D&D might be a soulless product of middling quality because it is so corporatized now that they refuse to take risks or even release an actually new edition for their big anniversary, but they changed a word so we need to celebrate them.
All the while games like Fabula Ultima don’t even have the concept of race or species and you can define it via a quirk if you feel there is something important to distinguish your character. Lancer doesn’t even ask the question and just wants you to define what your character is good at. And yea the default setting of lancer only has humans, but it’s also a post-scarcity hyper future where people can change their genes and looks with great ease.
But we didn’t read those games and in the TTRPG space, only talking about D&D gets clicks, so this had to be about D&D.
It’s ridiculous that the author thinks they can tell other games to follow D&D when they’ve only looked at D&D. Not only does this update lag well behind most TTRPGs, it doesn’t actually bring it up to date - species has its own issue of being inaccurate in a game rampant with half-lineages, which is why other games moved to terms like lineage and ancestry instead. These are discussions people have had because of the problems of D&D, it hasn’t been a trailblazer since the release of 3.0.
Makes sense. Pathfinder already shifted over to Ancestries in their 2nd Edition. Paizo has a pretty good history of representation and sensitivity to stuff like this though.
Race was always a flawed idea. To be honest i think it’s not that bad in a fantasy setting but it can also lead to some weird and uncomfortable stuff and i don’t think there’s a good reason to keep it.
On the flip side, “ancestries” or backgrounds or whatever are a lot more flexible as a concept and let you do some cool stuff.
I thought the torus shape was the accepted theory? Guess I haven’t been keeping up on this.
Near the bottom of the article they mention that if the universe wasn’t flat, we would see multiple copies of the universe in the sky. I’m not sure that is exactly true? Given the speed at which the universe is expanding, especially during the early period after the big bang, it seems reasonable that the light from most stars wouldn’t have had a chance to loop back around yet. Even the light from the earliest stars is just reaching us, so I don’t know why they think it would have had time to loop back around multiple times, unless there’s something I’m missing?
And nothing in the article really touched on the “holes” mentioned in the title. Are they referring to the center of a torus, which isn’t really a hole that we could observe? I don’t get it.
If Constellation on Apple TV is right, then it’s an indication that the person has become quantum entangled with their alternative self in another universe.
Good show btw if you are looking for something more psychological with a sci-fi background.
They mention this in the article, but the physiology would suggest this is related to CSF/blood pooling in low G.
Taking it a step further, I bet this has a similar mechanism to IIH or the high pressure headaches you get with obstructive hydrocephalus. CSF is supposed to drain down via a relatively passive system. Without G to regulate this I can envision that you’d essentially develop the same physiology as someone with IIH (too much CSF).
Really interesting. A good example of how we have no idea what insane health things we are going to experience with space travel, but also how space travel may shed insight on treatments for other conditions with similar mechanisms we experience in a gravity well.
Haven’t this is interesting because I’ve always wondered how evolution would happen when we finally colonize in low g environs. Maybe char was on to something when he said our souls are weighed down by gravity.
scientificamerican.com
Gorące