To put it simply, we have already been over all of that.
You simply cant keep up, you are too far behind, you constantly get sidetracked because of your own filter of prejudice and bad thinking that causes. You seem to just assume future development and cannot differentiate between reality and your own wild unsupported conjectures.
Trying to present my conjectures has been my point the whole time. I think I have said more than once that I don't think this spells doom over the whole project, only that it is a move in the wrong direction.
Your expectations are based on argumentum ignorantiims, bad oxy-moron examples, you just suppose a certain approach to the subject always works while the other will always bring bad consequences - and you fail to understand what is directly said to you several times in a row - and then you tell me you want me to explain stuff to you? After i wrote "sure buddy. ill get right on it!"?
My argument is based on my, admittedly possibly flawed understanding of pulp literature. As I see it, this kind of fiction has rawness as a feature. It is both a strength and a weakness of it. I may be wrong here, and I would love it if people can explain me why I am wrong in this. Also, just to make sure I am being understood, I am not saying good pulp fiction goes through no editorial work. Of course good authors check their spelling, make do overs, and even check scientific data to make sure their story works. But compared to other types of fiction, you don't want to gild the lily here. You want to be direct and plain.
I said to VD he just keeps making shit up and then complains about what he just invented - several posts ago. Ive told you you base your nonsense on "things might go wrong - lets panic" logic - yet you claim you dont in some sort of nonsensical answer - and then you go:
This kind of pulp is best when it has minimal editorial intrusion.
Which is just a wild statement completely unsupported by anything at all. In the whole multiverse.
I mean... minimal editorial intrusion can mean many different things you dont specify - and its a conjecture on what and how the work will be applied somewhere in the future - nor can it be said that every pulp setting always benefited from such moronity.(which your statement as it is does claim).
My experience with these may not have been as wide as I have liked. But all good pulp stories I've read have been done quickly and somewhat bluntly. The older short stories were usually made for magazines like weird fiction with very little time and fact checking, and this is where they usually shined. Pulp roleplaying games are frequently laughed at nowadays because of how badly they mess up some stuff. But at the same time, it has a certain raw energy, which I can't imagine surviving in a more worked on story, or game or book. I can't say it has benefitted every setting, of course, I haven't read most of them. But still, my experience with them has been that being raw is part of what makes them pulpy, and unless you can explain to me why I am wrong on this assumption, I don't see any reason to change my mind about it.
and
Too much worrying about making the work something more legitimate, like making sure there are no obvious scientific flaws - can help drive the designer away from his own good points, can shift the focus of the work somewhat to a direction that was never the point of the game or story or whatever it is we are talking about.
Where you again completely fail to understand the most basic statements given by thwacke and Fargo - which claim completely different things (for example "making sure there is no scientific flaws" is completely fabricated by you and VlaDislav) - and then you go on the same old track of "things might go wrong therefore they will go wrong".
I never said they will definitely go wrong. Saying "it is a step in the wrong direction" is different than saying we are doomed. Furthermore, I think it is obvious that, whatever it is that Thwacke is going to do, it will fall on the editorial line of work. Therefore, I see the possibility of they going wrong with it. If Thwacke is very hands off the problem, it might even help a little. Having someone to talk with about stuff in the lunch hour could help the designers come up with interesting scenarios. But then again, so could anyone, if the designer knows how to pay attention.
and thats way, way after i scolded VD (and everyone else) for silly complaints about eventual future execution or implementation of the whole thing, which is argumentum ignorantium - again.
- which you cannot even recognize although you can and do repeatedly.
Sorry, Hiver. You may refuse to try to draw conclusions about how this will work out without knowing all the details, but I certainly won't do that. If I see something that doesn't seem like a good idea, I will explain why I think it isn't a good idea, no matter if the developer knows more than me and thus could see why it is a good idea. We have always done that here in the codex, and I really don't see a reason to stop it.
I said that several pages ago.
Its like talking to a robot running on some simple singular frequency , emitting the same old signal in a constant loop - in an alternative universe where science means bad and nonsensical things.
/
Just wanted you to know that, since you said you cant understand it yourself.
Thanks, I think I know the feeling. The problem, Hiver, is that you haven't addressed the premise I created at all. Instead half of the time you go off in ad hominems and other times you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill of what I said. Our major point of disagreement seems to be that you read their comment about remaining minimal and being sure they will be smart enough to avoid changing the type of fiction of the game, whereas I am not so sure. Which is fine, but does nothing to convince me.
That doesn't affect IF you should put scientific correctness in, just where you can stick it.
I am not so sure, DraQ. It seems to me that once you begin worrying about this, you begin to put into this type of fiction a concern about world building that wasn't there in first place. World building in Pulpy tales is usually haphazard, and things don't always make too much sense when put together. Once you start to worry about that (and minor fact checking is a worry about that, even if it isn't such a big one), most tales seem to drift to a different mode, no longer so raw and plain, but more worked over and sophisticated.
Ok, so maybe pulpy isn't the word, but it is to the highest degree absurd. It's a game where your party is joined by an alcoholic balding superhero (spandex, cape and all) who punches shit with comic-like effects, and that's after it's been joined by a pathologically democratic, planet (shrunk to roughly your size). It's a game where your spaceship gets captured by a comicbook supervillain and all narration switches to fucking bubbles.It's a game where there are relics from the previous big bang and big crunch cycle that give people magic powers.
It's far more absurd and fucked up than anything you could find in Fallout series or Wizardry 6 through 8.
And yet, its WTF moments (most of the game) mesh perfectly well with both scientifically hard and dramatic ones.
Sure, I am not saying this kind of story can't be fun. It is just that they are a different type of stories.
