1) Is travel in hyperspace in straight lines only?

2) Can you change course while inside hyperspace?

3) Can ships inside hyperspace detect each other or see each other if sufficiently close?

4) Can ships inside hyperspace communicate with each other?

With people in real space?

5) Can a ship in real space detect a ship in hyperspace that flies by it?

6) If ships in hyperspace are very close, can they shoot at each other? Use tractor beams? Slice?

7) How long does it take to go from one edge of the galaxy to the opposite edge? Hours/Days/Weeks/Months/Years?

8) Can droids crawl around on the outside of a ship in hyperspace ala Phantom Menace? How about people?

9) Does gravity itself cause a ship to revert to real-space? Or can a ship actually crash into a planet?

I still posit that course changes in hyperspace are possible canonically due to TFA. It could easily be explained away as 30 years of advancement in navigational technology.

Thanks for all the replies. Here's my answers for the moment. We'll see if Rogue One offers any new info.

1) Straight line travel? No. Hyperspace routes are curved, therefor ships can plot all sorts of circuitous routes.

2) Change course? Yes. Following people through hyperspace is an important part of the SW universe. This requires that the following ship have the ability to change course to match the curves of the target's path.

3) Detecting in Hyperspace? Yes. Another requirement to follow a target.

4) Hyperspace communication? Yes. If you can detect something, you can receive data as well.

5) Real-space detection? Yes. While this is heavily implied in RotJ (the Empire's data screens showed the rebel fleet before the rebel fleet exited hyperspace), the ability to see another ship in hyperspace would be a great tool in game. If the PCs are in a remote part of the galaxy searching for a lost artifact, detecting another ship zip by would be a good way to introduce villains or give them clues as to where to go.

6) Hyperspace combat? Yes. Han seemed to indicated that there was some danger even after going to hyperspace. Plus, since you can see other ships, light has to be able to travel to the other ships. If light can, so can energy weapons. Besides, a fight in hyperspace would be cool.

7) Travel times? I seem to be in agreement with most that such a trip will take several days to a couple weeks.

8) Climbing on the ship in hyperspace? Yes. Just because the idea of a battle on the outside of a ship while in hyperspace would be fun.

9) Gravity? No. IMO gravity has no effect on ships in hyperspace. Sure the Interdictor has "Grav Projectors" but this has as much to do with gravity as Turbolasers has with actual lasers.

2) Change course? Yes. Following people through hyperspace is an important part of the SW universe. This requires that the following ship have the ability to change course to match the curves of the target's path.

You're begging the question.

Essentially, your argument for being able to change course in hyperspace is because a ship you might be following can change course in hyperspace, so you'd have to be able to do the same thing to match it.

You might as-convincingly argue that in the real world human beings can flap their arms to fly like a bird, because police chases are a popular theme in movies and shows...and how else would police catch criminals that fly from the scene of their crimes?

While people are free to run their games as they see fit, what hydrospanner said is not correct from what we have been taught about what hyperspace is in the Star Wars Universe. From WEG (perhaps earlier), up until now hyperspace is defined as an Alternate Dimension, not just travelling at or beyond the speed the of light. Again, if people want to run their games that way, they can, but when posting, they should be clear that what they are saying is their view for their game, not a statement of fact. Star Wars has been clear for decades that it is indeed an alternate dimension, be it the 5 ^th , 6 ^th 7 ^th , or 100 ^th , we don’t know.

A key difference here is that Hyperspace from Star Wars and Warp from Star Trek are in no way similar or alike in any way. So the Rebel fleet amassed at Sullust that jumped to Endor in RotJ, could not see each or talk to each other during the trip. It's not like in Trek where ships are in Warp and can still have battles and shoot phasers and photon torpedoes at each other...or beam across the galaxy on to a ship at warp.

Did I become invisible or are we just ignoring the the perceived change in TFA?

Did I become invisible or are we just ignoring the the perceived change in TFA?

Give that the technology of the galaxy has been stagnant for millennia, a breakthrough in the 30 years between Jedi and E7 seems unlikely.

I would be disinclined to go with it (or at least make it very difficult) because it doesn't seem right from what we've seen so far. Of course my precious Star Wars world view is probably going to get rocked in the next 10 years or so. While Lucas may have his problems, he was consistent on how the world he built works. All these new guys? Probably less likely to stick to the rules.

Did I become invisible or are we just ignoring the the perceived change in TFA?

Give that the technology of the galaxy has been stagnant for millennia, a breakthrough in the 30 years between Jedi and E7 seems unlikely.

I would be disinclined to go with it (or at least make it very difficult) because it doesn't seem right from what we've seen so far. Of course my precious Star Wars world view is probably going to get rocked in the next 10 years or so. While Lucas may have his problems, he was consistent on how the world he built works. All these new guys? Probably less likely to stick to the rules.

Right, that was my thought too, but I fail to recall where I heard about it, might have been O66.

Did I become invisible or are we just ignoring the the perceived change in TFA?

Give that the technology of the galaxy has been stagnant for millennia, a breakthrough in the 30 years between Jedi and E7 seems unlikely.

I would be disinclined to go with it (or at least make it very difficult) because it doesn't seem right from what we've seen so far. Of course my precious Star Wars world view is probably going to get rocked in the next 10 years or so. While Lucas may have his problems, he was consistent on how the world he built works. All these new guys? Probably less likely to stick to the rules.

Well said.

The "new canon" is "no canon"...basically anything goes, with no real need for any sort of internal consistency.

At that point, I say why bother with any sort of attempt at consistency? Just make Star Wars a proprietary Disney comic series with contradictions, parallel universes, re-boots, etc. and stop pretending.

The "new canon" is "no canon"

I'm not sure we know enough yet to say that definitively. Why does Pablo still have a job, then?

Did I become invisible or are we just ignoring the the perceived change in TFA?

Give that the technology of the galaxy has been stagnant for millennia, a breakthrough in the 30 years between Jedi and E7 seems unlikely.

I would be disinclined to go with it (or at least make it very difficult) because it doesn't seem right from what we've seen so far. Of course my precious Star Wars world view is probably going to get rocked in the next 10 years or so. While Lucas may have his problems, he was consistent on how the world he built works. All these new guys? Probably less likely to stick to the rules.

Well said.

The "new canon" is "no canon"...basically anything goes, with no real need for any sort of internal consistency.

At that point, I say why bother with any sort of attempt at consistency? Just make Star Wars a proprietary Disney comic series with contradictions, parallel universes, re-boots, etc. and stop pretending.

Here's the issue; today's 'canon' is tomorrow's 'legends' (which still makes me laugh every time I have to type that! Oh, Expanded Universe, we hardly knew ye!)

Star Wars canon is a bit like Haiti, in that it's never had an unsuccessful revolution. When the next reboot kicks in, presumably when the next set of movies come out, all the current stuff will be washed away like the old EU was.

Which for me, makes arguing about it a bit like discussing 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'. An interesting discussion after a few beers, but not something that's ever going to come in useful.

George Lucas pulled 'hyperspace' out of thin air when he needed a deux ex machinae escape in a cool scene. If that's good enough for him, it's good enough for me!

(I actually like the 'internal consistency' of my campaign, and we talk about it a great deal, but keeping things open and not trying to define everything is important in a science-fantasy game full of Space Magic...)

The "new canon" is "no canon"

I'm not sure we know enough yet to say that definitively. Why does Pablo still have a job, then?

He shouldn't.

Why do a vast majority of politicians have a job?

The "new canon" is "no canon"

I'm not sure we know enough yet to say that definitively. Why does Pablo still have a job, then?

He shouldn't.

Why do a vast majority of politicians have a job?

Deciding on what is true and what isn't in a world full of Space Magic, cute robots and talking animals is Serious Business, evidently. And it saves him from working at McDonald's.

Didn't the church vote recently on whether 'Limbo' is now canon or not? I forget.

Anyway, most people who talk about D&D and the Forgotten Realms in particular, advise 'go back to the original grey box set'. So that's what I decided to do. More fun inventing stuff than trying to keep straight what Elminster or Yoda did or didn't do over the last 35+ years in somebody's horrible fanfiction.

I think we'd likely get along.

Again, if people want to run their games that way, they can, but when posting, they should be clear that what they are saying is their view for their game, not a statement of fact.

Yeah, because it's not clearly stated in the thread title that responses are how a given subject is seen, subjectively, by individuals in their own game.

...oh wait.

I think we'd likely get along.

I dunno, I'm old and cranky and when it comes to role-playing, I've pretty much seen it all

Essentially, your argument for being able to change course in hyperspace is because a ship you might be following can change course in hyperspace, so you'd have to be able to do the same thing to match it.

That's not quite what I was saying. If a ship is capable of flying a curvaceous route through hyperspace, as is heavily implied by the curved nature of hyperspace trade routes, a following ship must also be able to match that curve. Since the following ship doesn't know the full course details, it is required to make a series of small course changes in order to match the curved course of the ship it's pursuing.

And, if you can change course while following, you can change course any time. So, for me, it's just a logical deduction.

George Lucas pulled 'hyperspace' out of thin air when he needed a deux ex machinae escape in a cool scene. If that's good enough for him, it's good enough for me!

I wonder if anyone has taken the time to search through all the old unused Star Wars scripts to see when the first instance of hyperspace shows up. To my knowledge it wasn't present in the Flash Gordon serials Lucas was inspired by.

I've always looked at hyperspace from the perspective of Indiana Jones. The plane takes off, rises into the air, and then we switch to a map with a line moving incredibly fast across it. Cut to the next scene where the heroes are at their destination.

Essentially, your argument for being able to change course in hyperspace is because a ship you might be following can change course in hyperspace, so you'd have to be able to do the same thing to match it.

That's not quite what I was saying. If a ship is capable of flying a curvaceous route through hyperspace, as is heavily implied by the curved nature of hyperspace trade routes, a following ship must also be able to match that curve. Since the following ship doesn't know the full course details, it is required to make a series of small course changes in order to match the curved course of the ship it's pursuing.

And, if you can change course while following, you can change course any time. So, for me, it's just a logical deduction.

Thanks for clarifying. It's far less recursive, now.

Personally, and completely subjectively, I've always seen the gentle arcs of hyperspace routes on the galactic map as more of an aesthetic decision and an exercising of the cartographers (astrographers?) artistic license, with the actual route being a series of straight lines (maybe very slightly affected by major gravitational forces on long jumps, but to a statistically insignificant degree...and the line on the map being more a "line of best fit" that still is very much just a series of straight lines between any two systems.

That said, though, if you're envisioning ships travelling around curves in hyperspace, it would make sense that one could change course as well, provided that those changes are not something that needs to be laid in by the navicomputer prior to jump.

I think we'd likely get along.

I dunno, I'm old and cranky and when it comes to role-playing, I've pretty much see it all

Old and cranky?

We'd *definitely* get along.

Essentially, your argument for being able to change course in hyperspace is because a ship you might be following can change course in hyperspace, so you'd have to be able to do the same thing to match it.

That's not quite what I was saying. If a ship is capable of flying a curvaceous route through hyperspace, as is heavily implied by the curved nature of hyperspace trade routes, a following ship must also be able to match that curve. Since the following ship doesn't know the full course details, it is required to make a series of small course changes in order to match the curved course of the ship it's pursuing.

And, if you can change course while following, you can change course any time. So, for me, it's just a logical deduction.

And why did you decide that foreknowing the curves of a hyperspace route (which are known if one knows and chooses a hyperspace route before they jump) implies that you can somehow know and real time adapt (while traveling at superluminal speeds) the not foreknowledge route of some other ship?

Why are hyperspace routes a "thing" (a big deal) if you can know what's in front of you well enough in advance not crash into them if you travel off in some random direction at top speed?

Given that the galaxy is say a hundred thousand lightyears across and you can travel that distance in say 10 days, so 10 thousand light years a day, and assuming 1440 minutes in day, you're talking about 7 light years a minute, and assuming you need at least 2 seconds to adapt and avoid a collision, you have to be able to see the CURRENT STATE OF THE GALAXY out to a distance of roughly .2 lightyears in front you... I just don't believe star wars sensors are that good.

If the ship you're following is close enough to see it how can you possibly have enough time to react to any changes to another ship's course that you don't know it's going to make, and if you can't react to it, then at the speed you'really traveling the other ship is going to be out of sensor range and you won't know where it went.

The "new canon" is "no canon"

I'm not sure we know enough yet to say that definitively. Why does Pablo still have a job, then?

He shouldn't.

Why do a vast majority of politicians have a job?

I disagree, and I think we might be short-sighted about this. However, everyone's entitled to their own opinion of course. What I'm trying to get at, unsuccessfully, is that there are canon examples of both, so a GM can use whichever they like.

And finally, politicians have jobs because we keep giving them jobs and then paying their salaries. As soon as that stops....

Deciding on what is true and what isn't in a world full of Space Magic, cute robots and talking animals is Serious Business, evidently. And it saves him from working at McDonald's.

Judging by the posterior blunt trauma many people around here seem to feel around the issue, I guess so!

Again, if people want to run their games that way, they can, but when posting, they should be clear that what they are saying is their view for their game, not a statement of fact.

Yeah, because it's not clearly stated in the thread title that responses are how a given subject is seen, subjectively, by individuals in their own game.

...oh wait.

Gee, sorry...

Not gonna go through the list itself as I'm unsure. Haven't come to really use hyperspace much (my campaign has the characters grounded in a way [no ship right now]). I've run some side stuff where hyperspace was mainly used for the players to role play conversations or whatever their characters do with their downtime which usually results in a few short scenes before I time-skip things to the destination or any relevant event along the way.

I have considered using the ship maintenance document in the compiled resources thread to have a way of calculating max distance traveled, how expensive it is to restock and refuel as well as how costly it is to dock ships.

I just don't know if I really want to bring so much minutiae into the game. I think maybe I should consult with my players and see how in-depth they want to take things or if they just want to go where they please and have me come up with a cost to maintain it in a simpler, quicker way.

What do you think?