PDA

View Full Version : How Hard Do You Like Your Sci-Fi TTRPGs?



CharonsHelper
2018-01-22, 12:23 AM
I recently came across this - TV Tropes about Sci-Fi Hardness Scale (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness?from=Main.MohsSc aleOfSciFiHardness) - and I was curious if the taste in TTRPGs is different from other media. I'd guess that most are a good bit lower on the scale due to many TTRPGs being somewhat kitchen sink in nature.

I like stories all around the scale - though #s 2-3 with too much technobabble can get annoying.

Frankly though - I can't think of any TTRPGs harder about a 3 on the scale which are truly sci-fi.

Knaight
2018-01-22, 12:33 AM
In practice I've run mostly 3-4 or a solid 5.5 depending on whether I want space opera or science fiction proper.

CharonsHelper
2018-01-22, 12:34 AM
In practice I've run mostly 3-4 or a solid 5.5 depending on whether I want space opera or science fiction proper.

Which systems?

Vitruviansquid
2018-01-22, 12:52 AM
I don't really see it that way. There are fun 1's, fun 2's, fun 3's, fun 4's, fun 5's.

The question to me isn't what they're trying to be, it's how good they are at what they tried to be.

Whatever it is we play, though, I'd want it to be an actual game instead of the GM and players playing "gotcha" with each other on science trivia.

Knaight
2018-01-22, 01:17 AM
Which systems?

Fudge mostly. Generics and I get along.

martixy
2018-01-22, 02:38 AM
For reasons unknown to me soft as f... 1.

Which is unusual in that, in all other aspects, I take my sci-fi as hard as I can get it.

Pleh
2018-01-22, 05:27 AM
For me, TTRPGs are about fantasy first, science later.

I usually don't give the science a second thought until someone finds it hard to accept the fantasy ( e.g. how does the Rogue Evade the Fireball without moving?). I'll throw down a few pseudo science theories that seem plausible enough to take us there, but I'll drop it like a snake if it inspires needless nitpicking debate about the science (does Shocking Grasp get blocked by insulating apparel?).

Science is always a supporting actor in my games, helping Protagonist Fantasy save the day.

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-22, 05:45 AM
I recently came across this - TV Tropes about Sci-Fi Hardness Scale (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness?from=Main.MohsSc aleOfSciFiHardness) - and I was curious if the taste in TTRPGs is different from other media. I'd guess that most are a good bit lower on the scale due to many TTRPGs being somewhat kitchen sink in nature.

I like stories all around the scale - though #s 2-3 with too much technobabble can get annoying.

Frankly though - I can't think of any TTRPGs harder about a 3 on the scale which are truly sci-fi.

I disagree with the definitions. If the only science you're going to allow is what is known today - it's not science fiction, it's science fact.

Other than that, I've read William Gibson loyally, and he's been moving over the decades ever closer to 'only science found today'. Which is sort of cool, because he's so excellent a story teller that he (and I) don't need anything more speculative.

He's the only one, though. I read hard facts in news papers, and speculative fiction in books.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-22, 05:53 AM
Looking at the SF RPGs that I own.

Rocket Age: ~2. There's actually some decent things in there, especially if you go by the fluff rather than the rules (rocketships seem to be fission torch rockets and while the rules give them set speeds the fluff just has them accelerating for the entire journey). Sure, a lot of the science is wrong, but it's consistent in it's wrongness, both with itself and with it's inspirations.

Traveller: ~3. While you can use the rules for many settings, both the rules and default setting assume a universe harder than Star Trek but with several bits of applied handwavium.

Eclipse Phase: 3.5-4. It'll depend on the exact game being run, as there are some harder and some softer elements, but most of the apparently soft elements are justified leaving mainly wormholes, Asyncs, and the Exurgent Virus (and all three can be absent from a game very easily). In general the more the EV shows up the closer to 3 it edges.

GURPS Space: It flits all over the place, but due to being GURPS it's happeist at a sort of 3-5 level. It expects most groups to eventually give up and just slap reactionless engines on spaceships so that they don't have to deal with delta-v reserves, but still provides decent rules for dealing with reaction engines and how much delta-v you'll need to get into and leave orbit from a planet. There's also a lot of unrealistic technology you can slap onto ships and characters in a softer setting, generally noted by a ^ for superscience, but everything is assumed to work like reality unless otherwise noted.

Transhuman Space: a specific setting for GURPS, and as the page says probably about a 5 or 5.5. Probably one of my favourite tabletop SF setting because of how realistic it feels while still fitting in a few more outlandish concepts.

Shadowrun: with the fantasy elements, 6. Without them it's closer to a 4 or 5, it's just overly optimistic about certain developments.

Eldritch Skies: unclear. The technology isn't gone into in much detail, but it's certainly at least a 4 due to everything seeming to work in a consistent way. There's a lot of out there things, including magic, but there's the implication of it all being related to hyperspace and the energy and intelligences within.


FWIW my favourites are GURPS set to a level of about 4-5 (no shields, ships use reaction drives and non superscience weapons, but there's a lot of stuff like nanofabrication, rejuvenation, and braintaping, and FTL drive exists) and Rocket Age at the complete other end of the spectrum. I also have a massive soft spot for Eldritch Skies, but I use it as more of a level 4 GURPS setting than with either of the actual systems it was published under.

Note that I do require dodging spaceships to spend delta-v reserves, and have things act as close to reality as possible. Because I spent several years playing with fellow engineers and a couple of scientists, and we all found breaking the game to discuss how was really fun, even in a fantasy game (I once asked the GM how the elf's teleport spells worked, he responded that the in-universe theory was basically swapping information between two points).

Pleh
2018-01-22, 10:06 AM
I disagree with the definitions. If the only science you're going to allow is what is known today - it's not science fiction, it's science fact.

Nah. Read The Martian by Andy Weir (or watch the Ridley Scott adaptation) and get back to me on that. Colonizing Mars is still a fiction rather than fact, and the entire story was an exploration of established science rather than speculation. The only fiction really was assuming best-case response to a worst case scenario.

CharonsHelper
2018-01-22, 10:14 AM
I disagree with the definitions. If the only science you're going to allow is what is known today - it's not science fiction, it's science fact.


Nah. Read The Martian by Andy Weir (or watch the Ridley Scott adaptation) and get back to me on that. Colonizing Mars is still a fiction rather than fact, and the entire story was an exploration of established science rather than speculation. The only fiction really was assuming best-case response to a worst case scenario.

In addition - I figure that it's there partially as a baseline.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-22, 11:09 AM
Looking at the SF RPGs that I own.

Rocket Age: ~2. There's actually some decent things in there, especially if you go by the fluff rather than the rules (rocketships seem to be fission torch rockets and while the rules give them set speeds the fluff just has them accelerating for the entire journey). Sure, a lot of the science is wrong, but it's consistent in it's wrongness, both with itself and with it's inspirations.

Traveller: ~3. While you can use the rules for many settings, both the rules and default setting assume a universe harder than Star Trek but with several bits of applied handwavium.

Eclipse Phase: 3.5-4. It'll depend on the exact game being run, as there are some harder and some softer elements, but most of the apparently soft elements are justified leaving mainly wormholes, Asyncs, and the Exurgent Virus (and all three can be absent from a game very easily). In general the more the EV shows up the closer to 3 it edges.

GURPS Space: It flits all over the place, but due to being GURPS it's happeist at a sort of 3-5 level. It expects most groups to eventually give up and just slap reactionless engines on spaceships so that they don't have to deal with delta-v reserves, but still provides decent rules for dealing with reaction engines and how much delta-v you'll need to get into and leave orbit from a planet. There's also a lot of unrealistic technology you can slap onto ships and characters in a softer setting, generally noted by a ^ for superscience, but everything is assumed to work like reality unless otherwise noted.

Transhuman Space: a specific setting for GURPS, and as the page says probably about a 5 or 5.5. Probably one of my favourite tabletop SF setting because of how realistic it feels while still fitting in a few more outlandish concepts.

Shadowrun: with the fantasy elements, 6. Without them it's closer to a 4 or 5, it's just overly optimistic about certain developments.

Eldritch Skies: unclear. The technology isn't gone into in much detail, but it's certainly at least a 4 due to everything seeming to work in a consistent way. There's a lot of out there things, including magic, but there's the implication of it all being related to hyperspace and the energy and intelligences within.


FWIW my favourites are GURPS set to a level of about 4-5 (no shields, ships use reaction drives and non superscience weapons, but there's a lot of stuff like nanofabrication, rejuvenation, and braintaping, and FTL drive exists) and Rocket Age at the complete other end of the spectrum. I also have a massive soft spot for Eldritch Skies, but I use it as more of a level 4 GURPS setting than with either of the actual systems it was published under.

Note that I do require dodging spaceships to spend delta-v reserves, and have things act as close to reality as possible. Because I spent several years playing with fellow engineers and a couple of scientists, and we all found breaking the game to discuss how was really fun, even in a fantasy game (I once asked the GM how the elf's teleport spells worked, he responded that the in-universe theory was basically swapping information between two points).

I think the assumption that you cannot neglect the fuel mass budget of your spacecraft is unrealistic. It relies on two of three assumptions: that the maximum delta-v of the spacecraft is very high [which is unrealistic], the range is very short [which is unrealistic], and the weapons are very slow [which is unrealistic].

Also, I don't think spacecraft can dodge. Again, the assumptions under which this would be relevant would be highly unrealistic.

CharonsHelper
2018-01-22, 11:17 AM
Also, I don't think spacecraft can dodge. Again, the assumptions under which this would be relevant would be highly unrealistic.

It probably depends upon what's being shot at them. What's the effective range?

And even if you're talking lasers/particle weapons, you could still set up a strafing pattern to be a harder target to hit if the range of the weaponry is far enough that you can be someplace else by the time the laser crosses the distance between you. (Technically x2 that speed since you may already be somewhere else by the time they fire unless they have a faster way of tracking you than looking.)

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-22, 11:47 AM
I think the assumption that you cannot neglect the fuel mass budget of your spacecraft is unrealistic. It relies on two of three assumptions: that the maximum delta-v of the spacecraft is very high [which is unrealistic], the range is very short [which is unrealistic], and the weapons are very slow [which is unrealistic].

Also, I don't think spacecraft can dodge. Again, the assumptions under which this would be relevant would be highly unrealistic.

I'm a bit confused as to what the first paragraph means. You talk about neglecting the fuel mass being more realistic (:smallconfused:), then give three reasons that have to come together as to why you might be able to ignore remass constraints. Do you care to explain further.

Also, dodging spaceships refers to ships making (pseudo-)random changes in their vector so that aimed beam and dumbfire weapons will be targeting a different place. It is, of course, harder to dodge a missile unless you can get it to exhaust it's delta-v reserve, and as in space the difference between 'missile' and 'ship' is entirely the payload section that might be impossible without exhausting your own (in which case you're now a sitting duck). So preactively dodging, not reactively, evasive maneuvers if you will.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-22, 12:28 PM
It probably depends upon what's being shot at them. What's the effective range?

And even if you're talking lasers/particle weapons, you could still set up a strafing pattern to be a harder target to hit if the range of the weaponry is far enough that you can be someplace else by the time the laser crosses the distance between you. (Technically x2 that speed since you may already be somewhere else by the time they fire unless they have a faster way of tracking you than looking.)

I guess you could, though I'd hypothesize that that's the factor governing effective range.

Also, a "dodge" is 3-4 discrete maneuvers, so if I was tracking fuel mass I definitely would not allow a dodge action.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-22, 12:32 PM
I'm a bit confused as to what the first paragraph means. You talk about neglecting the fuel mass being more realistic (:smallconfused:), then give three reasons that have to come together as to why you might be able to ignore remass constraints. Do you care to explain further.

Those are the three assumptions that have to come together to create a scenario where you cannot ignore mass.



I may not have worded it well:
The assumption that the specific impulse of the engine is very high is not unrealistic. There are quite a few motors in development, some tested and flight proven, with specific impulses that are quite high, and theorized possibilities that are extremely high. It is by no means hard to assume that in the future we have more efficient rocket motors.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-22, 12:50 PM
Those are the three assumptions that have to come together to create a scenario where you cannot ignore mass.

Huh? It's the other way around, if two of the assumptions are true you can ignore delta-v.


that the maximum delta-v of the spacecraft is very high [which is unrealistic]

If we assume that our delta-v is high enough to, for example, blast off from Earth, accelerate all the way to Jupiter, drop to one mile within Jupiter's atmosphere, leave Jupiter's atmosphere, break out of Jupiter's gravity well, accelerate all the way to Pluto at the furthest point of it's orbit from the sun, have a cuppa tea, and then accelerate all the way back to Earth, then our delta-v budget is probably so big that any individual action won't make a dent in it.


the range is very short [which is unrealistic]

Of course, at short ranges changing your vector enough to make attacks miss is highly improbable, so we can likely ignore delta-v as thrusting will have little affect (barring, of course, attempts by one craft to move closer to or further away from another craft).


and the weapons are very slow [which is unrealistic].

Depends on the weapon as to realism, but to go with slow weapons suddenly delta-v becomes more important because they're easier to dodge, but you only have remass supplies.


So, according to you, you cannot ignore remass when a) the ship has a very high delta-v reserve, b) the range is close, and c) weapons are very slow.

I still don't follow.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-22, 12:55 PM
1-2. I am not a scientist, but I'd like to contribute, please. If a DM somehow could make a harder setting appeal to non-scientists and allow them to contribute to group victory, I'd be impressed and pleasantly surprised.

That and I have a soft spot for zany weird Sci-Fi. Less applied applied phlebotinum and more applied crazy.

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-22, 02:27 PM
Nah. Read The Martian by Andy Weir (or watch the Ridley Scott adaptation) and get back to me on that. Colonizing Mars is still a fiction rather than fact, and the entire story was an exploration of established science rather than speculation. The only fiction really was assuming best-case response to a worst case scenario.

I wouldn't say that The Martian isn't sci-fi. But then again, it really isn't.

Allow me to explain: It's essentially science fiction about something that we could do today. It's existing science, it's something that's on the table, something we can - and almost certainly will - do.

In other words, none of the science is really fiction, except that we haven't done it yet. We can, if we so chose. Could have, if the will had been there.

So it's actually more like comtemporary fiction that happens to take place in space.

Now, fictional science can take two forms: Stuff that we can sort of assume will become available - and stuff that's just magic by another name. Or, well, most likely magic by another name.

Lots of typical sci-fi elements - cybernetics, genetics, AI (well, maybe, I don't believe in AI), some weapon tech's, and so on, are things we can see the outline of already.

Others, such as replicators, personal force fields, certain types of energy weapons and so on, are unlikely to ever become real.

FTL takes a special place - to me. It seems a lot of scientists have kinda-sorta potentially viable ideas for how to get there. I dunno. I'm just a salesguy.

Pleh
2018-01-22, 05:06 PM
I wouldn't say that The Martian isn't sci-fi. But then again, it really isn't.

Allow me to explain: It's essentially science fiction about something that we could do today. It's existing science, it's something that's on the table, something we can - and almost certainly will - do.

In other words, none of the science is really fiction, except that we haven't done it yet. We can, if we so chose. Could have, if the will had been there.

So it's actually more like comtemporary fiction that happens to take place in space.

Now, fictional science can take two forms: Stuff that we can sort of assume will become available - and stuff that's just magic by another name. Or, well, most likely magic by another name.

Lots of typical sci-fi elements - cybernetics, genetics, AI (well, maybe, I don't believe in AI), some weapon tech's, and so on, are things we can see the outline of already.

Others, such as replicators, personal force fields, certain types of energy weapons and so on, are unlikely to ever become real.

FTL takes a special place - to me. It seems a lot of scientists have kinda-sorta potentially viable ideas for how to get there. I dunno. I'm just a salesguy.

I'm a big defender of the importance of arguing semantics, but in this instance, I don't think the distinction here is particularly meaningful.

LibraryOgre
2018-01-22, 05:22 PM
Over-medium. :smallbiggrin:

Using that scale, I tend to be most comfortable about 3... mostly plausible, but with certain concessions to whatever I want to tell.

Mr Beer
2018-01-22, 05:27 PM
In fiction I prefer 3.5 to 5.

In games I don't care, I mean I don't like Star Wars particularly but I don't morally object to flying space wizards if we're all having fun.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-22, 06:44 PM
Pardon me, I phrased it very poorly, let me start over.

The rocket equation states that the change in velocity is equal to the product of the specific impulse of the motor, g0 [9.80665m/s2], and the natural log of the mass ratio [mt=0/mt=1]

deltaV = Isp*g0*ln(mt=0/mt=1)


Isp, the specific impulse, is the value of importance. I believe that future spaceships will almost certainly be using high-specific impulse low-thrust motors. In 2017, Ad Astra Rocket Company tested the VASIMR VX-200SS motor, which output 3N of thrust with 4000s Isp. Ion thrusters can achieve 10000s, and a hypothetical ideal photonic rocket, according to Wikipedia, could get as much as 30000000s. These experimental motors aren't very good for getting to orbit, since they have really low thrust, but they're very good for going between planets. I'm going to go with 5000s Isp for the following computations.


Let's list off a couple of ship sizes:
Imperial Ultima Battle Barge: 10000m
Imperial Imperial I Star Destroyer: 1500m
United States Nimitz Aircraft Carrier: 330m
Systems Alliance Normandy Frigate: 150m
ISS: 100m

Here's a few potential ranges. I'm listing ranges in seconds, because the speed of the projectile can be from 1km/s to the speed of light, and what's more of interest is how long the ship has to react.
1s
100s
10000s

The percentage of the mass burned as fuel will be equal to the 1-.99998delta-v. Delta-v can be computed using kinematics as the length of the ship [twice half it's length, which would be the distance it must displace itself] divided by the flight time of the shell.

We can assume that the ship begins stationary, because only the displacement from it's original trajectory is relevant, since the shot can be led.

Therefore, the complete equation for the percentage of the ship's mass burned for such a maneuver is 1-.99998(l/t), where l is the length of the ship and t is the flight time in seconds.

1s
Ultima: 18.1271%
ISD: 2.9555%
Nimitz: 0.6578%
Normandy: 0.2996%
ISS: 0.1998%

For some of these vessels, this is an extreme maneuver that it would be impossible to make. The stresses involved would destroy them. For those which might actually be able to conduct this maneuver, you'll notice that the mass fraction is incredibly tiny. If you have enough fuel to travel interplanetary distances, this maneuver is essentially negligible.

100s
Ultima: 0.1998%
ISD: 0.03%
Nimitz: 0.0066%
Normandy: 0.003%
ISS: 0.002%

Now, even for the big ships we've basically hit the point where they basically don't care about the mass loss. Sure, the Battle Barge is probably burning yoctotons of fuel, but that's not really a relevant problem.

10000s
Ultima: 0.002%
ISD: 0.0003%
Nimitz: 0.000066%
Normandy: 0.00003%
ISS: 0.00002%

This is really only relevant for the science fantasy ships, because at this point you've also had hours to move to evade the shot.



As demonstrated, the mass loss from a small maneuver is essentially negligible. While you could argue that very little of the ship is fuel, that's a rather unreasonable argument, considering the ship can travel at the speed of plot between planets whenever it wants, which will take a lot more propellant than any small maneuver in combat time.

In addition, I fully expect rocket motors to improve in specific impulse in the future, which will further lower the mass loss required.



By definition, if the Isp is large then the mass loss is 0. However, given the above computations with near-future motors, is by no means unreasonable to assume that Isp is large enough to treat mass loss a 0 in a science fiction game regardless of hardness.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-22, 06:53 PM
As with any game system, playability is more important to me than rigor. "Real" sci-fi does nothing for me in particular--I like fantastic settings in particular, and am willing to give up a lot of physical rigor for that. Even though I can do the vector calculus, I'd rather not have to.

In addition, the "harder" something claims to be, the less I can suspend my disbelief, and so the harder I take any departures from "reality." But that's a personal issue.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-22, 07:12 PM
As with any game system, playability is more important to me than rigor. "Real" sci-fi does nothing for me in particular--I like fantastic settings in particular, and am willing to give up a lot of physical rigor for that. Even though I can do the vector calculus, I'd rather not have to.

In addition, the "harder" something claims to be, the less I can suspend my disbelief, and so the harder I take any departures from "reality." But that's a personal issue.

I agree entirely.

"The space cathredal flies through hell, and if the Gellar Field fails then everyone gets eaten by daemons," is something that I can nod my head to and go "yeah, that's cool, makes sense." "The Nuclear Damper projects a field of nodes and antinodes that cancels out the nuclear strong force and renders nuclear devices inert," is something that makes my mind and attention to the story and setting come to a screeching halt as I go, "Wait, what? What does that even mean?" Some things are better left unexplained.



The one thing that gets me is when spaceships keep their engines on at full burn to maintain speed, though.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-22, 07:36 PM
I agree entirely.

"The space cathredal flies through hell, and if the Gellar Field fails then everyone gets eaten by daemons," is something that I can nod my head to and go "yeah, that's cool, makes sense." "The Nuclear Damper projects a field of nodes and antinodes that cancels out the nuclear strong force and renders nuclear devices inert," is something that makes my mind and attention to the story and setting come to a screeching halt as I go, "Wait, what? What does that even mean?" Some things are better left unexplained.



The one thing that gets me is when spaceships keep their engines on at full burn to maintain speed, though.

Yes, especially the bold part. Oh, and the additional part is a WTF all by its own, unless we've repealed (through technobabble, maybe) Newton's First Law (in which case...wow).

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-22, 07:43 PM
Yes, especially the bold part. Oh, and the additional part is a WTF all by its own, unless we've repealed (through technobabble, maybe) Newton's First Law (in which case...wow).

I mean, every sci-fi I've played, read, and watched does that. They could be using a continuous-burn-transfer, I guess.

It's because of naval tradition, and that way captains can ask for things like "flank speed!" It's also a visual cue to viewers that the ship is moving, since the engines are glowing.


It's also the same reason that starfighters roll over when they dive like SBD Dauntlesses, and bombs fall from the underside [or arc downwards towards their target] during bombing runs. In general, for big things Space is an Ocean and they behave exactly like a navy ship, and for small this Space is Air and they behave like a plane from a WWII movie.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-22, 07:46 PM
I mean, every sci-fi I've played, read, and watched does that. They could be using a continuous-burn-transfer, I guess.

Yeah, "Inertial dampeners" are a necessary part of any but the slowest space-oriented sci-fi. Space is just too stinking big otherwise, at human-accessible accelerations. I'm fine with it, as long as it's waved away and the rest of the setting isn't too obnoxious about realism otherwise.

If they're using continuous-burn-transfer orbits, then they must have reaction mass to burn (or be using something like an ion engine, which poses its own set of issues).

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-22, 07:50 PM
Yeah, "Inertial dampeners" are a necessary part of any but the slowest space-oriented sci-fi. Space is just too stinking big otherwise, at human-accessible accelerations. I'm fine with it, as long as it's waved away and the rest of the setting isn't too obnoxious about realism otherwise.

If they're using continuous-burn-transfer orbits, then they must have reaction mass to burn (or be using something like an ion engine, which poses its own set of issues).

I don't think inertial dampeners has anything to do with it or anything. I think it's just technobabble that one author used one time and everyone latched onto, I'm not even sure what they're supposed to do.

I was talking about that earlier. I actually think it would be more reasonable to assume they're using an ion engine or than a conventional engine.

CharonsHelper
2018-01-22, 07:51 PM
I mean, every sci-fi I've played, read, and watched does that. They could be using a continuous-burn-transfer, I guess.

The Kris Longknife novel series doesn't.

Well - technically they do continuous burn, but at the halfway point they flip ship to start to slow down.

No inertial dampeners or artifical gravity - the in-ship gravity is due to the constant acceleration/deceleration. They make a point of the smaller warships being crewed entirely by younger crews who can take being banged around at 3gs while dodging incoming fire.

LordEntrails
2018-01-22, 07:52 PM
I would love a system in the 3-5 range, but really haven't played that many sci-fi games. Those that I have played have been 2.5 or lower but I've still had fun with them :)

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-22, 07:54 PM
The Kris Longknife novel series doesn't.

Well - technically they do continuous burn, but at the halfway point they flip ship to start to slow down.

No inertial dampeners or artifical gravity - the in-ship gravity is due to the constant acceleration/deceleration. They make a point of the smaller warships being crewed entirely by younger crews who can take being banged around at 3gs while dodging incoming fire.

That's not particularly accurate either, to be honest.

I also don't really think ships can/will be accelerating fast enough to generate earth-like gravity from it, but I'd have to do math to figure that out.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-22, 07:59 PM
I actually made a point of that in the "intro to" handout for the science fiction setting I ran a campaign in -- "if a ship's thrusters are 'hot', that means it is attempting to change its velocity or vector, or counteract the gravity of a large nearby mass", or something like that.

CharonsHelper
2018-01-22, 08:00 PM
That's not particularly accurate either, to be honest.

I also don't really think ships can/will be accelerating fast enough to generate earth-like gravity from it, but I'd have to do math to figure that out.

The space shuttles generated about 3gs on launch - they just couldn't sustain it for very long because they ran out of fuel.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-22, 08:02 PM
The space shuttles generated about 3gs on launch - they just couldn't sustain it for very long because they ran out of fuel.

That's for a rocket travelling to orbit, which is different than a spacecraft on a continuous burn between earth and mars.

Note that there's like 8 or 9 orders of magnitude between the thrust output of a ion thruster and a F1 engine.


We could hypothetically, I guess, fly a spacecraft at 3gs to wherever. I'm not entirely certain why though.

CharonsHelper
2018-01-22, 08:05 PM
That's for a rocket travelling to orbit, which is different than a spacecraft on a continuous burn between earth and mars.

Right - it uses more fuel.

We'd need fusion or anti-gravity or some other power source we don't currently have to last anywhere near that long.

Note: I'm not saying that it is definitely feasible (maybe?), but it's certainly a harder sort of sci-fi than the constant burn for maintaining speed which you were complaining about.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-22, 08:10 PM
Right - it uses more fuel.

We'd need fusion or anti-gravity or some other power source we don't currently have to last anywhere near that long.

A VASIMR engine would require a nuclear reactor to operate from here to Jupiter, but near the sun a small one could use solar panels. The acceleration's not great, but the thrust you get from your propellant mass is good.


The premise of "burn full, turn around at half way and burn again until you stop," is intuitively off because planets aren't two stationary points.

I, however have only completed my introductory course of orbits and transfers, and we only covered hohmann transfers. I'll be taking my senior level orbital mechanics class in the fall, and we should cover CBT's then.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-22, 08:12 PM
Right - it uses more fuel.

We'd need fusion or anti-gravity or some other power source we don't currently have to last anywhere near that long.

Note: I'm not saying that it is definitely feasible (maybe?), but it's certainly a harder sort of sci-fi than the constant burn for maintaining speed which you were complaining about.


I think the "engines must burn to maintain speed" thing is unintentionally playing to both the audience and sometimes the writers and effects crews unspoken expectations based on boats and aircraft having to keep pushing because of resistance.

And yeah, that one actually bothers me more than speculation about some better means of pushing a ship that makes "burn time" and "fuel-mass ratio" less critical.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-22, 08:17 PM
I think the "engines must burn to maintain speed" thing is unintentionally playing to both the audience and sometimes the writers and effects crews unspoken expectations based on boats and aircraft having to keep pushing because of resistance.

And yeah, that one actually bothers me more than speculation about some better means of pushing a ship that makes "burn time" and "fuel-mass ratio" less critical.

It's also because, in space, there's nothing to indicate that the ship is moving if it's engines aren't on, so it's a cue to the viewer too. Since the only useful reference of speed are nearby ships, the general brightness of the engine is roughly equated to how fast the ship is moving. It's a rather useful tool, all things considered.

CharonsHelper
2018-01-22, 09:00 PM
The premise of "burn full, turn around at half way and burn again until you stop," is intuitively off because planets aren't two stationary points.


True - they're not stationary - but they're two predictable points.

Squiddish
2018-01-22, 09:11 PM
Either Fully scientific with some optimistic or pessimistic instructions, Science + Magic but internally consistent, or utterly goofy. I'm not a big fan of "it's real science but FTL is a thing" for RPGs.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-22, 09:11 PM
True - they're not stationary - but they're two predictable points.

The trick isn't going to the other planet.

The trick is going to where the other planet will be when you get there.

Lord Raziere
2018-01-22, 09:33 PM
I recently came across this - TV Tropes about Sci-Fi Hardness Scale (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness?from=Main.MohsSc aleOfSciFiHardness) - and I was curious if the taste in TTRPGs is different from other media. I'd guess that most are a good bit lower on the scale due to many TTRPGs being somewhat kitchen sink in nature.

I like stories all around the scale - though #s 2-3 with too much technobabble can get annoying.

Frankly though - I can't think of any TTRPGs harder about a 3 on the scale which are truly sci-fi.

Hm.

I un-ironically like shows that are complete space fantasy. So we're starting at 1 here.

Not 6, I don't play non-fiction.

5? hm. I dunno.

I know that if Eclipse Phase is a 4, then I like up to 4 then.

I can be pretty wide in my tastes. So I'd say 1-4 for me.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-22, 09:46 PM
I'm not sure Eclipse Phase is a 4, more like a 3...

CharonsHelper
2018-01-22, 10:22 PM
The trick isn't going to the other planet.

The trick is going to where the other planet will be when you get there.

True - but we can figure that out now. I think that by the time we get that kinda ship it won't be a big problem.

Cluedrew
2018-01-22, 10:25 PM
Most "true" sci-fi isn't really about people, it is about the systems and societies that advancement of technology and culture creates. Role-playing games tend to be about people (most have most of the players acting entirely through characters). So I think going too hard can actually be an issue. Unless you want to do a slice of life adventure in the future, I would generally stay kind of soft.

CharonsHelper
2018-01-22, 10:30 PM
Most "true" sci-fi isn't really about people, it is about the systems and societies that advancement of technology and culture creates. Role-playing games tend to be about people (most have most of the players acting entirely through characters). So I think going too hard can actually be an issue. Unless you want to do a slice of life adventure in the future, I would generally stay kind of soft.

It depends how much of the focus is on the tech.

You can do a TTRPG in the modern day, I don't see why you couldn't do one with only moderate sci-fi - just don't have the system go into detail about how the tech works.

(I do agree that a lot of hard sci-fi focuses on the tech.)

LordEntrails
2018-01-22, 10:35 PM
It's also because, in space, there's nothing to indicate that the ship is moving if it's engines aren't on, so it's a cue to the viewer too. Since the only useful reference of speed are nearby ships, the general brightness of the engine is roughly equated to how fast the ship is moving. It's a rather useful tool, all things considered.
A useful tool for a visual game or movie etc, not acceptable imo for an TTRPG :)

It's not useful for a TTRPG and actually hinders science and technology education and understanding. So yea, not acceptable to me.

lightningcat
2018-01-23, 03:29 AM
I am building a Transformers game that I think fits into the 2 or 2.5 range, but I enjoy anything from 1 to 4. While 5 and 6 can be interesting for short term games, I want more "ooh and aah" after a bit.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-23, 03:48 AM
I don't think inertial dampeners has anything to do with it or anything. I think it's just technobabble that one author used one time and everyone latched onto, I'm not even sure what they're supposed to do.

I was talking about that earlier. I actually think it would be more reasonable to assume they're using an ion engine or than a conventional engine.

For the record, Inertial Dampening comes from EE Smith, who used of for FTL travel (it was a believable method at the time). It had quite a few effects later uses of of didn't, like justifying constant thrust for spacecraft (as you stopped immediately when you hit a particle of hydrogen), your maximum speed was however long you could accelerate without bumping into hydrogen, it was nearly impossible for an inert ship to hurt a non inert ship and voice versa, and there was a problem where you retained your previous vector when you switched inertia back on.

Now on the terms of propulsion, the engine used will vary on the game. Certainly with a low thrust high delta-v engine there's no need to track remass as you'll only be using it up on long burns. On the other hand with a chemical rocket (or some kind of unrealistic high thrust high delta-v engine) you might reasonably have to track delta-v to decide if you have the reserves to do what you want. I find tracking it fun, but understand that's not with realistic quantities.


I'm not sure Eclipse Phase is a 4, more like a 3...

People will disagree on this, depending on your belief regarding the plausibility of certain technologies (AGI, Seed AI, brain uploading, brain downloading, nanafabrication, the rather insane level of genetic modification that goes on). Removing the EV, Exurgents, Asyncs, and Pandora Gates and nobody would mind it being described as a 4 or maybe a 5, it's just those elements might shunt it down the scale for you.

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-23, 04:22 AM
Did anyone read ... um ... A Deepness In The Sky? By Vernor Vinge?

It's surprisingly excellent - surprising because my expectations are always so very low when reading a new author. And it has the constant burn thing, while having no FTL, and still has large (trade) empires. Also, sort of borderline mind control. And spiders.

Mostly, I like FTL for story purposes - because spending decades or centuries in whatever stasis tank the author goes with doesn't suit me. But Vernor Vinge makes is kinda cool that an empire could crumble from end to end and you'd only ever find out too late because you're too far away, or you were sleeping while it happened (over several centuries).

Maybe I should read more of his books?!

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-23, 05:19 AM
Did anyone read ... um ... A Deepness In The Sky? By Vernor Vinge?

It's surprisingly excellent - surprising because my expectations are always so very low when reading a new author. And it has the constant burn thing, while having no FTL, and still has large (trade) empires. Also, sort of borderline mind control. And spiders.

Mostly, I like FTL for story purposes - because spending decades or centuries in whatever stasis tank the author goes with doesn't suit me. But Vernor Vinge makes is kinda cool that an empire could crumble from end to end and you'd only ever find out too late because you're too far away, or you were sleeping while it happened (over several centuries).

Maybe I should read more of his books?!

I recommend Revelation Space by Alistair Renoylds, he manages to make the decade-long journey (from the travelers' point of view) interesting, because things happen during it.

Knaight
2018-01-23, 05:20 AM
People will disagree on this, depending on your belief regarding the plausibility of certain technologies (AGI, Seed AI, brain uploading, brain downloading, nanafabrication, the rather insane level of genetic modification that goes on). Removing the EV, Exurgents, Asyncs, and Pandora Gates and nobody would mind it being described as a 4 or maybe a 5, it's just those elements might shunt it down the scale for you.

I might be unusually hardline here, but I have a hard time calling Eclipse phase higher than 2, even with those things removed.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-23, 05:32 AM
I might be unusually hardline here, but I have a hard time calling Eclipse phase higher than 2, even with those things removed.

Sure, as I said it all depends on how realistic you find the idea of the key technologies to the setting, it'll go anywhere from 2 to 5 depending on who's viewing it. I find it all plausible enough to be a 4, because very little of the stuff is considered outright impossible in the way force fields are, but I get those who view it as lower on the scale. I actually misswrote my post, it was meant to be 'many people would be fine' but I wrote it pre-breakfast.

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-23, 05:39 AM
I recommend Revelation Space by Alistair Renoylds, he manages to make the decade-long journey (from the travelers' point of view) interesting, because things happen during it.

I almost universally avoid the Big Names. Overall, this works out to my advantage - but there is a mostly theoretical risk that one of them is good.

I've read too many books. There was a time I thought writers like GRR Martin, Raymond E Faust, Larry Niven, Iain Banks, and so on, were actually good. Maybe they were?

Nowadays I don't dare re-read Tolkien or Asimov for fear of realising they're no better than the hacks I've read since then.

I honestly don't know if my tastes have simply become weird, but I know that the more succesful the writer, the lower the quality - almost without exception. Or maybe if there's a combination of huge readership and high productivity, it's sure to be really bad.

Or something. Don't mind me =)

Maybe I'll actually check out Alistair. One way of spotting hacks is by their titles: His aren't unimaginative. That's a good sign.

For fantasy, my rules are - any title that contains: Any weapon, any compas direction, any weather phenomenon, any noble or royal title, dragons, light, darkness, shadow, mages, apprentices, fire, cold, any combination of 'the X of Y' (which covers almost everything by GRR Martin) - I'm not spending my time or money on it, it's sure to be trash =)

I'm apologize for ranting against titles and authors a lot of people love and read. I've read literally thousands of books, and it just ... get's harder.

Satinavian
2018-01-23, 06:37 AM
For me it is 3-5.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-23, 06:53 AM
Yeah, as a general rule anything that becomes popular gets done to death, which is why EE Smith can come across as really genetic. There are some big names I think are legitimately good, I adore Peter F. Hamilton when he's writing space opera but can't stand his attempts at fantasy for example, and really want to read more Renoylds because he's proven that he can write a good story without breaking any physical laws, so when he does I trust it makes the story better or is just a maths error (IIRC he gets amounts of energy off several times, but he never worked in that field). I also still adore Asimov, but that has entirely to with his writing style, which is refreshingly clear and direct (I've called out the anti-Tolkien because of how little description he can use), to the point I've modeled my writing style off his.

On the other hand there's some big authors I just can't stand. Brandon Sanderson got me to put down several books (a couple of the first three Mistborn, way installment of the Storm light Archive) because he cannot write the middle of a long book in a way that's engaging, I felt like my reading of the first book of The Expanse was a waste of time, and I cannot touch most mainstream fantasy books because I see the same elements over and over (the only series I'm following anymore is Rivers of London). On the other hand all the book adverts I get online these days are for really generic books by self published authors, finding the stuff that interests me is difficult (and generally ends up being stuff the author is just giving away if you have an ereader).

A side note for aspiring authors, advertising your book as like another book (or worse a game or film) is a sucker's game, you'll almost always be compared disfavourably. Tell people what's special about your book, not what they can readily get elsewhere. I'm currently working on the pitch for my book when I eventually publish/self-publish, it will certainly not include the words 'like Revelation Space?' despite it being a make influence on the story I'm writing, or the umpteen other books that were.

Cluedrew
2018-01-23, 07:58 AM
Nowadays I don't dare re-read Tolkien or Asimov for fear of realising they're no better than the hacks I've read since then.Wow, I avoid movie versions like the plague but I still read these. I've actually got the Tolkien books beside me right now. They are not without their problems (often too slow pacing, ye-old racism and sexism (the sexism could easily be "setting accuracy", not sure about the racism)), but I have trouble reading fantasy now because a lot of it, I just loose interest so fast as the ideas and imagery and dying elves and powerful wizards and ancient magic parades on by. The Lord of the Rings has all that but it doesn't seem stale here. Even though I read it later than a lot of other books. Still a very heavy read.

Read much less of Asimov, but I have enjoyed a couple of his short stories.

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-23, 08:57 AM
Read much less of Asimov, but I have enjoyed a couple of his short stories.

I remember his sci-fi-detective books as being his best works. Caves of Steel is one. There's another with the same main character, but I forget the name. There are also a number of short stories featuring Dr. Susan Calvin - I, Robot is one, if I recall correctly. Much cleverer than the movie, btw.

Not that I didn't like the movie - but not for it's clever plot.

Edit: Hm. None of the stories are actually titled 'I, Robot'. Whaddaya know, memory has tricked me. It was some 35 years ago, so there's that. I think 'Lost Little Robot' is the one that most directly inspired the movie - but, that's propably just me.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-23, 09:46 AM
I remember his sci-fi-detective books as being his best works. Caves of Steel is one. There's another with the same main character, but I forget the name. There are also a number of short stories featuring Dr. Susan Calvin - I, Robot is one, if I recall correctly. Much cleverer than the movie, btw.

Not that I didn't like the movie - but not for it's clever plot.

Edit: Hm. None of the stories are actually titled 'I, Robot'. Whaddaya know, memory has tricked me. It was some 35 years ago, so there's that. I think 'Lost Little Robot' is the one that most directly inspired the movie - but, that's propably just me.

IIRC, "I, Robot" was the title of a collection of Susan Calvan stories. I probably checked it out of the library in my earlier years...

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-23, 10:52 AM
IIRC, "I, Robot" was the title of a collection of Susan Calvan stories. I probably checked it out of the library in my earlier years...

That is correct - and Lost Little Robot is the story most directly centered on the Three Laws. Or ... so =)

Pleh
2018-01-23, 12:33 PM
That is correct - and Lost Little Robot is the story most directly centered on the Three Laws. Or ... so =)

All of those short stories were really an ongoing exploration of the ultimate logical conclusion of the Three Laws. The end of the last story in that series involved a robot impersonating a human and getting elected president in a totally silent and peaceful benevolent conspiracy by the machines to take over the job of running our lives because they actually COULD do a better job than we could.

The only reason for the deception and the secrecy was that mankind would never knowingly accept such a fate, but ultimately the message from the story was that machines guided unerringly by the Three Laws would eventually have to start running the show to ever actually do what the Three Laws mandate.

The movie got it screwed up by making the machines take over by physical force and compromising some laws for higher laws. That was done to make the movie more action based and exciting, while the book was meant to make the reader think about how maybe humans are rather unable to escape our irrational self-destructive tendencies and quietly allowing machines to help us might just be the best hope for humanity in the distant future.

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-23, 02:00 PM
All of those short stories were really an ongoing exploration of the ultimate logical conclusion of the Three Laws.

Thanks for correcting me. I'm sure this isn't in any way semantics.

The Glyphstone
2018-01-23, 02:32 PM
I wouldn't even call it a collection of Susan Calvin stories, personally. Calvin is the framing narrator and featured in several of the stories, but it could just as easily be a collection of Powell+Donovan stories.

The movie of I, Robot took the concept of the Zeroth Law and built on it to make a by-the-numbers action movie.

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-23, 02:57 PM
I wouldn't even call it a collection of Susan Calvin stories, personally. Calvin is the framing narrator and featured in several of the stories, but it could just as easily be a collection of Powell+Donovan stories.

The movie of I, Robot took the concept of the Zeroth Law and built on it to make a by-the-numbers action movie.

She's ... his Gandalf?

Like I said, it's been an actual age since I read the books, but I recall her as succesfully presented as someone absolutely brilliant in her chosen field - the foremost expert on a sort of Three Laws Psychology.

But no, she's not the focus of the stories - well, not all of them at any rate. She's the only character I recall, however =)

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-23, 03:27 PM
I wouldn't even call it a collection of Susan Calvin stories, personally. Calvin is the framing narrator and featured in several of the stories, but it could just as easily be a collection of Powell+Donovan stories.


Yeah, that's true. Dr Calvin was just the person I remembered off-hand. It's been a very long time since I read the short stories (or any of the Robot books). The peril of getting old...

Pleh
2018-01-23, 11:10 PM
Thanks for correcting me. I'm sure this isn't in any way semantics.

I stated clearly that I DO like arguing semantics

when they actually matter.

"The Three Laws were a focus of one of the books" vs "the Three Laws were the focus of the entire series" is pretty substantial distinction, if a little subtle. But it wasn't really a "correction," since interpretation of literature is always a subjective field. More of an Elaboration on the subject matter: an addendum.

"Fiction with science that isn't speculation about scientific theories doesn't count as science fiction" seems like a meaningless distinction.

Why would it NOT count as a form of Science Fiction? What is gained by defining it as, "Contemporary fiction with science"? It just feels like useless quibbling to me.

The Martian is probably one of the better hard Sci Fi stories in the last few years. By limiting itself more or less to exclusively known science, it had a really focused narrative that was surprisingly relatable even to people not as familiar with the scientific concepts it was using.

It did a great job in the literary department of reminding us that we don't always need to reach for half-baked scientific speculation based on mathematical formulas we may never be able to test or measure in our lifetime (or ever). Modern science is plenty enough material to generate some spectacular Fiction Pertaining to Science.

Because Science doesn't merely speculate as to what might be, it also informs us about what is. What is possible. What is statistically "likely." What is standing against progress. What is advantageous to us. What we can expect to see happen over time.

In fact, from a writing standpoint, it's actually more challenging to write an engaging narrative with this side of science that is so much more mundane and familiar to people and, in the spirit of the challenge of Science Fiction, so much more difficult to write in a manner that is both entertaining and totally spot on in evaluating the science. People who write about speculative theories are taking an easy road because for all anyone knows, they could happen to be right, but we might never know the difference.

"But it's not about the science." On the contrary, it very much is about the science. Just more about the application than the theorizing.

Theoretical Sci Fi asks, "wouldn't it be cool if..." while Factual Sci Fi asks, "isn't it awesome that..."


I wouldn't even call it a collection of Susan Calvin stories, personally. Calvin is the framing narrator and featured in several of the stories, but it could just as easily be a collection of Powell+Donovan stories.

The movie of I, Robot took the concept of the Zeroth Law and built on it to make a by-the-numbers action movie.

I think the main purpose of Susan Calvin was to give the audience an approximate timeline in the growth of the robot race. We first see her as a child (explaining her early fascination with robot psychology) and last see her as a senior citizen at the cutting edge of her field of study. No, the stories aren't really about her. She's more set in place to give the audience a sense of scale to understand that the Robot Revolution would likely take a whole lifetime to come about.

Framing Narrator is an apt description. The story is clearly about the machines and their relationship with mankind as dictated by the Three Laws.

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-24, 12:14 AM
when they actually matter.

Thanks again for setting me straight.

When I invest time in explaining a point of view, and you brush it off like that - you and I are not having any sort of conversation.

Pleh
2018-01-24, 06:20 AM
Thanks again for setting me straight.

When I invest time in explaining a point of view, and you brush it off like that - you and I are not having any sort of conversation.

You explained a view and I responded that it didn't add up for me. Seemed like the distinction you were trying to make had no particular meaning. You can leave it at that or we can have a discussion to try to find where you and I differ.

I'm sorry if I have hurt your feelings as it was not my intent, but I hope you understand if I don't take responsibility for your feelings in an exchange of ideas on an internet forum.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-24, 06:43 AM
I'm going to explain my view quickly, which is why I don't consider the TV Tropes definition of '1' to really be science fiction.

If it has nothing to do with science as we know, then it's missing the science part of science fiction (for the record, if it actually happened then it's missing the fiction part). Now this is a really small thing to overcome, and yet a lot of people don't manage it.

Have ships use reaction engines, and discuss how this interacts with the fact that space is (effectively) a vacuum. Discuss automation and how it affects life. Talk about how X isn't like what we expect. Just do something to acknowledge science, 'hard' or 'soft'. If you don't then you'll end up just writing fantasy in space, which is fine but not science fiction.

Now, I have a lot more respect the harder the SF, just because it can remove a lot of cheats that people are used to. But that doesn't mean that soft SF is bad.

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-24, 08:22 AM
You explained a view and I responded that it didn't add up for me. Seemed like the distinction you were trying to make had no particular meaning. You can leave it at that or we can have a discussion to try to find where you and I differ.

I'm sorry if I have hurt your feelings as it was not my intent, but I hope you understand if I don't take responsibility for your feelings in an exchange of ideas on an internet forum.

When you dismiss my reasoning out of hand - you and I cannot have any meaningful exchange. That's pretty much the end of it.

FWIW, my first post stated specifically that I disagree with the definitions - making it explicitly semantic. Then you brush off as semantics. Just .... if you're not being deliberately rude, I don't even know.

Edit: Oh and .... please don't worry about my feelings. I'm annoyed. Not hurt.

Pleh
2018-01-24, 10:07 AM
Well, is there any more "reasoning" to your argument than merely semantics?

You seemed to be saying, "The Martian isn't Sci Fi because the science itself wasn't fictional science."

Let's look at the dictionary.


Science Fiction (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/science-fiction?s=t):
noun
1.
a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.

I would say The Martian fits this definition. A fictional narrative drawing imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, or theme.

Nothing in the definition requires that the science itself be in any way fictional. In The Martian, it's the application of the science that is fictional. The uniqueness of that perspective in mainstream media is part of what is so fantastic about the narrative.

You aren't disagreeing with the Trope page definition of Science Fiction. You're disagreeing with the English Language's definition of Science Fiction, which is fine enough I suppose as speakers of the language are permitted to propose changes to definitions of the language, but how is your proposed change actually useful?

We can propose changes to the definitions, but to support such a change I'd need to have some understanding of a benefit such a change could provide. What do we gain by excluding "established science narrative" from the genre of Science Fiction? If anything, the inclusion of that field only strengthens the genre's focus on exploring human innovation by looking directly at the next step in front of us instead of skipping several chapters ahead.

If I was dismissive of your reasoning, it was because I didn't see any actual reasoning. You just proposed we change the definitions around the genre (which that more or less is exactly what "arguing semantics" ever really is), but didn't provide any actual basis for making the change. When we argue semantics, we want to understand exactly what we are trying to gain through nitpicking at the nuances, or why not just save ourselves the effort and leave things ambiguous if we get the same effectiveness from ambiguity as pedantry? In short, why do we really care?

Insisting on a more "pure" definition of Science Fiction without giving us anything actually useful in adjusting our perspective sounds like exclusion for its own sake, which just speaks to an elitist mindset that wants to elevate personal preferences and looks for the easiest justification for doing so. Again I ask, why must Science Fiction be excluded to studies of fictional science, when the current definition of the genre provides for no such exclusion?

And I feel the conversation could be more meaningful if you wanted to elaborate on your position and work out with me where we are at odds (besides this awkward passive aggressive banter we're both stuck in). To defend your position and refute my claims that your semantics are insubstantial, all you must do is provide evidence to the contrary. In this case the best evidence would be elaborating on the substance that your semantic distinction possesses for you so that the rest of us might likewise benefit from understanding the distinction. We might learn something after having been given an opportunity to better understand your perspective on the subject. If you are not certain that such evidence exists, you might be well advised to reconsider your opinions as they might not be so sound as you originally thought. More likely, you just don't have the time or energy to devote to the discussion, which is perfectly reasonable and in no way diminishes your position.

But if you feel you've exhausted your resources and decline to participate, it would be less provocative to step down from the conversation rather than dismissing the person on the other end.

"Well, I guess we can't have a meaningful discussion" rather implies that I am doing something wrong that is preventing you from conversing with me, which is malarky. It is possible for us both do nothing wrong in expressing our opinions and still wind up disagreeing with no breakdown in our ability to communicate nor any loss in value to either of our respective opinions.

We can always have meaningful discussion whenever we have the time and the willingness to put forward the effort. Sometimes it means taking a step back and reframing the conversation if we feel like we've gotten stuck somewhere, but the conversation only completely fails when we stop trying.

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-24, 12:41 PM
Well, is there any more "reasoning" to your argument than merely semantics?

It's an opinion. I don't have any shred of need to justify it.

Maybe you should zoom back to the OP, eh? This entire thread is about people's opinion on this topic. So my conclusion is that you are being deliberately rude, and that I will report you if you keep it up.

Have an otherwise splendid day.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-24, 12:52 PM
I'm going to explain my view quickly, which is why I don't consider the TV Tropes definition of '1' to really be science fiction.

If it has nothing to do with science as we know, then it's missing the science part of science fiction (for the record, if it actually happened then it's missing the fiction part). Now this is a really small thing to overcome, and yet a lot of people don't manage it.

Have ships use reaction engines, and discuss how this interacts with the fact that space is (effectively) a vacuum. Discuss automation and how it affects life. Talk about how X isn't like what we expect. Just do something to acknowledge science, 'hard' or 'soft'. If you don't then you'll end up just writing fantasy in space, which is fine but not science fiction.

Now, I have a lot more respect the harder the SF, just because it can remove a lot of cheats that people are used to. But that doesn't mean that soft SF is bad.

I would take argument. I don't think the "cheats" are a problem, because the fake-science behind how the ship goes from planet A to planet B doesn't matter beyond it's side effects on people and places. It's more important that the universe be living than the technology in it be scientifically viable.

While it may be more accurate to refer to works as "future fantasy" than "science fiction", I don't think the distinction is really relevant. As I said, I don't think good writing focuses so much on the operation of the technology so much as the people, events, and character of the universe. Technology is only relevant as much as the opportunities it provides and side effects it has affects the inhabitants of the world.


I'm also not sure what's up with reaction engines. It's a very specific trigger that I think has no bearing on the "hardness" of the universe. Warhammer 40k and Star Wars both use reaction drives [Necrons might be an exception because they refer to it as an "inertialess drive", but their models also clearly have engine clusters], and definitely fall into the category of "future fantasy".

Cluedrew
2018-01-24, 07:17 PM
It's an opinion. I don't have any shred of need to justify it.I would say you don't have to justify it to us. If you can't justify it at all, than you are just wrong. Which might have been what you were trying to say in the first place, but I have been seeing people hiding behind some actually (pretty objectively) wrong statements with "its my opinion" and I kind of reflexively stepped on it.

That being said, I think that is an odd way to draw the line between sci-fi and some nots, but I didn't see anything wrong with it as I skimmed the thread.

ross
2018-01-24, 07:44 PM
approximately this hard: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-25, 02:51 AM
I would say you don't have to justify it to us. If you can't justify it at all, than you are just wrong. Which might have been what you were trying to say in the first place, but I have been seeing people hiding behind some actually (pretty objectively) wrong statements with "its my opinion" and I kind of reflexively stepped on it.

That being said, I think that is an odd way to draw the line between sci-fi and some nots, but I didn't see anything wrong with it as I skimmed the thread.

Like I told Pleh: The thread is about peoples opinions about, and tastes in, sci-fi. I do not subscribe to the point of view that hard sci-fi is somehow better, or that 'realistic' science (as in present day, basically) is somehow preferable. Same with fantasy, for that matter - it isn't better if it's closer to medieval europa, for instance.

That's not to say that realism makes it bad. It just doesn't make it good either.

Also, let's remember: This isn't about sci-fi, per se. It's about ranking inventiveness in sci-fi, with more imagination apparently being worse. And I do not agree with that.

The Martian is an excellent novel, one of the best I've read in years. It's also sort of sci-fi'y, but only because it describes something we haven't done yet, not because any of the science is in the least bit inventive. Neuromancer is also an excellent novel, and hugely sci-fi - because it describes tech we do not possess, and quite possibly never will. Not only that, it takes these types of tech, and describes their impact on humans, and human society.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-25, 04:38 AM
I would take argument. I don't think the "cheats" are a problem, because the fake-science behind how the ship goes from planet A to planet B doesn't matter beyond it's side effects on people and places. It's more important that the universe be living than the technology in it be scientifically viable.

While it may be more accurate to refer to works as "future fantasy" than "science fiction", I don't think the distinction is really relevant. As I said, I don't think good writing focuses so much on the operation of the technology so much as the people, events, and character of the universe. Technology is only relevant as much as the opportunities it provides and side effects it has affects the inhabitants of the world.

Eh, my point was that when you can't get energy from nothing and things like that then writing becomes a lot harder. I actually wasn't thinking about spaceship propulsion there, as however that works can just be solved by altering timescales. But thing things as 'energy shields', teleportation, and a whole host of other devices that break physics make writing a story so much easier.


I'm also not sure what's up with reaction engines. It's a very specific trigger that I think has no bearing on the "hardness" of the universe. Warhammer 40k and Star Wars both use reaction drives [Necrons might be an exception because they refer to it as an "inertialess drive", but their models also clearly have engine clusters], and definitely fall into the category of "future fantasy".

I specifically had 'and how that relates to space being a vacuum' on the end. But for the record, while 40k does use (highly efficient) reaction drives I don't follow the lore enough to know.

On Star Wars, a friend and I were looking into this. SW ships have no remass tankage, and essentially no fuel tankage, meaning that they can't be using reaction drives. For all intents and purposes SW drives have to be reactionless, as otherwise they wouldn't be able to propel ships. It also utterly fails at anything to do with the vacuum of space.

Pleh
2018-01-25, 09:21 AM
Like I told Pleh: The thread is about peoples opinions about, and tastes in, sci-fi. I do not subscribe to the point of view that hard sci-fi is somehow better, or that 'realistic' science (as in present day, basically) is somehow preferable. Same with fantasy, for that matter - it isn't better if it's closer to medieval europa, for instance.

That's not to say that realism makes it bad. It just doesn't make it good either.

And at this point, I agree entirely. I like Star Wars better than Star Trek, even though I've come to view Star Trek as the objectively better literature (in most of its installments). I just prefer to watch good Star Wars to good Star Trek and that only comes down to personal taste.

There is, however, something to be said for authors who, in addition to doing the normal job of writing a compelling narrative, also perform the extra curricular task of handling the relevant science well and even incorporating it into story events. It requires more effort and when done well deserves extra credit.

It's not that I'm saying scientific accuracy >> imaginative framing. I'm saying both Hard and Soft Sci Fi benefit from having imaginative framing, while Hard Sci Fi reaches to add scientific accuracy on top of imaginative framing.

Hard Sci Fi sometimes falls flat when they reach so hard for scientific accuracy that they lose out on imaginative framing, essentially trading one positive quality for another. At that point, it's just apples and oranges comparing fiction and fantasy.

But to those stories that are equally imaginative as fantasy novels while maintaining an exceptional degree of scientific accuracy as well, these stories are just generally more work to produce and do actually deserve more credit than pure fantasy that only puts forward the effort to effect imaginative framing. (Not that Fantasy literature fails to perform this level of rigor, they just usually end up working much harder on the details of societal, cultural, and economic themes and elements because they are still relevant in fantasy, even in absence of a focus on science).

And the fact that Hard Sci Fi is often harder to make than Fantasy doesn't mean we must needs like it better or that it will invariably be a better finished work. It's just that the primary draw to Hard Sci Fi is an audience that feels most satisfied seeing accurate depictions of science in their narratives.

And my point about The Martian was mostly that this is pretty much the reason it became so very popular. In addition to telling a compelling survivor drama, it also hit all the key notes to win the hearts of people who like scientific accuracy about as hard as you can dish it out. It didn't need to discuss theoretical science to work as a hard sci fi drama.


On Star Wars, a friend and I were looking into this. SW ships have no remass tankage, and essentially no fuel tankage, meaning that they can't be using reaction drives. For all intents and purposes SW drives have to be reactionless, as otherwise they wouldn't be able to propel ships. It also utterly fails at anything to do with the vacuum of space.

TIE is short for Twin Ion Engine. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean if it isn't expelling Ions out the back as a method of propulsion.

For what it's worth, Wookieepedia agrees with me (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ion_drive)

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-25, 09:32 AM
I specifically had 'and how that relates to space being a vacuum' on the end. But for the record, while 40k does use (highly efficient) reaction drives I don't follow the lore enough to know.

On Star Wars, a friend and I were looking into this. SW ships have no remass tankage, and essentially no fuel tankage, meaning that they can't be using reaction drives. For all intents and purposes SW drives have to be reactionless, as otherwise they wouldn't be able to propel ships. It also utterly fails at anything to do with the vacuum of space.

They definitely have reaction drives. In fact, running out of fuel is the whole plot of the newest movie. Starfighters are also shown fueling all the time. The fact that they have giant glowing engine nozzles that stop glowing when they're off is probably also a sign.

Having low tankage space doesn't mean that they don't work by throwing things out the back, it just means that the things they are throwing are really small and really fast.


Eh, my point was that when you can't get energy from nothing and things like that then writing becomes a lot harder. I actually wasn't thinking about spaceship propulsion there, as however that works can just be solved by altering timescales. But thing things as 'energy shields', teleportation, and a whole host of other devices that break physics make writing a story so much easier.

And I was saying that it doesn't actually make a difference or make writing a story easier. It doesn't make the plot more engaging, the characters more developed, or the setting more alive.

One's mastery of orbital mechanics is entirely uncorrelated to one's ability to write good literature.

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-25, 10:15 AM
There is, however, something to be said for authors who, in addition to doing the normal job of writing a compelling narrative, also perform the extra curricular task of handling the relevant science well and even incorporating it into story events. It requires more effort and when done well deserves extra credit.

Try this: Substitute curry for science in the above sentence. And um, chefs for authors, and food for narrative. But you get the idea.

Scientific accuracy is a spice - one among many - in fiction, and it doesn't make it any better or worse. In the same way that excellent food can be cooked with, or without, curry. And similarly, in some dishes curry might be a mistake. In Star Wars, for instance, suddenly throwing a dose of science in the mix would be a horrible blunder.

I don't agree that 'science is more work' - any more than I'd agree that curry is more work. Actually, the analogy stumbles a bit there, as most food with curry (that I know of) is some variation of 'meat, veggies and coconut milk in a pot'.

'With rice'.

Propably you're thinking of the research that's required. But ... I still don't agree. I wrote a story once - with an actual sciency bit in it - and I just asked someone: How would this work. He said 'like so'. And I put that in. No effort at all - actually, inventing my own explanation would have required more.

I think it would be interesting to explore - going by my own definition of sci-fi/not-sci-fi - when William Gibson stops writing scifi, and starts writing ... whatever his last couple of books are. I find it funny how he has moved closer and closer to present day, and to more and more recognizable tech.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-25, 11:04 AM
TIE is short for Twin Ion Engine. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean if it isn't expelling Ions out the back as a method of propulsion.

For what it's worth, Wookieepedia agrees with me (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ion_drive)

If it's expelling ions it should be getting nowhere the acceleration the thing's getting. Plus if it's a reaction drive the thing requires reaction mass to throw the other way.

Bare in mind that in the real world ion drives are a completely different thing, and tend to be used for long thrusts at extremely low accelerations. Just sharing the name with a reaction engine doesn't mean it is one. I could create a chemical rocket and call it a gravity drive, and that wouldn't stop it from being a chemical rocket.


They definitely have reaction drives. In fact, running out of fuel is the whole plot of the newest movie. Starfighters are also shown fueling all the time. The fact that they have giant glowing engine nozzles that stop glowing when they're off is probably also a sign.

Having low tankage space doesn't mean that they don't work by throwing things out the back, it just means that the things they are throwing are really small and really fast.

Fuel. Not remass. Therefore there is nothing saying that the problem was to do with the engines, all we know is that the reactor that used that fuel (which might have been part of the engines, or might have just been powering the ship) would have stopped being able to do it's job of turning fuel into energy. A reactionless drive would still (probably) require energy, and therefore running out of fuel is just as bad with a reactionless engine as with a reaction engine.

Also, a reactionless drive which outputs light or heat is entirely plausible if we're getting into reactionless drive territory. They can do whatever you need them to.

It's literally a case of you can go over the maths and to get the accelerations and cruising speeds that are canon you either need a lot of energy imparted to each particle (as in the Falcon is using as much energy as the reactor for the Death Star's superlaser) or most of your ship has to be remass tankage. While you can fudge the acceleration required to turn by assuming that space in SW has an atmosphere you're still left with a lot of missing energy (for particles hitting 0.999999999999c) or missing remass.


And I was saying that it doesn't actually make a difference or make writing a story easier. It doesn't make the plot more engaging, the characters more developed, or the setting more alive.

One's mastery of orbital mechanics is entirely uncorrelated to one's ability to write good literature.

True, but ignoring science that makes your planned plot point impossible (or vanishingly unlikely*) does make writing a story easier. I didn't say that hard sci-fi is better, I said I have respect for it because it's hard to write beyond the normal hardness of writing a story. It doesn't mean there isn't a large collection of rubbish hard sf out there.

* Yeah yeah, deck of cards and all that. But when you're shuffling a deck of cards there's no possibility that isn't 'vanishingly unlikely'.

EDIT: science is tomatoes. Some people like curry without tomatoes in it, some of us can't stand it, and some of us consider it a different dish to a curry with tomatoes in it.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-25, 11:08 AM
They're "ion engines" because George Lucas or someone at ILM thought "ion engine" sounded cool, end of story, nothing else.

Trying to analyze the "science of Star Wars" is pointless, there's no science to understand.

Psyren
2018-01-25, 01:24 PM
Not very hard at all. Heck, even stuff like Star Trek and Mass Effect are what I would consider to be the upper end, and both of those contain phenomenon that could only be described as magic, handwaved with Phlebotinum of some variety.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-25, 02:43 PM
If it's expelling ions it should be getting nowhere the acceleration the thing's getting. Plus if it's a reaction drive the thing requires reaction mass to throw the other way.

Bare in mind that in the real world ion drives are a completely different thing, and tend to be used for long thrusts at extremely low accelerations. Just sharing the name with a reaction engine doesn't mean it is one. I could create a chemical rocket and call it a gravity drive, and that wouldn't stop it from being a chemical rocket.

Fuel. Not remass. Therefore there is nothing saying that the problem was to do with the engines, all we know is that the reactor that used that fuel (which might have been part of the engines, or might have just been powering the ship) would have stopped being able to do it's job of turning fuel into energy. A reactionless drive would still (probably) require energy, and therefore running out of fuel is just as bad with a reactionless engine as with a reaction engine.

Also, a reactionless drive which outputs light or heat is entirely plausible if we're getting into reactionless drive territory. They can do whatever you need them to.

It's literally a case of you can go over the maths and to get the accelerations and cruising speeds that are canon you either need a lot of energy imparted to each particle (as in the Falcon is using as much energy as the reactor for the Death Star's superlaser) or most of your ship has to be remass tankage. While you can fudge the acceleration required to turn by assuming that space in SW has an atmosphere you're still left with a lot of missing energy (for particles hitting 0.999999999999c) or missing remass.


Star Destroyers also use Ion Engines, which are described according to wookiepedia (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ion_drive) as producing a stream of highly charged particles that is forced out through the rocket exhaust at nearly the speed of light.

Considering that literal used-to-be-canon sources say that they use reaction drives, and nothing in the new canon has contradicted this, I believe it is safe to say that they use reaction drives. As I said, a engine with a very high Isp could get away with reduced propellant mass, which is an easy explanation.

And fundamentally, propellant mass aboard a spacecraft in a story is only relevant as you run out of it.

LibraryOgre
2018-01-25, 04:11 PM
Star Destroyers also use Ion Engines, which are described according to wookiepedia (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ion_drive) as producing a stream of highly charged particles that is forced out through the rocket exhaust at nearly the speed of light.

Considering that literal used-to-be-canon sources say that they use reaction drives, and nothing in the new canon has contradicted this, I believe it is safe to say that they use reaction drives. As I said, a engine with a very high Isp could get away with reduced propellant mass, which is an easy explanation.

And fundamentally, propellant mass aboard a spacecraft in a story is only relevant as you run out of it.

Depends on how it is used. (http://amultiverse.com/comic/2011/11/23/call-to-action/)

Kaptin Keen
2018-01-25, 04:24 PM
reaction drives

... but everything has the ability to hover?! I mean, whatever invented canon has to somehow account for the fact that they clearly have anti-gravity.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-25, 06:51 PM
Not very hard at all. Heck, even stuff like Star Trek and Mass Effect are what I would consider to be the upper end, and both of those contain phenomenon that could only be described as magic, handwaved with Phlebotinum of some variety.

That's a... Weird position. Not even stuff like the Commonwealth Saga, where there's no (human usable) magical tech, and the technology that does enable the story doesn't get more explanation than 'makes ships move FTL' and 'it's like a portal, only made by technology'. Plus it has trains as a key setting element, meaning any attempt to run a game in the universe leads to railroading jokes.


... but everything has the ability to hover?! I mean, whatever invented canon has to somehow account for the fact that they clearly have anti-gravity.

Even worse, they clearly have artificial gravity that can act at 1g (from the simple fact that the decks ate oriented as if they were boats). This means that, with a little redesign, SW ships could replace their drives with the AG generator. Even if they can't generate a pull on the ship from the outside you could always do the '90% of the ship pushes on the other 10%' trick.

Heck, I was rereading the setting chapters of Eldrich Skies earlier, and I noticed that due to the setting all spaceships used reactionless engines, in fact anything not on wheels does. Why is it that we insist on using reaction engines even when the setting doesn't need them. Sure, the FTL is essentially 'go into hyperspace', but this already seems to be a universe with an absolute reference frame somewhere, probably in hyperspace.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-01-25, 07:00 PM
Depends on how it is used. (http://amultiverse.com/comic/2011/11/23/call-to-action/)

That.... that doesn't even make sense.

Psyren
2018-01-25, 07:40 PM
That's a... Weird position. Not even stuff like the Commonwealth Saga, where there's no (human usable) magical tech, and the technology that does enable the story doesn't get more explanation than 'makes ships move FTL' and 'it's like a portal, only made by technology'. Plus it has trains as a key setting element, meaning any attempt to run a game in the universe leads to railroading jokes.

What's weird about it? I have no idea what Commonwealth Saga is.

Lord Raziere
2018-01-25, 07:59 PM
What's weird about it? I have no idea what Commonwealth Saga is.

I can't answer the first part since I'm not that poster, but the Commonwealth Saga is a book series of which I only have two of. Basically some guy invents a portal and waves hi to the astronauts as they land on the moon or was it Mars, flash forward about 3-4 centuries later and humanity is like six-hundred planets connected by extrasolar gates since as long as your going with FTL travel, might as well cut out the big spaceship middleman and just portal straight to the surface. oh and transhumanism there and such.

then some astronomer observes a star disappearing through a telescope which should be impossible, so now the Commonwealth sends some guy who was going to be an astronauts or was the astroanut who was waved hi to, on the first FTL ship ever to and figure it out since he is the only living expert on traveling through space left rather than just a guy who goes through a portal.

oh and something about a rebel/terrorist group led by some guy named Bradley Johansson I forget what his ideology is.


Turns out it was aliens. called The Prime, that are basically some hivemind but not in any romantic songlike way or like that, they just straight up take over each other's minds like computers and outright torture a human to death because they don't understand why he emits a shrieking noise because they never used sound to communicate, and are genetically hardwired to destroy all life that isn't there own.

also something called the Starflyer doing mysterious, supposedly malevolent alien things in the background supposedly infiltrating the Commonwealth? who even knows.

there are also two other alien species that aren't threatening at all that are just there for some reason, one of them like memories a lot, the other is basically weird wood elf magic. maybe I'll reread the books when I'm bored.

CharonsHelper
2018-01-25, 11:56 PM
Even worse, they clearly have artificial gravity that can act at 1g (from the simple fact that the decks ate oriented as if they were boats). This means that, with a little redesign, SW ships could replace their drives with the AG generator.

I actually took that idea and ran with it. All the ships in my setting all use gravity engines for in-system travel.

Plus - while I'm vague about the technology reasons (the PCs shouldn't know anyway) I use that to explain why the movement system is mostly 2-d. (albeit abstractly) It's because you need to stay in the plane of the star-system to have 2+ points of gravity to grab/push at. (I also give a slightly vague nod to the gravity engines also being why momentum isn't a major factor in movement.)

There are also gravity bombardment cannons - which can rip ships apart by making the gravity bounce around in different directions & strengths. (mechanically - it also helps to make the PC alpha tactic to board the enemy ship)

Pleh
2018-01-27, 06:32 AM
Try this: Substitute curry for science in the above sentence. And um, chefs for authors, and food for narrative. But you get the idea.

Scientific accuracy is a spice - one among many - in fiction, and it doesn't make it any better or worse. In the same way that excellent food can be cooked with, or without, curry. And similarly, in some dishes curry might be a mistake. In Star Wars, for instance, suddenly throwing a dose of science in the mix would be a horrible blunder.

I don't agree that 'science is more work' - any more than I'd agree that curry is more work. Actually, the analogy stumbles a bit there, as most food with curry (that I know of) is some variation of 'meat, veggies and coconut milk in a pot'.

'With rice'.

Propably you're thinking of the research that's required. But ... I still don't agree. I wrote a story once - with an actual sciency bit in it - and I just asked someone: How would this work. He said 'like so'. And I put that in. No effort at all - actually, inventing my own explanation would have required more.

I think the original article referenced in the OP begins with a quote which answers this the best way.


"The fun, and the material for this article, lies in treating the whole thing as a game. I've been playing the game since I was a child, so the rules must be quite simple. They are: for the reader of a science-fiction story, they consist of finding as many as possible of the author's statements or implications which conflict with the facts as science currently understands them. For the author, the rule is to make as few such slips as he possibly can."
— Hal Clement, Whirligig World

I would add that the game becomes an art when a well-played game actually conveys a message that depicts humanity through the lens of science.

This is not merely some spice to flavor the food. It is a primary food element.

In fact, the extent to which this game is employed in fiction is rather the defining measurement of exactly how "hard" Science Fiction is meant to be.

For example, your anecdote about including a single tidbit of science in your own story barely registers on the meter here. In the sense of Science Fiction as a game between Author and Reader, the Author indeed exerted tremendously little effort, but the Reader needs to make tremendously little effort to follow: barely more than a quick Google search. In that instance, yes, the science is a bit more of a spicy flavor than a meaningful foundation.

In true Science Fiction, Science itself becomes a major actor in the narrative. In a Max Killjoy level of worldbuilding and consistency, the Author weaves the actions of Scientific laws and theories all over the narrative, causing the Reader to both learn and follow the workings of Science as if it were a White Rabbit leading young Alice down a rabbit hole. Such an author builds the map of their universe based on the theoretical limits of travel, notifies the reader of these limitations, then ensures at some other point in the story, these limitations are again exploited in a critical moment to suddenly change the expected outcome of a chase.

It is really Infotainment: the art of teaching through the fun of reading fiction.

It requires tremendously little effort to add a Science Flavor to a narrative (even simple Technobabble can do that if you aren't grossly lazy in its application). It takes a whole lot more to make accurate science integral to the plot at most or all important developments of the narrative. This involves building your Narrative from the ground up, asking the questions of how and why until you have a functional metaphysics for your narrative. Authors asked at conventions "what if X" can answer based on their understanding of their world's metaphysics, rather than just their gut feeling about how their world works.

Gone are the Plot-Contrived sudden turns of fate that only happen to move the plot forward. Now anyone who understands the science could have understood and predicted certain turns of events in the story and the otherwise mystical turns of fate suddenly become wholly justified and natural conclusions to the Reader.

The question of Hard or Soft science fiction is really a question of how much you enjoy analyzing and picking apart narratives that employ legalistic structures (such as science).

Star Wars is soft (if it even qualifies for Sci Fi rather than Science Fantasy), because the game keeps devolving to:
"How does that work?"
"Space magic."

Star Trek is a better question to debate around. They've been using Warp Technology for decades and the last couple of years scientists have only become more convinced of its plausibility. A few of the episodes do revolve around the funny quirks and limitations of Warp Engine technology (such as fueling the machine, the dangers of utilizing such a powerful explosive to run a ship, interactions with local space-time).

Stripping it all down to, "I'll add a single science tidbit" is really not getting the whole premise of Science Fiction.