The Campaign Builder's Guild

Sci-Fi's odd and weird however is grounded in logic and well, Science, so there is far less objection to it. I would figure that is how it gets away with things like that.

Then again, Star Trek establishes a lot of the terminology- such as "warp drives" and "jump gates" that is then used without invention by other sci-fi series.

And as a third prong- sci-fi is still considered niche. Not as niche as fantasy, since sci-fi could actually happen, and that's probably why it's more respectable. But it is still niche.

Quote from: Light DragonSci-Fi's odd and weird however is grounded in logic and well, Science, so there is far less objection to it. I would figure that is how it gets away with things like that.

Then again, Star Trek establishes a lot of the terminology- such as "warp drives" and "jump gates" that is then used without invention by other sci-fi series.

And as a third prong- sci-fi is still considered niche. Not as niche as fantasy, since sci-fi could actually happen, and that's probably why it's more respectable. But it is still niche.

Star Trek doesn't have Jump Gates (that's more Babylon 5). Plus in terms of direction, most sci-fi keeps the term 'warp drive' at arms length, preferring the more generic term of 'Hyper Drive' and 'Hyper Space'.  If anything Star Trek's endearing contribution to sci-fi would be Transporters and Shields. Both of which show up regularly in Sci-Fi (especially the biggest Sci-Fi franchise of the last decade - Stargate).

At any rate Sci-Fi isn't as niche as Fantasy because Sci-Fi is a more broad genre than Fantasy, appealing not just to the D&D crowds but also to academics (or people going to school) as well as people who are generally interested in the final frontier.  You can go from (early) Stargate which is plausible near future to the Gundam series which is an imagining of a fantastical near-future to Star Trek which is an idealized vision of the future to Star Wars which is centuries, if not a millennia, ahead of where we are today.

Of course the same can be said of fantasy (Greco-Roman to Medieval to Renaissance to Age of Discovery to Foreign-versions of these eras)  but in the end they all wind up looking fairly similar (Castles, shacks, swords and magic).  

Quote from: Elemental_ElfAt any rate Sci-Fi isn't as niche as Fantasy because Sci-Fi is a more broad genre than Fantasy, appealing not just to the D&D crowds but also to academics (or people going to school) as well as people who are generally interested in the final frontier. You can go from (early) Stargate which is plausible near future to the Gundam series which is an imagining of a fantastical near-future to Star Trek which is an idealized vision of the future to Star Wars which is centuries, if not a millennia, ahead of where we are today.

Not sure how it tallies out in all forms of media (video games/movies/TV/etc), but in novels and other similar written fiction "Fantasy" is *much* less niche then science fiction. There's actually quite a big gap there.

Apologies, Light Dragon. I wrote that reply very late at night and I think your phrasing had led me to jump to the wrong conclusions about the intent behind your statement.

On a slightly related note, isn't it amazing that we can spend a whole thread, such as this, all more-or-less agreeing with each other, and still find interesting things to say and contributions to make? That has to be one of the things I like best about the CBG :D

Anyway, to get back on-topic, I'd say that while in the beginning sci-fi tended to be, just as it said, science fiction, in other words grounded in some sort of scientific plausibility, it has become increasingly more akin to fantasy, as the actual technological elements are hand-waved or so far removed from any modern technologies that aren't in heavily theoretical stages that it becomes more of a "magical" device within the setting. You press the button and it just works.

So really, with the exception of "hard" sci-fi, I don't see there being a huge difference between sci-fi and fantasy in terms of logic and suspension of disbelief.

Soooo many things I want to discuss...this thread it's turning out even better than I expected :) . Let's start:

a)
[quote Light Dragon]
Without context, it's hard to create believable fantasy.
But making things too inventive or strange tends to cause reader resistance.
[/quote]
Yet Sci-Fi is often built upon the odd and weird. I suppose it has more to do with one's expectations. If you see fantasy, you want Swords, Magic and Kings...   
[/quote]
On a slightly related note, isn't it amazing that we can spend a whole thread, such as this, all more-or-less agreeing with each other, and still find interesting things to say and contributions to make? That has to be one of the things I like best about the CBG  
[/quote]
Anyway, to get back on-topic, I'd say that while in the beginning sci-fi tended to be, just as it said, science fiction, in other words grounded in some sort of scientific plausibility, it has become increasingly more akin to fantasy, as the actual technological elements are hand-waved or so far removed from any modern technologies that aren't in heavily theoretical stages that it becomes more of a "magical" device within the setting. You press the button and it just works.
[/quote]
I agree to some extent; sci-fi (like you described) and fantasy don't differ as much because actually (IMHO), the first one is actually "futuristic" fantasy while the second is "medieval" fantasy. So in effect, "hard" sci-fi it's nothing more than "proper" sci-fi.

Quote from: LlumNot sure how it tallies out in all forms of media (video games/movies/TV/etc), but in novels and other similar written fiction "Fantasy" is *much* less niche then science fiction. There's actually quite a big gap there.

Right now Fantasy is more popular thanks in large part to Pirates-Potter-LotR-Drizzt-WoW but 10 years ago, Fantasy was fairly unpopular by comparison. It's just a pendulum, which thanks to Avatar, I think will be swinging Sci-Fi's way in the coming years.

Though the release of the WoW expansion and TES V as well as the Hobbit may curb Sci-Fi's growth.

Don't forget the Twilight/vampire wave. They are part of the fantasy niche whether we want them to or not :p
Also, maybe it would be worthwhile to speak of hard and soft fantasy in the same way that one speaks of hard and soft sci-fi. DnD would in that sense be deemed soft while I reckon that Mieville (due to his sciency approach) and Tolkien (due to his fairly low magic approach) could be called hard. Mind you, I'm just thinking out loud here and haven't applied any thorough analysis to the three.

Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowDon't forget the Twilight/vampire wave. They are part of the fantasy niche whether we want them to or not :p
Also, maybe it would be worthwhile to speak of hard and soft fantasy in the same way that one speaks of hard and soft sci-fi. DnD would in that sense be deemed soft while I reckon that Mieville (due to his sciency approach) and Tolkien (due to his fairly low magic approach) could be called hard. Mind you, I'm just thinking out loud here and haven't applied any thorough analysis to the three.

Ah Twilight, the shimmering red-haired black-sheep bastard child of fantasy...

At any rate I'd say things like Harry Potter, Escaflowne, Narnia and Twilight are soft fantasy because they mix a lot of real-world in with their fantasy, while D&D, Legend of the Seeker and LotR are hard because they rely much less on the real world (i.e. if the real world is involved then it isn't as blatant as the soft fantasies) and exist in a (mostly) fictional world. Otherwise, the entire distinction becomes a de facto High and Low Fantasy.


EDIT: Fantasy is, in many ways the opposite of Sci-Fi, so hard fantasy should be truely fantastical while the more down to earth/real world stories should be soft because they exist in a realm that mixes the fantastic with mundane.

Don't forget Battlefield Earth :p  If you're going to start throwing around the Twilight word, I'm going to throw that one around somewhere too.

Also, I consider science fiction to be a subset of fantasy, the same way I treat historical fiction.  That's just me though, and I'm weird.  The typical "fantasy" I call "sword and sorcery"

M.

Quote from: CheomeshAlso, I consider science fiction to be a subset of fantasy, the same way I treat historical fiction.  That's just me though, and I'm weird.  The typical "fantasy" I call "sword and sorcery"

But sword & sorcery is a subgenre of fantasy in its own right. From wikipedia:
Sword and sorcery (S&S) is a fantasy subgenre generally characterized by swashbuckling heroes engaged in exciting and violent conflicts. An element of romance is often present, as is an element of magic and the supernatural. Unlike works of high fantasy, the tales, though dramatic, focus mainly on personal battles rather than world-endangering matters.

Stuff like Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Elric, Kane, Thongor, Krull, and so on...

Quote from: Luminous_Crayonmagic and technology are set up as equals and opposites, grudge match time

i wouldn't qualify this as a cliche, imo that's a valid driving factor of a world or even a conflict, more of a trope. if you boil it down, magic kinda stands for chaos, freedom, spirituality, and preservance of old traditions, while technology represents order, rules, reglementations, progressive spirit and so on. best example: arcanum - of steamworks and magick obscura. sure, it's been done before, but it's still more original than good vs evil.

just some cliches i'd like to add to the mix:

- "always chaotic evil" in the sense of evil being totally socially dysfunctional to the point where evil = sociopathic rage+slaughter
- "league of evil" the opposite: we work together because we are evil. no common agenda, no shared beliefs, except everyone's a douche. this only works on a small scale, like a city's outcasts or the schoolyard bullies.
- "cultivated vampires" it was cool in the hammer horror times and we really had a blast when our group had a sidequest around a lord something who "does not drink vine", dresses in outdated finery and bids you to "enter, of your own free will". but seriously, that was overdone when we hit the nineties and should only be used in affectionate parody.
- "the EVIL empire" or as i think of it "eragon-syndrom": the established (and reviled) form of state is a non-hereditary monarchy. and it's evil, because it does terrible things like enforce taxes, draft men in times of war and retaliates against acts of terrorrism. i have seen a goatload of campaigns and adventures, where after some time fighting "the enemy" you start to wonder why you are even rebelling in the first place.

Quote from: Scholar...magic kinda stands for chaos, freedom, spirituality, and [preservation] of old traditions, while technology represents order, rules, [regimentation's], progressive spirit and so on.

But those in and of themselves are still only cliches. Magic can be just as rigid and rule-laden as science is. In most generic magic systems, doing X always results in Y - you can't get more un-chaotic than that. DnD magic (arcane at least) is totally based on around rules, study, and practice. Sure, the Sorcerer class has innate magic, but it is still just a different delivery of the same system.

And while science does rely on a set of governing rules and theories - gravity and friction, for instance - most inventors, especially the early ones, were the epitome of free thinking, creative individuals which supports your progressive spirit, but not the image of disciplined, conservative craftsmen.

Ah, Arcanum. Great game.
Anyway, while putting magic and technology on different sides of a schism is a bit cliched, the interaction between the two schools of thought can be interesting. Either when they harmonize or clash. The reason magic and technology are often seen as opposing forces is possibly because the purpose of magic is to break the laws of nature, which is just what science seeks to study. But in a way, science also seeks to bend the rules or at least take them to their extreme.

Quote from: Cataclysmic Crowthe purpose of magic is to break the laws of nature

Broadly speaking as we are, I don't think we can take any of these things for granted.

Indeed, for Celtricia Magic is the embodiment of the Natural Law.

And as for ancient traditions, Magic also serves as Science, the embodiment of progress.