Why does fantasy dominate RPGs?

If we look at TV and movies, sci-fi far outweighs fantasy is sheer volume of properties. There's GoT, of course, and some others, but sci-fi is far more prevalent. Modern day, of course, outweighs both on TV and cinema by orders of magnitude, but there are obvious reasons for that.

Why does sci-fi outweighs fantasy on TV and silver screen?

And, conversely, why does this not translate to RPGs? Why is fantasy the largest genre there?

Any thoughts on the reasons why? Simply because D&D was first?

It's be interesting to see a breakdown of the different genres and their popularity and compare them across different mediums - movies, TV, novels, comics, RPGs. Fantasy, sci-fi, superhero, horror, comedy, crime, war, spy, etc.

Because of connection to reality, in both cases. Watchers of SF can expect a common ground with SF. The laws of science hew fairly close to normal, and even when aliens, star travel, etc... are added, we expect politics, society, and other issues to remain similar, and to draw on our real understanding. Movies do this quite well, in their 2 hour windows.

FAntasy on the other hand, may well eschew reality in many more ways. It is more escapist, and relies more on suspending disbelief. This is harder to do, but for rpgs it is better, because it's difficult to plaster over the inconsistencies in the presentation of reality. IOW, I can put up with wonky falling damage in DND, but if I play Star Trek, I want it to be a lot more accurate.

My guess as to the WHY of this is $.
On-screen Sci-fi (with space ships, lazers, robots & aliens) has proven to sell, and sell better than fantasy. Star Wars is directly responsible for this. SW sells. Everyone wants to cash in on that. So more efforts swing to sci-fi than fantasy.

RPGs? Yes, it's because of D&D. As above, everybody wants a piece. So they follow what works. Had D&D been sci-fi then the industry would've swung that way.

Probably because fantasy is cheap to write but expensive to produce. You can make smart sci-fi even on a relatively tight budget. The defining aspect of fantasy (that isn't modern-day fantasy, which is actually fairly prevalent) is magic and medievalism, and if you don't spend at least a decent budget on those aspects, it comes across as chintzy.

I think there are a number of factors: suspension of disbelief, the numbers game, the elevator pitch, wish fulfilment

I think it's easier to suspend disbelief with fantasy games. My group is made up of people with graduate and post-graduate education levels, mostly in maths, science or computing. With Sci-Fi it's easy to poke holes or say 'it wouldn't work like that'. With fantasy, suspension of disbelief is the first requirement otherwise you couldn't have things like dragons that can fly. Sci-fi invites more attempts at rationalisation, and this can damage the fun of playing.

In terms of the numbers game, I think it is a case of self-reinforcement. What ever RPG you played first will shape your view of RPGs in general. Since the majority of people play fantasy, the majority of new comers get introduced to this type of game. The majority of game designers want a game similar to what they play but with enough difference to cover perceived problems with the game they currently play (and so more fantasy games get made...). Etc etc...

I think one of the reasons D&D stayed strong after other games like Traveller came along was it's 'elevator pitch'. The premis of the game is easily understood and attractive to game. Explore, find weird creature, overcome them and get rich. Simple to understand, and sounds fun. I think Traveller had a less clear and compelling premis for people to engage with. When I think of Traveller I think of space trading. I may be wrong (I probably am, I know there is a strong military aspect, too) but that is what comes to mind and it doesn't grab me.

I think wish fulfilment is a strong aspect of the attraction of RPGs, both to younger players who haven't found their place yet in the world and to older gamers who want to escape that place. I think fantasy more clearly addresses this need. It's more about the personal abilities and capabilities of your character than what kit you have (unless you are playing a magic-item-heavy game, naturally). This is less true in sci-fi or other genres, where mechanical advancement may primarily come through getting a better gun or faster ship. It's less intimate in the way it addresses empowerment.

I think all of the above are factors, but they are all marginal. Maybe people are only a little more likely to prefer fantasy for any of the reasons above, but given that it's still relatively unlikely for people to get into RPGs anyway those small nudges have an impact.

And there are, of course, many people who aren't swayed by these things. They're the people who don't primarily play fantasy

In terms of the TV question, I think fantasy has been handled in a more childish way than sci-fi in the past. Star Trek was addressing serious issues a long way back in sci-fi (indeed, one of the more common working definitions of hard sci-fi is that it changes one aspect of the world and ask what would that mean). Fantasy was about faries and witches; tarred with the negative brush of primitive superstition.

I think GoT is a watershed moment for fantasy on TV, and yet to be replicated. Even the Shannara series (a post-GoT fantasy series) doesn't come anywhere close in terms of production values and addressing real issues that people car about (GoT is a soap opera with swords and dragons, in effect, but done extremely well). Perhaps True Blood came close in terms of urban fantasy, until it started to jump the shark. Though it predates GoT, of course.

Let's hope another GoT comes along in a fantasy vein. The anointed successor was West World which was great but obviously not fantasy.

I think there are two combined factors, but I am not a pop culture historian, so take it as only its two cents worth.

The first is that RPGs were born from the wargames genre. D&D's predecessor, Chainmail, was a fantasy and hero focus take on medieval wargames rules. As the focus shifted from the armies to the heroes, the RPG genre took off. But because the original deviation was from Medieval wargames, the natural progression was to fantasy RPG, perhaps inspired by the first wizard, Merlin, of Arthurian mythos in the pre-medieval era. RPGs continue to draw heavily on the wargame structure (lots of combat) and legends from old world folklore (how many monsters in D&D are direct translations of mythological creatures?)

The second is the early success of the sci-fi genre on TV. Repeatedly, sci-fi genre in the early days of TV was a success, so future shows tend to follow the trend that has the audience. Part of this is the ease in which to produce a show with little change to the costuming or props. My Favorite Martian, Lost in Space, the Outer Limits, Dr. Who etc all had relatively minor costume/and prop costs and the story on the shows were compelling to the audience. The success of Star Trek, I think, really solidified sci-fi on TV, but its most complex and daring decision was its diversity of cast/crew. There may be a sense that any medieval/sorcery fantasy show would look to much like a history program and thus boring (or too gory if violent and realistic -- see GoT) (as an aside -- notice how sterile the deaths are in the sci-fi genre). I am not sure I can recall any early fantasy TV show that was a success. In America, where I think drove much of the early development of programing for TV, any harkening back to an older time (ancient history) did not reference the medieval area, or any old world period. Instead, it tapped into the old west history of America, and instead of medieval fantasy of the Arthurian legends, America produced Old West Fantasy instead --- Bonanza, Big Valley, Gun Smoke, Maverick, The Rifleman. Wild Wild West was almost pure fantasy. Even Kung Fu was set in the old west. American heroes were cowboys, not knights. (and really, Captain Kirk is a bit of a cowboy, just in a spaceship)

TwoSix said:

Probably because fantasy is cheap to write but expensive to produce. You can make smart sci-fi even on a relatively tight budget. The defining aspect of fantasy (that isn't modern-day fantasy, which is actually fairly prevalent) is magic and medievalism, and if you don't spend at least a decent budget on those aspects, it comes across as chintzy.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of it has to do with what TwoSix is saying here, Fantasy (to make it look even remotely good) needs a much larger budget than a smartly done Science Fiction show.

I think Fantasy dominates RPGs because people want to completely leave our world when playing RPGs (a lot of times at least) and Science Fiction, no mater how much you remove it from the present day, will always have little reminders in there. Star Wars even gets me doing this sometimes when I group A is trying to contact B before the Empire does C, but in reality the Empire due to being a military would have totally done D first and foremost and the plot would have been over and done with in 5 minutes of starting the book or watching the show.

It's a lot easier to "handwave" all sorts of stuff in fantasy, but Science Fiction is inexorably linked to our understanding of reality and different constructs, be they political, martial, or social in nature.

It's has nothing to do with D&D being first. There are strong pressures that force you toward fantasy.

1) Heroic myth is the most important consideration. Or to put it another way, people enjoy thinking of themselves as being really bad ass - if even only by proxy. (If you can think of a less vulgar way to put that, I'll accept it.) Fantasy places the characters in a situation where one individual can conceivably make a big difference and be basically invulnerable to all attack. It's grounded in eras like the early bronze age (Homeric Epic) and the late middle ages (Medieval Romance) this fantasy was actually grounded somewhat in reality - an aristocrat clad in the latest armor technology was relatively invulnerable to attack by more primitive weapons and could reasonably stand alone against a large number of foes.

In eras where offense greatly outstrips defense, combat is not heroic in that sense. In an era with realistic firearms, explosives, and heavy weaponry, one persons life is subject to the whims of fate. A person can't reasonably dodge or survive a 155mm shell bursting in close proximity, and a random bullet that happens to have your name on it can instantly kill the most skilled hero. Science fiction generally means the death of the heroic myth.

It's worth noting that most of what we think as 'science fiction' is actually fantasy in science fiction clothing. Star Wars for example involves wizards and knights wielding magic that leaves them largely invulnerable to the common weapons of their day. Individuals can say things like, "The power to destroy a planet is insignificant compared to the power of the force [that I wield]!" If the story involves chosen ones and forces beyond the explanation of science, chances are its fantasy in a high tech setting with only a few actual science fiction themes. Mass Effect, Dune, The Fifth Element, Babylon 5, and even arguably things like Firefly are actually fantasy.

2) Scale of the Setting: In a PnP RPG where characters have free agency, it's far easier for the game to be set in a setting where primitive technology is the default. The DM need only detail a relatively small area, say 60 square miles, and a few scattered cities and villages. Player can only cross a few miles in a session and the DM can foresee what he needs to create or ad hoc fairly easily all the details he needs to get thing done. It's worth noting how many popular fantasy settings are very sparse. Both the Forgotten Realms and Tolkien's Middle Earth involve a few scattered settlements and vast tracts of wilderness. This makes them settings that are relatively easy to detail and conceptualize. In science fiction, players can cross hundreds of miles or hundreds of lightyears in a single bound. In fantasy a village represents a village. In science fiction, the referee finds himself trying to represent an entire planet with a village or say 60 square miles of terrain. Or in other words, in science fiction the sand box is entirely too big, and the scope of play too unpredictable.

And this problem extends to individual scenes of the setting. Every DM knows that a bookshelf of books is one of the most problematic things you can put into a scene. If the PC's take interest in the books, it's pretty much essential that he handwave this away as much as possible. Each book contains more details than might exist in his entire game! Well in science fiction, this problem is everywhere and in every form of media that the players might potentially interact with. Science fiction worlds are information rich - books, newspapers, radio, TV, internet - there is just an endless amount you have to improvise. There is no way to keep up.

And this problem extends to the player's approach to the game. Smart DMs quickly learn not to build dungeons out of wood. Referees in a science fiction campaign have to deal with plans like 'nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be safe'.

As for why science fiction trappings dominate non-interactive media and why we never really seem to have A rate fantasy, I think it's because heroic myth translate poorly to story telling since mostly its about ego tripping. It's also probably also a money issue, in that its cheaper to make passable science fiction props ('Star Trek pajamas') and sets than good quality believable fantasy sets. Advances in CGI may eventually change that, and its notable that we have just begun to see fantasy with fantasy trappings succeeding in big budget media in the last decade or so.

Star Trek and Star Wars (maybe Doctor Who) - it is the simple answer, those two imprinted themselves onto the culture and psyche and became the blueprint for which all things are built from. As for gaming, not sure why fantasy seems to be bigger (if it is), think it is because gamers are just a slice of the market that relates better to pen and paper.