Technology & Progression

[ross]

One if the issues with Traveller's technology system is the lack of efficiency and progression. As an example, Vacc suits in Traveller rarely get lighter, less expensive, or add additional features. This true of pretty much all components, equipment, and weapons. There is no systematic way to reduce cost, weight, or manufacturing time. There is no benefit to additional capabilities and if there are they are always more expensive.

I do recall in the old days a supplement or article that discussed technological progression of vacc suits, and that may have been DGP. There was even a modular build system for custom vacc suits in CT JTAS.

Should components and equipment get lighter, cost less, or add capabilities. Not just vacc suits as an example, but all technology?

Just one man's opinion, but I thought it would be a neat discussion.

Best regards.

 

[MasterGwydion]

One if the issues with Traveller's technology system is the lack of efficiency and progression. As an example, Vacc suits in Traveller rarely get lighter, less expensive, or add additional features. This true of pretty much all components, equipment, and weapons. There is no systematic way to reduce cost, weight, or manufacturing time. There is no benefit to additional capabilities and if there are they are always more expensive.

I do recall in the old days a supplement or article that discussed technological progression of vacc suits, and that may have been DGP. There was even a modular build system for custom vacc suits in CT JTAS.

Should components and equipment get lighter, cost less, or add capabilities. Not just vacc suits as an example, but all technology?

Just one man's opinion, but I thought it would be a neat discussion.

Best regards.

I have a house rule that I use for this. Let's use the vacc suit as the example.

Its stats are TL, Protection, Rads, Weight, Cost, and Required Skill.
Basic Vacc Suit
TL-8
Protection +4
Rads 15
Weight 28
Cost 12,000Cr
Required Skill Vacc Suit/1

I give each category a potential modifier. Up or down a percentage of the stat. Then I can use this on a one-to-one basis for changing its stats. If I use 25% for Protection and want to increase it by two steps (50% - Percentages are additive) I will need to either apply 2 negative modifiers on one or two of the other stats to make up for it.

I could say that the Weight modifier is 10% and the Cost modifier is 20%. Then I have a choice of applying each of them or I can apply one of them and double it, 20% increase in Weight or 40% increase in cost. You could also build it a TL higher. This gives you 2 free upgrades, so you could increase the Armor from +4 to +6 and it costs you the two upgrades from the higher TL.

I am explaining this poorly. I apologize for that.

 

[CordwainerFish]

No.

* Some things cannot be improved. If your design has something to do with the heat of fusion of handwavium, you're going to reach a point where it becomes the limiting factor in efficiency - and the gods of materials science won't come down and grant you an exemption.

* Sometimes someone gets it right the first time. The Mason jar hasn't changed appreciably since it was invented more than 150 years ago, because there simply aren't any improvements to be made.

 

[Limpin Legin]

My view would be that Traveller is a Role-Playing Game and the Referee is responsible for creating the world and what goes inside it. As a referee you could 'imagine' new tech improvements, if you like, and just declare they exist.

What the Rule system seems to do is provide you a set of game mechanisms that are fun to play and provide you enough example items that fit those rules and represent a common set of what most referees want to create. You can customise or supersede those, if you wish.

If you go overboard and swamp the game out with too many options, you will slow the game down with analysis paralysis, or too much bookeeping, etc. You could even break the game just by forcing yourself to innovate new tech all the time.

Personally, having studied the CRB and CSC and HG, I have enough information for creating or evolving my own gadgets, should I desire. By studying these I have learned enough about equipment features, cost, mass and TL to know how to evolve my own gear, should I desire. But I would only desire to do that if such a piece of 'unmentioned' equipment was central to the adventure storytelling. If it adds nothing to the game narrative then I currently feel there is little worth in it being created.

 

[MasterGwydion]

No.

* Some things cannot be improved. If your design has something to do with the heat of fusion of handwavium, you're going to reach a point where it becomes the limiting factor in efficiency - and the gods of materials science won't come down and grant you an exemption.

Edit - Look at the price of aluminum when the Washington Monument was built. Look at the price of aluminum today. Aluminum didn't change, but we found a cheaper way of making it.

* Sometimes someone gets it right the first time. The Mason jar hasn't changed appreciably since it was invented more than 150 years ago, because there simply aren't any improvements to be made.

Is a mason jar cheaper today than it was 150 years ago? Serious question. I actually do not know the answer.

 

[Condottiere]

Ideally, what you want is a skinsuit.

Pournelle had an idea that all you needed was a rubber diving suit, but I recall that someone debunked it actually working in vacuum.

 

[Limpin Legin]

Ideally, what you want is a skinsuit.

Pournelle had an idea that all you needed was a rubber diving suit, but I recall that someone debunked it actually working in vacuum.

Either a skinsuit or an all-singing all-dancing hi-tech Battledress

 

[J. L. Brown]

There are several fundamental problems with Traveller Technology Levels. The first is that they have no solid foundation; they are not based on anything apart from general (and purely accidental) 'historical eras'. The second is that they are inconsistent; and the third is that projections of future capabilities are mostly linear.

Tech levels should reflect capabilities, not 'eras'. Capability in one particular area should be (almost completely) independent of capability in other areas.

A device from TL X should be measurably better than one from TL X-1; each TL should reflect a measurably consistent improvement over previous TLs.

 

[Sigtrygg]

One if the issues with Traveller's technology system is the lack of efficiency and progression. As an example, Vacc suits in Traveller rarely get lighter, less expensive, or add additional features. This true of pretty much all components, equipment, and weapons. There is no systematic way to reduce cost, weight, or manufacturing time. There is no benefit to additional capabilities and if there are they are always more expensive.

I do recall in the old days a supplement or article that discussed technological progression of vacc suits, and that may have been DGP. There was even a modular build system for custom vacc suits in CT JTAS.

Should components and equipment get lighter, cost less, or add capabilities. Not just vacc suits as an example, but all technology?

Just one man's opinion, but I thought it would be a neat discussion.

Best regards.

Have you got Central Supply Catalogue? Many items in there are shown to progress from TL to TL, the vacc suit in particular has loads of add ons and versions.

But I know where you are coming from - how to items get better as TLs increase, what happens to their mass, costs, options etc.

 

[NOLATrav]

Early: TL-2 = 2 Disadvantages (TL6 Vacc Suit: Bulky, Limited LS)
Basic: TL-1 = 1 Disadvantage (TL7 Vacc Suit: Limited LS)
Standard: TL+0 = 0 Dis/Advantages (TL8 Vacc Suit)
Advanced: TL+1 = 1 Advantage (TL9 Vacc Suit: Extended LS)
Ultimate: TL+2 = 2 Advantages (TL10 Vacc Suit: Lightweight, Extended LS)

As an example. Slots (1 per TL perhaps?) can be used for comms, thrusters, etc.

Now apply this scale to all tech, fun advantages and disadvantages for everything to customize gear and make TL meaningful.

 

[G'Naakbusters]

Tech levels should reflect capabilities, not 'eras'. Capability in one particular area should be (almost completely) independent of capability in other areas.

I recall that in the Babylon 5 roleplay game (which was also Mongoose), there was an Earth Alliance technology level system that was (in-universe, deliberately) incredibly vague and not really useful precisely because of all the variables. The implication was that Earth tried to draw up a system and it never really coalesced because of all the exceptions and blurred lines. The EA was at level 5, if I recall, and level 6 was described as being, basically, "anything the Centauri have that humans don't", with the acknowledgement that this wasn't particularly useful. And given that Earth technology is inspired partially by Centauri, that's one of the more "solid" comparisons possible in the setting.

Not that I'm saying Traveller should do anything like that; the TL system is quite iconic, but I'm sure is one of those things understood as being more rigid and useful in gaming-mechanics terms than it is in the world-building. Though if anyone could solve the problem that stumped the Earth Alliance it would be the Vilani, I suppose...

 

[MasterGwydion]

I recall that in the Babylon 5 roleplay game (which was also Mongoose), there was an Earth Alliance technology level system that was (in-universe, deliberately) incredibly vague and not really useful precisely because of all the variables. The implication was that Earth tried to draw up a system and it never really coalesced because of all the exceptions and blurred lines. The EA was at level 5, if I recall, and level 6 was described as being, basically, "anything the Centauri have that humans don't", with the acknowledgement that this wasn't particularly useful. And given that Earth technology is inspired partially by Centauri, that's one of the more "solid" comparisons possible in the setting.

Not that I'm saying Traveller should do anything like that; the TL system is quite iconic, but I'm sure is one of those things understood as being more rigid and useful in gaming-mechanics terms than it is in the world-building. Though if anyone could solve the problem that stumped the Earth Alliance it would be the Vilani, I suppose...

My problem with in universe versus out of universe has always been the mechanics. In universe can be wrong. Out of universe should never be wrong.

Also, this scenario is a bit ridiculous.

Officer: "Can you describe the assailant?"

Witness: "Human Male. STR 8 DEX 9 END 7."

Officer: "Thank you. That will be all I need."

 

[G'Naakbusters]

Also, this scenario is a bit ridiculous.

Officer: "Can you describe the assailant?"

Witness: "Human Male. STR 8 DEX 9 END 7."

Officer: "Thank you. That will be all I need."

Heh.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I have to say that I am a big fan of the Alternity/d20Modern-Future Progress Levels. I would keep these as is:

Industrial Age TL6
Information Age TL7
Fusion Age TL8
"Gravitic" Age TL9 - this is where the science fiction setting rears its head - for The Third Imperium Gravitic, for T2300 it would be stutterwarp, Star trek would be warp drive

We can quibble about what to call less than TL6, and we'd need a term for TL10+
"GUT" age TL10 - mastery of "quantum scale interactions" - dampers, meson tech, that sort of thing.

 

[collins355]

Completely with JL Brown. Ditch the historical eras crutch. Introduce clear technological breakthroughs as markers of change in TL. So, for example, development of nuclear fission. Or, development of antigrav modules.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Completely with JL Brown. Ditch the historical eras crutch. Introduce clear technological breakthroughs as markers of change in TL. So, for example, development of nuclear fission. Or, development of antigrav modules.

Something like this?

 

[swordtart]

Completely with JL Brown. Ditch the historical eras crutch. Introduce clear technological breakthroughs as markers of change in TL. So, for example, development of nuclear fission. Or, development of antigrav modules.

Ditto.

Of course the implication is that if TL+1 introduces a new power source it might not have any impact on the flavour of soup. We cannot expect every bit of equipment to get better at every TL unless the TL change is based on something so far reaching everything is impacted. So real world examples would be Alchemy (systematic study of materials rather than transmutation) metallurgy, steam power, the microchip.

 

[Vormaerin]

As I've said many times on these forums in other threads, technology on colonized worlds will not look remotely like technological development on Earth. By definition, colonies were established by space faring populations. They might have crashed, they might have had natural or man made disasters, or some other reason their technology fell off precipitously, but they didn't start from chipping rocks and thinking phlogiston was real. On top of that, most of the worlds are not Earth-like, so the environmental challenges faced and the resources available will not be the same.

Even if you have medieval European industry, you aren't likely to have medieval European misunderstanding of disease and hygiene.

And that's assuming the world is actually isolated. Most worlds in Traveller are assumed to have some kind of interstellar trade, though you can obviously make a trade pioneering themed setting.

The TL6 colony with the fusion plant that they can't replicate. They just have people with special training to maintain it's advanced self repair capabilities is likely to be quite normal. Or worlds that never had fossil fuel industries because they just went with electricity from the get go and never had legacy industry and inertia to overcome.

As far as classifications go, I just tend towards the idea that if your tech levels are just iterations of the same stuff, they don't need to be different tech levels. And Traveller has a number of future tech increments that are just "better versions of the stuff we had at the previous TL".

 

[Sigtrygg]

So the question then becomes which technologies represent TL paradigm changes. Materials technology? Energy generation?

Fire->lime, cement, a few metals, pottery
Furnace->glass, more metals, ceramics
Blast furnace->industrial revolution

Glass->lenses->microscope/telescope

Muscle power, animal power, wind, water
steam engine->industrial revolution

Static electricity, chemical reaction generated electricity
industrial revolution->mechanical generation of electricity

electricity, chemical reaction ratios, radioactivity, brownian motion->atomic theory

 

[NOLATrav]

I’m leaning on energy generation IMTU