Quote from: Skarg;1120868The mechanics don't have to be super-detailed or equation-like, but I'd say the more they involve (or at least are based on) facts and concepts that are based in something that might be considered "hard sci fi", the "harder" they are.

I'm not saying the system can't boil effects of situations down to easily playable numbers.

But what's involved in decisions and the chances of certain outcomes? Is it going to take things like range, velocity, ship and weapon capabilities, such that the decisions are about the situation and can be reasoned about in logical ways? Or are decisions and calculations going to be about thinking about what die rolls you need to make, and whatever "Bennies" are? What would those numbers and the "Bennies" be based on, and can players interact with them in ways that are about the logic of the game situation, or is it mainly about playing the same generic abstract dice/cards game system that'd be used in any other situation, and the details of the situation are just what players are supposed to imagine the dice/cards/Bennies represent?

Much of that will depend on the GM. SW can be run with as much or as little flavor detail as the people at the table want. As for the mechanics, they are deliberately lighter on crunch than what I believe you are looking for, but I'm not entirely sure (i.e., either you're not explaining yourself well, my comprehension of what you are saying is lacking, or--most likely--some mix of the two).

Does Savage Worlds have sci fi rules that suggest how you'd resolve sci fi situations based on any kind of "hard" content (e.g. how difficult is it to hit X type of target at Y distance with Z weapon?), or would it all up to the GM?

Would I be wrong to guess that Savage Worlds itself provides very little (if any) specific rules for resolving sci fi action, leaving it up to the GM to describe situations and assess numbers to roll against?

It sounds like you may be talking about how a GM can use his own understanding of "hard sci fi" to translate into generic SW mechanics, but I'm guessing there's no representative rule system in SW itself about how to play out such things that would take the situation, positions, floor plans, etc, into account except by telling the GM to think about the situation and then roll based on his own understanding of the situation?

Quote from: Omega;1120277Star Frontiers+Knight Hawks: No artificial gravity.

I don't own Knight Hawks, but I have heard the ships used the "skyscraper" approach, where a ship constantly accelerates to provide simulated gravity, then spins mid-journey and decelerates. Is this correct? And would it work, scientifically? What did they use for fuel?

Quote from: Skarg;1120880Does Savage Worlds have sci fi rules that suggest how you'd resolve sci fi situations based on any kind of "hard" content (e.g. how difficult is it to hit X type of target at Y distance with Z weapon?), or would it all up to the GM?

Would I be wrong to guess that Savage Worlds itself provides very little (if any) specific rules for resolving sci fi action, leaving it up to the GM to describe situations and assess numbers to roll against?

It sounds like you may be talking about how a GM can use his own understanding of "hard sci fi" to translate into generic SW mechanics, but I'm guessing there's no representative rule system in SW itself about how to play out such things that would take the situation, positions, floor plans, etc, into account except by telling the GM to think about the situation and then roll based on his own understanding of the situation?

You would be wrong. The Sci-fi companion outlines building different kinds of ships and mechs that have defenses to different kinds of attacks (slope armor, deflectors, etc). While "dog-fight" abstraction is recommended for space-ship combat, our group preferred using the miniatures variant.

By your logic, Stars Without Number has the depth you requires and that is an overall light game than Savage Worlds. Though I can see the confusion with variant systems like "chase-rules" or "quick encounters" that can be use to abstract concepts to a greater degree. Savage Worlds, while a traditional game, also has more modern system that GMs can lean on if they want.

Quote from: Aglondir;1120912I don't own Knight Hawks, but I have heard the ships used the "skyscraper" approach, where a ship constantly accelerates to provide simulated gravity, then spins mid-journey and decelerates. Is this correct? And would it work, scientifically? What did they use for fuel?

If it uses fuel, you'll need multiple skyscrapers of fuel to get a paperclip anywhere. Also, steady acceleration would make tactical combat impossible in all but a few specialized cases, because the ships would be going at radically different speeds, and there would be no way to match courses or velocities.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1120913You would be wrong. The Sci-fi companion outlines building different kinds of ships and mechs that have defenses to different kinds of attacks (slope armor, deflectors, etc). While "dog-fight" abstraction is recommended for space-ship combat, our group preferred using the miniatures variant.

By your logic, Stars Without Number has the depth you requires and that is an overall light game than Savage Worlds. Though I can see the confusion with variant systems like "chase-rules" or "quick encounters" that can be use to abstract concepts to a greater degree. Savage Worlds, while a traditional game, also has more modern system that GMs can lean on if they want.

Ok, then I've just not learned enough about Savage Worlds. I see discussions of abstract dice/card mechanics and you saying that is the first sign I remember seeing that it had any non-abstract stats.

Quote from: Skarg;1120919Ok, then I've just not learned enough about Savage Worlds. I see discussions of abstract dice/card mechanics and you saying that is the first sign I remember seeing that it had any non-abstract stats.

I suggest you snag the core PDF for like $10 and give it a read. From how you talk about GURPS, it sounds like Savage Worlds may actually have most of what you want, and the overall Core+1-2 books per campaign lines up with your expectation that no GURPS game should have "every option on".

Some here can attest to the usefulness of the system for running OSR sandboxes.

Ok, thanks, I'll add it to my reading list.

Quote from: jeff37923;1120654Like your claims of Star Frontiers as Hard Science Fiction?

I love how you keep denying the evidence even when shown you were wrong. Bravo.

Quote from: Aglondir;1120912I don't own Knight Hawks, but I have heard the ships used the "skyscraper" approach, where a ship constantly accelerates to provide simulated gravity, then spins mid-journey and decelerates. Is this correct? And would it work, scientifically? What did they use for fuel?

Yep. Ships are towers and thrust for a simulation of gravity. Albedo and Buck Rogers used the same system overall. It works within the system. Even the jump element has a certain amount of weight to it even if it makes no sense without an obscure explanation. Even so it still takes alot of skill and calculations to get everything just right otherwise the chance of failure is pretty high.

If I recall right it takes about 22 hours to accellerate to jump and then 22 hours to decelerate at destination. Jump speed being 1% speed of light, which at 1g accelleration takes about 22 hours.

The ships use either an ion drive which converts matter to energy, slowly, but just enough to maintain speed to jump. Or atomic drives which can provide much more speed.

Crew during combat have to be strapped in otherwise theyd take damage from any high g maneuvers.

As said. The system was used to make the 2001 and 2010 Space Odyssey modules.

Buck Rogers removed the jump factor and keeps the setting within the solar system.

Quote from: Omega;1121067I love how you keep denying the evidence even when shown you were wrong. Bravo.

Aren't we being pissy today, cupcake.

Disagreeing with a conclusion is not denying the evidence. Star Frontiers is not hard science fiction by any stretch of the imagination.

You are just being butthurt because someone is picking on one of Your Favorite Games.

Quote from: Omega;1121069The ships use either an ion drive which converts matter to energy, slowly, but just enough to maintain speed to jump. Or atomic drives which can provide much more speed.

Instead of "speed", you should be using the term "thrust", and even then Star Frontiers is wrong. Ion drives measure thrust and acceleration in cm/sec of acceleration, but that can be kept up for long periods of time. Atomic engines (NERVA) can provide high thrust, but at the expenditure of a lot of reaction mass which limits the time which they can be used.

Ion drives do not convert matter to energy, except in a poorly written game. That is a Gross Conceptual Error.

Here, go learn you something about the subject.

Re: Spaceship thrust/engines

If someone really wants HARD Sci-Fi first that someone needs to define the time of the setting, today Warp Drives and Teleporters are Theoretically possible the first and at least in particles possible the second. A 100 years from now? 500? 1000? More?

Now, even with said advances, you have a lot of work to do to keep it HARD :rolleyes:

Spaceships taking off from a planet can't use those systems, you'd need rockets still, probably a multitude of segments to get the ship away from the gravitational well of the solar/star system.

Do you want the equations on your setting/book? Or just a fictitious scientist whose work made it possible? Suspension of disbelief is a thing, and unless you're talking the next 50 years into the future you'll probably end up using some handwavium or unobtanium, the hardness;) of the Sci-Fi is measured by how much of it you need.

At the moment we're developing artificial eyes/limbs/organs and wombs, we have made clones, we can engineer multi-cellular organisms, we have (sorta, kinda) crystal HDDs that can store much more info than any other current tech.

We're trying to get true AI.

Add all this mix it with enough time/distance from the invention/homeworld and you could end with alien looking creatures that can interbreed with humans. Warp engines, teleporters, and yes, even laser guns (probably limited to one or two shots per power cell tho)

So you really only need a small amount of handwavium and unobtanium and time.

Now, if you're gonna use ion propulsion you better do some research or don't try and explain it at all. It's much better than to have a totally BS explanation.

As for space combat . . . It can't work like any movie/book you ever read, I remember an article (or was it a vid?) explaining the why and how it should work in reality.

With that all said, the system is an irrelevant question, assuming you can/are willing to create the rules your favorite system lacks and or house rule the shit out of it.

If not just take Cepheus Engine, remove what you don't like, add what you do and play away.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1121138If someone really wants HARD Sci-Fi first that someone needs to define the time of the setting, today Warp Drives and Teleporters are Theoretically possible the first and at least in particles possible the second. A 100 years from now? 500? 1000? More?

I think what you're alluding to is important, but how you're trying to quantify it isn't. I don't think the number of years is all that important, because while we can draw curves of technological development, and talk about the Singularity, self-evolution, feedback loops, and how much automation or intelligent machines will help; we really don't have any idea how long it will take to develop anything except maybe the nearest technologies. It's mostly just a number pulled out of thin air.

But how far away we are from the practical realization of a theoretical technology, even if we can't precisely quantify it, is important. It's not just whether something is theoretically possible, but how many other things in between have to be assumed. That's one of the key things that affects our assessment of the hardness of a piece of science fiction.

Quote from: Pat;1121141I think what you're alluding to is important, but how you're trying to quantify it isn't. I don't think the number of years is all that important, because while we can draw curves of technological development, and talk about the Singularity, self-evolution, feedback loops, and how much automation or intelligent machines will help; we really don't have any idea how long it will take to develop anything except maybe the nearest technologies. It's mostly just a number pulled out of thin air.

But how far away we are from the practical realization of a theoretical technology, even if we can't precisely quantify it, is important. It's not just whether something is theoretically possible, but how many other things in between have to be assumed. That's one of the key things that affects our assessment of the hardness of a piece of science fiction.

Correct, you can't predict when something will be invented, but the farther away from our current technology advancement the more likely something currently theoretically possible is available.

Correct also in the number of assumptions needed as important, which is why I only cited stuff we currently do with but one exception, why aren't we currently trying to make superbabies? Morality. So you don't need to assume much to say in 1000 years humanity will be vastly different from now, investigating the causes and a cure for progeria could lead to extended life spans and to fast gestation times for clones. Investigation into how do lizards/frogs regenerate limbs could lead to humans being able to o so.

And while we can't predict when something will be invented we don't need to, this is a fictional setting, a Sci-Fi one, so I say in 1000 years Warp drives are a thing in MY Sci-Fi setting. Given we currently think it's theoretically possible who's to say it won't be? Who's to say it's not HARD :rolleyes: Sci-Fi? Energy? Cold Fission.

What I don't buy as HARD Sci-Fi is space combat as portrayed in all the media, for starters when you "see" an enemy approaching you're "seeing" the past, he's no longer there. Space ships don't act like planes or ships because there's no air/water. So all that would need to be reworked, together with the size of the ship and the number of the crew.

But that's because of what we DO know about space travel and space in general, I don't expect a discovery that allows ships to use black matter as if it were air/water. But hey, we know it does exist because we see it's effects, so who's to say it won't be possible to have spaceships that act like planes?