Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Another question: SF game styles...?
From: "Robert Mayberry" <robert.mayberry@g...>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:46:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Another question: SF game styles...?
I think that it all boils down to how much suspension of disbelief a
reader is willing to accept. Of course that's going to vary from
person to person. It even varies between disciplines: the same "hard
science fiction fan" who demands rigorous six decimal precision in his
physics might accept a fair amount of hand-waving in biology and total
nincompoopery in his politics and economics.
To me, one of the gigantic strengths of GZG's material is that while
there's a unifying theme to it, it is still tremendously customizable
to fit different players' preferences and prejudices.
On 7/2/08, Allan Goodall <email@example.com> wrote:
> By the definition I grew up with, the Tuffleyverse swings between hard
> and soft SF. There's not enough detail to know if what the
> Tuffleyverse postulates is pure space opera. SG2 in particular seems
> to be close to "hard SF".
> 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
> I noticed Jon didn't mention mundane SF in his poll. There are few
> games that fit that title, though there are a few on the console game
> platforms (the games that extrapolate "future warrior" tech into the
> next decade would qualify).
Gzg-l mailing list