http://www.rogue-games.net/othergames2.html
By James Maliszewski, no less.
Looking at the previews, this thing gets me fired up instantly where Mongoose Traveller still leaves me entirely cold. Must be because it's like a clean slate Traveller, with all the decades of accretions of rules and canon issues wiped off.
Any thoughts or experiences with the game yet?
Quote from: Pierce Inverarityhttp://www.rogue-games.net/othergames2.html
By James Maliszewski, no less.
Looking at the previews, this thing gets me fired up instantly where Mongoose Traveller still leaves me entirely cold. Must be because it's like a clean slate Traveller, with all the decades of accretions of rules and canon issues wiped off.
Any thoughts or experiences with the game yet?
I haven't got it yet. I was all fired up to - I really like James' work, and Hey! It's SF! - then I realized I didn't
like Imperial settings. I didn't
like the Third Imperium, and won't like anything
like it. That made me hold off.
-clash
I'm very psyched about this game. I don't have a huge hankering for space games, but this is giving me one. It's the toolkit approach that attracts me. Even more interesting, he's talking about a rules supplement that will let you play at a much higher level, representing church factions or militaries.
Flyingmice, what does "Imperial Setting" mean?
Ah, but here's the thing. Apparently, the setting is a toolkit. You get to decide whether it's an empire or a federation (or, I guess, something totally different).
Quote from: walkerpFlyingmice, what does "Imperial Setting" mean?
"Imperial Setting" just means the setting is an Interstellar Imperium, like Traveller or StarWars. I had understood that the toolkit allowed you to design your own Imperium, which to me is like Henry Ford saying you could have your Model T any color you liked so long as it was black.
-clash
Quote from: Pierce InverarityAny thoughts or experiences with the game yet?
Yes:
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9043
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=197145&postcount=20
You even posted in that second thread... ;)
Ave, Ceasar!
From James M's Post in the links:
"Thousand Suns is a toolkit for creating your own Imperial SF setting"
"The game itself includes a very thin "meta-setting" that outlines the basic structure of Imperial SF universes."
Whether that Imperium calls itself a federation or an empire is a mere semantic quibble. In broad structure, they are identical. Either one stretches my credulity to the breaking point. If it can work for other models of structure, I'll be buying it, and I may buy it anyway. :D
-clash
Quote from: Caesar SlaadYes:
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9043
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=197145&postcount=20
You even posted in that second thread... ;)
I'm such a flake.
I blame work, and society.
Quote from: flyingmiceWhether that Imperium calls itself a federation or an empire is a mere semantic quibble. In broad structure, they are identical. Either one stretches my credulity to the breaking point.
Not challenging your position, Flying Mice. It seems very clear and fair. I'm just curious why and how space empires stretch your credulity.
Quote from: flyingmiceWhether that Imperium calls itself a federation or an empire is a mere semantic quibble. In broad structure, they are identical. Either one stretches my credulity to the breaking point. If it can work for other models of structure, I'll be buying it, and I may buy it anyway. :D
(shrug)
Well, I'm not so risk averse that I'd hesitate to spend $10 to check it out. But maybe that's just me. :cool: I don't see it as any further a leap to take the imperial SF to other structures than happens in the various GURPS Space Atlas books when they "adapt" their setting details to different assumptions. :shrug:
Course I haven't actually decided to use the system myself, so don't take me for a mega-fan.
Quote from: walkerpNot challenging your position, Flying Mice. It seems very clear and fair. I'm just curious why and how space empires stretch your credulity.
It's a matter of command and control. Any single inter-stellar state larger than a half-dozen or so star systems will become ungovernable without FTL communications. With FTL communications, the imperium inevitably becomes boring and uniform. So a large Imperium worth playing in is a logical fallacy.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceIt's a matter of command and control. Any single inter-stellar state larger than a half-dozen or so star systems will become ungovernable without FTL communications. With FTL communications, the imperium inevitably becomes boring and uniform. So a large Imperium worth playing in is a logical fallacy.
(shrug) Well, that is sort of the premise, so maybe it's not for you. Course, that doesn't really impact chargen and the like much, but then, don't you have your own SFRPG anyways?
Quote from: Caesar Slaad(shrug)
Well, I'm not so risk averse that I'd hesitate to spend $10 to check it out. But maybe that's just me. :cool: I don't see it as any further a leap to take the imperial SF to other structures than happens in the various GURPS Space Atlas books when they "adapt" their setting details to different assumptions. :shrug:
Course I haven't actually decided to use the system myself, so don't take me for a mega-fan.
Like I said, right now I'm waiting to see what folks think, and maybe I'll just get it anyway. It's not like $10 is actual real money.
-clash
Quote from: Caesar Slaad(shrug) Well, that is sort of the premise, so maybe it's not for you. Course, that doesn't really impact chargen and the like much, but then, don't you have your own SFRPG anyways?
Two actually - StarCluster and Cold Space/FTL Now - But there's always room for more SF at casa clash! We like to play with different systems occasionally, and explore different takes on things. I mean I'll probably buy it anyway, I'm just not in the rush I was.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceIt's a matter of command and control. Any single inter-stellar state larger than a half-dozen or so star systems will become ungovernable without FTL communications. With FTL communications, the imperium inevitably becomes boring and uniform. So a large Imperium worth playing in is a logical fallacy.
Doesn't the real world speak against that (as long there is FTL travel)? The British Empire was gigantic for a couple of centuries, with it taking months to get from London to the furthest outlying regions. Yet, Britain managed to keep it together more or less.
We have isntant communication now but I see only a very small trend towards uniformity and doubt that it will ever be complete.
Quote from: NicephorusDoesn't the real world speak against that (as long there is FTL travel)? The British Empire was gigantic for a couple of centuries, with it taking months to get from London to the furthest outlying regions. Yet, Britain managed to keep it together more or less.
We have isntant communication now but I see only a very small trend towards uniformity and doubt that it will ever be complete.
The British Empire failed after approximately a century and a half. That was by allowing the greatest latitude to viceroyal agents in the field. That's not long enough to create an interstellar empire. That's more like time for the half-dozen systems I mentioned. Remember, we are talking about whole solar systems!
If you don't see the basic similarity of any modern urban area today, that's sad. As someone here said in another thread, Vancouver substitutes as any modern city for film purposes. The things that make cities stand out are the old things built before instant communications established the monoculture.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceIt's a matter of command and control. Any single inter-stellar state larger than a half-dozen or so star systems will become ungovernable without FTL communications. With FTL communications, the imperium inevitably becomes boring and uniform. So a large Imperium worth playing in is a logical fallacy.
-clash
Let's see...
A wide flung empire with extended travel and communication times would become ungovernable, and if travel and communication times were such that it was governable- then it would be boring and uniform.
So Rome doesn't exist in your Earth History?
Edit: saw someone else bring up the British Empire.
The response of a limited life span doesn't hold up, or rather it applies to all known historical goverments. You may as well say you don't believe in interstellar goverments.
Quote from: flyingmiceThe British Empire failed after approximately a century and a half. That was by allowing the greatest latitude to viceroyal agents in the field. That's not long enough to create an interstellar empire. That's more like time for the half-dozen systems I mentioned. Remember, we are talking about whole solar systems!
Isn't that really just handwaving based a single example? How do you know how long it takes to create an empire? The British empire was getting extensive (North America) by 1650. If there was a threat or context that made people want to stay within the empire, it could conceivably last longer. The empire may not have been in existence at the time of colonization; it might have assimilated a large number of long running colonies in a relatively short time.
Quote from: flyingmiceIf you don't see the basic similarity of any modern urban area today, that's sad. As someone here said in another thread, Vancouver substitutes as any modern city for film purposes. The things that make cities stand out are the old things built before instant communications established the monoculture.
First of all, you're talking only architecture - culture and thought processes are more interesting for a game. Instant communication has brought groups closer together but it's nowhere close to a monoculture. Secondly, Vancouver only works at the street level and only for Western cities - it would never pass for Ibadan, Nigeria for example. If you can't see the differences, that's sad.
In short, predictions about what is possible for an instellar set up amounts to hand waving as we don't know what other constraints and contexts will also apply. Given that, it comes down to personal taste.
Yeah, with FTL travel, you have FTL communications sufficient for an aristocratic empire that works through delegation of responsibility, imperial governors, tribute states, etc.
I tend not to like interstellar empires more because, on a gut level, I have trouble reconciling the advanced science needed to expand across the stars with hereditary aristocracy or concentration of power in the hands of an "emperor". Maybe as part of a post-dark ages setting, or gonzo/high concept, but not for what I think of as hard...ish SF.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI tend not to like interstellar empires more because, on a gut level, I have trouble reconciling the advanced science needed to expand across the stars with hereditary aristocracy or concentration of power in the hands of an "emperor". Maybe as part of a post-dark ages setting, or gonzo/high concept, but not for what I think of as hard...ish SF.
Some of the various space opera books had a reasoning for the source of power. For example, one family might have invented the hypderdrive and it made them fabulously wealthy. In Dune, there was the issue of the navigator's guild which made travel possible (though the whole Spice thing is getting into fantasy). You could also imagine a situation where the equipment to create a hyperdrive costs several trillion but hyperdrives don't cost much after that - you'd wind up with a only a few factories that might be choosy about who they hand hyperdrives to.
Quote from: NicephorusIsn't that really just handwaving based a single example? How do you know how long it takes to create an empire? The British empire was getting extensive (North America) by 1650.
It wasn't run as an empire until the middle of the 18th century, which is why the colonies here revolted. Until that point it was left to it's own devices for the most part. From that point until the widespread adoption of radio at the end of the 19th century it was an empire without instantaneous communication. In another half-century it had disintegrated.
QuoteIf there was a threat or context that made people want to stay within the empire, it could conceivably last longer. The empire may not have been in existence at the time of colonization; it might have assimilated a large number of long running colonies in a relatively short time.
Possibly. And I grant that possibility freely for short periods of time.
QuoteFirst of all, you're talking only architecture - culture and thought processes are more interesting for a game. Instant communication has brought groups closer together but it's nowhere close to a monoculture. Secondly, Vancouver only works at the street level and only for Western cities - it would never pass for Ibadan, Nigeria for example. If you can't see the differences, that's sad.
The assimilation of the world into the monoculture is accellerating as the western culture spreads. It hasn't taken everything over yet, but given time it will. That's my answer for both points, then. Given time, it will.
QuoteIn short, predictions about what is possible for an instellar set up amounts to hand waving as we don't know what other constraints and contexts will also apply. Given that, it comes down to personal taste.
Huh?
My belief that interstellar empires are a ridiculous concept isn't valid for my choice to buy or not buy a product? If you don't agree, that's cool! I don't care in the least! I'm only talking about my own personal decision! I don't want to persuade you or convince you or anything. I don't care what you choose to do or to believe at all. That's your choice. I was talking about mine.
-clash
I don't know enough to really take a position on the "reality" of the situation, but I'm quite comfortable jettisoning reality-based concerns when launching a space empire campaign. Simply because they are cool.
But thanks for the explanation, flyingmice. I can see that how it doesn't work for you. Maybe these guys will convince you that a space empire is possible and then you'll have one more sub-genre to play in! :)
Quote from: flyingmiceMy belief that interstellar empires are a ridiculous concept isn't valid for my choice to buy or not buy a product? If you don't agree, that's cool! I don't care in the least! I'm only talking about my own personal decision!
I don't want to persuade you or convince you or anything. I don't care what you choose to do or to believe at all. That's your choice. I was talking about mine.
I have no problem with going against empires for taste reasons. I was taking issue with the statement that it was a logical fallacy.
Though actually, I don't see many settings with effective insterstellar empires. They generally assume huge management issues. In Traveller it's pretty clear that you're on your own the vast majority of the time.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI tend not to like interstellar empires more because, on a gut level, I have trouble reconciling the advanced science needed to expand across the stars with hereditary aristocracy or concentration of power in the hands of an "emperor".
Is this 'gut level' driven by the idea that advance technologies would only arise out of free market and non-centralized governments?
Quote from: walkerpI don't know enough to really take a position on the "reality" of the situation, but I'm quite comfortable jettisoning reality-based concerns when launching a space empire campaign. Simply because they are cool.
But thanks for the explanation, flyingmice. I can see that how it doesn't work for you. Maybe these guys will convince you that a space empire is possible and then you'll have one more sub-genre to play in! :)
I doubt it, Walker. There is seldom much convincing in all the wrangling over the internet. :D
-clash
Quote from: NicephorusI was taking issue with the statement that it was a logical fallacy.
Ah! I meant the concept makes me pull away because I can't believe it. I don't insist you think the same. In fact, I'd prefer it if you didn't! :D
-clash
Quote from: gleichmanIs this 'gut level' driven by the idea that advance technologies would only arise out of free market and non-centralized governments?
If I knew for sure, it wouldn't be gut level, would it?
Self-interrogation suggests it has more to do with the incompatibility between personal empowerment made possible by technology, and possibly also social fluidity that seems to accompany changes in the means of production, on the one hand, with hereditary social structures and autocratic government.
I could see an interstellar one-party socialist bureaucratic state more easily than an interstellar empire. My general political leanings suggest that it'd be more corrupt and less efficient than a pluralistic society with a mixed economy, but it's not incompatible in my mind with hard...ish...SF.
Nicephorus: I think in any situation where a family had a monopoly on such an important component of the economy, the political system would quickly adjust to remove the monopoly one way or another--unless the family had access to weapons and could command the loyalty of enough people to support them.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI tend not to like interstellar empires more because, on a gut level, I have trouble reconciling the advanced science needed to expand across the stars with hereditary aristocracy or concentration of power in the hands of an "emperor". Maybe as part of a post-dark ages setting, or gonzo/high concept, but not for what I think of as hard...ish SF.
As our current times seems to be moving to an oligarchy, I see it far more likely as a government than an "emperor".
(Oligarchy, as in those in power making choices and passing laws to ensure the status quo, i.e. them not losing the power they have.)
Depending on the size of population, this oligarchy can easily be corporations. Everything you own and all the money you make to buy it is handled through a set of companies.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI could see an interstellar one-party socialist bureaucratic state more easily than an interstellar empire. My general political leanings suggest that it'd be more corrupt and less efficient than a pluralistic society with a mixed economy, but it's not incompatible in my mind with hard...ish...SF.
With companies choosing the candidates by only allowing their favorites to become public knowledge. (Media control)
=
Tyranny based on control of a resource is a very real phenomenon, even to this day, so its not hard to extrapolate that to a space empire and FTL technology.
The harder it is to break that monopoly the more steady the power, though the durability of said resource is important too. Consider: One traditional 'resource monopoly' is actually water. Given that water actually falls from the sky, thats hard to fathom, but if you are living in a desert you pay the guy that owns the well or you die.
Assume that FTL is very hard to produce, or that the technology is resistant to back engineering and this becomes slightly more probable. If empire building is, in fact, the goal, then over time the Powers What Be would probably move to ensure that technology based education dropped off too, and would move to control the actual education system for technicians and engineers, tightening their grip.
This is why Fading Sun's empire actually works reasonably well. The population is kept in ignorance by the church and disarmed by the nobility. Without access to weapons or the knowledge necessary to fight back they are essentially pawns in the 'games' fought by those with actual power/knowledge. Its not a classic resource monopoly as neither the church nor the nobles actually control technology or education (the guilds, who ironically are the weakest leg of the tripod) do that, so it's only slightly relevant on that aspect.
Quote from: flyingmiceI doubt it, Walker. There is seldom much convincing in all the wrangling over the internet. :D
Wait, what? Do you mean you guys aren't all planning to kill yourselves in order to save the planet!!!
Quote from: flyingmiceIt's a matter of command and control. Any single inter-stellar state larger than a half-dozen or so star systems will become ungovernable without FTL communications. With FTL communications, the imperium inevitably becomes boring and uniform. So a large Imperium worth playing in is a logical fallacy.
Until the 19th Century many European nations had world-spanning empires that worked just fine with communication limited to the speed of travel. (Or do you count FTL travel as FTL communications?)
EDIT TO ADD: Well, dang, millions of people beat me to it.
I will add: Personally, I like Traveller's solution, where the Imperial government rules space and starports, while individual planetary governments rule their territories. That way:
- The monoculture is present, but subdued - individual planetary governments can choose to control what cultural elements filter down to planetside.
- There's a good explanation as to why constituent planets choose to join the Empire - interplanetary/interstellar defence and trade combined with guarantees of general freedom in terms of how they run things planetside.
Also, it should be noted that the default setting for Traveller was the Spinward Marches, a region at the very border of the Imperium where the monoculture necessarily broke down.
What else did James Malijewski write?
Based on his posts over at rpg.net, I love his gaming attitude.
Quote from: Elliot WilenIf I knew for sure, it wouldn't be gut level, would it?
As you note, sometimes "interrogation" produces insight. I'm just brainstorming here with no strong opinion.
Quote from: Elliot WilenSelf-interrogation suggests it has more to do with the incompatibility between personal empowerment made possible by technology, and possibly also social fluidity that seems to accompany changes in the means of production, on the one hand, with hereditary social structures and autocratic government.
So it's not so much empire as hereditary empire. Something like the empire of the Soviet Union strikes you as workable where the next ruler is selected by "the party" instead of by family line- but otherwise it effectively functions as a empire.
Interesting. Why do you think a hereditary structure would fail while a party structure would not?
Plus I have to question if technology automatically results in personal empowerment or even social fluidity. That link doesn't seem causal to me.
The British empire and its problems of communication pale into significance compared to the Spanish.
For most of its long history this was far and away the largest and richest state on earth with possessions on every continent and far worse communications than the British had in their C19 and early C20 heyday.
The best part of a year it took the C17 Council of the Indies in Madrid to send a memo to the Viceroy of Peru was very similar to the time it takes to get a message from the Third Imperium's Capital to the Spinward Marches.
And the Spanish central imperial institutions were far more micro-managing than the British generating mountains of paperwork much of which still survives in the archives.
The Spanish for instance almost always deposed native rulers in favour of direct rule from Madrid, while the Brits were usually quite happy to leave autonomous local princes and chieftains in place and could thus run their empire with remarkably little in the way of a central bureaucracy.
But despite being truly global in an age where communications were still local, at war with progressively more dangerous enemies throughout virtually its entire history, perpetually teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and ruled by two successive dynasties of inbred morons and their corrupt and incompetent favourites, the Spanish empire proved remarkably stable for three whole centuries.
It only began to unravel when the Imperial metropolis was occupied by an enemy without the naval capacity to take control of the colonies as well - and even then took well over a century to die (losing its last significant colony in Africa only after the death of Franco nearly five centuries after Columbus began its overseas expansion)
There are good economic and military reasons why interstellar empires are implausible theoretically but communications lags alone are not enough as there are multiple examples of RW empires where the periphery and the centre were months and even years apart.
Brian, technology has vastly enabled the flow of information; it's true that this has negative effects on individual freedom (surveillance) and also increases the power of "media" in absolute terms. But relatively it seems to make it possible for a small number of people to make a difference, for niche cultures to form across wide areas in space, etc. It also acts as a "force multiplier" for individual talent and initiative, both when it comes to implementing and maintaining technology and, more important, using it.
If you have a static aristocracy without a bureaucratic state, I think it will be overwhelmed by people taking advantage of manipulating technology. The new entrepreneurs will be knocking at the door; maybe they can be co-opted by being allowed into the peerage but you'll never stop the process.
The bureaucratic state might be a reaction to this, a way of keeping things under control. Why precisely I don't find that to be very compatible with "an empire" is still at gut-level.
But yes, I was thinking exactly of the Soviet Union in my previous post. Historical references to the "Soviet empire" are apt in some ways but there are also reasons why that wasn't the official name of the state. In short "effectively functions as an empire" raises the question "what's an empire without an emperor?" and "how does an empire differ from a federation?"
Ah: so much of the debate about the viability of space empires comes down to quibles over terminology.
Bah.
Ceasar was elected.
I think the scale of the problem would be different. The nearest star to Earth is I think four light-years away, so even a two-system government without F.T.L. technology would take eight years to send a message and get a response. If the nearest land to Britain was four years sailing away I don't think there would have been a British Empire.
EDIT: and if that land was almost certainly near-uninhabitable.
Quote from: Elliot WilenBrian, technology has vastly enabled the flow of information
I think I'll pass on responding to your points here except to say that my 'gut feeling' disagrees. It might be a worthwhile thread on its own.
Quote from: Elliot WilenBut yes, I was thinking exactly of the Soviet Union in my previous post. Historical references to the "Soviet empire" are apt in some ways but there are also reasons why that wasn't the official name of the state. In short "effectively functions as an empire" raises the question "what's an empire without an emperor?" and "how does an empire differ from a federation?"
The Soviets avoided the term empire for propaganda reasons, it was far too useful to declare themselves a 'Union' and toss the term 'empire' (which had gained mostly negative meanings over the years) at their foes.
As to the difference from a federation, I think a primary one is that there is only one party in a Soviet style empire and a federation would have two or more. Also generally an empire expands by force while a federation expands by agreement.
Quote from: walkerpWhat else did James Malijewski write?
Based on his posts over at rpg.net, I love his gaming attitude.
He wrote a lot of stuff (http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=783).
Since you like him, and he wrote several White Wolf supplements, and edited indie darling Conspiracy of Shadows, it means you're a swine who wants to destroy the hobby. Get out. :pundit:
Quote from: flyingmiceIt's a matter of command and control. Any single inter-stellar state larger than a half-dozen or so star systems will become ungovernable without FTL communications.
Ah, but the period where it's becoming ungovernable, some are trying to govern and others mess it up,
there is your adventure! And of course, while everyone knows it's ungovernable, perhaps no-one wants to tell the Emperor? See for example late Manchu China...
Quote from: flyingmiceWith FTL communications, the imperium inevitably becomes boring and uniform. So a large Imperium worth playing in is a logical fallacy.
So with lightspeed communications on Earth we're becoming boring and uniform?
Hmmm, I suppose that's true. But it's a process of decades, at least.
Quote from: walkerpWait, what? Do you mean you guys aren't all planning to kill yourselves in order to save the planet!!!
Example is a powerful form of leadership, walkerp.
So why then is the RWs greatest national exemplar of personal empowerment so in love with the idea of hereditary succession that being the son or wife of a former president automatically puts you in the running for the top job?
At the other end of the scale we now have two hereditary communist monarchies in Cuba and North Korea (while in other communist and post-communist states the close relatives of leaders play an ever greater part).
Should society when we magically discover FTL and leave the solar system be anything like what we have now, it is easy to imagine Bill Gates the Eleventh or Roman Abramovitch the Thirteenth (or God help us Paris Hilton's umpteenth clone) funding their own colony fleets and having themselves declared Invincible Overlords of whatever planets they settle.
Would groups of rugged Heinleinian individualists or utopian socialists or just plain sensible folks wanting a new life be able to similarly seed themselves across the stars? - that's all down to how cheap and readily available your FTL is and how many suitable colony worlds there are.
Assume FTL is very expensive and that it makes only a finite number of suitable worlds accessible for settlement (the default assumptions of most modern SF rpgs) then the hyper-rich probably will grab everything worthwhile and some form of high-tech feudalism (though not necessarily an interstellar feudal hierarchy) does become conceivable.
Make FTL cheap and have lots of easily settled worlds then you'll get lots of weird Vancean planets as every group of cranks will find somewhere to go and do their own thing.
Throw in nanotech cornucopias, fully autonomous AIs and stargates that allow instant travel without starships into the mix and who knows what you'd get (one of my favourite SF settings is Dan Simmons Hyperion novels where an evil Roman Catholic Church manipulated by devious alien intelligences ends up running known space).
HF, I think that you must be partly responding to me, so I'll reply.
Mainly: I don't know. I'd have to think more on that first question of yours. It does seem like celebrity is becoming a bigger factor in American politics, and since presidents are already celebrities, relatives of presidents are getting a bigger leg up. I read a chapter recently that argued that the decline of civil society--the increasing inability of people to deal with each other--has led to people accentuating their differences and retreating into cultural identity instead of engaging in real interest-based politics. If so, I suppose that "branding" on the personal level, and efforts by politicians to identify themselves with cultural identities, may have led to family allegiance.
Only problem is that GWB and his father really appealed to quite different identities. In both his case and Hillary's--and that of the extended Kennedy clan for that matter--you've also got the old-fashioned power of money and machine politics. This doesn't say much for personal empowerment; however, it's not the same as your implication that America's yearning for a dynasty.
More important, two data points don't make a trend. We may be entering a new era, but the pattern over previous millenium, especially the last 500 years and accelerating, has been toward greater and more rapid social mobility, at the same time that the primary sources of wealth moved from land to trade and industry.
Quote from: gleichmanThe Soviets avoided the term empire for propaganda reasons, it was far too useful to declare themselves a 'Union' and toss the term 'empire' (which had gained mostly negative meanings over the years) at their foes.
'Course, they also shot the emperor and tried to overturn society.
Basically, 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.
QuoteAs to the difference from a federation, I think a primary one is that there is only one party in a Soviet style empire and a federation would have two or more. Also generally an empire expands by force while a federation expands by agreement.
I 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.
Man, I'm really sorry I said anything! We've really drifted the topic from Pierce's OP!
Apologies, Pierce!
-clash
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.)