Worlds of Design: When Technology Changes the Game

Any change you make from the real world will have consequences, possibly massive consequences. If you want your world to hold together, you have to figure out those consequences, which is hard to do. Please Note: This article contains spoilers for the Blood in the Stars and Star Wars series.

Any change you make from the real world will have consequences, possibly massive consequences. If you want your world to hold together, you have to figure out those consequences, which is hard to do. Please Note: This article contains spoilers for the Blood in the Stars and Star Wars series.

stone-age-4462628_1280.png

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Technology Matters

The impact of technology can be a challenge for world builders, especially those who don’t know much about real world history. Any change you make from the real world will have consequences, possibly massive consequences. If you want your world to hold together, you have to figure out those consequences, which admittedly is hard to do.

There’s a tendency for fantasy and science fiction settings to be set in stone, to be unchangeable in technology and culture, in order to simplify the narrative. The Star Wars universe has seen space travel be used for thousands of years with very little technological change. J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth is similarly stuck in a technological rut.

But unchanging technology is somewhere between completely unbelievable and simply unbelievable. Things change over time, and as things change that causes other things to change. Something as minor as the development of a horse collar that didn’t choke draft horses (during the Middle Ages) meant that Germany with its heavy soils could be opened up to farming and big population growth. If your world is going to be believable, you have to consider the consequences of the state of technology and culture.

Some Examples

The author of the Temeraire series, where dragons are added to the real world, struggled with consequences. At her starting point, in the Napoleonic Wars, history had been entirely unaffected by the presence of large numbers of dragons in warfare for centuries! But as she went along, history and her world diverged drastically because of the consequences of dragons.

Jay Allen’s “Blood on the Stars” series is a sci-fi example. Fighters armed with “plasma torpedoes” are very dangerous to 4 million-ton battleships. Surely then, in a setting so devoted to warfare, the spacefaring nations would have developed AI controlled missiles similar to fighters but both smaller and with higher acceleration (no need to accommodate a pilot), and carrying a bomb. Yet missiles of any kind are nowhere to be seen, except in fighter to fighter combat! The consequences of this should be that capital ships are relatively small and are more or less like aircraft carriers, not behemoths that rely on what amount to big guns to pound similar enemy ships.

Worst of these examples is the sudden discovery (after thousands of years of space travel) in Last of the Jedi that a spaceship could be used as a hyperspace missile and destroy the most powerful ship in the galaxy (the “Holdo Maneuver”). The consequences of this should have been that warships are relatively small and carry lots of hyperspace missiles guided by artificial intelligence. Star Destroyers would never exist. And this would have been discovered thousands of years before, of course, whether accidentally or through deliberate experimentation.

Of course, story writers manipulate things to work for their story and don’t worry about the consequences. But does that work in the long run? The writer/director of The Last Jedi wanted Admiral Holdo to die gloriously, so he invented a way for that to happen even though it’s highly destructive to the setting. Jay Allen wanted exciting things to happen to his hero’s battleship, even though long-term consequences made some of it nonsense.

Tech in RPGs

In fantasy role-playing games the obvious case of consequences being ignored by advanced technology is the addition of magic to what is otherwise a medieval setting. In D&D, the addition of fireballs and lightning bolts (and powerful monsters) would mean that a typical high medieval castle would not exist. Fortresses would be dug in the way 17th and 18th-century fortresses were dug in, even though the latter didn’t have to deal with explosive shells or precision explosives, just with cannonballs.

Then let’s consider D&D’s old Spelljammer setting. The adventurers discover a way to make a seagoing ship fly anywhere, even hover almost effortlessly. What is that going to do to warfare? Adventurers would likely use the ship to their advantage at their home world, where they can dominate warfare or trade; they are unlikely to fly off into interplanetary space and compete with a lot of other people who have flying ships. Multiply this by lots of adventurers with lots of flying ships, and warfare is entirely different from the typical medieval situation. It significantly changes transportation and communication, to name just a few factors.

Magic Items as Tech

Magic items often amount to a technological advantage that breaks the rules of the game, as well as breaking how the setting works, except that they are usually one-offs. If there’s only one magic item of the type then it can only have so much influence. Even though we have a few magical long-distance communication devices (certain kinds of crystal balls), they don’t change the default setting’s very slow communication.

If there is only one wand of fireballs in the world, and individual spell casters can’t generate fireballs, then that single wand doesn’t change the development of fortresses. One spelljammer ship might not affect the world as a whole, where many such ships would. But if crystal balls, fireballs, or flying carpets are common, then the implications for the world are significant.

Figuring out consequences of changes is certainly not easy. I think my knowledge of how change has worked in real world history helps a lot. The more you know about history—not just dates and events, but what actually happened and why—the better you’ll be able to make new worlds.

Can you describe a case where failure to anticipate consequences of technological change became obvious in an RPG campaign? If you were the GM, what did you do about it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Hussar

Legend
We all know Star Wars is much more fantasy than SF (magic swords=light sabers, spells=The Force). And its military aspects make virtually no sense. But from what I know of historical weapons development, once something is seen (the hyperspace massacre of the giant ship), weapon makers take advantage of it. And if it can be done, it's likely to have been done early rather than after 4,000 years of spaceflight.

As I may have said, my standard for something making sense is much above most people's, perhaps the history Ph.D. has something to do with that.

Let's be honest here, Star Wars doesn't make a lick of sense from a science POV. Why on earth would you build a Death Star to destroy a planet? As someone mentioned, simply drop a big enough asteroid on a planet and everyone dies. Hell, we almost have the technology to do that today. Destroying a planet is pretty darn easy actually.

Holding the movies to a particular standard of "science" while ignoring the other 6 unbelievable things before breakfast says more about the critic than what's being criticized, IMO.

The thing is, when dealing with PC's, players are FAR more practical and pragmatic than SF writers. Why on earth is my away team made up of my bridge crew officers? Why are they going down to a potentially hostile environment wearing nothing more than a track suit? Makes absolutely no sense and any PC group would immediately fix the issue. In fact, heck, earlier RPG's would actively punish the players for NOT fixing the obvious holes. "Oh, you didn't pack your cold weather suit? Make a saving throw to see if you freeze to death!"

It's one of the bigger problems I have trying to play SF setting RPG's.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ace

Adventurer
Let's be honest here, Star Wars doesn't make a lick of sense from a science POV. Why on earth would you build a Death Star to destroy a planet? As someone mentioned, simply drop a big enough asteroid on a planet and everyone dies. Hell, we almost have the technology to do that today. Destroying a planet is pretty darn easy actually.

Holding the movies to a particular standard of "science" while ignoring the other 6 unbelievable things before breakfast says more about the critic than what's being criticized, IMO.

The thing is, when dealing with PC's, players are FAR more practical and pragmatic than SF writers. Why on earth is my away team made up of my bridge crew officers? Why are they going down to a potentially hostile environment wearing nothing more than a track suit? Makes absolutely no sense and any PC group would immediately fix the issue. In fact, heck, earlier RPG's would actively punish the players for NOT fixing the obvious holes. "Oh, you didn't pack your cold weather suit? Make a saving throw to see if you freeze to death!"

It's one of the bigger problems I have trying to play SF setting RPG's.

Drawing inspiration from TV is fun and all but the trick is to start looking at SF as pragmatic like many novelists and your players did and do. Its a realistic world with different tech and different social assumptions. Allowing your PC's to use the settings features to their benefit is a good thing.

To note even borderline fantasy like Star Trek has its movements of realism. There was one episode of Star Trek The Enemy Within in which the lack of cold weather gear and the inability to beam stuff down played a major part and I'll also note in the pilot episode The Cage (the one with Pike) the party was fully equipped with jackets, combat webbing and a bunch of gear.

Once good solution is to play SF RPG"s with a solid equipment list and let the players peruse it during occasions in which they might be shopping. Traveller is a good choice here though there are others as well. This can be fun for some players and gives them the idea to stock up. Going to Planet of the Bad Air, better stock up on filters. Its also give you lots of opportunities for drama and mischief too.

So long as the social nature of the setting is understood and the players adhere to it, gear +SF is always a good combo.
 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
Moving away from movies and on to RPG's, armored spacecraft are unrealistic due to penetrators such as from missiles or other projectiles having another order of magnitude higher velocity, which is very important in the KE=1/2mv^2 equation. Not only that in the typical architecture, there is an opening in the armor where the engine exhausts, and similar to jets, a fragmentary missile, destroying the engine, would have the armor concentrating the blast inside the vehicle. This could be somewhat countered by having the cabin away from the engine. The third negative is that armor would add mass, increasing fuel usage and probably limiting maneuverability where the agility of a vehicle would be its first defense against being hit. Also in the first case where a vehicle is struck by a hyper-velocity projectile, it is likely that the armor material could explode or splinter (spalling) sending fragments through the interior of the vehicle.
 

Ravenbrook

Explorer
Moving away from movies and on to RPG's, armored spacecraft are unrealistic due to penetrators such as from missiles or other projectiles having another order of magnitude higher velocity, which is very important in the KE=1/2mv^2 equation. Not only that in the typical architecture, there is an opening in the armor where the engine exhausts, and similar to jets, a fragmentary missile, destroying the engine, would have the armor concentrating the blast inside the vehicle. This could be somewhat countered by having the cabin away from the engine. The third negative is that armor would add mass, increasing fuel usage and probably limiting maneuverability where the agility of a vehicle would be its first defense against being hit. Also in the first case where a vehicle is struck by a hyper-velocity projectile, it is likely that the armor material could explode or splinter (spalling) sending fragments through the interior of the vehicle.
Running a truly hard sci-fi campaign in space is no easy matter unless you have a degree in physics.
 


dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
Running a truly hard sci-fi campaign in space is no easy matter unless you have a degree in physics.

And similarly qualified players. Attempting to bring them up to speed on concepts such as orbital mechanics and time dilation while still letting them have a good time will be frustrating all round, and may wind up being more like a physics lecture than a game.

I don't believe so, as it is the choices made by the designer, the armor for spacecraft choice cascades through a lot of sections of the rules, which it would be more simple just to leave out. Then the players would not have to deal with it at all. Orbital mechanics are a bit more complicated, except they could be abstracted in the way a lot of real life physics are abstracted in RPG's. This digs into the philosophy or more or less crunch in the rules, I prefer less myself, just more real world physics in the underlying representation.
 

Tyler Do'Urden

Soap Maker
Let's be honest here, Star Wars doesn't make a lick of sense from a science POV. Why on earth would you build a Death Star to destroy a planet? As someone mentioned, simply drop a big enough asteroid on a planet and everyone dies. Hell, we almost have the technology to do that today. Destroying a planet is pretty darn easy actually.

WWII style dogfights between space fighters moving at incredible velocities being piloted by human reflexes? I don't think so!

In reality, the distances would be so great you wouldn't even see the objects you were engaging with, and everything would be so much more efficiently handled by computers than human beings that space combat would be an incredibly dull, inhuman affair.

Nothing about space combat in Star Wars, Star Trek, or most sci-fi franchises is at all plausible.
 

Tyler Do'Urden

Soap Maker
And similarly qualified players. Attempting to bring them up to speed on concepts such as orbital mechanics and time dilation while still letting them have a good time will be frustrating all round, and may wind up being more like a physics lecture than a game.

Back in college an erstwhile friend of mine and I were trying to design a far-future hard sci-fi game called "The Transhuman Condition". We had an incredible time worldbuilding, but when we got down to mechanics and trying to figure out exactly what adventures would look like in such a universe, we were stumped. Nothing balanced, and plausibility tended to go out the window. We eventually gave up.
 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
Back in college an erstwhile friend of mine and I were trying to design a far-future hard sci-fi game called "The Transhuman Condition". We had an incredible time worldbuilding, but when we got down to mechanics and trying to figure out exactly what adventures would look like in such a universe, we were stumped. Nothing balanced, and plausibility tended to go out the window. We eventually gave up.

I had a friend in our uni group re-write the Traveller spacecraft rules, they were an aerospace engineering student at the time. It was about the best iteration of spacecraft rules I have ever seen, short, concise, and realistic. We used them for years, and then in a ten plus year hiatus of playing other games, they were lost.
 

MarkB

Legend
I don't believe so, as it is the choices made by the designer, the armor for spacecraft choice cascades through a lot of sections of the rules, which it would be more simple just to leave out. Then the players would not have to deal with it at all. Orbital mechanics are a bit more complicated, except they could be abstracted in the way a lot of real life physics are abstracted in RPG's. This digs into the philosophy or more or less crunch in the rules, I prefer less myself, just more real world physics in the underlying representation.
The problem is that you wind up with differing expectations based upon different levels of understanding. As an example of the orbital dynamics issue, there was a Traveller game I played in at a convention, centering around asteroid mining in a gas giant's ring system, with an investigation into an explosion on an asteroid that was being mined.

We needed to track down some debris from the explosion, and half the players were looking at projecting the likely courses of the debris based upon the asteroid's position and velocity, which side of it the explosion occurred on, and the likely range of resulting trajectories for anything sent flying.

The other half just wanted to go to the place in orbit where the explosion had originally taken place. In their minds, it was the asteroid that was moving, and dragging along anything that was attached to it. If something was knocked loose by the explosion, logically it would just have coasted to a halt shortly afterwards, and would be just hanging around there while the asteroids swept on by.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top