Retrotech - Who else still uses this?

[Pickles]

Does anyone else still use technology as presented in CT? I have to admit that many of my campaigns have in the past tried to incorporate RW-tech and updated SF-tech. However, I have found that CT tech makes a lot of sense in an RPG environment - less sophisticated security, no mention of DNA fingerprinting, limits to computing and communication capability, to name but a few advantages.

I use CT tech in a Blakes 7 inspired setting, which fits perfectly. Are there any other retro-tech fans out there?

 

[Pickles]

Does anyone else still use technology as presented in CT? I have to admit that many of my campaigns have in the past tried to incorporate RW-tech and updated SF-tech. However, I have found that CT tech makes a lot of sense in an RPG environment - less sophisticated security, no mention of DNA fingerprinting, limits to computing and communication capability, to name but a few advantages.

I use CT tech in a Blakes 7 inspired setting, which fits perfectly. Are there any other retro-tech fans out there?

 

[Ran Targas]

^ I've always approached the CT tech from the standpoint that it is the most reliable tech available to the players. You want to make sure that thing does what it's supposed to every time you use it, then it won't be flashy or light weight. It's mostly represented as ex-military or survival gear anyway, both with implied reliability.

Take computer systems for example. Why are ship computers so huge? Because IMTU their built with multiple redundant systems, hardened to cosmic rays and EMP, designed to survive high acceleration and impact, capable of reprogramming on the fly, etc. All of this is required by Imperial law for public safety. I mean, this computer needs to be able to plot a FTL course from one star to another, control a continuous fusion reaction, monitor a constantly fluctuating jump field, maintain life support for any number of people, entertain them, and calculate firing solutions while avoiding incoming fire; all in one (did I leave any out?).

The same reasoning is why military computer systems required a duece and a half to haul around when laptops were available with the same computing power.

Of course, I give my players the option of purchasing equipment "off the shelf" but there's always the chance it won't work when needed most

 

[Ran Targas]

^ I've always approached the CT tech from the standpoint that it is the most reliable tech available to the players. You want to make sure that thing does what it's supposed to every time you use it, then it won't be flashy or light weight. It's mostly represented as ex-military or survival gear anyway, both with implied reliability.

Take computer systems for example. Why are ship computers so huge? Because IMTU their built with multiple redundant systems, hardened to cosmic rays and EMP, designed to survive high acceleration and impact, capable of reprogramming on the fly, etc. All of this is required by Imperial law for public safety. I mean, this computer needs to be able to plot a FTL course from one star to another, control a continuous fusion reaction, monitor a constantly fluctuating jump field, maintain life support for any number of people, entertain them, and calculate firing solutions while avoiding incoming fire; all in one (did I leave any out?).

The same reasoning is why military computer systems required a duece and a half to haul around when laptops were available with the same computing power.

Of course, I give my players the option of purchasing equipment "off the shelf" but there's always the chance it won't work when needed most

 

[Jeffr0]

I like CT's "Retro-Tech" for three reasons:

1) I prefer the Isaac Asimov and Alan Dean Foster approach to the future and this pretty much covers that.

2) Systems that start with "here is every possible gadget at every possible tech level" leave me confusticated and bebothered. I just can't assimilate that many options.

3) There's something stupidly compelling to me about Marc Miller's computer rules. I love 'em. Systems that try to be "realistic" on this point come off as dull, tedious, pretentious, and ungameable to me. I prefer them to be abstracted out of the picture completely... or just plain all out goofy fun. Going half way is just pointless to me.

(Not saying what approach is "right" or "best" anything like that... just what floats my boat.)

 

[Jeffr0]

I like CT's "Retro-Tech" for three reasons:

1) I prefer the Isaac Asimov and Alan Dean Foster approach to the future and this pretty much covers that.

2) Systems that start with "here is every possible gadget at every possible tech level" leave me confusticated and bebothered. I just can't assimilate that many options.

3) There's something stupidly compelling to me about Marc Miller's computer rules. I love 'em. Systems that try to be "realistic" on this point come off as dull, tedious, pretentious, and ungameable to me. I prefer them to be abstracted out of the picture completely... or just plain all out goofy fun. Going half way is just pointless to me.

(Not saying what approach is "right" or "best" anything like that... just what floats my boat.)

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

I like the tech simply because it works within the game setting. I don't have to go mucking about with too many hadwaves or moments where I tell players that this or that cannot happen, just that it cannot happen at that tech level.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

I like the tech simply because it works within the game setting. I don't have to go mucking about with too many hadwaves or moments where I tell players that this or that cannot happen, just that it cannot happen at that tech level.

 

[Flynn]

I use the tech as is, because it's become engrained in me that this is a part of Traveller. TLs from UWPs indicate what's commonly available, not what's on the level of R&D. (Look at Earth of today, for example: we can make anti-matter in the lab and build a miniature reactionless drive, but none of that is commonly available, even if it's major steps up the TL chain.) That's how I present it to my players, and once I do that, they stop complaining and it makes sense for them.

Besides, I'm a child of my father's Golden Age collection of Sci-Fi, so it fits almost perfectly with the style I like to play in.

Enjoy,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

I use the tech as is, because it's become engrained in me that this is a part of Traveller. TLs from UWPs indicate what's commonly available, not what's on the level of R&D. (Look at Earth of today, for example: we can make anti-matter in the lab and build a miniature reactionless drive, but none of that is commonly available, even if it's major steps up the TL chain.) That's how I present it to my players, and once I do that, they stop complaining and it makes sense for them.

Besides, I'm a child of my father's Golden Age collection of Sci-Fi, so it fits almost perfectly with the style I like to play in.

Enjoy,
Flynn

 

[Pickles]

I agree that a lot of the OTU wouldn't feel right with any other (more 'realistic') technology. I'm also a child of Asimov SF, which I'm sure has a lot to do with what most readily fits my imagination.

 

[Pickles]

I agree that a lot of the OTU wouldn't feel right with any other (more 'realistic') technology. I'm also a child of Asimov SF, which I'm sure has a lot to do with what most readily fits my imagination.

 

[RobertFisher]

I end up with something between tech as described in the books and "basically today with a few 'sci-fi' techs thrown in." (reactionless drives, jump drives, fusion, gravitics, &c.)

On the one hand, I'm more interested in gaming than being realistic. In many ways, my D&D world a modern world with medieval/fantasy window-dressing. My TU is really the modern world with sci-fi window-dressing. In the end, that's all we (my group) really want for a game.

& I'm too lazy to update any of the mechanics. & Heck, if your universe is only 2D anyway...

On the other hand: I'm a firm believer that the more things change, the more they stay the same. The "futurists" who try to predict what realistic future tech often get it very, very wrong.

AI never reached the goal the futurists put on it (full human-like machine intelligence), but it has spawned lots of good tech. VR never reached the goal the futurists put on it, but it has spawned lots of good tech.

The futurists then write these things off as failed because they set unreasonable goals with short-sighted timelines. AI & VR might still realize those goals, but--if so--they're a long way off.

Now, it's nanotech. Nanotech isn't ever going to do the things the futurists envision. At least not until long after the futurists have written it off as failed & forgotten about it.

Then there was the whole convergence thing. The futurists were smart enough to see that the technologies were converging, but they couldn't understand that there's a limit to how much use patterns would converge.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the the 1100 year of the Imperium there are things that don't operate all that different from TVs & phones today. I won't be surprised if some form of slugthrower is still the preferred weapon. I won't be surprised if many people still study unarmed combat & melee weapons.

Oops--got a little ranty there. Again: Playability. Basically today with sci-fi dressing. Don't want to bother with changing mechanics.

 

[RobertFisher]

I end up with something between tech as described in the books and "basically today with a few 'sci-fi' techs thrown in." (reactionless drives, jump drives, fusion, gravitics, &c.)

On the one hand, I'm more interested in gaming than being realistic. In many ways, my D&D world a modern world with medieval/fantasy window-dressing. My TU is really the modern world with sci-fi window-dressing. In the end, that's all we (my group) really want for a game.

& I'm too lazy to update any of the mechanics. & Heck, if your universe is only 2D anyway...

On the other hand: I'm a firm believer that the more things change, the more they stay the same. The "futurists" who try to predict what realistic future tech often get it very, very wrong.

AI never reached the goal the futurists put on it (full human-like machine intelligence), but it has spawned lots of good tech. VR never reached the goal the futurists put on it, but it has spawned lots of good tech.

The futurists then write these things off as failed because they set unreasonable goals with short-sighted timelines. AI & VR might still realize those goals, but--if so--they're a long way off.

Now, it's nanotech. Nanotech isn't ever going to do the things the futurists envision. At least not until long after the futurists have written it off as failed & forgotten about it.

Then there was the whole convergence thing. The futurists were smart enough to see that the technologies were converging, but they couldn't understand that there's a limit to how much use patterns would converge.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the the 1100 year of the Imperium there are things that don't operate all that different from TVs & phones today. I won't be surprised if some form of slugthrower is still the preferred weapon. I won't be surprised if many people still study unarmed combat & melee weapons.

Oops--got a little ranty there. Again: Playability. Basically today with sci-fi dressing. Don't want to bother with changing mechanics.