Re: physics nullifiers and 2810: A Discussion from GEnie

In his letter dated Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:06 EDT, Gerry Williams wrote:
>
> Of course, you could also forget about justifying everything and
> simply play the game 8-).
>

You could.  (And in the real world, mostly I do...)  What I have an aethetic
objection to is any game in which really strange things are done to the
'reality base' for no apparent gain in the game's play.  I think of it as
the same sort of trouble I would have with a fantasy game that made swords
better than halberds for wounding someone in plate armor, or a modern game
which is supposed to be 'realistic' in which characters can routinely absorb
a couple of .50 caliber machine gun bullets in the head <!> without becoming
unconscious.  It destroys my suspension of disbelief.

For Traveller, we basically have to accept the Jumpdrive and the grav plate
in order to stay with the game.  My aesthetic preference is that new
technologies not be multiplied to cover what were probably intended as
approximations in the rules.  What Traveller really needs is a set of
Designer's Notes, to tell us what sort of things they skimped over and
why.  I also tend to see most of these new explanations for rules as
creating more problems than they solve.  If an inertial compensator is
really a misnomer for a grav plate system that is aligned opposite the
engine, then we haven't altered the assumptions of the game.  If it really
'neutralizes mass' then we have to spend a lot of time explaining why this
simple <?> TL9 invention <per the GEnie note> isn't used to ease transport
problems at higher tech levels, and why (for example) we don't just put a
little tiny rocket on the ship, nullify the mass, and accelerate at 150Gs
for a couple of hours until the fuel runs out instead of carting around
those big fusion plants.

Despite the fact (or maybe because of it) that I have done extensive work
with the new vehicle design system, I feel that it was not especially
improved by addding all the extra detail compared to High Guard or Book 2.
However, because it is so detailed, my aesthetic sense is once again offended
when someone suggests to me that thousands of megawatts of power can be pumped
into some sort of mysterious agility generator, when the system requires me
to specify every piece of electrical equipment down to the cigarette lighter.
(-:  Where is this agility generator hiding, and how much does it weigh per
kl? (-:  If the inertial compensators are responsible for agility, then
the rules should tell me that a ship that has none has no agility, right?

Ah well, what can I say?  The current rules are just not very well thought out
in a lot of important ways.  (All cargo is worth the same amount per kl?  Makes
for a very dull merchant game, let me tell you...I'm tossing that out and
using Book 2 again for the moment...)  The strength of Traveller is in the
background.

Enough ranting for now.  Is anyone else going to be at the World Science
Fiction Convention in Chicago?  Leave a message for me on the Voodoo message
board if you are.  (If you've been to a worldcon you know what I mean...if not
ask a native.)

Rob Dean

Robert S. Dean writes:

> For Traveller, we basically have to accept the Jumpdrive and the grav plate
> in order to stay with the game.  My aesthetic preference is that new
> technologies not be multiplied to cover what were probably intended as
> approximations in the rules.

I never suggested that we should "throw technology at everything," but you
must admit that the physics problems presented by Traveller go FAR deeper
than jumpspace and anti-grav.

If you don't change something, then spaceships are getting a whole lot of
FREE energy right now.  Furthermore, this means that any Tom, Dick, or
Harry with a spaceship has the capability of single-handedly destroying a
planet.

You can either change the way maneuver drives work (quite drastically, I
might add), change the power source (this basically means consuming LARGE
quantities of fuel, even with 100% energy conversion), or accept that there
is some different set of physical laws which are being applied here (you
don't have to explain them if you don't want to).

> What Traveller really needs is a set of Designer's Notes, to tell us what
> sort of things they skimped over and why.

Agreed.

> I also tend to see most of these new explanations for rules as creating more
> problems than they solve.

Fine, don't explain them.  That's the way things work.  Period.

If you MUST have an explanation for things, then you will have to accept a
different physics or change Traveller.

If you have a concern about a particular explanation being inconsistent, then
say so and we can discuss it.

For example, the 'mass neutralizing' explanation seems at first to be
inconsistent, since you could just strap a small rocket onto a spaceship
that has its mass reduced (actually, the rocket's mass would probably be
reduced as well, but this just means that the fuel must be ignited AFTER
it returns to "normal" mass).  What if external forces tended to bring
the ship back to "normal" mass, however?  In fact, the 'neutralization'
could be inherently related to the propulsion mechanism itself.  The ship
might "warp" space in some direction (say, along the "mass" axis), using
this "warp" to provide propulsion.  Any force that acts on mass might also
tend to "warp" it back.

I also feel that involving inertial compensators integrally into the
"maneuver drive equation" is a mistake, but the main reason for this is
that it makes it impossible to have a ship with a maneuver drive and no
inertial compensators, even though there are examples of such a ship.

> However, because it is so detailed, my aesthetic sense is once again offended
> when someone suggests to me that thousands of megawatts of power can be pumped
> into some sort of mysterious agility generator, when the system requires me
> to specify every piece of electrical equipment down to the cigarette lighter.
> (-:  Where is this agility generator hiding, and how much does it weigh per
> kl? (-:  If the inertial compensators are responsible for agility, then
> the rules should tell me that a ship that has none has no agility, right?

If you accept that inertial compensators are integral to using the maneuver
drive, then this last case doesn't exist, since all ships will have SOME
inertial compensators (I've already stated that I'd rather not use inertial
compensators this way -- I also think it is easier to comprehend and more
fitting with the rules to say it is all handled by the maneuver drive).

> Ah well, what can I say?  The current rules are just not very well thought out
> in a lot of important ways.  (All cargo is worth the same amount per kl?  Makes
> for a very dull merchant game, let me tell you...I'm tossing that out and
> using Book 2 again for the moment...)  The strength of Traveller is in the
> background.

Agreed, although I might not agree with you on everything that classifies
as "important."  They do tend to waver some on the level of hand-waving,
however, specifying some things to minute detail while ignoring the physics
problems that other things cause.  I think MegaTraveller tried to raise the
overall "hand-waving" level.

Jerry Williams
[email removed]