|  | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:05 pm |  |
| edgeworth wrote: |
>Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both. |
You're nitpicking to the point where it reads like trolling, edgeworth: you are literally making a point of "focus is on the science" vs. "emphasis on scientific [detail or accuracy]." focus vs. emphasis, "science" vs. "scientific [detail or accuracy]."
Take a step back.
ETA: And Parallel isn't functioning from any known technology--it's literally got items that exist purely because the plot/code wants them to. Medicine/gravity generators/firebreathers all exist without any consideration/care to the science behind them. There's no "emphasis on scientific accuracy" in Parallel--you're literally being told so by the head admin.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:48 pm | |
In a game, there will always be things that don't make sense. Same goes for a cinema movie. These things we accept so the greater whole works. I don't personally care at all about if it's gold or lead, either is fine, but my immersion isn't broken by bullets being gold.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:48 pm | |
Well, if we have fantasy/sci-fi hybrids like Star Wars at one extreme and true "hard science fiction" at the other, I think it's pretty safe to say Parallel exists somewhere in the grey middle area. The emphasis is on the story (and fun!), sure, not the science, but it's hardly surprising if everyone in the community doesn't agree about which hand-waving and glosses help the story and which detract (by virtue of being too jarring). Grey areas are made for debate.
But, hey! Look over there: Neutron Star.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:01 pm | |
they are made for debate certainly...up to the point where they become things that divide the community or promote genuine irritation or anger.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:16 pm | |
At which point we should go read short stories instead. 
But more seriously, I don't think what's being argued here is really -- despite the thread title! -- "X doesn't make sense; X shouldn't be in-game," but simply "If X is going to be in-game, we should have at least a rough consensus on the IC explanation for it. It will make the game more immersive and fun."
That IC explanation doesn't have to be precisely-detailed or even true to RL science. It just has to be (a) IC and (b) generally agreed upon.
| Edgeworth wrote: |
| If gold is just present in greater quantities than lead on this version of the Moon that's a good enough justification for using it. I really suggest we make that a little clearer and make sure that people actually know about it, because this is something that will almost certainly puzzle every new player to come. Maybe put it on the history page. [emphasis mine] |
Pocket gravity generators, for example, have an OOC explanation: we aren't building the whole moon. They also have an IC one, however flimsy: "sufficiently advanced technology [indistinguishable from ...]". And that's enough, because no one's PC, at least so far as I'm aware, is supposed to know how they work. Bullets need a little more because they're within reach of PC crafters, who presumably know why they use the materials they do ... and aren't going to say "game balance".
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:52 pm | |
| eltanimras wrote: |
| Bullets need a little more because they're within reach of PC crafters, who presumably know why they use the materials they do ... and aren't going to say "game balance". |
"Hey, you ever wonder why we use gold for our bullets, Sarge?"
"Shut up an' get back to work, Private, that's why. Quit askin' stupit questions."
"...well that don't seem like no real good reason t'me..."
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:20 pm | |
Regardless of what any given character knows or doesn't know about the reason behind X (and granted, some characters will know, some characters won't, and some will know things that are not true!) as a world builder - and this is where mud creation and fiction writing overlap a great deal - the internal consistency of the secondary world (i.e. the IC world) is necessary for the maintenance of immersion - or at least, it's fairly important.
There's 'this is what my character knows', 'this is what Billy Bob's character knows', 'this is what Billy Bob knows'...
And then there's what is actually the objective reality in your secondary world.
Granted, not everyone needs to know how everything works all the time. Just because there's an objective reality, it doesn't necessarily follow that said reality needs to be known and understood in its entirety by everyone participating.
But, and this is where I think Edgeworth has something of a point, if poorly represented and smothered in self righteous 'this is science fiction and that is fantasy' sauce:
The more significantly one deviates from an established 'norm', whether said norm exists in a previously established literary convention or in the real world, the more likely it is that you need to have a good explanation for it - or you're likely to break immersion for at least some people.
Another thing that occurs to me (and this reminds me of a conversation we had on SoI but I don't remember what about) is that it sometimes doesn't even matter whether your deviation from the norm is more realistic than what's perceived to be reality. What works and doesn't in the real world (or any world) is really besides the point. The point is whether or not it is generally perceived to work that way.
Finally, Kory's example conversation works fine if you're playing an ignorant Private or an asshole Sergeant, but it doesn't really work very well if you're playing any kind of tinker-scientist, even one that has, at best, a tenth grade education.
I could go on, as I have been known to, to the detriment of king and country, but people are wrong elsewhere on the internets too and I must save a few rants for them!
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:14 pm | |
Nobody that I am aware of has ever RP'd a long, in-depth study of the properties of gold within the scope of PARPI. Maybe if they did, they'd find that gold is the perfect metal for making bullets within the boundaries of the Parallel universe.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:04 pm | |
| kog wrote: |
| Nobody that I am aware of has ever RP'd a long, in-depth study of the properties of gold within the scope of PARPI. Maybe if they did, they'd find that gold is the perfect metal for making bullets within the boundaries of the Parallel universe. |
One would assume that any such long, in-depth study (or you know, as is just as likely, a gradual understanding over time through trial and error) would come BEFORE the practice is already commonplace.
It's like saying, "Oh, we have no real idea as to why this makes sense. But we might if we look into it!"
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:06 pm | |
To make this argument more explicit, you NEED crafters to know why it's a good idea to make bullets from gold, or, conversely, why it's a bad idea to make them from other, cheaper, more commonly available materials - of which I understand there are plenty.
Because if they didn't know why it's not a good idea to make them from other materials, they'd have tried by now. And either made cheaper bullets or...
Found out why they need to make their ammo from gold.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
