So I finally gave in...

[howardfanatic]

You're welcome for the long post??? Were you being sarcastic? I hope not. Sigh. I'm always long winded...

We must have very different definitions of hard sci fi. What you described sounds very much like space opera to me, where the science and technology of the setting are more or less back ground. Like in Dune, Star Trek, Alien, or Battlestar Galactica. In these tales, characters and politics are usually the primary thrust of things. Great stuff and I couldn;t live without it.

((Space opera is different from space fantasy like Star Wars. I love that stuff too.))

My definition of hard sci fi is the one established, more or less, by the brilliant John W. Campbell during his days as the editor of Analog. In this tradition, science and technology is the primary focus of the story. Books like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Rendevous with Rama, Caves of Steel, Ringworld, and Foundation are hard sci fi (2001 is probably the only hard sci fi film ever made). The main characters are almost always scientists of some kind and the plot/conflict of the story is derived from encounters with and mysteries involving alien life, scientific phenomena, or advanced technology. The genre utilizes as exactingly accurate science and technology as possible and frequently invents imaginary sciences (like psychohistory). In short, in hard sci fi, science and technology are never taken for granted because they are the whole reason for the story.

The only real hard sci fi part of CT is the design sequences for starships/vehicles (that's exacting technology). Characters, however, are not hard sci fi at all. There isn't even a scientist type that I saw in CT (there is in the other editions of Traveller that I have seen, so Miller must have decided it was important). CT is very slanted towards military types, which is, as I have said, military sci fi. This is not a bad thing by any means. (I would be a huge hippocrite to say otherwise! I love military sci fi!) It may even be the only practical thing in an RPG where action and violence are 90% of the fun.

Still, Traveller in general- all the editions- is the closest thing I've ever seen to a true hard sci fi RPG. Though I do have a buddy who swears that Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system is one. We shall see...

 

[Dave Chase]

When I run both the Traveller setting and my own Futura game, I run what players are going to want to play.

During my college years, I had 3 distinct groups.
One was the play to have fun, Heavy Metal, Star Wars and such looked good to them.
One was the merchant, exploring, learning new things, getting ahead group where science and the search for what was magic (scientificily explained) was not uncommon (more hard science than the first group)
One group was the mega level, there be gods and I am going to be one of them. This group played mega corps, planetary/PE polotics and such. They were into influence, counting the numbers (budgets, GNP, etc) and would start wars if they thought it would benefit them or hurt another group (Players, NPC, the competition).

A few individuals played in all 3, most played in the first one and few played in the last one.

To me gaming is about having fun and RGPing something that you are not or would like to do. Like reading a book but you get to chance the course of where it's heading.

In the Beginning, Traveller was just that, you set the course and discover what's out there. Some of the follow on Traveller's started defining things a bit more than I would like, but they still had some very good parts to them.

MGT, is trying to go back to the Original feel of Traveller. With all the additonal games that they will add to the rules, you can now pick and choose whats out there for your players.

I like that.

Dave Chase

 

[AndrewW]

The only real hard sci fi part of CT is the design sequences for starships/vehicles (that's exacting technology). Characters, however, are not hard sci fi at all. There isn't even a scientist type that I saw in CT (there is in the other editions of Traveller that I have seen, so Miller must have decided it was important). CT is very slanted towards military types, which is, as I have said, military sci fi. This is not a bad thing by any means. (I would be a huge hippocrite to say otherwise! I love military sci fi!) It may even be the only practical thing in an RPG where action and violence are 90% of the fun.

Supplement 4: Citizens of the Imperium has a Scientist.

 

[Anonymous]

You're welcome for the long post??? Were you being sarcastic? I hope not. Sigh. I'm always long winded...

We must have very different definitions of hard sci fi. What you described sounds very much like space opera to me, where the science and technology of the setting are more or less back ground. Like in Dune, Star Trek, Alien, or Battlestar Galactica. In these tales, characters and politics are usually the primary thrust of things. Great stuff and I couldn;t live without it.

((Space opera is different from space fantasy like Star Wars. I love that stuff too.))

My definition of hard sci fi is the one established, more or less, by the brilliant John W. Campbell during his days as the editor of Analog. In this tradition, science and technology is the primary focus of the story. Books like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Rendevous with Rama, Caves of Steel, Ringworld, and Foundation are hard sci fi (2001 is probably the only hard sci fi film ever made). The main characters are almost always scientists of some kind and the plot/conflict of the story is derived from encounters with and mysteries involving alien life, scientific phenomena, or advanced technology. The genre utilizes as exactingly accurate science and technology as possible and frequently invents imaginary sciences (like psychohistory). In short, in hard sci fi, science and technology are never taken for granted because they are the whole reason for the story.

The only real hard sci fi part of CT is the design sequences for starships/vehicles (that's exacting technology). Characters, however, are not hard sci fi at all. There isn't even a scientist type that I saw in CT (there is in the other editions of Traveller that I have seen, so Miller must have decided it was important). CT is very slanted towards military types, which is, as I have said, military sci fi. This is not a bad thing by any means. (I would be a huge hippocrite to say otherwise! I love military sci fi!) It may even be the only practical thing in an RPG where action and violence are 90% of the fun.

Still, Traveller in general- all the editions- is the closest thing I've ever seen to a true hard sci fi RPG. Though I do have a buddy who swears that Dream Pod 9's Silhouette system is one. We shall see...

Not sarcastic! I appreciate the depth of discussion.

It seems you have hit the nail on the head - I have always thought of "hard" sci-fi as that which keeps the changes from now to a few clear scientific breakthroughs and plausible extrapolations. The main feature of it is that it describes those breakthroughs (jump drive) and then strives to keep the environment internally consistent after that. (What would life really be like if we discovered anti grav and jump drives) Space opera and space fantasy I think of as being genres where new science can just appear and where consistency takes a back seat to heroic narrative.

I think all role playing involves some opera and fantasy - otherwise its not going to be fun.

 

[howardfanatic]

I had Citizens of the Imperium and must have overlooked the Scientist. My bad. I made a list of all the skills I found in the reprints of the Books and Supplements and never saw any Science skills. I guess I must have overlooked them. Entirely possible.

I'm glad you weren't sarcastic. I was another forum and... yikes, those folks need to lighten/grow up a bit. lol

I love hard sci fi, and when I play in sci fi games I like to play scientist types. Thus, I like to have rules for science in the game. I also like to try and run my cyberpunk and space opera with as much hardness as I can. Kind of like Roddenberry's original vision of Star Trek/ST:TNG. I like to throw in a hard sci fi moment in the middle of wild space opera. Like having the Jedi suddenly stumble across Rama or the shadowrunners have to deal with stealing a quantum entanglement communications device that they barely understand. It messes with their heads, and I just simply like science and technology more than magic and fantasy. Not only that, but I think science really opens everything up and introduces an infinite and new angle to the game. I mean, I can always come up with a scenario based on whatever bizarre science I am reading about at the moment.

That's my central complaint about Trek post-Roddenberry. It's all about war and blowing stuff up and fighting vengence-crazed villains. Well, there are only so many ways to fight wars, blow things up, and fight vengence-crazed villains. Exploring worlds and encountering scientific mysteries never ceases to have new possibilities. The original series format, with a healthy dose of both, works best. That's why Trekkie is in the Oxford English dictionary and Lost in Spacey is not. :twisted:

((Though, as far as fantasy goes, I do like the Runequest game, much maligned though it may be. I want to get my hands on the Slaine book.))

 

[rust]

I had Citizens of the Imperium and must have overlooked the Scientist. My bad. I made a list of all the skills I found in the reprints of the Books and Supplements and never saw any Science skills. I guess I must have overlooked them. Entirely possible.

It was not your fault. Citizens of the Imperium had a Scientist career, but
it had no science skills for the scientists generated - a quite odd decision
by the designers. :wink:

 

[Thoth Amon]

I play Warhammer 1st.

One of my personal favorites.

 

[AndrewW]

I'm glad you weren't sarcastic. I was another forum and... yikes, those folks need to lighten/grow up a bit. lol

I don't see any need for that myself. Nothing wrong with not knowing something it happens. This forum tends to be a friendly place.

 

[Gaidheal]

I think your definition of 'hard' scifi might be a bit off, personally; the 'hardness' comes from a high level of internal consistency and believably, with the latter coming from few extensions of real world science which are logically projected and typically well detailed within the material itself.

Compare that with Star Wars, where lightsabres really don't fit science at all and somehow are able to deflect blaster bolts, despite being some sort of energy blade, apparently. I'm being kind, too, by ignoring stuff that you can argue is "just for the audience" like sound in space and flashy explosions that simply wouldn't occur.

Now, I like Star Wars but it's not 'hard' scifi, at all, for those reasons not because it doesn't focus on technology and science. If you explain the science, in the setting, a certain amount of focus, at times, is inevitable of course.

 

[Sturn]

I purchased a black box of CT Traveller books at a department store believe it or not. Early 1980s. I think it was Sears or JC Penney's. Things were different in gaming back then, it was an exploding industry.

I wasn't a military vet (yet) when I got it, I was in late junior high or early high school. Myself and friends found it easy enough to understand.

Also, we, like many, didn't see it as a military game. We were adventuring, exploring, traders. Yes I admit traders that commonly encountered pirates, but first and foremost traders.

 

[AndrewW]

Compare that with Star Wars, where lightsabres really don't fit science at all and somehow are able to deflect blaster bolts, despite being some sort of energy blade, apparently. I'm being kind, too, by ignoring stuff that you can argue is "just for the audience" like sound in space and flashy explosions that simply wouldn't occur.

Now, I like Star Wars but it's not 'hard' scifi, at all, for those reasons not because it doesn't focus on technology and science. If you explain the science, in the setting, a certain amount of focus, at times, is inevitable of course.

Star Wars technology is possible. Lightsabers are something like plasma just right now the energy required for that is way too large to fit into one but in the future who knows.

 

[Sturn]

Star Wars technology is possible. Lightsabers are something like plasma just right now the energy required for that is way too large to fit into one but in the future who knows.

I have an excellent book under my desk called, "The Science of Star Wars" that supports this. By Jeanne Cavelos.

I personally think Traveller is more hard science then Stars Wars BUT also has large amounts of space opera - cat men, dog men, cow men, floating golf ball palaces, etc. Yes you can explain them all away with future science....just like you can with "plasma" lightsabers.

 

[Gaidheal]

Errr.... no, not really. In fact, just no.

Plasma, you say? Created how? Using what and with what power source? Handheld and apparently everlasting battery is not going to cut it. After that, how about containment? Then, how does it intelligently drop containment when you want it to and put it back when you want to avoid toasting the environment (and yourself), oh, all still in that very small unit.

Star Wars is "Magic in Space", my friend, nothing more and nothing less.

Incidentally, still no way it'd reflect or even absorb 'blaster bolts' and that's regardless of what you think those are made of.

[edit] I have seen that book {Science of Star Wars}, read bits of it, even and it's fun but it's a long way from actually supporting the idea that Star Wars is real or feasible. I've seen the Star Trek version, too, and most of that universe is actually just as far from the mark, though it tends to manage to be more believable, in my opinion. Probably because the stories concentrate on obviously 'human' issues, like greed and fear.

 

[AndrewW]

Errr.... no, not really. In fact, just no.

Plasma, you say? Created how? Using what and with what power source? Handheld and apparently everlasting battery is not going to cut it. After that, how about containment? Then, how does it intelligently drop containment when you want it to and put it back when you want to avoid toasting the environment (and yourself), oh, all still in that very small unit.

I didn't say that it was possible now. Just saying there is currently a possible type of energy that could be a possible source for a lightsaber.

 

[Gaidheal]

Well, plasma is not an energy source, it's a form of matter and the lightsabre is quite simply too small to feasibly manage to supply enough energy to keep some matter in a plasma state, generate some sort of containment field and then keep pumping massive amounts of energy into the plasma whenever the lightsabre is actually used on something.

So, we're back to "Err, not really, no." I'm afraid; much as I love Star Wars (and apparently the players love me to run Star Wars as they beg me to run it again every time my turn to GM comes round) it's firmly in the Space Fantasy camp.

 

[AndrewW]

Well, plasma is not an energy source, it's a form of matter and the lightsabre is quite simply too small to feasibly manage to supply enough energy to keep some matter in a plasma state, generate some sort of containment field and then keep pumping massive amounts of energy into the plasma whenever the lightsabre is actually used on something.

Correct currently. But by the time of StarWars things are a lot more advanced.

 

[GypsyComet]

Well, plasma is not an energy source, it's a form of matter and the lightsabre is quite simply too small to feasibly manage to supply enough energy to keep some matter in a plasma state, generate some sort of containment field and then keep pumping massive amounts of energy into the plasma whenever the lightsabre is actually used on something.

Correct currently. But by the time of StarWars things are a lot more advanced.

Clarke's Law in action.

 

[Gaidheal]

Guess again, both ways, guys. Star Wars is the distant past and physics is still physics; it's [lightsabre] definitively too small to supply the magnitude of energy required even if you can somehow solve the containment, etc, with 'future tech'. It was a nice try, though ;¬)

 

[AndrewW]

Guess again, both ways, guys. Star Wars is the distant past and physics is still physics; it's [lightsabre] definitively too small to supply the magnitude of energy required even if you can somehow solve the containment, etc, with 'future tech'. It was a nice try, though ;¬)

As far as actual time goes perhaps but not as far as technology goes. The Star Wars universe is certainly far ahead of our own technology. But no point in going in circles, I don't have anymore to say about it.

 

[Gaidheal]

In many ways, actually, Star Wars really is not that far ahead... and in fact it has huge problems with internal logic over a lot of the stuff that is in the canon universe, without needing to look at technical feasibility. As I said, Star Wars is Space Opera, even "Space Fantasy" or "Magic in Space" as I sometimes call it.