Depicting the SF sandbox

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by thrash

The question was not how to steer them to a specific "dungeon" (however broadly defined), but how to let them know in the first place where any of the "dungeons" are. In a fantasy sandbox setting, it's easy enough to mark six or eight places on the map with an icon to indicate "something interesting that is not a city or castle." How, then, does one accomplish the same thing on a star chart or warp network diagram, without it becoming awkward or forced?

I'm not sure I understand this part. Why does it matter how you mark the map? Neither the characters nor the players get to see the map. What matters is what visible sign there is that there's something interesting in a location—visible to the characters.

Much of the time, there will be a visible sign in a fantasy landscape, such as ruins that invite exploration, and that can be seen with the naked eye. But there can also be surprises; for example, when Bilbo and the dwarves went into a cave in the Misty Mountains, they weren't expected to be attacked by goblins and dragged in front of the Great Goblin.

I agree that that's less obvious for an interstellar voyage. But the question is, what kind of voyage is it? If it's merchants, the interesting thing will be a starport where there are people to buy from and sell to. If it's explorers, it will be a planet to be landed on and explored, or scanned, or a solar system with interplanetary traffic. Whatever it is, you need to think in terms of how the travelers go about finding out what's in a system.

But I still think you can have interesting things in a wilderness other than a dungeon or a set of ruins. Run the adventurers into gold harvesting ants, or a forest haunted by giant spiders, or a band of orcs coming back from looting. Both D&D and RQ do have tables for figuring what inhabits a given hex on the wilderness map, quite apart from whether there's a ruined castle there.

[thrash]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm not sure I understand this part. Why does it matter how you mark the map? Neither the characters nor the players get to see the map.

In a sandbox campaign, it is usually far easier to provide the players with a map before asking them, "What do you want to do?" than it is to review all the options verbally. (This is not necessarily "the" map, however. There may be inaccuracies or omissions.)

In a science fiction campaign, it is usually difficult to justify denying some kind of cartographic system to the characters as well -- and may be impossible, depending on the transportation tech.

I agree that that's less obvious for an interstellar voyage. But the question is, what kind of voyage is it? If it's merchants, the interesting thing will be a starport where there are people to buy from and sell to. If it's explorers, it will be a planet to be landed on and explored, or scanned, or a solar system with interplanetary traffic. Whatever it is, you need to think in terms of how the travelers go about finding out what's in a system.

Here, I think you've confused the means and the ends.

Given the open-ended nature of a sandbox campaign, it is fairly likely the characters are Adventurers, not merchants, scouts, etc. Moving cargo is how they pay the bills; survey is how they get to the rumored Location of Fabulous Excitement.

From a player standpoint, pure exploration runs the risk of (as Anthony said) poking at a lot of things only to find they are boring. It is almost always preferable to provide enough information for the players (and characters) to determine what might be worth investigating. Maps are a very efficient way to accomplish this in a planet-based campaign. I'm looking for ways to improve these outcomes for planet-hopping campaigns.

[thrash]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Well, in Traveller an amber or red zone is a decent indicator of something. Weird things that are being quiet really need clues of some sort leading there, but that's true even on the scale of a fantasy country.

That's a fair point. It actually explains why the in-context justifications for the classifications are inconsistent and frequently flaky: it's more about flagging possible adventures for the players than actually warning the characters of potential hazards.

[thrash]

(Obviously still thinking about this issue...)

It occurs to me that this is the out-of-context justification for Class E starports ("Essentially a marked spot of bedrock with no fuel, facilities, or bases present." Book 3, p. 10) in Traveller. Even though one would think that one flat open spot would be as good as any other, identifying one in the world's Library Data as "the starport" focuses attention on it. Visiting there offers the best chance (all other things being equal) of finding locals familiar with off-world civilization, merchants willing to trade, shady taverns, ex-pats with stories to tell, and so on. It serves the same purpose as the "dungeon town" in fantasy settings.

[RogerBW]

Diegetically it makes some sense, at least for legitimate trade: you may not have a maintenance hangar, but you might be able to scrounge parts from other ship crews. Whatever minor formalities take place, they'll take place here, even if you have to go into town, drag the Ambassador out from under his bar stool, and wake him up to stamp your passports. People who have stuff to sell that ship crews might want know that they should bring it here.

[thrash]

Sure. The idea of a starport extraterritoriality line (which was present from the beginning in Traveller, pre-dating "The Imperium") also offers a clear incentive to trade in the designated spot. The balancing factor is that it makes off-worlders easy marks and lets a small group of natives (those in control of the starport environs) set the terms of off-world contact.

But then, if you don't have restrictions on trade, what will smugglers do for a living?

[RogerBW]

I don't think the practicalities of the Type E ever really got examined. Is there even a fence? Or just a painted line on the ground? In some places, surely the local cops will happily charge across the line and arrest everyone they don't like, because if they never get away to make a complaint the Imperium never hears about it. (So those guys' friends hire some PCs to get them back.)

I picture another faction saying "OK, we'll set up our own starport". Sorry kid, regs say one imperial port per world. But what if a ship in distress lands at our airport with its reinforced concrete runway? Oh, in an emergency that's just fine…

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

I don't think the practicalities of the Type E ever really got examined. Is there even a fence? Or just a painted line on the ground? In some places, surely the local cops will happily charge across the line and arrest everyone they don't like, because if they never get away to make a complaint the Imperium never hears about it. (So those guys' friends hire some PCs to get them back.)

I picture another faction saying "OK, we'll set up our own starport". Sorry kid, regs say one imperial port per world. But what if a ship in distress lands at our airport with its reinforced concrete runway? Oh, in an emergency that's just fine…

One world my players visited had a fence - so they could keep the sheep off the field when it was in use for shipping.

Another had no fence at all - the the 'port' was on top of a mesa with rather steep sides. Access was via a rope bridge that swung alarmingly in the wind and creaked ominously when used by heavily laden characters.

[thrash]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

I picture another faction saying "OK, we'll set up our own starport". Sorry kid, regs say one imperial port per world.

The concept of extraterritoriality implies some kind of negotiation between governments -- even if it's mostly an assertion of rights via orbital death lasers. The "one world -- one port" part, however, seems to imply that the default assumption is only one world government. For small populations and moderate to high TLs, that might make sense, but it's hard to see how high pop, low TL worlds make it work -- and then there are balkanized worlds (Gov 7).

The downside of the "one world -- one port" standard from a gaming perspective is that it reinforces the Planetville trope. It's as if, in a 1930s pulp rpg campaign, the player-characters have multiple adventures in "Africa" but the only place they ever visit is Lagos, Nigeria.

In my own Traveller universe, I allow for two or three competing starports on particularly lucrative worlds. It's easy enough to have "Starport 2" be understood as "two ports, at least one of them Type A."

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by thrash

The concept of extraterritoriality implies some kind of negotiation between governments -- even if it's mostly an assertion of rights via orbital death lasers. The "one world -- one port" part, however, seems to imply that the default assumption is only one world government. For small populations and moderate to high TLs, that might make sense, but it's hard to see how high pop, low TL worlds make it work -- and then there are balkanized worlds (Gov 7).

High pop, low TL seems to imply low economic output, and thus less reason for outworlders to build multiple ports, and less resources for locals to do so. Balkanized high-TL worlds seem more likely to have two or more ports. I might accept a house rule to provide rolls for additional ports, at a penalty per port already existing.