Sci-fi likes/dislikes

Aeson said:
I love star wars. I have started games in recent years but they never really got off the ground. I want to give it a go again. I am giving the players an option Star Wars or Dragonstar.
Why not both? I mean: use the Dragonstar universe, but most character classes will be Star-Wars d20 classes where VP/WP are replaced with normal hp. Jedi and Sith could be kept provided you give them a pool of psi-points. Then, D&D classes like wizards and clerics remain very rare, having become an anachronism of the past.

Well, just my 2 cents of course.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

thefrostytinman said:
Has anyone played the Traveler D20 game?

Why yes, yes I have (check out my sig). I play T20 regularly, in a PbP game and a FtF game. I've also played Classic Traveller. It's one of my favorite all-time games.

I've always liked Traveller for its versatility. It can be just about any sort of sci-fi game you want it to be. It can be gritty, near-future, one planet or one system, or it can be space opera-ish, galaxy-spanning sci-fantasy (esp. T20, you can bring in D&D fantasy elements if you want. It can be played in the "official," campaign setting, or you can create your own. You can have high-combat merc and space pirate campaigns, or you can have low-combat exploration or merchant campaigns.
 

It doesn't matter whether a setting is realistic or not. But I do want some internal consistency.

I love Transhuman Space. Hell, I love it so much that I wrote for the line! It's one of the most realistic SF settings out there, if not the single most realistic - and yet it is also one of the most alien. Blue Planet comes at a close second - the alien colony world of Poseidon is beautifully done. You really notice that some of the authors are marine biologists...

On the other hand, I also love Fading Suns, which is pure science fantasy - science gets only used when it makes for more fun, and cheerfully disregarded the rest of the time. But once you "get" the central moods and themes of the setting, it all fits!
 


At the risk of dating myself, the first SF RPG I played was Star Frontiers. A pretty good game at the time. Very simplistic, but lots of fun.

The big beef I have with SF games though is they rarely go far enough. I mean that they never take the science as far as they should. I know that space opera is a genre, but it really bugs me. Just as a single example, if you have artificial gravity machinery of some sort a la Star Trek or Star Wars, why on earth would you bother with beam weapons? Need to blow up a planet? You have AG. Not too tricky. Of course, why you would ever want to blow up a planet is another question entirely.

Even on the smaller scale, SF games rarely keep up with current technology. Right now, as I write this, there's the O'dyer (sp) electric gun being developed. This thing has a firing rate of several hundred THOUSAND rounds per second. Again, why am I bothering with a single shot blaster when I could tote one of these baby's around?

The only time I really enjoyed an SF game was a Gurps game a friend of mine ran based around Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. Almost no combat, very high role play. That way the science didn't get in the way so much. If you play in a game with lots of combat, in an SF game it should be extremely lethal almost instantly. Because most SF games aren't, I lose the suspension of disbelief and lose interest.
 

Hussar said:
The only time I really enjoyed an SF game was a Gurps game a friend of mine ran based around Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. Almost no combat, very high role play. That way the science didn't get in the way so much. If you play in a game with lots of combat, in an SF game it should be extremely lethal almost instantly. Because most SF games aren't, I lose the suspension of disbelief and lose interest.

You simply must get Transhuman Space. Not only stays the technology entirely within the realm of the believable (okay, the terraforming of Mars goes rather fast), but it also tries to work out all the social implications of the technology - something that most SF RPGs don't.
 

I like:

Gritty & Dark Near Future CyberPunk Sci-Fi (CyberPunk 2020)
Near Future Utopian Sci-Fi
Transhuman Sci-Fi
Golden Age Exploration Sci-Fi (Traveller)
Space Opera Sci-Fi (Star Wars)
Science Fantasy Sci-Fi (DragonStar, Fading Suns)
Post-Apocalyptic Sci-Fi (Doesn't that sound like a courier service... if it has to be there, even if the world is ending, send it Post Apocalyptic!)

---

Dannyalcatraz: Although I haven't played Underworld as such, it includes one of the -most important- rules sets published in an RPG of all time. This would be the rules for changing the world, or just a city block of the world. Those rules rock, and should be in every RPG. Maybe I should write a PDF called "Changing the World", recreating those rules in the d20 mold.
 

Our group plays:

Time Lord (based on Doctor Who)
Babylon 5

Forthcoming:
Battlestar Galactica (based on the new Scifi show)
Rocketship Empires (if it ever gets released!)

In the distant past:
Star Trek
Star Wars
Rifts

We like outr sci fi. It is not so much the genre details as if we are excited about the concept.

Razuur
 


One of my dislikes is the term sci-fi. It was coined with negative connotations and still has them, as far as I'm concerned. But that's just a pet peeve (along with the entire gaming industry's mis-use of the term 'fog of war').

I like my SF games to have a fair chunk of science in them. Traveller's my favourite, for all the reasons Shadowdancer mentioned, though I never liked the Imperium that much or the game's militaristic bias. (My solution was to flesh out the classes in Supplement 4: Citizens of the Imperium, so that they were as viable as the expanded core classes.) I like starships but I'm not a great fan of starship combat. I like sentient aliens but the more alien the better. Vargr, Aslan and Zhodani never really grabbed me, despite the rationale behind them. Firefly succeeded in bringing back memories of many a classic Traveller game.

Despite all the things I've just proclaimed, I like Chaosium's Ringworld game. That's largely because I'm a fan of the Niven books. The game system itself could have done with more development. I'd still play a Traveller or Ringworld game now, if I could find anyone to run one.

And in spite of my disdain of science fantasy, I was hooked by Skyrealms of Jorune. The game system was a joke but the setting was as evocative as it was eldritch. I liked it because it was like nothing else.

Hussar's point about SF games not keeping up with real world tech is spot on. Traveller's computer rules looked shaky from the moment they appeared in print. I remember listening to a talk by Bob Shaw at an SF convention many years ago, in which he addressed this issue by way of recalling an old episode of Flash Gordon. Flash's rocket ship is going to crash and the crew are bailing out. Someone tells Flash to get a ray gun. Flash picks up a bulbous, silvery ray gun. Fair enough: who knows what handheld ray guns will look like? Then, instead of a parachute, Flash is told to grab an anti-gravity belt, so he puts on a wide, silver belt. Fair enough again: who knows what such things will look like? Then someone says, "Don't forget the radio!" Flash equips a backpack-sized silver box with dials and a circular antenna - because, in the nineteen thirties, everyone knew what a radio looked like!

Another difficulty with SF games is that of inconsistent tech. The writers of Star Trek in particular struggled with this for years, as they became victim's of the show's success. David Trimble discussed it in his The Making of Star Trek (great book - don't know if it's still in print). One week the crew of the Enterprise solve a problem by (a) using tech x or (b) discovering tech y. But a few weeks later, the cast suffer from mass amnesia when these miraculous technologies are mysteriously unavailable, despite presenting ideal solutions to the latest challenge to face the crew. The fact is, the writer of the later episode is unaware of what has happened in the earlier one. In more recent Star Trek spin-offs, the writers became more sophisticated, in that they would often try to provide the audience with justification for the unavailability of last week's solution. But the contrivance is more pronounced and the exposition is just a bit more painful for anyone who's followed the series closely.

And this is the problem I think referees of SF games can find themselves facing very quickly. After all, the introduction of exciting new tech is a compelling adventure hook. The trouble is, once you've let the all-singing, all-dancing nanobots out of the bottle, it's very difficult to get them back in without destroying your players' suspension of disbelief. But introduce miraculous tech into your game and it risks spiralling out of control.

If I were to run another Traveller game today, it would have, among other things, the following characteristics:

Very few sentient races. If humaniti were at TL 10, I'd have the other races at TL 1 and TL 20.

Any advanced alien tech would be extremely dangerous and utterly beyond the comprehension of humaniti. PCs would find it difficult to retain possession of such tech.

New computer rules.:)

I confess to having missed Transhuman Space. It sounds like a game I could get along with.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top