-------------------------------------------- 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'. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
