parallel universes in Traveller

[JAFARR]

As Traveller is SiFi, and as parallel universes is/has been a staple to SiFi, has anyone ever done a parallel universe setup? I can see that this would be a great way to test your own tweeks to the rules. What brought this to mind is one of my favorite books, Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen by H. Beam Piper.

How to get to an alternate universe you ask. Why not that old favorite, "an unexpected attack" that produces a direct hit on your jump drives just as you go into jump. The induced mis-jump moves you to a parallel universe where every thing seems to be the same, but it's not. Maybe jump drives use less fuel, or jump drives have a longer range, ...

Any thoughts?

 

[Laryssa]

My America Sector is sort of a Parallel Universe, it is a parallel Universe of our own rather than of Traveller however. Basically I took the United States and put it in a Traveller Setting, and then wrote the historic background to justify how it got there, but is it basically todays United States pread out over many parsecs with all that implies.

 

[mike wightman]

Traveller already has two alternative universes - the OTU and the GURPS ATU.

It could be argued that the TNE OTU is a third, because of its tech paradigm differences, but I think they can be reconciled.

MTU is a parallel universe of sorts, since I borrow a lot from the OTU. But I also include bits from elsewhere.
I've run an adventure a bit like the Star Trek mirror universe wher a misjump took the PCs to an Imperium that was much more democratic and supportive of the average citizen...

 

[kafka47]

And, Interstellar Wars opens up the possibilities to more Alternate Universes by canonizing the GURPS product Infinite Worlds. Interestingly, enough, I have been flirting with this idea, I kinda like the World of Darkness idea or quasi Matrix for my alternative universe, as the players take the Red Pill they are thrust into a world not entirely dissimilar to their own but has some vital differences that they will discover like an onion layer by layer...rather than the shock of a mirror universe.

 

[Plankowner]

In my old gaming group we had 3 people that wanted to GM, so we used a set group of characters and used the "parallel Universe" explanation for having identical characters in different games and for having characters move between settings. It is kind of hard to explain now, but it worked for us.

 

[aramis]

Sigg:

the logical extension is that CT/MT OTU's are one universe, or possibly two extremely close universes; TNE's OTU is a close parallel of CT/MT, T4 is a closer Parallel of both TNE and CT/MT OTU's, and the GTU is a parallel of the CT/MT OTU. ProtoTraveller is another Parallel OTU of the CT/MT OTU.

This is based upon TNE having a very different tech Paradigm from CT, T4 moving the TNE Tech paradigm closer, MT using Striker rather than HG as the ship design sequence (But since both use HG, the expected results of action are nigh identical, they are pretty tightly intertwined). T4, by its rules, is very different results despite the similarities to TNE Tech-wise.
The GTU has both significant timeline differences and significant tech paradigm differences.

T20 likewise becomes a parallel universe as well, due to the vastly different mechanics, despite the HG derived design sequence.

Further, the various CG systems produce vastly different types of characters; when one compares Bk4 army types to Bk2, or MT, or TNE, or T4, or T20, each is likely to have widely different competency sets... so we have three parallels in the CT universe on CG alone: Bk2, Bk4, both.

Envision, if you will, an enhanced character only universe character, who expects everyone to have a couple level 3 skills, who gets dropped into a nearly identical universe, but where no one expects to have more than level 2... and level 1 is highly employable!

 

[epicenter00]

I've toyed with the idea for some years in my game. I love the theme of regret in my characters and in games. Parallel universes are fun for regret because it lets you try to do the one thing that regret makes you want to do: "If I could only go back and ..."

With parallel universes you can, or you can at least try. I also usually have a pretty strong theme of "the lyrics change, but the music remains the same."

I made long post in the thread about "Traveller Timeline Reconciliation?" regarding methods.

For metagaming concerns, I usually avoid splitting off universes based on game system mechanics. Universes should split off for story and historical reasons, not because in one universe Infi uses D6s to arbitrate the universe in God's name, but in the next she uses D20s.

And it's really screwy (to me) to imagine that the T4 universe would eventually become the outsourcing capital of the multiverse (and cause massive unemployment in all the others) because even the most unmotivated college drop-out would still be a powerhouse of skills of learning compared to the greatest PHD from the LBB Traveller Universe. If players are going to move from universe to universe, convert the universe or the players.

I suppose there are a few possible exceptions, like the whole HEPlaR thing in TNE moving away from "thrust plates" of MT (I think T4 uses thrust plates as well?). I could see a change for that, but even then, it seems a bit hokey.

 

[aramis]

Epicenter:

it has more to do with the relative competencies and expected outcomes given the home system.

Under a Bk4-7 only CG universe, using Bk1 combat, marines are better shots on average than they are in a Bk1-3 only universe.

Under TNE, how good a shot is far more attribute dependent, and the results of combat are very different than in a CT universe, an MT universe, a T4 universe, or a T20 universe.

"Joe Average" has differing stats and results in each system. In CT, which CG system is used/available strongly flavors the results that Joe Average can expect.

MT has less difference between basic and enhanced (almost none in terms of skill totals), and uses a slightly different combat mechanics, but like in CT, the next day, if you got hit, you have stat losses. Unlike CT, tho, armor doesn't make you harder to hit, it reduces damage.

TNE has armor reducing damage, but in different ways. Damage is more generalized in effects, despite more localized tracking...

Each game's mechanics describe a different set of physical laws and relationship between skill and the world, and different effects of damage.

Even converting characters causes notable differences in what a character is capable of. Each makes noteable differences in how fighting occurs, the relative values of weapons and defenses.

 

[JAFARR]

In Piper's stories, only a select group can travel between universes at will, but that group does it all the time. My idea of this is that worlds will be in the same places in most cases, but maybe tech trees are different or there is one or two major things changed like jump drives use 1/2 as much fuel, or maybe there is a different kind of political structure.

Maybe the characters find a device that allows them to travel between universes, but only at a given location. I wasn't thinking of this as a MTU, YTU, OTU sort if thing. Rather think of it as a reason for there being a MTU and a YTU.

 

[Sifu Blackirish]

Parallel universes are a subject I explore extensively in my upcoming novel (if I can ever finish it...)

Concisely, there is a planet that has temporal discontinuities. A historian uses them to send agents to the past of various worlds to alter or influence events. Naturally, things go wrong...

Anyone see the movie 'The I Inside'? Shows what happens to a man who gets 'unstuck' in time, very similar in concept to the old Vonnegut book 'Slauhterhouse 5' I think. One would have to be a very special person to avoid insanity in that situation.

 

[Laryssa]

How about a geologic time travel campaign with time travel substituting for interstellar travel?

Well time travel of a sort, introducing elements of parallelism to eliminate all the paradoxes.

Imagine a whole sector of space, not normal space but of the 5th and 6th dimensions. Role for system presence in each hex, but each hex contains the same system with Earth in it, but at different times and at intervals of 5 miilion years. Some hexes are of future Earth some are of a past Earth. There is a World called 5 million AD Earth, 2100 AD Earth, and 5 million BC Earth and many other Earths. These Earths aren't purely historical. The only Earth with humans on it initially is Earth 2100 AD. The Earth 5 million AD never had humans on it despite it being a future Earth, as it is a future Earth where humans never evolved, it had and has homonids on it of course, but none of those hominids ever evolved into homo sapiens. This Earth still has bipedal hominids on it, but they evolved in some other direction than more intelligence.

You see the evolution of humans on the Earth 2100 AD timeline is actually a deviation from the normal course of events, this split occured in 2,500,000 BC or thereabouts. Some alteration in Earth's environment or climate caused the evolution of modern humans. In any case, humans on this world discover paratime travel. This time travel can only occur deep in space beyond the 100-diameter limit, so they need spaceships to take them off the planet, so they can activate the timewarp drive and go to one of these other Earths. Colonies are set up, resources exploited, and the same mineral deposits can even be mined on different Earths as these Earths are actually parallel timelines but at different stages of geologic history, with all the appropriate flora and fauna, except modern humans. Humans spread out, an their are conflicts between them as people scramble for unclaimed resources.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Aramis:
the logical extension is that CT/MT OTU's are one universe, or possibly two extremely close universes; TNE's OTU is a close parallel of CT/MT, T4 is a closer Parallel of both TNE and CT/MT OTU's, and the GTU is a parallel of the CT/MT OTU. ProtoTraveller is another Parallel OTU of the CT/MT OTU.

This is based upon TNE having a very different tech Paradigm from CT, T4 moving the TNE Tech paradigm closer, MT using Striker rather than HG as the ship design sequence (But since both use HG, the expected results of action are nigh identical, they are pretty tightly intertwined). T4, by its rules, is very different results despite the similarities to TNE Tech-wise.
The GTU has both significant timeline differences and significant tech paradigm differences.

The logical conclusion is that the universes described by CT, MT, TNE, T4, and T20 material are the same universe and that irreconcilable tech differences are mistakes made by the writers of those five different sets of roleplaying rules. This is based on the fact that the five universes all share the same history. If the described tech differences were actual differences, there's no way that the histories could be the same. For example, if CT universe power plants actually consumed those tons of fuel every four weeks, jump-2 traffic would be cheaper than jump-3 traffic, whereas if T4 universe power plant fuel consumption is right, jump-3 traffic is cheaper than jump-2. So in one universe, one route between two particular worlds is the obvious one, whereas in the other universe, another route is the obvious one. So in one universe one intermediate world develops due to increased through traffice and in the other universe its another world.

(Please note that this is just one example out of millions. If anyone happens to think of a way that particular difference could possibly result in the same history, I propably wouldn't agree with you, and if I did, I'd be able to furnish as many other examples as necessary).

Concrete tech differences would butterfly-effect historical divergence long before the Vilani ever met the Solomani (Indeed, unlerss the difference was directly associated with jump technology, the divergence would show up long before the Vilani got out of their own solar system). Since no such divergences are observable, no actual tech differences can possible exist.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Hans,

It's clear you DO NOT understand current theories of parallel universes.

It is theoretically possible for the same results to occur for different reasons in various parallels. Butterfly effect is for Time travel (and chaos theory), but in terms of parallel universes, is immaterial.

Y'see, every difference spawns not just one, but an infinite number of parallels; one for each potential difference. So, by definition, there are forced to be parallels with identical histories but differences in tech and details. Go read Heisinger. This was laid out clearly by 1980.

Since the rules came before the game universe, the universe is built from the rules, at least up through 1984 CT. Until late in the process (At least the CT process), there was no real "OTU" to speak of.

It is clear that the universes described by the rules are similar between MT and CT, but that they do have significant differences in competency of individuals, and in the nature of personal combat. Since both use essentially the same space combat system, there will be little to no effect upon space combats; the differences are subtle, but profound.

Then again, Hans, you don't seem to PLAY traveller anymore; you no longer treat rules as a part of the setting, but merely as a poor interface to the setting. This very attitude is part of the problem of playing with other systems than the one the setting is developed for, and/or letting persons who do not play develop the setting with non-system-duplicable results included.

For those who see rules as part of the canon, there are very clearly separate parallel universes in canon: early CT/ProtoTraveller; Late CT; MT; TNE; T4; T20; GT. GT is clearly an alternate TU.

For people like Hans, who seek to view some single "hidden truth" such excercises are heresy. To take the PP example, you're screwed, Hans: in both, prices are fixed artificially by some unspecified agent. What differs isn't the price, but the relative numbers of J3's. Since J3's are practically non-extant in canon commercial non-megacorp-mainline situations in CT/MT, it is fairly clear that they DO in fact burn that.

In T4, we don't have the same encouter tables; I can't get to mine to check the tables for J3 merchants in T4... where the rules make it obvious that they should be more prevalent.

Since the OTU presents no "Why" behind the various commonalities, the why can differ wildly to keep the result frames aligned; since why is "out of frame" it is quite likely to soak up the differences tech wise.

As to "errors by the writers": HorseHockey! Either one is right and the others wrong, or there is no "one" OTU. Each was a separate product line for a separate audience. MT, perhaps, could stand such a description. But CT's TU was as much Loren as Marc, if not more... look in the adventures' and supplements' credits. TNE is Frank and Loren, then developed further by Dave. T4 is Marc and the IG guys. GT is Loren sans mark, then added to by the TML "GURPS Conspiracy". T20 is Hunter, with lots of TJ, Myself, and Dr Skull.... and the development of the setting is Hunter and MJD. There is no "single driving vision", but a series of evolving visions of slightly differing places based upon the needs of the market and the writers of each edition.

 

[mike wightman]

How does the game designer's desire to change the underlying physics of the setting affect this argument?

To quote Dave Nilsen:

One of the "must do" items in TNE before we ever started was Frank's desire to get rid of reactionless drives...

The change to the drive paradigm was deliberate, and it makes the game play in a different way.

 

[TheEngineer]

Sigg, do You have any idea WHY non-reactionless drives where necessary to set up TNE ?

IMTU I technologically mixed it all (CT,MT,TNE, as weel as GT stuff if at hand) representing the inhomogenous aspects of the TU.

 

[mike wightman]

Here's the rest of the quote:

We did intend for it to have repercussions in terms of ability to maneuver in space combat (i.e., Brilliant Lances), and to reinforce things we'd said in the past about conserving vectors when jumping. For example, we published numbers about G-turns into and out of planetary orbit to make sure players knew that they were supposed to be paying attention to G-turns, fuel supply, and refueling. Every ship had very clearly rated fuel supplies in G-turns so the players would have that information. We also did want to encourage merchant ships to refuel at the main world rather than at gas giants, because it reinforced interaction and roleplaying. We liked the idea that star systems seemed bigger now (because they are) and that people weren't just flitting effortlessly from inner system to gas giants and able to ignore the main world, which was supposedly the focal point of the system. It made sense to us to enforce the notion that the main world truly was the focal point.

We really did want players to have to think about running out of fuel rather than the old "four weeks of unlimited maneuver" which didn't seem interesting. The idea that space travel is dangerous, and that you can run out of fuel and be stuck on a trajectory or in an orbit and require rescue struck us as interesting, and reasonable in that it reinforced the notion that space is a dangerous, unforgiving place.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Aramis:
It's clear you DO NOT understand current theories of parallel universes.

It is theoretically possible for the same results to occur for different reasons in various parallels. Butterfly effect is for Time travel (and chaos theory), but in terms of parallel universes, is immaterial.

Y'see, every difference spawns not just one, but an infinite number of parallels; one for each potential difference. So, by definition, there are forced to be parallels with identical histories but differences in tech and details. Go read Heisinger. This was laid out clearly by 1980.

What should be clear is that if Helsinger claims that such is the case, then I think Helsinger is wrong. To claim that two universes with siginificantly different physical laws could possible have the same history sounds like complete and utter drivel to me, and I strongly suspect that Helsinger didn't claim that they could.

Since the rules came before the game universe, the universe is built from the rules, at least up through 1984 CT. Until late in the process (At least the CT process), there was no real "OTU" to speak of.

There's enough of one for me to speak of it. And it clearly wasn't built on the rules alone, as the existence of various IN vice admirals testify to (since neither the basic nor the extended rules had vice admirals).

It is clear that the universes described by the rules are similar between MT and CT, but that they do have significant differences in competency of individuals, and in the nature of personal combat.

That's as much evidence that they describe different universes as the fact that people have different capabilities in GURPS Swashbucklers and in Lace & Steel is evidence that the two campaign settings are intended to describe two different historical periods. It just doesn't prove any such thing.

If two settings have the same people and the same environments with the same historical background, then it seems perfectly clear to me that they're supposed to be the same setting, even if in one case the highly inadequate rules give the same person ten skill levels and another, not quite so inadequate, system gives him twenty skill levels.

Since both use essentially the same space combat system, there will be little to no effect upon space combats; the differences are subtle, but profound.

Except that if people really had different capabilities in the two universes, the forces involved would differ too.

Then again, Hans, you don't seem to PLAY traveller anymore;

Not right at this moment, no. I wasn't aware that that was a requirement. For the record, when I do play Traveller, I use a Traveller universe (namely MTU) but I use my own house rules.

...you no longer treat rules as a part of the setting, but merely as a poor interface to the setting.

I never did. If I ever had, some experiences I had long ago with a referee who played By The Book would have cured me of it PDQ. Anyone who don't treat the rules as a non-perfect interface with the setting would be compelled to claim that it made perfect sense to sell 62 huge computers for 300% of list price on a world with a population level of 4.

This very attitude is part of the problem of playing with other systems than the one the setting is developed for, and/or letting persons who do not play develop the setting with non-system-duplicable results included.

What problem? I've never had any problems with playing in accordance with that attitude. The only problem I've had (and it hasn't been much of a problem) is when discussing the OTU with people who don't share my approach to it (to wit, that there is only one OTU, not many (Insert standard caveat about the GTU)).

For those who see rules as part of the canon, there are very clearly separate parallel universes in canon: early CT/ProtoTraveller; Late CT; MT; TNE; T4; T20; GT. GT is clearly an alternate TU.[/qoute]You're right about the GTU being an alternate universe.

For people like Hans, who seek to view some single "hidden truth" such excercises are heresy.

Not heresy. Just wrong. (Not wrong as in 'you should be run out of town on a rail' but wrong as in 'I don't agree with your logic').

Oh, and I don't know just what you mean by that 'hidden truth' crack, but my approach to the subject is entirely pragmatic. It solves so many problems that are otherwise insoluble.

To take the PP example, you're screwed, Hans: in both, prices are fixed artificially by some unspecified agent. What differs isn't the price, but the relative numbers of J3's. Since J3's are practically non-extant in canon commercial non-megacorp-mainline situations in CT/MT, it is fairly clear that they DO in fact burn that.

No, what differs is the true cost. Legal measures may be able to redistribute the costs, but somebody has to pay. No amount of handwaving can alter that. Whoever it is that pays, in one universe he'll prefer jump-2 traffic and in the other he will prefer jump-3 traffic. I don't see any way to get around that (except pure denial).

In T4, we don't have the same encouter tables; I can't get to mine to check the tables for J3 merchants in T4... where the rules make it obvious that they should be more prevalent.

I don't quite see what you're getting at here. If anything, that seems to be an argument for my view. In spite of the fact that the rules have changed, the setting hasn't. Ergo the setting isn't based on the rules but on its own internal consistency (which some rules reflect better than others).

Since the OTU presents no "Why" behind the various commonalities, the why can differ wildly to keep the result frames aligned; since why is "out of frame" it is quite likely to soak up the differences tech wise.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

As to "errors by the writers": HorseHockey! Either one is right and the others wrong, or there is no "one" OTU.

That's just what I'm saying. In many cases one part of canon or the other must be wrong, unless they're talking about different universes. And since the universes they talk about clearly are the same (same people, same history), the second possibility does not apply. Q.E.D. BTW, to talk about one canon for several different universes is pure nonsense. Also, you're forgetting about the canon bits that are self-contradictory. To say that the CTU is different from the MTU will 'solve' (ignore, actually) some problems, but others will remain.

And the universes will all still be the same universe.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
How does the game designer's desire to change the underlying physics of the setting affect this argument?

To quote Dave Nilsen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />One of the "must do" items in TNE before we ever started was Frank's desire to get rid of reactionless drives...

The change to the drive paradigm was deliberate, and it makes the game play in a different way. </font>[/QUOTE]I wouldn't dream of denying it. It does make the game play differently. All I'm saying is that the universe remained the same. The tech changes were not reflected in the historical background.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Yes they are. The relic ships from the golden era suddenly have HEPlaR drives rather than reactionless thrusters.
Regency ships likewise use HEPlaR rather than reactionless thrusters.

Grav vehicles now need a separate thrust agency to move, while they used their grav drive for this in CT/MT. These changes were again reflected in relic technology and Regency new build.

This implies that TNE retconned the way these technologies function into the "historical" golden age era. Note that the designers state that it was a deliberate choice to change the way things work.
So the TNE universe has to be an alternate OTU where HEPLaR etc. exits instead of rectionless thrusters.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Yes they are. The relic ships from the golden era suddenly have HEPlaR drives rather than reactionless thrusters.
Regency ships likewise use HEPlaR rather than reactionless thrusters.

Ah, but the relic HEPlaR drives made no difference whatsoever to the time it took for those ships to get from one place to another, because the background history din't change one iota. So either the two drives are completely identical in performance or whatever differences there were in performance just happened to cancel out. Which is it?

Grav vehicles now need a separate thrust agency to move, while they used their grav drive for this in CT/MT. These changes were again reflected in relic technology and Regency new build.

This implies that TNE retconned the way these technologies function into the "historical" golden age era. Note that the designers state that it was a deliberate choice to change the way things work.
So the TNE universe has to be an alternate OTU where HEPLaR etc. exits instead of rectionless thrusters.

And for ten thousand years that tiny little, almost insignificant variation in the laws of physics either made absolutely no difference to the course of history or the differences just happened to cancel out?

If you really think that is even remotely plausible, then the best thing we can do is to agree to disagree, because neither of us have a snowball's chance in you-know-where of convincing the other.


Hans