I like Outworlds too, since my tastes in space opera have always tended to that classic frontier feel of free traders and rugged individualists, rather than the sophisticated, high-tech civilized worlds like Coruscant or Trantor. As for location, I'd probably prefer Dunedin to Gonzagin, but I'm flexible.

Dunedin Outworld.

Outworld.  As for the other half of the question, I don't particularly care which of the 8 states the world is in: I could see pretty much any of them working.

Happy with humans and outworld.

Not fussed about which empire although Dunedin are pretty much at the source of the action in the imperial conflicts? Although space is big and all that so it could be handwaved. I think I'd prefer Gonzagin - seems to me to really emphasise the whole 'dying of the light' vibe the book has. The empire used to be really strong, has now fractured and the vaylen are eating at the edges.

I'd be up for either of the two types of world (very industrialised or space station), but Pseudoephedrine's ideas of having space stations as satellites is good as they could be factions in the game.

But anyway at this stage human and Gonzagin are my votes with a preference for low to high index (tech level) when we get to talking about that.

Well, I'll throw in with the Dunedin crowd now just so we don't get stuck on the point. Hm. That gives us an industrial dystopia with a Crusades feel to it. Could be wicked.

Let's zip through the physical questions because they're all quick:

Atmosphere:

Alien Life-Supporting
Human Life-Supporting
Non-Life-Supporting
Partial Life-Supporting

What kind of atmosphere does the planet have?

ALS means we've got some aliens appearing in the game (we have to take them as a faction if we select this option). Anyone up for aliens? This also means that the atmosphere is unsuitable for human habitation.

HLS is kind of default. Everyone can breathe the air and survive the temperature extremes without too much trouble. Good choice if you don't want to focus on being bottled up with your enemies.

NLS means everyone lives in enclosed areas and everything happens indoors. Could be good for a Hive-World feel if everyone's still grooving on the 40K idea.

Partial means that some parts of the planet support life, while others are uninhabitable. Could also be good for a Hive World - large parts of it are scarred by radioactive waste, deadly toxic byproducts, and the like, while the rest is still inhabitable.

Terrain:

Artificial
Rugged
Tame
Broad Range

What the majority of the landscape on the planet is like.

Artificial terrain must be chosen if we take Alien Life-Supporting or Non-Life-Supporting. It basically means everyone lives in big domes, underground cities, etc. and almost never goes out into nature if they can help it. The rest are as their names says. If you don't want braving natural obstacles and the like to be a huge part of the game, it's probably best to pick "Tame" or "Broad Range".

Land or Water:

Is the planet Land or Water dominant? Water means Earth-like, or even an ocean-world. Land is Mars-like (or at least land is dominant, with small oceans). The Vaylen have an easier time on watery worlds, humans on arid ones.

Me, I vote Partial Life-Supporting, Land, and Broad Range. The land isn't too hard to get around, but the poison-scarred wastes of industry have rendered much of it uninhabitable. I totally want a sea of poison as the main water feature on the world, I have to admit

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat gives us an industrial dystopia with a Crusades feel to it. Could be wicked.

Me, I vote Partial Life-Supporting, Land, and Broad Range. The land isn't too hard to get around, but the poison-scarred wastes of industry have rendered much of it uninhabitable. I totally want a sea of poison as the main water feature on the world, I have to admit

Sounds good to me.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI like the super-industrialised dystopia idea, maybe with the anarchic space stations surrounding it as satellites? They could use the space stations as wayposts for raw materials being brought in from the rest of the system. Maybe there's lots of asteroids that are rich in rare metals? Pirates try to rob the shipments, but the freedom-loving space miners resist letting the planetary government flex their might to wipe them out fully? We can figure out what the rare metals get turned into when we get to primary production etc.

As does this, which I should have mentioned earlier. I particularly like your ideas on freedom-loving space miners.

Glad you like 'em.

Remember folks, this is gonna be your world. Shoot out cool ideas and things you want to see in play, and remember to plan a bit for what kind of characters you want to play - cunning diplomats, dashing space pirates, cruel military overlords, etc.

I'm fine with Dunedin if thats the majority view.

If we go for partial I'd prefer something more alien as I don't see the difference in play between partial and non-habitable if the world is really toxic and so people have to stay indoors or within a small

How about the planet is in a fixed orbit so one side is always facing the sun and the other is in space. The habital zone lies in the middle. Probably its predominately land in that scenario as the hot zone has no water and the cold zone if it has any is frozen. Perhaps thats one of the roles of the freedom loving miners (I also like this idea) - bringing in space icebergs?

Of course this means that the cold and hot zones are excellent dumping grounds for industrial waste so you'll have your toxic seas. perhaps this is the reason why the planet became an industrial leader in the first place? Society is divided geographically - the closer you are to the hot or cold sides the poorer, more out of favour you are. Also the more likely you live underground or inside.

I'm happy with a broad range of conditions whatever the life-supportingness

So my votes

PLS (if wierd/fun environment as well as industrial pollution otherwise make it really polluted and non-life supporting). Either of which would also refer to the space habitats. I think we should treat them as part of the planet for all intensive purposes save geography.

Broad range

Predominately land

How about a terroristic environmental movement to add to the mix?

The environmental terrorists could be cool. We'll deal with them in factions, which, if everyone doesn't mind, I'm going to put off until the very end. They could be trying to start the world spinning.

I really like the idea of the tide-locked world (or whatever it's called). I think it's a great interpretation of Partially Life-Supporting. So, is there a reason the world doesn't spin? Is this humanity's fault, perhaps the result of some ancient strategy from prehistory, or is it a natural thing?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe environmental terrorists could be cool. We'll deal with them in factions, which, if everyone doesn't mind, I'm going to put off until the very end. They could be trying to start the world spinning.

I really like the idea of the tide-locked world (or whatever it's called). I think it's a great interpretation of Partially Life-Supporting. So, is there a reason the world doesn't spin? Is this humanity's fault, perhaps the result of some ancient strategy from prehistory, or is it a natural thing?

On one hand, a tidally locked planet doesn't really seem like the sort of thing that's somebody's fault.  However, it's my opinion that the main thing wrong with the planet proper should be the fault of human beings.  I would like planet-side to be less "people ruggedly surviving in adverse conditions," and more "these people really fucked up their planet."  (I see ruggedness as being more for the space stations / asteroids.)

Quote from: hgjsOn one hand, a tidally locked planet doesn't really seem like the sort of thing that's somebody's fault.  However, it's my opinion that the main thing wrong with the planet proper should be the fault of human beings.  I would like planet-side to be less "people ruggedly surviving in adverse conditions," and more "these people really fucked up their planet."  (I see ruggedness as being more for the space stations / asteroids.)

Yeah, I tend to agree. I like Pseudoephedrine's poison sea and industrial wasteland better. Maybe the reason the planet is getting it's resources from the asteroid belt is that it has strip-mined the planet's surface bare to feed its industrial hive cities' factories. If this has been an industrial world for many centuries (going with the whole ancient and decaying empire feel), then the damage could be quite catastrophic. The landscape outside of the cities could be a barren wasteland of abandoned open-cut mines and toxic landfill. Which would give more of a reason for the environmental terrorists to exist.

Edit: It's looking like poison sea might carry it then. Don't worry Niall, if you really want it, remember that anyone who's really displeased gets to fiddle with one element of the world at the end.

Quote from: Illegible SmudgeYeah, I tend to agree. I like Pseudoephedrine's poison sea and industrial wasteland better. Maybe the reason the planet is getting it's resources from the asteroid belt is that it has strip-mined the planet's surface bare to feed it's industrial hive cities' factories. If this has been an industrial world for many centuries (going with the whole ancient and decaying empire feel), then the damage could be quite catastrophic. The landscape outside of the cities could be a barren wasteland of abandoned open-cut mines and toxic landfill. Which would give more of a reason for the environmental terrorists to exist.

I like this.

Anyway, it seems like the current discussion is more about color than about which option to select -- what's next on the world-burning agenda?

Tech Index. The big one.

Ok, for Werekoala's benefit:

There are four levels of tech (that are sufficiently advanced to get the Vaylen to infiltrate instead of just marching in with ray pistols and telling the fire-discovering inhabitants to report for hulling).

Sub-Index
Zero Index
Low Index
HIgh Index

Sub-Index worlds are worlds that are about as technologically advanced as 20th century Earth. You've got radio, telephones, jets, television, and the like. There specifically _isn't_ a space presence of any sort. From the way folks are talking, I'm guessing we're not going to go with it.

Zero Index worlds about as advanced as 21st century Earth, maybe a little bit more. Computers, internet, nuclear power and weapons are all available. The space presence is limited - ISS-style stations or moonbases, with chemical thrust still the main method of getting around. This can also be used to represent worlds that are dependent on other worlds or systems - the inhabitants can't manufacture advanced spacecraft or other technologies, but can be familiar with them. A Zero Tech Index makes it hard to be a space-faring sort though.

Low Index worlds are the default tech setting. The technologies available include: anti-gravity, fusion power, advanced spacecraft, superconductors, distortion drives (the FTL of the setting), powered battle armour, psychic powers, nanotechnology and AI, cloning and genetic engineering. Spacefarers are A-OK. Generally, low index worlds have system-wide economies, using asteroids, other planets and space stations as necessary. They also can carry on trade, warfare and cultural exchange with other systems.

High Index worlds are the most technologically advanced worlds in Burning Empires. The technologies available include force fields, "transhuman biomodification", the ansible, matter converters, "mini-blackhole reactors" and technology that can fiddle with psychic powers. Basically, a high index world is as technologically advanced as you can get without becoming a post-scarcity economy.

My vote is low index. High Index would be cool, but I don't think it'd fit with the grim and gritty industrial dystopia. Zero Index would shut down the pirate lord ideas, and make the space stations much less independent. Low Index seems like a good balance of sci-fi powers and limitations for the colour we've set up so far.