On 3/30/2016 4:08 PM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) wrote:

> Well, after all, isn't that what 'canon' is all about?
>
> Besides, everyone does that (accepts the 'Word of Marc') the minute they accept the TU. But what difference does it make if it's "because MM says so" or "because you say so" or "because I say so", etc., etc. It's still just a make-believe construct.
> We all know it can never, ever be.
> What really matters is what one *wants*.
> If one doesn't get what one wants, then it's only natural to become discontented.
> And, then, we all have differing capacities to 'suspend disbelief'.
>>From your earlier post it appears that you have reached your limit & moved on. That happens...
> But all it really means is that you just don't like it anymore.

I wouldn't phrase it quite that way.  Rather, more that I've become
increasingly aware of how much of it is implausible, illogical,
inconsistent, counterfactual, etc etc.  Economics don't work that way.
People don't work that way.  We know more about the universe than we did
in 1980.  And so on.

An oft-quoted "rule" of "good" science fiction (quotes, as these things
are inevitably subjective) is that one or two things that are outright
impossible by our current understanding - typically an FTL drive, some
miracle substance, some similar plot device - are permissible, and the
rest of the story and setting should flow logically from the
implications of their existence.  My corollary is that everything /else/
in the story not related to the MacGuffin should be consistent with what
we currently believe to be true in reality.

The OTU, for all its pretensions (spoken and unspoken), is as much a
science fantasy as... oh, Spelljammer or Treasure Planet or Space 1889.
  Again, if that's what you want to play, go for it.  (I loves me some
giant space hamsters.)  But don't try to pretend or claim it's hard
science fiction, or even internally consistent - I doubt it /can/ be the
latter, given its age and the number of people who've worked on it and
their widely varying levels of knowledge and/or investment (some surely
no more than "I'm getting paid for this, right?").

Maybe you're right, maybe it does come down to taste and what we want
out of a world.  Right now, I want a world that *makes sense*, not one
that runs entirely on referee/author/divine fiat.  "Because" no longer
satisfies me.

Taken to an extreme: if the world is entirely made up and does not
follow logical outcomes and consequences from its starting conditions,
then how can I have my character choose or take any course of action,
when my assumptions as to what is reasonable may not align?  For that
matter, why not simply have the GM decide what my character does, since
they're already handling everything else?  My involvement, my
engagement, becomes both frustrating and irrelevant.

(Does this start to sound like theology, or philosophy?  I submit the
similarities are not coincidental.)

--
---------------
Kelly St. Clair
xxxxxx@efn.org