Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Another question: SF game styles...?
From: "Allan Goodall" <agoodall@h...>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:14:49 -0500
Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Another question: SF game styles...?
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Samuel Penn <email@example.com>
> When I think of Hard SF, I tend to think of authors such as
> Greg Bear, Stephen Baxter, Vernor Vinge or Charles Stross.
> None of them would translate well to the gaming table
> (though the Tines might be interesting to model in SG).
I think that might be part of the problem with a poll like this. It's
not exactly obvious what constitutes "hard science fiction" and what
is "soft science fiction".
When I was growing up, hard SF consisted of fiction with a relatively
accurate look at science, even if some things were allowed that were
technically impossible. Hard SF didn't mean "no FTL!". Hard SF meant
that when the author based his story on the tidal pull of a neutron
star he did his homework. "Soft SF" was everything that wasn't "hard".
By the definition I grew up with, the Tuffleyverse swings between hard
and soft SF. There's not enough detail to know if what the
Tuffleyverse postulates is pure space opera. SG2 in particular seems
to be close to "hard SF".
Of course today we have another definition muddying the waters:
Mundane SF. This is an extreme variant on hard SF, where only that
which is possible is written. No FTL. No interplanetary adventures.
Strictly what makes physical, logical, and economic sense. I haven't
read any myself, and I've heard a number of people grumble against
mundane SF zealots who turn up their noses at other forms of SF as
I noticed Jon didn't mention mundane SF in his poll. There are few
games that fit that title, though there are a few on the console game
platforms (the games that extrapolate "future warrior" tech into the
next decade would qualify).
Allan Goodall http://www.hyperbear.com
Gzg-l mailing list