Star Hero:?

[eternal_sage]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

good points...

 

and ones which i have no rebuttal to....

 

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

Consdering the "Sci-Fi Slump" has been around since the 70s or so - which is why Gibson gave the genre such a hard Boot To The Head, it was not just different but shredded every conception of the genre to date - I doubt it has anything to do with "gaming" or even generalized entertainment. Remember Space Opera was originally an insult to an SF work, not a sub-genre.

 

I would argue the opposite though - a large part of Sci-Fi is very gameable with a small portion (Hard SF) being moderately ungameable.

 

Personally, I think too many modern gamers place way way way too much emphasis on "realism."

 

Well, in a sense that's part of what makes HERO so unique; because it truly focuses on 'dramatic action' I think a lot of people are honestly thrown off; the usual elements of an RPG aren't present in this system. We don't have Hit Points, we don't have a 'sliding scale' of functionality; we have STUN & BODY, which operate SIMILARLY to Hit Points (i.e., you're completely functional until you hit zero) but because there IS an attempt to introduce 'dramatic realism,' people tend to go overboard and think that the system should be "more realistic" as a flat basis.

 

However, clearly, the system doesn't support that. I would rather see something that is more flexible; as you lose BODY you become less functional, if you take enough STUN you start losing BODY and so on, but again, that isn't the core of the system or the nature of the design.

 

HALO, by the way, if anyone is curious, is a "Rubber Sci-Fi Military" setting, and not a Space Opera. Mass Effect, the 'sister' Sci-Fi game that'll be on the 360 shortly, is in fact a full blown Space Opera. Having read the novelization, you can go so far as to call it "Star Wars 2.0."

[Susano]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

Well HERO has the optional Disabling and Impairment rules, that cover the lose BODY become less functional. And I like the house rule of "take 20 STUN after defenses, take 1 BODY".

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

Well HERO has the optional Disabling and Impairment rules' date=' that cover the lose BODY become less functional. And I like the house rule of "take 20 STUN after defenses, take 1 BODY".[/quote']

 

I was inclined to make it 10, but I can't convince my players to let me do it.

[azato]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

SOMETHING that actually makes science interesting to teenagers again, instead of this anti-science ID bull (not saying that believing ID or Creationism is bad, its just not science) that they are being harrassed with in PUBLIC school, on the internet, and everywhere. eyes aren't up and to the future, but down and to the here and now (if anything! mostly its to Britney Spears' child rearing techniques, and whatever else is popular these days). there is no imagination except what is fed to them via pokemon cartoons and Wendy's kid's meals.

 

 

Wow, I did not know that ID was the corrupting of the youth! It turns vast hordes of people off science and into devotees to Brit Spears. We need to outlaw it or something.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

Well, in a sense that's part of what makes HERO so unique; because it truly focuses on 'dramatic action' I think a lot of people are honestly thrown off; the usual elements of an RPG aren't present in this system. We don't have Hit Points, we don't have a 'sliding scale' of functionality; we have STUN & BODY, which operate SIMILARLY to Hit Points (i.e., you're completely functional until you hit zero) but because there IS an attempt to introduce 'dramatic realism,' people tend to go overboard and think that the system should be "more realistic" as a flat basis.

 

However, clearly, the system doesn't support that. I would rather see something that is more flexible; as you lose BODY you become less functional, if you take enough STUN you start losing BODY and so on, but again, that isn't the core of the system or the nature of the design.

 

HALO, by the way, if anyone is curious, is a "Rubber Sci-Fi Military" setting, and not a Space Opera. Mass Effect, the 'sister' Sci-Fi game that'll be on the 360 shortly, is in fact a full blown Space Opera. Having read the novelization, you can go so far as to call it "Star Wars 2.0."

 

I was actually leveling the statement at all gamers in general. GURPS Players are actually the worst offenders that I've met.

 

As for your assertation that Hero doesn't support incremental disabling, as Susano pointed out the Impairment And Disabling rules do actually support that. And I've used them quite handily in a Cyberpunk Campaign.

 

It may not be part of the Base Rules, but it's an Option available to those who need it and is fully supported conceptually by the system.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

i am going to go on record to say that i WILL NOT discuss ID vs Creationism vs Evolution on this thread (nor likely this board, unless it is NGD) as it is only going to end in a flame war (it mostly does in real life, as well, unfortunately). i likely should not have brought it up, but its done, and over. again, anyone may feel free to believe as they choose.

 

if anyone wishes to discuss this topic further, please PM me, as i do not wish to derail this thread with that weighty and controversial issue but would be more than happy to have a civilized discussion on the topic with anyone who wishes.

 

back to the "realism" question. i don't think it can be laid squarely at the system's feet, but i feel it does tend to push a certain level of realism (i.e. Cinematic), which ensures a point of internal consistancy, which other systems may or may not ensure (although "generic" systems seem to do it better, in my personal opinion).

 

sci-fi is a genre many people are not comfortable with in a interactive environment (one in which they must provide input), because many people have little knowledge in the field (this is from an American standpoint generally, and a south east US standpoint particularly) because of the crappy job our high schools do of keeping us on par with other countries (we are around 20th in the world in math and science, if i remember correctly, which is unacceptable for a world leader).

 

politcs asside, however, the genre is one which seems to demand a certain competancy to enjoy. my wife likes it, but only in the rubbery, space opera way (and she has a good basis in biology, just not physics), because she feels she never knows her options. she loves stories that involve hackers and the like, but she tried to play one in SR, and hated it, because she didn't understand the subject enough even to make a guess at what the game mechanics for it allowed her to do. being somewhat techno savvy and a bit of a math/physics buff, its great to me, but she just plays the girl with the large gun or light sword when we pull out sci-fi settings. and i think that can be generally said to be true for most people who game.

 

magic is not real, so we feel no need to understand the fireball to cast it. similarlly with heat vision. but space travel exists, and so it creates a feeling of "i don't know anything about this" which turns people off, even if they enjoy movies, books, etc, that are sci-fi genre (your definition or mine).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

back to the "realism" question. i don't think it can be laid squarely at the system's feet, but i feel it does tend to push a certain level of realism (i.e. Cinematic), which ensures a point of internal consistancy, which other systems may or may not ensure (although "generic" systems seem to do it better, in my personal opinion).

 

sci-fi is a genre many people are not comfortable with in a interactive environment (one in which they must provide input), because many people have little knowledge in the field (this is from an American standpoint generally, and a south east US standpoint particularly) because of the crappy job our high schools do of keeping us on par with other countries (we are around 20th in the world in math and science, if i remember correctly, which is unacceptable for a world leader).

 

politcs asside, however, the genre is one which seems to demand a certain competancy to enjoy. my wife likes it, but only in the rubbery, space opera way (and she has a good basis in biology, just not physics), because she feels she never knows her options. she loves stories that involve hackers and the like, but she tried to play one in SR, and hated it, because she didn't understand the subject enough even to make a guess at what the game mechanics for it allowed her to do. being somewhat techno savvy and a bit of a math/physics buff, its great to me, but she just plays the girl with the large gun or light sword when we pull out sci-fi settings. and i think that can be generally said to be true for most people who game.

 

magic is not real, so we feel no need to understand the fireball to cast it. similarlly with heat vision. but space travel exists, and so it creates a feeling of "i don't know anything about this" which turns people off, even if they enjoy movies, books, etc, that are sci-fi genre (your definition or mine).

 

This is a good point and part of why I dislike many gamers, especially the "sci-fi buff as gamer" type. They inevitably go "you can't do that because of...." and site some random law of physics that even they have mediocre understanding of. (because personally, until you pull out a college transcript that says you've been through graduate level physics and math classes I'm going to assume you know as much as me, i.e. Calc 2 and Physics 2 level courses).

 

And then they ruin it for everyone, turn into gibbering idiots and generally degrade the game into Scientific Roleplaying System.

 

Which I hate. Unless everyone is on board, as you pointed out, this type of game sucks.

[azato]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

sci-fi is a genre many people are not comfortable with in a interactive environment (one in which they must provide input), because many people have little knowledge in the field (this is from an American standpoint generally, and a south east US standpoint particularly) because of the crappy job our high schools do of keeping us on par with other countries (we are around 20th in the world in math and science, if i remember correctly, which is unacceptable for a world leader).

 

If this was the case then sci-fi should have been in its heyday in the late 50's and on a steady decline since.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

If this was the case then sci-fi should have been in its heyday in the late 50's and on a steady decline since.

 

That isn't the case?

 

 

[Susano]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

Hmm... in some ways that was the golden age of SF.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

i agree. not much has been done for it since the space race came to a close and the decade following. the seventies gave us Star Wars and Alien (although i contend that it owes much more to horror than sci-fi), and nothing else strike me off the top of my head (granted, i wasn't alive then, so i don't know many of the little things that haven't kept popularity to this day). the sixties saw many of Asimov and Clarke's best works, as well as Star Trek, Lost in Space, Dr. Who (altough may have been 70s, now that i think about it) 2001, and many others. both the literature and the motion picture examples are NUMEROUS throughout the 50s and 60s, not even counting the 100s of b-movie rubber-suit movies from the 40's and 50's. sure they were pulpy, and they were lacking in reality, but they still count for the majority of people. there was a slight upswing in the late 80s and early 90s, and again a little recently, but for long stretches it has been barren, or mostly sequals to old franchises.

[Tom Carman]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

the sixties saw many of Asimov and Clarke's best works' date=' as well as Star Trek, Lost in Space, Dr. Who (altough may have been 70s, now that i think about it) 2001, and many others.[/quote']

 

Doctor Who started in 1963, with William Hartnell as the first one. Jon Pertwee had the part from 1970-74 as the third Doctor.

[Susano]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

Well, 1984 gave us Neuromancer and the start of the cyberpunk genre.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

true. of course there were some good bits here and there after the "golden age" but it wasn't a boom like it was earlier. and thanks for the clarification on Dr. Who. always thought it was cool, but never got the chance to watch much. on a side note, has anyone seen the new Dr. Who on BBC America? i think its pretty good, but again, never got to see much of the original, so hard to tell quality wise, how it is.

[tancred]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

true. of course there were some good bits here and there after the "golden age" but it wasn't a boom like it was earlier. and thanks for the clarification on Dr. Who. always thought it was cool' date=' but never got the chance to watch much. on a side note, has anyone seen the new Dr. Who on BBC America? i think its pretty good, but again, never got to see much of the original, so hard to tell quality wise, how it is.[/quote']

 

The Sci-Fi Channel is also running the new Doctor Who, actually has newer episodes than BBC America is showing.

 

I've watched Doctor Who off and on since the 70's; it used to be shown on a local PBS station.

I've seen at least one or two episodes of every one of the Doctors. IMHO, Christopher Eccleston was the best Doctor EVER. I don't say that lightly, as I was a huge fan of Tom Baker (the longest-running Doctor). David Tennant is growing on me, though.

 

Quality-wise, the show is as good or better than ever. The writing seems tighter, and the acting is definitely as good or better than it ever was.

 

As a side note, Doctor Who is the longest-running science fiction series ever. (Can't remember where I read that, but it is bound to be true. As pointed out above, it debuted in 1963 and ran continuously until into the 90's.)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

Alien (although i contend that it owes much more to horror than sci-fi)

 

That's because it was a Horror Movie, it just happened to be set in space. Because "In space no one can hear you scream."

 

Aliens turned the franchise into Sci-Fi.

[azato]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

i agree. not much has been done for it since the space race came to a close and the decade following. the seventies gave us Star Wars and Alien (although i contend that it owes much more to horror than sci-fi)' date=' and nothing else strike me off the top of my head (granted, i wasn't alive then, so i don't know many of the little things that haven't kept popularity to this day). the sixties saw many of Asimov and Clarke's best works, as well as Star Trek, Lost in Space, Dr. Who (altough may have been 70s, now that i think about it) 2001, and many others. both the literature and the motion picture examples are NUMEROUS throughout the 50s and 60s, not even counting the 100s of b-movie rubber-suit movies from the 40's and 50's. sure they were pulpy, and they were lacking in reality, but they still count for the majority of people. there was a slight upswing in the late 80s and early 90s, and again a little recently, but for long stretches it has been barren, or mostly sequals to old franchises.[/quote']

 

All the ones you mention, except Asimov and Clarke are shows that have very little "science" in the sci-fi and leaned toward "campiness".

 

I would contend that on screen, there was no golden age and no decent from glory. For movies and literature, I am sure it is the same as always mostly fluff with bright spots here and there.

 

To put this to the test, name any TV series from the inception of television until today that could be considered "serious" science fiction.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

To put this to the test' date=' name any TV series from the inception of television until today that could be considered "serious" science fiction.[/quote']

 

I'd put forth Alien Nation, but that had almost too much Cop Show in it.

 

Still, that's my offering.

[Susano]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

That's because it was a Horror Movie, it just happened to be set in space. Because "In space no one can hear you scream."

 

Aliens turned the franchise into Sci-Fi.

 

I recently spoke to a middle school class about SF&F. I placed a lot of my stuff on a table, and divided it up -- SF on one side, F on the other. I placed Star Wars in the fantasy section, and Alien in the middle. As part of my talk, I explained why SW was fantasy and that Alien was a horror film.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

ok, but it first requires a definition of "serious sci-fi". do you mean hard sci-fi, or shows that deal with serious issues in a serious manner.

 

the former, then Alien Nation is a pretty good choice. X-Files (early on) maybe, but not really (again, more horror). Earth 2 was pretty tight (although its been some time since i've seen it, and it may not be as hard as i remember). seaQuest had its moments, but i think suffered more from a "Star Trek: Underwater" problem, than anything else.

 

for the former, add Space - Above and Beyond, Babylon 5, Star Trek TNG/Voyager, Battlestar Galactica (new), and 4400.

 

however, you can also look at that 1st list and note that all but X-Files never made it to a second season, most didn't even finish a single season. these are all also late 80's to present (both sets), so i feel you also have a bit of a point in that, if there was a TV Golden Age of Sci-Fi, then it was much later than the Literary/Motion Picture Golden Age (which is true on just about every other front too, i might add, very little decent TV ever, but especially before the 80s).

 

and actually, i would say that Alien was always sci-fi, just mixed with horror (unlike Predator, which was really neither, but instead an action flick). the attention to time-dilation, the "real" laws of Relativity (no hyper space, only sub-light speed), the atmospheric worries (is there oxygen? do we risk contamination? etc), and the volitility of machine intelligence (the Ashe going nuts scene), etc, i think really place it up there in terms of realism (of course, acid blooded alien reduce that somewhat).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

Farscape. That's a good one, I put that in the SF Camp. At least I think it was a good show. (4 Seasons).

 

The reason Alien had all those SF bits was really to set the stage for why they were literally "stuck" where they were. Without having to pull the "oh noes! We broke down!" trick. which is lame. It was billed as Horror, and it follows a Horror track.

 

Just because you use a tapestry doesn't mean it fits the genre - I'll point at a lot of people putting Star Wars into the Fantasy genre and not the SF genre.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

my point, though, is that its science was actually (somewhat) sound. even the alien reproductive cycle is based upon real biology (somewhat) of...a type of insect (can't remember the name) that lays eggs inside beetle, which then hatch and eat their way out. of course, it takes longer than a few days, but time is such a minor issue . i'm just saying, basically, that even comparing it to Star Wars as an example of "Sci-Fi But Not" really doesn't fly, imho, because nothing (that i can think of, at any rate) has any basis in reality (except maybe blasters, but that is really a retcon, to my understanding).

 

still, i agree to an extent, because the movie is remembered not as a great sci-fi movie, but because it was a great horror movie, when really, it was both.

 

OH!, and add Blade Runner to that list of good movies a few posts up.

[Susano]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

There are various parasitic wasps that work that way. Some lay eggs in spiders, for example.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Star Hero:?

 

yea, thats what i was thinking of! thanks for the assist!