"What does one life matter" huh?
I'm guessing you're a hive mind of some sort in this one. :p
...or maybe a bunch of rats.

No no, I mean he hinted at a sequel to this:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bard%27s_Tale_III:_Thief_of_Fate]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bard%27s_Tale_III:_Thief_of_Fate[/url]

I was joking a bit with you. ;)
Or spiders......or howler monkeys.......

The different isn't mechanic-wise. I think that the main difference between SF and fantasy is that SF is meant to be understandable. When something exists in an SF universe, there's supposed to be a rational explanation to it. In an SF universe something might look like magic, but you know it's not, you know there are some natural, logical rules which govern it. This makes suspension of disbelief harder.

In a magical universe a character's emotion may magically influence the world around them. It would be natural. If the same thing happened in SF, it would have to have an explanation of why this happens, and that can reduce its magic, as well as encumber the narrative. On the other side of the scale, when a magic missile gets you one missile per two levels, up to 5 targets, which strike unerringly, there's no reason to question it. Have that in SF, and suddenly it becomes a WTF. Is there a reason for these limitations? How are the missiles produced? How do they strike?

On one hand this can make SF worlds a lot better fleshed out, but on the other hand, it can limit them in what can be put into the story, and how much time is dedicated to explaining things vs. telling the story, or if left out, the feeling that things are incomplete.

I think that's it! That's most definitely it. :D

Science <span class="bold">Fantasy</span> =/= Science <span class="bold">Fiction</span>
Science Fiction (aka SF) ignores the possibility (or existence) of magic, while Science Fantasy is indifferent. So no, I don't see any problems in having Magic Missile co-exist with robotic companions.

I guess I used the wrong term...sorry about that.

Imo(to have a reasonable amount of fun with some games/other forms of media) it's often necessary to "turn off" one's brain for the duration of such an experience & not overanalyze everything. Yes(As you said), SF can cause some to question how any "magical" effects/items are made/used, but some people could just as easily question "magical" effects/spells/items in a fantasy setting as well if they were more "logic minded"(correct term???).

Heck, many MMOs such as WOW/etc mix magic/science in their universes all the time.

You're right. I misread that in the description of Numenera. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Still, the overview of the setting does give the impression that it's leaning more towards science fiction. Things are bio-engineered, designed, there are devices, "magic" is put in quotes. Reading further, there's a blog post by Monte Cook on the subject, linked from the settings page.

He says: "My favorite slice of science fantasy, I think, is science fiction as fantasy. This is where the technology is so advanced, at least in some aspects, that it seems like magic." and "Perhaps it comes down to that idea that having limitations actually encourages rather than discourages creativity."

And this is exactly what I was saying. Science fiction is limiting. Seems like Monte Cook and I see eye to eye. To quote my previous post: "On one hand this can make SF worlds a lot better fleshed out, but on the other hand, it can limit them in what can be put into the story."

Which was my point to begin with. Monte Cook clearly agrees that science fiction (even "as fantasy") is more limited than fantasy. Personally I love rationalising, even in fantasy, but I think that good fantasy can more easily take me out of my comfort zone in a good way.

You mean some kind of consistency in naming sequels? C'mon, it's in the best tradition of games like Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver (sequel of sorts to Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain) or Ultima Worlds of Adventure 2 (sequel to Worlds of Ultima). ;)

Anyway, like I said, I'd have preferred that they leave Torment out of the title, too, since it makes the concept sound quite unimaginative. I liked the word better when it had an actual meaning related to the first game, not as the brand name for a series.



I might be mistaken, but I always thought the Prime Material Plane hosts all possible worlds in existence? Anyway, it's a moot point because they wouldn't be allowed to call the game Planescape due to licensing issues.

Only if Numenera doesn't have a conflicting cosmology. If it features a blatantly non-PM location that can't possibly be found in one of the listed planes, it's not in the multiverse.

Six squirrels.

You speak of le famous suspension of disbelief oui?

hah, I'm very serious! They got the rights to the name "Torment", the Planescape setting is beyond *anyone* last time I had heard about it. So my rigid mind thinks that the sequel to "Planescape: Torment" should be named "Numenera: Torment" now that we have a new setting. And I think it's fitting too, the "Torment" of the characters was the driving force in PS:T, if this is a *spiritual* sequel then we should see what sort of "Torment" we have in Numenera... hence "Numenera: Torment".

I'm not gonna say I know what went through his mind, but Fargo has had bad experiencies with "losing" (or never having) the rights to his games in the past, so I could see him finding out about "Torment" availability and just jumping in before he loses the opportunity for who knows how many years! And so they shelved Bard's Tale IV for later. There's probably a commercial side here, sure! but as long as they show the respect and care they did for W2 for this Torment project, I don't think we can fault him for doing this.

They need some way to show this is related to Planetscape: Torment...

You forgot the Jedi Knight games.....Dark Forces, Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2, Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast, etc.
----------
I like it...imo it's a nice homage to the game that inspired/is inspiring it.