Too much Science?

[EDG]

It's possible that you've gotten a lot of "you don't know what you're talking about" flack on other lists

I got a lot of that crap on CotI (repeatedly) from people who really hadn't the faintest idea even of how science worked, let alone anything astronomical. Nothing posted here (so far) is anywhere near that bad though.

The thing about Science Fiction is that it's arguably about taking what we know about science and the universe and extrapolating it forwards. I think when people try to separate the "science" from the "fiction" and push one more than the other then they're missing a really fundamental point of SF: that they're not two separate concepts that can be adjusted on sliding scales, but are instead a single concept called "science fiction" - i.e. "fiction about science".

And for all that people talk about how cat people and dog people and reactionless drives in Traveller are fantasy, are they really? The "cat people" aren't even cats, they're aliens that bear some similarities to terran cats - and if you accept the concept that there may well be advanced alien life out there, why couldn't it look a bit feline?

The "dog people" are genetic uplifts from terran stoc. Geneering is a very common concept in serious SF and has been for ages (Island of Doctor Moreau, anyone?) and frankly looking a lot less improbable in the not too distant future given the advances in genetic engineering over the past couple of decades.

The reactionless drives may seem fantastic today, but we do know that we don't understand gravity very well and certainly can't manipulate it - who's to say, someday in the future we might figure that out and learn how to bob along on gravity waves or something. So are those things really as unrealistic and fantastic as some people make them out to be? I don't think they are.

Even Jump Drive (or more precisely, FTL) isn't so impossible really - we may yet be able to figure out a way around the speed of light (be it by wormholes, portable pocket universes, or other means. There's already a load of theory on the subject), and I certainly don't think that Einsteinian physics and relativity is the be-all and end-all of our understanding of the universe. Maybe someday someone else will come up with something equally revolutionary, of which Einsteinian physics is but a subset (like Newtonian was to Einstein), that will reveal ways to circumvent the speed of light.


Really though, I don't want people to see science and realism as the enemy or antithesis of "fun SF gaming", because there's no reason for that at all. But you do have to have an open mind about it - in my experience, people who just aren't interested in it are very unlikely to change their minds about it.

 

[rust]

All I could add is some kind of advice: Treat your local experts well.

I have been working and playing on my water world setting for almost a
year now (the background material currently has about 100 pages ...),
and each time I ran into trouble with some of its science (I usually detail
it only when I need it), there was at least one friendly and helpful expert
on one of the forums I visit, from an astrophysicist to a marine biologist.

While these experts have "killed" quite a lot of my early favourite ideas
about my setting, their input has made it far more interesting and playable
in the long run. As EDG mentioned, real wold science may close some of
the doors, but it is also invaluable in opening many others, and often far
more fascinating ones.

While one is always free to decide which doors to open, in my experience
the experts are needed to find many (if not most) of those doors in the
first place.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Keeping science in mind when it comes to sf gaming also lends authority to it.

I remember reading articles about particle beam weapons in the JTAS reprints. Highly speculative and now quite out-dated but it was obvious some real scientific knowledge had informed them and they highlighted many of the theoretical and technical pitfalls in the 80's star wars program, stuff you didn't get from those early cgi animations.

Plausibility is an important thing in sf games. We're pretty sure in reality that FTL travel is not possible, but we're not 100% sure. Within that wiggle room and artistic license authors and gamers can come up with probably impossible but plausible solutions like jumpdrive and hyperspace.

This is difficult to build in to a generative system like worldgen, but a gamebook could inform it's readers through an overview of planetary science in essays and commentary, showing how scientific knowledge can effect the numbers and showing readers the possibilities this brings. That's what I'd like to see included in any future scouts or world building book. This doesn't have to be hard or lengthy either.

Similarly this would help in the design of aliens or lifeforms. Traveller is good here as it avoids pesky details like how many limbs a creature has and how its bone density might affect its size within the design system. But some pointers will be useful to refs in enhancing plausibilty.

That book some guy wrote in the early 80s about what dragons would really be like if they existed, where they fly using lighter than air buoyancy and breath fire to get thrust, therefore flying backwards, and that their biochemistry is so volatile that any trace of them dissolved away. It's nonsense, but it's plausible nonsense.

I'm not suggesting Traveller material should be like popular science books, but some scientific advice can only improve the possibilities for refs in their scenario design.

 

[zozotroll]

There is also a problem when a very common misconception clashes with what really happens. Two gun examples of this.

There are so many things that interfere with lasers that is is very unlikely that any military will ever adopt them as a main infantry weapon. Yet every sci-fi game has them because without them it doesnt sem like sci-fi.

Burst increases damage. yet in RW, burst is used to get a better chance to hit. One rifle round to the center of the chest will drop a human everytime. The percentage of times it doesnt is so small that it doesnt need addressing. Yet most game rifles dont do that, so burst is a way to crank in more damage rather than up the hit chance.

 

[rust]

There are so many things that interfere with lasers that is is very unlikely that any military will ever adopt them as a main infantry weapon. Yet every sci-fi game has them because without them it doesnt sem like sci-fi.

Yep, I remember a somewhat heated debate with one of the players who
insisted on a blue-green laser as an underwater weapon for his character
"because this is science fiction, and GURPS has it."
He only had second thoughts after an engineer at the table calculated the
the size and weight of the power pack he would have needed to turn the
laser into a useful weapon (he would have needed an auxiliary submarine
to transport it ...). :roll:

 

[Golan2072]

The "dog people" are genetic uplifts from terran stoc. Geneering is a very common concept in serious SF and has been for ages (Island of Doctor Moreau, anyone?) and frankly looking a lot less improbable in the not too distant future given the advances in genetic engineering over the past couple of decades.

One of the most beautiful things about genetic engineering in sci-fi is that you could quite easily justify almost any kind of "rubber suit alien" you want by it - although most are not yet doable with today's technology, they are definitely doable in theory and thus quite plausible with several more advances in genetic technology. Even cat-people or dog-people would probably be doable in the future, though this kind of genetic work is more complex than just changing skin/eye color or adding fur to a human.

 

[Leo Knight]

Indeed, one of the first catgirls I ever encountered in SF was Cordwainer Smith's genetically modified CMell, one of the "Underpeople", a "Cat Girly Girl", bred for apperance and pleasure.

 

[Sturn]

And for all that people talk about how cat people and dog people and reactionless drives in Traveller are fantasy, are they really? The "cat people" aren't even cats, they're aliens that bear some similarities to terran cats - and if you accept the concept that there may well be advanced alien life out there, why couldn't it look a bit feline?

I think you missed my point. I used the "cat and dog people" example to show the feel of Traveller as having elements of space opera, not hard science. I of course know that Vargr are genetic uplifts and Aslan are not cat people, but obviously based upon them in MM's mind.

For example, I could point out that Star Wars is not hard science and has space opera elements by pointing out the use of light sabers. The hard science of a "plasma sword" could, and has been discussed as a possibility. I even have a book on the science of Star Wars, even though Star Wars has been used as an example of space opera versus hard science.

Get my point? I could think up a universe where blue kangaroos rule a secret space empire just beyond Alpha Centauri. It would feel space opera. But, I could go in to great detail on how Terran kangaroos were removed fom Earth by "Ancients" then genetically uplifted thousands of years ago. They were then placed on a garden world and given a technological push by the Ancients to help them springboard past Earth and thus create a space-faring empire. Now it makes scientific sense, but it will still feel like space opera when the blue kangaroos in spacesuits land on Earth and begin throwing plasma grenades they carry in their pouches to free their less advanced brethren.

I am all for hard science in my games, just not when it makes things too complicated rule-wise. I was pointing out that not making everything hard science in Traveller is not completely important to me due to it's inherent space opera elements, such as dog and cat men. Oh, and I forgot cow men. :wink:

 

[Dyrewulf]

Well, it does raise the interesting point about which of the statements in that paragraph is going to grab the players attention and hold it. The naval station, especially if they are just passing thru.

Very true...but the point is, thats just off the top of my head...sure when you are doing all the prep work for a game you can put more thought into it, but I didn't have to make a dozen rolls, I didn't have to look at any charts, I made the setting I wanted.

Sure, chargen, ship building and world creation are all fun aspects of this game, but when it all boils down to it, you need a good chargen and system mechanics to play the game, shipbuilding and world build is fluffy goodness.

I know I could easily be starting a flame war with my statements as some of the original, IMO;"Hotheads", are still lurking the boards but thats fine too. I have had a lot of fun with Traveller, in the past and with this newest addtion, for many years to come...and I haven't crafted a single world yet. (Although that is on my list of things to do)

 

[rust]

Sure, chargen, ship building and world creation are all fun aspects of this game, but when it all boils down to it, you need a good chargen and system mechanics to play the game, shipbuilding and world build is fluffy goodness.

It depends on the kind of setting and the style of game you prefer. Of
course you can play Traveller well and with much fun without caring for
ship building and world generation, but you can just as well put the fo-
cus of a Traveller campaign on a shipyard or one single detailed world.

 

[EDG]

Sure, chargen, ship building and world creation are all fun aspects of this game, but when it all boils down to it, you need a good chargen and system mechanics to play the game, shipbuilding and world build is fluffy goodness.

I'd argue that shipbuilding and worldbuilding are integral parts of any interstellar SF game, not optional extras. Those two things alone pretty much define the setting. (note I'm not saying that you need complex or realistic systems for either - but you have to put SOME thought in them or you've got characters wandering around fighting stuff against a blank canvas).

 

[zozotroll]

Worldbuilding is only important if you plan on building your own. I am much happier using a pre done secter, like Spinward marches. I very much doubt I will even read the worldgen section, much less use it.

OTOH, I will use ship, and when published, vehicle builder stuff a lot. But thats just me.

I can see somebody not interested in either of those having plenty of fun with the system.

but, to iclude the widest possible audience, you do need a good set of systems. And ones that are understandable by most gamers.

 

[Dyrewulf]

I'd argue that shipbuilding and worldbuilding are integral parts of any interstellar SF game, not optional extras. Those two things alone pretty much define the setting. (note I'm not saying that you need complex or realistic systems for either - but you have to put SOME thought in them or you've got characters wandering around fighting stuff against a blank canvas).

And I agree, but I have played in an ongoing 7+ year campaign, the gm has never used world or ship construction.
He had a cinematic system for ship combat...he does (as a hobby) build models of the ships so we have a visual representation...which can be crazy when we are doing some fleet stuff...but all in all system wise he doesn't use it and it's still a pretty damn fun game. My point is you can get by without them, and if there was parts broken (as there was in the playtest) there was no need to make it a deal breaker. Thats all I was saying.
You can jump in a system, you as a gm can on the spot make a decision on what is there...or you can plan it out...but the characters are whats important...otherwise it's a lonely game.

 

[EDG]

Even if you don't use them yourself though, how do you think pre-published worlds and ships are made? The designers need some kind of system in place to make those and to keep things internally consistent - certainly for ship design you can't just make things up off the top of your head because then you get all sorts of balance issues.

 

[zozotroll]

Acftualy I do bevieve more than a few things have just been made up off the top of someones head, then they fudged the rules to make it all fit.

But yes, I agree that there should be a system somewhere or you wind up with a huge mess. And as long as you have to make it, no reqason not to make it as accurate and usable as possible.

 

[Dyrewulf]

To clarify,
I am in no way bashing anyones ideas for game play. Some people love to create ships, worlds or a multitude of NPCs...to each their own, this is a game and to be enjoyed however you wish to enjoy it.
My entire point was how silly it was to see how angry people got on the world creation when it was broken and how it had to be the top of the list to be fixed...when making sure the general mechanics and chargen should be paramount first, then fix the other two. That's just my opinion...not bashing the way others find fun with the game, I just felt the priorities were a little disheveled.

 

[Dyrewulf]

Even if you don't use them yourself though, how do you think pre-published worlds and ships are made? The designers need some kind of system in place to make those and to keep things internally consistent - certainly for ship design you can't just make things up off the top of your head because then you get all sorts of balance issues.

I totally agree EDG, there does need to be a system for it. There are plenty of "Travellers" out there that love to system hop and just see whats out there...which you need a ship (which sometimes breaks down and needs to be fixed) and worlds to be discovered. And the developers need a rock solid system to build the pregenerated ones...with you 100%...
I just don't see it as important as making sure chargen and the game system working like a well oiled jump-drive.
And I still have issues with the chargen system of traveller...if I wanted to roll my character and make a doctor, I could end up being something completely different just based on my rolls...or being a veteran captain on a star ship and not have some of the fundamental skill sets you should have after being career navy for 20 years...

 

[Allensh]

I sometimes feel there is almost too much Science in our attempts to make sure the SciFi game is "true" to science.

In order to have a good Fiction part, I think we sometimes have to put the science aside. Now I am not saying ignore all science, but sometimes set it aside for the game and the story.

People have pointed out many subjects where Traveller is less then accurate with the science. I am slowing getting to the point I want to say "Who Cares". All the good sci-fi I on has elements that are less then realistic. Even the "hard Sci-Fi" is that way.

At some point we need to accept the lack of 100% accuracy and enjoy the game.

Daniel

I got to that point a long time ago.

NEVER let science get in the way of a good story or a good game.

Allen

 

[EDG]

NEVER let science get in the way of a good story or a good game.

Can you actually specify an example of "science getting in the way of a good story or a good game" for me? I'd just like to see an example of what this sort of situation is, because it might help me get what you're seeing as a problem.

Obviously there's some things we have to take as read in SF - laser guns may not be all that effective in reality, but they're a staple of Scifi. Same goes for Jump drives and reactionless drives. Those presumably aren't the issue here though... are they?

It seems to me that by saying "NEVER let science get in the way of a good story or a good game", it sounds as if you have players who are trying to do something during a game but that somehow "science" is stopping them from doing it and you have to ignore that to "have fun".

I'm half wondering if a lot of this isn't really a criticism of "science" itself but rather just the usual battle of 'cinematic vs realistic" gaming styles.

 

[Allensh]

Even if you don't use them yourself though, how do you think pre-published worlds and ships are made? The designers need some kind of system in place to make those and to keep things internally consistent - certainly for ship design you can't just make things up off the top of your head because then you get all sorts of balance issues.

There was not one ship in Brilliant Lances that was actually built with the FF&S design system...and from what I have been told, none of the later ones GDW did were either.

I am fairly certain that the same thing applies to ships made in T4's books by Imperium Games..and I know this because a former editor for IG is a friend of mine.

These folks provided those systems for US to use; they likely didn't have time, quite frankly. THAT is why I prefer MGT's ship building system to FF&S, even though I playtested both versions. Plug and play; get it built, get the game stats and get on with it.

Too much "science" isn't really the problem...too much so-called "realism" (as in "if its complicated it must be realistic") is what I saw as the issue.

Allen