> Marc, in the Traveller 5th edition book, repeatedly make the statement
> "Make only as really needed" and "Map only as really needed". The T5 book
> has a great many rules for creating everything from characters to solar
> systems in great detail. So take the advice from the Master, generating all
> the things, as you point out, isn't always useful.
>
I agree with the sentiment of this but I've found that if I defer some
things for too long, I lose consistency. Having some things
pre-generated and recorded helps to maintain consistency when you are
ad-libbing in response to the movements of the players. It's a
balance, over-generating is bad, but so is under-generating if it
leads to inconsistency.
I have the same consistency concerns.
I always find that my players, if they are doing anything merchantile or looking for their next port of call, they want to know details from the other system (beyond just a UWP) and they want that for about a subsector worth so they can play several jumps ahead. I'm not just developing a given world, I'm developing a bunch in enough detail that I can provide them with customs/law/etc. information.
I also agree there is a sweet spot to preparing ahead. I'm a big fan of what I call the 'nugget format' but my own version: My adventures have actors, those actors have resources, goals and perhaps some standard strategies. The players may take decisions (or the NPC actors may) that lead to encounters. The actors may have a plot, the players usually have some sort of plot or plots they are pursuing, and the intersection is where things happen. Those I can't usually plan too far ahead on (sometimes, but not always) and its why I keep all sorts of ship/station/building maps at hand so I can dynamically handle those intersection encounters. There is no 3 act play. There is no pre-determined range of outcomes.
That approach applies a bit lesser to the setting - I want to be able to open a library entry and soak in its key points fast. I don't want to have to create them ahead of time manually when they might not be used. I will modify a few aspects of what the autogeneration produces likely, but I want the majority of the system to just *be there* for me.
Since I'm not plotting adventures, I'm refereeing interactions, if I tried to pre-design all the worlds my players may go to, I'd be definitely doing the 'too much planning' thing if it was handraulic. If, on the other hand, a generator cranks out the entire sector, I can rapidly scan/do searches and handle play dynamically.
Now, if I was doing a convention adventure (and I have - I have one called Actions Aboard that I want to eventually send to Jeff's FT), it fits within a time slot, it is more of a movie than an ongoing series, and thus, although it will still be my version of the nugget, the space and time for the interactions will be constrained and/or forced, thus encouraging the encounters to take place in the windows of a convention slot, vs. in a meandering way as my PCs in full campaigns tend towards (dallying, side excursions, strange and sometimes successful hunches about how to play markets and geopolitical events to make a credit etc).
Maybe my wish for more detail, more clarity, and more editability (with ease) from generator comes from the fact that I will use it, I will use it dynamically, and it will provide a) stuff I can quickly put into play, b) stuff that costs me a minimal amount of my time to generate (because 8 of 10 worlds or systems I'll create will only get a passing glance form the players), and c) the stuff that won't be used is there if the players ever want to change their minds, but if not, I'm not out a whole bunch of time handraulically creating these systems.
I also find Tim's point about constraint interesting. It reveals something about his pattern of though I believe: I think consciously or unconsciously, there is a feeling that papering over something generated is in some fashion less okay or is more work than filling in a blank slate.
Myself, I don't see that. I'm quite happy, when I scan a system, to remake (though I'd love a generator to allow me easy edits and then do the recalcs) anything I don't like or need to be different for the game experience. I do not see that any different than developing whole cloth. In either case, I'm owning that piece of the universe (be it from the blankness of not developed or from the tyranny of what the generator provides) and what was there before (blank or pregen) are of no concern in that case.
So for me, there's no 'constraint' in having a generated data set vs. an empty page. It's just a lot less work for the 75% of what I'll keep.
There's also two VERY positive things about generator produced output (if it is a good tool):
a) The generator will work within rules but without any prejudices. This will produce combinations I might NEVER come up with because of a blind spot or a predilection. So the generated output itself provokes a creative response!
b) The time I spend on the 75% of any given system/planet I have generator and decide to keep is near zero, and that gives me most of that 75% of system development by hand back so that I can invest it in the 25% of the planet I want to imprint my stamp on (and of course, to plot, characterization, etc). To wit, my focus is on *the things I think are meaningful to the game and players* not just trying to wade through a bunch of mechanical stuff that is part of manually getting to some of the parts I care about.
The way we play and the way I want to spend time in preparation (on richness of characters, agendas, friction points, and tools and tactics) is aided by having bunches of stuff automatically created within the bounds of the rules of the game.
YMMV, and obviously for some does.
To the inestimable Tim's other comment: "Hear, Hear!" is usually heard in parliament here. It is the gesture of concurrence and 'let this be heard'. On the other hand, someone writing "here, here!" may actually be calling for the thing he is speaking of occur in his locality.... ;0P
Tom B / kaladorn