so in enjoyable ways.

    I'll have to think on this for a while, go back to my LBB reprints...
  • Posted By: zircherStarships as characters with their own moves?
    This.
  • Pretty much every result on the old character generation tables should be there as-is (providing either gear or a move).

    Threat types:
    - Alien critters
    - Environment
    - People of various sorts (Patrons, Villains, etc)
  • Computers measured in cubic yards and megabytes.
  • Characters defined by their career(s)
    World Generation as a set of alpha-numerals
    Start with a home system and 'sandbox' out from there
    Worlds as environments
    Starships with moves
    Ancient alien tech

    Oooooh, I'm excited about this hack :)
  • Oh yeah, you need to figure out how to Trav World the UPP.
  • Struggling for cash
    Dealing with local law enforcement
    Mega-corps as NPCs with interstellar reach
    Combat is dangerous
    Boredom of jumpspace
    Interstellar travel is a privilege
    Backwater worlds are common
    Importance of Nobility/Feudalism
    Red tape nearly everywhere
    Lots of melee weapons
    Zero-G combat
    The hum of the ACR, the whump of the RAM grenade, the whine of the VRF gauss gun...

    Really looking forward to this!
  • High-level infantry combat is hideously deadly, and dangerous for anyone nearby. Flying battledress, fusion rifles and cannons, nuclear missiles, DFNLOS meson artillery, grav tanks and APCs flying in from orbit...

    Well, okay, that's tough to play, but it's part of it.
  • +1 on all above.

    LBB for me was all about tabula rasa... well in advance of Imperium setting.

    Love the idea of Space Ships being a separate character (of a sort). Recent LBB play reminded me of how much of the game is minute systems management in order to not go under. I think the accounting/economics of it are integral. Lots of fun to be had in the trading of goods and wrangling of passengers in order to make your mortgage payment. (i needed to reread that last sentence a couple of times to make sure i really wrote it.)

    Space battle was really crunchy and technical. How are you approaching that CX? Hand waving it with story game goodness or slowing down the Moves in an attempt to mirror LBB?
  • You might've already seen this, but Justin Alexander just did an analysis of the explicit play structure presented in Traveller (link here) which might be useful to embrance / discard.

    I'd second some sort of trading move - and some explicit move about finding Patrons and jobs, maybe?
  • Patrons are something that needs to be addressed. In my experience with playing the game Patrons were used to great effect. It was one of the first games to really address the issue of, "Why are they all doing these things? Why are they having adventures?" They even had a whole little black book on Patrons.

    Also resource management was crucial to the game experience of the core Traveller idea. I remember working out, in detail how much money it would take to repair the ship, or refuel or what laws I had to break to keep the ship going. there needs to be a fairly detailed resource system. I would recommend checking out how Diaspora deals with this issue as I think they do a lot of Traveller style stuff very well.

    On a third note, system generation was another item I remember doing all the time. I remember that it was complicated(you may want to simplify it), but man was it a hoot.
  • riffing...

    "resource management". i wonder if you could take the sexy numbers grind of LBB and swap it with a more modern German boardgame - story game hack? Like having Bond with the ship or something; and needing to rack up those points?
  • Looking forward to the playbooks for Traveller World. Stuff I really liked about Traveller:

    * The retro-silver-age aesthetic. Giant computers but no internet, mail boats, ships that don't care about propulsion mass (and space combat where a Death Star can totally run down a little fighter), cryptoracist alien species.
    * The merchant mini-game
    * The alien ruins/abandoned stations adventures that were totally just dungeon delves
    * The utter lack of character advancement, and how that drove play along different vectors

    Good luck with the "make the ship a character" thing. I tried that with MGSF and we failed every time, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. My implementation of it was just awful, though, and the players never had anything to do most of the time. Bon chance!

    Maybe tweak the name of it a bit? Spinward World or something.
  • (from the pre-Alpha rules)

    Ship Bond:
    I’m on-board this ship because...
    ...I can’t go home
    ...I’m trying to find something I lost
    ...This is my only family
    ...I can’t stop running
    ...I’m still trying to prove something to _____

    Whoever has been on the ship longest takes a +1SHIPBOND with the ship. Everyone else takes a -1SHIPBOND.

    When trying to get something extra out of the ship ("more power!" "just one last Jump!" "don't break up when we land!"), roll+SHIPBOND. On a hit, you get +1Forward. On a 10+, also add +1SHIPBOND. On a 7-9, you can take the +1Forward, but the ship also takes 1-Stress.


    BTW, you guys are awesome. Thanks for being the (solar) wind beneath my sails!
  • Posted By: Paul BMaybe tweak the name of it a bit? Spinward World or something.
    Apocalypse Galaxy? :) Looking forward to seeing this, too. My fave (in addition to much mentioned above) was rolling up sectors and imagining all the things going on in them. Rarely got to actually play in them but it was a huge shot to the imagination to have those tables for rolling up random worlds and such.
  • Backwards compatibility with Universal World Profile (UWP) codes.
  • We playtested the system generation rules (imagine an AW take on the UPP) and they were really fun at the table. Everyone liked seeing the system get rolled up and then take shape over a quick discussion/map.

    I'm not looking for something nearly as crunchy as Diaspora. It's a great game, but it is its own thing. So simplicity is key.

    I prefer to turn complex systems into stat-driven moves that happen quickly at the table. The world tags in Stars Without Number are a thing of beauty. I'm also a fan of the colony generation rules for the upcoming Durance game.

    I want to burn down the CT nostalgia into a syrup and let you mainline it into a vein.
  • edited May 2012
    Nobles

    Swordfighting as a relevant skill

    High, Mid and Low passages, with all that comes with it.

    Retired PCs.
  • A combat vessel always has a platoon of Marines. In case boarding actions need to happen.
  • edited May 2012
    Hm. I agree with the 'fluffy' flavor suggestions, but not with the 'crunchy' number suggestions. It feels odds keeping an alphanumeric hexadecimal string in an AW hack/reskin.

    About the ship, I seem to remember something like this:

    On a 7-9, the ship isn't...

    ...massively in hock to a particularly unsympathetic crime lord.
    ...in dire need of basic maintenance.
    ...a smelly deathtrap, at least to prospective passengers.

    Pick one.
  • ...may be recalled to active duty by the ISS at any moment
  • Posted By: Noah DHm. I agree with the 'fluffy' flavor suggestions, but not with the 'crunchy' number suggestions. It feels odds keeping an alphanumeric hexadecimal string in an AW hack/reskin.
    0 = -3
    1,2 = -2
    3,4,5 = -1
    6,7,8,9 = 0
    A,B,C = +1
    D,E = +2
    F = +3

    It's the same -2 to +3 spread as a regular AW character. I love using hex for scifi characters, so! much!
  • Posted By: Jason Morningstar...may be recalled to active duty by the ISS at any moment
    There's an adventure in that sentence!
  • edited May 2012
    Posted By: WordmanBackwards compatibility with Universal World Profile (UWP) codes.
    Posted By: Caesar_XI want to burn down the CT nostalgia into a syrup and let you mainline it into a vein.
    I want to take the massive amount of setting material that exists and quickly convert it on demand, during play, without having to do a whole song and dance to Traveller-World-ify it.
  • "Quickly convert" is key here. I don't object to there being ways to easily convert from Traveller to Traveller World, but I'd hate to see concessions in TW just for the sake of making it more compatible with the old rules.
  • I was thinking all about this game as I did a long distance transfer in the ambulance today, and thought, wouldn't it be cool if for chargen, you choose a playbook for a term and get one move, one resource item then you make the dreaded 'death move', if you live and want more moves (or have made a bargain with the elder gods or become a synthetic or somesuch) choose another playbook for your next term and so on, until you feel your character is experienced enough to start playing.
  • edited May 2012
    My advice to Chris was to make choosing a playbook something that happens after you go through the character generation process. So in my TW a playbook would be "raconteur" or "mercenary" or "merchant prince", with its own couple of interesting moves and maybe a stat adjustment, and you'd plug in what your guy earned (moves, stat bumps, stuff) in service to that playbook. Some playbooks ("retired scout") would have service/experience requirements.

    Also, I'd make ships individual moves (maybe the only move) for the "merchant prince" and "retired scout" playbooks. I always thought it was a little ridiculous that people would game the system super hard to try to get a ship, resulting in playing a 72-year-old merchant and 17 dead scouts, because having a ship is fun and central and everybody wants one. Just give them a fucking ship.
  • Playbook, schmaybook. Traveller character generation as it stands is such that each term is itself a set of moves that you make (you're even rolling 2d6, for heaven's sake).
    When you try to enlist in the Scouts, roll +Str and +Int. On a 10+, they accept you and your training proceeds normally; you serve a term in the Scouts. On a 7-9, they accept you but your training is particularly hazardous; you face death in the line of duty. If you survive, you serve a term in the Scouts. On a 6 or less, the Scouts reject you and you are subject to the Draft.

    When you serve a term in the Scouts, roll +End. On a 10+, you are sent on a Scout mission that proceeds without complication; choose one personal development benefit, service skill, or advanced education training [these are not in themselves moves but instead bonuses to other moves you may make] and you may serve another term in the Scouts. On a 7-9, the mission experiences difficulties; choose a benefit as above but you must either leave the service and muster out or face death in the line of duty. On a 6 or less, choose a benefit as above and you face death in the line of duty. In any case, advance your age 4 years.
    ...and so forth.

    As far as getting a ship is concerned, there are actually two different Traveller games; one where the PCs have a ship, and one where they don't and have to buy or work for passage between systems. Both are interesting, but they're hard to mix. One PC "owning" a ship on which other PCs are passengers is worse than when other PCs are long-term crew or better yet co-owners, so I'd institute some kind of "ship share" mustering out benefit the way that Mongoose Traveller does. The PCs can then choose whether to have a ship or not, and if anyone "has" a ship, they all do.
  • Bill, I was only a little tiny bit interested in this project until your post. Those advancement moves are GOLD.
  • Posted By: Mark WBill, I was only a little tiny bit interested in this project until your post. Those advancement moves are GOLD.
    Grazie. My brother and I play a lot of what we call "pick-up Traveller," which is how I'd run a Traveller World game: create a piece of a sub-sector together, generate characters, muster out on some world in the sub-sector, see what happens when the PCs try to make a living in a tough galaxy. A lot gets generated on the fly, and the AW method of providing prompts for complications and indications of future trouble would be super helpful. You can hear us talking about this kind of Traveller and comparing it to high-prep adventure here on Virtual Play, our AP podcast.
  • Posted By: WordmanI want to take the massive amount of setting material that exists and quickly convert it on demand, during play, without having to do a whole song and dance to Traveller-World-ify it.
    Posted By: Wilhelm"Quickly convert" is key here. I don't object to there being ways to easily convert from Traveller to Traveller World, but I'd hate to see concessions in TW just for the sake of making it more compatible with the old rules.
    I should also say that I don't mind if a group "song and dance" exists to, say, generate systems the Traveller World way (which seems to be hinted at above). I don't mind if that is the primary way to generate systems the Traveller World way. I just want to be able to also quickly riff and transform existing setting stuff into something "close enough" to the Traveller World way. (Also, if it matters, we aways considered the UWP codes to be in game information, which characters sometimes used to talk about systems.)
  • I'm heads-down designing right now. But I'm popping in here from time to time and nodding my head. I want to hear more!

    Bill, you and I are muy simpatico on a lot of this chargen stuff. Your pick-up Traveller games sound fun!

    And I agree, hoping and praying for a ship in CT was STUPID. In TW the group gets to pick out a Scout Ship or Free Trader and choose advantages/disadvantages. Much like the PT Boat in my WW2 Pacific hack of The Regiment.

    Actually, after discussing the WW2 Pacific games with one of the players (who was also in the TW playtest), it was amazing how much of a "character" the PT Boat became. They spent 90% of their time on it, and they would abuse the hell out of it to get what they needed. But they would also do whatever it took to keep the thing running since it was their only way to keep moving.
  • One of the things I really loved about the Little Black Books was how the setting was revealed. It came out piece by piece through every aspect of the game. it was the first game I ever ran into where that happened. you learned about the universe as you travelled. the ancients and Psi and all taht was stuff barely mentioned. then as you went through adventures you discovered more and more of the setting. I don't really know how you could do something like that with TW, but I would love to see something like that again.
  • Jacob,

    Interesting point about setting coded in the rules. Burning Wheel has a similar thing with life paths.

    I've got very mixed feelings about the ship deal. One the one hand, yes, many/most campaigns will want the players to have a ship.

    But TW is going to be it's own game, so it will by nature have some significant differences.

    I look forward to seeing what the result is.

    Frank
  • edited May 2012
    ffilz wrote:
    Interesting point about setting coded in the rules. Burning Wheel has a similar thing with life paths.

    Yeah, That is another game that I love for that very reason.

    An example of a similar emergent setting without the need for life path style systems is Diaspora.
    ffilz wrote:
    I've got very mixed feelings about the ship deal. One the one hand, yes, many/most campaigns will want the players to have a ship.

    Perhaps there needs to be an early decision point where the players(GM included) decide whether they want to own a ship or what have you. or perhaps add a section to the "first session" GM section on how to do ship as setting, or how to do other settings.

    Or make it like standard AW where the Playbooks add to the style of game. if you have a hard holder then there will be a setting, or some such.
  • Posted By: Mark WBill, I was only a little tiny bit interested in this project until your post. Those advancement moves are GOLD.
    I was more than a little tiny bit interested but if Chris includes chargen like that, I'm going to camp on his doorstep until the damned thing is done. Bill, take +1 forward.
  • I thought Bill's chargen moves sounded cool too, but, don't they break AWs char generation principle of being both really fast and really flavoursome/story-igniting?
    One issue I recently had in a Mongoose Trav/CT campaign was when 2 characters died and we really didn't want to burn 1/2 a session generating new ones... That lead to a quick wrap-up and onto playing AW instead :-) In my experience AW-style playbooks give the characters almost as much depth and interconnectedness as Mongoose Trav at 1/10th the effort. That is a feature I'd want to retain. After all Bill's "reading between the die-rolls" approach can already be applied to CT, why reinvent that?

    I actually also think that raw LBB Traveller (ie sans setting) is quite suitable for the AW-style setting generation via questions to the PCs,
    "So, are you in the Imperium?"
    "Well, _an_ Imperium, but it's run by the Sliver Horde..."
    There are some basic things set by the rules (as per Bill's excellent podcast above) - the players are a bunch of imperial vets, etc. IMO this is all that you need. (Note that this does not preclude playing in the cannon Imperium at all).

    I also agree that there should be scope for ship-less campaigns too. It can be fun having to beg/borrow/steal your way across the universe. But I echo that this should be an active player choice. One good thing in Mongoose Traveller is the set of basic Campaign styles it outlines - Exploration, Travelling, Crime, etc. (and they come with basic skill packs for the players to ensure they are competent at the desired campaign type!). Having the players/GM make this choice up-front + together is IMO a good idea, it could guide the playbooks in use? In AW I think that there is a basic "survive" campaign theme fairly well established by the rules. With Trav, as most traditional RPGs, this is not so clear, even in the LBBs with their lack of accumulated cruft.

    Basically the way I'd handle the ship issue is would be to have ship moves in some playbooks that have big downsides/hooks that the GM can activate during play. These could be central to the playbooks eg if you have a "Pilot" that is an analog of the AW Driver or optional if you have the CT careers as playbooks eg "Scout" would have it as an optional move to get a ex-service ship.

    There are lots of good ideas for ships downsides out there, eg Mongoose Traveller has a table, I pulled this list from rpg.net(http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-341919.html):
    - dodgy sensor package
    - drive uses more fuel than it should
    - computer sometimes goes on the fritz
    - ship has a dodgy past that hasn't necessarily been cleared from old databases.
    - some parts used for repairs aren't really compatible and tend to go wrong.
    - outdated docking ring means that sometimes you have to EVA, or buy an adaptor
    - stinky air filters (traditional for an SC!)
    - dreadful paint job (peeling, lurid pink, Vargr kill stickers, etc) tends to put off passengers.
    - way past it's annual maintenance date.

    OMG what has Barker done - is there no (traditional?) rpg that cannot be improved by being AW-ized? :-O

    rgds
    rob
  • Posted By: robbI thought Bill's chargen moves sounded cool too, but, don't they break AWs char generation principle of being both really fast and really flavoursome/story-igniting?
    Well, here's the thing. The nice things about CT character generation are that (a) it's actually pretty quick (assuming you stick with Book 1 chargen and don't use the positively Byzantine year-by-year, mission-by-mission "advanced" methods from Mercenary, High Guard, and their ilk, to say nothing of the complexity of Mongoose Traveller), and (b) even though you're "just" generating a character, you're already playing the game.
    After all Bill's "reading between the die-rolls" approach can already be applied to CT, why reinvent that?
    We share the same major premise, but I come to a different conclusion:
    After all Bill's "reading between the die-rolls" approach can already be applied to CT, why reinvent that throw that away?
    Clearly our enthymemes proceed from different unstated assumptions ;-)
    I actually also think that raw LBB Traveller (ie sans setting) is quite suitable for the AW-style setting generation via questions to the PCs,
    "So, are you in the Imperium?"
    "Well, _an_ Imperium, but it's run by the Sliver Horde..."
    There are some basic things set by the rules (as per Bill's excellent podcast above) - the players are a bunch of imperial vets, etc. IMO this is all that you need. (Note that this does not preclude playing in the canon Imperium at all).
    Yes, exactly! You start with the minimum number of assumptions necessary to start playing, and let the answers to questions that emerge in play drive the development of the setting. If it makes sense for the Imperial nobility to be anagathically superannuated psionic warlords, so be it.
    I also agree that there should be scope for ship-less campaigns too. It can be fun having to beg/borrow/steal your way across the universe. But I echo that this should be an active player choice. One good thing in Mongoose Traveller is the set of basic Campaign styles it outlines - Exploration, Travelling, Crime, etc. (and they come with basic skill packs for the players to ensure they are competent at the desired campaign type!). Having the players/GM make this choice up-front + together is IMO a good idea, it could guide the playbooks in use? In AW I think that there is a basic "survive" campaign theme fairly well established by the rules. With Trav, as most traditional RPGs, this is not so clear, even in the LBBs with their lack of accumulated cruft.
    I always thought that it was clear what you did in CT: muster out and look for work that didn't make you want to blow your brains out. In practice, this usually meant borderline or outright criminality, but it's possible to imagine non-criminal patrons who need employees with the PCs' particular skills. And of course you're right to imply that you can run different sorts of Traveller campaigns by making big-picture assumptions about who you're working for and what you're working toward. But I always liked the no-frills basic CT model of, "You just mustered out. Now what do you do?" I call it the "Mustering Out Blues":
    Bill White's "Mustering Out Blues" pitchYou've just mustered out of Imperial service, and you're back in Mandala sub-sector, a few jumps away from the backwater homeworld you joined the Imperium to get away from. You've got enough credits in your pocket to last you a while, but eventually the money's going to run out. So if you don't want to wind up spending your last credit for a low passage back to the home you never wanted to see again, you're going to have to hustle to find the sort of work your years among the stars have equipped you to do. Like the song says: You've got the mustering out blues, my friend, and you've got them bad.
    As an aside, I'm reading a book about the Iraq war that mentions the demobilization of the Iraq army. I can imagine a Traveller universe where the mustering out of the PC's was the direct result of some political, economic, or other upheaval that creates a situation like Baghdad 2003 throughout the subsector. Of course, I guess I've just re-invented MegaTraveller ;-)
    Posted By: Rob BrennanBasically the way I'd handle the ship issue is would be to have ship moves in some playbooks that have big downsides/hooks that the GM can activate during play. These could be central to the playbooks eg if you have a "Pilot" that is an analog of the AW Driver or optional if you have the CT careers as playbooks eg "Scout" would have it as an optional move to get a ex-service ship.
    I like the idea that "getting a ship" is a move you make in play (or chargen-as-play, if you like), but I would make it potentially a joint move by some or all of the players, such that we could imagine them pooling their resources to acquire an ownership stake in the ship (much like Mongoose Trav's ship shares system), so that a ship acquired by more players was likely to have fewer disadvantages or constraints than one acquired by a single player.
  • edited May 2012
    Posted By: Bill_WhiteI like the idea that "getting a ship" is a move you make in play (or chargen-as-play, if you like), but I would make it potentially ajointmove by some or all of the players, such that we could imagine them pooling their resources to acquire an ownership stake in the ship (much like Mongoose Trav's ship shares system), so that a ship acquired by more players was likely to have fewer disadvantages or constraints than one acquired by a single player.
    "When you {one of several things that leads down this path} you may help found a consortium."

    "When a consortium buys a ship…".
  • Posted By: Bill_WhiteI like the idea that "getting a ship" is a move you make in play (or chargen-as-play, if you like), but I would make it potentially a joint move by some or all of the players, such that we could imagine them pooling their resources to acquire an ownership stake in the ship (much like Mongoose Trav's ship shares system), so that a ship acquired by more players was likely to have fewer disadvantages or constraints than one acquired by a single player.
    Surely these "disadvantages or constraints" are in fact great triggers for fiction? :-O

    I agree wrt the basic LBB1-3 "mustering out blues" theme but IMO there is also a strong exploration theme via the world generation/lack of setting/implication of frontiers and of course a merchanting theme via trade. IMO the "mustering out blues" can be even stronger without a ship - makes it harder to find things to do without wanting to blow out your brains! There is also strong guidelines about hiring on as crew, the TAS, low passage if you're desperate, etc.
    Lots of people also liked the Citizens of the Imperium to broaden things even further. (It never really attracted me though)
    IMO the Mongoose campaign categories are pretty well thought out.

    rgds
    rob
  • edited May 2012
    Hi

    thinking further in terms of exception-based design, here is a move I came up with for system generation (as the CT system takes a lot of die-rolling and generates a lot of unexceptional worlds, despite the gold it can throw up).
    Basically it is assumed that you are generating a cluster or sub-sector and the "hold" is used to reduce the number of really exceptional worlds. It is designed to incorporate the tropes of CT-style world generation.

    When you generate a new worldconsult library data about a world or scan it for the first time:
    Roll + 0hold
    On a 10+ choose 3 from list A below and take -1 holdor take 4 from A and two from B:
    On a 7-9 choose 1 from list A and one from list B:
    On a 6-, take +1 hold and pick 1-3 from list B, if you take 3 then also pick one from list A:

    List A
    - it is a rich world with plenty for all
    - there is great personal freedom and little bureaucracy
    - high tech is freely available
    - it is a centre of extreme high tech (counts as 2 picks)
    - it is teeming with people
    - there are excellent starport facilities
    - local industry is booming
    - there is an imperial navy base
    - the government is representative and/or open-minded
    - food and other crops thrive here
    - the world is balkanised

    List B
    - the atmosphere is unfit for humans, pick: vacuum, trace, tainted, corrosive or exotic
    - there are few people, if any, on the planet
    - the starport facilities are primitive or non-existant
    - individual action is repressed, red tape is everywhere
    - no high tech is found on this planet
    - the locals are primitives, living in a preindustrial society
    - the world has an extreme environment, pick from: desert world, water world, arctic world
    - it is poor
    - there is little local industry
    - the world is unsuitable for agriculture
    - there's a local scout base
    - the government is elitist and/or regressive
    - no gas giants exist in the system for refueling

    Then choose other details like world size (remember asteroid belts are possible) to suit your picks. Contradictory picks are available, either don't pick these or do and rationalise them!
    By default a world can support humans, has less than a couple of million inhabitants and has low interstellar technology, an adequate startport and police harassment of the PCs on every 2nd day :-)

    Edit: removed the idea of hold, the 2d6 bell curve does this for free, added a couple of options and default assumptions.
    Edit2: incorporate Bill + gtoc's suggestions

    rgds
    rob
  • Rob, I really like that idea for world building. I think that is definitely a direction that the game should go.
  • That's really great, Rob--except the move is when you consult library data about a world
  • That's really great, Rob--except the move is when you consult library data about a world

    Or when you initial scan the world(provided that it is not in the database).
  • Posted By: gtrocThat's really great, Rob--except the move is when you consult library data about a world
    Or when you initial scan the world(provided that it is not in the database).

    Two nice improvements!

    rgds
    rob
  • SF Bay Area peeps, I will be playtesting this at the Third Thursday RPG Night at EndGame in Oakland on May 17th. Come get your TW on!
  • The Dungeon World steading (civilization) rules are amazing and I will be mining them for the TW system gen rules. Adam and Sage are doing an amazing job on that game and desrve to be called out for it.
  • Hey Caesar, just wondering if you got further with this? I noticed there insn't a hack column over at Barf Forth either?
    Its just that I think its an awesome concept and I'm really excited about it. If there is anything I can do to contribute? Please let me know.
  • What Noofy said. This sounds great.
Sign In or Register to comment.