In Archive-Message-Number 4529, Scott Kellogg [email removed]
writes:
> Well, speaking as a physics oriented sci type m'sef, I can
> speculate as to why we get into physics more often than we do
> into psionics, and even exo-biology, exo-psychology, chemistry,
> engineering. Because, in the above fields we have too many
> variables to deal with. A ref can always arbitrarily come up
> with a wierd biology that 'does THIS neato thing'. We can
> imagine big nasty semi-intelligent beasties with acid for blood
> that some how just happen to require humans as a host to
> reproduce in.
> Ok, that's an extreme case. But you see, the ref can always
> come up with a wierd chemistry or biochemistry or even
> engineering solution that has X,Y,Z strange effects. Physics is
> much more fundamental. There are a lot fewer laws to deal with,
> and it is much easier to determine that effects R,S,T are
> possible, but U,V,W are not. The bets get hedged when you head
> into the other areas.
Sigh. Spoken like a "Physics. The one *true* faith." sci type.
While it's true that a ref can "always arbitrarily come up
with a wierd biology that 'does THIS neato thing'.", it's even
more likely that this self-same ref will stick his/her foot in their
mouth if they don't have at least a marginal chem/bio background.
(Note that I have the same problem when I attempt handwaving about
drives and powerplants, so don't assume that physics is the topic of
choice just because it's such a 'pure' science.) As for the other
fields (exo-biology, exo-psychology, chemistry) having too many
variables, they're no worse than physics, you just don't have nearly
as much training in them. It's the same for me and physics. I bailed
out after three terms and thanked God that I was still alive to talk
about it. (Besides, as I recall, psychology/psychiatry isn't a
science anyway. It's just a matter of "common sense and decency",
right? :^/)
The REAL reason that physics gets discussed in such depth and to the
exclusion of most other topics is twofold.
For the first reason, the following two quotes are appropriate:
"Defend from the high ground."
- Charlemagne
"Always attack from a position of strength."
- Sun Tzu
There are a disproportionately large number of TML'ers with strong
physics backgrounds, and it's always more fun to argue about a subject
that you think you know better than the other guy. On the other hand,
those TML members with any training in the life sciences are few and
far between (Eric Sergienko and myself being two exceptions). There
are obviously enough people interested in physics as it applies to
Traveller to keep the conversations going, even when it's boring the
rest of us to tears. On the other hand, when a chem/bio point of
discussion comes up, there's Eric, and then there's me. Consequently,
the two of us resort either to private E-mail or a plain old phone call.
Second, GDW/DGP have made highly visible and, for the most part, abysmal
attempts at providing rules for using TL-15 physics (indirectly) in the
game (jump drives, inertia dampers, artificial gravity, et.al.), which
leave a *boatload* of high-visibility targets for people with good
physics backgrounds to rip apart. But except for a badly flawed set of
planetary system design rules, and a pitifully sketchy 'random critter'
creation table, the chem and bio folks don't even have anything to try
to fix. (Note that I'm also including botany, geology, and a pile of
other fields of study too lengthy to list.) We have to start from
scratch. This is a LOT more work than most of us have time for.
> But, that is not to say that we can't or shouldn't talk about
> wierd bio-chemistry and other stuff. Indeed sometimes us poor
> non-bio types can get a lot of neato ideas from hearing about a
> particularly weird animal... I remember a discussion off line a
> while back on some kind of wierd frog that carried it's young
> tadpoles around *Under* the skin of the female. When they were
> 'born' hundreds of these lil suckers ripped their way out through
> the skin of the female. BLEAH! ICK! :-P
That's just the tip of the iceberg where Rana (African Treefrog family)
is concerned. Read "Jurassic Park" (Crichton) or "Legacy of Herot"
(Niven) for some real chillers about frog-like critters, or similar
effects. If you want wierd animals, you don't even have to leave Earth
to find creatures that can lift 30 times their own weight, spit live
steam, excrete caustic chemicals, or survive being frozen in a block
of ice for over three months. That's plenty wierd enough without
inventing space monsters with heretofore unheard of biologies.
The bottom line is, it doesn't matter whether it's physics, biology,
chemistry, or pottery. If you attempt to 'hand-wave' in a subject
where you know less than one (or more) of your players, you shouldn't
be surprised when you get bit in the ass by you spontaneous invention.
This is why I keep pushing that tired old saw "research your area of
pseudo-expertise" to death before the game starts. It can save you
a lot of grief. (A variety of E-mail from earlier this summer would
suggest that the approach of "knowing what you're talking about" is
not a popular one with some TML members.)
"Oh, great! My secret weapon is PMS."
- _Buffy,_The_Vampire_Slayer_
- Mark C.