You Got Peanut Butter in My Chocolate...D&D and Science-Fiction

[Celebrim]

It depends on how much you are willing to handwave away versimlitude.

Classic 'Sci-Fantasy' like 'John Carter of Mars' does alot of handwaving in order to allow its hero to resolve most of his conflicts with a sword. My suspicion is that if you introduced most PC's into a Barsoom environment with the full John Carter range of technology (rifles and pistols with kilometers range and explosive shells) the PC's themselves would become the cause of the end of Barsoomian chivilry.

Other classic 'Sci-Fantasy' like Gene Wolf's various 'Sun' books approaches the same problem in a different way, but my suspicion is that removed from the constraints of story PC's would break the setting as well and you'd end up with more Sci-Fi than fantasy.

In order to make an autoloading pistol that fire explosive shells balanced with a sword you have to turn the pistol into a popgun. If you use anything like realistic firearms rules, and you have anything more advanced than wheellock muskets, you have to deal with 'Swords and Sorcery' becoming 'Firearms and Sorcery' because the swords very quickly will stop cutting it. And once they do, then you have to start dealing quite quickly with the maxim that, "God made men. Sam Colt made 'em equal.". Heroic Sci-Fi is very difficult to do with the same set of rules that you'd use for heroic Fantasy unless your players are willing to accept firearms with basically the same stats as a heavy crossbow (to say nothing of future tech). I haven't played Star Wars D20, but the old Star Wars D6 rules did a pretty good job. I wouldn't however try to stick lasers and assault rifles into regular D&D rules unless I wanted to slaughter PC's left and right.

 

[arscott]

Magic only fits into a game when certain physical and thematic assumptions about the gameworld are true. Technology only fits into a game when certain physical and thematic assumptions about the gameworld are true. The exact nature of those assumptions, of course, depends on the exact nature of the magic and technology in question. And when you introduce certain brands of magic and certain brands of technology into your gameworld, then you'll end up with a setting that only works if two sets of contradictory assumptions are both true.

This creates a sort of cognative dissonance, and the setting sort of falls apart. In order for sci-fi and fantasy to work together, they have to be thematically consistent. If it's just a mish-mash of options, then it can't hold my interest.

 

[Graf]

All the "advanced tech = magic" quotes aside: The genre differences between tech and magic are actually huge.
Trappings are somewhat important but not essential.

What is essential is the following difference:
Magic only works for a limited segment of people.
Tech works for anyone who touches a button.

"Eberron tech" is still fantasy because it's powered by dragonmarks (only possessed by a few 'magical people').
Meiville's work is protects the genre by having tech (printing presses) and magic exist in the same world the while protecting these conventions.
He also has lots of other weird stuff too though.

His settings are more pulp than anything else.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I just got my copy of Dragon 352 this weekend, and I am almost done reading the China Mieville material. I really dig it and I now look forward to reading Perdido Street Station in the near future. However, it got me thinking about how much the setting deviates from the "standard" expectations of a traditional D&D campaign world. Personally, that's not a problem for me, as I'm comfortable mixing elements from sword & sorcery, high fantasy, horror, and science-fiction in my D&D gaming (which is probably one of the reasons why Eberron appeals to me). But what are the general attitudes towards science-fiction elements and technology in today's D&D players?

I've never been big on mixing the two, but I absolutely loved playing Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

 

[Celebrim]

All the "advanced tech = magic" quotes aside: The genre differences between tech and magic are actually huge.
Trappings are somewhat important but not essential.

What is essential is the following difference:
Magic only works for a limited segment of people.
Tech works for anyone who touches a button.

I'm not so sure that's an essential difference. If I have an orcish warband in the service of a demon lord roaming around with fireball or lightning bolt throwers, and thier demon conjuring shaman leader - its still very much going to feel like and arguably be fantasy even if anyone in the game world can pick up a 'push button fireball shooter' and use it.

For that matter, there isn't anything in the rules of D&D that suggests anyone through training can't perform magic or make magic wands. D&D magic is in the default setting available to anyone (or at least anyone of sufficient intelligence in the same way that Differential Equations are available to everyone). There is no special background one needs to have in order to be a wizard. On the flip side, quite often people will accept 'Psionicist' into a sci-fi game, when all a Psionist really is is a rebranded sorcerer.

 

[Woas]

I'm not a big fan of mixing the two, but certainly like the majority of people that have posted here so far, if you took Sci-Fi elements and recasted them to "fit" into sword & sorcery I would not complain or even realize it.

This mostly stems from the fact that I am not a big sci-fi fan.

 

[mmadsen]

In order to make an autoloading pistol that fire explosive shells balanced with a sword you have to turn the pistol into a popgun.

Or make it inaccurate. Or unreliable. Or really expensive. Or easily defensible via another available technology.

If you use anything like realistic firearms rules, and you have anything more advanced than wheellock muskets, you have to deal with 'Swords and Sorcery' becoming 'Firearms and Sorcery' because the swords very quickly will stop cutting it.

Swords and spears were in use for centuries after the development of firearms.

Heroic Sci-Fi is very difficult to do with the same set of rules that you'd use for heroic Fantasy unless your players are willing to accept firearms with basically the same stats as a heavy crossbow (to say nothing of future tech).

Is it impossible to do heroic fantasy with +5 mighty composite longbows?

I haven't played Star Wars D20, but the old Star Wars D6 rules did a pretty good job. I wouldn't however try to stick lasers and assault rifles into regular D&D rules unless I wanted to slaughter PC's left and right.

Would stormtroopers (from the d20 version of the game) pose that terrible a challenge for a D&D party?

Frankly, Star Wars is a perfect example of fantasy with sci-fi trappings; it's a modern planetary romance in the Edgar Rice Burroughs style. Something like Thundarr the Barbarian would represent the other popular sub-genre of fantasy with sci-fi elements, the post-apocalyptic fantasy world. I can't imagine why that wouldn't work as a D&D setting.

 

[Celebrim]

Or make it inaccurate. Or unreliable. Or really expensive. Or easily defensible via another available technology.

Or make them fragile and unrepairable artifacts of an earlier age. Or whatever. But it amounts to the same thing.

Swords and spears were in use for centuries after the development of firearms.

Did you know that the Brits fielded a unit of longbowmen at the battle of Waterloo?

I know just a wee bit of military history. Enough to know that by the time you get to flintlock rifles, the age of the sword and spear are over for anyone that has the option to choose.

Is it impossible to do heroic fantasy with +5 mighty composite longbows?

You mean as technology? Impossible? No. Difficult using the normal mechanics of a fantasy game? Yes, it is. Give every member of your party of 1st level characters a +5 mighty composite longbow. Now, give every member of the goblin warband a +5 mighty composite longbow. Who is more advantaged by this change? How will this threat effect how the game is played? How high of level must you be before a +5 mighty composite longbow isn't a threat in the hands of an ordinary warrior, much less a CR equivalent war band? How about if it can fire 3 times a round? How about if those goblin warriors also have hand grenades?

Would stormtroopers (from the d20 version of the game) pose that terrible a challenge for a D&D party?

I have no idea what a D20 stormtrooper looks like. Skimming around the net for SW D20 weapons I found an entry for the Blastech E-11 (which sounded familiar) that does 5d4 damage, has a range increment of 90, a critical range of 19-20, and has an ability called 'multifire'. I suspect that would indeed change the game a bit if that was available. Gnolls in platemail with Blastech E-11's? What CR is that do you think?

Frankly, Star Wars is a perfect example of fantasy with sci-fi trappings

Which is precisely why it gets away with 'blaster' fire that moves slowly enough to dodge (on screen speed is 200mph or less, which is about as fast as an crossbow bolt), characters wielding swords in an environment which presumably could include mortar and artillery fire (see how well you block a 155mm anti-personnel shell detonating within 15 meters with a light saber), flamethrowers, and weaponry more deadly than a .50 caliber machine guns, sniper rifles, or automatic 40mm grenade launchers. To say nothing of micomissiles, smart mines, mini-nukes, sonic weapons, and the rest of here and near future military tech. And its precisely why it gets away with space combat that follows the conventions of WWII fighter combat right down to the speed of the space fighters, the lack of guided munitions, the relative speed of thier weapons, the effective engagement distance, and the fact that they must make long swooping turns.

The point being that Star Wars doesn't attempt to model science fiction. Even its most modern stuff is mid-1940's technology level, and the rest is either the sort of pulp 1930's and 40's super-science that is basically magic or actually magic. So its hardly surprising that Star Wars gets away with heroic fantasy if you don't question its conventions, which you usually don't because the setting is so emmersive.

 

[Umbran]

But what are the general attitudes towards science-fiction elements and technology in today's D&D players?

I have no real problem mixing my fantasy and sci-fi, but I prefer to do so when it is native to the setting or game - like in Shadowrun, Deadlands, or most supers games. I'd have to do a lot of reworking of a D&D setting to make a mix of the two work for me, I'd expect.

 

[Andor]

I'll buck the trend, sorta. I hate sci-fi in D&D, and have fits if psionics is introduced. But I have no problem with it in other FRPGs! The original Palladium FRPG has psionics and its never bothered me at all. I even like the Rifts idea, although I think the execution sucks. So, color me weird...

I've never quite understood this one. The difference between magic and psionics is almost solely one of terminology. Heck in the Darkover novels the psionisists call themselves wizards and sorcerers. In the LotR magic is everywhere and except for Gandalf and the Ring it's just about all what I would describe as stereotypical psioncs. Telepathy, Clairvoyance, Precognition...