Hard Science setting

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Drifter

In discussions that point out the shortcomings of the OTU in regards to observed reality, the point is often made that we should just chuck Traveller and play a game based on hard SF.

Since a real game based on hard science fiction would eliminate interstellar travel by human beings, there wouldn't be much future in it.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Since a real game based on hard science fiction would eliminate interstellar travel by human beings, there wouldn't be much future in it.

Hard science fiction is not all as hard as diamond. Some is only as hard as steel. Or to put it less frivolously, much that is accepted as hard science fiction allows FTL interstellar travel as an enabling device, and is marked not by a blanket subjection to scientific accuracy so much as focus on some particular scientific detail that is the point of the story. The Cold Equations is hard SF despite having interstellar travel because it is about mass-ratio and delta-vee. Neutron Star is hard SF despite having FTL travel and an impenetrable, inextensible spaceship hull because it is about the effect of tidal strain on objects in orbit. Perhaps these stories are not well described as hard science fiction, but "hard SF" is the accepted term for stories like that.

[Polydamas]

The semantic confusion about hard and soft science fiction is why I prefer a rational/dramatic axis which describes whether events in a story happen because they are plausible results of premises established at the beginning, or because they are cool. This model lets us classify Ringworld (rational science fiction), Star Wars (dramatic science fiction), The Magic Goes Away (rational fantasy), and Dragonlance (dramatic fantasy).

Plenty of rational science fiction contains impossibilities or near-impossibilities such as scrith, telekinesis, drives with both high Isp and acceleration, and so on.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Malenfant

Traveller is not just the OTU though.

Does that really matter? Alternate universes that use the same mapping, world generation and technological conventions have the same issues. Or most of them at least.

[PoorMerchant]

I don't think the basic ideas behind Traveller are that deep - communication being limited to the speed of the fastest ship isn't that complicated after all. My biggest personal criticism of Traveller is that I never really bought into the aliens (so just rather ignored them IMTU), and the original low berth rules were so lethal that no one in their right minds would use it - the ISW rules address this but lack any reason not to use it.

But that doesn't stop me world building, or figuring details out that fit within the OTU (actually, figuring out a solution to a problem that fits into the OTU just adds to the fun). And I figure that if I want to include some (in my opinion) cool details from Blue Planet or some other setting on one of my worlds then as long as I don't disturb the overall Traveller "vibe" it's all good.

I think that if someone enjoys Star Trek or Star Wars then that is what they'll want to play but both of those settings leave me cold (but I'm happy to steal the odd Star Wars world details if they appeal). Surely the whole point of Traveller is that originally it was built to be a set of rules that allowed GMs to do what they wanted and so could accommodate pretty much any setting you wanted - and GURPS is Universal (and so ideal as a rules system, in several senses).

I think the OTU kind of binds us all together - as soon as we start our own plots etc we begin to create our own TU but the OTU stops us from drifting too far from one another.

By the way, thanks for the heads up on Orbital - is it any good?

[DocGrognard]

Originally Posted by PoorMerchant

By the way, thanks for the heads up on Orbital - is it any good?

Yes it is. Several thumbs up. When next I run traveller, it will likely be my first setting choice; assuming the OTU and the current player histories can be put aside.

[marvin]

As Malenfant has said Paul Elliot and I have recently completed a solar system based hard sic-fi setting for Mongoose Traveller. It's over at drivethrurpg and rpgnow, and while it is not set in the 3rd Imperium setting it can easily be imported.

It's hard sic-fi but stays pretty safe tech. There is no real transhumanism or impending singularity. This makes it a bit more relatable for Traveller players who don't want to worry about the ethics of ghosts, bioshells, true AIs, or net-life. Humans are basically human.

Depending upon what you're looking for this might work out for you. Much of the setting can be (NPCs, equipment, and locales) put directly into a Traveller or even 2300AD game. The ships use nuclear thermal rockets and can give a more realistic feel than the thrusters used in Traveller. If you like GURPS Spaceships they can be constructed using the basic book and the Transhuman Space addition.

Personally, I think its pretty darn good, but I'm biased. It has a rating of 4.5 stars right now and one review, so check it out.

Ben Lecrone

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Drifter

In discussions that point out the shortcomings of the OTU in regards to observed reality, the point is often made that we should just chuck Traveller and play a game based on hard SF.

IMO the success of Traveller is that it ofered the GM and players a universe that was easily explain and adapted to. The world of the SF novel published in the mid 20th century. While everyone might not have read Dune or Foundation, everyone read something similar enough that if you were a SF fan you could identify with what was being described in a Traveller game. Jump drive, aliens, shotguns and lasers.

But...

What does today's SF fan have in common. I just got my recommended best SF and Fantasy from a megacorp, and none of the books were SF, much less hard SF.

Does today's potential player have a common background to be able to play any version of Traveller? Pulp or opera or hard SF? Is there any assumption that can be made by GMs that 'everyone will know'? Or do we all expect lightsabers and all aliens to be noble warriors or evil insectoids/reptilians? Or does hard SF mean bioengineered cat-people?

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal about having sci-fi be "hard" is. Hard is just a genre like any other. The most memorable sci-fis are often soft, or midway.

As far as lightsabers go, I always thought they were kind of silly because they did little that sabers don't do. I would rather have them explained as actual swords as a dueling or a semi-lethal police weapon; or as a weaponized survival tool(like a kukri, a machete, or a fascine knife), then that when one wants hand fighting. I disliked Dune's rather convoluted force-shield hand to hand fights for the same reason, although crysknives were kind of cool. Or rather for a different reason; Duneish fighting was just hard to buy; but light sabers seemed to do almost exactly what sabers do except for the bit about fending off laser bursts. Having hand-to-hand fighting as a method of homicide live on in specific niches seems plausible; having it as a major military consideration really doesn't. But that is just a specific plot device I personally disliked.

As for all aliens being noble warriors or bioenginneered cat people or whatever, I never minded noble warriors. Making them all that way strains plausibility.

It is hard to make an alien psychology that appears alien and still make it appear intelligent unless the humans are not meant to interact with it very closely. When it is done well, it is often eldritch rather then "hard". Nothing wrong with eldritch, but it it doesn't seem compatible with what you want.

Honestly, I really don't see what the big deal about "hard" is. Hard isn't synonomous with "good". Hard, as I understand it, just means focusing more on the scientific aspects.

[Flyndaran]

I hate cilantro. It tastes like hand sanitizer to me. But I love Mexican food.
I have the right to complain when "they" keep putting even a little bit of it in my food.
You may love cilantro, and not understand why I throw such a fit when it's just a little garnish.
But please don't act like there's something wrong with me for not liking "even a little bit".

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I hate cilantro. It tastes like hand sanitizer to me. But I love Mexican food.
I have the right to complain when "they" keep putting even a little bit of it in my food.
You may love cilantro, and not understand why I throw such a fit when it's just a little garnish.
But please don't act like there's something wrong with me for not liking "even a little bit".

Quite. I am not sure there is no hierarchy in art whatsoever. One C.S. Lewis essay suggested it had to do with the emotions it brings out and whether the it is the sort of thing you want to re-read.

But that is a separate philosophical position. I see no reason why "Hard" is better then "Soft"(or "technical sci-fi" vs "dramatic sci-fi") or vice-versa. It depends on how well done it is within it's own genre. And how much you personally like it.