Quote from: jhkim;1102738OK, I may have been going too far there.

On an RPG forum? That never happens to any of us.

QuoteMostly, I'm just put off by attempted redefinition of commonly-used terms -- like saying "Star Wars isn't science fiction". It seems to me that this clearly doesn't improve communication.

I don't think I was redefining terms, but maybe it came across that way. Star Wars novels sit in the Fantasy and Science Fiction section of my local libraries and bookstores. I'm fine with that. But I don't expect Star Wars to adhere to any kind of scientific standard. It gets classed as science fiction because it has space ships and the action happens in space and on different planets not because the author or audience is interested in extrapolations about technology. But in the vacuum of space, TIE fighter engines whine and blasters go Pew! Pew! because that's fun for kids and the kid in all of us. There's not a lot of science Star Wars and it's not intended to be thought provoking or insightful. It's an updated version of a 1930s Saturday matinee serial like Flash Gordon. So while it sits on the same section, I see it as different from a lot of other sci-fi. Not different in a black and white, it isn't real sci-fi, kind of way. But nonetheless it is different.

Quote from: Bren;1102748On an RPG forum? That never happens to any of us.

I don't think I was redefining terms, but maybe it came across that way. Star Wars novels sit in the Fantasy and Science Fiction section of my local libraries and bookstores. I'm fine with that. But I don't expect Star Wars to adhere to any kind of scientific standard. It gets classed as science fiction because it has space ships and the action happens in space and on different planets not because the author or audience is interested in extrapolations about technology. But in the vacuum of space, TIE fighter engines whine and blasters go Pew! Pew! because that's fun for kids and the kid in all of us. There's not a lot of science Star Wars and it's not intended to be thought provoking or insightful. It's an updated version of a 1930s Saturday matinee serial like Flash Gordon. So while it sits on the same section, I see it as different from a lot of other sci-fi. Not different in a black and white, it isn't real sci-fi, kind of way. But nonetheless it is different.

I smile a bit about the "it isn't real sci-fi"... Back in my Boskone days, Star Wars was "sci-fi" "real" science fiction was just Science Fiction or SF... "sci-fi" was the term uneducated folks use and thus delegated to the "trash" (even good and fun "trash")...

Frank

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?

I don't. It's a waste of time and gets into wrangling over whether angels defecate. Besides, if a setting is any good, it shouldn't be easy to pigeonhole it.

Quote from: Bren;1102728There is no discrete boundary that forms a category, hence it is a spectrum not a category or bucket.

You can treat the elements that are at the core of a cluster as if belonging to a category. For example, D&D is for all intents and purposes an RPG, no matter what John Wick says. When talking about D&D, it doesn't matter that there are RPGs that are only borderline role-playing games. Or, put differently: it doesn't make sense to call these core games .9 or .95 or .99 or .87 RPGs.

Quote from: Bren;1102728The discussion is about whether something is sci-fi or fantasy. That is one dimension of measurement. So your cluster maps to a single dimension, i.e. a line. Points may cluster in one spot or another on the line, but they are still on the line.

If we have two clusters on that line, both at some distance to each other, and something that looks like a small cluster equidistant to the two, what are we going to do with it? Keep two clusters and split the small one right down the middle OR create a third cluster and give it a name that alludes to it being a mix of the other two clusters? You decide!

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1102761If we have two clusters on that line, both at some distance to each other, and something that looks like a small cluster equidistant to the two, what are we going to do with it? Keep two clusters and split the small one right down the middle OR create a third cluster and give it a name that alludes to it being a mix of the other two clusters? You decide!

Before there was any need for me to decide anything, you would first have to demonstrate that there are clusters of actual novels, films, or settings as you've indicated. I'm uninterested in discussing hypothetical categorizations or clusters of hypothetical members of hypothetical sets of objects. If I wanted to do that, I'd have done PhD in Pure Mathematics.

The distinction between scifi and fantasy seems to be essentially arbitrary. While you can distinguish between hard and soft science fiction by how closely it adheres to real scientific knowledge, fantasy doesn't have that. You can have rational magic systems, but that's not the same.

With science fantasy in particular, you get increased scrutiny on the divide between science and magic. There is a large trend to distinguish the two, or even place them at odds. I find this arbitrary and in some cases nonsensical. By far my favorite science fantasy settings are those which don't arbitrarily distinguish between science and magic. These are most commonly pulp stories and 80s cartoons as far as I could determine, however. But these are making a resurgence in recent years due to nostalgia marketing, and so is science fantasy magitech.

The most recent science fantasy story I watched was Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance on Netflix. In addition to generally solid if underexplored world building, it doesn't distinguish between magic and science. All of the technology shown in the series is essentially magitech. At one point a character even alludes to thermodynamics.

Quote from: ffilz;1102051I 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

I like "Speculative Fiction" myself (well, as an umbrella concept. The name itself could possibly be improved). And I've always heard it to include Horror as well.

I also like the name "Space Opera" much better than "Science Fantasy", much more dramatic.

Quote from: Zalman;1103120I also like the name "Space Opera" much better than "Science Fantasy", much more dramatic.

Space Opera's are not necessarily Science Fantasy or even normally Science Fantasy.

They do tend to have psionics...

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103126They do tend to have psionics...

Back in the 40s and 50s, the idea of humans being able to "unlock the full potential of the human mind" seemed a natural progression of science. Now it's pure fantasy.

The problem, as I see it, is that science fiction isn't really what it claims to be. Authors don't ponder the universe and then speculate on how a particular technology will affect the future. Rather, they imagine a possible future and then reverse engineer the science to end up at the place they wanted to write about.  Cyberpunk is a good example of this.

In RPG terms, Traveller is a game where the authors wanted the playable game "world" be be a small region of space; the sub-sector. This small space was necessary for a GM to effectively run the game. The technology of the game had to then have very short jump ranges in order to limit how many possible locations the party could jump to. So they simply invented tech that would allow for that game's world to exists. Had they made the jump ranges longer, then the party would have thousands of possible jump destinations, making it impossible for a GM to actually prep for the game. So, the science serves the story.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1103142Back in the 40s and 50s, the idea of humans being able to "unlock the full potential of the human mind" seemed a natural progression of science. Now it's pure fantasy.

The problem, as I see it, is that science fiction isn't really what it claims to be. Authors don't ponder the universe and then speculate on how a particular technology will affect the future. Rather, they imagine a possible future and then reverse engineer the science to end up at the place they wanted to write about.  Cyberpunk is a good example of this.

In RPG terms, Traveller is a game where the authors wanted the playable game "world" be be a small region of space; the sub-sector. This small space was necessary for a GM to effectively run the game. The technology of the game had to then have very short jump ranges in order to limit how many possible locations the party could jump to. So they simply invented tech that would allow for that game's world to exists. Had they made the jump ranges longer, then the party would have thousands of possible jump destinations, making it impossible for a GM to actually prep for the game. So, the science serves the story.

This is my new favorite example of Gross Conceptual Error by a poster.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1103142Back in the 40s and 50s, the idea of humans being able to "unlock the full potential of the human mind" seemed a natural progression of science. Now it's pure fantasy.

Pfff most Sci-fi has metadimensional FTL influences on the brain cause Psionics. Which isn't fantasy, it's soft sci-fi that speculates on natural phenomenon that we know exists (things outside of space-time) but have no way to know or even reliably guess at.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103150Pfff most Sci-fi has metadimensional FTL influences on the brain cause Psionics. Which isn't fantasy, it's soft sci-fi that speculates on natural phenomenon that we know exists (things outside of space-time) but have no way to know or even reliably guess at.

I suppose you can argue that, if only to obscure the fact that it is still essentially fantasy magic transplanted into a scifi setting.

Mass Effect introduces psionics or "biotics" as the result of people having their nervous systems contaminated with the unobtainium or "element zero" used for antigravity and FTL. This explains the telekinesis... but not the telepathy, running through solid objects and other assorted applications. Generally, Mass Effect relies on technobabble that briefly mentions real scientific concepts but otherwise ignores the implications of real science.

The description of a mass accelerator has an error which causes it to produce energy from nowhere in violation of thermodynamics. It describes a gun as shearing a filing from a metal block, then decreasing the mass to shoot it faster, yet the projectile doesn't lose velocity after exiting the gun and returning to normal mass. This could have been easily rectified by changing the explanation: the projectile's mass is increased, so after it exits the gun and returns to normal mass, that mass is converted into acceleration and gives the projectile greater piercing power. Or something like that.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1103255I suppose you can argue that, if only to obscure the fact that it is still essentially fantasy magic transplanted into a scifi setting.

Mass Effect introduces psionics or "biotics" as the result of people having their nervous systems contaminated with the unobtainium or "element zero" used for antigravity and FTL. This explains the telekinesis... but not the telepathy, running through solid objects and other assorted applications. Generally, Mass Effect relies on technobabble that briefly mentions real scientific concepts but otherwise ignores the implications of real science.

The description of a mass accelerator has an error which causes it to produce energy from nowhere in violation of thermodynamics. It describes a gun as shearing a filing from a metal block, then decreasing the mass to shoot it faster, yet the projectile doesn't lose velocity after exiting the gun and returning to normal mass. This could have been easily rectified by changing the explanation: the projectile's mass is increased, so after it exits the gun and returns to normal mass, that mass is converted into acceleration and gives the projectile greater piercing power. Or something like that.

Technobable is common in both Soft Sci-fi and Hard magic systems.

You would be surprised how many people argue that hard magic is just science in that universe.

Quote from: Bren;1102938Before there was any need for me to decide anything, you would first have to demonstrate that there are clusters of actual novels, films, or settings as you've indicated. I'm uninterested in discussing hypothetical categorizations or clusters of hypothetical members of hypothetical sets of objects. If I wanted to do that, I'd have done PhD in Pure Mathematics.

We do have two recognized clusters, labeled as Fantasy and Sci-Fi respectively, as separate phenomenons already.

My delineation is simple. In science fiction, the story turns on the science or technology. Whatever the problem, there is a scientific or technological solution that carries the day, according to the defined science of the setting.

As for the rest, whatever label you put on it, the story turns on the people and their heroic or villainous motivations and characteristics. They interact with the science and technology of their setting, but it is their personal characteristics, physical and personality, that drive the resolution of the conflict.