GURPS LOWTECH Questions

[DanHoward]

The LT playtest went for around 6,500 posts. If the book was twice as long, how much more difficult would it have been to write and edit?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

The LT playtest went for around 6,500 posts. If the book was twice as long, how much more difficult would it have been to write and edit?

The playtest covered the three companions as well as the main book, though.

Bill Stoddard

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by whswhs

When you take out all the different models of firearms the two are nearly the same length?

Bill Stoddard

Possibly. Many of the varieties of "stuff" in High Tech are, to a real degree, equivalent. They are real and popular and since there's LOTS of references esp in TL6-8, can fill up a lot of space with detailed and correct history. That's likely true of things beyond guns.

For Low Tech, the history is often unclear, and other reasons for lack of multitudes of entries.

I'm not saying that Low Tech is the wrong length, but I do recall a few posts of mine in the playtest predicting the "what's up with the length" question.

If only I could be accurate like that on investing. Of course, predicting that a fan will complain about a yet to be published GURPS book on these forums isn't really a hard call.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

The Companions get more into variants, meta-rules, and world-building stuff. The first covers "intellectual" technologies: politics, religion, and the sciences.

It's a bit odd classifying religion and politics as "technologies", despite both of them (when they are two separate things) have practical applications in sciences and society. The cause isn't the effect. OFC I can understand this sort of compromise because the framework here is called "Low-Tech" instead something like "Ancient Worlds", but if one follows a too technological approach in these themes a number of results can be flawed. My concern here isn't about 4e Low-Tech Companion 1: Philosophers & Kings not exploring the depths of religion and politics (it isn't "4e Religion"), but about the book(s) portraying these things as having mainly or exclusively a pragmatic meaning. That would be reductionistic.

I say this taking in account ancient religion, in a broad sense and overally speaking, most often than not mainly aims -at least at its inner side- to non-phenomenological goals having nothing to do with pragmatic utility (as achieving sainthood or wisdom, when super-rational or divine knowledge itself is the goal) while at the same time politics (social applications even if it's about morality, for putting a familiar example) and other "applied sciences" (like theurgy, astrology, spagiric alchemy, "esoteric medicine", pneumatology-psychology, architecture, crafts, martial arts, etc...) can be extracted from it (from religion) indirectly or in a secondary way -or at least getting strong influences from it.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Because we can't afford to publish 256-page hardbacks. We probably shouldn't have gone so long on High-Tech, and we definitely won't be going so long on any future book.

Sure this is a bit annoying and/or silly question but: what would be about a 250 page softcover?

(I understand the editing process would be different than handling the core book + the companions.)

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

My concern here isn't about 4e Low-Tech Companion 1: Philosophers & Kings not exploring the depths of religion and politics (it isn't "4e Religion"), but about the book(s) portraying these things as having mainly or exclusively a pragmatic meaning.

Our approach in LTC1 is to discuss the practical aspects of social organization and its more physical underpinnings (the apparent population and territorial limits of various methods of organizing societies, common aspects of low-tech governments, legal structures, and religious organizations, etc.). I would hope that no one would mistake the limited scope of our discussion for a positive statement that those are the only meaningful aspects of a society.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

Our approach in LTC1 is to discuss the practical aspects of social organization and its more physical underpinnings (the apparent population and territorial limits of various methods of organizing societies, common aspects of low-tech governments, legal structures, and religious organizations, etc.). I would hope that no one would mistake the limited scope of our discussion for a positive statement that those are the only meaningful aspects of a society.

Fair enough. I understand and agree with that.

Thank you for answering to my concern.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by demonsbane

It's a bit odd classifying religion and politics as "technologies", despite both of them (when they are two separate things) have practical applications in sciences and society. The cause isn't the effect. OFC I can understand this sort of compromise because the framework here is called "Low-Tech" instead something like "Ancient Worlds", but if one follows a too technological approach in these themes a number of results can be flawed. My concern here isn't about 4e Low-Tech Companion 1: Philosophers & Kings not exploring the depths of religion and politics (it isn't "4e Religion"), but about the book(s) portraying these things as having mainly or exclusively a pragmatic meaning. That would be reductionistic.

I say this taking in account ancient religion, in a broad sense and overally speaking, most often than not mainly aims -at least at its inner side- to non-phenomenological goals having nothing to do with pragmatic utility (as achieving sainthood or wisdom, when super-rational or divine knowledge itself is the goal) while at the same time politics (social applications even if it's about morality, for putting a familiar example) and other "applied sciences" (like theurgy, astrology, spagiric alchemy, "esoteric medicine", pneumatology-psychology, architecture, crafts, martial arts, etc...) can be extracted from it (from religion) indirectly or in a secondary way -or at least getting strong influences from it.

Actually the emphasis in LTC1 is pretty nearly 180° removed from that. It's not "how does religion serve as a technology than enables pragmatic goals" but "how do technologies enable the attainment of religious goals." Thus, for example, we have a section on monumental architecture, including sacred sites, and a section on trance induction methods, which have been important in many religions . . . herbs, breathing exercises, intensely rhythmic music, chanting, and so on. You know, *technologies*. At least, things that it's not a long stretch to call by that name.

Bill Stoddard

[Kromm]

Addressing content rather than costs for a moment, it's also important to realize that TL5-8 have seen orders of magnitude more stuff than TL0-4. As cool as low-tech stuff is, there's lots less of it. Describing each tool in loving detail is false detail . . . we didn't do that for every last item in an electronics tool kit in High-Tech, so why would we do that for every smith's tool, say, in Low-Tech? Honestly, I actually think that as TL goes up, tech books deserve more pages per TL.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Addressing content rather than costs for a moment, it's also important to realize that TL5-8 have seen orders of magnitude more stuff than TL0-4. As cool as low-tech stuff is, there's lots less of it. Describing each tool in loving detail is false detail . . . we didn't do that for every last item in an electronics tool kit in High-Tech, so why would we do that for every smith's tool, say, in Low-Tech? Honestly, I actually think that as TL goes up, tech books deserve more pages per TL.

This is actually supported by the archaeological data. Archaeologists studying Paleolithic societies have estimated that they produced on the order of 200 or 2,000 distinct types of artifact. During WWII, the Soviet economy produced 10 million, and the US economy about twice as many. I'm sure it's bigger now.

Bill Stoddard

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Actually the emphasis in LTC1 is pretty nearly 180° removed from that. It's not "how does religion serve as a technology than enables pragmatic goals" but "how do technologies enable the attainment of religious goals." Thus, for example, we have a section on monumental architecture, including sacred sites, and a section on trance induction methods, which have been important in many religions . . . herbs, breathing exercises, intensely rhythmic music, chanting, and so on. You know, *technologies*. At least, things that it's not a long stretch to call by that name.

This sounds too cool for words.