Real Science

[Dauntless]

I believe hard science is not as necessary as logical consistency and plausible deniability. Make sure that the rules of your world are always consistent (unless of course your world is highly influenced by chaos principles or other weird quantum effects like non-locality that can affect causality violations) and make it at least seem like what you are doing is possible given the defining constraints of your system.

When this breaks down, then our minds have trouble accepting the world we are in, and it makes for a less enjoyable experience because the feeling of immersion and believeability are lost. Science can provide a good background and I've heard it said that realistic sci-fi settings should break only one law of physics. I personally tend to prefer sci-fi settings that aren't too far in the future, so they are based on more realistic extrapolations of what we might see in the near future (about 100-200 years down the road).

I think the real challenge isn't so much the science and technology, but how it will affect social change. Think back even just 50 years and how the social fabric has changed thanks to technology. Think how the common pervasiveness of jet airlines, nuclear proliferation, and mass communications technology has changed the societies cultural values and outlook. This I believe is the real challenge...to make the social fabric of society fit within the framework of technological progress of the world.

Just as a small example, I can remember when you rarely didn't shop retail. And when you did, you had to do it through mail-order which often took a few weeks for you to get your items. Nowadays, it's often cheaper to shop online and get your item within 7-10 days (or less). I can remember going to college in the early 90's and having to wait in line to use the free public access phones....now everyone has a cell-phone to call. And if you think that's not a big deal...try living without your cell phone for a week to see how much you use it and indeed rely on it now.

[tkdguy]

Hey, I remember vinyl records and rotary dials on telphones and televisions.

But what I'm interested in is the world creation aspect. I'm trying to create a world where the land masses can stand continental drift and the moon isn't close enough to the world that it breaks apart and causes havoc on the world. I can do the astrophysics; the geology is still a bit out of my league.

I want to make a map that looks like a real world, not the stuff you see in all the fantasy games out there. Do they look good? Sure. Do they make sense scientifically speaking? Not even close.

[BlackSword]

I looked for similar programs a few months ago(to use in fantasy games too so that I have a real world). There have been several substandard programs out there that try to evolve a planet through several billion years and give the major landmasses and climates. One in particular always tended to end up with worlds that looked slightly like earth, one major continenet, two smaller continents connected by a small landmass. The authors of the program said they had difficulty with stability, and with only one data point (the Earth), its difficult to build a model of a complex system. I don't have the links with me, but I can find them and send them (or post them here) if you are interested. It seemed that most people working on world-builder software have given up, but quite a few provided information on how to do more research. If I remember right the software did not give the distance for a moon, just the landmasses, so that may be one failing.

[Ben Seeman]

One of the attributes needed for an Earth-like planet (as stated previously) is the existence of a Jupiter-like planet in the outer reaches of the star system to deflect incoming comets and asteroids from colliding with an Earth-like planet.

Well, they just found a Jupiter-like planet orbiting a star. If it was in our system, it would be located between MArs and Jupiter. So there's one piece!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0...eut/index.html

Granted, this doesn't mean that there is also an Earth-like planet orbiting that star, but it does at least give *some* evidence that there are other Jupiter-like planets in other star systems that could serve the same purpose that Jupiter does in our own system.

[projecktzero]

Originally posted by tkdguy
[...]
But what I'm interested in is the world creation aspect. I'm trying to create a world where the land masses can stand continental drift and the moon isn't close enough to the world that it breaks apart and causes havoc on the world. I can do the astrophysics; the geology is still a bit out of my league.

I want to make a map that looks like a real world, not the stuff you see in all the fantasy games out there. Do they look good? Sure. Do they make sense scientifically speaking? Not even close.

Will your players even care or notice that you spent all this time making the planet scientifically accurate? Is a significant portion of the campaign going to take place on this world? Would the time be better spent on working on adventures? Fleshing out NPC's? Is the planet a "big dumb object" and these details are important to a campaign or adventure?

[tkdguy]

Granted, the players will not notice or care much. This is a pet project, to make a world that can be played in any era, from prehistoric times to the far future. The earth has changed gradually over roughly 5 billion years. Even the land has changed over the millenia of recorded history. BTW, Shakespeare made a mistake when he wrote "constant as the pole star" in "Julius Caesar." There was no pole star at the time.

If the players don't care, why should I? I'm just funny that way. It's become my latest obsession. If you think I'm getting anal retentive in my old age, you're wrong. I was born anal retentive. I just took it to a whole new level. So much for mellowing...

And thanks for the suggestions and discussions on this board. They have been of immense help to me.

[projecktzero]

Originally posted by tkdguy
Granted, the players will not notice or care much. This is a pet project, to make a world that can be played in any era, from prehistoric times to the far future.[...]

On the other hand.... this kind of info could be handy for a time travel campaign.

If you enjoy doing this, then there really isn't a problem. I assumed incorrectly that you were stressing out over getting the world scientifically accurate.

[tkdguy]

The only stress coming out of it is not finding exactly what I need to complete it. But I think I now have everything I need. Thanks for all the input, folks!

Time travel is an interesting ocampaign, although I don't have that planned for now. Also, having the same group of players play in the same world at different times (different campaigns, of course). They wouldn't be able to use past knowledge about geography if the land changes over time. ("Hey! Isn't the river supposed to be here?")

I guess when I finally get down to detailing the biology and anthropology of the world, I'll have to look them up too. Wouldn't be too hard to get help, I guess. I have a friend with a degree in biology and another friend and a sister who majored in anthropolgy. Anyone know a good site on linguistics?

[Harvester]

Hard science campaigns are usually too technologically oriented for my tastes. My favorite settings are Blue Planet and Traveller. Though, Blue Planet is hard science setting its still concentrates more on setting than technology. Transhuman Space is nice setting but it is little too hard science. I would love to GM or play it, but I have to try understand first how the technology works .

[McCoy]

Originally posted by DigitalGolem
Yes, I think from this point forward I'll take anything I hear from Gonzalez with a grain of salt. I give him the benefit of the doubt, concerning his work on galactic habitable zones, because: 1) I haven't yet heard of any evidence against the idea, and 2) it seems plausible that heavy elements would be more common in some parts of the galaxy than others. When/if evidence to the contrary is found, and published, I look forward to reading about it.

Looks like we'll have to rethink the GHZ. Planet found, admittedly not type M, both older than Gonzalez says is possible and in a more crowded star cluster than he thought stable.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937147.asp#BODY

[DigitalGolem]

Originally posted by McCoy
Looks like we'll have to rethink the GHZ. Planet found, admittedly not type M, both older than Gonzalez says is possible and in a more crowded star cluster than he thought stable.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937147.asp#BODY

It also expands the habitable zone with respect to the age of the universe--pushing it back several billion years! Thanks for posting that. It remains to be seen to be seen if this will effect GHZ, however. Globular clusters like the one in this article develop very differently from the galactic disk. If I recall correctly, clusters form with a high proportion of giant stars, which would crank out the heavy elements needed for planetary formation very early in the cluster's life-span. Gonzalez's work (again, IIRC) mainly concerned stars in the galaxy's disk population, with a lower distribution of giant stars.

But if Gonzalez ever believed that a globular cluster like this was "stable", then that's another strike against him, I think.

DGv3.0