[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.8488198 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

What exactly are your views on Science Fiction and Fantasy? Do you believe one is better than the other? That they are as different as as elves and dwarves? Or, like me, that there isn't really any difference?

Reason I'm asking is that I had mapped the timeline history of my homebrew setting from stone age till space age and it got into an annoying argument with a friend about scifi vs fantasy that ended with no resolution.

>> No.8488208

Hard sci-fi is the only sci-fi, the rest is all fantasy in SPAAACE!

>> No.8488212

What did you and your friend argue about?

I believe that both have their place. From a gaming standpoint, Fantasy is less likely to kill the PCs with an errant RPG or space laser, which has happened to me a couple of times in modern+ games.

>> No.8488226

Just saying "scifi" and "fantasy" doesn't really tell you much. There are so many sub-genres and sub-situations. They can be pretty much the same thing.

>> No.8488227

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

There is no Sci-Fi versus Fantasy.
There is only Fantasy vs. Fantasy.

Also Zuul.

>> No.8488245

>Fredrik KT Andersson

>> No.8488246

>My opinion on an abstract subject is fact despite it running counter to over a hundred years of literary tradition.
You are funny. Say more funny things.

>> No.8488247


Basically whether the setting was still considered fantasy, since spaceships and aliens were in the horizon of the world. My stance being that it didn't matter, and she kept saying that it no longer counted as fantasy even though most of the races and magic and gods were still there.

>> No.8488273


Like previous poster stated, they can be indistinguishable in terms of capabilities.

I suppose you could gauge the genres by the trappings of power, or the amount of common ignorance to power. I find that traditionally, Sci Fi is more lethal to PCs, due to better access to crazy shit that will blow your face off.

>> No.8488280

Does your friend consider Dune to be Fantasy or Sci-Fi?

>> No.8488285

OP: Don't really care what my setting is classified as, I'm just curious on everybody's opinion on the matter. I seen a lot of derision from hardcore sci-fi fans who consider fantasy childish and idiotic and more than a few fantasy fans who say sci-fi is boring and pointless.

Me, I don't see much difference. I can switch between Mass Effect and Dragonage with ease.

>> No.8488291

Like malfunctioning water heaters.

>> No.8488297

Many mediums blur the lines between genres, but for most people it's either 'Star Trek' or 'Lord of the Rings'.

No sense trying to argue with these people, they're generally stubborn asses.

>> No.8488298


I'll have to ask. I think shes a bit sci-fi phobic though.

>> No.8488309


Good point. Hell I've seen some Star Trek fans piss all over Star Wars for being too fantasy.

>> No.8488320

Star Trek wins because Piccard.

>> No.8488327


I think you mean Kirk.

>> No.8488333


>> No.8488339

A lot of that is probably due to the fact that weaponry and armor was developed at about the same pace until WW1, IIRC, when weapons technology took a huge leap forward and the only defensive answer was moar steel. Even today, we still use some of the same weapons; armor has yet to catch up even with lighter weight and more durable materials.
This bias is in sci-fi games as well. Very rarely will energy shields be able to completely defeat an attack.

To contrast this, when iron hull ships were in use cannonballs couldn't damage them unless they were aimed to fall onto the deck which was still wooden.

>> No.8488341

I like both, but I prefer Fantasy settings with early gunpowder (WHFB, Fable 2).

>> No.8488358

They got different feels.

Sci-fi is more flashy and tries to explain stuff while Fantasy dont gotta explain shit cause of magic.

Thats why sci-fi fans are smarter.

>> No.8488377

Sci-Fi has them working flushing toilets
what does fantasy have?

>> No.8488378

Very true, except for herp a derp.

This makes me want a fantasy setting that explains magic like science (not alchemy, thank you).

>> No.8488392

I prefer sci-fi to fantasy hands down.

A lot of people think that Sci-fi is all about technology / the future, but I think the distinction rests more in the themes that it explores.

To me it works on a number line, sort of. Hard sci-fi at one end and high fantasy at the other - Star Wars and 40k are closer to high fantasy than they are to hard sci-fi, Traveller and Star Trek are closer to the middle / hard sci-fi etc.

But it is impossible to say whether one is better than the other, as that is a matter of opinion, Jesus Christ.

>> No.8488401

I like both but currently prefer fantasy.
That'll change in a month or so

>> No.8488402

>Implying handwavium requires any thinking.


>> No.8488406


Iron Kingdoms does this generally, to the point of using runes like circuitboards to create magic items. Say you have a +1 Longsword created with Mechanika (setting specific version of techno-sorcery), you can slot in a new rune-plate to the thing to change what kind of elemental properties it has on the fly.

Now, it is Steampunk, so your mileage my vary. They have a very clinical and 1800's Science thing going with the magic in the setting though.

>> No.8488409

Where does spelljammer fit in all this?

>> No.8488411

>Jesus Christ.
He's non-fiction.

>> No.8488419

Aside from theme they are nearly identical. In the words of Arthur C. Clarke
>Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

>> No.8488426

[citation needed]

>> No.8488431

Was about to rage, then realized you were right.

>> No.8488433

Unknown Armies does a bit of this, by having the mancers gain power by refusing certain commonly accepted aspects of reality. It requires incredibly compulsive, deviant behavior.

>> No.8488436

>implying Jesus was a real person, and not an exaggerated caricature of one religious dissident.

>> No.8488441

Corrolary: Any technology distinguishable from magic to the average user is insufficiently advanced.

>> No.8488447


That doesn't take much.

Seriously, fucking tunneling.

>> No.8488454

I enjoy sci-fi more than fantasy. I don't necessarily think that one is better than the other, it's just that fantasy isn't really my cup of tea. Although I can get into Conan the Barbarian type fantasy, or Eberron (although that's basically just a setting where there is magic instead of technology).

>> No.8488464

Guess that's why most modern day stuff doesn't rely on tech for it's "magic"

>> No.8488467

Sci-fi tends to be more explorative of questions of morality and the human condition, whereas often times fantasy is simply evil is bad is evil... and characters triumphing in the face of insurmountable odds because "good prevails" and whatnot. Just a general observation, I enjoy both genres, but prefer sci-fi for its themes over those common in fantasy.

>> No.8488469

>implying Jesus was an exaggerated caricature of one religious dissident, rather than an evolution of the man-god messiah myth that had been popular for over a thousand years before and travelled its way through the world.

>> No.8488480

Unknown Armies hardly explains shit.

It is cool as fuck tho.

>> No.8488526


These gentlemen are using their brains.

Unless it's hard sci-fi which hardly ever occurs any more, it's space-fantasy.

>> No.8488529

What exactly are your views on apples and oranges? Do you believe one is better than the other? That they are as different as as grapes and pineapples? Or, like me, that there isn't really any difference?

>> No.8488552

The fact that you need to attach the "hard" prefix to describe the SUBgenre in question should be a red flag that your statement is false.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, you ignorant twat.

>> No.8488555

I don't see any difference whatsoever. If you hear the shit scientist have talked about in the last 50 years, when it comes to the next 50 years ahead of them, they might as well just say "magic, lol".

The only real difference is that sci-fi is about the future and fantasy is about the past, when it comes to society. Fantasy uses magic as a label to hand-wave the hardships of the midieval setting, whereas sci-fi uses PROGRESS! to handwave all the shit holding us back today (such as a lack of resources, political will, our economic system, national identities and technological limitations). Just leave that shit in the past or use some excuse about X country stumbling onto aliens/alien tech/magic awesome element on an asteroid.

It's just a difference of explanation, really. Sci-fi generally tries to make something up, whereas fantasy usually just says "magic did it". Depending on how you prefer to suspend your disbelief, you might prefer one over the other.

To me, both of them contain equal amounts of BS, so I enjoy them equally.

>> No.8488556

Grapefags are babies.

>> No.8488563

One contains citric acid, you are more likely to be allergic towards oranges thus apples are superior in function.
However, if we lived in a parallel universe where there were to vitamin supplements then oranges would be superior becaus- aaaah I see what you did there.

>> No.8488568

I like Fantasy better because it is more down to earth then Scifi. But mostly I'm not a huge fan of adventures in space and all the focus on gadgets/toys Scifi has.

>> No.8488585

Hard sci-fi is the only real sci-fi, but due to morons mixing space fantasy and sci-fi up people actually believe that star wars is sci-fi and thus you need to clarify or your worlds will go above their heads.

>> No.8488588

Also there's no such thing as SUBgenres you ignorant twat, it's all fantasies and there's no need to classify fantasies.

>> No.8488600

While I like both science fiction and fantasy, I kind of prefer fantasy. For some reason, I get a larger sense of the unknown from fantasy, and that's what fascinates me. In science fiction, everything seems known and that bores me. It also bothers me how easily people will take the supposedly firm rules of science and through them out the window whenever it's inconvenient, and somehow relativity or gravity or something has been disproved by Maxwell's Theory of Carthegnosis or some nonsense.

Even that's not as bad as when people say that somehow we outscienced the laws of the universe, and yet we seem to just have space battleships and no scarcity. While fantasy runs on handwavium for the most part, at least most people acknowledge that it does so. Science fiction seems crowded with people who think "the Goopdex Cycloteron generates an anti-prion field enabling us to hypercatadoniaze the Polyglotyal Verticometer" is somehow a brilliant piece of explanation, while "I cast a fireball spell using magic" is just silly. That both are horrible excuses never crosses anyone mind, because apparently making up five words and not defining them is preferable.

That said, I've found more good sci-fi than good fantasy, overall.

>> No.8488619

TLDR: science, lol.

>> No.8488623

Case in point OP.
Read the Pern novels.
Also, this is weird as I just got back from a lecture where we discussed this exact topic, with the conclusion that fantasy generally had supernatural, mystical or magical resolutions or solutions, while sci-fi had scientific ones, no matter how 'psuedo-science' they became.
But ultimately, the line between the two is incredibly blurred.

But fantasy and sci-fi are both awesome, so what does it matter?

>> No.8488638

I like character centric stuff with tiny bits of fluff to guide your thinking and let your brain fill in the gaps rather then thousands of pages of "this is exactly how everything works, my world is so unique and awesome, you'd remember it all" which applies to both fantasy and sci-fi.

>> No.8488678

hard sci-fi can be even more fantasy in SPAAAAAAAAACE, just factor in nanomachines

>> No.8488708

Klingons, Ewoks and Xenomorphs = Fantasy.
Elves, Dwarves and Furries = Fantasy.

Portable Continuum Blaster = Fantasy.
Fireball = Fantasy.

Fantasy in space with SCIENCE! instead of MAGIC! is still fantasy.

Fictional science is just that, fictional.
You might as well say that you have a gun that harnesses Heissman/Cromwell particles normally only found in sites such as the stonehenge or faerie rings that will allow you to gradually propel a small area of shadow quarks that in reaction with electrons changes the molecular structure of air into fire until it hits a solid object and BAM you've got a SCIENCE! that shoots MAGIC! and then everyone's head just exploded but it was inconceivable to think that they were both fantasy.

>> No.8488713


>>8488600 here. Science explains things, science fiction (usually) pretends to explain things without actually saying anything. If you read a chemistry textbook, you may come out of there with a bunch of words that don't mean anything to you, but if you do some research those things have meanings. That isn't always true in sci-fi, and that's what bothers me.

>> No.8488714

To the Hardophiles: isn't it called "Science Fiction" for a reason? Inventions and discoveries that we can't explain. How do we know now the realm of the possible?

Hard Sci-fi just sounds like a big circle jerk to me.

>> No.8488717

If two characters are at any point fighting with SPACE SWORDS it's not hard sci-fi. If they're fighting each other with UAVs, relativistic kill devices or nukes, then sure.

>> No.8488724

nano-machines are real. what's your point exactly?
is there an actual equation or am I just factoring something for the point of observing a single factor on it's own?

>> No.8488736


Nano-machines are real, sure, but Sci-fi writers use them as a platform for reality-bending techno-magic.

>> No.8488765

science as a whole is a big circle jerk that the superstitious and simple minded aren't allowed in, sure.

religions are much more accepting, you should try those. or maybe stick to watching the matrix, avatar or twilight and decide they are more fun then actual science for the progression of mankind.

>> No.8488770

>Nano-machines are real, sure, but fantasy writers use them as a platform for reality-bending techno-magic in their space fantasy novels.


>> No.8488772

The butthurt in this post is astounding. Tell me, do all hard sci-fi circlejerkers have Aspergers?

>> No.8488781

The butthurt in this post is astounding. Tell me, does all fantasy circlejerkers have Autism?

>> No.8488788

Supposed sci-fi stories have included "psionics" (coughcoughMAGICcough) since 1936.

It is called science fiction if it has enough science in it. Science isn't a setting, it's a way of observing things. Therefore fantasy becomes sci-fi the moment somebody thinks to do a controlled experiment with magic.

>> No.8488791

Aspergers is a form of autism.

>> No.8488804


You pretty much just proved his point right there.

'Hard' sci-fi is no better than 'soft' sci-fi.
And you sir, are a shitty example of a hard sci fi fan.

In that you're a cunt.

>> No.8488807

And death is just a severe form of papercuts.

>> No.8488814

Cry more avatarfag.

>> No.8488820


To be honest, I'm not too privy to Hard Science novels or nanomachines.

Could you cite a few?

>> No.8488821

Actually, Aspergers is a mild form of autism.

>> No.8488831


Is that your best?

I thought avatar was an overrated pile of shit.
Christ, I PREFER hard sci-fi, but im not an elitist wanker about it. Grow up, realise that different people have different tastes, and come to terms with that fact.

Moving out of your mothers basement might help
(See look, I can make unfounded assumptions as well, isnt it fun)

>> No.8488868

Scientific ideas will never come close to gaining the same popularity of the depiction of two or more people, human or not, having intercourse.

Where's your science now sciencefags?

>> No.8488871

people like different things, this is perfectly fine.

i prefer sci fi because it is more interesting than the fantasy setting, but the fantasy setting can be just as entertaining.

i mean, look at dragon age, generic fantasy, awesome game. not exactly a /tg/ example, but it works.

>> No.8488879

Dragon Age is generic fantasy, but they do an excellent job changing some of the generic and mixing it up.

>> No.8488890

Actually, now I think the crowd surrounding Scifi also makes it less appealing.

>> No.8488891

Sex sells, bro. It's scientifically proven over many studies.

>> No.8488906

Hey sciencefag, pi is exactly 3.

>> No.8488977

I like sci fi. I like "hard" sci fi too. I also like fantasy.

I don't like these HURRDURR HARD SCI FI ELSE IT'S FANTASY chucklefucks. "Skirting around the laws of the universe," eh?

Well, let's look at fusion energy. Common in a lot of "hard" sci fi. In order to maintain a fusion reaction, you must replicate in a precisely controlled manner the conditions resulting from the gravitational force of, what? Just mad libbing numbers here, but call it 10^30 kg of hydrogen and helium? Not only that, but you must also maintain a powerful magnetic field to keep the plasma away from the reactor walls. Then, you need to harness the energy resulting from this reaction to achieve a net gain greater than your investment.

At current, we can recover 30% of the power we put in and maintain reactions for seconds. To quote someone whose name escapes me, "Fusion is the power source of the future and always will be."

Plausible in theory? Sure. So are Alcubierre drives. So, shove it up your elitist assholes and see who can hold it in the longest.

>> No.8489046

Isn't the obvious answer post apocalypse? You get barbarian dudes hitting each other with swords AND secret caches of laspistols.

>> No.8489047


Well it is the Knowitall's that kinda put me off from expressing my opinion about what I like and dislike.

I really wish we could have nice things around here.

>> No.8489056

Why do you give a fuck what anyone else thinks?

>> No.8489066

Hello this is professor X and his fusion reactor.

This is hard science fiction.

Hello this is professor X and his fusion reactor, operated by mysterious furries with ray guns and psychic powers.

This is fantasy, apart from the fusion reactor.

>> No.8489074

I liek both.

>> No.8489079


Maybe yours

>> No.8489084


I don't but it might spawn internet argument conversations which most of the time just sucks.

>> No.8489088

This is anonymous A and he was unable to hold it in his ass for very long.

>> No.8489095

Hello this is professor X and his fusion reactor powered by liquefied furry flesh.

This is utopia.

>> No.8489102

Well then, I think we may disagree upon just what constitutes nice things.

>> No.8489109

Guy are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Dwarven fusion reactors powered by ale.

>> No.8489122


That's ok with me. We all have our own opinions for better or worse and it makes people more interesting

>> No.8489127

Science fiction is superior to fantasy. The main reason is fantasy is mostly the bastard children of conservative romanticism (the idealization of the middle ages) and is condemned to stagnation. Science fiction is a dynamic genre which evolves as science and culture does and haves s more dense humanities values than the other genre.

>> No.8489132

retarded argumentation in a community where creativity runs rampant may actually lead to good things.
like a dwarf persona of cultist chan.

>> No.8489144

Sci Fis not the bastard children of conservative romanticism how?

>> No.8489146

It is my opinion that inability to differentiate between fact and opinion should be considered a form of mental retardation and treated accordingly.

>> No.8489159


And Fantasy can't evolve in to new directions because?

>> No.8489170

I’ve always preferred fantasy. But lately I’ve enjoyed sci fi settings a whole lot more. Could just be a phase. I’m always a sucker for a mix…dem’ steam powered sex-droids.

>> No.8489174

Because Spangiroll never read anything by Garth Nix or Ursula K. Le Guin.

>> No.8489277

I prefer the way things are explained in Fantasy more than in Science Fiction.

When it comes to Fantasy, I enjoy the idea of magic, divine intervention, and a hero proving his strength in melee with nothing more than a sword and the arm he swings it with.

I also find space travel specifically to be very boring.

>> No.8489344

This is the face of Hard Science Fiction - the sort of fiction where people wield actual tools available for fantastic effects. Like Phileas Fogg harnessed the power of money and modern transportation to to circle Earth in 80 days. After he had calculated that it is possible with given data anyone could look up, that is.

>> No.8489356

It is very difficult to run a game with the kind of feel associated with Garth Nix. Le Guin is easier. You need to have a group who is completely in favour and capable of that kind of movement.

>> No.8489372

This is what good hard science fiction looks like these days. Stop browsing the fantasy section while touching yourself, please.

>> No.8489391

SCIENCE CANNOT DEFEAT GODS AND MAGIC... Well maybe gods... and.... fuck.

>> No.8489396

So how do you hard scifi people respond to symbolism and allegory in your hard scifi?

>> No.8489438


>> No.8489461

>> No.8489463

I like Sci-fi, but because I am a total fucking retard when it comes to math and science and have a great affinity for history fantasy comes a lot easier to me. The only sci fi I could probably write, or do well within, would be "Fantasy Sci Fi" like Dune (Not like Avatar).

>> No.8489478

I get very confused and have to go eat a sandwich.

>> No.8489503

Seriously, I can't let it go.

We're going to have a commercially operating fusion power plant IN TWENTY THREE YEARS.

Twenty three years ain't shit. The future is already here, and you probably carry a chunk of it around in your pocket every day.

>> No.8489558


We were supposed to have robo-butlers and flying cars too.

>> No.8489569

Fuck your robo-butler, you'd have just programmed him to speak ebonics and dance.

And you'd have crashed your flying car into a bunny orphanage.

>> No.8489573

In 2015 a alternative power company is launching a huge solar panel into the outer atmosphere where it can absorb vastly more energy then ground based solar panels, the energy will then be transmitted to receivers on earth by microwaves.

>> No.8489584

Not to mention that we bombed the goddamn moon.

People just need to accept the fact that the future that happened wasn't the one they thought would.

>> No.8489586

I was gonna bring up the flying car thing, but I see someone else already has. Future's a bitch, ain't it? Never goes quite how you think it will for some damn reason.

>> No.8489591

Well I'm glad I'm not a native English speaker,
we only have one word for both.

>> No.8489594


Yesterday someone posted a link to the ESA website where they calmly explained how they'd developed artifical gravity in 2006.

>> No.8489597

You know what's the worse.

>> No.8489613

We have a term for both too, "Speculative Fiction."

>> No.8489618

yes but you don't use it

>> No.8489635

I do, when I'm talking about both collectively.

>> No.8489642

Lord of the Rings: Fantasy
Star Wars: Fantasy IN SPESS
Star Trek: Sci-fi
Ringworld: Science Fiction

>> No.8489657


Nah, I'd have it remember where I put my books and use it to develope a good taxionomy for them in discourse, do my laundry, cut up ingredients I'm going to use for my cooking, make it cook marmelade and use it as a go-betweener in social functions and errands I don't wanna do myself.

Finally, I'd try and make it dance too, but only after I figured out how to make a good martial arts sparring partner from it.

>> No.8489665

I want you to look up a song. "The Future That Never Was" by Powerman 5000. Then, in 23 years when we still don't have fusion power, I want you to listen to it again and feel it crush your soul.

>> No.8489671

I'd like to dispute you on Star Trek, but I see you make some distinction between sci-fi and science fiction.

I'll assume that you mean the science is soft enough to drink rather than eat and call it ok.

>> No.8489689

Heard it already. Luckily I don't take what musicians think too seriously, or I'd have slashed my wrists after hearing System of a Down's "Science."

It's all the same shit.

>> No.8489697

Of course I read Le Guin's works.
I love The left hand of darkness and The dispossessed.

>> No.8489702

>Yesterday someone posted a link to the ESA website where they calmly explained how they'd developed artifical gravity in 2006.

...and then we'll be able to recreate the weakest and most energy-inefficent natural phenomena of them all! Watch us lift a bottle of water with the electric output of one whole atomic power plant!

>> No.8489732


>> No.8489738

Essentially. Star Trek has fanatically detailed fluff based loosely on SCIENCE!, which lets it fall somewhere in between I suppose.

>> No.8489761


Accurate and concise.

>> No.8489762

Making a post and then pretending to disagree with yourself to spark a flame war is roleplaying and thus a traditional game.

>> No.8489763

Don't get me wrong, Trek is really entertaining. Same as Dr. Who.

They contain about the same amount of science.

>> No.8489796


The same ammout of unbotanium powered handwavium-based technology, though the usual strategy of Star Trek is to explain things away with Technobabble.

>> No.8489805

I forgget to mention is my personal opinion, not a fact. I also have to admit some critics and comparative literature "experts" consider Shelley's Frankenstein the very first work of science fiction. However, science fiction leaved the idealization of a time period for talk about the impact technological and science discovering where having on society or just speculate about ideas.
Don't misunderstand me, I still like fantasy but I still say it's roots are Lord Dunsany's out dated romanticism ad it is stagnated because its a genre which abuses of a particular time and cultural time period and mythological tropes.

>> No.8489815

And the strategy in Who is to have the Doctor solve everything by being unreasonably awesome.

Which I guess is a little bit better, if only because all problems are not met with shouts of "QUANTUM FLUX PHASIC SCIENCY WORD FOUR NOT FOUND."

>> No.8489818

Captain kirk and the doctor would make an awesome team. Traveling through space and time with their bitches, you know the doctor was tappin' those asses.

>> No.8489843

unobtanium because it cannot be obtained.
however I like to pronounce it U-NOOB-tanium because I'm a little playful.

>> No.8489845

I kind of have to agree with this, even though when I think fantasy, what comes to mind are the handful of exceptions, I have to agree that almost all fantasy stories could take place in the same one hundred square miles of medieval english countryside and you couldn't tell the difference.

>> No.8489846

My key appeal about fantasy versus sci-fi is that Sci-fi caps what can be done. There is a set number of abilities, based on the technology and training the players have. If a player has a gun, you know he's just going to shoot with it. If a player has a computer, he's going to hack with it. If a player has some demolition charges, he can blow stuff up with it. As a GM, you can never really prepare for everything, but you've always got a better idea of what's going to happen if there is a limit to what players can do, especially if what they can do lies within the boundaries of reality that we live in. Most importantly, things are balanced that way. Almost anyone can pick up a gun, or a knife, or what have you.

On the flip side. Magic seems always ripping and tearing it's way through reality, completely ruining the balance between player classes, and is most often responsible for "Breaking" or overriding any puzzles a DM can throw at them.

Just as an example, the famed "Detect City Nuke", where I think the only component was a block of ice and you were required to be level 7.

But the honest truth is that I just abhor the fact that magic is treated as some sort of power that comes from nothing and just appears thanks to some sort of Tai-Chi move or a thought, with no material components to change into something else for some spells. Kind of treads a little too hard on my suspension of disbelief. (Equal amount of matter in universe)

I like 4e for putting a bit of a cap on that sort of thing, limiting casters' powers to a purely gamist perspective, keeping them from basically jumping through the fourth dimension and auto-winning the game.

>> No.8489853

Not really. But just remember:

The dream that you dreamed about,
it never came.
Step back and look around,
now who's to blame?
Your voice is weaker now,
it's just a buzz.
It sounds like the future that,
that never was.

>> No.8489854

I'd say "Saucy."

>> No.8489859

oh u
the doctor at least knows grade-school chemistry

>> No.8489881

>Don't misunderstand me, I still like fantasy but I still say it's roots are Lord Dunsany's out dated romanticism ad it is stagnated because its a genre which abuses of a particular time and cultural time period and mythological tropes.

Where would you place Utopian fiction then?

>> No.8489909

If we take Utopia as a genre related to philosophy where people offers a model of society as a way to speculate on political and cultural structure, then we can qualificate it as political sciences speculation and then make it related to science fiction.

>> No.8489914

personally, i really don't like hard scifi cause if you're projecting how the technology and science is improving, then you have soldiers with more firepower then they can take. in medieval times, you can put up fortifications and whatnot that can withstand bombardment until reinforcement came. in modern time, these foritifcations are generally obselete. WW2 shows that there is no point of putting up a wall cause the enemy will just find a way around it if not through it (german vs french, allies vs german), but let's say you can put up very big guns that can shoot extremely precisely with computer systems crunching numbers in milliseconds. That means attackers will be in a bloodbath before they even see the target (assuming the target itself is heavily foritified). so to make the hero(or heroes) survive long enough to do whatever he(they) must do, they introduce force fields, which in itself is plausible at best right now, and doesn't account for the fact you need to dissipate the force coming at you.

>> No.8489935

>As a GM, you can never really prepare for everything, but you've always got a better idea of what's going to happen if there is a limit to what players can do, especially if what they can do lies within the boundaries of reality that we live in.

"You kick the door open, there's little girl inside, she-"
"I shoot her!"
"...you what?"

"Ok, you guys get in the taxi on your way to the stadium, the cab driver ask whe-"
"I place a C4 charge under the seat while the driver isn't looking."
"...you what?"

"Ok, you've tracked the agent's location to somewhere within this area, the area is guarded by robots and there surrou-"
"I hack the robots and program them to kill everything and everyone in the neighborhood to be sure the agent dies."
"...you what?"

>> No.8489948

The "point" of fantasy as long a it has one is character study, thats why magic is allowable, physics doesn't matter emotionally. Of course plenty of bad writers forget that as well as plenty of bad scifi authors who really want to write fantasy but can't quite externalize it leading to such classics as "Tron" and other hybrid abominations.

>> No.8489951


When you understand how deep these words are you will kill yourself before you grow out your teenage years.

>> No.8489952

This is a bad thing why?

>> No.8489954

There is no universal utopia just the same as there is no universal concept of beauty. One man's heaven and all that. Perfection is an odd thing to strive for because it's one of the few things that can't be said to empirically exist. But I'm on a tangent and VERY tired. 'Night.

>> No.8489991

>As a GM, you can never really prepare for everything, but you've always got a better idea of what's going to happen if there is a limit to what players can do, especially if what they can do lies within the boundaries of reality that we live in.

Haha, not really. The good thing about magic is that all its rules are written down in one book and as a DM you can simply state that you're not gonna allow this or that tomfoolery but there's no book of reality. Nothing stops the hacker from using the Internet to find out who the six people they have to ask in order to get into personal contact with the richest man in the world and get him to loan them his Space Rocket. You know that he can look those peoples up, you can do it yourself in fact, every day. Simply claiming that "It does not work" is not going to sit well with them.

Fear the players who actually know reality.

>> No.8490015

>There's no book of reality.

>The laws of physics.

Oh you.

>> No.8490050

you mean the 64th edition due to be retconed any minute now?

>> No.8490051

I'm starting to realize this is a troll thread.

>> No.8490071


c'tan slowpoke.jpg

>> No.8490080

Die choking on a billion dicks.

>> No.8490108


Image of a rock falling against a light refraction related.

>> No.8490129

>> No.8490131

I prefer Fantasy when I'm reading adventure novels, and Sci-Fi for everything else (since there is no such thing as Fantasy that isn't an adventure novel).

I like Fantasy, coming from my interest in mythology, but as a genre it has no breadth.

>> No.8490171

>(since there is no such thing as Fantasy that isn't an adventure novel)

You mean: "There's hardly any science fiction or fantasy story that can not be neatly folded into the hero's journey, even if it is not an actual aventure with travels and all."?

Because I've read fantasy short stories that were not adventures.

>> No.8490174

because it then doesn't make sense how the hero is surviving all that onslaught, so you'll have the imperial stormtrooper marksmanship academy trope thrown all over the place. but then that doesn't make sense with technology (shooting is a technique, and learning to shoot is also a technique that can be refined), which means that the "hard scifi" is no longer.. "hard"

>> No.8490208

No, it still works, you just have to NOT have your players do things no sane person would do, and if they try, kill them instantly. If they whine, ask them to go find a real machinegun nest to make a bayonet-charge at and see how it works out.

>> No.8490281

>putting in new memories to change elemental properties

>> No.8490675

I'm a little hurt over this thread.
Let me break it down for you guys like this;
There are two types of works found in this world, Fiction and Non-Fiction. Fiction being an imagined work.

Both Sci-Fi & Fantasy settings fall into this category, but if we left it as just saying that its all Fantasy we would ignore their very distinct differences.

There are also similarities but this is all about the stories environment because, in all honesty, many people find that hand-waving the situation via narrative is how its really done. This brings about LOLMAGIC and LOLSCIENCE excuses. Same effects, different applications.

magic is the excuse for most peoples fantasy effects. its easy, and holds true to time set in a world where mechanical effects aren't favored. In Sci-Fi its the exact opposite, where mechanical effects are favored versus ethereal. Both hand-wave their plot holes in their genre.

Sci-Fi falls under one loophole that can't be ignored. Modern IRL Science. Take CP2020 or RIFTS as an example, they defined technology that in hindsight made it look silly and unattractive as a result. Science, when it is predicted, never lives up to its own expectations and can never be holistically immersive given time.

>> No.8490698

There is a chart that can illustrate the differences and similarities between these genre's. I don't think it exists but i will construct it as we go along.
From left to right, we have;

From top to bottom we have;
hard/reenactment (derived and simulated)
'Steam' (infusion and free-form)

| |
Sci-Fi Fantasy
| |
Both Sci-Fi and Fantasy can be as hard or as intermixed as we can imagine them. Also, they can be reinvented and unique as they possibly can be. Using the chart we use the centermost point to illustrate the similarities found with them all. When we favor magical based settings over mechanical, we lean towards the right. With mechanical over magic with Fantasy.

>> No.8490727

I saw OP pic and had to post this in response.

>> No.8490749

the chart didn't turn out quite as well as I hoped, I will whip something up if the discussion continues...

Non-magical medieval settings wrought with plagues and hardships swing to the upper right corner, and science solving mans woes in detailed explained methods to the upper left. Steam-punk slams itself in the middle bottom, mechanical back dropped stories with LOLSCIENCE on the hard left, and LOL MAGIC on the hard right.

Star Trek; middle (horizon) left
Star Wars; Centered, favoring the left.
Lord of the Rings; hard right
Jules Vern novels; Centered, favoring the lower half.
DnD; Far right favoring the lower section.
CP2020; near the top left corner (although in hindsight it isn’t technologically accurate)
Shadowrun; Centered; favoring the top.
Rifts; almost perfectly centered
WH40K; favoring the lower left near center.
WHfantasy; favoring the lower right
Modern settings; perfect center, very top.
Steam Punk, Diesel Punk, ect; centered, very bottom.

>> No.8490752

i cannot believe this wasn't posted

>> No.8490848

>Jules Vern novels; Centered, favoring the lower half.
>Writing novels about maritime biology and people doing fantastic stuff with current-day technology

>Not being hard scifi.

I think you have a huge black dick in your ass.

>> No.8490911

Fantasy is epic.
Sci-fi is badass.

>> No.8491081

So much angst on /tg/ today...
calm down butt-pirate and let me 'splain something to you.
Most perceptions are relevant to those who 'perceive' and let me first point out that my post included the fact that Sci-Fi views changed given time & science. To us Jules Vern is more steam-punk than Sci-Fi but in his day it was more hard science. That is why CP2020 was more hard, and as time it will slowly drift downwards as it was a marriage of ideas and sciences that didn't hold up to time.
Which was the biggest fault to Science Fiction. Jules Verne and Isaac Asimov being two of the small handful of exclusions...

>> No.8491398


Well-off Gentlemen everywhere = Punk
No steam anywhere = Steam
Huge parts of the book taken up by current-day scientific knowledge = Speculative fiction

>Isaac Asimov

Speculative Fiction at its best. His Robot Laws are shit from a scientific perspective and he never tried to work actual science into any of it.

>> No.8491646

You are more familiar with the classification of 'steampunk' rather than its genre definition.
Steam Punk is a blatant marriage of technologically different era's such as steam+victorian, or Diesel+Western. It has been further defined into subclasses of technology and era's as they were very close. Such as Diesel-Punk and Atomic-Punk. The term Punk is worded into its title because writers ignored the historically proper rules and did 'their own thing' in a punkish (rebellious) way.
Also, the term isn't new.
This isn't to be confused with Cyberpunk, as a cultural belief on the eventual corrupted peek of capitalist endeavors, were punks rebelled against the man.

Second Point...
Isaac Asimov wrote a different form of Hard Science Fiction. Instead of using Mechanical definition and future prediction, he used ethical propositions and argumentative theory in human association/evolution in relation to non-human elements. His science is very hard, not Star Trek hard, Greek Philosophy Hard...

>> No.8492076

>Steam Punk is a blatant marriage of technologically different era's such as steam+victorian, or Diesel+Western. It has been further defined into subclasses of technology and era's as they were very close. Such as Diesel-Punk and Atomic-Punk. The term Punk is worded into its title because writers ignored the historically proper rules and did 'their own thing' in a punkish (rebellious) way.

Only that none of Jules Vernes novels are about: "What would the Romans do with railways and steam ships?" He did not create alternative Future Past Stories. If you wanna compare him to some current-day author at least pick somebody like Michael Crinton...somebody who at least gave a passing reverence to the science used in his books.

>Isaac Asimov wrote a different form of Hard Science Fiction. Instead of using Mechanical definition and future prediction, he used ethical propositions and argumentative theory in human association/evolution in relation to non-human elements. His science is very hard, not Star Trek hard, Greek Philosophy Hard...

That would almost be believeable, if he had ever written a human character not acting robotic.

>> No.8492195

Only that his stories ARE about >creating alternative Future Past Stories
Please grasp this concept; I am talking about how SCI-FI's perception changes over time. Jules Vern was writing Science Fiction which is to US steam punk. And how CP2020 is slowly devolving from its form into another variant of steam punk as we witness the current cultural technological development exist far outside the realm of its WRITERS imagination.

second part...
again, your thinking tropes bub.
Read that as I'm implying that you didn't get it.

>> No.8492573


Uh, whatever, man. I'm gonna go around claiming that Richard III is a comedy nowadays because me and my friends found Richards assholery to be a riot. You can't proof me wrong because that's where a shift in perception made those two end up and modern - almost already outdated again - literal theory claims that author's intend is worth shit too.

Next I'll add all of the Italian Renaissance dialogues to the drama-section, because the format betrays them to be definately written for stage in this day and age. Yup, Galileo Galileis Dialogo is a stage piece now, and so are the old guidebooks to Florenz.

>again, your thinking tropes bub.
>Read that as I'm implying that you didn't get it.

Look, I've read all of his Robot stories and even the bad later parts of the Foundation. Those are not books of science fiction. It's speculative fiction - stories of: "What would happen if all people were blue all of a sudden and bread was made of wood?" Dude takes a concept and plays it out in all possible nuances. Or call them science ficition, if you must. But they're certainly not any harder than anything Philip K. Dick has written.

>> No.8492726

I like fantasy because I think Science Fact is too unpredictable for fiction. Look at old scifi movies. Big giant computers with wide screens and blocky communicators.

>> No.8493897

Science Fantasy laughs in the face of both

>> No.8493934


>> No.8493962

Sci Fi: what may come to be
Fantasy: what never was

Sci Fi has a greater chance of me "living it"

>> No.8494125

>Male Cultist

>> No.8494380


You're the guy who claims that works of literature change genre because computers get better and planes become ubiquitous. And when somebody points out that the contend of the book remains unaffected by that and that the genre you're trying to push them into is in fact one of speculative history and that that's a really important point to the autor all you got to say is: "Well, the other book is old too."

Gawddamn. Steampunk is supposed to be speculative HISTORIC fiction. The whole point is that somebody adds extra bits of technology to a previouse age in order to trace how they would possibly influence human history. It's written with and towards that intent. Scifi that is simply old is not. Jules Verne did not date his journey to the moon back to the 1700s in order to explore how American space exploration would affect the power balance between the nations.
Or if you seriously believe that, as it appears, then you gotta put Isaac Asimov into that category too. Because Robots and machine-man-interaction turned out to be so much less and yet so much more than he imagined it to be. Same goes for Jurassic Park, because - holy fucking shit - Genetic turned out to be more complex than: "We has written down all the genes!".

Any speculative fiction that does not feature wierd shit like Alien, FLT, Laser Swords or Mecha does in fact inevitably turn into Steampunk as science moves on.

Way to make categories meaningless.

>> No.8494406

Holy fuck. That guy is still around?

ELFWOOD is still around? I thought that site died years ago.

>> No.8496829


Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.