The question has just occurred to me, based on the (getting to be quite lengthy) The Limits of Sci-Fi thread. What is it that really separates science fiction gaming from any other form of games, at a deep level? Color is often different (as Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0 and Transhuman Space reflect changing perspectives on the world and the current thought in sci-fi as a field), but what is significantly changed from, say, fantasy gaming? Are there moral Narrativist questions that can only be explored in science fiction? Is the exploration of setting significantly altered?

Essentially, what I'm questioning is: is there an aspect other than Color where science fiction is a significant, major choice in crafting an RPG? If not, why is it that the games are not as successful overall as their fantasy and modern-occult counterparts?

-Wayne

Personally, I think there is no inherent difference whatsoever. Any given game might be different, but as a genre? None.

If not, why is it that the games are not as successful overall as their fantasy and modern-occult counterparts?

clehrich wrote: Assuming that it is true, however, I would guess it's because people think there should be a fundamental difference between SF and other genres. The science "should" be "realistic." X, Y, and Z genre conventions "should" be respected. It "should" be about exploration (in both the GNS and the "seek out new worlds" senses). There are a lot of not-terribly-well-examined "shoulds" here, and that imposes hidden constraints.

Er, "pervy"? Sorry --- I honestly don't know what this means.

For Narrativist SF, you might take a look at pages 3 and 4 of the Actual Play thread, "About Time for Another Woe." Fang Langford in particular explained Star Wars: A New Hope from the GM's perspective.

As for getting rid of the preconceptions that SF has to be different, you'd have to ask someone who thinks that SF does have to be different, and get him or her to explain what's supposed to be so different about it. Then you know the kind of beast you have to hunt, if you will.

One reason for the lack of sci-fi campaigns is the inherent difficulties the Gm of the typical 'space-game' is faced with when gaming within the standardparadigm.

First the issue of universe design. In the first sentence we see the problem. The typical space-game can in theory involve hundreds of planets. The average Traveler subsector with normal start density will have 44 planets and there are 16 subsectors in a single sector. Each one of these is potentially as complex as an entire fully realized fantasy world.

Given this all the problems of the typical gaming paradigm become apparent. The problem of preparation: the issue of generating lots of unused campaign material can be an order of magnitude worse. Another problem is the freedom of travel. In most space games the players have a spaceship which gives them the capacity to simply blow the cozy scenario you wrote up and go someplace completely different. You could detail a whole subsector just to have the players fly over to another one. Likewise the bit of trouble they created can be easily and conveniently escaped. Because of this it is VERY difficult to channel the direction of the campaign.

Another unoticed factor is that sci-fi never developed anything close to the dungeon crawl, i.e. the conceptually simple ,gamist default (keyed map area filled with various challenges)scenario. The closest thing to it was a pure Traveler Merchant campaign played with the Trade rules, the only problem was that few found campaigns like that interesting ,I used to call it 'CPA's in SPAAAAACE!' but I think a a narrative approach could actually make a space trade game fun.

I would be very interested in discussing the issue of narrativist and author/director stance in SF game as I think they present a way around the above issues...

Cadriel wrote: As for sci-fi not being as successful: aside from Traveller, there's really no sci-fi game that has made an overwhelming splash; Traveller is no longer a really major force in RPGs, though it keeps resurfacing. For the rest - well, Shadowrun is a strongly Gamist sci-fi game, but it also has a major fantasy element and probably succeeds through straddling the line.

Hi,

I'm with Fang regarding the three games he cites.

As for Shadowrun and fantasy vs. SF, this is an interesting question, because ultimately Shadowrun is mid-80s D&D in an urban setting. Which would suggest to me that mid-80s D&D is not itself fantasy, but rather "black ops." That makes a lot of sense to me, actually, in tune with the metaplot-heavy mode of play that we're probably about to discuss re: AD&D2.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm with Fang regarding the three games he cites.

As for Shadowrun and fantasy vs. SF, this is an interesting question, because ultimately Shadowrun is mid-80s D&D in an urban setting. Which would suggest to me that mid-80s D&D is not itself fantasy, but rather "black ops." That makes a lot of sense to me, actually, in tune with the metaplot-heavy mode of play that we're probably about to discuss re: AD&D2.

Fang, Ron, Andrew:

I can concede that in some places, I was going a bit overboard in my classification of science fiction as a roleplaying genre; however, I would say that Shadowrun is "mixed" science fiction, and that the fantasy plays a co-equal part with the SF elements. And I think Star Wars and Rifts, whatever technological elements they have, are fundamentally fantasy. I do admit that I overlooked Mechwarrior (which I believe is the RPG part of Battletech) and the Star Trek games.

But I'm not really interested in that discussion. I wanted to talk about science fiction as a gaming field, as a part of design, and so far I think that three very interesting points have come about.

1) Science fiction contains a lot of hidden assumptions.
2) The freedoms often assumed in science fiction stories can become problematic when introduced in a roleplaying game, especially when it interacts with pre-planning.
3) A lot of the time, science fiction games tend to thrive when they throw some fantasy elements into the mix (like Shadowrun).

The first point leads to some interesting thoughts: what are the assumptions, how do they impact game design, and what can be done about them? Can they be embraced positively, or should design strive to overcome them?

The second issue makes things very interesting. There really is no way a GM or game author can make up enough detail to cover the amount of ground that a science fiction game can very easily come into contact with; even basic planning becomes repetetive and tedious with such vistas present. How can a sci-fi game get past that difficulty?

The third also leads to a question that I think is very relevant: does "straight" science fiction (in the sense that it's not comingled with mechanisms from other genres, such as fantasy) have an innate disadvantage when compared to "mixed" work? Is it significantly more alluring to play in a game with elements such as magic as well as science? (Clarke's Law aside.) I'm asking this in part because I want to see more work in the vein of sci-fi as sci-fi and not "sci-fi and...," and so the question becomes meaningful to me.

Sorry if this is being disrespectful, but I don't see the direction where things are starting to go as being fruitful and I'd rather not pursue that avenue.

-Wayne

Hi Wayne,

Disrespect, schmisrespect, it's your thread, so it's your call.

Folks, let's turn our attention toward the issues raised in the post right above this one.

Best,
Ron

Hi Wayne,

I don't know if I'm throwing your thread out of whack with the following question, but I think it's pertinent.

During the Religious phase of discussion I was thinking about my notion that the truly religious person, in my view, is always open to the next mystery being revealed. In the same post, I noted that the truly scientific person is too.

Then, in thoughts later that day, I noted that what frustrates me about religions in games is that they're usually totally fixed: no where to go.

But then I realized most SF games are the same way with their science.

Which brings me to my point: A lot of SF fiction is based on a law (or laws) of pressumed science being completely overturned and the implications of that being dealt with or assumed into society. (In Ben Bova's Millinium, an ABM sattelite laser network will render ICBM's useless, and the balance of global power is about to shift forever. Compare this, please, with Crichton's whatever books, where the SF premise is always tidily swept under the rug by the book's end -- he's not a SF writer, but armchair tourist to the genre.)

Here's my question:

Has anyone ever played an SF game / campaign where the players -- as active protagonists -- through research, theorizing or whatnot -- actually reshaped the fundemental laws of reality?

Until a GM is willing to accept this, I think we can safely say there will be no SF in RPGs. I think that's the distinction from color and I think it's yet to be done.

Christopher

Hey all,

A quick note to add mention of Dream Pod 9's Jovian Chronicles and Heavy Gear in the S-F gaming camp. Neither includes fantasy elements other than the practical feasibility of giant military robots. Jovian Chronicles does have optional rules for more fantastic stuff, cinematic rules, etc.

I'd like to address Wayne's third point about fantasy. I think fantasy elements in an otherwise S-F setting may reflect a simple way of injecting accessible mystery into the setting. If you consider the difficulty for most people of coming up with hard science mysteries, including the usual Analog-literature style of storytelling - the idea story bound up in a problem solved via paradigm shifting discovery - that's hard for most groups to grapple with. Most folks don't have an advanced knowledge of physics or biology or engineering. To make a hard science S-F game work, I submit the protagonists have to be science savvy to a degree that requires their players to be science savvy. So fantasy or Trek style technogabble becomes a substitute for hard science. I mean, let's say you're running in a game with Ron as a player, and you want to offer something that has a strong biological sciences element. You'd need to be pretty up on biology yourself to give Ron a real SF-nal conflict to tinker with.

In short, hard science stories are mostly about the ideas and the science. "Soft" science or space opera, uses technology for flavor, and magic or psi usually supplies the cosmological/paradigmic mystery aspect (viz. Fading Suns, Metabarons, even Traveller with its psionics).

Best,

Blake

Blake:

Interesting point. So the question is leaning toward, "Is it possible to recreate hard sci-fi in RPGs?" And I think that the answer slowly tilts toward "No." You really can't simulate the technological fixes for problems that exist. And that's okay; the "soft" variant, I think, has more depth than you've implied.

What I'm interested in working with is RPGs where the effects of technology impact on centrally human issues - not fiction where science is the solution, but rather where it's a part of the problem. I think that it is a live and interesting subject, different from hard sci-fi, and has a lot of potential as a Narrativist subject. I like cyberpunk (not in the chrome-and-big-guns sense of Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0 or Shadowrun, but more in the sphere of ideas), and the game I'm trying to get players together for will ask the question: "When technology advances faster than morality, what does it mean to be 'human'?" as a point of Premise. I guess it's more "tech fiction" than "science fiction," but it falls under the same umbrella without making the technology into mere color. And, obviously, I think that this realm of game has a lot of merit behind it. It's an approach to SF that I don't think has been explored much in RPGs.

And that's where all my questions lie. I think the hard SF inapplicability in gaming helps out a lot with regard to the admixture, and also it may be a step in helping with the hidden assumptions.

-Wayne

Cadriel wrote: What is it that really separates science fiction gaming from any other form of games, at a deep level? Color is often different ... but what is significantly changed from, say, fantasy gaming? Are there moral Narrativist questions that can only be explored in science fiction?

Hello,

Should point out that I didn't mean to imply soft S-F lacks depth. Dune, technically, qualifies as a sophisticated form of space opera, given the far future empires, dueling culture, pseudo-feudal Houses, and superhuman abilities. Softer S-F by its non-techy nature has to focus on the societal impacts of technology, war, alien contact, and the like, rather than on the pure tech idea or application of hard science to solve a conflict.

Otherwise, yeah, I think we're reaching an answer here.

Best,

Blake

Hi Wayne,

In the game you're proposing, would the new twist in technology be established and fixed at the start, or would the implications of the new technology be allowed to grow.

This is what I was trying to get at with the post above: Can the science of the world change during play. (Most SF stories depend on the tech changing or the implications changing.)

For me, the GM or players already know everything about the tech at the start of play, it doesn't quite feel like SF -- no matter how wonky the new science.

Does this point of improvised innovation/revelation during play have no value; or is it just impossible to do in RPGs; or what?

Christopher

Alan:

What you're talking about has a relationship to something that I used to be very hot on about a year or two ago, with the relationships that humans form to their tools, in essence the fuzzy line between person and technology as extension of person (read Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media for more). I think that leads into scientific positivism, of which I am skeptical. That is an interesting issue, though: a lot of the posts here seem to assume a stance that science, in a science fiction game, can solve problems. Is this stance necessary for a sci-fi game? Is it what makes the science fiction elements more than just color? I think it's worth thinking about.

Blake:

Agreed - I guess I read too much into your earlier post. The issue of hard and soft sci-fi roleplaying may soon drift to where it demands its own topic, but it isn't there yet.

Christopher:

That's different from what I thought you were getting at; it's also a very interesting topic. I think Blake's point about scientific extrapolation being difficult without a strong science background is relevant; however, I'm not sure how it'd be best handled in an RPG. When metaplot is used to introduce tech, it tends to be heavy-handed; I suppose improvisation would have to be the most readily implemented method of tech creation, and probably among the strongest; if a PC is particularly capable at technological innovation, that could be it, or it could be introduced by the GM or even another player in Director Stance (so long as it fits the requirement of not being a sudden unveiling of the "Solution to Our Specific Overall Problem," which seems outlandish to me and I think deprotagonizes the PCs in general). It could have interesting results if built into a game system, I think.

-Wayne

Cadriel wrote:
What you're talking about has a relationship to something that I used to be very hot on about a year or two ago, with the relationships that humans form to their tools,

Cadriel wrote: Is this stance necessary for a sci-fi game? Is it what makes the science fiction elements more than just color?

hi, I've been following the thread for a while, and finally mulled over my thoughts enough that I think I have something worthwhile to add.

Wayne rightly notes that most science fiction rpgs seem to be distinguished primarily by color. it's mostly about tech stuff -- which some may say is not true to the genre. I think part of the problem here is that the literary genre of SF is not uniform in definition: some SF works are SF solely in terms of color, while others are thoughtful stories about turning points in science (Christoper's examples,) or stories about relationship of Self to Other (Alan's examples.)

you could argue that "real SF" must fit into either of the last two cases, but in practice all that matters is the color; "science turning points" and "relationship of Self and Other" stories are classified as science fiction by the marketing gods because they tend to produce "SF color". the crucial proof lies in classifying H G Wells as a writer of science fiction when most of his writings are really social commentary with SF color (The Time Machine is really a critique of the British class system set in the distant future to avoid controversy; The War of the Worlds is about war and human inhumanity.)

Blake raises a point about fantasy elements (fantasy color) being injected into science fiction in order to introduce mystery into the setting. I find the point interesting because I disagree -- at least as far as rpgs go (I think it may be true of written SF.) fantasy color does not inject any mystery into an rpg, any more than ... religious color.

I think that's the important point; the "why can't there be more `real SF' rpgs?" question is another version of the "why can't there be more `real religion' rpgs?" question... as well as the question about the lack of good fabulist rpgs. there don't seem to be many rpgs that handle mystery or wonder well, at least as written.

I think a hard SF "turning point" game is possible. the problem is twofold: few players have expressed a desire to play that sort of game, and most SF color games are not truly adequate to handle the task.

I will make a daring suggestion, here: this kind of SF game is best handled as Narrativism, not Simulation.

Obviously this is an interesting topic--see how it has exploded even before I had a chance to see it.

In stating the original question, Wayne a.ka. Cadriel wrote: why is it that the games are not as successful overall as their fantasy and modern-occult counterparts?

Cadriel subsequently wrote: There really is no way a GM or game author can make up enough detail to cover the amount of ground that a science fiction game can very easily come into contact with; even basic planning becomes repetetive and tedious with such vistas present. How can a sci-fi game get past that difficulty?

For this example I wrote: Search Criteria?
Agricutural planets
Preliminary estimation returns thirty-seven million three-hundred twenty-nine thousand two hundred six examples.
Please narrow search parameters.
Within three sectors.
Nine thousand three hundred forty-seven examples.
Please narrow search parameters.

talysman wrote: "science turning points" and "relationship of Self and Other" stories .... the crucial proof lies in classifying H G Wells as a writer of science fiction when most of his writings are really social commentary with SF color (The Time Machine is really a critique of the British class system set in the distant future to avoid controversy; The War of the Worlds is about war and human inhumanity.)

Alan wrote: I've had a revelation! Themes of relationship of self to other cover all of these: science turning points are a result of realizations an individual has about the nature of the outer world. H. G, Well's social stories are definitive SF - fiction where some element of our common experience is changed to place the relationship of self to the other world in highlight. All of these are themes of self to other.

Alan wrote: Certainly, superficial color is easiest for marketers to tag, but I think this fundimental idea is a litmus test. For example, people often comment that Star Wars, is fantasy in disguise. With my theory, we see that Luke's journey is about coming to terms with himself, as is Aniken's. Internal journeys. Meanwhile, we have the space opera of Miles Vorkosigan, which is about coming to terms with the world outside, typified by Miles own deformities. SF. LOTR: how does an individual control themselves? Fantasy. Lovecraft: how do we face the greater reality of the universe? SF. REH: how does a man control his passions? Fantasy. Cool, this works.

Hi Wayne,

About the SF setting being a character in its own fashion. Yes -- but a very loose fashion.

For a while I toyed with a Sorcerer setting where a group of astronauts land on a planet with high tech weaponry that is in fact their demons -- needs for destruction and so forth, providing a Man Who Would Be King kind of setting.

I couldn't go anywhere with it. But this new take: The SF revelations provide new powers and what not, but takes a toll as well in Needs and Desires. (The ability to be invisible, for example, form Wells work; or the AMB satellites from Millineum). This might be an interesting way to approach a changing and demanding understanding of new laws of nature.

Christopher

The idea of sci-fi metaphors for demons made me think of the whole alien abduction 'thing'.

What if you had a demon that represented the powers gained by alien contact/abduction/implants. Humanity would simply enough reflect how 'alien' you were becoming, with 0 meaning you translate into something quite non-human. UFO cult leaders, Men in Black,government conspiracies, the whole X-files 'thang' are available for your campaign as well.

Just a note on demons and aliens:

Jonathan Z. Smith, a distinguished historian of religions at University of Chicago, wrote an essay published a couple years ago entitled "Nothing Human is Alien to Me," in which he talks about alien abductions as a religious phenomenon not particularly unlike earlier discussions of possession. If you're into that sort of academic discourse, it's worth a look. Not Smith's best essay by any means, but hey --- he does alien abductions!

Christopher Kubasik wrote: In the game you're proposing, would the new twist in technology be established and fixed at the start, or would the implications of the new technology be allowed to grow.

This is what I was trying to get at with the post above: Can the science of the world change during play. (Most SF stories depend on the tech changing or the implications changing.)

For me, the GM or players already know everything about the tech at the start of play, it doesn't quite feel like SF -- no matter how wonky the new science.

Does this point of improvised innovation/revelation during play have no value; or is it just impossible to do in RPGs; or what?

clehrich wrote: Just a note on demons and aliens:

Jonathan Z. Smith, a distinguished historian of religions at University of Chicago, wrote an essay published a couple years ago entitled "Nothing Human is Alien to Me," in which he talks about alien abductions as a religious phenomenon not particularly unlike earlier discussions of possession

b_bankhead wrote: It seems to be worth a supplement. How about 'Flying Sorcerers :an Alien Abduction and Conspiracy supplement for Sorcerer"?