Worlds of Design: Is There a Default Sci-Fi Setting?

The science fiction default setting is less clear than the “Late Medieval plus some Tolkien” fantasy default, but let’s talk about it.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Months ago I discussed the fantasy default setting in "Baseline Assumptions of Fantasy RPGs.” A default may not exist at all in some of the sci-fi categories below, but I think it’s worth discussing.

The Automation Difference​

Keep in mind the big difference between fantasy and science fiction: automation. Stories are about people, not machines, even though automation is likely to be dominant in the future. We already see this happening today, with robotic explorers on Mars, and unmanned drones fighting terrestrial wars.

It’s also possible that science fiction novel and game authors spend more time describing their settings than fantasy authors do, maybe because there’s so much more deviation from a default than in fantasy. In general, there may be less emphasis on "monsters" and uncivilized "barbarians" than in fantasy worlds.

In no particular order I’ll discuss:

• Automation
• Transportation
• Communication
• Adventurers
• Aliens
• History & Change
• Technology
• Warfare & Military
• Demography & Habitation
• Longevity

Automation​

Let's start with automation. In sci-fi settings, automation tends to vary immensely. We can see robots as intelligent as humans, and other settings where automation has not reached the level of human intelligence. You rarely see automation dominating the military, again because stories are about people, not machines. In Frank Herbert’s universe (Dune), the Butlerian Jihad has eliminated automation where any kind of intelligence is involved.

Transportation​

Faster-than-light travel is most common; often even very small spaceships, such as shuttles and fighters, can achieve it, sometimes it takes a big ship. If there is no faster-than-light travel, then the setting is usually confined to one star system, or involves “generation ships.” Sometimes the ships have built-in drives, so they can go from anywhere to anywhere; other times they must use fixed links in some kind of natural or man-made network, whether it’s wormholes or something else.

Communication​

Most likely, communication is at light speed, or at travel speed, whichever is faster. Once in a while you get instantaneous speaking communication (as in Star Wars); but that gets hard to believe on the scale of an entire galaxy, if only for the potential interference.

Adventurers​

Are there “adventurers” at all? Maybe we should say, people who go on, or get caught up in, adventures? I don’t see a common thread for how numerous such people are.

Aliens​

There’s no default here, but most common is a human-centric universe, possibly with no aliens, possibly with aliens ignored by or subordinated to humans. We also see humans as subordinate to aliens, in some sub-genres.

History & Change​

Time frame varies from near-future to millennia from now. Rate of change is usually very slow in the latter, so that the setting can still have some familiarity to readers and players. The pace of change in the near future is inevitably quick, as we see things change so quickly in the modern day that we’d be puzzled by slow tech change in anything like our own society.

Technology​

No default here. The paranormal may be important. Much of what goes on is still familiar to contemporary people, because that helps make it easier to willingly suspend disbelief.

Warfare & Military​

This is all over the map. Conflicts are usually between worlds or groups of worlds. What’s notable is that authors are often stuck in some kind of earth-history model where ground forces are very important. Keep in mind, typical SF situations are lots of separate star systems, much like small islands. What really counts is the (space) navy, if anyone is willing to “blast planets back into the stone age.” If they are willing to do that, ground forces don’t matter/are on a suicide mission. If they’re not willing to bombard planets, then ground forces matter, but are at immense disadvantage when the enemy controls the orbital zone of the planet.

Demography & Habitation​

Terra-formed worlds or worlds naturally habitable, versus most people live in habitats to protect them from hostile environment. In the video game Elite: Dangerous, planets are just barren places to explore, space stations are where people live. Again, there’s no default.

Longevity​

I’ve always found it odd that Elves, with vast lifespans, are as willing to risk their long future in potentially lethal adventures as they seem to be in fantasy games. If the technology of the science fiction setting provides long life or even immortality, how does that affect adventuring?

For further reading, see Atomic Rockets. It’s a website describing various SF topics, often baring the fundamentals of what reality might demand. Such as why interstellar trade is likely to be very sparse or non-existent.

Your Turn: Have you devised a campaign setting for science fiction role-playing?

 

[Emerikol]

Your Turn: Have you devised a campaign setting for science fiction role-playing?

I haven't ran a full blown sci-fi campaign. I've played in a few.

I would think though that science fiction encompasses two large a gap to be just one default but a rules set may force you into a default.

So I'd say there might be near-tech which is an Expanse like setting.

But there is also space opera which spans galaxies with FTL travel. Is that travel slow or fast though? Is it Star Trek/Star Wars style fast travel or is it Asimov/Traveller style travel.

So yeah, I've noticed GURPS space makes none of these decisions for you. So you can "make" any game you want. Whereas a game like Star Wars or even Star Finder imply a technology setting.

 

[Umbran]

I'm tired of arguing with people with no background or education in the subject.

Not agreeing with you does not mean folks don't have background or education.

 

[Hussar]

Sci-fi is about changing something fundamental about how we live and then examining how the human animal deals with this change. They are "what if" stories that feature some technology that alters the status quo in a distinct way. Star Trek is a great example of sci-fi, using numerous tech changes to ask what if stories, largely focusing on what it means to be human in these situations. Star Wars, on the other hand, is not a good sci-fi story, because it doesn't ask "what if" with the technology changes, but instead is a pretty straightforward story about good vs evil. And I say this as a die-hard Star Wars fan. I've seen "space opera" tossed about in this thread, but not in the way it's meant to be used. "Space opera" is a story about good vs evil, or other 'outside the ken of men' forces vying for control with the trappings of sci-fi. They don't ask "what if," they just use some technology fantasy to tell a story about these contesting forces. Space travel does not equal space opera.

As for the trope/genre discussion, sci-fi has so many conflicting tropes that it's very, very challenging to pick central or shared tropes like space travel as definitional. If any tropes are definitional, they are the "what if" focus of the tale, and also that some technology is altering the human condition that does not exist at the time the story is told.

Traveler is a great example of a sci-fi game, because it's focus is really on life in a changed universe, using technology to affect that change. However, that said, the sci-fi-ness of a given Traveler game is going to be up to the table, not really the rules or the setting. Traveler enables sci-fi, it doesn't define it.

I really, really have to figure out how to do this. You are saying pretty much exactly the same thing I've said in this thread, but, I get nothing but pushback and arguments and you get a thumbs up.

And, @Umbran, that's true. But, arguments from dictionaries, on points that are woefully misinformed are pretty good indicators of a lack of background in the subject matter. If you have to point to a dictionary definition to make your point, you've already lost the argument.

 

[Von Ether]

As a more practical answer, the difference for most RPG groups is that you only have to ask, "Where do the elves and dwarves live on your world map?" And once that is answered, the players move on and roll dice.

Yet in SF, there are no immediate questions of why they live there or how they live there unless the DMs make it a point to mention it because it (should) change the world in a significant way.

Tolkien is in the High Fantasy subgenre with recognizable tropes (and I find that D&D is almost become a subgenre of High Fantasy at this point.) On that level,

When it comes to sci-fi, geeky judgement comes out much more quickly as the participants try to line up the SF world next to their favorite franchise, most often a Space Opera, which also has it's own recognizable tropes.

 

[Umbran]

And, @Umbran, that's true. But, arguments from dictionaries, on points that are woefully misinformed are pretty good indicators of a lack of background in the subject matter.

For someone who supposedly knows the subject, you seem to have forgotten a cardinal rule - know the audience!

If folks need to meet some minimum subject mastery to speak with you, a public messageboard is not the place for that conversation. Next time take it somewhere else. Because what you did here was incredibly rude.

 

[TrippyHippy]

And, @Umbran, that's true. But, arguments from dictionaries, on points that are woefully misinformed are pretty good indicators of a lack of background in the subject matter. If you have to point to a dictionary definition to make your point, you've already lost the argument.

No. If you start arguing against dictionary definitions it means you’ve lost the argument. If you start resorting to argumentum ad verecundiam or ad hominem you’ve lost the argument. If you actually lost the argument but can’t admit it, you’ve lost the argument.

You lost the argument.

 

[John Lloyd1]

There is a whole Wikipedia article on defining science fiction.

My favourite quote is:

Andrew Milner. 2012. Science fiction "is a selective tradition, continuously reinvented in the present, through which the boundaries of the genre are continuously policed, challenged and disrupted, and the cultural identity of the SF community continuously established, preserved and transformed. It is thus essentially and necessarily a site of contestation."

This whole thread is an example.

 

[Hussar]

No. If you start arguing against dictionary definitions it means you’ve lost the argument. If you start resorting to argumentum ad verecundiam or ad hominem you’ve lost the argument. If you actually lost the argument but can’t admit it, you’ve lost the argument.

You lost the argument.

The argument that you just agreed with? That's the argument I lost? Ok, you win. I completely agree with the person you agree with.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The argument that you just agreed with? That's the argument I lost? Ok, you win. I completely agree with the person you agree with.

Nope. You can’t spin your way out of it either. Your comments are here for all to see, you’ve been censured by a moderator and made a fool of yourself in the process. Have a better one, next time.

 

[Emerikol]

And, @Umbran, that's true. But, arguments from dictionaries, on points that are woefully misinformed are pretty good indicators of a lack of background in the subject matter. If you have to point to a dictionary definition to make your point, you've already lost the argument.

Yes but when you start mid-way contextually without explanation and just assume everyone on the thread is right where you are at then that is not ideal. Even if someone mistakenly understands the term as you or someone else is using it, the polite thing to do would be to say "This term has taken on a new meaning in gaming analysis or this term is popularly used this way in this gaming style" etc.... Instead of arguing about what a word means because the guy with the dictionary wins on general meaning.