Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Another question: SF game styles...?

Doesn't sound as if the nose-up-turning is all on one side...

I'm a bit of a Mundane myself, though it depends on what "possible"  
means. Mostly I mean "doesn't breach the laws of science as we	
understand them today", and not "I'm going to patent it tomorrow".  
So, for example, I say no to FTL travel, but yes to hydrogen- 
deuterium fusion (we know it is possible, and we know how to make it  
happen, but we can't harness it for controlled power-generation or  
rocket propulsion).

But hey, the "chanting druids in the engine-room" SF worlds can be  
fun too. I enjoyed the Honor Harrington books for example, until the  
series broke the cardinal rule of space-opera and became dull (IMHO  
of course. Your milage may vary).

Best regards, Robert Bryett

On 03/07/2008, at 05:14 , Allan Goodall wrote:

> Of course today we have another definition muddying the waters:  
> Mundane SF. This is an extreme variant on hard SF, where only that  
> which is possible is written. No FTL. No interplanetary adventures.
> Strictly what makes physical, logical, and economic sense. I	
> haven't read any myself, and I've heard a number of people grumble  
> against mundane SF zealots who turn up their noses at other forms  
> of SF as
> "badwrongfun".

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l