'I'm a big enough autismal to find 99% of all hard scifi settings retarded and unrealistic - we are CENTURIES closer to generalized AI, cold fusion, 3D printing advanced meta-materials, genetically engineering novel life forms, and creating genuine computer enhanced cyborgs than we are to deep space travel. societies capable of deep space travel would be as alien to us as a paleolithic person trying to understand a modern megacity because of centuries of social and political development under material economies and social fabrics radically different from our own. I like space operas and pulpy fantasy-adjacent stuff because it doesn't try to present itself as realistic, it just has fun with the rules it establishes for itself. in that vein I prefer the more small scale single ship adventurism';

'>>92635712
You really think it’s that far way? I think the expanse (minus the super tech) is pretty close to what we could achieve in the future. (Maybe not the terraforming but definitely the ships)';

'>>92636157
Well, sure. But the Expanse doesn't have interstellar travel until magical ancient alien tech creates a stargate to other systems with habitable worlds.

Before that, everything in the series happens right here at home in the Sol system despite all their fancy fusion engines.';

'>>92635614
What makes a fleet gracious?';

'>>92635712
I don't know where you got your notion of hard SF. Space operas haven't been even close to hard SF since the 30s, when relativity was still new.';

'>>92635614
Star Wars Forces of Corruption moment.';

'>>92636341
I generally mean the party? Would you let them lead fleets or large battleships or keep them on a millennium falcon deal with one ship. Mass effect does a bit more of the former';

'>>92636571
Why not play as shipgirls IN SPAAAACE!?';

'>>92636571
What? What does this have to do with what I asked?';

'>>92636571
What do you think "gracious" means, OP?';

'>>92636701
Cause I don't know how to balance being a shipgirl';

'>>92635614
Space Operas because I'm too lazy for the kinda complex rules and systems-tracking that'd be required to sell hard sci-fi. Vehicular combat is rarely done well except if you're playing Battletech or something anyhow. I'm fine with dead-ass simple vehicle combat like Star Wars d6 had. And please for the love of god just give me magical artificial gravity and travel between planets that doesn't have to track orbits and rotations.';

'>>92635614
What is a gracious fleet?';

'>>92636990
OP doesn't know. I think he threw that in there to get people to open the thread.';

'>>92636990
A gracious fleet is one that has big parties in the hangar bays of the carriers. Lots of turkey but be careful 'cuz the baked beans make you fart and there's not so many places for that smell to go, in space.';

'>>92635614
All things fantasy.
Sci-fi doesn't interest me, and it takes too long to parse what's plausible or not.';

'>>92637342
>it takes too long to parse what's plausible or not
It's called "my setting, my rules"';

'>>92635614
>Do you want hard or soft sci fi?
I prefer soft sci-fi since it allows for cooler ship designs.

>Gracious fleets or a single ships held together by guy and hope?
Both, for different reasons. Big fleets make for cinematic battles while single ships with a small to mid-sized crew is cozy af and good for different types of characters.';

'>>92635614
>single ships held together by guy and hope
This. Down on their luck party of dysfunctional misfits is greater than professional fleet any day';

'>>92635614
Both; either. They have different niches.

>>92635712
Hard scifi isn't necessarily about realistic technology. It's about technology being a central part of the plot and setting, whereas in soft scifi technology exists completely to support other parts of the setting and plot.

For example, in a hard scifi story, the limited range or speed of your interstellar travel could be an important plot point; hell, it could even be the basis of your entire plot. In a soft scifi story, that problem won't ever come up.';

'>>92637973
>Hard scifi isn't necessarily about realistic technology. It's about technology being a central part of the plot and setting, whereas in soft scifi technology exists completely to support other parts of the setting and plot.
No, that's more like literary science fiction versus tv/movie "sci-fi." The hard vs soft science fiction divide is ALL about plausibility of the fictional science.

At least when it comes to lit, if the story's not about the science and how people react to it, then it's not science fiction at all, it's just a fantasy story with space ships as window dressing.';

'>>92636867
There is a Kancolle RPG but I don't know much beyond that.


On the other hand for those of you who like playing a crew on a ship held together by tape and glue there's this:


Underpaid & Understaffed
(UnU)
is a tabletop RPG about making sure your piece of shit transport vessel gets from one place to another in one damn piece. For once.

dunno how it plays but it exists.';

'>>92635614
You first. And be specific.';

'>>92635614
I only like softer sci fi, the one than lets me have ayys, mechs, starfighters,space whaling, FTL travel and lots of cool magi-tech.
The scale of the ships, I prefer a smaller scale, a Republican Venator class of SW would be the biggest moving starship the biggest entitties would field (with bigger, nastier stuff for cartoon morning villians/precursor tech). In general people use smol ships made cheap, with big portal ships doing circuits in human space, and inter-sytem wormholes for speedy travel between systems. Getting a FTL ships is very rare, as you need space mother-kaijus cores to power that stuff and they go in swarms of kaijulets than protect them, but its very profitable if you survive it and only the bigger polities have enough than personal/corporations can have they own. In human space the non-comstar space wizards jedis precursors worshipers are the ones with the tech and will to get them for all humanity.';

'>>92635614
SWN space combat is fun, especially with various bridge mechanics that Skyward Steel and 2e introduce. I like Revelation Space's Lighthuggers duking it out at ludicrous ranges too though and since they're the stars of my dream game I'd better git gud at making those battles compelling too.

>>92636237
Even then it completely ignores AI for plot reasons. Not even fancy general stuff, just the automation which would make droneships so much more efficient than meat in a can for most purposes, especially without the Epstein drive.

That said >>92635712 is definitely an autistic take since hard is a spectrum, allowances are always made with where and how much plausibility is applied because stories are stories first and foremost.

>>92636954
I dig Diaspora for managing to abstract a lot of the bookkeeping away into a pretty satisfying mini-wargame. Strategic radiator use and separate tracks for hull/heat/system damage give it a "hard" enough feel for most purposes imo.';

'>>92635614

I prefer hard scifi because it can make for interesting stuff. Sof-science fiction has the tendency to turn everything into "space is an ocean" and "it's ships of sails IN SPACE".';

'>>92636758
Not him, but I assume him means gratuitous in size, as in given a gracious command of ships. That said he was wrong because ME is much more of the latter millennium falcon deal until the very end of 3. Actually, aside from BFG, I don't know of any game that deals with multiple large ships. I guess X-Wing does multiple ships, but those are fighters.';

'>>92635614';

'>>92637550
That's nice. Do whatever you want.
You can say you identify as a wolf, but that doesn't make you a wolf.
If anything in a work is impossible, it IS fantasy, full stop.';

'>>92640016
Oh hey, I like fantasy set in space, too.';

'>>92641241
Best sci fi, if I have any ackhually type in the talbe,"yeah, it works with magic" .';

'>>92635614
I tried for a while to make my own space game. The setting has ended up changing so much since then I haven't given it another shot. Any recommendations for good ones though?
>>92635712
I do enjoy me some hard sci-fi, but FTL travel is one of those things I'm perfectly willing to handwave away. It's not "truly hard" but all the proposed methods I've seen are boring and having some of the unexplainable is always nice';

'>>92635614
>held together by guy and hope
Do you really want to have your ship held together by someone who was an extra, playing a security officer who got killed off before the first commercial break? If you're going to pick someone to hold your ship together, at least choose a decent engineer, anon.';

'>>92637852
Wanna give a chap a hand finding more of these ship layout maps?';

'>>92635614
How do I like my space game.

With actual decent miniatures and not drawn from the mainstream settings. It's infuriating not having any major miniatures sources I run as generic thrust, firestorm beta or even a call to arms stuff without owning a 3dprinter.

I also like hyper unrealistic space combat. Where we literally end up broadsiding each other at stupidly close range. All this "fly towards each other at near speed of light and unload in drivebys" is lame.';

'>>92640713';

'Give me Star Fox crossed with Star Trek.';

'>>92635614
>How do you like your space game?
i make it the fuck up';

'>>92635614
Star Wars. Pulpy, WW2 inspired, unrealistic enough to be fun.';

'>>92640231
>Even then it completely ignores AI for plot reasons. Not even fancy general stuff, just the automation which would make droneships so much more efficient than meat in a can for most purposes, especially without the Epstein drive.

I would argue that there is immense automation going on, they just (wisely) don't entrust weapons authority to a computer. If you want human decisionmaking in theaters across light delays you HAVE to have a human crew.';

'>>92635614
Hard, crunchy, and fleet-based. I’ve never played a good RPG where the players share a vehicle. A single ship makes a good home-base but playing out things like the TIE Fighter attack can get pretty stale. Operating a turret just isn’t very compelling on pen and paper. Neither is piloting or navigating when your goal is “fly in a straight line as fast as possible”. Best to give each player their own ship or at least keep it two to a ship, one gunner and one pilot.

Best one I’ve played that isn’t just Battlefleet Gothic has got to be Lancer Battlegroup. Lancer is getting popular so it’s easy to sneak it onto your players’ tables. The rules are a little abstract for my liking, although the book is good at justifying how the rules work in character. And, it’s just very satisfying to “FIRE EVERYTHING” or “FULL POWER TO SHIELDS” which is an energy I really appreciate. And everyone gets their own fleet, so everyone has the opportunity for some strategitude.';

'>>92635614
Also, I would say the best hard space ship sci-if I’ve ever read has got to be Iron Empires: Voids. It helps that the main character is an artist for space logistics, but the rules are really well done, like how particle counts closer to planets fuck with a ship’s shields and lasers and the gravity well fucks with FTL. Because, you know, the stuff that people want to attack and defend are ON planets, so it makes sense that battles would happen around the exosphere. Some pirates even use that to their advantage in the story, luring some ships into a gas giant’s exosphere and then popping out from below where they weren’t expected.';

'>>92640231
>I like Revelation Space's Lighthuggers duking it out at ludicrous ranges too though and since they're the stars of my dream game I'd better git gud at making those battles compelling too.

Your dream game entices me and I'd like to play in it. Add me on discord if you'd like to get it off the ground. leprosynachos';

'>>92635614
I used to be all about hard scifi until I realized if you're going to suspend disbelief you might as well go a little further and have some fun.';

'>>92654002
I think you can still have fun with hard scifi. If you lean hard into the speculative stuff you can get downright bananas. Orion's Arm is a good example. It's not an either/or thing for me, though. I'd be happy calculating ∆V or hunting for holocrons. Just different flavors for different games.';

'>>92635712
fpwp';

'>>92635614
Soft at first, then Hard.';

'Pretty realistic but with a few fictional elements to make it fun.';

'>>92636701
Why not kill yourself ND?';

'>>92644236
'Star Wars Deckplan Alliance' is a website that had similar types of ship schema. I think its defunct now, but thats a good search term';

'>>92635614
hard sci fi is boring and stupid. It's all about demystifying your own setting.
The harder your sci fi, the less it makes sense to ever actually be in space, let alone do combat in it.';

'>>92666325
>hard sci-fi is le bad 'cause you can't do space opera combat
Hard sci-fi is stuff like Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, about terraforming Mars. No whizz-bang space combat with pew-pew lasers against aliums are required for a story to be interesting. Unless maybe you have autism or lack imagination.';

'>>92666411
If you're gathering around a table do make believe, then why the FUCK would you waste your time with a system, let alone a game, that isn't about action or adventure?';

'>>92666476
So it's lack of imagination, got it';

'>>92666549
>making your game be about action and adventure means you lack imagination
Where did you get such a stupid fucking opinion like that?';

'>>92666087
Do they really need that many toilets? How many crew do they have?';

'>>92667177
NAYRT but soft sci fi is basically just everyday life like on earth, but in space. Hard sci fi requires actually thinking about how technology would transform society and humanity itself and that takes a lot more imagination.';

'>>92635712
fpbp

"Hard sci-fi" is only enjoyed and promoted by unimaginative morons who think the future should be the Cold War in space.';

'>>92667917
What kind of illiterate cope is this?';

'>>92666411
>Hard sci-fi is stuff like Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, about terraforming Mars
So you agree with the previous anon that space adventures make zero sense in hard sci-fi since it's all a bunch of navel-gazing fluffjobs and thus discussing it is pointless, you just need to pseud about it first.';

'>>92667593
>soft sci fi is basically just everyday life like on earth, but in space
Now who lacks imagination, lmao
>Hard sci fi requires actually thinking about how technology would transform society and humanity itself
By this metric, Gundam is hard sci-fi. In fact, so is the Matrix.';

'>>92668034
Prove me wrong.

Hard sci-fi is based on current science and is thus constrained by theoretical scientific bounds that would by necessity need to change in order to enable everything that makes sci-fi what it is.

Hard sci-fi isn't sci-fi at all. It's just today's technology with more lasers and widespread holograms.';

'>>92643915
>at least choose a decent engineer

Aye.';

'>>92668437
>everything that makes sci-fi what it is.
You have never read a fucking book in your life, have you?';

'>>92668756
>just vomits up canned quips
Yeah. We all know hard sci-fi is bullshit. You haven't even a single thing to say but to sit there at your keyboard in stupefaction and go "y-y-you're dumb!"';

'>>92668956
You don't deserve any better. But go on, mister "expert," tell us what "everything that makes sci-fi what it is" is. Give examples from books you've read.';

'>>92668437
Science fiction is at its heart defined by the question of "what it would be like...", i.e. "what would it be like in a feudal society thousands of years in the future?" "what would it be like on a planet that only has a night every few thousand years", "what would it be like if we could bring back dinosaurs through cloning?". Hard SF approaches that question through constraints of real-world physical limitations, while soft SF is more willing to either handwave away real-world limitations if the narrative requires it or generate scenarios where those limitations not applying is the basis of the story.';

'>>92669982
I recognize those. This guy reads books.';

'>>92669982
>Hard SF approaches that question through constraints of real-world physical limitations, while soft SF is more willing to either handwave away real-world limitations if the narrative requires it or generate scenarios where those limitations not applying is the basis of the story.
Exactly. Hard sci-fi isn’t sci-fi at all because it accepts current day limitations rather than speculating on the future.

Hard sci-fi fags on suicide watch. It’s called science “fiction” not science “ fact.”';

'>>92673977
That's still speculative fiction even if it sets more hard limits on its speculations.
Like if you wrote a story about the life on a moonbase in near future where the base would be based on what would theoretically be possible to build with current technology, it would still be speculative fiction because we don't have moonbases. The speculative part would just be "what if we did built a moonbase?" instead of something like "what if psychic powers were a real thing" or "what if we had forcefields and antigravity?".';

'I only ran a space based game once. It was an improved as fuck system but everyone had a fun time for a short campaign. The thing that made it fun was I ran Star Control 2 as the game plots and none of the players ever knew this game existed. They figured it would be Star Trek or Farscape and genuinly enjoyed the wild new setting and for me it was fun to see how off the rails they could throw the storyline with what they wanted to do';

'>>92673977
Brainlet take
>>92674063
This guy knows what he's talking about';

'>>92673977
It's called "science" fiction, not fantasy.';

'>>92674063
>>92675419
>>92675848
>hard sci-fi autists can only cope that their vision of the future is the same as today except with added lasers.
Sad.';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'>>92675848
It's all fantasy, stupid.
Star Trek, The Expanse, Stargate SG1.
All of it is fantasy.';

'undefined';

'>>92676927
This anon is intelligent.

People who defend hard sci-fi just want to perpetuate current year scientific paradigms but add FTL travel.';

'>hard science fiction is FTL now
>pretending to be somebody else to bump your shit thread because you're just that pathetic';

'>>92673977
If it has nothing to do with science, it shouldn't have science in the name.';