Forums of the Megaverse®

Slag wrote:"I can accept the giant demons of pure sentient energy, the fire-throwing guys in flowing robes and filter masks, and the tentacled Alien Intelligences of Raised Atlantis, but that???"

I've been saying "verisimilitude" for more than a year. Any game with magic and supernatural elements hits into it particularly hard, because while the magic aspects get some passes for "weird physics" (though not everything is acceptable, depending on how things are defined), things based on real physics have to deal with real physics expectations of the readers.

Mark Hall wrote:

Slag wrote:"I can accept the giant demons of pure sentient energy, the fire-throwing guys in flowing robes and filter masks, and the tentacled Alien Intelligences of Raised Atlantis, but that???"

I've been saying "verisimilitude" for more than a year. Any game with magic and supernatural elements hits into it particularly hard, because while the magic aspects get some passes for "weird physics" (though not everything is acceptable, depending on how things are defined), things based on real physics have to deal with real physics expectations of the readers.

What he said. Seriously, if these were TW sub-orbital sattelites floating on mystical vacuum-balloons, I'd say fine, it fits the "physics" of the game. But the "real-world phsyics" description in the artical was enough for me to put the book down. If you could create such an ultra-thin, ultra-light MD alloy that allows for indefiintely-airborne vacuum balloons, then you could use the same technology to create an ultra-thin, wearable suit of body armor with nearly limitless M.D.C., and Giga-Damage vehicles, robots and power armors. Then again, to reference another thread, maybe the Jannisaries invented it.

(moved down to reply to both comments... plus the delete button isn't available)

Finished the Rifter #42 a few days ago (sorry, Real Life interferred) & I have to say, it's another stunningly good issue. I didn't read the PFRPG article, but I *LOVED* the Supernatural Leatherworking article.

BookWyrm wrote: I *LOVED* the Supernatural Leatherworking article.

Thank you very much for your feedback on that article. I'm thrilled that you enjoyed it.

That made my day.

Big Red wrote:If you could create such an ultra-thin, ultra-light MD alloy that allows for indefiintely-airborne vacuum balloons, then you could use the same technology to create an ultra-thin, wearable suit of body armor with nearly limitless M.D.C., and Giga-Damage vehicles, robots and power armors.

Only if the technology weren't cost prohibitive and economies of scale were attainable in production. Think of them along the same lines of the B-2 Spirit... very expensive to make on a per-unit basis and way too unafforadble to mass produce. Besides, if the material were easy to make, then everyone would have their own fleet of SSDs using the same technology.

Mark Hall wrote:... things based on real physics have to deal with real physics expectations of the readers.

Both of you seem to be overlooking a very important key wording used for the SSDs' description; that they are not blimps, but zeppelins/airships in design. That means that the outer skin is not the only structural element in play. One of the greatest differences between a blimp and an airship is that airships have in internal framework to help it maintain its form. In the case of the SSD this internal structure would help keep it together, greatly assisting the lighter-than-air drone in resisting the crushing atmospheric pressures to maintain the vacuum inside.

Secondly, the idea of amazing materials bordering on the fantastic are not that far out of reach of real science. The outer material used for the SSD's vacuum bladders would have to be in the same league as a material that's thinner than a sheet of paper but capable of tethering a satellite in geosynchronous orbit while at the same time supporting a massive elevator going up and down it's considerable 23,000 mile length... Oh wait! That's already in the works and is expected to be a reality in just 30-50 years (maybe sooner). Is what I'm proposing the same thing? Nope. The nanocarbontubual materials being designed for the Space Elevator are designed for unprecedented tinsel strength. But the material needed for the skin of the SSD is in the same league and is far from being as impossible as you're making it out to be.

Seriously, guys, of all the "presently" impossible elements of Sci-Fi throughout the books, this is where you draw the battle lines?

Beyond that, thank you for your kind words about the rest of the article.

Mark Hall wrote:things based on real physics have to deal with real physics expectations of the readers.

Exactly: established physics...like what makes the Death's Head Transport capable of sustained stable flight or allows mass-produced "E-clips" capable of putting the energy of a battleship gun into your pocket.

Sorry, bro: there's alot more "real physics" technology in Rifts running off of "Unobtanium" than just vacuum airships.

It's just a matter of how sensitive your implausibility detector is and where your suspension of disbelief threshhold is.

My advice is to just sit back, turn down the gain on the implausibility detector, and enjoy the ride.

Or try Custom House Rule Modifications...theeeey're great!

zor_prime1 wrote:

BookWyrm wrote: I *LOVED* the Supernatural Leatherworking article.

Thank you very much for your feedback on that article. I'm thrilled that you enjoyed it.

That made my day.

Glad to.

Dead Boy wrote:Secondly, the idea of amazing materials bordering on the fantastic are not that far out of reach of real science. The outer material used for the SSD's vacuum bladders would have to be in the same league as a material that's thinner than a sheet of paper but capable of tethering a satellite in geosynchronous orbit while at the same time supporting a massive elevator going up and down it's considerable 23,000 mile length... Oh wait! That's already in the works and is expected to be a reality in just 30-50 years (maybe sooner). Is what I'm proposing the same thing? Nope. The nanocarbontubual materials being designed for the Space Elevator are designed for unprecedented tinsel strength.

the space elevator materials are not required to be rigid. a vacuum balloon has to be. no mater how much internal bracing it has, it's skin is the main surface suffering the pressure load. thus it has to remain rigid, while also being paper thin and paper weight...and if you add bracing, you add mass. you need the balloon to withstand atmospheric pressure, while having less mass than the air it is displacing, so your bracing material actually has to be just as strong but absurdly lightweight as the skin.

tensile strength is the measure of how much force something can withstand before breaking while being stretched. important for gas filled structures (contents under pressere...) but worthless for holding shape while containg a vacuum against outside pressure.

for a vacuum ballon, you want Compressive strength. which even in rifts they haven't found an ultra lightweight material able to do such things. (MDC materials are fairly mass intensive, although they do represent a major improvement over current efforts)

of course, this is alot of effort to go through to get that 4% bouyancy boost over Hydrogen, or 14% over helium...and thats assuming your super balloon material isn't much heavier than the plastic you'd need to make the hydrogen balloon...

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Dead Boy wrote:Secondly, the idea of amazing materials bordering on the fantastic are not that far out of reach of real science.... Is what I'm proposing the same thing? Nope. The nanocarbontubual materials being designed for the Space Elevator are designed for unprecedented tinsel strength.

the space elevator materials are not required to be rigid.

Like I said, not the same thing, but in the same ballpark of "fantastic". The point being, the materials needed to make the Space Elevator work were laughable flights of fantasy just a decade ago. Now its just a matter of time to get the recipe right and start production on the prototypes and scale tests. Sure, it's still decades away, but the science is there. Just imagine what amazing materials they'll have on the chalkboard in 2050.... and then remember that Rifts uses science from 2098.

of course, this is alot of effort to go through to get that 4% bouyancy boost over Hydrogen, or 14% over helium...and thats assuming your super balloon material isn't much heavier than the plastic you'd need to make the hydrogen balloon...

The payoff wasn't to get that much more lift, but to make it vastly more controllable, especially in takeoff and descent. That's why the old zeppelins of yore sucked so bad; they needed a crew of a thousand just to man the tethers, and even then a slight breeze made them difficult to impossible to handle.

But as Slag was right to say, if you don't like it, change it! Its the Rifter, for smeg's sake. It's not set in stone.

Note: Edited for silly formating errors.

Sure, it's still decades away, but the science is there. Just imagine what amazing materials they'll have on the chalkboard in 2050.... and then remember that Rifts uses science from 2098.

you realize that 40 years ago when the idea of the orbital tether was developed, they only considered it decades away?

as for the science of 2098...yep, and then it suffered 200 years of collapsed society, destruction of industry, destroyed information, lost technology and ignorance.

The payoff wasn't to get that much more lift, but to make it vastly more controllable, especially in takeoff and descent. That's why the old zeppelins of yore sucked so bad; they needed a crew of a thousand just to man the tethers, and even then a slight breeze made them difficult to impossible to handle.

those handlers were needed because the balloon/zepplin had a massive surface area and was lighter than the air it displaced. a situation vacuum balloons also suffer. so you don't even gain more control over the airship.

as i said, it's a lot of work to gain a minimal bouyancy boost. thats the only advantage a vacuum airship has over hydrogen or helium. and with the existing canon MDC tech, you can make near leakproof gas bags with non-flammable materials, eliminating the dangers of using hydrogen.

Slag wrote:Exactly: established physics...like what makes the Death's Head Transport capable of sustained stable flight

vectored thrust jets using an indirect cycle atomic jet system. given that the disk part is listed as the lift system, i'd suspect a Coanda effect system used for lift, and a second set of jets for horizontal thrust. not the most efficent, but with nuclear jets, your have power and reaction mass to spare.

or allows mass-produced "E-clips" capable of putting the energy of a battleship gun into your pocket.

supercapacitors. a short E-clip is only 1 or 2 MW/kg, a level we are currently approaching using carbon derived supercapacitors.

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Slag wrote:Exactly: established physics...like what makes the Death's Head Transport capable of sustained stable flight

vectored thrust jets using an indirect cycle atomic jet system. given that the disk part is listed as the lift system, i'd suspect a Coanda effect system used for lift, and a second set of jets for horizontal thrust. not the most efficent, but with nuclear jets, your have power and reaction mass to spare.

Indirect cycle is alot of power, but there's such things as limits to practicality. There's not enough to overcome the massive factor that such effects as Coanda do not scale in a realizable manner. Plus there's a huge difference between floating a few inches and floating thousands of feet. Not to mention what the basic newtonian counter-force effects would be from having that much down-force. It has to push off of something, displace something, or work off of some mysterious pseudo-physics principle (like TW!). A real-life attempt at Sci-Fi style repulsor lift would be inherently unstable, require unecessary amounts of power from some "future" source (Dilithium? LOL). Hense why superconduction tricks like the floating BB do not scale up to reliable mag-lev trains.

or allows mass-produced "E-clips" capable of putting the energy of a battleship gun into your pocket.

supercapacitors. a short E-clip is only 1 or 2 MW/kg, a level we are currently approaching using carbon derived supercapacitors.

20 kW/kg (the max potentially available I've found) is "approaching" 2 MW/kg? That's equivalent to saying 2 SDC is "approaching" 2 MDC (2 MW = 2000 kW = 10^3 change; 2 MDC = 200 SDC = 10^2 change). Orders of magnitude are a beyotch. "Only 1 or 2 MW/kg" LOL. We're still a long way from even approaching that level of power density even on a theoretical level. Add in mass production at an available cost and you add a whole new dimension to the complexity.

Oh frell, why the hell am I arguing SciFi physics like some sort of fanboy at a Trekkie con! I'm going to go outside for some fresh air...I's embarassings meself!

Whatever floats your suspention of disbelief, bro. Mine sank at the first apprearance of the Blue Rifts Book and I've been riding the submerible aircraft carrier of implausible fun ever since. Who was it that said "It's Rifts, it doesn't have to make sense"?

Slag wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Slag wrote:Exactly: established physics...like what makes the Death's Head Transport capable of sustained stable flight

vectored thrust jets using an indirect cycle atomic jet system. given that the disk part is listed as the lift system, i'd suspect a Coanda effect system used for lift, and a second set of jets for horizontal thrust. not the most efficent, but with nuclear jets, your have power and reaction mass to spare.

Indirect cycle is alot of power, but there's such things as limits to practicality. There's not enough to overcome the massive factor that such effects as Coanda do not scale in a realizable manner. Plus there's a huge difference between floating a few inches and floating thousands of feet. Not to mention what the basic newtonian counter-force effects would be from having that much down-force. It has to push off of something, displace something, or work off of some mysterious pseudo-physics principle (like TW!). A real-life attempt at Sci-Fi style repulsor lift would be inherently unstable, require unecessary amounts of power from some "future" source (Dilithium? LOL). Hense why superconduction tricks like the floating BB do not scale up to reliable mag-lev trains.

apparently you misunderstood me. the deaths head flies by sucking in air, heating it, and shooting it out nozzles. it does not need to push off anything or displace anything. it's rocket propulsion.

the coanda effect is a way of shaping the exhust in such a way to get better efficency and gain vertical lift. not unlike the Avrocar, an early attempt at "flying saucer" VTOL craft, which was hampered by the limited power of the engines of the day and the problems of control (which should be easily fixable with modern fly by wire set ups)

in a sense, a deaths head is flying in a similar way to a harrier hovering. lots of hot air going out nozzles pointed downwards. only using a coanda effect, which directs the air over the curved upper surface of the disk, generating upward lift in the process. much better efficency than straight vectored thrust.

as for newtonian force? thats what keeps the DHT in the air. specifically the bit about "equal and opposite reactions". shoot a jet of air downward, forces the object up.

or allows mass-produced "E-clips" capable of putting the energy of a battleship gun into your pocket.

supercapacitors. a short E-clip is only 1 or 2 MW/kg, a level we are currently approaching using carbon derived supercapacitors.

20 kW/kg (the max potentially available I've found) is "approaching" 2 MW/kg? That's equivalent to saying 2 SDC is "approaching" 2 MDC (2 MW = 2000 kW = 10^3 change; 2 MDC = 200 SDC = 10^2 change). Orders of magnitude are a beyotch. "Only 1 or 2 MW/kg" LOL. We're still a long way from even approaching that level of power density even on a theoretical level. Add in mass production at an available cost and you add a whole new dimension to the complexity.

approaching as in "the reasearch is headed that way and there is no known reason why they could not reach such levels."

Hearing all the writers that were published in this (and other) Rifters has whet my appetite. I've been working on something for submission (thus far they have passed me over twice) and I hope the third time is the charm. This one is good. Really good. (I think.) Its PF and it's something I think has been overlooked for a good long time!

Josh Hilden wrote:

Northern Ranger wrote:Its PF and it's something I think has been overlooked for a good long time!

Troglodyte reproduction?

Okay, not quite that overlooked.

Josh Hilden wrote:

Northern Ranger wrote:Its PF and it's something I think has been overlooked for a good long time!

Troglodyte reproduction?

Actually, I did cover that in issue 34. Pages 21 and 22.

Oh, and you've never done this? Read your own posts once in a while! Hey, if I was published in any of these books, I'd sure as H-E double hockey sticks brag about it!

Josh Hilden wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Josh Hilden wrote:

Northern Ranger wrote:Its PF and it's something I think has been overlooked for a good long time!

Troglodyte reproduction?

Actually, I did cover that in issue 34. Pages 21 and 22.

Mark Hall ... pimpin his own work.

Hey, my girls got style, Mr. I-peddle-rotting-flesh.

You guys should just announce the wedding date, I mean... really. It's obvious to everyone else!

Northern Ranger wrote:You guys should just announce the wedding date, I mean... really. It's obvious to everyone else!

Can't. His wife would kill me.

Mark Hall wrote:

Northern Ranger wrote:You guys should just announce the wedding date, I mean... really. It's obvious to everyone else!

Can't. His wife would kill me.

I can see where that would be a problem, but honestly, what she doesn't know can't hurt you!

Just got it this monday...and has come to the opinion that Nice HU suplement, but otherwise *shrugs*

Though I found it funny to see a 'The Spleen" type char in the artwork on the cover.

Northern Ranger wrote:Hearing all the writers that were published in this (and other) Rifters has whet my appetite. I've been working on something for submission (thus far they have passed me over twice) and I hope the third time is the charm. This one is good. Really good. (I think.) Its PF and it's something I think has been overlooked for a good long time!

Well I wish you luck! But if it isn't published, don't be discouraged. My batting average for getting published in the Rifter is about a .200; about 1 in 5 or so. And that included what I considered to be an extremely good short story I called Prodigal Ashes... but it was not to be. Bottom line, don't give up hope, and if "no" is the answer, then try, try again.

I never give up. Can't afford to. But I did get it from a credible source (freelancer) that just because they don't publish something in the Rifter right away, doesn't necessarily mean it won't get published. He told me they kept an article of his for a couple of years before it finally saw publication, and this guy has been published int he Rifter quite a few times, so who knows what their thought processes. Plus, everything I write is for PF, and they don't seem to have much love for that lately. Still, we'll see what happens. I'll keep you all posted. It's nearly ready for submission!

Northern Ranger wrote:I never give up. Can't afford to. But I did get it from a credible source (freelancer) that just because they don't publish something in the Rifter right away, doesn't necessarily mean it won't get published. He told me they kept an article of his for a couple of years before it finally saw publication, and this guy has been published int he Rifter quite a few times, so who knows what their thought processes. Plus, everything I write is for PF, and they don't seem to have much love for that lately. Still, we'll see what happens. I'll keep you all posted. It's nearly ready for submission!

You can name me; I tell the same to everyone who asks.

Seriously, y'all know the article "Phage World" in Rifter #25? I'd turned that one in a couple or three years previously... probably 2000, maybe 1999... along with a huge chunk of stuff, most of which did not see print.

Phalanx wrote:I got mine published on the first try.

Well... aren't you just fricking special! What was the article, if I may ask? It might be something I've read, or perhaps I will read it.

Okay, so you're special and I'm blind. I'll have to check that out. I've got that Rifter.

Mark Hall wrote:

Slag wrote:"I can accept the giant demons of pure sentient energy, the fire-throwing guys in flowing robes and filter masks, and the tentacled Alien Intelligences of Raised Atlantis, but that???"

I've been saying "verisimilitude" for more than a year. Any game with magic and supernatural elements hits into it particularly hard, because while the magic aspects get some passes for "weird physics" (though not everything is acceptable, depending on how things are defined), things based on real physics have to deal with real physics expectations of the readers.

Only if you're wanting to use it for a project at M.I.T.

I bought mine a few days ago. Love the cover though I wish it would have wrapped around the entire Rifter. After reading the Scret article I really think that we need a Scret book for HU.I could see a whole range of sourcebook rgar could be released based on the organizations of HU. Fabricators Unlmited? and a book on Shok would also be great to see. I also enjoyed the Wormwood/Coalition Edge/Nightbame articles. For some odd reason I could not really like or get into the PF article.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Just got it this monday...and has come to the opinion that Nice HU suplement, but otherwise *shrugs*

Though I found it funny to see a 'The Spleen" type char in the artwork on the cover.

Who are you referring to?

Danger wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Slag wrote:"I can accept the giant demons of pure sentient energy, the fire-throwing guys in flowing robes and filter masks, and the tentacled Alien Intelligences of Raised Atlantis, but that???"

I've been saying "verisimilitude" for more than a year. Any game with magic and supernatural elements hits into it particularly hard, because while the magic aspects get some passes for "weird physics" (though not everything is acceptable, depending on how things are defined), things based on real physics have to deal with real physics expectations of the readers.

Only if you're wanting to use it for a project at M.I.T.

not really. it doesn't have to be precise to reality, but it does need to seem like it is. people expect us to get the little things, like historical facts and basic physics right. it's part of showing respect. for both science and the intellegence of the person playing the game.

and you have to apply a bit of reason too. lets say you can build a vacuum balloon. as i pointed out, you get minimal return for a lot of effort, and using simpler materials available to such a material science, you can build leak proof, fireproof helium ballons for a fraction of the resources, manhours, and cost, that work pretty much as good as the vacuum balloon.

or you can use the stuff to armor a rocket and shoot it up into space through the orbital defenses, letting you put GPS back into place. all for the same outlay in mass as the balloons would have used...

you have to think through what you write, to avoid unintended consequences

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Danger wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Slag wrote:"I can accept the giant demons of pure sentient energy, the fire-throwing guys in flowing robes and filter masks, and the tentacled Alien Intelligences of Raised Atlantis, but that???"

I've been saying "verisimilitude" for more than a year. Any game with magic and supernatural elements hits into it particularly hard, because while the magic aspects get some passes for "weird physics" (though not everything is acceptable, depending on how things are defined), things based on real physics have to deal with real physics expectations of the readers.

Only if you're wanting to use it for a project at M.I.T.

it doesn't have to be precise to reality

Exactly my point.

This is just a game after all.

What are we, rocket scientists?

The above statement is not meant in any way to anger, upset, or belittle actual rocket scientists. Who might also be gamers.

Danger wrote:Exactly my point.

This is just a game after all.

What are we, rocket scientists?

The above statement is not meant in any way to anger, upset, or belittle actual rocket scientists. Who might also be gamers.

Phalanx is.

Mark Hall wrote:

Danger wrote:Exactly my point.

This is just a game after all.

What are we, rocket scientists?

The above statement is not meant in any way to anger, upset, or belittle actual rocket scientists. Who might also be gamers.

Phalanx is.

I knew there was a reason I liked him.

Haven't had a chance yet. Life keeps going in spite of my attempts to slow it down and get a few minutes for myself. I'll get to it though, and I'll let you know what I think.

Thanks for the praise on the SCRET stuff. The ideas were kind of trapped in my head for a
while, especially when I tormented some players who went over to Russia and thought they
could walk all over their police force I'll just say they learned to respect the RIG.

Mark Hall wrote:

Danger wrote:Exactly my point.

This is just a game after all.

What are we, rocket scientists?

The above statement is not meant in any way to anger, upset, or belittle actual rocket scientists. Who might also be gamers.

Phalanx is.

Well, where's my rocket?

Danger wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Danger wrote:Exactly my point.

This is just a game after all.

What are we, rocket scientists?

The above statement is not meant in any way to anger, upset, or belittle actual rocket scientists. Who might also be gamers.

Phalanx is.

Well, where's my rocket?

Ask Congress. They're the ones being parsimonious *******.

Danger wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Danger wrote:Exactly my point.

This is just a game after all.

What are we, rocket scientists?

The above statement is not meant in any way to anger, upset, or belittle actual rocket scientists. Who might also be gamers.

Phalanx is.

Well, where's my rocket?

A Coyote bought their entire stock.

Shawn Merrow wrote:

Danger wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Danger wrote:Exactly my point.

This is just a game after all.

What are we, rocket scientists?

The above statement is not meant in any way to anger, upset, or belittle actual rocket scientists. Who might also be gamers.

Phalanx is.

Well, where's my rocket?

A Coyote bought their entire stock.

Danger wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:

Danger wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Slag wrote:"I can accept the giant demons of pure sentient energy, the fire-throwing guys in flowing robes and filter masks, and the tentacled Alien Intelligences of Raised Atlantis, but that???"

I've been saying "verisimilitude" for more than a year. Any game with magic and supernatural elements hits into it particularly hard, because while the magic aspects get some passes for "weird physics" (though not everything is acceptable, depending on how things are defined), things based on real physics have to deal with real physics expectations of the readers.

Only if you're wanting to use it for a project at M.I.T.

it doesn't have to be precise to reality

Exactly my point.

This is just a game after all.

way to selectively quote. now read the rest of my post. about how we have to try and get it right as a way of showing respect for both reality and for the intellegence of the readers?

especially read the second link in there. which has wonderful explanations like:

"So What If I Broke Twelve Laws Of Physics? It's Only Science FICTION"
This silly opinion implies that the word "fiction" nullifies the word "science." Since it is "fiction", and fiction is by definition "not true", then we can make "not true" any and all science that gets in the way, right?

Hogwash. By the same logic, the term "detective fiction" gives the author license to totally ignore standard procedures and techniques used by detectives, the term "military fiction" allows the author to totally ignore military tactics and strategy, and the term "historical fiction" allows the author to totally ignore the relevant history.

Imagine a historical fiction novel where Napoleon at Waterloo defeated the knights of the Round Table by using the Enola Gay to drop an atom bomb. It's OK because it is "fiction", right?

the same goes for "it's just a game"
if this was a forum for Toon or BESM youd be perfectly right. those games don't let little things like reality get in the way of a good story. but those are cartoon games, where physics are highly odd to begin with.

RIFTS proports to be just like our own reality, just with extra stuff added. things like magic and psionics might seem fantastical, but within the game universe they do follow some laws and are constrained by the laws of physics, albiet in new and not understood ways. (not unlike how Electricity was used for many applications decades before anyone figured out what an electron is, and most of a century before we had sufficent understanding of the physics behind electricity...) things like MDC armor and weapons push the limit of plausibility, but can be put into a real world context.

but you have to be aware of that if you don't want RIFTS to devolve into something as odd and absurd as Toon. rules like the Gi-joe rules for body armor skirt the line of this, and require lots of care to avoid getting int othe absurd (like the oft used example of how by the book, a person could survive a point blank nuking using the Gi-Joe rule.)

while it is part of the Gm's job to think of all this and adjust for it, it is part of the writers job to think about it and ensure the Gm has to adjust as little as possible.

glitterboy2098 wrote:way to selectively quote. now read the rest of my post. about how we have to try and get it right as a way of showing respect for both reality and for the intellegence of the readers?

I fail to see how my 'selectively quoting' is any bigger of a faux pas than your linking other people's arguments to your post rather than attempting to make your own case. That I'm supposed to agree with some random blogger webpage & a web comic is laughable anyways (though admittedly they were both amusing).

glitterboy2098 wrote:especially read the second link in there. which has wonderful explanations like:

"So What If I Broke Twelve Laws Of Physics? It's Only Science FICTION"
This silly opinion implies that the word "fiction" nullifies the word "science." Since it is "fiction", and fiction is by definition "not true", then we can make "not true" any and all science that gets in the way, right?

Rifts isn't strictly Science Fiction. Thus the precious laws of physics touted so highly have less meaning than they might in say, Traveller or Star Trek, or some other game system based entirely in Science Fiction.

glitterboy2098 wrote:the same goes for "it's just a game"

if this was a forum for Toon or BESM youd be perfectly right. those games don't let little things like reality get in the way of a good story. but those are cartoon games, where physics are highly odd to begin with.

Not my fault that my imagination is more open-minded than yours.

glitterboy2098 wrote:RIFTS proports to be just like our own reality, just with extra stuff added. things like magic and psionics might seem fantastical, but within the game universe they do follow some laws and are constrained by the laws of physics, albiet in new and not understood ways. (not unlike how Electricity was used for many applications decades before anyone figured out what an electron is, and most of a century before we had sufficent understanding of the physics behind electricity...) things like MDC armor and weapons push the limit of plausibility, but can be put into a real world context.

Allowing things like magic & psionics in the game already pretty well dispenses with the Laws of Physics.

glitterboy2098 wrote:but you have to be aware of that if you don't want RIFTS to devolve into something as odd and absurd as Toon. rules like the Gi-joe rules for body armor skirt the line of this, and require lots of care to avoid getting int othe absurd (like the oft used example of how by the book, a person could survive a point blank nuking using the Gi-Joe rule.)

while it is part of the Gm's job to think of all this and adjust for it, it is part of the writers job to think about it and ensure the Gm has to adjust as little as possible.

Yeah, cause far be it for RIFTS to be a game where anyone has any actual fun. While I agree that some rules require the application of generous amounts of common sense, I cannot abide by such an unbending nihilistic attitude when it comes to a game.

The most ridiculous part of this discussion is that I too, find the Vacuum balloons to be a bit silly or far-fetched at best.

The difference is, I don't really care. You, however, seem to be morally offended by such a concept.

Rifts isn't strictly Science Fiction. Thus the precious laws of physics touted so highly have less meaning than they might in say, Traveller or Star Trek, or some other game system based entirely in Science Fiction.

RIFTS is Science Fiction with elements of Fantasy mixed in to enable more mystical elements. the existance of fantasy elements does not mean the basic nessecities of science fiction be ignored.

Allowing things like magic & psionics in the game already pretty well dispenses with the Laws of Physics.

only for Magic and psionics. any perceived violation of known physics does not bleed over to non-magical or non-psionic stuff.
and palladium magic and psionics definately follow their own natural laws, which just mean they only are aspects of physics not yet understood, and not total circumventing like D&D or WhiteWolf.
so anything based on science still needs to at least pay homage to both physics and rationality. you can get away with stretching or bending this, like with RIFTS laser weapons, but sometimes things just don't work because they can't work. or they do work, but with such impracticality that it is better to use a simpler and easier method. low tech space stealth is an example of the first. vacuum balloons are an example of the second.

Yeah, cause far be it for RIFTS to be a game where anyone has any actual fun. While I agree that some rules require the application of generous amounts of common sense, I cannot abide by such an unbending nihilistic attitude when it comes to a game.

i too like my games to have fun. thing is, rationality and common sense are not counter to fun. fun is only treatened when you try too hard to make things "realistic", by bringing in tons of rules and modifiers for the simplest of stuff, to the point where you spend more time looking up drag co-efficents than playing the game. while there are some games where this is a major selling point (GURPS, for example), you can get away with applying common sense while brainstorming and reasearching and writing. thus making it less of a issue when GM's get ahold of it.

a good example of this would be Palladium's space rules. Robotech, MiO, and phase world all use an awful and almost universally abhored "mach in space" set up. had palladium applied a bit more reason and common sense, they'd have at least given the ships speeds sufficent to get into and out of orbit, if not some simple accelleration based set up.

Aliens Unlimited Galaxy Guide is actually a good example of the same problem being faced, but reason and commonsense applied, so we get ships that accellerate and can actually do what space ships are supposed to do. sure, the FTl is a bit odd, but FTL is one of those times when you have to ignore parts of physics to have a fun game. so long as you limit the damage by setting rules up for your FTL to prevent it from being an instant, no time, go anywhere from anywhere drive, which also helps maintain the perception it is the result of a previously unknown quirk of physics, and not just total writer fiat. limits on how fast, how far, or how soon an FTL drive can be used also ensures a game is playable.

The difference is, I don't really care. You, however, seem to be morally offended by such a concept.

well excuse me for expecting rationality, reason, and research in RIFTS.

people love to say "it's rifts, it doesn't have to make sense", but if you were to watch a movie or TV show, or read a novel, written with the same attitude, you'd probably stop watching or toss it away half way through. especially if it was done with as much seriousness that rifts usually tries for.

Guys! Let it go already. It's literally just one sentence that was added as an afterthought out of a 25+ page article. The vacuum balloon idea isn't worthy of this much debate nor controversy. Everyone has a right to state their opinions, but there's no reason for things to get nasty as they're becoming over this.... of all things this. If I had to do it over again maybe I would have used some other gimmick to lighten the load beyond what is natural and make the SSDs controllable, (like borrowing the even more improbable anti-gravity tech that was alluded to in the NGR book). I won't go so far as to say I was "wrong" to use the vacuum bladders, because fantastic materials aside it's still a spiffy idea, but I never thought in a million years that anyone would get all PMS over it to the point of dragging it out for a month now.

Behave and play nice.

Got my copy a little while ago and I have to say that I geeked out over all the new CS info that was presented as well as the leather working bit in the back, all of it was a great read.

Mark Hall wrote:things based on real physics have to deal with real physics expectations of the readers.

On a whim I decided to take a closer look at the Vacuum Balloon idea to reconsider if I was indeed wrong to include it. Guess what I found?

A US Patent filed in 2006 on how to make REAL Vacuum Balloons with materials that exist today!

Apparently the rigid inner and outer shells are made out of "beryllium, boron carbide ceramic, and diamond-like carbon (DLC)", with an ultra-lightweight honeycombed aluminum material between them, (because apparently even diamond alone isn't strong enough), and can hold back 1.88 atmospheres of pressure with a vacuum inside the sphere.

So if you still have a problem with the idea, take it up with the two PhD. holders who worked this out about the physics and their math.

intresting thing about patents. in order to obtain one, your idea merely needs to be distinct from any previous one, and you have to make detailed claims about what is supposed to do.

at no point do you have to prove it actually works.


case in point: Patent #633778, for a reactionless 'anti-gravity' drive.

which violates the laws of conservation of energy.


the patent office is barraged with these screwball patents, some of them coming from otherwise very intellegent individuals, and more than a few patents for "free energy", "zero point energy", anti-gravity, and other absurdities get patented.

if the patent office required a working model, or independantly verified tests of a working odel, patents might mean something. but until then, a patent just means "it's a new idea, and you write well", whose only purpose is to present new ideas to the public, workable or not, to stimulate futhert new ideas, and to protect them on the occasional event that those new ideas do turn out to be workable or useful. so they allow inventions to be patented even when their is no proof it actually can be built or function.

in other words, patents mean little, i'll beleive it when they fly one.

glitterboy2098 wrote:intresting thing about patents. in order to obtain one, your idea merely needs to be distinct from any previous one, and you have to make detailed claims about what is supposed to do.

Be skeptical if you chose, but the inventor Dr. Andrew Gavrilin doesn't appear to be a crackpot of any kind, and has solid credentials to boot.

You wanted proof that it isn't pure fantasy, well you got it. Even if it only exists on paper, at least Gavrilin shows the math behind the mechanics.

I felt I needed to add my two cents in, having recently acquired and read through #42. This issue is quite possibly the most consistently awesome to date. Seriously, I liked every article for one reason or another (especially the SCRET, CS, and Wormwood material).

The tech-speak in the CS Edge was highly intriguing to this reformed engineering student, and I have to applaud the level of homework that Matt did to pull it off. I did find the tech a bit implausible and imbalancing given their track record (look at the cost cutting methods that turned the original USA SAMAS into the CS SAMAS, not to mention the already ridiculous resource expenditure on a drawn out, two-pronged war). That said, I could see the CS having access to these systems in 10-20 years if all went their way. But, this is why it is "optional source material" after all, and I liked the material despite my gripes.

I enjoyed Reagren's SCRET material, as it gives me a basis to expand upon should my group go "global" and start dealing with international threats. Not to mention, good vehicle and weapon stats are always an excellent resource for me.

The Wormwood Addendum? What can I say, Braden, your classical training showed through with the lore sections. I have to admit that I was a bit hesitant to see what you were going to do with Wormwood, but your high-fantasy material leaves me wanting more. I couldn't help but draw comparisons to great back-stories like those of Tolkien and even the history showcased in the Elder Scrolls games. Keep it up, eh?