Creating A Scifi Universe; A collaborative effort

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-06-04 11:27am

Thirdfain wrote:I disagree wholeheartedly. Sci Fi can aim to be wonderous and fantastic, but it can also be used as a backdrop for very mundane, human stories- tales of politics, human corruption, and hope.

A sense of 'wonder' is achieved by allowing the story to reflect that; I personally do not equate technobabble and gadgetry and gizmos as 'wondrous'. More like 'boring'.

B5 is very wondrous. Why? It's story is oft-times down to earth, particularly the politics and Londo's scheming and the Clark's takeover of EarthGov. A lot of that is what you call the 'mundane, human' element. However, the wondrous part is when Sheridan appears in Larger than Life form via Draal's holographic technology, and calmly announces B5's secession. THAT's wonder. THAT's fantastic. Not so much the fact Draal has the technology to make that possible, but Sheridan has the idea of using it for that effect.

Or the Great Machine on Epsilon 3 is another example; it's just there, it's a product of some other civilisation's construction, and it's off limits to everyone else. It was never used as a Deus Ex Machina throughout the entirety of the show (although there were times when it could have been used for that effect, and it would have been perfectly justified).

Note that the difference between the GMoE3 and a 'black hole bomb' or 'FTL missile' is that the latter are just technowank for technowank's sake, while the former inhabits it's own little niche of the setting. It was there before B5 was constructed, it will be there long after it's pieces fall into a decaying orbit. It's a mystery; like the Walkers of Sigma 957. It is a 'machine' but it's wondrous not because of being a piece of technology, but for having a story about it. It has an origin, but it's left an enigma - thereby, the B5 universe is enriched thanks to it's inclusion.

The spacetravel is just a tool for creating a unique, interesting setting. Adding extraneous, weird, or ridiculous technology seems pretty useless to me.

I agree with this as well; wonder is NOT achieved with a 'weapon of the week' or a 'particle of the week' solution, or reconfiguring the deflector dish as it's the Enterprise's swiss army knife; that's bullshit. Wonder is achieved by reminding the reader of the scope and scale of the universe: showing Sinclair and Ivanova look as ants when compared to the inner workings of the GMoE3. Or when Cat Sakai's ship was swarfed by the Walkers, and later on so was the White Star.

Would you consider the Great Machine of Epsilon 3 to be 'extraneous'? Or 'rediculous'?

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2004-06-04 11:55am

Bob, in other words there should be wonder. Something I heartily agree with.

That's ... not quite what I had in mind, but it's close enough :p I'm hoping that the universe will eventually evolve to end up distinct from other science fiction, with its own customs, manners, and politics. Be original. Use some imagination. Common sense, even.

It's also why I'm a bit skeptical of "sci-fi" devices such as super-AIS and Evil Space Aliens: because they've been done before, and probably done better.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Sci Fi can aim to be wonderous and fantastic, but it can also be used as a backdrop for very mundane, human stories- tales of politics, human corruption, and hope.

I don't see any reason why it can't be both.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-06-04 03:10pm

Bob McDob wrote:
SirNitram wrote:There is nothing that states sci-fi is bad because it has railguns, missiles, and energy beams, you know.
Yeah, but it does get rather tiresome after a while - the least we can do is figure out ways to make them more interesting. Playing too heavily on old sci-fi cliches without original thought about them is incredibly derivative and makes me want to commit hara-kiri.

So why are you against the disposal of crappy cliches like the technobabble power core, the uber-duper-super-kooper missile, and so forth? The technology is not the bloody story, I would think everyone here is bright enough to know that.

And I still like my idea of making up cheesy slang terms for everything (like archie and bazooka and flivver). In fact, make up lots, just for the hell of it. Makes the world seem more developed and helps give it a certain flavor.

Giving a slang term to something is fine. Getting 'railed' is getting shot full of holes by kinetic weapons.

For what it's worth, the problem I have with the current popular trend towards starkness and "realism" (as personified by David Weber and boxy ships)* is that it focuses too much on mechanics and sometimes ends up feeling like the story is an afterthought. The end impression I get is a flavorless mulch - stale and grey.

Very good. Technology doesn't make the story. Not if it's uber-tech, not if it's realistic tech. Once you accept that, you can get over the 'but railguns are dulllllll'.

Conversely, I really enjoy the Dune universe - or rather, the Dune Encyclopedia. Although it can be just as focused on the underpinnings of things (sometimes even more so), it also has a definite personality to it, a kind of period feel that makes it feel like its own distinct world and not just an extension of today's environment. I miss some of the old science fiction for having its own distinct ebb and feel of the future - painfully wrong at times, maybe, but it feels different from today, like another world - which is what it is.

Dune books are some of the most painful known. The data-dump was perfected by Herbert long before Weber did it.

This universe seems to be moving to combine elements from what I would call "human future-modern" for lack of a better term (Honor Harrington, Battletech) mainstream science fiction (Space Opera?), and hard technological underpinnings. I think it needs something else - a healthy dose of fantasy. Or, rather, it's own distinct personality and dynamic, as the 20th century was distinct from the Enlightenment or Renaissance or Middle Ages. If we can successfully intergrate these four things (which right now sometimes feel like seperate universes rather than a single coherent one), I think it will be the greatest success.

Good fantasy is not simply uberwank technobabble. That does not provoke wonder; that only provokes masturbating fanboys. Good fantasy is in the stories and world around you.

If you were paying attention, I specifically referenced one thing that's a solid core of Fantasy novels, and useful in Sci-Fi: The Artifact. The ancient relic that has a story behind it's amazing power, and which creates conflict and epics by it's mere existance.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-06-04 03:11pm

I wasnt refering to technobable. I meant something like Culture novels or Lensman, where the universe's own background becomes a secondary character to enjoy along with the human characters. Technobable is unnessisary.

EDIT: for the record, i really like some of teh creativity and ideas around here. Personally, i was just stating my opinion about sci-fi, but i agree that the story should override the other aspects, like Nitram said, the story is the story, not the technology. It should focus more on the characters. I do, however, enjoy more fansiful sci-fi at times, simply because it intregues me. But, that being said, perhaps we need to develop a solid story behind this colaberitive universe. With all the various factions and history, it's difficult to determine who are teh main characters and whatnot. In short: we should create some characters for this universe next, then get back to the factions.

speaker-to-trolls · Post by **speaker-to-trolls** » 2004-06-04 05:31pm

I don't think this has been answered already, and I think it could be important. How advanced is genetic engineering and medicine?. Do we have average lifespans in the triple digits?, do we have 'designer babies'?, can we seriously genetically alter plants and animals for our convenience, or even entertainment?, etc, etc, and how are all these things going to affect the world and the society of the people who live in it?.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-06-04 06:11pm

speaker-to-trolls wrote:I don't think this has been answered already, and I think it could be important. How advanced is genetic engineering and medicine?. Do we have average lifespans in the triple digits?, do we have 'designer babies'?, can we seriously genetically alter plants and animals for our convenience, or even entertainment?, etc, etc, and how are all these things going to affect the world and the society of the people who live in it?.

Right now we have a race that was engineered to b telepathic, so we're pretty far. Probably cultural taboos prevent people from designing too different humans, but there's 150 year life-spans and above-average IQs for those who can afford it.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-06-04 06:20pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
speaker-to-trolls wrote:I don't think this has been answered already, and I think it could be important. How advanced is genetic engineering and medicine?. Do we have average lifespans in the triple digits?, do we have 'designer babies'?, can we seriously genetically alter plants and animals for our convenience, or even entertainment?, etc, etc, and how are all these things going to affect the world and the society of the people who live in it?.
Right now we have a race that was engineered to b telepathic, so we're pretty far. Probably cultural taboos prevent people from designing too different humans, but there's 150 year life-spans and above-average IQs for those who can afford it.

I was planning on a few variant-humans within the League. Been reading GURPS Biotech and seeing neat ideas.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-06-05 02:15am

By the way, I've currently started work on writing some background on the Ncha.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2004-06-05 02:17am

How about Jurassic Parks? I want Jurassic Parks!

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2004-06-05 04:19am

SirNitram wrote:So why are you against the disposal of crappy cliches like the technobabble power core, the uber-duper-super-kooper missile, and so forth? The technology is not the bloody story, I would think everyone here is bright enough to know that.

I don't believe I said anything against that - for the record, "uB3r t3ch!!!!111111" for its own sake bothers me just as much. The point I was trying to make was that while technology is a means to an end, the means do affect the end. Lasers, railguns and missiles are like the golden trinity of sci-fi weapons, and all too often those universes that have them end up using other cliches and feeling overly derivative as a result. I'm definetly not saying that A always leads to B; just that it does all too often, and that we should try to avoid the trap. (Hence "the least we can do is figure out ways to make them more interesting.")

For the record, I don't particularly care whether weapons are ion beams or magic arrows, I'm more interested in what they do and how they affect strategy and tactics. Which brings me to my second point that focusing too much on how something works draws attention away from what it does, which is one of the other great cliches. I do believe we're in agreement on this.

Dune books are some of the most painful known. The data-dump was perfected by Herbert long before Weber did it.

I honestly can't say I remember that, at least in the first book (I do admit had to struggle through the first part of Heretics of Dune, and even then I had no idea what was going on). I was referring more towards the Dune Encyclopedia, as I think it personifies the Dune universe; probably one of the most thought-out and detailed backdrops I've seen. It feels almost like a distinct and viable alternative to real life. Not that many universes give that feeling.

Good fantasy is not simply uberwank technobabble. That does not provoke wonder; that only provokes masturbating fanboys. Good fantasy is in the stories and world around you.

Agreed.

EDIT: cleaned up post to clarify.

SECOND EDIT: I should also point out that I'm not saying being derivative is *entirely* bad - just that we should try to control how much we "borrow" more or less verbatim. And that what we do take, we should try to find a fresh angle to.

On another note: Thirdfain, when are you on AIM? I want to flesh out the Freeholders more.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-06-06 11:03pm

I'm on AIM all night EST, just gimme a ring.