Doing science

[Morrus]

I've had half an idea vaguely floating in my head about how to do Star Trek style technobabble science in a sci-fi game.

This isn't for any particular system. It's just kinda conceptual.

So you have a problem, and you need to solve it. You decide to do science to it.

This involves forming a solution which has three parts. [verb] the [adjective][noun] where each of those things is a randomly generated bit of technobabble. You make three rolls of some kind, each of which uncovers one of those words. When you have all three, you do the science - you invert the co-variant array, or you depolarise the quantum filament or what-have-you.

An example. Locked in a cell, you need to get out. The rogue-type is trying to pick the lock, and the mage or psion is trying to influence the guard, whatever. But the scientist? She's doing science to it.

She makes three checks of some kind (I haven't worked that bit out yet). She fails a couple, but can keep trying. It takes her 8 rounds/minutes/hours (haven't worked that bit out yet). First check she gets "Amplify". Second and third checks she fails, but on the fourth she gets "Psitronic". Three more failures, and on the eighth check she finally gets "Battery".

"Hey guys!" She calls out. "I think I can get us out of here! All I need to do is amplify the psitronic battery!"

Well, that's the basic concept. It needs some work. Presumably futuristic cell doors have psitronic batteries.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

http://www.deathcookie.com/index.php/tuesday-table/202-technobabble-generator
https://ramblurr.github.io/firefly-rpg-generator/ship.html
https://triumphdespair.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/g-is-for-gadget/#more-294

 

[Morrus]

Now, now. Don't link the author of a technobabble generator to someone else's technobabble generator! That bit is well covered!

http://www.enworld.org/forum/dnd_view_block.php?id=158

 

[delericho]

It's a good idea. You may also want a couple of malfunction tables for when it all goes horribly wrong.

 

[LostSoul]

What choices are the players making when they are doing Science!?

I had a half-formed idea a while ago that went something like this:

All tech has three blocks to it.

The primary block describes the basic function of the tech: weapons, shields, cloaking, genetics, power, etc.

The secondary block describes any requirements, using a similar list of keywords.

The third block says what it actually does.

So some kind of dna-destructor ray might have weapon + genetics as keywords.

You'd create tech using the keywords, mixing and matching them. You'd fix and jury-rig tech by using another piece of tech that has the same keywords. You could hand out bonuses/penalties to the check based on matching primary/primary, primary/secondary, etc. keywords.

You'd probably want some kind of tech level for each piece of tech - a blaster might be weapon (TL 5) + power (TL 7). If you try to fix or create it from lower TL equipment you'd get penalties (and at some point the TL is too low to help).

It would take time to balance out everything, because you're basically making a little puzzle game. You could lie most of that on the DM's shoulders; you might only have to make sure the tech levels are well thought-out.

*

Anyway, the technobabble got me thinking of that. If the items of technobabble that you get when you consult the random table each have properties and certain values (e.g. "warp core: very unstable, on a critical failure it explodes!"), and combine with each other in interesting ways (even if it's open-ended for the DM to figure out), you might have something there that will engage the players and give some heft to the technobabble.

 

[Morrus]

I did consider that (last part). It's a crapload of work and requires coming up with a lot of interesting and different properties - which is *hard* - but if done well I think it would be fantastic fun to play.

When you have three columns of 20+ technobabble terms, though, coming up with 60+ properties won't be easy.

 

[Morrus]

Playing around, this is where I am so far. I've adapted it for my own WOIN system, since that's the place I'm most likely to find a use for it.

I do very much like the idea of assigning a property to each item in the below table, but that may not be feasible. Maybe a property to the verb column is doable. The set 1 minute per check is also not ideal, since some really tough stuff might take far longer. There's an issue there with increasing difficulty increasing both the attribute check AND the time simultaneously, which is a bit clumsy.

>>DOING SCIENCE
Any character can attempt to do science in order to solve a problem. Doing science involves making a sequence of attribute checks which, when complete, forms the solution to a problem in the form of a sentence. When the solution is formed, the character can then proceed to do the science.

Four attribute checks are required, and each takes one minute (some careers, such as the scientist, offer exploits which allow a character to spend LUCK dice to reduce this time to one round). A failed check can be retried, but the minute is wasted.

The GM sets the difficulty of the problem. For example, escaping a locked duranium cell might be a Demanding [21] check. The attribute used for science is LOGIC.

Applicable skills depend on the situation. Botany will be unlikely to help a character escape a cell, but engineering might. Similarly, robotics won't help cure a disease, but medicine will.

WHAT CAN BE ACHIEVED?
A character may attempt any action, however unlikely, by doing science. The GM is responsible for setting the difficulty of the task, and is within her rights to set the difficulty prohibitively high. For example, if a character decides he wants to blow up a planet, the GM might set that at a benchmark in the region of 100 or more.

COMBINED EFFORTS
Different characters may attempt to solve different parts of the solution simultaneously. The constituent parts can still be combined by the group to form the complete solution.

 

[LostSoul]

I did consider that (last part). It's a crapload of work and requires coming up with a lot of interesting and different properties - which is *hard* - but if done well I think it would be fantastic fun to play.

When you have three columns of 20+ technobabble terms, though, coming up with 60+ properties won't be easy.

One way to deal with that might be to offload that onto the DM somehow. That might be tricky. Hmm... Maybe you could tie it into the check - I don't know if you have success levels, but a "just barely" passed/failed result could allow the DM to place a property on one of the terms. Then that property sticks around for the rest of the campaign. (You could allow the player to do so on a "big" success, as a flash of insight into Science! - with DM approval, of course.) A list of 10 example properties with an eye to how they interact with each other, and a line or two about how to construct your own, might be enough.

One benefit here is that the technobabble will be tied to campaign events, which is always nice.

Another possibility is crowdsourcing the various properties - if 20 people come up with 3 properties each you can fill in the rest.

 

[Umbran]

What choices are the players making when they are doing Science!?

This is a major question. From the player's point of view, this is "roll four (possibly more) dice to determine time spent". They don't seem to have any choices to make in this process, and that makes the process uninteresting. It seems a prime candidate for being condensed down to a single roll to determine if/when they find a solution.

Anyway, the technobabble got me thinking of that. If the items of technobabble that you get when you consult the random table each have properties and certain values (e.g. "warp core: very unstable, on a critical failure it explodes!"), and combine with each other in interesting ways (even if it's open-ended for the DM to figure out), you might have something there that will engage the players and give some heft to the technobabble.

This seems a good idea, as it will set the player up for making some choices in the process of actually enacting the solution they found in the first part of the process. You don't want it to reduce to "Roll Logic four times. Okay. Now roll Logic again. You're done."

 

[Morrus]

This is a major question. From the player's point of view, this is "roll four (possibly more) dice to determine time spent". They don't seem to have any choices to make in this process, and that makes the process uninteresting. It seems a prime candidate for being condensed down to a single roll to determine if/when they find a solution.

This seems a good idea, as it will set the player up for making some choices in the process of actually enacting the solution they found in the first part of the process. You don't want it to reduce to "Roll Logic four times. Okay. Now roll Logic again. You're done."

I think you're right. There should be four choices to make. Otherwise this will get kinda tedious the third or fourth time you do it.