Learning Hard Scifi

This is not so different from a Brain Storming Session or Ideation. The difference is the PCs have a plan and the GM brings up the major barriers. The PCs decide how they deploy their resources, and then the GM makes them roll for what works. The science can be wrong - as wrong as a Holywood movie or a Game Session but its the BEST science and problem-solving the Players can do. 

 Perfect is the enemy of Good in both a Problem Solving and Ethical Sense (as Perfect is the excuse to let evil prevail and no action to be taken*). Hard science RPG is wanting to learn new science stuff in the course of the game. I guess if we try (and most likely fail) to add more science in the game in the story I should count it as a HARD SCIFI GAME. Science has to be APPROACHABLE. 

Like ISO 9001 - Controlled Progress in understanding more about science is the definition. Controlled progress - doing what we can to progress - of course to accept that we will fail, stumble, and encounter rare success - but what that doesn't measure is the CHANGE that happens. In a Controlled Progress you are actively changing - you may not change to be more successful quite immediately but you are putting in the work. 

*I just had a recorded MWO game where there was a guy who was just already saying we were going to lose as the game was starting. This classic Defeated mindset - learned helplessness is problematic. 

Learning Hard Scifi

face Value setting of session zero from 1 to real world

This applies to NPcs and PCs - and real life. In a game we make likeable or untrustworthy NPcs say agreeable or disagreeable things to PCs. 

In session zero we have to ask "how much face value so you want in a measure of 1 to 5. 1 being there is no other context and it's in plain words with no thinking on the players part or 5 real life ambiguity - we have to take context into account, 3 being the GM allowing some peeking through the veil"

===

When saying agreeable things to people who dislikes you and uses association bias to judge the merits of your output (words and actions) by how they like you (which also means that they judge you primarily by their usefulness to them) - lying vs deflection (Google deflection the verbal technique).

I find lying better than deflection becuase deflection - delays a confrontation while lying accelerates a confrontation (this is a conflict management strategy).

"I will lie to you to say agreeable things because I cannot say disagreeable things to you " triggers a Why? A lot of why's!

Deflection is you sparing them - technically you didn't lie. You changed focus and redirected attention.

Whats even more crucial is that this technique can be put in the mirror - who disagrees with me and lies about it. I like how this makes me more paranoid and more skilled in looking at context - he's lying - he's not really agreeing with me. And I learn tells.

In fact it makes me less surprised, it makes a more mature voice in my head say "lolz why did you really believe they agreed with you without any action to demonstrate a commitment"

Of course crucial is non-zero sum thinking (anyone who disagrees with me is an enemy is zero sum thinking, non zero sum is people can disagree with me for reasons that has nothing to do with me) 

Sorry I have to explain commitment - this is in quality management this is proof of words attempting to meet actions - the most interesting is that in Game theory this is signaling of a coordination game - the other party have made their stakes match yours and thus as much proof as one can currently ask.

https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/deflection#:~:text=Deflection%20is%20a%20defense%20mechanism,young%20children%20to%20grown%20adults.