I think fantasy as a genre has a broader possible range.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014090I think fantasy as a genre has a broader possible range.

GMs develop their fantasy worlds more than their sci-fi worlds, especially when plots require characters to planet hop. There's almost none of that in fantasy.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014090I think fantasy as a genre has a broader possible range.

I disagree.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014090I think fantasy as a genre has a broader possible range.

If you invoke Clarke's Law then Sci Fi has the same possible range as fantasy.  Hard Sci Fi has a narrower range, but that is just one subgenre.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1014240If you invoke Clarke's Law then Sci Fi has the same possible range as fantasy.  Hard Sci Fi has a narrower range, but that is just one subgenre.

Hard sci-fi just means that characters need to wear spacesuits is all.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014090I think fantasy as a genre has a broader possible range.

I agree. I think the line between sci-fi and fantasy is blurred anyway. Basically the main difference is that sci-fi is fantasy that is about things which are more likely to happen/exist in the future than not. Like comparing space travel (sci-fi from before the space race) to pixie dust that makes ships fly (obvious fantasy).

Real hoverboards exist today too, although not like in Back to the Future (yet?)

Spoiler

[video=youtube;do03rEG0Ex8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do03rEG0Ex8[/youtube]

[video=youtube;RCmQnM_iFhQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCmQnM_iFhQ[/youtube]

[video=youtube;bvYUq6Ox0Hc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvYUq6Ox0Hc[/youtube]

Then you got things like Star Wars which is both, balancing on the edge between.

You can also easily have a futuristic, post-apocalyptic setting where the level of civilization fell back to that of the dark ages or ancient era, where you have different species/races that are results of gene engineering from the fallen hi-tech Eart nations, where treasure vaults are guarded by 'golems' (ancient robots) and villages are terrorized by creatures like dinos and dragons (also failed(?) experiments and weapons of 'old' Earth). Even magic might be explained as awakened psionic powers or maybe commands to a still working sattelite network which analyzes enemies/minerals or shoots 'holy beams' from above.

Thus, you got your typical fantasy setting (with elves, dwarves, trolls, dragons and occasional asian catgirls and remnant androids) which if you look deeper into turns out to be just the far future of Earth.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1014195GMs develop their fantasy worlds more than their sci-fi worlds, especially when plots require characters to planet hop. There's almost none of that in fantasy.

Yes, that's largely true also.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014090I think fantasy as a genre has a broader possible range.

I disagree. I think more fantasy games/settings/modules use a broader range of genre, but sci-fi can span the same range. People just don't use them.

If that's true, then it means that de facto, I'm still right.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1011706... and to be perfectly honest Scifi players TEND to be a bit intellectually snobbish to Fantasy RPGs and fans ...

... and the fantasy players sneer at the LARPers, or at people playing a different style of fantasy, or a different game setting, or a different version of D&D ... Pretty much everywhere in the speculative fiction subculture are those who take positive glee in abusing and persecuting Those Who Are Different.  SF gamers are no more at fault than anyone else.

Quote from: Voros;1012102But in fantasy there is Tolkien first and foremost, then everyone else. I can't see D&D taking off without LOTR to popularize it.

I think it would've done so quite readily, especially since Moorcock and Howard were at least just as influential both in the origins of D&D and in fantasy circles at the time.  If LotR wasn't the cock of the fantasy walk, some other work would've been.  If the likes of Aragorn and Gandalf weren't around as models for PC play, the likes of Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Mouser, and Ged were.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013273This may be why it is so hard to get non-D&D style fantasy gaming established. Just like sci-fi players don't really have a clear handle to grasp.  Look at Tekumel, it is not really any more complicated than Vanilla D&D, it just seems that way because elves, orcs, wizards and the rest have so permiated popular culture, where as the Ssu have not.  Star Wars and Star Trek are easy to use as gaming backgrounds, everybody knows Wookiees and Vulcans, and Klingons, but try telling most players they meet a Kzin or a Thranx.

Mm, but I think it's less that there's no traction in non-"traditional" settings than that there's not the name recognition of mass pop culture icons.  My game setting is loosely based on Kenneth Bulmer's Scorpio series, and however much I've had approaching 200 players over the course of decades, I don't think a single one came into my campaign being familiar with the series: they all needed educating as to what zorcas, paktuns and Chuliks are.  Even with that, even with GMing GURPS rather than D&D, I've never had trouble filling slots.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1015387
I think it would've done so quite readily, especially since Moorcock and Howard were at least just as influential both in the origins of D&D and in fantasy circles at the time.  If LotR wasn't the cock of the fantasy walk, some other work would've been.  If the likes of Aragorn and Gandalf weren't around as models for PC play, the likes of Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Mouser, and Ged were.

I'd have to respectfully disagree, I prefer fantasy writers like Moorcock, Howard and Leiber and consider Leiber and Moorcock better writers than Tolkien but they simply didn't have the impact beyond the sf/fantasy fandom that Tolkien had. And the first to admit that would be Moorcock and Leiber, both of whom had their reservations about Tolkien as a writer. But that is pretty OT, there's a thread about Tolkien and Howard, Leiber, etc in the Media and Inspiration forum if you'd like to discuss that further.

Quote from: Voros;1015412I'd have to respectfully disagree, I prefer fantasy writers like Moorcock, Howard and Leiber and consider Leiber and Moorcock better writers than Tolkien but they simply didn't have the impact beyond the sf/fantasy fandom that Tolkien had. And the first to admit that would be Moorcock and Leiber, both of whom had their reservations about Tolkien as a writer. But that is pretty OT, there's a thread about Tolkien and Howard, Leiber, etc in the Media and Inspiration forum if you'd like to discuss that further.

I'm with Voros here, except that I think Tolkien is a better writer than Leiber and Moorcock.

Without Tolkien D&D never moves out of being a niche game. It never goes mainstream. Bare in mind that Voros isn't talking about the influence of the people that created D&D but the influence in the market. After Tolkien hit it big the fantasy genre because a thing that was marketable in and of itself. Publishers wanted more fiction like the Lord of the Rings. Leiber, Howard, Moorcock, and the other pulp writers that influenced the creators of D&D never had the broad cultural impact that Tolkien had and still has.

The Lord of the Rings also set the table for what people expect in fantasy and the conventions in Tolkien's secondary world are now implanted in the broader cultural DNA.

Fantasy gaming is easier because the tropes are things we do as children and have been involved with humanity for a lot longer than scifi. The Knight on the quest to save the Princess is a story that crosses many cultures and has been told for much longer period of time than scifi.