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.

 

[Janx]

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.

yeah, that would be bad.

As a Trek fan and engineer kind of guy, I can make up plausible technobabble for what my PC would do that "could" solve the problem if it was on TV (or it'd be one of the things we already tried that didn't work, Captain)

The key to that isn't random lists. It's knowing what nouns apply to the topic at hand. The "warp core" does not apply to the security door. However, "Panel", "conduit", "power" does. Removing the panel, and rerouting the EPM conduit into the door actuator to overload it and force it open is plausible and sure as heck wasn't random buzzword bingo.

Much like a survivalist inventory moment, I'd rather the scene be set, given a list of system and parts nouns and see what I can come up with.

Perhaps from that, for a given "problem" you could roll up 1-4 valid combinations, and if I come up with one of them, the problem is solved. If it's close, you might give me a result that fails, but indicates I'm close (like the door actuator twitches, but it seems the EPM conduit doesn't have enough juice to force an override.)

This would help me feel like I'm actually solving the problem in Trek.

 

[Umbran]

The key to that isn't random lists. It's knowing what nouns apply to the topic at hand.

The thing is, with Trek, fans have a list of appropriate nouns handed to us. But, imagine a non-engineer person trying to play a sci-fi engineer - how do you communicate what nouns work? Trek has "power conduits". Does your GURPS Space game have them? Have you, as a GM, even thought about the lexicon of technology? Do you want your players to have to try to manage a lexicon?

The Atomic Robo game has an interesting take on it. The GM does not decide how a science problem will be solved. The players do it, through a skill-challengey kind of system for Brainstorming. Every one rolls an appropriate skill - it is probably a science skill, but if you can explain how it might apply, other skills are allowed. The characer who exceeds the target number by the most, gets to stipulate one Fact about the situation (it cannot contradict anything you've already seen). Repeat twice more, and you have three facts. Then, the final roll determines who gets to link those facts together, into some sort of conclusion - in FATE terms, that conclusion becomes an Aspect on the target that the players may then exploit in whatever way they see fit.

So, the GM can throw a giant monster at them, and have *no idea* what its secret vulnerability is. The players will make it up, and then exploit it as best they can.

Another approach might be similar to GUMSHOE, in which the game assumes that finding the clues to a puzzle is not the interesting bit - *interpreting* the clues, and figuring out what action to take as a result, is where the fun lies.

So, Gumshoe style, the GM would hand the players the list of elements they have to work with, and let the players hash out which of them seem most reasonable (or least risky, or what have you) to work with based on your description. But, this does require the GM to actually have a model for the tech/science in mind.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, that latter aspect puts the prep work on the GM. Given time, anyone can devise unique solutions to unique problems and narrate them wonderfully; and that is certainly an optimal solution: craft each encounter meticulously and individually. That's very much outside the scope of what I was trying to do here, though - I was after an easily-used generic system that the GM can use on a whim.

And, obviously, I'm trying to develop a new system rather than copy someone else's. Even if it only ends up being a thought experiment. It's a fun exercise.

 

[Janx]

So, Gumshoe style, the GM would hand the players the list of elements they have to work with, and let the players hash out which of them seem most reasonable (or least risky, or what have you) to work with based on your description. But, this does require the GM to actually have a model for the tech/science in mind.

This latter bit is what I meant for the GM to frame the scene. If you put me in the security cell (perhaps there should be a standard set of tech in location lists), give me the list:
panels
data conduit
power conduit
field generator
door actuator (for mechanical doors)

with the extra secret of the EPS conduit running along the back wall (maybe I have to roll to "know" that from the ship's spec)

 

[Janx]

I just had another idea. Imagine you've got these printed tiles with a pic/name of part/noun or verbs. They perhaps have colored edges on them. You'd also have ending point cards like the security force field.

We'd arrange the cards into a solution that connects and make sense to the security force field (which connects to the field generator, which connects to the security mini-computer, which connects to the power conduit and data conduit to the main computer and the Keypad which is on the other side of the wall.

Add in some more tiles and I can rearrange them until I come up with a different valid chain that would tell the generator to deactivate.

 

[Morrus]

So here's an idea. This doesn't add choices (still need that) but it does add other stuff.

Some of the entries - not all - could be marked with an asterisk or something. Say a quarter of each column (making it likely you'll get one in total, but maybe a couple).

The asterisks are complications. When these checks are failed, the complication happens, rather than just time being wasted. Some might be marked as explosions, some as coolant leaks, some as electrocution - basically I'd need 36 complications in total (9 for each column), preferable somehow matched to the keywords.

That doesn't get us our player choices yet, but it does make the process a little more interesting.

 

[Janx]

So here's an idea. This doesn't add choices (still need that) but it does add other stuff.

Some of the entries - not all - could be marked with an asterisk or something. Say a quarter of each column (making it likely you'll get one in total, but maybe a couple).

The asterisks are complications. When these checks are failed, the complication happens, rather than just time being wasted. Some might be marked as explosions, some as coolant leaks, some as electrocution - basically I'd need 36 complications in total (9 for each column), preferable somehow matched to the keywords.

That doesn't get us our player choices yet, but it does make the process a little more interesting.

let's try a variation of your idea.

Let's say you got your table printed on paper (multiple copies). Problem comes up that I need to science the crap out of. Hand me the sheet, but before you do, cross out all the "invalid" words that don't apply (to cover trying to use the deflector dish when it's totally not near or relevant). You also secretly choose a number of valid combinations. The more valid combinations, the easier the problem to solve.

Now, instead of randomly rolling, I am the the random element. I pick a combination and test it, which you tell me the results (implying if I am close or not). Failing to choose well (or being too far off, has a chance of random mishap like you described). Maybe taking a "wrong" element out of the mix is what fixes the mishap.

 

[Morrus]

let's try a variation of your idea.

Let's say you got your table printed on paper (multiple copies). Problem comes up that I need to science the crap out of. Hand me the sheet, but before you do, cross out all the "invalid" words that don't apply (to cover trying to use the deflector dish when it's totally not near or relevant). You also secretly choose a number of valid combinations. The more valid combinations, the easier the problem to solve.

My table doesn't have a deflector dish on it. I've (tried) to make it all generic fictional sounding technobabble components which could work in any futuristic tech. My intention is to make it generically applicable.

Now, instead of randomly rolling, I am the the random element. I pick a combination and test it, which you tell me the results (implying if I am close or not). Failing to choose well (or being too far off, has a chance of random mishap like you described). Maybe taking a "wrong" element out of the mix is what fixes the mishap.

That's a thought. Though I'm struggling to work out how that would work. So I randomly roll the correct solution; the easier a problem, the more correct solutions. You choose a combination. I give you some information somehow (what feedback? higher or lower? hot or cold?); when I eventually tell you you've guessed correctly in a column, you make the LOGIC check. If you succeed, that's one part of the solution unlocked; if you fail, you lose the time or, if it has a complication marked, suffer the complication.

Hmmm. I wonder how fiddly that would be in play?

Incidentally, I played with the idea last night of having multiple sheets. One was marked "engineering", and the other was marked "medical". Both had different flavours of technobabble on it; you'd use the appropriate one. GMs could then devise their own generic sheets - a steampunky one, for example, or a magitech one, or a ... err... botanical one! Then you'd have a small collection of sheets, and just grab one which was appropriate to the type of science you're doing.

 

[Umbran]

That's a thought. Though I'm struggling to work out how that would work. So I randomly roll the correct solution; the easier a problem, the more correct solutions. You choose a combination. I give you some information somehow (what feedback? higher or lower? hot or cold?); when I eventually tell you you've guessed correctly in a column, you make the LOGIC check. If you succeed, that's one part of the solution unlocked; if you fail, you lose the time or, if it has a complication marked, suffer the complication.

Hmmm. I wonder how fiddly that would be in play?

Basically, you are playing Mastermind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastermind_(board_game)

 

[Morrus]

Basically, you are playing Mastermind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastermind_(board_game)

I remember that from when I was a kid.

Hmmm. I think that's too much for this; it'd take too long.