Tiffany and the Game Writer/GM/Player

[RogerBW]

Originally Posted by johndallman

You have it exactly. A useful calibration point for that world view is that they consider Star Trek to be "hard science fiction."

Quite a lot of people in the film world considered 2009's Moon to be hard SF, even though many things about the setup are clearly only there to make the story work, and there's no attempt to convince the reader that it makes any kind of economic or technical sense.

I think what they meant was "doesn't have spaceships that go pew pew whoosh kaboom".

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

I think what they meant was "doesn't have spaceships that go pew pew whoosh kaboom".

I have said several times that the most common definition of "hard SF" is "no blaster pistols". This is how Traveller (which is full of superscience) gets called "Hard SF".

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by johndallman

You have it exactly. A useful calibration point for that world view is that they consider Star Trek to be "hard science fiction."

Originally Posted by whswhs

It's a good thing I don't drink Dr. Pepper any more, or I'd be wiping off my screen.

I know a sometimes GURPS author (cough) who wrote a tongue-in-cheek article about just that....(so put down your Dr. Pepper before reading).

7 Reasons Star Trek is Stupid (by a Long-Time Fan)

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I think "hard science" typically allows for "one miracle" that deviates from reality (FTL is a common one).

"Hard science fiction" is one of those terms that have a few different definitions. It can mean a setting with no miracles (everything is plausible given what we know or speculate to be possible). It can mean well analyzed miracles (the only scientifically implausible feature of the technology is that it exists). I've even seen it used to mean the miracles are all hardware, and things like psychology and economics are still firmly rooted in the 1950s (I don't think that's one I've seen in anything remotely academic).

[ak_aramis]

Part of the issue with Sci-Fi is that it's not really one genre, and when there was a formal designation, it wasn't widely shared...

True hard sci-fi makes only a few key changes, all plausible at time of writing, with hope that they're still plausible down the road.

The thing is, few distinguish between space fantasy (à la Star Wars), Space Opera (some parts of the Star Wars franchise, both BSGs, most Star Trek, later seasons of SG1), Military SF (Hammer's Slammers, Starship Troopers, CoDoVerse)Pulp Planetary Romances (JCOM, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, some parts of Star Wars), and hybrids like Bujold's Vorkosivers (crossing Space Opera and Planetary Romance).

[RyanW]

I was just thinking about this topic, and got to thinking that you do sometimes hear people jokingly mention "Bill Shakespeare" (when referring to the playwright, not the Notre Dame football player from the 1930s*).

But I have never once heard anyone speak of "Bill the Conqueror."



* Bill Shakespeare holds the distinction of being the third player selected in the very first NFL draft, but as he never played professional football, there is a fringe theory that Francis Bacon was actually the one who played in Shakespeare's uniform.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by RyanW

I was just thinking about this topic, and got to thinking that you do sometimes hear people jokingly mention "Bill Shakespeare" (when referring to the playwright, not the Notre Dame football player from the 1930s*).

But I have never once heard anyone speak of "Bill the Conqueror."



* Bill Shakespeare holds the distinction of being the third player selected in the very first NFL draft, but as he never played professional football, there is a fringe theory that Francis Bacon was actually the one who played in Shakespeare's uniform.

As someone who's studied Shakespeare and avoids Bacon, I move that you be fined for that! (Truthfully, I found it funny!)

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by RyanW

I was just thinking about this topic, and got to thinking that you do sometimes hear people jokingly mention "Bill Shakespeare" (when referring to the playwright, not the Notre Dame football player from the 1930s*).

But I have never once heard anyone speak of "Bill the Conqueror."

I have heard William I referred to as “Bill the Bastard”.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I have said several times that the most common definition of "hard SF" is "no blaster pistols". This is how Traveller (which is full of superscience) gets called "Hard SF".

Which is kind of ironic, since AFAWK blaster pistols don't violate any law of physics, it's just a question of engineering.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Which is kind of ironic, since AFAWK blaster pistols don't violate any law of physics, it's just a question of engineering.

Blaster pistols probably don't violate any laws of physics qualitatively but it is unknown if they they violate any laws quantitively. It could easily be more than just a matter of engineering.

Spaceships are easier. Even if a ship spits fire out of its' rear end getting the necessary level of performance can be evaluated and generally any such drive that invokes "fusion" will be far too fuel efficient for that nuclear reaction. Sometimes even total conversion won't do it.