Führen wir doch lieber den Begriff des Realismus ein, GURPS Space bemerkt dazu:
(Quelle: Zeigler, John F & Cambias, James L, 2006 GURPS Fourth Edition Space, Steve Jackson Games, p. 11)Realism
“Realism” has two meanings in a GURPS Space game. The first is
the level of physical realism – how “hard” the science is and how plausible
the technology. The second is the social or psychological realism –
how realistically people behave.
Scientific realism, surprisingly, is not the ultimate goal of every science-
fiction campaign. Certainly SF literature has plenty of “rubber science,”
and in SF films it’s a noteworthy event if they get the science
right. Internal consistency is more important than strict accuracy. Game
Masters are free to set the level of scientific realism at whatever level
supports the games they wish to run. Different realism levels have different
advantages and disadvantages.
Strict adherence to “hard science” gives the campaign the advantage
of plausibility. It makes the suspension of disbelief very easy. The obvious
disadvantage is that there are lots of things that are impossible in
the real world but are nevertheless a big part of SF, such as faster-thanlight
travel. A step up from pure hard science is “mostly hard” SF, which
allows one or two bits of imaginary science (like faster-than-light drives)
but rigorously works out all the implications and effects on the world.
More removed from realism is “handwaving” SF, best exemplified by
television and film. We’re assured that this is all science (rather than
magic), but the exact mechanisms are never explained, and capabilities
are devised on the basis of plot demands rather than strict science.
There is usually a reasonable amount of internal consistency, but it’s
very much fictional consistency. At the far end of the realism scale is
purely “cinematic” reality. Spaceships look cool and make impressive
whooshing noises in deep space. People carry hand weapons like “energy
swords” or plasma-firing crossbows, and never mind how they work.
By contrast with scientific realism, social realism determines how
realistically the characters in the setting behave. It can also be called the
“rigor” of the game world. In a realistic setting, all actions have consequences,
villains are not motivated simply by villainy, and people think
their actions through.
Somewhat less realistic is the tone adopted by most films. For the
sake of narrative convenience, the heroes don’t suffer consequences as
long as they win and their actions were done for a good cause. Shooting
up the mall is okay as long as no innocents got hurt and the bad guys
needed shooting. Least realistic is what might be called “mythic” science
fiction, which adopts an almost fairy-tale attitude of absolute good
and evil. Consequences are not based on reason, but on karma or “cosmic
justice.”
Think of social and scientific realism as the different axes on a graph.
Stories can be very realistic in one sense and completely unrealistic in
the other. Much early SF strove for solid hard science realism but then
used characters and plots of fairy-tale simplicity. Much of the “New
Wave” of the 1960s and 1970s took the opposite approach, using psychological
realism and completely imaginary science. Set both realism
levels to support the kind of adventures the players and GM want: high
science realism and moderate social realism for Indiana Jones-style
exploits on a near-future Mars mission, low science and high social realism
for gritty political drama in the Galactic Empire. Outer-space
swashbuckling adventure gets a low setting for both, and so on.
Ich denke durch diesen kleinen Wechsel der Begrifflichkeiten kann die Diskussion fruchtvoller gestaltet werden.
Unluckily NEO scores negative values on both axes.
)
