D&D 5E Science Fantasy and D&D

Kobold Avenger said:

Big disclaimer, is I'm very much influenced by Mage the Ascension where it's the absolute canon that technology is just the magick of the Technocracy/Order of Reason.

Click to expand...

Sure, but what does that actually mean? What makes technology "just the magick" as opposed to something else? What would make technology not magic?

Kobold Avenger said:

But I'm just describing certain thematic approaches, that may seem like opposites the first example being essentially a "Top-Down" approach with Sci-fi first describing fantasy. The second one a "Bottom-Up" approach describing sci-fi from a metaphysical or spiritual view of things.

Click to expand...

What I'm really getting at here is that the two approaches you describe seem like simply different ways of labeling things. Taking away the labels, what is actually different?

TheCosmicKid said:

Sure, but what does that actually mean? What makes technology "just the magick" as opposed to something else? What would make technology not magic?

What I'm really getting at here is that the two approaches you describe seem like simply different ways of labeling things. Taking away the labels, what is actually different?

Click to expand...

Without derailing this thread in trying to explain one of the densest of all of classic White Wolf games. Things like perception of reality, belief itself and the consensus matter a lot in that. Perception and belief reflected how one did their magic and the system they built it on, and consensus was about how accepted by reality and majority of people their magic was, which is why a smartphone in the 1600's would be magical, but today it wouldn't be magical because billions of people believe it works so it works.

Perception, belief and consensus matter a lot in the Planescape campaign setting too, as it decided how the planes were arranged, why various beings existed and so on, but Planescape only barely touched sci-fi like elements and mostly kept to the weird and often producing more questions when something about the nature of the multiverse was answered.

Going back to the crashed spaceship such as the one in Barrier Peaks, I think that would represent a clash of beliefs where one reality essentially collided with another reality, and thus high-tech items brought from the ship become unreliable if they even work at all. It also justifies a DM excuse for why things taken from the ship would work a very limited number of times, beyond the low battery power excuse.

AtomicPope said:

I dropped a LOT of the Spelljammer mechanics, especially the way the Helm created a One-Man-Show. I modeled the House Rules after Rogue Trader, a campaign I ran for years with great success. Unlike Spelljammer, each of the characters has a vital role in piloting the ship. I also created Spelljamming rules that allows characters to use non-Spells. In this way, all players can choose a role on the ship that best suits their abilities. For example, the Master Gunner is a Ranger who will Hunter's Mark other vessels before firing a volley. The OG Spelljammer lacked a group dynamic, which is at the heart of D&D and the class system. That's something that MUST be considered when adding technology or changing the genre. You want to keep the D&D feel, even though the props and sets have changed.

Click to expand...

I'm currently DMing a Spelljammer campaign using 5e rules (http://spelljammer1.blogspot.be/) and I would also like to integrate Rogue Trader mechanics into it. Any chance you would share your notes?

Kobold Avenger said:

Without derailing this thread in trying to explain one of the densest of all of classic White Wolf games. Things like perception of reality, belief itself and the consensus matter a lot in that. Perception and belief reflected how one did their magic and the system they built it on, and consensus was about how accepted by reality and majority of people their magic was, which is why a smartphone in the 1600's would be magical, but today it wouldn't be magical because billions of people believe it works so it works.

Click to expand...

Okay, got it. And setting aside my own opinion of solipsistic and consensus-reality premises (that it would be a real shame if reality were limited to what we can imagine, because encountering that which we couldn't have imagined is so much more interesting), what you're describing is still a set of rules governing how reality works. They're different rules than the ones currently understood by science, but science isn't exactly a stranger to the notion of overturning the going theories. If you tell a scientist, "You don't actually need electricity to turn on a lightbulb, you need enough people to believe it will turn on", do they stop being a scientist? Or do they just start doing science on this new and powerful phenomenon you've shown them -- how many people do you need to turn on the lightbulb? are more distant people less effective? and so on. It's a profound paradigm shift, to be sure, but is it really so different in kind from the paradigm shift between Newton and Einstein? We don't feel any need to call relativistic physics "magic" just because they represent a deeper understanding of reality than Newtonian "science". It's science all the way down, Mr. Russell.

A consensus-reality setting also underscores my other issue about the equivalence between magic and psionics. The world hinges on the interaction between the mind and the world, after all. You could scratch out the words "magic" and "mage", pencil in the words "psionics" and "psion", and have a setting a lot of people would consider pure SF -- some of that trippy and conceptual SF, to be sure, but still SF.

So I suppose what I'm asking in a roundabout way is: what elements actually put the "fantasy" in "science fantasy"? What distinguishes it from science fiction?

TheCosmicKid said:

So I suppose what I'm asking in a roundabout way is: what elements actually put the "fantasy" in "science fantasy"? What distinguishes it from science fiction?

Click to expand...

It's mainly a question of atmosphere, isn't it?

Unlike fantasy, science fantasy is likely to:

• involve travel through space or to other dimensions
• favor "magical" effects that play on the fringes of what is scientifically plausible (psionics, hacking)
• avoid "magical" effects that completely override science/technology (esp. reliance on devices)
• strongly limit the scope of "magical" effects

To take Star Wars as an example, 99.999% of the population relies entirely on technology that is scientifically plausible. The jedi powers tend to be subtle, but even telekinesis and electrokinesis are explained in terms of the mind acting on a physical field that permeates space. Even the jedi need spaceships and life support systems.

To take the Barsoom series as another example, the entire population relies on technology. The only "magic" that most people ever see is limited telepathy. The only major exception is the city of people who can create mental illusions so convincing they can kill, and as a once-in-a-lifetime masterwork create a persistent mental construct. However, the science in that series hasn't aged well... while the power that keeps airships afloat might have felt plausible to readers when the series was written, it surely doesn't now.

Unlike science fiction, science fantasy is likely to:

• Favor character and quest stories over stories that explore the impact of technology on society.
• Give some characters a source of power that is independent of technological devices

This is just a quick attempt to write down some of the criteria that make up my own personal "I know it when I see it". I'm sure it's easy to find counterexamples.

But in my opinion, D&D is a poor fit for science fantasy mainly because too many character types rely on magic, there are too many different kinds of magic, and because there are so many spells that you feel magic can do pretty much anything. Science fantasy calls for a more "Grim Tales" approach (remember that book?!) where most PCs are mundane skill-users with equipment, but you might have one PC with powers.

To take another example, Shadowrun is pure fantasy dressed up in cyberpunk clothes. But if you removed 90% of the magic from the game, so the main "magic-users" were actually hackers, then you could run a good science fantasy game with the system.

Cheers,
Ben

I know one campaign I played in the players started out in a post-apocalyptic world where several sections like the old overgrown mega-cities we no go zones due to old derelict technologies still being active.

We had the Wasteland Born, Vault Bunker Descendants, and two variants of COG Military Bunkers that the players could hail from.

Wasteland Born were of course born in the wastes and could choose from other races than human.
Vault Bunker Descendants were mostly human except for a few where Gene-Engineering took place allowing for other races with access/knowledge of technology
COG Military Bunkers were either descendants of the original soldiers/politicians or cryostasis soldiers who awakened x-years after the apocalypse and had access to military grade equipment.

I'm one of those who prefers not to mix my chocolate with my peanut butter in this regard, but it has been there since day 1. The 1e DMG had rules to convert Gamma World (and Boothill) PCs to D&D and back. So I would not be surprised to see some D&D sci-fi stuff outside of the mention in the DMG.

With all many of these sub-genres there are certain distinctions, which is why I never brought up steam-punk, as in my opinion most of the sub-genre never touches science-fantasy and a lot of steam-punk isn't even fantasy to begin with, even if it has things like Zombies. Maybe that ancient technological city that was found in the steampunk-fantasy CRPG Arcanum might have qualified for something science-fantasy. There's also the sub-genre of "Flintlock Fantasy" which mostly isn't steam-punk, and is in my opinion just normal fantasy with Napoleonic dressing.

But I often see the reoccurring post-apocalyptic themes with science-fantasy. In a lot of cases there's even standard high-fantasy that's post-apocalyptic and in the future.

AtomicPope said:

If we can make an Everburning Torch then we won't need light bulbs.
If we can make a Wand of Fireballs then we won't need grenades or rocket launchers.

Click to expand...

I liked a lot of what you were saying, I focused in on these two lines because this is probably where I differ slightly in my opinion. I feel that technology progresses independent of magic, as we often see in a Gnomish tinker society from a fantasy perspective. However, beyond the tinkering Gnomes, normal, non-magical society should be allowed to progress and not be beholden to Magic. Not everyone can wield the essences that create magic; however, technology, on the other hand, can be used by the masses.

An everburing torch is great for those that have access the Wizards that can create such a thing but light bulbs and electricity can be great for every person in a city and probably easier to establish.

A wand of fireballs is great until you come across that creature that is generally immune to fire...but are they immune to shrapnel?

I do not believe either one of the magical options negates the need for the technology, nor do I believe the technology eliminates the need or usefulness of magic.

As for the other aspects of your post, I am with you, you have to determine how best to incorporate technology into the campaign so as to not minimize either the technology or the essence of magic. Nice work on reworking Spelljammer btw.

I do like settings where magic and technology coexist openly although they are rare. Most science fantasy either have technology as something abstract and strange which only gets introduced in a limited scope or have technology and magic be at odds which each other.

The best example of a imo good blend would be Shadowrun, a "cyberpunk" setting except thag the hobo outside your apartment can be a dwarf, wizard is a normal job and the head honcho of the megacorp might be a 100ft long dragon.
D&D had something similar in its 3.5 area with Dragonstar vrom FFG, except that it did not use cyberpunk as setting but space opera. Still, it was a interesting setting which kept all the trademarks of D&D (as much as it was allowed by the OGL) and mixed it with technology in a plausible way. FTL was magic, the starships themselves Sci-Fi technology, etc.
Sadly it was not very successful and thus short lived.