Why the lack of PC Sci-Fi RPG's?

[Grifman]

I've always been under the impression the reason we don't see many sci-fi RPGs is due to the play mechanics required. A fantasy setting is easier on your logic (no jokes please) instead of science fiction.

For instance, who would melee in the future? Personally, I'd carry a blaster at all times. That was one problem that really caused Anarchy Online to look stupid to be shooting a Leet right in front of you and missing with a double-barreled shot-gun-looking thing.

Spells are also easier to explain away with "magic". Sure, you can have a paralysis weapon, freeze weapon, flame thrower, etc., but instead of carrying an arsenal around, it's easy to have those spells in your head.

Of course, this is just conjecture on my part, but I can't think of why science fiction RPGs are so...unpopular.

But why do you have to have melee? I don't think you would have it because it makes little sense. The same for spells. This is a different bird so why are you trying to fit it into the fantasy genre? We wouldn't put melee or spells into a WW2 RPG so why sci-fi? You might as well try and find a way to fit horses or bows/arrows into it while you are at it.

[Turtle]

Actually, that's why scifi FPS, RTS, and other action oriented games are more popular. In a scifi universe, it's a lot of shooting and high tech gadgets.

[Daehawk]

Id like a sci-fi tactical game. Like a cross between X-Com and Star Trek Away Team and all those old ship boarding games. Imagine your squad is sent to board a alien craft and either sabotage it or capture it. Maybe even steal technology. Other missions might involve a colony landing and/or invasion. Another you are tasked with repelling aliens who have boarded the ship you are stationed on.Perhaps it could use an engine like the Silent Storm one.

[Scanner]

You can substitute psionic powers for spells without too much effort in sci-fi games; System Shock 2 did a good job of emulating mages that way.

[Turtle]

Honestly, I don't think that psionic and magic switcharoo fools anyone. But, so long as the game is good and does a good job of justifying those powers, then it's fine.

Who said that phrase, any highly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?

I'm about nearing the end of my studies to become a 3D animator/illustrator, so I need a big project to work on as part of my portfolio.

I figure converting either Oblivion or Dragon Age into a scifi epic would do well, or at least enough for a demo.

[EricW34]

Sundog from FTL An all time favorite of mine.
Im showing my age but this game was way ahead of its time.
Omnitrends Universe (the first one)...more of a simulation and strategy game.
Doug Wood made an Apple II game that was similiar in design and concept to the fantasy RPG named "Phantasy" on the Apple II.

[Daehawk]

Honestly, I don't think that psionic and magic switcharoo fools anyone. But, so long as the game is good and does a good job of justifying those powers, then it's fine.

Who said that phrase, any highly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?

I'm about nearing the end of my studies to become a 3D animator/illustrator, so I need a big project to work on as part of my portfolio.

I figure converting either Oblivion or Dragon Age into a scifi epic would do well, or at least enough for a demo.

I always loved THIS animation that someone did for thier work. Think it was thier thesis.

[Buatha]

Grifman wrote:

But why do you have to have melee? I don't think you would have it because it makes little sense. The same for spells. This is a different bird so why are you trying to fit it into the fantasy genre? We wouldn't put melee or spells into a WW2 RPG so why sci-fi? You might as well try and find a way to fit horses or bows/arrows into it while you are at it.

I complete agree with you that melee doesn't have much, if any, place in a sci-fi RPG. However, from a gameplay point in fantasy RPGs, it adds more diversity for classes (fighter, paladin, monk, etc.). I'd be happy with a sci-fi RPG that mainly had my people shooting blasters in the corridors of derelict space stations, on alien ships, or boarding missions. However, it seems many folk want to get "up close and personal" and it never seems to work well in sci-fi RPGs.

It seems like melee would work if you had, say, a Disarm skill that would allow you to go hand-to-hand (it seemed to work for Capt. Kirk and Buck Rodgers). Of course, you'd still have to get close enough to pull that off, which takes us back to the problem of the enemy having a gun in the first place.

[The Meal]

I'm greatly enjoying Brian Reynold's Rigel Kentaurus at the moment.

~Neal

Is this some obscure reference to SMAC?

Also known as Brian Reynolds' Foot of the Centaur.

And, yes, this must be an obscure reference, not to SMAC, but to BRAC.

Indeed. Unfortunately at the time I made my post I hadn't read the topic very closely and didn't realize the lament was specific to sci-fi *RPG* games.

~Neal

[Dogstar]

Hey, playing the first two Buck Rogers games doesn't make you old! I loved them. Between those and Sentinel Worlds, I was fairly happy. Apparently there was a sequel to Sentinel Worlds called Hard Nova, which I'm going to attempt to track down. I somehow managed not to hear of the System Shocks, so they look good. Thanks for the other suggestions as well.

However, as noted by Grifman, the success of sci-fi movies vs. fantasy ones is puzzling in that it's the exact opposite in PC gaming. I wonder if it's something that publishers found that just didn't test well, or the overall challenge of creating a successful RPG in a non-fantasy setting. It's nice to imagine that one could create something as sprawling and epic as Baldur's Gate 2 over multiple worlds with many different classes.

I think there is room for melee fighting in a sci-fi game though. You could have a particularly tough species or types of armor that might defeat/limit guns. The other situations I'm thinking of are times when the party might be disarmed, might be in close where gun fighting may not be practical (unless they all studied at the school of
Equilibrium [decent movie with Christian Bale]), and when they might need to disable someone with stealth (as Buatha noted).

[baron calamity]

While talking about Sci Fi, don't forget Sentinel Magic Future Worlds, Heavy Nova, and the Ultima Worlds series.

I really want more sci fi rpgs as well but to tell ya the truth, I'll take whatever I can get. There hasn't been a decent rpg anything in awhile.

[Kraken]

The only thing that's noticeably lacking is magic. Is this really what cripples sci-fi rpg's?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" --Arthur C. Clarke.

The popular sf brands are licensed properties, and licenses are a bitch to buy and to work with. Publishers know that swords & sorcery games always sell respectaby -- there's a core market that buys anything with elves in it, and the typical "fantasy" story is very rigidly defined...those customers don't want originality. Unbranded sf is riskier and lacks the standardized elements that define swords & sorcery. Given that the game genres are virtually identical except for graphics and backstory, and RPGs all attract the same customer base, publishers will choose the safe and familiar path 99% of the time.

Buck Rogers, Countdown to Doomsday/Matrix Cubed are my two favorite sci-fi RPGs.

I thought I was the only one old enough around here to remember those. They were two of my favorite gold box games.

I loved those games, too. They're a good example of what I'm talking about, though. It's the same game engine and gameplay as the AD&D gold-box games, with different graphics and story...but I'll bet dollars to donuts that the AD&D titles outsold Buck by a large margin.

For instance, who would melee in the future?

That's easy to fictionalize...energy weapons are too dangerous to use indoors or on spacecraft, for example. Why do Jedi knights duel with light sabers? It's purely for cinematic appeal. I'm sure that's justified fictionally by some special affinity for swordplay.

I don't understand why more publishers don't clone their s & s RPGs into sf. Maybe the cost of producng new content (mainly voices and graphics) is comparatively high relative to the efficiency of recycling the engine.

[Buatha]

Damn, I forgot about Ultima Worlds: Martian Dreams.

That was a truly enjoyable RPG and I believe it's at the Underdogs.

[raydude]

For instance, who would melee in the future? Personally, I'd carry a blaster at all times. That was one problem that really caused Anarchy Online to look stupid to be shooting a Leet right in front of you and missing with a double-barreled shot-gun-looking thing.

Doesn't Dune have melee fighters as the main fighting force? And their personal shields would be the perfect explanation for why one would have melee. The shield blocks the fast blade or energy blaster but allows the slow blade to penetrate.

[Buatha]

AndyM wrote:

I think there is room for melee fighting in a sci-fi game though. You could have a particularly tough species or types of armor that might defeat/limit guns. The other situations I'm thinking of are times when the party might be disarmed, might be in close where gun fighting may not be practical

Yeah, I'd thought about that, but then you would have a character only useful in these particular circumstances. So, would you rather place a precious skill point upgrade in Melee or Energy Weaponry? If the game was developed in such a way to have enough opportunities to utilize hand-to-hand, then it would great. Now, if they just developed a few situations in the game that required melee, then it might feel artificially inserted.

[Buatha]

raydude wrote:

Doesn't Dune have melee fighters as the main fighting force? And their personal shields would be the perfect explanation for why one would have melee. The shield blocks the fast blade or energy blaster but allows the slow blade to penetrate.

Good point! That was an excellent story element describing the need for hand-to-hand.

By the way, you misquoted Grifman with my text.

[Peacedog]

Yeah, I'd thought about that, but then you would have a character only useful in these particular circumstances. So, would you rather place a precious skill point upgrade in Melee or Energy Weaponry? If the game was developed in such a way to have enough opportunities to utilize hand-to-hand, then it would great. Now, if they just developed a few situations in the game that required melee, then it might feel artificially inserted.

The system doesn't have to be setup such that you can be effective either in melee or in ranged but not both. In fact, it's kind of an absurb premise (though often necessary to put in place in some way shape or form for balance purposes).

Raydude points out an interesting scenario where melee very much plays a roll in sci-fi. And the Dune setup is pretty godo - an advanced society with a fuedal setup.

Also, maybe I missed it on reading but nobody mentioned Centauri Alliance. It was interesting in that it had melee combat but I wouldn't say it was preferrable to ranged (perhaps with the right items, but it always boils down to that). Also, it introduced a hex based combat grid into a Bard's Tale setup, which was kind of interesting. I really liked that game.

[Defiant]

While talking about Sci Fi, don't forget Sentinel Magic Future Worlds

That would be Sentinel Worlds 1: Future Magic. And it was mentioned several times, including the first post.

Heavy Nova

Hard Nova.

[Defiant]

Hey, playing the first two Buck Rogers games doesn't make you old! I loved them. Between those and Sentinel Worlds, I was fairly happy. Apparently there was a sequel to Sentinel Worlds called Hard Nova, which I'm going to attempt to track down.

It was only a sequel in spirit - it wasn't a continuation of Sentinel Worlds, but had hte same style and designer, IIRC.

[Buatha]

I found Centauri Alliance on the Underdogs, but my memory wants to say that it sounded like you could screw up in the game if you weren't careful and I don't have much time anymore to backtrack/restart like I did back in the day. Of course, my memory is either acute or baffling.

[Veloxi]

Apparently there was a sequel to Sentinel Worlds called Hard Nova, which I'm going to attempt to track down.

Here you go! Indeed a wonderful game.

[Dogstar]

Thanks!

Having noted Veloxi's avatar, and despite the obvious problems of acquiring the license, does anybody think a decent RPG could be done in the Firefly universe? You could combine the multiple team members/roles with random jobs you get (a la Privateer-style) all while following an overarching storyline...

[raydude]

Good point! That was an excellent story element describing the need for hand-to-hand.

By the way, you misquoted Grifman with my text.

Oops, many apologies to both you and Grifman

[Alefroth]

Circuit's Edge was pretty enjoyable, as well.

Ale

[Sterling]

I liked Anachronox, but it isn't a pc-type RPG, it's more like a linear console style rpg. It's also kind of old and pretty hard to find.

Geneforge came out recently, but has very old, Ultima3 style graphics. Supposed to be pretty fun if you don't mind the graphics, though.

[Ibby]

Planet's Edge was an oldie I had fun with as well.

http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=830

[Grifman]

For instance, who would melee in the future? Personally, I'd carry a blaster at all times. That was one problem that really caused Anarchy Online to look stupid to be shooting a Leet right in front of you and missing with a double-barreled shot-gun-looking thing.

Doesn't Dune have melee fighters as the main fighting force? And their personal shields would be the perfect explanation for why one would have melee. The shield blocks the fast blade or energy blaster but allows the slow blade to penetrate.

Yeah, but I consider that a contrivance A shield is going to have to project a field 360 around you. It seems that a weapons using a point focused beam would pretty easily cut through an energy field that tries to be strong everywhere. And besides, in combat you'd have lots of people firing - and those who took multiple hits at the same time should go down.

And it wouldn't make sense to have that "excuse" in every sci-fi game either.

[raydude]

For instance, who would melee in the future? Personally, I'd carry a blaster at all times. That was one problem that really caused Anarchy Online to look stupid to be shooting a Leet right in front of you and missing with a double-barreled shot-gun-looking thing.

Doesn't Dune have melee fighters as the main fighting force? And their personal shields would be the perfect explanation for why one would have melee. The shield blocks the fast blade or energy blaster but allows the slow blade to penetrate.

Yeah, but I consider that a contrivance A shield is going to have to project a field 360 around you. It seems that a weapons using a point focused beam would pretty easily cut through an energy field that tries to be strong everywhere. And besides, in combat you'd have lots of people firing - and those who took multiple hits at the same time should go down.

And it wouldn't make sense to have that "excuse" in every sci-fi game either.

Well no, it would not make sense to have that explaination in every sci-fi game. Rather it was meant as an exception to the belief that futuristic combat is all ranged based. But just because Frank Herbert came up with one doesn't mean that another writer/author/producer can't come up with another.

Sci-fi fiction is full of such contrivances anyway. Look at the "Honor" series by David Weber. His "contrivance" is that the basic layout of ships and their propulsion fields leads to armament that can only be mounted and fired perpendicular to the ships motion - leading to old fashioned "broadsides" combat in space.

Lightsaber combat is a contrivance as well. If I have enough force power to be able to deflect blaster shots w/ my lightsaber then surely I can tune into the force so I can become an expert sniper.

Star Trek transporters are a contrivance so the series writers don't have to deal w/ lengthy issues of conventional planet landings.

Heck, even the space combat in Star Wars, Space: Above and Beyond, Battlestar Galactica are all contrived in that they don't seem to use auto-targetting or any sort of guided missles, prefering instead to rely on the aim of the pilot. Surely the future could do at least as good as the F-15s of today w/ our lock-ons and radar guided missles.

[Grifman]

For instance, who would melee in the future? Personally, I'd carry a blaster at all times. That was one problem that really caused Anarchy Online to look stupid to be shooting a Leet right in front of you and missing with a double-barreled shot-gun-looking thing.

Doesn't Dune have melee fighters as the main fighting force? And their personal shields would be the perfect explanation for why one would have melee. The shield blocks the fast blade or energy blaster but allows the slow blade to penetrate.

Yeah, but I consider that a contrivance A shield is going to have to project a field 360 around you. It seems that a weapons using a point focused beam would pretty easily cut through an energy field that tries to be strong everywhere. And besides, in combat you'd have lots of people firing - and those who took multiple hits at the same time should go down.

And it wouldn't make sense to have that "excuse" in every sci-fi game either.

Well no, it would not make sense to have that explaination in every sci-fi game. Rather it was meant as an exception to the belief that futuristic combat is all ranged based. But just because Frank Herbert came up with one doesn't mean that another writer/author/producer can't come up with another.

Sci-fi fiction is full of such contrivances anyway. Look at the "Honor" series by David Weber. His "contrivance" is that the basic layout of ships and their propulsion fields leads to armament that can only be mounted and fired perpendicular to the ships motion - leading to old fashioned "broadsides" combat in space.

Lightsaber combat is a contrivance as well. If I have enough force power to be able to deflect blaster shots w/ my lightsaber then surely I can tune into the force so I can become an expert sniper.

Star Trek transporters are a contrivance so the series writers don't have to deal w/ lengthy issues of conventional planet landings.

Heck, even the space combat in Star Wars, Space: Above and Beyond, Battlestar Galactica are all contrived in that they don't seem to use auto-targetting or any sort of guided missles, prefering instead to rely on the aim of the pilot. Surely the future could do at least as good as the F-15s of today w/ our lock-ons and radar guided missles.

Actually SAAB did have missiles both on the fighters and the carriers, and ST did have ship landings using shuttles, but those are beside the point

You confusing types here. Most of these "contrivances" you mention are what we would call scientific advances - they are not rendering more advanced technologies obsolete. I don't see them saying that muskets or crossbows or horse cavalry are effective again because of some scientific advance that suddenly makes more advanced systems ineffective for some strange reason. Captain Kirk didn't carry a brace of horse pistols with him or away missions after all

My point is to have an "excuse" for melee combat in every science fiction game would be stretching it. A game here or there, maybe. But I don't think EVERY sci-fi game should have to have melee combat in it. Seriously, we don't have melee combat today, and it boggles the mind - or at least mine - that swords are going to return in popularity and effectiveness in the 25th century any more than horse cavalry will be more effective than mechanized units.

[yossar]

Seriously, we don't have melee combat today,

Sure we do. The average person is much more likely to engage in melee combat than a gun fight. I doubt a story about an average guy would make a very good RPG but it's possible.

[Eightball]

I remember Sundog. Loved that game (the scattergun for the win!)

2400 AD from Origin I also enjoyed, along with many others mentioned here (sentinel worlds, etc).

Anachronox is a relatively recent Sci-Fi RPG.

My favorite that I can remember is SSI's Star Command.

That game was fantastic, really great story, lots to do.

[raydude]

You confusing types here. Most of these "contrivances" you mention are what we would call scientific advances - they are not rendering more advanced technologies obsolete. I don't see them saying that muskets or crossbows or horse cavalry are effective again because of some scientific advance that suddenly makes more advanced systems ineffective for some strange reason. Captain Kirk didn't carry a brace of horse pistols with him or away missions after all

I'm sorry, I thought I was using contrivance in the same manner you were using it to explain the melee combat in Dune: i.e. that the said "contrivance" was a device of the author to advance a theme or get around plot issues.

Transporters were a contrivance by Gene Rodenberry because he didn't have enough budget to create landing sequences for each episode.

The "Honor" ship configurations were a contrivance by David Weber because he wanted to have Nelsonian ship combat in space. Which, in my view, should raise the same eyebrows as melee combat in the future - if one is that nitpicky about it. In real life once naval tactics have evolved there is never a general trend to revist old tactics. The ramming tactics of the ancients for ship to ship combat have never been part of naval doctrine since sailing ships and broadside mounted cannons. Similarly, broadsides and boarding parties have never been part of naval tactics since the advent of the torpedo and turret mounted guns. Battleship gun duels have never been part of naval tactics since carrier air.

So it would seem weird then to suppose that spaceship tactics would revert back to ships facing each other broadside and firing guns were it not for the "contrivance" of David Weber's explanations in the Honor books.

And speaking of Star Trek, I can think of one "scientific advance" that rendered advance technology obsolete yet allowed a "primitive" technology an advantage. And that was the Borg personal shields. They rendered phasers obsolete after a few blasts - yet, in a holodeck episode Picard was able to remove the "safeties" from a holographic Tommy gun and kill the borg. With good old fashioned 1920's holographic bullets.

Given that, one wonders why Starfleet never brought back gunpowder weapons to repel Borg boarding parties.

[Cylus Maxii]

Have any of you an opinion regarding the Space Rangers game shipping tomorrow?

Interesting stuff about Space Rangers

Do you have a link to buy this game? Saw some great looking screenshots on Gamespot but couldn't find it at any online stores.

http://www.gogamer.com/cgi-bin/GoGamer. ... ew/001SPAR

Looks like they moved it from 5/28 to 6/15 for shipping date. Also - it does include the original game as mentioned above.

[KiloOhm]

And speaking of Star Trek, I can think of one "scientific advance" that rendered advance technology obsolete yet allowed a "primitive" technology an advantage. And that was the Borg personal shields. They rendered phasers obsolete after a few blasts - yet, in a holodeck episode Picard was able to remove the "safeties" from a holographic Tommy gun and kill the borg. With good old fashioned 1920's holographic bullets.

Given that, one wonders why Starfleet never brought back gunpowder weapons to repel Borg boarding parties.

Um yeah, so somehow energy from "phasers" can't penetrate the borg shields but energy that looks like a musket shot does (as I recall the holodeck used nothing but energy shields to "create" simualted matter as they explained)...hmm...just another typical Star Trek science plot hole. That show contradicted itself every episode...

[Defiant]

Um yeah, so somehow energy from "phasers" can't penetrate the borg shields but energy that looks like a musket shot does (as I recall the holodeck used nothing but energy shields to "create" simualted matter as they explained)...hmm...just another typical Star Trek science plot hole. That show contradicted itself every episode...

Holodecks also used replicator technology in some instances (eg, for food thats eaten). It's feasable that those bullets were tangible matter that was replicated rather than energy.

[Grifman]

Seriously, we don't have melee combat today,

Sure we do. The average person is much more likely to engage in melee combat than a gun fight. I doubt a story about an average guy would make a very good RPG but it's possible.

Not when they have guns and would have in a proposed sci-fi game. Your example is not relevant as you subsequently admit

[raydude]

Are we not also counting the post-apocalyptic genre as sci-fi? I would say melee would be perfectly acceptable depending on how much of a wasteland the earth has become. Especially if one posits a near future where bullets and guns are discarded in favor of "humane" weapons like energy stun pistols and blaster weaons that blind, paralyze or otherwise icapacitate without killing.

[Grifman]

In real life once naval tactics have evolved there is never a general trend to revist old tactics

That's not exactly true, I don't think.

Similarly, broadsides and boarding parties have never been part of naval tactics since the advent of the torpedo and turret mounted guns.

So what exactly did Jellicoe attempt to do to Scher at Jutland, and what did Oldendorf do to the Japanese at Surigao Strait (boarding parties excepted )?

Battleship gun duels have never been part of naval tactics since carrier air.

Hood and Prince of Wales vs. Bismark and Prinz Eugene
Battle of Surigao Strait, Philippines
Washington vs. Kirishima, Guadalcanal
Royal Navy vs. Vichy French Navy, Mers-el-Kebir

So it would seem weird then to suppose that spaceship tactics would revert back to ships facing each other broadside and firing guns were it not for the "contrivance" of David Weber's explanations in the Honor books.

I haven't read the books so I can't say how contrived it may or may not be

And speaking of Star Trek, I can think of one "scientific advance" that rendered advance technology obsolete yet allowed a "primitive" technology an advantage. And that was the Borg personal shields. They rendered phasers obsolete after a few blasts - yet, in a holodeck episode Picard was able to remove the "safeties" from a holographic Tommy gun and kill the borg. With good old fashioned 1920's holographic bullets.

Yes, I always thought of that - just use some slug throwers agains them

[Grifman]

Are we not also counting the post-apocalyptic genre as sci-fi? I would say melee would be perfectly acceptable depending on how much of a wasteland the earth has become.

That I would agree with as it fits the story and background perfectly. But not a 25th century space explorer type.

[Grifman]

And speaking of Star Trek, I can think of one "scientific advance" that rendered advance technology obsolete yet allowed a "primitive" technology an advantage. And that was the Borg personal shields. They rendered phasers obsolete after a few blasts - yet, in a holodeck episode Picard was able to remove the "safeties" from a holographic Tommy gun and kill the borg. With good old fashioned 1920's holographic bullets.

Given that, one wonders why Starfleet never brought back gunpowder weapons to repel Borg boarding parties.

Um yeah, so somehow energy from "phasers" can't penetrate the borg shields but energy that looks like a musket shot does (as I recall the holodeck used nothing but energy shields to "create" simualted matter as they explained)...hmm...just another typical Star Trek science plot hole. That show contradicted itself every episode...

Not to get totally off topic, but the holodecks were full of contradictions from story to story. Frankly, given the consistent danger they posed again and again, StarFleet was stupid not to remove them or take them off line.