Author: satyre (---.ntl.com)
Date: 02-01-2002 14:04
Hi Dave.
Nice column - it'll be good to read about some hard-sci and apply it to RPG settings. I suspect however, you may be looking in the wrong place for why sci-fi RPGs don't work. Instead of looking in science-fiction, you might find the answer in the RPG part.
Let's look at some problems endemic to sci-fi gaming...
1. Ian Fleming Syndrome.
Where the player spend more time shopping for kit than for creating an interesting character. Most prevalent in cyberpunk and space opera (hard in post-holocaust settings but...) As soon as a shop appears, the PCs pore over sourcebooks and kit themselves out in the best their money can buy. Whilst brands do add a certain cachet to settings (Ian Fleming's James Bond books exploited this idea first), the only way the system can reward the players for spending money is a system-based reward and this can lead to rampant min-maxing as players shop for the best after all, they're not spending their hard-earned cash on junk - they're roleplaying! Smart referees look at economy and just how available are military grade weapons.
But everyone starts somewhere - and magic weapons are harder to buy than a decent assault rifle, HEAP ammunition and thermal imaging.
2. Character vs. technology
An extension of Ian Fleming syndrome, in some extreme cases, the setting may emphasise dehumanisation in the setting and place emphasis on the technology that they use - it is a hard thing to enforce role-playing in a setting where life is cheap and the tech or money is all that matters. If nobody cares about people, why should the players care about each other - or even their characters?
3. Death at your shoulder.
Combat in sci-fi is by definition, considerably more dangerous than in RPGs. Even the lowliest mook can seriously harm most heroes and in more realistic games, can make the hero ask 'Why didn't I become a data programmer like my mom wanted me to?' Realism makes for short combats and it's a 50-50 proposition. Unless you can subtly tilt the odds in favour of the PC - unless they are lucky, the resulting firefight may be fatal and disrupt the game. The destructive power of sci-fi weapons is often greater than their fantasy counterparts.
4. Accidents happen...
Random encounters in fantasy games can hurt but only if the DM is a sadist do they kill. Yet in hard sci-fi games, there is always a possibility that something goes fatally wrong. I recall a story of a SpaceMaster game in a debate about fudging in games where the author relates how the PCs they'd spent an hour creating were killed by an unlucky dice roll when the spaceship was hit by a random asteroid.
The PCs were unable to do anything to stop it.
Post-holocaust games have radiation poisoning, bio-weapons and other unpleasantness. It may be appropriate to the setting, may even be realistic. But is it fun to play?
Going to the other extreme, you have technology that is out of this world - you have miracle cures. You even have men in fu - oh sorry - aliens. You have instantaneous travel and you have economic twists that apparently make no sense at all! So what is the difference between those and fantasy games?
Interestingly, a number of sci-fi games are dependant on fan licenses for sales success. Those who endure however, appear to have done so on their own strengths or have just hidden their sources a little more wisely. Step up Traveller, Cyberpunk, Fading Suns. Yet these games don't have the same measure of success as fantasy games so what is missing?
You may argue, well, if you don't want the setting, don't play the game. To which, the inevitable reply is 'It would appear that a number of people have made that choice.'
Solutions? Sure, I have a few. You're going to have to wait though.
|
|
