> Frankly, I would not mind seeing a 'retcon' that artificial intelligent
> robots are a lot more common in Trav than they have been seen to be
> previously. After all, we have all the stuff from book 8 onward saying
> that robots are ALL OVER the Imperium and its surroundings. We see that
> At tech level 10, the maximum intelligence of a robot brain is average
> human intelligence (7) So why is it such a strain that A.I. robots have
> been around since the beginning, but just aren't very important?
It would be interesting to have more robots around but two basic problems
1. At what (AI) intelligence level do robots become Imperial citizens?
This leads you off into splinter groups for the freedom of toasters and
the end of slavery for all machines 8-}.
2. This is the one that prevents robots or aware machines from continuing
after the VIRUS. On every planet where the VIRUS struck, one of the
main methods of "getting even" with organic life-forms would be to take
over all these robots and machines and kill everything. This will of
course leave some phobias to any mechanical-self-mobile-machine. NOBODY,
will want a robot around (as a cleaner, or waiter, or baby sitter, or
mechanic, or doctor or dentist or anything). I think the GDW's VIRUS
idea just shot robots in the foot.
> Cyborgs? Sure! Why not? One of the things I like about Trav is it is
> pretty versatile. The incusion of cyborg rules won't change the flavor
> of the game unless it becomes the selling point of the game. As it is
> NOT the flavor of the game, it Won't change anything we don't want.
> But cyborgs are popular & all the cyber punk stuff is selling, so put it
> in!
I especially like the Cyborgs in Daniel Keys Moran's books (Emerald Eyes and
The Long Run).
> Nano-technology? Well, that's tricky. As Bertil pointed out, if you've
> got Nano-tech, why bother walking around in Battle Dress with a fusion
> gun when you can just send a cloud of nanotech thingies out to do all
> that nasty fighting for you? But, if it is done carefully, and limited
> enough, I think it could be included without changing the feel of the game.
Hmmm. Everytime I think of Nano-technology sized hunter-killer weapons being
mass produced in some weapons factory the word "BERZERKER" comes to mind. How
do they tell friend from foe when what they can _see_ is a 1cm area? How
quickly do they advance from ready area to target? What sort of ranges and
lifespans do they have? I keep seeing DAVROS squeezing his fingers and
releasing the virus sized DALEKs to conquer the universe. Such a universe
would be unplayable (RPG wise).
> Matter transportation? Urf. I don't like it. But if it were sufficiently
> limited, it MIGHT be doable. If handled like it is in some of Niven's
> stories, it could be done: designated booths as transmitter & reciever.
> NOT like Star Trek. A trasporter like Star Trek's would be out of control.
> If the players got a hold of one it would be utterly rediculous. And any
> opponant with one would be unstoppable.
Blake's 7 required all transportees to carry a special device with them
which would allow the primary transporter to retrieve them. Provided the
matter transporter was a transporter and not a destroy/rebuild type device
it should work. Like having a one way doorway open up thus preventing the
transporter operator from "creating" several copies of the transportee.
> Matter manipulation/replication? Just don't. It would be worse than
> a trasporter by a longshot.
This is difficult. If it cost a LOT more to build the object this way then
it would be feasible to allow it to exist but its still open to a lot of
abuse. Star Trek TNG seem to hint at some sort of utopian environment
within the Federation where the prime pursuit is knowledge and fulfilment
etc. I think this is somehow used to allow their matter replicators to
exist without society collapsing. Maybe if you tied Nano-Technology with
manufacturing you could get some sort of interesting replicator at the
molecular level.
> To those who say that the players could destroy an entire planet with
> anti-matter, I gotta point out that a crew in a scoutship could destroy
> an entire planet with a cargo hold of pebbles. (Accelerate to 1/10 speed
> of light {18 days @ 2G's} and drop the rocks on the planet. @ speeds
> like that, a 10 gram pebble has the kinetic energy equivalent of a 1
> kiloton atomic bomb.)
There seems to be this conception in SF that if you take a tennis ball of
Anti-Matter and merge it with a tennis ball of normal matter then both
immediately destroy each other in a slugfest of radiation and energy. I
don't think that would be the case. The moment the first anti-atom and
normal-atom came in contact there would be a hugh amount of energy released
and the two objects would be flung apart. The trick is to maintain the
contact. In a total vacum in 1G gravity if you dropped an Anti-Matter
tennis ball on a normal-matter floor it would bounce (an awful lot) and
release hugh amounts of energy with each bounce.
Secondly, all those pebbles just burnt up in my planetary atmosphere like
small meteors do so Your Scout ship isn't as deadly as you thought 8-}.
Martin Snow writes:
> As for replenishing this water, it wouldn't be too hard to capture a comet
> or two and drop chunks of snow into the atmosphere. A well-managed starport
> probably includes provision for environmental replacement, including
> replacement of ocean water.
Hmmm. I had been thinking of each planet as a closed environment but if you
have to go to the trouble of replenishing from other sources wouldn't it be
cheaper to refuel directly from those sources in orbit or where ever?
>Subject: Sword worlds
If you can't rationalise the distance travelled then can you introduce a
misjump as an explanation?
Bruce... [email removed]