Over in one of the neverending "What if D&D wasn't so great?" threads, someone made a post that leads to a far more interesting and meaningful what-if scenario that isn't based on D&D-hate.
The original poster posited: what if TSR had expanded D&D to other possible kinds of settings (D&D Sci Fi, D&D Superheros, etc)? Would they have ended up having a much wider dominance of the market?
In reality, TSR sort of DID attempt that: they put out Gamma World, Star Frontiers, and Boot Hill; all relatively quite early in their history. If that wasn't an attempt to capture other genres, I don't know what is. But in essence, the attempt failed, with none of those three games being able to achieve dominance of any meaningful sort, with the first of the above having a modicum of popularity, the second much less, and the third less still.
So could they have done it different? Could there have been a way that they would have overcome Traveller to have the definitive early Sci-fi RPG? Because that's basically what it would all come down to: had TSR had the early control of BOTH the fantasy and Sci-fi genres in roleplaying, I think that is all they'd have needed to be the utterly dominant force.
RPGPundit
Quite simply stated: if TSR had got a Star Wars license ca. 1980 and released an RPG, like, right after Empire came out...I think that would've helped them to OWN SFRPGs.
EDIT: Come t'think it, why did it take until 1987 for a licensed Star Wars RPG to hit the shelves?
IF they had come up with a true "house system" that had its roots in original D&D mechanics this idea might have worked.
Done right , a good generic Space Sci-Fi game published by TSR would have worked.
When I was a teenager the two biggest RPGs being played were either D&D or TRAVELLER. if you said you were playing Science fiction - most other gamers assumed you were playing TRAVELLER, if you said you were playing fantasy, most other gamers knew you meant D&D.
- Ed C.
The sad truth is that scifi RPGs are rilly unpopular, so the market segment in question is minimal anyway.
SW is always a special case. It's not quite accurate to say that SW relates to scifi RPGs as D&D relates to fantasy RPGs. It's a much larger phenomenon than RPGs. Sure, it would have raked in cash from the fans and in the process converted a fraction of them to gaming, as WEG SW did. But I suspect WEG SW had one toe in the hobby and one massive foot in fanboidom.
There's no such thing as a meaningful what if.
Quote from: AosThere's no such thing as a meaningful what if.
What if there was?
I swear, if you don't stop, I'm going to divide by zero!
I think TSR missed the boat by not doing a D&D system game, but "In Space!"
Just look at how d20 affected the market - early on almost everyone and their mother ditched their house systems for the D&D/d20 system.
I wanted to exclude d20 from my own thread but I think it has bearing in this one. Especially as there would likely be no OGL in 79.
If TSR had the 1979 equivalent of d20 modern, scifi, etc. (but with catchier names) I don't doubt that they would have an even more dominant market share.
The vast majority of RPG players only play D&D or d20 games now. If that had started in 79, other rpg companies would be even more fringe than they are now.
I don't think universal systems like Gurps or Hero would even exist because 79'd20 would already be there.
.
Quote from: JaegerIf TSR had the 1979 equivalent of d20 modern, scifi, etc. (but with catchier names) I don't doubt that they would have an even more dominant market share.
But as far as I know, D20 Modern and even D20 Star Wars are not clear successes. They seem to be just minor blips in the middle of the pack with GURPS and others.
Also, none of the TSR sci-fi games based on earlier D&D mechanics -- like Metamorphosis Alpha or Buck Rogers -- ever made even a blip. It seems to me that the less D&D-like attempts such as Star Frontiers and Alternity were more successful.
Now, obviously, if they made really good sci-fi games, they could have invaded the niche-of-a-niche that is sci-fi RPGs. However, I don't think the thing holding them back was not using D&D mechanics.
Gamma World was also an sf D&D and not a huge hit. D&D was a huge hit because it was fantasy not because it was a roleplaying game.
This thread is making me wonder why fantasy rpgs are so much more dominant. If EGG and crew had been into scifi more, and had decided to make a scifi rpg instead of fantasy (which would have been a bigger stretch from their wargaming, I know), would the hobby even have been as popular? If DnD had been successfully split into genres would they all be equally popular now? Search me, I know I was into fantasy back then because I loved books like Conan, LotR, John Carter, Gor. I don't remember reading as much scifi back then, was there as much accessible to kids? I had some children's books that were scifi, but I don't remember any at the level of the fantasy books I mentioned.
Thing is, my uneducated guess would be that the readership of scifi books has always been larger than that of fantasy books.
It may be that Traveller did some harm here with the paradigm it established. It wedded Space Opera, the most popular scifi genre evar, to an, ahem, military-industrial complex nerd infatuation with gear, design sequences and planetology. As a result, the whole sense of wonder thing, which Space Opera *novels* do share with fantasy, got drowned out by gearheadiness, or so it could seem. And that may have turned people off.
I would have to say that as for my uneducated guess that nine out of ten people who read Sf read fantasy too and visa versa*. I would, however, agree with your assessment of Traveller. I have a vivid memory of how confused I was about the near absence of aliens and energy weapons in the original 3 LBBs. Even if I had thought to sat up my own, my group in those days would never have gone for it (I was definitely the whipping boy in those days). We switched to Space Opera immedeately after we got our hands on it.
Funny thing, though, I'd gladly play CT today, but no way would I go near SO.
*I worked as a book seller for years, both in a general book stores (Cody's in Berkeley, Boulder Bookstore in...er Boulder) and one SFand F store (The other change of Hobbit in Berkeley).
Quote from: AosI would have to say that as for my uneducated guess that nine out of ten people who read Sf read fantasy too and visa versa*.
Yes, that's true.
Quote(I was definitely the whipping boy in those days).
Me too. Ingrates, all of them. Their saving grace was that they were great D&D players.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityMe too. Ingrates, all of them. Their saving grace was that they were great D&D players.
The saving grace of mine is they're all still trapped in Watertown, NY.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityThing is, my uneducated guess would be that the readership of scifi books has always been larger than that of fantasy books.
The buyership of fantasy books is (and has been for some time) larger than the buyership of SF books.
My knowledge of the sales figures is educated. My uneducated guess for the reasons why would be in large part that fantasy books have greater appeal to female readers than SF books for a variety of reasons; since women are statistically a larger market for book sales than men, the results are inevitable.
KoOS
Not doubting what you say, KoOS, and come to think of it the recent romantic fantasy genre makes it plausible, but do you have some figures and details for that? It would be really interesting to learn more about it.
Quote from: RPGPunditThe original poster posited: what if TSR had expanded D&D to other possible kinds of settings (D&D Sci Fi, D&D Superheros, etc)? Would they have ended up having a much wider dominance of the market?
Meaningful? Besides, what the question should be, as you basically point out in your post, is "What if TSR put out a game for a future/modern era that didn't suck monkeyballs?" Shadowrun is a single setting modern/near future game that has kept going and going and keeping sustaining sales since 1989 for one simple reason. It didn't suck hard at doing modern. RIFTs is still going inspite of the author, that says something about it too.
TSR's offerings sucked monkeyballs. Hell D20 Modern
still does. It's only once you leave the official path that you get some brilliant work that kills the suck.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityNot doubting what you say, KoOS, and come to think of it the recent romantic fantasy genre makes it plausible, but do you have some figures and details for that? It would be really interesting to learn more about it.
I'm fairly sure that he is right. I don't even think you need to bring Romantic Fantasy into it- Robert Jordan, frex, has a huge female fan base iirc.
I think fantasy just plain works better for the form of role-playing. Sort of how Dragon's Lair just worked better than Space Ace. There's just something simple about the fantasy of killing monsters and taking their stuff while exploring a dangerous dungeon that doesn't translate correctly into sci-fi.
There are certainly more popular genres than Fantasy - Action, Horror, Comedy, Romance... If it was just about popularity, we would have seen a lot more RPGs over the years that resembled Die Hard, Stephen King, Titanic, Gone with the Wind, or the M*A*S*H TV show.
Now, imagine where we'd be if instead of having wargaming for a hobby, Gygax was a big fan of Little House on the Prairie :eek:
Quote from: jgantsI think fantasy just plain works better for the form of role-playing.
Can't compute...
QuoteThere's just something simple about the fantasy of killing monsters and taking their stuff while exploring a dangerous dungeon that doesn't translate correctly into sci-fi.
Need more FRUIT!
Well shit yeah. If you treat RPG limited to that....maybe.
Quote from: jgantsNow, imagine where we'd be if instead of having wargaming for a hobby, Gygax was a big fan of Little House on the Prairie :eek:
Scrap booking, obviously.
Quote from: jgantsI think fantasy just plain works better for the form of role-playing.
I agree. Sci-fi has to be much more integrated in terms of setting, science, and roles. I have a hard time imagining what a
generic sci-fi game setting would even look like. Again, that's what made D&D so broadly appealing - it wasn't Middle Earth, or Hyperboria, or even Greyhawk. It was all of the above and none of the above. You could buy White Plume Mountain or Keep in the Borderlands off the shelf and run it one week, and the next week run your home-made dungeon. Would a sci-fi game really be that flexible? And could you make it simple enough that loads of 12 and 14 year olds who weren't gearheads would want to play?
Quote from: DwightCan't compute...
Need more FRUIT!
Well shit yeah. If you treat RPG limited to that....maybe.
The mechanics and gameplay of D&D are what made it a success over other games.
People like killing shit for loot and XP. There's currently 10 million people playing World of Warcraft. Millions of people all over the world have bought piles of Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games. Diablo II sold 3 million copies in six months, and still sells even today.
It's the gameplay that made D&D big, not the setting. Gary could've been really into sci-fi wargaming, and we'd all be killing bug-eyed monsters in rock quarries.
And it's also the refusal to accept the value of D&D's gameplay paradigm that has buried so many of it's competitors over the years.
Quote from: jgantsI think fantasy just plain works better for the form of role-playing. Sort of how Dragon's Lair just worked better than Space Ace. There's just something simple about the fantasy of killing monsters and taking their stuff while exploring a dangerous dungeon that doesn't translate correctly into sci-fi.
I think to there is very simple reason for difficulty in translating play. Dungeons have walls, and pseudo-medieval times have limited options for transportation and information. That makes it much easier to constrain the scope of play.
In modern-day or sci-fi games, characters can call anyone, go anywhere, or look up anything fairly easily. That makes it a lot harder to come up with a simple adventure structure that a new GM can come up with and run smoothly.
Quote from: HaffrungI agree. Sci-fi has to be much more integrated in terms of setting, science, and roles. I have a hard time imagining what a generic sci-fi game setting would even look like.
Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking - the trappings of a "fantasy world" are fairly consistent - medieval technology, kingdoms of different races, dangerous monsters, hazardous expanses of isolated wilderness, and ancient ruins with treasure.
The trappings of "science fiction" vary so wildly as have almost nothing in common.
Quote from: jhkimI think to there is very simple reason for difficulty in translating play. Dungeons have walls, and pseudo-medieval times have limited options for transportation and information. That makes it much easier to constrain the scope of play.
In modern-day or sci-fi games, characters can call anyone, go anywhere, or look up anything fairly easily. That makes it a lot harder to come up with a simple adventure structure that a new GM can come up with and run smoothly.
Oh, yes, this is definately a big part of it, too. Modern and Sci-Fi games are a great deal more complicated to run - particularly when questions about technology and things come up.
*shoots jgants, takes his phat gold chains*
Quote from: jhkimI think to there is very simple reason for difficulty in translating play. Dungeons have walls, and pseudo-medieval times have limited options for transportation and information. That makes it much easier to constrain the scope of play.
In modern-day or sci-fi games, characters can call anyone, go anywhere, or look up anything fairly easily. That makes it a lot harder to come up with a simple adventure structure that a new GM can come up with and run smoothly.
You can't use the same railroading techniques, no. Now if originally there had been better developed ideas about running the game without the railroad of dungeon walls....
Killing things and taking their stuff works in lots of settings if you don't fall into the dungeon crutch thinking. Of course even computer games generally have moved beyond that (MMOGs aside).
QuoteKilling things and taking their stuff works in lots of settings if you don't fall into the dungeon crutch thinking. Of course even computer games generally have moved beyond that (MMOGs aside).
Do you even play video games at all?
Quote from: J ArcaneDo you even play video games at all?
Yes.
Quote from: DwightYes.
Then I am generally rendered stunned by your ability to come to such an utterly fallacious conclusion.
No amount of wishful thinking is going to change the fact that TSR put out some pretty shitty SF games. I'm glad they did not "utterly" dominant the hobby as it would have been an utterly sucky thing if they did.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: J ArcaneThen I am generally rendered stunned by your ability to come to such an utterly fallacious conclusion.
Maybe it's just from playing too much Endless Oceans and Mario Kart but yeah computer games encompass a hell of a lot more than kill them and take there stuff. Oh sure kill them and take their stuff hasn't
disappeared. :shrug: There are still games like that (Mario Galaxy is sort of kill things and take their stuff, sort of, but it's more a puzzler). And if you are super liberal and try to include Pacman and Team Fortress 2 in the definition it tips the balance some.
But Sims? What was is, about 50 million units of the first version sold (excluding the numbers for expansions)? The only thing people were killing there is time and perhaps the English language.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityNot doubting what you say, KoOS, and come to think of it the recent romantic fantasy genre makes it plausible, but do you have some figures and details for that? It would be really interesting to learn more about it.
Although I'm sure the figures are available online somewhere, my sources are realspace stuff from inside the publishing industry. I'll see if I can get ahold of something postable.
Although if you want something quick and dirty but still statistically sound (unlike, say, C&GR), you could do worse than the New York Times bestseller lists. Fantasy novels regularly feature as solid sellers; SF novels very rarely do.
KoOS
QuoteWhat was is, about 50 million units of the first version sold (excluding any expansions)?
6.3. Way to exaggerate there sport.
Of course there's other computer games out there. That doesn't not negate the fact that killing things and taking their stuff still is a rather large percentage of that.
To suggest they've somehow "moved on" or "grown out of" such pursuits is laughable, considering it continues to be a well worn and successful line of play.
Not to mention your deliberate exclusion in your previous statement of a field which is no small portion of the market. You make it sound as if MMOs are some kind of marginal abberation, when in reality, they're the most successful and popular sector of the gaming sphere worldwide.
You're distorting reality, and solely to paint a very popular brand of play as some kind of phase to be grown out of, and that's bullshit, and insulting to boot.
Look, what's possible in video games isn't the same as what's doable in the tabletop RPG format. Flying Buffalo had an early SFRPG, name escapes me, in 1976 but it didn't catch on, maybe partly because it didn't do things on the character level but the starship level. Traveller came up with an effective SF paradigm that wasn't kill and take, but outside of the free trader campaign it's rather difficult, to my mind, to come up with an effective "wandering PC party" paradigm without going post-apocalypse. And the "wandering party" approach, the PCs a law unto themselves, free agents, beholden to no man, is a big part of the appeal of RPGs.
Jesus Elliot, that actually taxed my googel foo.
http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=4093&editionid=4525
And, hey, dig those production values.
Quote from: jhkimI think to there is very simple reason for difficulty in translating play. Dungeons have walls, and pseudo-medieval times have limited options for transportation and information. That makes it much easier to constrain the scope of play.
In modern-day or sci-fi games, characters can call anyone, go anywhere, or look up anything fairly easily. That makes it a lot harder to come up with a simple adventure structure that a new GM can come up with and run smoothly.
Hmmm... d20 Farscape seems to do well with this. I would imagine Stargate SG-1 would also do a real decent job. I haven't had any trouble at all putting together Farscape games, and they seem incredibly popular with anyone that has seen like two or more episodes of Farscape whether they have played RPG's before or not. It's something about the setting.
Quote from: AosJesus Elliot, that actually taxed my googel foo.
Sorry about that--it's actually included in John Kim's list-by-year of RPGs, I was just too lazy to link it.
Quote from: DwightYou can't use the same railroading techniques, no. Now if originally there had been better developed ideas about running the game without the railroad of dungeon walls....
Dungeons aren't a railroad; they're a way to channel gameplay so a DM can run the game without a whole lot of prep or improvisational skills. And you know what? The 12-15 year-olds who made D&D a massive phenomenon in the early 80s didn't, in general, have advanced DMing skills.
D&D was huge because its appeal reached far beyond the tiny gamer geek demographic. So any alternative or 'solution' to D&D that relies on sophisticated gamer geek sensibilities misses the point entirely. Dungeons worked precisely because they were easy enough for a typical 14-year-old to run.
Quote from: HaffrungDungeons aren't a railroad; they're a way to channel gameplay so a DM can run the game without a whole lot of prep or improvisational skills.
Poh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe.
Quote]And you know what? The 12-15 year-olds who made D&D a massive phenomenon in the early 80s didn't, in general, have advanced DMing skills.
...and they were playing a game that didn't actually help them at all.
Quote from: J Arcane6.3. Way to exaggerate there sport.
Way to not know WTF you are talking about, sport. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PC)
Yes, there are kill them and take there stuffs as a category in games. But it sure as hell isn't the sum of it.
The real kicker. Consumer video games didn't even really start as "kill things and take their stuff". Yeah, I played Pong. Had one of these. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleco_Telstar) Kill things and take stuff was just another option. Along with 'sports', kill things, puzzles, knock things over, etc.
Quote from: DwightPoh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe.
Well, the dungeons I ran back in the day didn't have plots. So you must have an entirely different definition of 'railroad' than the one I'm familiar with.
Quote from: HaffrungWell, the dungeons I ran back in the day didn't have plots. So you must have an entirely different definition of 'railroad' than the one I'm familiar with.
It's an extreme narrowing of the effective path (or 'plot' or whatever you want to call it) the characters can take. Dungeons over time evolved to have a few more options of which direction to take [without causing an TPK], allowing some branching. But still you had a very limited tree to follow (effectively the 'plot' for what it was worth).
Quote from: DwightWay to not know WTF you are talking about, sport. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PC)
Yes, there are kill them and take there stuffs as a category in games. But it sure as hell isn't the sum of it.
The real kicker. Consumer video games didn't even really start as "kill things and take their stuff". Yeah, I played Pong. Had one of these. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleco_Telstar) Kill things and take stuff was just another option. Along with 'sports', kill things, puzzles, knock things over, etc.
Oh I see where this is going.
Yeah, I read the whole "If we make the Soap Opera game, normal people will start playing RPGs, and we won't be geeks anymore!" one too many times back on RPGnet, thanks.
Take it to the Forge.
Quote from: J ArcaneOh I see where this is going.
You getting a Fact Beatdown, so you pull out a tired, name-calling schtick? :rolleyes: The thread was stillborn, I need to shake my head for even looking in it. :( L8R doodZ!
Okay, I'll bite. If we aren't talking Forge-y stuff, what precisely is it about Shadowrun and Rifts--your examples, Dwight--that provide the tools needed to make SF good. Two non-starters: (1) Kill-things-and-take-their-stuff, just with cybergear; (2) Railroading, preplotted "stories", and illusionism. Both of those are equally applicable to fantasy, and fantasy definitely does (1) very comfortably, thus enjoying a natural advantage in bootstrapping/training wheels for less-than-virtuoso GMs.
I ran D&D for 20 years, and I think I had about 5 dungeons. I never did get it.
-clash
You and me both, Clash. I only got it a year ago or so.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou and me both, Clash. I only got it a year ago or so.
Then what is it? I still haven't got it.
-clash
In the tiniest of nutshells: it's scary, and you need a battlemat.
Any game that would be appealing to today's sophisticated, 32-year-old RPGer, would by its nature have no mass appeal in 1979. So yeah, give up those fantasies of an alternate reality where the type of RPG game you love today would have been the foundation of the hobby. Those games never were, are not today, and never will be popular.
Well, there's been alot of posts since my last, but I just wanted to follow up and say that in the mid to late 70s and early 80s I seemed to find a great many more fantasy books that appealed to my pre to early teen self than scifi, but maybe I wasn't looking in the right place. I had tried some scifi like Niven and Heinlein, but it just didn't seem as accesible to the younger crowd to me, in other words kinda bored me. There was Star Wars, and Star Trek, and that was the extent of the scifi I liked at the time. Maybe getting into a Star Wars product early would have made a difference for kids like me, although I have no idea how many of us there were, so it might have meant nothing in the big picture.
Quote from: HaffrungAny game that would be appealing to today's sophisticated, 32-year-old RPGer, would by its nature have no mass appeal in 1979. So yeah, give up those fantasies of an alternate reality where the type of RPG game you love today would have been the foundation of the hobby. Those games never were, are not today, and never will be popular.
Who are you talking to?
This is an example of what I like to play, but I'm unsophisticated and only 42:
Quote from: DwightYou getting a Fact Beatdown, so you pull out a tired, name-calling schtick? :rolleyes: The thread was stillborn, I need to shake my head for even looking in it. :( L8R doodZ!
"Facts"? You miserable wangrod, all you're doing is spinning statistics to say what you want them to say. I can do the same thing, watch: GTA4 has sold in it's first week (http://gametab.com/news/2587694/) what The Sims took two years to sell. (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/simslivinlarge/news_2857556.html)
I simply prefer to cut through the bullshit spin doctoring to get at the REAL agenda at play. It is what we come here to do, is it not?
I come here to annoy and amuse. I'll get to the amusing part sometime soon. I promise.
You amuse ME Aos. Of course, most of the regulars here do, otherwise I wouldn't keep checking in....
... its the newer blood that don't amuse. The are sadly lacking in teh poasting skillz...
Quote from: HaffrungAny game that would be appealing to today's sophisticated, 32-year-old RPGer, would by its nature have no mass appeal in 1979. So yeah, give up those fantasies of an alternate reality where the type of RPG game you love today would have been the foundation of the hobby. Those games never were, are not today, and never will be popular.
QFT
The idea that the hobby could have began from games that were developed by and for people with decades of gaming experience is rather stupid, to say the least.
Okay, so -- what about Encounter Critical?
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Okay, so -- what about Encounter Critical?
Roleplaying as we know it DID evolve directly from EC. We're talking about, y'know, other stuff, doc! :O
-clash
...I'm so clueless.
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Okay, so -- what about Encounter Critical?
:confused:
I've seen this mentioned
many times, yet I do not know what it is.
Save me from my ignorance, someone?
Quote from: Akrasia:confused:
I've seen this mentioned many times, yet I do not know what it is.
Save me from my ignorance, someone?
Knowest thou not the GOOGLE?
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceKnowest thou not the GOOGLE?
-clash
But that would involve some minimal effort on my part.
Quote from: AkrasiaBut that would involve some minimal effort on my part.
The Good Lord helps those who help themselves. :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceThe Good Lord helps those who help themselves. :D
-clash
Ah, well, I'm an atheist ... :joecool:
In any case, I was just hoping for a short overview.
Quote from: J ArcaneOh I see where this is going.
Yeah, I read the whole "If we make the Soap Opera game, normal people will start playing RPGs, and we won't be geeks anymore!" one too many times back on RPGnet, thanks.
Take it to the Forge.
I like rpg.net (if I didn't I wouldn't post there), but I admit that those threads annoy me to no end, the ones wherein people say nonsense like "If I went back in time with a time machine to the seventies and handed copies of [insert Forgie game here], everybody would be playing it, D&D wouldn't exist and we all would get laid!!!!!". How can some people be so self-delusional? :confused:
Quote from: AkrasiaIn any case, I was just hoping for a short overview.
But that would be spoiling all the fun.
EGG designed AD&D to be popular.
He included many rules and races that he didn't play with, just to have a broader appeal.
I think if anyine builds a game to have a broad appeal and not just fr the "RPG market" they will be successful.
Broad appeal is the reason Vampire overtook D&D for a little while, it didn't rely on the RPG market, it appealed to a wide spectrum of fans for a wide spectrum of reasons.
As so often lately, KJ makes a rather good point, and one that's different from the MMORPG argument.
Contrarily to what some people said earlier on, the popularity of fantasy has been steadily overtaking sci-fi ever since the... gee, 80-ies definitely, probably already starting in the 70-ies. The tendency has been and still is the same in any kind of media - novels, films, and apparently, RPGs.
As to the reason for this process, the long version would involve several dissertations. The short version is that the main cause was probably a global disillusionment with technology as something that would "make the world better". It sure did look so up to the first half of the century, and its inertia has carried some of the sentiment up to the 60-ies. Nevertheless, the half century after the golden age of sci-fi has seen World War 2 with the Atomic Bomb, Vietnam with Napalm, the Cold War and a hundred other ways in which technology has made our lives worse, while the benefits of progress were much less than previously expected. Thus the audience has gradually turned away from the naive "technology will create a better future" philosophy of sci-fi, since it just no longer reflected the to world as they perceived it.
And that's exactly why fantasy has been on the upswing for so long - it offers an avenue of escapism towards a never-has-been past.
I am not sure that people are noticing more that science can be a sharp sword both ways and more that people are more and more treating science as some sort of mumbo-jumbo.
I'm not sure wildly esoteric theorizing (27 dimenional super-straw universes) help anyone in this regard.
Notice the Intelligent Design proponents dismissing Darwinistic evolutionary theory as if it were a competing religion, and the public acceptance of this sort of behavior.
This also holds true of those... what were they? Evolutionary Psychologists? who are not 'allowed' to demonstrate how animal behaviors can be used to model human behaviors on the grounds that 'humans are superior to animals'...
And I am not entirely certain this is a new trend, either... though it does seem to be gaining severe momentum during the last few years... or maybe I just see it more clearly now.
Quote from: SpikeI am not sure that people are noticing more that science can be a sharp sword both ways and more that people are more and more treating science as some sort of mumbo-jumbo.
True, but I'd say that a significant portion of these people became like that exactly
because general interest has shifted away from science after a half century of disillusionment. It's not about
consciously noticing it, it's just part of the changing zeitgeist.
Fundies are a different matter, they're just a bunch of rabid idiots, no big mystery there.
Quote from: Premier[reams and reams of boilerplate cultural criticism 101 excised here] Thus the audience has gradually turned away from the naive "technology will create a better future" philosophy of sci-fi, since it just no longer reflected the to world as they perceived it.
It seems to me that the two major and massively popular subgenres scifi has produced after 1980, cyberpunk and transhumanism, contradict this statement. The one revelled in dystopianism, the other revived the naivety.
It's also misguided to state that scifi before 1980 was beholden to that naivety. See Dick, Ballard, the whole "new wave" movement, great writers from Eastern Europe like Lem or the Strugatskijs...
Fantasy may sell more than scifi, and I still would like to know how much and since when exactly. But that's nothing to do with scifi being stuck in some bygone escapism. Its escapism is fully up to date, alas alas.
On that note, I'm not clear on how it's not naive to retreat from a naive technophilia into a naive fantasy neverneverland, if that's what's being implied?
1. Akrasia, get off your ass and go get the free Encounter Critical download, it's on S. John Ross' Cumberland Games website. In addition to being cool, it was briefly a successful hoax.
2. People who say dungeons are railroads don't know what the fuck they're talking about. People who say they eventually 'evolved' into something more double-don't know what the fuck they're talking about; dungeons 'evolved' towards being more of a railroad, not less, for a variety of reasons. You've got a map, different monsters and traps, competing factions, spying, diplomacy, tactics, strategy, and open-ended use of equipment. All of this is totally open for the players and GM to do whatever the hell they want with. That's not a railroad, whatever other problems there might be.
3. I believe that things have changed, and that fantasy is now substantially more popular than science fiction, but that back in the early to mid-seventies, science fiction was substantially more popular than fantasy. D&D actually bears a significant part of the responsibility for this shift.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityIt seems to me that the two major and massively popular subgenres scifi has produced after 1980, cyberpunk and transhumanism, contradict this statement. The one revelled in dystopianism, the other revived the naivety.
Cultural trends are not like school classrooms. It's not like "Yeah, we have this trend until 11:30 Jan 1 1970
sharp, then it's something else". So yes, of course there are late birds, and yes, there are writings that go against the grain. Doesn't change the general tendency, and doesn't change the fact that more people are reading adn watching fantasy.
Also, you yourself said cyberpunk is dystopian. If anything, this just further reinforces that the age of optimism was over.
QuoteIt's also misguided to state that scifi before 1980 was beholden to that naivety. See Dick, Ballard, the whole "new wave" movement, great writers from Eastern Europe like Lem or the Strugatskijs...
See above for "general tendencies". And seriously, stop deliberately misconstructing and oversimplifying what I said to a point where it sounds entirely different.
QuoteOn that note, I'm not clear on how it's not naive to retreat from a naive technophilia into a naive fantasy neverneverland, if that's what's being implied?
It not a question of naivety, on the contrary. Sci-fi and the technological optimism it accompanied have
let us down, People
really thought it will be all better. It promised something it couldn't deliver, hence the disappointment. Fantasy never made such a promise, that's why it's not a let-down and why people are reading more of it.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityIt seems to me that the two major and massively popular subgenres scifi has produced after 1980, cyberpunk and transhumanism, contradict this statement.
Massively popular among geeks, maybe. Certainly not New York Times Bestseller popular.
I've worked in used and new bookstores - one a major Canadian chain. Fantasy outsells science fiction by a factor of about 5 to 1. Among younger readers, it's probably closer to 10 to 1. You have to understand that the top selling authors account for a huge amount of the total fiction sales. One figure I saw showed that in any given year, 30 authors account for over half of all fiction sales. Fantasy usually has several authors in that group (Martin, Rowling, Tolkien, Kay, Salvatore, Hobb, Jordan, Pratchett, etc.). The number of sci-fi authors who crack that group is much smaller. Even geek-gods like China Mieville don't achieve broad mass-market appeal. A hack like Salvatore has sold far, far more books than Mieville or Ian M. Banks.
One of the biggest reasons is more than half of fantasy readers are now female. Very few women read scifi. So the potential audience for any fantasy novel is more than twice as large as for a scifi novel.
And I agree with the comments upthread that anti-modern romanticism is a much stronger current in pop culture than technological idealism. Scifi is still the purview of geeks (mostly geeky men). Fantasy has gone mainstream.
Quote from: HaffrungScifi is still the purview of geeks (mostly geeky men). Fantasy has gone mainstream.
More, (written) SF is the purview of geeks over 35. Cyperpunk and transhumanism notwithstanding, there has been no real replenishment for the older SF authors (Asimov, Clarke, Silverberg, Niven et al.) and no replenishment of their audience either. That bird has flown. I'm tempted to say that people just watch TV these days, but people do read fantasy.
Quote from: Akrasia:confused:
I've seen this mentioned many times, yet I do not know what it is.
Save me from my ignorance, someone?
Encounter Critical (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/encounter-critical.htm) is a freely downloadable role-playing game which pretended to have been written in 1979 - I think the actual author promoted it as something he'd found and scanned in.
He went to the trouble of making a deliberately poor-quality stapled and photocopied physical document and then scanning that in - to the extent of having pretend rust on the staples from memory.
It seems to be intended to be the ultimate "system from 1979 that attracts well-deserved mockery, but when you play games that fix its glaring flaws, somehow they're less fun." It has Wookies and Klingons as playable races (with one letter of their name changed) as well as dwarves and elves, and it's full of bizarrely unsupported claims that it's realistic and deeply-researched.
Quote from: HaffrungMassively popular among geeks, maybe. Certainly not New York Times Bestseller popular.
Not my point right now, which is rather that cyberpunk and transhumanism have been popular among the scifi readership, not the general one. The new thing I did learn here is that fantasy is now mainstream.
Given that, isn' it rather the case that the readership of scifi has stayed the same, give or take, while that of fantasy has expanded? Honest question, I don't know the answer.
But what still needs to be shown by those who claim it is that the scifi readership actually migrated to fantasy, and for reasons that are to do with some actual letdown on its "promises." Neuromancer sold like hotcakes, so there's pleasure and sales to be gained from dystopia.
Just to be clear, I'm not here to defend 21st-century scifi. I stopped reading cyberpunk at least ten years ago, and I find transhumanism in general unreadable. But these genres didn't disappoint me as prediction, they disappointed me as literature. They're boring.
QuoteIt not a question of naivety, on the contrary. Sci-fi and the technological optimism it accompanied have let us down, People really thought it will be all better. It promised something it couldn't deliver, hence the disappointment.
I'm afraid that people who thought Foundation was some kind of roadmap to the future, and then were disappointed that it wasn't, will have to be called naive. More so if they think they can hide from modernity in the world of R.A. Salvatore.
Quote from: PremierNevertheless, the half century after the golden age of sci-fi has seen World War 2 with the Atomic Bomb, Vietnam with Napalm, the Cold War and a hundred other ways in which technology has made our lives worse, while the benefits of progress were much less than previously expected. Thus the audience has gradually turned away from the naive "technology will create a better future" philosophy of sci-fi, since it just no longer reflected the to world as they perceived it.
And that's exactly why fantasy has been on the upswing for so long - it offers an avenue of escapism towards a never-has-been past.
Well this is a spot on good reason why sci-fi RPGs are less popular than fantasy RPGs. It is also the reason why RPGs became popular in the first place. There is more to it than that though...
If SF can neither be defined as narratives of the future, nor as technological fiction and if it is not realism, naturalism or myth, then what exactly is it?
SF works are not empirical because they describe the outside world as the writer experiences it, they are empirical in their methodology: they are constructed so that they are compatible with a scientifically plausible empirical world, a world where scientific investigation is possible and fruitful. "It is the premise of science fiction that anything shown shall in principle be interpretable empirically and rationally", states Lem. That is to say the SF story must be written in the spirit of empirical knowledge, with what Rabkin terms "the scientific habits of mind." Popkin prescribes that the only source of "information about the world" available "is the impressions that we gain through our senses". The fiction the SF writer creates must be empirical to those beings within it.There are more people pretending to work on science, and less people actually working on science. Plus the applications of the science being worked on, isn't being applied to science, but is being applied to commerce instead, with all the psychological traps that implies, and few more that are not yet being observed or documented.
It's not a deliberate deception by the scientists, more like a deliberate attempt at gaining a monopoly in the economic realm at the expense of science.
Unfortunately, Sci-Fi is still a primary literature of change...
It's quite a thing to live in fear, isn't it?~ Bladerunner 1982
Quote from: Calithena3. I believe that things have changed, and that fantasy is now substantially more popular than science fiction, but that back in the early to mid-seventies, science fiction was substantially more popular than fantasy. D&D actually bears a significant part of the responsibility for this shift.
This is very true. Before LoTR exploded in the 60s, fantasy practically didn't exist as anything other than a children's genre or pulp material. And even after LoTR's arrival, sci-fi was still huge in comparison to fantasy all through the 70s.
In a very real sense, it was D&D and the horde of fantasy books inspired by it that helped shift that weight in "pop" (ie. trash) literature so that fantasy now outstripped sci-fi. Mind you, its all just licensed retreaded literary-garbage nowadays, so its not like it matters much.
RPGPundit