"What makes rules "SciFi"" Topic

I'm starting to base up some 6mm SciFi minis for bigger battles (up til now I have only done SciFi skirmish). And it's time to think about rules. Then I thought: why not just use a rule set I already play? So I'm thinking I would use Fistful of TOWs III. After all, other than different looking vehicles and so on, SciFi is mostly just modern combat in space.

But I was thinking…what do you think modern rule sets lack that SciFi has or should have?

Jetpacks? :-)

I don't know if there's a significant mechanical difference. Maybe a removal of C3 mechanics?

Hovertanks: different terrain movement rates than wheeled or tracked.

Lasers, and pretty much all weapons: range only limited by line of sight on any tabletop.

Big stompy robots ^,^

I know what you mean about existing rules – we use Bolt Action for 15mm Sci Fi games. In fact they are more satisfying than WW2!

It seems that sticking the word "Scifi" on the package and tying it to an over-priced set of models is all it takes. Same idea for Fantasy.

It's "SCIFI" when all the stuff we don't have today is explained away by "technology" instead of "magic".
Example from Game of Thrones. Swords made from Valyrian Steel have spells woven into their forging. Yet Ice can be melted down to make two swords by a competent smith. Dawn is made from a fallen meteoric iron. Castle forged swords are made by competent smiths.
True Valyrian steel is magic. "Good" swords are SCIFI.

Well, shields is one thing. Weapons are mostly just name changes (was "rifle" is now "Kill O Zap Death Ray") but you still roll one die to hit etc. Armor is armor.

But shields, at least to me, are a twist. In game terms they are like armor, but you kill them bit by bit. They may be able to "regenerate" over time. You have to destroy the shields before you can affect the target. And some weapons may ignore shields entirely and go straight through to the armor.

Jetpacks, hover etc. don't really require new rules. A jetpack is just a small helicopter in game terms. Ignores terrain etc. Same for hover – different terrain costs (can cross water but not some kinds of rocky ground etc).

Energy might be one but that's probably a lot like limited ammo.

Military application of tech we already have, or proliferation so that the 'cutting edge' becomes 'standard issue'.

An infantryman in reactive-gel armour, carrying a weapon with anti-defilade rounds and a suite of targeting sensors, his helmet incorporating a networked HUD, accompanied by an autonomous spotting drone, his section's gear carried on a Big Dog and their support weapon on a Black Knight…
No handwavium of any kind required, it's all existent tech.
BUT… it doesn't represent current application of that tech. Some speculation has to be made re. the direction military progress will go in.
Ergo: "Sci Fi".

"But I was thinking…what do you think modern rule sets lack that SciFi has or should have?"

Modern rule sets consider conflicts that (1) occur on Earth (2) use contemporary equipment and (3) are fought by contemporary humans. Science fiction rule sets consider conflicts that may go beyond those categories.

If you can't do it now, then it's either Sci-Fi or Fantasy, which is these days pretty much the same thing.

The words: star fury, enterprise, ds9, Voyager, Daniel Jackson.
So only B5, star trek and stargate are sci fi.

If rules don't have these words. Then its fantasy not sci fi.

It's a bit of a moving target. I started wargaming in 1964, reported for basic training in 1972 and (probably) severed my last military connection last year. Most of what I was dealing with at the end was SF when I started. (Why I think they should have mandatory SF wargaming at the academies. What do they think those kids will be commanding when they make General or Admiral?)

I'd say the general principle is equipment we currently don't have and/or alien races with different stats. Same, really, with fantasy, but SF works from a "baseline" of WWII or later--radios, tanks, mechanized infantry and artillery--while fantasy works on a baseline of shouted orders, horse cavalry, bows and armored infantry with sharp pointy things. But my boxes tend to read "modern/SF" and "medieval/fantasy."

An infantryman in reactive-gel armour, carrying a weapon with anti-defilade rounds and a suite of targeting sensors, his helmet incorporating a networked HUD, accompanied by an autonomous spotting drone, his section's gear carried on a Big Dog and their support weapon on a Black Knight…

So this guy hots on a 4+ (targeting systems), saves on a 3+ (armor) etc. In game terms he is exactly like your average grunt in a WW2 game….

You've identified my biggest problem with most SF rules. They are clearly modeled after some historical period in regards to mechanics and concepts. I'd be much more interested in rules that really try to identify potential evolutions in combat

I think it's all about the style of play you're seeking.

Let's be honest, in a "hard sci-fi" future, ground battles would be a thing of the past. We'd just nuke them from orbit and move on.

But yet, gritty ground battles make for fun miniatures games. So what do we do? We come up with rules that extrapolate current conditions (squad-based small unit actions backed up by heavier weapons and some specially trained troop types) into the far future. You end up with rulesets as varied as Tomorrow's War to WH40K.

Probably the most sci-fi ruleset you can come up with would be a scenario where the attacker rolls a single dice at the start of the game to represent his nuclear missile/exotic energy munitions salvo. There would be no second turn. LOL.

Thing is what people tend to BUY is either "vietnam in space" or "space knight vs galactic goblins".

Yeah, there are always going to be those parallels with WWII gaming, and from that we get a school of game design which extrapolates Sci-Fi from WWII mechanics.
I don't buy it. Too often, the argument about "it's still Boots on the Ground" is used in games which just aren't willing to grasp the nettle and address more imaginative aspects.

Consider – that's not an inherent, inevitable factor in sci-fi game design.
Rather – it's a mindset thing.
It is equally possible, and equally valid, to focus instead on the differences between WWII and Sci-Fi.
Unlimited vision, not restricted to LOS. Not having to physically expose yourself in order to get 'eyes on'.
Factors other than visual becoming pivotal to targeting – you can stroll across a field of fire in plain sight if the weapon system covering that zone locks on IR, and you're wearing null-IRR kit. (substitute sensor system of choice)
Hard cover offering no protection from anti-defilade rounds.
No movement restriction for heavy weapons.
Whether or not you can intercept/monitor/jam enemy comms and sensors, and whether you can prevent them from intercepting yours. (And the 'smarter' and more networked your systems are, the greater your exposure to hacking)

For me, the core of near-future Sci-Fi rules should not be how high-tech your troops CAN go, but high tech are they willing to go in each specific situation?
Because there's enough tech to ensure you can see everything and never miss a shot – IF you want to switch on every gizmo and light up like a Christmas tree on the enemy's sensors. Or do you go 'dark' , sacrificing
all those bonuses for undetectability?
That judgement call should be a major, round-by-round decision in a sci-fi engagement.

Also, tentacle monsters. Possibly from Uranus.

Zombies!! must have them

Probably the most sci-fi ruleset you can come up with would be a scenario where the attacker rolls a single dice at the start of the game to represent his nuclear missile/exotic energy munitions salvo. There would be no second turn. LOL.

Any Sci-Fi rules set should include….
- Rediculously short ranges
- Rediculously large ships and vehicles packed with squishies
- Outlandishly powerful weapons using exotic energy sources
- Multitudes of inanimate space objects to hide behind
- 2-D space movement and tediously slow terrestrial movement
- Heros of renown bestowing incorporial boons
- Lots of easily destroyed "droids"
- A inexplicably good "good side" side and flavorably evil "bad side"

Trying for a slightly more serious answer than some here…

Consider this: What makes a set of WW1 rules different from a set that simulates WW2?

We are still dealing with fundamentally the same key components and technology: All the troops are Homo Sapiens, none wear significant armour, and the basic troops are armed with bolt-action rifles.

Vehicles are powered by internal combustion engines, tanks and aircraft are present, as are mechanised artillery and machine guns.

But, would any wargamer seriously use rules written for WW1 to fight WW2 actions, without substantial modification? Tactics had changed dramatically by the time the Blitzkrieg had rolled into France, and the technical quality of machines had improved beyond the wildest dreams of speculators in 1918.

Thus with science-fiction. A set of SF rules should be able to reflect and justify the changes in technology, and the tactical options these changes create, within the fictional framework of the setting's speculation.

Are there hovertanks for example? Why? How are they superior from their tracked ancestors? If they are not superior, then why did anyone bother to take the wheels off??

If a SF game can't answer those questions (and others, perhaps), then it risks committing the cardinal sin of any SF media – namely, ruining suspension of disbelief.

For example from the wider SF genre – When the USS Voyager goes to warp, it does so with a reasonably researched concept for FTL travel. The power source is possible, the mechanics of bending Einsteinian physics are not completely improbable. We can believe such a method of travel may be practical, so, our sense of disbelief is quietened, and we can get on with the story.

But if, say, some of the Voyager's crew travel beyond the limits of warp drive, essentially occupying every point in existence at the same time, and thus evolve into 'higher beings' that appear to be nothing more than small lizards (you know the episode), then our suspension of disbelief is shattered, as is our TV screen, when we throw a lamp at the closing credits.

In short, a good SF story must present the technology that underpins its mechanics in a way that we can believe is rational and believable within the setting. That same rule applies to a set of SF rules.

Interestingly, FASA had two successful SF games that reflect both ends of the believability spectrum; Battletech and Renegade Legion.

Battletech is one of the worst offenders when it comes to abusing our suspension of disbelief; Giant walking tanks that are tougher and more survivable than tracked ones, in spite of their vulnerable joints, and the fact that they are massive targets? A society that has the ability to traverse the stars, and yet cannot make a machine gun with a range of more than 90 metres? Hmm!

Renegade Legion, on the other hand, presents some pretty solid SF tech, with not hover tanks, but grav tanks, that weigh in at hundreds of tons, floating on fields of gravity-repelling energy, with weapons that make sense within their setting.

No wonder-weapons here; the average grunt can still kill a tank with a well-placed missile, but it's good odds he won't survive if he misses. Ranges are realistic, designed to reach out to the horizon of an Earth-sized planet, because that's the worlds humanity fights over. It's well thought out, and the reasoning behind the tech and its application create a pretty believable setting.

Having said that – which of these two systems continues to this day, with PC games, new editions, and new miniatures, while the other is suspended in IP Limbo?

Yup. Maybe people want to disbelieve? ;)

I am also planning on using Fistful of Fistful of TOWs III for sci-fi once my collection is large enough.

The more out there stuff will be done on a case by case basis, but it's still largely going to have historical analogues. Is there really a difference between an orbital strike from a space ship and an artillery barrage from the ground?

A swarm of small detector drones will simply be a radius of huge bonuses to spot checks. Well, I suppose there should also be a hacking element where drones can be fooled or taken over.

Power armor is probably going to need some attention. It needs to basically fight like infantry but be vulnerable only to heavy firepower like armor.

The nuke from orbit version of future warfare would only apply in a war of annihilation.

If you actually want what is on the planet, infrastructure, resources, the local population. A more surgical approach would be required that involves troops and equipment on the ground.

So two main factors become important in war numbers of combatants and tech level differentials. You want something on a planet, what and how much do you want to lug through space. Space borne attack against 6 billion people better either have an huge tech multiplier or lots of manpower and a population easily subjugated.

Earth's history has demonstrated the extreme impact of tech disparities. Conquistadors come to mind.

But local numerical superiority against superior tech can win as demonstrated at Isandlwana.

Alien approaches to combat could have dramatic effects, consider combat units immune to the effects of morale Starship Troopers, Aliens etc.

Science fiction takes off all the gloves and allows innovation in war gaming.

Ww2 rules with lasers

Technology beyond what we currently possess.

> The nuke from orbit version of future warfare would only apply in a war of annihilation.

Not necessarily. Anyone who can get to the orbit of another planet has the math needed to choose a correct size rock to only annihilate a city or two. Moving targets is a problem.

On the game front – #1 is choose the technology tree, #2 is decide what that means in terms of combat, and #3 is to design the game around that.

One option is that nanotech is viable – if so everything will revolve around one swarm of nanomachines fighting another swarm. Another option is that targeting will be automatic so no roll to hit needed, or is always based off of the tech difference between attacker and target – a third is that force fields become viable, …

Technology more advanced than what we currently have, some of which may be in development. Weapons need not be lasers; gauss guns work just as well. I personally prefer bullets to beams in my SF.

Of course, it depends on your tastes in science fiction. Do you prefer near future or distant future scenarios? Hard SF or space opera? That defines what technology is available.

Technology beyond what we currently possess.

That plus anything that may have aliens involved.

In the Hammer's Slammers-verse, they normally were fighting along side or with humans. That colonized other planets. They only really fought what we would call "aliens" once or twice. But the "fact" remains, all of the human tech was very much more advanced then currently.

I'm presently designing a game which I tentatively call "Time." It's a game of cosmic expansion where the "time" period is in thousands of years if even that short so individual battles and things are meaningless. It revolves around a planetary civilization advancing from various epochs to other epochs. To where it can become spacefaring then starfaring. It can build different types of ships with different capabilities as it enters each new epoch with the possibility of regression and even extinction. For example the lowest epoch might be an iron age or bronze age growing up to civilization level 4, which is space faring, where adjacent star systems might be reachable by near light speed. Epochs 5 and 6 would allow ships to move further, but the type of ships would change. Founding a new colony can be of separate types in various epochs. For example in level 4 the earliest that can be spacefaring (and near star faring) colonial options might be to send out a small group of technically advanced people who can inhabit a new world, but it will take at least a few thousand years to attain enough population to actually begin domestic production of star-faring capability again, OR it might be sending large numbers of people cells, or cloned embryos to create a larger population as in a bronze age culture to develop the sciences etc. Thus the colony might survive when the original planet is wiped out by its sun going nova, or it might learn to control the star's life. Etc Etc. The advantage to the former way is you bring your technology with you, but its terrible vulnerable to internal dissent and discord, the latter takes longer, but allows a variable way of development.

The real dynamic is not the stupid weapons most sci-fi looses itself in, but the thread of civilization and cultural development. The new colony may decide not to go star-faring or even space faring. I'm much more interested in the possible long trends a species might take (including going into a planned "clone" or transference to a machine-robotic society, or hybridization with some alien races etc., than another bunch of space marines. The game is to be played on a 6 x 12 foot table top with planets on long pylons poking up 1 2,3, and 4 ft up from the table top.

It's sort of an Advanced Civilization in space. I am an afficianado of that old Avalon Hill Game, and take huge interest in how the civilizations wax and wane in the game and seeing how the culture drifts and mutates and wondering what it is like (When it degrades, does it give up mathematics or cloth making).

It also assumes that alien races need not be inimical or in deadly rivalry. It assumes that they may in fact be compulsively and obsessively interested in each other. For example an alien race of intelligent bees who never contemplated the idea of a supreme being or an afterlife in our own ideal of transcendent religion, or us in the ultra dimensional art of the Bees as staggeringly astounding works of art, and they in our plastic arts. They may even consider our "tragedies" such as Romeo and Juliet and Oedipus Rex as hilarious comedies. Bees have been know to laugh themselves to death at a production of Titus Andronicus.

It does mirror my personal prejudice that when we meet aliens for real, they will be far more relieved and joyful to find that there is anyone and anything out there and so relived they are not alone, that the idea of destroying the other would be like destroying the greatest yearnings of our soul.

Somehow I am convinced we will find common ground with them. We will find out that each race finds its own teenagers as stupid, idiotic, and driving their parents nuts. "These damn sprouts! They get everything given to them these days. Why I remember when I was just sprouted I had to suffer in sending my tendrils uphill both ways to get the moisture, and they didn't even give me a bucket! I had to let if Freeze in my pseudopods till I could carry it back to home! What!!! that's nothing, why I pulled every string I could get to get my son into Starfleet, and what does he want to do, squat on a river bank and make ugly clay pots and try and sell them at a bazaar…Sometimes I envy you Xagdonorphs! You can eat your young!"

Aliens who do not fight like humans or Aliens not adapted to human tactics.

excellent answer MacrossMartin

John T

You shouldn't encourage me, John T. I spend far, far too much time thinking about this stuff!

OK lets consider Avatar. Apart from the avatars, nothing beyond our technology, just on another planet, sci-fi?

I actually like that most sci-fi gaming is ww2/modern with a few extra things tacked on. I am also planning on using Fistful of TOWs III once my forces are large enough.

I could see doing something with spotting rules to represent swarms of tiny surveilance drones. And maybe figure something out for electronic warfare/hacking. Other than that, I'm sure artillery rules will cover orbital strikes just fine, for example.

For anyone interested in some ideas for sci-fi, check out the Military History Podcast episode on DARPA. It's from 2007 but still contains lots of stuff that hasn't been implemented/invented/rolled out yet:

link

Avatar has single stage to orbit reusable aerodynamic space shuttles, and anti-matter STL starship, and stasis pods, and enough resources to maintain a logistics train from Earth to Pandora.

That's all beyond any near future tech, and then there are the Avatars, which allow transference of consciousness (with a little bit of help from Eywa) from one human body into another, without a pod link.

We don't see what all that technology implies because the company outpost has just enough technology to do the job, because it's all about the bottom line of the books.

Cool aliens are something I look for a sci fi ruleset. Tyranids from 40k are my favourites, especially the larger ones like a Carnifex. I'm very hesitant to get into a new sci fi game without aliens I like. For example I was not interested in GoA until they showed previews for the Broodmother then I got into Boromites purely so I have an army to use with the Broodmother when it comes out.