"Not enough imagination in sci-fi rules?" Topic

In truth, my hobby seems more like "reading games rules" rather than "playing games." I look at sci-fi rules from time to time, and I'm struck by "lack of imagination," for want of a better term. It seems that so many sci-fi rules are just re-branded WW2 rules. Space combat seems to be a combination of WW2 naval warfare or WW2 dogfighting, depending on the scale. Ground combat is much like WW2 or Vietnam ear combat, with walkers (or hover tanks) taking the place of WW2 armor, and jump ships or jump packs filling-in for helicopters. Aliens, if they are present, are either a mass of bug-like creatures, or something that acts fairly human, even if it is blue or green.

In contrast, many fantasy rules seem to have thrown off the constraints. Calling it "magic" instead of "science fiction" seems to have allowed for a diversity of weapons, armor, creatures, and tactics. Fantasy rules just seem to be richer in their options.

Sci-fi doesn't have to follow the WW2 pattern. Early Star Trek had some interesting ideas: the Tholian Web as space combat, transporters (although I never knew why they couldn't be used a bit more tactically), later the Picard Maneuver. (Ironically, more recent Star Trek movies follow the Wild West in Space format of Star Wars.) I thought that the X-Com games had some clever ideas too.

I like Star Wars, and Galactica, and most sci-fi. But in games, it seems that the aliens aren't very alien, and the science fiction isn't very creative. Any thoughts?

I cannot disagree very much with any of that!

I guess it reflects the literature and TV/Films that they are often based on (all of which tend to be 'history' in space.

John T

And this is a problem…because???

While I agree that most sci-fi wargames are just modern warfare with cooler looking models, so what? It would appear that many don't have a problem with this considering the plethora of 15 mm Science Fiction models now on the market and of course 40K and other game systems keep on trucking. In fact I would say that 40K, the game much maligned here on TMP, is perhaps the most creative even though they have just taken many fantasy and science fiction troupes and attempted to re-brand them.

You're absolutely right, but it is what it is. We play sci-fi games because we like the setting and trappings of the sci-fi genre, not because we like the "science."

One thing that I'd like to see taken into account in sci-fi games is environment. Every single ground based sci-fi game is set in a 1g Earth type of environment. Why not a 1/3g, toxic atmosphere? Would all weapon systems work the same? Would movement be affected? What about visibility?

What about a game set in high g in the atmosphere of a gas giant (no ground)? Would there be native inhabitants and what would they look like? How would they wage war?

I agree with you mwindsorfw. Sci-fi games are very limited in the use of imagination.

Definitely seen interesting environmental factors in some sci-fi games (Striker, et al) – gravity, atmosphere, etc – but it's presented as the exception rather than the rule. Tomorrow's War (iirc) presents one of its basic scenarios as on a planet with no (?) atmo, making any damage fatal, for example.

Aliens, however, are trickier to model, especially behaviorally. Anything truly alien (I.e. not Space Viking Orks, or Space Samurai Klingons, or Space Zulu, etc) isn't understandable, making it really difficult to put on the tabletop meaningfully. The Kaktars of Eridani think in four dimensions (each mental construct possessing a shifting point in relative time) and their language is atonal poetry read in shifting tenses. How do they conceptualize their battle plans and fight, given their view of time as a mosaic rather than a linear progression?

Pffft. So we fight enemies than are variations of humans on worlds that are variations of earth.

Which is justifiable, since our conflicts are probably on worlds where we could colonize against foes who are similar enough to want the same things.

And fight essentially the same way so we can use the same rules. ;)

SPI's StarForce was pretty imaginative in how space combat worked. As I recall, ships used telepathic attacks that affected a three dimensional volume of space to disrupt enemy crews. Was also really difficult to grasp, highlighting another reason why we don't get too imaginative: it can get mechanically challenging to model something very removed from our traditional notions of battle.

I think humans will mostly fight over human habitable planets.

One thing that I'd like to see taken into account in sci-fi games is environment. Every single ground based sci-fi game is set in a 1g Earth type of environment. Why not a 1/3g, toxic atmosphere? Would all weapon systems work the same? Would movement be affected? What about visibility?

What about a game set in high g in the atmosphere of a gas giant (no ground)? Would there be native inhabitants and what would they look like? How would they wage war?

I agree with you mwindsorfw. Sci-fi games are very limited in the use of imagination.

You haven't played or read many sci-fi rules if you think there aren't games that account for exactly this sort of thing.

-Will

The main problem is we don't really have good models to base a game off of for 'innovative' sci-fi settings, even if those settings are in fact more plausible than laser swords in space. How do you model a battle if the entire conflict is two competing nano-device clouds trying to eat each other?

-Will

With the exception that I find most fantasy to be as limited as sci-fi, I agree with the OP.

It probably starts with truly original ideas simply being very rare. Additionally, my favorite sci-fi books and movies don't lend themselves well to tabletop miniature battles. They tend to be about growing, exploring, learning and creating, not conquering and destroying. War does not feature in any of my favorite sci-fi books, and isn't in my top five movies either.

Even something as simple as producing more original aliens for the tabletop is complex if done well. Creating the organism means creating the environment in which it evolves, it's actions are a function of the society of which it is part. If it is so bloody different from us, then why is it in the same place as us? Why would it compete with us, or with whatever other unique organism it bumps into in space? To comprehensively build a new organism for the tabletop requires a lot of work.

For example, why would the new critter have three arms, or use something to "see" other than eyes? How would it's adaptations to its native planet impair it on earth, or in any setting alien to it? Why does it fight? Every time you answer any of these questions, I'll immediately have ten more waiting for you. Creating a biology and a behavior takes time, and it is hard to shed the boundaries imposed by our sampling of one.

To develop original ideas, you need a lot of knowledge. Not too long ago, I saw a new model for a sci-fi APC. It was a very nicely detailed model. The artistry involved in the sculpt was outstanding. But, the engineering of the design was questionable. It was a 4 wheeled armored vehicle with a short wheelbase on a long chassis with long overhangs and low ground clearance. If used for combat on Earth, it would be a joke. Angle of entry and departure were extremely shallow, it couldn't clear the curb of a sidewalk, but it looked cool with it's sleek low profile and long overhangs. The point is that developing these ideas well can be tough, because of all of the things that we don't know that we don't know.

Another thing, and this is touched on by another post above, is what we, the marketplace, expects. If the ideas are too original, if we don't recognize them, understand them, we won't buy them. Successful products are marketed to the 50th percentile.

If I need a troop transport for a platoon of troops, and you give me a little chrome sphere, bigger on the inside than on the outside, consuming no energy, with 360 degree weapons that impose demotivating bliss on the enemy, and armor that converts explosive energy into continuous soothing music, I am not buying it.

I want wheels or tracks, I want camo, I want troops with guns, guns that go boom (or maybe zap)explosions, dust, mud, grit. I want what I can relate too, or at least understand.

All that said, I would love to have some truly unique aliens that behave differently from humans and apply advanced technology in original ways. It's just that they can't be too unique, can't act too weird, and can't have too advanced technology, or they have no place in my battle.

I've been fortunate in that my gaming buddies don't limit themselves to WW2 in space. We've played in zero G games (where figures keep moving down the corridor unless they grab hold or use a thruster to stop); we've fought on death worlds where we spent more time fighting the flora and fauna than the enemy; we've even removed light bulbs over the table and substituted red or orange lighting to simulate the light of a red giant.

That being said, I agree that too many sci-fi rules feature rehashes of old tactics and weaponry with sci-fi names. While anthropomorphic aliens may be fun to collect and paint, too many are just men in 'rubber suits.'

As noted, a truly innovative and imaginative game system would probably be more work to learn than most gamers want to go to. I think most are comfortable with World War II with cool SF models. I know I am :)

Funny thing is StsrGuard and Striker have all the things you seem to be missing

SPI's ground combat sequel to StarForce, StarSoldier, was very different. A man-to-man game where ECM matters … It also forced movement with area effect weapons (single hex?) that were pretty effective and ignored ECM, but could be avoided if the soldier kept moving. Avoided Panzerbush to a degree.

Lots of people criticize it, but Attack Vector: Tactical is nothing like WWI/WWII naval in space or what you would normally think of as dogfighting. There are various 2D vector systems out there that accomplish this to a lesser degree (they are good games, I'm only contrasting with the models you brought up).

Attack Vector is like getting a physics degree. I can appreciate it, but it's too much work for me.

Jim Webster's 6mm Hellfire and "Hell by Starlight" skitmish rules from Wessex Games were pretty innovative if you can lay your hands on a copy….

I recall the training mission in Haldeman's Forever War where the squad/platoon has to fight on a midnight dark ice-moon where the horizon is very very close. Fall over and you could ruin your radiator vents and die. Trip on the ice and scoot out into orbit and die. Can't remember if munitions can scoot around the rock and come back in at you from behind, but it's a nice idea.

On the miniature table perhaps it should be played on a round terrain mat and if a missile went off the table it would re-enter on the other side of the table.

Haldeman showed real imagination in that book.

Loved the defence shields where only edged weapons and rocks worked.

Worth a re-read I think.

As much as I hate to say this, mwindsorfw just made a case for 40K. Where the aliens although some are human looking have very different weapons than the humans, and must use different tactics to make best use of them. Although it usually ends in a brawl anyways.

Great to see SPI's StarForce and StarSoldier getting a nod here. Setting is compelling and provides good reasons for "different" mechanics. I've tinkered with using miniatures but the scale and mechanics just don't lend themselves. . . but I know I'll try again : )

All good points, but as mentioned: SF combat must be relatable to the player's world experience/perception. Most folks still think that WW2 style engagements roughly approximate modern warfare, which is not the case. In the end it doesn't matter, as war gaming is not really about simulation( or prediction) but rather entertainment. Of course, simulation and prediction are part of the fun, but most folks would put fun foremost as that is really the point of playing games…,
That having been said, yes the current offerings for supported SF universe/game rules ARE a bit homogenous and uninspired.
However, this is probably more due to marketing/sales than lack of imagination……(or at least lack of marketing imagination).
I think wminsing (above) put it best.
Worst case scenario: make your own rules!
(Models might be a limiting factor, however)…

I think the main issues with creating a new game that has all that was mentioned OP is this:

It wouldn't be "beer and pretzels" fast and easy (as the sci-fi gaming market is heading), and there would be too few people interested in such to make it successful monetarily for the work it would require.

Exactly!
I will play anything 'beer and pretzels' all the way up to 'earl grey and hors d'oeuvres' but only so long as either set of rules operates within the realm of human interest (not cube shaped drones battling it out with computer viruses and nanites from several parsecs away, etc…)

What I would like to see is a rule set that is LESS 'cinematic/grimdark/anime'… just for the occasional change, and to watch as players figure out that charging into hand-to-hand combat vs guns can be a bad idea….

I had a cascade of thoughts when I woke up this morning about about an OGRE-hunting alien creature. Have to figure out how to work it into the rules framework, but it should be "different" (as well as deadly. I can hear the BPC armor crunching even now. It would all be 'house rules', of course… ;-)

Great to see SPI's StarForce and StarSoldier getting a nod here. Setting is compelling and provides good reasons for "different" mechanics. I've tinkered with using miniatures but the scale and mechanics just don't lend themselves. . . but I know I'll try again : )

…and you will post pictures. :D

…and you will post pictures. :D

Of course. . . if I come up with anything worthy!

How do you model a battle if the entire conflict is two competing nano-device clouds trying to eat each other?

You model the nanobugs at like 100:1 scale (ie, 100x larger than actual size!) There really is a game like that… but I can't remember the name of it to save my life right now.

As far as the more anime-inspired games out there, anime tends towards the scifi and fantastic, simply because it doesn't cost any more to do that. An anime is just as much a special-effects story as Avatar, every object in every single frame had to be created.

Real innovation in one aspect probably will lead to many rather peculiar other aspects in the world if they were applied throughout the world. The author would have to make countless adjustments. Also, in warfare it may even be illogical that humans are even employed. How fun would that be?

How do you defend against nano-armies? They can spy on your plans. They can invade unseen.

In one TV show technology has mastered control over local gravity. But, what did they do with it? Just had ships with artificial gravity so actors could walk around normally in space. No shoes or belts that lifted people up and flew them around. People still fell to their deaths over hand railings (on ships with artificial gravity yet).

Suppose a replicators could make copies of everything. What is the point of inventing anything that could be copied? The end of inventions? Or could they be copy protected? If so the actual plans to make something would be of more value than the object.

You model the nanobugs at like 100:1 scale (ie, 100x larger than actual size!) There really is a game like that… but I can't remember the name of it to save my life right now.

That's right, I had forgotten about it until you mentioned it!

Even then though, you're basically creating a 'normal' wargame just that the units are representing nanobugs instead of something else.

-Will

What I would like to see is a rule set that is LESS 'cinematic/grimdark/anime'… just for the occasional change, and to watch as players figure out that charging into hand-to-hand combat vs guns can be a bad idea….

Plenty of rules like this, going all the way back to Stargrunt II.

-Will

Real war in the sci-fi realm would be too boring if the plausible is modeled. Drone combat/ long range artillery exchanges,and hidden cyber attacks on comm networks. Fairly dull stuff…not a morale check to make.

Things get more exciting when you model getting the hacker into the offline computer network to deliver Stuxnet5… (which is the typical Infinity mission)

I play Maneuovre Group with scifi rules at 144th, which is (in practise) more like ultramoderns with extra lasers. Partly, this is because, like Mick the Metalsmith said above, if you didn't put any limitations on the technology, it would make for a very dull game, not involving much actual maneouver. For instance, we deliberately (and probably inaccurately to the in-univese unit, come to that) require missile locks to require line-of-effect (from something), and don't allow to many multiple target locks.

One other constraint, of course, is we have to play on worlds with terrestrial enviroments (specifically grass and trees!) since it is impractical to have more than one set of terrain. (Espeially since we use Hexon). You could blurb around it, but I generally don't bother. Occasionally, a rule about low G or something will creep in, but that's about as far as it goes. (Atmospheric conditions wouldn't matter anyway, given as the far and away majority of the vechicles would be sealed.)

Given an infinite budget and storage space (or a holographic projector or something), I would likely be a bit more creative, but one works with what one has got.

(Also, why split the difference? The game at the convention I'm at tomorrow I'm putting on involves evil high tech magical space Liches verses evil higher tech seven-foot humanoid lava aliens, so…!)

____________________________________

Starship-wise, I started on Full Thrust and have for the past fifteen years been writing my own (and it might get published sometime this year, since the proofing pass is done!) That is probably most illustraively described as being like the Lost Fleet books (by complete co-incidence. I nearly bust by gut laughing when I read those books and realised I could model the entire thing without the slightest modification!) The battles tend be a series of passes, with manueuving between, rather than the "line up and slowly fly towards each other."

That said, while the rules mechanics are not especially complex (and it is only 2D and doesn't even attempt to model intertial drives[1]), but it it very tactially demanding. Full Thrust, by its own admission, was a "six pack and boldly go;" Accelerate & Attack is… Not that! (It asks you to make a lot of hard decisions for which there is no right answer (which don't have much to do with the actual rules mechanics) and the rules don't tell you how to win.)

So it's definitely a little different, but may not to be to one's tastes.

____________________________________

I also wrote my own set of unofficial rules for Star Wars fighter combat even longer ago, based of TIE Fighter and X-Wing Alliance, which plays pretty much exactly like them, but I guess that's back to your WW2 thing again.

____________________________________

All that said, I'm not really sure what you (the OP) would consider "creative" in a game. Then again, I don't personally believe in having sets of rules for the sake of sets of rules (and any game I'm not going to play, say, tens of games of over several years would likely not be worth investing in models for (just on storage alone). Battles between sentient magnetic vortices in the corona of a star would certainly be different, but I'm not sure what it would actually gain you, for example.

[1]Though you could probably pinch GZG's Full Thrust set if you really wanted, since the number are similar.

Real Future war will be in the hands of only the programmers. Its getting that way now. AEGIS cruisers require you to say if you don't want to shoot. Soon even that will not be possible as the timescales will be too short. Not an interesting game. We sometimes switch off systems in our very Modern games as it can become more demanding to have them on, as even in a simple wargame the data management gives you a headache. Folk want to get their head round combat as has been said.

So there is no lack of originality, maybe the OP should stop reading rules. Rules are for PLAYING and writing scenarios they are most definitely not for just reading. They are supposed to be predictable so you can concentrate on PLAYING. An has been said be something you can get your head round. You could define different cultures, different names and different ethos for a game. But the rules would not, nor probably should they be substantially different.

Try the Culture stories by Iain M Banks. That is future war. How you play it is another matter

Lets follow a few above ideas along. Electronic warfare and counter warfare (ad nauseum) fight each other to a stalemate so in the end either no benefit to either side or one side owns the electromagnetic spectrum and locks the other out.

Camouflage, both visual and electronics does the same.

Future developments in weapons such as lasers, plasma, missiles, etc. are countered by improved armour, anti energy weapon countermeasures like prismatic aerosols, sandcasters, spaced armour, reactive armour, anti-missile defense weapons, etc. etc. counter most exotic weapons systems.

Cyber battles on the 'web or future interstellar equivalent also provide the same results. Whether they result in stalemate or one side with a distinct advantage say where one side knows and can place troops where needed while the other blindly searches about.

So what are we left with? Either one side or both are back to basic slug throwers and the original mark 1 eyeball sensor array. Sounds a lot like WWII doesn't it? You can put all kinds or chrome into a game, use ideas form many sources but, for each "development" put into a game you either have to allow the other side a defense or be willing to accept unbalanced scenarios. Now a lot of these can be a lot of fun. Think OGRE. But even there one side is overwhelmingly powerful but they can only field ONE unit. And in order to keep some kind of fun/play balance the other side is allowed to chew away at the big baddie or it gets un-fun quick.

One game system which addresses this one sided situation is Science vs Pluck where all the players are on the same side and the conflict is actually who gets a better result. A good way to keep the fun level up. So, as an example only, lets say modern Middle East or Russian separatists. Pick one side (and both could be equally enjoyable to play given the right set up) and gauge your success with all players as Anti-ISIS, or as ISIS versus the "coalition" of the week. You don't have to play as skirmish games as you could create scenarios with company or battalion size forces per player. The contest is how well you do against the other guys on your team.

Move it into Sci Fi, no problems. Put down that rebellion or be the rebels (read any kind of partisan forces). Aliens same thing. Do they have a (secret?) or powerful weapon/effect to be modeled?

In my opinion grab a set of rules which match YOUR view of the future and incorporate into it YOUR concept for weapon, defense, power, social structure, etc. and go with it. It's YOUR imagination, don't dismiss a rules set because it doesn't have a cool new weapon. Put that thing into any game system.

Stephen