martixy wrote:negotiable physics are a personal pet-peeve of mine. There are certain necessary concessions in core gameplay and technology, but I say let's not go wild.
Fair enough. Insisting on an unnecessary and impossible simulation of real-world phenomena in the invented world of a game is a pet peeve of mine. Maybe we should put our peeves in a ring and see which emerges victorious.
I would like to add that my comment wasn't meant as a dismissal of your view. That kind of one-line, "ha-ha, your point is not worthy of serious consideration" annoys the heck out of me -- apologies if that's how mine came across.
I actually don't object to real-world physics as a starting point for thinking about features in a science fiction game. My view is simply that, by definition, "game" implies that simulation of real-world phenomena must be secondary to "is it fun for most players?"
At that point, as Thymine says, internal coherence to the laws of physics purely within the invented world is what matters most. If that world includes FTL travel in any form, then I think it can fairly be said to already be "wild" -- if that's tolerated, you're already well down the rabbit hole into Wonderland.
That does not mean I'd be OK with "magic" or floating cat heads or similar bizarries in what's otherwise a pretty straight science fiction game. If that's what you mean by not going crazy, I'm right there with you... but from the perspective that those things stray too far from consistency with the science fiction premise, not because they aren't "realistic."
Does this help?