|
|
Post by doublea on Jun 18, 2021 11:22:35 GMT
I love how passionate both sides of the issue seem to be. I still tend to think of these things more on the meta, and less on the functional worldbuilding. Don't get me wrong, it's -very- important to consider possible immersion-breaking elements in your setting, but still. Player: "So let me get this straight. Wormholes, aliens, animal-human hybrids, cybernetics, genetically uplifted talking dolphins, DNA computers, fusion drive spaceships with cryopods." DM: "Yes, and people with surgically implanted gills." Player: "WHAT?! Nope, totally unbelievable, game broken." DM: >  |
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlore on Jun 18, 2021 17:52:46 GMT
Yeah, this. Beyond a few years, anymore, hard sci-fi is more about imagining the WAY the technology is implemented rather than what RESULT is achieved with it. Nano-particle resequencer that, with one injection, re-writes your genetic code to give you gills - very soft sci-fi. Re-writing a single egg cell with tailored retro-viruses, needing hundreds of attempts to get a viable egg that will grow into a human with gills - hard sci-fi. Xenosilicates are the mcguffin that allows procedures much more like the first example to be created. |
|
|
|
Post by grinnenbaeritt on Jun 18, 2021 18:25:53 GMT
That is exactly why there should be TWO...... if the first is based on an deliberate manipulation AT the foetus stage, there is no choice. However, the xeno-silicates allow for further modification of an existing being at a point where a character has the choice.... thus in theory, having the first option is no different to simply having the option to play a dolphin or other gene-modded creature. It's the ability to change an "existing" character during or in it's background befoer play starts that's the difference.
To me it's like having a jump-jet and a helicopter, both are capable of vertical take off and landing... but neither can do exactly the same things as the other.
|
|
