On Moving Planets and other Impossible Projects

[atpollard]

Actually, gotta disagree. Interstellar and inteplanetary travel are so easy using Traveller technology that settling other planets is more feasible than building lots of orbital habitats either. Such habitats are only for those who don't wanna move outsystem.

One article on Orbital Habitats suggested that you can build 100 tons of orbital habitat for each ton of Starship production diverted to habitats. On that basis, for the cost of a 100 dTon scout to explore the next star, one could have built a 10,000 dTon habitat in this system.

Traveller Interstellar Travel is affordable, but habitats are even cheaper.

 

[simonh]

One article on Orbital Habitats suggested that you can build 100 tons of orbital habitat for each ton of Starship production diverted to habitats. On that basis, for the cost of a 100 dTon scout to explore the next star, one could have built a 10,000 dTon habitat in this system.

Traveller Interstellar Travel is affordable, but habitats are even cheaper.

That's an argument for makign Traveller starships cheaper, not an argument for modifying the setting to eliminate most of the reasons for having fun in it.

Simon Hibbs

 

[EDG]

That's an argument for makign Traveller starships cheaper, not an argument for modifying the setting to eliminate most of the reasons for having fun in it.

Any reasoning involving "fun" is pretty meaningless, given that people's definitions of "fun" vary so much. I can think of lots of enjoyable adventures to have involving habitats, and lots of enjoyable adventures involving exploring other systems too. Either or both would be "fun" for me, but it's clearly too subjective a term to be meaningful.

 

[captainjack23]

Actually, gotta disagree. Interstellar and inteplanetary travel are so easy using Traveller technology that settling other planets is more feasible than building lots of orbital habitats either. Such habitats are only for those who don't wanna move outsystem.

One article on Orbital Habitats suggested that you can build 100 tons of orbital habitat for each ton of Starship production diverted to habitats. On that basis, for the cost of a 100 dTon scout to explore the next star, one could have built a 10,000 dTon habitat in this system.

Traveller Interstellar Travel is affordable, but habitats are even cheaper.

Just out of curiosity, is that based on real world costs, or traveller costs ?

 

[Tobias]

One article on Orbital Habitats suggested that you can build 100 tons of orbital habitat for each ton of Starship production diverted to habitats. On that basis, for the cost of a 100 dTon scout to explore the next star, one could have built a 10,000 dTon habitat in this system

First of all, I don't know about that number, but keep in mind how little 100 dtons are in terms of living on that. With a mere 7 meter thickness, we would talk about 200m² of living space here - even for one person, this would mean 5000 people per square kilometer.
Second, whether your new settlement is in the same system or in another system, you need some method of transport to and from it. Starships aren't that much more expensive than interplanetary vessels, so there's not much of a difference.

 

[captainjack23]

One article on Orbital Habitats suggested that you can build 100 tons of orbital habitat for each ton of Starship production diverted to habitats. On that basis, for the cost of a 100 dTon scout to explore the next star, one could have built a 10,000 dTon habitat in this system

First of all, I don't know about that number, but keep in mind how little 100 dtons are in terms of living on that. With a mere 7 meter thickness, we would talk about 200m² of living space here - even for one person, this would mean 5000 people per square kilometer.
Second, whether your new settlement is in the same system or in another system, you need some method of transport to and from it. Starships aren't that much more expensive than interplanetary vessels, so there's not much of a difference.

Um. I wasn't the source of the quote. Atpollard was. I was just curious what universe it applied to.

 

[simonh]

Any reasoning involving "fun" is pretty meaningless, given that people's definitions of "fun" vary so much. I can think of lots of enjoyable adventures to have involving habitats, and lots of enjoyable adventures involving exploring other systems too. Either or both would be "fun" for me, but it's clearly too subjective a term to be meaningful.

And since the OTU can support both, why would we want to eliminate one of them from it?

I just think that a lot of the discussion here is overly analytical. Sure a lot of the OTU doesn't stand up to rigorous technical or economic analysis, but then much of the critical analysis I'm seeing here is pretty half baked too.

Fictional settings are always going to have holes in them, it doesn't take much cleverness or originality to find them. My take is to decide what kind of a setting I want, and the sorts of adventures I'd like to play in it and then construct it in such a way as to support them. With the OTU where it doesn't make perfect sense either we need to come up with rationalisations for the way it is - preferably plausible ones - and move on.

Take starship costs. Ships are far more expensive than they need to be in the OTU, and the workaround is to have large chunks of them given away in the character generation system. A bit of a kludge, but it works. For my own campaign I might change that status quo, but for the written rules that would have too many knock-on side effects on the rest of the game's economics, other people's campaigns and adventures, existing publications and resources, etc that it's not worth doing.

Simon Hibbs

 

[rust]

Besides, Traveller is no longer just the OTU, and projects like the ones
discussed in this thread along the lines of general Traveller technology
assumptions would fit well into a number of other settings, including for
example Babylon 5.

 

[EDG]

I just think that a lot of the discussion here is overly analytical. Sure a lot of the OTU doesn't stand up to rigorous technical or economic analysis, but then much of the critical analysis I'm seeing here is pretty half baked too.

Like what?
(EDIT: also, I'd say that the OTU doesn't stand up to ANY technical or economic analysis. It works only if you don't think about it - as soon as you do, you find the flaws and the holes).

Fictional settings are always going to have holes in them, it doesn't take much cleverness or originality to find them.

Badly designed fictional settings have holes in them. Well thought out ones don't.

With the OTU where it doesn't make perfect sense either we need to come up with rationalisations for the way it is - preferably plausible ones - and move on.

In those cases I discard what doesn't make sense and replace it with something that does. I've no interest in making rationalisations for someone else's bad design decisions - and the OTU is chock-full of bad design decisions.

 

[Gaidheal]

^ What he said! :¬)

 

[atpollard]

Just out of curiosity, is that based on real world costs, or traveller costs ?

It was a statement in a JTAS article on Orbital Habitats. Since it was based on diverting some of the shipbuilding capacity of a Class A or B starport to building orbital habitats instead, I suspect that it is Traveller Costs.

For the record, I was simply pointing out one possible logical conclusion of focusing exclusively on economics. I was not advocating a rewrite of the Traveller Universe.

 

[captainjack23]

Just out of curiosity, is that based on real world costs, or traveller costs ?

It was a statement in a JTAS article on Orbital Habitats. Since it was based on diverting some of the shipbuilding capacity of a Class A or B starport to building orbital habitats instead, I suspect that it is Traveller Costs..

Okay, thanks.

For the record, I was simply pointing out one possible logical conclusion of focusing exclusively on economics. I was not advocating a rewrite of the Traveller Universe.

Heh. One never knows when a random post is going to be used as a soapbox.....

 

[captainjack23]

(EDIT: also, I'd say that the OTU doesn't stand up to ANY technical or economic analysis. It works only if you don't think about it - as soon as you do, you find the flaws and the holes).

A bit overstated, perhaps? (but see below)

Fictional settings are always going to have holes in them, it doesn't take much cleverness or originality to find them.

Badly designed fictional settings have holes in them. Well thought out ones don't. .

This isn't being snarky, I'm really curious...what do you consider to be a fictional universe without any holes in it ?

Perhaps its a matter of what a hole consists of -all too often on fan boards it means " Idah dunnit diff'rent" or "No way he'd do that. " Both of which, (along with "that'd never happen") tend to conflate IMHO for quantificable mistake.

 

[rust]

This isn't being snarky, I'm really curious...what do you consider to be a fictional universe without any holes in it ?

Blue Planet and Transhuman Space are examples for fictional universes
that make it at least far more difficult than Traveller's OTU to discover
their (doubtless also existing) holes and cases of flawed logic, I think.

 

[EDG]

A bit overstated, perhaps?

Not really. Every time I or others have scratched deeper with the OTU, it's revealed to be rotten underneath. That's why there's so many arguments about piracy, economics, near-c rocks, sector fleet funding, taxes, planets, etc - the "logic" (if there is any, beyond author's whim) just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

This isn't being snarky, I'm really curious...what do you consider to be a fictional universe without any holes in it ?

Blue Planet. Transhuman Space. Quite a lot of Hard-SF settings in SF literature, where the authors have actually considered how and why things have gotten to be the way they are in the setting instead of just declaring them that way by fiat. There probably isn't a setting with NO holes, but the more the authors thought about it, the less likely there are for holes to exist.

 

[Tobias]

Blue Planet.

I hear that a lot, but seeing how they totally bungled something as simple as - and as important to the setting as - submarines, I don't see how it's a good example of a well-thought out setting.

 

[EDG]

Blue Planet.

I hear that a lot, but seeing how they totally bungled something as simple as - and as important to the setting as - submarines, I don't see how it's a good example of a well-thought out setting.

The setting is coherent. I haven't heard anything about submarines being "totally bungled" myself.

Either way, it's still more coherent and less contradictory than the OTU.

 

[rust]

Blue Planet.

I hear that a lot, but seeing how they totally bungled something as simple as - and as important to the setting as - submarines, I don't see how it's a good example of a well-thought out setting.

Whether the submarines could be considered "bungled" depends a lot on
the edition used, and it would be quite difficult to make that point for the
submarines described in GURPS Blue Planet - which is exactly the same
setting.

 

[captainjack23]

Blue Planet.

I hear that a lot, but seeing how they totally bungled something as simple as - and as important to the setting as - submarines, I don't see how it's a good example of a well-thought out setting.

Whether the submarines could be considered "bungled" depends a lot on
the edition used, and it would be quite difficult to make that point for the
submarines described in GURPS Blue Planet - which is exactly the same
setting.

Interesting choices of examples -neither of which are space opera. I'd like to suggest that an RPG isn't soley made likable or playable, or good (whatever that means) just by its setting toeing some line -weather it's high fantasy languages, medieval armor types or ( to stay vaguely on topic), mobile planets and macrostructures.


To return to the examples at hand, I have almost no interest in Transuman space. While it seems to be hard sciency, and certainly goes to some lengths to describe itself as that, a lot of the settings basic science is pretty much bunkum - Howver, and this is kind of the other side of the issue -the reason I don't like it has almost nothing to do with its neurohandwavery underpinnings. As I have seen and experienced it, it's an apallingly unpleasant setting -what with genetically programmed slavery, absolute dehumanization, etc. I mean, given the basic setting, lots of what's there follows. But I still don't like it. Ringworld, another identified hard scbook and RPG, were great -despite the constant stream of flaws and errors that have imerged over the years.

On the other hand, Tobiases reaction is also part of the issue- apparently the problems with somthing he's familiar with, submarines, wreck the setting for him.

I mean, and I'm not trying to start a fight, lets say the OTU iscontradictory and unrealistic. Why is that a bad thing ? It's easy enough to point out the the lack of a certain level of detail is often a positive point that allows lots of GMs to change and futz with it to their hearts content -and to inspire 30 years of discussion on its ins and outs.* Really wretched RPGS (like say, Creeks and Crawdads) die out and blow away.


So, here's the semi on topic point, I guess. Planets move becuase the plot demands it. Dyson spheres are built to demoinstrate that we are as ants before the ancients. How they are described as moving is stage dressing, and generally not very interesting if the plot doesn't need the information. As with comics, detail and consistency is always in retrospect. I just don't see how a relentless attention to detail and/or consistency will make a setting good or even better, by iteself-and when a setting is good, it often doesn't rise or fall on that issue.



*the fact that arguments occur is neither here nor there - arguments occur pbecause people are often victims of Jerkiness, and argue and fight. Discussions happen becuase somthing interesting is being discussed. Arguments also get created retrospectively because people classify them as such, and/or expect to find them.

 

[EDG]

As I have seen and experienced it, it's an apallingly unpleasant setting -what with genetically programmed slavery, absolute dehumanization, etc.

One particularly vocal Traveller grognard who shall remain nameless once accused me of being an inhuman monster (among other things) because I didn't see TS in the utterly negative way that he did - which was stupid, because it's just a friggin' game, not a way of life. Me, I don't see any "genetically programmed slavery" or "absolute dehumanization" in the setting. I see artificial lieforms made to serve a purpose that they enjoy doing, and a lot of transcending of limiting human conditions instead. It's all down to perspective I guess. TS certainly isn't a 100% optimistic setting, and there are a lot of controversial moral arguments in there, but that's what makes it so great IMO. Unlike other settings it doesn't shrink back from the implications of its technology - instead of brushing it all under the carpet and saying that geneering is banned or AI is banned or whatever, TS embraces it all for better or worse.

I mean, and I'm not trying to start a fight, lets say the OTU iscontradictory and unrealistic. Why is that a bad thing ?

Some of us at least like our SF to be consistent and realistic, and would like to see what the OTU would be like if it was consistent and realistic (and make their own settings consistent and realistic too). I guess what really irks me isn't the fact that the OTU is contradictory and unrealistic - it's the excuses that some people come up with to justify the contradictions and unrealism, which more often than not they just make it worse. Why not just admit that it doesn't make sense? What annoys me even more is when people claim that realism and consistency somehow come at the expense of "fun" or that it "stifles the imagination" - that's demonstrably nonsense.

If Traveller is a generic SF game, it should be able to run anything from crazy Space Opera to realistic Hard SF. As such, there's room for both in its portfolio, and it doesn't have to be at the expense of the other.