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

[RFisher]

My personal definition of "science fiction" is pretty narrow. So much of what someone else might call "mixing science fiction & fantasy" is to me "mixing fantasy with fantasy".

If I ever did get to play the kind of game that I'd be tempted to call "science fiction", then there's a good chance that any magic--even disguised as sufficiently advanced technology--is going to annoy me, except for maybe once. Since the whole point would be to limit it to things that were most plausible.

If it's fantasy up front, however, almost anything goes. Although, I still generally think it's best to be judicious with the fantastic elements.

 

[Acid_crash]

As long as the game world makes sense I'm all for a mix of sci-fi and fantasy.

 

[mmadsen]

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...

The reason why many people hate psionics in their fantasy is specifically that it is just magic with different terminology. The whole point of 19th-century spiritualism was to recast old superstitions as modern, (pseudo-)scientific phenomena. The vocabulary of psionics is all about removing the magical flavor and replacing it with modern scientific flavor. And that's why it's an awful fit for Tolkien-esque fantasy, which is about harking back to medieval romances.

 

[Ghendar]

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

I like my D&D as fantasy and fantasy only. I don't care for sci-fi elements in my fantasy D&D. Just a personal choice.

However, I don't mind fantasy elements in my sci-fi. For instance, running a Gamma World or Darwin's World game that contains some fantasy stuff (kinda like Thundarr the Barbarian) is very cool to me.

 

[Celebrim]

My personal definition of "science fiction" is pretty narrow.

Mine as well.

So much of what someone else might call "mixing science fiction & fantasy" is to me "mixing fantasy with fantasy".

I wouldn't go quite that far. There is a form of fantasy that takes the trappings of sci-fi and lays them over a heroic fantasy setting. Pulp fiction, space opera, science fantasy, whatever you want to call it. Most of the popular 'science fiction' is of this form, whether its Star Wars, Star Trek, Dune or Babylon 5. But whatever the preportions are, none of the conventions have really changed.

For me, fantasy is all about the stories and myths told during humanities 'heroic ages'. These are real periods of history which occurred for a real world reason. Technology advanced to the point that temporarily an armored warrior possessed a certain level of invunerability and a few well equipped and skilled individuals could face 'overwhelming odds' and win. To do that in science fiction usually requires bending the rules to a large extent and creating not the plausible but rather the implausible - for example the 'Lensman' universe. While the tech of the 'Lensman' universe is no less likely than FTL, altogether the choices are definately driven entirely by the plot needs rather than attempting at all to drive the plot by what seems to be a plausible future setting.

If I ever did get to play the kind of game that I'd be tempted to call "science fiction", then there's a good chance that any magic--even disguised as sufficiently advanced technology--is going to annoy me, except for maybe once. Since the whole point would be to limit it to things that were most plausible.

There are a few 'sufficiently advanced technologies' which depending on the game I'm going to overlook. The chief of these is probably FTL travel, although depending on the setting I might accept matter teleportation as well.

 

[Ciaran]

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.

Weapon technologies affect individual and small-unit combat in very different ways than they affect combat on the army scale. You can't use arrow storms, shield walls or musket volley fire in single combat.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

You know, this thread really makes me want a Reese's...

 

[Desdichado]

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'm kinda like that. Sorta. I don't think D&D and technology make a pretty good fit, but otherwise I kinda like the old weird tales tradition that didn't distinguish yet between fantasy, horror and sci-fi. My preferred setting to run I like to describe as Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom meets Sergio Leone's Old West meets Charles Dickens' London meets Lovecraft country. I greatly prefer running this to D&D.

But I don't call it D&D. D&D seems particularly entrenched in a certain number of conventions and I have a harder time seeing it uprooted from them, I suppose.

 

[BlackMoria]

If the implimentation is done right, I am so there...

 

[JoeGKushner]

Spelljammer: Check

Airships d20? Check.

Doomstriders d20? Check. (Lots of potential there but...)

Chaostech? Check.

Sheen from two different issues of Dragon? Check.

Firearms from Forgotten Realms? Check.

Gondsmen with their little golems? Check.

Yup. No problem integrating that good old stuff in my campaign.