Reinventing Traveller

[robject]

For the hard/soft scifi side discussion, I quite like this:

The Mohs Scale of SF Hardness

That's a really fun scale to play with. Thank you!

His metric is consistent rules. (8,7) Modern physics trumps all; (6,5) followed by "new" physical rules (the fewer, the harder); (4) then "toys" that have no consistent-rules new-physics basis; (3) then a casual surrender of consistency for the sake of story; (2) then a dash of supernaturalism; (1) then no need to bother about any science at all.

As a game system, Traveller requires consistent rules for a lot of its technology. In fact it's the rules inconsistencies that bother us the most, and Traveller tries to keep a lid on the craziness. That's what guides my rating for Traveller.


I don't think Traveller is a "2", because psionics is not defined as "supernatural", but rather a poorly understood science (of a strange sort).
I don't think Traveller is a "3", because even the rules care how all the fantastic things "work" and there's care taken to manage consistency.
I don't even think Traveller is a "4". Even though there is antigrav and other neater things, we attempt to describe them with consistent rules which amount to what could be loosely defined as a "new physics".

Traveller is, at most, a "5", although I can see arguments aplenty for a lower score.

 

[robject]

For the hard/soft scifi side discussion, I quite like this:

The Mohs Scale of SF Hardness

2300AD is, I think, a "6", and could potentially even approach "7".

 

[mike wightman]

Stutterwarp, aliens, magic technology (psionic artifact and AGRA intelligence) - hmm...

 

[Dragoner]

Being a stem person, I find there is a difference between hard science and hard sf, though I think a lot of hard sf is really an advertising term.

 

[McPerth]

For the hard/soft scifi side discussion, I quite like this:

The Mohs Scale of SF Hardness

According this scale, Verne's novel 20000 leagues under the Sea would probably be a 3 or 4 when written, and now would be a 8...

We don't know what future will have in store, or what new physical laws or new tech capacities await us.

And any setting with FTL travel would be at most a 6-7

 

[coliver988]

According this scale, Verne's novel 20000 leagues under the Sea would probably be a 3 or 4 when written, and now would be a 8...

We don't know what future will have in store, or what new physical laws or new tech capacities await us.

And any setting with FTL travel would be at most a 6-7

pretty much this for me (and see the thread about system generation). We've barely scratched the surface of knowledge. I remember a short story years ago where pretty much every other race in the galaxy had figured out FTL during their Middle Ages equivalent, and so were off fighting interstellar ways in wooden ships that barely had enough air to last the trip. They get to Earth thinking easy conquest and we have tanks, jets, all that stuff. Turns out it was a simple mathematical process that we just never discovered to whatever reason.

Anyway - yes, there are definite issues with our current understanding of the universe with a lot of the Traveller tropes. I've a feeling in 5000 years a lot of that may well go away with the "how quaint they were" impression.

So back to the point of the thread, as Traveller has been re-invented several times already (just how many Cepheus versions are there now?) each solves its own set of issues. To use one of my favorite comics:


from https://xkcd.com/927/

 

[Straybow]

For the hard/soft scifi side discussion, I quite like this... [Mohs scale comparisons]

The good thing about Traveller, and Classic Traveller books 1-3 in particular, is you can choose any of those levels as you wish. In CT, you fill in the blanks.

Not really. Traveller can't be torch ships. The maneuver fuel would last for 4 minutes, not 4 days or 4 weeks. The fuel usage requires some other means of conversion of fusion energy into propulsion, typically with conversion to electricity as an intermediate step. Even swapping formulas for jump fuel and maneuver fuel would merely be a few more minutes.

 

[HanleyTucks]

Traveller can't be torch ships.

Something for you to argue with someone more knowledgeable than either of us.

The Expanse's Epstein Drive

A blog dedicated to helping Science Fiction authors create and discuss worlds where a realistic setting can still serve the fiction.

toughsf.blogspot.com

 

[Condottiere]

Maybe that's why you have a backdoor on the Scoutship.

However, with the reaction drive, it might be a case of distance.

 

[MichaelSTee]

While a lot of technology in Traveller is fantastic (grav/maneuver, jump, psionics the most blatant), I think the one aspect that makes Traveller "hard science fiction" is the fact that it describes and places limitations on this new tech, and does not allow those limitations to be broken. (Yeah, yeah, psionics is not Technology, but I will treat it like one for my point. And even then, there seem to be a lot of referees that do not use psionics in their games.)
Larry Niven's Known Space series has fantastic tech as well, yet he is considered one of the foremost "Hard" writers for the same reason: his tech has limits which he does not cross.
Contrast this to Star Trek, which breaks its own rules anytime the writers have a cool story to tell.
Science Fiction has always been about imagining new technology and how that will affect our culture; what makes a story "hard" is how it treats that tech, as something that seems realistic and not just something to drive the story.

 

[JohnCalyn]

That's a really fun scale to play with. Thank you!

His metric is consistent rules. (8,7) Modern physics trumps all; (6,5) followed by "new" physical rules (the fewer, the harder); (4) then "toys" that have no consistent-rules new-physics basis; (3) then a casual surrender of consistency for the sake of story; (2) then a dash of supernaturalism; (1) then no need to bother about any science at all.

As a game system, Traveller requires consistent rules for a lot of its technology. In fact it's the rules inconsistencies that bother us the most, and Traveller tries to keep a lid on the craziness. That's what guides my rating for Traveller.


I don't think Traveller is a "2", because psionics is not defined as "supernatural", but rather a poorly understood science (of a strange sort).
I don't think Traveller is a "3", because even the rules care how all the fantastic things "work" and there's care taken to manage consistency.
I don't even think Traveller is a "4". Even though there is antigrav and other neater things, we attempt to describe them with consistent rules which amount to what could be loosely defined as a "new physics".

Traveller is, at most, a "5", although I can see arguments aplenty for a lower score.

"5" seems like a good, round number to me.

 

[JohnCalyn]

According this scale, Verne's novel 20000 leagues under the Sea would probably be a 3 or 4 when written, and now would be a 8...

We don't know what future will have in store, or what new physical laws or new tech capacities await us.

And any setting with FTL travel would be at most a 6-7

Until they bring the Alcubier drive online...

 

[JohnCalyn]

Not really. Traveller can't be torch ships. The maneuver fuel would last for 4 minutes, not 4 days or 4 weeks. The fuel usage requires some other means of conversion of fusion energy into propulsion, typically with conversion to electricity as an intermediate step. Even swapping formulas for jump fuel and maneuver fuel would merely be a few more minutes.

Technically (for a certain maximally low level of 'tech...') Traveller has fusion powerplans, but not fusion torches. Turns out that electro-magno-gravetic(-ish) "space grabber" effect of the maneuver drives is just more directly efficient than throwing lots of exhaust out the tailpipe at high velocity.

Who needs a torch when you can make even minimal adjustments to spacetime?

On the other hand, a very low-exhaust-volume fusion torch might be used to power the same effect. Fuel usage would NOT be at the level of a Heinleiner, but it would still be a torch and deadly to stand under. And it WOULD be a torch.

 

[JohnCalyn]

While a lot of technology in Traveller is fantastic (grav/maneuver, jump, psionics the most blatant), I think the one aspect that makes Traveller "hard science fiction" is the fact that it describes and places limitations on this new tech, and does not allow those limitations to be broken. (Yeah, yeah, psionics is not Technology, but I will treat it like one for my point. And even then, there seem to be a lot of referees that do not use psionics in their games.)
Larry Niven's Known Space series has fantastic tech as well, yet he is considered one of the foremost "Hard" writers for the same reason: his tech has limits which he does not cross.
Contrast this to Star Trek, which breaks its own rules anytime the writers have a cool story to tell.
Science Fiction has always been about imagining new technology and how that will affect our culture; what makes a story "hard" is how it treats that tech, as something that seems realistic and not just something to drive the story.

Psionics in Traveller IS technology. It has a biologial basis and, given (or providing...) the appropriate biology, it can be taught, and devices can be built to recognize the "force" and use it. This would be true for magic, too, if the same rules were applied.

As for Larry Niven's Known Space series: I want a flashlight laser!

 

[aramis]

Until they bring the Alcubier drive online...

Alcubierre.
At present it's 99.99% pure theory.
The 0.01% is that Harold G. "Sonny" White, PhD, developed a test protocol for checking for a warp field... and when he tested for a warp field across an EM Drive, could not null the presence of a warp field.

So far, that's the only practical evidence of a warp field being possible... but Dr. White has some credibility issues in mainstream science.

Note also: Dr White was very clear about a failure to null, as in, he could not show that his test EM Drive was not generating a field altering the speed of light within. He never claimed it was a warp field, just that his test for a warp field failed to null given the standard error of his instruments.

There is a lot of fringe science that's widely derided - modern science has become more religious than most religions these days.

The best three words in real science (not science as religion): "Hmmm... that's odd..."
second best, and a follow on, "How's that happening?"

 

[mike wightman]

The EM drive and the warp drive, I'm afraid, go in the same file as room temperature fusion.

 

[infojunky]

Ok, another thought for a reinvented Traveller, tone down Laser weapons.

 

[mike wightman]

Get rid of grav focusing and laser range would be reduced to the point ship combat could be a bit more interesting...

 

[Straybow]

Something for you to argue with someone more knowledgeable than either of us.

The Expanse's Epstein Drive

A blog dedicated to helping Science Fiction authors create and discuss worlds where a realistic setting can still serve the fiction.

toughsf.blogspot.com

Lots of technobabble, very little "knowledge" there. Making a 100% efficient fusion reaction from a narrow laser ignition cone (e.g., rather than a hemisphere), and a magnetic field strong enough to constrain a fusion reaction plasma 300 m away sufficient to generate 2.6 G is fantasy, just as surely as jump drive or grav tech. Not hard SF.

First, if the fusion plasma is being constrained it no longer has a spherical 1/r² distribution in the constrained region. Almost all of that half of the plasma is being directed towards the ship, although not necessarily narrowly enough to be entirely focused on the ship . The 43k "multiplier" is therefore just as fantastic. The more constrained the plasma jet, the higher fraction of plasma hits the ship's heat shield. Also, the plasma jet will disrupt the aim of the ignition lasers.

On the other hand, a very low-exhaust-volume fusion torch might be used to power the same effect. Fuel usage would NOT be at the level of a Heinleiner, but it would still be a torch and deadly to stand under. And it WOULD be a torch.

No, mass usage rate is in the 10-20 grams per second range. Even at Ve = c, the mass flow rate cannot generate 1 G of thrust.

 

[McPerth]

Until they bring the Alcubier drive online...

Yes, or another FTL system...

As it happened with Verne's novel when the nuclear submarine was developed (and named Nautilus in his honor, BTW)