Playtest 2.0 files - Things that still bug me.

The thing about Academic is that it mainly refers to the ivory towers of universities and writing sagacious tomes. It would exclude the 'field' researchers common to both sciences and history or archeology.

Knowledge is just so vague and wishy washy and could refer to anything, like a capacious knowledge of stamps, or my fairly complete but pretty much useless knowledge of tv shows featuring spaceships.

Lets not forget that most of the modern sciences used to be called natural history.

The thing about history is that we only have human history to look at (and not that much of it, compared to the timescales involved in geology, physics, or biology). Once we have alien or non-terrestrial history to chew on some kind of scientific method might start to become applicable, looking for immutable and universal laws and principles of societies, maybe even classifying them into orders and genera like living organisms.

This can be our sci fi handwave that allows to put history neatly among the sciences.

Edit: As for philosophy (and theology), it is good for describing a theory of how our society sees itself, and what it sees as important. As it is, like history, about ourselves rather than an attempt at an objective view of the world around us. But once we can be objective, with lots of aliens and other human cultures to compare, maybe it does become more scientific.
 
Klaus Kipling said:
Lets not forget that most of the modern sciences used to be called natural history.

Yes, but it's an important distinction now.

The thing about history is that we only have human history to look at (and not that much of it, compared to the timescales involved in geology, physics, or biology). Once we have alien or non-terrestrial history to chew on some kind of scientific method might start to become applicable, looking for immutable and universal laws and principles of societies, maybe even classifying them into orders and genera like living organisms.

This can be our sci fi handwave that allows to put history neatly among the sciences.
Agreed - but I'd like this to be explained/defined in the text. I'd like 'History' to be redefined as a new science 'Socio-History'.

Edit: As for philosophy (and theology), it is good for describing a theory of how our society sees itself, and what it sees as important. As it is, like history, about ourselves rather than an attempt at an objective view of the world around us. But once we can be objective, with lots of aliens and other human cultures to compare, maybe it does become more scientific.

I'm not quite convinced by this, however. I think Philosophy is pretty much a linguistic/rational art.
 
TrippyHippy said:
Klaus Kipling said:
Agreed - but I'd like this to be explained/defined in the text. I'd like 'History' to be redefined as a new science 'Socio-History'.

I'm not quite convinced by this, however. I think Philosophy is pretty much a linguistic/rational art.

Well, I've always advocated Socio-History - the distinction between History and Sociology is more one of style than content, and both disciplines are symbiotic to each other anyway.

Philosophy is more problematic; your definition is correct to. Given that it also incorporates theology, and therefore religion, it's hard to reconcile as a science. Having this all by it's lonesome makes more sense than history, though. Though philosophers do write books and debate, as long as you have some basic knowledge, anyone can be a philosopher. And you don't have to do research or experiment to philosophise. Evidence helps, but isn't necessary.
 
I think that Philosophy could be well integrated into Arts, as with Writing and Music, etc.

And definitely a fan of the Socio-History idea.

Hope Mongoose are listening..... :wink:
 
TrippyHippy said:
I think that Philosophy could be well integrated into Arts, as with Writing and Music, etc.

And definitely a fan of the Socio-History idea.

Hope Mongoose are listening..... :wink:

It does seem a better place for it; the only glitch is that the other art skills a geared toward a physical product. Philosophy is the art of hand waving! :wink:
 
AKAramis said:
captainjack23 said:
AC-tually.....ummm....thats a pretty good definition.

Miller time, gents. Aramis is buying.

Come on over, and taste my Cinnamon Nutmeg Heart of Mead....

My goodness. I think that's the best post I've ever seen on the subject of art vs science.

Would love to. Wish I lived closer. May be up in the great north someday; if so, you are on.

Cap
 
Re: the citizen debate.

Just chipping in, but if the book is to be a toolkit for the Imperium and other settings, then a citizen is critical.

In many settings (both RPG and literary), just being a citizen of the ruling interstellar elite sets you apart from the various colonials, outbackers and mudhuggers.

Even the Imperium has this buried away as an implied assumption in the various incarnations - any time a roll or career is restricted by TL, being a 'citizen' (rather than some hick from a TL5 backwater) becomes important.

I've seen the various categories suggested, which promote a good general spread. I just think the tone needs to be different from a career to generate NPCs with. Being a citizen could be a transitional career (1 Term) for Barbarians and other low tech oiks. It could also provide a good career to retire to having been shot up in nastier services.

Admin/Manager, Civil Services and Specialist would be my picks, all covering a broad array of types. You could even rank it in general terms.
 
Drifter said:
Re: the citizen debate.

Just chipping in, but if the book is to be a toolkit for the Imperium and other settings, then a citizen is critical.

Actually, if you look at the careers in Supplement 4: Citizens of the Imperium, they tend to be less "off-worlder" than the military. Except for Pirate/Corsair, Hunter, and Noble, they tend to be non-adventuring types. Scientists and diplomats travel, but are not likely to be adventuring, per se, off world.

Barbarian covers those TL 2-4 hunter-gatherer types and frontiersmen.
Police, Wet Navy, and Flyer round out the military, and unlike the leg and track, are usually not going to deploy elsewhere.

bureaucrat, well, not likely to go anywhere. Doctor, much the same. Either might go off world for a major promotion, or a rare conference.

I'm missing one... ISTR it being a criminal one.

Anyway, Traveller's "Citizens" have always been the "Local Boys"...
 
Agreed in the main. Citizens was a great book for rounding out worlds...and for careers for PC's.

I think the setting implies a citizen as being attached to the interstellar worlds in some way. And at that level a lot of citizens take space travel (within system, anyway) pretty much for granted. Being a citizen gives you the basics for interstellar adventure that way.
 
Drifter said:
Agreed in the main. Citizens was a great book for rounding out worlds...and for careers for PC's.

I think the setting implies a citizen as being attached to the interstellar worlds in some way. And at that level a lot of citizens take space travel (within system, anyway) pretty much for granted. Being a citizen gives you the basics for interstellar adventure that way.

You are NOT agreeing with me. Most of the citizens careers are NOT tied to interstellar life and travel. Only three really have any serious connection, and two more go places.

I don't even agree that most will have even left their world once.
 
Well, I'm not sure I agree with you either. I dunno. I might do. :wink:

The point of wanting a Citizens career in the corebook is twofold:

a) I want the corebook to be 'complete', insofar that it has all the core careers in one place. I recognise that supplements like Mercenary and High Guard will expand options within those particular careers, but what I don't want is a supplement that provides an extra bunch of (uninteresting) add-on career 'options', later on. For the most part, having 12 basic careers (+ the Psionist) can account for pretty much any character type anyway. We shouldn't need a bunch of extra 'NPC Careers'. By doing this, you always seem to divorce PCs somewhat from the world they are in, I feel.

b) Citizens are cool career options for PCs. Sci-fi fiction is littered with everyman heroes, or 'babes-in-the-woods' types that can give a story a much more grounded feel. And they are fun to play! it certainly makes a nice contrast to playing 'serious professionals' or military-men all the time. Hands up wants to play Dave Lister from Red Dwarf? :wink:
 
I'd much rather see Citizen in the core, myself.

I think of the lurkers and dockworkers in B5, Luke Skywalker in SW, Bill the Galactic Hero, Arthur Dent in HHGttG, Teela in Ringworld, and just about everyone in Integral Trees.
 
Re: History is not science

I've found that as a historian, people who have a degree in the hard sciences tend to reject the wider definition of science that social scientists use. Hard science people have a narrow definition of science, whereas social scientists tend to have a broad definition of science. English language dictionaries support a wider definition than simply experimentation and the application of the scientific method. For example, Merriam Webster defines science as:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology
b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science

3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art

5 capitalized : christian science

Hard science people use definition 3a as the only definition, when clearly the others are also valid definitions of the term.
 
If you've spent 3-4 years studying for a scientific degree, then it gives you something of an idea as to what scientific method involves - and why a blunt translation of an etymological root, won't suffice.
 
TrippyHippy said:
If you've spent 3-4 years studying for a scientific degree, then it gives you something of an idea as to what scientific method involves - and why a blunt translation of an etymological root, won't suffice.

You would think that since us social scientists are the ones that study languages, we'd be the one to make the determination of how a word should be used, especially since linguistics is our realm, but hey we obviously know nothing compared to biologists and chemists.
 
medievaladventures said:
TrippyHippy said:
If you've spent 3-4 years studying for a scientific degree, then it gives you something of an idea as to what scientific method involves - and why a blunt translation of an etymological root, won't suffice.

You would think that since us social scientists are the ones that study languages, we'd be the one to make the determination of how a word should be used, especially since linguistics is our realm, but hey we obviously know nothing compared to biologists and chemists.

About chemistry and biology, certainly -said as a social scientist, I may add.

Science or not science is always going to be contentuous for good reasons; and for bad reasons, its just chest thumping and territory making. Is this really neccessary to a playtest ? <-rhetorical question.

This issue of what is a science has been thrashed about by lots of people for a long time, many of whom are even more intimately involved in the dispute; we are not going to resolve it here. Nor would we improve this version of traveller if we did.

:idea: Trippy, how bout you just write up your list of the ideal differentiation of sciences for traveller and post it ? That should get us back on the topic of "how many total skills are useful for for gaming a set of somewhat overlapping disciplines called science"

Cap
 
Back
Top