Topic: SFRP and setting dependency

[Takeyabue]

I would appreciate getting you feedback on why it is that SFRP games seemed to be so much more dependent on setting than their Fantasy counterparts.

The first 20+ pages of HARP SF are about the setting Tintamar. Cyradon, on the other hand, gets a brief mention along with Shadow World in a small paragraph in the Introduction section of HARP Fantasy.

While far from the only reason, one commonly heard complaint about why they don't play HARP SF is that the setting, Tintamar, does not work for them or that they do not like it.  Discussions about Imperium vs. Privateer setting also seem very common for SpaceMaster players. Perhaps even more so than a discussion of the merits of the various rule sets involved.

Professions in HARP SF include Pilot (Carter in Fantasy parlance - Sizmund was a great hand with the whip. Never saw anyone drive a cart like him.) and Merchant. There is not a good reason for failing to have a Merchant in Fantasy RP games, beyond the possible fact that no one will want to play one.

Personally i think that much of this seems to be due to the increased, and earlier, reliance upon objects rather than characters. Most Fantasy RPGs as they progress to higher levels become more about objects (the staff of anything I need it to do, or the blade of slaying whoever I point it at) but in the earlier levels those objects are still a fond hope. It seems for SFRP games that the objects have to be their from the start. My group needs to have a spaceship of their own, with 4 or 5 attendant vehicles  etc.     

Why do you think that SFRP games are more dependent on setting, and therefore more subject to being judged on setting, that their Fantasy counterparts?

What could we do to make HARP SF be judged more on the rules and less on whether or not you like the setting (Tintamar)? is it even possible, or practical, to have a generic base setting for HARP SF?

Takeyabue

[Thom @ ICE]

Simple answer....
Fantasy is based upon real history and mythology with magic added in.  It is based upon a limited era in time. 


Sci Fi is futuristic... There is no defined era in time. There is no defined history. There is no defined mythology. There is no defined technology.


Fantasy is therefore generally similar.
Sci Fi can be a much wider variety of settings.


As a result, since the Sci Fi settings can be from such a wide variety, it becomes important to establish the base setting concept that the presented rules fit into.

[RandalThor]

Let me answer that with a question (two, actually):

When you hear: "average fantasy setting", what does it make you think of?

When you hear: "average sci-fi setting", what does it make you think of?

Basically, almost everyone has a common point of reference when talking about fantasy, but for some reason it is not the same when dealing with sci-fi.

[Cory Magel]

Interesting question/discussion.  There's a lot to it when you start to think about it.

For some reason people aren't as inclined to create their own setting when it comes to Sci-Fi.  I actually would do it in a fashion... but I have to admit even then I was essentially putting them in the Star Wars or Firefly setting and sticking them so far out in the boonies to start off with that they didn't know that's what universe they were in.

The only real famous Fantasy setting (up until maybe the Wheel of Time or Game of Thrones series) was Middle Earth.  You couldn't even really call Conan a setting... it was more placing spectacular characters in what seemed like the real worlds history.  In Sci-Fi you have had two huge settings in Star Wars and Star Trek both since before RPG's really took off.  Before that things like Flash Gordon and Buck Rodgers.  Then there's BattleStar Galactica and so on.  There's just more out there for Sci-Fi to inspire people.  I also think, for whatever reason, the future grabs more of the populations attention than fantasy... and when you start talking about that many more people you have less with a greater aptitude for creativity.  Not to disparage Sci-Fi lovers (cause I am one) but I think it requires less of an imagination and therefore accumulates more of an audience.  Besides, even from a long time fantasy gamer like me, Star Wars is a pretty damn cool setting imo (although 80% of people want to be a damn Jedi).

I also think a part of it is that Sci-Fi has sooo much more 'tech' stuff that you can't just easily sit down and whip out an entire set of, say, ships.  Unless you have a LOT of spare time on your hands you really need that stuff up front.  While there are some systems to do that (GURPS, and I kinda like Rifts even though it had it's problems) they just don't grab as many people as having "STAR WARS" on the cover does.

[Takeyabue]

Simple answer....
Fantasy is based upon real history and mythology with magic added in.  It is based upon a limited era in time. 


Sci Fi is futuristic... There is no defined era in time. There is no defined history. There is no defined mythology. There is no defined technology.


Fantasy is therefore generally similar.
Sci Fi can be a much wider variety of settings.


As a result, since the Sci Fi settings can be from such a wide variety, it becomes important to establish the base setting concept that the presented rules fit into.

First, I believe that, upon thinking it over, you would have to agree that there really is nothing totally new in the world of history. Historical situations on the grand scale, which I think effective specialized settings for RPGs have to be written to, tend to be a story of repetition. The low level facts like names, locations, technologies will change, but the larger scale is just a series of repeats with shorter or longer time frames and marginally different results.

Second, I would also argue that Science Fiction is based upon real history and mythology with magic (also know as advanced technology) added in. In addition, epic fantasy and epic science fiction is NOT based upon a limited era in time. The main period of play may be limited to a certain period, but both genres need to go far into the past to set the stage.   

More than most systems RoleMaster attempts to maintain a gritty realism, but that is strictly limited to certain facets of history (combat weapons and styles). No huddled masses of serfs starving to death and dying from plague, but a great deal of fiction and change for the true realities of the earlier ages.

Fantasy worlds have a great deal of differentiation. Some high-level commonalities like magic and mythical monsters, but many different flavors. Science fiction universes have a great deal of differentiation. Some high-level commonalities like future tech (any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic to those not versed in it) and aliens (which are frequently mythical monsters).  How many different distinct magic systems  based upon totally different foundations and rules can you think of? How is that different from the many different speculative faster-than-light travel systems present in SFRP?

Takeyabue

[Takeyabue]

Let me answer that with a question (two, actually):

When you hear: "average fantasy setting", what does it make you think of?

When you hear: "average sci-fi setting", what does it make you think of?

Basically, almost everyone has a common point of reference when talking about fantasy, but for some reason it is not the same when dealing with sci-fi.

My first reaction to both questions would be that the questioner was not meant to be a RPG player. I may have a favorite in both cases, but I do not think there is an average. Flavor of the month (Game of Thrones anyone?) but a RPG player wants to be a part of the story and not just an observer of the story. While the casual reader/observer might have one thing come to mind, I feel that the core RPG player that we want to bring into RoleMaster/SpaceMaster and HARP Fantasy/HARP SF will have a full range of fantasy settings and science fiction settings come to mind. Are there some core structures that exist across all those settings that we can implement as a foundation from which the new player/GM can build?

Takeyabue

[Takeyabue]

I should probably take some time to help you understand where I am coming from. I have been engaged in Role Playing Games since 1974. I went to RoleMaster in 1980 and have stayed at least partially with it and its associated games ever since. Yes, I was young then, but not all that young. I want ICE games, especially ICE science fiction games, to grow and thrive. In an effort to make that happen the owners are make an effort to unify and revise the games. We, as players and GMs, need to examine the core features of these and create ancillary products that highlight the strengths of the games and allow the natural creative spirit of RP gamers to to flourish. Provide a basic framework and detailed examples, but let each take it from that starting point as their interests and time allows. The more discussion and thinking about fundamentals the better to my mind.

Takeyabue

[GrumpyOldFart]

So far as I can tell, technology in SF RPG's tends to occupy a very similar, if not identical, place in the rules as magic in a fantasy RPG. They may have a completely different flavor in the 2 genres, but in terms of how they are treated as part of the ruleset, they tend to be similar at the very least.

So why are SF rulesets so setting dependent? Because the presence or absence of:

Psionics
Cybernetics/wetware
AIs/robots
Genetic/biological modification
FTL
etc, etc...

....makes a major change in how the ruleset operates. Leaving out any one of those is equivalent to saying there is no magic in your fantasy game except for Divine magic, for example.