SF Planetary Science Mystery Adventures

[Joseph Paul]

OK - clarifications and expansions.

1) Yes things like the Bloop would qualify.

2) I should broaden the subject to both astronomical and planetary anomalies/mysteries.

3) The full setting will range from pre-TL9 to TL12+. This thread is about making investigation of scientific phenomenon a focus of play.

Why not send a probe? Ultimately because that means you are playing 'Jet Propulsion Laboratory' and that involves watching a screen for 8-12 hours. The setting is rich, travel is cheap, and being there personally with a dozen video drones is a way to monetize the science.

4) Fred, I would have thought with your heavy interest in the sciences that you would have a track record with this. I am disappointed that you won't be participating. If you think of anything jump in.

5) I am not after having players do original research on complex subjects. Just a means to set up skill tasks that would be entertaining and a focus of the play.

6) Yes, some of the mysteries should lend themselves to being solved/proven by characters. I wouldn't mind seeing things that are the subject of speculation 'proven' such as the ocean under the ice of Enceladus. A race to be the first to map it through the ice or get a probe in it could be done or circumnavigation by a manned vessel.

7) If they don't lend themselves to being solvable by characters then they may very well become signs that the Universe is not what the characters think it is (a major part of the setting I am working with). For instance the Space Roar obscures radio observation of first generation stars that can be nearly as old as the Universe. That Roar may also intentionally obscure the presence of intelligences that are as old or older. Da-da-da-daaahh...

8) Sharing the research - Here is a couple of pages on rules for space opera science set up for GURPS. I may look into modifying these to create a task structure for what I am after. Thoughts?

https://sites.google.com/site/mailan...cience-puzzles

https://sites.google.com/site/mailan...nce-operations

9) Hand in hand with 8 is the need for leads on mysteries in the sciences. Oh look! <Googlefu stopped being jammed>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomaly
http://www.science-frontiers.com/cat-astr.htm
http://www.technologyreview.com/view...ned-anomalies/


10) I want to know how other people have handled scientific characters and investigations. What did you do with a player that wanted to 'science the $#!@' out of things?

11) My setting involves a secret, that is the Universe is not what the characters think it is - stable, functionally eternal for the life time of their species, ruled by immutable physics. It is instead malleable, endangered by attempts to end it, and mutablity was built into the basic design. Play style can be Hard SF gritty to Space Opera to Four Color Co(s)mic depending on how much of the Truth the characters have learned.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

10) I want to know how other people have handled scientific characters and investigations. What did you do with a player that wanted to 'science the $#!@' out of things?

This requires, in my experience, players that can actually think systematically and carefully about the problems they face. With that, you make sure that the characters have scientific skills, so that the players have something to roll against to get answers to the questions that arise. The GM then needs to understand the problem in terms of its actual physical/biological/whichever nature, so that he can answer questions sensibly. Edit: The players then essentially do an outline of a scientific investigation. Note that this is an outline: they come up with ideas and try to test them, the GM tells them about the results of the tests and about further observations they make during the tests. This allows the GM to drop hints.

I don't have any real idea how you make "science" a button that players who aren't thinking scientifically can push, and I suspect it wouldn't be much fun for them.

[Joseph Paul]

Thank you John- I think adding a different task mechanic for situations where the player has to deal with uncertainty about the truthfulness of his data or what the analysis of it tells him would help. In GURPS such things seem to be handled by the GM releasing information on just a binary all-or-nothing roll. MegaTraveller had player and ref roll against player skill+mods (not all of which may have been known to the player). Four results can come of this -both make it, neither make it, player but not ref makes it, ref but not player makes it. If both make it the player gets the fullest information that can be had at this time. If neither makes it no information is available or misinformation is found. The other two conditions give partial true info possibly with partial misinformation. That seems to be something a little more nuanced.

Is there a Contest format that uses Margin of Victory/Failure to produce a series of modifiers that are additively applied against difficulty of the endeavour?

I am agreed with you that not every player is going to want to push that button just like not every player likes the 'rampant gun bunny on steroids' button. But I have had the good fortune in the past of running into players that did like puzzles.

As an aside one of the longer story arcs I am planning is an FTL Grand Tour of a half dozen extrasolar colonies settled via STL craft. Each player runs three characters one from each of Diplomatic, Sciences, and Ships Crew/Security complements so that no matter what is going on most everyone can be engaged.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

In GURPS such things seem to be handled by the GM releasing information on just a binary all-or-nothing roll.

Is there a Contest format that uses Margin of Victory/Failure to produce a series of modifiers that are additively applied against difficulty of the endeavour?

This is really a Rule Zero situation, and it works the same way for any kind of investigation, not only scientific ones. For this kind of puzzle, I'll use margins of success as a guide towards giving further clues, and if the players pick up on them and ask better questions I'll ask for further rolls.

If the players fail their initial rolls, I'll let them retry if they can come up with a new way of looking at the problem or a different way of getting information about it. I don't have a number for total amount of margin of success that's needed, or something like that; it's a matter of making the problem feel adequately difficult, expecting the players to solve it in the end, but the adventure being able to cope with them not doing so, or doing so especially well.

An example, where I was a player rather than the GM, but of a rather satisfactory outcome: It's 1943, and we're secretly investigating something that will obviously become known in legend as the Philadelphia Experiment. I have sneaked into the chief physicist's cabin on the ship, where there are loads of papers about what's going on, but they're his notes and calculations for himself, not a structured explanation. I'm rolling Physics/TL6 at -4, which gives me a 7. Unsurprisingly, I fail, use Luck, and fail both my re-rolls.

OK, I need to get creative as a player. There's a safe in the cabin, open, and full of papers. It seems plausible that the stuff in the safe is the papers the physicist brought on board when he joined the ship. Those might well include a proper explanation, let's have a look. That was enough to get me another roll. I was fortunate enough to get a critical success, and actually understand what I found. On a success, I might well (second-guessing the GM) have found a document that explained the problem, but would have had to remove it from the ship, creating a risk that its absence would be noticed.

[lwcamp]

You might find inspiration at the Atomic Rockets Space Weirdness site
http://www.projectrho.com/public_htm...dastronomy.php

Luke

[Joseph Paul]

Thanks Luke - that site just keeps surprising me. I hadn't seen this section but have a seen a couple of the oddities listed before. I am partial to the idea that the Geminga explosion was deliberate in order to keep someone from using Bussard ramjets any time soon.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It works for gaming better than story telling. Because gamers will always look for the ghosts, monsters, or cryptids rather than consider more mundane reasons.
The problem is getting them to eventually clue in to those mundane reasons rather than assuming them mere red herrings.

A reverse Scooby Doo is better for gaming, or actually, gamers. Players want and expect a supernatural cause for their adventure, and if there is a hint of it in the air they will feel disappointed if the GM doesn't deliver. Its like Chekhov's Gun, if its not going to be fired it better not be there.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

4) Fred, I would have thought with your heavy interest in the sciences that you would have a track record with this. I am disappointed that you won't be participating. If you think of anything jump in.

.

In my Space games the PCs have gone interesting places, seen Stupidly Large Objects and even watch a (rather smallish) star blow up. However, they've never really done anything that meets your criteria.

The closest they've ever come may have been when they found an ancient document that ended translating into "Scientific Precursor Magazine". It described an observation station being set up around an obscure red dwarf just 6 light-years from a star that was expected to go supernova soon.

A little galactic cartography and they figured out hat his was the supernova that created the Crab Nebula and that the nebula was about to engulf the Precursor station in about 1 month, give or take 6 weeks.

This would make the whole system un-navigable so if they wanted to loot the place they had to get there _Now_.

See? Not that close to what you were talking about even if it did involve Science! You've set some really rather narrow criteria. Iv'e used Astronomy and Planetology and Archaeology in adventures but never a current "mystery". I can't even think of anything that would fit whether I've used it or not.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

some really rather narrow criteria.

The example ("Into the Miranda Rift") doesn't really meet them, for that matter. I think he might still be happy even if you broadened the scope a bit.

(It's a good story, but it's not about solving a scientific puzzle. It's a team exploring the interior of Miranda, which is postulated by the author to contain a lot of void zones and cave-like structure. The oddity that's that starting point is merely that Miranda has a relatively low density for a moon, about 40% rock and 60% ice -- except, of course, it would be a lot more interesting for fictional purposes if it were something less mundane, so the author just makes that bit up. But this particular fact was known in-setting even before our intrepid explorers reached the place. They go spelunking, and discover some more interesting things along the way. But it's really a man-against-the-environment story with a dose of travelogue a la "Rendezvous with Rama"; it reminded me of Jack London more than Hal Clement.)

The point about "monetizing" the science is apt. The Miranda story reminded me more of a NOVA or National Geographic special than a research program. You could have a PC that was the director or producer of the documentary that funds the trip (instead of a robot or drone), and give them additional logistics, scheduling, and finance problems to solve along with the main plot.

"Solving a scientific puzzle" puts me in mind of "Inherit the Stars", by James Hogan. No more science than he needs to get the fun started, and the process resembles actual science probably about as much as "Law and Order" resembles actual detective work. The puzzle unravels in about the same way as one of those cop shows. Even procedurals only have a smattering of actual procedure -- which is probably how the game should work as well.

[dcarson]

You might get some ideas from Omnilingual by H. Beam Piper.