This has long been a problem for me when I attempt to GM science fiction games. It will occasionally come up during contemporary games as well. I'm the first to admit that my scientific knowledge and math skills are average at best. My forte is found within the social sciences. It might be one reason that I prefer fantasy games. I don't have to deal with the scientific realm at all.
How many times have you been running a game and you've been called on the math or science behind something you are presenting in the game?
Has it ever caused a game to crash or grind to a halt as the group debates the situation?
How do you deal with this situation during a game?
How do you lessen the chances of it happening in the first place?
Discuss....
I never have had a problem with it, in spite of having an actual rocket scientist; another physicist, and a mathematician in the group. I'm technically bent myself, so I guess there's the difference.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;518877I'm technically bent myself, so I guess there's the difference.
-clash
that means something els in the UK ...:)
We would say
of a tecnical bent .... a country separated by the same language indeed.
I haven't had this happen specifically in a science fiction setting, but I could see it potentially happening. However, I don't see this as being too much different from "What about this vague rule that I found in the subscript of page 114 in this obscure handbook?"
Only advice I have is to keep a laptop/computer/ipad/something nearby to run a quick google on it.
I wouldn't suggest avoiding these potential issues, having them come up can open new discussion and perhaps inspire future adventures.
My games feature plenty of obviously bad science. Once players figure out that finding logical flaws in my technobabble is like shooting fish in a barrel they generally stop worrying about it and just get on with the shooting of the alien scum.
I've seen the same thing come up when playing with 'gun nuts' at the table... and with people who just HAD to point out that the GM's layout of the Denver airport was all wrong since they had been there and the concourse ran N-S rather than E-W and blah blah fuckity blah...
Our current group has the self-identified OCD guy who can't let an opportunity pass that might allow him to point out something so that we know that he knows it.
Really, I think you have to play a game the same 'suspension of disbelief' as when viewing a movie or reading a book... otherwise you should be reading a textbook somewhere.
It's also wise on the GM's part is he doesn't get to specific about how the hyper-drive works.
Quote from: jibbajibba;518880that means something els in the UK ...:)
We would say of a tecnical bent .... a country separated by the same language indeed.
:D I can't believe he said that.
My main group includes an IT guy, an electrical engineer, a pharmacist, a physicist pursuing a PhD, a waiter/restaurant manager, and I work for a ticket brokerage as a technician, manager, and jack-of-all-trades. Academically I have more of a background in history (American/American border culture and more general European) and some basic engineering.
The IT guy has never commented on the software/hacking stuff, the electrical engineer never comments on his focus or more generalized mechanical/structural engineering (which despite his focus, all engineers are taught at a basic level), the pharmacist never comments on chemistry, the physicist never comments on hyper-drives or how hovercrafts work, the waiter never comments on practicality of the service or kitchen operations of the local tavern, and I don't comment on microeconomics or whether Abraham Lincoln was suited for hunting vampires.
SoD as a sort of general idea is important, but SoD is actually (IMO) a pretty poor concept in terms of describing how people relate to fictional stuff. It isn't about something necessarily seeming real -- you can be completely aware of how everything that's happening is impossible or ludicrous, even within the context of a contemporary or "real world" setting, and still be deeply engaged with the imaginary stuff. As long as something isn't jarring within the genre or game-world, it's all good. I think Tolkien wrote a good essay where he claims that SoD is only invoked when the author/creator has failed to construct a convincing "secondary world" -- where the rules of our world may not apply, but because it's consistent within itself, you can more readily accept what's in front of you.
I think what this is really about is managing expectations and making sure everyone is on the same page in terms of how you're emulating a given genre. Maybe Bob is commenting because he didn't realize you were dealing with the fictional details in a style that handwaves particular things. Now some folks are into commenting on every little detail and deconstructing the whole experience until nothing is left untouched, but I don't play with those sorts of people, since it's counter-productive to the whole imagination thing.
That all said, detail can be used to inspire cool things in your game and to engage your players on a deeper level. If I can bring in some actual pharmacy/chemistry details into a Call of Cthulhu scenario and the pharmacist gets to try to sort it out using his own wits, I think that's cool -- he gets to apply something he's knowledgeable about, and it really brings the player into the game.
Quote from: PaladinCA;518875This has long been a problem for me when I attempt to GM science fiction games. It will occasionally come up during contemporary games as well. I'm the first to admit that my scientific knowledge and math skills are average at best. My forte is found within the social sciences. It might be one reason that I prefer fantasy games. I don't have to deal with the scientific realm at all.
How many times have you been running a game and you've been called on the math or science behind something you are presenting in the game?
The only time it has happened to me is when an architect said that the building I had designed would fall down in real life. My answer? So what - it's a game.
Quote from: PaladinCA;518875Has it ever caused a game to crash or grind to a halt as the group debates the situation?
Generally not. People normally suspend belief somewhat for a game. It all depends on how picky people want to be,
Quote from: PaladinCA;518875How do you deal with this situation during a game?
Pick one of these responses:
Is it important?
Does it really affect the game itself?
OK, I'm not really familiar with the physics behind this, but it seems to work.
What is your problem?
Quote from: PaladinCA;518875How do you lessen the chances of it happening in the first place?
It depends on what kind of SciFi campaign you are running.
If it is a Hard SciFi campaign then the players might want everything to be scientifically based, so check things on Wikipedia.
If it is Space Opera/Space fantasy then things needn't be as detailed and you can handwave things away.
A Cyberpunk game relies on technology that we don't have today, so you should be able to invent whatever you want.
This can come up with anything, not just math and science. You might be running a modern crime game, you throw in some drug dealers and one of your players is a lawyer who knows drug laws or drug trade better than you. My players are generally pretty good about not disrupting game flow unless i make a major error that everybody notices. Generally i appreciate being corrected when i am wrong so long as the game itself doesn't get derailed (if a player makes a soft suggestion between major events or after the game that can be very helpful). I have also learned to identify what peoples' strengths are and ask for details on subjects that I am personally hazy about.
Quote from: PaladinCA;518875Has it ever caused a game to crash or grind to a halt as the group debates the situation?
This has happened a number of times.
The game collapsing and dying was frequently due to particular players who were very belligerent and confrontational in person. Whatever the subject in question, they were not much different than a hardcore rules lawyer or "canon" lawyer.
Quote from: PaladinCA;518875How do you lessen the chances of it happening in the first place?
The only solution was to not play any rpg games with these belligerent individuals. Outside of rpg gaming, these individuals were largely very unpleasant to be around with in the first place.
Quote from: PaladinCA;518875This has long been a problem for me when I attempt to GM science fiction games. It will occasionally come up during contemporary games as well. I'm the first to admit that my scientific knowledge and math skills are average at best. My forte is found within the social sciences. It might be one reason that I prefer fantasy games. I don't have to deal with the scientific realm at all.
My problem is the opposite, I have overwhelmed Players with the science and math in the past and had to tone it down or be in danger of losing the Players.
It is a trick to have just enough science to make the fiction seem believable.
(We should differentiate between science fiction like
Traveller and science fantasy like
Star Wars, or else a lot of this loses its meaning.)
Quote from: PaladinCA;518875How many times have you been running a game and you've been called on the math or science behind something you are presenting in the game?
Occassionally, usually it is by Rules Lawyer types and is not limited to science fiction RPGs. I had one Player in an
OSRIC game ask if he could use his infravision to detect footprints like a sensitive thermographic camera, but without the potential blindness from high heat sources since his character had eyelids.
Quote from: PaladinCA;518875Has it ever caused a game to crash or grind to a halt as the group debates the situation?
Sometimes, it depends on the individual. Some Players are far more obstinate and pig-headed than others. Some just don't understand the science and don't want to learn it or do not think that it has any bearing on the game.
Quote from: PaladinCA;518875How do you deal with this situation during a game?
If it looks like it will halt the game, then I ask that the discussion be tabled until after the game is over where it will be examined in depth over a few beers. If it looks like a quick and easily fixed discrepency, I just do it and go on.
Quote from: PaladinCA;518875How do you lessen the chances of it happening in the first place?
I do my homework.
What you get out of a RPG depends a lot on how much effort you put into the RPG. A world that is internally consistant and fleshed out can go a long way to helping immerse the Players in the game, which is a goal of mine.
If there are vacc suits in the game and charcters need a skill to use them, I look at what a vacc suit is today and extrapolate from there on how I can use the skill and item as a GM and a Player to help keep the game seem real and interesting and internally consistant.
I have studied Maths and Physics to a high level at this point yet I think science should not really intrude in a game but inventiveness borrowed from awesome documentaries should be encouraged - How I survived in an icy waste on my best friend's carcass kind of stuff.
I remember as a naive teenage player two contrasting scenarios with two separate DMs. The first DM allowed me to kill some sort of Loch Ness Monster with some canisters of oxygen which I exploded in the luckless creature's gob with excellent marksmanship. The second DM refused to allow me set fire to a log cabin in autumn for lack of suitable combustible material - essentially I had no lighter fuel or cans of petrol with me at the time.
Let's just say the outcomes of each game would have been reversed in the hands of the other DM. I can't say I minded much - variety being the spice of life.
So whatever the DM says goes and any player taking a game as an opportunity to show off some stuffy knowledge gets handed his ass.
Got no problem whatsoever asking players at the table. We're adults, and they know you're not God - you're not shattering any illusions by admitting you don't know something.
And yes, it's not restricted to maths or science.
One of the guys at my local gaming club is a firearms expert - he used to be an instructor for the police. He knows a heck of a lot more about guns than anybody at the table (this is Britain). He's always willing to offer advice on what would or wouldn't happen in a fire-fight and I'm happy to call on him to do that. It adds a lot of flavour and realism to the game which I wouldn't be able to provide.
Quote from: noisms;519040One of the guys at my local gaming club is a firearms expert - he used to be an instructor for the police. He knows a heck of a lot more about guns than anybody at the table (this is Britain). He's always willing to offer advice on what would or wouldn't happen in a fire-fight...
Why, how many fire-fights has he been in? :D Or is it just correcting Hollywood Physics - most bullets miss* even at short range, people may not even realise they've been shot, if they do realise they tend to stop fighting, bullets don't push you backwards, sort of stuff?
*I saw a figure that CO-19 police marksmen had a hit rate of just over 30%.
Re sf & Physics - I think it's hard to run hard SF if you don't have a basic GCSE level concept of Newtonian Physics. That objects keep moving at a constant velocity in a straight line unless acted on by a force, sort of level.
Quote from: S'mon;519144Re sf & Physics - I think it's hard to run hard SF if you don't have a basic GCSE level concept of Newtonian Physics. That objects keep moving at a constant velocity in a straight line unless acted on by a force, sort of level.
Yup, yup. And when Vipers in Battlestar Galactica run out of gas they come to a dead stop.
Quote from: S'mon;519144Why, how many fire-fights has he been in? :D Or is it just correcting Hollywood Physics - most bullets miss* even at short range, people may not even realise they've been shot, if they do realise they tend to stop fighting, bullets don't push you backwards, sort of stuff?
*I saw a figure that CO-19 police marksmen had a hit rate of just over 30%.
I think we know the Hollywood Physics stuff is wrong anyway, but he has an encyclopedic knowledge of modern firearms and their capabilities. It's always nice to be able to turn to him and say, "John, what's the rate of fire on an FN-FAL?" and get an immediate answer. I don't know how many fire-fights he's been in, but he's undoubtedly been in lots of mock fire-fights and also fired lots of guns, which is infinitely more than the experience the rest of the group has put together (i.e. 0).
I have another player who is a vet, and he comes in handy for animal-related questions. It's all grist for the mill.
I just insist on the "fiction" part of science fiction. It's speculative and that's all anyone needs to know about it.
Hey, people a thousand years ago thought they knew what it was all about. And nowadays we corrected their findings. A thousand or so years ago people will be doing the same about us.
So I just start my players out with, "Assume what you know about science is wrong and irrelevant to this new world, and accept what I'm saying about my setting is right. Your metagamed external scientific knowledge is irrelevant to my FTL/Time Travel/Space Station/etc. universe. Abide by this and everything will go smoothly."
Contemporary games can be harder, but my quick fix is running most of those under the monicker "Cinematic." Do that and it's all cured. If they ask why cinematic, ask them if they really want to file tax returns and navigate voice mail credit card statement inquiries in-game. You'll be surprised how amenable they'll become!
:D
Quote from: Opaopajr;519175So I just start my players out with, "Assume what you know about science is wrong and irrelevant to this new world, and accept what I'm saying about my setting is right. Your metagamed external scientific knowledge is irrelevant to my FTL/Time Travel/Space Station/etc. universe. Abide by this and everything will go smoothly."
Sometimes this can be used to the DM's advantage.
I remember one DM which did this in an evening one-shot pickup game of Traveller I played in.
Almost immediately, the really belligerent players yelled "fuck you" to the DM, got up and walked out. They didn't come back. The game was much more pleasant and enjoyable when these belligerent players were not around.
Quote from: Soylent Green;519145Yup, yup. And when Vipers in Battlestar Galactica run out of gas they come to a dead stop.
Inertial dampers obviously, they always activate when a viper power cell diminishes and as they run of their own sub-system a cunning engineer could even reroute the auxiliary power grid and use them to get an additional hour's life support :) RTFM :)
Seriously though the weird thing in BSG is how come in 3D (or 4D) space with no main directional gravity well everyone always flies in the same plane ??? what is with that??
Quote from: soltakss;518969The only time it has happened to me is when an architect said that the building I had designed would fall down in real life.
A gamer friend of mine is a Structural Engineer, she tells Architects that all the time in the course of her job... ;)
Quote from: Opaopajr;519175I just insist on the "fiction" part of science fiction. It's speculative and that's all anyone needs to know about it.
Hey, people a thousand years ago thought they knew what it was all about. And nowadays we corrected their findings. A thousand or so years ago people will be doing the same about us.
So I just start my players out with, "Assume what you know about science is wrong and irrelevant to this new world, and accept what I'm saying about my setting is right. Your metagamed external scientific knowledge is irrelevant to my FTL/Time Travel/Space Station/etc. universe. Abide by this and everything will go smoothly."
This is what I call the science fantasy approach and it works well with many groups. However, I liken it to playing tennis with the net down. :D
There can be a happy medium between the science and the fiction in science fiction.
Quote from: Soylent Green;519145Yup, yup. And when Vipers in Battlestar Galactica run out of gas they come to a dead stop.
Well, aren't you comparing two different kinds of media here? Television and RPGs? Unless you are saying that RPGs should be more like television or that television should be more like an RPG.
Quote from: ggroy;519186I remember one DM which did this in an evening one-shot pickup game of Traveller I played in.
Almost immediately, the really belligerent players yelled "fuck you" to the DM, got up and walked out. They didn't come back. The game was much more pleasant and enjoyable when these belligerent players were not around.
With this and your other stories, I nominate you having one of the most actively hostile gaming environments I've ever heard of. Your active groups either must have the patience of saints, or have learned the art of pro-active selectivity. Sad to see such bad social manners, and it would've been worse if it was in a FLGS.
Quote from: Opaopajr;519495Your active groups either must have the patience of saints, or have learned the art of pro-active selectivity.
For open tables and games held at local gaming stores (or nearby conventions), it was usually the former.
For other groups I'm aware of, it was usually the latter. After awhile, the locals usually had a good idea who to turn away.
Quote from: Opaopajr;519495Sad to see such bad social manners, and it would've been worse if it was in a FLGS.
I have no idea what makes these particular undesirable players tick. Never got to know any of them that well.
Outside of gaming, the only interactions I ever had with some of these individuals, was at the occasional happy hour.
Ironically, a few of them were much more pleasant to deal with when the subject of tabletop rpg games and other geek/nerd type fandom was not mentioned at all. It seems like when their geek/nerd "switch" is flicked on, they automatically turned into a maniacal raging hulk. :banghead:
Quote from: noisms;519157I think we know the Hollywood Physics stuff is wrong anyway, but he has an encyclopedic knowledge of modern firearms and their capabilities. It's always nice to be able to turn to him and say, "John, what's the rate of fire on an FN-FAL?" and get an immediate answer. I don't know how many fire-fights he's been in, but he's undoubtedly been in lots of mock fire-fights and also fired lots of guns, which is infinitely more than the experience the rest of the group has put together (i.e. 0).
Ah, right. Cheers. By UK standards I used to be a bit of a gun nut myself, though the only weapon I recall firing (in the '90s) was my army SA80/L85 assault rifle. Everyone said the SLR/FN-FAL they used in the Falklands War was a lot better.
The main things I noticed about live firing the SA80:
1. "Recoil" isn't really. The gun doesn't really push you back. What does happen is that the barrel jumps up, so you have to correct your aim after each shot. Presumably not having to do that is the main benefit of tripod/bipod weapons like the SAW. In the past six years or so I've finally seen shooter games that recognise that.
2. The biggest worry was always that the gun would jam. The way to get around that was to only put 28 rounds in the 30-round magazine.
3. Situations where you would actually want to fire on full-auto seemed very limited, basically only when assaulting through a position; in which case a grenade would probably be better & safer. Our training manual said something similar. Even during an assault it might be better to stick to semi-auto, rather than run out of ammunition at the critical point.
I'm glad that I brought this up. Good discussion.
The reason I ask is that while I have awesome players, they can sometimes nitpick the science behind something in a game. I can only do so much research on a particular scientific topic before my eyes glaze over.
I must be a completely different type of GM than the other blokes here. I always run a game with the concept that if a player can convince me that physics would have X happening, then the player can absolutely rely on such physics.
It has never caused a game to grind to a halt. Rather, it utterly prevents pixel bitching and gives the players a consistent and solid basis upon which to determine their actions. If I told a player that X wouldn't happen even if the physics were solidly in their favor, I would find that to be the epitome of pixel bitching.
Also, I learn things from time to time, which is a good thing.
Coming from an engineering background, I very rarely run into technical aspects I can't "handwave" away. Castle and especially medival mazes tend to frusterate the hell out of me, though ("It's Magic! That's why it's so difficult!" "Dude, the Wizard is lvl10. This dungeon would eat him up on the ground floor...").
I...have been the person to point out things wouldn't work in a superhero game though. Getting into orbit is more difficult than just going Mach 1 straight up...
My approach is always to look at the science, try to understand the science as best you can, then you can make an informed decision on what to change to suit your purposes.
I've spent some amount of time researching the physics of FTL, for instance, for Project 1701, even though in nature it's not intended to be a super hard SF game or setting. In the past I've discussed at great length the physics of plasma with actual physicists when trying to design a plasma weapon for a post-apocalyptic game.
I think that knowing the actual science enriches the fiction, even if in the end you've taken a step back from that science for the sake of doing what you want anyway. Sometimes though, you find things you didn't know that actually strengthen the fiction or offer additional consequences to how you're manhandling it, and those things would never be found if you didn't do your homework to begin with.
On the other hand, sometimes you really do just want to blast some 5 legged aliens with a laser pistol, and there's nothing wrong with that either.
My typical answers: "Its comic book physics". "Its fantasy science". "Its space opera science". "A wizard did it".
RPGPundit
Quote from: J Arcane;520140My approach is always to look at the science, try to understand the science as best you can, then you can make an informed decision on what to change to suit your purposes.
I've spent some amount of time researching the physics of FTL, for instance, for Project 1701, even though in nature it's not intended to be a super hard SF game or setting. In the past I've discussed at great length the physics of plasma with actual physicists when trying to design a plasma weapon for a post-apocalyptic game.
I think that knowing the actual science enriches the fiction, even if in the end you've taken a step back from that science for the sake of doing what you want anyway. Sometimes though, you find things you didn't know that actually strengthen the fiction or offer additional consequences to how you're manhandling it, and those things would never be found if you didn't do your homework to begin with.
On the other hand, sometimes you really do just want to blast some 5 legged aliens with a laser pistol, and there's nothing wrong with that either.
That's really admirable. I find myself doing that for social and cultural things instead, though. I guess I have enough technically minded friends around that I feel they can cover this and we can have a fun conversation speculating. So I felt it was in my best interests to pursue what interested me more in veracity.
But when it comes to playing a game, I kinda want to avoid heated speculation from overtaking the table. That's probably due to bad past experiences more than anything.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;518971This can come up with anything, not just math and science. You might be running a modern crime game, you throw in some drug dealers and one of your players is a lawyer who knows drug laws or drug trade better than you. My players are generally pretty good about not disrupting game flow unless i make a major error that everybody notices. Generally i appreciate being corrected when i am wrong so long as the game itself doesn't get derailed (if a player makes a soft suggestion between major events or after the game that can be very helpful). I have also learned to identify what peoples' strengths are and ask for details on subjects that I am personally hazy about.
I am fully with Brendan on this. Though I also don't have players that mind me telling them that it's "cinematic" or genre-appropriate logic at work.
Quote from: Soylent Green;519145Yup, yup. And when Vipers in Battlestar Galactica run out of gas they come to a dead stop.
You often see fighters in space opera or supposed sci-fi perform manoeuvres as if they're flying in some kind of atmosphere.