I was looking at running a Star Trek RPG (system undecided, but probably Decipher's CODA) but was wondering how the setting would be altered if time travel were not possible. Perhaps the laws of the universe just don't allow it, or perhaps beings from beyond the universe (Q or such) choose to prevent it, but either way, what would the Star Trek setting be like if time travel is eliminated? I'm thinking that this happens from the beginning of time, not as in in-game event.
The Federation as we know it does not exist because the first human warp flight did not occur when the Vulcan survey ship was around to observe it, due to the Enterprise E not traveling back in time to ensure it happed as prescribed.
Quote from: Wisithir on May 03, 2022, 10:03:04 PM
The Federation as we know it does not exist because the first human warp flight did not occur when the Vulcan survey ship was around to observe it, due to the Enterprise E not traveling back in time to ensure it happed as prescribed.
Not quite correct; it was Borg interference via time travel that caused the flight to fail and the Enterprise-E just got it back on track. If there's no time travel, then the Borg could not have messed it up and so everything in the Star Trek present would be just as it was except that Earth would be a lifeless rock as of the late 23rd century because the Probe in Star Trek IV would have killed everyone because there were no whales brought from the past to tell it to knock it off.
Usually time travel plots are all about making sure to undo all the effects of time travel plots. So generally not much. Except that giant space cigar who was so angry it couldn't talk to whales that it was gonna shake the Earth to death.
If Roddenberry in the 1960s had said, "Time travel is dumb, we will never do it," the shows would generally be the same, it isn't integral to the setting so much as it's a lazy way to create a plot and film on sets that look like current day Earth.
Quote from: Wisithir on May 03, 2022, 10:03:04 PM
The Federation as we know it does not exist because the first human warp flight did not occur when the Vulcan survey ship was around to observe it, due to the Enterprise E not traveling back in time to ensure it happed as prescribed.
This is pretty easily handwaved as happening according to the original timeline. The Enterprise E did not arrive - but neither did the Borg sphere that it was chasing, so the warp flight and contact happened - just not in the altered way portrayed in the "First Contact" movie.
In general, I think Star Trek would require some changes to the canon - but other than the score or so of individual incidents, I don't think that any of the broader background needs to change. The Federation wasn't portrayed as having a time police or similar organization. If you want to be technical, give a list of all the time travel stories that have happened and declare them all non-canon, but I don't think that the rest of the canon would be affected.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 03, 2022, 09:48:36 PM
I was looking at running a Star Trek RPG (system undecided, but probably Decipher's CODA) but was wondering how the setting would be altered if time travel were not possible. Perhaps the laws of the universe just don't allow it, or perhaps beings from beyond the universe (Q or such) choose to prevent it, but either way, what would the Star Trek setting be like if time travel is eliminated? I'm thinking that this happens from the beginning of time, not as in in-game event.
This is but one of the many reasons why I don't run/play in stablished IPs anymore (and I got my start playing WEG Star Wars).
I would preffer to play/run a totally not Star Trek because then I have a blank slate.
As someone already said Earth would be barren because no whales.
Let's go with the assumption that none of the events that have previously required time travel to overcome required it in this universe. For example, perhaps a brilliant Xindi-Aquatic linguist was able to communicate with the probe from ST III and make it go the fuck away.
The big thing I'm looking for is to be able to start in year X with most events having the same outcomes expected without having to rely on time travel to get to those outcomes. Obviously, some events (like the Temporal Cold War) that depend upon time travel will just be eliminated from this universe. So in this universe, the Suliban and Xindi both attacked pre-Federation Earth on be half of mysterious patrons for reasons that did not involve beings from the future.
Quote from: This Ends Tonight on May 03, 2022, 10:59:30 PM
If Roddenberry in the 1960s had said, "Time travel is dumb, we will never do it," the shows would generally be the same, it isn't integral to the setting so much as it's a lazy way to create a plot and film on sets that look like current day Earth.
If only. A famous SF writer once said "In SF you get one impossibility for free, the rest you have to work for." Trek never put in the work to make time travel plausible, at least not to me. Space travel is more than enough to base the show on. Adding time travel just makes it weirder without contributing anything.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2022, 12:03:45 AM
Let's go with the assumption that none of the events that have previously required time travel to overcome required it in this universe. For example, perhaps a brilliant Xindi-Aquatic linguist was able to communicate with the probe from ST III and make it go the fuck away.
But the Xindi only got involved because of the temporal cold war. So would the pre-Federation have had Xindi contact without it?
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 03, 2022, 09:48:36 PM
I was looking at running a Star Trek RPG (system undecided, but probably Decipher's CODA) but was wondering how the setting would be altered if time travel were not possible. Perhaps the laws of the universe just don't allow it, or perhaps beings from beyond the universe (Q or such) choose to prevent it, but either way, what would the Star Trek setting be like if time travel is eliminated? I'm thinking that this happens from the beginning of time, not as in in-game event.
You get Star Trek episodes where the writers actually have to come up with good scripts.
Then again, you also don't get a great episode by Harlan Ellison.
Quote from: jhkim on May 03, 2022, 11:25:50 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 03, 2022, 10:03:04 PM
The Federation as we know it does not exist because the first human warp flight did not occur when the Vulcan survey ship was around to observe it, due to the Enterprise E not traveling back in time to ensure it happed as prescribed.
This is pretty easily handwaved as happening according to the original timeline. The Enterprise E did not arrive - but neither did the Borg sphere that it was chasing, so the warp flight and contact happened - just not in the altered way portrayed in the "First Contact" movie.
In general, I think Star Trek would require some changes to the canon - but other than the score or so of individual incidents, I don't think that any of the broader background needs to change. The Federation wasn't portrayed as having a time police or similar organization.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Temporal_Integrity_Commission
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Department_of_Temporal_Investigations
If you really want to rattle the cage, try a ST campaign without transporter technology. To me, the transporter was far less likely than warp drive and the other tech, and the writers misused and abused it terribly.
Quote from: jmarso on May 04, 2022, 09:03:47 AM
If you really want to rattle the cage, try a ST campaign without transporter technology. To me, the transporter was far less likely than warp drive and the other tech, and the writers misused and abused it terribly.
And it's really only in the show for budget reasons.
Quote from: jmarso on May 04, 2022, 09:03:47 AM
If you really want to rattle the cage, try a ST campaign without transporter technology. To me, the transporter was far less likely than warp drive and the other tech, and the writers misused and abused it terribly.
If I was writing my own setting and intended to have transporter tech, I would limit it to working between two functioning transporter pads. If you want to go down to a new world, you send a shuttle. If you plan to be coming and going, have the shuttle crew bring down and assemble a transporter pad in the field (assuming your shuttles do not have transporters, and I prefer that they do not).
I honestly don't expect you'd really need to change anything or think of anything as being different in the setting if you remove time travel. Every time travel story that does exist in the shows/movies can be ignored/hand waved away for your game. Nothing important or intrinsic about trek requires time travel to exist.
Quote from: jmarso on May 04, 2022, 09:03:47 AM
If you really want to rattle the cage, try a ST campaign without transporter technology.
The Orville got this right.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2022, 06:01:26 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 03, 2022, 11:25:50 PM
This is pretty easily handwaved as happening according to the original timeline. The Enterprise E did not arrive - but neither did the Borg sphere that it was chasing, so the warp flight and contact happened - just not in the altered way portrayed in the "First Contact" movie.
In general, I think Star Trek would require some changes to the canon - but other than the score or so of individual incidents, I don't think that any of the broader background needs to change. The Federation wasn't portrayed as having a time police or similar organization.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Temporal_Integrity_Commission
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Department_of_Temporal_Investigations
OK, it's a fair cop - I was wrong. Still, these aren't integral to the series, since they appear in only one episode each, it seems. Single episode continuity is pretty easy to cut. It doesn't change anything about the Federation broadly to cut these out of continuity.
I think the more significant is the Temporal Cold War that is central to the Star Trek: Enterprise, but even that doesn't affect most of the rest of the background.
Quote from: Zalman on May 04, 2022, 11:39:55 AM
Quote from: jmarso on May 04, 2022, 09:03:47 AM
If you really want to rattle the cage, try a ST campaign without transporter technology.
The Orville got this right.
The Orville is more Star Trek than anything the owners of the IP have produced in a long while. Starting with the Movies and including the tv shows, etc.
Quote from: jmarso on May 04, 2022, 09:03:47 AM
If you really want to rattle the cage, try a ST campaign without transporter technology. To me, the transporter was far less likely than warp drive and the other tech, and the writers misused and abused it terribly.
I agree, but I think transporters are a distinctly Trek element, and most fans associate it with the franchise. "Beam me up, Scotty", and all that.
I think the issue is a distinctly RPG one. We expect players to solve problems based on the situation. Trek has lots of examples of crazy things happening due to time travel or transporters or replicators, and so the players who are familiar with trek are going to expect they can use those techs to solve problems. In a TV show, the writers can just ignore the implications, but a GM can't.
And then if the GM introduces any crazy tech of their own, they're going to have to deal with that.
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2022, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2022, 06:01:26 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 03, 2022, 11:25:50 PM
This is pretty easily handwaved as happening according to the original timeline. The Enterprise E did not arrive - but neither did the Borg sphere that it was chasing, so the warp flight and contact happened - just not in the altered way portrayed in the "First Contact" movie.
In general, I think Star Trek would require some changes to the canon - but other than the score or so of individual incidents, I don't think that any of the broader background needs to change. The Federation wasn't portrayed as having a time police or similar organization.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Temporal_Integrity_Commission
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Department_of_Temporal_Investigations
OK, it's a fair cop - I was wrong. Still, these aren't integral to the series, since they appear in only one episode each, it seems. Single episode continuity is pretty easy to cut. It doesn't change anything about the Federation broadly to cut these out of continuity.
I think the more significant is the Temporal Cold War that is central to the Star Trek: Enterprise, but even that doesn't affect most of the rest of the background.
I think the foundation was laid with the Gary Seven episode that demonstrated that time travel was safe and reliable enough for the Federation to use it for historical research.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Assignment:_Earth_(episode)
The first thing I would retcon regarding time travel in Trek, is that it's a dangerous and unreliable tech, not only because of the danger of altering the timeline, but simply attempting it can strand a ship in some era where there's no backup, or wind up smashing the ship into a sun. (In the case of the warp-slingshot) A desperate technique not to be used for simple sightseeing.
Time travel is too interesting as a narrative device for writers of science fiction stories to ever completely avoid it. A lot of the best TNG episodes involve time travel or alternate-realities-as-time-travel. Yesterday's Enterprise, Cause & Effect, or All Good Things for example.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2022, 04:34:30 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2022, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2022, 06:01:26 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 03, 2022, 11:25:50 PM
This is pretty easily handwaved as happening according to the original timeline. The Enterprise E did not arrive - but neither did the Borg sphere that it was chasing, so the warp flight and contact happened - just not in the altered way portrayed in the "First Contact" movie.
In general, I think Star Trek would require some changes to the canon - but other than the score or so of individual incidents, I don't think that any of the broader background needs to change. The Federation wasn't portrayed as having a time police or similar organization.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Temporal_Integrity_Commission
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Department_of_Temporal_Investigations
OK, it's a fair cop - I was wrong. Still, these aren't integral to the series, since they appear in only one episode each, it seems. Single episode continuity is pretty easy to cut. It doesn't change anything about the Federation broadly to cut these out of continuity.
I think the more significant is the Temporal Cold War that is central to the Star Trek: Enterprise, but even that doesn't affect most of the rest of the background.
I think the foundation was laid with the Gary Seven episode that demonstrated that time travel was safe and reliable enough for the Federation to use it for historical research.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Assignment:_Earth_(episode)
The first thing I would retcon regarding time travel in Trek, is that it's a dangerous and unreliable tech, not only because of the danger of altering the timeline, but simply attempting it can strand a ship in some era where there's no backup, or wind up smashing the ship into a sun. (In the case of the warp-slingshot) A desperate technique not to be used for simple sightseeing.
I agree with this. If I was going to include time travel in the setting it would be hazardous and unreliable regardless of the tech involved (otherwise the obvious answer is to seek out more advanced tech for time travel). This is part of why I considered having the "time cops" not be humanoids from the future, but instead "timeless" aliens like Q running something like the organization from Loki (perhaps with El-Aurians being their agents).
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 03, 2022, 09:48:36 PM
I was looking at running a Star Trek RPG (system undecided, but probably Decipher's CODA) but was wondering how the setting would be altered if time travel were not possible. Perhaps the laws of the universe just don't allow it, or perhaps beings from beyond the universe (Q or such) choose to prevent it, but either way, what would the Star Trek setting be like if time travel is eliminated? I'm thinking that this happens from the beginning of time, not as in in-game event.
Overall you can drop the time travel elements as in at least the TOS era they were few and far between. Tomorrow is Yesterday being the first one where it is a major plot element. Building off an accidental short time hop in a prior episode. Assignment Earth and City at the Edge of Forever are the other two notable ones with All Our Yesterdays also being a time Travel Episode that does not feel like a time travel episode in the normal sense.
But keep in mind that at least by Rodenberry's notations. Everyone travelling in space is technically travelling in time due to time dialation. His original concept was that there was no overall dating in the normal sense for shops as their subjective time was always different. It was only mentioned in passing once far as recall.
But for whatever reasons its become one of the most over-over-over-used elements in Star Trek. Hence it is practically non-existent in my campaign. So say instead of getting the whales from the past for that alien probe. They had to travel to a planet where cetacians had been moved and have to get their help there after unearthing the old files telling where. ETC. Keeping any actual Time Travel incidents very few and very far between so if ever used they have more impact instead of "oh joy... another damn time travel plot..."
Quote from: Omega on May 04, 2022, 05:17:51 PM
Overall you can drop the time travel elements as in at least the TOS era they were few and far between. Tomorrow is Yesterday being the first one where it is a major plot element. Building off an accidental short time hop in a prior episode. Assignment Earth and City at the Edge of Forever are the other two notable ones with All Our Yesterdays also being a time Travel Episode that does not feel like a time travel episode in the normal sense.
But keep in mind that at least by Rodenberry's notations. Everyone travelling in space is technically travelling in time due to time dialation. His original concept was that there was no overall dating in the normal sense for shops as their subjective time was always different. It was only mentioned in passing once far as recall.
But for whatever reasons its become one of the most over-over-over-used elements in Star Trek.
To be fair to the later series, I think the *ratio* of time travel episodes within the series remained didn't increase - it may have even gone down. There were a lot more episodes later that involved time travel, but there were a lot more episodes total. Here's one person's summary:
https://www.higgypop.com/news/star-trek-time-travel/
That's 5 out of 79 in the original series, 10 out of 178 in The Next Generation, 10 out of 176 in Deep Space Nine, 11 out of 172 in Voyager, and 12 out of 98 in Enterprise.
That's a large number of episodes, but the vast majority of episodes have no time travel - so I agree that retconning them out isn't that difficult. Taking out transporters would be a lot more difficult, as they are used in nearly every episode.
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2022, 12:05:53 AM
Quote from: Omega on May 04, 2022, 05:17:51 PM
Overall you can drop the time travel elements as in at least the TOS era they were few and far between. Tomorrow is Yesterday being the first one where it is a major plot element. Building off an accidental short time hop in a prior episode. Assignment Earth and City at the Edge of Forever are the other two notable ones with All Our Yesterdays also being a time Travel Episode that does not feel like a time travel episode in the normal sense.
But keep in mind that at least by Rodenberry's notations. Everyone travelling in space is technically travelling in time due to time dialation. His original concept was that there was no overall dating in the normal sense for shops as their subjective time was always different. It was only mentioned in passing once far as recall.
But for whatever reasons its become one of the most over-over-over-used elements in Star Trek.
To be fair to the later series, I think the *ratio* of time travel episodes within the series remained didn't increase - it may have even gone down. There were a lot more episodes later that involved time travel, but there were a lot more episodes total. Here's one person's summary:
https://www.higgypop.com/news/star-trek-time-travel/
That's 5 out of 79 in the original series, 10 out of 178 in The Next Generation, 10 out of 176 in Deep Space Nine, 11 out of 172 in Voyager, and 12 out of 98 in Enterprise.
That's a large number of episodes, but the vast majority of episodes have no time travel - so I agree that retconning them out isn't that difficult. Taking out transporters would be a lot more difficult, as they are used in nearly every episode.
The Enterprise set is already at the high end proportionately, and then you realize they didn't include many of the Temporal Cold War episodes.
Quote from: Zalman on May 04, 2022, 11:39:55 AM
Quote from: jmarso on May 04, 2022, 09:03:47 AM
If you really want to rattle the cage, try a ST campaign without transporter technology.
The Orville got this right.
Seems like the Orville is a better foundation to build a Star Trek like RPG than Star Trek. There is less lore, and less corruption from time travel episodes that would alter the time line.
It also allows you more room to venture off on your own.
Quote from: Godsmonkey on May 05, 2022, 09:46:00 AM
Quote from: Zalman on May 04, 2022, 11:39:55 AM
Quote from: jmarso on May 04, 2022, 09:03:47 AM
If you really want to rattle the cage, try a ST campaign without transporter technology.
The Orville got this right.
Seems like the Orville is a better foundation to build a Star Trek like RPG than Star Trek. There is less lore, and less corruption from time travel episodes that would alter the time line.
It also allows you more room to venture off on your own.
For now...
https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Tomorrow,_and_Tomorrow,_and_Tomorrow
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2022, 12:05:53 AM
To be fair to the later series, I think the *ratio* of time travel episodes within the series remained didn't increase - it may have even gone down. There were a lot more episodes later that involved time travel, but there were a lot more episodes total. Here's one person's summary:
https://www.higgypop.com/news/star-trek-time-travel/
That's 5 out of 79 in the original series, 10 out of 178 in The Next Generation, 10 out of 176 in Deep Space Nine, 11 out of 172 in Voyager, and 12 out of 98 in Enterprise.
That's a large number of episodes, but the vast majority of episodes have no time travel - so I agree that retconning them out isn't that difficult. Taking out transporters would be a lot more difficult, as they are used in nearly every episode.
Problem is that Enterprise skews this in a roundabout way as theres that whole "Temporal Cold War" arc. And Discovery has been doling out the time travel elements left and right. Picard too. Prior to that I'd say yes. It was not as prevalent or in some cases was time travel only in the most roundabout or superficial manner.
It even pops up as a story arc in the Star Trek early NES/SNES console games. And its all over the ST MMO.
As for Transporters. Those could actually also be easily removed and replaced with shuttles. A few episodes would need some sort of fast emergency pod like a suped up workbee for the rare few really close calls. Or other tech to extricate characters from whatever problem, or to get them into whatever problem.
Just a matter of how many hoops you want to jump through to get what you want. Much akin to say removing magic from Shadowrun. In some ways it impacts the setting not one bit as it's always treated the magic as an afterthought even when its supposedly prominent to a story.
Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2022, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2022, 12:05:53 AM
To be fair to the later series, I think the *ratio* of time travel episodes within the series remained didn't increase - it may have even gone down. There were a lot more episodes later that involved time travel, but there were a lot more episodes total. Here's one person's summary:
https://www.higgypop.com/news/star-trek-time-travel/
That's 5 out of 79 in the original series, 10 out of 178 in The Next Generation, 10 out of 176 in Deep Space Nine, 11 out of 172 in Voyager, and 12 out of 98 in Enterprise.
That's a large number of episodes, but the vast majority of episodes have no time travel - so I agree that retconning them out isn't that difficult. Taking out transporters would be a lot more difficult, as they are used in nearly every episode.
Problem is that Enterprise skews this in a roundabout way as theres that whole "Temporal Cold War" arc. And Discovery has been doling out the time travel elements left and right. Picard too. Prior to that I'd say yes. It was not as prevalent or in some cases was time travel only in the most roundabout or superficial manner.
It even pops up as a story arc in the Star Trek early NES/SNES console games. And its all over the ST MMO.
As for Transporters. Those could actually also be easily removed and replaced with shuttles. A few episodes would need some sort of fast emergency pod like a suped up workbee for the rare few really close calls. Or other tech to extricate characters from whatever problem, or to get them into whatever problem.
Just a matter of how many hoops you want to jump through to get what you want. Much akin to say removing magic from Shadowrun. In some ways it impacts the setting not one bit as it's always treated the magic as an afterthought even when its supposedly prominent to a story.
I don't think removing transporters would change much at all to the overall story - except we'd lose Mirror, Mirror (which by itself was an interesting episode like Remember Me, but got out of hand with the mirror universe episodes in DS9) and Second Chances - since a lot of the time the writers had to find some reason that transporters didn't work to maintain tension.
Quote from: migo on May 05, 2022, 04:29:54 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2022, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2022, 12:05:53 AM
To be fair to the later series, I think the *ratio* of time travel episodes within the series remained didn't increase - it may have even gone down. There were a lot more episodes later that involved time travel, but there were a lot more episodes total. Here's one person's summary:
https://www.higgypop.com/news/star-trek-time-travel/
That's 5 out of 79 in the original series, 10 out of 178 in The Next Generation, 10 out of 176 in Deep Space Nine, 11 out of 172 in Voyager, and 12 out of 98 in Enterprise.
That's a large number of episodes, but the vast majority of episodes have no time travel - so I agree that retconning them out isn't that difficult. Taking out transporters would be a lot more difficult, as they are used in nearly every episode.
Problem is that Enterprise skews this in a roundabout way as theres that whole "Temporal Cold War" arc. And Discovery has been doling out the time travel elements left and right. Picard too. Prior to that I'd say yes. It was not as prevalent or in some cases was time travel only in the most roundabout or superficial manner.
It even pops up as a story arc in the Star Trek early NES/SNES console games. And its all over the ST MMO.
As for Transporters. Those could actually also be easily removed and replaced with shuttles. A few episodes would need some sort of fast emergency pod like a suped up workbee for the rare few really close calls. Or other tech to extricate characters from whatever problem, or to get them into whatever problem.
Just a matter of how many hoops you want to jump through to get what you want. Much akin to say removing magic from Shadowrun. In some ways it impacts the setting not one bit as it's always treated the magic as an afterthought even when its supposedly prominent to a story.
I don't think removing transporters would change much at all to the overall story - except we'd lose Mirror, Mirror (which by itself was an interesting episode like Remember Me, but got out of hand with the mirror universe episodes in DS9) and Second Chances - since a lot of the time the writers had to find some reason that transporters didn't work to maintain tension.
That last part is why the Modiphius version is a heavily narrative game. In traditional games, people expect their gear (magic, tech, or magical tech) to have predictable results and not to go on the fritz for story reasons. In the narrative games, you always expect the gear to relatively unimportant unless you metacurrency it into being the most important thing.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 05, 2022, 04:43:43 PM
Quote from: migo on May 05, 2022, 04:29:54 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2022, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2022, 12:05:53 AM
To be fair to the later series, I think the *ratio* of time travel episodes within the series remained didn't increase - it may have even gone down. There were a lot more episodes later that involved time travel, but there were a lot more episodes total. Here's one person's summary:
https://www.higgypop.com/news/star-trek-time-travel/
That's 5 out of 79 in the original series, 10 out of 178 in The Next Generation, 10 out of 176 in Deep Space Nine, 11 out of 172 in Voyager, and 12 out of 98 in Enterprise.
That's a large number of episodes, but the vast majority of episodes have no time travel - so I agree that retconning them out isn't that difficult. Taking out transporters would be a lot more difficult, as they are used in nearly every episode.
Problem is that Enterprise skews this in a roundabout way as theres that whole "Temporal Cold War" arc. And Discovery has been doling out the time travel elements left and right. Picard too. Prior to that I'd say yes. It was not as prevalent or in some cases was time travel only in the most roundabout or superficial manner.
It even pops up as a story arc in the Star Trek early NES/SNES console games. And its all over the ST MMO.
As for Transporters. Those could actually also be easily removed and replaced with shuttles. A few episodes would need some sort of fast emergency pod like a suped up workbee for the rare few really close calls. Or other tech to extricate characters from whatever problem, or to get them into whatever problem.
Just a matter of how many hoops you want to jump through to get what you want. Much akin to say removing magic from Shadowrun. In some ways it impacts the setting not one bit as it's always treated the magic as an afterthought even when its supposedly prominent to a story.
I don't think removing transporters would change much at all to the overall story - except we'd lose Mirror, Mirror (which by itself was an interesting episode like Remember Me, but got out of hand with the mirror universe episodes in DS9) and Second Chances - since a lot of the time the writers had to find some reason that transporters didn't work to maintain tension.
That last part is why the Modiphius version is a heavily narrative game. In traditional games, people expect their gear (magic, tech, or magical tech) to have predictable results and not to go on the fritz for story reasons. In the narrative games, you always expect the gear to relatively unimportant unless you metacurrency it into being the most important thing.
I think that by
plagiarizing getting your inspiration from sources other than ST you might solve the transporter problem without getting rid of it altogether.
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
I don't remember the exact number but you were limited to certain ammount of kilometers, you needed several jumps between different cabins to manage to go around the globe (earth).
The speed limitation meant that both cabins had to be at a constant distance from each other and travelling at the same speed in the same direction.
Later the Pierson (titerotes in spanish sorry) are shown to have an open system which only requires a transmiter pad + receiver pad and has greater reach and tolerance for speed differentials.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 05, 2022, 04:43:43 PM
Quote from: migo on May 05, 2022, 04:29:54 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2022, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2022, 12:05:53 AM
To be fair to the later series, I think the *ratio* of time travel episodes within the series remained didn't increase - it may have even gone down. There were a lot more episodes later that involved time travel, but there were a lot more episodes total. Here's one person's summary:
https://www.higgypop.com/news/star-trek-time-travel/
That's 5 out of 79 in the original series, 10 out of 178 in The Next Generation, 10 out of 176 in Deep Space Nine, 11 out of 172 in Voyager, and 12 out of 98 in Enterprise.
That's a large number of episodes, but the vast majority of episodes have no time travel - so I agree that retconning them out isn't that difficult. Taking out transporters would be a lot more difficult, as they are used in nearly every episode.
Problem is that Enterprise skews this in a roundabout way as theres that whole "Temporal Cold War" arc. And Discovery has been doling out the time travel elements left and right. Picard too. Prior to that I'd say yes. It was not as prevalent or in some cases was time travel only in the most roundabout or superficial manner.
It even pops up as a story arc in the Star Trek early NES/SNES console games. And its all over the ST MMO.
As for Transporters. Those could actually also be easily removed and replaced with shuttles. A few episodes would need some sort of fast emergency pod like a suped up workbee for the rare few really close calls. Or other tech to extricate characters from whatever problem, or to get them into whatever problem.
Just a matter of how many hoops you want to jump through to get what you want. Much akin to say removing magic from Shadowrun. In some ways it impacts the setting not one bit as it's always treated the magic as an afterthought even when its supposedly prominent to a story.
I don't think removing transporters would change much at all to the overall story - except we'd lose Mirror, Mirror (which by itself was an interesting episode like Remember Me, but got out of hand with the mirror universe episodes in DS9) and Second Chances - since a lot of the time the writers had to find some reason that transporters didn't work to maintain tension.
That last part is why the Modiphius version is a heavily narrative game. In traditional games, people expect their gear (magic, tech, or magical tech) to have predictable results and not to go on the fritz for story reasons. In the narrative games, you always expect the gear to relatively unimportant unless you metacurrency it into being the most important thing.
I think that by plagiarizing getting your inspiration from sources other than ST you might solve the transporter problem without getting rid of it altogether.
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
I don't remember the exact number but you were limited to certain ammount of kilometers, you needed several jumps between different cabins to manage to go around the globe (earth).
The speed limitation meant that both cabins had to be at a constant distance from each other and travelling at the same speed in the same direction.
Later the Pierson (titerotes in spanish sorry) are shown to have an open system which only requires a transmiter pad + receiver pad and has greater reach and tolerance for speed differentials.
ST transporters already have a distance limit, but it's roughly 40-50k kilometers for Federation (and most other Alpha and Beta powers). OTOH, the Dominion has transporters that can beam people from nearby star systems...but they rarely make full use of it.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 05, 2022, 05:29:29 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 05, 2022, 04:43:43 PM
Quote from: migo on May 05, 2022, 04:29:54 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2022, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2022, 12:05:53 AM
To be fair to the later series, I think the *ratio* of time travel episodes within the series remained didn't increase - it may have even gone down. There were a lot more episodes later that involved time travel, but there were a lot more episodes total. Here's one person's summary:
https://www.higgypop.com/news/star-trek-time-travel/
That's 5 out of 79 in the original series, 10 out of 178 in The Next Generation, 10 out of 176 in Deep Space Nine, 11 out of 172 in Voyager, and 12 out of 98 in Enterprise.
That's a large number of episodes, but the vast majority of episodes have no time travel - so I agree that retconning them out isn't that difficult. Taking out transporters would be a lot more difficult, as they are used in nearly every episode.
Problem is that Enterprise skews this in a roundabout way as theres that whole "Temporal Cold War" arc. And Discovery has been doling out the time travel elements left and right. Picard too. Prior to that I'd say yes. It was not as prevalent or in some cases was time travel only in the most roundabout or superficial manner.
It even pops up as a story arc in the Star Trek early NES/SNES console games. And its all over the ST MMO.
As for Transporters. Those could actually also be easily removed and replaced with shuttles. A few episodes would need some sort of fast emergency pod like a suped up workbee for the rare few really close calls. Or other tech to extricate characters from whatever problem, or to get them into whatever problem.
Just a matter of how many hoops you want to jump through to get what you want. Much akin to say removing magic from Shadowrun. In some ways it impacts the setting not one bit as it's always treated the magic as an afterthought even when its supposedly prominent to a story.
I don't think removing transporters would change much at all to the overall story - except we'd lose Mirror, Mirror (which by itself was an interesting episode like Remember Me, but got out of hand with the mirror universe episodes in DS9) and Second Chances - since a lot of the time the writers had to find some reason that transporters didn't work to maintain tension.
That last part is why the Modiphius version is a heavily narrative game. In traditional games, people expect their gear (magic, tech, or magical tech) to have predictable results and not to go on the fritz for story reasons. In the narrative games, you always expect the gear to relatively unimportant unless you metacurrency it into being the most important thing.
I think that by plagiarizing getting your inspiration from sources other than ST you might solve the transporter problem without getting rid of it altogether.
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
I don't remember the exact number but you were limited to certain ammount of kilometers, you needed several jumps between different cabins to manage to go around the globe (earth).
The speed limitation meant that both cabins had to be at a constant distance from each other and travelling at the same speed in the same direction.
Later the Pierson (titerotes in spanish sorry) are shown to have an open system which only requires a transmiter pad + receiver pad and has greater reach and tolerance for speed differentials.
ST transporters already have a distance limit, but it's roughly 40-50k kilometers for Federation (and most other Alpha and Beta powers). OTOH, the Dominion has transporters that can beam people from nearby star systems...but they rarely make full use of it.
Yeah, much less for ringworld humanity ones, plus the need of TWO cabins and the speed limitations.
This means you could still have one in a shuttle but the party needs to get to it and then beam themselves (one at the time) to the mothership assuming it's in a stationary orbit around the planet.
Instead of ST matter replicators Ringworld food kitchens. The latter need to be re stocked with organic matter and can't replicate a wellington steak, they just produce nutritious bars.
In the mother ship you still get more complex kitchens that do replicate more complex foods, but still need the organic matter source. It's a little less unobtanium or handwavium or whatever.
But fuck time travel, that shit only gives me head ache.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2022, 05:08:15 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2022, 04:34:30 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2022, 02:21:48 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2022, 06:01:26 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 03, 2022, 11:25:50 PM
This is pretty easily handwaved as happening according to the original timeline. The Enterprise E did not arrive - but neither did the Borg sphere that it was chasing, so the warp flight and contact happened - just not in the altered way portrayed in the "First Contact" movie.
In general, I think Star Trek would require some changes to the canon - but other than the score or so of individual incidents, I don't think that any of the broader background needs to change. The Federation wasn't portrayed as having a time police or similar organization.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Temporal_Integrity_Commission
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Department_of_Temporal_Investigations
OK, it's a fair cop - I was wrong. Still, these aren't integral to the series, since they appear in only one episode each, it seems. Single episode continuity is pretty easy to cut. It doesn't change anything about the Federation broadly to cut these out of continuity.
I think the more significant is the Temporal Cold War that is central to the Star Trek: Enterprise, but even that doesn't affect most of the rest of the background.
I think the foundation was laid with the Gary Seven episode that demonstrated that time travel was safe and reliable enough for the Federation to use it for historical research.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Assignment:_Earth_(episode)
The first thing I would retcon regarding time travel in Trek, is that it's a dangerous and unreliable tech, not only because of the danger of altering the timeline, but simply attempting it can strand a ship in some era where there's no backup, or wind up smashing the ship into a sun. (In the case of the warp-slingshot) A desperate technique not to be used for simple sightseeing.
I agree with this. If I was going to include time travel in the setting it would be hazardous and unreliable regardless of the tech involved (otherwise the obvious answer is to seek out more advanced tech for time travel). This is part of why I considered having the "time cops" not be humanoids from the future, but instead "timeless" aliens like Q running something like the organization from Loki (perhaps with El-Aurians being their agents).
SPOILER
Picard Spoiler:
Quoting myself to add that apparently Picard (the series, not the character) has now.shown that the Travellers (including Wesley Crusher) do police the timeline and recruit agents to help them.
When I ran Star Trek, the most interesting thing I noticed was that players initially had a hard time breaking away from the adventurer mindset of doing everything themselves when there's a ship with a crew of 200 specialists in orbit just waiting to help you fulfill your mission. Once they broke that (with the honor of breaking it going to them calling upon the ship's logistics officer who turned out to be a damned fine forensic accountant) I was free to set up challenges beyond those the actual PCs had the skills for because they knew that in most situations they could call upon the ship (where the captain was established as a 'reasonable authority figure').
The only change to the lore I had to make for practicality's sake was establish that you can't actually replicate a replicator (in the game I established that key components are made from latinum; which DS9 established as intrinsically valuable because it can't be replicated... making it a key element of replicators established WHY it was so valuable in my campaign)... and the need for and disappearance of a number of industrial replicators was a key plot point during the middle stages of that campaign.
Honestly, the easiest way to deal with time travel isn't to outright ban it, just don't have it come up and say the current Federation warp drives can't perform the slingshot maneuver... it was something specific to the 23rd Century drives and the retrofit from lithium to dilithium that made it possible... modern drives just don't have the imprecision needed to allow the time travel equations to work.
If I was going to handle time travel for a Trek-like game, I'd ban it in the primary sourcebook. Just no.
And then if I really thought I had a good idea for a time travel adventure, I'd put it into a standalone module/splatbook. And then playtest the hell out of it so it would stand up to player actions.
That way GMs can opt to use it, and have a rigorously tested set of rules for it, or they can say "We don't use the 'Time Travel Doesn't Suck' expansion, because time travel always sucks."
You would also be able to say "that was only for that module" if you didn't want player characters trying to change time every single time they hit an obstacle after that point.
Quote from: Chris24601 on May 06, 2022, 10:59:05 AM
When I ran Star Trek, the most interesting thing I noticed was that players initially had a hard time breaking away from the adventurer mindset of doing everything themselves when there's a ship with a crew of 200 specialists in orbit just waiting to help you fulfill your mission. Once they broke that (with the honor of breaking it going to them calling upon the ship's logistics officer who turned out to be a damned fine forensic accountant) I was free to set up challenges beyond those the actual PCs had the skills for because they knew that in most situations they could call upon the ship (where the captain was established as a 'reasonable authority figure').
The only change to the lore I had to make for practicality's sake was establish that you can't actually replicate a replicator (in the game I established that key components are made from latinum; which DS9 established as intrinsically valuable because it can't be replicated... making it a key element of replicators established WHY it was so valuable in my campaign)... and the need for and disappearance of a number of industrial replicators was a key plot point during the middle stages of that campaign.
Honestly, the easiest way to deal with time travel isn't to outright ban it, just don't have it come up and say the current Federation warp drives can't perform the slingshot maneuver... it was something specific to the 23rd Century drives and the retrofit from lithium to dilithium that made it possible... modern drives just don't have the imprecision needed to allow the time travel equations to work.
Nice, now I can have my space pirates raiding any ship for their latinum, and/or the mines/ore transports/whatever.
IF I was to run any space game with big ships I would hand the crew to the players, ALL the crew are PCs, let them work for their glory while I handle the sector/universe and the baddies/NPCs.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
Big problem is that Ringworld teleporters kill you.
Star Trek transporters do not. (despite a hateful claim by at least one TNG writer that has been proven false.)
No one in their right mind is ever going to submit to being killed and a copy takes their place.
Quote from: Omega on May 07, 2022, 07:06:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
Big problem is that Ringworld teleporters kill you.
Star Trek transporters do not. (despite a hateful claim by at least one TNG writer that has been proven false.)
No one in their right mind is ever going to submit to being killed and a copy takes their place.
HUH? Where do you get that from?
The latest Modiphius version of Star Trek actually has a way to simulate the non-PC crew. One of the metacurrencies is the "Crew Pool" and spending a point allows players to activate a secondary character who they can also play for the rest of the session. These can be generated pretty quickly if you need a character who's not available and "Recurring Characters" get a stat bump each time they're re-used until they become the equal of an actual main PC. (Arguably, seen through this lens Kirk, Spock and McCoy were the Main PCs of the original crew and anyone else was a minor character who in some cases got re-used often enough to reach Main equivalency.)
This means that if a session requires skills that no PC has or there's a narrative reason that a player's Main can't take part in the primary focus of the session then they just use another crew member. There's hundreds if (in some cases thousands) of NPC crew members on the ship. This lets the players hand a task to them without then having to twiddle their thumbs while the GM rolls dice. It's protected from over-abuse by being a limited pool (based on the size of the ship and therefore the size of the crew) and it also solves the issue of "But what if no player wants to be the Pilot/Engineer/Whatever".
A lot of people (especially here) don't like narrative games and metacurrency. But from a mechanical perspective I'd argue that Narrative rules are the only way to make the events in a session of a Star Trek RPG feel like an episode of a Star Trek TV show without GM fiat. Attempting to run Star Trek with a simulationist ruleset ends up with something that's not actually Star Trek and just dressin up as it. The Star Fleet Battles universe is the best example of this; it looks like Star Trek but it's actually it's own very different thing (even if that thing isn't bad).
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 08, 2022, 02:26:11 AM
Quote from: Omega on May 07, 2022, 07:06:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
Big problem is that Ringworld teleporters kill you.
Star Trek transporters do not. (despite a hateful claim by at least one TNG writer that has been proven false.)
No one in their right mind is ever going to submit to being killed and a copy takes their place.
HUH? Where do you get that from?
Which part?
The Ringworld teleporter secret was discovered in the Gill the Arm stories. If I recall right he opts to keep it a secret as people would flip out if they ever found out. Im rather surprised the Puppeteers use them at all considering how paranoid about any harm they are.
The TNG bit was in an interview with one of the writers.
Whats the Big deal here??
Are you the GM of the game or campaign?
Easy solution then - there is NO 'time travel' with your player characters.
See?
Its just that easy.
However, Within 'Starfleet' there may be rumors that time travel has happened before and had ripple effects - but all of that is classified and player characters don't have to be bothered with it.
- Ed C
Quote from: Omega on May 07, 2022, 07:06:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
Star Trek transporters do not. (despite a hateful claim by at least one TNG writer that has been proven false.)
No one in their right mind is ever going to submit to being killed and a copy takes their place.
In conversations I've had with Trek fans, they seem split about 50/50 on whether transporters move a person or kill them and make a new copy. I specifically remember reading in the books that McCoy believes that it kills the original. For me, I haven't seen enough about hot it's supposed to work to have a firm opinion. Or seen a canonical opinion of whether the soul moves, which I would consider the greater issue.
Oy Vey!!
There s no "Transporter question" or 'controversy - just people ho like to argue too much.
The setting r rules f the universe say that Transporters 'work!' and SHOW them working quite often.
There....Done with it.
Everything else is geeks or nerds with too much time on their hands (Really FUN song by STYX by-the-way)
Its your campaign - just say that transporters work as advertised.
-Ed C.
Quote from: Omega on May 09, 2022, 04:21:58 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 08, 2022, 02:26:11 AM
Quote from: Omega on May 07, 2022, 07:06:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
Big problem is that Ringworld teleporters kill you.
Star Trek transporters do not. (despite a hateful claim by at least one TNG writer that has been proven false.)
No one in their right mind is ever going to submit to being killed and a copy takes their place.
HUH? Where do you get that from?
Which part?
The Ringworld teleporter secret was discovered in the Gill the Arm stories. If I recall right he opts to keep it a secret as people would flip out if they ever found out. Im rather surprised the Puppeteers use them at all considering how paranoid about any harm they are.
The TNG bit was in an interview with one of the writers.
Yes, the Ringwolrd part.
I don't remember those stories, where are they published if you remember?
Now, lets get phylosophical for a bit:
How the fuck would anyone KNOW that what came out on the other side was a copy? I mean exact same DNA, exact same memories, how would anyone prove it wasn't YOU but YOUp?
Quote from: Koltar on May 09, 2022, 05:28:03 PM
Oy Vey!!
There s no "Transporter question" or 'controversy - just people ho like to argue too much.
The setting r rules f the universe say that Transporters 'work!' and SHOW them working quite often.
There....Done with it.
Everything else is geeks or nerds with too much time on their hands (Really FUN song by STYX by-the-way)
Its your campaign - just say that transporters work as advertised.
-Ed C.
Oh teh humanities!
Nerds arguing over nerdy things on a nerdy forum! What new type of degeneracy is this? Don't those nerds have any decency or something better to do instead of playing those childish games?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:19:35 PM
Quote from: Koltar on May 09, 2022, 05:28:03 PM
Oy Vey!!
There s no "Transporter question" or 'controversy - just people ho like to argue too much.
The setting r rules f the universe say that Transporters 'work!' and SHOW them working quite often.
There....Done with it.
Everything else is geeks or nerds with too much time on their hands (Really FUN song by STYX by-the-way)
Its your campaign - just say that transporters work as advertised.
-Ed C.
Oh teh humanities!
Nerds arguing over nerdy things on a nerdy forum! What new type of degeneracy is this? Don't those nerds have any decency or something better to do instead of playing those childish games?
No kidding. Imagine if the geek stuff was almost the only thing two posters here could agree to discuss civilly. Be a shame not to do so, right?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 09, 2022, 04:21:58 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 08, 2022, 02:26:11 AM
Quote from: Omega on May 07, 2022, 07:06:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
Big problem is that Ringworld teleporters kill you.
Star Trek transporters do not. (despite a hateful claim by at least one TNG writer that has been proven false.)
No one in their right mind is ever going to submit to being killed and a copy takes their place.
HUH? Where do you get that from?
Which part?
The Ringworld teleporter secret was discovered in the Gill the Arm stories. If I recall right he opts to keep it a secret as people would flip out if they ever found out. Im rather surprised the Puppeteers use them at all considering how paranoid about any harm they are.
The TNG bit was in an interview with one of the writers.
I don't remember those stories, where are they published if you remember?
"The Long Arm of Gil Hamilton," which I happen to own, and "Flatlander." He's also shown up in various anthologies. A bit obscure but well worth the read if you're a Niven fan.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Now, lets get phylosophical for a bit:
How the fuck would anyone KNOW that what came out on the other side was a copy? I mean exact same DNA, exact same memories, how would anyone prove it wasn't YOU but YOUp?
They don't. Which makes it an amusing point of argument even among ST characters. You can approach it from various directions with logic and philosophy, but the question can't be settled empirically.
Quote from: Mishihari on May 10, 2022, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Now, lets get phylosophical for a bit:
How the fuck would anyone KNOW that what came out on the other side was a copy? I mean exact same DNA, exact same memories, how would anyone prove it wasn't YOU but YOUp?
They don't. Which makes it an amusing point of argument even among ST characters. You can approach it from various directions with logic and philosophy, but the question can't be settled empirically.
They should just use a soul-o-meter to detect if the transport-ee still has their soul.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/04/egon-pke-meter.jpg)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Now, lets get phylosophical for a bit:
How the fuck would anyone KNOW that what came out on the other side was a copy? I mean exact same DNA, exact same memories, how would anyone prove it wasn't YOU but YOUp?
Its been shown more than a few times that people are still conscious while being beamed.
As for Ringworld. I'll have to look it up. Probably near the end of the Gil series.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 10, 2022, 12:36:08 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 10, 2022, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Now, lets get phylosophical for a bit:
How the fuck would anyone KNOW that what came out on the other side was a copy? I mean exact same DNA, exact same memories, how would anyone prove it wasn't YOU but YOUp?
They don't. Which makes it an amusing point of argument even among ST characters. You can approach it from various directions with logic and philosophy, but the question can't be settled empirically.
They should just use a soul-o-meter to detect if the transport-ee still has their soul.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/04/egon-pke-meter.jpg)
But does it detect displaced Vulcan souls stuck in other people?
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 09, 2022, 10:59:33 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:19:35 PM
Quote from: Koltar on May 09, 2022, 05:28:03 PM
Oy Vey!!
There s no "Transporter question" or 'controversy - just people ho like to argue too much.
The setting r rules f the universe say that Transporters 'work!' and SHOW them working quite often.
There....Done with it.
Everything else is geeks or nerds with too much time on their hands (Really FUN song by STYX by-the-way)
Its your campaign - just say that transporters work as advertised.
-Ed C.
Oh teh humanities!
Nerds arguing over nerdy things on a nerdy forum! What new type of degeneracy is this? Don't those nerds have any decency or something better to do instead of playing those childish games?
No kidding. Imagine if the geek stuff was almost the only thing two posters here could agree to discuss civilly. Be a shame not to do so, right?
Right.
Quote from: Mishihari on May 10, 2022, 12:06:19 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 09, 2022, 04:21:58 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 08, 2022, 02:26:11 AM
Quote from: Omega on May 07, 2022, 07:06:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
Big problem is that Ringworld teleporters kill you.
Star Trek transporters do not. (despite a hateful claim by at least one TNG writer that has been proven false.)
No one in their right mind is ever going to submit to being killed and a copy takes their place.
HUH? Where do you get that from?
Which part?
The Ringworld teleporter secret was discovered in the Gill the Arm stories. If I recall right he opts to keep it a secret as people would flip out if they ever found out. Im rather surprised the Puppeteers use them at all considering how paranoid about any harm they are.
The TNG bit was in an interview with one of the writers.
I don't remember those stories, where are they published if you remember?
"The Long Arm of Gil Hamilton," which I happen to own, and "Flatlander." He's also shown up in various anthologies. A bit obscure but well worth the read if you're a Niven fan.
Damn, I've read all the Ringworld, including the Protector and I'm buying the Kzin wars now there's some more books I need to buy!?
Welp, can't be helped, now... How to break it to the wife? ;D
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 10, 2022, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 10, 2022, 12:36:08 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 10, 2022, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Now, lets get phylosophical for a bit:
How the fuck would anyone KNOW that what came out on the other side was a copy? I mean exact same DNA, exact same memories, how would anyone prove it wasn't YOU but YOUp?
They don't. Which makes it an amusing point of argument even among ST characters. You can approach it from various directions with logic and philosophy, but the question can't be settled empirically.
They should just use a soul-o-meter to detect if the transport-ee still has their soul.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/04/egon-pke-meter.jpg)
But does it detect displaced Vulcan souls stuck in other people?
Beat me to it.
Quote from: Omega on May 10, 2022, 01:38:54 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Now, lets get phylosophical for a bit:
How the fuck would anyone KNOW that what came out on the other side was a copy? I mean exact same DNA, exact same memories, how would anyone prove it wasn't YOU but YOUp?
Its been shown more than a few times that people are still conscious while being beamed.
As for Ringworld. I'll have to look it up. Probably near the end of the Gil series.
IF we grant that teleportation is possible and on the other side comes out someone with your exact DNA, memories, etc, couldn't it be possible for the consciousness to be transmited?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2022, 07:12:32 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 10, 2022, 12:06:19 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 09, 2022, 04:21:58 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 08, 2022, 02:26:11 AM
Quote from: Omega on May 07, 2022, 07:06:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
Big problem is that Ringworld teleporters kill you.
Star Trek transporters do not. (despite a hateful claim by at least one TNG writer that has been proven false.)
No one in their right mind is ever going to submit to being killed and a copy takes their place.
HUH? Where do you get that from?
Which part?
The Ringworld teleporter secret was discovered in the Gill the Arm stories. If I recall right he opts to keep it a secret as people would flip out if they ever found out. Im rather surprised the Puppeteers use them at all considering how paranoid about any harm they are.
The TNG bit was in an interview with one of the writers.
I don't remember those stories, where are they published if you remember?
"The Long Arm of Gil Hamilton," which I happen to own, and "Flatlander." He's also shown up in various anthologies. A bit obscure but well worth the read if you're a Niven fan.
Damn, I've read all the Ringworld, including the Protector and I'm buying the Kzin wars now there's some more books I need to buy!?
Welp, can't be helped, now... How to break it to the wife? ;D
Good news - I checked just now and the books I mentioned are two different names for the same books.
Bad news - I think Niven's best work is the Moties series with Pournelle. You might want to check those out too.
The soul/continuity issue is far from the only problem with transporters and not even the worst one. The "proof" that transporters don't kill you and create a clone at the other end is just the writers declaring what they want to be the case and then inventing a string of Treknobabble to justify for anyone who doesn't think to hard about it. Which is fair enough, because that's the only reason transporters function the way they do in the first place. When your FTL drive and artificial gravity aren't the most scientifically implausible things on your ship it's time to give up on any scientific explanations and handwave it as Space Magic.
But there are also applications of the in-universe science and logic that don't add up, which is worse for me. A fictional setting doesn't need to abide by the rules of the real world but it should abide by its own in a consistent way.
My main transporter issue is with regard to the Changelings from DS9. Supposedly it's impossible for any sensor to detect that someone is really a Changeling in disguise- presumably this includes the sensors built into a transporter pad. Fooling a transporter into thinking you're not what you really are while it's in the process of disassembling you and putting you back together on a molecular level strikes me as not being a smart idea. If the transporter thinks you're a human when it beams you somewhere, surely a human is what you'll be when you appear on the other side?
Then there's the fact the Latinum supposedly can't be replicated but can be beamed around with transporters with no apparent issues. Or how the various weird transporter glitches from throughout the show's history can't be deliberately reproduced in a lab.
If splitting the transporter beam and letting the second beam reflect back and rematerialize, then transporters definitely preform some replication on the other receiving end. The original is atomized and and wholly or partially transferred as a particle beam for subsequent reassembly. None replicateable material could still be disintegrated and reassembled from their unique constituents with filler material sourced locally. Ultimately, it is a production conceit that causes no end of narrative limitations amplified by inconsistent continuity. In game it should probably be represented by a transporter availably table that mostly produces transport not possible due to treknobable when under duress.
Quote from: Mishihari on May 11, 2022, 12:42:14 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2022, 07:12:32 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 10, 2022, 12:06:19 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 09, 2022, 04:21:58 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 08, 2022, 02:26:11 AM
Quote from: Omega on May 07, 2022, 07:06:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2022, 05:20:31 PM
In Ringworld humanity has transporters, they are closed cabins and have a distance/speed limitation.
Big problem is that Ringworld teleporters kill you.
Star Trek transporters do not. (despite a hateful claim by at least one TNG writer that has been proven false.)
No one in their right mind is ever going to submit to being killed and a copy takes their place.
HUH? Where do you get that from?
Which part?
The Ringworld teleporter secret was discovered in the Gill the Arm stories. If I recall right he opts to keep it a secret as people would flip out if they ever found out. Im rather surprised the Puppeteers use them at all considering how paranoid about any harm they are.
The TNG bit was in an interview with one of the writers.
I don't remember those stories, where are they published if you remember?
"The Long Arm of Gil Hamilton," which I happen to own, and "Flatlander." He's also shown up in various anthologies. A bit obscure but well worth the read if you're a Niven fan.
Damn, I've read all the Ringworld, including the Protector and I'm buying the Kzin wars now there's some more books I need to buy!?
Welp, can't be helped, now... How to break it to the wife? ;D
Good news - I checked just now and the books I mentioned are two different names for the same books.
Bad news - I think Niven's best work is the Moties series with Pournelle. You might want to check those out too.
Great!
Oh no! Stop, just stop, I'm not made out of gold! And the wife is liable to murderize me, not only for the money but the space...
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 11, 2022, 03:54:02 AM
The soul/continuity issue is far from the only problem with transporters and not even the worst one. The "proof" that transporters don't kill you and create a clone at the other end is just the writers declaring what they want to be the case and then inventing a string of Treknobabble to justify for anyone who doesn't think to hard about it. Which is fair enough, because that's the only reason transporters function the way they do in the first place. When your FTL drive and artificial gravity aren't the most scientifically implausible things on your ship it's time to give up on any scientific explanations and handwave it as Space Magic.
But there are also applications of the in-universe science and logic that don't add up, which is worse for me. A fictional setting doesn't need to abide by the rules of the real world but it should abide by its own in a consistent way.
My main transporter issue is with regard to the Changelings from DS9. Supposedly it's impossible for any sensor to detect that someone is really a Changeling in disguise- presumably this includes the sensors built into a transporter pad. Fooling a transporter into thinking you're not what you really are while it's in the process of disassembling you and putting you back together on a molecular level strikes me as not being a smart idea. If the transporter thinks you're a human when it beams you somewhere, surely a human is what you'll be when you appear on the other side?
Then there's the fact the Latinum supposedly can't be replicated but can be beamed around with transporters with no apparent issues. Or how the various weird transporter glitches from throughout the show's history can't be deliberately reproduced in a lab.
Yes, the setting should be internally consistent, thus questions like the transporters, time travel, FTL travel, etc need to be handled BEFORE the game starts.
Anything that doesn't make sense from an inworld perspective should be dropped or changed so it is internalñly consistent.
IMHO any deus ex machina that allows to fix what shouldn't be fixable (death, world destruction, etc.) should be thrown into mount doom.
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 11, 2022, 03:54:02 AM
My main transporter issue is with regard to the Changelings from DS9. Supposedly it's impossible for any sensor to detect that someone is really a Changeling in disguise- presumably this includes the sensors built into a transporter pad. Fooling a transporter into thinking you're not what you really are while it's in the process of disassembling you and putting you back together on a molecular level strikes me as not being a smart idea. If the transporter thinks you're a human when it beams you somewhere, surely a human is what you'll be when you appear on the other side?
Then there's the fact the Latinum supposedly can't be replicated but can be beamed around with transporters with no apparent issues. Or how the various weird transporter glitches from throughout the show's history can't be deliberately reproduced in a lab.
While there are a lot of transporter inconsistencies, I think there are explanations for these.
As I handled it in my Star Trek campaigns, the transporter is ultimately an analog technology that requires and projects the original matter. So when the transporter works perfectly, all of the person's atoms are put into a beam and reassembled on the other side. It can also handle some losses - so if there is disruption of the signal, it can add in some additional matter to fill in the gaps. It can handle losses of a little over 50%.
Like other analog technologies, this doesn't mean that everything transported can be replicated later or is fully understood. By analogy, just because I could photocopy a document back in 1960, that didn't mean that all of the documents copied were saved to disk and could be created again later on command. ​I also couldn't automatically detect forgeries using 1960 photocopy technology.
According to this, it is possible for a single transport to duplicate the target using the gap-filling of the pattern buffer - just like using partial mirrors, one could use analog imaging to project an image twice. But an original is always required, because the entire image isn't saved digitally.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 10, 2022, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 10, 2022, 12:36:08 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 10, 2022, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Now, lets get phylosophical for a bit:
How the fuck would anyone KNOW that what came out on the other side was a copy? I mean exact same DNA, exact same memories, how would anyone prove it wasn't YOU but YOUp?
They don't. Which makes it an amusing point of argument even among ST characters. You can approach it from various directions with logic and philosophy, but the question can't be settled empirically.
They should just use a soul-o-meter to detect if the transport-ee still has their soul.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/04/egon-pke-meter.jpg)
But does it detect displaced Vulcan souls stuck in other people?
In the the Final Frontier novelization it was revealed that Vulcans like to stick their elders souls in jars. A few were not given a choice and effectively given a solitary prison sentence.
Quote from: Omega on May 12, 2022, 06:16:47 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 10, 2022, 07:32:22 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 10, 2022, 12:36:08 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 10, 2022, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 09, 2022, 10:13:47 PM
Now, lets get phylosophical for a bit:
How the fuck would anyone KNOW that what came out on the other side was a copy? I mean exact same DNA, exact same memories, how would anyone prove it wasn't YOU but YOUp?
They don't. Which makes it an amusing point of argument even among ST characters. You can approach it from various directions with logic and philosophy, but the question can't be settled empirically.
They should just use a soul-o-meter to detect if the transport-ee still has their soul.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/04/egon-pke-meter.jpg)
But does it detect displaced Vulcan souls stuck in other people?
In the the Final Frontier novelization it was revealed that Vulcans like to stick their elders souls in jars. A few were not given a choice and effectively given a solitary prison sentence.
That's something I think I'll feature even less than time travel.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2022, 07:16:24 PM
IF we grant that teleportation is possible and on the other side comes out someone with your exact DNA, memories, etc, couldn't it be possible for the consciousness to be transmited?
Known Space shows that the teleporter does indeed kill the original and make a copy at the destination. If I recall right it either was revealed in an accident/malfunction where the original wasnt killed. Or more likely some criminal was using it to be in 2 places at once to commit some crime. The Puppeteers confirm this and that there is no soul or afterlife. Which makes their casual use of the teleporter all the more baffling considering their intense fear of death or injury.
TNG though played very loosy goosy with the teleporters.
Quote from: Omega on May 12, 2022, 06:34:20 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2022, 07:16:24 PM
IF we grant that teleportation is possible and on the other side comes out someone with your exact DNA, memories, etc, couldn't it be possible for the consciousness to be transmited?
Known Space shows that the teleporter does indeed kill the original and make a copy at the destination. If I recall right it either was revealed in an accident/malfunction where the original wasnt killed. Or more likely some criminal was using it to be in 2 places at once to commit some crime. The Puppeteers confirm this and that there is no soul or afterlife. Which makes their casual use of the teleporter all the more baffling considering their intense fear of death or injury.
TNG though played very loosy goosy with the teleporters.
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Quote from: Omega on May 12, 2022, 06:34:20 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2022, 07:16:24 PM
IF we grant that teleportation is possible and on the other side comes out someone with your exact DNA, memories, etc, couldn't it be possible for the consciousness to be transmited?
Known Space shows that the teleporter does indeed kill the original and make a copy at the destination. If I recall right it either was revealed in an accident/malfunction where the original wasnt killed. Or more likely some criminal was using it to be in 2 places at once to commit some crime. The Puppeteers confirm this and that there is no soul or afterlife. Which makes their casual use of the teleporter all the more baffling considering their intense fear of death or injury.
TNG though played very loosy goosy with the teleporters.
If transporters by design killed the original, then it would be very easy to use transporter technology to just create a duplicate, and it wouldn't be a big deal that Vorta have a series of clones. So that would indicate that you're not getting disassembled at the molecular or submolecular level and then being reassembled, but rather that you are in your entirety being shifted into another dimension/subspace for the transport. That's also consistent with when there isn't a strong enough signal or the transport gets blocked you re-materialize where you started instead of just dying.
So what you'd be getting there is an ad-hoc wormhole. The entrance to the wormhole forms around you, that way you're shifted to the wormhole dimension, and the transporter beam tries to open another entrance at the target location. If that fails, then you just leave through the original entrance that you came in through. So it's like Portal.
Quote from: migo on May 12, 2022, 06:45:40 PM
If transporters by design killed the original, then it would be very easy to use transporter technology to just create a duplicate, and it wouldn't be a big deal that Vorta have a series of clones. So that would indicate that you're not getting disassembled at the molecular or submolecular level and then being reassembled, but rather that you are in your entirety being shifted into another dimension/subspace for the transport. That's also consistent with when there isn't a strong enough signal or the transport gets blocked you re-materialize where you started instead of just dying.
I think the disintegrate and reintegrate model is more akin to lost wax casting back in to wax. You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted. Thus, transporters can and have created a duplicate in a transport malfunction, but nominally can only make one output per pattern per input. The micro wormhole is probably how the matter beam is able to span a large distance in minimal time. Lack of death from a minor malfunction is probably one of the few safety features Trek has. If the "pattern" is not delivered to the destination for reconstitution then the original safely collapses back into its pattern at the origin.
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
Quote from: Mishihari on May 12, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
Except that is has been shown that they can maintain a pattern in the buffer for decades, and they can sometimes look back at the pattern to correct issues arising post-transport.
Quote from: Omega on May 12, 2022, 06:34:20 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2022, 07:16:24 PM
IF we grant that teleportation is possible and on the other side comes out someone with your exact DNA, memories, etc, couldn't it be possible for the consciousness to be transmited?
Known Space shows that the teleporter does indeed kill the original and make a copy at the destination. If I recall right it either was revealed in an accident/malfunction where the original wasnt killed. Or more likely some criminal was using it to be in 2 places at once to commit some crime. The Puppeteers confirm this and that there is no soul or afterlife. Which makes their casual use of the teleporter all the more baffling considering their intense fear of death or injury.
TNG though played very loosy goosy with the teleporters.
Funny I have read Ringworld (All 4 novels) several times and don't recall that.
IF the teleporter did kill you then the puppeteers wouldn't use it, they even refuse to travel in subspace (IIRC that's the name for FTL) and that's not guaranteed to kill you.
But I'll bite:
Lets say it does kill YOU and on the other side an exat duplicate is created that somehow has all of your memories, exact DNA and personality...
If you cut a tree in the forest and the tree doesn't fall and shows no signs of ever being cut... Did you REALLY cut the tree?
I don't even need the Soul to defeat that argument.
Furthermore, like I've said before: How the fuck would ANYONE be able to demonstrate the YOU on the exit cabin (Or pad in the Puppeteers case) is but a duplicate and not really YOU?
Again, it has ALL of your memories, personality, quirks and all and your exact DNA, scars, etc. How does anyone demonstrate it's not really YOU but YOUp?
The lore says so! Well in the first novel the lore didn't account for stuff and Ringworld was unstable. Something some Physics students made very clear to Niven and gave him the math, he came up with a solution that was incorporated in Ringworld 2: The Ringworld Engineers.
I remain unconvinced that the transporters kill you and create a duplicate. And IF the Puppeteers "demonstrated" there's no soul or afterlife... Well thats one way less anyone could have to demonstrate it's not you.
So, how is it demonstrated (beyond the say so of the lying sacks of shit of the Puppeteers) that it is so?
And the Puppeteers ARE lying sacks of shit as demonstrated once and again in the novels. Manipulative, lying sacks of shit.
Quote from: Mishihari on May 12, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
LOL, you are A-Okay with FTL travel but balk at the ammount of information? On a show that has a handheld medical thingy that can diagnosticate ANYTHING on ANY species? A comunicator/universal translator built in the pin insignias of the crew? Rayguns that can act both as tasers and as death/disintegrator rays? With holodecks that not only project but the projections are solid, have smell, taste, etc?
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:49:30 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 12, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
Except that is has been shown that they can maintain a pattern in the buffer for decades, and they can sometimes look back at the pattern to correct issues arising post-transport.
The thing is, IMHO, you either accept the tech or don't, it all depends on you as the GM and how close you want to stay to canon.
I'm happy with large ammounts of handwavium, unobtanium, etc. As long as it's internally consistent. So FTL because Warp Drives powered by Dilithium Crystals (It's a gas really), fine.
Teleporting exists? Fine
The Tricorder is a thing? Perfect
I balk at time travel because it's a fucking mess and I have never seen it handled well. I'm open to be proven wrong tho.
I would just put some hard limits on both the tricorder and the teleporter, the first can make educated guesses on some species, on others not so much until it is given a good set of data about them. And the teleporter is a closed system, two cabins are needed and a cabin can transport only one living being at the time. Plus some distance/speed limits and it stops being the deus exmachina that saves the PCs from their stupidity. They have to run to the shuttle and get transported one at the time IF the mothership is in a synchronus orbit at a certain distance from the planet.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:49:30 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 12, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
Except that is has been shown that they can maintain a pattern in the buffer for decades, and they can sometimes look back at the pattern to correct issues arising post-transport.
None of this has any real-world science, but I think there is some possibility of more consistent handling of this that fits most (though not all) episode logic.
I suggested earlier that the pattern buffer seems to be more of an analog quantum image - not digital instructions that let you replicate the target at any time on command. It can be modified to some extent, just like how early photography could have some effects to the image. A completed transport requires either a material target or a saved pattern buffer. Either one gets used up in the process.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:16:37 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 12, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
LOL, you are A-Okay with FTL travel but balk at the ammount of information? On a show that has a handheld medical thingy that can diagnosticate ANYTHING on ANY species? A comunicator/universal translator built in the pin insignias of the crew? Rayguns that can act both as tasers and as death/disintegrator rays? With holodecks that not only project but the projections are solid, have smell, taste, etc?
You've hit on a pet peeve of mine. The idea that if one accepts some unrealistic thing in fiction, then one must accept all unrealistic things. This quickly leads off into flying foo-foo land where reality is everything in the players imagination. I didn't say that it should be impossible to store all of that info in a Trek universe, just that if one wanted a plausible reason for a limitation, then data quantity wouldn't be a bad one. Most of the tech you mentioned isn't all that wild. I can at least imagine how it might work. Transporters, on the other hand, look like a technology about a thousand years down the line in development time from the rest. I would just as rather take it out if it weren't such a ST trope.
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 12:24:58 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:16:37 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 12, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
LOL, you are A-Okay with FTL travel but balk at the ammount of information? On a show that has a handheld medical thingy that can diagnosticate ANYTHING on ANY species? A comunicator/universal translator built in the pin insignias of the crew? Rayguns that can act both as tasers and as death/disintegrator rays? With holodecks that not only project but the projections are solid, have smell, taste, etc?
You've hit on a pet peeve of mine. The idea that if one accepts some unrealistic thing in fiction, then one must accept all unrealistic things. This quickly leads off into flying foo-foo land where reality is everything in the players imagination. I didn't say that it should be impossible to store all of that info in a Trek universe, just that if one wanted a plausible reason for a limitation, then data quantity wouldn't be a bad one. Most of the tech you mentioned isn't all that wild. I can at least imagine how it might work. Transporters, on the other hand, look like a technology about a thousand years down the line in development time from the rest. I would just as rather take it out if it weren't such a ST trope.
WUT?
I'm talking about ST's canon, what does that have to do with players pulling stuff from their ass?
I do agree that Trnasporters NEED some hard set limits for an RPG. But to do so I have to break from canon and my players must be okay with me doing so.
Same for the tricorder, it needs carved on stone limits.
Either that or both technologies have to be jetizoned IMHO.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 12:34:40 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 12:24:58 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:16:37 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 12, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
LOL, you are A-Okay with FTL travel but balk at the ammount of information? On a show that has a handheld medical thingy that can diagnosticate ANYTHING on ANY species? A comunicator/universal translator built in the pin insignias of the crew? Rayguns that can act both as tasers and as death/disintegrator rays? With holodecks that not only project but the projections are solid, have smell, taste, etc?
You've hit on a pet peeve of mine. The idea that if one accepts some unrealistic thing in fiction, then one must accept all unrealistic things. This quickly leads off into flying foo-foo land where reality is everything in the players imagination. I didn't say that it should be impossible to store all of that info in a Trek universe, just that if one wanted a plausible reason for a limitation, then data quantity wouldn't be a bad one. Most of the tech you mentioned isn't all that wild. I can at least imagine how it might work. Transporters, on the other hand, look like a technology about a thousand years down the line in development time from the rest. I would just as rather take it out if it weren't such a ST trope.
WUT?
I'm talking about ST's canon, what does that have to do with players pulling stuff from their ass?
I do agree that Trnasporters NEED some hard set limits for an RPG. But to do so I have to break from canon and my players must be okay with me doing so.
Same for the tricorder, it needs carved on stone limits.
Either that or both technologies have to be jetizoned IMHO.
The comment was aimed more at your point of "if you can accept ftl how can you have data limitations?" than the specifics of Trek, so not entirely on-topic. It's a faulty argument that leads to all kinds of bad things. It's also heard in the context of D&D: "If it's okay to have fanciful things like dragons why can't I have a robot/vampire necromancer?"
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:09:48 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 12, 2022, 06:34:20 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2022, 07:16:24 PM
IF we grant that teleportation is possible and on the other side comes out someone with your exact DNA, memories, etc, couldn't it be possible for the consciousness to be transmited?
Known Space shows that the teleporter does indeed kill the original and make a copy at the destination. If I recall right it either was revealed in an accident/malfunction where the original wasnt killed. Or more likely some criminal was using it to be in 2 places at once to commit some crime. The Puppeteers confirm this and that there is no soul or afterlife. Which makes their casual use of the teleporter all the more baffling considering their intense fear of death or injury.
TNG though played very loosy goosy with the teleporters.
Funny I have read Ringworld (All 4 novels) several times and don't recall that.
Omega said it came up in the Gil Hamilton of ARM stories. Which is possible -- the ARM is all about suppressing technologies that are too dangerous for the public to know about, so most of the stories read like secret histories or conspiracy theories, which subvert established elements of the setting.
But I don't remember it coming up there, either. And even if it did, it's from an early period in both the the development and internal chronology of Known Space. Rather than being suppressed, teleporters are so ubiquitous by the time of Ringworld. The first novel starts with the protagonist teleporting around the world to extend his birthday. It's everyday technology, and humanity of the time is far more technologically advanced than in the time of Gil Hamilton. So you'd think the truth would have come out. Not only that, but the first major stop in Ringworld is the Puppeteer homeworld, where teleportation is even more advanced. And the Puppeteers are smarter than humans, even more advanced, and terrified of injury or death, but still use the technology. So even if there's a Gil story that says teleportation is death, it's never referenced again, and it's clearly contradicted by the main events of Known Space. So even in the best case, it's a random idea that was dropped like a stone.
I don't remember it either and I think I've read all but a few of the Known Space books. Which story was it?
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Quote from: Pat on May 13, 2022, 01:47:51 AM
Omega said it came up in the Gil Hamilton of ARM stories. Which is possible -- the ARM is all about suppressing technologies that are too dangerous for the public to know about, so most of the stories read like secret histories or conspiracy theories, which subvert established elements of the setting.
But I don't remember it coming up there, either.
The Teleporter Kills you part is from the Gil/ARM series far as I recall. The Puppeteer comment on souls is In either the first or second Ringworld book.
Still trying to pin down where the teleporter reveal was. And since Im not seeing it in the first 3 Gil stories its either in the 4th, some ARM story, or I am misremembering.
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 01:45:55 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 12:34:40 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 12:24:58 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:16:37 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 12, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
LOL, you are A-Okay with FTL travel but balk at the ammount of information? On a show that has a handheld medical thingy that can diagnosticate ANYTHING on ANY species? A comunicator/universal translator built in the pin insignias of the crew? Rayguns that can act both as tasers and as death/disintegrator rays? With holodecks that not only project but the projections are solid, have smell, taste, etc?
You've hit on a pet peeve of mine. The idea that if one accepts some unrealistic thing in fiction, then one must accept all unrealistic things. This quickly leads off into flying foo-foo land where reality is everything in the players imagination. I didn't say that it should be impossible to store all of that info in a Trek universe, just that if one wanted a plausible reason for a limitation, then data quantity wouldn't be a bad one. Most of the tech you mentioned isn't all that wild. I can at least imagine how it might work. Transporters, on the other hand, look like a technology about a thousand years down the line in development time from the rest. I would just as rather take it out if it weren't such a ST trope.
WUT?
I'm talking about ST's canon, what does that have to do with players pulling stuff from their ass?
I do agree that Trnasporters NEED some hard set limits for an RPG. But to do so I have to break from canon and my players must be okay with me doing so.
Same for the tricorder, it needs carved on stone limits.
Either that or both technologies have to be jetizoned IMHO.
The comment was aimed more at your point of "if you can accept ftl how can you have data limitations?" than the specifics of Trek, so not entirely on-topic. It's a faulty argument that leads to all kinds of bad things. It's also heard in the context of D&D: "If it's okay to have fanciful things like dragons why can't I have a robot/vampire necromancer?"
Except the thread is about a GM wanting to run ST and what he wants or doesn't in his game. In that vein my comments are also from the GM PoV.
But do keep on telling me how me pointing all of the super tech in the setting invalidates your point about data is the same as players wanting to justify anything because dragons.
Quote from: Pat on May 13, 2022, 01:47:51 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:09:48 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 12, 2022, 06:34:20 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 10, 2022, 07:16:24 PM
IF we grant that teleportation is possible and on the other side comes out someone with your exact DNA, memories, etc, couldn't it be possible for the consciousness to be transmited?
Known Space shows that the teleporter does indeed kill the original and make a copy at the destination. If I recall right it either was revealed in an accident/malfunction where the original wasnt killed. Or more likely some criminal was using it to be in 2 places at once to commit some crime. The Puppeteers confirm this and that there is no soul or afterlife. Which makes their casual use of the teleporter all the more baffling considering their intense fear of death or injury.
TNG though played very loosy goosy with the teleporters.
Funny I have read Ringworld (All 4 novels) several times and don't recall that.
Omega said it came up in the Gil Hamilton of ARM stories. Which is possible -- the ARM is all about suppressing technologies that are too dangerous for the public to know about, so most of the stories read like secret histories or conspiracy theories, which subvert established elements of the setting.
But I don't remember it coming up there, either. And even if it did, it's from an early period in both the the development and internal chronology of Known Space. Rather than being suppressed, teleporters are so ubiquitous by the time of Ringworld. The first novel starts with the protagonist teleporting around the world to extend his birthday. It's everyday technology, and humanity of the time is far more technologically advanced than in the time of Gil Hamilton. So you'd think the truth would have come out. Not only that, but the first major stop in Ringworld is the Puppeteer homeworld, where teleportation is even more advanced. And the Puppeteers are smarter than humans, even more advanced, and terrified of injury or death, but still use the technology. So even if there's a Gil story that says teleportation is death, it's never referenced again, and it's clearly contradicted by the main events of Known Space. So even in the best case, it's a random idea that was dropped like a stone.
I haven't read any of those, so if it's there I have no way to know.
But your point about the Puppeteers is the same one I made and I do think it invalidates all "transporters kill you" from any earlier period in time. Hell maybe at some point they did and then the tech got perfected, something that's backed by your point about the ARM.
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2022, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Anything NuTrek isn't Star Trek and that's a hill I'm ready to die on.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2022, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Anything NuTrek isn't Star Trek and that's a hill I'm ready to die on.
Lower Decks is good Trek.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
That was a little on the silly side, yes. I would expect something like that to be in a more modern era Trek series (say late Voyager or the Picard timeframe) but not prior to Kirk.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2022, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Anything NuTrek isn't Star Trek and that's a hill I'm ready to die on.
Lower Decks is good Trek.
IF sincere this here proves you have a shitty taste and should be ashamed of yourself.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:55:05 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2022, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Anything NuTrek isn't Star Trek and that's a hill I'm ready to die on.
Lower Decks is good Trek.
IF sincere this here proves you have a shitty taste and should be ashamed of yourself.
Have you watched it?
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 05:02:08 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:55:05 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2022, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Anything NuTrek isn't Star Trek and that's a hill I'm ready to die on.
Lower Decks is good Trek.
IF sincere this here proves you have a shitty taste and should be ashamed of yourself.
Have you watched it?
Penis joke, fart joke, men are useles, slay kween... Yes, saw a chapter or two. It is shit, maggot infested shit.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 05:14:37 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 05:02:08 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:55:05 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2022, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Anything NuTrek isn't Star Trek and that's a hill I'm ready to die on.
Lower Decks is good Trek.
IF sincere this here proves you have a shitty taste and should be ashamed of yourself.
Have you watched it?
Penis joke, fart joke, men are useles, slay kween... Yes, saw a chapter or two. It is shit, maggot infested shit.
Season two gets somewhat more serious, much like Orville, and similarly is better for it. Not saying you'll necessarily like it, but it might be worth watching a bit more before giving up on it entirely.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2022, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Anything NuTrek isn't Star Trek and that's a hill I'm ready to die on.
I haven't watched anything since Enterprise and haven't even watched all of Voyager, since I think Star Trek's time has passed and we need some new IPs with new stories, but why do you feel it isn't Star Trek at all?
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 05:14:37 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 05:02:08 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:55:05 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2022, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Anything NuTrek isn't Star Trek and that's a hill I'm ready to die on.
Lower Decks is good Trek.
IF sincere this here proves you have a shitty taste and should be ashamed of yourself.
Have you watched it?
Penis joke, fart joke, men are useles, slay kween... Yes, saw a chapter or two. It is shit, maggot infested shit.
Season two gets somewhat more serious, much like Orville, and similarly is better for it. Not saying you'll necessarily like it, but it might be worth watching a bit more before giving up on it entirely.
No thanks, not gonna waste anymore of my time on the slim possibility I don't hate it.
Quote from: migo on May 13, 2022, 05:27:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2022, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Anything NuTrek isn't Star Trek and that's a hill I'm ready to die on.
I haven't watched anything since Enterprise and haven't even watched all of Voyager, since I think Star Trek's time has passed and we need some new IPs with new stories, but why do you feel it isn't Star Trek at all?
Spok is an emotional wreck, Kirk is an idiot, running, pew, pew and no substance. That's just the movies.
The series... All officers are incompetent insubordinate idiots and the command is even worst. Screams, running, spok is an emotional wrek, Picard is a bumbling idiot, Wahmen can, men are useless, Klingon look like shit, I could go on.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 06:47:49 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 05:21:57 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 05:14:37 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 05:02:08 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:55:05 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2022, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Anything NuTrek isn't Star Trek and that's a hill I'm ready to die on.
Lower Decks is good Trek.
IF sincere this here proves you have a shitty taste and should be ashamed of yourself.
Have you watched it?
Penis joke, fart joke, men are useles, slay kween... Yes, saw a chapter or two. It is shit, maggot infested shit.
Season two gets somewhat more serious, much like Orville, and similarly is better for it. Not saying you'll necessarily like it, but it might be worth watching a bit more before giving up on it entirely.
No thanks, not gonna waste anymore of my time on the slim possibility I don't hate it.
Gotta say, Lower Decks is more Trek than the shit that Paramount is still shoveling out there. The best Trek on TV right now is The Orville, Lower Decks is still pretty good in comparison.
In a lot of ways, Paramount has become like WotC in how little care they have for their customer base.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 01:45:55 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 12:34:40 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 12:24:58 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:16:37 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 12, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
LOL, you are A-Okay with FTL travel but balk at the ammount of information? On a show that has a handheld medical thingy that can diagnosticate ANYTHING on ANY species? A comunicator/universal translator built in the pin insignias of the crew? Rayguns that can act both as tasers and as death/disintegrator rays? With holodecks that not only project but the projections are solid, have smell, taste, etc?
You've hit on a pet peeve of mine. The idea that if one accepts some unrealistic thing in fiction, then one must accept all unrealistic things. This quickly leads off into flying foo-foo land where reality is everything in the players imagination. I didn't say that it should be impossible to store all of that info in a Trek universe, just that if one wanted a plausible reason for a limitation, then data quantity wouldn't be a bad one. Most of the tech you mentioned isn't all that wild. I can at least imagine how it might work. Transporters, on the other hand, look like a technology about a thousand years down the line in development time from the rest. I would just as rather take it out if it weren't such a ST trope.
WUT?
I'm talking about ST's canon, what does that have to do with players pulling stuff from their ass?
I do agree that Trnasporters NEED some hard set limits for an RPG. But to do so I have to break from canon and my players must be okay with me doing so.
Same for the tricorder, it needs carved on stone limits.
Either that or both technologies have to be jetizoned IMHO.
The comment was aimed more at your point of "if you can accept ftl how can you have data limitations?" than the specifics of Trek, so not entirely on-topic. It's a faulty argument that leads to all kinds of bad things. It's also heard in the context of D&D: "If it's okay to have fanciful things like dragons why can't I have a robot/vampire necromancer?"
Except the thread is about a GM wanting to run ST and what he wants or doesn't in his game. In that vein my comments are also from the GM PoV.
But do keep on telling me how me pointing all of the super tech in the setting invalidates your point about data is the same as players wanting to justify anything because dragons.
Do you always get so testy when you just don't get it? I'll try one more time, simple as I can. Just because there is amazing tech in a setting doesn't mean that there should be no technological limitations. The data limitation idea was just a reasonable example of that.
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 08:16:57 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 01:45:55 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 12:34:40 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 12:24:58 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:16:37 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 12, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
LOL, you are A-Okay with FTL travel but balk at the ammount of information? On a show that has a handheld medical thingy that can diagnosticate ANYTHING on ANY species? A comunicator/universal translator built in the pin insignias of the crew? Rayguns that can act both as tasers and as death/disintegrator rays? With holodecks that not only project but the projections are solid, have smell, taste, etc?
You've hit on a pet peeve of mine. The idea that if one accepts some unrealistic thing in fiction, then one must accept all unrealistic things. This quickly leads off into flying foo-foo land where reality is everything in the players imagination. I didn't say that it should be impossible to store all of that info in a Trek universe, just that if one wanted a plausible reason for a limitation, then data quantity wouldn't be a bad one. Most of the tech you mentioned isn't all that wild. I can at least imagine how it might work. Transporters, on the other hand, look like a technology about a thousand years down the line in development time from the rest. I would just as rather take it out if it weren't such a ST trope.
WUT?
I'm talking about ST's canon, what does that have to do with players pulling stuff from their ass?
I do agree that Trnasporters NEED some hard set limits for an RPG. But to do so I have to break from canon and my players must be okay with me doing so.
Same for the tricorder, it needs carved on stone limits.
Either that or both technologies have to be jetizoned IMHO.
The comment was aimed more at your point of "if you can accept ftl how can you have data limitations?" than the specifics of Trek, so not entirely on-topic. It's a faulty argument that leads to all kinds of bad things. It's also heard in the context of D&D: "If it's okay to have fanciful things like dragons why can't I have a robot/vampire necromancer?"
Except the thread is about a GM wanting to run ST and what he wants or doesn't in his game. In that vein my comments are also from the GM PoV.
But do keep on telling me how me pointing all of the super tech in the setting invalidates your point about data is the same as players wanting to justify anything because dragons.
Do you always get so testy when you just don't get it? I'll try one more time, simple as I can. Just because there is amazing tech in a setting doesn't mean that there should be no technological limitations. The data limitation idea was just a reasonable example of that.
Do you always backtrak while pretending you're not doing so?
What happened with "transporters exist = anything goes because dragons!"
I never said there should be no limitations, in fact if you cared to read you'd find out I DEMAND hard limits on both the transporters and the tricorder. But yours makes no sense IMHO and so I pointed that out.
Also good try with the "Why so angry bro?" but no cigar.
To throw some fuel on the fire about ST transporters...
There's an episode of ST:tNG where a transporter accident creates two Riker's. The "original" gets (unintentionally) marooned on a planet, and the "copy" becomes the character we've known for years at the point. Both characters believe they are the original.
So...this episode makes ST transporters, murder machines. And there is no soul (or at least, no unique soul).
Quote from: Novastar on May 13, 2022, 10:04:35 PM
To throw some fuel on the fire about ST transporters...
There's an episode of ST:tNG where a transporter accident creates two Riker's. The "original" gets (unintentionally) marooned on a planet, and the "copy" becomes the character we've known for years at the point. Both characters believe they are the original.
So...this episode makes ST transporters, murder machines. And there is no soul (or at least, no unique soul).
Creating copies is a logical conclusion from the buffer and it holding the date for decades. As for the soul thing how would they know? do they have any way to prove it exists or doesn't?
IIRC, the "holding data for decades" was a trick Scotty got to do ONCE, and even the Next Gen crew were like "Whoa! That worked!?!" (edit: It worked for Scotty; not the red shirt with him)
Let's also not forget a power fluctuation killed two crew members, in the Original Motion Picture (poor Spock's replacement...).
I don't know if we can prove there's a soul, in Star Trek (or real life).
edit: But it didn't make a mindless copy, or even a bland one. They both considered themselves to be the original.
Quote from: Novastar on May 13, 2022, 10:21:24 PM
IIRC, the "holding data for decades" was a trick Scotty got to do ONCE, and even the Next Gen crew were like "Whoa! That worked!?!" (edit: It worked for Scotty; not the red shirt with him)
Let's also not forget a power fluctuation killed two crew members, in the Original Motion Picture (poor Spock's replacement...).
I don't know if we can prove there's a soul, in Star Trek (or real life).
edit: But it didn't make a mindless copy, or even a bland one. They both considered themselves to be the original.
I'm not going into the IRL stuff.
But on ST so both strikers had the same personality, is consciousness = soul on ST? I don't remember they ever adressing that issue but then my memory isn't what it used to be so maybe they did.
But that's a very minor and secondary point.
Without a malfunction killing you, how does the copy thing prove the transporter kills you? IMHO at best it proves it can work as a replicator.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 06:51:59 PM
Quote from: migo on May 13, 2022, 05:27:44 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:43:56 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2022, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 06:37:33 PM
Newer series have continued ued to get loose with the transporter. Strange New Worlds allows for gearing up mid teleport (into new outfits and such) along with beaming medicine directly into people from great distances.
Exactly and its only gotten worse over time because the writers either do not care, or never bothered, to learn how anything in the setting is supposed to work. Its like how they completely fucked up time travel, warp speeds, holodecks, robots, and on down the list. Is there anything left they have not fucked up yet?
Anything NuTrek isn't Star Trek and that's a hill I'm ready to die on.
I haven't watched anything since Enterprise and haven't even watched all of Voyager, since I think Star Trek's time has passed and we need some new IPs with new stories, but why do you feel it isn't Star Trek at all?
Spok is an emotional wreck, Kirk is an idiot, running, pew, pew and no substance. That's just the movies.
The series... All officers are incompetent insubordinate idiots and the command is even worst. Screams, running, spok is an emotional wrek, Picard is a bumbling idiot, Wahmen can, men are useless, Klingon look like shit, I could go on.
Ah yeah, I'd completely forgotten about the movies. I watched the first two of nu-Trek. I thought one was a good Star Wars movie, but not Star Trek at all. Two was both not Star Trek and it was crap.
Quote from: Novastar on May 13, 2022, 10:04:35 PM
To throw some fuel on the fire about ST transporters...
There's an episode of ST:tNG where a transporter accident creates two Riker's. The "original" gets (unintentionally) marooned on a planet, and the "copy" becomes the character we've known for years at the point. Both characters believe they are the original.
So...this episode makes ST transporters, murder machines. And there is no soul (or at least, no unique soul).
Transporters have been "duplicating" people since the original series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnUqGTNezME&t=5s
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 10:31:26 PM
Without a malfunction killing you, how does the copy thing prove the transporter kills you? IMHO at best it proves it can work as a replicator.
The idea that a teleporter kills you is on the basis that the *only* thing the teleporter does is create a copy of you on the other side. It scans you, sends the information about you to the other end, and another you is created from matter that exists over there. At that point, all of the original you still exists on the sending end - so it kills you just as an afterthought. If it just didn't do that last step, the normal result would be two copies every time.
That isn't how transporters are implied to function in Star Trek, though. The implication is that the physical atoms of a person are sent through the beam to the other side and reassembled.
I think the accidental duplication of Riker is best explained as the result of error corrections. Some atoms may be lost in transport, so additional matter is injected in to fill in the gaps - using the context to fill in between. Normally this is less than 1%, but in an extreme case, as much as 50% can be lost and still produce a successful transport - because taking out half a random half of the atoms of a pattern still lets you infer the rest. So each copy got half of Riker's original matter, and the rest was inferred.
Quote from: jhkim on May 14, 2022, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 10:31:26 PM
Without a malfunction killing you, how does the copy thing prove the transporter kills you? IMHO at best it proves it can work as a replicator.
The idea that a teleporter kills you is on the basis that the *only* thing the teleporter does is create a copy of you on the other side. It scans you, sends the information about you to the other end, and another you is created from matter that exists over there. At that point, all of the original you still exists on the sending end - so it kills you just as an afterthought. If it just didn't do that last step, the normal result would be two copies every time.
That isn't how transporters are implied to function in Star Trek, though. The implication is that the physical atoms of a person are sent through the beam to the other side and reassembled.
I think the accidental duplication of Riker is best explained as the result of error corrections. Some atoms may be lost in transport, so additional matter is injected in to fill in the gaps - using the context to fill in between. Normally this is less than 1%, but in an extreme case, as much as 50% can be lost and still produce a successful transport - because taking out half a random half of the atoms of a pattern still lets you infer the rest. So each copy got half of Riker's original matter, and the rest was inferred.
But in ST we SEE how you're FIRST disintegrated and THEN reintegrated in the destination.
I think the writters thought it was a cool idea (IT IS) and then wrote the episodes without consideration to what that would mean for the setting.
IMHO such tech wouldn't be of widespread use among the freaking military if it could malfunction like that. Just imagine you sudenly have two COs? WTF is the crew going to do?
And if you could end with two can you end with more? could you end with none?
Nope, as cool as it is no freaking military would use such tech on their war vehicles, to transport even their highest ranking officers and politicians? And alien dignataries? Nop, no freaking way.
So of the two Rikers, which had a soul and which was soulless?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 09:31:23 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 08:16:57 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 01:45:55 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 12:34:40 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 13, 2022, 12:24:58 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:16:37 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on May 12, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 12, 2022, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 12, 2022, 08:55:22 PM
You need on original master for the transporter pattern and the pattern is lost once the subject is reconstituted.
There's no good reason why the pattern would be lost if the pattern is just information, so it has to be something else that gets stored temporarily in the "pattern buffer" but I'm not sure what it would be other than handwavium.
The position, state, and bonds of every atom within a human body is just a crazy amount of information. It wouldn't be too implausible to say that the transporter processes it in batches as it goes and doesn't ever retain the whole set of information.
LOL, you are A-Okay with FTL travel but balk at the ammount of information? On a show that has a handheld medical thingy that can diagnosticate ANYTHING on ANY species? A comunicator/universal translator built in the pin insignias of the crew? Rayguns that can act both as tasers and as death/disintegrator rays? With holodecks that not only project but the projections are solid, have smell, taste, etc?
You've hit on a pet peeve of mine. The idea that if one accepts some unrealistic thing in fiction, then one must accept all unrealistic things. This quickly leads off into flying foo-foo land where reality is everything in the players imagination. I didn't say that it should be impossible to store all of that info in a Trek universe, just that if one wanted a plausible reason for a limitation, then data quantity wouldn't be a bad one. Most of the tech you mentioned isn't all that wild. I can at least imagine how it might work. Transporters, on the other hand, look like a technology about a thousand years down the line in development time from the rest. I would just as rather take it out if it weren't such a ST trope.
WUT?
I'm talking about ST's canon, what does that have to do with players pulling stuff from their ass?
I do agree that Trnasporters NEED some hard set limits for an RPG. But to do so I have to break from canon and my players must be okay with me doing so.
Same for the tricorder, it needs carved on stone limits.
Either that or both technologies have to be jetizoned IMHO.
The comment was aimed more at your point of "if you can accept ftl how can you have data limitations?" than the specifics of Trek, so not entirely on-topic. It's a faulty argument that leads to all kinds of bad things. It's also heard in the context of D&D: "If it's okay to have fanciful things like dragons why can't I have a robot/vampire necromancer?"
Except the thread is about a GM wanting to run ST and what he wants or doesn't in his game. In that vein my comments are also from the GM PoV.
But do keep on telling me how me pointing all of the super tech in the setting invalidates your point about data is the same as players wanting to justify anything because dragons.
Do you always get so testy when you just don't get it? I'll try one more time, simple as I can. Just because there is amazing tech in a setting doesn't mean that there should be no technological limitations. The data limitation idea was just a reasonable example of that.
Do you always backtrak while pretending you're not doing so?
What happened with "transporters exist = anything goes because dragons!"
I never said there should be no limitations, in fact if you cared to read you'd find out I DEMAND hard limits on both the transporters and the tricorder. But yours makes no sense IMHO and so I pointed that out.
Also good try with the "Why so angry bro?" but no cigar.
No backtracking here, just trying to have a conversation about a simple idea that you don't seem to understand. I thought those were pretty good examples to explain it, but it didn't work so I returned to the fundamental idea.
And it sounds like you genuinely don't realize you're being a jerk, so rather than argue further or lob insults I'll just suggest that you work on your communication skills.
Quote from: Pat on May 14, 2022, 03:34:37 PM
So of the two Rikers, which had a soul and which was soulless?
I'd say neither, but DS9 with Sisko as the Prophet suggests there is such a thing as a soul in ST.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Lower Decks is good Trek.
Good at mocking Star Trek and spitting on it? Yeah its good trek all right.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 14, 2022, 12:48:51 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 14, 2022, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 10:31:26 PM
Without a malfunction killing you, how does the copy thing prove the transporter kills you? IMHO at best it proves it can work as a replicator.
The idea that a teleporter kills you is on the basis that the *only* thing the teleporter does is create a copy of you on the other side. It scans you, sends the information about you to the other end, and another you is created from matter that exists over there. At that point, all of the original you still exists on the sending end - so it kills you just as an afterthought. If it just didn't do that last step, the normal result would be two copies every time.
That isn't how transporters are implied to function in Star Trek, though. The implication is that the physical atoms of a person are sent through the beam to the other side and reassembled.
I think the accidental duplication of Riker is best explained as the result of error corrections. Some atoms may be lost in transport, so additional matter is injected in to fill in the gaps - using the context to fill in between. Normally this is less than 1%, but in an extreme case, as much as 50% can be lost and still produce a successful transport - because taking out half a random half of the atoms of a pattern still lets you infer the rest. So each copy got half of Riker's original matter, and the rest was inferred.
But in ST we SEE how you're FIRST disintegrated and THEN reintegrated in the destination.
We also see people conscious, talking and acting while in the process of transport.
We see Roga Danar able to "break out" of a transport beam. How the hell does that work?
In addition to the craziness of what it 'normally' does, it doesn't help that over the decades, how transporters work, and what they're capable of, is wildly inconsistent.
Quote from: Omega on May 15, 2022, 01:43:01 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Lower Decks is good Trek.
Good at mocking Star Trek and spitting on it? Yeah its good trek all right.
Mocking can be benevolent. Orville mocks Star Trek too, and it is still generally pro-Trek. Also, Mandalorian at times mocks Star Wars (see the two biker troopers near end of season 1), and yet it is still generally good Star Wars.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:16:37 PM
LOL, you are A-Okay with FTL travel but balk at the ammount of information? On a show that has a handheld medical thingy that can diagnosticate ANYTHING on ANY species? A comunicator/universal translator built in the pin insignias of the crew? Rayguns that can act both as tasers and as death/disintegrator rays? With holodecks that not only project but the projections are solid, have smell, taste, etc?
Since every era updates the cosmetic appearance of everything I fully expect a future series to have phasers and hyposprays as short thin sticks, the tricorder will be a transparent sphere and the new uniforms will be ankle length and come with pointy hats.
Quote from: Omega on May 15, 2022, 01:43:01 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Lower Decks is good Trek.
Good at mocking Star Trek and spitting on it? Yeah its good trek all right.
Dude, Star Trek has been mocking itself since Voyager. Lower Decks at least doesn't have to rely on a woman's ass in a silvery catsuit to get viewers.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 15, 2022, 06:22:33 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 14, 2022, 12:48:51 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 14, 2022, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 13, 2022, 10:31:26 PM
Without a malfunction killing you, how does the copy thing prove the transporter kills you? IMHO at best it proves it can work as a replicator.
The idea that a teleporter kills you is on the basis that the *only* thing the teleporter does is create a copy of you on the other side. It scans you, sends the information about you to the other end, and another you is created from matter that exists over there. At that point, all of the original you still exists on the sending end - so it kills you just as an afterthought. If it just didn't do that last step, the normal result would be two copies every time.
That isn't how transporters are implied to function in Star Trek, though. The implication is that the physical atoms of a person are sent through the beam to the other side and reassembled.
I think the accidental duplication of Riker is best explained as the result of error corrections. Some atoms may be lost in transport, so additional matter is injected in to fill in the gaps - using the context to fill in between. Normally this is less than 1%, but in an extreme case, as much as 50% can be lost and still produce a successful transport - because taking out half a random half of the atoms of a pattern still lets you infer the rest. So each copy got half of Riker's original matter, and the rest was inferred.
But in ST we SEE how you're FIRST disintegrated and THEN reintegrated in the destination.
We also see people conscious, talking and acting while in the process of transport.
We see Roga Danar able to "break out" of a transport beam. How the hell does that work?
In addition to the craziness of what it 'normally' does, it doesn't help that over the decades, how transporters work, and what they're capable of, is wildly inconsistent.
Which is the main complaint of most people. It should be internally consistent, IDGAF if it's scientifically plausible, I want internal consistency.
So, If I were to run a game in ST, I would make some changes to the known lore to make stuff consistent and to negate all the deus ex machina mcguffins.
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 15, 2022, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 15, 2022, 01:43:01 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Lower Decks is good Trek.
Good at mocking Star Trek and spitting on it? Yeah its good trek all right.
Dude, Star Trek has been mocking itself since Voyager. Lower Decks at least doesn't have to rely on a woman's ass in a silvery catsuit to get viewers.
Oh noes! A show with a mainly male target audience has atractive women in sexy costumes! That's not halal!
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 15, 2022, 03:40:01 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 15, 2022, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 15, 2022, 01:43:01 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Lower Decks is good Trek.
Good at mocking Star Trek and spitting on it? Yeah its good trek all right.
Dude, Star Trek has been mocking itself since Voyager. Lower Decks at least doesn't have to rely on a woman's ass in a silvery catsuit to get viewers.
Oh noes! A show with a mainly male target audience has atractive women in sexy costumes! That's not halal!
It also doesn't tend to generate good scripts for episodes.
But, you'll overlook like that for the zinger.
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 15, 2022, 07:35:29 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 15, 2022, 03:40:01 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 15, 2022, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 15, 2022, 01:43:01 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Lower Decks is good Trek.
Good at mocking Star Trek and spitting on it? Yeah its good trek all right.
Dude, Star Trek has been mocking itself since Voyager. Lower Decks at least doesn't have to rely on a woman's ass in a silvery catsuit to get viewers.
Oh noes! A show with a mainly male target audience has atractive women in sexy costumes! That's not halal!
It also doesn't tend to generate good scripts for episodes.
But, you'll overlook like that for the zinger.
No, the zinger are all the fart/dick jokes and making every single male character the butt of the joke on ST: Lower IQ
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 15, 2022, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 15, 2022, 07:35:29 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 15, 2022, 03:40:01 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 15, 2022, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 15, 2022, 01:43:01 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Lower Decks is good Trek.
Good at mocking Star Trek and spitting on it? Yeah its good trek all right.
Dude, Star Trek has been mocking itself since Voyager. Lower Decks at least doesn't have to rely on a woman's ass in a silvery catsuit to get viewers.
Oh noes! A show with a mainly male target audience has atractive women in sexy costumes! That's not halal!
It also doesn't tend to generate good scripts for episodes.
But, you'll overlook like that for the zinger.
No, the zinger are all the fart/dick jokes and making every single male character the butt of the joke on ST: Lower IQ
Damn, dude. There is something wrong when you feel emasculated by a cartoon.
Quote from: jeff37923
No, the zinger are all the fart/dick jokes and making every single male character the butt of the joke on ST: Lower IQ
/quote]
Damn, dude. There is something wrong when you feel emasculated by a cartoon.
Damn Jeff,
Everything you've posted in this thread I tend to agree with.
This is very weird.
- Ed C.
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 16, 2022, 12:28:27 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 15, 2022, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 15, 2022, 07:35:29 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 15, 2022, 03:40:01 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 15, 2022, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 15, 2022, 01:43:01 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Lower Decks is good Trek.
Good at mocking Star Trek and spitting on it? Yeah its good trek all right.
Dude, Star Trek has been mocking itself since Voyager. Lower Decks at least doesn't have to rely on a woman's ass in a silvery catsuit to get viewers.
Oh noes! A show with a mainly male target audience has atractive women in sexy costumes! That's not halal!
It also doesn't tend to generate good scripts for episodes.
But, you'll overlook like that for the zinger.
No, the zinger are all the fart/dick jokes and making every single male character the butt of the joke on ST: Lower IQ
Damn, dude. There is something wrong when you feel emasculated by a cartoon.
So we now can add to your faults pretending to read minds.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 16, 2022, 02:30:21 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 16, 2022, 12:28:27 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 15, 2022, 07:39:28 PM
No, the zinger are all the fart/dick jokes and making every single male character the butt of the joke on ST: Lower IQ
Damn, dude. There is something wrong when you feel emasculated by a cartoon.
So we now can add to your faults pretending to read minds.
Wait? These two have minds??? 8)
Back on topic. Such as it is.
Star Trek has suffered from the age old problem of many a series where subesequent writers just dont give a fuck. Combined with the usual escalation these shows tend to suffer. Star Trek has not quite gotten to Star Wars level but it is well on its way. The nu-Trek movies far more so. And the more the writers dont give a fuck the worse it gets. Some of it is building off the stupid of Voyager and TNG. Voyager in particular. But even DS9 got in on the act.
As said early on in the thread. You can cut out Time Travel and Teleporters and not impact a Star Trek RPG session at all. You just need to either consider what impact it had and now to get the same results differently. Or the easier option is to simply sideline timetravel to so rare the PCs are never going to encounter it. Or in the case of Teleporters, just say the ship doesnt have one. Theres nothing that says every ship has to.
Then roll with it.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 16, 2022, 02:30:21 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 16, 2022, 12:28:27 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 15, 2022, 07:39:28 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 15, 2022, 07:35:29 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 15, 2022, 03:40:01 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 15, 2022, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 15, 2022, 01:43:01 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 13, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Lower Decks is good Trek.
Good at mocking Star Trek and spitting on it? Yeah its good trek all right.
Dude, Star Trek has been mocking itself since Voyager. Lower Decks at least doesn't have to rely on a woman's ass in a silvery catsuit to get viewers.
Oh noes! A show with a mainly male target audience has atractive women in sexy costumes! That's not halal!
It also doesn't tend to generate good scripts for episodes.
But, you'll overlook like that for the zinger.
No, the zinger are all the fart/dick jokes and making every single male character the butt of the joke on ST: Lower IQ
Damn, dude. There is something wrong when you feel emasculated by a cartoon.
So we now can add to your faults pretending to read minds.
No mind reading needed. Your posts show that Star Trek: Lower Decks makes your penis feel small. That you lack enough of a sense of humor to be offended by the show just puts you square in scold territory. You are bleating like a sheep over a science fiction franchise that has been milked dry.
Quote from: Omega on May 16, 2022, 03:16:07 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 16, 2022, 02:30:21 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 16, 2022, 12:28:27 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 15, 2022, 07:39:28 PM
No, the zinger are all the fart/dick jokes and making every single male character the butt of the joke on ST: Lower IQ
Damn, dude. There is something wrong when you feel emasculated by a cartoon.
So we now can add to your faults pretending to read minds.
Wait? These two have minds??? 8)
I don't until I've had my coffee...
Quote from: Omega on May 16, 2022, 03:16:07 AM
Back on topic. Such as it is.
Star Trek has suffered from the age old problem of many a series where subesequent writers just dont give a fuck. Combined with the usual escalation these shows tend to suffer. Star Trek has not quite gotten to Star Wars level but it is well on its way. The nu-Trek movies far more so. And the more the writers dont give a fuck the worse it gets. Some of it is building off the stupid of Voyager and TNG. Voyager in particular. But even DS9 got in on the act.
As said early on in the thread. You can cut out Time Travel and Teleporters and not impact a Star Trek RPG session at all. You just need to either consider what impact it had and now to get the same results differently. Or the easier option is to simply sideline timetravel to so rare the PCs are never going to encounter it. Or in the case of Teleporters, just say the ship doesnt have one. Theres nothing that says every ship has to.
Then roll with it.
I don't think that it is that the writers don't give a fuck. I think that the writers do not know how to write for a franchise that has been written to death. One of the reasons why nu-Trek works in its own way is that it erased all of the baggage from TNG, DS9, Voy, and Ent - with a clean slate, the writers had more wiggle room to maneuver, but even then they couldn't under the burden of the weight of Paramount's producers and directors (remember that these are the same people who got the rights to an awesome franchise in HALO and decided to create a series with people who had never played the game, thus not catering to the lucrative fan market whose profit from enticed them to buy the rights to begin with). One of the reasons why Picard doesn't work is because instead of new stories, they dragged the old stars of TNG and Voy out of retirement and back on to the sound stage (and Patrick Stewart is definitely showing his age).
Quote from: Koltar on May 16, 2022, 12:40:17 AM
Quote from: jeff37923
No, the zinger are all the fart/dick jokes and making every single male character the butt of the joke on ST: Lower IQ
/quote]
Damn, dude. There is something wrong when you feel emasculated by a cartoon.
Damn Jeff,
Everything you've posted in this thread I tend to agree with.
This is very weird.
- Ed C.
I know! I'm checking the temperature in Hell right now! 8) ;D
By the way, how did your Star Trek campaign go for your friend?
I think that if anyone ever wants to do Star Trek- most realistically for an RPG campaign- they'll have to sit down and decide what elements of it are canon and which elements are not. This doesn't even have to be due to politics (though it will be if dealing with anything from the last 10-15 years) but simply the inevitable drift and sprawl a decades-old franchise that's been through the hands of multiple writers who didn't consult or research with one another to keep things straight. Everything made by Star Trek from the end of the Kirk era has been mostly written by people who don't know the minutiae of the lore like a hardcore Trekkie does and and canon that's been added to enough begins to contradict itself.
One of my main points to re-work in any Trek canon I'd control would be hand phasers and the nerfing thereof. Back in TOS, a hand phaser was a horribly deadly weapon. Phaser combat usually consisted on one person pulling a trigger and the fight being over- buildings could be blown up and crowds rendered unconscious by a single shot from a phaser.
Then TNG arrives- and more importantly, Star Wars happened between it and the end of TOS.
With later shows when a phaser fight did happen the directors seemed to want to make things more exciting by having the battles be like Star Wars- people duck and dive around cover while throwing sparkly light at one another. Which worked with blasters in Star Wars, but in Trek- why don't they set the phaser to high-intensity disruption and blow up the cover and whoever's behind it? They keep missing- what happened to the wide angle settings, or why not use sustained beam and walk the shot onto the enemy?
It's one of my pet peeves, and players in the ST game I ran were sometimes shocked to find what hand phasers were capable of and how short and deadly phaser combat was. It's a good thing the Modiphius game has metacurrency because the way I ran things it was "whoever doesn't shoot first, spend metacurrency to not be removed from the fight".
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 16, 2022, 09:37:24 AM
It's one of my pet peeves, and players in the ST game I ran were sometimes shocked to find what hand phasers were capable of and how short and deadly phaser combat was. It's a good thing the Modiphius game has metacurrency because the way I ran things it was "whoever doesn't shoot first, spend metacurrency to not be removed from the fight".
Games about massive crewed ships probably lend themselves better to storygame where treknobabling a problem comes down to a single engineering roll instead of roleplaying the poor sod interacting with inconsistent imaginary tech.
Your idea on the lethality of phasers is probably well suited for transporters. They are safe and reliable when the transporter operator can take a 20, but under duress or canonically questionable circumstances trigger a save vs death. Now beaming is not an easy button solution and arranging for safe transport induces game play instead of eliminating it.
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 16, 2022, 09:37:24 AM
I think that if anyone ever wants to do Star Trek- most realistically for an RPG campaign- they'll have to sit down and decide what elements of it are canon and which elements are not. This doesn't even have to be due to politics (though it will be if dealing with anything from the last 10-15 years) but simply the inevitable drift and sprawl a decades-old franchise that's been through the hands of multiple writers who didn't consult or research with one another to keep things straight. Everything made by Star Trek from the end of the Kirk era has been mostly written by people who don't know the minutiae of the lore like a hardcore Trekkie does and and canon that's been added to enough begins to contradict itself.
One of my main points to re-work in any Trek canon I'd control would be hand phasers and the nerfing thereof. Back in TOS, a hand phaser was a horribly deadly weapon. Phaser combat usually consisted on one person pulling a trigger and the fight being over- buildings could be blown up and crowds rendered unconscious by a single shot from a phaser.
IIRC the original TOS RPG had phasers that would disintegrate on the higher settings.
Actually, that would explain the lack of high tech tanks and other vehicles besides shuttles in Star Trek. Granted, a tank with a Phaser Cannon would be pretty terrifying, but it could be disintegrated by a red shirt with a hand phaser...
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 17, 2022, 03:00:23 AM
Actually, that would explain the lack of high tech tanks and other vehicles besides shuttles in Star Trek. Granted, a tank with a Phaser Cannon would be pretty terrifying, but it could be disintegrated by a red shirt with a hand phaser...
A Star Trek tank would have shields. Arguably, even a lightly armored vehicle could carry shields, though there is probably a point at which that's not cost-effective.
As for the lack of tanks, I think it is more a matter that Star Trek focuses on the Space Navy and not on the army or marines. There have been references to Starfleet Marines, in concept at least, but I haven't seen much of them on screen besides some scattered concept art of Security guys in helmets and chestplates with phaser rifles. At this point, though, there is a lot of Trek I haven't bothered watching.
You could also argue that a Trek starship trumps pretty much everything planetside, unless planetary shields are in place. Didn't the Enterprise set the ship's phasers to wide beam stun once? The plan was to stun an entire city or something.
Quote from: Lurkndog on May 17, 2022, 12:05:43 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 17, 2022, 03:00:23 AM
Actually, that would explain the lack of high tech tanks and other vehicles besides shuttles in Star Trek. Granted, a tank with a Phaser Cannon would be pretty terrifying, but it could be disintegrated by a red shirt with a hand phaser...
A Star Trek tank would have shields. Arguably, even a lightly armored vehicle could carry shields, though there is probably a point at which that's not cost-effective.
As for the lack of tanks, I think it is more a matter that Star Trek focuses on the Space Navy and not on the army or marines. There have been references to Starfleet Marines, in concept at least, but I haven't seen much of them on screen besides some scattered concept art of Security guys in helmets and chestplates with phaser rifles. At this point, though, there is a lot of Trek I haven't bothered watching.
You could also argue that a Trek starship trumps pretty much everything planetside, unless planetary shields are in place. Didn't the Enterprise set the ship's phasers to wide beam stun once? The plan was to stun an entire city or something.
Also even tho (almost) all the ships we're shown are military the Enterprise isn't in a military mission, even if they do engage in battle. It's always space battle they aren't exporting Federation Democracy to other planets.
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 16, 2022, 09:37:24 AM
I think that if anyone ever wants to do Star Trek- most realistically for an RPG campaign- they'll have to sit down and decide what elements of it are canon and which elements are not. This doesn't even have to be due to politics (though it will be if dealing with anything from the last 10-15 years) but simply the inevitable drift and sprawl a decades-old franchise that's been through the hands of multiple writers who didn't consult or research with one another to keep things straight. Everything made by Star Trek from the end of the Kirk era has been mostly written by people who don't know the minutiae of the lore like a hardcore Trekkie does and and canon that's been added to enough begins to contradict itself.
Even within the Kirk era, there are tons of internal inconsistencies. The original and animated series had all the big problem issues: warp drive time travel, open-ended time travel, transporter duplication, saving and changing in mid-transport, and so forth. They got some great writers like Larry Niven and Harlan Ellison, but the writers often didn't know the lore like in later series.
When I ran a Kirk-era Star Trek campaign, my approach was that *all* the episodes were roughly as true to in-game reality as believable "based on a true story" dramas. So no details of episodes were guaranteed real, but the broad points were correct. I avoided time travel entirely, like the OP suggested. There were many rumors of time travel but it was similar to Area 51 and aliens for the real world. It was theoretically possible, but any use of it was either a hoax or very well covered up.
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 16, 2022, 09:37:24 AM
One of my main points to re-work in any Trek canon I'd control would be hand phasers and the nerfing thereof. Back in TOS, a hand phaser was a horribly deadly weapon. Phaser combat usually consisted on one person pulling a trigger and the fight being over- buildings could be blown up and crowds rendered unconscious by a single shot from a phaser.
Quote from: Tantavalist on May 16, 2022, 09:37:24 AM
It's one of my pet peeves, and players in the ST game I ran were sometimes shocked to find what hand phasers were capable of and how short and deadly phaser combat was. It's a good thing the Modiphius game has metacurrency because the way I ran things it was "whoever doesn't shoot first, spend metacurrency to not be removed from the fight".
Yeah. Once you're hit with a phaser, you're down was my rule for Star Trek. There were still a handful of exceptions in the Kirk era, like the Horta, but they are very rare. I would sometimes feature extended hand-to-hand combat, but phaser combat was very quick.
Quote from: Lurkndog on May 17, 2022, 12:05:43 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 17, 2022, 03:00:23 AM
Actually, that would explain the lack of high tech tanks and other vehicles besides shuttles in Star Trek. Granted, a tank with a Phaser Cannon would be pretty terrifying, but it could be disintegrated by a red shirt with a hand phaser...
A Star Trek tank would have shields. Arguably, even a lightly armored vehicle could carry shields, though there is probably a point at which that's not cost-effective.
As for the lack of tanks, I think it is more a matter that Star Trek focuses on the Space Navy and not on the army or marines. There have been references to Starfleet Marines, in concept at least, but I haven't seen much of them on screen besides some scattered concept art of Security guys in helmets and chestplates with phaser rifles. At this point, though, there is a lot of Trek I haven't bothered watching.
You could also argue that a Trek starship trumps pretty much everything planetside, unless planetary shields are in place. Didn't the Enterprise set the ship's phasers to wide beam stun once? The plan was to stun an entire city or something.
A Piece of the Action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o1rH63IaDA
Quote from: Lurkndog on May 17, 2022, 12:05:43 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 17, 2022, 03:00:23 AM
Actually, that would explain the lack of high tech tanks and other vehicles besides shuttles in Star Trek. Granted, a tank with a Phaser Cannon would be pretty terrifying, but it could be disintegrated by a red shirt with a hand phaser...
A Star Trek tank would have shields. Arguably, even a lightly armored vehicle could carry shields, though there is probably a point at which that's not cost-effective.
As for the lack of tanks, I think it is more a matter that Star Trek focuses on the Space Navy and not on the army or marines. There have been references to Starfleet Marines, in concept at least, but I haven't seen much of them on screen besides some scattered concept art of Security guys in helmets and chestplates with phaser rifles. At this point, though, there is a lot of Trek I haven't bothered watching.
You could also argue that a Trek starship trumps pretty much everything planetside, unless planetary shields are in place. Didn't the Enterprise set the ship's phasers to wide beam stun once? The plan was to stun an entire city or something.
In the ST MMO a few races have the equivalent of tanks. The Voth have a big power armour suit, and the Vaadwaar had a crawler tank. Tholians use a combination EVA suit power armuor. Mirror Qin even goes after the party in a freaking runabout using space armaments on ground targets.
All of these can be zapped to death. And thats probably why few races bother to field tanks or equivalents. Hand weapons in ST are very dangerous and we have seen people on the ground even shoot down shuttles and runabouts. Its also probably why few races field fighters.
Even the TNG watered down hand weapons are still very dangerous.
Personally I suspect an in universe reason for the change was that TOS phasers WERE so very dangerous. And not just to the enemy. One set to overload could do ship level damage. And they were so lethal. Which does not fit TNGs supposed kinder and gentler image.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:09:48 PMAnd the Puppeteers ARE lying sacks of shit as demonstrated once and again in the novels. Manipulative, lying sacks of shit.
The Puppeteers manage to be bigger assholes than both the Pak and the Thrint, making them the biggest in Known Space by a comfy margin.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy on May 20, 2022, 04:26:11 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:09:48 PMAnd the Puppeteers ARE lying sacks of shit as demonstrated once and again in the novels. Manipulative, lying sacks of shit.
The Puppeteers manage to be bigger assholes than both the Pak and the Thrint, making them the biggest in Known Space by a comfy margin.
Manipulating Kzin evolution and maybe human evolution too, in such a way it benefits them. I read them as willing to exterminate a whole species if it's for the benefit of theirs. So yes, they are the biggest assholes, the Pak are acting due to their instincts, the Puppeteers do the same or worst in a purelly rational way.
Did the Puppeteers have anything to do with the extinction of the Pak? I wouldn't put it past them.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 04:47:14 PM
Did the Puppeteers have anything to do with the extinction of the Pak? I wouldn't put it past them.
The Pak aren't extinct. They had to flee the explosion of the Milky Way Core, but they had at least a fleet or two doing that. The Puppeteers collapsed Ringworld civilization, if that's what you mean.
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy on May 20, 2022, 04:58:32 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 04:47:14 PM
Did the Puppeteers have anything to do with the extinction of the Pak? I wouldn't put it past them.
The Pak aren't extinct. They had to flee the explosion of the Milky Way Core, but they had at least a fleet or two doing that. The Puppeteers collapsed Ringworld civilization, if that's what you mean.
No, I meant in the rest of the known space, we know they sent colonizing ships to earth and other places, we know what happened on earth. What happened with their other colonies? Did the puppeteers also collapsed them?
Quote from: ThatChrisGuy on May 20, 2022, 04:26:11 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 12, 2022, 11:09:48 PMAnd the Puppeteers ARE lying sacks of shit as demonstrated once and again in the novels. Manipulative, lying sacks of shit.
The Puppeteers manage to be bigger assholes than both the Pak and the Thrint, making them the biggest in Known Space by a comfy margin.
Very. Though its also VERY YMMV depending on who is writing them. Some of the non-Niven books are more than a bit off the mark.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 04:47:14 PM
Manipulating Kzin evolution and maybe human evolution too, in such a way it benefits them. I read them as willing to exterminate a whole species if it's for the benefit of theirs. So yes, they are the biggest assholes, the Pak are acting due to their instincts, the Puppeteers do the same or worst in a purelly rational way.
Did the Puppeteers have anything to do with the extinction of the Pak? I wouldn't put it past them.
First principles are never rational. Our needs and desires are set by instinct, not reason. That's true for us, it's true for the Pak, and it's almost certainly true for the Pupeeteers. And of the three, the Pak, not the Puppeteers, are the most completely and purely rational, when it comes to fulfilling their desires. The Pak are just a bit more absolutist about it.
Also, the Pak are never going to be extinct as long as humanity, including the Ringworld clade, exists. Tree of Life is just too good as a secret weapon. If humanity runs into an existential threat, sterilize a few colonies and turn all the eligible adults into Pak, and sic them on the threat du jour. Combined with the Teela gene, the Puppeteers must be really glad that humans are fairly friendly.
Star Trek and Known Space probably aren't a bad mix. They're not directly compatible, but Star Trek is fundamentally about exploration so it's designed for stand-alone encounters, and KS has a lot of elements that can be adopted piecemeal, and which can be used to raise difficult philosophical quandaries and instigate interesting conflicts.
Quote from: Pat on May 20, 2022, 08:21:08 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 04:47:14 PM
Manipulating Kzin evolution and maybe human evolution too, in such a way it benefits them. I read them as willing to exterminate a whole species if it's for the benefit of theirs. So yes, they are the biggest assholes, the Pak are acting due to their instincts, the Puppeteers do the same or worst in a purelly rational way.
Did the Puppeteers have anything to do with the extinction of the Pak? I wouldn't put it past them.
First principles are never rational. Our needs and desires are set by instinct, not reason. That's true for us, it's true for the Pak, and it's almost certainly true for the Pupeeteers. And of the three, the Pak, not the Puppeteers, are the most completely and purely rational, when it comes to fulfilling their desires. The Pak are just a bit more absolutist about it.
Also, the Pak are never going to be extinct as long as humanity, including the Ringworld clade, exists. Tree of Life is just too good as a secret weapon. If humanity runs into an existential threat, sterilize a few colonies and turn all the eligible adults into Pak, and sic them on the threat du jour. Combined with the Teela gene, the Puppeteers must be really glad that humans are fairly friendly.
Star Trek and Known Space probably aren't a bad mix. They're not directly compatible, but Star Trek is fundamentally about exploration so it's designed for stand-alone encounters, and KS has a lot of elements that can be adopted piecemeal, and which can be used to raise difficult philosophical quandaries and instigate interesting conflicts.
Known Space also has the better aliens.
The Pak are very intelligent and rational but driven by instincts, they must protect their descendants, and if their descendants die they stop eating.
A species that manages to cooperate better than them must be considered more rational.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 09:27:00 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 20, 2022, 08:21:08 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 04:47:14 PM
Manipulating Kzin evolution and maybe human evolution too, in such a way it benefits them. I read them as willing to exterminate a whole species if it's for the benefit of theirs. So yes, they are the biggest assholes, the Pak are acting due to their instincts, the Puppeteers do the same or worst in a purelly rational way.
Did the Puppeteers have anything to do with the extinction of the Pak? I wouldn't put it past them.
First principles are never rational. Our needs and desires are set by instinct, not reason. That's true for us, it's true for the Pak, and it's almost certainly true for the Pupeeteers. And of the three, the Pak, not the Puppeteers, are the most completely and purely rational, when it comes to fulfilling their desires. The Pak are just a bit more absolutist about it.
Also, the Pak are never going to be extinct as long as humanity, including the Ringworld clade, exists. Tree of Life is just too good as a secret weapon. If humanity runs into an existential threat, sterilize a few colonies and turn all the eligible adults into Pak, and sic them on the threat du jour. Combined with the Teela gene, the Puppeteers must be really glad that humans are fairly friendly.
Star Trek and Known Space probably aren't a bad mix. They're not directly compatible, but Star Trek is fundamentally about exploration so it's designed for stand-alone encounters, and KS has a lot of elements that can be adopted piecemeal, and which can be used to raise difficult philosophical quandaries and instigate interesting conflicts.
Known Space also has the better aliens.
The Pak are very intelligent and rational but driven by instincts, they must protect their descendants, and if their descendants die they stop eating.
A species that manages to cooperate better than them must be considered more rational.
I think cooperation is less rational.
Think of it this way. The selfish gene, or the idea that evolution optimizes toward each individual maximizing the survival of their genome, is remarkably well supported. There was this idea that certain species evolved collectively, and that individuals would sacrifice their own reproductive utility for the betterment of the group. It seemed to make sense, and fit certain human preconceptions about how the world should work. But as they looked at case after case, they were able to knock each of them down. It didn't hold up, anywhere, except for eusocial insects. So the idea of collective evolution was pretty much annihilated.
The Pak is the ideal of the selfish gene. They're completely, and exclusively focused on the survival of their lineage. That's a purely rational reaction to a primal urge. There's nothing extraneous. No art, no frivolousness. Just a complete obsession on one thing, using their super-human and even super-Puppeteer intellects.
Cooperation requires betraying that base urge. It requires certain individuals sacrificing their own best interest, for the sake of the group. Yes, it can lead to better results for the group as a whole. The Pak homeworld was wracked by war, while other more cooperative species (there's growing evidence that humans may be eusocial; an exception to the selfish gene) spread and flourished. But those results are contingent on individual failures, and if you have the urge to preserve
your germ line, then acting in a way that dooms it, is irrational.
Quote from: Pat on May 20, 2022, 10:07:49 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 09:27:00 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 20, 2022, 08:21:08 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 04:47:14 PM
Manipulating Kzin evolution and maybe human evolution too, in such a way it benefits them. I read them as willing to exterminate a whole species if it's for the benefit of theirs. So yes, they are the biggest assholes, the Pak are acting due to their instincts, the Puppeteers do the same or worst in a purelly rational way.
Did the Puppeteers have anything to do with the extinction of the Pak? I wouldn't put it past them.
First principles are never rational. Our needs and desires are set by instinct, not reason. That's true for us, it's true for the Pak, and it's almost certainly true for the Pupeeteers. And of the three, the Pak, not the Puppeteers, are the most completely and purely rational, when it comes to fulfilling their desires. The Pak are just a bit more absolutist about it.
Also, the Pak are never going to be extinct as long as humanity, including the Ringworld clade, exists. Tree of Life is just too good as a secret weapon. If humanity runs into an existential threat, sterilize a few colonies and turn all the eligible adults into Pak, and sic them on the threat du jour. Combined with the Teela gene, the Puppeteers must be really glad that humans are fairly friendly.
Star Trek and Known Space probably aren't a bad mix. They're not directly compatible, but Star Trek is fundamentally about exploration so it's designed for stand-alone encounters, and KS has a lot of elements that can be adopted piecemeal, and which can be used to raise difficult philosophical quandaries and instigate interesting conflicts.
Known Space also has the better aliens.
The Pak are very intelligent and rational but driven by instincts, they must protect their descendants, and if their descendants die they stop eating.
A species that manages to cooperate better than them must be considered more rational.
I think cooperation is less rational.
Think of it this way. The selfish gene, or the idea that evolution optimizes toward each individual maximizing the survival of their genome, is remarkably well supported. There was this idea that certain species evolved collectively, and that individuals would sacrifice their own reproductive utility for the betterment of the group. It seemed to make sense, and fit certain human preconceptions about how the world should work. But as they looked at case after case, they were able to knock each of them down. It didn't hold up, anywhere, except for eusocial insects. So the idea of collective evolution was pretty much annihilated.
The Pak is the ideal of the selfish gene. They're completely, and exclusively focused on the survival of their lineage. That's a purely rational reaction to a primal urge. There's nothing extraneous. No art, no frivolousness. Just a complete obsession on one thing, using their super-human and even super-Puppeteer intellects.
Cooperation requires betraying that base urge. It requires certain individuals sacrificing their own best interest, for the sake of the group. Yes, it can lead to better results for the group as a whole. The Pak homeworld was wracked by war, while other more cooperative species (there's growing evidence that humans may be eusocial; an exception to the selfish gene) spread and flourished. But those results are contingent on individual failures, and if you have the urge to preserve your germ line, then acting in a way that dooms it, is irrational.
So, instead of constantly plotting against other protectors and rendering the land uninhabitable (they did so in the Ringworld too) their best bet to preserve their lineages would be to pool their intelects towards that goal.
By not doing so they show irrational behaviour that's governed by their instincts and or passions not their reason.
On the other hand the Puppeteers cooperate among themselves and with other useful inteligent species, thus maximizing their survavility.
Nessus survives his trip to Ringworld thanks to the loyalty of the humans and Kzin.
A pak is unable to work with other species, he must destroy them. The Puppeteers will destroy only those they can't cooperate with. A much more rational approach.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 10:45:25 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 20, 2022, 10:07:49 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 09:27:00 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 20, 2022, 08:21:08 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 04:47:14 PM
Manipulating Kzin evolution and maybe human evolution too, in such a way it benefits them. I read them as willing to exterminate a whole species if it's for the benefit of theirs. So yes, they are the biggest assholes, the Pak are acting due to their instincts, the Puppeteers do the same or worst in a purelly rational way.
Did the Puppeteers have anything to do with the extinction of the Pak? I wouldn't put it past them.
First principles are never rational. Our needs and desires are set by instinct, not reason. That's true for us, it's true for the Pak, and it's almost certainly true for the Pupeeteers. And of the three, the Pak, not the Puppeteers, are the most completely and purely rational, when it comes to fulfilling their desires. The Pak are just a bit more absolutist about it.
Also, the Pak are never going to be extinct as long as humanity, including the Ringworld clade, exists. Tree of Life is just too good as a secret weapon. If humanity runs into an existential threat, sterilize a few colonies and turn all the eligible adults into Pak, and sic them on the threat du jour. Combined with the Teela gene, the Puppeteers must be really glad that humans are fairly friendly.
Star Trek and Known Space probably aren't a bad mix. They're not directly compatible, but Star Trek is fundamentally about exploration so it's designed for stand-alone encounters, and KS has a lot of elements that can be adopted piecemeal, and which can be used to raise difficult philosophical quandaries and instigate interesting conflicts.
Known Space also has the better aliens.
The Pak are very intelligent and rational but driven by instincts, they must protect their descendants, and if their descendants die they stop eating.
A species that manages to cooperate better than them must be considered more rational.
I think cooperation is less rational.
Think of it this way. The selfish gene, or the idea that evolution optimizes toward each individual maximizing the survival of their genome, is remarkably well supported. There was this idea that certain species evolved collectively, and that individuals would sacrifice their own reproductive utility for the betterment of the group. It seemed to make sense, and fit certain human preconceptions about how the world should work. But as they looked at case after case, they were able to knock each of them down. It didn't hold up, anywhere, except for eusocial insects. So the idea of collective evolution was pretty much annihilated.
The Pak is the ideal of the selfish gene. They're completely, and exclusively focused on the survival of their lineage. That's a purely rational reaction to a primal urge. There's nothing extraneous. No art, no frivolousness. Just a complete obsession on one thing, using their super-human and even super-Puppeteer intellects.
Cooperation requires betraying that base urge. It requires certain individuals sacrificing their own best interest, for the sake of the group. Yes, it can lead to better results for the group as a whole. The Pak homeworld was wracked by war, while other more cooperative species (there's growing evidence that humans may be eusocial; an exception to the selfish gene) spread and flourished. But those results are contingent on individual failures, and if you have the urge to preserve your germ line, then acting in a way that dooms it, is irrational.
So, instead of constantly plotting against other protectors and rendering the land uninhabitable (they did so in the Ringworld too) their best bet to preserve their lineages would be to pool their intelects towards that goal.
By not doing so they show irrational behaviour that's governed by their instincts and or passions not their reason.
On the other hand the Puppeteers cooperate among themselves and with other useful inteligent species, thus maximizing their survavility.
Nessus survives his trip to Ringworld thanks to the loyalty of the humans and Kzin.
A pak is unable to work with other species, he must destroy them. The Puppeteers will destroy only those they can't cooperate with. A much more rational approach.
No, it's not irrational behavior. The irrational behavior is
trust.
The iterated prisoner's dilemma is effectively a model for cooperation among selfish individuals, so it's a pretty good abstraction of evolutionary behavior. And it can tell us the winning strategies, which tend to be variations on tit for tat. That's a type of cooperation. But it's also assuming infinite iterations. If it's a finite series, which it will always be, because we don't live forever, the most optimal behavior for the final iteration is betrayal. We see that among humans, but it's pretty uncommon, when game theory tells us it should be the way every relationship ends.
Not only that, but the tit for tat strategies are very weak forms of cooperation, compared to real human cooperation. We do punish people, but very rarely considering the opportunities and population size. In a social milieu like that, even a small percentage of bad actors or free riders would break the system. But the number of sociopaths who do take advantage is even smaller than that, small enough that the system functions. Humans exhibit an extraordinary degree of a cooperation, without the expectation of reciprocation. The degree is far beyond that exhibited by other animals, or expected from simple game theory analysis of evolution.
It requires humans to sacrifice for an abstract that has nothing to do with the propagation of their genes, and to do so regularly. If your motive is to spread your genes, which is the most fundamental motive of any species shaped by evolution, then that degree of cooperation is irrational from the perspective of any individual. You want
everyone else to behave like that, but it makes no logical sense for you to behave like that. It gains you, and your goal, nothing.
Furthermore, if you look at the origins of social behavior, it's all completely irrational. We're tied together by things like religion, or ecstatic dancing, or waving a flag. None of these are optimal behaviors, from the standpoint of the individual. If you create the perfectly logical being, and give him the basic evolutionary impulse, that being will never engage in any of those behaviors.
Sure, in the long run, those irrational behaviors that lead to high degrees of cooperation will win. But if everyone's acting logically, you'll be stuck in a suboptimal Nash equilibrium, with no way to make the jump.
That's why less logical behavior is important. We need art, we need play, because it allows us to break out of that dog-eat-dog world, and achieve things beyond those who simply take the most logically direct route based on their own needs.
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 12:21:30 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 10:45:25 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 20, 2022, 10:07:49 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 09:27:00 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 20, 2022, 08:21:08 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 20, 2022, 04:47:14 PM
Manipulating Kzin evolution and maybe human evolution too, in such a way it benefits them. I read them as willing to exterminate a whole species if it's for the benefit of theirs. So yes, they are the biggest assholes, the Pak are acting due to their instincts, the Puppeteers do the same or worst in a purelly rational way.
Did the Puppeteers have anything to do with the extinction of the Pak? I wouldn't put it past them.
First principles are never rational. Our needs and desires are set by instinct, not reason. That's true for us, it's true for the Pak, and it's almost certainly true for the Pupeeteers. And of the three, the Pak, not the Puppeteers, are the most completely and purely rational, when it comes to fulfilling their desires. The Pak are just a bit more absolutist about it.
Also, the Pak are never going to be extinct as long as humanity, including the Ringworld clade, exists. Tree of Life is just too good as a secret weapon. If humanity runs into an existential threat, sterilize a few colonies and turn all the eligible adults into Pak, and sic them on the threat du jour. Combined with the Teela gene, the Puppeteers must be really glad that humans are fairly friendly.
Star Trek and Known Space probably aren't a bad mix. They're not directly compatible, but Star Trek is fundamentally about exploration so it's designed for stand-alone encounters, and KS has a lot of elements that can be adopted piecemeal, and which can be used to raise difficult philosophical quandaries and instigate interesting conflicts.
Known Space also has the better aliens.
The Pak are very intelligent and rational but driven by instincts, they must protect their descendants, and if their descendants die they stop eating.
A species that manages to cooperate better than them must be considered more rational.
I think cooperation is less rational.
Think of it this way. The selfish gene, or the idea that evolution optimizes toward each individual maximizing the survival of their genome, is remarkably well supported. There was this idea that certain species evolved collectively, and that individuals would sacrifice their own reproductive utility for the betterment of the group. It seemed to make sense, and fit certain human preconceptions about how the world should work. But as they looked at case after case, they were able to knock each of them down. It didn't hold up, anywhere, except for eusocial insects. So the idea of collective evolution was pretty much annihilated.
The Pak is the ideal of the selfish gene. They're completely, and exclusively focused on the survival of their lineage. That's a purely rational reaction to a primal urge. There's nothing extraneous. No art, no frivolousness. Just a complete obsession on one thing, using their super-human and even super-Puppeteer intellects.
Cooperation requires betraying that base urge. It requires certain individuals sacrificing their own best interest, for the sake of the group. Yes, it can lead to better results for the group as a whole. The Pak homeworld was wracked by war, while other more cooperative species (there's growing evidence that humans may be eusocial; an exception to the selfish gene) spread and flourished. But those results are contingent on individual failures, and if you have the urge to preserve your germ line, then acting in a way that dooms it, is irrational.
So, instead of constantly plotting against other protectors and rendering the land uninhabitable (they did so in the Ringworld too) their best bet to preserve their lineages would be to pool their intelects towards that goal.
By not doing so they show irrational behaviour that's governed by their instincts and or passions not their reason.
On the other hand the Puppeteers cooperate among themselves and with other useful inteligent species, thus maximizing their survavility.
Nessus survives his trip to Ringworld thanks to the loyalty of the humans and Kzin.
A pak is unable to work with other species, he must destroy them. The Puppeteers will destroy only those they can't cooperate with. A much more rational approach.
No, it's not irrational behavior. The irrational behavior is trust.
The iterated prisoner's dilemma is effectively a model for cooperation among selfish individuals, so it's a pretty good abstraction of evolutionary behavior. And it can tell us the winning strategies, which tend to be variations on tit for tat. That's a type of cooperation. But it's also assuming infinite iterations. If it's a finite series, which it will always be, because we don't live forever, the most optimal behavior for the final iteration is betrayal. We see that among humans, but it's pretty uncommon, when game theory tells us it should be the way every relationship ends.
Not only that, but the tit for tat strategies are very weak forms of cooperation, compared to real human cooperation. We do punish people, but very rarely considering the opportunities and population size. In a social milieu like that, even a small percentage of bad actors or free riders would break the system. But the number of sociopaths who do take advantage is even smaller than that, small enough that the system functions. Humans exhibit an extraordinary degree of a cooperation, without the expectation of reciprocation. The degree is far beyond that exhibited by other animals, or expected from simple game theory analysis of evolution.
It requires humans to sacrifice for an abstract that has nothing to do with the propagation of their genes, and to do so regularly. If your motive is to spread your genes, which is the most fundamental motive of any species shaped by evolution, then that degree of cooperation is irrational from the perspective of any individual. You want everyone else to behave like that, but it makes no logical sense for you to behave like that. It gains you, and your goal, nothing.
Furthermore, if you look at the origins of social behavior, it's all completely irrational. We're tied together by things like religion, or ecstatic dancing, or waving a flag. None of these are optimal behaviors, from the standpoint of the individual. If you create the perfectly logical being, and give him the basic evolutionary impulse, that being will never engage in any of those behaviors.
Sure, in the long run, those irrational behaviors that lead to high degrees of cooperation will win. But if everyone's acting logically, you'll be stuck in a suboptimal Nash equilibrium, with no way to make the jump.
That's why less logical behavior is important. We need art, we need play, because it allows us to break out of that dog-eat-dog world, and achieve things beyond those who simply take the most logically direct route based on their own needs.
Where did the trsut thing come from?
The puppeteers don't cooperate out of trust but out of self interest. And they are ready to anihilate you if you cross them.
We don't cooperate out of trust but out of self interest, so do our cousins the chimps.
I don't need to trust every single human to behave in X way, we know some won't, it's why we have laws to punish those who behave in ways that are perjudicial for society.
The optimum way to pass your genes is to have as many kids as possible, but is it the best way to guarantee their survival? Why was the woman's virginity valued? It's not because religion, it's because it guarantees you're suporting YOUR kids. Religions incorporated it after the fact because those were our first laws.
Speaking of religions and experiments, why is it that when they think someone is observing them people are more honest than when they think no one is watching? The experiment has been done. Thus religion serves another purpose, to provide the ever watchful eye.
It doesn't matter if YOU believe, if you're surrounded by people who believe they will be thrwon in hell if they steal you'll have a more honest population.
Then it's the issue of reciprocity/fair play, something even rats grok. The dominant rat must let the lesser rat win sometimes when they play or the lesser rat will not want to play.
All social animals cooperate, intelligent social animals are no exception. If by cooperating the chances of all to pass their genes imcrease the logical option is to do so. Yes, you as an individual have no guarantee but you are in the same position by not cooperating or worst.
So, the Puppeteers are way more rational than the Pak because they will cooperate even with other species.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 21, 2022, 12:40:57 AM
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 12:21:30 AM
No, it's not irrational behavior. The irrational behavior is trust.
The iterated prisoner's dilemma is effectively a model for cooperation among selfish individuals, so it's a pretty good abstraction of evolutionary behavior. And it can tell us the winning strategies, which tend to be variations on tit for tat. That's a type of cooperation. But it's also assuming infinite iterations. If it's a finite series, which it will always be, because we don't live forever, the most optimal behavior for the final iteration is betrayal. We see that among humans, but it's pretty uncommon, when game theory tells us it should be the way every relationship ends.
Not only that, but the tit for tat strategies are very weak forms of cooperation, compared to real human cooperation. We do punish people, but very rarely considering the opportunities and population size. In a social milieu like that, even a small percentage of bad actors or free riders would break the system. But the number of sociopaths who do take advantage is even smaller than that, small enough that the system functions. Humans exhibit an extraordinary degree of a cooperation, without the expectation of reciprocation. The degree is far beyond that exhibited by other animals, or expected from simple game theory analysis of evolution.
It requires humans to sacrifice for an abstract that has nothing to do with the propagation of their genes, and to do so regularly. If your motive is to spread your genes, which is the most fundamental motive of any species shaped by evolution, then that degree of cooperation is irrational from the perspective of any individual. You want everyone else to behave like that, but it makes no logical sense for you to behave like that. It gains you, and your goal, nothing.
Furthermore, if you look at the origins of social behavior, it's all completely irrational. We're tied together by things like religion, or ecstatic dancing, or waving a flag. None of these are optimal behaviors, from the standpoint of the individual. If you create the perfectly logical being, and give him the basic evolutionary impulse, that being will never engage in any of those behaviors.
Sure, in the long run, those irrational behaviors that lead to high degrees of cooperation will win. But if everyone's acting logically, you'll be stuck in a suboptimal Nash equilibrium, with no way to make the jump.
That's why less logical behavior is important. We need art, we need play, because it allows us to break out of that dog-eat-dog world, and achieve things beyond those who simply take the most logically direct route based on their own needs.
Where did the trsut thing come from?
The puppeteers don't cooperate out of trust but out of self interest. And they are ready to anihilate you if you cross them.
We don't cooperate out of trust but out of self interest, so do our cousins the chimps.
I don't need to trust every single human to behave in X way, we know some won't, it's why we have laws to punish those who behave in ways that are perjudicial for society.
The optimum way to pass your genes is to have as many kids as possible, but is it the best way to guarantee their survival? Why was the woman's virginity valued? It's not because religion, it's because it guarantees you're suporting YOUR kids. Religions incorporated it after the fact because those were our first laws.
Speaking of religions and experiments, why is it that when they think someone is observing them people are more honest than when they think no one is watching? The experiment has been done. Thus religion serves another purpose, to provide the ever watchful eye.
It doesn't matter if YOU believe, if you're surrounded by people who believe they will be thrwon in hell if they steal you'll have a more honest population.
Then it's the issue of reciprocity/fair play, something even rats grok. The dominant rat must let the lesser rat win sometimes when they play or the lesser rat will not want to play.
All social animals cooperate, intelligent social animals are no exception. If by cooperating the chances of all to pass their genes imcrease the logical option is to do so. Yes, you as an individual have no guarantee but you are in the same position by not cooperating or worst.
So, the Puppeteers are way more rational than the Pak because they will cooperate even with other species.
Trust is the most fundamental requirement for cooperation.
Do you understand the argument I've been making? In a situation where you don't know if you can trust other people, there are provably optimal strategies for each individual, when acting in their own self-interest (based on game theory). Demonstrating a high degree of trust without proof of reciprocation is
not the optimal decision for individuals in those situations. In fact, it's the least optimal choice. Individuals who act that way will be exploited, and quickly removed from the gene pool.
It's true that societies or species that display a high degree of trust will be able to cooperate in ways that will give them a great advantage over more internally competitive societies or species. But evolution doesn't happen at the species or group level, it happens at the individual level. It's about you passing on your genes.
That means the rational, optimal choice will never lead to a high degree of trust, and thus cooperation. A purely rational species or society will be trapped at a lower local maxima, as exemplified by the Pak. To overcome that local maxima requires members of the group to act non-rationally. They need to trust, even when it's not in their best interest. Once a sufficient number of the group develops that trusting behavior, the group as a whole will be able to out-compete the purely rational beings who only engage in activities that further their own self-interest. But to reach that level requires irrational behavior.
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 09:02:05 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 21, 2022, 12:40:57 AM
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 12:21:30 AM
No, it's not irrational behavior. The irrational behavior is trust.
The iterated prisoner's dilemma is effectively a model for cooperation among selfish individuals, so it's a pretty good abstraction of evolutionary behavior. And it can tell us the winning strategies, which tend to be variations on tit for tat. That's a type of cooperation. But it's also assuming infinite iterations. If it's a finite series, which it will always be, because we don't live forever, the most optimal behavior for the final iteration is betrayal. We see that among humans, but it's pretty uncommon, when game theory tells us it should be the way every relationship ends.
Not only that, but the tit for tat strategies are very weak forms of cooperation, compared to real human cooperation. We do punish people, but very rarely considering the opportunities and population size. In a social milieu like that, even a small percentage of bad actors or free riders would break the system. But the number of sociopaths who do take advantage is even smaller than that, small enough that the system functions. Humans exhibit an extraordinary degree of a cooperation, without the expectation of reciprocation. The degree is far beyond that exhibited by other animals, or expected from simple game theory analysis of evolution.
It requires humans to sacrifice for an abstract that has nothing to do with the propagation of their genes, and to do so regularly. If your motive is to spread your genes, which is the most fundamental motive of any species shaped by evolution, then that degree of cooperation is irrational from the perspective of any individual. You want everyone else to behave like that, but it makes no logical sense for you to behave like that. It gains you, and your goal, nothing.
Furthermore, if you look at the origins of social behavior, it's all completely irrational. We're tied together by things like religion, or ecstatic dancing, or waving a flag. None of these are optimal behaviors, from the standpoint of the individual. If you create the perfectly logical being, and give him the basic evolutionary impulse, that being will never engage in any of those behaviors.
Sure, in the long run, those irrational behaviors that lead to high degrees of cooperation will win. But if everyone's acting logically, you'll be stuck in a suboptimal Nash equilibrium, with no way to make the jump.
That's why less logical behavior is important. We need art, we need play, because it allows us to break out of that dog-eat-dog world, and achieve things beyond those who simply take the most logically direct route based on their own needs.
Where did the trsut thing come from?
The puppeteers don't cooperate out of trust but out of self interest. And they are ready to anihilate you if you cross them.
We don't cooperate out of trust but out of self interest, so do our cousins the chimps.
I don't need to trust every single human to behave in X way, we know some won't, it's why we have laws to punish those who behave in ways that are perjudicial for society.
The optimum way to pass your genes is to have as many kids as possible, but is it the best way to guarantee their survival? Why was the woman's virginity valued? It's not because religion, it's because it guarantees you're suporting YOUR kids. Religions incorporated it after the fact because those were our first laws.
Speaking of religions and experiments, why is it that when they think someone is observing them people are more honest than when they think no one is watching? The experiment has been done. Thus religion serves another purpose, to provide the ever watchful eye.
It doesn't matter if YOU believe, if you're surrounded by people who believe they will be thrwon in hell if they steal you'll have a more honest population.
Then it's the issue of reciprocity/fair play, something even rats grok. The dominant rat must let the lesser rat win sometimes when they play or the lesser rat will not want to play.
All social animals cooperate, intelligent social animals are no exception. If by cooperating the chances of all to pass their genes imcrease the logical option is to do so. Yes, you as an individual have no guarantee but you are in the same position by not cooperating or worst.
So, the Puppeteers are way more rational than the Pak because they will cooperate even with other species.
Trust is the most fundamental requirement for cooperation.
Do you understand the argument I've been making? In a situation where you don't know if you can trust other people, there are provably optimal strategies for each individual, when acting in their own self-interest (based on game theory). Demonstrating a high degree of trust without proof of reciprocation is not the optimal decision for individuals in those situations. In fact, it's the least optimal choice. Individuals who act that way will be exploited, and quickly removed from the gene pool.
It's true that societies or species that display a high degree of trust will be able to cooperate in ways that will give them a great advantage over more internally competitive societies or species. But evolution doesn't happen at the species or group level, it happens at the individual level. It's about you passing on your genes.
That means the rational, optimal choice will never lead to a high degree of trust, and thus cooperation. A purely rational species or society will be trapped at a lower local maxima, as exemplified by the Pak. To overcome that local maxima requires members of the group to act non-rationally. They need to trust, even when it's not in their best interest. Once a sufficient number of the group develops that trusting behavior, the group as a whole will be able to out-compete the purely rational beings who only engage in activities that further their own self-interest. But to reach that level requires irrational behavior.
I grok you but you're wrong, evolution is about populations not individuals, thus a species that develops a trait that's more advantageous will probably survive those who don't. Within a same species a population that develops an advantageous trait will eventually either replace those who didn't or evolve into a separate species, it's how we got dogs, foxes and cats.
Intelligent animals aren't only bound by their instincts tho, it's why chimps teach their offspring to "build/use" tools, and they aren't the only primate to do so, there's also a japanese monkey that has a population that does so.
The pak are driven by their instinct to pass on their individual genes and to protect those who carry their genes. This is disadvantagous to the whole, any rational species would see it and they do, but they are unable to stop themselves, because those instincts overpower their reason.
On the other hand the Puppeteers will exterminate/manipulate or selectively breed any hostile species and will cooperate with those open to do so.
They don't trust the humans or the Kzin, they know they can wipe them out of existence so they aren't really a treat, especially since they selectively breed the Kzin for millenia. They are paranoid, and yet they still are able to use those like Nessus who wouldn't be able to reproduce otherwise to cooperate in a dangerous mission with two alien species.
Not only they aren't killing each other they are cooperating/using when advantageous other intelligent species.
They might not be smarter but they are more logical than the Pak.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 21, 2022, 11:37:00 AM
I grok you but you're wrong, evolution is about populations not individuals, thus a species that develops a trait that's more advantageous will probably survive those who don't. Within a same species a population that develops an advantageous trait will eventually either replace those who didn't or evolve into a separate species, it's how we got dogs, foxes and cats.
Except for eusocial insects and perhaps humans, the idea that evolution operates at the population level has been rigorously debunked over the last few generations. It's one of the most conclusive results in all the biological sciences. Look up stuff on the selfish gene, though you'll probably fine a lot of references to Dawkin's book, which I've never read, so I can't really comment on its applicability.
Since we disagree on such a fundamental matter of fact, I doubt any further discussion will be productive.
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 01:23:13 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 21, 2022, 11:37:00 AM
I grok you but you're wrong, evolution is about populations not individuals, thus a species that develops a trait that's more advantageous will probably survive those who don't. Within a same species a population that develops an advantageous trait will eventually either replace those who didn't or evolve into a separate species, it's how we got dogs, foxes and cats.
Except for eusocial insects and perhaps humans, the idea that evolution happens at the population level has been rigorously debunked over the last few generations. It's one of the most conclusive results in all the biological sciences. Look up stuff on the selfish gene, though you'll probably fine a lot of references to Dawkin's book, which I've never read, so I can't really comment on its applicability.
Since we disagree on such a fundamental matter of fact, I doubt any further discussion will be productive.
Mutations happen at the individual level, evolution (which deals with population mechanics) happens at the population level.
Lets say an individual is born with an advantegous mutation, but it fails to reproduce. There was no evolution. Lets say it reproduces but on the third generation all his descendants are wiped out by a disaster. No evolution.
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 01:23:13 PMThe idea that evolution operates at the population level has been rigorously debunked over the last few generations.
How does that work? Isn't evolution about the slow change in populations over multiple generations? Im not sure how a species can evolve without a population. Unless its Pokemon.
This is getting rather far afield of both Star Trek and Ringworld. I note that there is crossover between Ringworld and Star Trek, since the Kzinti feature in "The Slaver Weapon" - an episode for the animated series written by Larry Niven. And thus the Kzinti feature in Star Fleet Battles and related games based on the Star Trek Technical Manual.
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 12:21:30 AM
Humans exhibit an extraordinary degree of a cooperation, without the expectation of reciprocation. The degree is far beyond that exhibited by other animals, or expected from simple game theory analysis of evolution.
It requires humans to sacrifice for an abstract that has nothing to do with the propagation of their genes, and to do so regularly. If your motive is to spread your genes, which is the most fundamental motive of any species shaped by evolution, then that degree of cooperation is irrational from the perspective of any individual. You want everyone else to behave like that, but it makes no logical sense for you to behave like that. It gains you, and your goal, nothing.
I think the root of the disagreement here is the bolded assumption above (bolding mine). Evolution is a scientific process that happens - it isn't a moral imperative to try to do. It happens regardless of one's motives and choices, and it isn't something that an individual should necessarily logically pursue. Individuals can have motives unrelated to spreading their genes. I don't think Isaac Newton, say, should be considered an irrational failure because he failed to spread his genes.
I've read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", but I haven't read much on more recent research. Still, regardless of the scientific discoveries on how evolution tends to work, it doesn't change what evolution is.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 21, 2022, 02:48:44 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 01:23:13 PMThe idea that evolution operates at the population level has been rigorously debunked over the last few generations.
How does that work? Isn't evolution about the slow change in populations over multiple generations? Im not sure how a species can evolve without a population. Unless its Pokemon.
Natural selection is a filter. It selects for organisms that are successful at passing down their genes, and is ruthlessly focused on that one thing. Over time, this certainly changes populations. But the processes operates on the individual, not the population.
Quote from: jhkim on May 21, 2022, 03:33:05 PM
This is getting rather far afield of both Star Trek and Ringworld.
If you believe that, why did you reply? I think these are the questions that both Star Trek and Known Space try to explore.
Quote from: jhkim on May 21, 2022, 03:33:05 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 12:21:30 AM
Humans exhibit an extraordinary degree of a cooperation, without the expectation of reciprocation. The degree is far beyond that exhibited by other animals, or expected from simple game theory analysis of evolution.
It requires humans to sacrifice for an abstract that has nothing to do with the propagation of their genes, and to do so regularly. If your motive is to spread your genes, which is the most fundamental motive of any species shaped by evolution, then that degree of cooperation is irrational from the perspective of any individual. You want everyone else to behave like that, but it makes no logical sense for you to behave like that. It gains you, and your goal, nothing.
I think the root of the disagreement here is the bolded assumption above (bolding mine). Evolution is a scientific process that happens - it isn't a moral imperative to try to do. It happens regardless of one's motives and choices, and it isn't something that an individual should necessarily logically pursue. Individuals can have motives unrelated to spreading their genes. I don't think Isaac Newton, say, should be considered an irrational failure because he failed to spread his genes.
I never stated it was a moral imperative. This whole discussion started with me pointing out that the fundamental motives are irrational. Rationality in that context is using the best methods available to pursue those fundamental motives; it is not itself a driving force. That's why I think the Pak are more rational than humans or Puppeteers; they pursue their primal urge by selecting the most optimal behavior available. Both Puppeteers and humans do not. They make decisions on the basis of abstracts, or communal behavior, or a sense of play. Those are fundamentally irrational behaviors when judged from the perspective of an individual within those populations, though at the population level, they are more effective than the Pak's pure rationality, because they allowed both species to escape the local maxima of strict tit for tat behavior.
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 04:19:57 PMBut the processes operates on the individual, not the population.
This feels like a semantics game, and Im thoroughly disappointed with the scientific community if it took them decades to figure that out.
A population is composed of individuals, and individuals exist as part of a population.
As for rationality, well some ground rules have to be put down. Are we considering rationality in this context an outgrowth of self preservation instinct with advanced sapience? Because otherwise what people consider rationality differs pretty wildly.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 21, 2022, 11:06:44 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 04:19:57 PMBut the processes operates on the individual, not the population.
This feels like a semantics game, and Im thoroughly disappointed with the scientific community if it took them decades to figure that out.
A population is composed of individuals, and individuals exist as part of a population.
As for rationality, well some ground rules have to be put down. Are we considering rationality in this context an outgrowth of self preservation instinct with advanced sapience? Because otherwise what people consider rationality differs pretty wildly.
It's not semantic game, it's a fundamental concept. Evolution is natural selection that adapts an organism to a specific environment, over multiple generations. It does this by a filter, where organisms that fail to pass down their genetic material are eliminated from the pool. On that basis, does it make sense for a stranger without children to sacrifice himself for a pregnant woman he doesn't know? No, it doesn't. The stranger just eliminated their genes from the gene pool. Evolution strongly selects against that behavior, because evolution is selfish, and very focused on genes. This limits cooperative behavior, because animals don't just randomly act for the benefit for the group. Instead, each animal acts in a way to maximize its own genetic legacy. Not the legacy of some abstract group to which it belongs, but it's own personal legacy. This appears to be nearly universal, with the two exceptions I mentioned: Eusocial insects, and possibly us. Humans are bizarrely social, far more social than wolves or chimps. We somehow jumped that gap in cooperation, and it's because there was enough slack in the system.
I'm treating rationality as taking the most effective steps to maximize one's goals. The Pak are hyperrational, because they extremely intelligent and that intelligence is intensely focused on their goals. Humans are less rational, because while we are still fairly intelligent, we act in a lot of ways that seem fairly random or nonsensical, including things that are contrary to our best interests. There's more slack in the system.
Quote from: Pat on May 22, 2022, 02:50:14 PMEvolution is natural selection that adapts an organism to a specific environment, over multiple generations.
Yup
QuoteIt does this by a filter, where organisms that fail to pass down their genetic material are eliminated from the pool.
Yup
QuoteOn that basis, does it make sense for a stranger without children to sacrifice himself for a pregnant woman he doesn't know?
Depends on the social stratum of the animal.
QuoteNo, it doesn't.
Not necacarily.
QuoteThe stranger just eliminated their genes from the gene pool.
That assumes the stranger would get to breed anyway. If the alternative is they both die, then being selish doesn't make a difference. While advanced social higharchies are rare in the animal kingdom, humans are not the only ones to have pure competative higharchies.
I mean yeah, outside of hive drones, every animal hopes to increase their chances of breeding at least somewhat. But I don't buy that being purely selfish or having 1 step thinking makes that significantly better.
QuoteI'm treating rationality as taking the most effective steps to maximize one's goals.
Goals are not rational. In addition this assumes a degree of 1 step thinking. That all goals only work if directly followed.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 22, 2022, 03:44:52 PM
QuoteOn that basis, does it make sense for a stranger without children to sacrifice himself for a pregnant woman he doesn't know?
Depends on the social stratum of the animal.
QuoteNo, it doesn't.
Not necacarily.
QuoteThe stranger just eliminated their genes from the gene pool.
That assumes the stranger would get to breed anyway. If the alternative is they both die, then being selish doesn't make a difference. While advanced social higharchies are rare in the animal kingdom, humans are not the only ones to have pure competative higharchies.
They went through hall the proposed examples of animals that might have demonstrated behavior where they sacrificed their own individual genetic legacy for an unrelated or weakly related collective. None of them panned out. There were alternative and valid explanations for all their actions -- for instance, a reasonable assumption that they were sacrificing themselves for a blood relative. A human samaritan is a complete outlier among vertebrates.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 22, 2022, 03:44:52 PM
QuoteI'm treating rationality as taking the most effective steps to maximize one's goals.
Goals are not rational. In addition this assumes a degree of 1 step thinking. That all goals only work if directly followed.
Yes, I've argued that point many times in this thread. Our motives are fundamentally irrational. Rationality is the logical attempt to maximize the achievement of those goals.
I've also argued multiple times that a degree of irrationality is how humans have escaped a local maxima of purely rational and selfish behavior.
Quote from: Pat on May 22, 2022, 06:54:42 PMI've also argued multiple times that a degree of irrationality is how humans have escaped a local maxima of purely rational and selfish behavior.
Mmmm. I think I see what your getting at. This reminds me of a book where it had humans encounter advance AI from another planet that failed to meet the turing test because it theorized that things like human artistr, and even basic behaviours, and other such stuff was an anomaly in the universe.
Maybe the reverse would be true. Maybe instead of thinking of advanced beings as 'beyond petty mortal things', maybe they would be even MORE elaborate and irrational.
'We invented the interplnatary jump gates to allow for our complicated mating procedures to work on Shmurfdays (because mating on a shmurfday is unholy unless done on the moon). And we invented the megagenetic universal megafauna so we can enjoy the taste of smackers space chips on asteroids, which is required to impress college admission'.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 22, 2022, 08:04:51 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 22, 2022, 06:54:42 PMI've also argued multiple times that a degree of irrationality is how humans have escaped a local maxima of purely rational and selfish behavior.
Mmmm. I think I see what your getting at. This reminds me of a book where it had humans encounter advance AI from another planet that failed to meet the turing test because it theorized that things like human artistr, and even basic behaviours, and other such stuff was an anomaly in the universe.
Maybe the reverse would be true. Maybe instead of thinking of advanced beings as 'beyond petty mortal things', maybe they would be even MORE elaborate and irrational.
'We invented the interplnatary jump gates to allow for our complicated mating procedures to work on Shmurfdays (because mating on a shmurfday is unholy unless done on the moon). And we invented the megagenetic universal megafauna so we can enjoy the taste of smackers space chips on asteroids, which is required to impress college admission'.
I'm glad you can see where I'm coming from.
To run with the "reverse", one interesting twist might be to explore what happens when a species is no longer subject to the evolutionary imperatives. Because while humans are still evolving, the dynamics have drastically changed since agriculture, and more recently the industrial revolution. We're not post-scarcity yet, but it's no longer a daily struggle to eat or avoid predators, for a significant chunk of the planet. And with the rise of consumer culture and social media, we've developed ways to fool a lot of the cues related to food, sex, and so on and replace them with substitutes. From an evolutionary standpoint, this sounds bad, because there is no longer negative selection against traits that hinder survival and reproduction. But from another perspective, it may open up a whole new set of possibilities, because there's more room for evolution to play with random things, which could eventually result in escaping another local maxima we don't even know about.
Though of course, that might become moot, because we're likely to engage in self-directed evolution, and that can potentially be much faster and more dramatic.
Quote from: Pat on May 22, 2022, 10:49:02 PMThough of course, that might become moot, because we're likely to engage in self-directed evolution, and that can potentially be much faster and more dramatic.
Currently though it seems the amish are dictating the course of evolution by having sustainable birthrates. =P
I personally subscribe too 'If a human is given everything it wants all the time, its more likely to self-destruct then find enlightenment', which is why I dont subscribe to technocratic visions of the future.
Didn't a novel Rodenbury wrote describe earth as filled with layabouts doing nothing but indulging in basically hedonism, while a select few who wanted more then that join starfleet?
Quote from: Pat on May 22, 2022, 06:54:42 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 22, 2022, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: PatI'm treating rationality as taking the most effective steps to maximize one's goals.
Goals are not rational. In addition this assumes a degree of 1 step thinking. That all goals only work if directly followed.
Yes, I've argued that point many times in this thread. Our motives are fundamentally irrational. Rationality is the logical attempt to maximize the achievement of those goals.
I've also argued multiple times that a degree of irrationality is how humans have escaped a local maxima of purely rational and selfish behavior.
As I understand it, you're saying that there is exactly one rational goal - reproducing to spread one's personal genes. Pursuing that goal is rational, by your definition, while pursuing any other goal is irrational. According to this terminology, a human who hears about a Pak threat to Earth and sacrifices to save all of humanity is acting irrationally, because they don't get to personally reproduce. I think that's a counter-intuitive use of the term.
But looking past the terms rational and irrational, I think this is saying that group selection can work as an evolutionary strategy.
Eusocial insects and humanity both have successful strategies of using social behaviors to thrive in evolutionary terms, and these strategies might even be more successful in evolutionary terms than the Pak's more individualistic, selfish behavior.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 22, 2022, 10:56:00 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 22, 2022, 10:49:02 PMThough of course, that might become moot, because we're likely to engage in self-directed evolution, and that can potentially be much faster and more dramatic.
Currently though it seems the amish are dictating the course of evolution by having sustainable birthrates. =P
I personally subscribe too 'If a human is given everything it wants all the time, its more likely to self-destruct then find enlightenment', which is why I dont subscribe to technocratic visions of the future.
Didn't a novel Rodenbury wrote describe earth as filled with layabouts doing nothing but indulging in basically hedonism, while a select few who wanted more then that join starfleet?
My go-to for a world of hedonism would be
Brave New World.
I tend to think of Africa (on the positive side) and Russia and China (on the negative) when it comes to birth rates, but those are at best mid-range issues. Evidence suggests as fast-growing populations reach a modicum of prosperity and become middle income countries, their birth rates will stabilize and probably decline. But what if that's a symptom of leisure and luxury? The Amish are an interesting counter-example. Those who eschew the soft easy life of modern civilization, whether Amish or space explorers, might be the source of future population growth. That would create a more dynamic evolutionary environment.
Quote from: jhkim on May 22, 2022, 11:53:53 PM
As I understand it, you're saying that there is exactly one rational goal - reproducing to spread one's personal genes. Pursuing that goal is rational, by your definition, while pursuing any other goal is irrational. According to this terminology, a human who hears about a Pak threat to Earth and sacrifices to save all of humanity is acting irrationally, because they don't get to personally reproduce. I think that's a counter-intuitive use of the term.
But looking past the terms rational and irrational, I think this is saying that group selection can work as an evolutionary strategy.
Eusocial insects and humanity both have successful strategies of using social behaviors to thrive in evolutionary terms, and these strategies might even be more successful in evolutionary terms than the Pak's more individualistic, selfish behavior.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I've never said that.
Quote from: Pat on May 23, 2022, 12:00:55 AM
No, that's not what I'm saying. I've never said that.
OK, sorry. I'm trying to understand the point that I saw here:
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2022, 04:30:28 PM
Rationality in that context is using the best methods available to pursue those fundamental motives; it is not itself a driving force. That's why I think the Pak are more rational than humans or Puppeteers; they pursue their primal urge by selecting the most optimal behavior available. Both Puppeteers and humans do not. They make decisions on the basis of abstracts, or communal behavior, or a sense of play. Those are fundamentally irrational behaviors when judged from the perspective of an individual within those populations, though at the population level, they are more effective than the Pak's pure rationality, because they allowed both species to escape the local maxima of strict tit for tat behavior.
I would say that not pursuing tit-for-tat behavior isn't inherently irrational. Rationality is how effectively one pursues one's goals. If someone decides to sacrifice themselves to save an unrelated child, that isn't inherently an irrational choice. Whether it is rational depends on what their goals are.
Humans are frequently irrational - but pursuing different goals isn't proof of their irrationality. Someone can have a personal goal that is different than reproduction.
Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2022, 04:04:40 AM
Rationality is how effectively one pursues one's goals.
This is the definition I'm using.
I started to make a post on concepts from Trek lore that I thought were as problematic as time travel (no money, post-scarcity economics, the holodeck...) but the list expanded so quickly that I had to stop.
I think maybe what a Trek game really needs (and sf games in general) is a meta-system for managing and controlling which game-breaking concepts are in play. I mean, time travel, transporters, replicators, the holodeck, the Genesis device, the list goes on.
That way, if you want to expand on what a piece of Treknology does, you have to pay points for it, and maybe give up other shiny objects.
"I want to have the implant translator function as a comlink." "Do you have the McGuffin points for that?"
"I want phasers to have a stasis field setting, and I have enough McGuffin points to activate it as a one time only effect."
Quote from: Lurkndog on May 25, 2022, 01:11:44 PM
I started to make a post on concepts from Trek lore that I thought were as problematic as time travel (no money, post-scarcity economics, the holodeck...) but the list expanded so quickly that I had to stop.
I think maybe what a Trek game really needs (and sf games in general) is a meta-system for managing and controlling which game-breaking concepts are in play. I mean, time travel, transporters, replicators, the holodeck, the Genesis device, the list goes on.
That way, if you want to expand on what a piece of Treknology does, you have to pay points for it, and maybe give up other shiny objects.
"I want to have the implant translator function as a comlink." "Do you have the McGuffin points for that?"
"I want phasers to have a stasis field setting, and I have enough McGuffin points to activate it as a one time only effect."
I think a lot of those are a problem from a world-building perspective, but less of a problem from a game perspective. Unfettered time travel is the one that really jumps out as a plot breaker, while the rest are more a problem if you try to think through their societal implications.
And I think that's at least somewhat separate from the Trek tendency to use technobabble as a solution to immediate problems.