"Is it really sci-fi you play?" Topic

I am guessing maybe not.
My sci-fi games are not really sci-fi stories at any rate…

They are generic stories in a sci-fi setting.
For example some games I have played involved; extracting a corporate employee, stopping kidnappers, scouting an outpost, destroying a remote facility.
None of these are only playable in a sci-fi setting.
They are simply generic stories in a sci-fi setting.

Take Firefly for example; the train robbery, Jaynestown, Mals wife (hee hee) etc, they could all be set in any time period.

Defiance which is now showing could be set at any time, with the aliens simply being foreigners.

I have alien wildlife in my games but they could be substituted with dogs, wolves, tigers etc.

Even Predator could be set at any time, it is just a very strong enemy that has excellent camouflage.

Bladerunner however deals with artificial life and manmade sentience, this I would argue is sci-fi and the same story could not be told in a historical setting without seeming nonsense, though I await to be corrected.

However, my question is:

Are your sci-fi games simply generic stories set in a sci-fi setting, or are they true sci-fi games that can only make sense in a world of ‘science-fiction'?

Michael.

I'm not sure what you mean by "only make sense in a world of ‘science-fiction'". Many stories are universal, just like how we can recognize human failings and drama in the Iliad and Medieval romances as much as in modern books or TV/film. A sci-fi setting just adds to more of the same. For example, even your Blade Runner scenario has elements of children rebelling against parents, slavery, the worth of a man, etc., timeless conflicts.

It comes down to ultimately stories (and games) being about people.

I'm not sure what you mean by "only make sense in a world of ‘science-fiction'

I see what you mean about Bladerunner and child vs. parent, but in that story they are not human, they are machines made to be human then die, so I think that makes it utterly implausible in say the Middle Ages or the 1880's for example.
That and it deals with can man made things be lifeforms and do they have souls.

However, what about Time Travel in films/games as an example of only making sense in a world of ‘science-fiction'

Per Webster's Dictionary "fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component." I would imagine that games played out on alien worlds, time travel and Bladerunner are SF under this definition. Again using this definition would not any game postulating technologies we do not have or alien races be SF? The story being told by your game fits into this framework.

Mine has laser guns.
So yes.

Michael, I think almost any story can to transported into other time frames, so its about the setting/time and not the actually story that makes it sci-fi.

Blade Runner could just as easily been about slavery, or at least the same story told through that lense.

SciFi is not the story, it is the background used to tell the story. If it involves science it is SciFi.

The problem with your claim is that all science fiction is just generic stories with flashing lights stuck on. Blade Runner must be a sci-fi story? Nonsense. It's a detective story that involves a plot about an exploited underclass. Are they really alive? Do they have souls? We've asked these questions more than once over such trivial matters as skin color. The bit about replicants being artificial is part of the flashing lights that makes the underlying message easier to swallow.

If science fiction truly delved into things like uniquely posthuman or uniquely alien concerns we wouldn't be able to understand it, as we'd have no frame of reference from which to actually engage with the material.

Well, considering that there are only seven major story plots in all of literature, the setting really is irrelevant, isn't it? (This is my lit prof side speaking.) So just have fun. :-)

I am not making a claim, don't want to come across as some radical elitist that knows best.
I am just wondering about your own sci-fi games and if you think they are sci-fi games or not?

I am not sure I think of my games as sci-fi stories/games, but rather games/stories in a sci-fi setting.

Such as when I played Napoleonics, they were all fictional battles, so I thought of them as games in a Napoleonic setting rather than Napoleonic games.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Turning the question on its head, in your opinion, what games set in modern times only make sense in modern times?

I guess we'd have to categorically rule out air-to-air battles, but other than that?

You did make a claim, and structured an argument to support it. I responded in kind. There's nothing elitist about it; it's how argumentation works, or discussion if you prefer a less potentially-contentious word.

The essential problem with claiming that these are generic stories in a sci-fi setting is as I stated; what makes a story science fiction is the genre trappings, not the plot of the story itself. The same is true of any genre. You could make Dune a story about people fighting over poppy fields and drug profits. The "Story" being told is essentially the same. Or you could add in wizards and have them fighting over magic rocks. None of this means that Dune is any less a work of science fiction in and of itself.

Kudos to CPBelt, too, for the seven major plots.

Almost all great science-fiction is history dressed up in a tin-foil suit and festooned with X-mas lights. So I don't really worry about it. :)

-Will

One thing about miniature wargaming in general is that the almost absolute knowledge regarding the placement, speed of movement, ranges, ability to engage, likelhood of damage, unit status, etc. for both your forces and your enemies creates in effect a Sci-Fi game out of almost every game I have ever played be it far future or ancients.

I think most of the games resemble two opposing HQs in a future ops center with a set of highly networked and sensor laden Janissary at their absolute command. I always like games that somehow create variation in the command and control nets that help to return my non-Sci-Fi game to its proper setting.

I also think that the stories of 5000 years from now are likely to be very similar to those from 5000 years ago. Who controls resources, real estate, prosperity, posterity, and inheritance rights of your descendants. Just check out the stories of the old testament or Confucian China to see if parallels exist. All that seems to change is the means not the motives.

My $0.02 USD.

Lost Pict
Lost Pict

Sci-Fi as in "Hard Sci-Fi" or "Space Opera"? Is that kind of what you mean?

I guess the games I've played in would probably have elements of both but would lean towards Sci-Fi setting.

However, what about Time Travel in films/games as an example of only making sense in a world of ‘science-fiction'

Like the others said, settings change, but the basic stories tend to stay the same. With time travel, you have logical paradoxes about the flow of time, cause and effect, or even the reality of the world we live in, things that have been discussed at least as far back as Zeno or Parmenides.

Although it would be interesting to have a time travel table-top miniatures game. :) How would the rules work?

Even 2001, probably the "hardest" sci-fi movie ever made, told some pretty basic stories about exploration, murder, and self-discovery.

I'm with CPBelt. My gaming group has heard me say countless times there are no new stories, it's just how well you tell your version of it. Is it entertaining or not. The setting is usually just to appeal to a particular audiance.

"The setting is usually just to appeal to a particular audiance."

Yes, and no. Genre trappings can also be a way of making themes easier to digest. Talking about ecology, for example, is much easier to do if giant $$%^@ worms of awesome are involved. It can also be used as a way to discuss potentially uncomfortable subjects in a less confrontational way; see above re: replicants.

That said, if you put giant robots in it I'll probably at least pay attention, regardless of what the themes involved are.

Edit: Also I'll go ahead and apologize for banging on about these points. I did a fair bit of work about both the cultural shaping done by various forms of media, as well as the pedagogical potential of various genre materials. Just think of it as my version of lace color.

I will try to explain what I mean a bit better.
Though this may fail to accurately describe what I am thinking, such is lack of grace with words.

Force A is far from home and occupies a defensive posture.
Force B attacks and is more aggressive and has the advantage of being a larger force.

Is this Zulu?
Is it the Alamo?
Is it Aliens?
Is it Starship Troopers?

It could be any of them in the relevant setting, change the setting and the story will still make sense.

However, Bladerunner has man made AI machines that think they are human.
I do not think having these things in a historical setting would make sense, more over I don't see what they can be replaced with.
Spaceships can be boats, APCs can be horses, Lasers can be Bows and Arrows, etc.

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT >>>>>>>

The film Moon (excellent regardless if you think I am mad or not, so go rent it) has a man that is left for dead and is replaced by one of his scores of clones.
However he is not dead and he meets up with his clone, and they learn about previous clones of themself.

How could this be transposed into say Ancient Greece, or the 1800's when the film is about a man-made man.
The technology did not exist back then and what could you use in an 1800's setting as a series of clones that would be plausible.
(Not twins, as they are not man-made artificial constructs kept in stasis until needed.)

For me at least, the story of Moon is sci-fi as it can't be transposed into a different setting where the 'fictional science' would be accepted as accurate to that setting.

Which brings me back to the fact that all of my games could have elements replaced with historical equivalents and the plotline/story would be the same.
As such I think of them as games in a sci-fi setting rather than sci-i games.

I am not asking you to agree with me, just wonder if you get my point and think of your games as the same.

I hope that gets my point across a bit better?

@ jbenton – happy to disuss via e-mail to keep the board from being a to and from from us if you prefer?

Michael.

SPOILER ALERT: Moon was brilliant.

(Also for all the occasional re-discussion of Moon on this board, no one seems to mention that the main character likes scratch building terrain. And like the rest of us, it takes him several lifetimes to complete a project.)

Artificial people are old stories. Remember the Golem stories. Or Metropolis. Even the Greeks had one or two, cant remember the name of the statue that came to life. Or the Goblins that steal babies and replace them with one of their own. So nothing new with Bladerunner and replicants. Also how could you forget Pinnochio?

They are old, but they still fit within the core idea of fantasy/fiction settings.

A story that was centered around such creatures would be sci-fi or fantasy.
How would you tell a story or a play a game that had these constructs in them outside their setting?

So for example with Golems and constructs made by gods and or magic, how would you fit them into a story outside that setting?

I don't think you could.
Golems in 2013 fighting along with ISAF, would not be plausible and would be true sci-fi/fantasy.
Statues that come to life, Weeping Angels come to mind which is sci-fi.

This kind of agrees with my premise that some things can only be in sci-fi games/settings to make sense where as other things can be replaced and transposed to any setting.

Battle LA I liked, but the same story could be told having the aliens coming to steal our water as Europeans attacking the virgin US to take its resources.
Same theme/story/plot, call it what you will, different setting, works in either.

Golems, replicants etc only work in a sci-fi / fantasy setting.

Like I eluded to, one of my games has force A looking for a man who is hiding in a settlement. Force B are also looking for him.
There is nothing sci-fi about the story, it could be told at any point in history.
Change the APCS for horses, the rifles for bows and the bayonets for swords and you have a game set in the middle ages.

Nothing in my game meant it could only be played in a sci-fi setting, so to me it is a game in a sci-fi setting not a true sci-fi game.

I see what you are getting at Angel Barracks.

I find myself drawn to rulesets that try and structure themselves around a sci-fi setting ratehr than just being WW2/Modern warfare with lazers and aliens.

Infinity is a good example of a ruleset that does it. The rules are written with the supposition that every army is covered by an extensive electronic warfare network and that hacking is is an integral part of a squad.

It just seems more satisfying to me than a lot of rules out there.

-Joe

Turning the question on its head, in your opinion, what games set in modern times only make sense in modern times?

I guess we'd have to categorically rule out air-to-air battles, but other than that?

Something that somehow relied on the internet would be hard to transpose back to ancient times.
If a games mechanics had the internet at its core then watching the outcomes of such a game set in Ancient Greece would seem implausible I suspect.

I find myself drawn to rulesets that try and structure themselves around a sci-fi setting ratehr than just being WW2/Modern warfare with lazers and aliens.

Yes, in all fairness my own rules are the later, which makes generic games the easy default.
If my rules somehow relied on a future tech at its core, such as the internet gone bonkers then games using those rules would probably be harder to transpose to a different setting, as what would be the equivalent of the internet 2000 years ago?

I am not asking you to agree with me, just wonder if you get my point and think of your games as the same.

I hope that gets my point across a bit better?

I think people understand the point. I would differ on the definition of a "true sci-fi game" as per the original question. Wargames are stories. They have characters, plot and setting. If the game setting has elements of Sci-Fi, it is a true Sci-Fi game.

I understand the point that some plots require the particulars of the Sci-Fi setting to drive the story, but that isn't the litmus test for whether a game is a true Sci-Fi game. It is just a question of the setting. Better Sci-Fi literature and movies leverage the setting to pose interesting questions about life, humanity, towels and the nature of the universe.

I think of it differently. BattleTech does not lose it's Sci-Fi designation just because the combat simulated could just as easily be gladitorial combat.

Regarding Moon and clones: There have been many stories throughout history involving separated twins who aren't aware of each other's existence, missing siblings suddenly turning up to claim inheritances, long-lost relatives causing problems, and so on.

Heck, how many soap operas have killed off a character, only to have a previously unknown twin turn up, who often takes on the identity and the schemes of the deceased?

Your insistence that the twin has to be "man-made" (and, really, what twin isn't?) is just giving yourself an out.

It's like me saying a spaceship couldn't be replaced in a story by a trireme because the trireme isn't made of metal.

Regarding Moon and clones: There have been many stories throughout history involving separated twins who aren't aware of each other's existence, missing siblings suddenly turning up to claim inheritances, long-lost relatives causing problems, and so on.

They are not the same though.
Once a person dies they are dead, once their twin dies they are dead too.
In moon the same person keeps coming back and back, they are not other people, they are clones.
Twins are not clones.

Or to put it another way, there are Ambush Alley scenarios that can be transposed to the Northwest Frontier. In fact, I think there are modified scenarios like that. Does that mean we haven't been playing a modern game in Ambush Alley?

There are bits of modern games that can't be moved back, or need some kind of equivalency, but most of the basic scenarios can be.

@Angel:

I think your definitions are a bit narrow. By those definitions ALL stories are period independent. It is just the costumes that change. That's why The Iliad, Shakespeare and Austen still resonate today.

I have a set of rules for introducing the hobby to new gamers called "Kids' Play." They are truly generic. The figures on the bases are irrelevant. Put cowboys and bank robbers on the bases and it's Dodge City. Put the 101st on the bases and its "Easy Company." Put crossbowmen on the bases and its "The Crusades." They play just fine, are easy to teach and give a fun game. Most of our so called "period flavor" really comes from the props – uniforms, terrain, etc.

Man made clones or artificial life forms has been done before, it's called 'Modern Day Prometheus' more commonly known as "Frankenstein".

And Angel Barracks is correct when you bring up the older ideas of Golems.

Really there is nothing new under the sun.

I prefer the sci-fi settings for the sole reason as more variety can be had from it. Ships can cross through space much like they can cross the sea, but with real world settings you're kind of stuck in your era of gaming. No matter how many times you play the Battle of Isandlwana, the Brits will be outnumbered and have Henry Martini rifles. The Battle of Britain will still be fought with Spitfighters and He111 bombers.

Sci-fi allows the Brits to have full-auto weapons, or lasers.

P.S. In the myths the Gods are always monkeying around with magical armor, soldiers made from scorpion tears, etc. Replace the gods with "science" and you have Hellenic SciFi. After all, at this point you still need "and then a miracle happens" in the history of interstellar space travel. AFAIK there's no reasonable way to even theoretically achieve interstellar space travel (and no, having my great, great, great, great grandson get there does not really count. I want space travel like Star Wars where a trip across the galaxy only needs a taxi, not an oceanliner).

I think of it differently. BattleTech does not lose it's Sci-Fi designation just because the combat simulated could just as easily be gladitorial combat.

True, but I am not talking about the setting as such though.
I am on about the story within that setting.
What makes the story intrinsically tied to a sci-fi setting?

A Battletech plot could possibly be played out using tanks as the mechs, it is then a historical story.

From my original post

My sci-fi games are not really sci-fi stories at any rate…

Story, not setting.
My setting is sci-fi, my stories are not.
Are your stories sci-fi stories or can be they be used in other settings?

Something that somehow relied on the internet would be hard to transpose back to ancient times.

Not sat all. At its most basic, the internet is just a source of information. Non-sci-fi has alays relied on obtaining information from the king's councillor, the old wise woman of the woods, the hedge wizard, the hidden manuscript, the decoded inscription, the oracle, the riddle, cave paintings.

As for "the internet gone bonkers," maybe the hedge wizard is slightly dotty, and gives a mix of good information, bad information, and nonsense, and the players have to figure out which is which, or just trust to their luck.

As religon says, we all get your point, but some of us don't accept your premise or your limitations and conditons.

Does that mean we haven't been playing a modern game in Ambush Alley?

The game may be modern, is the story modern though?

By those definitions ALL stories are period independent.

But what if the story is bound to something that is implausible in a different period.
Such as a story that has the internet at its core, how would you have the internet exist in 1745 and it remain historical?
What in 1745 does the same job as the internet?

It is instant, global, viral and contains so much information (and porn) it is staggering.
A council of elders can't do the same job as the internet.
Neither can a library.

A council of elders can't be hacked and used to take remote control of nuclear power plants, computers and so on.
How would you make a game that was all about the internet make sense in ancient settings?

Twins are not clones.

True, but you're splitting hairs. It's really just a matter of degree.

Going back to your original post, it's like me saying that Firefly does too count as "real sci-fi" because Serenity can travel through space, but a horse, trireme, car, or jet can't. That is true, but Serenity is still a means of transportation, and the distinction is a matter of degree.

It's really just a matter of degree.

Exactly, so at what point for you does that degree matter?

Would you say a normal film set now about twins is science fiction?
I am guessing not.

Would you say a film set now about clones is science fiction?
I am guessing so.

So the use of clones as opposed to twins in the film makes it sci-fi rather than normal surely?

A council of elders can't be hacked and used to take remote control of nuclear power plants, computers and so on.

Are you kidding? A few words in the right ear, and men have readily betrayed their countries throughout history, fomenting unnecessary wars, controlling the spread of information, you name it.

Remember the Maine? Hearst and others used their newspapers (the internet of the day) to influence public opinion and foment war with Spain.

Going back to your original post, it's like me saying that Firefly does too count as "real sci-fi" because Serenity can travel through space, but a horse, trireme, car, or jet can't. That is true, but Serenity is still a means of transportation, and the distinction is a matter of degree.

That is not my point at all though.
I do think Firefly is a real sci-fi setting.
I however do not think all the stories/plotlines are.

So the use of clones as opposed to twins in the film makes it sci-fi rather than normal surely?

Yes, as does the use of spaceships, or ray guns, or aliens, or any of the other trappings of science fiction that you dismissed in your original post.

You can't accept a clone or the internet as being "real sci-fi" if you're not willing to accept the other trappings, too.

The setting the story takes place in is the genre of that story.

All stories, regardless of genre, could be set in another time and place just fine.
Stories deal with the Human condition, and humans just don't change.

"has a man that is left for dead and is replaced by one of his scores of clones"

This story, for example, has been told many times. The Man in the Iron Mask tells this story.

@ jpattern2 – Can I correctly assume that as far as you are concerned:

Any story that has sci-fi trappings in it is a sci-fi story, regardless of the actual story/plotline itself?

This story, for example, has been told many times. The Man in the Iron Mask tells this story.

But they are not human genetic clones, genetic clones do not exist and are fictional.
The men in that story were different men, not clones.

I am on about the story within that setting.
What makes the story intrinsically tied to a sci-fi setting?

It's not. Your insistence that they are tied together is where others differ from you.

As a child I was taught the five elements of a story: Plot, Character, Conflict, Theme and Setting. As a newspaper editor publishing short fiction, I continued to deconstruct stories into the same elements. You conceptualize a story differently.

Angel Barracks,

I appreciate the offer, but suspect e-mail would still result in us agreeing to disagree. :)

The point that I, and others, are trying to make is that you don't seem to draw a distinction between genre conventions and storytelling/plot. The examples you give, things like replicants and clones, are setting details. If you replace the clone with identical siblings you still have the same story, just different setting details. Thus Moon is as generic a story as a car chase whether you're using buggies or hovercars.

If you are minded to send me an e-mail I would appreciate it all the same.
If I disagree then we shall call it a day.
I understand if you feel it would be a waste of your time though.

I have been known to change my mind.

Any story that has sci-fi trappings in it is a sci-fi story, regardless of the actual story/plotline itself?

Not at all.

For example, the wood-repelling "hair tonic" in It Happens Every Spring is a sci-fi trapping, but I wouldn't call it a sci-fi movie.

@ jpattern2

Not familiar with that, however.
Maybe we agree then?

My sci-fi world is sci-fi, aliens, future tech, all that pew pew stuff.
However my missions are not tied into those sci-fi trappings.
They are rescue missions, ambush missions etc, things that can be played in any setting.

So I think that my missions are generic missions but in a sci-fi setting.
Just as that film has sci-fi trappings but is not a sci-fi film.
Does that make sense so far, agree or not?

I am on about the story within that setting.
What makes the story intrinsically tied to a sci-fi setting?

It's not. Your insistence that they are tied together is where others differ from you.

I don't insist that a story is tied to the setting.
As I said in my first post:

My sci-fi games are not really sci-fi stories at any rate…

They are generic stories in a sci-fi setting.

For example some games I have played involved; extracting a corporate employee, stopping kidnappers, scouting an outpost, destroying a remote facility.
None of these are only playable in a sci-fi setting.
They are simply generic stories in a sci-fi setting.

I don't think any of my stories ever, have been tied into their setting in a way they could not be lifted into another setting.
Which is kind of my point when I say my sci-fi games are just games set in a sci-fi setting.

I would be hard pushed to come up with a story that can not be lifted into another setting.
(I maintain that clones are sci-fi though.)

But very few people have answered my question, which was if your sci-fi stories can be played outside a sci-fi setting.
Maybe the new wording is less controversial/confrontational/confusing/vague/specific?

I think Michael's claiming that our sci-fi games are not really 'sci-fi' games at all because the missions and scenarios can be played in other time periods. By that logic there can be no true 'sci-fi' games at all because all table-top games I know use variations of the same missions and objectives. They are familiar to us and can be applied in any number of time periods.

Maybe true 'sci fi' can only exist in the realm of the RPG? Like Bladerunner for instance. If you try to make Bladerunner a tabletop game, you'll probably be using the same real life scenarios that can be applied to other periods.