PDA

View Full Version : No Love for Sci-Fi?



The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 02:47 AM
As a 3.5 year old member of these boards, something has always bugged me while browsing through this particular forum, as well as the Homebrew one. There is a distinct lack of sci-fi compared to, well, everything else. Superheroes, horror, fantasy all get their fair amount of screen time, but sci-fi threads are about as rare as avian lactation. While it is understandable, albeit regrettable, that most of the system-specific threads are about D&D, even non-system specific threads rarely mention sci-fi. And when you try to homebrew something science-fiction related, it doesn't get nearly as many views and replies as a fantasy one.

And this is not something that can be found boards-wide. In every other forum, such as Gaming, Media Discussion and Friendly Banter, sci-fi is actually pretty commonly discussed. It is just when it comes to tabletop gaming that people seem to avoid it.

So, why oh why might that be, fellow Playgrounders? Am I alone in loving sci-fi just as much as I love fantasy and horror and superheroes? And what can be done to alleviate this ghastly problem?

Traikan
2010-05-14, 03:18 AM
I think part of the problem is the overlap between magic and technology in a science fiction setting.

Does it matter if teleport functions by transporting molecules or just 'poof'ing the group? Only if it affects the availability of teleportation. Same thing with magic items and advanced weapons... disintegration beams and disintegrate...

and so on. Technology is another system to deal with.

Also Sci-Fi usually implies a heavier emphasis on guns/vehicles/ranged combat than D&D typically has. Totally subjective and varies wildly by Sci-Fi universe though.

The important question to ask is what can Sci-Fi add to a D&D game. I don't have an answer off the top of my head.

It seems like it just means more blip bloops instead of drums in the deep and red laser beams instead of magic missiles.

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 03:20 AM
OK, stop thinking about D&D. This is not about D&D. I don't play D&D. This is about sci-fi in general, which is specifically lacking in the tabletop forums.

For example, no one ever decides to homebrew a sci-fi setting, while there is a crapload of fantasy settings being built, either by individuals or by vote.

Seffbasilisk
2010-05-14, 03:22 AM
Fantasy you explain it with "It's magic" or "A wizard did it."

Sci-fi, you need to get more in depth. I'd say it's mostly because folks are lazy.

Personally, it's because I spin my stories on the fly, and can't remember all the little interworkings.

Ormur
2010-05-14, 03:27 AM
I'm probably more fond of Sci-Fi literature, films and shows than fantasy but I was introduced to roleplaying through D&D so fantasy (or whatever genre D&D is) is what I roleplay. I'v studied GURPS a little for a system that would better portray Sci-Fi or a sort of modern day Cyberpunk but I think most of my D&D pals prefer fantasy to Sci-Fi.

Edit: I think it might be harder to make a Sci-Fi setting, at least if one aimed for a hard setting. You'd have to make things make sense, less handwaving through magic. I also think fantasy in people's minds offers a better chance of escapism by being a magician or a knight while Sci-Fi characters are often closer to ordinary modern day humans. I don't know, less magical. I don't share this view, I'd love to play or be a GM in a realistic interesting Sci-Fi story but I'd have to learn a new system for it pretty well since I doubt any of my friends would volunteer to learn a new system and make a game for me to play in when they prefer fantasy or horror.

Kaun
2010-05-14, 03:53 AM
you see a some Dark herasy, shadowrun and star wars poping up in here fairly often but when it comes down to it, GitP is fairly DnD focused.

When i want to chat sc-fi i generaly go to a diffrent forum.

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 03:57 AM
you see a some Dark herasy, shadowrun and star wars poping up in here fairly often but when it comes down to it, GitP is fairly DnD focused.

It's not just D&D, however (although that certainly helps). Even in specifically non-D&D threads, there is a distinct lack of sci-fi (Exalted and M&M, on the other hand, come up highly frequently).

Dhavaer
2010-05-14, 04:00 AM
Are there all that many sci-fi RPGs at all? There's Serenity and Star Wars, but that's all I can think of other than specific campaign settings for generic systems.

SmartAlec
2010-05-14, 04:02 AM
There's always Traveller.

Kaun
2010-05-14, 04:04 AM
Are there all that many sci-fi RPGs at all? There's Serenity and Star Wars, but that's all I can think of other than specific campaign settings for generic systems.

i Can think of a few on top of that

Travler
Dark herasy
Rogue Trader
Shadowrun
Cyber punk
Dragon Star

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 04:07 AM
If you ignore the massive giant that is D&D, there is a surprisingly little amount of fantasy RPGs on RPGNow.com compared to other genres, actually.

Jair Barik
2010-05-14, 04:13 AM
I'd say there are a few limitations to the sci-fi role play many of which are pointed out in darths and droids.

First of all there is the issue of scientific knowledge. It is much harder for a GM to veto somebodies stupid and dangerous actions when they had a scientific basis behind it that is greater than your own knowledge, the catch all of 'magic' cannot be used.

Then there is the issues of the third dimension. Anyone who has played D&D will know that once flight gets involved everything goes to hell. The D&D systems are clearly not built for excessive flight based combat but even a system that is built for such a thing can struggle. Add in the complexity that a GM has to be much more prepared if spaceships become available and sci fi is a daunting realm. The players can easily opt to fly away and head off in a random direction the GM hasn't prepared. Attempting to stop this in a sci fi setting is difficult without railroading becoming apparent (the planet is magnetically land locked, asteroid storms make travelling this way suicidal, a space blockade has been set up all around you). That isn't to say sci fi can't work. If you keep the controls of the ship away from the PC's then it can work very well.

Having just bitched about how awful 3D combat is I would now like to do a complete U-turn and propose somebody make a rules set for playing the battle room of Enders Game :smallwink:

Ecalsneerg
2010-05-14, 04:16 AM
Well, Star Wars Saga comes up fairly often, although that's more Science Fantasy :P

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 04:18 AM
Having just bitched about how awful 3D combat is I would now like to do a complete U-turn and propose somebody make a rules set for playing the battle room of Enders Game :smallwink:

Not all sci-fi takes place in space. Cyberpunk is also sci-fi, as well as a great amount of post-apocalyptic stories.

Kaun
2010-05-14, 04:20 AM
ow ow ow i forgot paranoia!

Jair Barik
2010-05-14, 04:23 AM
ow ow ow i forgot paranoia!

'Friend computer wishes to remind you that forgetting about friend computer makes me very sad. :smallfrown:'

*Laser blasters lower from the ceilings and riddle Kaun with more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Kaun's new clone steps out of the clone chamber*

'Please don't forget friend computer in the future :smallsmile:'

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 04:25 AM
Forgetting the Friend Computer means that you must be a Commie Mutant Traitor. All Commie Mutant Traitors must report to the nearest Termination Chamber for immediate termination. Have a happy day-cycle!

averagejoe
2010-05-14, 04:26 AM
Am I alone in loving sci-fi just as much as I love fantasy and horror and superheroes?

No. I actually quite like sci fi, and am sometimes disappointed by the lack of support it gets around here. Not much to say on the, "Why," though. :smallfrown:

The_Snark
2010-05-14, 04:31 AM
Basically inertia, I suspect.

As people have pointed out, most science fiction RPGs are of them are RPG versions of existing settings (Star Wars, Serenity, Warhammer 40K), hybrids of fantasy and science fiction (Shadowrun and its ilk), optional settings for universal systems like GURPS (and they're rarely prominent options at that), or not widely played. Sadly, all the science fiction RPGs with their own original settings and rules designed for science fiction seem to fall into that last category. RPGs are a community activity, so if there's no large community, things become difficult.

Unfortunately, there are no big-name science fiction RPGs like there are with fantasy (Dungeons and Dragons, World of Darkness, et cetera), and in my admittedly limited experience, there are more small-name and homebrew fantasy settings than science fiction. I'm not quite sure why this is. Possibly people feel constrained making science fiction settings? Whether it's an intergalactic space opera or a cyberpunk dystopia or an alternate reality where aliens keep humans as slaves, most people are going to want to know how it's connected to the world of today (or the world of 1812, if your setting places the Ur-Quan invasion during the Napoleonic Wars). Technically, I suppose a science fiction setting doesn't have to be connected to the real world at all—you could fabricate an entirely new world. But that a) is a lot more work, and b) starts edge into fantasy territory, even if you keep magic completely out of the picture...

Long story short: Just Because. It's like asking "why don't more people play X game system?" Sometimes, the answer is "they don't like X game system", but more often than not it's just because they don't. It'd cost time and money to try a new game, and if there aren't a lot people already doing it, most people aren't going to notice that it's there. Even fewer are going to be intrigued enough to try it out. It's self-perpetuating.

Which is really too bad, because I'd love to see more science fiction settings and games and discussions around here, especially the harder sorts of space opera. Cyberpunkish and post-apocalypse settings actually don't feel that uncommon, but I haven't seen a good science-y spacefaring game for a while...

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-14, 05:04 AM
It's basically to do with rule sets.

Sci-fi is, of course, more popular with vehicle freaks and vehicles lend themselves better to wargames. Notably, I can think of far more sci-fi wargames than fantasy wargames (particularly considering there are areas fantasy simply doesn't do, like dogfighting or starship combat.)

Sci-fi, until fantasy, requires rather more groundwork, as at RPG level you can't abstract the technology much, so you have to define it to some extent. This is why most sci-fi RPG tend to be setting-specific and there are only one or two more generic systems, like GURPS or, the one glaring omission so far, Rolemaster/Spacemaster. (My personal system of choice after D&D 3.5). Basically, sci-fi is simply more variable than fantasy - a sword is a sword in any setting, but in sci-fi you could be wielding firearms, energy weapons or both against no armour, body armour and/or shields (etc.) This is reinforced by the fact there are more popular sci-fi on telly than fantasy series (seriously, has anyone ever made something even remotely resembling "classic" fantasy RPGs?) And, like it or not, this lends them better for people wanting to emulate what they've seen.

And also, unlike, fantasy, there has never been a "base" type of setting (typified by D&D) that has really achieved perceptual penetration of the roleplaying community like D&D. Whether you like it or not, 99% of roleplayers have at least heard of D&D. The same cannot be said for many - if any - sci-fi RPGs.

So, if there isn't the same level of rules spread, there won't be as much rules-smithing. And if there is, it's likely to be confined more to the boards of that game. I.e., if I want to do something with Rolemaster, I go to I.C.E's boards.

I think fantasy is also more prevalent hear because of OotS itself, which is not only fantasy, but D&D; naturally drawing more fantasy gamers. Plus the fact I suspect, that, like me, when 4E came out, many people stopped visiting WotC's boards and tend to come here instead.

That would be my evaluation, anyway.

FoE
2010-05-14, 05:17 AM
Sci-fi, until fantasy, requires rather more groundwork, as at RPG level you can't abstract the technology much, so you have to define it to some extent.

This is similar to the point I was going to make.

I'm not mathematically-inclined or terribly interested in science. And with sci-fi, I have to invent convoluted explanations for FTL engines, energy weapons, psychic powers, artificial intellegience and other sci-fi trappings work in my setting. And Maker help me if someone knows more about this stuff than I do. My techobabble isn't that great.

Magic might need rules, but they don't generally demand realism. I don't need to detail how a dragon's internal organs work; I just have to say "Go sword that dragon to death."

Greenish
2010-05-14, 05:53 AM
I haven't seen a good science-y spacefaring game for a while..."So, all your characters are now on the spaceship to Alpha Centauri. What will you do the rest of your lives that the trip will take?"

poisonoustea
2010-05-14, 05:59 AM
Sci-fi incorporates a lot of different settings. Cyberpunk, space opera, post-apocalyptic, etc. Each one of these settings has a relatively low number of followers, if compared to the broader (and more vague) fantasy genre.

Secondly, it's very easy to run a bad sci-fi campaign. That's because sci-fi is mostly about social and political commentary; it deals with the future and the destiny of humanity. If you take these elements away from the genre, you're watering it down. I'm pretty convinced that sci-fi is for more suitable for writing than role-playing.

Games like Mutant Chronicles or Dark Sun can turn pretty great (and I'd still love to play Shadowrun) but they always felt like they were lacking something, at least to me. Fantasy can be relatively light-hearted without losing its core elements, maybe because of good 'base' clichés. At least that's how I feel about it.

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-14, 06:08 AM
Secondly, it's very easy to run a bad sci-fi campaign. That's because sci-fi is mostly about social and political commentary; it deals with the future and the destiny of humanity.

That really depends on your definition of sci-fi.

poisonoustea
2010-05-14, 06:13 AM
That really depends on your definition of sci-fi.
Well, that covers pretty much any definition of Sci-Fi. Even Hokuto No Ken (which is post-apocalyptic) had a lot of social commentary in it. You have to roleplay a lot in sci-fi, and the GM must plan a lot of stuff ahead (there's a lot of questions to answer to; like other people said, Fantasy answers with "magic" to those questions) or it makes no sense.

Probably this definition of sci-fi doesn't take into consideration stuff a-la Mutant Chronicles, Dark Sun etc. when played in the 'mindless slaughter' fashion. But seriously, they tend to get really, really boring. If you're going for gritty, it must be gut-wrenching gritty. Moral choices.

Also, a lot of experienced storytellers seem pretty enthusiastic about home-brewing their settings. With sci-fi, you can't do that, at least not easily. I had to ask for help to a physicist friend of mine while writing a sci-fi novel, since I'm no expert myself. You need a lot of knowledge to set up some decent sci-fi.

Third. Popularity. Cmon, World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter, Avatar (don't tell me it's sci-fi :smallbiggrin:). Fantasy has always been way more popular and attractive than the much darker, potentially moralistic science fiction. I think the most popular SF subgenre is the post-apocalyptic/zombie apocalypse one, which would be rather boring to play as an RPG.

The_Snark
2010-05-14, 06:18 AM
Not all science fiction bothers to explain the FTL drives and laser guns, nor are they necessarily anything more than an adventure story in space. That kind of game seems a little more common (see: Star Wars).

But even if you're aiming for soft science fiction, you still have to decide what sort of technology is around and what it can do. Do you have lasers, or bullets? Are there robots? Aliens? And so on. People don't generally expect magic to be explained as much, and don't care whether it has limits, but technology has to be semi-consistent.


"So, all your characters are now on the spaceship to Alpha Centauri. What will you do the rest of your lives that the trip will take?"

I was thinking more along the lines of a colonized solar system: the Moon, Mars, Jupiter's moons, et cetera. :smalltongue: You don't need interstellar travel to count as spacefaring.

Mind you, I've read science fiction novels that took place on an interstellar journey—sometimes on the tail end of it, with the climax taking place as they reach their destination, but not always. It can work.

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 06:22 AM
Not all science fiction bothers to explain the FTL drives and laser guns, nor are they necessarily anything more than an adventure story in space. That kind of game seems a little more common (see: Star Wars).

Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's space fantasy. Even space opera has more science in it than Star Wars.

Greenish
2010-05-14, 06:22 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of a colonized solar system: the Moon, Mars, Jupiter's moons, et cetera. :smalltongue:I call dips on Io!

Asheram
2010-05-14, 06:29 AM
I call dips on Io!

Dibs on Ceres! Yess... all the water is MINE!

SpikeFightwicky
2010-05-14, 06:39 AM
There's also Conspiracy X (if you consider X-Files the least bit sci-fi-ish, then ConX is DEFINATELY sci-fi).

As for adaptations of generic systems, there's also:
d20 Future
AFMBE: All Tomorrow's Zombies

I think the main problem is that since almost everyone started with D&D, they try to run a sci-fi game as if it was D&D. At least, everyone who's run a sci-fi game for me/my group has run it that way, and sure enough, we usually revert back to D&D (which is better at dungeon crawling). I ran a Star Wars game where no one wanted to play a Jedi that ran very sci-fi-ish. As for troubles with the 'it's magic' excuse, why not just use 'it's science!'?


Dibs on Ceres! Yess... all the water is MINE!

Ridley already blew it up...

The_Snark
2010-05-14, 06:41 AM
All these worlds are yours; all save Europa. Attempt no landing there. Slightly misquoted, I know.

Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's space fantasy. Even space opera has more science in it than Star Wars.

Correction: the Star Wars movies were space fantasy. Unless your game touches heavily on Jedi and the Force, it probably isn't. It's probably not even close to hard science fiction either, but it's silly to classify every Star Wars game as fantasy just because the movies revolved around knights and princesses.

poisonoustea
2010-05-14, 06:44 AM
By the way, any chance I can find a Mass Effect RPG? :smallbiggrin:
Man I'd love to play something like that.

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 07:11 AM
By the way, any chance I can find a Mass Effect RPG? :smallbiggrin:
Man I'd love to play something like that.

There is a d20 Modern conversion on these very boards, with the downside of being, well, d20 Modern.

Samurai Jill
2010-05-14, 07:26 AM
As for troubles with the 'it's magic' excuse, why not just use 'it's science!'?
Because science is not equivalent to magic. In fact, it's the opposite of magic- modelling of the physically possible vs. the physically impossible. Okay, you could consider cloning/memory downloads to be a viable alternative to resurrection spells, but technologies that make cloning+memory downloads possible have a lot of social side-effects that aren't easily glossed over in the same way that you can say "9th level clerics just aren't all that common."

SF settings tend to lean toward Simulationist play, because they stem from a similar psychological need- the desire to explore logical cause-and-consequence. Most people lean toward Nar or Gamist play, but Burning Empires (http://www.burningempires.com/) handles this pretty well.

Third. Popularity. Cmon, World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter, Avatar (don't tell me it's sci-fi :smallbiggrin:).
It is, actually. In many ways it's more careful about it's internal logic than, for example, Moon, and a lot more so than The Matrix.

poisonoustea
2010-05-14, 07:31 AM
There is a d20 Modern conversion on these very boards, with the downside of being, well, d20 Modern.
I never played d20 modern... is it that awful? :P

I'm pretty convinced a WoD conversion would be really easy and effective. Biotics and Tech abilities can be handled like Disciplines (the way they're portrayed in the games makes them incredibly easy to port into the WoD!); races will have a few points here and there (Asari start with one dot in Biotics, Quarians with Tech, Krogan can use Frenzy rules along with Resilience...)


It is, actually. In many ways it's more careful about it's internal logic
From that point of view, yes. I was being sarcastic about the plot :smalltongue:


a lot more so than The Matrix.
Yet the Matrix incorporates the key elements of an excellent sci-fi story.

Greenish
2010-05-14, 07:33 AM
I never played d20 modern... is it that awful? :PIt's D&D 3-3.5 with some tweaks.

And Wealth. :smallcool:

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 07:37 AM
I never played d20 modern... is it that awful? :P

Well, first of all, it's based on D&D. That's a bad mark as it is. However, it is little more than D&D with guns and planes (well, obviously there are also computers and cars and stuff, but you get the idea). It does not encourage a shift in play style when compared to D&D, which is mostly about dungeon crawls. It does not make enough modifications to the d20 system to fit the high-action modern games. While you can try and play it in other ways, as most people do, there are simply better systems for doing that.

For example, if a D&D game is about entering a labyrinthine dungeon, fighting the goblins there, taking their treasure and killing the hobgoblin, a d20 Modern game is about entering a labyrinthine office building, fighting the murderous temps there, taking their credit cards and killing the CEO. (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php?date=2001-11-29)

EDIT: However, it works great for low-fantasy dungeon crawls. :smalltongue:

Samurai Jill
2010-05-14, 07:38 AM
Yet the Matrix incorporates the key elements of an excellent sci-fi story.
All except the basic rudiments of scientific plausibility or respect for logical explanations. The Matrix has the key elements of an interesting emotional story. It is not sci-fi in any of the ways that matter.

SpikeFightwicky
2010-05-14, 07:40 AM
Because science is not equivalent to magic. In fact, it's the opposite of magic- modelling of the physically possible vs. the physically impossible. Okay, you could consider cloning/memory downloads to be a viable alternative to resurrection spells, but technologies that make cloning+memory downloads possible have a lot of social side-effects that aren't easily glossed over in the same way that you can say "9th level clerics just aren't all that common."

I didn't mean to answer internal consistency issues with 'it's science!' (I'd hate that as a player). Those are best dealt without handwaves. Though, something as simple as "it's cost prohibitive" can easily put wonder tech out of the reach of the common individual.



It is, actually. In many ways it's more careful about it's internal logic than, for example, Moon, and a lot more so than The Matrix.

The Matrix was sort of built on fridge logic :smallsmile:.

Greenish
2010-05-14, 07:41 AM
All except the basic rudiments of scientific plausibility or respect for logical explanations.What, using the body heat of people to generate electricity to keep the machines keeping said people locked in said machines makes perfect sense!
The Matrix was sort of built on fridge logic :smallsmile:.You're using some weird and obscure definition of fridge logic there. Matrix falls apart when you apply fridge logic.

Totally Guy
2010-05-14, 07:44 AM
Most people lean toward Nar or Gamist play, but Burning Empires (http://www.burningempires.com/) handles this pretty well.

I'm trying to learn this system... If it can do "macro level" play with the same detail as Burning Wheel does "micro level" play I'll be very happy. But that Lifepath chapter is such a bitch to get through.

My concern is that every BE game will be similar due to the Phase Structure of the campaign.

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 07:44 AM
You're using some weird and obscure definition of fridge logic there. Matrix falls apart when you apply fridge logic.

Fridge logic is when things fall apart after you stop viewing it and start thinking about it.

poisonoustea
2010-05-14, 07:48 AM
It is not sci-fi in any of the ways that matter.
Uhm, we probably hold a different idea of science fiction, so I guess we won't get to agree on any of this. Though I get the point about being loyal to science, I believe that's just one of the elements of sci-fi - or better, hard science fiction.

I think sci-fi is defined, as I said, by social commentary, questions about the future of humanity, moral changes and challenges, politics, freedom. All the Cyberpunk genre (The Matrix included) focuses heavily on these concepts, and that makes it sci fi - for me, of course.

Also, the two sequels are not science fiction to me for the same reasons.

Coplantor
2010-05-14, 07:48 AM
The best sci fi RPG, IMHO, is Alternity, intresting mechanics and a lot of flexibility, you can go cyberpunk, space opera, grim dark, post apocalyptic, space fantasy, heck! You can even play medieval fantasy with that system! With only two books.

And since I started playing it, I too realized the lack of sci fi threads, then again, DnD is by far the most popular tabletop RPG, then what, Vampire: The masquerade? Most people I know refuse to play Shadowrun because it's a hard system and paranoia is too silly/stupid for them. Alternity is rather obscure, and cyberpunk, at least here, is not a popular genre, heck, most people, even geek people know squat about it, I dont know how is it world wide though.

Greenish
2010-05-14, 07:51 AM
Fridge logic is when things fall apart after you stop viewing it and start thinking about it.That's the definition I'm used to, yes. I don't quite see how it could be what SpikeFightwicky meant though.

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 07:52 AM
That's the definition I'm used to, yes. I don't quite see how it could be what SpikeFightwicky meant though.

"It runs on fridge logic" means it falls apart when you start to think about it.

Greenish
2010-05-14, 07:55 AM
"It runs on fridge logic" means it falls apart when you start to think about it."It was built to fall apart." :smallconfused:

SlayerScott
2010-05-14, 07:57 AM
This might be an overly simplistic explanation but I figure it's because people interested in Sci-Fi probably would probably be more interested in video games than tabletop roleplaying. The fantasy genre and dusty books seem to go hand in hand as does the science fiction genre and gleaming computer screens. Obviously there's many exceptions but you originally inquired in terms of popularity - the tabletop Sci-Fi aficionado is an outlier whereas the typical swords and sorcery fan is the stalwart of a Hobby dominated by the D&D blueprint.

Popularity. Cmon, World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter, Avatar

Halo, Star Trek/Star Wars, Terminator, Transformers, Batman - I don't think that's it. Someone will no doubt debunk Star Wars as "space fantasy" but I think the average person considers it (probably mistakenly) as Sci Fi. In truth Star Wars should appropriately be classified as Historical Fiction or a HIstorical documentary - it happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. And you can't prove it didn't:smalltongue:

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 07:58 AM
"It was built to fall apart." :smallconfused:

You're taking the word "run" too literally. It's a euphemism, not meant to be taken word-by-word.


In truth Star Wars should appropriately be classified as Historical Fiction or a HIstorical documentary - it happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. And you can't prove it didn't :smalltongue:

You realize that history is a science (a social science, but a science regardless), and that if you can't feasibly bring proof against something, it's not scientifically valid, right?

Samurai Jill
2010-05-14, 08:03 AM
Fridge logic is when things fall apart after you stop viewing it and start thinking about it.
Unfortunately, for me, it didn't even last that long- Morpheus held up that duracell and the First law of Thermodynamics started kicking me in the back of the head. (And why is he the One? How does he ignore those built-in rules? Wouldn't the AIs who programmed the place be at least as capable hackers? Gaaah!)

It's a shame, because Asimov-style robots could actually have made it plausible. I mean the Matrix is the perfect way to (A) maximise human population while keeping us (B) mentally stimulated and (C) physically healthy...

Greenish
2010-05-14, 08:12 AM
You're taking the word "run" too literally. It's a euphemism, not meant to be taken word-by-word.He said it's "built on". Wouldn't that mean that the screenwriters made it intentionally stupid?

How do you build on fridge logic anyway?

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-14, 08:15 AM
Well, that covers pretty much any definition of Sci-Fi.

No, it doesn't. Leaving aside the fact "sci-fi", as you said yourself, covers several different generas some of which are very definiately not all about society and politics. I'll grant you, you can make a strong case for a lot of (any genera) sci-fi being about humanity's future history, as in sci-fi everyone tends to get a bit more nationalised by species (Star Wars being a notable exception); though "destiny" may be laying it on a bit thick. But certainly not "mostly about social and political commentary."

A fair chunk of what sci-fi is about is people shooting other people and alien and robots with guns, missiles and lasers, possibly while flying space vehicles and starships (but by no means all of; superheroes are technically sci-fi, for example); socio-political commentary may or may not be involved1. But I wouldn't ever go so far as to say it's mostly about that.

I like said, (and bearing in mind the conversation that's popped up while I've been typing this), it really depends on your individual definition of "sci-fi" because "sci-fi" is a really nebulous term, which, like "art" means different things to different people. Even it's subcategories aren't well-defined.



1Mercifully, not everything is always about exploring "the human condition." Oh, I long for the day when a decent sci-fi (or otherwise) something or other shows up that does not ever contain any humans at any point.

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 08:21 AM
He said it's "built on". Wouldn't that mean that the screenwriters made it intentionally stupid?

Not intentionally, no. It just means they made it stupid.

SpikeFightwicky
2010-05-14, 08:27 AM
He said it's "built on". Wouldn't that mean that the screenwriters made it intentionally stupid?

How do you build on fridge logic anyway?

What I meant to say was that the logic the writers used to 'build' the story was fridge logic, whether they were aware of it or not (I'm not one of the writers, so I can't be sure that they knew what they were doing).

Greenish
2010-05-14, 08:29 AM
What I meant to say was that the logic the writers used to 'build' the story was fridge logic, whether they were aware of it or notI assume you mean that the writers didn't stop to think about it. Fridge logic is when you stop and think about it.

poisonoustea
2010-05-14, 08:35 AM
Mercifully, not everything is always about exploring "the human condition." [...] Oh, I long for the day when a decent sci-fi (or otherwise) something or other shows up that does not ever contain any humans at any point.
Who knows why it hasn't been made yet? :smallamused:


Star Wars being a notable exception
Star Wars looks like fantasy to me... Okay, it's my opinion, but there's way too many fantasy elements in there (good vs. evil on top).


A fair chunk of what sci-fi is about is people shooting other people and alien and robots with guns, missiles and lasers, possibly while flying space vehicles and starships
I can't think of, say, Mazinga as a sci-fi story. Someone even mentioned Batman... Maybe the genre is really too vague and I'm being narrow.

To get back on topic: though there's a lot of sci-fi works around, I'm talking about sci-fi stories. My definition of sci-fi comes from literature - and that's probably why I can't agree on many definitions given in this thread; sci-fi comes from both (excellent) literature and popular culture (space opera). Fantasy's origins are somewhat intertwined: D&D used Hobbits in its first days, a blatant LOTR spinoff. It's much easier to handle as a whole, sci-fi is not. It's less playable as an rpg.

Coplantor
2010-05-14, 08:43 AM
Star Wars looks like fantasy to me... Okay, it's my opinion, but there's way too many fantasy elements in there (good vs. evil on top).

And you know, space wizards.

Also, I dont see why it should be any less playable as an RPG. The SF RPG I'know of, well, they do a great job (specially alternity), some of the I'm yet to play though (and averyone should play alternity), but I dont see any difference between a fantasy RPG and a SF RPG to make one less viable than the other (go play alternity!)

poisonoustea
2010-05-14, 08:58 AM
Also, I dont see why it should be any less playable as an RPG.
I meant story-wise. It's less linear, and everyone has different tastes when it comes to sci-fi. My sci-fi setting would probably sound boring to mecha-lovers; I hate Star Wars but I love space opera. Yet my idea of space opera is a lot different than that of Star Trek. And so on.

Coplantor
2010-05-14, 09:02 AM
But I can see that happening to fantasy too, a friend of mine has a lot of problems playing non-tolkienesque DnD. Say, if I want to DM a campaign cenetered around the macabre and books like Lords of Madness and Libris Mortis he wouldnt feel comfortable because that's not quite medieval fantasy for him.

Ormur
2010-05-14, 09:12 AM
It's hard to define what Sci-Fi is but personally my definition would be "fiction describing the effects of technical and social change in the future or an alternative universe". I've read Sci-Fi that technically didn't have any humans in it but they were still human-like. However I can very well imagine Sci-Fi that depicts a society of complete aliens from their perspective. The key factor is showing how different conditions affect the societies and people in the story.

I thinks this manages to encapsulate most Sci-Fi. My favourite is literature that shows a society and events on a very large scale, with lot's of expositions but even military science fiction must show how lasers and spaceships affect the soldiers and tactics. Star Trek is pretty much the softest of soft Sci-Fi (it's called treknobabble for a reason) but it deals with moral challenges in space with rubber forehead aliens.


You realize that history is a science (a social science, but a science regardless), and that if you can't feasibly bring proof against something, it's not scientifically valid, right?

I don't mean to go of topic too much but history is often classified among the humanities rather than social sciences although arguments can certainly be made for it belonging there.

I don't really know whether it's appropriate to classify history as a science but there is a sort of scientific method in history that's all based on historical data and even theories that are then tested against the data, but whether they explain things better is determined, not by future observations of the course of history, but by matching it to data pertaining to events that have already happened.

But yes, in any case it's pretty clear Star Wars wouldn't be considered historical since there are no sources to indicate it ever happened. :smalltongue:

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-14, 09:12 AM
To get back on topic: though there's a lot of sci-fi works around, I'm talking about sci-fi stories. My definition of sci-fi comes from literature

What I think you're talking about (i.e. what you consider sci-fi as opposed to something else), is, to borrow wiki's categorisation, is Hard sci and/or soft/social sci-fi; which are sub-generas of sci-fi like space opera or military sci-fi are. Social sci-fi is by definition exactly what you said; hard sci-fi might or might not be.



Space opera, I think, does lend itself better to visual media than hard sci-fi does, because it appeals to more people (as a lot of people aren't really as interested in the science, but in the people and/or the Stuff) and is more visually flashy. You have to explain a lot more in hard sci-fi, and that's more difficult outside prose. Socio-political stuff works just as well in either (though arguably you can afford to be a bit more intellectual in a novel as you can explain more.)



But yes, it's very difficult to model all sorts of sci-fi in one ruleset (and thus RPG). In fantasy, you only really got to remodel magic, which is considerably less effort; and it's much easier to set boundry conditions. Modelling hard sci-fi is extremely difficult because first you have to model the real world and not even Rolemaster does that very well; and RM is the closest (open-ended dice rolls notwithstanding!) to "realistic" I'm personally seen.

Ormagoden
2010-05-14, 09:23 AM
OK, stop thinking about D&D. This is not about D&D. I don't play D&D. This is about sci-fi in general, which is specifically lacking in the tabletop forums.

For example, no one ever decides to homebrew a sci-fi setting, while there is a crapload of fantasy settings being built, either by individuals or by vote.

Why are you here? (Note: Not a snarky rhetorical question!)

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 09:30 AM
Why are you here? (Note: Not a snarky rhetorical question!)

Define "here".

The Big Dice
2010-05-14, 09:39 AM
To get back on topic: though there's a lot of sci-fi works around, I'm talking about sci-fi stories. My definition of sci-fi comes from literature - and that's probably why I can't agree on many definitions given in this thread; sci-fi comes from both (excellent) literature and popular culture (space opera). Fantasy's origins are somewhat intertwined: D&D used Hobbits in its first days, a blatant LOTR spinoff. It's much easier to handle as a whole, sci-fi is not. It's less playable as an rpg.

What we think of as fantasy today came whole cloth from Tolkien. Before him, we had historical and mythological stories. But nothing that has the iconic fantasy imagery now assiciated with D&D and other RPG lines.

Oddly enough, before Tolkien, most "fantasy" was science fiction. Going back through the likes of Asimov, Henlein and Poul Anderson, through the weird tales writers like Lovecraft and Poe. Though their stories were more about horror, they touched on elements that would later become identified with science fiction and fantasy in equal measure.

Before then, you had Edgar Rice Burroughs and his Barsoom books, which in many ways became part of the fantasy landscape, even though they were also science fiction. And before him you had people like HG Wells or Jules Verne. And you can trace the lineage all the way to Mary Shelley.

The problem is, fantasy as a genre is fairly easy to pin down. Magic is usually the common factor, with magic usually being defined as an ability a relatively small part of the population has that allows them to break the laws of physics as we understand them. This is done in various ways that either drive the plot or provide a source of conflict. Magic may be subtle or may be on a grand scale.

Other common ingredients in fantasy are a place with a technological and wuite often a cultural base that is roughly equivalent to medieval or Rennaisance Europe. Thogh other cultures may be substituted here, from Rome to Aisa. The basis on a historical period with the addition of magic and possibly other humanoid species and mythological creatures pretty much covers the entire fantasy genre.

The types of stories told might vary, but the backdrop is fairly consistent.

Science fiction is harder to pin down, but at the same time there are many elements in common. Replace magic with technology for one, but apply it slightly differently because even if only a few people understand how the technology works, anyone can push the right buttons to get the TV to change channels.

The problem with roleplaying games and science fiction is simply that D&D is too big and too iconic in gaming. To the point where sci-fi gaming has been influenced directly by it. Look at Warhmmer 40K and its spinoffs like Dark Heresy, or Shadowrun. Both took orcs, elves and dwarves then grafted them into a sci-fi setting.

Put simply, sicence fiction doesn't have the same kind of genre wide iconography as fantasy. You can call them tropes if you wish, but the image of the elegant elf, stubborn dwarf and hungry hobbit have become some of the stereotypes of the fantasy genre. Where science fiction lacks that kind of shorthand.

For the purposes of roleplaying games, having an image you can hook people with is important, and for fantasy you don't have to teach players a whole new set of species, cultures and technologies. And that's why I think the generic fantasy game is more popular than science fiction games.

Choco
2010-05-14, 09:40 AM
First of all there is the issue of scientific knowledge. It is much harder for a GM to veto somebodies stupid and dangerous actions when they had a scientific basis behind it that is greater than your own knowledge, the catch all of 'magic' cannot be used.

That IMO is probably one of the biggest factors as to why there aren't more scifi games. If you bring in real life technology (or possible technology) and physics, it never fails that there is someone at the table with knowledge vastly superior to yours on certain topics that might come up. To make a scifi game work, you either got to modify the rules of a wargame, or make a deal with the group that they will avoid one-shotting your BBEG with their superior knowledge for the sake of the game.


I think the most popular SF subgenre is the post-apocalyptic/zombie apocalypse one, which would be rather boring to play as an RPG.

Yeah, maybe to you, but FYI the ONE post-apocalyptic game I played in was the one I found by far the most fun.

In fact, I personally find vanilla D&D (go to dungeon, kill things and take their stuff, go back to town for a day or so, rinse, repeat) to be exceptionally boring. Hell, the most memorable sessions of any game system I have played have had very minimal to no combat at all in them.

Greenish
2010-05-14, 09:50 AM
In fact, I personally find vanilla D&D (go to dungeon, kill things and take their stuff, go back to town for a day or so, rinse, repeat) to be exceptionally boring. Hell, the most memorable sessions of any game system I have played have had very minimal to no combat at all in them.I object to your characterization of D&D.

SpikeFightwicky
2010-05-14, 09:56 AM
I object to your characterization of D&D.

Seconded! :smallsmile:

Choco
2010-05-14, 10:01 AM
I object to your characterization of D&D.

My bad, I left out the most important part: That you play as violent, murderous hobos.

poisonoustea
2010-05-14, 10:37 AM
For the purposes of roleplaying games, having an image you can hook people with is important, and for fantasy you don't have to teach players a whole new set of species, cultures and technologies. And that's why I think the generic fantasy game is more popular than science fiction games.
That's basically what I said, so we agree :smallsmile:

Axolotl
2010-05-14, 11:44 AM
I'd say it's because it's an awful lot harder to run a Sci-Fi game than it is to run a fantasy one. Not count post apocalyptic settings (which are pretty much the perfect RPG setting in my eyes) it's very hard to get everything to be balanced. For a start the technology has to be on a level that makes it more interesting than the average fantasy setting, or at least on the same level. Now that's not very hard, most Sci-Fi films and TV shows manage that. The problem is with the required level of technology the PCs have far too many options. With magic it's easy to come up with arbitrary power limits but with technology smart players can abuse it to break the game easily. Take spaceships for example, not only do they allow the PCs to go anywhere easily but they mean you're going to have to give the players a good reason why they can't just drop rocks on their enemies from orbit. Now this problem is easily overcomable and many Sci-Fi games find ways around it. But it is a problem for people running it that it takes much more work than a fantasy setting would.

Another_Poet
2010-05-14, 12:05 PM
I'd say it's (at least partly) partly because of the genre difference: Sci fi is often about commentary on real social issues. Fantasy is often about escaping from or getting one's mind off of the real world. There are exceptions to each, but those are the historic goals of the genres respectively.

As you noted GiantITP tends to attract D&D enthusiasts because of the D&D themed webcomic at the center of it. But that makes it a double dose of fantasy escapism - first because it's a webcomic (which for many people is a nice escape from work, school or home life for a few minutes) and second because the genre is fantasy and escapism is what fantasy does.

Thus the average fan on this site may have an easy transition to writing their own fantasy material, which does require work but can still be a nice escape; but might have a harder time putting in work on a real sci-fi topic because that typically involves a lot hard thinking about human pyschology, society, and ethics. It's not that either genre is for smarter or dumber people; there is brilliant fantasy work and sloppy sci-fi available by the ton. It's just that one genre is all about escape while the other is all about reflection, and putting in hard work on one topic is very different from putting in hard work on the other.

ap

Ormagoden
2010-05-14, 12:09 PM
Define "here".

The boards here, The forum here, The Giant in the Playground forums.
You know, Here.

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 12:10 PM
The boards here, The forum here, The Giant in the Playground forums.

Because it's a good place for discussing stuff? Because I have friends here?

Umael
2010-05-14, 12:12 PM
Guys, Choco said "vanilla" D&D.

Which, if you look at D&D historically, was what it was about.

The original D&D game was an inverse of the traditionally table-top wargame, where instead of having two groups control huge armies above ground, you had things underground (the dungeon) where space is confined. Hence, you had a single group (the PCs) exploring the dungeon, encountering obstacles (traps, monsters, obnoxious plot hooks). To make things interesting you toss in a bit of magic and voila! The original D&D!


...getting back to the original topic though, I think the lack of popularity of science-fiction settings for role-playing games has many reasons behind it.

It's science, not Science! - Science-fiction, especially hard science-fiction, is based on either what is or what might be. What cannot be (magic) is considered prohibited. This means that for people to play (hard) science-fiction, they have to know a bit about science. You can't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, a lightsaber is impossible, etc. Star Trek, Star Wars, Serenity... I love them, but I cannot call them science-fiction because they either ignore certain law of science or they try to hand-wave them away and then forget about how they hand-waved them the next time around.

We know our history. - Broadly speaking, fantasy settings are based on history. Yes, there never has been the nation of Gondor in Earth's history, but we know about the technology, the warfare, the political landscape. Most fantasy settings are based on a collection of things we know about - the power of the knight as an instrument of war, how a feudal system works, how socially acceptable slaves were. We can easily play with them by exchanging things with other knowns - the nation of Evindar is a democracy, replace the horse with trained griffons, slavery was never a part of Evindar as it was founded by freed slaves, but we either know what these changes are or we can figure them out (how much can a griffon carry and how long, how fast?). Furthermore, a lot of the feel of a fantasy setting is based on old cultural traditions. The power of nature, the mysticism of the celestial bodies, the value of knowledge in a world full of unknown where superstitions are often true.

Social commentary does not a game make. - If fantasy settings are broadly based on history, science-fiction settings are more often based on social commentary, especially hard science fiction settings. The setting is solidly a part of the story - could a story be set in the world of A Handmaiden's Tale? How about 1984, or Soylent Green?Probably, but it would not be as good if the social commentary was kept in place, as the settings lack an action-adventure feel to them.

Science-fiction has too many faces. - Dune. The Matrix. The Terminator. Babylon 5. Battlestar Galactica. Serenity. Each one of these can be called a science-fiction setting, but they are all vastly different. The times range from 10,041 AD to almost 150,000 BC, the action ranges from capital warships duking it out in space to political battles in a decadent palace. The weapons vary from marital arts to orbital bombardment. But the thing is, each one of these settings is almost sharply defined. Want to play D&D? One face, made of clay, mold it to your liking. Also, see below.

Did the world come first, or the system? - Science-fiction attracts by setting - not the system. Fantasy can do either. If you like the D&D system, you can play generic D&D. Or you can decide you really like Dark Suns or Ravenloft. Babylon 5 was a great TV series, so someone thought it could make a great RPG. It failed because the system was so terrible.

This is an epic battle failure. - If anyone has read Crusade by David Weber and Steve White, you'll understand this almost immediately, especially when I mention the Battle of Pelennor Fields in contrast. I love both Crusade and The Lord of the Rings, but the battles are handled very differently, with one a bit more exciting on a primal level than the other. In Crusade just about every major battle is completely second-hand as far as the information goes. The computer screens tell you that the missiles are incoming, but you never feel the explosions, nor hear them, unless your ship got hit, and then you are usually just dead.

Compare with the Battle of Pelennor Fields (as per the movie), in which you have a very dramatic scene of Minas Trith under seige by the Mordor orcs, the lower gates have been breached, and the city is about to fall... when the Rohirrim arrive, lead by King Théoden. There is a rousing speech, and then the Rohirrim charge right into the orcish army. The Witch-king of Angmar is personally destroyed by Éowyn, but even with this victory it is not enough to win the battle yet... this kind of epic description is something you can get in a fantasy game. In a science-fiction setting, you usually don't get these kind of epic battles, or these descriptions of epic battles, because that's not how they should play out (even if we want them to do so).

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 12:17 PM
Because science is not equivalent to magic. In fact, it's the opposite of magic- modelling of the physically possible vs. the physically impossible. Okay, you could consider cloning/memory downloads to be a viable alternative to resurrection spells, but technologies that make cloning+memory downloads possible have a lot of social side-effects that aren't easily glossed over in the same way that you can say "9th level clerics just aren't all that common."

SF settings tend to lean toward Simulationist play, because they stem from a similar psychological need- the desire to explore logical cause-and-consequence. Most people lean toward Nar or Gamist play, but Burning Empires (http://www.burningempires.com/) handles this pretty well.

It is, actually. In many ways it's more careful about it's internal logic than, for example, Moon, and a lot more so than The Matrix.

I'm gonna say that arcane magic is all about the details. In a way, it's just as "scientific" as science - you have to understand how it all works, that's how spells are discovered and researched. Most people don't realize that all of the spells presented in the rules are things that someone before you researched and figured out how to do - like your telephone or your TV or your coffee-maker (I love mine....). Divine magic is probably more about building a relationship with a powerful corporate or government that then makes things happen for you.... :smallbiggrin:

I am also going to say that the hardest thing about every sci-fi campaign I've ever run is keeping the players from doing "reasonable" yet "universe-breaking" things.

The meanest thing I've had to do was have them called on the carpet by their employer (BRINT, from Space Opera - the Bureau of Intelligence) for single-handedly saving then ruining a stable tech/7-8 culture. They were supposed to be stopping a smuggler and ended up using political connections to get a private contract to upgrade the planetary defense grid to handle incoming celestial bodies (like meteors and comets), then programming in a "back door" that would allow them to eavesdrop on anything that the planetary government, media or communications systems did. Pretty much a campaign ender - they all ended up with 12-15 year jail terms (lawyer made a few bad rolls) - but I was working out a scenario for them to go Explorer when the got out.

Hey - did anyone mention Mekton? Setting is a distant world with humans and mecha. Same guys who make Cyberpunk, in case you're interested - very similar game system as well. I'm pretty sure Mike adapted one for the other - was his first successful system afaik.

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 12:18 PM
You know, this thread makes me feel sad that there is so many people interested in sci-fi, but not nearly enough discussion to show for it. :smallfrown:

LibraryOgre
2010-05-14, 12:25 PM
OK, stop thinking about D&D. This is not about D&D. I don't play D&D. This is about sci-fi in general, which is specifically lacking in the tabletop forums.

For example, no one ever decides to homebrew a sci-fi setting, while there is a crapload of fantasy settings being built, either by individuals or by vote.

Well, it's not on here, but I have a friend who was homebrewing a sci-fi setting until he started working for the folks who do Eclipse Phase.

Ormagoden
2010-05-14, 12:28 PM
Because it's a good place for discussing stuff? Because I have friends here?

But your complaining about a lack of sci-fi on a predominantly fantasy web board.

Let me just put it into perspective for you (http://forums.syfy.com/index.php?showtopic=2347341)

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 12:33 PM
But your complaining about a lack of sci-fi on a predominantly fantasy web board.

It's not predominantly fantasy anywhere else in the boards. There is a healthy number of sci-fi games in the PbP forums. There is a good deal of discussion about sci-fi works in the Gaming, Webcomics and Media section.

It's only when it comes to these two forums that it changes. Which is distressing, to say the least.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 12:34 PM
Oh, hey - if I could brow-beat or arm-twist my group into playing Space Opera again (which has built-in rules for keeping the crazy-tech at bay - research is a bear) I would. The system is old and flawed, and combat is dangerous enough to prevent them from using blasters as the answer to every dilemma, but it's got tons of options (you can even use 'the Force' - psionics - if you like. It's there if you want it). It has some medium-hard science stuff in it, and rules for bending the rules if you will. Basically they tried to give you the tools to do hard sci-fi, science fantasy, or somewhere in the middle.

The default setting is probably at the hard end of that spectrum, though they bend the rules for faster-than-light space travel and have stubs for some of the psionics stuff scattered around.

The trick - as with most rpgs - is finding the right balance of combat, exploration and role-play for your group. My group had a great time with our brief campaign and we only had 1 good firefight and maybe 3 smaller skirmishes in probably 60 hours of play. They managed to infiltrate a smuggler's crew, gain his trust, meet their 'contact,' then react to a global disaster in the middle of their plans. Help with the clean-up, rescue the local president's son by pure chance, aid the president in recovering a key political figure from terrorists (the big fight) and then set up shop upgrading the planetary defense grid (which got them imprisoned....).

Main thing is, I have one player who really doesn't like modern or sci-fi settings and just won't budge. He's moving shortly, so maybe I'll drag the rest of them back in....

poisonoustea
2010-05-14, 12:44 PM
Why so rude, Lostfang?

This forum, as far as I know, is mainly about RPGs, not fantasy. Since D&D is a fantasy game and the most popular RPG around, you're pretty much saying that people shouldn't mention sci-fi RPGs on RPG boards.

And anyway, why are you here?

DiasExMachina
2010-05-14, 12:50 PM
You know, this thread makes me feel sad that there is so many people interested in sci-fi, but not nearly enough discussion to show for it. :smallfrown:

Hey, I love sci-fi. In my entire role playing life, I ran more sci-games than fantasy games. I only wrote Amethyst because I wanted to inject sci-fi into the D&D game my players insist I run for them. I often home-brewed but I ran Metkon II, Cyberpunk 2013 and 2020, Star Wars, Gamma World just to name a few. There are few sci-fi games out there because, as someone stated, they are more difficult to run. Wandering around a landscape, killing monsters is easy to do.

Greenish
2010-05-14, 12:57 PM
The Witch-king of Angmar is personally destroyed by Éowyn Meriadoc Brandybuck.Damn gloryhound humans…

Umael
2010-05-14, 01:10 PM
Damn gloryhound humans…

No, it was Éowyn, not Merry.

She didn't kill the Ringwraith by herself, of course, but the killing blow was done by her, as was most of the fighting.

Merry just got in one hamstring blow when the Witch-king wasn't looking.

Greenish
2010-05-14, 01:14 PM
No, it was Éowyn, not Merry.

She didn't kill the Ringwraith by herself, of course, but the killing blow was done by her, as was most of the fighting.

Merry just got in one hamstring blow when the Witch-king wasn't looking.The one blow with a weapon that could actually wound the Witch-King.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-14, 01:20 PM
But your complaining about a lack of sci-fi on a predominantly fantasy web board.

Let me just put it into perspective for you (http://forums.syfy.com/index.php?showtopic=2347341)
HA!
Oh, that is just so . . .appropriate.:smallamused:

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-14, 01:22 PM
HA!
Oh, that is just so . . .appropriate.:smallamused:

Not to mention completely off-the-mark. :smallsigh:

A more accurate analogy would be if I entered a forum about desserts and sweet things and complained about the lack of chocolate cake. There might be hundreds of reasons for the phenomenon, but it's not because it falls outside the site's purview.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 01:31 PM
And fantasy works aren't really that uncommon on the 'SyFy' channel anyway - and I hate that new logo....

Of course, 'SyFy' channel originals are actually getting worse, so I guess they should dumb down the logo while they're at it.

You know - perhaps the main problem most people have with actually playing science fiction rpgs isn't the difficulty, but that the PC's aren't really the encounter anymore. It's far easier to die, you can't generally get away with as much mayhem because surveillance systems are always watching, and - depending on your setting - healing is so damned slow.... Personally, I find all of these things a bonus.

Choco
2010-05-14, 01:39 PM
You know - perhaps the main problem most people have with actually playing science fiction rpgs isn't the difficulty, but that the PC's aren't really the encounter anymore. It's far easier to die, you can't generally get away with as much mayhem because surveillance systems are always watching, and - depending on your setting - healing is so damned slow.... Personally, I find all of these things a bonus.

Me as well. I like knowing that there is always a risk of dying, that if my uber pimped-out cyborg soldier of doom attacks a random street gang, they have the chance of getting a lucky shot and killing me.

Though this leads to another issue... most people I know dont like those kinds of limitations, they want to be able to walk into town knowing they can randomly slaughter everyone without breaking a sweat, at no risk to themselves. In fact, the main reason they play RPG's in the first place is so they can do stuff like that, unlike in real life. I guess scifi is just too "realistic" for some people.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 01:57 PM
For the purposes of roleplaying games, having an image you can hook people with is important, and for fantasy you don't have to teach players a whole new set of species, cultures and technologies. And that's why I think the generic fantasy game is more popular than science fiction games.

That's probably the cleanest way I think anyone could drop it in the bucket.

Do you know what a Transhuman is, where they're from and how they differ from a Human? Oh, sorry - forgot the setting.... ICE's Space Master defines them one way, Space Opera defines them another. Like you said - in fantasy, an orc is an orc.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 02:01 PM
Choco - your sig....

Did you try to fight the Tarrasque too? Or did you wander into the Tomb of Horrors?

TricksyAndFalse
2010-05-14, 02:16 PM
I think that a lack of posts about sci-fi gaming may have zero correlation to how many people play and enjoy sci-fi pen-and-paper RPGs.

The most common types of topics I see on this board are

How do I model a character like X?
How can I most optimally build a character that does X?
Can someone clarify this rule?
I have a problem with another player/the GM


Maybe the people who play and enjoy sci-fi games don't need to post these topics, post them in game-specific fora, or the genre of the game is irrelevant to the post.

For most sci-fi characters and archetypes I've wanted to play, modelling them in the game rules has been easy (The exceptions have been d20 Future, and RIFTS). When playing SW Saga, it's very obvious how to build a Jedi. When playing Fading Suns, it's clear how to build a psychic spaceship pilot. Where D&D attempts to be generic and inclusive of just about every fantasy archetype you might want to play, most sci-fi games are tightly coupled to their settings. Building my favorite anime character to work in D&D is plausible, but a dual-lightsaber-wielding Sith Lord doesn't fit the setting in a Cthulhutech game, so there's no need to try to model one.

In most of the sci-fi games I can think of, optimization is done with gear. If you can afford the best gear, you will be optimized to handle your job. Personal stats are often not relevant if you are driving a ship or a mecha, or carrying a big gun that rolls lots of dice. My uplift octupus in our Eclipse Phase game (which I am playing in only a few hours, yay!) doesn't have maxed out weapon skills (he's a xenobiologist), but he has all sorts of gear to compensate so it doesn't much matter (tacnet, smartlink, the full suite of sensory upgrades, and seeker frag micro-missiles).

Rule clarification is something I'd expect to see more of for the sci-fi games. But, it could just be that such posters go to where they think people likely know the answer (game-specific fora elsewhere), rather than post them here, where most people talk about D&D.

Having problems with fellow players or the GM is universal, regardless of genre. You probably see more of these where the game in question is sci-fi than you recall.

lesser_minion
2010-05-14, 02:16 PM
Because science is not equivalent to magic. In fact, it's the opposite of magic- modelling of the physically possible vs. the physically impossible.

No. Science is about finding out what the laws of reality are, by careful observation and well-documented processes. It doesn't concern itself with how those laws can be exploited, let alone broken.

That's why "it's science!" doesn't explain any given piece of technology in an 'extra mushy' setting. The correct answer is closer to "it's engineering!" or "it's medicine!".

They aren't opposites in the slightest - magic doesn't concern itself with "breaking the laws of physics" because if the laws of physics in the setting were the same as those in the real world, there wouldn't be any magic. Magic concerns itself with exploiting laws that don't exist in our world, not breaking them.

Jayabalard
2010-05-14, 02:22 PM
Superheroes, horror, fantasy all get their fair amount of screen timeArguably, a lot of the Superheroes (and even some horror/occult) genre falls under the umbrella of Sci-fi.


most of the system-specific threads are about D&D, even non-system specific threads rarely mention sci-fi.The non-D&D system threads tend to be much less biased toward fantasy. For example, most of the threads that touch on GURPS in general also make mention of Sci-Fi (eg: transhuman space, time-travel, sci-fi related mashups). Most of the threads that mention Palladium reference Rifts (which I'd generally label under sci even with it's fantasy elements), Robotech.

Certainly though, this board is very D&D focused, so it's primarily going to talk about fantasy gaming.


So, why oh why might that be, fellow Playgrounders?I can think of two reasons:

In order to be "Hard" sci-fi, you have to be very detail oriented, much more so than needed for fantasy. The science for everything in the game needs to really work (for various values of "really work"). This turns a lot of people off, since they don't want to deal with that level of detail. Look at the jokes that people make about GURPS Vehicles. It takes a GM who's very tech savvy in addition to being a good storyteller.

If you're doing "Soft" Sci-Fi, then really you're using magic (or psi, super powers) and just calling it science; in this latter case, it often doesn't look like Sci-Fi (it's superheroes, or occult, or galactic fantasy like star wars, or space opera like Lensman, etc).

You can try and find some sort of middle ground but it's far from easy; it's much harder than just throwing together a generic fantasy game. People expect the world to not necessarily make sense (a wizard did it) so they tend to be far more lenient.


The other is that fantasy campaigns can much easily draw from history, so you have a lot of ready made campaign information available just from browsing through history books or wikipedia. If you try and use history in sci-fi campaings you wind up with "X in space!" which kind of makes you lose the sci-fi-ness (IMO).

randomhero00
2010-05-14, 02:25 PM
Just wanted to say I love scifi and am currently working on a homebrew setting for it.

Choco
2010-05-14, 02:51 PM
Choco - your sig....

Did you try to fight the Tarrasque too? Or did you wander into the Tomb of Horrors?

What prompted the sig was when I went to try to Shivering Touch a Great Wyrm dragon we were not supposed to fight (with no escape plan, I mean come on, I just need to roll higher than a 1 right?) and rolled a 1. One turn and one full attack from a very pissed off dragon later, and there is not much left of me. My char was resurrected and a few months later (in game and IRL) some NPC mentioned this same dragon, and my reaction was to say that quote in my sig.

That being said, I have a habit of rolling 1's against SOD attacks, so it is almost applied universally now.

Also TricksyAndFalse has a point, maybe there is no lack of scifi fans on this forum, they just don't feel the need to post. I know I was a lurker for quite a long time before I bothered posting.

Tengu_temp
2010-05-14, 03:19 PM
I've never seen a shortage of sci-fi myself. From the games I'm currently playing/DMing, two are sci-fi, two are somewhere between fantasy and sci-fi, and one is set in the modern world with fantasy elements. In fact, the only purely fantasy games I've been engaged in lately seem to be Exalted.

Of course, I'm a mecha fan, and most mecha are sci-fi, so that might have something to do with that.

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-14, 03:51 PM
For most sci-fi characters and archetypes I've wanted to play, modelling them in the game rules has been easy (The exceptions have been d20 Future, and RIFTS). When playing SW Saga, it's very obvious how to build a Jedi. When playing Fading Suns, it's clear how to build a psychic spaceship pilot. Where D&D attempts to be generic and inclusive of just about every fantasy archetype you might want to play, most sci-fi games are tightly coupled to their settings. Building my favorite anime character to work in D&D is plausible, but a dual-lightsaber-wielding Sith Lord doesn't fit the setting in a Cthulhutech game, so there's no need to try to model one.

You made me realise the other, glaringly obvious point that no-one (incuding myself) had raised yet. D&D is simply much bigger than most other systems. There's thus more options available and therefore more choice and room for optimisation and rules queries. 3.5 occupies a good chunk of one of my booshelves. Only Rolemaster/Spacemaster retains parity with it, and only then combining all the sets of books from 2nd to current editions. (My understanding is GURPS might give it a run for it's money, but I'm not familiar with that system overall.) Most sci-fi systems, as you say, are tied to their setting and don't have (or maybe need) as much variety and so inspire far less rules discussion.

randomhero00
2010-05-14, 05:12 PM
Of course, I'm a mecha fan, and most mecha are sci-fi, so that might have something to do with that.

Is mecha plural? If so what's the singular form? Mech? I curious cause I usually hear them referred to as mechs.

Tengu_temp
2010-05-14, 05:41 PM
I've encountered these forms:
1. Plural mecha, singular mech. That's the one I use.
2. Plural mecha, singular mecha. That's the original one. Japanese language doesn't really have a plural form for most words, so mecha can be both singular and plural, like samurai or ninja.
3. Plural mechs, singular mech. Sounds kinda grating to my ears, but I don't think if it's wrong to use it.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 06:36 PM
In most of the sci-fi games I can think of, optimization is done with gear. If you can afford the best gear, you will be optimized to handle your job. Personal stats are often not relevant if you are driving a ship or a mecha, or carrying a big gun that rolls lots of dice. My uplift octupus in our Eclipse Phase game (which I am playing in only a few hours, yay!) doesn't have maxed out weapon skills (he's a xenobiologist), but he has all sorts of gear to compensate so it doesn't much matter (tacnet, smartlink, the full suite of sensory upgrades, and seeker frag micro-missiles).


That's why I like Space Opera - your stats and skills make a difference. A research scientist with all of the best gear is still going to need good stats and high skill levels to do anything useful. An engineer/tech is still going to have to be competent in order to use the awesome tools at his disposal to get your warp drive working in time to escape the supernova. Your astronaut needs to know what he's doing to get you from one system to another, to plot optimal courses, etc. The technology is there, but you have to have the talent and know-how to use it or it's just so much metal and plastic.

And don't even get me started on combat. Of course, it's not as dangerous as Living Steel was, but it's still not a walk in the park unless you have a pretty decent tech advantage over your enemy (a shotgun is essentially useless against Marauder Powered Armor).

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 06:39 PM
I've encountered these forms:
1. Plural mecha, singular mech. That's the one I use.
2. Plural mecha, singular mecha. That's the original one. Japanese language doesn't really have a plural form for most words, so mecha can be both singular and plural, like samurai or ninja.
3. Plural mechs, singular mech. Sounds kinda grating to my ears, but I don't think if it's wrong to use it.

I thought Japanese used plural particles like Korean.... 메카 singular, 메카들 plural (Korean).

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 07:26 PM
Oh, and what about Living Steel, anyway? Anyone ever play that? Or Space Opera by Fantasy Games Unlimited?

I saw Mekton mentioned (perhaps it was II), and Spacemaster, and Traveller. Those were fun.

onthetown
2010-05-14, 07:36 PM
Maybe because some people just don't like sci-fi? I'm one of them. My only two sci-fi loves are Star Wars and Star Trek, and while I do love them I wouldn't want to play a game of them. Great to watch or read, though.

I just don't generally like sci-fi apart from those two. No huge explanations or deep psychological theories... I just don't like the genre. I don't even know why, it just does not appeal to me. And since there's little popularity for it on the boards, I may not be the only one.

That said, it might also be because there's so little of it around here that people are reluctant to post it. Don't rock the boat and whatnot.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-14, 07:50 PM
That being said, I have a habit of rolling 1's against SOD attacks, so it is almost applied universally now.

That's funny - I have a habit of rolling 1's just about any time it might be a dire problem. It's weird - I'm the comic relief in any game that I play a character in because - no matter how many new sets of dice I buy - I seem to be able to pull a 1 at the worst possible time every time.