Hard Science setting

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by rust

"Hard" science fiction is not a genre, the various genres exist in "hard" science
fiction just as well as in "soft" science fiction. There is "hard" military science
fiction, "hard" espionage science fiction, and so on, and these genres have
just as much "action" as their "soft" counterparts. To give an example, many
of the books of Tom Clancy were like Red Storm Rising near future "hard" sci-
ence fiction, and turned into a campaign they would certainly not lack action.

The genre category for those books is "techno-thriller".

[rust]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The genre category for those books is "techno-thriller".

A rose, by any other name ... :)

Move the timeline a century instead of a decade into the future, and you
have certainly got "science fiction". Unfortunately I cannot name an author
writing for that genre in English, because I prefer to read such books in my
own language, but over here we had a lot of such authors, like for example
K. H. Scheer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._H._Scheer

[Malenfant]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I do? When did I say "having some kind of scientific background is a bad thing?" I said, "To properly decide what is scientifically possible in a narrative, a scientific background is needed". What is wrong with that?

You said:

To decide whether something is possible in hard sci-fi you almost need to be a scientist yourself. In soft sci-fi all you need is "the author said so, he made his rules believable enough to overcome suspension and he sticks to his own rules." In RPGs all you need is, "The GM makes the rules and he bought all the dip so if you want to eat you do what he says."

The way you phrased it seemed as if having a scientific background was a bad thing, because soft SF and RPGs require less effort. If that's not what you intended then sorry - maybe I'm just twitchy because including science is attacked/dismissed/derided rather too often on Traveller boards.

But really, you don't "almost need to be a scientist" at all to do it - you just need to be interested in and aware of the science. Science is one of those things that does require some effort - but the rewards are easily worth it. There's certainly no harm in learning something new that one can include in a game - unfortunately too many people nowadays seem to think that making that kind of effort is worthless (which is why science literacy is so terrible nowadays).

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I do? When did I say "having some kind of scientific background is a bad thing?" I said, "To properly decide what is scientifically possible in a narrative, a scientific background is needed". What is wrong with that?

In the context I was saying that, I was answering a poster who claimed that it would be easier to decide what would be possible in a game by referring to what would be possible in the real world. The reply was that if it is intended to deal with esoteric theory that may not necessarily be the case.

The fact is, someone experienced in a given setting can tell roughly what is going to happen just as well as in the natural world. An experienced Trekkie for instance, can tell that if phasers are fired at a shielded ship, that ship will endure the phaser fire until the shields overload.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Malenfant

You said:


The way you phrased it seemed as if having a scientific background was a bad thing, because soft SF and RPGs require less effort. If that's not what you intended then sorry - maybe I'm just twitchy because including science is attacked/dismissed/derided rather too often on Traveller boards.

But really, you don't "almost need to be a scientist" at all to do it - you just need to be interested in and aware of the science. Science is one of those things that does require some effort - but the rewards are easily worth it. There's certainly no harm in learning something new that one can include in a game - unfortunately too many people nowadays seem to think that making that kind of effort is worthless (which is why science literacy is so terrible nowadays).

There is no harm indeed in doing so and if you prefer to include it in a game that is fine. But "hardness" is not a superior genre to "softness".

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

There is no harm indeed in doing so and if you prefer to include it in a game that is fine. But "hardness" is not a superior genre to "softness".

In general I agree with you. But I still don't like soft sci fi masquerading as hard, thereby promoting ignorance and myth.

[rust]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The fact is, someone experienced in a given setting can tell roughly what is going to happen just as well as in the natural world.

True, of course, but with "hard" science fiction it is sufficient to know how
the real world works in order to understand what is possible in the setting,
which in my experience makes it somewhat easier for the players to "get in-
to" a setting.

Again, this is a matter of taste, and I do not intend to claim that "hard" sf
is in any way "better" than "soft" sf - it is just the science fiction I prefer.

[Malenfant]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

There is no harm indeed in doing so and if you prefer to include it in a game that is fine. But "hardness" is not a superior genre to "softness".

Depends. There are instances where it is superior, and instances where it isn't.

Hard SF has the advantages of realism, consistency, and believability. Some would also say that these are its disadvantages too.

Soft SF has the advantages of 'action', 'coolness', and greater accessibility. Again, some would also say that these are its disadvantages too.

If you want the latter, then Hard SF obviously won't be "superior" for you. If you want the former, then Hard SF is a much better choice.

Traveller's problem has always been that it can't decide which one of those it is. The OTU as a setting is certainly soft SF at best, but things like Book 6 (even though the details are wrong) and Fire Fusion and Steel (and a lot of TNE supplements for that matter) and a lot of the GURPS Traveller books are more hard SF.

[rust]

Originally Posted by Malenfant

Traveller's problem has always been that it can't decide which one of those it is.

In my view this problem was caused by the fact that Traveller had a lot of
very different authors over the decades, some of them leaning more towards
"hard" science fiction and some of them leaning more towards "soft" science
fiction, often depending on what the current mainstream "fashion" of science
fiction was. As a result there are Traveller supplements which were as "hard"
as the knowledge at the time when they were written, and other material al-
most close to space fantasy. In a way this is the "charm" of Traveller, it has
something for everyone. And in a way it is the "curse" of Traveller, because
it prevented consistency and created lots of contradictions and logic gaps.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by rust

A rose, by any other name ... :)

Move the timeline a century instead of a decade into the future, and you
have certainly got "science fiction". Unfortunately I cannot name an author
writing for that genre in English, because I prefer to read such books in my
own language, but over here we had a lot of such authors, like for example
K. H. Scheer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._H._Scheer

Super powered mutants?