bozzutoman
SOC-12
Hard science or not, riding rocket ships and saving damsels in distress is just plain fun.
Hard Science, I Don't Understand
- Thread starter dmccoy1693
- Start date
Hard science or not, riding rocket ships and saving damsels in distress is just plain fun.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
In general, Traveller has attempted to embrace as much hard sci-fi as possible, within the requirement of allowing travel to the stars. Thus, FTL is a critical bit of handwavium. Gravitics is probably required (though my campaign dispenses with it), along with some kind of reactionless STL drive. Since these tropes are integral to what has been called "Traveller" for 30+ years, I don't see any compelling reason to add a bunch of additional science fantasy stuff like shuriken catapults, light sabers, photon torpedoes or deflector shields. Besides being implausible, these things fundamentally alter the setting. They also add nothing to the setting IMHO (see below). Besides, there's plenty of that stuff in existing RPGs -- Star Wars RPG (either version); Star Trek RPG (any version); Star Frontiers (oldie but playable goodie), etc.
Regarding weaponry, hard sci-fi (aka "plausible") weapons simply make a lot more sense to me. Indeed, as a wargame designer and all-around military history nut, one of my chief complaints with most television and movie sci-fi weapons is that they are absurd. In particular, they require your opponents to behave like morons.
A lightsaber, for instance, looks really cool. But what if your opponent isn't stupid and chooses to arm himself with an automatic shotgun, instead of blasters that you can deflect back at him? Who needs a nefarious clone army; a battalion of half-trained, shotgun-armed rednecks could have wiped out the Jedi. If you simply must have blasters, howabout mounting a shotgun under the barrel?
The Star Trek phaser is nearly as useless IMHO. While it can double as a hand grenade--one wonders what kind of design bureau came up with that idea -- it fires semi-automatically and it's difficult to imagine how such weapons could be aimed effectively. Again, I could take down Captain Picard and his entire dustbuster-armed bridge crew with a few automatic shotguns or submachineguns. And with any luck, I could do it before Picard could surrender.
Warhammer 40K gear is awful as well...though it at least looks great and is no worse than the above examples. The ridiculous shuriken catapult would be a stupid weapon even if the laws of physics allowed spinning discs to have the right ballistics. The reason is simple -- power. The amount of power required to fire a spinning disc at lethal velocities could power a FAR more effective bullet or dart. No sane weapon designer would come up with such a weapon and no sane military force would adopt them.
So when asked why we shouldn't add a bunch of ill-conceived garbage to Traveller, I guess my response is that there's no good reason to do so (and a lot of good reasons not to do so).
As far as "Kewlness" goes, well, I'll stack up the combat scenes in Aliens (or Saving Private Ryan for that matter) against anything in Star Trek or Star Wars.
Regarding weaponry, hard sci-fi (aka "plausible") weapons simply make a lot more sense to me. Indeed, as a wargame designer and all-around military history nut, one of my chief complaints with most television and movie sci-fi weapons is that they are absurd. In particular, they require your opponents to behave like morons.
A lightsaber, for instance, looks really cool. But what if your opponent isn't stupid and chooses to arm himself with an automatic shotgun, instead of blasters that you can deflect back at him? Who needs a nefarious clone army; a battalion of half-trained, shotgun-armed rednecks could have wiped out the Jedi. If you simply must have blasters, howabout mounting a shotgun under the barrel?
The Star Trek phaser is nearly as useless IMHO. While it can double as a hand grenade--one wonders what kind of design bureau came up with that idea -- it fires semi-automatically and it's difficult to imagine how such weapons could be aimed effectively. Again, I could take down Captain Picard and his entire dustbuster-armed bridge crew with a few automatic shotguns or submachineguns. And with any luck, I could do it before Picard could surrender.
Warhammer 40K gear is awful as well...though it at least looks great and is no worse than the above examples. The ridiculous shuriken catapult would be a stupid weapon even if the laws of physics allowed spinning discs to have the right ballistics. The reason is simple -- power. The amount of power required to fire a spinning disc at lethal velocities could power a FAR more effective bullet or dart. No sane weapon designer would come up with such a weapon and no sane military force would adopt them.
So when asked why we shouldn't add a bunch of ill-conceived garbage to Traveller, I guess my response is that there's no good reason to do so (and a lot of good reasons not to do so).
As far as "Kewlness" goes, well, I'll stack up the combat scenes in Aliens (or Saving Private Ryan for that matter) against anything in Star Trek or Star Wars.
Last edited:
Space Hamster
SOC-12
I have always seen Traveller as players more skilled than the average Joe. I see the players doing things more along the lines of trade, exploration, and getting into a little trouble from time to time. All the while they do this with mundane equipment. I see this as more hard science as opposed to, they wipe out an entire organization and kill the one leader and now the galaxy is safe again. Doing this with magic (Force in Star Wars) and super heroic powers.
Having said this I do not have a problem with extra products coming out that has these elements in them. There are many different styles of play as mentioned earlier in this thread. If the core book stays more or less along the lines of the feeling of Traveller then who really cares what other books come out. If they do not meet the flavor you want in your game you do not need to buy them. If a book is good but has a couple things that do not fit the campaign then I do not uses those things. I am pretty picking in what I buy. I do not buy every book that comes out for a particular game system or campaign setting.
Having said this I do not have a problem with extra products coming out that has these elements in them. There are many different styles of play as mentioned earlier in this thread. If the core book stays more or less along the lines of the feeling of Traveller then who really cares what other books come out. If they do not meet the flavor you want in your game you do not need to buy them. If a book is good but has a couple things that do not fit the campaign then I do not uses those things. I am pretty picking in what I buy. I do not buy every book that comes out for a particular game system or campaign setting.
I used to subscribe to the average joe theory for Traveller but I think part of the genius of Mongoose Traveller is that it weaves in a backstory right into Chargen and hence a chance for players to start on the path toward being damn old fashioned heroes.
This has nothing to do with Hard Science, so back to the issue at hand. Traveller is no proliferating with it either as a OGL product or simply through its many licences. The best thing to do is mix and match which what the original designers had always done but keep in back your head an answer that is somehow consistant with the Real World and with what you have described the Universe to be. If nanotech is in order...then if you have cited that Imperial nanotech is micro machines then realize that will have to follow the laws of biology and would only be able to combine under highly selective conditions. If it is a mini machine (as nanotech is IMTU) then it follows the laws of mechanics. Hence the "magic" of nanotech is preserved without breaking the Hard SF rule.
This has nothing to do with Hard Science, so back to the issue at hand. Traveller is no proliferating with it either as a OGL product or simply through its many licences. The best thing to do is mix and match which what the original designers had always done but keep in back your head an answer that is somehow consistant with the Real World and with what you have described the Universe to be. If nanotech is in order...then if you have cited that Imperial nanotech is micro machines then realize that will have to follow the laws of biology and would only be able to combine under highly selective conditions. If it is a mini machine (as nanotech is IMTU) then it follows the laws of mechanics. Hence the "magic" of nanotech is preserved without breaking the Hard SF rule.
dmccoy1693
SOC-13
You (and many others) have made excellent points. Thank you all. You all have been most helpful in helping me understand.
I plan to sticking close to realism, but I do not plan to hold to pure science either. Ants is a good example. While a whole swarm of ants cannot eat a man alive like in abomination that got passed off as an Indiana Jones movie, I plan to incorporate them in with Ants simply to make them a real threat. Also giant ants, the size of space ships don't exist either, but I plan to incorporate them in as well since those were in plenty of old SF material. Having said all that, I plan to be as realistic as possible in describing their society, their hive mind, their differentiation between worker and warrior ants, etc.
How does this sound to you guys and gals?
You (and many others) have made excellent points. Thank you all. You all have been most helpful in helping me understand.
I plan to sticking close to realism, but I do not plan to hold to pure science either. Ants is a good example. While a whole swarm of ants cannot eat a man alive like in abomination that got passed off as an Indiana Jones movie, I plan to incorporate them in with Ants simply to make them a real threat. Also giant ants, the size of space ships don't exist either, but I plan to incorporate them in as well since those were in plenty of old SF material. Having said all that, I plan to be as realistic as possible in describing their society, their hive mind, their differentiation between worker and warrior ants, etc.
How does this sound to you guys and gals?
Bug Eyed Monsters are a tradition in space opera, and they are useful in carrying off the scientist's daughter so the square-jawed hero can rescue her. But be cautious when using them every time players land on a planet so the entire universe isn't turned into a giant D&D campaign of planet-dungeons where players are expected to run into killer monsters whenever they land outside the starport fence.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
You (and many others) have made excellent points. Thank you all. You all have been most helpful in helping me understand.
I plan to sticking close to realism, but I do not plan to hold to pure science either. Ants is a good example. While a whole swarm of ants cannot eat a man alive like in abomination that got passed off as an Indiana Jones movie, I plan to incorporate them in with Ants simply to make them a real threat. Also giant ants, the size of space ships don't exist either, but I plan to incorporate them in as well since those were in plenty of old SF material. Having said all that, I plan to be as realistic as possible in describing their society, their hive mind, their differentiation between worker and warrior ants, etc.
How does this sound to you guys and gals?
I confess to a weakness for bughunt fodder. So giant ants are fine with me personally.
My favorite monster is the Chamax -- Matt, *that* is an adventure you guys should re-write -- and they appear in *every* campaign on mine. Players hate 'em, of course, but I'm good with that.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I've been doing this for a long time: that is, looking at Traveller chargen as a meta-gaming method rather than just a set of rules to use to generate a character.
Instead of "generic", I went "specific".
I'd pick a world where the characters would come from. Sometimes, I'd pick a few, to allow for the types of characters I knew my players wanted to play, for the worlds themselves would dictate which careers were possible.
And then, I've have a player roll up his beginning stats, describe his homeworld, and say something like, "You're 18 years old, having lived here. What do you want to do."
Then, we'd go about character generation just like a regular role playing sessions, except the dice throws represented years rather than seconds or minutes.
"I always tried to find my way to the starport to watch the big ships land, coming and going, disappearing in the distance. Then, I tried for a job at the starport. I've been doing that for a year and a half now. I love it. But, I want more. I want to BE on one of those ships. I want to SEE what it's like out there."
A player would say something like this, establishing some background. Here, we'd roll dice to decide the character's fate. Did he join the merchant marine? Or, was he disappointed, discouraged, and forced to look elsewhere for a career?
The dice would tell.
And, the results would develop "character" for the character. We'd put some skin on the bones.
This is why I'm not as amazed at MGT chargen as everyone else is. I've been doing this sort of thing for a long, long time. You can find posts about it in the CT forum of this board.
Most people I see playing CT default to a "generic" type of chargen, but it doesn't have to be that way. Traveller was always different in this regard. One didn't have to build a character like one does in other games. One can live a character, until he's ready to enter the game.
The player can come out of chargen, the way I suggest above, feeling as if he's played the character for the entire length of the character's life.
The player feels like he knows who the character is, before game session one.
All the hints and tools to run chargen like this can be found in Classic Traveller. One just has to look (especially in the non-GDW stuff...one can find some neat ideas to alter chargen).
So, for me, MGT chargen isn't "innovative". They just added formally what was already there.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
My fault there I think. If they were the pics kafka posted earlier today I asked a question about them possibly violating the board rules and he elected to remove them on the chance they were. I think it'd be within reason to post them in the thread (and he may have posted them in the gallery because he had nowhere else handy to upload them*) under Fair Use for discussion purposes.
The rules have changed a bit as regards what's allowed. Though there's some room for interpretation. Check the rules if you (generic, everybody, not just S4
) haven't recently (Hunter posted a notice a couple weeks back):http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/announcement.php?f=&a=14
But don't everybody start deleting images. There's no witch hunt coming. I may just be looking at past submissions if I get bored and drop some notes to clarify. I am looking more critically at new ones though, so do be familiar with the rules or expect questions.
* check photobucket.com or imageshack.us kafka, I think they're both still free for basic accounts
Last edited:
Oh yes, one of my absolute favorites. When it came out I bought a couple of bags of plastic ants at the toy store and we set it up with some of my modular map boards made from styrofoam for armor minis. Used Striker for combat and it was a blast. Hordes of the little buggers and the players and NPC's constantly fighting a running retreat to higher and higher ground. JTAS #17 had a great article of converting the bugs' stats to Striker and all.
It was one of the only times we used the rules the way they were meant to simulate the confusion on the radios as various groups were getting overrun or just panicking. And since the players had split up to lead different groups it was a blast running the events as they tried to link up through bug-infested territory.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Bill, I'm having a 'senior moment' here. Can you give my brain a brief jog on why these things are a thermodynamic impossibility. Cheers.
They don't carry enough power to do the work, for one.
Icosahedron,
Aramis explained it neatly, it's a power issue. How are all those trillions of tiny machines going to be powered, let alone controlled and directed?
And remember, we're talking about the wilder claims regarding "gray goo", "nano-paste", and Drexlerian nanotechnology. Smearing a paste on a hull crack and watching it knit back together is thermodynamic nonsense. We might as well say we're waving our +6 Staff of Welding.
We are currently using nanotechnology and will continue to expand the use nanotechnology however. Currently, industrial use of nanotechnology involves reactors(1) which provide the very closely controlled environment in which the devices work. These reactors aren't there protecting the wider world from the nanotechnology either. Instead, in a manner exactly similar to industrial clean rooms, the nanotechnology is being protected from the environment. The reactors are also providing the energy, transport medium, and feed stocks the nanotechnology requires for it's work.
So, in many cases, we have our "nanites" working in a fluid heated to specific temperatures which is dosed with very specific amounts of very pure materials. The similarities between this and processes used in the chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries are striking.
Indeed, from a certain standpoint, we've been using "nanotechnology" for as long as we've been using natural reactants and bacteria. Of course, those "nanites" were wholly natural at first so one can quibble and say it really wasn't nanotechnology because a human-derived device wasn't involved. However, while the reactants originally used in petroleum processing were naturally occurring oolites, we've been making artificial oolites for nearly a century and thus have been using nanotechnology for that long too.
Summing up, the point I'm trying to make is that "shirtsleeve" nanotechnology involving swarms and goos as described in science-fiction is thermodynamic nonsense. The more work you need to do, the more power you're going to need. Making and breaking a single atomic bond might not seem like much, but when you multiply the energy required by tens or hundreds of trillions the energy required becomes substantial.
Regards,
Bill
1 - No, not nuclear reactors for all you knee-jerk specialists out there. The term originally had a less frightening connotation and is still used in the chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries today.
For me, the fewer obstacles there are to beleivability, the better. Sometimes deviations are necessary for the fun of the game. But each deviation comes at the cost of beleivability.
In effect, I see each game of Traveller as having a beleivability "budget". Each deviation detracts from it. So, you should spend that beleivability budget carefully.
Jump drive... necessary, central to the traveller experience. So, I'll "buy" it. But I may insert my own vaguely beleivable technobabble to get me a discount.
Now, taking an example from an adventure: a moon who's main export is tritium? Tritium has a 12 year half-life. To have mineable quantities, it would have to be pretty much subject to a continuous neutron flux. So I either need to create a neutron flux to justify this minor detail, or scrap it. It's not important enough to justify the cost.
By the way, someone mentioned antigravity above. To me that's a big, big hangup. I have some "zero point energy" technobabble bouncing around my mind, but really, it's almost too pricey in terms of beleivability. If I wasn't using the OTU (and standard "transverse" Trav deckplans), I'd scrap it post-haste.
In effect, I see each game of Traveller as having a beleivability "budget". Each deviation detracts from it. So, you should spend that beleivability budget carefully.
Jump drive... necessary, central to the traveller experience. So, I'll "buy" it. But I may insert my own vaguely beleivable technobabble to get me a discount.
Now, taking an example from an adventure: a moon who's main export is tritium? Tritium has a 12 year half-life. To have mineable quantities, it would have to be pretty much subject to a continuous neutron flux. So I either need to create a neutron flux to justify this minor detail, or scrap it. It's not important enough to justify the cost.
By the way, someone mentioned antigravity above. To me that's a big, big hangup. I have some "zero point energy" technobabble bouncing around my mind, but really, it's almost too pricey in terms of beleivability. If I wasn't using the OTU (and standard "transverse" Trav deckplans), I'd scrap it post-haste.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Hmm. Either I wasn't having a blockage before, or I still am now. Cheers guys, but I'm not convinced. If the machines can collect fuel from their environment, they can function for a very long time.
Before you get too hot under the collar, let me explain that I hate grey goo and I don't want it in my game. I hoped you might have a quick-fix solution that says "grey goo doesn't exist because..."
But unfortunately I'm not sure you've killed it - we may have 'Revenge of the Grey Goo' yet.
A thermite paste can weld a hull crack together, breaking and reforming bonds as it goes, without breaking the laws of thermodynamics. I see a nanite paste doing pretty much the same thing, but making an 'invisible repair'. The paste will be part nanite, part fuel. However, it might be slower than a weld, operating at a lower temperature for a longer time to input the same energy. If necessary, you could even feed in paste continuously from a welding gun if more was required to do the job.
Same would go for a dissembler goo. Sure, a limited quantity of goo/fuel would be able to dissolve a limited size of inert target, but if the target provided fuel (an organic target, for example) I see no reason why the goo couldn't continue dissembling molecules until the fuel was all used up.
So you just need higher tech to make your just-so reactor fluid into shirtsleeve paste.
True, but I'm not convinced that the energy requirements are insurmountable or defy the laws of physics - which is what I assumed you were saying.
I'd be only too pleased to be proven wrong.
Last edited:
A thermite paste can weld a hull crack together, breaking and reforming bonds as it goes, without breaking the laws of thermodynamics. I see a nanite paste doing pretty much the same thing, but making an 'invisible repair'. The paste will be part nanite, part fuel. However, it might be slower than a weld, operating at a lower temperature for a longer time to input the same energy. If necessary, you could even feed in paste continuously from a welding gun if more was required to do the job.
... but I'm not convinced that the energy requirements are insurmountable or defy the laws of physics - which is what I assumed you were saying. I'd be only too pleased to be proven wrong.
Remember that the Thermite paste consumes itself and radiates the excess energy outside the system. The tiny 'nano-welder' needs to supply enough energy to break and reform the bonds in the metal being welded, but the 'nano-welder' must survive the process. Now we are entering the realm of breaking some atomic bonds while not weakening others. That is much harder than simply scaling down the machine.
Let us also examine some basic properties as things get smaller, starting with area and volume.
If I build a 1 cubic meter welder (1 meter long per side) that uses 1 kilowatt of power to weld 1 square meter of metal (the surface area of one side), then the energy density contained within the welder is 1 kilowatt per cubic meter and 1 kw per square meter is heating the surface of my welder.
If I build a 0.1 cubic meter welder (0.4642 meter long per side) to do the same job (provide 1 kw per square meter of heating surface to the metal), then the heating surface area will be 0.2155 square meters which will require a 0.2155 kw flow through the welder. The energy density contained within the welder is 0.2155 kw divided by 0.1 cubic meters, which equals 2.155 kilowatts per cubic meter.
If I build a 0.01 cubic meter welder (0.2155 meter long per side) to do the same job (provide 1 kw per square meter of heating surface to the metal), then the heating surface area will be 0.0464 square meters which will require a 0.0464 kw flow through the welder. The energy density contained within the welder is 0.0464 kw divided by 0.01 cubic meters, which equals 4.643 kilowatts per cubic meter.
If I build a 0.001 cubic meter welder (0.10 meter long per side) to do the same job (provide 1 kw per square meter of heating surface to the metal), then the heating surface area will be 0.01 square meters which will require a 0.01 kw flow through the welder. The energy density contained within the welder is 0.01 kw divided by 0.001 cubic meters, which equals 10 kilowatts per cubic meter.
Note that as the welder gets smaller, the energy density gets larger. Energy density is the same as Temperature, so these smaller 'machines' are getting hotter. That is why microchips have trouble keeping cool as they get smaller. At the nanoscale, the temperature of the machines performing the work will make them melt or boil.
If you reduce the energy to safe levels (temperatures), then the time to complete the task will increase, making conventional manufacturing processes faster. Grey Goo will either replicate like watching a tree grow or it will boil itself away at a visible pace - neither is particularly dangerous.
Last edited:
