(I'm going to extend the wifi metaphor a bit. If you use the wifi at a cafe, that does not compel you to buy things from it, but you probably will anyway. In a similar way, a post-scarcity society does not compel people to contribute, but they probably will anyway.)
[Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely. ... Writers on the topic often emphasize that some commodities will remain scarce in apost-scarcity society.]
This is the definition I am basing my knowledge upon.
Look ... I just want to know WHY the damn GMS licenses are restricted. What is the reason for it. I am hoping that it isn't an arbitrary "because we say it is" situation.
With a little creativity, I am sure I could be satisfied.
My point is the author's stated that they want to depict a world that has escaped oppressive capitalism and empire, yet I don't see how they have achieved that when it still exists in the system.
And I will say it again, as I said in my original post... despite what I know, I understand it is their creation and they can have it whatever way they want. But if there are things screaming out at me that indicate inconsistencies, I feel that in order to be helpful, I should say something.
Read my post, not my profile name. Dig?
Uh huh. If you supposedly knew that resources can be scarce in a post-scarcity society, then what was all that gibberish about the scarcity of TIME? And if you "just want to know why the GMS licenses are restricted," wouldn't it be more rational to ask the authors to go into more detail about that, instead of writing a lot of pseudointellectual stuff about alleged contradictions?
I personally don't see any need for more detail there. I would need a license to drive a heavy truck. It doesn't blow my mind that I might need one to drive a spider mech with a particle cannon. In fact, I am glad that they did not go into much detail, because I've been coming up with my own ideas about how Union keeps people from printing things they aren't allowed to have, how successful that effort is, and what implications it has for Union society. You could do that too. With a little creativity on your part, I'm sure you could be satisfied.
"My point is the author's stated that they want to depict a world that has escaped oppressive capitalism and empire"
I don't remember them saying that anywhere. I think you are misremembering something.
"Read my post, not my profile name."
Is this a complaint about something that I wrote, or is this just what you type when you are sad?
Dude...you are being overly hostile man. Seriously.
Time is scarce in the following way. Long ago, In agrarian societies, people would work ALL day to make food for their lord or king. Then, when Capital and industry became a thing, there were machines that people could use that made the job faster and easier, thus freeing up more time for other stuff. That is how time is a scarce resource because there are always things we can do to maximize how we use our time.
It isn't pseudointellectual. To someone with no knowledge of how capitalism works, perhaps it seems pseudointellectual.
If the intent of the system is for the DM to come up with their own reasons for why the licenses aren't available to all, I suppose that is a good enough reason. I honestly didn't think of that.
So you need a license to drive a truck. But again: WHY do you get to drive a truck and I do not? Is that also up to the DM as well?
In the PDF, press Ctrl + f. A little search bar pops up. Type in "capitalism." It doesn't appear too many times so it should be too hard. That or "empire." It's there in black and white.
I am glad to see you are so passionate about my criticism. Yet you want to see it stay the same, wheras I want to make it a better product for everyone. To buy. With lots of their surplus income.
"Dude...you are being overly hostile man. Seriously."
Kneejerk replies make me angry.
"... That is how time is a scarce resource."
Yes, as I said three posts ago, "A 'post-scarcity society' is a society where resources are no longer scarce relative to human needs. ... That doesn't mean that every resource in that society is infinite. ... Time is just as scarce in Lancer as it is today: you get one second for every second that passes."
You could have just agreed with me when I said it and saved yourself the typing, but I suppose you were not able to do that.
"In the PDF, press Ctrl + f. A little search bar pops up. Type in 'capitalism.' It doesn't appear too many times so it should be too hard. That or 'empire.' It's there in black and white."
No, it is not. Go back and read the one sentence in the rulebook that contains the word "capitalism." You misunderstood it.
Or I might as well quote it here. Page 3: "We imagine that Union isn’t burdened by the same cultural definitions of gender that oppress and malign so many people who live under the umbrella of capitalism and empire and, as such, there is a wide spectrum of expression and identity in Union and among its constituent worlds."
What does this mean? It means "We imagine that Union citizens are free as far as gender expression and identity goes." That's all. In that one respect, the citizens of Union are free; they can do their thing.
That doesn't mean that Union is not supposed to be oppressive or imperialist. I mean, it has client states, and it compels them to send it a certain number of people each year. If the authors had really been trying to write a nonhegemonic utopia, they could probably have done a lot better than "The Tyrant, the Watcher, the Guiding Hand: Union." The bad parts are there on purpose.
(The authors also write "When writing Lancer, we wanted to create a setting where humanity is — in the narrative present — at once in a state of utopia and working to affect it," but they don't say "Union" there, they say "humanity." So you could argue that the authors wanted every single state in Lancer to be a utopia and just accidentally made a lot of mistakes while writing, but I think this is unlikely considering the rest of the rulebook.)
"Yet you want to see it stay the same, wheras I want to make it a better product for everyone. To buy. With lots of their surplus income."
I don't disbelieve in the existence of problems, I just disagree that your specific thing is a problem. I don't hate the concept of food, it is just that I have serious misgivings about this one wad of gray-colored substance.
You assume it was a kneejerk response. Assumptions make me angry.
Time isn't just scarce in the sense that time is just as scarce doing x then as it is now. It is also scarce in the sense of what you could be doing instead of x, which was what I was getting at.
As far as your quotation of the rulebook , (which is what I was referencing and yes: I did quote that incorrectly and I take full responsibility for that. I didn't check the reference due to laziness in all honesty. Yet you are looking at what I am looking at which was my goal): it sounds like the "...cultural definitions of gender that oppress and malign so many people" could ONLY happen to those living under " the umbrella of capitalism and empire"
Q: How is this justified? Is this oppression impossible in a communist or socialist regime? And if so, how? I suppose I should ask: what type of regime is Union?
As far as the rest of your post, I will not disagree. And You disagreeing with me is fine. My goal is an objective one.
On a personal note, a couple of questions:
1) Are you one of the authors?
2) Did you attend UNM?
I am curious. I think I may know you personally.
"Time isn't just scarce in the sense that time is just as scarce doing x then as it is now. It is also scarce in the sense of what you could be doing instead of x, which was what I was getting at."
What? No. It's scarce in the sense that it is scarce. One of the things about scarce resources is that there is an opportunity cost attached to their use, but that's not something that's special about time. That is normal for scarce resources.
"it sounds like ... could ONLY happen to those living under ... How is this justified?"
So you personally have the intuition that the sentence "sounds like" it says something different than it actually does. That's fun, but I'm not going to argue about it with you.
"On a personal note, a couple of questions: 1) Are you one of the authors? 2) Did you attend UNM? I am curious. I think I may know you personally."
No, I'm not one of the authors (?) and I did not attend a university in New Mexico (???) If these guesses are any guide, your intuition is not very good. I suggest that you get a better intuition, or stop trying to use it in an argument.
You have made your lack of knowledge clear to me. You aren't an author and I am uninterested in your opinions at this point. Just know that people like yourself are the reason why more people aren't interested in systems like these. I find that after interacting with you, I am less inclined to play this system. And if you believe the BETA doesn't at the very least ask for possible improvement, that is just more proof of your arrogance.
Have a good one.
"Long ago, In agrarian societies, people would work ALL day to make food for their lord or king. Then, when Capital and industry became a thing, there were machines that people could use that made the job faster and easier, thus freeing up more time for other stuff. That is how time is a scarce resource because there are always things we can do to maximize how we use our time."
this is absolutely untrue. capital increased work times - especially by subsuming leisure activities into the economic sphere. a bevy of researched work exists on the topic. the go-to, is, of course, Shor:
machines have freed us from work so that we could do more work, not more leisurely activities.
You are so right... Life is SOOO hard. OMG. It MUST have been an arduous undertaking for you to message me on your slave-making, decadent smartphone. There is just NO way our quality of life has gotten better because of Capitalism. I mean look at how terrible the last two hundred and fifty or so years have been, despite them being WAY better than the hundreds and thousands of years prior.
But you are SOOO right...
How simple are you? How naive are you? How privileged and thankless can you possibly be?
If you believe that Capitalism is the worst, I DARE you to give up everything it has provided, start from scratch, and attempt to achieve what you currently and foolishly take for granted, with anything except Capitalism.
i'm confused. you indicate you have some knowledge of the slave labour that goes into producing smart phones (coltan/cobalt mining in the DRC, factory assembly towns in China) while... lauding capitalism for advances in the "quality of life"?... i don't see how the retention of slavery - or rather worse, it's proliferation - under capitalism does anything but prove my point.
in any case, you seem to have ignored my very specific rebuttal for an emotional rant devoid of substance. i shouldn't indulge such behaviour, but the answer to your challenge is simple: i would happily give up my cell phone if it meant that the slavery necessary within capitalism would cease. would you? but that's not exactly how social relations work. to borrow your own question, how naive are you?
anyway, enjoy the twilight years of humanity as capitalists burn the amazon and the ice caps and doom us all in the name of your most wonderful economic system. i hope that new starbucks opening downtown was worth it.
If you're experiencing significant blocker given that you can't imagine why the GMS licenses might be restricted, you might not be in the target audience for this game.
Part of the joy of roleplaying games with rich settings is exploring the gaps, implications, and assumptions of the text. If my group earnestly asked a question like, "Why doesn't everyone have a GMS license?", we'd probably have a real good time working together to find out!
All that to say: the most economical and enjoyable solution to this problem is very likely to be your group or GM figuring out something cool together.
see, THAT makes sense to me. Look, I haven't really ran any TTRPG games myself and I would like to. When I saw what I thought were inconsistencies, I freaked out because I was like, "how would I explain this to my players!?"
It honestly didn't occur to me that I, the DM, could use these things to flavor or design the game I would like to run.
IF the 'inconsistancies' are intentionally written in order to create those holes for DM's to use, the bravo! Because that is awesome! Yet, if they aren't, I am also trying to be the Warcraft red shirt guy and help out.
I honestly haven't gotten to the DM section of the book so if that information is in there, THAT will be really helpful. I was really focused on the lore and background information because I was really enjoying that aspect of the game. Even moreso than the game mechanics, which are also exceptional.