It's not Traveller? OK, Why not??

[Merxiless]

Realistic for contemporary fiction, certainly. Internally realistic for science fiction, set centuries from now? Who is to say?

No one, without a time machine. Having not one copy of such a device on my wrist or in my storage space, it is all speculation.

Speculation of what is possible is the point, but "realism" (as I see it, what is real, right now, today's world) rules that out.

My Traveller campaign is firmly is the camp of space opera, not "realism".

Thus, I am free to do whatever I want for the story, and not worry about the exact details of how something that might be possible 1000 years in the future might work.

Thus I have a planet, a crew, a starship, a challenge, some enemeis, some conflict, drama, and a whole bunch of fun.

I once, long ago designed as "realistic" a planet as I thought possible. I ran a scout initial survey mission, where the players discovered all these little details of the animals, the climate, the lost ruins, the temperature of different areas based on albedo, latitude, proximity to a local sea.

After we were done, the whole player group said:

"Man, we never want another survey mission again." "Just gloss it over, give us the big picture."
"If I wanted gaming by spreadsheet, I'd go to work, after hours."
"No offense, but I'd rather chew rocks."

We went back to:

- Giant asteroids tumbling in space, a la Return of the Jedi (even though "real" belt density is much lower, I'm told).

- Cloud cities floating lazily over a gas giant (even though winds would rip one apart, i guess.)

- Planets with moons in close orbit inside Roche's limit, causing massive tides.

- Colonies on planets with no microbial life in the native soil.

Fun was had, because it was all about STORY, not scientific accuracy that was not worth the effort to track down to the Nth degree.

 

[Klaus]

You could use the analogy of spelling.

Fine, people can communicate without proper spelling, u can uz txt spk 2 tlk 2 ya homiz, and fair enough, there's a whole generation doing just that.

However, properly spelled words allow for more nuance and subtlety and sophistication.

Similarly, if you don't care about realistic solar systems then the OTU is fine. If you do, however, it is severely broken. Having realistic systems doesn't affect the space opera approach, you can still do what you want. But it breaks the hard sf approach.

When I see space opera style, whether in rpg, book, or tv/screen form, I keep seeing the same old chesnuts over and over. Hard sf style stuff keeps coming up with new and inventive problems.

This is not to say one style is superior to the other (hell, I used to love d6 Star Wars), just that space opera can co-exist with hard sf in a (mostly) realistic setting. The reverse is not true.

BTW, how does having a planet having no microbial life affect play in any form, space opera or hard sf?

 

[ravells]

I with you 100% there, Merxiless. For me it's all about the story. Yes there has to be some internal consistency, but 'realism' makes the game too much hard work for a non-scientist like me. I'm reading an SF book written in 1943 called 'The Radium Rebels'. The premise of the story is that a mad scientist lives on an island with massive Radium reserves which he mines and uses to fuel flying machines, evesdrop on radio communications and make clothing. The 'science' is laughable but it's a good romp. I'm sure the time many people reading it may have thought that it was credible. How handwavium has changed!

Ravs

 

[flykiller]

In fact Realism is the root of SciFi ... I don't think anyone is saying a SciFi game should read like a university textbook, that would be boring.

well then the problem becomes where to draw the line.

take book 6. does it "absolutely fail"?

 

[Malenfant]

I once, long ago designed as "realistic" a planet as I thought possible. I ran a scout initial survey mission, where the players discovered all these little details of the animals, the climate, the lost ruins, the temperature of different areas based on albedo, latitude, proximity to a local sea.

After we were done, the whole player group said:

"Man, we never want another survey mission again." "Just gloss it over, give us the big picture."
"If I wanted gaming by spreadsheet, I'd go to work, after hours."
"No offense, but I'd rather chew rocks."

I'd submit that they weren't bored by realism itself - they were bored by how you presented it.

Of course people aren't going to get excited by doing a bunch of sensor rolls that reveals new numbers to them - I've played in that sort of game myself and it bored the heck out of me. Realistic gaming isn't about taking readings and making notes, it's still about doing something exciting and fun. The only difference is that the background is a lot more coherent and interesting because of that extra information.

And for those of you who claim that "realism sucks out the fun", I'm working on a realistic Regina system now (full writeup so far can be found on this thread on the Avenger TAS boards. I'm not going to bother posting it here since certain people seem to insist on heckling me no matter what). So far the realistic version is turning out to be a much more varied system with a lot more opportunity for 'fun' than the default one.


At the end of the day, if you want to run Traveller as a Space Opera then nobody's stopping you and nobody is complaining about it. Since Space Opera is supposed to be unrealistic (or at least not care about realism at all) anyway, I'm wondering why you complain so much about realism at all since it's never going to be an issue in your game to start with.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by flykiller:
take book 6. does it "absolutely fail"? [/QB]

It does try, but still produces unrealistic results. There are mistakes in formulae (depending on what edition of it you have), there's too much randomness with too little consideration (so we get thick atmospheres on tiny rockballs), and the way that modifiers are applied to tables is poorly thought out which causes major problems that I've already pointed out and solved to an extent by changing things so that they're applied properly.

But if book 6 (and things like WBH and so on that followed the detailed worldgen tradition) wasn't there, then Traveller would be quite justified to call itself a Space Opera game. It's that attempt at added realism that raises the expectations.

 

[ravells]

The problem I have Mal, is that I am not a scientist, so I just have to work with what I'm given! Good drama doesn't really depend on whether the science is right or wrong (although it would be a shame to lose some of the tropes - merxiless has listed some good examples), but if the science was correct I would prefer it because by learning the rules, I'd actually be learning some accurate science too.


Ravs

 

[Malenfant]

Well that's the thing - the tropes that Merx listed are Space Opera tropes. Of course you'd lose those in a more realistic/hard-sf setting, because that's not what that genre is about.

But as you point out, good drama isn't dependent on realism. Heck, look at Outland or Alien, those are very gritty, very realistic SF films and they certainly have drama!

It is quite possible to pick things up as you go along too. Heck, just keep your ear to the ground when it comes to astronomy news and then think "what would that be like?".

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

I've gone with realism until it gets in the way of game play, then it takes a back seat. Traveller is, after all, a game first and foremost. You know, something you use for entertainment and escapism.

You've got to admit - Traveller as a game has got to have something powerful going for it to inspire this much passion in people after thirty years. Lets face it, some people are positively maniacal about Traveller.

 

[Klaus]

Having realistically based data also helps when you've got a player that does know science, or more worryingly, one that thinks they do, based on watching Star Trek.

If the setting is full of nonsense then players are gonna try using nonsense to get one over.

High space opera, a la Star Wars, is just DnD in space, really.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

Originally posted by Klaus:
Having realistically based data also helps when you've got a player that does know science, or more worryingly, one that thinks they do, based on watching Star Trek.

Except when that adherance to realistic data turns off the other players who were interested up to that point.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Except when that adherance to realistic data turns off the other players who were interested up to that point. [/QB]

How are they going to know? Most players would just accept what's thrown at them, the GM's the only one that has to think about what's realistic or not. As long as it keeps the players interest - which is pretty much down to how its presented, IMO - then why should there be a problem?

If what you're concerned about is realism getting in the way of what players want to do, then that's a concern with the game engine. Some things just aren't possible to do, period - despite what movies show. If you're running a cinematic campaign then sure, you can do the john woo flying through the air with both guns (held sideways) blazing and killing hundreds of mooks. But in a more gritty, realistic campaign if you do that you're more likely to get yourself killed.

 

[Klaus]

You can have a certain level of realism without being dry.

Imagination and creativity work better when there's limits. You don't have to overwhelm players with incredibly long number strings (that's what High Guard's for) or complicated equations and relationships (oops, that's Book 6).

Basically, if there's already some arcane mechanics in the game, which there is, they might as well be as realistic as possible. They are not, but as Mal has proved, fixing it is a: possible, and b: not a game breaker.

I think the point is not to be hyper realistic, just not incredibly, and obviously, unrealistic, which half the OTU is, more or less.

Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy. Traveller is, after all, not the type of game where every planet speaks English and looks like Canada.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
How are they going to know? Most players would just accept what's thrown at them, the GM's the only one that has to think about what's realistic or not. As long as it keeps the players interest - which is pretty much down to how its presented, IMO - then why should there be a problem?

Referee preperation time. As your search for nonexistant data on the Regina system has demonstrated, to make the game more realistic requires an investment in time on the part of the referee that is about an order of magnitude greater than what already exists for game prep.
If, as you say, the players aren't going to notice - then why go to the extra effort? What is the benefit to me, as a referee?

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

Originally posted by Klaus:
You can have a certain level of realism without being dry.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Klaus:
Imagination and creativity work better when there's limits.

Do you have proof to back up this opinion?

Originally posted by Klaus:
I think the point is not to be hyper realistic, just not incredibly, and obviously, unrealistic, which half the OTU is, more or less.

Interesting point, but considering that this is a game that has been around and popular for thirty years demonstrates that unrealism isn't as big a problem as people would be led to believe.

Originally posted by Klaus:

Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy.

And this disrupts actual game play how?

 

[mbrinkhues]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
Well that's the thing - the tropes that Merx listed are Space Opera tropes. Of course you'd lose those in a more realistic/hard-sf setting, because that's not what that genre is about.

But as you point out, good drama isn't dependent on realism. Heck, look at Outland or Alien, those are very gritty, very realistic SF films and they certainly have drama!

It is quite possible to pick things up as you go along too. Heck, just keep your ear to the ground when it comes to astronomy news and then think "what would that be like?".

Outland and Alien realistic? Where? In the fact that anything around Jupiter will be roasted by the radiation for the Io-Jupiter link? The Alien eggs that survive for how long? The whole Alien species?

Sorry, little realism there.

 

[Merxiless]

All good points, Jeff.

To skip back a bit, there is some kind of law or requirement of biology that to grow plants in soil you must have already had that soil "laced" with microbes, for some reason based in both organic chemistry and biology that I don't quite understand.

I read this in one of those Asimov or Heinlein "An SF-writer, writes on real science" books.

The end result is you can't take a world that has no native life, and just drop a colony that is designed to grow it's own food there in native soil without that soil being prepared over quite some time by microbial life. Plants just won't grow, is the gist of it.

Again, I'm no biologist. I respect the facts behind it on a science level, but it just blows my whole colony here, colony there setup out of the water, and messes with what I set up years and years before reading the specific book / article.

 

[Merxiless]

Yeah I saw both Outland and Alien, and while immensely enjoying them both, AND using some parts of them for the basis of my own Traveller campaign, I'd call them both Gritty, but not.. all that "realistic."

Not even 2001 nor 2010 is "realistic" Though I'd say it has close to the most "Realism" or "pseudo-realistic" elements of any pair of sci fi space travel films I've ever seen.

 

[Klaus]

Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Klaus:
Imagination and creativity work better when there's limits.

Do you have proof to back up this opinion?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. 15 years as an artist, studying, practicing, teaching. Varez. Can. Captain Beefheart. 8-bit Nintendo game music. Sushi. Picasso. Star Wars vs The Phantom Menace. El Mariachi vs Desperado. Doctor Who. Haiku. Chess. Einstein. Miyazaki. Tezuka. Bad Taste vs King Kong. Tetris. Ascii art. I could go on.

Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Klaus:

Having a small planet with a thick breathable atmosphere is obviously wrong to any with the most cursory knowledge of planetlogy.

And this disrupts actual game play how? </font>[/QUOTE]When your player says. "But this planet is far too small for such a dense atmosphere." You reply, Erm, it's really dense..
"So it must have loads of radioactives or heavy metals. Lets set up a mining base and get rich." or
"Yeah, but so were the last two planets we went to. What gives?"

And yes, I've had players who would ask such reasonable questions.

 

[Malenfant]

It's down to priorities really - a ref should be prepared to do some er... preparation anyway. I'm sure some refs spend ages detailing an entire startown that players only visit a tiny part of, and that would just be classed as 'normal prep' for such people.

This is all pre-game prep anyway. When a ref is initially designing the subsector or whatever, that's when he'd do all this work. (presumably the ref is going to be doing actual work here too, not just grabbing random subsector sheets and throwing them together). It just depends on how much time one is willing to put into it is all.


But if that realistic data already existed in a usable form, would you use it?