Biotech and Nanotech and Cybertech... Oh my!

[siefertma2]

Hello all:

While looking through T20, I've found that much of the technology featured is still locked into 1970s notions of sci-fi. Since the publication of CL, ideas about science and technology have been greatly expanded. In T20 I see few referernces to biotechnoly and advanced genetic engineering, as well as some references to cybernetic replacements. I can't seem to find a word if there is any use of nanotechnology in the Traveller Universe.

My point is, its great that there is a new and improved Traveller, but I feel that the background needs to be brought up to date just a little.

Later,
Mark A. Siefert

 

[themink]

There are two schools of thought here

( see thread http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000322 )

Summarising viewpoints:

A) Trav needs updating for the changes that have happened since the 70's

B) But I like the old trav. If it were updated it would be a very different game

A) But everyone knows that the tech would be very different by the 3rd Imperium

B) But I can come up with some rationale to say it doesn;t happen.

A) But I want the new tech.

B) I dont

I hope that stops another discussion on exactly the same lines (ie I want it vs I dont)

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
My point is, its great that there is a new and improved Traveller, but I feel that the background needs to be brought up to date just a little.

The problem is (besides the issue mentioned above) twofold:
1) There will be no agreement on how or how much "new" stuff to add to Traveller. You will probably lose more people by making "improvements" that you lose by not making them.
2) If you add too much (and everyone will have a different definition of what makes "too much"), it stops being Traveller.

In other threads both Hunter and MJD have gone to great lengths to explain their guidelines for framing T20, and that included not making more changes than necessary to make it work with D20.

 

[siefertma2]

Originally posted by daryen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
My point is, its great that there is a new and improved Traveller, but I feel that the background needs to be brought up to date just a little.

The problem is (besides the issue mentioned above) twofold:
1) There will be no agreement on how or how much "new" stuff to add to Traveller. You will probably lose more people by making "improvements" that you lose by not making them.
2) If you add too much (and everyone will have a different definition of what makes "too much"), it stops being Traveller.

In other threads both Hunter and MJD have gone to great lengths to explain their guidelines for framing T20, and that included not making more changes than necessary to make it work with D20.</font>[/QUOTE]I wasn't saying that emerging technologies like Nanotech and genetic engineering should be the cornerstones of the new Traveller, and I'm sorry if I made it sound like that. However, I would like to see such technologies availble for those of us who may want to use them.

Then again, maybe I should start petitioning SJG for A D20 version of "Transhuman Space?" (Everyone I know REALLY hates GURPS, and it's a background I would love to play in.)

 

[themink]

So, rephrasing the question -

"When is the t20 based generic SF game to be released? You know the one with a huge sleection of different rules sets which can be added to a universe depening on taste"

Which I think is a very worthwhile question.

T20 is hunters Trav based interpretation.

Given the OGC license, there is no reason why Hunter would have to be the one writing rule sets for different things.

In fact, if you wrote a "Battlestar G" variant (with appropriate permissons) he would probably cheer.

If you wrote "some variations on a theme" which could be slotted into t20 depending what the ref wanted, he would probably cheer loudly.

 

[Bishop Odo]

I posted this in another form, but it applies here also.


"Technology have changed a lot since the 70's, I think everyone can agree about that, but this reminds me of a line from a Harry Potter book about waiting a long time for universal popularity, or in this case some form of consensus. ...If you re-print or reincarnate a game today and based it's on a 1970's conceptual future technology, that game is going to fail. Why? Because all the 13 year old sega junkies, cyber fiends, Star Wars babies, and Star Trek fans won't buy it. You can cry all you want about this future technology or that game systems technology is not "Traveller" and that fine".

"I'm worried about the Game's survival. Using the 70's tech mindset only qualifies you for a nostalgic retro-game like Gangbuster,
Boothill, and Flash Gordon. I also, think this subject or tread is suffer from a generation gap. I was too young to remember the 70's. ... I understand game balance and the Traveller experience, but we need new players, not recycled ones, if the system will survive. The joke at GAMA, the game shop owners convention, was that Traveller is the game that refused to die. Well I'm not getting any younger how about you...."

I agree with you about dealing with technologies like Nanotech and genetic engineering, after all there are a few uplifted spices in the cannon Traveller universe. Social stigma would be a great way to address Cyber tech, and going chrome. But its the foundation of the Tech that needs to be address or even just advanced. I must admit that why I like MegaTraveller ship building chapter, because it gives more advanced tech levels even though, I still don't agree with some of there assumption.

The standard repose to this subject is after make you "own variant universe", but look at the variety of commercial Travller incarnation and tell me It's not confusing. Then add the web sites in and it enough to drive the newbie insane, how many web sites have Ships with three different stats summaries Add to this mix, Marc Miller is doing another version of Traveller.

 

[themink]

I disagree with you Bish.

If t20 was released with a rule set which fundamentally change the precepts of the Trav universe (and it would have to) then it wouldn;t be traveller any more. And Marc would quite rightly have withdrawn his consent.

Instead The t20 rule set follows the OTU as close as it possibly can.

If someone (either yourself or hunter or Steve Jackson or WoTC for instance) wished to write an SF game which used the open areas of the t20 rules to write a backdrop and rule set for a new game. They are welcome to do so.

You have expressed an opinion that there is a commercial payoff to producing such a game (ie all those Sega Head 13 year olds) and I don;t deny that this may be true. It doesn;t invalidate the statement that I don't think that game would be traveller.

I like the t20 rule set because it does leave things deliberately open for this sort of "variant" game. I can easily imagine Hunter et al deciding to produce an "add-on" that includes a lot of rules that they decided not to include (and variations on their included set) because they would have broken canon. This sounds like the sort book you are after.

I don;t have any problem with the profusion of universes out there. I take what I want from them and leave the rest (like a fussy cherry picker). I am working on my own and when it's ready, will add it to the mix.

If someone else happens to like some of my rules, they are welcome to steal them, the same way I stole them in the first place.

Summarising my answer to Bishop - The changes that would have to be made make the game something different from traveller. They may be worthwhile changes but they have nothing to do with traveller if someone wished to produce them, they are welcome and actively encouraged to do so.

Summarising even more succinctly. Rather than ask for traveller to be change to fit what you want. Change traveller to fit what you want.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Mink!
Try this link:
http://www.panpub.com/traveller/rules/nanotech.html

Another:
http://www.panpub.com/traveller/rules/regency_tech.html

These Are off the site of DED here on this forum.(or DEDLEY as we know him by
http://www.panpub.com/traveller/

For Traveller advances in tech nology (okay they're set in Tne times 1130-1202 but..ye might find something worth looking into.

Me personally, nanotech/ Biotech/ and cyberware/ gene enhancement are part of MTU. Especially for some places that have no "Snake" AVV versus Virus-they chose alternate line sof science abandoned during the rise of 3I as any weapon that allowed them abck into space against Virus, was worthwhile the investment, R& D.
MJD will scrub off some of the more deadlier aspects of Virus, but that doesn't alter what I considered a fair level of technology that was silicon life-form proof.
And if its fair game, and they knew about it..they'd have used it!

 

[Bishop Odo]

Great links: thanks Liam.

Mink, I agree with you on a lot of items. I like to stick with cannon just for the simplicity, but like everyone I adapt or steal a little. I guess that's the joy of the internet. Being able to communicate with so many different views. I'm just getting back into this, I have the t20 tomorrow.

I think for the sake of the hobby we should try to cover new ground, fix flaws and not reinvent the wheel. T20 in a tight spot, Gurps traveller has some good products, and doing a t20 Aslan book when there is one in print is damming.

Now for my next rant and crusade, Traveller miniatures. "Why should we all just settle for scrounged up miniatures".

 

[Liam Devlin]

Your excellency is most welcome. DED tends to gather what is "most canon" as a rule. I have him highly bookmarked, and am working on a better more canon version of Zarushagar sector currently (halfway done!); Dagudashaag is next...next year(already in me can, just haveta send it to him!)

 

[TheColonel]

To not allow new areas of science to influence the game world is silly. The one overriding characteristic I've like about Traveller is that feeling that it made sense. All tech should be allowed as long as someone takes the time to come up with a believable rule system.

 

[N.I.C.E. Labs]

One thing that's endearing about Traveller is the wide range of technologies. You can have three worlds at Tech Level 11 and they'll be as different from each other as night and day. Being at a level where you CAN make something doesn't mean that you do. IMTU such things aren't Imperium Standard, but there are certainly worlds that have followed those lines of technology. They may be well known and accessible, or they keep the technology a closely guarded secret. Having it that way opens RPing avenues for my players who want such items, either for trade or for themselves. They have to make the trip and deal with any local laws or taboos or whatnot. Then of course they have to worry about the possibility of any Imperial ordinances that govern such technologies in general.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Originally posted by N.I.C.E. Labs:
One thing that's endearing about Traveller is the wide range of technologies. You can have three worlds at Tech Level 11 and they'll be as different from each other as night and day. Being at a level where you CAN make something doesn't mean that you do. IMTU such things aren't Imperium Standard, but there are certainly worlds that have followed those lines of technology. They may be well known and accessible, or they keep the technology a closely guarded secret. Having it that way opens RPing avenues for my players who want such items, either for trade or for themselves. They have to make the trip and deal with any local laws or taboos or whatnot. Then of course they have to worry about the possibility of any Imperial ordinances that govern such technologies in general.

------------------------------------------------Excellent Points, NICE LABs!
And many of us forget those too: Not all worlds are the same, nor have the same resources, they might be members of the Imperium/Solomani Confederacy// what have you, but each world decides for itself what it pursues technologically. Yes, there is "Imperial Standard", like the IDP pkg ship designs for TL-9-15 ships,But not all planets have High Tech medecines for example...Some may have better types of technologies suited to livig on their worlds (better grav compensators on a Hi Gee woprld for example; and gravitic cities (TL-13+),on a low grav world. visa versa a Hi Ge world where it would be prohibitively expensive, and thus Building s there reside on the ground (or have arcologies like those in JTAS Aazun/Sol Rim.). Underwater cities exist at TL-9+, great for water worlds! Not much call for em on Dry ones (hyd 1-0)!
Orbital habitations exist at TL-8+. How they deal with gravity in orbit is a matter of technology of course...
And so on...

 

[Elliot]

Although the core Traveller rule books have always been backward Tech (oh, how shocked I was to read LLB1 in 1980 and shout 'No light sabers, no blasters'), the system has always been able to cope with new additions to tech (witness the Digest Group/Third Imperium Magazine bionics rule - we used them and they worked fine).

Hunter - why not commission Traveller's Aides on biotech/nanotech, bionics, whatever - that way everyone who wants to incorporate 21st century sci fi can at little expense!

 

[N.I.C.E. Labs]

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
------------------------------------------------Excellent Points, NICE LABs!
And many of us forget those too: Not all worlds are the same, nor have the same resources, they might be members of the Imperium/Solomani Confederacy// what have you, but each world decides for itself what it pursues technologically. Yes, there is "Imperial Standard", like the IDP pkg ship designs for TL-9-15 ships,But not all planets have High Tech medecines for example...Some may have better types of technologies suited to livig on their worlds (better grav compensators on a Hi Gee woprld for example; and gravitic cities (TL-13+),on a low grav world. visa versa a Hi Ge world where it would be prohibitively expensive, and thus Building s there reside on the ground (or have arcologies like those in JTAS Aazun/Sol Rim.). Underwater cities exist at TL-9+, great for water worlds! Not much call for em on Dry ones (hyd 1-0)!
Orbital habitations exist at TL-8+. How they deal with gravity in orbit is a matter of technology of course...
And so on...[/QB]

Indeed. There are many different was usually to do the same jobs so different worlds could have a variety of different technologies. For example a world who holds the living body in high regard might have wonderful genetics technologies, but their cybernetics might be bionic and prosthetic add-ons...giving a person an extra set of arms, say, because it would never occur to them to actually replace limbs.

Another thing to consider is most technological applications are due to accidents

The only reason why we have Mircowave Ovens is because in WWII when experienting with unshielded microwave generators as part of the RADAR research, one of the technicians noticed that the chocolate bar he just happened to have in his pocket was cooking!

But of course I digress....the discussion was started with saying that the bio-sciences wouldn't be a standard rule across the Imperium. They'd be a welcome addition...in whatever form or location we might find them

 

[RabidVargr]

Remember too,

There's no rule in the T20 book that says "Thou shalt playeth thisith wayith or notith" (unless I missed it), but there is something stating to the fact that the GM can alter his universe and rules as he sees fit to make the game more playable. My reccomendation is to figure out what rules you want to change, write them up, and submit them here, to my website, and to www.freelancetraveller.com. The latter two will definatly post your set of "alternate" rules for those who want to use them. Not sure if they'll do that here, but hey, worst they can say is no. That way they can be picked up on by the players who *DO* want a taste of more sci-fi vs 4/5 sci-fi and 1/5 space opera. I personally love seeing alternate rules, even if I don't use them, they usually give me a few good ideas to inflict on at least someone!

RV