I was wondering why we always write Fantasy Campaign Settings? why not a Science Fiction one like the Star Wars Galaxy?
we don't always. Although the majority of them are...
True, but there is definitely a lot more fantasy RPGs then Sci Fi out there. At least, from the completely unresearched opinion of me.
Well parts of my Divergence setting are scifi-ish (near future with some paranormal stuff and a Space Opera section). Another one of my settings (Prismatic) has some science-fiction elements (spaceships and space battles).
I know however that I'm not a really big fan science fiction in general, technobabble stuff and Time Travel anger me, bad science bugs me. Pretty much I like only Hard Science Fiction, and I don't trust myself to be able to write a good Hard Science Fiction setting.
Too often Science Fiction will focus too much on the technology even when its bad science. A side effect is a neglect in other areas I find. The technology just demands too much attention, we all want to know how it works. With magic however we can come up with easy simple answers and just blame stuff on the Gods. Blaming stuff on the Gods is often frowned upon in Science Fiction.
Now and again I like a bit of Space Opera (Peter F Hamilton books, Fallen Dragon and his Commonwealth Saga are some of my favorite books, even though Fallen Dragon has dumb time travel stuff in it).
Another reason I think is because a lot of real-life can seem pretty science-fictiony (especially if you work in a technical field or follow tech news) so it isn't as much of an escape.
I'm doing a setting which probably has sci-fi elements. It's not very hard sci-fi, but it's definitely not traditional fantasy.
Quote from: Gnome NachosTrue, but there is definitely a lot more fantasy RPGs then Sci Fi out there. At least, from the completely unresearched opinion of me.
Fantasy is the traditional RPG. The first RPGs were all Fantasy stuff.
Now a main reason for RPGs not being Science Fiction often is that with "advanced technology" melee combat is gone, you won't charge a guy with a sword if he has a rifle or something. This is a huge part of RPGs, now some games deal with this (Most final fantasy games just ignore it) or work around it (Light Sabers in Star Wars). But the lack of "melee" is a huge thing for RPGs.
I think in general fantasy settings are easier to create than sci-fi ones. With fantasy you have a lot of freedom, especially with the presence of any kind of magic. With sci-fi there's a tendency to create at least quasi-plausible explanations for things, even if they're pure psuedo-science. With magic thrown into the mix it's easier to fiddle with things... you just modify your rules of magic to accommodate whatever phenomenon you want, and voila, whereas with sci-fi you have to modify real-world physics (or at least engage them in some way). At least, that's the tendency.
Another good sci-fi setting on this site other than Silvercat's pulp dream is Cowd's Weird Sun, which is pretty freakin' cool...
Quote from: Steerpike'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦'¦other than Silvercat's pulp dream'¦'¦'¦
Actually I was referring to the multiverse setting. It's not
precisely sci-fi, but it tries to have it in there. I'm really trying to see if I can have the sort of freedom of magic that Llum mentioned without it having to be "magic" exactly.
I'm kind of kooky that way: I prefer bad science to none at all. But when I get down to it I'm not much more interested in the technobabble than Llum. I'd just rather the author say "We don't want to explain it to you" rather than invoke the almighty "It Is Inexplicable".
well i am getting ready to upload my Technomancer setting. so tomorrow there will be another one.
I'm approaching my setting in the method of sci-fi.
Otherwise, I would really like to write a sci-fi setting utilizing the Starwars system (minus the force system; I have issues with it), treating the Jedi order like an order of Paladins. One thing, though, is that Star Wars is a fantasy story under the veneer of science fiction.
The nature of role-playing games fit the genre of Fantasy, since Fantasy is about the journey of the hero. Science Fiction, on the other hand, is largely about "how would X affect society?", where X is "the other", refering to something like aliens, robots, super technology, space travel, or even real technology. A true science fiction rpg would be difficult without utilizing fantasy storytelling.[/lit major]
I have a cyberpunk thing that I don't really plan on developing any further. In fact, it's been up for adoption from the get-go, so if you're interested in working on something sci-fi, but don't know where to start, this might be something that might interest you.
The think the problem with Sci-Fi is that, compared to fantasy, there isn't a 'stereotypical' Sci-Fi setting. Sci-Fi ranges from the future-plausible style of Star Trek to the Sci-Fantasy of Star Wars to the realism of Babylon 5 to the world altering Sci-Fi of Pastwatch to the plausible mecha of the Original Gundam to the Mecha-unrealistic in Outlaw Star.
Sci-Fi lacks the coherent tropes of that fantasy has and isn't bound to a coherent level of expectation that Fantasy possesses (whether that's good or bad, I'll leave up to you to decide).
Also, I have to agree with the above posters in that Fantasy more easily lends itself to D&D style RPGs because its all about the Heroes over coming adversity.
[blockquote=Elemental_Elf]Sci-Fi lacks the coherent tropes of that fantasy has and isn't bound to a coherent level of expectation that Fantasy possesses (whether that's good or bad, I'll leave up to you to decide).[/blockquote]This is what annoys me about some contemporary fantasy. The prevalence of well-worn tropes at the expense of wilder creativity and envelope-pushing inventiveness (as sometimes exhibited in sci-fi) in common fantasy really bugs me, which is why although I don't dislike Tolkien I'm increasingly annoyed at Middle Earth because I constantly see its shallower, less developed, hackneyed bastard spawn every time I turn around in a bookshop or video game aisle...
I could post some of my additions and expansions of the GURPS Black Ops setting when I have them in coherent written form. That's kind of sci-fi.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatThe nature of role-playing games fit the genre of Fantasy, since Fantasy is about the journey of the hero. Science Fiction, on the other hand, is largely about "how would X affect society?", where X is "the other", refering to something like aliens, robots, super technology, space travel, or even real technology. A true science fiction rpg would be difficult without utilizing fantasy storytelling.
I have to agree here. Science Fiction has always tended to be alot more philosophical than classic fantasy. That's because it is an exploration of what ifs. Science fiction in a way seeks to study and examine the world. Fantasy on the other hand tends to present itself as an escape from the real world.
Quote from: Steerpike[blockquote=Elemental_Elf]Sci-Fi lacks the coherent tropes of that fantasy has and isn't bound to a coherent level of expectation that Fantasy possesses (whether that's good or bad, I'll leave up to you to decide).[/blockquote]This is what annoys me about some contemporary fantasy. The prevalence of well-worn tropes at the expense of wilder creativity and envelope-pushing inventiveness (as sometimes exhibited in sci-fi) in common fantasy really bugs me, which is why although I don't dislike Tolkien I'm increasingly annoyed at Middle Earth because I constantly see its shallower, less developed, hackneyed bastard spawn every time I turn around in a bookshop or video game aisle...
That's true... I find it weird that its culturally acceptable to rip Tolkien off but not Star Wars or Star Trek.
Tolkien's older, and it was "just a book". Science Fiction is a more broad genre because it lacks a single unifying source like fantasy has Tolkien. Now, within the larger genre of science fiction, there are big names for the sub-genres. For instance, you're going to have a hard time finding Robot Sci-Fi that doesn't steal from Asimov.
I am not a huge fan of science fiction. However, should I ever had written a campaign based on sci-fi, I'd adopt Mass Effect. It's chocked with background information, and a very concise universe without going off the deep end.
If not Mass Effect, then a Phantasy Star universe based on PS2.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatThe nature of role-playing games fit the genre of Fantasy, since Fantasy is about the journey of the hero. Science Fiction, on the other hand, is largely about "how would X affect society?", where X is "the other", refering to something like aliens, robots, super technology, space travel, or even real technology. A true science fiction rpg would be difficult without utilizing fantasy storytelling.
There is also a huge, overweaning issue that has always been part of science, and that is the morality of science and the cost of the pursuit of knowledge. Many historical religious figures and movements have put themselves on the opposite side of the fence from science. This morality gives science fiction a depth that is actually hard to match. I don't want to sound fanboy-esque, but that is what makes 'Watchmen' so multidimensional and so fascinating...a heroic/antiheroic BARELY-future mroally-blurred story that goes back and forth in times showing us bits if decisions ansd their ramifications.
I don't agree that science fiction always tended to be more philosophical than fantasy, in their silver age it was very equal, with Zelazny and Moorcock, while much science fiction was pulish, escapist fare.
But where Fantasy has fallen into a much more story/character driven rut (where the same stories are written and re-written), Science fiction is still grappling with our possible futures, and the costs that the various paths might incur, and as our knowledge increases, many of these questions come into a shraper focus.
You can hardly call 20+ years of Character driven stories a rut!
EDIT: I wonder if D&D is to blame...
Sci-Fi is definately a deep storytelling medium. Heck, you don't have to go too far to find a deep sci-fi story; Wall-E this year had many levels of story to it beyond the surface lovestory.
Which is what Science Fiction is good at. Once you get into Adventure Sci-Fi (which would be required for an RPG), then you start to get into that blurry area between Sci-Fi and Fantasy. The ley masses call Star Wars Sci-Fi because there's blasters and spaceships and aliens, but they somehow miss that there's magic and religion in it as well. Star Trek, too, has some slight fantasy elements to it; it's just closer to Sci-Fi than Star Wars is.
Star Trek is definately the model I think one would have to follow for a RPG setting. Star Craft could make a good sci-fi setting as well.
I have to agree, Star Wars is Sci-Fantasy. Another great example of Sci-Fantasy is Warhammer 40k. Its set in the far flung future, has spaceships & blasters but all of that is just background flavor that enhances the character driven stories that often have heavy religious themes.
I'm not sure about Star Trek. Granted it does have character driven adventure aspects but I think it maintains the questioning trope of Sci-Fi better than Star Wars.
Starcraft rules, it's one of my biggest inspirations for the sci-fi setting I'm working on. I'll post it... eventually...
I think that sometimes genre labels are applied in too restricting a manner. A much more interesting question than "what is it," to me, is "is it any good?"
A lot of works really defy genre categorization, and many of these are amongst my favorite speculative fiction works. Take Stephen King's Dark Tower. Is it fantasy? Horror? Post-apocalyptic science fiction? What about Jack Vance's Dying Earth? It's set in the far future, but it's also got magic. Does that make it science fiction or fantasy? China Mieville's Bas-Lag books have intelligent robots and magic in a secondary world with some very advanced technology: fantasy or sci-fi? George R.R. Martin's Windhaven is set on a planet colonized in the distant past by space-farers but otherwise resembles secondary world fantasy minus magic. Is it really science fiction? The Chthulu Mythos Old Ones/Elder Gods are all just super-intelligent aliens - sci-fi or horror?
I suspect that most of the time, people look at speculative fiction and just say, "magic=fantasy, space=sci-fi." Ultimately, though, I think the genre labels are inadequate and potentially even detrimental, especially in literature. Many mainstream readers have a disdain for fantasy/sci-fi literature, and will pass it by on a shelf in favor of non-speculative lit, even when that lit could easily be classed as sci-fi. I used to work at Chapters (big bookstore chain in Canada for those that don't know): in the mainstream literature section you could find Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake, 1984, The Master and Maragrita, Mieville's Looking For Jake, Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five and even Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel . To me, all of those books could just as easily be found in the fantasy/sci-fi section, but they were shelved alongside books like Atonement and The Kite Runner.
My point is that ill-fitting genre labels influence people a lot, and I don't always think that's a good thing - a lot of really amazing stuff gets sniffed at because of its genre label.
This is why I like having a 'Sci-Fi/Fantasy section' in book stores because Fantasy and especially Sci-Fi often blur the lines between the two.
I mean if you called Vulcans 'Elves,' Klingons 'Orcs,' and Ferengi 'Dwarves' would you then classify Star Trek as Fantasy in space or Sci-Fi with fantasy elements?
The point being, speculative fiction is speculative fiction. The only reason we divide it into 3 categories is to better inform the consumer which isle to look in for the book they want! :)
Steerpike, you touch upon a very interesting concept we studied in my literature class. Genre is actually more important to book sales than it is to writers. The book publishers like to identify what things are, because it makes them sell more. I suspect this leads publishers to go with "safe" stories as well.
"It's like Tolkien, and Tolkien sold, so this will."
Of course, there's always exceptions, but I think this is what leads Genres to become set in stone.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatSteerpike, you touch upon a very interesting concept we studied in my literature class. Genre is actually more important to book sales than it is to writers. The book publishers like to identify what things are, because it makes them sell more. I suspect this leads publishers to go with "safe" stories as well.
"It's like Tolkien, and Tolkien sold, so this will."
Of course, there's always exceptions, but I think this is what leads Genres to become set in stone.
Yea Capitalism?