SableWyvern
Mongoose
ParanoidGamer said:
What? Was there a conversation about some game called Traveller in this thread somewhere? :wink:
T5 vs Mongoose Traveler
- Thread starter Mac V
- Start date
What? Was there a conversation about some game called Traveller in this thread somewhere? :wink:
Fundamentally, that a rock-bearing world is in the snow zone of a main sequence star isn't Impossible, it's just extremely unlikely.
EDG tends to approximate "less than 1 per galaxy" with the term "impossible"... which, for game purposes, is close enough.
That an atmosphere would exist on a Red Giant's world is unlikely, and that it would have a rocky core is unlikely, and the only reason life would evolve is panspermia of some form... it's not truly impossible, just bloody unlikely. Unlikely enough to require a GM placement and then only once per game-universe. Under current theories and observations.
As to Hot Jupiters, or even warm jupiters, several notable astrophysicists felt they were impossible during the 1970's... as in, since they couldn't form there, they couldn't exist at all.
But, having now found them, the other side, the side that had been saying all along "we don't know that they can't be there" was proven right. They can. With Astronomy, from the outsider's point of view, the general consensus is usually "Show me one, and I'll bet you there are many, but until I see one, it's unlikely there are any." Geoff Marcy made a comment to that very effect: they weren't looking for warm nor even hot giants, since they didn't believe that worlds were that mobile. Once they found one, they went back to their data and found a dozen they'd overlooked in data they had already collected.
Of course, Astronomy also now classes many traveller worlds as Dwarf Planets... The definition taken has left us with 8 Planets, and a multitude dwarf planets (including Ceres, Pluto, Sedna, and more...).
Bk2 was realistic enough*, Bk6 was not, even by its day. It used out of date data and out of date theories, and didn't apply the known theories. (I'm aware of this by virtue of multiple knowledgeable persons stating so over the years, and by having seen more correct data elsewhere.)
But Bk2 was quite vague. A mainworld, no reference to its star, and just whether or not there were gas giants in system. And one can argue that the atmospheres system is flawed, too, even then.
EDG tends to approximate "less than 1 per galaxy" with the term "impossible"... which, for game purposes, is close enough.
That an atmosphere would exist on a Red Giant's world is unlikely, and that it would have a rocky core is unlikely, and the only reason life would evolve is panspermia of some form... it's not truly impossible, just bloody unlikely. Unlikely enough to require a GM placement and then only once per game-universe. Under current theories and observations.
As to Hot Jupiters, or even warm jupiters, several notable astrophysicists felt they were impossible during the 1970's... as in, since they couldn't form there, they couldn't exist at all.
But, having now found them, the other side, the side that had been saying all along "we don't know that they can't be there" was proven right. They can. With Astronomy, from the outsider's point of view, the general consensus is usually "Show me one, and I'll bet you there are many, but until I see one, it's unlikely there are any." Geoff Marcy made a comment to that very effect: they weren't looking for warm nor even hot giants, since they didn't believe that worlds were that mobile. Once they found one, they went back to their data and found a dozen they'd overlooked in data they had already collected.
Of course, Astronomy also now classes many traveller worlds as Dwarf Planets... The definition taken has left us with 8 Planets, and a multitude dwarf planets (including Ceres, Pluto, Sedna, and more...).
Bk2 was realistic enough*, Bk6 was not, even by its day. It used out of date data and out of date theories, and didn't apply the known theories. (I'm aware of this by virtue of multiple knowledgeable persons stating so over the years, and by having seen more correct data elsewhere.)
But Bk2 was quite vague. A mainworld, no reference to its star, and just whether or not there were gas giants in system. And one can argue that the atmospheres system is flawed, too, even then.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
SableWyvern said:
Not me, I was writing my name in the snow...and man is it cold..
Cap
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
AKAramis said:
Mainly, book six was almost impossible to use in the pre-spreadsheet days particularly once one moved out of high school and had any time constraints. I have to say that overrode any consideration of accuracy; and still would.
Plus, doctoral levels of detail, argument and arrogance as well as academic "pick and choose" zero-sum positions do not seem appropriate effort to an RPG.
I mean, if you want to put that amount of effort, write a paper for gods sake - increase the worlds real stack of knowledge. Or teach a class.
Fun is fun, and ultimately necessary for human sanity, but it really shouldn't substitute for real achievement...or shove it out of the nest.
Cap
EDG said:
Thank you.
I'm a layman but I'm interested enough to listen to stories I hear about new discoveries and theories. You say it's almost entirely impossible for a red giant to have any planets with life. I've read news stories in the last few years where other people who are experts in your field (I assume people are being truthful until proven otherwise) disagree with you.
To the layman this says Y'all don't know the answer. If even NASA is saying it's possibly possible, I've got to assume the science isn't out on the fringes, right?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/0801frozenworlds_prt.htm
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=432
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97GL52843.shtml
I'm not trying to call you out. I don't have the credentials for that but there does seem to be some disagreement with you and it's quite recently developed.
EDIT:
I'd like to be clear I am not talking about planets that have sentient beings. I'd guess at them having vegetation and maybe animals at most. These would still be planets that would present a possibility for external colonization.
hdrider67 said:
You've got to be careful about reading exactly what people are saying here. I've never actually said that life was impossible around red giants - I said that it's impossible to get earth-like habitable worlds around red giants. "earth-like" means "planets like earth, with rocky surfaces and oceans and a breathable atmosphere", not "planets with any kind of life at all" - the NASA links you point to are talking about the latter, not the former. But Traveller has a lot of earth-like, habitable worlds in crazy situations like orbiting red giants or even white dwarfs, and that is definitely wrong.
I think it's quite possible - if not likely - for there to be worlds with life around red giants. At best they'd be microbes lurking in oceans under the surfaces of icy moons, maybe they'd venture out onto the surface if liquid is exposed and the moon can hold onto the liquid water and there's some kind of atmosphere... but it's not likely to be advanced life - there's generally not a lot of energy available for that sort of thing around the hydrothermal vents on the seabed down there (maybe it'd get a boost if exposed to sunlight, but the odds are stacked against it).
captainjack23 said:
Not to you perhaps. RPGs are full of "pick and choose" scenarios, depending on how they choose to simulate the reality they're describing. Some RPGs can get VERY detailed about what they're simulating, and people enjoy them for that. And given that the knowledge is there and available, I see nothing wrong in correcting Traveller's world/star design systems, particularly since it's possible to correct it with little increase in complexity.
I don't believe in such arbitrary restrictions on where one can apply knowledge or where people can learn things. I choose to apply my knowledge in RPGs as well as elsewhere, and I know that people have learned something useful about astronomy from discussions on RPG boards - that's good enough for me.
Arguably the best way to learn things is while having fun doing so. There's no harm in adding a bit of education to a game.
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
y'know... in my version of the OTU I'm going to place a system that is a red gas giant that has an ice planet in the orbit that would be mercury's, has 15 planets 6 of which are gas giant planets. The giants will have rock cores that is half of its total diameter and a race of oxygen breathing super-strong humans who have ascended and can do anything they want.
Not possible? hell it's a different universe maybe it has different laws of physics. Maybe the planet builders in the "Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy" built it for me. Maybe the Ancients used their trans-hyperwarp level technology to create it as a new home for those fleeing the tyranny of the Go'uld-Wraith empire.
The point is much of any FTL Universe is based, at best, on rubber science. How accurate can ANY RPG be and STILL be playable without taking an hour to determine if you walked up that staircase without killing yourself.
Oh, let me add that I've been enjoying the conversation so far...
Not possible? hell it's a different universe maybe it has different laws of physics. Maybe the planet builders in the "Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy" built it for me. Maybe the Ancients used their trans-hyperwarp level technology to create it as a new home for those fleeing the tyranny of the Go'uld-Wraith empire.
The point is much of any FTL Universe is based, at best, on rubber science. How accurate can ANY RPG be and STILL be playable without taking an hour to determine if you walked up that staircase without killing yourself.
Oh, let me add that I've been enjoying the conversation so far...
captainjack23 said:
Wrong. B6 was quite doable with a basic sci-calc and/or slipstick.
I did lots of stuff for traveller on my E6B pilot's circular side rule. Inclding vector additions.
(see http://www.sportys.com/acb/showprod.cfm?&DID=19&CATID=171&ObjectGroup_ID=1118 for photos illustrative of type).
It was not terribly fast, but it was quite doable.
Paranoid:
FTL is not inherently rubber science...
At least one credible physicist has stated a belief that, past C the Lorentz factor climbs again, allowing thus for tachyons moving super-C. (Note that the equation is L=√(1-((v^2)/(c^2))) but since a square root of a negative number is impossible/irrational.... If he's right, the whole causality issue evaporates. The trick would be crossing C.
A good scientific foundation for a world building system is not a bad thing.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:
Hey !
I thought we had nothing more to say to each other .
Look. Your arguments about education are beside the point. Obviously you think that stellar evolution and planetology is the most important thing in traveller. Obviously it's the most important thing in your life. I know you know your stuff, I know you have an advanced degree. More importantly I know you are right. However, The fact that you can brook no deviation from your personal niche for a game, and yet can give no credence to the fact that the game bends other equally important rules is....strange. FTL is absurd, reactionless thrusters are absurd, frankly , rubbersuit aliens like Aslan are absurd. (hivers are absurd for other reasons...
) . Hell, the biology of the OTU is absurd. yet those are fiated into existance by virtue of accepting that fictional change is possible in a fictional universe. I could point out that the science of planetology is no less defined or likely than that of physics (which is neither of our areas, actually), and thus equally problematic. Science means taking evidence seriously in all cases where it is relevant, not picking and choosing where you like it and where you don't. If you are saying that you don;t like the planetology rules, fine. If you are saying that they are absurd, and yet are okay with the other areas of absurdity because they aren't your personal speciality is self-serving at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst. That said, try to read this next part. As you point out, they are cool, fun and the flavor of SF (and part of a great game). This is absolutely the point. That they are absurd is not. They are useful and (by now) intentional constructs that improve the game, not just mistakes to be corrected. They define that the game isn't just a sharp simulation of present-day science applied to story telling. And yet...the star and planet generation is wrong wrong wrong, and cannot be compromised. And destroys the game. And anyone saying otherwise, or who is uninterested in your point is a fool.
Okay, I'm a fool. And I'm okay with that.
Now, lets sling some dice.
ParanoidGamer said:
Oh, people can do what they like in their own games... but obviously you won't be justified in saying that your scenario there is realistic (and I doubt you'd claim that it was anyway).
The thing with Traveller is that "veneer of realism" that others have mentioned - because there has been that effort in Book 6 and later products to use what was thought at the time to be realistic luminosities and masses and other astronomical data. I think that had it just been left at CT book 3 levels of "here's your mainworld" and that's pretty much it then realism wouldn't really be an issue.
But the genie is out of the box, so to speak (or whatever that phrase is). Once you start asking questions about the star types, and orbital distances and so on then it seems natural to define those properly, which leads to the realism debate.
That's somewhat overstating the problem I think... you don't need to go THAT extreme! I think a lot of people assume that adding realism makes the game unplayable when there's no evidence that this is the case at all - my argument has been that the realism can be folded into tables and so on for the GM (who's going to have to do some prep work anyway) without adding too much to his workload.
captainjack23 said:
You apparently claimed to have nothing more to say to me. Me, I don't care either way.
No, they're exactly the point actually. It's not unheard of for people who don't know a lot about something to walk away from entertainment (like RPGs or movies) with an impression of how something works. If that is portrayed in a very wrong way, then they can be misled by that and assume that it's true when it's not. SFX can blur the line between what is real and what isn't quite effectively, which adds to the confusion.
The real problem is when something is presented in a detailed way but isn't realistic. All those world generation tables may look realistic, but they're not. So someone who looks at Book 6 but doesn't know better is likely to think that the info presented in there is accurate when it isn't. Unless someone comes along and corrects them, which is what I've been doing.
No, I don't, and I've not claimed that at all. It's the thing that I'm interested in the most, but I've never claimed that it is "the most important thing in Traveller" for everyone.
That's very presumptuous of you. There are a lot of things in my life that are a lot more important to me than realism in a roleplaying game.
However, The fact that you can brook no deviation from your personal niche for a game, and yet can give no credence to the fact that the game bends other equally important rules is....strange. FTL is absurd, reactionless thrusters are absurd, frankly , rubbersuit aliens like Aslan are absurd. (hivers are absurd for other reasons...
Well, I have no problem doing it. If you do, then fair enough. But if I thought that all SF had to be completely realistic in every way for me to enjoy it, then I wouldn't enjoy any SF. So I'd rather accept some deviations and enjoy it. But where it runs contrary to things I know, then my suspenders of disbelief snap and that reduces my enjoyment (sometimes completely). So I make an effort to correct those errors for my own edification, but I'd like to make those corrections available to others as well.
Sure, but that's science. We're talking about science-fiction here though. Choosing one aspect of a fictional setting to be realistic while allowing a bit of flex elsewhere is a totally different thing to being rigorous and objective in all fields of actual science.
I like my SF to make sense at the very least. In other parts of the game I want the rules to make sense and be internally consistent. For the part I know most about IRL, I want it to be realistic as well. There's nothing "intellectually dishonest" or "self-serving" about that at all.
I think your interpretation of my stance is somewhat incorrect.
All I'm really saying is that there are some things in the worldgen system that need to be corrected, and that doing so will result in no inconvenience to anyone (except those who insist that nonsensical results should remain valid) while adding a lot of verisimilitude to the setting. I've not said anything about anything destroying the game.
Good, because you're the only one here who is making that claim. I've not even once said or implied that "anyone who says otherwise or is uninterested in my point is a fool". Not once. In fact you seem rather fond of putting words in my mouth, and I find it quite irritating.
EDG said:
OK, My mistake. I read your statements as life itself being impossible or so nearly so as no not matter. I agree that the worlds would be less than earth-like, though I think they'd might be suitable for some form of habitation if the newcomer had the technology required to adapt himself or the environment in some way.
Mea Culpa.
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
AKAramis: "The trick would be crossing C. "
That's my point. Outside of some highly theoretical physics theorems speculating on anything being able to 'cross C' (I.E. FTL), ANY proposed system for actually going FTL, such as ST Warp, SW Hyperspace, B5 Hyperspace, Andromeda's Slipstream, Humanex Commonwealths KK drives, or Traveller Jump are at best 'rubber science'...
To help you, from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_science
EDG: "Oh, people can do what they like in their own games... but obviously you won't be justified in saying that your scenario there is realistic (and I doubt you'd claim that it was anyway)."
My posted starsystem was a JOKE, as was the comment about being overly realistic (the walking up the stairs)... but I guess it aimed too far up into the sky.
Is the problem "Realism" or "ability to suspend the sense disbelief". We're talking about creating all kinds of creatures, technologies, etc. that are all at best highly speculative. So we need a system that not just decides if a target is hit and how much damage, or do we need one that gives you location/effect/modifiers on top of that?
There was an episode of the great UK Sci-Fi series "Blakes 7" where the computer was down. The pilot could still fly the ship but without the computer is was way more difficult. Why? because the computer took care of handling all the adjustments with thrusters, power levels and such needed to accomplish what the pilot was telling the ship to do.
IMO, the (game) system requires only as much realistic and complex mechanics as is necessary to give the players a great RPing experience. Arguing high level (and in some cases highly THEORETICAL) principles of science, while a very geeky way to play "mine's bigger than your's", doesn't necessarily add to the game and has a much higher probability of just derailing everything.
I'm hoping none of that went over anyone's head.
That's my point. Outside of some highly theoretical physics theorems speculating on anything being able to 'cross C' (I.E. FTL), ANY proposed system for actually going FTL, such as ST Warp, SW Hyperspace, B5 Hyperspace, Andromeda's Slipstream, Humanex Commonwealths KK drives, or Traveller Jump are at best 'rubber science'...
To help you, from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_science
EDG: "Oh, people can do what they like in their own games... but obviously you won't be justified in saying that your scenario there is realistic (and I doubt you'd claim that it was anyway)."
My posted starsystem was a JOKE, as was the comment about being overly realistic (the walking up the stairs)... but I guess it aimed too far up into the sky.
Is the problem "Realism" or "ability to suspend the sense disbelief". We're talking about creating all kinds of creatures, technologies, etc. that are all at best highly speculative. So we need a system that not just decides if a target is hit and how much damage, or do we need one that gives you location/effect/modifiers on top of that?
There was an episode of the great UK Sci-Fi series "Blakes 7" where the computer was down. The pilot could still fly the ship but without the computer is was way more difficult. Why? because the computer took care of handling all the adjustments with thrusters, power levels and such needed to accomplish what the pilot was telling the ship to do.
IMO, the (game) system requires only as much realistic and complex mechanics as is necessary to give the players a great RPing experience. Arguing high level (and in some cases highly THEORETICAL) principles of science, while a very geeky way to play "mine's bigger than your's", doesn't necessarily add to the game and has a much higher probability of just derailing everything.
I'm hoping none of that went over anyone's head.
ParanoidGamer said:
It didn't come across as a joke to me (I've seen people make similar claims and mean it
), but that doesn't change the point I made in response to it.Both, I guess. Generally one's suspenders of disbelief are stressed when faced with something that really shouldn't make any sense but is presented as something that does. Whether or not they actually snap depends on the individual.
I think you're conflating two different things here - the realism of the setting with the realism of the game engine. They don't have to be in sync - I have no problem having a realistic background setting but a cinematic game engine for PC interaction.
I agree. From the perspective of playing the game I think the mechanics should be pretty straightforward.
That's largely down to opinion. This sort of stuff is all background detail that IMO improves the verisimilitude of the game. Sure, it's not got much to do with actual gameplay but it does mean that the GM can describe a world in a way that actually makes sense and in many cases presents additional challenges for the PCs.
For example, realistically a small rockball is going to have very low gravity. You don't have to describe it as such and (as is the case in a lot of dodgy SF) can have PCs running around on the surface there as if the gravity was earthlike... but know that doing so will be unrealistic and frankly pretty dull IMO. But if you say "actually, the gravity is really low, you've got to be careful about how you move and if you're not careful you can end up off the ground for a long time, or dust can get kicked up and obscure your vision" then all of a sudden the environment becomes a lot more challenging and alien. From a mechanical point of view you're adding some penalties to actions and maybe requiring skill rolls for things, which can be added with little extra work. But from a descriptive point of view, you're forcing the players to adapt to a new and interesting environment that otherwise would have completely passed them by.
But it really depends what you're after in a game. If you don't care a jot about realism then there's not much point in chasing it. But if you really want to roleplay what it's like to be in space then this sort of thing can add a lot to the experience.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:
Okay, I give up. You can't even read beyond your arguments and pontifications, which are conveniently slippery when they're not disingenuous.
This would be a problem if you had been on my dissertation committee, or if it was a matter of any serious import , but you aren't and it isn't, so, as my mentor said, "never argue too much with a bitter academic - you run the risk of becoming one".
This obviously isn't about a discussion, but rather about you enjoying endless arguing. Mea culpa. MAXIMA culpa. I misunderstood the game, and got sucked into it. My bad. Have fun with those who want to play.
I understand about bad attention still being being attention, and building academic (or conversational) stature by decapitating others, but frankly I am tired of supporting it, or even watching it.
I'll close the door as I leave. Have the last word, or ignore me with lofty disdain. You win, insofar as I'm unwilling to entertain you with endless arguments. I'm not having fun, and this is a hobby. Byeeee !
Cap
You make snarky comments, put words into my mouth and don't read or respond to what I actually say, and then you have the gall to blame me when I don't play along with your attempts at misrepresenting what I say and what I think? Either way it seems I can't win - if I defend myself then I get accused of being "arrogrant" and getting the last word, and if I ignore you then I get accused of "lofty disdain". Whatever. It seems all you were interested in doing was wasting my time.
Well, if you're leaving, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Well, if you're leaving, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
B_Steele
Mongoose
Alright...enough is enough.
Everybody: slow down, calm yourselves, and remember that this is just a game. All wacky sciences aside, this is for peoples' enjoyment first and foremost.
People will enjoy what they will out of Mongoose Traveller, and if that means that some folks have to tweak the science part of the sci-fi, so be it...just please don't scream foul or fair into each others' faces anymore. It isn't polite, on either side. Some will want the hard science, others will not. Simple as that. As designers we have to try and be fair, but we also want a fun game that doesn't require a quantum physics degree to play.
Happy Holidays from the "it's just a game, not a college thesis to be argued for your Masters Degree" camp.
Personally speaking, the harder and crunchier the science gets - the farther I get from being interested. I write, design and ultimately play these games in order to have an escape from reality. I enjoy breaking the laws of man and beast in my RPGs, because it is not something I could do in real life. Will I ever fly a starship, or walk around as an anthropomorphic lion alien? No. But in Traveller, I can. That is all that is important to me...that the game is fun, fair and works for the majority of the readers.
We can't please everybody, it is the nature of the industry. But please, if someone out there is in the displeased camp of thinking - be polite in your discussions about your displeasure. We all want people to come and play Traveller, not avoid it because of hostilities on our forums.
We'd like to have a GOOD place for discussion, not a hostile one, don't we?
Thanks all,
Bry
Everybody: slow down, calm yourselves, and remember that this is just a game. All wacky sciences aside, this is for peoples' enjoyment first and foremost.
People will enjoy what they will out of Mongoose Traveller, and if that means that some folks have to tweak the science part of the sci-fi, so be it...just please don't scream foul or fair into each others' faces anymore. It isn't polite, on either side. Some will want the hard science, others will not. Simple as that. As designers we have to try and be fair, but we also want a fun game that doesn't require a quantum physics degree to play.
Happy Holidays from the "it's just a game, not a college thesis to be argued for your Masters Degree" camp.
Personally speaking, the harder and crunchier the science gets - the farther I get from being interested. I write, design and ultimately play these games in order to have an escape from reality. I enjoy breaking the laws of man and beast in my RPGs, because it is not something I could do in real life. Will I ever fly a starship, or walk around as an anthropomorphic lion alien? No. But in Traveller, I can. That is all that is important to me...that the game is fun, fair and works for the majority of the readers.We can't please everybody, it is the nature of the industry. But please, if someone out there is in the displeased camp of thinking - be polite in your discussions about your displeasure. We all want people to come and play Traveller, not avoid it because of hostilities on our forums.
We'd like to have a GOOD place for discussion, not a hostile one, don't we?
Thanks all,
Bry
Mongoose Steele said:
That's my point though - people have this idea that "the more realistic a game is, the less fun it can be" and that idea is completely misguided. I can appreciate that realism isn't for everyone, but in the past few years I've seen plenty of cases of active phobia of realism in a game which seems a bit excessive.
Put it this way - if you have unrealistic numbers in a world generation table then are you suggesting that the game is "more fun" or "more interesting" than if it had realistic numbers in a table? Because that's the sort of difference I'm talking about here - I'm not saying "put in a ton of equations" or anything like that, I know full well that people will run screaming from that sort of thing - but there's no harm in tweaking the numbers to start with so that what is presented to GMs and players in the design system is at the very least consistent with reality.
Having a playable, enjoyable game and one that makes sense really aren't two mutually exclusive goals, though people often paint them as such.
