I tend to like my science fiction to be hard sci-fi. If I want soft sci-fi I will just play a fantasy game. Fantasy doesn't have to be medivial setting but can be future setting.
So what do you prefer?
Well your going to have to define what you consider hard sci-fi and what you consider soft sci-fi. In my opinion Star Trek is hard sci-fi and Star Wars is soft sci-fi. I have always defined the hard/soft thing by if they actually get into how the technology works.
Quote from: KnightcrawlerWell your going to have to define what you consider hard sci-fi and what you consider soft sci-fi. In my opinion Star Trek is hard sci-fi and Star Wars is soft sci-fi. I have always defined the hard/soft thing by if they actually get into how the technology works.
I would consider Star Trek to be soft science and Star Wars to be fantasy.
Star Trek is nothing but mumbo jumbo attempting to pass itself off as science. Tripe at best.
Star Wars makes no attempt at science, it is a fantasy game in a future setting.
2300AD and Cyberpunk Space is hard sci-fi to me.
Star Trek is soft sci-fi what with gravity plating, transporters, etc.
Star Wars is fantasy.
I like a bit of accuracy in my sci-fi, but taking it too far (into what you call hard science) does in my opinion take away attention from what I find more important - plot, story and character development.
So I guess in a sense I prefer soft science, but it's nice if it doesn't look like soft science. If that makes any sense... :D
Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI like a bit of accuracy in my sci-fi, but taking it too far (into what you call hard science) does in my opinion take away attention from what I find more important - plot, story and character development.
So I guess in a sense I prefer soft science, but it's nice if it doesn't look like soft science. If that makes any sense... :D
Makes perfect sense. The easiest way to get hard science is not go into details on how the tech works. Just make sure the tech is believable.
Quote from: VarajMakes perfect sense. The easiest way to get hard science is not go into details on how the tech works. Just make sure the tech is believable.
Well, in that case I prefer hard science.
- flip-flopping Spi.. ah, nevermind... ;)
Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI like a bit of accuracy in my sci-fi, but taking it too far (into what you call hard science) does in my opinion take away attention from what I find more important - plot, story and character development.
So I guess in a sense I prefer soft science, but it's nice if it doesn't look like soft science. If that makes any sense... :D
Ditto. The point of sci-fi games is to zip around space and run into weird races and do weird shit. Scientific accuracy takes a distant second to that. I'd like some lip service to be paid toward it, but it's not a big thing for me.
the problem with Hard science is that it makes for more difficult roleplaying. you can't get around quickly, you can't have realy over the top adventures, and you certainly have a harder time keeping people's iterest.
Star Trek and Star Wars are both role-playable universes, whereas it'd be a lot harder to set a campaign in Vernor Vinge's Galaxy (A Fire Upon the Deep, A Deepness in the Sky).
basically, it comes down to fun. if everyone's having fun, it's all good.
Quote from: Aelfinnthe problem with Hard science is that it makes for more difficult roleplaying. you can't get around quickly, you can't have realy over the top adventures, and you certainly have a harder time keeping people's iterest.
Star Trek and Star Wars are both role-playable universes, whereas it'd be a lot harder to set a campaign in Vernor Vinge's Galaxy (A Fire Upon the Deep, A Deepness in the Sky).
basically, it comes down to fun. if everyone's having fun, it's all good.
Very true it does come down to fun. Star Trek has never been fun for me because it is so silly without trying to be silly.
Star Wars is a fantasy game so it doesn't run into the silly problem.
I'm not sure how requiring science be realistic slows anything down?
I more in the soft sci-fi category. I've got nothing against a hard sci-fi game, I've played in some very fun ones, but I tend to enjoy the flying all over the galaxy fighting weird creatures and collecting strange artifacts kind of play more than anything else.
Quote from: kanegrundarI more in the soft sci-fi category. I've got nothing against a hard sci-fi game, I've played in some very fun ones, but I tend to enjoy the flying all over the galaxy fighting weird creatures and collecting strange artifacts kind of play more than anything else.
See that usually falls under fantasy. Star Wars and Fading Suns are great examples. :D
Quote from: VarajI'm not sure how requiring science be realistic slows anything down?
The whole speed of light thing cuts into what you can do. Travel to more than one or two new systems in a lifetime is unlikely. Also throw in that most systems will have no life forms and encountering starfaring aliens and being able to understand them is highly unlikely.
Quote from: NicephorusThe whole speed of light thing cuts into what you can do. Travel to more than one or two new systems in a lifetime is unlikely. Also throw in that most systems will have no life forms and encountering starfaring aliens and being able to understand them is highly unlikely.
I agree the alien thing is often not found in hard sci-fi, but plenty of great fantasy games to provide that.
Hey, Varaj, I know this great unpublished Sci-Fi game a couple of my homies have worked on. ;)
I don't really know that I prefer one over the other, but most of the time I tend to be in "soft" science fiction games, but I really enjoy playing them and would like to subscribe to your newsletter! :)
It's difficult to really nail down my exact preference. I like 2300's setting, a lot, and it's what I would consider hard scifi as far as game settings are concerned. But I like the trappings of both the Star Wars and Star Trek settings also, as well as that of Doc Smith's Lensmen universe.
Quote from: NicephorusThe whole speed of light thing cuts into what you can do. Travel to more than one or two new systems in a lifetime is unlikely. Also throw in that most systems will have no life forms and encountering starfaring aliens and being able to understand them is highly unlikely.
All of this is based on science as we know it now. There are more and more physicists coming up with theories as to how the speed of light barrier can be worked around.
As for life in other systems...well, we don't have any way of knowing how common life is. There could be life just about everywhere, but if it isn't intelligent, there's no way to know until we get there. Read some of Doc Smith's early stuff. At that time, it wasn't even thought that planets were very common beyond our own stellar system, so his early stories were about a galaxy where planets were rare, at best. Now, it seems strange to think that, since it seems every couple of weeks a new planet is found somewhere. Could be the same with life. Matter of fact, it's becoming increasingly common for scientists to believe life is fairly common in the universe, just based on sheer odds - the universe is frickin' enormous. Maybe not intelligent life, but life. It could be of varying levels of development, from single-celled organisms to fully-developed complex ecosystems. As for encountering intelligent life, yeah, it'd be tough to establish communication, but I think it'd be likely that some effort would be made on both sides to at least understand what was being dealt with.
I like my science fiction firm
http://www.kheper.net/topics/scifi/grading.html
Somewhat between hard and soft, but leaning more to the hard side. Mostly real science but handwave a few points for the sake of plot, FTL or etc.
I'm not so sure you could classify me as either. While space opera and the soft science/fantasy is my usual preference, I think it would be fab to play a game set in Saberhagen's Berserker universe (and that's about as hard science as you get).
Yeah I'm in the Firm camp as well I'ld say 2300AD is firm, with its Stutterwarp being the FTL without time paradox but with a reasonable science explanation, its few alien races being not just furry humans, they are very alien both in body chemistry and culture.
Quote from: VarajI tend to like my science fiction to be hard sci-fi. If I want soft sci-fi I will just play a fantasy game. Fantasy doesn't have to be medivial setting but can be future setting.
So what do you prefer?
I agree with most of the above. But I prefer my fantasy in a medieval setting.
Quote from: VarajSee that usually falls under fantasy. Star Wars and Fading Suns are great examples. :D
I agree, I just like "sci-fantasy" since it sounds better than just plain ol' fantasy. ;)
Quote from: BagpussYeah I'm in the Firm camp as well I'ld say 2300AD is firm, with its Stutterwarp being the FTL without time paradox but with a reasonable science explanation, its few alien races being not just furry humans, they are very alien both in body chemistry and culture.
That's true. 2300 had some of the most plausible "alien" aliens found in any RPG.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonThat's true. 2300 had some of the most plausible "alien" aliens found in any RPG.
2300 AD is a game I really wish I could have played. I don't know if the rules are good or not, but the setting kicks much ass.
I like all types of sci-fi, from the ludicrisly silly (like Shadowrun) to hard sci-fi. I don't think I've seen a game that would qualify as truly hard sci-fi, though. Usually it's more like Traveller.
Quote from: Cyberzombie2300 AD is a game I really wish I could have played. I don't know if the rules are good or not, but the setting kicks much ass.
I like all types of sci-fi, from the ludicrisly silly (like Shadowrun) to hard sci-fi. I don't think I've seen a game that would qualify as truly hard sci-fi, though. Usually it's more like Traveller.
I don't think I'd find a truly "hard" scifi game all that interesting. I'm trying to think of hard scifi novels...off the top of my head, Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars seem to qualify, even if Robinson really accelerated the terraforming process. An interesting setting for a book, not so interesting for a game. I can't think of any others right off the top of my head.
2300's rules were, in my opinion, not that fun. The setting is what made the game.
Quote from: ColonelHardisson2300's rules were, in my opinion, not that fun. The setting is what made the game.
I didn't like the amount of crunch but the starship rules had some nice aspects. I'll third the aliens - they were some of the most interesting and thought out aliens I've seen in rpgs, books, or movies.
I like something in the middle.
I like tech too be believable but not the primary focus of the game. I don't need it to be explained in detail, just so it fits.
Quote from: McrowI like something in the middle.
I like tech too be believable but not the primary focus of the game. I don't need it to be explained in detail, just so it fits.
I think that this is almost exactly the same attitude I have about scifi games.
It would be possible to run an episodic hard-tech kind of game, i think, using cryo-sleep to break up the episode and allow for a new setup during the game, while still allowing large ammounts of continuity. I'm thinking something like the
Alien movies could make a very interesting set of episodes for a long running campaign based on this model.
Quote from: McrowI like something in the middle.
I like tech too be believable but not the primary focus of the game. I don't need it to be explained in detail, just so it fits.
In my opinion tech should never people the focus of a good story. It is all about the human experience, if if you aren't playing humans.
Quote from: VarajI tend to like my science fiction to be hard sci-fi. If I want soft sci-fi I will just play a fantasy game. Fantasy doesn't have to be medivial setting but can be future setting.
So what do you prefer?
What do you concider Simmons books?
Quote from: LimperWhat do you concider Simmons books?
I would consider his books soft sci-fi. David Webber would be hard sci-fi. I love them both but would rather play in a Webber like world. :)
I would concider it fairly hard sci fi even if his estrapolation of tech is a bit mystical in nature.
Ilium was more fantasy in nature than Hyperion.
How do you rate Dune then?
Quote from: LimperHow do you rate Dune then?
In my opinion Dune would be fantasy or Space Opera if you prefer.
Quote from: LimperI would concider it fairly hard sci fi even if his estrapolation of tech is a bit mystical in nature.
I don't agree per se but I respect your opinion.
I can't say I agree with you but I can see where you are coming from.
Where would you put Donaldsons Gap Cycle?
I'm conflicted about where David Weber's "Honor Harrington" books would fall on the hard/soft spectrum. On one hand, he goes into great detail about the science behind a lot of stuff in his setting, from Warshawski sails and the related FTL drive to medical advances. There is a detailed essay on the history of the discovery of FTL propulsion which seems like he really thought it all through (I'd guess with some help). But then he seems to handwave away the sheer number of habitable planets in his universe. There have been vague mentions of terraforming here and there, but just as often there are mentions of native life on planets that are very similar to that of Earth, or planets with easily breathable atmospheres. I guess I'd place his stuff more towards the hard end of the spectrum.
Quote from: LimperI can't say I agree with you but I can see where you are coming from.
Where would you put Donaldsons Gap Cycle?
I don't believe I have read them.
Quote from: VarajI don't believe I have read them.
Some of Donaldsons darker works... I loved them although I hated every character to some degree or another.
Quote from: LimperSome of Donaldsons darker works... I loved them although I hated every character to some degree or another.
I will have to check them out.
Quote from: VarajI tend to like my science fiction to be hard sci-fi. If I want soft sci-fi I will just play a fantasy game. Fantasy doesn't have to be medivial setting but can be future setting.
So what do you prefer?
Honestly, I like all kinds, depending on my mood.
In general, I prefer my novels to be harder sci-fi rather than softer, though there are quite a few space fantasy and space opera books that hold a special place in my heart.
In general, though I like sci-fi RPGs that try to use sensible science, I prefer space opera and softer sci-fi for my RPGs... Mainly because, hard sci-fi in an RPG gets tedious. My players, especially, simply don't care about the nitty gritty of how a hyperdrive works, or why an ion cannon shouldn't be able to short out electronics without damaging the ship. They just want to have fun saving the galaxy.
For me, the worst are the movies/novels/games that are psuedo-science fiction... They try really hard to be scientific, but fail. Star Trek, and occassionally Star Wars are especially bad at this at times. If you're going to use Science in your sci-fi, then get it right. If you aren't going to get Science right in sci-fi, then don't use it.
I am definitely a middle of the ground to hard sci-fi. I don't want to spend half the session calculating trajectories but I would like it to be more than flowery speech about a ship entering the atmosphere. Go too soft and you run the risk of the game being indistinguishable from the last fantasy game you played in, too hard and I get flash backs to my astrophysics classes in college. :)
Bill
Quote from: ColonelHardissonBut then he seems to handwave away the sheer number of habitable planets in his universe. There have been vague mentions of terraforming here and there, but just as often there are mentions of native life on planets that are very similar to that of Earth, or planets with easily breathable atmospheres.
We feel that sometimes writers just need to hand-wave away certain bits of realism. If an author spends a lot of time describing alien worlds, this can drag the actual story to a halt. It is like the problem on TV sci-fi where every alien race speaks English -- it is silly, but constant scenes about translation would get very boring very fast.
Quote from: RedcapWe feel that sometimes writers just need to hand-wave away certain bits of realism. If an author spends a lot of time describing alien worlds, this can drag the actual story to a halt. It is like the problem on TV sci-fi where every alien race speaks English -- it is silly, but constant scenes about translation would get very boring very fast.
Sure, but that's not precisely the discussion at hand. I wasn't making a judgement about Weber's universe creation beyond trying to hash out where he lies on the hard vs. soft spectrum. Hard scifi does a lot less handwaving than soft scifi. Weber seems to go to both extremes.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonHard scifi does a lot less handwaving than soft scifi.
That's wrong...
Hard sci-fi simply has far more believable handwaving than soft sci-fi.
:p
Quote from: CyclotronThat's wrong...
Hard sci-fi simply has far more believable handwaving than soft sci-fi.
:p
I guess that's a way of looking at it.
What I find interesting is that, when you actually go back and read what many people consider to be "hard" science fiction, you find just as much hand-waving of scientific impossibilities, and just as much reliance on the litary/genre tradition for believability as you often find in so-called "soft" science fiction. The main differences stem from which branches of science are emphasized--"hard" stories tend to turn on physics and the mechanical sciences, where "soft" stories often incorporate the social sciences, psychology, and concepts from the humanities as well. So it isn't so much about "one has more science than the other" so much as "one uses one scientific tradition rather than another."
As a final irony, I often find that cyberpunk stories are often more fully grounded in scientific possibility than either hard or soft science fiction, but many traditionalists can't stand cyberpunk anyway.
Personally, I want to see good execution of a story, with something done exceptionally well, and I don't really care to make some sort of one-size-fits-all expectation about it.
Quote from: willpaxAs a final irony, I often find that cyberpunk stories are often more fully grounded in scientific possibility than either hard or soft science fiction, but many traditionalists can't stand cyberpunk anyway.
Well, when I found out that cyberpunk was created by a Luddite (William Gibson) and actually read his books, that reduced my interest in the genre quite a bit. Not to mention when the Japanese economy tanked and a huge pillar of the genre become just plain silly.
Granted, there's plenty of good cyberpunk -- and the self-same Gibson did help create steampunk, with "The Difference Engine", which is quite a bit less silly than his cyberpunk -- but there's even more cyberpunk that is just flat silly.
I think that even if hard scifi contains a lot of handwaving, it's a lot of well-researched and thought-out handwaving.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonI think that even if hard scifi contains a lot of handwaving, it's a lot of well-researched and thought-out handwaving.
I think intent matters. No one is perfect and no one can research everything. If someone is honestly shooting for hard sci-fi and has done their research, that counts for a lot. :)
One of my saddest moments, though, was when an up-until-then hard sci-fi writer, James Hogan, wrote this crappy book based on Velikovski's drivel. :( I am just glad I didn't pay full price for that piece of shit.
Quote from: VarajStar Wars makes no attempt at science, it is a fantasy game in a future setting.
And yet you still here nerds getting in a huff because those DAMN BUZZ DROIDS JUST SLID OFF OF ANAKIN'S JEDI STARFIGHTER!!!! :D
Quote from: King_StannisAnd yet you still here nerds getting in a huff because those DAMN BUZZ DROIDS JUST SLID OFF OF ANAKIN'S JEDI STARFIGHTER!!!! :D
And the stupid thind is...
If his spaceship was accelerating (and there's reason to believe it wasn't), then they
would just slide off.
:p
Quote from: King_StannisAnd yet you still here nerds getting in a huff because those DAMN BUZZ DROIDS JUST SLID OFF OF ANAKIN'S JEDI STARFIGHTER!!!! :D
They're as bad as the Trekies who put down Star Wars for being fantasy but who think that Trek is hard SF. Trek, the show where the writers find buzzwords in Wired and Discover and then have characters vary the frequency of it to solve a problem.
Quote from: CyberzombieI think intent matters. No one is perfect and no one can research everything. If someone is honestly shooting for hard sci-fi and has done their research, that counts for a lot. :)
One of my saddest moments, though, was when an up-until-then hard sci-fi writer, James Hogan, wrote this crappy book based on Velikovski's drivel. :( I am just glad I didn't pay full price for that piece of shit.
I love Hogan's "Giants" novels. Well, at least the first three - Inherit The Stars, The Gentle Giants of Ganymede, and Giants' Star. I haven't read the one he wrote much later. The books are slow-moving, and I could figure out what was going on long before the characters, but they were fascinating, overall. The whole concept of lifeforms that evolved to avoid conflict is really interesting.
It's kinda like Larry Niven's Pierson's Puppeteers, except the basic reason why they evolved that way is completely different. Puppeteers evolved from herd animals and go to great lengths to eliminate potential predators. The life on the Giants' planet evolved to have a separate waste elimination system that made them poisonous to potential predators, and even made getting bruised potentially deadly.
The computers that were actual characters - one was named ZORAC, is that right? - presaged a few things, I think, things that seem to be on course for the actual future.
Quote from: NicephorusThey're as bad as the Trekies who put down Star Wars for being fantasy but who think that Trek is hard SF. Trek, the show where the writers find buzzwords in Wired and Discover and then have characters vary the frequency of it to solve a problem.
Especially when everyone knows reversing the polarity of the neutron flow works a lot better than varying the frequency of a buzzword. :rolleyes: ;)
Quote from: cranberryEspecially when everyone knows reversing the polarity of the neutron flow works a lot better than varying the frequency of a buzzword. :rolleyes: ;)
I always figured that "reverse the polarity" was just ship slang for "whack it on the side."
Quote from: ElidiaI always figured that "reverse the polarity" was just ship slang for "whack it on the side."
I always imagined it just meant to flip the "on" switch. :p
I was just amazed at how many things *had* polarity for them to reverse...
Heck, I think Counselor Troi reversed the polarity of Riker's johnson at one point! ;)
Quote from: BillyBeanbagHeck, I think Counselor Troi reversed the polarity of Riker's johnson at one point! ;)
Now *that* would have been an interesting episode. And it would have gotten her out of those stupid outfits. Not a bad looking woman; she was just put in costumes that made her *look* horrible...
Quote from: CyberzombieNow *that* would have been an interesting episode. And it would have gotten her out of those stupid outfits. Not a bad looking woman; she was just put in costumes that made her *look* horrible...
The Next Gen uniforms were all horrible, even Troi's "civvies." Actually, I take that back. For a certain period of time the uniforms for Next Gen looked cool. It was the stiff-collared look that seemed to appear after the parallel universe episode where the Federation was about to fall to the Klingons. Those uniforms looked cool. Then they started using what looked like sweaters, based (I guess) on the original show's pilot episode uniforms, and it made them all look, I dunno, less professional.
As I got done typing the above, I suddenly realized how stupid I was for EVEN NOTICING SUCH SHIT.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonAs I got done typing the above, I suddenly realized how stupid I was for EVEN NOTICING SUCH SHIT.
:D Don't you just hate it when you realize you're totally geeking out in public? Fortunately, in this particular forum, you're safe and even almost on topic.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonAs I got done typing the above, I suddenly realized how stupid I was for EVEN NOTICING SUCH SHIT.
I try to deconstruct Stargate sometimes, and get couch pillows thrown at me. Those fuckers HURT when they have a little velocity behind them! :mad: It's not my fault that the writers don't realize things like "middle class women gossip about childbearing, as a sporting event, and a dropped birth rate would get noticed."
Heh... I pointed that out myself when a friend showed me that episode....
What I can't stand are the types that think that things like Gundam, Evangelion or Macross are hard SF, in the anime fandom, when they are at best Soft SF (and Eva borders on fantasy).
Quote from: CyberzombieNow *that* would have been an interesting episode. And it would have gotten her out of those stupid outfits. Not a bad looking woman; she was just put in costumes that made her *look* horrible...
You didn't like the cheerleader outfit? :o
Quote from: CyberzombieWell, when I found out that cyberpunk was created by a Luddite (William Gibson) and actually read his books, that reduced my interest in the genre quite a bit. Not to mention when the Japanese economy tanked and a huge pillar of the genre become just plain silly.
I must say, I had almost exactly the opposite reaction when I understood how little Gibson understood about technology. It affirmed my belief that his novels really weren't about what the future will look like technologically, but societally. Ironically, his ignorant predictions about future technology turned into self-fulfilling prophecy, while his vision about what the future will look like in terms of social and economical structures is still way off...
Still good novels. One of my favorite authors. :)
One of the most frequent criticisms of Transhuman Space is that most GMs and players "don't know what to do," which confirms conventional wisdom that Hard SF is essentially 'difficult' to 'uplayable.' What is necessary for a Hard SF game to be playable, in your opinion?
-mice
Quote from: flyingmiceOne of the most frequent criticisms of Transhuman Space is that most GMs and players "don't know what to do," which confirms conventional wisdom that Hard SF is essentially 'difficult' to 'uplayable.' What is necessary for a Hard SF game to be playable, in your opinion?
-mice
That surprises me. I see the setting as full of potentical for political, social, economic, and spiritual intrigue. Is it the lack of clearly defined "good" guys and "bad" guys? Or something else?
Quote from: Xavier LangThat surprises me. I see the setting as full of potentical for political, social, economic, and spiritual intrigue. Is it the lack of clearly defined "good" guys and "bad" guys? Or something else?
That was not my assessment, but that of many people posting on various other fora. It seems the general consensus. Personally, I have no problem with THS - or rather my problems with THS have nothing to do with the playability of the setting, merely strong disagreements about the speed of the proposed technological changes and such minor matters - so I can't answer your question.
-mice
Quote from: flyingmiceThat was not my assessment, but that of many people posting on various other fora. It seems the general consensus.
I've never read THS and didn't have plans to pick it up because almost the only thing I'd heard about it was that it was unplayable or that it would be hard to make a game out of it.
I have no idea whether that's true but it really does have that reputation.
Quote from: NicephorusI've never read THS and didn't have plans to pick it up because almost the only thing I'd heard about it was that it was unplayable or that it would be hard to make a game out of it.
I have no idea whether that's true but it really does have that reputation.
That's exactly what I was talking about. Thanks, Nicephorus!
-mice
Quote from: NicephorusI've never read THS and didn't have plans to pick it up because almost the only thing I'd heard about it was that it was unplayable or that it would be hard to make a game out of it.
I have no idea whether that's true but it really does have that reputation.
Same here. It's definitely got that rep, deserved or not. I started out with several editions of Traveller, bumped to Alternity, and am right now really enjoying Cold Space (btw, look for a review next week, clash!), all which have varying degrees of scientific "hardness". But THS has never broken into the rotation of any of my gaming groups. I'd say the split has been about 50% were just going with the flow, 30% had heard the "bad rep" bit, and 20% didn't like the setting or science.
Funny, with all these folks I've known objecting to it, I don't think a single one ever actually claimed to have played it. :confused: A stigma like that must stick pretty hard.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstSame here. It's definitely got that rep, deserved or not. I started out with several editions of Traveller, bumped to Alternity, and am right now really enjoying Cold Space (btw, look for a review next week, clash!), all which have varying degrees of scientific "hardness". But THS has never broken into the rotation of any of my gaming groups. I'd say the split has been about 50% were just going with the flow, 30% had heard the "bad rep" bit, and 20% didn't like the setting or science.
Funny, with all these folks I've known objecting to it, I don't think a single one ever actually claimed to have played it. :confused: A stigma like that must stick pretty hard.
Hi Zachary!
That's one of the things I'm trying to find out. Where did this stigma come from? What is it about THS that earned such a rep? Is it inherent in the Hardness of the setting? Is it that the prospective players are not used to Hard SF and thus find few of the standard SF tropes to work with? What can other hard SF games do to avoid this sort of rep?
Personally, I find THS fascinating, in spite of my quibbles. It certainly is very hard SF. David Pulver did a magnificent job writing it.
I'm also very glad you're enjoying CS, and really looking forward to your review, Zachary! :D
-mice
Quote from: flyingmiceHi Zachary!
That's one of the things I'm trying to find out. Where did this stigma come from? What is it about THS that earned such a rep? Is it inherent in the Hardness of the setting? Is it that the prospective players are not used to Hard SF and thus find few of the standard SF tropes to work with? What can other hard SF games do to avoid this sort of rep?
Personally, I find THS fascinating, in spite of my quibbles. It certainly is very hard SF. David Pulver did a magnificent job writing it.
I'm also very glad you're enjoying CS, and really looking forward to your review, Zachary! :D
-mice
It might be. I mean, many gamers are of a Star Trek: TNG, Star Wars, or Babylon 5 sort of generation. Perhaps they're looking for familiar handholds and aren't finding them. I think "soft-science" shows and movies have had a bit easier time finding wider audiences, and perhaps folks are just tending to gravitate towards what they know.
But, in brief, I don't know. I'd love to hear any other theories, contentions, angles that are out there.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstIt might be. I mean, many gamers are of a Star Trek: TNG, Star Wars, or Babylon 5 sort of generation. Perhaps they're looking for familiar handholds and aren't finding them. I think "soft-science" shows and movies have had a bit easier time finding wider audiences, and perhaps folks are just tending to gravitate towards what they know.
But, in brief, I don't know. I'd love to hear any other theories, contentions, angles that are out there.
That sounds very plausible. I'm from a (much) earlier generation. My dad was a huge SF fan, and an engineer to boot. I was weaned on Analog and Galaxy, and Heinlein was near unto a god. SF for me has always been primarily a literary phenomenon. Old Trek was an abberation, which we would religiously watch in prime time from the family table - not because it was great SF, but because it
was SF and
on TV! A most amazing freak of nature, like the dog who could sing. Thus I'm working from a very different frame of reference than most gamers, the vast majority of whom are far younger than I. This means I am working blind in some respects, and I need to find out what went wrong with such a brilliant piece of work.
-mice
I think much of the problem with coming up with good campaigns is the game itself doesn't do a great job of limiting the options or at least provide very specific directions.
I think it is needed for a couple of reasons. It isn't your typical RPG were you are going to go out and kill people and take their stuff. This alone is going to give people stumps. Also there are many options for types of campaigns but most of them are ones that generally take more work to make them fun. The main book doesn't have any campaign hints or ideas to speak of and leaving that out in an open ended world that is also outside of the norm of what people general play was a mistake.
Quote from: VarajI think much of the problem with coming up with good campaigns is the game itself doesn't do a great job of limiting the options or at least provide very specific directions.
I think it is needed for a couple of reasons. It isn't your typical RPG were you are going to go out and kill people and take their stuff. This alone is going to give people stumps. Also there are many options for types of campaigns but most of them are ones that generally take more work to make them fun. The main book doesn't have any campaign hints or ideas to speak of and leaving that out in an open ended world that is also outside of the norm of what people general play was a mistake.
Thanks, Varaj. That makes a lot of sense. For someone used to the specific sub-genre, you have a background is stories and novels that will feed you ideas, but like roleplaying, Hard SF is a niche of a niche, and the intersection of those two sets would be rather small. Your ideas are good - provide adventure seeds, spark ideas, show examples of what can be done. Thanks! :D
-mice
Quote from: flyingmiceThanks, Varaj. That makes a lot of sense. For someone used to the specific sub-genre, you have a background is stories and novels that will feed you ideas, but like roleplaying, Hard SF is a niche of a niche, and the intersection of those two sets would be rather small. Your ideas are good - provide adventure seeds, spark ideas, show examples of what can be done. Thanks! :D
-mice
I'm starting a THS game tonight, just character generation. It will be a new system/setting for just about everybody. I plan on pulling story ideas from spy games, SpyCraft and the like.
I plan on starting with a canned module for THS (review here (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11029.phtml)) and keeping the investigation and intrigue going. It will be a very combat light game.
If anybody has any favorite SpyCraft modules feel free to speak up. :)
Quote from: Zachary The FirstIt might be. I mean, many gamers are of a Star Trek: TNG, Star Wars, or Babylon 5 sort of generation. Perhaps they're looking for familiar handholds and aren't finding them. I think "soft-science" shows and movies have had a bit easier time finding wider audiences, and perhaps folks are just tending to gravitate towards what they know.
But, in brief, I don't know. I'd love to hear any other theories, contentions, angles that are out there.
Well, License vs Original Setting faces a number of challenges just as you pointed out Zachary. The "What do I do" is defined and has an audience in successful sci-fi settings. I happen to be one of the few who think that some sci-fi settings make better stories than rpg settings. Star Trek is very much this. The inconsistancies make it very difficult to quantify the setting under a rigid rules set. I have proposed a diceless system for it on other boards and I think it is the closest you can come to an RPG system for that setting. I have also heard how you "Just need the right group". This is weak simply because you can say that about any game. Star Trek just has too many plot devices and system holes to be viable in a rigid system. Just my opinion though.
Now, Star Wars is a different story. This is essentially fantasy with a sci-fi dress on. It is easily quantifiable since it is very B&W both in tech and plot. There is a stream of plot that makes it adaptable to an RPG.
The problem comes in when you get non-licensed settings. Make them detailed and folks gig you for having to read a dictionary to understand the setting. Write a light and airy/easily read book and you aren't giving them the substance they need to run. Striking that middle ground is the tough part. I think Traveller did this but I think they also relied on predefined concepts from masters like Niven and Asimov. Today, you have many different breeds of sci-fi and you almost need to drop your book into one of them to make it successful. Military sci-fi appeal to some, world explorer sci-fi to others and you better believe you will get smacked for by the fans of the genre you did not cover. :)
Interesting discussion.
Bill
Hi Bill!
You have some excellent poits, as always. Your thoughts on Trek make a lot of sense. I see lots and lots of Trek Sim - as in on-line freeform RPing, not Forge Sim - games out there, many of them long running. I've never had any urge to run a Trek RP game for the very reasons you cite.
As for the multiplicity of SF sub-genres, that's why I've written more than one SF game setting. Some people like one, some another.
Glad to see you here! I'm enjoying the discussion too! :D
-mice
Quote from: flyingmiceGlad to see you here! I'm enjoying the discussion too! :D
-mice
I know--it's like all my favorite folks have decided to sign up. We must all have gotten the same vibe or impulse or somesuch. :D
I would agree the RPG SF market seems pretty diversified. You have an IP like Starship Troopers, which naturally gears towards Mil. SF. However, you still have your Hard SF folks, and a crazy range of subgenres inbetween.
Now, as far as the multiplicity of genres and whatnot, is there any game out there that you could present as a unifier that could do any&all of these different sub-genres tolerably well? Would there even be any point in attempting such a "unifier"? We have T5 on the horizon for next year, where's that going to fit in?
And, Bill, do you see Fading Suns also, like Star Wars, as a fantasy with a thin coat of SF applied? I believe I've always pictured it as such. However, I've also found it one of the easier games out there in terms of finding easy plot footholds and adventure ideas.
Quote from: flyingmiceHi Bill!
You have some excellent poits, as always. Your thoughts on Trek make a lot of sense. I see lots and lots of Trek Sim - as in on-line freeform RPing, not Forge Sim - games out there, many of them long running. I've never had any urge to run a Trek RP game for the very reasons you cite.
As for the multiplicity of SF sub-genres, that's why I've written more than one SF game setting. Some people like one, some another.
Glad to see you here! I'm enjoying the discussion too! :D
-mice
Clash,
I am also looking at more sci-fi games beyond Nebuleon. I have Future Skein, a post apoc Earth game, Cyber Skein, the pre-apoc version of Future Skein that is cyber-not-punk set on the moon and another one called Coloni about a colony ship that arrives in sections and your character wake up 300 years after the colony has started. All of these will be able to exist in the Nebuleon universe but will definitely be there own games. Unfortunately, (or maybe it is a good thing) Squirrel Attack! is selling like nuts (pun intended) through distribution and off the site. Good for Hinterwelt but I want to write some sci-fi!
O.k. as for ST, well, a lot of what I see as successful "games" usually is more about successful story telling. Don't get me wrong, that is great too but there comes a point where you cease to RP as a system and move into RP as a story. Nothing wrong there but you get a lot of folks who are fervent about Decipher Trek or LUG Trek (I won and have played both) and they simply do not work as a RP system. Phasers are too powerful and all the tech makes a the serious tactical player a nightmare to the story.
That said, I am a huge Trek fan. Just have not found the right Trek game for me...yet.
Bill
Quote from: Zachary The FirstAnd, Bill, do you see Fading Suns also, like Star Wars, as a fantasy with a thin coat of SF applied? I believe I've always pictured it as such. However, I've also found it one of the easier games out there in terms of finding easy plot footholds and adventure ideas.
Definitely. To me, and others may have a different view, Fading Suns is very much along those lines. The thing that has always puzzled me is why it had not done better, commercially. I did not like it but that is me. I have some real particular tastes for my sci-fi. The whole precept seemed...too mystical. However, I thought it was a well put together book and game and thought it would have dominated the market.
As for Grand Unification Game...I do nto know if it would serve a purpose. You have a number of these type of games/systems out their now but making a too generic game can lead to loosing the market focus you need to make a game sell. Also, I dare say, a grossly generic game would loos some of its appeal. System wise I do not believe this would be a problem. Setting wise, definitely. The only way (and it is what I am pursuing with HinterWelt) is to make a series of core rules using the same system. Then, if people want, they can play a cyber dude from this setting and an alien bog dweller from that setting and they all live in happy bliss under one system. One setting can be inferred meaining you have a separate book for the setting but it is not mentioned in the others, just assumed that it is part of the original setting. Is that clear? I probabaly need more/less coffee. :)
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltIs that clear? I probabaly need more/less coffee. :)
Bill
Crystalline. :)
Quote from: ColonelHardissonI don't think I'd find a truly "hard" scifi game all that interesting. I'm trying to think of hard scifi novels...off the top of my head, Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars seem to qualify, even if Robinson really accelerated the terraforming process. An interesting setting for a book, not so interesting for a game. I can't think of any others right off the top of my head.
2300's rules were, in my opinion, not that fun. The setting is what made the game.
Niven's Ringworld?
Quote from: HinterWeltClash,
I am also looking at more sci-fi games beyond Nebuleon. I have Future Skein, a post apoc Earth game, Cyber Skein, the pre-apoc version of Future Skein that is cyber-not-punk set on the moon and another one called Coloni about a colony ship that arrives in sections and your character wake up 300 years after the colony has started. All of these will be able to exist in the Nebuleon universe but will definitely be there own games. Unfortunately, (or maybe it is a good thing) Squirrel Attack! is selling like nuts (pun intended) through distribution and off the site. Good for Hinterwelt but I want to write some sci-fi!
Bill
Bill, you know me, i want those Sci-fi game yesterday!:D
Man from what you have talked about Cyber Skein & Future Skein (I love that cover) I can't wait to see those. Of course i'm always a sucker for good Sci-Fi. Which reminds me I need to get a copy of Cold Space @ somepoint.
Quote from: HinterWeltAlso, I dare say, a grossly generic game would loos some of its appeal. System wise I do not believe this would be a problem. Setting wise, definitely. The only way (and it is what I am pursuing with HinterWelt) is to make a series of core rules using the same system. Then, if people want, they can play a cyber dude from this setting and an alien bog dweller from that setting and they all live in happy bliss under one system. One setting can be inferred meaining you have a separate book for the setting but it is not mentioned in the others, just assumed that it is part of the original setting. Is that clear? I probabaly need more/less coffee. :)
Bill
Also what we are doing with the StarCluster system & setting. Book of Jalan and Sweet Chariot are both very different settings within the greater cluster setting - the upcoming Gkorianna and Far Shore will also be set in the cluster, but these all can be played without any reference to the rest of the Cluster, if you prefer. It's an idea that works, and gives you a lot of flexibility as a GM.
BTW, I can't wait to see Cyber Skein and Future Skein!
-mice
Quote from: Zachary The FirstI know--it's like all my favorite folks have decided to sign up. We must all have gotten the same vibe or impulse or somesuch. :D
I would agree the RPG SF market seems pretty diversified. You have an IP like Starship Troopers, which naturally gears towards Mil. SF. However, you still have your Hard SF folks, and a crazy range of subgenres inbetween.
Now, as far as the multiplicity of genres and whatnot, is there any game out there that you could present as a unifier that could do any&all of these different sub-genres tolerably well? Would there even be any point in attempting such a "unifier"? We have T5 on the horizon for next year, where's that going to fit in?
Nope- at least as far as Setting goes. It's the setting that pretty much defines the genre. System is far less important. Like Bill, We've been building up a variety of settings within the Cluster as well as the new Cold Space/FTL Now setting. That's the only way I know to work a cross genre SF game.
-mice
Well I paged through and read a little of Cold Space last night and I'm very impressed with it. It looks like the layout has improved greatly over SC2 and the concpt just rocks. Good stuff.
Quote from: Vermicious KnidNiven's Ringworld?
I don't think of Niven's Ringworld as being truly "hard" scifi. I love those books, though.
Quote from: McrowWell I paged through and read a little of Cold Space last night and I'm very impressed with it. It looks like the layout has improved greatly over SC2 and the concpt just rocks. Good stuff.
Thanks, Michael! We're learning! Glad to hear you're enjoying it! :D
-mice
Quote from: ColonelHardissonI don't think of Niven's Ringworld as being truly "hard" scifi. I love those books, though.
The concept of "Hard" in SF has changed over the years. Niven used to be considered Hard, because he paid a lot of attention to the science in his SF. He wrote Neutron Star after seing a science article by Asimov on the tidal effects of a neutron star, which gave him the central concept. To get to the neutron star, however, Beowulf Schaeffer used a ship made of 'unobtainium' using an FTL drive, which makes this not-Hard by today's definition.
-mice
Not every work by a given author falls within the same genre. Just because Niven's written a chunk of hard science fiction, doesn't mean all of his works are in the same vein. It's a trap for the unwary, but pretty much can be handled case-by-case.
Quote from: BillyBeanbagNot every work by a given author falls within the same genre. Just because Niven's written a chunk of hard science fiction, doesn't mean all of his works are in the same vein. It's a trap for the unwary, but pretty much can be handled case-by-case.
Right. Niven - for example - has done hard SF, but Ringworld isn'r Hard. Not that that's a bad thing, mind! :D
-mice