Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-20-2018, 11:56 AM   #11
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Tech Level Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Johnston2 View Post
Actually it might. It would be perfectly possible have two different societies, one using jump drive, fusion power and lasers and the other using warp drive, solar power and gauss weapons, each using Ultra-Tech technologies but different ones. Ultra-tech is a grab bag.
True, but in that case you would call them both TL10 (or TL10^).
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2018, 12:46 PM   #12
David Johnston2
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Tech Level Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
True, but in that case you would call them both TL10 (or TL10^).
No, I wouldn't. They are actually divergent from each other in this hypothetical case and would be penalized when understanding each other's technologies. So the reference society would be TL 10 and the other society would be 8+2. It does not of course matter which is which.

Last edited by David Johnston2; 04-21-2018 at 07:51 AM.
David Johnston2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2018, 02:14 PM   #13
maximara
On Notice
 
maximara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
Default Re: Tech Level Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
Now, since we haven't gotten to TL9 yet, we don't really know what TL9 is like. Is it going to have incredibly advanced computers thanks to some new way of making ICs that lets Moore's law keep going? Real functional nanotech? Massively genetic engineering as a routine part of daily life? We don't know; it hasn't happened there. So in a sense ALL Ultra-Tech is TL(8+N) to use; it's extrapolating from TL8. We don't know what the real TL9 is. But given that, you could just as well call any of them "TL9" (or higher).
Essentually what revisiting works by Verne and Wells regarding future Tech looks like.

Mark Twain's telegraph based "internet" (From The London Times of 1904) is TL(6+1) is one such example. Wells TL(6+1) atomic bombs of World Set free is another.
maximara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2018, 03:04 PM   #14
maximara
On Notice
 
maximara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
Default Re: Tech Level Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
Now, since we haven't gotten to TL9 yet, we don't really know what TL9 is like. Is it going to have incredibly advanced computers thanks to some new way of making ICs that lets Moore's law keep going? Real functional nanotech? Massively genetic engineering as a routine part of daily life? We don't know; it hasn't happened there. So in a sense ALL Ultra-Tech is TL(8+N) to use; it's extrapolating from TL8. We don't know what the real TL9 is. But given that, you could just as well call any of them "TL9" (or higher).
Eventually what revisiting works by Verne and Wells regarding future Tech looks like.

Mark Twain's telegraph based "internet" (From The London Times of 1904) is TL(5+2) is one such example. Wells TL(6+1) atomic bombs of World Set Free is another.
maximara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2018, 05:05 PM   #15
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Tech Level Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Essentually what revisiting works by Verne and Wells regarding future Tech looks like.
Well, no, I don't think so. Verne and Wells were TL5 and TL6, respectively, for the most part; their portrayal of the TL after ours would be TL(5+4) and TL(6+3), respectively. It's really implausible to suppose that the likely projection from our technology would look anything like either of their imaginings.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 06:10 AM   #16
maximara
On Notice
 
maximara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
Default Re: Tech Level Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
Well, no, I don't think so. Verne and Wells were TL5 and TL6, respectively, for the most part; their portrayal of the TL after ours would be TL(5+4) and TL(6+3), respectively. It's really implausible to suppose that the likely projection from our technology would look anything like either of their imaginings.
You ignored the very next sentence which clarified my position:

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Mark Twain's telegraph based "internet" (From The London Times of 1904) is TL(5+2) is one such example. Wells TL(6+1) atomic bombs of World Set Free is another.
TL(5+2) and TL(6+1) are not "TL after ours" but current/old TL.

Also, unless I am missing something, there is isn't that much in Verne and Wells that is beyond our TL that doesn't fall into the superscience (^) category.


From the Earth to the Moon: TL(5+2)^ to TL(6+1)^ space travel thanks to really big gun which needs superscience to prevent the would be travelers from being messy stains on the floor.

Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and Mysterious Island: TL(5+1)^ per reference works. Can be viewed as TL(5+2)^ if you want to view it as some form of atomic power as many people do.

The Island of Doctor Moreau: Vivisection stands in for genetic engineering; TL6^ or perhaps TL(6+2)^ if you want to be really generous and that is a may be.

The First Men in the Moon: TL(6+1)^ space travel via an anti-gravity metal.

War of the Worlds: The TL of the Martians is really bizarre; they have space travel (TL9) but not flight (TL6) and they seemed to have no concept of harmless to them but deadly to us biology (TL5)

GURPS does a really poor job of explaining just how TLx^ differs from TL(x+y) and TL(x+y)^.

Last edited by maximara; 04-21-2018 at 06:30 AM.
maximara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 08:05 AM   #17
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Tech Level Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
From the Earth to the Moon: TL(5+2)^ to TL(6+1)^ space travel thanks to really big gun which needs superscience to prevent the would be travelers from being messy stains on the floor.
I don't think that qualifies as "superscience." It isn't as if Verne says, "Oh, and after the spacecraft was lowered into the lunar cannon, the occupants turned on the acceleration compensator field/stasis device/hydraulic cushioning system to protect them from the acceleration." He just doesn't think about the problem in the first place. It's a story, not an engineering proposal. "Did not do the math" isn't equivalent to "superscience."

Quote:
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and Mysterious Island: TL(5+1)^ per reference works. Can be viewed as TL(5+2)^ if you want to view it as some form of atomic power as many people do.
Verne was massively overoptimistic about how much power could be gotten from primary batteries, but again that's mostly "did not do the math." I believe the batteries he describes were an experimental design that actually existed in his own time. There is no justification for saying that Verne described it as atomic power; the concept didn't even exist when he wrote.

Quote:
The Island of Doctor Moreau: Vivisection stands in for genetic engineering; TL6^ or perhaps TL(6+2)^ if you want to be really generous and that is a may be.
Of course the surgery Wells describes couldn't have produced (even poorly) uplifted beings; there are fundamental problems of brain mass. And there are immunological issues involved in Moreau's creation of beast men sculpted from two or three different animals, though I don't know if Wells was aware of them; his contemporary Stoker was pretty casual about blood transfusions. On the other hand, Wells was quite capable of handwaving the science for the sake of a better story in full awareness of what he was doing; he wrote a letter to a fellow writer that said explicitly that the Invisible Man would have been unable to see if he were truly invisible. But I don't think anything in Dr. Moreau says "radical new scientific principle."

Quote:
The First Men in the Moon: TL(6+1)^ space travel via an anti-gravity metal.
Cavorite wasn't a metal; we don't know everything about its composition, but I'm pretty sure one of its ingredients was helium. But I'll certainly give you superscience for that one. Otherwise it's probably straight TL6. Note that in this case Wells gives us potentially catastrophic effects from a gravity insulator, so he's actually examining some of the hard sf implications of his "one miracle."

Quote:
War of the Worlds: The TL of the Martians is really bizarre; they have space travel (TL9) but not flight (TL6) and they seemed to have no concept of harmless to them but deadly to us biology (TL5).
Just like Europeans travelling to Africa and falling victim to diseases to which they had almost no resistance ("One comes out where twenty went in"). But Martian space travel is the same technology as Verne used in "From the Earth to the Moon": there are hints of huge guns being fired on Mars a while before the Martians land on Earth. Wells was being overoptimistic about the ability of living tissue to withstand high accelerations, and unlike Verne, he may have been aware of it; but he's just counting on his readers not to be.

Quote:
GURPS does a really poor job of explaining just how TLx^ differs from TL(x+y) and TL(x+y)^.
In GURPS Steampunk, at least, the "^" notation wasn't even used. So of course there was no attempt there to explain it.

But I think that saying "superscience" often goes too far. There are lots of cases where science fiction writers (including authors of voyages extraordinaires or scientific romances) either don't realize the scientific implications, or don't care, because their goal is to tell a good story. That's not the same as "I have this radical new invention that solves this problem" or "the laws of nature are different in my fictional universe" (both Verne and Wells pretended that their stories took place in the real world!) or even "narrative causality makes this work" (which is kind of a generic superscience justification for fantasy as such). Sometimes they're just handwaving away the problem; sometimes they don't realize it IS a problem; occasionally the science of their time could not have let them realize that such a problem might arise.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 09:20 AM   #18
David Johnston2
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Tech Level Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post

GURPS does a really poor job of explaining just how TLx^ differs from TL(x+y) and TL(x+y)^.
That's because it isn't important.
David Johnston2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 09:49 AM   #19
maximara
On Notice
 
maximara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
Default Re: Tech Level Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
I don't think that qualifies as "superscience." It isn't as if Verne says, "Oh, and after the spacecraft was lowered into the lunar cannon, the occupants turned on the acceleration compensator field/stasis device/hydraulic cushioning system to protect them from the acceleration." He just doesn't think about the problem in the first place. It's a story, not an engineering proposal. "Did not do the math" isn't equivalent to "superscience."
"The notation “^” means the item requires “superscience” that rewrites the laws of physics; required TL is up to the GM." (Basic Set 267)

Besides Verne does address some of the issue "The problem before us is how to communicate an initial force of 12,000 yards per second to a shell of 108 inches in diameter, weighing 20,000 pounds." and Barbicane tells Michel he is not sure that the water-cushions will sufficiently protect them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
Verne was massively overoptimistic about how much power could be gotten from primary batteries, but again that's mostly "did not do the math." I believe the batteries he describes were an experimental design that actually existed in his own time. There is no justification for saying that Verne described it as atomic power; the concept didn't even exist when he wrote.
The term "atomic power" was used in Verne's day but in a totally different matter:

"I find in all atoms an inherent power (an atomic power), more “ or” (and) less in all matter, which power is
rought into action only when the atoms are under certain conditions, which power .is similar to that noticed in steel, and there called magnetism." - Proceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science (1870)

"In other words, it takes the whole atom-power of chlorine, 35-5, to engage 1 atom of hydrogen ; whereas, the atom- power of oxygen, 16, suffices to engage 2 hydrogen-atoms; and the atom- power of nitrogen and carbon suffice, respectively, to engage 3 and 4 hydrogen-atoms." - Introduction to Modern Chemistry (1866) p 165

"The maximum combining power is invariable; the value of substitution may change. If we call the former atomic power or atomicity we must find a term corresponding to the latter, as the German word AEquivalentigkeit corresponds to Atómigkeit." - Chemical News (1866) Page 290

Never mind, "Verne’s Nautilus; This is the vessel which is the real star of Jules Verne’s Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea – a period superscience submarine, built and commanded by the brooding Captain Nemo." - GURPS 4e Vehicles Steampunk Conveyances pg 10


Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
Of course the surgery Wells describes couldn't have produced (even poorly) uplifted beings; there are fundamental problems of brain mass. And there are immunological issues involved in Moreau's creation of beast men sculpted from two or three different animals, though I don't know if Wells was aware of them; his contemporary Stoker was pretty casual about blood transfusions. On the other hand, Wells was quite capable of handwaving the science for the sake of a better story in full awareness of what he was doing; he wrote a letter to a fellow writer that said explicitly that the Invisible Man would have been unable to see if he were truly invisible. But I don't think anything in Dr. Moreau says "radical new scientific principle."
Dr. Moreau talks of how his methods are an extension of the current surgical methods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
Cavorite wasn't a metal; we don't know everything about its composition, but I'm pretty sure one of its ingredients was helium. But I'll certainly give you superscience for that one. Otherwise it's probably straight TL6. Note that in this case Wells gives us potentially catastrophic effects from a gravity insulator, so he's actually examining some of the hard sf implications of his "one miracle."
"He had fused together a number of metals and certain other things--I wish I knew the particulars now!--and he intended to leave the mixture a week and then allow it to cool slowly. (...) The Cavorite was half made by March, the metallic paste had gone through two of the stages in its manufacture, and we had plastered quite half of it on to the steel bars and blinds." Cavor makes an effort to relay how to make Cavorite back to Earth but doesn't get very far; if it was a one time miracle why even bother?

Of course when you get right down to it Cavor wasn't very bright. No clear notes on any of the experiments made nor records of the success that did happen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
In GURPS Steampunk, at least, the "^" notation wasn't even used. So of course there was no attempt there to explain it."
But there should be an effort to explain it in 4e especially when one is referring the player back to a 3e book.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
But I think that saying "superscience" often goes too far. There are lots of cases where science fiction writers (including authors of voyages extraordinaires or scientific romances) either don't realize the scientific implications, or don't care, because their goal is to tell a good story. That's not the same as "I have this radical new invention that solves this problem" or "the laws of nature are different in my fictional universe" (both Verne and Wells pretended that their stories took place in the real world!) or even "narrative causality makes this work" (which is kind of a generic superscience justification for fantasy as such). Sometimes they're just handwaving away the problem; sometimes they don't realize it IS a problem; occasionally the science of their time could not have let them realize that such a problem might arise.
The real world as they understood it at the time. Understanding that was later shown to be wrong or incorrect.

'“Superscience” technologies violate physical laws – relativity, conservation of energy, etc. – as we currently understand them.'

It certainly doesn't help that in 3e TL(x+y) meant both divergent TL and superscience TL: "From these definitions, devices labeled TL4 or TL5 should be real inventions; devices labeled TL(4+1), TL(5+1), or TL(5+n) should be fanciful. But it's not that simple. Real inventions of the early 20th century that fit the 19th century's technological idiom, such as airships, are classified as TL(5+1); devices that apply real 19th-century technology in cinematic ways, such as the lunar shell (p. STM83), are classified as TL5." (Steamtech 6)

Last edited by maximara; 04-21-2018 at 10:36 AM.
maximara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2018, 11:08 AM   #20
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Tech Level Confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
The term "atomic power" was used in Verne's day but in a totally different matter:

"I find in all atoms an inherent power (an atomic power), more “ or” (and) less in all matter, which power is
rought into action only when the atoms are under certain conditions, which power .is similar to that noticed in steel, and there called magnetism." - Proceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science (1870)

"In other words, it takes the whole atom-power of chlorine, 35-5, to engage 1 atom of hydrogen ; whereas, the atom- power of oxygen, 16, suffices to engage 2 hydrogen-atoms; and the atom- power of nitrogen and carbon suffice, respectively, to engage 3 and 4 hydrogen-atoms." - Introduction to Modern Chemistry (1866) p 165

"The maximum combining power is invariable; the value of substitution may change. If we call the former atomic power or atomicity we must find a term corresponding to the latter, as the German word AEquivalentigkeit corresponds to Atómigkeit." - Chemical News (1866) Page 290

Never mind, "Verne’s Nautilus; This is the vessel which is the real star of Jules Verne’s Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea – a period superscience submarine, built and commanded by the brooding Captain Nemo." - GURPS 4e Vehicles Steampunk Conveyances pg 10
Well, the first use of the term is hopelessly vague, at least without the context of the rest of the article. But the second is pretty clearly just a synonym for "atomic weight," and the third may well be also, given the reference to combining power. None of that has any relationship to what we now called "atomic energy" or "nuclear energy"; it's a purely verbal similarity.

As for the Nautilus,

* I don't agree that it's the real star of the novel; it seems to me that that's clearly Captain Nemo himself, given among other things how much of the novel is about his relationship to Professor Arronax and its conflict with his self-chosen exile from humanity.

* I don't think that it actually is intended as "superscience." Verne carefully ties it to the science and technology of his own time, just as he ties his oceanography to Matthew Maury's pioneering textbook on the subject, trying in both cases to produce the strongest possible sense of "this is something that you might read about in next year's news." In fact Verne was proud of doing this; he had a passage where he contrasted his firing men into space in a shell from a gun with Wells sending them into space with cavorite, which he dismissed as Wells just making stuff up. Of course Verne was wrong about what was technologically possible, but he had no intention of making up arbitrary miracles.

* That a GURPS book classifies the Nautilus as "superscience" is a device for reconciling the novel's account of its capabilities with the restrictions of standard GURPS on things like battery power, which leaves a big gap that has to be filled somehow. But it's not a statement about the novel itself. It's a later fiction made up about an element of the novel to fit it into a different fictional universe. It's exactly as if, having noticed that cowboys or cops in a movie seem able to go on shooting without reloading (because the writers don't bother with "how many bullets do they have?"), you gave them guns with a superscience bullet materializing device in the grip.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
tech level

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.