I know I am gonna get flamed or it but:Dude,it is just a game not a simulation.
It is Space Opera,you know the stuff you read as a kid and saw on the big
screen.
Wherever you go there you are-Buckaroo Banzai
We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit
violence on those who would do us harm. (Winston Churchill)
My brother is so stupid he sold his truck for gas money
________________________________
From: constantine_thomas_uk
Sent: Sun, January 27, 2013 6:37:33 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To me, a serious flaw is one that means the setting just makes no physical
sense. I guess other people can ignore those more easily, but with my science
background I can't.
(things like:
- the tiny cannonball worlds with breathable atmospheres
- the apparent non-existence of rogue planets (contradicted by the rules in book
6, which require there to be a LOT of rogue planets to allow the required 1 in 3
systems to be able to have at least one captured planets)
- the broken stargen tables that allow habitable worlds to be preferentially
found around white dwarfs and subdwarf stars
the stars that inexplicably gain mass when they age (brought about by a lack of
research on stellar evolution)
- the ridiculous amount of systems with close white dwarf companions
- habitable worlds around high mass giants and main sequence stars with
lifespans too short to allow them to exist
etc... )
There's only so many times (once or twice maybe) that you can blame the Ancients
for this sort of thing. Fact is, there's no 'in-setting39; reason for these - it's
all down to the authors failing or not bothering to do their research (this was
all known in the 1970s).
What gets me isn't so much that these problems are still in the worldgen system
(even in T5, from what I've heard), it's that some people will acknowledge that
these issues exist, and then happily make up reasons to explain them that make
even less sense than the problems themselves.
As I said elsewhere, the scientists in the OTU must be so confused by their
inconsistent, contradictory physical universe. How on earth could they explain
it all?
--- In , "James" wrote:
> Depends on the definition of "serious flaw" I suppose.
>
> To me, a serious flaw would be something that was both difficult to ignore or
>remove from the setting AND prevented the setting from telling the sorts of
>stories/sessions/campaigns that the game is intended to tell.
It is Space Opera,you know the stuff you read as a kid and saw on the big
screen.
Wherever you go there you are-Buckaroo Banzai
We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit
violence on those who would do us harm. (Winston Churchill)
My brother is so stupid he sold his truck for gas money
________________________________
From: constantine_thomas_uk
Sent: Sun, January 27, 2013 6:37:33 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: COTI
To me, a serious flaw is one that means the setting just makes no physical
sense. I guess other people can ignore those more easily, but with my science
background I can't.
(things like:
- the tiny cannonball worlds with breathable atmospheres
- the apparent non-existence of rogue planets (contradicted by the rules in book
6, which require there to be a LOT of rogue planets to allow the required 1 in 3
systems to be able to have at least one captured planets)
- the broken stargen tables that allow habitable worlds to be preferentially
found around white dwarfs and subdwarf stars
the stars that inexplicably gain mass when they age (brought about by a lack of
research on stellar evolution)
- the ridiculous amount of systems with close white dwarf companions
- habitable worlds around high mass giants and main sequence stars with
lifespans too short to allow them to exist
etc... )
There's only so many times (once or twice maybe) that you can blame the Ancients
for this sort of thing. Fact is, there's no 'in-setting39; reason for these - it's
all down to the authors failing or not bothering to do their research (this was
all known in the 1970s).
What gets me isn't so much that these problems are still in the worldgen system
(even in T5, from what I've heard), it's that some people will acknowledge that
these issues exist, and then happily make up reasons to explain them that make
even less sense than the problems themselves.
As I said elsewhere, the scientists in the OTU must be so confused by their
inconsistent, contradictory physical universe. How on earth could they explain
it all?
--- In , "James" wrote:
> Depends on the definition of "serious flaw" I suppose.
>
> To me, a serious flaw would be something that was both difficult to ignore or
>remove from the setting AND prevented the setting from telling the sorts of
>stories/sessions/campaigns that the game is intended to tell.