-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Is hard sci-fi really appropriate as a rpg genre?
- Thread starter Turanil
- Start date
sword-dancer
Explorer
The Nostromo was Truck or a small Cargo/Container Ship, would they`ve the equipment of an explorer ship, I don?`t think so.Turanil said:
If we get on Alien II and the Marine Mission_(Yes Sir I wake up only the Scout Team and nothing Else give Them no cover etc pp), instead of Holding Ripley on the Mother Ship holding direct and 24/7 contact, having Air force at the place and at least full Company in full heavy Combat gear, MBT APC and so on on alert..
Not to speak of Alien IV, the cells had been Acid proof, and the Ships Computer had the standard order if something goes really wrong not to fly back to earth but into thecore of the next sun.
.
Onlyif possible and made economoically sense
Colonists. Exploreres etccoudln`t do that really.
LostSoul
Adventurer
I'd start out with an economy that looks feudal. You've got a king, nobles, etc. And these guys are the only ones who matter in the world; everyone else is just dirt.
(Don't know why this would happen; maybe robots replaced all the need for manual labour, and the robots could repair themselves, and wars are fought with just a handful of people. So you have worthless peasants and military power in the hands of just a few.)
Technology becomes expensive because the rich produce it for the rich. The peasants get the broken hand-me-downs.
Exploring into space, you might get nations like the USA, Canada, Australia - where people are wanted to colonize. Here a poor man can make something of his life.
You could throw in a Great War that shakes everything up, introduce some wacky futuristic communism, facism, and utopian democracy.
(Don't know why this would happen; maybe robots replaced all the need for manual labour, and the robots could repair themselves, and wars are fought with just a handful of people. So you have worthless peasants and military power in the hands of just a few.)
Technology becomes expensive because the rich produce it for the rich. The peasants get the broken hand-me-downs.
Exploring into space, you might get nations like the USA, Canada, Australia - where people are wanted to colonize. Here a poor man can make something of his life.
You could throw in a Great War that shakes everything up, introduce some wacky futuristic communism, facism, and utopian democracy.
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
I suspect you're confusion Now with Then: then being either the past or the future. The modern West, with its saftey obsession and triple-failsafes (not that they always work) is as much a historical abberation as an ilithid is a Monster Manual abberation.
Much of human exploration has been propelled by skin-of-their-teeth near-lunatics, most of whom do indeed die trying. We remember, and immortalize, the successful few, because we need them. We don't advance without them. We are, presently, in a society that denigrates them and looks down upon their way of life, but such a society is unlikely to ever achieve much in space. The society that put men on the moon and space-raced the Soviets didn't have the present squemishness about the hard realities of exploration; nor have significant advances been made in space exploration and colonization since our society lost its heroic aspirations.
The future is far more likely to belong to the heroes, as the past did, than to persist in its very recent and presumably abberant state.
Alien, for instance, has some serious problems as hard SF. The behavior of the crew isn't one of them. The Nostromo is a cargo ship, diverted (on company orders) to touch down on an unexplored planet and investigate an anomaly. Even if triple-failsafes are standard for explorers and researchers in their future, which seems historically unlikely, a cargo ship doesn't have them. If an oil tanker ran aground on Atlantis tomorrow, would it send carefully calibrated exploratory robots ashore? Didn't think so. It would radio in, presumably to its corporate sponsors, and either they or curiosity might well cause its crew to have a look around. When the Nostromo crew is being manipulated by one of their number specifically to bring back an organism from the planet, the likelihood of their taking foolish risks increases still more.
The biggest problem Alien has as hard SF is that an interstellar parasite like the alien could engage in a very complicated biological process using a host selected, in effect, from any inhabited planet in the galaxy.
The behavior of the marines in Aliens actually does stretch suspension of disbelief. Not their confidence and later panic in the face of the unknown - those are perfectly normal reactions. No, the wonky thing is that they left their massive, nuclear-equipped warship completely uncrewed in orbit around a potentially hostile planet. Now, we the viewers know, or at least suspect, that the aliens can't crew a starship. The company might even have an inkling of this. But the marines don't, nor do they know why the colony has lost contact. If the colonists had rebelled against... whatever overarching government they were subject to, or the company, or whatever... they could have easily hopped on their own landers, wrested control of the marines' ship, and been in position to defend themselves with overwhelming force. I love Aliens, but this was just overly boneheaded even for an action/horror flick.
Much of human exploration has been propelled by skin-of-their-teeth near-lunatics, most of whom do indeed die trying. We remember, and immortalize, the successful few, because we need them. We don't advance without them. We are, presently, in a society that denigrates them and looks down upon their way of life, but such a society is unlikely to ever achieve much in space. The society that put men on the moon and space-raced the Soviets didn't have the present squemishness about the hard realities of exploration; nor have significant advances been made in space exploration and colonization since our society lost its heroic aspirations.
The future is far more likely to belong to the heroes, as the past did, than to persist in its very recent and presumably abberant state.
Alien, for instance, has some serious problems as hard SF. The behavior of the crew isn't one of them. The Nostromo is a cargo ship, diverted (on company orders) to touch down on an unexplored planet and investigate an anomaly. Even if triple-failsafes are standard for explorers and researchers in their future, which seems historically unlikely, a cargo ship doesn't have them. If an oil tanker ran aground on Atlantis tomorrow, would it send carefully calibrated exploratory robots ashore? Didn't think so. It would radio in, presumably to its corporate sponsors, and either they or curiosity might well cause its crew to have a look around. When the Nostromo crew is being manipulated by one of their number specifically to bring back an organism from the planet, the likelihood of their taking foolish risks increases still more.
The biggest problem Alien has as hard SF is that an interstellar parasite like the alien could engage in a very complicated biological process using a host selected, in effect, from any inhabited planet in the galaxy.
The behavior of the marines in Aliens actually does stretch suspension of disbelief. Not their confidence and later panic in the face of the unknown - those are perfectly normal reactions. No, the wonky thing is that they left their massive, nuclear-equipped warship completely uncrewed in orbit around a potentially hostile planet. Now, we the viewers know, or at least suspect, that the aliens can't crew a starship. The company might even have an inkling of this. But the marines don't, nor do they know why the colony has lost contact. If the colonists had rebelled against... whatever overarching government they were subject to, or the company, or whatever... they could have easily hopped on their own landers, wrested control of the marines' ship, and been in position to defend themselves with overwhelming force. I love Aliens, but this was just overly boneheaded even for an action/horror flick.
Turanil
First Post
MoogleEmpMog said:
IMO: Safety obsession is related to efficiency obsession (and our society strives to become always more efficient, without which no space colonization will be ever possible). I mean: there is nothing more inefficient than a dead explorer (or broken probe) as far as exploration goes.
I think that the problem (of hard sci-fi being not about heroes but technicians behind a computer screen) is about technology. The first prehistoric soldiers used their fists; then a club or a sword, then a gun, then a computer screen, then an AI to take care of the computer. As tools evolve into complex technology, the real work is always more remote from the person who does it (and then have it done). The first prehistoric soldier had to be a hero, a conan, but in the future you just need to have the latest upgrade in equipment and let the technology do its job all by itself. It doesn't lend well to adventuring.
I did once read something great on the Internet. A guy told that when he was young his father would tell him of the dangers and hazards of nature (wild animals, deadly climate, etc.), but himself would have to tell his own son about the danger and hazards of society (don't eat junk food despite advertising wants you do otherwise and doesn't care you end up obese). In the former case I can see the basis for adventures (fight wild animals, survive harsh climate), in the latter??? (don't eat junk food cause it's bad for your health...).
Turanil said:
Maybe, maybe not. Science fiction is entirely about the basic assumptions you make; whether it's hard sci fi or not depends mostly on how consistent you are in the application of those assumptions. Couple things to remember:
1) You can take any current tendencies you like and use them as basic assumptions; sticking to the dominant trends is one way to do things, but certainly not the only way. Revolution is at least as important an agent of change in society, culture, and knowledge as evolution. A monitored/controlled/backed-up future is one possible vision of what could happen, but certainly not the only one.
2) Humans have never had a monolithic culture on any kind of macro scale, and it's safe to guess that trend will continue. So even if you do go with the monitored/controlled/backed-up future, there will be regions where that is only a theory or ideal rather than the actual situation on the ground. A classic sci-fi schtick is to put the protagonists (your adventurers) in those regions. Star Wars does that, Firefly does that, Babylon 5 does that, the Foundation does that, games like Traveller do that - heck, even Star Trek does that at times. Nothing wrong with using the same model for a campaign.
IMHO, the way to do it is to say "this is the type of campaign I want", work out that that is, then figure out how the future could unfold to get there. Sounds like that's what you're starting to do, which is good. Just keep in mind that what looks plausible or even inevitable now may well have no relation to what actually happens - for evidence of this, look at any point in history and read what they thought about the future, then look at how things turned out. Chances are, there's roughly zero correlation between the two, even over short periods (like the 20 years between the end of WWI and the start of WWII, which included at least three major world-shaping events that almost nobody predicted). So don't get too hung up on what you think a plausible future society is - all it needs to be in order to be good hard sci fi is consistent, which is a different animal.
Turanil said:Cool. I can see ideas coming from all your comments.
-- Bureaucracy: people want to escape a world where everything is known, monitored, controlled, and planned? Go out into space, and look by yourself just for its own sake.
-- Technology is expensive: Producing it on Earth where are big industrial consortiums is easy. But on distant planets and small colonies, it suddenly become very difficult to find spare parts, buy the latest ion gun, and what not.
-- Space is really big: When you are far away, you are on your own, and only on your own.
-- Futuristic Possibilities: Cloning, artificial intelligence, etc. should give many ideas of weird possibilities. However, much thought must be put there...
-- Remote Robot Control: Great opportunities for Mecha adventures. Could probably be mixed with something Matrix-like too...
Well, lets come more comments and ideas! thanks.
Yeah, hard sci-fi runs into problems with what may or may not be realistically feasible, even if it's physically possible. I would prefer a bit of tweaking the physics rather than putting a straightjacket on my setting. That's just me though.
To that end the most compelling sci-fi universe I've found that I think would make for interesting gaming was that created by Vernor Vinge in his novel "A Fire Upon the Deep." It's not really hard sci-fi in that physics operates differently depending on where you are in relation to the center of the galaxy. (There are four or five "zones of thought," each with fewer restrictions as you get further from the galactic core.) It's quite compelling and won the Hugo in 91 or 92. Basically most things are highly controlled, and information is power like you would most likely expect in a highly advanced setting, with beings that are truly alien in their outlook and thinking - at least in some places in the galaxy. Other areas are struggling with medieval tech or less. There are ancient galactic archives (similar to internet archive sites, only on a galactic scale) from old societies waiting to be discovered and used, but then along comes something resembling a computer virus that is "transcended," having acquired god-like intelligence and power. You can't fight it directly, so you have to go where it physically cannot operate... but it can send its minions. If you've already been working on your setting for a long time, reading this for info may or not be worthwhile, but it's great intertainment anyway if you like the genre. If I were to make my own sci-fi or future campaign setting, it would likely have many similarities to this.
Building on what you posted...
Bureaucracy - Known archives are highly controlled, but people still go off exploring to find an archive that is not under someone else's control.
Technology - Possibly expensive, possibly worthless, possibly magic-like, depending on where you are.
Space - Yes, it's big, and traveling too far from known resources is still quite dangerous. You also risk becomming stranded in space if you get too close to the galactic core and your tech gives out.
Futuristic Possibilities - Yes, quite, if you allow for the 'zones of thought' modification to physics as we understand it.
Remote Robot Control - Not to give too much plot away if you decide to check it out, but that is a strong possibility too.
...
Either that or Babylon 5.
If you want a really hard sci-fi setting, pick up Transhuman Space. It has no FTL, no aliens, is located all over the solar system, has AIs and parahumans, and things can be removed to make it harder (like the parahumans). And the GURPS rules are light, at least in most of the books. It is more about the setting than the rules.
But what makes it realistic is the people of the setting. There are still over a hundred nations and many of them are in blocs. There are poor people and rich. Colonists of the ocean floor and Mars are not really that different in being people. The odd book in the bunch is Toxic Memes, about ways of controlling the masses through advance advertisement, for lack of a better term.
So my answer to your question is yes. If you do decide to buy it, I suggest The 5th Wave, Broken Dreams (both examine Earth), In the Well (Mercury, Venus and Mars), and Toxic Memes supplements as well.
But what makes it realistic is the people of the setting. There are still over a hundred nations and many of them are in blocs. There are poor people and rich. Colonists of the ocean floor and Mars are not really that different in being people. The odd book in the bunch is Toxic Memes, about ways of controlling the masses through advance advertisement, for lack of a better term.
So my answer to your question is yes. If you do decide to buy it, I suggest The 5th Wave, Broken Dreams (both examine Earth), In the Well (Mercury, Venus and Mars), and Toxic Memes supplements as well.
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
Turanil said:
Actually, safety and efficiency are not one and the same, nor is space colonization likely to be terribly efficient.
One hundred (cheap, brave) explorers, of whom 98 die and two reach the goal, are more efficient than a single (efficient, safe) explorer who either costs more or does not reach the goal. A dead explorer is, indeed, inefficient. So is a broken probe. If the explorer cost less than the probe and is equally replaceable, he's more efficient.
The successful space programs of the space race US and Soviet Union were, by modern standards, not terribly safe, nor were they optimally efficient. The underfunded but groundbreaking space program of the late Soviets/modern Russians? Inefficient, unsafe... yet a landmark of long-term man-space exposure. By relying on bravery and ingenuity, they kept an essentially derelict space station not just active but productive.
The saftey obsessed space program of the post-'60s US (to say nothing of post-Challenger)? In terms of abstract science, they've made some strides, but they have not advanced man's acension to the stars in any significant way. They have made no move in the direction of colonization or manned exploration.
The biggest plans in space travel today come out of China and entrepreneurial private industry. China, which is most certainly not as concerned with individual lives as it is with its perception of the "big picture," and a branch of the private sector that attracts what little remains of the non-military heroic spirit in the modern world. The space programs of the wealthy West not only haven't made significant advances in exploration since the 1960s, they haven't even seriously entertained plans to do so. The most recent US suggestion of a manned Mars mission was met with derision by Western media and reluctance by NASA.
Ironically, the very safety-conscious, watered-down space program of the post-'60s US has managed to lose two of its shuttles with all crew; more casualties than the pre-'60s US had with its space program of ingenuity and heroism.
buzz
Adventurer
Tangent alert!
Alien is all about human hubris and corporate greed. The Corporation and the Marines don't buy for one second that there's some powerfully hostile alien life form down on the planet (save for the few higher-ups in the Corporation that *do* but aren't about to tell anyone). A key early line that sums this all up is when one of the suits says, incredulously, to Ripley that her description of the alien is ludicrous because nothing like it has been found "in surveys of over four hundred worlds". As if incompetent surveys of four hundred planets out of an infinite universe were proof positive.
The marines think the mission is BS. Consequently, they aren't too concerned about the Sulaco being unmanned. And, for all we know, this may be SOP. It's not like they have X-wing fighters flying around.
The whole point of the films (well, the good ones, i.e. the first two) is that humanity is wholly unprepared for what's out there... but don't know that yet. On the contrary, they think they've seen it all. In Ripley's universe, working in space is just another job, and a sucky one at that.
As for whether it's good or bad "hard" SF... I dunno about the "hard' part, but it's good SF IMO, and definitely on the harder side. I also don't see how having magical sensors that tell them everything they need to know about a planet from orbit would make it hard SF...
I don't think it does at all. They act just as stupid, overconfident, and unprepared as many militaries do today.MoogleEmpMog said:
Alien is all about human hubris and corporate greed. The Corporation and the Marines don't buy for one second that there's some powerfully hostile alien life form down on the planet (save for the few higher-ups in the Corporation that *do* but aren't about to tell anyone). A key early line that sums this all up is when one of the suits says, incredulously, to Ripley that her description of the alien is ludicrous because nothing like it has been found "in surveys of over four hundred worlds". As if incompetent surveys of four hundred planets out of an infinite universe were proof positive.
The marines think the mission is BS. Consequently, they aren't too concerned about the Sulaco being unmanned. And, for all we know, this may be SOP. It's not like they have X-wing fighters flying around.
The whole point of the films (well, the good ones, i.e. the first two) is that humanity is wholly unprepared for what's out there... but don't know that yet. On the contrary, they think they've seen it all. In Ripley's universe, working in space is just another job, and a sucky one at that.
As for whether it's good or bad "hard" SF... I dunno about the "hard' part, but it's good SF IMO, and definitely on the harder side. I also don't see how having magical sensors that tell them everything they need to know about a planet from orbit would make it hard SF...
Similar Threads
