New Eras for Mastercraft

[tfwfh]

Just my thoughts on this, but instead of Transhuman you might call it Transgenic.  I think it does a better job of calling out the bio-engineering in general, rather than specifically to humans.  Also GURPS already has Transhuman.

Also not a fan of "science-wizard" as a term, but I don't have a better suggestion.

[Krensky]

Transhumanism is a philosophy regarding humanity controlling and accellerating it's evolution and condition. By definition, one element of it is Human != Homo Sapiens Sapiens. An uplifted cat or a fully sentient AI is as much a transhuman as a cyborg, genetically enhanced human, uploaded ghost, etc, and arguably more so then a baseline H. Sapiens sapiens.

It also dates to the 1960s, so GURPS doesn't have a claim to the word or concept.

As for science wizard, call it Clarkian.

[tfwfh]

I'm aware of that, and it also feeds into my preference for a different term being used to describe the tech level.  Because what we're trying to describe is a level of technology, rather than a philosophy that would (hopefully) accompany it.  I feel like Transgenic better calls to mind the level of genetic manipulation and bio-engineering our civilization would have to be capable of in order to facilitate things like permanent large scale extra-planetary habitation, or feeding a world population in excess of 10 billion, or maintaining a global climate that is inhabitable for humans and our food.

Just my thoughts.

[Catodon]

One possibility is to clearly mark items that do the hokey pokey with the unbreakable laws of physics (or the other way around, mark hard SF ideas, this is a cinematic game afterall).
For example:
Cinematic FTL warp ship: Interstellar
Lasersail drive: Interstellar#

The laser sail uses massive lasers orbiting the point of departure sun to thrust against a 'solar sail'. The # indicating hard SF. This way you get a system able to do both hard and cinematic SF.

For example a hard SF Interstellar society probably uses really big lasers, light sails and cyrobanks for interstellar travel. With a sufficiently rich economy they could do this a lot. When they get to where they are going they HAVE to terraform (a process we could start on Mars right now if our economy could afford it) but the process takes centuries. In the mean time they spin huge space colonies kilometers across for the illusion of gravity or genetically engineer themselves to do without.
A Hard Science-wizard civilisation has been doing the above for tens of thousands of years and is now ready not to break physics but opperate in the realm of huge amounts of energy and matter. THey start with quantum FTL communications  and moving planets around using water jets* but soon are ready to harness suns altering them by adding or removing huge masses. Eventually they are ready to consume large suns and convert them into instantaineous FTL drives with unlimited range.

No laws of physics were broken by any of the above.

*New Earths by Oberg 1981 has a lot more ideas on feasible hard science terraforming.
  

[Krensky]

It should be noted that hard science fiction isn't about feasability or realism of science, although it typically features more plausible tech.

Hard science fiction focuses on the effect of technology on the human condition, society, and the characters. 'Soft' science fiction tends to use science as a backdrop and excuse for a story.

Clarke's 2001 series is hard science fiction, but the central issue is man encountering Clarkian technology in the form of mind uploading via the Monoliths. Similarly, Bester's Demolished Man is hard science fiction examining the effects of commonplace telepathy.

Conversely, the Andromida Strain makes heavy use of actual, plausible science, but is "soft" because it's focus is one the people using the science rather then it's effects on them.

[Catodon]

Fair enough.
How about 'plausible' and 'super-science as labels?
I did like Transgenic and Clarkian too.

[Krensky]

I was always partial to Science!

[Sletchman]

I really prefer Transgenic to Transhuman - to me the first is scientific and the second is psychological/socialogical, and that's kinda key to what we're doing here.  That's why I'd go Transgenic.

In regards to the science-wizard thing, I just couldn't think of a better title for it (and was really just making the point that breakdowns of tech at that point are probably beyond even our wildest dreams/guesses).  I do like Clarkian though, it's a somewhat fitting homage.  I'm not opposed to The Science! Age though.

How about 'plausible' and 'super-science as labels?

Just a though: add a "Super Science" gear chart and something like this:

Super Science:  Science marches forwards, delivering on the dreams of the 21st century.  Super-Science technology is available to purchase.

Good to go?  Said chart will still have Eras, but be filled with less realistic items - that way the GM adds the quality and players buy wackadoo kit.  Kinda like the Gadgets chart of Spycraft in many ways.

Easier alternate: Super Science: Players may buy/aquire as prizes items from 1 Era ahead of the campaigns.  For example: In an Age of Reason campaign, players may buy/aquire a weapon from the Industrial Age as a prize.

Buy/Aquire is an OR (because I can't decide on which one) - the latter would represent rarity, so it would come down to is there a few super scientists, or is it more common but just expensive?

[Catodon]

I prefer the first idea, the chart of less-realistic.
The second option misses the mark because this isn't a matter of getting higher tech items earlier its a matter or some science fiction technology is actually impossible and is really just magic with different trappings. In reality we are never going to have artificial gravity because it cannot be done no matter how high tech you are.

Science fiction contains universes where the science is plausible, settings where the technology is just magic with a veneer of technology (eg. Star Wars), and settings that are a mix. I'm not advocating one approach over any other. I am saying it would be easy to allow for all of these with a little finesse in our game design.
Science fiction games usually ony cater to one of these groups and in the process lose half of their potential customers.

Maybe something like the Sorcery campaign quality we could call it Science!
or
For more finesse just as there is Sorcery and Miracles how about:
Science!: for gravity technolgy light swords, convenient FTL etc.
and
Life Signs!: for life force. like beings of pure energy, fast terraforming (genisis), machines that drain life energy for power, telepathy etc, and those pesky life signs detectors.

[Sletchman]

I prefer the first idea, the chart of less-realistic.
The second option misses the mark because this isn't a matter of getting higher tech items earlier its a matter or some science fiction technology is actually impossible and is really just magic with different trappings. In reality we are never going to have artificial gravity because it cannot be done no matter how high tech you are.

Agreed.  I prefer the first idea by leaps and bounds.  I'm totally in favour of campaign qualities that let any GM make the game more like their vision (however wacky that may be).

[Bill Whitmore]

In reality we are never going to have artificial gravity because it cannot be done no matter how high tech you are.

Wow, that's a pretty bold statement.

Since you apparently came here from the far, far, far, future (from beyond never, the end of all reality) can you tell me if we ever get the flying cars I have really wanted?

[Catodon]

Actually I don't think its bold at all. I think its a simple statement of how the universe really works. I think it is a rather dull and disappointing statement. 

Flying cars are easy its just an engineering problem.

[Sletchman]

Since you apparently came here from the far, far, far, future (from beyond never, the end of all reality) can you tell me if we ever get the flying cars I have really wanted?

Are you willing to accept this as stage 1?

[Krensky]

With our current level of understanding of physics, gravity manipulation without involving actual (normal or negative) mass is impossible.

Of course, so was splitting an atom before atomic theory and relativity.

I doubt it will occur in anything resembling the near to mid future though.

[Coyote0273]

With our current level of technology and understanding building the Great Pyramid of Giza to the exact specifications, dimensions and astronomical angles is next to impossible.

I'd hesitate before saying anything is impossible.