Space Opera vs Hard Sci-Fi, personal vs realistic

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The viability of prophecy is a metaphysical problem not a scientific problem. When a story of prophecy is made it is assumed to be a wonder, not a natural phenomenon. There is no conceivable way to experiment on the possibility of wonders.

My point was that it is the absense or presence of prophecy is LOGICALLY irrelevant to the behavior of plot devices that are presumed to be in accordance with some rough interpretation of The-world-as-we-know-it, because the presence or absence of exceptions to the natural order is a separate question from the behavior of the natural order. From the literary point of view however, prophecy and sapient stars belong more in space opera.

I do not recognize the existence of wonders that are not natural phenomena, or more generally of exceptions to the natural order. I don't think much fiction actually makes use of such things either, though it often asserts that something is outside the natural order at the same time as establishing the natural order that that thing in fact fits into...

In the specific, as vierasmarius says, prophecy tends to fit in with a set of in-setting mechanics, not just drop in out of nowhere. And in-setting mechanics that prophecy fits into are not hard-sciency, as a rule.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I think his point (and the one I agree with) is that prophecy is often presented as a feature of a broader magical phenomenon (such as the Force or Psionics) which is already an established part of that setting. So of course it shows up in settings that allow magic (ie, Space Opera) rather than ones which don't (Hard Sci-Fi).

But my point is that there could hypothetically be a setting which is scrupulous and exact about the natural phenomenon but which still uses Wonders as a plot device and it could do so without contradiction because the possibility of Wonders is incalculable.

Actually doing such a work might be difficult, but it is hypothetically possible.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

But my point is that there could hypothetically be a setting which is scrupulous and exact about the natural phenomenon but which still uses Wonders as a plot device and it could do so without contradiction because the possibility of Wonders is incalculable.

Actually doing such a work might be difficult, but it is hypothetically possible.

Eh, I'd consider the inclusion of (accurate, non-self-fulfilling) prophecy to be magical in itself. An otherwise hard sci-fi setting doesn't become Space Opera just with the inclusion of a single magical phenomenon, but it's basically a piece of superscience. There's actually a lot of really compelling sci-fi that features a very realistic world, and then upsets it with the inclusion of a single superscience device (frequently FTL, cinematically-efficient ramscoops, etc). Remember that "Hard Sci-Fi" and "Space Opera" describe two possibilities in a much broader genre; they don't define the entire range of sci-fi.

I guess I just don't place "Wonders" in a separate category from "Magic" and "Superscience". They're all justifications to allow the (seemingly) impossible.

That said, it is possible to include phenomenon which are indefinite as to whether they are Magic, sufficiently-advance Superscience, or simply coincidence. Prophecy in hard sci-fi would probably fall into that category, injecting a sense of mysticism into an otherwise realistic world. In fact, you could view the prophecy of Muad'Dib to be such an occurance. Despite the existance of consistent, replicable prophecy in the Dune setting, the prophecy that Muad'Dib fulfills was basically manufactured in the distant past for the benefit of future Bene Gesserit. Jessica's knowledge of such prophecies / religious conditioning allowed them to exploit it for their own ends.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Eh, I'd consider the inclusion of (accurate, non-self-fulfilling) prophecy to be magical in itself. An otherwise hard sci-fi setting doesn't become Space Opera just with the inclusion of a single magical phenomenon, but it's basically a piece of superscience. There's actually a lot of really compelling sci-fi that features a very realistic world, and then upsets it with the inclusion of a single superscience device (frequently FTL, cinematically-efficient ramscoops, etc). Remember that "Hard Sci-Fi" and "Space Opera" describe two possibilities in a much broader genre; they don't define the entire range of sci-fi.

I guess I just don't place "Wonders" in a separate category from "Magic" and "Superscience". They're all justifications to allow the (seemingly) impossible.

I do not separate magic from "wonders"; I am simply using Wonder as a generic term for "event outside the normal framework of the universe as we understand." If we discover mitochlorines then the force is no longer a wonder. As it happens, mitochlorines only sound scientific in the sense that they use scientific sounding language; looked at closer they sound absurd and we were better off with the force which was unexplained and therefore not absurd.

My point was that the proper phrasing of "hard science fiction" is not that the later does not contain events that are "scientifically impossible" because the phrase "scientifically impossible" is a contradiction. Something can be "scientifically determined to be not in accordance with the laws of the universe as presently understood"(not always as important a determination as made out; peasants know that things fall down just as well as scientists) but that does not say "impossible" as impossible is an absolute.

It is therefore closer to the truth to say rather then that "Hard science fiction avoids that which is scientifically impossible" but that "Hard science fiction pays close attention to the normal workings of the universe as determined by scientists and makes as few deviations from that as possible."

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

My point was that the proper phrasing of "hard science fiction" is not that the later does not contain events that are "scientifically impossible" because the phrase "scientifically impossible" is a contradiction. Something can be "scientifically determined to be not in accordance with the laws of the universe as presently understood"(not as important determin but that does not say "impossible" as impossible is an absolute

True. I suppose improbable is a better term than impossible, though that doesn't fully express how unlikely certain things are (such as FTL travel or psychic powers). But that still leaves prophecy in the same category with magic and superscience, as phenomena which are unexplained by science, and which frequently contradict our current understanding of the universe. I guess "Wonders" is as good a term as any for these phenomena.

(I would like to point out that the only time I said "impossible" I qualified it with "seemingly", which is pretty far from making an absolute statement. I fully recognize that science is a progression, and our understanding is constantly broadening.)

Anyways, I don't think our disagreement is a major one. You seemed to be saying that there was a category of "wonders" that you thought were compatible with hard sci-fi. I agree to the extant that you can have wonders and hard sci-fi side by side in the same story; it just ceases to be fully "hard" (though it's also not necessarily Space Opera). But that's a pretty pedantic point to have an argument over, since we basically agree on the rest of the subject.

[kdtipa]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

So, if you want to keep the more personal, human elements of your space opera while using the accurate and consistent technology found within Ultra-Tech and GURPS Spaceships, you need switches, optional rules, and a carefully selected set of technologies to empower this sort of thing. We can't afford the flimsy excuses of a movie. We need firmer, consistent excuses, enough to convince players that these elements exist for a reason, and that they can exploit them without ruining the narrative.

I disagree with the initial statement from the quote. Not with the idea that consistent technology that the players can work with, without breaking suspension of disbelief is important, but with the idea it is the only necessity to accomplishing the goal of keeping players from experiencing the "that makes no sense" reaction with respect to why technology is used in a given setting. I still think story is far more important to controlling player choices than what's available for technology. If you put them in situations where it makes the most sense to snipe someone, that's what they'll do, and it'll make sense. If you put them in a situation where the characters need to get up close and personal, those melee options make sense too. They need to break into a heavily fortified base with guards patrolling the corridors? A sniper rifle is useless. A super fine knife that makes little to no sound when you take out a guard... priceless.

I guess if you're looking for rules justifications... be really harsh/strict about range/speed/darkness/etc penalties. Totally realistic and consistent, regardless of how far the rifle can shoot.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by kdtipa

I disagree with the initial statement from the quote. Not with the idea that consistent technology that the players can work with, without breaking suspension of disbelief is important, but with the idea it is the only necessity to accomplishing the goal of keeping players from experiencing the "that makes no sense" reaction with respect to why technology is used in a given setting. I still think story is far more important to controlling player choices than what's available for technology. If you put them in situations where it makes the most sense to snipe someone, that's what they'll do, and it'll make sense. If you put them in a situation where the characters need to get up close and personal, those melee options make sense too. They need to break into a heavily fortified base with guards patrolling the corridors? A sniper rifle is useless. A super fine knife that makes little to no sound when you take out a guard... priceless.

I guess if you're looking for rules justifications... be really harsh/strict about range/speed/darkness/etc penalties. Totally realistic and consistent, regardless of how far the rifle can shoot.

How are you going to impose that level of control on the situations that arise without going to the utter, zero-player-agency extreme of railroading?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

True. I suppose improbable is a better term than impossible, though that doesn't fully express how unlikely certain things are (such as FTL travel or psychic powers). But that still leaves prophecy in the same category with magic and superscience, as phenomena which are unexplained by science, and which frequently contradict our current understanding of the universe. I guess "Wonders" is as good a term as any for these phenomena.

(I would like to point out that the only time I said "impossible" I qualified it with "seemingly", which is pretty far from making an absolute statement. I fully recognize that science is a progression, and our understanding is constantly broadening.)

Anyways, I don't think our disagreement is a major one. You seemed to be saying that there was a category of "wonders" that you thought were compatible with hard sci-fi. I agree to the extant that you can have wonders and hard sci-fi side by side in the same story; it just ceases to be fully "hard" (though it's also not necessarily Space Opera). But that's a pretty pedantic point to have an argument over, since we basically agree on the rest of the subject.

What I was saying was not that you can have wonders in hard sci-fi. It was that the prohibition on wonders is because the genre of hard sci-fi demands a flavor that precludes such things but that this point is separate from the question of whether wonders are scientifically impossible.

For one thing it is not usually a question of science. Picture two stories, one an ice age epic and one a future-tech epic. Now you can have prophecy in either, both or neither. But the question is not science. The cave man would just say "normal people don't see the future". The fact that he believes that his shaman can is irrelevant to the point because he also believes shamans are not normal people. He may be right or wrong. But the fact is, a cave-man saying "normal people don't see the future" has said no less then someone who has said "seeing the future is scientifically impossible" and bringing science into the concept is a red herring.

Now the cave man story may be "hard" and have arrows that really work on mastodons the way arrows do, or soft and allow magic arrows. Just like the future story may be hard or soft. But the forbidding of wonders to a "hard" story is a separate concept from the effort to be scientifically accurate and the fact that they go together is psychologically comprehensible but logically irrelevant. Wonders belong in Space Opera but not Hard Science Fiction, but it is not science that is the reason.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

What I was saying was not that you can have wonders in hard sci-fi. It was that the prohibition on wonders is because the genre of hard sci-fi demands a flavor that precludes such things but that this point is separate from the question of whether wonders are scientifically impossible.

For one thing it is not usually a question of science. Picture two stories, one an ice age epic and one a future-tech epic. Now you can have prophecy in either, both or neither. But the question is not science. The cave man would just say "normal people don't see the future". The fact that he believes that his shaman can is irrelevant to the point because he also believes shamans are not normal people. He may be right or wrong. But the fact is, a cave-man saying "normal people don't see the future" has said no less then someone who has said "seeing the future is scientifically impossible" and bringing science into the concept is a red herring.

Now the cave man story may be "hard" and have arrows that really work on mastodons the way arrows do, or soft and allow magic arrows. Just like the future story may be hard or soft. But the forbidding of wonders to a "hard" story is a separate concept from the effort to be scientifically accurate and the fact that they go together is psychologically comprehensible but logically irrelevant. Wonders belong in Space Opera but not Hard Science Fiction, but it is not science that is the reason.

Why do magic arrows make the cave man story soft, but not magic predictions of the future? Why is one a 'wonder' exempt from analysis and the other not?

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

What I was saying was not that you can have wonders in hard sci-fi. It was that the prohibition on wonders is because the genre of hard sci-fi demands a flavor that precludes such things but that this point is separate from the question of whether wonders are scientifically impossible.

Maybe I just fail to see the difference between the wonders you're describing (which you describe as being precluded in hard sci-fi because of "flavor") and magic or superscience (which are precluded for being scientifically implausible).

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Why do magic arrows make the cave man story soft, but not magic predictions of the future? Why is one a 'wonder' exempt from analysis and the other not?

Precisely my question...