I like that. It's a lovely turn of phrase.

Simon | January 12, 23:40 CET

I understand that. But I have a hard time agreeing with it. It bothers me when I see information that is later contradicted. I want to know that what is presented as fact, *is* fact.(Even in an imaginary world).
Maybe that is an impossible dream though. A writer writes a Firefly episode. What s/he meant is perhaps not how the director interprets it, or how the actor plays it.
But for those of us paying attention, there is only one answer to what is in Inara's syringe.

Lioness | January 13, 04:00 CET

Lioness: I deliberately used that example because it has been the subject of endless speculation, and Tim Minear recently gave us a juicy tidbit of information--even after many had decided it was a suicide kit or something else.

I understand, as a fan, the desire for defined fact within the 'Verse. But with very little information to go on, we had to extrapolate and just plain make stuff up within the framework that was set up for us. It would be great if future Serenity stories worked within the bounds of what we wrote in our game -- but I certainly don't have the brass required to demand that the creator of the 'Verse be confined to my vision of it. In some shared worlds there is a real collaboration, but in our case we created a secondary product, and I gladly concede Joss's right as a creator to do with his world as he pleases.

Our only other choice was to present even less about the nature and history of the 'Verse in our book, and already many fans feel like we didn't include enough information.

Thanks for responding!

** Jamie

[ edited by Jamie on 2006-01-13 14:17 ]

Jamie | January 13, 06:57 CET

Yes, which is why I used that example.
I know that many fans are very excited about the amount of information in the RPG. It just doesn't work for me, that's all.

Lioness | January 13, 17:17 CET