Quote from: jeff37923;722990Sad to say this, but most people can't tell the difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy because they don't know enough about science to begin with.

Sad to say this, but most people, jeff37923 included, can't tell the actual difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy because they don't know what makes a work Science Fiction. (Hint: "having plausible/real/correct science in it" is NOT the correct answer.)

Quote from: Premier;723062Sad to say this, but most people, jeff37923 included, can't tell the actual difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy because they don't know what makes a work Science Fiction. (Hint: "having plausible/real/correct science in it" is NOT the correct answer.)

I have no idea what the difference is either. But I also don't see much to be gained by making the distinction.

Quote from: Planet Algol;722995"quantum telepathy"...

I read that and remembered all those stories and articles from the 80's that erroneously declared that quantum mechanics explained why magic exists.

Kinda like today when people say nanotech = magic = post-scarcity economy.

Quote from: James Gillen;723003"Most people" including many Science Fiction authors.

JG

Yes.

Wonder how many sci-fi authors/writers actually have a background in science.

(Ones I can think of offhand).

- Isaac Asimov was a chemistry professor at Boston University.
- Arthur C. Clarke has a degree in math and physics from King's College London.
- E.E. "Doc" Smith had a degree in chemical engineering from University of Idaho and later worked as a chemist.

Quote from: Premier;723062Sad to say this, but most people, jeff37923 included, can't tell the actual difference between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy because they don't know what makes a work Science Fiction. (Hint: "having plausible/real/correct science in it" is NOT the correct answer.)

Science fantasy gives a scientific veneer of realism to things that simply could not happen in the real world under any circumstances - where science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements; science fantasy explicitly relies upon them.

And yes, "having plausible/real/correct science in it" is important for that distinction.

Quote from: ggroy;723103Wonder how many sci-fi authors/writers actually have a background in science.

(Ones I can think of offhand).

- Isaac Asimov was a chemistry professor at Boston University.
- Arthur C. Clarke has a degree in math and physics from King's College London.
- E.E. "Doc" Smith had a degree in chemical engineering from University of Idaho and later worked as a chemist.

Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Alastair Reynolds, Gregory Benford, Robert A. Heinlein, just off the top of my head.

Quote from: ggroy;723103Wonder how many sci-fi authors/writers actually have a background in science.

(Ones I can think of offhand).

- Isaac Asimov was a chemistry professor at Boston University.
- Arthur C. Clarke has a degree in math and physics from King's College London.
- E.E. "Doc" Smith had a degree in chemical engineering from University of Idaho and later worked as a chemist.

Add Travis S. Taylor to the list.  He still spends most of his time working in the sciences.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Have you run scifi campaigns without any form of psychic powers to serve as the system's 'magic'?

Yes.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Were players frustrated or disappointed?

No.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;722879Did the absence of 'magic' cause unforeseen issues in the gameplay?

No.

SciFi games can run with or without Psionics quite easily. In many cases, technology and flashy gadgets take the place of magic - if you have Teleports, Healing Chambers and Mind Probes then a lot of Psionics is unnecessary.

However, as someone who has had some paranormal experiences (neither repeatable nor independently verified, so not up to scientific standard), I have no problems whatsoever in having Psionics in a SciFi game.

Quote from: SionEwig;723130Add Travis S. Taylor to the list.  He still spends most of his time working in the sciences.

Stephen Baxter, Ben Bova, and Robert Zubrin as well.

Jeff, I'm afraid you're conflating a bit too much hard science fiction genre with general science fiction genre. Going by your, mistaken I'm afraid definition of genre, Philip K Dick wrote science fantasy.

As for OP - If we were to run a hard sci - fi game, no psionics'd be assumed.

Quote from: jeff37923;723106Science fantasy gives a scientific veneer of realism to things that simply could not happen in the real world under any circumstances - where science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements; science fantasy explicitly relies upon them.

And yes, "having plausible/real/correct science in it" is important for that distinction.

The problem is one Nobel Laureate's "impossible" is another Nobel Laureate's "possible but we just don't know how yet".

Nanotechnology - Science or Fantasy?
Brain to Computer Interfaces - Science or Fantasy?
Artificial Intelligence - Science or Fantasy?

Classic Science Fiction is all about proposing a new technology and then exploring it's impact/influence on the human condition and such technology isn't always based on existing science.  Going back to early or proto science fiction that includes works like Frankenstein.

I honestly don't give much of a crap whether the physics behind a sci-fi setting are absolutely "right" according to the current theories of our time or not. I guess that some people worry about the inner workings of a gravity well encountered in the game the same way others bitch at the damage of different kinds of weapons in the game in the name of "realism", but that's not why I'm playing role playing games.

I guess you could chalk me up as good public, with a relatively low threshold required for immersion and verisimilitude in the game world compared to others. I just prefer to worry about the situations my character is in, whatever interactions are going on, the problems being faced, the cool moments as they emerge from game play, rather than analyze every aspect of the setting in order to figure out whether I can show off my creds as a critic or not during the game session.

Likewise when I run a game. I'm more interested in the game's potential in terms of gameability, role playing, cool factors and whether or not I'd like to role play in this world. Not to mention, certain discrepancies might actually be occasions in disguise, things to build upon and question via the game, and I will tend to prefer this kind of approach rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Which might sound ironic, because according to the Forgists I'm this ARGLE-BARGLE Simulationist type of dude who's only interested in verisimirealitudiness.

Now, can I do sci-fi without psychics? Sure, why not!
Can I do sci-fi with psychics? Sure, why not!

Quote from: Planet Algol;722988When people's default expectations for Science Fiction include psychic space magic... ...shit has gone off the rails.

Or actually realistic science fiction would be boring as hell, especially from a gaming standpoint. I'm all for power armor, lightsabers, and the Force in my games.

If one insists on precise scientific accuracy, then in principle they should not be wasting their time with sci-fi type stuff.  They would be better off reading high level university textbooks on such scientific topics.