Free League's Alien RPG - My Experience

[Celebrim]

Something I saw around the net a while ago, probably not word for word: "'Soft science fiction' means 'there were things in my Analog story that made me uncomfortable, like women and feelings."

I just read LeGuin's "The Dispossessed" not that long ago, and not surprisingly because LeGuin is a Grand Master and rarely disappoints, one of the best sci fi books I've read in a long time and it's definitely on the Hard end of the science fiction spectrum even though it's mostly about relationships and social sciences. And I don't think there is anyone much that is going to disagree with that. Basically, none of the technology actually employed in the story is implausible even with modern knowledge. LeGuin is interested in speculative situations that are a bit removed from the modern world, but she doesn't need any wish fulfillment technology to achieve her story goals.

One of my favorite authors on the soft end of the spectrum is Robert Silverberg and he's really deeply interested in questions of identity and personhood and what it means to have a self, which are not questions that are easily answered through plausible and known science, so a lot (but not all) of his stories involve implausible mental powers or transcendental experiences or psychic connections that aren't easily explained by science and probably are contrary to known scientific truths. It's not soft because of the topic that Silverberg is approaching but because of the methodology he is using to approach it. And there is a huge obvious difference between the telepathy in something like "Dying Inside" and the psychic witches and wizards that populate Dune and Star Wars and other space opera works that embrace something very much like traditional ego based magical systems and heroic narratives of chosen ones and epic quests. And that's intentional by the author in both cases. Star Wars very consciously is fantasy fairy tale and not science fiction, because among other things it opens up with "Once upon a time, a long time ago..." And again, it's obvious that something like "Tower of Glass" or "Shadrach in the Furnace" are harder than works like "Dying Inside" or "Time of Changes", and if that isn't obvious to you I can explain it.

There is a part of me that just wants to go off on you for even quoting that sort of dismissive hateful opinion that lurks in some quarters. When people characterize something as soft science fiction or as space opera, that's not usually or typically motivated by sexism. Implying that's a common opinion or that it is an underlying ulterior motive for critiques of science fiction is no less sexism and hateful, than everything that I think you are trying to stand against. It's a hateful well poisoning argument that doesn't do anyone any good or increase anyone's understanding.

 

[Celebrim]

I read articles from the 1920s and 30s that women made for poor "scientification" writers because they didn't focus on the technology instead focusing on things like "feelings." (Not that you're coming at it from a sexist point of view.)

I'm not sure that comment helps the understanding any. While I disagree obviously with this hypothetical person from the 1920's about his gender stereotypes, the general point being made that if you are not focused on the science but have your focus on something else, that it might not be science fiction is a relevant critique. George Lucas writes space opera that doesn't focus on technology and isn't in my opinion even in the science fiction genre. LeGuin writes masterpieces of hard science fiction like The Dispossessed and The Left Hand of Darkness. One of my all time favorite authors, Bujold is somewhere in the middle, with some stories having science fiction as an incidental setting and others earnestly interested in the effects that technology might have on human life.

And I could pick out a modern writer to hit with a hard critique of what is going on in the genre right now, but I never set out to derail this thread because I didn't realize hateful people had tried to make discussion of hard and soft science fiction some sort of dog whistle for sexism and thereby revealed themselves to be part of the problem. There might be an interesting discussion of why space opera like Dune and Star Wars has kind of ruined people's appetite for and appreciation of good science fiction or even their ability to define it, but I don't think we can have it hear (and this thread wouldn't be the right place for it anyway).

Let's just say that it's all speculative fiction and drop it.

While I think the Alien RPG is great, my interest in playing it is limited to one-shot adventures or possibly very, very short campaigns

I wanted to like it more than I did, but ultimately in being true to the movies IMO it really limited its ability to be a good game for anything other than one-shots. Ultimately I think the setting feels really thin to me compared to alternatives like Transhuman Space or even something like Battlestar Galactica. BSG using a variant Alien rules? Sign me up. There would be your need for ship to ship combat. It's sort of like how I wouldn't mind playing Dogs in the Vineyard, but I think I'd rather play it as Star Trek Away Team.

 

[Umbran]

There might be an interesting discussion of why space opera like Dune and Star Wars has kind of ruined people's appetite for and appreciation of good science fiction or even their ability to define it, but I don't think we can have it hear (and this thread wouldn't be the right place for it anyway).

I think, for purposes of a decent conversation, you may want to reconsider how judgey you want to present here.

 

[Celebrim]

I think, for purposes of a decent conversation, you may want to reconsider how judgey you want to present here.

I think the opportunity for decent conversation got lost a bit of ahead of that point but consider me warned.

 

[MGibster]

I'm not sure that comment helps the understanding any. While I disagree obviously with this hypothetical person from the 1920's about his gender stereotypes, the general point being made that if you are not focused on the science but have your focus on something else, that it might not be science fiction is a relevant critique.

What constitutes "real" scientifiction, er, science fiction, is a debate that's been around just about as long as its been a recognizable genre. And, no, I'm afraid I don't find it to be a relevant critique because it's not even a critique. A critique is an analysis of the story that might include an interpretation of themes, prose, philosophical underpinnings, and, if my English teachers are to be believed, finding metaphors for the Holy Trinity in everything. Just saying "it's not science fiction" is hardly an analysis as it says nothing meaningful about the story.

There might be an interesting discussion of why space opera like Dune and Star Wars has kind of ruined people's appetite for and appreciation of good science fiction or even their ability to define it, but I don't think we can have it hear (and this thread wouldn't be the right place for it anyway).

Dune is frequently listed as one of the best and most influential science fiction novels of the 20th century. To say that it "ruined" people for good science fiction sounds incredibly snobbish to my ears.

 

[aramis erak]

What constitutes "real" scientifiction, er, science fiction, is a debate that's been around just about as long as its been a recognizable genre.

It's been recognizable since Rome was a Republic...
That said, it's had a term for about a century, and half a century ago, had a fairly clear ideal promulgated by the members of the SFWA: 3 breaks, no more, from known science

Dune is frequently listed as one of the best and most influential science fiction novels of the 20th century. To say that it "ruined" people for good science fiction sounds incredibly snobbish to my ears.

Dune lead me to Niven and OS Card, and away from Heinlein...
Niven + Anne McCaffrey lead me to Bujold. And to Doc Smith's Lensman and Fuzzy series.
Dune and Niven reinforced my like of Cole & Bunch's Sten series... I only consider some of Niven and some of Heinlein to be Sci Fi... the rest are all Space Opera.

But SO, despite being less grounded in science, is still a valuable tool for exploring "The Human Condition." I dare say that Robotech¹ has done as much exploration of what humanity is as has the Ringworld series or Vorkosiverse series. And Star Trek, with its fantasy tech, examines a lot more about people than about tech...

... in the end, what matters is not the label, but the experiences and the reflections, and that the stories are memorable and moving in some aspect.

Alien's game design is good for that, in both modes.
The movies, like other Ridley Scott works, esp. Blade Runner, operate on many different levels... action, shock, the knowing of impending doom and what that drives one to... and even to "Who is more human, Burke, or Ash?" (and "Is Decard human or replicant?")

At the end of the Chariot of the Gods module, the questions about the humanness of the replicant are easy to overlook, unless the player thereof embraces the dichotomies to explore them. Similarly in the module Destroyer of Worlds...
It is also worth noting that one can swap the cards between characters if one cares to rerun it, and it can result in very satisfying replay...

 

[Haiku Elvis]

the lack of weapons in Chariots isn't absolute; there are quite a number of weapons listed as on the Montero. Including "incinerators" (flamethrowers)... plus another half dozed weapons and tools suitable for weapon use on the Coronus.

Have you not seen Aliens!? Incinerators always make it worse

(Unless it's Ripley using them)

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I honestly don't want to contribute to my already pessimistic outlook on life with entertainment asking me to invest emotionally with terrible people doing awful things.

The Alien RPG is definitely not for you, then. Nothing good comes of any stories in that setting, except maybe them rescuing Newt in Aliens. But only if you make sure to skip Alien 3 and work up some head canon!

There are heroes in the Alien films: Ripley, Dallas, Hicks, Hudson, Vasquez, Bishop, Newt. The Alien RPG (at least the cinematic adventure in the Starter Set I played) assumes everyone wants to play Paul Reiser's Burke, like that's the highlight of the fiction.

This is an interesting point, but it butts up against one of the big differences between movies and RPGs. What's interesting in a one-shot or short campaign, the PCs all being thrust into the role of "heroes" (or at least inclined to selflessness), while only NPCs are unsavory? Or having players being part of the more interesting plot dynamics, including having competing agendas?

I think it's totally fair to not want to play an unseemly character. But if you're going to be in a game where at least some PCs are doing underhanded things to each other, then how do you determine who's the good guy, meaning, essentially, the protagonist (in a standard sort of story)? Should there be an Agenda card that says "You think you're the hero?" And if you get that, is the whole session or mini-campaign now about your survival above all others? Because what does it mean if someone's designated the good guy, and they get iced by a bad guy, particularly if it happens way before the final scene?

But also, I think it's worth interrogating that knee-jerk aversion to any sort of PvP in RPGs, which isn't just a you thing. Trad games have trained a lot of us to avoid PvP like the plague, in part because the goal is so often so-called immersion. So PvP becomes literally player-vs.-player, with people encouraged to not draw a line between how they feel and how their characters do. PvP in that approach means lots of annoying little asides between one PC and the GM, hiding information from the group, generally fracturing gameplay into lesser facets, all because people are still trying to "win" the game, and also because they've been told that RPGs are like some sort of VR-with-bad-graphics experience, where the players should only know things that their characters do.

Some RPGs have moved past that. I mentioned Trophy Dark, but there are a slew of games where PCs are supposed to be at odds, to varying degrees, and a common thread running through a lot of them is that we're adults, we can tell a collaborative story that isn't about winning, and also one where even if you know something that your character doesn't, that's ok. If you watch a movie where you see something happen from the villain's perspective, but not the protagonist's, do you storm out because immersion is broken?

RPGs can tell stories that aren't just yet another version of embodying some heroic avatar. If some RPG stories are about bad people doing bad things, but then meeting a bad end, sometimes that's more memorable than defeating the villains and winning. You don't have to play those types of games, but realize the difference between dismissing them as less-than, and just not being your preference (in part because you may see RPGs in an older, narrower context than some current game designers do).

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I think the opportunity for decent conversation got lost a bit of ahead of that point but consider me warned.

Well, you did come into this thread specifically trashing the Alien setting as not SF, and then getting into all manner of no-true-Scotsman discussion of how various other settings are or aren't some version of hard, soft SF, etc., none of which is relevant to the Alien RPG. So maybe don't be too appalled at how a tangent you introduced—with real vitriol from the start—panned out.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, you did come into this thread specifically trashing the Alien setting as not SF...

I think that's where you are really confused on this. It's not trashing Alien or Aliens to say it's not really SF. In fact, I also said that I really enjoyed 'Aliens' as a movie. I don't only love and admire SF. I'm a huge Star Wars fan, yet Star Wars is obviously not SF. It's not trashing or degrading Star Wars in any way to say it isn't Sci Fi. "Star Wars: A New Hope" is a cinematic masterpiece and I'm in the second year of running a Star Wars D6 campaign. It's not like I don't love fantasy, space opera, science fantasy, and all sorts of genre of speculative fiction.

For that matter, I'm a massive Robert Silverburg fan. I doubt there is anyone on these boards more familiar with his body of work than I am. I'm not trashing his fiction to say that he often writes soft science fiction - stuff that blurs the boundaries enough that if someone wanted to say it was 'fantasy' I'd have a hard time objecting. There is no stigma to writing soft science fiction or fantasy.

What I learned from this thread is that out there somewhere in the world there is some proxy argument where "not really science fiction" means in the context of that argument something entirely different. I'm glad I don't hang out in those circles.

But equally, I don't even think most of this is even that complex. I think underneath all of this, people are just upset I don't like Aliens as a setting and they do.