Quote from: jeff37923;318381Someone has to create the designs used to replicate everything. Some will be better than others, so you have an economy based upon the scarcity of intellectual property creators.

For an RPG setting based on much the same principles, see here: Sufficiently Advanced.

Is it just me or does it seem like most Sci-Fi novels are conservative and most Fantasy ones are liberal?  At least in the case of Sci-Fi, the authors can get very preachy (at least the stuff I've read lately- David Weber, Heinlein, John Ringo) and it eventually sours me on it.

Quote from: GrimGent;318386For an RPG setting based on much the same principles, see here: Sufficiently Advanced.

After reading 3 pages, my mind shut down from the causality problems that the setting creates for itself. Transcendental AIs that send themselves messages from the future which will be translated into orders for the human cyborgs (PCs in the present) to execute? Fuck me running, that is some Transhumanist bullshit wankfest where God is actually a Computer.

Quote from: mhensley;318387Is it just me or does it seem like most Sci-Fi novels are conservative and most Fantasy ones are liberal?  At least in the case of Sci-Fi, the authors can get very preachy (at least the stuff I've read lately- David Weber, Heinlein, John Ringo) and it eventually sours me on it.

This is just CRYING out for a comment about how people dealing with science have to deal with repercussions and the like, while fantasy worlds have magic to cure all their problems....


.... but I wouldn't be that cheap.  

Quote from: mhensley;318387Is it just me or does it seem like most Sci-Fi novels are conservative and most Fantasy ones are liberal?  At least in the case of Sci-Fi, the authors can get very preachy (at least the stuff I've read lately- David Weber, Heinlein, John Ringo) and it eventually sours me on it.

You just need to switch authors.

I doubt anyone would call Harlan Ellison "conservative".

Maybe Steven Barnes would be more to your liking?

When I talked to Barnes in March of 2008 , I know he was very Pro-Barack Obama and his wife had a decent shot at getting them good seats at the Democratic National Convention.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;318395Maybe Steven Barnes would be more to your liking?

When I talked to Barnes in March of 2008 , I know he was very Pro-Barack Obama and his wife had a decent shot at getting them good seats at the Democratic National Convention.


- Ed C.

Have you read any Steven Barnes?

Quote from: jeff37923;318397Have you read any Steven Barnes?

Recently?

No.

10 years ago - yes.

 However, in person the man is definitely NOT "conservative" in his politics.
Great fun to talk to.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;318398Recently?

No.

10 years ago - yes.

 However, in person the man is definitely NOT "conservative" in his politics.
Great fun to talk to.

- Ed C.

So if eveyone had the opportunity to have private time with Steven Barnes, that would be equivalent to reading one of his novels. Which novel would that be, Ed?

Quote from: Spike;318393This is just CRYING out for a comment about how people dealing with science have to deal with repercussions and the like, while fantasy worlds have magic to cure all their problems....


.... but I wouldn't be that cheap.  

I would never call you cheap. Easy, yes, but never cheap.  


I've always been interested in the old TSR Dark Sun setting for that very reason: magic had a terrible ecological impact.

You best be remembering that, OTS... don't get too wild with that paycheck until after....

Quote from: Spike;318393This is just CRYING out for a comment about how people dealing with science have to deal with repercussions and the like, while fantasy worlds have magic to cure all their problems....


.... but I wouldn't be that cheap.  

Of course it may just be that most of the sci-fi I've read is very militaristic.

Quote from: mhensley;318387Is it just me or does it seem like most Sci-Fi novels are conservative and most Fantasy ones are liberal?  At least in the case of Sci-Fi, the authors can get very preachy (at least the stuff I've read lately- David Weber, Heinlein, John Ringo) and it eventually sours me on it.

I'd go so far as more sci fi being conservative and more fantasy being liberal, with notable exceptions, sure.  I soured on Anne McAffrey eventually for the same reason, despite liking the first books I read (but she's more sci fi).

But I have to say, I'll give you Weber and Ringo as preachy, but Heinlein always struck me as having a fairly wide range of voices.  Most of his stories deal at least broadly with personal freedom and responsibility, but not in a consistently right-wing fashion.  Starship Troopers and Moon is a Harsh Mistress have such opposed morals that if you do consider them preachy you have to assume one or both are preachy "in character" of the protagonist, or as an exploration of a concept, not the author's unfiltered views.  Stranger in a Strange Land certainly is no right wing manifesto; Heinlein got a few letters from hippy communes asking for advice and guidance after it came out!  I suggest you may be blind to differences between modern conservativism, proto-libertarianism and old fashioned, pre-partisan American ideas of personal freedom.

Quote from: jeff37923;318335Hairfoot's right, Koltar. Roddenberry's Federation in Star Trek is a socialist wet dream, particularly The Next Generation (where you even had a mind-reading ship's counselor to ensure that the crew thought appropriately, the Bad Guys were often either militaristic Klingons/Cardassians or capitalistic Ferengi or perfidious Romulans, and Q was around to demonstrate that a God was nothing more than very powerful spoiled brat).

Sorry, but Roddenberry's original startrek made it VERY clear that the Klingons were the Soviets, and Kirk & co. over at Starfleet were Kennedy Democrats.

QuoteThankfully, JJ Abrams came along and drove a wooden stake into the vampiric undead heart of Roddenberry's Ghost to ensure that Star Trek didn't suck anymore as a franchise.

When Roddenberry was in charge, Star Trek was the most popular Sci-fi TV show in North American history.
IT was later, when Berman(?) took over, that they fucked it all up, and mainly by moving too far from Roddenberry's vision over into Nerd Country.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318432When Roddenberry was in charge, Star Trek was the most popular Sci-fi TV show in North American history.
IT was later, when Rick Berman(?) took over, that they fucked it all up, and mainly by moving too far from Roddenberry's vision over into Nerd Country.

RPGPundit

I mostly agree with that thought .

 Also, I'm guessing around 40% of TREK fandom might as well.

- Ed C.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318432Sorry, but Roddenberry's original startrek made it VERY clear that the Klingons were the Soviets, and Kirk & co. over at Starfleet were Kennedy Democrats.

Who just happened to go into space and find God every other week?

Quote from: RPGPundit;318432When Roddenberry was in charge, Star Trek was the most popular Sci-fi TV show in North American history.

Which was only a fraction of the franchise's longevity.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318432IT was later, when Berman(?) took over, that they fucked it all up, and mainly by moving too far from Roddenberry's vision over into Nerd Country.

Roddenberry's vision included the first couple of season's of The Next Generation and the heavy handed moralistic influence on the show bibles up until the JJ Abrams movie. That is, after the money for actually writing the show's bible was awarded to David Gerrold in a dispute adjucated by the Writer's Guild of America (seems Roddenberry was happy to plagerize Gerrold, but not pay him even after Gerrold's writing gave Trek its Tribbles).

And actually, didn't Paramount assign Rick Berman to Roddenberry after he made the overbudget turkey of Star Trek: The Motion Picture? You know, to ensure that he didn't fuck up again?