New Paizo SF RPG: Competitor with Traveller?

[ShawnDriscoll]

I would certainly concede the point that it perhaps should be correctly considered “Outdated Hard Sci Fi”.

2001 was never hard sci-fi to begin with.

 

[fusor]

2001 was never hard sci-fi to begin with.

Do stop trolling.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

2001 was never hard sci-fi to begin with.

... wow. Just... wow.

 

[Sigtrygg]

And that’s exactly the problem with Traveller. It’s assumptions about how science and technology would develop are outright obsolete, and need to be shot and left for dead in the cold hard ground. Just like a middleschooler might naively be annoyed at Stanley Kubrik for how “his version of NASA did that mission all wrong”, fresh new RPG gamers are going to look at Traveller and wonder, “What’s wrong with these authors??? How am I supposed to take this seriously?!?!?!”.

What science and technology assumptions did CT make back in 77 that are now so outdated? The authors deliberately didn't detail how stuff works. They left gaps in the technology chart for referees and players to fill in for themselves based on the science fiction they wanted to emulate.
And please, at the first mention of the size of computers I will laugh at you - ships require supercomputers, not tablets, to run them.

 

[rust2]

And please, at the first mention of the size of computers I will laugh at you - ships require supercomputers, not tablets, to run them.

Taking a look at current real world science, the university of Jülich owns the first computer system which was able to simulate the operation of a fusion reactor, and it is a 300 teraflops monster. The successor of this computer system at ITER, which will hopefully be able to simulate and control the operation of a fusion reactor in real time, is a 1 petaflops (1,000+ teraflops) giant. There is no doubt that fusion reactors and their computers will improve considerably, but I am quite convinced that even in the far future the operation of a mobile fusion reactor will require a lot of computing power.

And this is just the fusion reactor ...

 

[Condottiere]

You need a setting to compete with Traveller.

Firefly is too sparse, but The Expanse seems about right.

Maybe Mongoose should grab it and tweak Traveller rules for it.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I am really looking forward to Mindjammer as a Traveller setting.

Other TV shows I think would work are Dark Matter and Killjoys. I am all in favour of the Expanse too, it is one of the best sci-fi series I have seen in a long time.

 

[Condottiere]

While I like Dark Matter and Killjoys, I don't rate them as exceptional.

The interstellar coordinated collapsing clones spoiled any sense of disbelief in Dark Matter, while plotting and stories tend to be badly thought out in Killjoys.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I like The Expanse, too.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

And that’s exactly the problem with Traveller. It’s assumptions about how science and technology would develop are outright obsolete, and need to be shot and left for dead in the cold hard ground. Just like a middleschooler might naively be annoyed at Stanley Kubrik for how “his version of NASA did that mission all wrong”, fresh new RPG gamers are going to look at Traveller and wonder, “What’s wrong with these authors??? How am I supposed to take this seriously?!?!?!”.

What science and technology assumptions did CT make back in 77 that are now so outdated? The authors deliberately didn't detail how stuff works. They left gaps in the technology chart for referees and players to fill in for themselves based on the science fiction they wanted to emulate.
And please, at the first mention of the size of computers I will laugh at you - ships require supercomputers, not tablets, to run them.

Your desktop computer can currently run a poorly optimized N-Body Problem Symplectic Integrator at more than enough speed to solve any practical navigation problem. Properly optimized, it would run on a tablet. Starships do not need supercomputers! Get over it!

But that’s just the tip of the damn iceberg, which I’ve already listed!

At its core (at least in the case of the most querulous here) Traveller "fails" because the computers are just too d@mn big and somebody seems to feel the need to be able to develop terrain in another dimension as they steer through hyperspace.

It’s not just computers; it’s also the physical size and operational range of comms equipment, holodisplays failing to keep pace with modern uses of LCD and OLED displays, LCD display technology at indiscernably high resolutions becoming cheap as dirt, the advent of glass cockpits shrinking how large a cockpit actually needs to be, the removal of gunners from the guns they actually fire in modern warships, programmable electronics hardware (FPGAs), 3D printing replacing the need to carry most actual spare parts, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Basically, anywhere and everywhere technological and scientific progress has marched on, Traveller technology hasn’t. It categorically fails to achieve currency. In order to be a modern product that meets the modern expectations of a modern audience, it has to be modern.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

And please, at the first mention of the size of computers I will laugh at you - ships require supercomputers, not tablets, to run them.

Taking a look at current real world science, the university of Jülich owns the first computer system which was able to simulate the operation of a fusion reactor, and it is a 300 teraflops monster. The successor of this computer system at ITER, which will hopefully be able to simulate and control the operation of a fusion reactor in real time, is a 1 petaflops (1,000+ teraflops) giant. There is no doubt that fusion reactors and their computers will improve considerably, but I am quite convinced that even in the far future the operation of a mobile fusion reactor will require a lot of computing power.

And this is just the fusion reactor ...

No, this is a false premise. You are presupposing that the fusion reaction needs to be simulated, and isn’t instead confined to some known “operationally safe” limits by more mundane means. The computational horsepower to find those limits may be immense, but once known, they’re just a fixed number for a given application, such as the Power Plant on a Starship. Do try again though; good effort.

 

[rust2]

Do try again though ...

No need to, I have seen enough of your crusade now, and the life support of my hostile environment suit is running low. :roll:

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

You need a setting to compete with Traveller.

Firefly is too sparse, but The Expanse seems about right.

Maybe Mongoose should grab it and tweak Traveller rules for it.

If Mongoose can’t even keep Traveller modern, I don’t want them mucking up “The Expanse” with their tired-ass assumptions about technology. I also don’t want them making “The Expanse” the sacrificial lamb for them to ultimately get around to that modernizing... get Traveller right first, then “The Expanse”.

Also, Firefly has its own RPG, and corresponding intellectual property issues.

While I like Dark Matter and Killjoys, I don't rate them as exceptional.

The interstellar coordinated collapsing clones spoiled any sense of disbelief in Dark Matter, while plotting and stories tend to be badly thought out in Killjoys.

I don’t rate those two things as exceptional either, though they are good, in some sense. I think the “coordinated” collapses may be a misunderstanding on your part, but it’s been ages since I’ve seen that show. Also, I don’t remember if FTL communication was a thing in that show, and it might have been, legitimizing the “coordinatedness” of said collapse... not that I remember.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

And please, at the first mention of the size of computers I will laugh at you - ships require supercomputers, not tablets, to run them.

Taking a look at current real world science, the university of Jülich owns the first computer system which was able to simulate the operation of a fusion reactor, and it is a 300 teraflops monster. The successor of this computer system at ITER, which will hopefully be able to simulate and control the operation of a fusion reactor in real time, is a 1 petaflops (1,000+ teraflops) giant. There is no doubt that fusion reactors and their computers will improve considerably, but I am quite convinced that even in the far future the operation of a mobile fusion reactor will require a lot of computing power.

And this is just the fusion reactor ...

No, this is a false premise. You are presupposing that the fusion reaction needs to be simulated, and isn’t instead confined to some known “operationally safe” limits by more mundane means. The computational horsepower to find those limits may be immense, but once known, they’re just a fixed number for a given application, such as the Power Plant on a Starship. Do try again though; good effort.

Oh, it should also be noted that they’ve only recently been able to fully simulate an internal combustion engine, which also requires supercomputing power. No one could reasonably argue that an Automobile needs to have a full simulation of its engine to work properly.

 

[Infojunky]

I would certainly concede the point that it perhaps should be correctly considered “Outdated Hard Sci Fi”.

2001 was never hard sci-fi to begin with.

I have to agree with Shawn on this point as 2001 was released in 1968 which nearly a decade before the demarcation between Hard and Soft Science fiction became a literary talking point.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Your desktop computer can currently run a poorly optimized N-Body Problem Symplectic Integrator at more than enough speed to solve any practical navigation problem. Properly optimized, it would run on a tablet. Starships do not need supercomputers! Get over it!

Which is irrelevant to Traveller starships. They need computers to Jump, and we do not know how much imaginary computing power is necessary for imaginary Jumps. A real world argument is futile.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Your desktop computer can currently run a poorly optimized N-Body Problem Symplectic Integrator at more than enough speed to solve any practical navigation problem. Properly optimized, it would run on a tablet. Starships do not need supercomputers! Get over it!

Which is irrelevant to Traveller starships. They need computers to Jump, and we do not know how much imaginary computing power is necessary for imaginary Jumps. A real world argument is futile.

No, it isn’t. It only means you need a dedicated Jump Computer of ridiculous size. It doesn’t also mean that all the other Starship Computer tasks magically grow in complexity from their realistic limits. If you want to argue that the Jump Computer should be distinct from the rest of the Ship’s Computer the same way the Jump Drive is distinct from the Maneuver Drive, fine, we can agree on that. But if you want to argue that other ship tasks need to have unrealistic requirements by virtue of being part of the same unrealistic computer, hell no. That is nonsense.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

I would certainly concede the point that it perhaps should be correctly considered “Outdated Hard Sci Fi”.

2001 was never hard sci-fi to begin with.

I have to agree with Shawn on this point as 2001 was released in 1968 which nearly a decade before the demarcation between Hard and Soft Science fiction became a literary talking point.

A tangello colored dog is still tangello, even if the color “tangello” wasn’t defined when it was born. That its classification hasn’t been updated according to this or that database doesn’t mean that it isn’t Hard Science Fiction.

 

[Condottiere]

If it's a straight line, plotting the course is simple; the question would be the complexity of controlling the jump drive during entry.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Your desktop computer can currently run a poorly optimized N-Body Problem Symplectic Integrator at more than enough speed to solve any practical navigation problem. Properly optimized, it would run on a tablet. Starships do not need supercomputers! Get over it!

Which is irrelevant to Traveller starships. They need computers to Jump, and we do not know how much imaginary computing power is necessary for imaginary Jumps. A real world argument is futile.

No, it isn’t. It only means you need a dedicated Jump Computer of ridiculous size. It doesn’t also mean that all the other Starship Computer tasks magically grow in complexity from their realistic limits. If you want to argue that the Jump Computer should be distinct from the rest of the Ship’s Computer the same way the Jump Drive is distinct from the Maneuver Drive, fine, we can agree on that. But if you want to argue that other ship tasks need to have unrealistic requirements by virtue of being part of the same unrealistic computer, hell no. That is nonsense.

Traveller completely agrees with you that basic realspace navigation is trivial. CT small craft could do it without any computer. MgT craft can do it with anything vaguely computerlike.

But Jump requires a "supercomputer".

So the trivialness on realspace navigation is irrelevant to shipboard computers.

Now, if you questioned why spacecraft can only use a single computer at the same time...