Technobabble? Your Opinion!

[GroxGlitch]

I, personally, think it should be allowed so long as it isn't godmodding, because all the best sci-fi shows are ones that DON'T follow the possible.

[UFO King]

No, I don't want to hear any crap about neutron singularities. The real world is exciting enough, just take a look at The Universe or Naked Science. Aren't strange matter and orbital bombardment cooler than transhyperfluxo-beeblebroxicgooglephonic transmutatoronics?

[Eligecos]

I believe in proper balance. I do believe people need to understand the technology that they "create" and be able to explain it. More importantly, whether it is necessary to have it and whether they can get by without it. There needs to be ways to bypass something that seems to give a creature too much immunity. It just doesn't make things interesting.

At the same time, mulling over the details can get boring and doesn't make for good story at all. You get lost putting so much effort into that, you start to lose interest in what the whole deal is. We don't want to be writing a history textbook, we want to make a story that you can be entertained by.

[Clarke]

To a degree. While we can't expect anyone to fully explain the way their races starship or starbridge works, it should be based around concepts that are possibly real, such as the warp drive.

[UFO King]

Thanks, Clarke. Yeah, I based gravity field metal on that kind of thing. Don't explain it too much, but make it plausible and possible.

[DarthGrievi]

I'm all for plausibility. The occasional sprinkling of technobabble to get through a concept that isn't entirely understood by modern science, maybe some mild fudging of the "rules" (FTL , anyone?), just enough that you seem to know what you're talking about and aren't just pulling it out of your ass.

[UFO King]

Exactly. For example, we use wormholes and know that they're possible, but we humans have absolutely no idea how to actually create them. Just remember that real-world science is often incredibly awesome.

One example is this one Hot Jupiter I heard about. It's a gas giant orbiting so close to its sun that one of its years is complete in something like 4 days. This means that its sun is slowly burning it away, and on its "surface" the clouds are made of gaseous iron. It rains molten iron, and because of the ridiculously close proximity to the star, the strong magnetic fields cause northern lights to appear all over the planet. Now THAT is awesome.

Oh, and ocean planets. No solid ground, just a water world. 'Nuff said.

[haseri]

Apr 23, 2010 5:06:25 GMT UFO King said:

Exactly. For example, we use wormholes and know that they're possible, but we humans have absolutely no idea how to actually create them. Just remember that real-world science is often incredibly awesome.

Well, we know we would have to convert something the mass of Jupiter into energy to create a wormhole.

Just beware of the Roddenberry Line.

[Flisch]

Apr 23, 2010 5:06:25 GMT UFO King said:

Exactly. For example, we use wormholes and know that they're possible, but we humans have absolutely no idea how to actually create them. Just remember that real-world science is often incredibly awesome.

Where do you get the idea, that wormholes are scientifically proven?

Either get your facts right or stop complaining about the lack of science in other people's stuff.

[Martyk]

Personally I think that technobable is alright within reason. Technologies should have at least a bit of grounding in reality and you should have at least a basic understanding of how it could work.

On the Mohs scale of Sci-fi hardness, I'd say we're aiming for around a 2.5.
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness?from=Main.MohsScaleOfSciFiHardness

[GroxGlitch]

I know, my "neutron singularity" thing was stupid, but I was a noob. What I mean is, some of us got to the point we were aiming for what seemed like hard science, and for people like me, that's a deterrant. I've stood by using simple will, but for other people, they might not want to spend hours on wikipedia to find a way to make a decent weapon that people aren't going to whine about.

[Clarke]

Apr 23, 2010 22:27:12 GMT GroxGlitch said:

I know, my "neutron singularity" thing was stupid, but I was a noob. What I mean is, some of us got to the point we were aiming for what seemed like hard science, and for people like me, that's a deterrant. I've stood by using simple will, but for other people, they might not want to spend hours on wikipedia to find a way to make a decent weapon that people aren't going to whine about.

Well, part of the fun is researching things and figuring out, even if its simply by intuition, how something might work. Its a lot more fun spending half an hour figuring out, say, how a group of flora-like organisms might exploit the electromagnetic field of a brown dwarf their planet is rotating around to increase the energy yield of methanogenisis, rather than just making up the word "voltosynthesis" without any explanation. While it doesn't have to be completely accurate, we shouldn't be using "a wizard did it"(or, more appropriately, "a naucean did it") to explain things that can be explained through normal means, at least in most cases.

At least thats my opinion, anyway.

[GroxGlitch]

Ah, that right there is debatable. I, personally, find it better to come up with an explanation for Voltosynthesis, than spending that half-hour doing what you said.

[lushcity]

I sugest we take a "High Art" method, we TRY to be as scientific as possible, and explain away what we can with internally consistant rules, but well never discount something on "scientifc unaccuracy" unless it defies already establshed in-game physcs of violates common sense.

[crazen]

For instance lasers are lasers, Meaning they are sustained beams, not blaster guns: those would be a different weapon entirely. Star Wars is full of s***

Just wanted to get a really glaring one out of the way. Again.