Technology as color in science fiction

[Callan S.]

As someone who tried to play in Star Trek, we ran into problems: Does the bridge crew really beam down? That doesn't sound smart. Is there military protocol (it's not displayed on the TV show, reall--no salute, very little 'Captain on the bridge,' etc). Who runs the ship when Kirk and co. are asleep (there'd need to be some more crew, we thought). And so on.

They don't have any toilets either. But then again that wasn't the point of the show, nor are those other things (by not being covered in the show)

At some level we expected SF worlds to make 'more sense' than fantasy ones.

In addition to M.J's thoughts on why sci fi is hard to run, perhaps its adding components to a genre which aren't compatible with that genre.

Just because something is a logical progression, like the bridge crew NOT beaming down, doesn't mean it fits the genre.

Sci fi tends to imply logic as part of the genre, but particular shows don't actually stand up to logic being applied to them. Basically an emphasis on one part of the genre (logic) is breaking the rest of the genre.

The answer, it would seem, is to apply logic to the same degree they do in that show your emulating. Like in M.J's example, they identify Khan as using 2D planning...but then do so themselves, pointlessly.

Personally I think it's possibly just gamism screwing up simulationism (as Rons essays sometimes note such occurances). It's 'I want to do better than they did in episode six...they were so stupid to do X, I'm not going to look stupid doing X!'. I mean, who would want to do that stupid 2D thing above?

But the fact is, once you start shaping it up and optimizing, you can't stop. You can't do that 2D thing but then go and do something else that is stupid but fits with the genre. Your going to keep optimising, and the genre doesn't have optimisation as part of it. Gamism is too addictive...partly because it makes sense.

[contracycle]

Sci fi tends to imply logic as part of the genre, but particular shows don't actually stand up to logic being applied to them. Basically an emphasis on one part of the genre (logic) is breaking the rest of the genre.

Yes.  Thats why it actually makes sense to consider Trek as just drama, or soap, not science fiction at all.  In Trek, the science elements are just colour, but this should most certainly not be seen as definitional of other SF.

The answer, it would seem, is to apply logic to the same degree they do in that show your emulating. Like in M.J's example, they identify Khan as using 2D planning...but then do so themselves, pointlessly.

Why do so with A SHOW at all, when you could be emulating a novel?

Shows have their own fixed limits.  For example, its technically very difficult to reproduce microgravity here on earth, so many shows conveniently assume the presence of artificial gravity without any explanation - or understanding any of the ramifications of what having a magic gravity machine would mean.  This is very much a case of the content being formed to fit the medium, not the artist bringing forth their creation.

Rob Carrier wrote:

A similar argument applies, I think, to the problem of playing a character in an SF setting. Certainly it is difficult for us to think through a three-dimensional combat, but is it more difficult than grasping the outlook of a 1,000-year old immortal elf? So again, I think the crucial distiction is that we're willing to accept verisimilitude over veracity for the portayal of the elf, but insist on the unattainable goal of veracity for the starship captain. Apples and oranges.

I disagree.  I have exactly as much difficulty relating to a 1000 year-old elf as with many funky SF concepts.  In fact I can confidantly say that I do not relate to a millenial immortal elf AT ALL; even less so than with many SF concepts.  And I'm so confident that this is not just me that I would happily say that others who claimed to be able to do so are dissembling.

As Marco points out he has virtual license to suck elf history out of his thumb.  This is because we all know that elf history is inevitably just colour, colour in the trivial sense.  Thus, nobody ever relates to the 1000 year old elf IMO - what they relate to is the dramatic impact of playing the role of an immortal, faux-wise elf.

In order to really explore the impact and consequences of this character identity, you would need to import some SF sensibilities - do some actual exploration of the Setting and Colour as serious topics.  Historical gaming, like some historical fiction, would probably be more akin to SF than stock fantasy in goals and methodologies, and I think the same applies when exporing some of the conventional elements of fantasy.  "What if... humans had always been psychic" is a perfectly valid SF setting premise even if the story that is actually told is set in the past.  You could have magicians and whatnot running around in feudal Europe and still call it science fiction, although at that poiunt 'speculative fiction' would fit better.

[Marco]

As someone who tried to play in Star Trek, we ran into problems: Does the bridge crew really beam down? That doesn't sound smart. Is there military protocol (it's not displayed on the TV show, reall--no salute, very little 'Captain on the bridge,' etc). Who runs the ship when Kirk and co. are asleep (there'd need to be some more crew, we thought). And so on.

They don't have any toilets either. But then again that wasn't the point of the show, nor are those other things (by not being covered in the show)

I don't know if you'd conclude that the modern-day nuclear submarine in Crimson Tide didn't have a head because it wasn't shown in the movie but I don't think that'd convince anyone submarines don't have those facilities.

When a work is translated from one medium to another there are some important things that one needs to do in order to "get a good translation." When moving from a TV show to an RPG there is some thought that needs to go into that as well.

You can say that "what the show is about" gives you a simple, pat answer to telling the group how to do a translation--but that's just a simple, pat answer. Consider that many people found the first two Harry Potter movies (an almost direct translation) to be, well, a bit pat and simplisitc.

If we presume that Star Trek depicts an actual, working, logical universe--and imagining that 'whole, consistent' universe is part of the appeal (and, judging from deck-plans showing facilities, Star Fleet Battles, a bunch of books, etc. it definitely, and inarguably was for a lot of people) then you have to reconcile what you are given with what you happen to know would be necessary. Or conclude would be logical.

The idea that an RPG game need only follow the form and format of the show is, IMO, a pretty narrow view and (IMO) a poor use of the RPG format.

Edited to add: And describing this transition as Gamism, which is, IMO, sort of what you get close to in the post, seems a fairly one-sided view of the process as well. We might conclude that Star Trek captains fight battles differently than they did in the movie--but there are many other things to be rationalized that have nothing to do with combat.

-Marco

[Snowden]

All this discussion of "the millenial elf" is reminding me of "Stranger In A Strange Land," where it seems like the sci-fi trappings (space travel, Mars, etc.) are mostly color around issues of alien culture, nature vs. nurture, etc.; had Heinlein been inclined towards "fantasy" instead of "science fiction," he could've swapped "a now-vanished race of unspeakably ancient elves" for "a now-extinct alien species from Mars" and written basically the same book.

I'm leaning more and more towards "speculative fiction" as a separate label for the underlying approach here.  In the past I've assumed this was tightly tied to "science fiction," but I think (as you seem to be pointing out) that's more a reflection of past literary trends rather than an intrisic property of the genre.  I think the fact that "alternate historical" novels often get lumped in with "science fiction" suggests I'm not the only one who has made this mistake!

[Storn]

Several scenes in Babylon 5's run where shot in the bathroom.

FYI.

[Callan S.]

I don't know if you'd conclude that the modern-day nuclear submarine in Crimson Tide didn't have a head because it wasn't shown in the movie but I don't think that'd convince anyone submarines don't have those facilities.

No, I'd conclude that I shouldn't have a lot of play that happens in the head, otherwise I'm not really exploring the movie.

If we presume that Star Trek depicts an actual, working, logical universe--and imagining that 'whole, consistent' universe is part of the appeal (and, judging from deck-plans showing facilities, Star Fleet Battles, a bunch of books, etc. it definitely, and inarguably was for a lot of people) then you have to reconcile what you are given with what you happen to know would be necessary. Or conclude would be logical.

No, not at all. If I were exploring life as a cave man, I know certain things make sense and are logical to do. But they don't fit a cave man, and to do them isn't exploring the life of a cave man.

Likewise, if I decide the whole bridge crew doesn't beam down because it's not logical, I'm not exploring star trek as presented. Now, and this is important, part of the star trek presentation is that these are futuristic, intelligent people. But another part of the presentation is the whole bridge crew beaming down.

Frankly, it's like exploring the cave man life...I have to do stupid or non sensical things, otherwise I'm not exploring star trek as presented.

Now, do I have to explore it as presented or can I add logical stuff? Yes, you can do both. Will the material you've added rest easy with the rest of the universe? Unlikely. Will (and I'll be harsh here) assuming there is logic in star trek , then adding something that is logical mean I haven't really added anything at all? Unlikely, unless you were actually working from the same logic involved with beaming the whole bridge down.

Anyway, I've pimped my piece now. That's all from me on this.

[daMoose_Neo]

Several scenes in Babylon 5's run where shot in the bathroom.

You also have quite a bit of modern fantasy/science fiction poking fun at the things overlooked in their predecessors. This, I think, is both to say exactly this ("Hey, WE have bathrooms, we're people too!") and to poke fun at, well, all sorts of things. I mean, a sci-fi show that takes itself seriously doing scenes in the crapper...while not a laughing on the floor hilarious part, it does make you chuckle, and it most certainly makes it stand out more in your mind. "Shock Sci-fi".

[Rob Carriere]

I disagree.  [with my statement that playing a 1,000-year old elf is no less difficult than playing a starship captain skilled in 3-D combat --SR] I have exactly as much difficulty relating to a 1000 year-old elf as with many funky SF concepts.  In fact I can confidantly say that I do not relate to a millenial immortal elf AT ALL; even less so than with many SF concepts.

I think we're miscommunicating somewhere, because I agree entirely with the above (except the bit where you say that you disagree :-)

My point was that
1) the captain and the elf are equally difficult to play to the same standard.
2) in the case of the elf a much lower standard is generally accepted. (more or less your "suck elf history out of [your] thumb".)
which leads to the conlusion:
3) SF RPGs are held to a higher standard than fantasy, and the observed phenomom of SF being "harder to get into" is at least in part due to this.

I believe you are arguing a similar viewpoint when you say that you would consider fantasy that properly speculates something other than fantasy. I read that as saying that only the low-standard (in the narrow sense of speculative quality) stuff should be called fantasy--which would translate directly to different standards of evaluating play in this respect.

You seem to be concentrating on the possibility of "upgrading" fantasy games (let's really think about what this elf should be like) where I was concentrating on the possibility of "downgrading" sf games (is it important how 3-D the captain really thinks?) Which of those is the more attractive depends on your play priorities, of course, but both are reflections of the notion that there are unequal standards at work

SR
--

[Rob Carriere]

All this discussion of "the millenial elf" is reminding me of "Stranger In A Strange Land," where it seems like the sci-fi trappings (space travel, Mars, etc.) are mostly color around issues of alien culture, nature vs. nurture, etc.; had Heinlein been inclined towards "fantasy" instead of "science fiction," he could've swapped "a now-vanished race of unspeakably ancient elves" for "a now-extinct alien species from Mars" and written basically the same book.

My personal belief is that wouldn't quite work, because color is important. Part of the impact of Stranger in a Strange Land is the feeling of realism that comes from the SF coloring (and, indeed, partly from Heinlein's rep as a fairly-hard SF author.)

In essence you have the structuralists, as per, for example, LeGuin's essay From Elfland to Poughkeepsie. They argue that being SF (or fantasy) must be an intrinsic quality, that it must be impossible to tell the story without those elements. On the other side you have the colorists, who argue that any SF (or fantasy) story can always be tranposed to another genre (I'd quote from one of the recent SF threads, but I can't seem to find the post right now.)

I think both camps are right in that stories of their kind exist, and both are therefore wrong to ignore or even deny the existence of the other type. In fact, I'll argue that the most powerful stories are those that align the two aspects.

Cutting back to games, I believe that means that you can create games based on color or on structure or both, and that that is equally true for science fiction games and for fantasy games. It is a historical artifact that SF games have tended more to the structure side than have fantasy games.

SR
--

[NN]

My point was that
1) the captain and the elf are equally difficult to play to the same standard.
2) in the case of the elf a much lower standard is generally accepted. (more or less your "suck elf history out of [your] thumb".)
which leads to the conlusion:
3) SF RPGs are held to a higher standard than fantasy, and the observed phenomom of SF being "harder to get into" is at least in part due to this.

But the only place to find "elf history" is your thumb.

On the other hand, everyone and their dog thinks theyve a valid opinion of what a starship captain should be like.

And, I think the decisions about how the captain should be have more effect on the rest of the world than elvish history have on a fantasy world.

I think the problem for 'realistic' sci-fi and modern games is coming up with play thats neither Heroic (IMO incompatible with firepower) nor Mundane (Papers and Paychecks!)

[Rob Carriere]

But the only place to find "elf history" is your thumb.

On the other hand, everyone and their dog thinks theyve a valid opinion of what a starship captain should be like.

Those two statements are in opposition only to the extent that opinions are more commonly associated with assholes than with thumbs. :-)

More seriously, speculating sensibly about the star ship captain is possible only if you place him in a context (technology, culture, economics, etc). Given that level of information, you can also speculate sensibly about the elf.

I think the problem for 'realistic' sci-fi and modern games is coming up with play thats neither Heroic (IMO incompatible with firepower) nor Mundane (Papers and Paychecks!)

This is an excellent point that keeps cropping up in all the SF threads. Perhaps it is worth being made into a topic?

SR
--

[contracycle]

I believe you are arguing a similar viewpoint when you say that you would consider fantasy that properly speculates something other than fantasy. I read that as saying that only the low-standard (in the narrow sense of speculative quality) stuff should be called fantasy--which would translate directly to different standards of evaluating play in this respect.

Hmm, rather I think they are different beasts with different needs.  My preference is merely mine and no value judgement on fantasy proper beyond that preference is implied.

You seem to be concentrating on the possibility of "upgrading" fantasy games (let's really think about what this elf should be like) where I was concentrating on the possibility of "downgrading" sf games (is it important how 3-D the captain really thinks?)

Agreed, I had taken a slightly different tack.  I agree with your perception that the standards applied to the two sample are different, but disagree that we are comparing apples with oranges.  At least, such a distinction does not make sense without first drawing a firm line between speculative fiction and fantasy.  In almost all cases of starship captains like Kirk, in visual media anyway, they are identical to the 1000-year old elf; their training is part of their mystique, not anything that forms the substance of the piece.

My point was that this application of "double standards" is in fact the application of different standards for different genres.

[Marco]

I don't know if you'd conclude that the modern-day nuclear submarine in Crimson Tide didn't have a head because it wasn't shown in the movie but I don't think that'd convince anyone submarines don't have those facilities.

No, I'd conclude that I shouldn't have a lot of play that happens in the head, otherwise I'm not really exploring the movie.

Well, note that you're speaking from some position of 'authority' on this. Does any one player in a game get to decide "where play happens?" As a second participant in a game I'm going to need some basis for making decisions and unless we agree on the 'narrative underpinnings' of the source (which, IME, never happens) then it's going to have to be argued.

We can argue canon (and if you've ever been involved with a sci-fi geek argument you know how that goes: "In episode C-152 this happens!" "No, in D-37 that happens.") or we can shoot for some kind of 'logical' compomise ("Kirk seemed to do things differently than the rest of Star Fleet").

If you tell me that we can't have a Star Trek game that adds anything to the mythos then we may be reduced to reading scripts. Otherwise, yes, we have to encompass both a logical answer and account for the show.

There are a few ways to do that.

I wrote an essay on this our site that I need to get posted back up but, with a TV medium, it is, IMO, reasonable to assume that precisely what was shown on TV is not what was presented in the fiction (often due to budget). If we play in Dr. Who, we need not assume that every enemy looks like a cheap special effect--the characters don't react to them as though they looked extremely fake.

-Marco

[daMoose_Neo]

I wrote an essay on this our site that I need to get posted back up but, with a TV medium, it is, IMO, reasonable to assume that precisely what was shown on TV is not what was presented in the fiction (often due to budget). If we play in Dr. Who, we need not assume that every enemy looks like a cheap special effect--the characters don't react to them as though they looked extremely fake.

For someone who deals with both mediums (or read a good book that was butchered on screen), this almost goes without saying. I've seen 80's movies that made me cringe when dealing sword & sorcery and dragons that look like stuffed puppets. I've even gotten my hands on a script for a stage production of the Hobbit that was useful only for the scene with Gollum and Bilbo- the rest of it was horrid, even the costuming suggestions!
Even with a silverscreen budget, this isn't a phenominon limited to SF, though its probably the most butchered of them. I think fantasy only really has the old Hercules (Kevin Sorbo) TV movies...the series got better once it had a following and more of a budget, but not *too* much.

[Rob Carriere]

Hmm, rather I think [SF and fantasy] are different beasts with different needs.  My preference is merely mine and no value judgement on fantasy proper beyond that preference is implied.

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that you were offering value judgement. For that matter, neither am I: I enjoy both genres.

My point was that this application of "double standards" is in fact the application of different standards for different genres.

OK, I get it now.

I think that one way of looking at this is that the genre-boundary is in a slightly different place in your head than it is in mine.

SR
--