Clothing in Spaaaaaaace!

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Isn't there one suggested writing rule for science fiction about limiting your self to one implausible change?

Science fiction and fantasy both, yes. It's often called the "Unicorn in the Garden" rule, after the short story of the same name.

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Anyway I didn't say it was unreasonable if you look it in the context of some SWAT style raids that have been done on the behests of some major copyright players.

Not just the major copyright holders - reference http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ for another example.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Isn't there one suggested writing rule for science fiction about limiting your self to one implausible change?

That sounds rather like a writer with a case of genre chauvinism.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That sounds rather like a writer with a case of genre chauvinism.

Not really it combination of "Flying Snowmen" (one two many implausible thing that breaks the reader's suspension of disbelief") and the "Big Lie" where you free to play around withing the big lie as long as you're consistent. Basically play around with the implications of the implausible change in rational manner.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Not really it combination of "Flying Snowmen" (one two many implausible thing that breaks the reader's suspension of disbelief") and the "Big Lie" where you free to play around withing the big lie as long as you're consistent. Basically play around with the implications of the implausible change in rational manner.

That's fine as far as it goes. But it seems to go against the traditional space story which almost always has FtL and artificial gravity making a minimum of two implausibilities and two is rather more then one.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That's fine as far as it goes. But it seems to go against the traditional space story which almost always has FtL and artificial gravity making a minimum of two implausibilities and two is rather more then one.

It's advice not a description. It doesn't have to follow the "traditional space story."

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That's fine as far as it goes. But it seems to go against the traditional space story which almost always has FtL and artificial gravity making a minimum of two implausibilities and two is rather more then one.

unless of course when they're related when what allows the FTL involves manipulating Gravity.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Sindri

It's advice not a description. It doesn't have to follow the "traditional space story."

No it doesn't. The point is, it doesn't have to NOT follow it. And limiting to one implausibility renders traditional space stories illegitimate.

However the basic point is valid. It should be reasonably if not strictly plausible(even real life is not strictly plausible) and the author should understand that being allowed to use gimmicks does not mean being allowed to have anything happen.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

unless of course when they're related when what allows the FTL involves manipulating Gravity.

Quite true. Doesn't Harrington work something like that?

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

No it doesn't. The point is, it doesn't have to NOT follow it. And limiting to one implausibility renders traditional space stories illegitimate.

However the basic point is valid. It should be reasonably if not strictly plausible(even real life is not strictly plausible) and the author should understand that being allowed to use gimmicks does not mean being allowed to have anything happen.

Obviously you don't have to follow the advice of the one change rule, that's how advice works.

In your "traditional space stories" gravitics, aside from it's use as a budgetary necessity in visual science fiction or a basis for FTL, most of the time it's just tacked on in a way that doesn't improve the story and could be gotten rid of without problem.

The one change rule isn't adamant. There are examples with two necessary changes (especially if FTL is one of them.) for the desired setting that are still portrayed reasonably. The important thing is that unless the setting has wildly different physical laws adding changes at the drop of a hat is neither necessary nor desirable.

That said this is a tangent and unrelated to the subject matter of the thread.

[Dammann]

The visual vocabulary of most audiences takes artificial gravity for granted. I love science fiction, and a story where well thought out microgravity is the norm would be a bonus for me, but one needs to consider one's audience, I think.

If you are running a game for people who are pretty scientifically literate (specifically with regard to space travel), the absence of artificial gravity could be a pleasant little bonus. It offers opportunities for novel problem solving and grants some verisimilitude (which may get you off the hook with some other impossibility) (but probably not). For people whose relationship with space travel mostly comes by way of movies, freefall will probably be a distraction at best, and one that you need to keep reminding the players of at worst.

For a role playing game, you might be better advised to stick to "one unfamiliarity" rather than "one impossibility." It is probably up to the GM to weigh whether artificial gravity fits the bill better than freefall.

In an adventure I ran last fall, with pervasive artificial gravity, there was an incident that made me pretty happy. One of the PCs had broken both legs scrupulously adhering to his Disadvantages. When the party got to their ship and off world, it occurred to one of them that after getting his legs in casts, he'd have a better time getting around the ship if they turned off the a-grav. In a game where we had been dodging the issue entirely, I was pretty pleased that the players took that route. It was a nice little lampshading of a convention of the game.