No Love for Sci-Fi?

[The Rose Dragon]

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

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

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

[Traikan]

I think part of the problem is the overlap between magic and technology in a science fiction setting.

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

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

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

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

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

[The Rose Dragon]

OK, stop thinking about D&D. This is not about D&D. I don't play D&D. This is about sci-fi in general, which is specifically lacking in the tabletop forums.

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

[Seffbasilisk]

Fantasy you explain it with "It's magic" or "A wizard did it."

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

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

[Ormur]

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

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

[Kaun]

you see a some Dark herasy, shadowrun and star wars poping up in here fairly often but when it comes down to it, GitP is fairly DnD focused.

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

[The Rose Dragon]

you see a some Dark herasy, shadowrun and star wars poping up in here fairly often but when it comes down to it, GitP is fairly DnD focused.

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

[Dhavaer]

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

[SmartAlec]

There's always Traveller.

[Kaun]

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

i Can think of a few on top of that

Travler
Dark herasy
Rogue Trader
Shadowrun
Cyber punk
Dragon Star

[The Rose Dragon]

If you ignore the massive giant that is D&D, there is a surprisingly little amount of fantasy RPGs on RPGNow.com compared to other genres, actually.

[Jair Barik]

I'd say there are a few limitations to the sci-fi role play many of which are pointed out in darths and droids.

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

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

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

[Ecalsneerg]

Well, Star Wars Saga comes up fairly often, although that's more Science Fantasy :P

[The Rose Dragon]

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

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

[Kaun]

ow ow ow i forgot paranoia!

[Jair Barik]

ow ow ow i forgot paranoia!

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

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

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

[The Rose Dragon]

Forgetting the Friend Computer means that you must be a Commie Mutant Traitor. All Commie Mutant Traitors must report to the nearest Termination Chamber for immediate termination. Have a happy day-cycle!

[averagejoe]

Am I alone in loving sci-fi just as much as I love fantasy and horror and superheroes?

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

[The_Snark]

Basically inertia, I suspect.

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

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

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

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

[Aotrs Commander]

It's basically to do with rule sets.

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

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

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

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

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

That would be my evaluation, anyway.

[FoE]

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

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

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

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

[Greenish]

I haven't seen a good science-y spacefaring game for a while...

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

[poisonoustea]

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

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

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

[Aotrs Commander]

Secondly, it's very easy to run a bad sci-fi campaign. That's because sci-fi is mostly about social and political commentary; it deals with the future and the destiny of humanity.

That really depends on your definition of sci-fi.

[poisonoustea]

That really depends on your definition of sci-fi.

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

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

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

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

[The_Snark]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Rose Dragon]

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

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

[Greenish]

I was thinking more along the lines of a colonized solar system: the Moon, Mars, Jupiter's moons, et cetera.

I call dips on Io!

[Asheram]

I call dips on Io!

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

[SpikeFightwicky]

There's also Conspiracy X (if you consider X-Files the least bit sci-fi-ish, then ConX is DEFINATELY sci-fi).

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

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

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

Ridley already blew it up...