Re: physics nullifiers and 2810: A Discussion from GEnie

> The following discussion of Agility is from GEnie:
>
> [ ... ]
> Item    8057512                 91/08/22        03:26
> From:   B.BORICH                        Bryan J. Borich
> [ ... ]
>     A  way around this problem was given by considering  the  way
> maneuver drives worked and how agility works and then considering
> inertial compensators as a possible solution.
> [ ... ]
>     Taking  these things into account a theory occured  that  as-
> sumed  that  a more primitive form of  inertial  compensators  is
> built  into  the ships as part of the maneuver  drives  and  hull
> structural  members.  These inertial compensators are  simple  in
> design  and are available at TL9 (in actuality the major  differ-
> ence between the TL9 and TL10 compensators is the computer  elec-
> tronics and the fine tuning necessary, requiring that environmen-
> tal  compensators  be built through the entire ship where  it  is
> needed to protect the crew and cargo).
> [ ... ] [ uses this to explain why agility works the way it does
> and why the 6G limit, etc. ]

This sounds exactly like what I posted to the TML on 8/6.  I had
mentioned that it could be used to justify the way agility works,
but there is a more fundamental reason for a "physics nullifier"
here.  In fact, there are a number of "physics nullifiers" inherent
to Traveller.  You have a choice: accept them or change the nature
of the game.

I'm not talking just about the way agility is calculated, either.

I'm also not going to try to prove why interstellar travel breaks
our physics.

A huge problem is that of energy.  Traveller craft use fusion power
(this is given).  Ships are also capable of accellerating to some
very high velocities (sustaining 1G for a month is going to get you
pretty close to the speed of light).  Fusion just DOESN'T supply
that much energy.  Even if you were converting mass to energy with
100% efficiency, you still would have to use a sizable fraction of
the ship's mass as fuel.

Face it.  There's a problem.  If you really don't want "yet another
physics nullifier" then switch to fusion rockets and forget about
it.  Of course, that's not Traveller anymore.  (Don't get me wrong,
I think it would be a great game.  It's just not Traveller, that's
all.)  While you're at it, you might as well nix FTL drives at the
same time.

If you really want to stick with Traveller, then it is a question
of choosing your physics nullifiers.  While you're at it, why not
assemble a set of physics that works with the present rules?  As
long as it is consistent, I say this is OK.

I'm not going to argue about which set of physics nullifiers is
better -- I already have mine, thank you.  But don't argue over
every rule as a matter of present day physics.  I'm not saying
you can't question a rule, mind you -- I don't like the "excess
power = agility" rule either.

Whenever anyone posts an idea for justifying something, we tend to
get a bunch of posts to the effect of "It won't work.  How could
anyone have thought of such a stupid idea?  Ha."  C'mon.  Nothing
works if you close your mind (Hummingbird population extinguished
when they discover that they can't in fact fly.  News at 11. 8-).

Of course, you could also forget about justifying everything and
simply play the game 8-).

I guess what I'm trying to say is this:  Don't worry so much about
trying to make everything work by current physics.  If it really
bothers your sensibility to leave things unexplained, then by all
means explain them.  But you WILL have to make modifications to
present-day physics.  If you decide that your set of "physics
nullifiers" doesn't support the Traveller rules, then so be it.
But don't complain if I decide to make up one that does, or choose
not to worry about it.

Jerry Williams
[email removed]