Jump to content

Koth Blog

  • entries
    310
  • comments
    928
  • views
    83,638

Space Sci-fi Rpgs


Kothra

1,065 views

If I ever make one, if anyone complains about something being unrealistic, I'm just going to tell them to get over it, because I don't care how unrealistic it is or what they think of it.

 

It's my RPG and if they don't like it they can just go—

19 Comments


Recommended Comments

Well, see, the thing about sci-fi is that it's SCIENCE fiction. :P So it has to be realistic on one level, at least.

 

 

 

~:b::i::m_o::m::a::n::c::e::r:~

Not really, science fiction just needs to sound realistic to the target audience. Being here, the target audience is a bunch of kids and not a bunch of physicists, rocket scientists, NASA employees, so the realism scale as far as nitty-gritty science goes can be lowered considerably.

 

For instance, a rocket described in a TBRPG can sound like it'd work, while it's a completely backwards version of a real rocket in reality, that would blow up in someone's face.

Link to comment

Really the only requirements I see for something to be considered science fiction is (super)advanced technology, whether it's realistic or not.

 

People like Xom and stuff need to stop caring so much, unless it's their own RPG that they want to be hyperrealistic.

Link to comment
Well, see, the thing about sci-fi is that it's SCIENCE fiction. :P So it has to be realistic on one level, at least.

 

 

 

~:b::i::m_o::m::a::n::c::e::r:~

Well, see, the thing about sci-fi is that it's science FICTION. :P To me, that means that there is not much real need to be realistic. Plus, as Spink said, the purpose of fiction and RPGs is to please an audience--not bog things down in realism.

 

~ BioGio

Link to comment

In my own humble, wannabe writer's opinion, the point of science fiction is to blend the world of science with the genre of fantasy. In other words, you can be scientific, but you must remember that there is going to be some level of unrealism. Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to craft a superbly-accurate science fiction universe; however, the point I'm trying to make is that you can take liberties.

 

For example: Hyperspace most likely does not exist the way it does in Star Wars, but that didn't stop George Lucas's franchise from becoming super-popular, did it?

Link to comment
Well, see, the thing about sci-fi is that it's SCIENCE fiction. :P So it has to be realistic on one level, at least.

Not really, science fiction just needs to sound realistic to the target audience. Being here, the target audience is a bunch of kids and not a bunch of physicists, rocket scientists, NASA employees, so the realism scale as far as nitty-gritty science goes can be lowered considerably.

 

For instance, a rocket described in a TBRPG can sound like it'd work, while it's a completely backwards version of a real rocket in reality, that would blow up in someone's face.

 

This is true.

 

Well, see, the thing about sci-fi is that it's SCIENCE fiction. :P So it has to be realistic on one level, at least.

Well, see, the thing about sci-fi is that it's science FICTION. :P To me, that means that there is not much real need to be realistic. Plus, as Spink said, the purpose of fiction and RPGs is to please an audience--not bog things down in realism.

 

Well, see, I think it really is more like Spink said, to an extent. It has to SEEM realistic, to have a facade of realism. It may not be, but it really needs to look that way on some level. That level is determined by the audience. In fact, a completely accurate sci-fi universe is quite possibly the most useful, as it will seem realistic to everyone.

 

 

 

~:b::i::m_o::m::a::n::c::e::r:~
Link to comment

Requirements of science fiction:

 

~Technobabble

~A good enough reason to defy the laws of the universe

~Explosions

 

Those three will give you the Reasonable Break From Reality.

Link to comment

Take out the first and you have what IL should've stayed like/should be like.

 

Well not necesarrily, but it's annoying sometimes.

 

Let's rephrase that as 'simple technobable.'

Link to comment
There is no simple technobabble, there is only technobabble and such technobabble as can be understood by most specific audiences.[/voldemort]




~:b::i::m_o::m::a::n::c::e::r:~
Link to comment
Really the only requirements I see for something to be considered science fiction is (super)advanced technology, whether it's realistic or not.

 

People like Xom and stuff need to stop caring so much, unless it's their own RPG that they want to be hyperrealistic.

Not necessarily. Alternate fiction and steampunk are often considered subgenres of science fiction.

 

Although the phrase has been passed around countless times, being dismembered and decapitated each time, it seems appropriate. "Science fiction is when I point to something and say, 'That's science fiction.'"

Link to comment

True, but in most cases I'd consider it advanced anyway.

 

It's like retro-advanced (assuming that's even logically possible).

Link to comment
True, but in most cases I'd consider it advanced anyway.

 

It's like retro-advanced (assuming that's even logically possible).

The TARDIS says hello.

Link to comment

Big ball of Timey Wimey Wibbely Wobbely Stuff.

Anyway, if you're having trouble with Sci-Fi concepts I suggest you go to TvTropes.

A word of warning, though: Make sure there is someone to tear you from the site before you spend your entire week there.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...