07-20-2018, 03:55 PM | #181 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Quote:
|
|
07-20-2018, 04:29 PM | #182 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
I think it's more a case that the Traveller TL scale is more fine-grained than the 4e GURPS scale, and that it eventually gets into purely superscience innovations at which point the scale largely becomes arbitrary. As well, there are apparently key elements of GURPS TL10–12 outside of the superscience that Traveller never really gets around to: I'm a little rusty on my Traveller so I could be wrong, but I don't recall nanotech ever being a big thing on its scale.
That said: Traveller, like Star Trek, strikes me as a TL(7+x) setting: it takes a pre-80s view of science and projects it into the future, missing key innovations that only became apparent in the 80s, 90s, and later (the Information Revolution, nanotech, and Bio-Tech — basically, the notion of focusing on the small instead of the pre-80s focus on “bigger and more”). |
07-20-2018, 04:40 PM | #183 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Quote:
|
|
07-20-2018, 04:59 PM | #184 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
It does when it results in noticeable difference from 4e's TL scale (which was written on the early 00s and thus includes concepts that sci-fi written in the 60s and 70s missed). The notion that Traveller TL tends to cap out around GURPS TL9 or 10 comes from the fact that the hard science aspects of GURPS TL10+ tend to be things that Atomic Age science fiction didn't anticipate; even TL9 tends to incorporate a fair amount of post-80s concepts.
|
07-20-2018, 05:04 PM | #185 |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
|
07-20-2018, 05:14 PM | #186 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
By “every time”, are you expressing frustration that I keep on advancing the “TL(7+x)” interpretation, or are you saying that it's perfectly fine to just say “TL10” to represent sci-do that originated during the Atomic Age? If it's the former, I'll apologize for being so pushy on the subject; but if it's the latter, I think the areas of divergence don't go without saying, and do need to be pointed out whenever a given sci-fi setting's technology is described.
|
07-20-2018, 06:34 PM | #187 | |||
On Notice
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Quote:
Quote:
The Traveler 5e to GURPS TL conversion page gives a very rough cliff notes view on how the TLs compare. I should note that there is a lot wrong with the T5TL scale. For example Internal Anatomy is put in Age Of Sail but it was known to the Greeks and Romans despite the social restrictions on human dissection. Crude Surgery at Industrialization (TL5 in GURPS)? There is evidence that even Stone Age people did some form of surgery. The biggest issue is not where it puts stuff but how little useful information there is. GURPS gives you far more actually useful information in two pages then Traveler 5 does in six somewhat disjointed pages. Quote:
Ironically sometimes you get better snapshots from the weirdest places. The Jetsons for example goes into nanotech when George's doctor has him swallow a pill robot that goes through his entire body relaying information. Fantastic Voyage (1966) uses minimization as a psudo-nanotech. The Six Million Dollar man (1970s) has several episodes that dealt with the potential of the Information Revolution "The Cross-Country Kidnap" had Steve protecting the creator of a cryptography code that linked computers and secret communications world-wide (sound familiar?) In "Double Trouble" a person is implanted with a device that allows them to be controlled like a robot. The two parter "Date With Danger" had Steve dealing with a computer that not only had hacked the OSI's system but had woke up. In addition to hiring an assassin to take out Steve it also electronically altered materials. Only by going "off the grid" was Steve able to defeat the computer. Last edited by maximara; 07-20-2018 at 06:50 PM. |
|||
07-20-2018, 06:52 PM | #188 |
On Notice
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Sorry about that. I have corrected it.
Though do you think that 1960s and 1970s Sci-fi sometimes had a better handle on the future or was it just the movies and shows I happened to watch from that time? |
07-20-2018, 11:38 PM | #190 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: What TL is the original Star Trek?
Quote:
The TL(x+y) notation isn't just for deliberate Retrotech settings; it's for any setting where technological development makes a break with the standard progression at some reasonably well-defined point, after which it ends up missing some fundamental developments from the standard progression yet somehow managed to achieve competitive results through some other means. This is in contrast to either a flat-out lower TL (if the technology reaches an earlier point and then just stops) or a split TL (where one area can be higher or lower than the rest), though it can be combined with the latter. As a side note, “TL(7+3)^" is redundant: the “some other means” that defines it as a divergent path isn't necessarily superscience, but it can be; and you don't have to explicitly now that it is to make it so. As another sidenote, I do personally distinguish between TL9+ and TL(8+x). The distinction I draw is if the science fiction includes enough TL8 stuff that it's clearly not TL(7+x), but still manages to miss stuff that we're now fairly confident will be part of TL9 and yet is still clearly more advanced than what we have now. The single best example I can think of for a TL(8+x) branch would be Cyberpunk: it got the IT stuff mostly right, but completely missed the biotech and nanotech possibilities. But there's no such thing as TL(9+x); and there won't be until we're well into TL9. Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|