Star Wars seems to use the 'one habitable world a system" approach but occasionally allows this one 'one world' to be a gas giant, asteroid or moon.

Do you guys ever deviate from the 'one world' trend when creating your own? Are there examples of multiple planet habitats and colonized worlds within a single system in your galaxy?

It seems reasonable but almost counter to Star Wars doctrine, you know?

Yup, definitely. In canon there's nal hutta and nar shaddaa, a planet and it's moon.

I also have a similar system I invented for my players. I think a multi-planet system would be a lot of fun gm-wise. Interplanetary politics, yay!

Not to mention the Corellia system, with 5 habitable planets and a massive space station... It may have been constructed but it's still a complex system.

I definitely put multiple planets in systems I make too

Dont the Trandosheans (the lizards) and the Wookies share the same systen, and thus explain their age-old emnity?

Yavin had several habitable moons, was home to several native sentient species, and was eventually inhabited by many more (including the Massassi Sith).

It's very likely. Our own system, but for the specific details about Venus and Mars, has 3 terrestrial worlds in our Goldilocks zone.

Star Wars seems to use the 'one habitable world a system" approach but occasionally allows this one 'one world' to be a gas giant, asteroid or moon.

Do you guys ever deviate from the 'one world' trend when creating your own? Are there examples of multiple planet habitats and colonized worlds within a single system in your galaxy?

It seems reasonable but almost counter to Star Wars doctrine, you know?

Why does it seem "counter to doctrine"? There is no doctrine for how many habitable worlds there are in a given star system in Star Wars, at least none I've ever seen (unlike the no longer used Star Trek Bible). As others have pointed out, several systems do have multiple habitable worlds. If we go by the novels, we'd also conclude that most planets only have 1 starport and 1 city. But that's because the stories don't tend to stay on or around a single world all that often.

It seems reasonable but almost counter to Star Wars doctrine, you know?

Not sure where you're getting the idea that there's this doctrine, there are lots of examples as noted, plus others like Pantora (which is a moon of another planet where the Talz live); or Mandalore, which has a settled moon called Condordia. It's not really specified, but even if every planet isn't settled, there is a lot of resource extraction (think of Mace's comment at the beginning of E2 regarding disgruntled miners on the moons of Naboo). I don't recall them all, but I'm sure each regional sourcebook has a few stellar systems with multiple settled planets. You shouldn't feel any constraints in this regard.

They likely focus on one habitable world per system because it's A. just easier for story purposes. Unless the story really requires there to be more than one there is no point to go into too much detail about it and B. because what we know based on science is that there is ..... kinda a small region that is actually habitable. So it's not so much a doctrine as ..... logic from what we've been able to discover so far and .... just lack of a need to develop most systems to that level. Which isn't to say that it doesn't happen because it does. There are a lot of examples. But those examples tend to arise from the needs of the story than any pure doctrine that sets down a hard rule on the matter.

So I went here:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_planets/Legends

I went to List of Planets A

I sorted by system name.

Here are the systems I saw that had multiple planets in them that had inhabitants

Aduba

Altair

Ando

Antipose

Arda

Axum

That's just the planets from list A! You have no idea how deep the EU goes. Even if only 1% of systems have multiple inhabited worlds, that's still 1% of thousands of systems that have been named (ACTUALLY NAMED!)

If you're just looking for systems that have more than one planetary body, that's pretty much all of them. Rarely do any systems only have 1 single planetary body, even if others aren't listed, it's safe to assume there is probably at least one other planetary body in the system. I could be wrong, but that's the mind set I take as a GM about the SW galaxy.

I am only now becoming familiar with the EU. The films,seemed to take the approach I mentioned but I can see it doesn't extend into the other literature as much. Thanks.

It's the feel you are looking for in each region. Places that were ripe for colonization have more planets, like core world's up to Outer Rim. Others have less... it's also how the galaxy is constructed, from its center and outward...

I actually sometimes like to set sessions or mini-arcs within a campaign in a system that has none of that: several planets, moons, asteroids, but none of them even remotely capable of supporting life. Makes the PCs consider their options before just jumping in, generally.

It's very likely. Our own system, but for the specific details about Venus and Mars, has 3 terrestrial worlds in our Goldilocks zone.

Cool science fact(ish): Venus is suspected to have been very much like Earth, including water and maybe even an oxygen atmosphere, but a naturally-occurring runaway greenhouse effect turned it into the toxic hotbox it is now. So that's another idea: include a planet that was once habitable but isn't anymore, and perhaps put some ruins on it or a secret R&D facility or just something cool-looking.

I am only now becoming familiar with the EU. The films,seemed to take the approach I mentioned but I can see it doesn't extend into the other literature as much. Thanks.

Which is logical. So I'm not sure I'd say they take that approach.

They likely focus on one habitable world per system because it's A. just easier for story purposes. Unless the story really requires there to be more than one there is no point to go into too much detail about it

Ninja'd on this. It's the same reason why most alien species are all homogeneous in their culture too. You don't see them expressing diversity in culture, politics, beliefs, etc. They're all marching to the same tune. Which is, again it's easier for story purposes. If the species is just a background supporting character, there isn't any reason to spend page after page after page, fleshing out this diverse, detailed, world, if you're never going to go back to it. This isn't a Star Wars specific thing, this is very common in scifi in general. Off the top of my head, the only example I can think of where they did show some diversity in culture, were the Narn from Babylon 5. They had at least 2 different religious sects, who were different, and would sometimes clash. I would almost count the Mimbari religious structure, but not really, as they were all still part of the same religion, just different castes within it. Eventually they fractured, and that made for a very interesting subplot, but that also became the main focus of the story for several episodes. So, unless the author is planning on having the Gunguns go through a massive civil war and upheaval, it's easier to just have them all be stereotyped, and move on with the actual narrative of the story.

It's very likely. Our own system, but for the specific details about Venus and Mars, has 3 terrestrial worlds in our Goldilocks zone.

If Mars and Venus were in the opposite positions, it's far more likely than in reality that Venus would be a living world, or closer to it.

In Star Wars, where we're shown both a world and its moon with habitable gravity and atmosphere in at least a few instances, I guess we can be even more "liberal" with our assessment of what is and is not a habitable world.

Dont the Trandosheans (the lizards) and the Wookies share the same systen, and thus explain their age-old emnity?

The Kashyyyk system is home to the planets Kashyyyk and Trandosha, the latter of which was orbited by a habitable moon known as Wasskah.

There probably have been uber-ancient terraforming machines and life-seeders a long time ago which explains the sheer habitability of Star Wars's universe

I am only now becoming familiar with the EU. The films,seemed to take the approach I mentioned but I can see it doesn't extend into the other literature as much. Thanks.

The film's actually don't do much to show the entire system but just the one planet that the plot is taking place on. So I don't think the films really promote the idea. They just never spend time giving a back story on things not relevant to what you're currently seeing.

Which is logical. So I'm not sure I'd say they take that approach.

Do the films even promote the idea that all planets only have one environment? I don`t remember right now... It doesn`t matter, you can do whatever you want and whatever benefits your story.

This is Space Opera and Science Fantasy, so go with a simple "planet of hats" approach if you want, or dig deep and make it detailed. Whatever works for you.

You could start out with hat planets, but add more and more layers and nuances as your capaign developes.

Remember, everything in Star Wars was new at one point, and Star Wars is do insanely massive now, that it really isn`t just one genre and one kind of stories anymore! Feel free to play around.

As a wise forum member said last week: "all roleplaying campaigns have homebrew settings".. Or something like that. I really liked that phrase and the sentiment. I will add credit when I remember who said it(feel free to shout out:p)