Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett
It is the +6 modifier on the roll for orbital separation for second companions that is supposed to handle this.
It is the -6 modifier to the roll for orbital separation of sub-companions that is supposed to handle this.
|
Supposed to, yes, but it will fail often enough that I have to ensure that it won't happen. For two stars at distant separation, it is entirely possible that the second star will roll an orbital radius smaller than that of the first companion, for example.
Before I instituted those rules, 3 star systems in every hundred had orbital conflict problems
Quote:
|
It would better reflect the physical processes involved to remove the companion and add its mass* to the primary. There is no effect in Nature that moves companion stars outwards as their primaries swell.
|
Indeed not, but physical laws are not the motivation behind my choice. Instead, it is an attempt to remain faithful to the tendency in the rules to favor preserving an object over having catastrophe befall it. See the rules for star orbits, planets that end up placed in forbidden zones, and moon orbits for examples.
Quote:
|
Start placing orbits just inside the outer limit and work your way inwards? That's how I read the fifthe paragraph of Step 22 (p.108).
|
That is what I intend to use for placing the orbits within a zone if the snow line exists beyond its outer limit or if it has the No Gas Giant arrangement. The question is more one of what to do for the gas giant arrangement for each orbital zone.
My present inclination is to randomly determine the gas giant arrangement for each zone and treat results of epistellar gas giants as eccentric for outer zones. If the snow line exists within the orbital zone, it is used to place the gas giant as normal, except that it is not be inside of the inner edge of a zone. If the snow line exists inside of the zone's inner limit, the gas giant is placed at the inner limit. The rest of the orbits are then generated as normal.