View Single Post
  #1  
Old July 4th, 2009, 12:57 AM
dmccoy1693's Avatar
dmccoy1693 dmccoy1693 is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Trenton
Posts: 562
Gallery : 0
Visit dmccoy1693's Blog
dmccoy1693 Citizen+dmccoy1693 Citizen+
Default Hard Science, I Don't Understand

Before I begin, let me state upfront that I am not trying to start a flame war. I have a genuine question that I hope to get a genuine answer from.

Why do some feel that Traveller should hold to "hard science"?

I was reading in the SM book about how Traveller should be a hard science game. But then a page later it said that science like nanotechnology should be downplayed. I don't understand. Nanotechnology is hard science today. It only stands to reason that in 100 year (let alone several million years from now) that nanotech will be an integral part of our daily life. Think of it like this: the first satellite went into orbit 52 years ago. Now satellite navigation is so embedded into international shipping that there is not real lighthouse system anywhere in the world and hasn't been for quite some time.

At the rate science is advancing, it seem quite possible that we may someday develop artificial gravity, FTL communication systems, personal energy weapons without the need for backpacks, and plenty of other tech that Traveller may or may not assume. Heck 30 years ago science said that there is no habital zone on any world with two suns. Now science said there is one, its just much further out that science thought possible. And simply because we cannot conceive of a white dwarf with a planet orbiting it that support life, naturally evolved or artifically placed there, doesn't mean that we cannot find one someday.

So, I would like your opinions. Why do you feel, those that do feel this way, that Traveller should hold true to hard science?
__________________
Download the Rusted Fang Station for your game today.

Dale McCoy, Jr.
Jon Brazer Enterprises
Reply With Quote