I'd kill for any SF gaming anymore.  

But I did get kind of a hankering for more hard SF after Planetes.  The level of realism in that series went way beyond anything I've seen for a long time.

And I miss Jovian Chronicles a lot.  1st Ed seemed like a really neat game, but a bit short on details.  I was hesitant about 2nd Ed. for some reason though, maybe it was the split rulebooks.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe problem comes from the fact that, speaking as an SF critic, the term "Hard SF" has quite a precise meaning, particularly over the last 10 years or so.

However, apparently, in gamer circles, the term "Hard SF" simply means that at some point someone tried to be realistic.

Raises hand. I tend to see things as hardish or softish, and definately don't get into the proper naming from the literary circles. Though I probably shouldn't use the later at all because it has been pointed out to me that "soft" isn't always screwy science but rather instead just centering more on the more subjective sciences.**  Which maybe is a problem with what Hard SF can seem so stiff, a perception that if you include the humanities in some way it undercuts the "hard"?

On FTL travel what exactly is the bar as you see it?  Does that include a total ban on tech that somehow causes partial time distortions (gravity manipulations or otherwise) so that you still travel slower than light but as far as everyone else is concerned you have traveled faster? Does convience and scale of the operation factor in?


**How about 'flacid' for being the opposite of 'hard' meaning crappy science?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe problem comes from the fact that, speaking as an SF critic, the term "Hard SF" has quite a precise meaning, particularly over the last 10 years or so.

However, apparently, in gamer circles, the term "Hard SF" simply means that at some point someone tried to be realistic.

Actually, the old meaning of "Hard" in still current in most gaming circles. I've been reading SF for over 40 years, and I've seen the meaning change. It used to mean "Pays close attention to physics, and doesn't violate known physics except where needed for the story." By this definition, Classic Traveller was Hard when it was released. Not only has the meaning of "Hard" changed, understanding of physics and other hard sciences has vastly indreased  since Trav's day.

People looking back from now have trouble understanding how it could ever have been considered "Hard," but it was. I was 21 when Trav came out. I bought it about a week after my birthday, brand new. I was there, and an adult at the time. Niven was once considered "Hard," as were Heinlein, Anderson, Pohl, and most of the rest of the Grand Masters. Times change, understanding of the universe deepens, and meanings of words evolve. Now Trav is laughably soft and flabby.

Unfortunately, set against the usual crop of gaming SF - mostly inspired by StarWars and Trek - Traveller looks positively flinty, and gamers' perception of what "Hard" is has never changed since those days. Gamers have called my StarCluster Hard SF, but it's not. It was written to play Classic SF, and is only Hard when measured against the old definition.

It's danged hard to communicate when the meaning of words slips around on you!

-clash

I don't see why traveller is ruled out of "hard sf" due to the jump drive, unless you want a "hard sf" game to be limited to one solar system you need some from of ftl, and at least traveller has a consistent one.

There is a very, very hard SF wargame called "Attack Vector: Tactical, which you can find at //www.adastragames.com and believe me, it's as hard as SF gets. It does have a strategic FTL, but hey, it doesn't come up in gameplay.

Hard SF can't be played cold or stupid.  Fantasy can played cold and stupid.  That's why Fantasy wins.

I would add that Fantasy has built in ideas and setting concepts that permeate our culture where Sci-fi is not that standardized or prevalent. Star Wars comes close but that can lead to trouble in that you can have players who expect light sabers in everything.

So, Fantasy fairly standard. Sci-fi, not so much.

Bill

I think the hard SF/soft SF thing is actually somewhat off the point. At least for me. I grew up in the 70s reading SF, and it was a very broad church at that time. Whether or not the science was plausible wasn't the issue. The issue was that SF examined society in a speculative way, using some sort of change in our basic assumptions to make a point, or to make you think.

So even Heinlein's juvenilia would contain some sort of change in society that questioned the way we lived (among the adventures of the protagonists). 'The Roads Must Roll' made me think about the way cars had changed the face of the Earth and how it could all change again one day.

The big change clearly dates from somewhere around Star Wars, because after that SF was about rockets and lasers; ie the trappings rather than the speculation. Traveller, Star Frontiers and Burning Empires aren't so very different. They don't really question much. They're about having adventures in space.

Quote from: droogI think the hard SF/soft SF thing is actually somewhat off the point. At least for me. I grew up in the 70s reading SF, and it was a very broad church at that time. Whether or not the science was plausible wasn't the issue. The issue was that SF examined society in a speculative way, using some sort of change in our basic assumptions to make a point, or to make you think.

I try to do that as a GM. I think game design is the wrong level for that - make an interesting universe, and I can find interesting questions for my players to address.

-clash

QuoteThe issue was that SF examined society in a speculative way, using some sort of change in our basic assumptions to make a point, or to make you think.

Which means that a game either has to have a built-in question, or it needs to be supplied by the players. I know there's a Forge game called Shock that's billed as offering tools for developing and playing out questions, but that's all I can say about the game having neither read nor played it.

But aren't there a few games, maybe not brand-new, that do offer built-in questions? Paranoia? SLA Industries?

Quote from: droogThe big change clearly dates from somewhere around Star Wars, because after that SF was about rockets and lasers; ie the trappings rather than the speculation. Traveller, Star Frontiers and Burning Empires aren't so very different. They don't really question much. They're about having adventures in space.

Really? In reading up other's logs and running through the rules that World Burning, although usually only one or two sessions out of the campaign, has a huge chunk of "ok, assuming this concept for tech and this topology and politics and social attitudes what kind of influence will they have on each other and what kind of social conditions are going to be pervasive and what conflicts are going to come from that"? Then you play out the conflicts in that world(s) with what you came up with as the "terrain".

Now it isn't as detailed as those works you talk about. It isn't a social simulator, if that is what you are looking for? By that I mean that the game still revolves around a handful of key people, even if they are commanding armies, nations, and fleets and so forth. Maybe you are looking for a scope another step yet away from the personal connection to a character that is normally found in RPGs?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalHowever, apparently, in gamer circles, the term "Hard SF" simply means that at some point someone tried to be realistic.

One of my gamer friends who used to review SF for a local daily once said this to me. I think it's very true and my floundering prep for my alien sf  campaign is evidence of this. It's a mentality which is hard to shake off .

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI'd like to see a nearest-future scifi RPG that's so hard/mundane it's not even based on fiction [...]

So, a mission to Mars, for example. Months and months of astronaut training, and then a whole year on route. Repairing a satellite dish is this major endeavor, and halfway through the Soviet-built toilet gives up the ghost. If they're lucky they even survive the actual landing. [...]

I'd be delighted to play or run such a game. I've offered all the gamers I know in person a game based on the excellent BBC mini-series, Space Odyssey: Voyage to the Planets, about an international expedition which takes a grand tour of the solar system, from Venus to Pluto.


No takers.

I think it's as others have said, to really enjoy it you'd have to know quite a lot, and people don't want their hobby to become work. If I were to search around my whole city, there'd be enough people around interested to make a game group, I guess - but same as always, everyone wants to play, no-one wants to GM.

The other problem is the flipside to this - to really enjoy the game, layers would have to know something about the science; but if the players know enough about the game setting, and especially if the setting's "realistic", they're going to argue with the GM about this or that detail. This is something that smacks a lot of historical campaigns in the guts, or even history-based games like Ars Magica. You love it because it's realistic, and you argue with the GM about its realism. The very reason you love the thing is the very reason you gut it.

I've offered games online, too, but also not enough takers. Take for example my "traveller trading game in the modern day" idea - very popular idea. But there's a difference between getting a bunch of geeks to say, "wow, cool idea, man!" and getting them to actually play the thing. Translating geek enthusiasm to geek action is often difficult.

All in all, it becomes simpler just to roll up some adventurers and go kill orcs.

That said, if anyone here would play, I'd run it

Quote from: flyingmiceI try to do that as a GM. I think game design is the wrong level for that - make an interesting universe, and I can find interesting questions for my players to address.

I know that's your credo, Clash, but it's not the point. Undoubtedly there are people doing this, and as Elliot mentioned, there are such games out there (Transhuman Space gets mentioned a lot, for example).

Balbinus is asking why this sort of SF isn't popular, and I think, implicitly, how it can be made more popular. One of the answers given is that it's hard to do unless you have a doctorate in physics. My point on that was simply that there was a time when SF wasn't about science so much as it was about speculation. It's not a System Matters debate.

Quote from: Dominus NoxI don't see why traveller is ruled out of "hard sf" due to the jump drive, unless you want a "hard sf" game to be limited to one solar system you need some from of ftl, and at least traveller has a consistent one.

The problem is that the mathematics of Special Relativity includes a concept called the Light Cone.  The important bit is where it talks about, "In general relativity, the future light cone is the boundary of the causal future of a point and the past light cone is the boundary of its causal past."  See also the links for the Minkowski Diagram and Minkowski Space.

Basically, anything that falls outside of the light cone, which most FTL travel lets you do, can violate causality.  Violating causality is stuff like killing your grandfather or sending yourself a message before you leave.  It's the recipe for creating a paradox.  I think most people assume that physics will prohibit paradoxes and even things that can create potential paradoxes.

There are ways that might possibly allow FTL travel while not violating causality.  They often involve travel from two identical frames of references (roughly, two places in space where time is traveling at the same "speed" -- it's not consistent across space) and  usually requires an instantaneous jump or tunnel, which is why things like wormholes usually come into play as candidates for plausible FTL travel.  But what this ultimately means is that any FTL drive that doesn't involve an instantaneous jump or something like a wormhole between two identical frames of reference (e.g., warp drive, lots of movie hyperdrives, etc.) is pretty much fantasy, not science at this point.

Since most people don't have a relativistic model of the universe in their heads and don't even now what a Lorentz Transformation is, you can often just hand-wave the causality problems away and allow FTL drive.  But science that really ain't.

Or, in summary, most FTL schemes from classic science fiction violate the accepted principles of modern physics.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhich means that a game either has to have a built-in question, or it needs to be supplied by the players. I know there's a Forge game called Shock that's billed as offering tools for developing and playing out questions, but that's all I can say about the game having neither read nor played it.

But aren't there a few games, maybe not brand-new, that do offer built-in questions? Paranoia? SLA Industries?

I haven't laid eyes on Shock yet, either. It sounds like a radical solution that isn't going to satisfy a lot of people.

And yes, there are games (though Paranoia I'd see as satire rather than SF), but either their implementation isn't working or there really is a ceiling on the popularity of speculative fiction. Could be a Zeitgeist thing.