Have you run scifi campaigns without any form of psychic powers to serve as the system's 'magic'? Were players frustrated or disappointed? Did the absence of 'magic' cause unforeseen issues in the gameplay?
I have on a few occasions, Star trek being one (Pre next generations). Where it might exist but not for characters.
I find technology fills that "magic" sort of slot in the mysterious and powerful way.
My present game has it but I am running it like Babylon 5 with the primary control and training is done by the Imperium's Psy Cor. Wih being an unregistered psyche will get you killed.
I Only have one player who is a psyche and it seems to be fun since he has to balance discover versus use of it. Especially since it can be effected/detected by technology.
The StarCluster universe games have Psi powers, but the Cold Space games do not. It never seemed to matter to my players much. then again, we play a lot of straight historical games with no magic.
-clash
No, not really.
Most of my SF games have not included psychic powers as significant elements, even when they were part of the background (Traveller Third Imperium, Niven's Known Space). They're so much a part of Star Trek, Lensmen, Dune, and such, that I include them in such cases; but I basically regard them nowadays as "fantasy" like the old views of Venus and Mars.
I in general like them. There is enough SF writing that posits them as (semi) plausible in fiction, and that for me is awesome.
Of course, as always it depends on the setting.
I try to run SF towards the "harder" end of the scale, so no psi powers as such. I had some players ask about it, and I told them they had mail in their character's "junk" folder that said "Anyone can learn Psionics! Just send $89.99 to the Psionic Studies Institute for your free evaluation and starter kit! Individual psi potential may vary. Results not guaranteed. No refunds."
They decided against it.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Have you run scifi campaigns without any form of psychic powers to serve as the system's 'magic'?
Yes. I prefer them that way.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Were players frustrated or disappointed?
Initially, but then they adapted and found that the lack of psionics made the game more challenging and fun.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Did the absence of 'magic' cause unforeseen issues in the gameplay?
Nope.
I run sf straight -- no psychic or magic at all -- pretty much all the time. No complaints.
A thought I just had on this subject - in d20 based scifi, wouldn't the absence of mind-attacking psychic effects significantly devalue the Will save? What would be a good substitute?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722959A thought I just had on this subject - in d20 based scifi, wouldn't the absence of mind-attacking psychic effects significantly devalue the Will save? What would be a good substitute?
I used will saves for people to push themselves into stressful situations, such as moving while under direct fire or suppression, as well as for resisting insanity and fear saves and such. Not using psionics didn't devalue it much, IMO.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Have you run scifi campaigns without any form of psychic powers to serve as the system's 'magic'? Were players frustrated or disappointed? Did the absence of 'magic' cause unforeseen issues in the gameplay?
I prefer oddly enough seem to gravitate to sci-fi space settings without psi-powers at all.
Star Frontiers in particular. Albedo to a marginally lesser degree as there was on the fringe a single rare psi-ability to make people and AIs "ignore" the user. Functional invisibility. Not a power the PCs would ever have.
At best I am ok with empathy and some telepathy, especially if there are alien races that normal communication is impossible with. Others in the grey area would be low level precog and spacial awareness powers while at the extreme end being telekinesis. Again more acceptible if the race lacks normal manipulative appendages.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Have you run scifi campaigns without any form of psychic powers to serve as the system's 'magic'? Were players frustrated or disappointed? Did the absence of 'magic' cause unforeseen issues in the gameplay?
Yes. No. No.
Most of my roleplaying game experience doesn't involve 'powers.'
My players expect psychics to be able to do anything from Star Wars, to creepy River type stuff, to X-Files / Lovecraft type material. They also expect that a character can be one of those things and not the others. As long as all three are present, they are happy. Leave one out and they will only want to play that.
Unless they're buying into a known brand--e.g. Macross--where player-accessible powers are not a thing, my experience has that players do demand that they be there. The reason, after many frustrating years of this shit, is as simple as this: without powers, your man is nothing more than his gear and his stats, and it's the gear that matters more than the stats most of the time- and no amount of personality, relationship, etc. matters vs. whether or not you've got the right tools for the job when and where you need to use them. (The old "knock out BA to get on the plane" dance is totally acceptable to most gamers.)
This is why RIFTS has its fucking resilient and loyal user base, and why SF always gets beaten by Fantasy in gaming: Powers Fucking Matter.
I've found that players often don't know how to play them.
When people's default expectations for Science Fiction include psychic space magic... ...shit has gone off the rails.
Quote from: Planet Algol;722988When people's default expectations for Science Fiction include psychic space magic... ...shit has gone off the rails.
Sad to say this, but most people can't tell the difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy because they don't know enough about science to begin with.
"quantum telepathy"...
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722959A thought I just had on this subject - in d20 based scifi, wouldn't the absence of mind-attacking psychic effects significantly devalue the Will save? What would be a good substitute?
*shrugs* Just about any milieu has elements that favor one style of play over another. Low tech fantasy places a premium on brute strength. High tech SF places a premium on speed over strength in combat and greatly emphasizes intelligence across the board, where at minimum there's pressure on even the grunts to get
some manner of technical skill to hold up their end of things. As in any other milieu, you go with the stats and abilities that make sense and low-ball those that don't.
The obvious answer to your question, then, is "Stipulating that it does, so what?"
Quote from: jeff37923;722990Sad to say this, but most people can't tell the difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy because they don't know enough about science to begin with.
"Most people" including many Science Fiction authors. ;)
JG
I haven't run a lot of SF (unless you count Rifts as SF, which I in good conscience just can't), but that which I have, had no magic or psionics.
Quote from: James Gillen;723003"Most people" including many Science Fiction authors. ;)
...and GMs.
Quote from: Planet Algol;722995"quantum telepathy"...
Deepak Chopra, or rather his lawyer, called. No idea what he wanted. ;)
It's about 50-50 in my experience. Some players like the spiritual and mystical aspects of psionics in the midst of high tech wonderlands, some get the same feeling of wonder from the tech itself and other aspects of the setting.
I like pseudo crossover concepts like the technomages in B5, that's clever, and also primitive or tribal secret magical weirdness running as an undercurrent in the darker corners of the galaxy. Our ancestors knew some pretty peculiar stuff, like how we just discovered Stonehenge is actually a muscial instrument of some sort, to say nothing of the strange bellstone constructions in South Africa.
With that said, I once played in a fantasy campaign that was deliberately zero magic and I found it to be a shockingly compelling experience. Playing without a magical option or safety net is quite a thing.
I'm sitting in the "why the hell would you want PSI/magic in a sci-fi setting" boat.
It's the bit I glossed over and neglected to tell players about when we did Eclipse Phase.
It's the bit of Traveller I ignore.
Possibly why I don't do Star Wars RPGs.
I'm happy either way. I enjoy reading solid, though-provoking sci-fi but when it comes to gaming I'm all about the soft sci-fi with pew-pew lasers, rubber suit aliens and rampaging killer-robots. That is what brings joy to my gamer heart.
In that context a little psionics is hardly a stretch, it is firmly part of the soft sci-fi tropes and it's likely to broaden the appeal of the game.
Sci Fi really does have psi in it as a genre without being space fantasy. There is a whole sub genre of it in science fiction. Just because someone wants to draw the line elsewhere doesn't mean it hasn't been a part of actual literary science fiction for over half a century.
There is a line of course where you go overboard and have left science fiction--but that doesn't mean all psychic phenomena in fiction is (inherently) turning the Science Fiction into Science Fantasy.
Quote from: Silverlion;723044There is a line of course where you go overboard and have left science fiction--but that doesn't mean all psychic phenomena in fiction is (inherently) turning the Science Fiction into Science Fantasy.
Yeah, anyone talking about hard sci-fi regarding settings more than a hundred years in the future is talking nonsense I reckon. We have no clue whatsoever about the kind of tech that will be available 500 years from now, what advancements will have been made etc.
What hard sci-fi really means is "stuff that has been invented/discovered or is likely to be invented/discovered within my lifetime", which to me is as much of a fantastical viewpoint as factoring in psionics, given the accelerating pace of advancement.
If we can't envision it or plot a direct line of engineering milestones between the very little we know today and some hypothetical future tech, purists file it under soft sci-fi for no better reason than ignorance of the degree to which serendipity has played a role in making modern technologies possible, or even imaginable.
Mostly what the concept of hard sci-fi has led to is a long series of profoundly dated feeling sci-fi books, movies and settings.
Quote from: jeff37923;722990Sad to say this, but most people can't tell the difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy because they don't know enough about science to begin with.
This is not always the case.
There exists individuals with legitimate bona fide science backgrounds, who are advocates of pseudoscience and other "fantasy" type stuff. One infamous case is Brian Josephson, who was the 1973 Nobel prize winner in physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson
Quote from: jeff37923;722990Sad to say this, but most people can't tell the difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy because they don't know enough about science to begin with.
Sad to say this, but most people, jeff37923 included, can't tell the
actual difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy because they don't know what makes a work Science Fiction. (Hint: "having plausible/real/correct science in it" is NOT the correct answer.)
Quote from: Premier;723062Sad to say this, but most people, jeff37923 included, can't tell the actual difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy because they don't know what makes a work Science Fiction. (Hint: "having plausible/real/correct science in it" is NOT the correct answer.)
I have no idea what the difference is either. But I also don't see much to be gained by making the distinction.
Quote from: Planet Algol;722995"quantum telepathy"...
I read that and remembered all those stories and articles from the 80's that erroneously declared that quantum mechanics explained why magic exists.
Kinda like today when people say nanotech = magic = post-scarcity economy.
Quote from: James Gillen;723003"Most people" including many Science Fiction authors. ;)
JG
Yes.
Wonder how many sci-fi authors/writers actually have a background in science.
(Ones I can think of offhand).
- Isaac Asimov was a chemistry professor at Boston University.
- Arthur C. Clarke has a degree in math and physics from King's College London.
- E.E. "Doc" Smith had a degree in chemical engineering from University of Idaho and later worked as a chemist.
Quote from: Premier;723062Sad to say this, but most people, jeff37923 included, can't tell the actual difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy because they don't know what makes a work Science Fiction. (Hint: "having plausible/real/correct science in it" is NOT the correct answer.)
Science fantasy gives a scientific veneer of realism to things that simply could not happen in the real world under any circumstances - where science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements; science fantasy explicitly relies upon them.
And yes, "having plausible/real/correct science in it" is important for that distinction.
Quote from: ggroy;723103Wonder how many sci-fi authors/writers actually have a background in science.
(Ones I can think of offhand).
- Isaac Asimov was a chemistry professor at Boston University.
- Arthur C. Clarke has a degree in math and physics from King's College London.
- E.E. "Doc" Smith had a degree in chemical engineering from University of Idaho and later worked as a chemist.
Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Alastair Reynolds, Gregory Benford, Robert A. Heinlein, just off the top of my head.
Quote from: ggroy;723103Wonder how many sci-fi authors/writers actually have a background in science.
(Ones I can think of offhand).
- Isaac Asimov was a chemistry professor at Boston University.
- Arthur C. Clarke has a degree in math and physics from King's College London.
- E.E. "Doc" Smith had a degree in chemical engineering from University of Idaho and later worked as a chemist.
Add Travis S. Taylor to the list. He still spends most of his time working in the sciences.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Have you run scifi campaigns without any form of psychic powers to serve as the system's 'magic'?
Yes.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Were players frustrated or disappointed?
No.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Did the absence of 'magic' cause unforeseen issues in the gameplay?
No.
SciFi games can run with or without Psionics quite easily. In many cases, technology and flashy gadgets take the place of magic - if you have Teleports, Healing Chambers and Mind Probes then a lot of Psionics is unnecessary.
However, as someone who has had some paranormal experiences (neither repeatable nor independently verified, so not up to scientific standard), I have no problems whatsoever in having Psionics in a SciFi game.
Quote from: SionEwig;723130Add Travis S. Taylor to the list. He still spends most of his time working in the sciences.
Stephen Baxter, Ben Bova, and Robert Zubrin as well.
Jeff, I'm afraid you're conflating a bit too much hard science fiction genre with general science fiction genre. Going by your, mistaken I'm afraid definition of genre, Philip K Dick wrote science fantasy.
As for OP - If we were to run a hard sci - fi game, no psionics'd be assumed.
Quote from: jeff37923;723106Science fantasy gives a scientific veneer of realism to things that simply could not happen in the real world under any circumstances - where science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements; science fantasy explicitly relies upon them.
And yes, "having plausible/real/correct science in it" is important for that distinction.
The problem is one Nobel Laureate's "impossible" is another Nobel Laureate's "possible but we just don't know how yet".
Nanotechnology - Science or Fantasy?
Brain to Computer Interfaces - Science or Fantasy?
Artificial Intelligence - Science or Fantasy?
Classic Science Fiction is all about proposing a new technology and then exploring it's impact/influence on the human condition and such technology isn't always based on existing science. Going back to early or proto science fiction that includes works like Frankenstein.
I honestly don't give much of a crap whether the physics behind a sci-fi setting are absolutely "right" according to the current theories of our time or not. I guess that some people worry about the inner workings of a gravity well encountered in the game the same way others bitch at the damage of different kinds of weapons in the game in the name of "realism", but that's not why I'm playing role playing games.
I guess you could chalk me up as good public, with a relatively low threshold required for immersion and verisimilitude in the game world compared to others. I just prefer to worry about the situations my character is in, whatever interactions are going on, the problems being faced, the cool moments as they emerge from game play, rather than analyze every aspect of the setting in order to figure out whether I can show off my creds as a critic or not during the game session.
Likewise when I run a game. I'm more interested in the game's potential in terms of gameability, role playing, cool factors and whether or not I'd like to role play in this world. Not to mention, certain discrepancies might actually be occasions in disguise, things to build upon and question via the game, and I will tend to prefer this kind of approach rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Which might sound ironic, because according to the Forgists I'm this ARGLE-BARGLE Simulationist type of dude who's only interested in verisimirealitudiness.
Now, can I do sci-fi without psychics? Sure, why not!
Can I do sci-fi with psychics? Sure, why not!
Quote from: Planet Algol;722988When people's default expectations for Science Fiction include psychic space magic... ...shit has gone off the rails.
Or actually realistic science fiction would be boring as hell, especially from a gaming standpoint. I'm all for power armor, lightsabers, and the Force in my games.
If one insists on precise scientific accuracy, then in principle they should not be wasting their time with sci-fi type stuff. They would be better off reading high level university textbooks on such scientific topics.
Problem is with using the hard sci-fi definition here is that usually books like Foundation top the list, which Asimov's work is filled with psionics.
Quote from: dragoner;723196Problem is with using the hard sci-fi definition here is that usually books like Foundation top the list, which Asimov's work is filled with psionics.
I'm not sure _Foundation_ has ever been described as hard science fiction despite there being two distinct definitions (fiction that concentrates on the ramifications technological rather than social developments or fiction that postulates only advances that are considered possible by current science).
Quote from: Brad J. Murray;723207I'm not sure _Foundation_ has ever been described as hard science fiction despite there being two distinct definitions (fiction that concentrates on the ramifications technological rather than social developments or fiction that postulates only advances that are considered possible by current science).
Read 'em and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction Foundation tops the list.
I've heard many different interpretations of what hard sci-fi is, some being the where the science becomes the central theme of the story; that wouldn't play well for an rpg though.
Quote from: dragoner;723210Read 'em and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction Foundation tops the list.
That's an odd list; there are a lot on there that I wouldn't call hard sf but that just tells us how feeble the term is I guess. Maybe one good definition could be "sf that feels like it's a possible future of our world". _Star Wars_, for example, doesn't fit (for me). _Foundation_ kind of does, sort of, maybe. _Dragons's Egg_ certainly does.
Quote from: Brad J. Murray;723213That's an odd list; there are a lot on there that I wouldn't call hard sf but that just tells us how feeble the term is I guess. Maybe one good definition could be "sf that feels like it's a possible future of our world". _Star Wars_, for example, doesn't fit (for me). _Foundation_ kind of does, sort of, maybe. _Dragons's Egg_ certainly does.
Rod Serling's definition: "Science Fiction is the improbable made possible." To me Star Wars is science fantasy, it fits the definition there, though never say never. I've seen the term hard science mangled about as many times as I've seem science mangled; I think it gets over used. The thing I find with psionics, is that it seems to attract the kind of player that wants unlimited power.
Quote from: dragoner;723223The thing I find with psionics, is that it seems to attract the kind of player that wants unlimited power.
In a more general sense, do such players fit into a particular personality profile?
Offline and unrelated to rpg games, the type of people I've known over the years who were into getting as much power as possible (such as in their workplaces), were frequently individuals who were also "control freak" types.
Quote from: jeff37923;723106Science fantasy gives a scientific veneer of realism to things that simply could not happen in the real world under any circumstances - where science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements; science fantasy explicitly relies upon them.
And yes, "having plausible/real/correct science in it" is important for that distinction.
Well, sort-of-kind-of for the magic and supernatural thing, not quite so much for the rest.
Sci-fi is
rational, that's what sets it apart from Fantasy (Science or otherwise). The featured technology can be utter bullshit and the author doesn't even need to provide a vague semblance of 'proper explanation' - as long as the story presents a rational description of how that technology would be used, how it would transform society, cultural values or the meaning of "humanity", it's science fiction.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Have you run scifi campaigns without any form of psychic powers to serve as the system's 'magic'? Were players frustrated or disappointed? Did the absence of 'magic' cause unforeseen issues in the gameplay?
2300 is about the only one. They didn't seem frustrated and the only real problem was lethality.
As for the rest of the thread, I think we live in a fantasy world now. I mean in the last 200 years we have learned to fly, harness the power of the atom, dramatically increase lifespans, made most infants survive to adulthood, re-attached severed limbs, attached someone else's limbs to people missing limbs, developed telepathy (from radio to cell phones), created a group memory that most everyone can tap into with something they carry in their pocket (internet), and all that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I can only imagine what the next 50 years will bring, much less further than that. I prefer Science Fantasy because adding in magic and seeing where that takes us is more logical than deciding that what we know now is somehow a hard limit. Science is the tool we use to create new magic, not the harness around it.
see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
Quote from: Premier;723227Sci-fi is rational, that's what sets it apart from Fantasy (Science or otherwise). The featured technology can be utter bullshit and the author doesn't even need to provide a vague semblance of 'proper explanation' - as long as the story presents a rational description of how that technology would be used, how it would transform society, cultural values or the meaning of "humanity", it's science fiction.
Sci-fi is the art of making up good excuses. I wanted underwater blasters so I lit on the idea of SASERS (acoustic sonic laser which are a real thing), then turned them into supercavitating death rays which phosphoresce blue green light as they blast through the water at the speed of sound in air, the preferred weapon of submariners. There's a nice rotating muzzle effect going on too. Bullshit yes, but high grade luxury bullshit.
Quote from: The Traveller;723237Bullshit yes, but high grade luxury bullshit.
I think "bullshit" is a pretty good definition of hard sf, in the sense that we usually use the word "bullshit" and not just to mean lying. Rather to mean lying plausibly and interestingly.
Quote from: ggroy;723226In a more general sense, do such players fit into a particular personality profile?
Offline and unrelated to rpg games, the type of people I've known over the years who were into getting as much power as possible (such as in their workplaces), were frequently individuals who were also "control freak" types.
They could be control freaks, or latent ones; but usually they don't know how to manage what they get. Either it mary sue's the character and it is boring, or they just don't know what to do.
Quote from: Brad J. Murray;723240I think "bullshit" is a pretty good definition of hard sf, in the sense that we usually use the word "bullshit" and not just to mean lying. Rather to mean lying plausibly and interestingly.
Good to see we have people who misunderstand the genre(s) and/or are needlessly disparaging about them on both sides of this argument.
(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/6ptqiuS.gif)
Quote from: Rincewind1;723244Good to see we have people who misunderstand the genre(s) and/or are needlessly disparaging about them on both sides of this argument.
I don't see it as disparaging at all. If you can sell it well enough, it will fly as hard sf. "Bullshit" shouldn't be seen as strictly negative.
Quote from: Brad J. Murray;723246I don't see it as disparaging at all. If you can sell it well enough, it will fly as hard sf. "Bullshit" shouldn't be seen as strictly negative.
Indeed, I put a lot of effort into my bullshit and I'm quite proud of it.
Quote from: dragoner;723210Read 'em and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction Foundation tops the list.
I've heard many different interpretations of what hard sci-fi is, some being the where the science becomes the central theme of the story; that wouldn't play well for an rpg though.
Things like this are examples of how the accepted definitions of genres change over the years. I'm pretty sure
Foundation was considered hard SF when it came out. I've often seen Niven's
Known Space stories on lists of hard SF tales, in spite of physical impossibilities like psionics, FTL travel, reactionless thrusters, teleportation (not the psionic kind), and the list goes on.
This happens in other sub-genres of SF, as well. There's an excellent history of space opera over io9. (of all places!) Space opera been through a helluva lot of changes over the years. (Minor quibble: their space opera timeline goes back to 1901, decades before the term "space opera" itself even existed. Does that even make sense?) My point is, it's hard to pin down a solid definition for a genre, or sub-genre, when the definition keeps changing and older material that doesn't really fit the "current" definition at all gets "grandfathered" in, so to speak.
Myself, I just decided to stop arguing about it, and put up a bigger tent. All these ultra-narrow definitions and arguments about what fits and what doesn't remind me too much of "edition warring" and piss me off. It all boils down to "My SF is better than your SF" and I don't have time for that shit any more.
http://io9.com/5896893/major-highlights-in-the-history-of-space-opera
Got to agree, X. I am certain that van Vogt's _Voyage of the Space Beagle_ was hard as diamond sf in its day, but today it's wonderfully retro science nonsense. But glorious and sciencey -- like "chocolatey" or "jazzy".
I'm not a real big fan of the term "hard sci-fi".
What would be good examples of modern hard sci-fi?
I've heard it applied to Robinson's Mars trilogy, I'd say it isn't though, but whatever.
Offhand I can't think of any.
Though if one assumes a world where P is equal to NP, the tv show Person of Interest might actually be hard sci-fi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
(There's many reasons to suspect that P is not equal to NP).
Quote from: Brander;7232292300 is about the only one. They didn't seem frustrated and the only real problem was lethality.
As for the rest of the thread, I think we live in a fantasy world now. I mean in the last 200 years we have learned to fly, harness the power of the atom, dramatically increase lifespans, made most infants survive to adulthood, re-attached severed limbs, attached someone else's limbs to people missing limbs, developed telepathy (from radio to cell phones), created a group memory that most everyone can tap into with something they carry in their pocket (internet), and all that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I can only imagine what the next 50 years will bring, much less further than that. I prefer Science Fantasy because adding in magic and seeing where that takes us is more logical than deciding that what we know now is somehow a hard limit. Science is the tool we use to create new magic, not the harness around it.
see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
As I said in my review of Shadowrun 5th Edition, when that game first came out, the idea of a world with corporations being supreme over government, widening income disparity and people going anarchist and taking quasi-legal jobs to keep themselves alive was also considered science fiction.
JG
Quote from: ggroy;723299What would be good examples of modern hard sci-fi?
Silent Running?
Not sure how modern that is, though.
JG
Quote from: Rincewind1;723156Jeff, I'm afraid you're conflating a bit too much hard science fiction genre with general science fiction genre. Going by your, mistaken I'm afraid definition of genre, Philip K Dick wrote science fantasy.
For some of his stories, I have to agree. Then again, so did some of my favorite authors like Harlan Ellison, David Gerrold, Arthur C. Clarke, Robert A. Heinlein, H. Beam Piper, the list goes on.
Quote from: CRKrueger;723169The problem is one Nobel Laureate's "impossible" is another Nobel Laureate's "possible but we just don't know how yet".
Nanotechnology - Science or Fantasy?
Brain to Computer Interfaces - Science or Fantasy?
Artificial Intelligence - Science or Fantasy?
Classic Science Fiction is all about proposing a new technology and then exploring it's impact/influence on the human condition and such technology isn't always based on existing science. Going back to early or proto science fiction that includes works like Frankenstein.
A lot depends on how it is done. There is a way to explore emergant technology in a dramatic and logical manner through fiction that does not resort to suddenly saying that this or that New Thing is "magic".
Quote from: ggroy;723299What would be good examples of modern hard sci-fi?
Quote from: James Gillen;723328Silent Running?
Not sure how modern that is, though.
JG
I love that movie, but Oh fuck no it is not hard SF.
The anime
Planetes qualifies as Hard SF. So would the movies
Brainstorm,
Gattaca, and
Deep Impact.
Quote from: ggroy;723299What would be good examples of modern hard sci-fi?
Well the term has a couple of different applications.
(Also, although Forrest J. Ackerman meant well when he coined "sci-fi," it is in my experience rather a pejorative in SF fandom, applied to Hollywood productions and such that borrow superficial trappings with no regard for the deeper ethos.)
One application, perhaps less current nowadays, identified 'soft' SF as treating subjects in the psychological and social sciences (as opposed to 'hard' ones such as physics and chemistry). By that measure, such things as Ursula Le Guin's
The Left Hand of Darkness, Philip Dick's
Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said, and Harlan Ellison's "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman" might fall into the category of 'soft' SF.
More often, it's a judgement on how much of the story depends on extrapolation from current science and technology. Jules Verne's work was to a large extent so 'hard' in this sense that it was just a step ahead of history. H.G. Wells, partly because he was more interested in examining social consequences, went further afield. Precisely how his "time machine" might be constructed is of little concern; what matters for the story is the premise that -- somehow or other -- it works.
Robert L. Forward and
Charles Sheffield, both professional physicists, stand in contrast for the extent to which their works depend for instance upon Einstein's relativity theory. Sheffield, IIRC, once wrote that a story that does not really depend upon scientific speculation is not really what he would call proper SF at all, but such centrality is more often grounds for calling a work 'hard' SF.
In my sci-fi games, magic use will always have some technological explanation for how it works. It just looks like magic to those not-in-the-know.
My players have no expectations of psychic powers in a sci-fi game, though I do usually have them.