Too much Science?
- Thread starter -Daniel-
- Start date
Allensh said:
I think I understand what you mean.
In the early days of my setting I had to come up with all the baseline
technology for a human colony, from the spaceships through the habitats
to the vehicles and robots, and the system we were using at the time
was GURPS.
Rest assured that I hated GURPS Robots and GURPS Vehicles for their "re-
alism" long before I was finished with designing what the colony required.
-Daniel-
Emperor Mongoose
EDG said:
As the person who started this thread, I would like to comment on this statement. Yes, EDG, I think there is some of what you are saying mixed into what I was thinking. But I also think it is a case of systems based on science vs. systems playing the science. Let me explain.
I am going to use your World Generation System as an example. While you put a lot of effort into building a system that was based in science and used real known information to try and make it “realistic” as you could, that was while the rule system was being designed. Once you finished the system and hand it to me, the Science fades to the background. The system stands on its own and I use it as a tool for the game. I am not “playing the science” but rather the science helped give me the game. Your system does not require I understand why the airless world is what it is, it just gives me a world to explore that also happens to be somewhat realistic because it was created on some scientific principles.
On the other hand, I see some folks try and create rules and systems that require I understand the science behind them in order to use them. They are cumbersome, overly complex, and often in the end do not add more to the game. Do I really need to know the real world energy output for my power plant? Can’t I just use the “C” Plant and be happy? Yes, maybe the folks who create the system use sound princaples to design it, but they need to allow the science to fade to the back, like your system does, and allow me to get on with playing.
Cinematic vs. Realistic and Complex vs. “Easy to Use” both play a part into the feeling that sometimes there can be too much science. But the opposite is also true. Sometimes there can be too little as well. As someone said earlier in the thread, I think it was you EDG, that science and realism are not the enemy of fun SF gaming. And that I agree with 100%. Badly designed rule systems regardless of science basis are more the enemy then anything else.
(I hope this makes sense :wink: )
Daniel
dafrca said:
That's good to hear, because that was exactly what I was going for.
Understood... but what I really liked about the old TNE Fire Fusion and Steel book was that it did exactly that - it didn't require you to understand all the science behind the technologies, but by explaining them it gave you a better understanding of what was going on. If I were to release my worldbuilding rules under the OGL then I do want to actually include that kind of stuff - not so you have to understand it all beforehand, but rather have it there as sidebars because it'll help you explain things to your players so much better (and give them a lot more fluff/colour info).
I think that's definitely a big part of the problem here, it's just that people tend to blame "science and realism" when those really aren't the issue at all.
EDG said:
While it would of course have helped (a lot) to have enough generic equip-
ment, there would still have been the problem that GURPS technology con-
sists of a very complex network of often unnecessarily detailed informa-
tions and rules.
So, while GURPS Vehicles has 4 pages of pre-designed vehicles, it has 24
pages on "Vehicle Action", 7 pages on "Sighting and Detection" and 23 pa-
ges on "Combat".
And if you want to design a vehicle that does what you want it to do with-
in the framework of the GURPS rules, you have to work through 132 pa-
ges of design plus 54 pages of rules - doubtless very "realistic", but from
my point of view really too much of a good thing.
I really do not have to know the exact mass and volume of every bit of
electronics in a cockpit, down to the IFF transponder, with versions for a
dozen different tech levels, plus the ranges for all those tech levels, and
so on and on.
In the end, we of course streamlined the entire system, reducing its "rea-
lism" in order to make it playable without the permanent use of calcula-
tors ...
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
dafrca said:
I'm thinking the above is more the point here than anything: hard science based rules are probably preferable to handwaves...but there is still a burden to have a system that plays well in a game. Its easy to create a vast amount of detail - but hard to make it be a game that works.
Lets start from me proposing that I have no problem with increased realism if it is important to the setting and is at least no extra burden on play. Yes, I think it is important to traveller. However, I'd argue that traveller has suffered more than many RPGS from putting reductionistic realism ahead of ease of play. As a result, there's a backlash. Its not antiscience per se; I really think thats a misapprehension; it does however grow out of for instance, attempts to streamline or organize difficult rules systems being derided as "dumbing down". So......when I say" its a game", I don't mean (necessarily) "anything goes" or "science is stupid in this context", I think what I mean is: "the burden of effort is upon the one who wants the change to balance gameplay with the goals they espouse".
Unfortunately, and I'm NOT indicting anyone here, complexity in gaming is often the default way to increase realism - and realism is then waved as a justification for supremely bad rule design. It's the converse of bad rule design being justified by simplicity.
And this isn't just about detail or reality orientation - there are a fair amount of rules lite or context dependent games that are poorly designed and defended as avant guard.
Oh, and if anyone really wants an example of attempted science slogging down gameplay , I humbly offer Morrow project as an obvious example (the science being in this case, ballistics), and then slyly suggest that the FF&S books may be another---
I prefer detailed realistic world and vehicle building rules. I don't care how complex they are. I see them as tools for building the 'sets' and background for the play, not as rules to be used during actual play. Rules used during play must be as simple and fast paced as possible.
* imho, FFS1 glosses over some stuff , over-simplifying that stuff to fit into neat orderly tables
The stock uwp method is unacceptable to me *
* imho, FFS1 glosses over some stuff , over-simplifying that stuff to fit into neat orderly tables
The stock uwp method is unacceptable to me *
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
"Science" once said:EDG said:
- a train couldn't go over 60mph because all the air would be sucked out of it.
- There could never be a man-made flying machine
- That the earth was the center of the universe
If, during the time these were considered "scientific fact" anyone attempting to play a game where trains went faster, or that there was some craft that flew and carried people would have been "not letting science get in the way of the fun".
Science has yet to give us:
- FTL Travel (supposedly impossible)
- Working Cryotechnology (low berth passage)
- Reactionless Propulsion
- Contragravity
- Light swords
Yet we never let "science" get in the way of a good time in any sci-fi game (computer, Pen & Paper RPG, etc.) It's ALL done flying in the face of science.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
EDG said:
Well, I want science to give me flying cars ! I want my damn flying car ! And I don't want to wait for tech 9. If a sci fi game doesn't have flying cars, then to hell with it, I say.....
While I have a very definite gearhead streak, I have to say that not once, ever in a roleplaying game, as the fact that this or that vehicle weighed 10% more or less than the 'proper' amount made any difference in the actual roleplaying game. I'm quite happy in my Call of Cthulhu games to not care in the slightest about the tonnage of the aircraft, ships or cars in that game. Likewise the Traveller starship design system is a lot of fun and I love it, I doubt it makes a significant contribution to the actual play of the RPG.
I like the fact that traveller has a starship design system, and I'm looking forward to High Guard (see above comment about the gearhead streak), but frankly if the game only had 4 or 5 pages of general discussions of starship technology and general guidelines for civilian and military starship structure, these would probably be enough for the purposes of actually roleplaying in the Traveller universe. Similar guidelines for vehicles would be nice, along with some examples of common vehicles from the Traveller universe as points of reference.
How many fictional SF universes have actual vehicle and starship design rules? Does the lack of them pose any significant barrier to Peter F Hamilton, Larry Niven, etc, etc writing further books in those universes? I don't think so. The real justification for High Guard wasn't the Traveller roleplaying game, it was Trillion Credit Squadron. Without TCR even the detail in High Guard Book5 would have been unnecessery, and in fact it contained much information useless in roleplaying (the specs of a Class T Meson spinal mount), and ommitted vast amounts of information that would have been useful in an RPG (the types and capabilities of starship sensors, whether starships have windows or display screens, how long it takes to open or seal a hatch, types and effectiveness of starship security and anti-hijacking systems, etc, etc.
Can't wait for the new HG though!
Simon Hibbs
I like the fact that traveller has a starship design system, and I'm looking forward to High Guard (see above comment about the gearhead streak), but frankly if the game only had 4 or 5 pages of general discussions of starship technology and general guidelines for civilian and military starship structure, these would probably be enough for the purposes of actually roleplaying in the Traveller universe. Similar guidelines for vehicles would be nice, along with some examples of common vehicles from the Traveller universe as points of reference.
How many fictional SF universes have actual vehicle and starship design rules? Does the lack of them pose any significant barrier to Peter F Hamilton, Larry Niven, etc, etc writing further books in those universes? I don't think so. The real justification for High Guard wasn't the Traveller roleplaying game, it was Trillion Credit Squadron. Without TCR even the detail in High Guard Book5 would have been unnecessery, and in fact it contained much information useless in roleplaying (the specs of a Class T Meson spinal mount), and ommitted vast amounts of information that would have been useful in an RPG (the types and capabilities of starship sensors, whether starships have windows or display screens, how long it takes to open or seal a hatch, types and effectiveness of starship security and anti-hijacking systems, etc, etc.
Can't wait for the new HG though!
Simon Hibbs
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
NO, the comments are about your dislike of "never letting science getting in the way of the fun". I am illustrating that Sci-Fi RPGs are all about never letting the science get in the way of the fun. Each group has to decided how much 'hard science' will be in their game, affect their game, decide what is available in their game.EDG said:
If we never let science get in the way of the game, then we'd be playing a game set in today where everyone only dreams of what we might be playing if it weren't for all the 'hard science' dictating what could be done.
Hey, we've had survivable cryotech since 1982. When DARPA froze and thawed a beagle more than a half dozen times with no loss in his ability to perform the trained tasks he'd learned before the first time. Science Magazine carried the article.
(WHat they don't tell you is that the methodology was discontinued due to outcry over whether or not it was humane.)
(WHat they don't tell you is that the methodology was discontinued due to outcry over whether or not it was humane.)
ParanoidGamer said:
...which again is what I've been saying all along.
And you haven't really illustrated anything - I still don't have a clear picture of exactly how "science can get in the way of fun". That oceanography thread again is a prime example - without the science, the OP there wouldn't have known about the massive hurricane belts and currents that could cause all sorts of fun problems for adventurers. Is "science getting in the way of fun" there... or providing new avenues for fun that you wouldn't have thought of before? Because that's what it does - like I said, it may close off a few doors because it's not realistic but it'll also open a few different doors for you to explore for adventure at the same time.
Personally I've yet to see science "kill all the fun" in an adventure as some people may claim. Changing the size or orbital distance of a planet won't affect an adventure significantly, changing the type of star it orbits to be more realistic won't either.
Can science and realism kill certain types of "fun"? Sure, but the chances are that if you find unrealistic situations to be fun and nobody around the table cares a jot about realism then it's not really going to come up as an issue, is it.
Like the "cinematic action vs realistic action" debate, if everyone at the table wants to play 'John Woo' style combat then everyone should have fun doing that. But if you're all interested more in realistic combat then that's not going to work and you'll probably go more for 'Band of Brothers' style combat to have your fun. Similarly, if you want to simulate a realistic universe, then you're going to think adding the science and realism makes it more fun - if you want to emulate a less realistic universe, then you're going to think that addinig science and realism is going to "kill the fun". So the trick is obviously to strike the right balance within your group and leave it at that.
I think you got your "never" confused with your "always"...
But you know what, "hard science" in the real world got us to the moon and beyond (among other things). The way you paint it, anyone would think that science somehow stifles all our dreams - the fact is it makes a lot of those dreams (and in some cases, arguably the nightmares too) possible in the first place.
AKAramis said:
And there's a number of people who like "logical" worlds that aren't made of superdense Impossibilium. So why should one group take precedence over the other?
This does illustrate that it seems that the general expectation is that the science has to be reduced, not increased. And that if you actually suggest that it should be increased, you are likely to get a more apathetic reaction or even a hostile reception than if you suggested the opposite. But again, it's down to individual groups to set the level of science that they prefer... so why not allow the realistic options to be presented as much as the unrealistic ones? Why should one be presented more than the other?
I don't actually think this really has anything to do with one's enjoyment of the game at all... I think it's actually more fundamental than that, that maybe is related to the growing (false) perception nowadays that science itself is something that is intimidating and complicated - even though (as dafrca pointed out) it's quite possible to present the science transparently because all the scientific stuff is done 'under the hood' and presented as a simple system that just happens to produce realistic results.
TrippyHippy
Emperor Mongoose
As I said to my students, on the last day of term when they entered the room saying "Can we do fun stuff today?", "Sure you can.......Science is fun!".
All a question of perspective really - but 'science' is something that can have an infinite variety of applications in the real world, and sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.
All a question of perspective really - but 'science' is something that can have an infinite variety of applications in the real world, and sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.
Similar threads
