I'd like to talk about Science Fiction for a bit.

In designing games that present certain genres or themes I believe it is typical to first find out what is the essence of the theme being depicted, then to put it into words and to perhaps put a personal spin on it (even by deciding to not put much of a personal spin on it -- as evidenced in the stated goals of a few fantasy game designers here). As an example, for my work on Gothic I took a look at the literary movement that inspired it, and the themes explored within it, and decided to focus on some of them, such as: the angsty passion of the villains, the experience of the mysterious in the intertwining of the actual supernatural and of our mind merely playing tricks on us, our doubts about the extent of reality and our inability to comprehend the true mysteries of it, the villains quest to understand their own nature, etc ...

Now, I'm using the same process to take a look at Science Fiction, to see what exactly it is that I want to explore in the genre and to find out the what's important in conveying it. It is essential to creating not only the feel of the game, but also the (flavor) mechanics that support it. So, I've considered Science Fiction and beyond a few points that do come to my mind, I see it as a rather shallow genre. At this point I'd like to recognize that there are a multitude of sub-genres in SciFi and they may be very different from each other, but I'd like to keep this discussion broad, as well as considering many of those sub-genres specifically.

Usually, the science in SciFi is merely a McGuffin used to explore some form of human experience, so it would seem even that is hardly the point in itself. The technology present in SciFi settings allows for more extreme treatment of themes that are already familiar to us. Sometimes, Science Fiction (especially the more "Hard SciFi" it gets) is exploration of a given technology's impact on society and the human experience. As an example, debating the existance of totalitarian regimes gets a totally new spin when the totalitarian government can employ advanced mind-control to make the population complacent, even openly accepting and entirely at ease with the situation. The themes remain deeply human, nevertheless.

Cyberpunk as a genre focuses very much on the impact of technology on human existance, usually offering a rather cynical and grim view of it. Not many games really delve into this, offering only bland Humanity/Essence mechanics that -- well, for me at least -- don't work to support the genre's conventions.

Space Opera type SciFi seems to focus less on debating the technologies, but then what is the function of technology in Space Opera?

What I'd like to hear is people's thoughts on these issues. What do you think the genre of Science Fiction imposes on the design considerations? What're the concerns inherent in it? I understand that a more fully developed idea could spark more livid discussion, but my point is to speak of the very foundation, the genre itself and the unifying themes found in it.

- Joachim Buchert -

Joachim wrote: I see it as a rather shallow genre.

Joachim wrote: Usually, the science in SciFi is merely a McGuffin used to explore some form of human experience, so it would seem even that is hardly the point in itself. The technology present in SciFi settings allows for more extreme treatment of themes that are already familiar to us.

Joachim wrote: Space Opera type SciFi seems to focus less on debating the technologies, but then what is the function of technology in Space Opera?

Daredevil wrote: So, I've considered Science Fiction and beyond a few points that do come to my mind, I see it as a rather shallow genre.

Joachim Buchert wrote: What do you think the genre of Science Fiction imposes on the design considerations? What're the concerns inherent in it? I understand that a more fully developed idea could spark more livid discussion, but my point is to speak of the very foundation, the genre itself and the unifying themes found in it.

If you feel SF is a shallow genre you are either reading the wrong stuff or you need to write your own.

It also depends on what you are looking for in what you are reading. Orson Scott Card lloks at all SF through his M.I.C.E. quotient:

M - Milleu - Basically this is entirely about exploring the environment
I - Idea - This is all about thinking "what if" and taking that to its logical (if extreme) conclusion--seeing how it changes and influences life
C - Character - This is a "standard" character-driven story that just happens to be occuring in a world which is not a 100% replica of our own
E - Event - Some kind of SF thing happens and affects everything

Some examples:

Milleu - Lord of the Rings - It is _all_ about looking and living in Middle Earth

Idea - The Minority Report by Phillip K Dick - "What if" law enforcement had psychics working for them who could see a crime before it could happen

Character - A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin - Entirely about characters and families and how they fight and interact which just happens to be set in a fantasy setting

Event - A Canticle for Leibovitz by Miller - Thermonucular war has occured and the Church is picking up the pieces

The above are just the extreme examples. Most works have some kind of combination, but focus mostly on one.

Now to push this into the realm of RPG's I think you can look at the above in GNS terms (kinda):

Character would mostly be identified with Narrative play and Milleu would be strongly associated with Simulationism.

If you take a look at Ron's work in Sorcerer's Soul he (I think rightly) points out that for the most part mysteries (at least the hardboiled variety) are all about relationships - how people have interacted in the past and how they do in the future - murder has its reasons and they are based on past actions of other people.

If anything I would say SF is the deepest of genres. The writer has to create _everything!_ The world, the things that live in it, cultures, etc. Then they get to write the story... Kinda like being a GM and creating a setting whole cloth.

I would compare genres with game systems. With the former there is often a framework to build your story upon. With the latter you and your players are given a framework to create your story with.

-Shane (the rambler)

Sorry guys, let's put the flamethrowers down before we get all burned to crisp. Okay, my wording was a bit harsh when I said I see SciFi as shallow. Now, I like SciFi and I don't consider the genre to be any worse than any other, but let me re-iterate my point.

From a game design perspective, when I choose a genre or focus for my game, it immediately implies something. Or at least it should, in my mind, and if it doesn't I like to think that I have an inadequate understanding of what I'm working with. So, when I chose the gothic genre to be a focus for a game, I looked at the themes of it and thought about how they should transpose themselves on the game design. Finding stuff to work with in that genre was not difficult.

Doing the same to SciFi seems a bit more troublesome. Maybe it's a bit about it being such a large grouping of material, but even when inspecting the sub-genres more specifically I'm having more trouble finding the relevant material than with other genres.

So, there is nothing wrong with SciFi, just that I see the "genre conventions" not as potent in themselves (ie. without further designing setting) to really give me a lot of material to create, unlike the gothic genre did. Or rather, perhaps I've not yet found the material I'm looking for, to help me create mechanics that embody Science Fiction at the core. That's why I'm asking anyway, not to flame at the genre or to present a personal opinion.

There is another question that I'm hoping to answer with this line of questioning. Any simple personal preference aside, why Science Fiction? Why choose this genre over some other? Even if I choose to design SciFi because "it is cool", I'd like to answer this question to understand what the chosen genre can do well. What I mean here is that if I decide to write a game about (err, for example: ) truckers, but decide to put it in a SciFi setting, why is it better to do this? What does it immediately add to the game, beyond simple color? To answer that, btw, I offer this (not that I think a game about space truckers is a good idea, heh) : the game is about deep space transports, the depths of space highlight the loneliness encountered by these professionals and the long voyages are perilous, what with ennui, pirates and so forth. The "18 wheelers" are gigantic space vessels, dwarfing all other ships in space. So, putting the game into space really does add to the general theme in some manner. That kind of thinking is what I'm exploring.

Anyway, thanks for the replies so far, there was already enough to provoke some further thought, even if some of it was merely re-assuring my own thoughts.

One more thing:

What is the function of magic in fantasy? There's a reason why space opera is sometimes called "science fantasy," you know--it has more in common with Tolkien than with hard SF.

The space truckers bit looks very odd to me - simply transposing an earth-bound story into space is not SF, IMO. I think the central theme of SF is not much more than "what if", and thats pretty much all. There is no particular "what if" with the space truckers - precisely becuase it is is just changing the set. By contrast, a story about bulk transport on orbital cyclers poses the question "what if this was how we did bulk transport - how would that work".

Hi there,

I think that the shallow/not shallow issue is diverting us from the main point - applying science fiction (whatever that may be, and it may be a false label for many independent things) to role-playing.

I'm going to change the tack a bit, and Joachim, cancel this direction of mine if you see fit.

My general take on science fiction is very 60s-70s. Its defining feature is that a current issue is exaggerated or otherwise focused upon, which entails an altered setting - either a totally different "universe," or the future, or whatever. A lot of people tried to get the name "speculative fiction" instituted but it didn't take.

This idea means that a lot of stuff in the SF section in bookstores doesn't apply, and therefore the label on those shelves is false. It also means that many books/stories that are not labeled SF actually are.

This idea is also completely opposed to the "lab-experiment" mode of writing SF which starts with, "what will happen if ..." and tries to project future history in a plausible way. A lot of what I'm describing can look like this, but to write from the "what if" perspective in the first place doesn't result in what I'm talking about.

My point of view about this was quite the In Way to See It thirty years ago, mainly due to the efforts of Harlan Ellison (whom I quite literally worshipped in my early teens). It lost. Post-Star Wars and various changes in the world of publishing, most especially the destruction of the newstand and magazine-break-in industries, SF as a label became what Ellison (back then) and many others feared most.

So anything I have to say about the "genre" of science fiction is definitely dated and might even be seen as a cranky "when I was a kid" rant.

Oh well ... on to role-playing. Now, by my definition, Tribe 8 is science fiction; so are Paranoia, Traveller, Cyberpunk, Star Wars, SLA Industries, Fading Suns, and the upcoming Starchildren. Interestingly, Shadowrun would not be in the category, not because it has elves, but because it fails completely to be about anything (by a similar argument, old-school tournament D&D is not "fantasy," which I also find reasonable).

Nearly all RPGs pegged as "science fiction" have had painful histories. I have a whole ton of Heartbreakers that deserve an essay of their own, including Manhunter, Reichstar, etc, etc. A lot of RPGs have been more in the vague-ass "science fantasy" category, in which the trappings are technological or space-y, but the stories and themes tend more toward the fantastical/mythic. The main literary source for this is Barsoom - you get games like Jorune - but very modernized versions include the Mutant Chronicles.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm getting very far with this approach. I think my main point is to say, "Let's find out whether science fiction is a usable label under any circumstances, and then address (a) if it's shallow and (b) how it has or hasn't applied to role-playing."

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

Now, by my definition, Tribe 8 is science fiction; so are Paranoia, Traveller, Cyberpunk, Star Wars, SLA Industries, Fading Suns, and the upcoming Starchildren. Interestingly, Shadowrun would not be in the category...

What about Star Frontiers?

Paul

Hi Paul,

I was tossin' out names as examples, not as a complete list.

About Star Frontiers, who knows? In terms of game text, as I recall, it was hard to tell what the game was "about" in a thematic sense, if indeed there was any. Back in those days, I think people assumed that if you were to buy the game, you were also hip to the literature and wanted to do that (i.e. play Larry Niven or Anne McCaffrey or whoever, to pick 70s examples). In terms of game play, again as I recall, it ended up like a lot of Traveller play, the "squad" thing which entailed taking missions and being betrayed by your employer - the SF version of the dungeon crawl.

Best,
Ron

I've said this before, but obviously it bears repeating. Assimov once said that Sci-Fi was misnamed. That, in fact, what tended to get heaped under this category was in fact what he'd call "Speculative Fiction". Gareth (and others) got it right. Essentially, Sci-fi asks "What if?" So, you tell the same stories, but in a different context. "What if there were intelligent robots; how would a detective story be different because of it?" Etc.

What you're missing DD, is that each Sci-Fi story has a different Premise. Unlike all Gothic works, or all Romance novels, or all detective fiction, Sci-Fi is the "genre" where you define a new Premise every single novel. That's what asking What-if is all about. In that way it is the deepest of Genres, because every story has it's own premise, not just the same one from the last novel of he genre. So, of course, looking at it from high overhead, your not going to see the "Sci-fi" premise. When doing Sci-fi you have to create your own based on the assumptions of the universe you create.

That said, most of these premises are better suited to Simulationism than anything else, I'd hazard. Take the profered example of Ringworld, or something like the Mote in Gods Eye. Since they are about exploring "What if?" primarily they do not lend themselves to the other modes of play. Space Opera is Narativist territory (and not Sci-fi) exactly because it is entirely metaphor. It does not ask "What if?" it simply addresses some literary Premise. Why in space, then? Well, for Narrativism, only color. Same for Gamism, where the all settings are only color in any case.

BTW, Ron and I have discussed this and the parallels between these forms of literature and play mode are strong enough that we agree that it is no coincidence that our preference for the types of literature match our mode preferences. I like Speculative fiction because it is exploration primarily, and therefore Sim like. Ron likes detective novels because they are about emotional Premises that are the sort of thing required in Narrativism. Also explains why I can forgive Lin Carter and L. Sprague DeCamp, and he cannot.

This is why Sorcerer & Space will be Space Opera. I've got nothing hard or "What if", in there, really. I just have a setting which by it's color lays bare the focused version of the Sorcerer Narrativist premise that I've selected.

Mike

Hey Ron,

Oh yeah, I knew you weren't delivering an exhaustive list. I asked about Star Frontiers because unlike most other SF games, I know a lot of people who cut their gaming teeth on it, and in fact played it quite extensively.

...the "lab-experiment" mode of writing SF which starts with, "what will happen if ..." and tries to project future history in a plausible way...

It's hard for me to not think a lot of SF games undercut their play potential by being too much in this particular SF tradition. They extrapolate and interpret their concept so much that there's little room left for meaningful and varied interpretation through play. Blue Planet comes to mind. So does Continuum.

Contrariwise, there were a couple of things in the 60 page Aurora Quickstart Book that completely impressed me:

1) The Jeotsu species is matrilineal. "Families consist of siblings from a single litter: one Norani (fertile female), one or two Nochalu (infertile females), and three to six Nocini (males), and such family units stay together for life. During breeding season, males leave temporarily to compete for non-related mates, and afterward, they return to help their sister care for her new litter."

2) The Milrolk species are colonial organisms. "The Ka is the basic unit of the colony, and a colony may consist of hundreds of Kai....The colony achieves sentience by the communication of each Kai, via sound (high frequency squeaks), sight (rapidly changing patterns on the skin), and scnet (pheromones), with all of its nearest neighbors in the swarm." So a Milrolk colony is effectively immortal...but because communication is based on sharing Kai, which is basically like merging minds, actual communication sometimes produces radical shifts in personality. And the Milrolk find that distasteful.

And all I can say is...Holy smokes! These aliens are made for authoring meaningful themes about relationships!

Now perhaps the game's full 250 pages of rules and 350 pages of setting material smothers all the potential protagonism inherent in the species descriptions in the Quickstart Book, excises the player's ability to author something meaningful to the other play participants by replacing it with pre-determined, pre-digested themes. I have no idea. But I was impressed. From the Quickstart Book, it seems the game setting might well deliver an exaggeration of meaningful issues facilitating a non-lab experiment SF that comments on the human experience.

Paul

Paul wrote: It's hard for me to not think a lot of SF games undercut their play potential by being too much in this particular SF tradition. They extrapolate and interpret their concept so much that there's little room left for meaningful and varied interpretation through play.

Paul wrote: Holy smokes! These aliens are made for authoring meaningful themes about relationships!

Excellent points, Seth, I agree with you on much of what you said. I would comment that if you ignore the economic aspect of the "Free Trader" campaign, and only use it as a recognized plot device to move the characters about, it becomes classic Exploration of setting. Which you point out is only attractive to the tourist player type.

The best developed of these structure items that I've seen is the series of adventures published in GDP's magazine "Traveller Digest" in which the characters go on a Grand Tour of the Imperium motivated as essentially secret agents. It becomes very Rudyard Kipling in play. The players must agree to the nature of the episodic play, and the devices used to get them around, however. Once agreed to, it makes for a pretty cool Sim campaign, IMO.

I think that once again, Paul's narrativist bias is showing. Yes, hard sci-fi will mostly suck for Narrativism. One can probably inject a Narrativist premise, but why bother?

I've theorized of a generic Narrativist game where there is no setting. Characters are named A, B, C, or something similarly non-specific, and so you get relationship traits Like Loves C, or Hates B. Skills are similarly labeled Skill A, Skill B, etc. and can only be used when the GM says, "Your character is confronted by a Skill A type conflict, roll against Skill A." Scenes are set in Location A or Location B. You get the idea.

The point is that Setting seems to be largely superfluous to discussing the sort of "timeless" issues that are usually offered as Narrativist Premises. Hence the reason that Sorcerer is Setting neutral. The system provides the context for addressing the Premise, so Setting is not as crucial. Perhaps a bit absurd, but it seems that as long as you include human characters that most Narrativist Premises can be addressed in any setting. Any setting other than one that emulates the real world just seems to end up being a metaphor for it in some way.

Mike

I'm mildly concerned about tourist mode and the inability of the characters to affect the setting. I don't think this is exactly true - the character will have an accurately simulated capacity to affect the setting. Under almost all circumstances, this will mean a very limited capacity to affect the big picture, yes - but thats accurate to the sim and an excessive importance may well have broken it. This can be caricatured as the "save the world before sundown" approach, and IMHO after a while it is boring as hell.

To me Blue Panet is not primarily interesting becuase of the wormhole and the aborigines - it is interesting because its a waterworld and the environmental science behind it is both intriguing and sound. The presence of the McGuffin is partly there as setup excuse, the how we got where we are bit, an partly so that the characters can be endowed with special import through access to arcane insight. Interestingly, this is the aspect of magic and religion which is least frequently delivered by fantasy games, although it often is in the fiction. Its most frequent appearance is in the Hidden World games as their raison d'etre for character identity. Its purpose in this case I think is to place a puzzle in the setting directly, so that the setting provokes exploration of its own accord (is this something like "protagonising setting", perhaps?).

A lot of the draw, however, comes from the excuse to go messing about in boats. Lots of games have a bit of water - for most its just a kind of geopolitical border. BP by its setup pretty much compels the action into or onto the water, and just that radical distinction in material environment - as with space - can be enough to set the juices running. Its sometimes said that the best way to learn something is to teach it and I certainly found this to be true with D&D. I think this is part of the overlap between hard Sci-Fi and Sim, in that by taking a dry scinetific observation and dramatising it, giving it function and utility to people in the form of characters can assist in understanding the phenomenon being described. A lot of the drive is to explore the potential ramifications of physical laws, especially the frustrating ones like lightspeed. The novel or short story or game serves as an expository platform - I consolidated an awful lot of my extremely light knowledge of rocket propulsion physics because of Jovian Chronicles, partly because it gave me "experimental data" to work with and partly because it gave me a context in which to create imaginary problems to solve. I had means, motive and opportunity to go playing around with delta v, and I did, and some of this knowledge was communicated to my players becuase, of course, I'm only going through this exercise to set THEM up with problems to solve and motive to do so. I recognise of course this sort of thing is not going to be to everybodies taste, but I had been waiting a long time for a game done without miraculous space propulsion. And there again - the ship designs are well thought out and only expand in two dimensions for all sorts of sound logical reasons and the particular form arises from logically expressed function. The act of realising this sort of internally consistent and setting is worthy of merit in its own right, IMO.

Ron Edwards wrote: I think my main point is to say, "Let's find out whether science fiction is a usable label under any circumstances, and then address (a) if it's shallow and (b) how it has or hasn't applied to role-playing."

Joachim wrote: What do you think the genre of Science Fiction imposes on the design considerations? What're the concerns inherent in it?

Zak Arntson wrote: This sums up my confusion about this thread. How does this thread have relevance towards RPG Theory? It's like "let's talk about Fantasy." or "let's talk about Mysteries." That won't help me design, theorize nor play an RPG. Too many aspects within the broad label.

I don't see how Sorcerer starts from a discussion on fantasy, except in the vaguest sense. I still don't see the benefit of discussing such a broad topic, except perhaps to serve as initial inspiration that will spin off into another thread or game design. I'll sit back and watch this thread, then, to see where you all take it.

This is my first posting, so hello to everyone. By the way, I'm an SF addict.

It seems to me that the RPG value of science fiction has been stated already throughout all the replies. Somebody wrote, rightly, that all fiction deals with the human condition, SF ditto. But the extremeties of that conditionare most starkly pronounced in modernity, where even the actual idea that the human condition is a universal/trans-historical/transcultural thing is itself challenged. Technology and science are cultural products of modernity, maybe even its fountain-head. In the 21st century we are witnessing developments in science and technology which will radically and irrevocably alter what it means to be a human being. I'm thinking of bio-technology (gene manipulation, cloning, cybernetics, medical research on things like ageing, etc) and nanotechnology in particular. Now, for me at least, the best SF is that which deals with such transitions from human to post-human or whatever. Authors like Greg Egan (Terranesia, Permeutation City, Axiomatic, etc)are excellent. Setting an SF role playing game in the not too distant future where such technologies are really changing the human condition seems to be to be the most perfect setting of all for a role playing game. Struggling to maintain/understand/shed/come to terms with ones humanity is role playing heaven. And its just such a setting that I've been working on - c.2100 AD, space colonies with genetically altered humans provided stark contrast to what it means to be human and decentering yet again the blessed Earth; strange alien artefacts found throughout the solar system which open up the vastness of interstellar space and the possiblity of alien encounter; agelessness through treatments which control the telomere (an ageing thingy which gets shorter and shorter until we die of old age); etc; etc. Such a setting is full of wonder, fear, hope and angst. What could possibly be better?

Hey simon -

Looks like I'm the lucky guy who get's to say . . . welcome to the Forge! With GenCon coming up (I'm heading there myself tomorrow AM), it may be a while before the "usual suspects" show up to do the same. I've been a bit of an SF addict myself at times, and I think you make some great points about why it can be such a compelling place to set RPG's.

Just so you know - the Forge tends to dislike resurecting old threads by adding a new post. Starting a new thread, with the bits you liked about the old one pasted in as needed, is preferred. Seems to work out pretty well.

Gordon, thinking he's going to check out some SF RPGs at GenCon . . .

Daredevil:

I want to give you a couple of definitions you might find useful. These are by no means authoritative, but they are generally accepted, which means that they will have some application to games dealing with these concepts.

First, the most pure, arguably most valid for of science fiction is Hard SciFi. Hard SciFi usually deals with a central theme based on Imaginary Science (FTL travel, for example), exploring how that Imaginary Science would affect the real world, if it truely existed. Hard SciFi typicaly is as realistic as possible in light of current science, with a single, or small number of depatures that serves as the central theme.

Science Fantasy is almost the diametric opposite of Hard SciFi. In it Imaginary Science is used pretty much at will, to accomplish whatever the author needs to accomplish. It's often combined with spuernatural elements, such as psionics, with only cursory care given to realism. The recent Star Wars movies (especially Attack of the Clones) are excellent examples of Science Fantasy.

Space Opera is a sort of subcategory that can be Hard SciFi or Science Fantasy. Space Opera primarily deals with larger than life action, black and white morality. I once heard it defined as "horse opera in spacesuits," and that's a great description. Space Opera is pretty much John Wayne in outer space. The accuracy of the technology at hand isn't really that important one way or the other.

Cyberpunk is more or less the opposite of Space Opera. It's the Film Noire of science fiction, dealing with dark themes and ambiguous morality. I've actually been doing some pretty serious research into Cyberpunk myself recently. Here's a quote from the alt.cyberpunk FAQ:

alt.cyberpunk FAQ wrote:
Cyberpunk literature, in general, deals with marginalized people in
technologically-enhanced cultural "systems". In cyberpunk stories'
settings, there is usually a "system" which dominates the lives of
most "ordinary" people, be it an oppresive government, a group of
large, paternalistic corporations, or a fundamentalist religion. These
systems are enhanced by certain technologies (today advancing at a
rate that is bewildering to most people), particularly "information
technology" (computers, the mass media), making the system better at
keeping those within it inside it. Often this technological system
extends into its human "components" as well, via brain implants,
prosthetic limbs, cloned or genetically engineered organs, etc. Humans
themselves become part of "the Machine". This is the "cyber" aspect of
cyberpunk.

However, in any cultural system, there are always those who live on
its margins, on "the Edge": criminals, outcasts, visionaries, or those
who simply want freedom for its own sake. Cyberpunk literature focuses
on these people, and often on how they turn the system's technological
tools to their own ends. This is the "punk" aspect of cyberpunk.

The best cyberpunk works are distinguished from previous work with
similar themes by a certain style. The setting is urban, the mood is
dark and pessimistic. Concepts are thrown at the reader without
explanation, much like new developments are thrown at us in our
everyday lives. There is often a sense of moral ambiguity; simply
fighting "the system" (to topple it, or just to stay alive) does not
make the main characters "heroes" or "good" in the traditional sense.