Scifi and realism

[Mastikator]

I'll start off with the main question, how important is it that in scifi games real science is also involved with realistic facts?

For instance, say you're playing a sci-fi game and your character has a laser gun, is it important that you can know much much energy (in joules) a single laser beem discharges?
Is it important how much energy it takes for space-ships to go faster than light?
Is it important that (some of) the chemical metabolism of a silicon based life is worked out?

[Eldan]

The third maybe, since that's interesting and will probably have effects on things like poisons, or the food they need.
For the first two? You could give me pretty much any joule number, I'd have no idea what it means. But I'd rather like some consistency. If your laser cuts through steel like butter and punches football sized holes in concrete, I don't want to see people being only knocked over by it.

[Grinner]

Unless you're trying to write a sci-fi version of FATAL, I'd have to agree with Eldan.

[willpell]

I'm fine with softness in sci-fi, as long as it doesn't go too far; I am also fine with space-fantasy, but I feel it's important to distinguish the two. I don't enjoy hard sci-fi much, but I do believe if you're not going to be somewhat "crunchy" you shouldn't even claim to be sci-fi, at least not any more than Star Wars does. My favorite works are nearly always those with significant philosophical underpinnings; an example of "softer" scifi that I love would be Jack Chalker's Well World (alien miracletech can do basically anything), while about the hardest I enjoy getting is Larry Niven's Ringworld or David Brin's Uplift. Something like Honor Harrington would very likely bore me to tears, but so would a story that was too squishy and only sci-fi in name (I can't think of an example offhand, though Star Wars gets close).

[HandofShadows]

Unless you're trying to write a sci-fi version of FATAL, I'd have to agree with Eldan.

Oh no! He said the "F" word!

[awa]

consistency is more important then accuracy. Part of this is sufficiently hard scifi can make a large number of story lines impossible for example based on the way military tech is evolving i suspect advanced space battles would have fairly minimal human input it would be your computer vrs their computer as the fight happens at speeds and distances that a human can not meaningfully contribute.

[genmoose]

I would have to agree that consistency is key. What might help is to write out a short technical 'bible' that you could provide to your players and use as a reference when preparing for the next session.

In my experience a great example of this is the Codex within the Mass Effect universe. It's written at a higher level and provided to the player in game once they've encountered something. (http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex) Normally it's one or two paragraphs with some technobabble in there to make it sound good but you don't really need to worry about the math.

Here's an example about Medi-gel which is their sci-fi equivalent of a healing potion:

Medi-gel is a common medicinal salve used by paramedics, EMTs, and military personnel. It combines several useful applications: a local anesthetic, disinfectant, and clotting agent all in one. Once applied, the gel is designed to grip tight to flesh until subjected to a frequency of ultrasound. It is sealable against liquids--most notably blood--as well as contaminants and gases.
The gel is a genetically engineered bioplasm created by the Sirta Foundation, a medical technology megacorp based on Earth. Technically, medi-gel violates Council laws against genetic engineering, but so far, it has proved far too useful to ban.

It's crunchy enough to feel real, but it's not like you have to spend hours reading up on futurist medical technology to get everything right.

I also look at it that it's sort of the baseline understanding of technology that most common people would have if they lived in that universe. And that's really what you want to do; bring your players to a certain level of understanding of the game universe without a degree in astrophysics. It also allows you to keep the game moving and not break context to explain something that characters should know anyway.

From another perspective, think about how you would give a quick blurb about modern technology to someone from 10th century Europe.

Automobiles are a popular modern conveyance that come in many different sizes, configurations and prices. In general they are used to transport one or more people at speeds up to about 100 mph (although some models can go two or three times faster). They are powered by an internal combustion engine that burns a liquid hydrocarbon fuel derived from ancient fossilized animal remains extracted from the earth. On average most autos can achieve a range of about 300 miles before refueling, but fortunately fuel depots are frequent and plentiful. Most automobiles can only be safely driven on a paved or improved dirt road but some more rugged models offer all terrain capabilities.

That gives enough context that someone with no knowledge of a car might have a vague idea and it also would keep the game honest so today you don't take 20 minutes to get to the corner market, and tomorrow drive from New York to LA in an afternoon.

[LordBlades]

As others have said, for me it's consistency as well.

I don't need anything beyond a basic level explanation on how a certain device works (more detail is a bonus, but I don't really mind it's absence), but I like it to work consistently in a certain way and people to react to it in a logical manner (for example Start Trek phaser force coupling; there's to my knowledge no canon explanation why every single Federation warship isn't equipped with a single phaser array wrapping around as much of the body as possible when that seems the logical thing to do given the power of a phaser blast is proportional with the number of emitters and therefore the length of the array.)

[NikitaDarkstar]

For me it depends. If you're going to let me tinker with and modify my own equipment then yes I'd like some "fluff" details to go with it, and I'd like it to be consistent (or at least have damn good explanations for when it's not).
But do I need or even want to know all that stuff if you're not going to let me do anything with it or the game is focused on social interactions instead of warfare? No, not really. Just keep it consistent, provide enough information to know what's going on and provide more in-depth information for where it makes sense, and for those players that are interested. (The medic type character should really have more knowledge about medical things and the how's and whys. The explosives expert probably doesn't give a damn, so try to not bore your players.)

Also, I really support the idea of doing little handouts for those interested in it, it keeps the game going and people are free to skip the parts that doesn't apply to them.

[snoopy13a]

Something like Honor Harrington would very likely bore me to tears, .

You could always do what I do--skip the sections explaining the pseudo-sciende.

To the OP: unless your game is entirely populated with physics grad-students then a hard science description is probably unnecessary.

[Eldan]

You could always do what I do--skip the sections explaining the pseudo-sciende.

To the OP: unless your game is entirely populated with physics grad-students then a hard science description is probably unnecessary.

In my experience, the kind of science students who play RPGs also love a good pseudoscience explanation.

[Trinoya]

I'll start off with the main question, how important is it that in scifi games real science is also involved with realistic facts?

For instance, say you're playing a sci-fi game and your character has a laser gun, is it important that you can know much much energy (in joules) a single laser beem discharges?
Is it important how much energy it takes for space-ships to go faster than light?
Is it important that (some of) the chemical metabolism of a silicon based life is worked out?

The number rule to follow is consistency. It doesn't matter if you completely muck up the scifi of your universe, as long as you stay consistent about it.

It may be good to do your research in regards to known facts, but just make sure that if you can "redirect your graviton emitter" to "empower the core reactor for the hyper jump through the slip gate streams" resulting in a "point twenty increase in our light speed capacitors" that you write that **** down.

Someone will, and they will remember it when you least expect it.

So yeah, to reiterate... keep it consistent.

[GolemsVoice]

Consistency is important, as others said, but in the end, I really don't mind. Just make stuff up. Your lasers are powered by dilithium crystals. Fine. Antigravity functions by protozoid negation radiation. Yes, please! Just stay consistent.

However, if you do explain something, be vague enough that it fits, like the omnigel entry up there. It doesn't say HOW it does it (well, not really), just THAT it does what it does. So we know what it does, have some idea why it has these effects, and that's good.
Or: if you explain something, even with pseudoscience, go all the way. Because if ypu explain it, people will follow you, nod their head (and probably suspend their disbelief a little) and go "ah, yes, I can see that". But if your explanation just stops after some "science, science, sciences, SPACE MAGIC!" the gap in the explanation just becomes more visible, and since you attempted to explain everything, people will be less likely to let it slide when you don't.

So either explain stuff very vague, or go all the way.

[Hylas]

As far as the "this battery has 5 million joules of energy in it" question goes, you don't really need to do stuff like that. Maybe you can in your notes when making up how many shots a laser gun can shoot, but unless you want to do "Physics and Math: The RPG" then you can just go off vague numbers like "this power pack can power a flashlight for a week or give you 40 shots in a rifle or power this hoverbike for 1 hour." The medi-gel is a good example of a vague explanation and how the mechanics work.

If you start giving hard numbers in joules (or whatever) then you need to make everything that level of detail or immersion will begin to suffer. Really, the point of an RPG is that people are getting into the game and having fun, and the reason there are rules for doing anything is for consistency, and thus, immersion.

[LibraryOgre]

I have a group that plays a lot of sci-fi RPGs. It contains, quite literally, two rocket scientists... one work(s/ed) for Boeing, and the other is now part of CASIS. One of them is the GM. A lot of our games are pretty hard Sci-fi... but they also let things slide. Ok, in Systems Failure, we've got psychics, transgenic bug-human hybrids, and giant bugs who can go from a solid to energy state and travel through hardlines. Most of our party is actually resurrected and reprogrammed clones at this point. Those are part of the setting.

OTOH, when we try to blow things up? That's when real physics come into play. We played a game set in a penal colony on the moon. We had to deal with energy collection, lowered gravity, etc. Game set in a low-spin O'Niel cylinder? You better believe my native hacker was weak, tall, and skinny.

[GM.Casper]

Is it important how much energy it takes for space-ships to go faster than light?

Yes. If the PCs have their own ship, in battle they will have to manage the power supply to various ship's systems.
However since FTL is pure technobabble, I will set it so that it takes a minute for the jump drive to charge. And in combat that's a lot of time, especially if the shields, weapons and engines also all need energy, but the reactor can only supply so much per turn...

Is it important that (some of) the chemical metabolism of a silicon based life is worked out?

I will work out what the atmosphere and temperature should be on the planet. GURPS Space 4ed to the rescue!

[GolemsVoice]

Yes. If the PCs have their own ship, in battle they will have to manage the power supply to various ship's systems.

Yeah, but you can do that in %, too. 90% power to forward shields!

[Eldan]

Well, it might become important when the players get creative and try to use hte ship's reactor to do non-ship things.

[Slipperychicken]

Well, it might become important when the players get creative and try to use hte ship's reactor to do non-ship things.

"Your calculations indicate that powering a non-ship thing will require diverting roughly 27.3% of total reactor capacity for a little less than 8 minutes"

[Raimun]

That depends.

Is it fun to crunch numbers like that? If that's the cup of tea everyone enjoys, go for it.

I have to say, I would have little patience for such a thing, when playing with friends. I also doubt any player I know would enjoy it. The books usually satisfy everyone's curiosity. As has been mentioned, it's more important to be consistent. There need to be rules but it doesn't need to be that detailed, unless it doesn't slow down the game.

Of course, sometimes having some detail is really flavorful.

[GolemsVoice]

The problem is also that, unless you play with people who understand these things, like Mark Hall does, most of the actual science will fly straight over people's heads. I'm not stupid, and sure, school taught me much, but you could give me a nice scientifical explanation, and an equally scientifically sounding made up explanation, and it's unlikely I would know. At least as soon as it becomes complex.

[RPGuru1331]

@OP: It really, really, REALLY depends on your group. There's no one right way. Ask at the table/forum/whatever, and do what the group thinks should be done on the matter.

[hamishspence]

Getting scale right might be important if the group members pay close attention to it.

Looking at the common complaints on the "Sci-Fi Writers have no sense of scale" section of TV tropes might give you an idea of the likely pitfalls.

[Eldan]

"Your calculations indicate that powering a non-ship thing will require diverting roughly 27.3% of total reactor capacity for a little less than 8 minutes"

But surely, you'd want some kind of basis for those numbers.

"All the rebels have exhausted the power packs in their laser rifles! For how long can we keep those lasers going with the fuel in our spaceship reactor?"

That's a question that might come up. And, well, you probably want a rough idea, at least.

[snoopy13a]

The problem is also that, unless you play with people who understand these things, like Mark Hall does, most of the actual science will fly straight over people's heads. I'm not stupid, and sure, school taught me much, but you could give me a nice scientifical explanation, and an equally scientifically sounding made up explanation, and it's unlikely I would know. At least as soon as it becomes complex.

This is absolutely true. I taught high school science for a few years. When the adminstrators of the school would observe my classes and evaluate me, I always scored highly on "knowledge of the material." However, neither the principal nor the vice-principal of my school had a science background. So, I could have probably said that a chemical reaction occurred due to "black magic" and gotten the same evaluation

My command of physics, however, is fairly weak (I didn't teach physics). I took one year of introductory physics in undergrad--which means my knowledge of physics is that I know I don't anything about physics. I'd probably understand bits and pieces of hard science explanation and be entirely confused.

[Hylas]

Yeah, but you can do that in %, too. 90% power to forward shields!

What I was thinking of doing was taking a page from the video game FTL. They do power in "blocks" so to give you 1 level of shields you need 2 blocks. To power that small laser you need 1 block. To power the large plasma cannon you need 4 blocks. Engines give a small bonus (speed, maneuverability, time it takes to charge the "jump drive") for each block you put into them. Life support, the med bay, and other small things need 1 block each.

Your reactor, which can be upgraded, gives out 9 blocks of power. Now your players can decide how they want to give the power out. Depending on how people want to play the game you can divide the power up more or less, or make the sub-light engines different from the warp engines.

More importantly, when they get money what part do they upgrade? Do they upgrade the shields it has a maximum level of 3 instead of 2? Do they upgrade the engines so they can avoid getting hit? Do they add redundant life support so it won't go out from a single hit? Do they upgrade the reactor so they can power everything at once?

[Mastikator]

But surely, you'd want some kind of basis for those numbers.

"All the rebels have exhausted the power packs in their laser rifles! For how long can we keep those lasers going with the fuel in our spaceship reactor?"

That's a question that might come up. And, well, you probably want a rough idea, at least.

And at this point there would need to be actual numbers for the energy output and fuel consumption spaceship reactor, and energy consumption on laser rifles with energy conversion loss rates. Otherwise you're just pulling numbers out of thin air, which may lead to inconsistencies and lack of consideration of scale.

[GolemsVoice]

Why pull numbers at all? As Slipperychicken said, why not do it in %, or some other way without actual numbers. Because I wouldn't even have an idea of how much energy a laser would have to output to be effective at all, let alone a reactor. And then you end up with the Warhammer 40k situation, where the guns are supposed to be quite powerful, but have a laughably small energy output.

[hamishspence]

Or the Star Wars situation where the listed "yield" is ridiculously large, but what's seen is much smaller.

[Mastikator]

Why pull numbers at all? As Slipperychicken said, why not do it in %, or some other way without actual numbers. Because I wouldn't even have an idea of how much energy a laser would have to output to be effective at all, let alone a reactor. And then you end up with the Warhammer 40k situation, where the guns are supposed to be quite powerful, but have a laughably small energy output.

Because you'd end up with wrong scales if you don't do the math ahead of time.
Consider that a 1 watt laser is a very strong laser capable of physical harm, yet a 40 watt lamp is low power. The Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania generates a total of 1,890,000,000 watts.

Am I overestimating how much realism matters and how counter-intuitive scale is. As the TVTrope says in "Sci-Fi Writers have no sense of scale", if I take scale seriously it may look ridiculous.