02-20-2017, 11:41 AM | #11 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Shropshire, uk
|
Re: Shared space setting
Quote:
I will add a deadline to any future questions from the start. |
|
02-20-2017, 11:46 AM | #12 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Shared space setting
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.
|
02-20-2017, 12:28 PM | #13 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: Shared space setting
Quote:
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. |
|
02-20-2017, 02:11 PM | #14 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
|
Re: Shared space setting
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.
__________________
-- MXLP:9 [JD=1, DK=1, DM-M=1, M(FAW)=1, SS=2, Nym=1 (nose coffee), sj=1 (nose cocoa), Maz=1] "Some days, I just don't know what to think." -Daryl Dixon. Last edited by tshiggins; 02-20-2017 at 02:15 PM. |
02-20-2017, 02:49 PM | #15 |
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Irving, TX
|
Re: Shared space setting
1) C
2) B |
02-20-2017, 04:36 PM | #16 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Shared space setting
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. |
02-20-2017, 05:08 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Shropshire, uk
|
Re: Shared space setting
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.
|
02-21-2017, 03:57 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Shropshire, uk
|
Re: Shared space setting
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. Last edited by Frost; 02-22-2017 at 07:08 AM. |
02-21-2017, 04:38 AM | #19 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Meifumado
|
Re: Shared space setting
b) Mainly 10, but with the option of 11 for any bio-tech or transhuman-enabling techs.
Quote:
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. Quote:
__________________
Collaborative Settings: Cyberpunk: Duopoly Nation Space Opera: Behind the King's Eclipse And heaps of forum collabs, 30+ and counting! Last edited by Daigoro; 02-21-2017 at 04:43 AM. |
||
02-21-2017, 04:47 AM | #20 | |||
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Shared space setting
Quote:
3A for overall TL9, but Bio-Tech TL11+? Bio-Tech is always fun, and seems at home in a transhumanist setting. Quote:
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. Quote:
Last edited by vicky_molokh; 02-21-2017 at 04:51 AM. |
|||
|
|