The Campaign Builder's Guild

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?