Shared space setting

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

Might be an idea to put a deadline up for each round of votes, so people know when to get them in by, and so you can decisively move on to the next point.

This is something I am considering. I would have done it already but I am trying to get a feel for how quickly I get responses.

I will add a deadline to any future questions from the start.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The idea that we'll have colonized anywhere off Earth by 2100 is more of a stretch. Heck we can avoid developing strong AI just by deciding not to.

Depends on when the divergence point was, what tech is available etc. I prefer a divergence point around 4 October 1957, with the Space Race largely replacing Cold War instead of supplementing it, and gradually turning into a more cooperative colonizational effort. Also, bioroids offer a quick way of colonizing far-off planets and seem to play into transhumanist themes.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Frost

I found myself inspired by a post on roleplaying in general and I thought it might make for a good collaborative setting.

The goal of the exercise is to build a space setting combining selected (potentially) transhuman technologies including biological and or cybernetic modification and some level of genetic engineering while avoiding or heavily deemphasizing strong AI and related tropes. Preferably while keeping the setting relatively hard (say a three on a scale of six) and compatible with some sort of tentative future history.

What I would like to do is run this in two parts first a simple vote up exercise to build up a set of shared assumptions that we can use as part of a question game.

To set the ball rolling:

1) How much space should the setting cover?
one vote

a) the sol system
b) another single system
c) 3-5 systems
d) 10+ systems
e) 50+ systems

2) Aproximately when is it set?
one vote

a) 2100's
b) 2200's
c) 2300's
d) 2400's
e) 2500's
f) other please specify

Really I'd opt for the post-Long Night far future by default. It eliminates almost all consideration of "How the heck did we get from now to there" and gives an excuse for technology to have declined. You don't need alien precursors if WE are the precursors. You can even have humanoid "aliens" that are actually offshoots of the human race.

I would also suggest more than 10 systems...bearing in mind that most of them would be just collections of dead rocks that have nothing more than an outpost or a mining colony. 3 to 5 fully developed systems.

[tshiggins]

I go for 1C and 2B.

With 3-5 star systems, each of which has been colonized by multiple nation-states or ethnic groups, there exists plenty of room for adventure and intrigue. For instance, C.J. Cherry's Merchanter Space setting has 15 novels set in the Company Wars and Era of Rapprochement alone, and includes only five habitable planets (Earth, Pell, Cyteen, Gehenna and whatever planet holds the aliens from Scapegoat), plus station systems. Toss in the Chanur books (which has an open cluster of alien worlds inhabited by several alien species) and the Age of Exploration (with one-off novels set on various colonized planets), and it doubles that number.

If set no more than about 250 years in the future, the setting has polities easily traced via future history to current nation-states, as well as identifiable cultures, political ideologies and ethnic groups with conflicts potentially based in actual history. While the setting could (and should) include some fun new developments based on transhumanist concepts, it's not so alien it's unrecognizable.

[Flaco76]

1) C
2) B

[dataweaver]

My inclination would be 3 to 5 worlds in the 2200s; but not just any 3 to 5 worlds. Take a look at the list of potentially habitable exoplanets and assume that all of the ones in the conservative habitable zone are habitable (even though the odds are against that). I want the three to five worlds to be the habitable exoplanets within double-right light-years of Earth: Proxima Centauri b (4.2 ly), Gliese 667 Cc (23.6 ly), and Wolf 1061c (13.8 ly). Note that all three orbit red dwarfs, which has implications.

For this purpose, I'd go with the notion of Proxima Centauri b being in a Mercury-like 2:3 resonant orbit, giving it a day/night cycle of about 7.5 days and avoiding the usual tidal locking problems that potentially habitable red dwarf exoplanets usually exhibit.

Gleise 667 Cc is subject to intense tidal heating, which might render it uninhabitable and definitely renders it tectonically active; assuming it is habitable, there will be plenty of volcanic activity. I'd be inclined to present it as a water world with extensive island chains and little in the way of continents, with the worldwide ocean moderating the volcanic activity. Possibly populate the oceans with squid-like aliens.

[Frost]

Just to let everybody know, given that we have had nine votes in less than twelve hours (just about what I was expecting in total) I am tempted to close the poll on the twenty four hour mark (8.00 am gmt-6) and run with a vote every day initially.

[Frost]

There is still a little while to go on questions 1 and 2 but I think I can afford to post more.

3) What is the overall TL?

a) 9
b) 10
c) 11

My vote: b) possibly with one or more lenses. It seems about right for the time period and the pattern of development while offering the potential for big changes.

4) Given that this is a relitively small multi-system setting how is interstellar travel accomplished?

a) Fast (super science) STL (Sub-light warp drive, Pseudo velocity etc)
b) Slow FTL
c) Fast but limited FTL (Remote or intermittently operable jump gates for example)
d) Two of the above

Edit]I have extended voting on this question until 12:00 pm tomorrow (2/23) for reasons why see here"]. [/Edit]

My vote: d) Although it creates problems fast STL averts the casual interstellar travel trope and adds incentives to occupy less than optimal colony sites while FTL travel using limited means addresses many of these problems without losing the sense of distance.

[Edit]Changing my vote slightly, I am still going for d but my vote for a secondary strategy is now a slow (as in light years/ year) FTL system. [/Edit]

5) How dependent is humanity on 'earthlike' planets?

a) Major settlements are only present on 'earthlike' planets.
b) Major settlements exist on some non-earthlike worlds. (For example, Mars, Europa etc.)
c) Major settlements can exist anywhere you can find water and power, if there is enough of a reason.

My vote: c) I feel that this encourages the use of the technologies we want to highlight.

Polls for questions 3 and 5 are now closed.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Frost

3) What is the overall TL?

a) 9
b) 10
c) 11

b) Mainly 10, but with the option of 11 for any bio-tech or transhuman-enabling techs.

4) Given that this is a relitively small multi-system setting how is interstellar travel accomplished?

a) Fast (super science) STL
b) Slow FTL
c) Fast but limited FTL

c) Probably something like fixed wormholes. Warp-speed starships seems more space opera.

I was entertaining a), with long space travel being handled by infomorphs which generate bodies at the destination, but that might be more appropriate for a fiction setting than a game setting.
ETA- ... which could be how new wormhole gates are set up, allowing an option for scout/explorer adventures if needed.

5) How dependent is humanity on 'earthlike' planets?

a) Major settlements are only present on 'earthlike' planets.
b) Major settlements exist on some non-earthlike worlds. (For example, Mars, Europa etc.)
c) Major settlements can exist anywhere you can find water and power, if there is enough of a reason.

c) TL10 shouldn't be severely limited by this, and indeed modified organisms are a setting trope. Also, on the likely time period, terraforming won't be completed yet on any candidate worlds. We'd probably have a good catalogue of terrestrial exoplanets to choose from to head to, but knowing if they had convenient environments would be unlikely.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Frost

There is still a little while to go on questions 1 and 2 but I think I can afford to post more.

3) What is the overall TL?

a) 9
b) 10
c) 11

My vote: b) possibly with one or more lenses. It seems about right for the time period and the pattern of development while offering the potential for big changes.

Can I make a split vote?
3A for overall TL9, but Bio-Tech TL11+?
Bio-Tech is always fun, and seems at home in a transhumanist setting.

Originally Posted by Frost

4) Given that this is a relitively small multi-system setting how is interstellar travel accomplished?

a) Fast (super science) STL (Sub-light warp drive, Pseudo velocity etc)
b) Slow FTL
c) Fast but limited FTL (Remote or intermittently operable jump gates for example)
d) Two of the above

My vote: d) Although it creates problems fast STL averts the casual interstellar travel trope and adds incentives to occupy less than optimal colony sites while FTL travel using limited means addresses many of these without losing the sense of distance.

My vote is 4C. The FTL moves fast between already-discovered systems, but discovering a new system is quite hard. This could be due to jump points, hyperspace paths etc. The point is that once a system is found, it becomes quickly swarmed by second-wave FTLers. But the first wave is the hard one.

I'm deeply opposed to a and b because they effectively make most of the setting 'locked away' during a typical adventuring campaign, and I'd prefer to make it reasonable for adventurers to be exposed to most of the setting's locations in the course of a campaign, much like games like Deus Ex tend to let the protagonist hop between the continents throughout the course of a game.

Originally Posted by Frost

5) How dependent is humanity on 'earthlike' planets?

a) Major settlements are only present on 'earthlike' planets.
b) Major settlements exist on some non-earthlike worlds. (For example, Mars, Europa etc.)
c) Major settlements can exist anywhere you can find water and power, if there is enough of a reason.

My vote: c) I feel that this encourages the use of the technologies we want to highlight.

Polls will close at 8:00 am (gmt-6) tomorrow (2/21).

My vote is 5C. I want the likes of THS' Duncanites and Eclipse Phase's outer solar system habitats to be a thing in this setting too, and I want them to be quite self-sufficient, numerous and powerful, not the minority exception in THS. If it's a space setting, I want the majority of humanity to live in space (including exoplanets).