BluWolf
October 28th, 2002, 01:50 PM
The refueling from GG topic got me thinking being a newbie on the topic of "how hard is fun"?
Being new to this world, what are some of the REALLY big scientific handwaves people that enjoy this game need to swallow in order to keep the game fun and not an exercise in advanced math?
Distance? Time? Governmental? Racial/Biological??
Where are the slippery slopes located?
Being new to this world, what are some of the REALLY big scientific handwaves people that enjoy this game need to swallow in order to keep the game fun and not an exercise in advanced math?
Distance? Time? Governmental? Racial/Biological??
Where are the slippery slopes located?
phydaux
October 28th, 2002, 02:39 PM
FTL. That, and the "One parsec thick universe." The rest of it is hard sci-fi.
trader jim
October 28th, 2002, 02:43 PM
I have to be honest here!!! darn it!!!!....an awful lot of this stuff on/in this forum/board...i take with a grain of salt!!!....i read ALL of it daily....and i say to myself...YEAH...RIGHT....everyone uses all of it...I DONT THINK SOooooo..... graemlins/file_22.gif graemlins/file_22.gif
tjoneslo
October 28th, 2002, 03:39 PM
How much physics, Economics, sociology, physiology, and any other hard science do you know?
Physics Handwavy stuff:
Jump Drive (obviously), Grav and maneuver drives, Meson guns and comms, Plasma guns, space based lasers, space missiles, lack of near-c rocks, and others.
Economics handwavy stuff:
The Trade system in T20 complete hogwash, GT:Far Trader is better, but still a simplification. The link between an item's cost and the TL system.
Sociology handwavy stuff:
The entire Imperium is a giant handwave. The balance between the Nobility, Armed forces and the worlds isn't stable. The slow advancement of technology. Pirates.
Physiology handwavy stuff:
Psionics. Most of the aliens are at least plausable given the current understandings, but there are exceptions. Dryone are pushing it.
Most of the really badly broken bits are either labeled "Handwave" or are hidden unless you know the subject in question. Good SciFi is allowed to break the Hardness barrier under two condition: 1) The author is aware of it and makes the reader aware the rules are being broken delibertly. and 2) Doing so makes for a better story.
My problem with most SciFi (rpg and novels) is "cool stuff" is added just because it's cool and not because it makes for a better story.
Physics Handwavy stuff:
Jump Drive (obviously), Grav and maneuver drives, Meson guns and comms, Plasma guns, space based lasers, space missiles, lack of near-c rocks, and others.
Economics handwavy stuff:
The Trade system in T20 complete hogwash, GT:Far Trader is better, but still a simplification. The link between an item's cost and the TL system.
Sociology handwavy stuff:
The entire Imperium is a giant handwave. The balance between the Nobility, Armed forces and the worlds isn't stable. The slow advancement of technology. Pirates.
Physiology handwavy stuff:
Psionics. Most of the aliens are at least plausable given the current understandings, but there are exceptions. Dryone are pushing it.
Most of the really badly broken bits are either labeled "Handwave" or are hidden unless you know the subject in question. Good SciFi is allowed to break the Hardness barrier under two condition: 1) The author is aware of it and makes the reader aware the rules are being broken delibertly. and 2) Doing so makes for a better story.
My problem with most SciFi (rpg and novels) is "cool stuff" is added just because it's cool and not because it makes for a better story.
N.I.C.E. Labs
October 28th, 2002, 04:31 PM
I invoke Rule #9:
"Good Roleplaying should never get in the way of Good Roleplaying"
If you can have fun and include some physics and plausible things into your universe then great, but if you're taking more time using calculators and looking up social histories than letting someone RP, then let it slide.
Like Elton John said in 'Rocket Man' : "....And all the science, I don't understand...it's just my job five days a week...."
"Good Roleplaying should never get in the way of Good Roleplaying"
If you can have fun and include some physics and plausible things into your universe then great, but if you're taking more time using calculators and looking up social histories than letting someone RP, then let it slide.
Like Elton John said in 'Rocket Man' : "....And all the science, I don't understand...it's just my job five days a week...."
mikeryan
October 28th, 2002, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by N.I.C.E. Labs:
If you can have fun and include some physics and plausible things into your universe then great, but if you're taking more time using calculators and looking up social histories than letting someone RP, then let it slide.Yeah, this rule applies to both sides of the screen. I personally don't like to get too bogged down in science, while a friend of mine does. At one point I was using an adaptation of Shadows. After crashing the group on the planet, and establishing some of the niceties of a fluorine atmosphere, my friend turns to me and asks "what's the exact composition of the atmosphere?" in a serious, rational tone of voice. After seeing my panic-stricken expression (it has become a classic to this day) and my stammering "umm... I don't know...", he apolgized and said that he thought the atmosphere content was part of the mystery. I said it wasn't, and he let the question pass.
If you can have fun and include some physics and plausible things into your universe then great, but if you're taking more time using calculators and looking up social histories than letting someone RP, then let it slide.Yeah, this rule applies to both sides of the screen. I personally don't like to get too bogged down in science, while a friend of mine does. At one point I was using an adaptation of Shadows. After crashing the group on the planet, and establishing some of the niceties of a fluorine atmosphere, my friend turns to me and asks "what's the exact composition of the atmosphere?" in a serious, rational tone of voice. After seeing my panic-stricken expression (it has become a classic to this day) and my stammering "umm... I don't know...", he apolgized and said that he thought the atmosphere content was part of the mystery. I said it wasn't, and he let the question pass.
DaveShayne
October 28th, 2002, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by BluWolf:
The refueling from GG topic got me thinking being a newbie on the topic of "how hard is fun"?
Being new to this world, what are some of the REALLY big scientific handwaves people that enjoy this game need to swallow in order to keep the game fun and not an exercise in advanced math?
Distance? Time? Governmental? Racial/Biological??
Where are the slippery slopes located?Jump drive is the first. It blows relativity all to hell but you need it if your going to get around the galaxy at anything other than a snails pace.
Second is reactionless thrusters. The last thing I want to have to worry about in my games is fuel efficiency. So what if thrusters are the second biggest spit in the eye of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ever imagined. (The biggest of course being the central premise of the Brin book, "The Practice Effect")
Thirdly hand held laser weapons. Or indeed laser weapons at all. I like ray guns in my spaceship stories thankyouverymuch.
The refueling from GG topic got me thinking being a newbie on the topic of "how hard is fun"?
Being new to this world, what are some of the REALLY big scientific handwaves people that enjoy this game need to swallow in order to keep the game fun and not an exercise in advanced math?
Distance? Time? Governmental? Racial/Biological??
Where are the slippery slopes located?Jump drive is the first. It blows relativity all to hell but you need it if your going to get around the galaxy at anything other than a snails pace.
Second is reactionless thrusters. The last thing I want to have to worry about in my games is fuel efficiency. So what if thrusters are the second biggest spit in the eye of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ever imagined. (The biggest of course being the central premise of the Brin book, "The Practice Effect")
Thirdly hand held laser weapons. Or indeed laser weapons at all. I like ray guns in my spaceship stories thankyouverymuch.
themink
October 29th, 2002, 12:31 AM
Technology in general - Welcome to the future, it's now 1975. The origional rule set (which everyone has pretty much kept in contact with) didn't really have any "culture shock" internal to it. You could have dropped a 1970's person into the traveller universe and everything was pretty much the same.
Because future shock is from things you can;t predict, it is eminantly reaosnable that you will never be able to incorporate it into your universe so playing "without" technology is th eobvious solution. It still annoys me though.
I also hate the entire "population pressure doesn;t happen" - In every other example you can think of, a population breeds upto its maximum carrying potential of the land and then starts leaning on the edges.
Any social/political group within a traveller universe which maintains a higher birth rate than the rest will very quickly (300 years is 15 generations) outpopulate the rest. Every world should be a seething mass. Every species/political grouping should be trying to expand their range - Tose that don;t succumb to those that do. It's a very Heinlienian Universe - but I feel it is much more accurate than canon.
If you changed either of these, the entire feel of the universe changes and it isn;t the Consensus Traveller Universe that we love.
So I play it - Handwaves and all
Because future shock is from things you can;t predict, it is eminantly reaosnable that you will never be able to incorporate it into your universe so playing "without" technology is th eobvious solution. It still annoys me though.
I also hate the entire "population pressure doesn;t happen" - In every other example you can think of, a population breeds upto its maximum carrying potential of the land and then starts leaning on the edges.
Any social/political group within a traveller universe which maintains a higher birth rate than the rest will very quickly (300 years is 15 generations) outpopulate the rest. Every world should be a seething mass. Every species/political grouping should be trying to expand their range - Tose that don;t succumb to those that do. It's a very Heinlienian Universe - but I feel it is much more accurate than canon.
If you changed either of these, the entire feel of the universe changes and it isn;t the Consensus Traveller Universe that we love.
So I play it - Handwaves and all
hunter
October 29th, 2002, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by thrash:
Unlike Hunter, Martin, and the QLI crew, I've made quite a hobby of trying to find ways to fix these and other related problems while remaining true to the spirit of Traveller.Nothing wrong with that, if that is what you like and want to do. I can suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy the discrepancies in Traveller canon. I personally don't want to deal with the headache of three-dimensional starmaps and travel. For those who enjoy that stuff, I say go for it!
There is no right way or wrong way to play the game. If there are changes you feel need to be made, you will have my 100% support in your endeavors. But as a Traveller publisher, I must try to stay as faithful to the original lines as possible. If you can show me ways to 'fix' what you think is broken without contradicting or invalidating 25 years of material, I am willing to listen and listen closely. I don't promise anything but I will listen.
Hunter
Unlike Hunter, Martin, and the QLI crew, I've made quite a hobby of trying to find ways to fix these and other related problems while remaining true to the spirit of Traveller.Nothing wrong with that, if that is what you like and want to do. I can suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy the discrepancies in Traveller canon. I personally don't want to deal with the headache of three-dimensional starmaps and travel. For those who enjoy that stuff, I say go for it!
There is no right way or wrong way to play the game. If there are changes you feel need to be made, you will have my 100% support in your endeavors. But as a Traveller publisher, I must try to stay as faithful to the original lines as possible. If you can show me ways to 'fix' what you think is broken without contradicting or invalidating 25 years of material, I am willing to listen and listen closely. I don't promise anything but I will listen.
Hunter
Uncle Bob
October 29th, 2002, 01:04 AM
Jump drive hasn't bothered me since van den Broek published his modifications to Alcubierre's warp drive.
Maneuver drive hasn't bothered me since I read Woodward's paper on Mach's principle.
Gravitics hasn't bothered me since I read Dr Forward's book "Indistinguishable from Magic"
Ignoring thermodynamics does bother me.
We know a lot more about planets than we did thirty years ago. And I never really liked 2D mapping.
Maneuver drive hasn't bothered me since I read Woodward's paper on Mach's principle.
Gravitics hasn't bothered me since I read Dr Forward's book "Indistinguishable from Magic"
Ignoring thermodynamics does bother me.
We know a lot more about planets than we did thirty years ago. And I never really liked 2D mapping.
MJD
October 29th, 2002, 04:01 AM
Traveller is a game I play for recreation.
I can suspend my disbelief so long as it's fun.
I've been a real scientist and a real engineer; I've dealt with the intricacies of certain sectors of the economy (the arms trade), etc etc. These things are realistic, but not all that much fun.
So I'll always go for believable (ish) and fun rather than spending my life looking for fixes to something that needs tearijg down and completely redesigning if it's to be relaistic.
You can do that if you like, but it won't be Traveller any more.
I can suspend my disbelief so long as it's fun.
I've been a real scientist and a real engineer; I've dealt with the intricacies of certain sectors of the economy (the arms trade), etc etc. These things are realistic, but not all that much fun.
So I'll always go for believable (ish) and fun rather than spending my life looking for fixes to something that needs tearijg down and completely redesigning if it's to be relaistic.
You can do that if you like, but it won't be Traveller any more.
MJD
October 29th, 2002, 04:07 AM
Correction.
Not the Traveller we've played for the past 25 years.
Not the Traveller we've played for the past 25 years.
DrSkull
October 29th, 2002, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by DaveShayne:
[QUOTE]
Thirdly hand held laser weapons. Or indeed laser weapons at all. I like ray guns in my spaceship stories thankyouverymuch.I don't know why you find laser weapons to be hinky. The Air Force is set to deploy air-craft mounted laser weaponry in the next few years.
[QUOTE]
Thirdly hand held laser weapons. Or indeed laser weapons at all. I like ray guns in my spaceship stories thankyouverymuch.I don't know why you find laser weapons to be hinky. The Air Force is set to deploy air-craft mounted laser weaponry in the next few years.
BluWolf
October 29th, 2002, 09:39 AM
Does Traveller EVER address relativity and the whole age question? (I've never read any Traveller books).
PapaGolfWhiskey
October 29th, 2002, 11:19 AM
There are characters with two ages. bio and chrono. but...
It's not due to relativity so much as 'cold sleep'
It's not due to relativity so much as 'cold sleep'
tjoneslo
October 29th, 2002, 11:59 AM
Unless you spend a lot of time cruising around a near light speed, the time dilation effects from relativity are very small. On a Earth->Jupiter run you may loose a few tens of seconds. Over a lifetime the total may be a few minutes at most.
One of those "it's too small to a difference" issues.
One of those "it's too small to a difference" issues.
Uncle Bob
October 29th, 2002, 11:59 AM
The technology of the jump drive in Traveller by-passes relatavistic effects, so there is no need to discuss it in the core rules.
BluWolf
October 29th, 2002, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
The technology of the jump drive in Traveller by-passes relatavistic effects, so there is no need to discuss it in the core rules.Ahh, OK. I did not realise this. I just assumed jump technology was based on FTL travel.
So I take it jumps are made by entering some sort of "extra-dimensional" space and then popping out at a destintaion on the other end? Transit times are relative to a constant time stream?
So can I assume that communications technology is more or less based in "theoretical science" and is limited to STL speeds?
The technology of the jump drive in Traveller by-passes relatavistic effects, so there is no need to discuss it in the core rules.Ahh, OK. I did not realise this. I just assumed jump technology was based on FTL travel.
So I take it jumps are made by entering some sort of "extra-dimensional" space and then popping out at a destintaion on the other end? Transit times are relative to a constant time stream?
So can I assume that communications technology is more or less based in "theoretical science" and is limited to STL speeds?
DaddyDragon
October 29th, 2002, 02:31 PM
BluWolf writes:
So I take it jumps are made by entering some sort of "extra-dimensional" space and then popping out at a destintaion on the other end? Transit times are relative to a constant time stream?
So can I assume that communications technology is more or less based in "theoretical science" and is limited to STL speeds?
Jump create an extra dimensional pocket that a ship falls into. 168 hours (plus or minus) later, it drops back into real space regardless of distance.
Communications technology in Traveller obeys the light speed limit. So the X-Boat routes operated by the Imperial Interstellar Scout Service sends a constant stream of ships back and forth between inhabited systems carrying the news and e-media. And of course, for those situation where discretion is necessary, a traveller may be approached to deliver a message....which can lead to an adventure.
Regards,
Larry
So I take it jumps are made by entering some sort of "extra-dimensional" space and then popping out at a destintaion on the other end? Transit times are relative to a constant time stream?
So can I assume that communications technology is more or less based in "theoretical science" and is limited to STL speeds?
Jump create an extra dimensional pocket that a ship falls into. 168 hours (plus or minus) later, it drops back into real space regardless of distance.
Communications technology in Traveller obeys the light speed limit. So the X-Boat routes operated by the Imperial Interstellar Scout Service sends a constant stream of ships back and forth between inhabited systems carrying the news and e-media. And of course, for those situation where discretion is necessary, a traveller may be approached to deliver a message....which can lead to an adventure.
Regards,
Larry
FlightCommanderSolitude
October 29th, 2002, 02:34 PM
Essentially, the fastest way to get a message somewhere in the Traveller universe is to put it on a jump-capable vessel and send it there. Much of Traveller's flavor (regarding the setting), in my opinion, stems from this simple fact.
As for the "one parsec thick universe", the handwave I use is that, in the same way that jump is adversely affected by proximity to a gravity well, jump is only possible (at Imperium TL) along the plane of the galaxy. This doesn't really make much sense, but is as fine an excuse as any if you don't squint at it.
As for the "one parsec thick universe", the handwave I use is that, in the same way that jump is adversely affected by proximity to a gravity well, jump is only possible (at Imperium TL) along the plane of the galaxy. This doesn't really make much sense, but is as fine an excuse as any if you don't squint at it.
DaveShayne
October 30th, 2002, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by DrSkull:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DaveShayne:
Thirdly hand held laser weapons. Or indeed laser weapons at all. I like ray guns in my spaceship stories thankyouverymuch.I don't know why you find laser weapons to be hinky. The Air Force is set to deploy air-craft mounted laser weaponry in the next few years.</font>Much less capable and a good deal bulkier than Traveller lasers.
I wan't laser carbines damnit.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DaveShayne:
Thirdly hand held laser weapons. Or indeed laser weapons at all. I like ray guns in my spaceship stories thankyouverymuch.I don't know why you find laser weapons to be hinky. The Air Force is set to deploy air-craft mounted laser weaponry in the next few years.</font>Much less capable and a good deal bulkier than Traveller lasers.
I wan't laser carbines damnit.
Liam Devlin
October 30th, 2002, 01:52 AM
MJD posted-"Traveller is a game I play for recreation.
I can suspend my disbelief so long as it's fun.
I've been a real scientist and a real engineer; I've dealt with the intricacies of certain sectors of the economy (the arms trade), etc etc. These things are realistic, but not all that much fun.
So I'll always go for believable (ish) and fun rather than spending my life looking for fixes to something that needs tearijg down and completely redesigning if it's to be relaistic.
You can do that if you like, but it won't be Traveller any more.
--------------------------
Correction.
Not the Traveller we've played for the past 25 years."
________________________________________________
I have made changes IMTU that I felt reflected the newer discoveries in astrography(?sp?) but these were hardly earth shaking. Imposing them on the game? I'm NOT that presumptuous, contrary to popular myth in these parts. (like changing M-class Dwarf luminosities to all 0's.).
In the gamers preserve of Zarushagar, yes, I took some changes in stride based on TNE's world building matrix of the homewrold goes first rule--and that there were admitted in Challenge 77 only 17 types of worlds in the sector, 43% being X100434-Y (fill in blank starport/ tech level.).
So I altered them according to habitable zone modifiers. Published worlds (ie, canon) I tended to leave alone. The rest were fair game.
Heresy? I think not... ;) as it doesn't take away the flavor/ playability of the game. Others may disagree in dogmatic terms of my "canonicity", but its still, MTU, in the game's frame work!
I can suspend my disbelief so long as it's fun.
I've been a real scientist and a real engineer; I've dealt with the intricacies of certain sectors of the economy (the arms trade), etc etc. These things are realistic, but not all that much fun.
So I'll always go for believable (ish) and fun rather than spending my life looking for fixes to something that needs tearijg down and completely redesigning if it's to be relaistic.
You can do that if you like, but it won't be Traveller any more.
--------------------------
Correction.
Not the Traveller we've played for the past 25 years."
________________________________________________
I have made changes IMTU that I felt reflected the newer discoveries in astrography(?sp?) but these were hardly earth shaking. Imposing them on the game? I'm NOT that presumptuous, contrary to popular myth in these parts. (like changing M-class Dwarf luminosities to all 0's.).
In the gamers preserve of Zarushagar, yes, I took some changes in stride based on TNE's world building matrix of the homewrold goes first rule--and that there were admitted in Challenge 77 only 17 types of worlds in the sector, 43% being X100434-Y (fill in blank starport/ tech level.).
So I altered them according to habitable zone modifiers. Published worlds (ie, canon) I tended to leave alone. The rest were fair game.
Heresy? I think not... ;) as it doesn't take away the flavor/ playability of the game. Others may disagree in dogmatic terms of my "canonicity", but its still, MTU, in the game's frame work!
PapaGolfWhiskey
October 30th, 2002, 12:16 PM
Personally: I'll take whatever liberties I need to keep the game going.
Uncle Bob
October 30th, 2002, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by DaveShayne:
Much less capable and a good deal bulkier than Traveller lasers.
I wan't laser carbines damnit.Hang on. The chemical laser that fills a 747 is what they are deploying now. Hints are coming out through the secrecy that the next generation will be a solid state laser that a fighter plane can carry, maybe 1000 Kg. You might see laser carbines at TL8, but it will be the far-end of the TL.
Much less capable and a good deal bulkier than Traveller lasers.
I wan't laser carbines damnit.Hang on. The chemical laser that fills a 747 is what they are deploying now. Hints are coming out through the secrecy that the next generation will be a solid state laser that a fighter plane can carry, maybe 1000 Kg. You might see laser carbines at TL8, but it will be the far-end of the TL.
PapaGolfWhiskey
October 30th, 2002, 08:25 PM
One thing that puzzles me.
why are people hung up on the 'one parsec thick' universe?
Can you not imagine that it is somehow a 2d represtation of a 3d environment?
I mean I don't really believe that greenland is bigger than Australia or that Antartica is a big strip along the bottom of the map, just becuase Mercator projection so implies...
why are people hung up on the 'one parsec thick' universe?
Can you not imagine that it is somehow a 2d represtation of a 3d environment?
I mean I don't really believe that greenland is bigger than Australia or that Antartica is a big strip along the bottom of the map, just becuase Mercator projection so implies...
siefertma2
October 30th, 2002, 09:26 PM
I'm willing to accept the following:
Jump Drives: Only as a plot device (I think the PCs would be a little late to reach the Emergency Galactice Conference 4 parsecs away and the only ships aviable can travel .5 c at the most.) and without the techobabble. If the game's overall background takes place in a single solar system, then we keep space drives STL.
Anti-grav on any starship larger than a Heavy Cruiser. ( Due to energy and equpiment demands) Otherwise the crews must bounce about in zero gee. No grav vehicles or anti-gravity belts either. If you want a hover tank, it's got to operate on a hover skirt (ala Hammer Slammers) or some kind of thrust vectoring system (ala Heavy Gear).
Weaponry: As fun as laser pistols other death rays may seem I think there is a lot to be said for dependable, easy to repair and manufacture, checmically powered, ballistic weapons. Man-portable energy-based weapons (beam, plasma, railgun, etc.) would be avavable, but they would be no smaller than a rifle and would be notorious energy hogs and have a tendency to break down.
Powered Armor: Given what we've seen in the works for body armor, a suit of Heinlein-like battlesuits is quite possible. However, if you're talking about 40-50 foot tall "mecha" then forget it! Humanoid AFV would only be acceptable if they were no larger than 10 feet tall. (e.g. Heavy Gear, Armored Trooper VOTOMS) Walking tanks would be quadrapedial, hexapedial or even octapedial for stability purposes.
No force fields. Sandcasters, ECM, anti-missiles, and some magnetic screening, yes. Meson screens, nuclear dampeners, and "Black Globe" generators are a little too much to swallow.
Note: This is from someone is fed up with "high science fiction" ala Star Drek and Star Bores (Episode VII: George Lucas's Jedi Babies) and is yearning for some real, gritty, hard sf.
Later,
Mark A. Siefert
Jump Drives: Only as a plot device (I think the PCs would be a little late to reach the Emergency Galactice Conference 4 parsecs away and the only ships aviable can travel .5 c at the most.) and without the techobabble. If the game's overall background takes place in a single solar system, then we keep space drives STL.
Anti-grav on any starship larger than a Heavy Cruiser. ( Due to energy and equpiment demands) Otherwise the crews must bounce about in zero gee. No grav vehicles or anti-gravity belts either. If you want a hover tank, it's got to operate on a hover skirt (ala Hammer Slammers) or some kind of thrust vectoring system (ala Heavy Gear).
Weaponry: As fun as laser pistols other death rays may seem I think there is a lot to be said for dependable, easy to repair and manufacture, checmically powered, ballistic weapons. Man-portable energy-based weapons (beam, plasma, railgun, etc.) would be avavable, but they would be no smaller than a rifle and would be notorious energy hogs and have a tendency to break down.
Powered Armor: Given what we've seen in the works for body armor, a suit of Heinlein-like battlesuits is quite possible. However, if you're talking about 40-50 foot tall "mecha" then forget it! Humanoid AFV would only be acceptable if they were no larger than 10 feet tall. (e.g. Heavy Gear, Armored Trooper VOTOMS) Walking tanks would be quadrapedial, hexapedial or even octapedial for stability purposes.
No force fields. Sandcasters, ECM, anti-missiles, and some magnetic screening, yes. Meson screens, nuclear dampeners, and "Black Globe" generators are a little too much to swallow.
Note: This is from someone is fed up with "high science fiction" ala Star Drek and Star Bores (Episode VII: George Lucas's Jedi Babies) and is yearning for some real, gritty, hard sf.
Later,
Mark A. Siefert
Liam Devlin
October 31st, 2002, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Garf:
Personally: I'll take whatever liberties I need to keep the game going.________________________________
Agreed. "the Play's the thing".--Wm Shakespeare.
heretically yours,
Personally: I'll take whatever liberties I need to keep the game going.________________________________
Agreed. "the Play's the thing".--Wm Shakespeare.
heretically yours,
Tanuki
October 31st, 2002, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DaveShayne:
I wan't laser carbines damnit.Hang on. The chemical laser that fills a 747 is what they are deploying now. Hints are coming out through the secrecy that the next generation will be a solid state laser that a fighter plane can carry, maybe 1000 Kg. You might see laser carbines at TL8, but it will be the far-end of the TL.</font>[/QUOTE]I've got a laser on my keychain. There are weapons-grade lasers that fill a 747. My eye-doctor has a shoebox-sized laser that can burn a hole right through your head if misused. We've got a whole spectrum of the things. You want a laser pistol? At this point it's mostly engineering. Things will scale up, down, and sideways soon enough. I expect they'll exist within a decade or two at the outside.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DaveShayne:
I wan't laser carbines damnit.Hang on. The chemical laser that fills a 747 is what they are deploying now. Hints are coming out through the secrecy that the next generation will be a solid state laser that a fighter plane can carry, maybe 1000 Kg. You might see laser carbines at TL8, but it will be the far-end of the TL.</font>[/QUOTE]I've got a laser on my keychain. There are weapons-grade lasers that fill a 747. My eye-doctor has a shoebox-sized laser that can burn a hole right through your head if misused. We've got a whole spectrum of the things. You want a laser pistol? At this point it's mostly engineering. Things will scale up, down, and sideways soon enough. I expect they'll exist within a decade or two at the outside.
silber
October 31st, 2002, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Garf:
One thing that puzzles me.
why are people hung up on the 'one parsec thick' universe?
Can you not imagine that it is somehow a 2d represtation of a 3d environment?
I mean I don't really believe that greenland is bigger than Australia or that Antartica is a big strip along the bottom of the map, just becuase Mercator projection so implies...The problem is that a 2d representation has much less of a frontier. Suppose you have a pocket empire 20 parsecs in diameter. Under standard Traveller, you have a border 60-70 parsecs in size. There will probably be about 120 systems in your empire. (about 300-350 hexes, or 300-350 parsecs area.)
Suppose that you use a 3d representation, a sphere as opposed to a circle. You have a surface area (frontier) of about 1250 square parsecs, and a volume of about 4200 cubic parsecs. Even with a sparser sprinkling of systems, this is probably about 1000 systems. You have a much bigger frontier to defend, and a much bigger interior to exploit.
Traveller world generation is biased against red dwarfs. (In actuallity, IIRC, over 95% of all stars are red dwarfs or smaller.) In a more realistic distribution, you could assume that about 900 of those systems are red dwarfs, and probably don't matter. The system also is biased in favor of planets surrounding multiple star systems, in reality it is unclear whether close binaries can have planets in the eco-zone.
Except that they make dandy places for pirates.
Except that there are so many of them, that if even one percent of them supported a planet with life or usable resources, there would be 10 such planets at least in your empire.
The distortion of a mercator map increases as you get to the poles, but within say 75 degrees of the equator, there is no more than a 3x distortion. The distortion of collapsing a spherical volume of space into a flat volume is enormous, on the order of a factor of 4 times the radius of the sphere. (For the empire, which is, IIRC hundreds of parsecs accross, this distortion is over a hundred times.)
One thing that puzzles me.
why are people hung up on the 'one parsec thick' universe?
Can you not imagine that it is somehow a 2d represtation of a 3d environment?
I mean I don't really believe that greenland is bigger than Australia or that Antartica is a big strip along the bottom of the map, just becuase Mercator projection so implies...The problem is that a 2d representation has much less of a frontier. Suppose you have a pocket empire 20 parsecs in diameter. Under standard Traveller, you have a border 60-70 parsecs in size. There will probably be about 120 systems in your empire. (about 300-350 hexes, or 300-350 parsecs area.)
Suppose that you use a 3d representation, a sphere as opposed to a circle. You have a surface area (frontier) of about 1250 square parsecs, and a volume of about 4200 cubic parsecs. Even with a sparser sprinkling of systems, this is probably about 1000 systems. You have a much bigger frontier to defend, and a much bigger interior to exploit.
Traveller world generation is biased against red dwarfs. (In actuallity, IIRC, over 95% of all stars are red dwarfs or smaller.) In a more realistic distribution, you could assume that about 900 of those systems are red dwarfs, and probably don't matter. The system also is biased in favor of planets surrounding multiple star systems, in reality it is unclear whether close binaries can have planets in the eco-zone.
Except that they make dandy places for pirates.
Except that there are so many of them, that if even one percent of them supported a planet with life or usable resources, there would be 10 such planets at least in your empire.
The distortion of a mercator map increases as you get to the poles, but within say 75 degrees of the equator, there is no more than a 3x distortion. The distortion of collapsing a spherical volume of space into a flat volume is enormous, on the order of a factor of 4 times the radius of the sphere. (For the empire, which is, IIRC hundreds of parsecs accross, this distortion is over a hundred times.)
PapaGolfWhiskey
October 31st, 2002, 12:49 PM
Er fine.
Maybe part of the problem is that is that I really don't know much about intersteller cartography than that Proxima Centari is one of the nearest stars to us.
I am aware of the scales of volume change. even a simple thing like turning the cylinder of one's thigh muscles into another 3d volume (a sphere as the muscles cease to be held by the now factured femure) can cause a vaccum effect capable of killing a person as it draws several extra units of blood from their circulation system.
I honestly wonder how many players RP first aid beyond "I bandage his wounds" - Femur traction (although once taught in first aid) is probably a little advanced and detailed for many players.
By the same token, I've mostly played out in the totatlly fictional/distant from earth zone of the spinward marches. There are star systems out there. Jump drives get you to them. some times you encounter naval vessels. Jump misshaps may take you to the wrong system.
It all works. It's all I need. I can imagine that the volume of space is much smaller than I'm seeing projected. I'm in no need for maps that look like molecular model kits gone mad. Intersteller space is rarely seen outside of jump anyway. it's Interplanetary space and the planets themselves where RP happens. The rest is just Fluff.
IMO anyway.
Most players I dealt with just want to know what happens on the NEXT planet. 100 worlds or 1000 there's more than they can possibly visit.
Maybe part of the problem is that is that I really don't know much about intersteller cartography than that Proxima Centari is one of the nearest stars to us.
I am aware of the scales of volume change. even a simple thing like turning the cylinder of one's thigh muscles into another 3d volume (a sphere as the muscles cease to be held by the now factured femure) can cause a vaccum effect capable of killing a person as it draws several extra units of blood from their circulation system.
I honestly wonder how many players RP first aid beyond "I bandage his wounds" - Femur traction (although once taught in first aid) is probably a little advanced and detailed for many players.
By the same token, I've mostly played out in the totatlly fictional/distant from earth zone of the spinward marches. There are star systems out there. Jump drives get you to them. some times you encounter naval vessels. Jump misshaps may take you to the wrong system.
It all works. It's all I need. I can imagine that the volume of space is much smaller than I'm seeing projected. I'm in no need for maps that look like molecular model kits gone mad. Intersteller space is rarely seen outside of jump anyway. it's Interplanetary space and the planets themselves where RP happens. The rest is just Fluff.
IMO anyway.
Most players I dealt with just want to know what happens on the NEXT planet. 100 worlds or 1000 there's more than they can possibly visit.
IronCzar
October 31st, 2002, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
Weaponry: As fun as laser pistols other death rays may seem I think there is a lot to be said for dependable, easy to repair and manufacture, checmically powered, ballistic weapons. Man-portable energy-based weapons (beam, plasma, railgun, etc.) would be avavable, but they would be no smaller than a rifle and would be notorious energy hogs and have a tendency to break down.Indeed, Traveller seems to me to be the *only* SF games that supports the idea that chemical firearms will still be prevalent in the future - *every* other SF game that I'm aware of (with the not-exactly-exception of 2300AD,) uses lasers or "blasters" as the primary ranged personal weapons.
Weaponry: As fun as laser pistols other death rays may seem I think there is a lot to be said for dependable, easy to repair and manufacture, checmically powered, ballistic weapons. Man-portable energy-based weapons (beam, plasma, railgun, etc.) would be avavable, but they would be no smaller than a rifle and would be notorious energy hogs and have a tendency to break down.Indeed, Traveller seems to me to be the *only* SF games that supports the idea that chemical firearms will still be prevalent in the future - *every* other SF game that I'm aware of (with the not-exactly-exception of 2300AD,) uses lasers or "blasters" as the primary ranged personal weapons.
Anthony
October 31st, 2002, 01:15 PM
My definition of 'acceptable handwave' vs 'unacceptable handwave' is a bit different.
I don't actually care if the tech involved is magic technobabble. I don't care about 3d maps. What I care about is the gameplay:
1) If there's an obvious way for PCs to abuse the tech, which is not being used in the universe, there's a problem.
A perfect example of this is the near-C rock problem. Most players don't think that much about 'let's build a perpetual motion machine from thruster plates' -- it's not like fusion power plants are that big, and most PCs aren't engineers. However, give just about any group of PCs a starship, and at some point they will think of ramming it into a planet.
2) If there's an obvious way to abuse other rules, there's a problem.
An example of this is the classic trade rules, which allow rapid, reliable, and large profits on speculative trade.
3) If it makes the players give me funny looks because it makes no sense, there's a problem.
An example of this would be low-tech worlds without a breathable atmosphere and population in the billions. Another example would be a class-A starport on a world with 30 people.
I don't actually care if the tech involved is magic technobabble. I don't care about 3d maps. What I care about is the gameplay:
1) If there's an obvious way for PCs to abuse the tech, which is not being used in the universe, there's a problem.
A perfect example of this is the near-C rock problem. Most players don't think that much about 'let's build a perpetual motion machine from thruster plates' -- it's not like fusion power plants are that big, and most PCs aren't engineers. However, give just about any group of PCs a starship, and at some point they will think of ramming it into a planet.
2) If there's an obvious way to abuse other rules, there's a problem.
An example of this is the classic trade rules, which allow rapid, reliable, and large profits on speculative trade.
3) If it makes the players give me funny looks because it makes no sense, there's a problem.
An example of this would be low-tech worlds without a breathable atmosphere and population in the billions. Another example would be a class-A starport on a world with 30 people.
Uncle Bob
November 3rd, 2002, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
I'm willing to accept the following:
...
Note: This is from someone is fed up with "high science fiction" ala Star Drek and Star Bores (Episode VII: George Lucas's Jedi Babies) and is yearning for some real, gritty, hard sf.
I don't blame you, but I can't agree with some of your choices.
After Van den Broek modified Alcubierre a FTL drive went from "impossible but a literary convention" to "not impossible but we still need to work some things out." Sounds like hard SF to me.
Gravitics. Reading Robert Forward it looks like this is going to be a lot easier to use for propulsion, and artificial gravity will be several orders of magnitude more difficult (i.e., more energetic). When artificial gravity becomes practical, by analogy with a solenoid I would expect a large ship to be more energy efficient.
Energy weapons, lasers are dropping at least an order of magnitude (maybe two) in size the next ten years. Also we may be looking at a revolution in stable plasmas, but we are looking at another twenty years before we get fragile small arms. 10-20 years after that we should get "soldier proof" milspec.
I object to the way much of this tech is implemented, especially the way thermodynamics is ignored. *sigh*
I'm willing to accept the following:
...
Note: This is from someone is fed up with "high science fiction" ala Star Drek and Star Bores (Episode VII: George Lucas's Jedi Babies) and is yearning for some real, gritty, hard sf.
I don't blame you, but I can't agree with some of your choices.
After Van den Broek modified Alcubierre a FTL drive went from "impossible but a literary convention" to "not impossible but we still need to work some things out." Sounds like hard SF to me.
Gravitics. Reading Robert Forward it looks like this is going to be a lot easier to use for propulsion, and artificial gravity will be several orders of magnitude more difficult (i.e., more energetic). When artificial gravity becomes practical, by analogy with a solenoid I would expect a large ship to be more energy efficient.
Energy weapons, lasers are dropping at least an order of magnitude (maybe two) in size the next ten years. Also we may be looking at a revolution in stable plasmas, but we are looking at another twenty years before we get fragile small arms. 10-20 years after that we should get "soldier proof" milspec.
I object to the way much of this tech is implemented, especially the way thermodynamics is ignored. *sigh*
Uncle Bob
November 3rd, 2002, 09:09 PM
2D vs 3D mapping.
The real problem with 2d mapping is that it distorts the number of possible destinations.
Assuming stars in this neighborhood correspond to "scatterred", so the possible number of destinations
1 parsec, 2 destinations
2 parsec, 4 destinations (6 total)
3 parsec, 6 destinations (12 total)
4 parsec, 8 destinations (20 total)
5 parsec, 10 destinations (30 total)
As opposed to the real universe around sol,
1 parsec, 1 destination
2 parsec, 2 destination (3 total)
3 parsec, 11 destinations (14 total)
4 parsec, 19 destinations (33 total)
5 parsec, 23+ destinations (53+ total)
The real problem with 2d mapping is that it distorts the number of possible destinations.
Assuming stars in this neighborhood correspond to "scatterred", so the possible number of destinations
1 parsec, 2 destinations
2 parsec, 4 destinations (6 total)
3 parsec, 6 destinations (12 total)
4 parsec, 8 destinations (20 total)
5 parsec, 10 destinations (30 total)
As opposed to the real universe around sol,
1 parsec, 1 destination
2 parsec, 2 destination (3 total)
3 parsec, 11 destinations (14 total)
4 parsec, 19 destinations (33 total)
5 parsec, 23+ destinations (53+ total)
siefertma2
November 3rd, 2002, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
After Van den Broek modified Alcubierre a FTL drive went from "impossible but a literary convention" to "not impossible but we still need to work some things out." Sounds like hard SF to me.Does he find a way around the problem of causality?
Energy weapons, lasers are dropping at least an order of magnitude (maybe two) in size the next ten years. Also we may be looking at a revolution in stable plasmas, but we are looking at another twenty years before we get fragile small arms. 10-20 years after that we should get "soldier proof" milspec.Perhaps, but I would still favor modern-style ballastic firearms over directed energy weapons due to their ease of maintinance. What good is owning a cool new Colt 2111 Plasma Pistol if you need a at least a Master's degree in electronic theory just to field-strip it (much less fire it)?
I object to the way much of this tech is implemented, especially the way thermodynamics is ignored. *sigh*Entropy; it's not just a good idea... IT'S THE LAW!!!
Later,
Mark A. Siefert
After Van den Broek modified Alcubierre a FTL drive went from "impossible but a literary convention" to "not impossible but we still need to work some things out." Sounds like hard SF to me.Does he find a way around the problem of causality?
Energy weapons, lasers are dropping at least an order of magnitude (maybe two) in size the next ten years. Also we may be looking at a revolution in stable plasmas, but we are looking at another twenty years before we get fragile small arms. 10-20 years after that we should get "soldier proof" milspec.Perhaps, but I would still favor modern-style ballastic firearms over directed energy weapons due to their ease of maintinance. What good is owning a cool new Colt 2111 Plasma Pistol if you need a at least a Master's degree in electronic theory just to field-strip it (much less fire it)?
I object to the way much of this tech is implemented, especially the way thermodynamics is ignored. *sigh*Entropy; it's not just a good idea... IT'S THE LAW!!!
Later,
Mark A. Siefert
Simon Jester
November 3rd, 2002, 09:55 PM
My take on the 2D vs. 3D space maps is based on the history of the New York City Subway Map. Back when it was just starting out, the New York City Subway system had a maps that they provided to their riders that was geographically precise; it showed which tracks physically ran next to each other, where tracks crossed each other, etc.
After a while, and many expansions of the subways system later, the map had become unintelligible, so they had a non-geographically presice map created. It showed the prospective riders which stops each route made, and where the rider could change from one route to another, but it might show Coney Island and Madison Square Garden right next to each other (they're not) while two stations across a few tracks from each other might be placed on opposite ends of the map. The benefit was that the passengers could find out which trains they needed to take to get where they wanted to go.
I present the "One Parsec" star maps to my players in much the same fashion. These maps aren't an actual representation of galactic space, they're a simple depiction of jumpspace showing what is reachable from where using a jumpship. In "reality" two star nation neighbors might actually have a border zone that is several dozen lightyears across, but, due to how jumpspace allows travel, you can draw a fairly straight line between the possessions of the two on the common starmap.
That's my primary handwave, and it's been acceptable to my players so far.
Simon jester graemlins/file_23.gif
After a while, and many expansions of the subways system later, the map had become unintelligible, so they had a non-geographically presice map created. It showed the prospective riders which stops each route made, and where the rider could change from one route to another, but it might show Coney Island and Madison Square Garden right next to each other (they're not) while two stations across a few tracks from each other might be placed on opposite ends of the map. The benefit was that the passengers could find out which trains they needed to take to get where they wanted to go.
I present the "One Parsec" star maps to my players in much the same fashion. These maps aren't an actual representation of galactic space, they're a simple depiction of jumpspace showing what is reachable from where using a jumpship. In "reality" two star nation neighbors might actually have a border zone that is several dozen lightyears across, but, due to how jumpspace allows travel, you can draw a fairly straight line between the possessions of the two on the common starmap.
That's my primary handwave, and it's been acceptable to my players so far.
Simon jester graemlins/file_23.gif
themink
November 3rd, 2002, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
After Van den Broek modified Alcubierre a FTL drive went from "impossible but a literary convention" to "not impossible but we still need to work some things out." Sounds like hard SF to me.Does he find a way around the problem of causality?
Later,
Mark A. Siefert</font>[/QUOTE]Yes - Causality is observed behaviour thus far - there is no reaosn why causality applies at all.
There are a variety of different causality breaking phenomenom which fit our current equations for the universe.
Off the top of my head:-
i) If you find a very heavy cylinder that is rotating very quickly (speed at the surface > 1/2 c, material denser than a neutron star) when you get close to the surface and orbit it, you travel backwards in time (ie go in for a slingshot pass and come out in time to watch yourself go in - possibly event shoot yourself down on the inward trip!)
ii) Find a very large worm hole, prop it open with a big gob of negative energy density. Accelerate one end up to a fast speed (relativistic) and drive it arround for a while - bring it back and slow it down and you now have a wormhole which jumps through time as well as space (ie if you go in the "old" one, you come out the other before you went in - if you go in the "young" one you jump into the future.
iii) If you have a pair of quantum particles generated by the same event, actions on one interact with the other one. This has actually been demonstrated in the lab - the biggest distance thus far has been a couple of kilometers - there is no light speed limitation.
Both the above are accepted according to our
If you tie in lightspeed, there are lab examples that show you can transmit information faster than light speed and there are many math examples that violate "common sense". But then particle physics violates common sense without having to look very far.
Causality - There is no reason to think it is always the case - in the same way that things don;t always fall down - If you look arround, everything falls. Causality is one of those "obviously correct" rules that might not apply to the universe as a whole.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
After Van den Broek modified Alcubierre a FTL drive went from "impossible but a literary convention" to "not impossible but we still need to work some things out." Sounds like hard SF to me.Does he find a way around the problem of causality?
Later,
Mark A. Siefert</font>[/QUOTE]Yes - Causality is observed behaviour thus far - there is no reaosn why causality applies at all.
There are a variety of different causality breaking phenomenom which fit our current equations for the universe.
Off the top of my head:-
i) If you find a very heavy cylinder that is rotating very quickly (speed at the surface > 1/2 c, material denser than a neutron star) when you get close to the surface and orbit it, you travel backwards in time (ie go in for a slingshot pass and come out in time to watch yourself go in - possibly event shoot yourself down on the inward trip!)
ii) Find a very large worm hole, prop it open with a big gob of negative energy density. Accelerate one end up to a fast speed (relativistic) and drive it arround for a while - bring it back and slow it down and you now have a wormhole which jumps through time as well as space (ie if you go in the "old" one, you come out the other before you went in - if you go in the "young" one you jump into the future.
iii) If you have a pair of quantum particles generated by the same event, actions on one interact with the other one. This has actually been demonstrated in the lab - the biggest distance thus far has been a couple of kilometers - there is no light speed limitation.
Both the above are accepted according to our
If you tie in lightspeed, there are lab examples that show you can transmit information faster than light speed and there are many math examples that violate "common sense". But then particle physics violates common sense without having to look very far.
Causality - There is no reason to think it is always the case - in the same way that things don;t always fall down - If you look arround, everything falls. Causality is one of those "obviously correct" rules that might not apply to the universe as a whole.
MichaelL65
November 3rd, 2002, 10:07 PM
How about this one:
Fuel for starships is pure hydrogen. This could work in an atmosphere, but in the vacuum of space, what is it going to combine with to produce the chemical reaction? According to the definition of unrefined fuel, it has a better chance of burning than refined fuel.
I would also think that anti-matter would be a more acceptable fuel considering the amount of energy that is required. If a device that can create a pocket universe for FTL travel can be mass produced, a containment system for anti-matter (and a system to produce it) shouldn't be a problem (and would likely be required for the enourmous amounts of power said FTL device would need).
Fuel for starships is pure hydrogen. This could work in an atmosphere, but in the vacuum of space, what is it going to combine with to produce the chemical reaction? According to the definition of unrefined fuel, it has a better chance of burning than refined fuel.
I would also think that anti-matter would be a more acceptable fuel considering the amount of energy that is required. If a device that can create a pocket universe for FTL travel can be mass produced, a containment system for anti-matter (and a system to produce it) shouldn't be a problem (and would likely be required for the enourmous amounts of power said FTL device would need).
Uncle Bob
November 3rd, 2002, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
Does he find a way around the problem of causality?
Causality seems a no-brainer to me, especially as it is the major criticism of wormholes. However it is my understanding that the "pocket universe" of the warp bypasses causality? Doubtful as that seems, I have never seen a scholarly criticism of Alcubierre that addresses causality.
Perhaps, but I would still favor modern-style ballastic firearms over directed energy weapons due to their ease of maintinance. What good is owning a cool new Colt 2111 Plasma Pistol if you need a at least a Master's degree in electronic theory just to field-strip it (much less fire it)?
Lasers, at least, will be solid state by the time they are small arms, so maintenance will be almost non-existant. Designing an energy weapon will take a Phd, repair will require a year's training, but a six year old can clean and operate it. OTOH, a kinetic energy projectile has a very efficient damage mechanism even if the firing mechanism is complicated and fragile.
The three laws of thermodynamics:
You Can't Win
You Can't Break Even
and
You Can't Even Get Out of the Game
(Believe it or not, remembering these three rules got me through Physics 305).
Does he find a way around the problem of causality?
Causality seems a no-brainer to me, especially as it is the major criticism of wormholes. However it is my understanding that the "pocket universe" of the warp bypasses causality? Doubtful as that seems, I have never seen a scholarly criticism of Alcubierre that addresses causality.
Perhaps, but I would still favor modern-style ballastic firearms over directed energy weapons due to their ease of maintinance. What good is owning a cool new Colt 2111 Plasma Pistol if you need a at least a Master's degree in electronic theory just to field-strip it (much less fire it)?
Lasers, at least, will be solid state by the time they are small arms, so maintenance will be almost non-existant. Designing an energy weapon will take a Phd, repair will require a year's training, but a six year old can clean and operate it. OTOH, a kinetic energy projectile has a very efficient damage mechanism even if the firing mechanism is complicated and fragile.
The three laws of thermodynamics:
You Can't Win
You Can't Break Even
and
You Can't Even Get Out of the Game
(Believe it or not, remembering these three rules got me through Physics 305).
themink
November 3rd, 2002, 10:12 PM
3D vs 2D
I actually really like the effect of a 2D universe. Not just because I can map the sucker better, but the game play effects of it.
A "Pancake" universe like this has a much longer travel time to the edges than it's volumn would otherwise suggest. With the "long" travel times of jump, this results in a huge range of local diversity, the necessity for "nodal" fleets, decision making in the hands of the local nobles etc.
In actual fact it gives you much more "edge" than a real sphere would. Because edge isn;t just the interface between inside and outside, it has to be a long way from the center to matter. ie if the imperium where a sphere containing the same number of systems, it would be a huge amount smaller - so the edge would only be a 5 or 6 jumps from the center. ie would be under central control.
Alternatively if the radius were the same, the number of stars in the center would be so large that imperial fleets could be ridiculusly huge - the economic powerhouse of the protected worlds would dominate imperial thoughts.
Either way, the end results of a flat universe are good.
How do I justify it:-
i) I've once used the "Stars are much more common, only planetary systems are marked - the event that coalesced planets was a wave front from a spinning nova (ie a circular rather than spherical front). This had the advantage that planets were all formed arround the same time so species could be equally advanced.- Not a canon universe
ii) It just is (very popular arguement)
iii) It just maps like that (Used for a non-mathematical audience)
I actually really like the effect of a 2D universe. Not just because I can map the sucker better, but the game play effects of it.
A "Pancake" universe like this has a much longer travel time to the edges than it's volumn would otherwise suggest. With the "long" travel times of jump, this results in a huge range of local diversity, the necessity for "nodal" fleets, decision making in the hands of the local nobles etc.
In actual fact it gives you much more "edge" than a real sphere would. Because edge isn;t just the interface between inside and outside, it has to be a long way from the center to matter. ie if the imperium where a sphere containing the same number of systems, it would be a huge amount smaller - so the edge would only be a 5 or 6 jumps from the center. ie would be under central control.
Alternatively if the radius were the same, the number of stars in the center would be so large that imperial fleets could be ridiculusly huge - the economic powerhouse of the protected worlds would dominate imperial thoughts.
Either way, the end results of a flat universe are good.
How do I justify it:-
i) I've once used the "Stars are much more common, only planetary systems are marked - the event that coalesced planets was a wave front from a spinning nova (ie a circular rather than spherical front). This had the advantage that planets were all formed arround the same time so species could be equally advanced.- Not a canon universe
ii) It just is (very popular arguement)
iii) It just maps like that (Used for a non-mathematical audience)
themink
November 3rd, 2002, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by MichaelL65:
How about this one:
Fuel for starships is pure hydrogen. This could work in an atmosphere, but in the vacuum of space, what is it going to combine with to produce the chemical reaction? According to the definition of unrefined fuel, it has a better chance of burning than refined fuel.
No.
The "Fuel" used by JDrive is clearly not used in a chemical reaction. There have been a variety of theories that people have raised as to how it might be used:-
i) It is (after all) a fusion powerplant - fuse it to helium for the huge power drain - There are a couple of reasons why this is a bad idea, but initial reaction seems OK
ii) It is released into the "medium" of jump over the period of the jump to "grease" the passage through Jump space - this can result in a lot of fun descriptions
iii) It is released into space to form a dense cloud arround the ship - Jump drive effectively "lasers" this cloud ripping space open and throwing the ship into a distant location (call it a jump) Graeme Bartho described this and various reasons why it might be so in a lovely set of articles on the TML - a net search on his name would give you a solid backgrounding in various theories.
Needless to say, I am a fan of the last of these. One thing it does have is a flash of light as ships exit and enter jump space - which is very cinematic and it's not contradicted by canon so I like it.
Either way, hydrogen fuel is no stretch of the imagination if you are willing to accept backpack fusion generaters, Grav plates and jump drives.
How about this one:
Fuel for starships is pure hydrogen. This could work in an atmosphere, but in the vacuum of space, what is it going to combine with to produce the chemical reaction? According to the definition of unrefined fuel, it has a better chance of burning than refined fuel.
No.
The "Fuel" used by JDrive is clearly not used in a chemical reaction. There have been a variety of theories that people have raised as to how it might be used:-
i) It is (after all) a fusion powerplant - fuse it to helium for the huge power drain - There are a couple of reasons why this is a bad idea, but initial reaction seems OK
ii) It is released into the "medium" of jump over the period of the jump to "grease" the passage through Jump space - this can result in a lot of fun descriptions
iii) It is released into space to form a dense cloud arround the ship - Jump drive effectively "lasers" this cloud ripping space open and throwing the ship into a distant location (call it a jump) Graeme Bartho described this and various reasons why it might be so in a lovely set of articles on the TML - a net search on his name would give you a solid backgrounding in various theories.
Needless to say, I am a fan of the last of these. One thing it does have is a flash of light as ships exit and enter jump space - which is very cinematic and it's not contradicted by canon so I like it.
Either way, hydrogen fuel is no stretch of the imagination if you are willing to accept backpack fusion generaters, Grav plates and jump drives.
Simon Jester
November 3rd, 2002, 10:38 PM
Another handwave I use, or, rather, don't use, is jump masking. This is where a gravity well's 100 diameter "shadow" placed in between a ship initiating a jump and it's intended destination can prevent that jump from occurring.
As far as MTU is concerned "No." graemlins/file_28.gif
Jumpspace is an entirely different universe/reality, and nothing in this universe can affect anything in it, including the gravity wells/100 dia. shadows of stars and planets. Only a jumpdrive can affect jumpspace, and that only by creating an entrance into it for the ship using the jumpdrive.
I realize this flies in the face of many people's dearly held "canon," but I don't care; it's never made sense to me, therefor it doesn't exist IMTU.
Simon Jester graemlins/file_23.gif
As far as MTU is concerned "No." graemlins/file_28.gif
Jumpspace is an entirely different universe/reality, and nothing in this universe can affect anything in it, including the gravity wells/100 dia. shadows of stars and planets. Only a jumpdrive can affect jumpspace, and that only by creating an entrance into it for the ship using the jumpdrive.
I realize this flies in the face of many people's dearly held "canon," but I don't care; it's never made sense to me, therefor it doesn't exist IMTU.
Simon Jester graemlins/file_23.gif
PinkSplice
November 4th, 2002, 12:07 AM
GURPS is a (partial) bastard offspring of Traveller. The heavy-duty gearheads and rules lawyers of GURPS (and their cousins on the TML) have been trying to make a "harder" Traveller for 25 years.
Heavens to Elvis! It's a ▮▮▮▮▮▮ *game*, people.
Heavens to Elvis! It's a ▮▮▮▮▮▮ *game*, people.
PapaGolfWhiskey
November 4th, 2002, 07:43 AM
Wow... that's all very cool.
but you know about as fascinating to me as the need for leg traction in Femur fractures is to you.
Again I'm sure 'I bandage his wounds' is enough medical knowledge for most of your games. (or.. I roll my med skill)
I am perfectly happy using existing maps and "I made my astrogation roll... Great! activate jump drives cue heroic music... fade out Cut to next star system."
but you know about as fascinating to me as the need for leg traction in Femur fractures is to you.
Again I'm sure 'I bandage his wounds' is enough medical knowledge for most of your games. (or.. I roll my med skill)
I am perfectly happy using existing maps and "I made my astrogation roll... Great! activate jump drives cue heroic music... fade out Cut to next star system."
Solo
November 4th, 2002, 06:12 PM
Heavens to Elvis! It's a ▮▮▮▮▮▮ *game*, people.[/QB]I concur. But.
If there was a "hand-wave" in Traveller that bothers me the most, it would be TIME.
It's 3000+ years into the future. Ballistic Weapons? Non-sentient machines? Limited genetic engineering? People being old at 80? Humans in their present form at all? Hmph.
Which is why I remember the quote above.
:D
-S.
:cool:
If there was a "hand-wave" in Traveller that bothers me the most, it would be TIME.
It's 3000+ years into the future. Ballistic Weapons? Non-sentient machines? Limited genetic engineering? People being old at 80? Humans in their present form at all? Hmph.
Which is why I remember the quote above.
:D
-S.
:cool:
DrSkull
November 5th, 2002, 07:22 AM
But Solo, you forget there was the Long Night in which technology and civilization actually regressed for 2000 of those 3000 years. THe amazing progress of our civilization in the last 500 years is the exception in human history, not the rule.
kafka47
November 5th, 2002, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by DrSkull:
But Solo, you forget there was the Long Night in which technology and civilization actually regressed for 2000 of those 3000 years. THe amazing progress of our civilization in the last 500 years is the exception in human history, not the rule.But, surely the Long Night allowed the powerful to keep their place through preserving knowledge. For unlike Fading Suns, the Long Night, was not complete collapse of the Interstellar order but fracturing of Humaniti's dominance into micro-empires or pocket empires, save around the frontier (which includes Sol).
Therefore, it was only a technological regression but still would have allowed the powerful to produce their fusion weapons. For of the case has has been made about the collapse of trade. But, truly autaric regimes (here I am thinking of Stalin's USSR & Hitler 3rd Reich) have produced truly terrible weapons in isolation. For the trade in arms does not produce innovation just opens markets to other goods.
But Solo, you forget there was the Long Night in which technology and civilization actually regressed for 2000 of those 3000 years. THe amazing progress of our civilization in the last 500 years is the exception in human history, not the rule.But, surely the Long Night allowed the powerful to keep their place through preserving knowledge. For unlike Fading Suns, the Long Night, was not complete collapse of the Interstellar order but fracturing of Humaniti's dominance into micro-empires or pocket empires, save around the frontier (which includes Sol).
Therefore, it was only a technological regression but still would have allowed the powerful to produce their fusion weapons. For of the case has has been made about the collapse of trade. But, truly autaric regimes (here I am thinking of Stalin's USSR & Hitler 3rd Reich) have produced truly terrible weapons in isolation. For the trade in arms does not produce innovation just opens markets to other goods.
GBoyett
November 5th, 2002, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by kafka47:
But, surely the Long Night allowed the powerful to keep their place through preserving knowledge. For unlike Fading Suns, the Long Night, was not complete collapse of the Interstellar order but fracturing of Humaniti's dominance into micro-empires or pocket empires, save around the frontier (which includes Sol).
Therefore, it was only a technological regression but still would have allowed the powerful to produce their fusion weapons. For of the case has has been made about the collapse of trade. But, truly autaric regimes (here I am thinking of Stalin's USSR & Hitler 3rd Reich) have produced truly terrible weapons in isolation. For the trade in arms does not produce innovation just opens markets to other goods.That's not the take I get from the Long Night. Very, very few multi-stellar organizations survived the entire period. Technology did regress thru out Charted space. There were virtually no trade or commerce. The manufacture of high tech goods (gravitics, starship, weapons, etc) stopped because they could not repair, maintain, and supply the factories, as they were dependent on imports. The local either had to adapt to lower tech to survive the local conditions or die out.
But, surely the Long Night allowed the powerful to keep their place through preserving knowledge. For unlike Fading Suns, the Long Night, was not complete collapse of the Interstellar order but fracturing of Humaniti's dominance into micro-empires or pocket empires, save around the frontier (which includes Sol).
Therefore, it was only a technological regression but still would have allowed the powerful to produce their fusion weapons. For of the case has has been made about the collapse of trade. But, truly autaric regimes (here I am thinking of Stalin's USSR & Hitler 3rd Reich) have produced truly terrible weapons in isolation. For the trade in arms does not produce innovation just opens markets to other goods.That's not the take I get from the Long Night. Very, very few multi-stellar organizations survived the entire period. Technology did regress thru out Charted space. There were virtually no trade or commerce. The manufacture of high tech goods (gravitics, starship, weapons, etc) stopped because they could not repair, maintain, and supply the factories, as they were dependent on imports. The local either had to adapt to lower tech to survive the local conditions or die out.
Anthony
November 5th, 2002, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by DrSkull:
But Solo, you forget there was the Long Night in which technology and civilization actually regressed for 2000 of those 3000 years. THe amazing progress of our civilization in the last 500 years is the exception in human history, not the rule.Actually, it's not. The rate of change in the last 500 years has been fairly high, but the development of technology has been pretty much one way for all of human history (and yes, this includes the so-called 'dark ages').
As far as it goes, canon around the Long Night suggests it was mostly the ZS which collapsed. The Solomani Rim had stable multi-world PEs for the entire duration of the Long Night.
But Solo, you forget there was the Long Night in which technology and civilization actually regressed for 2000 of those 3000 years. THe amazing progress of our civilization in the last 500 years is the exception in human history, not the rule.Actually, it's not. The rate of change in the last 500 years has been fairly high, but the development of technology has been pretty much one way for all of human history (and yes, this includes the so-called 'dark ages').
As far as it goes, canon around the Long Night suggests it was mostly the ZS which collapsed. The Solomani Rim had stable multi-world PEs for the entire duration of the Long Night.
TheColonel
November 5th, 2002, 02:39 PM
I agree with Anthony. There has rarely (ever?) been a regression in technology, just the complex social structure that allows for it's growth and widespread use. With every documentry on the history Channel I see about technology, I see there was always development. Granted, it was easier for change and advancements to occour, but as a whole always a move forward.
DrSkull
November 5th, 2002, 03:03 PM
The development of technology isn't as one way as you might think. Romans had mechanical calculators used in navigation whose existence was unsuspected for ages until one was found in shipwreck. There were also building and metalworking techiniques in the ancient world that were lost and which artists and artizans were unable to duplicate until the 20th century.
The appearence of irreversible technology advancement is sometimes a result of tautology. If you forget about a technilogical advancement then it doesn't count. So the fact that in the Dark Ages better horse collars, ploughs and windmills were invented seems to point to tech progress, but the Roman age things that were forgotten, were just that forgotten.
In any case, my original point was that what our civilizations current technological explosion is amazing for its rate and bredth, but there's no reason to believe that it will continue into the futute at the same rate. The Luddite impulse to protect jobs and ways of life is the normal human condition. It takes some guts to allow the chaos and disruption that tech progress brings.
The appearence of irreversible technology advancement is sometimes a result of tautology. If you forget about a technilogical advancement then it doesn't count. So the fact that in the Dark Ages better horse collars, ploughs and windmills were invented seems to point to tech progress, but the Roman age things that were forgotten, were just that forgotten.
In any case, my original point was that what our civilizations current technological explosion is amazing for its rate and bredth, but there's no reason to believe that it will continue into the futute at the same rate. The Luddite impulse to protect jobs and ways of life is the normal human condition. It takes some guts to allow the chaos and disruption that tech progress brings.
PapaGolfWhiskey
November 5th, 2002, 04:17 PM
"90% of the scientists that have ever lived are alive today"
I don't know if that's true but... there IS a critical mass of population and education. Kill enough of the techies that make things run and a planet will lose it's tech.
Kill enough of the populace and you won't have anyone to do the scut work and things will collapse.
also I don't know about TECH but there was a DEFINITE regression in knowledge.
Who knows what information and knowledge was lost when the Christians burned the Library at Alexandria.
if you get a chance to examine documents from before and during the dark ages on say... natural history. you'll find the pre dark age ones resonably full of facts and observed data. while the others... um full of things such as linking the shape of a lion's paw to the death of christ literally stating that it has four toes becuase of four drops of blood or similar um... unsupported Religiocentric assertations that have no basis in observable fact.
For an idea of what the end of the Ramshackle Empire and what the long night looked like. I reccomend Two Piper Novels: Cosmic Computer (Junkyard Planet) and Space Viking.
But yeah... I can see the tech being not so advanced in the year 5k as some might insist it should be.
I don't know if that's true but... there IS a critical mass of population and education. Kill enough of the techies that make things run and a planet will lose it's tech.
Kill enough of the populace and you won't have anyone to do the scut work and things will collapse.
also I don't know about TECH but there was a DEFINITE regression in knowledge.
Who knows what information and knowledge was lost when the Christians burned the Library at Alexandria.
if you get a chance to examine documents from before and during the dark ages on say... natural history. you'll find the pre dark age ones resonably full of facts and observed data. while the others... um full of things such as linking the shape of a lion's paw to the death of christ literally stating that it has four toes becuase of four drops of blood or similar um... unsupported Religiocentric assertations that have no basis in observable fact.
For an idea of what the end of the Ramshackle Empire and what the long night looked like. I reccomend Two Piper Novels: Cosmic Computer (Junkyard Planet) and Space Viking.
But yeah... I can see the tech being not so advanced in the year 5k as some might insist it should be.
PapaGolfWhiskey
November 5th, 2002, 04:41 PM
Also some planets may lack sufficient resources... fissionables. so atomic energy is impossible. Lanthanum so that Jump drives are.
And by lack I don't mean absent I mean unvaileble in practical ammounts with the tech available.
this is a problem earth may face if we ever lose ahold of our grip on the tiger tail of tech.
resources that may be needed to power and empower earlier 'seed' tech don't exist anymore in formats accessable by those techs.
Ores availble only through deep hard rock mining and/or caison techniques. Can't be dug if all you have is picks and mattocks.
And by lack I don't mean absent I mean unvaileble in practical ammounts with the tech available.
this is a problem earth may face if we ever lose ahold of our grip on the tiger tail of tech.
resources that may be needed to power and empower earlier 'seed' tech don't exist anymore in formats accessable by those techs.
Ores availble only through deep hard rock mining and/or caison techniques. Can't be dug if all you have is picks and mattocks.
PapaGolfWhiskey
November 5th, 2002, 04:43 PM
A couple novels on these themes.
Arslan: the villain's plan is to de-technologise earth.
40 000 in Gehenna, by CJ Cherryh: shows how an initial societal set up can break down and shift and grow into something else.
Arslan: the villain's plan is to de-technologise earth.
40 000 in Gehenna, by CJ Cherryh: shows how an initial societal set up can break down and shift and grow into something else.
dean
November 5th, 2002, 04:53 PM
Also on this theme, and by CJ Cherryh; "Angel With a Sword", about a population of humans abandoned inside an alien culture's sphere of influence. Many reasonable assumptions including lack of mineral resources, plus cultural changes which surpress the development of technologies that the inhabitants _know_ are possible.
This setting also spawned anthologies of stories by other authors; "Merovingen Nights", etc.
Happy Reading,
This setting also spawned anthologies of stories by other authors; "Merovingen Nights", etc.
Happy Reading,
themink
November 5th, 2002, 07:53 PM
Also on the same theme - "Mote in Gods eye" - What happens if you don;t have afrontier anymore. Welcome to Malthaus.
manley_t
November 7th, 2002, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by thrash:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hunter:
[qb]http://jtas.sjgames.com/login/article.cgi?139
can you provide a link to this that doesnt' require a log-on?I can suspend disbelief and still enjoy Traveller. I play for the escape of it; not the technical accuracy.
that said, I would love to see a 3d style map -- hell, I'd love to just see a subsector/sector map that semi-accurately reflects the starts around SOL.
As for lasers -- well, they just tested a laster shooting down an artillery shell and anti-ballistic missile chemical lasers are set to be deployed on modified 747's -- so we're gettin' there.
The reactionless thrust thing for me takes away from what could be much of the drama and sense of exploration in playing space games. I ran a game some time back that was heavily house-rules modified. It took place all in one system and life-support and fuel were important. My specific impluse rules mod was to have a G/Hour rating for fuel and thrust. I also used a quick'n dirty rotational rule for the planets. Players could travel regardless of where each planet was, but it took more fuel to get there. In fact, the farthest planet in the system the players didn't go to until late in the game because the trip would have taken so long.
All I can say is thank goodness for spreadsheets to handle all the math. Without that my players would have hated it.
I'm planning on creating my own set of houserules for D20 along the same lines -- no FTL and using 'future' rockets instead of the magic reactionless drive. But, I'm still reading the rules and want to run 'standard' traveller games for a bit before I start mucking with the rules system.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hunter:
[qb]http://jtas.sjgames.com/login/article.cgi?139
can you provide a link to this that doesnt' require a log-on?I can suspend disbelief and still enjoy Traveller. I play for the escape of it; not the technical accuracy.
that said, I would love to see a 3d style map -- hell, I'd love to just see a subsector/sector map that semi-accurately reflects the starts around SOL.
As for lasers -- well, they just tested a laster shooting down an artillery shell and anti-ballistic missile chemical lasers are set to be deployed on modified 747's -- so we're gettin' there.
The reactionless thrust thing for me takes away from what could be much of the drama and sense of exploration in playing space games. I ran a game some time back that was heavily house-rules modified. It took place all in one system and life-support and fuel were important. My specific impluse rules mod was to have a G/Hour rating for fuel and thrust. I also used a quick'n dirty rotational rule for the planets. Players could travel regardless of where each planet was, but it took more fuel to get there. In fact, the farthest planet in the system the players didn't go to until late in the game because the trip would have taken so long.
All I can say is thank goodness for spreadsheets to handle all the math. Without that my players would have hated it.
I'm planning on creating my own set of houserules for D20 along the same lines -- no FTL and using 'future' rockets instead of the magic reactionless drive. But, I'm still reading the rules and want to run 'standard' traveller games for a bit before I start mucking with the rules system.
BluWolf
November 7th, 2002, 12:31 PM
I'm assuming all this "reactionless drive" stuff is referring to a manuever drive system that doesn't turn its crew to tomato paste on the internal hull while accelerating???
Kind of like the mythical "inertial dampers"?
Kind of like the mythical "inertial dampers"?
PapaGolfWhiskey
November 7th, 2002, 12:35 PM
I'm fond of assuming that the drive is gravitic based and that Gravitics are also part of the internal lifesupport. beyond that I don't worry. Inertial dampers are cool.
Long live Honour.
Long live Honour.
BluWolf
November 7th, 2002, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Garf:
I'm fond of assuming that the drive is gravitic based and that Gravitics are also part of the internal lifesupport. beyond that I don't worry. Inertial dampers are cool.
Long live Honour.Ok, then what is a reactionless drive??
I'm fond of assuming that the drive is gravitic based and that Gravitics are also part of the internal lifesupport. beyond that I don't worry. Inertial dampers are cool.
Long live Honour.Ok, then what is a reactionless drive??
PapaGolfWhiskey
November 7th, 2002, 12:44 PM
I think it's exactly what you said.
A magic drive that doesn't squish it's users. or even make them use bulkheads as decks.
I'm not sure though. 'reactionless drive' is not something I complain about much.
A magic drive that doesn't squish it's users. or even make them use bulkheads as decks.
I'm not sure though. 'reactionless drive' is not something I complain about much.
manley_t
November 7th, 2002, 01:47 PM
Yes, the reactionless drive does work without turning the crew into paste.
The impression I have is that the drive is a 'thruster plate' where-by one end of the plate is placed within the other end and the "natural" action of the plates to not occupy the same place at the same time causes acceleration. The fact that grav plates generate a gravity field on the ship overcome the gravity that would be generated by the ........ hey, it's magic man ;)
That's why in the house-rule in system game I ran I used rockets and different types of fuel had differnt ratings on how useful it was. It was a very B R O A D simplification of how specific impulse works.....
But, to be honest, the game is what is most important, not the science. If the science gets in the way of the game, then you're not laying it right....
The impression I have is that the drive is a 'thruster plate' where-by one end of the plate is placed within the other end and the "natural" action of the plates to not occupy the same place at the same time causes acceleration. The fact that grav plates generate a gravity field on the ship overcome the gravity that would be generated by the ........ hey, it's magic man ;)
That's why in the house-rule in system game I ran I used rockets and different types of fuel had differnt ratings on how useful it was. It was a very B R O A D simplification of how specific impulse works.....
But, to be honest, the game is what is most important, not the science. If the science gets in the way of the game, then you're not laying it right....
Rodina
November 7th, 2002, 02:59 PM
I think I brought up my beef with the universe being one-parsec thick...
I don't -really- care; I just think it's funny in a game which is otherwise pretty careful about being at least.... well... if not plausible, exactly, than at least not implausibly implausible.
I like the 3D detail of the 2300 universe... just a bug of mine.
I don't -really- care; I just think it's funny in a game which is otherwise pretty careful about being at least.... well... if not plausible, exactly, than at least not implausibly implausible.
I like the 3D detail of the 2300 universe... just a bug of mine.
themink
November 8th, 2002, 12:15 AM
But traveller contradicts Hard Science (Jump drive, lasers, antigrav, reactionless drives etc) much less now than it did when it came out.
in the 70's there were no commonly accepted ways to travel faster than light. Reactionless drives were total fiction and lasers were designated as impractical for weaponry.
There are at least two ways that I've heard of that are commonly accepted as FTL travel. Plus countless others involving other dimensions (hyperspace - ie jump space). The biggest current stretch for Jump Drives is that it takes a finite time that is not related to the distance.
Reactionless drives (ie those that operate without throwing stuff out the back) were origionally pure fiction however now we have actions that operate at a distance, gravity waves and other spooky stuff - It is now just implausible rather than garbage.
Lasers - Yes they are arround right now. And each year they get closer to operation in a mil sense - there have been demos of laser tanks, etc etc The practical difficulties will take a long time overcome, but the OTU is a long time away still.
Anti-grav. This used to be my main sticking point, till there was observed reduction of grav above spinning superconductors and negative energy density measured between charged plates. Now I am much less willing to say that it's not possible.
Fundamentally, 30 years ago pyhsics was at the end of it's run and had discovered everything important. Then Quantum mech came allong and there is a whole universe of strange things out there.
You can no longer make any real statement about things that won't be discovered.
As to a pancake universe - That isn;t a traveller rule, that's just OTU - Traveller itself doeesn't require one. So get out your 3D paper and start mapping.
The Mink (Slightly disgruntled that people were confusing OTU with traveller)
in the 70's there were no commonly accepted ways to travel faster than light. Reactionless drives were total fiction and lasers were designated as impractical for weaponry.
There are at least two ways that I've heard of that are commonly accepted as FTL travel. Plus countless others involving other dimensions (hyperspace - ie jump space). The biggest current stretch for Jump Drives is that it takes a finite time that is not related to the distance.
Reactionless drives (ie those that operate without throwing stuff out the back) were origionally pure fiction however now we have actions that operate at a distance, gravity waves and other spooky stuff - It is now just implausible rather than garbage.
Lasers - Yes they are arround right now. And each year they get closer to operation in a mil sense - there have been demos of laser tanks, etc etc The practical difficulties will take a long time overcome, but the OTU is a long time away still.
Anti-grav. This used to be my main sticking point, till there was observed reduction of grav above spinning superconductors and negative energy density measured between charged plates. Now I am much less willing to say that it's not possible.
Fundamentally, 30 years ago pyhsics was at the end of it's run and had discovered everything important. Then Quantum mech came allong and there is a whole universe of strange things out there.
You can no longer make any real statement about things that won't be discovered.
As to a pancake universe - That isn;t a traveller rule, that's just OTU - Traveller itself doeesn't require one. So get out your 3D paper and start mapping.
The Mink (Slightly disgruntled that people were confusing OTU with traveller)
PapaGolfWhiskey
November 8th, 2002, 12:32 AM
I donno. I think, in my ignorance of physic and of interstellar cartography, that Traveller and the OTU are much harder sci fi than Star Trek or Star Wars.
For me it's a cool playground that requires very little suspension of disbelief.
For me it's a cool playground that requires very little suspension of disbelief.
Liam Devlin
November 8th, 2002, 12:41 AM
I answered the Three-D question on the 2D map this way to my players:
"See the empty parsecs between stars? This can be interpreted by either "up" or "down". The J-1 mains the same way. I can add an extra roll to let you know, but in the vastness of space, does it really matter unless you misjump?"
They admitted, unless they were"off the map" it didn't really matter. I used to roll percentile die to see if a system is "higher or lower", than the one they were adventuring in. Now they don't even bother...they have more important things to worry about!
"See the empty parsecs between stars? This can be interpreted by either "up" or "down". The J-1 mains the same way. I can add an extra roll to let you know, but in the vastness of space, does it really matter unless you misjump?"
They admitted, unless they were"off the map" it didn't really matter. I used to roll percentile die to see if a system is "higher or lower", than the one they were adventuring in. Now they don't even bother...they have more important things to worry about!
T. Foster
November 8th, 2002, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by thrash:
I sincerely wish you would stop calling the result "hard science fiction." (There is only one place that I know of in all classic Traveller that comes close to claiming it is "hard science." T20 Lite alone uses the phrase four times.) Twenty-five years later, it is demonstrably not true (or perhaps you are using some radically different definition of the term?). The empirical laws of geography, economics, astronomy, engineering, etc., are as "immutable" as those of physics, and as deserving of consideration. Calling T20 "a space opera game that preserves the flavor of classic Traveller" would be much more accurate.
I've been calling Traveller 'hard space opera' for a while now, with a working definition of "closer to RL science than Star Trek or Wars, but don't look too closely at anything." For the types of games I run (focused mostly on individual personal interactions) and the scale I'm operating at (4 subsectors AT MOST) I can comfortably gloss over the implications of all the RL laws that are being violated. That said, there's definite room for adjustment/improvement in the rules (IMTU I no longer do either Worlds or Trade strictly by the book) but a balance needs to be maintained, and IMO that balance should lie much nearer the 'playable' than the 'realistic' end of the spectrum.
I sincerely wish you would stop calling the result "hard science fiction." (There is only one place that I know of in all classic Traveller that comes close to claiming it is "hard science." T20 Lite alone uses the phrase four times.) Twenty-five years later, it is demonstrably not true (or perhaps you are using some radically different definition of the term?). The empirical laws of geography, economics, astronomy, engineering, etc., are as "immutable" as those of physics, and as deserving of consideration. Calling T20 "a space opera game that preserves the flavor of classic Traveller" would be much more accurate.
I've been calling Traveller 'hard space opera' for a while now, with a working definition of "closer to RL science than Star Trek or Wars, but don't look too closely at anything." For the types of games I run (focused mostly on individual personal interactions) and the scale I'm operating at (4 subsectors AT MOST) I can comfortably gloss over the implications of all the RL laws that are being violated. That said, there's definite room for adjustment/improvement in the rules (IMTU I no longer do either Worlds or Trade strictly by the book) but a balance needs to be maintained, and IMO that balance should lie much nearer the 'playable' than the 'realistic' end of the spectrum.
DaveC
November 8th, 2002, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by thrash:
*My fundamental objection to the flat map is not that it exists, but that no official explanation has ever been offered for it. If Marc Miller or Traveller had ever once said, "The universe is 3-dimensional; the flat map exists as a playable abstraction," I would have no more problem with it, though I would still pursue playable 3D representations. It is the total silence on the matter -- as if it were somehow not wholly unrealistic -- that rankles.[/QB]
*My fundamental objection to the flat map is not that it exists, but that no official explanation has ever been offered for it. If Marc Miller or Traveller had ever once said, "The universe is 3-dimensional; the flat map exists as a playable abstraction," I would have no more problem with it, though I would still pursue playable 3D representations. It is the total silence on the matter -- as if it were somehow not wholly unrealistic -- that rankles.[/QB]
DaveC
November 8th, 2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by thrash:
*My fundamental objection to the flat map is not that it exists, but that no official explanation has ever been offered for it. If Marc Miller or Traveller had ever once said, "The universe is 3-dimensional; the flat map exists as a playable abstraction," I would have no more problem with it, though I would still pursue playable 3D representations. It is the total silence on the matter -- as if it were somehow not wholly unrealistic -- that rankles.[/QB]Err... in an interview in White Dwarf #19 or #20, back in the late 70's, Marc Miller actually did say that. I've got the issue somewhere, although not immediately to hand.
I use 2D because, as MM and Garf (and probably lots of others have said,) its what happens at the next star system thats important, not that the universe is an accurate 3D map. Much the same reason why my worlds are just a set of linked encounter areas, nice though geodesic maps are to look at.
;)
*My fundamental objection to the flat map is not that it exists, but that no official explanation has ever been offered for it. If Marc Miller or Traveller had ever once said, "The universe is 3-dimensional; the flat map exists as a playable abstraction," I would have no more problem with it, though I would still pursue playable 3D representations. It is the total silence on the matter -- as if it were somehow not wholly unrealistic -- that rankles.[/QB]Err... in an interview in White Dwarf #19 or #20, back in the late 70's, Marc Miller actually did say that. I've got the issue somewhere, although not immediately to hand.
I use 2D because, as MM and Garf (and probably lots of others have said,) its what happens at the next star system thats important, not that the universe is an accurate 3D map. Much the same reason why my worlds are just a set of linked encounter areas, nice though geodesic maps are to look at.
;)
DaveC
November 11th, 2002, 04:42 PM
I've found the issue of White Dwarf now, it was issue #23 in March 1981. They published a two page interview with Marc Miller and specifically asked him about 2D space, he replied that it was simply a game abstraction to make things easier, although if refs wanted to go ahead and use 3D mapping that was ok.
graemlins/file_21.gif
graemlins/file_21.gif
alanb
November 11th, 2002, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Brass-Jester:
Much the same reason why my worlds are just a set of linked encounter areas, nice though geodesic maps are to look at.You too, huh?
I once had a mad plan for rationalising all my mapping so that everything would basically be a bunch of links and nodes.
J-Drive would have been replaced with a vaguely equivalent wormhole system, systems would have been abstracted to "interesting worlds" and a patch of tactical space around them, and worlds would have been a set of "interesting places".
I never quite got around to it, but the concept is still present in how I do things.
Alan Bradley
Much the same reason why my worlds are just a set of linked encounter areas, nice though geodesic maps are to look at.You too, huh?
I once had a mad plan for rationalising all my mapping so that everything would basically be a bunch of links and nodes.
J-Drive would have been replaced with a vaguely equivalent wormhole system, systems would have been abstracted to "interesting worlds" and a patch of tactical space around them, and worlds would have been a set of "interesting places".
I never quite got around to it, but the concept is still present in how I do things.
Alan Bradley
DaveC
November 12th, 2002, 05:45 PM
I once had a mad plan for rationalising all my mapping so that everything would basically be a bunch of links and nodes.
J-Drive would have been replaced with a vaguely equivalent wormhole system, systems would have been abstracted to "interesting worlds" and a patch of tactical space around them, and worlds would have been a set of "interesting places".
I never quite got around to it, but the concept is still present in how I do things.
Alan Bradley[/QB][/QUOTE]
This is pretty well how I do things. My worlds are a set of encounter areas (eg: starport, colony, city, industrial area) each one with a few lines of description and perhaps an encounter table or two, linked by travel routes indicating what sort of route (land, sea, air) and how long the route is. The PC's just get the description (" you travel in the air/raft north from Barras into the rural area, all around you are croplands and small farms and villages.")Each encounter area is an undefined size, but small-scale maps can the be used if required.
Note, using this system, my worlds also tend to be 2D, but so what? It's the adventure that counts, not a great detailed discussion on whether the PC's should have flown a Great Circle or not.
Yours from Flatland
J-Drive would have been replaced with a vaguely equivalent wormhole system, systems would have been abstracted to "interesting worlds" and a patch of tactical space around them, and worlds would have been a set of "interesting places".
I never quite got around to it, but the concept is still present in how I do things.
Alan Bradley[/QB][/QUOTE]
This is pretty well how I do things. My worlds are a set of encounter areas (eg: starport, colony, city, industrial area) each one with a few lines of description and perhaps an encounter table or two, linked by travel routes indicating what sort of route (land, sea, air) and how long the route is. The PC's just get the description (" you travel in the air/raft north from Barras into the rural area, all around you are croplands and small farms and villages.")Each encounter area is an undefined size, but small-scale maps can the be used if required.
Note, using this system, my worlds also tend to be 2D, but so what? It's the adventure that counts, not a great detailed discussion on whether the PC's should have flown a Great Circle or not.
Yours from Flatland
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét