captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
rust said:I also think so.The Chef said:i think that there is plenty of room in traveller for both hard a not so hard science fiction.![]()
In my view it is just a matter of taste, and while I prefer a more "hard"
approach to the science of a setting, I can well understand that others
prefer a different way of handling science in their games, and have no
problem at all with it.
Besides, in a way I am more interested in the depth of coherent and con-
sistent detail of a setting than in its scientific accuracy, but science hap-
pens to be a very good tool to make a lot of details coherent and consis-
tent - and thereby a setting plausible.
What I do not like in a setting are implausibilities and faulty logic, becau-
se they ruin my suspension of disbelief. And it does not really matter that
much for me whether it is "bad science" or "bad fantasy", badly designed
magic systems with lots of contradictions annoy me just as much.
In other words, I could happily play a setting where six legged pigs can
fly - until the moment when it is mentioned that each of those pigs gives
eight knuckles of pork ... :wink:
I think those comments pretty much sum up my ideas also, with the main caveat being that all groups of players and GMs seem to be willing to settle on a level of suspension of disbelief; generally, that's what "serious examination" for a universe needs in play, and gets in reality. Here, we don't have the slightest idea if any of us actually do play, so the discussion is much more theoretical, and thus academic, and thus sometimes entrenched and extreme.
The holes that a single dedicated, interested party can pick in any setting quickly pass the point of being an issue, or useful for most groups, I think. Even then one still requires a level of suspension of disbelief -as has been pointed out, how seriously can you complain about an economic systems realism, design and outputs in a game where you freely accept that FTL and reactionless drives exist ? (answer: VERY SERIOUSLY

Still, I am encouraged that on this board at least, there really do seem to be few "Science =UNfun" posts. Lots of "SCIENCE in service to the game" posts, and lots of "As much as I can use but no more" Posts. Possibly the sticking point is the posts that fall into "Science except when it isn't contributing to the FUN" ; its easy, I supose to read them as "science isn't fun" unless one rrealizes that what it says is "science is mostly FUN, but sometimes gets in the way" (such as FTL in most interstellar settings). If I've missed some really antirealism or antiscience threads of flurrys of posts here, I'd appreciate some links, so I can be disillusioned.
Oh. And in case that was too dense and rambling for some of you , a summary (as I can't post an MP3 soundbite like on Entertainment Today

RESPONSE
AGREE RUST AND THECHIEF STOP
WILFUL SUSPENSION DISBELIEF SUPENSION ACTUAL MEASURE OF INGAME REALISM STOP
INDIVIDUAL DECONSTRUCTION OF UNIVERSE FAR REPEAT FAR MORE DETAILED BUT REPEAT BUT GENERALLY EXCESSIVE FOR ACTUAL USE OF UNIVERSE STOP
REALISM ARGUMENT REGRADING FICTION DOOMED TO SELF CONTRADICTION WITHOUT SOME LEVEL OF WSD STOP
ANTIFUN LOBBY ILLUSIONARY POSSIBLY REPEAT POSSIBLY IMAGINED DUE TO EXTREME OPINION OR AGENDA FILTERS STOP
PLEASE POST CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE OF UNFUN LOBBY IF NOT OPINION PERSONAL ASSESSMENT LIKELY TO BE BIASED BY AFFECTIVE ASSESSMENT STOP
END RESPONSE