What do you like or don't like in sci-fi rpg

[Turanil]

Well, it has been some time now (and will be much more), that I have been preparing a sci-fi campaign for my players. Out of five players, two have said to be interested, and one don't want to play a sci-fi rpg at all (the fact it is d20 rules doesn't matter) despite he loves sci-fi movies and series.

What I would like to ask to you all here is:

1) If you play sci-fi rpg, what do you especially like in your sci-fi adventures?, but also what you don't like and would like to see changed.

2) If you much prefer Heroic-fantasy games, and don't want to play in a sci-fi rpg, what you especially don't like in a sci-fi universe?

3) Whether you play or don't play in sci-fi rpg, what would be a very cool feature to absolutely have in a sci-fi campaign?

Thanks

 

[Breakdaddy]

I like Sci Fi RPGs. I particularly like them when they adhere to at least semi-believable physics rules (a la Traveller). I love space combat when done well, nothing is as exciting to me.

 

[Wombat]

Sci Fi and I have a real love/hate relationship.

Ultimately in sci fi gaming I prefer Space Opera/Pulp (Star Wars, Flash Gordon, Dune, Barsoom, etc.) with less emphasis, mainly because I don't want to have to argue physics with the one person who knows the topic in the group (much like I switched Ars Magica into an alternate setting the first time round because I was dealing with a bunch of European History graduate students).

I've played in Traveller (back in the 3 Black Books stage) and I always found it wonderfully silly -- hyperjump travel, but equipment that could have come out of the Korean War. That and it was far too military-aspected for my tastes (esepcially after Mercenary came out).

I've read through with great pleasure both Blue Planet and Transhuman Space, but while I feel I could run a game of the former, I could not of the latter. BP has an emphasis on character, situation, and lifestyle, where THS hits much more the mechanics and their socio-political implications, which I have a hard time keeping up with (the implications of some of the tech available would twist around most plots I would normally create for players).

A lot of sci fi writing is centered around The Big Idea, with less interest in character and plot. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, as I loved Startide Rising, Childhood's End, the Uplift War, and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, for example; conversely, I have yet to be able to finish a Vinge novel, get bored easily with Azimov and tried three time unsuccessfully to read Downbelow Station. One of these days I intend to try the Robinson Mars books, and we'll see where that goes

But for gaming, since gaming is about characters, I would prefer a less science-intensive setting and set of rules, one that emphasizes characters and plot first, equipment and science second.

Opinions offered by the ex-management, YMMV, usw.

 

[Derren]

I also like space operas more than hard science-fiction. I always have the impression that the focus in them is more on the "correctness of their inventions" than on the actual feeling of the setting.

Actually I like it best if the setting mixes fantasy and science fiction so Shadowrun and Dragonstar are my favorites.

 

[ForceUser]

I like sci-fi RPGs in theory, but in practice a d20 sci fi game seems dull. I think the basic issue for me and my friends is that there isn't enough to distinguish characters from one another in a sci-fi RPG. For example, we played a Star Wars d20 campaign briefly. We had the techie who could fix anything, the freighter captain, the gunslinger, another techie...and a Jedi Guardian. So basically we had four average joes who were all very mundane, without really neat special abilities to distinguish themselves, and one very cool Jedi with a bunch of fun Force powers. It wasn't fun for us. I think one of the reasons that, of the 11 core classes in D&D, 9 have magical or extraordinary powers that starkly distinguish them from the other classes (while the remaining two are very competent at the different things they do), is so that each player can pick something different and interesting that he brings to the table. If all the characters in the sci fi campaign are basically guys with guns and/or space ships, we find it boring.

I could be sold on a d20 sci-fi pisonics campaign, though, if there were enough variance between different types of psionic characters. I love to read science fiction.

 

[d4]

i'd have to say i prefer sci-fi gaming to fantasy, but like others, i much prefer space opera to hard science fiction for gaming. with hard SF, it's too easy to get hung up on the science and to allow the technology to overshadow the characters.

1) If you play sci-fi rpg, what do you especially like in your sci-fi adventures?, but also what you don't like and would like to see changed.

one cautionary note: in one previous sci-fi campaign i played in, for a while the GM fell into the Star Trekkish "Weird Space Anomaly of the Week" syndrome for some time, and that got a bit dull. make sure to offer a wide variety of adventures: combat, exploration, intrigue, etc. getting stuck in any kind of pattern gets boring.

3) Whether you play or don't play in sci-fi rpg, what would be a very cool feature to absolutely have in a sci-fi campaign?

one mistake that i've seen in several sci-fi homebrew campaigns before is that the GM makes the setting too... ummm... "settled." make sure there's a frontier to explore, or political intrigue to get involved in, or a war brewing somewhere. i've seen a lot of failed campaigns because the GM tried to make the future a perfect utopia -- and then couldn't think of any reasons to get the PCs "adventuring."

oh, and if you can throw in an excuse for why melee combat is still important (a la Star Wars or Dune), all the better.

 

[d4]

For example, we played a Star Wars d20 campaign briefly. We had the techie who could fix anything, the freighter captain, the gunslinger, another techie...and a Jedi Guardian. So basically we had four average joes who were all very mundane, without really neat special abilities to distinguish themselves, and one very cool Jedi with a bunch of fun Force powers. It wasn't fun for us.

i've said it before, but mixing Jedi and non-Jedi in the same party is generally a recipe for disaster. this is one of the reasons why...

FWIW, i never found the non-Force-using classes in Star Wars dull. nor the classes from d20 Modern. but to each their own.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'd say the number one thing to go for in an SF RPG would be to avoid the kitchen-sink approach. The best science-fiction worlds have a defined culture where certain technologies are present and others are not.

Decide the scale you like. You can have a perfectly good SF RPG set in just the Earth-Moon system, or the solar system (Trinity, Jovian Chronicles, Transhuman space).

 

[Arthur Tealeaf]

I play in a Traveller: New Era game and I really enjoy it. The technological aspect of the game makes it very different from for example D&D in a way I really like. Suddenly many of the non-combat skills are as important, or more important then the combat skills! Of course, we still get practically blown to bits in every session, but withouth the techies, we probably wouldn't even be in those fights. The ability to replace the computers of an old virus-infested spaceship with new ones is more valuable then being the galaxys best sharpshooter. Since I like to play non-combat oriented characters, this kind of science-fiction is perfect for me. I am, by the way, one of the best pilots in the galaxy .

 

[d4]

I'd say the number one thing to go for in an SF RPG would be to avoid the kitchen-sink approach. The best science-fiction worlds have a defined culture where certain technologies are present and others are not.

very true. you can ruin the flavor of a setting by adding too many elements that clash with what you're trying to do. adding to Star Wars something like nanotech or biotech (*cough*Yuuzhan Vong*cough*) really IMO destroys the mood and feel of the setting.