--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 3/30/16, Kelly St. Clair <xxxxxx@efn.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML] Relic tech and Scarcity-Driven Imperium
To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 4:45 PM
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.)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see how you accept *any* sci-fi setting w/i the conditions that you have set.
Any/all of them will eventually buckle under a scrutiny that's detailed enough.
(Death by Nit-Picking)
In my experience the OTU plays remarkably consistently.
I'd even say 99% cuz' I consider most of what we're doing is really just nit-picking.
I've always looked at it as I look at the Real-World. It's possible to nit-pick all sorts of things that "Should Not Be", but in the R-W it doesn't matter.
It's 'there' no matter what one thinks or wants.
In an rpg world/universe everyone can get what they want; ie: This is the TU I prefer so;
"Hey professor, how come macro-economics in the present-day Imperium don't follow the pattern of maritime Terra c.2000AD (by their old calendar)?"
"Well son, a number of prominent scholars have considered that very question. A number of them have even declared it 'inexplicable'. All we really know is what has actually happened. The Imperium appears to have stalled at a point in time approx 2-3 centuries earlier."
(conversation overheard at the U of Terra c.1100)
In any case the characters I play or GM in Trav are pretty much too busy dealing w/ the TU as presented to them, much as people have to do in real life, rather than philosophizing about 'how things oughta' be'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
