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.

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

futuristic-5930957_1280.jpg

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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

S'mon

Legend
< pushes 10' pole against this > "I'm pretty sure it's a trap guys, get the trap-testing chickens ready!"

I was trying to hopefully-not-trappily make the point that "explainable" and "divine" are not always seen as exclusive. That this is a feature of the Star Trek worldview. So it's understandable that some people would say that Q has all the necessary features of a 'god' in-universe, and some people would say he/it doesn't.

I haven't watched a ton of DS9, but I got the impression that this was a theme of the show - Star Fleet sees the Wormhole Prophets as 'Super Advanced Aliens', the Bajorans see them as 'divine'. But that the Bajoran belief does not depend on them being scientifically inexplicable. A Star Fleet officer can't pull back the curtain, scientifically explain the Prophets, and expect the Bajorans to go "Oh, I guess we were wrong then!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The Trek metric seems to be 'is scientifically explainable' - so in a universe where everything is scientifically explainable, by definition the super-being is not a 'real god'.

But IRL we have religions, esp 19th & 20th century ones, with part of the belief system being that the God or gods are scientifically explainable. Some of these religions even have words like 'Science' in their name. :)
It goes back way further than that. Epicurius taught that gods and the soul were both material and made of atoms.

Furthermore, religions in general believe that their gods and spirits have real concrete existence. The only definite exceptions to this that I can think of are The Church of the SubGenius, and LaVeyan Satanism

I was trying to hopefully-not-trappily make the point that "explainable" and "divine" are not always seen as exclusive. That this is a feature of the Star Trek worldview. So it's understandable that some people would say that Q has all the necessary features of a 'god' in-universe, and some people would say he/it doesn't.

I haven't watched a ton of DS9, but I got the impression that this was a theme of the show - Star Fleet sees the Wormhole Prophets as 'Super Advanced Aliens', the Bajorans see them as 'divine'. But that the Bajoran belief does not depend on them being scientifically inexplicable. A Star Fleet officer can't pull back the curtain, scientifically explain the Prophets, and expect the Bajorans to go "Oh, I guess we were wrong then!"

Exactly.

I like this, you explained it better than I did.
 

I haven't watched a ton of DS9, but I got the impression that this was a theme of the show - Star Fleet sees the Wormhole Prophets as 'Super Advanced Aliens', the Bajorans see them as 'divine'. But that the Bajoran belief does not depend on them being scientifically inexplicable. A Star Fleet officer can't pull back the curtain, scientifically explain the Prophets, and expect the Bajorans to go "Oh, I guess we were wrong then!"
Sure, but at other times Starfleet officers have at least attempted precisely that, with varying levels of success, and DS9 goes to great lengths to make the Prophets not be demonstrably divine, and to offer various explanations for their powers, which are clearly not magic.

This stands distinct from something like Shadowrun which goes to some lengths to say "This is magic and it doesn't follow scientific rules or necessarily any rules, it is supernatural". Whether something has a physical presence doesn't measure whether it's supernatural or not either, I think that's a bit of a mental cul-de-sac.
 

Ixal

Hero
This stands distinct from something like Shadowrun which goes to some lengths to say "This is magic and it doesn't follow scientific rules or necessarily any rules, it is supernatural". Whether something has a physical presence doesn't measure whether it's supernatural or not either, I think that's a bit of a mental cul-de-sac.
Ehm, in Shadowrun magic is science. Or rather, the hermetics treat is as another law of nature like gravity and they research it as such while shamans treat it more of a divine gift from spirits. And there are also proponents of a unified magical theory to combine those two paths.
 

Ehm, in Shadowrun magic is science. Or rather, the hermetics treat is as another law of nature like gravity and they research it as such while shamans treat it more of a divine gift from spirits. And there are also proponents of a unified magical theory to combine those two paths.
They're objectively wrong, though. This has been expressed at some length in older SR magic-related books. So that's a weird thing to bring up. Hell basic laws of physics are destroyed by countless aspects of SR magic, especially some of the larger-scale aspects of the universe and history and so on.
 

Ixal

Hero
They're objectively wrong, though. This has been expressed at some length in older SR magic-related books. So that's a weird thing to bring up. Hell basic laws of physics are destroyed by countless aspects of SR magic, especially some of the larger-scale aspects of the universe and history and so on.
You make the same mistake like many people, no matter the system, to think that magic is not part of the basic laws of physics. Magic in pretty much all RPG systems always produce the same results, thats why you have standardised spells, and thus scientific methods can be applied to it. In Shadowrun this is an accepted fact, which is why you have magic being researched according to modern methods and have patents on spells.

In other settings both creators and players often ignore the science behind magic because, for some reason, people think something can only be magical when it is not a science and they pretend that this is the case, even when magic in the game functions like a law of nature and always works the same way.
Its ok when the characters in the game don't think that it is science, the same way how smithing was once considered magic because involved chemistry people did not understand. But in the end in nearly all settings magic is no different than physics.
 
Last edited:

Sure, but at other times Starfleet officers have at least attempted precisely that, with varying levels of success, and DS9 goes to great lengths to make the Prophets not be demonstrably divine, and to offer various explanations for their powers, which are clearly not magic.

This stands distinct from something like Shadowrun which goes to some lengths to say "This is magic and it doesn't follow scientific rules or necessarily any rules, it is supernatural". Whether something has a physical presence doesn't measure whether it's supernatural or not either, I think that's a bit of a mental cul-de-sac.

Even the "not necessarily any rules" part doesn't necessarily put it outside of physics. If you follow the copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, which is espoused by a plurality of physicists, there are trillions of processes going on every second that are every bit as random as a Rod of Wonder; the outcomes may be weighted (again, like the Rod of Wonder) but the choice between them is ultimately random. Whether you'll find Schrodinger's Cat alive or dead when you finally open the box is completely arbitrary according to the most prominent understanding of physics.

You make the same mistake like many people, no matter the system, to think that magic is not part of the basic laws of physics. Magic in pretty much all RPG systems always produce the same results, thats why you have standardised spells, and thus scientific methods can be applied to it. In Shadowrun this is an accepted fact, which is why you have magic being researched according to modern methods and have patents on spells.

In other settings both creators and players often ignore the science behind magic because, for some reason, people think something can only be magical when it is not a science and they pretend that this is the case, even when magic in the game functions like a law of nature and always works the same way.
Its ok when the characters in the game don't think that it is science, the same way how smithing was once considered magic because involved chemistry people did not understand. But in the end in nearly all settings magic is no different than physics.

This. It's clearly knowable and predictable on some level because otherwise you'd never be able to cast a spell except by accident.

EDIT:
As a tangential aside, here is a legitimate science documentary that literally talks about turning lead into other elements:
 
Last edited:

They're objectively wrong, though. This has been expressed at some length in older SR magic-related books. So that's a weird thing to bring up. Hell basic laws of physics are destroyed by countless aspects of SR magic, especially some of the larger-scale aspects of the universe and history and so on.
Basic laws of real world physics are destroyed by countless aspects of Star Trek technology.

But if we're talking about in-universe laws of physics approached from an in-universe perspective then no they aren't, by definition. The laws of physics are the laws of the universe as we understand them. And if magic is a part of the universe then science needs to account for that. In normal physics most of the time we treat the earth as flat because in local areas the curvature is so small that it effectively is. Newtonian Physics is not wrong even if Einstein corrected it and things get really weird at quantum levels.

If magic can have repeatable and reliable effects then it can be approached by the tools of science. There aren't two domains because science is a set of tools, not a set of results. And if the definition we're using is "regularly and gratuitously breaks real world physics" then Star Trek does so and the window dressing they put on things like trickster gods to pretend they are scientific (which honestly isn't much better than DC's fifth dimensional imps) is just window dressing.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top