GURPS TL 3e vs 4e

[maximara]

Going over some 3e material (Space, Traveler, Lensman) I noticed how much of the TL chart went into Superscience! (^) from 7 on up. Does this mean that TL7+ in these books is basicly anything we want it to be with a ^ slapped on the end or will there be better information to place the 3e TLs?

[David L Pulver]

Originally Posted by maximara

Going over some 3e material (Space, Traveler, Lensman) I noticed how much of the TL chart went into Superscience! (^) from 7 on up. Does this mean that TL7+ in these books is basicly anything we want it to be with a ^ slapped on the end or will there be better information to place the 3e TLs?

Well, theoretically and very roughly:

upper half 3eTL7 = TL8
3eTL8 = 4eTL9
3eTL9 = 4eTL10 and some TL9-10^
3eTL10 = 4eTL11 and some TL10-11^
3eTL11 = 4eTL11 and some TL10-11^
3eTL12 = 4eTL11 and TL10-11^
3eTL13 = 4eTL11 and TL11^
3eTL14 = 4eTL12 and some TL11-12^
3eTL15 = 4eTL12^
3eTL16 = 4eTL12^

A few individual items drop or gain in TL.

BIO-TECH and ULTRA-TECH (both currently well under way) will give suggested but clearly optional TL values for superscience technology rather than just saying TL^ so that development chains will be obvious.

[David L Pulver]

An odd element of GURPS 3e tech levels viz ultra-tech:

1) In the original playtest draft of GURPS Space (c. 1987), the "ultra-tech" TLs ran:

TL8
TL9
TL10
TL11+

They were only expanded to TL8-16 in the final draft. So 4e in some ways marks a return to that original gurps concept.

2) In UT 1st edition ('89), I had a lot of trouble filling everything, hence the organization (original by TL not topic) in the chapters looked like:

TL8 (whole chapter)
TL9 (whole chapter)
TL10 (whole chapter)
TL11-12 chapter
TL13-14 chapter
TL15-16 chapter

Moreover, often some gadgets were pushed forward a TL or so just to give me something useful to prevent the TL11-16 chapters from being too empty!

So the condensation of TLs in 4e is actually less radical than it might seem.

[Ironhand]

I think the reason they seperated things more is because in 3ed they allowed too many science fiction elements to become part of standard TL. They didn't really allow for the fact you might want to play a more realistic future game using only semi-proven theories and not mere conjecture. That way you can play a totally realistic game or pick and choose which elements you want to include in an easier way instead of having a sci-fi package thrown at you and being forced to do a lot of research on your own to get back to realism. They're giving you a researched realistic view and then letting you add the fictional elements yourself. I like the way they're doing it a lot more.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by David L Pulver

An odd element of GURPS 3e tech levels viz ultra-tech:

1) In the original playtest draft of GURPS Space (c. 1987), the "ultra-tech" TLs ran:

TL8
TL9
TL10
TL11+

They were only expanded to TL8-16 in the final draft. So 4e in some ways marks a return to that original gurps concept.

Didn't GURPS 1e only define TLs 0-12 with a huge jump from 12 to 16

Originally Posted by David L Pulver

2) In UT 1st edition ('89), I had a lot of trouble filling everything, hence the organization (original by TL not topic) in the chapters looked like:

TL8 (whole chapter)
TL9 (whole chapter)
TL10 (whole chapter)
TL11-12 chapter
TL13-14 chapter
TL15-16 chapter

Moreover, often some gadgets were pushed forward a TL or so just to give me something useful to prevent the TL11-16 chapters from being too empty!

So the condensation of TLs in 4e is actually less radical than it might seem.

Well the idea of us at TL7-8 even having an idea on what TL12+ was never did make too much sense to me. I just wish I could get the people who did GURPS Prime Directive to see that the new TL chart is much better then the old one. But they are holding on to the Old 3e GURPS TL chart like grim death.

But I agree that the new chart is far better and hopefully the new 4e Bio-Tech and Ultra teck will give us some thing to work with to get Prim Directive truely 4e complient

[teviet]

It's nice to see the "quick comparison" chart, though of course I'm eagerly awaiting the new UT.

Originally Posted by David L Pulver

BIO-TECH and ULTRA-TECH (both currently well under way) will give suggested but clearly optional TL values for superscience technology rather than just saying TL^ so that development chains will be obvious.

I hope that some thought is given to keeping these development chains internally consistent, even if they involve superscience! I.e. technology Y would logically require X or lead to Z. As H.G.Wells suggested, SF can start with any assumption, however fantastic, but should follow its consequences ruthelessly.

(It always bugged me that reactionless thrusters were TL9 and contragravity TL12, but free "cosmic" energy was TL16. Give me a reactionless thruster and I'll whip you up a perpetual-motion power generator, using nothing else but last-century technology!)

TeV

[maximara]

Originally Posted by teviet

It's nice to see the "quick comparison" chart, though of course I'm eagerly awaiting the new UT.

I hope that some thought is given to keeping these development chains internally consistent, even if they involve superscience! I.e. technology Y would logically require X or lead to Z. As H.G.Wells suggested, SF can start with any assumption, however fantastic, but should follow its consequences ruthelessly.

(It always bugged me that reactionless thrusters were TL9 and contragravity TL12, but free "cosmic" energy was TL16. Give me a reactionless thruster and I'll whip you up a perpetual-motion power generator, using nothing else but last-century technology!)

I think this is why in part some things were taken off the TL list and put into the Superscience catagory. The physics of the setting will determine what TL certain things are possible. For example by 19th century Neutonian physics reactionless thrusters were possible as was anti-gravity in the form of either gravity screens or negative mass. Under the new TL scale these would be TL(5+1)^ developments; TL(5+1) to denote the difference from 'normal' TL6 and the '^' to denote 'superscience' aspects of the universe. In such a Newtonian setting FTL is possible as the speed light is not a limit as it is in our universe.

So AD&D's old Spelljammer ships would be TL(3+2)^, a Newtonian FTL drive would be TL(5+1)^, and the Veratech fighters in Robotech/Macross would be TL(7+1)^.

Throw in Magic or Psionics and the 'standard' GURPS TL chart really gets hosed.

[teviet]

Originally Posted by maximara

...For example by 19th century Neutonian physics reactionless thrusters were possible as was anti-gravity in the form of either gravity screens or negative mass.

Yes, and even with Newtonian physics they could be used as an endless source of free energy. To get thrusters/antigrav without cosmic power, you have to throw out the force-work relationship, which I guess makes them something like TL(3+n)^ technology.

I guess I like to distinguish between hard&crunchy SF (which can include internally consistent "superscience") and soft&squishy SF (which is great fun so long as nobody digs too deep), and would be ever so happy to see that reflected in canon. But that's just my personal fetish.

TeV

[maximara]

Originally Posted by teviet

Yes, and even with Newtonian physics they could be used as an endless source of free energy. To get thrusters/antigrav without cosmic power, you have to throw out the force-work relationship, which I guess makes them something like TL(3+n)^ technology.

I guess I like to distinguish between hard&crunchy SF (which can include internally consistent "superscience") and soft&squishy SF (which is great fun so long as nobody digs too deep), and would be ever so happy to see that reflected in canon. But that's just my personal fetish.

I think such views are the result of not fully understanding the physics behind them. Newtonian phyics had the First Law of Thermodynaics as far back as 1676 and if you are getting 'free' energy out of something you are not understanding something correctly.

To use a modern example say you have found a way to convert energy into antimatter at 75% efficency. Now by E=mc^2 this means that m = .75*E/c^2. Now combine that with a lump of existing matter; the equation becomes E=2(.75*E/c^2)c^2 or E=1.50*E/c^2)c^2 or you are getting more energy out the anitmater then you put in.

So what happened? It is like buring coal without taking into account the fact that us use up the coal in making energy. Nature made the coal for you but it is not 'free' energy - eventually you will use up the coal. The same is true of our matter antimatter device above - you will eventually use up matter to power the thing. In Newtonian Reactionless thrusters 'pushed' against the 'aether' and that push required energy. Similarly negative mass could not be found just laying around by its very nature it would have to be mixed in with 'normal' matter or it would have long flew off into space.

The fact is it takes energy to make energy and if you count all the engery (materials, labor, etc) require to harness a source you will always come up with a net loss. That is true of fossil fuels as well as 'renewable' sources the only difference is where the net loss is.

[yam]

On the topic of free energy, gravity screens could easily do that for you, although they are hardly newtonian, as according to newton every massive body attracts every other massive body. Perhaps a device that would allow you to move through a gravitational field by converting chemical or electrical energy directly into potential energy would work for you.

And as far as negative mass, it gets messy if you keep the identity of inertial and gravitational mass, as with W = F * d and F= m*a we can get energy just from pushing stuff, but just take the inertial mass to be the abolute value of the gravitational and then you have your negative mass for antigrav without breaking the energy conservation bank.