John--
I think you can tell by reading between the lines on my messages that I
feel the same way. I've just temporarily set that aside because I think
the discussion can be interesting, so long as it generates pretty lights
and not heat.
I certainly wouldn't go onto a SW or ST board and try to do this, but I
think it's interesting here in TNE land because the discussion sheds some
light on how the enterprise undertaken by Traveller is fundamentally
different from that bitten off by other SF games.
It's all fun until someone gets hurt, though.
Dave
> I hesitate to inject my opinion on this topic because its one that I think
> isn't in a majority or likely to be well received.
>
> In essence, you can't compare SciFi settings unless the settings 'share'
> similar assumptions for their 'hand-waving'. This hand waving are the set
> of principles that the author hopes the consumer 'buys' into to experience
> the story being told. The story is the point not the setting/hand waving.
>
> Many that enjoy SciFi enjoy the technical aspects of the settings they
> tend
> to gravitate towards without considering that the technical stuff isn't
> the
> point, very very few authors put enough thought into their hand waving to
> adequately realize the ramifications of what that hand waving will do when
> in interject the human condition over thousands of years into the system.
>
> A while ago I simply stopped considering the A vs B SciFi setting theory
> crafting because it seemed to me to be a false discussion due to too many
> levels of abstraction necessary. Over a coffee between friends sure no
> harm
> no foul, but between folks that don't know each other or more importantly
> don't respect each other and things spiral out of control quickly.
>
> Arguments against an aspect of a setting comes from, in my opinion, when
> the consumer hasn't 'bought' in to an aspect of the setting.
>
> Consumers often make the mistake of saying "I see X interact with Y with
> result Z. A in the real world works sort of like X and B is similar to X
> so
> result C must be true." ignoring that there are 2 levels abstraction that
> are not necessarily true making the statement of C highly suspect.
>
> In the end not all settings are created equally in the minds of their
> authors.
>
>
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>
I think you can tell by reading between the lines on my messages that I
feel the same way. I've just temporarily set that aside because I think
the discussion can be interesting, so long as it generates pretty lights
and not heat.
I certainly wouldn't go onto a SW or ST board and try to do this, but I
think it's interesting here in TNE land because the discussion sheds some
light on how the enterprise undertaken by Traveller is fundamentally
different from that bitten off by other SF games.
It's all fun until someone gets hurt, though.
Dave
> I hesitate to inject my opinion on this topic because its one that I think
> isn't in a majority or likely to be well received.
>
> In essence, you can't compare SciFi settings unless the settings 'share'
> similar assumptions for their 'hand-waving'. This hand waving are the set
> of principles that the author hopes the consumer 'buys' into to experience
> the story being told. The story is the point not the setting/hand waving.
>
> Many that enjoy SciFi enjoy the technical aspects of the settings they
> tend
> to gravitate towards without considering that the technical stuff isn't
> the
> point, very very few authors put enough thought into their hand waving to
> adequately realize the ramifications of what that hand waving will do when
> in interject the human condition over thousands of years into the system.
>
> A while ago I simply stopped considering the A vs B SciFi setting theory
> crafting because it seemed to me to be a false discussion due to too many
> levels of abstraction necessary. Over a coffee between friends sure no
> harm
> no foul, but between folks that don't know each other or more importantly
> don't respect each other and things spiral out of control quickly.
>
> Arguments against an aspect of a setting comes from, in my opinion, when
> the consumer hasn't 'bought' in to an aspect of the setting.
>
> Consumers often make the mistake of saying "I see X interact with Y with
> result Z. A in the real world works sort of like X and B is similar to X
> so
> result C must be true." ignoring that there are 2 levels abstraction that
> are not necessarily true making the statement of C highly suspect.
>
> In the end not all settings are created equally in the minds of their
> authors.
>
>
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>