I get that you prefer a very high level description in game-play terms, but the point that Kelly St. Clair made is really where my players would be coming at it from and thus why I think about these questions. The knowledge of how a thing works (not the black box itself most of the time, but the bits that feed in and out of it and how said black box can be used) in the game can offer new strategies or preclude them.

I understand. As I tried to explain in my last response to Kelly, I simply don't believe it's reasonable to expect game designers to do this for us. There is probably someone who is as dissatisfied with the Shrieker language--and the prospects for Humaniti-Shrieker communication--as you are dissatisfied with jump drive.

Likewise, you do ~not~ want to get me started on Feudal Technocracy! :;

At no point do I suggest your approach isn't valid for your group or groups who enjoy that level of detail (or looseness). If it seemed like I was arguing against your approach, I was only insofar as it didn't furnish the solutions I was seeking.

No worries. I didn't have this sense.

Same holds for me too. I'm actually sympathetic to your ends. I just have some different opinions about how best to accomplish them. ~Every~ creator-designer has tried to focus on "good game play." Not so many of them have been as focused on "accurate science simulation."

Cheers,