Steve writes:
>What would I do? If my PCs tried to toast a spaceport? Say "Ok, it
Forget the damn PCs. They are not the problem. PCs can be dealt with
in other ways (like placing 3000 missile launchers and/or nuclear
dampers around the places you don't want them to torch ;-) (or even
just informing them that you don't enjoy running games with homicidal
maniac PCs)). The problem is letting such weapons into the hands of
the space-age equivalent of truck drivers. Given the number of crazies
and fanatics there should realistically (Yeech! there's that word again!)
be running around most planets would have a few smoking holes in them
if that were so. _That's why I don't want common space jockeys to have
such weapons.
>That's because I have little if any interest in how starships land. I
>can see a lot of ways, you can see a lot of ways, everyone else can see
>a lot of ways (well, a few for each of us anyway). So? I consider the
>LETHALITY of the drive, and its usefulness as a weapon to be a FAR more
>fundamental problem that needs resolution than the question of how ships
>land...
Oh, so you do consider the fusion drive a problem? I got the impression
that your opinion about that was "It's lethal and so what?". OK, in
what way do you consider it a problem and what solution do you suggest?
>[Wildstar:]
>>Unless and until someone can come up with some better physics; as a
>>game ruling (based on referee's judgement of possible effects,
>>playability, and general story needs) I would *still* say that running
>>a fusion drive in an atmosphere will cause serios damage to the drive
>>and/or ship.
>
>Your privilege. It seems I won't ever be playing with Trav with you as
>GM, so I doubt it would ever matter, but if you decided that, I would
>decide to quit playing, since I consider that a cop-out...
How so? Wildstar dosen't want fusion drives used in atmosphere and he
informs his players that contrary to what is thought today it turns out
that there are insurmountable difficulties with using fusion drives in
atmosphere. A yet unknown effect, perhaps. Or the physical laws of his
universe differs a tad from those of the Real World. So what? As long
as he informs his players about any different rules and applies them
consistently the game dosen't suffer.
>>At some point, additional scientific (or economic, or social, or
>>anything) accuracy becomes detrimental to the game.
>
>No, it doesn't. At some point it becomes too difficult to calculate.
Two completely different things. If it becomes too difficult to calculate
it will almost certainly be detrimental to the game, but there are lots
of instances where too much accuracy is detrimental to the game even if
it's easy to calculate.
You appear to regard realism as an end in itself. I happen to regard it
as a means to an end.
>Quite frankly, after the last month of the TNE pocket, and the last few
>days of the TML, I really don't give a flip what you think of me. I
>only care for the opinions of people I respect...
I will treat that remark with the contempt it deserves.
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
[email removed]
- ------------
"Free speech gives a man the right to talk about the
'psycology' of an amoeba, but I don't have to listen".
Elihu Nivens in 'The Puppet Masters'