So, in my work on Nebuleon SE I have come to my equipment chapter. Here I am faced with a complaint/praise situation I have heard from first edition customers. I broke down the technology into Possible, Improbable and Impossible. Those in favor of this presentation say it is a quick two pages that explains what tech is in the setting in easy to grasp method. Those opposed say Show, don't Tell and that they do not want to be told what is impossible. For the record, the Impossible category holds 2 technologies Reincarnation/Resurrection (although you can comeback via cloning but it is not the same) and Teleportation.

So, how do you like your technology presented in your Sci-Fi games? Short and sweet or part of the story or some other way?

Thanks,
Bill

For me, where a lot of SF games have trouble is they have no basic assumptions underlying their tech. When I run a SF game, I like to know what the principles behind the application are, then I can project from those fundamental principles into new applications. For many SF games, there are no fundamental principles of which the technological devices supplied are applications. Things are almost always discrete - that is, a device does not relate to other devices, but stands alone. My brain asks "Why are there not other devices that use the principles this device uses in somewhat different ways?"

But then, I am most probably alone in this. It doesn't ruin my enjoyment of a game, but it does knock it down a peg. I know that when I did supply the fundamental principles behind the tech in StarCluster 2, no-one actually seemed to even notice. I haven't bothered publishing such a section again, though I still do it behind the scenes. It makes me happy and no one else will know.

-clash

Oh! And I like the way you laid it out in Neb - it allows me to determine just how hard my game is going to be. The previous post was just a brain dump provoked by your question, and not really answering it!

-clash

And I follow you Clash. I do the same thing. I like to think I do this in Neb. For instance, I have artificial gravity based on manipulation and generation of gravitons. Flux Drives (FTL) are based on space time warping via gravity manipulation. Force fields are graviton gradient fields that cause havoc on energy as well as projectiles. So, yeah, I get it but the problem I have had in the past with other games is it is unclear as to what is in use, what is on the research table and what can't be done in that setting. Some folks like it that way so that can put their laser swords in the setting or have ships use FTL to fly through a planet. Both are o.k. but like I said, it was something I was wondering about.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;282327And I follow you Clash. I do the same thing. I like to think I do this in Neb. For instance, I have artificial gravity based on manipulation and generation of gravitons. Flux Drives (FTL) are based on space time warping via gravity manipulation. Force fields are graviton gradient fields that cause havoc on energy as well as projectiles. So, yeah, I get it but the problem I have had in the past with other games is it is unclear as to what is in use, what is on the research table and what can't be done in that setting. Some folks like it that way so that can put their laser swords in the setting or have ships use FTL to fly through a planet. Both are o.k. but like I said, it was something I was wondering about.

Thanks,
Bill

To get things straight, I saw this in Neb - it's one of the things I love about it, that you cared enough to make the tech development make some sense. I was most specifically NOT including Neb in the games mentioned in the first post.

-clash

You need to put D&D or Old School in the title to attract some attention besides me here, Bill...

Or imply it's about some long dead system.

-clash

Can you explain a bit more what you mean by “Possible, Improbable and Impossible” layout?

As for what I generally prefer, I like to be shown what is in the setting. I like to see examples of the technology and even some of the explanations behind them (if appropriate). I don’t mind understanding the limits of the setting though, depending on how it’s presented. If there is a blurb on cloning technology and it points out how it doesn’t create a clone with memories so that it can’t be used to resurrect someone, I am fine with that.

Quote from: CavScout;282343Can you explain a bit more what you mean by "Possible, Improbable and Impossible" layout?

As for what I generally prefer, I like to be shown what is in the setting. I like to see examples of the technology and even some of the explanations behind them (if appropriate). I don't mind understanding the limits of the setting though, depending on how it's presented. If there is a blurb on cloning technology and it points out how it doesn't create a clone with memories so that it can't be used to resurrect someone, I am fine with that.

On tBP, Bill said:

"In Nebuleon, it is more like
The Possible
This section describes the technology found in known space now. It is not always easy to come by and may be tightly regulated but it is generally believed that it can be done.
Artificial Gravity
Artificial Intelligence
Cloning
Cybernetics
Direct Neuro-Simulators (DNS)
Energy Sources
Faster Than Light Space Travel
Genetics
Holographic Projectors
Nanotechnology
Stealth Technology
Suspended Animation
Terra-forming

And there would be more definition under each heading like having the type of FTL defined and how it is obtained. A short paragraph.

And yes, I could see this applied either to generic or setting specific sci-fi games. I just wonder what folks prefer, having it spelled out for them or having it more vague and open."

What I take from that is in Nebuleon, Bill puts FTL under "Possible", because it is possible - in fact it's routine - in that setting. Resurrection, on the other hand is Impossible. Improbable might be technologies which are the result of research in areas not covered, which may or may not pan out.

-clash

Quote from: CavScout;282343Can you explain a bit more what you mean by "Possible, Improbable and Impossible" layout?

As for what I generally prefer, I like to be shown what is in the setting. I like to see examples of the technology and even some of the explanations behind them (if appropriate). I don't mind understanding the limits of the setting though, depending on how it's presented. If there is a blurb on cloning technology and it points out how it doesn't create a clone with memories so that it can't be used to resurrect someone, I am fine with that.

I think I hit on it more over in the other thread. It might be better explained as "Common, Rare, and Not Found" in terms of the setting. Like Clash said, it is a case that FTL is commonly used, and thus listed under "Possible". It is not meant as a label beyond Nebuleon.

And I do agree, I have a bit of fiction and a load of background in the setting section dealing with technology as a background element. So, that is not secessarily in lieu of the other elements but more a what is the preference. I had some customers who resented the "Impossible" category since they read it as telling them they could not have this tech. My counter (and my failing to explain it well in the book) was to say that things like Teleportation could exist but not in the Nebuleos. So, you either had to have some aliens with alien tech come in with it or reference one of the ancient dead civilizations like the Solariens. That leads me back to using the alternative labels which might be clearer.

Quote from: flyingmice;282341You need to put D&D or Old School in the title to attract some attention besides me here, Bill...

Or imply it's about some long dead system.

-clash

Brother, you preach on!

Quote from: flyingmice;282349What I take from that is in Nebuleon, Bill puts FTL under "Possible", because it is possible - in fact it's routine - in that setting. Resurrection, on the other hand is Impossible. Improbable might be technologies which are the result of research in areas not covered, which may or may not pan out.

-clash

This.

Thanks,
Bill

I agree in part with Clash's comment early on about the underlying assumptions. For the record, however, I prefer my Sci-Fi to not worry overly much about what is possible or not possible but rather working out ways to make the impossible plausible.

Science is, after all, about the constant revision of what we know to be truths of the universe.  A few centuries ago it was impossible for man to fly, and space was filled with Aether and the moon was made of cheese.... so to speak.

While teleportation, for example, may not be possible with what we know now, I am aware of at least one scientific theory that could reasonably be expanded to make it possible if only we understood a bit more about how it all fits together (that is: the supposed idea that an electron can be simultaniously in two places at one... related to the somewhat baffling 'ur-electron' theory where there is but one electron in all the universe, but it moves so fast its everywhere... or something....)


In my personal Sci-Fi setting I worked from a few basic advances beyond what was possible today, along with what I believed were common sense advancements of existing technologies and the related cultures that used them.  I'm not sure how it relates to what Clash was talking about in 'other applications' exactly but then I also used a sort of 'if its too minor don't worry about it' idea.

Er, example then: If I postulate that the major problem with acheiving FTL flight is, in fact, energy (as in the exponential rise in energy cost as one approaches lightspeed.. mathmatically), then what if someone found a way to turn the gravitic resistance of the process into the very energy needed to fuel supralight speeds?  This presented an interesting solution to the problem as it also suggested at least a minimal advance in gravity technologies and, presuming one was within a certain range of 'C' an essentially limitless source of energy.

Thus: we have a related excuse for 'ship gravity', and the mechanism behind it (the 'Web' built into the hull to channel that gravitic 'resistance' into the engine, with tuned bleedoff creating artificial gravity where you want it) and the idea that ship's 'power' is, essentially drawn from the engines after a point, but before that comes from capacitance banks to fuel the push where the 'reciprical (sp?) drive' kicks in... which then must be charged by the excess from the engines...

And since we now have FTL drive, how do 'FTL dogfights' actually work?  Um... well, you can't actually SEE your opponents with the naked eye, only a visual echo of where they were, and most conventional weapons, even laser beams in various sorts are still limited to light or sublight speeds...

Variations on sandcasters, purely computer based targeting (with user interfacing designed to impart instinctive decision, counter-intuitive thought and so forth... or essentially to counter human pilots who will not fly exactly like a machine would), sand casters to create obstacles that might not be avoidable at C+ velocities and supra-lightspeed torpedoes are the primary weapons... which suggests too a spinoff on defensive technologies... how DOES a ship survive a C+ collision? At that velocity warheads of anysort are sort of pointless..... Of course the gravitic feedback nature of the drive suggests a sort of incidental' bubble' that may make direct hits difficult as they'll curve off the gravitic warping of realspace, and compartmentalized designs where the energy is wasted on a single sub-sector of the ship became the norm...


So a single advanced technology, as you can see, resulted in an entire cascade of 'what this means'.  Sure, I don't worry too much how personal computers are powered (probably a variation of the supercapacitance loops used in disposable lasers favored by the ConFed Navy and Army... though how the Empire would do it is less understood. Their advanced power demand items generally run using flaws in the quantum model of the universe, which seems excessive for a pocket gadget... probably just high capacity batteries, better than todays but otherwise normal...)

I pick a point, say HERE...and that's where the tech is for my SF games. (Mind you none of them as of yet published), I then build up plausible new things that might appear. But I honestly lean closer to the "Babylon 5" approach. I show enough to say SF, but don't dig too deep into the hows or why's because I'm interested in the human experience in this backdrop, not the whirligigs.

Quote from: Silverlion;282416I pick a point, say HERE...and that's where the tech is for my SF games. (Mind you none of them as of yet published), I then build up plausible new things that might appear. But I honestly lean closer to the "Babylon 5" approach. I show enough to say SF, but don't dig too deep into the hows or why's because I'm interested in the human experience in this backdrop, not the whirligigs.

Odd. I have almost the precise same approach to Neb but feel I must define the tech in order to make it disappear. I find few things as jarring in sci-fi than the "Single tech hyper advanced" culture. I bugs me to no end. People just do not get that if you have the super advanced medicine guys then they are also most likely advanced in all manner of related tech like materials sciences, chemistry and electronics.

I tend to like "fluff" text on the advanced stuff, that explains it a bit and maybe even gives a little background.

Quote from: HinterWelt;282429Odd. I have almost the precise same approach to Neb but feel I must define the tech in order to make it disappear. I find few things as jarring in sci-fi than the "Single tech hyper advanced" culture. I bugs me to no end. People just do not get that if you have the super advanced medicine guys then they are also most likely advanced in all manner of related tech like materials sciences, chemistry and electronics.

Oh don't get me wrong you have to give people enough information to appropriately understand the setting; yet a lot of that is just background, not specific implementations of anything.