Interesting Hard Science SF Lit article.

[captainjack23]

Of particular interest is the relevance and contrast between realism and realistic and Hardness of story. Or, realism is more than just realistic tech, even (and especially) in SF.
This also touches Traveller's constant tension between focus on creating the everyman character, vs the epic character , and all that implies for campaign building...epic vs everyman (TNE vs CT OTU, perhaps).


http://io9.com/5454093/why-is-hard-science-fiction-so-unrealistic

Quite readable, very low on academic wankspeak. (speaking as an academic, myself)

 

[rust]

There are quite a few "technologically hard" science fiction stories with
ordinary people as their protagonists, although usually ordinary people
in extraordinary situations - which, by the way, makes it much easier
for the reader to identify with the protagonist.

 

[captainjack23]

There are quite a few "technologically hard" science fiction stories with
ordinary people as their protagonists, although usually ordinary people
in extraordinary situations - which, by the way, makes it much easier
for the reader to identify with the protagonist.

Yes, there are - and are probably the better for it ; although that's no guarantee that it'll be a good read -any more than exquisitely detailed technology would be.

What I found interesting (and probably no-one else did) is how RPGs do seem to weld these together -in other words, more crunchy detail almost always leads to less everyman characters - in Traveller, the CT arguably had softer tech, and , just by skill count (if not retirement rank) much less talented characters than later editions which arguably tried to have harder tech. Similar arguments apply to D&D -from Original LBB3 to 3.5 we have vastly more crunchiness and (at least lip service to) realism, and vastly more epic characters. (I exclude 4e as I haven't played or read it)

Possibly the harder or more detailed a setting requires more detailed and powerful characters to survive it ? Or to justify the effort of the increased crunch ?

 

[rust]

Possibly the harder or more detailed a setting requires more detailed and powerful characters to survive it ? Or to justify the effort of the increased crunch ?

I suspect that both has more to do with the mentality of the players who
want "More Power !", both in the form of a more detailed technology that
can better be tailored to give their characters an edge and in the form of
better skills and less vulnerability of the characters themselves.

In my experience especially many of the younger players are looking for
"bungee jumping adventures" that only seem to be very dangerous for
their characters, but without any real risk to get the character killed - in
their view having a character killed usually means losing the game.

To avoid this, many characters are less designed as plausible personali-
ties and more optimized (min/maxed) for a specific role, usually a com-
bat role, and the lot of crunch offers a lot of options and combinations of
options to do this - and of course this crunch has to be combat oriented,
which is why most "crunchy" roleplaying games have endless lists of on-
ly slightly different weapons, but extremely short lists of any other kind
of advanced technology (you can count the "crunchy" science fiction ga-
mes that tell you how a house is constructed in the future on the one
hook that replaced a pirate's hand ...).

As a result, one sees characters who are true combat monsters, outfit-
ted with the best possible gear for a very narrow niche function, but un-
fortunately often boringly shallow as personalities - more warbots than
humans.

It may be that computer roleplaying games have strengthened this trend
towards "selective crunch" and a focus on min/maxing for combat roles,
as some of my friends claim, but I am not sure - I never played online
roleplaying games of that kind.

 

[BP]

Sorry, that article was silly. Hard Sci-Fi does not mean Realistic 'Fiction', just because it deals with 'realistic' science. That is like saying since Apples and Oranges are Fruits, an Orange must be an Apple.

As to any correlation between 'crunchiness' and 'realistic characters' in the Traveller editions, there are a lot more factors involved that make this a weak correlation at best.

Such as the background of the authors (wargamers from the '70s vs. authors of the Hollywood scifi effects generation), and the demographics of the market.

'Crunchiness' and 'realism' (of the type being referred to - i.e. 'normal' characters) are two separate things. One could make an assumption about technically inclined authors vs. socially inclined ones - but that would just be a stereotype generalization...

(BTW: I might be more inclined to make an argument that most of the 'crunchiness' in later editions is actually less believable to those who are experts in the field - naturally since the authors are not... but many laymen would see it as just the opposite.)

 

[captainjack23]

Sorry, that article was silly. Hard Sci-Fi does not mean Realistic 'Fiction', just because it deals with 'realistic' science. That is like saying since Apples and Oranges are Fruits, an Orange must be an Apple.

Possibly silly, but it does speak to what is all too common in SF fandom; and by extension SF RPG: that realism is defined by the technology. Really, I think that the point is that unrealistic protagonists are common in a genre of SF that prides itself on being realistic. So, apples are not oranges, granted, but neither are they better. Plus most stories stories about fruit seem to have have oranges and apples, but the protagonists are potatoes.
And since Traveller is supposed to allow running SF stories, the same issues are present in both.

As to any correlation between 'crunchiness' and 'realistic characters' in the Traveller editions, there are a lot more factors involved that make this a weak correlation at best.

Well, to be geeky, a correlation of .5 is generally very good, and that only explains 25% of the variance in an outcome variable, so the number of factors isn't always relevant to strength .

Now, less geekily, I'll just suggest that I didn't say it was the only cause of the character/crunch relationship.

Such as the background of the authors (wargamers from the '70s vs. authors of the Hollywood scifi effects generation), and the demographics of the market.

'Crunchiness' and 'realism' (of the type being referred to - i.e. 'normal' characters) are two separate things. One could make an assumption about technically inclined authors vs. socially inclined ones - but that would just be a stereotype generalization...

Good points, all -I just see them as "in addition to" rather than "instead of" the whole relationship between SF Literature and the SFRPG tradition.

(BTW: I might be more inclined to make an argument that most of the 'crunchiness' in later editions is actually less believable to those who are experts in the field - naturally since the authors are not... but many laymen would see it as just the opposite.)

I agree with the above 100%. Its the perception of realism which matters, since experts aren't a very large customer base, after all.

It may be that my experience in gaming is atypical, but my impression is that "crunchiness (detail) = realism" is a common axiom of game discussion, and one which has had more than its share of traffic in the Traveller community.

I also think its a blind spot in traveller discussion and design. Much more discussion is generated by orbital velocities and projectile velocities to define realism than the simple question of whether it will immediately be contradicted by the characters we are creating, and whether or not that should be important. When realistic design is the goal, we seem more willing to have insanely complicated and skilled characters than we are to have atmospheres on small planets. I'm not sure why, is my main point.

 

[rust]

I also think its a blind spot in traveller discussion and design. Much more discussion is generated by orbital velocities and projectile velocities to define realism than the simple question of whether it will immediately be contradicted by the characters we are creating, and whether or not that should be important.

We had this discussion several years ago and decided to "dare to be dumb".

This means as much scientific and technological realism as we can get
without hiring scientists and engineers as advisers, but at the same time
ordinary characters in what we consider an ordinary universe: No glori-
ous military careers and equipment that costs more than the starship
used to transport it, just basically normal people like farmers, miners,
technicians and thelike in a colourful futuristic environment.

For us, this works surprisingly well, partially because it is much easier
to roleplay a "normal guy" than a superhero, partially because it is also
much easier to come up with all shades of interesting challenges for cha-
racters who cannot throw tons of ammunition or money at any problem
they encounter.

 

[captainjack23]

I also think its a blind spot in traveller discussion and design. Much more discussion is generated by orbital velocities and projectile velocities to define realism than the simple question of whether it will immediately be contradicted by the characters we are creating, and whether or not that should be important.

We had this discussion several years ago and decided to "dare to be dumb".
.

Love it. I may change my blog name to that......

 

[rinku]

Damned if I can remember it properly, but there exists a science fiction "law" that states something like "you're only allowed to tell one lie". (It's someone's law, but not Clarke's, Niven's, Sturgeon's or Asimov's).

The idea being that you can make up one major thing that's known to be false to set up the story you want to tell, but everything else has to follow logically, otherwise you're peddling fantasy or non-science fiction with SF trappings. Often the Lie has to do with interstellar travel; it also isn't strictly required - the hardest SF has no need of it (I'd cite Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books here. Speculative technology that conforms to the established laws of physics doesn't count. A lot of Robert Heinlein's early books count here as well in context of the time they were written- Red Planet, Farmer in the Sky, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress etc).

One of Traveller's problems is that it generally was written from 50's and 60's science fiction sources, so many of the attempts to be "hard" were overturned by scientific reality in the 80's and later. Later editions have attempted to patch this a bit (TNE in particular), but it's there at the core. That's largely why it will usually veer into space opera territory, unless you reset pretty much all the base assumtions regarding tech and world generation in particular.

 

[BP]

... decided to "dare to be dumb".

:lol:
I generally have newbie players roll up several low term PCs and play them - introduces them to the concept that PCs don't need to be superheros and dieing can be fun! (PCs, only, of course)

...This also touches Traveller's constant tension between focus on creating the everyman character, vs the epic character ...

Often hear the complaint about MGT offering more skills - but in my experience, so far, that has not been a problem. All my players have opted for variety - which generally results in each PC having one level 3 skill (expert), a few level 2 (professional) and a bunch of 1s (experienced) and 0s (familiar). Given the DMs and the fact that success for even average checks is less than 50% at level 0, this does not seem at all 'unrealistic'...

It may be that my experience in gaming is atypical, but my impression is that "crunchiness (detail) = realism" is a common axiom of game discussion, and one which has had more than its share of traffic in the Traveller community.

That is simply the nature of forums and fans - which in this case represent a very tiny percentage of the overall market. And generally, that is "crunchiness (detail) = believability", which is a totally different beast. (Most) Everybody knows they are playing a game of fiction. They know it is not 'realistic', but many feel 'realistic' detail is necessary to uphold their suspenders of disbelief...

Personally, I generally laugh at most of this - its a game of enjoyment for me and I do not care for 'crunchy'. And realistic - well, its fiction.

Of course, if you are gonna introduce 'science' into your fiction, it helps to get your facts 'right'. Otherwise, well, one should expect some criticism, and rightly so.

 

[rust]

(Most) Everybody knows they are playing a game of fiction. They know it is not 'realistic', but many feel 'realistic' detail is necessary to uphold their suspenders of disbelief...

It is not the only reason. :wink:

Real world science is an excellent reference, and one many people have
at least a nodding aquaintance with. A major problem with science fiction
technology is the difficulty to agree on what is possible and what is not,
and instead of winging it or writing long, bizarre essays about a setting's
fictional technology, one can use real world science to make such decisi-
ons, and be reasonably sure that they will be both consistent and defen-
sible - a player can refuse to accept my decisions, but not the laws of na-
ture (as our science currently understands them).

So, use real world science, add and explain the exceptions that make the
setting science fiction, and you can avoid a lot of debates ... 8)

 

[DFW]

Damned if I can remember it properly, but there exists a science fiction "law" that states something like "you're only allowed to tell one lie". (It's someone's law, but not Clarke's, Niven's, Sturgeon's or Asimov's).

The idea being that you can make up one major thing that's known to be false to set up the story you want to tell, but everything else has to follow logically, otherwise you're peddling fantasy or non-science fiction with SF trappings.

I've heard about that. Pretty funny. Some of these people forget that it is called Science "Fiction" not, Science "Fact".

 

[kristof65]

Sorry, that article was silly. Hard Sci-Fi does not mean Realistic 'Fiction', just because it deals with 'realistic' science. That is like saying since Apples and Oranges are Fruits, an Orange must be an Apple.

What BP said. IMO, the article was worthless drivel.

 

[rinku]

It's worth noting that GDW were well aware of this issue and did make heroic efforts to harden up. This resulted in Traveller:2300 (later rebadged as 2300AD) and Traveller: New Era. TNE in particular was presented as a SF toolkit, with the 3I setting acknowledged to be space operatic. Fire Fusion & Steel remains to my mind one of the best general SF technical support products written (and not just for gamers). Not perfect, but pretty good.

Space: 1889 is a good example of the "One Lie" rule in action. In this case, the "Lie" is "what if the assumptions of mid-19thC science were largely correct".