Depends entirely on the scale you're writing at.
Which is not very helpful really, but you need different levels of detail at different scales.
However, make sure to leave enough room for exploration and for referees to make it their own.
Most published settings fail at both.

On February 11, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Kurt Feltenberger <xxxxxx@thepaw.org> wrote:

These are all off the top of my head...

On 2/11/2018 8:10 PM, Jeff Zeitlin wrote:
> 1. What needs to be in the setting book, in terms of making the universe
>     playable without being flats for the PCs to stand in front of whilst
>     deliving their lines?

Define the constants, and once that is complete, dive into the "who,
what, where, when, and how," to no more detail than one might find in a
Wikipedia entry, and even that might be a bit too much.  The important
milestones need to be covered, some of the important people, and then,
probably more importantly, how everything fits together.

As you're compiling the information, ask yourself this:  As a player or
GM, would I use this?  Could I use this?  Would I not use this? Then
ask:  As a player or GM, I want "XYZ" information; do I have it included?

> 2. Once the Stuff From Question 1 is there, how should the end-product
>     document be organized?

If I was doing this, I would probably start with an overview and define
the technical, social, moral, and cultural constants through a
combination of short fiction and expository text.  In some cases, it is
important to know why the rock is hard and not just that it is hard, so
a bit of the "why" needs to be given.  From there, I would cover history
and each of the major political or social groups, before moving onto
technology and how it is applied.

In a perfect world, this would be organized in two forms; one for print
and one wiki-style.

> 3. What other questions should I be asking here?

How detailed do I want to make the "world"?  Is that detail needed for
play?  If it is needed, is it needed in an initial book or can it wait
for a campaign book?

Do I tailor it to people I *know* will read/use it, or do I approach it
from a more generalized perspective.  For example, consider the recent
AT rocket/SAM discussion:  That is, IMO, a very high level technical
discussion for something that could (mechanically) be solved with a
simple die roll or two.  Do you want to focus the supplement to the
higher level readers or to a broader and more general audience?

Hope this helps!

--
Kurt Feltenberger
xxxxxx@thepaw.org/xxxxxx@yahoo.com
“Before today, I was scared to live, after today, I'm scared I'm not living enough." - Me

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=DZZu00eGt8rDmt14P7liTVEolKKLZVUJ