Too much Science?

[rust]

I prefer detailed realistic world and vehicle building rules. I don't care how complex they are. I see them as tools for building the 'sets' and background for the play, not as rules to be used during actual play. Rules used during play must be as simple and fast paced as possible.

Yes, the same with me.

This is, normally - a detailed system can really drive one mad if one has
to build a lot of stuff from scratch in a very short time.

What I really like are systems which offer both a very detailed and a mo-
re simple system, as GURPS does for starships.
With GURPS Vehicles you can design your starship's bridge down to the
size of the crew's seats, if you want to, but with the GURPS Traveller Star-
ships you can just as well choose one of several complete bridge modu-
les for your ship.
So, you get the amount of detail you prefer for the task at hand.

 

[cbrunish]

The thing that should really be pointed out, is what do the GM and players want. Hard science or "realism" vs. space opera seems to be the contention.

For myself I prefer the simplistic approach that was CT (and MGT sofar). I have a B.A. degree in Political Science/History and a Paramedic certification. I served retired from the Army National Guard and during that time I served in communications, water purification, retention/recruiting, and finally as a combat medic. I have worked in management and now as a paramedic.

I love creating star ships and navies. But, FS&S (t4 edition) totally thru me for a loop. There was too much math to comprehend. Megatraveller was a little too precise. But again CT High Guard was almost perfect! It was simple and easy to create any kind of ship. I would spend hours creating ships and navies (especially for the Great Solomani Confederation).

As too the rest of Traveller, I aplaud it. I gives a hard science idiot (myself) a basic explination of how things work and then I go on from there. If a player tries to get too technical then I fall back on "the GM is always right" theme. I'm not saying that realism is not important. I just feel that there is no absolutes in science. I remember reading that the head of the US patent office in the 1880's stated that everything that needs to be invented has been. And wasn't it approx 150 years ago that the man who stated that there were tiny invisible things that caused infection laughed at.

It is my understanding that science is still evolving. Take medical technology for example: medicine has grown by leaps and bounds in the past 20 to 30 years. As a paramedic, i have to take 18 hours of continuing education a year to keep up to date with new medicine and procedures. Even CPR has changed over the past 5 years.

All I'm saying, just enjoy the game. It is my opinion that MGT is a good product that stays close the original concept of CT.

 

[captainjack23]

As I said to my students, on the last day of term when they entered the room saying "Can we do fun stuff today?", "Sure you can.......Science is fun!".

All a question of perspective really - but 'science' is something that can have an infinite variety of applications in the real world, and sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.

Well, the problem is, while science is fun, some people are not.

Which seems the issue here.

 

[captainjack23]

I don't actually think this really has anything to do with one's enjoyment of the game at all... I think it's actually more fundamental than that, that maybe is related to the growing (false) perception nowadays that science itself is something that is intimidating and complicated - even though (as dafrca pointed out) it's quite possible to present the science transparently because all the scientific stuff is done 'under the hood' and presented as a simple system that just happens to produce realistic results.

Well, I'm not sure that broadening the scope of this argument is useful here. Even if the view is nicer from the Moral high ground.

It's just possible that people disagree without being a part of a bigger problem.

For me, where more science doesn't equal a worse game, it's good. Problems arise, however, when people want to tell me I'm wrong about liking a game, or should put up with needless complexity in the service of a very poor model of realism, or are part of a social problem because of that. EDG has done a pretty good job of integrating more stuff that he likes into fairly usable systems. The rest is entirely about who likes the systems, and, unfortunately who likes who.

 

[EDG]

Well, I'm not sure that broadening the scope of this argument is useful here. Even if the view is nicer from the Moral high ground.

It's nothing to do with being "on the moral high ground". It's just that I have run into people in this sort of argument (not particularly in this one) who do actually seem to feel threatened by the science itself (and not by me, before you make any snarky comments). And that sort of attitude is common among those who think that it's soimething to be scared of.

It's just possible that people disagree without being a part of a bigger problem.

And it's quite possible that there is a bigger problem that is contributing to this too. RPGs don't exist in isolation, and the fact is that people with varying levels of education play them.

The rest is entirely about who likes the systems, and, unfortunately who likes who.

Well I'm certainly not trying to make it personal here, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't too.

 

[rust]

It's nothing to do with being "on the moral high ground". It's just that I have run into people in this sort of argument (not particularly in this one) who do actually seem to feel threatened by the science itself (and not by me, before you make any snarky comments). And that sort of attitude is common among those who think that it's soimething to be scared of.

While I have not (yet ?) encountered that mindset in an SF roleplaying en-
vironment, it doubtless exists. Once people know that one is interested in
science fiction, (amateur) astronomy and thelike, one is quite likely to be
drawn into discussions on astrology, ufology and such stuff, and on this
field there really are more than a few people who consider science as an
enemy that threatens to destroy their semi-religious beliefs.

However, I do not think that this really is a factor in a discussion about
the "amount" of science in a science fiction RPG (at least I hope so).

 

[captainjack23]

Well, I'm not sure that broadening the scope of this argument is useful here. Even if the view is nicer from the Moral high ground.

It's nothing to do with being "on the moral high ground". It's just that I have run into people in this sort of argument (not particularly in this one) who do actually seem to feel threatened by the science itself (and not by me, before you make any snarky comments). And that sort of attitude is common among those who think that it's soimething to be scared of.

It's just possible that people disagree without being a part of a bigger problem.

And it's quite possible that there is a bigger problem that is contributing to this too. RPGs don't exist in isolation, and the fact is that people with varying levels of education play them.

And too, a discussion abut a specific issue can be derailed by bringing in a social issue - I don't think that was your intent, just noting that none of the people here seem to fit the broader movement towards anti-science some places have. Possibly its a local thing, but those issues and people usually show up with rockets attached.

As an example , I suppose one could tie in the overall popularity of rules easy games these days to a decline in attention span, or to lack of interest in written literature, but, true or not, it doesn't seem to apply to those here; or to add to the discussion.

The rest is entirely about who likes the systems, and, unfortunately who likes who.

Well I'm certainly not trying to make it personal here, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't too.

I'm not sure why that was a personal attack. If anything, it was a reminder to some posters that their history with you shouldn't blind them entirely to some of your points. We disagree. Lots. And about some issues you think should be on the plate for discussion. But I'd like to think that I disagree because I read what you write and think about it. Not that I just kneejerk because of my like or dislike of you -which is hard to gauge, as I barely know you.

My statement is this: I think this really boils down to a discussion of what are good and what are bad systems. The science input is neither here or there, if the rules or the implementation suck, they suck. And unfortunately, yes, most post-fantasy RPGs have had their share of OCD driven gun and engineering catalogs with chargen or combat rules tacked on ; which have then used realism and science used as a sham excuse for poor design. And traveller more than most. Its an old problem.

So when people start complaining about too much or too little science, I find they usually are complaining about a lousy implementation; and frankly, using "avant-guard creativity" or "Hard cold science" as a defense of either approach is a crock. And, generally a massive disservice to the quest for good rules sytems.

And, I do need to point out, this in particular is not aimed at EDG's implementation of some of his passions....the nuts and bolt of his sytems are solid as a general rule, and he puts the work into the playtesting.....that one hates the intent or the presentation or the discussion about it is another matter.

Me, I've yet to see "science" as a concept ruin play - a designers implementation of it, pro or con, more or less, yes. Many, many times. Similarly, I'm not sure I've ever seen poor science and nothing else ruin a good game.

 

[Sturn]

And it's quite possible that there is a bigger problem that is contributing to this too. RPGs don't exist in isolation, and the fact is that people with varying levels of education play them.

I'm sorry, but I was one of those who believed having too much science spoiled the gaming due to over-complexity in the rules. This in no way meant I was curled up in a cave somewhere, anti-scientific, or uneducated.

Just because someone prefers High Guard (or now MGT) starship construction versus FF&E doesn't mean they are science ignorant or uneducated. They can comprehend the details of FF&E and love the science behind it, but they just might prefer to not have so much detail and math when playing a game.

I have two Bachelor of "Science" degrees inlcuidng classes such as Analytical Geometry and Calculas I, II, and III, Advanced (engineering degree version) of Chemistry I and II including labs, Physics, Differential Equations, and so on. Just because some of us want it kept simple, doesn't me we are rampaging against science or uneducated.

I want the science to be realistic, but only if the rules are kept simple. When one must give, I prefer the game rules over the science rules. As an example, EDG's world-building notes have been copied and pasted to my MGT house rules list. It is more realistic without the rules becoming complex. We aren't against you or science EDG, just against complex rules created by trying to be so realistic it spoils the fun.

 

[EDG]

I'm sorry, but I was one of those who believed having too much science spoiled the gaming due to over-complexity in the rules. This in no way meant I was curled up in a cave somewhere, anti-scientific, or uneducated.

And I didn't say that you were . And most people aren't either. I do get that most people are complaining about unecessary complexity or badly designed systems rather than the science or realism itself.

But that said I have, on this board and others, seen people kick into "frothy anti-science" mode. And it's in those cases that I wonder if there's not something deeper seated going on.

 

[GamerDude]

To a point, I LOVE having science back up what we're doing in a game... but I also love a cinematic game... we're the heroes... in high adventure... Hell we're already ignoring science in so many ways as I've already pointed out etc.

I'm just not going to sit here and let someone argue "you can't have an atmosphere of XXX on a planet that's Y size in an orbit about ZZZ from star type A". If the world gen system comes up with that as a result, and it fits withing the story, then hell it is possible. I'm not going to be bothered with a process/ruleset that takes an hour to roll up one star system realistic or not.

I also love actually using 3-D mechanics for Space Combat (love the "Saganami Island Tactical Simulator... SITS because of it does do that), but I'm not going to try and implement such a system in Traveller, GURPS, HERO, etc. because it will just drive my players away from all the math... So we ignore the science of everything actually happening in 3-D and call it good. BUT I'm not going to fault someone/a group who likes that, wants that, and does do all their combat using 3-D mechanics.

Overall, my point has always been that there needs to be a balance... workable mechanics that make some sense, have some basis in reality (I.E. science where it is fact, not just hypothesis/conjecture). I don't just jump on someone for saying "I don't let science get in the way of the fun" nor do I have problems with someone who "wants to be as accurate as possible without ruining the fun".

All this time, my reaction and disdain has been for ONE person who gets pissy if someone expresses an opinion of "science is good but don't overburden the game with too much detail because of the science"... that same person who has been told by more than just me they are argumentative, arrogant, and obnoxious, (and in the past invited to leave more than just this Traveller RPG forum).

So I say to all... go play the game YOU want, and if someone doesn't go for your level of scientific accuracy/lack thereof then suck it up and leave them alone.

 

[rust]

All this time, my reaction and disdain has been for ONE person who gets pissy if someone expresses an opinion of "science is good but don't overburden the game with too much detail because of the science"... that same person who has been told by more than just me they are argumentative, arrogant, and obnoxious, (and in the past invited to leave more than just this Traveller RPG forum).

Well, that was another discussion in another situation, and I think it is
time to close that file - and to keep it closed for good. Otherwise we
run the risk that arguments from the past will continue to influence and
sometimes poison most of our discussions for quite some time.

Frankly, I am far more interested in Traveller than in who has to grind
which axe with whom because of what past remark ... :roll:

 

[EDG]

I'm just not going to sit here and let someone argue "you can't have an atmosphere of XXX on a planet that's Y size in an orbit about ZZZ from star type A".

You can't have a breathable shirtsleeve atmosphere on a moon of Saturn - it's patently impossible. Everyone with the most basic knowledge of science knows that - it's about a hundred degrees below zero out there. And yet the CT system will let you generate one (you can roll up atm 6 on a gas giant moon). Now, if you want to sit there and tell me that you resent being told that then I'd say you've got issues that go beyond whether you approve of science being in the game or not.

I'm not going to be bothered with a process/ruleset that takes an hour to roll up one star system realistic or not.

Nobody's asked you to use such a system though, and neither has one been forced on you.

I don't just jump on someone for saying "I don't let science get in the way of the fun" nor do I have problems with someone who "wants to be as accurate as possible without ruining the fun".

And neither do I.

I'll ignore your obvious baited comments and trolling attempts.

So I say to all... go play the game YOU want, and if someone doesn't go for your level of scientific accuracy/lack thereof then suck it up and leave them alone.

That would be sage advice, if it was actually relevant to the discussion... because nobody is actually saying that anyone should somehow force people to have a level of accuracy that they don't want.

 

[captainjack23]

I'll ignore your obvious baited comments and trolling attempts.

Good idea. We had a nasty trolling sock puppet over on COTI who managed to inflame lots of discussion with some kind of petty revenge agenda. Lets avoid it here.....


And, while we're dropping things, is it safe to say that you've dropping your suggestion that there is an undercurrent of antiscience bias here ?

 

[GamerDude]

I'm just not going to sit here and let someone argue "you can't have an atmosphere of XXX on a planet that's Y size in an orbit about ZZZ from star type A".

You can't have a breathable shirtsleeve atmosphere on a moon of Saturn - it's patently impossible. Everyone with the most basic knowledge of science knows that -...

Ahh... once again here you go with baiting... have I (or ANYONE here) ever come up with something like that and said claimed that science was getting away with the fun? Damm... you say you are going to ignore "attempts at trolling and baiting" and come up with something THAT STUPID...

Geeze guy, get a life.

So I say to all... go play the game YOU want, and if someone doesn't go for your level of scientific accuracy/lack thereof then suck it up and leave them alone.

That would be sage advice, if it was actually relevant to the discussion... because nobody is actually saying that anyone should somehow force people to have a level of accuracy that they don't want.

Yes, if you go back and look at your responses to the idea, as I have restated, that is what YOU do... LOL

 

[EDG]

Good idea. We had a nasty trolling sock puppet over on COTI who managed to inflame lots of discussion with some kind of petty revenge agenda. Lets avoid it here.....

And what has anything happening on CotI got to do with anything being discussed here, exactly?

And, while we're dropping things, is it safe to say that you've dropping your suggestion that there is an undercurrent of antiscience bias here ?

Considering that I never actually said that there was an undercurrent of antiscience in this discussion, I'm not sure what there is to drop. I just said that I'd encountered that in the past.

I do wish people would actually read what I say instead of what they think I said. :roll:

 

[captainjack23]

Good idea. We had a nasty trolling sock puppet over on COTI who managed to inflame lots of discussion with some kind of petty revenge agenda. Lets avoid it here.....

And what has anything happening on CotI got to do with anything being discussed here, exactly?

As an excellent example of the kind of behavior Rust is suggesting we avoid in the previous post. Simple as that.

I don't know if you still read COTI, but if not, you missed a real honest to goodness sock puppet grudge match. Some loser decided to slag the board owner and anyone who disagreed, AND to try to drum up as much crap as possible. I had my suspicions that he was an exban, rather than just a troll, and he scuttled off when confronted, but one of the mods vouched for the main suspect, so who knows......hope for the mods sanity that he's right.

Anyway, as I said, it's just an example of old buisiness wrecking new business.

And, while we're dropping things, is it safe to say that you've dropping your suggestion that there is an undercurrent of antiscience bias here ?

Considering that I never actually said that there was an undercurrent of antiscience in this discussion, I'm not sure what there is to drop. I just said that I'd encountered that in the past.

I do wish people would actually read what I say instead of what they think I said. :roll:

Well, good for that. Thanks for clearing it up. And by the way - whats with the :roll: ? Heads up ? Look out for falling rocks ?

 

[EDG]

As an excellent example of the kind of behavior Rust is suggesting we avoid in the previous post. Simple as that.

Actually I'm pretty sure he was referring to past arguments that happened here on this board, not anywhere else.

I don't know if you still read COTI

I really couldn't give a damn about CotI so no, I don't read it. I don't even think I can read it. Either way I've not been there for ages and I have no interest at all in what's going on there.

Anyway, as I said, it's just an example of old buisiness wrecking new business.

It's still entirely irrelevant to this discussion, which is about science (or at least detail) in gaming. If you want to complain about how posters behave on other boards then perhaps you'd be better served doing it on those boards?

Meanwhile, can we get back on topic?

Well, good for that. Thanks for clearing it up.

I thought I was pretty clear when I said it in the first place.

 

[captainjack23]

As an excellent example of the kind of behavior Rust is suggesting we avoid in the previous post. Simple as that.

Actually I'm pretty sure he was referring to past arguments that happened here on this board, not anywhere else.

I don't know if you still read COTI

I really couldn't give a damn about CotI so no, I don't read it. I don't even think I can read it. Either way I've not been there for ages and I have no interest at all in what's going on there.

Anyway, as I said, it's just an example of old buisiness wrecking new business.

It's still entirely irrelevant to this discussion, which is about science (or at least detail) in gaming. If you want to complain about how posters behave on other boards then perhaps you'd be better served doing it on those boards?

Meanwhile, can we get back on topic?

What a peculiar reaction.

Well, if I'm that out of line, no doubt the mods here will chide me.....

Well, good for that. Thanks for clearing it up.

I thought I was pretty clear when I said it in the first place.

Well, at least three of us didn't get it. We must be the slow ones.

 

[Sturn]

Reminder, tread topic = TOO MUCH SCIENCE?

 

[-Daniel-]

Just an On Original Topic side note.

Because of the posts by all of you on this thread, I am now able to explain what I was thinking much better and also have an idea what triggers it. So thanks to all of you for adding to the conversation.

Now I will let you get back to the present exchange.

Daniel