GURPS: Transhuman Space
I loaned some of my GURPS: Transhuman Space roleplaying sourcebooks at ConFusion. Instead of hijacking her LJ comment to talk at length about this, I'll make a new post here. David Pulver's GURPS: Transhuman Space series is one of my favorite works of science fiction ever, despite not being a novel. It's almost a compendium of a certain radial category of SF tropes; a subgenre that matches the tastes of that subset of fen who are just as happy reading non-fiction pop-science futurics (like Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition by Ed Regis) as they are when reading a narrative with characters. In the literature-centric convention culture I actually felt embarrased admitting to this.
said he likes TS but likes Traveler more. I guess this is correct; I didn't buy TS to actually play it (although I do and I enjoy it). Traveler is possibly better as a game qua game,* because in a "good" roleplaying setting the hero's campaign is able to change the world in the mythopoeic sense. I've been told that's what roleplayers want. When I play TS the roleplayer character's actions make a difference in the same limited personal sense as in real life. But I don't care; I mainly read or roleplay SF for the future shock, in which TS is unsurpassed.
More about ConFusion in the days to come. Particularly, there will be thoughts related to what motivates a SF/F audience to choose a particular subgenre of book, media, fannish activity, or other "ghetto of choice." Much of the con experience happened to converge profitably on this theme.
* Oh my ghod, I just said "qua," forgive me.
Comments
metalfatigue on Jan. 26, 2005 8:05 AM
Different gamers want different things. Some want to experience a simulated reality in intense detail, some want to generate a collaborative story, and some want an imaginative tactical challenge. TS is a very, very Simulationist game, and satisfying in that regard, but I can't imagine playing it myself.
(random-walking through my FOAF list...)
matt-arnold on Jan. 26, 2005 2:40 PM
Although the group I'm in happens to be only interested in a collaborative story, you're totally correct. In fact, my friend Ken Burnside (who this year went to work for SJ Games) made rules a couple of years ago to adapt his ultra-hard-SF space combat simulation game Attack Vector Tactical to work with ships from Transhuman Space. Playing AVT was what taught me that I am not a simulation fan. I adore AVT's back-story though, and it is truly a work of genius.
brendand on Jan. 27, 2005 10:01 AM
Yes, I'm out of the loop... but what's wrong with "Qua"? (or perhaps more importantly [and could answer the previous question also] what *IS* "Qua"?)
matt-arnold on Jan. 27, 2005 4:45 PM
"Qua" means "by the standard of" or "for the sake of." For instance, "a better game qua game" means "better as a gameplay experience per se, without non-game considerations like better writing, better art, better scientific accuracy, better this-or-that." What a non-gamer might want is too often applied as a standard to games, when one could argue games are an end in themselves for their own sake.
The reason I avoid the word "qua" is the philosopher Ayn Rand and her movement, Objectivism. I like a lot of what she said, which is why I'm libertarian, but she was obnoxious and started a cult of personality. Many of her followers used to parrot her phrases like "A is A" and incessant use of the word "qua" (man qua man) to sound philosophical.
brendand on Jan. 28, 2005 7:23 AM
I have to say that I am always surprised by you. That's a good thing, BTW. :)
matt-arnold on Jan. 28, 2005 2:36 PM
I'm glad.
I'm also curious as to which expectations I have defied.
brendand on Jan. 28, 2005 3:37 PM
It's not that there were preconceived expectations so much as a general preconceived sense I have, upon which you regularly expand.
matt-arnold on Jan. 28, 2005 3:56 PM
Brendan, I am reminded of the last of the New Humane Rights.
You have the right not to have the spread in your volition optimized away by an external decision process acting on unshared moral premises.
You have the right to a system of moral dynamics complicated enough that you can only work it out by discussing it with other people who share most of it.
You have the right to be created by a creator acting under what that creator regards as a high purpose.
You have the right to exist predominantly in regions where you are having fun.
You have the right to be noticeably unique within a local world.
You have the right to an angel. If you do not know how to build an angel, one will be appointed for you.
You have the right to exist within a linearly unfolding time in which your subjective future coincides with your decision-theoretical future.
Most importantly in this context, you have the right to remain cryptic.
Leave a Comment