Quote from: CRKrueger;880798Why are true Science Fiction settings so rare?
1. Science
2. Math

Yeah, there is that.

Quote from: Spike;880753Well... I skipped Blue Planet because playing a sentient dolphin has zero appeal to me.

Keepiru asks, "Why does Spike hate fins?"

Quote from: Omega;880804Look man. I made it through Universe. The RPG where you need to do square roots just to finish char-gen! :cool: And then you have to calculate your jump routes in three dimensions! :cheerleader:

Only three dimensions? ;-)     But I agree. I like 3 dimensions in my space Sci-Fi.

Quote from: Omega;880816Or lighter on the scale, but still overall hard SF like the first season of Space:1999. Theres some others. But those three I enjoyed.

Space: 1999. :rant: B.b.b.but a nuclear waste dumb blew the moon out of orbit and into deep space, without disrupting Moonbase Alpha. WTF?!?

Quote from: Omega;880816Or Buck Rogers which had no aliens.

Did you  forget this guy.

And earlier incarnations had the Tiger Men of Mars who look at least as alien as most facial appliance Star Trek aliens.

Quote from: Elfdart;880718I lasted all of 52 seconds before it became clear that the video is the work of a complete fucktard. The only people who think Star Trek is "true science fiction" and Star Wars isn't are disgruntled Trekkies who have been sore since 1977 when their pet sci-fi franchise was surpassed in popularity. So they make up some horseshit silver lining that Star Wars isn't "really" sci-fi, and therefore Star Trek is supreme once again or something. It's like Colts fans being all cunty and crying about how the reason the Patriots have habitually kicked the Colts' asses is because of deflated footballs -as if that somehow means the Pats' championships don't really count.

Both franchises feature telekinesis, telepathy, FTL travel and communications. Star Wars has ghosts for favorite dead characters, and Star Trek has reincarnation. The main difference is that in Star Trek, they throw the word quantum around like Rip Taylor flings confetti, to dupe scientifically illiterate types into thinking there's REAL SCIENCE going on as they fill up time giving a bullshit explanation as to why a piece of machinery works (or doesn't work). In Star Wars, they don't waste time/bore the audience with explanations about why something works (or not), they simply show it working or not working, and then get on to the next action sequence or dramatic revelation.

Imagine this kind of thinking being applied to any other genre. For example, a gangster movie like The Godfather. Only a pedantic bore is going to go into detail about the inner workings of Clemenza's shotgun, or the elevator bringing Victor Stracci to the floor where Clemenza is going to blow him away. The devices are there and they either work or don't work as desired for the plot.

I can't wait for this marvel of intellect to post his next video about how Roy Rogers movies are "real westerns" and Gene Autry movies aren't

I'm a HUGE Trek fan, but I know that the science of Trek takes a (far) back seat to scientific reality. Because scientific reality is fucking BORING, if you're scripting a series. Elements of Trek are grounded in scientific theory, but, at this point, we know there's plenty of horsehit. +1, for pointing out the obvious crap, when it comes that that.

(Of course, this doesn't take away from the fact that Star Wars is juvenile horseshit geared for 12-year olds).:-)

Quote from: Bren;880952Keepiru asks, "Why does Spike hate fins?"

.

Me? I LOVE dolphins. That's why I only by unsound fishing practices tuna.  Extra seasoning.


I just don't want to be at a table where someone thinks its a good idea to PLAY one.

Or even, at that, a moderately appealing idea.

No, no, no...

The only way I'll accept a dolphin player character (from either side of the screen) is if the guy(gal or whatever) playing the dolphin is doing so because its such a bad idea it has to be awesome.

And at the end of the night we all pinky swear that it never happened, and we have to ritually murder and cannibalize anyone who dares mention the events of the night that didn't actually happen.



Or, you know, the damn dolphin PC is stuck in a oversized coke can and basically burbles on in a bad canadian scottish accent about how he's not a miracle worker.

Hard Sci-Fi can be fine, I've read plenty of interesting stories set within the constrictions of it. But yes, I prefer soft sci-fi or "science fantasy." Here is an example of why: Recently I read Alastair Reynold's novel "On the Steel Breeze". It was okay, not great but it is in the tradition (mostly) of hard sci-fi. There is no FTL drive. Giant spaceships take decades to travel to a nearby start at about 12% the speed of light. There are aliens but they are not really seen. The antagonists are politically motivated humans and a rogue AI. The main character is a clone and their are uplifted elephants. That's it. Everything happens slowly. There are several jumps in the narrative where 20 or more years pass.

In Science Fantasy this same story would be radically different. It would take weeks, maybe just days to travel to a new solar system. Aliens and AIs would be everywhere and dealing with them would be nothing new. The PCs would deal with the problems then move on to other things instead of making a career out of solving just one problem.

I agree with what was previously said. Most people just don't want to deal with real math and real science. Not in a hardcore way.

Quote from: The Butcher;880809Meanwhile, on the fantasy front, we've had Tolkien movies, a runaway hit ASoIaF TV series and even Shannara is getting a live-action version. Four-color superheroics are a Big Thing in Hollywood. But very little "straight" SF.

Hm, don't know about that. Moon, Interstellar, Ex Machina, Gravity, Dawn/Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Inception, Beyond the Black Rainbow, Time Crimes, Upstream Colours, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Sunshine, Primer, "Her", I'd all classify as "hard" sci-fi, or at least science fiction vs science fantasy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;880846Well, if you take the premise of Science Fiction as "posit a new technology, and explore the ramifications", then Star Wars isn't Sci-Fi at all.  Space doesn't make something Sci-Fi.

I guess you missed the part about the Death Star.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880913Typically?  Yes.  Not entirely sure why.  But they are.

Then I think I know why you don't need that much law and "order" - there's no need to put your players "on the leash", since they all behave reasonably and it's natural.

I've seen such groups. Very nice people to play with.

Quote from: Spike;880914I'm assuming that's for me?
If so, thanks. I'll look it up.

Among other people, but yes, it was your post that made me recall this book.

Kaku wrote it in digestible style, and rather than allow his mind to wander into the lands of vague speculations, he actually tried to address things like laser weaponry, their flaws and suggest some modified variations, more probable form the point of view of modern science. A few concepts of his were quite fresh and new - for example, I don't recall any RPG that uses starship "shields" in form of "clouds".

Quote from: TristramEvans;880975I'd all classify as "hard" sci-fi

May I interest you in this little gem? I assume you don't know it (correct me if I'm wrong), because no one mentions it, and it's very good example of hard SF.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381940/

That link goes nowhere

Quote from: JesterRaiin;881006May I interest you in this little gem? I assume you don't know it (correct me if I'm wrong), because no one mentions it, and it's very good example of hard SF.

Hadn't heard of that. I'll look it up, thanks.

Quote from: TristramEvans;881021Hadn't heard of that. I'll look it up, thanks.

If possible, don't neglect original language version. It's totally worth it to settle for subtitles and enjoy watching Germans In Space. ;]

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880941Hard Sci-Fi is a stupid name.  Because every time someone describes what it is, and puts more and more and more limitations on it, it becomes nearly indistinguishable to real life as that person understands it.

Totally. Someone somewhere allways wants to exclude that little more than the last. Luckily it in general gets ignored. Writers and designers are going to have their own takes on it.

In general though Hard SF tends to, but not allways, mean SF with an emphasis on current known S and not much F. Things that are relatively plausible with current technology or not too far advanced tech. Psionics and Linear anti-gravity ships for example pretty much pops you out of the hard and into regular SF. Least till someone actually comes up with a method.

Quote from: Bren;880952Space: 1999. :rant: B.b.b.but a nuclear waste dumb blew the moon out of orbit and into deep space, without disrupting Moonbase Alpha. WTF?!?

Did you  forget this guy.
And earlier incarnations had the Tiger Men of Mars who look at least as alien as most facial appliance Star Trek aliens.

1: If anyone payed attention theyd have noted that it wasnt blown out of orbit, it was blasted out of orbit. As in blast off. The dump acting as a huge atomic/magnetic/warp engine. "But everyone would rather harp on explosion did it!" Sorry. That was Ellison and Bova pulling a marketing dig to shill their own SF series. Which they both disowned.

2: Was referring to the first TSR RPG Buck Rogers RPG. There are no aliens. Just rampant genetic engineering.

Quote from: Omega;881036In general though Hard SF tends to, but not allways, mean SF with an emphasis on current known S and not much F. Things that are relatively plausible with current technology or not too far advanced tech. Psionics and Linear anti-gravity ships for example pretty much pops you out of the hard and into regular SF. Least till someone actually comes up with a method.

I'm curious where would you put Prometheus and Alien+Aliens movies if "hard SF" and "SF" would be the only options.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;881041I'm curious where would you put Prometheus and Alien+Aliens movies if "hard SF" and "SF" would be the only options.

The characters, weaponry and look of the spaceships and colony would be Hard-SF. The androids - difficult to say how far in that direction we can go in that direction but for now let's say Hard-SF. The monsters - I'm no expert on biology and what is possible but again, for now, we'll call them Hard-SF. The FTL drive, anti-grav and terraforming parts is Science Fantasy.