If the Players are "restricted" to habitat modules and the rest of a ship is mechanical, do you feel that is acceptable?
"Normal" time is spent in the spin ring and 0-G time is not "normal".

Like a centrifuge, the habitat would swivel. While under acceleration, it would not require spin.  When "On Station", spin would be induced to provide A-G.
=

Quote from: GreentongueIf the Players are "restricted" to habitat modules and the rest of a ship is mechanical, do you feel that is acceptable?
"Normal" time is spent in the spin ring and 0-G time is not "normal".

Like a centrifuge, the habitat would swivel. While under acceleration, it would not require spin.  When "On Station", spin would be induced to provide A-G.
=

That sounds right.

-clash

Quote from: jeff37923I've found that a lot of players who are not readers of science fiction, but instead are watchers of science fiction find it hard to get into a game without artificial gravity. The watchers are used to BSG, Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5 which normally have the main characters in artificial gravity settings (yes, B5, since the station spun and a lot of time was spent in ships with art-G). To get them to understand the no artificial gravity idea, you have to have them watch Apollo 13 or some NASA footage to get it.

The readers seem to just get the differences between an artificial gravity setting and one without gravity control because they have already seen it in their imaginations while reading.

hmm, strange theory. I read alot of sci-fi (old school Niven, Asimov, Clarke and many more) and watch a fair amount of sci-fi programming. I like AG because it makes a lot of sense that we would strive to accomplish it. In near sci-fi, I prefer simpler forms (centrifugal) since that seems more likely than graviton generators (considering it is a theoretical partical at best).

Meh, to each their own. IMO, it is up to the feel of the setting you want.

Bill

Depending ont he technology, one might go for a constant acceleration drive- in fact, if they have to go long interplanetary distances, they're going to want a constant acceleration drive anyway.  It doesen't have to be a full G either- a 1/10th G drive will get you anywhere in the solar system in a reasonable time.

Then again, the question might be whether artificial gravity is even necessary.  We have people already who have stayed in zero-g for months at a time, with only moderate effects, and with more experience in space, we may develop drug regimes or gene tailoring to adapt people to zero-g without the physiological side effects.  Which seems more reasonable in a hardish SF setting: artificial gravity or "zeta-g pills".

This links to one of the biggest annoyances that I constantly see in SF: spacecraft with gravity oriented perpendicular to the thrust axis.  Unless the spacecraft is designed to  be a "belly lander" like the space shuttle and spend most of its time on the ground, it just doesen't make much sense to design ships like airplanes or water vessels.

Besides, spacecraft that are designed to look like spacecraft look so much cooler than the typical "put some leggos together spacecraft.  

(deleted as duplicate)

I like both.  If I'm postulating FTL, though, I'm prepared to throw in anti-gravity as well and head into space opera territory.  If I'm not prepared to assume FTL then I want spin (living quarters are rotated for centrifugal simulation of gravity) and acceleration gravity (decks are perpendicular to the line of thrust and steady acceleration is assumed).  Probably both (at different times please!).  Traveller 2300 handled these thoroughly.