Quote from: Elliot WilenBasically, if you want to redefine empire, go ahead, I'll have to decide on a case-by-case basis if the social-political system is something I'd find plausible in an SF setting. Mainly when I reject an "empire" I'm talking about the vibe of an autocratic emperor and a ruling class based on nobility and blood--what I get from Classic Traveller.

Edit: never mind, it started one way and turned another.

In any case, I don't think I've changed things significantly from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire

Quote from: Elliot WilenI guess the 19th-century US wasn't a federation--Texas was the only expansion that could really be viewed at all as a voluntary accession by agreement of the inhabitants.

The US was/is a Republic. Different thing.

Quote from: walkerpWhat else did James Malijewski write?

Based on his posts over at rpg.net, I love his gaming attitude.

http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=783

Quote from: flyingmiceMan, I'm really sorry I said anything! We've really drifted the topic from Pierce's OP!

Apologies, Pierce!

No prob, gives me the opportunity to rock the boat, and say that I think it's a real failure of the imagination, not to say politically naive, to combine speculative technology from the fourth millennium with a political system of yesteryear--and to call that realistic. Given it was precisely the technological sea-change of the industrial revolution that brought about the political revolutions which swept away whatever awe and allegiance nobility could still command at that point.

I said I love old-school scifi settings, and I stand by that. But not for their political plausibility.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNo prob, gives me the opportunity to rock the boat, and say that I think it's a real failure of the imagination, not to say politically naive, to combine speculative technology from the fourth millennium with a political system of yesteryear--and to call that realistic.

I should however point out that if were sci-fi authors at the beginning of Rome, they would have likely failed at guessing the state of technology of today- but they would certainly see political systems closely related to their own.


Beyond that and to your point in general...

Fictional representations of history past and future (be they books, movies or rpgs) are always a failure of imagination and for a simple reason- they are better that way.

People like to relate to their entertainment, have it deal with factors that either are or could have been important to them in their own lives. Move it too far away from their frame of reference, and while you'll gain the praise of various idealistic elites- you'll disconnect with nearly everyone else.

Personally I consider it nearly impossible for humans to have any meaningful roll in far future conflict beyond perhaps (just perhaps) deciding that they want the conflict.

And personally I consider it from a realistic science PoV highly unlikely to see anything we'd even call human existing in the far future.

Neither likely idea IMO makes for a very good rpg. At the end of the day, most people want sci-fi to be the people of today in fun and different settings. So they make their books, movies and rpgs so that's possible.

I always treated the feudalism as an elightened feudalism.

Two empires without nobles came before. and faltered.

The Ziru Zirka was the ultimate bureaucracy, Rule of Man the ultimate militarized Democracy. Both faltered as they could not:

1) react fast enough
2) adapt ast enough
3) gap the communication problem
4) solve the cultural problems of a large empire

Feudalism is the "social jump drive". Cleon 1st gut-grokked that, and Lentuli with his Psychohistorian cronies worked the science behind it out in detail.

Thusly personal trust (the nobles know each other; being relatives and dorm mates at boarding school) and long time strategic thinking can be provided by feudalism in the best way.

With insta-FTL communications, something else would evolve. But up til TL-17, feudalism is THE option.

Don´t forget, the worlds rule themselves. The nobles only serve as an extension of the Emperors will, guarding starports, taxation and the fleet. One could also see the Emperor being solely the nail upon which the custodian elite is hanging their values onto.

Settembrini, history doesn't repeat itself. There will never again be something like medieval feudalism. Least of all as an artificial resurrection for "pragmatic" reasons in an otherwise hightech secular society. It just doesn't work that way.

I think the reason a lot of scifi is based on this weird combo of an evolution in tech (utopian or dystopian, doesn't matter) and a devolution in politics, with the former as the driving force and the latter as an afterthought, is that political futurism is so much harder to do than technological futurism.

The extrapolations are simply much easier. "Light speed exists. We haven't achieved it yet. -> What if we did?" Dead simple.

With politics you'd need some majorly sophisticated theory before you even begin to extrapolate. And that would only work for a few decades into the future.

I like the Star-Warsy scifi RPGs precisely for their implausibility. Since there's no danger of confusing them with an actual projection I can enjoy them esthetically.

Well, I´m not saying that that´s how it´s gonna be.
I say that I always took it as one of the foundations of Imperial Sci-Fi.

All the more as most imperial Sci-Fi is artificial in it´s technical models too.

Land combat is WWII+Clarke´s Law+Heinlein.
Space Combat is Hornblower+Harpoon.
Trade is Tramp Freighters
etc.

Traveller is there to explore human endeavour as we know it on thousands of planets (micro settings, time travel substitute). On these planets the real Sci-Fi element comes in. Which is the beauty of it. If the meta setting is preoccupied with sooth saying, it becomes unplayable wankery.

But with the individual planets approach, you are always on the safe side, as the future you predict on those planets, or the past you reenact on those planets is just one sample.

I think the arguments against a big interstellar empire surviving for long are interesting, but one big hole in them.  In order to use earth history as a basis for comparison, you have to assume other alien lifeforms will behave in a manner similar to humans.  That may be a valid assumption, but then again it may very well not be- it all depends on your GM.  Perhaps aliens like living in a vast empire but still retain their local culture while doing so.

Quote from: SettembriniTraveller is there to explore human endeavour as we know it on thousands of planets (micro settings, time travel substitute). On these planets the real Sci-Fi element comes in. Which is the beauty of it. If the meta setting is preoccupied with sooth saying, it becomes unplayable wankery.

Total agreement here.

Quote from: gleichmanPeople like to relate to their entertainment, have it deal with factors that either are or could have been important to them in their own lives. Move it too far away from their frame of reference, and while you'll gain the praise of various idealistic elites- you'll disconnect with nearly everyone else.

Axe-grinding invites more axe-grinding. E.g., why is it that modern gamers have trouble with sexual inequality, racism, and slavery in their ancient-and-medievally-inspired RPGs?

But taking your point head-on--as in, why my gut revolts against Traveller-esque social-political systems, all issues of logical plausibility aside--for me personally, it amounts to asking what it is I'm looking for when I'm offered "science fiction". It's a vision of the future, therefore necessarily brings on my hopes and fears about the future, and to an extent the present. As such, an optimistic Trek-like approach (TOS, to be precise) appeals to me, as do various grey-hat projections of corporatism, through to cyberpunk-ish dystopia, and modernist totalitarianisms. Within this spectrum of hopes and fears, aristocracy and autocracy stand for atavism, a negative development, concerns about the breakdown of our society and retreat from ideals of human progress (not just technological, as PI alludes). For me therefore an aristocratic empire works for a dystopian or decadent setting, not so much for the progressive futurism that I feel is embodied in the character-level activity of a Traveller type universe.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAxe-grinding invites more axe-grinding. E.g., why is it that modern gamers have trouble with sexual inequality, racism, and slavery in their ancient-and-medievally-inspired RPGs?

Point taken and accepted.

I will say that I didn't mean to grind an axe, "idealistic elites" wasn't a negative term- it just references those that have an ideal (perfect sci-fi) in mind and seek elite examples of it.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut taking your point head-on--as in, why my gut revolts against Traveller-esque social-political systems, all issues of logical plausibility aside--for me personally, it amounts to asking what it is I'm looking for when I'm offered "science fiction".

I agree.

And frankly, if there is a negative I'd lay at the feet of "idealistic elites"- it's the inability to see that.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFor me therefore an aristocratic empire works for a dystopian or decadent setting, not so much for the progressive futurism that I feel is embodied in the character-level activity of a Traveller type universe.[/I]

Now that's interesting. I always did think of Traveller as dystopian.

I wonder if it was for the same reason you feel it pushes you in that direction. I've never given it much thought...

Folks, just apply Clarke´s unwritten law:

"All sufficiently social sciences are indistinguishable from magic."

For me, I have long ago conceded that the REAL genius behind the 3rd Imperium is the social setup of it´s custodian elite. IMTU, human nature is understood so good, that they can perpetuate loyalty and honesty for the system of nobles, including self regulation via internal social checks and balances.

Basically a more elaborate version inspired the "noblesse d´oblige" essay in Survival Margin.

Sett, it may interest you that when I originally typed my last response, I had an exception for an SF version of an idealized ancien regime, specifically a Hohenzollern or Hapsburg-esque empire where nobility was focused on (and to an extent was a creature of) service to the state, rather than a product of feudal-esque independent power bases. I don't really find it very plausible--hereditary titles and all that--but I don't see it as completely dystopian/decadent. (A personal influence here is Legend of the Galactic Heroes--but I also see from the Wikipedia article that the Prussia-analog has a darker background than I was aware of.)