Ships Drives

[fusor]

You are the one who said you could reason about these things. So do it. Put your knowledge of physics to work with what the game materials provide. Except you can’t. Because it’s nonsense that can’t be reasoned about.

The ship and vehicle design system are to make things easy; not to make things possible. If it’s not possible to reason about something like this, it’s not possible for players to adapt them by applying reason.

You're being deliberately argumentative here. I don't need to prove anything, the design systems are there. I don't need to understand how thruster plates work - that's what skill rolls are for. "Make a Difficult Enginnering roll to jury-rig the thruster plates so that they can connect to the air raft's power supply in order to be able to lift and move it". Done.

Your mentality here seems to be that because it's unrealistic, it must be impossible to think of solutions. Well, sure, but we as players don't need to understand how it works - that's for the characters in the setting to do, based on what they know (i.e. their skills and Int and Edu). Same with any other roll - obviously I as a player can't figure out how to calculate a targeting solution for ship weapons, but my player who has Gunnery sure might be able to!

If you can't grasp that separation then I think you are rather missing the point of RPGs.

 

[fusor]

So far, no Traveller Drive Technology meets 2, much less 1.

So stop bugging us and play another game.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

You're being deliberately argumentative here. I don't need to prove anything, the design systems are there. I don't need to understand how thruster plates work - that's what skill rolls are for. "Make a Difficult Enginnering roll to jury-rig the thruster plates so that they can connect to the air raft's power supply in order to be able to lift and move it". Done.

Your mentality here seems to be that because it's unrealistic, it must be impossible to think of solutions. Well, sure, but we as players don't need to understand how it works - that's for the characters in the setting to do, based on what they know (i.e. their skills and Int and Edu). Same with any other roll - obviously I as a player can't figure out how to calculate a targeting solution for ship weapons, but my player who has Gunnery sure might be able to!

If you can't grasp that separation then I think you are rather missing the point of RPGs.

Throwing a roll isn’t reasoning about anything; it’s begging the GM for a handwave. Prove your point that you can reason about these things, or concede my point that you can’t.

The problem with these technological descriptions is that they are purely descriptive excuses; reasons for the players and the GM to give up thinking about them. Now, as diehards, we try anyway, and fall flat on our ass in the process, and laugh at each other for our mutual stupidity in trying to make sense of something senseless. But, at the game table, that’s inexcusable. GMs and players both need to be able to figure out what a given piece of technology is, why it developed that way, and how it works. They need actionable material they can reason about. Not a bunch of curtain concealing a man manipulating a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Because when they come across a circumstance that they, by all means, should be able to find a solution for, given their various stats and available materials, that solution is only as well-specified as the materials themselves. And those “Thruster Plates” aren’t specified one goddamn bit.

 

[fusor]

Throwing a roll isn’t reasoning about anything; it’s begging the GM for a handwave. Prove your point that you can reason about these things, or concede my point that you can’t.

I don't need to prove anything, beyond the fact that you really don't understand what a roleplaying game is or what it does.

The problem with these technological descriptions is that they are purely descriptive excuses; reasons for the players and the GM to give up thinking about them. Now, as diehards, we try anyway, and fall flat on our ass in the process, and laugh at each other for our mutual stupidity in trying to make sense of something senseless. But, at the game table, that’s inexcusable. GMs and players both need to be able to figure out what a given piece of technology is, why it developed that way, and how it works. They need actionable material they can reason about. Not a bunch of curtain concealing a man manipulating a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Because when they come across a circumstance that they, by all means, should be able to find a solution for, given their various stats and available materials, that solution is only as well-specified as the materials themselves. And those “Thruster Plates” aren’t specified one goddamn bit.

Man, you are full of shrieky hyperbole. It's not "inexcusable" at all for the vast majority of people, who don't give two hoots about how a Thruster Plate works. They want a skill roll, that's it. The GMs who take some time to expand on technological descriptions would have more to work with, sure, but very few groups are like that.

More to the point, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question or the thread. If you want to rail against how crappy the technology is in Traveller, by all means start another thread - but there's no reason to derail this one because of another one of your anti-Traveller crusades.

 

[theodis]

Please do try again.

He doesn't have to "try again" - he's quoting what was said in a book. That's what it says. If you're not satisfied with that, then that's your problem - not his.

Traveller isn't Kerbal Space Program. It's also not realistic in a lot of ways, but you seem incapable of understanding and accepting that. if you want to make a realistic scifi RPG then by all means go ahead and do that - but you seem to want to throw out everything in Traveller that makes it what it is and replace it with something else, and that just makes no sense at all.

I want to throw out everything that makes Traveller obsolete. Because, otherwise, there’s no point to trying to sell it. No one wants to try a Sci Fi game that fails to adhere to modern scientific and technological standards.

"Star Wars" and "Stars without Number" both sell well.
Your beef seems to be that you find it of the utmost importance that players can apply real-world knowledge for in-game situations. Tough luck. 30 years of Traveller (and other SF games) have taught me otherwise. And if the application of real-world knowledge was such a factor, nobody would play D&D.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

It’s precisely because other games like that are currently beating the snot out of Traveller that Traveller should aspire to be something different, and arguably, better.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

I don't need to prove anything, beyond the fact that you really don't understand what a roleplaying game is or what it does.

Man, you are full of shrieky hyperbole. It's not "inexcusable" at all for the vast majority of people, who don't give two hoots about how a Thruster Plate works. They want a skill roll, that's it. The GMs who take some time to expand on technological descriptions would have more to work with, sure, but very few groups are like that.

More to the point, all of this has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question or the thread. If you want to rail against how crappy the technology is in Traveller, by all means start another thread - but there's no reason to derail this one because of another one of your anti-Traveller crusades.

It has everything to do with it. You wanted to know which sort of drive people prefer. I prefer:

1. Consistent with Physics
2. Internally consistent to the rules of the game (or vice-versa)
and
3. Sufficiently well described that you can reason about how it performs its job

You asserted you could reason about Thruster Plates. I illustrated a case in which you could not. So you illustrate one in which you can. Or concede the point.

 

[fusor]

It has everything to do with it. You wanted to know which sort of drive people prefer.

I didn't ask anything of the sort. Neither did the OP, who asked which of two specific choices that people preferred (and the one you prefer isn't either of those choices).

Meanwhile, I'm not conceding an inch to you. I told you how that situation would be resolved, you kept on shrieking about how wrong I was. Well, that's how I'd resolve it in my games, so you'll just have to stew on it. You aren't in those games, and given your attitude I wouldn't want you in them either.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Oh, sure, you resolved it... but you didn’t reason about it. You used a roll to avoid reasoning about it. I’m just not letting you get away with what is clearly a dodge, rather than a legitimate response.

 

[fusor]

Oh, sure, you resolved it... but you didn’t reason about it. You used a roll to avoid reasoning about it. I’m just not letting you get away with what is clearly a dodge, rather than a legitimate response.

Well, you're the one who'll be losing sleep over that, not me. Do you always get this hysterical over discussions about fictional settings on the internet?

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Do you always get hysterical about trying to defend a statement that is clearly indefensible?

 

[PsiTraveller]

The basis of Traveller is the Jump Engine and the ability to warp space time and get somewhere else in a week, and folks are complaining about a lack of science in the game?
It's a matter of style of game to me. There could be great story moments in a hard science game, Apollo 13 like moments of calculation of orbits and fuel or life support supply. If that is what you and your friends like, go for it! Ignore the less sciencey stuff and go more for the spreadsheets and orbital mechanics.

If your storylines are more about space pirates and Firefly type antics then rock on and enjoy the time with your friends. You may not have a tense moment of calculation and coming up with a neat orbit that will save the day, but you can do something equally as cool, just different.

Even if the game is advertising itself as a science fiction game I see more fiction than science. We do not know how M-Drives work because they are too advanced for us to even guess how they work. They grab and make Dark Matter a little lighter and that releases gravity particles in a type 3 tensor field. This graviton release allows for gravity control to prevent crews from getting crushed. Thruster plates work the same way only different particles are quantumly generated. Nozzles are on the back of ships because the nozzles aim the quantum exhaust away from the ship to reduce damage to the lanthanum arrays on the hull.

There is no science to it, they are the rules of the game we are playing. The same rules that include talking dog people, Lions that remind me of Klingons and Hivers that are molluscular copies of Puppeteers. One book had Santa Hats.

Explain how 100 tons of water makes 100 tons of refined liquid Hydrogen. There is more impossible tech in the fuel processor than the M-Drive.

If someone wants science in their game Traveller is probably not the best vehicle to go with. A lot of different ideas have been thrown together for 30 years and it is a mess. If you want a hard science game you will likely have to make it yourself, or houserule the hell out of Traveller.

 

[fusor]

Do you always get hysterical about trying to defend a statement that is clearly indefensible?

Oh, grow up. You are literally shrieking at me because I'm not playing your game, and you're calling me hysterical? All you've done on this board is rant on and on about how crap Traveller is and how obsolete it is and how unrealistic it is - so why the hell are you here? You've hijacked many a thread to go on your crusade too, and it's getting really bloody monotonous and tiresome. If you hate the game so much then for the love of god piss off and play something else that you do like and leave everyone here in peace.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

The only one hijacking this thread is you, because you can’t admit you’re wrong.

 

[PsiTraveller]

What wrong is there to admit? That the drives don't use physics as we understand them? Granted.
FTL Jump engines work in 7 days. No basis in reality as far as I know. M-Drives do not have anything coming out of them, they are reactionless. No known particles can do this, although they have some hopes at CERN and Texas they can learn something new.

The rules as written have never used a lot of science in them. there are big hand wavy sections that are plot devices to move the story along. They tried to bolt on some science and vector calculations. I don't think it went well from what I have read. Opinions differ, some liked it, some did not.

For whatever reason Mongoose went science light in both first and second edition.

Now there are spaceship designs that have rocket nozzles out the back end because everyone knows that rocket ships have rocket engines. Star trek ships have nacelles, The Millenium falcon has a big glowing blue space heater coil across the back end of it. Some versions of Traveller had reaction engines, in this version the ships could be redesigned into saucer shapes because that is what the engine tech selected allows.

Heck in 1st edition traveller a 16 ton Psionic Integration Chamber could move a thousand ton SDB without a Jump engine Jump 6 in 24 hours with the proper characters, Advanced Talents and Psionic Tech on board. Where's the science in that?

It is a game, it does not need to be based completely in science to be fun. It just needs to be accepted by the players. Some may change the FTL to a wormhole gate tech, or go Event Horizon and go down the path of wormhole tunneling etc. House rule anything you want, write something different and publish on JTAS. The engines selected for this version of the game don't spit anything out the back end. The artists are trying to use the artwork from 30 years ago to keep the names the same and the designs the same. So this leads to m-Drives with rocket nozzles. It's a trope.

 

[rust2]

A discussion about the realism of Traveller's technology is about as useful as a discussion about the realism of Monopoly's economy. Traveller is just a game that provides its players with a background with enough internal verisimilitude to base the game's rules upon it, but this background and the rules are those of the game, not of the real world. In my view to expect otherwise would be a misunderstanding of what a game is and why people play games (or read "unrealistic" fiction, or watch "unrealistic" movies, etc.).

 

[fusor]

It is a game, it does not need to be based completely in science to be fun. It just needs to be accepted by the players. Some may change the FTL to a wormhole gate tech, or go Event Horizon and go down the path of wormhole tunneling etc. House rule anything you want, write something different and publish on JTAS. The engines selected for this version of the game don't spit anything out the back end. The artists are trying to use the artwork from 30 years ago to keep the names the same and the designs the same. So this leads to m-Drives with rocket nozzles. It's a trope.

The problem really is that it's all a contradictory mess that needs to be sorted out and consolidated. We can at least say with some degree of confidence that the OTU has mostly used reactionless thruster plates based on gravitic tech, though there have been versions that used reaction drives as the default tech though (e.g. TNE).

The Starship Operators Manual is DGP and therefore isn't considered to be canon (because of messy copyright sqabbles). So despite the detail in there, we have to take that with a pinch of salt at best, or just ignore it at worst. Personally I'd say it should be ignored because that really doesn't match anything else in the Traveller line.

GURPS Traveller has a rather different kind of design system, but does mention "vectored reactionless thrusters" that are used in M-Drives.

TNE did present the most canonical detail outside of DGP about how Thruster Plates worked, though it presented them as an alternate technology. Personally I think that's the one to go with as a description of how Thruster Plates work.

I didn't look at T4 earlier, but now I look in FF&S2 I find a surprise - that had both the HEPlaR reaction thruster and reactionless Thruster Plates as standard technologies. Though the Thruster Plates work a little differently there than in TNE: in T4 they are a souped-up form of TL9 contragrav tech that "grabs onto the curvature of space" rather than pushing against a planet's gravitational field. Even then though the Thruster Plates only work within 2000 AU of a 1 solar mass star - beyond that distance the curvature of space isn't sufficient for ships to manoeuvre effectively so they'll need something else (HEPlar?) to do that.

 

[theodis]

Oh, sure, you resolved it... but you didn’t reason about it. You used a roll to avoid reasoning about it. I’m just not letting you get away with what is clearly a dodge, rather than a legitimate response.

On the game table, there is no reasoning in the sense of talking the GM into things that clearly would bend the game system. Resolve by roll or resort to rules. If both fails, apply common sense taking canon setting infos into account. Other than that, out of luck.

 

[theodis]

It’s precisely because other games like that are currently beating the snot out of Traveller that Traveller should aspire to be something different, and arguably, better.

No it doesn't. In another thread it was clearly stated that Star Wars owes its success to the iconic name and gigantic franchise behind it - that alone sells. Stars without number caters to a specific target audience that wouldn't even think about playing anything other than D&D/Pathfinder.
Traveller has its own target audience that - for the most part - is not only content but happy with nearly 40 years of background, backwards compatible for the most part.

If you're not fine with this, play another game. There is no - I repeat - no indication, how slight whatsoever, that either FFE or Mongoose are intending of revamping or rebooting Traveller in the next ten years. If you got a problem with that - and apparently you do - then find a game that suits your tastes better. But it really is tiresome to read post after post that you find both the mechanics and the setting crap and how it should be changed when clearly no other wants to do so and is in fact happy the way things are.

 

[theodis]

It is a game, it does not need to be based completely in science to be fun. It just needs to be accepted by the players. Some may change the FTL to a wormhole gate tech, or go Event Horizon and go down the path of wormhole tunneling etc. House rule anything you want, write something different and publish on JTAS. The engines selected for this version of the game don't spit anything out the back end. The artists are trying to use the artwork from 30 years ago to keep the names the same and the designs the same. So this leads to m-Drives with rocket nozzles. It's a trope.

TNE did present the most canonical detail outside of DGP about how Thruster Plates worked, though it presented them as an alternate technology. Personally I think that's the one to go with as a description of how Thruster Plates work.

That's my go-to description also. 1 cubic meter and 2 tons of drive charged with 1MW of power generate 40 tons of thrust and require a surface are of thrust/200 in square meters. That's all there is to remember (well, the price of MCr1 per unit also). Neat.