I've been giving the sci-if/sci-fantasy divide a lot of thought of late. I run lots of Stars Without Number games, some Traveller. I've read all the Expanse novels and watched the show, which has seriously informed my GMing and world building. That's s just off the top of my head, but this issue has really been on my mind because it directly impacts my gaming.

I think fundamentally the difference between science fiction and science fantasy is one of axioms. In science fiction, the technology that makes the environment that humans interact with is defined axiomatically, and part of the game/setting/story is how these new realities shake out.  For example, Traveller is pretty soft science fiction, but one of its big setting defining axioms is that nothing moves faster than Jump speed. There is no instant interstellar communication.  Part of the game is dealing with this technological reality and its impact.  

Science fantasy doesn't do this. If anything, it works the opposite way: whatever is fun and evocative in the setting/story/game dictates the kinds of technology and reality.  Star Wars is all about this.  I'd even say that Star Trek is also science fantasy, but Star Trek does cross over into science fiction though when episodes deal with the implications of a specific technological development.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1101933So everybody, what is the YOUR definition of "soft scifi vs. fantasy"

I draw the line at Magic. Space Fantasy has magic, sci-fi does not. By magic, I mean the power to break (or bend) the Laws of Normality, as people in the setting understand them, that can never be fully understood.

Star Trek is soft sci-fi. There are things that seem to break the Laws of Normal, but they are either Very Powerful Aliens (Q) or Techno-scams (Arda and her Fek'lar routine). Clarke's Law is irrelevant. To us a Star Trek transporter may seem like magic, but to Transporter Chief Miles O'Brien it's a machine. Most of the inhabitants of Star Trek verse believe that even if science can't explain something now, eventually it will.

Psionics are probably the big sticking point. I think they can exist in a sci-fi setting, if the notion is that Psi will be "science someday." If it's clear that Psi will never be understood and it will always be mystical in nature, then Space Fantasy.

Traveller is sci-fi, even with Psi.

Babylon 5 is (probably) sci-fi. Part of the show's genius is Nothing is Ever What it Seems, but I can't recall ever seeing true magic in the show. There is Psi, but it's being science-ized as the show goes on. And the Techomages are really just Nano-engineers.

Fading Suns is the best example of Space Fantasy I can think of. D&D wizards and clerics in space. Love it.

Star Wars is (probably) Space Fantasy. The Force definitely seems like it meets all three criteria of magic, and the Jedi are definitely mystics and not scientists. The entire Star Wars universe seems like one devoid of science, as if scientific inquiry stopped hundreds or thousands of years ago. No one ever invents anything new (and please don't bother telling me about some crappy EU novel.) Through the entire 10 movies (Episode 1-8 + Rogue + Solo) there are only two new things invented (I think...) But.. the Midichlorians. Ugh. What was Lucas thinking? It seemed like he was trying to inject some science into the Force. But every sane person agrees that the Midichlorians and the Xmas Special never existed, and that Jar Jar was the Real Phantom Menace.

Dune is an interesting case. I'm going to say sci-fi. The powers are Human Next. No one in Dune thinks the Mentats, the Bene Gesserit, or the Swordmasters are doing magic, rather they have mastered disciplines that enable the human form to reach it's full potential. These are understandable and predictable, even if very few can do either. But the prescience powers of the Kwizatz Haderach may indeed be magical, I don't know what happens after book 1.

Well, one distinction line might involve drawing on Rod Serling:


If we want to delineate Sci-Fi from Fantasy that way, we need to find out where the line is beyond which "improbable" becomes so improbable that it is sufficiently close to "impossible".
However, that approach leaves open the question of Psi, which has to be considered pretty much impossible by now, yet is a common thing in plenty of pieces of fiction called Sci-Fi. Perhaps the idea was originally grounded in scientific research.

So a different take would merely look at common tropes and/or setting elements. Whereas magic, especially such spells as Protection from Evil, is heavily associated with Fantasy, certain mental powers, like Telekinesis, have come to be associated with Sci-Fi as well, perhaps even primarily so.


But ultimately, for distinguishing Sci-Fantasy from Soft Sci-Fi, what has been written in this blogpost here applies to this discussion as well: we'll never establish a universally accepted categorization, there will always be fringe cases. It's enough to be able to roughly communicate our ideas but then we'll have to spell out details explicitly whenever fringe cases are involved, for the sake of clarity in communication.

Quote from: Catelf;1101956"Hard sci-fi relies on actual science" .... I have long felt something was wrong with statements like that, and i'm pretty sure why nowadays:
It seems, in that case, as if ALL sci-fi i've ever read and/or watched, was "soft sci-fi" or even space fantasy, but when i grew up, it was seen as science fiction, nothing else.
Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, Robert A Heinlein?
All ranging from very soft sci-fi to Space Fantasy.
Yes, ESPECIALLY Asimovs Foundation Saga and Robot timeline.
Essentially, this whole thing is just nonsense!

Hard Sci Fi = strictest definition is a plausible extrapolation of (then) known science, perhaps with ONE additional element. Arthur C Clarke wrote a lot of hard sf. HG Wells wrote some very hard SF for his day, eg 'The War in the Air' which features then-unknown tech like battle tanks and aerial warfare. Even 'The War of the Worlds' is Hard SF, it doesn't break any physical laws, and the resolution is based on then-new science. I absolutely love the battle scenes, which Wells based on 19th century Colonial warfare - with the British as the unfortunate Natives experiencing an 'out of context' event. The Martians don't have energy shields or other soft SF handwavium that you see in later adaptations, and they do take casualties, which disconcert them very much as modern Western armies fighting in Afghanistan often get disconcerted by the loss of a single soldier.
My son was set to read it over the summer and we had some interesting talks about Martian heat ray tech and Specific Heat Capacity of steel vs water.
If you allow the 'one more element' bit then that brings in authors like Vernor Vinge, and some Asimov at the soft end of Hard SF.

Differences between SF and Fantasy are often more about the attitude of the characters. If it's an unknowable universe, and/or one where Belief Creates Reality*, then it's probably Fantasy. So Star Wars minus Midichlorians.

If the characters believe in a knowable universe, and the authors appear to back this up, then it's Science Fiction. So Star Trek, no matter how Soft SF it gets.

*So the Humanities departments of our great Universities live in a Fantasy world. Hopefully the Science departments don't all join them, but it's not looking good.

Quote from: S'mon;1102006Hard Sci Fi = strictest definition is a plausible extrapolation of (then) known science, perhaps with ONE additional element. Arthur C Clarke wrote a lot of hard sf. HG Wells wrote some very hard SF for his day, eg 'The War in the Air' which features then-unknown tech like battle tanks and aerial warfare. Even 'The War of the Worlds' is Hard SF, it doesn't break any physical laws, and the resolution is based on then-new science. I absolutely love the battle scenes, which Wells based on 19th century Colonial warfare - with the British as the unfortunate Natives experiencing an 'out of context' event. The Martians don't have energy shields or other soft SF handwavium that you see in later adaptations, and they do take casualties, which disconcert them very much as modern Western armies fighting in Afghanistan often get disconcerted by the loss of a single soldier.
My son was set to read it over the summer and we had some interesting talks about Martian heat ray tech and Specific Heat Capacity of steel vs water.
If you allow the 'one more element' bit then that brings in authors like Vernor Vinge, and some Asimov at the soft end of Hard SF.

Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle postulated that Dante's Divine Comedy was the first science fiction story in that the locations were created with strict adherance to what was considered science at the time.

I'm very tired from working a double shift and will pontificate on this topic when I wake up. One point that I would like to make before bed, though.

Quote from: Arthur C. ClarkeAny sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Even though sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, does not mean that it is magic. It is technology and thus must adhere to the physical laws of the universe. We may not be able to understand the working principles behind the technology but that does not mean that we never will or that those working principles are unfathomable or beyond physical laws. To do so will cause situations like in the 80's when people who did not understand physics were claiming that quantum mechanics meant that magic existed.

And with that, good night gentlefolk.

I like how some folks have started to use Speculative Fiction to cover the whole spectrum between Science Fiction (or SF, NEVER SCI FI... at least that's what they used to say at Boskone...) and Fantasy. The truth is the line has always been fuzzy and the spectrum has always been shelved together at just about every bookstore I've ever shopped at.

Frank

Science fiction, ships, pew-pew guns, politics.

Science fantasy, murdering Martians with a sword from the back of my giant Venusian salamander (also a hot and slightly confused-looking blonde hoisted over my shoulder).

Possibly somewhere in-between. I'll know it when I see it...

I saw Yor a while back, and thought, "This is just a D&D campaign".

I am sure there are literary differences, but in the realm of RPGs, I don't think you're getting away from sci-fi elements in fantasy games unless you're really strict about what you allow (like BtB MERP). They seem to just merge at some point, even if it's just old forgotten technology like Tekumel.

Honestly, having all that stuff makes the game more fun; the main C&C campaign I run (on hiatus this semester) basically has a crashed spaceship currently used as a wizard's tower. There's also a robo-lich thing, and all sorts of sci-fi crap. I only obliquely reference it, but the players have figured it out. Way more fun than just some cookie-cutter fantasy game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1101933This thread is a spinoff of a discussion about Tekumel being the first sci-fi RPG setting. The conversation drifted into science fiction vs. fantasy and I think that's worth its own thread.

For me, I consider any "soft sci-fi" to be sci-fantasy. To me, as soon as cinematics, rule of cool, hand wavium become major elements of the setting, you're in fantasy land.

Where do you draw the line? Why?




Any advanced enough technology is magic?

Is the "magic" actually psionics? Psionics is popular in soft scifi. Even "hard scifi" Traveller has psionics.

Of course, you and I probably have different definitions of "soft scifi"!!

So everybody, what is the YOUR definition of "soft scifi vs. fantasy"

OK, so where do I draw the line and why.

It depends on what kind of Players I want at my game table because each game and even each edition of each game attracts different basic types of people.

d6 Star Wars attracts people who are interested in cinematic action science fantasy generally. Traveller/Cepheus Engine attracts people who are generally more interested in soft-hard fairly gritty literary style of science fiction with puzzles and mysteries. Mekton (II or Zeta) typically attracts Players who are anime/manga soft sci-fi fans that like giant robots. Cyberpunk usually attracts science fiction fans of gritty film noir style hard sci-fi. Star Trek attracts Players interested in heavy-handed morality lessons who believe that socialism is a viable economic system (definitely science fantasy). Now these same general Player types often overlap because you can enjoy the spectrum of science fantasy to hard science fiction and have particular itches that you want to scratch. Likewise, GMs may have particular itches that they want to scratch and may prefer to run the stormtrooper blasting wild and wooly game of Star Wars instead of the ethically challenged merchant of Traveller/Cepheus Engine trying to stay one step ahead of the bank with their ship's mortgage, although either system can cover the general genre emulation of the other but definitely with its own unique spin.

A continuum, not a definition with strict categories that is something like this.

   Star Wars < Star Trek < Babylon 5 < Traveller < The Expanse < the ship and orbital station in 2001

Gygax had space ships in Greyhawk. It doesn't make D&D Sci-Fi. Tekumel is fantasy from the perspective of the characters, may be Sci-Fi from the perspective of the players, and is arguably Sci-Fi (about at the level of Star Trek) from the perspective of the GM.

Quote from: Bren;1102070A continuum, not a definition with strict categories that is something like this.

   Star Wars < Star Trek < Babylon 5 < Traveller < The Expanse < the ship and orbital station in 2001

That makes sense to me. But my question is... have you really been playing Star Wars D6 all these years? Because that's gotta be one epic campaign by now.

Quote from: Aglondir;1102174That makes sense to me. But my question is... have you really been playing Star Wars D6 all these years? Because that's gotta be one epic campaign by now.

Not quite that long, but pretty epic. I cycle back and forth through what I GM and play. I didn't actually start running Star Wars D6 until 1994.

• Star Wars D6 original campaigns ran from 1994 - 2005 and 2010-2012. During the gap years, it was Call of Cthulhu.
  
• Then I ran Honor+Intrigue 2012-2017.
• Then back to Star Wars D6 with a new campaign and new characters (2017-present)

I think the line is essentially arbitrary. Even so, I do have aesthetic concerns.

In a setting like Dragonstar or Starfinder, standard scifi tech is tacked on to a fantasy universe. I personally prefer a magitech approach, like Aethera's "aethertech," Aether & Flux's "flux culler," Voidspanners's "voidships," etc.

I really wish somebody would release revised rules for aether and flux. I just found those concepts so fascinating.